AUR#741 Jul 31 Declaration Of National Unity, Four Areas Unresolved; St Dept’s David Kramer In Kyiv: Interior Minister’s Death Not Suicide;

=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR
An International Newsletter, The Latest, Up-To-Date
In-Depth Ukrainian News, Analysis and Commentary

Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World

DRAFT TEXT OF
DECLARATION OF NATIONAL UNITY

ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 741

Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor
PUBLISHED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MONDAY, JULY 31, 2006

Help Build the Worldwide Action Ukraine Network
Send the AUR to your colleagues and friends, urge them to sign up.
Some news services do not publish in August, not the AUR.

——- INDEX OF ARTICLES ——–
Clicking on the title of any article takes you directly to the article.
Return to the Index by clicking on Return to Index at the end of each article

1. DRAFT TEXT OF DECLARATION OF NATIONAL UNITY
Ukrayinska Pravda website, Kiev, in Ukrainian 27 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sat, Jul 29, 2006

2. PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT SAYS WORKING GROUP
REACHES AGREEMENT ON MOST PROVISIONS IN DECLARATION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, July 30, 2006

3. UKRAINE: IVAN VASYUNYK OF PRESIDENT’S STAFF NAMES
FOUR STUMBLING BLOCKS TO SIGNING UNITY DECLARATION
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 1437 gmt 29 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sat, Jul 29, 2006

4. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF OLEH RYBACHUK
PLAYS DOWN LACK OF PROGRESS IN CRISIS TALKS
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1710 gmt 30 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sunday, Jul 30, 2006

5. REGIONS PARTY DOES NOT ACCEPT ‘OUR UKRAINE’ BLOCS
POSITIONS IN NATIONAL UNITY COALITION TALKS
Ukrainian News Agency, Kiev, Ukraine, Sunday, July 30, 2006

6. UKRAINE’S PRO-RUSSIAN PARTY OF REGIONS REJECTS
“BLACKMAIL, THREATS” DURING CRISIS TALKS
One Plus One TV, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1630 gmt 29 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, July 29, 2006

7. PARTY OF REGIONS OFFICIAL TARAS CHORNOVIL SAYS PARTY
IS READY TO UNITE WITH THE SOCIALIST AND COMMUNISTS
IN CASE OF A NEW EARLY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, July 30, 2006

8. UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YURI YEKHANUROV SAID ROUND-
TABLE TALKS ‘COMPLICATED’ NO COMPROMISE ON FOUR ISSUES
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0834 gmt 29 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Jul 29, 2006

9. LEADER OF PARTY OF REGIONS YANUKOVYCH MEETS WITH A
TOP U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICIAL DAVID KRAMER
Kramer also meets with Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1219 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Jul 28, 2006

10. ALL-UKRAINIAN ‘ROUND-TABLE’ A POTEMKIN VILLAGE
CREATED BY PRES YUSHCHENKO FOR U.S. AMBASSADOR
Regnum, Moscow, Russia, Friday, July 28, 2006

11. UKRAINIAN INTERIOR MINISTER LUTSENKO WILL NOT WORK
IN A CABINET CHAIRED BY VIKTOR YANUKOVYCH
I am against candidacy of Yanukovych, who will never unite Ukrainian society.
INTERVIEW: With Ukrainian Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko
By Ivan Leonov, Ukrayina Moloda, Kiev, in Ukrainian 28 Jul 06, p 4, 5
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Jul 29, 2006

12. THE MANY CHOICES OF YUSHCHENKO
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: by Tammy Lynch, Boston
Ukrayinska Pravda website, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, July 24, 2006

13. YUSHCHENKO PREFERS AKHMETOV TO YANUKOVYCH
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Chivokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda website, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, July 26, 2006

14. “YURIY KRAVCHENKO – SUICIDE RULED OUT”
Suicide verdict in death of former Ukrainian Interior Minister questioned
“We do not trust our law-enforcement agencies and we are afraid of them. This

situation suited the old administration and, clearly, suits the present one, too.”
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY:
By Oleksandra Prymachenko
Zerkalo Nedeli, Kiev, Ukraine, in Russian 29 Jul 06, p 2
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sunday, Jul 30, 2006

15. CARTE BLANCHE FOR VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Chivokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda website in Ukrainian, Kyiv, Ukraine, Mon, Jul 24, 2006

16. RUSSIANS REFUSE TO RAISE UKRAINIAN FLAGS ON SHIPS

DURING RUSSIAN NAVY DAY CELEBRATIONS IN CRIMEA
Ukrainian TV critical of Russian Navy Day festivities in Crimea
One Plus One TV, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1730 gmt 30 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sunday, Jul 30, 2006

17. MILITARY SERVICE FOR GRADUATES OF HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS IN UKRAINE NOT REQUIRED AFTER 2010
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1439 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Jul 28, 2006

18. POLISH PRESIDENT APPOINTS POLISH-UKRAINIAN COMMITTEE
Sister committee to be appointed on the Ukrainian side
PAP news agency, Warsaw, in Polish 2120 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, July 28, 2006

19. COUNCIL OF EUROPE OFFICIAL URGES MOLDOVA TO
IMPROVE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
He described the situation in Ukraine as not the most favourable
Infotag news agency, Chisinau, in Russian 0935 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Jul 28, 2006

20. UKRAINE: RELATIONS WITH THE WEST ON ‘PAUSE’
INTERVIEW: With Prof. Robert Legvold
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)

Prague, Czech Republic, Friday, July 28, 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #741, Article 21
Washington, D.C., Monday, July 31, 2006

22. JACQUES HNIZDOVSKY AT UKRAINIAN MUSEUM IN NYC
Acclaimed Ukrainian painter and printmaker (1915-1985)
ArtDaily.com, USA, Sunday, July 23, 2006

23. POLEMICS: MYKOLA RIABCHUK REPLY TO MS TARANEC
LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR: By Mykola Riabchuk
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #741, Article 23
Washington, D.C., Monday, July 31, 2006

24. WORLD FORUM OF UKRAINIANS TO FOCUS ON UNITED NATIONS
RECOGNITION OF 1932-1933 FAMINE IN UKRAINE AS GENOCIDE
AGAINST UKRAINIAN PEOPLE
UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, July 17, 2006

25. UKRAINE 3000 CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LAUNCHES WEBSITE
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #741, Article 25
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, July 31, 2006
========================================================
1
. DRAFT TEXT OF DECLARATION OF NATIONAL UNITY

Ukrayinska Pravda website, Kiev, in Ukrainian 27 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sat, Jul 29, 2006

The Ukrayinska Pravda web site has published the draft text of the
declaration of national unity that President Viktor Yushchenko presented to
participants in the round table that began on 27 July.

The talks, which are aimed at ending the political deadlock, are attended by
Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov, parliament speaker Oleksandr Moroz, the
leaders of parliamentary factions, and a number of public figures.

The following is an excerpt from the report by Ukrainian Ukrayinska Pravda
website on 27 July; subheadings as published:

The text of the draft declaration of national unity that President
Yushchenko proposed to the round table participants. The final version,
which is to be signed by political leaders, is to be agreed by a working
group on Friday [28 July].

DECLARATION [UNIVERSAL] OF NATIONAL UNITY
Being conscious of [our] responsibility to the Ukrainian people and the
exceptional nature of the current political situation,

Respecting the will of the people expressed in an honest and democratic
manner in the election to the Supreme Council of Ukraine [parliament] on
26 March 2006,

Wishing to resolve the political problems that have arisen in the Supreme
Council of Ukraine in a considered and responsible manner,

Wishing to bring about a general national reconciliation, which we believe
to be the key to Ukraine’s future and an instrument for resolving our
society’s current problems,

Introducing the tradition of national political and social dialogue for
resolving the inherited and acquired problems in the life of the state,

Attesting that the core of the people’s consolidation is the unconditional
observance of the principles of democracy and respect for human rights
and freedoms, social justice and Ukraine’s European choice,

Confirming that Ukraine’s foreign policy course is unchanged and
irreversible, and with the purpose of enhancing its international authority,

And unswervingly guided in acts and deeds by Ukraine’s national interests,

We, representatives of the political forces in parliament, declare those
principles that manifest our common political will to join forces for the
good of Ukraine and its citizens.

In order to realize such priorities of national development as the high
quality of life of citizens, a competitive and knowledge-based economy,
effective and just authorities, a state that is respected in the world and
integrated into global processes, we agree to the priority execution of

A Plan of Action of National Unity:

1. To preserve Ukraine as a unitary and united state.

2. To continue and improve constitutional reforms, to create a balanced
system of “checks and balances” between the president of Ukraine, the
Supreme Council of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine,
and to re-establish a functional Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

3. To bring the decisions of all bodies of state power and local
self-government into line with the Constitution of Ukraine.

4. To create the political and judicial conditions for the unimpeded
activity of the opposition in elective bodies of power at all levels.

5. To reform executive power structures and to render impossible the
politicization of state service through the priority adoption of the laws of
Ukraine “On the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine” and “On State Service”
(new edition), prepared and submitted by the president of Ukraine.

6. To continue reform of the courts in accordance with the approved
conception for improvement of the judiciary for the consolidation of just
courts in Ukraine.

7. To reform the system of law enforcement bodies to European standards, to
bring criminal law and criminal justice into line with the standards and
recommendations of Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the
European Union, and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

8. To stimulate the development of local self-government by ensuring its
financial means and the reform of the administrative-territorial order. To
reject federalism in favour of decentralization.

9. To tame corruption at all levels of power, in particular, by supporting
the president’s legislative initiatives in this area.

10. To ensure the status of Ukrainian as the single state language and the
language of official communication of power bodies, while simultaneously
guaranteeing the rights of the languages of national minorities in line with
the European Charter.

11. To develop the culture and restore the spiritual life of the multiethnic
Ukrainian people, to ensure the integrity of the linguistic-cultural sphere.

12. To observe the freedom of religion. To support efforts to form a single
national Ukrainian Orthodox church.

13. To improve the welfare of Ukrainian citizens, to overcome poverty
through effective and targeted social security and just pension provision.

14. To form a middle class by increasing the accessibility of higher
education and transforming public incomes policy, to guarantee decent wages,
to develop entrepreneurship and stimulate job creation.

15. To campaign for a healthy lifestyle, to redirect the health care system
towards the patient, and found a National Centre for Fighting Tuberculosis
and HIV/AIDS, a National Heart Centre, a National Cancer Centre, a
Nationwide Centre for Mother and Child Health Care.

16. To achieve an annual rate of GDP growth of at least 5 per cent with
inflation no more than 10 per cent, to stimulate the creation of at least 1m
jobs a year.

17. To conduct tax reform, that includes, in particular, introduction of a
real estate tax and a single social deduction from payroll.

18. To increase the effectiveness of natural resource use, especially fuels,
to introduce energy saving technologies.

19. To make agriculture more efficient by putting land into economic
circulation.

20. To provide state guarantees of the inviolability of property rights.

21. To raise the effectiveness of utilities through the creation of
competition in the housing and utilities sector.

22. To urgently adopt the amendments to legislation required for Ukraine’s
WTO entry and to join this organization by the end of 2006.

23. To implement unswervingly the Ukraine-EU action plan, to urgently start
talks on creation of a free-trade zone between Ukraine and the EU, and to
join a NATO Membership Action Plan.

24. To establish effective economic partnership with all Ukraine’s
interested foreign partners, guided by interests of mutual advantage.

We, the undersigned, are convinced that the implementation of the priorities
described should become the decisive criteria for the formation and activity
of the coalition and the system of power as a whole, whose activity will be
founded on new mechanisms of public-political cooperation, in particular:

1. To develop and introduce regular procedures for public consultation on
important issues of social development and state building, with the
inclusion in the dialogue of, in particular, non-parliamentary political
forces, public associations and other participants in the social-political
process.

2. To form effective mechanisms for social control over the authorities’
activity, ensuring the transparency and accountability of state management
bodies and local self-government bodies.

3. To ensure that the activity of power bodies conforms to Ukraine’s
national interests, strategic development priorities, the interests of
particular communities and citizens, by means, in particular, of the
participation of political parties and public forces in improving the
effectiveness of the state’s personnel policy.

We are convinced that the implementation of the principles of this
declaration, which will provide the basis for the majority coalition
agreement, are possible only if a coalition of national unity is formed in
the Supreme Council of Ukraine of the 5th convocation [current parliament],
and we support such a step. [Passage omitted: the list of round table
participants]
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT SAYS WORKING GROUP
REACHES AGREEMENT ON MOST PROVISIONS IN DECLARATION

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, July 30, 2006

KIEV – The presidential secretariat says that the working group has reached
agreements on most provisions in the National Unity Declaration. Ukrainian
News has learned this from the president’s press service.

According to the message, during the talks, the sides agreed on most
priority questions concerning the state development.

Implementation of the state policy in regards to [1] languages, [2]
preservation, integrity and unity of Ukraine, as well as the [3] country’s
integration with Europe and the [4] Common Economic Area, are among
questions that need further discussions.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Verkhovna Rada Chairman Oleksandr
Moroz claimed that the working group on the wording of the National Unity
Declaration included a paragraph in the draft document that Ukraine may join
NATO only after a relevant national referendum.

The working group on the wording of the National Unity Declaration comprised
Regions Party MPs Mykola Azarov, Olena Lukash, Our Ukraine bloc MPs Petro
Poroshenko, Roman Zvarych, Socialist Party faction MPs Vasyl Tsushko,
Yaroslav Mendus, and Communist Party MP Leonid Hrach.

The presidential secretariat delegated Ivan Vasiunik, the first deputy head
of the presidential secretariat, Mykola Poludionnyi, the head of the chief
service for legal policy of the presidential secretariat, Ihor Koliushko,
the head of the chief service for institutional development of the
presidential secretariat, and Zhanna Doktorova, the head of the chief state
legal service. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. UKRAINE: IVAN VASYUNYK OF PRESIDENT’S STAFF NAMES
FOUR STUMBLING BLOCKS TO SIGNING UNITY DECLARATION

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 1437 gmt 29 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sat, Jul 29, 2006

KIEV – In the talks on signing the declaration of national unity, the
political formulation of tasks concerning [1] language, [2] the unity of
Ukraine, [3] European and Euro-Atlantic integration, as well as [4] future
activity within the Single Economic Space [with Russia, Belarus and
Kazakhstan] require additional discussion, the first deputy head of the
presidential secretariat, Ivan Vasyunyk, said on Saturday [29 July].

He said that during the talks, they kept to President Viktor Yushchenko’s
firm line on refusing to change the country’s domestic and foreign policy
course.

“The president confirms his consistent position on the need for a
consolidation of the country’s responsible political forces, the rejection
of far-fetched political aims that don’t have a future, and the achievement
of a consensus on the resolution of the issues that artificially divide
society, that involve guarantees of state security and ensuring the welfare
and security of citizens,” the president’s press service quotes Vasyunyk as
saying.

The press service also reported that the presidential secretariat would be
working on Saturday, 29 July, and Sunday, 30 July. -30-

————————————————————————————————
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF OLEH RYBACHUK
PLAYS DOWN LACK OF PROGRESS IN CRISIS TALKS

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1710 gmt 30 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sunday, Jul 30, 2006

Oleh Rybachuk, the head of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s
secretariat, has played down the lack of progress in crisis talks between
the president and parliamentary faction leaders.

In a live interview with private TV 5 Kanal on 30 July, Rybachuk praised
negotiators’ attitude to the talks and said they were set to continue on
Monday 31 July.

“Tomorrow morning, the president expects results of negotiations in
working groups and a continuation of the round table’s work, in particular
the approval of the declaration (of national unity),” Rybachuk said.
“Practically all parties have agreed with the spirit and letter of the
declaration.”

Rybachuk said he “would have been surprised if the Party of Regions had
signed the declaration so quickly”. He said the declaration does not
necessarily have to be signed by all five major parties involved in the
talks – the pro-Russian Party of Regions, the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc,
propresidential Our Ukraine, the Socialists and the Communists.

He recalled that President Viktor Yushchenko still had the option of
dissolving parliament, but said the president “realizes that this would not
solve the problem”.

“I can’t imagine the situation whereby the declaration would not be signed.
This would force the president to call a fresh election,” he said. “This is
not blackmail. This is the way things are.”

Rybachuk said Yushchenko had until 2 August to decide whether to back
MPs’ nomination of his arch rival Viktor Yanukovych as prime minister.

Rybachuk rejected the assumption that Yushchenko called the round table to
show the politicians’ inability to reach any agreement and thus obtain more
grounds to dissolve parliament. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5. REGIONS PARTY DOES NOT ACCEPT ‘OUR UKRAINE’ BLOCS
POSITIONS IN NATIONAL UNITY COALITION TALKS

Ukrainian News Agency, Kiev, Ukraine, Sunday, July 30, 2006

KIEV – The Party of Regions says it doesn’t accept positions expressed by
the Our Ukraine Bloc during the talks on the National Unity Declaration
draft and creation of the coalition.

This follows from a statement by the presidium of the Regions Party’s
political council, a copy of which was made available to Ukrainian News.

As the statement reads, during the talks, the Our Ukraine Bloc is trying to
thrust its ideology on the possible wide coalition and govern the majority
by blackmailing and threatening to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada.

The Party of Regions says that it would not turn down its election program,
calling such propositions as disgraceful.

It is also calling on President Viktor Yuschenko to submit the candidature
of Regions Party leader Viktor Yanukovych to the post of premier, which was
proposed by the majority.

Member of the Regions Party faction Yevhen Kushnariov said that
representatives of the anti-crisis coalition cannot agree to three positions
in the declaration draft proposed by the president: [1] on NATO, [2] the
Russian language and [3] Common Economic Area.

“If our position is taken into account, we are ready to continue talks and
search for compromise solutions,” Kushnariov said.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, on July 29, the presidential secretariat
said that the working group had reached agreements on most provisions in the
National Unity Declaration.

The open meeting of the roundtable won’t take place before Monday, July 31.
July 29 through July 30, the Socialist Party and Party of Regions planned to
hold meting of their political councils and discuss the National Unity
Declaration drafted by the working group.

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
6. UKRAINE’S PRO-RUSSIAN PARTY OF REGIONS REJECTS
“BLACKMAIL, THREATS” DURING CRISIS TALKS

One Plus One TV, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1630 gmt 29 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, July 29, 2006

KIEV – A key figure in the pro-Russian Party of Regions has accused
propresidential Our Ukraine of not being flexible enough during crisis talks
between President Viktor Yushchenko and the leaders of major political
parties.

In a live TV interview, MP Yevhen Kushnaryov said Our Ukraine was trying to
impose its ideology on others and rejected what he described as blackmail
and threats during the talks.

He said Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych does not want to become
a prime minister at the price of sacrificing his party’s principles.

Kushnaryov also said that the main stumbling blocks during the talks were
relations with NATO and Russia, and the status of the Russian language. The
following is an excerpt from a report by Ukrainian One Plus One TV on 29
July, subheadings have been inserted editorially::

[Presenter] A strongly-worded statement by the Party of Regions’ political
council was posted on the party website an hour ago. It accuses Our Ukraine
of trying to impose its ideology on the Party of Regions by threatening it
with dissolving parliament.

It also says that [Party of Regions leader] Viktor Yanukovych would not agree
to become a prime minister at the price of compromises mentioned in the
declaration [of national unity, which is discussed at the crisis talks called by
President Yushchenko].

We can now ask our guest, deputy Party of Regions faction leader Yevhen
Kushnaryov, about the party’s position. Good evening, Mr Kushnaryov.

[Kushnaryov, in Russian throughout] Good evening.

[Presenter] The previous report in our programme said that the main reason
why the [unity] agreement has not been signed is the fact that there is no
guarantee that Viktor Yanukovych will become prime minister. Do you think
this is true?

[Kushnaryov] I am surprised by this kind of statement. To start with, I’d
like to see them as nothing but a simple misunderstanding. Our party’s
position has been described in no uncertain terms in the statement by the
political council presidium, which you have quoted.

“BLACKMAIL AND THREATS”
In a few words, indeed, we do not accept negotiations based on blackmail and
threats. In essence, what we have been offered is – although there are 240
MPs in the coalition [in the 450-seat parliament] – to agree to Our Ukraine
imposing its own ideology on us all and, in effect, running the majority if
a grand coalition is set up. We have been asked to give up the basic
stipulations of our election programme which was backed by over 8m of our
compatriots.

Therefore, we do not accept this tone and these conditions. I’d like to
briefly quote from what our leader Viktor Yanukovych said at the political
council meeting. They contain a full and clear answer to all these
insinuations. Quote –

[Presenter, interrupting] I’d like to ask you something, if I may – top
representatives of your party said that a compromise has been found on all
issues. This is what they said yesterday. If this is so, which compromises
contained in the agreement are you not happy with? What are they about?

[Kushnaryov] I’ll answer your question after the quote. So, Viktor
Yanukovych said: I do not want to become prime minister at the price of
shame and of betraying our voters. I find it humiliating to hear this let
alone to agree to this.

To me, the premiership is not the goal but rather a means to an end. My goal
is to unite Ukraine and to improve the life of every Ukrainian family and to
make the world respect us. This is the essence of the Party of Regions’ position.

Now to the compromises. We have shown our ability to reach compromises
during the two weeks of talks with Our Ukraine – talks which, by the way,
they have repeatedly denied [were taking place]. We found compromise
wordings of all the difficult issues.

But on coming to the round table we were handed a completely different
document. In it, the wording of these issues was tough and uncompromising,
which is what split Ukraine a year-and-a-half ago [i.e. after the 2004 presidential
election].

If we had signed this document, we would not know how to hide our eyes for
shame. Naturally, we did not agree to this version. We have proposed a version
of our own. We are ready to look for a compromise, but let me say this again:
we do not accept blackmail or threats, because there is not legal basis to
them.

[Presenter] Mr Kushnaryov, thanks. But can you specify to our viewers what
are these compromises about?

STUMBLING BLOCKS
[Kushnaryov] We are arguing over three things. [1] First, NATO – we are not
against cooperating with NATO, but it is only the Ukrainian people who can
resolve the accession issue, and it is through a referendum. But they are
trying to force us to sign a formula for a NATO accession accord.

[2] The Russian language. They are trying to impose a formula upon us whereby
Russian will drag out an increasingly miserable existence in our country. We
want the Ukrainian and Russian languages to have equal rights.

[3] And lastly, we are being offered to go to Europe and forget that Russian
exists at all. What we are proposing is that the document should mention a
clear position on good-neighbourly relations with Russia and on continued
talks about the Single Economic Space [alliance backed by Russia].

[Presenter] It appears as though no agreement has been reached after more
than two days of round-table talks.

[Kushnaryov] That’s right. But if our position is taken into account, we are
ready for more talks and to look for compromises. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. PARTY OF REGIONS OFFICIAL TARAS CHORNOVIL SAYS PARTY
IS READY TO UNITE WITH THE SOCIALIST AND COMMUNISTS
IN CASE OF A NEW EARLY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION


Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, July 30, 2006

KIEV – Member of the Regions Party faction in the Verkhovna Rada Taras
Chornovil says the party is ready to set up an election bloc with the Socialist
and Communist parties in case the president disbands the parliament and
announces an early parliamentary election.

Chornovil was speaking in an interview with the Fifth Channel. “We’re ready
to unite with our present coalition partners in a single bloc, but we understand
that this may split the state even more. I would not like them to push us into
that,” he said.

He also said that representatives of the Regions Party are planning to
attend the roundtable meeting on July 31 if it is held. However, leaders of
the party have doubts as to the fruitfulness of the talks.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, on July 29, the Party of Regions said it
had not accepted positions expressed by the Our Ukraine Bloc during the
talks on the National Unity Declaration draft and creation of the coalition.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8. UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YURI YEKHANUROV SAID ROUND-
TABLE TALKS ‘COMPLICATED’ NO COMPROMISE ON FOUR ISSUES

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0834 gmt 29 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Jul 29, 2006

KIEV REGION – Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov has described
the situation around the signing of a declaration of national unity [as a result
of the round-table talks among the president and leaders of major political
parties] as “complicated”.

“As of this minute, the situation is complicated,” the prime minister told
journalists in the village of Velyka Oleksandrivka (Kiev Region) today.

Yekhanurov added that the participants in the round-table talks focused on
four issues regarding which they have not reached a compromise yet –

[1] the federalization and integrity of Ukraine,
[2] the language issue,
[3] Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration
[4] and cooperation with the Single Economic Space [an economic

alliance of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine].

The prime minister, however, remains optimistic about the possibility of
reaching a compromise on these issues.

[At 0859 gmt on 29 July, Interfax-Ukraine quoted the leader of the Socialist
Party’s parliamentary faction, Vasyl Tsushko, as saying that the signing of
a declaration of national unity has been delayed because President
Yushchenko could not guarantee that he would submit the candidacy of the
Party of Regions leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to parliament for approval as
prime minister.

“Yushchenko does not trust Yanukovych today and Yanukovych under-
standably does not trust Yushchenko,” he said. “This is the name of the game.”]
———————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9. LEADER OF PARTY OF REGIONS YANUKOVYCH MEETS WITH A
TOP U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICIAL DAVID KRAMER
Kramer also meets with Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk

UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1219 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Jul 28, 2006

KIEV – The leader of the Party of Regions, Viktor Yanukovych, has met the US
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, David
Kramer, Yanukovych’s personal website has said.

Yanukovych and Kramer discussed the domestic political situation in Ukraine,
ways of solving it and ways of reaching stability in society. Moreover, they
discussed prospects for foreign investment in Ukraine, the development of
economic relations between Ukraine, Europe and Russia and ways of deepening
US-Ukraine relations.

[UNIAN news agency also said in another report on 28 July at 1221 gmt that
the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, David Kramer, also met Ukrainian
Foreign minister Borys Tarasyuk.

Tarasyuk informed Kramer of the recent political developments in Ukraine, in
particular, about the round-table discussion between representatives of
major political forces and members of the public initiated by Ukrainian
President Viktor Yushchenko. Tarasyuk also stressed that Ukraine’s foreign
policy aimed at European and Euro-Atlantic integration remains unchanged.]

———————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. ALL-UKRAINIAN ‘ROUND-TABLE’ A POTEMKIN VILLAGE

CREATED BY PRES YUSHCHENKO FOR U.S. AMBASSADOR
Regnum, Moscow, Russia, Friday, July 28, 2006
“All-Ukrainian ’round table’ is a unique and highly senseless measure. The
sitting created an impression that main personages knew something, were
close to reaching an agreement, not-so-actively participated in the event,
and refrained from engaging in serious discussions.

The whole event looked like a camouflage of agreements unknown to
spectators,” Kiev Political and Conflict Research Center Director Mikhail
Pogrebinskiy stated to REGNUM correspondent, commenting on the national
’round table’ with participation of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko
and parliamentary factions’ leaders held July 27.

“Timoshenko who evidently lost the event, worked for the audience,’ the
analyst continued. ‘Her behavior was entirely inadequate; she tried to
frighten Yushchenko without actually saying anything new, referring to some
falsified polls.”

The president, according to Mikhail Pogrebinskiy, demonstrated a strong
determination to join NATO. The event was a good and impressive show for

the US ambassador to Ukraine: “President demonstrated that he had done the
utmost in order to persuade even communists that all should agree with the
plan concerning NATO membership.”

On the options of the situation development, the analyst commented: “The
first option is that Our Ukraine will succeed in persuading the Regions
Party to agree with the formulation concerning the plan on NATO membership.

Then, Ukrainian Communist Party will not sign. It will possibly mean the
faction’s leaving parliamentary majority. Our Ukraine will replace it.

The other option is a neutral wording of the issue will emerge, something
about ‘mutually beneficial cooperation with NATO and access to it based on
referendum results.’ Generally speaking, the second formulation does not in
any way impede implementing the alliance accessing plan.

In such a case, the CPU may stay in the coalition, part of Our Ukraine may
join it in some format, and Yushchenko will try to position himself as the
national unifier.” -30-

———————————————————————————————–
LINK: www.regnum.ru/english/680608.html
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12. UKRAINIAN INTERIOR MINISTER LUTSENKO WILL NOT WORK
IN A CABINET CHAIRED BY VIKTOR YANUKOVYCH
I am against candidacy of Yanukovych, who will never unite Ukrainian society.

INTERVIEW: With Ukrainian Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko
By Ivan Leonov, Ukrayina Moloda, Kiev, in Ukrainian 28 Jul 06, p 4, 5
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Jul 29, 2006

Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko has said that he will not work in the
Cabinet chaired by Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych. Speaking in an
interview with a propresidential newspaper, Lutsenko said that Yanukovych
cannot unite the nation.

Lutsenko also said that he quit the Socialist Party of Ukraine in protest
against the party’s joining a coalition of the Party of Regions and the
Communist Party of Ukraine, an act which Lutsenko called betrayal of the
party’s history.

The following is an excerpt from the first part of Lutsenko’s two-part
interview with Ivan Leonov, published in the Ukrainian newspaper Ukrayina
Moloda on 28 July under the title Yuriy Lutsenko: I am ruling out a violent
scenario, subheadings have been inserted editorially:

[Leonov] Mr Lutsenko, today’s meeting of the president with top
law-enforcement officials (the interview took place Wednesday [26 July]
evening – Author) has already been dubbed by some Party of Regions MPs as
Bankova’s [street where presidential office is located] preparations for a
violent scenario. What was the meeting really about?

[Lutsenko] The meeting with the president was of working nature, we
exchanged information about ensuring the rule of law and order in this
country, with an emphasis on the duty of the police to protect the right to
free and peaceful expression of opinions by citizens of all political views.

NO USE OF FORCE AGAINST PROTESTORS
[Leonov] There were no discussions of a violent scenario?

[Lutsenko] It is possible that the state will need to be protected from
unconstitutional actions of revenge-seekers. Certain members of parliament
have taken the liberty to propose a vote on the candidacy of the prime
minister without it being submitted by the president, which is a blatant
violation of the Criminal Code, in particular Article 109: Actions aimed at
forceful change or overthrowing the constitutional order or capture of state
power.

In addition, Part 3 of this article says the following: public calls for
such actions using mass media. This means that even an act of announcing
these intentions is a crime. Today the SBU [Security Service of Ukraine]
issued an appropriate statement, calling on politicians and citizens to
refrain from unconstitutional ways of forming government bodies.

If someone attempts to storm or tries to limit in some way the jurisdiction
of the president, we will enforce the law, but without unnecessary
demonstration of power – peaceful protesters will not be limited in their
rights. The police will stop those who break the law, while the
Prosecutor-General Office and the SBU will assess these actions from a legal
standpoint.

Even though the law-enforcement bodies are seriously, even theoretically,
evaluating the possible threat from extremists, I think it will not come to
that. Like in the song, which, in my opinion, is close to the majority in
parliament today – “Our armoured train is parked on the side track”.

[Leonov] What was the need for today’s meeting with law-enforcement
officials and governors?

[Lutsenko] This was not an emergency meeting but a working one. Even though
we, of course, discussed our cooperation in the event of worsening political
situation. But this worsening is happening not because of people’s wishes,
but through politicians’ attempts to gain revenge at any cost. This concerns
politicians from various camps.

Only two viewpoints exist for them – theirs and the wrong one. That is why
they use arguments like public confrontation, some of them are already
picturing tanks storming, bloodshed. In reality, none of this exists in
society. I am constantly travelling to different regions, and I assure you
that people are not jumping on the barricades for the interests of fat cats
in parliament.

The governors confirmed this. But this is a special period, when the
authorities must coordinate their actions to preserve the rule of law and
order in the country. Other topics discussed with the governors included
smuggling, illegal migration, judicial system and so on.

[Leonov] A possible dissolution of parliament by the president is being
actively discussed in political and legal circles. Assuming it happens, but
[parliamentary speaker Oleksandr] Moroz does not comply with this decision
and MPs fail to leave parliament. Your actions? Are you going to kick them
out, or on the contrary – not let them in?

[Lutsenko] I cannot even imagine who may give such orders. If they want to
assemble in some building, let them assemble. MPs have this right, because
the dissolution of parliament does not mean that MPs lose their powers. But
I suspect that most of them will immediately run back to their
constituencies to prepare for a new election.

[Passage omitted: Reiterates that police will not use force against peaceful
protesters]

[Leonov] What about [youth party] Pora, which has moved towards the Cabinet
of Ministers building in order to prevent Yanukovych from taking the prime
minister’s seat in the event that he is appointed illegally?

[Lutsenko] I am not trying to hide my sympathy for Pora, but I must say that
despite my sympathy, last week we confiscated the chains, which they
intended to use to chain themselves to the parliament building, and huge
logs, which they apparently wanted to use to lock the entrances for MPs. We
wanted to make sure that these tools are not used for some extremist
purposes.

I can recall how we were kicked out of the Independence Square during the
Ukraine without Kuchma events [protests against President Kuchma in 2001] –
we were told that the square was closed for repairs. These working methods
of the authorities are in the past, because the Cabinet of Ministers is
already been repaired (laughing).

In reality, this is not so funny, because Pora can possibly be intuitively
feeling the danger to the state and democracy, and acting, albeit somewhat
childishly, but they are feeling where they need to be. With its actions in
front of the cabinet building, Pora reacted to anti-state calls for possible
usurpation of power, and showed that some people in Ukraine are prepared to
defend the constitutional order without waiting for law-enforcement bodies
to react. That is why I responded very calmly to this picket.

[Leonov] You sympathize with Pora and deny rumours that you may head a new
party called European Left. Some people are saying that you could be a good
candidate to head the Our Ukraine [propresidential party], this would
refresh the party and draw attention away from certain controversial
individuals in its leadership, would boost its ratings.

A recent opinion poll indicated that a good number of Ukrainians see you as
a leader of some political force. How does Yuriy Lutsenko himself see his
political future in the event of dismissal?

[Lutsenko] As long as I am the minister, I am not preparing any back-up
landing strips. At some point I decided not to run for parliament, trust me,
this was a principled decision for me. I came here to clean up the police,
to make it more effective. I have no other goals right now.

On the other hand, I am an active politician, and I like the fact that the
people are interested in my plans and seeing the possibility of my energy
being used in some direction. But I must disappoint you – I am not making
any political plans. [Passage omitted: repetition]

WILL NOT WORK WITH YANUKOVYCH
[Lutsenko] The only thing I can say is that I will not be involved in any
political force, especially not the one that had discredited itself and is
now serving the interests of oligarchs’ money. The president has also asked
me about my vision of the political situation, and I have informed him about
my decision not to work in the cabinet if it is headed by Yanukovych.

I stress that in this case the problem is not simply citizen Yanukovych, who
has some managerial experience, but Yanukovych as the symbol of a political
camp with the opposite views. It is unacceptable for me to endorse such a
cabinet with my presence.

Of course, weaklings can find a host of reasons: not to give up the seat to
others or to prove that even in those conditions I can work. But I think
that politics is not a game of who can fool the voters the most and who can
scam their own partners for the sake of portfolios, but adhering to stable
principles both in power and in opposition.

It is disgusting to see politicians bargaining for comfy chairs and
attempting to monopolize power instead of dividing it evenly , finding a
balance and having a cabinet of national reconciliation.

[Leonov] Are you also in favour of a grand coalition?

[Lutsenko] I think Ukraine today needs a cabinet of national reconciliation.
Because the people of Ukraine voted evenly for different political forces.
To form a cabinet headed by a bright symbol of one of the sides will mean a
victory for one side over the other.

There will be no reconciliation, no constructivism. The cabinet of national
reconciliation cannot be headed by someone who is afraid of meeting students
in Ivano-Frankivsk or coal miners in Donetsk.

That is why I am against the candidacy of Yanukovych, who will never unite
Ukrainian society from the Carpathian Mountains to the Black Sea, and I do
not wish to work in this cabinet of revenge against the principles that I
live by.

[Leonov] Judging by your words, you see a possibility of heading the
Interior Ministry in a cabinet of reconciliation, or am I mistaken?

[Lutsenko] Speaking of cooperation between parliament and the president, it
is desirable to find a constructive candidate for the post of prime minister
other than Yanukovych. Including, possibly, from the Party of Regions. If I
receive an offer to work with another members of the Party of Regions as
prime minister, then yes, I will work. But only in a cabinet of national
compromise.

If this unifying figure for the whole society is a member of the Party of
Regions – good, if he is from Fatherland, Our Ukraine or the Socialist
Party – not bad too. Of course, better yet would be a candidacy of an
unaffiliated policeman, but this is…[ellipsis as published] (laughing
sincerely) not foreseeable in the near future.

[Leonov] Is this option being considered even by the Regionals? Have you
received some propositions?

[Lutsenko] I had a conversation with the most serious player in the Party of
Regions on this issue, who was not against me staying as minister, but some
officials in key regional police directorates will need to be changed. I
said that this is unacceptable to me, and if I remain a member of the
cabinet, I do not plan to subordinate the Interior Ministry’s personnel
policy to the interests of any faction in parliament.

Similar attempts have been made before, when I was first appointed to this
post, but everyone understood very quickly that appointments would be made
only based on professionalism and honesty. Because this ministry is special,
and it cannot be under any political or business influence.

I consider de-politicization and de-commercialization of police the main
goal of this part of my life, and I have spent much effort and health on
this. It is impossible to put a price tag on this seat that would make me
change my beliefs. This was my answer. So in reality all these
talks…[ellipsis as published]

I understand very clearly that it may be desirable to keep Lutsenko in this
job to cover up some actions, which may be incompatible with the ideals of
democracy and freedom that we fought for. But I will not cover up this
policy, this is my right.

[Leonov] Which player in the Party of Regions are you talking about?

[Lutsenko] It does not matter who voiced this position, especially because
earlier some MPs from the Party of Regions voiced it during talks with the
leaders of the presidential secretariat.

Mr Yushchenko also asked me about my attitude to this possibility, and I
told him that I had publicly announced my decision, and that it was a matter
of principle. A politician must be predictable. [Passage omitted: Reiterates

that police must stay out of politics]

[Leonov] What do you think about the new tape scandal in parliament? [MP
Oleh] Lyashko of the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc has said that he has recordings
of phone conversations where MP Andriy Klyuyev boasts that the Regionals had
bought your teacher Oleksandr Moroz and the Socialist MPs for 300m dollars.

Taking into account that the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc has turned to not only
the Prosecutor-General’s Office but also all other law-enforcement bodies,
the president and the National Security and Defence Council, how will the
Interior Ministry react to this and will it investigate the reports of
bribery? I understand that this issue is painful to you…[ellipsis as
published]

[Lutsenko] It is painful because the Socialist Party has changed radically.
But thank God, the request was sent not to the Interior Ministry but to the
Prosecutor-General’s Office and the SBU, this is their jurisdiction, and I
am most of all interested in an objective investigation.

The only problem is that the information on bribery was reported by Lyashko,
and I consider him a journalist who does not mind spreading untruthful data.

On the other hand, rumours of outrageous amounts of bribes in parliament
today are becoming more and more persistent. Today we discussed with the
head of the SBU, Mr [Ihor] Drizhchanyy, possible directions of
investigations into not only this but many other reports.

I will not announce our intentions, but in this case we are talking about a
professional inquiry into possible financial rewards given to MPs for voting
a certain way or taking a certain position. I mean not only the scandal
surrounding the speaker, but other suspicions as well.

In general, if the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc has some evidence, it should be
send to the SBU and the Prosecutor-General’s Office. Because I am afraid
that politicians may be again slinging mud at each other, and the people
will stop reacting to these serious allegations.

I am afraid that in an effort to sling more mud at the opponent, it will
come down to a point where no-one can be trusted. This is serious, because
then politicians will stop fearing public accountability.

If someone cries Wolf! five times, in the end they will eat the whole herd,
and no-one will react. One must cry only when the wolf has eaten and there
is evidence that it was the wolf, not mice.

QUIT PARTY IN PROTEST
[Leonov] Has your request to quit the Socialist Party been reviewed, or are
you still a member of the party? Moroz is saying that until a decision is
made concerning your request, Lutsenko remains a Socialist.

[Lutsenko] I am not a member of the Socialist Party, because I suspended my
membership in accordance with the law when I became minister. Now I cannot
keep the party ticket of the political force which betrayed its history.

I would prefer not to say any names, because it is difficult…[ellipsis as
published] to judge the actions of the Socialist Party leaders, the people
whom I stood with shoulder-to-shoulder for 15 years, when the threats and
temptations were much bigger, but we went through it all. [Passage omitted:
repetition]

[Leonov] Has it been long since you last spoke with Moroz? Are you aware of
his motivation for the union with Yanukovych and [Communist leader Petro]
Symonenko?

[Lutsenko] A long time ago. This is a very difficult period for me,
obviously, and that is why it is hard. We did not talk about his actions.
You see, the motto of uniting Ukraine is obviously good. But it cannot be
implemented by helping yesterdays take revenge.

Maybe, in order to achieve complete unity, we need to bring back [former
President Leonid] Kuchma and [former presidential administration chief
Viktor] Medvedchuk? But Heorhiy Gongadze [murdered journalist] cannot be
brought back, unfortunately…[ellipsis as published]

When this anti-crisis coalition appeared, I went to Rivne Region for my
brother’s birthday. To be honest, I drank a lot of vodka, because it was
very difficult psychologically. I do not want to compete at presenting
images, the main assessment will be given by voters. Our paths with Moroz
have split, but it does not mean that I will look for nasty labels for these
people.

In my request to quit the party, I listed the reasons, and on the bottom I
added that I remain thankful for the victorious 15-year history of
cooperation with the Socialist Party, all the way to the Orange Revolution.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

11. THE MANY CHOICES OF YUSHCHENKO

COMMENTARY
: by Tammy Lynch, Boston
Ukrayinska Pravda, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, July 24, 2006

Tuesday marks the first day when Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko can
legally dismiss the parliament for failing to produce a government. Such a
move would trigger new parliamentary elections in a country that has already
seen four rounds of elections (three presidential and one parliamentary) in
less than two years.

Since the creation of a majority coalition encompassing the Party of
Regions, the Socialists and the Communists, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc
(BYUT) has been urging President Yushchenko to take just that step.

In contrast, the coalition members, and the majority of Yushchenko’s own Our
Ukraine Bloc, are calling on the president to avoid new elections, with Our
Ukraine either joining the government or forming an opposition.

The elections, they say, would produce disaster for Our Ukraine and the
President, since Our Ukraine’s popularity has decreased in recent months.
But is this absolutely certain? Or might they provide a way out?

What are the arguments? What are the possibilities?
President Viktor Yushchenko reportedly favors the idea that Our Ukraine
will officially join a majority coalition with the Party of Regions in order
to
maintain control of a number of ministries. Current Prime Minister Yuriy
Yekhanurov and Anatoliy Kinakh also support this option.

It is not a simple option, however, which no doubt explains the President’s
hesitance. Yushchenko must be wondering just how much influence his
ministers would have in a Yanukovych government, with a parliament
dominated by the Party of Regions. Will they be ministers in name only?

Even more, will they continue to support the will of the president as the
center of power shifts in the country? Some individuals currently lobbying
Yushchenko for places in the Yanukovych government have not always
been loyal to the president’s ideals and goals.

For example, it is no secret that, during the acrimonious debates over WTO
reform in 2005, Anatoliy Kinakh worked against a number of the measures
introduced, suggesting they were harmful for Ukrainian business. On several
measures, his faction voted against the then-government of Yulia Tymoshenko,
as did a number of businessmen in Our Ukraine. What will they do now?
Yushchenko must also think of the response of voters to any partnership with
Yanukovych .

But whether Our Ukraine officially remains in opposition or joins the
coalition, the President must understand that both of these options will
likely lead to the same outcome – Our Ukraine splits, leaving roughly half
of the party in the opposition and half in the coalition. The “political
wing” of the party, or those who would be classified “democrats” in the
closest Western sense, is unlikely to agree to join the coalition.

Meanwhile, the “business wing,” which values close economic ties with both
the Party of Regions and Russia, is unlikely to agree to remain in
opposition. The inevitable result will be a split in the party, if not in
the immediate short-term, than within several months.

Therefore, no matter what choice he makes, Viktor Yushchenko will be faced
with a drastically changed bloc (and party) under a Yanukovych government.

The argument over the likely scenario of a new election reportedly is one of
Yushchenko’s greatest concerns. If polls are to be believed, Our Ukraine’s
support has disintegrated to under 10%, while BYUT’s has remained stable
or slightly increased and the Party of Regions has gained at least 5 points.
These results could mean that the Party of Regions alone would control a
majority of at least 226 deputies in parliament.

However, it should be noted that polls leading up to March’s 2006 election
were, in general, very wrong on specific numbers, although they did express
trends. The last polls before election-day suggested, for example, that Our
Ukraine would win over 20%, that BYUT would win under 15% and that
Yanukovych would win over 35%. One poll from a respected agency (KIIS),
listed BYUT’s support at 11%. The party received almost 23%.

Nevertheless, there is no ignoring the fact that support for the Party of
Regions has increased while support for Our Ukraine has decreased.

But let us play devils advocate for a moment. Is it possible that a new
election – even with decreased support for Our Ukraine – may not produce as
disastrous a result for the “orange” parties as it would seem on the
surface.

Most importantly, the Party of Regions stands today on the verge of
controlling a constitutional majority (301 deputies) in the parliament. Both
the leaders of BYUT and Our Ukraine fear that the official confirmation of a
Yanukovych government will produce massive defections from their ranks.

The leadership of both parties privately suggests that up to 40 deputies
from each faction could join the majority, thanks to various overlapping
interests and incentives. These votes, plus the 186 from Regions, 29 from
the Socialists and 21 from Communists, would put the new coalition well over
the number needed for a constitutional majority. It would, in fact, be able
to over-rule any presidential veto.

If Our Ukraine officially joins the coalition, the numbers would be similar,
also putting the decisions on presidential vetoes in the hands of the
parliament. What would these Our Ukraine deputies do as members of the
Party of Regions coalition, with the power centered in Yanukovych’s hands?
Could they withstand the various “incentives” provided? Are they as loyal
as Yushchenko would like? Will they support the president’s initiatives?
This must be a concern.

A new election is unlikely to provide Yanukovych with 300 deputies,
particularly if the Socialists and Communists do not return, as is possible.
In fact, while Regions likely would increase its plurality, the number of
BYUT deputies may also increase. A constitutional majority may be averted
in this way.

Let us suppose, for example, that Yanukovych gains a majority of 230
deputies (they now have 186), BYUT gains 135 (129 today) and Our Ukraine
gains 70 (down from 81) in a new election. It is likely that the number of
BYUT defectors – those who will most likely vote where the money is
located – will have been drastically reduced on a new list.

It is also likely that Our Ukraine, in a worse case scenario, would remain
split. Yanukovych could create a 270 deputy majority fairly easily. But, he
would not have 300 votes, and a unified, ideological opposition would have
been created. Ukraine would have achieved a real party structure in its
parliament.

The wildcards, of course, are the results of the Communist and Socialist
Parties, as well as the Bloc of Natalia Vitrenko. Our Ukraine could also do
far worse, and BYUT could do far better.

In the best case scenario, BYUT would increase its number of deputies to
150, by winning 30% of the vote, thereby assuring the lack of a
constitutional majority for Yanukovych. This is not probable, but also not
impossible.

It would take a real, organized political campaign, focusing on identifying
and activating voters. It is unknown whether Tymoshenko can produce such
a campaign, but such a result would clearly justify a new election.

Obviously, there are numerous “ifs,” and significant risks to a new
election. The two most difficult to estimate are the effect on an
increasingly tired and apathetic voting public, and the response of the
Party of Regions and its supporters to the announcement of a new election.

Will the Party of Regions understand that they could gain in parliament and
accept the election, or will they question the legality of the choice,
calling for court and street protests? Can a conflict be averted through
discussion before an announcement is made?

A new election, of course, also would increase the influence of Tymoshenko,
possibly at the President’s expense. The President no doubt understands
this well. Yushchenko, then, must decide who he believes is more dangerous
to him – Tymoshenko or Yanukovych. Who is more dangerous to his goals
and ideals? Who is more dangerous to his legacy? To his international
reputation?

Yushchenko also has said that he must consider the unity of the country.
But, while concerns about the risks of a new election are clear and valid,
the claim that a Yanukovych -Our Ukraine government would unite the country
is difficult to understand.

The government in question would be led by representatives from Eastern
Ukraine – many of whom were the subject of past criminal charges and many
of whom worked actively against the orange revolution.

It likely would include the least trusted and least charismatic members of
Our Ukraine (the businessmen), and may have to endure criticism from Our
Ukraine’s most committed democratic reformers.

Even more, it would leave out representatives from the Bloc of Yulia
Tymoshenko, which won 14 out of 27 regions in the country during the
election. These regions include the entire central area and a good portion
of the West. Our Ukraine’s only regional victories came in the country’s
three most Western oblasts.

In essence, geographically speaking, a Party of Regions-Our Ukraine
government would unite the 10 Eastern and Southern regions of the country
(won by the Party of Regions) with the three most Western regions, skipping
everything in central and central-Western Ukraine.

However, even this scenario is questionable, since all indications from the
three Western regions suggest that voters there do not support a Party of
Regions-Our Ukraine coalition. From Lviv, Our Ukraine’s government
ministers could be viewed as nothing more than tools of the Party of
Regions. Therefore, in the end, the only real supporters of this “unifying”
government may be voters in Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

Clearly, there is no choice that provides Yushchenko with victory. The safe
choice would be to unify part of Our Ukraine with Yanukovych and hope that
he is unable to produce a constitutional majority.

Or, if a constitutional majority is formed, to hope that its members from
Our Ukraine remain loyal to the President and committed to the goals of
European integration, free market, competitive economics and Western ideals.

The risky choice is to call elections, either supporting a unified
“democratic forces” list, or coordinating the efforts of BYUT and Our
Ukraine. The results likely won’t provide a majority for the democratic
forces. They also will probably increase the influence of the Party of
Regions in parliament.

But the results may forestall a constitutional majority for Yanukovych ,
decrease the influence of money, more accurately represent the will of
voters, and create an opposition that is unified and that truly can
influence parliament.

The choice, as always, belongs to the President. -30
——————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2006/7/25/5886.htm
——————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13. YUSHCHENKO PREFERS AKHMETOV TO YANUKOVYCH

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Chivokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Our Ukraine has repeatedly refuted information on the negotiations with
Party of Regions (PRU). Most probably, they will do it once again when
signing agreement that will allow Our Ukraine members to work in
Yanukovych’s government.

Political situation in Ukraine is still balancing between dissolution of the
parliament and singing an agreement with anti-crisis coalition.

The option of getting oppositional status for a pro-presidential party has
become unattractive.

Last week President Yushchenko made the right choice having chosen a new
negotiating partner. Now, instead of Viktor Yanukovych, Rynat Akhmetov will
reason with Yushchenko.

Akhmetov was there on Friday, he came to the president on Monday. They say,
he spent almost half a day with the president. Ukrainian billionaire spoiled
family vocation – his beloved ones have been waiting for him in Monte Carlo
for almost two months, but he has to breathe a hot capital smog instead of
enjoying Cote d’-Azur.

Akhmetov’s meetings with the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine show that he is
solving the problem of his private legitimacy in the West as well as his
position in Forbes.

This makes Akhmetov a more flexible negotiating partner than Yanukovych.

Something happens between Our Ukraine Block (NU) and PRU twice a day.
They seclude in the well-conditioned rooms. Since it is forbidden to call
such meetings ‘negotiations’ we can say they ‘share viewpoints’.

The meeting is attended by Petro Poroshenko (claims the First Vice-Minister
in Yanukovych’s government), Roman Zvarych (claims the Minister of Justice)
and Oleksandr Tretyakov (claims the Head of President’s Secretariat).

Acting National Security and Defense Council Secretary Volodymyr Horbulin
actively joined the negotiation process. Horbulin seems to go on working as
an acting NSDC Secretary forever, since his age will not allow him to be
fully and properly appointed.

The only subject of negotiations is participation of Our Ukraine in the
coalition with PRU.

[1] Yushchenko’s most desired option is to change Yanukovych’s nomination
for a more neutral personality. Besides, President’s Secretariat received
letters and appeals from central region communities to bring in the
nomination of Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

But Yanukovych does not accept any variants of retreat. It is the matter of
principle for him and Akhmetov: “We’ve got the first place at the elections,
the premier is ours.”

That’s their logic: “You had to agree when we offered you premier’s office
and half of the government in exchange for Yanukovych’s speakership. But
Our Ukraine chose orange coalition.”

Yanukovych’s stability in this matter seemed to make Yushchenko and Our
Ukraine give up.

[2] There is another condition for Our Ukraine to join the coalition – to
alter Coalition Agreement even with the Communists if they consent to basic
principles. Yushchenko’s only goal is to keep influence in the country.

It is all about spheres of influence for Yushchenko: security services,
coalition regulations and action plan.

According to some sources, Yanukovych even agreed to sign the government
letter to Brussels stating Ukraine’s readiness to join Membership Action
Plan.

Other sources claim Borys Tarasyuk accepts Yanukovych’s nomination if
“the vector of foreign remains unchanged.”

[3] The third condition set by Our Ukraine is the offices.

“What an appetite! We will go on a diet!” said PRU MP about negotiations
with Our Ukraine. There is a new word in political lexicon – ‘compensator’.

Our Ukraine wants to compensate the offices of premier and speaker (taken by
anti-crisis coalition) with three minister’s portfolios (the First
Vice-Premier, Interior Minister and Minister of Justice).

The rest of portfolios will be proportionally divided, as a result of which
Our Ukraine gets another 5-6 minister’s portfolios.

The thing is that some president’s ‘dear friends’ will not be pleased with
the Ministry of Culture or Ministry of Family, Youth and Sport. They want
an economic block which is logically to be controlled by Yanukovych.

Early election is unwanted scenario for all the players: expenses for
Akhmetov, all-national tour for Yanukovych and extremely high risk for
Yushchenko.

President’s analytics admit low ratings of their chief. Probably they hope
for unification of the ‘orange’ electorate and making up a ‘black-and-white
picture’: either Maidan (Yushchenko-Tymoshenko) or Anti-Maidan
(Yanukovych).

Under such conditions they forecast the same result as received at the
presidential elections 2004: 52% against 44% in favor for Yushchenko.

“Our slogan will be: “Save Ukrainian sovereignty!” revealed official from
Yushchenko’s staff. Yanukovych’s dependence from Moscow will become
the anti-thesis.

At the same time PRU has its own of Gallup Poll data: last week their rating
reached 42% which will get them 226 votes in the parliament in case of the
‘orange’ failure.

In such case Yushchenko is helpless – the parliament elected at early
election can not be dissolved for a period of a year.

Early election is not Yushchenko’s bluff, his staff claims. Moreover, his
recent meeting with Yanukovych, who proved to be absolutely uncomplying,
made dissolution of the parliament look even more real.

Recently Yushchenko got expert legal analysis from the Institute for State
and Law which also serves for the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

Lawyers backed Yushchenko’s logic which aroused Moroz’s indignation. The
Law Institute of the Verkhovna Rada came up with a completely different
decision. Obviously no other legal establishment dared to do the job within
such time limits.

Now Moroz is in a very difficult situation when he can’t have any influence
on his own future career. No one negotiates with him.

Moroz will not play on his own since a capitalist will never understand a
socialist. The only thing Moroz can do is to vote for Yanukovych without
Yushchenko’s submission.

Such variant is absolutely unacceptable for Akhmetov who needs to take care
of his foreign business partners and the country’s investment image. It is
easier for him to live through another election. Besides, American
consultants and spin doctors are sure to back him in this matter.

Yushchenko might be interested in early elections to get his speaker in the
parliament. Even if Yanukovych has an overall majority, it is the president
who brings in premier’s nomination for parliament’s approval. And Yushchenko
sets only one condition for that – he nominates HIS Speaker of the Verkhovna
Rada.

Friday afternoon was determined the best time to dissolve the parliament. It
does not matter what Friday, this one or next. The thing is that there will
be a 3-day break in the work of the Verkhovna Rada. Two days off and
miserable vocations are the main demoralizing factors for a Ukrainian MP.
———————————————————————————————-
Translated by Eugene Ivantsov for UP

LINK: http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2006/7/27/5928.htm
—————————————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14. “YURIY KRAVCHENKO – SUICIDE RULED OUT”
Suicide verdict in death of former Ukrainian Interior Minister questioned

“We do not trust our law-enforcement agencies and we are afraid of them. This

situation suited the old administration and, clearly, suits the present one, too.”

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Oleksandra Prymachenko
Zerkalo Nedeli, Kiev, Ukraine, in Russian 29 Jul 06, p 2
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sunday, Jul 30, 2006

Despite official findings to the contrary, former Interior Minister Yuriy
Kravchenko was killed rather than committed suicide, an influential
Ukrainian weekly has said.

Kravchenko, who died of two gunshot wounds, lost consciousness after the
first shot and would not have been able to inflict the second would himself,
former Health Minister Mykola Polishchuk, who is also an expert in firearms
injuries, told the paper in an interview.

The weekly bitterly criticized the Ukrainian police and concluded that the
current administration was interested in covering up the murder. Kravchenko,
who had been accused of involvement in the murder of journalist Heorhiy
Gongadze, was found dead in March 2005.

The following is an excerpt from an article by Oleksandra Prymachenko,
entitled “Yuriy Kravchenko – suicide ruled out”, published in the Zerkalo
Nedeli newspaper on 29 July; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

[Newspaper introduction] “The penetrating gunshot wounds suffered by Yuriy
Fedorovych Kravchenko were caused by his own hand,” wrote a specialist who
carried out the official examination of the body of Ukrainian Interior
Minister Yuriy Kravchenko.

Let us hope that this expert is still alive. Despite the doubts about
suicide which have always existed and have been expressed on a number of
occasions, including in Zerkalo Nedeli.

Despite the fact that Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko voiced his own doubts
on this score a long time ago. And even despite the fact that on the basis
of the very same material evidence a recognized authority in firearms
studies has reached a totally different conclusion. The official expert may
still remember who it was that made his hand tremble as it wrote the lines
quoted at the beginning.

We asked Mykola Polishchuk to help “decipher” for the uninitiated the
official conclusion of the expert who carried out the investigation to
establish the cause of Kravchenko’s death.

The first book to be published in the former USSR about this type of
injury – “Firearms injuries to the head” – was edited by V. Polishchuk [as
published] and V. Storch. Mykola Polishchuk is the author of the part which
refers to peacetime. A second paper written by Polishchuk was called
“Firearms injuries to the central nervous system”.

This, among other things, examines bullet and shrapnel wounds. Furthermore,
Mykola Polishchuk was for over 10 years a consultant at regional, municipal
and then republican forensic examinations into skull and brain injuries and
injuries to the central nervous system, including firearms injuries. This
gentleman is better known to the general public as health minister.

Acquainted with the documents provided by Zerkalo, including the expert’s
official findings, Mykola Polishchuk agreed to answer our questions and to
provide his own conclusion.

KRAVCHENKO PASSED OUT AFTER FIRST SHOT
[Prymachenko] Mr Polishchuk, let’s begin with the findings. You have studied
the results of the external and internal examination of the body, the
results of the laboratory examination and the expert’s conclusions. What is
your conclusion?

[Polishchuk] Going by the nature of the injuries described in the documents,
it is quite clear that this was a violent death and the injuries could not
have been inflicted by the person’s own hand. The possibility that this
could have been suicide has to be ruled out.

There were two firearms wounds on the body (the front surface of the neck
and the right temple). The first was lethal and could have led to death
through loss of blood without immediate medical attention. The first
firearms wound was at close range from a weapon pressed against the body.

The direction of the wound is uncharacteristic of a wound inflicted by the
person himself, because it travels from bottom to top and from inside to
outside. It is extremely difficult to believe that a person would be capable
of injuring himself in this way – it would be too awkward.

As a result of this firearms wound he sustained several fractures of the
lower jaw, seven teeth were broken (traumatic amputation), a fracture of the
upper jaw and nasal cartilages and damage to the tongue. Thus, he had to
lose consciousness as a result of such a trauma.

[Prymachenko] Do you admit there is a hypothetical possibility, albeit one
in a thousand, that with such an injury a person could not lose
consciousness?

[Polishchuk] I don’t think that is possible, however strong-willed he might
be. After such an injury he could only have grown weak and feeble and he
would have to have let a pistol fall from his hands. Nobody could have held
a weapon in his hands after such an injury.

He was sitting not in an armchair, in which he could have propped himself up
on his elbows, but on a high chair. With his height (over 190 cm) and
weight, it is also ruled out that after such a shot he would not have fallen
from the chair.

Unfortunately, the question of whether he could have lost consciousness was
not put to the experts.

The second injury – to the temple – was the fatal one. It was delivered at
close range, but it left no contact imprint. That would have been
characteristic of a suicide, and especially bearing in mind the previous
injury, if he had shot himself he would have had to press the barrel against
his temple.
FIRST SHOT SHORTLY FOLLOWED BY SECOND
[Prymachenko] In the official findings it says that the gap between the
first and the second shot could have been from several seconds to a dozen or
more minutes. What’s your opinion?

[Polishchuk] The period between the first and second injuries was very
short – we are talking about seconds. It could not have been a dozen or more
minutes, or even a few minutes. This is borne out by the lack of blood in
the lungs, the bronchial tubes and the stomach.

If a person had remained alive with such an injury, he would had to have
taken several breaths. That means blood would have passed into the lungs,
the gullet and the stomach.

A person in such a condition would undoubtedly have swallowed mucus with
blood, and perhaps fragments of tooth and bone. The internal examination
shows clearly that this did not happen.

[Prymachenko] The examination officially concludes that, after the first
firearms wound Kravchenko could have made certain movements of his own.
Do you agree with that?

[Polishchuk] Unfortunately, the question was not raised before the forensic
examination as to whether a person could have made not just independent, but
precise deliberate actions after the first injury and within a certain
period of time.

I maintain that after the first injury he would not have recovered
consciousness. I do not agree with the experts’ claims that the first injury
was a moderately severe one, because the number of extracted teeth alone
shows that this was a serious injury.

I maintain that a few seconds after the first injury this person was
incapable of carrying out any deliberate precise actions. That is
impossible.
WHO COVERED UP THE TRUTH?
[Prymachenko] According to Zerkalo’s information, which Mr Polishchuk
declined to comment on, the above information was brought to the attention
of the heads of the law-enforcement bodies immediately following
Kravchenko’s death and after the external examination by the appropriate
agencies. And subsequently we reminded the law-enforcement bodies about
this a number of times.

Which unseen hand concealed this crime at all stages of its investigation by
the law-enforcement agencies? Why did the Orange authorities not make sure
that it was properly investigated?

Why does it lead us to think that there is no proper authority in our
country or that it had something to fear in connection with Kravchenko’s
murder, although we have always been assured that the opposite was the case?

Why have Kravchenko’s family had to bear the cross of his “suicide” as well
as the loss of a loved one? Why have they been forced to think that he left
them of his own volition? They most probably have always believed that his
martyrdom redeemed a lot.

There are more questions now than there were on the day Kravchenko died.
And the “suicide note” – a charge in which only one specific name has been
mentioned – [former Ukrainian President Leonid] Kuchma – has quite a
different ring about it.

It cannot be ruled out for certain that those who gave the order to the
murderers did not make any special effort to conceal the real reason for
Kravchenko’s death. What they did understand was that pinpointed
intervention is required, but our so-called law-enforcement system has its
own way of operating – automatically, by reflex action.

After all, everyone knew who Kravchenko was, and the last thing anyone
needed was a headache in the form of a “cold case”. Nobody needed the truth,
starting with external surveillance which was shadowing Kravchenko and at
best neglected its duties, and ending with the top people at the
Prosecutor-General’s Office.

And it is possible that in this whole disgraceful investigation the
organizers of the murder put the screws only on the expert. And later
everybody closed their eyes and, forgetting about professional honesty,
lied, lied and lied again.

The chronology of this lie is immense, like the list of those who turned
over the pages of this case who could and should have said: this was not
suicide. And yet this was obvious even to a non-professional examining the
dead body.

[Passage omitted: Only Yuriy Lutsenko doubted this was suicide]

We do not know who killed Kravchenko or [murdered journalist Heorhiy]
Gongadze, or what happened to Kyrpa [former transport minister who was
found dead in December 2004] and we have been unable to get answers to
these and many other questions.

We do not trust our law-enforcement agencies and we are afraid of them.
This situation suited the old administration and, clearly, suits the present
one, too.

And it is clear that each serious criminal case in the future will be
investigated exclusively from the point of view of political expedience. The
decision to close the Kravchenko case, which was investigated by the
Prosecutor-General’s Office, has now been revoked by it.

The reason is Yuriy Lutsenko’s statement that he has information that
rejects the suicide version.

Will not these “new circumstances” be the basis for a new investigation in
the shape of a proper experts’ examination? -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15. CARTE BLANCHE FOR VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Chivokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda website in Ukrainian, Kyiv, Ukraine, Mon, Jul 24, 2006

Tonight at 0:01 Yushchenko will get the chance to dissolve the parliament.
Very few politicians will sleep well on this night. In fact, they may sleep
like babies. At the first point, they will look pretty miserable on TV with
livid rings under the eyes.

At the second point, anyway the decision is expected in the morning since at
this time our president is either watching Discovery Channel or dreaming of
something nice but not issuing decrees.

At the third point, Our Ukraine Block (NU) keeps negotiating with Party of
Regions (PRU) on formation of an orange government chaired by.Viktor
Yanukovych.

This Tuesday morning Viktor Yushchenko meets leaders of parliamentary
factions in his Secretariat. This meeting may be always called a
‘consultation’ which according to the Fundamental Law precedes calling early
election.

July 25 is the day half of Ukrainian politicians call the deadline or the
date of parliament dissolution. The logic is quite simple: since
Yekhanurov’s government resigned on May 25 today is the 60th day Ukraine
is living without new Cabinet of Ministers.

Article 90 of the Fundamental Law is a true present for Tymoshenko: “The
President is empowered to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada in case a new Cabinet
of Ministers is not formed after the 60 days from the resignation of the
previous government.”

However, humorist lawyers from Yanukovych’s staff do not consider July 25
Time-X. They believe Yekhanurov’s government did not resign but abdicated to
the newly elected Verkhovna Rada.

Ukraine has no Constitutional Court which can clear up the whole matter. PRU
deputies from the previous Verkhovna Rada and personally Oleksandr Moroz
dragged the procedure of adjuring judges of the Constitutional Court.

Now the parliament rests on juridical hexogen since the amended Fundamental
Law contains numerous holes for Yushchenko to squeeze in.

In particular, the Fundamental Law implies no obligation for the president
to bring in the nomination of the prime minister proposed by the coalition
for parliament’s approval. Moreover, he is granted 15 days to consider the
nomination, i.e. the president may hesitate. Otherwise he would be deprived
of such time-out.

Well, if only Medvedchuk knew what heritage he left for Yushchenko when
writing the Fundamental Law. Now Viktor Volodymyrovych can only sunbathe in
Monte Carlo and try to interpret the Constitution of Ukraine explaining what
exactly he meant by certain provisions and articles.

But now Medvedchuk’s viewpoint is absolutely insignificant. As known,
Medvedchuk is prosperous in business but not too successful in politics.

Now Yushchenko gets carte blanche to blackmail Yanukovych. If the latter
does not accept the president’s terms the former may dissolve the
parliament.

Here goes the scenario: Yushchenko waits till the end of a 15-day term
(August 2nd or 3rd), takes his sit in front of a camera on the background of
a library and the national flag. He records the following speech:

“Dear fellow citizens, dear friends. As a guarantor of the Fundamental Law I
will not risk to bring in the nomination of Viktor Yanukovych (whom I
respect) for parliament’s approval since half of Ukraine just curses at him.
Only Constitutional Court has the jurisdiction to decide if I have the right
not to submit premier’s nomination. That’s why I appeal to the
Constitutional Court and call to form this body of legitimate power in the
country.”

Months will pass till the court is completely formed. The decision of the
Constitutional Court may be expected on the eve of Maidan anniversary. And
that’s the most optimistic forecast!

Obviously, appeal to the Constitutional Court is the way to win the time and
space to reform Our Ukraine, get Yuriy Lutsenko head the party list and face
future parliamentary elections.

Figuratively saying, the court will be a football player who is dragging a
game while Yushchenko chooses an appropriate time for the final whistle to
announce a new game.

While the time works for Yushchenko, Tymoshenko will lose her electorate
since Our Ukraine gets back its voters. That’s why Tymoshenko stands for
immediate dissolution of the parliament even if she has to run for the
parliament under one list with Our Ukraine.

Evidently, Oleksandr Moroz has nothing to lose. Early election is a
political death for him. If Socialist Party runs for the parliament by
itself they will never get into the Verkhovna Rada. If Socialists join PRU
Moroz is sure to play the second fiddle. He can forget about speaker’s
office since Akhmetov has lots of young and ambitious friends who will learn
Ukrainian language.

Moroz has no other choice but to make Yanukovych the prime minister now. He
is ready to vote for his nomination even without Yushchenko’s submission.
Yushchenko in his turn will not recognize Yanukovych a legitimate premier.
But who said there wouldn’t be 150 indefeasible MPs who would try to smash
down the doors of the Cabinet of Ministers building and get Yanukovych in
there?

Another important factor is that Yushchenko has no influence in the
Prosecutor General’s Office. But those guys from Donetsk do have it.

Yushchenko should be alarmed by Moroz’s live performance on the National TV
Channel: “Even if such decree were issued the Verkhovna Rada would never
yield to such legal mayhem,” Moroz started to use Khazbulatov’s lexicon.

So, historical spiral forms a ring now. There were three presidents in
Ukraine in 2004: Kuchma in Koncha Zaspa, Yushchenko who had given an oath
in a half-empty session hall and Yanukovych who had recorded his greeting
broadcast appeal and who had received greetings from Moscow, Minsk and
Tashkent.

Now we might have three premiers: Yekhanurov as an acting PM, Yanukovych who
was elected without Yushchenko’s consent and.Tymoshenko as people’s premier
supported by Kyiv Maidan.

However, this medal has its reverse. Yushchenko makes Party of Regions
consent to his terms. According to sources of Ukrayinska Pravda, Yushchenko
is ready to bring in Yanukovych’s nomination in case Our Ukraine gets at
least six offices:

the First Vice-Prime Minister, Interior Minister, Minister of Justice,
Minister of Industrial policy, Economics Minister, Finance Minister.

“Having heard that, our delegation stood up, shook hands and went away. It
is easier for us to get ready for early election and to bury ‘the orange’
forever!” said PRU representative. Another day of negotiations brought no
results.

However offering his ministers to Yanukovych, Yushchenko has to keep in
mind that any minister may be sacked by a simple voting in the parliament.

Our Ukraine desperately needs to have influence on Yanukovych without
forming a coalition since Yushchenko can blackmail PRU threatening them
with leaving the coalition which will result in its collapse. That’s why PRU
needs a cooperation agreement with Our Ukraine.

.Meanwhile 5 buses with a special police squad Berkut were noticed at
President’s Secretariat. Kyiv police has reassured it is not Yushchenko’s
guards but reserve subunits to prevent fights and disorder near the
Verkhovna Rada. -30-
—————————————————————————————————
Translated by Eugene Ivantsov for UP.
LINK: http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2006/7/25/5890.htm
———————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16. RUSSIANS REFUSE TO RAISE UKRAINIAN FLAGS ON SHIPS
DURING RUSSIAN NAVY DAY CELEBRATIONS IN CRIMEA
Ukrainian TV critical of Russian Navy Day festivities in Crimea

One Plus One TV, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1730 gmt 30 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Sunday, Jul 30, 2006

A private Ukrainian TV channel has broadcast a critical report about Russian
Navy Day celebrations in Crimea. The Russians rejected Kiev’s demands to
raise Ukrainian flags on ships taking part in the festivities, the TV said.

It added that this was the first time that Ukrainian sailors had not been
invited to attend the event. The TV also showed deputy Russian Duma speaker
Sergey Baburin saying that Russian troops should be “the masters” in Crimea.
The following is the text of a report by Ukrainian One Plus One TV on 30
July:

[Presenter] For the first time over the past eight years, the Russian Black
Sea Fleet stationed in Ukraine’s Sevastopol has not invited Ukrainian
sailors to take part in the Navy Day celebrations. The holiday itself was
marred by the crash of a jet taking part in the [Russian] Baltic Fleet
parade. Two pilots were killed. However, some Russian guests did not like
restrictions on flights in Crimea.

[Correspondent] A traditional parade is the only event that remained
unchanged on Russian Navy Day. However, this was the first time it was
celebrated without Ukrainian sailors. They were not invited. The Russians
also rejected a demand to raise Ukrainian flags on their ships.

[Serhiy Kunitsyn, head of the Sevastopol city administration, in Russian]
The Bora ship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet hoisted the Ukrainian flag. I
think this is normal. One should not see politics here and be indignant
about this. This shows respectful relations between the two countries.

[Correspondent] However, Russian Black Sea Fleet commanders agreed to the
Ukrainian authorities’ demand to cancel missile launches during a water
sports show. The aviation participation was limited for safety purposes as
well.

[Vladimir Masorin, Russian navy commander] Missiles and bombs were once
launched from this bay, but we do not do this any more. And probably this is
right. Because there are so many people here and the holiday should first of
all be safe and nice.

[Correspondent] Visiting politicians were more outspoken. They do not lose
hopes to be masters in some of Ukraine’s territory.

[Sergey Baburin, deputy speaker of the Russian Duma] I am upset with
restrictions that are taking an increasing toll on the parade. The ban on
missile launches, the limited use of aviation during the parade as well as
other demands by Ukraine certainly make me upset. My wish is modest: the
Russian troops should be the masters here.

[Correspondent] The same day, the head of the Sevastopol city administration
dismissed rumours that it was the last time that the Russian navy celebrates
its day in Sevastopol. The Russians will celebrate it until their term of
deployment in Crimea expires.

[Video shows people watching ships and a submarine on the parade, sailors
shooting an old canon placed onboard, amphibious personnel carriers leaving
the ships, parachuting tricks in the sky, sailors aligning on a ship’s
deck.] -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. MILITARY SERVICE FOR GRADUATES OF HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS IN UKRAINE NOT REQUIRED AFTER 2010

UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1439 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Jul 28, 2006

KIEV – Graduates of higher education institutions in Ukraine will not have
to do their military service after 2010, Ukrainian Defence Minister Anatoliy
Hrytsenko has told a meeting with rectors of institutions of higher
education.

The meeting took place at the Ministry of Defence. The Ukrainian Minister of
Science and Education, Stanislav Nikolayenko, also took part in the meeting.

[Currently a number of state-owned civil institutions of higher education in
Ukraine provide military training to their male students, after which the
graduates obtain the rank of junior officers in reserve and do not have to
join the army. Those who do not undergo military training during their
course are obliged to join the army after graduation.]

The press service of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry has said that the state
programme for development of armed forces in Ukraine for 2006-2011 initially
included a provision for a significant reduction of the number of military
training departments in institutions of higher education, including those
which train officers in reserve. [Passage omitted: students in Ukraine were
very upset about this provision of the programme.]

The Ministry of Science and Education reached an agreement with the Ministry
of Defence about the gradual reduction of military training departments at
civil institutions of higher education. Another decision was taken by the
government to start this reduction in 2008, while earlier it was planned for
2006.

[Passage omitted: Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted a decree to reduce
the number of military training departments at civil institutions of higher
education on 25 July 2006.] -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18. POLISH PRESIDENT APPOINTS POLISH-UKRAINIAN COMMITTEE
Sister committee to be appointed on the Ukrainian side

Source: PAP news agency, Warsaw, in Polish 2120 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, July 28, 2006

WARSAW – President Lech Kaczynski on Friday [28 July] appointed a
Polish-Ukrainian Presidential Committee. A sister committee is also to be
created on the Ukrainian side. “Such a committee has sense, because it can
counteract ‘storms’,” feels member of the main council of the Union of
Ukrainians in Poland [ZUwP], Miron Sycz.

As has been stated on the presidential website, the appointment of the new
body is “an expression of the weight that Lech Kaczynski attaches to the
development of Polish-Ukrainian political and economic relations”.

The head of L. Kaczynski’s staff, Elzbieta Jakubiak, has become the
committee’s chairwoman, while a deputy head of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Pawel Kowal, has become its deputy head.

The composition of the newly-appointed body also includes: two deputy
ministers of internal affairs and administration, Wladyslaw Stasiak and Pawel
Soloch, an undersecretary of state at the Presidential Chancellery, Andrzej
Krawczyk, and the deputy ambassador of the Republic of Poland in
Washington, Boguslaw Winid.

As the presidential press services have written, in accordance with an
agreement at the Polish and Ukrainian presidential level a sister
Presidential Committee is also to be appointed on the Ukrainian side. Its
composition is also to include experts on Polish-Ukrainian relations and
ministry representatives.

In the view of member of the main council of the Union of Ukrainians in
Poland [ZUwP] Miron Sycz, Poland and Ukraine are mutually “strategic
countries”. “Let us put it bluntly: a ‘storm’ in one country or the other
means a serious destabilization in the whole of Europe. Such a committee has
sense, because it can counteract such ‘storms’,” Sycz stressed in an
interview for PAP.

In his view, although the appointed committee will serve both Poland and
Ukraine in equal degree, at the moment it is nonetheless “needed more by
Ukraine”. -30-

———————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19. COUNCIL OF EUROPE OFFICIAL URGES MOLDOVA TO
IMPROVE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
He described the situation in Ukraine as not the most favourable

Infotag news agency, Chisinau, in Russian 0935 gmt 28 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Jul 28, 2006

CHISINAU – It is very important for Moldova to improve its relations with
the Russian Federation, without which it is impossible to solve many serious
problems in this region of Europe, the chairman of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Rene van der Linden, told a
news conference in Chisinau on Thursday [27 July] evening.

Rene van der Linden said that Moldova and Europe should work with Russia,
which is also part of Europe and a member of the Council of Europe and it
should meet its commitments.

“The reform process is taking place in Moldova much easier than in Russia
because of historic, political and geographical reasons. However, building
good relations with Russia is in Moldova’s and Europe’s interests,” the PACE
chairman said.

He described the situation in Ukraine as not the most favourable, but
mentioned Moldova’s good relations with this neighbour.

Rene van der Linden also said that the PACE has asked the parliamentary
committee for appointments and immunity to prepare a report on the case of
former Moldovan Defence Minister Valeriu Pasat who is now in prison. Valeriu
Pasat has been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for selling MiG-29
fighters to the USA in 1997. -30-

———————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20. UKRAINE: RELATIONS WITH THE WEST ON ‘PAUSE’

INTERVIEW: With Prof. Robert Legvold
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)

Prague, Czech Republic, Friday, July 28, 2006

PRAGUE – For four months, Ukraine has been in the grips of a political
deadlock. Robert Legvold, a professor of political science at New York’s
Columbia University, says that recent constitutional changes granting new
powers to the Verkhovna Rada have created a situation where lawmakers are
fighting over power, not policy.

RFE/RL: It’s been four months since parliamentary elections in Ukraine. How
would you describe the political climate there, given the protracted
struggle to form a government?

Robert Legvold: I think Ukraine has now moved into a very difficult period,
because in many ways the underlying trends that had been there for some
time — notwithstanding the November-December Orange Revolution in 2004 —
have now really settled in and created a kind of paralysis or political
stasis within the system that I think is likely to be there for some time. I
don’t see an easy way out.

RFE/RL: To what degree are the current difficulties a result of the new
constitutional shift in power away from the presidency toward the
parliament?

“This struggle to get a government already proves the difficulty that any
government that would be formed will have in actually conducting a national
political and economic agenda.”

Legvold: The new arrangements, by weakening the presidency and empowering
both the Rada and the prime minister’s slot, virtually guaranteed that with
an election as close as the March election, that there would be this
incredible struggle among the different political groups, particularly since
the results of the elections were not decisive and it created the grounds
for the struggle.

RFE/RL: Why have the various political factions been unable until now to
form a government? Is this a clash of personalities, or a battle over more
substantive policy issues?

Legvold: That struggle was more intense because the stakes in the political
contest are essentially only over power and influence within institutions
and they’re not fundamental conflicts over policy. And in any political
system that’s well-functioning, normally you want political differences and
political contests to be about political alternatives, policy alternatives,
and that’s not what’s happening in Ukraine.

RFE/RL: Ahead of the elections, many were anticipating the possibility of a
partnership between Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine and Yanukovych’s Party of
Regions. It seemed like a compromise that Yushchenko could accept — but
only as long as Yanukovych was not made prime minister. Four months later,
does Yushchenko still have the political clout he needs to say no to
Yanukovych?

Legvold: I think his ability to say no and stick by it is very considerably
weakened. It doesn’t mean he won’t attempt to do it. When I first thought
about what might happen coming out of the election, one of the possibilities
did seem to me to be an alliance between the Yushchenko group and the Party
of Regions.

But we got to it in a very cluttered fashion, not the least because of this
imponderable that emerged at a critical stage — that is, the Socialists’
and [party head Oleksandr] Moroz’s decision to defect from the other
coalition. And that’s what caused all of this to unravel, and pushed
Yushchenko into what was certainly something he didn’t want, which was

to take seriously a cooperation with the Party of Regions.

RFE/RL: So what now? Will Ukraine get a working government?

Legvold: I think the future is not terribly promising in terms of clear and
progressive, coherently pursued policy. This struggle to get a government
already proves the difficulty that any government that would be formed will
have in actually conducting a national political and economic agenda.

We have seen now for some years inefficiency in policymaking because of the
makeup of the Rada and the changing nature of the government even before
Yushchenko came to power in 2004. So I think that situation that we’ve
associated with Ukraine is likely to remain or even get worse in the near
term. But it need not produce a crisis.

RFE/RL: Will a new parliament dominated by the Party of Regions mean a
complete shift toward Russia, and away from the pro-Western policy that
Yushchenko has made the keystone of his presidency?

An anti-NATO, pro-Russia demonstration in Crimea last month (RFE/RL)Legvold:
I don’t think that Ukraine is going to engage in political donnybrook at the
top level over the question of, say, Ukraine’s entry into NATO, or
alternatively on the other side, enormous cleavages over the question of the
relationship to be built with the Russians, or even over domestic policy.

That, however, doesn’t add up to an efficient agenda — that adds up to an
agenda that I would describe as lowest common denominator.

RFE/RL: After the Orange Revolution, support for Yushchenko and Ukraine

wasvery high in the West. How much has this protracted crisis hurt Ukraine in
terms of Western goodwill?

Legvold: It has not lost international goodwill, but it leaves Brussels and
Washington in a quandary, because it appears that any straightforward
progress on Ukraine’s part that would qualify them for either the EU or the
next steps on NATO are under a cloud at the moment.

I think what it does is put a kind of pause in Ukraine’s relationship with
the West, raising question marks about Ukraine. But I don’t think it changes
their basic attitude, hopes for Ukraine — including hopes that it can make
movement toward integration with the West.

RFE/RL: What about Russia? Moscow is sure to welcome a Yanukovych-led
parliament. Does this mean a situation where Russia eases its pressure on
Ukraine?

Legvold: With the Russians, it may have actually eased the situation,
because I think the Russians have stopped worrying about the so-called
colored revolution. I think it’ll therefore ease the question of Ukraine as
an issue in Russia’s relations with the West.

And I think given this makeup — this stalemate in politics — it also means
that the lowest common denominator on the question of Russia and Ukraine
is going to favor a civil relationship with Russia, but not one where the
Ukrainians roll over, because even Yanukovych and his people are not
about to concede everything to Gazprom on a gas deal. -30-
———————————————————————————————-
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/07/fb14de87-5d75-4e4c-8d48-46ba42242e6a.html
—————————————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR

========================================================
21. MUSEUM OF COMMUNISM IN PRAGUE

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #741, Article 21
Washington, D.C., Monday, July 31, 2006

PRAGUE – The Museum of Communism is the first museum in Prague
(since the Velvet Revolution) exclusively devoted to a system established
in the sphere of the former Soviet Union. The Museum of Communism
will allow for the display and interpretation of objects and historic
documents.

It stands as an authoritative historical narrative relating to this 20th
century phenomenon and is in no way intended by the organisers as a
filter for contemporary political issues in the Czech Republic.

The original items and meticulous installations containing authentic
artefacts will be displayed in the three main rooms, while the adjacent
projection room will provide a space for regular film screenings,
educational activities, occasional lectures and temporary displays
pertaining to the subject of the permanent exhibition.

Highlights from the displays include rare items from the Museum’s own
comprehensive archive as well as material obtained by the organisers
from major collections, both public and private.

To read a series of news articles about the museum click on:
http://www.muzeumkomunismu.cz/eng_articles.html

Museum of Communism, Legacy s.r.o., Na prikope 10
110 00 Prague 1, The Czech Republictel.: +420 224 21 29 66
email: muzeum@muzeumkomunismu.cz
LINK: http://www.muzeumkomunismu.cz/
————————————————————————————————
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22. JACQUES HNIZDOVSKY AT UKRAINIAN MUSEUM NYC
Acclaimed Ukrainian painter and printmaker (1915-1985)

ArtDaily.com, USA, Sunday, July 23, 2006

NEW YORK CITY.- The Ukrainian Museum presents the exhibit ‘Jacques
Hnizdovsky…In Color and in Black & White’ through September 27. The
works of critically acclaimed painter and printmaker Jacques Hnizdovsky
(1915-1985) will be on view at The Ukrainian Museum in New York City
from June 11 to August 27, 2006.

Titled ‘Jacques Hnizdovsky…In Color and in Black & White,’ the exhibition
showcases a body of work by the artist spanning a nearly fifty-year career
that had its origins in Ukraine and culminated in the United States.

The canvases and prints in the exhibition range from the early works
produced prior to Hnizdovsky’s arrival in the U.S., such as Displaced
Persons (oil, 1948), to multiple examples of the superb woodcuts – the
genre in which he was the most prolific. Included among the latter are the
cherished rams, sheep, and depictions of still-life objects that often show
traces of Hnizdovsky’s subtle sense of humor.

This show provides a rare glimpse into Hnizdovsky’s mid-career, with a
sampling of infrequently and never-before-exhibited works. The pieces are
emblematic of a period that was most trying for the artist, both financially
and spiritually, but that was also among his most creative ones.

In Crucifixion (oil, 1955), traces of vivid red contrasting with the dark
backdrop convey a sense of anguish and foreboding. Bondage (oil, 1961)
echoes the somber mood, while the shadow in Darkness (oil, 1961) is
juxtaposed against a ray of light, perhaps the portent of a brighter future.

The colors and style in these early canvases reflect the influence of
artists such as Albrecht Durer, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and El Greco and
hint at the artist’s roots in his native Borshchiv region of Ukraine, where
traditional embroidery is characterized by deep, rich reds and burgundies
framed in a lush, velvety black

Supplementing the collection of paintings and prints is a charming display
of original Hnizdovsky ex libris designs, terra-cotta works, and books
illustrated by the artist that include, among others, the poetry of John
Keats and Stanley Kunitz.

A slideshow of photographs provided by the artist’s family traces his life
from boyhood in Ukraine, to displacement in Western Europe, and ultimate
settlement in the United States.

Jacques Hnizdovsky…In Color and in Black & White celebrates the life and
work of this remarkable artist who found fame in the United States but
remained deeply attached to the land of his birth. It also marks his recent
symbolic “homecoming,” which not coincidentally took place on the 90th
anniversary of the artist’s birth and 20th anniversary of his death.

In 2005, Hnizdovsky’s remains were transferred to a cemetery in Lviv,
Ukraine, where many prominent figures in Ukrainian cultural and political
history have been laid to rest. The significance of this event was captured
in the words of the [previous] U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, John E. Herbst:

“Jacques Hnizdovsky returns to his homeland leaving behind him in the United
States a rich cultural legacy… . Now citizens of his beloved Ukraine will
have an opportunity to appreciate his direct and sometimes amusing images,
which often draw upon the life of his native land.

Hnizdovsky follows in the tradition of so many immigrants to America who
have fused the artistic traditions of their homelands with the energy of the
New World to weave a tapestry that enriches all our lives and brings our
countries together.”

A number of recent shows in New York City drew attention to the evolvement
of mature artists’ work through numerous stages in their careers. This
exhibition takes a similar perspective by surveying Hnizdovsky’s evolution
into an artist in his prime. -30-
——————————————————————————————–
http://www.artdaily.com/section/news/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=16699
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
23. POLEMICS: MYKOLA RIABCHUK REPLY TO MS TARANEC

LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR: By Mykola Riabchuk
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #741, Article 23
Washington, D.C., Monday, July 31, 2006
RE: LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR: By Natalie Taranec, Australia
Subject: Comment regarding M Ryabchuk response
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #728, Article 24
Washington, D.C., Monday, July 10, 206

RE: COLD WAR & BLIND ANTI-AMERICANISM
Joseph Stalin would have greatly appreciated your piece on Cold War II
LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR: By Mykola Ryabchuk
Addressed to Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar, Norway
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #724, Article 20
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, July 5, 2006

Dear Ms Taranec,

I should have probably to answer you earlier but, alas, I haven’t had
access to AURs for a few weeks, while being on holidays. You are
right, my letter in the AUR #724 looks rather odd (even for me). I
feel, there are two reasons for this.
First, my emotional letter to Dr Bakhtiar was not intended for
publication – I just cc-ed it to Mr Williams for his records (it was
certainly my fault because I did not indicate that the letter was not
for publication);
and second, there were two very important attachments to my letter
which were not mentioned in the AUR. I attached highly relevant
articles by Timothy Garton Ash and Ann Applebaum – as a substitute
for my own arguments in discussion with Dr Bakhtiar. Hence my
phrase “I have little to add.”
Besides these technicalities yet, I feel no regret for defining Dr
Bakhtiar’s activity with notorious Stalin’s words. If freedom of
speech means a right to write quasi-academic stupidities, it means
also a right to call idiots idiots. Even though, if I wrote it for
publication, I would have certainly used more politically correct term
like “intellectual irresponsibility” or something of the sort.
Earlier this year, Dr Lucan Way quipped that the term “stupidity” is
acceptable in intellectual disputes since it merely designates a wide
gap between the opportunity and its actual realization (“orange”
politics is a good example).
By the same token, I would say that the term “idiotism is acceptable
since it merely designates the gap between the intention and the result.
In these terms, I feel idiotic myself since my spontaneous letter brought
rather unexpected results. Sorry for this.
With best wishes,
Mykola Riabchuk (ryabchuk@iatp.kiev.ua)

PS – In this case I would ask Mr Williams to publicize my humble
response to Ms Taranec in the AUR.
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
24. WORLD FORUM OF UKRAINIANS TO FOCUS ON UNITED NATIONS
RECOGNITION OF 1932-1933 FAMINE IN UKRAINE AS GENOCIDE
AGAINST UKRAINIAN PEOPLE

UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, July 17, 2006

KYIV – The 6th World Forum of Ukrainians among other matters will focus
on UN recognition of the 1932 – 1933 famine in Ukraine as a genocide act
against the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s press service
told Ukrinform.

International condemnation of the crime against Ukrainians must become a
part of restoration of historical justice towards the Ukrainian nation, who
suffered cruel discrimination and repression, political scientists believe.

The 1932 – 1933 famine in Ukraine was a tragedy of humanity of the 20th
century. The great famine in Ukraine, which 75th anniversary will be marked
in 2007 and 2008, was killing 17 people every minute.

Considering the issue of recognition of the famine as a genocide against the
Ukrainians was blocked at a session of CIS Council of Foreign Ministers in
April. Moldova, Azerbaijan and Georgia voted for including the matter into
agenda, while Armenia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan abstained and Russia,
Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan voted against.

The 6th World Forum of Ukrainians, which is to become one of main events
timed to the 15th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence, will be underway in
Kyiv between August 18 and 20. It will be attended by 500 delegates and
1,230 guests, including almost 40 researchers of the famine from 14
countries, particularly, from the USA, Canada, Switzerland, France, Japan,
Austria, Hungary, Italy, Georgia, Poland and Lithuania. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
25. UKRAINE 3000 CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LAUNCHES WEBSITE

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #741, Article 25
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, July 31, 2006

KYIV – The Ukraine 3000 International Charitable Foundation has launched

a renewed official website: http://www.ukraine3000.org.ua/eng.html .

Information on the website is available in Ukrainian, Russian and English. .

The website contains information about the Foundation and its programs,
projects and activities, as well as articles, documents, concept papers,
news and photo archives.

The purpose of the website is to inform the public about the activities of
the Ukraine 3000 International Charitable Foundation.

The Ukraine 3000 International Charitable Foundation
Statement by Kateryna Yushchenko

The Ukraine 3000 International Foundation is a non-governmental charitable
organization founded in 2001.

Creating this Foundation, we sought to make it as useful for Ukraine as
possible. We tried to figure out our society’s most urgent needs in the
vortex of modern life. Our conclusion was that people indispensably need

to believe in certain prospects for the country, for their families, and for
themselves, no matter how they picture these prospects.

One needs to be certain that the period of instability and problems will
come to an end, if one believes in the future with all one’s heart and puts
much effort into building it up.

This is precisely our goal: help Ukraine to build up her own future, become
herself, and fulfill her global mission. The Foundation’s mission has been
formulated based on this goal: promote the search for the best trajectory of
development for the Ukrainian society and explain it to the Ukrainians.

Personal participation by everyone, joint actions, work for the common good
are the principles laying the basis for the Foundation’s activity. Our major
aspiration is to disseminate these ideas, make them dominate in the society,
and unite as many adherents of these ideas as possible.

Every representative of the Ukrainian people has to understand that s/he is
in the highlight, s/he is the main character, and much depends on her/his
contribution.

Our views are shared by tens of thousands of people and hundreds of
organizations. They have succeeded themselves and are prepared to help

their country.

We are deeply grateful to all working with us and supporting us. Our joint
action is very important, because due to it Ukraine is getting better every
day.

We invite everyone sharing our goals and principles to support our
Foundation. Together we can do more!

God bless Ukraine!

Kateryna Yushchenko, Head of the Supervisory Board
———————————————————————————————–
Contact: Maryna Antonova, presa@kateryna.org.ua.
———————————————————————————————–
[ return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR.
You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
If you are missing some issues of the AUR please let us know.
========================================================
“ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only

Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
“SigmaBleyzer – Where Opportunities Emerge”

The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.

All publications are grouped by categories: Marketing; Economic Country
Reports; Presentations; Ukrainian Equity Guide; Monthly Macroeconomic
Situation Reports (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
LINK: http://www.sigmableyzer.com/index.php?action=publications

You can be on an e-mail distribution list to receive automatically, on a
monthly basis, any or all of the Macroeconomic Situation Reports (Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine) by sending an e-mail to mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com.
“UKRAINE – A COUNTRY OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES”
========================================================

ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS

Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
“Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”

1. THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura,
Chairman; Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Washington, D.C., http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
Additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine Program
will again be listed later this week in the AUR.
========================================================
TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,

and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.

If you do not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please
contact us immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net . If you are
receiving more than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected.

SPAM BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM

If you do not receive a copy of the AUR it is probably because of a
SPAM BLOCKER maintained by your server or by yourself on your
computer. Spam blockers are set in very arbitrary and impersonal ways
and block out e-mails because of words found in many news stories.
Spam blockers also sometimes reject the AUR for other arbitrary reasons
we have not been able to identify. If you do not receive some of the AUR
numbers please let us know and we will send you the missing issues. Please
make sure the spam blocker used by your server and also the one on your
personal computer, if you use a spam blocker, is set properly to receive
the Action Ukraine Report (AUR).

========================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer
Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
Mobile in Kyiv: 8 050 689 2874
mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com; www.SigmaBleyzer.com
========================================================
Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
========================================================
return to index [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================


Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s