Gaseksplosion i ukrainsk mine
Rusland presser Ukraine på gasprisen
President's party is weakest link in Orange coalition
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Ukraine og Rusland har aftalt principperne
for udformningen af gasprisen på mellemlang
sigt, oplyser det ukrainske energiministeriums
"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
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. nov. 2007 09.02 Udland
Opdat.: 18. nov. 2007
Redningsfolk er gået i gang med at lede efter
overlevende efter en eksplosion, som foreløbig
har kostet 33 mennesker livet i en kulmine i
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Should a new government emerge from the
dragging coalition talks, political observers
are increasingly convinced it will be a messy
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
[ ... ]
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
[ ... ]
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
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
"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
A "no coalition" outcome would be the peak of
unaccountability in Ukrainian governance,
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.
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
"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",
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
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
"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
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
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
"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.
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.
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
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
"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
"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.
for blokken ”Vores Ukraine – Folkets selvforsvar” (forkortet NUNS)
vurderer, at den nuværende ukrainske udenrigsminister Arsene Jatsenjuk
kun har meget få chancer for at blive valgt til parlamentet og de vil
ikke udelukke en anden kandidat.
”Komersant-Ukrajina” var flere unavngivne deputerede fra NUNS efter
fredagens møde i partiets parlamentsfraktion enige om, at Jatsenjuks
chancer for at blive valgt til parlamentsformand er minimale.
gerne have, at parlamentsformanden er en han kan stole 100% på. Men han
vil ikke få de nødvendige 226 stemmer. Inden længe vil vi derfor få
endnu et offer for parlamentsformands-sagaen”, udtaler en af kilderne.
Et af de ledende
medlemmer af NUNS-blokken Mykola Jateryntjuk bekræftede denne antagelse.
”Spillet er ikke
slut endnu. Når Jatsenjuk kommer tilbage, vil NUNS-blokkens politiske
råd mødes med præsidenten, hvor der vil blive truffet en beslutning",
ville repræsentanterne for NUNS-blokken ikke dele deres viden med deres
koalitionskolleger fra Julia Tysmoshenkos blok (BJuT).
Et andet ledende
medlem af NUNS-blokken Borys Tarasyuk sagde til Tv-stationen ”Kanal 5”,
at man på mødet slet ikke havde drøftet Jatsenjuk som ny
parlamentsformand og der slet ikke kan blive tale om at gøre ham til
parlamentsformand. Ifølge Tarasyuk kan man også godt udelukke lederen af
NUNS-fraktionen Vjatjeslav Kyrylenko som parlamentsformand, eftersom
denne to gange har takket nej.
På et møde i
NUNS-blokkens parlamentsgruppe i torsdags trak Kyrylenko sig som
parlamentsformandskandidat og overlod sin plads til Jatsenjuk, idet han
henviste til, at præsident Viktor Jusjenko ”ville støtte” Jatsenjuk som
ny parlamentsformand. UP.
Den 33-årige Arsenij Jatsenjuk er valgt til ny parlamentsformand i
Ukraine. Under en hemmelig afstemning i tirsdags i Ukraines parlament
gav 227 parlamentsmedlemmer deres stemme til Jatsnjuk, oplyste lederen
af parlamentets stemmeudvalg Mykola Shershun i går.
"Stemmeudvalget har efterfølgende besluttet at anse Arsenij Petrovytj
Jatsenjuk som valgt til parlamentsformand", meddelte Shershun fra
"Stemmeudvalget nåede frem til, at 227 deputerede modtog en
stemmeseddel hver, og 227 deputerede deltog i stemmeafgivelsen",
Julia Tymoshenko var den først til at lykønske Jatsenjuk med en buket
orange roser. Herefter blev Jatsenjuk lykønsket af lederen af blokken
NUNS, Vjatjeslav Kyrylenko, der overrakte ham en buket røde roser.
Alle havde ventet, at præsident Viktor Jusjtjenko ville komme til
parlamentet, men i stedet ankom lederen af hans sekretariat, Viktor
Efter at Jatsenjuk meddelte, at aftenmødet var lukket, rejste de
deputerede fra Julia Tymoshenkos blok og NUNS og afsang Ukraines
Den eneste deputerede fra Regionernes parti, der sang med, var Taras
Tjornovil, som lige var kommet ind i salen for at hente sine ting, men
blev nødsaget til at afsynge nationalsangen sammen med sine politiske
Det 228. medlem af koalitionen, Ivan Pljusjtj befandt sig på det
tidspunkt i Donetsk for at overvære en fodboldkamp i selskab med bl.a.
premierminister Viktor Janukovytj og deltog ikke i afstemningen. Både
Regionernes parti og Kommunisterne boykottede aftenens møde. De
deputerede fra Lytvyns blok var kun til stede noget af tiden.
Politiske iagttagere mener, at valget af Jatsenjuk øger Julia
Tymoshenkos chance for at blive premierminister. UP.
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)
By Taras Kuzio
Friday, November 30, 2007
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
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
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.
By Adrian KARATNYCKY
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.
Dec 12 2007
By Taras KUZIO
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
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
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.
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.
PUTIN: As I've said, I believe the collapse of the Soviet Union was
a tragedy, but what happened happened. I believe that we should build
our relations with the former Soviet republics on the basis of absolute
equality. Through this approach, we can embark on a process of economic
integration, realizing our natural competitive edge in the global
economy. We have a common energy system. Electricity. We have a common
transportation system. Like in the European Union, we do not have to
invent the rules of use of national languages. We have a lingua franca
in the former Soviet Union, Russian. We have many other things that
bring us together. Many economies, many industries are not able to
sustain themselves without relying on countries like Ukraine, Belarus,
Kazakhstan and other former Soviet republics. I believe that we must
build our relations based on those principles.
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
TIME: Do you think Ukraine will ever again become part of
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.
Tymoshenko address to Ukrainians
Dear fellow countrymen,
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"
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
Secondly, we will under no circumstances try to make our predecessors
responsible for the situation in the country. We do not engage in such
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
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
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
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
We do not need great scandals, we need the Great Ukraine.
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.
God help us!
The Wall Street Journal
December 21, 2007
By ADRIAN KARATNYCKY and JAN NEUTZE
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
- 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."
Russia, Ukraine trade harsh words over historical memory
Eurasia Daily Monitor -- Volume 4, Issue 233
December 17, 2007
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
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
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
Jusjtjenko udpeger kvinde til leder af
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.
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.
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