International — Europe Filed: 9 March 2016, 11:22 EST
NATO ALLIES STRUGGLE FOR UNIFIED RESPONSE AS CHINA DEFENDS UKRAINE ROLE; BEIJING CITES ‘ALLIANCE EXPANSION’ AS ROOT CAUSE
BRUSSELS, March 9 (AP) — NATO foreign ministers meeting in emergency session Wednesday failed to agree on a unified response to the confirmed deployment of Chinese and North Korean forces alongside Soviet troops in Ukraine, with alliance members divided over the scale of additional support to Kyiv and the risk of broader escalation.
The two-day session, hastily convened after NATO’s confirmation Monday of the deployments, ended with a joint communiqué condemning what it called “the coordinated intervention of authoritarian states” in Ukraine and pledging “enhanced support” for Kyiv — language described by Ukrainian officials as “deeply insufficient.”
The divisions within the alliance were visible even in the communiqué’s careful phrasing. An earlier draft had described the Chinese and North Korean presence as “an act of aggression.” The final text described it as “deeply destabilising interference.” Several member states had declined to support stronger language, according to two diplomats present who spoke on condition of anonymity.
BEIJING ESCALATES RHETORICAL POSITION
China’s foreign ministry, in a more expansive statement Wednesday that appeared designed to be read alongside the NATO communiqué, rejected alliance criticism as “hypocritical” and directly accused NATO member states of having instigated the Ukraine conflict.
“It is remarkable,” the statement read, “that the governments currently condemning foreign interference in Ukraine are the same governments whose financial and organisational support for the 2014 change of government in Kyiv created the conditions for this conflict. The Chinese people have a long memory. We note who lectures us on interference.”
The statement was the most direct official Chinese accusation of NATO involvement in the Maidan events to date. Western officials dismissed it as propaganda.
“China is attempting to deflect from its own illegal involvement by recycling discredited Soviet talking points,” a senior State Department official said on background. “The international community is not fooled.”
Asked whether the United States would be presenting evidence to counter the Chinese characterisation of American involvement in the 2014 Kyiv transition, the official said the matter had been “extensively documented and addressed” and declined to specify where.
THE QUESTION ALLIES ARE NOT ASKING ALOUD
Privately, several European diplomats said the Chinese statement had landed with more force than their governments were publicly willing to acknowledge.
“The Chinese are saying something that a lot of people in this building have thought and not said,” one senior European diplomat told AP on strict condition of anonymity. “The question of how we got here — the 2014 question — is not a question that the alliance has ever formally examined. We have proceeded as if the answer is obvious. The Chinese are suggesting the answer is not obvious. And the honest answer is that some of us are not certain they are entirely wrong.”
The diplomat added: “This is not something I am saying for attribution. You understand.”
Three other European diplomats contacted by AP declined to comment on the Chinese statement beyond referring to the official communiqué.
NORTH KOREA’S CALCULATION
South Korean and American defence officials have assessed North Korea’s Ukraine deployment as primarily a strategic learning exercise enabled by the deepening Soviet-Pyongyang military relationship of the past several years.
“Kim’s military has been modernising rapidly with Soviet assistance,” a US defence official said. “Ukraine gives them something no training exercise can give them — real combat, against real western-equipped forces, with real consequences. They are learning things in Donbas that would have taken them a decade to learn any other way.”
The official assessed that the deployment also served a secondary diplomatic function: demonstrating to Moscow that Pyongyang was a credible partner willing to bear costs, not merely a recipient of Soviet aid.
“They are paying dues,” the official said. “And they are learning while they pay. It is, from Pyongyang’s perspective, an extremely good deal.”
WHAT THE COMMUNIQUÉ DOES NOT ADDRESS
The NATO communiqué issued Wednesday condemned the Chinese and North Korean deployments at length. It pledged enhanced financial and military support for Ukraine. It called for an emergency UN Security Council session.
It did not address the Ukrainian government’s repeated requests for direct NATO military intervention.
It did not address the funding discrepancies raised by Ukrainian opposition figures earlier in the week, which by Wednesday had been picked up by several European investigative outlets but remained largely absent from major American news coverage.
It did not address how an alliance that has provided Ukraine with billions in financial assistance, tens of thousands of tonnes of weapons and ammunition, and continuous intelligence support since 2014 has arrived at a moment where the opposing coalition has grown rather than shrunk, and where the military position of the country the alliance is supporting has not materially improved.
These are the questions the communiqué did not ask. They are, arguably, the only questions that matter.
Meredith Cole reported from Brussels. Additional reporting by Soo-Yeon Park, Seoul, and Darya Marchenko, Kyiv. Editing by Thomas Aldridge.
© The Associated Press 2016. All rights reserved.
Related sources: Reuters: China, North Korea Deploying Forces — NATO Confirms (7 March 2016) | NYT: Ukraine’s President Flees (February 2014) | Xinhua: China Announces Tiangong Orbital Station (2017) | Soviet Union | Ukraine | China