Daily Archives: August 7, 2006

AUR#747 Aug 7 Pres Calls On Parliament To Unite Nation; New Cabinet Of Ministers; 14 Constitutional Judges Take Office; Winners & Losers; Oranges & Apples?

                  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       

                         READ WHAT THE
   The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) is your best source for worldwide news:
              TV Kanel 5 in Kyiv, Ukrainian News Online, Reuters, UNIAN,
        Interfax-Ukraine, Agence France-Presse, Deutsche Presse-Agentur,
          Den, Economist, Political Insights Newsletter, Los Angeles Times,
              RIA Novosti, Renaissance Capital, Guardian, Financial Times,
    Radio Polonia, Focus News Agency-Sofia, Independent, Spiegel Online
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
                Help Build the Worldwide Action Ukraine Network
 Send the AUR to your colleagues and friends, urge them to sign up
               –——-  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
          “In accordance with the nomination by a coalition, I am submitting the
     candidacy of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych for approval as prime minister.”
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006
BBC Monitoring  Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1545 gmt 4 Aug 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006


Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday. August 5, 2006
FACT BOX: Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006

Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006

                               OF CONSTITUTION CHANGES
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1401 gmt 4 Aug 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006


BBC Monitoring research in English 20 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006

          TOTAL INCOME OF UAH 38,000 (US$7,600) FOR YEAR 2005
Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006


Agence France-Presse (AFP), Moscow, Russia, Saturday, August 5, 2006


Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, August 5, 2006


Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, August 5, 2006
Stefan Korshak, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Kiev, Ukraine, Fri, Aug 4, 2006
ANALYSIS: Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Washington, D.C., Sunday, August 6, 2006

ANALYSIS: Oxford Analytica, United Kingdom, Friday, August 4, 2006

17.                                 DOOMED CEASE-FIRE
Opinions of two experts. One believes compromise will not unite the nation.
Other says political warfare is now over, but the cease-fire will not last long.
By Luka Hrynenko

Den, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian 4 Aug 06, p 1, 4
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Aug 05, 2006

      A compromise proposal portends an end to Ukraine’s political deadlock
            Resolving a crisis, Ukraine’s leader offers a job to his arch-rival.
Economist print edition, London, UK, Saturday, August 5, 2006

19.                    MIX ORANGE AND BLUE YOU GET BLACK
OP-ED: By Yaroslav Rozcharovanyj
Political Insights Newsletter, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sat, August 5, 2006


                                       UKRAINE GOVERNMENT
By David Holley and Victoria Butenko, Special to The Times
The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, Saturday, August 5, 2006
21.                           UKRAINE: EASTERN REVENGE
                  In effect, two men have decided the destiny of Ukraine.
Tatyana Stanovaya, Head
Analytical Department at the Center for Political Technologies.
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Thursday, August 3, 2006
Agence France-Presse (AFP), Kiev, Ukraine
Channel News Asia, Singapore, Sunday, 06 August 2006
23.                     UKRAINE: A GOVERNMENT AT LAST
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: by Katya Malofeeva
Renaissance Capital, Moscow, Russia, Thursday, 3 August 2006
24.                       TIME OF GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT
     Ukrainian politicians are motivated not by pro-Russian, or pro-Western
                   attitudes, but by their own interests and nothing else.
                       Strictly speaking, business interests come first.
: By Vitaly Portnikov, Radio Liberty
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Friday, August 4, 2006
25.                      AT LAST, SOME HOPE FOR UKRAINE
            The new government is well-placed to hold the country together.
                                It should steer well clear of NATO.
By Charles Grant, Director
Centre for European Reform, an independent think-tank
Guardian Unlimited, London, United Kingdom, Friday, August 4, 2006
26.                         UKRAINE: OLD ENEMIES TEAM UP
            Ukrainians prefer the two Viktors to focus on the tax reforms
              and economic growth programmes in their joint declaration.
Financial Times
London, United Kingdom, Friday, August 4 2006
27.                                 UKRAINE TORN IN HALF
   To end the political crisis in Ukraine, President Viktor Yushchenko has
  nominated his arch foe Viktor Yanukovych Prime Minister. But analysts
                       say the country remains as divided as ever.
Radio Polonia, Poland’s Public Radio, Warsaw, Poland, Fri, Aug 4, 2006
                               Ukrainian Journalist Rostislav Martinyuk
Blagovest Benishev, FOCUS News Agency
Sofia, Bulgaria, Saturday, 5 August 2006
 Spirit of Ukraine’s “orange” revolution appeared to be extinguished yesterday
By Andrew Osborn in Moscow, Independent
London, United Kingdom, Saturday, 05 August 2006
         “Irony of history or mere cynicism?” asks leftist Die Tageszeitung on
              Friday. “The politically dead Russophile Yanukovych has been
              resurrected and has — paradoxically — more power than before.”
By Heike Westendorf
Spiegel Online, Hamburg, German, Friday, August 4, 2006
          “In accordance with the nomination by a coalition, I am submitting the
    candidacy of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych for approval as prime minister.”

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006
BBC Monitoring  Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006

KIEV – Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has called on parliament to
unite the nation, continue Ukraine’s current domestic and foreign policy,
and solve existing problems rather than generate new ones.

Speaking before the formal nomination of pro-Russian coalition leader Viktor
Yanukovych as prime minister, Yushchenko said an early election was not an
option because it would produce the same results but would drag Ukraine into
an economic crisis.

The following is an excerpt from Yushchenko’s speech in parliament, which
was broadcast live by Ukrainian television TV 5 Kanal on 4 August;
subheadings have been inserted editorially:

Esteemed Ukrainian parliament, esteemed people’s deputies. Before doing the
procedural things I would like to make a short speech. It will be devoted to
the current situation. [Passage omitted: Ukraine was split by election
campaign managers]

I am convinced that parliament in every country is elected to remove
contradictions, consolidate the nation, form the basics and principles of
the national policy, both internal and foreign. In one word, it should care
about the integrity, sovereignty and unity.

[Passage omitted: parliament should solve problems rather than produce them,
no Orange revolution protests can be repeated now, recalls Orange coalition
and its demise]
We were fighting as lions for one thing – whether we will build a Ukrainian
Ukraine, whether we will continue the state course that is clearly
envisaged, and it is clear to those who read the constitution and laws what
the concept of integration and security policy are.

As law-abiding citizens of Ukraine, we should respect these postulates,
because, excuse me for a sharp statement, it was not Donetsk Shakhtar
[football club] that raised the topic of federalization. Society is not
discussing it.

Excuse me, I don’t want to insult anyone, but this is pathological. Nobody
is discussing the Ukrainian language among those who know well the Ukrainian
constitution and national legislation.

We followed European standards. We gave more to any language than the
constitutions and laws of neighbouring countries. We don’t have either the
main ethnic group or ethnic minorities oppressed. This is the truth.

When we talked about collective security or integration, again the laws and
the constitution give a clear answer as to the wording and protection of
Ukrainian interests.

My task at the round-table talks was [changes tack] – I understood that
there are different views, most probably artificial, which were used as
tools of political struggle in the heat of election campaigns. They should
be removed today. So, the idea of round-table talks emerged.

Its goal was to formulate the basic principles which remove contradictions.
I think we have achieved this. And all the parties have made steps towards
each other. I am sure that after the document was signed not a single party
has been betrayed. But we showed to this nation for the first time that a
politician can be half a length ahead, that he can show the way.

I am thankful to all those who signed this document. I am also thankful to
those who did not sign it. Anyway, it was an attempt to see us together, as
a whole. I think it is the main mission of this hall.

So, within the framework of round-table talks we received a confirmation

of the basic principles of the policy that correspond to the Ukrainian
constitution and national legislation.

We had a stage of election, the stage of forming factions [presumably a
coalition], the stage of nominating a candidate, the stage of reaching an
agreement on the basic principles of the nation’s political course.

This was the ground for me to submit the candidacy of Viktor Fedorovych
Yanukovych, which was suggested by parliament.

I would like to emphasize that the constitution does not give the president
the right to personally change the nominee [for prime minister by
parliament]. But I am confident that the constitution gives me the right to
demand that the agreed political course remains unchanged.

This is what I actually devoted myself to in the last three months. I
believe we have completed this path openly and honestly.
                     EARLY ELECTION NOT AN OPTION
And the last thing I would like to say before the formal nomination. The
last thing I want to discuss is another scenario, because one should work
hard and find legal grounds for that. But to keep our discussion clear I
would like to go back to it.

Let us imagine that we hold an early election. The first question to myself
and to all of you – will we get political results different from what we had
on 26 March. Five heads of parties or blocs will still be sitting in front
of me, but 90 days later.

I stress that if there were legal grounds for this decision this could have
been done. But if there are no legal grounds then things we had done outside
the boundaries of the law would have been easily interpreted as a revision
of political results of the 26 March election.

This is not democracy any more. This is a way to influence the results of an
election using the instruments of power. This is simply illegal. I would
like to emphasize one more thing. It would mean a country that does not have
a budget a few weeks before the New Year.

This means someone would not receive their salaries or pensions and this
means stopped social programmes. This is time wasted in terms of relations
with investors. Nobody is coming to Ukraine is such times, they only quit

These are the issues connected with the basic principles of the budget and
fiscal policies. This is time we would lose irreversibly.

This is the nation’s energy security, which enters winter with political
debates rather than accumulated resources. So, we can have a lot of
arguments showing that we would have a good crisis by the end of the year.

We have an anticrisis coalition now but have no crisis now, fortunately. By
the end of the year we would have it vice versa. [Passage omitted:
Yushchenko is responsible for the country]

We should live only according to the law rather than emotions.

And the last thing. I am calling on the entire Ukrainian parliament to
produce decisions. I understand they are difficult. They are not easy for
many of you. but I am asking you not to hide in the trenches and appeal to
the streets where your mandate is enough. This is your decision.

Please, I know we live in the time when no-one can drag you into any
coalition by force. It is your heart that should speak, regardless of
whether we are talking about consolidating national interests, Ukraine’s
destiny or anything else. So, choose.

Who wants to be in a coalition be there. Those who want a cooperation
agreement can have it. Those who like the idea of opposition can live that
way. But I am asking that parliament should be decisive.

Position two. I would like to ask everyone in this hall and those who are
not here to stop the policy of political wars. Replace the policy of
political war with the policy of competition.

This is how it is done in every country. Let us recognize that the political
session hall is what it is today and there will be no other.

If we don’t realize this I am sure the entire nation will be in opposition
to such political forces. So, I am calling on the Ukrainian parliament to
reach understanding and realize its great consolidating mission, which you
are bearing on your shoulders.
And now to formal issues.

In accordance with the nomination by a coalition, I am submitting the
candidacy of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych for approval as prime minister.

I am convinced that today both the left and right parts of the session hall
understand well that we live in extremely interesting and unique times, when
Ukraine’s prospects are being defined.

I would like very much, Viktor Fedorovych, that the political forces that
share your views, the basic principles and foundations of the policy which
we debated in the last two weeks, that this policy will be successful for
every citizen and our Ukraine. I would like to ask once more that we are
facing challenges to consolidate the nation.

This is the task for every people’s deputy. We should not only talk about
mundane matters, we should have a united nation.

If we want to win in competition, including international, we should not
have a discussion on political geography, Ukrainian history, language,
government system and so on and so forth. I am asking to perceive this as my
instruction on carrying out the national policy.

[Passage omitted: Yushchenko says he chose to leave the current defence and
foreign ministers, congratulates new Constitutional Court judges.]

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

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1545 gmt 4 Aug 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006

KIEV- Ukrainian Prime Minister-designate Viktor Yanukovych has pledged to
form an efficient and professional cabinet.

Addressing parliament today minutes after President Viktor Yushchenko
proposed him for prime minister, Yanukovych expressed the hope that a grand
coalition with the president’s Our Ukraine faction would come into being in
parliament. He promised to take no revenge but to work for the benefit of
the country.

The following is an excerpt from Yanukovych’s speech by the Ukrainian
television TV 5 Kanal on 4 August; subheadings have been inserted

[Parliament speaker Oleksandr Moroz] I am giving the floor to Prime
Minister-designate Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych [applause].

[Yanukovych] Esteemed Mr President, MPs, representatives of the press and
fellow countrymen. This is a very exciting moment in my life, but I am
certain that this moment is exciting not only for me personally but also for
the whole country. [Passage omitted: Yanukovych expands on the difficult
road towards the country’s unification.]

What are we going to do? Are we going to look for what disunites us, or is
it better for us to look for what unites us? The path that we have recently
walked down has convinced us that we will only achieve positive things if we
look for a way towards what unites us.

It is not easy, but if you want to get anywhere you need to start walking.
We have walked down that road. We have found positive things. I am certain
that society, too, has felt that, when the politicians presenting general
public moods sit down at the negotiating table and find a road towards

The Ukrainian president [Viktor Yushchenko] has shown this example and made
the first step. I have said that we indeed were different before holding
that round table discussion.

But when we sat down at the round table and started an open conversation, we
saw that our aspirations and our patience [changes tack] But all of us have
the same single desire to live in peace in our land, to live better and have
a stable life despite the fact that we all are different and that people’s
mentality is different in different Ukrainian regions.

We are united by our joint land, by a beautiful Ukraine, because our
ancestors’ graves are in this land. Our parents lived in this land and our
children will continue living here.
This session chamber today will actually decide on the unification of the
two teams that have been standing on the opposite sides of the Dnieper in
the past year and a half. I am certain that the step will bring big positive
things and unification.

We wanted very much for precisely these two teams to unite. We said this
openly right after the [26 March parliamentary] election. We proposed a
model of a future coalition after 26 March. Now we see that this coalition
has a much broader format.

Is it bad? Is it positive or not? This is positive, this is obviously
positive. We know that there will always be discussions in this chamber. If
there is discussion there will always be a search for decisions and

We know that our goal is not to break anyone over our knees, but to unite
our country and choose the path of development. That is why I would like to
say only one thing.

If this event takes place in this chamber and our coalition becomes broader,
I will work with pleasure and I am certain that all of us will join efforts
to work for the sake of the country and society, and that this will bring
positive things.

What are you and we capable of achieving? You and we are capable of
achieving the mechanism of cooperation between the government and parliament
that was actually missing during all the years of independence.

It is this mechanism that the new constitution is offering us, when the
government, along with parliament and the president, have a single programme
for the country’s development, when the government drafts and takes
well-balanced decision, when parliament passes appropriate laws.

The president has the place of head of state and unites this process.
[Passage omitted: Yanukovych recalls the inefficient power system of the
We have prepared proposals on the format of the government, along with our
partners, along with the factions of [the president’s] Our Ukraine, the
Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the Party of Regions, which will be
submitted [to parliament] today.

I am confident that this government will be viable, efficient, professional,
and responsible. I am ready to take on this responsibility if you support me
[applause]. If you support me, we will work together.

Thank you.                                         -30-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday. August 5, 2006
KYIV – At its Friday meeting the Verkhovna Rada has approved the
composition of the Cabinet of Ministers.

Parliament Speaker Oleksandr Moroz made this announcement during the
meeting. The composition received 269 affirmative votes in view of the 226

The members of the Cabinet and appointed nominees of Prime

Minister Viktor Yanukovych are:
[1]   Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych
[2-3] First Deputy Prime Minister/Minister of Finance Mykola Azarov, who
is currently the deputy head of the Party of Regions faction in parliament,
[Mykola Azarov holds two cabinet positions, AUR Editor]
[4-5] Deputy Prime Minister/Minister of Construction, Architecture and
Housing and Utility Economy Volodymyr Rybak (deputy head of the Party
of Regions faction in parliament) [Volodymyr Rybak holds two cabinet
positions, AUR Editor]
[6]   Deputy Prime Minister Andrii Kliuev (deputy head of the Party of
Regions faction in parliament),
[7]   Deputy Prime Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk (ex-deputy prime minister
in the former Yanukovych’s Cabinet),
[8]   Internal Affairs Minister Yurii Lutsenko (acting internal affairs minister),
[9]   Economy Minister Volodymyr Makukha,
[10] Fuel and Energy Minister Yurii Boiko (ex-head of Naftohaz Ukrainy
national joint-stock company),
[11] Coal Industry Minister Serhii Tulub (parliamentary deputy of the
Party of Regions),
[12] Industrial Policy Minister Anatolii Holovko,
[13] Agricultural Policy Minister Yurii Melnyk acting deputy prime minister),
[14] Transport and Communications Minster Mykola Rudkovskyi
(parliamentary deputy of the Socialist Party),
[15] Environmental Protection Minister Vasyl Dzharty (parliamentary
deputy of the Party of Regions),
[16] Minister for Emergency Situations and Protection of Population from
Chornobyl Accident Consequences Viktor Baloha (incumbent minister
for emergency situations),
[17] Labor and Social Policy Minister Mykhailo Papiev (ex-minister of
labor and social policy),
[18] Education and Science Minister Stanislav Nikolaenko (incumbent
minister of education and science),
[19] Health Minister Yurii Poliachenko (incumbent minister of health),
[20] Culture and Tourism Minister Ihor Likhovyi (incumbent minister
of culture and tourism),
[21] Youth, Family and Sports Minister Yurii Pavlenko (incumbent
minister of youth, family and sports),
[22] Justice Minister Roman Zvarych (ex-minister of justice in the Yulia
Tymoshenko Cabinet),
[23] Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers Anatolii Tolstoukhov
(ex-minister of the Cabinet of Ministers), and
[24] Minister for Liaison with the Verkhovna Rada Ivan Tkalenko
(ex-minister for liaison with the Verkhovna Rada.

The appointed nominees of President Viktor Yuschenko are
[25] Defense Minister Anatolii Hrytsenko, and
[26] Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Verkhovna Rada appointed Party

of Regions leader Yanukovych to the post of prime minister on August 4.

The Cabinet of Ministers consists of 26 members, including the prime
minister, first deputy prime minister, three deputy prime ministers and 20
By Constitution the Verkhovna Rada appoints the prime minister, the minister
of defense and the minister of foreign affairs upon recommendation of the
president, and other Cabinet members upon recommendation of the prime
minister.                                               -30-
NOTE:  Formatting and numbering in the above article were inserted
editorially by the Action Ukraine Report Editor.
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

FACT BOX: Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006

KIEV Viktor Yanukovich returned to power as Ukraine’s prime minister
on Friday.

Parliament also voted to approve the government which is dominated by
Yanukovich allies. Some ministers worked with Yanukovich when he
as prime minister in 2002-04.

Here are the key cabinet posts:
in the 2004 “Orange Revolution”, Yanukovich heads the Regions party
that has the biggest contingent in parliament. He favours closer ties with
Russia and tax cuts for big business.

(Regions): An ally of Yanukovich, Azarov is a technocrat. Ukraine’s
economy grew rapidly when he served as first deputy prime minister and
finance minister during Yanukovich’s first term.

KLYUEV (Regions): Klyuev, a Yanukovich ally, is a wealthy businessman
with interests in the machine-building sector.

He worked as a deputy foreign minister and was until now Ukraine’s
ambassador to Japan.

ENERGY MINISTER – YURI BOIKO (Unaffiliated), former head of the
state oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukrainy. He is an ally of Klyuev and
worked previously with Yanukovich.

used his presidential prerogative to reappoint Tarasyuk, a strong advocate
of NATO and European Union membership for Ukraine, to the foreign
affairs portfolio.

was a leading figure in the Orange Revolution in 2004 and was appointed
as interior minister in February 2005. A former member of the Socialist
party he is now seen as loyal to Yushchenko. Lutsenko led several high
profile criminal investigations against Yanukovich allies.

Gritsenko, who was kept in the job by Yushchenko, has launched reforms
aimed at bringing Ukraine’s armed forces into line with NATO standards.

RUDKOVSKY (Socialist). Rudkovsky is a wealthy businessman, who
likes to drive expensive cars and wear smart suits. He is also a long-term
ally of parliamentary speaker Oleksander Moroz and was a driving force
behind the coalition.

JUSTICE MINISTER – ROMAN ZVARYCH (Our Ukraine), justice minister
in Yulia Tymoshenko’s government from February to September 2005.
Zvarych was accused by local media of providing improper information
about his education and degrees. He denied all accusations but failed to
present any documents on his education.                   -30-

LINK: http://today.reuters.com/news/
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.

Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006

KYIV – Fourteen judges of the Constitutional Court have taken office.
They took oath during a Friday parliament meeting.
Elected on the parliament quota are:
[1] Anatolii Holovin, previously worked as deputy prosecutor general/
     chief military prosecutor;
[2] Mykhailo Kolos, headed the department of special law disciplines
     at the law faculty of Ostroh Academy National University;
[3] Maria Markush, ex-MP who was among the government reserve
[4] Viacheslav Ovcharenko, served as chairman of Yenakiieve Town
     Court in Donetsk region; and
[5] Petro Stetsiuk, was a senior staff scientist at Ivan Franko National
     University of Lviv.
Appointed by the president are:
[1] Dmytro Lilak, served as judge of the Supreme Court in the chamber
     for business affairs;
[2] Volodymyr Kampo, used to lecture at Academy of Municipal
     Management; and
[3] Viktor Shyshkin, lectured at the comparative law department of
     Postgraduate Education Institute of Kyiv Shevchenko National
Elected by the Congress of Judges are:
[1] Viacheslav Dzhun, used to serve as judge of the Highest Economic
[2] Anatolii Didkivskyi, was a judge in the Supreme Court;
[3] Ivan Dombrovskyi, was a judge in the Supreme Court;
[4] Yaroslav Machuzhak, judges in the Supreme Court;
[5] Vasyl Bryntsev, chaired the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal; and
[6] Andrii Stryzhak, 57, held the post of chairman of Zaporizhia
Regional Court of Appeal from June 1996.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, since October 18, 2005, when the term of
nine judges expired, the work of the Constitution Court had been blocked
because only five judges remained on the panel whereas at least twelve are
required for a plenary meeting.

The Constitution Court must have 18 judges by Constitution: 6 appointed by
each the president, the Verkhovna Rada and the Congress of Judges. Their
term of office is nine years.                          -30-

FOOTNOTE:  The above article was edited, formatted and numbered
by the Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Editor.
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006

KYIV – The Verkhovna Rada has prohibited the Constitutional Court from
revising changes in the Constitution, the parliament endorsed on December 8,
2004, concerning Ukraine’s transition from the presidential-parliament
republic to the parliament-presidential one.

A total of 274 lawmakers voted for endorsing bill No.1253 on the whole with
226 votes required to pass the bill.

While presenting the bill to the parliament, Socialist Party faction leader
Vasyl Tsushko, the author of the bill, called on the Verkhovna Rada to

amend the law on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to set that the
Constitutional Court has no right to revise the political reform.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Ukraine changed to a
parliamentary-presidential system of government on January 1, 2006, when the
relevant constitutional amendments that the parliament adopted on December
8, 2004, came into force.

The Verkhovna Rada endorsed the amendments to the Constitution in the heat
of the presidential elections as a result of a compromise between the
supporters of then presidential candidate Viktor Yuschenko and presidential
candidate Viktor Yanukovych.

As a result of the compromise, the Rada endorsed simultaneously two laws
amending the Constitution and the law on presidential elections. The
compromise facilitated the settlement of the presidential elections. The
Ukrainian Constitution was endorsed on June 28, 1996.

FOOTNOTE: This is a very unusual and disturbing piece of legislation. I
have never heard of a situation where a legislative body had the authority to
legislate that a Constitutional Court cannot declare something the legislative
body did as unconstitutional even if the Constitutional Court decided the
action was in fact unconstitutional.  AUR EDITOR.
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
                            OF CONSTITUTION CHANGES

UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1401 gmt 4 Aug 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006

KIEV – Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has signed the law “On
amending Section IV entitled ‘Final and transitional provisions’ of the
Ukrainian law ‘On the Ukrainian Constitutional Court'”, which was passed
today by the Supreme Council [parliament]. The text of the law has been
posted on the president’s official website. [Passage omitted: background]

The author of the law, Vasyl Tsushko, who is the leader of the Socialist
Party parliamentary faction, said that the law removes the Constitutional
Court’s right to revise amendments to the Ukrainian constitution.

According to him, at issue are the amendments to the constitution introduced
in December 2004 [cutting the president’s powers in favour of parliament
and the prime minister, which were part of the deal between then President
Leonid Kuchma and then presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko during
the Orange Revolution].

FOOTNOTE:  It is very difficult to understand how President Yushchenko
could sign this legislation.  Surely his legal advisors would tell him such
legislation is more likely unconstitutional and it is against everything the
President has stated and stood for in the past regarding this matter. 
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
     NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.

Interfax-Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, Aug 04, 2006

KYIV – Ukrainian  President Viktor Yushchenko does not intend to revise

amendments to the Constitution adopted  on  December 8, 2004, but thinks
that they need to be augmented and specified, Our Ukraine faction member 
Petro Poroshenko told reporters on Friday.

He was commenting on whether the agreement between Yushchenko and
the parliamentary coalition resulted in a bill banning the Constitutional Court

from revising amendments to the Constitution. “The president has nothing
to do with this bill,” he said.

“I know for sure that the president has quite firmly refused to
take part in this, because he long ago declared that he saw cooperation
[between parliamentary forces on amending  the constitution] in this
particular way,” he said.

Yushchenko has repeatedly  stated that he does not approve of the
all clauses of the constitutional reform carried out in 2004, Poroshenko
said. The president thinks it necessary to make additional amendments,
which will coordinate the results of the reform, he said.

“The president can not remain indifferent to the current situation
in the country,” he said.

Poroshenko  gave  no forecast as to whether or not Yushchenko would
sign the bill, but said that he doubted its legitimacy.       -30-

FOOTNOTE: Article seven above says that President Yushchenko did
sign this piece of legislation.  All of this is very unusual and will most
likely be sorted out in the future by lawsuits and by the Constitutional
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

BBC Monitoring research in English 20 Jul 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Friday, Aug 04, 2006

Viktor Yanukovych’s return to the post of Ukraine’s prime minister marks the
comeback of a politician whose career appeared to many to be finished after
the Orange Revolution. With his victory in the controversial second round of
the 2004 presidential election overturned by the Supreme Court, Yanukovych
was defeated in the repeat runoff by Viktor Yushchenko.

But now, 18 months on from the revolution and four months after an
inconclusive parliamentary election, Yushchenko has found himself forced to
submit his erstwhile rival’s nomination for the post of prime minister for
parliamentary approval.

Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, which campaigned on a pro-business and
pro-Russian platform, gained the most votes in the 26 March poll but failed
to win a majority. Unable to form a government on its own, Yanukovych was
eventually nominated for prime minister in mid-July by an “anti-crisis”
coalition formed with the Socialists and Communists.

Yushchenko’s decision to accept the nomination in the early hours of 2
August came as the constitutional deadline for doing so expired and followed
several days of intensive talks intended to bridge the gap between the
pro-Yushchenko camp and the Party of Regions on key foreign and domestic
policies, such as the status of the Russian language, federalism, and
relations with Russia and NATO.

These talks eventually led to the signing of a declaration of national unity
by representatives of the coalition and the pro-presidential Our Ukraine on
3 August.

In the parliamentary vote on 4 August, Yanukovych received 271 votes,
including 30 from Our Ukraine.
Born in the Donetsk Region steel town of Yenakiyeve in 1950, Yanukovych had
a turbulent youth and twice served time in a penitentiary for violent
crimes. The convictions were later overturned, his official biography says.

Having received a university degree in mechanical engineering at the age of
30, Yanukovych began a successful career as a transport executive in the
coal-mining industry, reaching senior managerial posts. He became deputy
Donetsk regional governor in 1996 and was promoted to governor the following

Yanukovych was viewed as a representative of the Donetsk business elite led
by Rinat Akhmetov, a Donetsk tycoon who is now a key member of the Party of

As governor, Yanukovych gained a reputation as a no-nonsense manager and was
widely credited with boosting the region’s economy during his five years in

Yanukovych appears to have gained the trust of President Leonid Kuchma after
the 1999 presidential election, when contrary to expectations, the
densely-populated and traditionally pro-Communist Donetsk Region gave more
votes to Kuchma than to Communist leader Petro Symonenko in the run-off. In
the 2001 parliamentary election, the pro-Kuchma For a United Ukraine
alliance also did well in Donetsk.

Yanukovych rose to national prominence when Kuchma named him as prime
minister in November 2002. Despite having the physique of a heavyweight
boxer (a height of 195 cm) and a somewhat awkward manner of speaking and
carrying himself, which was often ridiculed by the Kiev establishment and
the opposition, Yanukovych surprised critics by mastering the Ukrainian
language and presiding over a period of strong economic growth.

As prime minister, Yanukovych sought to maintain his image as a
representative of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking and Russia-friendly east, while
consolidating a reputation as a statist willing and able to defend national
interests. However, the Yanukovych government’s decision to reverse the flow
of the controversial Odessa-Brody oil pipeline seemed to be a clear victory
for Russia.

Yanukovych became a doctor of economics in 2000 and was president of the
National Olympic Committee from 2002-2005. He is married to Lyudmyla, a
housewife, and has two grown-up sons, Oleksandr and Viktor (who was elected
to parliament on the Party of Regions list in March 2006).
                                 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
In early 2004, Yanukovych emerged as the single presidential candidate of
the parliamentary-government coalition loyal to President Kuchma. Despite
the clear problems presented by his early biography, Yanukovych was
apparently seen as the authorities’ best hope for defeating popular
opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko.

During a campaign that often appeared heavy handed, ubiquitous billboards
bearing Yanukovych’s face and the slogan “Tomu Shcho” (“Because”) became

the object of widespread ridicule and irritation – at least outside his main
support base in eastern Ukraine.

Yanukovych’s contacts with the media and public often appeared stilted or
hostile. To make matters worse, his reputation as a hard man was seriously
undermined when he had to be hospitalized after being knocked down by an

egg thrown by a student protester in the western city of Ivano Frankivsk.

With all the government machinery behind him and with the still heavily
controlled media providing fulsome coverage of his every move as prime
minister, Yanukovych was seen to gradually close the gap on Yushchenko

in popularity ratings.

His decision to raise pensions significantly several months ahead of the
election may also have given his ratings an extra boost, although it was
condemned by the Yushchenko campaign as economically risky populism.

In an apparent effort to further strengthen support in the traditionally
pro-Russian eastern regions, Yanukovych’s candidacy was endorsed by Russia’s
President Vladimir Putin on a visit to Kiev shortly before the election’s
first round.

Yanukovych came a close second to Yushchenko in the first round. Ahead of
the run-off, Yanukovych surprised many by turning in a fluent and aggressive
performance in a carefully controlled live TV debate against a lacklustre

Yanukovych was declared the winner of the run-off, but the Yushchenko team
challenged the legitimacy of the result in the Supreme Court amid mass
protests in Kiev against alleged vote fraud. The Supreme Court ruled to
invalidate the second round and, instead of calling a new election, it
ordered a re-run of the second round, which was won by Yushchenko.
                                AFTER THE REVOLUTION
For a time in early 2005, Yanukovych and his party appeared to be a spent
force, with other more radical opposition forces encroaching on its support
base even in its eastern strongholds. Yanukovych was virtually invisible
during the first half of the year, during which he was several times called
in by the police for questioning in various cases.

But, with the acrimonious break up of the Orange team over the summer and
growing public disillusionment at the perceived incompetence and corruption
of the new authorities, Yanukovych bounced back strongly.

The Party of Regions retained the loyalty of voters in the densely-populated
industrial regions of eastern Ukraine, which overwhelmingly backed
Yanukovych in the 2004 election.

Its campaign advertising ahead of the March parliamentary election
highlighted the alleged decline in living standards over the past year, and
promised to restore the economic growth and stability that the country
enjoyed when Yanukovych was prime minister.

It criticized the authorities’ pro-Western foreign policy and opposed NATO
membership, and promised to rebuild “a special relationship” with Russia and
to work to form a Single Economic Space with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
After its strong showing in the poll, the Party of Regions insisted on its
right to form the new government with Yanukovych as prime minister and made
no secret of their wish to form a grand coalition with Our Ukraine.

However, it initially appeared that a majority coalition would be formed by
three forces that supported the Orange Revolution – the Yuliya Tymoshenko
Bloc, Our Ukraine and the Socialist Party. The formation of an Orange
coalition was announced in parliament on 22 June.

Party of Regions responded by blocking parliament for several days,
ostensibly over their exclusion from committee leadership posts in
parliament. Meanwhile, the Orange coalition was unable to vote on its
candidates for speaker and prime minister.

After the blockade ended on 6 July, Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz
was unexpectedly elected parliament speaker with the support of the Party of
Regions and the Communist Party. On 11 July, Moroz announced the formation
of a new “anti-crisis” coalition of Regions, Socialists and Communists. The
new coalition formally nominated Yanukovych as prime minister on 18 July.
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
        TOTAL INCOME OF UAH 38,000 (US$7,600) FOR YEAR 2005

Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, August 4, 2006

KYIV – Leader of the Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych has declared UAH
38,036 in incomes received in 2005. This follows the declaration of incomes,
financial liabilities and property of Yanukovych, a copy of which was made
available to Ukrainian News.

The whole amount of Yanukovych’s income is constituted by his salary.
According to the declaration, members of Yanukovych’s family earned UAH
4,920 (wages constitute the whole amount).

Apart from this, Yanukovych has declared an apartment with the total area of
140 square meters and a garage of 22 square meters.

The document says that Yanukovych has no cars or other transport means,
securities or deposits in banks.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, on August 3, President Viktor Yuschenko
proposed Verkhovna Rada the candidature of Regions Party leader Viktor
Yanukovych to the post of premier, which was offered by the coalition formed
by the Party of Regions, Socialist and Communist parties.         -30-

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

Agence France-Presse (AFP), Moscow, Russia, Saturday, August 5, 2006

MOSCOW- Ukraine’s new prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, says he
wants to stop the disputes between Kiev and Moscow over such key issues
as NATO membership and the price of gas supplies from Russia, according
to an interview in the official Russian newspaper.

“We need to stop quarreling with our neighbors and learn to have respectful

discussions,” Yanukovych told the Russian government daily Rossiiskaya
Gazeta on Saturday. He added that Russia was “an important partner” for
Ukraine’s new government.

“The new government is not going to foster anti-Russian sentiments in

Ukraine,” said the leader of the pro-Moscow Regions party with its
base of support in the mainly Russian-speaking east of Ukraine.

Yanukovych has been a Moscow favorite. In 2004 Russian President

Vladimir Putin backed him in Ukraine’s disputed presidential election
which triggered the “orange revolution” and led ultimately to his pro-
Western rival, Viktor Yushchenko, becoming president.

The new prime minister, approved by the Ukrainian parliament on Friday,

also spoke about the accord on the price of gas delivered to Ukraine,
which had caused a crisis in January when Moscow cut off supplies to
force Kiev to accept its prices, and which must be renegotiated regularly.

“When Ukrainian politicians said that we must cancel the accord, they

used that as a weapon in their political game,” Yanukovych said, referring
to Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister and “orange revolution”
ally of Yushchenko, and now in the opposition. “We will be capable of
conducting negotiations,” Yanukovych said of his government.

He also said he remained opposed to Ukraine joining the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization, in contrast to Yushchenko who wants Ukrainian
membership in the western military alliance. But Yanukovych pointed
out that the two political rivals had reached an agreement to put the issue
of NATO membership before the voters in a referendum.

He said he recognized that “the previous official statements from Kiev

about the desire to join NATO had made Russia unhappy.” But he pointed
out that “the majority” of Ukrainians today are opposed to NATO
membership, which is reflected in opinion polls in the former Soviet state.
“We will abide by their wishes,” he said.

The new prime minister also justified the presence of some opposition

“orange revolution” ministers in his cabinet, stressing the need to reunite
Ukraine, which has been divided between the pro-Russian east and the
more nationalist west of the country.

“The government must not serve half the country but the entire state if it

is to be effective,” he said.                           -30-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
 If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, August 5, 2006
KYIV – The newly appointed prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, expects
his Cabinet of Ministers to function until the end of term of the current
parliament, 2011. He made this announcement at the first meeting of the
Cabinet of Ministers on Friday.
“I would like us to work together stably for five years,” Yanukovych said.
Every year the Cabinet must improve the conditions for citizens, he added.
Yanukovych stressed that the Cabinet should build effective cooperation
with the Verkhovna Rada, its chairman, and the president.
“To me, it is a matter of principle that our relations are for the good. I
will always try to achieve that,” he remarked.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Yanukovych called the first meeting of
the new Cabinet of Ministers right after its appointment. Rada appointed
Yanukovych as prime minister and approved the makeup of the new
government on Friday.                                   -30-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
             Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
Ukrainian News-on-line, Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, August 5, 2006
KYIV – The Lviv regional chapter of the Party of Regions has said that the
statement by the Lviv regional council about its non-acceptance of the
Cabinet of Ministers with Viktor Yanukovych at the head amounts to an
attempt to destabilize the situation in the region. Ukrainian News learned
this from the statement of the party chapter.

“The Lviv regional chapter of the Party of Regions flatly condemns new
attempts of false democrats and false patriots to impose another
confrontation on the community and destabilize the situation in the region
and calls on residents of Lviv region to stay calm,” the statement reads.

The chapter reminded the regional council that it fully supported President
Viktor Yuschenko before.

The authors of the statement criticize the position of the Party of Freedom
and the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko, who are saying that Yuschenko is a
dangerous man for the country.

“Calm down, gentlemen! It is not up to you, one of whom is among

marginals and the others have been befallen the fate of political outsiders,
to dictate a political climate in Ukraine,” the statement reads.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Verkhovna Rada appointed Party

of Regions leader Yanukovych to the post of prime minister on August 4.
The Lviv regional council announced its non-acceptance of Yanukovych’s
Cabinet on August 3.                                 -30-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
Stefan Korshak, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Kiev, Ukraine, Fri, Aug 4, 2006
KIEV – The life expectancy of Ukraine’s almost inevitably unwieldy new
government is anyone’s guess.

But already, as four months of constitutional chaos come to an end, winners
and losers have clearly emerged in the former Soviet republic’s often
frantic politics.

Pro-Russia politician Viktor Yanukovich is a definite winner, having
travelled from the political wilderness to leadership of parliament’s
biggest party, and a lock on the prime minister job.

Once hooted down nationwide as a ex-con who talked like one, Yanukovich

is set to become the single most powerful politician in the country.

With an ability to call shots in parliament, and to influence the executive
branch like no one else, the now smooth-talking Yanukovich is
well-positioned to push his favourite agendas.

These include government support for heavy industry and the tycoons who

run it, the slow pace in Ukrainian accession to NATO, friendship with
Russia, and a halt to the promotion of the Ukrainian language in the east,
Yanukovich’s Russian-speaking home turf.
More importantly for his future political career, Yanukovich will be
Ukraine’s first prime minister appointed by parliament not the president,
and so the first answerable only to his party and voters.
The job is an ideal opportunity for Yanukovich to establish himself
permanently as his own political force, rather than a yes-man financed by
tycoons from the smokestack Donbass region.
President Viktor Yushchenko is a less obvious but nevertheless clear winner.
His victory lies in the weakness of the new coalition, which unites widely
differing parties via a coalition agreement so hazy in its wording that each
member of the new government will be able to interpret the blueprint pretty
much any way he chooses.

With Yanukovich running the government and therefore overtly responsible for
every mistake, and the coalition facing almost inevitable internal wrangling
and stagnation, Yushchenko’s is neatly shielded from fall-out from voters
angry over government errors.

Ukrainian political observers are already predicting gridlock between
Yushchenko and the Yanukovich-led parliament.

The stagnation if it comes would be another Yushchenko victory, as current
Ukrainian law currently skews Ukraine in a pro-reform, pro- Europe

Yanukovich’s majority lacks the votes to override a presidential veto to new
laws aiming to change those policies. Yushchenko already has warned (without
being specific) that he would veto any legislation from the new government
which he felt violated ‘the principles of the coalition agreement.’

Charismatic Julia Timoshenko, a populist anti-corruption campaigner, has
brilliantly washed her hands of the ruling coalition outright, placing
herself and her party in the opposition.

Until the present government falls – and even the optimists are giving it a
life span of two years maximum – it will be Timoshenko and her often
brilliant oratory ripping into the Yanukovich government for every possible

The basic problem of the Ukrainian economy is deep-seated corruption, and
that the present government appears unwilling even to discuss the matter
(the coalition agreement simply ignores it).

So Timoshenko seems set to sweep back into power in the role that suits her
public image best: a woman come to Ukraine’s government to clean house,
because the men are too corrupt and incompetent to manage.

Timoshenko’s position as the only government opponent, and the country’s

top campaigner for reform, is what is a more deadly blow to the future of
Yushchenko’s own Our Ukraine party.

Stunned by its second place to Timoshenko in the last parliamentary
elections, Our Ukraine desperately needs to recapture its mantle as the
banner-bearer for the Orange Revolution, economic and political reform, and
Ukrainian accession to Europe.

But now, the supposedly pro-reform Our Ukraine has lost out, as the party is
a voluntary member of a government led by Yanukovich – a man openly
advocating government support for the tycoon class and better Ukrainian
relations with Russia.

Ukraine’s once-dominant Communist party is, if possible, in a worse
situation, having willingly entered a coalition government containing free
marketeers (Our Ukraine) and friends of the big Capitalists (Yanukovich’s
Regions Ukraine) – both anathema to the Communists’ Marxist doctrine.

The Communists are moreover by far the junior party in the present
coalition, which could if necessary do without the few parliament seats the
Communists hold, still assemble a majority.

The first policies and possibly even allies to be jettisoned as impractical
in the new government are, according to media reports, the Communists.

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

ANALYSIS: Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Washington, D.C., Sunday, August 6, 2006

WASHINGTON – In the heady days after the “orange revolution,”

Ukraine fitted the US government’s script perfectly, as the White House
charted a generational drive for global democratic change.

But now, former communist Viktor Yanukovych is back, only two years

after he was blocked by people power from becoming president, and
criticised by the United States for alleged ballot rigging and corruption.

His stunning political comeback, as prime minister, raises a question for

the administration of US President George W. Bush: Were US hopes for
a democratic, Western-leaning Ukraine premature?

Pro-Russian Yanukovych, 56, was confirmed by parliament on Friday

after he was chosen by his former bitter rival, Viktor Yushchenko, the
Western-leaning president who beat him to the top job. [Yanukovych
was first nominated by the new majority coalition in the Parliament, and
then Yushchenko responded. AUR EDITOR]

The decision ended months of deadlock following elections in March

and disappointment over indecision on the part of Yushchenko, facing a
key political test after beating Yanukovych in a repeated re-run election
in 2004.

Even before the 2004 election in Ukraine, the United States had funnelled

funds to pro-democracy, non-governmental groups and sent election
monitors to observe the polls.

The subsequent mass demonstrations after allegations of rampant

corruption and vote buying sparked admiration in Washington.

Bush supporters later used events in Kiev, a democratic awakening in

Lebanon, signs of change across the Arab world and elections in Iraq as
evidence that a new wave of US-inspired freedom was on the march.

Later, Bush himself cited political activists in Ukraine, along with women

in Afghanistan and Palestinian voters, as part of “landmark events in the
history of liberty” in his 2005 State of the Union address.

Two years on, things are not so rosy. Lebanon is shuddering under Israeli

assaults on Hezbollah. Iraq is in turmoil, and Palestinian elections brought
the radical Islamic movement Hamas to power.

Is Ukraine, under Yanukovych and his nasty associations with the

authoritarianism and corruption of ex-president Leonid Kuchma, the
next democratic domino to fall? Not necessarily, say officials and experts.

The United States is arguing the democratic process has changed

Yanukovych, rather than the other way round. And his election campaign,
which used US consultants and campaign-trail razzmatazz, seemed to
bear that out.

“We were strong supporters of the Orange Revolution in as much as it

represented a cry for free and fair elections and for democracy to take
root,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

“What we’re seeing right now is the evolution of a democratic process in

Ukraine. Mr Yanukovych has come to the prime ministership in the
old-fashioned, democratic way. He worked hard for votes, he campaigned,
he politicked.”

“We are going to work with the government of Mr. Yanukovych just as

we would with any other democratically elected government,” McCormack

Analysts said Washington was sincere in its offer — though Yanukovych’s

pro-Russian stance may stall hopes of Ukraine swiftly joining the European
Union and NATO.

“I believe they are prepared to work with Yanukovych, he today has

something that he didn’t have before,” said Steven Pifer, senior analyst
with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “He now
has democratic legitimacy because he heads the party that won
32 percent of the vote in March.”

But Washington’s envoys in Kiev would be keeping a close eye on how

things go, he Pifer added. They don’t want to see any democratic
backsliding,” he said.

Yanukovych’s comeback does pose some problems for the West —

notably ambitious plans to draw Kiev into the Euro-Atlantic orbit with
Yushchenko’s plan to reach agreement by 2008 on joining NATO.

A deal on NATO entry would have been a tasty addition to Bush’s

political legacy just before leaving office — but now seems out of reach.

“In general it is not good news for NATO, it is not good news for

Ukraine’s desire to (get into NATO),” said Stephen Larrabee, an analyst
with the Rand Corporation.

Yushchenko on Thursday signed a pact with pro-Russian parliamentary

parties stating that the country can only join the NATO military alliance
if the move is approved in a referendum.

That was after setting membership of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organisation (NATO) as a key goal for Ukraine when he came to power
last year.

Larrabee said the Bush administration’s support for Ukrainian membership

of bodies like the European Union, NATO and the World Trade
Organisation was not totally self-serving.

But there was also a sense that Washington was “to try to do all those

before Bush left office so he could claim credit for it,” he said.

For now, Washington appears content to sit and wait, waiting for the dust

to settle in Ukrainian politics, before plotting its next move.    -30-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

ANALYSIS: Oxford Analytica, United Kingdom, Friday, August 4, 2006

EVENT: Parliament votes today on the nomination of Party of Regions
head Viktor Yanukovych as prime minister.

SIGNIFICANCE: Yanukovych was the defeated candidate in the 2004
presidential election and prime minister in 2002-04, the last years of the
Leonid Kuchma era. His return to power comes after the indecisive March
26 parliamentary elections and four months of political crisis.

The deadlock was broken by President Viktor Yushchenko’s decision to
abandon his ‘Orange Revolution’ allies and share power with Yanukovych.

ANALYSIS: A coalition of national unity (NUC) has replaced the anti-crisis
coalition, established on July 6, following the defection of the Socialists
from the ‘Orange’ coalition (see UKRAINE: ACC would abandon pro-Western
orientation – July 18, 2006).

The NUC is being established after the signing yesterday of a Declaration of
National Unity setting out the principles of political cooperation.

President Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc, the Socialists and the Party
of Regions (which is strongest in Russian-speaking areas) have signed the
Declaration; the Communists signed with reservations. Only the Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc has refused to sign.

Yushchenko introduced the Declaration during round-table negotiations
between the executive and parliament to end the political crisis ensuing
from four months of protracted coalition negotiations.

It was signed as the deadline passed for him either to submit the
anti-crisis coalition candidate for prime minister to a parliamentary vote,
or to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections.

PRESIDENT’S DILEMMA. If Yushchenko submitted Viktor Yanukovych’s
candidacy, his supporters would have accused him of betraying the Orange

Yet early elections would have been a tactical mistake, as Regions has
increased its support between March and July, from 32% to 38%. The Our
Ukraine vote looked set to drop from 14% in March to less than 9%.

Yushchenko’s compromise was to submit Yanukovych’s candidacy only after
he signed the Declaration, which outlines the continuation of Ukraine’s
domestic and foreign policies, and commits president and prime minister to
the same broad course of action — in particular, that Ukraine remains
committed to Western integration.

NEW COMBINATION. Regions, Our Ukraine and the Socialists have signed

a further memorandum, forming the NUC. The Communists are unlikely to join,
as they have refused to sign key aspects of the Declaration.

The NUC may have a bare constitutional majority of 300 deputies in the
450-seat Verkhovna Rada. Ideologically, the Socialists have little in common
with Regions or Our Ukraine, but they were in the two Orange governments of

During April-June, Yushchenko and Our Ukraine negotiated simultaneously for
a renewed Orange coalition and a grand coalition with Regions and possibly
the Socialists, but opted for the Orange coalition by the late-June

During the dual-track negotiations, Our Ukraine aimed to retain a commanding
position while stopping Tymoshenko’s return as prime minister (see UKRAINE:
New government will favour business – October 4, 2005). Our Ukraine was to
have the premiership and Regions the Rada speakership.

In the NUC, Regions takes the premiership and the Socialists the
speakership. Our Ukraine therefore enters government not in the commanding
position. It is expected to take only the first deputy premiership, and the
economy and energy portfolios. However, Yushchenko appoints the internal,
foreign and defence ministers as president.

Tymoshenko (and probably the Communists) will be in opposition. Tymoshenko
will be supported by the Pora youth movement and that part of Our Ukraine
which believes that Yushchenko has betrayed the Orange Revolution.

POSITIVE ASPECTS. The very fact that round-table negotiations were held

is a step forward for Ukrainian democracy. Former President Leonid Kuchma
always ruled them out, and they are unthinkable in Russia. The EU has reacted
favourably to the round table, which was televised live.

The Declaration recalls the agreement adopted prior to the 1996!
constitution — in other words, it could become a fundamental stepping stone
in Ukraine’s state and nation-building, especially if it becomes a law
laying down domestic and foreign policy guidelines.

Regions has compromised on such divisive issues as federalism, the Russian
language and NATO membership. Without Regions’ support, it would be
difficult for Ukraine to join NATO, as it dominates the east and south where
NATO membership is unpopular.

The Socialists and Communists oppose NATO membership; Our Ukraine and the
Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc are in favour. Regions is the only parliamentary force
that can change its position.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS. Yushchenko has avoided going the way of Leonid
Kravchuk (who was forced to call early elections in 1994 and lost them to
Kuchma) — the inevitable consequence if Yushchenko had proposed
Yanukovych for premier without a prior Declaration.

However, Yushchenko will still be only a one-term president, as Tymoshenko
and a Regions candidate will oppose him in 2009; July opinion polls show
Yushchenko trailing with 8-14% compared with more than 30% for Yanukovych
and 20% for Tymoshenko.

Our Ukraine may split, with the business wing, headed by Petro Poroshenko,
supporting the NUC, and the national-democratic wing, headed by Mykola
Katerynchuk, aligning with Tymoshenko.

Yanukovych’s return as prime minister will be perceived negatively by Orange
voters and by some Western governments and international organisations. His
record as Donetsk governor (1997-2002) and as prime minister and
presidential candidate (2002-04) on democratisation, corruption and the rule
of law is very poor.

Regions is seeking to increase its domestic and international legitimacy,
but its commitment to democracy and reforms is, as yet, untested. However,
Yanukovych is only seen in a negative light by that half of Ukraine that
voted Orange in 2004-06; 42% voted for Yanukovych in the 2004 and 32% for
Regions in 2006, primarily in the industrialised, Russian-speaking east
and south.

FOREIGN POLICY. The long-drawn-out coalition negotiations since March

may lead Ukraine to miss WTO membership again this year, after failing to adopt
the necessary legislation in 2005. Ukraine is concerned lest Russia join
first and block its membership. The US administration wants Ukraine and
Russia to join together or for Ukraine to join first.

According to the Declaration, the NUC is not opposed to an invitation to a
NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP), which Washington may favour in order
to recognise the compromise that Regions has accepted on the issue. The US
administration backed the Orange coalition following this year’s elections,
tying this to an MAP invitation at the November Riga summit.

An MAP ought not to be difficult, as Ukraine has had annual action plans
with NATO since 2003. However, a membership timetable for 2008-10 is no
longer feasible after the crisis in Kiev. NATO is also considering
postponing the 2008 enlargement round as such MAP countries as Albania and
Macedonia are not ready (see EASTERN EUROPE: Enlargement falls off
NATO agenda – July 21, 2006).

However, the United States is sending the message to Ukraine that if the
door is not closed on NATO membership, it is barely open. A letter from the
NUC requesting an MAP would not be sufficient. The NUC needs to move on
military exercises, strategic airlift, WTO legislation, Lebanon and the
appointment of ministers who can perform well.

CONCLUSION: The NUC is an improvement on the previous coalition
combination which would have been perceived as a return to the Kuchma era.

Round-table negotiations to overcome Ukraine’s regional divisions and the
signing of the Declaration by four of parliament’s five parties are positive
steps, but Yanukovych’s return to office will cast a shadow over Ukraine’s
commitment to democratisation, the rule of law and battling corruption. -30-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
17.                               DOOMED CEASE-FIRE
Opinions of two experts. One believes compromise will not unite the nation.
Other says political warfare is now over, but the cease-fire will not last long.


Opinions of two experts – philosopher Myroslav Popovych and
political scientist Andriy Yermolayev. 
Den, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian 4 Aug 06, p 1, 4
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Aug 05, 2006

President Viktor Yushchenko fully understood the risks of the situation when
he was forced to reach compromise with his old rival, Viktor Yanukovych, a
daily paper has said. He did so to prevent the country from splitting into
two parts.

The paper offers the opinions of two experts – philosopher Myroslav

Popovych and political scientist Andriy Yermolayev. Popovych believes
that the compromise will not unite the nation. Yermolayev says political
warfare is now over, but the cease-fire will not last long.

The following is an excerpt from the article by Luka Hrynenko entitled
“Doomed cease-fire” published in the Ukrainian daily Den on 4 August.
Subheadings are as published:

A bad peace is better than a good fight – such is the quintessence of the
president’s night-time speech, which summed up the outcome of the whole
chain of events of the unity declaration week. Viktor Yushchenko made the
decision to present the candidacy of Viktor Yanukovych to parliament for the
job of prime minister.

Speaking to the journalists who bravely waited for the president’s speech
until two o’clock in the morning [local time], he asked them to explain to
the nation that his decision came exclusively out of the need to form a
cohesive unitary country and to “bring the two banks of the [River] Dnieper
[which roughly divides Ukraine into east and west] to mutual understanding”.

In the opinion of most political experts, by making the choice in favour of
such a decision, the head of state was fully aware of the risks that fresh
elections would bring.

In particular, in the view of political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko, fresh
elections would be a new spiral in a “political crisis that would endanger
the maintenance of the country’s integrity”. For precisely that reason the
president decided once again “to stretch out his hand to parliament”,
proposing to start politics “from a clean sheet”.

As the first task in mastering the lessons of parliamentarianism, the head
of state set conditions – obligatory signing of the “declaration of national
unity and the urgent swearing in of Constitutional Court members.

Having promised the president to solve the Constitutional Court problem in
the near future, leaders of the parliamentary factions, the president and
Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov yesterday signed a substantially reworked
declaration. Only the most “negligent” pupil in the person of Yuliya
Tymoshenko remained in isolation.

Having noted the considerable divergences between the initial and final
texts of the document and having christened it “an act of capitulation of
the Orange forces”, the YTB [Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc] leader refused to affix
her signature to it. Communist leader Petro Symonenko signed the document
with reservations.

One of the intermediate outcomes of the process, which the president called
“a way out of political depression”, was the expected appearance of a new
parliamentary coalition. [The pro-presidential] Our Ukraine and [its
adversary] the Party of Regions signed a memorandum on setting up a
coalition in a new format. Having received the name “national unity
coalition”, it hospitably opened its doors to all comers.

All that remained to be done was to carry out all the necessary formalities
to register the new format of the coalition and vote to approve the
candidacy of Yanukovych as prime minister, the candidacy nominated by the
already virtually non-existent “anti-crisis” coalition (another political
legal trap?).

Was the decision taken by the president last night the best one? And will it
really be able to help bring the “two banks of the Dnieper” to mutual
understanding? Den asked experts and politicians in Kiev and the regions.

Myroslav Popovych, director of the Skovoroda Philosophy Institute

of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences:

The president’s decision was inevitable as long ago as when the coalition of
“orange” forces collapsed, since Yushchenko found himself in a position
where the president’s party – Our Ukraine – was losing influence in
parliament, but the president was maintaining his positions. In general in
the West such situations where the president is a republican and the
congress – democrat happen very often.

The main thing is that there will be a sharp change in the political
configuration in Ukraine. In effect we had two right-wing parties: a
Ukrainian national democratic one in the form of Our Ukraine and a party of
big business in the form of the Party of Regions.

Today they have come to an understanding. For Our Ukraine this will be a
very heavy blow. It may lose the support of its voters and in future not get
into parliament at all. And its right wing will be virtually completely
subordinate to the Party of Regions.

The YTB will move increasingly leftwards – towards the Socialist
International, where the position of the Socialist Party will become
increasingly weaker and weaker. I think that the Socialist Party of Ukraine
now has no chance at all of becoming a serious left-wing force in Ukraine.
The YTB now has that chance. I will hold my peace about the communists in

However, the main danger today is a loss of the gains achieved by the Orange
Revolution. First and foremost this applies to the positions of the media.
It is precisely they who bear the most responsibility today. If they stand
firm, we’ll have democracy, if not – it will be stifled.

However, honestly speaking, I do not believe that such a compromise will be
able to unite Ukraine. Because it is not a compromise on those issues that
are genuinely painful and burning. I do not see the question of whether the
Russian language will have the status of a second state language or the
status of a regional language as being a sharp problem.

Even Mr [Mykola] Azarov [Party of regions MP famous for not speaking
Ukrainian] agreed with this at the very outset of negotiations. This is
already a reality. In the law “On ratification of the European charter of
regional languages or minority languages” the Russian language has been
virtually granted regional status.

I do not see how some compromise article about NATO can unite East and West,
since it was understood from the very beginning that without preparation and
a nationwide referendum in support of Ukraine’s joining NATO the problem
would not be solved. I do not see a solution to the question of a single
national church in Ukraine in some agreements or other.

What was painful still is. And it would have been understood if a programme
of democratization of the structure prevailing today in Eastern and
South-Eastern Ukraine had been proposed.

The entire essence of the problems lies in this: what will Ukraine’s
internal condition be, what will its political status be, will it keep its
hard-won democracy, will it squander it to the end? And whatever the text of
the declaration, it will not solve anything.

I don’t know what to expect further. As far as purely bureaucratic
experience is concerned, in the good sense of the word, I think that the
officials who are currently in leading places in the Party of Regions
probably have more experience and skill than those who were in the “Orange”
team. Although there are also very many people there whom I like.

But first and foremost it is a question of what Ukraine’s economic
development strategy will be. If everything is oriented to some kind of
favours on the part of Russia, then you can say goodbye to the country.
Russia will not give anything just like that. It has its oil and gas

Russia needed to achieve one thing – to ensure that there was no “orange”
ideology and practise in Ukraine threatening the bases of the so-called
managed democracy in Russia.

And as for relations with the West, including economic ones, we’ll see what
happens. Of course, the West will not be ecstatic over the change of the
Ukrainian government, but, on the other hand, the West was not offering us
anything real. So we will rely on our own forces and believe that Ukraine
has already seen the very worst. We will be optimists.

Andriy Yermolayev, director of the Sofiya Social Research centre:

I think that the president has made a pragmatic and optimum choice. Several
systemic problems were solved at once. The first was the attempt to change
the rules of the political game that had started to form after the
parliamentary elections. Those rules were the rules of political warfare.

[1] If the president had used his constitutional right to dissolve
parliament, we would have had a serious risk at the level of the life of the
state, a risk of moving from a democratic myth to negative phenomena in
politics- crude conservatism and social populism. The decision to compromise
influenced the change in the rules of the game. The political war has been
stopped and there has been a political cease-fire.

[2] The second aspect is that the president is trying to ensure balance in
society and in politics, and very often that balance costs a very great
deal. Yushchenko “closed his eyes” to the advice of his comrades-in-arms of
the Maydan [Kiev’s Independence Square, heart of the Orange Revolution] and
took a step as a ruler.

[3] The third point is that I do not think that the cease-fire will last
long. It will not ensure stable work of the government and parliament for
many years, but at least we can count on a calendar year. There will be a
so-called systemic restraint of counterweights: the executive will operate,
regional elites will fall silent and the possibility will appear for stable
nationwide dialogue.

This will form a prerequisite for the next election cycle, i.e. there will
be a move from the period of revolutionism to so-called techno-political

After all, it is known that revolutionary tasks are set by romantics but
carried out by pragmatists, and sometimes even by cynics. The new political
alliances now being formed will take on the solution of the unpopular
decisions about which so much has been talked from the rostrum.

I believe that we will have a government not of Yanukovych the politician;
we will have a government of a pact headed by Yanukovych, where several
groupings will be represented that have to reach consensus.

Viktor Yanukovych is truly an interesting politician, but not creative. He
has no multi-volume opus of economic work and he is not known as an
initiator of any political modernization. But he is a politician, as they
say about him in the corridors, with whom you can reach agreement and do

I do not want to talk about the myths accompanying his activity, but he is a
politician who can change, and change positively, what is more. He changed
the behaviour of his own party.

However much the Party of Regions is accused of all the deadly sins, they
have not in fact given a single pretext for accusing them of anything
negative. With the exception of the Kalashnykov scandal [Party of Regions MP
Oleh Kalashnykov attacked a group of TV journalists]. The Party of Regions
simply made use of the parliamentary crisis after the elections.

And the “Orange people”, without understanding it themselves, helped them.
They nudged the Party of Regions into transforming itself into a political
force starting to work collegially, having learned to conduct political
discussions and formulate discourses.

I think that Yanukovych as prime minister will not be an alternative centre
with relation to Yushchenko – he will be a communications centre. Neither do
I expect from Yanukovych any radical initiatives regarding Russia – that’s

It is people who do not understand the tendencies of the national economy
who say that. Viktor Yanukovych will be a classic conservative prime
minister of a stabilization policy, which will hardly be a policy of
breakthrough, and so one should not expect it. [Passage omitted: five

regional politicians comment on the situation]               -30-
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
     A compromise proposal portends an end to Ukraine’s political deadlock
            Resolving a crisis, Ukraine’s leader offers a job to his arch-rival.

Economist print edition, London, UK, Saturday, August 5, 2006

AFTER more than four months of horse-trading and back-stabbing since
Ukraine’s parliamentary elections, and with demonstrations and
counter-demonstrations taking place in Kiev, President Viktor Yushchenko
seemed to have resolved his country’s political crisis in the small hours of
August 3rd.

In what, to outsiders, looks like an astonishing turnaround, Mr Yushchenko
agreed to nominate as prime minister Viktor Yanukovich, his Russian-backed
rival in the rigged presidential poll that stirred the “orange revolution”
in 2004.

Faced with a constitutional deadline, Mr Yushchenko had to choose between
two unappetising options. One was to dissolve parliament and call fresh
elections. The other was to agree to nominate Mr Yanukovich, whose candidacy
had been agreed by a coalition comprising his Party of the Regions, the
Communists and the Socialists.

Although his decision may puzzle some foreign admirers, Mr Yushchenko has
made the right choice, for two reasons.

The first is that Mr Yanukovich and his allies have every right to form a
coalition and get their man in as prime minister on the basis of the
election results, in which Mr Yanukovich’s party won the most seats.

The so-called “orange” parties-the president’s Our Ukraine; the block of
Yulia Tymoshenko, his firebrand ex-prime minister, and the turncoat
Socialists-tried but failed to do so because of rancid personal rivalries.

Keeping Mr Yanukovich out would have made it seem that Mr Yushchenko
regarded “democracy” purely as a means of pursuing his own interests-as some
other orange politicians seem to.

The other reason is that, if Mr Yushchenko had called fresh elections, it
would have disrupted the country at home and discredited it abroad, only,
probably, to produce similar results, but with more vitriol.

Mr Yanukovich would probably still have ended up as prime minister (the job
he held before the 2004 elections, but which now has increased powers under
a constitutional reform agreed during the revolution).

Our Ukraine might well have done even worse. Mr Yanukovich’s victory only
looked like a turnaround to outsiders. In reality, he has never ceased to
enjoy rock-solid support from Ukraine’s Russian-speaking east and south.

It is just possible that a governing axis of the two Viktors might help to
stabilise the country, helping to bind east and west together. It may result
in more sensible economic policy than a government that included the
populist Ms Tymoshenko.

And the president has tried to make Mr Yanukovich commit to a set of policy
principles designed to safeguard the pro-Western cause that Mr Yushchenko is
committed to. On the other hand, there may be chaos.       -30-

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

OP-ED: By Yaroslav Rozcharovanyj
Political Insights Newsletter, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sat, August 5, 2006

As special as he is Viktor Yushchenko was in truth never suited to

take on the huge job he confronted as president. 

A man of enormous talent and Ukrainian decency the mastering of
government and the relentless taking on of conniving and oppressive
evil was not a fit for his talents and manner. 

Then he was poisoned – – an attack that has not yet been overcome,
and the affects of which may never be eliminated.

The hope was that those around him – – and many from the Maidan – –
would join him in governance and be pledged to the cause of the
so-called revolution and would help him carry out the mission, acting
selflessly in the cause of the Maidan, Ukraine and Yushchenko. 

Very, very few did and most around him used the weakened Yushchenko
as their entry into opportunities for personal gain – – and Yushchenko
et them. They acted in their own selfish interests and isolated Yushchenko
– – and Yushchenko let them. 

Those who had the interests of the Maidan, Ukraine and Yushchenko at
heart were pushed aside and worse – – and Yushchenko let it happen.

The toxins did not kill Viktor Yushchenko but they did kill – – at least
so far – – the opportunities he represented.

The road Ukraine needs to travel is now much, much more difficult and
barriers much more challenging.                        -30-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

                                 UKRAINE GOVERNMENT

By David Holley and Victoria Butenko, Special to The Times
The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, Saturday, August 5, 2006

KIEV, Ukraine – Viktor Yanukovich, the humiliated loser a year and a half
ago when Orange Revolution protests forced a presidential runoff election to
be repeated, completed a remarkable political comeback Friday by becoming
Ukraine’s prime minister.

Yanukovich declared that he intended to govern as a partner with President
Viktor Yushchenko, his 2004 rival. Yushchenko ended months of political
uncertainty Thursday by agreeing to nominate Yanukovich as prime minister
rather than dissolve parliament and call new elections.

Yanukovich’s Party of Regions took first place in March parliamentary
balloting, but until last month was unable to form a majority in parliament.
Yushchenko had the option of calling a fresh vote, and many of his
supporters were angered that he instead accepted Yanukovich.

Both men said their cooperation would help heal divisions between the
western and eastern halves of the country. Protesters from western Ukraine
and Kiev, which tend to look toward Western Europe, played a key role in
bringing Yushchenko to power. Yanukovich, whose support base is in the
Russian-speaking east, was backed by Moscow in the 2004 contest.

“All of us have the same single desire to live in peace in our land, to live
better and have a stable life despite the fact that we all are different,
and that people’s mentality is different in different Ukrainian regions,”
Yanukovich told parliament in a televised address.

“We are united by our joint land, by a beautiful Ukraine, because our
ancestors’ graves are in this land,” he said. “Our parents lived in this
land and our children will continue living here.”

Yanukovich won 273 votes, surpassing the required 226. The bloc of Yulia
Tymoshenko, a former prime minister, is now the main opposition force. Most
of its members boycotted the session.

Tymoshenko, a fiery orator, was a key ally of Yushchenko in the 2004 street
protests against electoral fraud that led to the Orange Revolution. At a
televised meeting Thursday of top leaders of all the parties, Tymoshenko
blasted former allies who changed course.

“Political treason is turning into an infection in Ukrainian politics,” she
declared. She charged that a unity memorandum agreed to by Yushchenko and
Yanukovich was an act of surrender by the president.

Yushchenko has described the document as ensuring that Ukraine will maintain
its pro-Western course.
Many backers of the Orange Revolution were bitterly disappointed by the
return to power of Yanukovich, 56, who was prime minister from 2002 to 2004
under former President Leonid D. Kuchma.

“We’re shocked. We’ll keep protesting, but we don’t know how at the moment,”
said Evgeniy Barbaduk, 20, a member of a group called Coalition of the
Orange Revolution’s Participants, which rallied Friday in Kiev’s
Independence Square.

Vladimir Fesenko, director of the Penta Center for Applied Political
Studies, a Kiev think tank, said that despite Yanukovich’s pro-Russian
image, the businessmen who stand behind him are likely to push for closer
economic ties with Western Europe and the United States because that is to
their benefit.

“They are interested in Ukraine’s entry to the World Trade Organization,” he
said. He added, however, that some members of Yanukovich’s party might try
to use political power to further their business interests.     -30-
NOTE: Times staff writer Holley reported from Moscow and special
correspondent Victoria Butenko from Kiev.

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
      Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR    
                    In effect, two men have decided the destiny of Ukraine.

OPINION & ANALYSIS: Tatyana Stanovaya, Head
Analytical Department at the Center for Political Technologies.
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Thursday, August 3, 2006

MOSCOW – After hours of consultations, Ukrainian President Viktor

Yushchenko made a decision last night to submit the candidacy of Viktor
Yanukovych for the post of prime minister.

In effect, two men have decided the destiny of Ukraine: the president and
the leader of the Party of Regions, or the winner and the loser of the
Orange Revolution.

To all intents and purposes, the crisis in Ukraine has been resolved. But it
is equally obvious that the Ukrainian government is in for another crisis,
which will last for at least a month.

Yushchenko and Yanukovych were doomed to land in the same boat. All talk
about impeachment of the president, independent approval of Yanukovych as
prime minister by the Supreme Rada, and dissolution of parliament were
merely bargaining chips for the two leaders, who have been discussing the
parameters of a political deal for the last few days.

This political deal has its own characteristics and scenarios, which Ukraine
will have to go through.

But Yushchenko made a half-hearted decision last night. Apparently, he tried
to avoid the dissolution of the Rada for fear of further aggravating his

The approval rating of Our Ukraine is rapidly going down, and Yulia
Tymoshenko is promising to compile a single list that would not allow the
Orange Coalition to receive a majority in any event.

At the same time, the agreement on a coalition of Our Ukraine and the Party
of Regions is only tentative. It is known that the two political forces are
supposed to join the ruling coalition but its format will continue to be a
subject of bargaining and a source of tension between Yushchenko and
Yanukovych. Now they have signed a memo on the formation of a new


Roman Zvarych, a leader of Our Ukraine, said that it would be called the
Coalition of National Unity. Its formation will put an end to the
anti-crisis coalition made up of the Party of Regions, the socialists and
the communists.

Rada Speaker Olexandr Moroz said, however, that Our Ukraine would have

to join the anti-crisis coalition. It therefore seems that Yushchenko has
failed to achieve one of his main goals: the guaranteed withdrawal of the
communists from the union with the Party of Regions.

This is one of the major issues. If the communists stay in the coalition,
they will hedge the Party of Regions against a conflict with the president.
In case of serious discord, Yanukovych will always be able to rely on the
already existing majority of socialists and communists, and to pursue a much
more independent political line than Yushchenko might wish him to.

If Yushchenko escapes an alliance with the communists, he will score a big
victory. He would thus make the Party of Regions dependent on relations with
Our Ukraine, considerably raising his party’s status. Our Ukraine would find
it much easier to form a cabinet of ministers.

It would be seen as a party representing half the nation, rather than a
party which joined the majority. In effect, communist participation in the
coalition will determine the role and possibilities of Our Ukraine, as well
as its place on the country’s political map.

Yushchenko has so far managed to achieve one goal: the communists did not
take part either in the drafting of the Universal of National Unity, or in
its approval. The Universal unites three forces, which are compatible with
Yushchenko: Our Ukraine, the Party of Regions, and the Socialist Party.

However, so far the Party of Regions is not going to sever relations with
the communists, and the question of their participation in the would-be
coalition remains open.

In any event, the president’s decision last night will create a division of
power between him and Yanukovych. It cannot be ruled out that a number of
meaningful posts in the government will go to Yushchenko’s closest allies.

Pyotr Poroshenko, for one, may become second in command in the future
cabinet. The socialists, who insisted on the speaker’s position, will most
likely settle for this.

The political consequences of the Yushchenko-Yanukovych deal

are much more interesting.

[1] Firstly, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (YTB) will now be the only bearer
of Orange identity. It will go into radical opposition.

In other words, having won the 2004 election, the Orange have again found
themselves in opposition, having failed to confirm through parliamentary
elections their popularity in the entire country, rather than just its
western part.

Another bearer of Orange identity – Our Ukraine – is now undergoing a deep
crisis. Ongoing loss of popular support has put it on the brink of a split.
Some deputies may choose not to back Yanukovych as prime minister.

Those who do back him will lose face in the eyes of their Orange Revolution
[2] Secondly, Yanukovych’s candidacy means that Eastern revenge has taken
place. This was primarily made possible by the political inadequacy of the
Orange forces, which proved unable to keep their gains even when they have
everything going for them. The complete collapse of the Orange Coalition a
month ago bears this out.
[3] Thirdly, outside bodies of government authority, the main political
struggle will unfold between the YTB and the Party of Regions, that is,
between the West and the East of the country.

Moreover, along with Our Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko will not find himself
the president of the whole country; he will become an alien in the West, and
will not feel at home in the East, either. His political weight will
decrease further.

[4] Finally, a split between East and West will now affect the executive
branch of government. No doubt, Yushchenko will try to get back his

Orange identity, especially by keeping the new prime minister at a tangible
distance. But Viktor Yanukovych will try to multiply his victory by not
allowing Yushchenko to fully control the cabinet.

As for the policy of the future government, it is bound to be more pragmatic
concerning both Russia and the West. The Euro-Atlantic direction will lose
its luster, but Russia will not become much closer, either.          -30-

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

Agence France-Presse (AFP), Kiev, Ukraine
Channel News Asia, Singapore, Sunday, 06 August 2006

KIEV : The confirmation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych
comes as a body blow to many of the former “orange revolutionaries” who
camped out in mass protests in 2004 hoping for swift integration with the

Many Ukrainians, particularly in eastern Ukraine, were relieved Friday when
parliament confirmed the pro-Russian politician in office along with a broad
coalition cabinet, ending months of tortuous negotiations that followed
March’s parliamentary elections.

But for others it evoked bitter memories of Yanukovych’s 2004 presidential
bid, in which he was initially declared the winner despite widespread
vote-rigging allegations, before protesters eventually forced a re-run.

“President Yushchenko, who enjoyed unprecedented confidence: how can
he negotiate with a group of bandits?” demanded one popular Ukrainian
journalist and cheerleader for the “orange” camp, Vakhtang Kipiani.

Yanukovych, a protege of ex-president Leonid Kuchma, was the antithesis
of the political renaissance that many people, particularly in the more
nationalist west of this ex-Soviet nation, had hoped for.

Some have even tried to export the “orange” brand, joining protests in
neighbouring Belarus in March, when President Alexander Lukashenko
clinched a third term in an election that Western observers said was rigged.

Olena Pritula, editor of the online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda, said
Yanukovych’s return was all the sadder because “none of the organisers of
the electoral fraud in his favour (in 2004) have been punished”.

Yanukovych’s latest conciliatory comments towards Russia may have
confirmed the fears of many in the “orange” camp, who who view Moscow
as a meddling former colonial power.

Yanukovych, in an interview with Russia’s Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper
published Saturday, observed that “previous official statements from Kiev
about the desire to join NATO had made Russia unhappy” and that Ukraine
should “stop quarrelling with our neighbours”.

Such views are anathema to those who say Ukraine should take less notice of
Moscow’s views and should instead emulate western neighbour Poland, which
transformed itself from an unwilling satellite of the Soviet Union to a
card-carrying member of the NATO military alliance and the European Union.

Yulia Tymoshenko, the glamorous firebrand who stood by pro-Western Viktor
Yushchenko in the “orange” protests, leading to his eventual confirmation as
president, made her feelings clear at a frosty parliament meeting on

“We consider this an act of capitulation by the orange camp,” said
Tymoshenko, whose parliamentary bloc boycotted the confirmation vote.

The Ukrainian daily Dzerkalo Tyjnia made clear its disgust at events. “The
president has practically lost all his power. His party has lost its
electorate and the majority of the country has lost all confidence in its
leaders,” it said Saturday.

Such views are far from shared by Yanukovych’s supporters in his eastern
industrial heartland or by more moderate analysts who think he will temper
his earlier anti-Western rhetoric.

His return to power was also welcomed by foreign investors sensitive to any
kind of political uncertainty.

The Renaissance Capital financial group hailed Yanukovych’s nomination as
“a very positive development”.

But others retorted that talk of renewed stability was premature, pointing
to the tensions within Yanukovych’s “grand coalition”, which comprises his
Regions party, the Communist party, the Socialists and Yushchenko’s Our

Only about half of Our Ukraine deputies actually toed the party line and
voted for Yanukovych at his confirmation.

The more alarmist observers in the “orange” camp took no comfort from the
fact that vicious factional politics have been a feature of all the
ex-communist countries that joined the European Union in 2004.

Ukraine’s political crisis was “not cured but just hidden,” said Dzerkalo
Tyjnia, deploring the “absence of real political unity”. (AFP /ls)

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

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: by Katya Malofeeva
Renaissance Capital, Moscow, Russia, Thursday, 3 August 2006

Early this morning news broke that Ukraine President Viktor Yuschenko
had agreed to nominate Victor Yanukovich, the leader of Party of the
Regions, as the country prime minister. Yanukovich must now be voted
in by the parliament, which we believe will be done very soon.

President Yuschenko submitted the necessary papers to parliament in
the early hours of this morning, missing the midnight deadline by several

The alternative to naming Yanukovich as prime minister would have been
the dissolution of parliament and early presidential elections, which would
have extended the political uncertainty in Ukraine for several more months.

Yanukovich’s signature, as leader of the Party of the Regions, on a new
coalition agreement titled the National Unity Pact, was a requirement before
Yushchenko would consent to the nomination.

The document, which fixed the results of several weeks of prolonged
negotiations between five political parties (represented in parliament) was
signed by the heads of Our Ukraine, Party of the Regions and the Socialist

Yulia Timoshenko, leader of the Bloc of Yulia Timoshenko, had earlier said
that she agrees with the tenets of the document but would not sign it as it
would not yield any positive results for the country.

Petro Simonenko, leader of the Communist Party of Ukraine, did not sign
the document as well. As a result, neither Timoshenko’s party or the
Communist Party will be part of the majority coalition. [AUR NOTE:
believe Simonenko signed but with reservations]

The combination of the Party of the Regions, Socialist Party and Our
Ukraine gives the coalition a very comfortable majority of 300 votes
(according to the distribution of seats based on election results) in

Overall, we view the resolution of the 129-day (the time since parliamentary
elections on 26 March) crisis as a very positive development. We have been
arguing that a coalition of the Party of the Regions and Our Ukraine would
be the most stable and most favourable for the business community.

In particular, we believe that the business community will take a positive
view of the fact that Yulia Timoshenko was not returned to government, and

expect the market to welcome the announcement of the new coalition of the
Party of Regions, Our Ukraine and the Socialist Party and the appointment
of a prime minister.

However, despite the recent positive developments in Ukraine, we would
advocate certain caution. The full composition of the government is not yet
known, and we will be paying particular attention to the appointments of the
Ministers of Economy and Finance, as well a the head of the State Property

Also, the fact that President Yuschenko technically missed the deadline for
nominating a prime minister gives the opposition grounds to attempt to
question the legality of his nomination.

The opposition in Ukraine is very outspoken and active, and therefore one
should not count on Ukrainian politics to be overall stable and predictable
in the medium term.

The events of the past three months reveal the depth of controversy among
the different political forces, and it would be naïve to assume that
overnight all has been resolved.

Last, but not least, President Yuschenko has demonstrated his unwillingness
to make important decisions until he is forced to by circumstance (as we
witnessed a year ago, when he chose to put off his involvement in the
conflict between then-Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko and then-head of

National Security Council of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko until the situation
became explosive).

We believe that President Yuschenko will continue with such a policy,
attempting not to be involved in day-to-day politicking and to remain “above
the battle”, which suggests that Ukrainian politics may be a very turbulent
in the coming months.                              -30-

LINK:  http://www.rencap.com/eng/
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
       Ukrainian politicians are motivated not by pro-Russian, or pro-Western
                    attitudes, but by their own interests and nothing else.
                       Strictly speaking, business interests come first.

OPINION & ANALYSIS: By Vitaly Portnikov, Radio Liberty
RIA Novosti, Moscow, Russia, Friday, August 4, 2006

MOSCOW – Many Russian politicians who believe the myth about pro-
Western Yushchenko and pro-Russian Yanukovych have breathed a sigh
of relief on hearing the Ukrainian President’s latest decision: to submit
the candidacy for the post of prime minister of his recent rival in the
presidential elections.

The fact that Yanukovych signed the document approving the basic principles
of the country’s foreign policy, which Moscow so dislikes, is of no
particular importance.

It does not matter much, either, that the president has received an
opportunity to appoint security, defense and law-enforcement ministers, as
well as his loyal foreign minister.

Yanukovych has the economic block, and this is all that matters. All
security ministries and any other agreements pale by comparison.

Meanwhile, the situation could be reversed. If Yanukovych got the security,
law enforcement ministries and foreign policy, and Yushchenko were in
charge of the economy, the myth could continue thriving.

A Yanukovych-appointed foreign minister would support all Russian foreign
policy initiatives, a defense minister would lash out at NATO, and an
interior minister would be searching for fleas in Yulia Tymoshenko’s plait.

At the same time, the economics ministers would try to reduce prices for
Russian gas; they would be indignant at the restrictions on Ukrainian
exports into Russia; and they would do everything to keep Russian business
away from Ukrainian plants.

What will be the case now? Here’s a scenario.

A Yushchenko-appointed foreign minister will continue talking about
European integration and supporting Washington; a defense minister will
spend most of his time at NATO headquarters; and a minister of the interior
will be busy starting rows over regional business.

At the same time, the economics ministers will try to reduce prices for
Russian gas; they will express indignation over restrictions on Ukrainian
goods supplies to Russia; and they will try to prevent Russian business
from buying out Ukrainian enterprises.

Yanukovych’s emergence in power is a good excuse to give up the myth.
Ukrainian politicians are motivated not by pro-Russian, or pro-Western
attitudes, but by their own interests and nothing else. Strictly speaking,
business interests come first.

The interests of Ukraine may coincide with those of Russia or the U.S. only
on paper. This is why foreign policy and defense ministers are so important:
in the domestic Ukrainian context they do not have any political meaning

Those who control these departments determine the mythical future of the
country. Those who control the economy determine its present, which has

no obvious relevance to either Russia or the West.           -30-
LINK: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060804/52285074.html
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
          The new government is well-placed to hold the country together.
                               It should steer well clear of NATO.

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Charles Grant, Director
Centre for European Reform, an independent think-tank
Guardian Unlimited, London, United Kingdom, Friday, August 4, 2006

The formation of a new government – four months after parliamentary
elections – is good news for Ukraine.

The coalition is broad-based: the party of President Victor Yushchenko, Our
Ukraine, has strong roots in the rural west of the country; the Regions
party, led by the new prime minister, Victor Yanukovich, dominates the east;
and the Socialist party, the third member of the coalition, is popular among
farmers in the centre.

Western Ukraine is nationalist, speaks Ukrainian and wants closer ties to
the EU. In the east of the country there is less national feeling, Russian
is the main language and most people want good relations with Russia. The
coalition is well-designed to keep these two disparate halves together.

But is a comeback by Yanukovich really such a good thing? After all, he was
prime minister during the corrupt regime of President Leonid Kuchma, and his
victory in the fraudulent presidential election of November 2004 provoked
the orange revolution.

He has a dodgy past and a long-standing personal feud with Yushchenko.
Evidently, the new coalition is far from certain to make a success of
running this chaotic country.

But there are some cautious grounds for optimism. Yanukovich has signed up
to a government programme that is broadly in favour of a market economy and
a pro-western foreign policy. The government will try to complete talks on
joining the WTO before the end of this year; it will allow private sales of
agricultural land; and it will start to negotiate a free trade area with the

Those who have met Yanukovich recently report that he has made a big effort
to spruce up his style and become a more “western” politician – perhaps his
American PR advisers have helped.

Meanwhile the charismatic Yulia Timoshenko will provide a feisty leader of
the opposition. As prime minister after the orange revolution she made a
poor job of managing the economy, frequently resorting to populist measures,
and she proved a divisive figure.

If she had managed to combine with Our Ukraine to revive the “orange
coalition” that led the revolution, the government would not have been able
to speak for many Ukrainians east of the River Dnieper. Similarly, if
Yanukovich had formed a government without either Our Ukraine or
Timoshenko’s party, the west of the country might have been tempted to go
its own way.

Ukraine is a country whose diverse regions have experienced very different
histories, and it has seldom enjoyed any kind of meaningful independence. A
broad coalition is probably the best formula for holding the country

Yushchenko is an honourable and decent man but has disappointed as
president. On a recent visit to Ukraine, some of his friends and advisers
admitted to me that he was indecisive and sometimes unfocused.

His emphasis on making Ukrainian the language of government upset easterners
(in the coalition agreement, Yanukovich won the right for citizens to use
Russian in daily life, though Ukrainian remains the state language).

Yushchenko, knowing that EU membership is not a realistic proposition for
the time being, has tried to press ahead with plans to join NATO. He hoped
that at the NATO summit in Riga in November Ukraine would be offered a
“membership action plan”, a stepping stone on the way to membership.

However, Yanukovich, though quite warm towards the EU, is hostile to NATO.
The coalition agreement refers to “mutually beneficial co-operation with
NATO” and talks of an eventual referendum on membership. But a membership
action plan does not look feasible in the foreseeable future.

That is probably in Ukraine’s best interests. In my view, the new Ukrainian
government should deal with many priorities – negotiating a deal on gas
supplies with Russia, clamping down on corruption, and creating a business
environment that attracts foreign investment – that are more urgent than
joining NATO.

If a free and sovereign country wishes to join NATO, it should be allowed to
do so. Russia should not have the right to veto Ukraine’s decision on such a
matter. But the EU and the US would be unwise to push Ukraine into NATO.

Opinion polls suggest that very few Ukrainians want to join – only 12% were
in favour of joining NATO in one recent poll. If Ukraine did try to join, it
would be very divisive in country whose unity is fragile.

In any case, Russian views on the subject of Ukraine should not be
discounted altogether. To be sure, some Russians bluster when talking about
Ukraine and NATO. When senior figures in the Russian security establishment
describe NATO as an organisation dedicated to the destruction of the Russian
state – as they sometimes do – the paranoia is alarming.

Nevertheless Ukraine’s accession to NATO would be very different from that
of the Baltic countries, which Russia grumbled about but then accepted.

Russia’s Black Sea fleet is based in the Ukrainian port of Sebastopol. The
Russian and Ukrainian defence industries are a single entity. Most Russians
have Ukrainian relatives.

The mixing of peoples is rather like that of the English and the Welsh (and
less like that of the English and the Scots, for the latter enjoyed several
hundred years as a coherent and independent nation).

Russians genuinely do regard Ukraine as a place that is not abroad. Some of
the holiest religious sites in the Russian Orthodox world are in Kiev. The
origins of the Russian polity lie in “Rus”, the Kiev-centered mediaeval

So for Ukraine to join a US-led military alliance would be a blow and a
humiliation to many Russians, and would undoubtedly strengthen Russia’s
nationalist and anti-western forces. If Ukraine joined NATO it would upset
the east of the country. But if Ukraine moved back into the Russian sphere
of influence if would upset the western regions.

Ukraine should think seriously about becoming formally neutral, on the model
of Austria, Ireland, Finland or Sweden. That would not prevent the country
from moving closer to the EU and one day, perhaps, becoming a member.

Despite the political chaos of the past two years, Ukraine has shown that is
a functioning democracy. It has held free and fair presidential (at the
second attempt) and parliamentary elections.

Some Russians may find it ironic that the outcome of the parliamentary
elections is a government led by Yanukovich, the candidate Vladimir Putin
backed for the presidency. For the Kremlin had denounced those parliamentary
elections as fraudulent, although the Regions party won the most votes.

The Kremlin has tended to see Ukrainian politics as a zero-sum game, fearing
that free elections would produce a government that was pro-western and thus

The EU’s line, rightly, has been that what counts is not whether the
government is pro- or anti-western, but that the process of electing it is

The outcome of Ukraine’s fair electoral process is now a government that is
palatable to the Kremlin. So the EU may find it a little easier to convince
Russia that it should not treat their common neighbourhood as the playing
field of a game in which only one side can win.                     -30-
NOTE: In January 1998 Charles Grant became the first director of the Centre

for European Reform, an independent think-tank that is dedicated to promoting
a reform agenda within the European Union. He writes principally on EU foreign
and defence policy, transatlantic relations and Russia.
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
               Ukrainians prefer the two Viktors to focus on the tax reforms
                 and economic growth programmes in their joint declaration.

LEAD EDITORIAL: Financial Times
London, United Kingdom, Friday, August 4 2006

In the heady aftermath of the Orange Revolution, the notion of the
pro-western president, Viktor Yushchenko, inviting, even if reluctantly,
his pro-Moscow opponent, Viktor Yanukovich, to form a government
would have seemed quite implausible. Yet this is what has happened
this week.

And it now seems not at all a bad way of ending months of political deadlock
following the inconclusive March election. For, by working together, the two
Viktors could help Ukraine strike the necessary balance, at home and abroad,
between east and west.

The parliamentary vote confirming Mr Yanukovich as prime minister has been
put off until today, in order to allow the president’s Our Ukraine party to
negotiate its way into a coalition led by Mr Yanukovich’s Regions party. It
emerged as the largest party in the March elections.

It is not surprising that the president should now feel comfortable doing
this because he has succeeded in getting Mr Yanukovich to sign up to a
commitment not to reverse his pro-western policies.

Tiis commitment takes the form of a joint declaration by the two men that
supports Ukraine’s policy of integration with the European Union and of
co-operation with Nato.

Mr Yushchenko had hoped to persuade Mr Yanukovich into explicit
backing for Ukraine to seek a “membership action plan” from Nato at
the alliance’s summit this autumn in Riga.

But, in the end, the president may not have pushed this too hard, knowing
that there are also doubts inside Nato about the wisdom of accelerating the
entry of such a politically divided country as Ukraine.

Mr Yanukovich, whose political base is in the country’s Russian-speaking
east, won another concession in getting the use of Russian reaffirmed in
the declaration against the wishes of some Yushchenko supporters who
wanted Ukrainian to be specified as the “exclusive” state language.

Mr Yushchenko may therefore have pulled off a minor coup in getting his
erstwhile opponents to sign on to much of the substance of the Orange
revolution, including the fight against corruption in politics and the
campaign for independence of the country’s judicial and financial

This is the more impressive because his alternative option of calling
another election was not promising. For his own party has been falling in
the opinion polls, while the fortunes of other parties, including that of
fellow Orange revolutionary Yulia Tymoshenko, have been on the rise.

Ukraine will benefit if the two Viktors can work together, and both Brussels
and Moscow would be wise to leave them to try to do so. But most
Ukrainians are probably less bothered about the issues of Nato membership
or the status of Russian than about their economic future.

They would prefer the two Viktors to focus on the tax reforms and
economic growth programmes in their joint declaration.        -30-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
27.              UKRAINE TORN IN HALF

    To end the political crisis in Ukraine, President Viktor Yushchenko has
     nominated his arch foe Viktor Yanukovych Prime Minister. But analysts
                          say the country remains as divided as ever.

Radio Polonia, Poland’s Public Radio, Warsaw, Poland, Fri, Aug 4, 2006

On Thursday night the president and the leaders of major political forces
signed the Universal of National Unity. Viktor Yushchenko called it a
breakthrough on the way to the unity of the nation. Yulia Tymoshenko did not
sign the paper, she described the document as an act of capitulation and
said that from now on she joins a broader opposition.

Meanwhile, during the end of this week there were some intrigues around the
creation of a new coalition with the participation of Our Ukraine.

The main event after the president’s submission of the candidature of Viktor
Yanukovych for the post of the prime-minister became the adoption of the
Universal of National Unity. Mr Yushchenko called it a breakthrough on the
way to the unity of his nation:

‘I am sure that this is the right and wise compromise. There are things that
will always be higher than the postulates of some party programs. In my
understanding these are Ukrainian state, sovereignty, faith, unitarity,
patriotism, security. These are the things that will always belong to the
constitutional priorities of the nation.’

The deputy-head of Our Ukraine faction, Roman Zvarych, claims that the
wording of the document is consistent with the principal positions of the

They agreed about the questions that remained sharp up till now, namely
unitarity of our state, then the land market, the status of Ukrainian
language. Also, the wording of Ukraine’s joining NATO bloc.

The leader of the Party of Regions, Viktor Yanukovych, when speaking at the
round table and, may be, feeling already the burden of the future
responsibility of the government leader, spoke about his grandious plans:

We want to build a country of justice, a democratic country. The president’s
proposal to seek the things that unite us is much better that to seek things
that are dividing us.

The pompous adoption of the Universal was a bit clouded by the leader of
communists Petro Symonenko who signed the document with some principal
reservations, and the leader of Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc flatly refused to
put her signature in the document calling it a declarative paper in many
principal questions and a cloak, as she said, aimed to cover private
agreements about the distribution of seats and spheres of business.

The president reacted in a very harsh way to this criticism. A word fight
between the president and Yulia Tymoshenko demonstrated, practically, a
cleavage between the head of the state and his former companion during the
Orange Revolution:

‘In reply to this demagogy I would like to say a replica. Yulia
Volodymyrivna, if you had applied a finger at least to one of these
articles, then I think, you would have a right to speak this way. You were
not present in the hall even once, which variant would you like to sign: the
first? Ok, sign the first variant, as you please. Do not want to sign the
first one, then sign the fourth one, the seventh or the tenth that is
suggested tonight.’

Yulia Tymoshenko confirmed many times that she is now joining the
opposition, and not only in the parliament:

‘Today we proclaim not only the opposition, we are addressing all the MP’s
to create a broad inter-factional opposition, people’s inter-factional
opposition because I am sure that in the socialist factions and in Our
Ukraine faction some part of the MP’s will never accept the way in which
everything that used to be a bright hope for many people, has been betrayed

The opponents of the Universal are already making their prognosis that the
document will remain a declaration and will not be fulfilled by its

Meanwhile, Anatoliy Matviyenko, a representative of Our Ukraine faction, is
warning that if the postulates of the document are neglected by the
participants, then the president reserves his right to dissolve the

‘The president has taken his decision and gave his word, he accepted the
promises of the participants of the Universal. It’s risky but the president
still has at his disposal the right to dissolve the parliament if this
agreement that is, unfortunately not supported by anything, is violated.

This is a great responsibility both on the president who trusted the
promisers and those who gave their promises. On this depends whether
we will be building Ukraine or just fulfilling the orders coming from beyond

During the day intrigues remained regarding the type of future coalition and
the destiny of Our Ukraine bloc which is almost split in two now. One of the
leaders of the Party of Regions, Yevhen Kushnariov, confirmed that a
memorandum was signed between his political force and Our Ukraine
according to which a coalition will be formed in a new format.

The leader of socialist faction Vasyl Soushko also spoke of reformatting the
anti-crisis coalition. At the same time, the communists, having felt the
danger of creating a new coalition, this time without them, stood strictly
against the attempts to cancel the former coalitional agreements, referring
to the absence of unanimity among the members of Our Ukraine regarding
joining the broader coalition.

Meanwhile, a cleavage in Our Ukraine is growing. Some MP’s, as they said,
cannot come to their senses after the shock following the last decision of
the president to make Viktor Yanukovych the prime-minister of Ukraine.

Ruslana Lyzhychnko, the winner of Eurovision 2004 and now a member of the
Ukrainian parliament shared he impressions in the interview for the BBC:

‘That was impossible. How this happened, I just cannot explain to myself.
Now the political logics ceased to exist from this moment, to my mind. I am
shocked that the spirits with which we were on Maydan and the thing that
happened today are just opposite things. And I feel pity that now the
country will be ruled by the people who, to my mind, have not done much
for Ukraine.’

Some representatives of Our Ukraine are saying that they are not going to
join the broad coalition but on Thursday evening the majority of votes still
adopted the decision to join the coalition of National Unity and to vote for
Viktor Yanukovych in unrestricted regime.                 -30-
LINK: http://www.polskieradio.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=40109&j=2
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
                            Ukrainian Journalist Rostislav Martinyuk

Blagovest Benishev, FOCUS News Agency
Sofia, Bulgaria, Saturday, 5 August 2006

KIEV/SOFIA – At the moment Ukraine is divided into three camps which will
define the country’s future development. This is how Ukrainian journalist
and political analyst Rostislav Martinyuk commented before FOCUS News
Agency the political situation in Ukraine after former Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovich was elected Prime Minister on Friday.

“At the moment Ukraine is virtually divided into three camps which will
define the country’s future development.

[1] On the one hand there is the camp of those who assess Viktor
Yanukovich’s nomination for Prime Minister and the introduction of his
nomination by President Viktor Yushchenko as capitulation of the head
of state and of all supporters of the orange

[2] On the other hand there are those who hope that a consensus for union
between the western and the eastern parts of Ukraine has really been
reached – two groups having completely opposite political values.

This is a kind of an attempt of a “unity” of the regime that is successor of
former President Leonid Kuchma and the new power which is trying to play
along the European laws and perspective so that Ukraine can join the EU
and NATO.

[3] There is also a third camp – the camp of those who believe the election
of Viktor Yanukovich is a prelude to the complete rout of the nationalist
and pro-western forces in Ukraine and presents an inevitable Renaissance of
the pro-Moscow line of ruling the country which is oriented toward
integration to the post-Soviet area,” Rostislav Martinyuk added.
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
 Spirit of Ukraine’s “orange” revolution appeared to be extinguished yesterday

By Andrew Osborn in Moscow, Independent
London, United Kingdom, Saturday, 05 August 2006

The spirit of Ukraine’s “orange” revolution appeared to be extinguished
yesterday when the pro-Russian politician widely perceived to have “lost”
the revolution was crowned the country’s Prime Minister.

Viktor Yanukovych was approved by the Ukrainian parliament in a 271-9 vote
after the winner of the 2004 orange revolution, President Viktor Yushchenko,
made a dramatic compromise and proposed his erstwhile enemy as his premier.

“I am itching to get down to work,” Mr Yanukovych said before the key vote.
“I’ve been ready [to serve as Prime Minister] for a long time.”

Many supporters of the orange revolution say Mr Yanukovych will use his new
power to check Ukraine’s drive to join Nato and the European Union. They
also say that business interests close to him will have undue influence over
economic policy.

Mr Yanukovych and his allies – who now include the President’s Our Ukraine
party – were busy thrashing out the cabinet line-up yesterday. Mr
Yanukovych’s appointees will dominate, but under the constitution Mr
Yushchenko has control of key ministries such as foreign affairs and

In addition, the job of first deputy prime minister will go to a Yushchenko
ally. Ukrainian media pointed to Petro Poroshenko, a wealthy businessman, as
the most likely candidate. The President would also have the right to
appoint the interior minister, said an Our Ukraine official.

Mykola Azarov, a technocrat who oversaw economic and financial policy during
Mr Yanukovych’s last premiership from 2002-04, is likely to be appointed
Finance Minister. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, 31, the Economy Minister, was expected
to keep his job.

Mr Yanukovych’s comeback owes much to bickering in the orange camp.
Their first government fell apart and they ran as competing parties in a
March election, allowing Mr Yanukovych to form a majority in parliament.

Mr Yanukovych favours closer ties with Moscow. Mass protests in 2004
overturned his election as President and swept Mr Yushchenko to power. The
metals and energy magnate Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man, is an
influential member of his party.

In an interview with Russia’s Izvestia, Mr Yanukovych said fixing the
faltering economy required a better relationship with Russia. “If we accept
Russia as a partner, than we will be able to solve our biggest problems,
including over gas,” he said.

Russia’s state gas giant Gazprom briefly cut off supplies to Ukraine in
January in a dispute over contracts. It is now warning of a second rise in
prices. Gas prices are a crucial factor in Ukraine’s economy.

The coalition deal ended a parliamentary deadlock that had been holding up
key decisions for months and left Ukraine without a fully fledged government
and constitutional court. The crisis has left the country without meaningful
direction since 26 March when parliamentary elections took place.

Ukraine has traditionally been split along an east-west fault line and that
was reflected in the March ballot, where no one party won enough votes to
govern alone. The largely Russian-speaking east voted for Mr Yanukovych,
while the largely Ukrainian-speaking west split its vote between Mr
Yushchenko and his onetime revolutionary ally, Julia Tymoshenko.

Mr Yanukovych’s pro-Russian Party of the Regions won more votes than any
other, while Ms Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party came second and Mr
Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine Party was beaten into a humiliating third place.

The two former orange allies, Mr Yushchenko and Ms Tymoshenko, spent
months trying to form a coalition government to keep Mr Yanukovych out
of power, but their talks collapsed in acrimony last month.

One problem was the lack of chemistry between Mr Yushchenko and Ms
Tymoshenko, who coveted the job of prime minister. Though they worked
together during the revolution and in government afterwards, their
relationship was soured when Mr Yushchenko sacked Ms Tymoshenko as
his Prime Minister due to internal feuding.                      -30-
LINK: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1214521.ece
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
        “Irony of history or mere cynicism?” asks leftist Die Tageszeitung on
             Friday. “The politically dead Russophile Yanukovych has been
             resurrected and has — paradoxically — more power than before.”

WORLD FROM BERLIN: By Heike Westendorf
Spiegel Online, Hamburg, German, Friday, August 4, 2006

Ukraine may finally have put aside the political feud that has been raging
in the country since March. But the solution pairs two bitter rivals. Is the
Orange Revolution dead?

Viktor Yushchenko is still president of Ukraine. But he’ll have to share
power with his political rival Viktor Yanukovych.

The political squabbling had been going on for months. But on Thursday,
former political rivals Viktor Yushchenko, the president of Ukraine, and
Viktor Yanukovych reached an agreement which will see Yanukovych
become the country’s prime minister.

The political stalemate began in March when parliamentary elections resulted
in a debacle for Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party. In the months since, he has
tried hard to put together a governing coalition with Yulia Timoshenko,
whose party came in second in the vote.

Timoshenko was Yushchenko’s close ally in the autumn 2004 Orange Revolution
which saw Yushchenko escorted into the presidency over the pro-Russian
candidate Yanukovych on a wave of nationwide protests.

Since then, however, Yushchenko’s popularity has plummeted amid higher
as prices, a sluggish economy and an inability to unite the deeply divided

“When politicians unite their forces, society will do the same … and that
is very important,” Yanukovych said on Thursday. The Ukrainian parliament is
scheduled to vote on his candidacy on Friday.

During the Orange Revolution, Yanukovych had become the bogeyman with his
pro-Russian stance. He or his allies had been suspected of having poisoned
Yushchenko with a near deadly dose of dioxin during the bitter 2004 campaign
for the presidency.

The Financial Times Deutschland calls the Ukrainian decision a political
“tie.” The new head of government will be Viktor Yanukovych — “a man of
yesterday.” For the former revolutionaries, this may be a disappointment,
“but for the country as a whole, a grand coalition which unites both camps
is the best solution right now.”

The challenge for the new government will be to find a balance between the
pro-European west and the pro-Russia east and the “chances are not so bad.”
After months of political chaos following the inconclusive March elections,
“this time it was about substance.”

And the editorial notes that “this cumbersome process is the expression of a
maturing democracy.” Yushchenko, on the other hand, is “the tragic figure”
in all of this. “The president, who brought the big change to his country,
turns out to be a man of transition. The next presidential election will
mark the end of the saga of the revolutionary hero in history books.”

“Irony of history or mere cynicism?” asks leftist Die Tageszeitung on
Friday. “The politically dead Russophile Yanukovych has been resurrected
and has — paradoxically — more power than before.”

The paper is unimpressed by the political battles waged in Kiev this spring.
“What the Ukrainians had to experience these past four months can be
described as ‘absurd theater’ at best.”

Decisions and announced positions could not be trusted as shown by head
of the Socialist party Alexander Moros, who backed out of a coalition with
Yulia Timoshenko and President Yushchenko — and then used the votes of
the communists and Yanukovych’s party to become president of the
Parliament. But the paper is convinced that things are looking up for the

“As scary as the talks in Kiev seemed to be: They represent a lesson in
democracy,” which is “an important experience” for the Ukrainians. The
country now needs an active opposition, something “Ukrainian politicians
now need to learn.”

The editorial supposes that especially former Prime Minister Yulia
Timoshenko is capable of “flipping the switch from obstruction to
opposition.” And this “would be another belated and positive result of the
Orange Revolution.”

Center-right daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung thinks it’s “about time
that a government is formed, which promotes modernization, tackles the
necessary reforms, develops a prudent relationship with Russia — and can
hold the country together.”

The editorial sees “a sort of grand coalition” between Yushchenko and his
rival Yanukovych as “probably the only one able to overcome the political
paralysis as well as the social-mental rift in Ukraine,” even if “it may
look like a conspiracy of power.”

And it “sounds encouraging” that “Yanukovych accepts the politics of
western orientation, consolidation of democracy and market economy and
has promised to continue supporting them.”

Conservative daily Die Welt titles its editorial “The Art of Balance,” and
ambiguously writes that “the impossible seems to become reality: Two
Viktors have won and now govern Ukraine.”

The paper links the success of the former Ukrainian leader to several
election victories in Poland in the mid 80’s, which “led their country to
membership in the NATO and EU without ifs and buts,” hoping for a similar
future for Ukraine.

But, right now, the country is split in two parts: the “heart of the country
in the west” and the “stomach of Ukraine in the richer east,” where Russian
is spoken and natural resources are plenty. “One day, Ukraine will have to
decide between this side and the western option.”          -30-
LINK: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,430195,00.html

[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.
         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.
                              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 be listed again later this week.
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]

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized