"UKRAINE REPORT-2004"
In-Depth Ukrainian News and Analysis
"The Art of Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World"

"UKRAINE REPORT-2004," Number 13
U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF)
www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service (ARTUIS)
morganw@patriot.net, ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net
Kyiv, Ukraine and Washington, D.C., Sat-Sun, January 24-25, 2004

INDEX OF ARTICLES
[Four Articles for Your Weekend Reading]

1. OUR UKRAINE LEADER VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO
INTERVIEWED ON AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
Interview with Our Ukraine Leader Viktor Yushchenko
By Journalists Lesya Shovkun and Dmytro Lykhoviy
Ukrayina Moloda, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian 5 Jan 04; p 4, 5
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Jan 22, 2004

2. UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH HRYHORIY SURKIS DEFENDS
MOVES TO AMEND CONSTITUTION, URGES CALM
"Medvedchuk always has an option. More than one."
Interview with Hryhoriy Surkis by Yuliya Lymar
www.Glavred.info, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian, 24 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Jan 21, 2004

3. DESPERATE TIMES, DESPERATE MEASURES
The Ukrainian government is trying to rig the rules of the game
ahead of an election it cannot win fairly. Will the people let it?
Ukraine's Presidential Elections
OPINION By Ivan Kolos, Journalist Based in Kyiv
Transitions On Line (TOL), Changes in Post Communist Societies
Prague, Czech Republic, January 23, 2004

4. THOUGHTS OF LIBERATION ON MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
"Ukrainians need someone who will inspire and free them - at last."
OP-ED by Hanya Krill, www.BRAMA.com, Gateway Ukraine
New York, New York, Monday, January 19, 2004
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2004, No. 13: ARTICLE NUMBER ONE
=========================================================
1. OUR UKRAINE LEADER VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO
INTERVIEWED ON AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, is it no longer a secret that you are
expecting a son?

[Yushchenko] That is true. When? When it gets warmer. His name
will be Taras.

Interview with Our Ukraine Leader Viktor Yushchenko
By Journalists Lesya Shovkun and Dmytro Lykhoviy
Ukrayina Moloda, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian 5 Jan 04; p 4, 5
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Jan 22, 2004

The president of Ukraine should be elected by the people, not MPs, the
leader of centre-right opposition bloc Our Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, has
said in a newspaper interview. He harshly criticized proposals to amend the
constitution so that the president could be elected in parliament, saying
that they are aimed at prolonging the current authorities' stay in power.

Defending the opposition's blockade of parliament after propresidential
factions and the Communists voted to support the proposals, Yushchenko said
that "diplomatic" means of political struggle have been exhausted. However,
he questioned the efficiency of street protests and said that a door should
be left open for opponents to join Our Ukraine. Yushchenko also criticized
the 2004 state budget, saying that it could provide the authorities with
secret funds to spend on their candidate's presidential election campaign
later this year.

The following is the text of the interview Yushchenko gave to journalists
Lesya Shovkun and Dmytro Lykhoviy, published by the Ukrainian opposition
newspaper Ukrayina Moloda on 5 January; subheadings have been inserted
editorially:

On a day preceding the last working day of 2003, the leader of [the
centre-right opposition bloc] Our Ukraine [Viktor Yushchenko] came to give
an interview to our newspaper so as to sum up, as it seemed, the final
results of a year-long struggle. Viktor Yushchenko had not yet cooled down
after taking part in the blockade of parliament aimed at countering attempts
to rush the first stage of constitutional reform [which envisages allowing
MPs to elect president] through parliament.

So before he himself cut Our Ukraine's speciality cake, he, in his own way,
had upbraided political reform itself and its initiators. Yet, as it turned
out, even these assessments were not final - our authorities who had
struggle behind the scenes and under the carpet running in their blood
managed to proclaim through the Constitutional Court that [Ukrainian
President Leonid] Kuchma's third term in office was possible. They also
succeeded in installing their own satrap in Our Ukraine's Mukacheve [a town
in Transcarpathian Region] and conducted arrests there... [newspaper
ellipsis]

However, even if he had known about the deeds of "Santa Clauses" from the
presidential administration before the start of the new year, Yushchenko
would have hardly assessed 2003 differently: he is convinced that this game
can be by no means considered to be lost for the opposition, and Yushchenko
has every reason to look to the decisive 2004 [when a presidential election
is scheduled] with unfeigned optimism. His arguments are set out in the
interview.

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, assessments of the year's political results are
closely linked with assessments of the results of a confrontation in the
Supreme Council [parliament] ahead of the new year, in which you were
directly involved as one of opposition leaders. It is said that all things
get to be known in comparison: let us recall last year when nearly at this
time, in December, parliament was engulfed in a crisis related to a
redistribution of top posts in the Supreme Council's committees, and the
opposition scored a victory back then.

This time the [propresidential] majority succeeded in achieving its aim -
the [presidential administration chief Viktor] Medvedchuk-[Communist Party
leader Petro] Symonenko draft law on political reform was passed in the
first reading. Does this mean the authorities mounted an offensive and the
opposition made a step backward?

REASONS FOR OPPOSITION'S BLOCKADE OF PARLIAMENT

[Yushchenko] I believe that by our actions in parliament, including its
blockade, we stood up for values of most Ukrainians. We have exhausted
diplomatic means, other possibilities for compromise we offered until the
morning of 23 December when we agreed to set up a working commission and
nine most polarizing clauses in bill No 4105 should have been considered
without plunging into a parliamentary crisis... [newspaper ellipsis] All of
them were rejected. We had no other means in our arsenal than responding in
a way we were impelled to resort to.

Currently, some call us radicals, others come up with opposite
characteristics, saying that we have been inert and indecisive throughout
the political reform. However, neither is true. We are a healthy political
force that has enough tolerance and willingness to defend values which are
impossible to substitute. And now I am sincere in saying that I applaud my
colleagues who spent the night in parliament when it was blocked, who slept
on the chamber's floor (even without being a member of any party in our
bloc) and silenced majority MPs, as our position required. And I think the
score is neither 0-1 nor 1-1. I am convinced that we are now leading 1-0.

The forces which defended the constitution are, without any doubt, in the
lead. We wanted to say that we would not allow the constitution to be
violated, which is something the authorities wanted to do. If we speak
football language, by our actions we have been able to show the authorities
a yellow card in view of what they are going to do with the reform in the
spring. If the authorities do not understand that our position reflects the
view of a vast majority of Ukrainians, I am sure that as early as March this
will be communicated to them from the street [i.e. using street protests].

[Questioner] It is not the first year that you have been saying things like
"if the authorities do not listen and hear". Kuchma and his entourage have
not become any better in this time and have not made any steps towards
dialogue in society. This makes one question your efforts to appeal to the
street masses in the year 2004, which will be crucial for the presidential
elections. Or do you mean that the Georgian scenario for power change may
be implemented in Ukraine?

[Yushchenko] Would you stop this, this is nonsense. The Yugoslav, Moldovan,
Georgian [scenarios]... [newspaper ellipsis] Friends, do not confuse our
48-million country with others! There is no need for copying. Only a
Ukrainian scenario is possible in Ukraine, without any templates. I realize
which conclusions may be made on the basis of the authorities'
interpretation: let us follow Georgia's suit, engage American
orchestrators... [newspaper ellipsis] God knows at what one can arrive in
such a way. We are organizing our own scenario.

[Questioner] Anyway, what about street rallies?

[Yushchenko] I think in the current circumstances it is impossible to give a
simple answer as to how we can achieve the victory of Ukrainian democracy.
Contrary to all expectations, the street and mass rallies are not a
self-sufficient solution to the situation. Still, politics merely at
parliamentary level are evidently not enough. Yet, probably, even in this
situation we have not exhausted all potential for consolidating some of the
current parliamentary majority around our systematic objectives, which would
change the disposition of forces in the Supreme Council.

STATE BUDGET PROVIDES AUTHORITIES
WITH SECRET ELECTION FUNDS

[Questioner] Nevertheless, to outside observers of parliament, it seems that
in late 2003 the opposition suffered several defeats at once: the Supreme
Council's decision [not to raise] minimum wages, the state budget tailored
for the authorities' election campaign and the political reform's first
stage... [newspaper ellipsis]

[Yushchenko] Did you take note of how the 2004 budget was passed? This is
the first unprecedented occasion when there was no discussion of the budget
in the Supreme Council's chamber. The majority passed a 50-page budget with
violations of the procedure! Today documents with 1,341 changes to the
budget, the one that was approved not long ago, circulate in parliament. And
these proposals with changes are already that thick (Yushchenko indicates a
thickness of four to five centimetres with his fingers - Ukrayina Moloda).
Over the past days I have talked to leaders of nearly all factions of the
majority, except two or three of them, which I believe I have neither sense
nor moral right to approach.

And I said everywhere: fellows, did you ever think about what you voted for?
You agreed to raise a tax on medicines in the health sector, taxes on
education, religious services, public transport, the press and agriculture.
Did you so badly need those 80m hryvnyas [about 15m dollars] to have a
"balanced" budget to which you added an extra deficit of 1bn hryvnyas [about
188.6m dollars]? What did you do this for? At the same time, in terms of
just one macroeconomic indicator, GDP, the budget leaves 2.7bn hryvnyas
[about 509m dollars] unaccounted.

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, but majority MPs give the following explanation:
bill No 4001 which addresses all flaws that crept into the state budget has
not yet been passed only because the opposition has been blocking the
rostrum. In other words, if it had not been for the minority's actions, all
of the flaws would have been already remedied... [newspaper ellipsis]

[Yushchenko] Our position is that everything which has to do with the tax
base should be passed before the budget is approved. The current logic is to
form additional financial reserves, including political reserves, in the
run-up to the election. Currently, unaccounted billions of hryvnyas are
destroying any sort of budgetary accounting culture. What am I driving at?
The 2004 budget was passed as a whole, and in virtually every sphere where
state finances circulate we can anticipate such bedlam that it would be
impossible to assess the logic of such actions. Except political savings for
that very election campaign.

Similarly, it was suggested that the constitutional amendments [envisaging
electing president by parliament] be approved as a whole on 23 December,
without a wide discussion by the public, without parliamentary hearings and
without a nationwide referendum to try and hear popular opinion on the need
for the Supreme Council to elect president. Can you tell me why Ukraine had
to express its opinion at a referendum initiated by the president in 2000,
which dealt with proposals about a bicameral parliament, the number of MPs
and so on?

And now that they want to rob 48m Ukrainians of their right to elect the
head of state, nobody asks them about this either at a referendum or at any
hearings. Why was the tested method of passing the budget copied in
[approving amendments to] the constitution? I think that everything is very
simple. It is due to the fact that the next thing will be voting for
president in the Supreme Council, following exactly the same model. They
might not even mention the name [of the candidate]; they can insert it
later. The most important thing is to vote.

Our behaviour in parliament over these days [i.e. blockade of proceedings]
has led to profound repercussions and discussion of the constitutional
reform even in the majority camp. This will mean a victory if discussion of
such quality goes on until a final decision on the political reform bill is
made in the second reading. I firmly believe that these constitutional
amendments will not be passed.

[Questioner] Could you say why the pro-presidential majority is having a
discussion after the recent vote for the political reform by a show of hands
in the first reading, and in which areas can it make concessions to the
opposition?

[Yushchenko] The most important thing is whether ordinary citizens will
retain the right to elect president.

[Questioner] But majority MPs already voted against this in the first
reading. Why are you so sure they will not vote by a show of hands and legs
in the second reading, especially if pressure is put on them?

[Yushchenko] No, no... [newspaper ellipsis]

DOUBTS ABOUT LEGITIMACY OF VOTE
ON CONSTITUTION REFORM

[Questioner] Or do they regret their voting?

[Yushchenko] Let us make an analysis: all will depend on the number of votes
for the second reading of the draft law on constitutional amendments. Along
with this, a package will necessarily include a proportional system of
parliamentary elections. If all these are taken into consideration, I am
convinced that the result, the number of majority votes, will be
considerably lower. The authorities themselves do not understand that the
course they chose in the first reading is already greatly erroneous. There
was a great desire to come up with the result close to 300 yes-votes, the
constitutional majority, as early as late 2003 to make this number put
psychological pressure on MPs. Yet there were not enough loyalists and
satellites.

Even the majority is beginning to debate the political reform's legal
dimension, and appropriate appeals to the Constitutional Court will be filed
in the next few days. Purely technical issues may arise, including the
question about whether it was 214 or 219 (with corrections in view of
statements by people who said they had not put their signatures) MPs who had
put their signatures in support of the vote by a show of hands. The
procedure was violated, there is no doubt about that. Was a counting
commission working in the chamber when the speaker spoke of something from a
technical area? Certainly not. How many hands did majority MPs raise when
they voted for the political reform? Where are written minutes? As regards
the available minutes, do they satisfy the authors of this scenario? Again,
I will emphasize that at this stage the authors have not been able to
achieve their aim. This is a fact.

Second, there was no meaningful debate. Our opponents attempted to avoid
public discussion of the constitutional reform in parliament. For in this
case a question could have been posed: Leonid Makarovych (Kravchuk, the
leader of the [propresidential] United Social Democratic Party of Ukraine
faction - Ukrayina Moloda), is parliament's decision to abolish the election
of president by popular vote legitimate? Is it lawful to force us to view
this issue in this light? I am convinced that if society had heard this
discussion, if it had been possible to get unambiguous information
everywhere on why both sides in the conflict fought each other, why the
opposition was blocking the chamber day and night, what the point of this
noisy confrontation was, the situation would look different.

The point was either to leave 36m adults their right to elect president or
to leave them without it. It is important for this discussion to turn into
public debate, and we demand that a series of televised debates should be
held on this issue. We wrote letters to every TV channel, the majority and
every faction, but so far they have not responded.

[Questioner] But the "public discussion" is already going on: the
presidential administration and parliament keep on receiving letters from
citizens and groups of workers who resent the actions by the opposition,
demanding that MPs should stop this disgrace and resume "normal work"...
[newspaper ellipsis]

[Yushchenko] Yes, these things happen. Also, as is known, the presidential
administration ordered local administrations to hold civil forums to discuss
the political reform. People to take part in demonstrations are being
brought to Kiev... [newspaper ellipsis] You know, I personally support
this - let more people come to the capital. The same thing will happen to
them as to the miners who were brought to Kiev to oppose the opposition,
which was preventing the parliamentary majority from approving the 2004
budget. Back then not one person from the majority had any moral right to
approach these miners and explain why they were supposed to act in that way.

Incidentally, we achieved mutual understanding: I talked to representatives
of all 15 mines and explained Our Ukraine's position on the government's cut
in minimum wages and the criminal appetites regarding the coal sector. You
know, those miners gave me a helmet as a gift, and on behalf of the Supreme
Council we brought them sandwiches and bought a hundred of Kievskyy cakes
for their trip back home. Now if energy and transport workers are brought
from Donetsk, as is promised, we will persuade them, too.

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, a year ago you said it was hard to play chess
when the authorities played against you without rules. It is doubtful that
in the new year the authorities are going to play differently, agree to
televised debates or make any other democratic concessions. On the contrary,
the authorities are most likely to resort to any means to achieve their aim
and approve the version of the reform which the presidential administration
needs, to hold an election campaign with the help of force and unlimited
administrative resources.

You are talking about a "Ukrainian scenario" according to which the
opposition will act next year. It is curios whether you see 2004 as a year
of a democratic (on the part of the opposition) campaign like 2002, as a
year of work with some of majority MPs in the Supreme Council to form a
democratic majority on the basis of Our Ukraine, or as a year of opposition
rallies? What role will the street have in all this?

OPPOSITION SHOULD UNITE
RATHER THAN STAGE PROTESTS

[Yushchenko] Let us look at the street and the potential of street protests.
What do you think "the street" means in Ukrainian, in particular, Kiev's
terms? How many people will respond to our call to join demonstrations, and
what and how will they achieve?

I want to emphasize that we should set only attainable goals for ourselves.
The opposition has no right to create some sort of Fata Morgana for itself.
If the goal is not achieved, this might be very dangerous to democratic
forces. As it was, for example, in the case of the Kaniv Four [failed
opposition alliance at the 1999 presidential elections]. Or as it was in the
case of the "Arise, Ukraine!" campaign [antipresidential street protests in
2002-2003]. I can cite a lot of examples which vividly prove one should
discern genuine politics and politicking. So the street is not sufficient,
if essential, component of the opposition's true victories.

[Questioner] So first of all you place great hopes on the regrouping of
forces in parliament in favour of the opposition ... [newspaper ellipsis]

[Yushchenko] When we talk about different scenarios, I want to point out
again that no preliminary approval of the constitutional amendments took
place in parliament. In this case one cannot even talk about a Pyrrhic
victory by majority MPs because total falsification, absolute disregard of
the procedure and, at the same time, fairly unimpressive results suggest
that already at the first stage the authorities encountered serious problems
in carrying out their plan. On the other hand, in the last few days of
December you witnessed a drastically new consolidation of the three
[opposition] political forces, Our Ukraine, the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc and
the Socialist Party.

We spoke of a single logic of political actions and goals. No public
statements in such a context had been made before. We have already set up
six working groups and an organizational committee of representatives of the
three parties and factions, the aim of which was to develop tactics and
strategy for joint activities.

[Questioner] Do you mean a unification of the opposition, among other
things, with the [2004 presidential] election in mind?

[Yushchenko] Yes, joint activities which will also include electoral
activities. Yet for a start it is necessary to work at formalizing relations
within parliament. Just as I am talking to you here, these groups are
working on how to devise a legal mechanism for responding to what happened
in the chamber on 23 December [the day before the constitutional reform bill
was approved in first reading] and how to involve a law court of general
jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court and other courts, etc. Another
coordinating group is charged with providing information.

So in a few days you will witness the three opposition forces' joint
informational response (in different forms) to a forced launch of the
political reform in the Supreme Council. There is also a group which
develops organizational activities in parliament and certain political
actions outside it. We had not previously talked so seriously about this.
But there is no need to feel sorry about this because everything is good in
its season. What is supposed to happen in political processes, has happened:
some political forces go separate ways, other forces leave some episodes of
their relations with allies behind them.

In a word, time sorts things out. I am convinced that the next stage will be
to form the opposition's common strategy for the presidential elections.
This will include a joint programme for the single candidate from the
"troika" [i.e. Our Ukraine, the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc and the Socialist
Party]. But we are still speaking of this without specific names.

RELATIONS WITH COMMUNISTS STRAINED
AFTER CONSTITUTIONAL VOTE

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, how do you now view relations with the
Communists? Is cooperation impossible after they voted together with the
majority [in favour of the constitutional reform bill]? Did you discuss this
issue with Symonenko?

[Yushchenko] Frankly speaking, communication is very hard. At the level of
leaders of factions we had met just two weeks before the vote on the
constitutional amendments. Certainly, this vote significantly complicated
our relations. But I, of course, will attempt to continue cooperation with
those Communists who did not vote for the constitutional amendments. Why
should I not applaud these 10 people? Even if they did not say it in public,
they found the strength simply not to turn up at the session and not to
raise their hands disgracefully together with majority MPs!

How can we "fail to see" those people? I am convinced that rank-and-file
Communists and their supporters do not back the policies of the leadership
of both the faction and the party concerning the changes defended by the
leadership along with oligarchs. The Communist Party of Ukraine leaders'
alliance with the presidential administration discredits this political
force because their bond is not working in Ukraine's interests.

You know, over the three days preceding 23 December I myself walked probably
more than a hundred kilometres in the chamber. I talked to tens of MPs who
were in other factions which are politically different from us. And some
two-thirds of them expressed support for the opposition's actions in
private. Patting my shoulder, they said: "hold on for two more days, you are
doing the right thing!" One cannot apply the same standard to all people
because some of them have already gone through slavery, others are only
approaching the line when they can throw off the yoke.

Why should I not respect Oleksandr Zinchenko (deputy parliamentary speaker -
Ukrayina Moloda), a man who after that damn vote on 23 December [as
published. The Ukrainian parliament gave initial approval to the bill on
amendments to the Ukrainian constitution on 24 December - see
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0905 gmt 24 Dec 03.] came to
our faction's meeting and, without sitting down, said "Mr Yushchenko, I
distance myself from the disgrace that happened here. I am quitting the
majority because this humiliates me as a person." Such a stance is
honourable and laudable. Nor did [propresidential People's Democratic Party
MP] Lyudmyla Suprun sign [a motion to vote by a show of hands], although we
had had a debate with her. Some members of the Agrarian Party faction did
not sign it either. They spoke so rightly that probably some of the
opposition had greater flaws in assessing the political reform than the
Agrarians did.

For this reason I tell my fellows: whether you use a megaphone, occupy the
rostrum, walk in the chamber or put up posters, do not let things happen
that can personally humiliate our potential allies in the current majority.
Do not position yourselves as their enemies. They might become wiser in the
evening, and in the morning they will join us. We should leave the door open
because some of them are like with so-called "late ignition". Especially,
when everybody knows that dissidents come under outrageous pressure.

For example, seven criminal cases have been initiated against [Our Ukraine
MP and head of the parliamentary Budget Committee Petro] Poroshenko's people
by now, warrants have been issued, compromising material has been put
stealthily in their flats despite the fact that court rulings are in our
favour. By his decisions the president is deliberately erecting barriers to
foreign investment - this is unheard-of! Where else does something like this
happen? In addition, one should be morally prepared for such pressure...
[newspaper ellipsis]

[Questioner] We were talking about the Communists. Do you think it was right
for [Our Ukraine MP Volodymyr] Stretovych to splash water onto Symonenko on
23 December?

[Yushchenko] You know, I did not see this, so I cannot say.

[Questioner] But do you condemn this action against the Communist chief?

[Yushchenko] Next question, please... [newspaper ellipsis] However, I can
say that something looks really surprising to me in the Communists'
position. I am not talking about financial motives of their accord with the
authorities. Taken into account, this makes things look very simple. I am
not going to rub their nose in this. But political life will become more
democratic, the economy will grow, citizens will enjoy proper social
security, law will reign supreme and freedom of speech will flourish only
when society will have a choice.

The Communists should understand this. If there is no choice and no
transparency, the authorities hands will always tend to be involved in
biased distribution. A country where the level of democracy is low will
never reach high social standards. This is the ABC of politics, the
umbilical cord which does not need to be discussed. The acting authorities
can only win if they act behind the scenes, and the latest actions by the
Communists help them in this.

We said a long time ago that if the reform takes place before October 2004
[when the presidential election is scheduled], this will be a reform in
accordance with the scenario devised by Kuchma and his administration. I am
sure that other options are impossible, including the naive hopes cherished
by certain political forces to use the amendments to the constitution in
their own interests.

As regards the Communists' readiness to reach accords, I will say once
again: only part of the Communist Party, some of the party leadership, are
willing to renounce the people's key right, the right to choose. It is these
people to whom interests of the country and the entire community are alien.
This is apparently some kind of pathology that has to do with various ugly
circumstances.

[Questioner] Do you think they were just bought?

[Yushchenko] Maybe. It is hard to understand why they are virtually giving
the ruling regime a mandate to rule on. You ask why we cannot form a union
with the Communist Party... [newspaper ellipsis] You will agree that our
forces have totally different values. If we can have the same attitude to
the current authorities, something else will come up sooner or later: what
sort of future country and system of power are we talking about? When the
constitutional reform is mentioned, this actually has to do with the second

issue.

Our dialogue with both the Socialists and the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc is
successful on this issue. But the Communists' position regarding the model
for political reform is an answer to the question on how to keep the current
authorities in power, rather than build a different Ukraine with a different
state system. It is necessary to take note of the fact that we are only 10
months away from the presidential election; the issue of choice in our
debate becomes increasingly more important.

It is necessary to take into account the fact that the position and
behaviour of the Communists, who stand little chance of winning [the
election], will have a greatly determine who will have the advantage in the
election campaign, a representative of the opposition or a representative of
the current authorities. That is why we signed protocols with Symonenko
(within the framework of "the four" - Ukrayina Moloda). By now we, on our
part, have done our best to continue to search for compromise so that we
would not have to reproach ourselves for missed opportunities.

It is necessary to note that by voting on 23 December the Communists
unilaterally broke our previous agreement. This appears to be more
beneficial for them. Yet, after all, the Communists are far from being a
single actor. They have different shades of colour, and we do not shut the
door before them.

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, what did you talk about at a meeting between the
opposition leaders and ambassadors of Western states which took place after
the vote on the political reform in the Supreme Council? Who initiated this
meeting?

[Yushchenko] We proceeded from the fact that Ukraine had certain
international commitments, was a member of the Council of Europe, the UN and
so on, so it should strictly observe rights and freedoms of its citizens.
One of the fundamental civil rights is the electoral right. We are
thoroughly convinced that 23 December was an attempt at undemocratic
revision of the Ukrainian constitution to curtail Ukrainians' rights and
freedoms. As the opposition faces an information blockade, we attempted to
communicate our vision of this problem, virtually the first stage of a coup
d'etat, to Western observers.

We organized a sort of a round table, invited legal experts and sent a
signal to the international community. This idea was suggested by the
leaders of the three factions, [Yuliya] Tymoshenko, [Socialist MP Yosyp]
Vinskyy and Yushchenko. We met some 15 ambassadors. However, to avoid
unnecessary rumours, I should stress that the problems in Ukraine should be
resolved only by Ukrainians. And the world ought to know what is going on
here. As could be seen, there is already a response from abroad, in
particular the Polish president made a relevant statement on Ukraine's
political reform... [newspaper ellipsis]

PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE

[Questioner] Not long ago the campaign "Popular president for Ukraine!"
ended. It was organized by your bloc to collect signatures for electing the
head of state in 2004 by a popular vote. The person in charge of this
campaign, [Our Ukraine MP] Taras Stetskiv, said that it was only the first
stage and that the next stage would depend on the results of the political
reform in parliament. The majority voted [on it]. What is the future destiny
of Our Ukraine's campaign? Could a nationwide referendum be its
continuation?

[Yushchenko] Yes, we pursue this goal, and we believe it to be part and
parcel of the next stage of the constitutional reform's possible
implementation. The form and time of the referendum depends on legal
experts. At any rate, this campaign will make it possible to form a cleaner
and fairer playing field for the presidential elections. And I am certain
that if the election campaign is held in a democratic and transparent way,
Ukraine will get a president elected from the democratic forces.

We believe the "Popular president for Ukraine!" campaign is successful
because over a few weeks 3.3m signatures were collected. At the same time,
the authorities did not issue a single call for a discussion of these issues
on the social level - people themselves decided to express their own
position on how the head of state should be elected. Such an in-depth
understanding of the existing problem by voters delights me. So I conclude
it will not be hard for us to collect as many or even more signatures in
support of the referendum by engaging the coalition partners and public
organizations.

We are currently in a situation when the Ukrainian constitution should be
defended from its guarantor [i.e. president], the Constitutional Court and
the parliamentary majority. I think that it is absolutely realistic to hold
the referendum. Lawyers already made conclusions on this case, and experts
who carried out previous stages of the campaign are already prepared to
launch further organizational activities.

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, you have already mentioned some flaws in the
passing of the 2004 budget and tax "mines" planted in it. Some of them
immediately affect us, in particular the introduction of a 20-per-cent VAT
on the press. If this tax is not abolished (the government is considering
this proposal), times will be hard for newspapers, especially independent
newspapers. Are there any grounds to hope that parliament will vote to amend
to the budget?

[Yushchenko] First of all, I want to say this to those who accuse the
opposition of blocking these amendments: come to your senses, this bill No
4000-1 was not passed because there was a battle for the Ukrainian
constitution in the Supreme Council, and we could not retreat! I am showing
you, this time not with my fingers, stacks of papers (he takes out files of
different sizes, one of them is thin, the other is about four centimetres
thick - Ukrayina Moloda). The thin one is the budget which the authorities
passed without discussing a single article.

It is the way the budget was passed, not the actions by the opposition, that
should cause resentment, because this decision determined the budget's
quality for the whole year. Three weeks passed, and we received this huge
stack of papers proposing changes to the budget. This bill contains 1,341
amendments! Who could say after this that we are a European country, not a
cooperative?! The same majority MPs who voted for the 2004 state budget
without any discussion are now proposing the changes.

They made a poor job of it, and now they want to make the changes. These
nearly 1,500 amendments bypassed the Budget Committee, and the decision on
them was made only at a meeting of majority MPs. Now try to separate viable
and constructive proposals from the Mafia's criminal ideas, which by no
means should be allowed, in bill No 4000-1!

[Questioner] Will the Supreme Council be able to vote in the first half of
January after the Budget Committee considers and separates these proposals?
[Yushchenko] Yes. That is what we suggest.

[Questioner] Does this mean the opposition will stop blocking parliament in
this session's last week?

[Yushchenko] You understand that blocking is not the only way to organize
the Supreme Council's work and defend our positions. (While answering this
question, Yushchenko took a bottle of glue and glued together pages of the
budget he has just demonstrated, "for history" - Ukrayina Moloda)

PERSONAL

[Questioner] Mr Yushchenko, is it no longer a secret that you are expecting
a son?

[Yushchenko] That is true. When? When it gets warmer. His name will be
Taras.

[Questioner] What would you like to wish yourself in 2004? How and where
would you like to spend New Year's Eve?

[Yushchenko] (Laughing) Now, I would not like to say something boring, in
the light of political interests. Believe me, I live a happy life, and I am
satisfied with it. I stand up for my own values, those things that are
worth, in my view, struggling for. First of all, I am convinced that one
should wish Ukraine the victory of democracy. Only then is general progress
possible. This should be done by our generation which faces a time of
challenge. Only in this way will this generation get a chance to realize
itself. And this is just one field which calls upon me, which makes me stay
in this damn politics, such a complex yet intellectual arena, from morning
till night.

There is also another sphere. I am convinced that most of us perceive a
better tomorrow through a sense of our families. Each of us is a father or a
mother, a son or a daughter. We go to work to return in the evening, being a
better and more harmonious person than we were in the morning. Only fools
remain the same as they were yesterday. So when we speak about wishes, I
mean harmony. May we have a burning candle, which would show our undivided
soul and the existing faith that gives strength.

Of course, the year 2004 is a year of special challenges and great hopes.
Talking about politics, the presidential elections, I am convinced that the
democratic team will win the election. No matter how hard this election will
be, people cannot be cheated any more, they will not make a mistake. And the
free press, newspapers such as Ukrayina Moloda which has an increasing
circulation, will help with this.

I am happy that you are the way you are and that your convictions do not
allow you to step aside from the path of objectivity. If Mykhaylo Ivanovych
(Doroshenko, Ukrayina Moloda's editor - Ukrayina Moloda) pours a glass for
me, I will toast to happiness in your profession and families for many years
to come.

[Questioner] At this point the interview gradually turned into a friendly
pouring of champagne and eating of a horse-shoe-shaped chocolate cake with
the words "To happiness! To fortune! To success!" written in cream, which
Yushchenko had brought. (END) (ARTUIS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/yushchenko13.htm
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2004, No. 12: ARTICLE NUMBER TWO
=========================================================
2. UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH HRYHORIY SURKIS DEFENDS
MOVES TO AMEND CONSTITUTION, URGES CALM
"Medvedchuk always has an option. More than one."

Interview with Hryhoriy Surkis by Yuliya Lymar
www.Glavred.info , Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian, 24 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Jan 21, 2004

KYIV...........Ukraine needs to amend its constitution and reduce
presidential powers in order to improve its EU accession prospects,
influential propresidential MP and mogul Hryhoriy Surkis has said in a rare
interview with a web site. Defending a controversial move by progovernment
and Communist MPs to allow holding presidential elections in parliament,
Surkis said no pressure had been put on MPs and accused the opposition of
boorishness and attempting to disrupt political life in Ukraine.

Surkis, who is a senior member of the United Social Democratic Party of
Ukraine, also praised party leader and presidential administration chief
Viktor Medvedchuk as a professional and transparent official. Looking
towards the 2004 presidential election, Surkis urged Ukrainians to stay calm
and avoid events such as those which led to the resignation of Georgian
President Shevardnadze.

The following is the text of the interview Surkis gave to journalist Yuliya
Lymar, published on the Ukrainian Glavred website on 24 December 2003;
subheadings have been inserted editorially:

Hryhoriy Surkis frequently uses the expression "within the limits". "Within
the limits of democracy", "within the limits of professional obligations",
"within the limits of European integration"...[website ellipsis]

It is quite amusing to hear such words from a man whom many people in
politics believe to be a "man without limits". Indeed, it is extremely
difficult to appraise the extent of Hryhoriy Surkis' influence on [head of
the presidential administration and leader of the United Social Democratic
Party of Ukraine, USDP, of which Surkis is a member] Viktor Medvedchuk, and
through him on everything that goes on in this country. However, this
influence should not be overestimated. After all, for the most part the
leaders of the Social Democrats are fairly predictable: they want power. Or
even more power. And they use any methods they like to achieve their dreams.

Is he a stereotype? Possibly. There is nobody, arguably, who can explain why
people think not just badly, but very badly about the United Social
Democratic Party of Ukraine. It is probably not a matter of political or
ideological categories here, rather of biblical ones. In any event, I was
not thinking about political reform [proposed by President Leonid Kuchma],
or about good and evil, when I looked into the wide, open and unblinking
eyes of Mr Surkis.

UKRAINE NEEDS POLITICAL REFORM

[Lymar] Mr Surkis, what, in your view, were the precise agreements that
enabled the political reform [bill] to pass its first reading? [The bill,
which envisages electing president in parliament in 2006, was approved
during a controversial vote by a show of hands, boycotted by opposition MPs.
The opposition has been blocking parliamentary proceedings in protest
against the vote.]

[Surkis] They were not agreements, it was a question of will.

[Lymar] Late yesterday evening some politicians among the [propresidential
parliamentary] majority in the corridors of power claimed that they wouldn't
be able to get more than 210 votes [in support of the reform bill]. Is that
true?

[Surkis] No, of course not. What does "claimed in the corridors" mean? The
voting proved everything. From the outset it was understood that voting in
that situation could only be done through the ballot box, by a show of
hands, and not by pressing buttons.

[Lymar] Why on Tuesday [23 December, the day before the vote on the
constitutional reform bill] did some members of the USDP not appear at the
parliamentary session on time, aware that it would be a crucial vote? Does
this mean that not everyone even in your faction wanted to support the
changes to the constitution?

[Surkis] Who told you that not all of our people were there in the morning?

[Lymar] This shows in the registration of deputies which closed at 1000
[0800 gmt], before the opening of the session.

[Surkis] Well, they came a bit later, so what?

[Lymar] The opposition more than once said that pressure was being put on
majority MPs, forcing them to vote for political reform. Are you aware of
this?

[Surkis] No, of course not.

[Lymar] You can guarantee there was no pressure?

[Surkis] I don't just guarantee, but in my opinion every MP today is an
individual who can speak for himself. There is no need to put pressure on
him. Nor do you need to put pressure on me. Anyone who wants to try will get
a firm rebuff. I am sure we are all politically aware. What we need to do is
not play around but to get stuck into the political reform.

[Lymar] Some analysts claim that Viktor Medvedchuk now finds himself hostage
to the situation. Because the draft bill passed its first reading in a way
which is, to put it mildly, unsightly. In other words, if the legitimacy of
the vote is not endorsed by the signatures, then blockage of political
reform will reflect on Viktor Medvedchuk's career as head of the
presidential administration. Don't you agree?

[Surkis] Basically, I think that you are asking me a question in which
everything is mixed up. Viktor Medvedchuk, as one of the leaders of the
United Social Democratic Party and ideology in our country, is undoubtedly
standing up for political reform. It's all set out in the party statute:
proportional elections, a reduction in the powers of the president. The
horizontal structure parliament-government-president is not working very
effectively in today's climate.

I believe that wherever Viktor Medvedchuk worked he would never depart from
those principles, or that platform on which the party stands. And if you are
talking objectively, then I think that the leaders of other parties carry
less responsibility for adopting or not adopting political reform. The
country needs reform. European politics has shown that a country where power
is concentrated in one person's hands has no chance of moving swiftly
towards European integration.

If we want today to be within the limits of integration into Europe we must
bring our legislation into line with theirs. And therefore, adoption or
non-adoption of the reform has nothing at all to do with Medvedchuk's
office. He would push through reform in whatever post.

SOCIAL DEMOCRATS HAVE NO LEADERSHIP PROBLEM

[Lymar] Journalists have christened Medvedchuk an "anticrisis manager". Do
you see this as a compliment or an insult?

[Surkis] The journalists are wrong, and particularly in this: Viktor
Medvedchuk is a professional, with a capital "P". He is prepared to fight
not in words but in deeds to improve the welfare of our fellow citizens. I
say again - in deeds. Viktor Medvedchuk is one of the few - I say this
again - who is absolutely transparent. At the beginning of the 1990s, within
the limits of competition, within the limits of his professional
obligations, he earned money, paid taxes and declared his income. And all
this was absolutely transparent and honest. And this is not because he is my
friend and colleague, but because he's like that. There is form and there is
content.

And Medvedchuk is what I am telling you, in both form and content. As for
being crisis or anticrisis, I believe he is the kind of manager of which
there are very few in our country. We need to find a lot more like him. And
I am convinced that our country's future lies with people like him. It's a
pity there aren't dozens of Medvedchuks in Ukraine.

[Lymar] USDP members are always insisting that party construction is their
priority task. With this in mind, is there anyone to replace Medvedchuk, a
second generation of leaders, perhaps?

[Surkis] I have but one question for you: what do you mean by a "replacement
for Medvedchuk"? Is he in a mausoleum or something? Should we be laying
flowers on his grave? Or perhaps he's in a vault already?

[Lymar] That's not what I mean. What I'm trying to say is that the USDP is a
one-man party.

[Surkis] No. Take Volodymyr Volodymyrovych Zayets, a member of the party
politburo [and an MP]. I know him as a friend and I consider him to be one
of our leaders. He is bright, professional, and unlike many MPs today he has
decency, honour, morality and ethics, which any normal politician ought to
have. But if someone grabs the microphone out of the speaker's hand then he
is demonstrating his culture, or rather lack of it and his lack of
tolerance. That doesn't impress me.

What do you expect from a leader? If you mean leadership where you spit in
someone's face, then I have to say that there are fewer leaders in our
faction than in [centre-right opposition bloc] Our Ukraine.

[Lymar] No, I mean something else. Would you interpret the nomination of
Nestor Shufrych [as replacement for current deputy parliamentary speaker
Oleksandr Zinchenko, after the latter quit USDP] as a personnel crisis?

[Surkis] No way! But if Shufrych is trying to say that Medvedchuk is outside
parliament, is dealing with work, then fine! Leonid Makarovych Kravchuk
[leader of the USDP faction in parliament and Ukraine's first president
after it gained independence from the USSR] is a handsome, grey-haired man,
with whom our country's independence is linked, and if it weren't for his
decisiveness, we wouldn't know in what kind of state we were living in.

We would still be living in the Soviet Union, and we wouldn't even be having
these, to put it mildly, not very ethical altercations between various
groupings in parliament, or rather between the opposition and the
non-opposition.

[Lymar] Let's go back to your thesis about European integration. This
process, apart from political reform, requires first and foremost, the
democratization of society, and a solution to the problem of free speech.

[Surkis] Well, here I am talking to you! They say that in our country,
unlike others, there is no opposition media, and that all opposition and
independent press is trampled on here. Well, excuse me, there is far more
opposition press here than there is in Russia or America and many European
countries. Because the principles on which our opposition press is built
differ in many ways. These principles are boorishness and abuse.

You ask me the question: "Medvedchuk - is he an anticrisis manager or not?"
This again shows a lack of understanding that a man is doing his job. The
president offered him a job and he took it. But he (Medvedchuk - Glavred) is
a reliable and consistent worker. And whether you like it or not, and that
goes for the rest too, we are always hearing from the president's lips that
he is perfectly satisfied with Medvedchuk's work.

If he wasn't, he would get rid of him. And this would have nothing to do
whether Medvedchuk had carried through the reform or not. It is we, the MPs,
who will carry forward the reform. And Medvedchuk is in his office in the
president's administration and will take no part whatsoever in our heated
battles.

[Lymar] None at all?

[Surkis] Naturally, within the limits of the party's ideology and
philosophy, we will listen and act according to what our leader believes. We
have a democratic debate at plenums and congresses. If Medvedchuk suggests a
philosophy to us, and it is approved by the majority, then it will be
approved by everyone.

[Lymar] Let's turn to democratic debate. Oleksandr Zinchenko quit because of
a lack of it.

[Surkis] Nobody drove him out of the party. Mr Zinchenko, before he had
issued a statement, was not removed from the office of first deputy chairman
of the party and was not removed from the office of member of the politburo.
That shows our system, our logic. It's a pity other parties don't have the
same logic. In my view, what the opposition is showing today is disreputable
boorishness and lack of culture. All they have to do now is to arrange
harmonica dances in the presidium.

CALM NEEDED, NOT REBELLION

[Lymar] Mr Surkis, you accuse the opposition of a lack of culture, but
yesterday you yourself had a go at MP [Leonid] Chernovetskyy.

[Surkis] I'm sorry, these are quite different things. You are getting
confused. It was I - Surkis - who was insulted. Surkis, whether he is
wearing a tie, tracksuit, or shorts, if he is insulted, he will try and give
a worthy response. That is why I merely allowed myself to give a proper
response to someone who insulted me. No more, no less. This has nothing to
do with all the nonsense that is going on in parliament methods [the
opposition has been blocking parliamentary proceedings in protest against
the vote which approved the constitutional reform bill in first reading].
That's not politics. It's common lack of respect. I am just an ordinary
person.

Anyone else in my place would have bitten their tongue and said "thank you".
I acted like a man. He threw an insult at me, purely and simply. And what
happened on the platform, and under it, has no place in a normal, civilized
parliament. Because if the opposition had had 226 votes, it would have been
their right to change the presidium and the committee chairmen, and within
the limits of political competence to alter the structure of power in the
country or try to. But since there are no such forces among the opposition
they are using illogical.

They have the cheek to claim that the whole people will permit or will not
permit changes to the constitution. Who do they think they are that they can
speak for the whole people? I will not speak for the whole people, I can
only answer for myself. There is a concept of democratic centralism which is
this: uphold your own point of view as much as you wish, but if a decision
is adopted, be so kind as to carry it out.

[Lymar] [Propresidential political analyst] Mykhaylo Pohrebynskyy made the
point that at the 2004 elections [popular Our Ukraine leader Viktor]
Yushchenko, with the popularity that he enjoys, would not necessarily win.
At the same time some opposition members claim that political reform will
enhance Yushchenko 's chances of winning in 2004, and, accordingly, winning
at the parliamentary elections in 2006 and Yushchenko's new election in
parliament. That is one of the opposition's plans. But what is the USDP's
plan?

[Surkis] The USDP's plan is, first of all, not to comment on the remarks by
the political and social scientist Pohrebynskyy. It may be said today that
if the majority of members of parliament believe it is possible to change
the powers of the authority, then within the limits of these changes we are
not looking so far ahead as they [the opposition] are. Nobody can give any
guarantees to anyone as to who will be president in 2004, let alone
president in 2006. Something else is important.

It is important that nobody in this country tries to take out revenge on the
streets, or to do this in parliament like today.

Revenge must be taken within the limits of normal procedures, through the
presidential elections in 2004. It is within the limits of the new president
to prove to the whole country that your philosophy is normal, that you can
form a cabinet of ministers in the normal way and create a strong team. The
president still has a great many powers to enable him, first and foremost,
to switch from declarations and populism to deeds. We need not only promises
but fulfilment of those promises. I am prepared to support just such a
power.

But if Our Ukraine consists of people who hold different views, are they
absolutely within the limits of different ethnic relations? They may be
Ukrainians, Russians, or "ethnic minorities". If such a great [Our Ukraine]
MP as [Yevhen] Chervonenko, with a Ukrainian family, but essentially a Jew,
who is called a "yid" behind his back, if this suits him, then let them be
like that. But I am a Jew and proud of it. I believe that today we must all
calm down a bit. Because in this country all our grandfathers fought
together, our fathers are buried in this land, and we must all settle our
differences together for the sake of civil peace.

[Lymar] Are you hinting at the possibility of [someone taking power] by
force?

[Surkis] I am talking about the crowd, because it can sweep away those who
incite it to rebellion and those against whom this rebellion is directed.
Things will get out of hand. This is a law vacuum which will lead to
nothing. I don't believe that the events which happened in Georgia speak of
a civilized country. People simply behaved badly in relation to the man who
taught them, who set them on a true path - I mean president [Eduard]
Shevardnadze. They forgot everything that this man did for them.

I think he could have left his office and that would be that. You don't have
a revolution so that one man sacrifices not his own life but that of others.
A revolutionary must understand that one of his relatives could quite
accidentally pass through this crowd and suffer. So, if they (the
opposition - Glavred) are responsible and think that their kith and kin
could suffer, then they won't take this step. And what's the difference
between a mob, which is on the street, and those who will suffer under the
wheels of cars and will be crushed by that crowd?

[Lymar] Are these threats?

[Surkis] No, this is what the crowd is like. I didn't say anything about the
army, the air force or the navy, or about the law-enforcement system. I was
telling you that a crowd, even at a stadium, has the ability to force one
another to panic. So I wouldn't want that to happen. Because an aggressive
environment eats away everything.

SOCIAL DEMOCRATS SEEK DIALOGUE WITH OPPONENTS

[Lymar] You touched upon the subject of the power structures. In this
connection I have a question: can it be said today that the USDP has built a
state within a state? I have in mind the record number of heads of
administration at all levels, your party members.

[Surkis] That's not true. It is true that if there are in the USDP or any
other party qualified people who are able to take on responsibility, then
they should be in this or that post. Moreover, the USDP has always
demonstrated its ability and desire not only to find a common language with
its opponents, but within the majority, too, it has always said: "If you
don't have your own specialist - say, for the post of deputy prime minister
for energy- then we will support someone from the team of our majority
partners".

[Lymar] You mean [Deputy Prime Minister] Andriy Klyuyev [although his post
is part of the USDP's quota of cabinet portfolios, the party supported the
appointment of Klyuyev, who is thought to be close to the USDP's rivals, the
Donetsk group].

[Surkis] It is important that he should be a professional and can meet the
requirements of the energy sector. If that is so, we are happy. If not, not
only we, but the prime minister himself will initiate his resignation.

[Lymar] Would you agree with the opinion that the Social Democrats are
constantly grabbing the Donetsk people and making them their own? I'm
talking about [Prosecutor-General, formerly Donetsk Region Prosecutor]
Henadiy Vasylyev, for example.

[Surkis] Listen, my dear, you seem to want to juggle with the facts. I
didn't say that the Social Democrats are taking people away. I said that we
have given our quota to partners in the majority. Andriy Klyuyev was in the
majority, and his candidature was proposed to us as a man who could cope
with the industry. But he is not a member of the USDP, just as [former
Deputy Prime Minister] Vitaliy Hayduk is not a member of our faction,
although he had worked in this post for more than a year. [Transport
Minister Heorhiy] Kyrpa, who occupies our quota, is not a member of the
USDP. But nobody can say that he is unprofessional or a poor minister. If
only we had dozens of such ministers, people who can switch from strategy
and tactics to realization.

[Lymar] As a colleague and friend, what do you see as the height of Viktor
Medvedchuk's political career?

[Surkis] Viktor is a very talented and capable man, and without any
prompting from me he will decide which way to move to fulfill his potential.
As a friend, colleague and partner, I see him in a post which will be
absolutely suited to his tasks.

[Lymar] Does he have an option?

[Surkis] Medvedchuk always has an option. More than one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/surkis.htm
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2004, No. 12: ARTICLE NUMBER THREE
=========================================================
3. DESPERATE TIMES, DESPERATE MEASURES
The Ukrainian government is trying to rig the rules of the game
ahead of an election it cannot win fairly. Will the people let it?

Ukraine's Presidential Elections
OPINION By Ivan Kolos, Journalist Based in Kyiv
Transitions On Line (TOL), Changes in Post Communist Societies
Prague, Czech Republic, January 23, 2004

Just when you thought that what passes for politics in Ukraine could not
possibly get any uglier, Ukraine's politicians are happy to prove you wrong.

The farcical "public debate" fabricated by President Leonid Kuchma's
administration last year to endorse its constitutional amendments was bad
enough. But the unceremonious defenestration last month of the proposals the
government went to such unscrupulous lengths to sell shows that maintaining
a democratic veneer is sliding fast down the list of Kuchma's priorities.

No amount of spin could explain why the bill ostensibly (if quite
unbelievably) reflecting the people's will was drastically changed at the
last
moment without any pretence of public consultation. And no amount of
pseudo-reformist claptrap can obscure the fact that the revised proposals,
which received preliminary approval in parliament on 24 December, would
strip Ukrainians of their last real opportunity to hold the government to
account by directly electing the president.

There is even the smack of desperation about the Constitutional Court's
decision, on 30 December, to let Kuchma have another go at the presidency.
Kuchma is due to step down this year after the end of his second and final
term in office; the court removed this obstacle by simply ruling that his
first term does not count. The desperation is understandable: there's very
little time left until the 31 October presidential election, in which almost
every government-backed candidate faces obliteration.

And there's precious little idea how to stop Viktor Yushchenko, the
reformist and pro-Western former prime minister who has a massive lead
in opinion polls, from coming to power. The government can no longer
afford to waste time on democratic niceties.

Yet the shambolic constitutional reform the Kuchma administration is
dragging through parliament already carries the seeds of its own
destruction. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with giving a
democratically elected legislature the right to choose the president. And
transferring some of the head of state's overweening powers to parliament
and the cabinet of ministers will do much to augment Ukraine's dysfunctional
system of constitutional checks and balances. Even the government's
reluctant endorsement of a new parliamentary election system that would
eliminate the fraud-prone first-past-the-post constituencies is something
the opposition has long clamored for. So far, so good.

But how do you persuade the public and the international community that the
corrupt administration's belated reformist zeal, after 10 years in office
and just before an election it can win only by dint of massive vote-rigging,
is not an attempt to cling to power? What is the selling point of limiting
Kuchma's successor, elected by popular vote in 2004, to just two ineffectual

years in office, and replacing him by a parliament-elected figurehead as
early as 2006?

How do you go about legitimizing the 24 December vote, which
broke every imaginable parliamentary procedure (partly thanks to the
opposition's crude but effective campaign of disruption, which involved
breaking the electronic voting system)? Where do you find the extra two
dozen votes for a two-thirds majority needed to pass the constitutional
amendments in their final reading? And how do you get around the
constitutional requirement to put any change in the mechanism of electing
the president to a referendum, given that less than one in eight Ukrainians
support the bill?

CONSTITUTIONAL GAMES

The incumbent administration's determination to make the presidency
irrelevant if it cannot maintain a grip on it is too obvious to obfuscate by
reformist rhetoric. Allowing a sworn enemy like Yushchenko to inherit the
potentially devastating arsenal of powers Kuchma has hoarded over the past
decade is something the president and his cronies cannot contemplate.
There's also the tempting prospect of keeping Kuchma in the position of
a relatively fair power broker between Ukraine's rival clans indefinitely.

The Constitutional Court's decision that the count of presidential terms
should be reset every time a change to the constitution is made may not be a
shining example of judicial probity--but it allows the current president,
ostensibly limited to two terms, to keep the office until the cows come
home, provided that his friends in parliament are kind enough (and powerful
enough) to change a few lines in the constitution every five years.

To be sure, Kuchma has been adamant that he will not run for another term,
and for good reason. Nothing short of a miracle can turn around his abysmal
approval ratings, which are now wallowing in single digits. A series of
corruption scandals and allegations of complicity in the murder of a
journalist has left his reputation in tatters, and rigging enough votes to
secure his victory would be unrealistic even by Ukraine's paper-thin
standards.

But who says that phasing out direct presidential election should wait until
2006? Bold reformists in Ukraine's parliament may not have the patience to
wait for another two years, the opposition fears. Toss enough sops to the
Communists, who were instrumental in passing the preliminary amendments
bill, and Ukrainians may yet learn just in time for the October vote that
the pro-Kuchma parliamentarians have saved them the trouble of trudging all
the way to the polling stations.

For now, this dire scenario seems a little outlandish, but its possible
aftermath is too grim to dismiss lightly. The incumbent administration's
half-hearted pretence of European aspirations would finally be put to rest
as Western governments thumb their nose at another Belarus. International
opprobrium and economic sanctions could well follow. Robbed of almost
certain victory, the opposition might yet summon the courage to call people
out onto the streets.

And, apathetic though they normally are, Ukrainians could well decide
they're fed up with Kuchma just enough to answer the call. Decidedly not a
firebrand of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's caliber, Viktor
Yushchenko still has the charisma needed to lead a sustained campaign
of protest.

But desperate times require desperate measures. The ruling Ukrainian elite
may well bite the bullet, hoping that a chance to stay profitably at the
helm will be worth all the potential risks.

PEOPLE POWER

With just over 10 months remaining until the judgment day, does the Kuchma
administration have enough time to implement its survival strategy, whatever
that might may be? Does it have the resources to recruit more neophytes to
the cause? And does it have the nerve to stare down the opposition in
parliament? The likely answer to all these questions is, depressingly, yes.

This is, after all, the administration that has managed to bribe and
intimidate an opposition-dominated legislature enough to turn it, within
months of its disastrous 2002 election, into a reliable, albeit fractious
rubber stamp. This administration has reduced the Yushchenko-led Our
Ukraine bloc, which at its heyday held more than a quarter of the seats in
parliament and still remains by far the largest faction, into a bit-part
actor.

This administration has been patiently pitting the Communists against
their natural allies in the opposition until they are at each others'
throats. In Ukraine's Byzantine politics, this administration can probably
outfox just about anyone.

The problem, of course, is that the administration itself is a snake pit
that could just as soon turn on itself as deal the lethal blow to the
opposition. Always torn by rivalries and power squabbles, the leading Kiev,
Dnipropetrovsk, and Donetsk clans are growing increasingly mistrustful of
each other as each hopes to inherit Kuchma's unassailable supremacy.

The possibility of the incumbent president running for another turn,
obligingly furnished by the Constitutional Court, is keeping them at bay for
now. Each would-be candidate in the pro-government camp is biding his
time, wary of making the move too soon and scuppering his chances of
securing Kuchma's blessing (and the powerful state apparatus that goes
with it).

Recent rumors of Kuchma's death, which swept through Ukraine like wildfire,
were promptly scotched by the president's happy return from a German
hospital, where he had been recuperating from intestinal surgery. Yet they
drove home the idea that the 65-year-old leader is not going to be around
forever. As the election date draws nearer and nerves grow taut, every
wrong move could trigger a clan war in which the opposition could well
emerge as the sole winner.

But whatever happens in the corridors of power, it is ultimately up to the
Ukrainians themselves to decide whether any of the government's stratagems
will be allowed to succeed. The people were angry enough to turn out in
their tens of thousands in the streets of Kiev a couple of years ago to
demand Kuchma's resignation following the murder of campaigning journalist
Georgy Gongadze.

Their anger has dulled since then, partly thanks to the comforting
expectation that they will see the back of the tired and unloved president
in the not-too-distant future. Now that it looks as though either Kuchma or
one of his cronies may yet stick around, the people need to decide, and
fast, whether they feel angry enough about losing the right to choose their
leader. This could well prove their last chance to be heard for a long time
to come
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transitions On Line (TOL), Prague, Czech Republic
http://www.tol.cz/look/TOLnew/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIss
ue=51&NrSection=3&NrArticle=11487 (Paste link together)
JOIN TOL: www.tol.org
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2004, No. 12: ARTICLE NUMBER FOUR
=========================================================
4. THOUGHTS OF LIBERATION ON MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
"Ukrainians need someone who will inspire and free them - at last."

OP-ED by Hanya Krill, www.BRAMA.com, Gateway Ukraine
New York, New York, Monday, January 19, 2004

Today, as Americans honor the memory of civil rights leader Martin Luther
King, I will be contemplating the words from an old spiritual song that he
made famous - "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free
at last!"

Thinking back to the Soviet Union of the late 1980's with its Perestroika
policies, I remember praying that Ukraine may be freed - at last. At the end
of the few tense days of the August 1991 "putsch" it seemed that my prayers
were about to be answered. When Ukraine declared its independence on
August 24, 1991, I was sure that they had been.

It would have been naïve to expect smooth sailing from that moment on.
Analysts were predicting decades of adjustment before the newly independent
states would be standing on their own feet. Ukraine had its own special
brand of problems that were not limited to rebuilding its economy. Mostly it
had to fast-forward through the stages of nation building that other
countries were afforded centuries to develop. After suffering some 350 years
of subjugation by and subordination to its northern neighbor - Russia -
Ukraine had much to do in order to separate itself from its past. At the
time, there was not a doubt in my mind that Ukraine would succeed.

The declaration of sovereignty (July 1990) even before the USSR was
dissolved (December 1991) was a clear indication that Ukrainians were ready
to move towards a new future. President Kravchuk traveled to the West and
inspired confidence in the Diaspora that Ukraine was prepared to make
changes. Experts were called in from Europe and North America. Funds were
made available for a wide range of projects that would educate and
materially assist Ukrainians. When the first national elections came along,
it looked as if Ukraine was well on its way to becoming a full-fledged
democracy and truly independent state. In 1994, President Kuchma became the
second president and Oksana Baiul won the first Olympic Gold Medal for
independent Ukraine. All was right with the world.

It is only recently, in the 13th year of independence and nearly 10 years
after the milestones of 1994, that doubts have crept into my thoughts about
just how free Ukraine really is. The president of the country seems
incapable of making a major decision without first consulting with his
Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Kuchma's political and economic
decisions invariably favor the big bear to the north. 2003 was the "Year of
Russia" in Ukraine. Even when it comes to matters of religion and church
property, i.e. of the Christian Orthodox persuasion, the bias is clearly for
the Moscow-based patriarchate.

Last fall, President Kuchma issued a decree to officially commemorate the
350-year-old Treaty of Pereiaslav - an agreement that was interpreted by
Soviet historians as a consensual "union" between Ukraine (then a Kozak
Hetmanate) and Russia (Muscovy). Contemporary historians argue against that
interpretation, saying that it was nothing more than an agreement for
military protection by the Tsar. Many consider it to be a black mark in
Ukraine's history that any other nation in a similar situation would be
trying to forget. President Kuchma disregarded the Verkhovna Rada hearings
where strong objections to marking the 350-year anniversary were voiced by
scholars and politicians alike. He similarly brushed off the letters
expressing opposition that came from individuals and organizations both from
within and outside of Ukraine.

It is incomprehensible to me, an American who would never dream of paying
tribute to the period of colonialism under Great Britain, why a seemingly
patriotic, post-independence, popularly elected president would choose to
honor a negotiation that subsequently led Ukraine into centuries of
repression. That the American colonies existed is a fact of history not to
be ignored, but Americans celebrate Independence Day, not "Colonization
Day." More to the point, Native Americans do not celebrate "Sale of
Manhattan Day" (or Columbus Day, for that matter), a deal that by all
accounts did not work in their favor. Likewise, Ukraine should know its
history, but the relevance of an obsolete agreement from 350 years ago is
insignificant to modern Ukraine regardless of the historical interpretation.
Irrelevant events do not deserve official recognition in the form of
national holidays. If anything, as someone suggested, this day should be
designated as a day of mourning.

Small groups of die-hard communists, Russophiles, and Russians commemorated
the anniversary in a few cities around Ukraine on Saturday. They could
easily have done so as private citizens exercising their right to freedom of
expression without the official sanction and support provided by President
Kuchma's decree. Hopes that Ukraine and Russia would "unite once again" were
expressed at the rallies - a detestable notion for those who love
independent Ukraine, but a perfectly realistic expectation in light of the
agreement for a single economic space with Russia that President Kuchma
successfully pushed through last year.

One day after the January 18th observance of the Pereiaslav Treaty, as I
contemplate the freedoms that Martin Luther King aspired to achieve for
African Americans, the concern that Ukraine is not truly free dominates my
thoughts. Reverend King fought to strip the legacy of slavery from the
American consciousness that continued to oppress African Americans despite
the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862. Ukraine needs its own Martin Luther
King who will remind Ukrainians of how they were enslaved, how their land
and resources were usurped, how they were and continue to be treated as
second-class citizens in their own home. Ukrainians need someone who will
inspire and free them - at last. (END)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanya Krill is a co-founder of BRAMA-Gateway Ukraine, and serves
as the COO of Brama.com, New York
http://www.brama.com/news/press/2004/01/040119pereiaslav_king.html
========================================================
ARTICLES ARE FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY
=========================================================
"WELCOME TO UKRAINE" MAGAZINE
Just A Great, World Class Magazine about Ukraine, In English
http://www.artukraine.com/travel/wumagazine.htm
========================================================
WEBSITE FOR NEWS AND INFORMATION ABOUT UKRAINE
http://www.ArtUkraine.com
FOLK ART MAGAZINE: NARODNE MYSTETSTVO
A Great Magazine About Ukrainian Folk Art Culture....In Ukrainian
http://www.artukraine.com/primitive/artmagazine.htm
========================================================
INFORMATION ABOUT "UKRAINE REPORT-2004"
The "UKRAINE REPORT-2004," is an in-depth news and analysis newsletter,
produced by the www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service (ARTUIS) with
production offices in Kyiv, Ukraine and Washington, D.C.. The report is
distributed worldwide free of charge using the e-mail address:
ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. Please make sure this e-mail address is
cleared for your SPAM filter. Letters to the editor are always welcome.
For further information contact Morgan Williams: morganw@patriot.net.

We give special thanks to "UKRAINE REPORT-2004" SPONSORS:

1.U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION, (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John A. Kun, VP/COO; Markian Bilynskyj,
VP, Dir. of Field Operations, Kyiv, Ukraine and Washington, D.C.
website: http://www.usukraine.org .
2. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Kempton Jenkins,
President, Washington, D.C.
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC UKRAINE, David and Tamara Sweere,
Founders and Managers; Kyiv, Ukraine
4. VOLIA SOFTWARE, Software to Fit Your Business, Source your
IT work in Ukraine. Contact: Yuriy Sivitsky, Vice President, Marketing,
Kyiv, Ukraine, yuriy.sivitsky@softline.kiev.ua; Volia Software website:
http://www.volia-software.com/.
5. POTENTIAL, the launching of a new business journal for Ukraine.
http://www.usukraine.org/potential.shtml#about
6. INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATE and FOUNDATION READERS
OF "UKRAINE REPORT-2004" who financially support the publication.
Additional financial support is needed to maintain and expand the
program to include the translation and distribution of important articles
in Ukrainian.

PUBLISHER AND EDITOR
E. Morgan Williams, Senior Advisor, Government Relations and
Foundation Development, U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF)
Publisher and Editor: "UKRAINE REPORT-2004,"
www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service (ARTUIS).
http://www.ArtUkraine.com News and Information Website,
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013
Tel: 202 437 4707, morganw@patriot.net
Office In Kyiv: 380 44 212 5586, Mobile in Kyiv: 380 50 689 2874
====================================================
TO SUBSCRIBE (FREE)
If you know of one or more persons you think would like to be added to
the distribution list for "UKRAINE REPORT-2004" please send us the
relevant contact information. We welcome additional names. The report
is sent FREE of charge and is courtesy of our sponsors. To subscribe
please send a subscription request e-mail to Morgan Williams,
morganw@patriot.net. Past issues of the "UKRAINE REPORT-2003"
(119 reports) and 2004" will be sent upon request.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
UNSUBSCRIBE: If you do not wish to receive future editions of the
"UKRAINE REPORT-2004," up to three times per week, please be sure
and notify us by return e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.
====================================================