Saturday, October 18, 2008
Is IMF trying to influence politics in Ukraine?
The International Monetary Fund is not simply an international financial institution anymore. It is a centre of political decision-making. At least, in Ukraine. At a news conference on Thursday, prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko said that the IMF is ready to lend the country $3 billion to $14 billion to see it through the crisis, but only if the president postponed the elections. “It is very difficult for them to hold negotiations with Ukraine, when they hear all these proposals for early parliamentary elections,” she said. I wonder is the IMF is really trying to influence politics in Ukraine?
Friday, October 17, 2008
The voice of America
Today I've read very interesting interview with Brookings Institute Visiting Fellow and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer. The interview was conducted by VOA’s Ukrainian Service a few hours before President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko dissolved parliament last week.
On Ukraine’s Chances for a NATO Membership Action Plan in December
“It seems to me that the chances for Ukraine getting a Membership Action Plan in December are practically zero. And actually that’s really because of a couple of reasons. One is, for countries like Germany, obviously, there is the Russian reaction. But the other question, and this goes back to April and the Bucharest summit, is – does the government, does the prime minister support the president’s policy on the Membership Action Plan. So right now there seem to be three scenarios, the most likely of which appears to be new elections. If there are new elections in December or January and when NATO foreign ministers meet in December, they won’t know who the next prime minister is going to be, let alone whether he or she will support a Membership Action Plan. And the other two scenarios would be either an alignment between Regions and the Tymoshenko Bloc or a reconstitution of the Orange coalition between Our Ukraine and the Tymoshenko Bloc in the next couple of days, but both of those scenarios would be very unlikely. It would seem to me that the Regions-Tymoshenko alignment is not going to produce a government that supports a Membership Action Plan. And even if you put back the Orange Coalition, after the problems and the debates between them and the infighting of the last couple of months, I’m not sure European governments are going to see that as sustainable. The other factor seems to me the U.S. government will continue to want to support Ukraine for a Membership Action Plan, but the problem is that in December it’s going to be the final days of the Bush Administration. That administration is just not going to have the diplomatic clout to make a MAP happen.”
More on the President Yushchenko’s Visit to Washington, DC
“Well, I think there are a couple of things here. I mean, you know, first of all, something was different in September from in July, and that is you had the conflict between Russia and Georgia. I’m not sure that represents a threat to Ukraine, but certainly this more assertive Russian foreign policy is a challenge for Ukraine. So it seems to me that a big part of that visit, having President Yushchenko meet with President Bush in the Oval Office, was basically to reaffirm U.S. support, to try to be bolstering of Ukraine. Because there are questions, given what happened in Georgia, does this now mean that Russia is going to behave in a different way towards Ukraine?”
On Whether President Yushchenko was looking for US Support in Ukraine’s Internal Political Squabbles
“I’m not sure. That’s a question you really have to ask President Yushchenko. But I think he probably understands, I mean, American policy’s been pretty consistent on this question. And even Secretary of Defense Gates made the point, I think, even today, is that, you know, deciding who will be the next prime minister for Ukraine, that’s a decision for Ukrainians. The U.S. government’s point of view, as far as I understand it, is we will work with whatever government is in Ukraine. I mean that’s for Ukrainians to decide, whether it’s a government headed by Tymoshenko or somebody else. My sense, though, is that, in talking with some people in the U.S. government, that if they had their choice, they would have liked to see the government continue, as opposed to new elections. And the problem here is, because the sense is that time is being lost and the opportunities are being lost, and the focus in Kiev seems to be on politics, rather than actually governing the country. And here is the scenario that I think worries some people if you want to see Ukraine move forward. If there are elections now, if those elections are held in, say, in December or January, it’s hard to get something done in terms of serious policy during elections. It’s hard in Ukraine. Certainly it’s hard here in the United States right now when we’re just a month out from our elections. But then, based on what we saw in 2006 or 2007, after the election it may take two or three months for Ukraine to form a coalition in the Rada and choose a prime minister. So that takes you maybe to April or early May. At that point you’re only six or seven months from the presidential elections, so everyone focuses on the presidential election. So the concern here is that – it’s my concern, but I also think it’s shared by some in the U.S. government – is that, you know, politics could dominate the next year and a half in Ukraine and it makes it hard for Ukraine to do things in terms of policies that Ukraine needs to push.
On Whether Early Election Will Have a Weakening Effect on Ukraine
“I’ll give you two answers to that. The first answer is -- there’s a lot of confidence, at least I have, that however the politics play out, it’s going to be democratic. I mean it seems all the major political forces -- Yushchenko, Tymoshenko, Yanukovych – understand that you’ve got to play by democratic rules and the Constitution. And that’s a good thing. It means Ukraine, fundamentally, is going to have democratic stability. The other side of the answer, though, is again that while you have the political debate going on, you’re not getting things accomplished, you’re not pursuing policies. I think, again, because I’m a little bit concerned, I wouldn’t call it a threat to Ukraine, but there’s a challenge -- in Moscow. And the question in my mind is – given this more assertive Russian foreign policy that you’re seeing now – is this a time for the Ukrainian leadership to be divided? You know, I think this would be the time really where it would make more sense to come together. Likewise, there are opportunities, the Membership Action Plan, that I think are going to be lost because the political infighting in Ukraine creates a situation where Germany and some of those countries that don’t support a Membership Action Plan could say, well, it’s not just about the Russian concern, it’s about we don’t have confidence in the sustainability of the political line within Kiev.”
On the Stance of John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s Campaigns on Ukraine
“My sense is that when you look at what both campaigns have said, what both candidates have said, I think – and this reflects the fact that support for Ukraine going back to 1993-1994 has really been a bi-partisan issue. I mean both sides support it. And certainly there’s not much difference when you look at what Senator McCain has said and what Senator Obama has said. They both support strong relations with Ukraine. They both support a Membership Action Plan. So, I think they differ on some questions, but I don’t think Ukraine is one of them.”
On Whether John McCain Can Be Perceived As Tougher on Russia
“It may be. But I think in both campaigns there is concern about Russia, I mean, certainly what we saw in August changed the assessment in Washington, and I think elsewhere in Europe about the rules that the Russians are prepared to play by. And it’s caused a greater degree of concern.”
On How the Russia-Georgia Conflict Impacts the Prospect of a NATO Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine
“I still think that ultimately a Membership Action Plan makes sense for Georgia and Ukraine. But you’re going to have to look at it in the current political realities. And at this point, when you’re looking at December, again, because of the position of some of the European states, because, I think, of the inability of the Bush administration in literally its last days to persuade the Europeans, given concerns about Russia, but also given the questions about what is going on within Ukraine, it just doesn’t seem it’s going to happen.”
On Ukraine’s Chances for a NATO Membership Action Plan in December
“It seems to me that the chances for Ukraine getting a Membership Action Plan in December are practically zero. And actually that’s really because of a couple of reasons. One is, for countries like Germany, obviously, there is the Russian reaction. But the other question, and this goes back to April and the Bucharest summit, is – does the government, does the prime minister support the president’s policy on the Membership Action Plan. So right now there seem to be three scenarios, the most likely of which appears to be new elections. If there are new elections in December or January and when NATO foreign ministers meet in December, they won’t know who the next prime minister is going to be, let alone whether he or she will support a Membership Action Plan. And the other two scenarios would be either an alignment between Regions and the Tymoshenko Bloc or a reconstitution of the Orange coalition between Our Ukraine and the Tymoshenko Bloc in the next couple of days, but both of those scenarios would be very unlikely. It would seem to me that the Regions-Tymoshenko alignment is not going to produce a government that supports a Membership Action Plan. And even if you put back the Orange Coalition, after the problems and the debates between them and the infighting of the last couple of months, I’m not sure European governments are going to see that as sustainable. The other factor seems to me the U.S. government will continue to want to support Ukraine for a Membership Action Plan, but the problem is that in December it’s going to be the final days of the Bush Administration. That administration is just not going to have the diplomatic clout to make a MAP happen.”
More on the President Yushchenko’s Visit to Washington, DC
“Well, I think there are a couple of things here. I mean, you know, first of all, something was different in September from in July, and that is you had the conflict between Russia and Georgia. I’m not sure that represents a threat to Ukraine, but certainly this more assertive Russian foreign policy is a challenge for Ukraine. So it seems to me that a big part of that visit, having President Yushchenko meet with President Bush in the Oval Office, was basically to reaffirm U.S. support, to try to be bolstering of Ukraine. Because there are questions, given what happened in Georgia, does this now mean that Russia is going to behave in a different way towards Ukraine?”
On Whether President Yushchenko was looking for US Support in Ukraine’s Internal Political Squabbles
“I’m not sure. That’s a question you really have to ask President Yushchenko. But I think he probably understands, I mean, American policy’s been pretty consistent on this question. And even Secretary of Defense Gates made the point, I think, even today, is that, you know, deciding who will be the next prime minister for Ukraine, that’s a decision for Ukrainians. The U.S. government’s point of view, as far as I understand it, is we will work with whatever government is in Ukraine. I mean that’s for Ukrainians to decide, whether it’s a government headed by Tymoshenko or somebody else. My sense, though, is that, in talking with some people in the U.S. government, that if they had their choice, they would have liked to see the government continue, as opposed to new elections. And the problem here is, because the sense is that time is being lost and the opportunities are being lost, and the focus in Kiev seems to be on politics, rather than actually governing the country. And here is the scenario that I think worries some people if you want to see Ukraine move forward. If there are elections now, if those elections are held in, say, in December or January, it’s hard to get something done in terms of serious policy during elections. It’s hard in Ukraine. Certainly it’s hard here in the United States right now when we’re just a month out from our elections. But then, based on what we saw in 2006 or 2007, after the election it may take two or three months for Ukraine to form a coalition in the Rada and choose a prime minister. So that takes you maybe to April or early May. At that point you’re only six or seven months from the presidential elections, so everyone focuses on the presidential election. So the concern here is that – it’s my concern, but I also think it’s shared by some in the U.S. government – is that, you know, politics could dominate the next year and a half in Ukraine and it makes it hard for Ukraine to do things in terms of policies that Ukraine needs to push.
On Whether Early Election Will Have a Weakening Effect on Ukraine
“I’ll give you two answers to that. The first answer is -- there’s a lot of confidence, at least I have, that however the politics play out, it’s going to be democratic. I mean it seems all the major political forces -- Yushchenko, Tymoshenko, Yanukovych – understand that you’ve got to play by democratic rules and the Constitution. And that’s a good thing. It means Ukraine, fundamentally, is going to have democratic stability. The other side of the answer, though, is again that while you have the political debate going on, you’re not getting things accomplished, you’re not pursuing policies. I think, again, because I’m a little bit concerned, I wouldn’t call it a threat to Ukraine, but there’s a challenge -- in Moscow. And the question in my mind is – given this more assertive Russian foreign policy that you’re seeing now – is this a time for the Ukrainian leadership to be divided? You know, I think this would be the time really where it would make more sense to come together. Likewise, there are opportunities, the Membership Action Plan, that I think are going to be lost because the political infighting in Ukraine creates a situation where Germany and some of those countries that don’t support a Membership Action Plan could say, well, it’s not just about the Russian concern, it’s about we don’t have confidence in the sustainability of the political line within Kiev.”
On the Stance of John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s Campaigns on Ukraine
“My sense is that when you look at what both campaigns have said, what both candidates have said, I think – and this reflects the fact that support for Ukraine going back to 1993-1994 has really been a bi-partisan issue. I mean both sides support it. And certainly there’s not much difference when you look at what Senator McCain has said and what Senator Obama has said. They both support strong relations with Ukraine. They both support a Membership Action Plan. So, I think they differ on some questions, but I don’t think Ukraine is one of them.”
On Whether John McCain Can Be Perceived As Tougher on Russia
“It may be. But I think in both campaigns there is concern about Russia, I mean, certainly what we saw in August changed the assessment in Washington, and I think elsewhere in Europe about the rules that the Russians are prepared to play by. And it’s caused a greater degree of concern.”
On How the Russia-Georgia Conflict Impacts the Prospect of a NATO Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine
“I still think that ultimately a Membership Action Plan makes sense for Georgia and Ukraine. But you’re going to have to look at it in the current political realities. And at this point, when you’re looking at December, again, because of the position of some of the European states, because, I think, of the inability of the Bush administration in literally its last days to persuade the Europeans, given concerns about Russia, but also given the questions about what is going on within Ukraine, it just doesn’t seem it’s going to happen.”
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Ukraine-EU: Signs of crisis
I spent most of the time of my working day yesterday, trying to monitor a visit to Brussels of prime minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko. My goal was to understand the signals Europe should be sending to Ukraine and its politicians, and then to write about this for one of the Ukrainian magazines. As a result, I wrote nothing. Europeans are tired of Ukraine and its long-lasting political problems and confrontation between politicians – they simply don’t make loud public declarations on “Ukrainian question”. For example, Javier Solana didn't even join Mrs. Tymoshenko on a mini press conference after their 45-minutes meeting.
I didn’t find (and haven’t heard) any statement of any European top-politician on 15 October with a condemnation of early parliamentary election in Ukraine. Also nobody had praised it. Though, on evening news I’ve heard a comment of Mrs. Tymoshenko who said that Javier Solana and other her counterparts in Brussels’ talks called the possibility of early election in Ukraine as a mistake, taking to the account world economic crisis.
Today in the morning I've got the statement of the President of the EPP, WIlfried Martens on tpolitical crisis in Ukraine:
The EPP strongly supports the revival and strengthening of the coalition of democratic pro-European forces in Ukraine. It is essential to have an effective and a stable government in the face of the global financial crisis. Political stability is a key precondition for the successful European integration of Ukraine.
New elections, the third in merely 3 years, will undermine the stability. What Ukraine needs today is NOT new elections, but a responsible leadership and a stable government. Now is the time for unity, not for division. We express our full support for those leaders in Ukraine who are doing everything to stabilize the governmental coalition, those who continue with social market reforms. Political instability and the economic crisis are a direct threat to the Ukrainian people.
I didn’t find (and haven’t heard) any statement of any European top-politician on 15 October with a condemnation of early parliamentary election in Ukraine. Also nobody had praised it. Though, on evening news I’ve heard a comment of Mrs. Tymoshenko who said that Javier Solana and other her counterparts in Brussels’ talks called the possibility of early election in Ukraine as a mistake, taking to the account world economic crisis.
Today in the morning I've got the statement of the President of the EPP, WIlfried Martens on tpolitical crisis in Ukraine:
The EPP strongly supports the revival and strengthening of the coalition of democratic pro-European forces in Ukraine. It is essential to have an effective and a stable government in the face of the global financial crisis. Political stability is a key precondition for the successful European integration of Ukraine.
New elections, the third in merely 3 years, will undermine the stability. What Ukraine needs today is NOT new elections, but a responsible leadership and a stable government. Now is the time for unity, not for division. We express our full support for those leaders in Ukraine who are doing everything to stabilize the governmental coalition, those who continue with social market reforms. Political instability and the economic crisis are a direct threat to the Ukrainian people.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Early election in Ukraine will be postponed?
Today prime minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko refused to allocate money to finance early parliamentary election, scheduled by President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko on 7 December 2008. Mrs. Tymoshenko informed about her decision (and the decision of the majority of ministers of her government) during the press conference in Kiev that finished a couple of minutes ago.
Yulia Tymoshenko emphasized that the early election should be “simply cancelled”, and members of Parliament should come back to Verkhovna Rada building to adopt a legislation (49 law projects) needed to fight with the consequences of the world economic crisis in Ukraine.
“To spend 0,5 billion of gryvnas (100 million dollars) on adventure with the snap election is the straight action against national interests,” she added. “The early election is a tragedy for Ukraine”.
Meanwhile, the Kiev Appeal Administrative Court has postponed the hearing of the “snap election case” to 10.00 am on Friday, 19 October. It seems to me that early elections may also be postponed to a later date – late December or even January. But the elections will take place, it is for sure.
Yulia Tymoshenko emphasized that the early election should be “simply cancelled”, and members of Parliament should come back to Verkhovna Rada building to adopt a legislation (49 law projects) needed to fight with the consequences of the world economic crisis in Ukraine.
“To spend 0,5 billion of gryvnas (100 million dollars) on adventure with the snap election is the straight action against national interests,” she added. “The early election is a tragedy for Ukraine”.
Meanwhile, the Kiev Appeal Administrative Court has postponed the hearing of the “snap election case” to 10.00 am on Friday, 19 October. It seems to me that early elections may also be postponed to a later date – late December or even January. But the elections will take place, it is for sure.
Monday, October 13, 2008
No court, no problem?
In my last post I wrote about the appeal of Yulia Tymoshenko party to Kiev’s District Administrative Court that led to suspension of the Decree of President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko calling for early election on 7 December 2008. Election officials refused to start preparations for the early vote after a court suspended the decree.
What happened next. To cancel the order of Kiev’s District Administrative Court Mr. Yushchenko’s office had appealed to a higher court – Kiev Appeal Administrative Court. They claimed that the Court’s order had no authority since President had already fired the judge before he made the ruling.
Today, on 13 October the things have got even worse. Both Tymoshenko and Yushchenko sent to the Kiev Appeal Administrative Court building the representatives of security forces “to prevent any illegal actions”. No one has crossed the line of law, but the situation was rather frightening. As a result – no agreement and no decision.
The way President of Ukraine have decided to resolve the “Court issue” looks a bit strange. He simply liquidated the Kiev District Administrative Court with his Decree No 922/2008 (of 13 October 2008). No Court, no problem.
The third potential candidate for a post of President of Ukraine in 2010 – leader of the Party of Regions, ex-prime minister and a “lost side” in the Orange revolution Viktor Yanukovych – who is not involved in the Court conflict (as today he doesn’t obtain any influential post) tries to raise his own rating, criticising his political opponents. In his statement, distributed by the party of Regions’ press service he stressed that the snap parliamentary poll must take place in Ukraine as soon as possible. “Force structures are already involved in the conflict”, he said, “This is a catastrophe”.
It seems to me, Ukrainian politics is in strong need of new faces. And also we should not forget, what the rule of law is.
What happened next. To cancel the order of Kiev’s District Administrative Court Mr. Yushchenko’s office had appealed to a higher court – Kiev Appeal Administrative Court. They claimed that the Court’s order had no authority since President had already fired the judge before he made the ruling.
Today, on 13 October the things have got even worse. Both Tymoshenko and Yushchenko sent to the Kiev Appeal Administrative Court building the representatives of security forces “to prevent any illegal actions”. No one has crossed the line of law, but the situation was rather frightening. As a result – no agreement and no decision.
The way President of Ukraine have decided to resolve the “Court issue” looks a bit strange. He simply liquidated the Kiev District Administrative Court with his Decree No 922/2008 (of 13 October 2008). No Court, no problem.
The third potential candidate for a post of President of Ukraine in 2010 – leader of the Party of Regions, ex-prime minister and a “lost side” in the Orange revolution Viktor Yanukovych – who is not involved in the Court conflict (as today he doesn’t obtain any influential post) tries to raise his own rating, criticising his political opponents. In his statement, distributed by the party of Regions’ press service he stressed that the snap parliamentary poll must take place in Ukraine as soon as possible. “Force structures are already involved in the conflict”, he said, “This is a catastrophe”.
It seems to me, Ukrainian politics is in strong need of new faces. And also we should not forget, what the rule of law is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
