Today, on 12 May 2010, former Prime Minister and current active oppositionist Yulia Tymoshenko visited the Main Investigative Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine. She was officially informed that the criminal case No4912-93 has been re-launched against her.
It is an old, but not very clear story. There is no official information yet on the content of a case, but it is said that the case concerns suspected bribes. I may only say for sure that the criminal case No4912-93 against Mrs. Tymoshenko was opened in May 2004, while she was in a strong opposition to President Leonid Kuchma. Current President Viktor Yanukovych had been serving as a Prime Minister that time.
According to the Prosecutor General’s Office information service, the proceedings were closed in January 2005 – after the Orange Revolution and the inauguration of President Viktor Yushchenko. The planned investigative actions were not completed, PGO press service claims, and the pre-court trial has been re-launched.
Yulia Tymoshenko states that the case No4912-93 was closed in 2004 (e.g. before she came to power). At the today’s press briefing near the office of the PGO Main Investigative Department, she said that the investigation was dismissed due to the absence of crime components. ‘Prosecutor General’s Office is a repressive instrument of Yanukovych”, she argues. “A big shadow project on privatization of state monopolies has been prepared, using the technology of foundation of joint ventures with foreign country. Our political team is the only one which opposes to that”.
The same time some fresh cases have been opened against the team of Yulia Tymoshenko. The Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Sivkovych has recently informed journalists that investigation of cases on stealing the budgetary funds by the Tymoshenko’s Government is planned to be finished by autumn 2010. By that time “the majority of opposition members will think on how to hide or escape”, he added. The alleged corrupt practices in a budget sphere are estimated to overcome 100 billion UAH (more than 12.5 billion USD).
Meanwhile, on 17-18 May the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev will visit Ukraine again – to sign more documents, strengthening the ties between two countries. First of all, an agreement on the demarcation of Russia-Ukraine border is to be signed. Let’s see what Ukraine is granting to Russia in this field.
It is interesting to mention that on the day of Medvedev’s arrival to Kiev, Yulia Tymoshenko is invited to the PGO office again. Revenge or justice?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
No losers, but Ukraine. The USA and Russia signed START II – a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
Today, on 8 April 2010 the Presidents of Russia and the United States have signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which is to replace the Treaty between the USA and the USSR on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), signed on 31 July 1991, and expired on 5 December 2009.
The new START has already been called as a new significant step in bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the United States. But, despite all the words about strengthening the international security, the real needs of non-nuclear-weapon countries, and especially the states that unilaterally forswear the nuclear weapons, were left behind the scene. Neither Barack Obama, nor Dmitrir Medvedev hasn’t declared clearly the willingness of their countries to increase credibility of security guarantees for unprotected “little” members of the international community.
As a result, after the expiration of the old START, Ukraine, a pioneer state which performed a unilateral nuclear disarmament, is left de jure unprotected from possible outside aggression by any clear legal mechanism. For this moment Ukraine is not a party of any international legally binding document, which may for sure guarantee its safety.
“There are no losers and winners. All the international community has won”, Dmitry Medvedev said to journalists at the joint press conference with Barack Obama. I would not agree with Mr. Medvedev. There is at least one loser – as it usually happens, the loser is Ukraine.
Let’s refresh our memory. The role of Ukraine in the global nuclear disarmament process may serve as a great example for any country of P5, taking to the account the unilateral decision of the country to become nuclear-weapons-free in early 1990s (last nuclear weapon left Ukraine in 1996).
Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the nuclear armory heritage of Ukraine was estimated as the third-largest in the world. In 2002 Ukraine declared its willingness to forswear the nuclear arsenal (let’s not get into the details, why it was decided, and whether this decision was clear-eyed).
But in that early 1990s it was obvious that in return for forswearing one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world, Ukraine shall get significant security guarantees (including economy security). The providers of these guarantees should be Russia (as the recipient of the weapons) and the United States.
Such guarantees were impliedly (as Ukraine was one of the parties) provided by mentioned above and now expired Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), signed by the USA and the USSR in 1991. To present a kind of extra-guarantees, after the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, the USA, and Russia (14 January 1994), the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed on 5 December 1994. This document was closely connected with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of the Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in November 1994.
Budapest Memorandum was signed by Ukraine, Russia, United States, and United Kingdom. China and France assured their support and security guarantees for Ukraine in the diplomatic notes of 5 December 1994. No questions? There are a lot. The problem is that the Budapest Memorandum doesn’t contain the clear mechanisms of guaranteeing the protection for the country, its independence and territorial integrity from any threats. It presents only the mechanism of holding consultations, when such a threat may appear. Moreover, the decisions, taken during the mentioned consultations, may be vetoed by any member of the UN Security Council (for example, by Russia).
As a result, de jure Ukraine is not a member of any system of collective security today – and, de facto, is unprotected.
Years of efforts of Ukrainian diplomacy were dedicated to attempts to formalize the security assurances for Ukraine from nuclear weapons states. To accomplish this goal, a new comprehensive legally binding treaty shall be worked out, taking to the account the START Treaty expiration. This new Treaty shall be signed by all the nuclear states (P5), and should contain clear description of mechanisms of the implementation of security guarantees for Ukraine, including negative security assurances, as well as the responsibility of nuclear states for violation of these obligations. Such an approach will only enhance and strengthen the non-proliferation regime and global security, in particular in the context of establishment of nuclear weapon free zones.
The START II Treaty demonstrated that in can con be considered as such a document. The new document shows a kind of egocentrism of the super powers: the commitment of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to accede the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states was only “taken into account” in the preamble of the START II. Cold War ended, but the negligence to needs of ‘small countries’ is still present not only in presidents’ rhetoric, but also in multilateral documents.
Besides, the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych – during his first visit to Russia – proposed to sign the START II Treaty in Kiev, not in Prague. Such a decision could have served at least as a sign of respect to Ukraine as a country dedicated to global disarmament and non-proliferation. Unfortunately, this proposal was not taken seriously.
The next ‘point of hope’ for Ukrainian security is the NPT Review Conference, which is scheduled for May 2010 (New York). Hopefully, the new edition of the NPT Treaty will include some statements to guarantee peace and stability in one of the biggest states of European continent.
The new START has already been called as a new significant step in bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the United States. But, despite all the words about strengthening the international security, the real needs of non-nuclear-weapon countries, and especially the states that unilaterally forswear the nuclear weapons, were left behind the scene. Neither Barack Obama, nor Dmitrir Medvedev hasn’t declared clearly the willingness of their countries to increase credibility of security guarantees for unprotected “little” members of the international community.
As a result, after the expiration of the old START, Ukraine, a pioneer state which performed a unilateral nuclear disarmament, is left de jure unprotected from possible outside aggression by any clear legal mechanism. For this moment Ukraine is not a party of any international legally binding document, which may for sure guarantee its safety.
“There are no losers and winners. All the international community has won”, Dmitry Medvedev said to journalists at the joint press conference with Barack Obama. I would not agree with Mr. Medvedev. There is at least one loser – as it usually happens, the loser is Ukraine.
Let’s refresh our memory. The role of Ukraine in the global nuclear disarmament process may serve as a great example for any country of P5, taking to the account the unilateral decision of the country to become nuclear-weapons-free in early 1990s (last nuclear weapon left Ukraine in 1996).
Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the nuclear armory heritage of Ukraine was estimated as the third-largest in the world. In 2002 Ukraine declared its willingness to forswear the nuclear arsenal (let’s not get into the details, why it was decided, and whether this decision was clear-eyed).
But in that early 1990s it was obvious that in return for forswearing one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world, Ukraine shall get significant security guarantees (including economy security). The providers of these guarantees should be Russia (as the recipient of the weapons) and the United States.
Such guarantees were impliedly (as Ukraine was one of the parties) provided by mentioned above and now expired Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), signed by the USA and the USSR in 1991. To present a kind of extra-guarantees, after the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, the USA, and Russia (14 January 1994), the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed on 5 December 1994. This document was closely connected with the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of the Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in November 1994.
Budapest Memorandum was signed by Ukraine, Russia, United States, and United Kingdom. China and France assured their support and security guarantees for Ukraine in the diplomatic notes of 5 December 1994. No questions? There are a lot. The problem is that the Budapest Memorandum doesn’t contain the clear mechanisms of guaranteeing the protection for the country, its independence and territorial integrity from any threats. It presents only the mechanism of holding consultations, when such a threat may appear. Moreover, the decisions, taken during the mentioned consultations, may be vetoed by any member of the UN Security Council (for example, by Russia).
As a result, de jure Ukraine is not a member of any system of collective security today – and, de facto, is unprotected.
Years of efforts of Ukrainian diplomacy were dedicated to attempts to formalize the security assurances for Ukraine from nuclear weapons states. To accomplish this goal, a new comprehensive legally binding treaty shall be worked out, taking to the account the START Treaty expiration. This new Treaty shall be signed by all the nuclear states (P5), and should contain clear description of mechanisms of the implementation of security guarantees for Ukraine, including negative security assurances, as well as the responsibility of nuclear states for violation of these obligations. Such an approach will only enhance and strengthen the non-proliferation regime and global security, in particular in the context of establishment of nuclear weapon free zones.
The START II Treaty demonstrated that in can con be considered as such a document. The new document shows a kind of egocentrism of the super powers: the commitment of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to accede the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states was only “taken into account” in the preamble of the START II. Cold War ended, but the negligence to needs of ‘small countries’ is still present not only in presidents’ rhetoric, but also in multilateral documents.
Besides, the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych – during his first visit to Russia – proposed to sign the START II Treaty in Kiev, not in Prague. Such a decision could have served at least as a sign of respect to Ukraine as a country dedicated to global disarmament and non-proliferation. Unfortunately, this proposal was not taken seriously.
The next ‘point of hope’ for Ukrainian security is the NPT Review Conference, which is scheduled for May 2010 (New York). Hopefully, the new edition of the NPT Treaty will include some statements to guarantee peace and stability in one of the biggest states of European continent.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Two Hetmans and Defector. The coalition negotiations in the Parliament of Ukraine have reached a final stage.
There is a popular joke-proverb in Ukraine: among three Ukrainians there are two hetmans (hetman is the old Ukrainian Cossack chieftain) and one defector. The proverb reflects the main peculiarity of Ukrainian national character: it is very difficult for us to reach an agreement in political negotiations as every party has its own huge ambitions.
The ‘two hetmans – one defector’ formula is a great illustration of what’s going on inside the Parliament of Ukraine these days. After the inauguration of Viktor Yanukovych as the President of Ukraine, his faction has started negotiations to form a new coalition of majority in Parliament. The Party of Regions expected a kind of blitzkrieg. But the expectations failed. Even the dismissal of Prime Minister and a threat of snap parliamentary election have not led the MPs to consolidation.
The stumbling block of the ‘coalition saga’ hides in provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, which have no clear regulation of the process of formation of the coalition in Parliament.
A bit of prehistory. Before 2004, Ukraine had a majority voting system, when each constituency elected its own Member of Parliament. (I still hope we will come back to this scheme one day). But in December 2004, at the peak of Orange Revolution, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, changing the voting system from majority to proportional vote. The amendments came into force in 2006, when first ‘proportional’ parliamentary election was conducted.
The December-2004 amendments also introduced new terms ‘majority’ and ‘coalition’ in Ukrainian parliament. According to the amended Chapter 83 of Constitution, “basing on the consensus of political viewpoints the coalition of the MP’s factions shall be formed, comprising the majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine from the constitutional membership of the Parliament of Ukraine”. If the coalition is not formed duting 30 days, the President of Ukraine has a constitutional right (not obligation) to dismiss Parliament.
The main question of today’s Ukrainian political discussions is whether the coalition of factions, which have the majority of seats in total amount of MPs, or the coalition of majority of MPs shall be formed.
If the constitutional way of formation of the coalition is a simple sum of factions, the Party of Regions can not form the coalition without the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction. (Extra details on Ukrainian parliamentary arithmetic may be found in one of my previous posts)
Moreover, due to the current situation inside the OU-PS faction (which is divided to little groups of interest, and can not act as a monolith body), the formation of the coalition on the base of factions, not MPs individually, is totally impossible. Every part of the OU-PS faction tried to lobby the appointment of its candidate for the position of Prime Minister – the names of Arseniy Yatseniuk, Viktor Yushchenko, and some other variants were proposed. As a result, the Party of Regions ‘got tired’ and made a decision to propose the candidature of its member Mykola Azarov (ex-Minister of Finance and Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine).
(Some rumors say that Azarov was planned for the PM position from the very beginning, and the negotiations on the ‘non-Party-of-Regions’ candidate were just a trick).
Nevertheless the fact is the following: tomorrow, on 11 of March 2010, the Party of Regions will form the coalition of MPs (based on its own faction, factions of the Block of Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, Communist Party, and some individual MPs from the OU-PS and even from the Block of ex-PM Yulia Tymoshenko plus independent MPs).
All the political forces who will be eliminated from acting power after the formation of a new coalition are claiming that such a coalition will be unconstitutional. Among them – Yulia Tymoshenko and her allies, Arseniy Yatseniuk, and even Viktor Yushchenko (who seriously hoped to become a PM by himself).
By the way, number 3 according to the results of the first round of Presidential election – 2010 Sergiy Tigipko has agreed to become a Vice-Prime Minister in a new Government (it is a result of his yesterday’s meeting with Viktor Yanukovych). Number 4, Arseniy Yatseniuk has decided to form its own opposition government. The same business is in plans of Yulia Tymoshenko who declared herself as the only leader of democratic opposition. (See the proverb about two hetmans).
The opponents of the ‘individually made’ coalition are referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No 16-pn/2008 of 17 September 2008, which has interpreted the Constitutional provisions in favor of faction-based formation of the coalition.
Again a prehistory. The need in the interpretation of the coalition-building part of the Constitution was caused by decision of two MPs from the OU-PS and BYT factions (on 6 June 2008) to withdraw their membership in the coalition, formed by their factions. As the result, the coalition had less than 226 members (the majority of MPs).
The same time (it is what the opposition doesn’t mention it its rhetoric), in the decision No 16-pn/2008 the Constitutional Court stated that on that time the Parliament of Ukraine had no legitimate Rules of Procedure, which, according to the Constitution, shall regulate the process of formation and the termination of activities of the coalition: “The filling of such gaps (in legislation) is not the authority of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. These questions shall be regulated in the Constitution of Ukraine and/or in the Law of Ukraine on the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
I would also quote the Constitution of Ukraine here: “The basis for the formation, organization of operation, and termination of activities of coalition of deputy factions in the Parliament of Ukraine shall be established by the Constitution of Ukraine and Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine were adopted (at last) on 10 February 2010. On 9 March 2010 Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on the Rules of Procedure, which permits to form the coalition of majority according to the individual membership principle.
So, the Rules of Procedure and the common sense say that it is possible to form a coalition, comprising 226 and more Members of Parliament of Ukraine (i.e. the majority of MPs).
Moreover, the individual way of formation of the coalition corresponds with the international standards and the rule of law. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) has issued the Opinion on the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine adopted on 8.12.2004 (adopted by the Commission at its 63rd plenary session in Venice, 10-11 June 2005).
The opinion of the Venice Commission states the following:
“It may be questioned whether such a formalised procedure for forming a parliamentary majority would contribute to enhancing political stability in Ukraine. Furthermore, it could hardly be seen as compatible with the freedom of the choice and decision guaranteed to political parties by the Constitution, in conformity with European standards in this field. Generally speaking, alliances between political parties depend on the free choice of the parties concerned, and will last as long as the governing bodies of the parties find it convenient to stick to the negotiated agreements. In addition, a coalition government may give disproportionate power to small parties and therefore be unrepresentative”.
Full version of the Venice Commission opinion may be read here.
For all intents and purposes, it is unconstitutional indeed to restrict the activities of Members of Parliament of Ukraine as representatives of citizens of Ukraine by the ‘will of the faction’. Besides, even in this convocation of Parliament only the Communist party faction consists of members of one political party. Other factions are political blocks of two and more parties’ representatives. So, it is not logical to push them into the borders of ‘united actions inside the faction’.
When I was discussing this question with my friend (ex-journalist of Yulia Tymoshenko newspaper) yesterday, she invented a very interesting idea. If the coalition is formed only by factions, there is no need in personal vote in Parliament at all, she said. Heads of parliamentary factions may single-handedly decide, which a faction’s position is, and all the decisions in Parliament shall be made by simple arithmetical calculations. Than, there is no need to keep a building of the Parliament, she added. What a great way to save money for a state budget in crisis times!
The ‘two hetmans – one defector’ formula is a great illustration of what’s going on inside the Parliament of Ukraine these days. After the inauguration of Viktor Yanukovych as the President of Ukraine, his faction has started negotiations to form a new coalition of majority in Parliament. The Party of Regions expected a kind of blitzkrieg. But the expectations failed. Even the dismissal of Prime Minister and a threat of snap parliamentary election have not led the MPs to consolidation.
The stumbling block of the ‘coalition saga’ hides in provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, which have no clear regulation of the process of formation of the coalition in Parliament.
A bit of prehistory. Before 2004, Ukraine had a majority voting system, when each constituency elected its own Member of Parliament. (I still hope we will come back to this scheme one day). But in December 2004, at the peak of Orange Revolution, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, changing the voting system from majority to proportional vote. The amendments came into force in 2006, when first ‘proportional’ parliamentary election was conducted.
The December-2004 amendments also introduced new terms ‘majority’ and ‘coalition’ in Ukrainian parliament. According to the amended Chapter 83 of Constitution, “basing on the consensus of political viewpoints the coalition of the MP’s factions shall be formed, comprising the majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine from the constitutional membership of the Parliament of Ukraine”. If the coalition is not formed duting 30 days, the President of Ukraine has a constitutional right (not obligation) to dismiss Parliament.
The main question of today’s Ukrainian political discussions is whether the coalition of factions, which have the majority of seats in total amount of MPs, or the coalition of majority of MPs shall be formed.
If the constitutional way of formation of the coalition is a simple sum of factions, the Party of Regions can not form the coalition without the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction. (Extra details on Ukrainian parliamentary arithmetic may be found in one of my previous posts)
Moreover, due to the current situation inside the OU-PS faction (which is divided to little groups of interest, and can not act as a monolith body), the formation of the coalition on the base of factions, not MPs individually, is totally impossible. Every part of the OU-PS faction tried to lobby the appointment of its candidate for the position of Prime Minister – the names of Arseniy Yatseniuk, Viktor Yushchenko, and some other variants were proposed. As a result, the Party of Regions ‘got tired’ and made a decision to propose the candidature of its member Mykola Azarov (ex-Minister of Finance and Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine).
(Some rumors say that Azarov was planned for the PM position from the very beginning, and the negotiations on the ‘non-Party-of-Regions’ candidate were just a trick).
Nevertheless the fact is the following: tomorrow, on 11 of March 2010, the Party of Regions will form the coalition of MPs (based on its own faction, factions of the Block of Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, Communist Party, and some individual MPs from the OU-PS and even from the Block of ex-PM Yulia Tymoshenko plus independent MPs).
All the political forces who will be eliminated from acting power after the formation of a new coalition are claiming that such a coalition will be unconstitutional. Among them – Yulia Tymoshenko and her allies, Arseniy Yatseniuk, and even Viktor Yushchenko (who seriously hoped to become a PM by himself).
By the way, number 3 according to the results of the first round of Presidential election – 2010 Sergiy Tigipko has agreed to become a Vice-Prime Minister in a new Government (it is a result of his yesterday’s meeting with Viktor Yanukovych). Number 4, Arseniy Yatseniuk has decided to form its own opposition government. The same business is in plans of Yulia Tymoshenko who declared herself as the only leader of democratic opposition. (See the proverb about two hetmans).
The opponents of the ‘individually made’ coalition are referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No 16-pn/2008 of 17 September 2008, which has interpreted the Constitutional provisions in favor of faction-based formation of the coalition.
Again a prehistory. The need in the interpretation of the coalition-building part of the Constitution was caused by decision of two MPs from the OU-PS and BYT factions (on 6 June 2008) to withdraw their membership in the coalition, formed by their factions. As the result, the coalition had less than 226 members (the majority of MPs).
The same time (it is what the opposition doesn’t mention it its rhetoric), in the decision No 16-pn/2008 the Constitutional Court stated that on that time the Parliament of Ukraine had no legitimate Rules of Procedure, which, according to the Constitution, shall regulate the process of formation and the termination of activities of the coalition: “The filling of such gaps (in legislation) is not the authority of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. These questions shall be regulated in the Constitution of Ukraine and/or in the Law of Ukraine on the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
I would also quote the Constitution of Ukraine here: “The basis for the formation, organization of operation, and termination of activities of coalition of deputy factions in the Parliament of Ukraine shall be established by the Constitution of Ukraine and Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine”.
The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ukraine were adopted (at last) on 10 February 2010. On 9 March 2010 Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on the Rules of Procedure, which permits to form the coalition of majority according to the individual membership principle.
So, the Rules of Procedure and the common sense say that it is possible to form a coalition, comprising 226 and more Members of Parliament of Ukraine (i.e. the majority of MPs).
Moreover, the individual way of formation of the coalition corresponds with the international standards and the rule of law. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) has issued the Opinion on the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine adopted on 8.12.2004 (adopted by the Commission at its 63rd plenary session in Venice, 10-11 June 2005).
The opinion of the Venice Commission states the following:
“It may be questioned whether such a formalised procedure for forming a parliamentary majority would contribute to enhancing political stability in Ukraine. Furthermore, it could hardly be seen as compatible with the freedom of the choice and decision guaranteed to political parties by the Constitution, in conformity with European standards in this field. Generally speaking, alliances between political parties depend on the free choice of the parties concerned, and will last as long as the governing bodies of the parties find it convenient to stick to the negotiated agreements. In addition, a coalition government may give disproportionate power to small parties and therefore be unrepresentative”.
Full version of the Venice Commission opinion may be read here.
For all intents and purposes, it is unconstitutional indeed to restrict the activities of Members of Parliament of Ukraine as representatives of citizens of Ukraine by the ‘will of the faction’. Besides, even in this convocation of Parliament only the Communist party faction consists of members of one political party. Other factions are political blocks of two and more parties’ representatives. So, it is not logical to push them into the borders of ‘united actions inside the faction’.
When I was discussing this question with my friend (ex-journalist of Yulia Tymoshenko newspaper) yesterday, she invented a very interesting idea. If the coalition is formed only by factions, there is no need in personal vote in Parliament at all, she said. Heads of parliamentary factions may single-handedly decide, which a faction’s position is, and all the decisions in Parliament shall be made by simple arithmetical calculations. Than, there is no need to keep a building of the Parliament, she added. What a great way to save money for a state budget in crisis times!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Parliament of Ukraine has just passed a no-confidence motion against the Government of Yulia Tymoshenko.
Here are the results of the vote. 243 Members of Parliament of 404 registered today has voted in favor of Yulia Tymoshenko’s dismissal. Among them were:
172 MPs from the Party of Regions faction (whole faction)
7 MPs from Yulia Tymoshenko Block
15 MPs from Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense faction
27 MPs from Communist party faction (whole faction)
19 MPs from Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn (all except Lytvyn)
3 independent MPs
Monday, March 1, 2010
New lords, new laws.
The chapter about Holodomor has dissapeared from the official website of President of Ukraine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
