Monthly Archives: September 2006

AUR#765 Sep 30 Lviv Celebrates 750 Years; Babyn Yar, Holocaust; Was 1933 Holodomor Act Of Genocide?; Perpetuating Butchers? Catherine II of Russia Monument

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

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

 
    LVIV CELEBRATES 750 YEARS
                              1256 – 2006
                                                     
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 765
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
WASHINGTON, D.C., SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
 
                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

                     Presentation of Ruslana’s new project “Wild Energy” 
“UkrainaTV.com” ukietvlist@ukrainatv.com, Friday, September 29, 2006 

Lviv 750th Celebration, Lviv, Ukraine, September 2006

3.    GERMAN PRODUCER GERT HOFF AND UKRAINIAN SINGER
    RUSLANA PRESENT JOINT NEW CREATIVE LIGHT AND MUSIC
                       SHOW FOR LVIV’S 750TH ANNIVERSARY
Lviv 750th Celebration, Lviv, Ukraine, September, 2006

4.                 LVIV: GET PLUNGED IN THEIR MIDDLE AGES
Lviv 750th Celebration, Ukraine, September, 2006

5.        RAILROAD TO RUN THREE EXTRA TRAINS BETWEEN
       KYIV AND LVIV FOR 750TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, September 27, 2006

6.    PRESIDENT YUSHCHENKO SPEAKS AT BABYN YAR FORUM 

Press office of President Victor Yushchenko
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, 27 September 2006

7U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION SPELLINGS COMMEMORATES
       THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TRAGEDY AT BABYN YAR
        “A more hopeful, peaceful future depends on advancing the values of
           respect, compassion, and freedom and that begins with education”
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., Wed, Sep 27, 2006

8.     AMERICAN FROM KANSAS IS PASSIONATE ADVOCATE OF
                 HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL COMPLEX IN UKRAINE
By Zenon Zawada, Kyiv Press Bureau
The Ukrainian Weekly, Parsippany, New Jersey
Sunday, September 17, 2006

9MONTENEGRO TO SUPPORT UKRAINE IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
        OF 1932-1933 FAMINE AS GENOCIDE OF UKRAINIAN PEOPLE 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, September 27, 2006

10.   YUSHCHENKO MEETS CROATIAN PRESIDENT STJEPAN MESIC
  Urged Croatia to “support all our initiatives on declaring Holodomor a genocide
Press Office of the President of Ukraine
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, September 27, 2006

11.    NO FUNDING IN 2007 BUDGET FOR MEMORIALS OF SOVIET
        CRIMES, HOLODOMOR COMPLEX, FUNDING FOR INSTITUTE
              OF NATIONAL MEMORY TAKES DEEP CUT SAY NGO’S
Channel 5TV, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, September 28, 2006

12.          WAS THE 1933 HOLODOMOR AN ACT OF GENOCIDE?
By Stanislav Kulchytsky, Deputy Director,
Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest in English #29, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Sep 26, 2006

 
13THROUGH LENS IN DARFUR, ‘I WAS A WITNESS TO GENOCIDE’
            Photographer Brian Steidle has made it his mission to spread the
            word about the violence and suffering he encountered while part
                           of an international observation team in Sudan.
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY newspaper
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 27, 2006
 
14.                           PERPETUATING BUTCHERS?
  MONUMENT TO CATHERINE II OF RUSSIA PLANNED IN ODESA
     We must not permit the removal of the monument to the heroes of the
      popular revolution and its replacement by a monument to Catherine II
               of Russia, that merciless butcher of the Ukrainian people.
By Oleksiy Volovych, Mykhailo Matsiuk, and Oleksandr Muzych,
Research Fellows, Odesa Branch, National Institute of Strategic Studies
The Day Weekly Digest in English, #29
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 26, 2006
 
15.    VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL GROUNDBREAKING 
                      Officials Break Ground at Washington, D.C. Site
By Sue Anne Pressley Montes, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.
Thursday, September 28, 2006; Page B03

16.                 UKRAINE – “MARIENBERG: FATE OF A VILLAGE”

New Book By Johann Bollinger and Janice Huber Stangl
Michael Miller, Germans From Russia Heritage Collection
Fargo, North Dakota, Friday, September 29, 2006 

17THE NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE: CHORNOBYL 20 YEARS LATER

        Symposium in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Friday, October 20, 2006        
Orysia Tracz, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Friday, September 29, 2006
               World-renowned Kyiv Chamber Choir will give 12 concerts                
Infoukes, Toronto, Canada, Friday, September 29, 2006

19.     CHDERES UKRAINIAN FOLK ORCHESTRA IN NEW YORK 

                 Free musical concert on Monday, October 2, at 7:30 p.m.
Diana Howansky, Staff Associate
Ukrainian Studies Program, Columbia University
New York, New York, Friday, September 29, 2006

20KULE GIFT PROMISES CONTINUED GROWTH FOR UKRAINIAN
   FOLK CENTRE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA IN EDMONTON
Peter and Doris Kule Centre for Ukrainian and Canadian Folklore
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, September 2006

========================================================
1
. LVIV CELEBRATES ITS 750TH FOUNDATION ANNIVERSARY
                  Presentation of Ruslana’s new project “Wild Energy” 
 
“UkrainaTV.com” ukietvlist@ukrainatv.com, Friday, September 29, 2006 

The real pearl of the Eastern Europe Lviv resembles an open-air museum

with its 2,000 historical, architectural and cultural monuments. For more
information on Lviv’s 750th year anniversary celebration, September 29
and October 1, visit www.750.lviv.ua.

The event is held on this weekend. Vitaliy Klychko and Goran Bregovich,
Okean Elzy and Ingrid, Druha Rika, Talita Kum, Taras Chubaj and Plach
Yeremiji, Pikkardijska Tercija, Mertvyj Piven will be performing at the
different venues in this great city.

 
The celebration festivities will be crowned by a great show- presentation by
Ruslana’s new project “Wild Energy” and a spectacular illumination show
near the Lviv Solomiya Krushelnytska Opera House by the German producer
and director of light and music performances Gert Hoff.

If for any reason you will not be able to attend this amazing event in
person, please visit http://www.UkrainaTV.com/ where you will find

extensive video & TV coverage of these festivities.

Special greetings to all lvivjan!                          -30-

————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2.                         HISTORY OF LVIV, UKRAINE 
 
Lviv 750th Celebration, Lviv, Ukraine, September 2006
 
The city of Lviv is the center of Lviv oblast with the population of 2.6
million inhabitants and the area of 21.8 thousand sq. km.

There are 830 thousand citizens who permanently live in the city and 200
thousand people who come to Lviv every day to work or to have an excursion.

Real pearl of the Eastern Europe Lviv resembles an open-air museum with its
2000 historical, architectural and cultural monuments.

The city was founded in the middle of the 13th century (1256) by the prince
Danylo Halytskyi and was called after his son Lev.

Lviv quickly became a trade and economic center of the region. The vantage
location of the city on the cross roads of trade routes from the Black and
Baltic sea ports, from Kyiv, Central and Western Europe contributed to its
fast development.

The geographic location and natural resources attracted foreigners: Tatars,
Germans, Polish, Lithuanians, Austrians, and Swedes.

For ages they have brought here their culture, traditions, and religion –
hence the Lviv architecture is a mixture of Gothic and Baroque, Renaissance
and Roman styles, Rococo and Empire, Modern Eclectic and Constructivism.

The old Lviv is first of all the Market Square – the center and the heart of
its public, economic and cultural life. Six centuries has the history of
Lviv been closely connected with this comparatively small almost square
place 142 x 129 m large. It located the Magistrate, palaces and buildings of
the outstanding citizens, a market, a court, and a place where justice was
administered.

There were placed fountain-sculptures of Neptune, Adonis, Diana, and
Amphitrite on the four corners of the square in 1793 at the place of the
former wells.

The Market Square has witnessed the most important events in the city since
1356 – the time of the Magdeburg right adoption. The Magdeburg right is one
of the best known systems of the feudal town right. It emerged in the 12th
century in the German town of Magdeburg. It legally fixed right and
liberties of the citizens, their right for self-government.

After the adoption of the Magdeburg right Lviv ceased to be dependent on the
king’s administration and was directly subordinated to the king, whose
interests were represented by the town head-man.

The earliest record about the city tower dates back to 1381. It was then a
wooden structure finished with a high tower and a gallery for the trumpeter.
But the fires did not have a pity for the structures.

In the early 17th century a new city hall was built with a high octahedral
tower crowned with a gilded metal lion. But this city hall did not survive –
its tower crumpled in 1826. Construction of the building dominating the
present square was completed in 1835 by the project of J. Markl, F. Treter,
A. Wondrashky.

In spite of its massiveness the city hall naturally entered the Lviv
architectural ensemble while its tower became a symbol of the city. It is 65
m high.

In 1852 a clock was placed on the tower. One has to go up 400 stairs to
reach it. The diameter of the clock face is 3 meters, the length of the
large hand is 2 m 15 cm.

The entrance to the city hall is guarded by the two lions. They are holding
shields with the city coat-of-arms.

The basis of the coat-of-arms is formed by the stamp of Halychyna kings. The
coat-of-arms depicts the town gates with towers suggesting defensive might
of Lviv, the gates bars are raised suggesting hospitality of the citizens,
and the lion is protecting the city from the unwelcomed quests.

Today Lviv is the treasury of the national ideas and culture, it is an
economic, educational and cultural center of the Western Ukraine. There are
many museums, picture galleries, theater and music groups. The majestic Lviv
Opera Theater has a very busy season.

There are 12 higher educational institutions located in Lviv, it has justly
deserved the reputation of the city with the high level of education. It is
here that one of the oldest central European university and the first
university founded in Ukraine is located.

Lviv, however, is famous not only as a cultural and educational center, it
is also the business center.                         -30-

——————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.750.lviv.ua/pages/start.php?mn=0&page_id=19
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3.   GERMAN PRODUCER GERT HOFF AND UKRAINIAN SINGER
   RUSLANA PRESENT JOINT NEW CREATIVE LIGHT AND MUSIC
                      SHOW FOR LVIV’S 750TH ANNIVERSARY

Lviv 750th Celebration, Lviv, Ukraine, September, 2006

LVIV – German producer and director of light and music performances Gert
Hoff and Ukrainian singer Ruslana Lyzhychko are glad that it is Lviv that is
going to be the first to see their joint creative work, all the more that it
will be on its 750th jubilee.

That was what they told at the press-conference which took place in Kyiv. In
the words of Hoff, he is very glad to make a light show for Lviv in the days
of celebration dedicated to the 750th Lviv anniversary, because he is very
much fond of this city.

The production which Mr. Hoff and Ruslana will show the audience in our

city on September 30 constitutes the result of their joint work.

Salutes and lasers which are going to illuminate the square in front of the
Opera Theatre will be accompanied by music which has been written under

the influence of the creativity of the German “light master” by the Ukrainian
singer, while she was analyzing the works of classics. Lviv will get an
enchanting show because cooperation yields ingenious works, – the authors
assure.

Let us remind you that the German producer promised to impress Lviv with
fireworks 80 metres of height.                    -30-
———————————————————————————————–
http://www.750.lviv.ua/pages/start.php?mn=1&g_id=1&cmd=show&i=86&srt=all
——————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
4.              LVIV: GET PLUNGED IN THEIR MIDDLE AGES

Lviv 750th Celebration, Ukraine, September, 2006

LVIV – Public Association “Virmenska 35” and organizers of art festivals
have presented the program of street activities which will take place within
the framework of the festivities dedicated to the Day of the City with the
support of Lviv City Council and Public Association “Directorate dealing
with organization of celebration of the 750th Lviv anniversary”.

International festival of blacksmiths’ art “Lvivska pidkova 2006” will last
for all the three days of celebration – from September 29 to October 1.

Each day from ten o’clock in the morning till ten o’clock in the evening in
the courtyard behind Arsenal blacksmiths from different countries of the
world will be demonstrating their art, they will compete for the quickest
and best fulfillment of a certain task and will put their works on sale.

On Friday, September 30, at 8 p.m. a show of fire and metal will be held
within the framework of this festival, and on Sunday at 2 p.m. knights
fights will start.

The festival “Lviv – the capital of handicrafts” will collect on one ground
masters of different crafts for three days: blacksmiths, weavers, jewelers,
stained-glass windowmakers, glassworks craftsmen, armourers, engravers,
stonecutters, bakers, musicians as well as masters of batyk, folk toys,
pysanka, embroidery, leather work.

These will mostly be Lviv masters and craftsmen, and everybody will have

a chance to watch their work. Their articles will also be on sale.

Artists and craftsmen will be working in Valova Street from 10 a.m. till 3
or 4 p.m., after that they will give place to the participants of “naLIT”
festival.

In the square of Bernardine cathedral poets from various parts of Ukraine,
Russia, Byelorus, Germany and Poland will recite their works and works of
Ukrainian classics in their own interpretation. The audience is also in for
a poetic event (poetry recitation with artists’ performances, musical
variations, photo- and video activities).

In the evening, after 9.00 p.m., poets will be followed by film masters. In
the words of the organizer of the festival “kinoLev” Oles Dzyndra, all in
all they have received 81 films. Within the framework of the festival it
will, for sure, be impossible to demonstrate all of them, therefore films
will be selected “in correspondence with Lviv ideology”.

During the festival spectators will have a chance to watch a 3-4 hour mix
program, which is 99% made of the author’s films of young producers shot
over the past few years. Apart from that, such already known Ukrainian
producers as Ihor Strembitskyy and Taras Tomenko are going to come to the
festival.

“Lviv Starodavniy” is a festival which, as organizers plan it, is called to
get the guests plunged into the atmosphere of the XVth century, the epoch

of prosperity of our city. Over 200 persons are going to participate in it.
These will be members of Ukrainian and international clubs of historical
reconstruction.

The program of the festival includes: knights tournament, medieval dances
(the guests will have a chance to learn some medieval movements and steps),
tasting of medieval cuisine (without species, tomatoes, etc.), demonstration
of medieval games (like chess, card games, races).

Apart from that, participants from other countries will show the guests
their crafts, and musicians from Byelorus, the Baltic countries, St.
Petersburg and Czechia will play medieval music. You can see it all on
September 30 and October 1 in Shevchenkivskyi Hay from midday to

6-7 p. m.

Also, during the celebration of the 750th city anniversary the 11th
International Festival of Journalism “Vira. Nadiya Lyubov” will take place
in Lviv. Over 70 journalists from different countries of the world will
participate in it.

In particular, participants from Egypt, Tunisia, the USA and Canada will
arrive. On September 30 in the inner courtyard of the City Hall at 4 p.m.
the award ceremony “The best journalist of the year” will take place. The
event will start with the performance of the military orchestra from the
House of Officers.                                   -30-

——————————————————————————————-
http://www.750.lviv.ua/pages/start.php?mn=1&g_id=1&cmd=show&i=89&srt=all
——————————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.      RAILROAD TO RUN THREE EXTRA TRAINS BETWEEN
    KYIV AND LVIV FOR 750TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, September 27, 2006

KYIV – The State Administration of Railway Transport Ukrzaliznytsia has
decided that another three trains will run between Kyiv and Lviv, as the
railway administration expects a large number of people will want to take
part in the celebrations of Lviv’s 750th anniversary on September 30 and
October 1. Ukrainian News learned this from a representative of the Lviv
railway administration.

The representative said train No.57 will depart from Kyiv at 20:07 on
September 29 and will arrive in Lviv at 06:01 on September 30, train No.35
will depart from Kyiv at 22:42 on September 29 and will arrive in Lviv at
08:10 on September 30, and train No.113 will depart at 23:31 on September

29 and will arrive in Lviv at 09:46 on September 30.

Train No.274 will depart from Lviv at 23:06 on September 30 to arrive in
Kyiv at 09:10 on October 1, train No.208 will depart from Lviv at 21:45 on
October 1 to arrive in Kyiv at 08:24 on October 2, and train No.220 will
depart from Lviv at 23:40 on October 1 to arrive in Kyiv at 09:59 on October
2.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, in September, the State Administration
of Railway Transport Ukrzaliznytsia launched a new Kyiv-Lviv high-speed
day-time express train No.169/170. The trip between the two cities takes
about 6 hours. The departure from Kyiv is at 17:11 and at 06:10 from Lviv.
The express runs six times a week.                        -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6. PRESIDENT YUSHCHENKO SPEAKS AT BABYN YAR FORUM 
 
Press office of President Victor Yushchenko
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, 27 September 2006

KYIV – Victor Yushchenko has spoken at an international forum LET MY

PEOPLE LIVE!, which is being held in Kyiv to mark the sixty-fifth anniversary
of the Babyn Yar massacre.

“[.] on behalf of the Ukrainian nation, I am bowing my head to honor the
innocent victims of terror,” he said.

The President said the atrocious killing of over 100,000 people of different
nationalities had been concealed for many years but admitted that lifeless
statistics would never reflect the magnitude of the tragedy.

Mr. Yushchenko declared that “Ukraine resolutely condemns those who

incited the Holocaust and will spare no effort to prevent such tragedies
together with the world community.”
 
[What about the genocide going on in Darfar today, Mr. President? What
do you plan to do to stop a genocide today? Why do you not mention
the people who are dying today, Mr. President?  When will you speak out,
when will you ask the UN to take real action?  When will you send
assistance to those dying in Darfar today?  AUR EDITOR]
 
“I clearly and straightforwardly promise that there will never be ethnic
intolerance and religious hatred in Ukraine. Together with other world
leaders, I support the global process of strengthening the dialogue of
cultures and religions.

Like all Ukrainians, I refuse to accept and tolerate the slightest
manifestation of xenophobia and anti-Semitism,” he said.

Mr. Yushchenko then remembered Ukrainians that heroically saved Jews

during the Holocaust: “I am proud of those righteous Ukrainians who were
saving innocent Jewish lives when the millennium-long Jewish presence in
Ukraine was being eradicated.”

He also thanked his colleagues and delegates of the forum.

The forum was organized by the government of Ukraine, the World

Holocaust Forum Foundation, and Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs’
and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority.                 -30-
———————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/1_10603.html
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION SPELLINGS COMMEMORATES
      THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TRAGEDY AT BABYN YAR
       “A more hopeful, peaceful future depends on advancing the values of
          respect, compassion, and freedom and that begins with education”

U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., Wed, Sep 27, 2006

KYIV, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings today led a
Presidential delegation to Kiev, Ukraine to commemorate the 65th anniversary
of the tragedy at Babyn Yar.

Following the ceremony, Secretary Spellings delivered remarks at the Kiev
Opera House, discussing the important role of education in fighting
ignorance and prejudice.

Following are her prepared remarks:

Thank you. President Yushchenko, President Katsav, President Vujanovic,
President Mesic, and distinguished guests: On behalf of President Bush and
the American people and as a person of Ukrainian descent, it’s an honor to
be here. President Bush sends his regards and has asked me to share his
thoughts and prayers with you.

I want to thank Ambassador William Taylor and the other members of our
delegation. Vince Obsitnik is a former member of the U.S. Commission for

the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad.

Gregg Rickman is the U.S. State Department’s special envoy for combating
anti-Semitism. And Fred Zeidman is chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Council.

As the United States Secretary of Education, I want to thank all of you here
today for your commitment to commemorating and learning from the past.
Earlier today, we visited the ravine at Babyn Yar, which became the final
resting place for 100,000 innocent men, women, and children.

Many were killed for their religious and political beliefs; others for where
they were born or for the way they looked. They were all victims of hatred
and intolerance.

Even today, 65 years later, it’s difficult to come to terms with the scale
of the atrocity and the systematic cruelty with which it was carried out. In
the first few days of the massacre, 33,000 Jews were marched to the edge

of the ravine and gunned down.

The perpetrators tried to hide their crimes from the world, but your
presence today shows they failed. The dead were buried and burned, but

their lives will not be forgotten.

Anatoly Kuznetsov was one of the lucky ones. He survived to write a famous
book about Babyn Yar. As he put it, “History will not be cheated, and
nothing can be hidden forever.”

Today, we’re committed to honoring his words by remembering the past and
passing on the lessons of this terrible tragedy to the next generation.

In the 20th century, we saw what happens when ignorance and prejudice go
unchallenged, and we must teach our children to confront these forces in
their own lives. A more hopeful, peaceful future depends on advancing the
values of respect, compassion, and freedom and that begins with education.

We have a responsibility to help our children understand what happened here
and at similar sites across Europe. Through education, we can help protect
future generations from a similar fate. In the United States, we opened the
national Holocaust museum in Washington, DC.

It’s a memorial to those who died as well as a center of learning. More than
24 million people have visited the museum since it opened, and the history
and lessons taught there still resonate today.

In his book, Mr. Kuznetsov wrote, “Looking at our yesterday, we think of
tomorrow.” For all of us here today, it’s a reminder that we must do our
part to make sure history does not repeat itself.

On behalf of President Bush and the American delegation, I want to thank
President Yushchenko and the Ukrainian people for inviting us here to join
in remembering the past and dedicating ourselves to a brighter future.
Thank you.                               -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/09/09272006.html
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8. AMERICAN FROM KANSAS IS PASSIONATE ADVOCATE OF
            HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL COMPLEX IN UKRAINE

By Zenon Zawada, Kyiv Press Bureau
The Ukrainian Weekly, Parsippany, New Jersey
Sunday, September 17, 2006

KYIV – Like most Americans, when Morgan Williams first arrived in Ukraine

in 1992 as an agricultural and food distribution expert, he hadn’t even heard
of the Holodomor.

Ukraine’s beauty, and its tragic past, which he began to study, deeply
intrigued the Kansas native.

“When you’re in the food business, you’re always interested in what causes
famines and food shortages,” Mr. Williams said. “In this case, it was mostly
the policy of the Soviet government to crush private farms and collectivize
land and property.”

More than 14 years later, Mr. Williams has emerged as among the most
passionate, active and effective advocates for a Ukrainian Holodomor
Memorial Complex.

He spent August and early September meeting with the key Ukrainian officials
who will lead the complex’s development, including President Viktor
Yushchenko, Assistant State Secretary of Ukraine Markian Lubkivskyi and
National Council for Cultural and Spiritual Issues Chair Mykola Zhulynskyi,
among others.

Ever since 1995 Mr. Williams has been on a mission to inform the world, as
well as ignorant Ukrainians, about the artificial famine and ethnic genocide
wrought by Joseph Stalin.

A fellow American who was dedicated to documenting the Holodomor, Dr.

James Mace, provided the inspiration.

“I told Jim several years ago that I was not a researcher, scholar or
writer,” Mr. Williams said. “He said, ‘Morgan, then your job should be to
tell the world about the Holodomor.’ “

He began collecting Holodomor posters and artwork that had only begun to
emerge in Ukraine in 1988, when Soviet totalitarianism began to ravel and
Ukrainians began to express themselves more openly.

Much of his vast collection of 300 items, which also includes Holodomor
artwork from the Ukrainian diaspora, is currently on a yearlong tour through
museums throughout Ukraine.

Mr. Williams also became involved in the drive to have the Ukrainian
Parliament recognize the Holodomor as a genocide against the Ukrainian
people, – something that finally happened with a resolution passed in May
2003.

The planning, design and construction of the Holodomor Memorial Historical
Complex is Mr. Williams’ current concern.

Repeating Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s words delivered in August
to the fourth World Forum of Ukrainians, Mr. Williams has stressed that the
complex “should be commensurate to the level of the tragedy.”

In his criticisms of the memorial’s design, he urged the complex’s
organizers and developers to make a firm statement against dictatorial,
totalitarian and oppressive governments.

“They were murdered by a political system and people who were out of
control. So I think Ukraine has to make a strong statement against the
system which murdered all these people,” he said.

A memorial for visitors and tourists, the complex should also include a
research center, library, book store, genealogical center, as well as
provide support to Holodomor researchers and scholars throughout the

world, he added.

Mr. Williams said he’s particularly concerned about the current legislative
drive to recognize the Holodomor as an artificial famine and genocide as
part of Ukrainian law.

In May 2003, the Verkhovna Rada passed a resolution recognizing the
Holodomor as genocide, a victory that was hard-fought and sufficient, in his
view. In most countries around the world, a resolution is all a government
typically resorts to in order to recognize a tragic historical event, he
explained.

Writing recognition of genocide into law is typically done to pursue
reparations, something that neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian government
would ever agree to, Mr. Williams said.

The timing of such a legislative drive may create a backlash in the coalition

government against the planned Holodomor complex, Mr. Williams said.

In explaining why Holodomor commemoration experts and leaders were

pushing for a law, Pavlo Movchan told a September 8 press conference
that the law is needed for international recognition, particularly by the United
Nations. No attempts to pursue reparations will be made, he told reporters.

Mr. Williams has also been very active in gathering, preserving and
researching government archives concerning the Holodomor.

When he contacted the Security Service of Ukraine, he found out that the
country’s top intelligence agency had not a single photograph of the
Holodomor. “Photographs of the Holodomor were either never taken or

entirely destroyed,” he said.

At a Holodomor roundtable discussion at the World Forum of Ukrainians Mr.
Williams urged diaspora Ukrainians not to use any photographs that have been
typically associated with the Ukrainian Holodomor.

These photographs were taken by international relief agencies along the
Volga River in Russia in 1921 and 1922 and then used by Nazi Germany as

part of an anti-Soviet propaganda campaign in 1935 to falsely depict the
Ukrainian Holodomor.

The photos made their way into American newspapers owned by William

Randolph Hearst and then became widespread in the diaspora. Continuing to
use such photographs will only help Holodomor detractors, he said.

No known photographs [very few] exist of the Holodomor, he said, adding

that he had even repeatedly offered to pay $100 for any such photos.

When he’s not in Kyiv, Mr. Williams is in Washington “advocating Ukraine’s
issues and moving its agenda forward.”

He’s a longtime associate of former U.S. Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.), and
served as his presidential campaign manager during the 1979 Iowa caucuses.

Mr. Williams currently serves as the director of government affairs for
SigmaBleyzer, an investment bank very active in Kyiv, and chairs the
executive committee of the board of directors at the Ukraine-U.S. Business
Council.

Amidst his activities, he also finds time to edit the Action Ukraine Report,
an electronic mail list-serve that compiles and distributes English-language
news reports about Ukrainian affairs.

In some ways, Mr. Williams views his work as giving back to Ukraine what

it gave to Kansas.

In 1860 German Mennonite settlers began leaving southern Ukraine for the
U.S., bringing with them hard red winter wheat seed. “Kansas prospered from
that wheat seed brought from southern Ukraine,” he said.           -30-
———————————————————————————————–
The Ukrainian Weekly, Roma Hadzewycz, Editor-in-Chief
Parsippany, NJ 07054, e-mail: staff@ukrweekly.com  

The Ukrainian Weekly Archive, http://www.ukrweekly.com.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9.  MONTENEGRO TO SUPPORT UKRAINE IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
        OF 1932-1933 FAMINE AS GENOCIDE OF UKRAINIAN PEOPLE 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, September 27, 2006

KYIV – Montenegro intends to support Ukraine in acknowledgment of

1932-1933 famine as genocide of Ukrainian people. Presidential press service
has disclosed this in a statement with the reference to meeting of Viktor
Yuschenko and Montenegro President Filip Vujanovic in Kyiv.

According to the report, the presidents discussed development of bilateral
cooperation in humanitarian, military and technical and economic sectors;
and necessity of stepping up formation of normative and legal base of
bilateral relations regulation.

Viktor Yuschenko and Filip Vujanovic agreed that it is necessary to organize
active diplomatic dialog between the two countries.

Yuschenko also proposed to work out program on mutual education of
Ukrainian and Montenegrin students in Ukraine and Montenegro respectively.

Vujanovic supported this initiative and the initiative to erect Taras
Shevchenko monument in Montenegro. The presidents marked that it is
necessary that the defense ministers of the two countries also have to
cooperate. The parties of the talk stressed that both countries’ willingness
to join European and European-Atlantic structures.

Vujanovic invited Yuschenko to Montenegro in 2007. As Ukrainian News

earlier reported, Vujanovic arrived in Ukraine on September 26 to take part
in the events dedicated to the 65th anniversary of Babyn Yar tragedy.   -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. YUSHCHENKO MEETS CROATIAN PRESIDENT STJEPAN MESIC
Urged Croatia to “support all our initiatives on declaring Holodomor a genocide

Press Office of the President of Ukraine
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, September 27, 2006

KYIV – Victor Yushchenko has met with Croatian President Stjepan Mesic.
First he thanked the colleague for coming to Ukraine to commemorate the 65th
anniversary of the Babyn Yar massacre.

“This is a significant page in the history of Ukrainians and Jews and so we
decided to honor the memory of the Babyn Yar victims internationally,” he
said.

Mr. Yushchenko added that Ukraine would insist that the Holodomor be
recognized as genocide. He said ten parliaments, among them the U.S.
Congress, had passed this resolution so far and urged Croatia to “support
all our initiatives on the Holodomor.”

Mr. Yushchenko and Mr. Mesic discussed ways to develop trade, economic,
military and scientific cooperation. They also spoke about visa procedures
and agreed to sign an agreement on readmission. The Croatian leader said the
two countries should open markets to each other and build ties with big
companies.

 Mr. Yushchenko said Ukraine supported “open, liberal policy” and thus would
gladly sign a free trade agreement with Croatia. The Ukrainian President
then promised to help Croatian investors build a heart surgery hospital in
Kyiv oblast. Mr. Mesic invited his colleague to Croatia.          -30-
————————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

11. NO FUNDING IN 2007 BUDGET FOR MEMORIALS OF SOVIET
     CRIMES, HOLODOMOR COMPLEX, FUNDING FOR INSTITUTE
          OF NATIONAL MEMORY TAKES DEEP CUT SAY NGO’S

Channel 5 TV, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, September 28, 2006

KYIV – The draft budget for 2007 does not include any funding for the
memorial complex planned in honor of the millions of victims that were
killed by the Soviets last century.

In addition, practically no funds are allocated to the Institute of National
Memory that was created by presidential decree last year.

Human rights groups, together with the Prosvita and Memorial organizations
issued an appeal alerting Ukrainians to the fact that despite promises, the
government is not following through on its plans.

Roman Krutsyk of the Memorial organization said that the government has
taken the Institute of National memory away from the Ministry of culture
and made it subordinate to the State Archive Committee now headed by
Communist Olha Ginzburg.                         -30-
———————————————————————————————–

LINK: http://5tv.com.ua/eng/newsline/179/0/31449/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
 If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12.  WAS THE 1933 HOLODOMOR AN ACT OF GENOCIDE?

By Stanislav KULCHYTSKY, Deputy Director,
Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest in English #29, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Sep 26, 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #765, Article 12
Washington, D.C., Saturday, September 30, 2006

On Nov. 10, 2003, the 58th UN General Assembly Session officially adopted
the Joint Statement on the Holodomor-the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in
Ukraine. Due to the Russian Federation’s inflexible stand, the level of the
document was lowered from a UN resolution to a joint statement, and the term
“genocide” was excluded from the title.

In view of Russia’s position, the US House of Representatives and the Senate
also left out this key term from their statements on the 70th anniversary of
the Holodomor in Ukraine.

However, in a joint bill passed in February 2005, both houses of the US
Congress allowed the Ukrainian community to erect a memorial in the District
of Columbia “in order to honor the victims of the famine-genocide.”

In this document the US Congress emphasizes that in 1998 it set up a
commission to investigate the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine and after
analyzing its report, acknowledged that Stalin and his circle had employed
genocide as a weapon against Ukraine.

The Nov. 4, 2005, Ukase of the President of Ukraine “On Commemorating the
Victims and Those Who Suffered from the Holodomors in Ukraine,” established
an organizing committee headed by the prime minister of Ukraine, whose task
is to implement a number of measures commemorating the 75th anniversary of
the Holodomor of 1932-1933.

As President Yushchenko declared, the committee’s main task is to “implement
additional measures pertaining to the international community’s recognition
of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine as an act of genocide against the
Ukrainian people.”

Why is qualifying the Holodomor of 1933 as an act of genocide so important?
What kind of hidden obstacles are we finding on the way to recognizing this
tragedy as a genocide?

Why do so many people both in our country and abroad refuse to believe that
the Soviet government in Stalin’s time was capable of destroying people? Do
historians have facts at their disposal that can prove that the 1933
Holodomor was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people?

In October and November of 2005, The Day carried a series of six of my
articles entitled “Why did Stalin exterminate the Ukrainians?” Without
repeating myself, I am seeking an answer to these questions in a new series
of articles.
                                           GENOCIDE
The Holodomor of 1932-1933 left unhealed wounds on the body of the

Ukrainian nation. If one imagines the total number of the population as a
diagram based on birth years, the result would be an age-based pyramid, with
children born in the first years at the bottom and long-lived people at the
top.

Dents in this pyramid are caused by unnatural population losses. The dent
made by the Holodomor is the deepest and in an increasingly smoother
appearance is repeated in every succeeding generation. Today no grandsons
and great-grandsons of those whose lives were cut short in the early 1930s
are being born.

The current generation of Ukrainian citizens remembers its grandfathers and
great-grandfathers who perished during the famine. But for many the cause of
those deaths by starvation in 1932-1933 has not been determined. Some people
try to learn why. Others have no memories – and there are a lot of people
like this.

The 70th anniversary of the Holodomor has become an event of world
significance. On Nov. 10, 2003, the UN General Assembly issued a joint
statement by 36 countries expressing sympathy with the Ukrainian people.

On Oct. 22, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 356
“Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made
famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933″ in which the nature of the
tragedy was clearly defined: “…this man-made famine was designed and
implemented by the Soviet regime as a deliberate act of terror and mass
murder against the Ukrainian people…”

Yet neither the joint statement of 36 countries nor the US Congress
resolution contained the key point: recognition of the 1932-1933 famine as
an act of genocide.

Genocide is a category of international law. The UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, signed on Dec. 9, 1948,
reads that the international community undertakes to bring to justice
persons committing genocide “whether they are constitutionally responsible
rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

Former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was prosecuted on the basis of this
convention. We do not have to bring to justice those who were responsible
for the genocidal famine because they are all dead. The important thing is
to know why. Our society and the rest of the world must know what really
happened in those years.

With this in mind, the president of Ukraine signed an edict on Nov. 4, 2005,
establishing the Organizing Committee for the Preparation and Implementation
of Measures in Conjunction with the 75th Anniversary of the Holodomor. The
committee must organize its activities so that the UN will recognize the
Holodomor as an act of genocide in 2008.

Do we stand a chance of getting the international community to do this?

The task of this article is to assess the actual situation. We have about two
years to convince the international (and Ukrainian) community.

1. THE CRUX OF THE MATTER —–

Whether a crime against humanity is an act of genocide is decided only by
the international community – i.e., parliaments in other countries. The
final verdict is returned by the United Nations. Qualifying a crime as an
act of genocide is a serious matter, and the international community
approaches it with a sense of special responsibility.

The recognition of the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine as an act of genocide
cannot entail any concrete actions on the part of the UN Security Council.
An entire lifetime separates us from that tragedy, but this circumstance is
of little help in the successful resolution of this problem.

History is firmly connected to politics and is thus often politicized. Nor
is the famine issue an exception. It has to be depoliticized, made
absolutely clear, and convincingly substantiated.

In the first place, it must be explained to the international community why
the nation against whom that weapon of genocidal famine was employed has not
demonstrated any clear-cut and unanimous desire to regard this crime as an
act aimed at terminating its existence in an organizational, i.e., state,
form.

It must also be explained why several convocations of parliament formed by
that nation during the course of free elections failed to examine the
question of the famine-genocide. Is it because the dent from this genocide
touched not only the physical body of the Ukrainian people but also its
historical awareness?

We are a postgenocidal society, said the late Prof. James Mace, former staff
director of the U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine (1932-1933). A
postgenocidal society is not cognizant of the violence that was carried out
against it. Complicating this issue is the fact that the victim of this
violence is a generation that no longer exists.

Ukrainian scholars and those engaged in regional historical studies have
succeeded in conveying to their people the outward image of the Holodomor.
This has been done in breathtaking detail.

However, they may not have been as convincing in revealing the logic of
events that were unfolding in the countryside from the beginning of the
all-out collectivization of agriculture.

Collectivization itself probably ought to be viewed on a broader scale, as
an element in the creation of the Bolshevik socioeconomic system that ran
counter to the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population; in
other words, it was inherently artificial and could emerge only within the
force field of a terrorist dictatorship.

The final task is crucial in determining the genocidal nature of famines in
Ukraine and the Kuban region. It is necessary to prove why the Kremlin found
the regions most densely populated by Ukrainians especially dangerous, so
that it employed famine as the most severe form of terror against them.

Without a doubt, the famine of 1932-1933 swept over most Soviet regions.
Researchers also agree that the degree of famine in two Ukrainian regions
was the highest (with the exception of Kazakhstan, but more on this later).
In order to recognize the famines there as an act of genocide, it is
necessary to explain how they differed from the others.

This article does not claim to solve the problem of the famine-genocide. It
simply raises questions relating to the recognition of the 1932-1933 famine
in Ukraine as an act of genocide. It should be noted that foreign
researchers have accomplished more to this end than we have.

One of the main problems is to heal the Ukrainian people’s historical
awareness. The need has been realized on the governmental level. A Ukrainian
Institute of National Memory is in the process of being organized and is
meant to coordinate the efforts of numerous organizations in reviving
historical memory.

2. RETHINKING THE HISTORY OF THE SOVIET PERIOD —–

Two de-Stalinization campaigns took place in the Soviet Union. The one
launched by Khrushchev became known as the struggle against the cult of
personality; the one by Gorbachev, as democratization. Both campaigns had a
concrete objective: to rehabilitate the victims of Stalin’s arbitrary rule,
primarily communist functionaries and Soviet public figures.

Along the way, society gradually began to see the general picture of terror
with the aid of which the Bolsheviks constructed an order during 1918-1938,
which became known as the Soviet system.

A colossal number of documents on the mass repressions, which began
circulating among the general public, convinced many in the Soviet Union
that there were no blank spots left in their history. That was an illusion.

The Short Course on the History of the AUCP(b), which in 1938 summed up the
gains of the communist revolution, was withdrawn from circulation after
Stalin’s death, but the postulates remained in the minds of those who
studied and taught history.

In the countries that emerged in place of the USSR, a revision of Soviet
history continued, but at different rates and even along different vectors.
Russian historians, for example, have mostly emphasized positive aspects,
like the transformation of a backward country into a superpower.

Ukrainian historians have basically divided into two camps. Some see nothing
positive in the past; others see almost nothing negative. Official policy in
the field of history (which was particularly manifested in the content of
textbooks recommended by state agencies) has been strongly influenced by the
anticommunist North American Diaspora.

The anticommunism of the Diaspora and the former Soviet Communist Party
nomenklatura that did not lose power in independent Ukraine sprang from
different causes, which I will examine further on. At this point it should
be noted that anticommunism only impeded the comprehension of the history of
communist construction.

Comparatively few researchers, who try to approach the past without using
communist or anticommunist criteria, are working quite successfully on
revising the conceptual principles of the history of the Soviet order. Their
studies are facilitated by the absence of pressure from authorities and the
presence of open archives.

The year 1933 cannot be described as a blank spot because everybody knew
about the famine. In the late 1980s, when information about the crimes of
Stalinism began pouring out, it was received by society in a variety of
ways.

In the minds of many people a positive attitude to Soviet power, ingrained
since childhood, could not coalesce with claims that this government had
carried out terror by starvation, i.e., conscious actions specially designed
to physically destroy the population by starving it to death.

It is considerably easier to present historical facts in a consecutive order
than to trace the effects of some or other events on a person’s
consciousness. A historian has few sources at his disposal with which to
study individual and collective consciousness.

The history of Soviet Ukraine has been studied well in terms of events,
including the Holodomor, but we know little about how people’s awareness
changed during that revolutionary epoch, how adequately people responded to
terror and propaganda, which were used to herd them toward a “bright
 future.”

Along with terror and propaganda, the Soviet government intensively used
another factor of influence on the population, namely, the education of the
rising generation.

Recently, on the pages of The Day I wrote a commentary on the occasion of
the 50th anniversary of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, but I did not
emphasize an idea that is very important in the context of the present
article: that congress served to reconcile people who were products of
Soviet schools with the government.

At the time, in the first postwar decades, almost all Soviet citizens were
graduates of Soviet schools (except in the territories that were annexed to
the USSR in 1939). It was now possible to attribute to Stalin the crimes
committed by the Bolshevik regime, which had used terror and propaganda to
build the Soviet socioeconomic system in the years preceding World War Two.

We (I mean my generation) can assess the effectiveness of communist
upbringing by analyzing our own awareness in this period.

When I was still a university student (1954-1959) I obtained access, as a
professional archivist, to uncensored information: Ukrainian newspapers of
the occupation period, the first articles on the 1932-1933 famine that were
appearing in the journals of the Ukrainian Diaspora, etc. But that
information was rejected by my consciousness and had no effect on my
ingrained world views.

Terror can impose a way of life but not a world view. A world view is the
result of upbringing and propaganda, which must necessarily rely on an
understandable and a positive symbol of faith.

Who can argue that the communist doctrine in its propagandistic form was not
attractive? You should read the works of a very sincere poet, Vladimir
Mayakovsky, to realize its strength.

After graduating from Odesa University, I made my way to the Institute of
Economy of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, where I became
fascinated with Soviet economic history of the 1920s and 1930s.

In those days I was also following the scholarly literature in my field that
was being published in the West, and I tried on a regular basis to read the
journal Problems of Communism, which was quite prestigious among
Sovietologists.

My indirect acquaintance with “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists” did not
lead to a split in my consciousness. Our world was different from the West
in its most profound dimensions, i.e. it was a different civilization.

The Iron Curtain was like the glass walls of an aquarium separating two
different environments. In its own way our world was logical and had values
that were understandable to everyone. It was false through and through, but
few could detect this precisely because of the totality of that falsity.

For me in particular, both the causes of the 1932-1933 famine and the
reasons behind the Soviet government’s refusal to acknowledge the fact of
the famine remained unfathomable. The literature of the Diaspora stated that
Stalin had starved the Ukrainian people to death, but it was simply
impossible to believe such a thing.

It is embarrassing to keep referring to myself, but I lack other empirical
material for analyzing the revolution in world perception that has taken
place in our country. My own such revolution was accelerated by my research
on the famine of 1932-1933, and it passed through two stages.

The first one lasted seven or eight years during which I accumulated
archival material and formed a factual picture of the Holodomor. I was
compelled to believe the “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists,” who recounted
how Stalin had killed the Ukrainian people by starving them to death.

During the second stage, my department conducted a systematic nine-year
study of the nature of Soviet totalitarianism. The famine of 1932-1933
became part of the general context of events that took place in 1918-1938 in
a Bolshevik-controlled country.

It has become possible to answer the question why Stalin tried to destroy
the Ukrainian people by starving them to death. This is precisely what we
need to define the Holodomor as a famine-genocide in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide, of Dec. 9, 1948.

3. PROBABILILITY OF GENOCIDE IN COMMUNIST CONSTRUCTION – 

History knows cases of genocide that occurred in wartime and in different
ethnic sociums. In my encounters with some overseas researchers of the
Ukrainian Holodomor, I could see that they were unable to accept the
possibility of genocide in peacetime and within one’s own country.

I repeat: in order for them to believe in the facts, the nature of the
Holodomor must be analyzed against a broader background, without separating
this phenomenon from the entire process of communist construction of
1918-1938.

Marxism had a number of principal distinctions from the teachings that were
known in the Soviet Union as MarxismLeninism.

Perhaps the most important one was that Marx regarded a communist society as
a natural product of objective natural-historical development. You will not
find the term “communist construction” in any of his works. In contrast,
Lenin believed that it was not worth waiting for communism to mature.

He saw communist construction as the main duty of the proletarian party (his
and only his) after it came to power and after the founding of the
“dictatorship of the proletariat” (once again, the dictatorship of his very
own party). In his opinion, communism could be built within a very short
period of time.

Maintaining the stereotypes that were instilled in us during Soviet times,
we are still seeking the roots of the Leninist-Stalinist communist
revolution in the revolution that began in Russia in March 1917 (new style).

In reality, the revolution in Russia had only two distinct
currents-bourgeois-democratic and Soviet, which were represented in various
proportions in every region of the multinational empire.

The Bolsheviks joined the Soviet current without in any way merging with it
and seized power on the shoulders of the soviets, after which they left only
the outer shell of these soviets.

None of the revolutionary personalities of 1917, except the leaders of the
Bolshevik Party, wanted to do what was done in Russia and Bolshevik-

enslaved Ukraine between World War One and World War Two.

At any rate, in 1917 the Bolshevik leaders kept their communist doctrine to
themselves, and for the purpose of seizing power they exploited completely
different political slogans of the revolutionary soviets.

After the failure of the first communist assault in 1921, the Bolsheviks put
communism on the back burner and played up distribution relations in
communism rather than production relations. Simultaneously, from the angle
of propaganda distribution relations were given the following highly
effective formulation: “From each according to his abilities, to each
according to his needs.”

The building of the Soviet order, starting in 1918, was proclaimed as
socialist, not communist. This terminological contradiction was resolved
very simply: socialism was proclaimed the first phase of communism.

Even today we call the communist revolution of 1918-1938 the building of
socialism. However, the notion “socialism” should be left to its original
Western European discoverers, who recognized the objective necessity of
capitalist enterprise and private ownership.

The essence of socialist policies in the West was that the capitalists
pledged to share their profits with the strata of the socium that needed
help. This policy appealed to the population, which could elect organs of
rule. That is why social democratic parties began coming to power in Europe
(the Bolsheviks too emerged from the ranks of the social democrats).

In time, countries called capitalist in the Soviet Union changed, but we
could not spot their new look from behind the Iron Curtain, all the more so
as they never called themselves socialist. This popular term was privatized
first by Lenin and later by Hitler.

As a matter of fact, Stalin took a dim view of Hitler’s privatization, so
when the National-Socialist German Workers Party became the governing one,
he ordered the Nazis to be called fascists. Even though there is an
essential difference between German Nazism and Italian fascism, we still
adhere to Stalin’s directive announced at the 17 th Congress of the AUCP(b).

Western European socialism relied on capitalist entrepreneurship and helped
maintain class peace in society, which is the basis of a democratic order.
It was a dynamic and highly effective socioeconomic system, so long as it
took into account the polarized interests of workers and employers.

In contrast, Soviet communist socialism destroyed the free market and
private enterprise, replacing them by the planned distribution of finished
products. The destruction of the free market as a natural regulator of the
economic process a priori deprived production of effective management. The
nationalized economy came alive under the influence of bureaucratic commands
that arrived from outside and could not assure its effectiveness.

Marx and Engels peremptorily declared in their Communist Manifesto: “…the
theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition
of private property” (Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 422).Western European
Marxists discarded this postulate as premature and, instead of revolutionary
violence, adopted a policy of reform as a method of struggle for a better
future.

Thanks to this, they were able to transform their countries. In contrast,
the Bolsheviks adopted early Marxism and declared the destruction of private
ownership of the means of production. What came of this?

Private property is an historical category, i.e., it has a beginning and an
end. But in our days, just like in Marx’s time, it is too soon to discuss
its demise. We will have to wait another couple of hundred years, perhaps
longer. The slogan of the abolition (not demise) of private property is an
altogether different matter.

Its realization does not destroy property itself; it merely changes its
owner. Communist construction in the USSR resulted in the concentration of
all ownership of the means of production in the hands of a small group of
oligarchs, the Politburo of the CC CPSU.

Even during the first onslaught of 1918-1920, these oligarchs realized that
tens of millions of peasants would not surrender their lands and other means
of production. And so a new communist onslaught, which began in 1929,

relied primarily on terrorist means of influencing the peasantry.

Hair-raising tragedies, like the Holodomor and the Great Terror became
possible precisely because the coercive component was paramount in

communist construction.

In the hands of the Communist Party/Soviet oligarchs the fusion of political
dictatorship and economic dictatorship turned society into an atomized,
helpless, inert mass.

You can do anything you want with an enslaved population: organize an
artificial famine to ward off spontaneous unrest, and carry out mass
repressions, even with the help of the purged victims’ intimidated
relatives.

Many people refuse to believe that the Soviet power could use terror by
starvation in order to systematically destroy people. They seek other causes
behind the famine of 1932-1933, like drought, excessive grain delivery
quotas, or the drop in harvests because of the crisis that took place in
agriculture after villages were totally collectivized.

I will say straightaway that all these factors were present (except
drought). They did cause famines both in grain-producing regions (because

of excessive grain delivery quotas) and grain-consuming ones (because of
inadequate government food supplies).

But it is necessary to distinguish between the famine that raged almost
everywhere in the Soviet Union, and the Holodomor in Ukraine and the Kuban
region. Unfortunately, the tenfold difference in the death toll does not
suffice to convince many of our contemporaries. (To be continued)

———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/169332/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
             Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13. THROUGH LENS IN DARFUR, ‘I WAS A WITNESS TO GENOCIDE’
             Photographer Brian Steidle has made it his mission to spread the
             word about the violence and suffering he encountered while part
                           of an international observation team in Sudan.

By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY newspaper
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 27, 2006

As an admiral’s son and a former Marine officer, Brian Steidle believed that
following orders and doing the right thing were one and the same. Then he
went to Darfur.

As an official international monitor of the vicious conflict in western
Sudan, he faced a choice: respect authority and honor a code of silence or
show the world what he’d seen and kiss his career goodbye. He puckered up
… and blew the whistle.

“I was a witness to genocide,” he says. “I wanted to make a difference.”

Since returning last year from Darfur, where he was a U.S. representative on
an African Union observation team, Steidle has become the most vivid
chronicler of one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes.

His photographs – which were supposed to be for his superiors’ eyes only –
have helped make Americans care about a complex crisis in a faraway place of
little economic or strategic value.

Jerry Fowler of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington says Steidle “has
given people images of Darfur they can hold onto”: a soldier standing next
to the store he’s just torched; a military helicopter firing on a village; a
baby with a bullet in her back.

Since 2003, when war broke out between the Sudanese government and Darfuri
rebels, about 200,000 civilians have died.

Another 2.5 million, a third of Darfur’s population, have been driven from
home. American food has helped stave off famine and U.S. diplomacy has
fostered a partial cease-fire, but it has not been enough.

The Sudanese government refuses to admit 20,000 United Nations troops to
relieve a poorly equipped 7,000-member African Union force. Since May, when
the government and one of several rebel factions signed a peace agreement,
Darfur has become even more violent and lawless.

Steidle is a compact, intense 29-year-old. He lives on a sailboat in
southern Maine, where he’s writing a memoir.

He’s the son of retired rear admiral Craig Steidle, a Naval Academy graduate
who flew fighters off carriers in Vietnam, tested experimental planes and
trained test pilots, and directed the Defense Department’s biggest aircraft
program.

Then he became associate administrator of NASA in charge of space
exploration planning. “He was the best at everything,” his son says, “and we
had to try to live up to that.”

That’s what he was trying to do in Darfur. “Brian told a story others could
not,” says David Del Conte, an American humanitarian worker who met Steidle
in south Darfur. “He moved Darfur onto the front page. He saved thousands of
lives.”
                                   SHOCKING PHOTOGRAPHS
Steidle says he went to Darfur for several reasons. Mostly, he went because
of what he saw one day in 2004 on a computer screen.

He was in the Nuba Mountains in south-central Sudan, working for the
international commission supervising a cease-fire in another civil war,
between the government and another rebel group.

He was bored. Promotions had put him behind a desk. That’s why he’d left the
Marines in 2003 after more than four years, having served in Kosovo, made
captain and risen to company commander.

That day, a colleague was back from a trip to Darfur. Steidle had heard
reports of atrocities against African farmers, who supported Darfur’s
rebels, by nomadic Arab militias armed and supported by the government.
The raiders were called Janjaweed – “devil on horseback.”

How was Darfur? Steidle asked his colleague. The man flipped around the
laptop on his desk, clicked up a slide show and invited Steidle to take a
look.

Steidle had never seen anything like it – schoolgirls, bound together with
makeshift handcuffs and burned alive. He was shocked, then outraged, then
intrigued. He wanted to see for himself.

Today, when asked why he volunteered for a situation from which most would
flee, he sticks his chin out: “I heard there was shooting, and I run toward
bullets.” Or he’ll cite “selfish reasons” – money ($3,500 a week tax-free,
paid by a private company under contract with the State Department) and
adventure.

That month he wrote an e-mail to his sister Gretchen, which she shared with
USA TODAY. It suggested another motive:
“I have to write to you to get this out of my mind. I have seen these photos
from a confidential report. I am not permitted to send them, nor do I wish
on you the same dreams that I have as a result. … Why are we sitting here
letting this happen? This is not the doing of humans, this is the work of
the devil. We as humans, all races, religions, colors, creeds, etc., have to
stand up for what is right.”

He applied for a job monitoring Darfur’s shaky cease-fire under the auspices
of the African Union, the association of African nations whose mission in
Darfur receives financial support from the United States and other nations.
He’d have no power or authority to stop the violence, not even a sidearm.

But Steidle did not go unarmed. Photography had been his hobby; now he
bought the best digital camera he could afford: a professional-grade Canon
EOS 1D Mark II. In Darfur, it would prove more powerful, and more dangerous,
than a gun.

Steidle believed the world needed information to prick its conscience. If
the classified photos he’d seen had been released to the public, he wrote
Gretchen, “there would be troops in here in a matter of days.”

Photography was a touchy subject. Although then-Secretary of State Colin
Powell had just described what was happening in Darfur as genocide, there
had been virtually no pictures of Janjaweed attacks on civilians; Steidle
says he was warned the Sudanese government wanted to keep it that way.

A few photos of atrocities had been leaked outside official channels, so
African Union commanders – not wanting to offend the host government – were
suspicious of the new man with the camera that could zoom in on a face on
the ground from 500 feet in the air.

It took Steidle several weeks to win their trust before he was allowed to
use his camera. That was Oct. 20, 2004, when his team visited a village that
the Janjaweed had torched. They found some women and children huddled under
a tree.

A woman handed Steidle a 1-year-old girl. This was Mihad Hamid. Her mother
had been shot to death while fleeing with Mihad in her arms. Mihad was shot
in the back. She was having trouble breathing. She probably didn’t live the
night, he says.

There were many days like that. On the worst, he counted smoke from attacks
on 37 villages. On another, he stood next to a Sudanese army commander, who
watched as soldiers looted a village. Steidle says that when he asked Brig.
Gen. Ahmed El Hajer Mohammed why he didn’t stop them, the general said they
weren’t his men – anyone could put on a uniform.

He heard Janjaweed riders explain that they destroyed villages over stolen
cattle. He saw neither regret nor remorse: “It was like looking into the
devil’s eyes.”
                               A FAILURE TO PROTECT
“My reports,” Steidle used to say, “are my ammunition.” He soon realized he
was firing blanks.

His photos and descriptions vanished into the AU’s bureaucracy; others
reached the AU’s sponsors, including the U.S. government, months late. In
secret, he began to send reports directly to the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum.

After a mission, he’d head straight to his tent to download all his images
on his laptop. Only then would he go to the operations tent, download into
the AU computer and delete the images from his own camera as required.

He became increasingly frustrated with the AU’s impotence. By charting
Janjaweed attacks, movements and motives, “We got to where we knew where
the next attack would be,” he says. “But I couldn’t stop the attacks I was
predicting.” Some attacks were deterred by the AU observers’ presence. The
top commanders, however, refused to systematically place teams in the way of
attacks.

Steidle says he knew why. The AU was in Darfur with the government’s
permission, and anything that antagonized Khartoum – especially taking sides
against its Janjaweed proxies – threatened the AU’s ability to function.
“The attitude was, ‘We gotta tread lightly,’ ” Steidle says.

(The AU did not respond to a request for comment. In the past, the AU has
emphasized the legal, logistical and financial constraints on its operations
in Darfur.)

In January, he predicted – based on Janjaweed movements – that the town of
Hamada would be attacked within two weeks. When it was hit 10 days later,
Steidle says he refused to go with the observation team: “I knew what they
were going to see. I said, ‘I’ve seen enough.’ “

The team found babies with their faces bashed in. When members came back to
the post, “they were like zombies,” Steidle recalls. “A guy who’d usually
brief me just held up his hand and said, ‘I must go pray.’ “

The people he’d hoped to help were furious. “They’d say, ‘Leave if you can’t
protect us.’ I thought, ‘What are you doin’ here? Just here makin’ money?’ “

He returned to the USA in February 2005 with hundreds of images, including
those of a man castrated and left to bleed to death, people with their ears
cut off and eyes plucked out and an aerial view of government troops joining
ranks with the Janjaweed.
                                   A DIFFICULT DECISION
Steidle planned to make public his photos, not his identity or affiliation.
“It was never his intention to speak out,” Gretchen says, “even when he
quit.”

He’d break the trust of AU commanders and make them less likely to share
intelligence with the humanitarian agencies for whom AU patrols were eyes
and ears.

He’d ruffle the U.S. State Department, which had not authorized him to go
public. He’d throw away a lucrative career doing freelance military and
security work overseas.

“Did I promise not to release anything? No. Do I own the copyright to my
photos? Yes. I took them with my own camera,” he says. “But I was
apprehensive. I was paid to do what I was told, keep my mouth shut, and go
home.”

Gretchen put him in touch with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
Steidle gave him some photos but said not to use his name.

After the Times printed the photos Feb. 23, Steidle says, Kristof called.
“He said, ‘Everybody’s asking me where I got these photos. Can I use your
name?’ “

His father says Brian struggled with the decision. “He felt he gave his
word.” But Steidle thought about what his sister – the family’s social
conscience – had asked: “Who has the right to keep genocide a secret?”

He thought about the impact of personal testimony. People could look at a
photo, but unless there was a witness to tell them that this girl’s name was
Mihad Hamid and that her mother was shot in the back, it was just a picture.

“I thought about if for a few days,” Steidle says, “and I told Nick, ‘Go
ahead.’ “

Back in Darfur, some of his comrades felt Steidle had broken trust.
In May 2005, USA TODAY spoke with Dale Fage, a former U.S. Army
officer who served with Steidle on the AU force, at the airport in south
Darfur.

When Steidle’s name came up, Fage’s face hardened. “Brian was only here five
months,” Fage said. “He didn’t take all those photos himself.” (Photos of
the attack on Hamada had been taken by another photographer.)

“What he did created problems for people here.” Having vented his
frustration, Fage relented. “He’s a good kid,” he said. “He just wanted to
do the right thing.”

For the past 18 months, Steidle has shown his photos, told his story and
asked people to lobby the Bush administration and the U.N. to stop the
carnage in Darfur.

He has taken his message to Congress and the British House of Commons, to
an audience of 35 on a college campus in San Antonio and to 100 people at
church in Fort Wayne, Ind. Wherever he goes, a newspaper story or broadcast
interview usually follows.

(Khalid Musa, spokesman for the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, did not
respond to a request for comment on Steidle.)

Sometimes he seems haunted by his photos, like the ones on display last week
for a Darfur benefit at a gallery in New York City: “The whole thing comes
back to me, not just that image, but the whole scene – the smell, the sound,
everything. When I look at … that burned guy that I (photographed) who was
burned alive in his hut, I smell him every time I look at that photo.”

As the situation there has grown more desperate, so has he.
“I’ve been banging my head against the wall,” he told The Philadelphia
Inquirer in February during a stop on a national speaking tour. “It’s like
screaming in a dream, and no sound comes out.”

He says he has no regrets about going public. Neither does his father. “I
knew he’d make the right decision,” Craig Steidle says. “I’m proud of him.” 

————————————————————————————————–
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-27-darfur-cover_x.htm
————————————————————————————————-
FOOTNOTE: The President of Ukraine and the Foreign Minister of
Ukraine both made important speeches this week about genocide. The
president spoke in Kyiv about Babyn Yar and the Foreign Minister made
an address at the United Nations in New York.
 
President Yushchenko brought up the genocide of 1932-1933 and the
genocide during WWII. Both leaders said they would do and the world
should do everything possible to stop genocide today.  But what is most
disturbing neither of these top Ukrainian leaders mentioned the ongoing
genocide today in Darfur. 
 
Their words would sound must stronger and real if they choose to bring
up what is happening in Darfur, if they urged the UN to act, if they urged
the world to act, if they announced Ukraine was sending relief to the
genocide victims in Darfur. [AUR Editor Morgan Williams]
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14.                            PERPETUATING BUTCHERS?
MONUMENT TO CATHERINE II OF RUSSIA PLANNED IN ODESA

        We must not permit the removal of the monument to the heroes of the
         popular revolution and its replacement by a monument to Catherine II
                   of Russia, that merciless butcher of the Ukrainian people.

By Oleksiy Volovych, Mykhailo Matsiuk, and Oleksandr Muzych,
Research Fellows, Odesa Branch, National Institute of Strategic Studies
The Day Weekly Digest in English, #29
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #765, Article 14
Washington, D.C., Saturday, September 30, 2006

The First one racked my country dear;
The Second gave the final blow
That brought my land to utter woe…
(From Shevchenko’s “The Dream,” trans. Constantine
Andrusyshen and Watson Kirkconnell, Toronto, 1964)

The recent decision of the Odesa City Council to move three monuments, to
Lenin, the Potemkin Mutineers, and Hlushko, from downtown to other city
districts is indicative of the council members’ interest in economic
problems as well as cultural and ideological questions.

One cannot agree with those who insist that this burst of monument-moving
activity is untimely and unnecessary. The concept of “monument” has the same
lexical root as “historical memory,” which is part of the cultural and
ideological sphere.

In 1990 the so-called postcommunist countries embarked on different paths of
developing their culture, ideology, and attitude to the past.

In the Baltic countries and Poland, imperialist and Soviet monuments were
decisively torn down as symbols of those countries’ colonial dependence on
Russia. After some hesitation, Russia honors both its imperialist and Soviet
symbols, including monuments.

Ukraine has chosen the middle road, as usual. It has adopted a stand worthy
of King Solomon, honoring heroes of Ukrainian history one after another,
upholding the ambiguous “he’s-done-something-for-Ukraine criterion, without
ascertaining who has done what and for what kind of Ukraine.

The absence of a clear-cut and consistent conception of Ukrainian national
development often plays into the hands of anti-Ukrainian forces in the east
and south.

On this particular occasion Odesa’s nationally-conscious Ukrainians are
concerned about the prospect of seeing a monument to Catherine II of Russia
in place of the figures of the sailors who mutinied aboard the battleship
Potemkin in 1905.

Given the indulgent attitude of the Orange mayor of Odesa, Eduard Hurvits,
the city council recently made the criminal decision to erect a monument to
Catherine II in place of the Potemkin memorial (on which battleship
Ukrainians constituted the absolute majority of the crew that rebelled
against Russian tsarist autocracy).

Prior to this decision, Tetiana Fedirko, head of the city’s culture
department (what department and what council is anyone’s guess), pushed
through a recommendation during a meeting of the toponymy commission in

May of this year, concerning the erection of a monument to Catherine II.

It is highly unlikely that she did so without Hurvits’s knowledge and
consent. Rumor has it that, just like in the early 1990s, this project is
being prepared with big money supplied from Moscow and via lobbying by
anti-Ukrainian forces in Odesa, which are trying to make this city look
increasingly like Novorossiia, a part of the Russian empire.

The question is: how can we, Ukrainians, allow the construction of monuments
dedicated to our oppressors and executioners?

Whereas a lively debate emerged in Odesa with regard to a similar council
decision in the mid-1990s, when Hurvits was also mayor, this time the
Ukrainian community of Odesa and the Black Sea Cossacks have barely

reacted to the criminal plans of the Odesa mayor’s office.

The confusion, disillusionment, and apathy that have engulfed Ukrainians
since the temporary defeat of the Orange revolution are starting to make
their presence known.

The arguments offered by the supporters of the monument to Catherine II in
Odesa boil down to three main positions:

(1) the 1900-style monument to Catherine II has a more aesthetic appearance
than the Potemkin one;
(2) returning the monument to Catherine II to Potemkin Square will be an act
of restoring historical justice that was violated by the Bolsheviks;
(3) Catherine II founded Odesa because she issued an ukase on its founding
(or rather one renaming the settlement of Khadzhibei that had existed for
more than 400 years) and helped populate the Novorossiisk krai.

Just like in 1990, today the bronze Catherine II is being lobbied for by
openly pro-Russian and Ukrainophobic forces, like the Iedinoe Otechestvo
(Sole Fatherland) and Soiuz pravoslavnykh grazhdan (Union of Orthodox
Citizens).

Those “Orthodox citizens” do not seem at all perturbed by the fact that the
German-born Catherine murdered her husband, Tsar Peter III, in order to
seize the Russian throne and was known for her lechery, dragging hundreds

of noblemen and even ordinary soldiers into her bed.

The deeds of Catherine II are lauded by Anatolii Vasserman, a well-known
Odesa Ukrainophobe, pseudohistorian, and pseudo-political scientist, and
“hero of Moscow’s Brain Ring” of long standing. At one time he called for
“separating western Ukraine from eastern Ukraine by tanks and a high wall.”

As always, the Moscow Patriarchate is at the head of all the processes that
run counter to those that assert the Ukrainian state. Like in 1990, today it
is important for local Russophile politicians to instill “New Russian”
patriotism in the population, awareness that they are different from the
rest of Ukraine.

A similar tactic was recently used by these forces during the pompous
transferal of the remains of the Vorontsov couple. Their desire to
perpetuate Catherine II is a sequel to their efforts to convince the
residents of Odesa (65 percent of whom are ethnic Ukrainians) that they
belong to “New Russia.”

It is also worth mentioning the good services being offered to these forces
by many regional historians of Odesa. For them, creating a pro-Russian
history of Odesa is not only a demonstration of a sociopolitical stand, but
also a lucrative business.

Trying to communicate with the representatives of these forces, which feel
no commonality with the interests of the Ukrainian nation and openly scorn
it, is like communicating with blind deaf-mutes.

The two other arguments sound equally unconvincing. The concept of
“historical justice” cannot be interpreted in a primitive and retrograde
manner. The idea of restoring the names and monuments that existed before
the revolution to the streets of Odesa utterly ignores the fact of the very
existence of the Ukrainian state with its own values and laws.

Within the boundaries of this state it is impossible to honor people who
denied the very fact that the Ukrainian nation existed. Catherine II was,
without a doubt, one of them.

In addition to destroying the Zaporozhian Sich, the center of Ukrainian
democracy and independence, she waged a consistent policy aimed at
annihilating the historical distinctions between Ukraine and Russia.

Returning a monument to Catherine II to Odesa today would mean identifying
ourselves with all her acts, with the “progressive nature” of the Russian
empire vis-a-vis Ukraine, and demonstrating our Russian patriotism in
principle. For in today’s Russia Catherine II is one of the most respected
historical figures on a par with Peter I.

A monument forms a solid image, so an argument, like “We honor Catherine II
as the founder of Odesa and as a person who facilitated the development of
southern Ukraine,” does not work because in fact she facilitated the foreign
colonization of the southern region of Ukraine and the destruction of the
Ukrainian population.

No significance should be attached to the third argument. The process of
founding and developing a city cannot be reduced to the activities of a
single individual and demiurge.

Such an assumption is germane to antiquated thinking and an imperialistic
ideology, according to which history is created by kings. Insightful studies
by historians, like Kabuzan, Druzhynina, and others, whose works are based
on materials about the history of southern Ukraine, have long demonstrated
the narrowness of this approach.

The late historian Oleksandr Boldyrev’s Odesa Is 600 Years Old (recently
reprinted) deserves special notice. The author offers weighty arguments
against the unsubstantiated claim that Odesa’s history dates from 1794. The
noted Ukrainian historian, writer, and journalist Bohdan Sushynsky also
devoted considerable attention to refuting this claim.

How should one interpret the municipal authorities’ stubborn intention to
mock the historical memory of the Ukrainian people?

First of all, it is determined by the pro-Russian, pro-imperialistic
political orientation of a certain part of Odesa’s population, people who
believe that Catherine II, although she was a tormentor of the Ukrainian
people, founded Odesa and did a lot of good things for the city (?!).

These philistines still do not consider Odesa oblast as an inalienable
component of Ukraine and are daydreaming about some kind of
pro- Russian Novorossia.

The members of the Odesa City Council did not rise above these pro-
imperialistic moods. Second, a number of Odesites uncritically share the
opinion that one’s history must be respected no matter what. This is the
same sort of argument used by the communists to preserve their idols,
those sore spots on our city squares.

This argument is profoundly immoral. No one in his right mind would hang
a portrait in his apartment of the criminal who tortured to death one’s
father, mother, or close friend. It is understandable why no monuments to
Mussolini are built in Italy, to Genghis Khan in Russia, or to Hitler in
Germany.

They are all well- known historical figures, but they do not deserve a
nation’s respect. Erecting a monument to Catherine II in Odesa or elsewhere
in Ukraine is like unveiling a statue of Adolf Eichmann in Tel Aviv
.

Neither Catherine II, Peter I, nor any Russian tsar or any one of their
satraps, let alone the Bolshevik leaders, are worthy of having monuments
erected in their honor – nor should their old monuments be left standing –
in independent Ukraine, because they were all ruthless butchers of our
people.

For Russia, where imperial values are still upheld, Catherine II is the
object of worship, but it is time we all realized that Ukraine is not
Russia. Indeed, today’s neo-imperialist Russia is interested in having a
monument to Catherine II in Odesa, designed to assert Russia’s “historical
right” to this city.

Our neighbor’s stand corresponds to his doctrine of imperial integration.
Therefore, the decision of Odesa’s city council can be interpreted as a
realization of Russia’s imperialistic plans in Ukraine.

Should the Potemkin memorial be removed? In their day the Bolsheviks
completely falsified the revolution of 1905 by “privatizing” the heroism of
its participants. That revolution was a popular one – bourgeois democratic –
not Bolshevist.

It had matured historically and was progressive in that its objective was
the overthrow of the despotic tsarist regime and landlord ownership to pave
the way for a free development of market relations and liberal capitalism.

The Potemkin mutiny (most of whose crew was Ukrainian) was a revolt against
the officers’ brutality, and it became an exciting and heroic page in the
history of the revolution.

This page must be cleansed of Bolshevik scum, and historical truth must be
restored. At the time of the mutiny the residents of Odesa sincerely
welcomed the sailors who were rebelling against the tsarist regime. So would
it be fair to remove a monument to the heroes of this popular revolution?

Today a move against the Potemkin memorial is an act of barbarism that can
be perpetrated only by people afflicted with Russian chauvinism, by those
for whom imperial symbols come first.

We must not permit the removal of the monument to the heroes of the popular
revolution and its replacement by a monument to Catherine II of Russia, that
merciless butcher of the Ukrainian people.

Below are some facts illustrating Catherine II’s “merits” with regard

to the Ukrainian nation.

1762-1763: Catherine II issues two manifestos on the foreign colonization of
Rus’-Ukraine; Serbs, Bulgarians, Moldovans, and Germans from Prussia,
Austria, and other countries are recruited. Every foreigner receives 65
desiatynas of land [1 desiatyna=2.7 acres] and is exempted from taxes.
Ukrainians have to provide horse-driven carts to transport their future
landlords free of charge.
1763: Catherine II signs an ukase banning instruction in Ukrainian at the
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
1764: Catherine II instructs Prince Viazemsky to Russify Ukraine, the Baltic
provinces, Finland, and Smolensk gubernia.
1764: Catherine II abolishes the Ukrainian hetmanate and at the same time
liquidates Ukrainian educational and cultural institutions; Ukrainian-
speaking officials are dismissed.
1764: Abolition of the Ukrainian Hetman State.
1765: Catherine II liquidates the Cossack order in Slobidska Ukraine and
closes Cossack schools.
1765: The Holy Synod orders the Kyivan Cave Monastery to print only books
issued by the Moscow print shop and approved by the Synod.
1768: Muscovite troops suppress the anti-Polish rebellion in Right-Bank
Rus’-Ukraine,
led by Gonta and Zalizniak (this period is known as Koliivshchyna), after
the two rebel leaders are treacherously captured by Muscovites, who were at
war with Poland.
1769: The Synod orders Ukrainian church books replaced by Muscovite ones.
1769: The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church forbids the Kyivan Cave
Monastery to print primers in Ukrainian and orders the confiscation of books
already distributed.
1775: Muscovite troops launch a perfidious attack on the Zaporozhian Sich
and destroy it after Zaporozhian forces provided decisive reinforcements to
the Russian army during the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774. The Cossacks
are robbed, their property is confiscated, and many are exiled to Siberia.
Ukrainian schools at regimental chancelleries are closed. The last Koshovy
Otaman Petro Kalnyshevsky is exiled to the Solovky Islands, where he is
imprisoned for 25 years until his death in 1803 at the age of 112.
1777: Plans are made for the deportation of the Tatars from the Crimea and
Ukrainians from Ukraine, the territories thus vacated to be populated by
Muscovites from Russia. Implementing this plan, Aleksandr Suvorov deports
32,000 Ukrainian men from southern Ukraine within a few days.
1777: The persecuted brilliant Ukrainian composer and member of the Bologna
Music Academy, Maksym Berezovsky (b. 1745 in Slukhove), dies in penury.
After his death Catherine II’s government bans his compositions and destroys
a number of his manuscripts.
1780: The library of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy is burned down (its collection was
amassed for more than 150 years and was one of the largest in Eastern
Europe).
1781: The last vestiges of Cossack self-government on the Left Bank are
destroyed, and the Russian administrative system is introduced in 1783.
1782: Catherine II sets up a commission to establish people’s schools in
Russia with the aim of introducing a uniform school system with Russian as
the only language of instruction in all schools throughout the empire.
1783: The peasants of Left-Bank Ukraine are transformed into serfs.
1784: As of 1747 there were 866 Ukrainian schools on the territory of seven
hetman regiments, or one school per thousand residents. By the end of the
century, the population had increased threefold, while the number of schools
dropped by two times. There were no Ukrainian schools.
1784: The Synod orders Metropolitan Samuil of Kyiv and Halych to punish
students and dismiss teachers at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in retaliation for
straying from the Russian language.
1785: Catherine II orders all Divine Services to be celebrated in Russian in
all the churches of the empire. Russian is the language of instruction in
all schools in Ukraine.
1786: The Synod again orders the Metropolitan of Kyiv to control the
activities of the Cave Monastery’s print shop to ensure that there are no
differences between Kyiv – and Moscow-based publications, and to introduce
the empire-wide school system at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
1789: The Comparative Dictionary of All Languages is published in St.
Petersburg on Catherine II’s initiative. According to this dictionary,
Ukrainian is a Polish-distorted version of the Russian language.
1793: Muscovite troops crush a revolt in the village of Turbai and severely
punish the populace; over 20 villagers die after being tortured or are shot;
the rest are flogged and exiled to Siberia or other gubernias.

The case of “Odesa’s Catherine” is vivid proof of how little has changed in
Ukraine in the past decade, particularly in Odesa, in the sense of people’s
attitude to their national identity. Today it is fashionable to talk about
the Orange revolution, the formation of a civil society, the Ukrainian
political nation, liberal ideas, and other nice things.

However, concealed behind this opportunism is the key thing: the actual
refusal by most political forces in Ukraine to conduct a policy that would
satisfy the national needs of ethnic Ukrainians as the main carriers of the
Ukrainian spirit.

Being Ukrainian does not mean having the appropriate box checked on a
census list, but meeting the main criteria, such as Ukrainian-language
usage, knowledge of history – and not on an “elder brother” basis.

In other words, it means being aware of Ukraine as a value unto itself and
an independent historical and modern entity, not as part of the Russian
empire.

This principle is being ignored in today’s Ukraine. Ukraine is regarded as a
dormitory, where all people are equal regardless of what values they profess
or what actions they take.

Ukrainians in Odesa are generally viewed not as representatives of the
titular nation, and not even as members of an ethnic minority, but as a
foreign body that is interfering with the non-Ukrainian forces’ efforts to
build a separate “Odesa civilization.”

The latter is essentially and suspiciously reminiscent of Odesa during the
Russian empire. Living in Odesa and remaining a Ukrainian-speaking and
Ukrainian-minded individual is extremely difficult, even dangerous, but you
are perfectly safe and welcome to ignore all things Ukrainian.

The latest actions perpetrated by Ukrainophobic forces (the seizure of the
library at Agrarian University), and especially the authorities’ weak
response, demonstrate that these forces are limited by nothing but their
insolence. Thus, it would have been surprising if the image of the Russian
empress had not reappeared in Odesa.

It is obvious to every Ukrainian that the unveiling of such a monument in a
Ukrainian city in the 16 th year of Ukraine’s independence is an insolent
challenge to the dignity of the Ukrainian nation and its historic choice.

But the main problem lies elsewhere. Why the same old “Catherine’s rakes”
again? Are our old enemies the only reason? We have another question: why
haven’t any of the more than 15 Cossack organizations in Odesa done anything
to prevent the plans to erect a monument to Catherine II?

The impression is that they simply don’t know about the city council’s
intentions. Instead, they show off their uniforms and rows of medals that
they have conferred on themselves. There are practically no rank-and-file
Cossacks, only lieutenants, captains, colonels, and otamans.

Why is it that people who talk so much about Ukrainian interests are often
the very ones that betray them? The organizers of Catherine’s monument have
carefully analyzed the situation. Any lawful acts on the part of the
Ukrainian community, like sending letters, collecting signatures, etc., will
be useless.

Any more decisive efforts will scare the general public and make the
Ukrainians look like radical nationalists. In the end, the Ukrainians will
be shunted aside and prevented from making important decisions relating to
national development.

The real response of the entire Ukrainian community of Odesa and every
Ukrainian resident of the city to this Catherinomania must be to fight not
the monument but the reasons that make its appearance possible. These
reasons reside in us: in our weakness, sluggishness, inconsistency,
hypocrisy, and our desire to foist responsibility on someone else
.

In their souls many of the opponents of the monument to Catherine are split
half-Russian/half-Ukrainian individuals and are afraid to look “too
Ukrainian.” People can see through this falseness and will not follow them.

We must start to work hard, constantly and insistently, for the sake of the
Ukrainian cause by renewing and perfecting ourselves.

They will unveil their monument, and we will raise our children and
grandchildren in the Ukrainian national spirit. We will speak only Ukrainian
at home, in the office, on the street, and in public places. We will show
success in business, studies, and sports.

Ukrainians must stop being marginal. They must be patriots, and
well-educated and highly moral individuals. Then people will follow them and
listen. The monuments to our enemies will be destroyed in our hearts, and
none will be allowed on the squares of Ukrainian cities.

If the monument to Catherine II is unveiled in Odesa, it will be a great
insult to the Ukrainian people and a slap in the face of the sluggish,
helpless, and fragmented Cossack community.           -30-
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/169321/

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.  VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL GROUNDBREAKING 
                   Officials Break Ground at Washington, D.C. Site

By Sue Anne Pressley Montes, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.
Thursday, September 28, 2006; Page B03

In China’s Tiananmen Square, the “Goddess of Democracy” created by
student activists was demolished by communist tanks during the historic
uprising in 1989.

Now a 10-foot bronze copy of the statue is being erected in downtown
Washington as a permanent tribute to the estimated 100 million people killed
by various communist regimes.

A groundbreaking ceremony for the Victims of Communism Memorial was
held yesterday at the site, a wedge of federal land where G Street NW meets
Massachusetts and New Jersey avenues, near Union Station.

The event drew about 100 people, including ambassadors and other officials
from Poland, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Republic
of China (Taiwan).

“There is no memorial to all the victims of communism,” said Lee Edwards,
a conservative historian and Heritage Foundation fellow who chairs the
memorial foundation. “We want to focus attention on the crimes of
communism and therefore educate people about why we fought and won
the Cold War.”

The memorial, expected to be dedicated in June [2007] around the 20th
anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s famous tear-down-the-Berlin-Wall
speech at Brandenburg Gate, was more than a decade in the making.

Formed in 1994, the foundation originally had hoped to build a $100 million
museum and later scaled back plans to focus on the memorial, Edwards said.

About $800,000 has been raised in private and corporate donations, he said.
Although no federal funds can be used on the project, several foreign
governments have contributed.

“I can’t believe we actually got to this day after all these years,” said
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was credited with helping pass the
law that created the memorial.

“During the Cold War, there were so many people who did not want to
recognize the evil nature of communism,” Rohrabacher said. “There were so
many people who did not want to fight the Cold War. . . . They always

seemed to be nitpicking us as we made our stand against communist
aggression.”

The Democracy statue destroyed in Tiananmen Square was fashioned from
plaster of Paris and based on the Statue of Liberty; it has become an
international symbol of freedom.

Thomas Marsh of Orange, Va., the sculptor who will create the bronze
memorial for the quarter-acre site in the District, is donating his work,
Edwards said.

The groundbreaking “signifies in many ways the end of the Cold War,” said
Paula J. Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for democracy and global
affairs whose father, former ambassador Lev Dobriansky, was the first
chairman of the memorial foundation.

She spoke of the men and women “for whom the Cold War was the central
reality for most of their lives.” “The memorial built here will stand after
we no longer do,” Dobriansky said. [Dobriansky is the highest ranking

person in the Bush Administration with Ukrainian heritage.  AUR Editor]

David Lee, Taiwan’s representative in Washington, said the memorial will
also remind people that the fight against communism is not over.

“We are still in a confrontational situation with communist China,” Lee
said, as he waited his turn yesterday to help shovel a bit of the earth.
“That’s the reason we think we need to be here.”           -30-
———————————————————————————————-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701906.html
——————————————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.         UKRAINE – “MARIENBERG: FATE OF A VILLAGE”

New Book By Johann Bollinger and Janice Huber Stangl
Michael Miller, Germans From Russia Heritage Collection
Fargo, North Dakota, Friday, September 29, 2006 
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #765, Article 16
Washington, D.C., Saturday, September 30, 2006

FARGO – The Germans from Russia Heritage Collection is pleased to

announce this important publication of “Marienberg: Fate of a Village” by
Johann Bollinger, Wstenrot, Germany, and Janice Huber Stangl, Sterling,
Virginia, a native of Bowdle, South Dakota.
 
Edited by Harold M. Ehrman. Published by the Germans from Russia Heritage
Collection, North Dakota State University Libraries, Fargo, North Dakota,
2000, 365 pages, softcover and hardcover. English and German languages in
one volume.

Johann Bollinger was born in Marienberg. He lived there until he entered
the Odessa Pedagogical Institute in 1935. He taught in the Zaporozhye
(Saporosche) area until he was drafted into the German army in 1944. He
was badly wounded and spent one year in the hospital.

 
When he was discharged in 1946, he moved to Baden-Wuerttemburg, at
Vaihingen an der Enz. For a year and a half, he worked as a laborer in
building construction for 19 pfennings an hour.

Even though he was trained as a teacher in German and Russian, he had to
take the teachers’ examination to obtain his teaching certificate in
Germany in 1947. His first teaching post was in Talheim bei Heilbronn. His
last post was at Wuestenrot at the elementary and high school where he was
the master teacher and later the principal. He was an educator for over 30
years. He retired in 1983 to his home in Wuestenrot.

Johann started working on his Marienberg chronicle in the early 1950s. He
sent a copy of his work to Dr. Karl Stumpp in Tuebingen in 1956. It
remained unpublished until 1993, when Johann printed a limited private
edition for distribution to some of his fellow Marienbergers in Germany.

Janice Huber Stangl was born on a homestead near Bowdle, South Dakota. Her
paternal ancestors came to America from Glueckstal and Kassel; her
maternal ancestors came from Nesselrode and Neu-Beresina. She attended
Bowdle schools for 12 years, and went to Northern State Teachers College
in Aberdeen, South Dakota. She taught elementary school and music for
grades 1-12 in Selby and Dupree, South Dakota, and Gordon, Nebraska. She
retired from public teaching when she had her children; she then privately
taught piano lessons.

Janice is a member of AHSGR, GRHS, and GCRA. Her interest in Germans

from Russia research encouraged her and her husband, Tom, to take the Journey
to the Homeland Tour in 1998 to Ukraine, Moldova and Trans-Dnestr, to
visit villages of her ancestors.
 
The tour included a day at the Bundestreffen in Stuttgart, Germany. It was there
she met her Seefried cousins, whom her family presumed had died in WW II,
because all contact had been lost since the late 1920s.
 
The cousins gave her a copy of the Marienberg chronicle, which she wanted to
share with family members in America. The cousins introduced Janice to Johann
Bollinger, author of the chronicle. Hence the translation of a 40 page book to
English, led to more research, and is now a book of almost 400 pages!

The book is based on a chronicle of this daughter colony of the Glueckstal
group of villages written by Johann Bollinger. The volume also includes
genealogical data from the EWZ (German resettlement) records which relate
to residents of the village in 1944, when they were forced to flee and
began their trek west to Occupied Poland.

The newly released book, Odessa Martyrology, lists the fate of thousands
of men and women from the Odessa region, during the Terror Years of
Stalin. It was used by Thomas Stangl and Harold Ehrman to determine the
fate of the Marienbergers who were taken away (verschleppt) in
1936-1938. The information has been included in the Marienberg book.

In addition, letters which were sent to North America and published in
German language newspapers, have been transcribed and translated to
English, by Homer Rudolf and Janice Huber Stangl. These are of historical
importance, as they describe the difficulties and the plight of our
relatives in Ukraine during the starvation years from World War I to the
early 1930s.

Through all the hardships, there was still humor. Some letters have
“tongue in cheek” humor and clever adages. Several letters sent to America
were humorous stories written in Bergdorf dialect. Stories of brauching
(faith healing), strong women, mischievous boys, and raucous fests, tell
us that they truly are our people (Unsere Leute).

Several private, previously unpublished letters from Marienberg, which
were sent to American families and shared with GCRA and the author, are
also included.

This volume is for all who have an interest in our Germans from Russia
families, whether or not their ancestors lived in Marienberg. The letters
portray what was happening in all of Ukraine and other states of the
former USSR during this historical period.

The following is a partial list of “Russian” villages mentioned: Alt-Posttal,

Balitzki (Saratow), Balta, Bergdorf, Birsula, Glueckstal, Grekowo,
Hoffnungstal, Kassel, Mardarowka, Moina, Nesselrode, Neudorf, Odessa,
Okna, Perekrestowo, Seebach, Sofiental, Tregrady (Friedenstal), Tschubovka,
Post/Wamske Post, Wischina–and many more.

Localities mentioned in Siberia/USSR: Kazakhstan, Kustanai, Perwomaiski,
Sverdlovsk, Tashkent, Ural Mountains, Uzbekistan. Canada
includes: Alberta, Burstall, Eva, Hilda, McLain, Winnipeg, Woolchester. In
the United States included are California, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska and Washington.

Towns in South Dakota are: Aberdeen, Bison, Bowdle, Dale, Eureka, Fairfax,
Frederick, Greenway, Hosmer, Java, Long Lake, Menno, Parkston, and
Roscoe. Towns in North Dakota are: Alfred, Burnstad, Denhoff, Gackle,
Hebron, Heil, Jamestown, Streeter, Turtle Lake and Zeeland. Towns in
Montana are: Circle, Glendive, Marsh, Paris, Terry, and Watkins.

A partial list of surnames: Raile, Ahl, Aipperspach, Bader, Bender,
Bieber, Bollinger, Bonnet, Dietrich, Dobler, Dockter, Eichelberg, Eider,
Eisenbeiss, Elsaesser, Erlenbush, Faas, Fauth, Fischer, Foede, Geib,
Georg, Goehring, Graff, Haller, Herring, Hausauer, Haux, Hettich, Heyne,
Hilt, Hoffer, Hoffmann, Hohenaecker, Hoepfer, Huber, Huft, Jenner, Jesser,
Kaul, Keim, Keller, Kessler, Kirschenmann, Klein, Klipfel, Knorr, Kolb,
Kranzler, Kurle, Laemmle, Laut, Leicht, Leno, Lippert, Maier/Mayer,
Martin, Matthies, Merkel, Metzger, Moessner, Nagel, Neiffer, Opp, Pleinis,
Rath, Rau, Reiser, Rieker/Ricker/Rieger/Ruecker, Ritter, Rosin, Sandmayer,
Schaeffer, Schaible, Scheuffele, Schimke (Pastor), Schmidt, Schnabel,
Schock, Schumacher, Seefried, Spitzer, Stiegelmaier, Stotz/Staatz, Stroh,
Teske, Trefz, Veil, Voegele, Wagner, Weiss, Wolf and Zweygardt.
———————————————————————————————–

The following text including the cover of the book and images appear
at this website page:
www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/general/bollinger.html.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17.THE NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE: CHORNOBYL 20 YEARS LATER
       Symposium in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Friday, October 20, 2006
           
Orysia Tracz, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Friday, Sep 29, 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #765, Article 17
Washington, D.C., Saturday, September 30, 2006
WINNIPEG – THE NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE: CHORNOBYL TWENTY
YEARS LATER – a symposium to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the
nuclear accident at Chornobyl will be held at the University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Canada on Friday, October 20, 2006, 1:15 – 5:00 P.M.
 
The location:  Moot Court, Robson Hall (Faculty of Law), University of
Manitoba, Fort Garry Campus, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
It is presented by The University of Manitoba Archives & Special
Collections; the Slavic Collection, Elizabeth Dafoe Library — University
of Manitoba; and the Department of German & Slavic Studies, University of
Manitoba.

A panel presentation — AFTERMATH OF CHORNOBYL — will begin at

1:15 P.M., with Senator Raynell Andreychuk, Dr. Ehor Gauk (Medical Project
Osvita), and Professor David McMillan (University of Manitoba).

The keynote speaker is DR. YURI SCHERBAK — “Chornobyl — Lessons

for the 1st Century.”  His is the 14th Annual J. B. Rudnyckyj Distinguished
Lecture, at 3 P.M.  Dr. Scherbak is the Director of the Centre for Global
and Area Studies of the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, the
former Ukrainian Minister of Environmental Protection, and a former
Ambassador to Canada, the United States of America, and Israel. 
 
He is an expert on the Chornobyl tragedy and the current political landscape
in Ukraine.  He is the author of Chernobyl:  a documentary story (1989) and
The Strategic Role of Ukraine:  Diplomatic Addresses and Lectures
(1994-1997).  Dr. Scherbak is also a well-known Ukrainian novelist who has
written over 20 books of poetry, prose, plays, and essays.

The Zone:  1994-2005, a photograph exhibit of the works of Professor David
McMillan (School of Art), will be open to the public October 5-20 (9 A.M.-
5:00 P.M. weekdays) in the Dr. Paul H. T. Thorlakson Gallery, Iceland
Reading Room, 3rd floor, Elizabeth Dafoe Library, University of Manitoba.
The day of the Symposium, Professor McMillan will lead a walk-through of
his exhibition at 11:30 A.M.

A special exhibit of books on Chornobyl from the Libraries’ collections
will be featured on the first floor of the Elizabeth Dafoe Library (October
19 – December 15).  The University of Manitoba Book Store, University
Centre, will feature a display of books for sale on this topic October
1-31. Admission is free, with a reception to follow.

For further information:  James Kominowski (204) 474-9681
James_Kominowski@umanitoba.ca
http://umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/archives/grants/rudnyckyj_lecture/index.shtml
—————————————————————————————————
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18. THE SOUNDS OF UKRAINE WILL BE HEARD ACROSS CANADA

               World-renowned Kyiv Chamber Choir will give 12 concerts
               
Infoukes, Toronto, Canada, Friday, September 29, 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #765, Article 18
Washington, D.C., Saturday, September 30, 2006

The world-renowned KYIV CHAMBER CHOIR – and Conductor
MYKOLA HOBDYCH – will return to Canada to give 12 concerts in 11
cities this fall.
 
Concerts will take place in the following cities and high quality venues:

Sun.    Oct. 29 Kitchener   3:30   St. Marys Roman Catholic Church
Mon.   Oct. 30 London     7:30   First St. Andrews United Church
Wed.   Nov. 1 Montreal    7:30   Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul
Thurs. Nov. 2 Ottawa       7:30   Christ Church Cathedral
Fri.      Nov. 3 Toronto     7:30   George Weston Recital Hall
Sun.    Nov. 5 Vancouver 3:00    Ryerson United Church
Tues.   Nov. 7 Calgary     7:30    Cathedral Church of the Redeemer
Wed.   Nov. 8 Edmonton  7:30    McDougall United Church
Thurs.  Nov. 9 Saskatoon 7:30    Knox United Church
Fri.      Nov. 10 Regina      7:30    First Baptist Church
Sat.     Nov. 11 Winnipeg  7:30    Knox United Church
Sun.    Nov. 12 Toronto II 3:00    Timothy Eaton Memorial Church

Winners of 3 Grand Prix awards in competitions among the best choirs in
Europe, Kyiv Chamber Choir members are also among the most entertaining
performers in classical music, whose European concerts regularly attract
sold-out audiences.

Their compelling presentations had a unique impact in every Canadian city
where they performed in 2004.  In January of 2005, CBC Radio aired a 2 hour
broadcast of the Choirs memorable performance in Toronto’s George Weston
Recital Hall a concert also available on CD.

These Kyiv Chamber Choir concerts are being presented by Platinum Concerts
International, whose goals include presenting the hidden treasure of
Ukrainian choral music to North American arts and music audiences.

The national sponsor of the 2006 Kyiv Chamber Choir Canadian concert tour
is ACUITY FUNDS LTD.         

Tickets & Information: 1-888-636-5195 or http://www.platinumconcerts.com
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19.   CHDERES UKRAINIAN FOLK ORCHESTRA IN NEW YORK 

             Free musical concert on Monday, October 2, at 7:30 p.m.
             
Diana Howansky, Staff Associate
Ukrainian Studies Program, Columbia University
New York, New York, Friday, September 29, 2006

NEW YORK – This Monday: Columbia University’s Ukrainian Studies

Program, in coordination with the Center for Ethnomusicology, will host a
free musical performance by the premier Ukrainian acoustic folk ensemble
in the United States: “CHERES UFO (Ukrainian Folk Orchestra)”

The virtuosos of Cheres weave fiery instrumentals and spirited songs
from Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Hungary and beyond. During performances
— such as before thousands of audience members at Lincoln Center’s “Out
of Doors” Festival and NYC’s “River to River” Festival this summer —
Cheres’ arsenal of instruments has included clarinet, wooden flutes,
violin, viola, and double bass. For spellbinding mountain music that
tugs at the heart and lifts the feet, experience Cheres’ concert at
Columbia University.

Introduction by MARIA SONEVYTSKY, PhD candidate at the Center for
Ethnomusicology, who will speak briefly about: “Seeking an Unmitigated
Authenticity: Tradition, Innovation, and Experience in Carpathian
Mountain Music.”

WHEN: Monday, October 2, starting at 7:30pm
WHERE: Room 1501, International Affairs Building (15th floor), Columbia
University, New York, NY. (Please note this performance is open to the
public.)

“Cheres captivates its listeners with centuries-old Carpathian folk hits
that “drift off into spacious caverns that jazz fans might call home.”
— Poughkeepsie Journal

“Cheres is the best purveyor of authentic Ukrainian folk music in the
United States.” — Archive of Folk Culture, Library of Congress

For more information about Cheres, please see: Andriy Milavsky, Music

Director Cheres UFO, Ukrainian Folk Orchestra. E-mail:
cheres@earthlink.net; URL http://www.cheres.net
——————————————————————————————-
          THE FOLLOWING WEEK: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10TH
The Ukrainian Studies Program at Columbia University, in cooperation
with the General Petro Grigorenko Foundation, will host a commemoration
of the life of NADIYA SVITLYCHNA, a heroine of the Soviet, Ukrainian
and Russian human rights movements.

The commemoration will take place during the morning and early afternoon
of Tuesday, October 10th. It will include a morning panel discussion
about the life and work of Nadiya Svitlychna, as well as an afternoon
panel discussion about contemporary human rights issues in Ukraine and
other post-Soviet countries.

The commemoration will be held in Room 1501, International Affairs
Building (15th floor), Columbia University, 420 W. 118th St. Free and
open to the public. A detailed schedule of the event will follow soon.

—————————————————————————————-
Diana Howansky, Staff Associate, Ukrainian Studies Program
Columbia University, Room 1208, MC3345
420 W. 118th Street, New York, NY  10027
(212) 854-4697, ukrainianstudies@columbia.edu
http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/courses/ukrainian_studies_program.html
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20. KULE GIFT PROMISES CONTINUED GROWTH FOR UKRAINIAN
   FOLK CENTRE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA IN EDMONTON

Peter and Doris Kule Centre for Ukrainian and Canadian Folklore
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, September 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #765, Article 20
Washington, D.C., Saturday, September 30, 2006

EDMONTON – Peter and Doris Kule, prominent members of the Edmonton

Ukrainian community and staunch supporters of the Ukrainian Folklore Centre,
made another substantial gift to the University of Alberta on September 6, 2006.

In honour of their support, the Centre was officially renamed the Peter and
Doris Kule Centre for Ukrainian and Canadian Folklore by university
president Dr. Indira Samarasekera in a special ceremony.  Also in attendance
were Daniel Woolf, Dean of Arts and Andriy Nahachewsky, Centre Director,
plus numerous invited guests from various university departments and from
the Ukrainian community.

The Kules are well known to the Ukrainian Folklore Centre as they provided
an endowment in 2004 which created the Kule Chair of Ukrainian Ethnography
in the department of Modern Languages and Cultural Studies.

Recognizing the valuable contribution the study of Ukrainian Folklore plays
in developing Ukrainian culture and heritage, the Kules decided to assist
the further expansion of the Centre.

“Here Ukrainian studies flourish and we owe this to the vision of the Kules
and others like them” Dr. Natalie Kononenko, Kule Chair of Ukrainian
Ethnography, pointed out.

The Kules’ gift of 2 million dollars is being matched by the Faculty of Arts
and the Province of Alberta. The Kules’ initiative will allow the Centre to
practically double in size. “This donation is a milestone which is at least
as significant as any that came before,” says Centre Director, Andriy
Nahachewsky.

The Centre is looking at expanding beyond specifically Ukrainian folklore.
The “Local Culture and Diversity on the Prairies” project, a research effort
already completed, focuses on German, English and French, as well as
Ukrainian cultural identity in Canada.  Similar new projects are envisioned,
as is increased cooperation with other parts of the university.

Research, scholarships, teaching and publications are all areas in which the
new funds will be used.  Expanding beyond Ukrainian folklore will allow the
Kule Folklore Centre to fill a significant void in western Canada.

It is the Centre’s desire to fill the need for folklore instruction by
increasing the number of courses offered here at the university.

In addition to increased research projects and publications, a portion of
the gift will be used to help support students. Through the newly
established Kule Fellowship Fund, the Centre will provide scholarships and
assistantships for both graduate and undergraduate students.

A Post Doctoral Program will be established allowing young scholars a chance
to do research in collaboration with local scholars and the resources of the
Bohdan Medwidsky Ukrainian Folklore Archive.

The Kule Folklore Centre Fund will also allow expansion of the current
visiting speakers series which has brought international scholars the
University of Alberta.

It will also help fund biannual conferences bringing together some of the
best minds for exploration and increased sharing between sister institutions
in Edmonton, north America and the world.

The Kule Folklore Centre is extremely grateful to the Kules for their
generous contribution to the Centre. Through this gift the Centre will be
able to support the important work they do.

“Folklore is the artistic expression of the common man and woman. Folklore
expresses belief in the most satisfying and meaningful way.  Folklore is
what uplifts the spirit.  With its spiritual power, it is no wonder that
folklore is intimately tied to ethnic identity.  It is that part of our
heritage that the common person most wants to preserve.” – Dr. Natalie
Kononenko.
———————————————————————————————–
For more information contact: Sheryl Mayko, Communications and
Public Relations Officer, Kule Folklore Centre; Email: smayko@telus.net.
Dr. Natalie Kononenko, Kule Chair of Ukrainian Ethnography
University of Alberta, Modern Languages and Cultural Studies
200 Arts Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E6
Web: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/uvp/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

    If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
    Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR.    
       You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
   If you are missing some issues of the AUR please let us know.
========================================================
         “ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
         A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
                With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
 
      Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
                Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
                                  Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
      SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
                “SigmaBleyzer – Where Opportunities Emerge”
 
The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.
 
All publications are grouped by categories: Marketing; Economic Country
Reports; Presentations; Ukrainian Equity Guide; Monthly Macroeconomic
Situation Reports (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
 
You can be on an e-mail distribution list to receive automatically, on a
monthly basis, any or all of the Macroeconomic Situation Reports (Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine) by sending an e-mail to mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com.
               “UKRAINE – A COUNTRY OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES”
========================================================
   UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
========================================================
    “WELCOME TO UKRAINE”- “NARODNE MYSTETSTVO”

                                   (Folk Art) MAGAZINES
For information on how to subscribe to the “Welcome to Ukraine” magazine
in English, or the Ukrainian Folk Art magazine “Narodne Mystetstvo” in
Ukrainian, write to ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. Complete information is
========================================================
              ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS
                              Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
               Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
          “Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”

1.  THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura,
Chairman; Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Washington, D.C., http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
   Additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine Program are:
2. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA), Zenia Chernyk,
Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President; Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 298 7275 in Kyiv,
kau@ukrnet.net
4.  ESTRON CORPORATION, Grain Export Terminal Facility &
Oilseed Crushing Plant, Ilvichevsk, Ukraine
5. Law firm UKRAINIAN LEGAL GROUP, Irina Paliashvili, President;
Kiev and Washington, general@rulg.com, www.rulg.com.
6. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC., Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
7. VOLIA SOFTWARE, Software to Fit Your Business, Source your
IT work in Ukraine. Contact: Yuriy Sivitsky, Vice President, Marketing,
Kyiv, Ukraine, yuriy.sivitsky@softline.kiev.ua; Volia Software website:
http://www.volia-software.com/ or Bill Hunter, CEO Volia Software,
Houston, TX  77024; bill.hunter@volia-software.com.
8. ODUM– Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson
9. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Washington, D.C.,
Dr. Susanne Lotarski, President/CEO; E. Morgan Williams,
SigmaBleyzer, Chairman, Executive Committee, Board of Directors;
John Stephens, Cape Point Capital, Secretary/Treasurer
10. UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE USA, South
Brown Brook, New Jersey, http://www.uocofusa.org
11. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL (UACC),
Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, New York
12. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John Kun, Vice President/COO; Vera
Andruskiw, CPP Wash Project Director, Washington, D.C.; Markian
Bilynskyj, VP/Director of Field Operations; Marta Kolomayets, CPP
Kyiv Project Director, Kyiv, Ukraine. Web: http://www.USUkraine.org
13. WJ GROUP of Ag Companies, Kyiv, Ukraine, David Holpert, Chief
Financial Officer, Chicago, IL; http://www.wjgrain.com/en/links/index.html
14. EUGENIA SAKEVYCH DALLAS, Author, “One Woman, Five
Lives, Five Countries,” ‘Her life’s journey begins with the 1932-1933
genocidal famine in Ukraine.’ Hollywood, CA, www.eugeniadallas.com.
15. ALEX AND HELEN WOSKOB, College Station, Pennsylvania
16. SWIFT FOUNDATION, San Luis Obispo, California
17. TRAVEL TO UKRAINE website, http://www.TravelToUkraine.org,
A program of the U.S-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C.
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,
and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.
 
If you do not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please
contact us immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.  If you are
receiving more than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected
 
              SPAM BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

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

========================================================
                        PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

AUR#764 Sept 27 Babi Yar Nazi Massacre Remembered – Mass Murder 65 Years Ago; Genocide In Ukraine 1932-1933 & WWII; Genocide Today In Darfur

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

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

                                                     
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 764
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
WASHINGTON, D.C., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
 
                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
Press office of President Victor Yushchenko
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 26, 2006

2.       UKRAINE COMMEMORATES ONE OF WORLD WAR TWO’S
                       MOST NOTORIOUS WARTIME MASSACRES
By Ron Popeski, Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Tue, 26 Sep 2006

3UKRAINE MARKS 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF BABI YAR MASSACRE 
By Mara D. Bellaby, AP Worldstream, Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006

4.             UKRAINE, ISRAEL LEADERS COMMEMORATE 65TH

                     ANNIVERSARY OF WWII BABI YAR MASSACRE 
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 1617 gmt 26 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006

5 MASS MURDER ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF UKRAINIAN CAPITAL
       65 YEARS AGO HAS MADE THE NAME BABI YAR INFAMOUS
By Mara D. Bellaby, Associated Press Writer
Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 26, 2006

6.        WHEN ALL THE BODIES HAVE BEEN BURIED IN DARFUR,
                               HOW WILL HISTORY JUDGE US?
SAVE DARFUR COALITION
Full-page advertisement, The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Tuesday, September 26, 2006, page A5

7.          UKRAINE TO COMMEMORATE NAZI MASSACRE IN KIEV

Agence France-Presse (AFP), Kiev, Ukraine, Monday, 25 September 2006

8.               GENOCIDE IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN DARFUR

                           President Yushchenko: You Can Help End It
COMMENTARY: Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #764, Article 8
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 27, 2006

9.             JUST 10% OF BABI YAR JEWISH VICTIMS IDENTIFIED
By Amiram Barkat, Haartez.com, Tel Aviv, Israel, Wed., Sep 27, 2006

10UKRAINE ASKS UN TO RECOGNIZE 1930’S FAMINE AS GENOCIDE

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian, 26 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006

11FOREIGN MINISTER TARASYUK SPEAKS AT UNITED NATIONS
ADDRESS: by H.E. Mr. Borys TARASYUK,

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, at the general debate of the
sixty-first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations
New York, New York, Monday, 25 September 2006

12.   FOREIGN MINISTER TARASYUK: GENOCIDE IS HAPPENING

                RIGHT NOW IN DARFUR, YOU CAN HELP END IT
COMMENTARY: The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #764, Article 12
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 27, 2006

13.                          UNITY STATEMENT ON DARFUR
SAFE DARFUR COALITION, Washington, D.C., September 2006

14.              DESIGN CHOSEN FOR UKRAINE’S HOLODOMOR

                       MEMORIAL COMPLEX TO BE BUILT IN KYIV
         75th anniversary commemoration of the Famine-Genocide in 2008.
By Zenon Zawada, Kyiv Press Bureau, The Ukrainian Weekly
Parsippany, New Jersey Vol. LXXIV, No. 38.
Sunday, September 17, 2006 (Reprinted with permission)

15.                                     THE GENOCIDE TEST
                       Surely China does not believe Sudan’s brazen lies.
EDITORIAL:
The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Tuesday, September 19, 2006; Page A20

16EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOREIGN RELATIONS DIRECTORATE
      HEAD CONSIDERS UKRAINE’S JOINING WTO NECESSARY FOR 
                     DEEPENING OF ITS COOPERATION WITH EU 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, September 25, 2006

17.      DANIEL FRIED PRESS STATEMENT: NATO MINISTERIAL 

                Question about Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO
Press Availability Following NATO Ministerial, New York City
Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
US State Department, Washington, D.C., September 21, 2006

18UKRAINE’S INTEGRATION WITH WEST DEPENDS ON REFORM
        US SECRETARY OF STATE RICE TELLS FOREIGN MINISTER
Agence France-Presse, New York, NY, Monday, September 25, 2006

19US CONDUCTS AN OPEN POLICY OF ADVANCING DEMOCRACY
INTERVIEW: With Alan Cooperman, Professor, Texas University
By: Oksana Levkova, The Day Weekly Digest in English, #28
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, 19 September 2006

20UKRAINIAN PRES, ALLIES ON DEFENSIVE OVER NATO POLICY
                Yanukovych challenges Yushchenko’s authority on NATO
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
: By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 3, Issue 173
The Jamestown Foundation, Wash, DC, Wed, Sep 20, 2006
========================================================
1
 UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT OPENS BABYN YAR EXHIBITION
         “LET MY PEOPLE LIVE!” – FORUM ON WEDNESDAY 

Press office of President Victor Yushchenko
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 26, 2006

KYIV – Victor Yushchenko and his Israeli colleague, Moshe Katsav, have
opened an exhibition commemorating the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Babyn
Yar tragedy.

In his speech, the President said: “Today we are honoring the tragedy of the
Second World War, one of its most horrific crimes, the Babyn Yar tragedy.

The Holocaust and Babyn Yar killings have wounded our nations. Babyn Yar
should be that injection to prevent aggressive bloody xenophobia,” he said,
adding that it was vital to promote democracy and the rule of law.

Mr. Yushchenko called on the world community to never forget the massacre:
“Let’s read our history, omitting ‘no titles and no commas,’ as Taras
Shevchenko wrote, for this is a bitter lesson for us and posterity.”

Moshe Katsav also said people must never forget this event. “We must pass

on the memory of the Holocaust to the young for the sake of posterity and to
preserve kindness and human values,” he said.

“We must act together to root out anti-Semitism and racism for the sake of
mankind,” he continued. “Like us, many leaders of the free world are worried
about the spread of anti-Semitism. They are combating it confidently and
responsibly.” The Israeli President said such exhibitions “help ensure
security of our children and grandchildren.”

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, Verkhovna Rada Speaker Oleksandr

Moroz, Kyiv Governor Vira Ulyanchenko, Kyiv Mayor Leonid Chernovetsky,
First Lady Kateryna Yushchenko, Croatian President Stjepan Mesic,
Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic and other participants of tomorrow’s
forum LET MY PEOPLE LIVE! attended the ceremony.

Victor Yushchenko and his wife held a reception after the opening.
Addressing those present, the Head of State said his generation of
politicians must spare no effort to make such tragedies never happen again
and help future generations preserve historical memory. [What about

the genocide in Darfur today, Mr. President? What is Ukraine doing
about it? AUR EDITOR]

“And so we are working for that, we worked last year and we will continue
working,” he said, adding that the Ukrainian nation “will remember this
tragic event forever.” He thanked his colleagues for coming.

Babyn Yar, a large ravine on the northern edge of Kyiv, is the site of a
mass grave of victims, mostly Jews, whom Nazi German SS squads killed
between 1941 and 1943. After the initial massacre of Jews, Babyn Yar
remained in use as an execution site for Soviet prisoners of war and for
Gypsies as well as for people of other nationalities. Soviet accounts after
the war speak of 100,000 dead.

Following the sixtieth anniversary of the Auschwitz liberation in 2005,
Victor Yushchenko announced that Kyiv would mark the sixty-fifth

anniversary of the Babyn Yar massacre.

The exhibition, which has two parts, A Warning for the Future and No
Children’s Games, was organized by Ukraine’s Culture Ministry, the Babyn

Yar Memory Foundation, the Kyiv Council Culture Department and Yad
Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority. -30-
————————————————————————————————-
http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/1_10553.html
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. UKRAINE COMMEMORATES ONE OF WORLD WAR TWO’S
                MOST NOTORIOUS WARTIME MASSACRES

By Ron Popeski, Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Tue, 26 Sep 2006

KIEV –  Ukraine this week marks the anniversary of one of World War Two’s
most notorious wartime massacres, reflecting on a key stage in Nazi
Germany’s plan to kill off European Jewry and on persisting anti-Semitism at
home.

The ex-Soviet state is holding events to honour more than 33,000 victims
shot and tossed into pits over two days in September 1941 in Babiy Yar, a
ravine now in the Kiev suburbs.

The focal point will be a forum on Wednesday, hosted by President Viktor
Yushchenko, on the Nazi “final solution” and its ramifications today,
especially in post-Soviet society.

Kiev’s 150,000-strong Jewish community, swollen by refugees, was summoned

to a gathering point on September 29, 10 days after the Nazis rolled
practically unhindered into the city.

Jews in Ukraine and Russia were long used to pogroms under the tsar. Living
in a closed society and all but ignorant of the Nazis’ anti-Jewish policies,
most carried prized possessions on the mistaken notion that the Germans
would resettle them.

“My grandmother had me in one arm and her passport in the other. She kept
crossing herself and crying ‘I’m Russian!” said Raisa Maistrenko, three at
the time and half-Jewish and now one of a handful of survivors still alive.

“A local policeman said everyone there was Jewish. He tried to hit me with
his rifle butt. My grandmother protected me with her shoulder and we fell to
the ground together.”

Maistrenko, who later danced in an ensemble for 22 years, fled in the
confusion with her grandmother to a cemetery, hid in the bushes through the
night before stumbling home after dawn.
                                        STARTING POINT
Jewish leaders see Babiy Yar as a starting point — meant to test public
reaction before pushing ahead with the network of a half dozen death camps
in neighbouring Poland set up to kill Jews brought in by train from across
the continent.

“The Nazis checked the level of tolerance to their own intolerance in
Europe,” said Moshe Kantor, chairman of the board of governors of the
European Jewish Congress.

“And step by step they became sure that the world would be tolerant of their
intolerance.”

Historians said the choice of Kiev as a killing ground was logical for the
Nazis as their troops swept towards Moscow, Leningrad and the war’s big
turning point at Stalingrad.

“The Nazis had good intelligence and they knew there were large
concentrations of Jews in Kiev,” said Viktor Korol, a history professor at
Kiev state university.

“They also exploited Soviet errors. The authorities confused the people by
insisting Kiev would never fall to the Germans.”

Korol said the massacre was planned by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who
visited Kiev days after the city fell.

“Himmler personally took the decision of a final solution for Jews in Kiev
in the last few days of September,” he said. “And he was acting on a
directive from Hitler.”

No one knows how many died in Babiy Yar as the killings resumed after the
first massacre, adults and children alike lined up on ledges and
machine-gunned, their bodies piling into the ravine. Estimates range from
100,000 to 200,000.

Later victims included Gypsies, partisans and underground fighters.

As Red Army troops advanced westward after Stalingrad, the Nazis unearthed
and burned bodies and carted off archives.

After victory in 1945, Babiy Yar’s impact was diminished under the Kremlin’s
blatant anti-Semitic policies, under Josef Stalin and then his successors.

No monument stood at the site until the mid-1970s, when a grandiose
sculpture commemorated “Soviet civilians”, with no specific reference to
Jews.

It was only under Mikhail Gorbachev’s “perestroika” reforms of the 1980s
that the extent of the Jewish tragedy was raised. A menorah was erected in
the first years of post-Soviet rule.

While in modern Ukraine there is none of the “state-sponsored” anti-semitism
that marked the Soviet period and tsarist era with its merciless pogroms.
But Jewish organisations say anti-semitism still exists on a personal level,
with Jews suffering insults and prejudice.

Elsewhere in the ex-Soviet Union, notably in Russia, it is also in evidence.
Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin bowed his head and admitted shame at the last
holocaust forum marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz
death camp last year.

Ukrainian President Yushchenko, whose father was a forced labourer at
Auschwitz, vowed then to help stamp out anti-Semitism.

“From age three I was uncomfortable about saying I was a Jew,” said survivor
Maistrenko. “Now my grand-daughter is proud to say so. Part of my mission
now is to help fight anti-Semitism.”
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. UKRAINE MARKS 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF BABI YAR MASSACRE 

By Mara D. Bellaby, AP Worldstream, Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006

KIEV – Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko on Tuesday opened

commemorations of the 65th anniversary of the Nazi massacre at Babi Yar
with a plea to remember, saying it was the only way to ensure that such a
tragedy is not repeated.

“Time can heal wounds, but it should not erase them from our memories,”
Yushchenko said as he launched two days of events to mark the 1941 Nazi mass
murders of more than 100,000 people, including tens of thousands of Jews, at
a ravine in Kiev.

Ten days after Nazi soldiers occupied the capital of Soviet Ukraine, notices
appeared around the capital ordering Jews to report by 8 a.m. on Sept. 29,
1941, to a site on the outskirts of town. They were told to bring their ID
cards, money and fresh clothes. Most thought the Nazi occupiers were
deporting them to a Jewish ghetto. Some even arrived early in hope of
getting a good seat on the train.

But after dragging luggage and their families to the ravine, the Jews were
forced to undress and herded in lines to the edge of the embankment. For 48
hours, the Nazis gunned down the crowd until at least 33,771 Jews had been
massacred – a number recorded by the Germans. In the ensuing months, the
ravine would fill with an estimated 100,000 bodies, including other Kiev
residents and Red Army prisoners.

Ukrainian and foreign dignitaries including Israeli President Moshe Katsav
took part Tuesday in the opening of an exhibit entitled “Forewarning the
Future,” which included grim photographs of victims of the Nazis’ “final
solution” that killed 6 million European Jews. The photographs showed naked
and twisted bodies stacked together in the Babi Yar ravine, and German
soldiers picking through the Jews’ abandoned clothes.

“Not only bodies were buried at Babi Yar, but also hopes, dreams and
expectations,” said Yushchenko, whose father, a Red Army soldier, was
imprisoned by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp as prisoner No. 11365.

Katsav said, “We must teach the young of every country about the Holocaust,
not to forget.”

The commemorations – involving 1,000 guests representing 41 countries – will
continue with a ceremony on Wednesday at the ravine, followed by a forum
aimed at “assessing the world’s moral climate,” organizers said in a
statement.

Valentyna Sukalo, 82, cried as she recalled how the Jews passed her house on
the way to Babi Yar 65 years ago. “They were scared, some begged my mother
to take their baby,” Sukalo said, her eyes filling with tears. “We had to
say no. We were already hiding one Jewish family – a mother and daughter.
There wasn’t room. All we could do was say goodbye.”

Ukraine’s Jewish community has grown increasingly frustrated by
manifestations of anti-Semitism. Last year, there were a series of attacks
on Jews near a downtown synagogue, and anti-Semitic books and literature
continue to be sold openly in some kiosks around the city center.

Today, Babi Yar, part of a popular tree-lined park, still has the air of a
forgotten monument. Young couples slip past the hedges that mark the border
to the ravine, where tens of thousands of bodies once lay, to stretch out on
the carefully cut grass. In another part of the ravine, near the menorah
that the Jewish community erected in 1991, boys play soccer on a dirt field.

Ukraine was once home to a thriving Jewish community; about 20 percent of
Kiev’s population of 875,000 was Jewish before the war. Today, there are
103,000 Jews in all of Ukraine, according to official data, although the
number is believed to be several times higher.              -30-

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4.          UKRAINE, ISRAEL LEADERS COMMEMORATE 65TH
                    ANNIVERSARY OF WWII BABI YAR MASSACRE 

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 1617 gmt 26 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, opening an exhibition dedicated to
the 65th anniversary of the Babyn Yar (Babi Yar) tragedy in Kiev, warned
against xenophobia and said that democracy prevents hatred.

Israeli President Moshe Quatzav said that Babyn Yar is a symbol of the worst
in people. More than 100,000 Jews and other people were killed by the Nazis
in Babyn Yar, then outside Kiev, during World War II.

The following is an excerpt from report by Interfax-Ukraine news agency:

KIEV – Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko believes that the commemoration
of the 65th anniversary of the Babyn Yar tragedy has universal significance.

“The main goal of today’s event is to make it so that the mankind should
read the story of the Babyn Yar tragedy over and over again,” Yushchenko
said during the ceremony of opening an exhibition at the Ukrainian House in
Kiev today.

Yushchenko recalled that more than 100,000 people were butchered in Babyn
Yar. “Babyn Yar buried not only people’s bodies, but also their dreams,
hopes and expectations. Among those who suffered were Jews, Romanies,
Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, Czechs and representatives of other nations,”
he said.

Yushchenko said that the tragedy of the holocaust and Babyn Yar is “a deep
wound for each of those nations”. “Babyn Yar should become a vaccine saving
and protecting everybody from aggressive and bloody xenophobia,” Yushchenko
said.

He noted that “hatred grows where there is poverty and crime and where there
is no democracy”. That is why, Yushchenko said, the main goal of the Orange
Revolution [in December 2004, which brought him to power] was to introduce
democracy and the rule of law in Ukraine. “There is no place for hatred and
intolerance only in a country where freedom and democracy are present,” he
said.

For his part, Israeli President Moshe Quatzav stressed that Babyn Yar, just
like Auschwitz-Birkenau and other concentration camps, symbolizes the worst
in human being – the desire to kill, exterminate and spill human blood.

“The worst fate awaited 1.5 million Jewish people – people who were full of
hopes and dreams – they were tormented to death together with their hopes
and their future,” he said. [Passage omitted: repetition, the exhibition
opened]                                          -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.  MASS MURDER ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF UKRAINIAN CAPITAL
       65 YEARS AGO HAS MADE THE NAME BASI YAR INFAMOUS

By MARA D. BELLABY, Associated Press Writer
Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 26, 2006

KIEV, Ukraine — When the notices went up in Kiev ordering the Jews to
gather on the corner of Melnyka and Dokterivska streets by 8 a.m., they
assumed the Nazis were shipping them to a ghetto. Some even arrived early
for a good seat on the train.

There were no trains. What met the Jews that morning was death in a ravine
called Babi Yar.

The mass murder on the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital 65 years ago
Friday has made the name Babi Yar infamous and has come to be seen as
foreshadowing the gas chambers and crematoria of the Final Solution.

Forced to undress, the Jews were herded in groups — men, women and
children — to the edge of a ravine. For 48 hours, the Nazis gunned down the
crowd until at least 33,771 Jews — the number recorded by the German
executioners — were dead.

The bodies that toppled down the embankment would be joined in the ensuing
months by at least another 70,000 dead: Jews, Soviet POWs, other Kievans.

“Time can heal wounds, but it should not erase them from our memories,”
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said as he launched two days of
commemorations attended by Israeli President Moshe Katsav and 1,000 guests
representing 41 countries.

“Not only bodies were buried at Babi Yar, but also hopes, dreams and
expectations,” said Yushchenko, whose father, a Red Army soldier, was
prisoner No. 11365 at Auschwitz.

Ukraine was a Soviet republic when the Germans invaded in 1941. It became
independent with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, and hopes the Babi
Yar commemoration will show the world that it has completely shaken off the
Soviet-enforced silence that clung to the tragedy for decades.

The commemorations began Tuesday with the opening of an exhibit entitled
“Forewarning the Future,” featuring photos of naked and twisted bodies
stacked together at Babi Yar. They continue Wednesday at the ravine.

The commemorations come as Ukraine’s Jewish community worries about the

sale of anti-Semitic books and newspapers in the capital and a series of attacks
on Jews near a synagogue last year.

Before World War II about 175,000 of Kiev’s 875,000 people were Jewish.
Today official figures say there are 103,000 Jews in all of Ukraine,
although the Jewish community says the number is several times higher.

“Every Ukrainian city has its own Babi Yar,” said Roman Levith, 73, who
survived because his mother managed to get new passports with
Ukrainian-sounding last names that fooled the Nazis. Six of his relatives
died.

“I survived only because I don’t look like a Jew,” said Oleksiy Volikov, 72,
who witnessed the Babi Yar executions firsthand as a boy of 7. “People’s
bodies were thrown into the pit like dead chickens.”

Valentyna Sukalo, 82, cried as she recalled the Jews passing her house on
the way to Babi Yar. “They were scared, some begged my mother to take their
baby,” Sukalo said, her eyes filling with tears. “We had to say no. We were
already hiding one Jewish family — a mother and daughter. There wasn’t
room. All we could do was say goodbye.”

The exact number killed was never known; as the Red Army approached two
years later, Jewish prisoners were ordered to dig up the bodies and burn
them.

For years, the atrocity went officially unmarked, while an expanding Kiev
grew around the ravine.

Then, in 1961, Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko drew international attention
to the massacre with “Babi Yar:”

     “… Wild grasses rustle over Babi Yar,
     “The trees look sternly, as if passing judgment.
     “Here, silently, all screams, and, hat in hand,
     “I feel my hair changing shade to gray …”

Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich set it to music in his Symphony No. 13.
Soviet authorities tried to suppress the poem and the symphony, then offered
a half-measure: a towering bronze monument at Babi Yar that made no mention
of Jews.

Only in 1991, with Soviet rule coming to an end, was the Jewish community
allowed to raise a 10-foot menorah at the ravine.

Today, the place where tens of thousands of bodies once lay is part of a
popular tree-lined park, but still has the air of a forgotten monument. Boys
play soccer there, and young couples slip past the hedges to stretch out on
the carefully cut grass in the ravine.                      -30-

————————————————————————————————
FOOTNOTE: Latest news articles say President Bush has announced
a delegation to the 65th commemoration of the Babi Yar massacre.
The delegation to the Sept. 27 ceremony in Ukraine is headed by Education
Secretary Margaret Spellings and includes Gregg Rickman, the State
Department’s special envoy on anti-Semitism, and Fred Zeidman, chairman
of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council.   AUR EDITOR
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6. WHEN ALL THE BODIES HAVE BEEN BURIED IN DARFUR, 
                          HOW WILL HISTORY JUDGE US?

SAVE DARFUR COALITION
Full-page advertisement, The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Tuesday, September 26, 2006, page A5

         WHEN ALL THE BODIES HAVE BEEN BURIED IN DARFUR,
                            HOW WILL HISTORY JUDGE US?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Genocide is happening right now in Darfur.
You can end it.

400,000 people dead.  2.5 million displaced.  Untold thousands
raped, tortured and terrorized.  Men. Women. Children.

Ending the horror will take a strong UN peacekeeping force.  And
that will take leadership from President Bush. 

STOP THE GENOCIDE. / www.SaveDarfur.org
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. UKRAINE TO COMMEMORATE NAZI MASSACRE IN KIEV 

 
Agence France-Presse (AFP), Kiev, Ukraine, Monday, 25 September 2006

KIEV – Ukraine will commemorate on Wednesday the anniversary of a
massacre at Babi Yar, a grassy ravine in Kiev where Nazi forces killed
34,000 Jews in two days 65 years ago.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, whose father was imprisoned at
the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II, will host
Israeli President Moshe Katzav, as well as his Croatian and
Montenegrin counterparts.

Thirty foreign delegations, including from Moscow and Washington, are
expected to attend the event and an exhibition about the tragedy that
is set to open on Tuesday.

The commemoration ceremonies are to start by the monument to the
memory of the victims of the Babi Yar (Woman’s Ravine) massacres on
Wednesday — to be followed later in the day by an international forum
entitled `Let My People Go.’

The forum on xenophobia and anti-Semitism is being organised jointly
by Ukrainian authorities, the World Holocaust Forum and the Yad Vashem
Holocaust Memorial.

`The Holocaust didn’t come out of nowhere, it formed gradually. It’s
only by examining closely the microbes called anti-Semitism that we
can understand where they come from,’ said Moshe Kantor of the
European Jewish Congress.

The massacres at Babi Yar were on a scale that defies comprehension.

Nearly 34,000 Jews, many of them elderly, women and children, were
forced to gather at Babi Yar by German troops just days after the Nazi
invasion. They were shot along the ravine’s edge on September 29 and
30, 1941.

Some 800,000 Ukrainian Jews were killed in the war.

Ukraine today has around 500,000 Jews — the fourth largest Jewish
population in the world after Israel, Russia and the United States.

The ravine continued to be used for executions and up to 60,000 more
people — Jews, Roma, resistance fighters and Soviet prisoners of war
— were killed there until 1943.

Before retreating from the advancing Red Army in 1943, Nazi troops
exhumed and burned the corpses at Babi Yar in a last-ditch bid to hide
the atrocities committed there.

But the secrets of Babi Yar became part of the accusations against
senior Nazi officials at the Nuremberg trials and a monument was
erected in Soviet times to the memory of the victims.

Soviet authorities, however, sought to play down the sensitive Jewish
component of the history of Babi Yar. Anniversary gatherings were
banned at the site and there was an attempt to build a stadium there
in the 1960s.

In 1991, the Jewish community erected a menorah-shaped sculpture nearby.
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8.        GENOCIDE IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN DARFUR
                     President Yushchenko: You Can Help End It 

COMMENTARY: Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #764, Article 8
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 27, 2006

President Viktor Yushchenko, genocide is happening right now in Darfur.

You can help end it.

400,000 people dead.  2.5 million displaced.  Untold thousands raped,

tortured and terrorized.  Men. Women. Children.

Ending the horror will take a strong UN peacekeeping force.  And
that will take leadership from Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko
and other presidents around the world.

President Yushchenko: When will you speak out about Darfur? When

will you urge the United Nations to act? When will Ukraine send
assistance to the genocide victims in Darfur?

STOP THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR NOW!       

 
WHEN ALL THE BODIES HAVE BEEN BURIED IN DARFUR,
HOW WILL HISTORY JUDGE US?                  -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9.      JUST 10% OF BABI YAR JEWISH VICTIMS IDENTIFIED

By Amiram Barkat, Haartez.com, Tel Aviv, Israel, Wed., Sep 27, 2006

KIEV – Sixty-five years after 33,000 Jews were massacred in the Babi Yar
ravine in Ukraine, the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem and

several Jewish organizations are teaming up to identify the approximately
1 million Jews killed in the former Soviet Union during World War II.

As researchers interview the last surviving witnesses and examine old
documents, the question they hear repeated over and over again is:

“Where have you been until now?”

A state memorial ceremony will be held tomorrow at Babi Yar, near the
Ukrainian capital of Kiev, where German and Ukrainian soldiers and policemen
carried out the mass murder. But it is not clear exactly whose deaths are
being commemorated, since more than 90 percent of the Jews killed there
have yet to be identified.

Yad Vashem has recorded the names of some 3,000 Jews killed at Babi Yar.
While it also has the names of some 7,000 Jews from Kiev who were killed in
the Holocaust, the museum’s researchers don’t know where they died or were
buried.

The incomplete records stem from the fact that at the time of the massacre,
only the number of dead was reported, and not their identifying details.
Other Einsatzgruppen squads – mobile killing units that murdered about 1
million Jews between 1941 and 1943 in the western Soviet Union, northern
Romania and eastern Poland – operated in a similar way.

The project to identify Soviet victims, which began on Holocaust Remembrance
Day, in April, has so far collected several thousand “pages of testimony”
filled out by the relatives and acquaintances of those killed in the
Holocaust and a few dozen lists of victims’ names and memory books written
by survivors of various cities and towns.

The project was initiated by Yossi Hollander, an Israeli entrepreneur in the
hi-tech sector who lives in the United States. Yad Vashem is working with
Jewish organizations that operate in the former Soviet Union and Jewish
communities in the area.

Avner Shalev, chairman of the Yad Vashem directorate, said the museum had
the names of more than 90 percent of Jewish victims killed in western and
central Europe, 35 percent to 40 percent of those killed in Romania, Hungary
and Poland – and only about 20 percent of those killed in the former Soviet
Union.

Some 600,000 Jews were killed during the Holocaust in Ukraine alone, and
some 300,000 in Belarus, according to Yad Vashem.

Researchers have gleaned the names of the victims from records kept by the
Germans as well as pages of testimony and record books. Yad Vashem has
collected about 3.5 million pages of testimony so far, of which only a few
hundred thousand relate to people from the former Soviet Union.

One reason for the paucity of information on Soviet victims is that Yad
Vashem has focused on collecting pages of testimony in Israel and Western
countries, while very little has been done to retrieve data from witnesses
and survivors living in the former Soviet Union.                -30-
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/766861.html

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. UKRAINE ASKS UN TO RECOGNIZE 1930’s FAMINE AS GENOCIDE 
 
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian, 26 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006
 
KIEV – Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk has urged the 61st
session of the UN General Assembly to recognize the famine of 1932-33
in Ukraine as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian nation.

He said such recognition would be of great importance for all the countries
that observe the principles of democracy and respect for the human being and
would confirm their loyalty to international commitments and readiness to
resist any act of totalitarianism, mass-scale and gross violations of human
rights and new cases of genocide.

He thanked the countries whose parliaments had recognized the famine as
genocide of the Ukrainian nation and commemorated its victims. He said such
responses are gladly welcomed in Ukraine and widely echoed in the world.

He thanked the countries which approved extending the agenda of the 61st UN
General Assembly’s session to the issue of protracted armed conflicts in the
GUAM region [including Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova] and their
consequences to the security and development of international community.

He said that Ukraine alongside the international community did not recognize
the recent referendum in Moldova [in the breakaway
Dniester region] as legitimate and all the attempts to use “the Kosovo
scenario” as a precedent to claim independence by self-declared regimes are
groundless.

He said Ukraine is proud to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council and

is ready to work there alongside other countries.
“The strengthening of democracy, the rule of law, human rights protection
and other fundamental rights and freedoms of the person are the cornerstone
basics of Ukraine’s foreign and home policy,” he said.          -30-
———————————————————————————————–
FOOTNOTE:  It is very sad and disconcerting that Ukrainian Foreign
Minister Borys Tarasiuk did not also call on the United Nations to
declare the massacre presently going on in Darfur as genocide. Ukraine
should be one of the first nations in the world to speak out directly,
clearly and loudly about present day genocides.   AUR EDITOR
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11. FOREIGN MINISTER TARASYUK SPEAKS AT UNITED NATIONS

ADDRESS: by H.E. Mr. Borys TARASYUK,

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, at the general debate of the
sixty-first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations
New York, New York, Monday, 25 September 2006

Madam President,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Madam President, with your
election to this high post and to assure you of the full support of Ukraine
throughout your mandate. I would also like to express our deep appreciation
to your predecessor and my good friend H.E. Mr. Jan Eliasson for his
outstanding contribution to the progress in implementation of the decisions
of the 2005 World Summit.

I would like to pay special tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi
Annan, who is about to relinquish his important and noble mission. I praise
Mr. Annan for his valuable personal contribution to and devoted efforts on
all aspects of the UN activities and wish him the best in his further
endeavours.

We are convinced that the next Secretary-General can and must be a person
truly deserving this post and who will honorably discharge this responsible
duty. I would like to once again emphasize the justified position of the
Eastern European states regarding the priority right for a representative of
this region to be appointed to the UN top post.

Eastern Europe remains the only region which has never had its
representative serving as the Secretary-General. In this respect, we welcome
the nomination of the candidature of Dr. Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President of
the Republic of Latvia.

Madam President,
Our achievements in implementing last year’s Summit decisions are really
impressive.  The Human Rights Council, of which Ukraine is an active member,
has started its work.

The Peacebuilding Commission, the Central Emergency Response Fund and

the UN Democracy Fund are all functioning and making an important contribution
in overcoming disasters and injustice. All of these are notable milestones in
the process of reforming the United Nations.

Still, we are far from ensuring adjustment of our Organization to today’s
realities, let alone preparing it for addressing tomorrow’s threats and
challenges. Reform of the UN Security Council, strengthening of ECOSOC and
promotion of the 2005 World Summit agenda for development, improvement in
the UN Secretariat management are yet to be tackled.

It is well-known that without modernization of the Security Council – an
indispensable pillar of the system of collective security – United Nations
reform would be incomplete.

From standpoint of States of the Eastern European Group, this thesis could
be paraphrased as follows: no enlargement of the Security Council would be
complete without ensuring an enhanced representation of the Eastern Europe.
And the rational for this is doubling of the Group’s membership since 1991,
with, most recently, the Republic of Montenegro joining the United Nations
as its 192nd Member. Taking this opportunity I would like to welcome the
friendly Republic of Montenegro to the UN family.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
We need to unite our efforts so that the United Nations – that is, all of us
together – can adequately respond to the whole spectrum of existing and
future challenges in the areas of security, development and human rights.

Recent commemoration of the 5th anniversary of the heinous terrorist attack
in this city as well as growing number of terrorist acts in many parts of
the world should leave no doubt that terrorism continues to remain one of
the most dangerous threats of the present time.

Ukraine welcomes the recent adoption by the General Assembly of the United
Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and is ready to make its important
contribution to its effective realization. This important step has become
another strong signal that terrorism will not be tolerated.

The Strategy has also testified to the readiness of the international
community to strengthen coordination and increase effectiveness of measures
to combat this hideous phenomenon within the framework of a concrete action
plan. On its part, Ukraine has recently ratified the Council of Europe
Convention on Prevention of Terrorism.

We call upon the Member States to make additional efforts during the current
session of the General Assembly to elaborate and to adopt the comprehensive
convention on international terrorism.

Ukraine is deeply concerned with the situation in the Middle East. Recent
events in Lebanon and continuing Israeli-Palestinian crisis have shown the
need for more decisive international efforts aimed at returning peace and
stability to this region.

Violence and hatred cannot become alternative to restoring dialogue and
negotiations in order to achieve comprehensive and lasting settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict on all of its tracks.

Therefore Ukraine welcomes the adoption by the Security Council of
resolution 1701 on Lebanon. Support of the resolution by all parties in the
region gives hope for achieving progress in its full implementation. As a
longstanding contributor to the UN peacekeeping efforts, including in the
Middle East, Ukraine made its concrete proposals on contributing to the
enhanced UNIFIL.

Inability to agree on set of commitments in the area of disarmament and
non-proliferation has become one of the major setbacks of the 2005 World
Summit. More than a decade ago Ukraine has made historical contribution in
this area when it unilaterally renounced the third largest nuclear weapons
arsenal in the world.

Therefore we call on Member States to strive for achieving progress in the
areas of disarmament and non-proliferation in the UN and other fora for the
sake of future generations.

Lately the international community has been concerned with the nuclear
programme of Iran. Ukraine supports the efforts of those countries who aim
for Teheran’s return to close and full cooperation with the IAEA.
Appropriate level of cooperation and transparency from Iran on this issue
would help to lift concerns of the international community.

Ukraine stands for the right of all nations to use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes. However, while realizing this right it is necessary to
fully adhere to commitments in the field of non-proliferation.

One of the most important tests for the ability of the United Nations to
deal effectively with interethnic conflicts will be the issue of the future
status of Kosovo. Taking into account the fragile situation in and around
Kosovo, the political process of determining its future status should be
handled with the maximum level of responsibility of all parties involved.

Any imposed decision leading to unilateral change of borders of the
internationally recognized democratic state will inevitably destabilize the
situation in the Balkan region and set dangerous precedents in Europe and
entire world.

Unfortunately we are already witnessing the unfolding of this undesirable
scenario with precarious attempts to use Kosovo settlement as a precedent
for claiming independence by some self-proclaimed regimes on the post-Soviet
space.

I mean so called referenda on independence recently held in Transnistria,
Moldova, and scheduled for the near future in South Ossetia, Georgia.
Ukraine together with all international community does not recognize these
referenda and considers them illegitimate and having no legal consequences.

Thus, Ukraine consistently supports the need for negotiations between
Belgrade and Pristina aimed at finding mutually acceptable solution based on
Security Council decisions, including resolution 1244.

It is extremely important to ensure that the eventual decision of the UN
Security Council on the final status of Kosovo would not impose the solution
but be taken only upon the clearly expressed consent of both parties
concerned.

As representative of Ukraine, presiding in the “Organization for Democracy
and Economic Development – GUAM”, I would like to thank those countries
which supported the inclusion into the agenda of the 61st session of the
General Assembly of the new item “Protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and
their implications for international peace, security and development”.

It is an important step that will help to draw the attention to the need for
more active and effective steps of the international community in order to
achieve progress in settlement of conflicts on the territory of Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Moldova.

We, in particular, call for realization of the initiative by the President
of Ukraine Mr. Victor Yushchenko on Transnistria “To settlement through
democracy”, a Plan of peace settlement of the conflict in South Ossetia
offered by the President of Georgia, and also implementation of the
resolutions of the Security Council and decisions of OSCE on the conflicts
in Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia.

These conflicts are among the main obstacles for the full-scale democratic
transformations in the region, which is among the core elements of the
regional policy of Ukraine.

Having gained the new level of integration during the Kyiv Summit last May,
GUAM Member States set as their main purposes strengthening of values of
democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, deepening
of the European integration, achievement of sustainable development and
increase of the well-being for their peoples.

Black Sea Economic Cooperation is another promising model of multilateral
political and economic initiative. In 14 years of its dynamic existence, the
Organization has proved its value as a framework of regional cooperation.

Considering that the issues of energy security are among most important for
Europe today, Black Sea – Caspian Region takes on special significance for
providing secure, stable mining and transportation of energy resources.

Ukraine is ready to take active part in promotion of energy projects in the
BSEC framework. We are also convinced that the BSEC should render effective
support to the efforts of the world community directed at combating
terrorism, resolving the so-called “frozen conflicts” in the region and
combating trans-border crime.

It is necessary to coordinate the BSEC activity with corresponding programs
supported by the UN, OSCE, EU and NATO.

The Forum of Community of Democratic Choice, held in Kyiv in December 2005,
is yet another example of cooperation for strengthening European democratic
values in Eastern Europe.

The CDC united the states of Baltic-Black-Caspian Seas’ area and the Balkans
in their aspirations for higher democratic standards, required for
successful movement towards the full-scaled European integration.

GUAM, BSEC and the CDC are valuable contributions to the creation in Eastern
Europe of a homogenous with the EU area of democracy, stability and
prosperity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Strengthening of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms are imperatives of internal and external policy of
Ukraine. That is why we are proud to have been elected to the Human Rights
Council. As a member of this body Ukraine is ready to work with other states
in order to bring real change in promotion of human rights worldwide.

The international community is responsible for protection of people under
the threat of genocide or other violations of fundamental human rights. In
two years we will mark the 60th anniversary of the UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. One and a half decade
before its adoption and yet before the tragedy of Holocaust Ukrainian people
had become victims of genocide.

Deliberately organized by the communist totalitarian regime with the purpose
of destruction of the vital core of freedom-loving Ukrainian people – its
peasantry, the artificial Holodomor in Ukraine of 1932-33 led to the death
of seven to ten million of innocent men, women and children which
constituted up to 25% of the then Ukraine’s population.

Having committed this inhuman crime, the communist regime tried to conceal
its scale and tragic consequences from the world community. And they
succeeded for a long time. After regaining the independence of Ukraine many
new appalling and horrifying facts have been revealed. Parliaments of a
number of countries took decisions recognizing Holodomor of 1932-1933 as

an act of genocide.

Ukraine calls upon the United Nations as the collective voice of the
international community to contribute to the commemoration of the 60th
anniversary of the Convention by recognizing Holodomor as an act of

genocide against the Ukrainian people.
 
Such a step would contribute towards making genocide and mass
abuse of human rights impossible in the future.  [What about the
genocide in Darfur today, Mr. Foreign Minister?  AUR EDITOR]

With the same aim a number of events will take place in Kyiv tomorrow to
commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Babyn Yar tragedy. Mass executions
by the Nazis there became among the first sad pages of evolving tragedy of
Holocaust.

In the memory of the Ukrainian people it also the death of tens of thousands
of Soviet prisoners of war of different nationalities. This event is
designed to become yet another important reminder of the lessons of history
and the need to prevent any manifestations of anti-Semitism, xenophobia and
intolerance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is needless to say that our primary attention should be devoted to
implementing the Millennium Development Goals as well as new commitments

in the  global development agenda taken at the 2005 World Summit.

There certainly is some mixed progress in this area, but the commitments and
promises taken are yet to be translated into action having a direct impact
on the lives of peoples in need.

The response to global threats should be effective and timely. It took
international community nearly 20 years since the first registered cases of
AIDS to recognize that this disease could threaten the very existence of
humanity. Special session of the UN General Assembly, initiated by Ukraine
together with other states in 2001, has become a turning point in combating
HIV/AIDS.

I want to confirm once again Ukraine’s commitments to the implementation of
the Declaration of the United Nations against HIV/AIDS and to express hope
for continuing close cooperation in this field with the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the World Bank and the other UN specialized
agencies.

Lately we have witnessed the emergence of new disease that can potentially
pose no less then HIV challenge to humanity. Avian influenza threatens the
entire world, it knows no borders. And it is our common responsibility to
ensure that all countries are prepared and protected against this threat.

Combating the spread of the avian influenza and preparation to possible
pandemic of human influenza demand the concerted action at national,
regional and global levels. Should we repeat the mistakes of the past or
learn the lessons and meet the challenge prepared? We believe that the
General Assembly should consider this problem and provide the answer.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
For over sixty years after its creation the United Nations has grown both in
numbers – from 51 states up to 192 – and in quality. Our Organization has
gained invaluable experience in changing the world so that every person
could enjoy more security, justice and dignity.

However, much is yet to be achieved. I believe that it is in our power and
interests to do all we can so that we would be united not only by common
past but common future as well.    Thank you.              -30-

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
 If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12. FOREIGN MINISTER TARASYUK: GENOCIDE IS HAPPENING
                RIGHT NOW IN DARFUR, YOU CAN HELP END IT

COMMENTARY: Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #764, Article 12
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk, genocide is happening

right now in Darfur. You can help end it.

400,000 people dead.  2.5 million displaced.  Untold thousands
raped, tortured and terrorized.  Men. Women. Children.

Ending the horror will take a strong UN peacekeeping force.  And
that will take leadership from Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko 
other presidents around the world and yourself as the Foreign

Minister of Ukraine.

Foreign Minister Tarasyuk when will you speak out directly about

Darfur? You did not do this in your speech before the United Nations
in New York this week. You brought up the genocide in Ukraine in
1932-1933, the worst tragedy in Ukraine’s history.  Why not also work
directly to stop genocides today in the world?

STOP THE GENOCIDE GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY.
 
WHEN ALL THE BODIES HAVE BEEN BURIED IN DARFUR,
HOW WILL HISTORY JUDGE US?
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
             Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13.                       UNITY STATEMENT ON DARFUR

SAFE DARFUR COALITION, Washington, D.C., September 2006

The emergency in Sudan’s western region of Darfur presents the starkest
challenge to the world since the Rwanda genocide in 1994.

A government-backed Arab militia known as Janjaweed has been engaging in
campaigns to displace and wipe out communities of African tribal farmers.

Villages have been razed, women and girls are systematically raped and
branded, men and boys murdered, and food and water supplies targeted and
destroyed.

Government aerial bombardments support the Janjaweed by hurling
explosives as well as barrels of nails, car chassis and old appliances from
planes to crush people and property.

Tens of thousands have died. Well over a million people have been driven
from their homes, and only in the past few weeks have humanitarian agencies
gained limited access to some of the affected region.

Mukesh Kapila, the former United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Sudan,
said on March 19, 2004 that the violence in Darfur is “more than a conflict,
it’s an organized attempt to do away with one set of people.”

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has issued its first ever genocide
emergency. John Prendergast of International Crisis Group warns, “We have
not yet hit the apex of the crisis.”

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) estimates
that 350,000 people or more could die in the coming months. Ongoing
assessments by independent organizations such as Medecins sans Frontieres
(Doctors without Borders) suggest that USAID’s estimate may be conservative.

If aid is denied or unavailable, as many as a million people could perish.
Lives are hanging in the balance on a massive scale.           -30-
—————————————————————————————————-
                  SAVE DARFAR ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ———-

American Jewish World Service
American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA Society)
Amnesty International USA
Citizens for Global Solutions
Darfur Peace and Development
Genocide Intervention Network
International Crisis Group
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
NAACP
National Association of Evangelicals
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition
Union for Reform Judaism
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

NATIONAL GROUPS —–
Affiliation of Christian Engineers
Africa Faith and Justice Network
Alliance of Baptists
American Anti-Slavery Group
AFL-CIO/Solidarity Center
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
American Humanist Association
American Islamic Congress
American Islamic Forum for Democracy
American Jewish Committee
Americans for Democracy in the Middle East (ADME)
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Arab American Institute
Armenian Assembly of America
Armenian Church of America
Armenian National Committee of America
B’nai B’rith International
Bread for the World
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Christian Solidarity International
Church Alliance for a New Sudan
Church World Service
Coalition for American Leadership Abroad (COLEAD)
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations
Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations (CSJO)
Council for Secular Humanism
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Cush Community Relief International
Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy
Darfur Community Organization
Darfur Human Rights Organization of the USA
Darfur Rehabilitation Project
Dear Sudan
The Echo Foundation
Edah
The Episcopal Church, USA
Faithful America
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Freedom Quest International
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Foundation for Ethnic Understanding
Global Justice
Hadassah
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
Human Rights First
The Hunger Site
ICNA: Islamic Circle of North America
Institute for the Study of Genocide
Interfaith Council
International Justice Mission
Islamic Circle of North America
Islamic Society of North America
Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights
Jewish Healthcare International
Jewish Labor Committee
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Jewish World Watch
Jubilee Campaign
KESHER
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Lutheran World Relief
MADRE
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
Metropolitan Community of Churches
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
Muslim Public Affairs Council
My Sister’s Keeper
National Black Church Initiative
National Black Law Students Association
National Council of Jewish Women
National Jewish Democratic Council
National Student Campaign against Hunger and Homelessness
NetAid
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Open Doors USA
Operation Sudan
Operation USA
Passion of the PresentPax Christi USA
Peace Action
Physicians for Human Rights
Presbyterian Church USA; Washington D.C. Office
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Project Islamic H.O.P.E
Rabbinical Assembly
Rabbis for Human Rights North America
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
Refugees International
Religions for Peace-USA
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Res Publica
The Shalom Center
Social Action Committee of the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations
SocialAction.com, c/o Jewish Family & Life!
Society for Humanistic Judaism
Society for Threatened Peoples
Sojourners
Stop Genocide Now
Teachers Against Prejudice
Third World Images, Inc
Tikkun
TransAfrica Forum
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Union for Traditional Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC)
United Jewish Communities
United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA)
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment
Ve’ahavta
Western Sudan Aid Relief in the USA
Women of Reform Judaism
Women’s America ORT
Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children
Workmen’s Circle/ Arbeter Ring
World Evangelical Alliance


REGIONAL GROUPS ———-
African Mutual Assistance Association of Missouri
All Saints Church in Pasadena
Board of Rabbis of Northern California
Canadian Aid for Southern Sudan
Canadian Council for Reform Judaism
Canadian Federation of Jewish Students
Canadian Jewish Congress
CASTS: Canadians Against Slavery and Torture in Sudan
Chicago Coalition to Save Darfur
Cincinnatians United to Save Darfur
Cleveland Diocesan Social Action Office & Diocese of Cleveland
Congregation Beth Or
Connecticut Coalition to Save Darfur
Dallas Peace Center
Darfur Alert (Philadelphia)
Democrats for Life of New York
District of Columbia Baptist Convention
Help Darfur Now, Inc.
IKAR
Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington
Jewish Community Federation of Richmond
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Dallas
Jewish Community Relations Council of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation
Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin,
Sonoma, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
Jewish Federation of Central New Jersey
Jewish Federation of Greater Houston
Jewish Federation of Tulsa
Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice
Mason-Dixon Darfur Alliance
Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur
Medjugorje International Relief
New Vision Partners, Inc.
New York Board of Rabbis
Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency Coalition (PDEC)
Save Darfur Coalition of South Palm Beach
Save Darfur Coalition of Western Massachusetts
STAND Canada (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur)
Sudan Human Rights Organization (SHRO) Washington, DC Chapter
Tikkun-Chicago
UJA Federation of New York
Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office (UU-UNO)
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) of America
Washington Buddhist Peace Fellowship
Washington Office of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
Western Massachusetts Darfur Coalition
Yeshiva University
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
FOOTNOTE:  How many of the thousands of Ukrainian organizations
around the world today have signed on as members of the Save Darfur
Coalition?  How many can you find on the list above? 

One would think when the worst tragedy in Ukraine’s history was a

genocide, the HOLODOMOR (induced starvation, death for millions,
genocide), and no one intervened to stop the mass murder in 1932-1933,
and when genocide took place again in Ukraine during WWII, the
HOLOCAUST, the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian organizations
around the world would be one of the first to speak out directly against
genocide today and send assistance. Seems logical but does not happen.   
 
The way to pay tribute to and memorialize the victims of genocide in the
past is to stop genocides today.  (AUR EDITOR)
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14.         DESIGN CHOSEN FOR UKRAINE’S HOLODOMOR
                 MEMORIAL COMPLEX TO BE BUILT IN KYIV
         75th anniversary commemoration of the Famine-Genocide in 2008.

By Zenon Zawada, Kyiv Press Bureau, The Ukrainian Weekly
Parsippany, New Jersey Vol. LXXIV, No. 38.
Sunday, September 17, 2006 (Reprinted with permission)

KYIV – A design featuring Christian symbols and a labyrinthine underground
museum was selected on September 9 as the plan for Kyiv’s Holodomor

Memorial Historical Complex.

A judges’ panel of about 20 experts selected the architectural plan proposed
by architect Anatolii Haidamaka, a prolific designer of churches and
national monuments, as well as a close adviser to President Viktor
Yushchenko.

The decision marked the biggest step in five years in planning for a
world-class Holodomor memorial which Ukraine’s leadership hopes to

complete in time for the country’s 75th anniversary commemoration of the
Famine-Genocide in 2008.

“If foreign countries defined that famine as genocide, if we know about it,
if the Communist Party made excuses in 1991, we have to end debates and put
up this memorial,” said Pavlo Movchan, a well-known writer and the assistant
chair of the jury selecting Mr. Haidamaka’s design.

It was Mr. Haidamaka’s use of Christian themes, not only in the memorial’s
artistic expressions but overall structure, that was most lauded by the jury’s
leaders, including Mr. Movchan and Chairman Mykola Zhulynskyi.

Skeptics, however, alleged Mr. Haidamaka’s plan was selected because of his
close relationship with President Yushchenko.

The complex’s artistic focal point, which may eventually become the
internationally recognized symbol for the Holodomor around the world, is a
metal sculpture of a frail, starving Ukrainian girl.

Clutching five ears of wheat in her folded-over hands, placed over her heart
as if she were praying, the girl is depicted looking toward the sky.

Her sunken eyes appear to reveal hope in God and, simultaneously, disbelief
that He allowed such a tragedy to transpire. “This is the memorial’s most

convincing image,” Mr. Movchan said.

The sculpture of the girl with the ears of wheat might be posed in front of
the planned museum’s entrance.

In the view of Morgan Williams, a Washington insider who has been among the
most active advocates for a Holodomor complex in Kyiv, the sculpture should
be large and central to the memorial.

In fact, the central placement of the sculpture is probably the only thing
that those involved in planning and developing the memorial can agree on.

The remaining art is largely Christian. Two large structures are planned,
the first depicting a traditional ritual cloth (rushnyk) draped above an
icon of the Virgin Mary or the Savior and the second a traditional bell
tower.

While Ukrainians embraced Mr. Haidamaka’s use of religious themes, Mr.
Williams believes they’re not effective in distinguishing the memorial and
making a political statement against communism and totalitarian governments.

The predominance of Christian symbolism may lead visitors to associate the
memorial more with Christianity, rather than communicating the evil of
communism and totalitarian governments, he said.

“I’m not against religious symbols,” Mr. Williams said. “But that’s only
half the story. Ukraine might miss the boat to tell the story about a
political system and leaders that crushed the nation by causing the
Holodomor. It’s a weak response to talk about the victims.”

The memorial’s design is based on a Christian theme as well. Visitors will
enter the underground museum along a downward path that is meant to
symbolize the descent into hell endured by Holodomor victims. In the
labyrinth’s center, a window allowing a glimpse of the sky will symbolize
Ascension.

The labyrinth continues to lead the visitor through a cosmic corridor
decorated with thousands of stars, through a wreath of thorns to a cranberry
grove, a depiction of heaven, the ultimate destination of the millions of
innocent victims.

Engraved in black, granite blocks symbolizing Ukraine’s chornozem (black
earth) will be the names of millions of Holodomor victims and their
villages.

Perhaps the biggest source of contention has been the Holodomor Memorial
Historical Complex’s location.

After years of denials or indecision regarding various sites in Kyiv, even
as far as the Lukianivskyi Cemetery, the complex’s organizers were offered
the slopes below Kyiv’s Park of Eternal Glory along the Dniprovskyi Descent,
as decreed by former President Leonid Kuchma.

Also sanctioned by the Verkhovna Rada, the proposed location incensed the
Organization of Veterans of Ukraine, which stated that such a location is a
political attempt to discredit the Soviet Union and the Red Army, and
eclipse their honor.

At a September 6 public hearing, Red Army veterans asked that their
sacrifices and achievements on behalf of the Soviet Union be respected and
demanded that organizers move the park to a different location, far from the
Park of Eternal Glory.

“In my mind, comrades, the idea to put this memorial complex in the Park of
Eternal Glory is just a cynical and angry attempt to detract from and to
reduce [the achievements of] the victors, the front-line soldiers,” said
Stanislav Hryhoriev, the first assistant chair of the Kyiv Organization of
Veterans.

“We can’t combine what can’t be combined. Talk to psychologists, and they’ll
tell you that you are trying to cause a conflict between generations,
between people, to incite public opinion,” he said.

The location also drew criticism from the Forum for Kyiv’s Salvation, a
citizens’ group that opposes illegal or abusive real estate development in
Kyiv.

The capital’s center already has enough national monuments and parks in its
central district, and constructing the complex would only add traffic and
detract from the area’s natural beauty, said Vitalii Cherniakhivskyi, the
forum’s leader.

Mr. Movchan refuted that claim, stating that the wooded slopes designated
for the complex are rarely traversed by anyone. “It is just a place for
walking with dogs,” Mr. Movchan said.

Many details of the complex remain open to adjustment, including its overall
size, design and various components, Mr. Zhulynskyi said.No budget has been
set for the complex, which will be funded by the Cabinet of Ministers and
the Kyiv City Council.

A vague estimate of $10 million has been floated for Mr. Haidamaka’s design,
and the extent to which it will be possible to develop the complex will
largely depend on how much financing Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych will
be willing to provide.

It’s also unclear whether the coalition government, which is led by and
almost exclusively consists of Russian cultural sympathizers, is willing to
support an expedient and well-financed construction of a complex focusing

on the Holodomor.                                  -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.                             THE GENOCIDE TEST
                    Surely China does not believe Sudan’s brazen lies.

EDITORIAL: The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Tuesday, September 19, 2006; Page A20

THE NEXT FEW days will show whether China means to let Sudan’s
dictatorship get away with genocide. A series of meetings at the United
Nations in New York offers the best and possibly the last chance to
persuade the Sudanese to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur. The
deployment is required by a Security Council resolution passed last
month.

It is supported by nearly all the leading powers and even by factions within
Sudan’s government. But China has so far refused to tell Sudan’s isolated
leaders to drop their opposition to a U.N. contingent, even though its
extensive investments in Sudan give it the power to do so. If it wants to be
regarded as a responsible power, China should use its leverage.

Consider the arguments for not doing so, as presented by Sudan’s spokesmen.
Yesterday, Sudan’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations protested that
blaming hundreds of thousands of deaths on his government was unfair: “The
armed groups in Darfur are the real culprits,” he asserted.

But China’s leaders surely know this is absurd: The leading murderers in
Darfur are the Janjaweed militia, which has been equipped by Sudan’s
government. Meanwhile, at the World Bank-International Monetary Fund
meetings yesterday, Sudan’s finance minister argued that “what Darfur needs
is not peacekeepers. . . . What Darfur needs most is resources for water,
resources for schools, for hospitals.”

But Sudan’s air force has strafed Darfur’s hospitals and schools, and its
Janjaweed allies have addressed the region’s water scarcity by poisoning
wells with corpses.

Sudan’s president asserts that “the U.N. forces have a hidden agenda in
Sudan because they are not coming for peace in Darfur. They want to
recolonize Sudan.”

His henchmen have indicated that, in place of U.N. peacekeepers, they might
be willing to extend the mandate of the African Union force, which is due to
leave at the end of this month.

Before China accepts this preposterous description of the United Nations and
embraces the supposed concession of a renewed African Union mandate, it
should read the recent dispatches from journalists inside Darfur.

The Post’s Craig Timberg reports that Sudan’s government has seized A.U. jet
fuel and used it to fill its own military aircraft; indeed, the airstrip
used by the African Union in North Darfur is controlled by Sudanese
government forces at night, so fuel is regularly looted.

Meanwhile, Janjaweed fighters recently demonstrated their contempt for the
A.U. forces by assaulting civilians who had gathered to speak to them.

In short, Sudan’s government is presenting the extension of the African
Union’s mandate as a concession, even as it destroys the organization’s
ability to operate.

The A.U. presence is not preventing the government from mounting bombing
raids on civilians with a frequency not seen since the height of the
genocide in 2003; nor is it preventing the obstruction of humanitarian
efforts in North Darfur, where more than 300,000 people have been cut
off from food aid.

The African Union has become almost irrelevant, and no responsible
government can accept an extension of its mandate as an alternative to a
real peacekeeping force.

Is China’s a responsible government?                       -30-
———————————————————————————————-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801030.html

——————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOREIGN RELATIONS DIRECTORATE
      HEAD CONSIDERS UKRAINE’S JOINING WTO NECESSARY FOR
                            DEEPENING OF ITS COOPERATION WITH EU 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, September 25, 2006

KYIV – European Commission Directorate for Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus
and Central Asia head Hugues Mingarelli considers that Ukraine’s joining the
World Trade Organization necessary for deepening of cooperation between
Ukraine and the EU.

He has disclosed this at a meeting with Verkhovna Rada foreign affairs
committee chairman Vladyslav Shybko (the Socialist Party faction).

Mingarelli said that strategic aim of the EU is approaching of Ukraine to
the EU structures and integration of Ukraine economy into European one.
Mingarelli said that Ukraine has to immediately enter the WTO.

He said that at first it will entail complications in some Ukraine’s economy
sectors, but Ukraine will win strategically.

Mingarelli said that after joining the WTO Ukraine will become predictable
to European partners. He said he hopes that the parliament will endorse bills
on preparation of Ukraine’s joining the WTO.

In his turn, Shybko said he had met Ukrainian Premier Viktor Yanukovych and
Verkhovna Rada Chairman Oleksandr Moroz.

According to Shybko, currently, the Cabinet of Ministers works out the
scheme of the soonest presentation of 21 bills on WTO for parliamentary
consideration. Shybko also reported on the Verkhovna Rada intention to hold
parliamentary hearings on Ukraine’s joining the WTO.

The deputy said that the most part of the bills on WTO will be considered by
his committee. Shybko forecasted that the committee will approve them as
well as the parliament will.  ‘I do not see any obstacles in passing these
bills by the committee. I do not feel parliamentary objections,’ Shybko
said.

Mingarelli said it is necessary to sign new agreement between Ukraine and
the European Union, which will pay considerable attention to cooperation
between the parties in energy sector.

He said that there are conflict situation in Transdniestria, Abkhazia and
South Osetia. According to Mingarelli, Ukraine has to take active part in
solving these conflicts.

Mingarelli said he hopes for cooperation between Ukraine and the EU in the
sectors of fighting against organized crime, human trafficking, corruption
and fighting for democracy.

In his turn, Shybko said that a part of Ukrainian political forces calls for
cooperation between Ukraine and the EU and creation of the free trade zone.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Ukrainian Premier Viktor Yanukovych
reported on Ukraine’s readiness to enter the EU.

On October 18, the Verkhovna Rada intends to hold parliamentary hearings
on preparation of Ukraine for joining the World Trade Organization.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. DANIEL FRIED PRESS STATEMENT: NATO MINISTERIAL 
                Question about Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO

Press Availability Following NATO Ministerial, New York City
Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
US State Department, Washington, D.C., September 21, 2006

Assistant Secretary Fried: Thank you.

As the NATO Secretary General has spoken at length and very well about
the ministerial, there is, in fact, little for me to add.

This was a ministerial somewhat out of normal sequence. We, and working
with our NATO colleagues, agreed to this in order to give an impetus to
preparations for the Riga Summit in late November.

This was a good meeting to talk about the current NATO operations in
Afghanistan, talk about some of the ideas being developed for the Riga
Summit, and it was an important opportunity in which we could remind
ourselves and the world how important NATO is to our common security.

As my Minister, Secretary of State Rice, said in her presentation today, in
a world where our interests and our ideals are increasingly joined and where
our democratic principles are our greatest source of security, NATO remains
one of the most important, effective and remarkable alliances in history.

I think that Jaap de Hoop Scheffer went over the discussions today so there
is no need for me to repeat all of that. A good discussion of Afghanistan, a
good discussion of the principle of NATO’s open door, and the success that
NATO has had through the enlargement process in supporting reform,
stability, and the deepening of democracy in Europe’s East. This has been
one of NATO’s great strategic successes since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
This process will continue.

There was strong support at the table for Georgia’s new Intensified Dialogue
with NATO and support for Georgia’s continued reforms and for a peaceful
resolution of some of the regional disputes with separatist regimes in
Georgia.

Finally, you heard Jaap de Hoop Scheffer talk about his meeting this morning
with the President of the African Union and the support the African Union
conveyed to him with respect to NATO’s backup for the Darfur mission.

It is our view that this is another example of NATO’s increasing role around
the world. It can be called on for support in many places where NATO has not
been present traditionally and is present today.

So with that, I’ll answer a couple of questions. Time is short. Again, you
had Jaap de Hoop Scheffer doing most of the work, so my remarks should be
seen as supplemental.

                      “———————————————————“
Question: Why is it that a Ukrainian possible membership isn’t mentioned at
all? Did it come to a halt? What is your opinion on that?
                      “———————————————————“
With respect to Ukraine, no, I don’t think Ukraine’s progress toward NATO
has come to a halt. The Ukrainian Prime Minister was in NATO last week and
made very clear that he hopes Ukraine’s involvement with and cooperation
with NATO will increase. In that he was welcomed.

He also said there is a debate going on in Ukraine about NATO, which is
really a debate among Ukrainians about Ukraine. And it’s important that the
Ukrainians sort out this debate with respect [inaudible].

We want to see Ukraine move as far as it wants toward NATO, as fast as it
wants, and as fast as it meets NATO’s requirements. But we are neither
impatient, nor are we trying to grab Ukraine.

NATO enlargement, NATO membership, has always been demand driven.
That is NATO and NATO members have responded to the desire of countries
that want to join NATO. That’s why NATO enlargement has been so successful.

NATO is not a camp which tries to keep members in, it’s an alliance of
democracies which welcomes members that want to be in and have something
to contribute.

So we are happy with our partnership with Ukraine, we are happy to see this
deepen. The Ukrainians are working through these issues.
                         “————————————————————–“
————————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18. UKRAINE’S INTEGRATION WITH WEST DEPENDS ON REFORM
      US SECRETARY OF STATE RICE TELLS FOREIGN MINISTER

Agence France-Presse, New York, NY, Monday, September 25, 2006

NEW YORK – US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told her
Ukrainian counterpart that Washington was eager to work with the
new government of pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

But she said Ukraine’s integration into the US-led NATO alliance and
other “Euro-Atlantic” institutions depended on the pace of democratic
reform in the former Soviet republic, a senior US official said.

Rice met with Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk on the sidelines of the
UN General Assembly, accompanied by the State Department’s chief
human rights official, Barry Lowenkron, and its top democracy promotion
advocate, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky.

Rice raised the possibility of visiting Ukraine during 45 minutes of talks,
but no decision was announced, the official said on condition of
anonymity.

“The secretary emphasized that the United States is ready to work with
the new democratically elected Ukrainian government,” the official said.

Yanukovych, a former communist, was blocked in his bid to claim the
Ukrainian presidency in disputed elections two years ago by a US-backed
“Orange Revolution” which saw his Western-leaning rival, Viktor
Yushchenko, take control of the country.

But he made a spectacular comeback after Yushchenko was forced by
months of political deadlock to offer Yanukovych, 56, the prime minister’s
position last month in a government of national union. Tarasyuk, the
foreign minister, is from Yushchenko’s party in the alliance.

Yanukovych quickly challenged Yushchenko’s foreign policy by announcing
a “pause” in its efforts to join the US-led NATO military alliance, though
he expressed support for Ukraine’s eventual membership in the European

Union.

Yushchenko had set an ambitious target of joining the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization by 2008, a development strongly opposed by Moscow, and he
rejected Yanukovych’s announcement as “mistaken” and said it would be
corrected.

In their talks Monday, Rice “reiterated that the US supports Ukrainian
integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions” — meaning NATO and the
European Union.

But she said the “pace of that evolving relationship will depend on
continued reforms in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government’s comfort with

the pace of that evolving relationship”, the official said.

They also discussed negotiations on Ukraine’s candidacy to join the World
Trade Organisation, a possible Ukrainian contribution to the UN peacekeeping
force in Lebanon and regional efforts to deal with “frozen conflicts”, he
said, without elaborating.

Prior to Ukraine’s disputed 2004 election, the United States had actively
funnelled funds to pro-democracy, non-governmental groups and sent
election monitors to observe the polls.

But US officials have dismissed suggestions that Ukraine under Yanukovych
and his association with the authoritarianism and corruption of ex-president
Leonid Kuchma has fallen from the democratic path.

State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said recently that
Yanukovych’s move up into the prime ministership was “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 said.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19. US CONDUCTS AN OPEN POLICY OF ADVANCING DEMOCRACY

INTERVIEW: With Alan Cooperman, Professor, Texas University
By: Oksana Levkova, The Day Weekly Digest in English, #28
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, 19 September 2006

Texas University professor Alan Cooperman is a well-known foreign affairs
specialist. He has worked as a consultant to many American congressmen and
published a number of analytical materials that have appeared in the New
York Times, Washington Post, and Foreign Affairs.

This expert’s views on US influence on other countries, the exporting of
revolution, and the role of the EU and Russia in international relations are
especially interesting.

In his interview with The Day, Prof. Cooperman gives his assessment of the
events connected with the appointment of Victor Yanukovych as prime minister
and the signing of the Declaration on National Unity. The American scholar
also says that the US has changed its attitude toward the Ukrainian
president.

[The Day] Do you think the role of the European Union is increasing in
comparison with the importance of the US?

[Alan Cooperman] “To determine whether this is so, one should examine
economic and military aspects. Europe is developing economically faster than
the US, and this is caused not by the success of individual countries but by
the fact that there are a lot of new EU members.

“The GDP and other similar indices are growing faster in the US than in the
European countries, but because of the large number of “newcomers,” total
European economic power indices are higher. And the population of the
European Union is large.

“Therefore, if you consider only the economic aspect, the EU appears to be
more powerful than the United States. If you consider military might,
American military power is expanding much more rapidly. But the countries
that are entering the EU cannot say the same.

“Moreover, Europe spends money on military affairs very ineffectively. If
there’s enough money to pay soldiers, then they lack it for new technology
and communications development.

“Now we should define what is more important: the military or economic power
component. What is power? It is the ability to make others do things they
would never do without compulsion. What made Libya curtail its nuclear
program? Europe’s economic potential? No.

“It was the military force of the US. Why is Iran so persistent in its
decision to enrich uranium? This is not a reaction to the EU’s economic
policy but to US military power.

“On the other hand, the power of the EU’s economy lies in the fact that more
and more new members want to join United Europe in order to become a free
market territory. But consider another thing: the main EU players are not
absolute partners in the sense of external strategies, and this is a
problem.

“To sum up, I would say that the approach whereby Europe becomes more
influential and the US, less, is too simplified.

[The Day] How can Russia’s efforts to restore the bipolar world order of the
Cold War era influence the balance of power?

“President Vladimir Putin understands that it would be absurd to strive for
the restoration of the Soviet Union. Russia wants to establish a different
order from the one that existed during the Cold War.

“It wants to establish its own spheres of influence in a large part of the
former Soviet Union’s territory, thereby remaining an economic and military
partner of the ex-Soviet republics.

“It also strives to influence their domestic affairs, to block their
pro-NATO aspirations. The Kremlin reckons NATO to be a threat to

Russia’s sovereignty, freedom, and influence.

“Domestic affairs are another aspect. Russia has a different political
system from NATO member countries; it may be characterized as something

between an authoritarian state and a democratic one.

“Why is this so? Putin has clearly understood that capitalism, which emerged
in Russia in the 1990s, was profitable only for certain people in the
country, i.e., it was the wrong path to take. That’s why today an “iron
 hand” is applied to domestic policies to control the economy.

“An interesting thing is that the Kremlin considers that the political model
recently invented by Russia may become useful for Ukraine, Belarus,
Transdnistria, Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and China as well.

“China, as well as many other countries, is in favor of a multipolar world,
opposing it to the world order where you have the US on one side, and other
countries (supposedly of a lower sort) – on the other. By the way, the
Shanghai Co-operation Organization was initiated as an institution whose aim
is to establish cooperation among various states against terrorists.

“It is not the Warsaw Pact, but its members are deliberately refusing to let
the US into their ranks and are striving to oppose their self-sufficiency to
it by every means. However, Russia and China are not uniting to oppose the
US, so we don’t have any bipolarity.

[The Day] Can a revolution be exported?

“Russia openly supported Viktor Yanukovych in his struggle against Viktor
Yushchenko. During the presidential elections in your country Moscow
emphasized every time that eastern Ukraine has close relations with Russia.

“I agree with this, but I don’t think Putin should have been the one to
claim this! However, another thing is more important now: it looked as though
Russia had lost, but Yanukovych came into power again soon after that.

“As for US influence, the Americans are conducting an open policy of
advancing democracy into some authoritarian states, supporting those
political parties that want a regime change. Is this the advancement of
revolution or evolution idea? No, it is the desire to change a regime.

“Not just the US, but international organizations as well, supports such
changes, and they are absolutely open about this – the days of the CIA are
over.

“What about results? Similar aspirations were successful in Serbia, Georgia,
Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. However, many reasons were behind the correction
(or 180- degree turn) of the state direction in these countries (except for
Georgia), but it happened after the regime change, so that is a different
question.

“The main thing for us is that Washington is open about advancing democracy
through various foundations that are established inside states.

[The Day] You mean the US gave money to different non-governmental
organizations in Ukraine who were advancing the idea of revolution
(successfully, as it turns out!)?

“We do not call the events that happened in your country a revolution – that
is your term. It seems too broad to us. We use the term “regime change”
instead. The US gives money to those forces that advance the idea of regime
change, first to different foundations, and they in turn provide financial
assistance to certain parties and NGOs.

[The Day] What is Viktor Yushchenko’s reputation in the US? Has it changed
in the last 1.5 years?

“The Ukrainian president used to have the reputation of a liberal,
uncorrupted politician and a progressive democrat. In contrast, his opponent
in the elections in 2006, Viktor Yanukovych, was considered loyal to Russia,
with the reputation of a corrupt communist.

“In time, people who study Ukraine’s problems began claiming that Yanukovych
is not so dirty and that the abyss between them is not so large. When the
results of the parliamentary elections appeared, the Americans shrugged
their shoulders: how could the democratic Ukrainian voters support “a
corrupt communist” instead of the brilliant pro-Western democrat Yushchenko?

[The Day] What is your assessment of the events connected with the
nomination of Victor Yanukovych as prime minister of Ukraine and the essence
of the Declaration?

[Alan Cooperman] It looks as though the Ukrainian president was doing his
best not to accept Yanukovych’s nomination. But finally Yushchenko had to
consider the huge support for Yanukovych among voters and also the fact that
Yulia Tymoshenko had refused to work with the president.

“Ukrainian policy experts think that she is an opportunist and puts career
advancement in first place. It is obvious to me personally that she is the
one who is responsible for all these processes, but the American mass media
do not pay much attention to her.

“Instead, they have concentrated on the fact that Yushchenko practically
squeezed out Yanukovych’s promise to support a pro- Western policy.

“If you generalize the whole picture, what you notice is the anxious tone of
journalists’ materials that seem to be saying: doesn’t all this mean a
180-degree turn in Ukraine’s state direction in comparison with the slogans
of the Orange Revolution?                         -30-
———————————————————————————————–
The author expresses her gratitude to Viadrina European University in
Frankfurt (Oder) and Olena Syrinska of the Centre of Near Eastern Studies
(Kyiv) for their assistance in organizing and preparing this interview.
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/168864/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20. UKRAINIAN PRES, ALLIES ON DEFENSIVE OVER NATO POLICY
                Yanukovych challenges Yushchenko’s authority on NATO

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 3, Issue 173
The Jamestown Foundation, Wash, DC, Wed, Sep 20, 2006

Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych clearly exceeded the powers of
his office, breached internal governmental procedures, and undoubtedly
usurped the presidency’s constitutional authority by announcing in Brussels
that Ukraine is opting out of NATO’s Membership Action Plan.

Shocked, President Viktor Yushchenko and his supporters in government and
parliament seem prepared for a political confrontation with the governing
majority over this issue, which is a fundamental one to them.

Moreover, they realize that the prime minister’s seemingly unilateral move
on NATO is but one aspect of the Party of Regions’ aggressive expansion of
its power and influence, rapidly exceeding the bounds of its pact concluded
in August with the pro-presidential Our Ukraine factions.

That pact and its subsequent misuse by the Party of Regions have almost
turned the pro-presidential camp into a hostage of its more powerful
partner. Thus, the president and his pro-NATO allies in government and
parliament would be acting from a position of weakness if they decide to
confront the Party of Regions and its allies on this issue.

Yushchenko, the ministers of defense and foreign affairs Anatoliy Hrytsenko
and Borys Tarasyuk, and some second-tier presidential advisers (the
first-tier positions being vacant or changing hands) are publicly
criticizing Yanukovych and his party for the move on NATO and are proposing
counter-measures.

Their arguments, however, reflect the weakness of their position in Ukraine’s
internal politics generally and in the governing coalition’s politics in
particular.

The main arguments and proposals are:
1) Ukraine should announce that Yanukovych’s position on NATO is that of

the prime minister and party leader, not the position of the president or the
entire cabinet, and the relevant ministers have not been consulted.

This assertion is correct, but the decisive political fact is that
Yanukovych’s position does reflect that of the main ruling party and its
allies, the majorities in government and parliament, and public opinion at
large.

The Verkhovna Rada’s Socialist chairman, Oleksandr Moroz, has promptly
defended Yanukovych’s conduct in Brussels as reflecting a political
consensus. Moreover, the Party of Regions has become powerful enough to
circumvent other centers of authority.

The prime minister did not deign to include the pro-Western ministers of
defense and foreign affairs in the delegation that accompanied him to NATO
and European Union headquarters in Brussels.

Yanukovych’s chosen foreign policy adviser is Anatoliy Orel, a leading
exponent of the Russia “vector” in former president Leonid Kuchma’s
administration.

2) The National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) — as a presidential
body, the argument goes — should hold a special meeting and issue
directives to all relevant departments of government regarding
implementation of ongoing NATO-Ukraine reform programs.

However, the NSDC’s overall performance and its actual involvement in
coordinating such reforms have declined precipitously during Viktor
Yushchenko’s presidency.

The decline will continue if Yushchenko carries out its intention to appoint
former prime minister Yuriy Yekhanurov to head the NSDC.

After Petro Poroshenko and Anatoliy Kinakh, Yekhanurov would be the third
consecutive NSDC chief with a business background rather than national
security credentials in 21 months since Yushchenko became president.

3) The presidency and relevant ministries should launch a public information
campaign about NATO and the benefits to Ukraine in implementing reform
programs with the alliance’s assistance.

Such an effort is indeed overdue; but it will take time and funding, and
requires more credible standard bearers than the political forces that
emerged with 10-15% ratings from the recent elections.

In any case, the information effort would almost certainly be more effective
in the eastern and southern regions if it focuses on the Party of Regions
and affiliated interests first, before reaching out more widely to the
populace of those regions.

4) Yushchenko is being asked to confront Yanukovych and, by implication, the
Party of Regions with the argument that the prime minister’s move on NATO
has violated the president’s constitutional authority on foreign and
national security policy making and the August 3 Declaration of National
Unity.

The constitutional argument is impeccable but risks remaining ineffective
due to the political weakness of the presidential forces.

Hardly anyone in Ukraine or abroad takes the Declaration of National Unity
seriously as a binding pact or guide to policy (see EDM, August 7); merely
invoking that document amounts to an admission of lacking real leverage.

On September 15, Yushchenko summoned Yanukovych for a four-hour

discussion about the latter’s actions in Brussels.

Following their encounter, Yushchenko declared that the prime minister had
violated the president’s constitutional prerogatives, the Declaration of
National Unity, and Ukraine’s national interests.

Yushchenko gave Yanukovych a “first political warning” and announced that

he would henceforth hold weekly meetings with Yanukovych to coordinate
policies.

However, the president and his allies do not seem to hold any leverage that
could counter Yanukovych’s and the Party of Regions’ continuing expansion

of their power and influence.                         -30-
————————————————————————————————–
(UNIAN, Interfax-Ukraine, Channel Five TV [Kyiv], September 14-18)
WEBSITE: http://www.jamestown.org
————————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
    Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR.    
       You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
   If you are missing some issues of the AUR please let us know.
========================================================
         “ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
         A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
                With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
 
      Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
                Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
                                  Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
      SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
                “SigmaBleyzer – Where Opportunities Emerge”
 
The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.
 
All publications are grouped by categories: Marketing; Economic Country
Reports; Presentations; Ukrainian Equity Guide; Monthly Macroeconomic
Situation Reports (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
 
You can be on an e-mail distribution list to receive automatically, on a
monthly basis, any or all of the Macroeconomic Situation Reports (Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine) by sending an e-mail to mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com.
               “UKRAINE – A COUNTRY OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES”
========================================================
   UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
========================================================
    “WELCOME TO UKRAINE”- “NARODNE MYSTETSTVO”

                                   (Folk Art) MAGAZINES
For information on how to subscribe to the “Welcome to Ukraine” magazine
in English, or the Ukrainian Folk Art magazine “Narodne Mystetstvo” in
Ukrainian, write to ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. Complete information is
========================================================
              ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS
                              Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
               Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
          “Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”

1.  THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura,
Chairman; Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Washington, D.C., http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
   Additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine Program are:
2. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA), Zenia Chernyk,
Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President; Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 298 7275 in Kyiv,
kau@ukrnet.net
4.  ESTRON CORPORATION, Grain Export Terminal Facility &
Oilseed Crushing Plant, Ilvichevsk, Ukraine
5. Law firm UKRAINIAN LEGAL GROUP, Irina Paliashvili, President;
Kiev and Washington, general@rulg.com, www.rulg.com.
6. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC., Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
7. VOLIA SOFTWARE, Software to Fit Your Business, Source your
IT work in Ukraine. Contact: Yuriy Sivitsky, Vice President, Marketing,
Kyiv, Ukraine, yuriy.sivitsky@softline.kiev.ua; Volia Software website:
http://www.volia-software.com/ or Bill Hunter, CEO Volia Software,
Houston, TX  77024; bill.hunter@volia-software.com.
8. ODUM– Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson
9. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Washington, D.C.,
Dr. Susanne Lotarski, President/CEO; E. Morgan Williams,
SigmaBleyzer, Chairman, Executive Committee, Board of Directors;
John Stephens, Cape Point Capital, Secretary/Treasurer
10. UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE USA, South
Brown Brook, New Jersey, http://www.uocofusa.org
11. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL (UACC),
Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, New York
12. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John Kun, Vice President/COO; Vera
Andruskiw, CPP Wash Project Director, Washington, D.C.; Markian
Bilynskyj, VP/Director of Field Operations; Marta Kolomayets, CPP
Kyiv Project Director, Kyiv, Ukraine. Web: http://www.USUkraine.org
13. WJ GROUP of Ag Companies, Kyiv, Ukraine, David Holpert, Chief
Financial Officer, Chicago, IL; http://www.wjgrain.com/en/links/index.html
14. EUGENIA SAKEVYCH DALLAS, Author, “One Woman, Five
Lives, Five Countries,” ‘Her life’s journey begins with the 1932-1933
genocidal famine in Ukraine.’ Hollywood, CA, www.eugeniadallas.com.
15. ALEX AND HELEN WOSKOB, College Station, Pennsylvania
16. SWIFT FOUNDATION, San Luis Obispo, California
17. TRAVEL TO UKRAINE website, http://www.TravelToUkraine.org,
A program of the U.S-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C.
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,
and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.
 
If you do not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please
contact us immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.  If you are
receiving more than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected
 
              SPAM BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

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

========================================================
                        PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

AUR#763 Sept 25 Concerns About Crimea; Sea Of Tears; A Ukrainian Ulster; Coal Mine Dangers; 7 Trillion $ Buried Underground; NATO & US Loathing In Russia

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

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

ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 763
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

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

1. PRESIDENT VOICES CONCERNS OVER SITUATION IN CRIMEA
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1400 gmt 20 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Wed, Sep 20, 2006

2. PRESIDENT YUSHCHENKO ACCEPTS CRIMEA CHALLENGE
Press Office of the President of Ukraine
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, September 20, 2006

3. SEA OF TEARS: PEOPLE-TRAFFICKING IN ODESSA
A hub of the modern slave trade
The Economist print edition, London, UK, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

4. “CRIMEA IT IS ALMOST A UKRAINIAN ULSTER”
INTERVIEW: With Oleksandr Formanchuk, Political Expert and
Volodymyr Prytula, Head, Committee for Monitoring Press Freedom in Crimea
Den, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian Thursday, 21 Sep 06, p 1, 2
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Sep 23, 2006

5. PRES YUSHCHENKO AND CRIMEAN AUTHORITIES DISCUSS
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION ON PENINSULA
Assisted by new deputy head of the Presidential Secretariat Viktor Bondar.
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, September 24, 2006

6. COURT RULES RUSSIA’S USE OF CRIMEA LIGHTHOUSES ILLEGAL
Andrii Yanytskyi, Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, September 18, 2006

7. CRIMEA NOT A RESORT YET
By Mykyta KASIANENKO, Symferopil
The Day Weekly Digest in English, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Sep 12, 2006

8. UKRAINE’S COAL MINES STILL A DANGER, BUT DESPERATION
KEEPS WORKERS GOING UNDERGROUND
The Associated Press, Donetsk, Ukraine, Sunday, Sep 24, 2006

9. UKRAINE INCREASINGLY LOOKS TO COAL AS ENERGY SOURCE
The Associated Press, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, September 24, 2006

10. UKRAINE’S PRIME MINISTER SAYS GAS DEAL WITH RUSSIA
FOR 2007 WILL BE REACHED IN OCTOBER
The Associated Press, Moscow, Russia, Friday, September 22, 2006

11. NOTHING VALUABLE?
7.5 TRILLION DOLLARS “BURIED” UNDER UKRAINIAN SOIL
INTERVIEW: With Dmytro Hursky, Chairman, State Geological Service
By Olena POZDNIAKOVA, Ukrinform, special to The Day
The Day Weekly Digest in English, #26, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, 5 Sep 2006

12. NO MONEY, NO SEA SHELF
In the big picture, lack of financing is one of the major obstacles to the
implementation of the oil and gas development projects in Ukraine.

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Oleksandra Ivanova
Ukrayinska Pravda On-line, original article in Ukrainian
Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, September 21, 2006

13. INVITE: “UKRAINE, EUROPE, & ENERGY SECURITY” PANEL
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
The Heritage Foundation, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation,
Atlantic Council of the United States
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #763, Article 13
Washington, D.C., Monday, September 25, 2006

14. U.S.-UKRAINE POLICY DIALOGUE MEETS IN WASHINGTON
Official bilateral dialogue, Sep 25-29, 2006, Webcasting live
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C., Monday, September 25, 2006

15. THE TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONSHIP: A BALANCE SHEET
Global security, economic competitiveness, energy and the environment.
We discuss strategies on supporting fledgling democracies
in places like Ukraine and Lebanon.
PRESENTATION: By Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner
External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy
Breakfast Briefing with the American Business Forum on Europe (ABFE)
and the US Council for International Business (USCIB)
New York, New York, Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Europaworld, Cowbridge, Wales, UK, Friday, 22 September 2006

16. MILESTONE REACHED IN NATO PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
ARMS DESTRUCTION PROJECT IN UKRAINE
Controlled destruction of 1,000 Ukrainian man-portable air
defense systems (MANPADS) was completed
Office of the Spokesman, U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 21, 2006

17. NATO STILL PROVOKES FEAR & LOATHING IN RUSSIA
“The Americans bombed the Serbs, they destroyed Iraq, now
they want to steal Ukraine from us.”
Agence France-Presse, Moscow, Russia, Sunday, September 24, 2006

18. U.S. EMBASSY TO HELP UKRAINIANS LEARN MORE ABOUT NATO
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, September 21, 2006

19. ABKHAZIA FIERCELY RESISTS PULL INTO GEORGIA’S ORBIT
Michael Mainville, San Francisco Chronicle Foreign Service
San Francisco, California, Sunday, September 24, 2006

20. BULGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS FIGHT TO SAVE GOLDEN
PAST, IN RACE TO UNEARTH TREASURES OF ANCIENT THRACIANS
The Thracians – lived between modern-day Ukraine and Turkey
Daniel McLaughlin, The Observer, London, UK, Sunday Sep 24, 2006

21. THOUSANDS OF HASIDIC JEWS CELEBRATE NEW YEAR AT
SPIRITUAL LEADER’S TOMB IN UMAN, UKRAINE
Anna Melnichuk, AP Worldstream, Uman, Ukraine, Friday, Sep 22, 2006

22. MOTHER OF LAST RUSSIAN TSAR MAKES LAST VOYAGE
BBC NEWS, United Kingdom, Saturday, Sep 23, 2006

23. FROM UKRAINE WITH THANKS
By David Hardie, Edinburgh Evening News
Edinburgh, Scotland, Saturday, Sept 23, 2006

24. UKRAINIAN FILM CLUB ANNOUNCED
Lev Fedyniak, Director, Ukrainian Film club, Ukraine, Mon, Sep 25, 2006

25. SUMMER 2006 ISSUE OF THE UKRAINIAN QUARTERLY
The Ukrainian Quarterly, New York, New York, September 2006
========================================================
1
. PRESIDENT VOICES CONCERNS OVER SITUATION IN CRIMEA

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1400 gmt 20 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Wed, Sep 20, 2006

KIEV – [Presenter] Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is concerned over
processes taking place in Crimea. During a meeting of the National Security
and Defence Council of Ukraine, he criticized both central and local Crimean
authorities for their failure to ensure stability in the autonomous republic
and to settle land allocation issues there.

Crimea is on the agenda of today’s meeting of the national security council,
which is still in progress. Provisions of the draft 2007 budget law which
have to do with national security and defence is another key issue.

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, parliamentary speaker Oleksandr Moroz,
cabinet members and representatives of the Crimean Council of Ministers and
the law-enforcing agencies are attending the meeting.

[Yushchenko] What does Crimea need for its quiet development? There are no
shortcomings in programmes or viewpoints. There are many such programmes.

It seems to me that this meeting today should not seek a yet another programme
or adopt new decisions, ignoring a bunch of decisions adopted by the
national security council 10 months ago. Esteemed colleagues, we do not need
more decisions. We need a will and an official willing to implement this
instead of trying to conceal the real situation. -30-
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. PRESIDENT YUSHCHENKO ACCEPTS CRIMEA CHALLENGE

Press Office of the President of Ukraine
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, September 20, 2006

KYIV – Victor Yushchenko has told reporters the National Security and
Defense Council of Ukraine will quarterly monitor the land problem in Crimea
to see whether the local authorities and the central government can solve
it.

The President is convinced the current situation in Crimea shows that “the
state has not controlled the issue over the past few years.”

He bitterly admitted that the peninsula had lost a third of its wildlife
preserves, while the number of land seizures exceeded 8,500. Given the fact
that most of these lands have not been seized by the Tatars, he reproached
to local government for poor control.

Mr. Yushchenko believes their major fault is the inability to inventory the
lands and formulate a proper position on land resources.

“Today’s meeting was not aimed at developing a series of new decisions but
focused on resuming the implementation of the relevant decisions that we
discussed nine months ago. We will quarterly monitor the implementation of
these decisions,” he said.

The meeting also focused on Crimea’s language and education problems. There
are about 600 schools in the autonomy, 93% of them Russian, with only 50% of
Russian residents.

There are 25% and 15% of Ukrainians and Tatars, with only seven and fifteen
national schools, respectively. Mr. Yushchenko said the government should
consider the public interest when solving this problem.

“I would like to assure you that the reason of these intentions was our
desire to give the young generation a chance to enjoy access to several
languages without creating any antagonistic tendencies which could spark
language conflicts,” he said.

“I do not want to politicize these issues. [.] I do not want my government
to be accused of failing to help children of different nationalities to have
access to language learning through various language programs,” he said,
adding that the same approach was used in all the regions with such a
problem.

The Head of State said the Council had also decided to provide two thousand
scholarships to teenagers representing Crimea’s national minorities.

They also discussed ways to preserve the republic’s cultural heritage.
Having referred to a recent ethnic conflict in Bakhchysaray, Mr. Yushchenko
said such arguments should be resolved quickly and effectively.

“So we emphasized the necessity to develop a political dialogue with
different nationalities. I appreciate the ideas proposed by Crimea’s ethnic
groups to stabilize the republic, and not only during the high season. We
really want to see Crimea stable,” he said.

The participants discussed economic programs to develop the region,
particularly transit projects to improve the region’s financial stability
and create jobs. They said the existing center-to-region budget mechanism
“is faulty and results in the non-transparent use of budget funds.”

“The President and his government understand that Crimea poses a particular
challenge. This territory is influenced by a number of, perhaps,
non-standard factors, and, considering them, the center must formulate
unique policies for this region,” he said.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. SEA OF TEARS: PEOPLE-TRAFFICKING IN ODESSA
A hub of the modern slave trade

The Economist print edition, London, UK, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

THE ex-slaves are easy to spot among the passengers disembarking from
the Istanbul ferry at Odessa. As other women wobble merrily away up the
Potemkin steps, the victims of human trafficking look hungry, carry little
luggage and, in winter, shiver in their summer clothes.

Odessa grew rich in the 19th century by exporting Russian grain. These days
one of its main trades is in flesh. The city is a collecting hub for women
from across the former Soviet Union who, unbeknown to them, have been
snared by traffickers.

From Odessa and elsewhere in Ukraine they are conveyed west to Europe and
east to Russia, or south to Turkey and the Middle East. Twice a week ferries
from Istanbul bring back those, often ill and pregnant, who have been
deported by the Turks.

Katya, who is 19, was deposited in Odessa last week by the Southern Palmira,
after a tragically familiar misadventure. Encouraged by a woman she thought
was a friend, she went to Istanbul, expecting work in a restaurant (fake
advertisements are also used for recruitment).

To pay off alleged debts, she says, she found herself turning tricks in a
disco. Her friend sold her to a pimp from another town where, she says, she
slept six to a room, was threatened when she was too tired for sex, and
given money only for food.

She was freed by the police (others escape, and some are beaten for trying)
and begged the money for her ferry ticket from an ex-client. Another young
woman, conveyed to Odessa by the Caledonia, says she grew up in an
orphanage, and was taken to Turkey by a woman who promised to adopt her.

It can be hard, says Natalia Savitskaya, of Faith, Hope and Love, an Odessa
support group, to persuade these women that anyone wants to help them,
rather than entrap them again. The group offers medical, legal and
vocational aid, and helps to repatriate non-Ukrainians.

There are awareness-raising programmes in schools and at the port and
airport, plus a hotline for would-be emigrants. But there are always some,
says Ms Savitskaya, who are convinced that it won’t happen to them.

Poor, neighbouring Moldova is a big source of women. So is
Transdniestria (see article), whose pig-headed authorities refuse to
acknowledge the problem.

Turkey is said to have become more sensitive to the crime; other receiving
countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, less so. And the traffickers
are diversifying.

Fredric Larsson, of the International Organisation for Migration in Kiev,
says that Russia and Poland have superseded Turkey as the top destinations.

The slaves are now often males forced to work in construction or
agriculture, sometimes with the connivance of local police. Forced begging
and organ removal are also money-spinners.

Despite changes to Ukrainian law and a dedicated police unit, trafficking
remains a tough crime to prosecute. Even if the recruiters (some of them
former victims) are found, their bosses are often abroad. Many of the
trafficked are reluctant to testify.

Most women who land in Odessa are, like Katya, poorly educated, and often
from villages that subsist on remittances from happier emigrants. Many have
been abused at home. It isn’t only poverty, says Inna Tsobenko of Veritas,
an educational group. “They want a beautiful life.”

The combination of good looks, naivety and brutal unscrupulousness is
always profitable. Several buildings in Odessa are adorned with reliefs of
two young girls with nooses round their necks: they hanged themselves,
legend has it, after falling prey to white-slave traders. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4. “CRIMEA IT IS ALMOST A UKRAINIAN ULSTER”

INTERVIEW: With Oleksandr Formanchuk, Political Expert and
Volodymyr Prytula, Head, Committee for Monitoring Press Freedom in Crimea
Den, Kiev, Ukraine, in Ukrainian Thursday, 21 Sep 06, p 1, 2
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Saturday, Sep 23, 2006

Two experts interviewed by a Ukrainian newspaper are sceptical that the
central Ukrainian authorities can influence the situation in Crimea. They
said that the autonomy’s problems have been neglected over the period of
Ukrainian independence and that Kiev still has no clear strategy or
objectives in its policy.

The following is the text of the article entitled “Crimea it is almost a
Ukrainian Ulster,” published in the Ukrainian daily Den on 21 September;
subheadings are as published;

A meeting of the National Security and Defence Council [NSDC] chaired by
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko took place yesterday [20 September],
at which the social situation in Crimea was discussed. Experts on Crimea
shared their views on the autonomy’s problems with the Den newspaper.

“A DECORATIVE” APPENDAGE TO A UNITARY STATE
Oleksandr Formanchuk, political expert:

Without doubt the issue submitted for discussion by the NSDC is extremely
important and significant for the country’s national security. However, it
is no secret, and we should say this, that the issue of Crimea is being
considered at such a high level not for the first time.

Yet, the problem has been getting worse for the last 15 year and has become
more dangerous. It seems to me that to date the highest state bodies have
not made up their minds on key issues: what should be the place, role,
nature and significance of autonomy in Ukraine.

Within the state there is no clarity and clear position on the problems of
the role and place of the Crimean Tatar people, who are a key link in
resolving the Crimean Tatar problem.

Regardless of how long this continues, but Crimean Tatars do not determine
the territorial autonomy in Crimea and will carry out a protest battle for
changing it into national [autonomy], for the return of all rights,
including property rights. And they do not hide this.

Unfortunately, virtually nobody in the country appreciates the depth and
complexity of this problem. There is only surprise at the fact there is no
sense or clear understanding or clear concept as to what need to be done
with such an autonomy, how to reform it, how to integrate it into Ukraine,
how to build it up, and what to do with it in the future?

This leads to fragmentation of the Crimean political elites and permanent
clashes and conflicts between them, which the centre [Kiev], it seems to me,
always even stimulated.

In reality, as regards Crimea and the Crimean Tatar people, the resolving of
these problems is a key link in strengthening the foundations of national
security for Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the policies carried out up till now by Kiev as regards
Crimea and the Crimean Tatars, only stimulated insecurity, increased risks
and wound up the spring of potential conflict, and did not assist solution
of these areas.

This is due to the fact that the country still does not have an adequate
doctrine on solving these problems which would be mandatory for bodies of
state power of all levels and all convocations regardless of the parties
which are in power.

In overall terms our country has still not made up its mind about the basic
principles of inter-ethnic and inter-faith work and relations along the
“autonomy-centre” axis\ [ellipsis as published]

Today, Crimea is, in my view, simply a decorative appendage to a unitary
state which simply irritates many politicians in Kiev due to the complexity
and lack of understanding of problems by them.

And so it would be desirable if the latest meeting of the NSDC were to
broaden the understanding by the central bodies of power of the essence and
nature and character of the Crimean autonomy, problems in Crimea and those
risks which this region carries with it.

However, to be frank, unfortunately, I have little confidence in this and
that today’s politicians can find the key to solving the Crimea problem in
Ukraine.

This is a task for the future and it would be very good if, on the path to
this, no harsh conflict arises, but we manage to get away with no violent
conflict but with a more or less tense conflict between the sides, a “cold”
war instead of a “hot” war. And even this will be an achievement. Perhaps
they will be replaced by wiser politicians [ellipsis as published].

TOTAL SABOTAGE OF THE HEAD OF STATE’S DECISIONS IN CRIMEA
Volodymyr Prytula, head of the committee for monitoring of press freedom in
Crimea

I believe that in overall terms, an analysis of the socio-political
situation in Crimea on the part of state leaders at such a high level as the
NSDC is hopelessly late. This should have been done a few years ago or even
earlier.

And today the situation in Crimea is very difficult from the geopolitical,
ethno-political and economic points of view and, from the viewpoint of state
security.

And in order for the decisions of the NSDC to be a bit more active, it is
very necessary today to sharply step up the presence of the uniformed
agencies the Security Service of Ukraine, the Prosecutor-General’s Office,
the police and military organizations as the first step of long-term,
systemic and very clearly thought out work with normalizing the situation in
the autonomy.

To date a very paradoxical situation has existed: neither a concept of
inter-ethnic relations nor a regional development strategy, neither do other
state doctrines reflect to an adequate extent the complexity of the Crimean
problem or the ethno-political situation, neither the Crimean Tatar factor
nor the inter-faith and inter-religion problems, nor threats to threats of
foreign influence over Ukraine through Crimea, and do not point to ways of
reducing the tension and reducing the level of risks.

And this is at a time when throughout the last few years this set of
problems had a tendency to become more acute and complicated. And, in
many aspects, influence from abroad led to, starting in 1991, irreversible
changes taking place in the autonomy.

Let’s take two factors.

[1] First, the statement that autonomy in its current form, renewed by a
referendum on 20 January 1991, which allegedly protected this creation from
reform, is absolutely wrong. The referendum renewed the Crimean Autonomous
Soviet Socialist Republic, allegedly in the form of 1921-45. However, it was
not like this for a single day.

In addition, the Supreme Council [parliament] of Crimea and former president
Yuriy Meshkov [elected president of Crimea in a non-binding poll in March
1994] disregarded the result of the referendum and, using authoritarian
methods, created, in place of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist
Republic, an almost independent republican and then the Autonomous Republic
of Crimea. Such options were not considered at any referendum and complete
force was used [to implement them].

As a result, the current autonomy is an absolutely bureaucratic creation, in
which there is a bureaucratic machine which is 50-100 per cent more than
when it was a region [Russian: oblast], and which successfully protects the
interests of officials and their disproportionate appetites from the
influence of the centre and state leaders.

Surely it is nonsense that our legal education and theory of state building
believe blindly that the nature of autonomy created by lawyer Meshkov cannot
be changed?

It is shameful to understand, however, in the course of 15 years [of
Ukrainian independence] our lawyers and state builders failed to see that
the nature of territorial autonomy contravene the needs of the state, and
failed to find a form for it which would be appropriate for the interests of
the state and the people, and not for Crimean bureaucrats.

[2] Secondly, the absolute lack of understanding by Kiev of the factor of
the Crimean Tatar people draws attention to itself.

As a result, a people who successfully stood up to the absolutist machine of
the Russian Empire, a people who for over four centuries successfully stood
up to the totalitarian machine of the USSR and as a result of which
fulfilled its dream and returned to its homeland, because unlike other
peoples of Crimea, it does not have another land apart from this land, is
now once again forced for 15 years to stand up for its rights with protests
in various forms in now democratic Ukraine!

Today, Crimean Tatars are feeling disappointment in the ability of the
Ukrainian state to resolve inter-ethnic and inter-religious problems.

Third, the Ukrainian people living in Crimea who have, starting in 1991,
been expecting that at last they can in its own country realize its own
ethno-cultural rights to language, education, culture, way of life as well
as a new way of inter-ethnic relations, have also for 15 years been forced
to feel themselves like a Diaspora whilst living in Ukraine, suffering
ridicule and disregard on the part of Crimean state bodies of the interests
of one’s state and people.

As a result in the last 15 years Crimea has turned into a whole
anti-Ukrainian enclave, where the country’s constitution is disregarded and
the rights of ethnic rights even more than was the case in the USSR.

Proof of this is in the decree issued by the president in February on the
socio-political situation in Crimea was implemented perhaps by a few per
cent.

In fact, none of the president’s instructions and decrees have been
implemented and one gets the impression that there is total sabotage of the
head of state’s decisions. However, in this situation when authority does
not belong to the president, it is difficult to say whether something can be
overcome.

I have a pessimistic view of the ability of the current state bodies in
today’s political and constitutional situation to find a key link in the
Crimean problem and not find a way of resolving it.

This would be possible if constitutional reform were to be annulled and a
strong presidential vertical of power could competently and intelligently
protect the integrity of the state and the interests of the people, despite
strong external and internal pressure, and the anti-crisis coalition [led by
Party of Regions and including the Party of Regions and Socialist Party] is
simply not capable of carrying out this task and does not need it.

I believe that the problem of Crimea in Ukraine will become even more acute,
will grow and worsen, and I cannot see a body, which is capable of solving
it. In Ukraine there is not a single politician, not even of the level of
Yevhen Marchuk, who successfully solved the crisis situation in 1995 created
by the Supreme Council of Crimea and the so-called “Moscow government.”

However, nobody took the next steps and, as a result, after this the problem
only worsened and the level of conflict in Crimea only grew.

And that is why the main task of the NSDC at the current stage, which it is
capable of carrying out, is to at least increase the position of
law-enforcement bodies in Crimea to the extent that they would be able, in
the event of a radical worsening in the situation to oppose the pressure and
not to allow a geopolitical or internal conflict.

It is bitter to comprehend this, however, Crimea is today gaining the
attributes of a Ukrainian Ulster, and in this situation it is necessary to
be ready for an armed conflict, to a conflict, and, first and foremost, to
opposition from outside [ellipsis as published]. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5. PRES YUSHCHENKO AND CRIMEAN AUTHORITIES DISCUSS
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION ON PENINSULA
Assisted by new deputy head of the Presidential Secretariat Viktor Bondar.

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, September 24, 2006

KYIV – President Viktor Yuschenko, Crimean Council of Ministers Chairman
Viktor Plakyda, Crimean Parliament Chairman Anatolii Hrytsenko, Presidential
Representative to Crimea Hennadii Moskal, Sevastopol city state
administration chairman Serhii Kunitsyn and law enforcement agencies’
representatives discussed social and economic situation on the peninsula on
September 22.

Viktor Yuschenko disclosed this to the press at a briefing after the
meeting. ‘Our meeting today was dedicated to continuation of the talks
started at the National Security and Defense Council meeting and entitled
‘Social and Economic Situation in Crimea,’ Yuschenko said.

The president promised to prepare next week (September 25 – October 1) a
decree foreseeing steps to do by Kyiv and Sevastopol to make Crimea ‘stable,
calm and prosperous.’

‘We spoke about necessity of economic development (of Crimea), extension
of potential, including resort and transit potential,’ the president said.

He called the stoppage of land distribution in 2007 one of the most
important tasks. He said that about 40,000 Crimean people have not yet
received state allowances for land. The president also said that the work on
inventory of land plots in settlements and outside them has just been
started.

He said that the participants of the meeting discussed a number of
humanitarian issues, in particular policy in the sector of health protection
in Crimea, fighting against HIV/AIDS, and initial medicine in 2007. They
also discussed issues of education and interethnic relations.

The president was assisted by newly appointed deputy head of the
Presidential Secretariat Viktor Bondar.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, on September 20, Viktor Yuschenko
criticized authorities’ activity on solving Crimean problems at a meeting of
the National Security and Defense Council.

He voiced his confidence that Crimean problems had not been solved due to
the deficit of funds or absence of officials’ willingness.

The members of the National Security and Defense Council said that the
authorities had lost control over distribution of lands in Crimea, in
particular about one thirds of natural reserve lands were lost and about
8,500 cases of land self-acquisition were registered. A total of 25% of
lands were subjected to the inventory in settlements and 40%, outside the
settlements. -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
6. COURT RULES RUSSIA’S USE OF CRIMEA LIGHTHOUSES ILLEGAL

Andrii Yanytskyi, Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, September 18, 2006

KYIV – Sevastopol Economic Appeal Court has ruled that Russia’s use of
navigational and hydrographic facilities in the Crimea is illegal. The press
service of Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office announced this to Ukrainian
News.

According to the announcement, the Sevastopol Commercial Appeal Court
overturned Crimean Commercial Court’s decision to reject a lawsuit in which
the Prosecutor-General’s Office demanded an end to the Russian Defense
Ministry’s illegal ownership of property as well as navigational and
hydrographic facilities in the Crimea and their return to Ukraine.

Sevastopol Commercial Appeal Court upheld the arguments of the
Prosecutor-General’s Office and ordered transfer of the navigational and
hydrographic facilities, including lighthouses, navigational light signals,
and special signs from the Russian Defense Ministry to Ukraine (in the
person of the Derzhhydrohrafia state organization).

Sarych lighthouse head and representative of Derzhhydrohrafia Yurii
Leschenko told Ukrainian News that Sevastopol Economic Appeal Court made
decisions on the case at two hearings: on September 11, the court viewed the
issue on ownership of 22 Crimean facilities, which are situated out of the
administrative and territorial borders of Sevastopol; and on September 14,
Ukraine received other 77 navigation and hydrographic and administrative
facilities in Sevastopol.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Ukraine and Russia are in dispute over
the ownership of hydrographic facilities in the Crimea.

Russia says that these facilities are at its disposal and that it pays rent
for them in accordance with the relevant agreements.

Ukraine denies existence of such agreements and is seeking to regain control
of the facilities through the courts. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. CRIMEA NOT A RESORT YET

By Mykyta KASIANENKO, Symferopil
The Day Weekly Digest in English, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Sep 12, 2006

On Sept. 7, Hennadii Moskal, the Ukrainian president’s permanent
representative to the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, summarized
the 2006 resort season’s preliminary statistics for the Crimea.

His press consultant Liudmyla Mokhova told The Day that the meeting
established that the resort season’s financial results with regard to resort
activity, retail trade, and the public food sector – are lamentable.

In 2006 Crimean resort facilities, including treatment at spas and
sanatoria, accommodations, and tourist and tour services, generated 71.7
million hryvnias’ worth of tax returns, a mere 5.9 percent of all local
budgets’ revenues. The central budget has received 33.8 million from the
Crimea, 27.7 percent less than during the same period last year.

In terms of food services, legal entities have submitted 7 million hryvnias’
worth of tax returns to the consolidated Crimean budget. The resort sphere
registers only 0.6 percent of all taxes collected in the Crimea, and the
central budget, a mere 0.3 percent.

Income tax levied on individuals renting out their homes during the resort
season is one source of revenue for the state budget. In the Crimea 6,143
officially registered residents rent their homes, paying a total of 871,000
hryvnias in income tax.

The republic’s tax authorities have a list of names of 397 individuals –
owners of hotels and small resort facilities – who have paid 756,200
hryvnias to the government.

Experts believe that this figure represents only one-third of all
mini-boarding houses. According to data collected by the Crimea’s resort and
tourism ministry, there are over 1,100 privately owned mini-hotels and
mini-boarding houses in the peninsula.

President Yushchenko’s permanent representative to the Crimea noted that the
peninsula still cannot be regarded as a resort, because it is maintained by
trifling revenues from the non-resort sector.

The State Joint Stock Company Chornomornaftohaz, which generates 33.4
percent of the state’s revenue, is the main taxpayer. Revenue coming in to
local budgets from the resort industry is also insignificant. There, payroll
and land taxes prevail, constituting 61.1 and 11.2 percent, respectively.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8. UKRAINE’S COAL MINES STILL A DANGER, BUT DESPERATION
KEEPS WORKERS GOING UNDERGROUND

The Associated Press, Donetsk, Ukraine, Sunday, Sep 24, 2006

DONETSK – Ukraine Miners with eyelids rimmed black with coal-dust rush
past rose bushes that mark the entrance to eastern Ukraine’s Zasyadko mine
for another day of work deep in the coal pit. They never know whether they’ll
walk back out again.

Ukraine’s coal mines are some of the most dangerous in the world, a risk
illustrated starkly this week with the deaths of 17 miners in three separate
accidents.

Seventy-five percent of the country’s mines are at risk of explosions due to
dangerously high levels of methane gas, officials say, but many are
profitable and others are the only source of income for hundreds of
thousands of families.

Despite the dangers, the government, facing rising natural gas prices, has a
growing appetite for the country’s rich coal reserves, and has called for
production to be increased by a third to 80 million tons in 2007.

The accident Wednesday at the Donetsk region’s Zasyadko mine killed 13 and
injured 61 workers. Hours later, three more miners died, apparently from gas
poisoning, at another Donetsk mine.

Yet another miner died Thursday in Donetsk’s Kirovska mine from a rock fall,
and in the Fominske mine, three were injured by an outburst of gas,
emergency officials said.

“Of course, it is dangerous but I have no time to think about this,” miner
Petro Martyshchenko, who was knocked unconscious by methane poisoning
at the Zasyadko mine this week, said as he ate soup in his hospital bed. “I
need to feed my three kids.”

Donetsk, about 730 kilometers (450 miles) southeast of Kiev, is the heart of
this former Soviet republic’s coal mining sector.

Mining is part of the culture. The local soccer team is called Shakhtar, or
Miners, and it’s easy to identify who works down in the pits in this city of
just over 1 million: they are the ones with the permanently coal-stained
hands.

During the Soviet era, the miners were hailed as heroes. The big Soviet-era
inscriptions still remain, proclaiming “Glory to the Miners of Donbass” (the
Donetsk basin). But today, Ukraine’s miners complain that they are “cannon
fodder.”

Since the 1991 Soviet collapse, 4,700 miners have been killed in accidents.
Officials say that for every 1 million tons of coal brought to the surface
in Ukraine, three miners lose their lives.

Experts say Ukraine’s mines are dangerous largely because they are so deep,
typically running more than 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) underground. In
comparison, most European coal beds lie at a depth of 500 to 600 meters
(1,640 to 1,970 feet).

Zasyadko, the site of Wednesday’s deadly accident, is one of Ukraine’s
deepest, going down 1,300 meters (4,265 feet).

“The deeper it goes, the more methane. As a result, we lose hundreds of our
boys,” said Mykhailo Volynets, head of Ukraine’s Industrial Trade Union of
Miners.

Methane is a natural byproduct of mining, and it must be ventilated to
prevent explosions. But some mines rely on outdated ventilation equipment,
officials said.

Last year, President Viktor Yushchenko restored the Coal Ministry in an
attempt to exercise more control over the sector, which remains largely
state-owned.

The ministry, in turn, revived a special department to ensure that mines are
following safety rules, and it has proposed spending 150 million hryvnas
(US$29.7 million/euros 23.4 million) next year to help mines replace
outdated equipment and safety control systems.

“The current system of safety at mines is ineffective,” Coal Minister Serhiy
Tulub acknowledged. “We are trying to change it.”

The problems go deeper, though. Volynets said that Ukrainian mines pay
workers based on the volume of coal removed, rather than by the hour – a
practice at odds with other mining countries. “To get a decent salary,
miners often don’t observe the rules,” he said.

And it’s rare that anyone faces punishment when accidents do occur. A 2002
methane gas explosion in Zasyadko that killed 20 miners resulted in criminal
charges being filed against mine officials for negligence, but a court has
yet to return a verdict.

“I came through three accidents safe, but this one hit me,” complained miner
Martyshchenko as his wife, Oksana, sat nearby, tears in her eyes. “My life
is worth nothing for them.”

In just the first eight months of this year, 4,473 Ukrainian miners suffered
injuries and 134 have died.

Martyshchenko knows the statistics. But he makes 2,500 hryvnas a month
(US$495 or euro 391), well above the average monthly salary of 918 hryvna
(US$182 or euro 143), which is why he keeps going back down.

Ukraine’s current government, run by a prime minister from Donetsk, sees the
solution in selling the state-owned mines to the private sector, but some
say that will foster more corruption instead of leading to greater
investment. Of Ukraine’s 273 mines, 100 have been privatized.

The Zasyadko mine, which is being rented from the state, is known for being
one of the most dangerous, although officials insist safety rules are
strictly observed. For Ukraine’s miners, going down in the pits is a risk
they accept, albeit grudgingly.

“Any one of your shifts could be the last for you,” said miner Vasyl
Fedorov, 45. -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9. UKRAINE INCREASINGLY LOOKS TO COAL AS ENERGY SOURCE

The Associated Press, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, September 24, 2006

HOW MUCH COAL?: Ukraine produced 60.4 million tons of coal last year.
By 2007, officials hope to increase that by 20 percent to 80 million tons. The
country has 273 mines, with 170 still under state control.

COAL VS. NATURAL GAS: Coal accounts for about 27 percent of Ukraine’s
energy supply, compared to natural gas, which comprises for 44 percent. During
the last 15 years, Ukraine has steadily replaced the use of coal with supplies
of cheaper natural gas.

But this year’s gas dispute with Russia, which led to a sharp increase in
price and the prospect of further increases to come, has prompted the
government to look again at coal.

NEW TECHNOLOGY: Ukraine’s metallurgical sector has started to pursue
technology that allows it to use a coal dust mixture, rather than natural
gas, in production.

In 2003, the Zasyadko mine launched a program to begin using methane – a
byproduct of mining – to generate heat and electrical energy, a technology
that some saw as another domestic solution to rising gas prices. -30-

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. UKRAINE’S PRIME MINISTER SAYS GAS DEAL WITH RUSSIA
FOR 2007 WILL BE REACHED IN OCTOBER

The Associated Press, Moscow, Russia, Friday, September 22, 2006

MOSCOW – Ukraine will ensure the smooth transit of gas to Europe this
winter, the nation’s prime minister said Friday after talks with his Russian
counterpart.

Viktor Yanukovych also said that Ukraine and Russia would agree on a gas
price for the final months of the year in the “coming days” and would set a
price for 2007 in October.

Ukraine pays US$95 (Euro75) per 1,000 cubic meters – a price that Yanukovych
said Ukraine would seek to keep at least until the new year.

“The question of US$95 is of great importance for us, although we clearly
understand that this is a difficult issue,” he said in televised comments
following the talks with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov.

Russia strongly supported Yanukovych’s fraud-marred bid to win the Ukrainian
presidency in 2004, and his return as prime minister was broadly seen as a
boost for the Kremlin’s interests in Ukraine, as President Viktor Yushchenko
tries to move the ex-Soviet nation closer to the West.

The Kremlin said that Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Yanukovych
late Thursday.

Ukraine, which receives much of its gas supplies from Russia, agreed to a
twofold price increase earlier this year after a bitter dispute with
Russia’s Gazprom state-controlled natural gas giant.

The Russian company briefly turned off the taps to Ukraine at the height of
winter, which also triggered a brief shutdown of supplies to western Europe
after Ukraine began siphoning gas passing westward through its pipelines.

As part of the deal that resolved the dispute, Ukraine agreed to receive its
imported natural gas at a price of US$95 (?75) per 1,000 cubic meters from
an intermediary company, RosUkrEnergo – a joint venture between Gazprom
and a company owned by two Ukrainian businessmen.

However, pressure to increase the price is rising after Turkmenistan hiked
the amount Russia pays for the gas it buys and then sells on to Ukraine.

“We would like to be governed by the agreements which we had (before),
despite the change in conditions for Turkmen gas,” Fradkov was quoted as
saying by the RIA Novosti news agency.

Yanukovych also said that underground gas storage facilities were in the
process of being filled, before the peak winter heating season.

“I am sure that we will perform this task and supply the necessary volumes
of gas for Ukrainian consumers,” Yanukovych said, according to RIA Novosti.

Gazprom has warned that Ukraine was building up its winter gas supplies too
slowly, possibly endangering smooth deliveries to Europe and raising the
threat of a repeat gas crisis.

In the midst of last year’s freezing temperatures, Ukraine skimmed the extra
gas it needed from the export pipeline supplying Europe, meaning some
European customers experienced a shortfall.

Separately, Fradkov said that Russian companies were interested in investing
in metallurgy, high technology and other industries in Ukraine. He
criticized what he called the “delays of the past two years,” referring to
the period following the 2004 Orange Revolution that helped bring Yushchenko
to power, when Russian companies had faced difficulties doing business in
Ukraine.

Yanukovych said the two side would seek a “balance of interests” ultimately
aimed at creating conditions for free trade between the two countries. -30-

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11. NOTHING VALUABLE?
7.5 TRILLION DOLLARS “BURIED” UNDER UKRAINIAN SOIL

INTERVIEW: With Dmytro Hursky, Chairman, State Geological Service
By Olena POZDNIAKOVA, Ukrinform, special to The Day
The Day Weekly Digest in English, #26, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, 5 Sep 2006

One of the chief arguments of those who opposed Ukraine’s independence was
the claim that this country lacks rich mineral resources, of which Russia
has plenty.

So, the argument went, if Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union, it would
lose a powerful raw-material base comprised not only of oil and gas but a
whole range of fossil fuels.

The majority of Ukrainians – even staunch advocates of independence,
including some well-informed, knowledgeable, and experienced individuals –
readily accepted the myth created by Soviet propaganda that Ukraine’s earth
is exhausted.

But is this the real situation? In geological terms, what is Ukraine’s
territory like?

Ukrinform’s observer Olena Pozdniakova posed this question to Dmytro
HURSKY, chairman of the State Geological Service of Ukraine.

“In terms of quantity and quality of fossil fuel deposits, Ukraine occupies
a stable first place in Europe: its territory represents 0.4 percent of the
world’s land mass and a population comprising 0.72 percent of the world’s
total.

Our country accounts for about 5 percent of the worldwide extraction of
mineral resources worth more than 20 billion US dollars a year. This
includes mineral raw materials, semi-concentrates, concentrates, and
products made from them.

“Out of the 120 varieties of mineral resources consumed by people today,
Ukraine exploits 98. As for other varieties, deposits are being prepared for
exploitation or prospecting.

“As estimated by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences’ Council for the Study
of Ukraine’s Productive Resources and other national institutions, the gross
value of ready-to-exploit mineral resources hidden in the bowels of the
earth is 7.5 trillion US dollars.

The world’s top uranium-rich countries, such as Canada, the US, the Republic
of South Africa, and Australia, estimate our reserves and resources at 11.5
trillion dollars. In clearer terms, this works out to approximately $220,000
of already surveyed reserves for every Ukrainian citizen, including
newborns.

“Ukraine is tops in the world as far as deposits of many mineral resources
are concerned. For example, we have about 7.8 percent of iron ore, 43.6
percent of manganese ore, about 20 percent of titanium ore reserves, and, to
a smaller extent, zirconium and hafnium ores, etc. Ukraine is one of the
world’s top ten uranium-rich countries.”

[Ukrinform] “How did the myth of Ukraine’s mineral deficiency come about?”

“The fact of the matter is that in Soviet times emphasis was placed on the
so-called traditional mineral resources. In other words, the state budget
provided funds for search and geological surveys of about 60 varieties of
mineral resources.

For some reason, Soviet geological policy prescribed that
gold should be prospected in Siberia or near Magadan, diamonds in northern
Yakutia, platinoids in the northern part of Krasnoyarsk Territory, and so
on. As a result, Ukraine did not exactly fit in with the Union’s geological
objectives. For instance, it was forbidden even to raise the question of
prospecting for gold in Ukraine. Not a single penny was ever allotted for
this.”

[Ukrinform] “Why were no funds allotted for gold prospecting? Why was this
kind of policy pursued vis-a-vis Ukraine?”

“I can’t begin to judge this because the only policy I have dealt with for
almost 42 years is called ‘mineral raw materials” of the country in which I
was working. So I will answer your question this way: there was a time when
large territories were fenced in by barbed wire.

When I was very young, I ended up at one of the largest and most closely
guarded uranium ore deposits, where 10,000 convicts and 18 of us young
specialists worked.”

“Clearly, unpaid convict labor was an important pillar of the Soviet
economy, so uranium, gold, and diamonds were being prospected for in faraway
places where you didn’t need to pay wages to workers – a typical Soviet
approach. But what about Ukrainian gold?”

“So far only one medium-sized gold deposit has been prepared in Muzhiyivske,
Transcarpathia. It began to yield gold when it was commissioned in 1999.”

[Ukrinform] “How large are its gold reserves?”

“Only about 55 tons. But let’s compare the potential resources of Ukraine
and, say, the Russian Federation, where I happened to work for a very long
time in Siberia, the Far East, Chita and Irkutsk oblasts, my native Magadan
oblast, and the Yakut region.

Russia’s territory accounts for 17.8 percent of the world’s land mass, and
its potential is estimated at 4,500 tons of gold, while Ukraine’s gold
resources amount to 3,200 tons, with 0.4 percent of the world’s land mass.
Is the comparison clear?

“A lot has been done in the years of independence to survey and begin
exploiting gold deposits in Transcarpathia and the Donetsk massif. There are
six deposits on the Ukrainian crystalline shield alone – Klyntsivske,
Mayske, Yuryivske, Balka Zolota (‘Golden Gully’ – Ed.), Balka Shyroka, and
Balka Serhiyivska, with total reserves of gold reaching 620 tons. We are
searching for and trying to attract investors because we lack funds to
prepare the deposit for exploitation.”

[Ukrinform] “Have geologists done a good job of exploring Ukraine? Is it
true they have surveyed only four percent of its territory, as some media
have reported?”

“Detailed geological maps are the best proof that the country has been
surveyed well. I can say proudly that geological mapping is very well
developed in Ukraine, which makes it possible to forecast, search for, and
identify the deposit pattern of various mineral resources.

Incidentally, in this field we surpass not only the CIS countries but Europe
as a whole. The world’s leading geological services consider our maps to be
brilliant. Ukraine’s geological map already shows more than 8,000 deposits
of mineral wealth ready for exploitation and another 20,000 that are being
surveyed.

“Over the years of independence, when we began to deal with the so-called
non-traditional (for Ukraine) mineral resources, the map of Ukraine has
marked hundreds of deposits of zinc, gold, platinoids, rare and rare-earth
metals, other alloying metals, and copper.

Incidentally, there was no copper in Ukraine until now: we still import it
from Poland and some independent CIS countries. Meanwhile, the copper
deposits that were discovered in Volyn and Podillia in the early 1990s are
estimated at 25.6 million tons, while Ukraine’s current requirement is
200,000-230,000 tons. It will take time and financial effort, though, to
prepare this deposit for exploitation.

“As for the percentage you mentioned, this may be a reference to Ukraine’s
exclusive economic zone on the Black and Azov Sea shelves. This area has
been explored quite extensively, but its deposits of oil, gas, and gas
condensate have not been adequately surveyed, and only four percent of the
resources are ready for exploitation.”

[Ukrinform] “Is it true that Ukraine was the Soviet Union’s main supplier of
gas and oil before the 1970s, and can we say that our capacities in this
field are now exhausted?”

“We can’t avoid figures here. In the banner year of 1976, Ukrainian gas
producers extracted 76.8 billion cubic meters of gas, i.e., more than
required for domestic use. This gas was delivered to the entire European
part of the USSR, including the Baltic republics, Belarus, and, naturally,
Russia.

Ukraine used to produce 15.4 million tons of oil – precisely the amount
needed to ensure this country’s economic security today. This scale of
production was possible owing to extensive geological surveying: test
drilling of oil and gas deep wells alone was done at the rate of 650-670
linear meters a year.

But later, the Ukrainian gas and oil complex was simply stripped of
investments, which put an end to regular geological surveying. Today, test
drilling is being done at an estimated 200,000 linear meters a year; until
recently, it was a mere 50,000 meters. Can a pace like this really promote
the country’s mineral and raw-material complex?

“Now about exhaustible gas horizons: on our advice, the government of
Ukraine recently invited international bids to exploit the Prykerchenske
offshore area, which occupies an area of 12,960sq km and is between 70 and
2,000 meters deep. This is an area where we cannot work with our equipment
and technology, which are hardly modern.

The tender was won by Vanco International, one of Europe’s largest
companies. Ukrainian and foreign oil and gas experts estimate that
Prykerchenske alone can yield at least 300 billion cu. m. and, at most, up
to 3 trillion cu. m.

“After the bidding was over, our geologists discovered a new oil deposit,
just next to this gas area, estimated at 100 million tons. So we are happy
that our optimistic forecasts have come true.”

[Ukrinform] “Will Ukraine be able to supply itself with its own energy
resources?”

“This is a thorny question because it involves a lot of aspects. What do we
have? According to government statistics, the reserves now under
exploitation represent 1.3 trillion tons of natural gas, about 150 million
tons of oil, and about 112 million tons of gas condensate.

The potential resources of gas and oil are also significant. But the efforts
of prospectors and geologists alone are insufficient to solve the serious
problem of this country’s energy security.

“The government should pursue a clear-cut mineral reserves and economic
policy. Domestic fuel requirements could be fully met if outdated technology
and power-consuming equipment were scrapped and replaced with energy-saving
technologies in gas and oil production, as well as in other sectors of the
Ukrainian economy.”

“Some people predict that the wars of the future will be waged for drinkable
water, not oil.”

“Clear, artesian, subterranean water is increasingly becoming the world’s
No. 1 mineral. Ukraine’s hydrogeologists have done their best to provide
this country with pollution-free, drinkable water. If we accept the
Ukrainian potential of surveyed resources of clean water at 100 percent, the
current nationwide utilization of these resources varies from 8 to 18
percent in the regions.

At the same time, the utilization of this precious mineral is far from
ideal. To drink ecologically pure, safe water, we should allocate funds and
implement new equipment and water-saving technologies. Instead, we still do
not have a clear-cut state economic policy of utilizing underground waters
that are ecologically pure and safe.”

[Ukrinform] “What about mineral waters? Is Ukraine well stocked?”

“You know, for more than 30 years I worked only in the field, but geologists
use the word ‘field’ to describe mountains, the tundra, deserts, swamps, and
steppes. I have prospected for minerals in the Kalahari and Sahara deserts,
in the Atlas Mountains, Siberia, and the Far East – there’s hardly a place I
haven’t been to.

So I don’t know any other country that is as rich in every well-known
variety of mineral water as Ukraine. Every day the media advertise a few
famous mineral spring spas, but this is a drop in the ocean of salubrious
water that nature bestowed on our country. And it is a crime not to use it
to improve our nation’s health. But, again, the situation here leaves much
to be desired. There are many things to do.”

[Ukrinform] “We have discussed earth, water, and fire (i.e., oil and gas),
which are the most important spheres of geological activity. And now, let’s
talk about money. When Ukraine became independent, the field of geology
faced the necessity of adopting new economic methods of managing mineral
resources and a new system of funding geological surveys. Has there been any
success here? From what sources is this sector being financed?”

“Let me tell you that geology paid for itself a long time ago. The sector is
being financed from a special state budget fund that receives allocations
from businesses as payment for surveys that geologists have completed on
behalf of the state.

Every deposit of one mineral raw material or another is valued from hundreds
of millions of hryvnias to many billions and trillions.

Every ton of extracted iron ore or oil, every gram of gold represents
payments for previous geological surveys. These are the funds with which
geologists are further developing Ukraine’s mineral and raw-material base.

“But if we lived off these funds alone, geology would disappear as a
profession. In 1991, the year the Soviet Union collapsed, the sector was
financed at a level equivalent today to UAH 945 million. Conversely, in 1999
the sector received ‘a shot in the arm’: UAH 76 million.

Of course, we have been searching for contract work as well as domestic and
foreign investors. By doing so, we have maintained a constantly functioning,
mobile, and highly skilled state-run geological service of Ukraine, which in
turn has helped maintain and develop Ukraine’s mineral and raw-material
base.

“The year 2000 was a turning point. The Yushchenko cabinet settled its
accounts with geologists: it cleared UAH 25.6-million in wage arrears to
people who had been eking out an existence. A total of UAH 286 million was
earmarked for the development of the mineral and raw-material base.

This year’s state budget provides UAH 821 million for the sector, but now,
eight months into the year, we have been financed at a mere 39.6 percent. It
is extremely doubtful that the country’s mineral and raw-material base will
develop in these conditions.

“Now, about other sources of funding. First of all, we are doing a
considerable amount of contract work, cooperating with domestic and foreign
investors to extract various mineral resources. We are constantly
formulating strategically important economic projects, for which, I hope,
international bids will be invited.

Under the Constitution and the Mineral Resources Code, the earth’s interior
belongs to the people of Ukraine, but it can be leased through a system of
auctions. The highest bidder will receive special permission to exploit
mineral deposits for up to 20 years.”

[Ukrinform] “What are geologists offering for auction?”

“Eighteen licenses for geological surveys and exploitation of deposits were
sold at last May’s auction, including twelve special permits to extract
titanium ore, coal, granite, sand, quartz sand, quicklime, flux lime, and
peat, as well as six licenses for geological surveys and the experimental
and commercial development of mineral deposits, such as titanium ores, oil,
gas, etc. The auction netted a total of UAH 15,722,000. This practice is
still in its infancy, though.

“But things do not always go smoothly: the rules of the game change every
year, and this scares off both national and foreign investors. We are
drawing up a law ‘On Leasing the Earth’s Interior and Deposits of Mineral
Resources.’

I hope the current Verkhovna Rada passes this law, as it will create proper
conditions for those who would like to work fruitfully with the earth,
search for new deposits and develop already surveyed ones – in other words,
to do a noble cause.

Incidentally, this job also pays very well. Worldwide experience shows that
one imaginary monetary unit invested in mineral resources generates six to
ten monetary units in terms of mineral and raw-material output. This is the
golden rule.

Over the past six years (2000-2006), the state budget has invested UAH 1.79
billion to develop Ukraine’s mineral and raw-material base, and received
minerals and raw materials worth UAH 141.2 billion. The golden rule of
geology also applies to our lands.” -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/168138/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12. NO MONEY, NO SEA SHELF
In the big picture, lack of financing is one of the major obstacles to the
implementation of the oil and gas development projects in Ukraine.


ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Oleksandra Ivanova
Ukrayinska Pravda On-line, original article in Ukrainian
Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, September 21, 2006

Recently the Minister for Fuel and Energy of Ukraine Yuriy Boyko shared his
vision of the oil and natural gas production process within the aquatorium
of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

The minister has expressed an opinion that the state-owned companies should
have a priority in the production of carbonates on the Ukrainian sea shelf.

According to Mr. Boyko, within the nearest two years the financing of USD
500 million up to USD 800 million should be raised for the purposes of naval
carbonates exploration.

The minister empathized that Ukraine has enough natural resources and
technical opportunities to apply for financing from the major foreign banks
in order to implement Ukrainian oil and gas production projects.

Mr. Boyko expressed an opinion that while granting licenses to oil and gas
production our country should be primarily oriented to the companies which
“are providing sources of energy to the people of Ukraine”.

Nobody disputes the fact that our country gravely needs domestically
produced natural gas and that State authorities must take urgent measures to
increase the amounts of domestic production and storage facilities.

Nevertheless, the hope that Ukrainian oil and gas production companies would
cope with the difficult task of exploring Ukrainian sea shelf is too vague.

The peculiarities of Ukrainian oil and gas production industry shall be
taken into account. These peculiarities can be boiled down to several key
issues.
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Licensing of natural resources exploration and exploitation is within the
scope of authority of the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Cabinet
of the Ministers. Carbonates do fall under the category of the natural
resources.

Therefore, despite the fact that the Ministry for Fuel and Energy is
responsible for providing energy to Ukrainian companies and individuals, it
has no authority to influence the state policy of carbonates exploration and
exploitation.
BUSINESS CAPABILITIES OF UKRAINIAN OIL AND GAS
PRODUCING COMPANIES

The only Ukrainian company capable of exploring sea shelf is
Chernomornaftohaz State Stock Holding Company. The company is led by

Ihor Franchuk, the notorious ex-MP and former son-in-law of the President
Kuchma.

Despite having obvious advantages (primarily well-qualified personnel that
has impressive working record on Crimean Peninsula) Chernomornaftohaz
lacks finances and equipment.

In the big picture, lack of financing is one of the major obstacles to the
implementation of the oil and gas development projects in Ukraine.

According to the statistics only one out of three wells yields the outcome
that is sufficient for starting the production; the price for each of the
sea based wells can vary from USD 60 million up to USD 100 million and that
is the triple amount of what should be usually spent on drilling a well on
the ‘conventional’ soil.

Therefore, one actually working well will require from USD 180 million up to
USD 300 million of financing and the production cost for such natural gas
will be several times higher comparing to the conventionally produced gas.

Therefore, the sale of the naval-extracted gas to the consumers at the
artificially reduced prices will not allow the expenses to be paid back.

Yuriy Boyko failed to explain where Chernomornaftohaz is planning to get the
financing; he only announced that at the recent moment the company is
actively seeking foreign investors who have enough experience in the
high-depth maritime production of oil and natural gas.

Won’t it be more reasonable to spend this money on improving the production
areas where Chernomornaftohaz is already active?

The drill rigs which Chernomornaftohaz currently owns allow drilling at the
depth of 80 meters while the major deposits of carbonates in the Black Sea
lie at the depth of 100 up to 1000 meters. This range of the depth includes
so-called ‘Scythian’ Area which the government of Yuriy Yekhanurov planned
to sell earlier this year.
THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK DISCRIMINATORY
TO THE PRIVATE INITIATIVE
On February 20, 2006 the government of Yuriy Yekhanurov introduced
amendments to the licensing procedure as established by the Regulation of
the Cabinet of the Ministers No. 168.

Needless to say, these amendments were ‘inspired’ by the management of
Naftohaz. Amendments entitled companies that sell the natural gas under the
official State tariffs (read: Naftohaz and its subsidiaries) to apply for
licenses to the prospective areas and deposits without any tender being
conducted.

According to the State Geological Service of Ukraine, 59% of the exploration
and industrial exploitation licenses in Ukraine are granted to the two major
state-owned companies: Ukrhazvydobuvannya (46%) which is a subsidiary of
Naftohaz Ukrayiny and Nadra Ukrayiny (13%).

“State-owned companies are the major producers of the natural gas in Ukraine
and that is a problem”, Hennadiy Rudenko, the former Chairman of the
Parliamentary Committee in Charge of the Natural Resources says.

“If Ukraine will continue the discouraging practice when the majority of
licenses are granted to the state-owned enterprises, we are at a certain
risk of freezing the development of the oil and gas industry in Ukraine
delaying the market entry of the large foreign companies. In this case the
private investors would not be able to work at our market directly and will
be forced to enter the market via Ukrainian state-owned enterprises”.

Mr. Rudenko expressed an opinion that such a situation may decrease the
attractiveness of the industry for the foreign investors. Moreover, such
situation may create a fertile ground for corruption that is already quite
frequent for the oil and gas industry.

Unfortunately, the motto “Let the subsoil belong to the state-owned
companies” does not meet the modern realities. -30-
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2006/9/21/6416.htm
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13. INVITE: “UKRAINE, EUROPE, & ENERGY SECURITY” PANEL
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.

The Heritage Foundation, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation,
Atlantic Council of the United States
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #763, Article 13
Washington, D.C., Monday, September 25, 2006


WASHINGTON – You are invited to attend a panel discussion on
“Ukraine, Europe, and Energy Security” sponsored by The Heritage
Foundation, the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, and the Atlantic Council
of the United States on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 from 4:00
pm to 5:30 pm at The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.

The January 2006 natural gas crisis between Moscow and Kyiv
highlighted Ukraine’s current energy vulnerability, as well as unsettling
gas consumers throughout much of Europe. Energy security is among
the most urgent priorities facing Ukraine today.

The panel discussion will address policies that Ukraine might adopt to
strengthen its energy position, and how those policies would impact
both suppliers and consumers in the region.

Opening Remarks: Edward Chow, Energy Consultant
Commentators: [1] Leonid Kozhara (invited),
Deputy to the Verkhovna Rada (Party of Regions)
[2] Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation
[3] Ihor Shevliakov, International Center for Policy Studies, Kyiv
Moderator: Steve Pifer, Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm
The Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium
214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002
Please RSVP to Will.Schirano@heritage.org – Acceptances Only
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14. U.S.-UKRAINE POLICY DIALOGUE MEETS IN WASHINGTON
Official bilateral dialogue, Sep 25-29, 2006, Webcasting live

U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C., Monday, September 25, 2006

WASHINGTON – The U.S.-Ukraine Policy Dialogue is designed to supplement
and deepen the official bilateral dialogue between Ukraine and the United States
through the involvement of government officials, members of the Verkhovna
Rada and Congress, and representatives of non-governmental organizations,
the media and the business community.

The U.S.-Ukraine Policy Dialogue is assisted financially by the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State
under the authority of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961, as amended.

This September session is the third of four working sessions, which are held
alternately in Washington and Kyiv.

Participants are divided according to their expertise into four issue areas,
or Task Forces, each of which is managed by U.S. and Ukrainian partner
organizations and co-chaired by high-level American and Ukrainian experts.

The four Task Forces are: Politics and Governance; Foreign Policy and
National Security; Economics and Business; and Media and Information.

While in DC, the Ukrainian participants will meet with senior officials of
the U.S. government, representatives of NGOs, congressional committees, and
think tanks in the Washington, DC, who can provide further insight on these
issues and how objectives might be achieved.

The findings produced during the meetings with each Task Force and U.S.
government officials will be included in a final “action plan” of
recommendations to present to the governments of the United States and
Ukraine.

The U.S.-Ukraine Foundation will be WEBCASTING LIVE this year’s

Policy Dialogue.

Registered users will be able to watch the conference live online on Monday,
September 25 and Thursday, September 28 (see detailed schedule below).
Recorded videos will be archived and available for viewing from
http://www.usukraine.org.

Registration fee for attending the conference online and watching the
recorded videos is $35.

Registrants will have an opportunity to watch live presentations delivered
by key U.S. and Ukrainian policy makers in the areas of National Security,
Governance, Foreign Policy, Economics, Business, and Information. In
addition, live webcasting will allow for online questions during the
Thursday, September 28th session.

To register for the LIVE WEBCAST, please visit:
Should you have any questions regarding the webcast, please contact
Oleksiy Synelnychenko at (202) 223-2228 or at oleksiy@usukraine.org.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15. THE TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONSHIP: A BALANCE SHEET
Global security, economic competitiveness, energy and the environment.
We discuss strategies on supporting fledgling democracies
in places like Ukraine and Lebanon.

PRESENTATION: By Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner
External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy
Breakfast Briefing with the American Business Forum on Europe (ABFE)
and the US Council for International Business (USCIB)
New York, New York, Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Europaworld, Cowbridge, Wales, UK, Friday, 22 September 2006

First let me thank Sven Oehme of the American Business Forum on Europe
and Peter Robinson of the US Council for International Business for this
invitation to talk to you, and Sidley Austin for so generously hosting this
event.

And thank you to everyone for having bravely battled through the traffic to
get here – while UN Ministerial Week is seen by us diplomats as a crucial
contribution to the UN’s work of building a better, safer world, I know for
New Yorkers it brings anything but a better world!

On a serious note, standing in this great city today, a city I had the
pleasure of living in myself for several years, one can scarcely imagine the
enormity of the tragedy which hit it five years ago.

It is to New York’s great credit that 9/11 did not reverse the City’s
economic boom; far from it, it continues apace. I read recently that if New
York City were an independent state it would have the second highest per
capita GDP in the world!

The role New York’s business community has played in making it the city it
is today is much admired throughout the world. Perhaps The Economist
newspaper put it best in giving its 2004 survey of this city the headline,
“a caring socialist republic run by cut-throat capitalists.”!

And that business community is also at the core of the transatlantic
business links which form the bedrock of EU-US relations. I know ABFE and
USCIB are doing excellent work in consolidating those ties, and I thank you
for all you are doing to help bring our business communities closer
together.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
This morning I’d like to present you with the “balance sheet” of what we
could think of as the EU-US “joint venture”. We have an impressive array of
assets, yet the current geo-political market-place presents us with a number
of risks.

Let me begin by assessing the “shared equity” of our relations. This has
increased in value enormously over the last 18 months or so. We have moved
from a time of tension and frustration to one of cooperation and
understanding. There’s a new spirit of constructive engagement between us,
and the June Summit between President Bush and the European Union was
one of the most fruitful yet.

Of course the political difficulties we had were never mirrored in our
economic relations, which continued to go from strength to strength. But
undoubtedly, as you will know better than I, a more positive political
atmosphere also has benefits for business.

Our renewed commitment to transatlantic cooperation is, I hope, here to
stay. Indeed, I believe it has to stay, because the “business environment”
in which we are now operating requires it.

Both of us are facing increased competition from new players in the global
market, who are threatening our dominant position – in both commercial and
ideological terms. As globalisation continues to gather pace we face new
competitors for energy supplies, raw materials, consumers and investment.

We are also both exposed to more risks than ever before, security threats
including terrorism, failed states and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction; environmental threats like climate change; pandemics; energy
shortages and price hikes; and waves of uncontrolled migration as a result
of poverty and conflict around the world.

These risks are too great, too multi-dimensional to be dealt with by one
country alone. If we are to insure ourselves against a more uncertain and
more turbulent future, we need to work together. And we need to ensure we
have the effective multilateral institutions necessary to help us deal with
these global risks.

It is the realisation of the commonality of the threats we face and the
impossibility of tackling them alone which underlies the renewal of our
transatlantic cooperation.

For the same reason our relationship needs more focus than ever before.
There are four areas where we need to direct our collective energies: global
security, economic competitiveness, energy, and the environment.

1) GLOBAL SECURITY —–
There is no shortage of security threats to the United States and Europe.
The European Union’s response has been a concerted effort to build up its
foreign, security and defence policy, in recognition of the fact that our
global economic power is not matched by an equivalent political punch.

That is also an implicit response to the justifiable criticism from many in
the United States that we have not, in the past, pulled our weight in
dealing with crises and conflict around the world.

As a result we are now a better and more effective partner and are working
with the US to defend our collective interests and build a safer world. We
now have around 60,000 European peacekeepers serving across the globe. And
the EU provides the backbone of the international community’s presence in
Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Aceh, to mention but a few.

Our cooperation in fighting terrorism is now well-established. We are
working together on terrorist financing, radicalisation, and recruitment.

We are putting in place the legal and regulatory infrastructure to prevent
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of
delivery, particularly to terrorists. And we have jointly pushed for the
implementation of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties.

We must of course be careful to strike the right balance between heightened
security and the continuation of open trade and passenger transport. The
business community sees more than most the costs we pay for increased
security, and we must keep these in proportion.

If we allow ourselves to pay too high a cost, whether in requirements for
container security, demands on airlines to provide passengers’ details,
human rights and personal liberties or, in the case of the EU,
discriminating against friendly countries over the visa waiver, then we
allow our enemies to win.

We must not lose sight of what we are striving to protect – our humanity,
our dignity, and our openness to others.

Around the world the EU and US are working together to avert or resolve
conflicts and crises. In Afghanistan the EU is providing 80% of the troops
in NATO’s International Security Force. And the EU and US shared the costs
of the presidential and parliamentary elections.

This summer we worked together to resolve the situation in Lebanon, and are
both leading members of the international Quartet dedicated to pushing for
peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

We have committed ourselves to working more closely to promote democracy
and human rights around the world.

We discuss strategies on supporting fledgling democracies in places like
Ukraine and Lebanon, assisting the growth of democratic consciousness in
Egypt and Georgia, and confronting dictatorships like Zimbabwe and
Uzbekistan.

But to be seen as credible and trustworthy by others we need to be
scrupulous in our own behaviour. That means maintaining the very highest
standards in observance of the rule of law and respect for fundamental human
rights. At the Summit we had a frank exchange of views with President Bush
on this point in the context of the fight against terrorism.

It is an issue of great concern to Europeans, as I know it is to many
Americans. It’s not a subject to joke about, but in business terms I’m
afraid it would have to count as a serious reputational liability for the
United States.

For the future it is vital that we continue and extend the scope of our
cooperation on global security. And the European Union will focus on
turning itself into an even more effective player on the world stage.

2) ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS —–
The second focus is economic competitiveness. The economic and trade
ties between us will remain key to driving the global economy.

Whilst other economies around the world may be growing at a startling pace,
and gaining an ever larger share of world GDP, in absolute terms the
European Union and the United States still account for almost 6O% of the
world’s GDP. Where the transatlantic market place leads, the global economy
follows.

But if we want to maintain this position we have to remain ahead of the
game. And we have to secure our position by ensuring the global market
place is run on the basis of a transparent set of common rules.

For that reason the EU continues to support a global multilateral trade
deal. The current climate is clearly not right for pushing forward
negotiations, but we are willing to go back to the negotiating table as soon
as there’s a possibility to do so.

The political and economic costs of an indefinite suspension of the Doha
Development Agenda are far greater than the costs of a less-than-perfect
deal.

The EU and the US must exercise global leadership in pushing for an
agreement which will strengthen economic growth, improve living standards
and alleviate poverty around the world.

There’s also more we can do to strengthen our bilateral economic relations.
At the EU-US Summit we focused on two important initiatives, enforcing
intellectual property rights worldwide and tackling barriers to
transatlantic investment on both sides.

Within Europe we need to address our particular liabilities and focus on
boosting our economic performance and compensating for our ageing
population.

We are making progress – economic growth has accelerated to its fastest
growth for six years, domestic demand is picking up, and unemployment has
dropped to its lowest point since 1998.

But there is more to do, and in the coming years the European Commission
will focus on fighting economic nationalism, defending and widening the
internal market and ensuring a clear and coherent stance on competition
issues. We are determined to deliver concrete results for both business and
consumers.

3) ENERGY SUPPLIES —–
The third joint area is energy. Energy will be of central importance to the
long-term stability and prosperity of the global economy.

We are faced with record-high oil prices and increased dependence on foreign
supplies of fossil fuels. According to current trends the EU will import 70%
of its energy in 2030, compared to 50% today.

The US faces a similar challenge, which is why earlier this year President
Bush made his famous call for an end to American oil addiction.

To put things in perspective, Europeans consume 12.5 barrels of oil per
person per year, exactly half of what each US citizen consumes. The
Chinese consume only 2 barrels of oil each.

So it’s no surprise that energy has risen to the top of the political agenda
and was one of the major issues at the EU-US summit.

We agreed there should be strategic cooperation between us, addressing
energy supply security – including diversifying supply routes, enforcing
market rules and protecting infrastructure; alternative sources of energy;
and energy efficiency.

The key is to increase predictability by creating the right market
conditions and legal frameworks in both producer and transit countries. And
to work together on technological developments that will help us diversify
our energy sources.

The EU and the US have an important role to play in providing the global
leadership required for practical action to take place.

Success will bring new economic opportunities; cleaner air and drinking
water; and a chance to halt and perhaps reverse environmental degradation.

4) ENVIRONMENT —–
Which brings me to my final topic, the environment. A surprise block-buster
in cinemas this summer was Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”, which so
dramatically and convincingly makes the case for manmade global climate
change.

This has not traditionally been an area on which the EU and the US have seen
eye to eye, but we are now converging in our appreciation of the scale of
the global environmental challenges we face.

As the film points out, large swathes of the planet – this city included –
are scheduled to disappear under the ocean if we do nothing to change our
behaviour.

In my home country, Austria, we are increasingly confronted with annual
floods and disappearing glaciers.

At the Summit in June we set up a high level dialogue on climate change,
clean energy and sustainable development. The idea is to find ways to get
cost-effective emission cuts, develop and use new technologies and renewable
fuels, and focus on environmental issues like biodiversity.

Business has not always been the strongest champion of environmentalism,

but I believe that too is changing as we realize the enormity of the threat we
face, and the inevitable impact on commercial interests that will have.

Environmental protection is increasingly being seen as a joint
responsibility between government, business, and civil society.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
That completes today’s review of the balance sheet of transatlantic
relations. Do our liabilities outweigh our assets? No. Should we be issuing
a profit warning, or selling stock options? Certainly not.

The business environment is certainly challenging, but we have the necessary
tools and most importantly the political will to rise to those challenges.

If we continue our close cooperation and focus on the four areas I’ve
highlighted: global security, economic competitiveness, energy and the
environment, the projections for the future look bright.

I forecast dividend payments ahead! -30-
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.europaworld.org/week278/speechferrero22906.html
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16. MILESTONE REACHED IN NATO PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
ARMS DESTRUCTION PROJECT IN UKRAINE
Controlled destruction of 1,000 Ukrainian man-portable air
defense systems (MANPADS) was completed

Office of the Spokesman, U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 21, 2006

WASHINGTON – The world’s skies were made a little safer this week when
the controlled destruction of 1000 Ukrainian man-portable air defense
systems (MANPADS), was completed on September 20 in northeast Ukraine,
outside the city of Shostka.

These weapons, deemed by Ukraine to be excess to its defense needs, are but
the first installment in a 12-year weapons and munitions destruction project
being undertaken by Ukraine and NATO in a NATO-Partnership for Peace
Trust Fund initiative – – the largest such multilateral destruction project
of its kind.

The United States is the lead sponsor of the first three-year phase of this
project to which it already has contributed over $3.64 million. 12 other
countries and the European Union have pledged over Euro5.6 million
(approximately $7.2 million).

Ukraine is providing most of the operational funding and in-kind support. A
total of approximately $27 million will be required from donors to complete
the project. Additional contributions, including those from non-NATO
members, will be welcomed.

In addition to the MANPADS that were destroyed, 15,000 tons of stockpiled
excess and unstable munitions, including ammunition for automatic weapons,
artillery shells, and mortar rounds, and 400,000 small arms and light
weapons, are scheduled to be destroyed during the first phase.

By the end of the twelve-year project, a total of 1.5 million small arms and
light weapons, and 133,000 tons of munitions will have been safely
destroyed.

The impetus for this extraordinary project is twofold.
[1] First, Ukraine has suffered several major explosions of unstable
ordnance in some of its munitions depots. Controlled destruction of the
remaining dangerous ordnance will reduce the public safety threat and
health risk to Ukrainians who live near such depots.

[2] Second, the destruction of weapons and munitions that are no longer
needed by Ukraine to defend itself will ensure that they are never obtained
by illicit arms traffickers, criminals, or terrorists. -30-
————————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/72935.htm
————————————————————————————————-
FOOTNOTE: The U.S. State Department in another article said, “The
threat from MANPADS is very real. The State Department estimates
that since the 1970s more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by
MANPADS, causing about 25 crashes and over 600 deaths around
the world.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. NATO STILL PROVOKES FEAR & LOATHING IN RUSSIA
“The Americans bombed the Serbs, they destroyed Iraq, now
they want to steal Ukraine from us.”

Agence France-Presse, Moscow, Russia, Sunday, September 24, 2006

MOSCOW – For a moment, modern Moscow seemed to be caught in the
past: Soviet flags soared over 1,500 chanting protestors while Communist
party officials rained shame on the United States and NATO.

But this was no state-ordered show. On the contrary, the protest this month
against planned NATO and US military exercises on Russian soil grew so
heated, it brought calls for President Vladimir Putin’s resignation.

“They’re selling out our interests the way they always do,” said a red-faced
Irina Bespalova, 62, as hundreds chanted: “Putin, step down!”

“The Americans bombed the Serbs, they destroyed Iraq, now they want
to steal Ukraine from us,” Bespalova said, referring to plans by pro-Western
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko to bring his country into NATO.

Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, NATO can still provoke Russian
fear and fury the way few things can, as shown by a wave of protests over
the planned military exercises — even after they were postponed in early
September.

“Russians have never loved NATO,” Vyacheslav Nikonov, a Kremlin-
connected analyst, told AFP. “You rarely have warm feelings about military
blocs you’re not a part of.”

Those feelings have only grown colder as the alliance has crept through
territory that was once in Moscow’s sphere of influence in two rounds of
post-Cold War enlargement.

The alliance embraced Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999,
then seven Baltic and central European states in 2004.

But anti-NATO animosity has reached a new high, analysts said.

First, “this is an extremely different Russian leadership than the one that
swallowed the previous two rounds of enlargement,” said Clifford Kupchan,
an analyst at the Washington-based Eurasia Group.

“This is a petro-empowered leadership that sees itself as resurgent,”
Kupchan said. “In many ways, the Russians are back … These guys are
not going to take a more serious round of NATO enlargement lying down.”

Second, the most likely new NATO members are former Soviet republic
Georgia — already firmly in the West’s orbit since the 2003 Rose Revolution
brought President Mikheil Sakaashvili to power — and, more importantly,
Ukraine.

“Ukraine occupies a very special place in the Russian consciousness,” said
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russian in Global Affairs.

Given centuries-old ethnic and cultural ties between Russia and its western
neighbor, “pulling Ukraine into NATO would raise anti-NATO and anti-
Western sentiment to the point where it would be uncontrollable,” Lukyanov
said.

“It would be a wonderful trump card for those who say that NATO and the
West are deceiving us with talk of partnership, that they only want to
weaken Russia.”

And Russia is hardly indifferent to Georgia’s path toward the alliance, as
when a Friday agreement that NATO and Georgia would begin an
“intensified dialogue” brought swift protest from the Russian foreign
ministry.

“Georgia’s joining the current, unreformed NATO … will seriously affect
Russia’s political, military and economic interests,” the ministry said in a
statement. Still, the talk of partnership between Russia and NATO is not
just talk.

Russia has been a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program since
1994, and though this year’s NATO exercises were postponed, the Russian
government “has had long-term plans to increase contacts” with NATO,
Nikonov said.

Also Friday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that Russia’s
Black Sea fleet would participate in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor in
October, a maritime anti-terrorism program.

And Russia’s concerns over Ukraine have been somewhat eased, Nikonov
said, by the appointment of Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych,
who is seen as pro-Russian and recently put the country’s NATO bid on hold.

Meanwhile, Lukyanov said, various political groups have been stoking anti-
NATO feelings for their own ends in the heated atmosphere before
Russia’s 2007 parliamentary vote and presidential elections in 2008.

“That’s easy enough to do,” he added. “People were raised on anti-NATO
sentiments. That’s not going away anytime soon.” -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18. U.S. EMBASSY TO HELP UKRAINIANS LEARN MORE ABOUT NATO

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, September 21, 2006

KYIV – The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine has plans to help Ukrainians learn more
about NATO. U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor made a statement
to that score to the press after taking part in the opening ceremony of the
center for voluntary HIV/AIDS testing with the chief military hospital of
the Ukrainian Defense Ministry.

A decision to be taken by the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government
must a decision based on knowledge, he said.

He said the U.S. Embassy would encourage relevant discussions at
roundtables, seminars, conferences throughout Ukraine.

The Untied States hopes that all arguments for Ukraine’s joining NATO and
against the joining of the organization will be widely spread by media to
facilitate productive discussions, he said.

He said Ukraine and NATO should continue deepening their cooperation, which
must be practical. “When Ukraine takes the decision, the NATO doors will be
open,” he said.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, during the meeting of Ukraine-NATO
commission in Brussels (Belgium) in September, Premier Viktor Yanukovych
called cooperation with NATO important for Ukraine, but said that a mere of
12-25% of Ukrainians supported Ukraine’s membership of NATO.
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19. ABKHAZIA FIERCELY RESISTS PULL INTO GEORGIA’S ORBIT

Michael Mainville, San Francisco Chronicle Foreign Service
San Francisco, California, Sunday, September 24, 2006

SUKHUMI, Georgia — Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the lush
region of Abkhazia was a playground of the Soviet elite.

Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev all had opulent
summer homes along its shores. Soviet holidaymakers crowded its beaches,
and the boardwalk of the capital, Sukhumi, was renowned for its nightlife.

Locals like to say that when he met Khrushchev in Abkhazia, Cuban
President Fidel Castro raved that its beauty matched that of his homeland.

Today’s Abkhazia is a far cry from its halcyon days. More than a decade
after a devastating war with Georgia over its post-Soviet status, the tiny
self-declared state is a gutted, desperately poor shell of its former self,
its once-exclusive hotels now derelict and whole villages lying in ruins.

Largely cut off from the rest of the world, it is also a potential flash
point for renewed violence in the volatile region along Russia’s southern
border.

“In a way, our problem is that we live in such a beautiful place,” said
Abkhazia’s de facto president, Sergei Bagapsh. “That is why there are those
who want to take it away from us.”

The status of the would-be state came up before the United Nations on Friday
when Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who came to power after the
2003 “Rose Revolution,” told the U.N. General Assembly that Abkhazia is
part of his country, as is Georgia’s other violence-torn separatist enclave,
South Ossetia.

“If the purpose of our revolution was to guarantee all citizens of Georgia
have the right to participate fully in the life and decisions of the
state — then our revolution remains unfinished,” said Saakashvili, a
U.S.-educated lawyer.

“Let us be under no illusions. The residents of our disputed territories are
under a form of gangster occupation which hopes the international community
will lose interest and reward the results of ethnic cleansing.”

Backed by other former Soviet states seeking closer ties with the West,
including Ukraine and Moldova, Georgia pushed successfully for discussion
of “protracted conflicts” in the region to be included on the General
Assembly’s agenda. A Russian-backed attempt to block the debate failed by
one vote.

The Abkhazians, who speak their own language, declared independence in
November 1994 and set up their own government, complete with a president,
parliament and Cabinet, but have failed to win recognition from any country.

Georgia has maintained an economic blockade — the only access to the
outside world for its 200,000 residents is a 100-yard border crossing with
Russia.

Abkhazia’s survival, in fact, depends on generous support from Russia, which
finances the separatist government and has provided Russian passports to
more than 90 percent of its citizens.

Russian tourists have started to return to its beaches, and income from
tourism last year helped double the local budget to $35 million.

Saakashvili has said that only “peaceful means” will be used to restore
Abkhazia to Georgian control, but Abkhazians fear otherwise. They point to
Georgian defense expenditures, which surged more than 140 percent last year
to $146 million — the biggest increase worldwide in 2005. Georgian
officials say the spending increase is part of the country’s plan to
modernize the military in its effort to join NATO.

“Why do they need these weapons? What could they be for, except to attack
Abkhazia?” Bagapsh said.

Over the summer, Georgia retook control of a strip of Abkhazia called the
Kodori Gorge. The move was backed by the Bush administration, but it raised
alarm bells among Kremlin-backed Abkhazian officials.

“We fear that the operation in Kodori was only designed to establish a
bridgehead for a wider invasion,” said Sergei Shamba, Abkhazia’s de facto
foreign minister.

Indeed, tensions inside Abkhazia have soared since the Georgian operation.
“We are ready to fight them, even if they have the support of the
Americans,” said Bagapsh. “We have enough weapons, enough soldiers and
enough friends to defend our nation.”

Russia, meanwhile, has installed hundreds of its soldiers in the region as
peacekeepers. Georgia accuses the soldiers of backing the separatists, and
the Georgian parliament has called for them to be removed.

After the takeover of the Kodori Gorge, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov warned that Russia would protect its citizens and peacekeepers in
Abkhazia “by all available means.” Russian forces also conducted a series of
extensive military exercises last month along the Georgian border.

In Sukhumi, many Abkhazians believe war is inevitable. “We don’t want to
fight, we don’t want blood,” Astamar Basaria, a 39-year-old unemployed
laborer, said as he drank coffee under the shade of a palm tree.

“But the Georgians will never accept that we have our own country. And
if they try to take it away from us, we will defend our homeland.”
———————————————————————————————–
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/24/MNGSSLBNK81.DTL&feed=rss.news
—————————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20. BULGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS FIGHT TO SAVE GOLDEN
PAST, IN RACE TO UNEARTH TREASURES OF ANCIENT THRACIANS
The Thracians – lived between modern-day Ukraine and Turkey

Daniel McLaughlin, The Observer, London, UK, Sunday Sep 24, 2006

Luck is only sometimes on the side of Bulgaria’s archaeologists, as they
race gangsters to unearth the treasure of the ancient Thracians.

It was with Daniela Agre last month when she came across a Black Sea hotel
owner flattening a 2,000-year-old burial mound and found a horde of gold and
silver jewellery that she thinks belonged to a Thracian priestess.

Another archaeologist was served in a remote rural shop by a woman wearing
a string of 5,000-year-old gold beads, found by her husband in sunflower
fields where a large Thracian treasure trove was later discovered.

Famed for their ferocity and horsemanship, the Thracians – who lived between
modern-day Ukraine and Turkey – were long considered a barbarian race whose
greatest contribution to history was Spartacus, the slave who rebelled
against Rome.

But just as a series of spectacular finds is deepening their understanding,
academics fear the violent mafia that has dogged Bulgaria’s bid to join the
European Union are beating them to vital pieces of the historical jigsaw.

Gavrail Lazov, head of archaeology at Bulgaria’s National History Museum, is
celebrating another remarkable find while lamenting his country’s failure to
crush crime. Last month, his colleagues unearthed 20,000 Thracian ornaments,
one a dagger made of platinum and gold.

‘It is 5,000 years old and still so sharp a man could shave with it. Perhaps
it belonged to a king, but it is too early to be sure,’ Lazov said.

Indeed the riches of Thracia may rival those of ancient Troy. The most
spectacular find is the 2,500-year-old burial mask of a Thracian ruler, a
solid gold visage more than 10 times heavier than the Mask of Agamemnon,
which is the centrepiece of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.

‘Bulgaria has more ancient artefacts than any European country except Greece
and Italy,’ said Lazov. ‘We have 15,000 Thracian burial mounds, and 400
ancient settlements – but it is terribly hard to protect them all. Looting
has boomed since the end of communism 15 years ago.’

Under pressure from Brussels, Bulgaria has tightened border controls and
pledged to crack down on crime. It is expected to find out on Tuesday
whether it can join the EU in January.

But in a country where the average monthly wage is £120, Lazov fears the
criminals will always prosper. ‘Right now, it would be easier to catch bin
Laden than all these thieves,’ he said. -30-
————————————————————————————————-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1879633,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
——————————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR
========================================================

21. UKRAINIAN ORPHANAGES – DEATH CAMPS FOR CHILDREN
Letter to Yuri Pavlenko, Ministry of Youth, Family, and Sports Affairs; Kyiv, Ukraine

by Terry Hallman, People-Centered Economic Development, Kharkiv Ukraine
Saturday, Sep 23, 2006

Following is the full letter, in English language, to Yuri Pavlenko:

Honorable Yuri Pavlenko
Ministry of Youth, Family, and Sports Affairs
Kyiv, Ukraine

23 May 2006

Dear Mr. Pavlenko,

I am writing this out of concern for children in Ukraine’s state institutional care. Please understand from the beginning, I am a friend. At the same time, some of what I have to say here is troubling and could possibly be perceived as not in the spirit of friendship. It is my interest to arrange to work closely with your ministry and US government, and any other governments that might be interested, to create greatest possible assistance and help for all of these children.

I am a US citizen and director of a non-governmental organization in Ukraine focused on social welfare in Ukraine. US government usually listens very carefully to my ideas and proposals. What I discuss with you here will be duly discussed with US government. It is first necessary to discuss issues with you.

To get directly to the point, Ukraine has a very serious problem with many children in state institutional care, specifically in internats/orphanages that have been described as death camps. This is a very, very serious matter that was not addressed by previous governments. I am concerned that this might escape your notice and care now.

The claim of death camps for children comes from various researchers throughout the former Soviet Union, including specifically very recent researchers and humanitarians in Ukraine. This problem is not unique to Ukraine, but it does exist in Ukraine. I have no doubt about this. In fact, with your permission and authority, I can and will go to internats in question, take photos, and show you.

I request your cooperation in doing so.

Surrounding these internats is some sort of conspiracy of secrecy. Researchers mentioned above were sworn to secrecy prior to being allowed into such internats, or else they would not be allowed in to try and help the children there. They were also told that if they revealed the location(s) publicly, they would not be allowed to returned and no further aid to dying children would be permitted. The conditions they described to me are horrific. Somewhere between your office and individual directors of various internats, there are people who have motivation to block information about the truth and reality of these internats. In other words, there is a cover-up going on, and innocent children are dying as a result.

Innocent children are dying, Mr. Pavlenko. In one internat that I know of fairly well, and I can’t say where because of the secrecy imposed on researchers and aid workers who discussed this with me, part of the job of internat workers is to dig graves for dead children.

There is no good reason and no excuse for this in a civilized country. I understand very well the harsh limitations and lack of concern from previous government, but now it is time to help these children – not ignore them and maintain harsh secrecy about their very existence. The problem may now be so bad that it will be very, very expensive to fix it and get these children to safety. That does not mean it can’t be done.

I am willing, and almost surely able, to persuade US government to help with funding if funding is needed. I want to help get 100% of children currently in Ukraine’s orphanages and internats into small group homes, foster families, and adoptive families within Ukraine. By my estimation, that could easily cost $800 million in the first year, and $325 million per year after year one. I believe US government and perhaps other governments will be willing to help, but only if the problem is clear. That means going to the various internats where children are dying, taking photographs, and showing them. This will get people interested in helping with what is otherwise an invisible problem. It is invisible, but that does not mean it is unknown. Many people already know of this reality, and we are wondering why Ukraine maintains even today so much secrecy about it? It is not a big secret, plenty of people know, so it’s more like Ukraine is trying to keep secret what thousands of people already know about. Moreover, if this secrecy is maintained, there is no reason to believe that aid will get to these children, even if hundreds of millions of dollars become available. Further, secrecy in and of itself is extremely suspicious, and would seem to suggest possible corruption and therefore diversion of any funding intended only to help the children.

I am sure I can create a joint Ukraine/US project to help all of these children, not only the children in worst internats, but all children in all orphanages and internats. To do this, I simply need your help and cooperation so that I can get past the secrecy, get photos, and immediately get emergency assistance to the most desperate conditions. I think it will be quite difficult to get such assistance, especially involving large amounts of money and resources, without clear evidence to show the situation and get past the secrecy.

This secrecy is deeply disturbing, and is costing children their lives for no other reason than secrecy itself. Surely you understand that this cannot continue in a civilized country. Again, these internats are not secret, but certain people somewhere along the line continue to try and perpetuate a secret that is no longer secret. The larger questions are these: who is doing this, and why are they doing it?

In any case, this issue will not go away, and if anything can only get worse for Ukraine’s reputation at a time when Ukraine certainly does not need and cannot afford such glaring examples of human abuse of her own citizens – children, Mr. Pavlenko. Little children. To say that this is an outrage does not even begin to describe it. There are no words for this, none at all. It is another Holodomor, in this century, this time especially for children. It cannot continue, cannot be allowed under any conceivable norms of human conscience and decency.

I thank my friends in Ukrainian media for translating this letter and getting it to you, and I thank them for their deep concern in this matter. I hope to hear from you soon, and will meet with you at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Terry Hallman (P-CED)
Kharkiv

——————————————————————————————————– [return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service] ======================================================== Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR ========================================================

21. THOUSANDS OF HASIDIC JEWS CELEBRATE NEW YEAR AT
SPIRITUAL LEADER’S TOMB IN UMAN, UKRAINE

Anna Melnichuk, AP Worldstream, Uman, Ukraine, Friday, Sep 22, 2006

UMAN – Hebrew wafted through the air, bearded men in black prayed and
danced as thousands of Hasidic Jews from around the world descended on
this Ukrainian farming town to celebrate the Jewish New Year.

The annual men-only pilgrimage, once outlawed during Soviet times, has
become the central event in Uman, not only for the Jews who converge on
this town, but for its poor residents who depend heavily on these temporary
guests to supplement meager wages and pensions.

Participants set up giant tents and a big cafeteria to feed the estimated
20,000 people that organizers were expecting before Rosh Hashana begins at
sundown Friday, while residents hawk souvenirs such as fur hats, knives and
alarm clocks.

This quiet, far-off-the-tourist-track town, about 200 kilometers (125 miles)
from Kiev, has come alive as men pray, dance and recite psalms around the
grave of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, hidden in Soviet times in a dilapidated
barn among old village houses and Soviet-era apartment buildings.

Nachman, who died in 1810, was renowned for his mystical interpretations of
Jewish texts, and his belief that higher spirituality could be achieved
through a combination of prayer, meditation and good deeds. On his deathbed,
he is said to have promised to be an advocate for anyone who would come and
pray beside his tomb.

That promise – and Nachman’s suggestion that prayer carried more power
during Rosh Hashana – has been drawing thousands of pilgrims yearly.

“This is … a chance to touch the living faith of our fathers,” said Borys
Varminshteyn, who was making the pilgrimage from Myrhorod in central
Ukraine.

Nachman said, “‘You will pray for me here and I will pray for you there,'”
said Avraam Levitsky, 51, who was making the pilgrimage from the Black
Sea city of Odessa.

For decades, it wasn’t so easy for Jews to get here. In 1920, three years
after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviets ordered the old Jewish cemetery
where Nachman’s grave lies to be destroyed, and for homes to be built in its
place.

A wealthy Jew from the Ukrainian capital bought the plot of land and built a
small house there to preserve the grave. The officially atheist Soviet Union
sharply restricted access, although some Jews secretly made their way,
risking arrest.

Since the Soviet collapse, Jews have been able to visit Uman freely and in
the last six years, the commemorations have ballooned into a massive event.

In the space of 10 days, Uman residents can earn up to 13 times the average
monthly salary of 982 hryvna (US$196, A154) by renting their homes to
pilgrims coming to pray at their spiritual leader’s tomb. “We live here from
Hasids to Hasids,” said Svitlana Bevz, 66.

Not everyone in this town of 100,000 is pleased. Some 400 police patrol the
gathering, setting up checkpoints around town. Residents complain that they
are questioned if they want to go into an area occupied by the Hasids.

Uman was once home to thousands of Jews, but more than a century of
pogroms, Nazi massacres, Stalinist repression and emigration have cut their
numbers to just a few hundred.

While most of the devout go home at the end of Rosh Hashana, their presence
in Uman has had lingering effects: a kosher supermarket has sprung up, and a
new hotel is under construction that will respect their requirements – the
rooms have no mirrors and bathtubs are replaced with showers.

The showers are needed so the Jews can take a mikvah, a ritual bath, which
requires that water be living, and therefore running.

Nachman’s tomb has been renovated, and the Hasids are building a 4,000-seat
synagogue, which would be the largest in Ukraine. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22. MOTHER OF LAST RUSSIAN TSAR MAKES LAST VOYAGE

BBC NEWS, United Kingdom, Saturday, Sep 23, 2006

The remains of the Danish-born mother of Russia’s last tsar are being taken
to St Petersburg, 140 years after she first arrived in Russia. Empress Maria
Feodorovna will be buried alongside her husband, Tsar Alexander III, as she
had wished.

Her descendants joined Danish royals and officials for a memorial service at
Roskilde Cathedral, west of Copenhagen. Born Princess Dagmar in 1847, she
changed her name and converted to the Russian Orthodox faith on marriage.

The tsarina had six children, including Russia’s last Tsar, Nicholas III,
who abdicated in 1917 during the Revolution. Months later he and his family
were executed by Bolsheviks. There have been lengthy negotiations between
Russia and Denmark on the terms of the transfer.
‘OUR DREAM’
Prince Dimitri Romanov, Alexander II’s great nephew, has organised the
return of the remains to Russia where Maria Feodorovna “lived the best years
of her life.”

“It was our dream, my brother Nicholas and I, to grant the empress’s wish
and I feel great satisfaction and pleasure for our family to finally see our
wish come true,” he said.

The coffin is being taken by Danish ship, to Russia. The coffin is due to be
reburied on Thursday in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg.
———————————————————————————————
LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5372956.stm
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
23. FROM UKRAINE WITH THANKS

By David Hardie, Edinburgh Evening News
Edinburgh, Scotland, Saturday, Sept 23, 2006

UKRAINIAN football fans have thanked Hibs supporters for their aid
to orphans in Dnipropetrovsk, writes DAVID HARDIE.

They showed their gratitude by handing over a massive hand-painted
plate and matching tankards.

The presents were given to chairman Rod Petrie by Steve Carr, Alix
Stewart and Barbara McDonald, members of the Dnipro Appeal, which
has now raised almost £20,000 to help the youngsters.

Originally intended to be a one-off offer of help after Tony Mowbray’s side
drew Dnipro in last season’s UEFA Cup, the appeal is now a registered
charity which has now extended aid to a second orphanage in the Ukrainian
city as well as a pregnancy crisis centre.

Carr, who recently returned from a third visit to Dnipro, said: “We met up
with some local fans and they presented us with the plate and tankards as
a ‘thank you’ for everything the Hibs supporters have done.

“Hopefully the presents will now find a place within Easter Road where
they can be admired by our own supporters.” -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=1408472006
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
24. UKRAINIAN FILM CLUB ANNOUNCED

Lev Fedyniak, Director, Ukrainian Film club, Ukraine, Mon, Sep 25, 2006

UKRAINE – Ends-of-the-Earth Publishing is pleased to announce
the creation of the UKRAINIAN FILM CLUB.

Modeled after book-of-the-month type clubs, the UKRAINIAN FILM
CLUB will offer all kinds of Ukrainian films- classic, historical,
documentary, children’s, cultural, cartoons, travel and more, all on a
monthly basis.

Films include such classic works, as TINI ZABYTIX PREDKIV or the
docu-drama HOLOD-33, travel films like Vidomi I Nevidomi Lviv, and
cartoons like VSE PRO KOZAKIV, for example, along with many, many
more.

Film reflects a nation’s culture. They are brief vignettes of life at a
particular time and place. Many Ukrainian films have been hidden or
otherwise unavailable.

Some of these films are very difficult to find, often in videocassette (and
then in PAL/ SECAM format) and VERY expensive. But now, for a
nominal cost, and in DVD or VCD formats, a whole library of Ukrainian
films can be put together for the enjoyment of the entire family.

What’s more, membership in the www.UkrainianFilmClub.com helps
struggling Ukrainian filmmakers as a portion of each membership goes
to support new Ukrainian films.

A catalog is being put together for one-at-a-time purchases so that
individuals looking for specific titles can add to an already existing
collection.

Finally, wholesale arrangements are available for businesses looking to
add Ukrainian films to their product base.

If you or your organization has a newsletter, a membership with which you
regularly communicate or with whom you meet on a regular basis, are involved
with youth, schools or cultural groups, and the like, won’t you please make
an announcement about this wonderful opportunity to experience Ukrainian
films, to introduce them to a whole new generation or collect them for your
own viewing pleasure?

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lev G. Fedyniak at
Inquiry@UkrainianFilmClub.com; (www.UkrainianFilmClub.com).
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
25. SUMMER 2006 ISSUE OF THE UKRAINIAN QUARTERLY

The Ukrainian Quarterly, New York, New York, September 2006

NEW YORK – The new Summer 2006 issue of The Ukrainian Quarterly is
now available. The English-language scholarly journal includes such
interesting articles as:

[1] OUN-Between Collaboration and Confrontation with Nazi Germany;
[2] The Political Prisoner’s Dilemma: Evidence from the Great Terror in

the Soviet Union;
[3] The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 as Genocide in the Light of the

UN Convention of 1948; and,
[4] The Emergence of State Polity and National Aspirations in Ukraine –

Two Coins or Two Sides of One Coin?

To purchase a copy of The Ukrainian Quarterly, please send check or money
order in the amount of $8USD to: The Ukrainian Quarterly, 203 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10003. E-mail: uq@ucca.org.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

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

Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
“SigmaBleyzer – Where Opportunities Emerge”
The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.

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

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

UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
========================================================

“WELCOME TO UKRAINE”- “NARODNE MYSTETSTVO”
(Folk Art) MAGAZINES
For information on how to subscribe to the “Welcome to Ukraine” magazine
in English, or the Ukrainian Folk Art magazine “Narodne Mystetstvo” in
Ukrainian, write to ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. Complete information is
available at the website: http://www.artukraine.com/availbooks/index.htm.
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS
Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
“Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”

1. THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura,
Chairman; Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Washington, D.C., http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
Additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine Program are:
2. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA), Zenia Chernyk,
Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President; Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 298 7275 in Kyiv,
kau@ukrnet.net
4. ESTRON CORPORATION, Grain Export Terminal Facility &
Oilseed Crushing Plant, Ilvichevsk, Ukraine
5. Law firm UKRAINIAN LEGAL GROUP, Irina Paliashvili, President;
Kiev and Washington, general@rulg.com, www.rulg.com.
6. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC., Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
7. VOLIA SOFTWARE, Software to Fit Your Business, Source your
IT work in Ukraine. Contact: Yuriy Sivitsky, Vice President, Marketing,
Kyiv, Ukraine, yuriy.sivitsky@softline.kiev.ua; Volia Software website:
http://www.volia-software.com/ or Bill Hunter, CEO Volia Software,
Houston, TX 77024; bill.hunter@volia-software.com.
8. ODUM– Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson
9. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Washington, D.C.,
Dr. Susanne Lotarski, President/CEO; E. Morgan Williams,
SigmaBleyzer, Chairman, Executive Committee, Board of Directors;
John Stephens, Cape Point Capital, Secretary/Treasurer
10. UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE USA, South
Brown Brook, New Jersey, http://www.uocofusa.org
11. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL (UACC),
Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, New York
12. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John Kun, Vice President/COO; Vera
Andruskiw, CPP Wash Project Director, Washington, D.C.; Markian
Bilynskyj, VP/Director of Field Operations; Marta Kolomayets, CPP
Kyiv Project Director, Kyiv, Ukraine. Web: http://www.USUkraine.org
13. WJ GROUP of Ag Companies, Kyiv, Ukraine, David Holpert, Chief
Financial Officer, Chicago, IL; http://www.wjgrain.com/en/links/index.html
14. EUGENIA SAKEVYCH DALLAS, Author, “One Woman, Five
Lives, Five Countries,” ‘Her life’s journey begins with the 1932-1933
genocidal famine in Ukraine.’ Hollywood, CA, www.eugeniadallas.com.
15. ALEX AND HELEN WOSKOB, College Station, Pennsylvania
16. SWIFT FOUNDATION, San Luis Obispo, California
17. TRAVEL TO UKRAINE website, http://www.TravelToUkraine.org,
A program of the U.S-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C.

========================================================
TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,

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

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

SPAM BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM
If you do not receive a copy of the AUR it is probably because of a
SPAM BLOCKER maintained by your server or by yourself on your
computer. Spam blockers are set in very arbitrary and impersonal ways
and block out e-mails because of words found in many news stories.

Spam blockers also sometimes reject the AUR for other arbitrary reasons
we have not been able to identify. If you do not receive some of the AUR
numbers please let us know and we will send you the missing issues. Please
make sure the spam blocker used by your server and also the one on your
personal computer, if you use a spam blocker, is set properly to receive
the Action Ukraine Report (AUR).
========================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer
Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
Mobile in Kyiv: 8 050 689 2874
mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com; www.SigmaBleyzer.com
========================================================
Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
========================================================
return to index [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

AUR#762 Sep 24 We And The Empire: Ukraine’s Existence Within Empires & Some Enduring Historical Myths; Outstanding Concert, Sunday, Sep 24, 2006, 3 PM

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

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

 
                             “WE AND THE EMPIRE”
    Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.
                                                      
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 762
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
WASHINGTON, D.C., SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2006
 
                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


1.                                    “WE AND THE EMPIRE”
      Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.
      “An analysis of Ukraine’s existence in the Soviet empire prompts one
      banal conclusion: one should never place one’s country in dependence
      of decisions that are made outside its borders. In other words, one
      should never become a part of an empire. Unfortunately, the validity of
      this banal conclusion has yet to be proven to some of our compatriots.”

ARTICLE: By Stanislav Kulchytsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Professor, Deputy Director, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest in English, Kyiv, Ukraine
#2 Tuesday, January 31, 2006; #3 Tuesday, 7 February 2006
#4 Tuesday, 14 February, 2006

2.     SOPRANO OKSANA KROVYTSKA PERFORMS IN CONCERT
                Sunday, September 24, 2006, Alexandria, Virginia, 3 p.m.
Chrystia Sonevytsky, Publicity Chair
The Washington Group Cultural Fund
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 20, 2006

3.   IEU FEATURES THE UKRAINIAN IMPRESSIONIST PAINTERS
Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, September 2006

4.       SUMMER 2006 ISSUE OF THE UKRAINIAN QUARTERLY
The Ukrainian Quarterly, New York, New York, September 2006

5.       IEU FEATURES BROTHERHOODS: THE PROMOTERS OF
        EDUCATION AND CULTURE IN EARLY MODERN UKRAINE
Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August, 2006
========================================================
1
                             “WE AND THE EMPIRE”
     Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.

     “An analysis of Ukraine’s existence in the Soviet empire prompts one
     banal conclusion: one should never place one’s country in dependence
     of decisions that are made outside its borders. In other words, one
     should never become a part of an empire. Unfortunately, the validity of
     this banal conclusion has yet to be proven to some of our compatriots
.”

ARTICLE: By Stanislav Kulchytsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences,

Professor, Deputy Director, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest in English, Kyiv, Ukraine,
#2 Tuesday, January 31, 2006; #3 Tuesday, 7 February 2006
#4 Tuesday, 14 February, 2006

I am writing a different foreword than the one I initially planned. I must
respond to a diplomatic scandal that broke out in the last days of the “gas
war.” When First Deputy Foreign Minister Anton Buteiko was on Channel 5,
a viewer called and said, “You have an unfriendly attitude toward Russia
because you wrote in a newspaper that it is an empire that will fall apart.”

After Buteiko pointed out reasonably that he was not taking his words back,
since empires tend to fall apart sooner or later, the Russian foreign
ministry reacted instantly. The Ukrainian diplomat was officially accused of
an unfriendly attitude to Russia.

Should a person be offended when he is told that sooner or later he will
die? Should a government feel offended by a statement that its country will
one day exist in a different form? Both questions are identical. I believe
that this scholarly problem should not be instantly turned into a political
one.

The only justification is that everyone in Russia and Ukraine was edgy
during the New Year celebrations. Although it was a gas war, it was
nevertheless a war.

I will summarize the originally planned introduction, because it is
necessary. A team of Ukrainian scholars is working on an eight-volume
Encyclopedia of the History of Ukraine. It is an analytical publication
rather than a reference source, a survey of modern knowledge about
Ukraine’s past against the background of world history.

After I prepared a series of articles for the third EHU volume, for the
entries “imperialism,” “emperor,” [imperator] “imperium,” and “empire,”
I decided to rewrite them in newspaper format for The Day. I am
convinced that the imperial problem is a topical one.

1. IMPERIUM —–

Arguments often arise because of vague concepts. We listen to our opponent
but do not hear him; we do not pay attention to the precise content of a
concept and lose track of the line between the identical roots of terms.
When this concerns history, which is not only an academic subject and
science but also a significant part of our consciousness, unpleasant
consequences may arise.

The historical awareness of influential politicians is crammed with myths
that prevent them from responding adequately to events. This also applies
to the imperial topic in which quite a few myths have accumulated.

We should start with the key concept of empire, or imperium. The existence
of this term simultaneously in the Ukrainized and original, i.e., Latin,
form indicates that it is seldom used. It is used mostly in its transformed
appearance, as a legal term.

Imperium is the right of a state to wield exclusive juridical power within
the limits of its national territory, including territorial waters and
airspace over land.

This term is absent in everyday language, although it has a precise meaning:
unlimited authority, including the right to dispose of citizens’ lives and
property. The point at issue is power, not the individual vested with it.
Everyday thinking is concretized, and we are interested not in an abstract
property but in the carrier of this unlimited power.

That is why the concept of imperium has not become part of our daily
vocabulary. Instead, a number of other, nearly synonymous, concepts, have
appeared, which indicate the carrier of power: dictator, autocrat, monarch,
emperor.

2. EMPEROR —–

A short and precise definition of the term “emperor” is: one who has an
imperium. The first emperors appeared in republican Rome, i.e., they were
not monarchs. The Senate of the Roman Republic bestowed this honorary
title on military leaders after a great victory.

Some military leaders were emperors several times. They had unlimited
authority over their armies, not only by virtue of their positions but as a
result of their personal authority.

The Roman Republic was becoming an empire while preserving the outward
signs of a republic. Octavian turned the military title of emperor into a
hereditary one for the head of state, and Vespasian expanded the content
with which it was filled (the carrier of unlimited power) to civilians.

This meant that the emperor was entitled to dispose of the lives and
property of his subjects. The Roman emperors went even further and
proclaimed themselves living gods.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, the title of emperor was
retained by the head of the Byzantine Empire. In Western Europe, it was
reinstated by Pope Leo III who crowned Charlemagne (Charles the Great)
emperor in 800. After the fall of Charlemagne’s empire the title was
transferred to Germany.

Its rulers identified themselves as emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the
German nation, a state formation that existed only on paper. Starting in the
15th century, this title was held almost continuously by the Austrian
Habsburgs.

In the new European history Peter I and Napoleon Bonaparte wanted to become
emperors. After signing a victorious peace agreement with Sweden in 1721,
the Russian Senate and Synod conferred on Peter I the title of emperor and
the appellations “Great” and “Father of His Native Land.”

Some countries protested the appearance of another emperor in Europe. The
Rzeczpospolita recognized the Russian emperor only in 1764.

Napoleon was crowned emperor of France in 1804. In 1806, when the Holy
Roman Empire of the German nation was liquidated, German emperor Franz
II became Austrian emperor Franz I.

In 1852, Napoleon’s nephew Napoleon III became emperor of France. He lost
power after the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, and France once again
became a republic. In contrast, Prussian king Wilhelm I, after defeating
France in 1871, united Germany, proclaimed it the Second Reich, and donned
the German emperor’s crown.

Five years later Queen Victoria of Great Britain became the empress of
colonial India; a year later the Turkish sultan proclaimed himself the
Ottoman emperor. The monarchs of China, Japan, Siam, Brazil, Mexico,
Abyssinia, and several other countries began calling themselves by the
European title of emperor. The Japanese empire perished in the fires of
WWII, but the emperor’s title is still held by the head of state. No other
emperors exist in the 21st century.

3. EMPIRE —–

Empires are states that have fundamentally increased in size by
incorporating originally independent countries and/or stateless territories.
It is difficult to grasp the typology of empires because each empire was a
closed world with its own forms of life.

Perhaps the only common denominator was the presence of an emperor, who
wielded supreme power in every region of the motley conglomerate of formerly
independent states and stateless territories.

However, even here there were exceptions. Russia was an empire long before
Peter I was proclaimed emperor. The British Empire had no emperor and the
head of state was the king (queen). Japan is not an empire but has an
emperor.

There are at least seven systemic signs by which an empire may be
distinguished from other types of states.

[1] First, the authority of the emperor, which had a sacred character. State
bodies were called upon to implement the sacred will of the head of state,
expressed in the form of laws and edicts.

[2] Second, the policy of imperialism, i.e., expansion, whose goal was to
add territory. As a rule, this policy was aimed at subjugating countries
that were weaker in military, economic, and cultural terms in order to
exploit their human and material resources and/or to colonize them by its
own population. Expansion could be implemented through conquest or
peaceful means.

[3] Third, the poly-ethnicity of a population alongside a politically
dominant ethnos.

[4] Fourth, the presence of a centralized government and hierarchically
constructed stratum of privileged state officials.

[5] Fifth, the existence of a state religion, ideology, and language.

There are two types of empires: traditional and colonial. The Roman and
Chinese empires were classic examples of traditional empires.

The Roman Empire represented a separate phase in the existence of a
civilization known at the time as Mediterranean, which is now called
Euro-Atlantic. The ancient Roman heritage has played an important role in
the history of the Euro-Atlantic civilization, even though the empire
disappeared 1,500 years ago.

The destiny of the Chinese empire took an essentially different course.
Nearly 35 centuries elapsed from the emergence of the Qing dynasty in the
Huang He river valley until the proclamation of the republic in 1912. During
that period hundreds of peoples inhabiting the subcontinent were being
transformed into a single people that had developed an original and advanced
civilization.

So the fall of the last imperial Qing dynasty did not cause the country to
fall apart. Even the millions of Chinese living in the diaspora in various
countries remain true to the traditions of their forefathers.

The modern People’s Republic of China is not an empire but an almost
monoethnic country that displays an amazing ability to adapt the
achievements of global scientific and technological progress.

In the distant past, empires fell apart from the blows of other conquerors.
The last traditional empires collapsed during and after the Great War of
1914-1918. However, that war only strengthened the inner factors of
instability of imperial-type states, which had been accumulating in previous
decades.

Here I am specifically talking about the disappearance of the imperium in
the course of transforming absolute monarchies into constitutional ones,
and, more importantly, about the formation of nations. Nations are cramped
within imperial frameworks.

Colonial empires began to arise in the age of great geographical
discoveries. Within a couple of hundred years Spain, Portugal, England,
Holland, France, Belgium, Russia, and Germany turned practically the entire
world into colonies or spheres of influence.

Unlike traditional empires, which are composed of provinces with more or
less identical status, colonial empires were divided into a mother country
and colonies. In fact, the expression “colonial empire” is not very
accurate. It would be more accurate to say that states with colonies were
not empires as such; they possessed colonial empires.

There are two exceptions from this rule: in the case of Germany, it is
formal; but in the case of Russia, essential. Germany appropriated the
status of the former Holy Roman Empire of the German nation but remained a
nation-state, as a federation of German-speaking territories, except for
Austria. Russia became a colonial empire after conquering Transcaucasia and
Central Asia, but remained a traditional one.

Countries that owned colonies used them in a variety of ways. If colonies
had large populations with a highly developed culture, the colonialists
exploited their manpower and material resources in their own interests.

The Spanish and Portuguese aristocracies squandered the wealth of the
colonies, but in other Western European countries they became an important
factor in accumulating capital and laid the foundations of their economic
might.

If the population of a colony was in the early stages of development and had
a small population, the newly ceded territory was settled by colonists from
the mother country

The North American colonies of Great Britain won independence in a war with
the mother country, after which the settlement of the continent by people
from many European countries acquired its own dynamics.

From the outset the development of the United States did not have an
imperial character, and it proceeded according to democratic principles,
despite the tragic lot of the aboriginal population and the existence of
slavery in the southern states until the mid-19th century. The Russian
empire demonstrated a different type of progress.

The colonization of Siberia and the Far East (by Ukrainians, among others)
resulted only in the huge territorial expansion of the empire.

The colonial states (which were joined by Italy between the two World Wars)
got rid of their colonies after the Second World War as a result of a
powerful national-liberation movement on the part of oppressed peoples and
the continuing democratization of the mother countries’ social and political
systems. In many cases the second factor was crucial.

The collapse of the British Empire proved to be the longest and at the same
time comparatively painless. This official name was given in the 1870s to
the totality of possessions of Great Britain throughout the world (colonies,
protectorates, mandated and trust territories) on which the sun never set.

At first the overseas territories settled mostly by British colonists lost
their colonial nature. Canada acquired the status of a dominion, i.e., a
self-governing territory, in 1867, the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901,
and New Zealand in 1907.

With time Ceylon (today: Sri Lanka) and several other colonies with their
local populace became dominions. In 1931, a separate act of parliament
replaced the term “empire” by “commonwealth.”

The British Commonwealth of Nations was being formed, i.e., a union of
formally equal states, based on “a common allegiance to the Crown.”
Substantial changes were made in the structure of the Commonwealth in
1949-52, which were aimed at asserting the sovereignty of its members.

The modifier “British” was dropped from the name of the Commonwealth, and
the principle of allegiance to the Crown was no longer mandatory. After 1965
the ruling organ of the Commonwealth became the conferences of its member
states.

A permanent secretariat was formed at the office of the Commonwealth
Secretary, which took over the responsibilities of the British Cabinet of
Ministers and the Ministry of Commonwealth Affairs, the latter having been
abolished after the creation of the secretariat.

4. UKRAINIAN LANDS IN THE AUSTRIAN EMPIRE —–

Interest in the imperial type of political organization and culture has
revived in modern journalism and history studies. Perhaps this may be
explained by the expansion of the European Union. Although everyone
understands the principal difference between the EU and an empire, certain
political scientists are beginning to ponder categories that so far exist
only in theory: post-national identity and post-sovereign nation.

On the other hand, the nation-states that were formed in Central Europe
after the Great War of 1914-1918 are no longer regarded as the only possible
type of political existence of human communities.

The American historian Mark von Hagen, who headed the International
Association of Ukrainian Studies until 2005, explained this by the awakening
of nostalgia for certain multinational, dynastic empires that could regulate
interethnic relations better than modern nation-states.

He is referring first and foremost to the Austrian Empire, which lasted
until 1918. Its nonexistence for almost a century is giving rise to a vacuum
in modern social thought; hence, the presence of idealized views on
inter-national relations in the Habsburg empire. In any case, this
idealization is clearly apparent in Ukrainian diasporic and post-Soviet
historiography.

The Austrian Empire had a territory about the same size as modern Ukraine
(676,000 and 603,000 sq. km, respectively). Just as the Dnipro crosses
Ukraine, the Danube bisected Austria. Its population was roughly the same
size (over 51 million), which placed it third in Europe at the beginning of
the 20th century, after the Russian and German empires.

Not coincidentally, the Austrian monarchy was described as a patchwork
quilt. Over a period of several centuries the Austrian Habsburgs pieced it
together from many countries with different historical destinies.

It was inhabited by 12 million Germans, 10 million Hungarians, 6.5 million
Czechs, 5 million Poles, over 4 million Ukrainians, 3.5 million Croats and
Serbs, more than 2 million Romanians, 2 million Slovaks, and over 1 million
Slovenians.

The country consisted of two separate states divided by a border along the
river Leitha: Cisleithania (the lands of the Austrian crown) and
Transleithania (the lands of the Hungarian crown), as well as Bosnia and
Herzegovina, which were annexed in 1908. Cisleithania comprised the
Principality of Galicia and Lodomeria and the Principality of Bukovyna,
where 3.7 million Ukrainians lived. Transleithania was inhabited by 470,000
Ukrainians (mostly in Transcarpathia).

The formation of nations in Central- Eastern Europe was delayed by at least
one century in comparison with Western Europe.

Transcarpathian, Bukovynian, and Galician Ukrainians practically did not
communicate. They were an ethnographic mass deprived of a political and
economic ruling class. Imperial bureaucrats did not deal with them but with
their masters-Polish, Hungarian, and German aristocrats.

Changes began with the Spring of Nations, as Western historians call the
revolution of 1848-1849. The clergy, as the only educated Ukrainian social
stratum, demanded that the ethnic lands be united into a single crown land
and granted autonomy. From then on this was the key demand of all Ukrainian
political forces until the end of the empire.

Emperor Franz Josef, who ruled from 1848 to 1916, had a long rule as
absolute and constitutional monarch. He was very flexible in his treatment
of his subjects representing various nationalities, which gave rise to the
legend about the wondrous tolerance of the Austrian Empire with respect to
the national question.

However, he made concessions only to the Hungarians, who were especially
insistent in their demands for political rights. In 1867 the empire was
divided into two separate multinational states: Austria and Hungary.

Czech demands for identical rights to the lands of the crown of Saint Vaclav
(Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia) were ignored. Slavs made up about one-half
of the empire’s motley population but did not form a single front of the
liberation struggle.

Moreover, Ukrainian and Polish interests were at odds. Both peoples claimed
the same territory. The Principality of Galicia and Lodomeria was formed out
of the eastern part of Galicia (Halychyna) with the center in Lviv (until
1772 it was known as Ruske voievodstvo) and the western, predominantly
Polish, part with its center in Krakow.

In 1997 Roman Szporluk, the director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research
Institute, published an article in the journal Daedalus, in which he shed
new light on the historical destiny of Ukrainians in the Austrian Empire.

Before, historians stressed only one aspect of the changes in the Ukrainian
way of life after the transition from Poland to Austria: serfs were now
legal subjects and de jure human beings. Szporluk proved that Vienna created
a new dimension in the process of forming the Ukrainian nation.

Indeed, socioeconomic reforms, beginning with the abolition of serfdom,
created only the prerequisites for the formation of the nation. The attitude
of the state was important. The state, which was personified not by the
Polish king but the Austrian emperor, could create more favorable conditions
for the Ukrainians’ national rebirth. After all, the Habsburg Empire had no
reasons to impede the national rebirth of both the Ukrainians and Poles.

In his article Szporluk emphasized that the better organized Poles took
greater advantage of Vienna’s tolerant national policy. After 1772,
Polonization of the former Ruske voievodstvo in the Rzeczpospolita was
carried out more intensively than during the four preceding centuries, from
1370 to 1772.

The imperial government was more willing to make concessions in the national
question to the consolidated Polish forces than the disorganized Ruthenians.

In 1861, Galicia and Lodomeria acquired autonomy with a local sejm and
government, but both were dominated by Poles. Beginning in 1867, Polish
became the official language in the principality. All attempts to divide the
territory into Ukrainian and Polish parts failed. Polish organizations had
no desire to share territory.

As in the case of Galicia and Lodomeria, Bukovyna acquired autonomy in 1861,
but the Bukovynian Ruthenians also failed to obtain sufficient cultural and
ethnic rights. German remained the official language in Bukovyna.

A separate Ruthenian district was created in Zakarpattia in 1849. It was
dominated by Ukrainians, who were now able to enjoy broad autonomy in
education and self-government. However, after the formation of
Austro-Hungary the gains of the 1848-1849 revolution were destroyed.

The Hungarian government refused to recognize the Ruthenians as a separate
ethnic group. In 1868 the sejm in Budapest proclaimed the entire population
of the state the Hungarian nation.

The empire’s Ukrainian lands were in dire economic condition. Raw-material
industries (salt and oil extraction, lumber industry) were the leading ones.
Oil processing and woodworking lacked investments. Entrepreneurs did not go
where there was no qualified labor force. Most industries existed as petty
cottage industries.

The rural population suffered increasingly from agrarian overpopulation, the
inevitable result of the concentration of the greater part of arable lands
in the hands of landlords. In search of a better life peasants headed across
the ocean.

Nearly 300,000 emigrated from Halychyna and Bukovyna in 1900-1910, and
over 40,000 from Zakarpattia in 1905-1914. This became the foundation of the
powerful Diaspora in the US and Canada.

Socioeconomic conditions, historical memory, and the entire way of life of
the Ukrainian communities in the Russian and Austrian empires were markedly
different. Analyzing the amazing, at first glance, phenomenon of the
formation of one Ukrainian nation in empires that were hostile to one
another, Professor Szporluk noted two crucial circumstances.

[1] First, the Ukrainian lands in the Russian Empire had cultural resources
that allowed the Galicians to compensate for their cultural and social
backwardness; they made them competitive with regard to the Polish milieu.

[2] Second, in joining a unified Ukraine, the Galicians were becoming part
of a national community that was larger than Poland. Not coincidentally,
they called the Ukrainian lands in Russia “Great Ukraine.” Beyond the
borders of that Ukraine the Galician ethnic community was the numerical
equivalent of the Lithuanians or Slovaks.

On Jan. 22, 1919, two Ukrainian national republics that had emerged from the
ruins of toppled empires united in a single, independent state. This
historic event was preceded by decades of instructive work on the part of
Ukrainian intellectuals, who convinced their fellow countrymen that they
were one people. The intelligentsia followed in the footsteps of such giants
of the Ukrainian renaissance as Mykhailo Hrushevsky and Ivan Franko.

Learned Ukrainians were especially impressed by Hrushevsky’s article
“Ukraine and Halychyna,” published by the Literaturno-naukovyi visnyk
(Literary-Scientific Herald) in 1906.

In it the scholar warned his fellow countrymen against following the road of
the Serbs and Croats, two different nations that had one ethnic basis. He
argued that commonality of ethnic origin does not guarantee the emergence
of a single nation.

PART II ———-

In this second installment of Stanislav Kulchytsky’s study of world empires
and their role in Ukraine’s history, the historian focuses on the Russian
Empire.

5. RUSSIAN IMPERIAL EXPANSION —–

The concept of Russian history should be called Moscow-centric. It was
Moscow-centric from the very outset, even though the earliest mention of
Muscovy appears in a chronicle only in 1147. The works of the outstanding
Russian historians Tatishchev, Karamzin, Kliuchevsky, and Solovev draw an
equal sign between the history of the Russian Empire and Russian national
history.

Together with the tsars these four did everything possible to distort the
historical memory of the Ukrainian nation and dissolve Ukraine among the
five dozen gubernias of European Russia.

Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s multivolume History of Ukraine-Rus’ revived national
history for the Ukrainians. However, neither Hrushevsky nor other
pre-revolutionary Ukrainian historians moved beyond the bounds of national
history.

Meanwhile, for all Soviet historians the history of the USSR had become
their national history with the concept of Russian history inherited from
the works of Tatishchev and his followers and amended insignificantly
(Kyivan Rus’ as the cradle of three fraternal nations).

Only in the past decade have we started to gain a new perspective on the
problems of the formation of the Russian Empire, which has become possible
owing to the works of the German researcher Andreas Kappeler and Harvard
University scholars, primarily Edward Keenan and Roman Szporluk.

Russia was proclaimed an empire in 1721, but became one much later. Those
who share the widespread belief that the Russian state should be considered
an imperial one from the moment it annexed Ukraine in 1654 do not take into
account the events of the preceding centuries.

Finally, there are not enough grounds to say that the empire’s age should be
reckoned from the moment that great prince Ivan IV was formally proclaimed
tsar in 1547.

The word “tsar” is etymologically related to the Russian term “kesar,” which
is derived from the name of Ancient Rome’s first emperor Gaius Julius
Caesar. The Latin word “rex” is also translated as “tsar” in Russian. “Rex”
was the name of the legendary Roman rulers in the pre-republican period,
while its translation is a matter of habit.

We should look for the roots of Russian imperialism not in etymology but in
real historical circumstances. Andreas Kappeler dates the origins of the
formation of the Russian Empire to the 15th century.

A favorable historical condition for the emergence in Eastern Europe of a
new imperial state formation was created in the process of the gradual
disintegration of the Mongolian Empire of the Chinggisids and its separate
part, the Golden Horde. The Muscovite princes took the first steps toward
creating an empire of their own while they were still part of the Horde.
They did so by adopting a slogan that called for “gathering the lands of
Rus’.”

The possibility for such an expansion was provided by the khans of the
Golden Horde, who from the time of Ivan I Kalita entrusted Muscovy with
collecting tributes from all the Rus’ lands that were under the rule of the
Golden Horde.

The biggest success of the Muscovite princes was the annexation of the lands
of Great Novgorod, which stretched from the Baltic and White Seas to the
Ural Mountains. The conquest of “fraternal” Novgorod by Ivan III was
accompanied by atrocious acts of genocide.

The Golden Horde broke up into six independent states: the Khanates of the
Crimea, Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia (these four were ruled by the
Chinggisids), the Nogai Horde, and the Great Muscovite Principality. After
securing independence in 1480, Ivan III continued his policy of “gathering
the lands of Rus’,” this time targeting the lands that were part of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The Muscovite-Lithuanian wars started in the late 15th century. Lithuania’s
inability to withstand Muscovite expansion forced it to unite with the
Polish Kingdom and create the Rzeczpospolita, a federation in which the
political positions of the Lithuanian gentry were subordinated to those of
the Polish nobility.

One of the most enduring historical myths is a belief that since the times
of Ivan III Muscovy had pursued a policy of reviving the Orthodox Byzantine
Empire, which had collapsed under pressure from the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Those who attempt to substantiate this foreign policy of Ivan III cite his
marriage in 1472 to Sofia Paleolog, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor,
and the adoption of the Byzantine double eagle as the emblem of the
Muscovite state.

However, it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that the return of the
Byzantine emperors’ heritage began to be used by the Russian Empire as an
ideological justification for its policy aimed at absorbing an already
weakened Ottoman Empire. Meanwhile, in the 15th and 16th centuries
Muscovy’s goal was first and foremost to take over the heritage of another
empire – the Golden Horde.

Facts confirm that from the days of Muscovite Prince Ivan I (1325 – 1340)
the statehood of future Russia had been forming along the lines of the
Golden Horde. Feudal relations involving the dependence of vassals in a
feudal hierarchy and certain obligations of the sovereign with respect to
his vassals had not formed in the Great Muscovite Principality. The great
prince, and later the tsar and emperor, drew his support from nobility.

Nobles received land to use and later on to own, along with the enserfed
peasants inhabiting it. Each owner of such land and of the peasants living
there was essentially a kholop, a feudal serf of the great prince,
regardless of the size of his estate and the position he occupied in the
official hierarchy. The Asian- style socioeconomic system enabled the tsar
to maintain a powerful army and use it in his aggressive policies along the
entire perimeter of the state borders.

Pre-revolutionary Russian and Soviet historiography uses exclusively
negative expressions (“Tatar yoke”) to convey the impact of the Mongolian
Empire on conquered Rus’ and the life of the Rus’ principalities under the
Golden Horde. Horrible portrayals of the Mongol-Tatar conquest span the
entire period during which Muscovy was part of the Golden Horde until the
Muscovite Principality obtained its independence.

There is no doubt that the tribute paid to conquerors for nearly two and a
half centuries took a heavy toll on the peasants, who were forced to pay
double taxes. Nonetheless, autonomous existence within the Horde reinforced
the state machinery of the Great Muscovite Principality.

As Kappeler rightly notes, Muscovy took full advantage of the Mongol-Tatars’
accomplishments in the sphere of military and administrative organization,
taxation system, communications, international trade, and cultural exchange.

The Russian Empire had been expanding for four centuries. In the mid-16th
century it conquered the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan, after which the
Great Muscovite Principality turned into a polyethnic Russian state. In the
mid-17th century the tsar established control of Left-Bank Ukraine and Kyiv,
after which the western vector became the dominant one in the further
expansion of the empire’s borders.

Understanding the West’s technical and economic superiority over Russia, the
18th-century rulers of Russia adopted a policy of Westernization. This
helped them defeat Sweden in the long-lasting Northern War, seize the coasts
of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov from the Ottoman Empire, and stop
Napoleon Bonaparte’s aggressive forays. By the early 19th century Russia had
almost entirely absorbed the colossal territory of the former
Rzeczpospolita.

The defeat of the Siberian Khanate in the late 16th century marked the
beginning of the empire’s unstoppable eastward expansion. In the mid-17th
century Russian pioneers reached the Pacific Ocean and founded settlements
in Alaska, moving along the western coast of the North American continent
toward California. The pioneers were followed by troops, collectors of taxes
for the “white tsar,” and merchants.

Russia’s own population settled Northern Asia in the same way as the Western
European colonists settled the sparsely populated lands of North America,
Australia, and New Zealand. With greater or lesser success (and failure in
America: in 1867 Russia had to sell its North American lands to the USA as
they were too far removed from the empire’s centers), these sparsely
populated expanses became the continuation of the Russian Empire.

The process of settling new lands was portrayed in heroic terms, but the
reality was often far from that. Equipped with firearms, units of Cossacks
and sharpshooters mercilessly exterminated the indigenous population.

From the early 19th century Russia launched its expansion in the direction
of the densely populated countries of Transcaucasia and Central Asia, with
their centuries-long history and culture that were different from Europe’s.
The absorption of these countries turned Russia into a colonial empire.

In the mid-19th century Nicholas I made a decisive attempt to take over the
Byzantine heritage and put an end to the Ottoman Empire. The military defeat
of the Turkish army was a foregone conclusion.

Large European countries faced the prospect of an emerging super-empire that
could stretch from the Californian coast of North America across Northern
Asia and Eastern Europe to the Ottoman Sultan’s African territories. For
this reason they joined forces and defeated Russia in the Crimean War.

The ruling Russian elite realized that they could no longer limit themselves
to superficial Westernization. The country had to carry out profound
modernization and, first and foremost, abolish serfdom.

Reforms implemented in the 1860s-1870s helped the Russian Empire preserve
its status as a superpower. However, the country was not competitive in the
international arena. The empire could not withstand the strain of World War
I and collapsed in March 1917.

6. UKRAINIAN LANDS WITHIN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE —–

The systemic characteristics of an empire include the presence of a
politically dominant ethnos, a state region, ideology, and language. In
Russia all these characteristics were combined in one: membership in the
Orthodox faith. A German, Jew, or Tatar could occupy higher official posts
if he adopted the state religion.

All other subjects of the autocratic tsar were classed as
 “foreigners”-second-rate people. They suffered because of their different
language, religion, and national traditions. The empire treated them with
tolerance but did not trust them.

When scholars or columnists attempt to define the status of Ukrainians
within the Russian Empire, they most often forget about this main
peculiarity of the social system in the autocratic Orthodox empire. By
overlooking it, we risk invalidating our own statements about the oppressed
status of Ukrainians, which are based on objective, empirical evidence.

First of all, Ukrainians, unlike Germans, Jews, or Tatars, did not have to
prove their devotion to the empire by converting to Orthodoxy. They were
Orthodox from birth.

Second, the empire did not view Ukrainians as people of another nationality.
It considered itself an heir not only of the Riuryk dynasty, which turned
the small Muscovite Principality into a superpower, but of the entire
historical heritage of Kyivan Rus’, including the population of the
gubernias on both banks of the Dnipro. This population was even deprived
of its own ethnic name.

To nominally distance itself from the empire’s dominant nation, in the 19th
century the Ukrainian intelligentsia was forced to change the ancient Rus’
toponym “Ukraina” into an ethno-toponym.

It seems that the nature of the Ukrainians’ status in the empire was most
accurately defined by the famous Russian scholar Aleksandr Miller.

In his book entitled “The Ukrainian Question” in the Policy of the
Authorities and Russian Public Opinion (second half of the 19th century),
published in St. Petersburg in 2000, he writes: “The attitude of the
empire’s authorities and Great Russians toward Little Russians and
Belarusians envisioned integration founded on the principle of equality

of individuals with the simultaneous refusal to institutionalize these groups
as national minorities, whereas with respect to non-Slavs and western Slavs
(Poles) the principle of individual equality was rejected, but their national
minority status was not questioned.”

Translated into ordinary language, this scholarly formula means: if a Little
Russian adopted Ukrainian identity, which ruled out his membership in the
Russian nation, unlike the representatives of other ethnic groups he was
seen as a traitor and separatist in the eyes of imperial officials and
Russian patriots.

It follows from this that the Ukrainian intelligentsia could not expect to
be treated with tolerance, as it defended its nation’s right to its own
literary language, national history, and culture, which were different from
Russia’s. If it had not done this, it would have stopped being a Ukrainian
intelligentsia.

By its mere existence it asserted Little Russians as a nation separate from
the Russians, thereby challenging the imperial elite. An educated person who
did not switch to Russian in his speech evoked suspicion as a separatist and
a “Mazepite,” i.e., a separatist. Although Little Russians were not
foreigners, they nevertheless had no right to have an intelligentsia of
their own.

Nonetheless, Ukrainians did not remain an ethnographic mass. The
nation-building process was objective and irreversible. Among the Little
Russians there had always been people who had excelled economically or
spiritually, but had refused to give up their national identity.

Those who followed the path of Taras Shevchenko were outnumbered by those
who chose the path of Mykola Hohol. However, quantity was not a decisive
factor.

If Russia was simultaneously a traditional and colonial empire, this prompts
a question about the status of the Ukrainian lands: Were they part of the
metropolis or should they be considered a colony? This is not a formal
question. In our days it has become the subject of debate, even though no
subject for scholarly debate exists here.

In Ukrainian books and journalistic works Ukraine is often portrayed as
Russia’s colony. But before we make this statement, two questions must be
answered. [1] First, did the imperial elite consider Ukraine a geographic
entity, i.e., a territory with defined borders?

[2] Second, if the imperial elite did not recognize the existence of the
Ukrainian nation on a certain territory, how could they formulate their
policy toward it? For the reasons mentioned above, it is quite clear that
only the Ukrainian intelligentsia could be in the imperial elite’s field of
vision.

Thoughts about the country’s colonial status emerged only after the
revolution, when Ukraine became a geopolitical concept for the first time.
The historian Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky rightfully questioned this concept. In
his article “Ukraine’s Role in Modern History,” published in the journal
Suchasnist in 1966, he wrote: “Some historians and economists, who worked in
the early Soviet period (Slabchenko, Yavorsky, Ohloblyn, Volobuyev), used
the term ‘colonialism’ to define Ukraine’s status in the former tsarist
empire.

The choice of this notion borrowed from the Marxist arsenal was not entirely
successful. Tsarist Russia had real colonies, such as Transcaucasia and
Turkistan, but Ukraine can hardly be considered one of them. The
administration viewed Ukraine rather as belonging to the nucleus of
indigenous provinces of European Russia.”

Indeed, attempts to prove the thesis about Ukraine’s colonial status clash
with the facts. After the peasant reform of 1861 the empire’s most powerful
economic region, Donetsk-Dnipro, emerged in a matter of decades.

Two waves of railroad construction in the 1860s- 1870s and in the 1890s had
an especially significant impact on Ukraine. The prewar economic upturn of
1910-1914 was also felt especially strongly in Ukrainian cities (alongside
the industrial areas of St. Petersburg and Moscow).

The imperial elite did not view the nine gubernias and Kuban oblast, in
which Russia’s first census in 1897 revealed a predominance of Ukrainians,
as a region different from the central gubernias, in which a certain
nationality policy had to be conducted. In fact, the census did not even
include a question about nationality.

In defining Ukraine’s borders in 1917, the Central Rada was guided by
statistics on native language and confessional affiliation, which were
collected during this census. When the Provisional Government was forced to
face the reality of the Ukrainian liberation movement and Ukraine itself, it
defined its borders according to the historical, not ethnographic,
principle: based on the territory of Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s Cossack state that
had joined the Russian Empire.

According to the 1897 census, after several centuries of colonization of the
Black Sea and the Sea of Azov steppes Ukraine’s ethnographic territory was
nearly twice as large as the original territory.

The refutation of the statement about Ukraine’s colonial status means only
one thing: the Ukrainians’ oppressed status in the empire should be proved
in a different way. All available facts indicate that the empire did not
notice the presence of Ukrainians. Poles or Jews were foreigners unless they
converted to Orthodoxy, and numerous discriminatory norms were used
against them in administrative practice and at the legislative level.

However, these very norms were proof that the imperial administration
recognized the existence of Poles and Jews as national minorities, i.e., it
recognized their right to their own language and culture. Discriminatory
norms did not apply to Ukrainians only because the authorities did not
recognize their existence.

The revolution of 1905-1907 made it possible for all the nations to assert
their right to their own language and culture. When the Ukrainian political
forces attempted to implement the declarative provisions of the tsarist
manifesto of Oct. 17, 1905, this immediately revealed the painstakingly
hidden norms of the imperial elite’s policy toward Ukraine.

In May 1908, when several State Duma deputies from the Ukrainian gubernias
proposed a bill to introduce Ukrainian language in public schools, the Kyiv
Club of Russian Nationalists was outraged.

Its statement read: “The introduction of Ukrainized schools is about
destroying the popular belief in the unity of the Russian people, about
implanting in the minds of Little Russians the idea of a totally separate
Russian people, about instilling in them spiritual discord with Great
Russians, national and political separatism.”

Ukrainians responded no less sharply to statements by such “patriots,” who
were thus voicing the tacit policy of the authorities. Mykola Mikhnovsky’s
programmatic brochure Samostiina Ukraina [Independent Ukraine] contains a
harsh response to similar statements: “Even if it had been proven that we
are only a different version of the Russian nation, even then the Russians’
inhuman treatment of us sanctifies our hatred for them and our moral right
to kill the perpetrator of violence in self – defense.”

Discrimination against Ukrainians was especially pronounced during World War
I. After entering Galicia and Bukovyna in 1914, Russian troops in a matter
of weeks destroyed the entire cultural infrastructure that had taken the
Ukrainians decades to build.

German and Polish schools continued to function, but Ukrainian schools were
immediately converted into Russian schools, even though the children did not
speak Russian. All Ukrainian periodicals were abolished. During the retreat
of the tsarist army in 1915 gendarmes deported Ukrainian intellectuals and
Greek Catholic priests to remote areas in Russia.

PART III ———-

This installment concludes the publication of Stanislav Kulchytsky’s study
on Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.

7. THE SOVIET UNION AS AN IMPERIAL STATE —–

Alain Besancon, one of the West’s most authoritative researchers of Soviet
communism, made an observation that provides a key to understanding the
mechanism by which the Russian empire was transformed into the Soviet Union.

In his article published in the book The Concept of Empire, which appeared
in Paris in 1980, he pointed out that before the First World War of
1914-1918 Russia had serious prospects for resolving its social and economic
problems, but it had no chance whatsoever of resolving the national
question.

A liberal, democratic, and modernizing policy of the imperial regime could
become a key to resolving socioeconomic problems. Only this kind of policy
could earn Russia the status of superpower among the Western democratic
nations, and no alternative existed. At the same time, such a policy would
result in a revival of oppressed nations, which would inevitably undermine
the empire from within.

To preserve the Russian empire in a world that had changed completely, the
empire needed to be given a different form and substance. If we begin to be
surprised by the foundations from which the Soviet Union emerged, we must
remember Besancon’s profound observation.

The architects of the Soviet Union had only one overriding goal: to prolong
the empire’s existence, possibly within its boundaries, and better yet in a
much larger territory. The form and even substance of this multinational
state formation were secondary to this goal.

The world truly changed after the First World War. This war accelerated the
objective transition from a traditional society founded on a medieval
hierarchy to a democratic society that was founded on citizens’ equality
before the law and did not recognize such a notion as empire. Empires became
an anachronism, while the changed world order brought nation-states into the
limelight.

However, the civilizational crisis that materialized as the First World War
and the Great Depression of 1929-1933 spawned social mutations in countries
with especially high levels of social tension. Such countries did not
develop into democracies in which societies would control the state and
elect its leaders in free elections.

Instead, forces from the lower ranks of the popular masses came to the
surface of political life, forming nontraditional hierarchical structures,
taking control of the country, and exterminating their rivals. The state
established total control over their citizens, depriving them of any real
influence on political processes.

The first country to witness the triumph of totalitarianism was Soviet
Russia. The Russian revolution was marked by the almost immediate overthrow
of autocracy and spontaneous emergence of councils (“soviets”) of workers’
and soldiers’ deputies. While adapting to the councils’ demands, the
Bolshevik Party gained control of them from the inside and established its
dictatorship.

On the heels of Russia a totalitarian regime was established in Italy.
Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Party came to power on the wave of a mass
movement and started building an Italian colonial empire.

Using revanchist slogans, Adolph Hitler’s National Socialists secured a
mandate of state power in an electoral struggle against the Communists and
Social Democrats. They proceeded to establish a single-party dictatorship,
proclaiming the Third Reich and attempting to spread their “new order” in
the rest of Europe.

Soviet communism was completely unlike fascism or Nazism, although it was a
totalitarian form of government just like them. The communist state had much
greater vital strength and capabilities because it not only dominated
society, but also merged with it in an integral system.

Designed by Vladimir Lenin, the unique political regime was characterized by
a symbiosis of state party dictatorship with the completely real power of
the Soviet organs.

The Soviets and their executive committees directly controlled social life.
For this reason the communist regime became nominally associated with Soviet
power. In reality, in every segment of the administrative-territorial system
Soviet government organs were subordinated to a corresponding Communist
Party committee.

Owing to the principle of “democratic centralism” that was at the core of
the state party and its subordinate organizational structures, power was
entirely in the hands of the top communist-Soviet leadership. This political
regime had unusual properties.

On the one hand, it reached deep into the masses through a system of
councils (soviets). Millions of people were invested with real, albeit
limited, administrative or controlling functions. This created the illusion
of a popular government.

On the other hand, the country was dominated by an invisible dictatorship of
Communist Party committees, i.e., one that was not reflected in the
constitution. These committees controlled everything, from elections to
Soviet organs of power.

In the tandem that was called “Soviet power,” Communist Party committees
and executive committees of councils had different organizational
structures. The nature of the state created by the Bolsheviks was determined

by the constitutionally invisible dictatorship of their party.

The party had an external camouflage in the form of a multimillion-strong
membership, but its nomenklatura was structured as a dictatorial
hierarchical structure. Therefore, in each country where Soviet power
prevailed, this country became part of a unitary state with a highly
centralized government.

Conversely, the Soviet organs of power were structured quite democratically,
in line with the constitution. The world’s most democratic Soviet
constitutions camouflaged totalitarian pressure on society, which was
generated by the Communist Party dictatorship.

While “gathering” the empire that had broken up, Lenin not only tried to
avoid a head-on collision with the national-liberation movement, but even
tried to use the protest potential of oppressed peoples in his own
interests. This strategy proved more effective than the primitive, coercive
method of restoring the “single and undivided” Russia, which was chosen by
the main adversaries of the Bolsheviks, the White Guard generals.

To restore the multinational empire, the Bolsheviks used the advantages of
the dual construction of Soviet power. Almost simultaneously with the
introduction of Soviet statehood in Russia, Lenin started to build a
national Soviet statehood. Ukraine became the main testing ground for
implementing a corresponding policy.

The nature of national statehood created by the Bolsheviks will become clear
once we analyze the statutory rights of the republican organizations of the
Communist Party. Their official names created the misleading impression of
independent political parties.

However, the Communist Party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine was in fact a regional
organization of the unitary Russian Communist (Bolshevik) Party. It had a
central committee of its own, and party committees of Ukrainian gubernias
were subordinated to it.

However, the statutory rights of the Central Committee of the CP(B)U did not
exceed the rights of party committees in Russian gubernias, which were
directly subordinated to the CC RCP(B).

After the CC RCP(B) formed the Politburo, which concentrated absolute power
in its hands, ambitious Ukrainian communists succeeded in securing the same
title for the leading organ of the CC CP(B)U, while all other republics
simply had bureaus, not political bureaus or a Politburo.

When the CC RCP(B) introduced the post of General Secretary, Ukrainian
communists secured the same title for the head of the CC CP(B)U. (The post
of Ukrainian General Secretary existed until 1934.)

However, under the RCP(B)’s statute, the Politburo and Secretary General of
the CC CP(B)U had no more powers than the bureau and secretary of any
gubernia committee in the Russian Federation.

Even during 1917-1922, when the Russian empire, restored by the Bolsheviks,
existed as a country without a name, it remained a unitary, centralized
state.

The conglomerate of the nine formally independent states (Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, the Far Eastern Republic, the republics of Transcaucasia, Bukhara,
and Khorezm) were linked to the imperial capital in two ways: the main one –
via the dictatorship of the governing elite of the RCP(B); and an additional
one – through the direct subordination to the Soviet center in Moscow of all
uniformed services and some economic structures situated on the periphery.

National Soviet statehood functioned within the rigid parameters of a system
defined by dictatorship.

With the establishment of Soviet control over the Far East in 1922, the Far
Eastern Republic, which had previously functioned as a buffer zone, was
abolished. At the same time, the leadership in Moscow decided that it was
awkward for the state to carry on without a name. After the Civil War ended,
the victors viewed the independent national republics as an anachronism.

Combining the country with the state could be effected by “absorbing” the
national republics into the Russian Federation, i.e., by turning them into
autonomous republics. Scholars generally consider Stalin to be the author of
the idea to turn the “independent” republics into autonomous republics.

There is no doubt that he presented this project in his capacity as the
People’s Commissar of Nationalities of the Russian Socialist Federated
Soviet Republic and Secretary General of the CC RCP(B).

However, the central communist-Soviet apparatus considered such
autonomization as the only possible and quite logical way out of the
situation. The only alternative could be the further existence of the
republics as nation-state formations that were “independent” of Russia.

In analyzing the events of 1922, we should forget for a moment about another
alternative, which was Lenin’s brainchild and had not occurred to any other
politician before he voiced it.

In the absence of Lenin, who had just experienced the first onset of his
terminal illness, the organizing bureau of the CC RCP(B) approved a decision
to autonomize the national republics. It turned out, however, that this
decision was disputed by individual republican leaders, primarily CC RCP(B)
member Khristian Rakovsky.

This opposition should not be viewed as an attempt to preserve the
sovereignty of the Soviet republics, a sovereignty that did not exist to
begin with. They viewed the proposed demotion of republican status as a blow
to their prestige.

Lenin considered it best not to encroach on the interests of fellow party
members in the national republics to which he ironically referred as
“independents.” Moreover, he preferred to abandon the “infamous question of
autonomization,” as he declared in his Dec. 30, 1922, letter to the RCP(B)
leadership, and insisted on leaving the format of relations with the
republics unchanged.

While the leadership could put up with the dissatisfaction of fellow party
members, much greater danger would come from a wave of popular outrage in
the republics that were being deprived of their sovereignty.

Is there a conflict between this statement and the statement in the previous
paragraph that the national Soviet republics did not have any sovereignty
from the very outset? If there is such a conflict, it is hidden in the very
concept of national Soviet statehood developed by Lenin himself. It makes it
possible to understand how cunning and deceitful Lenin’s nationality policy
really was.

The leadership of the state party considered the autonomization of national
republics, I repeat, as a completely logical and the only possible way to
complete the process of “gathering” the lands of the former empire. However,
in his above-mentioned letter to the RCP(B) leaders Lenin called this idea
an “incorrect and untimely trick.” The autonomous republics were not states.

Autonomization would destroy constitutional national statehood, while
preserving only Soviet Russian statehood. This would revive a de facto
“single and undivided” Russia, which would be different from
pre-revolutionary Russia only in that some of its gubernias would become
autonomous national republics.

The Soviet Russian government was facing the specter of a
national-liberation struggle. Squeezed into the narrow frameworks of
autonomies, the nations that had gone through the crucible of national
revolutions would sooner or later rise to defend their rights.

Lenin proposed a fundamentally different way out of this situation. He chose
to build a centralized state not along Soviet lines, i.e., by abolishing the
national states, but along Communist Party lines. In these conditions the
sovereignty of national states was provided for in the Soviet constitutions,
but vanished in the invisible force field generated by the state party
dictatorship.

The party chief agreed that the existence of a single country with several
states was inconvenient, that was why he offered a simple way out of this
inconvenient situation, one that no one before him had ever proposed: all
the Soviet states as of 1922 – the Russian and Transcaucasian Federations,
Ukraine, and Belarus – formed another federated state on equal terms, a
“second tier” federation.”

He also proposed a name for the newly created federation: the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics of Europe and Asia. Each of the republics making
up the Soviet Union had the constitutional right to secede freely from the
union.

The unification of the Soviet republics into a single multinational state
would have been a noteworthy historical event if it were not for the state
party. In reality, the signing of the union treaty on Dec. 30, 1922, was
merely a ceremonial event that was planned in advance in the agenda of the
CC RCP(B) organizing committee.

This event was significant in that it only made the autonomization of
national republics impossible. In other words, national Soviet statehood was
not terminated.

Although Stalin occasionally accused Lenin of a liberal approach to the
national question, he fully appreciated the benefits of preserving national
Soviet statehood. Preserved in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, which
Stalin could edit as he pleased, was a clause on the republics’ right to
secede freely from the union.

As long as the force field of Communist Party dictatorship was in place,
similar constitutional norms could not undermine this empire-like unitary
state.

At the whim of state party leaders, the nations of the Soviet Union formed a
multilevel hierarchy. [1] The Russians occupied the top rung. [2] On the
rung lower were representatives of the nations that had given their names to
the union republics. In this connection the concept of “titular nation”
emerged.

The [3] third rung from the top was occupied by the peoples in the national
autonomies within the union republics. The [4] fourth rung was occupied by
the “non-titular” nations, which did not have their own union or autonomous
republics. Thus, the USSR was structured on the basis of ethnocratic
principles.

Despite the limited powers of the republican centers, the Politburo of the
CC RCP(B) decided it was dangerous to form a full-fledged center in the
Russian Federation. Only the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR

was created in Moscow, which controlled secondary enterprises. Larger
enterprises were subordinated directly to union organs. There was no party
center in Russia, while gubernia party committees were subordinated to the
CC RCP(B).

Thus, the Russians’ top spot in the hierarchy of nationalities was combined
with the absence of national statehood. Soviet Russian statehood was not
national but imperial.

Immediately after the creation of the USSR the Kremlin introduced the policy
of “indigenization”, which took the form of Ukrainization in Ukraine.
Although its main goal was to enroot Soviet power in the periphery, it
fostered a revival of national languages and cultures. Ukrainization was
implemented even in areas outside the Ukrainian SSR, which were densely
populated by Ukrainians.

In particular, the population of the Kuban, two-thirds of which was
comprised of ethnic Ukrainians, gained the opportunity to send their
children to Ukrainian schools, read Ukrainian books and magazines, and
listen to local radio broadcasts in their native language. With time
“national communists” started to hint that it would be fair to transfer the
Kuban district of the North-Caucasus Territory to Ukraine.

The national revival in Soviet Ukraine had a profound impact on the
political community of Western Ukraine. Dmytro Levytsky, the leader of the
most influential party of national democrats, wrote in the newspaper Dilo in
February 1925: “We are firmly convinced that, much like abstract communism,
the Soviet form of government is alien to the mindset of the Ukrainian
nation.

But as we register facts, we cannot make note of certain facts while
ignoring others. Therefore, we state the well-known and unquestionable fact
that the national idea is growing, strengthening, and developing in Soviet
Ukraine. As this idea is growing, the foreign shell of fictitious Ukrainian
statehood is filled with the native content of genuine statehood.”

The Kremlin chiefs valued the propagandistic merits of the demagogical
Soviet constitutions, but feared the prospect of a decorative national
statehood developing into real statehood, which could happen if the central
government became weaker.

For this very reason they deprived Russia of the attributes of national
statehood. For this very reason Ukraine, as the largest national republic,
from 1929 found itself at the epicenter of repressions designed to prevent
possible future manifestations of separatism.

This fear explains the organization of the famine-genocide of 1932-1933
under the guise of a grain procurement campaign. This fear also explains the
ban on Ukrainization outside the Ukrainian SSR and the colossal campaign to
exterminate the Ukrainian intelligentsia, which continued almost without
interruption until 1939.

In an attempt to conceal the anti-Ukrainian nature of the repressions, the
Stalinist regime with marked enthusiasm took pains with the flowering of
Ukrainian culture that was “socialist in content and national in form.” In
1934 the capital of the Ukrainian SSR was transferred from Kharkiv to the
national center of Ukraine – Kyiv.

The repressions of the 1930s defused for many decades the “ethnic bomb” that
was embedded in the foundation of the Soviet empire during the creation of
the USSR. However, the most discerning researchers in the West (much like
the mastermind behind these preventive repressions – Stalin) never forgot
that the Soviet Union could exist only within the force field created by the
state party dictatorship.

In his book [Weberian Sociological Theory – Ed.] published in New York in
1986 the sociologist Randall Collins spoke with certainty about the imminent
collapse of the Soviet Union. He predicted the outcome of the ethnocratic
principle on which this new type of empire was built: “The formal mechanism
of withdrawing from the Soviet Union is ready.

Fifteen most ethnically diverse regions are officially autonomous states
with a local mechanism of government. Now this autonomy is ineffective,
since the armed services, the monetary system, and economic planning are
controlled by central government organs, while political control is
administered by the single national Communist Party.

However, the significance of an autonomous- ethnic state structure is that
it contains ethnic definitions along with organizational structures that can
form the basis of truly separate states, if the central government becomes
significantly weaker.”

Collins predicted not only the collapse of the USSR but also the political
force that would accomplish this. This conclusion was self-evident: there
could be no civil society in a totalitarian country, and the communists had
always been the only organizationally established political force: “The
possible disintegration of the Soviet Union will most likely take place
under the leadership of former communist politicians. Taking into account
the communists’ present monopoly in the political sphere in the Soviet
Union, it will be difficult for political changes to occur in any other way,
at least initially.”

In convulsive efforts to overcome the socioeconomic crisis, Mikhail
Gorbachev set about improving the political mechanisms of the Soviet system
of government, which had not changed since Lenin’s time. The constitutional
reform that he initiated liberated the Soviet organs of power from the
dictatorship of the Communist Party.

The force field in which the union republics and Central and Eastern
European countries had existed suddenly vanished. The reformers could not
predict the resulting situation: the fictitious and propagandistic norms of
Soviet constitutions became operative.

The Baltic states and the Russian Federation, which had been politically
marginalized by the Kremlin, immediately took advantage of this situation,
followed by the remaining union republics. Divesting the CPSU of its state
party status brought about the collapse of the Soviet empire. Perestroika
spun out of the Kremlin’s control and turned into a revolutionary process.

At the core of the anti-communist revolution in the USSR, much like in any
other revolution, was the strongly expressed refusal of the popular masses
to be content with what they had. The Soviet political system along with its
command economy appeared to be an anachronism against the background of
accelerated scientific, technical, and socioeconomic progress in the West.

However, unlike during earlier social cataclysms, the driving force behind
the anti-communist revolution was the Communist Party and the Soviet
nomenklatura. This was due not only to the fact that other political forces
had begun to emerge in the USSR only during the perestroika period.

A no less, if not greater, role in the mass emergence of so-called sovereign
communists was played by the fact that the revolution was not so much an
upsurge of social energy as a self-disintegration of a system that had
exhausted its historical lifespan.

8. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: BETWEEN EMPIRE AND

NATIONAL STATE —–

I will start by mentioning two indisputable facts. [1] First, Soviet
practice knew federations of the first order (the Russian Socialist Federated
Soviet Republic, and the Transcaucasian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic)
and second order (USSR).

[2] Second, unlike the overwhelming majority of federated countries in the
world, the Soviet federation envisioned the right to secede, i.e., its
subjects could withdraw from the federation. The question is: Did the Soviet
people have the experience of living in a federated state?

In answering this question, we should try to make a careful reading of the
union and republican constitutions, which were quite numerous. Strikingly,
the word “federation” appears only in the titles of the countries.

No clause mentions any rights of the federation’s subjects, which the
federative center could not contest. The only exception was the right to
secede. Although it was proclaimed, the mechanism of secession was kept in
total secrecy.

The reason why the specifics of life in a federated state were ignored in
the constitutions is quite simple: from the very outset the Soviet Union and
the Russian Federation were not federated states. Federalism involves a
distribution of administrative powers between the center and the periphery.
Is any division of power at all possible in a dictatorship? This is a
rhetorical question.

Why and when, exactly, did the Bolsheviks arm themselves with such a

notion as federation, which was by definition alien to them?

In August 1917 Lenin sensed that his party could seize power if for a
certain period of time it abandoned the communist agenda, which was
unpopular among the masses. The Bolsheviks renounced the idea to turn the
imperialist war into a civil war and began demanding that a separate peace
treaty be concluded with the Central Powers. They abandoned the idea of
creating Soviet farms on estates seized from landowners and began
campaigning for the egalitarian distribution of land among the peasants.

Finally, they gave up the idea of a centralized state and began popularizing
the creation of a Soviet federation of free peoples. In other words, they
adopted Soviet slogans. When Lenin’s party came to power on the backs

of the soviets and established its dictatorship, it returned to its communist
agenda.

Then the empire revived by the Bolsheviks saw everything: a civil war,
soviet farms and collective farms, a “federation of free peoples,” etc.
Soviet federalism proved to be a camouflage for the ethnocratic principle,
which the “proletarian internationalists” at the helm of the state party
considered to be the most convenient for building a multinational
empire-like state.

After the elimination of the communist dictatorship, Russia turned on the
spur of the moment into a real federation. However, relations between the
center and periphery were not constitutionally regulated. For a long time,
therefore, regional elites attempted to secure as much sovereignty as
possible.

Nonetheless, President Boris Yeltsin’s efforts at the negotiating table to
eliminate the threat of disintegration resulted in a compromise. In 1994 all
federal subjects except Chechnya signed an agreement with the center,

which stated that the realization of their rights is possible only if Russia’s
state integrity is preserved, along with its political, economic, and legal
unity.

All the post-communist countries are going through a transition period from
a directed to market economy, from dictatorship to democracy.
Transformational processes in Russia have a third dimension: a transition
from empire to nation-state. The imperial cast of mind, which had formed
during centuries, remains a prominent factor in Russia’s political life.

In his book Empire and Nations (Dukh i Litera Publishers, 2000), Roman
Szporliuk quotes Geoffrey Hosking’s famous aphorism coined in 1995:
“Britain had an empire, but Russia was an empire – and perhaps still is.”

A civil society can develop only after communist dictatorship has been
toppled. Therefore, traditionally strong state institutions have the final
say in the transformational processes in the Russian Federation. However,
the state’s prospects to direct economic processes are limited by two
factors: the spontaneous collapse of the directed economy and the need to
integrate into the global economy on its terms.

The state’s possibilities for establishing a strong government are much
greater, but they are also limited by the presence of the free market, which
is linked to the global economy by thousands of tiny threads.

To revive a dictatorship, Russia would once again have to separate itself
from the rest of the world with an iron curtain. However, the country has no
influential political forces that could propose such an agenda.

However, the state in Russia can afford to slow down the process by which
the country is losing its imperial traits. It can do so owing to rich
natural resources, which fill the state coffers with foreign currency. It
draws an adequate amount of support from a significant percentage of
citizens whose historical mindset has an imperialist bent.

Many Russian citizens do not see any danger in the ethnocratic principle of
the structuring of a multinational country with a hierarchy of
nationalities. Soviet experience has not taught them anything, and they tend
to seek the use of this ethnic bomb in their national state building.

In particular, the Russian Orthodox Church persistently promotes the idea of
building a hierarchy of ethnic- confessional communities in the following
order: the state-forming Orthodox people; traditional religions (Islam,
Buddhism, Judaism); nontraditional religions (Catholicism and
Protestantism); “totalitarian sects” and the ethnic communities that are
associated with them. Doing so, it ignores the constitutional norm
concerning the equality of all ethnic and confessional communities of the
multinational peoples of Russia.

With increasing frequency the Russian press has been discussing the
unfolding demographic catastrophe, which boils down to the changing ratio
between Russians and non-Russians in favor of the latter. The threat to the
welfare and security of the indigenous population is constantly discussed in
connection with the influx of multiethnic emigrants (“profiteers,”
“terrorists,” etc.).

Ethnic minorities in Russian society are very often seen as a threat to its
stability. Even Valeriy Tishkov, director of the Institute of Ethnology at
the Russian Academy of Sciences, who was once renowned for his liberalism,
says that it is time “not only to defend oppressed minorities, but also
defend the majority from the radicalism and aggressiveness of the minority.”

President Vladimir Putin of Russia is pursuing a rather balanced policy
within Russia, respecting the constitutional rights of all citizens.
Meanwhile, in the post-Soviet space both Russian presidents adopted a policy
of reviving the USSR in various forms: the Commonwealth of Independent
States, the Slavic Union, the European-Asian Economic Commonwealth, the
Single Economic Space, etc.

Since 2000, when Putin took over the reins of power, Russia adopted a
systematic and persistent approach to dealing with Ukrainian issues. With
the emergence of the idea to form the SES, pressure on Ukraine to force it
to integrate has become simply unbearable.

In 1990 Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a small book entitled Rebuilding
Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals. His final thesis is an
emotionally charged conclusion that stems from the author’s many years of
researching Russian history: “We have no strength for an Empire! And we do
not need one. May it fall from our shoulders. It is crushing and exhausting
us, and speeding up our destruction.” Perhaps it is worth heeding the
opinion of this great thinker.

9. WE AND THE EMPIRE —–


The final chapter has the same heading as the article title. The repetition
is no accident. In the past we were an ethnographic mass exploited by the
rulers of empires for their own interests. Now we can independently define
our purpose and defend our national interests.

Books about contemporary Ukrainian-Russian relations can be written, and
they have been written. I have also written one. Here I should confine
myself to a general conclusion: if we survived under empires for hundreds of
years, if we are now an independent state on the European continent with a
territory of 603,000 square kilometers, then we will be here tomorrow and a
thousand years later.

I hit upon the subject of empires accidentally. Analyzing it on the basis of
familiar material, I spent many thrilling hours. I had to reconsider several
well-known scenarios and imagine versions of the past that never happened. I
would like to share with The Day’s readers my impressions of analyzing this
subject.

I kept thinking of the Chinese – not the contemporary Chinese who are proud
of their Celestial Empire, but those who are long gone and not mentioned in
the imperial chronicles. We do not even know their names. So we should
congratulate ourselves that in our empire there was not enough time for us.

If there had been, nobody would know anything about us, and we ourselves
would not know anything about our people. Recall that many of us did not
know our own history until 1991. Many still don’t know it.

Occasionally I read in the papers or hear on television: “Our rights are
being violated, give us a second state language!” These are my fellow
countrymen speaking, and I understand that they have the right to say this.
But I yearn to tell them that they are we, Ukrainians, and we have one
language for all.

I keep thinking about the regional breakup of Ukrainian society, which
manifested itself during the presidential elections of 2004: the west and
center versus the east and south. This is partly due to economic
circumstances that are tightly interwoven with political manipulations.

There are profounder reasons, since Ukraine is situated on a civilizational
fault line. However, regional differences should not undermine national
unity. We must remember that our ancestors in the two empires extended their
hands across the state border and became a single nation.

Finally, I will touch on the subject of the famine of 1932-1933, which is
mentioned only once in this article. This is because I revealed the
mechanism of the genocide in my series of articles entitled “Why did Stalin
exterminate the Ukrainians?” which The Day published in October and
November 2005.

An analysis of Ukraine’s existence in the Soviet empire prompts one banal
conclusion: one should never place one’s country in dependence of decisions
that are made outside its borders. In other words, one should never become a
part of an empire.

Unfortunately, the validity of this banal conclusion has yet to be proven to
some of our compatriots.                         -30-
————————————————————————————————-
PART I:     http://www.day.kiev.ua/156533/
PART II:    http://www.day.kiev.ua/156964/
PART III:   http://www.day.kiev.ua/157433/
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. SOPRANO OKSANA KROVYTSKA PERFORMS IN CONCERT
                     Sunday, September 24, 2006, Alexandria, Virginia

Chrystia Sonevytsky, Publicity Chair
The Washington Group Cultural Fund
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 20, 2006

WASHINGTON – The Washington Group Cultural Fund, in cooperation
with the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, is about to embark on its 6th
season of high quality concerts at the Lyceum in Old Town, Alexandria,
Virginia.

The first concert of the season will feature opera Diva honoree of the NYC
Opera, Oksana Krovytska, on Sunday, Sept 24th, 2006 at 3 pm.

She will perform operatic arias by Verdi, Puccini, Dvorak and art songs by
Barvinsky, Ludkevych and Kolessa. She will be accompanied by pianist
Oksana Skidan.

The Lyceum is located at 201 S.Washington St., Alexandria, VA. There is
a suggested donation of $20.00

       BIOGRAPHY: OKSANA KROVYTSKA, SOPRANO

Ukrainian soprano Oksana Krovytska, honored with New York City Opera’s
coveted ‘Diva Award,’ remains ‘…the object of our admiration.’ says the
New York Times.

With the New York City Opera, she performs to critical acclaim in roles such
as Donna Elvira in Don Giovanni, Musetta and Mimi in La Bohème, Violetta in
La Traviata, Liu in Turandot, Magda in La Rondine, Yaroslavana in a new
production of Borodin’s Prince Igor, and numerous appearances as

Cio-Cio-San in Madama Butterfly including a new production by Mark Lamos.

The New York Post says, ‘Oksana Krovytska was both impassioned and
vulnerable in the title role and delivered a sweetly modulated `Un bel di,’
that prompted the audience’s vigorous approval.’

In addition, Ms. Krovytska is praised worldwide in portrayals at the Florida
Grand Opera, L’Opéra de Montréal, San Francisco Opera, Florentine Opera,
Bolshoi Theatre in Russia, Arizona Opera, Lyric Opera of Kansas City,
Santiago Opera, as well as with symphony orchestras in Tokyo, the Colorado
Symphony, Opera Orchestra of New York, Milwaukee Symphony, Baltimore
Symphony, the RTVE Symphony Orchestra in Madrid, and the New Jersey

Symphony in Dvorak’s Requiem with Maestro Zdenek Macal, which was
recorded on Delos Records and received a Grammy award.

Most recently, Ms. Krovytska performed Renata in Fiery Angel with the
Bolshoi Theatre Tour in Ljublijana, Amelia in Un Ballo in Maschera with the
Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Senta in The Flying Dutchman with Anchorage
Opera and the Tokyo National Orchestra, Cio-Cio-San in Madama Butterfly

with Florida Grand Opera, and the title role in Suor Angelica with Opera Santa
Barbara. In 2006, she reprises the roles of Senta in The Flying Dutchman
with Arizona Opera and New Jersey Opera Theatre, and the title role in Suor
Angelica with Opera Santa Barbara.

European engagements have included Margherita and Elena in Boito’s
Mefistofele with the Casals Festival, Elvira in Ernani with Santiago Opera,
Marguerite in Faust with Opera de Bellas Artes in Mexico, Marie in Smetana’s
Bartered Bride with Opera de Monte Carlo, and Agnes in Tchaikovsky’s Maid

of Orleans at the Bard Festival. Shehas appeared frequently at the Opern Air
Festival in Austria as Liu in Turandot, Mimi in La Bohème, and Micaela in
Carmen.   (http://www.pinnaclearts.com/artist.php?id=394).
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. IEU FEATURES THE UKRAINIAN IMPRESSIONIST PAINTERS

Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, September 2006

An important movement in painting that arose in France in the late 1860s
and is linked with artists such as Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, August
Renoir, and Alfred Sisley, impressionism had a strong influence on
Ukrainian painting. The first Ukrainian impressionists appeared at the end
of the 19th century and were graduates of the Cracow Academy of Fine Arts.

Impressionism remained a major trend in Ukrainian painting until the early
1930s and it gave rise to Neo-impressionism, which attempted to base
painting on scientific theory; Postimpressionism, which cultivated the
esthetics of color; and Pointillism, which broke down colors into their
elementary hues and distributed them in mosaic-like patterns.

 
Learn more about the influence of the impressionist movement on Ukrainian
art and the major representatives of this style in Ukraine by visiting:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/featuredentry.asp or by visiting:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com and searching for such entries as:

IMPRESSIONISM. The original French impressionist painters sought to capture
with short strokes of unmixed pigment the play of sunlight on objects. The
name of the movement was derived from Claude Monet’s “Impressions: Sunrise”
(1872). Oleksa Novakivsky, who later embraced symbolic expressionism, was
one of the first Ukrainian impressionists. Ivan Trush, who preferred to
work with grayed colors, adopted impressionism only partly.

 
Mykola Burachek captured the sunbathed colors of the Ukrainian steppe, while
Mykhailo Zhuk and Ivan Severyn introduced decorative elements into their
impressionist works. Other leading exponents of Ukrainian impressionism were
Oleksander Murashko, Vasyl Krychevsky, Petro Kholodny (landscapes and
portraits), Mykola Hlushchenko, and Oleksii Shovkunenko…

OLEKSANDER MURASHKO, b 7 September 1875 in Kyiv, d 14 June 1919
in Kyiv. Painter. He studied at the Kyiv Drawing School (1891-4), under Ilia
Repin at the Saint Petersburg Academy of Arts (1894-1900), and in Munich

and Paris (1902-4). In 1907 he settled in Kyiv, where he taught painting at the
Kyiv Art School and at his own studio. In 1909 he exhibited his canvases in
Paris, Munich, and Amsterdam, and in 1910 at the international exhibition
in Venice and at one-man shows in Berlin, Koln, and Dusseldorf.
 
From 1911 he exhibited with the Munich Sezession group. In 1916 he joined the
Peredvizhniki society and became a founding member of the Kyiv Society of
Artists. He was a cofounder of the Ukrainian State Academy of Arts in 1917
and served there as a professor and rector. Murashko’s style evolved from
the realism of the Peredvizhniki school into a vivid, colorful
impressionism…

KRYCHEVSKY, VASYL, b 12 January 1873 in Vorozhba, Lebedyn county,
Kharkiv gubernia, d 15 November 1952 in Caracas, Venezuela. Outstanding
art scholar, architect, painter, graphic artist, set designer, and a master
of applied and decorative art. Working as an independent architect and artist,
he achieved a national reputation by the time of the outbreak of the First
World War.

 
During the revolutionary period he was a founder and the first
president of the Ukrainian State Academy of Arts. After the war he lived
briefly in Paris before immigrating in 1947 to South America. As a painter
Krychevsky was deeply influenced by French impressionism. The pure and
harmonious colors of his south-Ukrainian landscapes or Kyiv cityscapes
(done in oils and watercolors) convey a lyrical atmosphere…

BURACHEK, MYKOLA, b 16 March 1871 in Letychiv, Podilia gubernia,

d 12 August 1942 in Kharkiv. Impressionist painter and pedagogue. Burachek
studied in Kyiv and graduated from the Cracow Academy of Fine Arts in 1910.
His first exhibit was held in 1907. In 1910-12 he worked in the studio of
Henri Matisse in Paris.
 
In 1917-22 he served as professor at the Ukrainian State Academy of Arts in
Kyiv and then at the Kyiv State Art Institute and the Lysenko Music and
Drama School in Kyiv. From 1925 to 1934 he was rector of the Kharkiv Art
Institute and then returned to the Kyiv State Art Institute. A master landscape
painter, he rendered Ukrainian landscapes in a colorful, impressionist style.

HLUSHCHENKO, MYKOLA, b 17 September 1901 in Novomoskovske,
Katerynoslav gubernia, d 31 October 1977 in Kyiv. Artist. A graduate of the
Academy of Art in Berlin (1924), from 1925 he worked in Paris where he
immediately attracted the attention of French critics. From the Neue
Sachlichkeit style of his Berlin period he changed to postimpressionism.

 
Besides numerous French, Italian, Dutch, and (later) Ukrainian landscapes, he
also painted flowers, still life, nudes, and portraits. At the beginning of the 1930s,
Hlushchenko belonged to the Association of Independent Ukrainian Artists
and helped organize its large exhibition of Ukrainian, French, and Italian
paintings at the National Museum in Lviv. In 1936 he moved to the USSR, but
was allowed to live in Ukraine only after the war.             -30-
————————————————————————————————
The preparation, editing, and display of the IEU entries associated with
the Ukrainian impressionist painters was made possible by the financial
support of the CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR UKRAINIAN STUDIES.
————————————————————————————————
ABOUT IEU: Once completed, the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine will
be the most comprehensive source of information in English on Ukraine, its
history, people, geography, society, economy, and cultural heritage. With
over 20,000 detailed encyclopedic entries supplemented with thousands of
maps, photographs, illustrations, tables, and other graphic and/or audio
materials, this immense repository of knowledge is designed to present
Ukraine and Ukrainians to the world.

At present, only 10% of the entire planned IEU database is available on the
IEU site. New entries are being edited, updated, and added daily. However,
the successful completion of this ambitious and costly project will be
possible only with the financial aid of the IEU supporters. Become the IEU
supporter and help the CIUS in creating the world’s most authoritative
electronic information resource about Ukraine and Ukrainians!
———————————————————————————————–
Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine
Project Manager, Hrushevsky Translation Project
Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto
20 Orde Street, Rm. 124, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1N7
tel: (416) 946-7326; fax: (416) 978-2672; m.stech@utoronto.ca
www.utoronto.ca/cius; www.encyclopediaofukraine.com
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
4.   SUMMER 2006 ISSUE OF THE UKRAINIAN QUARTERLY

The Ukrainian Quarterly, New York, New York, September 2006

NEW YORK – The new Summer 2006 issue of The Ukrainian Quarterly is

now available.  The English-language scholarly journal includes such
interesting articles as:

   [1] OUN-Between Collaboration and Confrontation with Nazi Germany;
   [2] The Political Prisoner’s Dilemma: Evidence from the Great Terror in

         the Soviet Union;
   [3] The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 as Genocide in the Light of the
         UN Convention of 1948; and,
   [4] The Emergence of State Polity and National Aspirations in Ukraine –
        Two Coins or Two Sides of One Coin?

To purchase a copy of The Ukrainian Quarterly, please send check or money
order in the amount of $8USD to:

The Ukrainian Quarterly, 203 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10003. E-mail:
uq@ucca.org.                                          
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.   IEU FEATURES BROTHERHOODS: THE PROMOTERS OF
   EDUCATION AND CULTURE IN EARLY MODERN UKRAINE

Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August, 2006

Ukraine and Belarus were the only countries where Orthodox lay brother-
hoods came into being. Although structurally similar to their western
European counterparts, the Eastern-rite brotherhoods developed their

unique features and their activities coincided with a period of crucial
social and cultural change in early modern Ukraine.

The Ukrainian brotherhoods assumed the task of defending the Orthodox
faith and Ukrainian nationality by counteracting Catholic and particularly
Jesuit expansionism, Polonization, and later conversion to the Uniate
church.

The schools attached to the Orthodox brotherhoods in several larger cities
disseminated European humanist ideas and introduced generally accessible
post-humanist education, while the brotherhood presses promoted the
development of scholarship and literature.

Learn more about the brotherhoods and their crucial influence on education
and culture in early modern Ukraine by visiting:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/featuredentry.asp; (a comprehensive
study of the brotherhood movement can also be found in the book:
http://www.utoronto.ca/cius/publications/books/isaievychbrotherhood.htm)
or by visiting: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com and searching for
such entries as:

BROTHERHOODS. Fraternities affiliated with individual churches in Ukraine
and Belarus that performed a number of religious and secular functions. The
origins of brotherhoods can be traced back to the medieval bratchyny, which
were organized at churches in the Princely era. Brotherhoods as such
appeared in Ukraine in the mid-15th century, with the rise of the burgher
class.

They began to play a historical role in the second half of the 16th
and at the beginning of the 17th century. The brotherhoods endeavored to
reform the Orthodox church from within by condemning the corrupt practices
of the hierarchy and of individual clergymen. They brought about a revival
in the life of the church by promoting cultural and educational activity.
They founded brotherhood schools, printing presses, and libraries.

BROTHERHOOD SCHOOLS. Schools founded by religious brotherhoods
for the purposes of counteracting the denationalizing influence of Catholic
(Jesuit) and Protestant schools and of preserving the Orthodox faith began
to appear in the 1580s. The first school was established in 1586 by the
Lviv Dormition Brotherhood. The school served as a model for other
brotherhood schools in various towns of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,
most of them in Ukraine and Belarus. In the first half of the 17th century even

some villages had brotherhood schools.
 
The most prominent schools were the Lviv Dormition Brotherhood School and
Kyiv Epiphany Brotherhood School. In 1631, the latter was merged with the
Kyivan Cave Monastery School to form the Kyivan Mohyla College, which
later became the Kyivan Mohyla Academy.

LVIV DORMITION BROTHERHOOD. An Orthodox religious association
founded in the 15th century by Lviv merchants and tradesmen at the Dormition
Church in Lviv. It is the oldest and one of the leading Ukrainian
brotherhoods, andit served as an example to other brotherhoods. There are

historical references to it dating back to 1463.

According to its charter, which was confirmed by Patriarch Joachim V of
Antioch in 1586 and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople in 1589, the
brotherhood was independent of the local bishops (right of stauropegion) and
subject directly to the Patriarch of Constantinople. It had the right to
oversee the activities not only of secular members of the church but also

of the clergy and even the bishops.

KYIV EPIPHANY BROTHERHOOD. A church brotherhood established ca
1615 at the Kyiv Epiphany Brotherhood Monastery in the Podil district by
wealthy burghers, nobles, clerics, and Cossacks to defend the Orthodox faith
from the onslaught of Polish rule and Catholicism. Hetman Petro
Konashevych-Sahaidachny gave it a great deal of support and joined it ‘with
the entire Zaporozhian Host’ in 1620.

 
That same year the Orthodox Kyiv metropoly was restored and the brotherhood
acquired stauropegion status and the right to establish a ‘brotherhood for young
men’ from the visiting patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophanes III. The Polish king
Sigismund III Vasa granted the brotherhood a royal charter in 1629.

LUTSK BROTHERHOOD OF THE ELEVATION OF THE CROSS. A
renowned Orthodox brotherhood founded in 1617 in Lutsk by H. Mykulych,
 the hegumen of the Chernchytsi monastery located near the city. The Lutsk
Brotherhood included monks, priests, bishops, nobles, aristocrats, and
members of the middle class from Lutsk and Volhynia.

 
It received a charter from the Polish king Sigismund III Vasa in 1619 and was
granted the status of stauropegion by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1623.
It ran the Lutsk Brotherhood of the Elevation of the Cross School and
operated a printing press in the monastery. After Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s era
the brotherhood entered a period of steady decline.                       -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
    Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR.    
       You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
   If you are missing some issues of the AUR please let us know.
========================================================
         “ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
         A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
                With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
 
      Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
                Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
                                  Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
      SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
                “SigmaBleyzer – Where Opportunities Emerge”
 
The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.
 
All publications are grouped by categories: Marketing; Economic Country
Reports; Presentations; Ukrainian Equity Guide; Monthly Macroeconomic
Situation Reports (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
 
You can be on an e-mail distribution list to receive automatically, on a
monthly basis, any or all of the Macroeconomic Situation Reports (Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine) by sending an e-mail to mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com.
               “UKRAINE – A COUNTRY OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES”
========================================================
   UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
========================================================
    “WELCOME TO UKRAINE”- “NARODNE MYSTETSTVO”

                                   (Folk Art) MAGAZINES
For information on how to subscribe to the “Welcome to Ukraine” magazine
in English, or the Ukrainian Folk Art magazine “Narodne Mystetstvo” in
Ukrainian, write to ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. Complete information is
========================================================
              ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS
                              Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
               Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
          “Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”

1.  THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura,
Chairman; Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Washington, D.C., http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
   Additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine Program are:
2. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA), Zenia Chernyk,
Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President; Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 298 7275 in Kyiv,
kau@ukrnet.net
4.  ESTRON CORPORATION, Grain Export Terminal Facility &
Oilseed Crushing Plant, Ilvichevsk, Ukraine
5. Law firm UKRAINIAN LEGAL GROUP, Irina Paliashvili, President;
Kiev and Washington, general@rulg.com, www.rulg.com.
6. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC., Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
7. VOLIA SOFTWARE, Software to Fit Your Business, Source your
IT work in Ukraine. Contact: Yuriy Sivitsky, Vice President, Marketing,
Kyiv, Ukraine, yuriy.sivitsky@softline.kiev.ua; Volia Software website:
http://www.volia-software.com/ or Bill Hunter, CEO Volia Software,
Houston, TX  77024; bill.hunter@volia-software.com.
8. ODUM– Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson
9. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Washington, D.C.,
Dr. Susanne Lotarski, President/CEO; E. Morgan Williams,
SigmaBleyzer, Chairman, Executive Committee, Board of Directors;
John Stephens, Cape Point Capital, Secretary/Treasurer
10. UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE USA, South
Brown Brook, New Jersey, http://www.uocofusa.org
11. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL (UACC),
Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, New York
12. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John Kun, Vice President/COO; Vera
Andruskiw, CPP Wash Project Director, Washington, D.C.; Markian
Bilynskyj, VP/Director of Field Operations; Marta Kolomayets, CPP
Kyiv Project Director, Kyiv, Ukraine. Web: http://www.USUkraine.org
13. WJ GROUP of Ag Companies, Kyiv, Ukraine, David Holpert, Chief
Financial Officer, Chicago, IL; http://www.wjgrain.com/en/links/index.html
14. EUGENIA SAKEVYCH DALLAS, Author, “One Woman, Five
Lives, Five Countries,” ‘Her life’s journey begins with the 1932-1933
genocidal famine in Ukraine.’ Hollywood, CA, www.eugeniadallas.com.
15. ALEX AND HELEN WOSKOB, College Station, Pennsylvania
16. SWIFT FOUNDATION, San Luis Obispo, California
17. TRAVEL TO UKRAINE website, http://www.TravelToUkraine.org,
A program of the U.S-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C.
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,
and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.
 
If you do not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please
contact us immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.  If you are
receiving more than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected
 
              SPAM BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

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

========================================================
                        PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

AUR#762 Sep 24 We And The Empire: Ukraine’s Existence Within Empires & Some Enduring Historical Myths; Outstanding Concert, Sunday, Sep 24, 2006, 3 PM

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

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

 
                             “WE AND THE EMPIRE”
    Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.
                                                      
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 762
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
WASHINGTON, D.C., SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2006
 
                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


1.                                    “WE AND THE EMPIRE”
      Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.
      “An analysis of Ukraine’s existence in the Soviet empire prompts one
      banal conclusion: one should never place one’s country in dependence
      of decisions that are made outside its borders. In other words, one
      should never become a part of an empire. Unfortunately, the validity of
      this banal conclusion has yet to be proven to some of our compatriots.”

ARTICLE: By Stanislav Kulchytsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Professor, Deputy Director, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest in English, Kyiv, Ukraine
#2 Tuesday, January 31, 2006; #3 Tuesday, 7 February 2006
#4 Tuesday, 14 February, 2006

2.     SOPRANO OKSANA KROVYTSKA PERFORMS IN CONCERT
                Sunday, September 24, 2006, Alexandria, Virginia, 3 p.m.
Chrystia Sonevytsky, Publicity Chair
The Washington Group Cultural Fund
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 20, 2006

3.   IEU FEATURES THE UKRAINIAN IMPRESSIONIST PAINTERS
Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, September 2006

4.       SUMMER 2006 ISSUE OF THE UKRAINIAN QUARTERLY
The Ukrainian Quarterly, New York, New York, September 2006

5.       IEU FEATURES BROTHERHOODS: THE PROMOTERS OF
        EDUCATION AND CULTURE IN EARLY MODERN UKRAINE
Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August, 2006
========================================================
1
                             “WE AND THE EMPIRE”
     Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.

     “An analysis of Ukraine’s existence in the Soviet empire prompts one
     banal conclusion: one should never place one’s country in dependence
     of decisions that are made outside its borders. In other words, one
     should never become a part of an empire. Unfortunately, the validity of
     this banal conclusion has yet to be proven to some of our compatriots
.”

ARTICLE: By Stanislav Kulchytsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences,

Professor, Deputy Director, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest in English, Kyiv, Ukraine,
#2 Tuesday, January 31, 2006; #3 Tuesday, 7 February 2006
#4 Tuesday, 14 February, 2006

I am writing a different foreword than the one I initially planned. I must
respond to a diplomatic scandal that broke out in the last days of the “gas
war.” When First Deputy Foreign Minister Anton Buteiko was on Channel 5,
a viewer called and said, “You have an unfriendly attitude toward Russia
because you wrote in a newspaper that it is an empire that will fall apart.”

After Buteiko pointed out reasonably that he was not taking his words back,
since empires tend to fall apart sooner or later, the Russian foreign
ministry reacted instantly. The Ukrainian diplomat was officially accused of
an unfriendly attitude to Russia.

Should a person be offended when he is told that sooner or later he will
die? Should a government feel offended by a statement that its country will
one day exist in a different form? Both questions are identical. I believe
that this scholarly problem should not be instantly turned into a political
one.

The only justification is that everyone in Russia and Ukraine was edgy
during the New Year celebrations. Although it was a gas war, it was
nevertheless a war.

I will summarize the originally planned introduction, because it is
necessary. A team of Ukrainian scholars is working on an eight-volume
Encyclopedia of the History of Ukraine. It is an analytical publication
rather than a reference source, a survey of modern knowledge about
Ukraine’s past against the background of world history.

After I prepared a series of articles for the third EHU volume, for the
entries “imperialism,” “emperor,” [imperator] “imperium,” and “empire,”
I decided to rewrite them in newspaper format for The Day. I am
convinced that the imperial problem is a topical one.

1. IMPERIUM —–

Arguments often arise because of vague concepts. We listen to our opponent
but do not hear him; we do not pay attention to the precise content of a
concept and lose track of the line between the identical roots of terms.
When this concerns history, which is not only an academic subject and
science but also a significant part of our consciousness, unpleasant
consequences may arise.

The historical awareness of influential politicians is crammed with myths
that prevent them from responding adequately to events. This also applies
to the imperial topic in which quite a few myths have accumulated.

We should start with the key concept of empire, or imperium. The existence
of this term simultaneously in the Ukrainized and original, i.e., Latin,
form indicates that it is seldom used. It is used mostly in its transformed
appearance, as a legal term.

Imperium is the right of a state to wield exclusive juridical power within
the limits of its national territory, including territorial waters and
airspace over land.

This term is absent in everyday language, although it has a precise meaning:
unlimited authority, including the right to dispose of citizens’ lives and
property. The point at issue is power, not the individual vested with it.
Everyday thinking is concretized, and we are interested not in an abstract
property but in the carrier of this unlimited power.

That is why the concept of imperium has not become part of our daily
vocabulary. Instead, a number of other, nearly synonymous, concepts, have
appeared, which indicate the carrier of power: dictator, autocrat, monarch,
emperor.

2. EMPEROR —–

A short and precise definition of the term “emperor” is: one who has an
imperium. The first emperors appeared in republican Rome, i.e., they were
not monarchs. The Senate of the Roman Republic bestowed this honorary
title on military leaders after a great victory.

Some military leaders were emperors several times. They had unlimited
authority over their armies, not only by virtue of their positions but as a
result of their personal authority.

The Roman Republic was becoming an empire while preserving the outward
signs of a republic. Octavian turned the military title of emperor into a
hereditary one for the head of state, and Vespasian expanded the content
with which it was filled (the carrier of unlimited power) to civilians.

This meant that the emperor was entitled to dispose of the lives and
property of his subjects. The Roman emperors went even further and
proclaimed themselves living gods.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, the title of emperor was
retained by the head of the Byzantine Empire. In Western Europe, it was
reinstated by Pope Leo III who crowned Charlemagne (Charles the Great)
emperor in 800. After the fall of Charlemagne’s empire the title was
transferred to Germany.

Its rulers identified themselves as emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the
German nation, a state formation that existed only on paper. Starting in the
15th century, this title was held almost continuously by the Austrian
Habsburgs.

In the new European history Peter I and Napoleon Bonaparte wanted to become
emperors. After signing a victorious peace agreement with Sweden in 1721,
the Russian Senate and Synod conferred on Peter I the title of emperor and
the appellations “Great” and “Father of His Native Land.”

Some countries protested the appearance of another emperor in Europe. The
Rzeczpospolita recognized the Russian emperor only in 1764.

Napoleon was crowned emperor of France in 1804. In 1806, when the Holy
Roman Empire of the German nation was liquidated, German emperor Franz
II became Austrian emperor Franz I.

In 1852, Napoleon’s nephew Napoleon III became emperor of France. He lost
power after the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, and France once again
became a republic. In contrast, Prussian king Wilhelm I, after defeating
France in 1871, united Germany, proclaimed it the Second Reich, and donned
the German emperor’s crown.

Five years later Queen Victoria of Great Britain became the empress of
colonial India; a year later the Turkish sultan proclaimed himself the
Ottoman emperor. The monarchs of China, Japan, Siam, Brazil, Mexico,
Abyssinia, and several other countries began calling themselves by the
European title of emperor. The Japanese empire perished in the fires of
WWII, but the emperor’s title is still held by the head of state. No other
emperors exist in the 21st century.

3. EMPIRE —–

Empires are states that have fundamentally increased in size by
incorporating originally independent countries and/or stateless territories.
It is difficult to grasp the typology of empires because each empire was a
closed world with its own forms of life.

Perhaps the only common denominator was the presence of an emperor, who
wielded supreme power in every region of the motley conglomerate of formerly
independent states and stateless territories.

However, even here there were exceptions. Russia was an empire long before
Peter I was proclaimed emperor. The British Empire had no emperor and the
head of state was the king (queen). Japan is not an empire but has an
emperor.

There are at least seven systemic signs by which an empire may be
distinguished from other types of states.

[1] First, the authority of the emperor, which had a sacred character. State
bodies were called upon to implement the sacred will of the head of state,
expressed in the form of laws and edicts.

[2] Second, the policy of imperialism, i.e., expansion, whose goal was to
add territory. As a rule, this policy was aimed at subjugating countries
that were weaker in military, economic, and cultural terms in order to
exploit their human and material resources and/or to colonize them by its
own population. Expansion could be implemented through conquest or
peaceful means.

[3] Third, the poly-ethnicity of a population alongside a politically
dominant ethnos.

[4] Fourth, the presence of a centralized government and hierarchically
constructed stratum of privileged state officials.

[5] Fifth, the existence of a state religion, ideology, and language.

There are two types of empires: traditional and colonial. The Roman and
Chinese empires were classic examples of traditional empires.

The Roman Empire represented a separate phase in the existence of a
civilization known at the time as Mediterranean, which is now called
Euro-Atlantic. The ancient Roman heritage has played an important role in
the history of the Euro-Atlantic civilization, even though the empire
disappeared 1,500 years ago.

The destiny of the Chinese empire took an essentially different course.
Nearly 35 centuries elapsed from the emergence of the Qing dynasty in the
Huang He river valley until the proclamation of the republic in 1912. During
that period hundreds of peoples inhabiting the subcontinent were being
transformed into a single people that had developed an original and advanced
civilization.

So the fall of the last imperial Qing dynasty did not cause the country to
fall apart. Even the millions of Chinese living in the diaspora in various
countries remain true to the traditions of their forefathers.

The modern People’s Republic of China is not an empire but an almost
monoethnic country that displays an amazing ability to adapt the
achievements of global scientific and technological progress.

In the distant past, empires fell apart from the blows of other conquerors.
The last traditional empires collapsed during and after the Great War of
1914-1918. However, that war only strengthened the inner factors of
instability of imperial-type states, which had been accumulating in previous
decades.

Here I am specifically talking about the disappearance of the imperium in
the course of transforming absolute monarchies into constitutional ones,
and, more importantly, about the formation of nations. Nations are cramped
within imperial frameworks.

Colonial empires began to arise in the age of great geographical
discoveries. Within a couple of hundred years Spain, Portugal, England,
Holland, France, Belgium, Russia, and Germany turned practically the entire
world into colonies or spheres of influence.

Unlike traditional empires, which are composed of provinces with more or
less identical status, colonial empires were divided into a mother country
and colonies. In fact, the expression “colonial empire” is not very
accurate. It would be more accurate to say that states with colonies were
not empires as such; they possessed colonial empires.

There are two exceptions from this rule: in the case of Germany, it is
formal; but in the case of Russia, essential. Germany appropriated the
status of the former Holy Roman Empire of the German nation but remained a
nation-state, as a federation of German-speaking territories, except for
Austria. Russia became a colonial empire after conquering Transcaucasia and
Central Asia, but remained a traditional one.

Countries that owned colonies used them in a variety of ways. If colonies
had large populations with a highly developed culture, the colonialists
exploited their manpower and material resources in their own interests.

The Spanish and Portuguese aristocracies squandered the wealth of the
colonies, but in other Western European countries they became an important
factor in accumulating capital and laid the foundations of their economic
might.

If the population of a colony was in the early stages of development and had
a small population, the newly ceded territory was settled by colonists from
the mother country

The North American colonies of Great Britain won independence in a war with
the mother country, after which the settlement of the continent by people
from many European countries acquired its own dynamics.

From the outset the development of the United States did not have an
imperial character, and it proceeded according to democratic principles,
despite the tragic lot of the aboriginal population and the existence of
slavery in the southern states until the mid-19th century. The Russian
empire demonstrated a different type of progress.

The colonization of Siberia and the Far East (by Ukrainians, among others)
resulted only in the huge territorial expansion of the empire.

The colonial states (which were joined by Italy between the two World Wars)
got rid of their colonies after the Second World War as a result of a
powerful national-liberation movement on the part of oppressed peoples and
the continuing democratization of the mother countries’ social and political
systems. In many cases the second factor was crucial.

The collapse of the British Empire proved to be the longest and at the same
time comparatively painless. This official name was given in the 1870s to
the totality of possessions of Great Britain throughout the world (colonies,
protectorates, mandated and trust territories) on which the sun never set.

At first the overseas territories settled mostly by British colonists lost
their colonial nature. Canada acquired the status of a dominion, i.e., a
self-governing territory, in 1867, the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901,
and New Zealand in 1907.

With time Ceylon (today: Sri Lanka) and several other colonies with their
local populace became dominions. In 1931, a separate act of parliament
replaced the term “empire” by “commonwealth.”

The British Commonwealth of Nations was being formed, i.e., a union of
formally equal states, based on “a common allegiance to the Crown.”
Substantial changes were made in the structure of the Commonwealth in
1949-52, which were aimed at asserting the sovereignty of its members.

The modifier “British” was dropped from the name of the Commonwealth, and
the principle of allegiance to the Crown was no longer mandatory. After 1965
the ruling organ of the Commonwealth became the conferences of its member
states.

A permanent secretariat was formed at the office of the Commonwealth
Secretary, which took over the responsibilities of the British Cabinet of
Ministers and the Ministry of Commonwealth Affairs, the latter having been
abolished after the creation of the secretariat.

4. UKRAINIAN LANDS IN THE AUSTRIAN EMPIRE —–

Interest in the imperial type of political organization and culture has
revived in modern journalism and history studies. Perhaps this may be
explained by the expansion of the European Union. Although everyone
understands the principal difference between the EU and an empire, certain
political scientists are beginning to ponder categories that so far exist
only in theory: post-national identity and post-sovereign nation.

On the other hand, the nation-states that were formed in Central Europe
after the Great War of 1914-1918 are no longer regarded as the only possible
type of political existence of human communities.

The American historian Mark von Hagen, who headed the International
Association of Ukrainian Studies until 2005, explained this by the awakening
of nostalgia for certain multinational, dynastic empires that could regulate
interethnic relations better than modern nation-states.

He is referring first and foremost to the Austrian Empire, which lasted
until 1918. Its nonexistence for almost a century is giving rise to a vacuum
in modern social thought; hence, the presence of idealized views on
inter-national relations in the Habsburg empire. In any case, this
idealization is clearly apparent in Ukrainian diasporic and post-Soviet
historiography.

The Austrian Empire had a territory about the same size as modern Ukraine
(676,000 and 603,000 sq. km, respectively). Just as the Dnipro crosses
Ukraine, the Danube bisected Austria. Its population was roughly the same
size (over 51 million), which placed it third in Europe at the beginning of
the 20th century, after the Russian and German empires.

Not coincidentally, the Austrian monarchy was described as a patchwork
quilt. Over a period of several centuries the Austrian Habsburgs pieced it
together from many countries with different historical destinies.

It was inhabited by 12 million Germans, 10 million Hungarians, 6.5 million
Czechs, 5 million Poles, over 4 million Ukrainians, 3.5 million Croats and
Serbs, more than 2 million Romanians, 2 million Slovaks, and over 1 million
Slovenians.

The country consisted of two separate states divided by a border along the
river Leitha: Cisleithania (the lands of the Austrian crown) and
Transleithania (the lands of the Hungarian crown), as well as Bosnia and
Herzegovina, which were annexed in 1908. Cisleithania comprised the
Principality of Galicia and Lodomeria and the Principality of Bukovyna,
where 3.7 million Ukrainians lived. Transleithania was inhabited by 470,000
Ukrainians (mostly in Transcarpathia).

The formation of nations in Central- Eastern Europe was delayed by at least
one century in comparison with Western Europe.

Transcarpathian, Bukovynian, and Galician Ukrainians practically did not
communicate. They were an ethnographic mass deprived of a political and
economic ruling class. Imperial bureaucrats did not deal with them but with
their masters-Polish, Hungarian, and German aristocrats.

Changes began with the Spring of Nations, as Western historians call the
revolution of 1848-1849. The clergy, as the only educated Ukrainian social
stratum, demanded that the ethnic lands be united into a single crown land
and granted autonomy. From then on this was the key demand of all Ukrainian
political forces until the end of the empire.

Emperor Franz Josef, who ruled from 1848 to 1916, had a long rule as
absolute and constitutional monarch. He was very flexible in his treatment
of his subjects representing various nationalities, which gave rise to the
legend about the wondrous tolerance of the Austrian Empire with respect to
the national question.

However, he made concessions only to the Hungarians, who were especially
insistent in their demands for political rights. In 1867 the empire was
divided into two separate multinational states: Austria and Hungary.

Czech demands for identical rights to the lands of the crown of Saint Vaclav
(Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia) were ignored. Slavs made up about one-half
of the empire’s motley population but did not form a single front of the
liberation struggle.

Moreover, Ukrainian and Polish interests were at odds. Both peoples claimed
the same territory. The Principality of Galicia and Lodomeria was formed out
of the eastern part of Galicia (Halychyna) with the center in Lviv (until
1772 it was known as Ruske voievodstvo) and the western, predominantly
Polish, part with its center in Krakow.

In 1997 Roman Szporluk, the director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research
Institute, published an article in the journal Daedalus, in which he shed
new light on the historical destiny of Ukrainians in the Austrian Empire.

Before, historians stressed only one aspect of the changes in the Ukrainian
way of life after the transition from Poland to Austria: serfs were now
legal subjects and de jure human beings. Szporluk proved that Vienna created
a new dimension in the process of forming the Ukrainian nation.

Indeed, socioeconomic reforms, beginning with the abolition of serfdom,
created only the prerequisites for the formation of the nation. The attitude
of the state was important. The state, which was personified not by the
Polish king but the Austrian emperor, could create more favorable conditions
for the Ukrainians’ national rebirth. After all, the Habsburg Empire had no
reasons to impede the national rebirth of both the Ukrainians and Poles.

In his article Szporluk emphasized that the better organized Poles took
greater advantage of Vienna’s tolerant national policy. After 1772,
Polonization of the former Ruske voievodstvo in the Rzeczpospolita was
carried out more intensively than during the four preceding centuries, from
1370 to 1772.

The imperial government was more willing to make concessions in the national
question to the consolidated Polish forces than the disorganized Ruthenians.

In 1861, Galicia and Lodomeria acquired autonomy with a local sejm and
government, but both were dominated by Poles. Beginning in 1867, Polish
became the official language in the principality. All attempts to divide the
territory into Ukrainian and Polish parts failed. Polish organizations had
no desire to share territory.

As in the case of Galicia and Lodomeria, Bukovyna acquired autonomy in 1861,
but the Bukovynian Ruthenians also failed to obtain sufficient cultural and
ethnic rights. German remained the official language in Bukovyna.

A separate Ruthenian district was created in Zakarpattia in 1849. It was
dominated by Ukrainians, who were now able to enjoy broad autonomy in
education and self-government. However, after the formation of
Austro-Hungary the gains of the 1848-1849 revolution were destroyed.

The Hungarian government refused to recognize the Ruthenians as a separate
ethnic group. In 1868 the sejm in Budapest proclaimed the entire population
of the state the Hungarian nation.

The empire’s Ukrainian lands were in dire economic condition. Raw-material
industries (salt and oil extraction, lumber industry) were the leading ones.
Oil processing and woodworking lacked investments. Entrepreneurs did not go
where there was no qualified labor force. Most industries existed as petty
cottage industries.

The rural population suffered increasingly from agrarian overpopulation, the
inevitable result of the concentration of the greater part of arable lands
in the hands of landlords. In search of a better life peasants headed across
the ocean.

Nearly 300,000 emigrated from Halychyna and Bukovyna in 1900-1910, and
over 40,000 from Zakarpattia in 1905-1914. This became the foundation of the
powerful Diaspora in the US and Canada.

Socioeconomic conditions, historical memory, and the entire way of life of
the Ukrainian communities in the Russian and Austrian empires were markedly
different. Analyzing the amazing, at first glance, phenomenon of the
formation of one Ukrainian nation in empires that were hostile to one
another, Professor Szporluk noted two crucial circumstances.

[1] First, the Ukrainian lands in the Russian Empire had cultural resources
that allowed the Galicians to compensate for their cultural and social
backwardness; they made them competitive with regard to the Polish milieu.

[2] Second, in joining a unified Ukraine, the Galicians were becoming part
of a national community that was larger than Poland. Not coincidentally,
they called the Ukrainian lands in Russia “Great Ukraine.” Beyond the
borders of that Ukraine the Galician ethnic community was the numerical
equivalent of the Lithuanians or Slovaks.

On Jan. 22, 1919, two Ukrainian national republics that had emerged from the
ruins of toppled empires united in a single, independent state. This
historic event was preceded by decades of instructive work on the part of
Ukrainian intellectuals, who convinced their fellow countrymen that they
were one people. The intelligentsia followed in the footsteps of such giants
of the Ukrainian renaissance as Mykhailo Hrushevsky and Ivan Franko.

Learned Ukrainians were especially impressed by Hrushevsky’s article
“Ukraine and Halychyna,” published by the Literaturno-naukovyi visnyk
(Literary-Scientific Herald) in 1906.

In it the scholar warned his fellow countrymen against following the road of
the Serbs and Croats, two different nations that had one ethnic basis. He
argued that commonality of ethnic origin does not guarantee the emergence
of a single nation.

PART II ———-

In this second installment of Stanislav Kulchytsky’s study of world empires
and their role in Ukraine’s history, the historian focuses on the Russian
Empire.

5. RUSSIAN IMPERIAL EXPANSION —–

The concept of Russian history should be called Moscow-centric. It was
Moscow-centric from the very outset, even though the earliest mention of
Muscovy appears in a chronicle only in 1147. The works of the outstanding
Russian historians Tatishchev, Karamzin, Kliuchevsky, and Solovev draw an
equal sign between the history of the Russian Empire and Russian national
history.

Together with the tsars these four did everything possible to distort the
historical memory of the Ukrainian nation and dissolve Ukraine among the
five dozen gubernias of European Russia.

Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s multivolume History of Ukraine-Rus’ revived national
history for the Ukrainians. However, neither Hrushevsky nor other
pre-revolutionary Ukrainian historians moved beyond the bounds of national
history.

Meanwhile, for all Soviet historians the history of the USSR had become
their national history with the concept of Russian history inherited from
the works of Tatishchev and his followers and amended insignificantly
(Kyivan Rus’ as the cradle of three fraternal nations).

Only in the past decade have we started to gain a new perspective on the
problems of the formation of the Russian Empire, which has become possible
owing to the works of the German researcher Andreas Kappeler and Harvard
University scholars, primarily Edward Keenan and Roman Szporluk.

Russia was proclaimed an empire in 1721, but became one much later. Those
who share the widespread belief that the Russian state should be considered
an imperial one from the moment it annexed Ukraine in 1654 do not take into
account the events of the preceding centuries.

Finally, there are not enough grounds to say that the empire’s age should be
reckoned from the moment that great prince Ivan IV was formally proclaimed
tsar in 1547.

The word “tsar” is etymologically related to the Russian term “kesar,” which
is derived from the name of Ancient Rome’s first emperor Gaius Julius
Caesar. The Latin word “rex” is also translated as “tsar” in Russian. “Rex”
was the name of the legendary Roman rulers in the pre-republican period,
while its translation is a matter of habit.

We should look for the roots of Russian imperialism not in etymology but in
real historical circumstances. Andreas Kappeler dates the origins of the
formation of the Russian Empire to the 15th century.

A favorable historical condition for the emergence in Eastern Europe of a
new imperial state formation was created in the process of the gradual
disintegration of the Mongolian Empire of the Chinggisids and its separate
part, the Golden Horde. The Muscovite princes took the first steps toward
creating an empire of their own while they were still part of the Horde.
They did so by adopting a slogan that called for “gathering the lands of
Rus’.”

The possibility for such an expansion was provided by the khans of the
Golden Horde, who from the time of Ivan I Kalita entrusted Muscovy with
collecting tributes from all the Rus’ lands that were under the rule of the
Golden Horde.

The biggest success of the Muscovite princes was the annexation of the lands
of Great Novgorod, which stretched from the Baltic and White Seas to the
Ural Mountains. The conquest of “fraternal” Novgorod by Ivan III was
accompanied by atrocious acts of genocide.

The Golden Horde broke up into six independent states: the Khanates of the
Crimea, Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia (these four were ruled by the
Chinggisids), the Nogai Horde, and the Great Muscovite Principality. After
securing independence in 1480, Ivan III continued his policy of “gathering
the lands of Rus’,” this time targeting the lands that were part of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The Muscovite-Lithuanian wars started in the late 15th century. Lithuania’s
inability to withstand Muscovite expansion forced it to unite with the
Polish Kingdom and create the Rzeczpospolita, a federation in which the
political positions of the Lithuanian gentry were subordinated to those of
the Polish nobility.

One of the most enduring historical myths is a belief that since the times
of Ivan III Muscovy had pursued a policy of reviving the Orthodox Byzantine
Empire, which had collapsed under pressure from the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Those who attempt to substantiate this foreign policy of Ivan III cite his
marriage in 1472 to Sofia Paleolog, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor,
and the adoption of the Byzantine double eagle as the emblem of the
Muscovite state.

However, it was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that the return of the
Byzantine emperors’ heritage began to be used by the Russian Empire as an
ideological justification for its policy aimed at absorbing an already
weakened Ottoman Empire. Meanwhile, in the 15th and 16th centuries
Muscovy’s goal was first and foremost to take over the heritage of another
empire – the Golden Horde.

Facts confirm that from the days of Muscovite Prince Ivan I (1325 – 1340)
the statehood of future Russia had been forming along the lines of the
Golden Horde. Feudal relations involving the dependence of vassals in a
feudal hierarchy and certain obligations of the sovereign with respect to
his vassals had not formed in the Great Muscovite Principality. The great
prince, and later the tsar and emperor, drew his support from nobility.

Nobles received land to use and later on to own, along with the enserfed
peasants inhabiting it. Each owner of such land and of the peasants living
there was essentially a kholop, a feudal serf of the great prince,
regardless of the size of his estate and the position he occupied in the
official hierarchy. The Asian- style socioeconomic system enabled the tsar
to maintain a powerful army and use it in his aggressive policies along the
entire perimeter of the state borders.

Pre-revolutionary Russian and Soviet historiography uses exclusively
negative expressions (“Tatar yoke”) to convey the impact of the Mongolian
Empire on conquered Rus’ and the life of the Rus’ principalities under the
Golden Horde. Horrible portrayals of the Mongol-Tatar conquest span the
entire period during which Muscovy was part of the Golden Horde until the
Muscovite Principality obtained its independence.

There is no doubt that the tribute paid to conquerors for nearly two and a
half centuries took a heavy toll on the peasants, who were forced to pay
double taxes. Nonetheless, autonomous existence within the Horde reinforced
the state machinery of the Great Muscovite Principality.

As Kappeler rightly notes, Muscovy took full advantage of the Mongol-Tatars’
accomplishments in the sphere of military and administrative organization,
taxation system, communications, international trade, and cultural exchange.

The Russian Empire had been expanding for four centuries. In the mid-16th
century it conquered the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan, after which the
Great Muscovite Principality turned into a polyethnic Russian state. In the
mid-17th century the tsar established control of Left-Bank Ukraine and Kyiv,
after which the western vector became the dominant one in the further
expansion of the empire’s borders.

Understanding the West’s technical and economic superiority over Russia, the
18th-century rulers of Russia adopted a policy of Westernization. This
helped them defeat Sweden in the long-lasting Northern War, seize the coasts
of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov from the Ottoman Empire, and stop
Napoleon Bonaparte’s aggressive forays. By the early 19th century Russia had
almost entirely absorbed the colossal territory of the former
Rzeczpospolita.

The defeat of the Siberian Khanate in the late 16th century marked the
beginning of the empire’s unstoppable eastward expansion. In the mid-17th
century Russian pioneers reached the Pacific Ocean and founded settlements
in Alaska, moving along the western coast of the North American continent
toward California. The pioneers were followed by troops, collectors of taxes
for the “white tsar,” and merchants.

Russia’s own population settled Northern Asia in the same way as the Western
European colonists settled the sparsely populated lands of North America,
Australia, and New Zealand. With greater or lesser success (and failure in
America: in 1867 Russia had to sell its North American lands to the USA as
they were too far removed from the empire’s centers), these sparsely
populated expanses became the continuation of the Russian Empire.

The process of settling new lands was portrayed in heroic terms, but the
reality was often far from that. Equipped with firearms, units of Cossacks
and sharpshooters mercilessly exterminated the indigenous population.

From the early 19th century Russia launched its expansion in the direction
of the densely populated countries of Transcaucasia and Central Asia, with
their centuries-long history and culture that were different from Europe’s.
The absorption of these countries turned Russia into a colonial empire.

In the mid-19th century Nicholas I made a decisive attempt to take over the
Byzantine heritage and put an end to the Ottoman Empire. The military defeat
of the Turkish army was a foregone conclusion.

Large European countries faced the prospect of an emerging super-empire that
could stretch from the Californian coast of North America across Northern
Asia and Eastern Europe to the Ottoman Sultan’s African territories. For
this reason they joined forces and defeated Russia in the Crimean War.

The ruling Russian elite realized that they could no longer limit themselves
to superficial Westernization. The country had to carry out profound
modernization and, first and foremost, abolish serfdom.

Reforms implemented in the 1860s-1870s helped the Russian Empire preserve
its status as a superpower. However, the country was not competitive in the
international arena. The empire could not withstand the strain of World War
I and collapsed in March 1917.

6. UKRAINIAN LANDS WITHIN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE —–

The systemic characteristics of an empire include the presence of a
politically dominant ethnos, a state region, ideology, and language. In
Russia all these characteristics were combined in one: membership in the
Orthodox faith. A German, Jew, or Tatar could occupy higher official posts
if he adopted the state religion.

All other subjects of the autocratic tsar were classed as
 “foreigners”-second-rate people. They suffered because of their different
language, religion, and national traditions. The empire treated them with
tolerance but did not trust them.

When scholars or columnists attempt to define the status of Ukrainians
within the Russian Empire, they most often forget about this main
peculiarity of the social system in the autocratic Orthodox empire. By
overlooking it, we risk invalidating our own statements about the oppressed
status of Ukrainians, which are based on objective, empirical evidence.

First of all, Ukrainians, unlike Germans, Jews, or Tatars, did not have to
prove their devotion to the empire by converting to Orthodoxy. They were
Orthodox from birth.

Second, the empire did not view Ukrainians as people of another nationality.
It considered itself an heir not only of the Riuryk dynasty, which turned
the small Muscovite Principality into a superpower, but of the entire
historical heritage of Kyivan Rus’, including the population of the
gubernias on both banks of the Dnipro. This population was even deprived
of its own ethnic name.

To nominally distance itself from the empire’s dominant nation, in the 19th
century the Ukrainian intelligentsia was forced to change the ancient Rus’
toponym “Ukraina” into an ethno-toponym.

It seems that the nature of the Ukrainians’ status in the empire was most
accurately defined by the famous Russian scholar Aleksandr Miller.

In his book entitled “The Ukrainian Question” in the Policy of the
Authorities and Russian Public Opinion (second half of the 19th century),
published in St. Petersburg in 2000, he writes: “The attitude of the
empire’s authorities and Great Russians toward Little Russians and
Belarusians envisioned integration founded on the principle of equality

of individuals with the simultaneous refusal to institutionalize these groups
as national minorities, whereas with respect to non-Slavs and western Slavs
(Poles) the principle of individual equality was rejected, but their national
minority status was not questioned.”

Translated into ordinary language, this scholarly formula means: if a Little
Russian adopted Ukrainian identity, which ruled out his membership in the
Russian nation, unlike the representatives of other ethnic groups he was
seen as a traitor and separatist in the eyes of imperial officials and
Russian patriots.

It follows from this that the Ukrainian intelligentsia could not expect to
be treated with tolerance, as it defended its nation’s right to its own
literary language, national history, and culture, which were different from
Russia’s. If it had not done this, it would have stopped being a Ukrainian
intelligentsia.

By its mere existence it asserted Little Russians as a nation separate from
the Russians, thereby challenging the imperial elite. An educated person who
did not switch to Russian in his speech evoked suspicion as a separatist and
a “Mazepite,” i.e., a separatist. Although Little Russians were not
foreigners, they nevertheless had no right to have an intelligentsia of
their own.

Nonetheless, Ukrainians did not remain an ethnographic mass. The
nation-building process was objective and irreversible. Among the Little
Russians there had always been people who had excelled economically or
spiritually, but had refused to give up their national identity.

Those who followed the path of Taras Shevchenko were outnumbered by those
who chose the path of Mykola Hohol. However, quantity was not a decisive
factor.

If Russia was simultaneously a traditional and colonial empire, this prompts
a question about the status of the Ukrainian lands: Were they part of the
metropolis or should they be considered a colony? This is not a formal
question. In our days it has become the subject of debate, even though no
subject for scholarly debate exists here.

In Ukrainian books and journalistic works Ukraine is often portrayed as
Russia’s colony. But before we make this statement, two questions must be
answered. [1] First, did the imperial elite consider Ukraine a geographic
entity, i.e., a territory with defined borders?

[2] Second, if the imperial elite did not recognize the existence of the
Ukrainian nation on a certain territory, how could they formulate their
policy toward it? For the reasons mentioned above, it is quite clear that
only the Ukrainian intelligentsia could be in the imperial elite’s field of
vision.

Thoughts about the country’s colonial status emerged only after the
revolution, when Ukraine became a geopolitical concept for the first time.
The historian Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky rightfully questioned this concept. In
his article “Ukraine’s Role in Modern History,” published in the journal
Suchasnist in 1966, he wrote: “Some historians and economists, who worked in
the early Soviet period (Slabchenko, Yavorsky, Ohloblyn, Volobuyev), used
the term ‘colonialism’ to define Ukraine’s status in the former tsarist
empire.

The choice of this notion borrowed from the Marxist arsenal was not entirely
successful. Tsarist Russia had real colonies, such as Transcaucasia and
Turkistan, but Ukraine can hardly be considered one of them. The
administration viewed Ukraine rather as belonging to the nucleus of
indigenous provinces of European Russia.”

Indeed, attempts to prove the thesis about Ukraine’s colonial status clash
with the facts. After the peasant reform of 1861 the empire’s most powerful
economic region, Donetsk-Dnipro, emerged in a matter of decades.

Two waves of railroad construction in the 1860s- 1870s and in the 1890s had
an especially significant impact on Ukraine. The prewar economic upturn of
1910-1914 was also felt especially strongly in Ukrainian cities (alongside
the industrial areas of St. Petersburg and Moscow).

The imperial elite did not view the nine gubernias and Kuban oblast, in
which Russia’s first census in 1897 revealed a predominance of Ukrainians,
as a region different from the central gubernias, in which a certain
nationality policy had to be conducted. In fact, the census did not even
include a question about nationality.

In defining Ukraine’s borders in 1917, the Central Rada was guided by
statistics on native language and confessional affiliation, which were
collected during this census. When the Provisional Government was forced to
face the reality of the Ukrainian liberation movement and Ukraine itself, it
defined its borders according to the historical, not ethnographic,
principle: based on the territory of Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s Cossack state that
had joined the Russian Empire.

According to the 1897 census, after several centuries of colonization of the
Black Sea and the Sea of Azov steppes Ukraine’s ethnographic territory was
nearly twice as large as the original territory.

The refutation of the statement about Ukraine’s colonial status means only
one thing: the Ukrainians’ oppressed status in the empire should be proved
in a different way. All available facts indicate that the empire did not
notice the presence of Ukrainians. Poles or Jews were foreigners unless they
converted to Orthodoxy, and numerous discriminatory norms were used
against them in administrative practice and at the legislative level.

However, these very norms were proof that the imperial administration
recognized the existence of Poles and Jews as national minorities, i.e., it
recognized their right to their own language and culture. Discriminatory
norms did not apply to Ukrainians only because the authorities did not
recognize their existence.

The revolution of 1905-1907 made it possible for all the nations to assert
their right to their own language and culture. When the Ukrainian political
forces attempted to implement the declarative provisions of the tsarist
manifesto of Oct. 17, 1905, this immediately revealed the painstakingly
hidden norms of the imperial elite’s policy toward Ukraine.

In May 1908, when several State Duma deputies from the Ukrainian gubernias
proposed a bill to introduce Ukrainian language in public schools, the Kyiv
Club of Russian Nationalists was outraged.

Its statement read: “The introduction of Ukrainized schools is about
destroying the popular belief in the unity of the Russian people, about
implanting in the minds of Little Russians the idea of a totally separate
Russian people, about instilling in them spiritual discord with Great
Russians, national and political separatism.”

Ukrainians responded no less sharply to statements by such “patriots,” who
were thus voicing the tacit policy of the authorities. Mykola Mikhnovsky’s
programmatic brochure Samostiina Ukraina [Independent Ukraine] contains a
harsh response to similar statements: “Even if it had been proven that we
are only a different version of the Russian nation, even then the Russians’
inhuman treatment of us sanctifies our hatred for them and our moral right
to kill the perpetrator of violence in self – defense.”

Discrimination against Ukrainians was especially pronounced during World War
I. After entering Galicia and Bukovyna in 1914, Russian troops in a matter
of weeks destroyed the entire cultural infrastructure that had taken the
Ukrainians decades to build.

German and Polish schools continued to function, but Ukrainian schools were
immediately converted into Russian schools, even though the children did not
speak Russian. All Ukrainian periodicals were abolished. During the retreat
of the tsarist army in 1915 gendarmes deported Ukrainian intellectuals and
Greek Catholic priests to remote areas in Russia.

PART III ———-

This installment concludes the publication of Stanislav Kulchytsky’s study
on Ukraine’s existence within empires and some enduring historical myths.

7. THE SOVIET UNION AS AN IMPERIAL STATE —–

Alain Besancon, one of the West’s most authoritative researchers of Soviet
communism, made an observation that provides a key to understanding the
mechanism by which the Russian empire was transformed into the Soviet Union.

In his article published in the book The Concept of Empire, which appeared
in Paris in 1980, he pointed out that before the First World War of
1914-1918 Russia had serious prospects for resolving its social and economic
problems, but it had no chance whatsoever of resolving the national
question.

A liberal, democratic, and modernizing policy of the imperial regime could
become a key to resolving socioeconomic problems. Only this kind of policy
could earn Russia the status of superpower among the Western democratic
nations, and no alternative existed. At the same time, such a policy would
result in a revival of oppressed nations, which would inevitably undermine
the empire from within.

To preserve the Russian empire in a world that had changed completely, the
empire needed to be given a different form and substance. If we begin to be
surprised by the foundations from which the Soviet Union emerged, we must
remember Besancon’s profound observation.

The architects of the Soviet Union had only one overriding goal: to prolong
the empire’s existence, possibly within its boundaries, and better yet in a
much larger territory. The form and even substance of this multinational
state formation were secondary to this goal.

The world truly changed after the First World War. This war accelerated the
objective transition from a traditional society founded on a medieval
hierarchy to a democratic society that was founded on citizens’ equality
before the law and did not recognize such a notion as empire. Empires became
an anachronism, while the changed world order brought nation-states into the
limelight.

However, the civilizational crisis that materialized as the First World War
and the Great Depression of 1929-1933 spawned social mutations in countries
with especially high levels of social tension. Such countries did not
develop into democracies in which societies would control the state and
elect its leaders in free elections.

Instead, forces from the lower ranks of the popular masses came to the
surface of political life, forming nontraditional hierarchical structures,
taking control of the country, and exterminating their rivals. The state
established total control over their citizens, depriving them of any real
influence on political processes.

The first country to witness the triumph of totalitarianism was Soviet
Russia. The Russian revolution was marked by the almost immediate overthrow
of autocracy and spontaneous emergence of councils (“soviets”) of workers’
and soldiers’ deputies. While adapting to the councils’ demands, the
Bolshevik Party gained control of them from the inside and established its
dictatorship.

On the heels of Russia a totalitarian regime was established in Italy.
Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Party came to power on the wave of a mass
movement and started building an Italian colonial empire.

Using revanchist slogans, Adolph Hitler’s National Socialists secured a
mandate of state power in an electoral struggle against the Communists and
Social Democrats. They proceeded to establish a single-party dictatorship,
proclaiming the Third Reich and attempting to spread their “new order” in
the rest of Europe.

Soviet communism was completely unlike fascism or Nazism, although it was a
totalitarian form of government just like them. The communist state had much
greater vital strength and capabilities because it not only dominated
society, but also merged with it in an integral system.

Designed by Vladimir Lenin, the unique political regime was characterized by
a symbiosis of state party dictatorship with the completely real power of
the Soviet organs.

The Soviets and their executive committees directly controlled social life.
For this reason the communist regime became nominally associated with Soviet
power. In reality, in every segment of the administrative-territorial system
Soviet government organs were subordinated to a corresponding Communist
Party committee.

Owing to the principle of “democratic centralism” that was at the core of
the state party and its subordinate organizational structures, power was
entirely in the hands of the top communist-Soviet leadership. This political
regime had unusual properties.

On the one hand, it reached deep into the masses through a system of
councils (soviets). Millions of people were invested with real, albeit
limited, administrative or controlling functions. This created the illusion
of a popular government.

On the other hand, the country was dominated by an invisible dictatorship of
Communist Party committees, i.e., one that was not reflected in the
constitution. These committees controlled everything, from elections to
Soviet organs of power.

In the tandem that was called “Soviet power,” Communist Party committees
and executive committees of councils had different organizational
structures. The nature of the state created by the Bolsheviks was determined

by the constitutionally invisible dictatorship of their party.

The party had an external camouflage in the form of a multimillion-strong
membership, but its nomenklatura was structured as a dictatorial
hierarchical structure. Therefore, in each country where Soviet power
prevailed, this country became part of a unitary state with a highly
centralized government.

Conversely, the Soviet organs of power were structured quite democratically,
in line with the constitution. The world’s most democratic Soviet
constitutions camouflaged totalitarian pressure on society, which was
generated by the Communist Party dictatorship.

While “gathering” the empire that had broken up, Lenin not only tried to
avoid a head-on collision with the national-liberation movement, but even
tried to use the protest potential of oppressed peoples in his own
interests. This strategy proved more effective than the primitive, coercive
method of restoring the “single and undivided” Russia, which was chosen by
the main adversaries of the Bolsheviks, the White Guard generals.

To restore the multinational empire, the Bolsheviks used the advantages of
the dual construction of Soviet power. Almost simultaneously with the
introduction of Soviet statehood in Russia, Lenin started to build a
national Soviet statehood. Ukraine became the main testing ground for
implementing a corresponding policy.

The nature of national statehood created by the Bolsheviks will become clear
once we analyze the statutory rights of the republican organizations of the
Communist Party. Their official names created the misleading impression of
independent political parties.

However, the Communist Party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine was in fact a regional
organization of the unitary Russian Communist (Bolshevik) Party. It had a
central committee of its own, and party committees of Ukrainian gubernias
were subordinated to it.

However, the statutory rights of the Central Committee of the CP(B)U did not
exceed the rights of party committees in Russian gubernias, which were
directly subordinated to the CC RCP(B).

After the CC RCP(B) formed the Politburo, which concentrated absolute power
in its hands, ambitious Ukrainian communists succeeded in securing the same
title for the leading organ of the CC CP(B)U, while all other republics
simply had bureaus, not political bureaus or a Politburo.

When the CC RCP(B) introduced the post of General Secretary, Ukrainian
communists secured the same title for the head of the CC CP(B)U. (The post
of Ukrainian General Secretary existed until 1934.)

However, under the RCP(B)’s statute, the Politburo and Secretary General of
the CC CP(B)U had no more powers than the bureau and secretary of any
gubernia committee in the Russian Federation.

Even during 1917-1922, when the Russian empire, restored by the Bolsheviks,
existed as a country without a name, it remained a unitary, centralized
state.

The conglomerate of the nine formally independent states (Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, the Far Eastern Republic, the republics of Transcaucasia, Bukhara,
and Khorezm) were linked to the imperial capital in two ways: the main one –
via the dictatorship of the governing elite of the RCP(B); and an additional
one – through the direct subordination to the Soviet center in Moscow of all
uniformed services and some economic structures situated on the periphery.

National Soviet statehood functioned within the rigid parameters of a system
defined by dictatorship.

With the establishment of Soviet control over the Far East in 1922, the Far
Eastern Republic, which had previously functioned as a buffer zone, was
abolished. At the same time, the leadership in Moscow decided that it was
awkward for the state to carry on without a name. After the Civil War ended,
the victors viewed the independent national republics as an anachronism.

Combining the country with the state could be effected by “absorbing” the
national republics into the Russian Federation, i.e., by turning them into
autonomous republics. Scholars generally consider Stalin to be the author of
the idea to turn the “independent” republics into autonomous republics.

There is no doubt that he presented this project in his capacity as the
People’s Commissar of Nationalities of the Russian Socialist Federated
Soviet Republic and Secretary General of the CC RCP(B).

However, the central communist-Soviet apparatus considered such
autonomization as the only possible and quite logical way out of the
situation. The only alternative could be the further existence of the
republics as nation-state formations that were “independent” of Russia.

In analyzing the events of 1922, we should forget for a moment about another
alternative, which was Lenin’s brainchild and had not occurred to any other
politician before he voiced it.

In the absence of Lenin, who had just experienced the first onset of his
terminal illness, the organizing bureau of the CC RCP(B) approved a decision
to autonomize the national republics. It turned out, however, that this
decision was disputed by individual republican leaders, primarily CC RCP(B)
member Khristian Rakovsky.

This opposition should not be viewed as an attempt to preserve the
sovereignty of the Soviet republics, a sovereignty that did not exist to
begin with. They viewed the proposed demotion of republican status as a blow
to their prestige.

Lenin considered it best not to encroach on the interests of fellow party
members in the national republics to which he ironically referred as
“independents.” Moreover, he preferred to abandon the “infamous question of
autonomization,” as he declared in his Dec. 30, 1922, letter to the RCP(B)
leadership, and insisted on leaving the format of relations with the
republics unchanged.

While the leadership could put up with the dissatisfaction of fellow party
members, much greater danger would come from a wave of popular outrage in
the republics that were being deprived of their sovereignty.

Is there a conflict between this statement and the statement in the previous
paragraph that the national Soviet republics did not have any sovereignty
from the very outset? If there is such a conflict, it is hidden in the very
concept of national Soviet statehood developed by Lenin himself. It makes it
possible to understand how cunning and deceitful Lenin’s nationality policy
really was.

The leadership of the state party considered the autonomization of national
republics, I repeat, as a completely logical and the only possible way to
complete the process of “gathering” the lands of the former empire. However,
in his above-mentioned letter to the RCP(B) leaders Lenin called this idea
an “incorrect and untimely trick.” The autonomous republics were not states.

Autonomization would destroy constitutional national statehood, while
preserving only Soviet Russian statehood. This would revive a de facto
“single and undivided” Russia, which would be different from
pre-revolutionary Russia only in that some of its gubernias would become
autonomous national republics.

The Soviet Russian government was facing the specter of a
national-liberation struggle. Squeezed into the narrow frameworks of
autonomies, the nations that had gone through the crucible of national
revolutions would sooner or later rise to defend their rights.

Lenin proposed a fundamentally different way out of this situation. He chose
to build a centralized state not along Soviet lines, i.e., by abolishing the
national states, but along Communist Party lines. In these conditions the
sovereignty of national states was provided for in the Soviet constitutions,
but vanished in the invisible force field generated by the state party
dictatorship.

The party chief agreed that the existence of a single country with several
states was inconvenient, that was why he offered a simple way out of this
inconvenient situation, one that no one before him had ever proposed: all
the Soviet states as of 1922 – the Russian and Transcaucasian Federations,
Ukraine, and Belarus – formed another federated state on equal terms, a
“second tier” federation.”

He also proposed a name for the newly created federation: the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics of Europe and Asia. Each of the republics making
up the Soviet Union had the constitutional right to secede freely from the
union.

The unification of the Soviet republics into a single multinational state
would have been a noteworthy historical event if it were not for the state
party. In reality, the signing of the union treaty on Dec. 30, 1922, was
merely a ceremonial event that was planned in advance in the agenda of the
CC RCP(B) organizing committee.

This event was significant in that it only made the autonomization of
national republics impossible. In other words, national Soviet statehood was
not terminated.

Although Stalin occasionally accused Lenin of a liberal approach to the
national question, he fully appreciated the benefits of preserving national
Soviet statehood. Preserved in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, which
Stalin could edit as he pleased, was a clause on the republics’ right to
secede freely from the union.

As long as the force field of Communist Party dictatorship was in place,
similar constitutional norms could not undermine this empire-like unitary
state.

At the whim of state party leaders, the nations of the Soviet Union formed a
multilevel hierarchy. [1] The Russians occupied the top rung. [2] On the
rung lower were representatives of the nations that had given their names to
the union republics. In this connection the concept of “titular nation”
emerged.

The [3] third rung from the top was occupied by the peoples in the national
autonomies within the union republics. The [4] fourth rung was occupied by
the “non-titular” nations, which did not have their own union or autonomous
republics. Thus, the USSR was structured on the basis of ethnocratic
principles.

Despite the limited powers of the republican centers, the Politburo of the
CC RCP(B) decided it was dangerous to form a full-fledged center in the
Russian Federation. Only the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR

was created in Moscow, which controlled secondary enterprises. Larger
enterprises were subordinated directly to union organs. There was no party
center in Russia, while gubernia party committees were subordinated to the
CC RCP(B).

Thus, the Russians’ top spot in the hierarchy of nationalities was combined
with the absence of national statehood. Soviet Russian statehood was not
national but imperial.

Immediately after the creation of the USSR the Kremlin introduced the policy
of “indigenization”, which took the form of Ukrainization in Ukraine.
Although its main goal was to enroot Soviet power in the periphery, it
fostered a revival of national languages and cultures. Ukrainization was
implemented even in areas outside the Ukrainian SSR, which were densely
populated by Ukrainians.

In particular, the population of the Kuban, two-thirds of which was
comprised of ethnic Ukrainians, gained the opportunity to send their
children to Ukrainian schools, read Ukrainian books and magazines, and
listen to local radio broadcasts in their native language. With time
“national communists” started to hint that it would be fair to transfer the
Kuban district of the North-Caucasus Territory to Ukraine.

The national revival in Soviet Ukraine had a profound impact on the
political community of Western Ukraine. Dmytro Levytsky, the leader of the
most influential party of national democrats, wrote in the newspaper Dilo in
February 1925: “We are firmly convinced that, much like abstract communism,
the Soviet form of government is alien to the mindset of the Ukrainian
nation.

But as we register facts, we cannot make note of certain facts while
ignoring others. Therefore, we state the well-known and unquestionable fact
that the national idea is growing, strengthening, and developing in Soviet
Ukraine. As this idea is growing, the foreign shell of fictitious Ukrainian
statehood is filled with the native content of genuine statehood.”

The Kremlin chiefs valued the propagandistic merits of the demagogical
Soviet constitutions, but feared the prospect of a decorative national
statehood developing into real statehood, which could happen if the central
government became weaker.

For this very reason they deprived Russia of the attributes of national
statehood. For this very reason Ukraine, as the largest national republic,
from 1929 found itself at the epicenter of repressions designed to prevent
possible future manifestations of separatism.

This fear explains the organization of the famine-genocide of 1932-1933
under the guise of a grain procurement campaign. This fear also explains the
ban on Ukrainization outside the Ukrainian SSR and the colossal campaign to
exterminate the Ukrainian intelligentsia, which continued almost without
interruption until 1939.

In an attempt to conceal the anti-Ukrainian nature of the repressions, the
Stalinist regime with marked enthusiasm took pains with the flowering of
Ukrainian culture that was “socialist in content and national in form.” In
1934 the capital of the Ukrainian SSR was transferred from Kharkiv to the
national center of Ukraine – Kyiv.

The repressions of the 1930s defused for many decades the “ethnic bomb” that
was embedded in the foundation of the Soviet empire during the creation of
the USSR. However, the most discerning researchers in the West (much like
the mastermind behind these preventive repressions – Stalin) never forgot
that the Soviet Union could exist only within the force field created by the
state party dictatorship.

In his book [Weberian Sociological Theory – Ed.] published in New York in
1986 the sociologist Randall Collins spoke with certainty about the imminent
collapse of the Soviet Union. He predicted the outcome of the ethnocratic
principle on which this new type of empire was built: “The formal mechanism
of withdrawing from the Soviet Union is ready.

Fifteen most ethnically diverse regions are officially autonomous states
with a local mechanism of government. Now this autonomy is ineffective,
since the armed services, the monetary system, and economic planning are
controlled by central government organs, while political control is
administered by the single national Communist Party.

However, the significance of an autonomous- ethnic state structure is that
it contains ethnic definitions along with organizational structures that can
form the basis of truly separate states, if the central government becomes
significantly weaker.”

Collins predicted not only the collapse of the USSR but also the political
force that would accomplish this. This conclusion was self-evident: there
could be no civil society in a totalitarian country, and the communists had
always been the only organizationally established political force: “The
possible disintegration of the Soviet Union will most likely take place
under the leadership of former communist politicians. Taking into account
the communists’ present monopoly in the political sphere in the Soviet
Union, it will be difficult for political changes to occur in any other way,
at least initially.”

In convulsive efforts to overcome the socioeconomic crisis, Mikhail
Gorbachev set about improving the political mechanisms of the Soviet system
of government, which had not changed since Lenin’s time. The constitutional
reform that he initiated liberated the Soviet organs of power from the
dictatorship of the Communist Party.

The force field in which the union republics and Central and Eastern
European countries had existed suddenly vanished. The reformers could not
predict the resulting situation: the fictitious and propagandistic norms of
Soviet constitutions became operative.

The Baltic states and the Russian Federation, which had been politically
marginalized by the Kremlin, immediately took advantage of this situation,
followed by the remaining union republics. Divesting the CPSU of its state
party status brought about the collapse of the Soviet empire. Perestroika
spun out of the Kremlin’s control and turned into a revolutionary process.

At the core of the anti-communist revolution in the USSR, much like in any
other revolution, was the strongly expressed refusal of the popular masses
to be content with what they had. The Soviet political system along with its
command economy appeared to be an anachronism against the background of
accelerated scientific, technical, and socioeconomic progress in the West.

However, unlike during earlier social cataclysms, the driving force behind
the anti-communist revolution was the Communist Party and the Soviet
nomenklatura. This was due not only to the fact that other political forces
had begun to emerge in the USSR only during the perestroika period.

A no less, if not greater, role in the mass emergence of so-called sovereign
communists was played by the fact that the revolution was not so much an
upsurge of social energy as a self-disintegration of a system that had
exhausted its historical lifespan.

8. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: BETWEEN EMPIRE AND

NATIONAL STATE —–

I will start by mentioning two indisputable facts. [1] First, Soviet
practice knew federations of the first order (the Russian Socialist Federated
Soviet Republic, and the Transcaucasian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic)
and second order (USSR).

[2] Second, unlike the overwhelming majority of federated countries in the
world, the Soviet federation envisioned the right to secede, i.e., its
subjects could withdraw from the federation. The question is: Did the Soviet
people have the experience of living in a federated state?

In answering this question, we should try to make a careful reading of the
union and republican constitutions, which were quite numerous. Strikingly,
the word “federation” appears only in the titles of the countries.

No clause mentions any rights of the federation’s subjects, which the
federative center could not contest. The only exception was the right to
secede. Although it was proclaimed, the mechanism of secession was kept in
total secrecy.

The reason why the specifics of life in a federated state were ignored in
the constitutions is quite simple: from the very outset the Soviet Union and
the Russian Federation were not federated states. Federalism involves a
distribution of administrative powers between the center and the periphery.
Is any division of power at all possible in a dictatorship? This is a
rhetorical question.

Why and when, exactly, did the Bolsheviks arm themselves with such a

notion as federation, which was by definition alien to them?

In August 1917 Lenin sensed that his party could seize power if for a
certain period of time it abandoned the communist agenda, which was
unpopular among the masses. The Bolsheviks renounced the idea to turn the
imperialist war into a civil war and began demanding that a separate peace
treaty be concluded with the Central Powers. They abandoned the idea of
creating Soviet farms on estates seized from landowners and began
campaigning for the egalitarian distribution of land among the peasants.

Finally, they gave up the idea of a centralized state and began popularizing
the creation of a Soviet federation of free peoples. In other words, they
adopted Soviet slogans. When Lenin’s party came to power on the backs

of the soviets and established its dictatorship, it returned to its communist
agenda.

Then the empire revived by the Bolsheviks saw everything: a civil war,
soviet farms and collective farms, a “federation of free peoples,” etc.
Soviet federalism proved to be a camouflage for the ethnocratic principle,
which the “proletarian internationalists” at the helm of the state party
considered to be the most convenient for building a multinational
empire-like state.

After the elimination of the communist dictatorship, Russia turned on the
spur of the moment into a real federation. However, relations between the
center and periphery were not constitutionally regulated. For a long time,
therefore, regional elites attempted to secure as much sovereignty as
possible.

Nonetheless, President Boris Yeltsin’s efforts at the negotiating table to
eliminate the threat of disintegration resulted in a compromise. In 1994 all
federal subjects except Chechnya signed an agreement with the center,

which stated that the realization of their rights is possible only if Russia’s
state integrity is preserved, along with its political, economic, and legal
unity.

All the post-communist countries are going through a transition period from
a directed to market economy, from dictatorship to democracy.
Transformational processes in Russia have a third dimension: a transition
from empire to nation-state. The imperial cast of mind, which had formed
during centuries, remains a prominent factor in Russia’s political life.

In his book Empire and Nations (Dukh i Litera Publishers, 2000), Roman
Szporliuk quotes Geoffrey Hosking’s famous aphorism coined in 1995:
“Britain had an empire, but Russia was an empire – and perhaps still is.”

A civil society can develop only after communist dictatorship has been
toppled. Therefore, traditionally strong state institutions have the final
say in the transformational processes in the Russian Federation. However,
the state’s prospects to direct economic processes are limited by two
factors: the spontaneous collapse of the directed economy and the need to
integrate into the global economy on its terms.

The state’s possibilities for establishing a strong government are much
greater, but they are also limited by the presence of the free market, which
is linked to the global economy by thousands of tiny threads.

To revive a dictatorship, Russia would once again have to separate itself
from the rest of the world with an iron curtain. However, the country has no
influential political forces that could propose such an agenda.

However, the state in Russia can afford to slow down the process by which
the country is losing its imperial traits. It can do so owing to rich
natural resources, which fill the state coffers with foreign currency. It
draws an adequate amount of support from a significant percentage of
citizens whose historical mindset has an imperialist bent.

Many Russian citizens do not see any danger in the ethnocratic principle of
the structuring of a multinational country with a hierarchy of
nationalities. Soviet experience has not taught them anything, and they tend
to seek the use of this ethnic bomb in their national state building.

In particular, the Russian Orthodox Church persistently promotes the idea of
building a hierarchy of ethnic- confessional communities in the following
order: the state-forming Orthodox people; traditional religions (Islam,
Buddhism, Judaism); nontraditional religions (Catholicism and
Protestantism); “totalitarian sects” and the ethnic communities that are
associated with them. Doing so, it ignores the constitutional norm
concerning the equality of all ethnic and confessional communities of the
multinational peoples of Russia.

With increasing frequency the Russian press has been discussing the
unfolding demographic catastrophe, which boils down to the changing ratio
between Russians and non-Russians in favor of the latter. The threat to the
welfare and security of the indigenous population is constantly discussed in
connection with the influx of multiethnic emigrants (“profiteers,”
“terrorists,” etc.).

Ethnic minorities in Russian society are very often seen as a threat to its
stability. Even Valeriy Tishkov, director of the Institute of Ethnology at
the Russian Academy of Sciences, who was once renowned for his liberalism,
says that it is time “not only to defend oppressed minorities, but also
defend the majority from the radicalism and aggressiveness of the minority.”

President Vladimir Putin of Russia is pursuing a rather balanced policy
within Russia, respecting the constitutional rights of all citizens.
Meanwhile, in the post-Soviet space both Russian presidents adopted a policy
of reviving the USSR in various forms: the Commonwealth of Independent
States, the Slavic Union, the European-Asian Economic Commonwealth, the
Single Economic Space, etc.

Since 2000, when Putin took over the reins of power, Russia adopted a
systematic and persistent approach to dealing with Ukrainian issues. With
the emergence of the idea to form the SES, pressure on Ukraine to force it
to integrate has become simply unbearable.

In 1990 Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a small book entitled Rebuilding
Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals. His final thesis is an
emotionally charged conclusion that stems from the author’s many years of
researching Russian history: “We have no strength for an Empire! And we do
not need one. May it fall from our shoulders. It is crushing and exhausting
us, and speeding up our destruction.” Perhaps it is worth heeding the
opinion of this great thinker.

9. WE AND THE EMPIRE —–


The final chapter has the same heading as the article title. The repetition
is no accident. In the past we were an ethnographic mass exploited by the
rulers of empires for their own interests. Now we can independently define
our purpose and defend our national interests.

Books about contemporary Ukrainian-Russian relations can be written, and
they have been written. I have also written one. Here I should confine
myself to a general conclusion: if we survived under empires for hundreds of
years, if we are now an independent state on the European continent with a
territory of 603,000 square kilometers, then we will be here tomorrow and a
thousand years later.

I hit upon the subject of empires accidentally. Analyzing it on the basis of
familiar material, I spent many thrilling hours. I had to reconsider several
well-known scenarios and imagine versions of the past that never happened. I
would like to share with The Day’s readers my impressions of analyzing this
subject.

I kept thinking of the Chinese – not the contemporary Chinese who are proud
of their Celestial Empire, but those who are long gone and not mentioned in
the imperial chronicles. We do not even know their names. So we should
congratulate ourselves that in our empire there was not enough time for us.

If there had been, nobody would know anything about us, and we ourselves
would not know anything about our people. Recall that many of us did not
know our own history until 1991. Many still don’t know it.

Occasionally I read in the papers or hear on television: “Our rights are
being violated, give us a second state language!” These are my fellow
countrymen speaking, and I understand that they have the right to say this.
But I yearn to tell them that they are we, Ukrainians, and we have one
language for all.

I keep thinking about the regional breakup of Ukrainian society, which
manifested itself during the presidential elections of 2004: the west and
center versus the east and south. This is partly due to economic
circumstances that are tightly interwoven with political manipulations.

There are profounder reasons, since Ukraine is situated on a civilizational
fault line. However, regional differences should not undermine national
unity. We must remember that our ancestors in the two empires extended their
hands across the state border and became a single nation.

Finally, I will touch on the subject of the famine of 1932-1933, which is
mentioned only once in this article. This is because I revealed the
mechanism of the genocide in my series of articles entitled “Why did Stalin
exterminate the Ukrainians?” which The Day published in October and
November 2005.

An analysis of Ukraine’s existence in the Soviet empire prompts one banal
conclusion: one should never place one’s country in dependence of decisions
that are made outside its borders. In other words, one should never become a
part of an empire.

Unfortunately, the validity of this banal conclusion has yet to be proven to
some of our compatriots.                         -30-
————————————————————————————————-
PART I:     http://www.day.kiev.ua/156533/
PART II:    http://www.day.kiev.ua/156964/
PART III:   http://www.day.kiev.ua/157433/
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. SOPRANO OKSANA KROVYTSKA PERFORMS IN CONCERT
                     Sunday, September 24, 2006, Alexandria, Virginia

Chrystia Sonevytsky, Publicity Chair
The Washington Group Cultural Fund
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 20, 2006

WASHINGTON – The Washington Group Cultural Fund, in cooperation
with the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, is about to embark on its 6th
season of high quality concerts at the Lyceum in Old Town, Alexandria,
Virginia.

The first concert of the season will feature opera Diva honoree of the NYC
Opera, Oksana Krovytska, on Sunday, Sept 24th, 2006 at 3 pm.

She will perform operatic arias by Verdi, Puccini, Dvorak and art songs by
Barvinsky, Ludkevych and Kolessa. She will be accompanied by pianist
Oksana Skidan.

The Lyceum is located at 201 S.Washington St., Alexandria, VA. There is
a suggested donation of $20.00

       BIOGRAPHY: OKSANA KROVYTSKA, SOPRANO

Ukrainian soprano Oksana Krovytska, honored with New York City Opera’s
coveted ‘Diva Award,’ remains ‘…the object of our admiration.’ says the
New York Times.

With the New York City Opera, she performs to critical acclaim in roles such
as Donna Elvira in Don Giovanni, Musetta and Mimi in La Bohème, Violetta in
La Traviata, Liu in Turandot, Magda in La Rondine, Yaroslavana in a new
production of Borodin’s Prince Igor, and numerous appearances as

Cio-Cio-San in Madama Butterfly including a new production by Mark Lamos.

The New York Post says, ‘Oksana Krovytska was both impassioned and
vulnerable in the title role and delivered a sweetly modulated `Un bel di,’
that prompted the audience’s vigorous approval.’

In addition, Ms. Krovytska is praised worldwide in portrayals at the Florida
Grand Opera, L’Opéra de Montréal, San Francisco Opera, Florentine Opera,
Bolshoi Theatre in Russia, Arizona Opera, Lyric Opera of Kansas City,
Santiago Opera, as well as with symphony orchestras in Tokyo, the Colorado
Symphony, Opera Orchestra of New York, Milwaukee Symphony, Baltimore
Symphony, the RTVE Symphony Orchestra in Madrid, and the New Jersey

Symphony in Dvorak’s Requiem with Maestro Zdenek Macal, which was
recorded on Delos Records and received a Grammy award.

Most recently, Ms. Krovytska performed Renata in Fiery Angel with the
Bolshoi Theatre Tour in Ljublijana, Amelia in Un Ballo in Maschera with the
Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Senta in The Flying Dutchman with Anchorage
Opera and the Tokyo National Orchestra, Cio-Cio-San in Madama Butterfly

with Florida Grand Opera, and the title role in Suor Angelica with Opera Santa
Barbara. In 2006, she reprises the roles of Senta in The Flying Dutchman
with Arizona Opera and New Jersey Opera Theatre, and the title role in Suor
Angelica with Opera Santa Barbara.

European engagements have included Margherita and Elena in Boito’s
Mefistofele with the Casals Festival, Elvira in Ernani with Santiago Opera,
Marguerite in Faust with Opera de Bellas Artes in Mexico, Marie in Smetana’s
Bartered Bride with Opera de Monte Carlo, and Agnes in Tchaikovsky’s Maid

of Orleans at the Bard Festival. Shehas appeared frequently at the Opern Air
Festival in Austria as Liu in Turandot, Mimi in La Bohème, and Micaela in
Carmen.   (http://www.pinnaclearts.com/artist.php?id=394).
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. IEU FEATURES THE UKRAINIAN IMPRESSIONIST PAINTERS

Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, September 2006

An important movement in painting that arose in France in the late 1860s
and is linked with artists such as Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, August
Renoir, and Alfred Sisley, impressionism had a strong influence on
Ukrainian painting. The first Ukrainian impressionists appeared at the end
of the 19th century and were graduates of the Cracow Academy of Fine Arts.

Impressionism remained a major trend in Ukrainian painting until the early
1930s and it gave rise to Neo-impressionism, which attempted to base
painting on scientific theory; Postimpressionism, which cultivated the
esthetics of color; and Pointillism, which broke down colors into their
elementary hues and distributed them in mosaic-like patterns.

 
Learn more about the influence of the impressionist movement on Ukrainian
art and the major representatives of this style in Ukraine by visiting:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/featuredentry.asp or by visiting:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com and searching for such entries as:

IMPRESSIONISM. The original French impressionist painters sought to capture
with short strokes of unmixed pigment the play of sunlight on objects. The
name of the movement was derived from Claude Monet’s “Impressions: Sunrise”
(1872). Oleksa Novakivsky, who later embraced symbolic expressionism, was
one of the first Ukrainian impressionists. Ivan Trush, who preferred to
work with grayed colors, adopted impressionism only partly.

 
Mykola Burachek captured the sunbathed colors of the Ukrainian steppe, while
Mykhailo Zhuk and Ivan Severyn introduced decorative elements into their
impressionist works. Other leading exponents of Ukrainian impressionism were
Oleksander Murashko, Vasyl Krychevsky, Petro Kholodny (landscapes and
portraits), Mykola Hlushchenko, and Oleksii Shovkunenko…

OLEKSANDER MURASHKO, b 7 September 1875 in Kyiv, d 14 June 1919
in Kyiv. Painter. He studied at the Kyiv Drawing School (1891-4), under Ilia
Repin at the Saint Petersburg Academy of Arts (1894-1900), and in Munich

and Paris (1902-4). In 1907 he settled in Kyiv, where he taught painting at the
Kyiv Art School and at his own studio. In 1909 he exhibited his canvases in
Paris, Munich, and Amsterdam, and in 1910 at the international exhibition
in Venice and at one-man shows in Berlin, Koln, and Dusseldorf.
 
From 1911 he exhibited with the Munich Sezession group. In 1916 he joined the
Peredvizhniki society and became a founding member of the Kyiv Society of
Artists. He was a cofounder of the Ukrainian State Academy of Arts in 1917
and served there as a professor and rector. Murashko’s style evolved from
the realism of the Peredvizhniki school into a vivid, colorful
impressionism…

KRYCHEVSKY, VASYL, b 12 January 1873 in Vorozhba, Lebedyn county,
Kharkiv gubernia, d 15 November 1952 in Caracas, Venezuela. Outstanding
art scholar, architect, painter, graphic artist, set designer, and a master
of applied and decorative art. Working as an independent architect and artist,
he achieved a national reputation by the time of the outbreak of the First
World War.

 
During the revolutionary period he was a founder and the first
president of the Ukrainian State Academy of Arts. After the war he lived
briefly in Paris before immigrating in 1947 to South America. As a painter
Krychevsky was deeply influenced by French impressionism. The pure and
harmonious colors of his south-Ukrainian landscapes or Kyiv cityscapes
(done in oils and watercolors) convey a lyrical atmosphere…

BURACHEK, MYKOLA, b 16 March 1871 in Letychiv, Podilia gubernia,

d 12 August 1942 in Kharkiv. Impressionist painter and pedagogue. Burachek
studied in Kyiv and graduated from the Cracow Academy of Fine Arts in 1910.
His first exhibit was held in 1907. In 1910-12 he worked in the studio of
Henri Matisse in Paris.
 
In 1917-22 he served as professor at the Ukrainian State Academy of Arts in
Kyiv and then at the Kyiv State Art Institute and the Lysenko Music and
Drama School in Kyiv. From 1925 to 1934 he was rector of the Kharkiv Art
Institute and then returned to the Kyiv State Art Institute. A master landscape
painter, he rendered Ukrainian landscapes in a colorful, impressionist style.

HLUSHCHENKO, MYKOLA, b 17 September 1901 in Novomoskovske,
Katerynoslav gubernia, d 31 October 1977 in Kyiv. Artist. A graduate of the
Academy of Art in Berlin (1924), from 1925 he worked in Paris where he
immediately attracted the attention of French critics. From the Neue
Sachlichkeit style of his Berlin period he changed to postimpressionism.

 
Besides numerous French, Italian, Dutch, and (later) Ukrainian landscapes, he
also painted flowers, still life, nudes, and portraits. At the beginning of the 1930s,
Hlushchenko belonged to the Association of Independent Ukrainian Artists
and helped organize its large exhibition of Ukrainian, French, and Italian
paintings at the National Museum in Lviv. In 1936 he moved to the USSR, but
was allowed to live in Ukraine only after the war.             -30-
————————————————————————————————
The preparation, editing, and display of the IEU entries associated with
the Ukrainian impressionist painters was made possible by the financial
support of the CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR UKRAINIAN STUDIES.
————————————————————————————————
ABOUT IEU: Once completed, the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine will
be the most comprehensive source of information in English on Ukraine, its
history, people, geography, society, economy, and cultural heritage. With
over 20,000 detailed encyclopedic entries supplemented with thousands of
maps, photographs, illustrations, tables, and other graphic and/or audio
materials, this immense repository of knowledge is designed to present
Ukraine and Ukrainians to the world.

At present, only 10% of the entire planned IEU database is available on the
IEU site. New entries are being edited, updated, and added daily. However,
the successful completion of this ambitious and costly project will be
possible only with the financial aid of the IEU supporters. Become the IEU
supporter and help the CIUS in creating the world’s most authoritative
electronic information resource about Ukraine and Ukrainians!
———————————————————————————————–
Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine
Project Manager, Hrushevsky Translation Project
Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto
20 Orde Street, Rm. 124, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1N7
tel: (416) 946-7326; fax: (416) 978-2672; m.stech@utoronto.ca
www.utoronto.ca/cius; www.encyclopediaofukraine.com
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
4.   SUMMER 2006 ISSUE OF THE UKRAINIAN QUARTERLY

The Ukrainian Quarterly, New York, New York, September 2006

NEW YORK – The new Summer 2006 issue of The Ukrainian Quarterly is

now available.  The English-language scholarly journal includes such
interesting articles as:

   [1] OUN-Between Collaboration and Confrontation with Nazi Germany;
   [2] The Political Prisoner’s Dilemma: Evidence from the Great Terror in

         the Soviet Union;
   [3] The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 as Genocide in the Light of the
         UN Convention of 1948; and,
   [4] The Emergence of State Polity and National Aspirations in Ukraine –
        Two Coins or Two Sides of One Coin?

To purchase a copy of The Ukrainian Quarterly, please send check or money
order in the amount of $8USD to:

The Ukrainian Quarterly, 203 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10003. E-mail:
uq@ucca.org.                                          
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.   IEU FEATURES BROTHERHOODS: THE PROMOTERS OF
   EDUCATION AND CULTURE IN EARLY MODERN UKRAINE

Dr. Marko R. Stech, Managing Director, CIUS Press
Project Manager, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August, 2006

Ukraine and Belarus were the only countries where Orthodox lay brother-
hoods came into being. Although structurally similar to their western
European counterparts, the Eastern-rite brotherhoods developed their

unique features and their activities coincided with a period of crucial
social and cultural change in early modern Ukraine.

The Ukrainian brotherhoods assumed the task of defending the Orthodox
faith and Ukrainian nationality by counteracting Catholic and particularly
Jesuit expansionism, Polonization, and later conversion to the Uniate
church.

The schools attached to the Orthodox brotherhoods in several larger cities
disseminated European humanist ideas and introduced generally accessible
post-humanist education, while the brotherhood presses promoted the
development of scholarship and literature.

Learn more about the brotherhoods and their crucial influence on education
and culture in early modern Ukraine by visiting:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/featuredentry.asp; (a comprehensive
study of the brotherhood movement can also be found in the book:
http://www.utoronto.ca/cius/publications/books/isaievychbrotherhood.htm)
or by visiting: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com and searching for
such entries as:

BROTHERHOODS. Fraternities affiliated with individual churches in Ukraine
and Belarus that performed a number of religious and secular functions. The
origins of brotherhoods can be traced back to the medieval bratchyny, which
were organized at churches in the Princely era. Brotherhoods as such
appeared in Ukraine in the mid-15th century, with the rise of the burgher
class.

They began to play a historical role in the second half of the 16th
and at the beginning of the 17th century. The brotherhoods endeavored to
reform the Orthodox church from within by condemning the corrupt practices
of the hierarchy and of individual clergymen. They brought about a revival
in the life of the church by promoting cultural and educational activity.
They founded brotherhood schools, printing presses, and libraries.

BROTHERHOOD SCHOOLS. Schools founded by religious brotherhoods
for the purposes of counteracting the denationalizing influence of Catholic
(Jesuit) and Protestant schools and of preserving the Orthodox faith began
to appear in the 1580s. The first school was established in 1586 by the
Lviv Dormition Brotherhood. The school served as a model for other
brotherhood schools in various towns of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,
most of them in Ukraine and Belarus. In the first half of the 17th century even

some villages had brotherhood schools.
 
The most prominent schools were the Lviv Dormition Brotherhood School and
Kyiv Epiphany Brotherhood School. In 1631, the latter was merged with the
Kyivan Cave Monastery School to form the Kyivan Mohyla College, which
later became the Kyivan Mohyla Academy.

LVIV DORMITION BROTHERHOOD. An Orthodox religious association
founded in the 15th century by Lviv merchants and tradesmen at the Dormition
Church in Lviv. It is the oldest and one of the leading Ukrainian
brotherhoods, andit served as an example to other brotherhoods. There are

historical references to it dating back to 1463.

According to its charter, which was confirmed by Patriarch Joachim V of
Antioch in 1586 and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople in 1589, the
brotherhood was independent of the local bishops (right of stauropegion) and
subject directly to the Patriarch of Constantinople. It had the right to
oversee the activities not only of secular members of the church but also

of the clergy and even the bishops.

KYIV EPIPHANY BROTHERHOOD. A church brotherhood established ca
1615 at the Kyiv Epiphany Brotherhood Monastery in the Podil district by
wealthy burghers, nobles, clerics, and Cossacks to defend the Orthodox faith
from the onslaught of Polish rule and Catholicism. Hetman Petro
Konashevych-Sahaidachny gave it a great deal of support and joined it ‘with
the entire Zaporozhian Host’ in 1620.

 
That same year the Orthodox Kyiv metropoly was restored and the brotherhood
acquired stauropegion status and the right to establish a ‘brotherhood for young
men’ from the visiting patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophanes III. The Polish king
Sigismund III Vasa granted the brotherhood a royal charter in 1629.

LUTSK BROTHERHOOD OF THE ELEVATION OF THE CROSS. A
renowned Orthodox brotherhood founded in 1617 in Lutsk by H. Mykulych,
 the hegumen of the Chernchytsi monastery located near the city. The Lutsk
Brotherhood included monks, priests, bishops, nobles, aristocrats, and
members of the middle class from Lutsk and Volhynia.

 
It received a charter from the Polish king Sigismund III Vasa in 1619 and was
granted the status of stauropegion by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1623.
It ran the Lutsk Brotherhood of the Elevation of the Cross School and
operated a printing press in the monastery. After Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s era
the brotherhood entered a period of steady decline.                       -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
    Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR.    
       You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
   If you are missing some issues of the AUR please let us know.
========================================================
         “ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
         A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
                With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
 
      Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
                Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
                                  Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
      SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
                “SigmaBleyzer – Where Opportunities Emerge”
 
The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.
 
All publications are grouped by categories: Marketing; Economic Country
Reports; Presentations; Ukrainian Equity Guide; Monthly Macroeconomic
Situation Reports (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
 
You can be on an e-mail distribution list to receive automatically, on a
monthly basis, any or all of the Macroeconomic Situation Reports (Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine) by sending an e-mail to mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com.
               “UKRAINE – A COUNTRY OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES”
========================================================
   UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
========================================================
    “WELCOME TO UKRAINE”- “NARODNE MYSTETSTVO”

                                   (Folk Art) MAGAZINES
For information on how to subscribe to the “Welcome to Ukraine” magazine
in English, or the Ukrainian Folk Art magazine “Narodne Mystetstvo” in
Ukrainian, write to ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. Complete information is
========================================================
              ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS
                              Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
               Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
          “Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”

1.  THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura,
Chairman; Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Washington, D.C., http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
   Additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine Program are:
2. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA), Zenia Chernyk,
Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President; Huntingdon Valley,
Pennsylvania
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 298 7275 in Kyiv,
kau@ukrnet.net
4.  ESTRON CORPORATION, Grain Export Terminal Facility &
Oilseed Crushing Plant, Ilvichevsk, Ukraine
5. Law firm UKRAINIAN LEGAL GROUP, Irina Paliashvili, President;
Kiev and Washington, general@rulg.com, www.rulg.com.
6. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC., Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
7. VOLIA SOFTWARE, Software to Fit Your Business, Source your
IT work in Ukraine. Contact: Yuriy Sivitsky, Vice President, Marketing,
Kyiv, Ukraine, yuriy.sivitsky@softline.kiev.ua; Volia Software website:
http://www.volia-software.com/ or Bill Hunter, CEO Volia Software,
Houston, TX  77024; bill.hunter@volia-software.com.
8. ODUM– Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson
9. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Washington, D.C.,
Dr. Susanne Lotarski, President/CEO; E. Morgan Williams,
SigmaBleyzer, Chairman, Executive Committee, Board of Directors;
John Stephens, Cape Point Capital, Secretary/Treasurer
10. UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE USA, South
Brown Brook, New Jersey, http://www.uocofusa.org
11. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL (UACC),
Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, New York
12. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John Kun, Vice President/COO; Vera
Andruskiw, CPP Wash Project Director, Washington, D.C.; Markian
Bilynskyj, VP/Director of Field Operations; Marta Kolomayets, CPP
Kyiv Project Director, Kyiv, Ukraine. Web: http://www.USUkraine.org
13. WJ GROUP of Ag Companies, Kyiv, Ukraine, David Holpert, Chief
Financial Officer, Chicago, IL; http://www.wjgrain.com/en/links/index.html
14. EUGENIA SAKEVYCH DALLAS, Author, “One Woman, Five
Lives, Five Countries,” ‘Her life’s journey begins with the 1932-1933
genocidal famine in Ukraine.’ Hollywood, CA, www.eugeniadallas.com.
15. ALEX AND HELEN WOSKOB, College Station, Pennsylvania
16. SWIFT FOUNDATION, San Luis Obispo, California
17. TRAVEL TO UKRAINE website, http://www.TravelToUkraine.org,
A program of the U.S-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C.
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,
and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.
 
If you do not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please
contact us immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.  If you are
receiving more than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected
 
              SPAM BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

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

========================================================
                        PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

AUR#761 Sept 22 The Making Of Sheva; The Hired Assassin; Viktor Baloha:Yushchenko’s New Favourite; Rudderless Ship; Halyna Krychevska-Linde; Babi Yar

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

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

                                                     
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 761
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
WASHINGTON, D.C., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2006
 
                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
1.                 ANDREI SHEVCHENKO: THE MAKING OF SHEVA
         This exclusive extract from a new book charts the remarkable story of
              Chelsea’s Andrei Shevchenko: from a childhood blighted by the
                 Chernobyl disaster, through a tough footballing education in
                                 Ukraine to fame and fortune in the West.
The Independent, London, United Kingdom, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

2.                                      THE HIRED ASSASSIN
      After three years of hot pursuit Chelsea finally have the player Roman
Abramovich wanted more than any other – Andriy Shevchenko, the Ukrainian
    superstar with the American model wife and one of the world’s greatest
 players. He talks exclusively to James Eve, in London, about the horror of
   Chernobyl, his Champions League ambitions and how Giorgio Armani
                                         helped him to find love.

By James Eve, The Observer, London, UK, Sunday September 03 2006

3.                “BALOHA: YUSHCHENKO’S NEW FAVOURITE”
                              Profile of new presidential chief of staff
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
: By Viktor Chyvokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 19 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

4UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS VIKTOR BONDAR & ARSENIY
    YATSENYUK DEPUTY HEADS OF PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 20 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Wed, Sep 20, 2006

5.              UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS MORE AIDES
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 21 Sep 06;
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

6 UKRAINE PRIME MINISTER RESISTS EU PUSH FOR REFORMS
By Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune (IHT)
Paris, France, Thursday, September 21, 2006

7.      UKRAINE: YANUKOVYCH ASSURES EU THAT ALL IS WELL

RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY
Prague, Czech Republic, Thursday, September 21, 2006

8.             RIFT REOPENS BETWEEN LEADERS OF UKRAINE
By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, Thursday, September 21 2006

9.     YANUKOVYCH TO BRUSSELS: YUSHCHENKO STAYS HOME

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Tammy Lynch
THE ISCIP ANALYST, Volume XIII, Number 1,
Boston, Massachusetts, Thursday, 21 September 2006

10.                                      RUDDERLESS SHIP
   So who’s leading the country now? It seems like a ship without a captain.
EDITORIAL:
Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, Sep 21 2006

11.          “YANUKOVYCH ‘SECRETLY’ USES AKHMETOV AND

                                    ANOTHER 200 FOLLOWERS”
                    Website reveals Ukrainian premier’s speech at NATO
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 19 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

12.                            TEMPTATIONS OF DEMOCRACY
     Any talk of parliamentary democracy in this country is premature. The

    opposition and the authorities are used to waging wars against each other.
There are no winners in these wars. Instead, there is a whole nation of hostages.
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
: By Serhii Rakhmanin
Zerkalo Nedeli (ZN) On The Web, Mirror-Weekly
International Social Political Weekly, No. 35 (614)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, 16 – 22 September 2006 year

13INTEGRATING UKRAINE INTO EU VIA PRACTICAL COOPERATION
REPORT ON PRESS CONFERENCE: With Timothy Barrow
New Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain to Ukraine
By Mykola Siruk, The Day Weekly Digest in English, #28
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 19, 2006

14.           OBITUARY: HALYNA KRYCHEVSKA-LINDE, ARTIST

                     AND DAUGHTER OF RENOWNED ARCHITECT
By Heather Fernuik, Special to The Ukrainian Weekly
The Ukrainian Weekly, Vol. LXXIV, No. 38, p. 4 and 22
Parsippany, New Jersey, Sunday, September 17, 2006

15.          INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL FOR NAZI
                                  BABI YAR UKRAINE MASSACRE
By Jeremy Wimpfheimer and Daniel Epstein
Israel News Agency, Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

16.          WEBCAST: “CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE”
Live Video Webcast Friday Of Presentation By Former US Ambassador Pifer

By John A. Kun, Vice President/COO
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C., Thu, Sep 21, 2006
========================================================
1
.     ANDREI SHEVCHENKO: THE MAKING OF SHEVA
     This exclusive extract from a new book charts the remarkable story of
          Chelsea’s Andrei Shevchenko: from a childhood blighted by the
             Chernobyl disaster, through a tough footballing education in
                            Ukraine to fame and fortune in the West.

The Independent, London, United Kingdom, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

This article is from the (RED) edition of The Independent of 21 September
2006, guest-designed by Giorgio Armani. Half the revenue from the edition
will be donated to the Global Fund to Fight Aids.


                                             ORIGINS
‘At the time Chernobyl didn’t affect us too much. Of course, for too many
others is had terrible consequences. It was all hidden from us’

Andrei Shevchenko, the most expensive player ever to sign with a UK club and
the greatest footballer to have emerged from Eastern Europe, was born on 29
September 1976 in the village of Dvirkivshchyna, the son of a kindergarten
teacher and a captain in a Red Army tank regiment.

Though far from wealthy, his parents Lubov and Nikolaj – next-door
neighbours in their youth – created a happy home for Andrei and his sister,
Yelena. Endless football, skating in winter, fishing with his father and
idyllic summers on the Black Sea all made for a contented youth.

But at the age of nine, Andrei and his school were evacuated to the Black
Sea after the nuclear disaster of April 1986 in nearby Chernobyl. His class,
however, only moved in the autumn, some four months after.

“At the time, it did not affect us too much. Of course, for too many others
it had terrible consequences. But the tragedy and all its after-effects were
more talked about in the West. It was all hidden from us there,” recalls
Andrei, whose foundation today helps children in need and orphans in the
Ukraine.

Shevchenko’s talent had already been recognised. Four weeks before the
tragedy he signed for the youth team of Dynamo Kiev, who were then coached
by the legendary Valery Lobanovsky, former trainer of the Soviet Union.

“For a child at that time, Dynamo Kiev had always been the greatest team in
Kiev, in Ukraine!” Shevchenko remembers.
                                FIRST STEPS IN FOOTBALL
‘It’s my people who watch me, who respect me. I play for them. That’s why
it’s important’

Father Nikolaj was reluctant to see his son become a player, but eventually,
like everyone, recognised Andrei’s ability. “My parents left the choice
tome, they never said, ‘Do this, do that’. They said it’s best you choose,”
Shevchenko says.

By the age of 14, Andrei was already making his mark internationally, as the
young Dynamo team won the Ian Rush Cup in Wales in 1990, and Andrei,
as the top scorer, received a pair of boots from the famous marksman.

As a child of a military family, Andrei always appeared spick and span.
Already foreign newspapers were noticing the handsome and impeccably
kitted out goalscorer.

His goalscoring touch was such he became the symbol of the fruits of
glasnost on a youth tour of Germany, where already his self-confidence and
good looks made him stand out.

Aged 15, Andrei had burnished a major local reputation, boosted after he
scored for Ukraine’s youth team live on national television in a 2-2 draw
with Holland.

Aged 18, Andrei broke into Dynamo’s first team at a golden time. Dynamo
won five consecutive league titles and three Cups, as Shevchenko scored 60
goals.

He also notched a remarkable 20 for Dynamo in the Champions’ League,
including a hat-trick against Barcelona in Nou Camp – the first by a
Ukrainian in the competition.

“In Kiev we had beaten Barcelona 3-0, and a friend said, ‘Let’s see how you
do in the return,’ and bet me I wouldn’t score three goals. He ended up
buying that dinner/’ Andrei chuckles.

But Sheva’s greatest season for Dynamo was 1998-99, when in the Champions’
League he scored in each match against Lens and a penalty against Arsenal as
Kiev won their group.

In the quarter-final, Andrei rifled in three to eliminate Real Madrid before
racking up two against Bayern Munich, fruitlessly as the Germans squeezed
through.

Later, when Milan paid pounds 18m to buy the player, Lobanovsky nicknamed
him “The White Ronaldo”, while Italian fans dubbed him the new Marco van
Basten. Seven years on Chelsea were to almost double that price when they
lured Andrei from Italy to England.

Lobanovsky was to be an immense influence on Andrei, for whom loyalty is a
key value. He drove his young charge hard at Kontcha Zaspa, the mythical
training camp with 500 rooms, immense Socialist Realist pool, sauna,, gym
and covered and open-air pitches 10 miles from central Kiev.

Like many young Eastern Europeans back then, Sheva was a heavy smoker,
consuming 30-40 cigarettes per day, something the old hand Lobanovsky was
determined to stop. He forced him to drink a nicotine-based solution, which
made him feel powerfully sick and reject cigarettes ever since.

Shevchenko’s greatest remaining ambition came true on 3 September, 2005
when Ukraine qualified for their first World Cup.

Three times they had been eliminated in the play-offs, to Croatia in 1997,
Slovenia in 1999 and Germany in 2001. However, guided by coach Oleg Blokhin,
Ukraine won their group, with Andrei top scorer. Again, Sheva’s statistics
are remarkable – 19 goals in 29 World Cup qualifiers.

“Playing for Ukraine is extra important’ it’s my country. It’s my people who
watch me, who respect me. I play for them. That’s why it’s important. You
are playing for the people, not for anything else, only for them.”

With Dynamo, Sheva wore the 10 or 11 shirt, but with the national team and
Milan – and now Chelsea – he took to wearing No 7, in part because he felt
it brought him luck, but also because Sheva means seventh in Hebrew. His
official website is: www.sheva7.com.

Andrei does not like to make comparisons with his contemporaries, though
when pressed names his four favourite past players as Blokhin, Van Basten,
Diego Maradona, Johan Cruyff.

When it comes to defenders, he cites five fearsome opponents: Paolo
Mal-dini, Ciro Ferrara, Lilian Thuram, John Terry and Jilrgen Kohler, “who
was maybe the toughest of the lot”.
                                  THE MOMENT OF TRUTH
‘Losing to Liverpool was a beautiful moment’ I would never change it. Even
if we lost, we also learnt’

Andrei exploded into SerieA with the Rossoneri, scoring on his debut. With
24 goals he finished up capocannoniere (top scorer) in Italy in his first
season. Almost immediately, Milan’s tifosi began calling him Super Sheva.

Shevchenko went on to score 173 goals in seven seasons with Milan, a
exceptional figure in the tough-tackling and defensive minded Italian
league.

His European scoring average was even better. On 23 November 2005 he scored
four in a Champions’ League game, an achievement matched only by four other
players, Van Basten, Si-mone Inzaghi, Dado Prso and Ruud van Nistelrooy.

And he knows how to take the rough with the smooth: his missed shoot-out
penalty sealed Liverpool’s remarkable comeback from 3-0 down at half-time in
the Istanbul Champions’ League final of 2005, an emotionally exhausting
defeat for the Italians.

“This was an important moment to face. Life is not made up just of
victories, but also losses. When you are down, you rise up and go ahead.
This was a beautiful moment’ I would never change it. Even if we lost, we
also learnt,” he shrugs.

“These famous six minutes completely changed the destiny of Milan. It’s not
true what was written that we thought we’d win. We continued to play’ we
even played very well.

For us, that is football and that is why I would not change this moment.
Liverpool did what they had to do in those six minutes, you recognise that.”
                                             CHELSEA
‘I said I would not even think about it. But I wished him good luck creating
this new Chelsea. Now we are ready for each other’

The latest chapter in Sheva’s football career began in May 2006 when he
signed a four-year contract with Chelsea for a record fee – “I want to
finish my career here.”

On signing Sheva, the Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho declared: “Today is a
day when the dream became reality. Andrei has always been my first choice
for Chelsea since I arrived.

He has great qualities, ambition, discipline, tactical awareness and of
course he is a great goalscorer.” Mourinho knew the sting of Sheva’s
scoring – when Sheva scored the winner in the 2003 Uefa Super Cup the
opposition was Mourinho’s Porto.

After two Premiership titles, the key target for Chelsea must be the
Champions’ League, which is where Sheva comes in. He was the top marksman
in that tournament last season with nine goals. Sheva is full of admiration
for the team Roman Abramovich has busily built with his petroroubles.

“Chelsea is a beautiful team, very well constructed and, above all, with
very special, passionate fans,” Sheva says. “I hope to win the Champions’
League and Premiership with Chelsea. I play for the team, not just to score
lots of goals, but also to make my contribution. “There has always been
competition at Milan, a huge team, so I’m used to it.

Teams are not just 11 players. Chelsea have many objectives: Premiership, FA
Cup, League Cup, the Champions’ League, so everyone has a role and a chance
to play.”

Shevchenko first met Abramovich shortly after the Russian billionaire bought
Chelsea.

“I met him in Milan’s Four Seasons [hotel]. He was in town to speak with
Internazionale, who had players that interested him. Roman asked me right
away would I think of coming to his team.

But that was when Milan had just won the Champions’ League and I said I
would not even think about it. But I wished him good luck creating this new
Chelsea Now we are ready for each other.”

Abramovich and Mourinho are the latest wise men to guide the trajectory of
Sheva, a man who speaks with great respect for his own father. Lobanovsky,
Blokhin, [Silvio] Berlusconi and [Carlo] Ancelotti were all mentors’ now
it’s the turn of Roman, and Jose.

Sheva arrived in London the mirror image of the pampered modern player,
the spoilt millionaire indulged by Footballers’ Wives.

He is the consummate professional and, statistically, the best striker ever
in the Champions’ League. No wonder Roman hired Andrei. If Sheva’s the
missing piece on the Holy Grail that is the Champions’ League, he will be
worth every penny.
                     ANDREI SHEVCHENKO FOUNDATION
‘It was clear people needed help’

Sport is not his only connection to his native land. The Andrei Shevchenko
Foundation raises funds to refurbish existing orphanages, donate modern
hospital equipment and train hospital staff, doctors, social workers and
qualified psychologists in a battle to help children in need and orphans.

In May 2005, his foundation raised EURlm (pounds 670,000) through abenefit
match in San Siro where Maradona and Richard Gere lent their support and
personalities like tennis star Andrei Medvedev, gymnast Yuri Chechi and
boxer Vladimir Klitschko appeared.

“The foundation began because so many letters arrived. It was clear people
needed help. First we bought a machine for a neonatal hospital, then I
visited the hospital and we bought more machines and then ambulances.
Slowly but surely you do more. You see that people really needed support.”

Sheva is determined to use his fame and reach to build the Andrei Shevchenko
Foundation, which raises money for children suffering with leukemia and
cancer. The Foundation bankrolled a fully equipped ambulance for newly born
babies for Bojarka’s Paediatric Regional Hospital.

Next, it financed a boarding school for orphaned and needy children in
Pereyaslov Khmelnitskiy and another in Volodarka, Kiev Region. Information
on the Andrei Shevchenko Foundation or how to make a donation is available
on www.sheva7.com.                              -30-
—————————————————————————————————–
Extracted from ‘Sheva’, a biography of Andrei Shevchenko, written by Godfrey
Deeny and specially commissioned by Giorgio Armani, who will be donating
royalties from the sales of the book to the Andrei Shevchenko Foundation.
—————————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/premiership/article1645611.ece
—————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2.                                  THE HIRED ASSASSIN
    After three years of hot pursuit Chelsea finally have the player Roman
Abramovich wanted more than any other – Andriy Shevchenko, the Ukrainian
     superstar with the American model wife and one of the world’s greatest
   players. He talks exclusively to James Eve, in London, about the horror of
     Chernobyl, his Champions League ambitions and how Giorgio Armani
                                         helped him to find love.

By James Eve, The Observer, London, UK, Sunday September 03 2006

It was the right place, but the wrong time. In the late summer of 2003
Andriy Shevchenko arrived at the Four Seasons hotel in Milan for a meeting.

By chance, Roman Abramovich had chosen the same hotel – a converted
15th-century convent – for talks of his own. Abramovich, in the short time
since his surprise takeover of Chelsea, was establishing himself as European
football’s most powerful club owner; Shevchenko was still glowing from AC
Milan’s Champions League triumph against Juventus a few months earlier. It
could have been the perfect romance. In the end it was a brief encounter.

‘I happened to have an appointment there at the same time with another
person, who introduced me to Roman,’ Shevchenko says. ‘Straightaway he
asked me whether I’d like to come to Chelsea, but I told him absolutely not,
because I was happy at AC Milan. We’d just won the Champions League.
I spoke to him for another five minutes and that was it.’

Abramovich would not forget their meeting. It soon became apparent that he
wanted the striker above any other to play for him at Chelsea, and so the
wooing began. It started as a stealthy affair. In May 2004, Abramovich and
his chief executive Peter Kenyon travelled to the northern Italian fashion
capital to meet club vice-president Adriano Galliani. The meeting ended with
both parties insisting their talk had been ‘of a general nature only’ and
not about the specificity of a Shevchenko transfer. Few believed them.

The following summer the romance went public. Shevchenko and Abramovich
were photographed in conversation at the stadium in Boston where Chelsea
were playing Milan on a pre-season tour of America. This served only to

intensify speculation that they had been talking, if not meeting, in private as well.

By now, Shevchenko was sending out mixed messages. ‘Even if Milan wanted
to sell me, I wouldn’t leave,’ he said in July 2005, a few weeks after
publicly expressing his respect and admiration for what Abramovich was

trying to achieve at Chelsea.

The British press reported that Abramovich was prepared to pay up to
£85m for the striker. Cifre da fantascienza- ‘fantasy figures’ – said
their Italian counterparts. Milan’s fans would probably argue they reflected
the true value of their man. And the final figure, when the deal was
concluded a year later, was a British transfer record of nearly £31m.

It’s no wonder Abramovich was so eager to sign the Ukrainian superstar. His
European experience fits neatly with Chelsea’s ambition of winning the
Champions League – he has 43 goals in the competition and only Real Madrid’s
Raul of current players, with 51, has scored more.

Three times the Ukrainian has been the competition’s top scorer across a
season and he remains one of the game’s most consistent strikers.
Importantly, for a player who turns 30 later this month, he is capable of
adapting quickly to a new league – at Milan he became the only foreigner
 ever to finish top scorer in his first Serie A season.

This summer, Shevchenko captained Ukraine in their first appearance in the
World Cup. Despite the shock of a heavy defeat in their first game, he led
his side to the quarter-finals, where they lost to the eventual champions,
Italy. A country whose league he had by then agreed to leave.

‘Milan is a big club, a great club, but for him to leave Milan for Chelsea
is a big statement about where Chelsea is,’ said Jose Mourinho about a
player who may have been pressed upon him by Abramovich.

There is without doubt an affinity of sorts between Shevchenko and
Abramovich, the footballer and the oil billionaire. Most obviously, they
speak Russian, are both former citizens of the Soviet Union and, for all
their present wealth and comfort, know hardship and early struggle: while
the Russian Abramovich began his business empire flogging plastic ducks
from a grim Moscow apartment, Shevchenko escaped Europe’s worst
nuclear disaster in his native Ukraine to become Shevagol, the ‘Wind from
the East’, ‘the White Ronaldo’.

We meet on a wet West London evening at the hotel in Kensington where
he is living with his 28-year-old American wife, Kristen Pazik, a former
model, and their 22-month-old son Jordan. He arrives a little late, having

spent the afternoon playing golf at the exclusive Wisley club in Surrey.

He must be tired, but he shakes everybody’s hand and smiles, relaxed in his
new surroundings. There’s nothing showy in his manner, no strut or swagger.

He’s dressed simply but well in dark grey trousers and a black T-shirt; he
negotiates the photo-shoot with practised ease. He is used to being
photographed, having modelled for his friend Giorgio Armani, with whom
he opened two boutiques back in his former hometown of Kiev.

Armani played a role in his relationship with Pazik, whom he met in 2002 at
a post-show party organised by the celebrated designer; they married in July
2004 on a golf course in Washington DC. She is tall and blonde and graceful.
Usually she would take part in the shoot, but not today: she is seven
months’ pregnant, with a son, and keen to avoid the lens.

In Italy Pazik has been accused of enticing Shevchenko away from Milan. Her
friendship with Abramovich’s wife, Irina, with whom she goes shopping, and
her wish to bring up their children in an English-speaking culture were
reported as important influences on her husband’s decision to join Chelsea.

Adriano Galliani, the Italian club’s vice-president who was reported to have
held those preliminary transfer talks with Abramovich in 2004, described
Shevchenko’s departure as ‘a victory of the English language over the
Italian language’.

Shevchenko is defensive but defiant. ‘I don’t see why I should have to
explain to loads of people why we’ve moved,’ he says, speaking in precise,
accented Italian. ‘Kristen is American, I’m Ukrainian and we’ve spent the
last few years living in Italy. We’ve already got one kid and there’s
another on the way. They will need stability and part of that is about what
language they are going to speak as they grow up. The decision to come to
London was a family decision about what was best for them.’

That has not stopped some Milan fans from, inevitably, branding him a
‘traitor’. Perhaps their irritation is understandable: his departure is a
blow for Serie A, which is still grappling with the fallout from the
match-fixing scandal.

After the departures of other top players, including Italy’s World
Cup-winning captain Fabio Cannavaro, Brazil midfielder Emerson and

France defender Lilian Thuram, all to Spain, Shevchenko’s move abroad
confirmed the growing unease about the fading glamour and appeal of a
league not long ago seen as the most prestigious in the world.

More recently, La Gazzetta dello Sport, the Milan-based daily newspaper,
published a barbed account of the Shevchenkos’ busy social calendar since
arriving in London: golf, shopping excursions, a Madonna concert, the
musical Chicago and dinner at smart restaurants. How quickly he has
forgotten us, it implied.

Shevchenko and Pazik have just found a rented apartment close to Stamford
Bridge. Had Abramovich offered to lend him one of his many residences, as
was widely reported? ‘No. It wouldn’t be appropriate,’ he said. ‘He’s the
owner of the club. He’s my boss and I’m his employee. I want to keep it that
way.’

Andriy Shevchenko was born on 29 September 1976 and spent his early years in
the village of Dvirkivschyna, 60 miles south of Kiev, before moving with his
parents to the capital of what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic. His father Mykola was a mechanic in the army, his mother Lyubov
worked in a nursery.

When he was nine, on 26 April 1986 a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded,
spewing a vast radioactive cloud into the skies. The family home in Kiev was
only 80 miles away. ‘We knew something was going on because my father was in
the army, but mostly it was just rumours,’ he says now. ‘People continued to
go to work and go about their business. There was no panic. For days the
press and television would not say exactly what had happened, how serious it
was.’

The Soviet authorities were unsure what to do, waiting until the school
exams were over before evacuating the children, including Shevchenko and his
sister Elena, who is three years older, to live on the coast in the east of
the country, near Donetsk. ‘We were all taken off to the sea, to go camping.

Eventually, after two or three months, my parents came to pick us up. It’s
only now, years later, with all the genetic illnesses that have started to
emerge, that we’ve begun to understand the scale of the disaster. And people
didn’t just get sick. They also lost their homes, their possessions.’
Shevchenko has since set up a charitable foundation for sick children, many
suffering from birth defects, the result of the catastrophe at Chernobyl.

As a child, he was enthralled by football and, at the age of 10, was spotted
by Dynamo Kiev scout Alexander Shpakov. He was invited to join the club’s
youth programme. Following perestroika, the programme of economic
restructuring and liberalisation introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, the
opportunities for a young player had never been so good. He travelled to
Germany, Italy and England.

In 1990, as part of Dynamo’s under-14 team, he finished top scorer in the
Ian Rush Cup in Wales and was awarded a pair of boots by the Liverpool
striker. ‘Funnily enough, the boots were too small for me but I still tried
to play in them – until my big toes poked through,’ he says, laughing. He has
kept them to this day.

When he was 16, Shevchenko failed a dribbling test for a place at a
specialist sports university in Kiev. ‘After that, I had to choose: whether
to continue with football or take another direction. It was difficult, but I
never lost my self-belief. I told my parents I wanted a bit more time to
prove myself. A few weeks later, Dynamo’s second team stepped in. A year
later [in 1994] I was playing in the first team.’

Dynamo had won the Soviet Union’s championship a record 13 times and now
dominated their domestic rivals in the league of the independent Ukraine. In
five seasons, Shevchenko won five league titles and scored 60 goals in 118
appearances. But thrashing Dnipro and Shakhtar Donetsk was easy. Recognition
abroad depended on success against Europe’s top clubs and Shevchenko might
have been easily missed were it not for the appointment of Valery Lobanovsky
as coach.

Lobanovsky was 58 and already a hero to Dynamo fans when he returned to the
club at the start of the 1997-98 season. As a winger, he had formed part of
the great Dynamo side that won the Soviet league title in 1961 – the first
side from outside Moscow to do so. Then, in 1974, he took over as coach.

He held the position for 15 of the next 17 years, a period in which the club
won the Soviet league eight times. He also had three spells when he was in
charge of the Soviet Union national side: his teams won Olympic bronze in
1976 and finished as runners-up at the 1988 European Championship.

Lobanovsky left Ukrainian football in the early Nineties to take charge of
the United Arab Emirates and then Kuwait but, after watching Shevchenko and
strike partner Sergei Rebrov in action in the winter of 1996, he was
persuaded to return home.

‘He was the greatest coach in Dynamo’s history and the father of Ukrainian
football,’ Shevchenko says. ‘We called him “The Colonel”. He was a
disciplinarian and a very intelligent man – I don’t just mean tactically. To
be successful as a coach you need more than tactics. Lobanovsky was
constantly looking ahead, trying to work out where football was going next.
He was the first Ukrainian coach to use sports science to get the best out
of his players.’

Lobanovsky died in 2002. Shortly after winning the 2003 Champions League
title with AC Milan, Shevchenko took the trophy to Kiev and stopped off by
his old coach’s grave. ‘It was my way of thanking him for what he gave me.

Without doubt he was the coach that changed me most. He taught me the need
to be patient, he instilled the culture of work in me and the importance of
respecting your adversary. He laid the foundations on which my career is
based.’

The respect was mutual. Comparing Shevchenko to some of Europe’s
more established stars in 1998, Lobanovsky said: ‘Big-name players get so
far and become complacent. Look at Ronaldo. He’s still improving, as he
should at his age. But he stands around when he isn’t scoring. I wouldn’t
swap him for Shevchenko, who puts in valuable teamwork.’

Under Lobanovsky, Dynamo made the step up from domestic domination to
progress in the Champions League. In the 1997-98 season they reached the
quarter-finals of the competition, the highlight of their campaign a 4-0 win
over Barcelona at the Nou Camp, in which Shevchenko scored a first-half
hat-trick.

‘It was the night I was “discovered”. After that there was no hiding,’ he
recalls. The team went even further the following year, beating reigning
champions Real Madrid in the last eight, and could have reached the final if
they hadn’t squandered a 3-1 lead to draw 3-3 in the first leg of their
semi-final against Bayern Munich. But Dynamo were ultimately victims of
their own success, with their best players being lured away by wealthier and
more glamorous western clubs. In the summer of 1999, AC Milan, then Serie A
champions, signed Shevchenko for £26m.

‘It was like starting my life from scratch,’ he says of the move to Italy.
His first coach, Alberto Zaccheroni, remembers him as being ‘quiet, maybe a
bit shy, and respectful. But right from the start he had a great desire to
learn – not that he needed much help. He just seemed to soak it up. His
record speaks for itself.’

‘He seemed to settle quite quickly,’ recalls Gazzetta dello Sport
correspondent Alessandra Bocci, who followed Shevchenko during his seven
years in Italy. ‘He was shy, but there was also a quiet confidence about
him. It was clear … he had something to say. And he was never the kind of
player who would go out to curry favour with the fans. He wasn’t like
[Gennaro] Gattuso, for example, who wears his heart on his sleeve.

Big gestures weren’t his style. It’s easy to forget, but back then Milan
wasn’t a team of stars. For a few years at the beginning he propped up a side

that was struggling to hold its own, and he had to wait a long time [five
seasons] before winning the Serie A title. There was a lot of responsibility
on him – that’s a tough thing for a kid of 23 to handle, especially a
foreign player. But he always remained very approachable, even when he
became the star.’

At home, in Ukraine, Shevchenko remains a national hero, though fame can be
perilous. In late 2004, for instance, he became caught up in the country’s
presidential elections, in which the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych faced the
reformist, pro-Western Victor Yushchenko. The contest was marred by
corruption and voter intimidation and the sinister suggestion that
Yushchenko had been poisoned. How else to account for his sudden facial
disfigurement?

During the campaign Shevchenko appeared on national television and glumly
read a prepared statement that endorsed Yanukovych, who drew his support
largely from the eastern part of Ukraine, the region where the footballer
was evacuated as a child in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

The great hero who had departed for the West and married an American
looked like a man reading his own death warrant. When Shakhtar Donetsk
fans visited Milan for a Champions League fixture a few weeks later, they
unfurled a banner with the simple message: ‘Your choice made the nation
weep.’

Since then Shevchenko has tried to distance himself from what happened. He
spoke of enjoying ‘warm words’ with Yushchenko when the latter, then
installed as President, congratulated him on becoming European Footballer of
the Year in 2004. ‘The people in Ukraine deserve democracy,’ he says now.

Then, with anger: ‘It’s bullshit. A big load of bullshit. Listen, politics
is a shitty world. I want to stay well away from it, and well away from
newspapers and TV stations that are standing up for one candidate or
another. I’m an athlete. I represent my country. Whenever I’m called on to
play, I play. And when the time comes to stop, I’ll stop. But I do all this
because I want to, not because someone is forcing me to.’

There was further controversy last month, this time trivial, when, on his
competitive debut for Chelsea, he kissed the badge on his shirt as he
celebrated scoring in the 2-1 Community Shield defeat to Liverpool. Former
team-mates at Milan were disgusted. ‘It’s best if I don’t say what I really
think,’ said Gennaro Gattuso, the bearded midfield mastiff. ‘It looks like
he has fallen for his new team in a hurry,’ team coach Carlo Ancelotti said.

‘People give far too much importance to things like this,’ Shevchenko says
now. ‘They don’t look at the person, they look at some tiny gesture instead.
When I was at Milan, I didn’t win the fans over by kissing my shirt. I did
it through the way I played on the pitch. Here at Chelsea I want to do the
same.’

He says he misses friends in Italy but is adapting quickly to life in
London. The hotel where he lives employs Italian staff and Chelsea use an
Italian cook on their travels. As for the football, ‘it’s faster, more
physical and less tactical than in Italy. The smaller teams seem to go for
the long-ball approach and, in general, teams don’t try to keep possession
so long, and the defenders close you down much faster.’

His ambition above all others is to win the Champions League with Chelsea,
especially as he was part of the Milan team that lost the final on penalties
to Liverpool in 2005, having led 3-0 at half-time. Shevchenko missed the
decisive penalty in the shootout. ‘It was incredibly painful at the time,
but I’ve learned to see it in a positive light. The team was playing well
that night, there was a great feeling between the players. In my opinion we
deserved to win, but Dudek made an incredible save to stop me scoring [in
extra time]. That’s just part of football.’

What is also now ‘just part of football’, or of English football at any
rate, is the constant media attention from both sport and showbusiness
journalists. With his model wife, who likes to pose nude, Shevchenko is more
likely than many of his team-mates to feel this intense exposure. Kristen
admits that she has already been surprised by the close scrutiny of the
British tabloid press. Yet Andriy is still engagingly open in conversation
and manner. Perhaps this is because in Italy the relationship between
footballers and reporters remains comparatively accessible and relaxed,
whereas here in England they are protected by image makers and are often
paid for interviews (as if they needed the money).

By way of confirming his naivety, the week before we spoke, he had driven on
his own to Wentworth, hoping to pay a green fee for a round at the exclusive
Surrey golf club. The three gentlemen with whom he made up a four-ball must
have been as thrilled as they were unsettled to be joined for the afternoon
by Britain’s most expensive footballer. Perhaps the ultimate test of his
assimilation into Premiership culture, then, will not be how many goals he
scores, but whether he is still making such spontaneous trips at the end of
the season.
                         THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ANDRIY 
1976: Born on 29 September in Dvirkivshchyna, Ukraine. His father,
Mykola, served in the Red Army and his mother, Lyubov, was a nurse.
1986: Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurs in April. His family is forced to
abandon their home in Kiev and move to the coast in the east of the country.
Later that year, he is brought to Dynamo Kiev after a scout spots him
playing in a youth tournament.
1994: Breaks into the Dynamo first team. He goes on to win five successive
Ukrainian league championships between 1994-95 and 1998-99.
1995: Wins his first international cap for Ukraine against Croatia.
1996: Scores his first goal for Ukraine in a 3-2 defeat against Turkey.
1999: Signs for AC Milan for £26m in July, making his league debut in
a 2-2 draw with Lecce. Becomes the first non-Italian to be top scorer in
Serie Ain his debut season, with 24 league goals.
2003: Scores the winning penalty as Milan beat Juventus in a shootout in the
Champions League final at Old Trafford.
2004: He is again top scorer in Serie A and Milan win the title for the
first time since his arrival. In July, he marries American model Kristen
Pazik on a golf course in Washington, DC. The couple had met at an Armani
after-show party. A few months later, Kristen gives birth to their son,
Jordan. Andriy is named European Footballer of the Year.
2005: After leading 3-0 at half time, Milan lose the Champions League final
against Liverpool on penalties. Shevchenko’s miss in the shootout is
decisive.
2006: In May, he signs for Chelsea for an English transfer record of more
than 30m and in June he captains Ukraine in their first World Cup.

Their first match is a 4-0 defeat by Spain, but he scores against Saudi
Arabia and Tunisia as Ukraine reach the quarter-finals, where they lose to
Italy. Scores on his Chelsea debut in August in the Community Shield against
Liverpool.                                         -30-
————————————————————————————————
NOTE: James Eve is a sportswriter based in Rome.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1861233,00.html
Email your comments to football.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3.       “BALOHA: YUSHCHENKO’S NEW FAVOURITE”
                          Profile of new presidential chief of staff

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Chyvokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 19 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

The Ukrainian president’s new chief of staff is a good manager and family
friend, a website has reported. He comes from Transcarpathian Region where
he earned his reputation for leadership and the ability to defence political
interests.

Baloha owns no business, but his wife has stakes in 14 companies, the
website said.

The author also said Baloha will defend the President Viktor Yushchenko
against Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

The following is the text of the article by Viktor Chyvokunya, entitled
“Baloha: Yushchenko’s new favourite”, published on the Ukrayinska Pravda
website on 19 September, subheadings appear as in the original:

[Ukrainian President] Viktor Yushchenko, [newly-appointed presidential chief
of staff] Viktor Baloha and [former Prime Minister] Yuriy Yekhanurov. This
is who jumped into the freezing water to mark the baptism of Christ and this
is the order in which they jumped. That happened on 19 January 2006.

Now this threesome can unite under one roof in the building on Bankova
Street [where the presidential secretariat is located].

Baloha has already made the jump as the president’s secretary. The decree
employing Yuriy Yekhanurov as the secretary of the National Security and
Defence Council [NSDC] is on its way.

Baloha’s being at the helm of the secretariat is a symbol of the changes
which have taken place in Ukraine with the advent of Viktor Yanukovych as
prime minister. The epoch when it was necessary to demonstrate democracy in
the presidential secretariat has ended. Now it is time to hold the defences.

A grating epithet has often sounded in Baloha’s address – he is also called
a “crisis manager”. The analogy is easy to read: he will defend Yushchenko
from Yanukovych’s advances as [chief of staff of former President Leonid
Kuchma, Viktor] Medvedchuk once defended Kuchma from the opposition.

Perhaps now the room where the head of the secretariat relaxes will finally
lose the weight machine that Medvedchuk left behind. Not because Baloha does
not like sports, simply he hates everything associated with the United
Social Democratic Party of Ukraine [USDPU]

Yushchenko’s aide Mykhaylo Doroshenko suggested Baloha’s nomination to
Yushchenko a long time ago. But after Baloha was appointed Minister of
Emergency Situations in the Yanukovych government, it seemed he had fallen
out of the favourites in the race for lobbying to take [former
chief-of-staff Oleh] Rybachuk’s place.

However, a few days ago the version pushed onto the scene that Rybachuk’s
successor was chosen during the celebration of the sixtieth birthday of
Petro Yushchenko, the president’s brother, which took place in the middle of
last week.

The first statement on Rybachuk’s resignation was written in February this
year. After talking to Yushchenko last week, and understanding his
intentions, Rybachuk wrote another one.

The president immediately granted the request of the head of his secretariat
to resign. Rybachuk is going without a specific place to prolong his career.

He declined posts offered him by Yushchenko in the secretariat and the
Foreign Ministry, since these posts looked like clear demotions compared to
his current rank.

And it appears most likely that Rybachuk has nothing else to do but head the
Oshchadnyy Bank holding [state bank] or UkrPoshta [Ukrainian state post],
which his friend Oleksandr Morozov is lobbying for.

Despite Baloha friendly tone during the news conference, it is worth
expecting significant personnel changes in the secretariat. Ivan Vasyunyk is
under threat in his post as first deputy secretary.

The practice of delegating authority which Rybachuk introduced will be
repealed. It’s simply that Baloha will do what Vasyunyk has done up to now –
hands-on management of the secretariat.

This war is destined to end with Baloha’s victory and because he is a most
powerful behind-the-scenes fighter and because he now has a carte blanche
from Yushchenko and because Vasyunyk managed to discredit himself in the
year and a half that he has worked in the secretariat.

Some experts predict Arseniy Yatsenyuk will be appointed to Bankova Street
with the goal of keeping him in the president’s team – he is the single
positive hero of the past year.

Yet there is not information as to whether Yatsenyuk himself desires this.
Life is giving Baloha the urgent task of returning Yushchenko’s influence.

“Earlier, the president could punish. Now he can only ask Yanukovych – and
the latter may agree or may not. And he more frequently chooses the second
variant”, a representative of the prime minister’s circle explained the
logic of the current moment.

Baloha’s projects in his new job could be to repeal political reform and
take processes in the regions under the control of Bankova Street.

Baloha in charge of the secretariat is also an attempt to build a new party
around Yushchenko. As is known, he and Yekhanurov were the ideologues

behind the idea of cleansing Our Ukraine of “dear friends”.

Since some of Our Ukraine’s sponsors no longer believe it can be brought
back to life, the idea of building a new political force in this electoral
niche is growing inside a lot of heads. And now Baloha has one big
advantage – the authority of power.
                               BALOHA’S SECRET SMILE
In contrast to Rybachuk, whose behaviour is like a fountain, Baloha is a
siphon which is not sympathetic to publicly voicing his real intentions. A
smile rarely leaves the face of the newly-appointed chief of staff and in
personal conversations one very quickly begins to feel he is a personal
friend.

But, despite simple behaviour and his ability to evoke sympathy, Baloha is a
person whom one does not want to underestimate. He always jokes in

response to difficult questions and does not say it straight.

Baloha is a typical “man”, maybe even with a bit of macho. With all the
attendant accessories. There is a house in Transcarpathian Region at the
foot of Mount Synyak, where every week there is a barbecue or sauna session
where Baloha’s closest team meets. Half of Ukraine’s politicians have been
there.

Under Kuchma, Baloha earned his reputation as a bureaucrat-manager in the
fight with floods. From May 1999 to June 2001 he headed the Transcarpathian
Region Regional Administration for the first time.

This region was the political cradle of [Hryhoriy] Surkis and Medvedchuk –
through the first-past-the-post districts there they were first elected MPs,
opening the doors to big politics.

During that time as governor, Baloha built the first vertically-integrated
chain of the USDPU within one region. But after the conflict with Medvedchuk
in Mukacheve he forced the leaders of district administrations to renounce
the party.

At this stage, Baloha was called the companion of [Our Ukraine member and
former NSDC Secretary Petro] Poroshenko, who had also just split with the
USDPU.

Baloha has long been in the sights of the current president. Even back when
he quit his post as governor after Yushchenko was dismissed as prime
minister. Yushchenko values such gestures.

Baloha’s weak spot is his past. He personifies one of three competing clans
in Transcarpathian Region: Baloha on one side, [Serhiy] Ratushnyak on
another and Medvedchuk via his brother-in-law Chubirek one the third.

Each one of them conquered his place on the map and was an influence in
every possible manner. Baloha’s homeland is Mukacheve, where he was twice
elected mayor. There are no criminal cases which would testify to his ties
to bandits. But everyone in Mukacheve knows who controls the city.

For example, there is a report from May 2004, read in parliament by Ihor
Dryzhchannyy – the then-deputy prosecutor-general and now chief of the
Security Services of Ukraine [SBU].

He was summoned to the podium in connection with the falsified election for
mayor in Mukacheve. Baloha, who took away Medvedchuk’s victory, readied
himself for them no less meticulously than the USDPU.

In particular, the report read that besides skin-heads from USDPU, the
candidate from Our Ukraine also had a support group. These people “were
concentrated in a sports complex for Greco-Roman wrestling in Mukacheve

city and were ready to provide physical support”.

Besides Dryzhchannyy informed, about 200 residents of neighbouring districts
arrived in Mukacheve to support Baloha. They called themselves observers and
activists in the National Congress of Youth and the All-Ukrainian
Association Freedom and the Ukrainian Nationalist Front.

The mayor of the city now is Vasyl Petyovka – the husband of Baloha’s sister
and the right hand of the new head of the presidential secretariat.

Local opponents even joke that the monument in Mukacheve to Cyril and
Methodius [the medieval monks who brought written language to the Slavs] is
“Baloha teaches Petyovka to write”.
                   LEGENDS ROAM OF BALOHA’S GRIP
One legend that is around is this: on the first day of the Orange authority
on 4 February 2005, when Baloha was made governor, after the first
ceremonial meeting of the [Yuliya] Tymoshenko government, he made one

call to Transcarpathian Region – to his trusted person Oleh Havasha.

Baloha gave the order to publicize a number of his decrees – for this, he
had left a packet of documents in Uzhhorod with clean sheets of paper with
his signature at the bottom.

And so the vertical of authority in Transcarpathian Region was formed
literally in one day, while other colleagues were unable to do the same for
weeks.

And when one of the deputies of the former governor, who represented the
USDPU arrived to work, he was literally taken out of the service automobile
with the words: “Get out and put it in the garage. You don’t have the right
to use it anymore, because you’re fired”.

At the same time, Baloha is a person who is able to make personal contacts.
When he ran in that scandalous election in Mukacheve, he was able to make a
partner of his enemy Serhiy Ratushnyak and even the Communist Mariya
Markush.

But Baloha is not a public person and he is not known for acts of PR. For
him, it is easier to win an election with food hand-outs, than with a finely
thought-out political strategy.

Old-timers from Kanal 5 recall when they held a marathon in connection with
the falsification of the Mukacheve election – Baloha did not once show up on
air for them.

But Baloha controls the biggest television and radio company in
Transcarpathian Region, M-Studio, which has several times the coverage than
the state regional television. During Kuchma, they “damaged” the information
picture put together by Medvedchuk.

The election in Mukacheve in 2004 was a stage event for Kuchma’s last year
in power. It turned the attention of all diplomats accredited in Ukraine to
this regional district centre and all the leading Western publications wrote
about it, for as it turned out, it was a testing ground for falsifying the
next presidential election.

Medvedchuk’s experiment played a cruel joke on him. This election finally
gave birth to a formula for the democratic world: if Yushchenko does not

win the election for president, then that means the election was shuffled.

Yushchenko did not forget his comrade at the end of the revolution. After
the “corruption scandal”, the president promoted Baloha to Minister of
Emergency Situations.

One of the first steps he made was to repair the toilets in the central
building of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, since the only one which
worked normally before that was the one in the minister’s own office.

Over the course of a year, Baloha proved his professional abilities to
Yushchenko four times, during the accident in Alchevsk, the flooding in
Transcarpathian Region, the explosions in Novobahdanivka, and bird flu in
Crimea. In order to prove the safety of Ukrainian domestic chicken, Baloha
lunched on it in front of journalists.

“Baloha has good relations with Yushchenko’s family – thanks to an ability
to engender a good mood on a personal level. Betting on Baloha is betting on
the day-to-day, personal comfort of the president.

The new boss on Bank Street can really solve problems, without distracting
the president with the minutiae”, a source closely acquainted with the new
leader of the secretariat told Ukrayinska Pravda.
                                     BALOHA’S COLOURS
Baloha is not a poor person. Baloha’s main business group in Transcarpathian
Region is Barvy [Colours], which no profitable sphere goes past. It is sort
of a mini Lyuks in Mukacheve.

Once former Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov tried to tell journalists that
the members of his cabinet were not involved in commerce.

“Well, maybe there is Baloha…[ellipsis as published] Maybe they put him in
row 27 of Kiev businessmen, and put him in with business. Yes…[ellipsis as
published] But it’s mostly talk”, Yekhanurov said then.

In his official declaration for 2005, it reads that he received 105,146
hryvnyas of income, which came exclusively from his wage accounts as a state
servant. In his declaration, Baloha said he had no money of his own in the
bank and he only owned a number nine Lada [very common, inexpensive
automobile].

At the same time, his family’s income in 2005 was 915,989 hryvnyas including
wages of 909,000 hryvnyas.

According to the declaration, the minister’s family owns two plots of land
of 2,406 and 341 square metres and two flats of 101.1 and 51.8 square meters
and a garage of 43 square metres. Baloha’s family also owns two automobiles,
an Audi All-Road and a Daimler-Chrysler.

Members of Baloha’s family have bank accounts of only 22,068 hryvnyas. The
size of their investments in authorized capital of enterprises and
organizations is 1,488,300 hryvnyas.

At the present time, Baloha is not listed as the founder of any company. But
his wife Oksana figures as a shareholder in 14 enterprises:

LLC Barvy
Open Joint-Stock Company Mukachivska Avtobaza [Mukacheve automobile

company]
LLC Vysokyy Zamok [regional newspaper]
LLC Barvy Cultural and Arts Centre
LLC Matriks Mukacheve
LLC Prodyuser
LLC Hart
LLC Mukachivskyy Institut Mebliv [Mukacheve furniture institute]
LLC Zakarpatska Prodovolcha Hrupa [Transcarpathian food group]
LLC Avto M
LLC Partner
LLC Torhovyy Dim Okan
LLC Rusyniya
LLC Starovynnyy Zamok

Baloha himself is modest in characterizing his entrepreneurial achievements.
When Our Ukraine held a congress and failed to exclude the “dear friends”
from the party, Yevhen Chervonenko told Baloha he has no moral right to
criticize them: since the Barva company was operational while
[Chervonenko’s] Orlan was ruined.

To which Baloha replied: “Even 1,000 of my Barvy would be too small to
compare to what Orlan is. They are completely different companies in terms
of size. Don’t try to compare an elephant to a mouse. You just have to work
normally and not make a joke out of nothing”                   -30-

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4.UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS VIKTOR BONDAR & ARSENIY
    YATSENYUK DEPUTY HEADS OF PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT

Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 20 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Wed, Sep 20, 2006

KIEV – President Viktor Yushchenko has appointed Viktor Bondar and

Arseniy Yatsenyuk deputy heads of the presidential secretariat. Decrees
to this effect are posted on the president’s official website.

Yatsenyuk was appointed the first deputy head of the presidential
secretariat and the president’s representative in the Cabinet of Ministers.

As reported earlier, on Saturday [16 September] Yushchenko appointed

[former Emergencies Minister] Viktor Baloha head of the presidential
secretariat. Bondar was the transport minister in the [Yuriy] Yekhanurov
cabinet and Yatsenyuk the economics minister.            -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.         UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS MORE AIDES
 
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 21 Sep 06;
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

KIEV – Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has appointed Taras

Stetskiv his adviser, the UNIAN news agency reported on 12 September.
 
Stetskiv was an activist of the Orange revolution, which brought
Yushchenko to power in 2004. Then he headed the National TV Company.

Yushchenko also appointed Oleksandr Chalyy deputy head of his

secretariat, UNIAN reported on the same day. Earlier, Chalyy was a
deputy foreign minister.                             -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.  UKRAINE PRIME MINISTER RESISTS EU PUSH FOR REFORMS

By Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune (IHT)
Paris, France, Thursday, September 21, 2006

BRUSSELS – Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich of Ukraine said Thursday
that his socialist government’s chief priority was social stability and that
he would not introduce reforms in response to pressure from the European
Union.

Meeting top EU officials in Brussels for the second time in a week, he was
again urged to conclude negotiations to join the World Trade Organization by
the end of the year to bring Ukraine closer to EU policies and eventual
membership in the European bloc.

He also warned that he would not risk igniting the kind of anti-reform
protests that swept Hungary this week, when thousands of demonstrators in
Budapest lashed out at Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurscany for lying repeatedly
about the economy and then proposing harsh measures to reduce a huge
budget deficit.

Ukraine’s other neighbors to the west, including Poland and Slovakia, are
increasingly reluctant to impose further economic changes, while to the
east, President Vladimir Putin of Russia continues to strengthen central
power. Given those considerations, Yanukovich appears to be in no hurry.

“You should understand that this government will protect the national
interests of Ukraine and you should underline this in red,” Yanukovich said
during a 45-minute interview in Brussels before meeting with the president
of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.

If he chooses to introduce reforms at all, it “would be a long-term
program,” he said. “The decisions will be realistic and pragmatic. Not
populist. But Ukrainian. We will not respond to orders.”

Yanukovich is an enthusiastic pro- Russian who was ousted in the peaceful
Orange Revolution in December 2004 but has made a remarkable comeback.
In parliamentary elections in March, his faction defeated the pro-Western
parties that led the Orange Revolution.

One of those parties, Our Ukraine, led by President Viktor Yushchenko, had
made fast-track negotiations to join NATO and the EU a foreign policy
priority. Little progress was made because of infighting within the
government and a lack of immediate encouragement from Brussels.

Since taking power last month after long negotiations over the formation of
the new government, Yanukovich has dropped the effort to join NATO – long
opposed by Russia – but is pursuing EU membership. Commission officials said
Thursday that Ukraine would have to accelerate economic reforms simply to
sign a new trade agreement with the EU.

Yanukovich said such a trade accord depended on Ukraine’s completing
negotiations to join the WTO. Pandemonium broke out in Parliament last year
after the Socialist Party balked at reducing tariffs for some agricultural
produce as part of the WTO talks. The Socialist Party, whose main support
comes from small farmers, is now part of Yanukovich’s coalition.

When asked if WTO negotiations would be complete by the end of this year,
the timetable set by the previous government, Yanukovich hesitated. “I will
never say that we will do something today,” he said.

“I want to say that the speed will be optimal to the extent that it will be
able to speed up when the laws are ratified. There is a need to protect the
domestic producers. They have to be able to withstand competitive
pressures.”

Yanukovich could face problems this winter, when gas prices will be
substantially increased. An agreement last January between the Yushchenko
government and Gazprom, Russia’s state- own energy monopoly, stipulated that
Gazprom would raise the price of gas to Ukraine from $60 per 1,000 cubic
meters to $95 this year.

That price was far below the $250 demanded by Gazprom, largely because
Ukraine was also buying gas from Turkmenistan that passed through Russia to
reach Ukraine.

Yanukovich said gas prices would increase because of a deal made this month
between Turkmenistan and Gazprom. Gazprom agreed pay $100 per 1,000 cubic
meters, an increase of $35. This means that Ukraine will no longer be able
to buy cheap Turkmen gas, since that gas will be sold to Ukraine via Russia.

Asked how he was going to explain the higher price for gas, Yanukovich
blamed the previous two governments led by Yushchenko. “They left us this
legacy,” he said. “Because of them, Ukraine lost its direct supplies of gas
from Turkmenistan. Now Russia carries responsibility for the supply of gas
to Ukraine and the transit of gas to Europe.”

He gave no indication that Putin was prepared to make any concessions over
the gas price even though Yanukovich has managed to shift Ukraine’s foreign
policy closer to Russia.

Yanukovich made it clear last week that Ukraine was in no rush to join NATO
and that the people would have to vote on such a decision in any event.
————————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/21/news/ukraine.php
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. UKRAINE: YANUKOVYCH ASSURES EU THAT ALL IS WELL


RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY
Prague, Czech Republic, Thursday, September 21, 2006

BRUSSELS – On a return visit to Brussels today, Ukrainian Prime Minister

Viktor Yanukovych restated his government’s intention to push ahead with
its aim of joining the European Union.

Yanukovych was in the EU capital last week, but came back in order to meet
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso — and reiterate that
Kyiv’s NATO bid is, for now, on ice.

Yanukovych reassured Barroso that Ukraine is still looking to join the
European Union and World Trade Organization.

He also said that Ukraine was pumping enough gas to ensure that Europeans
won’t face a frosty winter — as they did for a few icy days last January,
when Russia blocked its shipments to Ukraine.

“We should move step by step in order for Ukraine and the European Union to
be able to sign an agreement on a free-trade zone within the shortest term
after Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organization.”

And Yanukovych also restated his government’s intention to push ahead with
reforms necessary to establish a free-trade zone with the European Union.

“We should move step by step in order for Ukraine and the European Union to
be able to sign an agreement on a free-trade zone within the shortest term
after Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organization,” he said.

Linked to that was Yanukovych’s assurance that Ukraine was not attempting to
join a customs union with Russia, something that would scupper the plans for
an EU-Ukraine free-trade zone.

“I have answered this question many times,” the Ukrainian prime minister
said. “It goes against the Ukrainian Constitution and we will never do
that.”
                                                   EU FEARS
Since Yanukovych’s appointment as prime minister in August, following months
of political deadlock, there were fears in the EU and United States that
Ukraine would reverse the Westward course it has taken since the 2004 Orange
Revolution.

Yanukovych, the loser of the hotly contested presidential campaign that
sparked the revolution, campaigned on a pro-Russian platform.

Visiting Brussels last week and meeting with Finnish Foreign Minister and
current EU chair, Erkki Tuomioja, Yanukovych gave EU officials an idea of
his government’s intentions — namely that they would continue seeking
membership of the EU.

His comments then were cautiously welcomed. And Barroso today reiterated the
EU’s current offer to Ukraine: closer ties but no mention of membership.

“Our objective is to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union. Our
objective is also to support political, institutional, and economic reforms
in a way [that would] contribute to economic growth and the improvement of
the living standards of Ukrainian citizens,” Barroso said.
                                             NATO BID ON ICE 
The arrival of U.S. troops in the Ukrainian port of Simferapol prompted a
series of protests in June (RFE/RL)Prime Minister Yanukovych also elaborated
on his government’s position regarding NATO.

In Brussels last week, Yanukovych irked his president, Viktor Yushchenko, by
saying there was not enough popular support to join NATO and Ukraine should
move in gradual steps toward its bid to join the alliance.

Yushchenko described Yanukovych’s comments as wrong and said they must be
corrected.

But today in Brussels, Yanukovych remained defiant, saying the NATO question
would be decided by a referendum and that his position has the support of
the parliament.

“The statement that I made during my previous visit to Brussels had been
agreed upon with the [parliamentary] coalition’s council,” Yanukovych said.
“And this is the position of the parliamentary coalition [and this position]
has been voted for.

Today, it is our parliament that practically determines our home and foreign
policy — the principles of our home and foreign policy.”
————————————————————————————————
RFE/RL’s Brussels correspondent Ahto Lobjakas contributed to this report.
————————————————————————————————-
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/9/8b02bc07-5f38-468e-b5c0-2896b5d7ec59.html
—————————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8.          RIFT REOPENS BETWEEN LEADERS OF UKRAINE

By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, Thursday, September 21 2006

The deal between Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s president, and Viktor
Yanukovich, his prime minister – agreed only a few weeks ago after
months of argument – has run into trouble amid fights over domestic
reform policies and the president’s speedy western integration agenda.

Mr Yanukovich was due to visit Brussels today and meet European Union
officials to reassure them of Kiev’s continuing commitment to closer
integration. But there are questions about what exactly the Ukrainian
premier will say following a Brussels trip he made last week to see
Nato representatives when he unexpectedly announced that Kiev was not
prepared to take the first steps towards membership of the military
alliance. This is in defiance of Mr Yushchenko’s wishes.

The prime minister shrugged off a presidential public rebuke for his
actions, casting doubt on the realism of Mr Yushchenko’s foreign
policy ambitions. The president’s “desires, at times, exceed his
capabilities”, Mr Yanukovich told the FT at a briefing earlier this week.

As well as threatening political gridlock, the resurfacing of deep
political rifts has called into question Mr Yushchenko’s ability to
keep Ukraine on a path of swift western integration.

Both leaders agree on seeking improved trade relations and eventual
membership of the EU for their country of 47m. However, with the two
men vying for domestic political advantage, foreign policy has become
a battleground.

Mr Yanukovich, who campaigned ahead of last March elections for
reviving ties with Moscow, Kiev’s principle energy supplier, does not
support Mr Yushchenko’s plans for quick Nato membership. Most
Ukrainians also oppose Nato membership.

The prime minister’s position on Nato and his government’s first
domestic reform moves have triggered sharp criticism from Mr
Yushchenko and Our Ukraine, the president’s political party.

Allies of both leaders said relations between the two men were also
tense because of the inability of their respective political camps to
find common ground.

Our Ukraine leaders this week accused Mr Yanukovich of breaking last
month’s compromise agreement through which his candidacy for prime
minister was supported on condition that Mr Yushchenko’s western
integration drive be preserved. Mr Yushchenko avoided dissolving
parliament after Mr Yanukovich signed the compromise accord.

But during a five-hour meeting last Friday, Mr Yushchenko issued what
he described as a “first political warning” to his former arch rival
from the “Orange Revolution” of 2004, criticising the government’s
changed stance on Nato and its failure to push ahead with reforms,
such as tax cuts.

Earlier this week Mr Yanukovich said relations with Mr Yushchenko had
been complicated by constitutional changes that shifted key
presidential powers to the parliament, which formed the country’s
first coalition government.

He held firm in defending his government’s policies and restated his
plans to pursue pragmatic western integration policies.

Mr Yushchenko hopes to gain influence over the government by coercing
Our Ukraine to join Mr Yanukovich’s coalition, which is made up of the
pro-business Regions party, Communists and Socialists. All three
oppose swift Nato integration and, to a lesser degree, liberal reforms.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9. YANUKOVYCH HEADS TO BRUSSELS: YUSHCHENKO STAYS HOME
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Tammy Lynch
THE ISCIP ANALYST, Volume XIII, Number 1,
Boston, Massachusetts, Thursday, 21 September 2006
 
On 14 September, Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovich faced their first real open disagreement
over policy, as they clashed publicly over whether Ukraine will
continue on its path toward NATO.  The disagreement underscores the
lack of clarity in the country over separation of powers and
responsibilities, and makes it clear that the prime minister will not
be content simply to follow the president’s orders.

On 2 August 2006, Yushchenko, Yanukovich and the leaders of the
Communist Party, Socialist Party and Our Ukraine Bloc, signed a
“Declaration of National Unity.” The five-page document was said to
provide the foundation for all future policy decisions in the country.  

 
“The basics of the definition of Ukraine’s domestic and foreign
policy, of its continuity, have been completed,” Yushchenko said at the
time. “I am convinced that in Ukraine’s political practice, at any rate
among the signatories, there will be no more … discussions and
misinterpretations.” (1)  Those discussions, of course, had been based
on the fact that Yanukovich leaned toward a Russo-centric foreign
policy while Yushchenko was committed to a West-leaning policy.

Following the signing of the declaration (called a “Universal” in
Ukraine), and buoyed by his apparent belief that all questions of
Ukrainian’s future policy direction had been answered, Yushchenko
nominated Yanukovich to become the country’s new prime minister. 

 
When questioned by the media about differences that seemed to exist
between the two men, – particularly about the country’s general foreign
policy and its specific goal of joining NATO – Yushchenko seemed calm.
Directing foreign policy, he said, was a right granted to the president
constitutionally, and “I am pursuing the policy toward [NATO]
integration without adding anything else to it.” (2)

Yanukovich’s interpretation of the declaration apparently was a bit
different.  On September 14, speaking in Brussels following a meeting
with NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Yanukovich announced
“a pause” in the country’s movement toward fulfilling its NATO
Membership Action Plan (MAP).  “We explained that given the political
situation in Ukraine,” he said, “it would be better to take a pause [in
the integration process].” (3)  He pointed to the low level of support
for NATO integration among the public as evidence that Ukraine was not
ready to join the alliance.

Yushchenko and his allies in the government reacted with indignation. 
Their irritation seemed to stem mainly from the fact that Yanukovich
made such a major policy announcement without consulting Yushchenko. 

“This step was unfounded and illogical and even, in my view, mistaken,”
said Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko. (4)  The president accused
Yanukovich of making statements that “breach the Universal of National
Unity and constitutional accords.”  (5)  And Foreign Minister Boris
Tarasyuk said, “If we read the Constitution closely … we don’t find
these kinds of authorities granted to the government.” (6)

But that isn’t entirely accurate, particularly since new Constitutional
amendments give the parliament increased power to control the
government.  A close reading of the constitution finds that both the
president and the parliament have some level of authority over foreign
policy.  Since the prime minister is nominated by, and answerable to,
the parliament, this technically provides Yanukovich with the legal –
if not political – right to direct the NATO debate.

Article 106, Point 3 of the Constitution states that the President of
Ukraine “represents the state in international relations, administers
the foreign political activity of the State, conducts negotiations and
concludes international treaties of Ukraine …”

Meanwhile, Article 85, point 5 notes that the authority of the
parliament includes “determining the principles of domestic and foreign
policy …”

Additionally, Article 114 notes, “The Minister of Defense and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine are appointed by the Verkhovna
Rada of Ukraine upon the submission by the President of Ukraine.”  This
provides the right for the president to choose these ministers, but may
or may not guarantee their approval by the parliament. (7)

Therefore, it would seem that President Yushchenko is depending
primarily on the historical right of Ukrainian presidents to control
foreign and defense policy, and the agreement of the prime minister to
divide authority along domestic and foreign policy lines.  The comments
in Brussels suggest that Prime Minister Yanukovich may not be willing
to maintain this division.  And unfortunately for Yushchenko, since the
Declaration of National Unity is not legally binding, it will provide
him with little recourse.

Yanukovich’s comments also suggest that President Yushchenko needs to
do a better job at protecting what he sees as his “turf.”  Yushchenko
chose to remain in Ukraine and allow Yanukovich to conduct meetings not
only with the NATO Secretary General, but also EU representatives. 

 
At those meetings, the Prime Minister publicly reiterated Ukraine’s
commitment to Euro-integration in Brussels, but his reception, to say
the least, was cool.  “The future is not prejudged,” External Relations
Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said, “but at this moment, clearly,
there is no membership perspective.” (7)

Yushchenko could have traveled either to Brussels with Yanukovich or
made the trip himself.  During the Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy
Yekhanurov governments, he did just that.  But, he has chosen to allow
his current prime minister far more leeway and to accept a far larger
role for Yanukovich in foreign policy.  He has not explained his
reasoning, except to underscore the need for unity and teamwork.

Regardless, the result has been to confirm the concerns of some Western
officials that Ukraine’s Western trajectory is shifting, and that
alliances recently built will suffer.  Will Ukraine continue to support
the EU’s border control provisions regarding Transnistria?  Will it
continue to join the EU in criticizing many of Belarusian President
Aleksandr Lukashenko’s policies?  Will it continue to join in the fight
against trafficking and arms smuggling?  In short, will the country
continue to act as a reliable foreign policy ally to the West?

President Yushchenko’s decision to allow Prime Minister Yanukovich to
speak for him and the country in Brussels did little to answer those
questions.  Instead, it may have caused Western officials to wonder
just who is controlling the country’s foreign policy decisions now.
———————————————————————————————-

                                          FOOTNOTES:
(1) UT1-TV, 2253 GMT, 2 Aug 06; BBC Monitoring International
Reports, via Lexis-Nexis.
(2) RIA Novosti, 7 Aug 06; via Lexis-Nexis.
(3) Agence France Presse, 1129 GMT, 14 Sep 06; via Lexis-Nexis.
(4) ITAR-TASS, 1639 EST, 17 Sep 06; via Lexis-Nexis.
(5) ITAR-TASS, 1407 EST, 15 Sep 06; via Lexis-Nexis.
(6) ITAR-TASS, 1639 EST, 17 Sep 06; via Lexis-Nexis.
(7) No current English-language amended version of Ukraine’s
Constitution is available online.  See
http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/site/const_eng/e_const_contents.html
for the English-language 1996 Constitution without amendments.  See
http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2005/CDL(2005)036-e.asp
for the amendments.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10.                                  RUDDERLESS SHIP
      So who’s leading the country now? It seems like a ship without a captain.

EDITORIAL: Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, Sep 21 2006

Last Friday, Sept. 15, President Viktor Yushchenko had a long chat with
Premier Viktor Yanukovych, at which Yushchenko voiced his concern about
the actions of the new cabinet, saying it must abide by the National Unity
Pact signed between the president and the Rada majority.

In a briefing later that day Yushchenko said he gave Yanukovych his first
political warning and confirmed there is a joint plan to correct the
situation. We shall see if this happens.

Yushchenko described Yanukovych’s attempt to revise foreign policy at his
recent meeting at NATO headquarters as unacceptable.

The previous day Yanukovych had called for a pause in plans to join NATO,
but said Ukraine would continue efforts to join the EU. Yushchenko said the
opposite, reiterating that the country’s goal to join the EU and NATO would
not change.

The mixed messages are a problem. Yushchenko, not surprisingly, was
supported by Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko and Foreign Minister
Boris Tarasiuk, two of his appointees.

Hrytsenko said Ukraine will implement the NATO membership Action Plan
despite Yanukovych’s statements, while Tarasiuk said Yanukovych has no
authority to formulate foreign policy.

Yanukovych’s argument that the people do not support NATO membership is
weak because the issues have not been explained. However, that’s not the
point.

Ever since Yanukovych became premier he has, with the help of the speaker,
been pushing the president aside. Most people believed that, in line with
constitutional reform, foreign policy is the president’s remit. But now this
doesn’t seem to be so.

In practical terms, membership of NATO comes before EU membership.
This was certainly the case for countries like Poland.

So who’s leading the country now? It seems like a ship without a captain.
There is also a real danger that foreign policy will just stagnate and the
country will go nowhere.                                 -30-

———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/editorial/25097/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11.         “YANUKOVYCH ‘SECRETLY’ USES AKHMETOV AND
                                    ANOTHER 200 FOLLOWERS”
                  Website reveals Ukrainian premier’s speech at NATO

Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 19 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

Few are aware of what the Ukrainian prime minister actually said in Brussels
during his trip to NATO HQ, a website has reported. The author said his
agency had obtained a recording of Prime Minister Yanukovych’s remarks

and published what he said was the speech heard in Brussels.

The author wrote that Yanukovych spoke in favour of Ukraine’s participation
in NATO military undertakings around the world and valued “continual support
for our Euroatlantic desires, support for military reform and democratic and
market transformations”.

The following is the text of the unattributed article, entitled “Yanukovych
“secretly” uses Akhmetov and another 200 followers”, published on the
Ukrayinska Pravda website on 19 September, subheadings have been inserted
editorially:

The scandal which erupted after [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych’s
statements in Brussels regarding NATO has hit parliament.

Yanukovych obviously got tired of hearing [President Viktor] Yushchenko’s
lectures that the prime minister has no right to influence foreign policy as
this is the prerogative of the president (according to the constitution) and
parliament (which passes laws about the basis of foreign and domestic
policy).

And so Yanukovych decided to cover himself behind MPs. Of course, there

was no time to pass a new law, nor the procedural possibility of voting on it.
But Yanukovych found a way out.

On Tuesday, parliament passed a strange document – a resolution entitled “On
the position of the Prime Minister at the meeting of the Ukraine-NATO
Commission”.

The issue was addressed at the very door of the session hall, as the last on
the day’s agenda. But despite this, 242 MPs voted in favour. Among them were
such serious people as Rinat Akhmetov and [the prime minister’s son] Viktor
Yanukovych, junior.

What is absurd is not the fact that these worthy men were not in the session
hall – but that not even the designated button pushers knew what to do.

The text of the resolution included the armoured phrase: “To support the
position of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, spoken in Brussels on 14
September 2006 during a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Commission on

mutual cooperation between Ukraine and NATO”.

But in fact, MPs had no idea what Yanukovych said during that meeting.

They could not learn it from the press, because reporters were not allowed
to the Ukraine-NATO meeting. The Alliance’s HQ is a secure site, where
journalists only have the right to access a certain part near the entryway –
that is where Yanukovych and NATO Secretary-General [Jaap de Hoop]

Scheffer held their news conference.

The meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Commission was held in a completely
different wing of the building, where the press was not let in. And
naturally, no television broadcast was allowed.

Theoretically, only two MPs could have heard Yanukovych’s words live:

Leonid Kozhar and Ihor Oleksiyiv, who accompanied the prime minister
as members of the delegation to Belgium. But we do not know if they had
the right to sit in the room where the Ukraine-NATO Commission met.

When members of the Ukraine-NATO Commission gathered at the round room,
cameramen and photographers who only had the right to take protocol footage
during introductory remarks by Yanukovych and Scheffer were allowed in.

So even though the prime minister’s words at the Ukraine-NATO Commission
were not made public, this is exactly what the MPs of the anti-crisis
coalition so kindly voted for.

Maybe they will be interested post-factum in what they supported with 242
votes? For example, the Communists [of the Communist Party of Ukraine]
should be in shock, for they are blessing Ukraine’s participation in NATO
“military operations” (!) in various parts of the world.

And Eurointegrators have reason to pour the champagne, because Yanukovych’s
comrades vowed to take the programme of Intensified Dialogue on Membership
in NATO as their Bible.

                              THE RECORDING OF THE SPEECH 

Ukrayinska Pravda correspondent obtained a recording of Yanukovych’s
speech at the Ukraine-NATO commission from his sources. And so that
everyone  knows what the MPs really voted for, we publish the full text of
he prime minister’s address.
Dear Mr Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen!

I would first like to express my sincere thanks to NATO Secretary-General
Scheffer for the chance to continue political dialogue between Ukraine and
NATO.

This is also my first visit as leader of the new coalition government.
Today, I represent the government of a state formed by the parliamentary
majority with new responsibilities in line with the new Constitution of
Ukraine.

The activity of the coalition government is based on principles agreed to by
the main political forces and among which are securing the sovereignty and
integrity of Ukraine, guaranteeing adherence to human rights, consistently
developing such unconditional democratic gains as freedom of speech, the
free expression of views and convictions, respect for the rights of the
opposition and the continuation of the European course of the state.

After long debates in the course of political, and sometimes popular,
opposition, the leading politicians of Ukraine reached understanding on such
an important issue as the Euroatlantic integration of our state.

The agreed position was included as one of the points in the Declaration of
National Unity, which we signed together with President Yushchenko.

We achieved the main thing – separation of the issue of membership in NATO
from normal mutually-beneficial cooperation with the alliance. This is a key
landmark for the further course of the government in the direction of
relations with the Alliance.

Now, the issue of Ukraine’s joining NATO will be determined at a national
referendum. Time will tell when the need arises to hold it.

Today we have the intention of concentrating on deepening relationships of
partnership with the Alliance on the basis of Intensified dialogue on
membership and the annual goals of action plans.

Ukraine highly values the level of cooperation with NATO. We value continual
support for our Euroatlantic desires, support for military reform and
democratic and market transformations.

Among the foremost priorities of government activity are strengthening
informational work in sphere of relations with NATO. There is not a lack of
such programmes, but they need to be augmented with specific content.

We will do everything we can so that the citizens of Ukraine obtain
objective and unprejudiced information on the Alliance’s activity as well as
on our state’s cooperation with NATO.

Today I intend to inform our partners of specific steps which the government
of Ukraine intends to implement in various spheres of cooperation with the
Alliance, including participation in military operations which NATO carries
out in various regions of the world.

I am certain, that a deeper strategic partnership between Ukraine and the
North-Atlantic Alliance must be a two-way street, since this is not only in
the interests of our state, but in the interests of NATO as well.

Thank you for your attention.

At the same time, Bank Street [the address of the Presidential Secretariat]
believes Yanukovych’s message in Brussels was his rejection of support for
the NATO membership plan. And they are so serious about this that parliament
support of the prime minister’s decision was met with immediate reaction
from the secretariat.

Yushchenko’s new chief-of-staff, Viktor Baloha called the document “a
provocation”. “This resolution is of an exclusively political nature and has
no legal consequences”, Baloha said. “Parliament and the government must
unwaveringly adhere to the laws of Ukraine, including the law On the basis
of Ukraine’s national security”, Baloha added.

Three MPs are the coauthors of the resolution – [Yevhen] Kushnarev of the
Party of Regions, [Ihor] Alekseyev of the CPU and [Vitaliy] Shybko of the
Socialist Party of Ukraine, who is also chair of the parliament committee on
foreign affairs.

In comments to Ukrayinska Pravda, Shybko admitted that the document was not
reviewed by the foreign affairs committee. “Yesterday, we met to consult,
and we decided to recommend not introducing this resolution to the session
hall at all”.

He added that MPs had not seen the text of Yanukovych’s speech before the
Ukraine-NATO Commission, but that no-one was worried. “At least no-one in
the session hall had any question about what Yanukovych said before the
vote”. Shybko also agreed that the resolution “does not have any legal
consequences”.

“We just wanted to show that Ukraine is a state which does not walk away
from its obligations. After the prime minister’s trip, there was a lot of
commentary – everyone was saying different things about what he had done in
Brussels.

But after the resolution, it was confirmed that we will strive towards
Europeans standards and inform the public about NATO”, Shybko said.

He advised looking at the third point of the resolution which obligates the
Cabinet to build democracy and also “aid the dissemination of objective
information on NATO’s role in the modern world and the directions of its
reform”.

In particular, Shybko added that First Deputy Prime Minister Mykola Azarov
promised him on Wednesday that the Cabinet would allocate 5m hryvnyas for
information work with the public regarding NATO.

Only it is not known whether that campaign will have the prefix “counter”.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

 If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12.                           TEMPTATIONS OF DEMOCRACY
      Any talk of parliamentary democracy in this country is premature. The
      opposition and the authorities are used to waging wars against each other.
 There are no winners in these wars. Instead, there is a whole nation of hostages.
d
 By Serhii Rakhmanin
Zerkalo Nedeli (ZN) On The Web, Mirror-Weekly
International Social Political Weekly, No. 35 (614)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, 16 – 22 September 2006 year

Commitment to the principles of European democracy has become an
incantation, a mantra with Ukrainian politicians. However, authoritarianism
and Byzantine style in the domestic “art of the possible” die hard.

Politics have been festooned and filigreed in various ways: masters of
intrigue and compromise spend huge dollars on image-makers and sweat over
designing intricate combinations as recommended by trendy specialized
literature. Yet when it comes to ideology and philosophy, Soviet approaches
reign supreme in Ukrainian politics.

They manifest themselves, first and foremost, through the politicians’
giving preference to primitive tools, albeit in bright attractive wraps.

They would carry out market reforms resorting to state regulation
mechanisms, liberalized prices under tough governmental control, whip MPs
into the coalition and appoint election winners.

Over the last fifteen years of languidly adopting “European values and
civilized standards”, our top officials have learnt how to observe the form
(never caring for the essence) and expatiate on the letter of the law
(ignoring its spirit).

The recently enacted constitutional reform is a classical example of this
approach. The promotion of parliamentarianism is a noble objective, in and
of itself, no doubt about that.

Yet our way of doing it is questionable, to say the least: the extendedly
discussed draft amendments were eventually revised overnight, and MPs
were blackmailed into adopting them.

Undemocratic methods were used to add some democratic flavour to
institutions and procedures of public administration. Nonetheless, we hoped
that the new ground rules will stimulate the players to change.

The hopes are fading by day, especially in view of the latest, seemingly
unrelated political developments.

A civilized state is characterized by responsible administration and
effective opposition. Not only should they be present, but also co-exist and
cooperate, more or less productively. Parliamentary democracy implies that
the power of the majority will respect and safeguard the interests of the
minority.

A look at Ukrainian politicians will suffice to understand that any talk of
parliamentary democracy in this country is premature. The majority pays no
heed whatsoever to the interests of the minority. The latter retaliates by
denying the majority’s right to exercise power.

Both modes of conduct are unacceptable, since in both cases politicians
disrespect the voters who elected their opponents. Put differently, those in
power and in the opposition trample on the fundamental principle of
democracy – the will of the people.

It has been commonly recognized that the last parliamentary elections were
conducted in compliance with democratic norms and standards, that their
outcomes are legitimate, and that the people’s choice should be honoured.

A certain political force represents the majority of voters, therefore the
right of this force to rule the country should be honoured, too. The
political force that turned up in the minority should be given an
opportunity to monitor the rulers. One should bear in mind, however, that in
a democratic environment, “monitor” does not mean “impede”.

Furthermore, the monitoring capacity should be directly proportional to the
opposition’s share in representative power: the more votes it gets, the more
rights they have.

Over the last couple of weeks, the proponents and opponents of the new
political regime have been actively fighting for their rights and tending to
forget about their responsibility.

Disinclined as we are to idealize Western parliamentary democracies, we
cannot but commend them for mutual respect that the authorities and the
opposition demonstrate. There are two reasons for that.

[1] First, any opposition is well aware that it has all chances to come to
power one day whereas powers that be fully realize that sooner or later they
will turn up in the opposition.

Any political force in any European country strives to rule as long as
possible, but none ever dreams of ruling forever. Ukrainian politicians have
yet to learn to think along these lines.

[2] Second, any stable society cherishes its stability. Various unforeseen
circumstances might occur, of course, but politicians (whatever their status
and orientation) should use every opportunity to save the nation from
crisis. And they should be working together towards it. In fact, this is
what people call political responsibility.

In a broader perspective, this is what true patriotism is about. Faced with
a threat of stress to the nation, the authorities and the opposition become
more responsive to each other, more prepared to meet each other halfway,
which makes both eligible for similar favours on their opponents’ part. Oh,
when will our politicians ever learn?

“They” (Western democracies) could have governments formed by the minority
that rule for decades. “Their” presidents, being formally entitled to turn
the candidate down, nevertheless nominate prime ministers from the opposite
political camp. “Their” heads of state hang fire in order to avoid
dissolving parliament, even with all legal grounds for the dissolution in
place.

“They”, for the most part, prefer to minimize statutory regulation of the
opposition’s rights and responsibilities but nobody would think of violating
the former or neglecting the latter.

What about “us”? Last week the opposition mustered enough votes in the
Supreme Rada to dismiss the notorious Ivan Chyzh from chairing the State
Television and Radio Committee. The new majority took advantage of the
situation to replace him with its appointee Edward Prutnyk.

In a civilized country, the regime supporters would probably offer this post
to their opponents, as a friendly gesture, hoping for further cooperation.
You might say it is nonsense. OK, but so is the very existence of an agency
like the State Television and Radio Committee in a civilized country.

There are other, more impressive illustrations. On 13 September, the Yuliya
Tymoshenko Bloc initiated the setting up of a parliamentary commission of
inquiry into the justification for raising gas tariffs.

The majority endorsed the idea . and transformed it a bit: the Supreme Rada
formed the commission but appointed the coalition representative Ms
Alexandrovska to head it, instead of the YTB candidate Syvulsky.

More than that, one of the commission’s stated objectives is to check the
legality of writing-off the debt of a company associated with the opposition
leader Yuliya Tymoshenko.

The latter blamed the Rada majority and presidium for breaching the
Constitution and rules of procedure while her faction members blocked the
rostrum, disrupting the session of already lame Parliament.

Did Parliament have to elect an oppositional MP to chair the commission?
Formally speaking, it did not. Did it have the right to charge the
commission with an additional inquiry? As a matter of fact, it did. Without
scrutinizing the opposition’s claims about the breach of parliamentary
procedure, let us take a wider view.

Even if the decision were made in full compliance with the rules of
procedure, it is essentially antidemocratic because it deprives a large part
of voters of their right to monitor the authorities.

If the majority had had well-founded doubts about the legitimacy of debt
forgiveness to the UESU Company, it could have formed another commission,
specifically authorized to study this issue. The majority was entitled to
it. So was the opposition to look into the government’s dealings.

It was cynically denied this right. In a civilized country, the
administration would encourage the opposition to form a commission of
inquiry and to delegate an oppositional representative to head it.

In this country, however, the majority does not care about the minority’s
rights and interests, which was confirmed yet another time last week. Vasyl
Kiseliov from the “Party of Regions” faction came up with a proposal to
restore criminal penalties for slander and insulting.

A relevant norm was part of the old Criminal Code, but in 2001, criminal
penalties were replaced with administrative sanctions, the change being
praised as a noticeable headway of democracy.

The mass media voiced their protest against the new draft law. Yet we will
venture a guess that it was not the press that the draft was targeted at.

Leaders of the Party of Regions hardly sought to tighten the noose around
independent media or to bring libellers to account. They must have regarded
it as an effective remedy against the opposition.

They did their homework, having thoroughly studied the amended Constitution,
in particular Article 80, which exempts MPs from liability for what they
say, except for the cases of slander and insulting. This same article
describes the procedure for instituting criminal proceedings against MPs.

Do you see the trap? As matters stand today, MPs can be fined for accidental
or deliberate discourtesy, provided the court establishes the fact of
slander or insulting. Once criminal responsibility for such misconduct is
restored, the consequences will be much graver.

The offended party will file a written claim with the Prosecutor General’s
Office, which will be allowed to open a criminal case and petition the Rada
to sanction the offender’s arrest. Taking an MP into custody implies his or
her loss of immunity. You might say the conclusions are too far-reaching.

You might be right. Yet they are not totally unfounded, given the relations
between Ukrainian authorities and opposition, as well as morals and manners
of some people in the new majority.

According to our sources, the “Party of Regions” faction decided to revoke
Mr. Kiseliov’s draft. Should it be true, it will mean the authorities are
trying to show good will.

However there is still little reason for optimism as the administration and
the opposition refuse to cooperate in any meaningful or beneficial way. And
again, examples are plenty; we will comment on the most recent ones.

ZN has already commented on the draft law on opposition prepared by the
Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc. The latest developments in the Rada prove there
is a need to discuss it in a greater detail.

The matter is that the YTB insists on vesting the opposition with
unreasonably extensive rights and powers; their appetite for personnel,
informational, institutional and financial resources seems insatiable.

The opposition claims the right to have its representatives elected or
appointed to the positions of:

– Vice Speaker;
– chairs of four parliamentary committees and all controlling commissions;
– first deputy chairs of committees headed by the majority representatives;
– heads of the Accounting Chamber and Antimonopoly Committee;
– NCSD member;
– two members of the High Council for Justice;
– four members of the NBU Board;
– two members of the State Television and Radio Committee;
– heads and members of the State Securities and Stock Market Commission,
State Commission for Financial Services Market, State Financial Monitoring
Committee.

Additional demands include:

– guaranteed access to the mass media;
– right to be privy to the state secrets;
– right to initiate vote of no confidence in the government and right to
veto the Cabinet decisions;
– participation in the Cabinet meetings;
-a separate line in the state budget expenses.

The draft suggests that the state should provide the opposition with
premises, means of transportation, salaries, and a newspaper of its own with
the circulation comparable with that of the parliamentary Holos Ukrainy
weekly.

The proposed list of officials accountable to the opposition is too long to
be cited here; of course, the key figure is the prime minister. The draft
also prescribes the frequency of and procedure for the authorities’
reporting to the opposition.

Another innovation to be found in the draft concerns empowering the
opposition to participate in the appointment of leading judiciary officials
and police top brass.

The draft is most imperfect and gives rise to numerous objections.

[1] First, some of the demands are completely illegitimate. Legal
professionals that belong to the YTB faction and its external consultants
who, we hope, took part in the drafting are bound to know that. Claiming the
right to veto or to initiate the government dismissal was pointless from the
start.

[2] Second, the passage of this law will entail a reshaping of the entire
legislative framework. The drafters provide a list of law and enabling
regulations that would require revising and amending, but the list is by no
means exhaustive. The harmonization process could take years.

[2] Third, some provisions have been “borrowed” from other laws and the
Constitution, sometimes inaccurately.

[4] Fourth, the authors are often carried away with the terminology: they
offer a classification of the opposition types but do not seem to be able to
tell one type from another or define their specific objectives.

The impression is that YTB intentionally submitted a draft doomed to
failure, using it as a pretext to cry out about the alleged oppression,
rather than a chance to promote the opposition’s rights.

Anyway, the philosophy of the document is indicative of Yuliya Tymoshenko
and her allies’ views on the nature of state power, authorities, opposition,
and their relations. As we said before, the language and contents of the
draft law leave much to be desired.

[1] Its first and major flaw is rooted in the authors’ aspiration to ensure
that the opposition would rule the country on a par with the powers that be,
which is unworkable by definition.

[2] The second defect ensues from the first one: the opposition gets a more
attractive status than the force in power, which is unnatural. The
opposition is supposed to have more rights than the government whose
activities are yet to be regulated by a special law.

[3] Third, Yuliya Tymoshenko requires fixed quotas for the opposition,
irrespective of the number of seats it gets in Parliament and other
representative bodies. Suppose the opposition gets 20 seats – it will lack
people to man all the posts it claims to be entitled to.

The claims could be sensible if the opposition had 150 at least MPs. In this
case it would have the constitutional right to initiate a no-confidence
vote.

[4] Fourth, formalization of the shadow Cabinet is unachievable. So is the
founding of the shadow Cabinet in Ukrainian context. Shadow governments have
sense in countries with a well-established two-party system where they serve
as a prototype of the government-to-be, rather than a fancy political gadget
funded from the state budget.

The draft lays down a formal procedure for decision-making within the
opposition. There is no need to regulate this process with a law. An
agreement signed by different oppositional parties will do. Alternatively,
the parliamentary rules of procedure could be an appropriate document to
describe it.

[5] Fifth, the draft is permeated with the spirit of personal leadership,
absolutely lacking in team spirit and rules of teamwork. The opposition
leader’s status, rights and powers take up a large part of the document.
This part could be omitted in principle.

In Lithuania, for instance, the opposition’s rights are formulated in most
general terms in the parliamentary statute. The statute does not contain a
long list of attributes characterizing an opposition member: a person who
disagrees with the government’s course and strategy is an oppositionist.

Nor does the document provide for a complicated procedure for legalizing
the opposition leader: if the oppositional coalition unites more than half
of the Seym members, the coalition head is officially recognized as the
opposition leader.

The Lithuanian opposition leader has no excessive powers: he or she sits on
the Seym presidium, receives extra pay, and has a priority right to address
parliament and submit a draft law.

[6] Sixth, the draft law testifies to the opposition’s desire to control the
authorities in every possible way but provides for no leverage for the
authorities and public, no means of control over the opposition’s behaviour.

[7] Seventh, the Constitution, Law “On Status of the People’s Deputy”, and
parliamentary rules of procedure enable the opposition to monitor and
control the administration and give a lot of opportunities for it to do so.
The draft authors replicated some of them and dropped the other, for no
obvious reason.

Yet they did not propose any mechanisms for the opposition’s exercising its
controlling powers, which would be expected of this kind of law.

The draft law could be expected to update and elaborate on such notions as
interpellation, agenda setting, ad hoc commission of inquiry, law amending
procedure, etc. Having done that, the opposition, no matter how few in
number, would get the necessary tools to influence the law-making process
and determine its outcomes.

In Germany, for instance, the opposition proposes thousands of amendments
to vital legislation; Parliament has to consider all of them and
substantiate its decision in the case of declining them. As a result, the
majority interested in having the law passed makes concessions to the opposition.

There are many other downsides to the draft law, but even those mentioned
above make it clear that the opposition is no better than the authorities in
that it would not work seriously towards consolidating the people and
re-examining its own role in the society.

The opposition and the authorities are used to waging wars against each
other. There are no winners in these wars. Instead, there is a whole nation
of hostages.                                           -30-
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/614/54528/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
             Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13. INTEGRATING UKRAINE INTO EU VIA PRACTICAL COOPERATION

REPORT ON PRESS CONFERENCE: With Timothy Barrow
New Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain to Ukraine
By Mykola Siruk, The Day Weekly Digest in English, #28
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Great Britain is doing its best for Ukraine to draw closer to the EU in
general and “misty Albion” in particular. Both the Ukrainian government and
the Ukrainian grassroots can feel this support.

This was the subject of the first press conference given by Timothy Barrow,
the new Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to Ukraine, which was held in the press club of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Upholding his predecessor’s tradition, the new ambassador
began his speech in Ukrainian.

He noted that the UK is supporting Ukraine’s course toward European
integration and would be working with the new government to promote further
reforms based on such common values as democracy, human rights, rule of law,
and market economy.

According to the ambassador, practical support for Ukraine’s European
integration aspirations is being provided by various institutions. For
example, the UK Department for International Development is carrying out a
technical assistance program in Ukraine, valued at 6.5 million pounds
sterling.

Meanwhile, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Global Opportunities Fund
annually provides half a million pounds to implement the United Europe
Program in Ukraine.

Trade between our two countries is increasing. In the first quarter of this
year British exports to Ukraine reached 90 million pounds, up 83 percent
from the same period last year. British imports came to 38 million pounds in
the same quarter, registering a 68-percent growth.

Ukrainians definitely feel Britain’s support for their opportunities to
learn English in Ukraine and to study in the UK. The number of Ukrainians
who want to visit the United Kingdom is rising steadily. While the embassy
received 31,000 visa applications last year, there were 26,000 applications
between January and August 2006 alone.

The ambassador had good news for Ukrainians applying for a British visa.
From Oct. 1, 2006, applications can be done online. “The principal advantage
for applicants is that there will be no need to line up at the embassy, and
they can also choose their time and date for an interview,” Mr. Barrow said.

The tone of the British ambassador’s press conference was set by the event
that was taking place almost at the same time in Brussels – the negotiations
between Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and the EU and NATO leadership. The
negotiators were supposed to discuss Kyiv’s insistence that the prospect of
Ukraine’s EU membership be included in the future cooperation agreement.

The British ambassador, who took part in concluding the current EU-Ukraine
partnership agreement, noted in this connection that the EU supports
Ukraine’s aspirations for closer cooperation with European institutions.

“We all see Ukraine more closely integrated in the future. We can establish
closer links with each other and get to know each other better through
practical cooperation. This in fact will lead to full integration,” the
ambassador noted. In his view, dialogue and discussions will take place in
Brussels, which will promote further practical cooperation.

The British ambassador said that he would work to help Ukraine implement the
current Partnership Agreement. In his opinion, this agreement’s clause on a
free trade area has not been fulfilled. “During my stay here I would like us
to fulfill everything that we have planned,” he said.

Naturally, journalists could not avoid the question of Ukraine’s prospects
for adopting the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP). A few days earlier,
Defense Minister Anatolii Hrytsenko said that the prospect of Ukraine
switching to the MAP this year depends on Prime Minister Yanukovych.

As was to be expected, the British diplomat refused to discuss the
activities of specific political figures. He only said that the Membership
Action Plan is an invitation to the alliance.

“We welcome closer cooperation with Ukraine. We will respond to the choice
that Ukraine will make,” the ambassador noted. He disagrees with the
opinion, widespread in some circles, that certain countries do not support
Ukraine’s entry into NATO.

There is considerable commonality of views and approaches among his
counterparts in Kyiv. He believes that Ukraine is fully aware of what we are
striving to achieve in Europe and will independently decide on its future.

“Ukraine’s actions in the direction of cooperation will perhaps be the best
way to lobby on Ukraine’s behalf. I do not think you need lobbying on the
part of the British ambassador here in Kyiv while the prime minister of
Ukraine is in Brussels,” the ambassador said.

Discussing military cooperation, the ambassador noted that Britain is not
refusing to take part in the Tight Knot exercise canceled earlier this year
and will continue its program of military exercises.

“We will continue to do so because it is in the mutual interests of both
Ukraine and Britain to achieve operational compatibility. Ukraine has large
and combat-ready armed forces.

There is a great necessity or requirement for military formations that would
conduct peacekeeping missions all over the world. By strengthening the
operational compatibility of different armed forces, we increase our
capability of fulfilling these peacekeeping tasks,” he emphasized.

Asked by The Day what the European Union will look like in 20 years and
where its borders will be drawn, the British ambassador said, “I will not
hazard a guess as to how big the European Union will be in 20 years.

But the policy of admitting new members was and still is one of the most
successful political and strategic directions in the European Union’s
development.”                                     -30-
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/168869/

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14.      OBITUARY: HALYNA KRYCHEVSKA-LINDE, ARTIST
                AND DAUGHTER OF RENOWNED ARCHITECT

By Heather Fernuik, Special to The Ukrainian Weekly
The Ukrainian Weekly, Vol. LXXIV, No. 38, p. 4 and 22
Parsippany, New Jersey, Sunday, September 17, 2006

Halyna Vasylivna Krychevska-Linde, an artist and daughter of the
renowned Ukrainian architect and artist Vasyl Krychevsky, who is credited
with preserving his works during World War II, passed away April 4, 2006
in her home in Caracas, Venezuela.

Perhaps Ms. Krychevska-Linde will best be remembered and honored for
her relentless fight for freedom from oppression and heroic preservation
of Ukrainian national art, architecture, and ideals. In the face of constant
destruction she saved lives, memories, paintings, books, and a piece of
Ukrainian national identity.

Born in Kyiv, Ukraine in 1918 to Prof. Vasyl H. Krychevsky, the
renowned Ukrainian architect, artist, teacher and scholar and his second
wife, Yevheniya M. Shcherbakivska, sister of the two famous archeologists
Vadym and Danylo Shcherbakivsky, Ms. Krychevska grew up in a fertile
environment of Ukrainian national thought and culture that doubtlessly
shaped her artistic and patriotic contributions of a lifetime.

As a young girl, Ms. Krychevska displayed natural aptitude for languages
and assisted her mother in translating archeological and other documents
from German, French, and English to Russian and Ukrainian.

Upon completion of secondary school, Ms. Krychevska entered the
National Academy of Art and Architecture, founded by her father, to
study architecture and painting. The beginning of World War II interrupted
her formal education.

In 1937, Ms. Krychevska-Linde married engineer-geologist Ivan Ivanovych
Linde in Kyiv.

During the Nazi occupation of Kyiv, Ms. Krychevska-Linde utilized her
architectural drawing skills in the Department of Agriculture and Nutrition,
Section of Agrarian Reform. Rather than cower at the Soviet-inflicted
destruction of art, architecture, and human lives, the attempted eradication
of everything Ukrainian, Ms. Krychevska-Linde, at great personal risk
actively led anti-Nazi resistance efforts.

Prior to the forced exodus of 1943, Ms. Krychevska-Linde had the foresight
to send many of her father’s paintings, drawings, and other artwork ahead to
L’viv. Ms. Krychevska-Linde then aided her parents and family in escaping
to safe-havens L’viv, Austria, Paris, and ultimately, Venezuela.

Without Ms. Krychevska-Linde’s heroic efforts, the continued creative work
of Vasyl H. Krychevsky until his death in 1952 and the return to Ukraine of
over 300 pieces of his artwork in 2003 with the generous aid of Michael and
Nataliya Bleyzer would have been impossible.

Once in Venezuela, Ms. Krychevska-Linde worked from 1961-1981 as
the Executive Assistant to the Agricultural Attaché in the United States
Embassy.

Ms. Krychevska-Linde never ceased learning and progressing, despite
failing health in later years and immense personal challenges. She studied
Japanese for over a decade. At the time of her passing, she was fluent
in 10 languages.

A prolific artist, her elaborate embroidery pieces, original patterns for
hand-made tapestries, ceramics, and paintings have been exhibited in
Ukraine, Austria, France and Venezuela. Ms. Krychevska-Linde painted
the St. Pokrova image in Caracas’s Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1952.

Ms. Krychevska-Linde manifested her undying devotion to her family not
only in her courageous escape assistance, but also in laboriously caring for
her parents until their deaths. She loved to educate her children and spent
countless hours translating scholarly articles on various topics and in
writing Ukrainian-Russian-English-Spanish dictionaries for family and
friends.

Ms. Krychevska-Linde was preceded in death by her husband, Ivan
(1961), her daughter Irma (1974), and her granddaughter Beatriz (2005).
She is survived by three children, Myroslava, Oksana and Vasyl, nine
grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren.

                        Note on the Vasyl H. Krychevsky Family
Vasyl H. Krychevsky (1873-1952) is revered in Ukrainian history for his
tremendous contributions to formation of national Ukrainian identity and
numerous accomplishments, among which are: his creation of Ukraine’s
famous trident emblem created for the young Ukrainian Republic on 22
September 1918 and still used today; his codifying of a distinct from
Russian “Ukrainian” architectural style, embodied in his award-winning
“Poltava Zemstvo” design (1903); his elaborate decoration of the State
Theater edifice; his design of tombstones for famous Ukrainian nationalists,
such as M. Kotsyubynsky and M. Hrushevsky; his design of the Memorial
Museum near T. Shevchenko’s grave.

While much of the world knows the Vasyl H. Krychevsky family through
the writings of his step-son Vadym Pavlovsky (son of Krychevsky’s second
wife) and the artistic work of Krychevsky’s descendants (two artist-sons:
Mykola and Vasyl and daughter, Kateryna Krychevska Rosandich) from
his first marriage with Varvara Marchenko Krychevska, few are aware of
Krychevsky’s second family by Yevheniya M. Shcherbakivska and their
migration from Kyiv, to Caracas.

Halyna V. Krychevska, Krychevsky’s only daughter and child from his
second marriage, who remained with her father throughout his life,
protected his legacy, and carried on his quest for a free Ukraine and
richly established national Ukrainian identity.                 -30-
———————————————————————————————
The Ukrainian Weekly, Ukrainian National Association, Parsippany,
NJ, Roma Hadzewycz, Editor-in-chief, staff@ukrweekly.
The Ukrainian Weekly Archive: www.ukrweekly.com.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.      INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL FOR NAZI
                             BABI YAR UKRAINE MASSACRE

By Jeremy Wimpfheimer and Daniel Epstein
Israel News Agency, Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday, September 21, 2006

KIEV – For two days in late September, a quiet ravine deep within the
forests outside of Kiev, Ukraine, will become the site of an international
memorial event for one of the bloodiest massacres of the Nazi Holocaust.

Called Babi Yar, the site was witness to the murder of more than 33,000 Jews
over the course of a five day period in the fall of 1941.

While the event is well documented by Holocaust historians and remembered
by the families of its victims, the Babi Yar massacre has become part of the
“hidden Holocaust,” according to Moshe Kantor, organizer of the memorial
ceremonies that will include the participation of dignitaries from more than
40 nations.

“Most people today simply do not know what happened there,” says Kantor,
President of the Russian Jewish Congress and Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the European Jewish Congress.

“Most troubling is the fact that much of the world was tolerant of the Nazi
crimes that took place at Babi Yar and that tragic permissiveness allowed
more than 6,000 similar slaughters to take place over the coming years – and
all this before the ‘official’ death camps were even built.”

More than 40 nations, including Russia, the US and Israel have confirmed the
attendance of high level government officials. Ukrainian President Viktor
Yushchenko will be joined by Heads of State from Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia.

“This is a moment of truth for governments to determine what is their
official position when it comes to issues of anti-Semitism and xenophobia,”
says Kantor.

Kantor founded and leads the World Holocaust Forum,
www.worldholocaustforum.org, which is coordinating the memorial, an
organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust and
educating the world about its important lessons for all humanity. He
believes the world today faces a critical danger if it forgets the dangers
posed by hatred.

In a rare interview which, ironically, took place five years virtually to
the minute after the Twin Towers were brought down during the September
11th 9/11 terror attacks in North America, World Holocaust Forum Chairman
Viatcheslav (Moshe) Kantor, warned sharply about the dangers of intolerance.

“Anti-Semitism and xenophobia come in cycles. Some periods have more, some
have less,” commented Kantor from Geneva.

“But the world was absolutely tolerant of the events at Babi Yar, and this
single event became a defining moment in the way the Nazi Holocaust
progressed from that point onward. World apathy enabled the Nazis to move
forward in their slaughter of six million European Jews.”

Kantor points to disturbing expressions of hatred directed toward
Jews in many cities around the world. These range from recent acts of
violence against Jews in Russia to the call by Iran President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad for an Iran conference to deny the Holocaust.

Kantor says, “Anti-Semitism on the social level is growing around the globe.
Now more than ever, the symbolism and warning of Babi Yar must ring loudly,
and we are ensuring that the terrible events of the past are a lesson to
modern society about the frightening dangers of intolerance.”

Kantor commented that “President Yushchenko has a full understanding of the
World Holocaust Forum’s goals and motivations, why we are having this
commemoration ceremony in Kiev and what the final result should be.” “Russia
once again is facing a moment of truth,” commented Kantor, referencing
Russia’s decision to send a senior delegation to the events.

“President Putin said in his speech at the 60th anniversary commemoration of
the liberation of Auschwitz that he was ashamed of the anti-Semitism and
xenophobia that had surfaced in Russia. Once a country declares that it
should take meaningful lessons away from the Holocaust, its people can start
to improve their attitude towards racial intolerance.”

According to event organizers, two days of commemorations on Sept. 26th and
27th, will include a series of Holocaust exhibits, lectures and concerts to
be highlighted by a somber march of participants from central Kiev to the
Babi Yar site, retracing the steps of the thousands of Jews who walked a
similar path to their deaths 65 years ago. It will be an emotionally charged
walk on Wednesday afternoon from central Kiev to the Babi Yar killing
fields.

Focused on developing original educational initiatives to better inform
people about the realities of the Holocaust, the World Holocaust Forum has
created a European Holocaust Education program that will train teachers to
relate to Nazi crimes against the Jews to better foster tolerance between
religions and nationalities.

Over the years, criticism has been levelled at several Eastern European
governments as well as Russia that these countries are not doing enough to
actively combat anti-Semitism. Ukraine was one of the countries mentioned.
In July, the menorah-shaped Holocaust memorial at Babi Yar, erected 15 years
ago by the Jewish community, was badly vandalized.

“Currently, Babi Yar is a place where kids play soccer. The games needs to
stop,” observed Kantor.
————————————————————————————————-
          A Survivor’s Eyewitness Account by Dina Pronicheva

“It was dark already…They lined us up on a ledge which was so small that
we couldn’t get much of a footing on it. They began shooting us. I shut my
eyes, clenched my fists, tensed all my muscles and took a plunge down before
the bullets hit me. It seemed I was flying forever. But I landed safely on
the bodies.

After a while, when the shooting stopped, I heard the Germans climbing into
the ravine. They started finishing off all those who were not dead yet,
those who were moaning, hiccuping, tossing, writhing in agony. They ran
their flashlights over the bodies and finished off all who moved.

I was lying so still without stirring, terrified of giving myself away. I
felt I was done for. I decided to keep quiet. They started covering the
corpses over with earth. They must have put quite a lot over me because I
felt I was beginning to suffocate. But I was afraid to move. I was gasping
for breath. I knew I would suffocate.

Then I decided it was better to be shot than buried alive. I stirred but I
didn’t know that it was quite dark already. Using my left arm I managed to
move a little way up. Then I took a deep breath, summoned up my waning
strength and crawled out from under the cover of earth. It was dark.

But all the same it was dangerous to crawl because of the searching beams of
flashlight and they continued shooting at those who moaned. They might hit
me. So I had to be careful. I was lucky enough to crawl up one of the high
walls of the ravine, and straining every nerve and muscle, got out of it.”
——————————————————————————————–
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/babiyarholocaustmemorialnazimassacre480921.html
————————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.                     “CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE”
Live Video Webcast Friday Of Presentation By Former US Ambassador
Pifer

By John A. Kun, Vice President/COO
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C., Thu, Sep 21, 2006

WASHINGTON – Live Video Webcast of the “Current Developments

in Ukraine” a presentation by Ambassador Steven Pifer, Senior Adviser,
Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS),
 
and Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.

Ambassador Pifer just returned from a week-long fact finding trip to

Ukraine. Click here to register for webcast:
http://www.usukraine.org/webcastreg1.htm

            U.S.-Ukraine Policy Dialogue – September 25-29, 2006

The U.S.-Ukraine Policy Dialogue is designed to supplement and deepen
the official bilateral dialogue between Ukraine and the United States
through the involvement of government officials, members of the

Verkhovna Rada and Congress, and representatives of non-governmental
organizations, the media and the business community.

This September session is the third of four working sessions, which are
held alternately in Washington and Kyiv.

Watch Live Video Webcast of the U.S.-Ukraine Policy Dialogue.

Click here to register:  http://www.usukraine.org/PD06/index.shtml. -30-
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
    Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR.    
       You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
   If you are missing some issues of the AUR please let us know.
========================================================
         “ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
         A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
                With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
 
      Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
                Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
                                  Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
              ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS
                              Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
               Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
          “Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”

1.  THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura,
Chairman; Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Washington, D.C., http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
    List of additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine Program 
                           will be published again early next week.
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,
and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.
 
If you do not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please
contact us immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.  If you are
receiving more than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected
 
              SPAM BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

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

========================================================
                        PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

AUR#761 Sept 22 The Making Of Sheva; The Hired Assassin; Viktor Baloha:Yushchenko’s New Favourite; Rudderless Ship; Halyna Krychevska-Linde; Babi Yar

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

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

                                                     
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – NUMBER 761
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
WASHINGTON, D.C., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2006
 
                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
1.                 ANDREI SHEVCHENKO: THE MAKING OF SHEVA
         This exclusive extract from a new book charts the remarkable story of
              Chelsea’s Andrei Shevchenko: from a childhood blighted by the
                 Chernobyl disaster, through a tough footballing education in
                                 Ukraine to fame and fortune in the West.
The Independent, London, United Kingdom, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

2.                                      THE HIRED ASSASSIN
      After three years of hot pursuit Chelsea finally have the player Roman
Abramovich wanted more than any other – Andriy Shevchenko, the Ukrainian
    superstar with the American model wife and one of the world’s greatest
 players. He talks exclusively to James Eve, in London, about the horror of
   Chernobyl, his Champions League ambitions and how Giorgio Armani
                                         helped him to find love.

By James Eve, The Observer, London, UK, Sunday September 03 2006

3.                “BALOHA: YUSHCHENKO’S NEW FAVOURITE”
                              Profile of new presidential chief of staff
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
: By Viktor Chyvokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 19 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

4UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS VIKTOR BONDAR & ARSENIY
    YATSENYUK DEPUTY HEADS OF PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 20 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Wed, Sep 20, 2006

5.              UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS MORE AIDES
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 21 Sep 06;
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

6 UKRAINE PRIME MINISTER RESISTS EU PUSH FOR REFORMS
By Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune (IHT)
Paris, France, Thursday, September 21, 2006

7.      UKRAINE: YANUKOVYCH ASSURES EU THAT ALL IS WELL

RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY
Prague, Czech Republic, Thursday, September 21, 2006

8.             RIFT REOPENS BETWEEN LEADERS OF UKRAINE
By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, Thursday, September 21 2006

9.     YANUKOVYCH TO BRUSSELS: YUSHCHENKO STAYS HOME

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Tammy Lynch
THE ISCIP ANALYST, Volume XIII, Number 1,
Boston, Massachusetts, Thursday, 21 September 2006

10.                                      RUDDERLESS SHIP
   So who’s leading the country now? It seems like a ship without a captain.
EDITORIAL:
Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, Sep 21 2006

11.          “YANUKOVYCH ‘SECRETLY’ USES AKHMETOV AND

                                    ANOTHER 200 FOLLOWERS”
                    Website reveals Ukrainian premier’s speech at NATO
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 19 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

12.                            TEMPTATIONS OF DEMOCRACY
     Any talk of parliamentary democracy in this country is premature. The

    opposition and the authorities are used to waging wars against each other.
There are no winners in these wars. Instead, there is a whole nation of hostages.
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
: By Serhii Rakhmanin
Zerkalo Nedeli (ZN) On The Web, Mirror-Weekly
International Social Political Weekly, No. 35 (614)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, 16 – 22 September 2006 year

13INTEGRATING UKRAINE INTO EU VIA PRACTICAL COOPERATION
REPORT ON PRESS CONFERENCE: With Timothy Barrow
New Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain to Ukraine
By Mykola Siruk, The Day Weekly Digest in English, #28
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, September 19, 2006

14.           OBITUARY: HALYNA KRYCHEVSKA-LINDE, ARTIST

                     AND DAUGHTER OF RENOWNED ARCHITECT
By Heather Fernuik, Special to The Ukrainian Weekly
The Ukrainian Weekly, Vol. LXXIV, No. 38, p. 4 and 22
Parsippany, New Jersey, Sunday, September 17, 2006

15.          INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL FOR NAZI
                                  BABI YAR UKRAINE MASSACRE
By Jeremy Wimpfheimer and Daniel Epstein
Israel News Agency, Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

16.          WEBCAST: “CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE”
Live Video Webcast Friday Of Presentation By Former US Ambassador Pifer

By John A. Kun, Vice President/COO
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, Washington, D.C., Thu, Sep 21, 2006
========================================================
1
.     ANDREI SHEVCHENKO: THE MAKING OF SHEVA
     This exclusive extract from a new book charts the remarkable story of
          Chelsea’s Andrei Shevchenko: from a childhood blighted by the
             Chernobyl disaster, through a tough footballing education in
                            Ukraine to fame and fortune in the West.

The Independent, London, United Kingdom, Thursday, Sep 21, 2006

This article is from the (RED) edition of The Independent of 21 September
2006, guest-designed by Giorgio Armani. Half the revenue from the edition
will be donated to the Global Fund to Fight Aids.


                                             ORIGINS
‘At the time Chernobyl didn’t affect us too much. Of course, for too many
others is had terrible consequences. It was all hidden from us’

Andrei Shevchenko, the most expensive player ever to sign with a UK club and
the greatest footballer to have emerged from Eastern Europe, was born on 29
September 1976 in the village of Dvirkivshchyna, the son of a kindergarten
teacher and a captain in a Red Army tank regiment.

Though far from wealthy, his parents Lubov and Nikolaj – next-door
neighbours in their youth – created a happy home for Andrei and his sister,
Yelena. Endless football, skating in winter, fishing with his father and
idyllic summers on the Black Sea all made for a contented youth.

But at the age of nine, Andrei and his school were evacuated to the Black
Sea after the nuclear disaster of April 1986 in nearby Chernobyl. His class,
however, only moved in the autumn, some four months after.

“At the time, it did not affect us too much. Of course, for too many others
it had terrible consequences. But the tragedy and all its after-effects were
more talked about in the West. It was all hidden from us there,” recalls
Andrei, whose foundation today helps children in need and orphans in the
Ukraine.

Shevchenko’s talent had already been recognised. Four weeks before the
tragedy he signed for the youth team of Dynamo Kiev, who were then coached
by the legendary Valery Lobanovsky, former trainer of the Soviet Union.

“For a child at that time, Dynamo Kiev had always been the greatest team in
Kiev, in Ukraine!” Shevchenko remembers.
                                FIRST STEPS IN FOOTBALL
‘It’s my people who watch me, who respect me. I play for them. That’s why
it’s important’

Father Nikolaj was reluctant to see his son become a player, but eventually,
like everyone, recognised Andrei’s ability. “My parents left the choice
tome, they never said, ‘Do this, do that’. They said it’s best you choose,”
Shevchenko says.

By the age of 14, Andrei was already making his mark internationally, as the
young Dynamo team won the Ian Rush Cup in Wales in 1990, and Andrei,
as the top scorer, received a pair of boots from the famous marksman.

As a child of a military family, Andrei always appeared spick and span.
Already foreign newspapers were noticing the handsome and impeccably
kitted out goalscorer.

His goalscoring touch was such he became the symbol of the fruits of
glasnost on a youth tour of Germany, where already his self-confidence and
good looks made him stand out.

Aged 15, Andrei had burnished a major local reputation, boosted after he
scored for Ukraine’s youth team live on national television in a 2-2 draw
with Holland.

Aged 18, Andrei broke into Dynamo’s first team at a golden time. Dynamo
won five consecutive league titles and three Cups, as Shevchenko scored 60
goals.

He also notched a remarkable 20 for Dynamo in the Champions’ League,
including a hat-trick against Barcelona in Nou Camp – the first by a
Ukrainian in the competition.

“In Kiev we had beaten Barcelona 3-0, and a friend said, ‘Let’s see how you
do in the return,’ and bet me I wouldn’t score three goals. He ended up
buying that dinner/’ Andrei chuckles.

But Sheva’s greatest season for Dynamo was 1998-99, when in the Champions’
League he scored in each match against Lens and a penalty against Arsenal as
Kiev won their group.

In the quarter-final, Andrei rifled in three to eliminate Real Madrid before
racking up two against Bayern Munich, fruitlessly as the Germans squeezed
through.

Later, when Milan paid pounds 18m to buy the player, Lobanovsky nicknamed
him “The White Ronaldo”, while Italian fans dubbed him the new Marco van
Basten. Seven years on Chelsea were to almost double that price when they
lured Andrei from Italy to England.

Lobanovsky was to be an immense influence on Andrei, for whom loyalty is a
key value. He drove his young charge hard at Kontcha Zaspa, the mythical
training camp with 500 rooms, immense Socialist Realist pool, sauna,, gym
and covered and open-air pitches 10 miles from central Kiev.

Like many young Eastern Europeans back then, Sheva was a heavy smoker,
consuming 30-40 cigarettes per day, something the old hand Lobanovsky was
determined to stop. He forced him to drink a nicotine-based solution, which
made him feel powerfully sick and reject cigarettes ever since.

Shevchenko’s greatest remaining ambition came true on 3 September, 2005
when Ukraine qualified for their first World Cup.

Three times they had been eliminated in the play-offs, to Croatia in 1997,
Slovenia in 1999 and Germany in 2001. However, guided by coach Oleg Blokhin,
Ukraine won their group, with Andrei top scorer. Again, Sheva’s statistics
are remarkable – 19 goals in 29 World Cup qualifiers.

“Playing for Ukraine is extra important’ it’s my country. It’s my people who
watch me, who respect me. I play for them. That’s why it’s important. You
are playing for the people, not for anything else, only for them.”

With Dynamo, Sheva wore the 10 or 11 shirt, but with the national team and
Milan – and now Chelsea – he took to wearing No 7, in part because he felt
it brought him luck, but also because Sheva means seventh in Hebrew. His
official website is: www.sheva7.com.

Andrei does not like to make comparisons with his contemporaries, though
when pressed names his four favourite past players as Blokhin, Van Basten,
Diego Maradona, Johan Cruyff.

When it comes to defenders, he cites five fearsome opponents: Paolo
Mal-dini, Ciro Ferrara, Lilian Thuram, John Terry and Jilrgen Kohler, “who
was maybe the toughest of the lot”.
                                  THE MOMENT OF TRUTH
‘Losing to Liverpool was a beautiful moment’ I would never change it. Even
if we lost, we also learnt’

Andrei exploded into SerieA with the Rossoneri, scoring on his debut. With
24 goals he finished up capocannoniere (top scorer) in Italy in his first
season. Almost immediately, Milan’s tifosi began calling him Super Sheva.

Shevchenko went on to score 173 goals in seven seasons with Milan, a
exceptional figure in the tough-tackling and defensive minded Italian
league.

His European scoring average was even better. On 23 November 2005 he scored
four in a Champions’ League game, an achievement matched only by four other
players, Van Basten, Si-mone Inzaghi, Dado Prso and Ruud van Nistelrooy.

And he knows how to take the rough with the smooth: his missed shoot-out
penalty sealed Liverpool’s remarkable comeback from 3-0 down at half-time in
the Istanbul Champions’ League final of 2005, an emotionally exhausting
defeat for the Italians.

“This was an important moment to face. Life is not made up just of
victories, but also losses. When you are down, you rise up and go ahead.
This was a beautiful moment’ I would never change it. Even if we lost, we
also learnt,” he shrugs.

“These famous six minutes completely changed the destiny of Milan. It’s not
true what was written that we thought we’d win. We continued to play’ we
even played very well.

For us, that is football and that is why I would not change this moment.
Liverpool did what they had to do in those six minutes, you recognise that.”
                                             CHELSEA
‘I said I would not even think about it. But I wished him good luck creating
this new Chelsea. Now we are ready for each other’

The latest chapter in Sheva’s football career began in May 2006 when he
signed a four-year contract with Chelsea for a record fee – “I want to
finish my career here.”

On signing Sheva, the Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho declared: “Today is a
day when the dream became reality. Andrei has always been my first choice
for Chelsea since I arrived.

He has great qualities, ambition, discipline, tactical awareness and of
course he is a great goalscorer.” Mourinho knew the sting of Sheva’s
scoring – when Sheva scored the winner in the 2003 Uefa Super Cup the
opposition was Mourinho’s Porto.

After two Premiership titles, the key target for Chelsea must be the
Champions’ League, which is where Sheva comes in. He was the top marksman
in that tournament last season with nine goals. Sheva is full of admiration
for the team Roman Abramovich has busily built with his petroroubles.

“Chelsea is a beautiful team, very well constructed and, above all, with
very special, passionate fans,” Sheva says. “I hope to win the Champions’
League and Premiership with Chelsea. I play for the team, not just to score
lots of goals, but also to make my contribution. “There has always been
competition at Milan, a huge team, so I’m used to it.

Teams are not just 11 players. Chelsea have many objectives: Premiership, FA
Cup, League Cup, the Champions’ League, so everyone has a role and a chance
to play.”

Shevchenko first met Abramovich shortly after the Russian billionaire bought
Chelsea.

“I met him in Milan’s Four Seasons [hotel]. He was in town to speak with
Internazionale, who had players that interested him. Roman asked me right
away would I think of coming to his team.

But that was when Milan had just won the Champions’ League and I said I
would not even think about it. But I wished him good luck creating this new
Chelsea Now we are ready for each other.”

Abramovich and Mourinho are the latest wise men to guide the trajectory of
Sheva, a man who speaks with great respect for his own father. Lobanovsky,
Blokhin, [Silvio] Berlusconi and [Carlo] Ancelotti were all mentors’ now
it’s the turn of Roman, and Jose.

Sheva arrived in London the mirror image of the pampered modern player,
the spoilt millionaire indulged by Footballers’ Wives.

He is the consummate professional and, statistically, the best striker ever
in the Champions’ League. No wonder Roman hired Andrei. If Sheva’s the
missing piece on the Holy Grail that is the Champions’ League, he will be
worth every penny.
                     ANDREI SHEVCHENKO FOUNDATION
‘It was clear people needed help’

Sport is not his only connection to his native land. The Andrei Shevchenko
Foundation raises funds to refurbish existing orphanages, donate modern
hospital equipment and train hospital staff, doctors, social workers and
qualified psychologists in a battle to help children in need and orphans.

In May 2005, his foundation raised EURlm (pounds 670,000) through abenefit
match in San Siro where Maradona and Richard Gere lent their support and
personalities like tennis star Andrei Medvedev, gymnast Yuri Chechi and
boxer Vladimir Klitschko appeared.

“The foundation began because so many letters arrived. It was clear people
needed help. First we bought a machine for a neonatal hospital, then I
visited the hospital and we bought more machines and then ambulances.
Slowly but surely you do more. You see that people really needed support.”

Sheva is determined to use his fame and reach to build the Andrei Shevchenko
Foundation, which raises money for children suffering with leukemia and
cancer. The Foundation bankrolled a fully equipped ambulance for newly born
babies for Bojarka’s Paediatric Regional Hospital.

Next, it financed a boarding school for orphaned and needy children in
Pereyaslov Khmelnitskiy and another in Volodarka, Kiev Region. Information
on the Andrei Shevchenko Foundation or how to make a donation is available
on www.sheva7.com.                              -30-
—————————————————————————————————–
Extracted from ‘Sheva’, a biography of Andrei Shevchenko, written by Godfrey
Deeny and specially commissioned by Giorgio Armani, who will be donating
royalties from the sales of the book to the Andrei Shevchenko Foundation.
—————————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/premiership/article1645611.ece
—————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2.                                  THE HIRED ASSASSIN
    After three years of hot pursuit Chelsea finally have the player Roman
Abramovich wanted more than any other – Andriy Shevchenko, the Ukrainian
     superstar with the American model wife and one of the world’s greatest
   players. He talks exclusively to James Eve, in London, about the horror of
     Chernobyl, his Champions League ambitions and how Giorgio Armani
                                         helped him to find love.

By James Eve, The Observer, London, UK, Sunday September 03 2006

It was the right place, but the wrong time. In the late summer of 2003
Andriy Shevchenko arrived at the Four Seasons hotel in Milan for a meeting.

By chance, Roman Abramovich had chosen the same hotel – a converted
15th-century convent – for talks of his own. Abramovich, in the short time
since his surprise takeover of Chelsea, was establishing himself as European
football’s most powerful club owner; Shevchenko was still glowing from AC
Milan’s Champions League triumph against Juventus a few months earlier. It
could have been the perfect romance. In the end it was a brief encounter.

‘I happened to have an appointment there at the same time with another
person, who introduced me to Roman,’ Shevchenko says. ‘Straightaway he
asked me whether I’d like to come to Chelsea, but I told him absolutely not,
because I was happy at AC Milan. We’d just won the Champions League.
I spoke to him for another five minutes and that was it.’

Abramovich would not forget their meeting. It soon became apparent that he
wanted the striker above any other to play for him at Chelsea, and so the
wooing began. It started as a stealthy affair. In May 2004, Abramovich and
his chief executive Peter Kenyon travelled to the northern Italian fashion
capital to meet club vice-president Adriano Galliani. The meeting ended with
both parties insisting their talk had been ‘of a general nature only’ and
not about the specificity of a Shevchenko transfer. Few believed them.

The following summer the romance went public. Shevchenko and Abramovich
were photographed in conversation at the stadium in Boston where Chelsea
were playing Milan on a pre-season tour of America. This served only to

intensify speculation that they had been talking, if not meeting, in private as well.

By now, Shevchenko was sending out mixed messages. ‘Even if Milan wanted
to sell me, I wouldn’t leave,’ he said in July 2005, a few weeks after
publicly expressing his respect and admiration for what Abramovich was

trying to achieve at Chelsea.

The British press reported that Abramovich was prepared to pay up to
£85m for the striker. Cifre da fantascienza- ‘fantasy figures’ – said
their Italian counterparts. Milan’s fans would probably argue they reflected
the true value of their man. And the final figure, when the deal was
concluded a year later, was a British transfer record of nearly £31m.

It’s no wonder Abramovich was so eager to sign the Ukrainian superstar. His
European experience fits neatly with Chelsea’s ambition of winning the
Champions League – he has 43 goals in the competition and only Real Madrid’s
Raul of current players, with 51, has scored more.

Three times the Ukrainian has been the competition’s top scorer across a
season and he remains one of the game’s most consistent strikers.
Importantly, for a player who turns 30 later this month, he is capable of
adapting quickly to a new league – at Milan he became the only foreigner
 ever to finish top scorer in his first Serie A season.

This summer, Shevchenko captained Ukraine in their first appearance in the
World Cup. Despite the shock of a heavy defeat in their first game, he led
his side to the quarter-finals, where they lost to the eventual champions,
Italy. A country whose league he had by then agreed to leave.

‘Milan is a big club, a great club, but for him to leave Milan for Chelsea
is a big statement about where Chelsea is,’ said Jose Mourinho about a
player who may have been pressed upon him by Abramovich.

There is without doubt an affinity of sorts between Shevchenko and
Abramovich, the footballer and the oil billionaire. Most obviously, they
speak Russian, are both former citizens of the Soviet Union and, for all
their present wealth and comfort, know hardship and early struggle: while
the Russian Abramovich began his business empire flogging plastic ducks
from a grim Moscow apartment, Shevchenko escaped Europe’s worst
nuclear disaster in his native Ukraine to become Shevagol, the ‘Wind from
the East’, ‘the White Ronaldo’.

We meet on a wet West London evening at the hotel in Kensington where
he is living with his 28-year-old American wife, Kristen Pazik, a former
model, and their 22-month-old son Jordan. He arrives a little late, having

spent the afternoon playing golf at the exclusive Wisley club in Surrey.

He must be tired, but he shakes everybody’s hand and smiles, relaxed in his
new surroundings. There’s nothing showy in his manner, no strut or swagger.

He’s dressed simply but well in dark grey trousers and a black T-shirt; he
negotiates the photo-shoot with practised ease. He is used to being
photographed, having modelled for his friend Giorgio Armani, with whom
he opened two boutiques back in his former hometown of Kiev.

Armani played a role in his relationship with Pazik, whom he met in 2002 at
a post-show party organised by the celebrated designer; they married in July
2004 on a golf course in Washington DC. She is tall and blonde and graceful.
Usually she would take part in the shoot, but not today: she is seven
months’ pregnant, with a son, and keen to avoid the lens.

In Italy Pazik has been accused of enticing Shevchenko away from Milan. Her
friendship with Abramovich’s wife, Irina, with whom she goes shopping, and
her wish to bring up their children in an English-speaking culture were
reported as important influences on her husband’s decision to join Chelsea.

Adriano Galliani, the Italian club’s vice-president who was reported to have
held those preliminary transfer talks with Abramovich in 2004, described
Shevchenko’s departure as ‘a victory of the English language over the
Italian language’.

Shevchenko is defensive but defiant. ‘I don’t see why I should have to
explain to loads of people why we’ve moved,’ he says, speaking in precise,
accented Italian. ‘Kristen is American, I’m Ukrainian and we’ve spent the
last few years living in Italy. We’ve already got one kid and there’s
another on the way. They will need stability and part of that is about what
language they are going to speak as they grow up. The decision to come to
London was a family decision about what was best for them.’

That has not stopped some Milan fans from, inevitably, branding him a
‘traitor’. Perhaps their irritation is understandable: his departure is a
blow for Serie A, which is still grappling with the fallout from the
match-fixing scandal.

After the departures of other top players, including Italy’s World
Cup-winning captain Fabio Cannavaro, Brazil midfielder Emerson and

France defender Lilian Thuram, all to Spain, Shevchenko’s move abroad
confirmed the growing unease about the fading glamour and appeal of a
league not long ago seen as the most prestigious in the world.

More recently, La Gazzetta dello Sport, the Milan-based daily newspaper,
published a barbed account of the Shevchenkos’ busy social calendar since
arriving in London: golf, shopping excursions, a Madonna concert, the
musical Chicago and dinner at smart restaurants. How quickly he has
forgotten us, it implied.

Shevchenko and Pazik have just found a rented apartment close to Stamford
Bridge. Had Abramovich offered to lend him one of his many residences, as
was widely reported? ‘No. It wouldn’t be appropriate,’ he said. ‘He’s the
owner of the club. He’s my boss and I’m his employee. I want to keep it that
way.’

Andriy Shevchenko was born on 29 September 1976 and spent his early years in
the village of Dvirkivschyna, 60 miles south of Kiev, before moving with his
parents to the capital of what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic. His father Mykola was a mechanic in the army, his mother Lyubov
worked in a nursery.

When he was nine, on 26 April 1986 a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded,
spewing a vast radioactive cloud into the skies. The family home in Kiev was
only 80 miles away. ‘We knew something was going on because my father was in
the army, but mostly it was just rumours,’ he says now. ‘People continued to
go to work and go about their business. There was no panic. For days the
press and television would not say exactly what had happened, how serious it
was.’

The Soviet authorities were unsure what to do, waiting until the school
exams were over before evacuating the children, including Shevchenko and his
sister Elena, who is three years older, to live on the coast in the east of
the country, near Donetsk. ‘We were all taken off to the sea, to go camping.

Eventually, after two or three months, my parents came to pick us up. It’s
only now, years later, with all the genetic illnesses that have started to
emerge, that we’ve begun to understand the scale of the disaster. And people
didn’t just get sick. They also lost their homes, their possessions.’
Shevchenko has since set up a charitable foundation for sick children, many
suffering from birth defects, the result of the catastrophe at Chernobyl.

As a child, he was enthralled by football and, at the age of 10, was spotted
by Dynamo Kiev scout Alexander Shpakov. He was invited to join the club’s
youth programme. Following perestroika, the programme of economic
restructuring and liberalisation introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, the
opportunities for a young player had never been so good. He travelled to
Germany, Italy and England.

In 1990, as part of Dynamo’s under-14 team, he finished top scorer in the
Ian Rush Cup in Wales and was awarded a pair of boots by the Liverpool
striker. ‘Funnily enough, the boots were too small for me but I still tried
to play in them – until my big toes poked through,’ he says, laughing. He has
kept them to this day.

When he was 16, Shevchenko failed a dribbling test for a place at a
specialist sports university in Kiev. ‘After that, I had to choose: whether
to continue with football or take another direction. It was difficult, but I
never lost my self-belief. I told my parents I wanted a bit more time to
prove myself. A few weeks later, Dynamo’s second team stepped in. A year
later [in 1994] I was playing in the first team.’

Dynamo had won the Soviet Union’s championship a record 13 times and now
dominated their domestic rivals in the league of the independent Ukraine. In
five seasons, Shevchenko won five league titles and scored 60 goals in 118
appearances. But thrashing Dnipro and Shakhtar Donetsk was easy. Recognition
abroad depended on success against Europe’s top clubs and Shevchenko might
have been easily missed were it not for the appointment of Valery Lobanovsky
as coach.

Lobanovsky was 58 and already a hero to Dynamo fans when he returned to the
club at the start of the 1997-98 season. As a winger, he had formed part of
the great Dynamo side that won the Soviet league title in 1961 – the first
side from outside Moscow to do so. Then, in 1974, he took over as coach.

He held the position for 15 of the next 17 years, a period in which the club
won the Soviet league eight times. He also had three spells when he was in
charge of the Soviet Union national side: his teams won Olympic bronze in
1976 and finished as runners-up at the 1988 European Championship.

Lobanovsky left Ukrainian football in the early Nineties to take charge of
the United Arab Emirates and then Kuwait but, after watching Shevchenko and
strike partner Sergei Rebrov in action in the winter of 1996, he was
persuaded to return home.

‘He was the greatest coach in Dynamo’s history and the father of Ukrainian
football,’ Shevchenko says. ‘We called him “The Colonel”. He was a
disciplinarian and a very intelligent man – I don’t just mean tactically. To
be successful as a coach you need more than tactics. Lobanovsky was
constantly looking ahead, trying to work out where football was going next.
He was the first Ukrainian coach to use sports science to get the best out
of his players.’

Lobanovsky died in 2002. Shortly after winning the 2003 Champions League
title with AC Milan, Shevchenko took the trophy to Kiev and stopped off by
his old coach’s grave. ‘It was my way of thanking him for what he gave me.

Without doubt he was the coach that changed me most. He taught me the need
to be patient, he instilled the culture of work in me and the importance of
respecting your adversary. He laid the foundations on which my career is
based.’

The respect was mutual. Comparing Shevchenko to some of Europe’s
more established stars in 1998, Lobanovsky said: ‘Big-name players get so
far and become complacent. Look at Ronaldo. He’s still improving, as he
should at his age. But he stands around when he isn’t scoring. I wouldn’t
swap him for Shevchenko, who puts in valuable teamwork.’

Under Lobanovsky, Dynamo made the step up from domestic domination to
progress in the Champions League. In the 1997-98 season they reached the
quarter-finals of the competition, the highlight of their campaign a 4-0 win
over Barcelona at the Nou Camp, in which Shevchenko scored a first-half
hat-trick.

‘It was the night I was “discovered”. After that there was no hiding,’ he
recalls. The team went even further the following year, beating reigning
champions Real Madrid in the last eight, and could have reached the final if
they hadn’t squandered a 3-1 lead to draw 3-3 in the first leg of their
semi-final against Bayern Munich. But Dynamo were ultimately victims of
their own success, with their best players being lured away by wealthier and
more glamorous western clubs. In the summer of 1999, AC Milan, then Serie A
champions, signed Shevchenko for £26m.

‘It was like starting my life from scratch,’ he says of the move to Italy.
His first coach, Alberto Zaccheroni, remembers him as being ‘quiet, maybe a
bit shy, and respectful. But right from the start he had a great desire to
learn – not that he needed much help. He just seemed to soak it up. His
record speaks for itself.’

‘He seemed to settle quite quickly,’ recalls Gazzetta dello Sport
correspondent Alessandra Bocci, who followed Shevchenko during his seven
years in Italy. ‘He was shy, but there was also a quiet confidence about
him. It was clear … he had something to say. And he was never the kind of
player who would go out to curry favour with the fans. He wasn’t like
[Gennaro] Gattuso, for example, who wears his heart on his sleeve.

Big gestures weren’t his style. It’s easy to forget, but back then Milan
wasn’t a team of stars. For a few years at the beginning he propped up a side

that was struggling to hold its own, and he had to wait a long time [five
seasons] before winning the Serie A title. There was a lot of responsibility
on him – that’s a tough thing for a kid of 23 to handle, especially a
foreign player. But he always remained very approachable, even when he
became the star.’

At home, in Ukraine, Shevchenko remains a national hero, though fame can be
perilous. In late 2004, for instance, he became caught up in the country’s
presidential elections, in which the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych faced the
reformist, pro-Western Victor Yushchenko. The contest was marred by
corruption and voter intimidation and the sinister suggestion that
Yushchenko had been poisoned. How else to account for his sudden facial
disfigurement?

During the campaign Shevchenko appeared on national television and glumly
read a prepared statement that endorsed Yanukovych, who drew his support
largely from the eastern part of Ukraine, the region where the footballer
was evacuated as a child in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

The great hero who had departed for the West and married an American
looked like a man reading his own death warrant. When Shakhtar Donetsk
fans visited Milan for a Champions League fixture a few weeks later, they
unfurled a banner with the simple message: ‘Your choice made the nation
weep.’

Since then Shevchenko has tried to distance himself from what happened. He
spoke of enjoying ‘warm words’ with Yushchenko when the latter, then
installed as President, congratulated him on becoming European Footballer of
the Year in 2004. ‘The people in Ukraine deserve democracy,’ he says now.

Then, with anger: ‘It’s bullshit. A big load of bullshit. Listen, politics
is a shitty world. I want to stay well away from it, and well away from
newspapers and TV stations that are standing up for one candidate or
another. I’m an athlete. I represent my country. Whenever I’m called on to
play, I play. And when the time comes to stop, I’ll stop. But I do all this
because I want to, not because someone is forcing me to.’

There was further controversy last month, this time trivial, when, on his
competitive debut for Chelsea, he kissed the badge on his shirt as he
celebrated scoring in the 2-1 Community Shield defeat to Liverpool. Former
team-mates at Milan were disgusted. ‘It’s best if I don’t say what I really
think,’ said Gennaro Gattuso, the bearded midfield mastiff. ‘It looks like
he has fallen for his new team in a hurry,’ team coach Carlo Ancelotti said.

‘People give far too much importance to things like this,’ Shevchenko says
now. ‘They don’t look at the person, they look at some tiny gesture instead.
When I was at Milan, I didn’t win the fans over by kissing my shirt. I did
it through the way I played on the pitch. Here at Chelsea I want to do the
same.’

He says he misses friends in Italy but is adapting quickly to life in
London. The hotel where he lives employs Italian staff and Chelsea use an
Italian cook on their travels. As for the football, ‘it’s faster, more
physical and less tactical than in Italy. The smaller teams seem to go for
the long-ball approach and, in general, teams don’t try to keep possession
so long, and the defenders close you down much faster.’

His ambition above all others is to win the Champions League with Chelsea,
especially as he was part of the Milan team that lost the final on penalties
to Liverpool in 2005, having led 3-0 at half-time. Shevchenko missed the
decisive penalty in the shootout. ‘It was incredibly painful at the time,
but I’ve learned to see it in a positive light. The team was playing well
that night, there was a great feeling between the players. In my opinion we
deserved to win, but Dudek made an incredible save to stop me scoring [in
extra time]. That’s just part of football.’

What is also now ‘just part of football’, or of English football at any
rate, is the constant media attention from both sport and showbusiness
journalists. With his model wife, who likes to pose nude, Shevchenko is more
likely than many of his team-mates to feel this intense exposure. Kristen
admits that she has already been surprised by the close scrutiny of the
British tabloid press. Yet Andriy is still engagingly open in conversation
and manner. Perhaps this is because in Italy the relationship between
footballers and reporters remains comparatively accessible and relaxed,
whereas here in England they are protected by image makers and are often
paid for interviews (as if they needed the money).

By way of confirming his naivety, the week before we spoke, he had driven on
his own to Wentworth, hoping to pay a green fee for a round at the exclusive
Surrey golf club. The three gentlemen with whom he made up a four-ball must
have been as thrilled as they were unsettled to be joined for the afternoon
by Britain’s most expensive footballer. Perhaps the ultimate test of his
assimilation into Premiership culture, then, will not be how many goals he
scores, but whether he is still making such spontaneous trips at the end of
the season.
                         THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ANDRIY 
1976: Born on 29 September in Dvirkivshchyna, Ukraine. His father,
Mykola, served in the Red Army and his mother, Lyubov, was a nurse.
1986: Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurs in April. His family is forced to
abandon their home in Kiev and move to the coast in the east of the country.
Later that year, he is brought to Dynamo Kiev after a scout spots him
playing in a youth tournament.
1994: Breaks into the Dynamo first team. He goes on to win five successive
Ukrainian league championships between 1994-95 and 1998-99.
1995: Wins his first international cap for Ukraine against Croatia.
1996: Scores his first goal for Ukraine in a 3-2 defeat against Turkey.
1999: Signs for AC Milan for £26m in July, making his league debut in
a 2-2 draw with Lecce. Becomes the first non-Italian to be top scorer in
Serie Ain his debut season, with 24 league goals.
2003: Scores the winning penalty as Milan beat Juventus in a shootout in the
Champions League final at Old Trafford.
2004: He is again top scorer in Serie A and Milan win the title for the
first time since his arrival. In July, he marries American model Kristen
Pazik on a golf course in Washington, DC. The couple had met at an Armani
after-show party. A few months later, Kristen gives birth to their son,
Jordan. Andriy is named European Footballer of the Year.
2005: After leading 3-0 at half time, Milan lose the Champions League final
against Liverpool on penalties. Shevchenko’s miss in the shootout is
decisive.
2006: In May, he signs for Chelsea for an English transfer record of more
than 30m and in June he captains Ukraine in their first World Cup.

Their first match is a 4-0 defeat by Spain, but he scores against Saudi
Arabia and Tunisia as Ukraine reach the quarter-finals, where they lose to
Italy. Scores on his Chelsea debut in August in the Community Shield against
Liverpool.                                         -30-
————————————————————————————————
NOTE: James Eve is a sportswriter based in Rome.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1861233,00.html
Email your comments to football.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3.       “BALOHA: YUSHCHENKO’S NEW FAVOURITE”
                          Profile of new presidential chief of staff

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Chyvokunya
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 19 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

The Ukrainian president’s new chief of staff is a good manager and family
friend, a website has reported. He comes from Transcarpathian Region where
he earned his reputation for leadership and the ability to defence political
interests.

Baloha owns no business, but his wife has stakes in 14 companies, the
website said.

The author also said Baloha will defend the President Viktor Yushchenko
against Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

The following is the text of the article by Viktor Chyvokunya, entitled
“Baloha: Yushchenko’s new favourite”, published on the Ukrayinska Pravda
website on 19 September, subheadings appear as in the original:

[Ukrainian President] Viktor Yushchenko, [newly-appointed presidential chief
of staff] Viktor Baloha and [former Prime Minister] Yuriy Yekhanurov. This
is who jumped into the freezing water to mark the baptism of Christ and this
is the order in which they jumped. That happened on 19 January 2006.

Now this threesome can unite under one roof in the building on Bankova
Street [where the presidential secretariat is located].

Baloha has already made the jump as the president’s secretary. The decree
employing Yuriy Yekhanurov as the secretary of the National Security and
Defence Council [NSDC] is on its way.

Baloha’s being at the helm of the secretariat is a symbol of the changes
which have taken place in Ukraine with the advent of Viktor Yanukovych as
prime minister. The epoch when it was necessary to demonstrate democracy in
the presidential secretariat has ended. Now it is time to hold the defences.

A grating epithet has often sounded in Baloha’s address – he is also called
a “crisis manager”. The analogy is easy to read: he will defend Yushchenko
from Yanukovych’s advances as [chief of staff of former President Leonid
Kuchma, Viktor] Medvedchuk once defended Kuchma from the opposition.

Perhaps now the room where the head of the secretariat relaxes will finally
lose the weight machine that Medvedchuk left behind. Not because Baloha does
not like sports, simply he hates everything associated with the United
Social Democratic Party of Ukraine [USDPU]

Yushchenko’s aide Mykhaylo Doroshenko suggested Baloha’s nomination to
Yushchenko a long time ago. But after Baloha was appointed Minister of
Emergency Situations in the Yanukovych government, it seemed he had fallen
out of the favourites in the race for lobbying to take [former
chief-of-staff Oleh] Rybachuk’s place.

However, a few days ago the version pushed onto the scene that Rybachuk’s
successor was chosen during the celebration of the sixtieth birthday of
Petro Yushchenko, the president’s brother, which took place in the middle of
last week.

The first statement on Rybachuk’s resignation was written in February this
year. After talking to Yushchenko last week, and understanding his
intentions, Rybachuk wrote another one.

The president immediately granted the request of the head of his secretariat
to resign. Rybachuk is going without a specific place to prolong his career.

He declined posts offered him by Yushchenko in the secretariat and the
Foreign Ministry, since these posts looked like clear demotions compared to
his current rank.

And it appears most likely that Rybachuk has nothing else to do but head the
Oshchadnyy Bank holding [state bank] or UkrPoshta [Ukrainian state post],
which his friend Oleksandr Morozov is lobbying for.

Despite Baloha friendly tone during the news conference, it is worth
expecting significant personnel changes in the secretariat. Ivan Vasyunyk is
under threat in his post as first deputy secretary.

The practice of delegating authority which Rybachuk introduced will be
repealed. It’s simply that Baloha will do what Vasyunyk has done up to now –
hands-on management of the secretariat.

This war is destined to end with Baloha’s victory and because he is a most
powerful behind-the-scenes fighter and because he now has a carte blanche
from Yushchenko and because Vasyunyk managed to discredit himself in the
year and a half that he has worked in the secretariat.

Some experts predict Arseniy Yatsenyuk will be appointed to Bankova Street
with the goal of keeping him in the president’s team – he is the single
positive hero of the past year.

Yet there is not information as to whether Yatsenyuk himself desires this.
Life is giving Baloha the urgent task of returning Yushchenko’s influence.

“Earlier, the president could punish. Now he can only ask Yanukovych – and
the latter may agree or may not. And he more frequently chooses the second
variant”, a representative of the prime minister’s circle explained the
logic of the current moment.

Baloha’s projects in his new job could be to repeal political reform and
take processes in the regions under the control of Bankova Street.

Baloha in charge of the secretariat is also an attempt to build a new party
around Yushchenko. As is known, he and Yekhanurov were the ideologues

behind the idea of cleansing Our Ukraine of “dear friends”.

Since some of Our Ukraine’s sponsors no longer believe it can be brought
back to life, the idea of building a new political force in this electoral
niche is growing inside a lot of heads. And now Baloha has one big
advantage – the authority of power.
                               BALOHA’S SECRET SMILE
In contrast to Rybachuk, whose behaviour is like a fountain, Baloha is a
siphon which is not sympathetic to publicly voicing his real intentions. A
smile rarely leaves the face of the newly-appointed chief of staff and in
personal conversations one very quickly begins to feel he is a personal
friend.

But, despite simple behaviour and his ability to evoke sympathy, Baloha is a
person whom one does not want to underestimate. He always jokes in

response to difficult questions and does not say it straight.

Baloha is a typical “man”, maybe even with a bit of macho. With all the
attendant accessories. There is a house in Transcarpathian Region at the
foot of Mount Synyak, where every week there is a barbecue or sauna session
where Baloha’s closest team meets. Half of Ukraine’s politicians have been
there.

Under Kuchma, Baloha earned his reputation as a bureaucrat-manager in the
fight with floods. From May 1999 to June 2001 he headed the Transcarpathian
Region Regional Administration for the first time.

This region was the political cradle of [Hryhoriy] Surkis and Medvedchuk –
through the first-past-the-post districts there they were first elected MPs,
opening the doors to big politics.

During that time as governor, Baloha built the first vertically-integrated
chain of the USDPU within one region. But after the conflict with Medvedchuk
in Mukacheve he forced the leaders of district administrations to renounce
the party.

At this stage, Baloha was called the companion of [Our Ukraine member and
former NSDC Secretary Petro] Poroshenko, who had also just split with the
USDPU.

Baloha has long been in the sights of the current president. Even back when
he quit his post as governor after Yushchenko was dismissed as prime
minister. Yushchenko values such gestures.

Baloha’s weak spot is his past. He personifies one of three competing clans
in Transcarpathian Region: Baloha on one side, [Serhiy] Ratushnyak on
another and Medvedchuk via his brother-in-law Chubirek one the third.

Each one of them conquered his place on the map and was an influence in
every possible manner. Baloha’s homeland is Mukacheve, where he was twice
elected mayor. There are no criminal cases which would testify to his ties
to bandits. But everyone in Mukacheve knows who controls the city.

For example, there is a report from May 2004, read in parliament by Ihor
Dryzhchannyy – the then-deputy prosecutor-general and now chief of the
Security Services of Ukraine [SBU].

He was summoned to the podium in connection with the falsified election for
mayor in Mukacheve. Baloha, who took away Medvedchuk’s victory, readied
himself for them no less meticulously than the USDPU.

In particular, the report read that besides skin-heads from USDPU, the
candidate from Our Ukraine also had a support group. These people “were
concentrated in a sports complex for Greco-Roman wrestling in Mukacheve

city and were ready to provide physical support”.

Besides Dryzhchannyy informed, about 200 residents of neighbouring districts
arrived in Mukacheve to support Baloha. They called themselves observers and
activists in the National Congress of Youth and the All-Ukrainian
Association Freedom and the Ukrainian Nationalist Front.

The mayor of the city now is Vasyl Petyovka – the husband of Baloha’s sister
and the right hand of the new head of the presidential secretariat.

Local opponents even joke that the monument in Mukacheve to Cyril and
Methodius [the medieval monks who brought written language to the Slavs] is
“Baloha teaches Petyovka to write”.
                   LEGENDS ROAM OF BALOHA’S GRIP
One legend that is around is this: on the first day of the Orange authority
on 4 February 2005, when Baloha was made governor, after the first
ceremonial meeting of the [Yuliya] Tymoshenko government, he made one

call to Transcarpathian Region – to his trusted person Oleh Havasha.

Baloha gave the order to publicize a number of his decrees – for this, he
had left a packet of documents in Uzhhorod with clean sheets of paper with
his signature at the bottom.

And so the vertical of authority in Transcarpathian Region was formed
literally in one day, while other colleagues were unable to do the same for
weeks.

And when one of the deputies of the former governor, who represented the
USDPU arrived to work, he was literally taken out of the service automobile
with the words: “Get out and put it in the garage. You don’t have the right
to use it anymore, because you’re fired”.

At the same time, Baloha is a person who is able to make personal contacts.
When he ran in that scandalous election in Mukacheve, he was able to make a
partner of his enemy Serhiy Ratushnyak and even the Communist Mariya
Markush.

But Baloha is not a public person and he is not known for acts of PR. For
him, it is easier to win an election with food hand-outs, than with a finely
thought-out political strategy.

Old-timers from Kanal 5 recall when they held a marathon in connection with
the falsification of the Mukacheve election – Baloha did not once show up on
air for them.

But Baloha controls the biggest television and radio company in
Transcarpathian Region, M-Studio, which has several times the coverage than
the state regional television. During Kuchma, they “damaged” the information
picture put together by Medvedchuk.

The election in Mukacheve in 2004 was a stage event for Kuchma’s last year
in power. It turned the attention of all diplomats accredited in Ukraine to
this regional district centre and all the leading Western publications wrote
about it, for as it turned out, it was a testing ground for falsifying the
next presidential election.

Medvedchuk’s experiment played a cruel joke on him. This election finally
gave birth to a formula for the democratic world: if Yushchenko does not

win the election for president, then that means the election was shuffled.

Yushchenko did not forget his comrade at the end of the revolution. After
the “corruption scandal”, the president promoted Baloha to Minister of
Emergency Situations.

One of the first steps he made was to repair the toilets in the central
building of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, since the only one which
worked normally before that was the one in the minister’s own office.

Over the course of a year, Baloha proved his professional abilities to
Yushchenko four times, during the accident in Alchevsk, the flooding in
Transcarpathian Region, the explosions in Novobahdanivka, and bird flu in
Crimea. In order to prove the safety of Ukrainian domestic chicken, Baloha
lunched on it in front of journalists.

“Baloha has good relations with Yushchenko’s family – thanks to an ability
to engender a good mood on a personal level. Betting on Baloha is betting on
the day-to-day, personal comfort of the president.

The new boss on Bank Street can really solve problems, without distracting
the president with the minutiae”, a source closely acquainted with the new
leader of the secretariat told Ukrayinska Pravda.
                                     BALOHA’S COLOURS
Baloha is not a poor person. Baloha’s main business group in Transcarpathian
Region is Barvy [Colours], which no profitable sphere goes past. It is sort
of a mini Lyuks in Mukacheve.

Once former Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov tried to tell journalists that
the members of his cabinet were not involved in commerce.

“Well, maybe there is Baloha…[ellipsis as published] Maybe they put him in
row 27 of Kiev businessmen, and put him in with business. Yes…[ellipsis as
published] But it’s mostly talk”, Yekhanurov said then.

In his official declaration for 2005, it reads that he received 105,146
hryvnyas of income, which came exclusively from his wage accounts as a state
servant. In his declaration, Baloha said he had no money of his own in the
bank and he only owned a number nine Lada [very common, inexpensive
automobile].

At the same time, his family’s income in 2005 was 915,989 hryvnyas including
wages of 909,000 hryvnyas.

According to the declaration, the minister’s family owns two plots of land
of 2,406 and 341 square metres and two flats of 101.1 and 51.8 square meters
and a garage of 43 square metres. Baloha’s family also owns two automobiles,
an Audi All-Road and a Daimler-Chrysler.

Members of Baloha’s family have bank accounts of only 22,068 hryvnyas. The
size of their investments in authorized capital of enterprises and
organizations is 1,488,300 hryvnyas.

At the present time, Baloha is not listed as the founder of any company. But
his wife Oksana figures as a shareholder in 14 enterprises:

LLC Barvy
Open Joint-Stock Company Mukachivska Avtobaza [Mukacheve automobile

company]
LLC Vysokyy Zamok [regional newspaper]
LLC Barvy Cultural and Arts Centre
LLC Matriks Mukacheve
LLC Prodyuser
LLC Hart
LLC Mukachivskyy Institut Mebliv [Mukacheve furniture institute]
LLC Zakarpatska Prodovolcha Hrupa [Transcarpathian food group]
LLC Avto M
LLC Partner
LLC Torhovyy Dim Okan
LLC Rusyniya
LLC Starovynnyy Zamok

Baloha himself is modest in characterizing his entrepreneurial achievements.
When Our Ukraine held a congress and failed to exclude the “dear friends”
from the party, Yevhen Chervonenko told Baloha he has no moral right to
criticize them: since the Barva company was operational while
[Chervonenko’s] Orlan was ruined.

To which Baloha replied: “Even 1,000 of my Barvy would be too small to
compare to what Orlan is. They are completely different companies in terms
of size. Don’t try to compare an elephant to a mouse. You just have to work
normally and not make a joke out of nothing”                   -30-

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4.UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS VIKTOR BONDAR & ARSENIY
    YATSENYUK DEPUTY HEADS OF PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT

Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 20 Sep 06
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Wed, Sep 20, 2006

KIEV – President Viktor Yushchenko has appointed Viktor Bondar and

Arseniy Yatsenyuk deputy heads of the presidential secretariat. Decrees
to this effect are posted on the president’s official website.

Yatsenyuk was appointed the first deputy head of the presidential
secretariat and the president’s representative in the Cabinet of Ministers.

As reported earlier, on Saturday [16 September] Yushchenko appointed

[former Emergencies Minister] Viktor Baloha head of the presidential
secretariat. Bondar was the transport minister in the [Yuriy] Yekhanurov
cabinet and Yatsenyuk the economics minister.            -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.         UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT APPOINTS MORE AIDES
 
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 21 Sep 06;
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thu, Sep 21, 2006

KIEV – Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has appointed Taras

Stetskiv his adviser, the UNIAN news agency reported on 12 September.
 
Stetskiv was an activist of the Orange revolution, which brought
Yushchenko to power in 2004. Then he headed the National TV Company.

Yushchenko also appointed Oleksandr Chalyy deputy head of his

secretariat, UNIAN reported on the same day. Earlier, Chalyy was a
deputy foreign minister.                             -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.  UKRAINE PRIME MINISTER RESISTS EU PUSH FOR REFORMS

By Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune (IHT)
Paris, France, Thursday, September 21, 2006

BRUSSELS – Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich of Ukraine said Thursday
that his socialist government’s chief priority was social stability and that
he would not introduce reforms in response to pressure from the European
Union.

Meeting top EU officials in Brussels for the second time in a week, he was
again urged to conclude negotiations to join the World Trade Organization by
the end of the year to bring Ukraine closer to EU policies and eventual
membership in the European bloc.

He also warned that he would not risk igniting the kind of anti-reform
protests that swept Hungary this week, when thousands of demonstrators in
Budapest lashed out at Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurscany for lying repeatedly
about the economy and then proposing harsh measures to reduce a huge
budget deficit.

Ukraine’s other neighbors to the west, including Poland and Slovakia, are
increasingly reluctant to impose further economic changes, while to the
east, President Vladimir Putin of Russia continues to strengthen central
power. Given those considerations, Yanukovich appears to be in no hurry.

“You should understand that this government will protect the national
interests of Ukraine and you should underline this in red,” Yanukovich said
during a 45-minute interview in Brussels before meeting with the president
of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.

If he chooses to introduce reforms at all, it “would be a long-term
program,” he said. “The decisions will be realistic and pragmatic. Not
populist. But Ukrainian. We will not respond to orders.”

Yanukovich is an enthusiastic pro- Russian who was ousted in the peaceful
Orange Revolution in December 2004 but has made a remarkable comeback.
In parliamentary elections in March, his faction defeated the pro-Western
parties that led the Orange Revolution.

One of those parties, Our Ukraine, led by President Viktor Yushchenko, had
made fast-track negotiations to join NATO and the EU a foreign policy
priority. Little progress was made because of infighting within the
government and a lack of immediate encouragement from Brussels.

Since taking power last month after long negotiations over the formation of
the new government, Yanukovich has dropped the effort to join NATO – long
opposed by Russia – but is pursuing EU membership. Commission officials said
Thursday that Ukraine would have to accelerate economic reforms simply to
sign a new trade agreement with the EU.

Yanukovich said such a trade accord depended on Ukraine’s completing
negotiations to join the WTO. Pandemonium broke out in Parliament last year
after the Socialist Party balked at reducing tariffs for some agricultural
produce as part of the WTO talks. The Socialist Party, whose main support
comes from small farmers, is now part of Yanukovich’s coalition.

When asked if WTO negotiations would be complete by the end of this year,
the timetable set by the previous government, Yanukovich hesitated. “I will
never say that we will do something today,” he said.

“I want to say that the speed will be optimal to the extent that it will be
able to speed up when the laws are ratified. There is a need to protect the
domestic producers. They have to be able to withstand competitive
pressures.”

Yanukovich could face problems this winter, when gas prices will be
substantially increased. An agreement last January between the Yushchenko
government and Gazprom, Russia’s state- own energy monopoly, stipulated that
Gazprom would raise the price of gas to Ukraine from $60 per 1,000 cubic
meters to $95 this year.

That price was far below the $250 demanded by Gazprom, largely because
Ukraine was also buying gas from Turkmenistan that passed through Russia to
reach Ukraine.

Yanukovich said gas prices would increase because of a deal made this month
between Turkmenistan and Gazprom. Gazprom agreed pay $100 per 1,000 cubic
meters, an increase of $35. This means that Ukraine will no longer be able
to buy cheap Turkmen gas, since that gas will be sold to Ukraine via Russia.

Asked how he was going to explain the higher price for gas, Yanukovich
blamed the previous two governments led by Yushchenko. “They left us this
legacy,” he said. “Because of them, Ukraine lost its direct supplies of gas
from Turkmenistan. Now Russia carries responsibility for the supply of gas
to Ukraine and the transit of gas to Europe.”

He gave no indication that Putin was prepared to make any concessions over
the gas price even though Yanukovich has managed to shift Ukraine’s foreign
policy closer to Russia.

Yanukovich made it clear last week that Ukraine was in no rush to join NATO
and that the people would have to vote on such a decision in any event.
————————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/21/news/ukraine.php
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. UKRAINE: YANUKOVYCH ASSURES EU THAT ALL IS WELL


RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY
Prague, Czech Republic, Thursday, September 21, 2006

BRUSSELS – On a return visit to Brussels today, Ukrainian Prime Minister

Viktor Yanukovych restated his government’s intention to push ahead with
its aim of joining the European Union.

Yanukovych was in the EU capital last week, but came back in order to meet
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso — and reiterate that
Kyiv’s NATO bid is, for now, on ice.

Yanukovych reassured Barroso that Ukraine is still looking to join the
European Union and World Trade Organization.

He also said that Ukraine was pumping enough gas to ensure that Europeans
won’t face a frosty winter — as they did for a few icy days last January,
when Russia blocked its shipments to Ukraine.

“We should move step by step in order for Ukraine and the European Union to
be able to sign an agreement on a free-trade zone within the shortest term
after Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organization.”

And Yanukovych also restated his government’s intention to push ahead with
reforms necessary to establish a free-trade zone with the European Union.

“We should move step by step in order for Ukraine and the European Union to
be able to sign an agreement on a free-trade zone within the shortest term
after Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organization,” he said.

Linked to that was Yanukovych’s assurance that Ukraine was not attempting to
join a customs union with Russia, something that would scupper the plans for
an EU-Ukraine free-trade zone.

“I have answered this question many times,” the Ukrainian prime minister
said. “It goes against the Ukrainian Constitution and we will never do
that.”
                                                   EU FEARS
Since Yanukovych’s appointment as prime minister in August, following months
of political deadlock, there were fears in the EU and United States that
Ukraine would reverse the Westward course it has taken since the 2004 Orange
Revolution.

Yanukovych, the loser of the hotly contested presidential campaign that
sparked the revolution, campaigned on a pro-Russian platform.

Visiting Brussels last week and meeting with Finnish Foreign Minister and
current EU chair, Erkki Tuomioja, Yanukovych gave EU officials an idea of
his government’s intentions — namely that they would continue seeking
membership of the EU.

His comments then were cautiously welcomed. And Barroso today reiterated the
EU’s current offer to Ukraine: closer ties but no mention of membership.

“Our objective is to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union. Our
objective is also to support political, institutional, and economic reforms
in a way [that would] contribute to economic growth and the improvement of
the living standards of Ukrainian citizens,” Barroso said.
                                             NATO BID ON ICE 
The arrival of U.S. troops in the Ukrainian port of Simferapol prompted a
series of protests in June (RFE/RL)Prime Minister Yanukovych also elaborated
on his government’s position regarding NATO.

In Brussels last week, Yanukovych irked his president, Viktor Yushchenko, by
saying there was not enough popular support to join NATO and Ukraine should
move in gradual steps toward its bid to join the alliance.

Yushchenko described Yanukovych’s comments as wrong and said they must be
corrected.

But today in Brussels, Yanukovych remained defiant, saying the NATO question
would be decided by a referendum and that his position has the support of
the parliament.

“The statement that I made during my previous visit to Brussels had been
agreed upon with the [parliamentary] coalition’s council,” Yanukovych said.
“And this is the position of the parliamentary coalition [and this position]
has been voted for.

Today, it is our parliament that practically determines our home and foreign
policy — the principles of our home and foreign policy.”
————————————————————————————————
RFE/RL’s Brussels correspondent Ahto Lobjakas contributed to this report.
————————————————————————————————-
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/9/8b02bc07-5f38-468e-b5c0-2896b5d7ec59.html
—————————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8.          RIFT REOPENS BETWEEN LEADERS OF UKRAINE

By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, Thursday, September 21 2006

The deal between Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s president, and Viktor
Yanukovich, his prime minister – agreed only a few weeks ago after
months of argument – has run into trouble amid fights over domestic
reform policies and the president’s speedy western integration agenda.

Mr Yanukovich was due to visit Brussels today and meet European Union
officials to reassure them of Kiev’s continuing commitment to closer
integration. But there are questions about what exactly the Ukrainian
premier will say following a Brussels trip he made last week to see
Nato representatives when he unexpectedly announced that Kiev was not
prepared to take the first steps towards membership of the military
alliance. This is in defiance of Mr Yushchenko’s wishes.

The prime minister shrugged off a presidential public rebuke for his
actions, casting doubt on the realism of Mr Yushchenko’s foreign
policy ambitions. The president’s “desires, at times, exceed his
capabilities”, Mr Yanukovich told the FT at a briefing earlier this week.

As well as threatening political gridlock, the resurfacing of deep
political rifts has called into question Mr Yushchenko’s ability to
keep Ukraine on a path of swift western integration.

Both leaders agree on seeking improved trade relations and eventual
membership of the EU for their country of 47m. However, with the two
men vying for domestic political advantage, foreign policy has become
a battleground.

Mr Yanukovich, who campaigned ahead of last March elections for
reviving ties with Moscow, Kiev’s principle energy supplier, does not
support Mr Yushchenko’s plans for quick Nato membership. Most
Ukrainians also oppose Nato membership.

The prime minister’s position on Nato and his government’s first
domestic reform moves have triggered sharp criticism from Mr
Yushchenko and Our Ukraine, the president’s political party.

Allies of both leaders said relations between the two men were also
tense because of the inability of their respective political camps to
find common ground.

Our Ukraine leaders this week accused Mr Yanukovich of breaking last
month’s compromise agreement through which his candidacy for prime
minister was supported on condition that Mr Yushchenko’s western
integration drive be preserved. Mr Yushchenko avoided dissolving
parliament after Mr Yanukovich signed the compromise accord.

But during a five-hour meeting last Friday, Mr Yushchenko issued what
he described as a “first political warning” to his former arch rival
from the “Orange Revolution” of 2004, criticising the government’s
changed stance on Nato and its failure to push ahead with reforms,
such as tax cuts.

Earlier this week Mr Yanukovich said relations with Mr Yushchenko had
been complicated by constitutional changes that shifted key
presidential powers to the parliament, which formed the country’s
first coalition government.

He held firm in defending his government’s policies and restated his
plans to pursue pragmatic western integration policies.

Mr Yushchenko hopes to gain influence over the government by coercing
Our Ukraine to join Mr Yanukovich’s coalition, which is made up of the
pro-business Regions party, Communists and Socialists. All three
oppose swift Nato integration and, to a lesser degree, liberal reforms.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9. YANUKOVYCH HEADS TO BRUSSELS: YUSHCHENKO STAYS HOME
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Tammy Lynch
THE ISCIP ANALYST, Volume XIII, Number 1,
Boston, Massachusetts, Thursday, 21 September 2006
 
On 14 September, Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovich faced their first real open disagreement
over policy, as they clashed publicly over whether Ukraine will
continue on its path toward NATO.  The disagreement underscores the
lack of clarity in the country over separation of powers and
responsibilities, and makes it clear that the prime minister will not
be content simply to follow the president’s orders.

On 2 August 2006, Yushchenko, Yanukovich and the leaders of the
Communist Party, Socialist Party and Our Ukraine Bloc, signed a
“Declaration of National Unity.” The five-page document was said to
provide the foundation for all future policy decisions in the country.  

 
“The basics of the definition of Ukraine’s domestic and foreign
policy, of its continuity, have been completed,” Yushchenko said at the
time. “I am convinced that in Ukraine’s political practice, at any rate
among the signatories, there will be no more … discussions and
misinterpretations.” (1)  Those discussions, of course, had been based
on the fact that Yanukovich leaned toward a Russo-centric foreign
policy while Yushchenko was committed to a West-leaning policy.

Following the signing of the declaration (called a “Universal” in
Ukraine), and buoyed by his apparent belief that all questions of
Ukrainian’s future policy direction had been answered, Yushchenko
nominated Yanukovich to become the country’s new prime minister. 

 
When questioned by the media about differences that seemed to exist
between the two men, – particularly about the country’s general foreign
policy and its specific goal of joining NATO – Yushchenko seemed calm.
Directing foreign policy, he said, was a right granted to the president
constitutionally, and “I am pursuing the policy toward [NATO]
integration without adding anything else to it.” (2)

Yanukovich’s interpretation of the declaration apparently was a bit
different.  On September 14, speaking in Brussels following a meeting
with NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Yanukovich announced
“a pause” in the country’s movement toward fulfilling its NATO
Membership Action Plan (MAP).  “We explained that given the political
situation in Ukraine,” he said, “it would be better to take a pause [in
the integration process].” (3)  He pointed to the low level of support
for NATO integration among the public as evidence that Ukraine was not
ready to join the alliance.

Yushchenko and his allies in the government reacted with indignation. 
Their irritation seemed to stem mainly from the fact that Yanukovich
made such a major policy announcement without consulting Yushchenko. 

“This step was unfounded and illogical and even, in my view, mistaken,”
said Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko. (4)  The president accused
Yanukovich of making statements that “breach the Universal of National
Unity and constitutional accords.”  (5)  And Foreign Minister Boris
Tarasyuk said, “If we read the Constitution closely … we don’t find
these kinds of authorities granted to the government.” (6)

But that isn’t entirely accurate, particularly since new Constitutional
amendments give the parliament increased power to control the
government.  A close reading of the constitution finds that both the
president and the parliament have some level of authority over foreign
policy.  Since the prime minister is nominated by, and answerable to,
the parliament, this technically provides Yanukovich with the legal –
if not political – right to direct the NATO debate.

Article 106, Point 3 of the Constitution states that the President of
Ukraine “represents the state in international relations, administers
the foreign political activity of the State, conducts negotiations and
concludes international treaties of Ukraine …”

Meanwhile, Article 85, point 5 notes that the authority of the
parliament includes “determining the principles of domestic and foreign
policy …”

Additionally, Article 114 notes, “The Minister of Defense and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine are appointed by the Verkhovna
Rada of Ukraine upon the submission by the President of Ukraine.”  This
provides the right for the president to choose these ministers, but may
or may not guarantee their approval by the parliament. (7)

Therefore, it would seem that President Yushchenko is depending
primarily on the historical right of Ukrainian presidents to control
foreign and defense policy, and the agreement of the prime minister to
divide authority along domestic and foreign policy lines.  The comments
in Brussels suggest that Prime Minister Yanukovich may not be willing
to maintain this division.  And unfortunately for Yushchenko, since the
Declaration of National Unity is not legally binding, it will provide
him with little recourse.

Yanukovich’s comments also suggest that President Yushchenko needs to
do a better job at protecting what he sees as his “turf.”  Yushchenko
chose to remain in Ukraine and allow Yanukovich to conduct meetings not
only with the NATO Secretary General, but also EU representatives. 

 
At those meetings, the Prime Minister publicly reiterated Ukraine’s
commitment to Euro-integration in Brussels, but his reception, to say
the least, was cool.  “The future is not prejudged,” External Relations
Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said, “but at this moment, clearly,
there is no membership perspective.” (7)

Yushchenko could have traveled either to Brussels with Yanukovich or
made the trip himself.  During the Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy
Yekhanurov governments, he did just that.  But, he has chosen to allow
his current prime minister far more leeway and to accept a far larger
role for Yanukovich in foreign policy.  He has not explained his
reasoning, except to underscore the need for unity and teamwork.

Regardless, the result has been to confirm the concerns of some Western
officials that Ukraine’s Western trajectory is shifting, and that
alliances recently built will suffer.  Will Ukraine continue to support
the EU’s border control provisions regarding Transnistria?  Will it
continue to join the EU in criticizing many of Belarusian President
Aleksandr Lukashenko’s policies?  Will it continue to join in the fight
against trafficking and arms smuggling?  In short, will the country
continue to act as a reliable foreign policy ally to the West?

President Yushchenko’s decision to allow Prime Minister Yanukovich to
speak for him and the country in Brussels did little to answer those
questions.  Instead, it may have caused Western officials to wonder
just who is controlling the country’s foreign policy decisions now.
———————————————————————————————-

                                          FOOTNOTES:
(1) UT1-TV, 2253 GMT, 2 Aug 06; BBC Monitoring International
Reports, via Lexis-Nexis.
(2) RIA Novosti, 7 Aug 06; via Lexis-Nexis.
(3) Agence France Pre