Ukraine

[Saras]

Originally posted by Atahualpa

Yes and you too.

That book is TEH GAY!

[Saras]

Ukraine president spurned pressure over protesters
By Stefan Wagstyl, Chrystia Freeland and Tom Warner
Published: December 13 2004 20:45 | Last updated: December 13 2004 20:45

The Ukrainian authorities came close to resorting to violence in trying to solve the country's political crisis.

The Financial Times has learned that the administration of Leonid Kuchma, the authoritarian president, considered deploying troops against the crowds of protesters gathered in central Kiev in support of Viktor Yushchenko, the opposition leader.

Those lobbying for the use of force included senior officials, among them Viktor Medvedchuk, the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration and Viktor Yanukovich, the prime minister.

According to people inside and outside Mr Kuchma's administration, the president resisted the pressure and the danger passed.

"The key moment came on Sunday, November 28 (a week after crowds took to Kiev streets), when soldiers were given bullets. Then they were going around not with empty machine guns, but already fully armed. I think that was the peak of the whole conflict," Mr Yushchenko said.

Vasyl Baziv, the deputy head of the presidential administration, told the FT: "I know that many representatives of the [state] apparatus lobbied the president to impose a state of emergency. They said it is time to use state power. The president, from the first moment, was consistently against the use of force."

Western diplomats confirm that Interior Ministry paramilitary troops were prepared to strike. They say Mr Kuchma came under intense pressure to act from Mr Medvedchuk and Mr Yanukovich, Mr Yushchenko's rival to succeed Mr Kuchma as president. They say Mr Kuchma apparently called off the Interior Ministry troops because he did not want to leave office with blood on his hands.

One diplomat said that an attempt by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, to telephone Mr Kuchma - who refused to take the call - may have influenced his decision. There were also signs that some security forces opposed to violent intervention might try to block the Interior Ministry troops who would have been sent against demonstrators.

The crisis began with the disputed presidential election on Sunday, November 21 in which Mr Yanukovich, Mr Kuchma's candidate, was declared the winner. Mr Yushchenko cried fraud and immediately called his supporters on to the streets.

Tensions rose sharply on Wednesday, November 24, when the Central Election Commission officially confirmed Mr Yanukovich's victory. Mr Yushchenko responded by urging protesters to blockade public buildings, including the cabinet office and the presidential administration.

With Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, and other mediators due in Kiev for conciliation talks on Friday November 26, the authorities considered using force to clear the blockade surrounding the presidential buildings. About 2,000 anti-riot police were deployed in the area. But, with the mediators urging restraint, the Ukrainian authorities backed off.

The talks on November 26 failed to break the deadlock. The following day, the pro-Yushchenko crowds in Kiev swelled to an estimated 500,000, with smaller demonstrations in some other cities.

The critical moments came on Sunday November 28. Mr Yanukovich's supporters in eastern Ukraine raised thestakes by making separatist threats.

Mr Kuchma chaired a meeting of the key National Security Council which discussed plans for armed action. Western diplomats say intelligence reports showed interior ministry troop movements around Kiev. One senior western diplomat says: "There were credible reports that troops were moving on Kiev."

Mr Yushchenko says the protesters responded by increasing their presence outside the cabinet and presidential administration buildings and deciding blockade Mr Kuchma's suburban villa. These actions worked, he says. "We understood that the authorities were afraid to take a decision to use arms."

Mr Baziv argues Mr Kuchma's personal refusal to use force was crucial. "This is Kuchma's one big positive contribution."

By the time Mr Solana and other mediators arrived for more talks late on Tuesday November 30, the threat was over. On Friday December 3, the Supreme Court cancelled the disputed election and ordered new polls on December 26.

[Spiffor]

Wow, an authoritarian president considered using violence against protesters? Who would have thought?

I think the overall restraint showed by the Ukrainian authorities in this whole affair is the newsworthy item. There is a country that is utterly divided, where the capital is subject to a constant protest that strongly disturbs public order, and where several localities basically opposed the national leader.

If Ukraine was the evil political regime many westerners try to depict, tanks would long have rolled in the streets. Heck, in a western democracy, such protests yould have been crushed by the police, and such localities would have been disciplined already.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Wow, an authoritarian president considered using violence against protesters? Who would have thought?

I think the overall restraint showed by the Ukrainian authorities in this whole affair is the newsworthy item. There is a country that is utterly divided, where the capital is subject to a constant protest that strongly disturbs public order, and where several localities basically opposed the national leader.

If Ukraine was the evil political regime many westerners try to depict, tanks would long have rolled in the streets. Heck, in a western democracy, such protests yould have been crushed by the police, and such localities would have been disciplined already.

uh, spif, I dont think the govt trusted the security forces to fire on the demonstrators. there was talk I saw that the police, at least, sympathized with the protestors. Given that, the govts restraint was simply prudence.

[The Vagabond]

Serb already mentioned this. But it seems that no-one here really paid attention to the fact that the decision of the Ukrainian Supreme Court was illegal. The courts can only interprete the law, they cannot create a new law! According to the Ukrainian law, there should be a completely new election, from scratch. The West gleefully welcomed this illegal verdict. So much for the western "rule of law".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Serb already mentioned this. But it seems that no-one here really paid attention to the fact that the decision of the Ukrainian Supreme Court was illegal. The courts can only interprete the law, they cannot create a new law! According to the Ukrainian law, there should be a completely new election, from scratch. The West gleefully welcomed this illegal verdict. So much for the western "rule of law".

actually serb started by saying that we should let ukrainian courts settle this. They ruled in a way that displeases him, and now he finds fault. Somehow its up to citizens of Russia, living hundreds of miles away, to determine what the proper role for Ukrainian courts is in the Ukraine.

Look different democracies give courts different degrees of authority. Just as they take different approaches to the selection of regional governors. The court had a case before them, and they decided, using whatever legal reasoning they thought appropriate. It was welcomed as being in line with a general sense of fairness. I would suggest that we not debate Ukrainian constitutional law, until we get an actual Ukrainian posting here, preferably one from each side.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
uh, spif, I dont think the govt trusted the security forces to fire on the demonstrators. there was talk I saw that the police, at least, sympathized with the protestors. Given that, the govts restraint was simply prudence.

I am not sure. The restraint from violence is not the first encouraging thing I see from Kuchma. For example, the independence constitution prevented a president froö having more than 2 terms. The supreme court changed this, for Kuchma to be legally able to run again. Yet, he chose not to, which is encouraging.

Last time I checked the news about Ukraine (I didn't have the net for weeks, so I may be out of touch), the constitutional court was to deal with the problem, and they came up with ordering a new election.

Sure, I don't consider Ukraine to be a model democracy. There seems to be a strong belief in the need of a strongman, and a terrible division of society that makes me pessimistic for the possibility of a Ukrainian democracy as a whole (at least in short term).

But the image I saw of Ukraine as an authoritarian dump, where the progressive forces of the bright future (read Yushchenko) have obviously won againt the dictatorial obscurantists (read Yanukovich), and where the evil guys resort to sneaky attacks against the good guys in shining armor... Well, all of this strikes me as western propaganda.

I believe the polls were subject to massive cheating. I hope it is because the pollsters cheated that some localities vote 92% for one candidate, while other localities vote 93% for the other candidate '(if these results are genuine, or nearly-genuine, the division of the country is catastrophic).
I believe nobody can be sure about who won the election. The Yushchenko supporters, and their westerns backers, who claim they are sure to have won, are either lying or deluding themselves.

This is why I'm not too thrilled by the "Orange Revolution" held in Kiev and elsewhere. These people use illegal means, not to challenge a result, but to impose a result of their own. Such behavious is antidemocratic, yet if Yushchenko became crowned thanks to the Kievan mob, all western countries would immediately acknowledge him as the democratic ruler of democratic Ukraine.

The decision to hold new elections is the good one. The previous elections were a fraud, and the result cannot be known. It deserves to disappear in the trashbin of history, and to be replaced by actual elections where cheats are held in check.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

actually serb started by saying that we should let ukrainian courts settle this. They ruled in a way that displeases him, and now he finds fault. Somehow its up to citizens of Russia, living hundreds of miles away, to determine what the proper role for Ukrainian courts is in the Ukraine.

Yes, let the Ukrainian courts settle this in accordance with the laws of Ukraine.

Look different democracies give courts different degrees of authority. Just as they take different approaches to the selection of regional governors. The court had a case before them, and they decided, using whatever legal reasoning they thought appropriate.

Courts are not given the right to replace the existent law.

It was welcomed as being in line with a general sense of fairness.

A general sense of fairness extorted by the crowd in the streets?

I would suggest that we not debate Ukrainian constitutional law, until we get an actual Ukrainian posting here, preferably one from each side.

[Spiffor]

I've just read the article Combat Ingrid posted a few pages ago.

I'm very glad to read this:

Ukraine is set to move away from a presidential system to a parliamentary one.

The crucial difference in the new system will be that prime minister - the individual making the day-to-day decisions - will have greater executive authority than at present.

I also hope that they shape their elections so that many parties will be in the Parliament, and that only broad coalitions can be expected to rule. It would seem the Ukrainian system needs to understand the value of compromise, and such a system is the best thing to develop it

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am not sure. The restraint from violence is not the first encouraging thing I see from Kuchma. For example, the independence constitution prevented a president froö having more than 2 terms. The supreme court changed this, for Kuchma to be legally able to run again. Yet, he chose not to, which is encouraging.

Last time I checked the news about Ukraine (I didn't have the net for weeks, so I may be out of touch), the constitutional court was to deal with the problem, and they came up with ordering a new election.

Sure, I don't consider Ukraine to be a model democracy. There seems to be a strong belief in the need of a strongman, and a terrible division of society that makes me pessimistic for the possibility of a Ukrainian democracy as a whole (at least in short term).

But the image I saw of Ukraine as an authoritarian dump, where the progressive forces of the bright future (read Yushchenko) have obviously won againt the dictatorial obscurantists (read Yanukovich), and where the evil guys resort to sneaky attacks against the good guys in shining armor... Well, all of this strikes me as western propaganda.

I believe the polls were subject to massive cheating. I hope it is because the pollsters cheated that some localities vote 92% for one candidate, while other localities vote 93% for the other candidate '(if these results are genuine, or nearly-genuine, the division of the country is catastrophic).
I believe nobody can be sure about who won the election. The Yushchenko supporters, and their westerns backers, who claim they are sure to have won, are either lying or deluding themselves.

This is why I'm not too thrilled by the "Orange Revolution" held in Kiev and elsewhere. These people use illegal means, not to challenge a result, but to impose a result of their own. Such behavious is antidemocratic, yet if Yushchenko became crowned thanks to the Kievan mob, all western countries would immediately acknowledge him as the democratic ruler of democratic Ukraine.

The decision to hold new elections is the good one. The previous elections were a fraud, and the result cannot be known. It deserves to disappear in the trashbin of history, and to be replaced by actual elections where cheats are held in check.

spiff, first of all, youre taking a charicture of the Western view. While I did see some glib charecterizations like that, for the most part it was better than Yusch as knight in shining armor. Ive certainly seen otherwise. The admiration was not so much for Yusch, as for the Ukrainian people in the streets.

and from all ive read theyre not a mob trying to impose their will, but people outraged at a stolen election, and with good reason. They didnt want to impose a result, they did want a fair election.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Yes, let the Ukrainian courts settle this in accordance with the laws of Ukraine.

can we please get a ukrainian to explain what those laws are, and what the basis for the courts decision was?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I've just read the article Combat Ingrid posted a few pages ago.

I'm very glad to read this:

Ukraine is set to move away from a presidential system to a parliamentary one.

The crucial difference in the new system will be that prime minister - the individual making the day-to-day decisions - will have greater executive authority than at present.

Spiff - you ARE aware, that this was NOT a priority of the govt side when THEY held the presidency, or when they thought their man would win?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Spiff - you ARE aware, that this was NOT a priority of the govt side when THEY held the presidency, or when they thought their man would win?

DUH. Of course. In a winner-takes-all system, the winner doesn't like to lose his power. It's the same basic politicking everywhere.

For instance, Bush had less votes than Gore and yet won the presidency... For some odd reson, a modification of the electoral system was not on the Republican agenda for the past 4 years (I could provide an example of the consensus between the two main French parties to keep the power for themselves as well... such politicking is not limited to "evil" countries )

I am not concerned about what it will mean for the current candidates, because frankly, I don't think they'll make as much of a difference as the media tells. One will have a pro-western bias, while the other will have a po-Russian bias, but yet, both candidates (who have an experience of holding very high office) will keep a continuity in all political matters, and both condidates will continue to consider Russia and the West as partenrs (albeit to a different degree). Despite the revolutionary means Yushchenko uses to get power, his rise to power wouldn't mean a revolution in Ukraine's policies.

I am concerned about the democracy in Ukraine in general. And I see these modifications as a fantastic outcome of the crisis. Much moe than Kuchma's overthrow would have been

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

DUH. Of course. In a winner-takes-all system, the winner doesn't like to lose his power. It's the same basic politicking everywhere.

For instance, Bush had less votes than Gore and yet won the presidency... For some odd reson, a modification of the electoral system was not on the Republican agenda for the past 4 years (I could provide an example of the consensus between the two main French parties to keep the power for themselves as well... such politicking is not limited to "evil" countries )

I am not concerned about what it will mean for the current candidates, because frankly, I don't think they'll make as much of a difference as the media tells. One will have a pro-western bias, while the other will have a po-Russian bias, but yet, both candidates (who have an experience of holding very high office) will keep a continuity in all political matters, and both condidates will continue to consider Russia and the West as partenrs (albeit to a different degree). Despite the revolutionary means Yushchenko uses to get power, his rise to power wouldn't mean a revolution in Ukraine's policies.

I am concerned about the democracy in Ukraine in general. And I see these modifications as a fantastic outcome of the crisis. Much moe than Kuchma's overthrow would have been

Are you aware that Yunkoyich continues to oppose the compromise? apparently with Kremlin backing?

That the Kremlin denounces the euros who helped mediate for meddling?

I agree that there was probably not that big a difference between the two candidates policies, though im not sure. But what changed was what the kremlin tried to do to the election, and the way many Ukrainians responded to that.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am not sure. The restraint from violence is not the first encouraging thing I see from Kuchma. For example, the independence constitution prevented a president froö having more than 2 terms. The supreme court changed this, for Kuchma to be legally able to run again. Yet, he chose not to, which is encouraging.

Last time I checked the news about Ukraine (I didn't have the net for weeks, so I may be out of touch), the constitutional court was to deal with the problem, and they came up with ordering a new election.

Sure, I don't consider Ukraine to be a model democracy. There seems to be a strong belief in the need of a strongman, and a terrible division of society that makes me pessimistic for the possibility of a Ukrainian democracy as a whole (at least in short term).

But the image I saw of Ukraine as an authoritarian dump, where the progressive forces of the bright future (read Yushchenko) have obviously won againt the dictatorial obscurantists (read Yanukovich), and where the evil guys resort to sneaky attacks against the good guys in shining armor... Well, all of this strikes me as western propaganda.

I believe the polls were subject to massive cheating. I hope it is because the pollsters cheated that some localities vote 92% for one candidate, while other localities vote 93% for the other candidate '(if these results are genuine, or nearly-genuine, the division of the country is catastrophic).
I believe nobody can be sure about who won the election. The Yushchenko supporters, and their westerns backers, who claim they are sure to have won, are either lying or deluding themselves.

This is why I'm not too thrilled by the "Orange Revolution" held in Kiev and elsewhere. These people use illegal means, not to challenge a result, but to impose a result of their own. Such behavious is antidemocratic, yet if Yushchenko became crowned thanks to the Kievan mob, all western countries would immediately acknowledge him as the democratic ruler of democratic Ukraine.

I'd say to this. 92% for one candidate in one region and the same for the other candidate in another region is a very realistic number. The cheating was mainly accomplished by means of the absentee vote.

The decision to hold new elections is the good one. The previous elections were a fraud, and the result cannot be known. It deserves to disappear in the trashbin of history, and to be replaced by actual elections where cheats are held in check.

Yes. But it should be a completely new election, not just a revote.