the ukrainian weekly 2011-03

8/8/2019 The Ukrainian Weekly 2011-03

1/48

Published by the Ukrainian National Association Inc., a fraternal non-profit association

$1/$2 in UkraineVol. LXXIX No. 3 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JANUARY 16, 2011THEUKRAINIANWEEKLY

INSIDE:

Part I of 2010: The Year in Review pages 5-35

Militia in Zaporizhia on January 1 examine the remnants of the statue of JosephStalin that was destroyed by an explosion on December 31, 2010. All that remainsof the monument is its pedestal.

UNIAN

ESSENDON, Australia TheAustralian Federation of UkrainianOrganizations (AFUO), the umbrellabody for 24 Ukrainian organizations inAustralia, reported on January 11 that theUkrainian community in the state ofQueensland is among those affected bythe extensive flooding in easternAustralia.

The flooding has been unfolding sincelate November, according to theAssociated Press. However, drenchingrains in recent days have caused peopleto flee from Australias third largest city,Brisbane, where waters reached the topof traffic lights in some parts of the city.The flash flood killed 12 people and 43are missing as of January 12, accordingto Queensland authorities. Some 200,000people in the state have been affected bythe quickly rising floodwaters.

Our prayers and thoughts are withthe Queensland community, which isundergoing this horrific unforeseenevent. Many have lost homes, propertyand memories as floods tear through dif-ferent parts of the state, an AFUO state-ment noted. The organization extendedsympathy to the families who have lostloved ones in the current floods inQueensland.

The AFUO is based in Essendon, asuburb of Melbourne, in the Australianstate of Victoria. It is a member-organi-

zation of the Ukrainian World Congress(UWC). Its chairman is Stefan Romaniw,who also is secretary-general of theUWC.

Contacted via e-mail by TheUkrainian Weekly, Mr. Romaniw com-

Queensland Ukrainian communityaffected by flooding in Australia

specifics of individual cases,we have raised with theUkrainian government our

concern that while corruptionshould be pursued, prosecutionshould not be selective orpolitically motivated. In thatcontext, we also raised ourconcern that when, with fewexceptions, the only seniorofficials being targeted areconnected with the previousgovernment , i t gives theappearance of selective prose-cution of political opponents.

The Financial Times report-ed that Mr. Fuele was askedduring a press conference inKyiv if the EU shared the con-cerns expressed by the U.S. Heresponded: I certainly sharethe impression and concernsthat were raised by the US andraised this issue in discus-sions, including with Ukrainespresident. KYIV The Procurators Office of the

Zaporizhia Oblast on January 5 said theexplosion that destroyed a monument toSoviet dictator Joseph Stalin, which stoodnear the regional headquarters of theCommunist Party, was a terrorist act.

According to the conclusions announcedby the Zaporizhia Procurators Office, theexplosion on December 31, 2010, created adanger to human life and health, causedconsiderable damage to property, and wascommitted with the goal of threatening pub-

EU official cautions Ukraineover prosecution of ex-PM

Prosecutors say destruction

of Stalin statue was terrorist act

Critics accuse Ukraines pro-Moscowpresident of suppressing the rights of thefree press and human rights groups, andof using allies in the judiciary to build acase against Ms. Tymoshenko.

Apart from the charges against the for-mer prime minister, several members ofher former Cabinet of Ministers havebeen detained.

Ukraine and the EU are negotiating an

lic safety and intimidating the public.Therefore, the criminal case opened underthe Criminal Codes article on the deliberatedestruction of property was reclassified asterrorism.

The investigation department of theregional office of the Security Service ofUkraine (SBU) was ordered to conduct apre-trial investigation.

Communist Party Chairman PetroSymonenko had accused neo-nationalistsof a vile crime in Zaporizhia, anddemanded that the authorities in the stron-gest way stop the terrorism of nationalist

gangs.The monument was blown up onDecember 31, shortly before midnight. Theleader of Zaporizhias Communist Partycalled it an act of terrorism, and assessedthe damage at 270,000 hrv.

Reuters reported that prosecutors saidThe First of January Movement claimedresponsibility for the blast, saying it wasintended to mark the 102nd anniversary ofBanderas birth, and threatened to carry outfurther attacks on various targets.

Prior to that, police had detained twomembers of the Svoboda All-UkrainianUnions Zaporizhia regional branch. VitaliiPodlobnikov and Yurii Hudymenko deniedinvolvement in the explosion. They weresubsequently released.

According to a January 12 news storypublished on radiosvoboda.org, 10 membersof patriotic organizations have beendetained, many searches have been conduct-ed and several persons have vanished with-out a trace. Prosecutors in Kyiv andZaporizhia are not commenting on thesereports.

President Viktor Yanukovych welcomesEuropean Union Enlargement Commissioner

Stefan Fuele to Kyiv on January 11.

Official Website of Ukraines President

RFE/RL

KYIV A senior European Union offi-cial has warned Ukraine not to use crimi-nal law for political ends, a seeming ref-erence to the prosecution of former PrimeMinister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Ms. Tymoshenko has been chargedwith abuse of office during her time asprime minister in 2007-2010. She hasbeen questioned by prosecutors on sever-al occasions in December 2010, includingon December 30, when the interrogationtook more than 10 hours.

The opposition leader emerged fromthat session saying she thought she couldnot receive a fair hearing and adding thatUkraines judicial system does not workin the interests of the country and citi-zens.

Ms. Tymoshenko was due to appearbefore the procurator general again onJanuary 13 to hear the latest develop-ments in the case against her.

In the 21st century, democraticauthority cannot be sustained without anindependent judiciary and media. It is aquestion of moral leadership, EUEnlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuelesaid, speaking after talks with PresidentViktor Yanukovych in Kyiv on January11. I would therefore like to recall theneed to ensure that criminal law is notused for political ends and that the princi-ples of a fair, impartial and independentlegal process are fully respected.

Previously, the U.S. government hadvoiced concern regarding the investiga-tions of Ukrainian opposition politicians.A statement released on December 30,2010, noted: Although as a rule the U.S.government does not comment on the

(Continued on page 3)




2/48

No. 3THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JANUARY 16, 20112

NEWSBRIEFS

The UkrainianWeekly FOUNDED 1933An English-language newspaper published by the Ukrainian National Association Inc.,

a non-profit association, at 2200 Route 10, P.O. Box 280, Parsippany, NJ 07054.Yearly subscription rate: $55; for UNA members $45.

Periodicals postage paid at Caldwell, NJ 07006 and additional mailing offices.(ISSN 0273-9348)

The Weekly: UNA:Tel: (973) 292-9800; Fax: (973) 644-9510 Tel: (973) 292-9800; Fax: (973) 292-0900

Postmaster, send address changes to:The Ukrainian Weekly Editor-in-chief: Roma Hadzewycz2200 Route 10 Editors: Matthew DubasP.O. Box 280 Zenon Zawada (Kyiv)Parsippany, NJ 07054

The Ukrainian Weekly Archive: www.ukrweekly.com; e-mail: [email protected]

The Ukrainian Weekly, January 16, 2011, No. 3, Vol. LXXIXCopyright 2011 The Ukrainian Weekly

ADMINISTRATION OF THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY AND SVOBODA

(973) 292-9800, ext. 3041

e-mail: [email protected]

(973) 292-9800, ext. 3040

fax: (973) 644-9510


(973) 292-9800, ext. 3042


Walter Honcharyk, administrator

Maria Oscislawski, advertising manager

Mariyka Pendzola, subscriptions

Yanukovychs Christmas greetings

KYIV Ukrainian President ViktorYanukovych on January 6 addressed thenation on Christmas Eve, according to theJulian calendar. He said: The Lordbestowed his grace upon us to live and seethis year and this Holy Night, when all theOrthodox Christians peer with hope into thesky, where the Christmas Star is rising. TheStar, which signifies the birth of the Son ofGod. I am happy that this very moment we,the entire Orthodox world, are praising theSon of God and looking with faith and loveat the prospect of the new year... He repeat-ed the reference to the Orthodox worldduring a Christmas visit to the PochayivLavra (monastery), which is under the aegisof the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate. The presidentneglected to extend Christmas wishes tofaithful of other confessions, as well as tothose who celebrate Christmas onDecember 25; thus, observers say, hisChristmas greetings have offended other

Christians. (Ukrinform, RFE/RL, OfficialWebsite of Ukraines President)

Batkivschyna defends UOC-KP

KYIV The Batkivschyna Party hasexpressed its concern about oppression ofthe Ukrainian Orthodox Church KyivPatriarchate (UOC-KP) and the irresponsi-ble attitude towards the sphere of religionby Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.Yanukovych violates the provisions of theConstitution on equal treatment of variousreligious organizations by the authorities.All officials in his structure of power haveimmediately assumed the same attitude andstart acting in the regions in the wayYanukovych acts in the center: favoring oneconfession and humiliating and discriminat-ing against the others, reads a January 11posting on the partys official Web site. Theparty noted that the head of state signifi-cantly differs from his predecessors, whodespite having their own confessional pref-erences against the background of the lackof unity in Ukrainian Orthodoxy, pursued amore or less balanced policy and kept equaldistance between the authorities and all reli-gious jurisdictions. The BatkivschynaParty also expressed concern about reports

from regions regarding the complicity of thecurrent authorities in attacks on UOC-KPchurches and the ban on religious servicesby this confession on the territories of ceme-teries and state and utility institutions.(Interfax-Ukraine)

U.S., EU review ties with Belarus

WASHINGTON The United States andthe European Union say they are reviewingtheir relations with Belarus after police inMinsk cracked down on mass oppositionprotests against the weekend vote thatPresident Alyaksandr Lukashenka says hewon in a landslide. In their joint statementreleased on December 23, 2010, U.S.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and EUHigh Representative Catherine Ashton alsocalled on Belarusian authorities to releasethe more than 600 demonstrators arrestedduring the December 19 protest. They saythat the elections and their aftermath repre-sent an unfortunate step backwards in thedevelopment of democratic governance and

respect for human rights in Belarus. Fiveformer presidential candidates detained dur-ing the postelection protests, along with 14other opposition activists, are facing possi-ble charges of organizing mass disorder,according to RFE/RLs Belarus Service,which has published a complete list of the19 suspects. All of the suspects are in thecustody of the countrys notorious KGB andinvestigations are continuing, according toMinsk police. They could reportedly face upto 15 years in prison. (RFE/RL)

Yanukovych video in top 10

PRAGUE Radio Free Europe/RadioLiberty reported on December 30 2010, onthe Top 10 Viral Videos Of 2010. RFE/RLnoted: These video clips were catapulted

into the global public consciousness andcontinued to find viewers through formaland informal channels. Among them was avideo that the news agency labeled asUkrainian President Dances WithWreaths. The video shows ViktorYanukovych paying his respects at KyivsTomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 17,2010, a blustery day, when winds caused awreath to topple onto him. Among others on


ANALYSIS

by Orest Deychakiwsky,

Ronald McNamara and Josh Shapiro

Hints of any democratic progress inBelarus came to a screeching halt onDecember 19, 2010, in the aftermath ofthe countrys most recent electoral exer-cise the latest in a long line of funda-mentally flawed elections.

The brutal and bloody election-nightcrackdown against political oppositionsupporters, including mass arrests of dem-onstrators, as well as candidates, whochallenged the 16-year rule of AlyaksandrLukashenka, was unprecedented. Even theprospects of inducements from theEuropean Union and others failed torestrain a regime bent on maintainingpower.

The strong-arm tactics employed onelection night, and since, confirm the

nature of Mr. Lukashenkas rule: one thatperpetuates a pervasive, albeit subtle, cli-mate of fear to squelch dissent.

The post-election statement issued onDecember 20, 2010, by the ElectionObservation Mission (EOM) of theOrganization for Security and Cooperationin Europe (OSCE) concluded thatBelarus still has a considerable way to goin meeting its OSCE commitments,although some specific improvementswere made. Election night was marred bydetentions of most presidential candidates,and hundreds of activists, journalists andcivil society representatives.

The Helsinki Commission, the U.S. andEuropean governments, as well as WesternNGOs, condemned the regimes violent

campaign of repression and called for therelease of jailed opposition presidentialcandidates, hundreds of peaceful protest-ers, and some two dozen journalists cover-ing the demonstrations. Moreover, cyberpolice shut down numerous Internet andsocial networking sites. Repressive actionshave continued, including raids on opposi-tion party offices, NGOs, individual resi-dences of activists and journalists, andindependent media outlets by police andthe KGB.

Displaying his displeasure with theOSCEs negative assessment of the elec-tions, President Lukashenka refused toextend the expiring mandate of the organi-zations office in Minsk, effectively oust-ing the OSCE. The only other leader toorder such an expulsion was SlobodanMilosevic. The development comes asneighboring Lithuania assumes the chair-manship of the Vienna-based 56-nationorganization.

Helsinki Commission staff were part ofthe OSCE Parliamentary Assemblys con-tingent to the EOM, headed by TonyLloyd, a member of the Bri t ishParliament. We observed the balloting andvote count in Minsk, the capital, andPolotsk, a historic city located 120 milesnorth of the capital. Our election-dayobservations were consistent with those ofthe 450 other OSCE observers represent-ing 44 participating states deployedthroughout the country.

The voting process was assessed asgood or very good in the vast majority of

observed polling stations, while the criticalvote count was judged as bad or very badin nearly half of the precincts observed,giving fresh currency to an adage attribut-

ed to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin: It is notthe votes that count, but who counts the

votes.The vote count in Novopolotsk wasdecidedly non-transparent as both interna-tional and domestic observers (virtually allof the latter appeared to be so-calledGONGOs, or government organized non-governmental organizations) were kept farenough away from the table on which thevotes were being counted, making itimpossible to see how the ballots weremarked. When queried several times bycommission staff as to the reason, the pre-cinct chairman politely insisted that it wasa decision that he and other members ofthe election commission had made on thepretext of preventing observers frominterfering in the counting process.

Meanwhile, at a polling station inMinsk, staff were allowed closer access tothe vote count, but were prevented fromseeing what was written on each ballot.With an ambiguous way of counting votes,those in attendance had little clue as tohow the chairman of the election commis-sion counted ballots. An outspokendomestic observer was subsequently votedout of the polling station by election com-missioners because he was a nuisance tothe vote count.

While the run-up to the election hadshown some procedural improvements andan easing of restrictions on normal politi-cal activity, the electoral machinery atevery level remained firmly under theregimes control. There were greateropportunities than in previous elections forcandidates to speak on live television, and

candidates were for the most part able tomore freely meet with voters. This, how-ever, did not translate into a level playingfield for all candidates as the state-con-trolled media disproportionately favoredMr. Lukashenka.

Very telling was the fact that only 0.26percent of all precinct electoral commis-sion members and 0.7 percent of territorialelection commission members were fromopposition political parties.

Clearly, even the limited improvementsdid not lead to a free and fair outcome,with only the margin of Mr. Lukashenkasvictory to be announced. A December 20,2010, statement issued by the WhiteHouse, citing the critical OSCE assess-ment, stressed: The United States cannot

accept as legitimate the results of the pres-idential election announced by theBelarusian Central Election Commissionissued earlier the day.

Even regime-sponsored exit polls con-tradicted the official CEC results, giving alower percentage of the vote to Mr.Lukashenka and higher percentages toAndre i Sannikau and Uladz imi rNyaklyaeu, the leading opposition candi-dates who were victims of violence by theauthorities and remain incarcerated alongwith several other contenders.

Independent pollsters and analysts alsogave Mr. Lukashenka far less of the votethan the nearly 80 percent he officiallygarnered, with some giving him less thanthe 50 percent of votes needed to avoid a

second round against a single oppositioncandidate.Given the unconscionable crackdown

and fraudulent elections, hopes and expec-tations for even limited progress withrespect to democracy and human rightshave been thwarted. Through his repres-sive and undemocratic actions, PresidentLukashenka has shown that he will not tol-

Belarusian regime resolutely dashes

hopes for democratic liberalization

Or e s t De y c h a k i ws k y , Ro n a l d McNamara and Josh Shapiro are staffersof the U.S. Commission on Security andCooperation in Europe (HelsinkiCommission). (Continued on page 3)


3/48

3THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JANUARY 16, 2011No. 3

NEWS ANALYSIS: Democratic countries confront creeping challenge of censorshipby Arch Puddington

and Christopher Walker

RFE/RL

The murders of journalists in Russia, thejailing of bloggers in China, and the crack-down on the media in Iran regularly remindus that freedom of expression is under

duress, even in an era of expanding globalcommunications.However, considerably less attention has

been paid to a new, more insidious threat tothis fundamental human right. It involvescampaigns by a variety of actors from for-eign governments and business moguls tothe Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC) to discourage journalists, scholars,non-governmental organizations (NGOs)and others from speaking out or publishingmaterial on certain subjects.

This creeping censorship is manifestingitself in venues including the UnitedNations, the judicial systems of establisheddemocracies and elsewhere. Often, theobjective is to place restrictions on whatpeople can say or publish about Islam. Butthe offensive is also being carried forwardby others, including oligarchs in the formerSoviet Union.

Targeting democracies

The focus of the free-speech debate hastraditionally been on societies where free-dom was lacking. What really sets apart thiscontemporary strain of censorship, however,is that it is increasingly focused on restrict-ing information and opinion in Europe,North America and other bastions of freeexpression. Today, standards in democraciesare the target.

Consider the following developments ofthe past few years.

Two units of the U.N. system, theGeneral Assembly and the Human RightsCouncil, passed resolutions that call forrestrictions on what people can say or writeabout religions, especially Islam. The princi-pal targets of the resolutions were clearly thedemocracies of Europe rather than autocra-cies where both free speech and religiousliberty are already heavily constrained.

The American author of a book on ter-

rorist financing was successfully sued forlibel in a British court, even though herbook was effectively unavailable on theBritish market.

The Chinese authorities in additionto their recent offensive against the Nobelcommittee have exerted pressure onbook fairs, film festivals and academicgatherings to squelch discussion of itstreatment of minority groups, censorshipof the media and artistic works, and otherhuman rights issues in venues outside itsborders. Australia, Germany, Taiwan andthe United States have been among thetargets.

The Index on Censorship, a leadingvoice for free expression, was forced to jetti-son a study on the phenomenon of libeltourism after a subject of the study threat-ened to cripple the publication financiallythrough legal action.

Steady erosion

The new threats to free expression are notoccurring in a vacuum. Over the pastdecade, the impressive gains that accompa-nied the end of the Cold War have experi-

enced steady and worrying erosion.Freedom of the Press, Freedom

Houses annual survey of media indepen-dence, has identified a number of factorsthat have contributed to this global decline,including increased levels of violence andphysical harassment directed at journalistsby both government and non-state actors,restrictive new laws and consolidation ofdomestic media sectors by authoritariangovernments.

This measure surely qualifies as anOrwellian inversion, whereby an entityestablished to defend free speech is givenresponsibility for policing its allegedexcesses.

One dimension of this problem is libeltourism. To get around Americas strong

First Amendment protections, plaintiffshave been suing both British and U.S. writ-ers in London, where defamation standardsessentially assume that offending speech isfalse and the author must prove the contraryto fend off the suit. As a result, British lawhas been turned into a weapon to silencefree speech. In the Internet age, libel tour-ism can be used to enforce censorship on aglobal level.

Britain has therefore become the destina-tion of choice for Russian and Ukrainianoligarchs, Saudi bankers and others interest-ed in muzzling free inquiry. And libel tour-ism has become lucrative business for firmssuch as Schillings and Carter-Ruck, whichare counted among Londons most feareddefamation firms.

Thanks to libel

tourism, Britain

has become the

destination of

choice for Russianand Ukrainian

oligarchs, Saudi

bankers and

others interested

in muzzling free

inquiry.

Chilling effect

The enormous cost of litigation in thetens of thousands of dollars exerts a deepchil l ing effect on open debate.Economically strapped publications andNGOs, unable to afford such costs anddefend themselves, often wave a white flag.Self-censorship becomes the preferredcourse.

It is thus especially important that theUnited States has taken a stand against libeltourism by enacting the Speech Act, a mea-sure that will make it more difficult toenforce libel judgments against U.S. jour-nalists or scholars handed down in foreigncourts.

Those who seek to export censorshipfrom authoritarian to democratic settingshave been emboldened by a trend towardcapitulation in the democratic media. TheWashington Post is the latest in a lengthen-ing list of publications that have with-

drawn cartoons, some thoroughly innocu-ous, with Islamic themes. Likewise,Conde Nast not only decided against pub-lishing an article in GQ on VladimirPutins rise in its Russian edition, butremoved the piece, which had been pub-lished in its U.S. edition, from its websiteand refused to publicize it.

Last March, the U.N. Human RightsCouncil adopted a resolution that essentiallycalled for the universal embrace of anti-blasphemy laws prescribing penalties forthose who criticize particular religions. Suchlaws exist in a number of countries, includ-ing some European democracies, but they

are more widespread and far more likely tobe enforced in Muslim societies.

The resolution, sponsored principally byPakistan on behalf of the OIC, is the latestiteration of a document that has been circu-lating at the United Nations, with minorchanges, for several years.

In a related move, the OIC has pushedthrough the adoption of a measure thatinstructs the councils rapporteur on free-dom of expression to include in his reportsabuses of the right of freedom of expres-sion in other words, criticism ofMuslims or Islam. This measure surelyqualifies as an Orwellian inversion, where-by an entity established to defend freespeech is given responsibility for policingits alleged excesses.

Sophisticated authoritarianism

In pursuing its anti-blasphemy objec-tives, the OIC has remained unified despitethe geographical diversity and political dif-ferences of its members. But it could notachieve majorities in international forumswithout the support of the worlds authori-tarians: Pakistans co-sponsors in theHuman Rights Council were Belarus andVenezuela, both of whose governmentshave earned reputations as adversaries offree speech and press freedom.

The growth of transnational censorshipreflects the sophistication of modern author-itarianism. Those who want to create intel-lectual no-go areas sometimes use vio-lence to encourage self-censorship, as in thecartoon wars. They can raise the specter ofdiplomatic pushback, a technique favoredby China, or seek to achieve restrictive mea-sures in supranational bodies, such as theUnited Nations. Or they can take advantageof the legal systems of free societies, as withlibel tourism.

The stakes for established democracies inthe battle to limit free expression are

dwarfed by the risks for those who alreadylive under the authoritarian thumb. But ifdemocratic societies choose to tolerate thethreats to freedom where it currently pre-vails, they will forfeit the moral right todemand freedom where it is systematicallydenied.

Copyright 2011, RFE/RL Inc. Reprintedwith the permission of Radio Free Europe/

Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW,Washington DC 20036; www.rferl.org. (Seehttp://www.rferl.org/content/creeping_cen-sorship_freedom_of_expression/2267651.html.)

Ar ch Pu dd in gt on is di rect or ofresearch and Christopher Walker isdirector of studies at Freedom House.This article is adapted from a longeressay published in World Affairs: A

Journal of Ideas and Debate. The viewsexpressed in this commentary are theauthors own and do not necessarilyreflect those of RFE/RL

erate meaningful reform and that he will

do whatever it takes to maintain absolutepower. This overarching imperative clear-ly trumps improved relations with theUnited States, and especially the EuropeanUnion, that were in the offing prior toelection day and could have resulted inbadly needed financial assistance.

In a rambling two-and-a-half hour tele-vised press conference the day after theelection, Mr. Lukashenka belittled what he

termed mindless democracy while boldlydeclaring his lack of fear. Despite his brava-do, clearly the Belarusian leader fears theprospect of submitting to a vote in a genu-inely free and fair electoral contest.

Against the backdrop of a decade ofrigged presidential and parliamentary elec-tions and an illegal referendum, Belarus isregrettably no closer to restoring legitima-cy to executive and legislative structures,and the prospects for meaningful changeappear remote. To the detriment of theBelarusian people, the Lukashenka regimehas, yet again, chosen the path of self-imposed isolation.

(Continued from page 2)

Belarusian regime...

American Chamber of Commercein Ukraine elects board of directors

KYIV The American Chamber ofCommerce in Ukraine conducted the annualboard of directors elections on December15, 2010, at the InterContinental Kyiv.

The 2011 annual meeting was opened bya special guest, Iryna Akimova, first deputyhead of the Presidential Administration ofUkraine, who highlighted President ViktorYanukovychs economic reform agenda in2010 and plans for 2011 before the gatheredbusiness leaders and diplomats.

The meeting was hosted by the chairmanof the board, Boris Krasnyansky, managingpartner of PricewaterhouseCoopers, and the

American Chamber of CommercePresident, Jorge Zukoski, who presentedthe annual report that highlighted importantachievements in the implementation of theorganizations advocacy and policy agenda.

According to the results of the voting, the2011 American Chamber of Commerce inUkraine board of directors will include:Jacquot Boelen, Metro Cash & CarryUkraine; Ian Borden, McDonalds Ukraine;

Didier Casimiro, TNK-BP; PeterChernyshov, Slavutych, Carlsberg Group;Steven Fisher, Citibank; Walter Gordon,Coca-Cola Ukraine; Mr. Krasnyansky,PricewaterhouseCoopers; Andre Kuusvek,European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment; George Logush, Kraft FoodsUkraine; Yuri Miroshnikov, UkraineInternational Airlines; Jacques Mounier,CIB Credit Agricole; Jason Murphy, BritishAmerican Tobacco; Alexander Rodionov,Procter & Gamble Ukraine; AndrzejRozycki, Cargill AT CJSC; Floris Schuring,Kpmg Ukraine; and Dmitry Shymkiv,

Microsoft Ukraine LLC.The American Chamber of Commerce

in Ukraine is among the most active andeffective non-government, non-profitbusiness organizations operating inUkraine. The Chambers diverse mem-bership base unites companies from avariety of regions and countries, includ-ing North America, Europe, Asia, Russiaand Ukraine.

association agreement, including a free-trade zone. Welcoming Mr. Fuele inKyiv, Mr. Yanukovych pointed to the factthat his first international meeting in 2011year was with the EU representative. Ihope that development of our relations

will lead to the long-awaited conclusionof negotiations on the AssociationAgreement and free trade area, Mr.Yanukovych said.

Compiled with information from

Reuters, as well as information released

by the Embassy of the United States in

Ukraine.

(Continued from page 1)

EU cautions...


4/48


5/48


2010: THE YEAR IN REVIEW

For Ukraine,a new regime

Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of the Batkivschyna party, waves to supporters onDecember 20 before she enters the Procurator Generals Office, which opened a criminal case against her.

Aleksandr Prokopenko/UNIAN

Newly inaugurated President Viktor Yanukovychholds aloft a bulava, one of the symbols of his office,

on February 25.

Anastasia Sirotkina/UNIAN

T

he year 2010 brought dramatic changes toUkrainian life and society. The policies of

President Viktor Yanukovych, who was elected onFebruary 7, placed Ukrainian independence under threatbefore an imperialist Russian government, restricted theindividual rights of Ukrainians, decimated the rule of lawin favor of authoritarian rule and introduced unprecedent-ed cultural Russification policies not seen since Sovietera.

Indeed Mr. Yanukovychs approach to governing isoften described as neo-Soviet, reviving old practices suchas selective persecution, framing innocent suspects incrimes and using threats of dismissal or revocation ofbusiness licenses to make people comply.

The sweeping changes introduced by the Yanukovychadministration were ironic to many political observers,who expected the same pace of reform from PresidentViktor Yushchenko when he took power in 2005. Whilethe former president failed to implement even a smallportion of the reforms he claimed in his campaign, Mr.

Yanukovych wasted no time in implementing his pro-gram. Whereas former President Yushchenko failed tomake much progress in integration with the EuropeanUnion (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), President Yanukovych signed the now famousKharkiv agreements that extended the presence of theRussian Black Sea Fleet through 2042.

Whereas former President Yushchenko did little to pro-tect the Ukrainian language on a legal, official basis,President Yanukovych appointed ministers who wereintent on expanding Russification. And whereas PresidentYushchenko failed to fulfill his famous campaign promiseof putting the bandits in prison, the Yanukovych admin-istration jailed more than a dozen members of the govern-ment of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Theincarcerations werent a policy of implementing law andorder in Ukraine, but rather a selective persecution cam-paign that targeted the opposition.

Presidential electionThe year began with the former president intensifying

his campaign for re-election in the first-round presiden-tial vote on January 17, assuring voters that he was a via-ble candidate. We wont turn back. We believe in ourstrength. We believe in ourselves. There isnt any doubt.We will be sure that 2010 will bring us victory,President Yushchenko confidently told the Ukrainianpublic in his new years address. Not only did the newyear not bring victory, but Ukrainians did turn back toSoviet ways under the leadership of PresidentYanukovych.

And rather than setting his sights on the pro-Russianopposition, Mr. Yushchenko spent his campaign vicious-ly attacking Ms. Tymoshenko. In the last remainingweeks, he dug up criminal cases brought against her andher allies in decades past and used them to smear her.Any illusions of victory harbored by President

Yushchenko were dashed by the first-round vote onJanuary 17, in which he received 1.3 million votes, or amere 5 percent of the total. He finished in fifth place,behind Mr. Yanukovych (35 percent), Ms. Tymoshenko(25 percent), mega-millionaire oligarch Sergey Tigipko(13 percent) and political upstart Arseniy Yatsenyuk (7percent).

The first-round vote demonstrated significant progressfrom the falsified elections of 2004, showing respect forcivil and political rights and offering a genuine choiceamong candidates representing diverse political views,reported the Organization for Security and Cooperationin Europe.

President Yushchenkos defeat didnt stop him fromtrying to undermine Ms. Tymoshenko, as he insteadintensified his efforts leading up to the second-roundpresidential vote on February 7.

He surprised Ukrainians throughout the world when

he unexpectedly held a ceremony on January 22 to pres-ent the Hero of Ukraine award to Stepan Bandera, thecontroversial Ukrainian nationalist leader who led theliberation struggle in the 1930s before his capture byGerman Nazis in 1941. It was accepted posthumously byhis Canadian-born grandson Stephen Bandera, 39.Numerous Ukrainian patriotic and nationalist leaders hadpleaded with Mr. Yushchenko to bestow the award,knowing that it wouldnt be granted for at least the nextfive to 10 years, and perhaps never.

Yet the timing of the event led some observers tobelieve Mr. Yushchenko had exploited the Ukrainianheros name in order to inflame the feelings of theRussophile electorate in southern and eastern Ukraine onthe eve of the second-round vote, thus mobilizing themagainst Ms. Tymoshenkos candidacy. It was the heightof cynicism to do it after the loss of the first round, notwhen he was turned to, Askold Lozynskyj, the former

president of the Ukrainian World Congress, said after-wards. It had the effect of activating people in Donetsk.

Ukrainians throughout the world wondered why hewaited until the last weeks of his presidency to bestowthe honor, when it could have been done anytimethroughout his five-year term and with better publicpreparation and increased public awareness of Banderasrole in Ukrainian history.

On the evening he granted the Hero of Ukraine award,Mr. Yushchenko told the Inter television network that hewould cast his vote as dont support anyone in the sec-ond round. Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Front of Changefollowed suit. The presidents supporters urged others todo the same, claiming there was little difference betweena Yanukovych and a Tymoshenko presidency.

Mr. Yushchenko resorted to even more direct and

vicious political maneuvers to undermine Ms.Tymoshenkos campaign. On January 26 Mr.Yushchenko nominated Oleksander Osadchuk, a bureau-crat loyal to the Volodymyr Lytvyn Bloc, to replace aTymoshenko ally, Anatolii Pysarenko, on the CentralElection Commission (CEC), giving the Party of Regionsand 8-to-4 advantage. Parliament confirmed Mr.Osadchuks nomination on February 2, with support from

groups within the pro-presidential Our Ukraine Peoples Self-Defense (OU-PSD) parliamentary faction.

A January 28 parliamentary vote to dismiss YuriiLutsenko as internal affairs minister was supported bythe presidents brother, National Deputy PetroYushchenko, as well as the Single Center group withinthe OU-PSD faction, which is led by Viktor Baloha, thehead of the Presidential Secretariat at the time. TheYanukovych campaign was intent on dismissing the for-mer police chief because of his strong loyalty to Ms.Tymoshenko and his ability to protect against potentialraids on government organs by the Party of Regions. Healso had the ability to ensure the national police forceacted diligently against incidents of vote falsification.Opposition leaders and political observers expected theParty of Regions to engage in vote fraud, particularly inits strongholds of Donbas and Crimea.

The period between the first and second rounds of the

2010 presidential vote was especially tense and miredwith violence as the Yanukovych and Tymoshenko cam-paigns jockeyed for influence on the election. Theyattempted sacking officials in key government posts andlaunched raids to install their loyalists. At 6 a.m. onJanuary 25, about 300 privately hired enforcers, escortedby police, stormed the Ukrayina Polygraphic Plant whereelection ballots were printed in order to install a directorloyal to Ms. Tymoshenko, Volodymyr Khomko, who wasappointed by the Cabinet of Ministers a week earlier.They released tear gas and shattered the front glassfaade. Mr. Yushchenko dispatched Internal AffairsMinistry troops the day of the raid to guard the plant as itbegan printing election ballots that day.

Mr. Lutsenko said it was the Party of Regions that pro-voked the raid, having prevented Mr. Khomko fromassuming his post three days earlier with the help of 20private enforcers. The raid led to the January 28 parlia-mentary vote to oust Mr. Lutsenko, whose central role

became the last straw for his opponents. It wasnt clearwho was Ukraines police chief on February 7. The Partyof Regions claimed it was the First Vice-Minister,Mykhailo Kliuyev, while the Tymoshenko Bloc said itwas still Mr. Lutsenko, because he was re-appointedwithin hours of his dismissal by the Cabinet of Ministers.

When the director accompanied by the plant security I stress not the police, but the plant security service attempted to enter his office, smoke bombs were usedagainst them, Mr. Lutsenko explained. The challengeof an emergency situation emerged. What were the policesupposed to do in this situation? The police arrived andarrested everyone involved in the conflict.

Two days after the raid, several Party of Regions dep-uties burst into the office of Kyiv AdministrativeAppellate Chief Judge Anatolii Denysov and allegedly


6/48



broke into his computers database, claiming to investi-gate whether the court was lobbying Ms. Tymoshenkosinterests. Mr. Denysov filed a complaint against the Partyof Regions with the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe (OSCE) the next week, claimingits deputies were waging a campaign of intimidation thatincluded 11 judges and 33 employees.

Another parliamentary vote, on February 3, approvedlast-minute changes to election rules to allow commis-sions to hold meetings and count votes without a two-thirds quorum and accept same-day replacements ofcommission members appointed by local authorities. The

Party of Regions which drew upon the support of mostof the parliaments factions claimed the last-minutechanges were necessary to prevent Ms. Tymoshenkofrom disrupting the vote. Tymoshenko Bloc commission-ers began to abstain from participating in local electioncommission meetings in Donetsk and Crimea, therebydisrupting preparations by failing to fulfill quorum. Inturn, Ms. Tymoshenko pointed out that any last-minutechanges violate worldwide election norms and under-mined the legitimacy of the second-round run-off.

Oleksander Chernenko of the Committee of Voters ofUkraine (CVU) compared the legislation to shootingssparrows with a cannon, and warned the changes wouldlead to total chaos and disorder at commissions. The

Tymoshenko Bloc said the changes buttressed the abilitythe Party of Regions to commit falsifications, particularlyafter Mr. Lutsenko as internal affairs minister. Forinstance, those commissions dominated by the Party ofRegions could dismiss other members without any for-mal investigation or court ruling.

You cant change the rules of the game before thefinal contest at the whims of the sides for whom its con-venient, said Dr. Oleh Soskin, director of the Institute ofSociety Transformation in Kyiv. These are bandit meth-ods that are worth thwarting.

Ignoring such complaints, former President

Yushchenko signed the bill into law, eliminating anydoubts that he conspired with the Party of Regionsagainst Ms. Tymoshenko. She tried convincing the diplo-matic community in Kyiv the elections should be can-celed as a result of the changes, but to no avail.

Indeed, the elections of February 7 were ultimatelyrecognized by the international community as fair andlegitimate. Ms. Tymoshenko overcame her first-roundgap of 10 percent as well as public opinion polls thatpredicted defeat by 10 percent to come within 3.5 per-cent of Mr. Yanukovychs final result. The leader of theParty of Regions gained 12.5 million votes, or 49.0 per-cent, compared to Ms. Tymoshenkos 11.6 million votes,or 45.5 percent. The gap between the two candidatesamounted to 887,928 votes, the CEC reported. Yet thedeciding factor in the race was the 1.1 million voters, or4.4 percent of the electorate, who followed the advice ofMessrs. Yushchenko and Yatenyuk and cast their ballotsfor, dont support anyone.

The results clearly show that if it werent for the callby Yushchenko and Yatsenyuk, who speak to the Orangeelectorate, to vote against all, Tymoshenko probablywould have won, said Oleksiy Haran, a political scienceprofessor at the National University of Kyiv MohylaAcademy.

The Tymoshenko campaign refused to acknowledgeMr. Yanukovychs victory, insisting the vote was falsi-fied. Numerous leading political observers in Ukraineagreed that fraud had occurred. Andrii Senchenko, leaderof the Tymoshenko campaign in Crimea, alleged theState Registry of Voters had distributed additional voterlists within two days of the run-off and the lists includedvoters missing from original registers. As much as 30percent of the lists consisted of names not on the origi-nals, he said, creating an avenue for fraud. He estimatedas many as 200,000 votes were falsified on Mr.Yanukovychs behalf in Crimea.

About 1.5 million Ukrainians were reported to havevoted at home, but calculations prove that less than athird of them, or about 459,000 voters, could have doneso based on the limited number of homes local electionscommissioners could have physically visited, said Dr.Grigoriy Perepelytsia, a professor of international rela-tions at Shevchenko National University in Kyiv.

Serhii Vlasenko, a lawyer with the Tymoshenko Bloc,estimated the Yanukovych campaign had systemicallyfalsified 10 to 12 percent of its vote, or 1.25 million to

1.5 million votes.The issue is Donetsk and Luhansk, where falsifica-

tions occurred with the help of organs compiling the stateregister, he said. State registers are compiled by localgovernment organs, which are entirely controlled by theParty of Regions in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Yet the international community didnt pay muchattention to Ms. Tymoshenkos complaints. As soon as

the afternoon after election day, a press conference calledby the OSCE, the European Parliament, the Council ofEurope and NATO declared the elections transparent,valid and a model for post-Soviet countries. Joao Soaresof the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and Matyas Eorsiof the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europecame as close as possible to urging Ms. Tymoshenko toconcede defeat without saying so outright. Last-minutechanges to the election law didnt affect the vote, Mr.Soares added.

The Tymoshenko campaign filed its appeal two daysafter the Central Election Commission (CEC) establishedits official results, but it was expected to fail for severalreasons, the main factor being Oleksander Paseniuk ofthe Higher Administrative Court, who enjoyed close tiesto the Party of Regions. As the Courts chief justice, hewas ultimately the final arbiter in her appeal.

Indeed signs kept cropping up that Ms. Tymoshenko

would lose on the first day of the appellate court hearingon February 19. Her legal team noticed that its two loyal

judges on the Higher Administrative Court were absentfrom the hearing. The court wouldnt allow the hearing tobe broadcast on television, and denied requests to revieworiginal election documents, including ballots from sixelection districts where falsification was suspected. Italso declined to hear witness testimony by district elec-tion commissioners and six oblast police chiefs.

The next morning, Ms. Tymoshenko declared she wasrecalling her complaint because the court practicallydenied the [opportunity] to review and research the evi-dence upon which the complaint is grounded. In doingso, Ms. Tymoshenko sought to prevent Mr. Yanukovychsvictory from being affirmed by a Ukrainian court, politi-cal observers said.

Political pundits and advisors blamed the Tymoshenkocampaign for failing to prepare an aggressive campaign

to immediately contest the election results. Ms.Tymoshenko shocked the public by remaining silent andnot offering any press conferences for four days follow-ing the vote. She offered only brief remarks on the nightof elections before going silent. After postponing pressconferences several times and not appearing in public forthree days, Prime Minister Tymoshenko addressed herweekly Cabinet of Ministers meeting on February 11without mentioning the elections or giving a press con-ference.

The Tymoshenko campaign should have been pre-pared to immediately offer video and documentary evi-dence to the public and international observers, said IvanLozowy, president of the Institute of Statehood and

President Viktor Yushchenko delivers his New Years greetings to the Ukrainian nation on December 31, 2009.


Presidential candidates Arseniy Yatsenyuk...

Zenon Zawada

... and Sergey Tigipko.

Official Website of Sergey Tigipko


7/48


8/48



ministers Borys Kolesnikov, Viktor Slauta and ViktorTikhonov. Another Vice Prime Minister, VolodymyrSivkovych, is an admitted KGB agent who led a nastysmear campaign against former First Lady of UkraineKateryna Yushchenko that was exposed as a fraud.

Many of the 29 ministers served in the authoritarianregime of former President Leonid Kuchma, and themajority were members of the Party of Regions. Not asingle female was appointed. Almost a third of the minis-ters were Donetsk Oblast natives, while several othersbuilt their careers in the Donbas, Ukraines industrialhub. Ukraines new police chief, Internal Affairs MinisterAnatolii Mohyliov, was recruited from the AutonomousRepublic of Crimea, where he earned a reputation of per-secuting the regions Crimean Tatar population.

Yet no ministerial selection sparked as much nationaloutrage as that of Dmtryo Tabachnyk, the outspokenUkrainophobe who was tapped as minister of educationand science. Progressive universities such as the NationalUniversity of Kyiv Mohyla Academy and the UkrainianCatholic University immediately voiced their oppositionto Mr. Tabachnyk, who called for developing Ukrainianeducation standards and curricula in tandem with theRussian government and making Ukrainian-languagetesting optional. He also called for reducing standardizedtesting in university admissions, which was consideredby some experts as the only significant reform of theOrange era that succeeded in integrating Ukraine withWestern standards. Additionally, Mr. Tabachnyk maderepeated offensive and disparaging comments about the

Ukrainian people and culture, and desecrated the memo-ry of the Holodomor by denying it was genocide andreferring to such claims as brediatina, the Englishequivalent of drivel.

Mr. Tabachnyks appointment sparked nationwide pro-tests that culminated in outside the Education Ministry inKyiv and the Lviv Oblast Council on March 17, afterwhich appeals were submitted to the Cabinet of Ministersand Parliament to dismiss him. The appeals were ignoredand numerous students reported either pressure from uni-versity administrators or being expelled as a result oftheir activity.

Some of Mr. Tabachnyks proposals were immediatelyendorsed by Volodymyr Semynozhenko, the former viceprime minister for humanitarian affairs. Among themwas the decision to conduct Ukraines standardized test-ing for university admissions in several languages andnot allowing standardized testing to become the single

determining factor in college admissions, as it had beenthe two prior years. Out of a 1,000-point scale system ofevaluation for admissions, standardized testing accountfor 600 points, school grades 200 points and a universi-tys own exam and interview 200 points, Mr.Semynozhenko said on March 17. The next day, the rec-tors of Ukraines leading state universities signed a state-ment voicing full support for Mr. Tabachnyk, includingLeonid Huberskyi of Shevchenko National University inKyiv and Mykhailo Zhurovskyi of the Kyiv Polytechnic

Institute.Mr. Yanukovychs first foreign visit was symbolically

selected as Brussels, where he and his entourage onMarch 1 met with European Commission President JoseManuel Barroso, European Parliament President JerzyBuzek, EU Council President Herman van Rompuy andEU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and SecurityPolicy Catherine Ashton.

The Ukrainian president assured his European coun-terparts that European integration was a top priority forhim, and said his goal was to conclude the AssociationAgreement by the end of the year. As part of the

Association Agreement, a Deep and Comprehensive FreeTrade Area and visa-free travel agreements could besigned by 2011, conditional on Ukraines performance oninternal reforms. Mr. Yanukovych asked for a road mapsetting conditions and deadlines for securing visa-freetravel for Ukrainians to the EU by the end of the year.

In Moscow four days later, the Ukrainian president all-but apologized for visiting Brussels first declaring thatall roads lead to Moscow and then offered generousconcessions, such as offering to re-negotiate the Russiangovernments lease on its Sevastopol naval base, ignor-ing the Ukrainian Constitution which required theRussian Black Sea Fleets withdrawal by 2017. Heassured Russian President Medvedev that Ukraine wouldnot align itself with NATO, ignoring Ukraines nationalsecurity policy stating that entry into NATO is a goal of

Ukrainian national security.His statements in Russia cross out the whole road

that Ukraine underwent towards NATO, said Dr. Soskinof the Institute of Socicky Transformation. Its unprece-dented and unacceptable for a president to say suchthings. He took authority in Russia that is not granted bythe Constitution.

Meanwhile, the parliamentary coalition agreement

called for securing Ukraines non-aligned status on alegislative level, meaning non-participation of Ukraine inthe military-political alliances of other states.

[Former President Leonid] Kuchma never even daredto legally secure Ukraines non-aligned status, which iswhat the Regions are proposing now, said AlyonaHetmanchuk, director of the Institute of World Policy inKyiv, which advocates Ukraines integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. Legally ensuring the non-alignedstatus is so much the royal gift for the Kremlin, and pos-sibly the most desired at the given stage, that a whole lotcould have been traded for only this single potential pos-sibility. The Regions arent stingy theyre giving awayeverything left and right for free.

On March 31, Prime Minister Azarov issued a Cabinetdecree liquidating the European and Euro-AtlanticCoordination Bureau, creating in its place a Euro-Integration Bureau within the Cabinet of Ministers. The

move was widely interpreted as the latest step in the newgovernments intent to cease any NATO integrationefforts.

Ukraines NATO experts and supporters of the allianceon March 15 presented proposals for the countrys NewStrategic Concept being developed by NATO member-states and partners. Among the priorities suggested byexperts were developing a system of confidence-buildingmeasures in the post-Soviet spheres, as well as obtainingcertain dividends in return for the active participation ofUkrainian soldiers in NATO military operations.

Ukraine is the single partner of the alliance that par-ticipates in all its current operations, said OleksiiMelnyk, the military programs expert at the RazumkovCenter in Kyiv, who coordinated the work and authoredthe proposal. We propose and put forward our right asa country that is a partner and active participant in thealliances operations to expect dividends from the sys-tem of collective security.

James Greene, the head of NATOs Liaison Office inUkraine between February 2004 and July 2009, offeredThe Weekly an exclusive interview on February 10 inwhich he revealed that NATO integration was more of apolitical symbol for former President Yushchenko ratherthan a practical tool for implementing structural reforms.There were also many people around him who believedthat Euro-Atlantic integration was all geopolitical, that itwasnt about reform, and that Ukraine could actuallyenter the alliance without changing, he said. This atti-tude was a holdover from the Kuchma period.

Mr. Yushchenko did more to block Ukraines aspira-tions for a Membership Action Plan (MAP) than anyopposition dealt by the Russians, Germans or French,Mr. Greene said. The former presidents political maneu-vers eroded confidence among NATO leaders, which

Supporters of presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko hold a sign, Democracy will triumph, outside theHigher Administrative Court in Kyiv on February 19.

Victor Glasko

Presidents Dmitry Medvedev of Russia and Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine during their meetings in Kyiv onMay 17-18.



9/48



included abusing the nations courts, misusing theNational Security and Defense Council and using NATOas a political weapon against Ms. Tymoshenko.

Yet it wasnt a total disaster, Mr. Greene he said.Despite then-Prime Minister Yanukovychs opposition tothe MAP, practical cooperation continued under his lead-ership, Mr. Greene told The Weekly. Ukraines firstnational security strategy was drafted in February 2007

under close consultation with NATO experts.Although the coalition government promised stability

and law and order, Ukrainian society saw nothing of thesort. In April The Weekly reported on the fierce battlesoccurring in central Kyiv between real estate developersand local residents and activists, who were waging bat-tles against construction projects that they consider ille-gal, and were being pursued without the necessary per-mits or conformity to structural standards. The Weeklyscorrespondent was a firsthand witness to a brawl thaterupted between protesters and police officers whoattempted to stop the activists from activating a mega-phone for speakers to enable their protests to be heardwithin the Cabinet building, where ministers were meet-ing.

The illegal steps [brawls] are taken out of despera-tion, said Volodymyr Yavorsky, executive director of theUkrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union in Kyiv. In a

civilized society, they could file a complaint in court andblock illegal construction. In our legal system, thatspractically impossible. Its rare that these conflicts can bedecided in court.

The Kharkiv agreement

The biggest Ukrainian foreign policy event of 2010occurred on April 21, when an agreement was reachedbetween the Russian and Ukrainian governments toextend the lease of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for itsSevastopol naval base for another 25 years until 2042, inexchange for discounted prices on natural gas price pro-vided by Gazprom, the Russian state monopoly. TheKharkiv Agreements, also referred to as the Medvedev-Yanukovych Pact, offered Ukraine a $100 discount onthe price of gas if its higher than $330 per 1,000 cubicmeters, or a 30 percent discount if the price is lower than$330 per 1,000 cubic meters. President Yanukovych

claimed the deal would result in $40 billion in savings,boasting of its unprecedented contribution to Russian-Ukrainian relations.

The Yanukovych government desperately needed aRussian gas discount to secure the continuation of a loanfrom the International Monetary Fund (IMF), yet politi-cal observers agreed that it offered the Russian govern-ment too much for too little. Andriy Novak, chair of theEconomists Committee of Ukraine, told The Weekly thatthe reduced natural gas price would only benefitUkrainian industry and the oligarchs that control it.Average Ukrainian households consume natural gas thatis obtained from Ukraines own domestic reserves, andthose prices would increase. And, the Ukrainian govern-ment lost the opportunity to charge Russian market pric-es for the real estate.

The Kharkiv agreements are an unprecedented,asymmetrical political-economic barter an exchange ofconditional Russian economic preferences for strategic,geopolitical concessions from Ukraine, stated a reportedreleased on June 17 by the Razumkov Center, theInstitute of Economic Research and the Center forPolitical and Legal Reforms in Kyiv.

Yanukovych manifestly failed to negotiate onUkraines behalf, wrote Dr. David Marples of theUniversity of Alberta, evaluating the treaty. It is incon-ceivable why his starting point was not a five-year exten-sion of the existing lease, which was stipulated as anoption according to the 1997 (Black Sea Fleet) agree-ment.

Ukraines Parliament ratified the Kharkiv agreementsduring a violent April 27 session, in which lawmakerstraded fists amidst smoke bombs and flying eggs thatrained upon Mr. Lytvyn, who hid behind umbrellas. Thecircus-like scene of deputies pulling hair and smashingnoses was broadcast throughout the global media, dem-onstrating the fierce divide in Ukrainian society between

its Russian-oriented and Western-oriented segments.The historic vote drawing 236 deputies in favor

wouldnt have succeeded without the support of nineTymoshenko Bloc deputies and seven from the pro-West-ern OU-PSD faction. The coalition also gained votesfrom absent deputies industrial magnate Mr. Akhmetovand Vice Prime Minister Kolesnikov and deputies whowere abroad on that day, including Serhii Kivalov, SerhiiHolovatyi and Yurii Ivaniushchenko, who lives inMonaco.

Pro-Russian forces insisted their opponents wereexaggerating the deals alleged threats to sovereignty aspart of political fear-mongering, while Ukraines pro-Western forces characterized it as criminal (Ms.Tymoshenko), a national betrayal (Peoples Rukh ofUkraine Chair Tarasyuk) and a political Chornobyl(Ukrainian Peoples Party Chair Yurii Kostenko).

The biggest scuffles in more than five years eruptedoutside Parliament on Hrushevsky Street, which wasblocked entirely for the first time since the OrangeRevolution. Supporters of the Party of Regions took adefensive position by surrounding the front entrance withits backers and lining the east side of Hrushevsky Streetwith party tents as a barrier against protesters. The pres-ence of more than 1,000 police officers, including hel-meted Berkut (Golden Eagle) and Bars (Snow Leopard)special forces, defended the Party of Regions supportersfrom attempts to break through barriers and into theParliament building. The pushing and shoving thatensued between protesters and police escalated intoaggressive measures from the latter, including demon-strators being beaten on their legs with batons and spo-radic use of tear gas. Those protesters who broke throughthe police cordons were swarmed upon and captured byhelmeted officers, who reportedly made a few dozenarrests.

Negating genocide

President Yanukovych added insult to injury the sameday during his visit to Strasbourg, France. On April 27 hetold the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council ofEurope (PACE) that the Holodomor of 1932-1933 wasnot genocide committed against the Ukrainian people bythe Stalin regime, but a shared tragedy of all thenations that were part of the Soviet Union. It would beincorrect and unjust to recognize the Holodomor as geno-cide of any specific nation, Mr. Yanukovych said. Mr.Yanukovych repeated the official position on theHolodomor held by the Russian government, whichinsists that it cant be considered genocide against anyparticular ethnic group, especially when Soviet citizensdied from famine in several regions of Russia, as well asBelarus and Kazakhstan.

The next day, PACE adopted a resolution that didntrecognize the Holodomor as genocide. Only 21 PACEmembers voted for recognizing the Holodomor was

genocide against the Ukrainian people, while 55 peoplevoted against corresponding amendments to the draft res-olution.

Mr. Yanukovychs position on the Holodomor was a180-degree reversal of his predecessors view. PresidentYushchenko, had made gaining global recognition of thegenocide a central part of his humanitarian policy. TheYanukovych policy also contradicts overwhelming aca-demic research performed throughout the world overmany decades which concluded that the government of

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had intended to destroyUkrainian ethnic consciousness via an artificially createdfamine. The Belarus-born lawyer of Jewish descent whohelped coin the term genocide, Raphael Lemkin, him-self characterized the Holodomor as genocide of theUkrainian people.

With his remarks in Strasbourg, Mr. Yanukovychopened the floodgates for Stalin apologists to promotetheir twisted views of history. The Weekly traveled toZaporizhia for the May 5 unveiling of the citys firstmonument to the Soviet dictator, who killed tens of mil-lions of his own people. More than 1,500 admirersattended, mostly destitute pensioners and Russian chau-vinists nostalgic for the Soviet Union. The monumentwas financed by the Zaporizhia Oblast Committee of theCommunist Party of Ukraine, which erecting it atop thered granite front porch of its headquarters onKomunarska Street in the city center. The monument wasmore than 10 feet tall, consisting of a silver-colored stat-ue depicting the Soviet dictator from the waist up withhis famous pipe in his right hand. It was perched atop afive-foot red granite pedestal.

Those attending eagerly accepted Stalin portraits, plas-tic bags and books handed out by the party leadership.Supporters hoisted up the portraits and held banners withthe Soviet slogans, For the motherland! For Stalin! Forour victory!

The Weekly reported that Zaporizhias Stalin monu-

ment was the first in Ukraine. However four other statueswere in fact established before Ukraine gained indepen-dence two of which were removed while a Donetskdistrict court judge put a Stalin bust in his own home in2009, according to a Russian-language Wikipedia sitededicated to Stalin monuments.

Repressing the opposition

Authoritarian practices in repressing the oppositionemerged within two months of Mr. Yanukovychs inau-guration. The government threatened and arrested oppo-sition leaders censored the media, eliminated citizensoversight of government organs, hid critical informationfrom leading journalists, restricted public gatherings andprotests, and reinforced the supremacy of the Russianlanguage and culture.

Photo correspondents Olena Bilozerska and OleksiiFurman in March became targets of police home search-

es during in which their property was illegally confiscat-ed. Reporters from the newspaper Ekspres reported beingbeaten on April 12 in the Lviv Oblast town of Horodokby local police officers for exposing local corruption.Reporters at the 1+1 TV network on May 7 released astatement that included a list of specific incidents show-ing a consistent patterns in which their editors and newsdirectors directly censored or skewed their news reportsto unreasonable degrees.

Most notably, 1+1 correspondent Myroslav Otkovych

Ukrainian youths hold a banner reading Holodomor Genocide, we didnt forget, we remember, at theNovember 27 commemoration in Kyiv organized by a citizens committee of 30 civic and cultural leaders.

Zenon Zawada


10/48



went public with an article published on the UkrayinskaPravda website on May 7, revealing that his supervisorshad censored his news report in which he attempted tooffer a legal analysis of President Yanukovychs April 27PACE statement denying the Holodomor was genocideof the Ukrainian people. His editors informed him, aheadof the May 10 news program, that legal commentaryabout Mr. Yanukovychs statement would be removed.

In this manner, the Holodomor theme was censored,Mr. Otkovych wrote. It was then that, for me, this themebecame the Rubicon after which silence is impermissible.Selling your peoples memory, pain and suffering for asalary is a crime!

Ukrainian media expert Otar Dovzhenko of theTelekrytyka website declared on May 7 that censorshiphad returned to Ukraine, the source of which was thenations media moguls who attempt to build up or main-tain good relations with the government and gain benefitfrom them.

Additionally, freedom of assembly was significantlycurtailed as the national police force began employingtactics not seen since the authoritarian reign of formerPresident Leonid Kuchma.

Employees of the Internal Affairs Ministry violatedthe freedom to peaceful assembly, using force againstparticipants of peaceful events, said an April 22 state-ment issued by the Ukrainian Helsinki Union on HumanRights. In Kyiv alone, such violations were observed onMarch 14, 25 and 27, and April 8, 9 and 13. On March25 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ordered the KyivCity Administration to use exhaustive measures to orga-nize work with citizens and their groupings, includingprecluding and forbidding further acts of protest near thePresidential Administration and Cabinet of Ministers.Such orders are brutal violations to the freedom ofpeaceful assembly and several articles of theConstitution.

Police and traffic officers began employing theKuchma-era tactic of preventing buses with protestersfrom traveling to Kyiv for both the April 27 and May 11protests. The Svoboda nationalist party reported thatState Traffic Inspection (DAI) officials in theKhmelnytskyi Oblast threatened private bus companiesthat provided the party with transportation for the April27 protests. Carriers said they were threatened by peo-

ple who claim to be traffic officers and demand that theycease to offer transportation services to Svoboda support-ers, the party reported in a May 7 press release. Inanother case, they were threatened with numerousinspections and denial of licenses for transportation.

On May 10, on the eve of the protest, bus companieshired by the Tymoshenko Bloc in the Chernihiv Oblasttold their clients they had to decline their businessbecause they were threatened with having their licensesconfiscated.

Internal Affairs Minister Mohyliov signed a decree onMarch 18 cutting 27 of his ministrys regional humanrights monitors, after which three citizens remained tokeep track of a 250,000-plus police force. The HumanRights Monitoring Administration had been establishedin 2008 with the goal of ensuring a policy of opennessand transparency within Ukraines police force.Hundreds of common citizens who complained of the

polices illegal actions received help from the administra-tions aides, stated a March 18 letter signed by 32 lead-ing human rights organizations. With their help, seriouspolice abuses were uncovered.

The police under Mr. Mohyliovs leadership werereported to have grown significantly more aggressive. Adrunk university student in Kyiv, Ihor Indylo, was cele-brating his 20th birthday when he was sent to a localpolice station on May 17 and died in custody. TheInternal Affairs Ministry claimed the student fell severaltimes, from which he suffered hemorrhaging and traumasto his brain and skull. The 1+1 TV network reportedthat an ambulance was called four times to the police sta-tion, but paramedics declined to take Mr. Indylo eachtime. Students also claimed that police pressured them tostate that Mr. Indylo had suffered a broken skull fromfighting, prior to his arrest.

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) stepped up its

aggressive behavior as well, dispatching one of its offi-cers to visit the rector of the Ukrainian CatholicUniversity, the Rev. Dr. Borys Gudziak, on May 18 inorder to gain his compliance in a government effort todissuade students from participating in political protests.The Rev. Gudziak was offered a letter to sign, which hedidnt bother to read and did not sign. Such precedentshave no known precedent in independent Ukraine in theexperience of UCU and of the Lviv National University,whose longtime rector [and former Minister ofEducation] Ivan Vakarchuk I consulted immediately afterthe meeting. Those methods were well-known in Soviettimes, the Rev. Gudziak wrote in a May 19 letter thatwas well-publicized throughout the mainstream media.

Since only two of the approximately 170 universitiesof Ukraine have been voicing their protest regardingrecent political and educational developments and manyrectors have been pressured to express their support

regarding the turn of events, it is clear that in recentmonths fear and accommodation are returning to highereducation at a rapid pace, the Rev. Gudziak wrote.Speaking and writing openly about these issues is themost peaceful and effective manner of countering effortsto secretly control and intimidate students and citizens,he noted.

A neo-Soviet course

The Yanukovych administration has led Ukraine notonly toward Russian integration but onto what would bebetter described as a neo-Soviet course, in the view ofexperts. Its neo-Soviet humanitarian policy erodes anynational meaning for Ukraine, and its neo-Soviet methodof governing avoids any public discussion and employsauthoritarian methods of governing, said VolodymyrViatrovych, a senior visiting scholar at the UkrainianResearch Institute at Harvard University.

Todays government doesnt have an understandingof the state as an entire spiritual and humanitarian identi-fication complex, rather than an instrument of violenceand a vehicle for making money, said VolodymyrTsybulko, a leader in the Peoples Committee to RescueUkraine formed on May 5. In essence, Yanukovych andhis team havent come to lead a state, but to expand theDonetsk Oblast to the boundaries of the Ukrainian state.

No other single event during the first 100 days of theYanukovych administration more epitomized its culturalpolicies than the May 9 Victory Day celebrations held inconjunction with the Russian and Belarusian govern-ments. Leaders of the three states coordinated synchro-nized parades in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, includingthe Hero Cities of Kyiv, Odesa, Kerch and Sevastopol. Inan unprecedented move, Russian soldiers marked along-side their Ukrainian counterparts along the Khreschatyk,the main boulevard in Kyiv, while Sevastopol hosted a

joint parade between Ukrainian sailors and those of the

Russian Black Sea Fleet. In all, 75 Russian troopsmarched in each of the four Hero Cities that day. In turn,President Yanukovych took with him 75 Ukrainian sol-diers to commemorate the event in Moscow alongsidethe Kremlin leadership and Belarusian PresidentAlyaksandr Lukashenka.

Government buildings throughout Ukraine, and evenmetro train cars, were covered with the Communist ham-mer-and-sickle symbol. For the first time ever, the Sovietsymbol was draped in the orange-and-black St. George

Ribbon, an old tsarist war order re-tooled by the Kremlinto foster a neo-Soviet identity among the citizens ofBelarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

Education and Science Minister Tabachnyk signedseveral orders removing government protection for theUkrainian language, including canceling the Ukrainian-language exam for all bachelors degree candidates andallowing university courses to be taught in the Russianlanguage. He openly admitted that removing Ukrainianas the mandatory language of instruction in universitiescaters to foreign students. When we introducedUkrainian-only classes in universities, an immense out-flow began of students from Arab and Asian countries.The state and universities began to lose out, he said. Forelementary schools, he ordered that Russian literatureconstitute three-quarters of the materials taught in the

world literature course, largely at the expense ofWestern literature. On May 13 Mr. Tabachnyk announcedthe Russian government would offer university scholar-ships to 300 Ukrainian students to study in Russia. Thesame day, he said the Russian and Ukrainian govern-ments would develop a common manual for historyteachers.

These plans couldnt please the Russian governmentmore, as demonstrated with the first visit in six years toKyiv by Russian President Medvedev. In his seventhmeeting with Mr. Yanukovych as president, on May 17they signed three agreements. On security in the BlackSea region, improving systems of European security andresolving problems in the Transdniester region. Messrs.Medvedev and Yanukovych also presided over the sign-ing of a series of bilateral agreements that involveddemarcation of the Russian-Ukrainian border, cooperat-ing in using and developing the Russian global satellitenavigation system GLONASS, cooperation between theRussian and Ukrainian ministries of culture in 2010-2014, and cooperation between UkrExImBank andRussias VTB Bank.

While the leaders achieved much of what they plannedfor the two-day official visit, Mr. Medvedev assured thepublic that this was only the beginning as the leadersplan many more agreements for more extensive coopera-tion. No one expects that we will resolve all problemsimmediately, but the main thing is not to lower the pres-sure and not to shift to a lower gear, Mr. Medvedev toldthe Ukraine-Russia Interstate Commission on May 17.He lamented that the commission had met for only thethird time in the last five years, insisting that it ought toconvene at least twice a year. At the meeting, the presi-dents gave their governments 14 orders on which to pre-pare future bilateral agreements between the govern-ments and ministries.

Yet, Mr. Yanukovych indicated he did want to slow the

pace down. We reached the conclusion that we cantwork this way, in which weve conducted seven meetingsin such a short period of time and driven the leaders ofour working groups into a situation where they are sup-posed to prepare various decisions in accelerated tem-pos, he said at a joint press conference. To which Mr.Medvedev responded, Viktor Fedorovych said we cantwork this way, but I would like to add that were led towork this way in light of how time was lost during thelast five years.

Volodymyr Podriezov, a deputy of the Kyiv OblastCouncil, leads a hunger strike outside the CentralElection Committee. Batkivschyna party activists weredemanding that election commissions register the realcandidates of Batkivschyna instead of the clone candi-

dates that were officially registered.

Oleksander Prokopenko/UNIAN

Communists in Zaporizhia unveiled a monument toSoviet dictator Joseph Stalin on May 5 at their partyheadquarters. Upon the granite pedestal is the inscrip-tion To the leader of the Soviet government,

Generalissimo Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

Zenon Zawada


11/48



What foreign policy?

The Yanukovych administration has no coherent for-eign policy strategy, in the view of top experts attendinga June 11 roundtable organized by Mr. Yatsenyuks OpenUkraine Foundation. As a result, the president has leanedheavily on integration with Russia as a reliable comfortzone with proven electoral returns, experts said. Some

people said Ukraine has no foreign policy strategy, andeveryone agreed, and I agree with that, VolodymyrHorbach, a political analyst at the Institute of Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, told The Weekly. But there is, infact, a foreign policy strategy. The problem is its inRussia, not Ukraine.

The president has allowed the Russians unacceptableinfluence in Ukrainian affairs, said Ukraines formerAmbassador to the U.S. Yuri Scherbak, referring to notonly the Black Sea Fleet lease extension, but also to wid-escale plans for Russian enterprises state-owned andstate-financed to buy up Ukrainian counterparts. Whocounted what percent of an economys industry, when inthe hands of another country, poses a danger to our secu-rity? he asked his fellow experts during the discussion.Do we know this? Does 80 percent need to be given toanother country before well be asking whats next?

Russians go shopping

With the encouragement of their government, Russianbusinessmen launched attempts to acquire three large,strategic Ukrainian factories in the late spring throughdeals that shut out Ukrainian oligarchs, lacked basicWestern standards of transparency and faced lengthylegal battles. Most of the deals were financed throughloans offered by Russian VneshEkonomBank (VEB), thestate-owned bank controlled by Russian Prime MinisterVladimir Putin, who sits as its chairman. On June 15,Ukraines State Property Fund announced it sold a con-trolling stake of the LuhanskTeploVoz plant, the nationslargest manufacturer of diesel and electronic locomo-tives, to the Briansk Machine-Building Plant, a subsid-iary of TransMashHolding, Russias largest maker oflocomoties and railway equipment. The 76 percent stakewas sold in a closed auction that was open to only twobidders.

When The Weekly confronted President Yanukovych

at a June 4 press conference about the opaque way thatRussian investors are buying Ukrainian assets, fallingshort of Western standards, he avoided the question andoffered only vague, sometimes contradictory informationabout other assets under purchase.

During his Washington visit, Mr. Yanukovych toldAmerican businessmen at an April 13 luncheon that hisadministration would ensure that privatizations would beabsolutely transparent, naming LuhanskTeploVoz asamong the enterprises for sale and inviting Americans toparticipate.

In late May, anonymous Russian investors claimed tohave acquired Ukraines second-largest steel factory, theIllich Mariupol Metallurgical Plant, and the fifth-largeststeel producer, Zaporizhstal. Both deals occurred underthe opaque, controversial conditions that are being con-tested by Ukrainian competitors in fierce legal and politi-cal battles. Russian investors reportedly outbid Donbas

tycoon Mr. Akhmetov in the Zaporizhstal contest. In bothdeals, the buyer was an anonymous Russian entity, aswas the case with the purchase in January of twoUkrainian plants belonging to the Industrial Union of theDonbas (IUD), also financed by VEB. The IUD buyer isthe same as the Mariupol buyer, the representatives con-firmed. VEB declined comment on the deals. Respondingto The Weekly, Mr. Yanukovych confirmed news report-ers that Mr. Akhmetov had filed an appeal in the Londoncourts to stop the sale of Zaporizhstal. It wont be soldfor at least a year, insofar as Im aware, he said. As itturned out, Mr. Akhmetov ended up striking a deal withVolodymyr Boiko, chief executive officer of the IllichMariupol plant, to acquire 75 percent of the companyshares.

Mr. Akhmetov got another return on his investment inthe Party of Regions when the Cabinet of Ministers onMay 12 proposed renewing business with VancoPrykerchenska Ltd., a Black Sea shelf oil and gas explo-

ration company controlled by Mr. Akhmetov and Russianstate monopoly Gazprom.

The Yanukovych administration demonstrated nostrategy to improve the Ukrainian economy, economistssaid after the first 100 days. He revealed only a policy ofenriching oligarchs and business clans that support theParty of Regions, coupled with preferences given to theRussian Federation. On June 3 Mr. Yanukovychannounced he would privatize all of Ukraines remainingstate properties within five years. Observers assumed that

they would be conducted without transparency, givingfirst dibs to representatives of the Donbas andRosUkrEnergo business clans.

The government has no economic strategy and isonly concerned with the present day, said AndriyNovak, an economist and author of the book, How toLift the Ukrainian Economy. Its working along theprinciple that, while in government, we should do asmuch as we can for our own financial-industrial groups.

Among those groups is RosUkrEnergo led by DmytroFirtash, who offered hefty support for the Yanukovychpresidential campaign. His reward was the June 8 rulingdelivered by the Stockholm Arbitrage Tribunal, whichordered state-owned Naftohaz Ukrainy to return 11 bil-lion cubic meters of natural gas that was confiscated bythe Prime Minister Tymoshenko, plus 1.1 billion cubic

meters in compensation. Ms. Tymoshenko said theYanukovych administration had intentionally sabotagedNaftohazs defense in the Stockholm Court in order toproduce a ruling favorable to Mr. Firtash. They recalledall the lawyers that were there and all the internationallawyers that were hired by our government, Ms.Tymoshenko said on June 9. They completely decimat-ed the entire defense, not representing and recalling allarguments which were to the countrys advantage.

Russian-Ukrainian joint enterprises emerged as aneconomic trend under President Yanukovych. RussiasUnited Aviation Construction Corp. formed a company toengage in joint projects with Kyivs Antonov Co., whileRussias United Shipbuilding Corp. (USC) said itplanned to create such enterprises with Ukrainians firmslike the Black Sea Shipbuilding Factory in Mykolaiv.The company said its also considering acquiring a dozenUkrainian shipbuilding companies that would fit in theproduction chains of Russian shipbuilders, reportedAndrey Kurasov, the deputy chair of the shipbuildingdepartment of the Ministry of Industry and Trade.Russian Prime Minister Putin in early May urged USCChairman Roman Trotsenko to begin pursuing the acqui-sitions of the two Ukrainian plants More ShipbuildingCo. in Feodosiya and Zoria-MashProyekt in Mykolaiv,which builds the worlds largest gas-turbine engines forshipbuilding. At the same time, Russians acquired theAlchevsk Metallurgical Plant and the DzerzhinskyMetallurgical Plant in Dniprodzerzhinsk.

Questions about Euro-integration

All the while, Prime Minister Azarov made audaciousclaims about Euro-integration throughout the year. Hetold Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt in April that hisgovernment was aiming to have an EU AssociationAgreement and Free Trade Agreement drafted by theyears end. In June, he said Ukrainians would have visa-

free travel to Europe as early as 2011.Most experts view these as empty words, considering

that signing such extensive agreements with the EUwould require significant reforms from the Yanukovychadministration, most notably in reducing corruption,which doesnt interest those in power, said Dr. OlehSoskin of the Institute of Society Transformation. Theirentire political careers are based on abusing governmentposts to enrich themselves, he said.

While President Yanukovych is able to reject NATO

integration and remain popular with the electorate, hecant outright dismiss EU integration, which is supportedby at least two-thirds of Ukrainians, Dr. Soskin said. So aprocess has begun of discrediting EU integration in stag-es. There wont be an Association Agreement becausethey dont need it, he said. The gradual integration intothe EU means corruption will be removed, and thatwould destroy them. A Kremlin-controlled mafia hascome to power and it has a clear plan of surrenderingUkraine to Moscow.

The Yanukovych administration rejected NATO inte-gration in favor of cooperation in legislation approved onJune 1 by the National Security and Defense Council,titled on On the Bases of Domestic and Foreign Policy,which excluded NATO integration from among its priori-ties. Ukraine will maintain its involvement in the NATO

Response Force the only non-member to actively par-ticipate in the program, as well as in NATO ActiveEndeavor, conducted in the Mediterranean Sea, saidKostiantyn Yelisyeyev, a vice-minister of foreign affairs.Meanwhile, Parliament voted on May 18 to permitNATO training exercises in Ukraine, including the oncecontroversial U.S.-Ukraine Sea Breeze operation targetedby pro-Russian supporters.

Among the governments biggest public relations fail-ures besides the SBU visit to UCU Rector Rev. Dr.Borys Gudziak was the June detention of Niko Lange,the Kyiv director of the Konrad Adenauer Fund, who washeld at Kyiv Boryspil airport for 10 hours after criticizingthe administration of President Yanukovych. Both he,and fellow countryman and former German Ambassadorto Ukraine Ditmar Studemann, warned the Yanukovychadministration that Euro-integration wouldnt be possiblefor Ukraine if its government pursued authoritarian polic-es such as repressing the opposition, abusing the law forpolitical ends and imposing police state measures on apeaceful population. Ironically, the Yanukovych adminis-tration reacted with the same neo-Soviet tactics of intimi-dation against Mr. Lange that he had warned against.

The incident reflected the Yanukovychs authoritarianapproach to governing that repeatedly flaunted laws andprocedures.

These politicians repeatedly demonstrated their readi-ness to fit legislative norms to their needs and legalizethem post-factum with other laws or Constitutional Courtrulings, said Ihor Koliushko, director of the Kyiv-basedCenter for Political-Legal Reforms. Subsequent constitu-tional violations included postponing the elections of cityand oblast councils (which were supposed to be heldMay 30), holding the April 27 parliamentary sessionwithout a quorum, casting votes on behalf of absenteenational deputies, extending the Black Sea Fleet lease by25 years, and transferring the authority of appointing

judges nationwide to a newly established government-controlled Higher Justice Council.

The attitude of the coalition government was bestdemonstrated when Mr. Yanukovych was accused bycritics of violating Ukrainian law when he denied inStrasbourg that the Holodomor was genocide against theUkraini

the ukrainian weekly 2011-03

Documents