Unlock the White House Watch watch newsletter for free
Your guide on what the US elections of 2024 mean for Washington and Le Monde
The Secretary in the United States of the Treasury defended the pressure of Donald Trump for an agreement with Ukraine to develop his natural resources and critical minerals, claiming that the plan would feed post-war growth in the country and n ‘involved no coercive economic pressure.
Scott Bessent’s comments in an editorial for the Financial Times come as the Trump administration officials try to win what they claim to be an economic partnership with kyiv in the context of their wider diplomatic efforts to negotiate an agreement of peace between Russia and Ukraine.
So far, Ukrainian officials have rejected American requests for such an agreement, but US officials apply intense pressure on kyiv in their pressure for an agreement.
Kyiv officials believe that Trump’s undulation against the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week, describing him as a dictator and suggesting that Ukraine, not Russia, had triggered war, are means of Kyiv’s reinforcement in a mineral agreement.
In OP-ED, Bessent has set up some of the details of the American proposal. He said that Ukraine’s income for “natural resources, infrastructure and other assets” would be “allocated to a long-term reconstruction and development fund in Ukraine where the United States will have economic rights and governance in these future investments ”.
However, Bessent did not say to what extent the product of mineral extraction would be allocated to the fund or to what extent would be paid in the United States. Trump presented the mineral agreement as a means of ensuring that Ukraine reimburses previous American military aid.
A previous project of the agreement reported by the Ukrainian media, which, according to Ukrainian officials, said that the fund would be set up “with the size (legal complaint) of this income in favor of the United States”.
He also said that the United States would decide on the amount of funds paid for reconstruction projects.
In his editorial, Bessent declared that the agreement would include “high standards of transparency, responsibility, corporate governance and legal frameworks necessary to attract robust private investment for post-war growth in Ukraine” And the involvement of America “would leave no room for corruption and initiate offers”.
The Secretary in the United States of the Treasury went to Ukraine earlier this month during his first international trip to present the agreement to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president.
While US officials, including Mike Waltz, Trump National Security Advisor, said they thought that an agreement was close, Ukrainian officials are more kept.
“The table project now needs more work,” said a person involved in negotiations. “We see there many obligations of Ukraine and very weak things [offered] On the American side, therefore the project, as today, is not ready to be accepted at the level of the president. »»
Negotiations went early in the morning for the third day and will continue on Saturday and probably on Sunday.
Zelenskyy said that Bessent’s initial proposal was not in the interest of Ukraine, because it required 50% of the rights to rare earths and critical minerals in the country in exchange for previous military assistance, and contained no offer of future assistance.
Senior Ukrainian officials said they had spent last week to create a counter-proposition, which they discussed with the American Special Envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, in kyiv Thursday and Friday.
Zelenskyy wants the Trump administration to ensure security guarantees in a new proposal before they agree to connect.
In OP-ED, Bessent said that the terms of the agreement “would guarantee that countries that have not contributed to the defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty will not be able to benefit from its reconstruction or these investments” .
Bessent also suggested that the United States did not try to take control of Ukraine’s natural resources in a coercive manner. “Let’s also be clear about what it is not. The United States would not appropriate physical assets in Ukraine. It does not spare Ukraine either with more debts. This type of economic pressure, although deployed by other global players, would not increase American or Ukrainian interests, “he wrote.
