🪨 The “European Solidarity” faction has raised a series of questions regarding the agreement on critical minerals with the USA, demanding answers from the authorities. Despite voting in favor of ratifying the document, the faction pointed out that the concealment of the full text of the agreement from MPs contradicts democratic principles, as does the government’s refusal to present the document in the Verkhovna Rada.
Source: OBOZREVATEL
Here is the full statement without changes:
“European Solidarity” has always taken a consistent and professional position regarding the development of strategic partnerships with the USA as part of preserving Ukraine’s statehood and achieving future victory and peace. We remain the only ones defending the subjectivity of the Verkhovna Rada and the democratic development of Ukraine. The “ES” deputies insisted on a meeting with the government to discuss the Investment Fund Agreement. It is hard to imagine any US congressman voting on a law without reading its text.
Similarly, it is hard to imagine any American or European government official refusing a meeting with an opposition faction. This is possible only in Ukraine under Zelensky, who prohibited government officials from meeting with the “ES” faction. Today, we received a letter from the government refusing to discuss the issue. Perhaps the negotiating team fears a professional and competent conversation, or perhaps questions about extrajudicial sanctions against the opposition leader, which are impossible in a democratic country.
“European Solidarity” is the only parliamentary faction to which the government refused a meeting to clarify positions and circumstances surrounding the signing of agreements regarding the use of Ukrainian mineral resources.
According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is the legislative representative body; people’s deputies represent the Ukrainian people. Therefore, the blatant violation by government officials of their obligations to report to parliament is a disregard for millions of Ukrainian voters.
“European Solidarity” consistently supports the development of strategic partnership and allied relations with the United States of America. We do not make these relations dependent on political circumstances or the pursuit of changing approval ratings. We believe that the strategic alliance should be based on mutually beneficial relations, trust, and adherence to the Constitution and laws.
It is the executive branch’s duty to report to society and parliament about its actions, and those actions must be carried out exclusively within the framework and manner defined by the Constitution of Ukraine. Therefore, we publicly raise the following questions, to which the government has refused to respond within the accountability framework of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
We demand a clear public response to these questions and will exercise control over the authorities’ activities in these areas using all available constitutional means.
- Why did the President and Prime Minister of Ukraine remove themselves from the process of preparing, signing, and presenting the agreement to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine?
According to Article 106, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine “represents the state in international relations, directs the foreign policy of the state, negotiates, and concludes international treaties of Ukraine.”
On February 28 this year, the President of Ukraine tried to participate directly in the discussion and signing of the agreement on critical minerals, but after the failed negotiations in the Oval Office, he removed himself from this process.
Meanwhile, the subject of the agreement concerns the use of Ukrainian territory and natural resources, which, according to paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On International Treaties of Ukraine,” means that it must be concluded on behalf of Ukraine by the President of Ukraine. He should have also presented a draft decision to approve the ratification of this agreement in parliament.
- How does this agreement define the terms for ending the war and establishing peace?
The idea of joint use of Ukraine’s natural resources is point 4 of the Plan for Victory, presented by the President of Ukraine to the Verkhovna Rada on October 16, 2024. It was later revealed that this Plan was also presented to candidates for the US presidency at the time. Why did only the point about using Ukraine’s natural resources remain from the entire Plan for Victory? Where is the Victory — or at least the path to it?
- How will parliamentary oversight and control over the implementation of the agreement be ensured?
How will key provisions of the agreement, such as evaluating the potential American aid, making payments, managing the fund’s activities, prioritizing funding for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, etc., be ensured?
- How does the agreement comply with the Constitution of Ukraine, particularly Articles 13 and the strategic course for European and Euro-Atlantic integration?
Why was the position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine not obtained beforehand, which would remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the agreements, including the interpretation of all aspects of ownership (not just possession, but also use and disposal) regarding natural resources?
How does the agreement’s provision about American companies not paying taxes to Ukraine’s budget for the sale of products or licenses, and having preferential rights for export and trade, comply with Ukrainian legislation and the principle of equal business conditions?
- How was the agreement ratified, considering it directly references other agreements whose texts have not been published? Specifically, the agreement mentions a limited partnership agreement 26 times, a text that has not been submitted to the Verkhovna Rada or made available to MPs. We propose removing any mention of this agreement from the text of the Investment Fund Agreement as it does not yet exist.
How will the Investment Fund Agreement, to which consent is given without regard to the content of the agreements it directly refers to, be enforced?
- On what grounds was a “non-disclosure agreement” signed regarding non-commercial, but intergovernmental agreements, which are directly referenced in the agreement being submitted for ratification?
- How will the “security guarantees” promised by President Zelensky be ensured in the Investment Fund Agreement if no security guarantees are mentioned regarding Ukraine in the agreement?
How will this agreement relate to the US’s Crimea Declaration from 2018, which does not recognize Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea, and the Bilateral Security Agreement between Ukraine and the USA signed on June 13, 2024?
Discussion about this post