01.11.07. UNESCO fjerner ordet "folkemord" fra slutresolution

UNESCOS Generalkonference, der består af 193 lande, har enstemmigt vedtaget en resolution om "Højtideligholdelsen af mindet om ofrene for Hungersnøden i Ukraine".

Beslutningen blev truffet af den 34-session i UNESCOS Generalkonference torsdag den 1. november, oplyser det ukrainske udenrigsministeriums pressetjeneste.

Idet UNESCOS Generalkonference minder om den Hungersnød, der fandt sted i 1932-33 og kostede millioner af uskyldige ukrainere livet, udtrykker UNESCOS Generalkonference en overbevisning om, at denne tragedie, som blev forårsaget af det totalitære stalinistiske regimes grusomme handlinger og politik, skal tjene som en advarsel for nuværende og kommende generationer om vigtigheden af at respektere de demokratiske værdier, menneskerettigheder og retsstaten.

I resolutionsteksten ærer UNESCOS Generalkonference mindet om de omkomne og udtrykker sin medfølelse med ofrene for Hungersnøden i 1932-33 i Ukraine samt ofrene for den sultkatastrofe, der også ramte Rusland, Kazakhstan og andre dele af det tidligere USSR.

Generalkonferencen hilser det velkommen, at Ukraine har taget initiativ til at højtideligholde 75-årsdagen for Hungersnøden i Ukraine i 1932-33 og har indbudt UNESCOS medlemslande til at deltage i diverse højtideligholdelsestiltag.

Desuden har Generalkonferencen rettet henvendelse til UNESCOS medlemslande med en opfordring til at udbrede kendskabet til Hungersnøden via oplysning og videnskabelige forskningsprogrammer med henblik på at få de kommende generationer til at lære at denne tragiske del af historien.

Spørgsmålet om højtideligholdelsen af mindet om ofrene for Hungersnøden i 1932-33 blev foreslået af Ukraine sammen med 45 øvrige af UNESCOS medlemslande. Dette er blandt andet Azerbajdzan, Algeriet, Argentina, Burkina-Faso, Venesuela, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Georgien, DR Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Estland, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, Cameroun, Canada, Kenya, Costa-Rica, Elfenbenskysten, Kuwait, Kirgizstan, Letland, Litauen, Mauritius, Madagaskar, Makedonien, Moldova, Monaco, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Polen, Swaziland, Senegal, USA, Surinam, Tadzhikistan, Uruguay, Filipinnerne, Frankrig og Tjekkiet.

Tidligere havde massemedierne med henvisning til diplomatiske kilder oplyst, at ordet "genocide" (folkemord, red.) var blevet fjernet fra den endegyldige resolutionstekstekst vedrørende anerkendelsen af hungersnøden i Ukraine i 1932-33 som et folkemord mod det ukrainske folk, som UNESCOS Generalkonference skulle stemme om torsdag den 1. november 2007.

Som bekendt har Ukraines præsident Viktor Jusjtjenko lige siden han trådte til som præsident forsøgt at få hungersnøden i Ukraine i 1932-33 internationalt anerkendt som et folkemord mod det ukrainske folk. UP.

10.11.07. President's party is weakest link in Orange coalition

Taras Kuzio, http://www.jamestown.org/edm/

Friday, November 2, was the last day that the Our Ukraine-People’s Self Defense (NUNS) bloc could collect signatures to support a “democratic” (orange) coalition with the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc (BYuT). BYuT deputies have openly expressed their fear that disunity in NUNS will lead to an unstable orange coalition and a political crisis in 2008.

By last Friday, 69 of the 72 NUNS deputies had signed. The fact that three deputies have not signed is significant. As the orange coalition only has a slim majority of 228 deputies (156 BYuT + 72 NUNS) in the 450-seat Rada, a parliamentary motion for Tymoshenko to become prime minister would fail if the trio sat out.

The three absentees are National Security and Defense Council (NRBO) secretary Ivan Pliushch and two deputies from Trans-Carpathia, the only district NUNS won in the September 30 elections. The two—Ihor Kril and Vasyl Petiovka—are allies of the head of the presidential secretariat, Viktor Baloga, himself a native of Trans-Carpathia.

This situation is yet another indicator that NUNS would be an unstable partner in either the planned orange coalition or a theoretical grand coalition with the rival Party of Regions.

First, it shows that President Viktor Yushchenko has no control over his deputies. They have ignored his October 30 demand that “all of those colleagues who had not signed the declaration on a personal level [should] do so as quickly as possible.”

Second, Yushchenko is now wavering on key agreements, including Our Ukraine’s February 24 agreement to cooperate on a future coalition with BYuT, an inter-party agreement on August 2 that ruled out either BYuT or NUNS joining a coalition with the Party of Regions or the Communists, and an October 15 draft coalition agreement between BYuT and NUNS that was reinforced by an October 29 NUNS presidium meeting. Any betrayal of these commitments and agreements risks voter wrath. The Socialists learned that lesson this year, when voters angry over their betrayal of the orange coalition in summer 2006 kept the party out of parliament for the first time in its history.

Third, even though Our Ukraine was overhauled in the first quarter of 2007 with a new leader (Vyacheslav Kyrylenko), an alliance with Yuriy Lutsenko and his eponymous group, and the removal of businessmen accused of corruption, NUNS received the same 14% of the vote as Our Ukraine did last year.

Fourth, prior to the elections NUNS leaders committed themselves to unite their nine marginal parties into a single pro-presidential force. However, this has not happened and is unlikely to occur while Yushchenko wavers over which coalition to support.

Two of the parties in NUNS have already stated that their deputies will not vote for legislation according to the imperative mandate, which penalizes deputies for leaving their factions with the threat of losing their seat. BYuT initiated that regulation in the outgoing parliament, but the legislation was never adopted.

Baloga reminded NUNS that it had agreed to unification steps prior to the elections and that the aim is to build a presidential party. But so far there is no legal mechanism to merge parties; instead the members of the eight parties would need to self-liquidate and then join Our Ukraine.

In contrast, BYuT and the Party of Regions emerged from the 2006 and 2007 parliamentary elections as Ukraine’s only real party machines. The personal charisma of Tymoshenko in BYuT and the Soviet-style discipline in the Party of Regions means their ranks act as a united front.

Fifth, there are five influential groups in NUNS who are openly hostile to a coalition with the “populist” BYuT and to Tymoshenko’s return as prime minister. These include the pro-grand coalition wing of NUNS grouped around former prime minister Yuriy Yekhanurov, Sobor party leader Anatoliy Matvienko, and Petro Poroshenko, a businessman who withdrew from the NUNS 2007 election list in exchange for the position of National Bank chairman.

A second group has coalesced around NRBO secretary Pliushch. The NRBO under Yushchenko has morphed from an institution involved in formulating national security policy into a shadow government.

A third group is aligned around Baloga, who has been tempted by a Party of Regions offer to back him as prime minister in a grand coalition that would make incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych parliamentary speaker. The Party of Regions has continued to combine inducements for Yushchenko to switch to a grand coalition by agreeing to drop contentious issues (i.e. referendums on NATO membership and Russian as a second state language).

A fourth faction is grouped around presidential legal adviser Stepan Havrysh, the coordinator of the pro-Kuchma parliamentary coalition in parliament prior to the Orange Revolution. The return of Tymoshenko would lead to a “deep systematic crisis,” Havrysh predicted.

Finally, opposition comes from the First Lady Kataryna Yushchenko, whose personal dislike for Tymoshenko is well known in Kyiv.

Although personal, economic, and ideological conflicts serve to dampen these groups’ support for Tymoshenko, gender cannot be ignored as an additional factor. Antipathy toward Tymoshenko from the president and within NUNS is also a product of unreformed gender relations inherited from the Soviet era.

If Tymoshenko is not elected prime minister, the resulting political turmoil would likely plunge Ukraine into crisis, as new elections could not be held for one year. For Yushchenko it is better to have Tymoshenko inside the government than her leading the opposition from the outside and launching what she has termed as “Plan B” —her presidential candidacy.

15.11.07. Rusland presser Ukraine på gasprisen

Ukraine og Rusland har aftalt principperne for udformningen af gasprisen på mellemlang sigt, oplyser det ukrainske energiministeriums pressetjeneste.

"Aftalen om principperne for prisdannelsen på gas på mellemlang sigt ligger nu fast. Parterne er nu gået i gang med at klargøre de relevante kommercielle kontrakter", hedder det i pressemeddelelsen.

Aftalen blev indgået på et møde torsdag i Moskva mellem formanden for det russiske gasmonopol "Gazproms" bestyrelse Aleksej Miller og den ukrainske energiminister Jurij Bojko, oplyser nyhedsbureauet RIA Novosti.

Tidligere havde repræsentanter for Gazprom meddelt, at Ukraine allerede fra 2008 kunne komme til at betale 160 dollars for 1000 kubikmeter gas, hvis parterne underskrev en aftale om en trinvis overgang til den gennemsnitlige europæiske gaspris inden 2011. Den gennemsnitlige europæiske gaspris kan allerede i løbet af 2008 nå op på 300 dollars for 1000 kubikmeter gas.

Fra den 1. januar 2007 hævedes den pris Ukraine skal betale for at købe gas af Gazprom til 130 dollars for 1000 kubikmeter. Dette skete grundet en stigning i prisen på den gas, som bliver eksporteret til Ukraine fra Turkmenistan via Rusland. UP.

18.01.07. Gaseksplosion i ukrainsk mine

18. nov. 2007 09.02 Udland Opdat.: 18. nov. 2007 14.56

Redningsfolk er gået i gang med at lede efter overlevende efter en eksplosion, som foreløbig har kostet 33 mennesker livet i en kulmine i Ukraine.

Gaseksplosionen skete i Donetsk regionen, og 70 mennesker er savnet efter ulykken i Sasjadko minen natten til søndag, da minearbejderne befandt sig i mere end 1000 meters dybde, oplyser myndighederne.

Det er lykkedes at hente 359 minearbejdere op, og af dem blev 19 kørt på hospitalet.

Minen ofte ramt af ulykker
Minen har tidligere været ude for flere omfattende dødsulykker. I 2006 blev 13 minearbejdere dræbt og mange syge af et gasudslip.

I 1999 mistede 50 mennesker livet ved en eksplosion, og i 2001 omkom 55 mennesker ved endnu en eksplosion. Igen året efter blev 20 mennesker dræbt ved en eksplosion i minen.

25.11.07. 56 Tymoshenko-deputerede forsøgt bestukket (eng.)

Eurasia Daily Monitor -- Volume 4, Number 217
November 21, 2007

The Ukrainian parliament elected on September 30 will gather for its first sitting on Friday, November 23. It should elect a speaker and start forming a new cabinet. The constitution requires the sitting cabinet of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych to step down before the new parliament convenes. Yanukovych, however, stands a high chance of staying on as caretaker prime minister. Increasingly, it appears that Yulia Tymoshenko, the candidate for prime minister from the majority coalition of her eponymous bloc and President Viktor Yushchenko's Our Ukraine People's Self-Defense (NUNS), may fail to muster support for her bid in parliament.

The NUNS-Tymoshenko Bloc coalition numbers 228 deputies, just two more than the 226 votes required to approve a prime minister in the 450-seat legislature. Tymoshenko fears, not without reason, that this may be too small a margin. She has alleged that the rival Party of Regions (PRU), led by Yanukovych, has tried to bribe her and Yushchenko's deputies so they vote against her. "They offer $15-20 million dollars for betrayal," she told the UT1 state TV. Tymoshenko said that by November 7 her rivals had unsuccessfully tried to bribe 56 deputies from her bloc. The PRU flatly denied the allegation.

Tymoshenko may fail to secure the coveted position even if no single deputy is bribed. Three NUNS deputies have refused to sign the coalition accord that provides for her to become prime minister and the distribution of posts in a new cabinet. These are Vasyl Petyovka and Ihor Kril, who are cronies of Viktor Baloha, the powerful head of Yushchenko's administration, and Ivan Plyushch, secretary of the National Security and Defense Council under Yushchenko. Tymoshenko said in an interview with Inter that only "technical problems" prevented the three from signing the accord and that they should change their minds after they speak with Yushchenko.

Whether the three spoke with Yushchenko or not, they seem to be determined in their rejection of Tymoshenko's bid. Plyushch has never concealed that he would prefer a grand coalition including the PRU to a coalition with Tymoshenko. She rejected this idea from the very start of the parliamentary election campaign. Kril has made it clear that he does not like Tymoshenko's presidential ambitions. He told Inter that a new prime minister should agree not to compete with Yushchenko in the upcoming presidential election campaign, which should start in 2009. It is widely believed that Kril is Baloha's mouthpiece. However, whether or not Yushchenko shares Baloha's point of view remains unclear.

Yuriy Lutsenko, leader of Self-Defense, the junior partner of Our Ukraine in the NUNS bloc, has condemned the "too independent and ambitious" threesome, saying that they were discrediting NUNS. He told Kommersant that if "pluralism of opinions" continues in Our Ukraine, his party, in which "democracy is manageable, which means it is effective," would part ways with "such anarchists."

Speaking to Channel 5, Lutsenko accused Baloha of using the deputies linked with him in order to undermine the coalition. Lutsenko called on Yushchenko to order the dissenters to sign the coalition accord. Lutsenko, however, conceded that fears of rivalry between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko in the upcoming presidential election are not groundless. He said NUNS and the Tymoshenko Bloc should back a single candidate if they manage to form a stable coalition, and hinted that he may also run for president if Tymoshenko does so.

The votes of Plyushch, Kril, and Petyovka may be decisive for Tymoshenko's bid, as the Lytvyn Bloc has refused to join the coalition. NUNS and Tymoshenko hoped that the team of Volodymyr Lytvyn, who was parliament speaker in 2002-2006, would be their ally in parliament against the PRU. In that case Tymoshenko would have definitely mustered more than 226 votes for her bid for prime minister. Lytvyn had been reportedly offered the post of parliament speaker in exchange for backing Tymoshenko, but NUNS apparently said no, as that position had been promised to Our Ukraine chairman Vyacheslav Kyrylenko.

In several interviews for the press an offended Lytvyn repeatedly said that he did not want his bloc to be viewed by bigger parties as "a poor relative" called to "finish leftovers from their table." Moreover, he announced on November 18 that his bloc would not join any coalition whatsoever in the new parliament and that it might refuse to support any candidate for speaker. Lytvyn warned that Yushchenko might be tempted to disband parliament again if there is deadlock over the appointment of a new prime minister. This may help Yushchenko burnish his image as a strong leader for his re-election bid, Lytvyn suggested.

(UT1, November 2, 8; Ukrayinska pravda, November 7; Inter TV, November 11, 18; Kommersant Ukraine; Channel 5, November 16, 18; NTN TV, November 18)

-- Pavel Korduban

25.11.07. Analysts: President mulls "no coalition" option

by Zenon Zawada, Kyiv Post Editor
Nov 14 2007

Ukraine's pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko and his influential chief of staff, Viktor Baloha, speak privately during coalition negotiations held in the presidential building last month.

Should a new government emerge from the dragging coalition talks, political observers are increasingly convinced it will be a messy compromise.

Gaining steam is the notion that no new government will be formed, a theory circulated by political insider Volodymyr Fesenko, who has extensive experience working with major political players, including the Presidential Secretariat.

[ ... ]

Aside from waiting until the last minute to accept its deputy mandates and participating in the working group, Regions' leaders suggested they would resort to more extreme measures as formation of an Orange coalition draws closer, including blocking the parliamentary tribune or surrendering their mandates in an effort to disband parliament.

[ ... ]

Hence, Yushchenko's possible exit out of a no-win situation is Fesenko's "no coalition" scenario, in which no coalition is formed by the 60-day deadline after parliamentary elections.

The Ukrainian Constitution requires that the president dismiss parliament in such an event, but it also contains a clause forbidding pre-term elections within a year of the prior pre-term elections, Fesenko said.

"That's a collision within the Constitution's context, and the president will face the issue of whether to dismiss parliament or not," he said.

As such, the president could take advantage of such conflicting laws and create a political stalemate, in which the Yanukovych government would remain acting, a politically expedient outcome for all the main players, albeit legally questionable.

"Our legal nihilism is well developed," Kononchuk said. "If there's a high interest in something being overlooked or overstepped, it can be done."

Even if a Democratic Forces Coalition emerges de jure, political analysts are almost unanimous in the view that Tymoshenko is unlikely to get the necessary votes to become prime minister.

Only three votes are needed to subvert her premiership. And Our Ukraine-People's Self-Defense has demonstrated a significant minority within its ranks do not want to work with Tymoshenko, herself a presidential contender, largely because they've burned the bridges or aren't needed by her, said political insider Ivan Lozowy.

The recent refusals by three Our Ukraine-People's Self-Defense politicians to sign the coalition agreement were clearly coordinated by Baloha, according to Lozowy. This reveals the president's lack of interest in working with Tymoshenko, he added.

"Even though Yushchenko has stated what he wants, he's not willing to go after it and do whatever it takes, which is the ultimate condemnation of the power he has as president and his persistent failure," he said.

[ ... ]

"I don't see how a non-functioning parliament and acting prime minister can continue for a long period of time, more than two or three months," he said. "Parliament has to gather in session every 30 days, and nobody will get many votes through."

A "no coalition" outcome would be the peak of unaccountability in Ukrainian governance, Kononchuk said.

Furthermore, Western governments and corporations intent on political stability will only be further disappointed, she said.

In the long term, it's the Ukrainian nation and its people that suffer from the current political deadlock, lack of unaccountability and disrespect for the rule of law, Kononchuk said.
Complete article: http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/27813/

26.11.07. Uklarhed om næste mødedag i parlamentet

Regionernes Parti agter at deltage i et ekstraordinært møde i det ukrainske parlament Verkhovna Rada, hvis det bliver besluttet at afholde et sådant møde, oplyser en af lederne af partiets fraktion i parlamentet, Hanna Herman til UP.

"Hvis det bliver besluttet at holde et ekstraordinært møde, så vil vi selvfølgelig være med til det. Men jeg har bare ikke hørt noget om, at man har besluttet at holde et sådant møde", siger hun.

Herman peger på, at "ifølge forretningsordenen er det den fungerende formand for parlamentet, som bekendtgør, hvad dato det næste møde finder sted". "Den kommende formand meddeler, hvornår det næstkommende møde findersted". Hun peger desuden på, at for at der kan holdes et ekstraordinært møde i parlamentet ifølge forretningsordenen skal foreligge en erklæring fra 150 deputerede, men at samtlige fraktioner skal træffe den endelige beslutning.

"Vi henholder os til forretningsordenen og vil udelukkende bevæge os indenfor dens rammer", understreger Herman.

Som bekendt holdt det ukrainske parlament i fredags det første møde i den nye (6.) samling, med medlem af Regionernes parti Rajisa Bohatyrjova som fungerende formand. Hun sagde, at det næste møde i parlamentet finder sted på torsdag, selvom de fleste havde regnet med, at det skulle finde sted på tirsdag.

På tirsdagens møde var det hensigten at offentliggøre skabelsen af en demokratisk koalition og valget af formanden for Verkhovna Rada. UP.

26.11.07. Afviser beskyldninger om forsøg på stemmeopkøb

En af de ledende medlemmer af Regionernes partis fraktion i parlamentet, Taras Tjornovil, afviser påstandene fra Julia Tymoshenkos bloks side om, at hans partifæller har udsat det næste møde i parlamentet for at udskyde skabelsen af en "orange" koalition.

"Al den snak om, at Regionernes parti forhaler mødet for at vinde tid til at købe deputerede fra andre fraktioner over til vores fraktion, har heller intet på sig", sagde han i et interview i radio "Era", oplyser netavisen Liga.

"Jeg er ikke imod skabelsen af en "orange" koalition. Men hvis det ikke lykkes, så er det nødvendigt at skabe en bred koalition. Det er hverken noget vores vælgere eller andre vælgere er særlig begejstrede for, men i modsat fald har vi kun et alternativ tilbage - og det er at leve et helt år uden en koalition", tilføjede Tjornovil.

Ifølge politikeren er det der mangler nu, en konsensus indenfor fraktionen "Vores Ukraine - Folkets selvforsvar" (NUNS).

"NUNS burde om en uges tid sige, om de vil være i stand til at samle et tilstrækkelig stort antal underskrifter eller ej. Hvis svaret er nej, så burde de helt holde op med de forhandlinger om en "orange" koalition, eftersom staten ikke mere har ressourcer til et ligeså langtrukkent forløb som i 2006", sagde Tjornovil.

"Hvis man ser på, hvem i NUNS der ikke har skrevet under dannelsen af en koalition med Julia Tymoshenkos Blok, så tror jeg man må sige, at det er udelukket at købe disse personer. Jeg tror, at disse personer er meget rigere end flertallet af de ukrainske politikere og det overvejende flertal af ukrainske borgere. For disse mennesker er 3, 5 eller 10 millioner småpenge", tilføjede Tjornovil.

I en kommentar til den mulige årsag til, at nogle af NUNS-parlamentsmedlemmerne ikke vil støtte en "orange" koalition, siger Tjonovil, at de ganske enkelt må være blevet bange for udsigten til at Tymoshenko får så meget magt.

"De processer, som finder sted i Ukraine, hænger ikke alene sammen med interne forhold i præsidentens sekretariat, men også hos Tymoshenko selv. De hænger sammen med hendes enorme magtbegærlighed: for enhver pris - bare ofrene kommer fra den anden side. Netop den holdning har fået folk til at vende hende ryggen, fordi de ganske enkelt er blevet bange for de fatale følger af en sådan udvikling", tilføjede han. UP

27.11.07. Deputeret: Jeg blev forsøgt bestukket med 20 millioner dollars

Et medlem af Ukraines parlament for Julia Tymoshenkos blok, Oleh Ljashko, hævdede i aftes i en udsendelse på den uafhængige Tv-station "Kanal 5", at han tidligere på aftenen var blevet tilbudt 20 millioner dollars for at trække sin underskrift tilbage fra koalitionsaftalen mellem Julia Tymoshenkos blok og Viktor Jusjtjenkos parti NUNS.

"I dag havde jeg lige inden jeg skulle i studiet et møde, hvor en person tilbød mig 20 millioner dollars for at trække min underskrift tilbage fra koalitionsaftalen.", sagde Ljashko. Han ville ikke besvare Tv-journalistens spørgsmål om, hvem der havde tilbudt ham pengene.

"Regionernes parti fremsætter disse tilbud via deres håndlangere og nære venner. Denne person var ikke medlem af Julia Tymoshenkos blok, han står udenfor partierne", sagde Ljashko. "Han sagde til mig: "jeg vidste godt, at du ikke ville hoppe på den, men jeg havde til opgave at mødes med dig for at krydse dig af", fortalte Ljashko om sin samtale med den person, der tilbød ham penge.

"I har Kljujev (vice-premierminister, red.), og hver eneste af vores parlamentsmedlemmer har folk knyttet til ham. I finder personer fra Kiev. I gør hvad der står i jeres magt for at give Bohatyrjova (midlertidig leder af parlamentet) et påskud til at udsætte mødet. I trækker tiden ud. I dag er der syv parlamentsmedlemmer, som ikke har skrevet under [på koalitionsaftalen]. I morgen vil i prøve at købe endnu flere", sagde Ljashko henvendt til repræsentanten for "Regionernes parti" Jurij Miroshnitjenko. UP.

27.11.07. Prominent Jusjtjenko-støtte: Tymoshenko-aftale farlig for landet

En af de ledende medlemmer af Vores Ukraines fraktion, tidligere premierminister under Jusjtjenko, Jurij Jekhanurov, siger, at den del af indholdet af koalitionsaftalen, som Julia Tymoshenkos blok har fået gennemtrumfet, er farlig for landet. Jekhanurovs erklæring blev offentliggjort om tirsdagen, oplyser NUNS-blokkens' (Jusjtjenkos støtteparti i parlamentet) pressetjeneste.

Jekhanurov mindede om, at NUNS-blokken består af to partier, der hver især har ret til at insistere på de dele af aftalen, som er principielle for dem.

"Dernæst har vi to forskellige samarbejdsaftaler med Julia Tymoshenkos blok (BJuT). Den ene blev underskrevet inden valget. Den anden blev paraferet efter valget. Men disse to dokumenter er væsensforskellige", påpegede Jekhanurov.

"I den seneste tekst er der dukket nogle ting op fra Julia Tymoshenko-blokkens valgprogram, der ganske enkelt er farlige for landet. Det gælder eksempelvis bestemmelserne om en tilbagebetaling af Sparebankens gæld i løbet af to år, om afskaffelsen af værnepligten og om afskaffelsen af moms", - påpeger han.

"Teserne om tilbagebetalingen af folks tilgodehavender i Sparebanken er noget BJuTs spindoktorer og ikke fagfolk med forstand på økonomi har foreslået", er Jekhanurovs overbevisning.

"Det samme gælder bestemmelsen om afskaffelsen af momsen, den øjeblikkelige overgang fra en værnepligtsbaseret hær til en professionel hær osv. Det er muligt, at dette har givet BJuT nogle ekstra stemmer. Men det har samtidigt sat et alvorligt spørgsmålstegn ved det professionelle omdømme hos lederne af BJuT", tilføjer han.

Samtidig påpeger han, at NUNS-blokken "har påtaget sig opgaven at danne en koalition med BJuT og ikke at eksekvere Tymoshenkos-blokkens program".

"Vi vil ikke bevæge os væk fra vores forudgående erklæringer. Men tiden er nu inde til at føre dem ud i livet og gøre det på en ansvarlig måde", tilføjede han.

"Jeg vil gerne understrege, at mine indvendinger ikke er en personlig grille, men et principielt anliggende. Vi taler om hele den ukrainske økonomis tilstand, vor befolknings velstand og vort lands investeringsimage. Derfor vil jeg insistere på, at hver eneste bestemmelse i koalitionsaftalen skal nøje afstemmes", understreger den tidligere premierminister. UP.

By Pavel Korduban

The Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense bloc of Viktor Yushchenko (NUNS) and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT) have managed to set aside their differences and create a majority coalition in parliament. NUNS accepted Yushchenko’s choice for parliamentary speaker, and dissenters in Our Ukraine (NU), the biggest party in NUNS, agreed to sign a coalition deal with BYuT. The coalition then passed the first serious test for viability, unanimously approving Yushchenko’s choice for speaker, Arseny Yatsenyuk, when the rest of parliament refused to back him.

Eight representatives of the liberal, business-oriented wing of NU had refused to sign the NUNS-BYuT coalition deal in mid-November. They protested against the inclusion of several Tymoshenko election promises that they said were impossible to fulfill, and against the decision by the NUNS’s majority to nominate NU leader Vyacheslav Kyrylenko for speaker. They suspected him of excessive sympathy toward Tymoshenko, who may run against Yushchenko in the next presidential election (see EDM, November 26). The coalition would not control the majority in parliament if the dissenters stood their ground.

After a closed-door meeting with Yushchenko on November 28, all but one dissenter agreed to sign the deal. They did not say what arguments Yushchenko had used to persuade them. Simultaneously, Yushchenko asked NU members to change their mind and nominate Foreign Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk for speaker instead of Kyrylenko. NU obeyed, although several representatives of its nationalist conservative wing made it clear that they agreed to Yatsenyuk only grudgingly.

Unlike Kyrylenko, who often does not display flexibility in dealing with political opponents, Yatsenyuk is agreeable to compromises. Yushchenko prefers a cautious and flexible figure at the helm of parliament at a time when the coalition that backs him is very fragile, numbering just two people beyond a simple majority – 227 deputies in the 450-seat legislature. Yatsenyuk may be exactly what Yushchenko needs. He is a polite young technocrat who at various stages in his career cooperated with both the Communists and the Party of Regions (PRU) of Yushchenko’s archrival, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

Tymoshenko approved Yushchenko’s choice, saying that her bloc would back any candidate nominated by NUNS. The coalition accord’s conditions are such that it would be impossible for her to secure the position of prime minister if a representative of NUNS’ candidate did not become speaker. Tymoshenko worked hard to prove her bloc’s loyalty. On November 30, the BYuT went as far as openly naming the PRU figures accused of trying to bribe several BYuT deputies so that they would not turn up at parliament to vote on speaker and prime minister. The PRU denied the allegation.

The PRU, the Communists, and the Lytvyn Bloc refused to give even a single vote to back NUNS’s choice for speaker. Yatsenyuk was elected speaker in a secret ballot on December 4 by NUNS and the BYuT votes only. Every single member of the 227-strong coalition voted in his favor.

The PRU and the Communists said they would not recognize Yatsenyuk’s election. They argue that the voting process, which was supposed to be secret, was personally controlled by Tymoshenko and her aides who checked the ballots of BYuT deputies at the voting booth. PRU deputy Yuriy Miroshnychenko said that the PRU might dispute the results of the vote in court. When Yatsenyuk’s election was announced late on December 4, the PRU and the Communists left the assembly hall to protest procedural violations. Tymoshenko did not deny their accusations, but she said that parliament can carry on even without the two parties.

Yatsenyuk, unabashed by the demarche of the new opposition, promised equal rights to all caucuses and offered his thanks to the opposition for not disrupting the voting process. He said that his election was the first vote in parliament “without political corruption.” He promised to ensure “European standards of parliamentarianism” and suggested concentrating on national priorities rather than political differences.

At 33 Yatsenyuk is the youngest Ukrainian parliament speaker ever, and the first to speak English fluently. Despite his age, Yatsenyuk has rich experience in both the private sector and the government. A lawyer and economist by education, he claims to have founded his first private business as a teenager. In 2001 he was deputy chairman of Aval, one of Ukraine’s biggest banks. In 2001-2003, when the Communists dominated the Crimean government, he headed the economics ministry there. Yatsenyuk was caretaker chairman of the National Bank in 2004 while the bank’s formal chairman, Serhy Tyhypko, headed Yanukovych’s election headquarters. After the 2004 Orange Revolution he served consecutively as Odessa Region deputy governor, Ukrainian economy minister, and deputy head of the presidential office. Yatsenyuk has been foreign minister since March 2007.

Today, December 6, Yatsenyuk submitted Tymoshenko's nomination for prime minister to Yushchenko, who has two weeks to formally ask parliament to approve her nomination.

(Interfax-Ukraine, November 28, 29; NTN TV, November 30; Channel 5, Ukrayinska pravda, December 4, 6)

09.12.07. Praise and condemnation of Stalin: Russia and Ukraine go their separate ways

On November 24-25 the Ukrainian authorities marked the 75th anniversary of the 1932-1933 famine. President Viktor Yushchenko, Acting Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, former President Leonid Kuchma, and other political leaders attended the ceremony.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on November 26, Yushchenko said, "The Holodomor (Terror-Famine) was an act of genocide designed to suppress the Ukrainian nation." Yushchenko described Stalin's policy as aimed at destroying Ukrainian national identity by targeting the peasantry and Soviet Ukrainian institutions, including national communists: "It was a state-organized program of mass starvation that in 1932-33 killed an estimated seven million to 10 million Ukrainians, including up to a third of the nation's children."

Yushchenko's counterpart in Russia has a very different view of Stalin. In June President Vladimir Putin dismissed Stalinist crimes with the words: "Other countries have done even more terrible things."

The differing regimes in Ukraine and Russia -- democratic versus nationalist-autocratic -- have taken different approaches toward what became known in the Gorbachev era as the "blank pages of history," especially the Stalin era.

A similar rehabilitation of Stalin is also taking place in Belarus where Stalin is, like in Russia, routinely praised on television. There, Stalinist atrocities have been presented as committed by the Nazis, while Stalinist crimes, such as at the massacre at Kuropaty, have been ignored. In contrast, Kuropaty's equivalent in Ukraine, the Bykivnia forest outside Kyiv, the site of hundreds of thousands of Stalinist crimes, is officially commemorated.

Yushchenko has expanded the commemoration of the Ukrainian famine and Stalinist crimes, following a process that can be traced to the early 1980s (president.gov.ua/content/150_1.html).

First, the Ukrainian diaspora commemorated the famine on its 50th anniversary in 1983, followed by the release of the 1984 film "Harvest of Despair" (video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3897393411603039499) and Robert Conquest's book, Harvest of Sorrow.

Second, the national-democratic opposition uncovered "blank pages," including the famine, during Gorbachev's glasnost campaign. The Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) was forced to admit the existence of the famine in a 1990 resolution.

Third, post-Soviet Presidents Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma issued a decree on the 60th anniversary in 1993, and more commemorative decrees, resolutions, and appeals followed.

In 2002-2004, Kuchma sought international recognition of the famine as "genocide," a policy that Yushchenko has followed. During his three-year presidency, Yushchenko has issued seven decrees on the famine and Stalinism. UNESCO picked up the theme and issued a resolution on November 1 on the famine, calling it a "national tragedy" (unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001538/153838e.pdf).

In Ukraine, many political parties, the presidents, school textbooks, and the media have all negatively portrayed Stalinist crimes alongside Nazi crimes against humanity. But in Putin's Russia, the crimes committed in the 1930s are ignored or marginalized while Stalin is praised for transforming the USSR into a "superpower."

Russia's rehabilitation of Stalin has been accompanied by a similar rehabilitation of the intelligence agencies. Last year, copying the KGB, the FSB introduced national prizes for art, cinema, and literature that created a "positive image" of the intelligence services. But works published in Russia extolling the virtues of the KGB and its bloody predecessors far outnumber books on Stalinist crimes. In Ukraine the Security Service (SBU) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have supported the denunciation of Stalinist crimes (mfa.gov.ua/mfa/ua/publication/content/14504.htm). The SBU declassified 5,000 pages of relevant documents for the Declassified Memory exhibition in Kyiv
(ssu.kmu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/category?cat_id=63245).

In November all branches of the Ukrainian military lower the state flag in honor of the victims of the famine and Communist crimes. During that month, the military also helped repair monuments, organized lectures at military bases by writers and academics, showed films, and discussed books on the famine and Communist repression. Each year the president presents state medals to Ukrainian scholars and activists working to document Stalinist crimes.

In contrast, Alexander Filippov's new school textbook, A Modern History of Russia: 1945-2006, describes Stalin as "one of the USSR's most successful leaders" whose repression brought the USSR out of crisis (AFP, November 3). While Ukrainian textbooks denounce both Stalinism and Nazism; Filippov justifies Stalin as a necessary evil and backs his positive treatment by citing opinion polls giving him a positive approval rating among Russians of 47%.

In Ukraine the opposite tendency is taking place. Some 72.4% of Ukrainians blame the 1932-33 famine on the authorities, and 63% of Ukrainians support the recognition of the famine as "genocide" (Ukrayinska pravda, November 20). These polls have both cross-party and cross-regional support: 75% of the centrist Volodymyr Lytvyn bloc and 43% of the Party of Regions supported the definition of the famine as "genocide," while Donetsk's annual commemorations of famine and Communist repression are attended by local officials, including the oblast governor and city mayor (Donbass, November 25, 2006). Even the left supports this step. Some 80% of the Socialist Party and 41% of the Communist Party backs the use of "genocide" to describe the famine.

How the "blank pages" of history, such as Stalinist crimes, are treated reflect the nature of the democratic and nationalist-autocratic regimes emerging in Ukraine and Russia. In both countries there is cross-party, parliamentary, and public support -- but over polar opposite positions. Ukraine seeks a denunciation of Stalinist crimes, while Russia praises Stalin and ignores his crimes.

15.12.07. Ukraine without Viktor Yushchenko: a counterfactual history, or "What if?"

President Viktor Yushchenko's poll ratings are far from stellar. Indeed, many of his erstwhile supporters from the Orange Revolution days believe he has departed from one of the Revolution's key promises: the call to "punish the bandits" by vigorously prosecuting those guilty of corruption under the regime of former President Leonid Kuchma.

For a different perspective than that of the short-term memory span of the bloggers, let's step back and reconsider.

To assess the Yushchenko contribution to Ukraine's transformation, let's employ our own counterfactual. Let's imagine where today's Ukraine would be without Viktor Yushchenko.

Let's start with the most basic factor: economic growth. As head of the central bank, Yushchenko was central to taming inflation, creating a national currency, helping Ukraine's economy sustain momentum in the wake of the 1998 Russian stock market meltdown, and contributed to an economic environment that allowed Ukraine's economy to turn around and begin a period of sustained growth.
[ .... ]

In the end, Yushchenko was central not only to Tymoshenko's entry into high government politics, but also her image as a political martyr.

Without Viktor Yushchenko as a strong consolidating figure capable of bringing together a disparate array of political forces, there would have been no tight presidential race, no need for massive voter fraud and, therefore, no Orange Revolution.

In two years, Ukrainian voters will, likely, assess his time in office in a broad context. They will recognize his historic contributions and see in hima leader of centrist inclinations, who has steered the country from crisis to stability, rejected populism in favor of concrete measures that promote economic growth, worked diligently to forge a national consensus that could unite Ukraine's east and west, and sought compromise, not the settling of scores. If they do so, they are certain to reward him with a second term.

Adrian Karatnycky is Senior Scholar at the Atlantic Council of the US and Founder and President of the Orange Circle, a network of international friends of Ukraine.

The “what ifs” of history are a dangerous area to argue in support of Viktor Yushchenko’s alleged successes in his presidency.

Yushchenko’s popularity is lower than 20 percent, a level at which we would consider a Western president to be a lame duck (such as former President Jacques Chirac and current President George W. Bush). Usually a president becomes a lame duck in his second or subsequent term, not in his first term, as in Ukraine.

Here are some alternative what ifs of recent Ukrainian history from a blogger’s point of view.

If Prime Minister Yushchenko and his national democratic allies in parliament had withdrawn their support from President Leonid Kuchma during the Kuchmagate crisis and backed calls by the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc and the Socialists for his impeachment, Kuchma would have been forced to step down early. Until early presidential elections, Yushchenko would have been acting head of state.

Yushchenko, however, signed a document with parliamentary speaker Ivan Pliushch and President Leonid Kuchma denouncing the protestors as “fascists.”

If then Prime Minister Yushchenko had supported Deputy Prime Minister Tymoshenko, she may have not been arrested in January 2001. Yushchenko should have resigned in protest at her arrest.

If parliament had not voted no confidence in the Yushchenko government in April 2001, his government may have stayed on until the end of Kuchma’s term. Yushchenko would have supported a presidential request to be Kuchma’s official successor.

If Yushchenko had not agreed to constitutional reforms during the December 2004 round tables, there would never have been constitutional chaos in 2006-2007 and the disbanding of parliament in spring 2007. If the president had used his extensive powers under the 1996 Constitution to fulfill Orange Revolution demands during his first year in office, his popularity would not have collapsed. Yushchenko had millions of supporters on the streets of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, but betrayed them in signing deals at the round tables.

If the Tymoshenko government had not been removed in September 2005, and a memorandum had not been signed that month between Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych [Yuschenko’s arch-rival in the 2004 presidential elections when Yanukovych was prime minister, Ukraine’s current acting prime minister, and the leader of the Party of Regions – Eds. Note], the Party of Regions would never have doubled its popularity to come first in the 2006 parliamentary elections.

If the Tymoshenko government had not been removed, the Orange parties would never have been divided for 18 months. If a united presidential party had been created, Our Ukraine might not have reduced its popularity by 10 percent in the 2006 and 2007 parliamentary elections, in comparison to 2002.

If an Orange coalition had been created in 2006, the Communist Party would never have entered government in the Anti-Crisis Coalition [formed between the Party of Regions, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party – Eds. Note].

If Sviatoslav Piskun had not been maintained by President Yushchenko as Prosecutor General in 2005, the “bandits” may have gone to prison, rather than to parliament and government.

If Mykhailo Potebenko, Borys Kolesnikov and Serhiy Kivalov had been criminally charged, Yushchenko could never have rehabilitated them with state medals.

If Yushchenko had not protected Kuchma from impeachment and prosecution on two occasions, Kuchma would have been criminally charged with abuse of office. In the Kuchmagate crisis, Prime Minister Yushchenko refused to back calls for Kuchma’s impeachment, and during the 2004 round table negotiations, Kuchma was granted immunity in exchange for Yushchenko’s election as president.

If Yushchenko had fulfilled his promises made to the Council of Europe, he would have put the organizers of the murder of Heorhiy Gongadze on trial. Instead, one suspect has fled from Ukraine, another allegedly committed “suicide,” and a third sits comfortably in retirement. Three lower-ranking policemen were charged in a closed trial.

If the president had heeded US calls to quickly create an Orange coalition after the 2006 elections, Ukraine would have been invited into a Membership Action Plan at NATO’s Riga summit in November 2006. Ukraine would have then been on target to have been invited to join NATO at the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit. If Yushchenko had supported the Tymoshenko government and an Orange coalition in 2006, Ukraine would have joined the WTO earlier.

Ukraine would not have increased its dependency on Russian energy if it had not signed up to a 2006 gas deal that included the corrupt and non-transparent RosUkrEnergo intermediary. During the gas crisis, Ukraine conducted negotiations incompetently, while ignoring massive Western support for Ukraine and criticism of Russian policies.

If the president had fulfilled his 2004 election promises and implemented the promises given on the Maidan during the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko would have a better chance of winning a second term in the 2009 elections.

President Yushchenko cannot win a second term in the 2009 elections by standing on his five-year record or by only relying on the support of Our Ukraine (which won 14 percent in the last two elections, but whose support has now fallen precipitously). He can only win a second term by aligning himself with either the Tymoshenko bloc or with the Party of Regions and by using negative campaigning depicting himself as the ‘lesser of two evils.’ Yushchenko’s record in his first term is poor in the eyes of Ukrainian voters and, therefore, he has little choice but to repeat Kuchma’s 1999 strategy of convincing voters to back the alleged ‘lesser of two evils.’

If he chose an alliance with Tymoshenko, the Yushchenko campaign would again aim to block a Yanukovych victory (as in 2004, when many Orange voters voted against Yanukovych rather than for Yushchenko).

Alternatively, if he chose to fight the 2009 elections in an alliance with the Party of Regions, the Yushchenko campaign would target Tymoshenko’s alleged “populism” and penchant for irrationality.

If Yushchenko were to align himself with the Party of Regions in the 2009 elections, he would lose all remnants of his Orange support and most likely lose the elections. Yushchenko would then follow Leonid Kravchuk in only having served one term in office.

Dr. Taras Kuzio is a Research Associate, Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

26.12.07. Putin-interview i Time: Ukraine bliver aldrig mere en del af Rusland

Excerpt dealing with Ukraine and other former republics from December 12 Time Magazine Putin interview:

TIME: Let's talk more about how Russia interacts with the former Soviet republics.

TIME: What about some of the conflicts you've had with the former Soviet republics on gas prices?

PUTIN: What conflicts? There are world prices, international prices for gas. And we sell gas to everyone at world market prices. Why should we sell to anyone below the world market prices? Do Americans sell to anyone below the market price? Could you come to a store in the United States and ask, well, I'm from Canada, we Canadians are close neighbors, give me that Chrysler at half price. What would you hear from the salesman? Go away!

TIME: Well, if I were California I might sell gas at a discount to Nevada, to benefit a neighboring state.

PUTIN: I believe that this is a violation of the market principles, damaging the economies in question. Within Russia, we've adopted a program of reaching the world price levels for domestic consumption. Any other approach would distort economic indicators and economies, making one sector dependent on other sectors, leading to cross-subsidies and destroying the economy. We do understand the difficulties of our partners. For 15 years, we were selling them energy resources way below the market prices subsidized to the tune of $3 billion to $5 billion a year for Ukraine. This cannot last forever. The Europeans are always criticizing us. They want us to introduce international pricing standards. Otherwise, they say, our enterprises would enjoy an unfair advantage over European enterprises. So within the country we should sell at world prices while to our neighbors we should sell below the world prices? This is discrimination. Let's be frank and speak directly and call a spade a spade. What I'm about to say is not aggressive in any way, but I urge you to be frank. The United States somehow decided that part of the political elite in Ukraine is pro-American and part is pro-Russian, and they decided to support the ones they consider pro-American, the so-called orange coalition. Well, O.K., you decided to support them. Do as you please, although we don't believe it's right. Of course, they have people with different outlooks there and with different political tastes, but as I've already mentioned, if a politician wants to be popular, he or she must protect the national interests first of all, be Ukrainian nationalists in the good sense of this word. And they are. They are not pro-Russians. They are not pro-Europeans. They are not pro-Americans. They are all pro-Ukrainians, but somehow Americans divided them all into pro- this or that. We believe that is a mistake. Let them settle their issues themselves. Everything that's been done there is unconstitutional, which has created distrust among various political groups and citizens, thus undermining Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and economy. That's what the United States has done and is doing in Ukraine and in Georgia. What we say is, leave them alone, without choosing sides. When everyone saw that destabilization was under way in Ukraine, they tried to force Russia to subsidize the Ukrainian economy at our expense. Why? If you want to support someone, you pay for it. Nobody wants to pay. In this room, I once discussed this with a European politician and I said, you pay for it, and he replied, am I an idiot? Well, I'm not an idiot either. One has to look at the real problem. We should not be guided by generalities, and the situation prevailing there is very dangerous in my view. Everything must be done to consolidate society, consolidate the country. Strategically, it would be right that the pro-Russian, pro-Western groups would unite and think about the future of their own country and create such a power structure that would only further consolidate the nation rather than divide it among the Westerners, Southerners or Easterners, or whatever. What is happening now is a movement toward further destruction, which is a pity because Ukraine is very close to us and because almost half of the population have either friends or relatives in Russia. There are 17 million ethnic Russians there, officially. Almost 100% of the people consider Russian as their mother tongue.

PUTIN: Of course not. We don't want it. We do not want to include anyone into Russia again because for us it would only bring an additional economic burden. We want to realize our national competitive advantage in the world economy. We can only speak of economic integration. It's quite useless to try to force upon anyone new state structures without the will of the relevant people. In the modern world, it's not even necessary. Look at Europe, where national borders are no longer as important as they used to be.

A new government of Ukraine was formed on Tuesday, December 18. You witnessed the way it happened. Passions had probably never run that high in the Ukrainian parliament.

They were reluctant to relinquish power, they sabotaged the Rada system (electronic voting system), they yanked off MPs cards and vandalized PCs and microphones.

However, the never-ending conflict and standoff scenario didn't work because there's only one political force and party capable of dictating its own will relentlessly and unconditionally. This force is called Ukrainian people and no other party is allowed to do that. I want politicians to get used to the fact that it's not going to be their way but the way people will say at elections, referendums, public hearings and even in their letters.

I want to thank you for your trust and turnout at the early elections that have changed everything in the Verkhovna Rada and Government. I thank you for keeping the faith and not giving way to despair. You struggled for your chance to further build your country and did everything in your power. Now it's our turn to repay our debts to you.

I want you to mark the today's date in your calendars because this is the day when the government is beginning to face the people.
We are commencing the process of the country's purification and I will make every effort to ensure that dirty money is no longer a key factor in the Ukrainian politics. I'll see to it that MPs are no longer bought as cattle at a market place and politicians are no longer tempted to resort to betrayal for millions of dollars.

Moreover, those who can pay thirty million dollars for betrayal will no longer have those illegally obtained millions.

Within a matter of days MPs will be stripped of their immunity and privileges. Corrupted MPs will be deprived of their membership in the Parliament at party congresses and heads of law enforcement agencies and controlling bodies will be replaced.

Today the situation in the country is difficult. As one of the newly appointed ministers put it: "There's no Transportation ministry in the country. And this applies to all management spheres of the country. You feel it every day when you witness uncontrolled price growth, explosions at coal mines, lack of employment, brazen corruption, meager pensions and salaries and irresponsible government."Yes, it's true. But let you not be afraid because of that. It took other countries only a few years to put their house in order after wars,revolutions, devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. We are no better or sillier and will also be able to set things right after 17 years of the so-called "in-depth" reforms.

We are beginning to act and I'd like to first of all establish a direct contact with you. By you I mean businessmen, doctors, teachers, artists, coal miners, pensioners, students, transportation workers, peasants and representatives of all social and professional groups. I'd like to heardirectly from you what problems you face and what prevents you from being happy and successful. I'll teach the entire government machine to be subordinate to your interests and not indulge in self-satisfaction.

Secondly, we will under no circumstances try to make our predecessors responsible for the situation in the country. We do not engage in such practices.

It has become a bad tradition in Ukraine when a new government accuses their predecessors of all faults to justify their laziness and lack of professionalism. It's a shame for the entire country when the government blames price increase on Arab sheikhs and international trends, makes heads of communal utility services responsible for tariff hikes and accuses hens and cows of increased milk and egg prices. It's not worthy of statesmen to shift responsibility. It's like crying over spilt milk because of one's lack of professionalism and incompetence. We are not here to complain but to rebuild the country, accept responsibility and face challenges. The current government must be responsible for the situation in the country.

But some corrupt bureaucrats were too fast to have breathed a sigh of relief at this point. Because it doesn't necessarily mean that we announce general amnesty for all law violators. It's not going to be like this!

From the first day of our work we have launched a nationwide anti-corruption investigation which will look into questionable operations of previous governments. We must know what they have done. And I guarantee you that we will check how each penny was spent, how each tender was held, how each license was granted and how each illegal act of privatization was conducted. And let those are guilty have no doubts -- they will have to answer for all illegal acts they have committed.

All ministers and officials came to power today should be also aware that all their decision will be checked by anti-corruption expertise. We will not have "our" un-touchable politicians and officials, who consider themselves to have the right given by God to violate Constitution and laws. We will be even more attentive and demanding to the officials whom we gave positions today then to the past ones. I hope, in this control over the power we will receive a lot of assistance from opposition. From our side, we will provide opposition with all relevant authorities necessary to realize this control.

There will be no more chaos in the country. There will be order. My Premier ethics is simple and apprehensible: who wishes to work will work, who intends to steal will pay. That's all, no alternatives.

I am not a naive person, so I do know that nobody wants to have a real order in the country, except the very people of Ukraine. And we are aware how huge will be the resistance we will receive from the corrupted structures, oligarch groups, middle bureaucracy class, sold experts and politologists. If they were spending millions of dollars to prevent creation of coalition of democratic forces and formation of new government, they will now throw billions to stop our government and ruin democratic coalition. As they don't even plan neither to clean up nor to live in honor. Well paid discrediting of Premier Minister and Government will start right now, today. And I wish to call you not to believe the black propaganda, but to go together through the way of cleanup, development and stabilization of the beautiful successful country. React critically to ruining propaganda. It will be done by those, whom we will close the dirty ways to enrichment.

We do not refuse from any of our promises, we are bearing responsibility for every word we said, for every election promise we gave. Our election programand our Government acting plan are the equal things.. When on Wednesday morning I came in the Cabinet of Ministers, the first meeting I had was with the Head of Oshadbank of Ukraine. We discussed the possibility to return the lost savings to people within two next years. We will find the solution. And from now on every day will be devoted to realization of this target.

Please note, when I say "We will do, we will realize, We will put things in order". I mean consolidation of President of Ukraine, Government and democratic coalition in Verhovna Rada. Unity that I won't let anyone to destroy.

You know that we have a strategic program of development "Ukrainian Breakthrough". For people, not for politicians. This program covers all the fields of national economy, all parts of life and counts the interest of every person.

We will do everything to raise the Courage and Spirituality of the Nation, renew and learn the true history of our people. Let's return to education of patriotism and love to our own Land. Ukraine will no longer be the zone of cultural disaster, it will be the territory of high cultural level and beauty.

It is necessary to clean up the way for investments and entrepreneurship, adopt new Tax codex with decreased and simplified tax rates, crush the corruption, finally fix the fair salary and pension. It is time to start to form in the right way all resources of country income, open free access to high quality education and insurance medicine. We will build European ways and affordable housing, we will return the savings and cancel the military service. We will create strong and professional army. We are able to become the members of WTO, decently host EURO-2012, and maybe even win it. It will not be difficult to build friendly relationships with our neighbors, with all strong and powerful states. And we will become a strong and powerful nation ourselves.

All decisions of Government will be based solely on national interests. All actions of Cabinet of Ministers must be designed to make your life better.

Country development and Government success should be measured not only by GDP factor, but also by real feelings of people.

We are one nation, single people, single country. We have nothing to divide. We have to look together for solutions to the current problems in the country. Without unity of people, without forces consolidation it will be very difficult to achieve.

That is why I call today to stop all political arguments, stop blockades and fights in parliament, dirty laundry wars and mutual offences.

177 years ago Lesya Ukrayinka said: With no faith, I hope. I hope with faith and certainty. Build your life in peace. Everything will be fine in our Ukrainian house.

We have got everything to become successful. In some years time we will be proud of living in Great Country.

Travel south from Kyiv along the arbored R-12 highway and you will see perhaps the most public symbols of Ukraine's rampant corruption: a wide array of luxurious estates that have sprung up in Koncha-Zaspa, a leafy suburb of the capital. Many of these multi million-dollar homes belong to senior state officials with only modest salaries. Investigative journalists have compiled evidence suggesting quite a few of these mansions were bought with ill-gotten gains. This prompted President Viktor Yushchenko to demand in August that the public servants explain how they came to possess such lavish accommodations. But at the time his political opponents from the Party of Regions still ran the government, and they responded to his call for accountability with stony silence. [ ... ]

Practically all sectors of Ukraine's government, business and civic life are affected by widespread corruption. Bribery and extortion are particularly common in Ukraine's judiciary, where favoritism rather than merit determines the appointment of judges. Evidence is routinely "lost" at Ukraine's courts and bribes can facilitate almost any desired ruling.

[ ... ] Similarly, corruption among politicians is rampant. Alleged vote buying of parliamentarians, who can hide behind extensive immunity rules, has in part been responsible for the political paralysis plaguing the country over the past two years.

Corruption has also serious consequences for Ukraine's national security, as much of the graft is concentrated in the energy sector. Ukrainian analysts and investigative reporters assert that massive bribery has played a key role in perpetuating Ukraine's overreliance on Russian gas. Such corruption, experts say, has halted or impaired Ukraine's efforts to promote internal energy exploration and diversification. The net effect has been to expose Ukraine to Russia's authoritarian influence.

[ .... ] There are a number of key steps Ukraine's reunited Yushchenko-Tymoshenko tandem should take in the first 100 days of the new government:

- Strengthen weak and contradictory anticorruption legislation and update government ethics codes that are currently ambiguous or absent altogether.

- Establish a new judicial chamber, staffed by a new generation of judges untainted by sleaze.

- Create an independent national investigative bureau to uncover and root out grand corruption.

- Eliminate or reduce the scope of parliamentary immunity, which lawmakers have used to escape prosecution.

- Increase transparency by obliging senior public officials and politicians to publish annual statements of assets and incomes.

[ ... ] The U.S. and the EU need to step up their assistance in helping Ukraine face this challenge by quickly deploying teams of anti-corruption advisors to Kyiv to work with the new government.

[ ... ] Mr. Karatnycky is president of the Orange Circle and senior scholar at the Atlantic Council of the U.S. Mr. Neutze is program officer at the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. They are co-authors of the new Atlantic Council report "Corruption, Democracy, and Investment in Ukraine."

26.12.07. Russia, Ukraine trade harsh words over historical memory

Eurasia Daily Monitor -- Volume 4, Issue 233

December 17, 2007

TARAS KUZIO

On December 14 Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a strongly worded statement complaining of "open nationalist, anti-Russian, and Russphobic feelings and developments in Ukraine." Attempts are being made, it claimed, to "use difficult periods in our joint history to receive brief political rewards based on doubtful ideological pretensions."

The number of historical issues dividing Ukraine and Russia continues to grow and aggravate the already strained relations between a reformist Ukraine and a resurgent, autocratic Russia. In late November both countries exchanged diplomatic notes after the Eurasian Youth Movement (EYM), a Russian nationalist group proscribed in Ukraine, destroyed an exhibition at the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow marking the 193233 famine.

The Ukrainian side described the vandalism as "provocative and anti-Ukrainian." One month earlier the EYM had destroyed Ukrainian national symbols on Hoverla Mountain in western Ukraine and launched cyber attacks that shut down the presidential website. Since December 9 the servers supporting the orange youth NGO (www.maidan.org.ua), the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (www.khpg.org), and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (www.helsinki.org.ua) have all faced sustained attacks.

Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), called upon his Russian counterparts to "not permit on each other's territories extremist and, God forbid, terrorist actions, which are undertaken by such structures." Reportedly officials foiled a terrorist attack that had been planned to coincide with a "Russian march" in Crimea's capital Simferopol. The banned group Proryv, with underground branches in the Crimea and ties to extreme left and pan-Slavic groups, was suspected of being behind the planned provocation, which would have been blamed on "Ukrainian nationalists."

Ukraine and Russia have embraced differing interpretations of key historical events and personalities since the late Soviet era. The divergence continued under presidents Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma (1991-2004), with a return to Ukrainian national historiography, which had been banned in the 1930s but kept alive in the Ukrainian diaspora.

The process has become more heated with the rise of Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko and Russia's Vladimir Putin. Yushchenko has actively sought to investigate the "blank pages" of Ukrainian history, while Putin has returned to a neo-Soviet synthesis of Russian imperial and Soviet ideology in historiography and national symbols.

Some of the most heated debates have occurred around two primary issues: Ukrainian leaders and independence movements and crimes committed by the Soviet regime in Ukraine.

New Ukrainian symbols, holidays, and commemorations have prompted protests from Moscow. For example, the Tsarist and Soviet regimes regarded 18th century Cossack Hetman Ivan Mazepa to be a traitor, and the Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated him. But he is a hero in Ukraine. Mazepa's face appeared on Ukraine's currency in 1996, Kyiv's Sichnevo Povstannia street was renamed after him in October, and a new monument is planned. The Ecumenical Synod of the Russian ("Ukrainian") Orthodox Church in Ukraine denounced the monument plans.

An October 9 decree outlined detailed instructions to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Battle of Poltava, where a combined Swedish-Ukrainian force led by Mazepa lost to Russia. The 1709 battle is seen as a turning point that transformed Russia into an empire. Ukraine lost autonomy and was eventually absorbed into the Russian empire under Empress Catherine II. A monument unveiled to her in October in Odessa sparked violent clashes between Russian and Ukrainian nationalists.

A December 13 decree contained plans for commemorating the 90th anniversary of Ukraine's declaration of independence from the Tsarist Empire next year. A monument to Symon Petliura, who led the drive for Ukrainian independence after the Russian Revolution, was vandalized in Poltava, his home region.

World War II also remains a divisive issue. A new monument to the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist leader Stepan Bandera, assassinated bythe KGB in Munich in 1959, was vandalized after it was recently unveiled in Lviv.

An October 12 presidential decree outlined instructions to local authorities about how to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the formation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a nationalist guerrilla force that fought a decade-long war against Nazi and Soviet forces.

Another presidential decree awarded the "Hero of Ukraine" designation to UPA commander Roman Shukhevych on the centennial of his birth. The decree noted Shukhevych's "individual contribution to the national-liberation strugglefor liberty and Ukrainian independence." The Russian Foreign Ministry's December statement specifically complained that Pushkin Street in Lviv had been renamed after Shukhevych.

Kyiv's efforts to honor the victims of Soviet crimes have also irritated Moscow. While Yushchenko supported the opening of a new Museum of Soviet Occupation in Kyiv, the Russian MFA complained that Ukraine was attempting to "nationalize" the suffering experienced by all Soviet peoples in the 1932-33 famine. The head of the Ukrainian MFA press service responded by advising his Russian colleagues that it was too late to discuss whether the famine was "genocide," as Ukraine had already taken this step. "I would like to advise my Russian colleague," he offered, that they should "read historical books" and "on this basis reach a conclusion."

Russia's ambassador to Ukraine, Viktor Chernomyrdin, Foreign Ministry, and media have all condemned Ukraine's designation of Stalinist crimes and the famine as acts of genocide. The two sides have opposite views on Stalinism (see EDM, November 30) and Russia, as the legal successor to the USSR, is also concerned at possible future demands for compensation. In late November Ukrainian nationalist parties sent an open letter to the president and parliament demanding that Ukraine seek compensation from Russia through the European Court of Human Rights.

As the two countries move in separate directions, the individuals branded as traitors in Tsarist, Soviet, and post-communist Russia are increasingly becoming Ukraine's national heroes.

27.12.07. Jusjtjenko udpeger kvinde til leder af sikkerhedsrådet

Ukraines præsident Viktor Jusjtjenko er overbevist om, at Det nationale sikkerheds- og forsvarsråd skal være en platform, hvor de nationale interesser skal udformes.

Det sagde han ifølge UNIAN i dag under præsentationen af den nye sekretær for Det nationale sikkerheds- og forsvarsråd, Raisa Bohatyrjova, som var nr. 2 på Regionernes partiliste ved valget til parlamentet.

"Jeg ser denne stilling som en platform for dialog med henblik på udformningen af de nationale prioriteringer, og andre formål er der ikke", sagde Jusjtjenko.

Han understregede, at en af de vigtigste udfordringer for Ukraine er den politiske stabilisering.

"Så længe landet bliver rystet af politiske kollisioner, vil det være meget svært at tillokke investorer, forretningsfolk og alle dem, som arbejder til fordel for landets potentiale", sagde Jusjtjenko, idet han understregede, at hans mål er en forening af hele det ukrainske samfund. Præsidenten er overbevist om, at der skal sidde fagfolk ved samme bord og at de sammen skal udarbejde de vigtigste prioriteringer for landets udvikling.

Jusjtjenko betegnede Bohatyrjova som en politiker, som "ikke manipulerer med modsatrettede synspunkter". Ifølge ham viser Bohatyrjova, at personer fra forskellige politiske partier kan være konstruktive, når der er tale om fællesnationale prioriteringer. Han understregede, at netop det er logikken bag udnævnelsen af Bohatyrjova til posten som sekretær for Det nationale sikkerheds- og forsvarsråd.

I forbindelse med præsentationen af Raisa Bohatyrjova i dag som sekretær for det nationale sikkerheds- og forsvarsråd sagde Viktor Jusjtjenko, at rådet bør mødes to gange om måneden.

"Vi har aftalt, at vi to gange om måneden vil have formelle møder i rådet", sagde Jusjtjenko. Ifølge ham vil premierminister Julia Tymoshenko og formand for parlamentet Arsenij Jatsenjuk deltage i møderne med Bohatyrjova. Her vil vi udforme en plan for de kommende 7 dage", understregede Jusjtjenko. Podrobnosti. UNIAN.

Kommentar:

Ifølge iagttagere i Ukraine var det Jusjtjenkos oprindelige plan at tilbyde posten som sekretær for det nationale sikkerheds- og forsvarsråd til en anden af lederne i Regionernes parti, Boris Kolesnikov. Dette var angiveligt et forsøg på præsidentens side på at splitte Regionernes parti og indynde sig hos mangemilliardæren Rinat Akhmetov, som Jusjtjenko og hans amerikanske rådgivere forsøger at lokke over til sin lejr inden præsidentvalget i 2009. Da Kolesnikov, der af mange betragtes som Akhmetovs højre hånd, takkede nej, gik Jusjtjenkos tilbud angiveligt videre til Raisa Bohatyrjova, der trods en prominent placering som nr. to på Regionernes partis opstillingsliste ved valget, gennem længere tid menes at have været utilfreds med at være forbigået i Regionernes parti interne hierarki, hvor nye yngre kvinder har fået ordførerposter og poster som ledere af parlamentets udvalg. Derfor har Bohatyrjova muligvis været forholdsvis let at lokke. En forsmået kvindelig politiker kan være en farlig en cocktail i et parlament uden et klart flertal. Det kender vi også fra Danmark. Efter Bohatyrjovas ansættelse som sekretær for det nationale sikkerheds- og forsvarsråd har ledelsen i Regionernes parti på et møde foreslået Bohatyrjova at forlade politik. De Jusjtjenko-venlige medier og de ledende politikere indenfor Jusjtjenkos støtteparti taler om, at præsidenten har lavet et genialt skaktræk, som truer med at splitte Regionernes parti op i to dele og manøvrere Viktor Janukovytj ud på et sidespor. De kommende uger og måneder vil vise, som Bohatyrjova har så stor indflydelse i Regionernes parti som de håber på, og om Akhmetov betragter hende som sin agent i Jusjtjenkos og Tymoshenkos inderkreds.

27.12.07. Jusjtjenko udpeger kvinde til leder af sikkerhedsrådet

26.12.07. Russia, Ukraine trade harsh words over historical memory

26.12.07. Ukraine's Second Chance - The Wall Street Journal

26.12.07. Prime Minister Tymoshenko address to Ukrainians

26.12.07. Putin-interview i Time: Ukraine bliver aldrig mere en del af Rusland

15.12.07. Ukraine without Viktor Yushchenko: a counterfactual history, or "What if?"

09.12.07. Praise and condemnation of Stalin: Russia and Ukraine go their separate ways

09.12.07. New Yushchenko-Tymoshenko coalition passes first test

05.12.07. Arsenij Jatsenjuk ny parlamentsformand

30.11.07. Flere politikere i spil som ny parlamentsformand

27.11.07. Prominent Jusjtjenko-støtte: Tymoshenko-aftale farlig for landet

26.11.07. Deputeret: Jeg blev forsøgt bestukket med 20 millioner dollars

26.11.07. Afviser beskyldninger om forsøg på stemmeopkøb

26.11.07. Uklarhed om næste mødedag i parlamentet

25.11.07. Analysts: President mulls "no coalition" option

25.11.07. 56 Tymoshenko-deputerede forsøgt bestukket (eng.)

01.11.07. UNESCO fjerner ordet "folkemord" fra slutresolution

UNESCOS Generalkonference, der består af 193 lande, har enstemmigt vedtaget en resolution om "Højtideligholdelsen af mindet om ofrene for Hungersnøden i Ukraine".

10.11.07. President's party is weakest link in Orange coalition

15.11.07. Rusland presser Ukraine på gasprisen

18.01.07. Gaseksplosion i ukrainsk mine

25.11.07. 56 Tymoshenko-deputerede forsøgt bestukket (eng.)

25.11.07. Analysts: President mulls "no coalition" option

26.11.07. Uklarhed om næste mødedag i parlamentet

26.11.07. Afviser beskyldninger om forsøg på stemmeopkøb

27.11.07. Deputeret: Jeg blev forsøgt bestukket med 20 millioner dollars

27.11.07. Prominent Jusjtjenko-støtte: Tymoshenko-aftale farlig for landet

30.11.07. Flere politikere i spil som ny parlamentsformand

05.12.07. Arsenij Jatsenjuk ny parlamentsformand

09.12.07. New Yushchenko-Tymoshenko coalition passes first test

09.12.07. Praise and condemnation of Stalin: Russia and Ukraine go their separate ways

15.12.07. Ukraine without Viktor Yushchenko: a counterfactual history, or "What if?"

26.12.07. Putin-interview i Time: Ukraine bliver aldrig mere en del af Rusland