Search site
Action Ukraine Report

"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"
An International Newsletter
In-Depth Ukrainian News, Analysis, and Commentary

"The Art of Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World"

"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" Year 04, Number 222
The Action Ukraine Coalition (AUC), Washington, D.C.
Ukrainian Federation of America (UFA), Huntingdon Valley, PA
morganw@patriot.net, ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net (ARTUIS)
Washington, D.C., THURSDAY, November 18, 2004

-----INDEX OF ARTICLES-----
"Major International News Headlines and Articles"

1. U.S. REJECTS VISA OF CANDIDATE'S KEY SUPPORTER
Four top Ukrainian leaders put on U.S. visa watch list
By Nicholas Kralev, The Washington Times
Washington, D.C., Thu, Nov 18, 2004

2. UKRAINE WILL VOTE TO ELECT THEIR NEXT PRESIDENT
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE, Office of the Press Secretary
Little Rock, Arkansas, Thursday, November 18, 2004

3. YUSHCHENKO MUST ACCEPT RUN-OFF VOTE
Letter-to-the-Editor: By Eduard Prutnik
Financial Times, London, UK, Thu, November 18 2004

4.UKRAINE'S EUROVISION WINNER BACK VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 17 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Wed, November 17, 2004

5. RADA FORBIDS VOTING WITH ABSENTEE BALLOTS DURING
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BILL HAS TO BE SIGNED BY PRESIDENT
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, November 18, 2004

6. "KIEV GOES ORANGE FOR UKRAINE ELECTION"
By Olena Horodetska, Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Thu, Nov 18, 2004

7. KINAKH ACCUSES PM OF LACKING PROFESSIONALISM
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, November 17, 2004

8. UKRAINIAN SOCIALIST LEADER OLEKSANDR MOROZ
ACCUSES AUTHORITIES OF ELECTION ABUSES
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 18 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Thu, Nov 18, 2004

9. OBSERVING THE UKRAINE ELECTIONS
Letters to the Editor: The Washington Times
From: Former Members of Congress and the European Parliament
The Washington Times, Washington, D.C., Sun, Nov 14, 2004

10. WHO SAID YUSHCHENKO WAS BAD FOR RUSSIA?
RIA Novosti political commentator Vladimir Simonov
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Friday, November 12, 2004

11. PUTIN'S INTENSE INTEREST IN ELECTIONS
Putin has loudly endorsed a presidential candidate in Ukraine
By Columnist Angela Charlton in Paris for NIA Novosti
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Wed, November 17, 2004

12. "NOW IT IS RUSSIA AND YANUKOVYCH
WHO ARE DIVIDING UKRAINE"
COMMENTARY: By Ira Straus, Untimely Thoughts
Moscow, Russia, Thursday, September 18, 2004

13.UKRAINE TAPE SCANDAL WHISTLEBLOWER ATTACKS PREMIER
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 17 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Wed, November 17, 2004
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 222: ARTICLE NUMBER ONE
========================================================
1. U.S. REJECTS VISA OF CANDIDATE'S KEY SUPPORTER
Four top Ukrainian leaders put on U.S. visa watch list

By Nicholas Kralev, The Washington Times
Washington, D.C., Thursday, November 18, 2004

WASHINGTON - The United States has denied an entry visa
to one of the most high-profile supporters of a Ukrainian presidential
candidate backed by the Kremlin and the country's current leader,
Leonid Kuchma, and has put other allies of the candidate on the
U.S. visa watch list.

American officials also predict a "chilly period" in relations with
Ukraine if the candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, wins
Sunday's hard-fought runoff election, because he most likely would
have "stolen" it.

Gregory Surkis, a lawmaker and businessman who is one of Mr.
Yanukovych's most prominent political allies, recently applied for a
U.S. visa at the embassy in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, U.S. officials
said.

The application was sent for review to the State Department, which
decided to reject it, citing Mr. Surkis' involvement in corruption and
election fraud.

"We went pretty carefully through the things he had done," a senior
State Department official said. "We don't do this lightly. There is a very
careful examination of the record with lawyers." He declined to be more
specific.

A presidential proclamation gives the U.S. government the authority
to deny visas to foreigners engaged in corruption and undermining their
country's election process, said the official, who asked not to be named.

"Any top official of the Ukrainian government who is involved in [such
activities] could expect that their applications for a visa will be reviewed
in light of the corruption proclamation," he said.

"We are looking at other people," he added. "We are trying to make
it clear to them that their actions in corrupting the election process will
have consequences."

Officials indicated that other allies of Mr. Yanukovych are on
Washington's visa watch list, which prevents any consular officer any-
where in the world from issuing them visas without the State
Department's specific approval.

Most visa applications are granted or rejected by the embassy or
consulate where they are submitted.

The Ukrainians on the list include Mr. Kuchma's chief of staff, Viktor
Medvedchuk, who is thought to be the brain behind Mr. Yanukovych's
campaign; the president's son-in-law and parliament member, Viktor
Pinchuk; General Prosecutor Gennadiy Vasyliev; and Minister of
Internal Affairs Mykola Bilokon.

Washington, which insists that it does not favor opposition candidate
and Western-leaning reformer Viktor Yushchenko, has endorsed the
assessment of European and other observers of the first round on Oct.
31 as not having met the standards of free and fair elections.

"I don't think we've seen a change," the senior State Department
official said. "We remain quite concerned that they are not going to
meet that requirement."

In the first round, Mr. Yushchenko, 50, received 39.87 percent
of the vote against 39.32 for Mr. Yanukovych, 54.

Mr. Yanukovych's campaign has been accused of threatening and
intimidating opponents and voters, denying press access to Mr.
Yushchenko and engineering counting fraud in the first round.

"If there is fraud and Yanukovych wins, clearly there will be a chilly
period in the relationship. I wouldn't expect an Oval Office meeting
with a guy who won the election by fraud," the senior official said.

"I don't think that anybody in the administration or on Capitol Hill
wants us to undercut our long-term strategic relationship with Ukraine,
but if the election has been stolen, we have to show disapproval of that,"
he said. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalia Feduschak contributed to this article from Kiev.
=======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 222: ARTICLE NUMBER TWO
=======================================================
2. UKRAINE WILL VOTE TO ELECT THEIR NEXT PRESIDENT

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE, Office of the Press Secretary
Little Rock, Arkansas, Thursday, November 18, 2004

On November 21, 2004, the people of Ukraine will vote to elect their next
president. They have the right and deserve the opportunity to make their
choice freely, without intimidation or fear, from outside or within.

The presidential campaign and first round of voting did not meet that basic
test. We share the deep concern of the OSCE and other observers that the
election process has fallen short of international standards. We urge the
Ukrainian authorities to allow their citizens to choose their next president
freely.

President Bush has said that the United States has no greater responsibility
than to support the spread of freedom throughout the world. That includes
continuing to support those countries in Eastern Europe which began down
the path of democracy nearly fifteen years ago. To convey our support for
Ukraine's democratic prospects, the President has asked Senator Richard
Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to travel to
Ukraine. We also have funded efforts to promote a fair campaign and
election.

The United States supports Ukraine's aspirations to join the Euro-Atlantic
community, a community which requires a commitment to shared values. If
the election fails to meet democratic standards, Ukraine's aspirations would
suffer. On the other hand, an election result that reflects the true will
of the people would open new opportunities for stronger U.S.-Ukrainian
cooperation and offer the people of Ukraine a brighter, promising future as
a sovereign, democratic, and prosperous nation. -30-
=======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.222: ARTICLE NUMBER THREE
=======================================================
3. "YUSHCHENKO MUST ACCEPT RUN-OFF VOTE"

Letter-to-the-Editor: By Eduard Prutnik
Financial Times, London, UK, Thu, November 18 2004

>From Mr Eduard Prutnik.

Sir, Having received fewer votes in Ukraine's October 31 election than
he would have liked, Viktor Yushchenko weakly cries foul ("Ukraine's
ballot box revolution must not be stifled", November 3). Only a campaign
as self-righteous as Mr Yushchenko's would blame its own electoral
failures on an imagined plot. In fact, several objective observers gave
Ukraine high marks for a well-executed election. The British Helsinki
Human Rights Group noted that "polling stations were orderly and well-
equipped, commission workers were well-informed about the law and
procedures. .the atmosphere on polling day was relaxed and enthusiastic."

It would be disingenuous to suggest that there were no flaws. But the
notion of a state-sponsored plot is a Yushchenko fantasy. Even the recent
US presidential campaign was not flawless. For a nation barely a decade
removed from Soviet rule, still in the process of building a democratic
infrastructure, Ukraine performed quite well.

Mr Yushchenko selectively cites the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe, but fails to include OSCE's praise for many
aspects of the election, including robust candidate choice, televised
debates and "the very high participation of the electorate and civil
society".

Mr Yushchenko insists there was widespread disenfranchisement,
claiming that "millions of opposition supporters were denied the
opportunity to vote". But roughly 70 per cent of eligible voters cast a
ballot, an astonishingly high figure that would make the strongest
democracy proud. Mr Yushchenko would have us believe that, of the
small pool of 10m non-voters, "millions" were his own supporters,
foiled by 500,000 "thugs" who stalked the polling stations to intimidate
election officials.

It seems Mr Yushchenko cannot accept voters might prefer a candidate
other than himself. He cannot conceive that Ukrainian voters would find
appeal - which they undoubtedly did - in Mr Yanukovich's pragmatic,
centrist message. Either because they are cynical or misinformed, Mr
Yushchenko and his allies have tried to frame this election as a choice
between a forward-looking pro-westerner and a retrograde Russophile.
In fact, the prime minister has repeatedly expressed his support for the
long-term goal of European Union integration. At the same time, he has
cautioned against isolation from Russia, our closest ally and largest
trading partner.

In a few days' time, Ukraine will have a new president-elect. For the
sake of national unity and stability, it is important that our country
accepts the legitimacy of Sunday's outcome. Cues will be taken from
the defeated candidate. Should that be Mr Yushchenko, I sincerely
hope he puts aside recriminations and accepts the new government
like a statesman and a patriot. -30- [Action Ukraine Monitoring]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduard Prutnik, Senior Adviser to Viktor Yanukovich, Prime
Minister of Ukraine
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6b7c60f0-3908-11d9-bc76-00000e2511c8.html
======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.222: ARTICLE NUMBER FOUR
=======================================================
4.UKRAINE'S EUROVISION WINNER BACK VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian, Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Wed, November 17, 2004

KIEV - [Presenter] The winner of the Eurovision song contest, Ruslana
Lyzhychko, have decided to support [opposition candidate] Viktor
Yushchenko in the second round of the presidential election. The singer
said she had tried to ignore politics but the situation in Ukraine did not
let her remain on the sidelines.

[Ruslana] I would like my country to be united. I don't like the fact that
the elections tried to split the country into two camps. I would like my
Ukraine to remain united. From now on and forever. Everybody must
take part in the election, I am calling for this, and cast their vote as
their hearts tell them.

[Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who is also running for presidency,
earlier appointed Ruslana Lyzhychko his adviser and sang a duet with her
during one of Lyzhychko's concerts. After that Lyzhychko had to deny
she supported Yanukovych as a presidential candidate.] -30-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINKS: http://www.ruslana.com.ua/releases/20041117vybory.html
http://www.ruslana.com.ua/releases/ok-interview.htm
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.222: ARTICLE NUMBER FIVE
Your comments about the Report are always welcome
========================================================
5. RADA FORBIDS VOTING WITH ABSENTEE BALLOTS DURING
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BILL HAS TO BE SIGNED BY PRESIDENT

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, November 18, 2004

KYIV - The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has forbidden voting with
absentee ballots during the presidential elections. The bill on amendments
to the Presidential Election Law was supported by 236 votes, with 226
needed for its adoption.

It forbids voting with absentee ballots in the presidential elections and
rules invalid the absentee ballots issued earlier. The bill obligates
electors to vote in the places of their residence, where they are put on
voters' lists.

The bill forbids voting in the presidential elections outside polling
stations and orders divisional electoral commissions to bring sick people
to polling stations for voting. The bill also banned divisional and
territorial electoral commissions to invalidate voting results at polling
stations.

In keeping with amendments to the Presidential Election Law, it was
ruled that elections at polling stations may be invalidated only by court.
The bill also permits the issue of ballot papers to voters with signatures
of three members of a divisional electoral commission, instead of one, as
was earlier envisaged by the Presidential Election Law.

The bill on amendments to the Presidential Election Law was submitted
by MP Oleh Bilorus (Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc). The bill will take effect
after the President signs it into law. As Ukrainian News reported,
President Leonid Kuchma called absurd information about possible
rigging of presidential elections through manipulations with absentee
ballots.

On November 3, the Verkhovna Rada refused putting on agenda the
draft law proposed by MPs Borys Bespalyi, Yurii Kliuchkovskyi and
Viktor Musiiaka, who proposed tightening control over voting in
presidential elections with absentee ballots.

The Committee of Voters of Ukraine reported mass voting with
absentee ballots in Kharkiv region, as well as the facts of multiple
voting with absentee ballots in Donetsk. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.222: ARTICLE NUMBER SIX
========================================================
6. "KIEV GOES ORANGE FOR UKRAINE ELECTION"

By Olena Horodetska, Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Thu, Nov 18, 2004

KIEV (Reuters) - Fashionable young women stroll down Kiev's cobbled
streets in orange scarves, hats and sweaters. Students tie orange ribbons
around rucksacks. Pensioners fasten a piece of orange cloth -- any cloth
-- on their lapels. Orange banners flutter from trees, lampposts, car
aerials.

The orange revolution has arrived in the capital Kiev -- offering a people
long downtrodden by authoritarian leadership a simple way to show
support for Ukraine's opposition hopeful ahead of Sunday's presidential
run-off without risk of censure.

Orange is the campaign colour of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko,
chosen to have no association with the red of Ukraine's Soviet past or
the blue and white of the current authorities scandal-ridden rule. He
faces Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, the establishment candidate
who finished just behind the challenger in the opening round.

"We felt many people wanted to support Yushchenko but didn't know
how, had no contact with his headquarters and were perhaps a bit afraid,"
said Vitaly Muzh, 27, an advertising executive. "This breaks the fear and
offers something simple to ordinary people. It was spontaneous -- orange
clothes, stripes, anything. No slogans, just orange, the colour of joy."

The capital is overwhelmingly committed to Yushchenko, his liberal
message of moving closer to Europe, rather than Moscow, and
commitment to Ukrainian language and culture. Celebrities taking up his
liberal cause appear in city squares -- television stars, singers,
athletes - - all sporting orange scarves, hats, jackets, umbrellas and
handbags. Radio stations play songs about "orange people".

The typical Yushchenko voter in Kiev is young and relatively well-off.
Students lead the charge, cutting up hundreds of metres of orange
material, pasting ribbons on underground trains, handing out bits of
cloth to passers-by.

The political message has had a retail spin-off. Smart shops on
Khreshchatyk, Kiev's tree-lined main thoroughfare, have taken to
prominently displaying orange suits and sweaters. "People are actively
buying orange this season," said a shop assistant in an elite boutique.
"We've had to place more orders for orange items. It's the colour of
the year in Ukraine." -30- [The Action Ukraine Monitoring Service]
=======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.222: ARTICLE NUMBER SEVEN
Suggested articles for publication in the Report are always welcome
========================================================
7. KINAKH ACCUSES PM OF LACKING PROFESSIONALISM

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, November 17, 2004

KIEV - The Party of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs' leader Anatolii
Kinakh, former prime minister, has accused Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovych, candidate in this year's presidential elections, of lacking
professionalism.

Kinakh made the accusation while commenting on the televised presidential
election debate between Yanukovych and the Our Ukraine coalition's
leader and presidential candidate Viktor Yuschenko.

"I have never seen the level of lack of professionalism and lack of
principles that the so-called 'single' government candidate demonstrated,"
Kinakh said.

According to him, Kinakh should never have raised the issue of the grain
crisis during the debate because the current government was responsible for
it. "My government left the government of Yanukovych 14.7 million tons of
reserves of food-grade fodder grain, but an artificial food crisis was
later created and a "hunt for ghosts" launched," Kinakh said.

He further said that he considered it unacceptable for Yanukovych to
blame his predecessors for the problems of Ukraine.

"I have always considered it unacceptable to point fingers backward... One
problem or another should not be formulated as being carried over from
one's predecessors. In order to ensure effective development, it is
necessary to consolidate the positive things that were achieved and not
repeat past mistakes," he said.

According to him, Yanukovych deliberately distorted data during the election
debate with the aim of misleading people into believing that the previous
governments achieved less than the current government. "A person who is
aspiring to the post of president has no right to use inauthentic
information," Kinakh said. -30- [Action Ukraine Monitoring Service]
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 222 ARTICLE NUMBER EIGHT
Letters to the editor are always welcome
========================================================
8. UKRAINIAN SOCIALIST LEADER OLEKSANDR MOROZ
ACCUSES AUTHORITIES OF ELECTION ABUSES

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 18 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Thu, Nov 18, 2004

Ukrainian Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz has accused the authorities
of numerous violations and rights abuses ahead of the presidential election
runoff on 21 November. Addressing parliament, Moroz said there were plans
to allow multiple voting and that an opposition paper's delivery was being
blocked. Earlier, Moroz declared support for opposition leader Viktor
Yushchenko, who runs against Prime Minister Yanukovych in the election
runoff. The following is the text of the speech Moroz made at a parliament
meeting on 18 November, which was relayed live by Ukrainian television
TV 5 Kanal:

[Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz, speaking in parliament] Esteemed Mr
Lytvyn [speaker], esteemed members of parliament. I think that your decision
to continue working on the legislative framework after hearing about issues
which worry society and MPs was right. However, I cannot but point out the
fact that unprecedented steps are being taken in Ukraine which violate the
elections law and use all sorts of administrative pressure, which is
punishable under the Criminal Code as blatant abuses of human and voters'
rights. I can point to an infinite number of examples, and, probably, any
MP knows the examples.

The absentee ballot bacchanalia is unfolding. Whole brigades are being
prepared of those who will travel around Ukraine to cast multiple votes.
There have been warnings that plans were drawn up in Cherkasy forcing
people who depend on the [state] budget to vote not only at their local
polling stations, but also at neighbouring ones, where electoral commission
members have been told to allow the [multiple] voting.

There have been reports that a fake issue of Silski Visti [opposition-minded
newspaper believed to be linked to the Socialist Party] is being distributed
in Sumy. In other words, this is a trick which was used in 1999 [during the
previous presidential election] with the authorities' backing.

Everybody knows that, essentially, voters stopped receiving Silski Visti
after it published reports about the authorities' candidate, [Prime Minister
Viktor] Yanukovych, because the authorities blocked the paper's delivery
routes to prevent people from learning what is going on in Ukraine.

[On 12 November, Silski Visti published Yanukovych's political advertising.
On 17 November, the paper published an interview with the rival presidential
candidate, opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, but the issue did not go on
sale on the day.]

Those who distributed the paper's special issue independently of the state
networks are being persecuted by the police. Indeed, under [Interior]
Minister [Mykola] Bilokon the Interior Ministry's agencies are being turned
into a tool for repression, which is directly involved in the political
campaign, violating the elections law and human rights.

In account of this, I would like to address voters. Listen to yourselves and
to your conscience. Be aware that on 21 [November, polling day] it will be
decided whether Ukraine will either develop by moving closer to democracy
and then becoming a democracy or remain an authoritarian state.

Again, I am asking voters to turn up and vote according to their conscience.
There is no other way out. Whoever is urging you not to turn out - this is
aimed at defending the authorities' interests. Be worthy, vote according to
your conscience. It will not be possible to override people's choice if it
is overwhelming and convincing. -30- [Action Ukraine Monitoring]
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.222 ARTICLE NUMBER NINE
========================================================
9. OBSERVING THE UKRAINE ELECTIONS

Letters to the Editor: The Washington Times
From: Former Members of Congress and the European Parliament
The Washington Times, Washington, D.C., Sun, Nov 14, 2004

As former members of Congress and former members of the European
Parliament who have spent considerable time in Ukraine as official observers
of the election process, we write with concern and alarm in response to the
article "Ukraine vote panned, praised," (World, Nov. 2).

We commend The Washington Times for covering, what we believe, to
be the most important, after the United States, election in 2004. However,
we disagree with a report of another delegation - which was not affiliated
with our group of former members - that states that the election met
international standards for fairness and transparency.

We were participants in four nonpartisan delegations sent since July
2004 to various regions in Ukraine to monitor and report on the presidential
election campaign. The monitoring program is hosted by the U.S.-Ukraine
Foundation and the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress and
were funded by the United States Agency for International Development.

Delegations are not linked to any campaign, candidate or party. As
officially registered election observers, our sole mission is to promote
free, fair and transparent elections in Ukraine.

Based on our visits to Ukraine, we have serious concerns about the
fairness and transparency of the election process, under way since July 4.
In total, we visited 34 towns in nine oblasts in Ukraine, where we met local
citizens, nongovernment organization representatives, local media outlets,
political party representatives and local election officials.

Violations, media oppression and administrative abuses were repeatedly
reported across the oblasts visited. Everywhere we heard citizens voice
their concerns that their votes will not be counted correctly and that
authorities have already determined who will win. We also heard reports that
opposition candidates are harassed by the authorities and that citizens are
threatened with loss of jobs unless they sign petitions for Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovych. The list of violations goes on and on.

Few would dispute that there is not a fully free and independent press
in Ukraine. The national and local media is generally owned and controlled
by the government and by oligarchs who support the regime in Kiev.

Independent media studies have shown the media to be heavily biased
toward the ruling regime candidate. Setting aside the administrative abuses,
the overwhelming presence of government-controlled media brings into
question how free and fair the election can and will be.

Our concerns have been joined by other delegations hosted by respected
organizations: the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
International Republican Institute, Council of Europe, and the European
Network of Electoral Monitoring Organizations, a group comprised of civic
groups from 16 countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

As a matter of fact, all delegations that we are aware of, except those
sponsored by organizations tied to the ruling politicians in Kiev or to
Moscow, have stated that the election, including the campaign period, was
well below international standards and a significant "step back" from
democracy.

The preponderance of evidence pointing to the absence of a free and fair
election is huge. We are therefore very concerned and alarmed that a group
of former members of Congress have called the election free and fair. We
cannot imagine how any observer can come to that overall conclusion based
on watching ballots cast at a few polling stations on election day.

The problem with this is that it fails to appreciate the distortions
that a managed press and patterns of illegality, harassment and intimidation
of voters have entered into the democratic election equation.

We believe that the presidential election now under way will determine
the course of the country for the next decade or more. It is essential that
the presidential election be free, fair and transparent, giving legitimacy
to whomever is elected as the new president of Ukraine.

If the new president, whoever that might be, is elected in an election
failing to meet international standards for fairness and transparency, he
will be isolated from the community of democracies, which are so critical
to Ukraine's economic and political well-being.

A stolen election has the danger of casting Ukraine into the Belarus
model, which includes visa restrictions and an uneasy diplomacy that marks
state officials as "pariahs."

The U.S. State Department has already warned that if the election does
fail to meet democratic standards, the United States "would [also] need to
re-examine our relationship with those who engaged in election fraud and
manipulation."

We hope that our reporting of what we and many others observed in
Ukraine will support the forces of democracy. We invite others to join us
to stand and speak the truth to Ukrainians and to a world that is closely
watching this election. Now is the time to stand boldly and unyieldingly for
free and fair elections in Ukraine the Ukrainian people deserve no less.

MIKE KOPETSKI (Oregon Democrat)
ANDREW MAGUIRE (New Jersey Democrat)
JIM SLATTERY (Kansas Democrat)
JOHN CONLAN (Arizona Republican)
LARRY DENARDIS (Connecticut Republican)
JOHN J. RHODES(Arizona Republican)
DON RITTER (Pennsylvania Republican)
DAN MILLER (Florida Republican)
RICHARD BALFE (European Parliament, United Kingdom)
JOSE POSADA (European Parliament, Spain)
MAARTJE VAN PUTTEN (European Parliament, Netherlands)
=====================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 222: ARTICLE NUMBER TEN
=====================================================
10. WHO SAID YUSHCHENKO WAS BAD FOR RUSSIA?

RIA Novosti political commentator Vladimir Simonov
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Friday, November 12, 2004

MOSCOW - Russia's ambassador to Ukraine, Viktor Chernomyrdin,
recently asked the question in the headline. Although, he has something
of a reputation for mangling the Russian language, some of his phrases
have become pithy sayings every Russian uses, and on this occasion he
seems to have hit the target as well.

On Wednesday, Ukraine's central election commission broke its nine-day
silence to declare the opposition's candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, the
winner of the first round of the presidential election by a margin of
0.55%, i.e., about 150,000 votes, over the incumbent Prime Minister,
Viktor Yanukovich.

Other candidates who failed to make it through the run-off have already
voiced their support for Mr. Yushchenko. They include: Alexander Moroz,
who came third in the first round and is the head of the Socialist Party,
Alexander Omelchenko, Kiev's mayor and the head of the Unity Party, and
Anatoly Kinakh, the leader of the Industrialists and Entrepreneurs Party.
They have all signed cooperation agreements with Mr. Yushchenko, who,
therefore, has a genuine chance of succeeding Leonid Kuchma follower after
the run-off on November 21.

This means Russia's political elite will have to take a new look at the
opposition candidate from a less biased and more concerned position. There
is an assumption that the pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko, who is married to
an American, will become an unpleasant surprise for Russia as a Ukrainian
president. But is this really the case?

Indeed, hostile pre-election posters often depicted Mr. Yushchenko as an
American cowboy with a lasso or wearing an Uncle Sam stars-and-stripes
hat. Hence Russian and Western political analysts have often written that a
"President Yushchenko" would be determined to lead Ukraine farther away
from Russia toward the West.

In contrast, Viktor Yanukovich is seen as a devoted ally of Russia's and,
the same analysts claim, when elected will offer the prospect of preserving
status quo. They refer to Mr. Yanukovich's promises that, should he be
elected, Kiev will not join NATO, Russian will become the second state
language and dual citizenship will be introduced.

However, everything is not so black and white. The philosophy of both
candidates is a more complicated alloy that could change dramatically after
victory. But I have no doubt that a Yushchenko presidency could suit
Russia, especially in terms of economic development. It is common
knowledge that, when he was prime minister in 1999-2001, Mr.
Yushchenko succeeded in halting the decline in bilateral trade and put
an end to the main sore point in relations - the theft of Russian gas. He
also opened the Ukrainian market for major Russian companies and
insisted that the Ukrainian economy be privatized in an exceptionally
transparent manner. All this can be hardly detrimental to Russian business.

In stark contrast, Viktor Yanukovich's government recently put Ukrtelecom
and Krivorozhstal up for privatization on terms that virtually excluded
Russian industrial groups, in particular, Severstal. As a result, one
Ukrainian company took control of the country's biggest metallurgical
plant, the Krivoy Rog works, without an auction being held. This lucky
company is rumored to be connected with a relative of a senior official in
the Kiev establishment. Although this may seem inconsequential, it is
rather indicative.

However, we should return to Mr. Yushchenko's supposed anti-Russian
sentiments. Perhaps, someone could point to an example of this? You could
sift through an entire archive of the opposition leader's comments about
Russia and not find any attacks on the neighboring country, let alone any
attempts to play up to Ukrainian nationalists. Mr. Yushchenko does not blow
kisses towards Moscow, but there is nothing hostile in his keeping distance
from Moscow. "Some neighbors are better than relatives," he once said.

Mr. Yushchenko is well aware of Russia's significance as a natural and
inexhaustible market for Ukrainian commodities. A week before the
elections, he said that Russia would be Ukraine's eternal strategic partner
in any circumstances. On taking a more intent look at a pre-election speech
by Mr. Yushchenko, Moscow has noticed a paragraph where he promised,
should he be elected, to do everything possible for ethnic Russians to feel
comfortable in Ukraine, watch television programs in Russian, read
Ukrainian newspapers in Russian, see their children study the Russian
language and Russian culture.

The Russian population of Ukraine believes Mr. Yushchenko's words. Many
influential Russian political analysts also claim that, on coming to power,
the current leader of the opposition will develop a normal partnership with
Russia and will hardly irritate Moscow with his constant shuttling between
Moscow and Washington, as distinct from his predecessors. His views on the
Russian Orthodox Church seem to have also been received positively. Last
Sunday, Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and Ukraine, a representative of the
Moscow patriarchate, granted an audience to Mr. Yushchenko. When the
meeting came to a close, the metropolitan blessed the presidential
candidate, which means a great deal on the eve of the second round.

There is one more circumstance that, to my mind, could help the Russian
authorities overcome the temptation of reacting to the winner of the first
round of presidential elections in Ukraine as a Western agent of influence.
A closer look shows that Viktor Yushchenko and Vladimir Putin have a
great deal in common: both are seeking to consolidate law and order in their
countries, do away with corruption and curb the reach of the oligarchs. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.222 ARTICLE NUMBER ELEVEN
Your financial support is needed, please send a check.
========================================================
11. PUTIN'S INTENSE INTEREST IN ELECTIONS
President Putin has loudly endorsed a presidential candidate in Ukraine

By Columnist Angela Charlton in Paris for NIA Novosti
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Thu, November 17, 2004

PARIS - Elections, at home and abroad, are topping Russia's political
agenda lately.

While President Vladimir Putin is phasing out elections for governor and
redesigning elections to parliament, Russia's political elite is whispering
about changing presidential election rules in time for 2008. Farther
afield, Putin has loudly endorsed presidential candidates in Ukraine, the
United States and Abkhazia, while Russian officials quietly backed the
ruling party in parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan.

Putin has run in only two elections in his career, and both were crushingly
weighted in his favor. He's unfamiliar and uncomfortable with more typical
elections, and the tension and unpredictability they unleash. In this age
of sudden terrorist strikes, Putin says he wants to make Russia more
methodical and defensible, so he's limiting voter choices to remove
political wild cards.

But as the presidential races in Ukraine and Abkhazia demonstrate,
Russia can't control voters outside its borders. Nor should it.
Russia needs friendly relations with its neighbors and has legitimate
interests in their future. Russia and Ukraine share electricity,
infrastructure and TV programming, not to mention a lengthy border; the
same cannot be said for Ukraine and the United States. But open Russian
involvement in foreign elections risks fueling anti-Russian opposition, and
leaves little room for negotiations should Moscow's preferred candidate
fail. The coming weeks will show whether Kremlin advisers are rethinking
how, and whether, they should influence other people's votes.

In Ukraine, neither of the two candidates facing a runoff Sunday started
out as Russia's enemy. But then Russian public relations gurus painted
opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko as a Moscow-hater, giving him plenty
of reason to prove them right. If he wins - he edged out Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovych in the first round - Moscow will beleft flailing for a new
policy and desperate to get some Russia-friendly faces in his
administration.

Yushchenko's strong showing gave Putin's advisers pause. The Russian
president came back to Ukraine on Friday to meet with Yanukovych and his
mentor, President Leonid Kuchma. But Putin's muted visit contrasted sharply
with his jubilant Kiev tour to stump for Yanukovych just before the first
round. Somber voices in Ukraine worry that the three men were discussing
plans for a state of emergency should Sunday's runoff turn out badly.

European and American groups have also been involved in Ukraine's
campaign, and western leaders have certainly applied behind-the-scenes
pressure. But to little effect. Ukrainians are unconvinced that EU and US
support for Yushchenko would translate into prosperity if he wins. The
United States poured aid into Ukraine in the 1990s, yet the country has
remained poor and membership in the EU is a distant dream. George W.
Bush has stayed silent on Ukraine's elections, perhaps because his advisers
realize that his blessing for Yushchenko would send voters running the
other way.

In Abkhazia, Russia is tangled in an election mess it helped create. Both
candidates in the unofficial presidential vote last month were pro-Russian,
as are most residents of the breakaway Georgian republic. Yet Russian
officials chose to back Raul Khadzhimba, who lost to Sergei Bagapsh in a
clumsy election. Bagapsh has yet to take over, however, after weeks of
political upheaval and two contradictory court decisions have left his fate
in question. Both candidates traveled to Moscow for talks with Russian
leaders, underlining Russia's influence over the republic, but returned
home to Abkhazia's citrus harvest with no resolution.

Then Bagapsh supporters stormed the parliament Friday and wounded
several in an attempt to seize power. Russia's Foreign Ministry threatened
to get involved if Russia's interests are put at risk, roiling Georgian
officials.

Russia's commitment to the losing candidate is increasing the risk of armed
conflict or of international involvement, including peacekeepers and
outside negotiations. Both would be devastating outcomes for Russia and
its influence along its borders, borders it has every right to protect.

In the U.S. election, Putin got lucky when Bush won. It would have been
awkward for Putin to congratulate John Kerry on his victory after
suggesting that Bush's opposition was led by terrorists.

A defeat for a Moscow-endorsed candidate outside Russia's borders could
be just what Putin needs to fend off accusations of dictatorial tendencies.
If Yushchenko takes over in Ukraine, Putin will have no choice but to work
with him. By association, and by virtue of his working with a man he
opposed, Putin would look democratic.

Russia is still a long way from a democratic transfer of power, especially
a transfer of power between opponents. Facing challengers at the helm of
Ukraine and Abkhazia might be a good exercise for Putin, proving that he
can negotiate with foes as well as wipe them out. -30-
======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 222: ARTICLE NUMBER TWELVE
======================================================
12. "NOW IT IS RUSSIA AND YANUKOVYCH
WHO ARE DIVIDING UKRAINE"

COMMENTARY: By Ira Straus, Untimely Thoughts
Moscow, Russia, Thursday, September 18, 2004

In the competition between Russia and the West to see who can misbehave
the worst in pressuring Ukraine and dividing its people, Russia is winning
by a wide margin. The West has come to act rather decently toward Ukraine;
Russia has done the opposite.

The same is true of the candidates. Yushchenko, the more Western-oriented
candidate, is behaving far better than Yanukovych, the current prime
minister and the candidate promoted heavily by Ukrainian President Kuchma
and by the Russian government.

In a somewhat comic turn of the Yanukovych campaign, one of its media
supporters has portrayed me as the eminence grise behind the successes of
Yushchenko. It seems that I'm considered the American-NATO functionary
who has given him the winning "instructions" on how to run his campaign.
While I am honored by the accusation, I have to confess that it is without
foundation. I have never had anything to do with Yushchenko, nor am I
any kind of functionary. But I will return to this at the end. In the
interim, I would like to clarify the enormous significance of the issues at
stake.

SETTING EASTERN UKRAINE AGAINST WESTERN UKRAINE
Today it is Russia and Yanukovych, not the West or Yushchenko, that are
demanding that Ukraine choose between East and West. In so doing, they
set Eastern Ukraine against Western Ukraine, forcing upon them a choice
that they cannot make together but only as one half against the other.

Eastern Ukraine, with its heavy Russian population, its Russian language,
and its economic ties, can never agree to choose the West against Russia.
Western Ukraine, with its close Polish ties, can never agree to choose
Russia against the West. They can agree to live together as fellow
Ukrainians, more or less, but only if they can choose Russia and the West
together. It is this option that Russia and Yanukovych, along with Kuchma,
have been denying them.

Russia has threatened to cut off the development of some beneficial economic
ties if there is not "continuity" of power, i.e. victory for Yanukovych. In
return, Yanukovych has bid to the sky in promising unlimited support for
Russian interests. He has renounced Ukraine's previous strategic goals of
joining the EU and NATO; and Kuchma has already removed these goals
from Ukraine's official documents and plans.

The message is clear: Ukrainians must choose between Russia and the West.
If, following the trend of the vast majority of western Ukrainians, they
choose Yushchenko and the West, Putin threatens to cut off some of their
natural economic ties with Russia. If instead, following the trend of the
vast majority of eastern Ukrainians, they choose Russia, then they are told
by Russia and by Yanukovych that they must do it by abandoning their natural
ties and aspirations in the West. There could hardly be a worse way to
sharpen the already severe division in the country between its eastern and
western halves. It has inevitably caused some talk -- fortunately as yet not
much -- of break-up and civil war.

By contrast, Yushchenko speaks of Russia as Ukraine's "eternal" partner. He
seeks economic cooperation with Russia. He promises to make Russians feel
comfortable in Ukraine and have full use of their language in media,
culture, and schooling for their children. He has been both pro-Western and
pro-Russian -- the only sane course for a Ukraine that cannot afford to
exacerbate the division between its eastern and western halves. He cannot
possibly outbid Yanukovych in pro-Russian promises, but at least he has not

counterposed cooperation with Russia against cooperation with the West. And
promises are not the main thing. Yushchenko showed when he was premier of
Ukraine that he was ready to be fair to Russian business interests on sales
and privatizations of industries -- more fair, ironically, than has been the
case under Yanukovych with his ties to the corrupt Ukrainian oligarchy.

In a further irony, it seems that the privatization under Yushchenko was
denounced by some Westerners as a sell-out of Ukraine to Russian
imperialism. Meanwhile Russians portray Yushchenko as a stooge of Western
domination. These contradictory accusations evidently are all grossly
exaggerated, and tell us less about Yushchenko than about the paradoxes of
propaganda wars. Some Russians are always suspicious that, whenever there
is any accommodation by Ukraine (or another CIS country) to any interests
of the West, it will constitute a total, final, permanent sell-out of the
country to the supposed American imperialism -- and vice versa from the
Western side. We are faced with opposite paranoias, each of them so
suspicious of any natural influence from the other side that they both see
the other's imperialism triumphing in the same place at the same time.

The paranoias and the mutual accusations will continue until such time as
both sides clearly acknowledge that ought to be obvious: that both of them
inevitably have influence in the CIS countries, and in most cases it is a
constructive and legitimate influence. Neither side is an omnipotent monster
capable of gobbling up and eternally controlling a country merely by the
fact of making a deal with it or having influence on it. The real danger to
these countries is the attempt from both sides to pressure them to exclude
the natural influences of the other side, instead of coping constructively
with foreign involvement as any modern society ought to.

The theory of integration of countries has taught ever since the 1950s that,
if one wants to unite two societies successfully and sustainably, one must
unite the mainstreams of all major parties and interests in them. One must
never try to unite them over the opposition of a large portion of one of
them, much less half the country as in the case of Ukraine. Experience has
taught a painful lesson about the latter course: it has usually led to
permanent alienation of a large group, irridentist movements, and
unsustainability of the union. Indeed, it has often brought civil war and
terrorism, as in Northern Ireland.

If Russia hopes to integrate with Ukraine on a basis that is useful for
Russia, it needs a healthy, united Ukraine. The main interest of Russia in
Ukraine is for the country to be healthy, and at this point it should
recognize that that means accepting the election of Yushchenko, who already
won the first round despite enormous use of "administrative resources" by
Yanukovych. The worst possible thing for Russia would be for it to go ahead
after a narrow or more likely falsified electoral victory for Yanukovych,
and proceed to "integrate" Ukraine with itself on a basis that excludes and
puts an end to the simultaneous processes of integration with the West. The
Ukraine that Russia would "get" this way would be an existentially divided
one, with a huge minority or even a majority remaining opposed to the
integration and feeling betrayed by that. The result would be a disastrous
situation of a permanently divided and alienated Ukraine.

The same is true for the West: it too needs a healthy Ukraine, not a divided
one. The worst thing for the West would be to go ahead with integrating
Ukraine on a basis that is or even appears anti-Russian: the result would be
that eastern Ukraine would never accept the integration, and the West
would get not a helpful ally but a sickly troublemaking dependency.

The only integration that can work is one that strengthens the unity of
Ukrainian society rather than undermining it. This means the integration
must be in both directions, East and West, so as to sustain and satisfy the
basic psychological orientations of both halves of the country.

The Ukraine that the West needs to integrate into the EU common spaces
and into NATO is a Ukraine that also is integrating with Russia. The Ukraine
that Russia needs to integrate is one that is also integrating with the EU a
nd NATO. And this dual integration, in order to be achieved consistently
rather than schizophrenically, in turn requires that Russia must also be
integrating with the EU and NATO. As Russia has in fact been trying to do.
The point comes down to putting all the integration equations together, in a
mutually supportive although not lock-step synchronized fashion, rather than
turning them against each other.
THE MOST PROBABLE PATH FOR SUCH A POSITIVE,
TWO-WAY INTEGRATION IS: :
(a) for Russia and Ukraine both to join NATO, with the plans and commitments
on Russian membership already well advanced by the time Ukraine joins,
thereby rebuilding the common Russia-Ukraine strategic space which could
never be restored bilaterally except by force or fraud; and

(b) for both countries to be integrated gradually into an EU common space,
without prejudice to their going ahead meanwhile with faster mutual
integration in some social and economic sectors. Since the EU must proceed
slowly with Ukraine and Russia, the EU should not oppose Ukraine's
proceeding with Russia meanwhile, and should have enough creativity to
conceptualize its common spaces so as to encompass both countries together
when appropriate, rather than only dealing with each separately. Ukraine and
Russia in turn will need to define their common space in a way that is
EU-compatible.

The US and the West as a whole have acted properly; NATO officials have
for some years spoken of Russia and Ukraine joining the alliance at the same
time. To be sure, no one is perfect. NATO and EU have not made enough of
an effort to reconcile their separate integration equations for Russia and
Ukraine with the joint integration equation of the two. There was a
troublesome remark from an EU official; speaking on a subject beyond his
competence, who said that a Ukraine-Russia common economic space
would be incompatible with the Ukraine-EU common space; but he was
duly criticized for this by other EU officials. His one slip of the tongue
pales when compared to the deliberate, large-scale pressures of Russia on
Ukraine to renounce all serious Western integration in order to continue
with its Eastern ties.

The West could always do even more to be reassuring. It could, for example,
follow Yushchenko's example of constructive, pro-Russian comments. It
could speak positively of Russian-Ukrainian economic integration as
something that must inevitably proceed at its natural pace alongside the
slower Ukraine-West and Russia-West integration processes. It could
speak out in favor of the rights of Russian language speakers in Ukraine;
Yushchenko himself could be more definite in his promises on this matter.
It could state that it will not pressure Ukraine to divide itself from
Russia if Yushchenko wins, but will rather do its part to help ensure that
his policies are a pro-Russian as he says, and will try to integrate Russia
alongside Ukraine into the West. Here the West has something attractive to
offer Russia, and should make more of the fact: for in the end, it is only
through this dual-track integration into that Russia can regain strategic
integration with Ukraine in a manner that is legitimate, profound, and
sustainable.

However, the West has done its basic share in these regards, as has
Yushchenko. It is Russia that has been remiss.
Several months ago, the matter looked different. The electoral preference
was unclear: Yushenko had 25% support; Yanukovych was posed to
inherit some bloc votes, and his pro-Russian stance mirrored that of most
Ukrainians.

Meanwhile, down south in Georgia, Saakashvili was moving to the edge of
military conflict to regain Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia. He seemed to be
hoping for the US to support him if provocative steps led to fighting with
Russia. Yushchenko was in danger of getting tarred with Saakashvili's brush:
for the US was friendly to both. Saakashvili had made some good pro-Russian
comments but his practice proved confrontational. If he continued along that
course, the pro-Russian majority of Ukrainians might well have feared that
Yushchenko could turn out equally bad, and voted for Yanukovych, much as
Russian commentators were predicting.

The US proved its mettle in this situation. It made clear that it was not
going to support Saakashvili in any military battles with Russia. It used
its influence to get him to calm down and back off, at least for the time
being. It showed that it would not push Georgia (or, by implication, any CIS
country) toward confrontation with Russia, nor let itself be manipulated
into giving Georgia hope of winning in such a confrontation, but would
rather help ensure a peaceful and cooperative approach toward Russia.
Ukrainians, instead of seeing the US encouraging a confrontation with
Russia, could see the US defusing the situation, and could assume the US
would do likewise for their own country under a President Yushchenko.

Yushchenko was never, to be sure, the same as Saakashvili. He was a sober
former prime minister who had cooperated well with Russia in his time, and
was running for president by normal means (while Yanukovych was raising
threats of a violent ending and using every administrative resource at his
disposal). It would have been wrong to equate him with Saakashvili, even if
the US had failed to restrain Saakashvili.
DESPERATE MISQUOTATIONS IN THE YANUKOVYCH PRESS
At this late date, it is unconscionable when the Yanukovych press still
equates Yushchenko with Saakashvili at his worst. Worse, one of the
pro-Yanukovych media proceeds to cite some phrases from an old article on
mine, written months ago at the height of the Georgian crisis, and rip them
badly out of context in order to try to blacken Yushchenko. My article was
written for the purpose of encouraging the US to do the right thing
regarding Saakashvili. It warned that Yushchenko might also suffer if the US
failed to use its influence to restrain Saakashvili. The US did do the right
thing. The inappropriateness of citing phrases torn from it now, in a manner
opposite to its meaning and purpose, should be obvious.

I will not dwell on how the article in the pro-Yanukovych press has called
me a NATO or US official, since this could after all be an honest mistake.
But there is no excuse for its language of hinting that I am one of
Yushchenko's trans-Atlantic "sponsors", and that I may have given him
"instructions" on behalf of the "American ruling view". (the quotes may be
found in http://www.from-ua.com/politics/411b394037cc6/).
9.11.2004 [20:08],

It is, as I have said earlier, very flattering to hear that I have such
power over Yushchenko. But the reality is the opposite. I am a private and
loyal US citizen, holding no government office. I am also a friend of Russia
(as is well known to plenty of people in Moscow, as well as internet
scribblers who sometimes call me a Russian stooge). I have never had any
relationship at all with Yushchenko or his campaign; if they somehow saw
my article and drew sensible conclusions, that is very much to their credit,
but I certainly never gave them any "instructions", and in any case
Yushchenko's moderate and pro-Russian statements began to appear
before my article was published -- not to mention his moderate policy as
Prime Minister. The pro-Yanukovych press article was wrong on every
count: the meaning of what I said, who I am, my relation to American
policy, America's relation to Yushchenko, Yushchenko's relation to Russia.

The misuse of my old article on Georgia, on the eve of the runoff election
in Ukraine, is a small thing, but perhaps one that gives a taste of methods
that seem too frequent in the Yanukovych campaign.

What is true about me, nevertheless, is that it is my considered estimate
that Yushchenko will be better for Ukraine than Yanukovych. It is an
estimate I have formed only recently, long after my article on Georgia was
written, and after reviewing the arguments of both sides, including a number
of articles by Russians, several of them friends of mine who were arguing
the case for Yanukovych.

It is also my estimate that practically the only way Yanukovych could
"win" the election at this stage would be by force and fraud. Which would
be a disaster for Ukraine. If however, Yanukovych wanted some
political-technology advice from me, of the sort that he thinks I gave
Yushchenko and that is supposedly the source of Yushchenko's
phenomenal success, my advice would be this:

"Get Kuchma to put the goals of EU and NATO membership back into
Ukraine's official plans, and put this back into your own platform, as goals
compatible with not contradictory to your pro-Russia plans. You might
want to add that Ukraine would try to get Russia to join NATO at the
same time, but if this were delayed for reasons of Russia's fault, Ukraine
would proceed with joining NATO and act there as lobbyist for Russian
membership when Russia was ready."

The necessity of adapting to the reality of a Yushchenko majority
Russia and America, meanwhile, should both adapt to the new reality. Russia,
by putting aside the threats to punish both itself and Ukraine for electing
Yushchenko, and instead proceeding with the integration and start working to
reconcile its Eastern Ukrainian friends with the new government. America, by
looking for ways to help Yushchenko carry out his pledges of cooperation
with Russia and with Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

If recent remarks by Mr. Chernomyrdin and an article in RIA Novosti ("Who
said Yushchenko was bad for Russia?", Moscow, November 12, 2004) are
any indication, Russia may have already begun its adaptation to a Yushchenko
presidency. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Straus is US coordinator of the "Committee on [po voprosu o]
Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO", an independent, international,
non-governmental organization. irastraus@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untimely Thoughts; Link; http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/?art=1049
Vol 2 no 151 (198) Nukes and Straus Ukr comment
Nov 18, 2004; By Peter Lavelle, plavelle@untimely-thoughts.com
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 222: ARTICLE NUMBER THIRTEEN
========================================================
13. UKRAINE TAPE SCANDAL WHISTLEBLOWER ATTACKS PREMIER

Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 17 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Wed, November 17, 2004

KIEV - Fugitive former presidential guard Mykola Melnychenko has
presented what he says are new recordings of conversations between
Ukraine's top officials apparently implicating them in rigging the 1999
presidential election, an opposition web site has said.

Melnychenko accused presidential candidate and Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovych of using gangsters to rig the election in Donetsk Region.
The authorities say the Melnychenko recordings are fake. The following
is the text of a report by Ukrainian Ukrayinska Pravda web site on
17 November:

The former major of the state guard, Mykola Melnychenko, has released
new recordings implicating [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych, [presidential
administration head Viktor] Medvedchuk, [First Deputy Prime Minister
Mykola] Azarov and [Sumy Region governor Volodymyr] Shcherban in
rigging the 1999 presidential election in favour of Leonid Kuchma.

According to Melnychenko, the techniques used and the names of people
rigging elections remain the same, an Ukrayinska Pravda correspondent said.
Melnychenko showed a multimedia presentation at a news conference [in
Poland]. Audio files with voices from Kuchma's office were mixed with
photos of the characters on the screen and Melnychenko's comments.

In the first episode Kuchma tells Azarov how to threaten directors of
companies to ensure that employees of these companies vote for him.
The current pro-government presidential candidate, Viktor Yanukovych,
in 1999 [then Donetsk Region governor] came to Kuchma and asked his
permission to use gangsters. Kuchma answered: "Victors need never explain."
In the same episode Kuchma allegedly blackmailed Yanukovych, saying that
if he is not re-elected, the Donetsk governor will serve the third term in
prison for crimes during the election campaign.

It was said at the news conference that in 1999 Medvedchuk was in charge
of the Central Electoral Commission and Yuriy Levenets, known from
temnyks [alleged coverage instructions for the media], headed the shadow
headquarters. It was he who allegedly came up with an idea of throwing eggs
at opponents during rallies. Speaking to the then prime minister, Valeriy
Pustovoytenko, who headed the Zlahoda union, the president asked him to
use law enforcers to secure necessary votes. "Police should work hard,"
Kuchma allegedly said by phone.

Kuchma also demanded that the then Interior Minister Yuriy Kravchenko
should organize a campaign to scare people in the south of Ukraine.
"We have a criminal case against almost every collective farm head... they
should be summoned and told: if you don't give as many vote as necessary
you will be... We will play games no more," Kuchma said.

According to the tapes, Sumy Region governor Shcherban called for
launching countless criminal cases against officials, and Odessa Region
Governor [Serhiy] Hrynevetskyy came to Kuchma to ask his permission
for "lawlessness", arguing: "why do you have to lose power?"

Hrynevetskyy told Kuchma about an invention by a major from the town
of Kotovsk, who suggested the following voting system: "If you support
Kuchma put plus, if not put minus [in the ballot paper]. We are electing the
president, aren't we?" It was heard on the tape how Kuchma laughed in
this episode and promised to promote the major to colonel.

In a conversation with the Chernihiv Region governor Kuchma demanded
unanimous support in Chernihiv region and called his fellow countrymen
"idiots".

Melnychenko also revealed Kuchma's conversation with Petro Symonenko,
who complained to Kuchma a few days after the election that groups of
young men were paid 1,000 hryvnyas in eastern regions to cast numerous
ballot papers and "put up shows".

Melnychenko told the news conference that all the tapes will be handed over
to the Council of Europe through the Polish authorities and through Russian
and US embassies. The major also said that he had not revealed a number
of conversations on rigging because he is planning to use them in court
against Kuchma. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
========================================================
ARTICLES ARE FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY
Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
========================================================
Ukraine Information Website: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
========================================================
If you would like to read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-04
please send your name, country of residence, and e-mail contact information
morganw@patriot.net. Additional names are welcome. If you do not wish to
read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-04, around five times per week,
let us know by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.
========================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-2004 SPONSORS:
"Working to Secure Ukraine's Future"
1. THE ACTION UKRAINE COALITION (AUC): Washington, D.C.,
http://www.artukraine.com/auc/index.htm; MEMBERS:
A. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL,
(UACC), Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, NY
B. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA),
Zenia Chernyk, Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President; E.
Morgan Williams, Executive Director, Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania.
http://www.artukraine.com/ufa/index.htm
C. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President, Washington, D.C., Kyiv, Ukraine .
2. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Kempton Jenkins,
President, Washington, D.C.
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 295 7275 in Kyiv.
4. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC. Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA,
5. ODUM- Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson
========================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Executive Director, Ukrainian Federation of America
(UFA); Coordinator, The Action Ukraine Coalition (AUC);
Senior Advisor, Government Relations, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation (USUF);
Advisor, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council, Washington, D.C.;
Publisher and Editor, www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service (ARTUIS),
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013,
Tel: 202 437 4707, E-mail: morganw@patriot.net
=========================================================