The Nuclear Option
Yushchenko's Parliament Dissolver
For those Orange Ukraine readers who don't know, Yushchenko legally has the ability to dissolve Parliament if a majority faction cannot be formed and a PM not chosen within a set timeframe after the March election. Furthermore, RIA Novosti, not my best source, now has him as saying he may use that ability. I don't see this as a strong threat, but considering some of Yushchenko's policies in the past, I consider it enough of a possiblity to mention in this space.
You'd Have to be MAD
To me the exercise of this right would be the political equivalent of an atom bomb. It would annihilate the current form of government down to the tiniest pieces, and after that it would be anybody's guess what the new government would look like. No politician in the majority non-NSNU Parliament that is sure to arise after the election would agree to any new reformation of the government amenable to NSNU.The result would be chaotic and would leave the nation with essentially no government for months. No sane businessperson would want to work in this environment unless he was expecting to make illicit gains. The political risk in the country would go off the charts, so say goodbye to FDI.Heaven help Ukrainians if it occurs.
I cannot stress enough how bad an idea this would be. Yushchenko should be ashamed for even threatening to use it. Why would he do this?
Poor Posture
In trying to explain this move to myself: I toss this in with the rest of NSNU's contradictory statements about whether it would consider joining in coalition with Yanukovych, or get back together with Tymoshenko after the election.
The Eurasia Daily Monitor is uncertain, citing Yushchenko's statement that the question of whether or not his bloc might form a coalition with Regions of Ukraine cannot be answered until after the election (ForUm has him down as saying Orange forces shouldn't discuss any positions before the election). On the other hand, Roman Zvarych has now dismissed the idea of forming a coalition with Yanukovych categorically and claims there is a secret tally that he thinks will get them the minimum needed Orange coalition.
Roman Bessmirtniy, according to EDM, has joined with Zvarych in stating his assurance that NSNU will join in coaltion with Tymoshenko. Funny, a little over a month ago he was accusing Tymoshenko of using Hitler-like methods to gain support, but now he's ready to join up with her. As I've said at least a thousands times: can NSNU get rid of this waste of a deputy seat, please?
It's no wonder Bessmirtniy is on the blacklist of people in NSNU that Tymoshenko says her bloc would be unwilling to join in coalition with. (though how she would expect NSNU to selectively exclude a small handful of deputies in its own party, I have no idea.) At least on the topic of whether or not she would ever join in coalition with Yanukovych she's clear: no, opposition would be better, and shame on you for even considering it, NSNU.
It's clear to me that Yushchenko's party is trying to revile Tymoshenko and her party as much as possible, knowing that their efforts repulse very few former Orange supporters so much that they will vote for Yanukovych (a good point in this rather astoundingly optimistic article). Therefore NSNU concentrates its fire on Tymoshenko, despite knowing they will have to join in coalition with her after the election, to try to win over some of her votes and become the strong party in the coaltion.
If NSNU does manage to come out significantly ahead, its deputies will be able to argue from strength that Yekhanurov should remain PM and Tymoshenko should only get a secondary ministry position. As a consequence of this infighting strategy, they hardly take a shot at the oligarch-crammed Regions of Ukraine.
As best I can tell, this (foolishly short-sighted) strategy is accompanied by the threat of dissolving the Parliament to get Tymoshenko to back off her efforts to become Prime Minister. This isn't my most solid theory ever (it relies on NSNU having such a poisonous hatred of Tymoshenko they would reject all reasonable debate), so if any of you have a better one, I would be thrilled to hear it.
In other news...
Voter List Problems
The Moscow Times has an interesting article stating that many Ukrainians with Russian last names have had their last names converted to the Ukrainian equivalents on the election rolls. The reason for this deplorable change, however, is less clear. They quote a NSNU spokeswoman as saying "Commission officials could not be reached for comment. But Tatyana Makridi,
a spokeswoman for the ruling bloc, Our Ukraine, said regional and local administrations in the eastern and southern regions were responsible for the voters' rolls and any mistakes on them," and Taras Chernovil as saying it's all part of a plot to disenfranchise Eastern Ukrainians.
The CVU responded with what they've said elsewhere, which is that the election rolls in general (as always seems the case) are a complete mess right before the election(Ukr). Yes, the authorities have called on voters to check their names in the rosters before the election, but that hardly substitutes for getting the books straight in advance. I, for one, would have thought that there would have been more progress in getting the voting rolls in order after having three rounds of elections in 2004 in which many many voters lodged complaints or changed their information.
For whatever reason, it looks like poorly kept voter rolls will again be a significant impediment to people exercising their rights to vote. One of the positive developments in both the second and third rounds of the 2004 elections was that the exactness with which a person's passport name must match the name on the books was relaxed, which helped at least get over people being refused for minor misspellings. Hopefully the system will be sufficiently accomodating in this regard this time around, too.
Watch for the translations of names in specific, though, because it is a particularly biased form of poor recordkeeping. May it be an isolated problem.
Transdniester Backtracking
So the YuGov is celebrating because the Transdiester authorities have lifted their embargo. (that's right, Transdniester's embargo, don't believe the crowing from Russia and the statelet that Ukraine was the one shutting down the border: what Ukraine actually did at the beginning of the month was allow Moldovan customs inspectors to inspect goods exiting the statelet, while Transniester itself blocked off the border in retaliation)
But as Vladimir Socor of the Eurasia Daily Monitor explains, this is not a victory, this is the Ukrainian government backing off. (Kuchma backed off in a single week the last time the topic came up, the YuGov seems to have lasted three) The reason the embargo has been lifted is that Ukraine has opened up some loopholes both in the legal wording of the new customs regime, and by allowing certain goods to simply bypass the Moldovan authorities who should be reviewing all trade.
One would have assumed that shutting down the border was partially political maneuvering ahead of March, but the retrenchment seems to make whatever message was to come out of this rather pointless. Perhaps it was just an attempt to score points in the international community in order to get some good press without needing the guts to actually follow it up with due dilligence.
How sad.
Dan McMinn
in 02) Foreign Policy - Russia, 04) Foreign Policy - Eastern Europe, 11) Tymoshenko - Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko, 12) Yanukovych - Party of Regions, 13) Yushchenko - Nasha Ukrayina, 31) Mar 2006 Parl. Election
|
28 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (28)
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=1194
nice post, Dan.
dlw
I guess it was too much to hope for that they would give any word at all to God in their screed.
Every major church has some fault lines for sure. The ROC in Russia being no different. In order to survive it had to make deals.
This doesn't take away from those sincere believers.
The fact of the matter is that in the pre-Soviet Ukraine that was free of Polish and Austro-Hungarian occupations, the ROC was the only church. Hence, church property in Ukraine was exclusively ROC.
The advent of a separate Ukrainian idenity put into question numerous facets with church ownership being among them.
Ever been to Deer Hunter (after the famous movie) country in Pennsylvania? You'll find ROC, UOC and Uniate adherents living within the same area, with this issue causing some consternation. Luckily no civil war. It's not so uncommoin to have families with those different denominations present within the same family.
What about the religious/cultural rights of the Carpatho-Rusyns? Oh, I know, they're a branch of Ukrainians, while Ukrainians aren't a branch of Russians. So says Ukrainian nationalists. Yet, some other countries in Europe officially recognize the Rusyn/Ruthenian identity. My understanding is that Ukraine doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Filaret_%28Mykhailo_Denysenko%29
The Orthodox Church of Ukraine voted against splitting apart from Russian Orthodox Church and it was Filaret who refused to recognize the decision and decided to unilateraly split the Church in half. Furthermore, "in June, 1992, the ROC, unable to prevent the creation of what it viewed as a "schismatic church" in newly independent Ukraine, helped to organize a synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, where Filaret was defrocked and officially ousted. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church also retained an autonomous status (one step short of full autocephaly) granted to it in 1990 under the ecclestical link to the Patriarch of Moscow."
Ukrainian Orthodox Church got what it wanted - namely as much freedom as possible without full break up Soviet Union style.
As a non-Orthodox westerner like Dan, I obviously have my prejudices on this matter but I have been told by Ukrainian sources that the way the ROC campaigned for Yanu in the previous election and insisted they were the only true Xtn church, turned many young people away from Xty. As such, I would see the increasingly totalitarian conditions in Russia and its inevitable impact on the church there as valid reasons to assert the autonomy of the Ukrainian church.
As for there being conflict among Christians due to the schism, there has been conflicts among Christians over how to best communicate the identity and significance of Christ from nearly the beginning(as is argued by biophysicist turned historical theologian Alister McGrath in his book The Genesis of Doctrine). That is why we are s'posed to show love in dealing with our conflicts, listening to each other and forming resolutions to our conflicts.
IMHO, The issue here is one of subsidiarity:
http://www.caelumetterra.com/cet_backissues/article.cfm?ID=7
the application of the principle that larger bodies should not take over the functions best performed by individuals and smaller groups. Also, the inevitability of the State impinging on Church politics makes for a good case for a change.
Anyways those are my pietistic "orthopraxist views". Complete doctrinal and liturgical unity doesn't concern me as much as trying to be salt and light in this world...
dlw
The Filaret and Uniate Orthodox faction can be accused of doing the same for Yushchenko.
I respect you for acknowledging a blind spot.
I was raised in the West but made conscious effort of understanding other views.
>As a non-Orthodox westerner like Dan, I
>obviously have my prejudices on this matter
>but I have been told by Ukrainian sources that
>the way the ROC campaigned for Yanu in the
>previous election and insisted they were the
>only true Xtn church, turned many young people
>away from Xty.
I'm tearing through google to find the link, but can't seem to track it down. A while back, I had the pleasure of hearing Gennadiy Druzenko (legal advisor to the Verkhovna Rada's Committee on Questions of European Integration) speak at a symposium over here on religion and politics. He impressed me enough that I looked around for some more stuff that he's written, and I found a fascinating piece that dealt in part with the role played on the Maidan by the idea that the Orthodox church campaigned for Yanukovich. It turns out, according to him (and I remember being convinced by his reasoning... I wish I could provide the link) that although this idea was a blatant misrepresentation, enough people believed it that it became a powerful force. Anyhow, the paper that he presented at the symposium makes a great read, too. Available here:
http://www.iclrs.org/papers/Druzenko%20Paper%20-%20English.pdf
>You are an incorrigible jingoist who mistakes
>liberalism and democracy with slavering to the
>US and cronies. But attacking the Church,
>calling her a concubine is below even you.
>Grow up. Show some respect.
First, I'd like to note that the appellation doesn't ring as offensively to my ears as, apparently, to yours. As far as I can tell (and I'm usually pretty good at telling) the remark was made not with a disparaging tone, but as an innoccuous statement of fact. Perhaps the term seemed loaded to you, whereas Dan (I expect) didn't mean it thus. There was a presentation by one Dan Davidson of Bryn Mawr College on (among other things) a study conducted by the American Councils for International Education. The fascinating part of the study was where they gave a word in English and Russian (supposedly equivalent-- "Help" and "Pomosch", for example) and measured the associations that each word carries. Both cultures associated the word with ideas like "poverty" or "misfortune" in about 10% of cases. But Americans are more than twice as likely as Eurasians surveyed to respond with "Emergency" or "Accident", whereas Russians (I assume it was Russians, for the most part) tend overwhelmingly to respond with words like "Family". Conclusions in the sidebar include: "Eurasians associate help with meeting their emotional needs and see help as based strongly on positive ties and attitudes, including love and understanding as a source of joy and hope. Americans focus more on the type of action-oriented assistance provided in emergencies. They link help to feelings of grief and fear. Both groups address problems of society such as hunger and poverty, but only the Americans think of help as providing solutions."
Anyway, I found the whole thing quite fascinating, and it makes me wonder if that sort of thing isn't responsible for some of the misunderstandings that seem to crop up around here.
The lecture was entitled: "Taking Your Foreign Language Skills to the Professional Level (and beyond): why pursue superior-level language study, and, more importantly, can you get there from here?"
You can see the lecture slides online here:
http://kennedy.byu.edu/events/pdfs/afl_20oct05.pdf
Besides semantic issues, there may be a substantial disagreement here. I don't know what the Eastern view of things is, but over here in seventh grade, they had us read through Animal Farm, and stopped to say "Moses the Raven represents the Russian Orthodox Church, whose influence was entirely co-opted by the state". That's the story we hear on this side of the pond.
On a related note, I tend to read the comments here, and feel like the Orange supporters are pretty consistently the voice of reason, and the anti-Oranges (blueberries?) are all raving maniacs. From reading the comments, however, I deduce that there are plenty of people under the exact opposite impression. Possible explanations for the discrepancy include:
1. I'm right, and you're wrong, but you fling insults to try to hide the lack of actual substance in your viewpoint.
I don't particularly like that explanation, but it's included here for completeness.
2. You're right, and Taras and Dan are racist, bigoted demagogues leading the english-speaking masses astray with their tainted analysis of Ukrainian politics, but I can't tell because I'm either one of them, or they've blinded me with their sophistry.
This one seems to suffer from many of the same problems as the first one.
3. Maybe the Westward-leaning editorial slant here attracts the only the anti-Oranges with inflammatory tendencies, and all the really worthwhile anti-Orange analysis is holed away on the "Blue" blogs that only attract raving nationalists from the Orange side.
That one seems the most promising to me. Any other ideas?
If anything the reverse is true.
Show me where I'm incorrect.
You acknowledge being brought up in a biased environment with that Animal Farm interpretation reference you cite.
There remains an ongoing theme on the part of some here to conlcude that Russian and Soviet are interchangeable unlike Ukrainian and Soviet. Therein lies the ignorance which when directly detailed isn't answered to. Instead, one will periodically see that fallacy brought up again and again.
There's nothing wrong in underscoring the Nazi like antics of changing someone's sur name against their will. I'm referring to the recent Ukrainianizing of last names. Even the Nazis didn't do such as one analyst noted elsewhere.
In realtion to this particular topic, another propaganda trait is the view of one side being the more reasonable unlike the other. You have provided nothing to conclusively show the Russia friendly side as being the more unreasonable.
BTW My own m.o. is to face the music wherever and whenever. Punks prefer managed environments of little if any opposition. I politcally loathe such manner.
How appropriate that I end typing this post upon receipt of the Action Ukraine Report. The AUR was good enough to run a recvent commentary of mine which very much clashes with some of the other views posted at that venue.
>Show me where I'm incorrect.
Since 1 and 2 are pretty much opposites, I assume that by "the reverse", you mean the reverse of option 3. This won't make a testable hypothesis until it accounts for all the data that I'm trying to explain.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm not asking who's right and who's wrong, I'm just trying to account for how there could be such a polarisation of opinion. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Orange and Blue viewpoints are equally valid, one would expect the charming, intelligent, civil "cognoscenti" to be equally represented on both sides. Also, it's not unreasonable to suppose that both sides could have an equal share of frothing, sputtering, vindictive "hangers-on".
But when we go to measure the percentages on each side, we come up with a discrepancy-- I count one way, you count another. But it doesn't make sense for either of us to say "I'm not very smart, so the other fellow must be right"-- if he was all that smart, he would have convinced us by now, eh?
I think the crucial misunderstanding here is summed up in this paragraph:
>In realtion to this particular topic, another
>propaganda trait is the view of one side being
>the more reasonable unlike the other. You have
>provided nothing to conclusively show the
>Russia friendly side as being the more
>unreasonable.
My point in this post is that I'm NOT trying to decide which is more reasonable. If I wanted to do that, I would have picked "option #1" and never even wrote the post. By picking option #3, I'm trying to find a way where both points of view could be reasonable, and your point of view could subjectively appear so unreasonable to me. In #3, I suggested that perhaps your point of view is reasonable, but because of the citrus hue of the links and sidebar, your supporters self-select for belligerence.
When you suggest "the reverse is true", you say that the *orange* supporters are, on the whole, more belligerent here (on their "home turf", as it were) than they might be in another venue. The problem with this explanation is that it subsumes #2, leaving the same questions unanswered. If all the people I agree with are wrong, why can't I see it?
Your other paragraphs (some of them don't seem to address what I was talking about, but I have comments anyway):
>You acknowledge being brought up in a biased
>environment with that Animal Farm >interpretation reference you cite.
Certainly. There is no such thing as an objective upbringing. It's not a question of whether one is biased, but whether one knows exactly what one's bias is. The point I'm getting at is that maybe it's not right to flame Dan just because he says the Russian Orthodox Church was a lackey of the State. He might have come by that opinion not by being an irrational russian-hater, but just by having that presented as a fact by sources he trusts. Interestingly enough, I haven't heard anyone contradict him yet-- just lash out at his choice of words (which, I mentioned earlier, don't seem to me all that offensive).
>There remains an ongoing theme on the part of
>some here to conlcude that Russian and Soviet
>are interchangeable unlike Ukrainian and
>Soviet. Therein lies the ignorance which when
>directly detailed isn't answered to. Instead,
>one will periodically see that fallacy brought
>up again and again.
Part of that could be habit, and part of it could be real disagreement. When I was in Ukraine, for example, I received several letters addressed to me in "Kiev, Ukraine, Russia". Some people honestly don't know the difference between Russia and the northern half of that hemisphere, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of that leaked over even in the conversation of people who should know better.
When I say "part of it could be real disagreement", though, I mean I think there's some validity to what they're saying-- that the terminology, although imprecise, isn't entirely inaccurate. Russia was by far the largest and most populous part of the Soviet Union. Russian language and culture are pervasive throughout the former USSR. And Russia itself isn't helping your case any by keeping the tune to its national anthem the same as the old Soviet one. While I'm open to refutation, I find it hard to believe that any nationality or coalition of nationalities could or did force their will upon the Russians. (That the Soviet political elite forced their will upon everyone alike, I think we can agree). If there truly is any "successor" state to the Soviet Union, Russia is the only logical candidate. (Belarus seems to be trying, but they just haven't got the square footage for it. If you want to be the New USSR, you've got to take up at least 10% of the world's land area).
>There's nothing wrong in underscoring the Nazi
>like antics of changing someone's sur name
>against their will. I'm referring to the
>recent Ukrainianizing of last names. Even the
>Nazis didn't do such as one analyst noted
>elsewhere.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'll bite.
No, the Nazis didn't do such. If your last name didn't meet national standards, they simply rounded you up and executed you instead of changing the spelling.
>BTW My own m.o. is to face the music wherever
>and whenever. Punks prefer managed >environments of little if any opposition. I
>politcally loathe such manner.
Ah-ha! While I still don't see how the blues still don't look any more reasonable to me than the oranges, we have a reason why they might be, if they were.
I'm not sure you're right, though. There are lots of punks that misbehave as a form of "attention-seeking behavior". Some of them feel more important if they make other people angry. These kind of punks would hang out in opposition forums, use irrational arguments, and inflammatory language.
Now, I'm not saying that there are NO punks that associate only with like-minded cohorts, but that there are other kinds, too.
Furthermore, the belligerent attention-seekers probably tell *themselves* that they're just "facing the music" like you. Now, I really don't know you, and I'm not labelling you either way (as a courageous music-facer, or a self-centered sower of dissension). Whichever one you are in real life, I'm glad you're here to keep me broadening my perspective.
My real problem is not that we disagree (after all, you've got to disagree with *somebody*) (even if you're the president of Ukraine) but that I can only rarely see where you're coming from.
Very long winded reply on your part.
In fact,I know two people from Ukraine who alternate calling themselves Russian or Ukrainian. I'm told there're many others like that as well.
Did you ever see a rendition of Sholom Aleichem's "Fiddler on the Roof"? Based on a village in Ukraine, with Russia being simultaneously referred to as the setting.
Ancient Russia was called Kievan Rus and not Kievan Uke. It's erroneous to treat Russia and Ukraine as if they're separate states along the lines of most other nations.
You missed my point on the sur name issue. It was made clear enough.
You specifically targeted the Russia friendly side as the more unreasonable and that's flat out bunk for reasons previously stated.
As for your very last point, I'm not a dupe who hides in protected environments. Are you against that?
You suggest a yearning to be better informed. Fine. No need to play semantics and hurl tailored insults. Feel free to do so, but don't expect me to gloss such manner over.
There's nothing wrong with the current Rusian anthem. Ukraine is keeping its Communist boundaries. You say nothing about that.
You have a good deal to learn about how Russians suffered at the hands of non-Russians during the Communist period. Read thru my posts at this site.
I am also familiar with many Ukrainians who refer to themselves, and other Ukrainians as "Russian". From my point of view, it just backs up my assertion that it's not so erroneous to use "Soviet" and "Russian" interchangeably. Do you see why I might think that?
I have seen "Fiddler on the Roof". Enjoyed it very much.
>You missed my point on the sur name issue. It
>was made clear enough.
I don't think I did miss it, but if you think it's important, perhaps you'd better try and make it again. I'm not saying that having your name manipulated on official records is good, or even neutral, just that it doesn't justify comparison with the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany.
>You specifically targeted the Russia friendly
>side as the more unreasonable and that's flat
>out bunk for reasons previously stated.
I can see why you might think that, but it means that the intent of my post has been utterly misconstrued. By stating that it looks that way to me, I didn't mean to "target" anyone-- rather to invite speculation from you & yours as to why that might be, in the hopes that I might understand y'all a bit better, and (if necessary) stop thinking that way.
>As for your very last point, I'm not a dupe
>who hides in protected environments. Are you
>against that?
Again, no. If this is all the farther we're going to get, maybe it was a bad idea.
>You suggest a yearning to be better informed.
>Fine. No need to play semantics and hurl
>tailored insults. Feel free to do so, but
>don't expect me to gloss such manner over.
Apparently my use of "tailored insults" (how are those different from regular insults?) to form a caricature of alternative interpretations was construed as "hurling". Fine; I renounce the tactic.
As far as semantics go, you've hit a nerve there. I assert that we can't expect mutual understanding without a common layer of semantics, and it's my experience that we're unlikely to get one without discussing it. From this thread, however, I infer that we're not going to get one by discussing it, either. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
>There's nothing wrong with the current Rusian
>anthem. Ukraine is keeping its Communist
>boundaries. You say nothing about that.
I didn't say it was wrong, I said it helps us Amerikosy conflate them with the Soviet Union. Ukraine's "communist boundaries" don't seem to have much to do with it at all.
>You have a good deal to learn about how
>Russians suffered at the hands of non-Russians
>during the Communist period. Read thru my
>posts at this site.
I've been reading your posts for several months, but can't remember any examples offhand, with the possible exception of somebody (you? I cant remember...) saying that we should blame Georgia, because that's where Stalin was from. This (as I hoped to make clear above) doesn't count, since Stalin oppressed as a ruler and an individual, but not (as far as I know) as a representative of Georgia. Did he take large amounts of money, power, or prestige from Russia and give them to Georgia?
If, in the near future, you do post an example of Russians suffering at the hands of non-Russians (as a class, not individual non-Russians of the political elite) be sure to point it out to me, I'd be interested to see it.
Oh, dear. Looks like another long-winded one.
I already posted about how millions of Russians suffered under Communism. You doubt that? If so, then you shouldn't be so presumptuous because it doesn't reflect well on you.
You've mentioned Ukraine's communist-drawn boundaries several times now. I'm interested to know how you'd draw the boundaries, if you could make them stick wherever you thought best.