U.K. Lawmakers Call for Resolution in Dispute Over Funds for Ukrainian War Victims
Lawmakers in the United Kingdom have expressed frustration over the delay in disbursing funds from the sale of the Chelsea soccer club to support victims of the war in Ukraine, as promised by former owner Roman Abramovich almost two years ago. The Russian billionaire sold Chelsea in 2022 after being sanctioned by the British government for enabling Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Despite pledging to donate £2.5 billion ($3.2 billion) from the sale to war victims, the funds remain frozen in a bank account due to a disagreement with the British government on how they should be used.
Lord Peter Ricketts, chair of the European Affairs Committee in the U.K. parliament, expressed his bafflement and frustration over the prolonged delay. He highlighted the lack of clarity in the original agreement, a factor that has led to arguments regarding the allocation of the funds to specific individuals or entities within Ukraine. Lord Ricketts insisted that both Abramovich and the British government bear responsibility for the unresolved situation, which has reflected poorly on both parties.
The frozen funds still belong to Abramovich, and he must apply for a license from the British government to move the money. However, this license is contingent upon the funds being used exclusively for humanitarian purposes in Ukraine. When Abramovich announced the sale, he mentioned the creation of a foundation that would benefit all victims of the war in Ukraine, including those residing outside the country. There were suggestions that he foresaw the funds being used in Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine, which the British government has vetoed, emphasizing that any use of the funds in those regions would violate existing sanctions.
Mike Penrose, the former CEO of Unicef UK and the appointed head of the foundation that will ultimately control the funds when they are unfrozen, clarified that utilizing the money in Russian-occupied portions of Ukraine would be prohibited due to sanctions. While the exact terms of the agreement between Abramovich and the British government remain undisclosed to the public, Penrose stated that the funds were primarily intended to support those affected by the consequences of the Ukraine war. This could encompass refugees in Europe, as well as the alleviation of food shortages in Africa resulting from disruptions to food supply routes.
In December, Abramovich unsuccessfully contested the European Union's decision to impose a travel ban and freeze his assets in the bloc. The EU accused him of maintaining close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, leading to the sanctions. Analysts suggest that Abramovich has attempted to maintain a delicate balance between Russia and the West by facilitating prisoner exchanges and serving as an approved mediator in negotiations. Tom Keatinge, director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London, explained that Abramovich's position may deter him from allocating all the Chelsea funds within the Ukrainian government's control, potentially conflicting with the Kremlin's interests. However, Penrose refuted these claims, stating that there is no evidence of Abramovich trying to appease the Kremlin with the allocation of funds.
Penrose expressed hopes for a swift resolution and attributed the delay to a bureaucratic impasse, as the U.K. and the European Union had agreed that the funds could only be used within Ukraine. This predicament serves as a case study for Western nations, as they grapple with the challenge of utilizing frozen assets to aid Ukraine. Keatinge believes that a bilateral agreement between Abramovich and the British government could establish a precedent for voluntary donations to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. Lord Ricketts echoed this sentiment and recommended that the U.K. government consider implementing a process to review sanctions against individuals who meet certain conditions, such as supporting the reconstruction of Ukraine.
The dispute over the funding for Ukrainian war victims underscores the complexities faced by Western governments in leveraging frozen assets for the benefit of countries affected by conflict. As efforts continue to resolve this impasse, stakeholders hope for a fair and expeditious resolution that upholds the original commitment to assist those impacted by the war in Ukraine.
