UKRAINE WILL NOT RESTART CHORNOBYL THIS YEAR. Officials at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant said cracks in the piping in one of the reactors will keep the plant closed until sometime in 1998, Interfax reported on 16 October. That reactor, the only one to have operated in the last several years, was shut off in June for maintenance, during which the cracks were discovered. Chornobyl managers denied Kyiv press reports that workers at the plant have been subject to excessive levels of radiation as a result of the cracks. Ukraine has pledged to close the plant by the year 2000 if foreign governments provide sufficient funds to build an alternative power facility.

UKRAINE TO SELL MILITARY TRUCKS TO INDIA. The AvtoKraz factory in Kremenchuk will sell 600 military trucks to India starting next year, Interfax-Ukraine reported on 16 October. The deal is valued at some $24 million. Ukraine is now the world's fifth-largest arms exporter.

The continued existence of the Commonwealth of Independent States is now threatened both by the leaders of member countries who think it is doing too much and by those who think it is not doing enough. The only thing those two sides seem to agree on is that Moscow is to blame, either because the Russian government has used the CIS as a cover for its own national agenda or because it has neglected to promote the organization's development.

Both views are very much on public display as leaders of the 12 former Soviet republics prepare for the upcoming CIS summit in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau.

On 13 October, Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze said in his weekly radio address that Tbilisi may soon look for other partners if Moscow keeps ignoring Georgia's interests and prerogatives as an independent country. He said Georgians are increasingly angered by what he described as Moscow's crude Soviet-style approach to Georgia and the other members of the CIS. Shevardnadze also indicated that unless the Russian government changed its approach to Georgia, he would look for other partners in the West, all of whom, he stressed, have shown greater respect for his country and its interests.

The next day, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma took a different tack, blaming the organization's failure squarely on Moscow. Kuchma said that Russia had done little or nothing to promote the CIS as an institution. Kuchma made those remarks during his visit to Kazakhstan, whose leader, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, has regularly urged that the CIS be strengthened and possibly transformed into what he calls a Eurasian Union.

At one level, this debate is simply a continuation of the one that has spanned the almost six-year history of the CIS. In March, for example, the presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, who have been promoting cooperation among themselves at the expense of CIS ties, considered not attending a CIS summit to protest both Russian actions and the suggestions by several Moscow analysts that the Russian government take an even tougher line toward CIS countries.

But the problems are deeper than that, reflecting divisions inherent in the organization from the outset.

Since the creation of the CIS in December 1991, some of its members have viewed the organization as a kind of divorce court, an institution that would allow them to negotiate the division of spoils from the former Soviet Union. Other countries have hoped the organization would serve as the basis either for continued cooperation among the former Soviet republics or even for their reintegration into a single political system.

Neither side has been happy with what has happened, but the reasons for their unhappiness vary widely and often in unexpected ways. Some of the biggest advocates of the CIS, such as Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev, have wanted a tighter organization not so much in order to return to Russian domination but rather to rule out that possibility by establishing rules Moscow would have to follow. And some of the biggest opponents of improving CIS operation, including many in the Russian capital, have opposed developing the organization in that direction lest it restrict Moscow's freedom of action in dealing with its neighbors.

Thus, while many Russian officials have claimed that the CIS is a regional security organization, they have been unwilling to fully respect the rights of non-Russian countries, including Georgia, with regard to the basing of troops and other matters.

At another level, however, the arguments now being advanced by Shevardnadze, Kuchma, and other leaders of CIS member states may have more profound consequences. On the one hand, they could lead to a new agreement among the current states, one covering fewer issues but covering those in greater detail. This would formalize something that has been true but has gone largely unrecognized: namely, the 12 member countries are increasingly independent and are not interested in a single plan for reintegration sponsored by Moscow.

On the other hand, those arguments could prompt current members to decide, as Shevardnadze has suggested, that some countries beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union are far more reliable partners. Either of those developments would spell the end of the CIS as it has existed until now.

At the upcoming meeting in Chisinau, the first development is by far the more likely outcome. But the second is also possible, and Russian policy may even be promoting it. In addition to the actions about which both Shevardnadze and Kuchma have complained, Moscow is currently subverting the CIS by forming various bilateral and multilateral relations with CIS member states, thus calling into question the utility of the organization.

As a result, the days of the Commonwealth of Independent States now appear to be numbered. The only question still open is whether it ends with a bang or a whimper.

RUSSIA STILL MAIN TRANSIT ROUTE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO EUROPE. Tatyana Regent, the head of the Russian Federal Migration Service, has said Russia remains the main transit route for illegal immigration to Central and Western Europe. Speaking to RFE/RL during a visit to Prague, Regent said illegal immigrants in Russia are currently thought to number some 700,000. She said the main destinations for illegal immigrants transiting through Russia are Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania. Smugglers charge $10 dollars a head for passage to Belarus and as much as $1,000 for other destinations. Regent said the flow of illegal immigrants into Russia is facilitated by the visa-free travel regime with other CIS countries. She added that she hoped an agreement on joint efforts to combat organized crime will be reached at the summit of CIS leaders in Chisinau on 22-23 October.

The continued existence of the Commonwealth of Independent States is now threatened both by the leaders of member countries who think it is doing too much and by those who think it is not doing enough. The only thing those two sides seem to agree on is that Moscow is to blame, either because the Russian government has used the CIS as a cover for its own national agenda or because it has neglected to promote the organization's development.

Both views are very much on public display as leaders of the 12 former Soviet republics prepare for the upcoming CIS summit in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau.

On 13 October, Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze said in his weekly radio address that Tbilisi may soon look for other partners if Moscow keeps ignoring Georgia's interests and prerogatives as an independent country. He said Georgians are increasingly angered by what he described as Moscow's crude Soviet-style approach to Georgia and the other members of the CIS. Shevardnadze also indicated that unless the Russian government changed its approach to Georgia, he would look for other partners in the West, all of whom, he stressed, have shown greater respect for his country and its interests.

The next day, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma took a different tack, blaming the organization's failure squarely on Moscow. Kuchma said that Russia had done little or nothing to promote the CIS as an institution. Kuchma made those remarks during his visit to Kazakhstan, whose leader, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, has regularly urged that the CIS be strengthened and possibly transformed into what he calls a Eurasian Union.

At one level, this debate is simply a continuation of the one that has spanned the almost six-year history of the CIS. In March, for example, the presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, who have been promoting cooperation among themselves at the expense of CIS ties, considered not attending a CIS summit to protest both Russian actions and the suggestions by several Moscow analysts that the Russian government take an even tougher line toward CIS countries.

But the problems are deeper than that, reflecting divisions inherent in the organization from the outset.

Since the creation of the CIS in December 1991, some of its members have viewed the organization as a kind of divorce court, an institution that would allow them to negotiate the division of spoils from the former Soviet Union. Other countries have hoped the organization would serve as the basis either for continued cooperation among the former Soviet republics or even for their reintegration into a single political system.

Neither side has been happy with what has happened, but the reasons for their unhappiness vary widely and often in unexpected ways. Some of the biggest advocates of the CIS, such as Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev, have wanted a tighter organization not so much in order to return to Russian domination but rather to rule out that possibility by establishing rules Moscow would have to follow. And some of the biggest opponents of improving CIS operation, including many in the Russian capital, have opposed developing the organization in that direction lest it restrict Moscow's freedom of action in dealing with its neighbors.

Thus, while many Russian officials have claimed that the CIS is a regional security organization, they have been unwilling to fully respect the rights of non-Russian countries, including Georgia, with regard to the basing of troops and other matters.

At another level, however, the arguments now being advanced by Shevardnadze, Kuchma, and other leaders of CIS member states may have more profound consequences. On the one hand, they could lead to a new agreement among the current states, one covering fewer issues but covering those in greater detail. This would formalize something that has been true but has gone largely unrecognized: namely, the 12 member countries are increasingly independent and are not interested in a single plan for reintegration sponsored by Moscow.

On the other hand, those arguments could prompt current members to decide, as Shevardnadze has suggested, that some countries beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union are far more reliable partners. Either of those developments would spell the end of the CIS as it has existed until now.

At the upcoming meeting in Chisinau, the first development is by far the more likely outcome. But the second is also possible, and Russian policy may even be promoting it. In addition to the actions about which both Shevardnadze and Kuchma have complained, Moscow is currently subverting the CIS by forming various bilateral and multilateral relations with CIS member states, thus calling into question the utility of the organization.

As a result, the days of the Commonwealth of Independent States now appear to be numbered. The only question still open is whether it ends with a bang or a whimper.