[Ohio UZO News] Ukraine; NYT; EDM; WoE

[Deychak, Orest]

  <http://global.factiva.com/ha/default.aspx?ftx=Ukraine> 

The New York Times

Ukraine Premier Fails to Form Alliance to Oppose President 

By CLIFFORD J. LEVY 

9 June 2009

Late Edition - Final

13

KIEV, Ukraine -- Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko of Ukraine
acknowledged Sunday night that talks to create an alliance between her
party and opposition forces in Parliament had collapsed, putting an end
to her plan to undercut her former ally, President Viktor A. Yushchenko.

In a televised address, Ms. Tymoshenko said she had hoped to build a
broad coalition to address the economic crisis, which has severely
affected Ukraine. But she accused the opposition leader in Parliament,
Viktor F. Yanukovich, a former prime minister, of betraying her.

''He unilaterally, without warning anyone, quit the negotiation process,
making a loud political statement, killing the merger and the chances
for Ukraine,'' Ms. Tymoshenko said.

She reiterated that she would run for president in the next election,
which is likely to be in January.

Her announcement capped several weeks of renewed political intrigue in
Ukraine, which has faced instability since the Orange Revolution of 2004
brought to power a pro-Western government led by Ms. Tymoshenko and Mr.
Yushchenko.

On Friday, in a move orchestrated by Ms. Tymoshenko, Parliament voted to
remove the defense minister, Yuri Yekhanurov, who was appointed by the
president, an indication of how strained relations have become between
the president and the prime minister.

Ms. Tymoshenko had been privately holding discussions with Mr.
Yanukovich over a proposal to alter the structure of the federal
government. The plan would have required that the president be elected
by Parliament, not popularly elected, as in the current system.

After Ms. Tymoshenko attacked Mr. Yanukovich on Sunday night, he
responded that while he saw the merits in a multiparty government, he
had severe doubts about doing away with a popularly elected president.

The prime minister's plan had drawn harsh criticism from Mr. Yushchenko,
who referred to it as a constitutional coup.

Mr. Yanukovich, who has good relations with the Kremlin, was the loser
in the Orange Revolution, but he has maintained a power base in the
Russian-speaking eastern part of the country. All three political
leaders are expected to vie in the next presidential election; Mr.
Yanukovich and Ms. Tymoshenko lead in the polls.

Mr. Yushchenko's popularity has plunged in recent years, and it appears
that he has little chance of winning re-election. 

Eurasia Daily Monitor

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/

June 10, 2009

Grand Coalition Talks Collapse in Ukraine

The talks on forming a coalition between Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko
and Party of Regions (PRU) leader Viktor Yanukovych have failed due to
mutual distrust. Electing the next president in parliament was among the
main conditions for a grand coalition that would have permitted
Tymoshenko to remain as prime minister after Yanukovych's election as
the next president by parliament. This would have initiated the start of
Ukraine's transition to parliamentary rule (EDM, June 3). As the talks
failed, until after the popular presidential election scheduled for
January 2010, Ukraine will remain an unstable and mixed
parliamentary-presidential republic where the line between the
authorities of president and prime minister are blurred.

Everything was in place for forming a new coalition by June 5, including
the draft of a new constitution which had been published in the media
and widely discussed. However, on June 7 Yanukovych unexpectedly
announced on TV that the talks had failed. The main reason, he said, was
that he could not agree to elect the president in parliament, since this
would "make society doubtful about the transparency of our actions."
Yanukovych also said that a new coalition would have insufficient time
to appoint a new government and adopt a fresh constitution (Inter TV,
June 7).

Tymoshenko reacted immediately with an improvised televised address to
the nation. She stated that the PRU unilaterally withdrew from the
coalition talks, although "the four political forces - the PRU, the
parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn bloc, the BYT (Tymoshenko bloc)
and the majority of Our Ukraine agreed to unite for the sake of the
people," at a time of severe economic crisis. She said that this left no
alternative to her standing for the presidency in a popular election.
Tymoshenko said that her party was against both electing the president
in parliament and extending the current parliamentary term from 2012
till 2014 - although it is widely known that the two conditions for a
grand coalition had been agreed between her and Yanukovych (ICTV, June
7).

Yanukovych apparently decided that it was safer to run in a popular
election, which the opinion polls indicated that he might win, rather
than relying on an election in parliament of a coalition partner that
had been his long-standing opponent. Moreover, mutual distrust was
fueled by the lack of unity among the BYT ranks regarding the coalition
conditions. The nationalist wing was firmly against extending the
parliamentary term, and Tymoshenko reportedly assured them that the next
parliamentary election will be held in 2012 (Ukrainska Pravda, June 8).
This probably raised doubts within Yanukovych's camp as to whether the
rest of the agreements would be adhered to.

Yanukovych apparently wanted more guarantees of his election victory.
Tymoshenko claimed in her address to the nation that he insisted on
raising the minimum age requirement for presidential candidates from 35
to 50. This would automatically exclude from the race both Tymoshenko
and the third most popular candidate, the liberal economist Arseny
Yatsenyuk. Tymoshenko said she could not accept such an "exotic"
precedent (ICTV, June 7).

Apparently both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych do not rule out resuming
coalition talks after the presidential election. However, several points
are already clear: Ukraine will experience a popular presidential
election once again, most likely in January 2010 (parliament has yet to
schedule the exact date); both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko will stand; and
there will be no transition to parliamentary rule -at least in the short
to medium term, since no matter who is elected, he or she is likely to
try to boost presidential power at parliament's expense. This trend has
been observed in Ukraine on several occasions in the past.

In the interim, Ukraine will be steered by an exceptionally weak
government chaired by Tymoshenko. The amorphous coalition that backs
her, consisting of BYT, Lytvyn's bloc and the majority of Our Ukraine,
controls significantly less than half of the seats in parliament. In
crucial votes, it has to seek support from either the communists or the
PRU. Furthermore, the number of vacant positions in the government is
growing, which raises doubts about its ability to steer Ukraine out of
the present crisis.

On June 5, parliament dismissed Defense Minister Yury Yekhanurov. The
motion was backed by 363 votes in the 450-seat body. The vote
demonstrated how little influence the weakened President Viktor
Yushchenko retains over parliament. Tymoshenko had insisted on
Yekhanurov's dismissal. On May 20 she accused Yekhanurov of corruption,
referring to the results of investigations alleging that ministerial
officials were involved in illegal operations involving land and fuel.
Tymoshenko asked Yushchenko to dismiss Yekhanurov but he refused,
insisting that Yekhanurov had not violated any laws (UNIAN, May 20).
With Yekhanurov's departure, Tymoshenko's cabinet remains without a
defense minister, finance minister and foreign minister. Justice
Minister Mykola Onishchuk, another ally of Yushchenko's, also might be
vulnerable as the BYT has long insisted on his dismissal.

--Pavel Korduban

 

(Note: Successive Ukrainian governments' treatment of this loyal ally in
critically sensitive Crimea is as unfortunate as it is short-sighted):  

Window on Eurasia: Crimean Tatars Threaten to 'Block Ukraine's Path to
Europe'

 

Paul Goble

 

            Vienna, June 10 - Declaring that Kyiv's neglect of their
rights leaves them no choice, a group of Crimean Tatar activists said
this week that they will "block Ukraine's path to the European Union" by
providing information to "every Council of Europe mission" about "the
genocide [against the Crimean Tatars] that is taking place in our days."

 

            Yesterday, Rinat Shaymardanov of the Avdet Social
Organization, which has organized a Crimean Tatar hunger strike in front
of the Ukrainian council of ministers building, handed out a declaration
saying that if Kyiv continues to treat them as an "unimportant" issue,
the Crimean Tatars will act to ensure that their situation becomes "the
main problem" of Ukraine.

 

            In its effort to join the European Union, he said, "Ukraine
presents itself as a legal democratic state."  But the experience of the
Crimean Tatars over the last 18 years, during which they still do not
have "land, homes or the status of repatriates," shows that Ukraine is
just as anti-democratic and totalitarian a state as the Stalinist Soviet
Union" (www.ia-centr.ru/expert/4920/).

 

            Because of that and because the Ukrainian authorities have
not responded to their latest protests, Shaymardanov continued, they
have no choice but to do everything they can "in order that the world
will find out about the true face of the Ukrainian powers that be," a
country with "an anti-democratic government" that "crudely violates the
rights of indigenous peoples."

 

            Such a country, the Crimean Tatar activist said, "has no
place in the civilized world community and no place among the legal
democratic governments of the European Union.

 

            Participants in the hunger strike have been carrying signs
which underscore Shaymardanov's declarations: "1944-2009 - the Genocide
of Crimean Tatars Continues!" "15,000 Families Have No Houses Because of
the Council of Ministers!" and "Ukraine + Genocide =
Euro-integration???"

 

            While the primary motivating factor behind the protest and
the latest declaration its participants released appears to be the land
question - tens of thousands of Crimean Tatars who have returned to
their homeland from Central Asia have not recovered their property - the
underlying cause is both deeper and at present more dangerous.

 

            Since the end of Soviet times, the Ukrainian authorities by
actions of omission and commission have outraged many Crimean Tatars.
On the one hand, Kyiv failed to extend citizenship to Crimean Tatars who
were forcibly deported from their homeland even though the Ukrainian
government did extend citizenship to Ukrainians the Soviets had forced
out.

 

            And on the other, the Ukrainian government often has failed
to back up the Crimean Tatars against the ethnic Russian community in
Crimea, leaving the Russian arrivals in possession of land and other
property that the Crimean Tatars are fully convinced is rightfully
theirs and should be returned.

 

            While the issues involved are complicated by the historical
reality that until 1954, Crimea was part of the RSFSR, the Soviet
republic which became the Russian Republic, rather than the Ukrainian
SSR, which became the Ukrainian Republic, anger among Crimean Tatars
about the actions of the Ukrainian authorities is creating an
increasingly serious problem.

 

            Despite the statements of the protesters this week,
statements which reflect despair more than anything else, Crimean Tatars
overwhelmingly are loyal to Ukraine and seek only Kyiv's recognition of
them as full-fledged citizens of Ukraine and the restoration of their
rights within that republic.

 

            Indeed, in the first years following the end of the Soviet
Union, the leaders of the Crimean Tatars made it clear that they wanted
to be Ukraine's allies against those ethnic Russian activists in Crimea
and their supporters in Moscow, including not unimportantly Moscow Mayor
Yury Luzhkov, who wanted Crimea returned to the Russian Republic.

 

            The vast majority of Crimean Tatars still feel that way, but
enough of them have been alienated by Ukraine's policies that at least a
few are prepared to speak out in the way Shaymardanov has, something
Russian groups interested in restoring Moscow's control of Crimea will
exploit (news.km.ru/krym_zadumalsya_o_vyxode_iz_ukra).

 

            There is still time for the Ukrainian government to recover
its positions in Crimea and with the Crimean Tatars, but because of
recent Russian actions, there is far less than ever before. And
tragically, in this situation, statements like the ones the Crimean
Tatars have made this week will make it more difficult for Kyiv to act
even as they highlight the reasons why it must.

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 16647 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://clevelanduzo.org/pipermail/uzonews_clevelanduzo.org/attachments/20090610/139bedf0/attachment.bin>