[Ohio UZO News] Ukraine: WP; FT Report on Ukraine; WSJ; EDM

[Deychak, Orest]

The Washington Post

A Section

UKRAINE Clash in Parliament  

14 May 2008

FINAL

A13

 

UKRAINE

Clash in Parliament

President Viktor Yushchenko canceled his state-of-the-nation speech to
parliament Tuesday after lawmakers loyal to the prime minister -- his
nominal ally -- blocked the speaker's chair.

The incident, the second time this year that Yushchenko has been blocked
from making the speech, highlighted tensions between him and Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. It also threatened turmoil in a country that
has recently lurched from one political crisis to another.

Pro-Tymoshenko lawmakers were protesting what they see as Yushchenko's
lack of action to counter soaring inflation and his resistance to other
concessions.

Financial Times

FT Special Report on Ukraine:  Ukraine

http://www.ft.com/reports/ukraine2008

 

(Today's FT print edition has a comprehensive six page special section
on Ukraine with articles on foreign policy, 2012 football championships,
economy, investment, energy, politics).  I have included two of the
articles below)

 

May 14 2008

 

FT REPORT - UKRAINE 2008: 'Overcome rivalries and draw clear lines of
authority'

By Adrian Karatnycky

Published: May 14, 2008

There is an old saying: "Where there are two Ukrainians, there will be
three hetmans." Hetmans were the leaders of Ukraine's traditional
Cossack hosts and the proverb reflects the divisive politics of
Ukraine's past.

Modern-day Ukraine's politics are no less fractious or confusing to the
outside world. In the past 29 months, Kiev has seen five different
governments, including two under pro-Russian prime minister Viktor
Yanukovich and two under pro-western prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko,
who is now in office. Such volatility is hardly surprising. At the
height of the 2004 Orange Revolution, Ukraine seemed to have three
presidents: lame-duck authoritarian Leonid Kuchma; his anointed
successor Viktor Yanukovich, who claimed victory amid evidence of vote
fraud; and Viktor Yushchenko, the reformer who swore himself in as
president and eventually won a re-run election. At times, political
tensions have been accompanied by signs of rampant corruption.

But, amid the turmoil, Ukraine has seen steady economic growth with
gross domestic product rising at an average of 7.4 per cent a year since
2000. Personal incomes have risen and property prices have soared.

Increasingly, domestic and international business people have learned to
discount the political tensions. Observers have come to understand that
sharp struggles have contributed to democratic development, political
pluralism, free media, and the absence of political persecution.

Business naturally would prefer predictability, stability, and the
opportunity to work issues and legislation through a consistent team of
decision-makers. Yet Ukraine has seen more continuity in its economic
policies than lurches to the left and right.

As Alexander Motyl, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey,
sees it: "Ukraine's fragmented politics amounts to a weak state. If it's
too weak that can be bad for business. But if the state is preoccupied
with its own affairs, that can be quite good for business."

Big business is well represented in all three leading political forces -
the Yanukovich-led Regions party, the pro-Yushchenko Our Ukraine bloc,
and the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc - which cumulatively account for nearly 90
per cent of the seats in the legislature. A study indicated that about
40 per cent of deputies in the last parliament came from business
backgrounds. With minor differences, Ukraine's three major political
leaders all respect the market system and are sensitive to business
interests.

In one sense, the growing influence of business on Ukraine's parties is
a by-product of the intense political struggle. Since 2000 there have
been two presidential and three parliamentary elections, as well as
numerous local contests. The frequent elections generate a need to
finance increasingly expensive campaigns. In turn, business leaders
leverage financial support into a direct presence on party lists and
influence over party programmes. As a result, the big parties all
espouse business-friendly centrist economic policies when in office.

Some business people use their clout to lobby for narrow interests and
at times exploit political influence for special advantage, and a
disproportionate business presence in politics may damage pluralism over
time. Some are not shy to bribe politicians and bureaucrats alike.

But in recent years, the business community's role in politics has
largely been salutary. Most of the business community quietly threw its
support behind the Orange Revolution, seeing in Mr Yushchenko a leader
who could help the country escape from the corrupt ruling elite. When,
last year, a showdown between President Yushchenko and Mr Yanukovich,
who was then prime minister, threatened to spiral out of control,
business intervened.

Ukraine's richest man Rinat Akhmetov, a patron of the Regions party,
pressed for a ballot-box solution. When the verdict came in, he helped
ensure his party accepted defeat.

But business is becoming increasingly worried about rising inflation,
which, as well as being economically damaging can be socially
disruptive. Instead of tackling the problem co-operatively, the
president and prime minister are quarrelling as they prepare for the
January 2010 presidential election.

In practical terms this means too little is being done to tame
inflation, meaningful privatisation is stymied, and populist promises
proliferate.

For a country that has shed its authoritarian past, dispersed power and
checks and balances make sense. Yet the new system is not working
properly, despite several attempts at constitutional reform. Political
leaders still view politics as a matter of constant struggle.

They must overcome personal rivalries and draw clear lines of authority
between president, parliament and government. Otherwise, the persistent
tensions and policy paralysis will thwart the emergence of a modern
market democracy.

Adrian Karatnycky is senior scholar at the Atlantic Council of the US
and managing partner of the Myrmidon Group

FT REPORT - UKRAINE 2008: The constant noise of election fever

By Roman Olearchyk

Published: May 14, 2008

If Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine's pro-western president, really believed
that last year's early parliamentary elections would clear the political
air in Kiev, he was mistaken.

The atmosphere is just as tense as it ever was. Almost every day, there
are headlines about the latest twist in what seems like endless
political turmoil. There seems little sign that it will end before the
next presidential election campaign officially starts next year.

It was not supposed to be like this. When Mr Yushchenko triumphed in the
Orange Revolution of 2004 there were high hopes that he could rally the
country around him and his western-oriented programme. But he failed to
seize the moment and has been plagued by disputes with rivals and allies
ever since.

Sergiy Lyovochkin, a lawmaker who supports Viktor Yanukovich, Mr
Yushchenko's rival in the disputed 2004 election, says the country made
some leaps forward under the president, in co-operation with with other
political groups, by establishing a free media and attaining membership
of the World Trade Organisation. "But many opportunities were lost due
to constant infighting rooted in Yushchenko's own Orange camp."

First Mr Yushchenko fell out with Yulia Tymoshenko, his Orange
Revolution ally who gained popularity at his expense and established
herself as a presidential contender. Then, Mr Yanukovich's Regions party
staged a remarkable comeback, gaining nearly a third of the vote in the
2006 parliamentary election and securing the premiership for Mr
Yanukovich.

The power struggle between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister
Yanukovich grew so intense that each side accused the other of flaunting
the constitution. Mr Yanukovich's Moscow-leaning governing coalition
derailed the speedy western integration initiatives that formed the
basis of Mr Yushchenko's foreign policy agenda.

Last spring, Mr Yushchenko tried to end the crisis by dissolving
parliament and calling fresh elections. The move, dubbed
unconstitutional by Mr Yanukovich, was backed by Ms Tymoshenko who was
planning a comeback.

With an even stronger parliamentary election showing in the autumn of
2007, Ms Tymoshenko sealed her return as premier, but the results
brought no relief. The Yushchenko-Tymoshenko conflicts have proved just
as heated as the Yushchenko-Yanukovich fights.

The truth is that Ukrainian politicians are still coming to terms with
the multi-party democracy that replaced authoritarian regime of the
previous president, Leonid Kuchma.

"Many have blamed Yushchenko for not being decisive enough, others point
to constant infighting by the country's three ambitious politicians,"
says Olexiy Haran, a political science professor at Kyiv Mohyla Academy,
an elite Kiev university.

"But the paradox is that democracy in Ukraine is a hostage of the
democratic process. Since the Orange Revolution, it became clear to all
that no single political party can monopolise power," says Mr Haran.

"Sometimes it looks like a country on the border of conflict, but the
elite is constantly seeking compromise. As we see, it is a competitive
and difficult process."

The transition has been complicated by vague constitutional changes
adopted as part of a compromise deal during the Orange Revolution.
Presidential powers were shifted to parliament but haphazardly, leaving
key questions of authority open to interpretation.

Mr Haran says Ukrainian politics is increasingly democratic.

"With the exception of the Baltics, Ukraine is today the only free
country in the rankings of Freedom House out of the former Soviet Union.
It is a very competitive atmosphere," he says.

"With time, new faces will emerge, but these three will remain the
leading figures until the presidential elections. While it seems
politics is dictated by three leaders and their ambitions, in reality
the situation is complicated. None of them can ignore the wills of their
political bases, citizens or the business elite," he adds.

Both Mr Yushchenko and Ms Tymoshenko back a pro-western foreign policy
agenda and share similar domestic reform strategies. But their rivalry
threatens to break their partnership, opening the door again for the
return of Mr Yanukovich, who opposes Nato membership and has been
accused of pandering to Moscow's interests.

Opinion polls show Ms Tymoshenko as the leading presidential candidate
with a steady 25 per cent support. Mr Yanukovich trails not far behind,
and has the strongest chance to squaring up to her in a second round
presidential vote. Voter support for Mr Yushchenko has sunk to less than
10 per cent.

"Yushchenko appears at this point to have little chance of regaining the
presidency," says Mr Haran.

A presidential victory by either candidate would not in itself solve
Ukraine's pressing problems.

The Orange Revolution has planted the seeds for a free media and a
competitive democracy.

But unremitting political turmoil has put off passage of clearer
constitutional rules and badly-needed reforms, including a friendly tax
code and the removal of red tape. While Mr Yushchenko wants presidential
powers slightly strengthened, his more popular foes both favour a
parliamentary system. Still, reaching consensus on a new constitution
will "be very, very difficult," says Mr Lyovochkin.

The cut-throat Ukrainian political rivalries have also been exploited by
Russia. Moscow has played Ukraine's politicians off against each other,
thereby preserving its influence. And Russian television has described
Ukraine as chaotic in its failed attempts at western-style democracy.

Busy with everyday life and enjoying the blessings of eight years of
economic growth, voters have tuned out of Kiev's politics. Salaries and
living standards have sharply risen.

With capital tightening up across the globe, and a possible economic
slowdown on the horizon, economists are repeating past warnings:
Ukraine's leaders cannot afford again to put off key reforms needed to
fuel sustained economic growth.

Yet with election fever still in high gear, few in Kiev expect a strong
push for reforms in the near term.

"Ukraine has in the past years found itself in a constant phase of
elections which made politicians more populist and less interested in
passing structural reforms. I think we can expect some noticeable
movement towards structural reforms ahead of the presidential elections,
but the next big wave will come afterwards," Mr Haran says.

The Wall Street Journal

Campaign '08: McCain Consultant Is Tied to Work for Ukraine Party ---
Political Group Had Opposed Pro-Western Bloc 

By Mary Jacoby and Glenn R. Simpson 

14 May 2008

A7

A consultant to Sen. John McCain hired a public-relations firm last year
to burnish the U.S. image of a Ukrainian political party backed by
Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to documents filed with the
Justice Department.

The lobbying firm of Davis Manafort Inc. arranged for the
public-relations firm's work through an affiliate last spring, at the
same time Davis Manafort was being paid by the Republican presidential
candidate's campaign. The firm is co-owned by lobbyist Rick Davis,
manager of Sen. McCain's presidential campaign, and longtime Republican
strategist Paul Manafort.

The Arizona senator has endorsed a political movement in Ukraine that is
at odds with the Putin-backed Party of Regions.

The work for the Ukrainian party represents the latest issue to arise
for the McCain campaign involving aides' ties to foreign interests. Last
weekend, the campaign parted ways with two former lobbyists for the
military government of Myanmar after their ties were reported in
Newsweek.

This year, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton demoted her
chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, after it emerged that he was
advising the Colombian government on how to win passage of a free-trade
agreement that she opposed. Mr. Penn is also world-wide chief executive
of Burson-Marsteller <javascript:void(0);> , a public-relations and
lobbying firm.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said Mr. Davis receives no income
from Davis Manafort, although he still owns a share of the firm. "He
earns no money from their activities while he is on leave," Mr. Rogers
said.

The spokesman said the Ukraine lobbying activities weren't relevant to
the campaign. "There has been no greater enemy of the status quo and
corrupt lobbying practices in Washington than John McCain," he said.

Working for foreign interests is legal, but it can be politically
hazardous for lobbyists and the politicians they advise. The issue is
becoming harder for politicians to avoid because globalization has made
such work lucrative, drawing some of Washington's best political talent.

Some of the best-paying but most-controversial contracts in Washington
involve companies and individuals allied with the Kremlin. In addition
to its work for the Party of Regions, the Davis Manafort lobbying firm
has pursued business deals with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, the
Washington Post reported in January. In 2006, Mr. Davis introduced Mr.
McCain to Mr. Deripaska, a supporter and confidant of Mr. Putin,
according to the Post.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Mr. Deripaska has been
barred from the U.S. for allegedly lying to the FBI about his
involvement with organized crime.

Details of Davis Manafort's Ukraine work were contained in a late
January filing with the Justice Department. According to those
documents, Daniel J. Edelman Inc. <javascript:void(0);> , parent of the
prominent Edelman public-relations firm, was paid $35,000 a month last
year to promote the Party of Regions by Davis Manafort International
LLC, a Delaware corporation set up in March 2007.

"Davis Manafort International LLC is directed by a foreign political
party, the Ukraine Parties [sic] of Regions, to consult on the political
campaign in Ukraine," the filing states.

Chris Deri, an Edelman employee who worked on the contract, said its
work took place in the summer and fall of 2007 and was "almost entirely
focused on U.S. media."

Mr. Manafort didn't respond to emailed questions. An aide said he was
unavailable.

The Party of Regions is based in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine. In
Ukraine's presidential election in 2004, Mr. Putin campaigned for the
party's leader, Viktor Yanukovich. Reports of intimidation and other
voting irregularities led to massive street protests. Ukraine's top
court ordered a new election, which was won by pro-Western candidate
Viktor Yushchenko.

In recent years, the Party of Regions has moderated some of its
pro-Russian positions and moved closer to the West, supporting Ukrainian
membership in the European Union.

There is other evidence the firm has had ties to the Ukrainian party.
When Mr. Yanukovich, the prime minister at the time, came to Washington
in 2006, Mr. Manafort accompanied him at a breakfast for journalists at
the Willard Hotel, Serhiy Kudelia, a Ukrainian journalist, said in an
interview last year.

When Mr. Yanukovich spoke at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies think tank in Washington, Mr. Manafort was in his entourage,
according to Steven Pifer, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

The previously-undisclosed Jan. 28 filing shows that the Edelman firm
was hired by Davis Manafort to work on influencing public opinion in the
United States. The effort was aimed at "select top-tier media in the
U.S.," as well as "experts and analysts focused on the former Soviet
Union," the Edelman filing states.

U.S. law generally requires Washington consultants to register with
Congress or the Justice Department when they take on foreign clients who
have dealings with the government or are seeking to influence public
opinion. But many lobbyists and consultants in Washington seek to avoid
controversy over their foreign clients by not registering, citing a
variety of loopholes such as exemptions for legal work.

Davis Manafort hasn't registered as a foreign agent.

Eurasia Daily Monitor

 

May 13, 2008 -- Volume 5, Issue 91

________________________________

    
MOSCOW MAYOR, RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTER QUESTION RUSSIA-UKRAINE
AGREEMENTS ON SEVASTOPOL


Moscow Mayor Yurii Luzhkov called for the "return" of Sevastopol to
Russia during a visit to that Ukrainian territory, on the anniversary of
Russia's Black Sea Fleet. The Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry
implicitly backed Luzhkov in a follow-up statement; and Russian Defense
Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, attending the anniversary in Sevastopol,
hinted that Russia would seek to retain its naval base there beyond the
20-year time frame of the agreement, that Russia signed with Ukraine in
1997.

Luzhkov, who has made such statements "spontaneously" on some previous
occasions, acted methodically this time, with seemingly planned
pronouncements, amply televised by Russian channels, at each of his
three stops during the visit.

At a festive concert in Sevastopol, Luzhkov blamed today's territorial
status quo on former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's decision to
transfer Crimea to Soviet Ukraine (other Russian politicians use similar
arguments attempting to de-legitimize this and other post-Soviet
borders). Luzhkov, moreover, maintained that the city of Sevastopol was
not covered by that decision: "This issue remains unresolved. We are
going to resolve it in favor [v polzu] of Russia's truth, its state
positions, and its state right regarding its naval base Sevastopol"
(Interfax-Ukraine, May 11).

On board the cruiser Moskva, flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet,
Luzhkov claimed that "Sevastopol, as a city with its boundaries [i.e.,
not only the naval base], has to belong to Russia, because it was never
handed over to Ukraine." Irrespective of the limited duration of the
basing agreement, he said, "Sevastopol is a Soviet naval base that has
to be returned to the Russian Federation." While urging the Russian
government to pursue this case in international courts, Luzhkov hastened
to prejudge the outcome: "Based on the documents that can be submitted,
an international court has no right to take any other decision" than one
in Russia's favor" (Itar-Tass, Center TV, May 12).

Speaking to journalists in Sevastopol, Luzhkov declared, "I officially
ask the leadership of our country, the Duma and the Federation Council,
to raise the issue of Sevastopol again," this time apparently in
retaliation for Ukraine's recent request to NATO for a membership action
plan. "When Ukraine strives at the state level to join NATO, [it]
undermines our relations as inscribed in the Friendship Treaty. If we do
not react, it would be another big mistake." The treaty, which was
signed by Russia and Ukraine in 1997 and recognizes the inviolability of
the existing mutual border, expires in 2009, unless renewed. Luzhkov
called for Russia to abandon the treaty: "By quitting it, we shall be
able to reopen the question of Crimea and Sevastopol" (Interfax-Ukraine,
May 11).

Ukrainian authorities have declared Luzhkov persona non grata on
Ukrainian territory in the wake of these statements. Given his track
record of inflammatory remarks, Luzhkov had been met on arrival at
Simferopol airport by Ukrainian State Security Service officials, who
gave him a written warning against infringing Ukrainian law or
undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity. In front of television
cameras, Luzhkov read out the warning derisively and, with his
entourage, burst out laughing at the Ukrainian document (Russian
Television, May 10).

Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) defended Luzhkov in a special
statement, seemingly inspired by Vladimir Putin's comments while
president about the collapse of the USSR: "Yurii Luzhkov never made
unfriendly remarks toward Ukraine.... He only expressed a view
reflecting that of most Russians, who feel pained by the fall of the
Soviet Union ." The Russian MFA described Ukraine's decision to ban
Luzhkov from further visits as an "unfriendly move" toward Russia,
harmful to bilateral relations (Russian MFA statement, May 12).

No major Russian politician is known to have disavowed Luzhkov's
remarks, except former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev: "It concerns me,
it disturbs me, it bothers me, it worries me -- it worries me very much"
(Ekho Moskvy, May 12). It is a fairly common view among Duma members,
though not in the Russian government, that the "transfer" of the Crimea
to Ukraine did not apply to Sevastopol, notwithstanding the bilateral
Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership signed in 1997 and the
treaty on state borders signed in 2004, both ratified by both countries.

For his part, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov seemed to cast doubt on
Russia's intention to withdraw its fleet from Sevastopol on the expiry
of the basing agreement. While in Sevastopol, he declared, "In order to
expand the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet's basing system, much is being
invested into building the naval base at Novorossiysk, which will become
one more stronghold of the Fleet." This wording suggests the possibility
that Novorossiysk may be envisaged as a supplement to, rather than a
substitute for, the Sevastopol base. Serdyukov described the Russian
naval base in Sevastopol as a factor that "unites the Russian people
with the Ukrainian people in the Crimea" (RIA-Novosti, Interfax-Ukraine,
May 11).

--Vladimir Socor

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://clevelanduzo.org/pipermail/uzonews_clevelanduzo.org/attachments/20080514/a914f17d/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12385 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : http://clevelanduzo.org/pipermail/uzonews_clevelanduzo.org/attachments/20080514/a914f17d/attachment.jpe