Monthly Archives: February 2007

AUR#821 Feb 28 Upgrading Steel Plants; Growing IT Capacity; Naftohaz; VOA Cuts; Ukraine Needs Everyday Democracy; Yulia Tymoshenko In Washington

=======================================================
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       

 
  UKRAINE NEEDS EVERYDAY DEMOCRACY
                                                 [Article Ten]
                        
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 821
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor, SigmaBleyzer
WASHINGTON, D.C., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007

              –——-  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.   UKRAINE TO LAUNCH COSTLY UPGRADE OF STEEL PLANTS
By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, Tuesday, February 27 2007

2 UKRAINE’S INTERPIPE SIGNS CONTRACT WITH ITALIAN CO
        TO BUILD MODERN ELECTRIC STEEL MAKING FACILITY
Investment in excess of $610m for state of the art facility in Dnepropetrovsk
Business Wire, New York, New York, Tue, Feb 27, 2007

3.    TWO UKRAINIAN AIRLINES FORM STRATEGIC ALLIANCE 
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 27 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 27, 2007

4UKRAINE: GROWING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY
Oxford Business Group, UK, Monday, 26 February 2007

 

5.               “WHY DID THE HEAD OF NAFTOHAZ QUIT?”
         Ukrainian gas chief quits over Yanukovych government’s policies
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Ivan Pysarenko
Ukrayinska Pravda online in Ukrainian, Friday, February 23, 2007
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007
 
6.            PLANNED CUTS IN LANGUAGE SERVICES MAR
              VOICE OF AMERICA’S (VOA) 65TH ANNIVERSARY
ANALYSIS: By Peter Feuilherade of BBC Monitoring
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007

7.      UKRAINIAN LEADERS GIVE MIXED VIEWS ABOUT U.S.
                      MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS IN EUROPE 
AP Worldstream, Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007

8. THE UNITED STATES’ “BROAD PROPAGANDA” CONCERNING
  “THE NUCLEAR THREAT AND BALLISTIC MISSILES FROM IRAN”
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

9.         CONCORDE CAPITAL RELEASES FIRST CORPORATE
          GOVERNANCE RATINGS FOR UKRAINIAN COMPANIES
BUSINESS WIRE: Yahoo, Tuesday, February 27, 2007

10.               UKRAINE NEEDS EVERYDAY DEMOCRACY
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By VOLODYMYR NIKITIN
Director, International Center for Policy Studies (ICPS)
Interview in the “Tribune” section of Biznes
ICPS Newsletter #354, Kyiv, Ukraine, February 26, 2007

11.             YULIA TYMOSHENKO COMING TO AMERICA

Inform Newsletter, Issue 31, BYuT international publication
Kyiv, Ukraine Tuesday,, 27 February 2007

12.                            ORANGE FORCES UNITE
Inform Newsletter, Issue 31, BYuT international publication

Kyiv, Ukraine Tuesday,, 27 February 2007

13.             A NOT SO SUBTLE CHANGE IN GAS POLICY

Inform Newsletter, Issue 31, BYuT international publication
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, 27 February 2007
 
14GO IT BLIND: PARLIAMENTARIANS PLAYING “WAR GAMES”
              OBLIVIOUS TO THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS’S NEEDS
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Alexei MUSTAFIN
Mirror-Weekly, Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Zerkalo Nedeli, No. 7 (636)
International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, February 24 – March 2, 2007

15.                             UNNATURAL SELECTION

   Volodymyr Ogryzko and Viktor Korol had no chance to be approved
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: Shura CEAnko & Tatiana Brusselskaya
Mirror-Weekly, Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Zerkalo Nedeli, No. 7 (636)
International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, February 24 – March 2, 2007

16.      UKRAINE’S COMMUNISTS ASSAIL U.S. AMBASSADOR
                      TAYLOR FOR CRITICISM OF JUDICIARY
Interfax, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, February 26, 2007

17. RUSSIAN UNION OF FORMER CHILD PRISONERS FROM NAZI
     CONCENTRATION CAMPS ACCUSE UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS
    OF REWRITING HISTORY ABOUT GENOCIDE DURING FAMINE
Interfax Ukraine News, Moscow, Russia, Tue, February 20, 2007

18.          HIGHEST U.N. COURT RULES SERBIA FAILED TO
                            PREVENT GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA 
Associated Press, The Hague, Netherlands, Monday, Feb 26, 2007

19.     INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE RULES SERBIAN

                       NATION DID NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE
Reuters, The Hague, Monday, February 26, 2007

20.                           THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION                                          

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News
Toronto, Canada, September 18, 2006
 
21UKRAINIAN MUSEUM IN NEW YORK SAYS ‘RUSSIAN’ ARTISTS
      MALEVICH, ARCHIPENKO, & RODCHENKO WERE UKRAINIAN
By Carolyn Weaver, Voice Of America (VOA)
New York City, NY, Monday, 19 February 2007
 
22.      UKRAINE AND GERMANY TO COMPILE WORLD WAR II
                     SOVIET AND GERMAN CAPTIVES DATABASE
UKRINFORM, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, February 25, 2007
========================================================
1
 UKRAINE TO LAUNCH COSTLY UPGRADE OF STEEL PLANTS

By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev, Financial Times
London, UK, Tuesday, February 27 2007

Ukraine’s steel barons are pushing ahead with costly upgrades aimed at
reducing their dependence on increasingly expensive natural gas imports

from Russia and central Asia.

Interpipe, one of Ukraine’s largest industrial holding companies, which is
controlled by the Ukrainian billionaire Viktor Pinchuk, yesterday unveiled
plans to pump $610m (EUR470m, £310m) into the construction of an
energy-efficient steel mill. Italy’s Danieli, a leading supplier of
equipment and technology, has been hired to build the mill.

When completed in 2009, the factory will produce 1.3m tonnes of steel for
Interpipe’s steel pipe and railway wheel factories. Ukraine’s Soviet-built
mills rely heavily on gas furnace technology; the new mill will use
less-expensive electric arc furnace technology.

The country’s vast steel and chemical industries are highly dependent on
natural gas imports and have laboured to introduce energy efficiency
upgrades. Fuel prices nearly doubled to $95 per 1,000 cubic metres in
January 2006 and increased this year to $130.

Mr Pinchuk, the son-in-law of Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine’s former president,

is one of several ambitious Ukrainian billionaires planning to float shares in
a diversified portfolio of companies within the next few years.

The ageing steel factories are among their most valuable assets, but
modernisation is needed to bolster competitiveness.

“The future of Ukraine does not only entail modernisation of factories built
50-100 years ago. If we want to keep up with developed industrial countries,
we need to establish production facilities based on modern technologies,”

Mr Pinchuk said.

His mill may lay claim to being the single largest greenfield investment in
Ukraine. It could also be the first steel factory erected since Soviet days
in a country ranked as one of the largest steel-producing nations, although
other mills are under development.

Kostyantin Zhevago, a Ukrainian business mogul and owner of a diversified
business empire, plans to invest more than $1.5bn in two state-of-the-art
steel mills. One will be in Ukraine while a rolling mill designed to process
slabs is planned for Hungary.

Unlike their Russian peers, Ukraine’s industrial giants have not yet floated
stock on leading securities markets. But they have stepped up efforts to
fund modernisation and energy efficiency, landing large loans with big
banks.

Industrial Union of Donbass, also known as ISD Group, has in recent years
raised more than $850m from European banks for energy efficiency upgrades.

ISD, which owns a coke factory and two metallurgical plants in Ukraine,
acquired Hungary’s Dunaferr and Poland’s Huta Czestochowa mills in recent
years. It is holding merger talks with Russia’s ore conglomerate Gazmetall.
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. UKRAINE’S INTERPIPE SIGNS CONTRACT WITH ITALIAN CO
       TO BUILD MODERN ELECTRIC STEEL MAKING FACILITY
Investment in excess of $610m for state of the art facility in Dnepropetrovsk

Business Wire, New York, New York, Tue, Feb 27, 2007

KYIV – Leading steel company INTERPIPE, signed a major new contract

yesterday with Italian company Danieli to build a state of the art electric
steel making facility. When completed, it will be the largest facility of its
kind in the Ukraine and Western Europe.

The contract was signed today in Kiev at a ceremony attended by
INTERPIPE’s founder, Viktor Pinchuk, and senior management from both
participating companies.

The new facility represents an investment in excess of $610 million and will
be capable of producing 1.32 million tons of round billets and blooms per
annum, providing INTERPIPE’s manufacturing mills with high quality steel

for the company’s pipes and wheels.

The site of the new mill is within the grounds of the company’s largest
existing mill in Dnepropetrovsk, the Niznedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant
(NTRP). Construction will start in 3-5 months.

Commenting on the project, Alexandr Kirichko, Managing Director at

INTERPIPE said: “This electric steel making facility will provide the
company with its own resource base, as well as enhance quality control
at each stage of the production chain.

This cutting-edge facility will allow considerable reductions in gas
consumption (8 times less than the current rate) and overall emissions (2.5
times less). This project will also create 500 new jobs for the local
community. Most importantly, however, we will be in a position to provide
our customers around the world with better products more efficiently.”

From Danieli, Gianpetro Benedetti, Chairman and CEO said:
“We at Danieli, have extensive experience building these ‘mini mills’ for
mining and smelting complexes, and are delighted to be awarded this
prestigious contract by INTERPIPE.

Danieli will be managing the construction as a turnkey project, including
all the technological production, the auxiliary plants and services, along
with the all of the infrastructure, civil works and support buildings. This
facility will be the first of its kind in the Ukraine, which is very
exciting for both Danieli and INTERPIPE.”

Viktor Pinchuk, Founder of Interpipe also added: “The future of

Ukrainian industry is not just about modernizing existing mills and
factories – many of which were built over 50 to 100 years ago – we also
need to invest in new, high technology manufacturing facilities.

Through working with partners like Danieli on projects such as this, I am
very pleased to see that we are making a significant step forward in the
building of a modern industrial infrastructure for Ukraine in the 21st
century.”
——————————————————————————————-
Background and technical information on the new facility:
The new Meltshop will feature all the latest Danieli technologies and
high-tech equipment available in steelmaking and casting: 160-ton twin
shell, inert roof-type LF and a double-tank VD equipped with a 4 stages
400kg/h steam ejector vacuum pump.

Split-shell FastArc AC EAF will operate based on 100% scrap and will be
equipped with the latest technology in chemical energy injection and HIREG
electrode digital regulation system, for enhanced furnace operation and for
energy consumption optimisation.

One four-strand FastCast bloom caster and one five-strand billet caster will
be equipped with the latest generation of tundish and mould design,
hydraulic oscillators and all means to enable high-speed casting of o 150mm
to o 470mm quality round billets and blooms.

The meltshop will include all auxiliary plants and equipment, including
material handling system, fume dedusting plant and cranes. Danieli
Automation will supply all electrical systems and advanced, fully integrated
automation system for the entire plant, including Level 3 for Planning,
Production Progress Control and Quality Management, Scheduling, Data
Warehouse and Stokyard Management.
Background information on INTERPIPE —–
INTERPIPE is a global producer of steel pipes and wheels, one of the fastest
growing producers in Eastern and Central Europe. With sales in excess of
$1.5bn, INTERPIPE produces 4.3 per cent of the world’s seamless pipes and
12.8 per cent of railway wheels.

The company employs 16,000 people at four high quality production mills (the
four largest tubular mills in Ukraine: INTERPIPE NTRP, INTERPIPE NIKO

 TUBE, INTERPIPE NTK, INTERPIPE NMPP), which between them produce
more than 1.4 million tons of steel products annually. INTERPIPE has a rapidly
growing global business in 76 countries around the world.
Background information on Danieli —–
DANIELI designs, manufactures and installs competitive plants and equipment
for the steel and industry worldwide. The annual turnover of the company is
EUR 2bn., of which over 98% is export related business. The company
employs over 5,000 people operating in 18 product lines.

The main products of the company are: Minimills – Integrated steelmaking
plants – Direct Reduction Plants – Electric steel meltshops – Continuous
casting plants and rolling mills for long and flat products – Strip
processing lines – Tube processing plants – Forging shops – Conditioning
lines – Cold drawing lines – Extrusion plants – Automation and process
control systems – Technical assistance and spare parts.

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3.   TWO UKRAINIAN AIRLINES FORM STRATEGIC ALLIANCE 

UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian, 27 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 27, 2007

Kiev, 27 February: Aerosvit and Donbasaero, Ukraine’s first and third
largest airlines respectively, have announced the formation of a strategic
alliance called the Ukrainian Aviation Group.

The director-general of Aerosvit, Aron Mayberh, and Donbasaero’s
director-general, Oleksandr Hrechko, said this at a news conference today.
[Pasage omitted: objectives detailed]

The first stage of such cooperation is scheduled for 10 years until 28
January 2017, they said.

The airlines are planning to form a joint network of routes, unite their
fleets and have a joint schedule of flights to achieve the biggest possible
synergy from the alliance. [Passage omitted: technical details]

By the summer navigation season (25 March), the united fleet of the alliance
will have 28 aircraft, including 16 Boeing and Airbus aircraft: three
long-range Boeing-767s, 11 middle-range Boeing-737s and two A-320

aircraft. The alliance also has nine Yak-42s and three An-24s. [Passage
omitted: background]                               -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4. UKRAINE: GROWING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY

Oxford Business Group, UK, Monday, 26 February 2007

Ukraine’s information technology sector frequently tends to fly under the
radar of international investors. However, the sector has experienced
substantial growth for the last three years. Long-term sustainability of
this growth will require significant changes in the country’s business and
policy landscape.

According to Ukraine’s state statistics committee, the country’s software
development market alone grew from about $90m in 2001 to $260m in 2005.

Still, the IT market in Ukraine is not yet saturated and there is plenty of
room for further growth. Oleg Bodnor, director for Cisco Systems Ukraine,
told OBG that demand for IT products is bigger than what’s on offer. There
are several factors for this.

[1] For one, many companies are coming under new, ambitious ownership
looking to increase their company’s profile through the implementation of
state-of-the-art IT. [2] Additionally, a growth in foreign investment has
raised the standards for everyone in the market.

Banks are the most IT-hungry sector, though an increasingly competitive
mobile telecommunications industry has left providers searching for the next
competitive IT advantage.

As many companies are preparing to be sold or to attract foreign investment,
upgrading their IT systems is seen as a fast way to add to their value.

However, some companies implement IT systems for purely cosmetic reasons,
without training their staff how to use them. The marketing director of a
local IT firm told OBG that this is not surprising, as it will always be
true that some are more oriented towards foreign investment and some are
more serious about increasing the skills of their staff.

While Ukraine has many qualified software developers and researchers, the
market remains quite fragmented for software development, with no critical
mass of companies involved in software research and design.

It is also widely acknowledged that the number of qualified IT people is not
keeping pace with developments, as changes in the country’s education

system cannot keep up with technology.

There is a big gap in IT specialist capability, and the government does not
often know how to teach modern technology in schools, said Bodnor.

Indeed, one of the issues is the extent to which the government is willing
to support IT development. In the past, government spending has been
relatively weak and sporadic. There is also a sense that the government does
not always see the value of such spending.

One foreign energy distribution company submitted its business proposal to
Ukraine’s national commission for energy regulation. IT included a plan to
invest in SAP, the industry standard for business software. The commission
turned down the proposal, citing the purchase as unnecessary spending.

Some companies may also balk at IT acquisitions because of the transparency
it creates. Ukraine’s business sector is still unaccustomed to significant
disclosure and although this attitude is changing, it is a slow shift.

While pressure could come from international capital markets, as companies
seek to do bond issues abroad, the pace of opening up remains slow.

In the wake of the Orange Revolution, the country benefited from World Bank
loans to finance its changeover in IT infrastructure. Legislation has been
passed setting long-term targets of creating technoparks and silicon-valley
type establishments.

Meanwhile, some of its neighbours, such as Russia and Belarus, are doing

the same thing, making it difficult to say where Ukraine will find its
competitive niche.

Some industry insiders say that although the government has not shown

much appetite in the past for IT improvement, the fact that it is openly
discussed and spoken about is a significant step forward.

Bodnar said the long term will require more stability and certainty. Much

of the future direction depends on the uncertain stance of Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovich’s government towards improving IT infrastructure.

Some in the industry have cited the prime minister’s discussion of the
matter at the World Economic Forum in January as evidence he understands

the problems the Ukrainian IT market faces.

Up-to-date infrastructure and technologies, I am sure, will create
conditions for the efficient advancement of the Ukrainian economy and its
strategic development.

Modernisation of Ukraine’s economy is impossible without its integration
into the world economic system, said Yanukovich. It remains unclear how

this sentiment will evolve into policy. (www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.          “WHY DID THE HEAD OF NAFTOHAZ QUIT?”
         Ukrainian gas chief quits over Yanukovych government’s policies

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Ivan Pysarenko
Ukrayinska Pravda online in Ukrainian, Friday, February 23, 2007
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007

The head of Ukraine’s national gas company Naftohaz has quit over
disagreement with government policies, a website has reported. The author
said that Naftohaz chair Volodymyr Sheludchenko refused to sign off on
government instructions he believes will bankrupt the company.

The author said these include the establishment of a subsidiary which takes
away much of the company’s profits and an increased tax burden in the gas
sector. The following is the text of the article by Ivan Pysarenko, entitled

“Why did the head of Naftohaz quit?”, posted on the Ukrainian website
Ukrayinska Pravda on 23 February, subheadings appear as in the original:

On 21 February, after a week-long time-out, the government accepted the
resignation of the head of Naftohaz Ukrayiny, Volodymyr Sheludchenko.
Sheludchenko finally got what he wanted. He stepped off the Naftohaz ship
with relief, which is heading for the bottom of the ocean.

Sheludchenko first tried to quit his position as the chairman of the board
of directors in the autumn of 2006.

At that time, he hoped to find an ally in Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych,
whom he tried to warn of the huge Ukrainian company’s impending slip off an
economic precipice thanks to strategies chosen by Fuel and Energy Minister
Yuriy Boyko. But the prime minister’s verdict was: do as the minister says.

His second try was successful. Viktor Yanukovych said: “one of the main
reasons for the dismissal were health reasons”. But no-one believes that.

It is quite clear that Volodymyr Sheludchenko, an experienced expert in the
gas sector, was under pressure from the leadership of the Fuel and Energy
Ministry and did not want to take responsibility for the ruinous
consequences of the oil and gas decline shaped by more than simple
increases in the price of gas.
                          THE PATH TO BANKRUPTCY
Experts close to the sector say that the former chair refused to sign off on
Minister Boyko’s instructions to set up Ukrhazmerezha [Ukrainian gas
networks] as a subsidiary under the state company Haz Ukrayiny.

The balance value of all the state’s gas distribution network, except for
six west Ukrainian ones which opened a real war again Boyko’s intention to
take away their right to use the gas distribution network, have been put
into this company.

Second, as a professional, Sheludchenko could not agree with a written
instruction from Minister Boyko at the end of last year to purchase
technological gas (to provide for the operation of gas pumping units under
Ukrtransnafta), not from Naftohaz Ukrayiny, but from UkrGazEnergo at a
price of 130 dollars per 1,000 cubic metres.

At the same time, the transit tariff remains unchanged at 1.6 dollars per
1,000 cubic metres per 100 kilometres. And so, neither Ukrtranshaz nor the
regional gas utilities got any additional sources for covering the
difference in the price of 130 dollars compared to 95 dollars.

This difference arose because in the five-year gas agreement with Russia,
which was signed in January 2006, the price of transporting gas (which costs
95 dollars) is 1.6 dollars. Earlier under a price of 50 dollars for the gas,
the transport tariff was 1.09 dollars.

The price in 2007 rose to 130 dollars, and – to Russia’s delight – they
“forgot” about the transit tariff. If the lack of balance between the price
and the tariff is not regulated, it will become one of the main reasons for
declaring the gas transport and distribution networks bankrupt.

Every year, Ukraine uses about 6bn to 7bn cubic metres of technological gas,
which makes it possible to pump gas across Ukraine to Europe. So, when the
price has risen to 130, the tariff also needs to be raised, for example to
two dollars.

The former director of the Donetsk gas distribution network, Volodymyr
Sheludchenko did not want to take responsibility for the
artificially-created lack of balance in the transporter’s accounts. Experts
say he refused to sign off on instructions from the minister and so their
relations only continued to become more and more strained.

Government resolution No 1729 dated 12 January 2007 was also a stumbling
stone between Yuriy Boyko and Volodymyr Sheludchenko. Pursuant to this
resolution, neither Ukrtransnafta nor the regional gas utilities receive
money collected from gas consumers.

Because now payments for gas and transport go to UkrGazEnergo accounts,
and then they are proportionally distributed among all the gas delivery
entities.

“So, on the one hand, Ukrtranshaz and the utilities are in debt before
UkrGazEnergo, buying technological gas for 130 dollars, and on the other
hand they do not get money from the UkrGazEnergo joint venture for services,
and they will always be in debt to the joint venture for technological gas.

This scheme will lead directly to bankrupting Ukrtransnafta and the
distribution networks. The scheme is very dangerous, it borders on the
energy security of the state”, says MP and former chair of Naftohaz Oleksiy
Ivchenko.

A year ago, all of Ukraine accused Ivchenko of betraying national interests,
because it is his signature which is on the famous agreements signed the
night of 3 to 4 January 2006.
                                 WHO AND WHAT NEXT?
Volodymyr Sheludchenko was directly opposed to the gas scheme introduced
by the efforts of Ivchenko and former Minister Ivan Plachkov.

The UkrGazEnergo JV (Naftohaz Ukrayiny and Swiss-based RosUkrEnergo)
set up under the documents signed a year ago, basically deprived Naftohaz
Ukrayiny of a market capable of payment.

By the end of last year, the new operator supplied industrial enterprises in
Ukraine with 30bn cubic metres of gas (altogether Ukraine consumes 76bn
cubic metres). This year that volume is set to increase by at least 50 per
cent.

Thanks to this scheme, the Ukrainian gas market has completely been
reformatted and as a result, Naftohaz Ukrayiny is left with the traditional
debtor – the heating and communal utilities sector. Last year, Naftohaz
borrowed 630 dollars from the supplier of Turkmenistan gas, Swiss-
registered RosUkrEnergo.

The debt was covered at the expense of a foreign credit. But in the first
two months of this year, communal enterprise increased the debt for gas by
another 1bn hryvnyas, which debt RosUkrEnergo will have to cover with a
credit.
               THIS IS A DIRECT ROAD TO BANKRUPTCY
Clearly, this is a direct road to bankruptcy, and this is why Volodymyr
Sheludchenko protested against such a scenario.

Seeing the financial dead-end ahead of Naftohaz, Sheludchenko protested
against the government’s policy to increase the tax burden on the oil and
gas sector. As proposed by the government, the 2007 law on the budget
envisions an increase in the rent for extracting oil, gas and gas
condensate.

According to the law, Naftohaz must this year clear its tax debt of 2.64bn
hryvnyas which accrued in previous years (the overall sum is 3.7bn
hryvnyas).

Naftohaz’ aggregate sum of payments to the budget this year is over 14bn
hryvnyas, or almost 26 per cent of the company’s income. Of course, this
will result in less cash flow for the company and consequently damage its
financial showing.

It is very clear that Sheludchenko sees no prospect in this sector and so he
does not want to be held responsible for the collapse of development plans
outlined for the company.

At the end of last year, Naftohaz’ consolidated credit portfolio was already
over 2.5bn dollars, and of this credit 95 per cent was acquired from
non-resident banks.

Naftohaz’ financial plan for 2007, agreed with the authorities, envisions
obtaining a new credit worth 3.3bn hryvnyas which will be used to pay the
old credit, and nearly 2.8bn hryvnyas of this sum is to be found on foreign
markets.

At the same time, Naftohaz does not plan to take out credit to cover the
debt which will accrue before RosUkrEnergo this year. And it will accrue,
because the level of payments from the communal sector for gas in the height
of the heating season has dropped sharply.

While politicians are busy deciding who should be held responsible for the
unfounded rises in [utility] tariffs and promising to lower them, payments
continue to shrink. In just the first two months of this year, the debt of
communal consumers for gas grew by 1bn hryvnyas.

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych or Finance Minister Mykola Azarov will
appoint a new head of Naftohaz who will be able to fill the state coffers at
the expense of taxes on Naftohaz.

And so the new criteria for the job is experience in the financial sector,
but with a knowledge of energy. It is most likely that this will be a person
close to the top officials in the government, but not to Yuriy Boyko.
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.      PLANNED CUTS IN LANGUAGE SERVICES MAR
       VOICE OF AMERICA’S (VOA) 65TH ANNIVERSARY

ANALYSIS: By Peter Feuilherade of BBC Monitoring
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007

On 24 February the Voice of America quietly marked 65 years since it began
broadcasting on shortwave from the United States to Nazi-occupied Europe

in 1942.

The anniversary was overshadowed by budget proposals from the Bush
administration which would end VOA radio broadcasts in several languages,
including Cantonese, Russian, Uzbek and worldwide English.

Senior US international broadcasting bosses argue that the VOA and other
US-government funded stations must shift their focus away from shortwave
radio to satellite television and the internet, as well as concentrating
more on countries involved in the “war on terror”.

But critics of the new priorities, including senior journalists in VOA’s
ranks, oppose the downgrading of radio and say it would be tragic for the
broadcaster to do away with most programmes in English.
                        “REACHING OUT TO KEY REGIONS”
From its headquarters in Washington, VOA broadcasts in 45 languages on radio
and the internet. Many VOA programmes are now on television. VOA claims a
weekly audience of 115 million worldwide for its news, education and
cultural programming.

(The BBC World Service, by comparison, last year announced a record global
audience of at least 163 million listeners a week.)

Twenty-eight hours a week of Persian TV via satellite and 30 minutes a day
of radio broadcasts to Somalia are among the latest VOA initiatives.

But the Bush administration’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year
(beginning 1 October 2007) would eliminate most VOA English broadcasts, as
well as radio programmes in 12 other languages. The plan seeks to end VOA
broadcasts in Cantonese, Uzbek, Croatian, Greek, Georgian and Thai.

Albanian, Serbian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Hindi and Russian radio would also
be cut, although those services would continue television programming.

VOA would also eliminate all 14 hours per day of VOA NewsNow English
broadcasting, but would continue English-to-Africa programmes and the
Special English broadcasts that use a limited vocabulary.

US government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts to Ukraine
and Tibetan services from VOA and Radio Free Asia would also be reduced.
RFE/RL broadcasts in Uzbek would continue.

The US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) – which oversees all of
Washington’s international radio and TV services – said programmes in some
other languages would be expanded, and there would be an increase in total
spending on international broadcasting.

The proposed budget calls for increased VOA broadcasting to North Korea,
Cuba and Venezuela, as well as continuing a daily Somali programme.

A BBG statement added: “The budget also fully funds initiatives begun in
fiscal year 2006 to critical Muslim audiences. These include the expansion
of VOA television to Iran to a 12-hour stream, VOA Pashto radio programming
to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region, television programmes to
Afghanistan and Pakistan and Al-Hurra Europe, the 24/7 service to Arabic
speakers in Europe.”

The planned cuts “simply reflect budget realities,” said VOA Director Dan
Austin, adding: “If we had the money, I would love to do it all. But these
are tight budget times for any agency of this government, so we have to set
our priorities. And I think reaching out to key regions in the language that
people there understand and speak most frequently has to be the first
priority.”
                                     CRITICS SPEAK OUT
FreeMediaOnline.org, a San Franciso-based nonprofit organization founded to
support freedom of the press, described the proposed cuts and reductions in
US international broadcasting as a “gift to dictators and suppressors of
press freedom.”

“Whenever budget cuts become necessary to pay for new programmes to
countries and regions where freedom of expression is suppressed, the BBG
inevitably relies on cutting programmes to audiences which are also deprived
of free media but are less important for the foreign policy goals of the
Administration.

This lack of consistency sends a terrible signal to defenders of freedom and
courageous journalists around the world,” the organization said after the
new budget was unveiled earlier in February.

The proposed radical reduction of English-language programming has provoked
its own backlash. Sanford Ungar, who headed VOA from 1999 to 2001,
commented: “I think it’s laughable, tragic and absurd for the Voice of
America not to broadcast in English.

I mean, if Radio Moscow stopped broadcasting in Russian, people would be
shocked. If Radio Beijing stopped broadcasting in Chinese – imagine Radio
France not broadcasting in French.”
                              FAMILIAR ECHOES FOR BBC
The shake-up at VOA over new emphases for budgets and languages to

reflect the changing global political environment will have familiar echoes for
other international broadcasters, such as the BBC World Service.

In 2006, the BBC axed 10 language services to shift resources towards the
planned Arabic TV service.

Among those cut were the Thai service, closed just months before the
military coup in Thailand in September 2006.

The debates over geopolitical priorities going on between VOA journalists,
managers and their political paymasters should be closely followed by their
BBC counterparts, as the World Service plans reviews of its Chinese and
Russian-language services in the coming months.                -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. UKRAINIAN LEADERS GIVE MIXED VIEWS ABOUT U.S.
                    MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS IN EUROPE 

AP Worldstream, Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007

KIEV – Ukraine gave mixed signals Tuesday about whether it will support U.S.
plans to deploy a missile defense system in eastern Europe, with the prime
minister warning it could hurt relations with neighboring countries while
the president indicated tacit support for the plan.

“We believe that deploying a missile defense system in Poland and Czech
Republic will not benefit relations between our countries,” Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovych told the German newspaper, Handelsblatt, according to

his press service.

President Viktor Yushchenko later called on politicians to remember their
commitment to Europe’s collective security when considering the plan.

“We must consider our national interests” and the country’s declared aim to
participate in creating a unified security system for Europe, Yushchenko
said, according to Ukrainian news agencies.

Ukraine has refrained from declaring its official view about Washington’s
plans to put a radar system in the Czech Republic and a missile interceptor
site in Poland, saying it needs to learn more. U.S. experts are due to visit
Ukraine in early March to explain the plans, which have angered Russia.

Yushchenko and Yanukovych repeatedly tussle over foreign policy in this
ex-Soviet republic. The pro-Western Yushchenko has sought to earn Ukraine a
place in NATO and turn Ukraine toward the West, ideas that have been met
with skepticism among Yanukovych’s more-Russian leaning party, which
dominates in Ukraine’s largely Russian-speaking east and south.

Washington says the installations are meant to deal with a potential threat
from Iran, but Moscow has rejected the assurances, calling them an effort to
strengthen U.S. military might in the region.

Some Ukrainian politicians have warned that the defense system could make
Ukraine’s neighbors targets, raising the risk of military action in Ukraine.

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8.  THE UNITED STATES’ “BROAD PROPAGANDA” CONCERNING
   “THE NUCLEAR THREAT AND BALISTIC MISSILES FROM IRAN”

Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

The goal of The Day is to acquaint its readers with a variety of viewpoints.
We believe that a newspaper must be a free tribune. The editors do not
always share the views expressed in our paper.

Today we are publishing the opinion of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic
of Iran to Ukraine with regard to the recent interview with William Taylor,
the US Ambassador to Ukraine.

“The press service of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to
Ukraine presents its respects and has the honor to notify the following.

In his interview with The Day, published in issue no. 5 of Feb. 13, 2007,
concerning the US’ decision to deploy elements of anti-missile defense
systems on the territory of Poland and the Czech Republic, the US
Ambassador to Ukraine called the goal of this deployment a response to
‘the threat of nuclear warheads on ballistics missiles from Iran and North
Korea’.

We express our protest and deep regret concerning the unfounded statements
of the US Ambassador in this interview, reject his allegations, and also
make public the following in order to correct public opinion:

The US government, in raising the question of deploying elements of
anti-missile defense systems in Central Europe, has launched a broad
propaganda campaign in connection with this issue and is thus seeking to
distract world public opinion from the shameful results of its operation in
Iraq.

The response to the imaginary threat of nuclear warheads, which do not exist
in objective reality and are the product of the imagination of White House
leaders, is a completely unfounded argument, and the leaders of a number of
countries have already given an adequate reply to this.

The respected journalist of The Day also correctly formulated a question
in this interview about the fact that the Americans have not managed to
convince anyone in favor of their decision.

It is worth mentioning that the general White House policy, especially in
recent years, is being implemented without feeling any necessity to provide
explanations and convince the international community, and this has had
terrible and devastating results.

The attack on Iraq and Afghanistan is a clear example of such actions and
the unilateral policy of the US.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has stated many times that it does not have
aspirations for nuclear weapons. Such weapons are not humane and cannot
guarantee either the domestic or external security of any country.

Iran was one of the first states to suggest the creation of a nuclear-free
zone in the Near and Middle East.

Thank you for publishing our Embassy’s explanations.”      -30-
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177532/

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9.   CONCORDE CAPITAL RELEASES FIRST CORPORATE
    GOVERNANCE RATINGS FOR UKRAINIAN COMPANIES

BUSINESS WIRE: Yahoo, Tuesday, February 27, 2007

KYIV, Ukraine – Concorde Capital (www.concorde.com.ua) is proud to
be the first investment bank to conduct a comprehensive study of corporate
governance standards in Ukraine.

Our study is aimed at providing foreign investors whose equity universe
includes Ukrainian companies with greater insight into the corporate culture
behind these companies.

We rated 118 companies, encompassing all sectors of the Ukrainian economy,
based on Reporting & Disclosure, Investor Relations, Minority Concerns and
Strategic Risks, as these areas are currently of the most interest to
investors on the Ukrainian market.

The total scores possible in our rating ranges from -8.5 to 11.0:

11.0 – 9.0 Quality corporate governance standards (Q)
8.5 – 6.0 Above Average (AA)
5.5 – 3.0 Average (A)
2.5 – 0.0 Below Average (BA)
0.0 or less Poor (P)

Of the 118 companies, 7 earned our Q rating, 13 came in as AA’s, there were
24 A’s, 22 BA’s and 51 companies received our P rating. The average score
for our study is 1.5.

CONSUMER GOODS: Leaders Of The Pack. Consumer goods producers’
results were well above the rest of the sectors with a mean score of 6.9.
High scores by Astarta (11.0), XXI Century (11.0) and solid marks by Sun
Interbrew (5.0) and Slavutich (8.5) lifted the sector average.

Large international holding companies backing the brewers as well as the
listing of XXI Century in London and Astarta in Warsaw support their
strong ratings.

FINANCIAL SERVICES: Good, We Thought They’d Be Better. The
sector received the second highest average score, 5.9. However, except
for Ukrsotsbank (6.5), smaller local banks had the stronger scores, led
by Bank Forum (9.0), Megabank (6.0), Ukrgazbank (5.5) and Rodovid
Bank (5.0).

While media darling Raiffeisen Bank Aval’s score of 6.0 was also solid, it
failed to meet our expectations in terms of investor relations.

OIL & GAS: Bogged Down By Refineries. Despite being boosted by the
inclusion of three foreign-based companies (Cardinal 10.0, JKX 9.0, Regal
9.0) whose openness to investors and past IPOs brought them high scores,
along with Ukrnafta (6.5) and our top scorer Galnaftogaz (11.0), the sector
came in way behind financial services with a score of 4.3.

The shoddy tallies received by the list’s traded refineries pulled down the
sector.

METALS & MINING: NITR & KSTL Head & Shoulders Above The Rest.
As a sector, metals and mining had some of the lowest overall results in our
research (average score 1.2), however, Nyzhnoydniprovsky Pipe and Mittal
Steel Kryvy Rig went against the grain to bring strong marks of 7.5 and 6.5
respectively.

NITR, despite being part of a large Ukrainian holding, leads in terms of
transparency and financial disclosure in the pipe sector.

The entire report is available: http://www.concorde.com.ua/downloads/.
——————————————————————————————–
Contact: Concorde Capital, Nick Piazza, np@concorde.com.ua,

——————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070227/20070227005525.html?.v=1
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10.          UKRAINE NEEDS EVERYDAY DEMOCRACY

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By VOLODYMYR NIKITIN
Director, International Center for Policy Studies (ICPS)
Interview in the “Tribune” section of Biznes
ICPS Newsletter #354, Kyiv, Ukraine, February 26, 2007

In an interview in the “Tribune” section of Biznes, a Ukrainian weekly, ICPS
Director Volodymyr Nikitin draws attention to the lack of key institutions
and processes in Ukraine that are necessary for it to develop.

The country still does not have everyday democracy, a proper leadership

has not been formed, and there are no true statesmen.

Nor has the opportunity to improve things been made good yet. Mr. Nikitin
says that if the state is unable to nurture real leaders, the private sector
can take up the challenge and work for the development of its country

St. Luke, a prominent surgeon and priest whose grave is in Crimea, wrote
once that humans think with their heart. It is also important for people to
think about Ukraine not just with their minds, but also with their hearts.

1.  EVERYDAY DEMOCRACY
The first thing that needs to change in Ukraine is its lame democracy.
Ukraine has developed all the institutes of representative government, but
everyday democracy is still missing.

Ukrainian politicians have become accustomed to a situation where they can
re-distribute power and extend it to the local level. But in a democratic
society, the main task for an official is to serve the public. For Ukrainian
politicians, the idea of this “true purpose” is stressful, indeed.

As long as the top-down soviet machine is in place and working, Ukrainians
will not be able to establish everyday democracy in their society.

Whereas the interests of only one group, the Communist Party nomenclature,
were legitimate in the Soviet Union, nowadays, various organized groups

have equal rights and are entitled to defend their interests. But Ukraine’s
politicians have not been taught how to deal with such a situation.

In the Western World, this system is well developed and is called “public
policy.” This means Ukraine need not reinvent the wheel in order to
establish everyday democracy for itself. What is really needed are
administrative reform and the political will of the country’s leadership.

The second thing that Ukrainian society needs is a serious dose of
“de-sovietization,” as ICPS Honorary Chair Vira Nanivska likes to put it.

 
We have not tried this. Ukrainians have not identified what the soviet
system was, what we were dealing with, and what needs to be changed.

Yet, all this is very clearly formulated in the papers of the soviet secret
service. “Sovietization means depriving the population of all possibilities
to participate in political life, eradicating private property, and
implementing a top-down, totalitarian system of government administration.

This is the only ideology and no doubts can be permitted.” So far, the
Ukrainians have not changed much: they’ve admitted the public to political
life and they’ve allowed private property.

2. UKRAINE HAS NO INTELLECTUAL ELITE
It seems to me that the main threat to Ukraine is Ukraine itself, that is,
its internal state. The country does not have an intellectual environment:
intelligence, intellectual achievements and an orientation towards
developing intelligence are not welcome in Ukraine.

 Miserly funding is allocated to science and education. If we look at those
individuals who carry authority in Ukraine, they are not models of
intellectual capacity. This means the country lacks a true elite, and this
constitutes one of the most serious dangers for Ukraine.

Ukrainians frequently confuse the idea of an elite with the privileged
classes. There are many privileged people in Ukraine who have power and

who take positions that would normally be taken by an elite, but they do not
fulfill the functions of a true elite.

The elite means those individuals who live according to clear principles,
those who safeguard and develop the country’s future. The purpose of an
elite is to put together development programs and to guide the trajectory of
the nation’s progress.

To implement this, we have to adhere to key principles, such as honor and
responsibility, which constitute the foundation of European culture.

3. MISSING: EUROPEAN VALUES
Unfortunately, our very real shift away from Europe began back when the
bolsheviks first came to power. What is Europe and what is European culture?

First of all, this means European thinking and a European outlook. Europe is
a unique combination of Greek scholarship, Roman law and Christianity. The
combination of these three elements is what made Europe, Europe, and
distinguished it from the rest of the world.

One of the main principles underlying European thinking is the division of
world into visible and invisible, the world of ideal objects and the world
of mundane problems. These two worlds should not be confused, no matter
what.

Yet, that is precisely what the bolsheviks did. In order to attract the
proletariat and bring to life the slogan, “Even a cook can govern a
 country,” they transformed ideal concepts into material things.

In general, this is typical of uneducated people: to think that it is
possible to touch justice or a nation with your fingers.

Attempts to realize the ideal on the earth have always had bad consequences
for the development of that country. In Ukraine, this led to a situation
where most people lost all sense of the “higher universe” completely.

Although the churches are the bearers of ideas, principles and values around
the world, in Ukraine, they do not entirely fulfill this function.

The Pope may regularly address the faithful with messages that combine
Christian ideas with important issues of everyday life, but Ukrainian
pastors do not do this.

In Ukraine, Christianity amounts to little more than formal rituals, even
paganism, for many people. The church frequently brought enlightenment to

a society. This function can also be fulfilled by philosophers who explain the
essence of life to people.

Unfortunately, there are no such philosophers in Ukraine today. This
lamentable fact has its own historical explanation. All the soviet elite and
all strategic studies were focused in Moscow.

When Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union, it did not have any
world-class theoreticians in many scientific areas.

In a developed country, the elite is actively engaged in global issues,
analyzing human development scenarios. The Americans, the Europeans

and the Russians all do it.

In Ukraine, this activity is largely undeveloped, which means that nobody
here even makes an attempt to insert Ukraine into the global arena. At best,
Ukrainians are mentioned in foreign scenarios.

4. QUALITY EDUCATION LEADS TO A RESPONSIBLE ELITE
To carry out this analytical work, the right kind of training is needed, and
this must be based on a quality education. Today, education is viewed mainly
as a social function in Ukraine.

Yet it must fulfill another extremely important function: to prepare
individuals who are capable of forming an elite.

To tell the truth, the country needs fundamentally different educational
institutions for this purpose, where young people work in small groups under
the guidance of authoritative individuals and carry out practical work.

Such students must meet special requirements that will make it impossible

to be accepted and graduate using personal connections.

In Ukraine, no educational institution, not even the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, has set such a goal for itself.

Thus, the question is: How will individuals who can think and speak on the
basis of principles emerge in Ukraine? “Midwives” are always necessary. In
the past, saints played the role of intermediary. What can Ukraine do now?

It makes little sense to expect that people will become saints. Also, it is
also unwise to expect that everybody will become an intellectual or take on
intellectual functions.

However, there should be individuals who will make the link between the two
worlds mentioned earlier and lead others.

If the state cannot raise an elite, the private sector can get involved in
this process, as happened in Russia.

There, a group of oligarchs chipped in US $5mn each-Roman Abramovich

donated US $26mn-, bought a piece of land close to Moscow, and
launched construction of the Moscow School of Management.

The country’s elite will be trained in this institution, yet this project
was 100% financed by business. There was no public capital in it.

We can say many things about Russia, but the fact remains that our

neighbors have begun to take care of the future. This School will work
both for business and for Russia, while oligarchs themselves act as
both lecturers and students.

I am convinced that, after this School is opened, this institution will
become the original Russian outpost for “piping” global experience into

the country.

I don’t see a similar level of social responsibility among businesses in
Ukraine. Yes, Viktor Pinchuk has launched a scholarship program for

talented students and Rynat Akhmetov finances research into the
educational issues, but their efforts are not especially significant compared
to, say, the Russian oligarchs and compared to what could be done in
Ukraine.

5.  A COUNTRY THREATENED BY CONCEPTUAL CHAOS
As a result of all this, something that philosophers call a conceptual
cataclysm has emerged in Ukraine. When people do not have clear-cut

concepts of the ideal and the material worlds, they tend to confuse
concepts or to simply not distinguish them at all.

For example, Ukrainians often equate “knowledge” and “information” or
“leftists” and “conservatives,” although these are fundamentally different
concepts.

In this looming conceptual chaos, it becomes less and less possible to
govern the country because people are disoriented.

How can this situation be changed when Ukrainians essentially have no

moral giants whom the country might emulate? When they have no
landmark projects that might set the country’s future course?

Thank God, Ukraine got lucky with its people, an ironic and somewhat
dispassionate lot. Ukrainian society is seeing movement although, so far,
this movement is not being shaped by ideas but driven by chaotic feelings.

6. BUSINESS CAN BEGIN TO DRIVE THE COUNTRY
Today, Ukraine has countless politicians, but not a single statesman. Who
can, then, take responsibility for the country’s development? As a matter of
fact, this can be done by the private sector.

 
For example, all the largest corporations in the world have internal
educational systems. Such powerful companies as General Motors and
Motorola have their own universities.

Most large business structures contain a core that prepares elite managers
both for the corporation and for the country. In Ukraine, business either is
not thinking or does not know about this kind of possibility.

We’re living in an atmosphere of self-reassurance-“We’ll survive this, too.”
And so, we reflect neither on our own sickness nor on our place in the
world.

Today, all Ukrainians need to understand: We are a young country and we

have a chance to build that country that we want to live in, without the
terrible baggage of the past borne by countries with a centuries-long history.

We must take this chance: the window of opportunity is open-but not for
long.                                                   -30-
—————————————————————————————————-
This is an abridged version of the article that appeared in Biznes No7 (734)
12 February 2007. You can view it online at
http://www.business.ua/i734/a23189 (in Russian).  Biznes, one of the top
Ukrainian weeklies, dedicates its Tribune section to the most interesting
opinions, comments and ideas.
————————————————————————————————–
International Centre for Policy Studies, Kyiv, Ukraine
E- mail: astarynsky@icps.kiev.ua; Web-site: http://www.icps.kiev.ua

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11.        YULIA TYMOSHENKO COMING TO AMERICA

 
Inform Newsletter, Issue 31, BYuT international publication
Kyiv, Ukraine Tuesday,, 27 February 2007

The cost of a punishing schedule traversing the country visiting local
councils caught up with Yulia Tymoshenko this week, when Ukraine’s leader of
the opposition was forced to cancel the New York leg of her visit to the USA
due to a bout of flu.

Ms Tymoshenko planned to be in New York City on 26-27 February before
heading to Washington DC. Highlights of the New York leg were to include a
speech at Columbia University and meetings with prominent members of the
investment community, including a luncheon at JP Morgan. Meetings with the
media and policy makers were also cancelled.

Ms. Tymoshenko’s decision to delay her departure to the United States was
taken on the advice of her physician. “Ms. Tymoshenko understands that this
schedule change will be a disappointment to many in New York,” said Hryhoriy
Nemyria, her top foreign policy advisor and a deputy leader of BYUT.

“Consequently, she is already discussing plans for a return trip to New York
as part of her outreach to various diaspora, media, public policy, and
business constituencies in the United States and elsewhere,”

Despite the set back, Ms Tymoshenko plans to travel directly to Washington
where she will meet with government officials, lawmakers, policy experts,
scholars and members of the US-Ukraine diaspora.

A highlight of the visit will be meetings with US Vice President Dick Cheney
and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who met Ms Tymoshenko during

her last visit to Ukraine

Looking forward to the trip, Ms Tymoshenko said, “As an unwavering

supporter of freedom and  democracy in Ukraine, I look forward to returning
to the birthplace of these historic principles.”

This will be the first visit by Ms Tymoshenko to the USA since entering
politics. It is seen as an opportunity to articulate her party’s liberal
economic policies and reiterate that any future administration with her as
leader will combat corrupt practices and ensure Ukraine adheres to the best
traditions of European democracy.

At the same time, an emboldened Ms Tymoshenko will speak on behalf of

the recently unified parliamentary opposition to draw attention to the
constitutional crisis threatening to destabilise the country. “My sense is
some in America mistakenly believe the Orange Revolution is over, that
democracy has won – and that liberty and justice have secured their place in
our country’s history,” commented Ms. Tymoshenko.

“The Orange Revolution is not over,” she continued, “the movement that
brought thousands of Ukrainians together to overthrow the post-Soviet regime
lives on. Much progress has been made to bring democracy to Ukraine, but
much more remains to be done.”

Recent events in Ukraine, underline this point. Just last week the conflict
between parliament and the president’s office was magnified when President
Viktor Yushchenko’s nomination for foreign minister, Volodymyr Ohryzko,
gained only 196 of the 226 votes needed to secure his appointment.

Other issues, such as heavy-handed Soviet-style interventionism in the grain
market and a recent thwarted attempt to unify Ukraine’s gas-pipeline network
with Russia’s, further underline the gravity of the situation. Even that
last bastion of democracy, a free press has come under increasing attack.

According to the 2007 report from Reporters without Borders, the
improvements in press freedom achieved by the Orange government in 2005

was offset last year by increased physical attacks against journalists and the
judiciary’s inability to complete the murder trial of investigative reporter
Georgiy Gongadze.

Finally, Ms Tymoshenko will address geopolitical issues critical to the
security of Ukraine, Europe and the United States. These include pressures
put upon neighbouring states by Russia, particularly in relation to energy
security.

While in Washington, the BYuT delegation will meet with both senior
Republican and Democrat politicians. Mr Nemyria, sees this as a two-way
process, “We have the opportunity to speak to both sides on Capitol Hill,
take away some positive learnings and see how they may apply to our ongoing
reform efforts in Ukraine.”

On the morning of March 2, Ms Tymoshenko is scheduled to speak at the
National Press Club in Washington. The speech is entitled, “Ukraine and
European energy security, the state of Ukrainian democracy, transitional
democracies of Central Europe, and Ukrainian-Russian relations and their
interplay with U.S. foreign policy”

In contrast to Mr Yanukovych’s visit last December, Ms Tymoshenko had
planned to embrace the Ukrainian diaspora. Although the New York activities
have been temporarily shelved, in Washington she will receive an award at
the annual Ronald Reagan banquet.

Saddened that the trip will be shorter than planned, Ms Tymoshenko, said,

“I nevertheless look forward to experiencing first-hand the great example of
freedom and democracy that is America.”                 -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.                               ORANGE FORCES UNITE
 
Inform Newsletter, Issue 31, BYuT international publication
Kyiv, Ukraine Tuesday,, 27 February 2007

On Saturday, 24 February, BYuT and Our Ukraine signed an opposition

merger accord, uniting the pro-presidential bloc with the multi-factional
opposition led by Yulia Tymoshenko. By combining forces the parliamentary
opposition now has over 200 seats in the 450-seat Verkhovna Rada
(parliament).

The accord strengthens the hand of the opposition to check the government of
Viktor Yanukovych and his Anti-crisis Coalition – comprising the Pro-Russian
Party of Regions, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party.

 
The opposition is now able to prevent Mr Yanukovych from mustering the
300 votes needed to override presidential vetoes and, more significantly, has a
stronger platform from which to seek early parliamentary elections.

The mutual accord is based on the draft coalition agreement of June 2006. It
outlines a framework with actions to unite democratic forces both within
parliament and whenever a parliamentary majority or a coalition government
is formed.

The unified group will be governed by a coordinating council, which
comprises six representatives from each member of the opposition.

As a matter of principle, the united opposition will seek early
parliamentary and local elections and will appeal to the Constitutional
Court to empower the president to dissolve the government. It backs

Ukraine’s eventual membership of the EU, supports the imperative mandate
and will campaign for the abolition of the December 2004 amendments to the
Constitution.

This long awaited agreement is seen my many as a boost for Yulia

Tymoshenko and welcomed by most former pro-democracy supporters
wanting to see the reconciliation of the former Orange Revolution partners.
The move also vindicates Ms Tymoshenko’s drive to build a multi-factional
opposition movement.

“She is unquestionably in the driving seat, ” said one insider, “she
attracted defectors from the Socialist Party, secured support from the
Reforms and Order Party and has others waiting in the wings to join the
bloc. She applied enough force to bring Our Ukraine to its senses and
throughout the many ups and downs, has kept public faith with the president,
proving herself a skilful and worthy leader. From now on Yanukovych will
have his work cut out for him.”                          -30-

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
         Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13.          A NOT SO SUBTLE CHANGE IN GAS POLICY
 
Inform Newsletter, Issue 31, BYuT international publication
Kyiv, Ukraine Tuesday, 27 February 2007

There appears to have been a change of tactics by Gazprom and Ukrainian
energy officials following the amendments to laws passed by the Verkhovna
Rada prohibiting the unification of Russia and Ukraine’s gas-pipeline
infrastructure. The new game plan appears to be the transfer of pipeline
assets at a local oblast level to Gazprom in return for access to gas and
oil extraction in Russia.

A somewhat peeved Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych branded the recent
legislative amendments as “political spin” that has “brought nothing new to
lawmaking,” and harmful to Ukrainian-Russian relations. His remarks came
after deputies, including those from his own faction, the Party of Regions,
voted to prevent the unification of the gas-pipeline networks.

Since then, Mr Yanukovych has pledged that Ukraine will defend its national
wealth and at the same time deepen its relations with Russia.

On 21 February, President Viktor Yushchenko signed the law passed by
parliament. Yet two days before, Ukrainian Fuel and Energy Minister, Yuriy
Boyko, indicated that Ukraine was prepared to transfer oblast level gas
distribution assets in return for access to Russian gas and oil extraction
projects. Following talks with Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller, Mr Boyko said,
“Russia is not interested in anything other than distribution networks in
Ukraine.”

This view was brought into sharper focus by Valery Yazev, Chairman of the
Russian State Duma Energy Committee, during remarks over Russia’s possible
investment in the Bogorodchany-Uzhgorod pipeline in Western Ukraine. Mr
Yazev indicated that the Russian Federation is interested in the whole gas
transportation system of Ukraine rather than merely parts like the
Bogorodchany-Uzhgorod pipeline.  Dismissive of the pipeline project, he
said. “All we could offer in exchange for such property would be a small
unimportant gas field.”

Oleksandr Turchynov, BYuT deputy leader remarked, “The Kremlin has made

no secret of wanting to take control of our gas transportation system and we
would be naive in the extreme to believe it will respect the wishes of the
Verkhovna Rada and stop there.”

While the new law will not cause Gazprom to abandon its plans to wrestle
control of Ukraine’s gas-pipeline network, it appears to have prompted a
change in tactics. Vladimir Socor, writing for the Eurasia Daily Monitor,
illustrated how a plan to focus on local distribution networks might lead to
the bigger prize, “Such transfers could, however, eviscerate Ukraine’s gas
transport system from within, aggravating Naftohaz’s already bleak financial
situation and potentially setting the stage for a transfer of the transit
system itself later on.”

It could be easy to forgive Russia for wanting to exercise control for
purely commercial reasons, but clearly this is not the case. The Kremlin has
cynically used Gazprom as a political tool to coerce its neighbours.
Furthermore, Gazprom’s forced takeovers of major Western assets in Russia’s
energy sector have been achieved with a ruthlessness more befitting the
mafia than a responsible energy company.

 “Any government needs to maintain strong links with its historical trading
partners,” said Mr Turchynov, “but we must be vigilant and not fall prey to
ceding vital assets that would cost us dearly, economically and
 politically.”
                        Putin Praises Ukraine-Russia Gas Deal
Speaking recently at the Munich Conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin
defended Russia’s overall policy on energy saying that “all that we have
done and are doing is designed to achieve only one goal, namely to transfer
our relations with consumers and countries that transport our energy to
market-based, transparent principles and long-term contracts.”

Talking specifically about Ukraine, Mr Putin said that he considered
President Yushchenko’s signature of the gas deal with RosUkrEnergo was “a
responsible, absolutely correct and market-oriented decision.”

How the Kremlin considers the employment of a controversial intermediary
such as RosUkrEnergo as adhering to “transparent principles” beggars belief.
After all, this is a company that only revealed the identities of its
Ukrainian half-owners after a sustained barrage of press criticism; a
company whose auditors resigned over doubts over its ownership structure; a
company with alleged links to organised crime figures, and which became the
subject of an investigation by the US Justice Department.

It is clear that “the correct and market-oriented decision,” only applies to
RosUkrEnergo’s beneficiaries who are reaping considerable benefits In 2006
the company earned approximately $500 million a month.

If the role of RosUkrEnergo in supplying gas to Ukraine contradicts the
norms off transparent liberal economics, the question must be asked if there
is a genuine need for monopolistic intermediaries, of any ilk, to broker
national gas deals? The answer is simple. It can be found with millions of
ordinary Ukrainian citizens struggling to meet inflated winter bills for gas
and electricity.                                         -30-

———————————————————————————————-
Questions or comments? E-mail us at taras@byti.org.ua
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14. GO IT BLIND: PARLIAMENTARIANS PLAYING “WAR GAMES”
               OBLIVIOUS TO THEIR FELLOW CITIZEN’S NEEDS

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Alexei MUSTAFIN
Mirror-Weekly, Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Zerkalo Nedeli, No. 7 (636)
International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, Feb 24 – March 2, 2007

One should have seen the faces of the MPs that stormed the parliamentary
rostrum and, later, electrical control unit last week. When the TV cameras
were on, they looked determined and rapt but when there were no reporters
around, the parliamentarians’ faces lit up with sheer joy.

Children look like this when they are happily engrossed in a game known only
to them. Many years ago in television chronicles, I saw the Balkan
guerrillas’ eyes shining like this when they first held real guns in their
hands. They were like children at play, but their guns and bombs were real.

I remembered about them having heard a Ukrainian MP say he would not be
surprised if shooting started in the Verkhovna Rada.

The parliamentarians, too, seem to be playing “war games,” oblivious to
their fellow citizens’ needs and to the fact that the entire nation could
become the loser in this game.
                                     PASSING THE BUCK
Ukrainian politicians keep blaming their opponents for the increased
municipal utility tariffs. Yulia Tymoshenko criss-crosses the country
scolding the prime minister and his government for the price rise; ministers
retaliate with sporadic TV interviews passing the buck to Yuriy Yekhanurov
and Yulia Tymoshenko, which headed the Cabinet in 2005.

The dispute over high gas prices- USD 130 today, USD 95 yesterday or USD

50 the day before – grows into a squabble about where tariffs grew more
dramatically – in Donetsk, where the party of Region is at the helm, or in
Western Ukraine where the “orange teams” have majority in local councils.

It verges on absurdity. For example, at a teleconference last Monday Vice
Prime Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk asked sternly: “What party has the majority
in Uzhgorod City Council that raised tariffs to a record level?” (expecting
to hear it was YTB) and got the answer, clear and loud: “Our Ukraine and the
Party of Regions!”

When Tymoshenko proudly reports about forcing a local government to reduce
tariffs by 15%, her opponents from the Party of Regions retort that it is
her party’s representatives in that very local government that raised
tariffs almost threefold, in the first place, and a 15% reduction is
nothing.

Nobody seems to care what happens in the municipal economy and utilities
infrastructure next year or, say, in five years. Some municipal bosses use
gloomy forecasts as a trump card against their contenders.

Thus, Kyiv Mayor Leonid Chernovetsky declared: “We have reduced tariffs but
there are tradeoffs – the city will have no money for reforming municipal
services, and we will hardly find any other funding sources.”

His Cherkasy counterpart Serhiy Odarych acknowledges that the tariff
decrease has cost the city budget UAH 30 million, and the municipal reform
will not be financed from the city budget either.

Companies that provide municipal services could require new subsidies soon
since many residents, abetted by politicians, stopped paying their utility
bills.

Politicians (at both local and central levels) did their best to persuade
their countrymen and countrywomen the tariffs were raised unjustifiably and
by refusing to pay under new tariffs, citizens expedite their rights and
legitimate interests.

They also insisted tariffs could only be raised upon relevant public
consultations. Now these same politicians call for the people to pay their
most recent bills (smaller than in January but still twice as large as last
year), without bothering to prove their accuracy or holding public
consultations.
                                         TUG OF WAR
The opposition in local governments could face an avalanche of
recriminations for “robbing common Ukrainians.” The minister of labor
already argued tariffs should not have been raised two-fold when the gas
prices grew only by 1.5 times.

The Prime Minister promised to initiate criminal proceedings against
municipal officials responsible for the sharp and ungrounded rise in
tariffs.

If somebody ends up in jail, the opposition will not be able to accuse the
ruling party of political repressions – the latter will readily quote Yulia
Tymoshenko’s numerous demands to bring “exploiters” to task.

We all know that such ostentatious ruthlessness toward “oppressors of small
Ukrainians” will be nothing but a political demonstration. So is the YTB
initiative to pass a law aligning tariffs with average wages. YTB faction
members readily admit it, and the anti-crisis coalition’s reaction seems
totally unreasonable.

Why should they persevere in blocking the draft law and making martyrs of
the YTB? No wonder opposition MPs would look so happy crowding around

the parliamentary podium and cutting off electricity to the Rada building.

In order to bring their opponents out into the open, the coalition should
stop upbraiding them and setting countless enquiry commissions. Instead, it
should seek the opposition’s proposals on immediate municipal reforms and,
most importantly, their long-term strategy for municipal economies and
infrastructure development.

This could prove the most unpleasant challenge for Our Ukraine and the Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc, as neither seems to have a comprehensive (or
comprehensible, for that matter) program of municipal reform.

The reason why the anti-crisis coalition would challenge the opposition on
this matter is obvious: the Party of Regions and Socialists have no
municipal reform strategy of their own either. It is much easier to jostle
in a Rada session hall and count written-off billions than deliver on
election promises.

Meanwhile, municipal reform could grow into a nation-wide project capable of
making Ukrainian politicians work for their voters, for Ukrainian people. It
could, eventually, change the nature of Ukrainian politics, where
competition is underway among charismas, slogans and spin techniques, rather
than among national development programs.

However, Ukrainian politicians would not condescend to such down-to-earth
issues as municipal economy, utility and tariff policies. They would not
sign “pacts” and “road maps” relating to sewage, water supply or municipal
waste management.

They find more excitement in discussing NATO accession, official languages
and church unification, particularly given that discussions of this kind are
infinite.
                                        TWO ACES IN MISERY
Of course, Ukrainian politicians never forget about “small Ukrainians.”
Their greatest concern is about those most in need – that is why minimum
wages and pensions are considered the best measurement of the politician’s
love for the people.

You will remember how hard the opposition fought with Yanukovych’s first
government back in 2003-2004 to raise the minimum wage and how both camps
speculated on minimum pension payments during the election campaign.

 Last year it was less emotional but Yushchenko still criticized the 2007
budget for low social standards. As a result, parliament required that the
Cabinet of Ministers raise minimum wages and pensions provided the 1Q
economic performance indicators showed positive dynamics.

Now the time has come to pay the debts. Formally, the first quarter will be
over on March 31, but the Presidential Secretariat could not wait so long:
the president submitted a draft law on increasing minimum wages starting
March 1, citing [First Vice Prime Minister] Mykola Azarov’s cheerful reports
about Ukraine’s remarkable economic growth.

The anti-crisis coalition blackballed the presidential initiative, together
with the YTB draft law on tariffs.

Yet “small Ukrainians” should not lose hope: the government will raise the
minimum wage, if only to stop the President and opposition from gaining more
sympathizers.

Yanukovych, who said a week ago, he would not haste to revise budget
expenditures, has changed his mind and today asserts that the minimum wage
will grow as planned.

So pensioners can sigh with relief. Yet will authorities ever start thinking
of the middle class that generates revenue for the state budget and makes
economic growth possible?

Politicians strive to be liked by their electorate. In Ukraine,
beneficiaries of social subsidies tend to be the most active voters.

Those who can take care of themselves sometimes ignore elections. Therefore
all Ukrainian presidents, parliaments and governments deliberately
understate social policy targets.

As a result, the social group that suffers most is not even entrepreneurs,
but qualified workers and employees of budget-funded institutions
(educators, medics, librarians, etc). Their incomes are low but not as low
as those of the poor, and they are asked to have patience. However, patience
gradually wears thin.

Moreover, neighbouring countries offer much higher salaries for similar jobs
and Ukraine is losing thousands of migrant workers.

According to expert estimates, in a few years this country might be
desperately short of a workforce. The situation can be rectified if
qualified workers’ wages grow significantly, rather than by scanty by the
cent.

Politicians, however, seem unaware of the imminent threat: they continue to
“play out the misery.” To use gambling terminology, the warning about two
aces in the widow does not put them on alert. Ukrainian politicians are
still unprepared to let their rivals have aces, even if it means losing the
game.

It might not be about gambling, after all. The ruling coalition and the
opposition just do not know how to behave otherwise.

Neither is sophisticated enough to understand that, although minimum wages
and pensions can be established by law, average salaries hinge on the
overall strength of the national economy.

Neither governmental resolutions nor presidential decrees can make a private
employer pay more to its employees.

Authorities can only encourage it to do so with a sound economic strategy
and incentives. Yet Ukrainian politicians have problems designing sound
strategies. They offer their voters what they have in stock: tricks, schemes
and games.

You have not got enough money? OK, we won’t pay salaries to the Foreign
Ministry employees! Your water taps went dry? OK, we will cut off
electricity in Parliament! Shared hardships unite people.        -30-

———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/636/55967/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.                             UNNATURAL SELECTION
       Volodymyr Ogryzko and Viktor Korol had no chance to be approved

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY: Shura CEAnko & Tatiana Brusselskaya
Mirror-Weekly, Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Zerkalo Nedeli, No. 7 (636)
International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, Feb 24 – March 2, 2007

It was clear from the start that Volodymyr Ogryzko and Viktor Korol had no
chance to become Foreign Minister and Security Service Chief. Ukraine’s
lawmakers have been too busy waging a war in parliament to deal with
“unimportant” staff issues like this.

Opposition factions, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and Our Ukraine suggested
postponing the vote until the situation in parliament is normalized.

However, First Vice Speaker Adam Martynyuk, who administered the session
did not even put the proposal to vote. No wonder: the majority coalition was
set to turn down the candidates nominated by the President.

They did not even let Ogryzko make his opening address – they never cared
what he was going to say. Instead, they showered him with questions they
never needed answers to and with boorish remarks.

The “debates” on the candidates resembled a farce staged three months
before, the reports from then-Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk and Defense
Minister Anatoliy Grytsenko.

What members of the majority said on Thursday sounded outrageously
shameful. They accused Ogryzko of speaking Ukrainian at a conference,
defying an obscure Russian participant’s demand to speak Russian.

They accused him of refusing to cede Ukraine’s national interests to Russia.
Why not appoint [Moscow mayor] Yuri Luzhkov Foreign Minister of Ukraine?

Obviously, it was not Ogryzko’s pro-Western orientation or pro-Ukrainian
position in talks with Russia that antagonized the pro-government majority.
The main reason was the same old wrestle between President Yushchenko and
Prime Minister Yanukovych.

Some observers say that Ogryzko should have “worked on the lawmakers”
instead of waiting passively for the vote. However, as it looks, the
majority would have turned down any candidate offered by the President –
whether Condoleezza Rice, or Joschka Fischer, or even Sergey Lavrov.

Yushchenko would not bend over backwards to lobby for Ogryzko. All he
did was reiterate that Ogryzko would “continue the course pursued by Boris
Tarasyuk” -the man so hated and finally sacked by the pro-government
majority. Instead, Yushchenko should have stated that the new foreign
minister would continue the president’s course.

It is impossible to predict who will become the foreign minister of this
country. Yushchenko has announced his intention to nominate Ogryzko again.

It is clear, however, that unless he comes to terms with Yanukovych and the
coalition majority, Ogryzko is doomed to share Tarasyuk’s fate and this –
yet another – round of a shameful political game is show badly on Ukraine’s
international image.

The majority coalition wants to make use of the newly adopted law on the
Cabinet of Ministers and arrange for a pro-Yanukovych candidate’s
appointment, bypassing the President.

Whoever takes office, he will be caught between a rock and a hard place. As
long as the President and the Prime Minister continue their tug-of-war, even
the most experienced, rational, and gifted diplomat will hardly succeed.

Saying nay to Viktor Korol, the majority acted like a pack of wolves in a
well-known fable. MP Yuri Klyuchkovsky of Our Ukraine faction said, “They
reject Korol just because he is a member of Our Ukraine, because he was
nominated by the President and because he is a highly qualified
professional. They disregard everything he ought to be appointed for.”

Commenting on Yushchenko’s intention to nominate Korol again for the post of
Security Service chief, MP Taras Chornovil of the Regions Party said, “We
have nothing against Korol personally, but the President must guarantee with
his decree that the SBU will be equidistant from any political force.” Hah!

How can a presidential decree guarantee the political neutrality of any law
enforcement body? And why didn’t the majority demand the same when
appointing the Prosecutor General or the Interior Minister?

According to MP Kiselev of the Regions Party faction, Korol fell victim to
the opposition’s behavior [the notorious blackout in the parliament
building, opposition MPs blockading the electrical control room – A.B.].

“The day before, we were going to vote for Korol,” Kiselev told reporters.
President Yushchenko said he would press parliament to reconsider Korol .

Nobody questions Korol’s professionalism, but he is a police professional.
This was the only logical (though not the main) argument against appointing
the police general to the post of Security Service chief.

The main question is “whose” SBU is. The same concerns the Prosecutor
General’s Office and the Interior Ministry, and it is this circumstance, not
the law, that determines the functions of each of these bodies.

Considering the present political realities, Korol is not the worst
candidature, and the second vote might well be positive. It took Yushchenko
almost two months to choose Korol as the candidate, and it took the
parliament twenty minutes to turn him down.

The circus the lawmakers made of an important issue revealed a very
regrettable fact: representatives of the so-called “political elite” do not
care much for this country and its national interests and are unable to
adequately assess and neutralize internal and external threats to its
national security.

The people that claim to be the political elite have a rather primitive way
of thinking and utilitarian interests. To them, even real threats to
national security mean less than the fight against their opponents.

Rounding up their Thursday session, the lawmakers adopted a statement,
urging the European Union to give Ukraine a clear signal on the prospects
of membership in the new EU-Ukraine agreement. Isn’t that a farce?
———————————————————————————————

LINK: http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/636/55971/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.    UKRAINE’S COMMUNISTS ASSAIL U.S. AMBASSADOR
                     TAYLOR FOR CRITICISM OF JUDICIARY

Interfax, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, February 26, 2007

KYIV – Ukraine’s Communist Party has assailed U.S. Ambassador
William  Taylor’s statement  on  the  need  to  change Ukraine’s judiciary
as interference in the country’s internal affairs.

“These  assertions  by an American official have nothing to do with
the U.S.  Department  of State or Mr. Taylor’s concern about the defense
of Ukrainian  citizens’  rights,  and are a form of open pressure on the
country’s  judiciary,  and  on  the judges and the courts which disagree
with violations  of  Ukrainian  laws  and  of  investment obligations by
American companies,” the Communist Party said in a statement on
Monday.

The  Communist  Party said, however, that Ukraine’s judiciary is in
need of  an  immediate reform and that the positive practice of electing
judges must be restored.

Reforms  must  cover  the  entire law enforcement system which must
protect  ordinary  people,  not  the  group interests of businessmen and
politicians,” the statement says.                     -30-
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.interfax.com/3/244571/news.aspx
———————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. RUSSIAN UNION OF FORMER CHILD PRISONERS FROM NAZI
     CONCENTRATION CAMPS ACCUSE UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS
    OF REWRITING HISTORY ABOUT GENOCIDE DURING FAMINE

Interfax Ukraine News, Moscow, Russia, Tue, February 20, 2007

MOSCOW – Ukrainian neo-nationalists are trying to re-write the history,
the Russian Union of Former Child Prisoners from Nazi Concentration
Camps (RSNBU) said in a statement on Tuesday

“The voices of the ideological successors to the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists and the Ukrainian Rebellion Army (OUN-UPA) have become
louder recently as they bid to falsify history, to turn two brotherly
nations, Russia and Ukraine, into foes.

Russia, for instance, is publicly accused of the genocide of the Ukrainian
people, during the Famine in 1932-1933,” the statement says.

A number of Ukrainian politicians are trying to use an old thesis about
premeditated genocide, which first appeared during the Cold War among
Ukrainian nationalists who fled abroad, it says.

“The famine spread throughout the Soviet Union, millions of Russians
and other Soviets fell victim to it. The population of Ukrainian towns
had bread and other food supplied from Russia, Polish and Bulgarian
villages,” it says.

“The RSNBU considers the attempts by some Ukrainian politicians to
rehabilitate OUN-UPA nationalists to be unacceptable and blasphemous.

These are murderers who fought on the same side as Nazi Germany and
are responsible for killing millions of people. It is a fact that Ukrainian
nationalists were part of the SS divisions and the notorious Nachtigal
battalion,” the statement says.

“We know what fascism is, and how people suffer from it. That is why
we demand condemnation of the attempts by some Ukrainian politicians
to whitewash the crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists against mankind,
and to use the 1932-33 tragedy as a political tool,” it says.   -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18.   HIGHEST U.N. COURT RULES SERBIA FAILED TO
                        PREVENT GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA 

Associated Press, The Hague, Netherlands, Monday, Feb 26, 2007

THE HAGUE, Netherlands –The United Nations’ highest court on Monday
exonerated Serbia of direct responsibility for the mass slaughter of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica during the 1992-95 Bosnia war, but ruled that it
failed to prevent genocide.

In a landmark judgment, the International Court of Justice said Serbia also
failed to comply with its obligations to punish those who carried out the
genocide in July 1995, and ordered Belgrade to hand over suspects for trial
by a separate U.N. court. However, it rejected Bosnia’s claim for monetary

reparations.

“Financial compensation is not the appropriate form of reparation for the
breach of the obligation to prevent genocide,” the judgment said.

The case before the International Court of Justice, also known as the World
Court, was the first time an entire nation was being held to judicial
account for the ultimate crime.

It specifically demanded that Serbia hand over for trial Gen. Ratko Mladic,
the general who oversaw the Bosnian Serb onslaught at Srebrenica, to the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Serbia has said
it has been unable to arrest Mladic since his indictment 12 years ago.

Key to the court’s findings was its conclusion that no one in Serbia, or any
official organ of the state, could be shown to have had the deliberate
intention to “destroy in whole or in part” the Bosnian Muslim population – a
critical element in the 1948 Genocide Convention.

The judges found that Serbia, though it supported the Bosnian Serbs, fell
short of having effective control over the Bosnian army and the paramilitary
units that carried out the massacre.

It also rejected Bosnia’s argument that the accumulated pattern of
atrocities during the war, fueled by Serb nationalism and driven by Serbian
weapons and money, was tantamount to responsibility for genocide.

Unusually for such an important case, the judges were in accord, voting
overwhelmingly in unison on the various points of the decision with only one
or two dissenters.

By 13-2, the court found that Serbia had the power to foresee and prevent
the Srebrenica slaughter – the worst on European soil since World War II –
and failed to use it. By 14-1 – only the Serbian judge against – demanded
Mladic’s transfer.

The Serbian leaders “should have made the best effort within their power to
try and prevent the tragic events then taking shape,” in the U.N. enclave,
the scale of which “might have been surmised,” the ruling said.

In Bosnia, the clearing of Serbia of direct blame was met with anger.

“Shame on the people who reached such a verdict. How can they say not guilty
of genocide when there are photos, video footage. They are again torturing
our people, these mothers,” said Zinaida Mujic, representative of Mothers of
Srebrenica association, who lost two sons in the war.

In Brussels, Friso Roscam Abbing, EU Commission spokesman, urged both

sides to respect the judgment “to ensure justice and enable reconciliation to
start.” The European Union has made Serbia’s hopes for membership
conditional on its cooperation in handing over Mladic and other fugitives.

Reading a summary of the ruling for nearly three hours, court president
Judge Rosalyn Higgins said it had been clear in Belgrade there was a serious
risk of a massive slaughter in Srebrenica, when some 7,000 Bosnian Muslims
were killed.

But Serbia “has not shown that it took any initiative to prevent what
happened or any action on its part to avert the atrocities which were being
committed,” said the judgment.

Serbia’s claim that it was powerless to prevent the massacres “hardly
tallies with their known influence” over the Bosnian Serb army, said the
ruling by the court, also known as the World Court.

As she continued reading parts of the book-length judgment, Judge Higgins
said the tribunal relied heavily on the findings of the U.N. war crimes
tribunal for Yugoslavia, which has convicted two Bosnian Serb army officers
on genocide-related charges for the deliberate slaughter of more than 7,000
Bosnian Muslims at the U.N.-protected enclave.

“The acts committed at Srebrenica … were committed with the specific
intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina as
such, and accordingly … these were acts of genocide” committed by Bosnian
Serb forces, the judgment said.

In a key ruling at the outset, Higgins rejected Serbia’s argument that the
court had no jurisdiction in the case. It said the former Yugoslavia had the
obligation to abide by the 1948 Genocide Convention throughout the war, even
though its membership in the United Nations had been suspended in 1992. The
World Court can only adjudicate disputes among U.N. member states.

Bosnia submitted its genocide case to the court in 1993. Since then, the
Yugoslavia tribunal, which judges individuals accused of war crimes and
crimes against humanity, has sentence two Bosnian Serb army officers for
complicity in genocide or aiding and abetting genocide at Srebrenica.

Then-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic also was brought to trial on
genocide charges but died in the U.N. jail in The Hague last March, just
weeks before his four-year-long trial was due to end.
————————————————————————————–
                                    WHAT IS GENOCIDE?
The text of the definition of genocide cited in Article 2 of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the
U.N. General Assembly in 1948:
In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19.    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE RULES SERBIAN

                       NATION DID NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE

Reuters, The Hague, Monday, February 26, 2007

THE HAGUE – The top U.N. court ruled on Monday that Serbia did not

commit genocide through the killing that ravaged Bosnia during the 1992-95
war, but said Serbia had failed in its obligation to prevent and punish
genocide.

The International Court of Justice President Judge Rosalyn Higgins said:
“The court finds by 13 votes to 2 that Serbia has not committed genocide.”

This is the first time a state has been on trial for genocide, outlawed in a
U.N. convention in 1948 after the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews.

Although the killing of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men in Srebrenica did
constitute genocide, Serbia was not responsible and was not complicit

in the massacre, Judge Higgins said.

Here are the highlights of the court’s ruling:

“Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose

acts engage its responsibility under customary international law;

“Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission

of genocide;

“Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations
under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide;

“Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,

in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

“Serbia has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by having failed to transfer Ratko
Mladic, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and thus having
failed fully to cooperate with that Tribunal;

“Serbia shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance
with its obligation … to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any
of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, and to cooperate fully with that Tribunal;

“The case is not one in which an order for payment of compensation, or …

a direction to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, would
be appropriate.”                                 -30-
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20.                    THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION
                                         
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News
Canada’s national public broadcaster.
Toronto, Canada, September 18, 2006

                WHAT IS THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION?
Officially called the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide,” it was passed by the United Nations General
Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951.

The convention says that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace
or in time of war is a crime under international law” which the parties to
the convention “undertake to punish and prevent.”

It defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” by:
Killing members of the group.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

How did the term “genocide” come about?

The Genocide Convention came about largely through the efforts of one
man, Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin is also credited with coining the term
“genocide.” Lemkin was a Polish Jew who first began to warn the world
about Adolf Hitler’s plans to attack Jews in Europe as early as 1933.

He was largely ignored and in 1939, after the Nazis invaded Poland, he
was forced to flee to the United States. When he tried to warn U.S.
government officials about the Holocaust he was again ignored, with
officials maintaining that his claims of what was happening in German-
occupied Europe were “rumours.”

Then Lemkin was inspired by a speech by British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill that described what Germany was doing in Europe as “a crime
without a name.”

In 1944, he published a long, scholarly account of what was then known
about the Holocaust, including copies of Hitler’s anti-Jewish decrees. It
was called Axis Rule.

In the book Lemkin introduced a new word “genocide” describing a crime
that went beyond murder to the annihilation of a people.

Within a week of publication of the book, the Roosevelt administration
released a statement that it now had evidence to “substantiate” the facts of
the Holocaust. Then the news media plucked the term “genocide” from the
book reviews and began using it in news coverage.
                         THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION
In the years after the Second World War, the new United Nations began work
to update what are called “the laws and customs of war.” While negotiators
worked to update the Geneva Conventions that set the rules for warfare,
Lemkin began a major lobbying effort at the UN to create a law that would
outlaw – if not prevent – new attempts to wipe out a people.

A year after the war, in December 1946, and after a debate over whether to
use the narrow term “extermination” or Lemkin’s wider “genocide,” the UN
passed a resolution calling for a new convention, and the secretary general
asked Lemkin to write the first draft.

It took almost two years of debate for the United Nations to agree on a
definition, but on Dec. 9, 1948, before the Cold War began to split the
organization, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the Genocide
Convention.

Lemkin then turned his energy to making sure that the convention was
ratified. By Oct. 16, 1950, 20 countries had ratified and the Genocide
Convention became international law. Canada ratified the convention on
Jan. 12, 1951.

There was one key exception. The United States initially refused to ratify
the convention, arguing, as it does now against the International Criminal
Court, that it might be unfairly used to target Americans.

The convention fell off the American agenda until one senator, William
Proxmire, pushed over the years to have it ratified. He made 3,211
speeches before he was partially successful.

One reason the convention was ratified by the Americans was that then
president Ronald Reagan was embarrassed by the controversy over his
visit to a German war cemetery that contained the remains of members
of the Waffen SS; after the visit the Reagan administration pushed the
ratification to mollify critics.

The U.S. Senate finally ratified the convention in 1986, 40 years after it
was first drafted, but, as Samantha Power says in her book The Problem
from Hell, it was “so laden with caveats that it carried next to no force,”
restrictions pushed by conservative senators such as Jesse Helms, Orrin
Hatch and Richard Lugar. It officially became U.S. law in November 1988.
ENFORCING THE CONVENTION FROM SADDAM TO SUDAN
So far, the Genocide Convention has had the opposite effect to what Lemkin
intended. Power and other critics point out the convention does not give
governments the numbers of dead or displaced required to constitute
genocide, so they have used the wording of the convention to avoid enforcing
it.

The slaughter in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge had occurred before the
U.S. ratified the convention, but a year after the ratification, in March
1987, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein began a campaign against the Kurds, which

included poison gas attacks and the displacement of thousands.

Although the United States now calls the campaign genocide, it didn’t at the
time because officially there was not enough proof that Saddam was
committing genocide against the Kurds.

The U.S. and other nations used similar arguments in both Rwanda and
Bosnia, saying there was not enough information, or that what was going
on did not fit the legal definition of genocide.

The Clinton administration, which was wary of intervention after the
collapse of the U.S. mission in Somalia, had a deliberate policy of avoiding
use of the term genocide in references to Rwanda, even though 800,000
people were killed in the first 100 days of the civil war.

On Sept. 2, 1998, a Rwandan mayor, Jean-Paul Akayesu, became the first
man convicted of genocide by an international tribunal for directing and
inciting local mobs to rape and murder Tutsis. Even in that case, there were
legal arguments whether or not what happened in Rwanda was genocide.

The tribunal eventually ruled that any “stable group” that was targeted
could be subject to genocide, a definition that did not satisfy most critics
even though it did narrow the options for politicians who wanted to avoid
using the term.
                       WILL DARFUR BE DIFFERENT?
On Sept. 9, 2004, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before
the Senate foreign relations committee to testify about the killing and
displacement of people in the western region of Sudan known as Darfur.

Powell told the senators that an investigation by U.S. officials had found a
“pattern of atrocities: Killings, rapes, burning of villages committed by
Jinjaweed [militias] and government forces against non-Arab villagers.
[were] a co-ordinated effort, not just random violence.”

He then said “the evidence leads us to the conclusion, the United States to
the conclusion, that genocide has occurred and may still be occurring in
Darfur.”

Powell went on to say: “So let us not be too preoccupied with this
designation. These people are in desperate need and we must help them.

Call it civil war, call it ethnic cleansing, call it genocide, call it ‘none
of the above.’ The reality is the same. There are people in Darfur who
desperately need the help of the international community.”

But Powell did not offer intervention by the United States, which may not
be possible with much of the U.S. army tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan,
saying “no new action is dictated by this determination. We have been
doing everything we can to get the Sudanese government to act
responsibly.”

He then said it was up to the African Union to intervene in Darfur and
provide enough troops to monitor the situation.                -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/genocide-convention.html
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
       Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR    

========================================================
21. UKRAINIAN MUSEUM IN NEW YORK SAYS ‘RUSSIAN’ ARTISTS
      MALEVICH, ARCHIPENKO, & RODCHENKO WERE UKRAINIAN

By Carolyn Weaver, Voice Of America (VOA)
New York City, NY, Monday, 19 February 2007

Some of modern art’s great innovators, including Kazimir Malevich, Alexander
Archipenko and Alexander Rodchenko, are usually described as Russian
artists. But these painters and sculptors were actually born or raised in
Ukraine, and thought of themselves as Ukrainian.

Their mislabeling is a lingering result of decades of Soviet repression of
Ukrainian culture. Crossroads: Modernism in Ukraine, 1910-1930, on view at
The Ukrainian Museum in New York City, is one attempt to correct the record.

When you think of Ukrainian art, works of folk religious art may come to
mind: naïve paintings and rough-hewn sculptures of Christian saints and
angels, of Christ and the Madonna. A roomful of such works, many of them
from the private collection of Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko, is one
of two exhibits now on display at The Ukrainian Museum in New York.

The Museum’s other current exhibit, of Ukrainian modernist art from
1910-1930, is at first glance, radically different. But as museum director
Maria Shust says, a closer look shows the imprint of Ukrainian folk art on
the modernists.

“You can see how that [folk] work influenced this,” she said in a recent
interview. “The strong sense of colors, the flatness of the surfaces, but
also the deepness of the spirituality.”

The show recovers the overlooked Ukrainian heritage of some modernist
masters, including Kazimir Malevich, a pioneer of abstract painting. He’s
represented by two works in the show. Shust said that Malevich was the one
of the first painters to use geometric shapes alone in his work – shapes
that aren’t meant to represent particular objects in the natural world.

Those images may have been partly inspired, she said, by the geometric
abstractions of Ukrainian folk embroidery, and by the simple shapes of
village life: a church cross, white-washed houses, the square black opening
of a stove.

Like Malevich, Alexandra Exter, Alexander Archipenko and other
Ukrainian-born or bred artists are often lumped in with Russian artists of
the time.

Yet they were born or raised in Ukraine, where early in the 20th century,
Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities were centers of innovation in painting,
theater, sculpture and other arts. Ukrainian artists were at the forefront
of international modernist art movements such as Cubism and Futurism.

That ended with Stalin. In the 1930s, Ukrainian nationalism and language
were forbidden. Only “heroic realism,” propagandistic art in service to the
Soviet state, was permitted. All else, including abstract art, was
considered decadent, subversive.

“Most of the intelligentsia during this period was eliminated,” Shust said.
“They were sent to gulags, they were executed. Others were stopped. Others
were just forced to change the way they created.”

Some artists fled to Paris and other cities in the West. The Soviet
government confiscated 2,000 modernist works in Ukraine. Only about 300
survive today.

Crossroads: Modernism in Ukraine, 1910-1930, features more than 70 such
works, including many not previously seen outside Ukraine. It opened last
year at the Chicago Cultural Center and is on view in New York at The
Ukrainian Museum until April 29.                          -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-19-voa46.cfm
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22.    UKRAINE AND GERMANY TO COMPILE WORLD WAR II
                 SOVIET AND GERMAN CAPTIVES DATABASE

UKRINFORM, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sunday, February 25, 2007

KYIV – The German “Saxon Memorials” association representatives will visit
Ukraine in order to discuss with the Security Service issues related to
preparation of joint scientific works and perspectives for cooperation in
documents searching on German prisoners of war.

As the SSU (Security Service of Ukraine) press-center told UKRINFORM, the
SSU archive officials are cooperating with German counterparts in technical
documentation treatment and restoration, which are being kept in the SSU
state archive, regarding the Soviet and German captives, and those interned
during the World War II, as well as burial places.

In particular, an electronic Soviet prisoners of war database is being
compiled, it is composed of data about 9 thousand persons.

The materials have been used by the “Saxon Memorials” association in
compiling a single database on the Soviet captives on the basis of the
archival documents of German and Russian national archives, as well as
archives of the “FSB” (Federal Security Service of Russia Federation) and
the “KGB” (State Security Agency) of the Republic of Belarus, with whom

the relevant agreements were signed.                      -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”
========================================================
               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;
    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.,
Morgan Williams, SigmaBleyzer, Acting-President & Chairman,

Executive Committee, Board of Directors; John Stephens, Cape
Point Capital, Secretary/Treasurer; Shannon Herzfeld, ADM, Chair,
Agribusiness Working Group; Irina Paliashvili, Ukrainian Legal
Group, Chair, Legal Affairs Working Group.
10. UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE USA, Archbishop
Antony, South Bound 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.
18. BUYUKRAINE.ORG website, http://www.BuyUkraine.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 four 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 & BULK MAIL BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

If you do not receive a copy of the AUR it is probably because of a
SPAM OR BULK MAIL BLOCKER maintained by your server or by
yourself on your computer. Spam and bulk mail blockers are set in very
arbitrary and impersonal ways and block out e-mails because of words
found in many news stories or the way the subject line is organized or
the header or who know what.
 
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, The Bleyzer Foundation

Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
President (Acting) and Chairman, Executive Committee of the
Board of Directors, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
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

Ukrainian Genocide Journal, Issue One, History of the Holodomor; James Mace Would Have Been 55 On February 18, 2007

=========================================================
UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE JOURNAL:
HISTORY OF THE HOLODOMOR 1932-1933

“UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE JOURNAL:
HISTORY OF THE HOLODOMOR 1932-1933″ Issue One
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor
WASHINGTON, D.C., SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2007
——- 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. A TALE OF A TRUE UKRAINIAN
James Mace would have been 55 on February 18
By Ihor Siundiukov, The Day Weekly Digest #6,
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, 20 February 2007

2. JAMES MACE AND HIS MISSION
By Oxana Pachlowska, University of Rome La Sapienza
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

3. “HIS WORKS SHOULD BE CIRCULATED AMONG SCHOLARS”
Electronic version of Day and Eternity of James Mace
By Masha TOMAK, The Day Weekly Digest in English #6
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2006

4. THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO JAMES MACE
What a Ukrainian of Native American Indian descent has done for Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

5. THANK YOU, GREAT HUMANIST – AND FORGIVE US
James Mace’s birthday is approaching, we remember him
& try to understand the phenomenon of his personality.
COMMENTARY: Viktor Kostiuk, Head of the Journalism Department
Zaporizhia National University, Zaporizhia, Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

6. KULCHYTSKY & MACE: TWO ROADS TO HISTORICAL TRUTH
Article By Arkadij Sydoruk, Writer
The Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Mirror-Weekly #1(630)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Jan. 13-19, 2007 (in Russian)
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #814, Article 10, in English
Washington, D.C., Sunday, February 11, 2007

7. GENOCIDE IN 1932-1933: WANNABE WRITERS
AND HISTORICAL TRUTH
COMMENTARY: By Serhy Hrabovsky (in Ukrainian)
Maidan.org.ua, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, November 27, 2006
Ukrainian Genocide Journal, History of the Holodomor 1932-1933
Issue One, Article Seven, Washington, D.C., February 25, 2007

8. UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE OF 1932-1933: LET’S HONOR THE VICTIMS
National Committee to Commemorate the 75th
Anniversary of the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933
New York, New York, January 2007

9. GENOCIDE IN DARFUR: WE TALK. SHE SCREAMS.
WE WAIT. SHE STARVES. WE ACT. SHE SURVIVES
SaveDarfur Full-Page Advertisement
Washington Post, Washington, D.C. Wed, February 14, 2006
========================================================
1
. A TALE OF A TRUE UKRAINIAN
James Mace would have been 55 on February 18

By Ihor Siundiukov, The Day Weekly Digest #6,
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, 20 February 2007

In conjunction with the birth anniversary of the journalist, historian,
political figure, and humanist James Mace The Day is carrying a series of
commemorative articles.

Still, there is an irresistible need to say something about Jim, which would
shed new light on his image and help our readers, as well as those who knew
and respected him, and those who are studying his creative legacy, to see
new hitherto unrevealed traits of this distinguished personality.

It is important for us to realize several fundamental things.

[1] First, contemporary Ukrainian society simply has no chance of avoiding
the glaring truth that Mace conveyed to us. This is not a matter of
someone’s political will but objective reality.

[2] Second, no truth can blaze its own trail just like that, even less so
the hair-raising truth about the Holodomor, the mechanism of which was
designed down to the minutest detail; the truth about the postgenocidal
nature of our society; the truth that rises from the pages of Mace’s works.

It is worth recalling here Ovid’s saying: Gutta cavat lapidem (The drop of
water hollows the stone). From classical literature we also remember the
image of saxifrage, a plant with an iron will, which breaks up stones.

There is much work that must still be done in this field. Finally, I will
risk saying that Mace was a great moral and ethical maximalist.

He was always aware that there is no “someone else’s pain” – that was
precisely why he became a great Ukrainian – and that those who deny this
are either killing or getting ready to become killers. It is vitally
important for our young people to recognize this ethical stand of the late
James Mace. -30-
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177519/
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933] ========================================================
2. JAMES MACE AND HIS MISSION

By Oxana Pachlowska, University of Rome La Sapienza
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

It is awful when you have to say about a close friend whose loss has left
lifelong pain, “It is a good thing that he left this world without seeing
this.”

That is what I told myself on Nov. 28, 2006, after the Verkhovna Rada
passed the law on the Holodomor. Yes, they passed the law but in a way
that stigmatized both individual MPs and the entire nation.

Mace departed from this life without witnessing this disgrace. He died
before Ukraine’s ruling political force acknowledged itself-through its de
facto refusal to vote-as the legal successor to the authors of the Great
Terror, the culprits who tried to destroy Ukraine.

The voting clarified Mace’s idea that Ukrainian society is post-genocidal.
What did he mean by this designation? He had in mind precisely a
post-genocidal society rather than a post-colonial one, as some researchers
maintain. After all, post-colonial societies typically had civilized
colonizers.

Post-colonial India has embarked on a democratic course and is turning into
an economic colossus. Even the Republic of South Africa, despite the former
system of apartheid, is freeing itself from the shackles of colonialism and
gaining economic weight. Civilized parent states had the courage to
relinquish their colonies at an opportune time and treat them as equals.

However, this is not the case with Ukraine. Unlike civilized parent states,
Ukraine’s colonizer never thought of relinquishing its conquered
territories. On the contrary, the more it agonizes, the deeper it digs its
claws into countries, regions, and entire geopolitical areas. The claws
being “fraternal,” this kind of colonialism is not likely soon to become
post-colonialism.

Perhaps this is why the visible colonial heritage in Ukraine is “diffused”
in the post-genocidal heritage, often invisible but nevertheless constantly
present, and not only in society’s psychology but also in the stimuli,
complexes, and nightmares of its psyche.

Mace left us a tragic thought that will take us a long time to reflect on.
For years to come, its purport will remain a painful and hidden nerve of our
history.

The paradigmatic approach requires that the Holodomor be considered together
with two other cases of 20th-century genocide within the span of Christian
civilization-the Armenian and Jewish genocides. In addition to the countless
political and economic causes of these two genocides, there were also
cultural factors. It was not simply a matter of one nation destroying
another.

Rather, these were different ways of destroying Christian civilization. In
the case of the Armenian genocide, Muslim fundamentalism was the destructive
mechanism. In the case of the Holocaust, an atheistic monster that had
renounced God destroyed a nation that was the historical and cultural cradle
of Christian civilization and on whose territory the Christian God was born.

The Holodomor was similar in this respect: the anti-Christian world
destroyed the world of Christianity. The newly-created political Moloch
fought against God. Ruining and profaning temples, it destroyed a
civilization that was the last Christian stronghold on the already
immeasurable expanse of nihilistic Bolshevik barbarism.

Until this day the wound inflicted by the Armenian and Jewish genocides on
these nations remains incurable. These tragedies became the new starting
point for their history.

It is generally accepted that the Holocaust as genocide cannot be compared
to any other genocide. Is this correct? I don’t know. I say frankly: I don’t
know. Perhaps those who insist on the Holocaust’s uniqueness have a point.
But equally unique is the Holodomor, even though this genocide was also
conducted in the same eschatological vein of Endlosung, or Final Solution.

The only difference was that the Holocaust was an act by killers with
unconcealed intentions. Germans were true to their meticulousness even
here-they had developed both theoretical and practical foundations for this
genocide.

In contrast to this, the Holodomor was more of a hallucinatory project
accompanied by rhetoric about the friendship of fraternal nations and other
clichés produced by the ideological schizophrenia of Russian communism.

In the former case it was all about the Aryan race; in the latter, about the
Soviet people as the final product of this criminal social engineering. In
fact, there is no difference here: in both cases all those who did not
conform to the corresponding paradigm were destroyed.

These two national catastrophes are clearly unique but from two different
perspectives. To the Jewish people the tragedy of the Holocaust became the
unifying energy needed for self-understanding, strengthening their identity,
and for a new perception of their place and significance in the world.

The Holocaust also became an overwhelming moral shakeup for the whole
world and, above all, for Europe. In the postwar period, Europe developed
the concept of genocide and posed the question of its own collective
responsibility for this crime. For the first time a crime against one people
was interpreted as a crime against the entire human race.

This idea became the foundation of a new ethos for both people and
20th-century historical science. The scope of the problem is not restricted
to Hitler and Nazism, which became the epitome of extreme inhumanity. This
conversion of the human being into a beast was condoned by all those who
connived at what was taking place and abetted the crime by means of their
consent, cooperation, and silence.

The world was forced to admit that one nation’s tragedy should not be
restricted to its own history. Rather, only humanity’s collective memory of
the tragedy can guarantee that it will never again be repeated.

This is the origin of Europe’s atonement for wronging the Jewish
people-moral atonement that has spanned decades. Germany’s path to a
democratic state began with the recognition of the crime it had committed,
its detailed recording, and constant, incessant, and dramatic atonement,
both individual and collective.

This is the kind of atonement that pervades every day and every minute-
German television channels regularly air programs on the history and
analysis of the Holocaust. Europe is also atoning financially. Jews were
finally given an opportunity to have their own state. For decades Germany
has been paying astronomical sums to the descendants of the six million
murdered Jews.

Of course, awareness of the Holocaust was an indicator that postwar Europe
had reached democratic maturity. But this understanding was achieved
because the Jewish community was able to organize and structure its protest,
self-protection, and, finally, its demand for atonement.

This is what happens when a nation has self-respect. This nation’s drama
becomes the moral standard for the conscience of the entire human race.

For the Jews the tragedy of the Holocaust became a protective wall of their
memory and a symbol of courage, endurance, indestructibility, and
immortality. I remember the November 2005 demonstration in Rome in
protest against the threats of Iran’s president to destroy Israel. After all
the official speeches in front of Iran’s embassy, in the glow of streetlights
and the rustle of plane trees, an orchestra began playing Jewish tunes.

A pair of young Jewish sweethearts suddenly began dancing to the tune of
“Hava Nagila.” Among the spellbound people and in front of journalists’
cameras, they danced with such passion and obliviousness that it was clear:
they were a thousand years old- and this was just the beginning.

In Europe awareness of the Holocaust became a moral standard of democracy
and a mandatory pass to the civilized world. At a Ukrainian studies
conference held in Italy, a well-known Slavist from Israel said that the
attitude of post-Soviet Ukraine to Jews will be its passport to the circle
of civilized countries.

It is hard to disagree with this statement. But then an interesting question
arises: to what world can Ukrainians’ attitude to their own nation and
tragedies be a passport? It is probably a passport to the anti-world or, in
simple terms, to that part of the jungle where no passports are needed and
where history begins in the morning and ends in the evening. This is why it
is simply redundant.

This jungle is not as distant as one may think-government palaces are thick
with jungles. If the huge numbers of published (finally!) and reprinted
documentary evidence cannot help our MPs, or “people’s deputies” as they
are called, to recognize the deaths of millions of our compatriots as
genocide (and thus, a crime against humanity), then they do not consider

Ukrainian society, which includes their own electorate, part of humanity.

Unlike the Holocaust, the Holodomor was one of the main factors that led to
Ukraine’s loss of identity and rendered society’s consolidation impossible.
Postwar Europe wrote the history of its catastrophes. Once again the postwar
USSR falsified history.

The Holodomor was one of the top-secret topics in this history. Therefore,
having lost its past for the umpteenth time, Ukraine turned out to be
incapable of implementing its design for the future.

Hitler sought to wipe out the Jews precisely as a nation because they were
scattered all over Europe, without a state or territory of their own. Stalin
also wanted to annihilate Ukrainians as a nation but this nation had its own
country and land. Hitler wanted to destroy the Jewish culture, but the
Biblical people had a culture that was spread all over the world and knew
how to preserve it.

In contrast to this, both past and contemporary Ukrainian culture was
contained in Ukraine. Therefore, parallel to the Holodomor, Stalin destroyed
the temples and books of the past as well as Ukraine’s cultural, artistic,
and scholarly elite of the time.

The main idea of the Holodomor was to turn Ukraine into a non-Ukrainian
republic, and with time-into an anti-Ukrainian entity. As we can see,
Stalin’s project succeeded. Accomplished only halfway, it nonetheless

succeeded. Stalin changed the genetic code of our nation.

It was not by accident that Ukraine was the arena of these events-Ukraine
was the second most rebellious part of the Russian empire (surpassed only by
Poland) and the most recalcitrant one in the Soviet empire. The Moloch of
the Stalinist empire suppressed this resistance in an unprecedented sadistic
and cynical way.

It did not kill directly, as was the case during the Holocaust, when a
person was at least able to oppose the killers or die with dignity. Russia
killed Ukraine by turning people into vegetative beings, reducing them to an
animal-like existence, and making them incapable of resistance, opposition,
and moral choice.

Vassily Grossman’s novel Forever Flowing describes the wailing of people in
Ukrainian villages. People could not walk; they were only able to crawl to
the nearest train station, where this was possible, hoping for some merciful
hand to throw a piece of bread to them. The windows in Odesa-Kyiv trains
were then boarded up.

In keeping with the law “on five ears of grain,” women and mothers were
shot right in the fields if they were caught picking a few ears of grain for
their dying children. And all this took place in the “breadbasket of
Europe.”

It was the Holodomor that exposed the Russian world’s total contempt for
the human being as such, for fundamental human feelings, and for any moral
dimension of human existence. Also uncovered was its pathological hatred
of so-called fraternal Ukraine.

Together with people’s lives, the Holodomor took away the feeling of home
and the sense and culture of work. But above all, it destroyed love for the
land that was transformed from a life-giving resource into a boundless grave
devouring both the dead and the living, stirred by their groans, and
devouring new lives over and over again.

Instead of human feelings, society was overcome with fear-total, abject fear
of being oneself, speaking one’s mother tongue, and remembering one’s
dead.

It was the fear of existing. Since Stalinist times Ukrainian society has
been paralyzed by the fear of existing.

This led to the abyss of non-presence, non-work, and non-morals. This also
caused the greediness of some and the willingness for a half- starved
existence and constant poverty of others. As long as they leave us alone, as
long as they don’t torment us. What freedom? What democracy? ” We will
endure.” Having endured the Holocaust, we can endure anything in this
world.

This is also where the rejection of our own culture stems from. It has
remained in our genome: the sentence for being part of this culture is
death.

Fear is the only and total legacy that the System left to Ukrainian society.
This humiliating heritage is being passed down from generation to
generation. It erodes language, dignity, and memory in people. It erodes
the human being in people.

This type of society is easy to rule. This society can get only one kind of
government for itself-the government of thieves, cynics, and plain
criminals.

The Holodomor destroyed not only a century-long supply of the country’s
demographic and economic resources but also the Ukrainian rural cosmos
in its cultural, linguistic, and philosophical continuity and, most
importantly, its thousand-year-long ethos of Ukraine’s relationship with the
earth.

The Ukrainian peasant would not put a loaf of bread on the table upside
down-you were not allowed to offend bread because it was given by God.
The one who managed to wipe from the face of the earth this rural world that
tended its God-given land was then able to lay waste to this land with the
help of Chornobyl and bury it under tons of radioactive waste.

Midas, the king of death: whatever he touches turns into death.

Who else besides the descendants of this collective Barbarian would be able
to loot the country the way they have done today? Who would be able to force
millions of people abroad in search of some humiliating way to earn some
money for the same piece of bread that was confiscated in the 1930s?

Who would be able to let grain rot in ports and then throw it into the Black
Sea? Who would be able to yield to Russia the security and independence of
the country-piece by piece, on a regular basis? Who would laugh in the face
of his own electorate?

One state official was recently quoted by The Ukrainian Truth on Feb. 9,
2007, as saying in his garbled mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, “Why don’t
I hear applause, I wonder?…Somehow I don’t see joy… on your faces.”

Today we see this post-genocidal anti-Ukraine on every corner, once again
mainly in the ruling circles. This anti-Ukraine is robbing the state in
broad daylight. It is humiliating society, trampling on its graves, and
continuing the policy of Russification.

It calls intelligentsia a “narrow stratum” – a glaring Freudian slip, an
acknowledgement of one’s own post- Soviet descent: where were intellectuals
a stratum doomed to destruction if not during the orgy of the
lumpenproletariat called the USSR?

This anti- Ukraine will do its utmost to prevent the state from taking a
single step toward Europe and keep it in the gray zone of geopolitical
non-existence- the only way to have a few more years for its final
despoilment.

Here is a picture of post-genocidal society in one isolated region- Kharkiv
oblast. When all of two MPs from the Party of Regions voted for the Law on
the Holodomor, Yevhen Kushnariov, one of the party’s leaders, in an
interview with Radio Liberty magnanimously promised that the party would not
discipline the MPs. “For now this will have no consequences,” he said (Dec.
9, 2006, www.pravda.com.ua).

In November 2006 in Kharkiv oblast, which was happy about Russian obtaining
the status of “regional” language, not one local government official
attended the official ceremony to commemorate the Holodomor victims. The
proceedings took place at the Ukrainian-Polish Memorial and near the Cross
to the Holodomor Victims. But 30,000 people came to Kushnariov’s funeral.

Fact file: during three months of 1933, over 600,000 people died in Kharkiv
oblast. The total mortality count reached 2,000,000-one-third of all
peasants in the region. As can be seen from archival photographs, peasants
died on the city’s central street. Every morning their bodies were dumped
into suburban ravines. Every evening the streets were covered with new
corpses.

Kharkiv was then the capital of the Ukrainian SSR, so historians call the
city in that period “the capital of despair.”

These things occurred during the Postyshev terror. Some streets in Kharkiv
are still named after the bosses of the Communist Party of Ukraine, who
carried out the genocide. Naturally, the city has a Postyshev Prospekt.

It was in Kharkiv, in 1933, that Mykola Khvylovy shot himself. He understood
that he was doomed and that Ukraine was destined for this bloody massacre.
At the cost of his own life Khvylovy sent a warning. By this one pistol shot
he put a period on the final page of the brilliant and tragic Executed
Renaissance.

I can add one more thing: it is good that Mace did not live to see the day
when a member of the Communist cadre was appointed director of Ukraine’s
historical archives. He would feel hurt. As a person who loved Ukraine so
much, he would feel ashamed of the country.

However, as a scholar he would receive full satisfaction: his uncanny thesis
about our post-genocidal society has found complete confirmation.

To be a post-genocidal society means to have no memory. It means to have
one’s memory in the off position. A society that has been destroyed this way
is a lobotomized society. The part of society that managed to withstand the
lobotomy does not possess sufficient psychological power and physical
strength to push aside this necrotic mass of stifled brain that is pressing
down and choking the living brain with its dead weight.

Mace was a scholar. He worked with facts and figures. He gave them rational
explanations. But I have always had the feeling that he came to this culture
because he had been called by the dead. Probably because they still have not
been buried-for they have not been mourned, and because they have been
forgotten.

He heard their voices. He heard them from afar, from a distant country and a
different continent. He learned their language. While despicable servants of
the System, barely able to stick a few insincere Ukrainian words into their
defective mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, were sneering at his accent, Jim
rolled his American “r” in the language of the dead who had called him, and
he talked with them freely.

Mace was opposed to any form of contempt for man. This was the algorithm
of his intellectual opposition to any manifestations of totalitarianism. In
this he was a true son of the finest democratic America that is built on the
spiritual heritage of Washington and Lincoln.

He had such an acute and passionate sense of justice and honesty that it
seemed to have burned him from the inside. It was this feeling that brought
him to Ukraine-a country that became, possibly like no other country in the
world, a victim of permanent injustice and unfair treatment.

In many countries, involvement in the Holocaust entails criminal
responsibility. France is planning to make denial of the Armenian genocide a
crime. One of the categorical conditions for Turkey’s accession to the EU is
its acknowledgement of this genocide.

What we hear from the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine even now is “the so-
called genocide” and “Mace, the Holodomor dreamer.”

Kyiv and other cities of Ukraine are choked by a noose of streets bearing
the names of its persecutors. Monuments to persecutors stand in all
Ukrainian cities.

Therefore, it is difficult to hope that a country like this will be reckoned
with in the world. Russia understands only the language of
force-contemporary official Ukraine can only speak to Russia from the
position of weakness and meekness. Europe understands the language of
self-respect. For today’s official Ukraine this is a profoundly foreign word
that it does not know how to translate into its political doublespeak.

Official Ukraine, as it is today, i.e., lobotomized, will hardly find money
in the state budget for a Holodomor Memorial or for the Institute of
National Memory. It is erecting monuments to falsifiers of the elections
rather than to scholars who are restoring its history from the abyss of
oblivion.

This kind of Ukraine finds millions of dollars for idiotic pre-election
advertising and none for the publication of Mace’s works. This is all the
more deplorable when we recall that Mace did not write exclusively about
the Holodomor-he researched the history of 20th-century Ukraine.

To publish his works means to make public a whole array of skeletons in the
Russian-Ukrainian political closet. In 1983 Mace published a book in the US
on the destruction of national communism in Ukraine. He wrote merciless
articles on the political nature of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Some of his results appear prophetic today. For example, Mace wrote about
the drama of Ukrainian socialism. “For better or worse, in 20th-century
Ukraine socialism was the most influential ideology.” This is the opening
statement in a chapter of his book entitled Ukrainian Statehood in the 20th
Century (published in 1996).

Whereas the beginnings of Ukrainian socialism are associated with such
prominent figures as Mykhailo Drahomanov and Mykhailo Hrushevsky, in its
present stage it features names one feels ashamed even to pronounce in this
series.

One can only say, “Jim, unfortunately, the most influential ideology in
Ukraine was indeed socialism!” The idealistic socialism of its first
adherent was a significant obstacle in the construction of the Ukrainian
state.

Further degeneration of this socialism and its fall from the level of the
European tradition to negotiations in the flea market of post-Soviet
politics have proved the political and moral fiasco of this ideology in the
history of Ukrainian statehood.

Mace’s paper at the Kharkiv congress of the International Association of
Ukrainian Studies in 1996 was entitled “The Sociogenetic Legacy of the
Genocide and Totalitarianism in Ukraine and Ways to Overcome It.”

Mace was fully aware that the genocide-produced pathological deviations in
Ukraine were proportional to the eschatological dimensions of the genocide
itself. They are difficult to eradicate because genocide derives its name
from its undermining effect on the foundation of a nation’s gene pool.

Mace opened up before Ukrainian society the book of its Apocalypse and
read this Black Book aloud. But society did not really hear him because the
areas of its collective brain that are responsible for self- preservation,
self-protection, and survival had been neutralized and lobotomized.

On Nov. 26, as you light a candle to commemorate the tens of millions of
Ukrainians who were killed only because they had grown crops from time
immemorial, just look out of your window. You will see candles lit here and
there. Otherwise-the shimmer of TV screens blasting local or Russian pop
music.

It is difficult to say whether society will remain in this vegetative state.
Together with his fellow Ukrainian historians, Mace did everything possible
to revive the nerve tissue of the Ukrainian nation’s brain-in order to make
it send signals, to make memory work, and to help society restore its will
to live.

Whether the national brain will indeed start working is not under Mace’s
control. It is up to Ukrainian society-and Russian society, for that matter.
Russia became the self-appointed heir of the gold and diamond funds of the
USSR. It will become a civilized state only when it has recognized that it
is also the heir of the bloody fund of the USSR.

Many offensive remarks about Mace have been voiced from the rostrum of the
post-Soviet Verkhovna Rada. Looking at parliament we mostly see crowds of
vicious political corpses with glassy eyes.

Jim, however, is strangely alive. Perhaps he was privy to some kind of
mysticism, as were his ancient Indian ancestors. Maybe he knew the mystery
of overcoming death because everything that he occupied himself with was
tragedy. But he was rarely seen without a smile.

Even when he was resentful, with good reason, he exuded a powerful energy of
good will and inexplicable optimism that he alone possessed. Jim seemed to
believe, despite all indications to the contrary, that common sense would
prevail and man would overcome human-generated absurdities and phantoms.

I believe that all of us who in some way collaborated with Jim will always
measure our history by his work, his love for Ukraine, and his intellectual
integrity. Most importantly, we will refer to his deep conviction that
Ukraine is a nation of astonishing vitality and that one day it will get
over its post-genocidal legacy and become a conscious, noble, and orderly
European country-a country respected in the world, in particular because it
has self-respect.

After all, the Orange Revolution proved that this European Ukraine is
already nascent. Despite hardships, it is coming into being or, more
exactly, beginning to revive.

When I asked Jim to meet one of my Italian doctoral students, who was
researching Khvylovy, he said, “Oh, sure thing! A friend of Khvylovy is a
friend of mine!” – as if Khvylovy had not shot himself in 1933 but lived
somewhere near Jim, across the street, and from time to time they would get
together for a cup of coffee.

Now Jim is definitely drinking coffee with Khvylovy.

Some day we may be able to see Mace carved in stone on a Kyiv street.
Lively and passionate as he was, he would take it in good stride because he
does not need a monument. What was more important to him was a
monument that he himself worked on-a monument to millions of innocent
Ukrainians who were tortured to death.

Perhaps a monument to Mace is necessary above all for Ukraine. It would be
an important landmark indicating that the country is starting to awaken from
its post-genocidal state, which means that it is beginning to distinguish
destroyers from those whose love for Ukraine cost them their lives.

For our country this would be a small step but one that would bring it
closer to Europe. And this step would be taken thanks to the American,
James E. Mace. -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177534/
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933] ========================================================
3. “HIS WORKS SHOULD BE CIRCULATED AMONG SCHOLARS”
Electronic version of Day and Eternity of James Mace

By Masha TOMAK, The Day Weekly Digest in English #6
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2006

Last Wednesday the Union of Ukrainian Writers hosted the launch of the
electronic version of the book “Day and Eternity of James Mace” issued in
a small run pegged to Feb. 18, Mace’s 55th birth anniversary.

The event was held on the initiative of Kyiv-based libraries, including the
Lesia Ukrainka Public Library, to which Den/The Day’s editor in chief
Larysa Ivshyna presented the first copy of the e-book.

Among the many guests were writers, academics, journalists, musicians,
James Mace’s widow Natalia Dziubenko-Mace, and students of National
Taras Shevchenko University’s Teacher Training College. The honorable
role of emcee was assigned to Mykola Som.

The print version of “Day and Eternity of James Mace,” published in 2005,
was funded by the newspaper’s journalists. The book sold well, but no
sponsor has offered to help republish the book. To make the book even
more accessible to readers, it was decided to issue an electronic version
that will be available on the Internet and for sale.

In her speech, Ivshyna also thanked the initiators of the event to honor
Mace. “People should know more about James and consider what he did for
Ukraine in order to help Ukrainians know their 20th-century history. James
was an incurable optimist, and while he overcame all challenges, he felt a
terrible pain from what he was seeing around him.

He was between two pressures: his knowledge, on the one hand, and the
‘thrombi’ that clog our ‘body’ and don’t allow ‘natural blood circulation,’
on the other.

Today, one of the greatest achievements is that the government is now
supporting the memory of the Holodomor.

But in my view, it is not enough simply to remember and light a candle once
a year. We must follow the example of the State of Israel, which managed to
rally itself around its own catastrophe. I often hear it said that
Ukrainians should go forward without looking back and try to see positive
points in he past.

I think it would be very fair to consider our memory of the Holodomor as
an integral part of the history we have lived through – if we duly feel and
reconsider it, we will be able to march further as a sound nation.

Otherwise, we will again be stepping over the corpses of our compatriots.
We must say that a reconsidered memory will let us climb new heights.”

Among the VIP guests was Borys Oliinyk. Speaking about the “Ukrainian of
American origin,” as Mace was called, he said that “he has already entered
not only our spiritual and sociopolitical atmosphere but our hearts. His
courage and devotion in defending the rights of a people to which he did
not exactly belong deserves admiration. He was one of the first to raise the
question of the 1932-33 manmade famine.”

The audience heard Mace’s favorite song “Za bairakom bairak” set to the
words of Taras Shevchenko and performed by Vitalii Moroz. A poem that
the researcher’s widow Natalia Dziubenko-Mace dedicated to her late
husband was recited by Meritorious Artist of Ukraine Borys Loboda.

Remembering James Mace and his contribution to helping Ukrainians grasp
the true scale of the Holodomor-Genocide tragedy, the world-famous master
of the microminiature, Mykola Siadrysty, noted, “Can you imagine the
Japanese arguing in their parliament over whether bombs were dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This can only happen in our country. The crowd
is not aware of the famine; it doesn’t know what it is. But it must.”
QUOTES
[1] Natalia DZIUBENKO-MACE :

“If Mr. Tsybenko and all those who are against the monument to James
Mace only knew how indifferent I am to the question of whether or not a
statue will be erected. What really matters to me is that James’s studies
and articles should be discussed and used to awaken young minds. The
existence or absence of a monument is the last thing I care about.

What really worries me is that there are no young academics who can
properly assess the theory of genocide studies. We need young, unbiased,
and unblinkered minds that could work on and develop this subject.”

[2] Serhii HALCHENKO, textologist and Ukrainian literature researcher:
“We must learn a lesson from James Mace. When he was researching the
Holodomor, this scholar used both Ukrainian sources and foreign
publications. So, in my opinion, his research needs no additional comment.
He should be read and known, and this information should circulate among
scholars.”

[3] Mykola SOM , poet:
“As a lecturer at Ukraina University and a teacher at a rural school, I
think it is necessary to conduct Mace classes, classes on our victories and
defeats, and look into the future through Mace’s eyes. This is crucial.”
————————————————————————————————
NOTE: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177537/
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933]
========================================================
4. THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO JAMES MACE
What a Ukrainian of Native American Indian descent has done for Ukraine

The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

On Feb. 18 Professor James Mace, the noted US researcher of the 1932-33
Holodomor in Ukraine, would have turned 55. He defended his doctoral
dissertation “Communism and the Dilemmas of National Liberation: National
Communism in Soviet Ukraine in 1918-1993″ at the University of Michigan.

He taught at the universities of Michigan, Harvard, Columbia, and Illinois.
He was executive director of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine, under
the aegis of the US Congress and the President of the United States.

The result of this selfless work was three volumes of transcripts of oral
testimonies by eyewitnesses and the commission’s “Report to Congress.”
The commission’s findings state that the famine of 1932-33 was manmade,
deliberately engineered by the CC CPSU; most importantly, that it was an
act of genocide.

James Mace moved to Ukraine in 1993 and married a Ukrainian woman. He
worked for The Day from 1997 to 2004. As a rule, he marked his birthday at
the editorial office. On these occasions people brought flowers and funny
little gifts, but this did not interfere with the newspaper’s work.

We realized that we were dealing with an extraordinary personality. Above
all he was our friend and comrade in arms in the difficult field of
journalism, a cheerful, open-hearted, friendly, and critical-minded man.

We always carefully prepared for his birthday, just as we did this time. We
offer our readers a collection of comments and reflections by students of
Ostroh Academy. Articles by Oksana Pachlowska, lecturer at La Sapienza
Rome University, and the writer Natalia Dziubenko-Mace, Jim’s widow, will
appear in upcoming issues of The Day.

A few words about memory and gratitude are in order. We cannot remain
silent. On Nov. 13, 2006, the Verkhovna Rada held Government Day hearings
during which communist MP Petro Tsybenko, addressing pensioners’
problems, said that the government has no money for veterans but has found
money to erect a monument to James Mace.

We remind readers that our state has done little to perpetuate his memory.
It has not done the main thing: his books remain unpublished. In fact, if
not for the book about Mace that was published with funds raised by
journalists of The Day, his works would have never reached readers.

There are no more copies left of “Day and Eternity of James Mace.” Has the
state arranged to issue another edition? We know nothing about such an
initiative. Therefore, Comrade Tsybenko’s fears are overstated.

Also, setting the dead against each other is indecorous, to put it mildly.
Did these veterans’ problems emerge just now or did they appear when
the communists came and stayed in power for 70 years?

Of course, their problems must be solved, just as it is necessary to
perpetuate the memory of all those who were tortured to death and otherwise
destroyed, just as it is necessary to express gratitude to an individual who
did so much for Ukraine. Fortunately, our society understands this. What
Ukrainian students have to say on the subject is proof of this.

The future is with James Mace.

[1] Daria SHVAIA, third-year student (Culturological Studies):

For some reason we often hear that the world is too small. We seem to
lack space or air, or maybe it’s simply a feeling of isolation and
loneliness.

Yet few have considered the possibility that we are too distant from each
other and that this world is not so small.

Man feels like a grain of sand in a boundless desert of parallel and
adjacent dimensions. Small wonder that some people find themselves
lost “between two worlds.”

Fortunately, sometimes it is the other way around. James Mace was one of
those who did not remain “Between Two Worlds” (the title of one of his
articles for The Day) but found a place in each of them.

I am amazed at what a single individual can accomplish for a nation,
especially when this nation is not his own – not geographically, mentally,
or culturally. Only the word “feat” can describe James Mace’s activities in
Ukraine and beyond its borders, his constant care for this land.

Mace raised the matter of the Holodomor of 1932-33 on an international
level even when Ukraine did not recognize that horrific event as an act of
genocide.

In studying this problem, he did not confine himself to the boundaries of
dry and banal theorizing but tried to do his best to ensure that the
international community and the Ukrainian people (however paradoxical
this may sound) would disperse all the myths concerning those pages of
our history. Without a doubt he succeeded to a certain degree.

I am not sure that our nation perceived Mace as he deserved (in fact, he
realized the reason: the post-Soviet and post-Holodomor syndrome is still
affecting our mentality).

Yet I am sure that at least several students fortunate enough to have
attended his classes, several ordinary citizens who read his articles, and
some of those who simply leafed through the book “Day and Eternity of
James Mace” from The Day’s Library Series will not leave his cause
unfinished. After all, we cannot live “between two worlds” at home.

[2] Iryna NAUMETS, third-year student (Documentation and Information):

In Ukrainian culture James Mace is a figure that prompts us Ukrainians to
revise our love of Ukraine.

The question that immediately springs to one’s mind is: “How could a
Cherokee Indian from the US have developed such an interest in Ukrainian
history, such passionate concern for the cruel historical battles fought
over the Holodomor?” He was destined to unravel a tight knot of modern
history at a time when Ukrainians had almost forgotten about it.

In his published doctoral dissertation Mace clearly explained the failure of
national-patriotic ideas and the process of Ukrainization by their
incompatibility with the communist ideology.

In 1982, when he addressed an international conference on the Holocaust
and genocide in Tel Aviv, Mace was the first Western researcher to call
the manmade famine in Ukraine genocide.

James was frequently surprised by the fact that not all Ukrainians wanted to
know their history, that some of them were avoiding it, hiding from it. Why?
He said that history would catch up with them anyway. There is no denying
the truth of this statement because the future of a people is built on the
foundations of its history.

Remembering one’s history means remembering one’s parentage. James Mace,
like no one else, succeeded in reminding people about this. While at the
head of a US congressional commission set up to investigate the causes of
the Holodomor, he searched through the archives, accumulating historical
data.

Without a doubt his collaboration with Robert Conquest at the Harvard
Ukrainian Research Institute in 1983 resulted in what may be described as an
encyclopedia of facts on those heinous periods in Ukrainian history. Levko
Lukianenko, Chairman of the Association of Researchers of the Holodomors,
said that Mace had 200 hours of tapes containing Holodomor eyewitness
accounts.

Of course, while reconstructing history, Mace was able to feel that he was a
hero in it; he succeeded in returning to those events and living through
them wholeheartedly. This means that he was forced to think in Ukrainian, to
grow to love the Ukrainian people, share his destiny with that nation, share
a part of himself with it.

James did this. Through his work and desire to restore the Ukrainian
historical heritage he became an example of an American with a Ukrainian
heart.

Farewell, beloved person, please forgive us!
I fly to you like a tear…
Ukraine! Light an eternal candle
For widows and orphans,
Light a candle!

These lines from a poem written by his widow Natalia Dziubenko-Mace were
carved on her husband’s gravestone. They best convey our awareness that
Ukraine lost not only an historian, journalist, and university professor,
but above all one of its faithful and loving sons.

[3] Yulia SKORODA, second-year student (Documentation and Information):

Not long ago I obtained a copy of “Day and Eternity of James Mace” from
The Day’s Library Series. I cannot say that I just happened to get one. I
had heard that sometime in February they would be marking the 55th birthday

of a man who had performed the feat of a lifetime for the sake of Ukraine,
a man who had no Ukrainian roots.

James Mace – the name kept nagging at my mind. I had heard something about
him. I was ashamed. I decided to fill in my intellectual gap. It is as
interesting to discover people as it is to discover countries and cities.

Every man is a new world, a planet in the universe. Mace was a journalist
and historian, a planet that had materialized once in the United States and
then shed its light on Ukraine.

This was a strange phenomenon, something that has yet to be comprehended;
Mace, a foreigner, becoming so deeply concerned for the destiny of Ukraine
and its lasting problems, including the Holodomor of 1932-33. Was he
interested in it as a historian? He was, to an extent.

The next question: “Was the pursuit of professional interests worth leaving
one’s homeland?” I think that James would have said that Ukraine was his
homeland, and done so much more sincerely than many people who were
born and grew up here. He worked and lived for Ukraine until his dying day.

I remember the first Saturday of November 2005: the square in front of St.
Michael’s Cathedral, where dozens, hundreds, and thousands of candles
were burning. It is a dazzling sight, especially when you come across it
unexpectedly. I wanted to visit Kyiv and walk up Andriivsky uzviz. My
younger sister was burning with countless other plans.

It was the Day of Remembrance for the Holodomor Victims in Ukraine.
Honestly, I couldn’t remember anything about the event, but I promise that
now I know and will never forget. Now I know that James Mace personally
helped enter this date in our calendar, so that no one can every again deny
that the Holodomor took place in Ukraine.

[4] Oksana PRASIUK, fourth-year student (Documentation and Information):

James Mace was not Ukrainian by background, but after encountering
Ukraine’s unparalleled tragedy for the first time, he could not remain
indifferent.

He sincerely shared the misfortunes of our long-suffering land, the tragedy
of the Ukrainian nation, the scope of which was unprecedented in world
history.

Holodomor: even now many of us whisper rather than say this word out loud,
as though they are ashamed of describing the greatest tragedy to befall our
people or scared to sound politically incorrect or insufficiently loyal.

James Mace was among the first to investigate the Great Famine of Ukraine in
1932-33, who spoke out loud about it as an act of genocide against the
Ukrainian people, aimed at exterminating this nation. He regarded this great
tragedy of the Ukrainian people as the root of all our current economic,
political, and social woes.

Decades later, the sufferings of millions of fathers, mothers, and children
who starved to death are a painful echo in our people’s minds. Mace also
heard this echo. He placed on the altar of truth his academic career and
cloudless life in the US; he stayed in Ukraine because he felt himself a
part of its tragedy.

He found like-minded people who joined his efforts, with whom he shared his
ideas, whom he loved. This gave him the strength to struggle on; now he had
a podium from which to address the younger Ukrainian generation and teach
them to respect their people’s past while combating the ghosts emerging from
past realities.

Making his way through obstacles of indifference, misunderstanding, and
bureaucracy, Mace continued to refute the myths about the Holodomor in a
simple and consistent manner. He revealed the truth about those horrible
times to Ukraine and the rest of the world. But was he heard at the time?
Can we heed him now?

[5] Iryna PIVEN, second-year student, Faculty of Romance and

Germanic Languages:

Writing about a man whose works have found such a vivid response in my
heart is a strange and unusual experience. I read them after his death. It
is
strange to write about a man who made someone else’s tragedy his own,
who worked to reach his goal in such a selfless, devoted manner.

It is strange to realize that his objective lay in exposing all the facts,
hitherto kept secret by the authorities, about crimes that were perpetrated
not against his people, not against his country.

But no, James Mace, of all foreigners, fully deserves the right to be called
a Ukrainian. He became one through his research and keen sense of justice
that brought him so close to sharing the pain suffered by the Ukrainian
people; that made him actually feel that pain.

As an honest intellectual and impassioned journalist, Mace started
researching the history of Stalin’s repressions and the Holodomor in 1981,
and from that time he dedicated the rest of his life to this quest. He wrote
that Ukraine is a country that experienced one of the greatest tragedies in
the history of civilization.

That was why he was assigned the post of executive director of the US
Commission on the Ukraine Famine and entrusted with drawing up a
report to the US Congress in 1986.

It turned out to be a bombshell, an eye-opener for the civilized world on
the scope of Ukraine’s tragedy. After that James continued working on the
subject, unearthing fresh evidence, coming up with new, devastating facts.
Besides the questions of the genocide and the Holocaust, Mace
enthusiastically campaigned for the rights of the Ukrainian language, which
he spoke while he lived in Ukraine.

He always said that so long as Ukrainian remained a second-rate language
for Ukrainians, this nation would never be united.

James Mace was often asked why he, a typical American, as Mace called
himself, called his research into the genocide of the Ukrainian people his
vocation. Was it only because genocide touched a nerve in him, an American
Indian, so that he worried and cared so much about Ukraine’s future? A

fter reading a number of articles and other publications by this journalist,
one becomes keenly aware of his spectacular personality, his ability to swim
against the current. Even when the rest of the world remained silent, Mace
did not. He said, “American citizens demanded research and this was my
destiny.”

Mace spent too many years on his research work, so Ukraine became the
greater part of his life. “Your dead have chosen me,” he wrote. This phrase
is still very much on my mind. It explains his vocation and increases my
respect for him.

I am very sorry that I was not familiar with Mace’s creative legacy earlier.
He was a man who determined his own fate, a man who kept silent about
nothing, who concealed nothing.

His works cannot leave any reader indifferent, the more so because this
man assigned first place in his life to a foreign country; he accomplished a
feat and dedicated it to Ukraine.

[6] Natalia ANTONIUK, third-year student (Faculty of Law):

Yevhen Sverstiuk once said: “That James Mace is unrivaled is obvious; he
is a godsend to Ukraine. But we will realize all this only after he is
gone.” His words are extremely significant and perhaps most relevant today.

Words of truth voiced several years ago are being comprehended only now.
This is the way it always is: we appreciate what we had only after losing it
forever.

For Mace this meant simply the beginning of a large and enduring project,
something they wanted to sink into oblivion. What he did for the Ukrainian
people – the nation, in his own words – is invaluable.

Who was James Mace? Perhaps for many Ukrainians he was simply a person
who became the subject of active discussions only in the last two years.
There are even plans to erect a monument to commemorate the 55th

anniversary of his birth in Kyiv.

Or perhaps he was the proverbial rich American uncle, who invested in new
projects in our state. Sad but true: we know little or nothing about James
Mace. This is a problem not only for our government but us.

This prominent scholar deserves our gratitude for being among the first to
raise the issue of the 1930s Holodomor. He was not afraid to show the causes
of the Ukrainian Holocaust; he mustered the civic courage to declare to the
rest of the world that we Ukrainians are not a terra incognita, not a
Third-World country, not a godforsaken people.

James Mace was the first to challenge the universally accepted German
concept of Ukrainians as the Naturvolk – natural, less civilized people. He
wanted us to recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide and could not
understand why we were not willing to do so.

He was always alarmed by the fact that for some inexplicable reason the
Soviet-engineered famine was no longer troubling Ukraine; that it was
regarded as a matter of course. All the works that Mace gathered to convince
the West (not Ukraine!) can be described as a huge archive of oral Ukrainian
history. We know that there was nearly no documented confirmations of a
famine in Ukraine in the 1930s.

This brilliant individual can be venerated only for the fact that he was one
of a handful of foreigners working in Ukraine who dared declare himself a
patriot of Ukraine. He did so when red flags were still fluttering over all
official buildings.

His ethnic background should be defined as “American Indian Ukrainian.”
It must have been the martial spirit inherited from his forefathers that
spurred him into action, trying to prove the truth to one and all.

He wanted to preserve at least our nation and not allow it to vanish the way
his own people were dying out. James Mace determined his life priorities; he
decided to investigate the Holodomor the Ukrainian way. He considered
himself a true son of Ukraine. He said he couldn’t study that tragedy
through half-measures, just as he couldn’t be 50 percent Ukrainian.

Today we can only say thank you to this man. Perhaps the long-suffering law
recognizing the famine of the 1930s as an act of genocide would not have
been passed if we hadn’t had James Mace.

I have only one question. It is rooted in the following lines of a
well-known song: “Would he want to be a Hero of Ukraine/ In a country
that has no use for heroes?”

[7] Maksym KARPOVETS, third-year student (Culturological Studies):

I think James Mace is a unique figure in his understanding of contemporary
world problems and Ukraine’s place in them. Reading his concepts, articles,
and simply his reflections on what was happening in the world at the time,
you get a better understanding of things you never considered before or
which you simply ignored.

You will agree that we are a selfish nation: everyone thinks about himself,
lives within his four walls, and does not pay attention to what is happening
around him.

Mace destroys this shell, trying to show how every individual is vulnerable,
suffering, and feeble; that only a human being can help another human being,
not otherwise. This is the essence of Mace’s humanism.

In fact, James Mace was an example of his own humanism. It is hard to
overestimate what he did for Ukraine and its future.

I am still unable to grasp the strength of the spirit and dedication of a
man who risked his academic career and prestige for the sake of his struggle
to make the world understand the problems of our state and raise them to the
international level; problems that we Ukrainians were hiding from others.

Mace deserves not only gratitude and respect from sentient citizens in our
country but understanding, something that he talked about so often, which
just as often was ignored.

What have I personally gained by reading Mace and becoming aware of the
scope of what this man accomplished? Above all I am awestruck by his
dedication, his belief that what he was doing was right. After all, faith,
such a usual thing one would think, is rejected by the postmodern
information society.

It is as though faith is totally unnecessary; as though all that matters is
strict determinism and methodology. This is unfortunate.

Mace always believed in himself and in what he was doing. And, in my
opinion, this could only sow grains of hope in the hearts of journalists,
politicians, thinkers, and ordinary, average citizens.

We must do everything so that Mace’s thesis “We saved everything we
could, but sometimes it is difficult for us to understand for whom” acquires
a different character, so that we will always understand for whom and
against whom we are trying to save this difficult but so very beautiful world.
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177535/
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933] ========================================================
5. THANK YOU, GREAT HUMANIST – AND FORGIVE US
James Mace’s birthday is approaching, we remember him
& try to understand the phenomenon of his personality.

COMMENTARY: Viktor Kostiuk, Head of the Journalism Department
Zaporizhia National University, Zaporizhia, Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

With James Mace’s birthday approaching, we remember him and try to
understand the phenomenon of his personality.

Tens and hundreds of our compatriots are known to have proved their creative
potential outside their native land – “Our blossoms are all over the world,”
as the saying goes – asserting the existence of the country of Ukraine. But
what made a successful American scholar move to a young and little known
country?

The scholarly activity of the young Oklahoman began from a tragedy, or more
precisely, from the realization of a tragedy that had befallen a distant
nation.

Eyewitness testimonies, archival materials, and mass media publications on
the Ukrainian Holodomor helped him understand its nature and consequences
and gave him grounds to declare to the entire world that genocide had been
committed against the Ukrainian people.

Mace moved to Kyiv in the early 1990s. What bound him to Ukraine was a
pain in his huge heart rather than business interests. In 1994 he wrote in
the newspaper “Literaturna Ukraina,” “Today, when I hear scholastic debates
on whether Ukraine is building a socialist or capitalist society, I wish it
would be the society of liberated people.” In his opinion, a liberated
person is an informed individual who is free of fear.

His knowledge of Ukraine’s realities led him to the following conclusions:
“A country with the most fertile land in the world, immense mineral
resources, and with a better- educated labor force than the US has become a
laughing-stock. The economy is unable to maintain such a large government.

The country keeps sinking into debt and is wasting loans intended for
investment. Its environmental conditions are the worst in Europe. The
population is shrinking; people are losing hope for better days. At the end
of the 20th century Ukraine is the same ‘sick man of Europe’ as the Ottoman
Empire was a hundred years ago.”

Having deeply immersed himself into the past and present of our country,
Mace the researcher asserts, “Ukraine is a post-genocidal society.”

After researching the Holodomor for many years, Mace began to consider
himself a Ukrainian. One is led to wonder: if a person who is so deeply
concerned about our problems and so sincerely interested in the good of our
people is Ukrainian, what percentage of Ukrainianness do our politicians,
business people, journalists, artists, and each one of us have?

But the heart of the great humanist could not bear the post-genocidal
manifestations of our everyday life. The Ukrainian land that was so dear to
his heart became his final refuge.

A worthy way to honor the 55th anniversary of James Mace’s birth would be
to acknowledgment his achievements. In the next days much will be said and
written about his life, research, and compassionate publications.

I believe that what we need to say about Mace is not words of praise but
gratitude. Thank you, great humanist, for stirring our society, which made
our parliament finally recognize, not without a lot of huffing and puffing,
the Holodomor of 1932-33 as genocide.

Forgive us, James, for transferring power into the hands of people who break
publicly made promises, who despise the state language and the things our
nation holds sacred, who disregard freedom of press, and who impersonate a
political opposition while playing soccer or tennis together.

My students and I will refer again and again to your publications because
they shape social optimism, teach us critical thinking, and encourage people
to be humane.

For the second year in a row, journalism majors at Zaporizhia National
University are using James Mace’s “A Tale of Two Journalists” in their
classes. For them this is “an active way of contemplating the past, present,
and future” (Larysa Ivshyna).

Below are extracts from papers written by this year’s freshmen students.

[1] Without a doubt James Mace may be called a true Ukrainian and our
national hero. The kind of openness and honesty that he had about the
Genocide and Holodomor of 1932-33 is not found in any history textbook,
and this is truly hard to believe. Unfortunately, Maces’ knightly and
scholarly courage did not find acceptance either in the US or Ukraine.

But we are happy that today this person is acknowledged in our country as a
prominent scholar. James Mace was a true journalist and a real man, who was
not afraid of making the truth known to people. This is what journalists
should be. We need to look up to him and strive to be as honest as he was. –
Natalia PERELETA

[2] It is very unfortunate that James Mace’s name does not ring a bell with
most Ukrainians. I did not know anything about him until I enrolled in our
university.

He was an American but decided to throw in his lot with a country that at
first was foreign to him and later became his true Fatherland. It was his
love for our country and people that made him tell the truth with no fear of
consequences. – Natalia BUHAR

[3] Reading the biographies of such people as James Mace, you think,
“There he is, a hero of our time.” He is worthy of being called a real man.
It is hard to imagine that in times of discord and feuds there was a man who
was not indifferent to our people’s lot.

His Tale is a postulate of human dignity and journalistic honesty. It
demonstrates the everlasting confrontation of truth and evil. I am taking my
first steps in journalism, but I can say that Mace is an example on which
the spiritual development of future journalists must be based. –

Yevhen DORONIN

[4] Journalists often like to think of themselves as fearless advocates of
society’s right to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. The Pulitzer Prize was established in order to honor those who
follow this principle.

But what do we do with journalists like Walter Duranty, i.e., those who
conceal the truth and openly despise any conceivable journalistic ideals?
The answer is obvious: shame, contempt, etc.

Just like Gareth Jones, one of the characters of his story, James Mace
always had the courage of his convictions in expressing his views on
Ukrainian history and ethics. The Holodomor was a terror for the whole
nation and a murky period in the 20th century.

Even Western nations have acknowledged this. Holodomor denial is the
most immoral of all crimes. Isn’t it time to cleanse our consciousness?
Isn’t this an opportune moment for establishing the truth? – Maria MELNYK

[5] James Mace is one of the few people who demonstrated the true paradigm
of the journalistic profession. With considerable skill and using the
examples of Duranty and Jones, he managed to show the fleeting glory of
Duranty wearing the laurels of a lie, and the “everlasting failure” of Jones
wearing the laurels of truth.

Some may say this is a paradox of existence, but consider: when a person
with a serious illness deliberately infects others, that is a crime. When a
deceitful journalist deliberately infects society with the “disinformation
virus,” doesn’t it make sense to sound the alarm?

Sooner or later, lies will out, so a young journalist should learn from
Duranty’s mistakes in order not to tremble at death’s door in fear of
eternal damnation. It is regrettable that journalists do not take an oath
like doctors do. Maybe then they would understand the scope of their
responsibility. – Halyna YATSENKO

[6] James Mace’s journalistic legacy is simply awe-inspiring. It clearly
reflects the author’s deep knowledge of Ukrainian culture and history. The
reader is favorably impressed by the zeal with which the author comes to the
defense of justice and truth. The breadth and depth of his thinking as well
as the simplicity of exposition make Mace’s publications accessible to all
readers.

He devoted many years of his life to researching the history of Ukraine, a
country that was not his native land. I believe that every journalist,
especially a budding one, needs to read A Tale of Two Journalists.

This is a case where a future professional has to learn from real- life
examples, to understand and be aware of every aspect of journalism, not
just its positive sides.

I believe that “A Tale of Two Journalists” helps one appreciate the immense
importance of the journalistic profession. In journalism, as in any other
public sphere, there will always be the dilemma of choosing between two
different ways to achieve a goal-the principled, honest way or the
unscrupulous, slippery one.

I believe that every budding journalist needs to read this story and make
his or her own choice – whether to live in harmony with fame, which is
sometimes sullied, or with one’s own conscience. – Yana POLSKA

[7] Of course, not every leading journalist has read this story. But this
does not mean that the problems it describes have no relevance today. In
his story the author not only talks about ethics in journalism or its
absence, but also discusses facts from Ukrainian history that were kept

secret for a long time.

Much has been said and written about the Holodomor, but how much is there
that we still don’t know? Yes, you can conceal official data and figures.

But what do you do with millions of murdered people? How is it possible to
conceal the names of those who sacrificed themselves for the sake of the
truth?

James Mace’s publications are thus not simply collections of an observer’s
comments but an opportunity for Ukrainian society to look at its present in
the light of the past. – Kateryna SHYIAN

MACE’S INDIAN BLOOD BELONGS TO THE SAME
GROUP AS UKRAINIAN BLOOD
[1] By Mykhailyna KOTSIUBYNSKA,
literary critic

“For me the name and image of James Mace are one of the purest and most
moving phenomena of the human race that I have ever come across. I was
fortunate to know people like that – Vasyl Stus, the Svitlychnys – Ivan and
Nadia – Alla Horska, and others.

“Ukraine called to Mace from across the sea and from a different continent,
and he answered the summons. He said, “I was called by your dead.” But the
living also called him.

“He accepted their sufferings and hopes as his own, learned their language,
and did his utmost to make the global historical tragedy of the Holodomor
known to the international community. He became a kind of eyewitness of the
Holodomor at the trial of history, and he opposed ignoramuses and enemies
that are still there even now.

“He left prosperous America and came to live in unstable and unpredictable
Ukraine. He did not idealize our country. He was deeply moved by all its
problems, and he never referred to it with the arrogant phrase “this
country” because it was already his country. He worked to make it more
humane.”

“After learning of Mace’s American Indian descent, I felt that he became
even closer to me. I have always had a special feeling for the romanticism
of the American aboriginals and was interested in this original culture.

“In the 1960s I became acquainted with the works of Pauline Johnson, a
Canadian writer and a vivid personality. Her father was a Mohawk chief, and
she wrote about Indians.

“Translating her works into Ukrainian, I was able to draw closer to the
fascinating world and noble heroism of Indian legends. In her dignified
personality and creative work I saw some kinship with her contemporary,
Lesia Ukrainka.

“They even died the same year, each of an incurable illness. So it has
always seemed to me that Mace’s Indian blood belongs to the same group as
Ukrainian blood.”

“The dirty smear campaign aimed at blackening James Mace’s name will have
a boomerang effect on its instigators because it testifies, above all, to
the troglodytic level of their consciousness. To Mace the love and tribute of
all those who cherish Ukraine will be an eternal protection and a guarantee
of remembrance.”
AT THE PRICE OF HIS OWN LIFE HE SHOWED
HOW TO LOVE ONE’S OWN PEOPLE
[2] By Valerii STEPANKOV,
professor, Kamianets-Podilsky University

“To my great regret, I did not have an opportunity to talk or even meet with
Professor James Mace. Therefore, I cannot share my personal recollections of
this remarkably conscientious and courageous man. As a scholar, I knew about
his significant body of research on the Holodomor, that terrible tragedy of
the Ukrainian nation.

“His articles alone (primarily in “The Day”), which were later published as
the book “Day and Eternity of James Mace,” struck me as open and sincere,
showing his unconcealed feelings for Ukraine and respect for its past, as
well as his honesty and fervent determination to make the truth of this national
tragedy known to the intellectual and political elite of today’s Ukraine.

“Equally striking was the nagging pain in his heart caused by the callous
indifference of most government officials to the history of the people whose
interests they were supposed to advocate and defend.

“In this way my imagination began to outline the image of a person whose
actions, on the one hand, increasingly commanded respect and, on the other,
left me wondering about the inner motives behind them.”

“I could not understand what made a foreigner and well-known scholar, who
could freely enjoy all the comforts of a democratic society in his native
country, come to work in Ukraine, which many of our people dreamed of
leaving in search of a better life.

“More than that, he fought our bureaucracy, paying dearly to break through
the wall of our indifference, if not contempt, for our national memory,
self-identity, and self-respect in order to bring forth the citizen in each
one of us.

“He sounded the tocsin of consciousness to make those who still had one wake
up from the lethargic sleep of apathy toward their own nation and help them
comprehend the scope of the 1932-33 genocide, and learn the lessons needed
to overcome its consequences.

“I searched for an answer to the question: why did James Mace take our
tragedy closer to his heart than most of us Ukrainians do? I found the
answer in the fact that he was a descendant of an Indian tribe that had
virtually disappeared from the face of the earth.

“Therefore, an understanding of this kind of tragedy was in his blood.
When he was studying the Ukrainian Holodomor, he was terrified by its
scope.

“The Ukrainian tragedy turned out to be so close to the tragedy of his own
people that he transferred his love to Ukraine (as a mother does after
losing her children) and with all his strength sought to keep it from going
down the same path as the one taken by his tribe.

“He became a more aware Ukrainian than most of us are, and at the price of
his own life showed us how to love one’s own people and defend its dignity.

“I want to believe that the time will come when, having learned to treat
itself as a historical entity and to respect itself and its dignity, the
Ukrainian nation will consider James Mace one of its finest sons.”
THE MAN WHO BROKE THROUGH THE WALL OF SILENCE
[3] Anatolii DIMAROV, writer
“A man who burned his heart in the fires of love for Ukraine. A man whose
voice was heard throughout the world. A man who did more than all the
parliaments of the world together.

“A man who became a plenipotentiary representative of the victims of the
Holodomor, an unprecedented genocide that claimed millions of lives. It was
engineered to destroy an entire people whose only fault was that it bore the
name of the Ukrainian nation and stubbornly lived on instead of vanishing;
whose very existence sent the bloody executioner into fits of violent rage.

“A man who broke through the dead wall of silence that was painstakingly
erected around the horrible event, which nearly wiped an entire nation off
the face of the earth.

“A man whose heart was stirred day and night by the ashes of our brothers,
sisters, and parents murdered by starvation.

“This man was James Mace, an American citizen who became a Ukrainian. He
came to knock on the door of our sleeping conscience and memory and make
himself heard. He gave his whole life to Ukraine.

“He did not simply do everything possible to have the US Congress
acknowledge the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33 as genocide, so that other
parliaments would follow suit.

“Mace tore himself away from a comfortable life in a wealthy country and
came to Ukraine, a country steeped in penury, in order to awaken our anti-
national parliament in which the communists opposed any reference to the
Holodomor, to say nothing of its recognition as genocide.

“Could we expect anything else from the heirs of those thugs who tore away
the last potato from a hungry child’s mouth only to crush it under their
dirty boots? They swept peasants’ households clean of every last grain and
buried people alive because they did not have the patience to wait until
they starved to death.

“Even today the bloody executioner of Ukraine who started the genocide is
dearer to them than their own fathers. Even today they carry Stalin’s
portraits, pressing them gently to their empty hearts at their wicked
rallies.

“Now they begin to defame the late James Mace and smear his name with
mud-a name that is holy to every conscious Ukrainian.

“Those are corrupt people without honor or conscience, made insane by their
fury at Ukraine-a country that has just risen from its knees and is freeing
itself from the colonial yoke that for three torturous centuries rubbed its
neck sore and made it bleed.

“But they will not succeed in spitting on our Mace. Mace lives! Mace is not
answerable to death or decay. He is knocking at the door of our hearts and
our memory.”
EVEN CURSES BECOME SIGNS OF RECOGNITION
[4] By Stanislav KULCHYTSKY
, professor, deputy director of the

Institute of Ukrainian History, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

“I was acquainted with James Mace for two decades, but for the first five
years we knew each other only from our publications. At first there was a
distance between us, which was determined by the nature of our upbringing
and fundamentally different life experience. I not only felt this reserve
but studied it, analyzing the worldview of people who were formed on the
other side of the Iron Curtain.

“Each representative of this group with whom I was in frequent and long-term
contact has left a trace in my heart: Professor Bohdan Osadchuk from Berlin,
Professor Roman Serbyn from Montreal, the Canadian historian Orest Subtelny,
who is known to everyone here, and James Mace. Without a doubt, Mace’s
influence was especially strong-not only because of our frequent meetings
but also because of his intellectual level.

“In the second phase of our acquaintance we reached a common understanding
of the social order in which the terror by famine was possible. He made me
pay attention to the national aspects of the Holodomor, whereas I insisted
on the importance of studying the socioeconomic aspects of the tragedy.

“It is clear now that we also need to study the all- Union famine of 1932-33
as a socioeconomic phenomenon because the January 1933 food expropriation
campaign in Ukraine was made possible only by this famine.

“James Mace called me a friend and colleague, but actually we became friends
only once we began to agree on professional matters. He may have been the
first to feel that we were drawing closer to each other because he was very
open with people.

“The people who knew Mace well have recently witnessed his entry into the
pantheon of national memory as one of the most prominent figures of
Ukrainian history at the turn of the last two centuries of Ukrainian
history.

“After his untimely death Mace begins to receive that which our society did
not give him while he was alive. Even curses heaped upon his head from the
rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada and in communist newspapers become signs
of recognition.

“The Day began publishing the third series of my articles that were written
in the last two years. This series is devoted to a reappraisal of Stalin’s
terror by famine and is entitled “The Holodomor of 1932-33 as Genocide:

Gaps in the Evidentiary Basis.”

“In these articles I show that the young American researcher, James Mace,
was the first postwar scholar who understood that the Stalinist terror in
Ukraine, including terror by famine, did not target people of a certain
ethnic origin or occupation.

“Rather its objective was to destroy the citizens of the Ukrainian state
that came into being after the disintegration of the Russian empire and

survived its demise in the form of a Soviet state.

“I affirm that Mace formulated this idea long before he became the executive
director of the US Congress Commission on the Ukrainian Holodomor.

“At the international conference on the Holocaust held in Tel Aviv in 1982
he was the first to call the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 genocide and
formulated the main objective of Stalin’s terror by famine: to destroy the
Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social organism.

“The same formulation appears in his paper that he presented in 1983 in
Montreal at the first international conference on the Ukrainian famine of
1932-33.

“Mace’s formulation is clearly subsumed under the legal concepts contained
in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide adopted on Dec. 9, 1948.

“In the remaining time before the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor we must
sound the alarm as much as possible to convince the international community,
and above all the Russians, that our position is well-grounded and sincere.

“I am certain that this can be done. I am also certain that James Mace’s
scholarly legacy will make this task easier if it reaches broad segments of
the Ukrainian and international communities.

“I will not mention all of Mace’s work – if it is ever published, it will
take up five or six volumes. I will dwell here only on the most important
thing: the testimonies of Holodomor eyewitnesses.

“In the summer of 1990 I published a review in the large-circulation
bilingual journal Under the Banner of Communism, entitled “How Did It
Happen? Reading the Documents Produced by the US Congress
Commission on the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33.”

“The three-volume edition of oral testimonies was still not published at the
time, so I used a computer printout that Mace brought me during his first
visit to Ukraine.

“The subsequent 17 years witnessed a steady increase in the sociopolitical
and academic value of this collection of testimonies, which was published in
the original language (90 percent were in Ukrainian).

“Perhaps we could have surpassed the compilers in the method of processing
testimonies, even though I have grave doubts about this when I read the
books published in Ukraine.

The three-volume edition was prepared according to the strict canons of oral
history, which was a new trend in historical source studies at the time.
These are now classic canons, but our scholars still have not mastered them
properly.

“But this is not the problem. The eyewitnesses of the famine were questioned
by Mace’s assistants in the mid-1980s. After more than a quarter of a
century, how many long- lived eyewitnesses with wonderful memories can
today’s researchers expect to find?

THREE VOLUME EDITION NEEDS TO BE REPRINTED
“In the mass media and at various official meetings held in connection with
the 60th and 70th anniversaries of the Holodomor I insisted, sadly in vain,
that the three-volume edition of testimonies needs to be reprinted because
it was published in 1990 by the US government printing house in Washington
in a minuscule number of copies. Let us hope that this problem can be
resolved.

“After all, it is not the dead who need the truth about the Holodomor. We,
and our children, need it as part of our national memory.”
WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE DAY FOR ITS HARD WORK
[5] By Andrii MATSIIEVSKY, director of School no. 2, city of

Haivoron, Kirovohrad oblast

“Our staff is deeply and sincerely grateful to James Mace, who as an
American, for many years raised the question of the Ukrainian Holodomor
like no one else in the world and wrote hundreds of articles and books.

“He continued his work at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, enduring unjustified
rebukes, mainly from communists who pointed to his origin and tried to
tell him where he should go.

“American that he was, he was also a great Ukrainian. The descendants of
those 10 million Ukrainians who died during the Bolshevik-engineered
Holodomor are grateful to him.

“We are also grateful to “The Day” for its hard work – the publication of
the book “Day and Eternity of James Mace.”

“We are fascinated by how James Mace conducted his research in the US.
This was his responsibility in the US Congress Commission on the Ukrainian
Holodomor.

“For decades he endured the cavils of those who were unwilling to speak the
truth. Among them were many politicians, primarily in Russia and Ukraine,
and communists in Canada, a country with the largest Ukrainian diaspora.

“James Mace began his research on the Ukrainian Holodomor in 1981, when no
party documents had been published yet on this tragedy. Ukrainian Americans
voiced their demand for this kind of research.

“Mace spoke about himself in the words of Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I
cannot do otherwise.” Thanks to Mace, the world learned about the genocide
against the Ukrainian people.

“He became a great friend, advocate, and defender of Ukraine. Future
generations will certainly be thankful to him for his work. We bow our heads
to the memory of James Mace, who departed from this life so early.”
————————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177520/

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933]
=========================================================
6. KULCHYTSKY & MACE:
TWO ROADS TO HISTORICAL TRUTH

Article By Arkadij Sydoruk, Writer
The Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Mirror-Weekly #1(630)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Jan. 13-19, 2007 (in Russian)
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #814, Article 10, in English
Washington, D.C., Sunday, February 11, 2007

“I KNEW ONLY MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN”
The fact that Stanislav Kulchytsky and James Mace belong to different
generations is really not so important. Of importance is that they were
born and grew up in polar societies, totalitarian and democratic.

The Ukrainian historian and the American researcher of Ukraine’s modern
history had taken different roads to the truth about the Holodomor.
Kulchytsky’s road was longer and harder.

“James Mace, like all Western researchers, had a jump on me,” Stanislav
Kulchytsky admits.” They knew everything they needed to know since their
college days. By contrast, I had to make up on my reading when I already
had a doctorate in history.

Orest Subtelny, my good friend for whom I did much to promote his book
“Ukraine: A History,” told me that he had read twelve volumes by Arnold
Toinbee at the age of 16. I could do it only in 1990 when the world’s most
outstanding work on the philosophy of history came out in the Russian
translation.

Hitherto, I knew only Marx, Engels and Lenin – to their advantage and my
disadvantage. On the other hand, I knew the Soviet archives to which
Western researchers, Subtelny and Mace including, had no access.
KULCHYTSKY AND UKRAINE LAGGING BEHIND
Research activities of Kulchytsky and Mace have very clear chronological
boundaries. The former focused on the Ukrainian history between WWI and
WWII.

The latter’s focus looks narrower from the chronological point of view – the
emergence and death of national communism in Ukraine in the 20s – early 30s
and the Great Famine of 1932-1933. However, for a good quarter of the
century Mace was a diligent student of Ukrainian history and civilization.

Their professional careers also showed some divergence. After his graduation
from the Odesa Mechnykov university department of history and move over
to live in Kyiv, Kulchytsky took his postgraduate course, working also as a
researcher at the Ukraine’s Academy of Sciences Institute of Economics.

“Economic history is my only focus in science – I haven’t done anything else
in my life,” he said. While at the Institute of Economics he was deeply
involved with the industrialization of the USSR. His interest in this topic
grew when he started to work at the Institute of History.

Later on, when the Ukrainian historian tackles the Great Famine of
1932-1933, the American researcher will engage in polemics with his
Ukrainian colleague. In his articles (they had never met face-to-face),
James Mace criticized Kulchytsky for concentrating too much on the
economy. Kulchytsky responded by saying the economy has always
been and will always be a major approach.

Being a self-critical and sensible person, Kulchytsky had to admit finally,
saying, “When I wrote my first book on the Famine titled ‘The Price of a
Great Turning Point’, I looked at many things but couldn’t get their true
meaning.”

Mace read the book, commenting that it has an “exaggerated economic
edge.” Kulchytsky’s book was published by Politizdat publishers in 1991,
a short time before Ukraine proclaimed its independence.

For his part, untangling knotty puzzles of Ukraine’s modern history, Mace
concentrated on the national issue.

In his doctoral dissertation “Communism and the Dilemmas of National
Liberation: National Communism in Soviet Ukraine in 1918-1993″ defended
in the University of Michigan in 1981 and then published by the Harvard
University Press, Mace explained the reasons for the collapse of national
patriotic ideas and of the process of Ukranianization by their
incompatibility with the communist ideology.

“For me, this view was absolutely strange, same as everything connected
with national communism, the Communist party and the system of power,”
Kulchytsky wrote. “At the time, I focused on the economic crisis per se. It
provoked the developments which led to the 1933 Holodomor. Without the
economic approach, it is impossible to study the Holodomor. I didn’t realize
at the time that the economic approach alone was not sufficient.”

The book, regarded by Kulchytsky as a watershed in his research work,
contains a definition of genocide. “I used the word in its direct meaning –
the extermination of the people. For me it was a synonym of the
Holodomor. I didn’t give it any legal meaning.

Now it has acquired an international legal sense. With time, digging into
the nature of Soviet totalitarianism, I became aware of its true meaning,”
he said.

Existing in the conditions of a liberal totalitarian regime, Soviet Ukraine
lagged years behind on the realization of its greatest national tragedy,
even more so with the recognition of the Famine as genocide. The almost
10-year delay coupled with the pressure of the communist regime and impact
of former stereotypes explains the situation Kulchytsky found himself in.

For his part, James Mace was the first among Western scholars to describe
the manmade famine in Ukraine as genocide back in 1982, addressing an
international forum on the Holocaust in Tel-Aviv.

“The aim of the Holodomor, as far as we understand it, was to annihilate
the Ukrainian nation as a political factor and public organism, to reduce
Ukrainians to the status described by Germans as naturvolk (or primeval
people – Auth.),” Kulchytsky noted.

Incidentally, this important work of Mace was first published in my
translation and 25 years later it came out in the Ukrainian historical
journal, #2, 2007 thanks to personal cooperation from Stanislav Kulchytsky.

Kulchytsky and Mace began to study the issue of Holodomor under
different circumstances and for different reasons. The Ukrainian scholar
operated on the orders from the authorities, something that totally
changed his life.

When in 1986, due to the potent campaign of the American diaspora, the
congressional and presidential commission to investigate the Famine in
Ukraine was set up, the Communist party nomenklatura in Kyiv viewed it
as a preparation for a large-scale subversive act in the run up to the 70th
anniversary of the Bolshevik takeover of Ukraine.

Kulchytsky recalls that, alongside with other researchers, he had been
summoned to the Communist party central committee and instructed to
work on the so-called anti-famine commission. “The commission, in fact,
produced negligible results,” he recalls, “but examination of archives
exposing the ruthless crime of the Stalin regime, had changed my views
in the course of one year.”

Based on his research, Kulchytsky prepared a report to the central
committee in the fall of 1987 which was shelved for a long time. “The
nomenklatura spurned my report, and my vision of the famine was just
my personal opinion.”

James Mace took up the issue of Holodomor in early 80s on the heels of
his doctoral dissertation on the national communism. At that time, Roman
Szporluk, Professor of History of Central and Eastern Europe at the
University of Michigan and Mace’s tutor, introduced him to Ukrainian
immigrants who had survived the Holodomor.

Mace, an American Indian, was so much emotionally overwhelmed by their
recounts that he felt the pains of Ukrainian as his own. “Your dead have
called me,” he said after some time.

Jointly with Robert Conquest, James Mace headed the Harvard project on
Holodomor. In 1986-1990, Mace was named executive director of the
congressional and presidential commission to investigate the Famine in
Ukraine.
GLASNOST AND THE RED SEAL
Stanislav Kulchytsky first heard about the work of the commission and Dr.
Mace in 1987 when the commission report was received by the Academy of
Sciences Institute of History via Ukraine’s foreign ministry. Both scholars
had known about each other since mid 80s and kept track of their activities
by their publications.

They met for the first time when Dr Mace came to Kyiv in early ’90s. Mace
wasted no time about coming to the Institute of History. He handed over to
Kulchytsky three volumes of evidence of famine survivors prepared for
publication by the US commission. The Ukrainian scholar published his
review of the documentary materials in “Under the Banner of Leninism”
journal, now Polityka i Chas.

Interestingly, Kulchytsky could lay his hands on the 1988 report published
by a state publishing house in Washington only in 1991.At the time, he was
in charge of writing off documents from the Communist party central
committee archive, and the US report was a kind of a reward for his dull
work. According to Kulchytsky, the commission report was received by
the central committee office on May 9, 1988.

As all the archives were closely guarded by the ministry of state security,
small wonder he couldn’t see it earlier. The situation has not changed
despite the declared policy of Glasnost and Perestroika.

Even Kulchytsky, a leading specialist in a state-run research institution,
who was invited to present his expert opinion in front of the central
committee political board members, had only restricted access to archives
with anti-Soviet documents, viewed as extra dangerous stuff by communist
ideologists.
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC
Stanislav Kulchytsky was eager to get acquainted with the unique 500-page
document, the bulk of which was written by James Mace. Especially with
the chapter titled “Post-Stalinist Soviet Historiography on Ukraine” which
reviewed the articles on the Holodomor published in early 1988 by the
diaspora-targeted News from Ukraine (its complete version came out in
print under the title “On the situation in the Ukrainian agriculture (1931-
1933)” in the Ukrainian-language issue of this paper – “Visti z Ukrayiny.”

James Mace described the publication as “an indicator of permissible
research boundaries for Soviet Ukrainian historians” in the aftermath of a
speech on Dec. 25, 1987 to mark the 70th anniversary of the Soviet power
in Ukraine made by the CPU first secretary Vladimir Shcherbitsky. In it,
Shcherbitsky for the first time broke the taboo set by Stalin and
recognized that there was a famine in Ukraine in 1933.

“The article in the News from Ukraine which was in fact a report to the
central committee, created wide repercussions, mostly in the negative vein,”
Kulchytsky recalls. ” The positive lied in the fact that I touched on the
topic [of Holodomor – AUR], the negative was that I justified the central
committee policy. That was what Mace spotted in the English translation
of the article, quoting it almost verbatim in the congress report.”

The article produced wide repercussions in the West. After its publication
by the Ukrainian Historical Journal Dr Mace analyzed it in detail in his
fundamental work “How Ukraine was allowed to remember” which was
published in the Ukrainian Quarterly, an American journal.

Mace called it the first scientific article by Kulchytsky about the Famine.
Mace gave Kulchytsky credit for concluding that the primary cause of the
Famine was the Moscow-ordered grain seizures rigorously controlled by
members of the so-called emergency commissions sent from Russia.

Analyzing another article published in Sept. 1988 by the News from Ukraine,
Mace stressed that its author was the first to shed light on the existence
of such commissions and, therefore, provided additional information for
Western researchers.

J. Mace emphasized an important evolution in Kulchytsky’s views as
mirrored in his article “1933: the tragedy of famine” published in #2-5
issues of The Literaturna Ukrayina in 1989. Same year, the article was
reprinted by the Znannya Publishers. It was Kulchytsky’s response to
a barrage of criticism leveled against his earlier publications.

In the opinion of the American researcher, it was crucial that Kulchytsky
had denounced as Stalin’s and his circle of party and state leaders’ gravest
crime the use of emergency commissions to forcefully seize grain, to punish
the villages for grain shortfalls as well as the blockade of Ukraine and
criminal and cowardly news blackout imposed by Stalin on the situation in
Ukraine’s rural areas.

“Kulchytsky presented the issue as a Soviet historian, his research was
equally political and scientific. As soon as his access to the archives
widened, he stopped being a Soviet historian and became just a historian.”
Mace commented.

James Mace praised Stanislav Kulchytsky on several counts.
[1] First, Kulchytsky sent a report to Shcherbitsky to pursuade him to
recognize the famine in Ukraine.
[2] Second, he authored research works, newspaper articles and radio
broadcasts which, although not absolutely frank, included all the facts
one was permitted to discuss at the time.
[3] Third, he made a breakthrough by publishing questions in The Silski
visti newspaper for the book “33: Famine. A book of people’s memory,”
written by Vladimir Manyak and his wife, journalist Lidia Kovalenko
.

More than once Mace took the side of Kulchytsky. He shielded him from
the attacks of blood-thirsty radicals, realizing that Kulchytsky’s goal was
to influence the party nomenklatura into acknowledging the tragedy of the
Holodomor. Dr. Mace called Stanislav Kulchytsky a self-sacrificing
Ukrainian scholar.
“FRANKLY SPEAKING, I WAS A DIE-HARD COMMUNIST
Kulchytsky never portrayed himself as a man without sins. Nor did he beat
his breast begging repentance for his past work.

Answering my question about his reaction to the fact that some of his
conclusions eventually proved false, he quietly replied, “I guess, my answer
would be unexpected. I study the history of Ukraine every day. And every
year I come up with discoveries, first for myself.

It is quite natural, because we have been brought up in line with a very
specific set of guidelines and stereotypes. There is no getting rid of them
overnight. My perception of the world is still changing. I haven’t become
an anticommunist.

I just perceive things as they were and I am often the first to present this
or that opinion. I do not care at all if my past views are different from my
present ones. It refers to my past evaluations of the famine given in my
publications in the 60s-70s.

At that time, there were many facts I didn’t know about. I must admit I was
a die-hard communist at the time. My reports (as an expert with a doctoral
degree I was requested to submit my evaluations to the central committee)
are stored in archives.

I also have them at home but I have no time to analyse them. When I got
wind that Roman Serbyn, a renowned scholar of Ukraine’s history and
professor of the Montreal university, set out to analyse the rethinking of
the national history in Ukraine, I handed over these materials to him.”

Getting back to his friend and colleague James Mace, Stanislav Kulchytsky
says, “He was not involved in tutoring me. He helped me to get rid of the
Soviet professor stuff in me and become just a professor.”

ON FEBRUARY 18,
JAMES MACE WOULD HAVE TURNED 55
Interestingly, in the booklet “Myth about the holodomor. Invention of spin
doctors. Kyiv, 2006″ disseminated by communist lawmakers in Verkhovna
Rada prior to debates on the Holodomor bill they lashed out at James Mace
and Robert Conquest, author of the best-selling “The Harvest of Sorrow,”
as well as at Stanislav Kulchytsky.

Mace is hated by Stalin’s ideological successors because he was the first to
tell the world the truth about the greatest tragedy in the history of the
Ukrainian nation. Stanislav Kulchytsky thus comments on the attitude to him,
“They hate me because I was one of them and then became a different person.
Anyway, I do not care.” -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/630/55526/)
————————————————————————————————
NOTE: Article translated from Russia to English exclusively for the
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) by Volodymyr Hrytsutenko, Lviv. The
English version can be republished only with permission from the
Action Ukraine Report (AUR), Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor.

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933]
========================================================
7. GENOCIDE IN 1932-1933: WANNABE WRITERS
AND HISTORICAL TRUTH

COMMENTARY: By Serhy Hrabovsky (in Ukrainian)
Maidan.org.ua, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, November 27, 2006
Holodomor History Journal: The Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933
Issue One, Article Seven, Washington, D.C., February 25, 2007

After reading the article by Ihor Lutsenko “Holodomor: ill-conceived
renaming” and participating in debates on the Ukrayinska Pravda forum I
keep thinking about huge numbers of self-proclaimed writers around us.

Let me quote just one excerpt which denies that the Holodomor was a
genocide: “The dispute about whether or not to identify the Holodomor and
genocide is definitely counterproductive. Millions of people died horrible
deaths.”

Isn’t it an excuse to view the event as no less cruel and worthy of
historical denunciation than the genocide perpetrated by the Nazi Germany,
the regime unrivaled for cruelty in the past history?

Isn’t this crime worth of being recognized as a separate precedent in
history, of becoming a kind of a yardstick by which lesser similar crimes
can be measured? Doesn’t it deserve a special name?

Therefore, the dispute must be stopped. Because it is fraught with a
dangerous trap – “It’s unimportant whether it is a genocide or not: the
crime does not become less horrible.”

On the other hand, attempts to score political points by reforming the
historical memory with the help of foreign-coined cliches will only
aggravate things.” This was met by forum participants with enthusiasm:
someone is telling the truth.

I am convinced that Ihor Lutsenko does not write his articles on economic
issues for Ukrayinska Pravda off the cuff or at random, as someone without
any professional training. On the contrary, he was supposed to base his
arguments on statistics and appropriate references.

Surprisingly, when forum debates focused on such sensitive issue as the
Holodomor, both Lutsenko and forum participants believed they were
entitled to present their weighty opinion to the effect that the Holodomor
in Ukraine is not a genocide and that there is no need to tailor the
Ukrainian tragedy to the crime of genocide.

Why not first get acquainted with a cornerstone document on this issue –
the UN Convention on prevention of and punishment for genocide of
Dec. 9, 1948.

So, don’t lets follow the example of wannabe writers and turn to the
document that underlies all national documents on genocide.

Article I of this Convention says that a genocide, regardless of whether it
occurs in peace or in war, is a crime that violates international laws and
entails preventive measures and punishment for its perpetration. How is
genocide defined by the Convention?

The answer is found in Article II. I quote: “A genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Therefore, the gravest crime committed by the Bolshevik regime in the
Ukrainian SSR in 1932-1933 was the deliberate infliction on practically all
peasants (most of them ethnic Ukrainians) of conditions of life calculated
to bring about, in whole or in part, physical destruction of peasantry as a
basis of the Ukrainian ethnos.

As proven by numerous evidence, the Holodomor was targeted not only
against ethnic Ukrainians but also against the Poles, Azov area Greeks,
Moldovans, Black Sea area Germans and Jews.

Hence, it shows that there existed the intent to annihilate, fully or in
part, the Ukrainian people (that is, residents of the former Ukrainian
Soviet Republic) as well as the specific ethnic group.

The direct connection between the manmade famine and anti-Ukrainian
policy is evidenced by a secret resolution of the Central Committee of
the USSR Communist party and the Council of People’s Commissars
“On grain procurement in Ukraine, Northern Caucasus and in the Western
region” which orders, in addition to grain confiscations, a stop to the
policy of Ukrainization.

It runs: “Instead of a correct Bolshevik-style national policy in some areas
of Ukraine, Ukrainization was implemented mechanically, without taking into
account the specific features of all regions, without a proper personnel
policy based on appointing Bolsheviks – which made it easy for bourgeois
nationalist elements, Petlura [a prominent Ukrainian nationalist of the late
10s-early 20s – AUR] supporters and other hostile elements to set up their
legal cover-ups, counterrevolutionary groups and organizations.”

Had there been no other documents, this one would be sufficient. Anyone
with even a slight knowledge of the Bolshevik parlance would understand
that the Communist party acknowledged that all things Ukrainian were, by
definition, anti-Bolshevik.

Now, let’s focus on Article III of the UN Convention. It says that such
acts are subject to punishment:

a) a genocide;
b) conspiracy to inflict a genocide;
c) direct and public incitation to inflict a genocide;
d) attempt to inflict a genocide;
e) complicity in a genocide.

Finally, other articles regulate the extradition and punishment mechanisms
for persons guilty of the abovementioned crimes. There is nothing about any
concrete motives for a genocide: the UN is not interested to know them – it
is the business of investigators and judges.

The Convention takes into account just the fact of the genocide. As we see,
a genocide is not limited to crematoriums and executions only – a terror by
starvation also belongs here.

Incidentally, one of the factors which led to the Holocaust was terror by
starvation, and a large number of Europe’s Jews in 1939-1945 died from
starvation in ghettos and camps.

Similarly, a large number of the Holodomor dead died from Cheka
operatives bullets or in prisons and concentration camps. The whole of
the Soviet Ukraine was turned into a huge ghetto from December 1932
through the summer of 1933, with the republic’s borders tightly sealed
off to prevent “uncontrolled traffic of humans.”

It seems likely that Ihor Lutsenko and numerous contributors on the
Ukrayinska Pravda forum merely confused two notions, a genocide and
the Holocaust.

The term “genocide” is closely related to the term “Holocaust,” as
maintained by the author of this term, a Polish lawyer and then political
emigrant to the United States Rafael Lemkin who based his concept of
genocide on the studies of the extermination of Armenians during WWI
and Jews during WWII.

Since that time, the annihilation of Roma by the Nazies, the extermination
of the Tutsi tribe in Rwanda in 1994 and ethnic cleansings in the Balkans
have been recognized as genocides.

It makes nonsensical the declarations by Ihor Lutsenko that Ukrainians are
trespassing on a totally different territory by trying to push for the
recognition of the Holodomor as genocide and, in so doing, by equating
“one horrible crime with the other already condemned, patented and branded
crime.”

Just read again carefully the title of the UN Convention – “On prevention
and punishment of the crime of genocide .” If a genocide had already been
“condemned, patented and branded”, the Convention would be needless.

Now, let’s consider another declaration by Ihor Lutsenko which is absolutely
nonsensical. He says the Nazi regime was unrivalled for its large-scale
cruelty. How about the Bolsheviks? Were they less cruel? Who had a larger
spin, Hitler or Stalin?

Judging by arithmetic standards (which is, in my opinion, an immoral thing
to do), the most cruel totalitarian regime in the 20th century was that of
Pol Pot in Cambodia. It annihilated a third(!) of Cambodians in three years
in the name of “a bright future.”

The problem is if the Holodomor can be compared with the Holocaust? It
cannot, the president of Israel believes. But we have the right to disagree
with him – if only for the reason that he knows very little about the
Holodomor.

About death from starvation of tens of thousands of Jews living in small
towns whose only sin was that they lived on the same land with Ukrainians
and that their youth became permeated in the years of Ukrainization with the
dangerous virus of freedom.

In a similar fashion, we can compare Bykivnya [scene of mass murders of
Ukrainian political opponents by the NKVD – AUR] and Babyn Yar [scene
of mass murders of Jews and many others by the Nazis near Kyiv – AUR].
These were the crimes of totalitarian socialists that reveal stunningly
similar organization.

However, there is one point for which those speaking about a multitude of
holodomors can be criticized, the point which escaped Ihor Lutsenko’s
attention. There was a basic difference between the 1921-1923 famine and
the Holodomor.

[1] In the first case, the 1921-1923 famine was based on the Lenin-Trotsky
carrot-and-stick policy of exposing the population to the horrors of the
famine to offer seemingly good things like the food tax [replacement of
confiscation from farmers of all extra food with a fixed tax payable in
food – AUR], the new economic policy, NEP, [allowing to start small
businesses – AUR], Ukrainization in exchange for loyalty and participation
in fanning the Communist revolution all over the world.

[2] In the second case, the Holodomor was a total terror, without any
carrot, deliberately aimed at destroying the bigger part of the nation.

When feeding stations were set up in kolhosps, the starving Ukrainian
peasants had to go there for food so they could work in the fields to
Stalin’s benefit. They had to sing praises of the leader of all peoples,
crushing their individual and national dignity.

There was only one Holodomor, with social terror by starvation or just
callous grain-procurement policy being quite different things.

Generally speaking, the efforts to deny the fact of the genocide in Ukraine
(no matter what the motives for the denial are) are quite remarkable from
the social and psychological points of view.

Such efforts actually confirm the fact of the genocide, since the rejection
of obvious tragic circumstances in the life of your nation stems either from
the ignorance of one’s own history or from the subconscious reluctance to
accept the historical truth and overcome its tragic consequences. -30-
———————————————————————————————
LINK: http://maidan.org.ua/static/mai/1164644902.html
———————————————————————————————-
NOTE: Article translated from Russia to English exclusively for the
Holodomor History Journal: The Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933 by
Volodymyr Hrytsutenko, Lviv. The English version can be republished
only with permission from the Holodomor History Journal Editor,
Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor.
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933]
========================================================
8. UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE OF 1932-1933:
LET’S HONOR THE VICTIMS

National Committee to Commemorate the 75th
Anniversary of the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933
New York, New York, January 2007

NEW YORK – In 2008, the global Ukrainian community will mark the 75th
anniversary of the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933, which took the lives
of 7-10 million Ukrainians.

Within the framework of preparing for this solemn 75th anniversary, the
major Ukrainian American community organizations have united to organize
the National Committee to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the
Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933.

The National Committee’s mission is to coordinate the ideas and activities
of all Ukrainians in the United States regarding the commemoration of the
1932-1933 Genocide anniversary.

It is comprised of numerous commissions, which will be responsible for
various aspects of the work necessary to organize an appropriate observance
of this important historical event.

The National Committee urges all local Ukrainian communities in the United
States to join this initiative by creating a local Committee to Commemorate
of the 75th Anniversary of the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933.

We have a common responsibility to the innocent victims of the terror
against the Ukrainian nation, whose fate has been hidden for decades. Only
by working together will we be able to conduct a nationwide commemoration
for all the world to witness.

We call upon the local communities to actively join our efforts and
together, as Ukrainians in the United States, properly commemorate the 75th
anniversary of the Ukrainian Genocide and honor its victims.

On behalf of the National Committee to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary
of the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933,

Michael Sawkiw, Jr.,
Chairman

Ihor Gawdiak
Vice-Chairman

Daria Pishko Komichak
English-language Secretary
=====================================================
National Committee to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the
Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933, 203 Second Avenue, New York,
NY 10003; (212) 228-6840 (tel), (212) 254-4721 (fax), unis@ucca.org
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933]

========================================================
9. GENOCIDE IN DARFUR: WE TALK. SHE SCREAMS.
WE WAIT. SHE STARVES. WE ACT. SHE SURVIVES

SaveDarfur Full-Page Advertisement
Washington Post, Washington, D.C. Wed, February 14, 2006

DIPLOMACY ALONE HAS FAILED IN DARFUR.
PRESIDENT BUSH MUST ACT NOW.

After four years, 400,000 deaths, never-ending denials and countless
false promises, President al-Bashir continues to pursue his genocide
in Darfur.

In the face of looming humanitarian collapse, Congress, international
relief organizations and even many in the President’s own
Administration agree: the time for talk has ended. Plan A has failed.

It’s time for President Bush and other world leaders [including
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko (AUR)] to move to Plan B by:

[1] Enforcing a full range of targeted sanctions, including
banning from our ports ships that have carried Sudan’s oil
[2] Preparing and overseeing the deployment of international
peacekeeping forces [including Ukraine]
[3] Implementing a no-fly zone
[4] Funding fully the U.S.’s share of peacekeeping and
humanitarian aid
[5] Producing a military contingency plan for a potential
collapse of security and humanitarian aid networks.

VISIT WWW.SAVEDARFUR.ORG
To Learn More And Send A Message to President Bush.
DEMAND ACTION NOW

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: Holodomor 1932-1933]
========================================================
A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service History Journal

Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE JOURNAL:
HISTORY OF THE HOLODOMOR 1932-1933

Induced Starvation, Death for Millions, Genocide
SPONSORS
Ukrainian Genocide Journal: History of the Holodomor 1932-1933
and the Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions.

1. DAAR FOUNDATION, Houston, Texas, Kyiv, Ukraine.
2. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA), Dr.
James Mace Holodomor Memorial Fund; Zenia Chernyk, Vera
M. Andryczyk, Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania
3. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC.,
4. UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE USA, Archbishop
Antony, George Krywolap, South Bound Brook, New Jersey,
5. WJ GROUP of Ag Companies, Kyiv, Ukraine, David Holpert, Chief
Financial Officer, Chicago, IL; http://www.wjgrain.com/en/links/index.html
6. 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.
7. ALEX AND HELEN WOSKOB, College Station, Pennsylvania
8. SWIFT FOUNDATION, San Luis Obispo, California
9. ESTRON CORPORATION, Grain Export Terminal Facility &
Oilseed Crushing Plant, Ilvichevsk, Ukraine
10. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 298 7275 in Kyiv,
kau@ukrnet.net
11. GENOCIDE GALLERY: www.ArtUkraine.com website,
12. THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Viktor Gekker, Executive
Director, Kyiv, Ukraine, Washington, D.C., Houston, TX.;
13. INTERNATIONAL HOLODOMOR COMMITTEE, 75th
Commemoration of the Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933 of the
Ukrainian World Congress (UWC), Stefan Romaniw, Australia, Chair.
——————————————————————————
TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to receive the “Ukrainian Genocide Journal: The
History of the Holodomor 1932-1933″ please send your name, country
of residence, and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net.
Information about your interest in the Holodomor is also appreciated.
If you do not wish to receive the Ukrainian Genocide Journal 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 & BULK MAIL BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM

If you do not receive a copy of the Journal it is probably because of a
SPAM OR BULK MAIL BLOCKER maintained by your server or by
yourself on your computer. Spam and bulk mail blockers are set in very
arbitrary and impersonal ways and block out e-mails because of words
found in many news stories or the way the subject line is organized or
the header or who know what.
Spam blockers also reject e-mails for very arbitrary and unusual reasons
we have not been able to identify. If you do not receive some issues
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 Ukrainian Genocide Journal.
======================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR –
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer, The Bleyzer Foundation
Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group;
———————————————————————————-
Member, Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers Holodomor 75th
Commemoration Committee 2007-2008;
Chair, Exhibitions Subcommittee, International Holodomor
Committee of the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC);
Member: National Committee to Commemorate the 75th
Anniversary of the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-1933 (USA);
Trustee: Holodomor Commemoration Exhibition and Education
Collection of Works by Ukrainian Artists;
Director, Dr. James Mace Holodomor Memorial Fund of the
Ukrainian Federation of America, Philadelphia.
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com; www.SigmaBleyzer.com
========================================================
return to index [Ukrainian Genocide Journal: History of the Holodomor 1932-1933]========================================================

Leave a comment

Filed under History of the Holodomor

AUR#820 Feb 23 Landmark Visit To U.S. By Orange Revolution Leader; Foreign Min Choice Rejected; Constitutional Court Human Factor

========================================================
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       

 
   THE ORANGE REVOLUTION IS NOT OVER
            “The Orange Revolution is not over. The movement that brought
              thousands of Ukrainians together to overthrow the post-Soviet
                   regime lives on. Much progress has been made to bring
                democracy to Ukraine, but much more remains to be done.”  
                                                 [Article One]
                        
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 820
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor, SigmaBleyzer
WASHINGTON, D.C., FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2007

              –——-  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.         ORANGE REVOLUTION LEADER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
               SCHEDULES LANDMARK VISIT TO UNITED STATES
                      Historic Movement to Create a Democratic Ukraine
                               ‘Lives On,’ Says Former Prime Minister
PR Newswire-US Newswire/, New York, NY, Thu, February 22, 2007

2.    YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO VISIT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK
              Ukrainian opposition leader makes political debut in the U.S.
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Taras Kuzio
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 4, Issue 37
The Jamestown Foundation, Thursday, February 22, 2007

3.          COMMUNITY MEETING WITH YULIA TYMOSHENKO 
                   March 1, 2007; 5:00 pm – 7:00 pm, Washington, DC

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #820, Article 3
Washington, D.C., Friday, November 23, 2007
4  NATIONAL PRESS CLUB TO HOST ‘MORNING NEWSMAKER’
           NEWS CONFERENCE WITH MP YULIA TYMOSHENKO, 
              LEADER OF UKRAINE’S MAIN OPPOSITION PARTY

PR Newswire/USNewswire, Washington, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

5.  YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIV IN NYC
                Talk will also be broadcast over the Internet via webcast.
Diana Howansky, Columbia University

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #820, Article 5
Washington, D.C., Friday, February 23, 2007
6.     UKRAINE PRESIDENTS’ CHOICE FOR FOREIGN MINISTER
                               REJECTED BY PARLIAMENT 
               Spoke Ukrainian instead of Russian at meeting in Russia
Associated Press (AP), Kiev, Ukraine, Thursday, February 22, 2007

7.        U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER VISITS MOSCOW
       U.S. has no plans to deploy missile-defense components in Ukraine.
Associated Press, Moscow, Russia, Thu, February 22, 2007

8.    U.S. AMBASSADOR HANDS CONDOLEEZZA RICE’S LETTER
         TO FORMER UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER TARASIUK
Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, February 22, 2007

9. AMB OF UKRAINE SHAMSHUR PRESENTS ORDER “FOR MERIT”
TO FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS TO UKRAINE MILLER & HERBST
Embassy of Ukraine to the United States, Washington

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #820, Article 9
Washington, D.C., Thursday, February 22, 2007

10.           OPPOSITION MOVEMENT HOLDS LARGE RALLY

                                    IN WESTERN UKRAINE
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 1720 gmt 22 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service – United Kingdom, Thursday, Feb 22, 2007

11. RUSSIA’S GAZMETALL & UKRAINE’S ISD CLOSE ON MERGER
        THAT COULD ESTABLISH LARGEST STEELMAKER IN FSU
By Catherine Belton in Moscow and Roman Olearchyk in Kiev
Financial Times, London, UK, Tue, February 20 2007

12YUSHCHENKO GIVES MEDAL TO DISGRACED PROSECUTOR:
                   MRS. TYMOSHENKO GOES TO WASHINGTON
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Tammy Lynch
THE ISCIP ANALYST, Volume XIII, Number 8,
Boston, Massachusetts, Thursday, 22 February 2007

13.     “THE HUMAN FACTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION COURT”
                    Writer profiles Ukraine’s Constitutional Court judges
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Svyatoslav Khomenko
Glavred website, Kiev, in Russian 0000 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thursday, Feb 22, 2007

14UKRAINE: DISPUTES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
                    POLITICAL REFORM AND EARLY ELECTION
POLITICAL REVIEW: Ukrainian News Agency
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 14, 2007

15.   UKRAINE: EXTERNAL POLICY AND INTERNAL INTERESTS
POLITICAL REVIEW: Ukrainian News Agency
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 14, 2007

16.     CHANGING RULES OF THE GAME AS AN INSTRUMENT
               FOR PROPERTY REDISTRIBUTING ON UKRAINE’S
                                  NATURAL GAS MARKET
               Plans for gaining control of Ukraine’s natural gas network
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Alla Yeremenko
Zerkalo Nedeli On The Web, Mirror-Weekly
International Social Political Weekly, No 3 (632)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, 27 January – 2 February 2007

17.       THANK YOU, GREAT HUMANIST — AND FORGIVE US
               James Mace’s birthday is approaching, we remember him
                & try to understand the phenomenon of his personality.
COMMENTARY: Viktor Kostiuk, Head of the Journalism Department
Zaporizhia National University, Zaporizhia, Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007
========================================================
1
 ORANGE REVOLUTION LEADER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
        SCHEDULES LANDMARK VISIT TO UNITED STATES
                  Historic Movement to Create a Democratic Ukraine
                           ‘Lives On,’ Says Former Prime Minister

PR Newswire-US Newswire/, New York, NY, Thu, February 22, 2007

KYIV, Ukraine – Former Ukrainian Prime Minister and Orange Revolution
leader Yulia Tymoshenko announced today that she will visit the United
States. Ms. Tymoshenko will travel to New York City and Washington,
DC between February 26th – March 2nd.

“As an unwavering supporter of freedom and democracy in Ukraine, I

look forward to returning to the birthplace of these historic principles,”
said Ms. Tymoshenko.

During her stay in the U.S., Ms. Tymoshenko will meet with government
officials, lawmakers, business leaders, policy experts and scholars to
discuss the important issues facing Ukraine.

She will address efforts to advance the country’s path to democratic reform
and be honored by policy organizations that support her passion and
commitment to Ukraine.

She will also speak at some of the most prominent American universities
and think-tanks on topics of Ukrainian/American interest.

Ms. Tymoshenko will address geopolitical issues critical to the
security of Ukraine, Europe and the United States. These issues include
Russia’s domineering role with its neighbors and more broadly in Europe,
especially as it relates to energy security. She will also speak to
Ukraine’s continuing path toward Euro-Atlantic integration.

She also intends to confront certain misperceptions regarding the
current state of democracy in Ukraine. “My sense is some in America
mistakenly believe the Orange Revolution is over, that democracy has

won – and that liberty and justice have secured their place in our country’s
history,” said Ms. Tymoshenko.

“The Orange Revolution is not over,” she continued. “The movement that
brought thousands of Ukrainians together to overthrow the post-Soviet
regime lives on. Much progress has been made to bring democracy to
Ukraine, but much more remains to be done.”

Democratic reform is taking root in Ukraine. The country had its first
free and fair elections just a few years ago, and rule of law is slowly
beginning to take shape. However, those who oppose Ukrainian

independence are actively working to undermine democratic progress
within the country.

For example, pro-democratic Members of Parliament and advocates of
reform in Ukraine have been beaten in the streets to silence their attempts to
bring about reform, and, in turn, intimidate others from doing the same.

“We will not be intimidated by those who want to turn the clock back on
Ukraine,” concluded Ms. Tymoshenko. “I hope my visit to the U.S. will help
our American friends better understand the current issues impacting Ukraine,
and I look forward to experiencing first-hand the great example of freedom
and democracy that is America.”                        -30-
————————————————————————————————
For more information, please contact TD International in Washington, D.C.
at (202) 872.9595. TD International is a FARA-registered representative of
Ms. Tymoshenko’s political party, BYuT.
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2.  YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO VISIT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK
           Ukrainian opposition leader makes political debut in the U.S.

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Taras Kuzio
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 4, Issue 37
The Jamestown Foundation, Thursday, February 22, 2007

Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of the eponymous political bloc and head of the
Ukrainian opposition, arrives in the United States on Sunday, February 25,
for a six-day visit that will take her to New York and Washington.

It is her first visit to the U.S. as a politician. Her visit follows that of
Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych on December 4-6, 2006, and President
Viktor Yushchenko in April 2005 (see EDM, April 4, 7, 2005).

Tymoshenko’s visit has been organized differently from that of Yanukovych.
His tour was highly choreographed by his Washington public relations firm in
such a way that he refrained from open discussions and refused to meet the
Ukrainian diaspora.

In this case, Tymoshenko’s team in the U.S. is taking a more open, inclusive
position, ensuring that diaspora are included and that both sides of the
aisle in American politics are being addressed in a more substantive manner.

In New York, Tymoshenko will speak at the Council on Foreign Relations,
Columbia University, and will be hosted at a luncheon by J.P. Morgan
investment bank.

In Washington, Tymoshenko is set to speak at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and the National Press Club, as well as holding
high-level meetings with the U.S. government and Congress.

She will meet with the diaspora in both locations and also will receive an
award at the annual Ronald Reagan banquet. Press interviews are scheduled
with the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Financial
Times, Time, and Newsweek.

The Tymoshenko bloc finished second during the 2006 parliamentary elections
with 22.2%, a three-fold increase over her 2002 results. Most national
democratic parties, which had aligned with business centrists to create Our
Ukraine in 2002, deserted Our Ukraine and Yushchenko in the 2006 elections.

Our Ukraine received 10% fewer votes in 2006 under Yushchenko than four
years earlier under president Leonid Kuchma. Political parties, such as
Reforms and Order, have moved from Our Ukraine to the Tymoshenko bloc.
Rukh, led by ousted foreign minister Borys Tarasyuk, is reportedly holding
negotiations to follow suit.

Two factors explain why a large proportion of orange voters defected to the
Tymoshenko bloc.

[1] First, shock at her dismissal as prime minister in September 2005 only
two weeks after Yushchenko had described the Tymoshenko government

as the “best in Europe.”

[2] Second, the bloc’s consistent opposition to any deals with the Party of
Regions. Tymoshenko stated unequivocally, “We believe that establishing a
coalition with the mafia is treason to Ukraine.”

This opposition reflects the bloc’s long-standing position during the four
years of anti-Kuchma protests that preceded the Orange Revolution when it
refused to negotiate with the Kuchma regime and called for his impeachment.

Yushchenko and Our Ukraine never supported impeachment proceedings

and defended Kuchma from allegations arising from the Mykola Melnychenko
tapes, on which the president is overheard ordering the kidnapping of journalist
Heorhiy Gongadze.

Just last week Prosecutor Mykhailo Potebenko, who presided over the
Gongadze cover up, was awarded a state medal for his “contribution to the
building of a law-based state.” Former Polish president Alexander
Kwasniewski, who brokered the December 2004 roundtable negotiations,

has confided that Kuchma was given immunity during the talks.

Yushchenko and Our Ukraine have always been noted for their flexibility. In
2002-2003 and in 2005-2006, they wavered between negotiating deals with the
authorities and Party of Regions or working with Tymoshenko.

After the 2006 elections, Our Ukraine’s political council head Roman
Bezsmertny negotiated an “orange coalition” of democratic forces, while Our
Ukraine leader and prime minister Yuriy Yekhanurov negotiated a grand
coalition with the Party of Regions. Both coalitions were sidelined by the
Anti-Crisis coalition.

Yushchenko’s preference for broad roundtables could be seen in the Orange
Revolution and in August 2006. The Tymoshenko bloc opposed both round-
tables, and they were the only parliamentary force that refused to sign the
Universal agreement.

Tymoshenko bloc deputy Hryhoriy Nemirya explained, “They saw no reason to
sign a document where Our Ukraine’s participation is window dressing for the
Party of Regions to run the government or be present at the birth of a
Molotov cocktail coalition that could explode in the hands of the people
trying to build it.”

The Tymoshenko bloc and the Pora party condemned the signing of the
Universal agreement as a “betrayal” of the Orange Revolution.

A February poll by the Razumkov Center gave Tymoshenko 18.9% popular
appeal with Yanukovych at 23.7%. Yushchenko’s support has plummeted to
11%. The Tymoshenko bloc and Party of Regions control 70% of deputies
in parliament and both forces are likely to gain more seats in the event of
elections ahead of 2011.

Based on polling trends in the last two years, Tymoshenko and Yanukovych
are likely to be the frontrunner candidates in the 2009 presidential
elections.

Tymoshenko has admitted, “And I want to say that from childhood I knew
that I would be leader of this country. And I am not even joking here.”

In February, Our Ukraine and the Tymoshenko bloc signed an agreement
establishing a united opposition of 204 deputies. Our Ukraine leader
Vyacheslav Kyrylenko said it would “counteract the revenge of
anti-democratic forces.”

Yushchenko, who has finally agreed to head Our Ukraine, has understood
that the Tymoshenko bloc is the key to preventing the Yanukovych government
from infringing on the democratic gains of the Orange Revolution. The New
York Times magazine  (January 1, 2006) wrote, “Tymoshenko is a compelling
mixture of ruthless calculation, iron will, and sincere passion.”

Tymoshenko and her political bloc face four key issues in the

coming months.

[1] First, the opposition alliance is opposed by the business wing of Our
Ukraine that harbors what has been described as a “Yuliaphobia.”

[2] Second, establishing a more clearly defined ideological profile for the
Tymoshenko bloc. Currently, “The charisma of Tymoshenko the leader will
act as the bloc’s ideology and its program.” The Tymoshenko bloc unites the
liberal-center-left ground and the Fatherland Party has a social democratic
profile giving it the ability to absorb disillusioned Socialist voters.

[3] Third, in the 2006 elections the Tymoshenko bloc finished second place
in six of eastern and southern Ukraine’s ten regions. This strength could
grow and challenge the Party of Regions outside its strongholds of Donetsk
and the Crimea.

[4] Fourth, balancing between being head of the opposition and the 2009
Orange front-runner presidential candidate.

Tymoshenko’s visit to the United States follows her two successful visits to
Western Europe in 2005 as prime minister and last year as opposition leader.

Her U.S. visit next week is set to change U.S. perceptions of Ukraine’s
politics and reinforce her image as playing a central role in defending the
democratic gains of the Orange Revolution.                -30-
———————————————————————————————–
(Ukrayinska pravda, April 17, 2006, February 2; obozrevatel.com, January
10; glavred.info, December 9, 2005; (president.gov.ua/documents/5745.html,
Kyiv Post, August 11, 2006)
———————————————————————————————–
The Jamestown Foundation, http://www.jamestown.org
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. COMMUNITY MEETING WITH YULIA TYMOSHENKO
                  March 1, 2007; 5:00 pm – 7:00 pm, Washington, DC

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #820, Article 3
Washington, D.C., Friday, November 23, 2007
 
WASHINGTON – The Washington Group (TWG), The Ukrainian
American Coordinating Council (UACC), The Ukrainian Congress
Committee of America (UCCA) and the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation
(USUF), cordially invite you to a Community Meeting with Yulia
Tymoshenko.

The event will include a presentation by Ms. Tymoshenko, questions
from the audience, and responses to the issues raised.

Location: U.S. House of Representatives
Rayburn House Office Building
South Capitol and Independence Avenues, SW
Room B339-B340
Washington, DC

RSVP by 5:00 pm on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 via e- mail at
unis@ucca.org or BDFDirector@thewashingtongroup.org.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
4. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB TO HOST ‘MORNING NEWSMAKER’
         NEWS CONFERENCE WITH MP YULIA TYMOSHENKO, 
            LEADER OF UKRAINE’S MAIN OPPOSITION PARTY

PR Newswire/USNewswire, Washington, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

WASHINGTON – The following advisory was issued today by the
National Press Club:

National Press Club “MORNING NEWSMAKER”
News Conference, Friday, March 2, 2007, 9 a.m.
National Press Club (Lisagor Room)

Member of the Parliament of Ukraine and Leader of Ukraine’s Main
Opposition Party, The Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT), Ms. Julia
Tymoshenko will discuss “Ukraine and European energy security, the
state of Ukrainian democracy, transitional democracies of central
Europe, and Ukrainian-Russian relations and their interplay with U.S.
foreign policy.” 

 
Contacts: National Press Club: Peter Hickman, 301/530-1210
(H&O/T&F), 202/662-7540, pjhickman@hotmail.com.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5. YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIV IN NYC
              Talk will also be broadcast over the Internet via webcast.

Diana Howansky, Columbia University

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #820, Article 5
Washington, D.C., Friday, February 23, 2007
                                  YULIA TYMOSHENKO

WHAT:     Speech by Ukrainian MP Yulia Tymoshenko
WHEN:     Monday, February 26 from 6:00-7:00 pm
WHERE:   Rotunda of Low Memorial Library, 535 W. 116th St.,
                 Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

Yulia Tymoshenko, head of the All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland party and
the Yulia Tymoshenko Electoral Bloc, played a central role in Ukraine’s
Orange Revolution in 2004.

She served as Prime Minister of Ukraine from January-September 2005,
leading Forbes magazine to name her the 3rd of the 100 Most Powerful
Women in the World during this period.

Reservations are required, as seating will be limited to 450 individuals
and will be filled the day of the talk on a first-come/first-served
basis.

To RSVP, please call 212-854-9016 or email
yulia_rsvp@harrimaninstitute.org and provide your name and phone
number.

This talk, which will be in Ukrainian with simultaneous translation into
English, is free and open to the public.

                     EVENT WILL BE WEBCAST LIVE
For those unable to attend the talk by Yulia Tymoshenko please note
that the event will be webcast live from 6:00-7:00 pm.

To access the webcast links, please go to the Harriman Institute’s
homepage at www.harrimaninstitute.org. (Links will be provided for

the talk in Ukrainian, as well as for the translation into English.) The
links will be active the day of the event.

Additionally, the webcast will be available on The Columbia Cable TV
system, CTV, channel 74. The webcast will also be archived for future
reference.                                            -30-
———————————————————————————————
NOTE: Diana Howansky, Columbia University, dhh2@columbia.edu
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.  UKRAINE PRESIDENTS’ CHOICE FOR FOREIGN MINISTER
                              REJECTED BY PARLIAMENT 
           Spoke Ukrainian instead of Russian at meeting in Russia

Associated Press (AP), Kiev, Ukraine, Thursday, February 22, 2007

KIEV – The Ukrainian parliament Thursday rejected President Viktor
Yushchenko’s choice to be foreign minister, dealing another major blow to
his efforts to maintain control over the country’s foreign policy.

Career diplomat Volodymyr Ohryzko, nominated by Yushchenko to replace

the ousted Borys Tarasyuk, won only 196 votes, far short of the 226 needed
for approval.

He failed to win the support of the parliamentary majority coalition, whose
members accused him of being hostile to Russia and unprofessional.

Lawmakers also rejected Yushchenko’s choice of Viktor Korol as Security
Service chief, in a 190-4 vote.

Yushchenko, who won the presidency after the 2004 Orange Revolution, has
sought to pull Ukraine out of Russia’s shadow and win membership for the
country of 47 million people in the European Union and NATO.

But the president has fallen far short of his grand ambitions, and last year
he saw his party humbled by the more Russian-leaning party of his political
rival, Viktor Yanukovych, in parliamentary elections.

When Yanukovych put together a majority coalition, Yushchenko agreed to
nominate his one-time enemy to be prime minister, and the two now govern
jointly in what has become a bruising battle for power with the president on
the losing end.

Yanukovych forced out Yushchenko’s former foreign minister, Tarasyuk, last
month after a monthslong dispute that resulted in the government temporarily
cutting off funding to the Foreign Ministry. Under the constitution, the
president gets to nominate the foreign minister, but his choice requires
parliamentary approval.

Yushchenko tapped Ohryzko, who had served as Tarasyuk’s deputy, to\

replace him. But the parliamentary majority immediately said it was
disappointed with the choice.

Ohryzko came under particular criticism for his decision to speak
Ukrainian – and have it translated into Russian – during a conference that
included Russian and Ukrainian politicians and experts. Some attendees
complained that it slowed down the talks and Ohryzko, who is fluent in
Russian, should have spoken Russian.

“He showed a total absence of professionalism. He showed that he is not a
diplomat, but a person with an inferiority complex,” Yanukovych’s ally Yuriy
Bondarev said.

Yushchenko’s party and the bloc of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko
supported Ohryzko, arguing that he was a career diplomat who had risen
through the ranks of the Foreign Ministry.

Former Foreign Minister Hennadiy Udovenko, a member of Yushchenko’s

party, said that Ohryzko could be counted on to stick up for Ukraine.

“Today he thinks about the national interests of Kiev, of Ukraine but not
about the national interests of Moscow. He doesn’t grovel at the feet of our
big neighbor,” Udovenko said, referring to Russia.

Yushchenko’s office said it had no immediate comment on the rejection of the
foreign minister candidate. Under Ukrainian law, Yushchenko can propose
Ohryzko again.                                -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7.  U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER VISITS MOSCOW
       U.S. has no plans to deploy missile-defense components in Ukraine.

Associated Press, Moscow, Russia, Thu, February 22, 2007

MOSCOW — The U.S. national security adviser sought Thursday to ease

Russian concerns about American intentions, saying he did not consider a fiery
speech by President Vladimir Putin to have been a sign of confrontation, and
reiterating reassurances about U.S. missile defense plans.

Washington and Moscow have been trading heated criticism over issues
including U.S. plans to deploy elements of a national missile defense system
in former Soviet satellites in Europe.

At a security conference this month in Germany, Mr. Putin said the U.S.

“has overstepped its national borders in every way” and is fostering a
global arms race — an unusually clear, comprehensive account of Kremlin
complaints about U.S. conduct.

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley played down speculation

that the remarks heralded a return to Cold War-style confrontation.

“We do not read President Putin’s comments in any way … as an invitation
to confrontation,” the Interfax news agency quoted Mr. Hadley as telling
Russian reporters during his visit to Moscow, which included a meeting with
Mr. Putin.

U.S. and other Western journalists were not invited to be present when he
made the remarks, which suggests they were aimed at a Russian audience.

Mr. Hadley repeated assurances that planned missile defense sites in Poland
and the Czech Republic would be aimed at countering a potential threat from
Iran, and constituted no threat to Russia. “It is not directed in any way
against Russia,” Interfax quoted him as saying.

According to Interfax, he also indicated the U.S. has no plans to deploy
missile-defense components in Ukraine, which shares a long border with
Russia.

Mr. Putin and other Russian officials have rejected the assurance that the
system would be meant to combat an Iranian threat.

At a meeting between Mr. Hadley and his Russian counterpart, both men
acknowledged disagreements but pledged to work closely together to

overcome them and reach common goals.

Russian Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov said the two countries

should cooperate closely in areas such as fighting international terrorism
and striving for global peace.

“This does not mean that our relations are cloudless — there are
disagreements, there are misunderstandings, including on security matters.
That is why it is very important that the dialogue that we have continues to
develop at all levels and allows us to deal with those issues so that they
don’t damage bilateral relations,” Mr. Ivanov said after the Kremlin
meeting.

Mr. Hadley also met with Sergei Ivanov and Dmitry Medvedev, two first
vice-premiers who are seen as the leading potential candidates to succeed
Putin in 2008.

Mr. Hadley, who is visiting several European capitals this week amid a
flurry of international diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program, the
persistent Mideast unrest and other issues, also said Moscow and Washington
share goals and should continue to seek common ground when they disagree.

“Where we have disagreements we’ve been able to talk candidly about them
and work together constructively,” he said.                 -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8.   U.S. AMBASSADOR HANDS CONDOLEEZZA RICE’S LETTER
       TO FORMER UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER TARASIUK

Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, February 22, 2007

KYIV – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor has met with Ukraine’s
former Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk to hand over a letter from U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to the press service of the
Narodny Rukh Ukrainy Party.

Rice thanked Tarasiuk in the letter for the contribution he made as
Ukraine’s foreign minister
.

She said his activities were invaluable, as Tarasiuk facilitated Ukraine’s
foreign policy course toward integration in the European Union and NATO
during momentous political events in Ukraine. Rice wished Tarasiuk success
in his further activities.                                -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
9. AMB OF UKRAINE SHAMSHUR PRESENTS ORDER “FOR MERIT”
TO FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS TO UKRAINE MILLER & HERBST

Embassy of Ukraine to the United States, Washington

Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #820, Article 9
Washington, D.C., Thursday, February 22, 2007

WASHINGTON – The Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States, Oleh

Shamshur, presented the high Ukrainian Orders “For Merit” to Ambassador
William Miller and to Ambassador John Herbst on February 22 at the U.S.
Department of State.

This award honors the personal contribution of Ambassador Miller and
Ambassador Herbst to strengthening relations between Ukraine and the

United States of America, as well as their outstanding diplomatic
performance while they were representing their country in Ukraine.

U.S. Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns and other State Department
dignitaries attended the ceremony.

In his remarks Dr. Shamshur pointed out the long standing commitment

of Ambassador Miller to Ukraine even after he officially ended his
Ambassadorial duties in Kyiv.

Amb. Miller continues to take an active part in further development of 
U.S.-Ukrainian relations serving as a co-chair for the Coalition for a

Secure and Democratic Ukraine (CSDU).

The Ukrainian Ambassador also praised highly Ambassador Herbst who
represented the U.S. Administration at the time of the Orange Revolution –

a truly historic event that took such an impressively peaceful and
democratic turn.

Oleh Shamshur remarked that today’s Ukraine continues its headway

towards Euro-Atlantic integration, transforming itself into a modern
European state and building upon the mutual benefits of the Ukraine-
U.S. strategic partnership.                                 -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10.  OPPOSITION MOVEMENT HOLDS LARGE RALLY
                               IN WESTERN UKRAINE

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 1720 gmt 22 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service – United Kingdom, Thursday, Feb 22, 2007

LUTSK, Approximately 7,000 supporters of the People’s Self-Defence

public movement held a rally in support of the movement in Lutsk.

The rally started at about 1700 [local time] with a concert by Ukrainian
singers, which was followed by speeches by the People’s Self-Defence
leaders, Taras Stetskiv and [former Interior Minister] Yuriy Lutsenko. In
their speeches, Stetskiv and Lutsenko called on the public to unite efforts
in establishing control over the authorities.

Lutsenko said this is needed to force elected politicians to deliver on
their promises. The demonstrators held flags with symbols of People’s
Self-Defence, the Pora Party, the Sobor party and the Our Ukraine bloc,

and Ukrainian national flags.

At the end of the speech, Lutsenko handed a large People’s Self-Defence flag
to demonstrators, after which the Ukrainian national anthem was played. Also
on Thursday [22 February] Lutsenko met students of the State Lutsk
University.                                          -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

11. RUSSIA’S GAZMETALL & UKRAINE’S ISD CLOSE ON MERGER
        THAT COULD ESTABLISH LARGEST STEELMAKER IN FSU

By Catherine Belton in Moscow and Roman Olearchyk in Kiev
Financial Times, London, UK, Tue, February 20 2007

A leading Russian ore producer and a Ukrainian industrial group have inked a
preliminary merger agreement in a deal that could establish the largest
steelmaker in the former Soviet Union.

The deal would merge Gazmetall, controlled by Russian billionaire Alisher
Usmanov and which produces about 6m tonnes of steel annually, with Kiev’s
Industrial Union of Donbass, known as ISD Group, which produces some 9m
tonnes of steel a year.

Mr Usmanov told the Financial Times that both groups had yesterday signed

an agreement to start valuations of the two group’s assets, a process he said
would take about three months.

The proposed merger follows a drive for consolidation in the steel industry.
Russia and Ukraine are ranked among the world’s largest steel producing
countries and home to vast coal and ore reserves.

“We have long been looking to consolidate assets within [the region]. This
will reduce the cost of production,” Mr Usmanov said.

Mr Usmanov said he wanted to offer shares in the new company to investors
through an initial public offering on the London Stock Exchange within a
year. Analysts said the combined company could be worth anywhere between
$10bn and $20bn. Neither company has transparent financial accounts.

Mr Usmanov said a merged company would produce about 20m tonnes of

steel annually within two years, overtaking the regional number one spot from
Severstal, which produced 17.6m tonnes of crude steel worldwide last year,
of which 12m was produced in the CIS.

ISD does not have its own sources of ore. Ukraine’s ore deposits are
controlled by competing Ukrainian and Russian steel groups. Gazmetall
controls 40 per cent of Russia’s iron ore output.

Gazmetall also owns two leading Russian ore producers – Lebedinsky and
Mikhalovsky Ore. ISD owns two mills in Ukraine and also in recent years
acquired Hungary’s Dunaferr and Poland’s Huta Czestochowa mills.

Vitaliy Gayduk, Ukraine’s national security and defence council chief, is
one of the principle shareholders of ISD. Sergey Taruta, board chairman, is
the other main shareholder. ISD could not be reached for comment.

Mr Usmanov said Mr Taruta would likely be appointed president of the merged
company, while Gazmetall would appoint the company’s board chairman.

Mr Usmanov said Gazmetall remained open to further consolidation, possibly
with Severstal or Evraz, the London-listed Russian steel group. “Whoever
best suits us will be our first partner,” said Mr Usmanov, who also heads
Gazprominvestholding, the investment arm of Russian gas giant Gazprom.

————————————————————————————————-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a40e0e1e-c088-11db-995a-000b5df10621.html
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12. YUSHCHENKO GIVES MEDAL TO DISGRACED PROSECUTOR:
                 MRS. TYMOSHENKO GOES TO WASHINGTON

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Tammy Lynch
THE ISCIP ANALYST, Volume XIII, Number 8,
Boston, Massachusetts, Thursday, 22 February 2007

YUSHCHENKO AWARDS MEDAL TO DISGRACED PROSECUTOR
With so many “big” news stories in Ukraine—energy issues, the fight for
political control, questions over foreign policy—it’s easy to miss the
smaller items.  But sometimes, these smaller items send very large signals.

For example, on 16 February, President Viktor Yushchenko awarded former
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Mykhailo Potebenko the Order of (Kyivan)

Prince Yaroslav the Wise.

Yaroslav introduced the first book of laws in what was then Kyivan Rus’
during the 11th century and is credited with expanding both the principality’s
territory and culture.  The medal was created in 1996 for “distinguished
service to the state and people of Ukraine,” and it recognizes, among other
things, “wisdom” and “honor.” (1)

According to President Yushchenko’s decree, Potebenko was awarded the

medal “for his great personal contribution to the creation of a law abiding state,
the strengthening of legality and law and order, and his long-term work on
the occasion of his 70th birthday.” (2)

The decree probably would have been missed by most Ukraine-watchers in the
West were it not for long-time Ukraine analyst Taras Kuzio, who found the
three-line decree and publicized it on his blog. (3)   This is fortunate,
since the small decree speaks volumes about President Viktor Yushchenko.

Kuzio termed the awarding of this medal to Potebenko “shameful,” and it is
possible that others may find this an understatement.

Potebenko became well-known internationally in 2001 when he led two major
high-profile investigations as Ukraine’s Prosecutor-General – the
examination of the murder of journalist Georgy Gongadze and the prosecution
of Yulia Tymoshenko.

The Prosecutor-General’s “investigation” of the Gongadze case was roundly
criticized by just about every international organization looking into the
matter, leading eventually to calls from the Council of Europe, Reporters
Without Borders and then US Ambassador Carlos Pasqual for him to resign.

Potebenko was accused of stymieing the investigation in order to protect
state officials, including President Leonid Kuchma, who appeared to be
implicated in Gongadze’s death.

In 2005, after months of evidence collection, the European Court of Human
Rights satisfied a number of complaints from Georgiy’s widow, Myroslava
Gongadze, including her charge of a “failure to investigate the case.”

The court found that the prosecutor’s office had ignored repeated requests
for assistance from Georgiy Gongadze in the weeks before his death, when he
reported being followed by state law enforcement officials.  “The response
of the GPO was not only formalistic,” the court wrote, “but also blatantly
negligent.”

Moreover, following the recovery of Gongadze’s headless body, the court
said, “The State authorities were more preoccupied with proving the lack of
involvement of high-level State officials in the case than discovering the
truth about the circumstances of the disappearance and death of the
applicant’s husband.” (4)

Mikhailo Potebenko was the Prosecutor General during these events.  Not only
did he apparently conduct little investigation, but he denied that the body
recovered was Gongadze’s in spite of numerous DNA tests to the contrary and
then refused to accept as evidence secretly recorded tapes of President
Kuchma implicating him at least in Gongadze’s disappearance, and probably
his murder.

The European Court of Human Rights wrote, “The fact that the alleged
offenders, two of them active police officers, were identified and charged
with the kidnap and murder of the journalist just a few days after the
change in the country’s leadership, raised serious doubts as to the genuine
wish of the authorities under the previous government to investigate the
case thoroughly.” (5)

As Potebenko and Kuchma were being criticized internationally, and facing
increasing protests domestically, the Prosecutor-General announced that he
was investigating then Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko for a variety
of offenses, including embezzlement during her time as head of the gas
intermediary Unified Energy Systems.

Although Tymoshenko sat in government, her refusal to drop a number of
anti-corruption measures that affected the president’s supporters had led to
considerable tension between the two.

Eventually, she was fired, arrested, and held in prison for 40 days before
being released by a court for lack of probable cause.  Yushchenko, who was
prime minister at the time, called the arrest “political persecution.”  (6)
Persecution, then, by the same Potebenko recently awarded a medal by
Yushchenko.

Despite years of attempts, Potebenko (and his successors) were never able to
prove in court any of their charges against Tymoshenko, who then perhaps had
the best revenge by being named the first prime minister after the Orange
Revolution.

At the very least, Potebenko’s work on Tymoshenko’s case was shoddy and
unprofessional.  At the worst, it was designed to do nothing more than to
persecute an opponent of the president.  Or perhaps it was designed simply
to take the attention away from the Gongadze case, which was creating such
problems for him, Kuchma and the country.

This is the man, then, to whom President Yushchenko last week awarded a
medal for “service to the country,” “wisdom,” and “honor.”

In 2004, during his presidential campaign and the Orange Revolution,
Yushchenko vowed to prosecute those who had ordered the murder of

Gongadze. It was, he said, “a matter of honor.” (7)  The organizers have not
been arrested or prosecuted, however, and at this point—seven years after the
murder and over two years after Yushchenko took office—it is unlikely that
they ever will be.

In fact, many observers and politicians have suggested that Yushchenko
struck a deal with Kuchma during the revolution – Yushchenko would ensure
Kuchma’s freedom and Kuchma would not stand in the way of the rerun
presidential election that brought Yushchenko to power.

While no one can ever truly know why the organizers of the Gongadze murder
have not been arrested, the possibility of a compromise agreement fits well
with Yushchenko’s nature of deliberation and conciliation.

Repeatedly throughout his political career, Yushchenko has chosen compromise
over confrontation.  In the last year, Yushchenko blessed the return of his
defeated presidential opponent Viktor Yanukovych to the premiership, and
then gave in to Yanukovych’s pressure to replace Foreign Minister Boris
Tarasyuk instead of fighting for his longtime ally.

And now, the President has done his best to rehabilitate the career of
Mykhailo Potebenko, a man Yushchenko himself once condemned, and a

man who remains disgraced internationally.

One wonders what Yaroslav the Wise would have thought.

            MRS. TYMOSHENKO GOES TO WASHINGTON
On 26 February, Ukraine’s parliamentary opposition leader and former Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko arrives in the US for a five day visit that will
include stops in New York City and Washington DC.

The majority of her time will be spent in Washington, wooing US officials,
political leaders, journalists and business representatives.  The visit
comes just two months after a similar jaunt by Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovych, whose inability to provide firm answers to questions failed to
impress officials.

Tymoshenko’s time in the US capital is expected to be capped off by meetings
with both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice.  Cheney’s decision to see Tymoshenko is somewhat of a coup, given the
Vice President’s usual hesitance to meet politicians not holding state
positions.

The planned meetings demonstrate Washington’s keen interest in Ukraine, and
the Bush administration’s desire to continue to support a country viewed by
many as having real potential as an example of a successful transition from
(semi) authoritarianism to democracy.

The transition has not gone nearly as smoothly as the US had hoped.
Although defeated by Yushchenko in the presidential election, Yanukovych
faired well in last year’s parliamentary elections, used division among the
“democrats” in parliament to return to his previous position of Prime
Minister, and then used recent constitutional amendments to consolidate his
power at the expense of Yushchenko.

The Prime Minister’s most recent tenure has included an imposition of grain
export quotas in order to control prices manually—resulting in storage bins
of rotting grain—agreements with petrol companies to control prices outside
of market mechanisms, and a suggestion that the country was negotiating with
Russia to “merge” their pipeline system.

However, unlike every other country in the former Soviet Union (excluding
the Baltics), Ukraine can boast of a real, strong, independent opposition.

According to Tymoshenko’s top foreign policy advisor and the deputy head of
her bloc, Hryhoriy Nemyria, while in Washington, Ukraine’s opposition leader
will “speak to both sides on Capitol Hill,” in order to “take away some
positive lessons and see how they may be applied to ongoing reform efforts
in Ukraine.” (9)

In addition, Tymoshenko suggests that one of the primary messages of her
meetings will be to underscore the “deep transition” that her country is now
undergoing, and the need for support and understanding as it does so. (10)
————————————————————————————————–

                                   SOURCE NOTES
(1) The website of The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine via
http://www.mil.gov.ua.
(2) Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 116/2007, 16 Feb 07 via
http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/5745.html (in Ukrainian, not
available in English).
(3) “A Shameful Decision,” Taras Kuzio Official Blog, 19 Feb 07,
04:04 PM EST via http://blog.taraskuzio.net/. Originally published in
Ukrainian at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/forum/.
(4)  “European Court of Human Rights judgment,” Institute of Mass
Information, 9 Nov 05 via
http://eng.imi.org.ua/index.php?id=read&n=190&cy=2005&m=thm.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Eastern Economist Daily, 17 Apr 01 and ITAR-TASS, 20 Apr 01
via Lexis-Nexis.
(7) UNIAN news agency, 1130 GMT, 23 Feb 05 via Lexis-Nexis.
(8) Author interview with Tymoshenko, 23 Dec 06, Kyiv.
(9) Email correspondence with Hryhoriy Nemyria, 18 Feb 07.
(10) Author interview with Tymoshenko, 23 Dec 06, Kyiv. 
———————————————————————————————-
Contact Tammy Lynch (tammymlynch@hotmail.com)
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
         Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13. “THE HUMAN FACTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION COURT”
                     Writer profiles Ukraine’s Constitutional Court judges

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Svyatoslav Khomenko
Glavred website, Kiev, in Russian 0000 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Thursday, Feb 22, 2007

The Ukrainian Constitutional Court faces “massive” tasks, ranging from the
law on the cabinet to the future of political reform, and the way it tackles
them will be closely watched by politicians and the public, a Ukrainian
website has reported.

The author takes a close look at the twelve judges who comprise the court,
their backgrounds and their individual qualities and ponders what will
influence them in their decision-making.

Unlike the previous convocation, which was made up largely of legal
professionals, the new composition includes many with close political
connections, the website says.

The following is the text of the report by Svyatoslav Khomenko entitled “The
human factor of the Constitutional Court”, published on the Glavred website
on 19 February; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

The destiny of the law on the cabinet, the possibility of the dissolution of
parliament and the cancellation of political reform – answers to all these
high-profile questions which have been put before the Constitutional Court
will be based not on ordinary and logical legal considerations, but on
political expediency.

This is the conclusion one might reach when analysing the people who make up
Ukraine’s sole body of constitutional jurisdiction.
                      “MASSIVE” TASKS FACING COURT
And, indeed, the tasks facing the court are truly on a massive scale. The
CCU [Constitutional Court of Ukraine] must endorse or overturn [President]
Viktor Yushchenko’s statements about the unconstitutional nature of the
controversial law on the cabinet. The pro-presidential Our Ukraine party is
disputing the introduction of an instruction for MPs of local councils.

[Opposition bloc leader] Yuliya Tymoshenko, on the other hand, wants it
extended to MPs of the Supreme Council [parliament]. And it in turn promises
that the CCU will very soon be giving its findings regarding the legitimacy
of the [Viktor] Yanukovych government and give Yushchenko the opportunity

of announcing early parliamentary elections.

In addition, the Constitutional Court is looking at whether MPs were right
to prevent it from examining the constitutionality of changes to the Basic
Law which have already come into force (and it is expected that this
decision could be the first for the court in its new composition).

And if it transpires that the UCC does have the right to look at the
validity of the existing constitution, then the most intriguing issue in
Ukraine’s political life – the possibility of the cancellation of political
reform – will be on everyone’s lips.

It is indicative that the decisions of the CCU on these matters will be more
of a political than a technical nature. They will provide a new political
reality and create a code of rules of the game which the most important
players in the country’s political scene will have to abide by.

In these circumstances the role of the new members of this sole body of
constitutional jurisdiction in Ukraine will increase considerably. And it
has to be said that there are things we should be concerned about.

For whereas previously it was made up of faceless professionals who were
unknown to the public at large, today it includes at least several people
who have their own rich political history and fairly close connections with
a number of leading Ukrainian politicians.

Whereas the previous composition of the Constitutional Court included eight
professors, two academicians, six corresponding members of the academy of
juridical sciences, in the CCU today there is only one professor and not all
of them have a degree in legal sciences.
               SWEARING-IN OF JUDGES A “SOAP OPERA”
The problems the present Constitutional Court has had to contend with at the
beginning tend to indicate that it will have a lot of difficult and,
possibly, controversial work ahead of it.

The swearing-in of the CCU judges, which previously was considered a mere
formality, has been turned by the MPs who feared that the court would revoke
political reform into a soap opera and a subject of political bargaining.

The judges were finally sworn in only after President Viktor Yushchenko and
Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych found a common language and signed a
declaration of national unity.

However, if the CCU judges had been appointed as a result of political
accords, then one may well surmise that their job will amount to
implementing these same political agreements.

And if any law comes up for examination by the CCU, then the outcome

of the court’s decision will depend not on whether this law conforms to the
constitution, but which political forces with representations in the
Constitutional Court this law benefits and which it does not.

Let us try to assume which political players can expect members of the CCU
to pay special attention to their wishes, and which of the “constitutional
judges” of the current convocation could in one way or another be
responsible for requests put by the country’s leading politicians.

The most senior of the UCC judges appointed by the Supreme Council is Pavlo
Tkachuk, who has been in this post since September 2002. Tkachuk was
“summoned” to the Constitutional Court from his job as assistant-consultant
to the MP Oleksandr Moroz.

In addition, evidence of his closeness to the Socialists is that during the
parliamentary elections in March the same year he stood for the Supreme
Council on the SPU [Ukrainian Socialist Party] list, but his fairly high
29th position on this list proved to be not enough to convert it into a
deputy’s mandate.

The remaining five judges were appointed to their posts in August of last
year. At the same time, it did not pass by without controversy.

Shortly before parliament had to decide on its candidates for judges, the
speaker Oleksandr Moroz said that it would be democratic if each of the
parliamentary factions had the opportunity to “put forward” their “own” man
to the CCU. But things did not happen as expected and parliament “went for”
Anzhela Stryzhevska, who was proposed by the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc.

It is possible that the Party of Regions was simply unable to forgive her
for the decision she reached on the level of restraint against [Party of
Regions MP] Borys Kolesnykov when she was judge of the capital’s Pechersk
district court.

But nature abhors a vacuum, and at the expense of the YTB the “Regionals”
were able to put forward “their” man to the CCU, and now people are saying
there are now even two “Donetsk people” in the CC of the present
convocation. They are,

[1] first, Anatoliy Holovin from Makiyivka, who impressed as deputy chief
prosecutor and chief military prosecutor when Henadiy Vasylyev was head of
the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office; and,
[2] second, Vyacheslav Ovcharenko, who comes from the same area as the
incumbent prime minister, who joined the CCU straight from his job as
chairman of the Yenakiyeve municipal court.

The socialists’ proposal for Constitutional Court judge was Mykhaylo Kolos,
who stood on a number of occasions for parliament for the SPU, although he
never made it as an MP.

Having had the chance to provide their “own” man, the socialists remembered
their old blood brother and took him to Kiev from the Ostrozhska academy,
where he was head of a department of special law disciplines.

Mariya Markush, an MP of the previous convocation and a native of
Transcarpathia, became a judge from the communists’ camp. However, it would
not be correct to speak about her as someone who is totally devoted to the
“anti-crisis” team.

Many people recall that during the memorable elections for the Mayor of
Makiyivka in April 2004, Markush took the side of the Our Ukrainian MP,
Viktor Baloha, who now heads the presidential secretariat, and voted for a
controversial decision recommending that [former Ukrainian President] Leonid
Kuchma should sack the governor of Transcarpathia, and now a political
emigre, Ivan Rizak.

Finally, a lecturer at the department of constitutional, administrative and
financial law of Lviv University, Petro Stetsyuk, became the “protege” of
the Our Ukraine bloc. In short, his future as a CCU judge was in the balance
because from the very outset his candidature did not get the expected 226
votes of Supreme Council MPs.

The members of the anti-crisis coalition voted for him only after the
president signed the law preventing the CCU from examining changes already
submitted to the constitution.
                          YUSHCHENKO’S “PROTEGES”
Traditionally, judges appointed by the head of state prefer to stand up for
him in the Constitutional Court. As far as the incumbent President
Yushchenko is concerned, this is only half true, because he personally
appointed only three judges and the other three were proteges of his
predecessor Leonid Kuchma.

The following apply to the latter:
[1] Volodymyr Ivashchenko, who came to the CCU from his job as deputy

head of the presidential administration in 2001;
[2] Valeriy Pshenychnyy, who has been in the apparatus of the Constitutional
Court since 1997 and became a judge there in 2003, and
[3] Syuzanna Stanyk, former justice minister, Ukrainian ambassador to
Switzerland and the wife of the odious former head of the NTKU [Ukrainian
National Telecommunications Company] Vadym Dolhanov.

Traditionally, the media and experts associated “work” with the judges of
the Constitutional Court from President Kuchma with his all-powerful head of
administration, Viktor Medvedchuk. They say that he has not lost touch with
them even now.

And the three judges of “Yushchenko’s draft”, who took the oath in August
last year, are described as totally devoted to the current head of state.
The most public of them until recently was the first Prosecutor-General of
Ukraine, Viktor Shyshkyn.

For some time he was described as close to Yuliya Tymoshenko, but after her
split with Serhiy Holovatyy, and then with Anatoliy Matviyenko’s Sobor
party, of whom Shyshkin was a member, they started to speak about him as a
member of the president’s team.

The two other judges appointed on the president’s quota, Volodymyr Kampo

and Dmytro Lilak, are described as quiet professionals.

The former nearly became Ukrainian justice minister back in 1992 (at the
time parliament was examining procedural infringements over this
appointment, and it was revoked) and the last ten years he has been engaged
in teaching, and the latter was until his appointment a judge in the chamber
of economic affairs of the Supreme Court.

Judges of the Constitutional Court who are appointed by the Congress of
Judges can be seen as somewhat “dark horses”.

Whereas during the final years of Kuchma’s presidency, this section of the
corps of the CCU was seen to some extent as dependent on Viktor

Medvedchuk, now they are almost the most independent part of the CCU.

Andriy Stryzhak, who was appointed to the CCU back in December 2004, is the
only one who could be considered as a reminder of the old times of the work
of the president’s administration with the Congress of Judges.

His swearing-in was blocked for a long time by the “Orange team” who
remembered the various legal decisions he made when he was head of the
Transcarpathian Court of Appeal, which allegedly pointed to his closeness to
the USDP(U), although they remember less that during the first Mukacheve
mayoral campaign in 2003 he was described as someone close to Viktor Baloha.

On the other hand, Vasyl Bryntsev, the former head of the Kharkiv Region
Court of Appeal, is described as a judge with views close to the “Orange”
team. His decisions acquitting members of Kharkiv protest demonstrations
against the policy of the Viktor Yanukovych government in the run-up to the
2004 presidential campaign were quite controversial.
               APPOINTEES FROM THE “JUDGES’ QUOTA”
Three CCU judges appointed by the “judges’ quota” came from the Supreme
Court, and whereas Yaroslava Machuzhak, a former judge of the chamber of
criminal cases of the Ukrainian Supreme Court specializing in juvenile law,
is not linked with any of big political players. Anatoliy Dikivskyy and Ivan
Dombrovskyy are from time to time described as sympathizers of the current
head of state.

These surmises are based on the fact that when they became judges of the
chamber of civil cases of the Supreme Court, they were allegedly involved in
drawing up the decision to re-ballot the second round of the 2004
presidential elections, virtually making Yushchenko president of Ukraine.
However, so far there is no other convincing evidence of their possible
involvement in this.

On roughly the same basis the sixth CCU judge on the “judges’ quota”
Vyacheslav Dzhun is linked with the Party of Regions. The only proof of

such a link is believed to be the fact that Dzhun worked as a judge of the
Ukrainian Supreme Economic Court at a time when it was headed by the
present “Regionals” MP, Dmytro Prytyk.

As we can see, at the present moment neither the president nor the
anti-crisis coalition can count on the devotion of the 12 members of the
Constitutional Court (and that is precisely how many are needed for any
decision to be adopted by the CCU). But this does not mean that they are

not seeking ways to create such a majority.

It is precisely these questions, according to rumours, that Viktor
Yushchenko and, more frequently, Viktor Baloha, are discussing during

their meetings with Viktor Medvedchuk.

It is precisely for these very purposes that the Party of Regions is
allocating a separate staff entity responsible for establishing reliable and
fruitful contacts in the building on Zhylyanska [street in Kiev where
Constitutional Court is situated] Andriy Klyuyev would seem to be dealing
with this.

Obtaining control over the majority in the CCU in adopting at least one
decision capable of showing rivals that they have established control over
the court is now a matter of principle for each of the interested parties.

It is possible that this is the reason for the Constitutional Court’s long
silence. According to some figures, the number of motions which have piled
up for the CCU has already exceeded 60, and a decision has still not been
taken on any of them.

Will the CCU judges wait for the big players in Ukrainian politics to decide
among themselves who is more important and then take the side of the
strongest?

Or are we now seeing the calm before the storm, and we will soon be hit by a
wave of decisions of the Constitutional Court which instead of clarifying
the situation in politics, getting it out of the crisis, will give new
impetus to the struggle for power between its key players?

Only the CCU’s first few decisions could have provided answers to these
questions. They could have shown what it is today that has stronger
influence on the interpretation of the Constitution and, as a consequence,
the rules which will govern the way the country’s political process will
develop.

Among the options are the professionalism and sense of principle of the CCU
judges and their ideological convictions, the personal relations between the
“CCU judges” and the leading Ukrainian politicians, and pure-and-simple
“cash” which more than once in Ukraine’s history has not only “triumphed
over evil”, but has taken the situation in the country beyond the bounds of
common sense.

In any event, one cannot dispute the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
And everyone will have to play according to its rules, at least until the
next elections. And for the moment the interested parties are trying to
influence the “human factor” of the CCU and are unaware which (or rather
whose) factors of influence on it will prove to be the most effective.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14. UKRAINE: DISPUTES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
                  POLITICAL REFORM AND EARLY ELECTION

POLITICAL REVIEW: Ukrainian News Agency
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Over the surveyed period the right to change and define Constitutional
procedures was bitterly argued. Practically each political force strived to
initiate new turn of political reform or revision of the Constitution.

The prime minister and his allies were the only who protected the main law.
“The Constitution is sacred,” Viktor Yanukovych insisted.

It all started when the President asked the Constitutional Court to explain
articles of the Constitution which define general initiative. The problem is
that the Constitution does not elaborate these questions.

The President believes that such referendum may relate only to legislation,
otherwise it is merely consultative or advisory and not binding. This was
the reaction of the President to the pressure by supporters of referendum of
the NATO and the CEA.

Yuschenko is reckoned that the questions submitted for the referendum he is
forced to call, can be treated as consultative only. If the Verkhovna Rada
ratified the law on the NATO access, the legislative referendum could be
called.

The point is that in compliance with current legislation about referendum
the President cannot call a referendum on access to the international
organizations. This at least gives time to Yuschenko to avoid politically
inconvenient referendum. The coalition claimed he ignores people’s opinion.

Despite serious problems with the legislation regulating the referendum,
certain political forces tempt to acknowledge new wording of the
Constitution. For instance, UNA-UNSO proposes to cancel political reform
through the referendum referring to the “right of citizens to define or
alter the Constitutional regulations and cannot be usurped by the
government.”

The President also welcomes this idea. Several parties have submitted a new
wording of the Constitution. Tymoshenko’s Bloc called this a priority task
of the bloc for the current session and promises to submit its wording of
the Constitution in about two months.

The balanced Constitution “shall not be adjusted to the person,” Tymoshenko
states and only unbiased wording can “put order and peace in the state.”
Present draft of the Constitution reminds “close manual fight and is
practically a manifesto to open war between the branches of power.”

MPs from Our Ukraine also favored the initiative. “Creation of the new draft
of the Constitution is possible,” Ruslan Kniazevych assures. People’s
Self-Defense of Yurii Lutsenko points to “reset of the Constitution, the
legislation of Ukraine to create Ukraine for people.” Most of oppositional
forces are confident that new wording of the main law may end permanent war
for authorities and legal chaos.

Protest of the opposition against the reformed Constitution is widely
disputed and neither the government, nor the anti-crisis coalition can
ignore it. “We feel now the shortcomings [of the Constitutional reform]. we
believe that improvement of the Constitution is the path we are going to
walk trough in the nearest time,” Viktor Yanukovych admits.

However the prime minister is currently more concerned about supplementing
the altered Constitution with necessary laws, which extend powers of the
highest executive body.

His allies were categorical. “We strongly oppose adoption of the new
Constitution in any wording, especially through plebiscite,” Rasia
Bohatyriova put it, “stop playing powder by the flame.” Party of the Regions
believes implementation of the initiative threatens Constitutional
stability.

Viktor Yanukovych accuses new political projects in speculations around the
Constitution, because they “made the Constitution a campaigning mean.” If
there is such a need, the prime minister proposes to improve the
Constitution through creation of the Constitutional commission and stop this
amateurishness.

The government ignores the President’s commission, but the anti-crisis
coalition took precaution measures: Communist Party submitted its wording of
the Constitution. In the meant time, opposition escalates tensions around
cancellation of political reform.

Tymoshenko’s Bloc collects signatures to cancel amendments to the
Constitution. The coalition in response deepens the reform locally. The
speaker emphasized the necessity to “take and improve all necessary laws
about local self-governance.”

At the same time, the opposition hopes for the re-run. Tymoshenko assured
her political force will make all efforts to speed up elections to the
Verkhovna Rada. After the legal grounds to dissolve the parliament are
proved, the President’s hand will not falter and he will disband this
parliament.

Our Ukraine supports Tymoshenko’s Bloc in search of the legal grounds for
dissolution of the parliament. They may appear in the near time, leader of
the Our Ukraine faction is convinced. “Political chaos, initiated by
governing coalition may be stopped only through early election,” says
Viacheslav Kyrylenko.

“Political participation in the election is not a problem for Our Ukraine,”
leader of Our Ukraine states and warns the coalition of the re-run. Bloc of
Yulia Tymoshenko is compiling new election lists.

“You shall not push anybody to the early election,” it may split the
country, Communist Party cautions opposition. Party of the Regions “being
the force counting all variants” considers the scenario of early election,
but it will be the ruling of the coalition to defeat “orange” camp. “The
only possible variant is when we ourselves will decide to dissolve the
parliament,” says Taras Chornovil.

The anti-crisis coalition tries to ensure itself from possible extreme turn
of events and restricts powers of opponents. The law On Constitutional Court
was registered in the Verkhovna Rada by which the coalition wants to ban the
Constitutional Court from revision of the legality of constitutional reforms
which are in force.

Besides, the draft specifies the procedure of impeachment and limits to 15
days the right of the President to suspend resolutions of the Cabinet of
Ministers by sending them to the Constitutional Court.

The only plus of the draft, opposition names time-limits on consideration of
claims and proposes to deprive the Constitutional Court of the authority to
interpret laws, which only protracts judicial proceedings. However, the law
has no chance to go through the Constitutional Court.           -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.   UKRAINE: EXTERNAL POLICY AND INTERNAL INTERESTS

POLITICAL REVIEW: Ukrainian News Agency
Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 14, 2007

Over the surveyed period Ukraine was shaping the relations with Europe.
Ukrainian government and its leader faced many problems with the EU.

The prime minister had to swallow another portion of critics from the
President’s supporters for his speech in Davos, which embarrassed Europe,
particularly, statement that Ukraine is not ready to join the EU.

The situation shall not cool but heat even more. Earlier, due to uncertainty
the integration into the European Union was limited to nice but useless
sayings.

Yanukovych himself started to do something. He directed to create another
institutional mechanism, which will adapt the legislation of Ukraine to the
EU’s.

Meanwhile, the President insists European strives of Ukraine were mentioned
in the text of the new treaty with the EU. “Today, Ukraine seeks a new
treaty with the EU in which the key point is Ukraine’s membership in the
European Union,” Viktor Yuschenko told.

Mandate for holding of negotiations with Ukraine stipulated that a new
treaty with Ukraine would envisage cooperation within the policy of
neighborhood without any hopes for membership.

At the same time, sociological surveys show that most of the EU residents
support Ukraine’s stance. Unfortunately, the meeting Ukraine – Troika EU was
shortened. The foreign minister of Germany announced that negotiations about
a new treaty will most likely start in March.

Still, the EU is not yet ready to include prospects of Ukraine’s membership
in the treaty. Frank-Walter Steinmeier expressed confidence that Ukraine and
the EU shall not lay down excessive demands to each other.

At the meeting with the minister, Yanukovych pretended eurointegrator and
was as if disappointed that the new treaty does not envisage membership of
Ukraine in the EU.

Despite the prime minister is more interested in creation of free trade
zones rather than in dim promises of membership, Ukraine has not yet met the
key demand relating to creation of the free trade zone with the EU – joining
to the WTO.

The date of Ukraine’s entry into the World Trade Organization is postponed
each time. This time the economy ministry names August 2007 the final date.

The prime minister, however, is satisfied with the results: “It was my
government which practically completed integration into the WTO within three
months.” He forgot to mention that most likely joining to the WTO will be
synchronous with Russia.

The surveyed period could not do without North-Atlantic integration as well.
14 senators of the USA push through the law envisaging financial support of
Ukraine, Albania, Georgia, Croatia and Macedonia on their way to NATO.
Communists assess the initiative as rude interference with the internal
affairs of Ukraine.

Poland also assisted Ukraine claiming that NATO membership is a very
positive step on the way to the European integration. Visiting Germany, the
President of Ukraine secured the support of the chancellor, who assured
Yuschenko that the new treaty between Ukraine and the EU will signal future
membership of Ukraine in the EU.

As for the NATO access Viktor Yuschenko was more restrained than before.

“We shall raise awareness of the society, understand that this is a
wide-national priority and not the speculations,” the President said.

The prime minister, in the meantime, was rebuked by the international
European organization – the Council of Europe. Rapporteurs of the PACE
monitoring committee slammed the Ukrainian prime minister for inability to
secure supremacy of law and transparency of governing at all levels.

They named the coalition-shaping process opaque and accused Party of the
Regions in breach of the Declaration, which brought it to power. Hanne
Severinsen and Renate Wohlwend noted that status of political reform is
still questioned. Ukraine suffers lingering distribution of powers after
introduction of the new political system. “The limits and irreversibility of
the reform still produce conflicts and confuse.”

The rapporteurs state that incorrect amendments to the Constitution raised a
number of questions, which current government is unable to solve. As long as
the power is now represented by the government rather than the President, it
was rebuked.

“The new Cabinet of Ministers is full of officials who represent corruption
union of business interest with the government. People, finally, do not know
for whom they voted,” the rapporteurs admit.

Yanukovych was furious. He responded the words of rapporteurs are
groundless: “I used to talk on the level facts.” The justice ministry
demanded PACE refuted the information about preparation of non-democratic
drafts which contradict the standards of the European Council. The ministry
was concerned about “inconsistency of views of the PACE rapporteurs with

the real situation in Ukraine.”

The reasons for concern do exist. Political scandal erupted after Viktor
Yanukovych and Vladimir Putin assumed possible unification of gas
transporting assets of Ukraine and Russia.

It all started when Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers offered Gazprom to return
to pre-market payments for gas bought in the previous years. It is payment
for transit of Russian gas by additional 30 billion cubic meters of gas.
“Previous agreements (2002-2004) more benefit to Ukraine,” Andrii Kliuev
told.

Soon the prime minister announced possible unification of gas transporting
assets with Russia and creation of gas transporting consortium. “We can talk
only about equal terms of unification so that partnership was clear,
fifty-fifth as they say,” Viktor Yanukovych promised.

Allegedly Ukrainian partners are interested in extracting assets in the
territory of Russian Federation. The President of Russia in response
confirmed interests of his state in creation of a gas transport consortium
and assumed access of Ukrainian structures to development of Russian gas
deposits. Russia yielded even in the question of gas price. “We are always
ready to support and even deviate from the market,” Vladimir Putin told.

Yanukovych sells gas transporting system of Ukraine to Russia, the
opposition caught the message. BYT started to unveil another conspiracy of
the second big plan, after RosUkrEnergo targeted at destruction of Ukraine.
Yulia Tymoshenko reminds it all started from excessively high prices for gas
and warns it will end with seizure of gas transporting system of Ukraine.

Present government wants to make Naftohaz Ukrainy bankrupt and give away gas
transporting system to Russia. BYT quickly registered a draft banning any
manipulations with property of the national stock company.

Our Ukraine supported the initiative of Tymoshenko’s Bloc and the factions
blocked the rostrum. They demanded the government of Yanukovych reported

on Russia’s intentions as for usage of Ukrainian gas transporting system,
which, in fact, initiated the Ukrainian side.

Viacheslav Kyrylenko, leader of the Our Ukraine faction, was indignant about
public learning about agreements relating to gas transporting system from
Russian President and not the government of Ukraine.

BYT and Our Ukraine demonstrated unity, when protected energy interests of
Ukraine and not accidentally. After creation of RosUkrEnergo and report of
the government on gas supplies the government of Yurii Yekhanurov was
discharged. BYT and Our Ukraine, however, don’t have enough votes to dismiss
the government of Yanukovych.

The prime minister escalates political tensions and opposition takes
advantage of it. Yulia Tymoshenko called on Viktor Yuschenko to call NSDC
and dissolve the parliament, but the President said that talks about
unification of gas transporting assets with Russia are premature.

“Ukrainian gas transporting system remains in the ownership of Ukraine, in
the state’s ownership, and is not subject to any changes. This is the top
priority of the government’s policy,” Yanukovych justified.

He noted that the matter is about implementation of modern projects in gas
transport sector, particularly in participation of the Russian Federation in

construction of gas pipeline Bohorodchany-Uzhhorod if volumes of gas
transit to Europe go up. It would be profitable for all parties to the project.
Experts do not dare to estimate these statements.

On the one hand, participation of Russia in construction of the
Bohorodchany-Uzhhorod section is “more profitable for Ukraine than for
Russia,” it boosts transit capacities of Ukraine up to 20 billion cubic
meters annually. On the other hand, construction of the section had been
postponed several times because Russia insisted the entire gas transporting
system was managed by the consortium.

Is this a first stage in implementation of more scaled project targeted to
intensify control over Ukrainian gas transport system? Presently, Gazprom
controls the major part of post-soviet area excluding Ukraine, Georgia and
Azerbaijan.

At this consortium does not solve the main problem of Ukraine – diverse gas
provision and dependence of Ukraine from its main supplier – Russia and visa
versa. It makes Ukraine even more dependent.

Finally the parliament conceded to demand of opposition and amended the law
On Pipeline Transportation, which bans any manipulations with gas transport
system of Ukraine. Tymoshenko’s Bloc has saved the most significant
strategic assets of Ukraine by banning alienation of gas transport system –
the bloc estimated its achievement.

The prime minister was irritated: “What gave us the law passed in the
parliament? Nothing! It is pure political game.” The Cabinet of Ministers
has never discussed gas transport system with Russia, Yanukovych

reiterated.

The matter was about consortium for construction of the
Bohorodchany-Uzhhorod section. In his opinion the law initiated by BYT,

like freezing of the parliament’s operation, testifies protracted political
confrontation because ban on transfer of gas transporting system has
already been regulated.

Russia has equated Ukrainians to other migrants. From now on all new-comers,
except for Belorussians, are subject to registration. Earlier, Ukrainians
could stay in Russia up to 90 days. Ukraine turned to Asia and opened a year
of Kazakhstan in Ukraine.                                   -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.      CHANGING RULES OF THE GAME AS AN INSTRUMENT
               FOR PROPERTY REDISTRIBUTION ON UKRAINE’S
                                   NATURAL GAS MARKET
               Plans for gaining control of Ukraine’s natural gas network

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Alla Yeremenko
Zerkalo Nedeli On The Web, Mirror-Weekly
International Social Political Weekly, No 3 (632)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Saturday, 27 January – 2 February 2007

Changes that have taken place in the rules of the game on Ukraine’s natural
gas market look insignificant, but at first glance only.

The latest alternations and amendments made on December 8, 2006 and
January 16, 2007 to the Cabinet of Ministers decree # 1729 “On the Provision
of Natural Gas for Consumers”, issued on December 27, 2001, are umbrellas
for far more far-reaching plans for gaining control of Ukraine’s natural gas
network (i.e. low-pressure gas pipelines that are now controlled by
regional-, city- and district-level gas distributing organizations) than one
may think at first blush.

In this case, the ownership of Ukraine’s natural gas distribution and
transportation network is claimed by a monopoly supplying natural gas to
this country, which, despite a Ukrainian company’s participation (albeit
formal) in its statutory capital, is de facto managed from a ‘near-abroad’
state.

The rules of the game are changing far too often on the natural gas market.
In [the Russian natural gas giant] Gazprom, for example, there are different
approaches and opinions as to whom to work with in Ukraine in the future.

You may therefore never predict when today’s favorites, RosUkrEnergo and its
Ukrainian subsidiary, closed joint-stock company Ukrgaz-Energo, may lose
their status as privileged partners.

To reduce such a probability to zero, their owners and managers must propose
something that would prove in practice that Gazprom will never be able to do
without them.

There is no best way to do so other than by gaining possession of regional
natural gas network in Ukraine, as Ukraine’s current legislation forbids the
privatization of the country’s gas network, and this fact gives no peace to
Gazprom and its allies.

As long as the ban on gas pipeline privatization remains in force, it is the
proper time (as RosUkrEnergo and Ukrgaz-Energo apparently decided) to
secure a grip on gas networks managed by regional gas distributing
organizations.

Last year, numerous schemes for selling stocks in regional gas distributing
organizations were proposed for consideration. Bargains of some kind were
even proposed to some of them, or, to be more exact, to their owners.

There was even a notorious conflict with five regional gas distributing
companies in Western Ukraine, where the first attempted purchase of shares
at knocked-down prices had failed altogether.

Strange as it may be, bargains on the cost of shares in regional gas
distributing companies came to a full stop, as if by preconcert, last
December.
                 CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME
By a strange coincidence (believe it or not, it was the case), it’s exactly
in December when changes and amendments were made to Cabinet of
Ministers decree # 1729, which initiated the change of the rules of the
game on the gas market.

By that time, a plot for securing a grip on regional gas distributing
companies (this was about not only their shares but also businesses and
markets) had apparently fully matured.

The simplest way to do this seemed to involve replacing the current gas
distributing companies with their own affiliated entities– a job that
needed to be well prepared for.

At a time when people were all celebrating the coming of the New Year, a

new idea may have leaped into the mind of those who invented the brilliant
plot, or someone may have remembered some additional opportunities for
achieving their goals which the amendments did not ban.

Or, and this is most likely, they did not succeed in rushing amendments that
would help them translate their vast scheme into reality through the Cabinet
of Ministers the first time. But in the end the result is more important
than the process.

On January 16, 2007, the Cabinet of Ministers updated the above mentioned
2001’s decree with amendments as proposed by the Fuel and Energy Ministry,
which radically changed the alignment of forces on the domestic gas market.

According to the amendments, household consumers should be provided with
domestically produced gas, and [national gas monopoly] Naftohaz Ukrainy is
to act as authorized manager and distributor of these gas resources, with
natural gas to be directly sold to household consumers at regulated prices,
by economic entities licensed to sell natural gas, i.e. regional, municipal
and district gas companies.

So that we have our apartments warm and with running hot water, gas should
be supplied to municipal heat supplying companies and district heating
plants by the same Naftohaz Ukrainy.

For that matter, it should be noted that Naftohaz Ukrainy, and more
precisely its subsidiaries, the state company Ukrgazvydobuvannya and public
corporation Ukrnafta, annually produce about 14.5 billion cubic meters and
about three billion cubic meters of natural gas, respectively — in all
about 17-18 billion cubic meters at best.

Household consumers take 18-20 billion cubic meters, which is clearly less
than what is needed by the population. In the past, when the country had
seen better days, gas was supplied to Naftohaz Ukrainy at the rate of $50
per 1,000 cubic meters, which partly compensated for the cost of Russian gas
transportation to European consumers.

Part of the gas was supplied to household consumers and state-financed
organizations in Ukraine to make up for deficient amounts of domestically
produced gas and also to provide gas for municipal heat supplying companies
and district heating plants.

As there is no such source of gas now, where is gas to come from for
Naftohaz Ukrainy to provide heat for the population? It is a good question,
but to date there is no clear answer to it.

According to these innovations, in 2007, gas is to be provided for consumers
in all categories, including state-financed organizations and industrial
consumers, from the following sources:
     [1] national joint-stock company Naftohaz Ukrainy, including the gas
          to be purchased under international contracts or purchase and sale
          contracts;
     [2] companies (enterprises) set up with participation of Naftohaz
          Ukrainy, including the gas to be purchased under external economic
          contracts;
     [3] other suppliers of gas to be purchased under external economic
          contracts.
Now let us try and recall how many gas importing companies (enterprises) set
up with Naftohaz Ukrainy’s participation there are in Ukraine? Right you
are, there is only one of them, specifically Ukrgaz-Energo, a closed
joint-stock company and the sole organization in Ukraine to purchase gas
under external economic contracts.

This is to say that in 2007, every state-financed organization and
industrial consumer will have to sign contracts directly with Ukrgaz-Energo,
as was already the case in 2006. In other words, the entire amount of public
funds appropriated to this end from the national budget will go directly to
the bank accounts of RosUkrEnergo via Ukrgaz-Energo’s.

But those who invented this scheme wanted more than that. To this end,
regional gas distributing organizations have been deprived not only of their
right to supply gas to consumers other than the population but even to be
paid in cash for their services, i.e. to deliver gas directly to consumers.

The amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers decrees stipulate that contracts
for gas transportation to consumers should be awarded to gas suppliers,
which means to say that it is the gas supplier, namely Ukrgaz-Energo, who
will be the only company to be paid money for gas supplied to consumers.

It should be noted here that this company’s monopoly position will
eventually undermine security of Ukraine’s gas transportation networks and
inevitably affect all of Ukraine’s gas transporting and gas distributing
companies without exception, regardless of their pattern of ownership and
including those where majority stakes are held by the Ukrainian government.

In support of the innovations they offer the arguments that are already too
well known. These are the ineffective use of gas pipelines by gas
transporting and distributing companies; the need for massive investments in
modernization of the gas transporting infrastructure; strong competition in
the gas market and so on.
FURTHER MONOPOLIZATION OF UKRAINE’S GAS MARKET
But in reality, this will inevitably bring about further monopolization of
Ukraine’s gas market, collapse of the country’s gas distributing network,
massive lay-offs, the disruption of the national gas industry, an increased
threat of man-made disasters and the loss of control over prices (which in
fact is already occurring).

This will be followed by further property redistribution in Ukraine, to be
accomplished through prices’ and the freezing of domestic hydrocarbon
production under the pretext of its lack of efficiency.

The industry’s potential has already been undermined by the Naftohaz
Ukrainy’s multimillion credit deals, logistical support contracts and debt-
swapping deals involving what is broadly known in certain circles as
‘kickbacks’.

This begs the question: whose interests was that campaign intended to
meet and in whose interests has this campaign been carried out?

Ukrtransgaz, a company wholly-owned by the Ukrainian government, will
find itself in dire straits as well, because it will not have the money to
properly service the country’s gas network, which will now depend on
Ukrgaz-Energo’s goodwill.

By the way, Ukrtransgaz employee staff, having learnt of what kind of
destiny was ahead of them, began to sound off. But the ‘insurgency’ was soon
crushed down by the Fuel and Energy Ministry and Naftohaz Ukrainy, who
assured the people that they would only benefit from the January 16’s
amendments.

According to the amendments, the state company Ukrtransgaz and other
organizations licensed to transport natural gas for technological and other
industrial needs will have to purchase imported gas.

In other words, gas will have to be purchased from Ukrgaz-Energo or
somebody else (?), as the Cabinet of Ministers decree does not say a single
word about whom the gas should be imported from (or, rather, whose
resources it should be taken from).

It therefore turns out that Ukrtransgaz and regional gas distributing
organizations will not have the guarantee of buying gas for meeting their
technological and industrial needs, and the probability is very high that
they will not have the money to pay salaries to their employees or carry out
repairs (however urgent) on their gas transportation infrastructure.

According to the vast scheme, gas transporting companies are now deprived
of their right to be paid money for their services, along with the right to
supply gas directly to consumers.

Apparently driven by the intention to get regional gas distributing
companies ‘beaten completely’, the Cabinet decided to update procedures (or
algorithm) for the distribution of the money that the companies obtain in
payments from household consumers. Upon arrival to a bank account, the
money is automatically shared among the gas supplier, Ukrtransgaz, and a
regional gas distributing organization.

The algorithm is to be developed by Naftohaz Ukrainy and approved by the
National Energy Regulatory Authority. With such a ‘statesmanlike’ approach
by Naftohaz Ukrainy to the January 16’s amendments to the Cabinet of
Ministers decree, it will be hard to expect that the company’s decisions are
fair, especially as varying patterns will be developed for each individual
company, allowing room for corruption.

As further follows from the Cabinet of Ministers decree, Naftohaz Ukrainy,
the companies established with the national joint-stock company’s
participation (read Ukrgaz-Energo) and entities purchasing natural gas under
external economic contracts must not sign gas transportation contracts with
companies other than the state company Ukrtransgaz and the economic
entities licensed to supply natural gas directly to consumers.

There is one more feature in the Cabinet of Ministers decree referred to
above. Gas transportation and producing entities affiliated with Naftohaz
Ukrainy, as well as economic entities licensed to supply natural and
oil-well gas directly to consumers should supply gas within quotas as set
for gas supplying organizations (with the exception of companies affiliated
with Naftohaz Ukrainy or Ukrgaz-Energo), in accordance with contracts
signed with consumers other than the population.

It also stipulates that natural gas should be supplied to consumers in
accordance with contracts signed with Naftohaz Ukrainy and affiliated gas
importing companies (i.e. Ukrgaz-Energo).

This means that companies affiliated with Naftohaz Ukraniy, and gas
importing organizations partly controlled by Naftohaz Ukrainy (as you may
guess, this is again referring to Ukrgaz-Energo) are entitled to supply gas
to consumers on privileged terms which imply the right to gas transportation
among other things. As for other suppliers, contracts for gas transportation
should be signed between consumers and gas transporting organizations.

The text of changes and amendments to Cabinet of Ministers resolution
#1729 was drawn up by the Fuel and Energy Ministry, Naftohaz Ukrainy
and organizations affiliated with the national joint-stock company.

Note that the document is not straightforward about the possibility of
Ukraine’s regional gas transporting network being given over to private
hands. What’s the point in doing so, especially as the desired result is
almost there?

All that remains is the setting up of entities alternative to regional gas
distributing organizations. It would be interesting to know who is going
to implement this part of the vast scheme?

As this has not yet taken place, we would like to know what the Fuel and
Energy Ministry and Naftohaz Ukrainy think about the above mentioned
innovations on Ukraine’s gas market.

What kind of interests (apart from Ukrgaz-Energo’s) were state officials
from those government agencies guided by?

We are awaiting answers, unless, of course, topics of this kind are
considered indecent to discuss in this country.              -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/632/55712/
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. THANK YOU, GREAT HUMANIST – AND FORGIVE US
               James Mace’s birthday is approaching, we remember him
                & try to understand the phenomenon of his personality.

COMMENTARY: Viktor Kostiuk, Head of the Journalism Department
Zaporizhia National University, Zaporizhia, Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

With James Mace’s birthday approaching, we remember him and try to
understand the phenomenon of his personality.

Tens and hundreds of our compatriots are known to have proved their creative
potential outside their native land – “Our blossoms are all over the world,”
as the saying goes – asserting the existence of the country of Ukraine. But
what made a successful American scholar move to a young and little known
country?

The scholarly activity of the young Oklahoman began from a tragedy, or more
precisely, from the realization of a tragedy that had befallen a distant
nation.

Eyewitness testimonies, archival materials, and mass media publications on
the Ukrainian Holodomor helped him understand its nature and consequences
and gave him grounds to declare to the entire world that genocide had been
committed against the Ukrainian people.

Mace moved to Kyiv in the early 1990s. What bound him to Ukraine was a
pain in his huge heart rather than business interests. In 1994 he wrote in
the newspaper “Literaturna Ukraina,” “Today, when I hear scholastic debates
on whether Ukraine is building a socialist or capitalist society, I wish it
would be the society of liberated people.” In his opinion, a liberated
person is an informed individual who is free of fear.

His knowledge of Ukraine’s realities led him to the following conclusions:
“A country with the most fertile land in the world, immense mineral
resources, and with a better- educated labor force than the US has become a
laughing-stock. The economy is unable to maintain such a large government.

The country keeps sinking into debt and is wasting loans intended for
investment. Its environmental conditions are the worst in Europe. The
population is shrinking; people are losing hope for better days. At the end
of the 20th century Ukraine is the same ‘sick man of Europe’ as the Ottoman
Empire was a hundred years ago.”

Having deeply immersed himself into the past and present of our country,
Mace the researcher asserts, “Ukraine is a post-genocidal society.”

After researching the Holodomor for many years, Mace began to consider
himself a Ukrainian. One is led to wonder: if a person who is so deeply
concerned about our problems and so sincerely interested in the good of our
people is Ukrainian, what percentage of Ukrainianness do our politicians,
business people, journalists, artists, and each one of us have?

But the heart of the great humanist could not bear the post-genocidal
manifestations of our everyday life. The Ukrainian land that was so dear to
his heart became his final refuge.

A worthy way to honor the 55th anniversary of James Mace’s birth would be
to acknowledgment his achievements. In the next days much will be said and
written about his life, research, and compassionate publications.

I believe that what we need to say about Mace is not words of praise but
gratitude. Thank you, great humanist, for stirring our society, which made
our parliament finally recognize, not without a lot of huffing and puffing,
the Holodomor of 1932-33 as genocide.

Forgive us, James, for transferring power into the hands of people who break
publicly made promises, who despise the state language and the things our
nation holds sacred, who disregard freedom of press, and who impersonate a
political opposition while playing soccer or tennis together.

My students and I will refer again and again to your publications because
they shape social optimism, teach us critical thinking, and encourage people
to be humane.

For the second year in a row, journalism majors at Zaporizhia National
University are using James Mace’s “A Tale of Two Journalists” in their
classes. For them this is “an active way of contemplating the past, present,
and future” (Larysa Ivshyna).

Below are extracts from papers written by this year’s freshmen students.

[1] Without a doubt James Mace may be called a true Ukrainian and our
national hero. The kind of openness and honesty that he had about the
Genocide and Holodomor of 1932-33 is not found in any history textbook,
and this is truly hard to believe. Unfortunately, Maces’ knightly and
scholarly courage did not find acceptance either in the US or Ukraine.

But we are happy that today this person is acknowledged in our country as a
prominent scholar. James Mace was a true journalist and a real man, who was
not afraid of making the truth known to people. This is what journalists
should be. We need to look up to him and strive to be as honest as he was. –
Natalia PERELETA

[2] It is very unfortunate that James Mace’s name does not ring a bell with
most Ukrainians. I did not know anything about him until I enrolled in our
university.

He was an American but decided to throw in his lot with a country that at
first was foreign to him and later became his true Fatherland. It was his
love for our country and people that made him tell the truth with no fear of
consequences. – Natalia BUHAR

[3] Reading the biographies of such people as James Mace, you think,
“There he is, a hero of our time.” He is worthy of being called a real man.
It is hard to imagine that in times of discord and feuds there was a man who
was not indifferent to our people’s lot.

His Tale is a postulate of human dignity and journalistic honesty. It
demonstrates the everlasting confrontation of truth and evil. I am taking my
first steps in journalism, but I can say that Mace is an example on which
the spiritual development of future journalists must be based. –

Yevhen DORONIN

[4] Journalists often like to think of themselves as fearless advocates of
society’s right to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. The Pulitzer Prize was established in order to honor those who
follow this principle.

But what do we do with journalists like Walter Duranty, i.e., those who
conceal the truth and openly despise any conceivable journalistic ideals?
The answer is obvious: shame, contempt, etc.

Just like Gareth Jones, one of the characters of his story, James Mace
always had the courage of his convictions in expressing his views on
Ukrainian history and ethics. The Holodomor was a terror for the whole
nation and a murky period in the 20th century.

Even Western nations have acknowledged this. Holodomor denial is the
most immoral of all crimes. Isn’t it time to cleanse our consciousness?
Isn’t this an opportune moment for establishing the truth? – Maria MELNYK

[5] James Mace is one of the few people who demonstrated the true paradigm
of the journalistic profession. With considerable skill and using the
examples of Duranty and Jones, he managed to show the fleeting glory of
Duranty wearing the laurels of a lie, and the “everlasting failure” of Jones
wearing the laurels of truth.

Some may say this is a paradox of existence, but consider: when a person
with a serious illness deliberately infects others, that is a crime. When a
deceitful journalist deliberately infects society with the “disinformation
virus,” doesn’t it make sense to sound the alarm?

Sooner or later, lies will out, so a young journalist should learn from
Duranty’s mistakes in order not to tremble at death’s door in fear of
eternal damnation. It is regrettable that journalists do not take an oath
like doctors do. Maybe then they would understand the scope of their
responsibility. – Halyna YATSENKO

[6] James Mace’s journalistic legacy is simply awe-inspiring. It clearly
reflects the author’s deep knowledge of Ukrainian culture and history. The
reader is favorably impressed by the zeal with which the author comes to the
defense of justice and truth. The breadth and depth of his thinking as well
as the simplicity of exposition make Mace’s publications accessible to all
readers.

He devoted many years of his life to researching the history of Ukraine, a
country that was not his native land. I believe that every journalist,
especially a budding one, needs to read A Tale of Two Journalists.

This is a case where a future professional has to learn from real- life
examples, to understand and be aware of every aspect of journalism, not
just its positive sides.

I believe that “A Tale of Two Journalists” helps one appreciate the immense
importance of the journalistic profession. In journalism, as in any other
public sphere, there will always be the dilemma of choosing between two
different ways to achieve a goal-the principled, honest way or the
unscrupulous, slippery one.

I believe that every budding journalist needs to read this story and make
his or her own choice – whether to live in harmony with fame, which is
sometimes sullied, or with one’s own conscience. – Yana POLSKA

[7] Of course, not every leading journalist has read this story. But this
does not mean that the problems it describes have no relevance today. In
his story the author not only talks about ethics in journalism or its
absence, but also discusses facts from Ukrainian history that were kept

secret for a long time.

Much has been said and written about the Holodomor, but how much is there
that we still don’t know? Yes, you can conceal official data and figures.

But what do you do with millions of murdered people? How is it possible to
conceal the names of those who sacrificed themselves for the sake of the
truth?

James Mace’s publications are thus not simply collections of an observer’s
comments but an opportunity for Ukrainian society to look at its present in
the light of the past. – Kateryna SHYIAN

        MACE’S INDIAN BLOOD BELONGS TO THE SAME
                          GROUP AS UKRAINIAN BLOOD
[1] By Mykhailyna KOTSIUBYNSKA,
literary critic

“For me the name and image of James Mace are one of the purest and most
moving phenomena of the human race that I have ever come across. I was
fortunate to know people like that – Vasyl Stus, the Svitlychnys – Ivan and
Nadia – Alla Horska, and others.

“Ukraine called to Mace from across the sea and from a different continent,
and he answered the summons. He said, “I was called by your dead.” But the
living also called him.

“He accepted their sufferings and hopes as his own, learned their language,
and did his utmost to make the global historical tragedy of the Holodomor
known to the international community. He became a kind of eyewitness of the
Holodomor at the trial of history, and he opposed ignoramuses and enemies
that are still there even now.

“He left prosperous America and came to live in unstable and unpredictable
Ukraine. He did not idealize our country. He was deeply moved by all its
problems, and he never referred to it with the arrogant phrase “this
 country” because it was already his country. He worked to make it more
humane.”

“After learning of Mace’s American Indian descent, I felt that he became
even closer to me. I have always had a special feeling for the romanticism
of the American aboriginals and was interested in this original culture.

“In the 1960s I became acquainted with the works of Pauline Johnson, a
Canadian writer and a vivid personality. Her father was a Mohawk chief, and
she wrote about Indians.

“Translating her works into Ukrainian, I was able to draw closer to the
fascinating world and noble heroism of Indian legends. In her dignified
personality and creative work I saw some kinship with her contemporary,
Lesia Ukrainka.

“They even died the same year, each of an incurable illness. So it has
always seemed to me that Mace’s Indian blood belongs to the same group as
Ukrainian blood.”

“The dirty smear campaign aimed at blackening James Mace’s name will have
a boomerang effect on its instigators because it testifies, above all, to
the troglodytic level of their consciousness. To Mace the love and tribute of
all those who cherish Ukraine will be an eternal protection and a guarantee
of remembrance.”
              AT THE PRICE OF HIS OWN LIFE HE SHOWED
                     HOW TO LOVE ONE’S OWN PEOPLE
[2] By Valerii STEPANKOV,
professor, Kamianets-Podilsky University

“To my great regret, I did not have an opportunity to talk or even meet with
Professor James Mace. Therefore, I cannot share my personal recollections of
this remarkably conscientious and courageous man. As a scholar, I knew about
his significant body of research on the Holodomor, that terrible tragedy of
the Ukrainian nation.

“His articles alone (primarily in “The Day”), which were later published as
the book “Day and Eternity of James Mace,” struck me as open and sincere,
showing his unconcealed feelings for Ukraine and respect for its past, as
well as his honesty and fervent determination to make the truth of this national
tragedy known to the intellectual and political elite of today’s Ukraine.

“Equally striking was the nagging pain in his heart caused by the callous
indifference of most government officials to the history of the people whose
interests they were supposed to advocate and defend.

“In this way my imagination began to outline the image of a person whose
actions, on the one hand, increasingly commanded respect and, on the other,
left me wondering about the inner motives behind them.”

“I could not understand what made a foreigner and well-known scholar, who
could freely enjoy all the comforts of a democratic society in his native
country, come to work in Ukraine, which many of our people dreamed of
leaving in search of a better life.

“More than that, he fought our bureaucracy, paying dearly to break through
the wall of our indifference, if not contempt, for our national memory,
self-identity, and self-respect in order to bring forth the citizen in each
one of us.

“He sounded the tocsin of consciousness to make those who still had one wake
up from the lethargic sleep of apathy toward their own nation and help them
comprehend the scope of the 1932-33 genocide, and learn the lessons needed
to overcome its consequences.

“I searched for an answer to the question: why did James Mace take our
tragedy closer to his heart than most of us Ukrainians do? I found the
answer in the fact that he was a descendant of an Indian tribe that had
virtually disappeared from the face of the earth.

“Therefore, an understanding of this kind of tragedy was in his blood.
When he was studying the Ukrainian Holodomor, he was terrified by its
scope.

“The Ukrainian tragedy turned out to be so close to the tragedy of his own
people that he transferred his love to Ukraine (as a mother does after
losing her children) and with all his strength sought to keep it from going
down the same path as the one taken by his tribe.

“He became a more aware Ukrainian than most of us are, and at the price of
his own life showed us how to love one’s own people and defend its dignity.

“I want to believe that the time will come when, having learned to treat
itself as a historical entity and to respect itself and its dignity, the
Ukrainian nation will consider James Mace one of its finest sons.”
THE MAN WHO BROKE THROUGH THE WALL OF SILENCE
[3] Anatolii DIMAROV, writer
“A man who burned his heart in the fires of love for Ukraine. A man whose
voice was heard throughout the world. A man who did more than all the
parliaments of the world together.

“A man who became a plenipotentiary representative of the victims of the
Holodomor, an unprecedented genocide that claimed millions of lives. It was
engineered to destroy an entire people whose only fault was that it bore the
name of the Ukrainian nation and stubbornly lived on instead of vanishing;
whose very existence sent the bloody executioner into fits of violent rage.

“A man who broke through the dead wall of silence that was painstakingly
erected around the horrible event, which nearly wiped an entire nation off
the face of the earth.

“A man whose heart was stirred day and night by the ashes of our brothers,
sisters, and parents murdered by starvation.

“This man was James Mace, an American citizen who became a Ukrainian. He
came to knock on the door of our sleeping conscience and memory and make
himself heard. He gave his whole life to Ukraine.

“He did not simply do everything possible to have the US Congress
acknowledge the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33 as genocide, so that other
parliaments would follow suit.

“Mace tore himself away from a comfortable life in a wealthy country and
came to Ukraine, a country steeped in penury, in order to awaken our anti-
national parliament in which the communists opposed any reference to the
Holodomor, to say nothing of its recognition as genocide.

“Could we expect anything else from the heirs of those thugs who tore away
the last potato from a hungry child’s mouth only to crush it under their
dirty boots? They swept peasants’ households clean of every last grain and
buried people alive because they did not have the patience to wait until
they starved to death.

“Even today the bloody executioner of Ukraine who started the genocide is
dearer to them than their own fathers. Even today they carry Stalin’s
portraits, pressing them gently to their empty hearts at their wicked
rallies.

“Now they begin to defame the late James Mace and smear his name with
mud-a  name that is holy to every conscious Ukrainian.

“Those are corrupt people without honor or conscience, made insane by their
fury at Ukraine-a country that has just risen from its knees and is freeing
itself from the colonial yoke that for three torturous centuries rubbed its
neck sore and made it bleed.

“But they will not succeed in spitting on our Mace. Mace lives! Mace is not
answerable to death or decay. He is knocking at the door of our hearts and
our memory.”
         EVEN CURSES BECOME SIGNS OF RECOGNITION
[4] By Stanislav KULCHYTSKY
, professor, deputy director of the

Institute of Ukrainian History, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

“I was acquainted with James Mace for two decades, but for the first five
years we knew each other only from our publications. At first there was a
distance between us, which was determined by the nature of our upbringing
and fundamentally different life experience. I not only felt this reserve
but studied it, analyzing the worldview of people who were formed on the
other side of the Iron Curtain.

“Each representative of this group with whom I was in frequent and long-term
contact has left a trace in my heart: Professor Bohdan Osadchuk from Berlin,
Professor Roman Serbyn from Montreal, the Canadian historian Orest Subtelny,
who is known to everyone here, and James Mace. Without a doubt, Mace’s
influence was especially strong-not only because of our frequent meetings
but also because of his intellectual level.

“In the second phase of our acquaintance we reached a common understanding
of the social order in which the terror by famine was possible. He made me
pay attention to the national aspects of the Holodomor, whereas I insisted
on the importance of studying the socioeconomic aspects of the tragedy.

“It is clear now that we also need to study the all- Union famine of 1932-33
as a socioeconomic phenomenon because the January 1933 food expropriation
campaign in Ukraine was made possible only by this famine.

“James Mace called me a friend and colleague, but actually we became friends
only once we began to agree on professional matters. He may have been the
first to feel that we were drawing closer to each other because he was very
open with people.

“The people who knew Mace well have recently witnessed his entry into the
pantheon of national memory as one of the most prominent figures of
Ukrainian history at the turn of the last two centuries of Ukrainian
history.

“After his untimely death Mace begins to receive that which our society did
not give him while he was alive. Even curses heaped upon his head from the
rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada and in communist newspapers become signs
of recognition.

“The Day began publishing the third series of my articles that were written
in the last two years. This series is devoted to a reappraisal of Stalin’s
terror by famine and is entitled “The Holodomor of 1932-33 as Genocide:

Gaps in the Evidentiary Basis.”

“In these articles I show that the young American researcher, James Mace,
was the first postwar scholar who understood that the Stalinist terror in
Ukraine, including terror by famine, did not target people of a certain
ethnic origin or occupation.

“Rather its objective was to destroy the citizens of the Ukrainian state
that came into being after the disintegration of the Russian empire and

survived its demise in the form of a Soviet state.

“I affirm that Mace formulated this idea long before he became the executive
director of the US Congress Commission on the Ukrainian Holodomor.

“At the international conference on the Holocaust held in Tel Aviv in 1982
he was the first to call the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 genocide and
formulated the main objective of Stalin’s terror by famine: to destroy the
Ukrainian nation as a political factor and social organism.

“The same formulation appears in his paper that he presented in 1983 in
Montreal at the first international conference on the Ukrainian famine of
1932-33.

“Mace’s formulation is clearly subsumed under the legal concepts contained
in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide adopted on Dec. 9, 1948.

“In the remaining time before the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor we must
sound the alarm as much as possible to convince the international community,
and above all the Russians, that our position is well-grounded and sincere.

“I am certain that this can be done. I am also certain that James Mace’s
scholarly legacy will make this task easier if it reaches broad segments of
the Ukrainian and international communities.

“I will not mention all of Mace’s work – if it is ever published, it will
take up five or six volumes. I will dwell here only on the most important
thing: the testimonies of Holodomor eyewitnesses.

“In the summer of 1990 I published a review in the large-circulation
bilingual journal Under the Banner of Communism, entitled “How Did It
Happen? Reading the Documents Produced by the US Congress
Commission on the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33.”

“The three-volume edition of oral testimonies was still not published at the
time, so I used a computer printout that Mace brought me during his first
visit to Ukraine.

“The subsequent 17 years witnessed a steady increase in the sociopolitical
and academic value of this collection of testimonies, which was published in
the original language (90 percent were in Ukrainian).

“Perhaps we could have surpassed the compilers in the method of processing
testimonies, even though I have grave doubts about this when I read the
books published in Ukraine.

The three-volume edition was prepared according to the strict canons of oral
history, which was a new trend in historical source studies at the time.
These are now classic canons, but our scholars still have not mastered them
properly.

“But this is not the problem. The eyewitnesses of the famine were questioned
by Mace’s assistants in the mid-1980s. After more than a quarter of a
century, how many long- lived eyewitnesses with wonderful memories can
today’s researchers expect to find?

         THREE VOLUME EDITION NEEDS TO BE REPRINTED
“In the mass media and at various official meetings held in connection with
the 60th and 70th anniversaries of the Holodomor I insisted, sadly in vain,
that the three-volume edition of testimonies needs to be reprinted because
it was published in 1990 by the US government printing house in Washington
in a minuscule number of copies. Let us hope that this problem can be
resolved.

“After all, it is not the dead who need the truth about the Holodomor. We,
and our children, need it as part of our national memory.”
 WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE DAY FOR ITS HARD WORK
[5] By Andrii MATSIIEVSKY, director of School no. 2, city of

Haivoron, Kirovohrad oblast

“Our staff is deeply and sincerely grateful to James Mace, who as an
American, for many years raised the question of the Ukrainian Holodomor
like no one else in the world and wrote hundreds of articles and books.

“He continued his work at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, enduring unjustified
rebukes, mainly from communists who pointed to his origin and tried to
tell him where he should go.

“American that he was, he was also a great Ukrainian. The descendants of
those 10 million Ukrainians who died during the Bolshevik-engineered
Holodomor are grateful to him.

“We are also grateful to “The Day” for its hard work – the publication of
the book “Day and Eternity of James Mace.”

“We are fascinated by how James Mace conducted his research in the US.
This was his responsibility in the US Congress Commission on the Ukrainian
Holodomor.

“For decades he endured the cavils of those who were unwilling to speak the
truth. Among them were many politicians, primarily in Russia and Ukraine,
and communists in Canada, a country with the largest Ukrainian diaspora.

“James Mace began his research on the Ukrainian Holodomor in 1981, when no
party documents had been published yet on this tragedy. Ukrainian Americans
voiced their demand for this kind of research.

“Mace spoke about himself in the words of Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I
cannot do otherwise.” Thanks to Mace, the world learned about the genocide
against the Ukrainian people.

“He became a great friend, advocate, and defender of Ukraine. Future
generations will certainly be thankful to him for his work. We bow our heads
to the memory of James Mace, who departed from this life so early.”
————————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177520/
————————————————————————————————–
[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;
            Additional supporting sponsors for the Action Ukraine
                      Program will be listed again next week.
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around four 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 & BULK MAIL BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

If you do not receive a copy of the AUR it is probably because of a
SPAM OR BULK MAIL BLOCKER maintained by your server or by
yourself on your computer. Spam and bulk mail blockers are set in very
arbitrary and impersonal ways and block out e-mails because of words
found in many news stories or the way the subject line is organized or
the header or who know what.
 
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, The Bleyzer Foundation

Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
President (Acting) and Chairman, Executive Committee of the
Board of Directors, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
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#819 Feb 22 Yulia Tymoshenko Visits NYC & Washington Next Week; Crimea’s Separatist Card; Feed Grain Export Quotas Lifted; James Mace’s Mission

========================================================
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       

 
      FORMER UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
         LOOKING FOR BOOST DURING UPCOMING VISIT TO U.S.
                                                   [Article One]
                        
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 819
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor, SigmaBleyzer
WASHINGTON, D.C., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2007

              –——-  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. FORMER UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
       LOOKING FOR BOOST DURING UPCOMING VISIT TO U.S.
Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

2YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIV IN NYC
               Talk will also be broadcast over the Internet via webcast.
Diana Howansky, Columbia University
New York, New York, Monday, February 19, 2007

3NATIONAL PRESS CLUB TO HOST ‘MORNING NEWSMAKER’
          NEWS CONFERENCE WITH MP YULIA TYMOSHENKO, 
            LEADER OF UKRAINE’S MAIN OPPOSITION PARTY
PR Newswire/USNewswire, Washington, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

4.     TYMOSHENKO BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE DISCUSSING
     POSSIBILITY OF JOINTLY DRAFTING NEW CONSTITUTION

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

5TYMOSHENKO SAYS UNIFICATION TALKS BETWEEN HER
     BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE HAVE REACHED FINAL STAGES 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

6.   AMBASSADORS OF EU COUNTRIES QUIZ TYMOSHENKO

                  ON CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN UKRAINE
Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

7. TYMOSHENKO ACCUSES PARTY OF REGIONS OF PREPARING
   DISINFORMATION ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT IN LAZARENKO 
       CASE RIGHT BEFORE HER TRIP TO THE UNITED STATES 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 21, 2007

8. NO CHARGES AGAINST TYMOSHENKO IN UNITED STATES,
           U.S. EMBASSY SAYS, THE U.S. IS AWAITING AND

                    WELCOMES A VISIT BY TYMOSHENKO
Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

9.      OPPOSITION PUSHES THROUGH GAS-PIPELINE LAW

INFORM Newsletter, Issue 30, Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, 12 February, 2007

10.     UKRAINE: ANOTHER EPISODE OF POLITICAL CRISIS
COMMENTARY: By Adam Swain
Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, Feb 21 2007

11.     UKRAINE’S CRIMEAN TATAR RADICALS, MODERATES
                  SPLIT OVER LARGE-SCALE LAND PROTESTS 
Black Sea TV, Simferopol, in Russian 1700 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

12.           UKRAINE’S CRIMEA: THE SEPARATIST CARD
EDITORIAL: Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21 2007

13.         A LESSON IN STIFLING VIOLENT EXTREMISM 

              The Crimean Tatar experience proves that there is indeed a
                   nonviolent prophylactic for ethnoreligious conflict.
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: Waleed Ziad and Laryssa Chomiak,
The Christina Science Monitor, Boston, MA, Tue, February 20, 2007 

14.       UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CANCELLED QUOTAS

                              FOR EXPORT OF FEED GRAIN
UNIAN News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

15UKRAINIAN AGRARIAN CONFEDERATION SAYS LIFTING
            FEED GRAIN QUOTAS WAS THE RIGHT DECISION  
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

16 UKRAINIAN GRAIN ASSOCIATION CALLS FOR RESTART
     OF THE WORK OF THE GRAIN MARKET WORKING GROUP
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

17.   UKRAINIAN DELEGATION ARRIVES IN U.S. FOR TALKS
                                ON WTO ACCESSION
Interfax Ukraine Business Express, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21, 2007

18.    UKRAINE IN “DIFFICULT POSITION” OVER U.S. MISSILE
     SYSTEM IN EUROPE, SAYS PRIME MINISTER YANUKOVYCH 
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0913 gmt 20 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007

19U.S. URGES UKRAINE TO CONDUCT SPEEDY INVESTIGATION
        INTO VANDALISM ACTS AT JEWISH CEMETERY IN ODESA 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

20.          ROMANIAN PRESIDENT CRITICIZES UKRAINE’S

                          ATTITUDE ON SERPENT ISLAND 
Rompres news agency, Bucharest, in English 1600 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007
 
                 WEB,  DUBBED INTO UKRAINIAN LANGAUGE
UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007
 
22.                        JAMES MACE AND HIS MISSION
By Oxana Pachlowska, University of Rome La Sapienza
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Feb 20, 2007
 
23.              OUR STRANGE DEVOTION TO THE KREMLIN
OP-ED: By Anne Applebaum, Columnist
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; Page A13
                       WHAT WE HAVE ARE BAD RELATIONS
INTERVIEW: With James Sherr, Senior Researcher
Center of Conflict Studies in Great Britain
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007
 
25.                     THE REWARDS OF A LARGER NATO
COMMENTARY: By Greg Craig and Ronald D. Asmus
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., Mon, Feb 19, 2007; Page A19
 
26.                    MUNICH 2007 CHANCE FOR UKRAINE
COMMENTARY: By Kostyantyn Hryshchenko, Advisor to
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yanukovych, Former Foreign Minister,
Former Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007
=======================================================
1
FORMER UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
       LOOKING FOR BOOST DURING UPCOMING VISIT TO U.S.
 
Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

KIEV — Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko hopes to get
help in resolving a months-old crisis that threatens the liberal aims of the
2004 Orange Revolution when she visits the United States next week.

Tymoshenko was a key figure in the mass protests that brought President
Viktor Yushchenko to office, but she was fired as prime minister after eight
months and now leads the opposition.

Yushchenko, his powers cut under the constitution, named his rival Viktor
Yanukovych as prime minister last year after his “orange” allies failed to
form a government. The two have since been engaged in a constant power
struggle.

Speaking Wednesday before her U.S. trip, Tymoshenko said the West no
longer understood Ukraine since the liberals failed to press their
pro-Western agenda of joining the European Union and NATO.

“We believe that after the Orange Revolution and the comeback of the old
political teams, the world stopped understanding Ukraine. I am going to the
United States to make Ukraine more understandable to the outside world,”
she said.

“This chaos has one name only: a constitutional crisis, when the president
and the prime minister … confront each other and their powers contradict
each other. So Ukraine has ended up with two masters wielding executive
power.”

Tymoshenko, sporting her trademark peasant braid in Ukraine’s parliament
building, said talks could no longer help. “There is only one way out of the
constitutional crisis, the same used by all democratic countries when such a
situation occurs, and that is an early parliamentary election,” she said. -30-
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIV IN NYC
              Talk will also be broadcast over the Internet via webcast.

Diana Howansky, Columbia University
New York, New York, Monday, February 19, 2007

                                       YULIA TYMOSHENKO

WHAT:     Speech by Ukrainian MP Yulia Tymoshenko
WHEN:     Monday, February 26 from 6:00-7:00 pm
WHERE:   Rotunda of Low Memorial Library, 535 W. 116th St.,
                 Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

Yulia Tymoshenko, head of the All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland party and
the Yulia Tymoshenko Electoral Bloc, played a central role in Ukraine’s
Orange Revolution in 2004.

She served as Prime Minister of Ukraine from January-September 2005,
leading Forbes magazine to name her the 3rd of the 100 Most Powerful
Women in the World during this period.

Reservations are required, as seating will be limited to 450 individuals
and will be filled the day of the talk on a first-come/first-served
basis.

To RSVP, please call 212-854-9016 or email
yulia_rsvp@harrimaninstitute.org and provide your name and phone
number.

This talk, which will be in Ukrainian with simultaneous translation into
English, is free and open to the public. (For those who are not in the
NYC area and are unable to attend, the talk will also be broadcast over
the Internet via webcast.)                           -30-
———————————————————————————————
NOTE: Diana Howansky, Columbia University, dhh2@columbia.edu
———————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB TO HOST ‘MORNING NEWSMAKER’
        NEWS CONFERENCE WITH MP YULIA TYMOSHENKO,
           LEADER OF UKRAINE’S MAIN OPPOSITION PARTY

PR Newswire/USNewswire, Washington, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

WASHINGTON – The following advisory was issued today by the
National Press Club:

National Press Club “MORNING NEWSMAKER”
News Conference, Friday, March 2, 2007, 9 a.m.
National Press Club (Lisagor Room)

Member of the Parliament of Ukraine and Leader of Ukraine’s Main
Opposition Party, The Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT), Ms. Julia
Tymoshenko will discuss “Ukraine and European energy security, the
state of Ukrainian democracy, transitional democracies of central
Europe, and Ukrainian-Russian relations and their interplay with U.S.
foreign policy.” 

 
Contacts: National Press Club: Peter Hickman
301/530-1210 (H&O/T&F), 202/662-7540 (National Press Club),
pjhickman@hotmail.com
———————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4.     TYMOSHENKO BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE DISCUSSING
     POSSIBILITY OF JOINTLY DRAFTING NEW CONSTITUTION

 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

KYIV – The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc are discussing

the possibility of jointly drafting a new Ukrainian Constitution. The Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc’s leader Yulia Tymoshenko announced this to journalists in
response to a question posed by Ukrainian News.

Tymoshenko also said that the Constitution would probably remain unchanged
if a new Constitution was not jointly drafted. “If there is no joint version of the

new Constitution, then there will never be a new Constitution,” Tymoshenko
said.

She also stressed that the votes of deputies belonging to the Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc alone are not sufficient to

pass a new Constitution in the parliament and that it is necessary to reach
compromises with other political forces.

According to her, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc

are also discussing creation of a joint appeal team in the parliament and
coordination of their legislative work.

Asked whether the two political forces discussed nomination of a single
candidate for the next presidential elections, Tymoshenko said no such

thing was discussed. “It is so far away… To distribute posts in the future…
Honestly speaking, it was not discussed,” Tymoshenko said.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Viacheslav Kyrylenko, the head of the
parliamentary faction of the Our Ukraine bloc, considers it necessary to
draft a new version of the Ukrainian Constitution.

The Communist Party’s proposed draft Constitution which provides for
abolition of the post of President and transferring the powers of the
President to the parliament.

The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc intends to submit its own version of the new
Constitution by April. The Party of the Regions opposes the idea of drafting
a new version of the Constitution.  The Our Ukraine People’s Union party

and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc have decided to merge their factions in
local councils at all levels.                              -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.   TYMOSHENKO SAYS UNIFICATION TALKS BETWEEN HER
       BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE HAVE REACHED FINAL STAGES 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc’s leader Yulia Tymoshenko has said that

the talks between the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, the Our Ukraine bloc, and
President Viktor Yuschenko on unification of the two blocs have entered
their final stages. Tymoshenko was addressing journalists at a news briefing
in the parliament.

‘The negotiating process with the President and Our Ukraine is practically
being completed today,’ Tymoshenko said. At the same time, she said that

the two blocs would be able to present a joint action plan within the next few
days.

‘I think that we will be able to propose a serious algorithm on how to
remove from power the people who are essentially destroying the country
today literally on Thursday-Friday (February 22-23),’ Tymoshenko said.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Cabinet of Ministers has accused the
Our Ukraine bloc and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc of striving to destabilize
the situation in the country.

Viktor Baloha, the head of the Presidential Secretariat and chairman of the
council of the Our Ukraine People’s Union party, has forecast that the Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc will sign an agreement on creation
of a single opposition force by March 5. The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the
Our Ukraine bloc intend to sign a cooperation agreement.        -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.    AMBASSADORS OF EU COUNTRIES QUIZ TYMOSHENKO
                   ON CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN UKRAINE

Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

KYIV – BYT leader Yulia Tymoshenko and ambassadors of the European

Union member states discussed Ukraine’s Eurointegration course, issues
of regional (including energy) security, and Ukrainian-Russian relations
during a business lunch in Kyiv on Wednesday.

The ambassadors also asked Tymoshenko to brief them on the position

of her political bloc concerning the constitutional crisis in Ukraine and
opportunities to settle it, the press service of the BYT reported.

The business lunch was sponsored by German Ambassador to Ukraine

Reinhardt Schaefer, the press service said.                -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. TYMOSHENKO ACCUSES PARTY OF REGIONS OF PREPARING
   DISINFORMATION ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT IN LAZARENKO 
       CASE RIGHT BEFORE HER TRIP TO THE UNITED STATES
 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 21, 2007

KYIV – Yulia Tymoshenko, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc’s leader, has
accused the Party of Regions of preparing the disinformation that alleges
that the United States has declared her an accomplice in the case against
former Ukrainian prime minister Pavlo Lazarenko.

Tymoshenko disclosed this to the press. ‘The information is incorrect.

That is a provocation prepared by PR-company of the Party of Regions,’
she said.

Tymoshenko said that such provocations are purposefully prepared before
trips of politicians. Earlier, Tymoshenko had announced her intention to

visit the United States.

According to reports in the mass media, documents about Lazarenko’s
involvement in the case against Tymoshenko and vice versa have been
unveiled at a district court in California.

According to these documents, all Lazarenko’s statements that

Tymoshenko was not involved in his case have been rejected by the court.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the San Francisco District Court
sentenced Lazarenko to 108 months in jail and fined him USD 10 million
on August 25, 2006, for money laundering and sale of illegally acquired
property abroad when he was Ukraine’s prime minister.

Lazarenko is accused of laundering USD 4.5-5 million. Lazarenko was

initially accused of laundering USD 114 million through American banks.

The court started hearing the case against Lazarenko in mid-March 2003.
Lazarenko was detained in the United States in March 1999. He was released
on bail on June 14, 2003.                                 -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8. NO CHARGES AGAINST TYMOSHENKO IN UNITED STATES,
           U.S. EMBASSY SAYS, THE U.S. IS AWAITING AND
                    WELCOMES A VISIT BY TYMOSHENKO

Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – BYT leader Yulia Tymoshenko has never been under investigation
by the law enforcement bodies of the United States, the U.S. Embassy in
Kyiv told Interfax-Ukraine.

“She has never been charged of any crime in the United States, and there
have never been any investigations [into her activities] by the law
enforcement agencies of the United States,” a representative of the U.S.
Embassy in Kyiv said.

“The United States is awaiting a visit by Tymoshenko and would welcomes
such a visit,” the representative quoted U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
William Taylor as saying.

BYT MP Oleksandr Turchynov has recently announced that Yulia
Tymoshenko will make a visit to the United States soon.

Some media in Ukraine reported that some documents have been published
in the United States that Tymoshenko has been found in that country as
involved in the scams of Former Premier Pavlo Lazarenko of Ukraine.
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
9.  OPPOSITION PUSHES THROUGH GAS-PIPELINE LAW
 

INFORM Newsletter, Issue 30, Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, 12 February, 2007

Last week the government climbed down on proposals to unify the gas-

pipeline networks of Ukraine and Russia. BYuT and Our Ukraine deputies
forced the issue to be put on the parliamentary agenda by blocking the
podium in the Verkhovna Rada. The bill was supported by 408 out of
448 registered deputies, leaving the Fuels and Energy Ministry’s plans in
tatters.

Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of the opposition and her eponymous block

likened the proposals to “selling off the family silver to an overbearing
relative who seeks wider control of the family estate.”

The scale of the defeat prompted an apparent change of heart from the
Yanukovych-administration. “Once again I want to confirm that the

Ukrainian gas-transport system is a property of Ukraine, state property
and is not to be changed. It is the priority of the governmental policy,”
said Prime Minister Yanukovych.

“Nobody will give anybody the ownership of Ukraine’s gas transportation
system,” echoed Deputy Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. This was an

ncredible admission, as previously Mr Azarov had defended yielding to
Russia a stake in the gas-pipeline network in return for low gas prices.

The new law goes well beyond preventing the “privatisation” of gas
infrastructure. It precludes a host of potential manipulations, including
spin-off, renting, leasing and mortgaging. It also prevents Naftogaz from
being liquidated under bankruptcy legislation.

While previous legislation had banned privatisation of the pipeline network,
the new law effectively closes remaining legal loop-holes, such as
management and concession rights, through which the network could be

ceded to foreign enterprises.

Referring to the events of last week, Tammy Lynch, of The Institute for the
Study of Conflict,Ideology & Policy at Boston University, opined that “the
passage of the bill should send a strong statement to President Putin and
members of the Ukrainian government who apparently expected no response

to their statements and proposals. Ukraine may be struggling to create a
consolidated democracy, but its parliament is far from a rubber stamp and
its opposition is far from cowed.”

A buoyed Mrs Tymoshenko said, “We have been too dependent on gas from

Russia and controversial intermediary traders, who make millions at the expense
of contracts that should have been negotiated directly between governments in a
transparent and accountable fashion.”
 
This was an unmistakable reference to RosUkrEnergo. The controversial
Swiss-based gas trader is owned by Gazprom’s banking arm and two Ukrainian
businessmen, whose identities were shrouded at the time the gas deal to supply
Ukraine with a mixture of Turkmen and Russian gas was struck.

“I think the next step should be scrapping the work of RosUkrEnergo,” said
Mrs Tymoshenko who has long maintained that there should be no role for

any intermediary companies in securing national gas deals.         -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. UKRAINE: ANOTHER EPISODE OF POLITICAL CRISIS

COMMENTARY: By Adam Swain,
Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, Feb 21 2007

In the last few weeks Ukraine has experienced an episode of political reform
as great and dramatic as anything seen during the Orange Revolution.

The Verkhovna Rada voted overwhelmingly to further emasculate the
beleaguered President Viktor Yushchenko, reducing the presidency to little
more than a symbolic head of state well above the party political fray.

The Cabinet evicted  Yushchenko’s pro-Western foreign minister, Borys
Tarasyuk, and even proposed a law that would strip the presidency of any
influence over foreign policy.

Perhaps not unrelated, some facts emerged of a long-term energy agreement,
in which Ukraine would cede partial control over its gas transport system to
Russia in exchange for participation in oil and gas extraction in Russia.

The failure of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc to either effectively govern
with the ruling Anti-crisis Coalition or accede to Yulia Tymoshenko’s
opposition Byut bloc’s call to dissolve parliament and stage new elections
has allowed the Party of Regions to extend its grip over the country’s
notoriously fragmented state bureaucracy.

On the face of it, the wrangling over the Constitution, the apparently
contradictory alliances between the political parties and the confusion over
who speaks for Ukraine internationally, has plunged the country into yet
another episode of political crisis.

The former Socialist interior minister in the Orange Revolution interregnum,
Yuriy Lutsenko, has toured the country to promote his new ‘People’s
Self-defense Movement,’ warning that the democratic gains won in the
Orange Revolution are under threat.

However, whilst some of the political maneuvering has been clumsy and the
political parties, at last mindful of the need to maintain popular support,
have struck contradictory positions, Ukraine has experienced a remarkable
consolidation of its state machine and its political system.

The democratically elected government has extended its control over the
state bureaucracy to facilitate clear and effective government. Equally, an
official opposition has begun to be institutionalized to scrutinize
government. These developments will significantly strengthen the capacity
of the state, a necessary precondition for further political and economic
development.

This has occurred because, with the exception of parts of President
Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine, the country’s political and economic power-
brokers, of whatever political hue, business group and region, have finally
learned the lesson of the Orange Revolution: Razom nas bahato, nas ne
podolaty (Together we are many, we cannot be defeated).

They have concluded that the profound divisions that opened up during the
Orange Revolution weakened them all and that they are individually and
collectively stronger in the worlds of politics and business, united around
a modus operandi for political and economic rivalry.

Their consent to abide by common rules stands to enhance the country’s
bargaining power with its neighbors to both the east and the west.

It is no surprise that Regions has driven the process of consolidation. You
only have to drive a few kilometers south from Donetsk, the home of Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych, to the village of Kyrsha, aka, the ‘widows’
village,’ with its opulent detached houses protected by prison-sized walls
and metal gates to match, to be reminded of the consequences of unfettered
rivalry.

Yanukovych and the commercial figures behind Regions have all learned

over the last 10 years that they mutually benefit when there is a balance of
power and a modus operandi amongst the Donbas’s leading political and
economic actors.

The Donetsk-based business groups, such as SCM and ISD, having out-
grown the region, require effective national government and the prospect
of stable transfers of political power from party to party to further
develop as successful international companies.

Since last year’s parliamentary elections, Regions has been practically
groping around to identify a reliable partner to establish a new modus
operandi on the national scale.

Our Ukraine, Regions’ desired partner, was hampered by its poor
performance in the parliamentary elections and its apparent inability to
act in a concerted manner.

Regions were forced to turn, first, to the ideologically antagonistic
Socialists and Communists and then to reach an historic compromise
with their bete noire, Tymoshenko.

The mutual antipathy dates back to Tymoshenko’s association with the
Dnipropetrovsk ‘clan’ that waged war (entrepreneurial and violent) with the
Donetsk ‘clan’ in the mid-1990s over the lucrative supply of gas in the
Donbass.

Hostilities, this time political, resumed when Tymoshenko, then deputy prime
minister in Yushchenko’s government, attempted to structurally reform the
energy sector, culminating in her sacking and a string of criminal
investigations into corruption allegations.

Despite this history, Tymoshenko has realized that Regions are in the box
seat and that Yushchenko has no intention of dissolving parliament and
calling fresh elections.

Byut and its financial backers have had little choice but to abandon their
long-held opposition to the constitutional reform passed in late 2004 and
embrace a parliamentary system in return for securing the role of official
opposition.

Byut supported Regions’ law to transfer the power to appoint the prime
minister from the president to parliament and the power to appoint the
foreign and defense ministers from the president to the prime minister.

In return, Regions supported the election of Mykola Tomenko, a former
deputy prime minister in Tymoshenko’s government, as second deputy
parliamentary speaker and a bill that disqualifies local and regional
council representatives who vote against their party line. The latter will

serve to shore-up Byut, whose caucuses in several councils across the
country have recently crumbled.

More importantly, once the ‘Law on the opposition’ is passed, Byut will be
granted the right to state funding, appoint a shadow cabinet and the heads
of several key parliamentary committees, establish independent commissions
of enquiry, and guaranteed access to television and radio.

Out of this historic compromise, a consolidated state machine and a
parliamentary political system based on electoral competition between two
centralized political parties is emerging.

However, the nature and extent of any further political reform will depend
on how Regions’ and Byut’s popularity in the country develops over the
coming months.                                    -30-
———————————————————————————————–
NOTE: Adam Swain is a Lecturer in Human Geography at The

University of Nottingham, UK.
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/oped/26156/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11.     UKRAINE’S CRIMEAN TATAR RADICALS, MODERATES
                  SPLIT OVER LARGE-SCALE LAND PROTESTS 

Black Sea TV, Simferopol, in Russian 1700 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

SIMFEROPOL – A large-scale civil disobedience protest by radical Crimean
Tatars demanding land, which was to be held in Simferopol on 19 February,
failed to draw large numbers after the Crimean Tatar Majlis, an unofficial
ethnic assembly, banned it.

The moderates, led by Majlis head Mustafa Dzhemilyev, favour talks with

the government as a means of resolving the Crimean Tatars’ demands for
restoration of ancestral land and homes lost after their deportation to
Central Asia in 1944.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is to hold talks with Tatar leaders
during a visit to Crimea scheduled for 22 February. The following is an
excerpt from the report by Ukrainian Crimean Black Sea TV (ChTRK) on 19
February:

[Presenter] A 20,000-strong Crimean Tatar mass protest action, planned for
today, has failed. There was no blocking of roads, just marches along zebra
crossings. The large-scale civil disobedience action was cancelled after the
Majlis intervened. The protests were postponed till the end of February.

[Correspondent] Traffic policemen whistled, trying to stop Crimean Tatars
who were walking to and fro across the zebra crossing. Sometimes they
stopped, sometimes not. Traffic police, deployed at several key cites in the
city centre, did their best to prevent traffic jams.

This time, Crimean Tatars chose not to block motorways, despite their
earlier threats. Protesters said that they have responded to a request by
the Crimean Tatar leader, Mustafa Dzhemilyev.

Just the day before, Dzhemilyev appeared on TV and urged Crimean Tatars

not to start riots. So, there was only a series of brief protest marches, both
in Simferopol’s centre and outskirts.

Interior troops and a special task force monitored events from a distance.
The protest marches stopped at 1200 [1000 gmt] sharp. Activists read out an
open letter to the Majlis head.

They said that even though they did not agree with Mustafa Dzhemilyev, they
conceded to postpone the action. They decided to hold the next protest in
Yalta on 28 February.

[Unidentified protest leader, speaking through a loudspeaker] We still have
not kicked a single person out from our houses even though we have every
right to do it. Our houses were unlawfully taken away from us. We still have
not evicted anyone.

We have not harmed anyone. We have not insulted anyone. We have not spit in
anyone’s face. They live in our houses and sleep on our beds. And I know
that some of them still eat with our spoons from our cups!

[Correspondent] Protesters said that President Yushchenko’s visit to Crimea
was their last hope.

[Osman Tupalov, captioned as protest activist] As you can see, there were
nearly no protests today. Today, we have just shown that we existed and, if
Mr Yushchenko needs support in Crimea, Crimean Tatars will support him.

And do not try to provoke us.

We are waiting for our president on 22 February. And we hope that,
eventually, he will take our side. And Crimean Tatars will believe that
Ukraine has a president, at long last! [Passage omitted: more details]

[Remzi Ilyasov, captioned as deputy Majlis head] Mustafa Dzhemilyev has
addressed the Crimean Tatar people and said that he was opposed to such
actions because they could hamper the settlement of some problems at the 22
February talks with the president. Several issues, including the land
problem, will be discussed at the talks.

[Nadir Bekirov, captioned as Majlis’ presidium member] Neither the Majlis
nor its presidium banned the action. The Majlis failed to release an
official statement on this.

So, the Majlis itself did not impose an official ban on the protests.
Rather, some Majlis members were against the protests while other Majlis
members were for them.

[Correspondent] The Majlis head, Mustafa Dzhemilyev, has said that the
Majlis unanimously voted for the ban. Dzhemilyev described the stance of
those who opposed the ban as non-constructive.

[Dzhemilyev] In the Majlis, like in every assembly, different points of view
exist. But, if a decision is adopted, everyone should comply with it.
Sometimes, some people continue to stick to their own point of view. In
particular, Nadir [Bekirov] is one of them.

[Correspondent] By midday, there were no reminders of the Simferopol
protests, except extra police force guarding the Crimean parliament.

[Video shows: Crimean Tatars marching along a zebra crossing; protest
leaders speaking; Dzhemilyev interviewed.]               -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.      UKRAINE’S CRIMEA: THE SEPARATIST CARD

EDITORIAL: Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21 2007

Appearing on Ukrainian TV’s Svoboda Slova talk show last week, Communist
Member of Parliament Leonid Hrach warned that the autonomous peninsula,
Crimea, could split away from Ukraine if the country joins NATO.

It’s no secret that Hrach, who once chaired Crimea’s legislature, would
support such a drastic move.

What is worrisome, however, is that such a threat could become reality,
mirroring other Moscow-backed separatist movements in the Moldovan

breakaway region of Transdniester, or Georgia’s secessionist Ossetia and
Abkhazia regions. And the Kremlin’s geopolitical ambitions should not be
taken lightly in this regard.

Such separatist movements are clearly designed to spur instability and
maintain Russian influence over former Soviet republics with European
ambitions.

As the strategy goes, you first create a problem, then send your
peacekeepers in with the purported intention of protecting ethnic Russians
left over from Soviet days.

It’s a formula that could, in theory, be applied in Crimea, whose population
is regarded as largely pro-Russian and anti-NATO. The strategy involves
keeping Russian peacekeepers in the region for a long time. It has worked in
Transdniester, which fought a war with Moldova proper in the early 90s.

Georgia, whose Western friendly president has continually bumped heads

with the Kremlin, is also in a hard spot, with two regions bent on gaining
independence from Tbilisi and aligning with Moscow.

The Kremlin’s divide-and-conquer strategy is clearly intended to complicate
efforts by both newly independent states towards integrating into western
structures, such as NATO and the European Union.

It is being done in Georgia and Moldova, why can’t it happen to Ukraine?

All Moscow and its agents in Ukraine, like the Communists, need to do is
flare up ethnic tensions in Crimea and play up the anti-NATO card, warning
residents that their sons and daughters could be sent to Iraq as combatants
if Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko gets his way in joining the Western
military alliance.

During past election campaigns, hard-pressed Ukrainian politicians have had
no qualms about playing the Russian-nationalism card in various hands – the
language issue, NATO, etc. – with Crimea often serving as the main game
table.

Re-igniting already tense relations between ethnic Russians and Muslim
Tartars, many of whom have returned to the peninsula as homeless refugees,
following their exile to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin during World War II,
will help catalyze this scenario.

Adding oil to the fire is the fact that Crimean Tatars have traditionally
supported the camp of Ukraine’s pro-Western President Yushchenko. Another
tactic the Russians have apparently employed includes efforts to hand out
Russian citizenship to population pockets in former republics.

Rumor has it that more and more of Crimea’s population are accepting Russian
passports. The practice has been going on for a long time in Transdniester,
and it isn’t just practiced by the Russians.

The threat is real, but what should Ukraine’s leadership do?

[1] First of all, they need to start informing the population effectively
about the benefits of joining NATO. Efforts thus far have been poor, to say
the least.

[2] Ukrainian leaders also have to crack down hard on separatist movements
in what Czarina Catherine the Great referred to as the pearl of the Russian
Empire. Focusing on the military benefits of joining NATO, including
security from an increasingly blustering Moscow, is not enough.

[3] Ukraine’s leadership needs to point out the economic benefits of Western
integration as well. For one, larger inflows of tourists who would arrive
when Ukraine integrates more closely with Europe would benefit Crimea more
than any other region in Ukraine.

[4] NATO membership also equates to more sales, contracts and jobs in the
military industrial complex, meaning aerospace and other hi-tech industries
such as rocket building. This should bolster support in the Russian-speaking
eastern industrialized regions of Ukraine.

Simply said, when you are a member of NATO, you have a solid chance of
selling your products to most first, second and third world countries. If
you’re not part of the club, you are left competing with Russia for the
scraps, namely third world contracts.

True, setting up joint ventures with Western aerospace and military
contractors will leave Ukraine as the smaller partner in most ventures. But
it should bring Ukraine’s producers the kind of experience and technology
needed to step up into the major leagues.

Moreover, sales of Ukrainian produced hi-tech military hardware, such as
tanks, airplanes and rockets, should exceed today’s levels many times over.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
         Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13.             A LESSON IN STIFLING VIOLENT EXTREMISM 

              The Crimean Tatar experience proves that there is indeed a
                   nonviolent prophylactic for ethnoreligious conflict.
 
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: Waleed Ziad and Laryssa Chomiak,
The Christina Science Monitor, Boston, MA, Tue, February 20, 2007 

WASHINGTON –  The effort to help Muslim moderates and democratic

reformers, President Bush insists, is a primary bulwark against ethno-
religious conflict and the terrorism it breeds. Yet, five years into the war
on terror, real-world examples to support that contention are scarce.
There is, however, a conflict zone that has developed a strong model
of stifling violent extremism – one that could be replicated in hot
spots around the world: Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

Last month in picturesque Crimea, minority Muslim Tatars clashed
violently with ethnic Russians who make up the majority of the
region’s population. This was the worst in a string of incendiary
events that began in August 2006: pro-Moscow paramilitary gangs
assaulted Tatars at their holiest site, a building housing their
parliament was bombed, and a Tatar journalist was assassinated.

Meanwhile, foreign-sponsored Wahhabi Muslim extremist groups

appeared on the scene, urging violent retaliation. Most anywhere else
 in the world, this would have been the trigger for a major ethnoreligious
war. But thanks to the Tatars’ locally developed democracy, their
leadership was able to avert full-scale hostilities.

The Tatars of Crimea were victims of ethnic cleansing and deportation
policies under Russian czars and later under Joseph Stalin and the
Soviet Union. In 1944, Stalin deported all Tatars to Uzbekistan and
other parts of Central Asia. Throughout their exile, Tatars
maintained a strong national identity, and, post-Stalin, they formed
a celebrated nonviolent resistance movement.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Crimea became an autonomous
republic in Ukraine, and the resistance movement collaborated with
the newly independent Ukrainian government to secure Tatars’ right of
return. However, Crimea continues to be dominated by its Russian
majority and a pro-Moscow party.

The new repatriates faced oppression as ethnic Russian authorities in
Crimea prevented the restitution of land and job opportunities.
Rather than be marginalized, the Tatar leadership’s unique solution
was the 1991 creation of the Mejlis, or “assembly” system, to
establish their legitimacy in the Ukrainian political milieu.

Leaders adopted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights as
their political model, with democracy and nonviolence as guiding
doctrines. Early on, Mejlis members appealed to the UN and the
international community for recognition of their rights, which has
resulted in close working ties between the Mejlis and various
international aid organizations.

 
The Mejlis was eventually recognized as a legitimate political player
by Ukraine’s government. Mustafa Jemilev, the father of the resistance
movement, now holds a seat in the Ukrainian parliament. Indeed, he
is part of the Orange bloc coalition, which has been a symbol for
democracy in the region and worldwide.

An elected religious institution, the Muftiyat, was established
alongside the Mejlis system to prevent the inpouring of religious
extremism and preserve Tatar Islamic folk traditions. Amid the ethnic
tensions, small-scale Wahhabist groups sponsored by Arab Gulf states
have emerged, including the banned Hizb-i-Tehrir, which castigated
the Mejlis for its “soft” policies. But the Muftiyat, allied with the
Mejlis, denounced these ideologies as “false teachings and objectives
rejected by Islam,” and swiftly silenced the radicals with popular
tolerance and education campaigns at local mosques.

The overwhelming success of the Mejlis in preventing the spread of
violence rests on its exclusive reliance on negotiations,
international support, and nonviolent public protests. When Tatar
rights are denied or provocation occurs, Mejlis leaders step in to
mediate. And the Mejlis actively preventsthe formation of independent
militias, recognizing their detriment to any negotiation process.

Despite many roadblocks, peaceful Tatar activism has achieved what
was previously inconceivable: repatriation and citizenship for
250,000 Tatars, quasi- recognition of the Mejlis by the central
government, and seats within Ukrainian and Crimean legislatures.

The Crimean Tatar experience proves that there is indeed a nonviolent
prophylactic for ethnoreligious conflict. Giving official recognition
to the political aspirations of indigenous minorities helps address
popular grievances through peaceful negotiation instead of street
violence.

 
That’s the lesson of the Mejlis and Muftiyat in Crimea. And
it’s the lesson that should be applied to other conflict zones, from
Muslim minority populations across the former Soviet Union, to the
Kurds in Syria and the Moros in the Philippines.

Fostering local participatory movements isn’t just about keeping
democracy healthy. In the global war on terror, it’s one of the best
defenses against transnational fundamentalism.     -30-
——————————————————————————————-
Waleed Ziad, an economic consultant and a principal at the Truman
National Security Project, writes extensively on Islamic
fundamentalist movements. Laryssa Chomiak, a Department of

Homeland Security fellow, covered the Crimean Tatar minority for
the University of Maryland’s Minorities at Risk Project. They recently
returned from Crimea, where they interviewed Tatar leaders.
——————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p09s02-coop.html
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14.    UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CANCELLED QUOTAS
                            FOR EXPORT OF FEED GRAIN

UNIAN News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – During the meeting on February 21, Cabinet of Ministers of

Ukraine cancelled quotas for export of feed grains – wheat, barley and
maize, informed Viktor Slauta, Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine on agricultural
issues, according to APK-Inform. At the same time restrictions for export
of milling wheat remain.

According to the President of Ukrainian Grain Association, Vladimir
Klimenko, quotas cancellation will positively effect Ukrainian grain market
stabilization. Also, he noticed that everybody understands that quotas
introduction prevents entry of Ukraine into WTO.

Experts of APK-Inform agency consider that after quotas cancellation feed
grain trade will become more active and prices can go up, especially for
maize.

“Last week after announcements of the officials concerning forthcoming
cancellation of quotas export activity was up. It caused rise in average
prices for barley and maize by 5-10 UAH/tonne,” stressed analyst of
APK-Inform, Natalia Shelest. According to her it is worth expecting for
activation of feed grain purchases from domestic consumers.

We remind that in September 2006, the Cabinet of Ministers introduced
licenses for grains export, and in October, the Government approved the
regulations on introduction of quotas for grains export. In December, the
Cabinet of Ministers introduced the quota for 1.106 mln tonnes of grains for
export for 2006/07 MY, including 3.000 tonnes of wheat and rye, 600.000
tonnes of barley and 500.000 tonnes of maize.

By regulations No 185 from February 13, 2007, the Government of Ukraine

gave additional export quotas for grains given to port elevators and/or
terminals for storing before January 25, 2007. Additional quota for wheat
and meslin (mixture of rye and wheat) totals 228.000 tonnes, for barley –
606.000 tonnes, for maize – 30.000 tonnes.                        -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.  UKRAINIAN AGRARIAN CONFEDERATION SAYS LIFTING
            FEED GRAIN QUOTAS WAS THE RIGHT DECISION  

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The Ukrainian Agriculture Confederation says that, following the
abolition of export quotas on fodder grain, prerequisites emerged for
removal of the international tensions that had formed as a result of grain
quotas introduction. Ukrainian News learned this from the confederation
press service.

“The Ukrainian Agriculture Confederation says that the current developments
(abolition of quotas on the export of fodder grain) are absolutely logical,
the more so because prerequisites appeared for removal of certain
international tensions caused by grain quotation,” the press service says.

The confederation gave a positive mark to the Cabinet of Ministers’ decision
on export quota abolition, as Ukraine has already formed prerequisites for
liberalization of the market of grain crops, which is confirmed by
representatives of sectoral associations shouldering responsibility for food
safety, as well as representatives of the cattle-breeding industry, who say
they have enough grain for the period until a new harvest.

The press service also noted that the Ukrainian Agriculture Confederation
plans to initiate and take part in debates on the functioning of grain
market in Ukraine in the next season (2007/2008 marketing year), as all
subjects of grain market must understand and know the terms on which they
will work in the midterm perspective.

“For all rules of the game to be worked out in good time and, respectively,
for each of the market subjects to be able to count on its own business
activity,” the confederation stressed.

As Ukrainian News reported, the Cabinet of Ministers abolished quotas for
the export of fodder grain. The Cabinet intended to abolish export quota on
barley and corn by the start of March.

It increased grain export quota by 864,000 tons to 1,970,000 tons for the
2006/2007 marketing year by the resolution that took force on February 15.
The additional quotas reached 606,000 tons for barley, 30,000 tons for corn,
and 228,000 tons for wheat.

In December 2006, the Cabinet of Ministers set a grain export quota of 1.106
million tons for the 2006/2007 marketing year, including 600,000 tons of
barley, 500,000 tons of corn, and 3,000 tons of wheat and rye each.  -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.   UKRAINIAN GRAIN ASSOCIATION CALLS FOR RESTART
     OF THE WORK OF THE GRAIN MARKET WORKING GROUP

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The Ukrainian Grain Association is calling for the restart of work of
the working group for grain market under the Cabinet of Ministers to see
effective dialogue between the market operators and government officials.

Ukrainian Grain Association president Volodymyr Klimenko presented the
position of the grain market operators during the Internet conference on the
LihaBiznesInform portal.

“In order to facilitate an effective dialogue between agrarian officials and
representatives of the grain business it is necessary to restore the work of
the working group for grain market under the Cabinet of Ministers of
Ukraine,” he said.  He noted that the working group was permanently
operating with the four previous governments.

“It worked with the government of [Anatolii] Kinakh, [Viktor] Yanukovych,
[Yulia] Tymoshenko, and [Yurii] Yekhanurov. The same group was created

four months ago under the current government. However, instead of [meeting]
monthly at least two draft decisions concerning the grain market it has not
started the work,” he said.

In his opinion, there wouldn’t have been problems facing the agrarian market
if the working group had operating and a relevant dialogue between the
authorities and the agrarian business had been established.

He said a vice premier for the agroindustrial complex had always headed the
working group with the previous governments.
“As for the introduction of the post of vice premier for the agroindustrial
complex, we are supporting the step and believe it was a big mistake that
the post didn’t exist,” he said.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, on February 8, the parliament appointed
Parliamentary Deputy Viktor Slauta of the Party of Regions as a Deputy Prime
Minister for the agroindustrial complex.
———————————————————————————————–

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17.   UKRAINIAN DELEGATION ARRIVES IN U.S. FOR TALKS
                                  ON WTO ACCESSION

Interfax Ukraine Business Express, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21, 2007

KYIV – A Ukrainian delegation led by the Ukrainian Deputy Economics

Minister Valeriy Piatnytsky has arrived in Washington for meetings with
members of the working group examining Ukraine’s application for World
Trade Organization (WTO) accession.

The Ukrainian delegation held similar meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, on
February 19-20, the Ukrainian Economics Ministry’s press service said.
Ukraine expects a final positive decision on the issue of WTO accession

will be adopted in mid-summer.                     -30-
———————————————————————————————–
FOOTNOTE: The Ukraine-U.S. Business Council is sponsoring a
lunch on Friday for two members of the Ukrainian delegation.  AUR Editor
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18.    UKRAINE IN “DIFFICULT POSITION” OVER U.S. MISSILE
     SYSTEM IN EUROPE, SAYS PRIME MINISTER YANUKOVYCH 

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0913 gmt 20 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007

UKRAINE – Chernihiv Region – Ukraine is going to formulate its position
regarding the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Poland and the
Czech Republic after looking into possible consequences of this step for
Ukraine, Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych told journalists at the
Desna training centre in Chernihiv Region today.

“Certainly, we are in a difficult position today. We are now checking
whether it poses threats or, I would say, difficulties for us. After doing
this, we will take the final decision and formulate the country’s position
on this issue,” he said.

[The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said earlier that the deployment of elements
of the anti-ballistic missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland will
help enhance the international community’s potential in combating the
proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. See UNIAN news

agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1626 gmt 23 Jan 07,]
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19. U.S. URGES UKRAINE TO CONDUCT SPEEDY INVESTIGATION
        INTO VANDALISM ACTS AT JEWISH CEMETERY IN ODESA 
      
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The United States is calling on the Ukrainian authorities to conduct
a speedy investigation into the acts of vandalism at the Jewish cemetery in
Odesa. Ukrainian News learned this from the US Embassy’s press release.

‘The Embassy of the United States was very concerned to learn about the
extensive desecration of graves and memorials at the Jewish cemetery in
Odesa, which is the resting place for thousands of victims of the Holocaust,
over the weekend of February 17-18, 2007,’ the statement reads.

The Embassy says that such acts of hate-inspired vandalism are repugnant

and have no place in a tolerant society like Ukraine.

The Embassy commended the Odesa authorities’ quick action to begin repairs
to the cemetery and encouraged the city of Odesa to take action to prevent
incidents like this in the future.

‘The U.S. Government urges the Government of Ukraine to conduct a thorough
and speedy investigation to bring the perpetrators of this hate crime to
justice,’ the statement reads.

As Ukrainian News reported, on February 18, a group of unknown desecrated
over 500 graves at the Third Jewish Cemetery and two monuments to Holocaust
victims in Odesa. The hooligans drew swastikas on the gravestones and the
monument.

The monument was erected in memory of over 25,000 people (most of whom

were Jews) who were burned on that place by Nazis during World War II.

Identical inscriptions and swastikas were also found on the monument to the
victims of the Holocaust in Prokhorovskyi park.

The monument was erected at the foundation of the birch alley planted in
memory of the people of various nationalities who rescued Jews during the
war, risking their own lives.                         -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20.          ROMANIAN PRESIDENT CRITICIZES UKRAINE’S
                          ATTITUDE ON SERPENT ISLAND 
Rompres news agency, Bucharest, in English 1600 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007

BUCHAREST – President Traian Basescu on Monday 19 February rated

as hasty the action of Ukrainian authorities in relation to the Serpent Island.

‘This is what I would call a hasty action of the Kiev authorities (…) I
think trying to prove that the Serpent island is inhabited, that the
delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive trade zone should
pass through this island was not among the happiest actions. I really doubt
such trick will work with the international courts,’ Basescu told the
Romanian public radio station in a statement.

He mentioned having talked with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko
about the establishment and the definition of the continental shelf
belonging to Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea, because of the economic
significance of the shelf. ‘I noticed that this had been an issue for nine
years, that no progress was made and that there was no chance of solving the
issue through bilateral talks.

And then, Romania brought before the International Court of Justice in The
Hague the matter of defining the continental shelf and the exclusive
economic zones of the two countries in the Black Sea, in the spring of
2006,’ said Basescu.                                     -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
       Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR    

========================================================
21. PRESIDENT VISITED CINEMA, SEES MOVIE, CHARLOTTE’S
                WEB,  DUBBED INTO UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE

UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

KYIV – Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, accompanies by his famine,
visited a movie theatre in Kyiv to see a film by Gary Winick, Charlotte’s
Web, in Ukrainian, according to the President’s press-office.

The President told reporters the Ukrainian language “is returning to
 cinemas” and that he welcomed a recently signed memorandum between

the Culture Ministry and film distributors under which 100% of children’s
movies and 50% of other foreign films will be dubbed for Ukrainian
speaking audiences by the end of 2007.

“I like the first requirement very much. The second one is a bit mild but I
think we will make it stricter during our discussions,” he said.

He also praised last year’s decision by the previous government to impose
quotas to dub foreign films into Ukrainian, which was, however, later
cancelled by the Kyiv Economic Court of Appeal.

“I am sure this ruling will be reconsidered because it contradicts national
priorities and our goal to develop the film distribution business and
cinematographic art,” he said, adding that he had recently appealed to the
Prosecutor General “to protect national interests in this area.”

As for the development of the Ukrainian language, he added, more and more
people come to understand that it can help us unite. Mr. Yushchenko said it
was incumbent on him to make Ukrainians understand it is their obligation to
know and learn their native language.

Charlotte’s Web is a live-action/computer-animated feature film, based on
the popular children’s book of the same name by E.B. White. The book was
first published in 1952 and tells the story of a barn spider named Charlotte
and her friendship with a pig named Wilbur. It is one of the best-selling
children’s books of all time.                             -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22.                          JAMES MACE AND HIS MISSION

By Oxana Pachlowska, University of Rome La Sapienza
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

It is awful when you have to say about a close friend whose loss has left
lifelong pain, “It is a good thing that he left this world without seeing
this.”

That is what I told myself on Nov. 28, 2006, after the Verkhovna Rada
passed the law on the Holodomor. Yes, they passed the law but in a way
that stigmatized both individual MPs and the entire nation.

Mace departed from this life without witnessing this disgrace. He died
before Ukraine’s ruling political force acknowledged itself-through its de
facto refusal to vote-as the legal successor to the authors of the Great
Terror, the culprits who tried to destroy Ukraine.

The voting clarified Mace’s idea that Ukrainian society is post-genocidal.
What did he mean by this designation? He had in mind precisely a
post-genocidal society rather than a post-colonial one, as some researchers
maintain. After all, post-colonial societies typically had civilized
colonizers.

Post-colonial India has embarked on a democratic course and is turning into
an economic colossus. Even the Republic of South Africa, despite the former
system of apartheid, is freeing itself from the shackles of colonialism and
gaining economic weight. Civilized parent states had the courage to
relinquish their colonies at an opportune time and treat them as equals.

However, this is not the case with Ukraine. Unlike civilized parent states,
Ukraine’s colonizer never thought of relinquishing its conquered
territories. On the contrary, the more it agonizes, the deeper it digs its
claws into countries, regions, and entire geopolitical areas. The claws
being “fraternal,” this kind of colonialism is not likely soon to become
post-colonialism.

Perhaps this is why the visible colonial heritage in Ukraine is “diffused”
in the post-genocidal heritage, often invisible but nevertheless constantly
present, and not only in society’s psychology but also in the stimuli,
complexes, and nightmares of its psyche.

Mace left us a tragic thought that will take us a long time to reflect on.
For years to come, its purport will remain a painful and hidden nerve of our
history.

The paradigmatic approach requires that the Holodomor be considered together
with two other cases of 20th-century genocide within the span of Christian
civilization-the Armenian and Jewish genocides. In addition to the countless
political and economic causes of these two genocides, there were also
cultural factors. It was not simply a matter of one nation destroying
another.

Rather, these were different ways of destroying Christian civilization. In
the case of the Armenian genocide, Muslim fundamentalism was the destructive
mechanism. In the case of the Holocaust, an atheistic monster that had
renounced God destroyed a nation that was the historical and cultural cradle
of Christian civilization and on whose territory the Christian God was born.

The Holodomor was similar in this respect: the anti-Christian world
destroyed the world of Christianity. The newly-created political Moloch
fought against God. Ruining and profaning temples, it destroyed a
civilization that was the last Christian stronghold on the already
immeasurable expanse of nihilistic Bolshevik barbarism.

Until this day the wound inflicted by the Armenian and Jewish genocides on
these nations remains incurable. These tragedies became the new starting
point for their history.

It is generally accepted that the Holocaust as genocide cannot be compared
to any other genocide. Is this correct? I don’t know. I say frankly: I don’t
know. Perhaps those who insist on the Holocaust’s uniqueness have a point.
But equally unique is the Holodomor, even though this genocide was also
conducted in the same eschatological vein of Endlosung, or Final Solution.

The only difference was that the Holocaust was an act by killers with
unconcealed intentions. Germans were true to their meticulousness even
here-they had developed both theoretical and practical foundations for this
genocide.

In contrast to this, the Holodomor was more of a hallucinatory project
accompanied by rhetoric about the friendship of fraternal nations and other
cliches produced by the ideological schizophrenia of Russian communism.

In the former case it was all about the Aryan race; in the latter, about the
Soviet people as the final product of this criminal social engineering. In
fact, there is no difference here: in both cases all those who did not
conform to the corresponding paradigm were destroyed.

These two national catastrophes are clearly unique but from two different
perspectives. To the Jewish people the tragedy of the Holocaust became the
unifying energy needed for self-understanding, strengthening their identity,
and for a new perception of their place and significance in the world.

The Holocaust also became an overwhelming moral shakeup for the whole
world and, above all, for Europe. In the postwar period, Europe developed
the concept of genocide and posed the question of its own collective
responsibility for this crime. For the first time a crime against one people
was interpreted as a crime against the entire human race.

This idea became the foundation of a new ethos for both people and
20th-century historical science. The scope of the problem is not restricted
to Hitler and Nazism, which became the epitome of extreme inhumanity. This
conversion of the human being into a beast was condoned by all those who
connived at what was taking place and abetted the crime by means of their
consent, cooperation, and silence.

The world was forced to admit that one nation’s tragedy should not be
restricted to its own history. Rather, only humanity’s collective memory of
the tragedy can guarantee that it will never again be repeated.

This is the origin of Europe’s atonement for wronging the Jewish
people-moral atonement that has spanned decades. Germany’s path to a
democratic state began with the recognition of the crime it had committed,
its detailed recording, and constant, incessant, and dramatic atonement,
both individual and collective.

This is the kind of atonement that pervades every day and every minute-
German television channels regularly air programs on the history and
analysis of the Holocaust. Europe is also atoning financially. Jews were
finally given an opportunity to have their own state. For decades Germany
has been paying astronomical sums to the descendants of the six million
murdered Jews.

Of course, awareness of the Holocaust was an indicator that postwar Europe
had reached democratic maturity. But this understanding was achieved
because the Jewish community was able to organize and structure its protest,
self-protection, and, finally, its demand for atonement.

This is what happens when a nation has self-respect. This nation’s drama
becomes the moral standard for the conscience of the entire human race.

For the Jews the tragedy of the Holocaust became a protective wall of their
memory and a symbol of courage, endurance, indestructibility, and
immortality. I remember the November 2005 demonstration in Rome in
protest against the threats of Iran’s president to destroy Israel. After all
the
official speeches in front of Iran’s embassy, in the glow of streetlights
and the rustle of plane trees, an orchestra began playing Jewish tunes.

A pair of young Jewish sweethearts suddenly began dancing to the tune of
“Hava Nagila.” Among the spellbound people and in front of journalists’
cameras, they danced with such passion and obliviousness that it was clear:
they were a thousand years old- and this was just the beginning.

In Europe awareness of the Holocaust became a moral standard of democracy
and a mandatory pass to the civilized world. At a Ukrainian studies
conference held in Italy, a well-known Slavist from Israel said that the
attitude of post-Soviet Ukraine to Jews will be its passport to the circle
of civilized countries.

It is hard to disagree with this statement. But then an interesting question
arises: to what world can Ukrainians’ attitude to their own nation and
tragedies be a passport? It is probably a passport to the anti-world or, in
simple terms, to that part of the jungle where no passports are needed and
where history begins in the morning and ends in the evening. This is why it
is simply redundant.

This jungle is not as distant as one may think-government palaces are thick
with jungles. If the huge numbers of published (finally!) and reprinted
documentary evidence cannot help our MPs, or “people’s deputies” as they
are called, to recognize the deaths of millions of our compatriots as
genocide (and thus, a crime against humanity), then they do not consider

Ukrainian society, which includes their own electorate, part of humanity.

Unlike the Holocaust, the Holodomor was one of the main factors that led to
Ukraine’s loss of identity and rendered society’s consolidation impossible.
Postwar Europe wrote the history of its catastrophes. Once again the postwar
USSR falsified history.

The Holodomor was one of the top-secret topics in this history. Therefore,
having lost its past for the umpteenth time, Ukraine turned out to be
incapable of implementing its design for the future.

Hitler sought to wipe out the Jews precisely as a nation because they were
scattered all over Europe, without a state or territory of their own. Stalin
also wanted to annihilate Ukrainians as a nation but this nation had its own
country and land. Hitler wanted to destroy the Jewish culture, but the
Biblical people had a culture that was spread all over the world and knew
how to preserve it.

In contrast to this, both past and contemporary Ukrainian culture was
contained in Ukraine. Therefore, parallel to the Holodomor, Stalin destroyed
the temples and books of the past as well as Ukraine’s cultural, artistic,
and scholarly elite of the time.

The main idea of the Holodomor was to turn Ukraine into a non-Ukrainian
republic, and with time-into an anti-Ukrainian entity. As we can see,
Stalin’s project succeeded. Accomplished only halfway, it nonetheless

succeeded. Stalin changed the genetic code of our nation.

It was not by accident that Ukraine was the arena of these events-Ukraine
was the second most rebellious part of the Russian empire (surpassed only by
Poland) and the most recalcitrant one in the Soviet empire. The Moloch of
the Stalinist empire suppressed this resistance in an unprecedented sadistic
and cynical way.

It did not kill directly, as was the case during the Holocaust, when a
person was at least able to oppose the killers or die with dignity. Russia
killed Ukraine by turning people into vegetative beings, reducing them to an
animal-like existence, and making them incapable of resistance, opposition,
and moral choice.

Vassily Grossman’s novel Forever Flowing describes the wailing of people in
Ukrainian villages. People could not walk; they were only able to crawl to
the nearest train station, where this was possible, hoping for some merciful
hand to throw a piece of bread to them. The windows in Odesa-Kyiv trains
were then boarded up.

In keeping with the law “on five ears of grain,” women and mothers were
shot right in the fields if they were caught picking a few ears of grain for
their dying children. And all this took place in the “breadbasket of
Europe.”

It was the Holodomor that exposed the Russian world’s total contempt for
the human being as such, for fundamental human feelings, and for any moral
dimension of human existence. Also uncovered was its pathological hatred
of so-called fraternal Ukraine.

Together with people’s lives, the Holodomor took away the feeling of home
and the sense and culture of work. But above all, it destroyed love for the
land that was transformed from a life-giving resource into a boundless grave
devouring both the dead and the living, stirred by their groans, and
devouring new lives over and over again.

Instead of human feelings, society was overcome with fear-total, abject fear
of being oneself, speaking one’s mother tongue, and remembering one’s
dead.

It was the fear of existing. Since Stalinist times Ukrainian society has
been paralyzed by the fear of existing.

This led to the abyss of non-presence, non-work, and non-morals. This also
caused the greediness of some and the willingness for a half- starved
existence and constant poverty of others. As long as they leave us alone, as
long as they don’t torment us. What freedom? What democracy? ” We will
endure.” Having endured the Holocaust, we can endure anything in this
world.

This is also where the rejection of our own culture stems from. It has
remained in our genome: the sentence for being part of this culture is
death.

Fear is the only and total legacy that the System left to Ukrainian society.
This humiliating heritage is being passed down from generation to
generation. It erodes language, dignity, and memory in people. It erodes
the human being in people.

This type of society is easy to rule. This society can get only one kind of
government for itself-the government of thieves, cynics, and plain
criminals.

The Holodomor destroyed not only a century-long supply of the country’s
demographic and economic resources but also the Ukrainian rural cosmos
in its cultural, linguistic, and philosophical continuity and, most
importantly, its thousand-year-long ethos of Ukraine’s relationship with the
earth.

The Ukrainian peasant would not put a loaf of bread on the table upside
down-you were not allowed to offend bread because it was given by God.
The one who managed to wipe from the face of the earth this rural world that
tended its God-given land was then able to lay waste to this land with the
help of Chornobyl and bury it under tons of radioactive waste.

Midas, the king of death: whatever he touches turns into death.

Who else besides the descendants of this collective Barbarian would be able
to loot the country the way they have done today? Who would be able to force
millions of people abroad in search of some humiliating way to earn some
money for the same piece of bread that was confiscated in the 1930s?

Who would be able to let grain rot in ports and then throw it into the Black
Sea? Who would be able to yield to Russia the security and independence of
the country-piece by piece, on a regular basis? Who would laugh in the face
of his own electorate?

One state official was recently quoted by The Ukrainian Truth on Feb. 9,
2007, as saying in his garbled mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, “Why don’t
I hear applause, I wonder?…Somehow I don’t see joy… on your faces.”

Today we see this post-genocidal anti-Ukraine on every corner, once again
mainly in the ruling circles. This anti-Ukraine is robbing the state in
broad daylight. It is humiliating society, trampling on its graves, and
continuing the policy of Russification.

It calls intelligentsia a “narrow stratum” – a glaring Freudian slip, an
acknowledgement of one’s own post- Soviet descent: where were intellectuals
a stratum doomed to destruction if not during the orgy of the
lumpenproletariat called the USSR?

This anti- Ukraine will do its utmost to prevent the state from taking a
single step toward Europe and keep it in the gray zone of geopolitical
non-existence- the only way to have a few more years for its final
despoilment.

Here is a picture of post-genocidal society in one isolated region- Kharkiv
oblast. When all of two MPs from the Party of Regions voted for the Law on
the Holodomor, Yevhen Kushnariov, one of the party’s leaders, in an
interview with Radio Liberty magnanimously promised that the party would not
discipline the MPs. “For now this will have no consequences,” he said (Dec.
9, 2006, www.pravda.com.ua).

In November 2006 in Kharkiv oblast, which was happy about Russian obtaining
the status of “regional” language, not one local government official
attended the official ceremony to commemorate the Holodomor victims. The
proceedings took place at the Ukrainian-Polish Memorial and near the Cross
to the Holodomor Victims. But 30,000 people came to Kushnariov’s funeral.

Fact file: during three months of 1933, over 600,000 people died in Kharkiv
oblast. The total mortality count reached 2,000,000-one-third of all
peasants in the region. As can be seen from archival photographs, peasants
died on the city’s central street. Every morning their bodies were dumped
into suburban ravines. Every evening the streets were covered with new
corpses.

Kharkiv was then the capital of the Ukrainian SSR, so historians call the
city in that period “the capital of despair.”

These things occurred during the Postyshev terror. Some streets in Kharkiv
are still named after the bosses of the Communist Party of Ukraine, who
carried out the genocide. Naturally, the city has a Postyshev Prospekt.

It was in Kharkiv, in 1933, that Mykola Khvylovy shot himself. He understood
that he was doomed and that Ukraine was destined for this bloody massacre.
At the cost of his own life Khvylovy sent a warning. By this one pistol shot
he put a period on the final page of the brilliant and tragic Executed
Renaissance.

I can add one more thing: it is good that Mace did not live to see the day
when a member of the Communist cadre was appointed director of Ukraine’s
historical archives. He would feel hurt. As a person who loved Ukraine so
much, he would feel ashamed of the country.

However, as a scholar he would receive full satisfaction: his uncanny thesis
about our post-genocidal society has found complete confirmation.

To be a post-genocidal society means to have no memory. It means to have
one’s memory in the off position. A society that has been destroyed this way
is a lobotomized society. The part of society that managed to withstand the
lobotomy does not possess sufficient psychological power and physical
strength to push aside this necrotic mass of stifled brain that is pressing
down and choking the living brain with its dead weight.

Mace was a scholar. He worked with facts and figures. He gave them rational
explanations. But I have always had the feeling that he came to this culture
because he had been called by the dead. Probably because they still have not
been buried-for they have not been mourned, and because they have been
forgotten.

He heard their voices. He heard them from afar, from a distant country and a
different continent. He learned their language. While despicable servants of
the System, barely able to stick a few insincere Ukrainian words into their
defective mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, were sneering at his accent, Jim
rolled his American “r” in the language of the dead who had called him, and
he talked with them freely.

Mace was opposed to any form of contempt for man. This was the algorithm
of his intellectual opposition to any manifestations of totalitarianism. In
this he was a true son of the finest democratic America that is built on the
spiritual heritage of Washington and Lincoln.

He had such an acute and passionate sense of justice and honesty that it
seemed to have burned him from the inside. It was this feeling that brought
him to Ukraine-a country that became, possibly like no other country in the
world, a victim of permanent injustice and unfair treatment.

In many countries, involvement in the Holocaust entails criminal
responsibility. France is planning to make denial of the Armenian genocide a
crime. One of the categorical conditions for Turkey’s accession to the EU is
its acknowledgement of this genocide.

What we hear from the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine even now is “the so-
called genocide” and “Mace, the Holodomor dreamer.”

Kyiv and other cities of Ukraine are choked by a noose of streets bearing
the names of its persecutors. Monuments to persecutors stand in all
Ukrainian cities.

Therefore, it is difficult to hope that a country like this will be reckoned
with in the world. Russia understands only the language of
force-contemporary official Ukraine can only speak to Russia from the
position of weakness and meekness. Europe understands the language of
self-respect. For today’s official Ukraine this is a profoundly foreign word
that it does not know how to translate into its political doublespeak.

Official Ukraine, as it is today, i.e., lobotomized, will hardly find money
in the state budget for a Holodomor Memorial or for the Institute of
National Memory. It is erecting monuments to falsifiers of the elections
rather than to scholars who are restoring its history from the abyss of
oblivion.

This kind of Ukraine finds millions of dollars for idiotic pre-election
advertising and none for the publication of Mace’s works. This is all the
more deplorable when we recall that Mace did not write exclusively about
the Holodomor-he researched the history of 20th-century Ukraine.

To publish his works means to make public a whole array of skeletons in the
Russian-Ukrainian political closet. In 1983 Mace published a book in the US
on the destruction of national communism in Ukraine. He wrote merciless
articles on the political nature of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Some of his results appear prophetic today. For example, Mace wrote about
the drama of Ukrainian socialism. “For better or worse, in 20th-century
Ukraine socialism was the most influential ideology.” This is the opening
statement in a chapter of his book entitled Ukrainian Statehood in the 20th
Century (published in 1996).

Whereas the beginnings of Ukrainian socialism are associated with such
prominent figures as Mykhailo Drahomanov and Mykhailo Hrushevsky, in its
present stage it features names one feels ashamed even to pronounce in this
series.

One can only say, “Jim, unfortunately, the most influential ideology in
Ukraine was indeed socialism!” The idealistic socialism of its first
adherent was a significant obstacle in the construction of the Ukrainian
state.

Further degeneration of this socialism and its fall from the level of the
European tradition to negotiations in the flea market of post-Soviet
politics have proved the political and moral fiasco of this ideology in the
history of Ukrainian statehood.

Mace’s paper at the Kharkiv congress of the International Association of
Ukrainian Studies in 1996 was entitled “The Sociogenetic Legacy of the
Genocide and Totalitarianism in Ukraine and Ways to Overcome It.”

Mace was fully aware that the genocide-produced pathological deviations in
Ukraine were proportional to the eschatological dimensions of the genocide
itself. They are difficult to eradicate because genocide derives its name
from its undermining effect on the foundation of a nation’s gene pool.

Mace opened up before Ukrainian society the book of its Apocalypse and
read this Black Book aloud. But society did not really hear him because the
areas of its collective brain that are responsible for self- preservation,
self-protection, and survival had been neutralized and lobotomized.

On Nov. 26, as you light a candle to commemorate the tens of millions of
Ukrainians who were killed only because they had grown crops from time
immemorial, just look out of your window. You will see candles lit here and
there. Otherwise-the shimmer of TV screens blasting local or Russian pop
music.

It is difficult to say whether society will remain in this vegetative state.
Together with his fellow Ukrainian historians, Mace did everything possible
to revive the nerve tissue of the Ukrainian nation’s brain-in order to make
it send signals, to make memory work, and to help society restore its will
to live.

Whether the national brain will indeed start working is not under Mace’s
control. It is up to Ukrainian society-and Russian society, for that matter.
Russia became the self-appointed heir of the gold and diamond funds of the
USSR. It will become a civilized state only when it has recognized that it
is also the heir of the bloody fund of the USSR.

Many offensive remarks about Mace have been voiced from the rostrum of the
post-Soviet Verkhovna Rada. Looking at parliament we mostly see crowds of
vicious political corpses with glassy eyes.

Jim, however, is strangely alive. Perhaps he was privy to some kind of
mysticism, as were his ancient Indian ancestors. Maybe he knew the mystery
of overcoming death because everything that he occupied himself with was
tragedy. But he was rarely seen without a smile.

Even when he was resentful, with good reason, he exuded a powerful energy of
good will and inexplicable optimism that he alone possessed. Jim seemed to
believe, despite all indications to the contrary, that common sense would
prevail and man would overcome human-generated absurdities and phantoms.

I believe that all of us who in some way collaborated with Jim will always
measure our history by his work, his love for Ukraine, and his intellectual
integrity. Most importantly, we will refer to his deep conviction that
Ukraine is a nation of astonishing vitality and that one day it will get
over its post-genocidal legacy and become a conscious, noble, and orderly
European country-a country respected in the world, in particular because it
has self-respect.

After all, the Orange Revolution proved that this European Ukraine is
already nascent. Despite hardships, it is coming into being or, more
exactly, beginning to revive.

When I asked Jim to meet one of my Italian doctoral students, who was
researching Khvylovy, he said, “Oh, sure thing! A friend of Khvylovy is a
friend of mine!” – as if Khvylovy had not shot himself in 1933 but lived
somewhere near Jim, across the street, and from time to time they would get
together for a cup of coffee.

Now Jim is definitely drinking coffee with Khvylovy.

Some day we may be able to see Mace carved in stone on a Kyiv street.
Lively and passionate as he was, he would take it in good stride because he
does not need a monument. What was more important to him was a
monument that he himself worked on-a monument to millions of innocent
Ukrainians who were tortured to death.

Perhaps a monument to Mace is necessary above all for Ukraine. It would be
an important landmark indicating that the country is starting to awaken from
its post-genocidal state, which means that it is beginning to distinguish
destroyers from those whose love for Ukraine cost them their lives.

For our country this would be a small step but one that would bring it
closer to Europe. And this step would be taken thanks to the American,
James E. Mace.                                       -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177534/
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
23.            OUR STRANGE DEVOTION TO THE KREMLIN

OP-ED: By Anne Applebaum, Columnist
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; Page A13

“I have a difficult time explaining that speech. It doesn’t accord with
either the world as we see it nor with the character of our interactions
with the Russians.”
— Condoleezza Rice, Feb. 15

Ten days have passed since the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, made a
speech in Munich accusing the United States of plunging the planet into “an
abyss of permanent conflicts,” of deliberately encouraging the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, and (this from a country that regularly
blackmails and manipulates its neighbors) of having “overstepped its
national borders in every way.”

During that time, the American secretary of state — quoted above — has
not been alone in expressing surprise.

With varying degrees of shock, commentators and politicians have speculated
about the significance of Putin’s “new” language, wondering whether it means
Russia’s road to democracy has reached a fork, whether Putin was really
speaking to his domestic audience or whether the speech heralded some kind
of policy change.

In fact, the only thing continually surprising about President Putin is the
surprise itself. For we have long known a great deal about Putin, about his
biography — his time as a KGB officer in East Germany, his years in the
government of St. Petersburg — and about his personal philosophy, too.

We have long known, for example, that he is a great admirer of Yuri
Andropov, the former Soviet leader best remembered for his belief that
“order and discipline,” as defined by the KGB, would revive the weakened
Soviet Union of the 1980s.

Way back in 1999, Putin went so far as to dedicate a plaque to Andropov
in a corner of the Lubyanka, once the headquarters of the KGB as well as
its most notorious political prison.

Since then, Putin has not ceased emulating many of the methods of the
Andropov-era KGB, including its paranoid suspicion of America. He
continues to treat all Western organizations in Russia, whatever their
purpose, as “spies and diversionaries.”

He has used Russian television — all state-owned or state-influenced — to
portray the recent mysterious deaths of his critics, including one by
polonium poisoning, as part of a nefarious Western plot to discredit his
government.

In the wake of the 2004 Beslan school massacre, he hinted that American
support for Chechen terrorists was to blame. I myself have heard that claim
repeated in Moscow more than once.

Nevertheless, we were surprised, are surprised and apparently always will be
surprised by Putin, just as we were surprised by Yeltsin before him and
Gorbachev before that.

Despite Putin’s background and his well-known views, President Bush from
the beginning of his term treated Putin the way all American presidents
treat all Russian leaders: as America’s new best friends.

Bush, infamously, looked deep into Putin’s eyes, found him to be “
straightforward and trustworthy” and invited him to his ranch.

Not so many years earlier, when President Boris Yeltsin was up for
reelection, President Bill Clinton told his main Soviet adviser, Strobe
Talbott, that “I want this guy to win so bad it hurts.”

Never mind that inside Russia, Yeltsin was already associated with massive
theft and economic chaos, or that his regime was perceived internally as
corrupt and nepotistic: The American president went out of his way to visit
Moscow during the campaign, just to make sure Yeltsin won.

It is, if you think about it, an odd phenomenon. After all, American
presidents generally don’t campaign on behalf of their French counterparts
or look deep into the eyes of German chancellors in order to divine their
true natures. While at times very friendly, neither Clinton nor Bush seems
to have felt a mystical connection to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Yet Russian politicians still seem to make American politicians grow
starry-eyed and lose their bearings.

Perhaps it’s a secret longing for the glamour of those Cold War summits, for
the days when it seemed as if the personal relations between superpower
statesmen could ward off the destruction of the entire planet. Or perhaps
they put something in the vodka — sorry, mineral water — at those elegant
Kremlin lunches.

Either way, it’s time to kick the habit. True, it is perfectly possible that
whoever leads Russia after Putin steps down ( if Putin steps down) will
be a nicer, friendlier person. It is perfectly possible that we will find
areas of cooperation with him, just as we sometimes do with Putin.

But however friendly and cooperative, however much a “democrat” he
appears to be, I hope we’ll avoid the instant professions of eternal
friendship. At the very least, we’ll avoid being unpleasantly surprised,
yet again, if things turn out otherwise.                    -30-
—————————————————————————————–
Anne Applebaum: applebaumanne@yahoo.com
—————————————————————————————–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021901172.html

——————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
24.      JAMES SHERR: WE DO NOT HAVE A NEW COLD WAR.
                      WHAT WE HAVE ARE BAD RELATIONS

INTERVIEW: With James Sherr, Senior Researcher
Center of Conflict Studies in Great Britain
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007

We asked James Sherr, a senior researcher at the Center of Conflict Studies
in Great Britain, to comment on the Munich developments.

He emphasized, as usual, that his views may not necessarily coincide with
the official stance of the British government and Defense Department

[Question] The Munich conference has already been referred to by many

as a place where a new cold war was kicked off.

What do you think is behind the new tense situation in relations between the
USA and Russia: forthcoming presidential elections in the two countries,
Russia’s claim, supported by rich oil and gas reserves, for a role as a new
superpower, or simply inept policy of the current US administration?

[James Sherr] We need to revise the paradigm. We do not have a new cold war.
What we have are bad relations. The Cold War was something very specific,
and it is not coming back.

What is notable about Putin’s Munich speech? In a word, mentality. Putin
connected factors in US and Western policy that Western policy makers simply
do not connect. For good or ill, democracy now plays a prominent rhetorical
role in the Iraq conflict.

So when someone in Washington speaks about democracy in Russia he is
supposedly thinking about conflict. And any prudent or ill-judged comment
(e.g. Secretary of Defense Gates) about ‘log-term uncertainties’ regarding
Russia supposedly means that the US now regards Russia as part of the ‘axis
of evil’.

Because some newer members of NATO have anxieties about Russia, this
supposedly means that NATO enlargement is anti-Russian and that missile
defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic are designed (in General
Ivashov’s words) to ‘corner’ Russia.

No one in the Russian national security establishment has publicly stated
the obvious: that these interceptors have no offensive use, that they cannot
intercept Russian ICBMs from those locations and the US Global Integrated
Missile Defence programme was established at a time when US-Russia relations
were extremely good.

The fact is that very few Russians (or for that matter Ukrainians)
understand just how obsessed the United States is about the longer term
missile threat from Iran (and to a lesser extent, North Korea). And so, when
Americans are not thinking about Russia or Ukraine, it is assumed that they
are.

Were there more calculated motives behind Putin’s speech? I think so.

[1] First, on the eve of an extremely high profile visit to the Middle East,
it was designed to mobilise those who could be impressed.
[2] Second, at a time when the EU is considering a much more robust

approach to energy security, it is designed to warn that Russia is already
aggrieved and that Brussels should tread carefully.
[3] Third, it tells the Russian public that when Putin picks his successor,
he will know what he is doing. And finally, I fear, it means that national
security will be a big theme in the succession process.

[Question] Both the US and Russia have increased their defense budgets
considerably. Ukraine looks unconcerned in this respect. What does Ukraine
risk today by not rejuvenating is weapons arsenals and military equipment
(no matter if it eventually enters NATO or not)?

[James Sherr] I hope that this is not the question posed in Ukrainian
defence circles!

[1] First, only in the worst, most far-fetched case would the US or Russia
pose a classical military threat to Ukraine.

Russia has too many other supposedly ‘non-provocative’ means it can employ
to threaten Ukraine. Military pressure on Ukraine is the only thing that
will bring a Cold War back to Europe!

[2] Second, Ukraine simply cannot afford to defend itself against the very
worst case.

[3] Third, by trying to do so, Ukraine will diminish its ability to defend
itself against what really threatens it: weak institutions, uncoordinated
and poorly financed defence and security structures – all of them vulnerable
to penetration by shadow structures and by those who seek to harm Ukraine.

[Question] Do you expect a new NATO cleavage because of rising tensions in
relations between the US and Russia?

[James Sherr] No, I think it is having the opposite effect. Even many
leading centre-left newspapers in EU countries have criticised Putin’s
speech. As the Czech Republic’s Foreign Minister stated, we ‘should thank
Putin’. He ‘clearly and convincingly argued why NATO should be enlarged’.

[Question] What kind of effect may increasing tensions in relations between
Moscow and Washing have on Ukraine?

[James Sherr] Not well, of course. It will sharpen all the internal
cleavages and misunderstandings. And to jump back to your earlier question,
it will sharpen Ukraine’s security dilemma.

Ukraine needs real partners and, in my view, that means steadily closer
integration with NATO. But unless a convincing proportion of Ukraine’s elite
and society agree, further steps in that direction will be difficult.

[Question] What, in your view, was Washington thinking about when making
hostages to its relations with Moscow the countries which were seeking in
NATO a greater degree of security for each of their citizens?

[James Sherr] To reiterate, no one in Washington was thinking about Moscow
when they proposed the basing of missile defence interceptors to the Polish
and Czech governments. But perhaps they should have.

Perhaps they also should have thought more about the political sensitiveness
of those countries and their neighbors.

If I may repeat something I said in early 2002, the focus on ‘terror’ and
‘rogue states’ is more likely to narrow vision than broaden it and, like cataracts
in the eye, obscure sight of other interests that Americans dare not lose
sight of.

————————————————————————————————–
http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/635/55911/
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
25.                  THE REWARDS OF A LARGER NATO

COMMENTARY: By Greg Craig and Ronald D. Asmus
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., Mon, Feb 19, 2007; Page A19

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bellicose speech at the Munich security
conference on Feb. 10 has caused some to revive their arguments against
enlarging NATO. The policy was wrongheaded because it produced the
nationalist policies that emanate from Moscow today, they say.

NATO expansion was a bad idea, they argue, because it enraged the Russians
and prompted them to elect a former KGB officer and cold warrior as
president. The only thing we got out of NATO enlargement, they say, was the
Czech navy.

The critics were wrong when they opposed adding nations to the alliance in
the 1990s, and they are still wrong. In fact, the more time that passes, the
better the arguments in favor of enlargement look. There were basically
three reasons for expanding NATO, and each has been proved right.

[1] First, NATO enlargement was meant to provide a security shield behind
which the countries of Central and Eastern Europe could bury their
historical conflicts and peacefully integrate into the West.

By taking the lead on enlargement, NATO helped make expansion of the
European Union possible as well. The result is that Europe is more
democratic, peaceful and secure than ever.

All of us — Europeans, Americans and Russians — benefit. The threats
Russia faces today are not in the West but in the South and to the East.
Indeed, Moscow has more stability and less uncertainty on its Western
borders than at any time since Napoleon.

[2] Second, we enlarged NATO as a hedge against a Russia that, down the
road, might once again emerge as a regional bully or threat. That is exactly
what Moscow is in danger of becoming. But the good news for Central Europe
is that it is secure now that it is firmly anchored in NATO and the European
Union.

Just imagine what Central Europe would look like today if we had not
enlarged the alliance: Central and Eastern Europe leaders would spend more
time worrying about how to stand up to Russian pressure than building
democratic institutions and managing robust, free-market economies.

Relations with Poland or the Baltic states would look something like the
troubled relations Moscow has today with Ukraine and Georgia. We would
again have instability in the heart of Europe when we could least afford it.

[3] The third reason to enlarge NATO was broader and more strategic. At the
time, President Bill Clinton spoke of his desire to help Europe resolve its
continental conflicts and of his hope that this would encourage Europeans to
raise their geopolitical sights, assume more global responsibility and
become partners with the United States in addressing new threats beyond
Europe. Does anyone doubt the need for precisely that after Sept. 11, 2001?

Would NATO be in Afghanistan today or be talking about a more global mission
if we had not helped build a stable post-Cold War security system in Europe
in the 1990s?

If Europe were not secure today, it would be much harder to persuade our
allies to engage with us in places such as Afghanistan or the Middle East.

To say that NATO expansion triggered Putin’s election as president is to
rewrite history. When it comes to Vladimir Putin’s career, we can thank
Boris Yeltsin. He picked Putin as his successor to protect his own
interests, not for reasons that had anything to do with NATO expansion.

Let’s stop pretending that Russia’s troubling emergence as an illiberal,
increasingly authoritarian state driven by a form of Eurasian
petro-nationalism is the result of Western policy. It is because of
developments inside Russia over which the West has little control.

To say that the West got nothing out of NATO expansion is to miss the forest
for the trees. While many of NATO’s new members are still poorer than
Western European nations, their contribution to the alliance on a per capita
basis is higher than that of most West European allies.

The nations of Central and Eastern Europe are democratic, stable and
prosperous. They made this progress precisely because they were able to
leave the Soviet orbit and become part of Europe.

That dream of joining NATO and rejoining Europe galvanized their populations
and caused them to unite in support of tough reforms that were achieved only
because they were the price of joining NATO. And today they have the
confidence as well as the wherewithal to deal with the rise of a nationalist
Russia.

In truth, with NATO’s expansion we got much more than the Czech navy.
We got a Europe that is whole and free. And we have an alliance that is
better able to protect us from the threats of the future precisely because
it as buried so many ghosts from the past.

That’s a pretty good deal.                              -30-
———————————————————————————————–
The writers served in the State Department during the Clinton
administration. Greg Craig was director of the Office of Policy Planning,
and Ronald D. Asmus was deputy assistant secretary for European affairs.
———————————————————————————————–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021800902.html
——————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
26.                    MUNICH 2007 CHANCE FOR UKRAINE

COMMENTARY: By Kostyantyn Hryshchenko, Advisor to
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yanukovych, Former Foreign Minister,
Former Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007

Munich, where in 1938 the great powers met to split up among themselves the
territory of Czechoslovakia, once epitomized disregard for the sovereignty
and interests of minor states, heeding instead the global centers of power.

The scale of human losses such disrespect incurred is well known. This may
be why Munich was selected as the venue for a conference on security policy,
which in today’s world plays a different role than it did in the past.

Munich is the venue for annual conferences on new trends in international
relations. This is a forum that enables big, medium and small countries to
work together in the joint search for responses to global challenges.

I have been a frequent guest in this forum, which is sometimes referred to
as a political Davos. Impressions from discussions here have been invariably
profound and vivid, spawning fresh ideas and new political constructs.

But this most recent forum, the 43rd, exceeded even the greatest
expectations of its annual participants.

High-profile statements made by well-regarded political figures have created
so many reverberations and comments throughout the world that they simply
must not pass unnoticed in the context of the current political discussion
in Ukraine. The significance of this year’s forum was evidenced by the
roster of its participants.

These included the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, the
Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, the NATO Secretary General
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the EU foreign and security affairs chief Javier
Solana, the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, US senators J. MacCain

and J. Liebermann, as well as foreign ministers and defense ministers from
numerous other countries.

Other prominent participants included Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko,
who reiterated Kyiv’s aim to work intensively on building up a new Europe in
cooperation with other nations.

It is clear even today that the Munich conference of 2007 marked the
beginning of not only critical re-evaluation of the modern international
relations system, but also began a broad public discussion on the real
principles on which the current global order rests.

Topics of this kind have been previously addressed mostly by members of the
expert community, and – no matter how highly respected these experts might
have been – were mostly taken as a private position.

This time along Munich was the venue for a discussion where traditional
stereotypes and reticences, more revealing than speeches, gave place,
unexpectedly to straightforwardness, and, most importantly, to an unmasking
of the positions and strivings of those claiming global leadership.

On the one hand, the Munich remarks by Russian President Vladimir Putin have
generated numerous reverberations throughout the world. The Russian leader,
in an emphatic speech, outlined the key division of the modern world –
between opponents and proponents of a unipolar world.

Putin stated, “All the happenings in the modern world today are a direct
consequence of attempts being made to impose a concept of a unipolar
world. This would be a world of a single master, a single sovereign. Such a
situation adversely affects not only those beyond that system but the
sovereign itself, and destroys it from within.

The United States has overstepped its national boundaries in all areas –
political, economic and humanitarian — where it has been imposing something
on other states. Who can feel very good about it?”

The world is much more complex today than 20 or 30 years ago, and in this
world there are those who do not understand any arguments other than those
backed by superior force. This is the reality.

There can be no doubt that the world needs an ‘effective muscular
transatlantic alliance,’ said the US Minister of Defense Robert Gates in
response to remarks made by the Russian leader.

I think it would be worthwhile to compare these statements with Winston
Churchill’s Fulton speech in March 1946.

I would not compare the words of these politicians in terms of lesser or
greater strength. What seems most important to me is that speakers in the
Munich forum, remarkably in one speech by a prominent British politician,
drew attention to the fact that the end of the Cold War, like the end of WW
II, has not made the world as stable and predictable as people had expected.

Meanwhile, a very considerable, if not the best part of Ukraine’s political
elite, no matter what political camps they may belong to, still view the
county’s international policy priorities based on the world picture as it
was in the early and mid-1990s.

It was the hope of many at the time that the West’s sweeping victory in the
Cold War would remove all obstacles in the way that were preventing the
spread of liberal-democratic principles, and encourage newly independent
states to build up their countries based on these principles.

At that time, European integration processes were advancing very rapidly,
and hope even sprang within Ukraine that it would not be long before it
could join that integration process together with other fellow states from
the former socialist camp, which a united Europe had taken in whole, but
mostly on credit.

NATO, having lost its worst enemy, relegated its chief mission as a
military-political alliance to the background, and has been trying since
then to find a new role in advancing democracy and stability, and to
identify new mission areas such as combating terrorism, ecological threats,
crime and drug smuggling. But it turns out that the world has not been
changing in the way we would have liked.

In other words, relying on old perceptions in shaping foreign policy
strategies today would be not only wrong but dangerous as well. It is high
time for the Ukrainian political elite to take a practical view of the world
which surrounds us and about which they know so little.

The Munich conference is to kick off this complicated but much-needed
process of Ukraine’s revaluation of its influential place and role in
resolving global challenges.

                       INCIPIENT THAWING OF THE POLES
We need to realize that the outlines of the new international system which
are being built upon the remnants of the Yalta-Potsdam model are still
vague and unstable.

Each potentially influential state (Ukraine is among the world’s thirty
countries with the greatest potential of international influence) still has
a chance to take part in shaping the new rules of the game in our
international system. And no obsolete paradigms or stereotypes should
be an obstacle in this field of maneuvering.

                UNIPOLAR WORLD HAS NOT BEEN REALIZED
The United States has been short of either resources or resolve to maintain
stability and international order on its own.

The point is not in its failed attempts to set up stable democratic regimes
in Iraq and Afghanistan by means of military force, but rather in the fact
that no single country, no matter how strong it may be financially or
militarily, has been able to extinguish crises in Iraq, Afghanistan or
elsewhere.

On account of this, the Americans are being simultaneously criticized for
being too much involved in the affairs of other states and entire regions on
the one hand, and for being involved insufficiently in the effort to put an
end to violence and impoverishment on the other.

In the corridors of the Munich forum, an example was cited of America’s
diminishing dominance in the world.

Before our eyes the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, who was until
recently perceived as nothing more than a lone eccentric, managed to pull
into an anti-US bloc such Latin American countries as Venezuela, Bolivia,
Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba.

Not far from its own borders the USA failed to prevent a union of
anti-American regimes, which have successfully exploited popular
disappointment with Washington-sponsored neo-liberal reforms.

The US still remains the world’s greatest military power, backed up by
ever-increasing defense spending, but America is not the only wealthy
country anymore.

Using a massive expansion of markets in Africa and Latin America, China
is steadily ousting Washington from its role as the main partner of the
developing world.

The Chinese, whose leaders are visiting the Third World countries as
pragmatic potential partners, offer more credits and more investment, while
being less demanding politically and economically than the Americans or
Europeans.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region, the USA is no
longer perceived as the only key player determining the situation in that
part of the world.

This is demonstrated by the first-ever visit of a Russian President to Saudi
Arabia, by Iran’s increasing role in Iraq, and also by Washington’s
impotence to effectively help in resolving the Palestinian crisis. Stories
of the USA losing its monopoly of influence on various regions of the
world are legion.

I would only add for that matter that the concept of a unipolar world is
meeting an increasing opposition in other great nations such as China,
India, Brazil and Russia – an opposition which is steadily developing into
solidarity.

Washington is looking at this situation as a reality, but the time is not
yet ripe for giving up altogether this philosophy of a unipolar world.

Instead, the US is placing a premium on bringing its allies in Europe and
the Asian-Pacific region into its fold.

                     NATO’S ROLE IN THE MODERN WORLD
Speaking to the Munich forum, the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
emphasized that NATO’s chief mission remains unchanged in its core.

“An alliance consisting of the world’s most prosperous industrialized
nations, with over 2 million people in uniform — not even counting the
American military — should be able to generate the manpower and materiel
needed to get the job done in Afghanistan, a mission in which there is
virtually no dispute over its justness, necessity, or international
legitimacy,” Gates said.

NATO is not a paper membership or a social club or a talk shop. It is a
military alliance, one with very serious real-world obligations.

The boundary lies now not between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe but between those
who do all they can to fulfill their collective commitments and those who do
not, Gates continued to say.

He expressed the hope that all of NATO’s 26 member states, not six as is the
case now, “will meet the benchmark of spending 2 percent of gross domestic
product on defense, a commitment agreed to by each member of the alliance”.

We need to know and understand this-all of it. NATO must not be viewed
simply as a stopover on the way to EU membership or as a club of stable
democracies providing reliable security guarantees.

Membership in that organization will mean for Ukraine, among other things,
preparedness to display transatlantic solidarity in complex situations and
to undertake serious commitments: military and financial.

Until these aspects of the issue are assessed profoundly and from all
angles, any responsible talk of Euroatlantic integration would be premature.
And this work should start by assessing Ukraine’s ability to spend two
percent of its gross domestic product on defense.

But whatever a final decision on our membership in NATO might be, Ukraine
cannot hope for playing any visible role in the modern world without
spending sufficient sums on its own military.

                                    EUROPEAN CHALLENGE
To many participants in the Munich conference, a key message came from
the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Even though during the Cold War he agreed with the US Secretary of Defense
on the need for NATO enlargement, this time along Steinmeier stated that
single-handed effort by the alliance is not enough to cope with global
issues such as climate change, overpopulation and lack of natural resources,
which all are posing an increasing threat to the world.

Instead, he called on the US and EU to cooperate as equal partners beyond
their work together in NATO.

Here we see the Europeans’ efforts to get out from under US guardianship
and to play a more weighty role in resolving the problems which, sadly, much
more concern ‘old’ Europe than the United States.

Another sensation of the Munich conference – which was much spoken of in
unofficial conversations there – was Germany’s claim for a more prominent
role in global policy.

Berlin does not make a secret of its resolve to enter the club of countries
developing the rules of play for the new international system, and this
trend should be taken into account by those accustomed to thinking of US
and EU positions as just one and the same.
                              NEW COLD WAR CHALLENGE
At the Munich conference, there was much talk, notably by European
politicians, of Russia’s new role in maintaining international security.

In particular, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated, “Even today
Russia in many instances bears shared responsibility with us”.

“This has to do with its contribution to resolving the Middle East conflict,
and, considering the Iran situation, we see that none of the resolutions [on
that country] would become effective without Russia’s participation. As for
the Balkans, by acting jointly with Russia, we could get many things started
and accomplish much”, said Merkel.

The trouble is that Kyiv, as well as a good number of other capitals
worldwide, was late in adequately assessing Russia’s renewed influence in
that region and on the world as a whole.

Most policy makers in Ukraine did not notice Russia developing into a
wealthy enough state, strong militarily and politically, whose elite is
increasingly becoming self-confident and assertive, and dares to behave
defiantly, if not aggressively, in the international arena. And we still
have to learn how to play ball with such a neighbor.

And, most importantly, the European Union, which itself is seeking an
optimal pattern for dialogue with Moscow, needing its support on many
issues, is not going to help us in that effort.

The point is not only in Ukraine’s dependence on Moscow for natural gas.
What Europe is awaiting from Kyiv is reliability and predictability in its
relations with Russia.

Paris, Berlin and Brussels all stand ready to give a helping hand to Ukraine
in countering pressure from Russia. But they are not going to get involved
in a conflict if it is provoked by Ukraine’s inconsistency and reluctance to
honor its obligations.

This could be clearly felt in Munich, where European politicians decided not
to engage in yet another discussion on the prospects of a Russian-Ukrainian
partnership in the gas industry, especially since the EU, as in previous
cases, could not sort out who had been right and who wrong in the most
recent gas dispute, because of Ukrainian officials’ propensity to secret
negotiations with Moscow.

On the other hand, there are too many politicians in the West and Russia
alike who are still thinking in the Cold War-era terms and keeping their
guns ready.

A number of strongly-worded statements by the Russian President and
high-ranking American officials has given rise to talk about a new global
rivalry between Moscow and Washington.

And we have to realize that in this situation much more depends on Ukraine
than many used to think, because our country could be a reliable bridge
between the West and Russia and a battlefield for those two alike.

The choice here depends to a considerable degree on the Ukrainian elite,
since it is owing precisely to a lack of agreement between opposing camps
there, along with their inability to compromise, that there is competition
between Moscow and Washington over Ukraine’s political market.

A graphic illustration is last year’s parliamentary coalition process and
the following scramble for influence on the ruling majority and the
government.

Ukraine’s sovereignty and the scope of the rivalry between international
powers depend on Kyiv’s stance here, and on the ability of the country’s
political elite to refrain from accepting outside support when it comes
resolving internal tensions.
                          CONSOLIDATION REQUIREMENT
The Munich conference has proven that the narrow perception of security
as dealing simply with low-level threats is becoming history now.

It is becoming more clear that security implies not a state as such but
rather a process and movement.

Security is a situation where the threat level is constantly low. So,
neglecting an aspect of security such as competitive capabilities of states
in the fight for survival may bring about great problems.

The Soviet Union used to spend huge sums of money on getting itself
prepared for combating internal and external enemies, but eventually it
broke apart because of an acute shortcoming in its own system.

After all, let us accept that all the major threats to Ukraine’s national
security are coming from the inside, making the country more vulnerable
to external challenges.

If the Ukrainian political elite does not consolidate, any kind of
international policy strategy–even one that is well-considered and takes
into account all the realities of modern international relations–will be
doomed to failure.

Today, our state has a unique chance of not only defending its right to an
independent foreign policy but also of joining those who are shaping the
new architecture of international relations in the region, as well as in the
global situation.

The only thing necessary for this is that decision-makers in Ukraine act as
one, using a unified platform, and work together in the search for resources
needed in responding to challenges within Ukraine’s political system, rather
than balancing itself between global centers of force.

Ukraine can afford neither an internal cold war nor an internal bipolarity.
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/635/55910/
———————————————————————————————–
[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;
         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 four 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 & BULK MAIL BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

If you do not receive a copy of the AUR it is probably because of a
SPAM OR BULK MAIL BLOCKER maintained by your server or by
yourself on your computer. Spam and bulk mail blockers are set in very
arbitrary and impersonal ways and block out e-mails because of words
found in many news stories or the way the subject line is organized or
the header or who know what.
 
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, The Bleyzer Foundation

Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
President (Acting) and Chairman, Executive Committee of the
Board of Directors, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
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#819 Feb 22 Yulia Tymoshenko Visits NYC & Washington Next Week; Crimea’s Separatist Card; Feed Grain Export Quotas Lifted; James Mace’s Mission

========================================================
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       

 
      FORMER UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
         LOOKING FOR BOOST DURING UPCOMING VISIT TO U.S.
                                                   [Article One]
                        
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 819
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor, SigmaBleyzer
WASHINGTON, D.C., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2007

              –——-  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. FORMER UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
       LOOKING FOR BOOST DURING UPCOMING VISIT TO U.S.
Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

2YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIV IN NYC
               Talk will also be broadcast over the Internet via webcast.
Diana Howansky, Columbia University
New York, New York, Monday, February 19, 2007

3NATIONAL PRESS CLUB TO HOST ‘MORNING NEWSMAKER’
          NEWS CONFERENCE WITH MP YULIA TYMOSHENKO, 
            LEADER OF UKRAINE’S MAIN OPPOSITION PARTY
PR Newswire/USNewswire, Washington, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

4.     TYMOSHENKO BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE DISCUSSING
     POSSIBILITY OF JOINTLY DRAFTING NEW CONSTITUTION

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

5TYMOSHENKO SAYS UNIFICATION TALKS BETWEEN HER
     BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE HAVE REACHED FINAL STAGES 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

6.   AMBASSADORS OF EU COUNTRIES QUIZ TYMOSHENKO

                  ON CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN UKRAINE
Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

7. TYMOSHENKO ACCUSES PARTY OF REGIONS OF PREPARING
   DISINFORMATION ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT IN LAZARENKO 
       CASE RIGHT BEFORE HER TRIP TO THE UNITED STATES 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 21, 2007

8. NO CHARGES AGAINST TYMOSHENKO IN UNITED STATES,
           U.S. EMBASSY SAYS, THE U.S. IS AWAITING AND

                    WELCOMES A VISIT BY TYMOSHENKO
Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

9.      OPPOSITION PUSHES THROUGH GAS-PIPELINE LAW

INFORM Newsletter, Issue 30, Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, 12 February, 2007

10.     UKRAINE: ANOTHER EPISODE OF POLITICAL CRISIS
COMMENTARY: By Adam Swain
Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, Feb 21 2007

11.     UKRAINE’S CRIMEAN TATAR RADICALS, MODERATES
                  SPLIT OVER LARGE-SCALE LAND PROTESTS 
Black Sea TV, Simferopol, in Russian 1700 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

12.           UKRAINE’S CRIMEA: THE SEPARATIST CARD
EDITORIAL: Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21 2007

13.         A LESSON IN STIFLING VIOLENT EXTREMISM 

              The Crimean Tatar experience proves that there is indeed a
                   nonviolent prophylactic for ethnoreligious conflict.
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: Waleed Ziad and Laryssa Chomiak,
The Christina Science Monitor, Boston, MA, Tue, February 20, 2007 

14.       UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CANCELLED QUOTAS

                              FOR EXPORT OF FEED GRAIN
UNIAN News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

15UKRAINIAN AGRARIAN CONFEDERATION SAYS LIFTING
            FEED GRAIN QUOTAS WAS THE RIGHT DECISION  
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

16 UKRAINIAN GRAIN ASSOCIATION CALLS FOR RESTART
     OF THE WORK OF THE GRAIN MARKET WORKING GROUP
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

17.   UKRAINIAN DELEGATION ARRIVES IN U.S. FOR TALKS
                                ON WTO ACCESSION
Interfax Ukraine Business Express, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21, 2007

18.    UKRAINE IN “DIFFICULT POSITION” OVER U.S. MISSILE
     SYSTEM IN EUROPE, SAYS PRIME MINISTER YANUKOVYCH 
Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0913 gmt 20 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007

19U.S. URGES UKRAINE TO CONDUCT SPEEDY INVESTIGATION
        INTO VANDALISM ACTS AT JEWISH CEMETERY IN ODESA 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

20.          ROMANIAN PRESIDENT CRITICIZES UKRAINE’S

                          ATTITUDE ON SERPENT ISLAND 
Rompres news agency, Bucharest, in English 1600 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007
 
                 WEB,  DUBBED INTO UKRAINIAN LANGAUGE
UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007
 
22.                        JAMES MACE AND HIS MISSION
By Oxana Pachlowska, University of Rome La Sapienza
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Feb 20, 2007
 
23.              OUR STRANGE DEVOTION TO THE KREMLIN
OP-ED: By Anne Applebaum, Columnist
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; Page A13
                       WHAT WE HAVE ARE BAD RELATIONS
INTERVIEW: With James Sherr, Senior Researcher
Center of Conflict Studies in Great Britain
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007
 
25.                     THE REWARDS OF A LARGER NATO
COMMENTARY: By Greg Craig and Ronald D. Asmus
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., Mon, Feb 19, 2007; Page A19
 
26.                    MUNICH 2007 CHANCE FOR UKRAINE
COMMENTARY: By Kostyantyn Hryshchenko, Advisor to
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yanukovych, Former Foreign Minister,
Former Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007
=======================================================
1
FORMER UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER YULIA TYMOSHENKO
       LOOKING FOR BOOST DURING UPCOMING VISIT TO U.S.
 
Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

KIEV — Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko hopes to get
help in resolving a months-old crisis that threatens the liberal aims of the
2004 Orange Revolution when she visits the United States next week.

Tymoshenko was a key figure in the mass protests that brought President
Viktor Yushchenko to office, but she was fired as prime minister after eight
months and now leads the opposition.

Yushchenko, his powers cut under the constitution, named his rival Viktor
Yanukovych as prime minister last year after his “orange” allies failed to
form a government. The two have since been engaged in a constant power
struggle.

Speaking Wednesday before her U.S. trip, Tymoshenko said the West no
longer understood Ukraine since the liberals failed to press their
pro-Western agenda of joining the European Union and NATO.

“We believe that after the Orange Revolution and the comeback of the old
political teams, the world stopped understanding Ukraine. I am going to the
United States to make Ukraine more understandable to the outside world,”
she said.

“This chaos has one name only: a constitutional crisis, when the president
and the prime minister … confront each other and their powers contradict
each other. So Ukraine has ended up with two masters wielding executive
power.”

Tymoshenko, sporting her trademark peasant braid in Ukraine’s parliament
building, said talks could no longer help. “There is only one way out of the
constitutional crisis, the same used by all democratic countries when such a
situation occurs, and that is an early parliamentary election,” she said. -30-
————————————————————————————————-

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. YULIA TYMOSHENKO TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIV IN NYC
              Talk will also be broadcast over the Internet via webcast.

Diana Howansky, Columbia University
New York, New York, Monday, February 19, 2007

                                       YULIA TYMOSHENKO

WHAT:     Speech by Ukrainian MP Yulia Tymoshenko
WHEN:     Monday, February 26 from 6:00-7:00 pm
WHERE:   Rotunda of Low Memorial Library, 535 W. 116th St.,
                 Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

Yulia Tymoshenko, head of the All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland party and
the Yulia Tymoshenko Electoral Bloc, played a central role in Ukraine’s
Orange Revolution in 2004.

She served as Prime Minister of Ukraine from January-September 2005,
leading Forbes magazine to name her the 3rd of the 100 Most Powerful
Women in the World during this period.

Reservations are required, as seating will be limited to 450 individuals
and will be filled the day of the talk on a first-come/first-served
basis.

To RSVP, please call 212-854-9016 or email
yulia_rsvp@harrimaninstitute.org and provide your name and phone
number.

This talk, which will be in Ukrainian with simultaneous translation into
English, is free and open to the public. (For those who are not in the
NYC area and are unable to attend, the talk will also be broadcast over
the Internet via webcast.)                           -30-
———————————————————————————————
NOTE: Diana Howansky, Columbia University, dhh2@columbia.edu
———————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB TO HOST ‘MORNING NEWSMAKER’
        NEWS CONFERENCE WITH MP YULIA TYMOSHENKO,
           LEADER OF UKRAINE’S MAIN OPPOSITION PARTY

PR Newswire/USNewswire, Washington, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

WASHINGTON – The following advisory was issued today by the
National Press Club:

National Press Club “MORNING NEWSMAKER”
News Conference, Friday, March 2, 2007, 9 a.m.
National Press Club (Lisagor Room)

Member of the Parliament of Ukraine and Leader of Ukraine’s Main
Opposition Party, The Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT), Ms. Julia
Tymoshenko will discuss “Ukraine and European energy security, the
state of Ukrainian democracy, transitional democracies of central
Europe, and Ukrainian-Russian relations and their interplay with U.S.
foreign policy.” 

 
Contacts: National Press Club: Peter Hickman
301/530-1210 (H&O/T&F), 202/662-7540 (National Press Club),
pjhickman@hotmail.com
———————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4.     TYMOSHENKO BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE DISCUSSING
     POSSIBILITY OF JOINTLY DRAFTING NEW CONSTITUTION

 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

KYIV – The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc are discussing

the possibility of jointly drafting a new Ukrainian Constitution. The Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc’s leader Yulia Tymoshenko announced this to journalists in
response to a question posed by Ukrainian News.

Tymoshenko also said that the Constitution would probably remain unchanged
if a new Constitution was not jointly drafted. “If there is no joint version of the

new Constitution, then there will never be a new Constitution,” Tymoshenko
said.

She also stressed that the votes of deputies belonging to the Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc alone are not sufficient to

pass a new Constitution in the parliament and that it is necessary to reach
compromises with other political forces.

According to her, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc

are also discussing creation of a joint appeal team in the parliament and
coordination of their legislative work.

Asked whether the two political forces discussed nomination of a single
candidate for the next presidential elections, Tymoshenko said no such

thing was discussed. “It is so far away… To distribute posts in the future…
Honestly speaking, it was not discussed,” Tymoshenko said.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Viacheslav Kyrylenko, the head of the
parliamentary faction of the Our Ukraine bloc, considers it necessary to
draft a new version of the Ukrainian Constitution.

The Communist Party’s proposed draft Constitution which provides for
abolition of the post of President and transferring the powers of the
President to the parliament.

The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc intends to submit its own version of the new
Constitution by April. The Party of the Regions opposes the idea of drafting
a new version of the Constitution.  The Our Ukraine People’s Union party

and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc have decided to merge their factions in
local councils at all levels.                              -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5.   TYMOSHENKO SAYS UNIFICATION TALKS BETWEEN HER
       BLOC AND OUR UKRAINE HAVE REACHED FINAL STAGES 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc’s leader Yulia Tymoshenko has said that

the talks between the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, the Our Ukraine bloc, and
President Viktor Yuschenko on unification of the two blocs have entered
their final stages. Tymoshenko was addressing journalists at a news briefing
in the parliament.

‘The negotiating process with the President and Our Ukraine is practically
being completed today,’ Tymoshenko said. At the same time, she said that

the two blocs would be able to present a joint action plan within the next few
days.

‘I think that we will be able to propose a serious algorithm on how to
remove from power the people who are essentially destroying the country
today literally on Thursday-Friday (February 22-23),’ Tymoshenko said.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Cabinet of Ministers has accused the
Our Ukraine bloc and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc of striving to destabilize
the situation in the country.

Viktor Baloha, the head of the Presidential Secretariat and chairman of the
council of the Our Ukraine People’s Union party, has forecast that the Yulia
Tymoshenko Bloc and the Our Ukraine bloc will sign an agreement on creation
of a single opposition force by March 5. The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the
Our Ukraine bloc intend to sign a cooperation agreement.        -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.    AMBASSADORS OF EU COUNTRIES QUIZ TYMOSHENKO
                   ON CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN UKRAINE

Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

KYIV – BYT leader Yulia Tymoshenko and ambassadors of the European

Union member states discussed Ukraine’s Eurointegration course, issues
of regional (including energy) security, and Ukrainian-Russian relations
during a business lunch in Kyiv on Wednesday.

The ambassadors also asked Tymoshenko to brief them on the position

of her political bloc concerning the constitutional crisis in Ukraine and
opportunities to settle it, the press service of the BYT reported.

The business lunch was sponsored by German Ambassador to Ukraine

Reinhardt Schaefer, the press service said.                -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. TYMOSHENKO ACCUSES PARTY OF REGIONS OF PREPARING
   DISINFORMATION ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT IN LAZARENKO 
       CASE RIGHT BEFORE HER TRIP TO THE UNITED STATES
 

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 21, 2007

KYIV – Yulia Tymoshenko, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc’s leader, has
accused the Party of Regions of preparing the disinformation that alleges
that the United States has declared her an accomplice in the case against
former Ukrainian prime minister Pavlo Lazarenko.

Tymoshenko disclosed this to the press. ‘The information is incorrect.

That is a provocation prepared by PR-company of the Party of Regions,’
she said.

Tymoshenko said that such provocations are purposefully prepared before
trips of politicians. Earlier, Tymoshenko had announced her intention to

visit the United States.

According to reports in the mass media, documents about Lazarenko’s
involvement in the case against Tymoshenko and vice versa have been
unveiled at a district court in California.

According to these documents, all Lazarenko’s statements that

Tymoshenko was not involved in his case have been rejected by the court.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the San Francisco District Court
sentenced Lazarenko to 108 months in jail and fined him USD 10 million
on August 25, 2006, for money laundering and sale of illegally acquired
property abroad when he was Ukraine’s prime minister.

Lazarenko is accused of laundering USD 4.5-5 million. Lazarenko was

initially accused of laundering USD 114 million through American banks.

The court started hearing the case against Lazarenko in mid-March 2003.
Lazarenko was detained in the United States in March 1999. He was released
on bail on June 14, 2003.                                 -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8. NO CHARGES AGAINST TYMOSHENKO IN UNITED STATES,
           U.S. EMBASSY SAYS, THE U.S. IS AWAITING AND
                    WELCOMES A VISIT BY TYMOSHENKO

Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – BYT leader Yulia Tymoshenko has never been under investigation
by the law enforcement bodies of the United States, the U.S. Embassy in
Kyiv told Interfax-Ukraine.

“She has never been charged of any crime in the United States, and there
have never been any investigations [into her activities] by the law
enforcement agencies of the United States,” a representative of the U.S.
Embassy in Kyiv said.

“The United States is awaiting a visit by Tymoshenko and would welcomes
such a visit,” the representative quoted U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
William Taylor as saying.

BYT MP Oleksandr Turchynov has recently announced that Yulia
Tymoshenko will make a visit to the United States soon.

Some media in Ukraine reported that some documents have been published
in the United States that Tymoshenko has been found in that country as
involved in the scams of Former Premier Pavlo Lazarenko of Ukraine.
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
9.  OPPOSITION PUSHES THROUGH GAS-PIPELINE LAW
 

INFORM Newsletter, Issue 30, Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, 12 February, 2007

Last week the government climbed down on proposals to unify the gas-

pipeline networks of Ukraine and Russia. BYuT and Our Ukraine deputies
forced the issue to be put on the parliamentary agenda by blocking the
podium in the Verkhovna Rada. The bill was supported by 408 out of
448 registered deputies, leaving the Fuels and Energy Ministry’s plans in
tatters.

Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of the opposition and her eponymous block

likened the proposals to “selling off the family silver to an overbearing
relative who seeks wider control of the family estate.”

The scale of the defeat prompted an apparent change of heart from the
Yanukovych-administration. “Once again I want to confirm that the

Ukrainian gas-transport system is a property of Ukraine, state property
and is not to be changed. It is the priority of the governmental policy,”
said Prime Minister Yanukovych.

“Nobody will give anybody the ownership of Ukraine’s gas transportation
system,” echoed Deputy Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. This was an

ncredible admission, as previously Mr Azarov had defended yielding to
Russia a stake in the gas-pipeline network in return for low gas prices.

The new law goes well beyond preventing the “privatisation” of gas
infrastructure. It precludes a host of potential manipulations, including
spin-off, renting, leasing and mortgaging. It also prevents Naftogaz from
being liquidated under bankruptcy legislation.

While previous legislation had banned privatisation of the pipeline network,
the new law effectively closes remaining legal loop-holes, such as
management and concession rights, through which the network could be

ceded to foreign enterprises.

Referring to the events of last week, Tammy Lynch, of The Institute for the
Study of Conflict,Ideology & Policy at Boston University, opined that “the
passage of the bill should send a strong statement to President Putin and
members of the Ukrainian government who apparently expected no response

to their statements and proposals. Ukraine may be struggling to create a
consolidated democracy, but its parliament is far from a rubber stamp and
its opposition is far from cowed.”

A buoyed Mrs Tymoshenko said, “We have been too dependent on gas from

Russia and controversial intermediary traders, who make millions at the expense
of contracts that should have been negotiated directly between governments in a
transparent and accountable fashion.”
 
This was an unmistakable reference to RosUkrEnergo. The controversial
Swiss-based gas trader is owned by Gazprom’s banking arm and two Ukrainian
businessmen, whose identities were shrouded at the time the gas deal to supply
Ukraine with a mixture of Turkmen and Russian gas was struck.

“I think the next step should be scrapping the work of RosUkrEnergo,” said
Mrs Tymoshenko who has long maintained that there should be no role for

any intermediary companies in securing national gas deals.         -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. UKRAINE: ANOTHER EPISODE OF POLITICAL CRISIS

COMMENTARY: By Adam Swain,
Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, Feb 21 2007

In the last few weeks Ukraine has experienced an episode of political reform
as great and dramatic as anything seen during the Orange Revolution.

The Verkhovna Rada voted overwhelmingly to further emasculate the
beleaguered President Viktor Yushchenko, reducing the presidency to little
more than a symbolic head of state well above the party political fray.

The Cabinet evicted  Yushchenko’s pro-Western foreign minister, Borys
Tarasyuk, and even proposed a law that would strip the presidency of any
influence over foreign policy.

Perhaps not unrelated, some facts emerged of a long-term energy agreement,
in which Ukraine would cede partial control over its gas transport system to
Russia in exchange for participation in oil and gas extraction in Russia.

The failure of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc to either effectively govern
with the ruling Anti-crisis Coalition or accede to Yulia Tymoshenko’s
opposition Byut bloc’s call to dissolve parliament and stage new elections
has allowed the Party of Regions to extend its grip over the country’s
notoriously fragmented state bureaucracy.

On the face of it, the wrangling over the Constitution, the apparently
contradictory alliances between the political parties and the confusion over
who speaks for Ukraine internationally, has plunged the country into yet
another episode of political crisis.

The former Socialist interior minister in the Orange Revolution interregnum,
Yuriy Lutsenko, has toured the country to promote his new ‘People’s
Self-defense Movement,’ warning that the democratic gains won in the
Orange Revolution are under threat.

However, whilst some of the political maneuvering has been clumsy and the
political parties, at last mindful of the need to maintain popular support,
have struck contradictory positions, Ukraine has experienced a remarkable
consolidation of its state machine and its political system.

The democratically elected government has extended its control over the
state bureaucracy to facilitate clear and effective government. Equally, an
official opposition has begun to be institutionalized to scrutinize
government. These developments will significantly strengthen the capacity
of the state, a necessary precondition for further political and economic
development.

This has occurred because, with the exception of parts of President
Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine, the country’s political and economic power-
brokers, of whatever political hue, business group and region, have finally
learned the lesson of the Orange Revolution: Razom nas bahato, nas ne
podolaty (Together we are many, we cannot be defeated).

They have concluded that the profound divisions that opened up during the
Orange Revolution weakened them all and that they are individually and
collectively stronger in the worlds of politics and business, united around
a modus operandi for political and economic rivalry.

Their consent to abide by common rules stands to enhance the country’s
bargaining power with its neighbors to both the east and the west.

It is no surprise that Regions has driven the process of consolidation. You
only have to drive a few kilometers south from Donetsk, the home of Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych, to the village of Kyrsha, aka, the ‘widows’
village,’ with its opulent detached houses protected by prison-sized walls
and metal gates to match, to be reminded of the consequences of unfettered
rivalry.

Yanukovych and the commercial figures behind Regions have all learned

over the last 10 years that they mutually benefit when there is a balance of
power and a modus operandi amongst the Donbas’s leading political and
economic actors.

The Donetsk-based business groups, such as SCM and ISD, having out-
grown the region, require effective national government and the prospect
of stable transfers of political power from party to party to further
develop as successful international companies.

Since last year’s parliamentary elections, Regions has been practically
groping around to identify a reliable partner to establish a new modus
operandi on the national scale.

Our Ukraine, Regions’ desired partner, was hampered by its poor
performance in the parliamentary elections and its apparent inability to
act in a concerted manner.

Regions were forced to turn, first, to the ideologically antagonistic
Socialists and Communists and then to reach an historic compromise
with their bete noire, Tymoshenko.

The mutual antipathy dates back to Tymoshenko’s association with the
Dnipropetrovsk ‘clan’ that waged war (entrepreneurial and violent) with the
Donetsk ‘clan’ in the mid-1990s over the lucrative supply of gas in the
Donbass.

Hostilities, this time political, resumed when Tymoshenko, then deputy prime
minister in Yushchenko’s government, attempted to structurally reform the
energy sector, culminating in her sacking and a string of criminal
investigations into corruption allegations.

Despite this history, Tymoshenko has realized that Regions are in the box
seat and that Yushchenko has no intention of dissolving parliament and
calling fresh elections.

Byut and its financial backers have had little choice but to abandon their
long-held opposition to the constitutional reform passed in late 2004 and
embrace a parliamentary system in return for securing the role of official
opposition.

Byut supported Regions’ law to transfer the power to appoint the prime
minister from the president to parliament and the power to appoint the
foreign and defense ministers from the president to the prime minister.

In return, Regions supported the election of Mykola Tomenko, a former
deputy prime minister in Tymoshenko’s government, as second deputy
parliamentary speaker and a bill that disqualifies local and regional
council representatives who vote against their party line. The latter will

serve to shore-up Byut, whose caucuses in several councils across the
country have recently crumbled.

More importantly, once the ‘Law on the opposition’ is passed, Byut will be
granted the right to state funding, appoint a shadow cabinet and the heads
of several key parliamentary committees, establish independent commissions
of enquiry, and guaranteed access to television and radio.

Out of this historic compromise, a consolidated state machine and a
parliamentary political system based on electoral competition between two
centralized political parties is emerging.

However, the nature and extent of any further political reform will depend
on how Regions’ and Byut’s popularity in the country develops over the
coming months.                                    -30-
———————————————————————————————–
NOTE: Adam Swain is a Lecturer in Human Geography at The

University of Nottingham, UK.
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/oped/26156/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11.     UKRAINE’S CRIMEAN TATAR RADICALS, MODERATES
                  SPLIT OVER LARGE-SCALE LAND PROTESTS 

Black Sea TV, Simferopol, in Russian 1700 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007

SIMFEROPOL – A large-scale civil disobedience protest by radical Crimean
Tatars demanding land, which was to be held in Simferopol on 19 February,
failed to draw large numbers after the Crimean Tatar Majlis, an unofficial
ethnic assembly, banned it.

The moderates, led by Majlis head Mustafa Dzhemilyev, favour talks with

the government as a means of resolving the Crimean Tatars’ demands for
restoration of ancestral land and homes lost after their deportation to
Central Asia in 1944.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is to hold talks with Tatar leaders
during a visit to Crimea scheduled for 22 February. The following is an
excerpt from the report by Ukrainian Crimean Black Sea TV (ChTRK) on 19
February:

[Presenter] A 20,000-strong Crimean Tatar mass protest action, planned for
today, has failed. There was no blocking of roads, just marches along zebra
crossings. The large-scale civil disobedience action was cancelled after the
Majlis intervened. The protests were postponed till the end of February.

[Correspondent] Traffic policemen whistled, trying to stop Crimean Tatars
who were walking to and fro across the zebra crossing. Sometimes they
stopped, sometimes not. Traffic police, deployed at several key cites in the
city centre, did their best to prevent traffic jams.

This time, Crimean Tatars chose not to block motorways, despite their
earlier threats. Protesters said that they have responded to a request by
the Crimean Tatar leader, Mustafa Dzhemilyev.

Just the day before, Dzhemilyev appeared on TV and urged Crimean Tatars

not to start riots. So, there was only a series of brief protest marches, both
in Simferopol’s centre and outskirts.

Interior troops and a special task force monitored events from a distance.
The protest marches stopped at 1200 [1000 gmt] sharp. Activists read out an
open letter to the Majlis head.

They said that even though they did not agree with Mustafa Dzhemilyev, they
conceded to postpone the action. They decided to hold the next protest in
Yalta on 28 February.

[Unidentified protest leader, speaking through a loudspeaker] We still have
not kicked a single person out from our houses even though we have every
right to do it. Our houses were unlawfully taken away from us. We still have
not evicted anyone.

We have not harmed anyone. We have not insulted anyone. We have not spit in
anyone’s face. They live in our houses and sleep on our beds. And I know
that some of them still eat with our spoons from our cups!

[Correspondent] Protesters said that President Yushchenko’s visit to Crimea
was their last hope.

[Osman Tupalov, captioned as protest activist] As you can see, there were
nearly no protests today. Today, we have just shown that we existed and, if
Mr Yushchenko needs support in Crimea, Crimean Tatars will support him.

And do not try to provoke us.

We are waiting for our president on 22 February. And we hope that,
eventually, he will take our side. And Crimean Tatars will believe that
Ukraine has a president, at long last! [Passage omitted: more details]

[Remzi Ilyasov, captioned as deputy Majlis head] Mustafa Dzhemilyev has
addressed the Crimean Tatar people and said that he was opposed to such
actions because they could hamper the settlement of some problems at the 22
February talks with the president. Several issues, including the land
problem, will be discussed at the talks.

[Nadir Bekirov, captioned as Majlis’ presidium member] Neither the Majlis
nor its presidium banned the action. The Majlis failed to release an
official statement on this.

So, the Majlis itself did not impose an official ban on the protests.
Rather, some Majlis members were against the protests while other Majlis
members were for them.

[Correspondent] The Majlis head, Mustafa Dzhemilyev, has said that the
Majlis unanimously voted for the ban. Dzhemilyev described the stance of
those who opposed the ban as non-constructive.

[Dzhemilyev] In the Majlis, like in every assembly, different points of view
exist. But, if a decision is adopted, everyone should comply with it.
Sometimes, some people continue to stick to their own point of view. In
particular, Nadir [Bekirov] is one of them.

[Correspondent] By midday, there were no reminders of the Simferopol
protests, except extra police force guarding the Crimean parliament.

[Video shows: Crimean Tatars marching along a zebra crossing; protest
leaders speaking; Dzhemilyev interviewed.]               -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.      UKRAINE’S CRIMEA: THE SEPARATIST CARD

EDITORIAL: Kyiv Post, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21 2007

Appearing on Ukrainian TV’s Svoboda Slova talk show last week, Communist
Member of Parliament Leonid Hrach warned that the autonomous peninsula,
Crimea, could split away from Ukraine if the country joins NATO.

It’s no secret that Hrach, who once chaired Crimea’s legislature, would
support such a drastic move.

What is worrisome, however, is that such a threat could become reality,
mirroring other Moscow-backed separatist movements in the Moldovan

breakaway region of Transdniester, or Georgia’s secessionist Ossetia and
Abkhazia regions. And the Kremlin’s geopolitical ambitions should not be
taken lightly in this regard.

Such separatist movements are clearly designed to spur instability and
maintain Russian influence over former Soviet republics with European
ambitions.

As the strategy goes, you first create a problem, then send your
peacekeepers in with the purported intention of protecting ethnic Russians
left over from Soviet days.

It’s a formula that could, in theory, be applied in Crimea, whose population
is regarded as largely pro-Russian and anti-NATO. The strategy involves
keeping Russian peacekeepers in the region for a long time. It has worked in
Transdniester, which fought a war with Moldova proper in the early 90s.

Georgia, whose Western friendly president has continually bumped heads

with the Kremlin, is also in a hard spot, with two regions bent on gaining
independence from Tbilisi and aligning with Moscow.

The Kremlin’s divide-and-conquer strategy is clearly intended to complicate
efforts by both newly independent states towards integrating into western
structures, such as NATO and the European Union.

It is being done in Georgia and Moldova, why can’t it happen to Ukraine?

All Moscow and its agents in Ukraine, like the Communists, need to do is
flare up ethnic tensions in Crimea and play up the anti-NATO card, warning
residents that their sons and daughters could be sent to Iraq as combatants
if Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko gets his way in joining the Western
military alliance.

During past election campaigns, hard-pressed Ukrainian politicians have had
no qualms about playing the Russian-nationalism card in various hands – the
language issue, NATO, etc. – with Crimea often serving as the main game
table.

Re-igniting already tense relations between ethnic Russians and Muslim
Tartars, many of whom have returned to the peninsula as homeless refugees,
following their exile to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin during World War II,
will help catalyze this scenario.

Adding oil to the fire is the fact that Crimean Tatars have traditionally
supported the camp of Ukraine’s pro-Western President Yushchenko. Another
tactic the Russians have apparently employed includes efforts to hand out
Russian citizenship to population pockets in former republics.

Rumor has it that more and more of Crimea’s population are accepting Russian
passports. The practice has been going on for a long time in Transdniester,
and it isn’t just practiced by the Russians.

The threat is real, but what should Ukraine’s leadership do?

[1] First of all, they need to start informing the population effectively
about the benefits of joining NATO. Efforts thus far have been poor, to say
the least.

[2] Ukrainian leaders also have to crack down hard on separatist movements
in what Czarina Catherine the Great referred to as the pearl of the Russian
Empire. Focusing on the military benefits of joining NATO, including
security from an increasingly blustering Moscow, is not enough.

[3] Ukraine’s leadership needs to point out the economic benefits of Western
integration as well. For one, larger inflows of tourists who would arrive
when Ukraine integrates more closely with Europe would benefit Crimea more
than any other region in Ukraine.

[4] NATO membership also equates to more sales, contracts and jobs in the
military industrial complex, meaning aerospace and other hi-tech industries
such as rocket building. This should bolster support in the Russian-speaking
eastern industrialized regions of Ukraine.

Simply said, when you are a member of NATO, you have a solid chance of
selling your products to most first, second and third world countries. If
you’re not part of the club, you are left competing with Russia for the
scraps, namely third world contracts.

True, setting up joint ventures with Western aerospace and military
contractors will leave Ukraine as the smaller partner in most ventures. But
it should bring Ukraine’s producers the kind of experience and technology
needed to step up into the major leagues.

Moreover, sales of Ukrainian produced hi-tech military hardware, such as
tanks, airplanes and rockets, should exceed today’s levels many times over.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
         Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13.             A LESSON IN STIFLING VIOLENT EXTREMISM 

              The Crimean Tatar experience proves that there is indeed a
                   nonviolent prophylactic for ethnoreligious conflict.
 
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: Waleed Ziad and Laryssa Chomiak,
The Christina Science Monitor, Boston, MA, Tue, February 20, 2007 

WASHINGTON –  The effort to help Muslim moderates and democratic

reformers, President Bush insists, is a primary bulwark against ethno-
religious conflict and the terrorism it breeds. Yet, five years into the war
on terror, real-world examples to support that contention are scarce.
There is, however, a conflict zone that has developed a strong model
of stifling violent extremism – one that could be replicated in hot
spots around the world: Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

Last month in picturesque Crimea, minority Muslim Tatars clashed
violently with ethnic Russians who make up the majority of the
region’s population. This was the worst in a string of incendiary
events that began in August 2006: pro-Moscow paramilitary gangs
assaulted Tatars at their holiest site, a building housing their
parliament was bombed, and a Tatar journalist was assassinated.

Meanwhile, foreign-sponsored Wahhabi Muslim extremist groups

appeared on the scene, urging violent retaliation. Most anywhere else
 in the world, this would have been the trigger for a major ethnoreligious
war. But thanks to the Tatars’ locally developed democracy, their
leadership was able to avert full-scale hostilities.

The Tatars of Crimea were victims of ethnic cleansing and deportation
policies under Russian czars and later under Joseph Stalin and the
Soviet Union. In 1944, Stalin deported all Tatars to Uzbekistan and
other parts of Central Asia. Throughout their exile, Tatars
maintained a strong national identity, and, post-Stalin, they formed
a celebrated nonviolent resistance movement.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Crimea became an autonomous
republic in Ukraine, and the resistance movement collaborated with
the newly independent Ukrainian government to secure Tatars’ right of
return. However, Crimea continues to be dominated by its Russian
majority and a pro-Moscow party.

The new repatriates faced oppression as ethnic Russian authorities in
Crimea prevented the restitution of land and job opportunities.
Rather than be marginalized, the Tatar leadership’s unique solution
was the 1991 creation of the Mejlis, or “assembly” system, to
establish their legitimacy in the Ukrainian political milieu.

Leaders adopted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights as
their political model, with democracy and nonviolence as guiding
doctrines. Early on, Mejlis members appealed to the UN and the
international community for recognition of their rights, which has
resulted in close working ties between the Mejlis and various
international aid organizations.

 
The Mejlis was eventually recognized as a legitimate political player
by Ukraine’s government. Mustafa Jemilev, the father of the resistance
movement, now holds a seat in the Ukrainian parliament. Indeed, he
is part of the Orange bloc coalition, which has been a symbol for
democracy in the region and worldwide.

An elected religious institution, the Muftiyat, was established
alongside the Mejlis system to prevent the inpouring of religious
extremism and preserve Tatar Islamic folk traditions. Amid the ethnic
tensions, small-scale Wahhabist groups sponsored by Arab Gulf states
have emerged, including the banned Hizb-i-Tehrir, which castigated
the Mejlis for its “soft” policies. But the Muftiyat, allied with the
Mejlis, denounced these ideologies as “false teachings and objectives
rejected by Islam,” and swiftly silenced the radicals with popular
tolerance and education campaigns at local mosques.

The overwhelming success of the Mejlis in preventing the spread of
violence rests on its exclusive reliance on negotiations,
international support, and nonviolent public protests. When Tatar
rights are denied or provocation occurs, Mejlis leaders step in to
mediate. And the Mejlis actively preventsthe formation of independent
militias, recognizing their detriment to any negotiation process.

Despite many roadblocks, peaceful Tatar activism has achieved what
was previously inconceivable: repatriation and citizenship for
250,000 Tatars, quasi- recognition of the Mejlis by the central
government, and seats within Ukrainian and Crimean legislatures.

The Crimean Tatar experience proves that there is indeed a nonviolent
prophylactic for ethnoreligious conflict. Giving official recognition
to the political aspirations of indigenous minorities helps address
popular grievances through peaceful negotiation instead of street
violence.

 
That’s the lesson of the Mejlis and Muftiyat in Crimea. And
it’s the lesson that should be applied to other conflict zones, from
Muslim minority populations across the former Soviet Union, to the
Kurds in Syria and the Moros in the Philippines.

Fostering local participatory movements isn’t just about keeping
democracy healthy. In the global war on terror, it’s one of the best
defenses against transnational fundamentalism.     -30-
——————————————————————————————-
Waleed Ziad, an economic consultant and a principal at the Truman
National Security Project, writes extensively on Islamic
fundamentalist movements. Laryssa Chomiak, a Department of

Homeland Security fellow, covered the Crimean Tatar minority for
the University of Maryland’s Minorities at Risk Project. They recently
returned from Crimea, where they interviewed Tatar leaders.
——————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p09s02-coop.html
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14.    UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CANCELLED QUOTAS
                            FOR EXPORT OF FEED GRAIN

UNIAN News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – During the meeting on February 21, Cabinet of Ministers of

Ukraine cancelled quotas for export of feed grains – wheat, barley and
maize, informed Viktor Slauta, Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine on agricultural
issues, according to APK-Inform. At the same time restrictions for export
of milling wheat remain.

According to the President of Ukrainian Grain Association, Vladimir
Klimenko, quotas cancellation will positively effect Ukrainian grain market
stabilization. Also, he noticed that everybody understands that quotas
introduction prevents entry of Ukraine into WTO.

Experts of APK-Inform agency consider that after quotas cancellation feed
grain trade will become more active and prices can go up, especially for
maize.

“Last week after announcements of the officials concerning forthcoming
cancellation of quotas export activity was up. It caused rise in average
prices for barley and maize by 5-10 UAH/tonne,” stressed analyst of
APK-Inform, Natalia Shelest. According to her it is worth expecting for
activation of feed grain purchases from domestic consumers.

We remind that in September 2006, the Cabinet of Ministers introduced
licenses for grains export, and in October, the Government approved the
regulations on introduction of quotas for grains export. In December, the
Cabinet of Ministers introduced the quota for 1.106 mln tonnes of grains for
export for 2006/07 MY, including 3.000 tonnes of wheat and rye, 600.000
tonnes of barley and 500.000 tonnes of maize.

By regulations No 185 from February 13, 2007, the Government of Ukraine

gave additional export quotas for grains given to port elevators and/or
terminals for storing before January 25, 2007. Additional quota for wheat
and meslin (mixture of rye and wheat) totals 228.000 tonnes, for barley –
606.000 tonnes, for maize – 30.000 tonnes.                        -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.  UKRAINIAN AGRARIAN CONFEDERATION SAYS LIFTING
            FEED GRAIN QUOTAS WAS THE RIGHT DECISION  

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The Ukrainian Agriculture Confederation says that, following the
abolition of export quotas on fodder grain, prerequisites emerged for
removal of the international tensions that had formed as a result of grain
quotas introduction. Ukrainian News learned this from the confederation
press service.

“The Ukrainian Agriculture Confederation says that the current developments
(abolition of quotas on the export of fodder grain) are absolutely logical,
the more so because prerequisites appeared for removal of certain
international tensions caused by grain quotation,” the press service says.

The confederation gave a positive mark to the Cabinet of Ministers’ decision
on export quota abolition, as Ukraine has already formed prerequisites for
liberalization of the market of grain crops, which is confirmed by
representatives of sectoral associations shouldering responsibility for food
safety, as well as representatives of the cattle-breeding industry, who say
they have enough grain for the period until a new harvest.

The press service also noted that the Ukrainian Agriculture Confederation
plans to initiate and take part in debates on the functioning of grain
market in Ukraine in the next season (2007/2008 marketing year), as all
subjects of grain market must understand and know the terms on which they
will work in the midterm perspective.

“For all rules of the game to be worked out in good time and, respectively,
for each of the market subjects to be able to count on its own business
activity,” the confederation stressed.

As Ukrainian News reported, the Cabinet of Ministers abolished quotas for
the export of fodder grain. The Cabinet intended to abolish export quota on
barley and corn by the start of March.

It increased grain export quota by 864,000 tons to 1,970,000 tons for the
2006/2007 marketing year by the resolution that took force on February 15.
The additional quotas reached 606,000 tons for barley, 30,000 tons for corn,
and 228,000 tons for wheat.

In December 2006, the Cabinet of Ministers set a grain export quota of 1.106
million tons for the 2006/2007 marketing year, including 600,000 tons of
barley, 500,000 tons of corn, and 3,000 tons of wheat and rye each.  -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.   UKRAINIAN GRAIN ASSOCIATION CALLS FOR RESTART
     OF THE WORK OF THE GRAIN MARKET WORKING GROUP

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The Ukrainian Grain Association is calling for the restart of work of
the working group for grain market under the Cabinet of Ministers to see
effective dialogue between the market operators and government officials.

Ukrainian Grain Association president Volodymyr Klimenko presented the
position of the grain market operators during the Internet conference on the
LihaBiznesInform portal.

“In order to facilitate an effective dialogue between agrarian officials and
representatives of the grain business it is necessary to restore the work of
the working group for grain market under the Cabinet of Ministers of
Ukraine,” he said.  He noted that the working group was permanently
operating with the four previous governments.

“It worked with the government of [Anatolii] Kinakh, [Viktor] Yanukovych,
[Yulia] Tymoshenko, and [Yurii] Yekhanurov. The same group was created

four months ago under the current government. However, instead of [meeting]
monthly at least two draft decisions concerning the grain market it has not
started the work,” he said.

In his opinion, there wouldn’t have been problems facing the agrarian market
if the working group had operating and a relevant dialogue between the
authorities and the agrarian business had been established.

He said a vice premier for the agroindustrial complex had always headed the
working group with the previous governments.
“As for the introduction of the post of vice premier for the agroindustrial
complex, we are supporting the step and believe it was a big mistake that
the post didn’t exist,” he said.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, on February 8, the parliament appointed
Parliamentary Deputy Viktor Slauta of the Party of Regions as a Deputy Prime
Minister for the agroindustrial complex.
———————————————————————————————–

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17.   UKRAINIAN DELEGATION ARRIVES IN U.S. FOR TALKS
                                  ON WTO ACCESSION

Interfax Ukraine Business Express, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Feb 21, 2007

KYIV – A Ukrainian delegation led by the Ukrainian Deputy Economics

Minister Valeriy Piatnytsky has arrived in Washington for meetings with
members of the working group examining Ukraine’s application for World
Trade Organization (WTO) accession.

The Ukrainian delegation held similar meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, on
February 19-20, the Ukrainian Economics Ministry’s press service said.
Ukraine expects a final positive decision on the issue of WTO accession

will be adopted in mid-summer.                     -30-
———————————————————————————————–
FOOTNOTE: The Ukraine-U.S. Business Council is sponsoring a
lunch on Friday for two members of the Ukrainian delegation.  AUR Editor
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18.    UKRAINE IN “DIFFICULT POSITION” OVER U.S. MISSILE
     SYSTEM IN EUROPE, SAYS PRIME MINISTER YANUKOVYCH 

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev, in Russian 0913 gmt 20 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007

UKRAINE – Chernihiv Region – Ukraine is going to formulate its position
regarding the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Poland and the
Czech Republic after looking into possible consequences of this step for
Ukraine, Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych told journalists at the
Desna training centre in Chernihiv Region today.

“Certainly, we are in a difficult position today. We are now checking
whether it poses threats or, I would say, difficulties for us. After doing
this, we will take the final decision and formulate the country’s position
on this issue,” he said.

[The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said earlier that the deployment of elements
of the anti-ballistic missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland will
help enhance the international community’s potential in combating the
proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. See UNIAN news

agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1626 gmt 23 Jan 07,]
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19. U.S. URGES UKRAINE TO CONDUCT SPEEDY INVESTIGATION
        INTO VANDALISM ACTS AT JEWISH CEMETERY IN ODESA 
      
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, February 21, 2007

KYIV – The United States is calling on the Ukrainian authorities to conduct
a speedy investigation into the acts of vandalism at the Jewish cemetery in
Odesa. Ukrainian News learned this from the US Embassy’s press release.

‘The Embassy of the United States was very concerned to learn about the
extensive desecration of graves and memorials at the Jewish cemetery in
Odesa, which is the resting place for thousands of victims of the Holocaust,
over the weekend of February 17-18, 2007,’ the statement reads.

The Embassy says that such acts of hate-inspired vandalism are repugnant

and have no place in a tolerant society like Ukraine.

The Embassy commended the Odesa authorities’ quick action to begin repairs
to the cemetery and encouraged the city of Odesa to take action to prevent
incidents like this in the future.

‘The U.S. Government urges the Government of Ukraine to conduct a thorough
and speedy investigation to bring the perpetrators of this hate crime to
justice,’ the statement reads.

As Ukrainian News reported, on February 18, a group of unknown desecrated
over 500 graves at the Third Jewish Cemetery and two monuments to Holocaust
victims in Odesa. The hooligans drew swastikas on the gravestones and the
monument.

The monument was erected in memory of over 25,000 people (most of whom

were Jews) who were burned on that place by Nazis during World War II.

Identical inscriptions and swastikas were also found on the monument to the
victims of the Holocaust in Prokhorovskyi park.

The monument was erected at the foundation of the birch alley planted in
memory of the people of various nationalities who rescued Jews during the
war, risking their own lives.                         -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20.          ROMANIAN PRESIDENT CRITICIZES UKRAINE’S
                          ATTITUDE ON SERPENT ISLAND 
Rompres news agency, Bucharest, in English 1600 gmt 19 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Tue, Feb 20, 2007

BUCHAREST – President Traian Basescu on Monday 19 February rated

as hasty the action of Ukrainian authorities in relation to the Serpent Island.

‘This is what I would call a hasty action of the Kiev authorities (…) I
think trying to prove that the Serpent island is inhabited, that the
delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive trade zone should
pass through this island was not among the happiest actions. I really doubt
such trick will work with the international courts,’ Basescu told the
Romanian public radio station in a statement.

He mentioned having talked with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko
about the establishment and the definition of the continental shelf
belonging to Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea, because of the economic
significance of the shelf. ‘I noticed that this had been an issue for nine
years, that no progress was made and that there was no chance of solving the
issue through bilateral talks.

And then, Romania brought before the International Court of Justice in The
Hague the matter of defining the continental shelf and the exclusive
economic zones of the two countries in the Black Sea, in the spring of
2006,’ said Basescu.                                     -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
       Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR    

========================================================
21. PRESIDENT VISITED CINEMA, SEES MOVIE, CHARLOTTE’S
                WEB,  DUBBED INTO UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE

UNIAN, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wednesday, February 21, 2007

KYIV – Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, accompanies by his famine,
visited a movie theatre in Kyiv to see a film by Gary Winick, Charlotte’s
Web, in Ukrainian, according to the President’s press-office.

The President told reporters the Ukrainian language “is returning to
 cinemas” and that he welcomed a recently signed memorandum between

the Culture Ministry and film distributors under which 100% of children’s
movies and 50% of other foreign films will be dubbed for Ukrainian
speaking audiences by the end of 2007.

“I like the first requirement very much. The second one is a bit mild but I
think we will make it stricter during our discussions,” he said.

He also praised last year’s decision by the previous government to impose
quotas to dub foreign films into Ukrainian, which was, however, later
cancelled by the Kyiv Economic Court of Appeal.

“I am sure this ruling will be reconsidered because it contradicts national
priorities and our goal to develop the film distribution business and
cinematographic art,” he said, adding that he had recently appealed to the
Prosecutor General “to protect national interests in this area.”

As for the development of the Ukrainian language, he added, more and more
people come to understand that it can help us unite. Mr. Yushchenko said it
was incumbent on him to make Ukrainians understand it is their obligation to
know and learn their native language.

Charlotte’s Web is a live-action/computer-animated feature film, based on
the popular children’s book of the same name by E.B. White. The book was
first published in 1952 and tells the story of a barn spider named Charlotte
and her friendship with a pig named Wilbur. It is one of the best-selling
children’s books of all time.                             -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22.                          JAMES MACE AND HIS MISSION

By Oxana Pachlowska, University of Rome La Sapienza
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The Day Weekly Digest #6, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 20, 2007

It is awful when you have to say about a close friend whose loss has left
lifelong pain, “It is a good thing that he left this world without seeing
this.”

That is what I told myself on Nov. 28, 2006, after the Verkhovna Rada
passed the law on the Holodomor. Yes, they passed the law but in a way
that stigmatized both individual MPs and the entire nation.

Mace departed from this life without witnessing this disgrace. He died
before Ukraine’s ruling political force acknowledged itself-through its de
facto refusal to vote-as the legal successor to the authors of the Great
Terror, the culprits who tried to destroy Ukraine.

The voting clarified Mace’s idea that Ukrainian society is post-genocidal.
What did he mean by this designation? He had in mind precisely a
post-genocidal society rather than a post-colonial one, as some researchers
maintain. After all, post-colonial societies typically had civilized
colonizers.

Post-colonial India has embarked on a democratic course and is turning into
an economic colossus. Even the Republic of South Africa, despite the former
system of apartheid, is freeing itself from the shackles of colonialism and
gaining economic weight. Civilized parent states had the courage to
relinquish their colonies at an opportune time and treat them as equals.

However, this is not the case with Ukraine. Unlike civilized parent states,
Ukraine’s colonizer never thought of relinquishing its conquered
territories. On the contrary, the more it agonizes, the deeper it digs its
claws into countries, regions, and entire geopolitical areas. The claws
being “fraternal,” this kind of colonialism is not likely soon to become
post-colonialism.

Perhaps this is why the visible colonial heritage in Ukraine is “diffused”
in the post-genocidal heritage, often invisible but nevertheless constantly
present, and not only in society’s psychology but also in the stimuli,
complexes, and nightmares of its psyche.

Mace left us a tragic thought that will take us a long time to reflect on.
For years to come, its purport will remain a painful and hidden nerve of our
history.

The paradigmatic approach requires that the Holodomor be considered together
with two other cases of 20th-century genocide within the span of Christian
civilization-the Armenian and Jewish genocides. In addition to the countless
political and economic causes of these two genocides, there were also
cultural factors. It was not simply a matter of one nation destroying
another.

Rather, these were different ways of destroying Christian civilization. In
the case of the Armenian genocide, Muslim fundamentalism was the destructive
mechanism. In the case of the Holocaust, an atheistic monster that had
renounced God destroyed a nation that was the historical and cultural cradle
of Christian civilization and on whose territory the Christian God was born.

The Holodomor was similar in this respect: the anti-Christian world
destroyed the world of Christianity. The newly-created political Moloch
fought against God. Ruining and profaning temples, it destroyed a
civilization that was the last Christian stronghold on the already
immeasurable expanse of nihilistic Bolshevik barbarism.

Until this day the wound inflicted by the Armenian and Jewish genocides on
these nations remains incurable. These tragedies became the new starting
point for their history.

It is generally accepted that the Holocaust as genocide cannot be compared
to any other genocide. Is this correct? I don’t know. I say frankly: I don’t
know. Perhaps those who insist on the Holocaust’s uniqueness have a point.
But equally unique is the Holodomor, even though this genocide was also
conducted in the same eschatological vein of Endlosung, or Final Solution.

The only difference was that the Holocaust was an act by killers with
unconcealed intentions. Germans were true to their meticulousness even
here-they had developed both theoretical and practical foundations for this
genocide.

In contrast to this, the Holodomor was more of a hallucinatory project
accompanied by rhetoric about the friendship of fraternal nations and other
cliches produced by the ideological schizophrenia of Russian communism.

In the former case it was all about the Aryan race; in the latter, about the
Soviet people as the final product of this criminal social engineering. In
fact, there is no difference here: in both cases all those who did not
conform to the corresponding paradigm were destroyed.

These two national catastrophes are clearly unique but from two different
perspectives. To the Jewish people the tragedy of the Holocaust became the
unifying energy needed for self-understanding, strengthening their identity,
and for a new perception of their place and significance in the world.

The Holocaust also became an overwhelming moral shakeup for the whole
world and, above all, for Europe. In the postwar period, Europe developed
the concept of genocide and posed the question of its own collective
responsibility for this crime. For the first time a crime against one people
was interpreted as a crime against the entire human race.

This idea became the foundation of a new ethos for both people and
20th-century historical science. The scope of the problem is not restricted
to Hitler and Nazism, which became the epitome of extreme inhumanity. This
conversion of the human being into a beast was condoned by all those who
connived at what was taking place and abetted the crime by means of their
consent, cooperation, and silence.

The world was forced to admit that one nation’s tragedy should not be
restricted to its own history. Rather, only humanity’s collective memory of
the tragedy can guarantee that it will never again be repeated.

This is the origin of Europe’s atonement for wronging the Jewish
people-moral atonement that has spanned decades. Germany’s path to a
democratic state began with the recognition of the crime it had committed,
its detailed recording, and constant, incessant, and dramatic atonement,
both individual and collective.

This is the kind of atonement that pervades every day and every minute-
German television channels regularly air programs on the history and
analysis of the Holocaust. Europe is also atoning financially. Jews were
finally given an opportunity to have their own state. For decades Germany
has been paying astronomical sums to the descendants of the six million
murdered Jews.

Of course, awareness of the Holocaust was an indicator that postwar Europe
had reached democratic maturity. But this understanding was achieved
because the Jewish community was able to organize and structure its protest,
self-protection, and, finally, its demand for atonement.

This is what happens when a nation has self-respect. This nation’s drama
becomes the moral standard for the conscience of the entire human race.

For the Jews the tragedy of the Holocaust became a protective wall of their
memory and a symbol of courage, endurance, indestructibility, and
immortality. I remember the November 2005 demonstration in Rome in
protest against the threats of Iran’s president to destroy Israel. After all
the
official speeches in front of Iran’s embassy, in the glow of streetlights
and the rustle of plane trees, an orchestra began playing Jewish tunes.

A pair of young Jewish sweethearts suddenly began dancing to the tune of
“Hava Nagila.” Among the spellbound people and in front of journalists’
cameras, they danced with such passion and obliviousness that it was clear:
they were a thousand years old- and this was just the beginning.

In Europe awareness of the Holocaust became a moral standard of democracy
and a mandatory pass to the civilized world. At a Ukrainian studies
conference held in Italy, a well-known Slavist from Israel said that the
attitude of post-Soviet Ukraine to Jews will be its passport to the circle
of civilized countries.

It is hard to disagree with this statement. But then an interesting question
arises: to what world can Ukrainians’ attitude to their own nation and
tragedies be a passport? It is probably a passport to the anti-world or, in
simple terms, to that part of the jungle where no passports are needed and
where history begins in the morning and ends in the evening. This is why it
is simply redundant.

This jungle is not as distant as one may think-government palaces are thick
with jungles. If the huge numbers of published (finally!) and reprinted
documentary evidence cannot help our MPs, or “people’s deputies” as they
are called, to recognize the deaths of millions of our compatriots as
genocide (and thus, a crime against humanity), then they do not consider

Ukrainian society, which includes their own electorate, part of humanity.

Unlike the Holocaust, the Holodomor was one of the main factors that led to
Ukraine’s loss of identity and rendered society’s consolidation impossible.
Postwar Europe wrote the history of its catastrophes. Once again the postwar
USSR falsified history.

The Holodomor was one of the top-secret topics in this history. Therefore,
having lost its past for the umpteenth time, Ukraine turned out to be
incapable of implementing its design for the future.

Hitler sought to wipe out the Jews precisely as a nation because they were
scattered all over Europe, without a state or territory of their own. Stalin
also wanted to annihilate Ukrainians as a nation but this nation had its own
country and land. Hitler wanted to destroy the Jewish culture, but the
Biblical people had a culture that was spread all over the world and knew
how to preserve it.

In contrast to this, both past and contemporary Ukrainian culture was
contained in Ukraine. Therefore, parallel to the Holodomor, Stalin destroyed
the temples and books of the past as well as Ukraine’s cultural, artistic,
and scholarly elite of the time.

The main idea of the Holodomor was to turn Ukraine into a non-Ukrainian
republic, and with time-into an anti-Ukrainian entity. As we can see,
Stalin’s project succeeded. Accomplished only halfway, it nonetheless

succeeded. Stalin changed the genetic code of our nation.

It was not by accident that Ukraine was the arena of these events-Ukraine
was the second most rebellious part of the Russian empire (surpassed only by
Poland) and the most recalcitrant one in the Soviet empire. The Moloch of
the Stalinist empire suppressed this resistance in an unprecedented sadistic
and cynical way.

It did not kill directly, as was the case during the Holocaust, when a
person was at least able to oppose the killers or die with dignity. Russia
killed Ukraine by turning people into vegetative beings, reducing them to an
animal-like existence, and making them incapable of resistance, opposition,
and moral choice.

Vassily Grossman’s novel Forever Flowing describes the wailing of people in
Ukrainian villages. People could not walk; they were only able to crawl to
the nearest train station, where this was possible, hoping for some merciful
hand to throw a piece of bread to them. The windows in Odesa-Kyiv trains
were then boarded up.

In keeping with the law “on five ears of grain,” women and mothers were
shot right in the fields if they were caught picking a few ears of grain for
their dying children. And all this took place in the “breadbasket of
Europe.”

It was the Holodomor that exposed the Russian world’s total contempt for
the human being as such, for fundamental human feelings, and for any moral
dimension of human existence. Also uncovered was its pathological hatred
of so-called fraternal Ukraine.

Together with people’s lives, the Holodomor took away the feeling of home
and the sense and culture of work. But above all, it destroyed love for the
land that was transformed from a life-giving resource into a boundless grave
devouring both the dead and the living, stirred by their groans, and
devouring new lives over and over again.

Instead of human feelings, society was overcome with fear-total, abject fear
of being oneself, speaking one’s mother tongue, and remembering one’s
dead.

It was the fear of existing. Since Stalinist times Ukrainian society has
been paralyzed by the fear of existing.

This led to the abyss of non-presence, non-work, and non-morals. This also
caused the greediness of some and the willingness for a half- starved
existence and constant poverty of others. As long as they leave us alone, as
long as they don’t torment us. What freedom? What democracy? ” We will
endure.” Having endured the Holocaust, we can endure anything in this
world.

This is also where the rejection of our own culture stems from. It has
remained in our genome: the sentence for being part of this culture is
death.

Fear is the only and total legacy that the System left to Ukrainian society.
This humiliating heritage is being passed down from generation to
generation. It erodes language, dignity, and memory in people. It erodes
the human being in people.

This type of society is easy to rule. This society can get only one kind of
government for itself-the government of thieves, cynics, and plain
criminals.

The Holodomor destroyed not only a century-long supply of the country’s
demographic and economic resources but also the Ukrainian rural cosmos
in its cultural, linguistic, and philosophical continuity and, most
importantly, its thousand-year-long ethos of Ukraine’s relationship with the
earth.

The Ukrainian peasant would not put a loaf of bread on the table upside
down-you were not allowed to offend bread because it was given by God.
The one who managed to wipe from the face of the earth this rural world that
tended its God-given land was then able to lay waste to this land with the
help of Chornobyl and bury it under tons of radioactive waste.

Midas, the king of death: whatever he touches turns into death.

Who else besides the descendants of this collective Barbarian would be able
to loot the country the way they have done today? Who would be able to force
millions of people abroad in search of some humiliating way to earn some
money for the same piece of bread that was confiscated in the 1930s?

Who would be able to let grain rot in ports and then throw it into the Black
Sea? Who would be able to yield to Russia the security and independence of
the country-piece by piece, on a regular basis? Who would laugh in the face
of his own electorate?

One state official was recently quoted by The Ukrainian Truth on Feb. 9,
2007, as saying in his garbled mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, “Why don’t
I hear applause, I wonder?…Somehow I don’t see joy… on your faces.”

Today we see this post-genocidal anti-Ukraine on every corner, once again
mainly in the ruling circles. This anti-Ukraine is robbing the state in
broad daylight. It is humiliating society, trampling on its graves, and
continuing the policy of Russification.

It calls intelligentsia a “narrow stratum” – a glaring Freudian slip, an
acknowledgement of one’s own post- Soviet descent: where were intellectuals
a stratum doomed to destruction if not during the orgy of the
lumpenproletariat called the USSR?

This anti- Ukraine will do its utmost to prevent the state from taking a
single step toward Europe and keep it in the gray zone of geopolitical
non-existence- the only way to have a few more years for its final
despoilment.

Here is a picture of post-genocidal society in one isolated region- Kharkiv
oblast. When all of two MPs from the Party of Regions voted for the Law on
the Holodomor, Yevhen Kushnariov, one of the party’s leaders, in an
interview with Radio Liberty magnanimously promised that the party would not
discipline the MPs. “For now this will have no consequences,” he said (Dec.
9, 2006, www.pravda.com.ua).

In November 2006 in Kharkiv oblast, which was happy about Russian obtaining
the status of “regional” language, not one local government official
attended the official ceremony to commemorate the Holodomor victims. The
proceedings took place at the Ukrainian-Polish Memorial and near the Cross
to the Holodomor Victims. But 30,000 people came to Kushnariov’s funeral.

Fact file: during three months of 1933, over 600,000 people died in Kharkiv
oblast. The total mortality count reached 2,000,000-one-third of all
peasants in the region. As can be seen from archival photographs, peasants
died on the city’s central street. Every morning their bodies were dumped
into suburban ravines. Every evening the streets were covered with new
corpses.

Kharkiv was then the capital of the Ukrainian SSR, so historians call the
city in that period “the capital of despair.”

These things occurred during the Postyshev terror. Some streets in Kharkiv
are still named after the bosses of the Communist Party of Ukraine, who
carried out the genocide. Naturally, the city has a Postyshev Prospekt.

It was in Kharkiv, in 1933, that Mykola Khvylovy shot himself. He understood
that he was doomed and that Ukraine was destined for this bloody massacre.
At the cost of his own life Khvylovy sent a warning. By this one pistol shot
he put a period on the final page of the brilliant and tragic Executed
Renaissance.

I can add one more thing: it is good that Mace did not live to see the day
when a member of the Communist cadre was appointed director of Ukraine’s
historical archives. He would feel hurt. As a person who loved Ukraine so
much, he would feel ashamed of the country.

However, as a scholar he would receive full satisfaction: his uncanny thesis
about our post-genocidal society has found complete confirmation.

To be a post-genocidal society means to have no memory. It means to have
one’s memory in the off position. A society that has been destroyed this way
is a lobotomized society. The part of society that managed to withstand the
lobotomy does not possess sufficient psychological power and physical
strength to push aside this necrotic mass of stifled brain that is pressing
down and choking the living brain with its dead weight.

Mace was a scholar. He worked with facts and figures. He gave them rational
explanations. But I have always had the feeling that he came to this culture
because he had been called by the dead. Probably because they still have not
been buried-for they have not been mourned, and because they have been
forgotten.

He heard their voices. He heard them from afar, from a distant country and a
different continent. He learned their language. While despicable servants of
the System, barely able to stick a few insincere Ukrainian words into their
defective mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, were sneering at his accent, Jim
rolled his American “r” in the language of the dead who had called him, and
he talked with them freely.

Mace was opposed to any form of contempt for man. This was the algorithm
of his intellectual opposition to any manifestations of totalitarianism. In
this he was a true son of the finest democratic America that is built on the
spiritual heritage of Washington and Lincoln.

He had such an acute and passionate sense of justice and honesty that it
seemed to have burned him from the inside. It was this feeling that brought
him to Ukraine-a country that became, possibly like no other country in the
world, a victim of permanent injustice and unfair treatment.

In many countries, involvement in the Holocaust entails criminal
responsibility. France is planning to make denial of the Armenian genocide a
crime. One of the categorical conditions for Turkey’s accession to the EU is
its acknowledgement of this genocide.

What we hear from the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine even now is “the so-
called genocide” and “Mace, the Holodomor dreamer.”

Kyiv and other cities of Ukraine are choked by a noose of streets bearing
the names of its persecutors. Monuments to persecutors stand in all
Ukrainian cities.

Therefore, it is difficult to hope that a country like this will be reckoned
with in the world. Russia understands only the language of
force-contemporary official Ukraine can only speak to Russia from the
position of weakness and meekness. Europe understands the language of
self-respect. For today’s official Ukraine this is a profoundly foreign word
that it does not know how to translate into its political doublespeak.

Official Ukraine, as it is today, i.e., lobotomized, will hardly find money
in the state budget for a Holodomor Memorial or for the Institute of
National Memory. It is erecting monuments to falsifiers of the elections
rather than to scholars who are restoring its history from the abyss of
oblivion.

This kind of Ukraine finds millions of dollars for idiotic pre-election
advertising and none for the publication of Mace’s works. This is all the
more deplorable when we recall that Mace did not write exclusively about
the Holodomor-he researched the history of 20th-century Ukraine.

To publish his works means to make public a whole array of skeletons in the
Russian-Ukrainian political closet. In 1983 Mace published a book in the US
on the destruction of national communism in Ukraine. He wrote merciless
articles on the political nature of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Some of his results appear prophetic today. For example, Mace wrote about
the drama of Ukrainian socialism. “For better or worse, in 20th-century
Ukraine socialism was the most influential ideology.” This is the opening
statement in a chapter of his book entitled Ukrainian Statehood in the 20th
Century (published in 1996).

Whereas the beginnings of Ukrainian socialism are associated with such
prominent figures as Mykhailo Drahomanov and Mykhailo Hrushevsky, in its
present stage it features names one feels ashamed even to pronounce in this
series.

One can only say, “Jim, unfortunately, the most influential ideology in
Ukraine was indeed socialism!” The idealistic socialism of its first
adherent was a significant obstacle in the construction of the Ukrainian
state.

Further degeneration of this socialism and its fall from the level of the
European tradition to negotiations in the flea market of post-Soviet
politics have proved the political and moral fiasco of this ideology in the
history of Ukrainian statehood.

Mace’s paper at the Kharkiv congress of the International Association of
Ukrainian Studies in 1996 was entitled “The Sociogenetic Legacy of the
Genocide and Totalitarianism in Ukraine and Ways to Overcome It.”

Mace was fully aware that the genocide-produced pathological deviations in
Ukraine were proportional to the eschatological dimensions of the genocide
itself. They are difficult to eradicate because genocide derives its name
from its undermining effect on the foundation of a nation’s gene pool.

Mace opened up before Ukrainian society the book of its Apocalypse and
read this Black Book aloud. But society did not really hear him because the
areas of its collective brain that are responsible for self- preservation,
self-protection, and survival had been neutralized and lobotomized.

On Nov. 26, as you light a candle to commemorate the tens of millions of
Ukrainians who were killed only because they had grown crops from time
immemorial, just look out of your window. You will see candles lit here and
there. Otherwise-the shimmer of TV screens blasting local or Russian pop
music.

It is difficult to say whether society will remain in this vegetative state.
Together with his fellow Ukrainian historians, Mace did everything possible
to revive the nerve tissue of the Ukrainian nation’s brain-in order to make
it send signals, to make memory work, and to help society restore its will
to live.

Whether the national brain will indeed start working is not under Mace’s
control. It is up to Ukrainian society-and Russian society, for that matter.
Russia became the self-appointed heir of the gold and diamond funds of the
USSR. It will become a civilized state only when it has recognized that it
is also the heir of the bloody fund of the USSR.

Many offensive remarks about Mace have been voiced from the rostrum of the
post-Soviet Verkhovna Rada. Looking at parliament we mostly see crowds of
vicious political corpses with glassy eyes.

Jim, however, is strangely alive. Perhaps he was privy to some kind of
mysticism, as were his ancient Indian ancestors. Maybe he knew the mystery
of overcoming death because everything that he occupied himself with was
tragedy. But he was rarely seen without a smile.

Even when he was resentful, with good reason, he exuded a powerful energy of
good will and inexplicable optimism that he alone possessed. Jim seemed to
believe, despite all indications to the contrary, that common sense would
prevail and man would overcome human-generated absurdities and phantoms.

I believe that all of us who in some way collaborated with Jim will always
measure our history by his work, his love for Ukraine, and his intellectual
integrity. Most importantly, we will refer to his deep conviction that
Ukraine is a nation of astonishing vitality and that one day it will get
over its post-genocidal legacy and become a conscious, noble, and orderly
European country-a country respected in the world, in particular because it
has self-respect.

After all, the Orange Revolution proved that this European Ukraine is
already nascent. Despite hardships, it is coming into being or, more
exactly, beginning to revive.

When I asked Jim to meet one of my Italian doctoral students, who was
researching Khvylovy, he said, “Oh, sure thing! A friend of Khvylovy is a
friend of mine!” – as if Khvylovy had not shot himself in 1933 but lived
somewhere near Jim, across the street, and from time to time they would get
together for a cup of coffee.

Now Jim is definitely drinking coffee with Khvylovy.

Some day we may be able to see Mace carved in stone on a Kyiv street.
Lively and passionate as he was, he would take it in good stride because he
does not need a monument. What was more important to him was a
monument that he himself worked on-a monument to millions of innocent
Ukrainians who were tortured to death.

Perhaps a monument to Mace is necessary above all for Ukraine. It would be
an important landmark indicating that the country is starting to awaken from
its post-genocidal state, which means that it is beginning to distinguish
destroyers from those whose love for Ukraine cost them their lives.

For our country this would be a small step but one that would bring it
closer to Europe. And this step would be taken thanks to the American,
James E. Mace.                                       -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177534/
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
23.            OUR STRANGE DEVOTION TO THE KREMLIN

OP-ED: By Anne Applebaum, Columnist
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; Page A13

“I have a difficult time explaining that speech. It doesn’t accord with
either the world as we see it nor with the character of our interactions
with the Russians.”
— Condoleezza Rice, Feb. 15

Ten days have passed since the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, made a
speech in Munich accusing the United States of plunging the planet into “an
abyss of permanent conflicts,” of deliberately encouraging the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, and (this from a country that regularly
blackmails and manipulates its neighbors) of having “overstepped its
national borders in every way.”

During that time, the American secretary of state — quoted above — has
not been alone in expressing surprise.

With varying degrees of shock, commentators and politicians have speculated
about the significance of Putin’s “new” language, wondering whether it means
Russia’s road to democracy has reached a fork, whether Putin was really
speaking to his domestic audience or whether the speech heralded some kind
of policy change.

In fact, the only thing continually surprising about President Putin is the
surprise itself. For we have long known a great deal about Putin, about his
biography — his time as a KGB officer in East Germany, his years in the
government of St. Petersburg — and about his personal philosophy, too.

We have long known, for example, that he is a great admirer of Yuri
Andropov, the former Soviet leader best remembered for his belief that
“order and discipline,” as defined by the KGB, would revive the weakened
Soviet Union of the 1980s.

Way back in 1999, Putin went so far as to dedicate a plaque to Andropov
in a corner of the Lubyanka, once the headquarters of the KGB as well as
its most notorious political prison.

Since then, Putin has not ceased emulating many of the methods of the
Andropov-era KGB, including its paranoid suspicion of America. He
continues to treat all Western organizations in Russia, whatever their
purpose, as “spies and diversionaries.”

He has used Russian television — all state-owned or state-influenced — to
portray the recent mysterious deaths of his critics, including one by
polonium poisoning, as part of a nefarious Western plot to discredit his
government.

In the wake of the 2004 Beslan school massacre, he hinted that American
support for Chechen terrorists was to blame. I myself have heard that claim
repeated in Moscow more than once.

Nevertheless, we were surprised, are surprised and apparently always will be
surprised by Putin, just as we were surprised by Yeltsin before him and
Gorbachev before that.

Despite Putin’s background and his well-known views, President Bush from
the beginning of his term treated Putin the way all American presidents
treat all Russian leaders: as America’s new best friends.

Bush, infamously, looked deep into Putin’s eyes, found him to be “
straightforward and trustworthy” and invited him to his ranch.

Not so many years earlier, when President Boris Yeltsin was up for
reelection, President Bill Clinton told his main Soviet adviser, Strobe
Talbott, that “I want this guy to win so bad it hurts.”

Never mind that inside Russia, Yeltsin was already associated with massive
theft and economic chaos, or that his regime was perceived internally as
corrupt and nepotistic: The American president went out of his way to visit
Moscow during the campaign, just to make sure Yeltsin won.

It is, if you think about it, an odd phenomenon. After all, American
presidents generally don’t campaign on behalf of their French counterparts
or look deep into the eyes of German chancellors in order to divine their
true natures. While at times very friendly, neither Clinton nor Bush seems
to have felt a mystical connection to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Yet Russian politicians still seem to make American politicians grow
starry-eyed and lose their bearings.

Perhaps it’s a secret longing for the glamour of those Cold War summits, for
the days when it seemed as if the personal relations between superpower
statesmen could ward off the destruction of the entire planet. Or perhaps
they put something in the vodka — sorry, mineral water — at those elegant
Kremlin lunches.

Either way, it’s time to kick the habit. True, it is perfectly possible that
whoever leads Russia after Putin steps down ( if Putin steps down) will
be a nicer, friendlier person. It is perfectly possible that we will find
areas of cooperation with him, just as we sometimes do with Putin.

But however friendly and cooperative, however much a “democrat” he
appears to be, I hope we’ll avoid the instant professions of eternal
friendship. At the very least, we’ll avoid being unpleasantly surprised,
yet again, if things turn out otherwise.                    -30-
—————————————————————————————–
Anne Applebaum: applebaumanne@yahoo.com
—————————————————————————————–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021901172.html

——————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
24.      JAMES SHERR: WE DO NOT HAVE A NEW COLD WAR.
                      WHAT WE HAVE ARE BAD RELATIONS

INTERVIEW: With James Sherr, Senior Researcher
Center of Conflict Studies in Great Britain
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007

We asked James Sherr, a senior researcher at the Center of Conflict Studies
in Great Britain, to comment on the Munich developments.

He emphasized, as usual, that his views may not necessarily coincide with
the official stance of the British government and Defense Department

[Question] The Munich conference has already been referred to by many

as a place where a new cold war was kicked off.

What do you think is behind the new tense situation in relations between the
USA and Russia: forthcoming presidential elections in the two countries,
Russia’s claim, supported by rich oil and gas reserves, for a role as a new
superpower, or simply inept policy of the current US administration?

[James Sherr] We need to revise the paradigm. We do not have a new cold war.
What we have are bad relations. The Cold War was something very specific,
and it is not coming back.

What is notable about Putin’s Munich speech? In a word, mentality. Putin
connected factors in US and Western policy that Western policy makers simply
do not connect. For good or ill, democracy now plays a prominent rhetorical
role in the Iraq conflict.

So when someone in Washington speaks about democracy in Russia he is
supposedly thinking about conflict. And any prudent or ill-judged comment
(e.g. Secretary of Defense Gates) about ‘log-term uncertainties’ regarding
Russia supposedly means that the US now regards Russia as part of the ‘axis
of evil’.

Because some newer members of NATO have anxieties about Russia, this
supposedly means that NATO enlargement is anti-Russian and that missile
defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic are designed (in General
Ivashov’s words) to ‘corner’ Russia.

No one in the Russian national security establishment has publicly stated
the obvious: that these interceptors have no offensive use, that they cannot
intercept Russian ICBMs from those locations and the US Global Integrated
Missile Defence programme was established at a time when US-Russia relations
were extremely good.

The fact is that very few Russians (or for that matter Ukrainians)
understand just how obsessed the United States is about the longer term
missile threat from Iran (and to a lesser extent, North Korea). And so, when
Americans are not thinking about Russia or Ukraine, it is assumed that they
are.

Were there more calculated motives behind Putin’s speech? I think so.

[1] First, on the eve of an extremely high profile visit to the Middle East,
it was designed to mobilise those who could be impressed.
[2] Second, at a time when the EU is considering a much more robust

approach to energy security, it is designed to warn that Russia is already
aggrieved and that Brussels should tread carefully.
[3] Third, it tells the Russian public that when Putin picks his successor,
he will know what he is doing. And finally, I fear, it means that national
security will be a big theme in the succession process.

[Question] Both the US and Russia have increased their defense budgets
considerably. Ukraine looks unconcerned in this respect. What does Ukraine
risk today by not rejuvenating is weapons arsenals and military equipment
(no matter if it eventually enters NATO or not)?

[James Sherr] I hope that this is not the question posed in Ukrainian
defence circles!

[1] First, only in the worst, most far-fetched case would the US or Russia
pose a classical military threat to Ukraine.

Russia has too many other supposedly ‘non-provocative’ means it can employ
to threaten Ukraine. Military pressure on Ukraine is the only thing that
will bring a Cold War back to Europe!

[2] Second, Ukraine simply cannot afford to defend itself against the very
worst case.

[3] Third, by trying to do so, Ukraine will diminish its ability to defend
itself against what really threatens it: weak institutions, uncoordinated
and poorly financed defence and security structures – all of them vulnerable
to penetration by shadow structures and by those who seek to harm Ukraine.

[Question] Do you expect a new NATO cleavage because of rising tensions in
relations between the US and Russia?

[James Sherr] No, I think it is having the opposite effect. Even many
leading centre-left newspapers in EU countries have criticised Putin’s
speech. As the Czech Republic’s Foreign Minister stated, we ‘should thank
Putin’. He ‘clearly and convincingly argued why NATO should be enlarged’.

[Question] What kind of effect may increasing tensions in relations between
Moscow and Washing have on Ukraine?

[James Sherr] Not well, of course. It will sharpen all the internal
cleavages and misunderstandings. And to jump back to your earlier question,
it will sharpen Ukraine’s security dilemma.

Ukraine needs real partners and, in my view, that means steadily closer
integration with NATO. But unless a convincing proportion of Ukraine’s elite
and society agree, further steps in that direction will be difficult.

[Question] What, in your view, was Washington thinking about when making
hostages to its relations with Moscow the countries which were seeking in
NATO a greater degree of security for each of their citizens?

[James Sherr] To reiterate, no one in Washington was thinking about Moscow
when they proposed the basing of missile defence interceptors to the Polish
and Czech governments. But perhaps they should have.

Perhaps they also should have thought more about the political sensitiveness
of those countries and their neighbors.

If I may repeat something I said in early 2002, the focus on ‘terror’ and
‘rogue states’ is more likely to narrow vision than broaden it and, like cataracts
in the eye, obscure sight of other interests that Americans dare not lose
sight of.

————————————————————————————————–
http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/635/55911/
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
25.                  THE REWARDS OF A LARGER NATO

COMMENTARY: By Greg Craig and Ronald D. Asmus
The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., Mon, Feb 19, 2007; Page A19

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bellicose speech at the Munich security
conference on Feb. 10 has caused some to revive their arguments against
enlarging NATO. The policy was wrongheaded because it produced the
nationalist policies that emanate from Moscow today, they say.

NATO expansion was a bad idea, they argue, because it enraged the Russians
and prompted them to elect a former KGB officer and cold warrior as
president. The only thing we got out of NATO enlargement, they say, was the
Czech navy.

The critics were wrong when they opposed adding nations to the alliance in
the 1990s, and they are still wrong. In fact, the more time that passes, the
better the arguments in favor of enlargement look. There were basically
three reasons for expanding NATO, and each has been proved right.

[1] First, NATO enlargement was meant to provide a security shield behind
which the countries of Central and Eastern Europe could bury their
historical conflicts and peacefully integrate into the West.

By taking the lead on enlargement, NATO helped make expansion of the
European Union possible as well. The result is that Europe is more
democratic, peaceful and secure than ever.

All of us — Europeans, Americans and Russians — benefit. The threats
Russia faces today are not in the West but in the South and to the East.
Indeed, Moscow has more stability and less uncertainty on its Western
borders than at any time since Napoleon.

[2] Second, we enlarged NATO as a hedge against a Russia that, down the
road, might once again emerge as a regional bully or threat. That is exactly
what Moscow is in danger of becoming. But the good news for Central Europe
is that it is secure now that it is firmly anchored in NATO and the European
Union.

Just imagine what Central Europe would look like today if we had not
enlarged the alliance: Central and Eastern Europe leaders would spend more
time worrying about how to stand up to Russian pressure than building
democratic institutions and managing robust, free-market economies.

Relations with Poland or the Baltic states would look something like the
troubled relations Moscow has today with Ukraine and Georgia. We would
again have instability in the heart of Europe when we could least afford it.

[3] The third reason to enlarge NATO was broader and more strategic. At the
time, President Bill Clinton spoke of his desire to help Europe resolve its
continental conflicts and of his hope that this would encourage Europeans to
raise their geopolitical sights, assume more global responsibility and
become partners with the United States in addressing new threats beyond
Europe. Does anyone doubt the need for precisely that after Sept. 11, 2001?

Would NATO be in Afghanistan today or be talking about a more global mission
if we had not helped build a stable post-Cold War security system in Europe
in the 1990s?

If Europe were not secure today, it would be much harder to persuade our
allies to engage with us in places such as Afghanistan or the Middle East.

To say that NATO expansion triggered Putin’s election as president is to
rewrite history. When it comes to Vladimir Putin’s career, we can thank
Boris Yeltsin. He picked Putin as his successor to protect his own
interests, not for reasons that had anything to do with NATO expansion.

Let’s stop pretending that Russia’s troubling emergence as an illiberal,
increasingly authoritarian state driven by a form of Eurasian
petro-nationalism is the result of Western policy. It is because of
developments inside Russia over which the West has little control.

To say that the West got nothing out of NATO expansion is to miss the forest
for the trees. While many of NATO’s new members are still poorer than
Western European nations, their contribution to the alliance on a per capita
basis is higher than that of most West European allies.

The nations of Central and Eastern Europe are democratic, stable and
prosperous. They made this progress precisely because they were able to
leave the Soviet orbit and become part of Europe.

That dream of joining NATO and rejoining Europe galvanized their populations
and caused them to unite in support of tough reforms that were achieved only
because they were the price of joining NATO. And today they have the
confidence as well as the wherewithal to deal with the rise of a nationalist
Russia.

In truth, with NATO’s expansion we got much more than the Czech navy.
We got a Europe that is whole and free. And we have an alliance that is
better able to protect us from the threats of the future precisely because
it as buried so many ghosts from the past.

That’s a pretty good deal.                              -30-
———————————————————————————————–
The writers served in the State Department during the Clinton
administration. Greg Craig was director of the Office of Policy Planning,
and Ronald D. Asmus was deputy assistant secretary for European affairs.
———————————————————————————————–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021800902.html
——————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
26.                    MUNICH 2007 CHANCE FOR UKRAINE

COMMENTARY: By Kostyantyn Hryshchenko, Advisor to
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yanukovych, Former Foreign Minister,
Former Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
Mirror-Weekly, International Social Political Weekly
Kyiv, Ukraine, 6 (635) Saturday, 17-23 February 2007

Munich, where in 1938 the great powers met to split up among themselves the
territory of Czechoslovakia, once epitomized disregard for the sovereignty
and interests of minor states, heeding instead the global centers of power.

The scale of human losses such disrespect incurred is well known. This may
be why Munich was selected as the venue for a conference on security policy,
which in today’s world plays a different role than it did in the past.

Munich is the venue for annual conferences on new trends in international
relations. This is a forum that enables big, medium and small countries to
work together in the joint search for responses to global challenges.

I have been a frequent guest in this forum, which is sometimes referred to
as a political Davos. Impressions from discussions here have been invariably
profound and vivid, spawning fresh ideas and new political constructs.

But this most recent forum, the 43rd, exceeded even the greatest
expectations of its annual participants.

High-profile statements made by well-regarded political figures have created
so many reverberations and comments throughout the world that they simply
must not pass unnoticed in the context of the current political discussion
in Ukraine. The significance of this year’s forum was evidenced by the
roster of its participants.

These included the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, the
Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, the NATO Secretary General
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the EU foreign and security affairs chief Javier
Solana, the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, US senators J. MacCain

and J. Liebermann, as well as foreign ministers and defense ministers from
numerous other countries.

Other prominent participants included Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko,
who reiterated Kyiv’s aim to work intensively on building up a new Europe in
cooperation with other nations.

It is clear even today that the Munich conference of 2007 marked the
beginning of not only critical re-evaluation of the modern international
relations system, but also began a broad public discussion on the real
principles on which the current global order rests.

Topics of this kind have been previously addressed mostly by members of the
expert community, and – no matter how highly respected these experts might
have been – were mostly taken as a private position.

This time along Munich was the venue for a discussion where traditional
stereotypes and reticences, more revealing than speeches, gave place,
unexpectedly to straightforwardness, and, most importantly, to an unmasking
of the positions and strivings of those claiming global leadership.

On the one hand, the Munich remarks by Russian President Vladimir Putin have
generated numerous reverberations throughout the world. The Russian leader,
in an emphatic speech, outlined the key division of the modern world –
between opponents and proponents of a unipolar world.

Putin stated, “All the happenings in the modern world today are a direct
consequence of attempts being made to impose a concept of a unipolar
world. This would be a world of a single master, a single sovereign. Such a
situation adversely affects not only those beyond that system but the
sovereign itself, and destroys it from within.

The United States has overstepped its national boundaries in all areas –
political, economic and humanitarian — where it has been imposing something
on other states. Who can feel very good about it?”

The world is much more complex today than 20 or 30 years ago, and in this
world there are those who do not understand any arguments other than those
backed by superior force. This is the reality.

There can be no doubt that the world needs an ‘effective muscular
transatlantic alliance,’ said the US Minister of Defense Robert Gates in
response to remarks made by the Russian leader.

I think it would be worthwhile to compare these statements with Winston
Churchill’s Fulton speech in March 1946.

I would not compare the words of these politicians in terms of lesser or
greater strength. What seems most important to me is that speakers in the
Munich forum, remarkably in one speech by a prominent British politician,
drew attention to the fact that the end of the Cold War, like the end of WW
II, has not made the world as stable and predictable as people had expected.

Meanwhile, a very considerable, if not the best part of Ukraine’s political
elite, no matter what political camps they may belong to, still view the
county’s international policy priorities based on the world picture as it
was in the early and mid-1990s.

It was the hope of many at the time that the West’s sweeping victory in the
Cold War would remove all obstacles in the way that were preventing the
spread of liberal-democratic principles, and encourage newly independent
states to build up their countries based on these principles.

At that time, European integration processes were advancing very rapidly,
and hope even sprang within Ukraine that it would not be long before it
could join that integration process together with other fellow states from
the former socialist camp, which a united Europe had taken in whole, but
mostly on credit.

NATO, having lost its worst enemy, relegated its chief mission as a
military-political alliance to the background, and has been trying since
then to find a new role in advancing democracy and stability, and to
identify new mission areas such as combating terrorism, ecological threats,
crime and drug smuggling. But it turns out that the world has not been
changing in the way we would have liked.

In other words, relying on old perceptions in shaping foreign policy
strategies today would be not only wrong but dangerous as well. It is high
time for the Ukrainian political elite to take a practical view of the world
which surrounds us and about which they know so little.

The Munich conference is to kick off this complicated but much-needed
process of Ukraine’s revaluation of its influential place and role in
resolving global challenges.

                       INCIPIENT THAWING OF THE POLES
We need to realize that the outlines of the new international system which
are being built upon the remnants of the Yalta-Potsdam model are still
vague and unstable.

Each potentially influential state (Ukraine is among the world’s thirty
countries with the greatest potential of international influence) still has
a chance to take part in shaping the new rules of the game in our
international system. And no obsolete paradigms or stereotypes should
be an obstacle in this field of maneuvering.

                UNIPOLAR WORLD HAS NOT BEEN REALIZED
The United States has been short of either resources or resolve to maintain
stability and international order on its own.

The point is not in its failed attempts to set up stable democratic regimes
in Iraq and Afghanistan by means of military force, but rather in the fact
that no single country, no matter how strong it may be financially or
militarily, has been able to extinguish crises in Iraq, Afghanistan or
elsewhere.

On account of this, the Americans are being simultaneously criticized for
being too much involved in the affairs of other states and entire regions on
the one hand, and for being involved insufficiently in the effort to put an
end to violence and impoverishment on the other.

In the corridors of the Munich forum, an example was cited of America’s
diminishing dominance in the world.

Before our eyes the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, who was until
recently perceived as nothing more than a lone eccentric, managed to pull
into an anti-US bloc such Latin American countries as Venezuela, Bolivia,
Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba.

Not far from its own borders the USA failed to prevent a union of
anti-American regimes, which have successfully exploited popular
disappointment with Washington-sponsored neo-liberal reforms.

The US still remains the world’s greatest military power, backed up by
ever-increasing defense spending, but America is not the only wealthy
country anymore.

Using a massive expansion of markets in Africa and Latin America, China
is steadily ousting Washington from its role as the main partner of the
developing world.

The Chinese, whose leaders are visiting the Third World countries as
pragmatic potential partners, offer more credits and more investment, while
being less demanding politically and economically than the Americans or
Europeans.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region, the USA is no
longer perceived as the only key player determining the situation in that
part of the world.

This is demonstrated by the first-ever visit of a Russian President to Saudi
Arabia, by Iran’s increasing role in Iraq, and also by Washington’s
impotence to effectively help in resolving the Palestinian crisis. Stories
of the USA losing its monopoly of influence on various regions of the
world are legion.

I would only add for that matter that the concept of a unipolar world is
meeting an increasing opposition in other great nations such as China,
India, Brazil and Russia – an opposition which is steadily developing into
solidarity.

Washington is looking at this situation as a reality, but the time is not
yet ripe for giving up altogether this philosophy of a unipolar world.

Instead, the US is placing a premium on bringing its allies in Europe and
the Asian-Pacific region into its fold.

                     NATO’S ROLE IN THE MODERN WORLD
Speaking to the Munich forum, the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
emphasized that NATO’s chief mission remains unchanged in its core.

“An alliance consisting of the world’s most prosperous industrialized
nations, with over 2 million people in uniform — not even counting the
American military — should be able to generate the manpower and materiel
needed to get the job done in Afghanistan, a mission in which there is
virtually no dispute over its justness, necessity, or international
legitimacy,” Gates said.

NATO is not a paper membership or a social club or a talk shop. It is a
military alliance, one with very serious real-world obligations.

The boundary lies now not between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe but between those
who do all they can to fulfill their collective commitments and those who do
not, Gates continued to say.

He expressed the hope that all of NATO’s 26 member states, not six as is the
case now, “will meet the benchmark of spending 2 percent of gross domestic
product on defense, a commitment agreed to by each member of the alliance”.

We need to know and understand this-all of it. NATO must not be viewed
simply as a stopover on the way to EU membership or as a club of stable
democracies providing reliable security guarantees.

Membership in that organization will mean for Ukraine, among other things,
preparedness to display transatlantic solidarity in complex situations and
to undertake serious commitments: military and financial.

Until these aspects of the issue are assessed profoundly and from all
angles, any responsible talk of Euroatlantic integration would be premature.
And this work should start by assessing Ukraine’s ability to spend two
percent of its gross domestic product on defense.

But whatever a final decision on our membership in NATO might be, Ukraine
cannot hope for playing any visible role in the modern world without
spending sufficient sums on its own military.

                                    EUROPEAN CHALLENGE
To many participants in the Munich conference, a key message came from
the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Even though during the Cold War he agreed with the US Secretary of Defense
on the need for NATO enlargement, this time along Steinmeier stated that
single-handed effort by the alliance is not enough to cope with global
issues such as climate change, overpopulation and lack of natural resources,
which all are posing an increasing threat to the world.

Instead, he called on the US and EU to cooperate as equal partners beyond
their work together in NATO.

Here we see the Europeans’ efforts to get out from under US guardianship
and to play a more weighty role in resolving the problems which, sadly, much
more concern ‘old’ Europe than the United States.

Another sensation of the Munich conference – which was much spoken of in
unofficial conversations there – was Germany’s claim for a more prominent
role in global policy.

Berlin does not make a secret of its resolve to enter the club of countries
developing the rules of play for the new international system, and this
trend should be taken into account by those accustomed to thinking of US
and EU positions as just one and the same.
                              NEW COLD WAR CHALLENGE
At the Munich conference, there was much talk, notably by European
politicians, of Russia’s new role in maintaining international security.

In particular, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated, “Even today
Russia in many instances bears shared responsibility with us”.

“This has to do with its contribution to resolving the Middle East conflict,
and, considering the Iran situation, we see that none of the resolutions [on
that country] would become effective without Russia’s participation. As for
the Balkans, by acting jointly with Russia, we could get many things started
and accomplish much”, said Merkel.

The trouble is that Kyiv, as well as a good number of other capitals
worldwide, was late in adequately assessing Russia’s renewed influence in
that region and on the world as a whole.

Most policy makers in Ukraine did not notice Russia developing into a
wealthy enough state, strong militarily and politically, whose elite is
increasingly becoming self-confident and assertive, and dares to behave
defiantly, if not aggressively, in the international arena. And we still
have to learn how to play ball with such a neighbor.

And, most importantly, the European Union, which itself is seeking an
optimal pattern for dialogue with Moscow, needing its support on many
issues, is not going to help us in that effort.

The point is not only in Ukraine’s dependence on Moscow for natural gas.
What Europe is awaiting from Kyiv is reliability and predictability in its
relations with Russia.

Paris, Berlin and Brussels all stand ready to give a helping hand to Ukraine
in countering pressure from Russia. But they are not going to get involved
in a conflict if it is provoked by Ukraine’s inconsistency and reluctance to
honor its obligations.

This could be clearly felt in Munich, where European politicians decided not
to engage in yet another discussion on the prospects of a Russian-Ukrainian
partnership in the gas industry, especially since the EU, as in previous
cases, could not sort out who had been right and who wrong in the most
recent gas dispute, because of Ukrainian officials’ propensity to secret
negotiations with Moscow.

On the other hand, there are too many politicians in the West and Russia
alike who are still thinking in the Cold War-era terms and keeping their
guns ready.

A number of strongly-worded statements by the Russian President and
high-ranking American officials has given rise to talk about a new global
rivalry between Moscow and Washington.

And we have to realize that in this situation much more depends on Ukraine
than many used to think, because our country could be a reliable bridge
between the West and Russia and a battlefield for those two alike.

The choice here depends to a considerable degree on the Ukrainian elite,
since it is owing precisely to a lack of agreement between opposing camps
there, along with their inability to compromise, that there is competition
between Moscow and Washington over Ukraine’s political market.

A graphic illustration is last year’s parliamentary coalition process and
the following scramble for influence on the ruling majority and the
government.

Ukraine’s sovereignty and the scope of the rivalry between international
powers depend on Kyiv’s stance here, and on the ability of the country’s
political elite to refrain from accepting outside support when it comes
resolving internal tensions.
                          CONSOLIDATION REQUIREMENT
The Munich conference has proven that the narrow perception of security
as dealing simply with low-level threats is becoming history now.

It is becoming more clear that security implies not a state as such but
rather a process and movement.

Security is a situation where the threat level is constantly low. So,
neglecting an aspect of security such as competitive capabilities of states
in the fight for survival may bring about great problems.

The Soviet Union used to spend huge sums of money on getting itself
prepared for combating internal and external enemies, but eventually it
broke apart because of an acute shortcoming in its own system.

After all, let us accept that all the major threats to Ukraine’s national
security are coming from the inside, making the country more vulnerable
to external challenges.

If the Ukrainian political elite does not consolidate, any kind of
international policy strategy–even one that is well-considered and takes
into account all the realities of modern international relations–will be
doomed to failure.

Today, our state has a unique chance of not only defending its right to an
independent foreign policy but also of joining those who are shaping the
new architecture of international relations in the region, as well as in the
global situation.

The only thing necessary for this is that decision-makers in Ukraine act as
one, using a unified platform, and work together in the search for resources
needed in responding to challenges within Ukraine’s political system, rather
than balancing itself between global centers of force.

Ukraine can afford neither an internal cold war nor an internal bipolarity.
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.mirror-weekly.com/ie/show/635/55910/
———————————————————————————————–
[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;
         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 four 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 & BULK MAIL BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

If you do not receive a copy of the AUR it is probably because of a
SPAM OR BULK MAIL BLOCKER maintained by your server or by
yourself on your computer. Spam and bulk mail blockers are set in very
arbitrary and impersonal ways and block out e-mails because of words
found in many news stories or the way the subject line is organized or
the header or who know what.
 
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, The Bleyzer Foundation

Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
President (Acting) and Chairman, Executive Committee of the
Board of Directors, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
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#818 Feb 19 Silence Of America, VOA & RFE/RL Budget Cuts; World Bank Speaks; Capital Outflow; Grain; Regions Controls Crimea; Amb To Canada Speech

=========================================================
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       

 
                               SILENCE OF AMERICA
         Now, with Russian President Vladimir Putin bullying his neighbors,
         manipulating the Russian media and throwing increasingly audacious
         anti-American tantrums, one would think U.S. policymakers would
         have the sense at least to maintain relatively modest VOA [& RFE/RL]
         operations in and around the Russian Federation [including Ukraine].
                                           (Articles One to Three)
                        
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 818
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor, SigmaBleyzer
WASHINGTON, D.C., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2007

              –——-  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.                                     SILENCE OF AMERICA
                 Cutting the VOA’s presence in Mr. Putin’s neighborhood
EDITORIAL: The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Friday, February 16, 2007; Page A22

2.      U.S. BROADCASTING BUDGET PROPOSES REDUCTIONS

                RADIO FREE  EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY (RFE/RL)
Broadcasting Board of Governors
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 05, 2007

3.           LETTER-TO-THE EDITOR: “SILENCE OF AMERICA”

               Cutting the VOA’s Presence in Mr. Putin’s Neighborhood
LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR: From Ken Bossong
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 3
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 19, 2007

4WORLD BANK SAYS UKRAINE MUST CREATE A FAVORABLE
     BUSINESS CLIMATE, CARRY OUT REFORMS IN THE PUBLIC
            SECTOR AND ENSURE THAT THE POPULATION CAN
                   ENJOY THE FRUITS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
INTERVIEW: With Shigeo Katsu, Vice-President,
Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank
By Vitalii Kniazhansky, The Day Weekly Digest #5
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 13, 2007

5.   CAPITAL OUTFLOW POSES ONE OF BIGGEST THREATS TO
     UKRAINE’S NATIONAL SECURITY, PRES YUSCHENKO SAYS
Interfax Ukraine Focus, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, February 16, 2007

6.   UKRAINE: BIG BUSINESS DOESN’T NEED FREE ECONOMIC

Interfax Ukraine Focus, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, February 15, 2007

7. UKRAINIAN AGRARIAN CONFEDERATION WELCOMES INCREASE
     IN EXPORT QUOTAS FOR GRAIN STORED IN PORT ELEVATORS
Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation (UAC) website, in Ukrainian
Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, February 15, 2007
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 7, in English
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, February 19, 2007

8. UKRAINE TO RESUME GRAIN EXPORT BY END OF FEBRUARY
Korrespondent online (in Russian), Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, Feb 16, 2007
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 8, in English
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 19, 2007

9.     RUSSIAN GRAIN ASSOCIATION VIEWS INTRODUCTION

                OF GRAIN QUOTAS IN UKRAINE NEGATIVELY 
Viktoria Miroshnychenko, Ukrainian News Agency
Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, February 15, 2007

10.    POLISH MEAT EXPORTERS TO UKRAINE TO QUICKLY

 REGAIN MARKET SHARE, BUT CUSTOM DUTY STILL BARRIER
Interfax Central Europe, Warsaw, Poland, Fri, February 16, 2007

11.   ROMANIA: DIALOGUE WITH UKRAINE OVER DISPUTED
                      SERPENTS ISLAND IN THE BLACK SEA
New Europe, Athens, Greece, Wed, February 14, 2007

12.       UKRAINE: TREATY ON RUSSIA’S BLACK SEA FLEET
                               EXPIRES IN 10 YEARS BUT…….
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Volodymyr Obolonsky
The Ukrainian Times, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, February 19, 2007

13.                 UKRAINE: THIEF IN NATURE’S TEMPLE
    Air pollution rose in 21 regions in 2006, 70% of water surface polluted
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Vatilii Kniazhansky
The Day Weekly Digest, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, February 13, 2007

14. U.S. ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE SPECIALISTS TO EXPLAIN PLANS

              SERIOUS POLITICAL ISSUES IN EASTERN EUROPE 
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1006 gmt 16 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, Friday, February 16, 2007

16.   UKRAINIAN INFLUENTIAL MP THREATENS TO SUE FOR
  LIBEL IS BOOK “DONETSK MAFIA” IS PUBLISHED IN EUROPE
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 16 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, Friday, February 16, 2007

17UKRAINIAN OPPOSITION LEADER TYMOSHENKO AIMS TO
        FORM RULING COALITION WITH PRESIDENT’S PARTY 
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, Ukraine,in Ukrainian 1900 gmt 17 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, Saturday, February 17, 2007

18TYMOSHENKO AGAINST MEDIATOR’S PARTICIPATION IN
SUPPLYING GAS TO UKRAINE, NO ITERA, NO ROSUKRENERGO
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, February 16, 2007

19.          UKRAINE: KRUTY-2 ONLY A MATTER OF TIME
                                   Our post-genocidal society
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Oleksandr Kramarenko
The Day Weekly Digest, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, February 13, 2007

20DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE OF
   1932-1933 (HOLODOMOR) NOW AVAILABLE IN DVD FORMAT
Ukrainian Canadian Research & Documentation Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, February 2007
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 20
Washington, D.C. Monday, February 19, 2007

 
21.       WHAT THE VERHOVNA RADA ACTUALLY PASSED
    1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine is genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Maidan.org.ua (in Ukrainian), Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, Nov 28, 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 21 (in English)
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 19, 2007
 
22. UKRAINE: “ON THE CROSSROADS OF CULTURES, INTERESTS
   AND INFLUENCES” – PARTY OF REGIONS DOMINATES CRIMEA
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Khomenko
Holos Ukrayiny daily, Kiev, Ukraine, in Russian 14 Feb 07, p 3
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, Wednesday, February 14, 2007
 
23.          UKRAINE’S FOREIGN POLICY AT THE BEGINNING
                                     OF THE 21ST CENTURY
ADDRESS: By H.E. Dr. Ihor Ostash
Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Published by e-POSHTA, Politics and Business Edition
Vol. 8, No. 12, Canada, Sunday, February 18, 2007
========================================================
1
                        SILENCE OF AMERICA
                Cutting the VOA’s presence in Mr. Putin’s neighborhood

EDITORIAL: The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Friday, February 16, 2007; Page A22

FOR DECADES, the Voice of America and its sister broadcasting
organizations offered a remarkably balanced alternative to state-controlled
media all over the world, buoying dissident movements and undermining
anti-American dictatorships for a relatively small investment.

Soviet citizens even learned how to reconfigure their radios to break
through the jamming signals their government used to interrupt VOA and
British Broadcasting Corp. programming.

Now, with Russian President Vladimir Putin bullying his neighbors,
manipulating the Russian media and throwing increasingly audacious
anti-American tantrums, one would think U.S. policymakers would have

the sense at least to maintain relatively modest VOA operations in and
around the Russian Federation.

Yet President Bush’s recently released 2008 budget proposal does just the
opposite, cutting VOA programming for a range of post-Soviet states to
finance programming expansion in other areas of the world
.

The White House’s proposed reprioritization of VOA broadcasting moves
money out of operations aimed at the large and largely Muslim country of
Uzbekistan. Broadcasting into neighboring Kazakhstan is also being cut.

The citizens of both countries live under illiberal regimes, and
Uzbekistan’s brutal dictatorship is of the sort that incubates religious
fundamentalism and anti-Americanism.

Voice of America’s half-hour of radio and half-hour of television
programming in Uzbek, says a VOA staff member, provide about the only
direct contact Uzbeks have with the United States and the only unvarnished
news in the region. Meanwhile, the highly controlled Russian media beam
their often misleading programming in with ease.

Mr. Bush’s budget also proposes reductions in Ukrainian-language VOA
programming to serve a country struggling to Westernize in the shadow
of Mr. Putin’s increasingly lawless regime.

Mr. Bush should be eager to encourage democratic forces in Ukraine, as
well as in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, not further limit their sources of
information about the United States.

The price of such programs is so low that federal financial constraints
are hardly an excuse to kill them; a relatively tiny increase in the VOA’s
budget would make a world of difference.                  -30-
——————————————————————————————-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501583.html

——————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2.   U.S. BROADCASTING BUDGET PROPOSES REDUCTIONS
         FOR UKRAINIAN BROADCASTS BY BOTH VOA AND
            RADIO FREE  EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY (RFE/RL)

Broadcasting Board of Governors
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 05, 2007

WASHINGTON – The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget for U.S.
international broadcasting calls for an overall increase of 3.8% from
the anticipated fiscal year 2007 level that strengthens targeted
programming to provide essential access to news and information to
critical audiences.

The budget proposal is also aimed at increasing overall audience reach
around the world by utilizing the latest technology and strengthening
transmission capability.

Of the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ (BBG) $668.2 million request,
$142.4 million is allocated for programming to the Near East, South, Central
Asia and Eurasia, $116 million for Arabic language programming, $67.2
million for East Asia, $45 million for Latin America and $13.6 million for
Africa.

The proposal includes enhancements the agency believes are pivotal to
promoting freedom and democracy and enhancing understanding in key
regions. They include:

[1] Establishing a 10-hour coordinated stream of Voice of America (VOA)
and Radio Free Asia (RFA) daily programming to North Korea.
[2] Launching a daily three-hour live Alhurra television program produced
and broadcast from the Middle East.
[3] Continuing VOA’s Somali Service’s 30 minute daily radio broadcast
scheduled to launch February 12, 2007, to the millions of Somali speakers

in Somalia, Djibouti and the greater Horn of Africa.
[4] Improving Radio and TV Martí’s reach into Cuba through additional
transmission capability and enhancing the production of the programming.
VOA programming to Cuba would be increased to 7 days a week.

The budget also fully funds initiatives begun in FY 2006 to critical Muslim
audiences. These include the expansion of VOA television to Iran to a 12
hour stream, VOA Pashto radio programming to the Afghanistan/Pakistan

border region, television programs to Afghanistan and Pakistan and Alhurra
Europe, the 24/7 service to Arabic speakers in Europe.

To fund these initiatives and mandatory cost increases, the request proposes
the following savings: elimination of VOA and RFA broadcasts in Cantonese
as well as VOA Uzbek.

Reductions to the following:
[1] Ukrainian broadcasts by both VOA and Radio Free

      Europe/ Radio Liberty (RFE/RL);
[2] Tibetan broadcasts by VOA and RFA;
[3] VOA Portuguese to Africa; and
[4] broadcasts in Romanian, South Slavic and Kazakh by RFE/RL.

Other savings will come from reductions in support services.

The FY 2008 request also includes several enhancements and reductions
requested in FY 2007. These include funds to increase Alhurra’s live news
capacity to 24 hours a day; expansion of VOA Spanish language programming
to Venezuela; additional transmission capabilities for RFE/RL Russian and
RFA Korean broadcasts and increased funding for employee training and
award programs.

Proposed reductions for FY 2007 included in the FY 2008 request include
eliminating VOA broadcasts in Croatian, Greek, Georgian and Thai as well
as RFE/RL broadcasts in Macedonian.

The request includes eliminating VOA radio broadcasts but continuing
television programming in the following languages: Serbian, Albanian,
Bosnian, Macedonian, Hindi and Russian.

The proposal also calls for discontinuing 14 hours a day of VOA NewsNow
English broadcasts while maintaining VOA’s English to Africa and Special
English services and continuing to strengthen VOA English on the Internet.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is an independent federal agency which
supervises all U.S. government-supported, non-military international
broadcasting, including The Voice of America (VOA); Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty (RFE/RL); the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and
Radio Sawa); Radio Free Asia (RFA); and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting
(Radio and TV Martí).

Through its broadcast services, the BBG provides the United States and its
leaders direct and immediate access to a worldwide audience of 140 million
people. Current governors are Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, Joaquin F.
Blaya, Blanquita W. Cullum, D. Jeffrey Hirschberg, Edward E. Kaufman,
Steven J. Simmons, and Mark McKinnon. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice serves as an ex officio member.                     -30-
———————————————————————————————–
http://www.bbg.gov/_bbg_news.cfm?articleID=142&mode=general
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3.  LETTER-TO-THE EDITOR: “SILENCE OF AMERICA”
              Cutting the VOA’s Presence in Mr. Putin’s Neighborhood
 

LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR: From Ken Bossong
To: The Washington Post, letters@washpost.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 3
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 19, 2007
February 16, 2007
Letters-to-the-Editor: Washington Post
1150 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20071

RE: Editorial – “Silence of America: Cutting the VOA’s Presence in Mr.
Putin’s Neighborhood” The Washington Post (Feb 16, 2007)

Dear Sir/Madam:

As a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer who served in Ukraine, I can
personally attest to how penny-wise but pound-foolish is the White House
proposal to slash funding for Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts in that
country and other former Soviet bloc nations.

VOA and affiliated U.S.-sponsored programs are not only regularly listened
to by very large audiences but also provide one of the most cost-effective
and positive image-building strategies for the United States and American
ideals.

For Ukraine, where VOA broadcasts are playing an important role in helping
democracy to slowly take root, cutting the agency’s budget might save a
few dollars in the short term, but the longer-term adverse political
cost
would be vastly greater.

Sincerely, Ken Bossong
U.S. Peace Corps volunteer – Ukraine (2000-2003), Takoma Park, MD
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
4. WORLD BANK SAYS UKRAINE MUST CREATE A FAVORABLE
     BUSINESS CLIMATE, CARRY OUT REFORMS IN THE PUBLIC
           SECTOR AND ENSURE THAT THE POPULATION CAN
                 ENJOY THE FRUITS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

INTERVIEW: With Shigeo Katsu, Vice-President,
Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank
By Vitalii Kniazhansky, The Day Weekly Digest #5
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 13, 2007

My meeting with Shigeo Katsu, the vice-president for the Europe and Central
Asia Region of the World Bank, took place on Feb. 6 when the World Bank
Mission opened a new office in Kyiv.

Katsu pursued his graduate studies at the University of Tokyo and obtained

a diploma in International Economics and International Relations from the
Diplomatic Academy of Vienna.

He speaks fluent Japanese, English, French, and German and has a working
knowledge of Chinese and Russian. He has worked at the World Bank for 27
years and is a noted expert on international economic relations.

The first topic of my conversation with Shigeo Katsu was photography,
because on his desk was a calendar of prize-winning photographs from The
Day’s 8th international competition, published by the World Bank in
collaboration with our newspaper.

“We do these kinds of things in Washington, in our Europe region, and in
Central Asia,” he said and offered to exchange photos. Needless to say,
The Day gratefully agreed.

[The Day] Does the grand opening of the new office of the World Bank’s
Mission signify a new stage in its relations with Ukraine?

Sh.K.: Thanks for putting your question so nicely. It is a very timely
question because the opening of the new office coincides with my colleagues
launching consultations here in Kyiv with your government and civil society
in regard to a new strategy for Ukraine’s partnership with the World Bank
Group for the next three to four years.

Of course, this new partnership strategy will be planned in an environment
that will be considerably different from the previous one.

[The Day] As I understand, you had an important international conference

in Kyiv today. What decisions were passed?

Sh.K.: It was an internal meeting of the World Bank’s Europe and Central
Asia regional team. We discussed matters relating to business planning. It
was interesting and informative because Ukraine is a medium-level profit
country that is actively evolving and quickly moving forward.

We discussed ways to improve cooperation between the World Bank Group
and Ukraine. Our conclusions are largely rooted in the assumption that the
new partnership strategy will be carried out in a new environment here.

[The Day] Before discussing the new strategy of relations between the
World Bank and Ukraine, I would like to hear your views on the previous
stage. Was everything in order or was something preventing projects from
being implemented?

                        SUPPORTING FOUR KEY SPHERES
Sh.K.: Our partnership strategy with Ukraine, which is still in effect, was
mostly aimed at supporting four key spheres:

     [1] economic growth and competitiveness;
     [2] matters relating to state administration and its transparency;
     [3] social protection and social security of the population; and
     [4] stable progress in the sphere of environmental protection.

Speaking of the results, greater progress has been made in the first two
spheres; in the other two, work is still underway.

As for the instruments of cooperation, my impression is that everyone in
Kyiv knows that there is an instrument known as the development strategy
loan.

It has been introduced and carried out rather effectively. In terms of
investment loans, better work has been done in the sphere of infrastructure.

In the sphere of human resources – matters relating to education and health
care – the implementation process has turned out a bit slower. We have very
successful experience in the sphere of state administration, particularly in
modernizing the State Treasury of Ukraine.

[The Day] There were no obstacles and everything was proceeding normally?

Sh.K.: As you know, a number of important political events have taken place
in Ukraine. I mean the elections and instability, in the sense that we had
to wait for the government to be formed, and so on.

But work continued on the practical level, also, as I mentioned earlier, in
the course of implementing a number of joint investment projects, for
example, in the sphere of health care, education, and agricultural
development. Of course, this process proved to be slower.

[The Day] How does the new partnership strategy differ from the previous
project whose term is ending? What other new opportunities for
collaboration with the World Bank will open up for Ukraine?

Sh.K.: As I said before, we are at quite an early stage of preparing a new
partnership strategy with Ukraine. Our consultations are just starting, so
it may be too early to discuss this aspect, although I do, of course, have
my own views.

I think that it will be more important for your readers to know about our
joint perspective on what has changed in Ukraine.

ECONOMIC GROWTH DESPITE POLITICAL INSTABILITY
The World Bank Group is well aware of the fact that Ukraine has shown
quick economic growth despite political instability. Your economy has
been developing very well, and we can see that the private sector has been
restructured.

We believe that the Ukrainian economy is quite strong. We assume that its
growth in the next four or five years will be significant, even if not at
such a quick pace as before, because for some time it will largely depend

on the long-term trend in the international situation.

How long will the world market maintain such low interest rates? Will there
be as much spare cash as now? In principle, Ukraine has good prospects.

If you want to know whether Ukraine will be able to maintain this growth
rate without continuing reforms, we think this will be very difficult to
accomplish. In this sense Ukraine is no exception to the rule. Many
countries in a similar situation are facing these kinds of problems.

                    UKRAINE MUST, IN OUR OPINION….
In order to maintain this growth rate, increase its competitiveness in the
world, draw closer to the more advanced countries, and increase its per
capita income, Ukraine must, in our opinion,

     [1] create a favorable business climate,
     [2] carry out reforms in the public sector, and
     [3] ensure that the population can enjoy the fruits of economic growth.

All this is impossible without further reform. As for competitiveness, it
certainly requires progress in innovative policies, particularly in the
investment sphere, so that the problem of developing new technologies is
resolved.

A favorable environment should be created by upgrading corporate
management. Of course, these aspects are very important.

In order to enhance the effectiveness of the public sector, Ukraine must on
the one hand set about creating the so-called fiscal space, without which it
is impossible to double government investments in the sector of
infrastructure.

This sector suffered the worst from the recessive transition period of the
1990s, when there were no investments made in infrastructure.

Ukraine’s location between the European Union and Russia makes it a
bridge of sorts, a sphere of transportation logistics, a transportation
corridor for an open economy from the standpoint of both infrastructure,
software, and assistance to trade.

Enhancing competitiveness, of course, requires larger investments in the
private sector, although government investments must continue. Actually
this is why that fiscal space has to be built.
  TANGIBLE IMPROVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES
         AND QUALITY OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
There are two other spheres that we talked about today. They are becoming
increasing priorities. The first one is a tangible improvement of municipal
services in the regions, and, of course, the quality of local
administration, which is of great importance.

Another serious sphere that I am constantly hearing about is energy
efficiency, in other words, energy saving that will also be a very important
aspect for the next couple of years, especially in view of rising gas
prices.

We will discuss all this with the Ukrainian leadership. Mr. Birmingham will
coordinate the process of creating a new partnership strategy with Ukraine.

[The Day] So the World Bank will be channeling investments into precisely
these spheres?

Sh.K.: We will consult with the government in regard to all these issues
because we want to know their opinion and to determine where, in your
government’s opinion, we should be active, in which particular sphere.

To do so we have a number of existing instruments: on the one hand,
loans for concrete projects, but we can also do analytical reports, help
with institutional progress, and provide technological assistance.

Here we are not necessarily talking big loans. I would also like to point
out the role being played by our colleagues, our partners from the
International Finance Corporation; unlike us, they handle the private
sector.

[The Day] Enhancing Ukraine’s competitiveness on the world market takes
high-tech projects and scientifically intensive products.

During your previous meetings with Ukrainian officials, did you get the
sense that they want to move in this direction? Perhaps Mr. Birmingham
will have more to say on this subject?

Sh.K.: Paul can certainly give better answers to questions relating to
discussions with your government. As for the crux of your question, I can
say that many countries are seeking investments in the high-tech sphere.

But in our opinion, this is work in the private sector, whereas the role of
government consists of improving the business environment so as to
attract investments to this sphere.

In other words, the point in question is a high-tech policy and creation of
science and technology parks. This is much better than direct government
investments in these sectors of the economy. It is necessary to create a
business environment that can be attractive and helpful.

Here we are interested in measures aimed at developing an investment
strategy to enhance human potential, education, and the real connection
between these factors and economic activities. This may have a number of
aspects, including the use of both start-up and venture capital.

A great deal of such experience has been accumulated elsewhere in the world,
particularly in the United States. Now I think Paul can add to my answer.

Birmingham: I think that Mr. Katsu has given you a rather exhaustive answer.
Of course, we will continue discussions with the Ukrainian government about
how this set of problems can evolve, but I think that he has sufficiently
covered this particular aspect.

[The Day] Can you absolutely trust our government to secure effective
cooperation, effective utilization, and of course, effective repayment of
the funds provided by the World Bank? What does your past experience
say?

Sh.K. (in Russian): Of course, we have confidence. Your government has
demonstrated its abilities. We have received very good results from the
introduction of projects in the sphere of infrastructure, although at the
beginning we probably had to make some corrections. But it was a
mutually educational process.

As for the other sectors I have mentioned and in which we faced some
challenges, human resources sectors, we must first ask ourselves: ‘Was our
communication with the government really effective? Did we succeed in
making our partners understand our objectives and tasks?

Did the design of our projects reflect the restrictions being imposed on the
government? Did this design correctly reflect what our partners in
government wanted to do?’

We must carefully study these questions and work on them, so that the
government can feel that these projects are primarily Ukrainian ones.
Objectively speaking, there were certain procedural limitations.

It is also possible that some aspects of the processing of the World Bank’s
project will prove to be of long duration, so perhaps there is room for
simplifying these procedures.

Of course, we are also expecting some steps to be made by your
government, particularly in terms of government purchases, taxation,
and so on.

[The Day] Don’t you think it’s time Ukraine curbed its appetite for loans?

Sh.K.: Speaking of the public debt, it is a mere 16 percent of your GDP,
which is really a very low figure. It’s not a lot at all.

If viewed in the context of the future, we have already said, for example,
that there must be huge investments in the infrastructure, in other words,
some 40 billion dollars for the next ten years, or four billion a year. The
same applies to other spheres.

All told, this is twice the sums being invested. Let me say again that
Ukraine must create a fiscal space and enhance the effectiveness of budget
spending. Of course, a more reasonable approach to loans also makes
sense.

Here lowering tax rates can be of great help while expanding the assessment
basis and improving taxation discipline. This will bring more revenues, ease
the tax burden on business, and create a better business environment.

[The Day] Do you have any complaints about the Ukrainian banking sector
through which World Bank funds are provided to Ukraine?

Sh.K.: I don’t think there are any problems in terms of security and
reliability of World Bank funds passing through the Ukrainian banking
system. However, with your permission I will make a general comment on
the risks as we see them in the banking system.

We are all witness to a very quick increase in credits both for satisfying
the investment needs of businesses and household consumer needs.

We have seen a similar situation in other countries where a precipitous rise
in crediting creates a certain increased level of risks for the banking
system in general. The thing is that this happens in a situation when the
financial sector environment is not firmly established.

In other words, on the one hand we see serious progress at the National
Bank of Ukraine (in terms of banking supervision), but progress
notwithstanding, this work is still underway, it still has to be completed,
its potential has to be upgraded.

As for the judicial system and the possibility of quickly resolving
commercial matters, defending creditors in court, the situation remains
mainly unsatisfactory.

Credits are also quickly increasing against the backdrop of bank and
corporate management that is far from perfect, so this can and must be
improved. In other words, all this quick development is taking place while
the banking system is rather fragile.

[The Day] You have a meetings scheduled with Mr. Azarov. Will you ask
him when Ukraine is going to lift the grain export restrictions?

Sh.K.: Do you want me to ask this question? If so, I can broach the subject,
but I can’t answer it at the moment.

[The Day] Don’t you think that Ukraine depends too much on foreign market
demand? If so, what should it do to reduce this dependence and increase
domestic market demand?

Sh.K.: The thing is that Ukraine is becoming increasingly open in terms of
the economy; it is successfully going through the process of integrating
into the world economy.

Ukraine has been showing very good dynamics of progress since 2000, so
without this dynamic growth, including on foreign markets, Ukraine would
not be evolving so quickly.
         MUST SHARE FRUITS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
Why stop using these capacities? However, the key, the main challenge for
Ukraine’s decision makers is the need to somehow share the fruits of this
quick economic growth with the broadest strata of the population.

The dividends from this growth for the whole population must be higher
profits and lower prices. This is something an open economy will provide
in the best way than if the country tried to protect itself behind closed
doors.

Of course, it is only natural for Ukraine to protect its positions and
national interests, but the system of international trade also offers an
opportunity for protecting one’s national interests.

You have just given more answers to the previous question than to this
one. (Laughter)                                    -30-
——————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177117/. Subheadings inserted

editorially by the Action Ukraine Report (AUR).
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5. CAPITAL OUTFLOW POSES ONE OF BIGGEST THREATS TO
    UKRAINE’S NATIONAL SECURITY, PRES YUSCHENKO SAYS

Interfax Ukraine Focus, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, February 16, 2007

KYIV – Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko says capital outflow poses

one of the biggest threats to the country’s national security.

“The scale of the capital outflow in the past 4 or 5 years from Ukraine
indicates that the phenomena is one of the basic threats to the national
security of Ukraine,” Yuschenko said at a meeting of the National Security
and Defense Council in Kyiv on Friday.

Although there are no official statistical data, it is said a colossal $12.9
billion left the economy between 2004 and 2006, with $13.2 billion in

direct foreign investment flowing into the country, Yuschenko said.

“We are proud of having this unique investment inflow, especially over the
past two years, but we must realize that the same sum was taken out of .
circulation [in Ukraine],” he said, according to the press service of the
president.

Given Ukraine’s $6.7 billion trade deficit, the tendency is particularly
dangerous, Yuschenko said. “We may soon be facing very serious

challenges, disrupting price and monetary stability,” he said.

The president said law enforcement agencies had been ineffective in
preventing capital outflow. He added that the government introduced no
reforms encouraging domestic investment.

“At this table, we must ask those in charge of improving the investment
climate why we have not yet created a comfortable business environment

and why the black economy is flourishing,” he said, slamming the State
Committee for Financial Monitoring for failing to prevent murky financial
transactions.

The Friday meeting of the National Security and Defense Council will also
address the issue of international military maneuvers in Ukraine in 2007. -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6.  UKRAINE: BIG BUSINESS DOESN’T NEED FREE ECONOMIC
ZONES & PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT TERRITORIES: AKHMETOV
 
Interfax Ukraine Focus, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, February 15, 2007

KYIV – Ukrainian billionaire and Regions Party MP Rinat Akhmetov says
Ukraine’s big businesses doesn’t need any special economic zones and
priority development territories.

“I am convinced that big business doesn’t need preferences. [Ukrainian] big
business has grown up, and is capable of competing as an equal player.

Big business is giving up preferences,” Akhmetov said at a meeting of the
Ukrainian parliament committee for economic policies in Donetsk on Thursday.

“We need an economically free country rather than the free economic zones,”
Akhmetov said.                                       -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. UKRAINIAN AGRARIAN CONFEDERATION WELCOMES INCREASE
   IN EXPORT QUOTAS FOR GRAIN STORED IN PORT ELEVATORS

Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation (UAC) website, in Ukrainian
Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, February 15, 2007
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 7, in English
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, February 19, 2007

KYIV – The Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation (UAC) has welcomed the

decision by the cabinet of ministers to impose higher export quotas for
grain stored in port elevators, saying it will help relieve the elevators of
grain.

The cabinet decision tallies with the UGC position on the issue which has
been repeatedly publicized in recent time.

In addition, the UGC views as absolutely logical further liberalization of
the quote-setting policy, including canceling quotas for the export of feed
grain.

Simultaneously, UAC leaders are convinced that such liberalization must be
accompanied by a number of other steps aimed at raising competitiveness

of Ukraine’s feed sector. Judging by the statistics on the sales of
cattle-breeding products, sales of live weight meat in 2006 fell by 20-25
percent.

It is clear that, given such conditions, domestic cattle breeding cannot
stay competitive, the more so that world grain prices are rather high.

Therefore, the UAC believes that it is necessary to implement a range of
measures to cut the contraband of meat, prevent underestimation of meat
customs value as well as to study the prospects of meat import via free
economic zones.

In this respect, UAC experts have stressed the importance of drawing up
steps in advance to raise the purchases of 2007 grain by the Agrarian Fund
and the State Reserve, creating conditions for the purchase by these state
organizations of adequate grain supplies in July-August and eventually
eliminating the issue of export quotas imposition.

For the record, the cabinet of ministers of Ukraine has increased grain
export quotas for the 2006/2007 marketing year.

According to the Ministry for Agrarian Policy press service, an appropriate
cabinet resolution #185 of Feb. 13, 2007 “On making changes in the cabinet
of ministers resolution of Dec. 8, 2006 #1701″ has been signed by Premier
Yanukovych.

Accordingly, the grain export quota valid till the end of 2006/2007 will be
increased to 864,000 tons, including 606,000 tons for barley, 30,000 tons
for maize, and 228,000 tons for wheat.

The resolution comes into force on publication. In addition, the MAP press
service notes that the ministry is currently drawing up a resolution
canceling export quotas for wheat, maize and barley.           -30-
——————————————————————————————–
 LINK: http://www.agroconf.org/uk/node/562
——————————————————————————————–

FOOTNOTE: This article translated from Ukrainian to English for the
exclusive use of the Action Ukraine Report (AUR) by Volodymyr
Hrytsutenko, Lviv, Ukraine.
————————————————————————————————
[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 TO RESUME GRAIN EXPORT BY END OF FEBRUARY

Korrespondent online (in Russian)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, February 16, 2007
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 8, in English
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 19, 2007

KYIV – By late February, the first stage of the deliveries of grain from
port elevators to foreign clients will start, President of the Ukrainian
Grain Association, UGA, Volodymyr Klymenko said.

According to the official, no deliveries took place in January as grain
traders did not risk chartering vessels before they had licenses on their
hands.

Klymenko noted that in this way grain exporters are trying to avoid losses
for idle time of vessels in ports. The first deliveries will be started in
accordance with licenses to be issued in line with the cabinet resolution.

It takes a month to get a license, Klymenko noted. With the time needed to
charter a vessel it adds up to 30 to 45 days.

UGA president told that the losses of exporters due to idle time of vessels
in ports amount to $100 mn. In addition, he observed, 10,000 tons of grain
cannot be saved as it cannot be used even as fertilizer.

According to the UGA president, Ukraine can annually export 10.5 – 11 mn
tons of grain, including 4 mn tons of wheat, 5.5 mn tons of barley and 2 mn
tons of maize.

Ukrainian President Yushchenko has plans to discuss grain export and grain
pricing with Premier Yanukovych, Yushchenko said on Feb. 13 during his
meeting with Dave Rogers, Cargill Europe executive director and member of
the Consultative council for foreign investments in Ukraine.

According to Yushchenko, the government must look for an alternative way,

or wider options, to map out its grain pricing policy. Given this, grain
producers and traders will be able to operate at world prices, substantially
higher now than domestic grain prices.

The Ukrainian grain market is now regulated in the on-hands mode. For
instance, on Feb. 7 the cabinet raised barley export quotas by 600,000 tons,
maize quotas by 30,000 tons and milling wheat by 228,000 tons.

The situation on grain markets is now stable, claims the government. As full
amounts of grain have been purchased for the State Reserve and Agrarian
Fund, more possibilities for grain export have opened up.

Meanwhile, experts say that setting export quotas was an attempt by the
government to play safe in the wake of the 2003 grain crisis, head of VR
committee on agrarian policy and land relations, member of parliament

(BYuT) Mykhailo Hladij says.

In his opinion, quotas for grain export should not be set, as trade must be
regulated by market, not administrative, levers. Even if quotas are imposed,
their sizes must be known to traders one year in advance of their export
operations.

The current situation, with tens of thousands of tons of grain rottening in
Odesa port elevators, is nothing but the attempt of the government to
preempt grain shortages in Ukraine in spring, Hladij added.

The lawmaker also warned that the government will be faced with law suits
filed by commercial companies that had run into considerable losses due to
the export ban and rottening grain.

In 2003 the Yanukovych government allowed oversized grain export which

led to a deficit of grain on domestic markets. As the result, the government
was forced to buy grain abroad.                                -30-
————————————————————————————————
LINK: http://ua.korrespondent.net/main/66661/
————————————————————————————————
FOOTNOTE: This article translated from Russian to English for the
exclusive use of the Action Ukraine Report (AUR) by Volodymyr
Hrytsutenko, Lviv, Ukraine.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
9. RUSSIAN GRAIN ASSOCIATION VIEWS INTRODUCTION
           OF GRAIN QUOTAS IN UKRAINE NEGATIVELY 

Viktoria Miroshnychenko, Ukrainian News Agency
Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, February 15, 2007

KYIV – The Russian Grain Association negatively views the introduction

of grain export quotas in Ukraine. The association’s President Arkady
Zlochevsky announced this at a press conference. “Grain [traders] are not
welcoming Ukraine’s restriction on export of grain, although it favors us,”
he said.

According to him, Ukraine’s grain export quota favored Ukraine’s competitors
on the world grain market. According to him, Russia is competing with
Ukraine on the markets of barley while Kazakhstan is competing with it on
the market of wheat.

“We fear similar precedents for the Russian market. We oppose any type

of restrictions… the government should encourage, stimulate exports,” he
stressed.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Ukrainian Grain Association is
forecasting resumption of grain exports in late February 2007. The Cabinet
of Ministers has extended the grain export quota by 864,000 tons to
1,970,000 tons for the 2006/2007 marketing year (June 2006-June 2007).

In December 2006, the Cabinet of Ministers set a grain export quota of 1.106
million tons for the 2006/2007 marketing year, including 600,000 tons of
barley, 500,000 tons of corn, 3,000 tons of wheat, and 3,000 tons of rye.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10.   POLISH MEAT EXPORTERS TO UKRAINE TO QUICKLY

 REGAIN MARKET SHARE, BUT CUSTOM DUTY STILL BARRIER

Interfax Central Europe, Warsaw, Poland, Fri, February 16, 2007

WARSAW – Polish exporters to Ukraine are expected to quickly regain

market share now that Ukraine has ended a ban on Polish meat, but high
custom duties will efficiently limit the potential of further development, the
Polish association of meat producer Polskie Mieso Chief Executive Officer
Witold Choinski told Interfax Friday.

“Recapturing the [Ukrainian] market will happen quickly -the first
transports will be sent next week,” Choinski said. “The potential of that
market is huge, although the high customs duty is a real obstacle. We will
address this issue through the Economy Ministry.”

Ukraine has authorized 23 Polish companies to restart their exports as of
February 15, following a year long meat ban that Kiev said was necessary to
protect the country from suspect Polish shipments. The move mirrored a

step undertaken by Russia on November 9, 2005.

Polish companies export their meat products chiefly to the EU countries.
Joint sales to the Russian and Ukrainian market accounted for less than

15% of total exports in 2004.                                  -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
11.     ROMANIA: DIALOGUE WITH UKRAINE OVER
     DISPUTED SERPENTS ISLAND IN THE BLACK SEA

New Europe, Athens, Greece, Wed, February 14, 2007

Romania urged Ukraine on February 9 not to artificially create a settlement
on the disputed Serpents Island in the Black Sea, according to a press
release from the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry.

The release said that the attempts to artificially prove the appearance of
the capacity to support a settlement or an economic life of its own by the
Serpents Island, cannot have, according to the international law, legal
effects.

“These attempts cannot influence in any way the process of delimitation of
the continental shelf and of the exclusive economic areas of Romania and
Ukraine at the Black Sea, a case that has been judged since 2004 by the
International Court based in The Hague,” read the release.

Romania’s stand, related to the Ukrainian authorities; intention to
artificially create a settlement on Serpents Island, has been made public
and communicated to the Ukrainian side, every time when Ukraine made

known any other attempts aimed at artificially changing the status of this
rock, according to the release.

The Romanian side reiterated its position and hopes that the Ukrainian side
will show restraint, given the context and conditions of the procedures with
the International Court in The Hague.

Ukraine’s Supreme Rada (Parliament) decided in a plenary meeting on

February 8 to name the settlement on the island Belyi (White Village), with
the name to be put on the map and listed in the Registry of the Ukrainian
localities, according to a report of Ukrainian ProUa news agency.

The decision regarding the setting up of a settlement in Serpents Island was
taken on July 5, 2006, and by the Regional Council in Odessa. Officially,
Belyi locality is part of the Chilia district and will be coordinated by the
County Council of Vilkkovo.

The Serpents Island, covering 17 hectares and having no vegetation and
water, but which seems to have important resources of crude oil, is
currently inhabited by 155 people at the most, of which 50 militaries.

Against this background, the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry says
Romania’s Embassy in Kiev monitors all aspects related to this issue and

the debates in the Ukrainian Parliament on February 8.

Romania notified in September 2004 the International Court of Justice to
delimitate the sea areas between the two countries.

On August 15, 2005, the Romanian side submitted to the International Court
of Justice a written statement with its stand and argumentation regarding
the delimitation solution that it considers fair and in line with the
international law.

The Ukrainian side submitted its written statement on May 16, 2006. This
January, Romanian and Ukrainian Presidents Traian Basescu and Viktor
Yushchenko said their countries will observe the decision of the
International Court in The Hague, irrespective of who wins in the issue of
delimiting the continental shelf of the Serpents Island and the exclusive
economic areas, it was reported.                    -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.      UKRAINE: TREATY ON RUSSIA’S BLACK SEA
                  FLEET EXPIRES IN 10 YEARS BUT…….

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Volodymyr Obolonsky
The Ukrainian Times, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, February 19, 2007

Asked about the possibility of prolonging the presence of Russia’s Black

Sea Fleet in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol after 2017, prime minister
Viktor Yanukovich replied that the government would always protect the
national interests.

Taking account of the statement made by Russian President Vladimir Putin
that after 2017 Russia is ready to negotiate about the prolongation of fleet’s
presence in the Crimea, it is an easy guess what conclusions have been made
by Ukrainian jingoes: Yanukovich does not rule out this tantalizing
possibility.

Therefore, the hackneyed subject of a betrayal of the national interests,
loss of state sovereignty and satisfaction of Russia’s imperial ambitions
came up.

The problem has been hacked to death so that few people try to understand
why today Orange political forces raise hue and cry against the above
prolongation, whereas the treaty with Russia on the Black Sea fleet expires
in 10 years.

Consider the question: Does the presence of the Russian Navy in Sevastopol
impair the national interests of Ukraine? The answer seems to be that the
whole infrastructure of the region is connected with the Russia’s naval
base.

Demands for the early withdrawal of Russia’s Black Sea fleet could be
justified if the politicians proposed financing of the project of
Sevastopol’s development right after the withdrawal of the Russian Navy.

Nonetheless, blather about the crafty Kremlin has been in the air ever since
Ukraine achieved independence, and the Orange team does not give a hoot
about Sevastopol residents who may well be left to their fate.

Some politicians often moan that Russia underpays for a lease of the Crimean
land. Observers, including The Ukrainian Times, can think of no reason why
Ukrainian government officials should not begin talks about the issue and
set new terms of stationing of the Russia’s naval base.

The world now knows that Russia is ruled by pragmatists. It is to be wished
that the same will happen in Ukraine. Among other things, the government has
the authority to handle the Crimean land so that each Ukrainian can profit
by it, and thereby the Yanukovich team may protect the national interests.

It is perfectly natural that the nation lives under conditions of a
free-market economy and a foreign institution or company pays handsome

money into the national budget, not pockets of, say, Olexiy Ivchenko, leader
of a jingoist Ukrainian party and former chairman of the state gas company
Neftegaz Ukrainy, who bought a new model of Mercedes Benz for one
million hryvnias, misusing funds of the state-owned enterprise.

Why should a large investor be ousted, the more so as conflicts with the
next-door neighbor, namely Russia, are detrimental to the national interests
of Ukraine.                                           -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
         Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13.            UKRAINE: THIEF IN NATURE’S TEMPLE
     Air pollution rose in 21 regions in 2006, 70% of water surface polluted

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Vatilii Kniazhansky
The Day Weekly Digest, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, February 13, 2007

It is dangerous to pull the tail of such a generally docile animal as a
domestic cat. But playing cat and mouse with mighty nature and even
scattering all kinds of poisonous wastes on its supposedly hallowed
territory is considered quite a normal thing.

How did we get this way?

Perhaps we are influenced by the words of the classical theorist, who said
that nature is a workshop in which man is the chief (a poor one by all
accounts) or the words of a no less famous practical scientist, who
maintained that we should not wait for nature to show mercy – our task is

to harness it.

We did harness it. At a recent session of the Ministry of Environmental
Protection it was announced that air pollution rose in 21 regions of Ukraine
in 2006 and that 70 percent of our water surface is polluted.

ALL AREAS OF NATURE MANAGEMENT SHOW DETERIORATION
According to environmentalists, all sectors of nature management in Ukraine
show deterioration. Last year stationary sources alone accounted for about
4.5 million tons of air pollutants.

Uncontrolled toxic emissions have led not only to the contamination of
surface springs but also to the loss of large underground water reserves
that can no longer be used as sources of potable water.

This is also the result of a catastrophic accumulation of household and
industrial wastes. There are about 35 billion tons in Ukraine, occupying an
area of 130,000 hectares.

What is going on? Why did the ministry suddenly sound the alarm?

When the current presidential chief of staff, Baloha, was the environment
minister, he didn’t say a word.

But this is not a question of personalities but the fact that both the
ecology and the economy are upset in Ukraine. The economy behaves like
a robber and poisoner and does not deem it necessary to make up for the
damage done to nature.

One factor is the economic slump and closed or partially functioning
businesses. Over the past few years nature has managed to take a breather
after the Soviet Five-Year Plans and the pursuit of capitalism. We never
caught up with the latter but almost brought the environment down.

But as First Vice-Premier and Finance Minister Mykola Azarov announced
recently, Ukraine reached the 1990 level of industrial output in 2006 and is
going to achieve that year’s GDP by mid-2008. Now it is clear where gas
pollution, liquid, solid and other wastes, poisonous to nature and man, are
coming from.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection believes that the way out of this
situation is a new ecological strategy and concept of public administration,
which would take into account modern environmental requirements for
human activities and all industrial facilities, and become part of the main
state economic programs.

The idea is good, no doubt about it. The only question is how to put it
into practice.

Obviously, the importance of these strategies and concepts should be
reflected in the fundamental documents that guide the national economy,
like a yearly or longer-term program of socioeconomic development and
a budget based on the former.

Alas, while the budget has been adopted, the 2007 program is still in the
hands of the Parliamentary Committee for the Economy. By all accounts,
political brawls are more important than this “trifle.”

Nor is it clear what will happen to the long-term strategic program of
socioeconomic development now being mapped out by the cabinet for
the first time in the history of Ukraine.

Will it have chapters calling not just for papering over the cracks on the
tender body of nature but for undertaking serious efforts to protect it from
the encroachments of an unqualified and foolish master, who only thinks
about today?

Meanwhile, the central government continues to field queries from the
provinces. Even Kyiv’s problems with dumpsites that are about to discharge
their contents into nearby rivers pale in comparison.
   PLANT REPRESENTS DANGER TO HEALTH AND LIFE
For example, the potassium plant owned by the Oriana Company of Kalush –
a city already full of chemical businesses – represents a danger to human
health and life.

It is doing irreparable harm to the environment, causing ground depression
and salinity, as well as the formation of craters. There have already been
12 cave-ins, and the ground surface has been sagging at a rate of 100 mm a
year for the past three years.

In addition, the tailings dam is on the verge of ruin, while brines have
reached a dangerous mark of tens of millions of cubic meters. The
government must find the funds to patch this gaping hole.

The problem is that this country has not yet found a critical mass of
intelligent individuals (true nature keepers) who would focus on creating a
reliable environmental protection system.                       -30-
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177127/
———————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14. U.S. ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE SPECIALISTS TO EXPLAIN PLANS

        FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANTI-MISSILE BASES IN EUROPE
         SAYS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WILLIAM TAYLOR

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, February 16, 2007

KYIV – The United States promises that a delegation comprising U.S.
anti-missile defense specialists will arrive in Ukraine to explain Ukrainian
people the plans concerning the construction of anti-missile bases in
Europe. Ukrainian News learned this from the press service of the Ukrainian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

According to the press service, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor
announced this at a meeting with Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrii
Veselovskyi.

Taking into account the strategic character of the relations between the
Untied States and Ukraine, Taylor said, according to the press service, a
special technical group of specialists on the anti-missile defense will
arrive in Ukraine soon.

The U.S. Embassy intends to meet regularly on the issue with Ukrainian

media to give information concerning the construction of the anti-missile
defense bases in Europe.

Veselovskyi said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs directed the Ukrainian
embassies in Russia, the Czech Republic, and Poland to obtain more
information on the anti-missile defense bases.

“Ukraine will be grounded on the belief that the administration of the
United States will continue informing Europeans on the plans, while
understanding that there is [negative] reactions to the deployment of the
elements of the anti-missile defense in Europe from some countries,
including Russia, and will openly and predictably implement the plans in

the case of their realization,” the statement reads.

Taylor and Veselovskyi also discuss the third meeting of the Ukraine-U.S.
interdepartmental coordination group, which is to take place in Washington
on February 23.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs said it was viewing the possible construction of elements of the
U.S. anti-missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic as element of the
war on terror. The United States said the anti-missile bases in Poland and
the Czech Republic were needed to protect Europe.          -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT’S AIDE SAYS U.S. MISSILE DEFENCE
          BASES WILL NOT PROTECT EUROPE, & WILL LEAD TO

              SERIOUS POLITICAL ISSUES IN EASTERN EUROPE 
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1006 gmt 16 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, Friday, February 16, 2007

KIEV – The deployment of elements of the US missile defence system in

Poland and the Czech Republic will not manage to protect Europe from a
missile attack, the Ukrainian president’s aide, Volodymyr Horbulin, told a
news conference today.

“I think that this decision will not allow the USA to ensure the security of
its European allies in terms of defence from a missile attack, for instance
by Iran, Syria or other countries,” Horbulin said. He added that he rules
out the possibility of protection against an attack by North Korea.

The deployment of missile defence elements brings more political tension,

he said. “This will cause and has caused a political storm,” he said. In
particular, this could be seen in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech
in Germany, he added.

Horbulin said that Ukraine should develop a clear position regarding the
threats to its own security from the deployment of the missile defence
bases.

“Frankly speaking, I don’t see this as a big threat, but this could lead to
serious political issues in Eastern Europe, and this should be considered,”
Horbulin said.
  [Passage omitted: background on US missile defence bases]

[Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andriy Veselovskyy said at a meeting with
the US ambassador that Ukrainian embassies in Russia, Poland and the Czech
Republic were instructed to receive additional information, UNIAN news
agency reports on 16 February. The creation of global defence systems should
not in any way provoke a new wave of the arms race, Veselovskyy said.]
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.    UKRAINIAN INFLUENTIAL MP THREATENS TO SUE FOR
    LIBEL IS BOOK “DONETSK MAFIA” IS PUBLISHED IN EUROPE

UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 16 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, Friday, February 16, 2007

DONETSK – Member of the Ukrainian Parliament (MP) Rinat Akhmetov

has said that “a very big group” of foreign lawyers is ready to react to the
publication of the book entitled “Donetsk Mafia” in Europe.

Akhmetov was speaking to journalists in Donetsk yesterday after a sitting of
the parliamentary Committee for Economic Policy there. “I want the book
‘Donetsk Mafia’ to be published in Europe.

You know, show me a country where this book is now. I would like this book
[to be published] maybe in England or other countries, where he (the book’s
author – UNIAN) can be made responsible for disseminating it. Legally!

Today I don’t have a legal opportunity to sue him in court and have him
brought to criminal responsibility,” Akhmetov said. Asked if the lawyers
working on this are Ukrainian or foreign, Akhmetov answered shortly:
“Foreign.” The book “Donetsk Mafia” was presented in parliament in March
2006.

The co-author of the book and head of the Antykoruptsiya [Anticorruption]
fund, Borys Penchuk, said that the book was based on documents from various
sources and it tells what and how was done in Donbass [coal mining area in
Donetsk and Luhansk regions] in the early years of Ukraine’s independence.
[Passage omitted: Penchuk’s accusations]

The prosecutor’s office of the Kiev Shevchenkivskyy district filed a
criminal case in late November 2006 based on the facts mentioned in the book
“Donetsk Mafia”                                -30-
———————————————————————————————–

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. UKRAINIAN OPPOSITION LEADER TYMOSHENKO AIMS TO
        FORM RULING COALITION WITH PRESIDENT’S PARTY 

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, Ukraine,in Ukrainian 1900 gmt 17 Feb 07
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, Saturday, February 17, 2007

KIEV – Ukrainian opposition leader Yuliya Tymoshenko has said that her

bloc and the propresidential Our Ukraine bloc are trying to improve relations
with a view to forming a ruling coalition after a possible early
parliamentary election. Tymoshenko was speaking live on 5 Kanal television,
commenting on the topical events of the week.

“An early election will bring to parliament much less members of the Party
of Regions. Most likely, the Socialists and the Communists will not make it
to parliament. And I know for sure that our bloc will be there, represented
by a sufficiently large number and, most likely, the Our Ukraine bloc will
also make it.

If Our Ukraine made conclusions that they cannot build Ukraine with
Yanukovych – and I believe that Our Ukraine made these conclusions

because they supported a grand coalition but now reviewed their position.

I am sure that we are ready for Our Ukraine to join our team and will not
allow in the new parliament the mistakes which were made during the ruining
of the Orange team, during the nomination of [Our Ukraine MP] Petro
Poroshenko to the post of [parliament] speaker and the ruining of a
democratic coalition.

I think it is simply impossible to step on a rake for the third time. I
think that there is a good chance to leave [current Prime Minister Viktor]
Yanukovych in the marginal niche after an early election,” Tymoshenko said.

Speaking about the recent agreement on joint opposition work with Our
Ukraine, Tymoshenko expressed the hope that together they will manage to
fight Yanukovych much more effectively. “I think the parliamentary
opposition of 200 votes will be much stronger that 120 votes which we have
now.

I think 200 opposition deputies in parliament will not allow Yanukovych to
implement the programme he has in mind. I mean getting rich and practically
ruining this country’s independence,” she said.                -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18.  TYMOSHENKO AGAINST MEDIATOR’S PARTICIPATION IN
SUPPLYING GAS TO UKRAINE,  NO ITERA, NO ROSUKRENERGO

 
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, February 16, 2007

KYIV – Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko argues against the
participation of mediators, including Itera gas-supplying company, in making
gas supplies to Ukraine. Tymoshenko told this to journalists in Cherkasy.

“As far as gas supplies to Ukraine are concerned, there should be no
mediators between Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine and Turkmenistan, Ukraine

and Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. We need neither RosUkrEnergo nor Itera,”
she said.

Tymoshenko noted that it was necessary to conclude direct agreements

on gas supplies to Ukraine with the governments’ participation.

Earlier, Vice Premier Andrii Kliuev admitted a possibility of Itera’s return
to Ukraine as a natural gas supplier. As Ukrainian News earlier reported,

on February 12, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and chairman of
Itera’s board of directors Ihor Makarov discussed energy projects in
Ukraine.

Itera-Ukraine, a subsidiary of Itera Group, was the operator for supply of
Turkmen gas to Ukraine and member countries of the Commonwealth of
Independent States in 1996-2002.

Since 1998, Itera has been extracting gas in Russia’s Yamalo-Nenets
Autonomous District. In 2005, Itera wanted to supply nearly 4 billion cubic
meters of natural gas to Ukraine.

Ukrainian companies of Itera Group (Itera Energy and Itera Ukraine) sell
natural gas extracted on the territory of Ukraine to companies that do not
belong to NJSC Naftohaz Ukrainy.

After Itera, Turkmen gas supplies to Ukraine were performed by Eural

Trans Gas, among co-founders of which was Dmytro Firtash, the owner
of 45% in RosUkrEnergo, the present exclusive gas supplier in Ukraine.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19.   UKRAINE: KRUTY-2 ONLY A MATTER OF TIME
                                 Our post-genocidal society

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Oleksandr Kramarenko
The Day Weekly Digest, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, February 13, 2007

LUHANSK – Our post-genocidal society is by definition a community of
morally deformed people from all walks of life – from ordinary citizens to
government officials.

The vast majority of the former cannot imagine a life without bribes, while
the latter consider their high offices exclusively as a method of personal
enrichment. The root cause of these moral and ethical perversions lies in
the specific consequences of our national tragedy, the Holodomor.

Unlike the Holocaust and the Armenian Massacre, the 1932-1933 manmade
famine embraced the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian ethnos that
was not yet Russified by imperial urbanization.

The main distinction of the Holodomor from all other historical genocides is
that about one-half of its victims, who had experienced all the horrors and
sufferings of the famine, survived.

This was the basic aim of the Kremlin’s engineers of the Holodomor, who were
banking on those very peasants who had survived and, as a result of their
protracted torture by famine, completely lost their Christian morality and
national identity.
      HAD A VISCERAL FEAR OF STARVING TO DEATH
For the rest of their lives those people had a visceral fear of starving to
death. They also remembered well that the Bolshevik commissars had
exposed them to those infernal ordeals simply because of their probity, high
morality, and Ukrainian soul.

The commissars only strengthened their grip on power after the Holodomor.
This is why peasants brought up their children in such a way that they would
never again irk the government with their nationalism, inner freedom, and
honesty.

Naturally, when the children of the people who were maimed by the famine
were raising their own progeny, they had no alternatives.

Those children and grandchildren flooded into the cities during Soviet
industrialization and eventually became our contemporaries: academics,
journalists, artists, judges, politicians, parliamentarians, officials,
political scientists, and even presidents.

The society they have built in independent Ukraine is causing subdued mirth
in the rest of the civilized world, which does no credit to it because if it
were a highly moral world, it would be weeping bitter tears, looking at our
genocide-disfigured society.
    89TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF KRUTY
Ukraine recently marked the 89th anniversary of the battle of Kruty. Like
before, everything boiled down to extolling only the heroic feat of 300
young people.

Some of our hurrah-patriots went so far as to compare those youths with
the Three Hundred Spartans. Is this ignorance or eyewash?

The historical facts attest to something quite different, to put it mildly.
There was no battle of Kruty: there was a massacre of Ukrainian youths by
Russian sailors under the command of the Bolshevik Mikhail Muravev.

Most of those hapless boys died not during the combat action but afterwards,
when the Bolsheviks first tortured them in a way humiliating to their manly
pride and then shot them.

This fact by no means belittles the young Ukrainians’ exploit, but it is an
eyesore to our jingoists in power, who are very reluctant to tell our
demoralized society the names of those who are really to blame for the
Kruty tragedy because some of them are being turned into national heroes.

These are the Ukrainian National Republic’s socialist leaders Mykhailo
Hrushevsky and Volodymyr Vynnychenko, who disbanded the Ukrainian
Army in the naive belief that the Russian Bolsheviks would not be hostile
to the young “fraternal” republic.

There was also Pavlo Skoropadsky, who agreed to fight Bolshevism only
under the leadership of foreign armies. It is no accident that the
historical truth is being hushed up.

Today, the political descendants of Hrushevsky have in fact ruined the
Ukrainian Armed Forces without obtaining any guarantees of our
independence from either NATO or the US.
      SO KRUTY-2 IS NOW JUST A MATTER OF TIME
So Kruty-2 is now just a matter of time, although it looks like Russia will
do it this time without direct aggression.

As for our national heroes and heroines, the situation is truly disgraceful.
Only a gravely ill nation can take pride in such a person as Roksolana,
ascribing to her the virtues that she never had.

Historical facts indicate that when she became the Turkish sultan’s first
lady, she pursued a tough policy exclusively in the interests of the
Ottoman Empire, which did not include Ukraine.

With this in view, it is hard to imagine that a similar Roksolana could be
considered a heroine in, say, Poland or Russia. But this is possible in a
society morally crippled by the Holodomor.

These examples make it absolutely clear why our public opinion almost
unanimously opposes lustration, why the vast majority does not recognize
the right of OUN and UPA combatants to veterans’ benefits, and sees no
sense in Ukraine’s accession to NATO.

The worst thing is that since the death of James Mace there is no one to
properly diagnose our society, let alone cure it.            -30-
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.day.kiev.ua/177128/
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20.  DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE OF
  1932-1933 (HOLODOMOR) NOW AVAILABLE IN DVD FORMAT

Ukrainian Canadian Research & Documentation Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, February 2007
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 20
Washington, D.C. Monday, February 19, 2007

TORONTO – The Ukrainian Canadian Research & Documentation
Centre (UCRDC) is pleased to inform you that the internationally
acclaimed, award winning documentary “Harvest of Despair” is now
available in DVD format in English for $25.00. [Information about the
documentary from the UCRDC website is found below.]

Please contact the UCRDC for further details:

Nadia Skop, Executive Administrator
Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre
620 Spadina Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 2H4
Telephone: 416-966-1819; Fax: 416-966-1820;
E-mail: info@ucrdc.org
—————————————————————————————–
                           HARVEST OF DESPAIR
It is called the forgotten holocaust – a time when Stalin was dumping
millions of tons of wheat on Western markets, while in Ukraine, men,
women, and children were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a
day, 17 human beings a minute.

Seven to ten million people perished in a famine caused not by war or
natural disasters, but by ruthless decree.

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of this tragedy the Ukrainian Famine
Research Committee (former name of UCRDC) gathered materials, sought

out eye-witnesses and documented this horrific event. Harvest of Despair
is the product of this effort.

The documentary probes the tragic consequences of Ukraine’s struggle for
greater cultural and political autonomy in the 1920s and 1930s.

Through rare archival footage, the results of Stalin’s lethal
countermeasures unfold in harrowing detail. Harvest of Despair examines

why this man-made famine remains so little known.

Blinded by radical leftwing ideals, world statesmen, such as Edouard
Herriot, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists and writers such as George
Bernard Shaw, all contributed to the regime’s campaign of concealment.

Even the democratic governments of the depression-hit West preferred to
remain silent over Soviet Russia’s atrocities in order to continue import
and export trade.

In 1932-33, roughly one-quarter of the entire population of Ukraine perished
through brutal starvation. Harvest of Despair, through its stark, haunting
images, provides the eloquent testimony of a lost generation that has been
silenced too long.

The film Harvest of Despair won the awards and honours at the following
festivals:
     1. Houston International Film Festival – April 1985 – Houston, Texas
     2. Strasburg International Film Festival – April 1985
     3. Festival Des Filmes Du Monde – August 1985 – Montreal, Quebec
     4. New York Film Festival – September 1985 – New York City
     5. Columbus International Film Festival – November 1985 – Columbus, 
         Ohio
     6. Yorkton Short Film and Video Festival – October 1985
     7. International Film and T.V. Festival of New York – November 1985
———————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.ucrdc.org/

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
       Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR    
========================================================
21. WHAT THE VERHOVNA RADA ACTUALLY PASSED
     1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine is genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Maidan.org.ua (in Ukrainian), Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, Nov 28, 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #818, Article 21 (in English)
Washington, D.C., Monday, February 19, 2007

Honoring the memory of millions of fellow countrymen who became
victims of the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine and its consequences;

Honoring all citizens that survived this horrible tragedy in the history of
the Ukrainian people;

Being aware of the moral responsibility to former and future generations of
Ukrainians and recognizing the necessity of restoring historical justice, of
solidifying in society an intolerance towards any form of violence;

Noting that the tragedy of the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine officially
was denied by the USSR government over the course of many decades;

Condemning the criminal acts of the USSR totalitarian regime aimed at the
Holodomor’s organization, which resulted in  millions of people, the social
foundations of the Ukrainian people, its age-old traditions, spiritual
culture and ethnic identity being destroyed;

Empathizing with other peoples of the former USSR who sustained losses
as a result of the Holodomor;

Highly valuing the solidarity and support of the international community in
condemning the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine that is reflected in
parliamentary acts of Australia, the Republic of Argentina, Georgia, the
Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Italy, Canada, the Republic of
Lithuania, the Republic of Poland, the United States of America, the
Republic of Hungary, and also in the combined statement circulated as an
official document of the 58th session of the General Assembly of the UN on
the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Holodomor-Great Famine of
1932-1933 in Ukraine, signed by the Republic of Argentina, the Republic of
Azerbaijan, the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, the Republic of Belarus,
the Republic of Benin, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic
of Guatemala, Georgia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Islamic Republic of
Iran, the Republic of Kazakhstan, Canada, the State of Qatar, the Republic
of Kyrgyzia, the State of Kuwait, the Republic of Macedonia, Mongolia, the
Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Nepal, the United Arab Emirates, the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of
Moldova, the Russian Federation, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Arab
Republic of Syria, the United States of America, the Republic of Sudan, the
Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, the Democratic Republic of
Timor-Leste, the Republic of Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Jamaica, and also
supported by Australia, the State of Israel, the Republic of Serbia and
Montenegro and the 25 member-states of the European Union;

Taking into consideration the Recommendations of parliamentary hearings
concerning honoring the memory of the victims of the 1932-1933 Holodomor
approved by the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of March 6,
2003 No. 607-IV and the Appeal to the Ukrainian people of the participants
of a special session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of May 14, 2003,
which was approved by the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine
of May 15, 2003 No. 789-IV, in which the Holodomor is recognized as an
act of genocide of the Ukrainian people and as the result of deliberate
actions of a totalitarian, repressive, Stalinist regime aimed at the mass
destruction of a portion of the Ukrainian and other peoples of the former
USSR;

Recognizing the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine in accordance with the
Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide as an intentional act of mass extermination of peoples,
enacts this Law.

Article 1. The 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine is genocide of the Ukrainian
people.

Article 2. Public denial of the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine is recognized
as an insult to the memory of millions of victims of the Holodomor and a
humiliation of the dignity of the Ukrainian people and is illegal.

Article 3. State bodies of power and local bodies of self-governance
according to their authority are obligated to:

Take part in the formation and realization of state policies in the areas of
renewing and preserving the national memory of the Ukrainian people;

Facilitate the consolidation and development of the Ukrainian nation, her
historical consciousness and culture, the dissemination of information
about the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine among Ukrainian citizens and
the global community, to ensure study of the tragedy of the Holodomor in
educational institutions of Ukraine;

Take measures to memorialize the memory of victims of the 1932-1933
Holodomor in Ukraine, including building memorials and mounting of
memorial signs to the victims of the Holodomor;

Ensure by the established order access to archived and other materials on
issues that concern the Holodomor to research and civil establishments
and organizations, scholars, individual citizens that research issues of the
1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine and its effects.

Article 4. The State provides the conditions for conducting research and
executing activities related to the memorializing of the memory of the
victims of the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine on the basis of relevant
general state programs, the funding of which is allocated yearly in the
State budget of Ukraine.

Article 5. Final provisions
1. This law is in effect from the day of its publication.

2. The Cabinet of Ministers is:
1) To determine the status and functions of the Ukrainian Institute of
National Memory and, as a specially authorized central organ of the
executive branch in the area of the rebirth and preservation of the
national memory of the Ukrainian people,  is to ensure its sustenance
with funds from the State budget.
2) Within a three-month period from the enactment of this Law:
To submit for the Verkhovna Rada’s review proposals for bringing of
the legislation of Ukraine into conformity with this Law;
To bring its own normative-legislative regulations into accordance with
this Law;
To ensure the review and nullification by bodies of executive authority
of any legislation passed by them that contradicts this Law;
3) To resolve by the appointed order, along with the Kyiv City State
Administration, the matter concerning the construction of a Memorial to
the victims of the Holodomors in Ukraine before the 75th anniversaries
of the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine.              -30-
——————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://maidan.org.ua/static/news/2006/1164726292.html
——————————————————————————————-
NOTE:  This material from Maidan.org.ua was translated from
Ukrainian to English by Heather Fernuik exclusively for the Action
Ukraine Report (AUR), Kyiv, Ukraine and Washington, D.C.
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22. UKRAINE: “ON THE CROSSROADS OF CULTURES, INTERESTS
    AND INFLUENCES” – PARTY OF REGIONS DOMINATES CRIMEA

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Khomenko
Holos Ukrayiny daily, Kiev, Ukraine, in Russian 14 Feb 07, p 3
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Party of Regions dominates the political scene in Crimea, a daily paper
has said. The ruling party has managed to have the Crimean police chief
resign, and the Crimean chief prosecutor was under pressure to resign too.
Both of them fought strongly against the mafia clans operating on the shadow
land market.

The Party of Regions plans to strengthen its grip on all areas of life in
Crimea. There is no credible opposition to the party in Crimea, the paper
concludes.

The following is the text of the article by Viktor Khomenko entitled “On the
crossroads of cultures, interests and influences” published in the Ukrainian
daily Holos Ukrayiny on 14 February. Subheadings are as published:

The autonomous peninsula at present is not hostile to Ukraine, to the state
and statehood, as some people are trying to prove. The mistake of Kiev and
Moscow politicians lies precisely in the fact that they view Crimea from
positions of separatist inclinations.

They do exist, skilfully nurtured by some political forces, not only
Ukrainian ones. But on the whole extremely serious changes have taken place
in the mass awareness of Crimeans.
                                     POLITICAL PURGE
Recent events in Crimea are evidence that control of the political situation
and structures of power here has been fully taken over by the [ruling] Party
of Regions.

Three insistent proposals to tender his resignation and a series of carping
checks at the request of Crimean leaders of the Regionals [Party of Regions]
have forced the Crimean police chief, Volodymyr Khomenko, to give up his
post.

But not at his own request, but owing to the fact that I could not and did
not want to work in such conditions, the police general with a service
record of more than 30 years said.

Although under his leadership the Crimean police, significantly in advance
of other regions (21.3 compared with 13 per cent), led the country in terms
of crime reduction and recently dealt a crushing blow to serious shadow
dealers on the alcohol market.

A police colonel, Anatoliy Mohylyov, was immediately appointed to the job.
For the past 10 years he had headed the Artemivsk and Makiyivka town police
directorates in Donetsk Region [heartland of Party of Regions support].

In the words of the disgraced Khomenko, who is today already a pensioner,
the main reason for pressing law-enforcement personnel out of Crimea is that
without them it will be easier on the peninsula to address questions of land
and property. A new police chief has also started serving in Sevastopol.

It looks as if the same fate awaits the Crimean prosecutor, Volodymyr
Shemchuk, famed for his fruitful struggle against high-profile abuses and
swindling in the area of illegal privatization of land and facilities of the
resort and recreation complex and his principled reaction to all legally
dubious decisions of local authorities, to which Crimean officials are
traditionally generous.

It has already been proposed to him three times to change the geography of
his new appointment. The activity of the prosecutor’s office is being
checked once again by a big commission from the Prosecutor-General’s Office,
which observers believe should also be seen in the context of Party of
Regions control over the political situation in the peninsula.

I think that some political forces still want to have their own’ prosecutor,
Shemchuk warned. And political experts are convinced that the mafia that
controls the shadow land market very much wants to get rid of the Crimean
prosecutor.

Tendencies that are being increasingly clearly seen in new appointments,
political scientists note, are painfully familiar: people loyal to the
country’s ruling circles have to come to replace high-ranking
law-enforcement officers. [Shemchuk’s replacement by Volodymyr Haltsov was
reported on 16 February]

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is expected in Crimea on 22 February,
when he is due to present his new representative in place of Henadiy Moskal.

He [Moskal] was the only counterweight able to control and to a certain
extent even resist the omnipotence of the Regionals. The president’s
representation in the autonomy retains its control functions without its
leader, but for now cannot seriously oppose any contentious acts of the
ruling party.

So in Crimea the Party of Regions is now in full control of political and
economic life on the peninsula, endeavouring to strengthen their positions
even more.

At the last big meeting of the Regionals – deputies of all levels and
representatives of all branches of power – their leader, Vasyl Kyselyov,
said that in regions where the party had two thirds of deputy seats on
councils, a vote of no confidence should be passed in heads of district
state administration and town heads, aiming to get either re-elections or
their replacement.

Recommendations adopted by the meeting define a number of tactical steps for
Crimean Regionals: in particular on the placement of personnel in all bodies
of the executive and local government.

The motivation and arguments are old: the Regionals won the elections,
formed the government and the authorities, and they want full control; in
order to be able be fully responsible to the voters, they want to have all
the levers of influence over the situation.

Apart from that, Kyselyov said, the Regionals are raising the question of
ensuring that there are representatives of their party in every ministry.

They have initiated changes to election legislation – to raise the barrier
for parties to get into councils of all levels from 9 to 12 per cent, and
later will energetically place in power exclusively their own people.

At the same time, assurances are being voiced: The time of authoritarianism
is moving into the past now, giving way to people’s power and a new
constitutional order. We are supporters of dictatorship, but dictatorship of
the law.
                    LAYING OUT A GAME OF PATIENCE
The Party of Regions on the peninsula consists of 41,000 people. Together
with the Russian Bloc party it forms a faction in the Supreme Council
[parliament] of Crimea that amounts to 44 deputies out of 100.

There is no real opposition to the Regionals in Crimea. Even the
[propresidential] Our Ukraine bloc, represented in the Crimean parliament by
the Rukh-Kurultay faction, cooperates with them, while the YTB [opposition
Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc] is too weak and therefore is not displaying serious
activity.

Even the 18,000-strong Serhiy Kunitsyn Bloc, which shared second place in
the elections to the Crimean parliament, is not really opposing the
Regionals.

All the other political forces, in particular, the communists, socialists
and social democrats support the Party of Regions and, playing second
fiddle, are frightened that even the powers that they still have will be
wrested from them.

A noticeable trend is the steady reduction in the ranks of political
parties: often even by half. After the elections, all parties without
exception that failed in the battle for the electorate suffered tangible
losses.

The People’s Party of the former head of parliament, Volodymyr Lytvyn,
dropped by half, and now consists of 15,000 people. The same reduction
befell the socialists of [speaker] Oleksandr Moroz, of whom 13,000 remain

on the peninsula.

The social democrats, with until recently 28,000 people in its ranks, is
steadily melting away. The majority of defectors find themselves in
organizations of the ruling party, where the migrants are offered official
posts.

So the Regionals, in spite of their own almost 20 per cent drop in rating,
as sociologists show, are still not exhausting their credit of trust and,
seizing the moment, are raising all branches of power under themselves on
the peninsula. Only Our Ukraine people remain stable, without a reduction in
their 15,000-strong ranks.

There is a discernible growth in the influence of the radical wing of the
Majlis [Crimean Tatar unofficial parliament], which soon may be exerting a
real influence on the political situation on the peninsula.

Obviously everything will depend on how the spring elections to the Majlis
turn out, and it is planned to hold a Kurultay [consultative meeting] in
autumn.

The position of the Crimean Tatars will depend on how strong the radical
wing in the Majlis becomes. Another important factor is the radical
pro-Russian forces.

The more moderate of them are represented in power and, collaborating with
the Kremlin, which is not now interested in any destabilization on the
peninsula, are sitting quietly.

Another section of the pro-Russian groups, oriented to more radical forces
in Russia, is less influential, since they do not have state support from
there and are not represented in the local authorities.
                  TENDENCIES OF THE PARTY PALETTE
Increasing interest of political parties in Crimea is a visible phenomenon
of recent years. The present bursts of such interest were noticed before the
presidential and parliamentary elections, since they were conducted on a
purely party basis.

Virtually all the numerous political parties of Ukraine – 125 altogether –
are now registered on the peninsula. About 15 have succeeded in obtaining
genuine political residence permits in Crimea. The ones that have electoral
support can conventionally be divided into three groups.

First of all, there are parties of a pro-Russian orientation that are making
use of the electoral moods of the Russian-speaking section of the Crimean
population, and first and foremost ethnic Russians. Since the peninsula is
the only part of Ukraine where the number of ethnic Russians comprises the
majority.

If we remember its very difficult history, back in the times of the Russian
Empire and the USSR and the transfer of Crimea, almost unpopulated after the
deportation [of the Tatars], into the composition of the Ukrainian SSR in
1954 from the composition of the Russian Federation, then the root of the
problem will become perfectly understandable.

It should be borne in mind here that purely pro-Russian parties of a radical
type, which at the beginning of the 90s raised the question of transferring
Crimea into the composition of Russia, no longer enjoy the support of the
majority of Crimeans, since people already understand perfectly well the
realities of contemporary Ukrainian politics: Crimea is an inalienable part
of Ukraine as an autonomy.

The fact that such parties, while recognizing the fact, are skilfully
transforming their political world view, campaigning for the maintenance and
strengthening of the status of the Russian language and culture on the
peninsula is another matter.

More pragmatic parties receive considerable support in the autonomy. It is
no accident that the parties Russian Bloc and Russian Party, which existed
previously, joined a bloc with the Party of Regions and formed the election
bloc For [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych, which gained a majority at the
last elections.

But at the same time, parties that also preach the idea of Crimean
regionalism and local patriotism, but occupy more balanced positions at this
level also enjoy a fair amount of trust.

This is the PDP [People’s Democratic Party], which did not get into the
Ukrainian Supreme Council, although Serhiy Kunitsyn [former Crimean Prime
Minister] created an eponymous bloc based on the DPU [Democratic Party of
Ukraine] and the PDP.

The Communist Party and the Crimean regional organization of the CPU
[Communist Party of Ukraine] under the leadership of Leonid Hrach form the
left-wing spectrum of the party palette, which is slowly but surely losing
voters. It is represented by eight deputies in the Supreme Council of
Crimea.

Of the right-wing parties [Former Foreign Minister] Borys Tarasyuk’s
People’s Movement of Ukraine [PMU – Rukh] is operating most successfully
with the Crimean electorate.

But only because the Crimean Tatars do not have their own political party,
and are implementing their electoral intentions within the framework of the
party. That is why the PMU also gained 7 per cent support at the last
elections and has eight deputies in the Crimean Supreme Council. But
basically, they are Crimean Tatars.

They are actively using the Crimean Tatar nationalist idea of the
self-defence of their people. In a certain sense the YTB has electoral
sympathies.

Nonetheless, one can speak about stable support for this wing of the
Ukrainian polity not so much according to party as to personality features.
That is everything that is growing on the Crimean field.

Statistics show that 47 Ukrainian political parties obtained support at the
last elections, including parties that were part of associations and blocs.
The rest could not even be taken seriously. This confirms the fact that
Crimea continues to retain the position of a specific region of Ukraine with
special electoral moods.
                                PARADOXICAL FACE
The paradoxical nature of the Crimean situation lies in the unregulated
status of the territory in Ukrainian legislation and the constitution.

Although the existence of the Crimean autonomy is enshrined in the
Constitution of Ukraine and recognized by the world community, in practice
the central leadership and the polity are still irritated by the existence
of the autonomy in a unitary state. They have a fairly distrustful attitude
to it, considering it to be a source of separatism, and this allergy is
long-standing.

Quite a few important matters in relations between Kiev and the peninsula
have not been regulated to this day. This irks many Crimeans and is a source
of permanent dissatisfaction with Kiev.

For example, it is only recently that laws were passed on the status of
deputies in the autonomy and the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic
of Crimea, while there is still no law on the Council of Ministers of the
autonomy.

There is also a lack of legislative acts that would delineate more clearly
the question of the property of the autonomy and of the centre. The autonomy
does not have the right to legislative initiative, and therefore it still
exists in a declarative way.

In many cases this leads to the excesses that exist in Crimea, in particular
in the area of land. Because instead of law, what is operating is big money,
a shadow market and certain clans, among which the most active are the
Donetsk, Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk clans.

The majority of the tasty morsels have already been bought up. Constant
wide-scale chaotic building has been going on for years, because of which
Crimea has already lost many attractive places that could have become major
investment projects.

In connection with this, foreign investors are unwilling to come, not
trusting the situation on the peninsula.

This is also the reason for the intensification of activity of the Crimean
Tatars who, having returned to their homeland in droves from their places of
deportation, have remained outside the transparent distribution of land and
are trying to tackle the problem not always by means of the law.  -30-

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
23. UKRAINE’S FOREIGN POLICY AT THE BEGINNING
                                 OF THE 21ST CENTURY

ADDRESS: By H.E. Dr. Ihor Ostash
Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Published by e-POSHTA, Politics and Business Edition
Vol. 8, No. 12, Canada, Sunday, February 18, 2007

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am honoured to be invited to address such a distinguished audience
gathered here at one of the leading Canadian Universities. I would like to
thank the Chair of the Ukrainian Studies Professor Dominique Arel for
organizing this event.

In order to describe the nature of Ukraine’s foreign policy at the beginning
of the 21st century we should go back to the events of the winter of 2004,
which are now known all over the world as the Orange Revolution.

The Ukrainian people, by defending — by peaceful means — their freedoms
and standing up against massive fraud of the first two tours of the
Presidential elections of 2004, proved to be Europeans not only by
geographic location, but also by their values and the determination to
protect them. They have shown that as Europeans they deserve their place
in the united Europe.

It is well-known that the concept of European and Euro-Atlantic integration
has been a keystone of the Ukrainian foreign policy doctrine for many years.

However, an honest evaluation of the real progress on Ukraine’s move towards
the EU and NATO membership by the end of Leonid Kuchma’s tenure shows
that any mentioning of Ukraine’s integration into the EU and NATO caused
among Western politicians nothing but irritation and a “fatigue syndrome”.

Before the Orange Revolution, Ukraine’s image abroad was tainted by a
discredited and corrupt political leadership incapable of forgoing foreign
policy ambiguity and ensuring a consistency in the implementation of
strategic tasks.

The undemocratic nature of the Kuchma regime lead to the de-facto
international isolation of Ukraine and kept at bay any real prospect of
joining Western institutions.

Cardinal changes that took place in our country over the past two years that
secured Ukraine’s development on the democratic path have also shaped the
course of Ukraine’s foreign policy.

It is based on the mainstream civilizational choice of the Ukrainian people
to live in a democratic, law-abiding and fair society homogenous with other
European countries.

Ukrainians believe that building a respected, prosperous and democratic
Ukraine is inseparable from Ukraine’s joining the family of the united
Europe.

However, instead of endlessly repeating the mantra of Ukraine’s European
and Euro-Atlantic integration, which in the past decade found little
response from our European and NATO counterparts, Ukraine is proving
its political choice by actions.

Ukraine is becoming a regional leader, a proponent of democratic values
and freedoms, a country that is able to clearly define its foreign policy
priorities and back them up with a trustworthy agenda and actions.

In sum, the period after the Orange Revolution is the time when Ukraine is
elaborating its own sustainable, consistent and independent foreign policy.

As you may know, with the Parliamentary elections of March 26, 2006

(which have been recognized as democratic by all observers) the provisions
of political reform entered into force which modified the distribution of
powers in Ukraine.

The Government is headed by Prime-Minister Victor Yanukovych, the
leader of the Party of Regions and the former competitor of President
Victor Yuschenko at the Presidential elections of 2004.

While the President and the Prime Minister represent political forces that
are at opposite ends of the spectrum, it is important to underline that the
direction of Ukraine’s foreign policy remains unchanged.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND LAWS

DEFINING UKRAINE’S FOREIGN PRIORITIES
To prove that, let’s begin with a brief overview of the distribution of
constitutional powers in Ukraine with respect to determining and carrying
out the foreign policy, as well as the key laws that outline its main
priorities.

According to the Constitution of Ukraine (Art. 106), the President of
Ukraine directs the foreign policy of Ukraine, represents Ukraine on the
international arena, appoints and discharges Ambassadors, submits to the
Parliament petition for appointment of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Ukraine.

The President has the right to veto Parliament’s bills and to enjoin the
execution of the Cabinet of Minister’s decrees if they violate the
Constitution. Also, the President has the power to issue decrees that have
the force of a law.

The Parliament (Art. 85) adopts the laws that determine the main principles
of domestic and foreign policy, approves the work program of the Cabinet of
Ministers, upon submission of respective petition by the President appoints
the Prime-Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and in the like manner
discharges them, ratifies international treaties.

The Cabinet of Ministers (Art. 116) executes the foreign policy and
coordinates the work of various Ministries.

As we see, the main power is vested in the President of Ukraine, who charts
the course and exercises the direction of Ukraine’s foreign policy, in
accordance with the laws passed by the Parliament, and the Cabinet of
Ministers and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs deal with the practical
implementation of foreign policy.

On August 3, 2006 after a week-long roundtable discussion chaired by
President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko the leaders of four political
forces — the Party of Regions, Our Ukraine, the Socialists, and the
Communists signed the Declaration on National Unity.

This document addressed a number of the most critical issues in Ukrainian
politics, especially regarding foreign affairs.

First of all, the Declaration confirmed that the course of the Ukrainian
foreign policy aimed at integration to the European Union and strengthening
its international authority is irreversible and immutable. In this light,
the parties agreed to adhere to the “Ukraine — EU” Action Plan and to begin
immediate negotiations regarding the creation of a free trade area between
Ukraine and the European Union.

The document proposed a sensible political compromise on Ukraine-NATO
relations: continuing “mutually beneficial cooperation” for now, in
accordance with the “Law on National Security of Ukraine”, and deferring the
issue of membership until some later date, subject to a national referendum.

The Declaration on National Unity has established a tradition of national
and public dialogue for resolving problems that Ukraine has inherited from
the past or acquired today.

Thus, the President initiated to conduct the second national round table,
which is scheduled for February 22-25, 2007, and will involve such political
leaders as the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, the Prime-minister of
Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich and the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada (the
Parliament) of Ukraine Olexander Moroz, as well as public leaders, artists,
and journalists etc. Its participants have to formulate a 2007 action plan
based on the Declaration on National Unity.

Meanwhile, I would like to stress that Ukraine’s foreign policy priorities
are established by law and are contained in such documents as the Act of the
Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament) on the main directions of Ukraine’s foreign
policy passed in 1993, the Law of Ukraine on the main principles of the
national security adopted in 2003, as well as Ukraine’s Defence Doctrine
adopted in 2004.

As to our strategic priorities established by these laws, they include
European and Euro-Atlantic integration with the goal of attaining a
full-fledged membership in NATO and the EU, accession to the World
Trade Organization, which we expect to achieve in 2007.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Prime-Minister V.
Yanukovych invited WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy to come to Ukraine
for the signing of the agreement on Ukraine’s accession to the WTO this
year.

Our main priorities also include the development of friendly and mutually
beneficial relations with all countries, first and foremost our neighboring
states, such as Russia and Poland, as well as strategic partners of our
country, such as Canada and the United States.

Ukraine pursues the goal of promoting European values in its region, in
particular through active participation in the resolution of frozen
conflicts.

Ukraine conducts active multilateral policy in the framework of global and
regional organizations, such as the United Nations and the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). We consider our participation in
these organizations an important factor of deepening and broadening regional
as well as global stability and security in Europe.

One of the main foreign policy priorities is the economic expansion of
Ukrainian goods and services both on the conventional and the new markets
in the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and Africa.

And, of course, one of the most important aspects of Ukraine’s foreign
policy is protecting Ukrainian citizens abroad and safeguarding the rights
of the Ukrainian Diaspora , which will remain a constant priority of the
foreign policy of Ukraine and the sphere of particular attention of
Ukrainian diplomatic and consular missions abroad.

We are working successfully with many countries on legalizing the status of
Ukrainian migrant workers, signing agreements on temporary employment,
promoting the opening of Ukrainian schools, television stations and
newspapers abroad.

President V. Yuschenko has issued a Decree adopting the National concept of
cooperation with overseas Ukrainians. There is a special Department at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine for the relations with overseas
Ukrainians.

These priorities, including European and Euro-Atlantic integration, are the
backbone of Ukraine’s foreign policy. This is the position of the President,
the Government and the Parliament of Ukraine. This is our strategic course
that has no alternative.

I will go in some more detail over a few of these priorities.

2. EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
As I mentioned, one of the key goals of Ukraine’s foreign policy is becoming
a full-fledged member of the European Union. This is a key priority,
realization of which includes the whole complex of efforts both inside the
country and beyond its borders. They are aimed at moving Ukraine closer to
the EU and creating preconditions necessary for future accession to the EU.

I believe that this is indeed a two-way street, where both Ukraine and the
EU will benefit from Ukraine’s membership. Ukrainians belong in the united
Europe due to their history, culture, as well as system of values and
beliefs in democracy and the rule of law, as was proven by the events of the
Orange revolution. Our country is a contributor to global and regional peace
and security.

Ukraine is essential for the energy security of Europe, given thousands of
kilometres of oil and gas pipelines that deliver energy to all Europeans.

Furthermore, a democratic and stable Ukraine integrated into the European
and Euro-Atlantic structures is the best guarantee of good-neighbourly
relations between Ukraine, the European Union and the Russian Federation.

And, as those European nations hosting many Ukrainian labour migrants have
learned, the Ukrainian people are honest and hard-working. Everybody knows
the boxers Vitaly and Volodymyr Klychko, soccer player Andriy Schevchenko,
pop-singer Ruslana or chess world champion Ruslan Ponomariov.

I am confident that my compatriots will make a solid contribution to the
development of a united Europe. As former Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk
aptly put it, “Ukraine is coming back to Europe not with a bag of problems,
but with a basket of proposals”.

And Europeans see Ukraine as part of Europe. According to latest polls
conducted in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Great Britain and Poland only
34% respondents stated that they are not ready to see Ukraine in the EU, but
the overwhelming majority expressed support of our membership (Poland and
Spain — 65%, Italy — 59%, France — 56%, Great Britain — 47%, Germany —
44%).

Ukraine’s relations with the EU have become truly dynamic. Yesterday the
delegation of the EU Troyka headed by Foreign Minister F.Steimeyer of
Germany — country that presides in the EU in the first half of 2007 — met
in Kyiv with President Yuschenko, Prime-Minister Yanukovych and Acting
Foreign Minister V.Ohryzko.

Ukraine and the EU began negotiations about the new, enhanced agreement. The
present Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation expires in the beginning of
2008, and we are ready to make the next step on the road to EU membership.
We stand for concluding an agreement with the EU on the principles of
political association and economic integration.

Ukraine in partnership with the EU is an active contributor to peace and
security on the European continent. Our country has been taking part in the
Police Mission of the EU in Boznia and Herzegovina, is cooperating with the
EU in the settlement of the Transdniestria conflict and with the EU mission
on the Ukraine-Moldova border.

In 2006, our country has joined 511 of the 554 EU resolutions on regional
and international issues, which shows the high level of political
association of Ukraine with the EU and the commonality of our principles and
values. Last year there were 135 expert visits between EU and Ukraine, which
is one third higher than the year before.

The European Union is the biggest trading partner of Ukraine. Its share in
Ukraine’s trading balance for the period of 10 months of 2006 has been
31,2%, which is 21,3% higher than for the same period of 2005. About 75%
of direct foreign investments into Ukraine’s economy come from the EU.

Accordingly, our goal is to establish a free-trade zone with the EU. Formal
negotiations on this issue are to begin after Ukraine’s accession to the
WTO.

At the Ukraine-EU summit in October, 2006 we have completed negotiations
on easing the visa regime and readmission, and initialed respective drafts
of agreements. We expect to sign them in 2007.

3. EURO-ATLANTIC INTEGRATION
Another key priority of Ukraine’s foreign policy is the Euro-Atlantic
integration , aimed at gradual full-fledged membership in NATO.

Due to certain circumstances this issue has been highly politicized in
Ukraine. At the same time, the strategic course of Ukraine towards NATO
membership is written in the Ukrainian laws, and it is supported by the
leadership of our country. Any differences of vision are related to the
tactical aspects of Euro-Atlantic integration.

In terms of public support, the majority of the Ukrainians consider that the
society doesn’t have enough information about NATO to make a deliberate
decision whether Ukraine should or shouldn’t become a member.

Specifically, according to the results of the poll conducted recently by the
company “FOM-Ukraine” (translated as “Fund of Public Opinion”) 62.2% of
Ukrainians say that they lack information about NATO. In general, 45.4% of
Ukrainians don’t support the idea of Ukraine joining NATO, 38.6% support
the accession and 16.1% are undecided.

At the same time, the poll showed that if the referendum took place in the
near future, 59.9% would vote against Ukraine joining NATO, 16.9% would
support this idea and 8.4% are undecided. But 28.8% of respondents noted
that they could change their attitude towards NATO if they received more
information about this organization, 46.9% wouldn’t change their opinion and
24.3% didn’t give an answer.

On January 26, 2007 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,
Prime-Minister V. Yanukovych emphasized that the current budget is the first
one since Ukraine’s independence that provides funds for educating the
public about NATO.

In his view, such policy “will develop positive perception” of NATO by the
Ukrainian society and “facilitate the process of Euro-Atlantic integration
of Ukraine”.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is developing practical cooperation with the Alliance in
the framework of the Intensified Dialogue, and in the hope of receiving an
invitation to the Membership Action Plan in the near future.

As an example of such cooperation, the implementation of the NATO-Ukraine
Action Plan for 2006 involved over 50 ministries and governmental
organizations of Ukraine. There has been created a special National System
of Coordination of Ukraine’s Cooperation with NATO.

Speaking of practical examples of such cooperation, I can mention, for
instance, the utilization of old ammunition. Ukrainians are thankful to the
Canadian Government for participating in this project.

NATO is also providing assistance in the development of science and
computerization of Ukrainian universities, civil training of decommissioned
officers. In December of 2006 the President of Ukraine issued a decree
authorizing the participation of Ukrainian Navy in the anti-terrorist
operation “Active Endeavour” in the Mediterranean Sea.

And the latest example, which shows not only the effectiveness of
Ukraine-NATO relations but also the strength of the partnership between
Ukraine and Canada, is the decision of President Victor Yuschenko to send 10
Ukrainian peacekeepers to Afghanistan, who will be there contributing to the
fight against terrorism shoulder to shoulder with their Canadian colleagues.

We consider NATO as a stabilizing factor in the world, and Ukraine is an
integral part of the European security system. Ukraine’s place is in Europe,
and it will continue moving on the path towards integration into European
and Euro-Atlantic structures.

4. MULTILATERAL AND REGIONAL INITIATIVES
Touching briefly on Ukraine’s multilateral and regional initiatives, I
should mention Ukraine’s participation in the settlement of the
Transdniestria conflict.

In 2006, the settlement process followed the plan elaborated by President
V. Yuschenko, that provided measures for conducting negotiations,
demilitarizing the region and promoting democratic transformations. Ukraine
is actively working in partnership with the OSCE on the peaceful resolution
of this conflict.

In the context of regional and multilateral initiatives we should also
mention the union of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova (GUAM),
which in May of 2006 was transformed into an international Organization for
Democracy and Economic Development — GUAM with the headquarters in
Kyiv.

Another success story is the establishment by nine East European countries
have established in Kyiv in December 2005 the union called Community of
Democratic Choice, whose aim is to promote democracy and human rights
in the Baltic-Black-Caspian sea region.

As a token of recognition of Ukraine’s reputation in the field of human
rights, I am proud to say that in 2006 Ukraine was elected to the newly
created UN Human Rights Council.

[Recognition Of Holodomor As Act Of Genocide Against Ukrainian People]
Speaking of our work in the framework of the UN, one of our significant
tasks is the universal recognition of the Holodomor of 1932-33 in Ukraine as
an act of genocide against Ukrainian people.

Recently the Ukrainian Parliament passed the law recognizing as genocide
this one of the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind, that took
lives of between 7 and 10 million people, almost a quarter of Ukraine’s
population.

Recognition of Holodomor as genocide is important not only for Ukraine, but
for preventing such horrors from ever happening in the future in any part of
the world.

We are thankful to the Senate of Canada for adopting on June 19, 2003 a
motion introduced by Senator Raynell Andreychuk calling on the Government
of Canada to recognize the famine — Holodomor of 1932-33 in Ukraine as
genocide.

Ukraine is planning to submit to the UN General Assembly a draft of the
respective resolution, and hope that on the 75th Anniversary of this tragedy
it will be adopted by the international community.

5. RELATIONS WITH STRATEGIC PARTNERS
As I said earlier, our course towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration
goes in parallel with developing friendly and mutually beneficial relations
with our partners and neighbours.

Our biggest neighbor and one of our biggest partners is Russia. As Prime
Minister Yanukovych emphasized, in developing our relations “Ukraine, like
our Russian partners, proceed, first and foremost, from our own national
interests”.

However, Ukraine’s pragmatism in pursuing its national interests in
relations with Russia must not be mistaken for a desire to complicate these
relations. In fact, it is just the opposite.

The Presidents of the two countries direct the Governments, politicians and
societies of Ukraine and Russia at reaching constructive solutions of all
issues that we inherited from the past.

Maintaining and developing good-neighbourly relations with the Russian
Federation is one of the main priorities of Ukraine’s foreign policy. As
Russian President Putin said, cooperation between Ukraine and Russia “is
developing in the highly dynamically and effectively, and is an example of
reliability in the long-term perspective”.

On December 22, 2006 Russian President Vladimir Putin paid a working
visit to Ukraine. During this visit there was the first meeting of the
Intergovernmental Commission presided by the Presidents of Ukraine and
Russia.

In the words of President Yuschenko, this is a “qualitatively new mechanism
of relations between Ukraine and Russia”, that provides for biannual
meetings between the leaders of the two countries. The next meeting is
planned for May or beginning of June of 2007.

Ukraine and Russia are working constructively on resolving such complicated
bilateral matters as delimitation and demarcation of borders, the issue of
the Kerch Straight, regulating the issues around the temporary dislocation
of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the territory of Ukraine, formation of the
free trade area.

Until the next Intergovernmental Commission meeting the parties agreed to
elaborate the text of the declaration on strategic partnership between
Ukraine and Russia which will set out strategic positions of the two
countries on the key issues.

A principal factor in Ukraine-Russia relations is energy cooperation.
Ukraine’s delegation to this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos offered
suggestions to join the efforts of Russia and the European Union aimed at
increasing the supplies of energy carriers to Europe, among other things, by
modernizing Ukrainian oil and gas pipelines.

Our goal is to build reliable relations with our partners to ensure the
level of energy security that will guarantee effective functioning of the
economies of all states.

Commenting in Davos on the issue of Ukraine’s dependency upon Russia in
terms of energy supplies, Prime Minister Yanukovych stated that Kyiv looks
at this matter from the vantage point of partnership relations with Russia.

The Head of Government added that Ukraine is studying the possibilities of
diversifying its energy supplies, namely, lowering the supplies from Russia,
extending the output in Ukraine and importing energy carriers from other
areas, primarily from the countries of the Caspian region.

Speaking of Ukraine’s strategic partners I must mention the United States,
which has been a consistent supporter of democratic transformations in
Ukraine since the dawn of our independence.

The year 2006 was marked by such events as ending the application of the
Jackson-Vanik amendment, removing trade sanctions on Ukrainian goods,
recognizing Ukraine as a market economy country, renewing the benefits under
the Generalized System of Preferences, signing of bilateral market access
protocol within the framework of the WTO, considerably increasing U.S.
financial assistance for democratic and economic reforms in Ukraine and for
the Chornobyl Shelter project.

The U.S. is one of the biggest investors in Ukraine’s economy (over 1.3
billion dollars) and one of the biggest donors of financial assistance
(almost 3 billion dollars). Our countries are closely cooperating in the
fight against terrorism, resolution of frozen conflicts, preventing
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combating organized crime
and illegal migration.

At the end of my speech I would like to say a few words about Ukraine’s
relations with Canada.

6. UKRAINE-CANADA RELATIONS
Canada occupies a special place in the heart of every Ukrainian. Our
countries share close historical and family ties, as well as common values
and beliefs, such as freedom, democracy, rule of law.

Four waves of Ukrainian immigration have created one of the biggest
communities in Canada, which, according to Statistics Canada, amounts to
almost 1.2 million people. For over two centuries the Ukrainian language is
spoken in the Canadian prairies, in Alberta oil rigs, in federal and
provincial legislatures and ministries, in hockey stadiums and university
classrooms.

An outstanding son of the Ukrainian land, the Right Honourable Ramon
Hnatyshyn from 1990 to 1995 was the Governor-General of Canada.

15 years ago Canada was the first Western country that on December 2, 1991
recognized Ukraine’s independence, on the day following the historical
December 1, 1991 Referendum where 90.3% Ukrainians voted for
independence of their land. The political courage and vision of the Canadian
leadership that voiced its support of Ukraine’s independence will always be
remembered.

As a token of appreciation, on December 04, 2006 President Victor Yuschenko
awarded the Order of Kniaz (King) Yaroslav the Wise to the Right Honourable
Brian Mulroney “for his defining personal role in Canada’s recognition of
the independence of Ukraine, and considerable contribution in the
development of Ukrainian-Canadian relations”.

A few days ago, on January 27, 2007 we celebrated the 15th Anniversary of
establishing diplomatic relations between Ukraine and Canada.

On March 31, 1994 Ukraine and Canada signed the Joint Declaration on Special
Partnership, which was adapted to the new realities of the 21st century in
the Joint Declaration on Continuing Development of the Special Partnership
between Ukraine and Canada which was signed in Kyiv on December 5, 2001.

Most importantly, these are not just declarations, they are the reflection
of the true nature of special partnership relations that our two nations are
privileged to enjoy.

We appreciate Canada’s consistent support of Ukraine in such crucial areas
as helping us cope with the consequences of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster,
providing financial assistance in excess of 66 million Canadian dollars as
well as playing a leading role in the G-8 addressing this issue.

Canada has always backed our accession to NATO, as well as has been a
proponent of Ukraine’s accession to the WTO. Our countries signed the
bilateral market access protocol in 2002, and we appreciate the work of
Canadian Sergio Marchi as the Chair of the WTO Working Group on Ukraine’s
accession.

We truly appreciate Canada’s technical assistance to Ukraine and the work of
the Canadian International Development Agency, as well as our cooperation
under the Military Training Assistance Program.

Recently, Canada’s outspoken position and the largest observer mission have
been critical during the days of the Orange Revolution. Canadian Ambassador
to Ukraine His Excellency Andrew Robinson organized his colleagues from the
Western missions on monitoring the Presidential elections in 2004.

Canada sent the largest observer mission, including 500 members and 500
volunteers, headed by former Prime-Minister the Right Honourable John
Turner.

Among the leaders of the observer mission were the present Chair of the
Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group (which, by the way, includes
over 150 Members of Parliament) Peter Goldring, M.P., and Vice Chair Borys
Wrzesnewskyj.

There are many examples of partnership ties between Ukraine and Canada.
They include peacekeeping, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
particularly within the framework of the Global Partnership, destruction and
prohibition of land mines under the Ottawa convention, protection of human
rights and advocating the ideals of freedom and democracy.

I am confident that Ukraine and Canada will remain true partners on the
international arena, and close and friendly relations between our countries
will only strengthen with time, and I see this as my primary task in my
capacity as Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada.

7. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I would like to stress that Ukraine is open for dialogue and
cooperation on mutually beneficial terms with all countries. Our country
will continue to be an active, responsible and promising partner.

This is the task given to the Ukrainian Foreign Service by President Victor
Yuschenko who, according to his Constitutional powers, directs the foreign
policy of Ukraine.

The President has confirmed the irrevocability and consistency of Ukraine’s
foreign policy course, and it is the duty of the Government, the Foreign
Ministry and Diplomatic Missions of Ukraine abroad, one of which I have
the honour to lead, to implement the course charted by the President and
established in Ukrainian laws.

Thank you for your attention.
———————————————————————————————
NOTE: This address published by e-POSHTA, Politics and Business
Edition, Vol. 8, No. 12, Canada, Sunday, February 18, 2007,
Editor-in-Chief: Myroslava Oleksiuk, myroslava@rogers.com
———————————————————————————————-

[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;
    The names of the additional supporting sponsors for the Action
           Ukraine Program will be published again later this week.          
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around four 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 & BULK MAIL BLOCKERS ARE A REAL PROBLEM                 

If you do not receive a copy of the AUR it is probably because of a
SPAM OR BULK MAIL BLOCKER maintained by your server or by
yourself on your computer. Spam and bulk mail blockers are set in very
arbitrary and impersonal ways and block out e-mails because of words
found in many news stories or the way the subject line is organized or
the header or who know what.
 
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, The Bleyzer Foundation

Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
President (Acting) and Chairman, Executive Committee of the
Board of Directors, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
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#817 Feb 16 Playing With The Rules, Not By The Rules; Will Democracy Survive?; U.S. Amb Taylor On Missile Defense;

=========================================================
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


WILL DEMOCRACY SURVIVE?
The Verkhovna Rada is deliberately passing laws that contradict the
Constitution. In the heat of political competition, politicians have been
ignoring the principle of rule of law in an evermore blatant manner.

This means the preservation of democracy in Ukraine will now be
guaranteed, not by laws, but by the goodwill of political leaders.

As the coalition and the Government show little respect for the law,
there is no guarantee that they will not curtail other political institutions
whose responsibility is to oversee the Government and to criticize it-

the opposition, the media and civil society. [Article Three]

ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 816
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor, SigmaBleyzer
WASHINGTON, D.C., FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2007

——- 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. PLAYING WITH THE RULES, NOT BY THE RULES:
POLITICAL UNCERTAINTY IN UKRAINE
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Sarah Whitmore (In German)
Ukraine-Analysen, Bremen, Germany, Tuesday, 13 February 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #817, Article 1 (Original English version)
Washington, D.C., Friday, February 16, 2006

2. UKRAINE’S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Jane’s Foreign Report, UK, Thursday, February 15, 2007

3. WILL DEMOCRACY SURVIVE IN UKRAINE?
WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By ICPS Analysts
Viktor Chumak, Ivan Presniakov and Oleh Myroshnichenko.
ICPS Newsletter #5 (352); International Centre for Policy Studies
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, 12 February 2007

4. UKRAINE’S YUSHCHENKO UNDER SIEGE
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Tammy Lynch
Behind the Breaking News, A briefing from the Institute for the
Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy, Volume V, Number 2
Boston University, Boston, MA, Wednesday, January 31 2007

5. YUSHCHENKO, YANUKOVYCH LOCK HORNS OVER CABINET LAW
High court to rule on disputed Ukrainian cabinet law
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Pavel Korduban
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 4, Issue 29
The Jamestown Foundation, Wash DC, Fri, Feb 9, 2007

6. WILLIAM TAYLOR: “IF ELEMENTS OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE
ARE DEPLOYED, THE US AND EUROPE WILL BE MORE SECURE”
INTERVIEW: With U.S. Ambassador William Taylor
By Mykola SIRUK, The Day Weekly Digest in English #5
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 13, 2007

7. ANTIMISSILE SHIELD WILL NOT BUY AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP
Based on an article by Olaf Osica, Natolin European Centre analyst
Polish News Bulletin, Warsaw, Poland, Wed, Feb 07, 2007

8. SENIOR UKRAINE OFFICIAL AZAROV CRITICIZES U.S. PLAN TO
DEPLOY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM AS THREAT TO UKRAINE
UNIAN News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, February 5, 2007

9. “THE UKRAINIAN ELEMENT”
US general’s statement about Ukraine on missile defence questioned
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Vitaliy Portnykov
Glavred, Kiev, in Russian 0000 gmt 30 Jan 07
BBC Monitoring Service, United Kingdom, Jan 31, 2007

10. UKRAINE SHOULD NOT HOST U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE
BASES SAYS FORMER DEFENSE MINISTER
Interfax Ukraine News, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, February 1, 2007

11. UKRAINE: OUTLINE OF GOVERNMENT PLANS TO CREATE A
COMPETITIVE ECONOMY, PROVIDE NEW OPPORTUNITIES
FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND TO ATTRACT INVESTMENTS
REMARKS: Minister of Economy of Ukraine, Volodymyr Makukha
Ukraine Business Forum, Waldorf Astoria Hotel,
New York, New York, Wednesday, December 6, 2006

12. UKRAINE: STILL LINING UP — BUT FOR LUXURY
Incomes, house prices and freedom all on the rise
By Vitaliy Milentyev and Denys Volkov, The Winnipeg Free Press
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Thursday, February 15 2007

13. LANDMARK AGREEMENT REUNITES ORANGE FORCES
INFORM Newsletter, Issue 30, Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, 12 February, 2007

14. THE NAMES OF MEMORY: HOLOCAUST & HOLODOMOR
One of the best Ukrainian documentary films hitting the screens soon
By Dmytro Desiateryk, The Day Weekly Digest #5
Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, February 13, 2007

15. CONSEQUENCES OF FAMINE GENOCIDE
By Fedir Moroziuk, Member, Ukrainian Association of
Holodomor Researchers, Kherson Oblast (Written in 1997)
Posted on www.Golodomor.com website, Kyiv, Ukraine
A Program of the International Charitable Fund Ukraine 3000
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #817, Article 15 (in English)
Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, February 16, 2007

16. GENOCIDE IN DARFUR: WE TALK. SHE SCREAMS.
WE WAIT. SHE STARVES. WE ACT. SHE SURVIVES
SaveDarfur Full-Page Advertisement
Washington Post, Washington, D.C. Wed, February 14, 2006
========================================================
1
. PLAYING WITH THE RULES, NOT BY THE RULES:
POLITICAL UNCERTAINTY IN UKRAINE

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Sarah Whitmore (In German)
Ukraine-Analysen, Bremen, Germany, Tuesday, 13 February 2006
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #817, Article 1 (Original English version)
Washington, D.C., Friday, February 16, 2006

The resignation of foreign minister Borys Tarasiuk and the promulgation of
the law ‘on the Cabinet of Ministers’ without the president’s signature are
the latest manifestations of the intra-executive power struggle which has
dominated politics in Kyiv since the appointment of Viktor Yanukovych as
prime minister in the aftermath of the March 2006 parliamentary elections.

These elections produced a reconfiguration both of political forces and of
the formal rules of the game in Ukraine. The Party of Regions emerged as the
biggest party in parliament, signalling the successful comeback of Viktor
Yanukovych after his defeat in December 2004 while at the same time, the
so-called ‘politreform’ (the constitutional changes negotiated at the height
of the orange revolution) came fully into operation, as the new government
with enhanced powers would be formed by a parliamentary coalition, not the
president.

Since then Ukrainian politics has been characterised by heightened
uncertainty and by a bitter power struggle between the political elites,
which primarily centred on the battle between the president and prime
minister.

On one level this power struggle is a response to legal inconsistencies and
perceived deficiencies in the ‘politreform’ which the president and
parliament are seeking to remedy in their own favour, but the ‘war of laws’
is also a reflection of the deeper post-Soviet political condition, where
formal political institutions are viewed by actors as malleable and
non-binding.

Although much recent writing on post-Soviet politics has quite rightly
pointed to the importance of various types of informal rules, formal rules
remain worthy of concern as far as they continue to structure formal
opportunities for political actors in the decision-making process and
therefore remain an object of competition as rival players seek to use them
or shape them to their own advantage.

While institutions remain objects of competition, the formal rules are
subject to constant alteration (or the threat of alteration), which
precludes emergence of an institutional equilibrium whereby actors are
prepared to commit to existing formal institutions in order to reduce
uncertainty.

Since 1996, Ukrainian history is littered with attempts to alter the
constitution either in letter or in spirit (via enabling legislation). In
this respect, the current uncertainty is nothing new, but the ‘politreform’
along with the accompanying change to a fully proportional electoral law
involved the most far-reaching alteration of the formal system of power for
a decade and consequently, has engendered a thorough-going period of
adjustment by elites to the new formal rules of the game which has
manifested itself in a multi-dimensioned institutional power struggle which
overlaid the ongoing struggle for economic preferences and advantages.

High levels of uncertainty have led all key political actors to focus more
obviously than ever on short-term objectives over strategic goals and to
expose publicly the cynical basis of political deals and legal nihilism
which shape their political actions.

The acrimonious battles over personnel (in particular dismissal of the
ministers appointed by the president) and institutions (most markedly over
the law ‘on the Cabinet of Ministers’) have been the clearest instances of
this institutional power struggle.

Since being appointed as Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych has unequivocally
sought to establish himself as the centre of political power in Ukraine. In
this he has strong resources, having a substantial lead in opinion polls as
the most trusted politician in Ukraine, having the financial backing of some
of Ukraine’s richest people and being backed by a parliamentary coalition
within which his Party of Regions was the overwhelmingly dominant force
(186 of 238 seats).

Despite initial predictions that the ‘anti-crisis coalition’ would be
short-lived, it has so far proved durable because the junior partners of the
Socialists and Communists have much to lose by leaving it. Yanukovych also
benefited from the rancorous relations between the parliamentary blocs left
outside the coalition, which each contained substantial (business)
constituencies unable to come to terms with being left out of government,
and correspondingly, without access to state resources.

Therefore, Yanukovych was in a strong position to pursue an assertive policy
aimed at securing his position and benefiting the financial-industrial
groups that back the Party of Regions. Although tensions exist between the
different factions within the party, these are minor compared to those
experienced in Yulia Tymoshenko’s eponymous bloc BYuT and especially
President Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine.

Viktor Yushchenko has struggled to accept the new constitutional reality and
the new government, neither of which correspond with his preferences. He
vacillated between seeking accommodation (for example, in signing the
Universal in August 2006 which permitted him to secure the appointment of
Yuriy Lutsenko as Minister of the Interior, and four Our Ukraine nominees as
ministers of justice, youth and sport, culture and health in Yanukovych’s
government) and resistance (in the use of presidential vetoes and appeals to
the Constitutional Court).

However, the president’s resources were limited due to the numerical
weakness and divided nature of his parliamentary party, Our Ukraine, his low
popularity, the new constraints on his constitutional authority and limited
support from his secretariat, which has been weakened by high staff turnover
and capricious dismissals (sometimes of entire departments) by the head of
state.

Evidence of a thorough-going power struggle between the president and prime
minister emerged almost immediately after the government’s appointment in
August 2006, despite the much-trumpeted signing of the Universal, which was
supposed to ensure a co-ordinated policy from the executive in key areas,
but in reality served as a fig-leaf to shield Yushchenko from public
humiliation from appointing Yanukovych as premier.

Yanukovych seized the initiative and challenged the president’s authorities
on a number of policy and procedural issues, including the right to dismiss
the ministers of defence and foreign affairs (which remained the president’s
prerogative in the new constitutional arrangement) and initiated a new draft
law ‘on the Cabinet of Ministers’, a law long overdue in Ukraine (having
been vetoed five times by President Kuchma) that would clarify the new
division of powers firmly in the prime minister’s favour.

The entry of five presidential nominees into Yanukovych’s government (in
addition to his constitutional quota of the ministers of defence and foreign
affairs) was intended as a precursor to Our Ukraine formally joining the
ranks of the coalition, which would have bolstered Yanukovych’s
international image and allowed Our Ukraine businessmen access to state
resources.

However, rapidly escalating tensions between the president and prime
minister in a number of areas including the president’s right to issue
decrees without the premier’s countersignature, the budget and the prime
minister’s foreign policy role eventually led Yushchenko’s party to declare
itself in opposition and to recall its ministers from the government.

The four Our Ukraine ministers resigned in October, but not foreign minister
Tarasiuk, who along with non-party Anatoliy Hrytsenko, were nominated by
the president according to the new constitution.

However, the latter two, along with Interior Minister Lutsenko, held
portfolios of greater interest to the coalition and were a thorn in the side
of Yanukovych. Tarasiuk’s pro-Western position jarred with the electoral
platform of the Party of Regions and had long irked Russia, so that
speculation about Russian pressure on Yanukovych to get rid of him sounded
plausible.

Lutsenko was known to have irritated businessmen in the Party of Regions
with investigations by law-enforcement bodies. And the ministry of defence
has a huge wealth of assets, especially land, under its control.

Campaigns to discredit the remaining pro-Yushchenko ministers were launched,
with allegations of corruption levelled at both Lutsenko and Hrytsenko. In
the Interior Minister’s case, both a criminal and parliamentary
investigation were conducted, while the government’s oversight body claimed
to have uncovered misuse of budget funds in the defence ministry.

However, in both cases, the political motivation behind the allegations was
clear. Hrytsenko robustly defended himself on the floor of parliament and
was left in place for the time being, but Lutsenko was censured for
ineffective work and sacked on November 30 by a vote of the Party of Regions
and Communists with the assistance of 18 deputies from Tymoshenko’s bloc.

Two days later, despite being part of the president’s ‘quota’ according to
the constitution, Tarasiuk was dismissed by the anti-crisis coalition.
Backed by the president and a court decision about the illegality of the
dismissal, Tarasiuk refused to leave his post.

However, Yanukovych prevented him from attending cabinet meetings and cut
off financing to the ministry, which eventually forced Tarasiuk to resign on
30 January. The successful ousting of Tarasiuk and Lutsenko deprived
Yushchenko of his main advocates in the government and represented
substantial defeats in the ongoing power struggle with Yanukovych.

Yanukovych was able to remove Lutsenko with the help of businessmen from
Tymoshenko’s bloc, exposing the internal contradictions at the heart of the
opposition, but much more damaging was the forced exit of Tarasiuk, which
serious undermined the president’s constitutional authority to choose the
foreign minister.

What remained unclear was what would happen if the parliament failed to
approve the president’s nomination of a new foreign minister? This was just
one of many possible examples of gaps in the new constitutional framework,
requiring procedural elaboration in a law ‘on the Cabinet of Ministers’.

The adoption of this law became a signal moment in the power struggle
between the president on one hand and the government and anti-crisis
coalition on the other, and was envisaged as one of the main instruments in
shoring up the constitutional authorities of each respective party.

Behind this process stood the ongoing uncertainty about the legality of the
‘politreform’ itself. Yushchenko continued to cast around for means to
overturn it, while one of the first moves of the anti-crisis coalition was
to adopt a law of questionable legality prohibiting the Constitutional Court
from ruling on the constitutionality of the December 2004 amendments.

Therefore both the government and the president each sought to expand the
limits of their constitutional powers at the other’s expense by initiating
their own draft laws ‘on the Cabinet of Ministers’ taking advantage of the
blank spots in the existing constitution. Both bills were drafted
specifically with the current incumbents and circumstances in mind, and
aiming to confer them with an advantage in the power struggle.

Although participants and observers predicted a compromise whereby the
government’s bill would form the basis of the new law, but some of the
president’s proposals would be taken into account to secure his signature on
the resultant law, the government was confident it had a range of options to
maximise its preferences: finding the necessary 300 votes to override a
presidential veto; utilising the new constitutional provisions that obviated
the need for the president’s signature; or, failing that, securing a
favourable ruling from the Constitutional Court.

Thus in late December the coalition passed the government’s version of the
law without taking any of Yushchenko’s proposals into account.
Yushchenko’s subsequent veto was overridden on January 12 amid a scandal:
the additional votes required were provided by Tymoshenko’s bloc in exchange
for the coalition’s support for the law on the so-called ‘imperative
mandate’ for deputies of local councils (i.e. that deputies loose their mandate if
they leave the party on whose list they were elected, needed by Tymoshenko
to stem the haemorrhaging from her party ranks at the local level) and the
law on opposition (in first reading).

Tymoshenko’s cynical deal with the Party of Regions dealt a significant blow
to Yushchenko’s position, but it was also a move that may cost her
substantial popular credibility.

The president then took the legally questionable decision to return the bill
to parliament a second time, but after some hesitancy, the coalition decided
to promulgate the law with the signature of the parliamentary speaker as
permitted by the new constitutional rules.

The law was official published on February 2 2007 and became the first law
to come into force without the president’s signature. Yushchenko filed an
appeal to the Constitutional Court, but the court has been strangely quiet
since its reconstitution in August, and is unlikely to rush to stick its
inexperienced head above the parapet into the fray between president and
parliament.

The promulgation of the law set a startling precedent and roused
commentators to talk about inter-branch and intra-branch war, and again put
some wind in the sails of Tymoshenko’s preference for pre-term elections.

Within days the kaleidoscope of political alliances had turned and on
February 5th Tymoshenko signed a statement with Our Ukraine on co-
ordinated opposition activity in parliament, including a commitment to
work jointly to overturn the politreform, while the anti-crisis coalition
were already talking about amending the law to take into account some
of the president’s proposals.

The unclear constitutional and political configuration since the enactment
of the politreform has led political actors to respond with short-term
tactics directed to the acquisition of power and above all, ensuring their
own political survival.

All players thus sought to play with the rules to enhance their own position
in the future political game. This engendered rapidly shifting alliances
based on situational coincidence of interests: ‘You scratch my back, I’ll
scratch yours’.

In the circumstances, this behaviour is rational but also illustrates the
gulf between politicians and the interests of their electorate, as
politicians fleetingly allied themselves with yesterday’s declared enemies.
Such actions are also likely to reproduce political and institutional
uncertainty.

As Robinson pointed out with regard to Yeltsin’s Russia (2000: 4-7), the
crux of the problem is the weakness of formal state institutions, which are
unstable and subject to change at the whim of politicians. Institutional
weakness (re-)produces instability because institutions lack legitimacy for
the competing political elites, who lack incentives to invest in such
institutions and adhere to formal rules when they are uncertain that other
competitors will also adhere to them and that the institution will remain
important in the future. So in such circumstances, the only certainty is
uncertainty. -30-
——————————————————————————————–
References: Neil Robinson (2000), ‘Introduction: Institutions and Political
Change in Russia’, in Neil Robinson (ed.), Institutions and Political Change
in Russia, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 1-10.
———————————————————————————————
NOTE: Sarah Whitmore, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in Politics, Oxford
Brookes University, UK and author of ‘State-Building in Ukraine:
Ukraine’s Parliament, 1990-2003′, London and New York:
RoutledgeCurzon.
———————————————————————————————-
http://www.ukraine-analysen.de/pdf/2007/UkraineAnalysen19.pdf
———————————————————————————————-
NOTE: The English version of this article was published by
the AUR with permission from the writer Sarah Whitmore.
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. UKRAINE’S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Jane’s Foreign Report, UK, Thursday, February 15, 2007

As Ukraine moves towards becoming a parliamentary republic,
deepening conflict between the executive and parliament has emerged.

President Viktor Yushchenko has suffered a major decline in public
support as his position has become increasingly isolated.

The resignation of pro-Western Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys
Tarasiuk in January is likely to signal a return of a multi-vector foreign
policy.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has seen his position steadily
undermined following the introduction of a new constitution in January 2006
as part of the package of agreements that saw him become president in
December 2004. The main benefactor of the reforms has been his opponent
Viktor Yanukovych who returned as prime minister and head of the anti-crisis
majority parliamentary coalition government in August 2006.

In the latest of a series of blows to the increasingly isolated president,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk resigned from his position on 30
January. This has seen the opposition bloc of Prime Minister Yanukovych take
the ascendancy in Ukrainian politics and caused a fundamental re-alignment
of Ukraine’s foreign policy away from the pro-Western ideals of 2004’s
‘Orange Revolution’.

TOWARDS A PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC
Following the March 2006 parliamentary elections, pro-reform forces that had
backed the Orange Revolution spent three months creating a coalition and
government that subsequently collapsed within a week. The defection of the
Socialists to the then-opposition Party of Regions and the communists
permitted the creation of the anti-crisis coalition and a government headed
by Yanukovych.

Despite having spent only five months in office, the coalition has
successfully deepened constitutional reforms by removing greater powers
from the executive and transferring these to parliament. In January,
parliament adopted a law on the cabinet of ministers that transferred further
powers to the legislature, including aspects of foreign and defence policy.

Parliament is planning to adopt further laws on the president and the
National Security and Defence Council that will weaken the executive in
relation to the legislature. Some members of the Party of Regions have not
hidden their eventual goal of transforming Ukraine into a parliamentary
republic. At the same time, they have threatened impeachment if the
president disbands parliament and obtains backing from the constitutional
court to abolish constitutional reform.

LAME DUCK PRESIDENT
Yanukovych’s rise in power has largely been at the expense of Yushchenko.
The president’s approval ratings began to plummet towards the end of 2005
and, according to various domestic opinion polls, he currently maintains
less than 10 per cent support. Yushchenko’s chances of maintaining his
position beyond the 2009 elections now appear remote.

Yushchenko’s low popularity is due to a number of factors including his
personal antipathy to former ally Tymoshenko, disillusionment among Orange
Revolution supporters at his September 2005 and early 2006 deals with
Yanukovych, and his perceived lack of political resolve. With the
progressive reduction of his executive powers likely to continue until the
next election cycle from 2009 to 2011, Yushchenko’s lame duck status is
only likely to get worse.

RETURN TO MULTI-VECTOR FOREIGN POLICY
In an example of Yushchenko’s isolated status and, his critics would argue a
lack of resolve, Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk was dismissed by
parliament on 1 December 2006. This is despite the fact that the reformed
constitution supposedly gives the executive control over the appointment of
the foreign and defence ministers. Tarasiuk also complained that the
presidential secretariat did not act or speak in a unified manner about his
removal from office.

Although Tarasiuk attempted to continue to act as foreign minister following
his dismissal, he was barred from attending government meetings. The final
affront came with the cutting off of government funds to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, preventing the payment of its salaries. Tarasiuk
subsequently resigned his position on 30 January.

The foreign minister’s dismissal also illustrates the way Yushchenko’s
pro-Western foreign policy agenda has been steadily undermined. Within
Ukraine, Tarasiuk was widely held as a key representative of the Orange
Revolution’s desire to break away from Russia’s sphere of influence and join
NATO and the EU. His removal is, therefore, likely to presage a return to
the multi-vector policy followed under previous president Leonid Kuchma that
sought to balance Ukraine’s relations with Russia and the West.

In the short term, this is likely to see an end to the move towards NATO
membership, especially as possible replacements for Tarasiuk, such as
presidential secretariat leader Oleksandr Chalyi, do not support NATO
accession.

Meanwhile, the EU’s new framework ‘Enhanced Agreement’, set to replace the
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement in 2008, will not outline provisions
for future membership.

This shift risks paralysing Ukraine’s foreign policy as competing
parliamentary factions and an isolated president vie to further their own
influence. As well as ending the short-term hopes of greater integration
with the West, such political infighting is also unlikely to lead to any
great rapprochement with Russia. Instead, Ukraine could find itself in both
a domestic and international political no-man’s land, unable to follow any
one clear direction.
FORECAST
Ukraine faces two potential short-term scenarios.

[1] First, the president supports the demands of the opposition to disband
parliament. This would open up the possibility of replacing the anti-crisis
coalition with a more pro-reform partnership backed by the president.

[2] Second, the president does not take the decision to disband parliament
and the current assembly remains in place until the next elections in March
2011.

This would threaten many of the reforms and policies brought forward by
the Orange Revolution and Yushchenko’s executive powers, which are
already severely curtailed, would be effectively removed.

Neither scenario is likely to see Ukraine’s medium-term political stability
or foreign policy coherence improve to any significant degree. -30-
——————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
3. WILL DEMOCRACY SURVIVE IN UKRAINE?
WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By ICPS Analysts
Viktor Chumak, Ivan Presniakov and Oleh Myroshnichenko.
ICPS Newsletter #5 (352); International Centre for Policy Studies
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, 12 February 2007

The adoption and publication of the Law on the Cabinet of Ministers has
confronted Ukrainian society with a critical problem, say ICPS analysts
Viktor Chumak, Ivan Presniakov and Oleh Myroshnichenko.

The Verkhovna Rada is deliberately passing laws that contradict the
Constitution. In the heat of political competition, politicians have been
ignoring the principle of rule of law in an evermore blatant manner.

This means the preservation of democracy in Ukraine will now be
guaranteed, not by laws, but by the goodwill of political leaders.

As the coalition and the Government show little respect for the law,
there is no guarantee that they will not curtail other political institutions
whose responsibility is to oversee the Government and to criticize it-the
opposition, the media and civil society.
THE BALANCE OF POWER IS BEING DISTURBED
In H2’06, the cohabitation of a “strong” President and a “strong”
Government, both of whom had significant Constitutional powers but
came from different political camps, allowed a certain balance between
the two government institutions.

As in other countries, this kind of cohabitation blocked the implementation
of systematic policy at the state level.

However, finding it impossible to implement policy on a unilateral basis,
the various players had to seek compromise and make concessions to each
other at least regarding such issues as Ukraine’s accession to the WTO and
the adoption of the State Budget. This balance contributed to a relatively
democratic political situation.

But the Verkhovna Rada coalition and one of the opposition factions proved
ready to override a Presidential veto on a Cabinet Law that redistributed
powers from the President to the Cabinet of Ministers. Moreover, this was
done in a manner whose compliance with the Ukrainian Constitution is in
serious doubt, demonstrating how instable the political balance in Ukraine
really is.

The Verkhovna Rada majority shows every intention of continuing along this
course-adopting laws that expand its powers and those of the Government
and curtail the powers of the President, regardless of any problems with the
consistency of these laws and their compliance with existing legal norms.

Similar initiatives include a Bill on the President and amendments to the
Law on the National Security Council.
RECENT DECISIONS HARM DEMOCRACY
The Government and the Rada majority insist that the purpose of this process
is to move towards a parliamentary republic. But the means used to achieve
this goal raise serious doubts whether the result will be democratic.

[1] Firstly, the rules that govern relations between the President and the
Cabinet have become more contradictory, not less. Having a choice between
ordinary laws and the Constitution, political players will begin even more
to base their decisions on regulations whose legitimacy they uphold or
regulations that benefit them.

The Cabinet of Ministers will follow the Law just passed, while the
President will be driven by his understanding of the constitution, which is
the highest direct Law of the land.

In practice, decisions will be implemented in those instances where the
decisionmaker has direct power over those who must carry out the decision.
This situation will weaken the legitimacy of nearly all government decisions
derived from newly adopted laws.

[2] Secondly, there is no guarantee that the practice of ignoring the
Constitution will not now be repeated. If the country does not adhere to
the principle of rule of law, nobody can be sure that their powers are
protected.

There is no way to be certain, now, that the Rada opposition, independent
media or the other institutions needed for democracy to function will not
become the next victims whose wings are clipped after the President.
THE JUDICIARY CANNOT GUARANTEE RULE OF LAW
The adoption of laws that are legally suspect can be corrected when an
independent judiciary does its job properly. Balance of power can, for
instance, be restored through the Constitutional Court, according to
procedures specified in law.

But there are serious doubts whether Ukraine’s Constitutional Court will be
able to quickly decide whether new legislative norms comply with the
Constitution. At the moment, as much as 4-5 months can pass from the time
a law comes into force to the time when the Court cancels any illegitimate
act.

To give an idea of how long it takes to wait for a Constitutional Court
ruling, the Court began hearing one appeal that was submitted o