28 years ago, on December 5, 1994, I participated as a member of the Albanian delegation in the summit of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) that took place in Budapest. This summit is remembered for the decision to transform the Conference into an organization with permanent institutions, today known as the OSCE.
But the most significant event of great historical importance at this summit was the signing of the Budapest Memorandum by Ukrainian President Kuchma, Russian President Yeltsin, British Prime Minister Major and US President Clinton. The latter two signed as guarantors of the agreement, ensuring its compliance (France and China also offered guarantees in separate documents).
The essence of the memorandum was that Ukraine would hand over to Russia the nuclear weapons that had accumulated in bulk on its territory since the Soviet period while Russia guaranteed that it would “respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence within its current borders” and that it would never use force and weapons or economic pressure against Ukraine (Articles 1, 2 and 3, respectively).
In light of the current events, as Russian missiles hit apartments and kill civilians in Kyiv, these quotes may seem like an exercise in sarcasm. But in the post-communist Europe of the 1990s, interstate principles such as sovereignty, the avoidance of violence and the freedom to choose alliances were not only written into successive statements by the CSCE and the Council of Europe but were also seriously believed, with the tragic exclusion of Milosevic and the former Yugoslavia.
But a decade and a half after Budapest, these principles began to be violated not by a bloody dictator in the Balkans but by a large, nuclear-armed state. Pacta sunt servanda (the principle that agreements must be respected) as a cornerstone of international law was violated along with others.
The principle of force in Vilnius
On November 28, 2013, the European Union summit convened in the Lithuanian capital failed miserably when Ukrainian President Yanukovych declared to European leaders that he refused to sign the association agreement with the EU. The agreement, which had been negotiated for six years, was scheduled to be solemnly signed that day. “Russia has been pushing my life for three years while you left me in the mud,” Yanukovych told 28 presidents and prime ministers, according to witnesses present.
In September of that year, Armenia also suspended negotiations on an association agreement with the EU after being openly threatened with armed violence by Moscow.
The Armenian and Ukrainian presidents were forced to promise to join the Eurasian Customs Union established by Russia in 2010 (currently called the Eurasian Economic Union). Although the European agreement was for them more profitable.
Those disappointed by Yanukovych were surprised by the reaction of the Ukrainian people. The rejection of Brussels sparked major protests and what is known as the Maidan Revolution. Yanukovych fled to Russia and a new parliament and president were elected by democratic vote. But Putin reacted by invading Donbas and annexing Crimea. Only after this trauma did NATO membership become a real priority for Kyiv.
Two or three thoughts on the principles of strength
Were it not for courageous personalities like Vitali Klitschko and the thousands of citizens who challenged the frost for weeks on Maidan Square (Independence Square), Ukraine would have remained in the category of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. It was the inner will of its society, strong and unyielding, that determined the major orientation of the state. This is a valuable lesson for the peoples of the Balkans who are currently enduring their Lukashenkos.
Not only Brussels bureaucrats, who are said to often dream with open eyes, but almost the entire political elite of Western Europe did not understand the real danger of a revanchist Russia: not even when Putin invaded two Georgian provinces in 2008; not even when he was left without opening bottles of champagne in Vilnius in 2013; nor when a year later he invaded Donbas and annexed Crimea.
Appeals by leaders and intellectuals from Eastern Europe about the Putinist threat were ignored. The views conceived in a long period of peace and prosperity and influenced by problematic ideologies long prevailed over those of the people who suffered double communist-Russian rule. The aggression of February 2022, thankfully did not leave sleeping beauties asleep. Even the most pacifist and neutral states are doing what was unimaginable until three days ago: they are supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons.
There are people in Europe but also in Tirana who philosophize that NATO is to blame for the fact that it expanded to the east, inadvertently introducing a threat to Russia. And that made the latter as aggressive as a cat pushed into the corner.
In fact, none of the new NATO members were under Moscow’s traditional influence until right before the end of World War II. And Ukraine, as we noted above, tried seriously (but to no avail) for NATO membership only after losing the Donbas and Crimea. A Ukraine that is close to Europe could maintain good neighborly relations with Russia. In the spirit of the Budapest Memorandum; as in the example of Finland or Austria. This was possible until 2013 but failed because of Putin’s fault. Today it is out of place to discuss this topic. Maybe it’s something we can discuss if someone else is in Kremlin.
Tirana and Prishtina: chances and opportunities
Tirana is showing diplomatic unity with the West through resolutions it is proposing alongside the US to the United Nations Security Council. This is positive but not very effective as resolutions condemning Russia are routinely blocked by Russia’s veto. The effect is mainly political signaling. Ironically, like many things that Edi Rama does, we could dare to say.
Unfortunately, Tirana did not follow the example of the Baltic states and Poland, which for weeks have been supplying Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, bulletproof vests, etc. The Kyiv government has prayed daily for such assistance. Not that our shipments would turn the situation around but at least they would show us as serious and determined. The announcement of aid on February 27 by the government when even the most pacifist and Russophile have handed over the anti-tank missile to the Ukrainian army seems to have been simply performative.
Likewise, when Poland, Romania and Slovenia announced on the same day the blockade of airspace for Russian aircraft, Tirana could have done the same. The government’s statement only after this initiative was formalized by the EU sounds like a slow catch-up measure.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Rama still does not have the will to remove Albania from the Mini-Schengen / Open Balkans initiative. Now that its main sponsor, Serbian President Alexandar Vucic, refuses to side with Europe against Putin, this initiative appears much more ominous than before.
A new debate is needed on the protection of national security, which now faces the most obvious threats. The argument that NATO will protect us in any case, as we hear mostly from the government, is good but not enough. Undoubtedly NATO membership in 2009 was a historic achievement; but the US is focusing on China and the North Atlantic Alliance prefers to have security contributing members rather than just security “consumers.”
The biggest investment in the Armed Forces was the purchase by the Berisha government of 6 helicopters with dual civil-military use. The current government with corrupt motivations has fragmented our Navy bases, seriously undermining its defense capabilities. This trend must be reversed.
Prishtina has now a great opportunity: Vucic refused to condemn Putin’s aggression and apply EU and Western sanctions. If Brussels and others had so far closed one or two eyes to Belgrade’s attacks on Europe’s unfriendly rivals since February 24, now we live in a different time. Conflict is open, violent and the dominant rule is “with us or against us.”
Therefore, at this moment when the paradigm is shifting, the most useful and realistic objective for Prishtina is to receive diplomatic recognition from the five EU (or four NATO) countries which are still hesitant. From nearby Greece to seemingly stubborn Spain; of course through working with the big ones of the EU and of NATO.
Genc Pollo is the former Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Education and Media and also of European Integration, former Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Education, Minister of Telecom & IT.
