It’s Time for the US to Remember the Budapest Memorandum

The Budapest Memorandum has remained in the shadows insofar as the West has been attempting to contain Russia’s aggression through diplomacy and sanctions. But it is time to change this strategy.

Until recently, the U.S. government has taken a cautious position regarding the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, trying to downplay its significance. But given the current circumstances, it is impossible to adhere to this position any further without seriously undermining American authority in the world and its general efforts to contain the spread of nuclear weapons.

Instead of stepping back from the Budapest Memorandum, it is necessary to re-evaluate its significance and to fundamentally change the approach to it. Doing so will not only send a serious signal to the world about American responsibility regarding its obligations, but will also contribute to the solution of many problems, first among them stopping Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The document serves as a legal and moral foundation for the provision of comprehensive assistance to Ukraine, including military assistance. In light of renewed efforts by Germany and France to achieve a peaceful settlement, such assistance could play a part in solving the problem and help to preserve potential peace agreements.

Over the course of recent days, active discussion has taken place in the U.S. about providing military assistance to Ukraine, including defensive weapons. In expert circles, a consensus has been formed that the moment for rendering such assistance has arrived. This was the conclusion reached in a report entitled “Preserving Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do,” published by three leading policy institutes in Washington and Chicago and written by eight of the most authoritative foreign policy and military experts.

Repeated statements by various members of the U.S. Congress resulted in a joint appeal to President Obama by a bipartisan group of senators urging the president to provide defensive weapons to Ukraine to counter Russian military aggression.

The solid legal and moral foundation for such measures lies on the surface: a memorandum about security assurances tied to Ukraine’s signing of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed on Dec. 5, 1994 by the leaders of Ukraine, the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom, and known as the “Budapest Memorandum.”

One can endlessly discuss the technical and juridical niceties of its terminology, but it in no way detracts from the document’s fundamental meaning: three parties – the U.S., Russia and the United Kingdom – reaffirmed their “commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

Also widely known and documented is the fact that Ukraine gave up its own large nuclear arsenal, which was the principle guarantee in exchange for its security. It did this not on its own initiative, but instead yielded to the influence of the U.S. (with the U.K.’s support) and received in return a guarantee of its own sovereignty and the inviolability of its borders. The U.S., having played the leading role in Ukraine’s relinquishing of its nuclear arsenal and the arsenal’s transfer to Russia, publicly took responsibility upon itself for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The key clause in the Budapest Memorandum is the issue of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, which to this day remains a crucial moment for the preservation of collective world security. How else to perceive this document other than in all its seriousness? Who will believe the U.S. and its allies, if they try to persuade governments striving to possess nuclear weapons to relinquish their nuclear ambitions in exchange for security assurances? The nuclear proliferation issue cannot abide irresponsible attitudes, especially on the part of global superpowers.

There exist numerous international legal documents about the inviolability of borders and respect for the territorial integrity of states (including assurances given by Russia at the bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral level in regards to Ukraine). But the Budapest Memorandum in particular is dedicated to the question of nuclear nonproliferation and contains specific affirmations regarding Ukraine made by the U.S., the United Kingdom and Russia, in exchange for affirmations made by Ukraine.

Nobody has any doubts that Ukraine has fulfilled its obligations in good conscience, in a timely manner, and in full measure.

Two of the guarantors possess substantial and indisputable evidence of Russia’s unceasing infringement on “the sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine,” first through the occupation and annexation of Crimea, and then through the occupation and fomenting of war in eastern Ukraine.

Until now the Budapest Memorandum has remained in the shadows, insofar as the U.S., the U.K. and their allies have attempted to counter the aggression against Ukraine and restore its territorial integrity through general diplomatic and economic measures. Unfortunately, these measures did not yield success. Russia not only continued but intensified its military aggression. The result has been multiple casualties and a humanitarian catastrophe on Ukraine’s territory. For now it is unclear whether recent efforts by Germany and France to achieve a peaceful settlement will lead to success, but if they do not, American military assistance to Ukraine could become a part of the solution and could help to preserve peace agreements. As American legislators declared in their address to President Obama on Tuesday, in this situation, “Our approach requires change.” *

For the U.S., the time has come for it to openly accept its responsibility and take decisive actions, and for the United Kingdom, as a co-guarantor, to join these actions. As for the remaining European allies, such as Germany, the Budapest Memorandum gives them the flexibility to join or not to join these actions, but it does not allow them in any way to impede or protest against the fulfillment by the U.S. or the U.K. of their legal and moral obligations. Moreover, supporting such actions, both in words and in deeds, will serve their own interests.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, although accurately translated, could not be verified.