"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 223
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., FRIDAY, November 19, 2004
-----INDEX OF ARTICLES-----
"Major International News Headlines and Articles"
1. "THE CONTEST FOR UKRAINE'S SOUL"
EAST OF THE ODER, COMMENTARY: By Vladimir Socor
The Wall Street Journal, New York, New York
Friday, November 19, 2004
2. UKRAINE VOTE UNDERLINES EAST-WEST TUG OF WAR
Student Activists Claim Harassment as Kiev Sees Plot for Ex-Soviet States
By Alan Cullison, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY, Nov 19, 2004; Page A12
3. PRESIDENT BUSH ENVOY SENATOR DICK LUGAR ARRIVES
IN UKRAINE AHEAD OF PRESIDENTIAL RUNOFF
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian, 19 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Fri, Nov 19, 2004
4. RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN SIGNS LAW ON VISA-FREE
TRAVEL BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
Interfax news agency, Moscow, in Russian, 19 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Friday, Nov 19, 2004
5. UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT SPEAKER VOLODYMYR LYTVYN
WARNS AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 19 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Friday, Nov 19, 2004
6. KUCHMA TO NOT SIGN BILL THAT FORBIDS VOTING
WITH ABSENTEE BALLOTS DURING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, November 19, 2004
7. UNION OF UKRAINIAN WOMEN AND WOMEN'S
ORGANIZATIONS TO BACK UP YUSHCHENKO IN ELECTION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, November 19, 2004
8. EYES ON UKRAINE AS CANDIDATES SYMBOLISE
OLD EAST-WEST DIVIDE
By Tom Warner in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, November 19 2004
9. UKRAINE ELECTION WAS DEEMED TO BE UNSATISFACTORY
Letters to the Editor: From Mr Leo Iwanycky.
Financial Times, London, UK, Fri, November 19 2004
10. "UKRAINE'S DEMOCRATIC STRENGTHS"
COMMENTARY: By Stephen Sestanovich
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., November 19, 2004
11. TWO VIKTORS, ONLY ONE VICTOR
>From The Economist Global Agenda
The Economist, London, UK, Nov. 19, 2004
12. "UKRAINE: PRESIDENTIAL TV DEBATE"
COMMENTARY: By Lubomyr Markevych
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 16, 2004
13. "WHAT NOW FOR LEONID KUCHMA?"
By Taras Kuzio, The Eurasia Daily Monitor
Volume 1, Issue 131, The Jamestown Foundation
Washington, D.C., Friday, November 19, 2004
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 223: ARTICLE NUMBER ONE
========================================================
1. "THE CONTEST FOR UKRAINE'S SOUL"
EAST OF THE ODER, COMMENTARY: By Vladimir Socor
The Wall Street Journal, New York, New York
Friday, November 19, 2004
Ukraine 's presidential election runoff on Nov. 21 is the prologue to an
approaching East-West contest -- not "over" Ukraine as is often said (as
if this 48-million nation were a disputed object), but for this nation's
European and indeed Euro-Atlantic future. For all its enormous geostrategic
significance, the East-West contest in Ukraine is ultimately one within this
nation's soul. To turn the contest in Russia's favor, Kremlin political
operatives and Ukrainian government apparatchiks have organized the
ugliest, most brutal and corrupt electoral campaign seen anywhere in the
post-communist world since 1991.
Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, an exponent of eastern Ukrainian
industrial interests linked with the Russian market, is the
Kremlin-preferred candidate to succeed Leonid Kuchma for a five-year
term as president of Ukraine . Russian President Vladimir Putin is
personally involved in this project. It is an alliance of convenience
between Russian geopolitical interests and Ukrainian clan interests. The
scenario, dubbed "Operation Successor" by Moscow political planners,
is mainly designed to stop Ukraine 's most popular politician, former
prime minister Viktor Yushchenko, from winning the election, as he
undoubtedly would in a free and fair campaign and balloting.
Mr. Yushchenko owes that popularity to successful economic reforms and
anticorruption measures he undertook while prime minister (1991-2001), to
his vision of a Ukraine integrated with Europe, and to his appeal to Ukraine
's growing middle class and younger generations. The political bloc he
leads, Our Ukraine , placed first in the 2002 parliamentary elections,
though well short of a majority in parliament.
Opinion surveys, as well as exit polls during the October 31 first round of
the presidential election, consistently showed Mr. Yushchenko as the
frontrunner. He won the first round, probably by a 5% to 10% margin,
according to exit polls and parallel vote-counts. Official returns --
released by government-controlled election authorities after ten days --
credited him with a lead of less than one percent over Mr. Yanukovich.
Denied fair access to television channels (most of which are oligarch- and
government-controlled); relentlessly assaulted by those channels as well as
by Russian television; prevented by the authorities (sometimes through
deliberately staged incidents) from campaigning in populous eastern cities;
and ultimately targeted by an apparent chemical attack that disfigured his
photogenic face almost beyond recognition -- Mr. Yushchenko is still likely
to win an honest runoff.
Evidence of official fraud could trigger mass protests in Kiev and the
western regions, where Mr. Yushchenko's and Our Ukraine 's support is
concentrated. Mr. Yanukovich's strongholds are in Russocentric eastern
regions of Ukraine , where voter behavior is still substantially influenced
by the authorities, factory bosses, and signals from the Kremlin.
Mr. Putin has involved himself in the Ukrainian election campaign with a
particularly heavy hand. He has collected (and rechanneled into the
Yanukovich campaign via Russian operatives), hundreds of millions of dollars
in contributions from Russian energy companies. Top political consulting
firms, which normally work for the Kremlin, descended on Ukraine to work
for "Operation Successor."
Their directors made no secret of the geopolitical agenda that inspired
their efforts. They declared publicly that Russia could not permit Ukraine
ever to join NATO, or to outpace Russia in developing relations with the
European Union, or to join the WTO instead of entering Russian-led economic
unions. Moscow expects Mr. Yushchenko to pursue all these goals if he
becomes president, and is counting on Mr. Yanukovich to do the opposite:
freeze Ukraine 's NATO aspirations, focus on integration in the "Single
Economic Space" with Russia, and coordinate with Moscow in negotiating
for joint accession to the WTO.
To maximize support for his candidacy in his native eastern Ukraine , Mr.
Yanukovich has pledged to ask parliament to confer official status on the
Russian language (on a par with the Ukrainian) and to introduce dual
Ukrainian-Russian citizenship, if he is elected. Such moves would weaken
Ukrainian national identity, which is why the parliament is unlikely to
approve them. Even Mr. Kuchma has tried to distance himself from these
pledges (which he himself had made when first elected president in 1994,
only to reverse his stance afterward).
Throughout the campaign, Mr. Putin held effusive meetings with Messrs.
Kuchma and Yanukovich every few weeks, including visits to Ukraine a
few days before the first round and midway between the first round and
the runoff. Amply televised, those meetings were designed to mobilize
Russia-oriented, Soviet-nostalgic voters in eastern Ukraine for Mr.
Yanukovich by demonstrating that he is Moscow's favorite. Meanwhile,
Russia's Kremlin-controlled television channels (which are received
throughout Ukraine ) lacerated Mr. Yushchenko in pure Soviet style --
as an American agent, fascist-nationalist, and dangerous market reformer
intent on taking away jobs and closing Ukrainian industries to serve
Western interests.
Having suppressed democratization in Russia, Mr. Putin is now campaigning
against it in one of Europe's largest countries, Ukraine . While
international election monitors have severely criticized the Ukrainian
authorities' conduct of the campaign, Russian election monitors have
staunchly defended it as "democratic" (as they did the recent elections and
referendum staged by dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus).
At the end of such an unfair campaign, Mr. Yanukovich can win by a narrow
margin even if the vote count is honest. But the authorities may be tempted
to conclude that they still need to rob Mr. Yushchenko of a few percentage
points in order to defeat him, however narrowly. This would be a worst-case
outcome. It would trigger a storm of internal and international protests,
isolate the elected Mr. Yanukovich from the West, and leave him no choice
but to rely on the Kremlin more heavily than he would ever have wished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Socor is a senior fellow of the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation,
publishers of the Eurasia Daily Monitor.
=======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER TWO
=======================================================
2. UKRAINE VOTE UNDERLINES EAST-WEST TUG OF WAR
Student Activists Claim Harassment as Kiev Sees Plot for Ex-Soviet States
By Alan Cullison, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY, Nov 19, 2004; Page A12
KIEV, Ukraine -- Vladyslav Kaskiv leads a group of 200 political activists,
mostly students in Che Guevara T-shirts, who pin up posters, wave banners
and plan rallies if they detect vote fraud in this country's presidential
elections. Two weeks ago police searched Mr. Kaskiv's offices. The phones,
he says, are bugged.
"Every day there are new accusations, new arrests, new ways to destroy us,"
says Mr. Kaskiv with the wave of a hand. "I don't see an end to it."
Ukraine's government sees Mr. Kaskiv's group as part of a Western-led plot
that has helped topple other governments in the former Soviet Union. "The
group is a clear political project, not put together by students in Ukraine
, but put together by Western sponsors -- by Americans, Serbs and Poles,"
says Sergei Markov, a Moscow-based political analyst who has been advising
the presidential candidate backed by the Ukrainian government. "If they take
to the streets, it will be the decision of their sponsors, not the students
themselves."
Each side's view of the other on the eve of Ukraine's presidential runoff
Sunday reflects an intense grapple for power between Moscow and the West
over former Soviet states. Although East-West tensions often are obscured by
diplomatic niceties since the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, the
struggle has intensified: The Kremlin has grown more assertive under
President Vladimir Putin, while the U.S. and the European Union aggressively
are courting former Soviet republics along the EU's expanding eastern
border.
The Kremlin believes the West is attempting to worm its way into the region
with proxies in the form of student activists. Last month in Belarus, police
beat protesters who tried to demonstrate against a government referendum
that gave the authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko the right to a
third term. European observers denounced the voting as rigged.
EAST VERSUS WEST
In Kiev, both sides are gearing up for confrontation as the
government-backed candidate and his opponent run neck and neck in most
polls. Ukraine's Central Elections Commission took 10 days to announce the
results of the first round of voting, a delay that sparked demonstrations
and allegations of fraud.
After 10 years of quasi-authoritarian rule, Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma, who can't seek re-election, wants to hand power to his prime
minister, Viktor Yanukovich, an advocate of closer ties to Moscow and
making Russian the second official language of Ukraine . Mr. Putin has
visited Ukraine twice in the past month, and warmly praised Mr. Yanukovich
on state-run television in Ukraine and Russia. His opponent, Viktor
Yushchenko, is a former central bank chairman who promises closer
ties to the West and membership in the EU.
Mr. Yushchenko, who alleges his face was disfigured after opponents tried to
poison him (charges denied by Mr. Yanukovich's campaign), finished first by
a 0.5% margin in the first election on Oct. 31, but failed to win a
majority.
Mr. Kaskiv's group -- PORA, which means "it's time" in Russian and
Ukrainian -- could be a potent force if the runoff is close. Working from a
crowded, four-room basement headquarters in the center of Kiev, Mr. Kaskiv,
a 30-year-old who wears a black leather jacket and leads chants through a
megaphone during protest marches, says PORA's full-time organizers are
connected by a telephone and e-mail network to 15,000 active members
throughout the country. Volunteers in the headquarters work under a banner
reading "We are not afraid."
While Mr. Kaskiv says his group is only ensuring the vote is fair and denies
taking orders from Western sponsors, PORA has gotten advice from other
groups funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Canadian
government and Ukrainians living in the West. It also has picked up some of
its skills from similar upstart groups that helped topple rulers in the
former Soviet state of Georgia last year and in Yugoslavia in 2000. After
touring Ukraine , Serbian activists who helped topple former Yugoslavia
President Slobodan Milosevic advised against any serious confrontations with
police, according to Mr. Kaskiv.
"If we get into any real fight with police, we know we will lose," says
Andrei Bondarenko, head of security for PORA. He says PORA has cobbled
together a security force of about 100 volunteers who keep in touch during
rallies on hand-held radios. The security force is split into groups of five
or six people, who are assigned tasks such as perimeter or traffic control.
Still others are assigned to a "mobile group" that tries to contain mayhem
if a fight erupts. "Some people come to demonstrations because they like
contact sports," says Mr. Bondarenko. "We have to watch them."
Mr. Kaskiv says Russian apprehensions of a popular revolt in Ukraine are
premature. In Georgia and in Yugoslavia, protesters were up against leaders
enfeebled and undermined by rampant corruption and weakened economies.
In Ukraine , Mr. Yanukovich enjoys a solid base of support. The economy,
meanwhile, appears to be rebounding after contracting by about 60% during
the 1990s. The International Monetary Fund forecasts growth of more than
12% this year, partly because of investments from oil-rich Russia. Mr.
Yanukovich has used some of the windfall to raise pensions and government
salaries, including for the police.
The government insists PORA has violent tendencies. One week before the
first round of Ukraine's presidential elections, police raided the group's
headquarters and announced they seized explosives, a detonator, counterfeit
money and thousands of posters promoting the opposition candidate, Mr.
Yushchenko. PORA and Western diplomats say the explosives were planted
by police.
Mr. Kaskiv says members have been detained daily on assorted charges of
hooliganism and membership in an armed group. Still, he says the group can
call about 5,000 marchers to the streets in Kiev within a day's notice. "If
they hold fair elections," he says, "we won't need to march."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSJ: Write to Alan Cullison at alan.cullison@wsj.com
=======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER THREE
=======================================================
3. PRESIDENT BUSH ENVOY SENATOR DICK LUGAR ARRIVES IN
UKRAINE AHEAD OF PRESIDENTIAL RUNOFF
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian, 19 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Fri, Nov 19, 2004
KIEV - The head of US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard
Lugar, has arrived in Ukraine today, the Interfax-Ukraine news agency
has learnt from the official delegations hall of Kiev's Boryspil
international airport. The senator's visit is to last till 23 November.
Richard Lugar arrived in the capacity of US President George Bush's
representative to monitor the Ukrainian presidential election.
The senator is to meet journalists later today. Also today, he is scheduled
to meet the speaker of the Supreme Council [parliament] of Ukraine,
Volodymyr Lytvyn.
Lugar had said that his mission was "not to be an advocate of either
of the candidates, but to stress the need for a free and transparent
process". [Passage omitted: background to Lugar's political career]
[A White House spokesman today expressed deep concern over the
Ukrainian election ahead of the 21 November runoff, saying the initial
round of voting did not meet a basic test of a truly democratic process.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTE: Your editor attended a press conference this afternoon
Kyiv held by U.S. Senator Dick Lugar. Will report on the press
conference in the next The Action Ukraine Report. [Editor]
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER FOUR
Your comments about the Report are always welcome
========================================================
4. RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN SIGNS LAW ON VISA-FREE
TRAVEL BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
Interfax news agency, Moscow, in Russian, 19 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Friday, Nov 19, 2004
MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed the federal
law "On ratification of the protocol on changes to the agreement between
the Russian Federation government and Ukrainian government on visa-
free travel by citizens of the Russian Federation and Ukraine of 16
January 1997".
The Russian president's press office said today that the law was adopted
by the State Duma on 10 November and approved by the Federation
Council on 10 November. -30-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTE: Russian President Putin continues his major intervention
into the Ukrainian presidential election working hard on behalf of Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych.
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER FIVE
========================================================
5. UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT SPEAKER VOLODYMYR LYTVYN
WARNS AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 19 Nov 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Friday, Nov 19, 2004
KIEV - Ukrainian parliament speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn has warned
that any attempts to rig the vote in the presidential runoff on 21 November
would cost the new president his legitimacy. Addressing parliament, Lytvyn
warned officials, police and election organizers that they would be called
to account for any irregularities on election night, adding that these
were numerous during the first round three weeks ago.
He told voters not to be afraid and to challenge any pressure because the
law would protect them, adding that a fraudulent victory would deny the
president recognition by the world and his own people. The following is
an excerpt from Lytvyn's statement broadcast live by Ukrainian television
TV 5 Kanal on 19 November; subheading inserted editorially:
[Lytvyn] Members of parliament, compatriots. I feel it necessary to make
a statement. Ukraine has approached a watershed, the second round of
presidential elections. The price of 21 November 2004 is indeed huge and
far reaching. Its ramifications include the future of the state and society
for at least the next 10 years, developments in the former Soviet Union
and security in Europe.
The public anxiety and the attention of the world community caused by
the election are of unprecedented proportions. They are comparable
to the reactions caused by the Chernobyl disaster.
While the high voter activity and the presence of a powerful opposition
attest to progress of democracy in this country, the first stage of the
presidential campaign forces an impression of division between the
government and the people.
Today we have a divided country which is fraught with serious
complications on the day of the runoff and in the long term. The
reasons for this are not only imperfections in the law on presidential
elections, as some would have us believe. This law was drafted for a
developed society with a mature democracy, and we are moving
towards this standard, albeit with difficulty and controversy.
VOTE-RIGGING WIDESPREAD IN FIRST ROUND
But do we have a law that allows manipulation of voter registers and
absentee ballots, the same individual voting several times or voting for
several others, forcing someone to vote for this or that candidate and
disrupting the work of electoral commissions? Do we have a law that
allows ignoring or distorting people's will for the sake of an outcome
desired by some? On the contrary, the law expressly forbids this and
prescribes unavoidable punishment.
It is not necessary to study or summarize everything that happens in local
communities to see that incidents of contempt for the law and the people
are not sporadic, that politics is at odds with morality. It would suffice
to watch Ukrainian TV. One gets the impression that a war has been
declared on Ukrainian people.
Under these conditions, the more one talks about a fair, transparent and
democratic election, the less confident people are that one is possible.
Therefore, those in charge must do their utmost to remove at once the
shortcomings and irregularities that could adversely affect the second
round of elections, distort people's expression of will and its outcome.
[Passage omitted: a civil society and supremacy of law, freedom of
speech remain a priority.]
Presidential candidates do not need an illegitimate victory obtained at a
dubious cost. People of Ukraine need an honest and democratic electoral
procedure that would enable each to fulfil their vision of the country's
development, its place and role in the world. The views and voted of the
people must be and, I hope, will be the only real thing that matters. This
is the way to ensure that the dubious statement "it isn't the vote but the
counting that matters" does not apply to our practice.
As speaker of parliament - the highest representative body of the people -
I urge you, esteemed compatriots, to use your constitutional right on 21
November freely, consciously and without fear because it is safeguarded
by the law. I feel it necessary to draw the attention of government
executives, law-enforcement agencies and electoral commissions to their
personal responsibility for preventing any irregularities that could impede
expression of people's will or, God forbid, provoke civil conflict.
Ukraine is entitled to a president who will be recognized by his own people
and respected by the world. Whether this happens depends on us, each
and everyone. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
=======================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER SIX
Additional names for the distribution list are always welcome
========================================================
6. KUCHMA TO NOT SIGN BILL THAT FORBIDS VOTING
WITH ABSENTEE BALLOTS DURING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, November 19, 2004
KYIV - President Leonid Kuchma told journalists that he has no
intention to sign the bill adopted by parliament on November 18 to
forbid voting with absentee ballots during the presidential elections.
The President said he had time to learn about this "piece" more or less.
Kuchma stressed that he can only call it "a piece" and not "a law"
because no line in this document complies with the Constitution.
The bill has not been officially sent to him for signing yet, Kuchma
added.In his opinion, this bill violates the rights of voters first of all
because, as the Central Election Commission reported, 1 million
voters have already received absentee ballots, thus expressing their
will at the presidential elections.
"We bar millions of people from voting. I consider it an ordinary
provocation on the part of the opposition," the President said.
Besides, he continued, it is no realistic to make these amendments
to the electoral law because the deadline is too tight.
"Therefore, [I put] a cross on these amendments," Kuchma said.
As he put it, the current legislation gives every possibility to conduct
the election normally.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine
banned voting with absentee ballots during the presidential elections by
236 placets with a view of the 226 required on November 18. The bill
with amendments to the presidential election law was submitted by
MP Oleh Bilorus from the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc.
Kuchma described as absurd the information about possible vote rigging
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.223: ARTICLE NUMBER SEVEN
Suggested articles for publication in the Report are always welcome
========================================================
7. UNION OF UKRAINIAN WOMEN AND WOMEN'S
ORGANIZATIONS TO BACK UP YUSHCHENKO IN ELECTION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, November 19, 2004
KYIV - The All-Ukrainian Union of Ukrainian Women and other
national democratic women's organizations have announced their
support to Our Ukraine Coalition leader Viktor Yuschenko in the
run-off election.
Members of the Union of Ukrainian Women, Olena Teliha Women's
Society, Women's Community (Zhinocha Hromada) international
organization, Mothers and Sisters of Ukrainian Youth international
league, and the Berehyni Batkivschyny (Women Who Guard Their
Motherland) non-governmental organization call on Ukrainians to
vote for Yuschenko. They signed their call at the Tak! press club.
People's artist Natalia Sumska, deputy chairperson of the National
Union of Theater Actors of Ukraine Raisa Nedashkivska, authorized
secretary of the National Union of Ukrainian Writers/poetess Nina
Hnatiuk, people's artist Nina Matvienko and writer Mykhailina
Kotsiubynska have joined them.
The women's organizations call on the people to use all possible
constitutional means to fight against provocations, falsifications and
manipulation of citizens' consciousness by the authorities.
"The course of the electoral process has showed that here, in the center
of Europe, at the beginning of the 21 century, the incumbent regime
behaves outrageously, using the dirtiest means to retain the power,"
their call reads.
"We call on citizens to be vigilant during the second round of presidential
elections in order to not let the authorities to commit crimes and law
enforcement agencies to use force methods leading to the victory of
patently promoted candidate Yanukovych against the will of the people,"
the call reads further.
These organizations criticize the authorities for ineffective 10-year rule
of President Leonid Kuchma, which resulted in a population reduction
by 4 million, not counting those 7 million who moved abroad seeking for
employment.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Union of Ukrainian Women
previously called on deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, presidential
candidates and leaders of political parties to stop attacking, terrorizing
and accusing the wife of presidential candidate Viktor Yuschenko,
Kateryna Chumachenko, of having antagonistic feelings for Ukraine.
The Union of Ukrainian Women brings together 16,000 members. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 223: ARTICLE NUMBER EIGHT
Letters to the editor are always welcome
========================================================
8. EYES ON UKRAINE AS CANDIDATES SYMBOLISE
OLD EAST-WEST DIVIDE
By Tom Warner in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, November 19 2004
KIEV - Ukraine votes this Sunday in what political analysts are calling the
most pivotal election in eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The closely matched contest for Ukraine's presidency pits the
Russian-backed, centrist prime minister Viktor Yanukovich against the
western-leaning, liberal opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko.
Foreign interest is intense, with western governments and election observers
attacking official bias in Mr Yanukovich's favour while Russian officials
accuse the west of backing Mr Yushchenko.
Javier Solana, European Union foreign policy chief, yesterday telephoned
Ukraine's outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, to urge him to ensure a fair
election. Russia's President Vladimir Putin has visited Ukraine twice during
the final weeks of the campaign, most recently last weekend, when he was
shown on television kissing Mr Yanukovich on the cheek and wishing him
success.
The vote will determine whether Ukraine seeks to imitate its neighbours in
central Europe by committing to economic and political liberalisation and
the goal of EU membership, as Mr Yushchenko promises, or whether the
second-largest country in eastern Europe will throw its weight behind a
Russian-led bloc made up of the former core members of the USSR,
which Mr Yanukovich favours.
"Ukraine has become an object of a geopolitical struggle between Russia
and the west," said Alexander Rahr, an expert on Russia and Ukraine at
the German Council for Foreign Relations. "Geopolitical rivalries that we
thought were finished 13 years ago are now coming back in a very
dramatic way."
The elections have also created an unprecedented enthusiasm for politics
among millions of Ukrainians. Turnout in the first round of elections was 75
per cent and is expected to be even higher on Sunday. Last month's vote
revealed a sharply polarised nation, with central and western regions voting
overwhelmingly for Mr Yushchenko while the east and south backed Mr
Yanukovich. Mr Yushchenko led nationwide by a margin of less than
200,000 votes out of more than 28m cast.
The vote is being held against a backdrop of growing mistrust between
Russia and the west - a relationship aggravated by both Mr Putin's
increasingly authoritarian hand in domestic politics and his attempts at
staking a claim to a sphere of influence on Russia's southern perimeter.
Mr Rahr said Mr Putin appeared to be betting heavily on Mr Yanukovich
to reverse the recent trend of setbacks to Russian influence in Georgia and
Moldova. "If Russia loses Ukraine as well, it will be a heavy, heavy blow
to Putin's policy," he said.
Mr Yanukovich is campaigning on a platform of "peace and stability", which
he contends would be threatened by Mr Yushchenko's "extreme" proposal to
re-orient economic and foreign policy towards Europe. The campaign of the
prime minister has been boosted by strong gross domestic product growth
but hurt by perceptions that as an eastern Ukrainian he would bring that
region's style of paternalism and authoritarianism to the rest of the
country.
Mr Yanukovich is believed to have scored points by performing better than
expected in a debate on Monday while Mr Yushchenko won a symbolic
victory in the Supreme Court over the official vote count that slightly
boosted his lead in the first round. Both campaigns say Sunday's results
are likely to be disputed in the courts. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER NINE
========================================================
9. UKRAINE ELECTION WAS DEEMED TO BE UNSATISFACTORY
Letters to the Editor: From Mr Leo Iwanycky.
Financial Times, London, UK, Fri, November 19 2004
Sir, The preliminary conclusions of the preliminary statement on the
presidential election in Ukraine, October 31 2004 (November 1 2004)
of the OSCE international elections observation mission states:
"The 31 October presidential election in Ukraine did not meet a considerable
number of OSCE, Council of Europe and other European standards for
democratic elections. During the pre-election period, the governmental,
electoral and other authorities did not create conditions that ensure in
practice the free expression of the opinion of electors in their choice of
representatives. Consequently, this election process constitutes a step
backward from the 2002 elections."
The preliminary statement is very clear - the first round of the elections
was most unsatisfactory. The vast majority of other independent
observers, apart from those from the CIS, came to the same conclusion
and it is the Ukrainian government that is responsible for this state of
affairs.
For Eduard Prutnik (Letters, November 18) to suggest otherwise is
absurd. It is he who is selectively citing the OSCE report, not Viktor
Yushchenko, the opposition candidate in the Ukrainian presidential
elections.
Leo Iwanycky, Nottingham NG3 5FG
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER TEN
Your financial support is needed, please send a check.
========================================================
10. "UKRAINE'S DEMOCRATIC STRENGTHS"
COMMENTARY: By Stephen Sestanovich
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., November 19, 2004
One big difference sets Sunday's presidential election in Ukraine apart
from others held over the past 10 years to pick national leaders in the 12
countries of the former Soviet Union: Sunday's winner is not known in
advance.
Last month, in the first round of balloting, former prime minister Viktor
Yushchenko (the reformist leader of the opposition) and incumbent Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych (the chosen successor of outgoing President
Leonid Kuchma) each got slightly more than 39 percent of the votes,
according to the official count. Yet, no matter who wins the runoff, what
is happening in Ukraine has already demolished its image as a
not-quite-European backwater. Although it is one of the most divided of
all post-Soviet countries, Ukraine seems about to become, of all things, a
democracy.
How did this happen? It's not that the place has adopted the rule of law.
To the usual outrages -- such as state television's near-exclusive focus on
one candidate, or huge and corrupt favors for the government's financial
backers -- the campaign to date has added new touches that are bizarre
even by Ukrainian standards. There is the still unexplained "poisoning" of
Yushchenko, which kept him off the campaign trail for weeks; the mass
influx of Russian celebrities, from pop stars to Vladimir Putin himself,
all barnstorming for Yanukovych; and -- most worrisome for Sunday's
runoff -- widespread tampering with voter lists on the day of the first
round.
Nor has Ukraine overcome the divisions that made it one of the most
vulnerable of the countries created when the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991. It has, of course, faced extreme poverty, crime and corruption,
but it has also had to deal with the far more emotional issue of national
identity. Some experts, viewing Ukraine's western regions as a cultural,
linguistic and religious extension of Poland, and its eastern regions as a
similar extension of Russia, wondered whether it was really a country
at all.
Thirteen years later these divisions still weaken Ukrainian unity.
According to the respected Razumkov Center in Kiev, 81 percent of
western Ukrainians would again vote for Ukrainian independence. But
in the east and south this number drops to one-third, and the central
region is split down the middle.
The result is truly breathtaking political polarization. In last month's
first round, two-thirds of Ukraine's 27 regions preferred one of the two
finalists to the other by a margin exceeding 3 to 1. Yushchenko, strongest
in western Ukraine, won 10 of these lopsided contests; Yanukovych, an
easterner, won eight. In five regions, the gap was more than 10 to 1 --
and in some places it approached 30 to 1.
Yet Ukraine's very dividedness has turned out to be a crucial ingredient of
its emergent democratic success. To be sure, after every election (no
matter who wins) a large portion of the public feels deeply estranged from
its leaders. That may be bad for national identity and civic consciousness,
but it has so far been good for democracy. In Ukraine, merely winning an
election doesn't enable you to put your opponents out of business --
something that, across the former Soviet Union, incumbents have had no
trouble doing. The country's divisions give losers a political base that
can't be taken away.
National disunity guarantees contested elections in practice, but poll
results suggest that Ukrainians have gone further, embracing pluralism as
a principle. The Razumkov Center finds that, while only 46 percent of
Ukrainians nationwide believe that the country needs a multiparty political
system, the idea enjoys majority support in both the east and the west --
that is, in those parts of the country that have the most to lose if every
election comes out the same way. Putin explicitly made this link between
regional animosities and political activism in trying to get out the vote
for Yanukovych. You have to "make your choice," he warned, "or
someone else will make it for you."
Ukraine is sometimes treated as a "halfway" country of Eastern Europe --
less burdened by Soviet legacies than Russia, but not able to throw off the
past as easily as countries that were never part of the U.S.S.R. There is
much truth in this description, but it is wrong about one thing: popular
attitudes. Perhaps because they are so divided, Ukrainians actually have
more democratic views than almost any other post-communist country.
When pollsters from Pew Research Center's 2003 Global Attitudes Project
asked people in Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria and Russia their view of a series
of democratic norms, they found that Ukrainians came in first in their
support for fair elections, a fair judiciary, freedom of the press and free
speech.
Of course, these views, however strongly held, may not be enough to deter
those who are out to steal Sunday's election. Nevertheless, they are a
reminder that democracy can emerge by very different routes. For most
rich and stable countries, it reflects institutions and values that have
evolved over generations. In other circumstances, democracy can be
the product of conflict as much as of consensus -- a practical tool that
even poor and divided countries can use to solve their problems. For
Ukraine, more than most, that connection has been easy to make.
A Russian journalist reflected recently on what Ukraine has achieved and,
implicitly, what his own country has not. "I envy Ukrainians," he wrote.
"They have a chance for normal democratic development." -30-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a
professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University. He was U.S.
ambassador at large for the former Soviet Union from 1997 to 2001.
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER ELEVEN
Your financial support is needed, please send a check.
========================================================
11. TWO VIKTORS, ONLY ONE VICTOR
>From The Economist Global Agenda
The Economist, London, UK, Nov. 19, 2004
The final round of Ukraine's presidential election, to be held on Sunday, is
officially neck-and-neck between the two candidates-one proposing
integration with western Europe, the other seeking to stay close to Moscow.
The outcome will be important not just for Ukraine but for Russia and the
rest of eastern Europe
IN HIS bid to step up to the presidency, Ukraine's prime minister, Viktor
Yanukovich, has the powerful backing of two strongmen-the outgoing
Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, and the Russian president, Vladimir
Putin. He also has the country's news media heavily skewed in his favour.
His supporters are reported to have intimidated electoral officials to try
to swing the vote his way and are even accused of trying to poison
his main rival.
But in spite of having Ukraine's and Russia's government apparatus on his
side, or maybe because of this, Mr Yanukovich still failed to come first in
the initial round of voting, late last month. His challenger, Viktor
Yushchenko, a former prime minister, won 39.87% of votes, just ahead of
Mr Yanukovich's 39.32%. The closeness of the contest, the gravity of the
allegations of skulduggery by Mr Yanukovich's supporters and the importance
of the election-for one of eastern Europe's largest countries and for the
whole region-all mean that the world should be keeping a close eye on the
second round of voting, on Sunday November 21st.
If the vote is fair this time (and the European Union and America have
demanded assurances from the government that it will be) the victor among
the two Viktors seems likely to be Mr Yushchenko. He has presented himself
as a pro-western, free-market reformer who will seek membership of the EU
and the American-led NATO defence alliance, while cleaning up corruption
and enforcing the rule of law.
Though many of Ukraine's 49m citizens speak Russian as their first or only
language and have traditionally looked to Moscow, even some of those are
sick of the cronyism of Mr Kuchma's pro-Kremlin regime, which is propped
up by oligarchic business clans. So while Mr Yanukovich insists that he,
like his opponent, is a reformer, and keeps reminding voters of his recent
big increases in pensions and public-sector pay, he is clearly suffering
from being the regime's candidate, and the Kremlin's. Mr Putin has
visited Ukraine twice during the campaign, to bolster Mr Yanukovich's
chances (though he denied this was the reason). But there has been
some speculation in the Moscow press that the Russian president's
meddling may backfire, encouraging lukewarm supporters of Mr
Yushchenko to turn out and vote.
Ukraine has spent centuries under the yoke of its mighty Russian neighbour.
The country's Russian-speaking, industrialised east still has close ties to
Moscow, and thus is more inclined to Mr Yanukovich, who proposes making
Russian an official language in Ukraine and wants to rebuild economic ties
with Russia and other former Soviet states. The Ukrainian-nationalist west
of the country borders three of the former eastern-block countries that
entered the EU this year and tends to share Mr Yushchenko's dream of
following them. The capital, Kiev, is also strongly in favour of the
challenger, and this week its streets have been awash with banners in Mr
Yuschenko's campaign colour, orange.
With the election so close (officially, at least) the two candidates have
been trying to reach out to each other's supporters. Mr Yanukovich has
acknowledged that EU membership might be considered one day, though the
priority was developing ties with Russia. Last weekend, Mr Yushchenko, his
face bloated and pockmarked due to the suspected poisoning, addressed
Russian-speakers in the eastern city of Kharkiv in their own language,
promising them that neither they nor Russia would be forgotten if he became
president. In a tough-talking television debate between the two candidates
on Monday, Mr Yushchenko accused Mr Yanukovich of selling state
businesses on the cheap to his cronies. Mr Yanukovich retorted that his
opponent had been incompetent during his term as prime minister (he
was a ditherer, it has to be said).
Mr Yanukovich's two criminal convictions, rumours of other misdeeds and
his occasional, infelicitous use of prison slang do not exactly burnish his
image. But his strongest card in the campaign, besides the rises in pensions
and state workers' pay, is the booming Ukrainian economy, helped by a bumper
grain harvest and rising exports of steel and chemicals. Figures this week
showed Mr Yanukovich well on course for his target of 12.4% growth in
GDP this year; and he announced that the annual grain harvest would be 45m
tonnes, the highest since Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union
in 1991. Sceptics say the harvest figures are probably exaggerated and that
the surging growth is coming at the expense of high inflation, expected to
be 12-15% this year.
Mr Yushchenko, if he wins, would struggle to fulfil his promises of reform.
Apart from his own tendency to indecision, he would have to fight the
business oligarchs and, indeed, Russia. But the effect on Ukraine, Russia
and the rest of the former Soviet Union could be striking. The Kremlin's
ability to throw its weight around would be greatly diminished if the
second-largest former Soviet economy had shaken off its grip. Other former
satellite states may be emboldened to break away too. Ordinary Russians,
who regard Ukraine as little more than a province and disdain its people as
a bunch of bumpkins, might think again if their supposedly unsophisticated
neighbours begin to enjoy western-style democracy, human rights and
prosperity. They might start asking why they cannot have the same too. This
might eventually begin to reverse the increasingly authoritarian turn which
Russia has taken under Mr Putin.
Whoever wins in Sunday's run-off, the West could offer Ukraine the
incentives that Russia cannot, and support the ambitions of many of its
people to join NATO, the EU and the World Trade Organisation. The EU,
in particular, could offer advisers to help Ukraine reform and hold out the
prospect of EU grants. It could even start discussing what until now has
been off the agenda, a timetable and pathway to membership. (This is being
encouraged by Poland, the biggest of the EU's new entrants, which is
extremely keen to see Ukraine brought into the fold.) Showing that Ukraine
can escape the Soviet legacy will be a powerful argument against those who
believe that Russia and its neighbours are condemned to it. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER TWELVE
Your financial support is needed, please send a check.
========================================================
12. "UKRAINE: PRESIDENTIAL TV DEBATE"
COMMENTARY: By Lubomyr Markevych
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Well the long anticipated TV clash of the two Victors has come and gone.
When all is said and done it has to be acknowledged that for this young
nation, surrounded by their psychophantic CIS neighbours, this was not
an insignificant achievement. And for Yanukovich to change his mind and
find the courage to show up and debate at all, - I believe this to be a
personal victory for him, for his electorate and by extension, for Ukraine
as a whole.
I have purposely avoided reading any local commentary yet on the debate.
This way I can commit my impressions here without clouding them with
local perceptions. What follows then are some highly subjective impressions
formed during and after the debate which I watched with a handful of local
and foreign journalists at the Golden Gate Pub. All told we were a pretty
sedate group compared to the contingent of young orange clad Yushchenko
fans next to us who cheered and jeered as the night wore on.
By any western standards the debate was a colossal bore. At times it
even verged on the surreal. For a westerner long used to dramatic clashes
of strong personalities and polarized views this debate played out far
differently than expected. Some of this was due to the agreed upon
'rules of the debate' and the other factor can be explained as the inherent
Ukrainian temperament which values restraint of emotion in their political
leaders. (To wit, the Vitrenkos and Zhirinovskys of this part of the world
are entertaining buffoons but are not perceived as serious leaders).
So what happened? Well the rules for the debate called for the strict
adherence to a format discussion of four distinct topics. In 90 minutes
they were supposed to consecutively debate social, economic, domestic
and foreign policy issues. Each candidate was allowed to speak
uninterrupted and rebuttals were permitted if they so desired. On top of
that the respective camps agreed to some all important decorum rules
which effectively banned personal attacks and any hint of character
assassination.
Already this scenario gave the regime candidate a partial victory.
Yanukovich could bravely venture into policy discussions confident that
Yushchenko's political street platform; "thieves will sit behind bars"
would not be thrown in his face. In turn Yushchenko was assured that
his near fatal poisoning(?) would not be the subject of mockery and
derision. If either candidate felt he was under unfair personal attack
the moderator would be allowed to intervene and cut off the charge.
Unfortunately all of the above led to an evening of sterile exchanges of
banal recollections, replete with mind numbing statistics, of who did
what and when while they were Prime Minister and how everything would
now change for the better once they was elected president. Most of our
jaded barroom audience were turned off after the first 15 minutes and we
passed the time by in parallel discussions all the while waiting for some
passion and verve to eventually get the better of these men and show some
thrust and parry as they began to eviscerate each other. Its not as if they
lacked any issues.But it never happened.
As far as appearances go Yanukovich was the clear winner. His body
language was relaxed and polished . He faced Yushchenko all night long
with an upright gaze and just the hint of a sardonic Tony Blair grin. By
comparison Yushchenko's pock marked face was grotesque in the harsh
glare of TV lights and his downcast frown and constant reading from notes
consolidated the detached nature of what could have been a highly charged
personal encounter.
It should be said that Yushchenko prevailed with his articulate
Ukrainian and superior grasp of economic and financial policy issues.
However his stilted delivery and his constant reference to notes diminished
whatever points he was scoring with logic and rational analysis. He
unfortunately came across as a 'talking head' far removed from the 5-10%
left wing electorate which was ostensibly the target group that both
candidates were trying to win over. This was all compounded by some
incredibly unfortunate scenes of Yushchenko picking his nose while
Yanukovich was talking. In the end, - an all around PR man's nightmare
and another indication that little if any professional preparation goes into
Yushchenko's public appearances.
Yanukovich by comparison came off as the new kid trying to make good.
He made mistakes and some stupid comments as well, but he never
overreached himself. He spoke Ukrainian as well as he could, which was
more than adequate for the target audience he was reaching out to. His stock
phrases, perhaps memorized, were well delivered and he looked Yushchenko
in the eyes all the time. Moreover he permitted himself some borderline
mockery by ridiculing Yushchenko as a political 'has been', a 'bankrupt
politician' bereft of new ideas and 'tired' after ten years on Ukraine's
political olympus. All of this I'm sure played well to his target audience
as it was simple to understand and need not be supported with objective
facts and figures. As a crowning achievement he even managed to put
Yushchenko on the defensive forcing him to defend policies going back
to his National Bank days, - as if anyone cares about that today. Finally
his closing remarks in Russian left no doubt that he was a regional
candidate who remained focused on who he was appealing to.
All in all it was another missed opportunity for Yushchenko. So much
more was expected of him. Everyone I talked to before the debate thought
that he would have Yanukovich at his mercy. Instead he came off as if he
were the Christian Democratic candidate for the presidency of Austria who
felt it was beneath his dignity to openly call the incumbent regime and its
candidate for what they were. Is this the same man who, a scant one month
ago, accused the regime of almost murdering him with some biological poison?
If so where was the passion, the sense of outrage, the burning desire for
justice which lies at the heart of his campaign so far? Must we to sift
through ninety minutes of sonorous verbiage to make this inference
ourselves????
Fortunately none of the above matters and we can safely file this
non-event to the back pages of this years campaign. It's a credit to Ukraine
that it took place at all and its another milestone in the all important
road to civil society development. But nothing more. The reason for this
is that everyone who has an opinion on the candidates has made up his mind
a long time ago. In the end its all going to boil down to Kyiv and how they
will react here to a staged defeat of the opposition. For this they will
need a lot of demonstrative leadership, backbone and resolve. What's more
they will have to do it themselves as no one from the west seems interested.
(Only Poland's foreign minister has come here in the last week to show any
solidarity with Ukraine's opposition in the most decisive moment in its
history). That's small comfort in the face of demonstrative Kremlin
support for yedina nedilimaya Rossiya. And its true, - because the average
Russian continues to believe that Bolshaya Rossiya extends to the
Polish-Ukrainian border. Yushchenko threatens to change that.
In the end I'm reminded of Henry Kissinger's recent comment; "I have
never met a member of the Russian political elite who has reconciled
himself to an independent Ukraine". We will see. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.223: ARTICLE NUMBER THIRTEEN
Your financial support is needed, please send a check.
========================================================
13. "WHAT NOW FOR LEONID KUCHMA?"
By Taras Kuzio, The Eurasia Daily Monitor
Volume 1, Issue 131, The Jamestown Foundation
Washington, D.C., Friday, November 19, 2004
With the second round of Ukraine's election set for November 21, President
Leonid Kuchma will soon become an ex-president. The final vote tally is due
no later than 15 days after election day; therefore, the new president
should be inaugurated in early December.
After a decade in power, Kuchma seemed reluctant to leave office. In
December 2003 the Constitutional Court ruled that he was actually in his
"first" term, which began in 1999. Under this logic, and despite domestic
and Western criticism, Kuchma's first term (1994-99) did not count, as it
began before Ukraine adopted its present constitution in 1996. This ruling
meant that Kuchma could have stood in this year's election, and it also
served an "insurance policy" if the pro-Kuchma camp had not been able to
field a strong candidate to face Viktor Yushchenko.
Kuchma's staff floated several career alternatives for the outgoing
president. One idea was to amend the constitution to create a Senate in
which former presidents would have permanent seats. A second proposal tried
to postpone this year's elections until the parliamentary elections in 2006,
thereby extending Kuchma's term by two years. A third scenario would have
upgraded the post of prime minister to be more powerful than the presidency.
The opposition suspected that Kuchma coveted the more powerful post of
prime minister as a way to continue to rule Ukraine.
Ultimately, Kuchma did not opt for a third term, although one wing of the
pro-presidential camp led by Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the Presidential
Administration and Social Democratic Party-United, intensely lobbied for it.
Medvedchuk always felt threatened of victory by either the opposition
(Yushchenko) or a rival oligarchic clan (Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych).
In addition, the West threatened to isolate Ukraine should Kuchma try for a
third term. Medvedchuk could have lived with isolation, but most of
Ukraine's oligarchs fear that such isolation would place Ukraine completely
within Russia's sphere of influence.
Finally, Kuchma's son-in-law, oligarch businessman Viktor Pinchuk, offered
an alternative plan for Kuchma's retirement. Between the first and second
rounds of the elections, Kuchma unveiled the "retirement package" Pinchuk
had created for his father-in-law. Specifically Kuchma would head the
Ukrayina think tank, a foundation seeking to "develop and consolidate civil
society and defend human rights and the freedoms of citizens" (Ukrayinska
pravda, November 11). Pinchuk's retirement plan sees Kuchma acting as an
elder statesman, similar to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, former U.S.
President George H.W. Bush, and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger.
But to act as an elder statesman, Kuchma will need some form of immunity
from prosecution if Yushchenko wins. Under a Yanukovych presidency there
would no threat of criminal charges and therefore immunity would not be an
issue. Only the pro-presidential camp has openly called for Kuchma to be
given immunity from prosecution. When parliament re-convened after its
summer recess, speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn called for the adoption of one of
two draft laws on immunity. Both laws state that a former president can be
criminally charged only if 300+ deputies vote for such a step (Ukrayinska
pravda, September 8). Lytvyn's brief visit to Washington on November 15
likely sounded out U.S. views on Kuchma's immunity.
The Kuchma camp embraced the notion of immunity. The Presidential
Administration welcomed the draft law as "logical and necessary," while the
head of Yanukovych's election campaign, Serhiy Tyhipko, went on record as
supporting immunity for a former president (Ukrayinska pravda, July 16, 22).
Kuchma's chosen successor, Yanukovych, also -- not surprisingly -- strongly
supported immunity for Kuchma (Ukrayinska Pravda, July 24). However, the
backers of one of the draft laws, the moderate pro-presidential People's
Democratic Party (NDP) Democratic Platform and the dissident
pro-presidential Center faction have both backed Yushchenko in the second
round.
Radical populist Yulia Tymoshenko and the left opposition have opposed
immunity for Kuchma. Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz supported a new law
outlining guarantees for former presidents but argued against giving
immunity to presidents who were involved in abuses in office
(Interfax-Ukraine, August 5). Myroslava Gongadze, who received asylum in the
United States after her husband, journalist Heorhiy Gongadze, was murdered,
also opposed granting Kuchma immunity (Ukrayinska pravda, September 22).
Yushchenko has adopted a more pragmatic approach. In an interview in
Nezavisimaya gazeta (July 30) he said he supported a new law on presidential
immunity and guarantees. "If society wants to divorce itself from the past
in a civilized manner, it needs to take this step" Yushchenko argued.
When Leonid Kravchuk left office in July 1994, he had no guarantees and
never sought immunity. There were also no serious accusations of abuse of
office against him and, at the time, there were still no Ukrainian
oligarchs. A decade later the situation is very different. Kuchma is
departing after accusations of involvement in the Gongadze murder, ordering
violence against politicians and other journalists, collusion in corruption
with oligarchs, election and referendum rigging, and involvement in illegal
arms exports.
Kuchma himself told parliament that there was no need for a law on immunity
(Ukrayinska pravda, October 18). In the end, parliament did not adopt either
draft law prior to election day. By not seeking immunity, Kuchma must be
planning for one of two possible scenarios.
First, Kuchma is engineering a Yanukovych victory in the elections. Under a
Yanukovych presidency all of the above accusations will be forgotten and
ignored.
Second, Kuchma -- through Pinchuk -- has struck a "gentlemen's agreement"
with Yushchenko. Namely, if Kuchma would not oppose a Yushchenko victory,
he would be allowed to live out his retirement as an elder statesman.
In Spring 2001 then-Prime Minister Yushchenko offered Kuchma guarantees.
However,, these were not taken seriously, as Kuchma then was not planning to
leave office. But after Yushchenko's government was removed in April 2001,
relations deteriorated between Yushchenko and Kuchma.
Three years on, rumors in Kyiv suggest such a deal has now been made between
Yushchenko and Kuchma, but the proof of the pudding will be seen by who wins
on Sunday. As round two comes to a close, Kuchma, Pinchuk, and their
immediate family have reportedly left Ukraine. -30-
========================================================
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
========================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"
A Publication Supported Financially By Its Readers
Please add your name to our list of financial contributors!
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-04, is an in-depth news and
analysis international newsletter, produced by the www.ArtUkraine.com
Information Service (ARTUIS) and The Action Ukraine Report
Monitoring Service (TAURMS). The report is now distributed to several
thousand persons worldwide FREE of charge using the e-mail address:
ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. This is the 220th Report issued so
far this year, out of the more than 240 to be issued in 2004.
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" is supported through The Action
Ukraine Program Fund. Financial support from readers is essential to
the future of this Report. You can become a financial sponsor of The
Action Ukraine Program Fund. Individuals, corporations, non-profit
organizations and other groups can provide support for the expanding
Action Ukraine Program by sending in contributions.
Checks should be made out to the Ukrainian Federation of America,
(UFA), a private, not-for-profit, voluntary organization. The funds should
be designated for the Action Ukraine Program Fund (AUPF), and
mailed to Zenia Chernyk, Chairperson, Ukrainian Federation of
America (UAF), 930 Henrietta Avenue, Huntingdon Valley, PA
19006-8502.
For individuals a contribution of $45-$100 is suggested. Your contribution
to help build The Action Ukraine Program to support Ukraine and her
future is very much appreciated. -30-
========================================================
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
========================================================