Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.news From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Ukraine's stance on nuclear arsenal stirs fresh worries Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:07:21 EST Message-ID: Lines: 105 \SE A;WORLD;NEWS ANALYSIS \SS (WS) \HD Ukraine's stance on nuclear arsenal stirs fresh worries \BY Mark Frankland \CR LONDON OBSERVER \DT KIEV KIEV - Is Ukraine beginning to be proud that it is, after America and Russia, the world's third-biggest nuclear power? Of course not, Ukrainian officials hurry to say. But the longer they talk, the less clear becomes the government's position on the weapons it has inherited from the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is a nuclear power in spite of itself. In the spring, the last of the Soviet tactical nuclear missiles on Ukrainian soil were shipped to Russia for dismantling. Under the START agreement negotiated by Moscow and Washington - which Kiev has yet to ratify - Ukraine's 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles should also be sent to Russia for destruction. In July 1990, more than a year before Ukraine became independent, its parliament declared it a neutral, nonnuclear state. It re-affirmed this after independence. This remains official policy, says Deputy Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk, the diplomat responsible for disarmament. Why, then, the doubts? In the spring, Russian international affairs experts returned from a seminar with their Ukrainian counterparts wondering whether Ukraine was really so eager to be a nonnuclear power. The Ukrainian parliament's declaration, Kiev's security experts told them, was the work of "poets and literary men," not people who knew what they were talking about. Last month, the Ukrainian parliament rejected the draft nonnuclear military doctrine presented by Defense Minister Konstantin Morozov as too vague. During the debate, several deputies - some fiery nationalists, others former Communists - demanded that Ukraine keep its nuclear weapons as a "deterrent." A deterrent against whom? The answer could only be Russia. While the government insists non-nuclear status remains its goal, it has begun to set conditions it never mentioned a year ago. Mr. Tarasyuk says Ukraine's position is unique "because it is the first state trying to get rid of, rather than acquire, nuclear weapons." In fact, Kazakhstan and Belarus are in the same position. Mr. Tarasyuk continues: "Ukraine is, therefore, justified in asking all the nuclear powers [America, China, France, Britain and Russia] to give assurances that Ukraine will never be the target for attack by nuclear or nonnuclear weapons." The second condition is that Ukraine receive financial compensation for giving up these weapons, the argument being that the Ukrainian people by their labor helped pay for their manufacture. This brings the government in line with the nationalist opposition movement, Rukh, which always has argued that the West should pay Ukraine to dismantle these weapons on Ukrainian territory. Rukh argues that Russia isn't to be trusted with them. President Leonid Kravchuk now says parliament will ratify the START treaty only when it knows these conditions will be satisfied. Mr. Tarasyuk points out there is nothing in START and the associated other agreements with the West to say Ukraine must transfer its nuclear missiles to Russia for destruction, even though Ukraine, like Kazakhstan and Belarus, did originally agree to this with Russia. Reluctance to send the weapons to Russia has been increased by Moscow's recent suggestion that it should take over ownership of all of the strategic nuclear forces now under control of the Commonwealth of Independent States joint command. The CIS commander-in-chief, Marshal Yevgeni Shaposhnikov, says nuclear weapons need to have "their own statehood" - in this case, Russian. The debate is further complicated by technical problems, which Ukrainian politicians often know little about. Even if Ukraine, with Western help, could disassemble the missiles' nuclear warheads, there remains the matter of removing their solid fuel. Only Russia has the technology for this dangerous operation. As for Ukraine going back on its nonnuclear pledge, experts differ on how feasible this might be. Mr. Morozov told the Ukrainian parliament last month that the country lacked both the know-how and the manpower to manage nuclear weapons safely and that it couldn't produce the necessary fissionable materials. "Ukraine's possession of nuclear weapons," he concluded, "is only possible on condition that bilateral agreements and treaties are concluded with Russia on scientific and technical assistance and provision of nuclear ammunition." This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM