"UKRAINE REPORT-2003"
"The Art of Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World"
"UKRAINE REPORT-2003, Number 119
U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF)
www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service (ARTUIS)
Washington, D.C. and Kyiv, Ukraine, morganw@patriot.net
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2003
HAPPY NEW YEAR, JANUARY 1, 2004
[Gregorian Calendar]
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, JANUARY 7, 2004
[Ukrainian Christmas, Julian Calendar]
HAPPY NEW YEAR, JANUARY 13, 2004
[Ukrainian New Year, Julian Calendar]
INDEX OF TEN ARTICLES:
1.UKRAINE'S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES PRESIDENT
LEONID KUCHMA CAN RUN FOR A THIRD TERM
2. UKRAINE'S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CLEARS WAY
FOR PRESIDENT KUCHMA'S THIRD TERM
AFX Europe (Focus); Kiev, Ukraine, Dec 30, 2003
3. FUTURE OF ODESSA-BRODY PIPELINE STILL UNSURE
Polish News Bulletin; Warsaw, Poland, Dec 29, 2003
4. THOUSANDS RALLY TO SUPPORT UKRAINIAN OPPOSITION
MAYOR IN WESTERN UKRAINE CITY OF MUKADCHEVE
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 29 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Dec 29, 2003
5. MEMORIAL COMPLEX IN MEMORY OF HOLODOMOR VICTIMS
TO OPEN IN KYIV IN AUTUMN OF 2004 ACCORDING TO MAYOR
UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, December 26, 2003
6. UKRAINIAN COURT RULES KIEV MAYOR CAN STAY
ON DESPITE AGE LIMIT
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 0852, 30 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Dec 30, 2003
7. SEVENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT FAMINE OF
1932-1933 IN UKRAINE (HOLODOMOR)
Message by Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, Director General of UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations, New York, NY, December 16, 2003
8. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO PROVIDE $1 MILLION
MORE TO INTERNATIONAL CHORNOBYL CENTER IN SLAVUTYCH
Public Affairs Section, United States Embassy Kyiv, December 29, 2003
9. THERE WILL BE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, COME WHAT MAY
By Viktor Yushchenko, Leader of "Our Ukraine" Political Party
Zerkalo Nedeli on the Web, Mirror-Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, 27 December 2003 - 9 January 2004 year
10. UKRAINIAN WEB SITE SAYS PRESIDENTIAL CHIEF OF
STAFF MEDVEDCHUK MAIN WINNER IN REFORM VOTE
"Rescue of far from ordinary Medvedchuk"
By Viktor Shlynchak, Glavred, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 24 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Dec 29, 2003
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER ONE
=========================================================
1. UKRAINE'S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES PRESIDENT
LEONID KUCHMA CAN RUN FOR A THIRD TERM
The Associated Press, Kiev, Ukraine, Dec. 30, 2003
KIEV, Ukraine Dec. 30 - Ukraine's Constitutional Court on Tuesday
ruled that President Leonid Kuchma can run for a third five-year term
next year, a move likely to further heat up the already tense political
situation in the ex-Soviet republic.
Ukraine's first post-Soviet constitution approved in 1996 limits a
president to two terms in office. The Constitutional Court ruled that
Kuchma's first term, which started in 1994, didn't count because it
began before the constitution's approval, Antonina Stakhovska, the
court's spokeswoman, said by telephone.
Kuchma, who headed a missile factory during Soviet times, finishes
his second term next year. He has said publicly that he wouldn't seek
another term in elections set for October.
Kuchma's spokeswoman Oksana Kosareva said that his position hasn't
changed "yet." Kuchma, 65, is currently on a trip to Baden-Baden, a
famed spa town in Germany, following last month's abdominal surgery.
The court's ruling is certain to infuriate the opposition, which has
long accused Kuchma of corruption and involvement in the killing of
an opposition journalist and pushed for his ouster. The opposition
has long suspected Kuchma of seeking a legal loophole to extend his
tenure.
Last week, the Ukrainian parliament gave preliminary approval to a
set of constitutional amendments that would have the country's
president elected by the legislature instead of popular vote starting
in 2006.
The opposition vainly tried to block the amendments drafted by
Kuchma's supporters, saying they represented an attempt to keep him
in office beyond term limits or help him install a hand-picked
successor in elections set for October.
The opposition tried to unseat Kuchma in a wave of street protests in
the fall of 2002, but he has weathered the pressure. During that
period, Ukraine's relations with the United States soured as the U.S.
administration accused Kuchma of sanctioning the sale of
sophisticated military radars to Iraq.
Kuchma has denied the accusations, and U.S.-Ukrainian relations
improved this year after the Ukrainian government sent peacekeepers
to Iraq in an apparent attempt to placate Washington. (END) (ARTUIS)
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER TWO
=========================================================
2. UKRAINE'S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CLEARS WAY
FOR PRESIDENT KUCHMA'S THIRD TERM
AFX Europe (Focus); Kiev, Ukraine, Dec 30, 2003
KIEV, Ukraine (AFX) - Ukraine's Constitutional Court has cleared the way for
President Leonid Kuchma to run for a third term in elections due to be held
in October 2004.
Ukraine's constitution, adopted in June 1996, limits presidents to two
consecutive terms.
But that clause "only concerns people elected after the constitution entered
into force in 1996," according to the court's ruling, read to reporters by
judge Volodimyr Voznyuk.
Kuchma was first elected president of the former Soviet republic in 1994 and
is currently serving a second five-year term. newsdesk@afxnews.com
zak/rh/ims/
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT 2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER THREE
=========================================================
3. FUTURE OF ODESSA-BRODY PIPELINE STILL UNSURE
Polish News Bulletin; Warsaw, Poland, Dec 29, 2003
WARSAW.......Last Friday, the Ukrainian government decided to postpone the
ratification of its treaty with Poland that stipulates that the Ukrainian
Odessa-Brody oil pipeline should be extended to Plock in Poland. Signed in
November this year, the agreement between the Polish and the Ukrainian
governments was to be ratified by Ukraine by 15 January 2004. Yet, the
debate on its ratification was removed from the Ukrainian government's
agenda and has thus been delayed for an indefinite period of time.
Built in 2001, the Odessa-Brody pipeline was designed to transport oil from
the Caspian Basin to Europe. But Russian oil exporters are eager to take
control over this transport route. Recently, they expressed interest in
using the pipeline for transporting Russian oil to Odessa seaport.
An American consultancy company, Energy Solutions, has been employed by the
Ukrainian authorities to prepare a report on the profitability of potential
uses of the pipeline. (END) (ARTUIS)
=========================================================
WELCOME TO UKRAINE MAGAZINE IN ENGLISH
Issue Number Four for Year 2003 Just Issued. Best Magazine in English
http://www.artukraine.com/travel/wumagazine.htm
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER FOUR
=========================================================
4. THOUSANDS RALLY TO SUPPORT UKRAINIAN OPPOSITION
MAYOR IN WESTERN UKRAINE CITY OF MUKADCHEVE
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 29 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Dec 29, 2003
Kiev, 29 December: About 5,000 supporters of democratic forces [the
opposition] have gathered near the town hall in Mukacheve [city in western
Ukraine]. They are holding banners saying: "Vasyl Petyovka is our choice"
[Petyovka supports the opposition Our Ukraine bloc] and "No to usurpation of
power by the USDP [United Social Democratic Party, headed by presidential
administration chief Viktor Medvedchuk]".
The press service of the Our Ukraine bloc has reported, referring to the
press service of the Mukacheve city council, that representatives of the
authorities, led by [deputy head of the regional administration] Myroslav
Opachko, broke down the doors to the council hall and the reception.
The Mukacheve city court today ruled that the presidential decree "On
measures to secure constitutional rights of residents and bringing the
activity of the town of Mukacheve back to normal, Transcarpathian Region"
[which dismissed Petyovka] was illegal. The decree appointed the deputy head
of the regional state administration, Myroslav Opachko, who is a USDP
member, as acting mayor of Mukacheve. [Passage omitted: Background on
Mukacheve elections last summer and subsequent court suits.]
========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER FIVE
=========================================================
5. MEMORIAL COMPLEX IN MEMORY OF HOLODOMOR VICTIMS
TO OPEN IN KYIV IN AUTUMN OF 2004 ACCORDING TO MAYOR
UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, December 26, 2003
KYIV........In the autumn of 2004, a complex in memory of holodomor victims
will open in Kyiv. Kyiv Mayor Oleksander Omelchenko has said it at a press
conference in Kyiv today.
In his words, at first Kyiv authorities proposed the Cabinet of Ministers 3
variants of the situation of the memorial. At last, the government decided
to allocate land in Prymakova park on the bank of the Dnipro.
However, the Mayor has added, later this project was reconsidered with the
Ministry of Culture and public, as a result of which two other variants
remained - Volodymyrska Hill near the St.Michael Cathedral and Spasski
Gate in Pechersk.
O.Omelchenko has said both variants are being considered, but, as early as
today, the majority of specialists tend to the first project at Volodymyrska
Hill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR'S NOTE: It is hoped the government of Ukraine will move
forward with the memorial complex in memory of the victims of the
genocidal famine in Ukraine during 1932-1933 (holodomor). It is not
hoped that the complex be opened autumn of 2004. There is just
not enough time during the next 10 months or so to design and build a
serious, world-class complex.
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER SIX
=========================================================
6. UKRAINIAN COURT RULES KIEV MAYOR CAN STAY
ON DESPITE AGE LIMIT
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 0852, 30 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Dec 30, 2003
Kiev, 30 December: The regulation on age limit for state officials is not
applicable to the official who occupies the post of head of Kiev city
administration.
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine announced this decision today after
considering requests from the Ukrainian president and 56 MPs regarding the
legality of Kiev mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko's staying in his post after he
had reached the limit age for state officials (65 year - Interfax-Ukraine).
The Kiev city state administration is a single organization that fulfils the
functions of the executive body of the Kiev city council and at the same
time the functions of the local executive body for self-government. The body
is accountable to and supervised by the Kiev city council and by the Cabinet
of Ministers in terms of the authority of the executive power.
The Kiev city administration must be headed only by the person elected as
Kiev city head [mayor]. He is appointed to the position by the Ukrainian
president. Being the head of the Kiev city administration, the mayor is
responsible to the Ukrainian president and the Cabinet of Ministers on the
issues of his authority as part of executive power, and accountable to and
supervised by the Cabinet of Ministers.
The regulation on the age limit for state officials is not applicable to the
official who is the Kiev mayor and head of the Kiev city administration. The
ruling of the Constitutional Court is compulsory on Ukrainian territory and
cannot be appealed against. Omelchenko marked his 65-year birthday on 9
August this year. (END) (ARTUIS)
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER SEVEN
=========================================================
7. SEVENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT FAMINE OF
1932-1933 IN UKRAINE (HOLODOMOR)
Message by Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, Director General of UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations, New York, NY, December 16, 2003
In 2002-2003, Ukraine is commemorating the seventieth anniversary of one of
the most terrible and tragic events in Ukrainian history - the Great Famine
of 1932-1933 (Holodomor). This catastrophe saw millions of people lose
their lives, mostly Ukrainians but also Russians, Kazakhs and
representatives of other nationalities who died ob starvation in the Volga
River region, the Northern Caucasus, Kazakhstan and other parts of the
former Soviet Union.
The Great Famine came about through the cruel actions and callous policies
of the totalitarian regime, through forced collectivization and through
civil war. Holodomor, which took away the lives of one-fifth of the rural
population of Ukraine, became a national catastrophe for the Ukrainian
people that generated many adverse demographic, social, economic and
cultural consequences and left deep scars in the consciousness of future
generations.
On behalf of UNESCO, I hereby express my enduring compassion for everyone
who died of and suffered from hunger in those merciless times. We fully
support the to the international community, contained in the "Joint
Statement by the delegations of 25 Member States on the seventieth
anniversary of the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor)" that
was disseminated at the 58th session of the General Assembly of the United
Nations and was subsequently signed by another 15 countries, to raise
world-wide public awareness of this tragedy.
We must preserve the memory of past injustice, not for the sake of revenge
or recrimination but to honour those who suffered, to respect their right to
human dignity and to re-commit ourselves to the pursuit of justice for all.
UNESCO recognizes the importance of research into and analysis of such
tragic events so that the lessons of the past may help us to avoid similar
catastrophes in the future and to strengthen common efforts aimed at
building a world in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are fully
respected. UNESCO's work is dedicated to the principles enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which proclaims that our
shared goal is a world in which all human beings, without discrimination of
any kind, "shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear
and want".
The efforts of the Government of Ukraine aimed at revealing the truth about
Holodomor, its causes and consequences deserve the international community's
full support so that the Ukrainian people may reinforce their national an
cultural identity as well as share the values of solidarity, respect for
cultural diversity, mutual understanding, dialogue, tolerance and respect
for human dignity with other people of the world.
16 December, 2003
(signed) Koichiro Matsuura
[Material courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kyiv]
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER EIGHT
=========================================================
8. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO PROVIDE $1 MILLION
MORE TO INTERNATIONAL CHORNOBYL CENTER IN SLAVUTYCH
Public Affairs Section, United States Embassy Kyiv, December 29, 2003
KYIV..........U.S. Ambassador John Herbst announced today, December 29,
during a visit to Slavutych, that the U. S. Government will provide $1
million in funding over the next two years to the International Chornobyl
Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste Management, and Radioecology in
Slavutych.
The United States and Ukraine jointly established the Center in 1996. The
main goal of the Center is to become a national and international resource
for nuclear safety and research. The Center conducts its main activities
through its two laboratories - the Laboratory of Engineering Research and
Technology and the International Radioecology Laboratory. The Center plays
an important role in mitigating social and economic impact on the city of
Slavutych by directly employing its residents. It employs approximately 65
full-time personnel, and has additionally employed up to 100 Chornobyl
nuclear power plant workers as contractors for specific projects.
The U. S. Government has previously provided more than $12 million for
infrastructure, analytical and research equipment, operations, training,
communications, marketing, and business development of the Center. The
additional funding announced today will be used for the Center to obtain
licenses and certificates, to provide management and technical training,
develop business and marketing plans, to continue to support operations and
maintenance of the International Radioecology Laboratory, and to further
promote the Center to domestic and international markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Affairs Section, United States Embassy Kyiv, 4 Hlybochytska St.
Kyiv 04050 Ukraine, (380 44) 490-4026, 490-4090, Fax (380 44) 490-4050
http://usembassy.kiev.ua, info@usembassy.kiev.ua
http://usembassy.kiev.ua/infocentral_eng.html
=========================================================
FOLK ART MAGAZINE: NARODNE MYSTETSTVO
http://www.artukraine.com/primitive/artmagazine.htm
A Great Magazine in Ukrainian....Excellent Ukrainian Magazine
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER NINE
=========================================================
9. THERE WILL BE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, COME WHAT MAY
By Viktor Yushchenko, Leader of "Our Ukraine" Political Party
Zerkalo Nedeli on the Web, Mirror-Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, 27 December 2003 - 9 January 2004 year
A good tradition was started in the Verkhovna Rada during the last week of
this outgoing year. It is to begin the session with the national anthem.
"Shche ne vmerla Ukraina, i slava, i volia," [Ukraine, neither glory, nor
will has not died yet] sang the opposition deputies in a harmonious choir
with the representatives of the majority in the parliament building on those
four days last week. Even some of the Communists joined in.
Unfortunately, this unity would come to an end with the last words of the
anthem. It is sad that this good tradition was established at the moment of
probably the most serious parliamentary crisis. Not all the deputies would
rise to their feet during the anthem, perfectly characterizing the attitude
of Ukrainian political elite to the main national symbols. After all, even
the Constitution has become a call girl for the present government,
according to a journalist's nifty phrase.
When it became totally obvious that the majority and the communists do not
have the slightest intention of observing the procedure for approving
amendments to the Fundamental Law, we were forced to block the work of the
Verkhovna Rada. This was our response to the government's lawlessness. As
Ibsen once said, he wins who beats his rivals with their own weapon.
Could we have chosen a scenario other than upsetting the anti-constitutional
coup d'etat knowing that we were supported by 86% of our compatriots, who
stand for the direct national election of the head of state? Could we have
acted in a different way having collected more than 3 million signatures in
favor of direct elections? One has to agree that these are rhetorical
questions.
Despite the uneasy feeling left after the more than cynical attempt of the
majority and the CPU to carry out an anti-constitutional coup d'etat and to
ensure 300 votes in support of the so-called Medvechuk-Symonenko bill, the
last weeks of 2003 give enough cause to be optimistic.
The main facts, which in serious doubt only a few months ago, have become
obvious now. Under such pressure from the opposition, the majority did not
dare to put to a vote draft #4180 which provides for the election of the
president by parliament as early as 2004 in exchange for a political bribe
of an "additional" year and a half in parliament. The authors of this bill
included the coordinator of parliament's majority Stepan Havrish, the
Regions' leader Raisa Bohatyreva and the agrarian leader Katerina Vashchuk.
It is interesting how they would explain in their constituencies - whether
it be Kharkiv, Donetsk or Volyn - that they wanted to remain deputies up
until 2007?
I believe that now it is obvious that on 31 October 2004 there will be a
direct national presidential election in Ukraine. And it will be held come
what may.
The degree of consolidation of the Three [opposition blocs] that has been
reached over the last month inspires confidence in the victory of the
democratic opposition and of those political forces that would be wise and
strong enough to join this open coalition.
An important step has been made recently on the difficult path of
strengthening the unity of opposition forces. A feeling of fellowship,
well-coordinated team play, and a common struggle with lawlessness have
united and hardened the opposition.
I am certain that common meetings of the "Our Ukraine", SPU and BUT [the
Yulia Tymoshenko bloc] factions, the active work of their coordinating
council, and the creation of ad hoc working groups will be followed by
further initiatives: the establishment of a parliamentary coalition of the
opposition factions; agreement on a plan of joint actions; development of a
common strategic program; and, as their logical conclusion, a common
presidential campaign and a common candidate.
The effectiveness of the opposition Three, its unity, and respect for the
mutual commitments of its participants - all of these strengthen our
confidence in victory. Ukraine is one of the few former Soviet countries,
where an opposition has emerged. Note that this is not a "pocket" opposition
coordinating its actions with the government as a part of a so-called
directed democracy. Instead, this is an opposition that the government has
to consider. We can state that now opposition is stronger than ever chiefly
duet to public support.
Right now the objective of "the Three" is to prove the illegality of the
so-called adoption of constitutional amendments in the first reading. We
have video recordings and statements of the members of the vote-counting
commission that testify to the fact that there was no legitimate vote on the
bill on constitutional amendments.
Behind closed doors, consulting actively by mobile telephone (the most well
known in the Rada) with Bankova Street [the Presidential Administration],
the constitutional commission made 51 amendments to bill #4105 that had
already passed the examination of the Constitutional Court. As a result, it
was an entirely different document that the deputies were given only on
Tuesday morning and were required to vote urgently in the affirmative
without even reading .
Incidentally, the majority had already had the experience of getting votes
"sight unseen". A few weeks ago it had voted on the 2004 Budget in a similar
way. Now, the factions, which have obediently voted on the budget, make 1354
(!) amendments to it to withdraw most absurd provisions such as VAT on
medicines, realty or religious rites. The irresponsible 2004 Budget would
have been impossible, had it been discussed according to parliamentary
procedure, which guarantee the transparency and responsibility of the
decisions adopted.
The amendments to the Constitution were adopted without the majority even
trying to put on a good face: a group of deputies in the corner of the
session hall raise their hands for the approval of an unclear document. How
many votes were cast "in favor"? They say 276, yet they promise to confirm
and even increase the announced figure later. Some of the deputies voted
with two hands. We hope that their two hands were noticed and taken into
account. To recognize the legitimacy of this show means to thrust the
Ukrainian parliament back 15 years to the times of obedient voting by the
raising of hands with not a single vote "against".
To put up with such a sacrilege means to turn parliament into a tool for the
intrigues of Bankova, as the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR used to be
for the Central Committee of the Communist Party.
In such a situation the Speaker's position is disappointing. Until the most
recent events, Volodymyr Lytvyn was trying to be the leader of the entire
Verkhovna Rada, not only of the majority. The opposition respected Lytvyn's
attempts to be unbiased and independent. The leader of parliament must
uphold its status as a single lawmaking body and an independent branch of
power. This status is impossible without strict adherence to procedure,
proper organization of the discussions and professional preparation of
documents. Yet on December 24 Lytvyn was playing somebody else's game.
The responsibility of the leader of parliament is twice as great when
serious bills such as amendments to the Constitution are being discussed.
However, on voting day, the deputies were given a very bad drafted document,
in which one article contradicted another and which admitted different
interpretations of regulations.
Neither the President, nor the Prime Minister, nor other Ministers came to
the session hall. The Verkhovna Rada Speaker is well aware of the fact that
their absence at the discussion of constitutional amendments shows a lack of
respect for the Fundamental Law. He has no right to encourage such a
practice. Coming to the hall from the back entrance and taking part in a
humiliating raising of hands turn the Speaker into an instrument of
political games with the rules set outside the parliament building. His
consent to the diminishing of his role makes him personally vulnerable as
well as diminishing the role of the legislative body.
Unfortunately, there is no doubt that despite all those rude violations
during the "adoption" of the amendments to the Basic Law, next year the
government will play according to these same newly-formed,
pseudo-constitutional and legally baseless rules.
We do not recognize the so-called Symonenko-Medvedchuk bill and consider
last week's events a farce. Yet even if one would sin against the truth and
conditionally recognize the availability of 276 votes, one does not need
great arithmetic skill to see that the "communist-majority cooperative" is
having hard times. If it were not for the conciliatory position of the CPU,
the reform would not get 226 votes at all in the first reading. Even the CPU
yielded only 49 votes instead of the maximum possible 60. It is obvious that
in this faction there still are deputies who on principle do not
unscrupulously collude with government. That is why they found a way not to
come to the session hall on that day.
The position of Oleksandr Zinchenko and Lyudmila Suprun, who refused to
raise their hands in favor the dubious document, deserve high respect.
Incidentally, many in the majority have come up to us during these days
asking us to take every possible and impossible effort to prevent the
passage of the type of reform that was being carried through. Such a moral
support is, of course, pleasing, yet hiding fig in one's pocket is not the
most effective demonstration of courage.
So, given such sentiments in parliament, it is possible to forecast that one
will not succeed in collecting 300 honest votes in favor of a reform that
deprives the people of the right to elect their president. And the blame
falls on the government, which having gotten down to business with dirty
hands, has ruined the basically good idea of democratizing the political
system.
"Our Ukraine" published its own program of changes in the mechanisms of
government as early as spring 2002. Unfortunately, instead of searching for
real ways to democratize, the regime has focused on something different: on
how to ensure life-long reign of those whom the electors refused to trust as
early as spring 2002.
I completely agree with the following opinion of Oleksandr Moroz: "We and
the government stand up for reform projects of a seemingly similar content.
Yet we pursue opposite goals. We stand up for the passage of power to its
source, the people, and for the people's control over all branches and
levels of power. The regime is pursuing an opposite interest - to keep power
in its hands having forever removed it from the people."
Despite this we sought a compromise. "Our Ukraine" stood up for the idea of
a "strong president - strong parliament - strong government" and insisted on
the redistribution of power within this triangle in the favor of parliament
and the government. The representatives of the opposition worked in the
parliamentary constitutional commission, yet the majority was not going to
consider most of the proposals of "the Three". The events of December 23 -25
have proved that so far the majority is united only by fear; any other
consolidating motives are out of the question. After all, what kind of unity
can we talk about if this coalition is torn apart by deep conflicts over the
economic and privatization issues?
In addition, the majority is bound hand and foot by the unresolved issue of
the so-called third term. On the one hand, everything is clear here: even
the Presidential Administration can count to three. On the other hand, due
to the obvious reasons, Constitutional Court delays putting a full stop to
this issue.
There are people in Leonid Kucham's milieu who push him in this adventurous
direction. Yet there still is hope that the President will be very cautious
in the face of such provocative advice and that he is capable of not only an
objective evaluation of his own forces but also of the consequences of such
a move for the country. The problem of the third term cannot be solved with
either election techniques or informational manipulations. This plan could
be implemented only through a coup d'etat - through the election of a
president in a parliament's smoking-room. It is my deep conviction that the
people will not allow and the opposition will prevent such a move.
On the other hand, we are ready to give the highest appraisal and express
our deepest gratitude to the person who would be strong enough to overcome
his fear of the future and, instead of promising the dirtiest ever election
campaign, would ensure honest and democratic elections following which he
would give up power within the term established by the acting Constitution.
This act would be greatly appreciated by the political elite and by the
entire Ukrainian society.
Morally and organizationally we are ready to apply all possible legal and
peaceful methods to protect civil rights and Constitution. Commentators and
political analysts do not have to waste their time trying to define which of
the scenarios would be implemented in Ukraine - the Yugoslavian, Georgian or
Lithuanian. We are for our own, Ukrainian scenario. It implies honest,
democratic and direct elections of the head of state. And we are supported
by 86% of our compatriots in this.
However, there are many signs indicating that the government is working
towards the destabilization of the situation in Ukraine. Regardless of the
will of people, it is striving for the cancellation of the election and
provocation of the street to vigorous actions.
The course towards destabilization is also revealed by attempts to stir up
interregional differences and to provoke the split of the nation according
to language and nationality. Politicians, whose sacred duty is to foster
national unity as the highest value, stir up international and interregional
hostility. It is worth remembering Donetsk and the miners sent to Kyiv,
whom fortunately we managed to help to see the real situation.
This burning issue stands out in all the Bankova-incited "appeals of labor
collectives" censuring the actions of the opposition that TV stations are
forced to report.
Why should it be surprising then that 97.6% of the experts surveyed believe
that the main patron of dirty political techniques in Ukraine is the Head of
the Presidential Administration, while 92.7% find the President guilty of
this sin?
Finally, the position of the CPU leaders is another disappointment of the
year. The regrettable truth is that the CPU leadership unilaterally broke
the agreement of the opposition forces according to which any amendments to
the Constitution must be preceded by the adoption of a law on parliamentary
elections by proportional representation.
The tragedy of the CPU is in the fact that today it has become obvious that
there is a split between the conciliatory position of its leaders and that
of communists with firm ideological principles.
The government goes further and through a proposal to create a coalition of
"leftist forces" it aims to legalize its union with the CPU and to attach
this party to itself as strongly as possible, having first undermined the
trust of the electors in it. It will then betray it since it is not a secret
that one of the government's objectives is to prevent Petro Symonenko from
making it into the second round of the presidential election to be held on
31 October 2004.
Yet even in such a situation we believe that we should not burn our bridges
with the Communists, at least because the position of the average communist
is entirely different from the actions of the party's bosses. "Our Ukraine",
SPU, BUT and CPU are united by a common attitude towards the corrupt
government and by a wish to change it. That is why the union of Symonenko
and Medvedchuk looks unnatural not only for the supporters of "Our Ukraine",
SPU and BUT, but also for the average communist.
Sociological research has shown that support for the direct national
election of the president among followers of the CPU is the same as for the
population in general, - 80%.
Everywhere people pin their hopes for a better future on the 31 October 2004
election. Half of 2002 and the whole of 2003 we were bravely fighting for
the fundamental right of the people to elect their government - the right
that the government now questions because it wants to be eternal. Our team
is currently united and hardened enough to go through the final stages of
this fight with the government with dignity. Isn't it a victory for the "Our
Ukraine" bloc, which in two weeks will celebrate its second anniversary,
that it not only united rather diverse political forces in a single solid
team but also withstood difficult personal trials, which the government gave
to many of our faction members?
Yes, there were some losses, but having lost in quantity, we have gained in
quality. I will not speak at the moment about those "tortures" to which some
of our faction members were subjected virtually on the eve of December
23-24. Unfortunately, such things are not surprising any longer. The
government felt that it was short of votes and, as in the past, started to
"mobilize additional reserves" descending to all possible measures.
Nevertheless, we withstood and won because our team, my sworn brothers, is a
team of strong and courageous people I sincerely admire.
In this article I did not intend to give a detailed analysis of the
situation in the country. Yet I entirely agree that there is "no air to
breathe" not only in the mass media, but also in the parliamentary hall, in
schools, hospitals and villages. We are strangled with the chain of slavery,
about which Merab Mamardashvillie was taking. The great philosopher warned
that after a man has grasped some of its link, such as lies, injustice or
cowardice, it will be very difficult for him to get free. Sometimes entire
nations fall for the bait. It is very important to break promptly the chain
that still confines us to our post-Soviet past.
http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/475/45057/
=========================================================
UKRAINE REPORT-2003, No. 119: ARTICLE NUMBER TEN
=========================================================
10.. UKRAINIAN WEB SITE SAYS PRESIDENTIAL CHIEF OF
STAFF MEDVEDCHUK MAIN WINNER IN REFORM VOTE
"Rescue of far from ordinary Medvedchuk"
By Viktor Shlynchak, Glavred, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 24 Dec 03
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Dec 29, 2003
The parliamentary approval of constitutional amendments was a victory for
the head of the presidential administration, Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian
web site has said. Had the reform failed to get through, his job would have
been on the line, it said. Medvedchuk put pressure on the parliamentary
speaker and prime minister in the run-up to the vote and parliamentary rules
were breached, the web site concluded.
The following is the text of the article by Viktor Shlynchak, entitled
"Rescue of far from ordinary Medvedchuk", published on the Glavred web
site on 24 December. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
Long before the start of the parliamentary brouhaha over constitutional
reform bills, it was understood that the head of the presidential
administration [Viktor Medvedchuk] had only two paths. In the classic
[Soviet comedy film] "Prisoner in the Caucasus", they are defined very
precisely - "either the registry office or the prosecutor's office".
Well, Medvedchuk went to a real registry office last summer [to get
married], but as far as the political one is concerned\ý [ellipsis as
published] Obviously, had he lost the game called "political reform" at the
same time as being deprived of good Russian friends, Medvedchuk would have
become as uninteresting to President [Leonid] Kuchma as, say [former
presidential administration chiefs Mykola] Biloblotskyy or [Yevhen]
Kushnaryov in their time. People were even naming preliminary dates for
Medvedchuk's dismissal - 13-15 January - if he failed to gain parliamentary
agreement and get constitutional reform through.
Having won that fight, Medvedchuk receives not only the right to keep his
place in the system drawn by Leonid Kuchma, but also the right to claim
something greater than the "boss-underling" relationship. Something like
guardian of the home fires. That was why it was so important for Medvedchuk
to have the first step of political reform, on which he spared no time,
effort or funds.
Pressure on prime minister, speaker
The process started with bringing Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych into the
circulation of events. This was done by means of the "incentive" from the
president, known to everyone, which was urged by Medvedchuk. Suffice it to
recall how a month ago all the "pro-USDP [United Social Democratic Party,
headed by Medvedchuk]" media started seriously promoting Yanukovych and
then, two weeks later turned another side to the prime minister,
ostentatiously highlighting the government's mistakes. The possible
dismissal of Medvedchuk immediately faded in comparison with that of
Yanukovych. The prime minister was given to understand that he bore the same
responsibility for reform as Medvedchuk, and if it failed, the same fate
awaited him.
Second, Viktor Medvedchuk needed to resolve the question of providing
stuffing for reform with the support of at least one political force from
the opposition camp in order to launch the process of constitutional
amendments. For this, the presidential administration started giving
incentives to people ready to surrender, but not yet sure whether the price
was right. This was the precise purpose of using contacts with the
communists and socialists, and, as one of the links in a long chain, first
deputy speaker Adam Martynyuk [Communist Party deputy] appeared in the
presidium.
Third, Viktor Medvedchuk needed to convince [speaker] Volodymyr Lytvyn, via
the [president's] permanent representative in parliament, Oleksandr
Zadorozhnyy, of unexpectedly heated feelings regarding the speaker. One such
clear message was an interview Zadorozhnyy gave to the newspaper Kievskiy
Telegraf, where it was stated on oath about the taboo placed on the
speaker's chair. Initially, according to the same scheme used in the case of
Yanukovych, uncomfortable conditions - to say the least - were created for
Lytvyn and then help was ostentatiously provided to eliminate them. There
was also the human factor that could be used by the president regarding his
former first assistant.
Fourth, as an experienced lawyer and energetic person, Viktor Medvedchuk
needed to write down the procedure for passing draft changes to the
constitution (according to which, nationwide elections of the president will
take place in 2004, and then in 2006 the new parliament will elect a new
president) through the hall of sessions. One should give Mr Medvedchuk his
due. He coped with the first three tasks almost irreproachably. A beautiful
illusion was created whereby open fights with Yanukovych and Lytvyn were
apparently forgotten and the communists were brought on board as allies.
However, the last point - legitimizing amendments to the constitution -
unexpectedly made Medvedchuk act relying not on judicial sang-froid, but on
emotions.
It is known that the attempts to "drag" the draft constitutional amendments
through parliament in the first reading (the so-called Medvedchuk-[Communist
Party leader Petro] Symonenko draft) met a serious rebuff from Our Ukraine,
the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc and the Socialists Party. It can be presumed that
such a strong and, at times brazen behaviour by [Our Ukraine leader Viktor]
Yushchenko's supporters was not expected by the presidential administration
on Tuesday 23 December. The complete blockade of the rostrum and presidium
did not enter the plans of the USDP. That was probably why on the following
day the scenario of behaviour was substantially changed. The interest of
those who deliberately boycotted the adoption of constitutional changes is
obvious.
Our Ukraine, which has the most realistic presidential candidate, could in
no way allow first, a tactical loss to Medvedchuk specifically and second, a
strategic loss whereby Yushchenko as president would suddenly face the
problem of an uncontrolled parliament and an inherited Cabinet of Ministers.
And the opposition did all it could to avoid these mistakes.
Breaches of parliamentary rules
The only thing that Viktor Medvedchuk (and also his judicial advisers like
Oleksandr Zadorozhnyy) did not consider was that the voting should have gone
smoothly. So smoothly that the diplomats present at the parliament sitting
would not even have had a shadow of doubt of the legitimacy of the
constitutional amendments adopted in the first reading. Now it can be said
that the work passed fairly "dirtily". Let us first turn to the Supreme
Council [parliament] regulations and the resolutions that it has passed.
Let us recall, for example, that voting in parliament takes place on
Tuesdays and Thursdays. How can one evaluate voting on a Wednesday? Is this
not a breach of the rules? Representatives of the majority explain this
"nuance" by the fact that Volodymyr Lytvyn had not closed the evening
sitting on Tuesday. However, the parliamentary rules clearly state that the
evening sitting ends at 1800 [local time], and that the speaker has to put
the question of prolonging a sitting to the vote. That was not done because
of such subjective circumstances as a calculated utilization of the
situation.
Moreover, Volodymyr Lytvyn, against the rules, publicly told journalists
that he could not close the sitting. But at that time (about midnight),
according to the rules, he no longer needed to do that. Second, on the
morning of 24 December, the speaker also did not open the sitting. Apart
from that, the voting in the hall of sessions was conducted by a show of
hands, which gives cause for serious suspicion of falsification of the
voting, since there was no documentary evidence of the number of supporters
of political reform among the deputies, apart from in Adam Martynyuk's
notebook. It was evident to the naked eye that several representatives of
the majority and the Communist Party had not raised their hands.
There is another "technical" aspect that could have been noticed; a
substantial section of majority representatives questioned by Glavred was
unable to explain what they were voting for when they raised their hands -
for voting by means of ballot papers or for changing their own names,
surnames and patronymics. "We voted to be paid our wages." That response
from one esteemed deputy is eloquent enough, is it not? What do we have as
the outcome?
First, and the main thing, is the fact that leader Viktor Medvedchuk has
maintained his status quo. He received substantial and invaluable help in
this from his "sworn friends" from the Donetsk region, as well as Volodymyr
Lytvyn, who was counting on getting at least moral dividends from the
president. One cannot help recalling a similar situation when Viktor
Yushchenko went to Donetsk to hold a congress of Our Ukraine [disrupted by
demonstrators]. The social democrats were also the winners then, getting
their dirty work done by Donetsk hands.
On the other hand, it is very possible that such practice of breaching
parliamentary rules by the speaker will very soon turn into a bad joke
against him. We won't yet guess who will be the eventual winner. And lastly,
the 276 votes achieved with such squawking in support of the law on
political reform in the first reading by no means signifies that the number
of them will exceed the 300 required at the next session. Because even among
those who raised their hands in favour today, there are quite a few who
advocate other democratic views on civilized reform of power. Can it be that
for the sake of rescuing "the drowning", all measures are justified,
especially if the patient is already on the brink of eternity? (END)
(ARTUIS)
==========================================================
"UKRAINE REPORT-2003," No. 119: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2003
TEN ARTICLES
FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY
==========================================================
WEBSITE FOR NEWS AND INFORMATION ABOUT UKRAINE
http://www.ArtUkraine.com
To check out the latest NEWS and other Information about UKRAINE click on:
WELCOME TO UKRAINE: http://www.artukraine.com/travel/wumagazine.htm
Best Magazine in English: Issue Number Four for Year 2003 Just Issued.
FOLK ART MAGAZINE: http://www.artukraine.com/primitive/artmagazine.htm
A Great Magazine in Ukrainian....Excellent Magazine, Twice A Year
GENOCIDE GALLERY www.ArtUkraine.com/famineart/index.htm
One of the Largest Website Galleries in the World on the Genocidal Famine.
NEWS-DAILY GALLERY: http://www.artukraine.com/newsgallery.htm.
Links to Several Major Ukrainian Website Daily News Sources
CURRENT EVENTS GALLERY: http://www.artukraine.com/events/index.htm
BUILD UKRAINE GALLERY: http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/index.htm
The Art of Building an Independent, Democratic, Properous Nation State
========================================================
INFORMATION ABOUT UKRAINE REPORT-2003
The "UKRAINE REPORT-2003" is produced by the www.ArtUkraine.com
Information Service (ARTUIS) with production offices in Kyiv, Ukraine and
Washington, D.C.. The report is distributed worldwide free of charge,
courtesy of the sponsors listed below, using the e-mail address:
ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. For further information contact:
morganw@patriot.net.
We give special thanks to UKRAINE REPORT-2003 SPONSORS:
1.U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION, (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John A. Kun, VP/COO; Markian Bilynskyj,
VP, Dir. of Field Operations, Kyiv, Ukraine and Washington, D.C.
website: http://www.usukraine.org .
2. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Kempton Jenkins,
President, Washington, D.C.
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC UKRAINE, David Sweere and Tamara Sweere,
Founders and Managers; Kyiv, Ukraine
4. VOLIA SOFTWARE, Software to Fit Your Business, Source your
work in Ukraine. Contact: Yuri Sivitskiy, Vice President, Marketing,
Kyiv, Ukraine, yuriss@softline.kiev.ua; http://www.volia-software.com/
5. POTENTIAL, the launching of a new business journal for Ukraine.
http://www.usukraine.org/potential.shtml#about
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR
E. Morgan Williams, Senior Advisor, Government Relations and
Foundation Development, U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF)
Publisher and Editor: "UKRAINE REPORT-2003,"
www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service (ARTUIS).
http://www.ArtUkraine.com News and Information Website,
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013
Tel: 202 437 4707, morganw@patriot.net
Websites: http://www.ArtUkraine.com, http://www.usukraine.org
Office In Kyiv: 380 44 212 5586, Mobile in Kyiv: 380 50 689 2874
====================================================
NOTE: We use the English translation from the Ukrainian, i.e. Kyiv instead
of Kiev, whenever possible. The articles are published using the basic
format, spelling, and language contained in the original. In most cases
we do not change the text or spelling found in the original article.
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE UKRAINE REPORT-2003 (FREE)
If you know of one or more persons you think would like to be added to
the distribution list for "UKRAINE REPORT-2003" please send us the
relevant contact information. We welcome additional names for the
distribution list. The report is sent FREE of charge and is courtesy of
our sponsors. To subscribe please send a subscription request e-mail
to Morgan Williams, morganw@patriot.net.
Past issues of the "UKRAINE REPORT-2003" will be sent upon
request. If you are receiving more than one copy please notify us about
this. If you want the REPORT sent to a different e-mail address than the
one we now have on the distribution list for you please notify us.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
UNSUBSCRIBE: If you do not wish to receive future editions of the
"UKRAINE REPORT-2003," up to three times per week, please be sure
and notify us by return e-mail. We do not want to be sending this REPORT
to anyone who is not interested in receiving it. (END)
FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY
========================================================