Accusations of illegal arms trade brought against Ukraine do not make any sensation today. Numerous publications accusing Ukraine emerge on news markets from time to time. The publications range from totally absurd ones (as was the case with publications on T-62 tanks and AN-32 aircraft allegedly exported to Afghan Talibs in 1998, depsite the fact that none of defense-related companies of independent Ukraine has ever signed any contracts with Afghanistan) to thoroughly elaborated stories based on probable facts (for example those on alleged arms supplies to Africa’s rebel movements). It is interesting to note for that none of the publications cite any reliable sources of information, leaving alone definite proofs. “Accusations against Ukraine find no documented confirmation and stem largely from competition on the arms market,” believes Olexander Kovalenko, deputy general director of Ukrspetsexport, a state-owned company for the import-export of military equipment.

    Comments by Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk on reports about alleged warplane supplies from Ukraine to UNITA rebels were even more positive. (The story in question was published in Johannesburg-based Mail and Guardian daily on April 2 this year, saying that Ukraine exported several MiG fighters to UNITA rebels via the territory of Zambia). “This is a classic example of dirty propaganda, which is intentionally spread by special centers. It takes some time to check up on such reports, during which they live their own life, severly damaging the state,” Tarasiuk said in a statement.

    But the problem does not at all consist in denying the reports in due time. It rather consists in the fact that such attempts to undermine the reputation of an exporting country evolve into an effective system, which works not that erratically as one can think at first blush. The news slanted against Ukraine are launched either on the eve of important visits (as was the case with a visit to Ukraine by US Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright, before which the US press did not miss a chance to lash out at Ukraine for alleged arms supplies to Afghanistan), or before the signing of major arms export contracts, or in case of Ukraine intensifying her efforts on one or another market.

    Several reports accusing Ukraine of “illegal” arms supplies marked the end and the beginning of 1998-1999. The Reuters wired service reported on last November 26 about Ukraine allegedly exporting 90 tanks to Uganda. On January 11 this year, BBC World News said in a news show telecast on New York’s WLIW21 channel that Ukraine had supplied Mi-8 helicopters to Sierra-Leone. Africa News Service alleged that Ukraine had exported three Mi-25 helicopters and 20 surface-to-surface missiles to UNITA rebels. In January this year Freedom radio station accused Ukraine of supplying 50 tanks to Angola etc. All the reports pointed to the African region, and this was not incidental.

    Early this year, Ukrspetsexport’s director Valery Malev noted Ukraine’s success on the African arms market. In saying so he emphasized that “Ukraine has never had anything to do with illegal regimes or countries against which UN sanctions had been imposed.” That is why one could well imagine competitors’ angry reaction to the reports that Ukraine started executing a $100-mn arms export contract only ten days after an offer had come from an African country. That is why the reports emerge, like pre-emptive strikes, exactly in the regions with which Ukraine has just streamlined cooperation in military technology, for instance with Latin America. And this cannot but cause concern.

    However, Ukraine is far from being the only country accused of illegal arms exports to African states. What is more, Ukraine, being a young democracy, who inherited a huge number of repair facilities along with colossal arms stocks, presents an easy target, in whose shade other arms exporters really act in violation of international sanctions. It is exactly a contraction of world’s arms market along with Africa’s outdated arms stocks, that are pushing certain countries to committing gross violations of international laws, such, for example, as resale of military equipment and weapons via third countries, or turning over military equipment (sometimes even with the crews) on lease terms, which somehow does not fall under the term of “supplies”, and, consequently, is not covered by the Wassenaar Agreement. And, lastly, the above circumstances are pushing some countries to use the black market.

    According to SIPRI YEARBOOK 1999 Armaments, Disamament and International Securuty now the total number of countries under international arms embargoes is more than 20. These countries subject to partial or complite UN, EU or OSCE embargo on arms transfers, military services or other military-related transfers. In many cases under the embargo countries are engaged in combat conflicts. A lot of these countries located on the African continent: Angola (UNITA) - since 15 Sep. 1993, Sierra Leone (rebels) - since 5 June 1998, Rwanda (rebels) - since 16 Aug. 1998, Zaire and Congo - since 7 Apr. 1993, Sudan - since 15 Mar. 1994, Somalia - since 23 Jan.1992 and others.

    Although embargoes are a strong political signal of disfavour, their effectiveness is questionable. While many embargoes have been enforced on states engaged in internal wars, they do not seem to have had much influence on the level of violence or to have led to the end to the fighting. At the same time, instead of the existence of an international control system the mass media sometimes mentioned illegal deliveries of armaments or dual-use technologies to these countries. For example, according to the SIPRI Register of the transfers and licensed production of major conventional weapons for 1998, there were deliveries of arms to Angola (6 MiG-23ЬML Flogger-G and 6 Su-22 Fitter-J), Eritrea (2-5 MiG-29 Fulcrum-A) and Uganda (about 100 tanks T-55). It is interesting that a number of states have been mentioned as suppliers or re-exporters of weapons or in this context (not only in the SIPRI Register). Among them both powerful exporters of armaments and developing countries which are acting as re-expoters of sensitive production. Speaking about the causes of these cases specialists point out on redistribution of influence on African continent after the soviet world dissolution. And besides, the reduction of defense expenditures and orders on the planet has created a reason for breaking sanctions by number of countries. The prohibited countries have become rather attractive for all participants of world armament market.

    The accusing publications play a negative role and are used for undermining the power of potential competitors on the market. Experts consider to be true the facts of illict arms deliveries and suppliers have been used for this in indirect ways. For instance through so called third countries when governments of some states are supporting rebel regimes of neighbouring countries using the actions for increasing their own influence. In some cases neighbour states mentioned by mass media as direct supporters of one of the country which is fighting. Of cause, having political benefit.

    Leasing of high-technology military equipment, coming back after the deal, is the important problem of world arms market. Press often names the black market as a channel of arms transfers. Especialy in cases deal with light arms: explosive materials, amunition and guns.

    The conclusions are easy identified: political and commercial goals are reasons for involving a number of states into illegal arms sales and many   of players have been used in indirect ways for provision of formal respect of international agreements and embargoes.

    The suppliers are able to use good information support including accusations in mass media against those countries which have limited opportunities to defend their information area and their image. It is not a secret that Ukraine often has become an aim for accusations and damages on the international market and on the external political scene. Acting states are able to coordinare activities of number of departments with diplomats and special services representatives among them.

    Another conclusion concerning the facilities of existing regimes over arms transfers is more pessimistic. We can hear at today’s international conferences that the control system over arms and sensitive technologies should be increased and emproved.

    As far as Ukraine is concerned, the question about the country's facilities for defense the information area is getting more and more acute, taking into account the level of damages from the negative publications regarding our activities on world armament market.

    Arms re-export really presents a serious problem, and Ukraine is no exception and UkrSpetsExport has sometimes to put up with occurrences of the re-export to hot spots of the weapons, which were either exported from Ukraine or transported in transit via her territory. “At present, measures are being taken to prevent such occurrences and strengthen control of arms carriers. For example, contracts for the lease of Ukrainian transportation facilities include a provision prohibiting further cargo transportation to the countries against which UN sanctions have been imposed. In case that provision is breached, full responsibility lies on the country, which contracted for the transportation facilities,” О.Kovalenko says.

    Ukraine is not the only country, whose aircraft is used by unscrupulous mediators. Thus, in particular, Africa News Service reported on February 11 this year that Belgium’s Sea Green air company had taken part in arms deliveries to UNITA rebels. China’s Xinghua news agency reported February 6 on the arrest by Belgium’s customs agency in late last year of a consignment of defense cargoes, carried by a British company from the Netherlands to Eritrea. According to the commander of peace implementation force for Western Africa, mercenary pilots from South Africa take part in the transportation of artillery weapons to UNITA units. So we find that geography of such accusations is wide enough. But accusations against the Netherlands, for example, somehow attract less media interest than those against Ukraine, regardless of the fact that [in 1998] the Netherlands was put ahead of Ukraine on the SIPRI list of arms exporting countries.

    Ukraine supports all the existing arms control regimes, taking part in three of them - the nuclear supplies control regime, the Wassenaar Agreement and the rocket technology control regime. The regimes provide for providing yearly reports on deals and contracts signed. A country, for whom it took quite an effort to break through on the arms market (where she was not at all welcome), is today entering the club of civilized arms traders, and she would never afford breaching rules of the game for the sake of a one-time deal, Ukrainian arms business officials say.

    On the other hand, the fact of such publications in itself is yet another evidence of Ukraine’s expanding presence in new markets, about which her competitors, outperformed by other rivals, are not at all happy. Such publications and statements often say more than any statistics data about the country’s actual place on the arms market. But today’s statistics says in Ukraine’s favor as well. The Stockholm’s International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) placed Ukraine seventh on the rating of arms and military equipment exporters.

    On top of that, in the wake of the IDEX’99 exhibition, Ukrspetsexport’s director Valery Malev said that this year his company is planning to overshot last year’s exports figure, and reach the $400 million point. Around two thirds of all the export deals come through Ukrspetsexport and its branch companies, which gives hope that Ukraine will gain about 500 million US dollars from defense exports this year. So is there any use for a country listed among arms exporting elite to undermine its international image for the sake of one-time deal, acting at the risk of falling under international sanctions? The question seems to be rhetorical.