« Giving Judgment a Pass | Main | Yekhanurov the new PM »

Scouring my Google Alerts

Here are some more links on current Ukraine news. My apologies if it looks like little more than a roundup of Google Alert articles. It pretty much is:

The Rejection and Acceptance of Yekhanurov

Yushchenko overcomes crisis in Ukraine in the Financial Times

Yushchenko talking with the Party of Regions in Ukrainska Pravda - it's fun to see Khomutynnyk say "no compromise" right before they compromised

Ukraine Plunges Deeper Into Political Turmoil in the NYT - Nothing huge in this article, but I like the Editorial footnote at the end:

There was considerable discussion in Washington yesterday about the 'unusual 'political strategy of the Yushchenko team.  The president had only been back in Ukraine for one working day before the vote on his prime minister candidate, after being in the United States four four days.

If there were not enough votes to confirm the acting PM why not find a way to delay the vote and give the President and his team more time to get the situation under control.  What was the rush to send the President to the parliament to make an impassioned speech, to have a vote the President and his team ended up losing?

Did the President's team count the votes or leave this to chance?  As they say in Washington no vote is better than a 'no' vote. The strategy of the Yushchenko team to run quickly and full-speed ahead into a major defeat did not make much sense to political experts in Washington.

More on Yushchenko

Yushchenko says he will not resist political reform from Interfax - it's only words, but it's nice to see him say "I pledge I will not make any destructive moves to warp the chartered course of political reform." after seeming to try to put off reform last week

Ukraine abolishes state secretary, presidential first aide posts from Interfax - Yushchenko just scrapped the positions vacated by Zinchenko and Tretyakov. They were oddities as positions, with questionable mandates and powers the holders could theoretically expand by force of personality. I take this as a sign that Yushchenko is cutting back to a drab, economist-boring style government structure by eliminating personality posts. On the whole a good thing for a nation fed up with personality politics.

After the sacking of Ukraine's government in the Economist - I'm so surprised, I usually really like the Economist's coverage. However, this conclusion seems excessively negative:

he big loser is Ukraine. Subject to confirmation by parliament, the new prime minister will be Yuri Yekhanurov, a technocrat who has signalled a less aggressive attitude to past privatisations and a more conciliatory one to Russia-sensible, given that a rise in Russian gas prices could be disastrous. But it will be hard for him to achieve much before March.

Meanwhile, disillusioned Ukrainians fear that the new government will be as preoccupied with nest-feathering and back-stabbing as the old one. It may be too soon to conclude that the revolution was simply the victory of one corrupt elite over another. But, as Mr Yushchenko said last week, "the government obtained many new faces, yet the paradox is that the face of the government itself did not change."  

Orange Crushed in the Wall Street Journal - I much prefer this take on the event to the Economist's:

Many people have rushed to pronounce the Orange Revolution dead. Opponents of Ukrainian democracy -- foremost in a Kremlin visibly nervous that this experiment might catch on in the neighborhood -- want to declare last year's political turnover a fatal mistake. The European Union for its part points to the troubles in Kiev to justify its preferred hands-off approach to Ukraine.

To these doubters, Ukrainians can respond that democracies are seldom placid. The upheavals in the Berlin Republic this past week are a good reminder that open, competitive politics can be messy. But, as the recently freed peoples of the New Europe would rush to attest, it's better than the alternative. In Ukraine until recently, and in Germany two generations ago, and in Russia today, that alternative isauthoritarianism. Ukraine's current crisis grew out of the Orange Revolution. It's not a betrayal of it.

Kuchma's Name Mentioned By Someone, Somewhere

Kuchma 'behind reporter's kidnap' from the BBC - So a Parliamentary commission has fingered Kuchma for organizing Gongadze's murder. Whatever, they tried the same think during the Ukraine Without Kuchma protests. Evidence is what you need to convict somebody. All Ukrainian prosecutors seem to come up with, on the other hand is and endless stream of accusations.
Kuchma’s embrace of acting PM sparks rumors of his return from the AP - I just love how these two articles complement one another so well.
Bits of This and That

Interview with Hanne Severinsen in Ukrainska Pravda - a fun interview with one of the two Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) representatives to Ukraine. Severinsen has ten years of experience working with the Ukrainian government, so she can speak about it with some authority.

Prosecutors move against $1.32 bln Tymoshenko company debt writeoff in the Ukrainian Journal; according to this article:

The Prosecutor General Office appealed three court rulings taken between February and August that had wiped out 6.6 billion hryvnias, or $1.32 billion, debt owned by the United Energy Systems to the state budget. The debt mostly consists of unpaid taxes and fees.

It's a tad suspicious that this only came up after she offended the President. In a well-run country, a person might start thinking the judiciary was corrupt.

Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 at 06:23PM by Registered CommenterDan McMinn | Comments11 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (11)

In re: to the NYT article and the "What was the rush..."
- could the first vote have been done as sort of a trial run? People can say that they will vote one way and then when it is put to vote - vote on the opposite side. Perhaps, they wanted the deputies to "declare" how they would vote and the only true test is to put it to a vote. then they know what the exact numbers are and let the "horse trading" begin. This is not Washington, nor like anywhere else. This is (if the NYT ever wakes up to this reality) politics - Ukrainian style.
September 23, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterHello
"In a well-run country, a person might start thinking the judiciary was corrupt." But how can this be with Piskyn in charge? (heavy sarcasm)
I do not know whom I am angrier with - this with the judiciary appeal which I see as receiving tacit approval from Yushchenko or Tymoshenko who blamed her departure from the Cabinet because she was a strong woman.
September 23, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterHello
http://www2.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2005/9/23/4772.htm

Sort-of sums up my thoughts.

This deal w/ "the Party of Regions": That's like one of the leaders of the new Iraqi government making a deal w/ the Baathist party. Or Harmid Karzai making a deal w/ the Taliban.

Maybe I'm stretching matters - you tell me. Frankly, the Prez screwed up and ever since Yulia got fired things have turned for the worse.
September 24, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterJosef
What's wrong with making deals, I wonder? Modern Democracies do this all the time. These days everybody loves China commies for their ability make goods in plenty, never mind what they to the common people of China, and how they oppress them. The US leaders did work with Taliban on the oil matters. Germany is OK and better with authoritarian Russia because of the investments, debt deals, and oil. The point is the concept of modern democracy is all about deals and easygoing: make a deal if possible, fight only if cornered. After all it is kinda hard not to take into account Yanukovich's PR when so many people voted for him several months ago.
September 26, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterAndriy
I agree with Andriy re: making deals - heck, it beats the authoritarian/dictatorship way of getting rid of your opposition - shoot them. I cannot believe that he is being criticized for civilized behavior - the same people who cheer when the Dali Lama says "war is bad" are the same ones who decry President Yushchenko for not engaging in war (and they do not see any paradox!). The only thing about deal making is to NOT give away the store in the process. And to police that the other person holds up their end of the bargain.
September 26, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterHello
To mention in the wake of this discussion, yesterday there was a talk with Yuriy Kluchkovsky and Boris Sobolev on Radio Svoboda and Mr Kluchkovsky explained President's position on the signed agreement with Mr Yanukovich very well. Here is the transcript (Ukrainian, not sure whether they've got it translated into English):
http://ukraine.radiosvoboda.org/article/2005/09/4d123eeb-72fe-4f45-833f-63123f4e71d2.html
September 27, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterAndriy
Hi,

My name is Laryssa Chreptowsky Reifel and I am Vice Chairman of the Board at the Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art in Chicago.

We are working on a joint project with the Center For Contemporary Art in Kiev to bring the Orange Revolution Exhibit to Chicago on the anniversary of the revolution.

The story of the exhibit is a compelling one and I was wondering if you would consider posting our press release on your blog.

Please email me if you are interested. I can provide you more details.

Regards,
Laryssa
September 28, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterLaryssa
Too bad there's not much to really actually celebrate in relation to hat "revolution."

Don't get me wrong, I support true freedom. I smelled rats from the get go with the Orange consortium of:

- Dubious oligarchs like Tymoshenko and Poroshenko

- Suspicious org.like UNSO

- Support from neocons and neoliberal Sorosians
October 25, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterMichael Averko
Michael: Dubious oligarchs - certainly. There are so many dubious oligarchs they're on most every side of every issue. UNSO is insignificant. And NeoCons and Soros were excited when the Orange Revolution happened, because it showed them that democracy prevailed and all that good stuff. The contribution of the US government and Soros Foundation prior to the election were in democracy building measures, like citizen education about their voting rights, sponsoring polls, training voter watchdog agencies like the CVU, and things like that.

The part you left out, Michael, is the important part: the majority of Ukrainians. The majority of Ukrainians preferred and voted for Yushchenko over Yanukovych. Yanukovych stole the election, and a percentage of those who voted for Yushchenko, most of whom had witnessed or heard firsthand accounts of voter intimidation and various ballot theft ploys, went to protest the theft.

Whatever the YuGov does, it cannot be worse than if Ukrainians had given up their right to vote, by allowing Yanukovych to steal the Presidency despite the vote.

I'll celebrate that first victory forever, though there's been little to celebrate since then.
November 2, 2005 | Registered CommenterDan McMinn
Stole went the other way in the clout of pro Orange monitors applying double standards in the vote count process.

I previously detatiled all this with first hand on the ground accounts from more neutral sources than Freedom House and the Open Society.

Many were subconsciously duped.

Fortunately, the tide has noticeably turned.
November 5, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterMichael Averko
Michael: The whole nation would have to be subconsciously duped. The people in the Orange barricades would have to have been consciously duped. Most of them sat in that dirty, uncomfortable place for a month or two because they'd witnessed pro-Yanu individuals falsifying the ballot.

Your "detailed first-hand accounts" are: the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, and one conservative terrorism watcher who happened to observe the election with a Jewish observation group. I gave you Wikipedia's detailed list of all the problems with BHHRG, and so you really only have "detailed first-hand account" - singular. Funny, I have lots more than that just from people I interacted with personally in the OSCE observer mission (in rounds 1,2).

For the record: who actually won the election? You say the Yushchenko people were the real perpetrators of fraud. But I have yet to hear you come right out and say you think Yanukovych won round three. I don't want to hear "we'll never really know", I don't care what we'll know, I want to hear you say either you think Yanu won or you didn't. Which is it?

The tides turn daily, but the Orange Revolution was a sea change towards true democratic society.
November 14, 2005 | Registered CommenterDan McMinn

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.