UKRAINE NEEDS MORE THAN TOKEN REFORMS IN THE DEFENSE AND SECURITY SECTOR
Andriy Levus
Kyiv, Ukraine
In his remarks on Ukraine’s Constitution Day President Poroshenko noted the need to codify in the basic law Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO and EU. Such commitments to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic choice are appreciated. However, policy analysts believe that the best demonstration of the veracity of these pledges will be staying the course on implementation of genuine reforms. In addition to the anti-corruption court, reform agenda priorities include overhauling the national security and defense system. Every major provision of the reform process laid out in the recently adopted law on national security is based on recommendations from the international advisory group, experts and diplomats representing the European Union, NATO, and the US.
The process leading up to the adoption of the landmark bill was fraught with major challenges. The law is not ideal. It faced opposition from former security forces and oligarchs affiliated with the past regime. Through their influence, the oligarchs enjoy preferential treatment in many sectors of the economy, including the defense-industrial complex. Nonetheless, the law includes all amendments of the international advisory group. Hence, despite clumsy wording and half-hearted formulations, the text sets out the necessary steps forward for reforms.
The first of these is reforming the Ukrainian Security Serivce (SBU). The new law established the SBU as a specialized agency with law enforcement functions that are limited to counterintelligence, safeguarding national sovereignty, fighting terrorism, and protecting state secrets. Anti-corruption functions are excluded. These provisions and omissions are important steps forward. The law also stipulates a six month deadline for the SBU to formulate its reform proposals. The conceptual framework for SBU reforms was offered by Ukraine’s international partners back in 2015-16, which calls for radical changes with special emphasis on counterintelligence and fighting terrorism, and removing inappropriate responsibilities such as anti-corruption functions. The recommendations also clearly delineate the process for restructuring the security service, including partial demilitarization with obvious exceptions such as military counterintelligence and counterterrorism strikeforces such as ”Alfa.”
Ukraine’s western partners also singled out the need for civilian and parliamentary oversight. Establishing a parliamentary committee for oversight of specialized and intelligence agencies is the second most important principal demand of NATO and the EU. Parliamentary oversight will provide systematic protection of citizens’ rights, including from illegal intrusion by special services, particularly timely on the eve of national elections. Moreover, given that special services have approximately fifty thousand employees, their combined budgets exceed many ministries. The unassailable logic behind establishing a parliamentary counterweight also fits perfectly into the parliamentary reform process, which is a major undertaking of Speaker Parubiy. In addition to oversight, which for some reason grates on the ears of some law enforcement officials, the committee will resolve questions associated with providing legislative authorization for their activities, and addresses many other issues in the new law on national security. Hence, the Cabinet of Ministers should move swifly to draft legislation on oversight, as called for in the law.
The third major area covered by the new law is reform of the defense - industrial complex. Ukraine’s strategic partners insisted on creating a single regulatory agency within the Cabinet of Ministers that would absolve Ukroboronprom of regulatory accountability, including defense procurements. The intent is to level the playing field for state, private domestic and foreign companies. A state-owned company cannot simultaneously be the regulatory agency of the market it is competing in. A cabinet-level regulatory agency will improve cooperation in state defense procurement orders and their relationships with suppliers in the market. A single independent agency, established transparently, will contribute to eliminating corruption in this field.
There are special provisions in the new law for dealing with classifying state secrets. It is no secret that this system remains unchanged for many years, with its roots going back to the KGB. It is abused by government officials to shield corrupt schemes from public view, to conceal socially sensitive information, and to prevent meaningful cooperation with Ukraine’s western partners. No one is suggesting doing away with protecting genuine state secrets, especially given incessant Russian aggression. However, they have to be limited in scope. For example, NATO members classify only 9% of their defense budgets. Therefore, this subject also needs to be addressed reasonably and rationally.
President Poroshenko can take meaningful steps to draw closer to Euro-Atlantic standards, without engaging in impressive political rhetoric on NATO. The SBU is under his formidable influence, the head of the Cabinet of Ministers is a fellow member of his political party, and the presidential faction is the largest in parliament. This process needs to be open and involve the expert community and civil society, and, in the end, parliamentarians who are committed to reform will become presidential allies in this matter.
Therefore, President Poroshenko’s political strengths and the administrative tools at his disposal are more than adequate for a timely strategic push toward NATO standards. Ukraine’s international partners are growing impatient as are the majority of citizens who seek effective, uncorrupt, and modern law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Increased trust by Ukrainians and support of western allies can only benefit the President on the eve of national elections if only he opts for authentic and not merely token reforms of the national security sector. Most important these reforms are so desperately needed by a country at war.
