DOCSLIB.ORG

The Trilateral Process: the United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Trilateral Process: the United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS The TrilaterAl ProCess: The United States, Ukraine, russia and Nuclear Weapons The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW Steven Pifer Washington, D.C. 20036 Arms Control Series brookings.edu Paper 6 • May 2011 Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS The TrilaTeral Process: The United states, Ukraine, russia and Nuclear Weapons Steven Pifer arms control series Paper 6 • May 2011 Acknowledgements I would like to express my deep gratitude to tents, characterizations and views are my own and Oleksander Chaliy, Sherman Garnett, Natalia Kra- do not necessarily represent the official positions of vets, Valeriy Kuchinskiy, William Miller, Igor Nev- the United States government. erov, Theodore Piccone, Roman Popadiuk, James Schumaker, Nikolai Sokov, Strobe Talbott and James I appreciate Gail Chalef’s assistance in the paper’s Timbie for taking the time to review earlier drafts editing and production. Finally, I am very grateful of this paper and for their helpful comments. I am to the MacArthur Foundation and Ploughshares also grateful to Paul Hilburn and the Department of Fund for their generous support for this paper and State for the expeditious review of the manuscript for other activities of the Brookings Arms Control for declassification purposes. Of course, the con- Initiative. ForeigN Policy aT BrookiNgs • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es The TrilaTeral Process: t h e U n i t e d s tAt es , U k rA i n e , r U ss i A A n d n uc l e A r W e A p o n s ii Table of Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................... ii 1. Executive Summary ........................................................ 1 2. Interests and Positions .................................................... 4 3. The Lisbon Protocol....................................................... 9 4. Ukrainian-Russian Negotiations............................................ 14 5. The Trilateral Negotiation ................................................ 17 6. Getting to Budapest...................................................... 25 7. Lessons Learned ......................................................... 29 Appendix I: The Trilateral Statement and Annex ................................ 34 Appendix II: The Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances ................... 37 Endnotes.................................................................. 39 About the Author . 43 ForeigN Policy aT BrookiNgs • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es The TrilaTeral Process: t h e U n i t e d s tAt es , U k rA i n e , r U ss i A A n d n uc l e A r W e A p o n s iii 1. Executive Summary the trilAterAl proCess received the value of the HEU in the nuclear warheads on its territory? The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left Soviet strategic nuclear weapons—both strategic nuclear • Eliminating the intercontinental ballistic mis- warheads and delivery systems—located on the ter- siles (ICBMs), ICBM silos, strategic bombers ritory of four newly independent states: Belarus, and nuclear infrastructure in Ukraine would Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. Soviet tactical be an expensive proposition at a time when nuclear weapons were even more widely scattered. the new Ukrainian economy was sharply con- Moscow quickly secured the return of all tactical tracting; who would cover the costs of those nuclear warheads to Russia during the first half of eliminations? 1992. Moscow also in relatively short order reached bilateral understandings with Belarus and Kazakh- • How, where and under what conditions stan on the removal or elimination of the strategic would the strategic nuclear warheads, ICBMs nuclear weapon systems on the territory of those and bombers be eliminated? countries. Bilateral Ukrainian-Russian negotiations grappled The process with Ukraine proved more difficult, as with these issues in the months after the fall of the Kyiv sought to achieve particular objectives before Soviet Union. They began to identify solutions to giving up what was then the third largest nuclear ar- some questions but never successfully came to clo- senal in the world. Among other things, the Ukrai- sure. The September 1993 Massandra summit be- nian government wanted acceptable answers to four tween Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk and key questions: Russian President Boris Yeltsin initially appeared to have achieved a formula for the transfer of the strate- • Possession of nuclear weapons was seen to gic nuclear warheads to Russia and the resolution of confer certain security benefits; what guaran- all ancillary issues. The bilateral deal, however, col- tees or assurances would there be for Ukraine’s lapsed almost immediately. sovereignty and territorial integrity after it gave up strategic nuclear arms? Getting the nuclear weapons out of Ukraine topped the U.S. agenda with that country in its first years • The strategic nuclear warheads had commer- of independence. Washington wanted the nuclear cial value in the form of the highly-enriched warheads transferred to Russia but was sympathetic uranium (HEU) they contained, which could to some of the Ukrainian government’s concerns be blended down into low-enriched uranium and actively discussed the issue—and related ques- (LEU) and used in fuel rods for nuclear pow- tions such as compensation and security assuranc- er reactors; how would Ukraine ensure that it es—separately with both sides from early 1992 on. ForeigN Policy aT BrookiNgs • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es The TrilaTeral Process: t h e U n i t e d s tAt es , U k rA i n e , r U ss i A A n d n uc l e A r W e A p o n s 1 The first trilateral meeting of American, Russian and lessons leArned Ukrainian diplomats took place in August 1993. Originally agnostic as to how the question would After the Trilateral Statement and Budapest Memo- be resolved—as the result of a bilateral Ukrainian- randum were signed, implementation proceeded Russian negotiation or of a process involving the relatively smoothly. By June 1, 1996, Ukraine had United States—Washington concluded in the after- transferred the last of the nuclear warheads on its ter- math of the Massandra summit that it would have to ritory to Russia for elimination, and the last START become more directly involved in brokering a solu- I-accountable strategic nuclear delivery vehicle, an tion. Both the Russians and Ukrainians welcomed SS-24 missile silo, was eliminated in 2001. More U.S. participation, the Russians because they under- broadly, Ukraine’s denuclearization opened the way stood that Washington shared their goal of getting to an expanded U.S-Ukrainian bilateral relation- the nuclear weapons out of Ukraine, the Ukrainians ship. Among other things, by the end of the 1990s, because they believed that, with American officials Ukraine was among the top recipients in the world engaged in the process, they would have a friend in of U.S. assistance. Denuclearization also removed court and could achieve a deal that better answered what would have been a major impediment to their four key questions. Ukraine’s development of relations with Europe. In 1997, NATO and Ukraine agreed to a “distinctive The trilateral discussions accelerated in December, partnership” and established the NATO-Ukraine producing the Trilateral Statement and accompany- Council. ing annex, signed by Kravchuk, Yelstin and U.S. Pres- ident Bill Clinton in Moscow on January 14, 1994. Several factors explain the success of the trilateral Those documents provided that Ukraine would trans- process. They include: fer all strategic warheads on its territory to Russia for elimination and, in return, would receive security as- The ability to find a solution that met the inter- surances, compensation for the commercial value of ests of all parties. The trilateral process succeeded the HEU, and Nunn-Lugar assistance to help with because it found a “win-win-win” solution that met the disposal of ICBMs, ICBM silos, bombers and the minimum requirements of all three participants. other infrastructure on Ukrainian territory. Perhaps The minimum requirements for Russia and the as importantly but less tangibly, the Trilateral State- United States were that Ukraine transfer or eliminate ment removed what would have been a major imped- the strategic offensive arms, including the strategic iment to Ukraine’s development of normal relations warheads, on its territory. While Washington shared with the United States and the West. Moscow’s minimum requirements, it also wanted to resolve the nuclear issue so that it could move to a The final act of the trilateral process played out in regular relationship with Ukraine. For Ukraine, the autumn 1994, with Ukraine’s accession to the Non- minimum requirement was good answers to ques- proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weap- tions regarding security assurances for Ukraine, ons state. Clinton, Yeltsin and newly-elected Ukrai- compensation for the economic value of the HEU nian President Leonid Kuchma met on December in the nuclear warheads, assistance for eliminat- 5 in Budapest on the margins of the Conference ing the nuclear legacy on Ukrainian territory, and on Security and Cooperation in Europe summit. conditions for the elimination of the strategic mis- Kuchma transmitted Ukraine’s instrument of ac- siles, bombers and warheads. The sides’ minimum cession to the NPT, the Strategic Arms Reduction requirements allowed space for a solution acceptable Treaty (START I) entered into force, and the United to all, and Kyiv concluded that 1994 was the right States and Russia, joined by the United Kingdom, time to cash in its nuclear chip. U.S. engagement extended security assurances to Ukraine in what be- made that easier for Kyiv by helping to rectify an came known as the Budapest Memorandum of Se- inherent imbalance between Ukraine and Russia. curity Assurances. ForeigN Policy aT BrookiNgs • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es The TrilaTeral Process: t h e U n i t e d s tAt es , U k rA i n e , r U ss i A A n d n uc l e A r W e A p o n s 2 The importance of “doing what works.” The tri- The importance of understanding the other side’s lateral process succeeded because the sides were pre- needs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trends of Aquatic Alien Species Invasions in Ukraine
    Aquatic Invasions (2007) Volume 2, Issue 3: 215-242 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/ai.2007.2.3.8 Open Access © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 REABIC Research Article Trends of aquatic alien species invasions in Ukraine Boris Alexandrov1*, Alexandr Boltachev2, Taras Kharchenko3, Artiom Lyashenko3, Mikhail Son1, Piotr Tsarenko4 and Valeriy Zhukinsky3 1Odessa Branch, Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU); 37, Pushkinska St, 65125 Odessa, Ukraine 2Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas NASU; 2, Nakhimova avenue, 99011 Sevastopol, Ukraine 3Institute of Hydrobiology NASU; 12, Geroyiv Stalingrada avenue, 04210 Kiyv, Ukraine 4Institute of Botany NASU; 2, Tereschenkivska St, 01601 Kiyv, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] (BA), [email protected] (AB), [email protected] (TK, AL), [email protected] (PT) *Corresponding author Received: 13 November 2006 / Accepted: 2 August 2007 Abstract This review is a first attempt to summarize data on the records and distribution of 240 alien species in fresh water, brackish water and marine water areas of Ukraine, from unicellular algae up to fish. A checklist of alien species with their taxonomy, synonymy and with a complete bibliography of their first records is presented. Analysis of the main trends of alien species introduction, present ecological status, origin and pathways is considered. Key words: alien species, ballast water, Black Sea, distribution, invasion, Sea of Azov introduction of plants and animals to new areas Introduction increased over the ages. From the beginning of the 19th century, due to The range of organisms of different taxonomic rising technical progress, the influence of man groups varies with time, which can be attributed on nature has increased in geometrical to general processes of phylogenesis, to changes progression, gradually becoming comparable in in the contours of land and sea, forest and dimensions to climate impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Shmarov Defamation Case Halted As Language Becomes the Issue
    INSIDE:• Ukraine as a beacon of security — page 2. • IMF resumes loan program for Ukraine — page 3. • Reflections on Archbishop-Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk — page 4. Published by the Ukrainian National Association Inc., a fraternal non-profit association Vol. LXIV HE KRAINIANNo. 20 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, MAY 19, 1996 EEKLY$1.25/$2 in Ukraine President hopes new constitution ShmarovT defamationU case halted W will mark independence anniversary as language becomes the issue by Marta Kolomayets until May 23, because Mr. Karpenko by Marta Kolomayets — the fifth anniversary of Ukraine’s Kyiv Press Bureau objected to the fact that the summons he Kyiv Press Bureau independence — he did not specify an received and the documents submitted to exact date for the referendum. KYIV – The case of Ukrainian the court were in Russian, while KYIV — President Leonid Kuchma Political observers note that it would Defense Minister Valeriy Shmarov vs. Ukrainian law stipulates that “all court would like to celebrate Ukraine’s fifth be prudent for Ukraine to adopt a new the daily newspaper Vechirniy Kyiv proceedings should be in the Ukrainian anniversary with a new constitution, constitution before presidential elections (Evening Kyiv) and its editor-in-chief language, or in the language of the Presidential Chief of Staff Dmytro in Russia, slated for June 16. Some Vitaliy Karpenko went to trial on May majority of the population in the region.” Tabachnyk told foreign journalists at a national democratic deputies argue that a 12, at Kyiv’s Shevchenko raion court- The proceedings chaired by Judge Z. press briefing on May 16. constitution must be in place in Ukraine, house – for 15 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • US Claims of Illegal Russian Nuclear Testing
    Policy White Paper Analysis of Weapons-Related Security Threats and Effective Policy Responses U.S. Claims of Illegal Russian Nuclear Testing: Myths, Realities, and Next Steps By Daryl G. Kimball August 16, 2019 Executive Director, Arms Control Association n prepared remarks delivered at the Hudson Institute May 29, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, Jr., charged that “Russia probably is not adhering to its nuclear testing Imoratorium in a manner consistent with the ‘zero-yield’ standard outlined in the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).” Russia has vigorously denied the allegation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the accusation “a crude provocation” and pointed to the United States’ failure to ratify the CTBT. On June 12, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, “we are acting in full and absolute accordance with the treaty ratified by Moscow and in full accordance with our unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests.” The DIA director’s remarks, and a subsequent June 13 statement on the subject, are quite clearly part of an effort by Trump administration hardliners to suggest that Russia is conducting nuclear tests to improve its arsenal, and that the United States must be free of any constraints on its own nuclear weapons development effort, and, indirectly, to try to undermine the CTBT itself—a treaty the Trump administration has already said it will not ratify. The challenges posed by the new U.S. allegations are significant and they demand a proactive plan of action by “friends of the CTBT” governments for a number of reasons. HIGHLIGHTS • Any violation of the CTBT by Russia, which has signed • The Treaty’s Article I prohibition on “any nuclear weapons and ratified the agreement, or any other signatory, would test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion” bans all be a serious matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine Nuclear Fuel Cycle Chronology
    Ukraine Nuclear Fuel Cycle Chronology Last update: April 2005 This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. 2003-1993 1 August 2003 KRASNOYARSK ADMINISTRATION WILL NOT ALLOW IMPORT OF UKRAINE'S SPENT FUEL UNTIL DEBT PAID On 1 August 2003, UNIAN reported that, according to Yuriy Lebedev, head of Russia's International Fuel and Energy Company, which is managing the import of spent nuclear fuel to Krasnoyarsk Kray for storage, the Krasnoyarsk administration will not allow new shipments of spent fuel from Ukraine for storage until Ukraine pays its $11.76 million debt for 2002 deliveries. —"Krasnoyarskiy kray otkazhetsya prinimat otrabotannoye yadernoye toplivo iz Ukrainy v sluchaye nepogasheniya 11.76 mln. dollarov dolga," UNIAN, 1 August 2003; in Integrum Techno, www.integrum.com. 28 February 2002 RUSSIAN REACTOR FUEL DELIVERIES TO COST $246 MILLION IN 2002 Yadernyye materialy reported on 28 February 2002 that Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Aleksandr Rumyantsev and Ukrainian Minister of Fuel and Energy Vitaliy Gayduk signed an agreement under which Ukraine will buy reactor fuel worth $246 million from Russia in 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT 2D Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 104–582 "!
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±582 "! PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3144, THE DEFEND AMERICA ACT OF 1996 MAY 16, 1996.ÐReferred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 438] The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 438, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION The rule provides for consideration in the House with two hours of debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking mi- nority member of the Committee on National Security. The rule waives all points or order against the bill and against its consider- ation. The rule also makes in order without intervention of any point of order one minority amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Mr. Spratt or his designee and which is printed in this report. The rule provides that the substitute shall be debatable separately for one hour divided equally between the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. THE AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE SPRATT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OR A DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 1 HOUR Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1996''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: 29±008 2 (1) Short-range theater ballistic missiles threaten United States Armed Forces wherever engaged abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Kazakhstan Missile Chronology
    Kazakhstan Missile Chronology Last update: May 2010 As of May 2010, this chronology is no longer being updated. For current developments, please see the Kazakhstan Missile Overview. This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. 2009-1947 March 2009 On 4 March 2009, Kazakhstan signed a contract to purchase S-300 air defense missile systems from Russia. According to Ministry of Defense officials, Kazakhstan plans to purchase 10 batteries of S-300PS by 2011. Kazakhstan's Air Defense Commander Aleksandr Sorokin mentioned, however, that the 10 batteries would still not be enough to shield all the most vital" facilities designated earlier by a presidential decree. The export version of S- 300PS (NATO designation SA-10C Grumble) has a maximum range of 75 km and can hit targets moving at up to 1200 m/s at a minimum altitude of 25 meters.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Project
    Report on the Project: Dimensions, Opportunities and Benefits of Ukraine - NATO Relations. Impact of NATO Enlargement on Ukraine’s Foreign Policy Process NATO - EAPC Research Fellowship Programme, 1999 – 2001 By Dr. Sergiy Tolstov, Supervisory Research Fellow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and Director of the Institute for Political Analysis and International Studies 28 June 2001, Kyiv (Ukraine) 2 Conents: 1. Introduction 2. Dimensions of European and Euro-Atlantic Security Cooperation (concepts and scenarios) 2.1. The New World Order 2.2. Strategic Approaches and Perceptions 2.3. Towards the New European Security Architecture 3. The Internal Factors and Features of Ukraine’s Development in the Context of European Transformation Processes 3.1. General Trends 3.2. Constitutional Referendum 2000 and Political Opposition 3.3. The Tapegate Affair 3.4. Situation in the System of Power 4. Monitoring of Domestic Debates on Foreign Policy Matters. 4.1. The Foreign Policy Concept 4.2. Peculiarities of the National Foreign Policy Process 4.3. Parliamentary Debates and the 1999 Presidential Elections 4.4. Security Issues in the Domestic Political Discussion 5. Impact of Ukraine - NATO Cooperation on Ukraine’s Foreign Policy. 5.1. Developing Ukraine – NATO Partnership 5.2. Ukraine’s Security Prospects in the Context of NATO Enlargement 5.3. State Programme for Cooperation of Ukraine with NATO, 1998 - 2001 5.4. State Programme for Cooperation of Ukraine with NATO, 2001-2004 6. Tendencies of International Relations in Central Eastern Europe 6.1. Results of Transformations in the Central Eastern Europe and the Post-Soviet Space 6.2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1993, No.23
    www.ukrweekly.com INSIDE: • Ukraine's search for security by Dr. Roman Solchanyk — page 2. • Chornobyl victim needs bone marrow transplant ~ page 4 • Teaching English in Ukraine program is under way - page 1 1 Publishfd by the Ukrainian National Association inc., a fraternal non-prof it association rainianWee Vol. LXI No. 23 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JUNE 6, 1993 50 cents New York commemorates Tensions mount over Black Sea Fleet by Marta Kolomayets Sea Fleet until 1995. 60th anniversary of Famine Kyyiv Press Bureau More than half the fleet — 203 ships — has raised the ensign of St. Andrew, by Andrij Wynnyckyj inaccurate reports carried in the press," KYYIV — Ukrainian President the flag of the Russian Imperial Navy. ranging from those of New York Times Leonid Kravchuk has asked for a summit NEW YORK — On June 1, the New None of the fleet's Warships, however, reporter Walter Duranty written in the meeting with Russian leader Boris have raised the ensign. On Friday, May York area's Ukrainian Americans com­ 1930s, to recent Soviet denials and Yeltsin to try to resolve mounting ten­ memorated the 60th anniversary of the Western attempts to smear famine sions surrounding control of the Black (Continued on page 13) tragic Soviet-induced famine of І932- researchers. Sea Fleet. 1933 with a "Day of Remembrance," "Now the facts are on the table," Mr. In response, Russian Foreign Minister consisting of an afternoon symposium Oilman said. "The archives have been Andrei Kozyrev is scheduled to arrive in Parliament begins held at the Ukrainian Institute of opened in Moscow and in Kyyiv, and the Ukraine on Friday morning, June 4, to America, and an evening requiem for the Ukrainian Holocaust has been revealed arrange the meeting between the two debate on START victims held at St.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Stuff Below. Thanks Again for Helping with the Meeting This Morning
    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794102 Date: 12/31/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: Mills, Cheryl D <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 6:17 PM To: Subject: FW: President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts FYI From: Brett McGurk Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 5:48 PM To: Mills, Cheryl D Subject: FW: President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts Good stuff below. Thanks again for helping with the meeting this morning. Bill followed up with me and we had a good talk. Brett ■ THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 10, 2012 President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts WASHINGTON, DC - Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts: • Robert Stephen Beecroft - Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq, Department of State • T. Charles Cooper - Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs, United States Agency for International Development • Rose Gottemoeller - Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Department of State President Obama said, "I am proud to nominate such impressive individuals to these important roles, and I am grateful they have agreed to lend their considerable talents to this Administration. I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead." UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794102 Date: 12/31/2015 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794102 Date: 12/31/2015 President ObaMa announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts: Ambassador Robert Stephen Beecroft, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq, Department of State Ambassador Robert Stephen Beecroft, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, has served at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq as Deputy Chief of Mission since July 2011 and as Chargé d'Affaires since June 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1994, No.17
    www.ukrweekly.com 1NS1DE: e Cardinal Myroslav Lubachivsky speaks on recent synod - page 3. - Ukraine and stability in post-Cold War Europe - page 9. ^ News about Ukraine's embassies in Austria, Egypt, Britain - centerfold. THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY Published by the Ukrainian National Association inc., a fraternal non-profit association vol. LXl! No. 17 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, APRIL 24,1994 50 cents Ukraine, Russia Kyyiv signs on to CiS Economic Union as associate agree to split by Roman Woronowycz in a tug of war for almost a year trying to ments must first be ratified by Ukraine's Kyyiv Press Bureau determine how its economic relations Parliament. Black Sea Fleet with countries once part of the Soviet Foreign Ministry official Oleksander KYYiv - Ukraine signed an accord Union proceed. The document may help Chalin said Ukraine agreed to cooperate by Roman Woronowycz with the Commonwealth of independent mollify a faction within the country's in the economic alliance for five years Kyyiv Press Bureau States (CiS) on April 15 that will give it political leadership, including re-elected and that it can withdraw at any time after representation in all structures of the newly Parliament Deputy Leonid Kuchma, giving six months' notice. KYYiv - Ukraine and Russia have established CiS Economic Union as an which has been calling for closer eco– agreed to divide the Black Sea Fleet, a The most involved economic agree– associate member, but will limit its role nomic ties with Russia. ment signed by Ukraine supports estab– Foreign Ministry official announced here within the body to specific agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Treaty Association 53Rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Château Laurier, Ottawa October 31- November 2, 2007
    Atlantic Treaty Association 53rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Château Laurier, Ottawa October 31- November 2, 2007 NATO AND GLOBAL PARTNERS: A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO REBUILDING AFGHANISTAN AND OTHER CHALLENGES Wednesday, 31 October 2007 09:00 Semi-annual Meeting of the Atlantic Treaty Association Council (ATA) – Adam Room Simultaneous Meeting of the Young Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA) – MacDonald Room Simultaneous Meeting of the Atlantic Association of Young Political Leaders (AAYPL) 10:15 – 10:45 Break – Adam Corridor 12:00 – 13:00 Lunch 13:00 – 14:30 Continuation of Council Meeting – Adam Room Simultaneous Town Hall meeting of YATA and Canadian University students with Mr. Ajmal PASHTOONYAR Youth Outreach Officer, Afghanistan Task Force, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada 14:30 – 15:00 Break – Adam Corridor 15:00 – 16:00 Statutory Assembly – Ballroom 16:00 – 18:30 Opening Ceremonies and ATA Plenary Session – Welcome Address and introduction Ms. Julie LINDHOUT President of the Atlantic Council of Canada Hon. Bill GRAHAM Chairman of the Atlantic Council of Canada Amb. Robert E. HUNTER President of the Atlantic Treaty Association Opening Addresses H.E. Amb. Claudio BISOGNIERO NATO Deputy Secretary General Ms. Colleen SWORD Assistant Deputy Minister, International Security Branch Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada Representing the Minister, The Honorable Maxime Bernier Hon. Fatmir MEDIU Minister of Defence of Albania Words of Greeting H.E. Amb. Davor BOŽINOVIĆ Croatian Ambassador to NATO and Croatian Coordinator for NATO Communication Strategy Hon. Lazar ELENOVSKI Minister of Defence of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia* Address 17:15 Hon. Tony CLEMENT Minister of Health of Canada Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • National Board of Directors Mission & Objectives
    IN THIS ISSUE: TH CERBA 12 ANNUAL NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MISSION & OBJECTIVES CHARITY AUCTION Chairman • To serve business in Canada, Eurasia and Russia by NATHAN HUNT Ronald A. Chisholm Limited enhancing and supporting trade, investment and good with VLADISLAV TRETIAK Chairman Emeritus relations between these countries. FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN'S, SOCIAL AND PIERS CUMBERLEGE – World Economic Forum Directors • Advocate and lobby on behalf of CERBA members to FAMILY INSTITUTIONS IN THE RUSSIAN REGIONS BORIS ARYEV – Stans Energy Corporation the Canadian and Eurasian/Russian national govern RENEE CHERNECKI – Canadian Petroleum Training Institute ments on issues of importance to members; PAUL DRAGER – Fulbright & Jaworski PIOTR DUTKIEWICZ – Carleton University • Serve as a forum for the exchange of essential infor JAMILA EL ASSAAD – SNC Lavalin International mation and insightful views among business, govern THE HONORABLE J. TREVOR EYTON – Magna Corporation ment and nongovernment representatives in Canada, ROBERT FOTHERINGHAM – TMX Group Eurasia and Russia; HANS GJERDRUM – KUDU Industries Inc. MARTHA HARRISON – Heenan Blaikie LLP • Facilitate business development through the provision ROBERT JOHNSTON – Cannon Design Architecture Inc. LOU NAUMOVSKI – Kinross Gold Corporation of selected services including business assistance, JOHN PLACE – Export Development Canada counseling and networking. TERRY POWELL – Chagala Management LLP VENUE: YAR Restaurant (Leningradskiy prospekt, 32/2) PIERRE PYUN – Bombardier DATE: Wednesday, 27 March
    [Show full text]