Роль США у питанні закриття Чорнобильської АЕС: допомога чи тиск?

Abstract

У статті висвітлено політичний вимір проблеми закриття Чорнобильської АЕС, а саме підштовхування українського уряду до цього кроку з боку США. Детально розкриваються мотиви та інтереси адміністрації Б. Клінтона, пов’язані з наданням допомоги у подоланні наслідків аварії на ЧАЕС і закритті станції. З’ясовано, що адміністрація Л. Кучми на переговорах із західними партнерами обрала стратегію затягування часу, прагнучи отримати якомога кращі умови. Українська сторона вимагала надання економічної та технічної допомоги, компенсації за втрату потужностей, а також західних інвестицій в енергетичну галузь. У підсумку, не отримавши чітких зобов’язань щодо іноземних інвестицій і компенсацій, Україна під тиском Вашингтона була змушена ухвалити рішення про закриття ЧАЕС у грудні 2000 р.

The article highlights the political dimension of the problem of closing down the Chernobyl NPP, namely the US pressure on the Ukrainian government to take this step. The motives and interests of the Clinton administration were related to providing assistance in overcoming the consequences of the Chernobyl accident and closing the plant. The US position was determined by several considerations. Firstly, against the background of the crisis processes in post-Soviet countries in the 1990s, the West had serious fears that such a facility as the Chornobyl NPP could become a source of illegal proliferation of nuclear materials. Secondly, the nuclear lobby was active in the West. The Chornobyl accident seriously undermined confidence in nuclear energy, which was perceived by the public to be much more acute. At the same time, reducing dependence on gas and oil required a shift to other sources. Therefore, closing the ChNPP would soften public attitudes towards nuclear energy. Thirdly, in the early 1990s, the American company Westinghouse, with the active support of the US government, began expansion into Central and Eastern Europe, where it hoped to displace Soviet technologies. The interests of Westinghouse were personally lobbied by US Vice President Al Gore. Instead, the Chornobyl accident and the memory of it hindered the development of US cooperation with regional countries. In its negotiations with Western partners, the Ukrainian government chose a strategy of stalling, seeking to obtain the best possible terms. Kyiv demanded economic and technical assistance to decommission the plant, compensation for the loss of capacity, and Western investment in the energy sector. Thus, the Ukrainian authorities tried to exchange an illiquid asset in the form of the Chornobyl NPP and the accompanying socio-economic and technical problems for economic dividends. As a result, Ukraine received technical and economic assistance from the West to close the Chornobyl nuclear power plant, mitigate social problems and build the Shelter facility. Foreign investment and loans for new promising energy projects, which was Kyiv’s main goal in the negotiations, were linked to progress in energy sector reforms. Having not received clear commitments on compensation, Ukraine was forced by US pressure to decide to close the Chornobyl NPP in December 2000. The agreement was finally recorded during the visit of US President Bill Clinton to Kyiv on 5 June 2000.