Ukraine 3000 Foundation, Tuesday, October 9. 2007

Published by the Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #877, Article 21
Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, October 12, 2007

legal, then official final election results will be announced on Oct. 26. If

events unfold according to this scenario, then the new Rada should convene

no later than Nov. 25.

"It will be interesting to see how this works out in practice, as Nov. 25
is a Sunday," Kalchenko said.

Maksym Kopeychykov, a partner of the Kyiv-based Ilyashev & Partners law
firm, said that he does not think any legal challenges will be heard by the HAC.
Neither Kalchenko nor Kopeychykov were aware of any legal challenges to the
election results.

"It depends more on the results of negotiations between the winners of
the elections," Kopeychykov said.

"If there is no agreement with the Regions Party, then, probably, those
CEC members who were appointed by the previous governing coalition will
become too ill to be present at the CEC's meetings," Kopeychykov explained.

The governing coalition of the Regions, Socialists and Communists enjoy
a one-vote majority on the 15-member CEC. Despite failing to qualify for
seats in the parliament, Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz said Oct. 5 that
his party will not challenge the results of the "unconstitutional"
elections.

The Communists, who gained more than 300,000 votes in the latest poll, have
demanded a total recount of all votes cast, but have not said they will not
challenge the results of the Sept. 30 elections in the courts. Prior to the vote,

the CPU said it would legally challenge the results of last month's vote.

On Oct. 5 the Party of the Regions' representative in the CEC Vladislav
Zapansky said his political force was not planning to challenge the results
of elections - that have not been falsified - in the courts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/27524/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

would create a so-called "democratic coalition" with a comfortable

parliamentary majority of 22 votes.

A coalition between the Party of Regions, OUPSD and the Lytvyn Bloc would
create a pro-business government that may take a multi-vectored approach,
instead of being divided along pro-Western and pro-Russian lines.

Former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk said the Lytvyn Bloc's best
option would be to remain neutral, but it might not have that luxury.

"For businessmen, the parliament is a publicly-traded stock company,"
Syrotiuk said. "They feel with their investment, they should obtain
dividends. Moreover, if he remains neutral, he could hurt the career of his
influential relatives. Lytvyn will be forced to take sides."

Lytvyn has better relations with Yanukovych and the Party of Regions than
Tymoshenko, observers said, but may end up going Orange anyway.
OPPOSITION-READY
Throughout the election campaign, OUPSD leaders assured the Ukrainian
electorate that it would only form a coalition with its stalwart Orange
Revolution partner, the Tymoshenko bloc.

After the vote, Orange leaders repeated their vows, promising that a
democratic coalition agreement would emerge within a day or two of the final
election results, which are expected on Oct. 15.

They said they would base the coalition on a pact signed between the two
forces in February, in which they distributed key government posts, giving
the prime minister post to the bloc with the most votes.

However, President Yushchenko's vague Oct. 3 announcement, hinting at
inviting the Party of Regions into a broad coalition, sent shivers down the
spines of Orange supporters.

Concern immediately spread after the president's remarks that Our Ukraine
would once again court the Party of Regions and play hard-to-get with the
Tymoshenko bloc, as it had done last year.

Tymoshenko declared she would rather enter the opposition than form a
government with the Party of Regions. Days later, she offered her
concessions, which drew derision from the Party of Regions. Few political
observers believed the Party of Regions would quietly agree to go into the
opposition.

Leading up to the election, the Party of Regions set up two stages at Kyiv's
central Independence Square, with its leaders threatening protests and
demonstrations to defend their election results if necessary.

Quite mysteriously, the Party of Regions took down one stage, sent its
camped-out supporters back home and didn't rattle its swords, except for a
threat that it could have 150 parliament members surrender their mandates
and liquidate the next parliamentary convocation, just as the Orange forces
had done.

On Oct. 5, the party announced that it would accept the election results
without any protest. Days later, Yanukovych announced the Party of Regions
would not work with Tymoshenko as prime minister.

Yanukovych's Oct. 8 statement that the Party of Regions was willing to go
into opposition reveals that it doesn't feel threatened by an Orange
government with a slim majority, Syrotiuk said. "The Regions might be able
to attract Our Ukraine votes," Syrotiuk said.

"They are most interested in economic votes, for which they can find
partners in Our Ukraine, but will lose support from the Communists. To pass
laws, the Regions will have to find support not only within Our Ukraine and
the Tymoshenko blocs, but also the president, who has veto power."

Regardless of whether she becomes prime minister, Tymoshenko gained the

most from the election and demonstrated she is the most relevant and dynamic
politician on the Ukrainian political scene, observers said. "Yulia
Tymoshenko saved the Orange Revolution and Yushchenko's presidency,"

Kuzio said.

Tymoshenko earned more than 7.1 million votes, gaining more than 1.5 million
supporters since the March 2006 election - more than anyone else. Her
popularity grew in every region, except for the pro-Russian Autonomous
Republic of Crimea.

"Everyone is shocked by the election results, particularly the Party of
Regions," Lozowy said. "They thought they would get the majority with

the Communists. But they aren't taking any radical steps because they are
waiting for the president's next moves."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINK: http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/27525/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19. UKRAINE: PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION ONCE

AGAIN FAILS TO RESOLVE DEEP POLITICAL CRISIS

COMMENTARY: By Markus Salzmann
World Socialist Web Site (USWS), UK, Thursday, 11 October 2007

A third election within three years has proved incapable of resolving the
deep political crisis in Ukraine. Once again, it has become clear that the
struggle between rival political cliques, carried out at the expense of the
broad population, has nothing in common with democracy.

In the early parliamentary election of September 30, Our Ukraine led by
Viktor Yushchenko won around 14 percent of the vote, while the Bloc
Yulia Tymoshenko (BJT) received well over 30 percent.

Together, the two parties, which three years ago led the so-called Orange
Revolution, picked up 44.8 percent of the vote. This means they have a
razor-thin majority of 228 seats out of 450 in the new parliament (Rada).

According to the electoral committee, all other parties standing won
approximately 44 percent. The "blue" Party of the Regions led by Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovich won 34 percent, and its ally, the Communist
Party, received 5 percent and also entered the Ukrainian parliament. The
Socialist Party, which had previously been part of the government coalition,
failed to win enough support to re-enter parliament.

The Litwin Bloc led by former parliamentary president, Vladimir Litwin,
received 3.9 percent for the first time, and therefore crossed the 3 percent
level necessary to enter parliament.

Litwin has refrained from making clear his real political intentions and, in
light of the close outcome of the election, is now being courted by the
Orange parties.

The election turnout was low, at 63 percent, reflecting widespread hostility
in the population to all of the competing camps.

Yushchenko had dissolved parliament at the beginning of April hoping that
fresh elections would favourably resolve his longstanding struggle for power
with Yanukovich.

Following Yanukovich's victory in parliamentary elections last year,
Yushchenko had felt compelled to appoint his rival as prime minister.

Then last spring, a number of deputies from the Orange opposition switched
over to the government coalition. Yushchenko described this as a
falsification of the 2006 election result and dissolved the parliament.

Yanukovich and his coalition partners opposed the move, and only after long
negotiations was an agreement reached for a new election.

Two years after the Orange Revolution, the differences within the Ukrainian
elite expressed through the two rival camps-Yushchenko and Tymoshenko on the
one side, and the oligarchs led by Yanukovich on the other-have narrowed
considerably.

The latter camp had previously maintained a strong orientation to Russia,
but are now looking increasingly towards the West to secure their economic
interests. Day by day, it is becoming ever clearer that there are no
principled political differences between the two political camps.

In the meantime, Yushchenko has called upon all the political forces
entering the new parliament to develop a model for cooperation between the
government and that opposition, as well as to take measures aimed at
consolidating the powers of the state.

He offered government ministries to Yanukovich's party-"from vice-prime
minister down to ministerial positions." Everything was possible-this was
the only way to secure stability in the parliament and government,
Yushchenko explained.

Yanukovich reacted positively to this offer made by the president and
expressed his own support for the construction of a "broad coalition."

Tymoshenko, however, has so far rejected any cooperation with Yanukovich's
party and announced she is only prepared to participate in a coalition with
"democratic" forces. If Yushchenko and Yanukovich form a coalition,
Tymoshenko has announced she will go into opposition.

Yushchenko's proposal is an attempt to prevent the political division of the
country. While the west and the centre of the country mainly support the
parties involved in the Orange Revolution, voters in the south and east have
voted in the past in the majority for Yanukovich. At the same time, it is
clear that the Orange camp itself is deeply split.

A coalition of the BJT and Our Ukraine would be anything but stable, and
such an alliance would have only a very narrow majority. It still remains
unclear which position the Litwin Bloc will take.

But in the main, the individual parties are driven by economic and personal
interests rather than politics or programme, and the widespread corruption
of deputies is an established fact. "Two or three votes are always up for
sale," political commentator Vadim Karasyov wrote in the Kyiv Post.

At the same time, the relatively high vote for Tymoshenko represents a
danger to Yushchenko's political future. Yushchenko's miserable showing in
the election (14 percent) was his punishment by the electorate for the
catastrophic social consequences of the government's policies in recent
years.

Tymoshenko was able to pick up votes for the opposition on the basis of her
populist election campaign. It is unlikely that Yushchenko would play
important role in the long-term role should he enter an alliance with the
BJT.

Meanwhile, there are doubts in the pro-West camp over Tymoshenko's politics.
Analysts expressed the concern of investors, who referred to Tymoshenko's
role as prime minister in 2005.

At that time, she announced she wanted to investigate the legal status of
the privatisations previously carried in the era of President Leonid Kuchma.
She declared that the privatisation of up to 3,000 formerly nationally owned
companies could be reversed.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and independence for Ukraine in 1991,
the layer around Kuchma had sold off the country's assets and in the process
shamelessly enriched themselves. The enterprises were sold for low prices on
the basis of political and regional criteria.

At the back of Tymoshenko's reversal of the privatisations lies a scheme for
the future re-division of what is nothing other than stolen national
property.

Following renewed nationalisation, Tymoshenko plans to sell off the
enterprises once again-this time at a better price-to those oligarchs close
to the Orange alliance, or to Western companies.

Alarm bells rang amongst financial analysts following Tymoshenko's
declaration last Sunday that the privatisation procedures would be subject
to court scrutiny. They fear that the whole procedure could lead to
irresolvable economic and political conflicts involving broad layers of the
population.

One example of the privatisations policy was the fate of the steel plant
Krivorijstal, the country's largest steel exporter. The Donetz oligarchs
Rinat Akhmetov and Viktor Pinchuk acquired the company in 2004 at a
rock-bottom price. At the time, there are said to have been a number of much
higher offers, including a bid by the American company, US Steel.

At the beginning of 2005, the sell-off was then waived following a court
order issued after pressure from Tymoshenko, and at the end of the year,
Krivorijstal was finally sold off to the Mittal concern.

The affair caused such a scandal that even the World Bank felt compelled to
intervene in the "Krivorijstal case" in order to prevent damage to the
general investment climate. At the time, economist Oleksij Plotnikov
detected a "serious blow for the investment climate. The effect is a shock."

The increasingly sceptical attitude taken by the Ukrainian elite towards
Tymoshenko was revealed in an interview given by the director of the
International Institute for Political Studies in Kiev, Vladimir Malinkowich,
to the Viennese Standard.

When asked what the election result means for Ukraine, he answered: "nothing
good." Tymoshenko "promises the impossible and thereby ruins our economy.
But what is most dangerous is that she does not want to strengthen
democratic institutions."

When asked about her relationship with Yushchenko, Malinkowich explained,
"She will have even more power over him. When he opposes her now she will
stand against him in the next presidential election and is likely to win.
The most probable variant of an Orange coalition will therefore prove to be
quite unstable.

Two persons will continue to fight one another at least until the
presidential election in 2009, and it will continue to remain unclear who is
in charge and represents the country in the west, he or she."
THE FRAUD OF THE ORANGE REVOLUTION
A coalition of Our Ukraine and the Party of the Regions would be just as
incapable of solving the fundamental political problems confronting the
country as any new version of an Orange bloc government. In the final
analysis all three-Yushchenko, Tymoshenko and Yanukovich-represent the
interests of different clans of oligarchs.

Those in the east of the country, who primarily back Yanukovich, have closer
links to Russia and the former Soviet economy, while those in the west have
closer bonds to the US and western Europe.

In 2004, Yanukovich was condemned as an electoral fraud and hunted out of
office. He was regarded as the natural successor to president Kuchma by the
Kremlin and by Kuchma himself.

The US and western Europe had bankrolled the "democratic" opposition, and
financed and backed Yushchenko, the former head of the central bank and
prime minister under Kuchma.

His advocacy of "market reforms" aimed at privatisation and the deregulation
of the economy, together with his promise to distance the country from
Russia and move closer to the European Union and NATO, made him the favoured
candidate of the West.

The American government and Western media supported Yushchenko and Yulia
Tymoshenko-the richest woman in Ukraine, who had accumulated her fortune as
an energy minister under Kuchma-at a time when both politicians attacked
Yanukovich's election as president as fraudulent.

Yushchenko and Tymoshenko base themselves on pro-capitalist, anti-communist
layers, which were formerly opposed to Kuchma. Their opposition, however,
was based less on their rejection of growing repression and pervasive
corruption in the country than on their abiding desire to enrich themselves.
The sincere opponents of Kuchma were cynically manipulated by the pair.

Nine months later, the new Orange leadership collapsed under charges of
mutual corruption. In September, Yushchenko dismissed the government of his
former ally Tymoshenko and then formed a pact with his former opponent
Yanukovich, in order to ensure the nomination of Yuri Yekhanurov as
Tymoshenko's successor in the office of prime minister.

It was also agreed that a candidate from the Party of the Regions would
occupy the post of deputy prime minister, while Tymoshenko and her allies
were denied any important posts.

In so doing, Yushchenko had recalled representatives of the two most
important clans of Ukrainian oligarchs-from Dnjepropetrowsk and Donetz-into
government in the same tradition as his predecessor in office, Leonid
Kuchma.

In less than three years, the true character of the Orange Revolution-widely
praised in the West as a breakthrough for democracy and liberty-has been
revealed. In 2004, many Ukrainians still believed that such a movement could
improve their political and social situation.

Now, broad swathes of the population have learnt that the entire ruling
elite has completely detached itself from the masses and is only interested
in its own enrichment.

According to a current poll, all Ukrainian politicians receive a negative
rating when it comes to the issue of trust. According to the Ukrainska
Pravda in February 2005, over 50 percent of all Ukrainians thought the
country was headed in the right direction, while 20 percent thought the new
government and the new president were worse than their predecessors.

Six months later, the same polling institute registered more than 60 percent
who regarded the government and the president to be taking a false course.
An investigation by the institute showed that in October 2005, support for
the government had fallen by half-to just 20 percent-and this process is
continuing.

While the ruling political caste seeks to sing the praises of economic
successes in the country, the reality for the majority of the population is
very different. Price increases in basic goods and energy have outstripped
any wage increase for workers in some industries and public service during
the past two years.

Foodstuffs and clothes have increased in price, and in particular, there
have been sharp increases in the price of electricity and fuel. Inflation
just for the month of September topped 6 percent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/ukra-o11.shtml

Ukraine 3000 Foundation, Tuesday, October 9. 2007

Published by the Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #877, Article 21
Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, October 12, 2007

Dear Friends,

I am happy to see you in this hall. I would like to thank everyone who has
come to today's event. The issue we are discussing today is very
significant for Ukraine and for the world community.

75 years ago a horrible tragedy took place on our land. Millions of
Ukrainians were murdered in a famine which was intentionally organized by
Stalin's regime.

All food was confiscated, people were denied all means of existence and
survival. Starving regions of Ukraine and the Kuban were surrounded by
armed forces, the borders of Ukraine were closed so that no one could escape
and so no assistance could enter. This was a true war of the communist
regime against the Ukrainian nation; a terror famine was the chief weapon.

Most experts confirm that more than 7.5 million people died during the
Holodomor. Some use even higher figures. But all researchers agree that
millions were murdered during this 1930s crime.

Imagine this figure - it is the population of an entire country that ceased
its existence in less than a year.Each Ukrainian family lost relatives,
loved ones, friends.

We intentionally chose the wonderful Ivan Honchar Museum to hold this
event, so that you could see the faces of those people who were physically
annihilated, the rich and unique culture that they tried to destroy.

The truth about this crime, its extent and its reasons were hidden for more
than 50 years from people, and from the world community. During Soviet
times, even mention of the Holodomor could mean being put behind bars.

But the Ukrainian people preserved their historical memory. Only after the
declaration of our independence did we have the opportunity to appropriately
honor the victims of the Holodomor.

In thousands of cities and villages throughout Ukraine memorials were
created. Every month there more are established.

Experts have researched a huge amount of information. We are constantly
opening up and making public new facts that prove that the Holodomor was
part of a criminal policy of the Soviet leadership to destroy the Ukrainian
nation. Thanks to a great deal of research and educational work over the
last five years, attitudes in Ukraine toward the Holodomor have change
significantly.

When the Verhovna Rada in 2006 approved a law recognizing the Holodomor as
an act of genocide, more than 70% of the population of Ukraine supported the
decision. This was a very positive signal, since despite regional, language
and political differences, the Ukrainian people reached an internal
consensus. East, west, south and north united together around a common
emotion of pain.

Today we wish once again to address the world community.

Ukraine survived a tragedy of world proportions. We have looked it in the
eyes and have made conclusions. The Bible says "Know the truth and the
truth will set you free." We hope that our knowledge will help humanity to
avoid similar tragedy in the future. We do not want the Holodomor to ever
be repeated anywhere in any form.

To achieve this, it is necessary that the world learns the truth about the
Holodomor, and that it recognizes it as an act of genocide.

I am certain that if the world community reacted adequately to the Holodomor
75 years ago, humanity would have been able to avoid this catastrophe that
took the lives of tens of millions of people on various continents.

The Ukraine 3000 Foundation has been working on the issue of the Famine
since 2003. We initiated today's meeting and invited our colleagues who
have done a great deal to learn the truth about the Holodomor. I hope that
today's presentations will help you to know more about the events of 1932-33
and make your own conclusions.

For me, this is rather personal, since both my parents have survived in the
Holodomor. They have survived, but they have lost their families, friends,
and fellow villagers. They told me a lot about their experience. My father
was born in Kharkiv oblast, and mother - in Kyiv oblast.

They told me about their villages being desolated, people driving along in
carriages to collect the dead. Sometimes, if a man was still alive but going
to die in the next few days, they would suggest to take him with them at
once, because they weren't coming back for another week or so.

Almost every Ukrainian has heard similar stories from his or her parents. I
remember all these years when I was afraid to speak about this. I am glad
that now we can speak about this, and I'm deeply grateful to you for
speaking about this.

Thank you for your attention.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22. THOMAS DINE SAYS U.S. CONGRESS NEEDS TO

INVEST MONEY STRATEGICALLY IN UKRAINE

INTERVIEW: with Thomas Dine
BY: Irene Jarosewich for The Ukrainian Weekly
Ukrainian National Association (UNA)
Parsippany, New Jersey, Sunday, September 23, 2007

Despite numerous imposed and self-inflicted problems, Ukraine has been
fortunate in the number of good friends and the amount of goodwill the
nation has been able to attract since independence 16 years ago.

Foreign governments, global institutions and countless of influential
individuals have set their sights on Ukraine, pushing and prodding, cheering
and coaching the young country towards a stable future.

Among Ukraine▓s strong supporters is Thomas A. Dine, a former president of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, who also served as assistant administrator
of Europe and Eurasia at the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID).

Mr. Dine▓s Washington and international experience includes a 13-year
tenure as the executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), 10 years in the Senate as a former policy specialist,
fellowships at the Brookings Institute and the Kennedy Institute of Politics
at Harvard University, as well as service with the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi
and as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Philippines.

Recently Mr. Dine joined forces with another good friend of Ukraine, Nadia
McConnell, president of the Washington-based US-Ukraine Foundation. Mr.
Dine has agreed to help direct the foundation▓s program to expand democracy
in Ukraine at the local, the national level as well as in the region.

In August, Irene Jarosewich interviewed Mr. Dine in Washington DC about
his vision for Ukraine and the role of the United States in shaping Ukraine▓s
future.

IJ: Mr. Dine, with your extensive experience and with numerous opportunities
available to you, the first question has to be: why Ukraine and why now?

TD: The essence of the answer lies in my outlook towards the world, which
includes a strong, a strong and robust Ukraine. I come at this after having
been involved in Eastern Europe and Eurasia for more than 15 years.

I▓ve been to Ukraine many times, first as a high-ranking official of the
Clinton Administration, with regard to our foreign economic assistance, and
then as the head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and its important
Ukrainian-language service.

In terms of foreign policy, there are people who view Ukraine simply as a
counterweight to Russia. That▓s not good enough, however.

A democratic and independent Ukraine is absolutely essential to our values,
our principles, our standing in the world. Ukraine has a great deal to
offer its citizens and its neighbors. Ukraine▓s heritage is worthy. Ukraine
has a beautiful history of the classical arts, for instance, its music.

I▓ve seen the human capital, its enormous potential for Ukraine, potential
in agricultural development, in new areas such as information technology,
the potential to develop a robust market economy, potential for Ukraine to
become a valuable partner in the European arena.

However, in order for this to happen, Ukrainians need to develop the direct
connection between the market economy of capitalism and the civic and
political infrastructures and institutions of democracy.

It won▓t serve Ukraine▓s interest, or the interests of the U.S., or anyone▓s
interests, if Ukraine goes the way of Russia, that is Kremlin-controlled
economics and politics.

Therefore, the building of civil society is absolutely essential to Ukraine▓s
future, which in part answers the question ⌠why now?■. It is essential to
dramatically restructure and reform civil society today to be in a better
place 20 years from now. The 20th century was a rough century, but the 21st
is our chance to change that.

Again and again I have seen that for the United States the best bilateral
relationships are a result of shared democratic values, of mutual security
interests and of person-to-person relationships and partnerships. This is my
personal philosophy and approach; I hope to have an opportunity to play a
role today and tomorrow.

IJ: There seems to be a strong meeting of the minds since this is the
philosophy that drives Nadia McConnell and the efforts of U.S.-Ukraine.
How is it that you came to the foundation?

TD: I▓ve known the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation since my early days at USAID,
and I▓ve known Nadia even longer. I▓ve always been struck by her mind, her
savvy, her passion, her purpose. USUF has been and is an effective
organization that is helping Ukraine become a genuinely open and free
society.

I remember the foundation▓s work with one of the first delegations of
Ukrainian mayors to visit the U.S. √ this was in November 1994. I am aware
of the relationships that have developed subsequently, relationships that
could only have resulted from long-term, consistent involvement and serious
commitment. I▓ve seen this with my own eyes and at this stage of my life, I
want to be a part of such an effort.

IJ: Yes, but there are numerous individuals, in the U.S. and in Ukraine,
that view these bilateral delegation visits simply as nice travel
opportunities, since, after all, how much useful experience can be gained in
just a few weeks?

These delegation visits are only one of the numerous venues that we have at
our disposal for strengthening bilateral relations. They are not conducted
in isolation. Each delegation visit is done in conjunction with a broader
program. The U.S. must continue with programs in Ukraine that teach and
train citizens in democratic procedures.

Furthermore, even though it is important for Ukrainians to see how U.S.
cities are governed, for instance, it is no less important for Americans to
be aware of Ukraine. We have 435 congressional districts.

In each one of them people should hear that Ukraine is important to the
United States. This requires Americans to study and appreciate Ukrainian
society, to learn about opportunities in Ukraine, and in turn, Ukraine
should open up its▓ economy and entice American investors, study groups
and tourists.

Another objective of these visits is to simply offer a new perspective.
Delegations from Ukraine frequently describe their efforts from the
perspective of ⌠top-down■ √ which is still the form of government
infrastructure in Ukraine. America, in turn, can be described as
grassroots, the opposite.

Ukrainians are often surprised at how much can get done without government
involvement. Ukrainians still seek to understand the balance √ that
government is important, but not the predominant factor in their lives.
Activities at the local level is the essence of civil society. And working
at and with the local level has been the focus of the U.S.-Ukraine
Foundation from its inception.

IJ: The United States, however, has been shifting focus away from evolving
democracies in Eastern Europe, particularly in terms of providing funding
for long-range development. There seems to be a ⌠sink or swim■ attitude,
that it▓s time only for the strong to survive.

TD: There is some of that attitude, no doubt. But today, the U.S. genuinely
has a large budget deficit and Congress needs to develop a plan to reduce
it.

Nonetheless, it would not be in the interest of the U.S. to drastically cut
funding to evolving democracies in Eastern Europe, in particular not for
Ukraine, one of the largest countries in Europe and overall, an emerging
partner, even an ally, of the United States.

Despite some tortuous setbacks, Ukraine is making genuine progress towards
integration with the West, and it would be unwise for the U.S. to eliminate
funding for Ukraine.

With regard to Ukraine, Congress needs to invest money strategically and
focus on organizations that have demonstrated institutional interest and
expertise working in Ukraine, those that have evident results, not just
those that are in it for the contract money, which, bluntly, are the
so-called ⌠Beltway bandits■.

IJ: Apparently several times in the past the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation has had
Congressional support to receive funding, but USAID has not approved
USUF to receive these funds. Why is that?

TD: The USAID bureaucracy is predisposed to deal only with large contracting
organizations, often ones that include alumni of USAID. Over my 45-year
career, I know this first-hand. This bureaucratic approach is a bit of a
perverse view of how work really gets done.

Look at poor efforts by Halliburton and other big USAID contractors in Iraq.
On this read the award-winning book ⌠Imperial Life in the Emerald City■ by
Washington Post editor Rajiv Chandrasekaran.

USAID, for example, does not have a good track record with in Afghanistan
creating a modern economic and social system. I believe this is in part
because we relied too much on large abstract organizations that were not
working at the grassroots level. Of course, there are exceptions.

With regard to Ukraine, the small, hands-on USUF has proven itself effective
on the ground √ for 15 years. U.S. citizens are getting their money▓s worth.

I challenge USAID to find anyone else with this track record in Ukraine.
U.S.-Ukraine is creative and more efficient than most other organizations
and in this way the USUF is valuable in our bilateral relationship with
Ukraine. Many members of Congress have a favorable view of the foundation
and its work.

Members of Senate and House are on record saying that they want the USUF to
receive USAID funds. The Executive Branch is wrong for not providing these
funds.

IJ: The USUF has recently completed a multi-year project in Ukraine working
with local mayors, local governments. And in the spring, the foundation
submitted a proposal for direct funding from Congress for their new project,
the one that you have agreed to manage. Can you tell us a bit about this
new project?

TD: This proposal is the result of a success story. Because of the
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation▓s work with local governments, the head of Ukraine▓s
Civil Service Administration has formally corresponded with members of
Congress and Administration officials requesting that the U.S.-Ukraine
Foundation be the principal organization to train and improve Ukraine▓s
civil service operations and to deal with issues such as corruption, public
health and energy efficiency.

The head has designated 300 top civil servants to be retrained by
U.S.-Ukraine, along with our government▓s Office of Personal Management.

As the Soviet past fades, more work needs to be done with Ukraine▓s
parliament in order for it to become a fully functioning institution.

There is a lesson for us in the U.S. to learn here: we went into Ukraine and
from the beginning tried to set up capital markets. However, the imperative
in Ukraine, the key issue is building civil society √ including an honest,
transparent civil service.

Without this infrastructure, there can be little chance of the civil,
political and commercial sectors working fluidly and effectively. The USUF
also wants to engage Ukraine regionally, with its neighbors along a Black
Sea and Baltic Sea corridor.

The goal is to create a common regional block of democratic countries that
are physically close to Ukraine, which include Lithuania, Poland, Belarus,
Moldova, Rumania, Bulgaria and Georgia. The success stories in Ukraine are
many with potential for many more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ukrainian Weekly, Editor-in-chief: Roma Hadzewycz, Parsippany,

N.J. staff@ukrweekly.com, www.ukrweekly.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
23. UKRAINE'S QUEST FOR MATURE NATION STATEHOOD
INVITE: Roundtable VIII, Ukraine-EU Relations, October 16-17, 2007
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, DC

Registration & Coffee (Day One & Two): 8:00 - 9:00am
Opening Remarks (Day One): 9:00am; Last Session: 5:30pm (Day One)
Roundtable Continuation (Day Two): 9:00am;
Concluding Remarks (Day Two): 5:30pm
Conference Reception 7:00pm (Day One);
Patrons Reception 7:00pm (Day Two)

Dear Friend of the UA Quest RT Series,

You are respectfully invited to be a participant in the eighth annual
roundtable of the Ukraine's Quest for Mature Nation Statehood series, to be
held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, DC on
Oct 16-17, 2007. This year, the forum will be entitled "Ukraine-EU
Relations" .

The two day conference will bring together government and key non-government
representatives of Ukraine, the EU and the US as well as experts from the
world of academia to examine and evaluate Ukraine's capacity to "thrive
alongside" its great Western neighbor as well as its readiness, if asked to
join, to eventually "thrive inside " the European Union.

To facilitate the said examination, the event will run four regular sessions
featuring eight panels, six highlight focus sessions, two working lunches
and two conference receptions. In total, nearly seventy speakers are
expected to address the conference proceedings.

Former participants of the UA Quest Roundtable series include:

UA: B. Tarasyuk, O. Rybachuk, Y. Yekhanurov, A. Kinakh, V. Yanukovych, I.
Plyushch, A. Yatseniuk, V. Pustovojtenko, A. Hrytsenko, I. Mitiukov, Y.
Pavlenko , Y. Chervonenko, H. Nemyria, Y. Lutsenko, R. Shpek

EU & RU: P. Naimski, G. Jeszensky, J. Sherr, E. Koelsch, G. Burghardt, A.
Gross, C. Hartzell, J. Steinoff, R. Kacer, Y. Liuk , H. Wujec, V. Usackas,
M. Riekstins, P. Zurawski vel Grajewski, V. Igrunov, A. Lebedev

US: M. McConnell, C. Levin, P. Wolfowitz, J. McCain, R. Lugar, Z.
Bzrezinski, R. Holbrooke, P. Dobriansky, D. Fried, A. Wayne, D. Kramer, C.
Weldon, S. Levin, M. Hinchey, B. Taylor, C. Pascual, S. Pifer, W. Miller, J.
Herbst , K. Smith, W. Courtney, B. Futey, M. Kaptur, N. Lowey, C. Smith, A.
Cohen, C. Wallander, A. Aslund

This year's event will feature Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andrii
Veselovsky, Ukraine's Head of Delegation to the European Union Roman Shpek,
Former UA Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk, Former Foreign Minister
Kostyantyn Hryshchenko, Julia Tymoshenko Bloc Senior Foreign Policy Advisor
Hryhoriy Nemyria, Foreign Policy Advisor to the State Secretariat of the
President of Ukraine Bohdan Sokolovsky, Ambassador of Ukraine to the US Oleh
Shamshur, and the Ambassador of Poland to the United States Janusz Reiter.

Also featured will be the Ambassador of Germany to the United States Klaus
Scharioth, Ambassador of Portugal to the United States Joao de Vallera,
Ambassador of Slovakia to the United States Rastislav Kacer, Ambassador of
Lithuania to the United States Audrius Bruzga, Deputy Head of the Delegation
of the EU to the United States Angelos Pangratis, Former US National
Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Deputy Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs David Kramer, Former Ambassador of the US to Ukraine
Steven Pifer and Former Ambassador of the US to Ukraine William Miller.

A Conference Reception will be held on the evening of the conference's first
day at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, hosted by Ambassador Shamshur.

The UA Quest RT Steering Committee, representing the American Foreign Policy
Council, the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Center for
US-Ukrainian Relations, Columbia University's East Central European Center,
the Embassy of Ukraine to the United States, the International Republican
Institute, Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International
Studies Foreign Policy Institute, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ukraine,
the National Democratic Institute, the Polish American Ukrainian Cooperative
Initiative, U.S.-Ukraine Business Council and the US-Ukraine Foundation ,

will host the RT Patrons Reception, the traditional final event of the symposium.

Ultimately, in providing the contemplated assessment, the forum should help
clarify a larger issue to which the Roundtable Series has dedicated its time
and resources, namely the pace of Ukraine's endeavor to achieve "mature
nation statehood".

Due to the time constraints involved with organizing such a large forum, we
kindly ask that you respond immediately concerning your acceptance
to participate. For further information, kindly contact Marta Kostyk , UA
Quest RTS Technical Coordinator, by phone: (212) 473 0839, fax: (212) 473
2180, or e-mail: cusur1014@gmail.com.

SUGGESTED DONATIONS: There is no registration fee for the
Roundtable this year but donations of 50 US dollars per day are
encouraged to help cover the considerable expenses necessary for
such a Roundtable. If donating, please make out your check to:
"CUSUR-UA Quest RTVIII" or use the system online when you
register to make a donation.

If you wish to register online do so immediately, click on the following link:
http://usukrainianrelations.org/index.php?option=com_performs&formid=1&Itemid=84
or go directly to: www.usukrainianrelations.org

William Miller, Co-Chair
Bob Schaffer, Co-Chair
Oleh Shamshur, Co-Chair

Walter Zaryckyj
Program Coordinator

STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIRS
William Miller
Bob Schaffer
Oleh Shamshur
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Olexandr Aleksandrovich
Ilan Berman
Peter Borisow
Nadia Diuk
Olga Fishel
Katie Fox
Nadia Komarnycky McConnell
Elizabeth Knight
Ilko Kucheriv
Nico Lange
Orysia Lutsewych
Lewis Madanick
Marta Matselioukh
John Micgiel
Jan Neutze
Steven Nix
Ulana Panchishin
Jan Pieklo
Herman Pirchner
Jeff Smith
Morgan Williams
Walter Zaryckyj

PROGRAM
Day I - October 16, 2007
VENUE: Ronald Reagan International Trade Center

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM Roundtable Focus Session IV
Suggested Theme: Ukraine-EU Relations - From the Vantage Point of the EU
Presidency

10:00 AM - 12:30 PM
I. Has Ukraine Met the "External Political Requirements" for EU Membership?
[Two Panels]

1. The "Democratic Governance" Standard
Suggested Topics: Guaranteed Personal & Political Rights; Free and Fair
Elections; Accountable Governance; Developed Civil Society/Independent Press

2. The "Common Vision" Standard
Suggested Topics: Sense of Shared Values; Sense of Shared History; Strong
Ties in Trade; Respect for Borders

12:30 PM - 2:30 PM Working Lunch
Theme: Ukraine and the EU - Contemplating a Common Strategy for Energy
Security
Viewpoint from Kyiv
Viewpoint from Warsaw
Viewpoint from Berlin
Viewpoint from Washington
Viewpoint from Houston

2:30 PM - 3:00 PM Roundtable Focus Session II
Suggested Theme: Ukraine-EU Relations - A Viewpoint from Eastern Europe

3:00 PM - 5:30 PM
II. Has Ukraine Met the "Economic & Social Requirements" for EU Membership?
[Two Panels]

1 The "Developed Market Economy" Standard
Suggested Topics: Stable Growth of Annual GDP; Low Inflation & Limited
Budget Deficit; Steady Rise in Real Income; Transparent Economic Activit y

2. The "Equitable Playing Field" Standard
Suggested Topics: End to Discrimination; Access to Proper Education; Access
to Decent Health Care & Housing; Strong Local Community Interaction

5:30 PM - 6:00 PM Roundtable Focus Session III
Suggested Theme: Ukraine-EU Relations - A Viewpoint from Western Europe

7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Conference Reception
Hosted by the Ukrainian Embassy to the United States

Day II - October 17, 2007
VENUE: Ronald Reagan International Trade Center

9:00 AM - 9:30 AM Roundtable Focus Session IV
Suggested Theme: Ukraine-EU Relations - From the Vantage Point of the EU
Presidency

9:30 AM - 12:00 PM
III. How Might Ukraine Fare as a Member of the EU? [Two Panels]

1. Pondering the Pluses & Minuses of UA Membership in the EU for UA
Suggested Topics: Substantial Rewards; Few Rewards; Few Burdens; Substantial
Burdens

2. Pondering the Pluses & Minuses of UA Membership in the EU for the EU
Suggested Topics: Substantial Rewards; Few Rewards; Few Burdens; Substantial
Burdens

12:00 PM - 12:30 PM Roundtable Focus Session V
Suggested Theme: Ukraine-EU Relations - A Viewpoint from the United States

12:30 PM - 2:30 PM Working Lunch
Suggested Theme: Ukraine & the EU - Contemplating Cooperation on Issues of
Regional Concern
General Overview
Baltic Vector [Belarus]
Black Sea Vector [Transdnistria]
Adriatic Vector [Kosovo]
Caspian Vector [Abkhazia]

2:30 PM - 5:00 PM
IV. What Alternative Relationships Might the EU Offer Ukraine? [Two Panels]

1. Contemplating the Status of "EU Privileged Partner" for Ukraine
Suggested Topics: Diplomatic Benefits; Political Benefits; Economic
Benefits; Social Benefits

2. Contemplating the Status of "EU Neighbor" for Ukraine
Suggested Topics: Diplomatic Benefits; Political Benefits; Economic
Benefits; Social Benefits

5:00 PM - 5:30 PM Roundtable Focus Session VI
Ukraine-EU Relations -Divining the Import of a Potential "EU-US-UA Triangle"

5:30 PM - 6:00 PM Concluding Remarks
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Patron's Reception
Hosted by the Ukraine's Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Roundtable Series
Steering Committee

ENTIRE PROGRAM OUTLINE: The entire Ukraine's Quest
for Mature Nation Statehood, Roundtable VIII, Ukraine-EU Relations
program outline can found at the following link:
http://usukrainianrelations.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=56

INVITED SPEAKERS
Bob Schaffer (AFMC)
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL/Chairman of the US Helsinki Commission)
Oleh Shamshur (UA Ambassador to the United States)
Andrii Veselovski (Dep. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine)
Orest Deychakivsky (CSCE)
Hryhoriy Nemyria (BUT)
Ellen Bos (Andrassy University)
Bohdan Futey (US Court of Federal Claims)
Steven Nix (IRI)
Fred Kempe (Atlantic Council)
Kostyantyn Hryshchenko (RPU/APM)
Borys Tarasyuk (OU/IEAC)
Rastislav Kacer (Slovak Ambassador to the US)
David Kramer (DAS/EEA/DOS)
Adrian Karatnyckyj (Orange Circle)
Oleksandr Todiychuk (MOU/UA-EC)
Igor Chalupec (PKN-Orlen/Fmr. Pres.)
Friedemann Muller (Inst. for Int'l & Sec. Affairs)
Keith Smith (CSIS)
Tom Spellman (Halliburton)
John Micgiel (Columbia University)
Janusz Reiter (PL Ambassador to the US)
Morgan Williams (SigmaBleyzer, US-UA Business Council)
Yuri Yekhanurov (Fmr. UA Prime Minister)
David Sweere (Kyiv-Atlantic Farms)
Ihor Burakowsky (IER & PC)
Anders Aslund (Peterson Institute)
Nadia McConnell (USUF)
Mykhajlo Volynets (CITU/UA)
Bob Fielding (AFL-CIO/UA)
Yevhen Zakharov (Kharkiv Human Rights Group)
Marek Matraszek (CEC)
Keith Crane (RAND)
Jan Bugajski (CSIS)
Klaus Scharioth (DE Ambassador to the US)
Vitkor Nikityuk (UA DCM to the US)
Ron Slimp (TD International)
William Pomeranz (Kennan Institute)
Joao De Vallera (Ambassador of Portugal to the United States)
Jan Pieklo (PAUCI)
Yuri Sergeyev (UA Ambassador to the UN)
Yevhen Bystrysky (International Renaissance Foundation)
Audrius Bruzga (Lithuanian Amb. to the US)
Steve Pifer (CSIS)
Nico Lange (Konrad Adenauer Stiftung)
Roman Shpek (UA Delegation to EU)
Oleksandr Biletsky (European Movement/UA)
Michael Gahler (FRC/Euro-Parliament)
Ariel Cohen (Heritage Foundation)
Herman Pirchner (AFPC)
Zbigniew Brzezinski (Senior Counselor/CSIS)
Ilko Kucheriv (Democratic Initiatives)
F. Steven Larrabee (RAND)
Oleksandr Sushko (CPCFPU)
Vooldymyr Dubovyk (CIS/ONU)
Yuri Scherbak (Kyiv Mohylian University)
Hryhoriy Perepylytysa (Dipl. Academy/UA)
Lewis Madanick (Open World/LOC)
Bohdan Sokolovski (State Secretariat)
Valeriy Chaliy (Razumkov Center)
Bohdan Klich (Euro-Parliament)
Steven Sestanovich (Columbia University)
Ilan Berman (AFPC)
Yevhen Kaminsky (IWE/NASU)
Ihor Koliushko (Presidential Advisor/UA)
James Sherr (Sandhurst)
Celeste Wallander (Georgetown Univ.)
William Courtney (CSC/Dyncorp.)
Angelos Pangratis (Dep. Head of the EC Delegation to the US)
William Miller (WWIC)
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE/Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations
Comm.)
Robert Bensh (Cardinal Resources)

If you wish to register online, click on the following link:
http://usukrainianrelations.org/index.php?option=com_performs&formid=1&Itemid=84
or go directly to: www.usukrainianrelations.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
24. U.S. HOUSE PANEL LABELS ARMENIAN KILLINGS GENOCIDE

By Elizabeth Williamson, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., Thu, Oct 11, 2007; Page A03

A House panel voted yesterday to approve calling the mass killings of
Armenians that began in 1915 genocide, defying the White House, which
warned that the measure could damage U.S.-Turkey relations.

The Foreign Affairs Committee passed the nonbinding resolution on a 27 to 21
bipartisan vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has promised she will bring
the resolution to the full House for a vote.

A proposed House resolution that would label as "genocide" the deaths of
Armenians more than 90 years ago during the Ottoman Empire has won the
support of a majority of House members, unleashing a lobbying blitz by the
Bush administration and other opponents who say it would greatly harm
relations with Turkey, a key ally in the Iraq war.

Turkey, one of Washington's most staunch Islamic allies, lobbied hard to
kill the measure, launching a multimillion dollar campaign and threatening
to curtail its cooperation in the Iraq war. President Bush, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were joined
by eight former secretaries of state and three former defense secretaries in
condemning the proposal.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings,
and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO
and in the global war on terror," Bush told reporters in the White House
Rose Garden yesterday.

But the committee's chairman, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), said, "We have
to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people . . .
against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of
the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price." Lantos
supported the measure, as did most lawmakers from California, whose large
and influential Armenian American community has pursued similar proposals
for decades.

The tally was far closer than the last vote to support the resolution, in
2005. But committee members that year knew the resolution would probably
not reach the floor, and it did not. This time, Pelosi's support makes a
full House vote much more likely, causing committee members under heavy
pressure by Turkey to think twice about their positions.

Pelosi did not lobbying colleagues yesterday, viewing it as a "matter of
conscience," an aide said.

Several lawmakers have abandoned their support for the measure since it was
introduced by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) in January, including
co-sponsors Reps. Phil English (R-Pa.), Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), Bobby Jindal (R-La.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.)
and Dennis Moore (D-Kan.).

Two former sponsors who serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Reps.
David Scott (D-Ga.) and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), voted against the
resolution yesterday.

Scott said he is concerned that Turkey will scale back its role as an ally
in the Middle East. "Are we willing to take that gamble to say, 'Oh, they're
not going to do anything,' when they clearly have stated that they will," he
said.

Nabi Sensoy, Turkey's ambassador to the United States, sat in the second row
of the hearing room, flanked by a delegation of Turkish parliamentarians. He
said Ankara would continue its fight against the resolution, believing it
would lead to requests for massive monetary compensation by Armenian
survivors.

"Why is Armenia not taking this to an international court? They are trying
to win this on political grounds, and they will never let go," he said.
"It's very disappointing. I'm hoping they will assume responsibility for the
consequences," he said of House supporters.

Armenian Americans erupted in applause after the vote, while attendees of
Turkish descent sat in stony silence.

Outside the hearing room, the Rev. Sarkis Aktavoukian, who leads an Armenian
church in Bethesda, wept. "America has shown its justice today," he said.

The vote drew swift condemnation from the Bush administration. "We are
deeply disappointed," said R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state of
political affairs. "Turkey is one of our most important allies globally."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The White House and the State Department continue their long

running battle not to have the U.S. Congress label the Armenian

Genocide 1915 or the Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933 a genocide. Editor

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101001280.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
25. WORSE THAN IRRELEVANT
A congressional resolution about massacres in Turkey 90 years

ago endangers present-day U.S. security.

EDITORIAL: The Washington Post, Wash, D.C., Wed, Oct 10, 2007

IT'S EASY to dismiss a nonbinding congressional resolution accusing Turkey
of "genocide" against Armenians during World War I as frivolous.

Though the subject is a serious one -- more than 1 million Armenians may
have died at the hands of the Young Turk regime between 1915 and the early
1920s -- House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the subject have petty
and parochial interests.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chief sponsor, says he has more than
70,000 ethnic Armenians in his Los Angeles district.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has promised to bring the measure to a
vote on the House floor, has important Armenian American campaign
contributors. How many House members can be expected to carefully weigh Mr.
Schiff's one-sided "findings" about long-ago events in Anatolia?

The problem is that any congressional action will be taken in deadly earnest
by Turkey's powerful nationalist politicians and therefore by its
government, which is already struggling to resist a tidal wave of
anti-Americanism in the country. Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, called President Bush on Friday to warn against the resolution.

Turkish politicians are predicting that responses to passage by the House
could include denial of U.S. access to Turkey's Incirlik air base, a key
staging point for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Turkish parliament could also throw off longstanding U.S. constraints
and mandate an invasion of northern Iraq to attack Kurdish separatists
there, something that could destabilize the only region of Iraq that is
currently peaceful.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate
comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries
that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual
author will be removed.

Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting
standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing
this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and
discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

No wonder eight former secretaries of state, including Henry A. Kissinger,
James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz and Madeleine K. Albright, have urged
Ms. Pelosi to drop the resolution, saying it "could endanger our national
security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Armenia
and Turkey." Yet the measure is proceeding: It is due to be voted on today
by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Supporters say congressional action is justified by the refusal of the
Turkish government to accept the truth of the crimes against Armenians, and
its criminalization of statements describing those events as genocide.

It's true that Turkey's military and political class has been inexcusably
slow to come to terms with that history, and virulent nationalism -- not
Islamism -- may be the country's most dangerous political force.

But Turkish writers and intellectuals are pushing for a change in attitude,
and formal and informal talks between Turks and Armenians are making slow
progress. A resolution by Congress would probably torpedo rather than help
such efforts.

Given that reality, and the high risk to vital U.S. security interests, the
Armenian genocide resolution cannot be called frivolous. In fact, its
passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100901892.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Turkey does not think the resolution is irrelevant for sure so why

should the U.S. Geoncides whenever and wherever they happened are

never irrelevant. Editor

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.

========================================================
return to index [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================