UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT SHAKE-UP RAISES UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT BIO-THREAT REDUCTION AGREEMENT

Implementation of a major new agreement between the United States and Ukraine to reduce the proliferation threat posed by dangerous biological pathogens and bio-weapon expertise in Ukraine may face new obstacles as a result of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s sudden removal of Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko in early September. Timoshenko played a crucial role in obtaining the last-minute consensus on the agreement within the Ukrainian government and was one of its staunchest supporters.

The agreement on biological threat reduction between the Ukrainian Ministry of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense was signed on August 29, 2005, in Kiev. [1] According to a press release of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the agreement provides for joint biological research projects for prophylactic, defensive, and peaceful purposes; technical and physical improvements in Ukrainian biosafety and biosecurity procedures; and establishing a network of new laboratories to monitor infectious disease outbreaks and track their origin. [2] The agreement also gives Ukraine access to U.S. virology centers and a network of U.S. epidemiological facilities.

Negotiations on the agreement extended for three years. Ukraine twice postponed the signing: for the first time in 2003 (according to Ukrainian sources, to study U.S. amendments to a previously agreed text) and again in 2004 – apparently over the unwillingness of Ukraine to share with the United States information pertaining to infectious agents. [3] Another explanation offered by Ukrainian sources for the delay in 2004 was the suspension by the United States of funding for the solid rocket fuel elimination facility in Pavlograd, Ukraine. [4]

The signing of the agreement generated controversy within Ukraine. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presented the agreement as a confirmation of Ukraine's adherence to WMD nonproliferation and arms control norms, and as supporting international efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly biological terrorism. But critics argued that in pursuing the agreement Ukraine was eroding its security in order to obtain a better trade relationship with the United States. The critics saw a direct link between the signing of the agreement and the United States’ waiving trade sanctions against Ukraine only two days later. [5] (The sanctions had been imposed in 2002 in response to Ukraine's violations of intellectual property rights and were extended indefinitely in April 2005.) [6]

Signs of political pressure were reported by Ukrainian participants in the negotiations, who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity. They alleged that the Ukrainian negotiating team was unable to explore some key elements of how the agreement would be implemented. Not only, they claimed, were U.S. explanations less than adequate, but perhaps more importantly, the negotiators were prevented from asking questions by their own superiors and the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), acting on orders “from above.” The “gaps” in the understanding of the agreement manifested themselves in conflicting reports about the amount of funding that would be allocated by the United States. While U.S. sources reported that the amount had not been determined by the time the agreement was signed, Ukrainian sources confidently talked about allocation by the United States of $5 to $6 million to upgrade biological laboratories in Kiev, Lvov, and Odessa. [7]

According to a press release from the office of Senator Richard Lugar, the personal intervention of Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko in the last days of the negotiations was essential to break the logjam over the accord, and she personally vowed the country’s full cooperation with the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. [8] Given her importance to the agreement, especially in light of other officials’ discomfort with the pact, Timoshenko’s firing in early September 2005 casts a cloud on the future of the initiative.

Although Ukraine is not likely to withdraw from the agreement because of her departure, in the absence of a strong advocate at the highest levels of the Ukrainian government, the accord’s implementation might confront more serious obstacles than would otherwise be the case.