Ukraine's ambassador to Turkey, HE Dr. Sergiy Korsunsky, was not entirely in agreement with my analysis and responded to a number of issues I raised. I am grateful to the ambassador for taking the time to do this. Let us begin with the constitution, which I cited President Yanukovych as having violated given that it states that it is forbidden to have foreign military bases on Ukrainian territory.Ambassador Korsunsky does agree with this and says: “The recent agreement between Ukraine and Russia on a further stay of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol does not contradict the constitution of Ukraine, which provides that ‘current foreign military bases in the territory of Ukraine can be used for temporary stay of foreign military units on terms of lease in accordance with international agreements concluded by Ukraine and ratified by the Verkhovna Rada [parliament] of Ukraine' [paragraph 14 of the Transitional Provisions to the Constitution].' A legal possibility to extend the stay of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Crimea is also envisaged in the provisions of the current and valid Agreement on the Status and Terms of Stationing of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in Ukraine of May 28, 1997.”
With all due respect to the ambassador, one has to take into consideration that this is rather a “tricky” interpretation because this provision is not included in the main body of the constitution but, crucially, in the temporary provisions. For example, if the extension had been for a shorter period of time, it may have been plausible, but a period of 25 years cannot be considered a “temporary provision.” Thereby I maintain my argument that there is no legal agreement for the Black Sea fleet to stay almost permanently in Sevastopol -- a view that is also shared by opposition parties. Furthermore, President Yanukovych made this decision without any sort of discussion with other political actors, which is also controversial given that he was aware of the significant opposition to such a move. This should be an issue for Ukraine's Constitutional Court, but such is the influence of various political actors on the court, the Ukrainian judicial system is unable to secure a normal, unbiased decision on anything -- corruption is visible at every level in Ukrainian society.
Ambassador Korsunsky goes on to say: “While it is true that the opposition forces in Ukraine raised concerns over the signed arrangement, this plurality of opinions underlines the democratic environment in Ukraine rather than the polarization of the Ukrainian society. … The agreement has yet to be ratified by the Ukrainian parliament where the ruling Stability and Reforms coalition enjoys quite a persuasive majority, to the contrary of claims made by the author of the disputed article. Namely, as of April 2010, the coalition consists of over 240 members out of 450 seats in parliament while most decisions that do not intend constitutional changes require 226 votes.”
While I accept that the Party of the Regions may have the required number of seats to pass the bill, it is still apparent that over 200 lawmakers representing a considerable chunk of the country oppose it and consider it to be unconstitutional and not in the best interests of Ukraine even in light of Ukraine's crippling financial situation. Having only been in office two months, President Yanukovych should be trying to build bridges, not increase the divide. And while the agreement has now been ratified, it took place in an antagonistic ambiance of chaos -- eggs and smoke bombs were thrown and members of parliament fought with each other while at the same time protestors took to the streets.
And lastly Ambassador Korsunsky says: “Finally, I would like to dispel some pessimism about the current spirit and implications of the relations between Ukraine and Russia which the columnist propagates in her publications. In this regard, it is important to understand that the normalization of Ukrainian-Russian relations, in particular in the security and gas spheres, is of crucial importance not just for our two countries but also for our partners in Europe and, in particular, for Turkey.”
I totally agree with the ambassador that it is essential that Ukraine has a strong relationship with Russia and that this has implications for other partners, but at the same time it should be a fair relationship, based on equality -- not one that sees one partner taking more (or advantage of) than the other. While I can understand the urgency of Ukraine's economic situation and the need to require “ready cash,” I still believe that the deal cut by President Yanukovych was not in the best interests of Ukraine. The Russians saw Ukraine on her knees, spotted their chance and went for it. Given the chance, they will do it again and again, including negotiating a new energy package which could torpedo all present arrangements with the EU, including eventual membership in an energy community and the synchronization of power grids.
