Over the last several years at the Viennese palace of Hoffburg, representatives from 30 countries have been engaged in the crucial task of reaching a decision that will bring stability and security to the European region. The central topic has been amending the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty to reflect political and military changes that have occurred since the Treaty was signed back in the time of the Warsaw pact and NATO. Now this work is nearing completion

A NEW LOOK FOR THE CFE

    - What will distinguish the basis rules of the updated Treaty from the “old” CFE?

    - The changes in the military-political situation in Europe, which occurred in the early 90s, have necessitated modernization of the Treaty. The primary concept of this Treaty, as originally negotiated by the states-parties in 1990, was the significant reduction of heavy arms in Europe in order to establish equal levels of conventional military equipment for the members of two alliances — NATO and the former Warsaw Pact and encourage a regime of military transparency.

    The main areas of modernization of the CFE are the abolition of the bloc-to-bloc basis of the Treaty, reflecting an undivided Europe and the establishment of individual obligations on national equipment quotas.

    One of basis areas of changes to the CFE will be a system where each country will have its own national equipment quotas. Each state-party will agree not to exceed its established quota of tanks, armored combat vehicles, heavy artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters.

    In addition to national quotas, regional quotas for three categories of arms will also be established. These quotas will define the quantity of arms (including those which belong to other countries), that can be placed in territory of the states-parties.

    An important regulation states that any increase in national and regional quotas can occur only on the condition that they are equaled by a reduction in one or several other states-parties and on the basis intergovernmental consensus principle; it must be a mutual consent to redistribute.

    The rather rigid system of restrictions is supplemented by certain flexibilities, which provide for temporary increases of territorial quotas for peaceful military exercises, military training, temporary expansions, etc.

    It is expected that the adaptation of the Treaty will include provisions for the transit of arms, the expansion of information exchange, and an enhanced verification regime.

    - For which provisions of the adapted CFE will Ukraine be responsible?

    - For Ukraine, as well as for other states-parties to the Treaty, a national and regional arms quota will be established. In the absence of accommodation in our territory of foreign arms, these quotas will be identical to the maximal national quotas in the active Treaty (4080 tanks, 5050 heavy armored vehicles, 4040 heavy artillery systems, 1090 combat planes, 330 attack helicopters). Ukraine also will be obliged to exchange information on the armed forces in the proscribed format and to allow inspections by foreign states. In the Odessa region of our country, the limits will be 400 tanks, 400 heavy armored vehicles, and 450 heavy artillery systems.

    These additional restrictions will replace the current limits established for most of the southern region of the country, which consists of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, Zaporozhye areas and Crimea. Ukraine will also be responsible for other essentially new requirements under the Treaty, for example, the redistribution of arms between installations and places of storage and the order of their repair and replacement.

RESTRICTIONS PROBLEM

    - How did it happen that other countries were able to change their minds on an original exchange of five areas for Ukraine, where flank restrictions were in force, to one?

    - On March 30, 1999 at negotiations in Vienna, the 30 states-parties to the CFE Treaty signed an agreement outlining the key features for adapting the Treaty to the present security environment. Separate consensus on a flank agreement defines an area, which covers the southern region of Ukraine, to be exact – the territories of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, Zaporozhye areas and Crimea. In the mentioned decision it is designated that the amended treaty will restrict the quantity of arms in southern areas of Ukraine only in the Odessa area. The parameters have been mentioned above.

    - The decision was not a simple exchange of five regions for one. Its confirmation was the result of a complex negotiation process during which the positions and interests of separate states and Europe as a whole were taken into account.

    - From the very beginning of the negotiations on Treaty adaptation, Ukraine firmly supported altering rules connected with bloc-to-bloc structure that were in their time necessary but have since become a discriminatory factor in contemporary military-political realities. The states-parties voted on the elimination the former bloc-to-bloc structure and the outdated “east-west flank” zone. The sovereign territory of Ukraine or part of its territory cannot be included in the structure of any zone with rudimentary “cold-war” attributes. Since the years of independence of our state not one of our neighbors or more distant countries have considered the Ukraine military presence in the flank to be a threat, on the contrary, the absence of any anxieties was repeatedly emphasized.

    The question of changes in “the geography of the flank zone” was examined in the context of the new system of national and territorial arms quotas. The fact that for Ukraine these levels will not have changed means that the build-up of forces in its territory at the expense of foreign arms is impossible.

    The positions of our state on questions “of flank” restrictions were repeatedly discussed in different formats in bilateral and multilateral negotiations; their validity and persuasiveness have allowed to fix the appropriate rules in the mentioned March 30 Decision. Of course the desirable final results were achieved by the high professionalism of our diplomats.

    - Why was the Odessa region specifically identified for the “flank” restrictions?

    - First, it is necessary to underline that the additional restrictions in the adapted Treaty will be considered as territorial ceilings of arms and not flank restrictions. Ukraine insisted on the need of such an approach although other possible variants for the former “flank” zone were considered. The final decision was influenced by that fact that the Odessa area is only one of five regional flank zones of Ukraine, which has overland borders with neighboring states and in which, by historical circumstances of the Soviet Union, has created more military infrastructure and deployed more military formations than such regions as Kherson or Zaporozhye.

    - What is the arms ceiling for the new flank area?

    - As mentioned earlier, for the Odessa area the restrictions on three categories of ground arms are established: 400 tanks, 400 armored combat vehicles, and 350 heavy artillery systems. Restrictions on other types of arms, or on their redistribution between regular military installations and places of storage are not established. It should be noted that there will be uniform sub-level for Ukraine in the updated Treaty, at the same time the current Treaty has a significantly higher quantity of restrictions.

    - Is the preservation of restrictions on the Odessa oblast satisfactory in a military sense?

    - It goes without saying that all issues connected to arms control regimes have a direct relation not only for military, but also in a wider context - for the national security of the state.

    In this connection, the positions from the relevant ministries and agencies are included in such examinations. It is obvious that military aspects of security can not be examined without the participation of the Ministry of Defense and thus for this reason, experts from military department were involved on the CFE adaptation.

    The essentially important questions of adaptation concerning issues of additional territorial restrictions are constantly on the radar screen of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. Final positions are reached after their consideration by the Council and then approval by the President of Ukraine.

    Such an order of problematic issue resolution supports meeting an overall objective and ensures the inclusion of the national interests of the country.

    Regarding the arms quota in the Odessa area, it should be added that the given limits exaggerate presence of arms in this area. They satisfy the construction plans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine requirements to guarantee the national security of the country.

    - Have the conditions changed for the flank region of notification to other CFE participants in the case of relocation of more than five percent of the total quantity of arms?

    - Regarding arms located in the Odessa area, additional transportation measures apply which indicate that in this territory, one additional inspection can be carried out each year at the expense of the country’s inspectors and notice on the arms movement will be given to other states-parties in the case of changes to the quantity of military parts greater than five percent.

    - The legality of the relevant regulations of the flank agreement of May 1996 will be maintained. Simultaneously this issue will continue to be considered in framework of negotiations on the adaptation of the CFE. Will Ukraine push for complete cancellation of flank restrictions in the long term?

    - Considering what was stated earlier on the concepts “flank restriction” and “a flank zone”, you can ascertain that this terminology not is urgent with reference to this situation and the adapted Treaty will not stipulate such restrictions.

    In addition, several regional sub-limits will remain, although not connected to the flank lines of distribution. Such sub-limits, except for Ukraine, will be established for Russia.

    Although from our point of view, it does not 100% meet modern realities, the entire decision does represent as an essential step towards the improvement of the international arms control regime. Now would not be an appropriate time to bring up the issue of complete cancellation of regional sub-limits, as other variants of the decision of this problem will be worked on. However under any conditions, the position of our country is based on the principle of equal rights and obligations of the states-parties of international agreements.

    - One should take into account that since 1996, a plenary session is scheduled every 5 years for the purpose of reviewing new CFE issues that arise. Ukraine will utilize these venues to defend and promote its interests. What other restrictions will be placed on Ukraine distinct from other participants?

    - The principal premises, on which the adaptive Treaty will be based, are already agreed to by the states-parties and additional restrictions for Ukraine are not expected other than the regional sub-levels in the Odessa area. In addition, negotiations concerning the further maintenance of political obligations unilaterally taken on by the Soviet Union will continue. Ukraine has already confirmed that as one of the state-parties, it will adhere to them. It will be possible to discuss the results of these negotiations after they are concluded.

THE TREATY AND OUR NEIGHBORS

    - Ukraine’s conventional weapons quotas, especially on tanks, remain one of the largest in Europe. During the CFE negotiations, didn’t other countries state that these arsenals exceed the defensive requirements of Ukraine?

    - Not one of the states-parties made such a statement. Looking at this question, it is necessary to first take into account that Ukraine not only has one of largest quotas for reducing arms in Europe but our country is also one of the largest in Europe in size and population.

    Second, the manner in which a country chooses to ensure national security is its exclusive right. Ukraine, unlike most of the participants of the CFE Treaty, is a block country. It has no territory and arms beyond the borders of area covered in the treaty and defines its defensive needs taking that into account.

    Third, our country has declared that its national levels will not exceed those established by the Treaty and other related documents. Similar statements have been made by about half of the state-parties. 11 of the 19 NATO countries have made statements on the reduction of their national levels; these countries have system of collective defense.

    Thus, Ukrainian quotas existing within the framework of the CFE Treaty are not an exclusive phenomenon and meet both the interests of national security and its international obligations.

    - Will the updated Treaty require additional destruction of conventional weapons? What is the fate of 2100 arms of the former Soviet countries that are party to the CFE. Is it not known what will happen to them?

    - The adapted CFE will not require obligatory additional reductions of arms. However, this does not apply to countries that want to accede to the Treaty, or for example, states-parties that wish to reduce their arms voluntarily. The probable conditions of such reductions are now being examined at the negotiations.

    Questions concerning the future of the 2100 arms have uncovered a discrepancy difference between the norm of reduction declared by the Soviet Union in 1990 during the signing of the CFE and the total quantity of arms of the successor states of the former USSR declared by them for reduction on accession to the Treaty in 1992.

    It is rather difficult to locate the causes of such a discrepancy, but it is necessary to account for those times. The armed forces of the newly independent states are based on the former USSR military. Often quantities of arms have been attributed to one military area but have appeared in the territory of other states, the ownership of separate military parts of the armed forces of this or that country was not finally determined and cases of double transfer of arms etc. have not been excluded.

    Nevertheless, the opportunity to confidently ascertain, that the amount of arms declared by Ukraine, and also the reduction executed by our country, completely met the real data. This fact was confirmed during inspections carried out by foreign states in Ukraine.

    - Is it possible to confirm that the demands of the adapted CFE will accelerate the removal of Russian arms from Moldova and thus promote stability near Ukraine’s borders?

    - In the adapted CFE Treaty, are regulations for the accommodation of foreign arms, their accommodation in the territory of another country, transit through territories of the third countries etc. Of course when such measures are carried out in compliance with these regulations in connection with Russian arms in Transnestria, security and stability in the region will increase. However, questions about the presence of Russia’s special service in Transnestria are a question of bilateral Moldavian-Russian relations. Ukraine has fulfilled is obligations in this problem by ratifying the Ukrainian-Russian agreement on transit of armed special service groups through the territory of our country.

    - What does the adapted Treaty say about the presence of conventional arms at the Russian Federation’s Black Sea fleet in Crimea? Will they be treated in the context of additional temporary expansion of arms in the territory of the states-parties or in another legal context?

    - States-parties to the CFE have ratified rules on the temporary expansion of arms above regional quotas. The presence of Russian Black Sea fleet arms in the territory of Ukraine and which fall under the Treaty will be considered under these rules. Therefore, a bilateral arrangement will be reached concerning the temporary presence of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea fleet in the territory of Ukraine as stipulated by the CFE Treaty.

    - How will Ukraine conduct verification of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet in Crimea in the context of the CFE?

    - The question of verification in the adapted Treaty is now under negotiation in Vienna. One principle states that each state-party has the right to conduct inspections of conventional arms in areas that fall under the Treaty. However, verification of naval forces, which do not belong to conventional armed forces oversteps the bounds of CFE. In this connection the Ukrainian side at a bilateral level put forward the issue on the on the part of our state over the arms in the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet. This issue is currently being decided at Ukrainian-Russian negotiations.

THE TREATY AND THE FUTURE

    - When will the adapted CFE enter into force? Is national ratification required?

    - The question on the entry into force of the updated CFE Treaty remains on the agenda of the Viennese negotiations.

    Considering the existence of adaptations to the Treaty and the requirements of current Ukrainian legislation on its use, the updated Treaty will require ratification by the Verhovna Rada. The majority of states-parties will need to ratify the adapted CFE.

    Concerning the acceleration of ratification in our country, the procedures and requirements on ratification is stipulated by the Law of Ukraine “On International Treaties of Ukraine”.

    - The operation of NATO forces against Yugoslavia has shown that battle actions in Europe are possible without significant build-up of arms and within the quotas established by the CFE. Does this mean that with the new character of modern wars even an updated CFE only partially meets to the needs of military security and stability in Europe?

    - The CFE Treaty is repeatedly emphasized by the states-parties as one of the essential cornerstones of pan-European security. Despite some discrepancies in the structure of the document vis-a-vis modern realities, seven years of implementation have confirmed its viability. The rules regarding the warning of significant arms build-up remain important. By the way, the NATO military operation in Yugoslavia was carried out beyond the area covered by the CFE, as the Balkan countries are not members.

    According to official sources, the allied operation involved approximately 300 combat planes, not an insignificant force. As mentioned earlier, the updated CFE will provide measures in cases of temporary deployment of arms, additional verification procedures for such situations, and information interchange, which will all strengthen its role in preservation of the world stability.

    The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was signed on November 19, 1990 in Vienna and entered into force on November 9, 1992. It was developed under conditions of sharp confrontation between the two military blocks - NATO and the Warsaw Pact – when enormous build-ups of conventional armed forces were concentrated in zones of possible collisions. The purpose of the CFE was based on limiting the possibility of surprise attacks.

    Therefore, it was decided to compare the quantity of arms - tanks, armored vehicles, combat planes, attack helicopters and heavy artillery – in the European continent as a whole, and in several geographical regions within Europe, which by and large were the zones of possible collisions between NATO and the Warsaw countries. It was necessary to create a parity between the battle opportunities of forces “of the first strategic echelons” and armies, which could quickly enter a combat area.

    Accordingly, the area of application of the Treaty - “Europe: from the Atlantic up to the Urals” (with inclusion of the basic part of the Asian territory of Turkey) was divided into four zones - “Central Europe”, “Extended Central Europe”, “Rear area”, “Flank Zone”.

    To the extent possible, the Treaty designated a common quantity of arms for the two bloc armies: tanks - 20 thousand units (which is no more than 16,5 thousand in regular units), armored vehicles - 30 thousand, artillery - 20 thousand, attack helicopters - 2 thousand, combat planes - 6,8 thousand. Arms exceeding these quotas (as a whole 50 thousand) were subject to destruction. This process was completed in October 1995.