|
Testimony by Nadia M. Diuk, Ph.D.
Director, Central Europe and Eurasia
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Europe
Representative Doug Bereuter, (R) Nebraska, Chairman
Representative Robert Wexler, Florida, Ranking Democrat
U.S. House Of Representatives, Wash, D.C., Wed, May 12, 2004
|
.jpg)
Nadia Diuk (HK-Brama.com Photo)
|
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee:
I welcome the opportunity to be here today to comment on the topic of the
hearing "Ukraine's Future and United States Interests." And I would also
like to thank you Mr. Chairman and all of the members of the Committee for
your continuing support for the National Endowment for Democracy over the
years.
I would like to focus on the main event that looms in Ukraine's immediate
future, and which the entire international community will be watching-the
election for the post of President of Ukraine scheduled for October 2004.
Concerns about the conduct of these elections are very well expressed in the
concurrent resolutions recently introduced in the House and Senate under the
title "Urging the Government of Ukraine to Ensure a Democratic, Transparent,
and Fair Election Process for the Presidential Election on October 31,
2004."
The upcoming elections have already determined much of what has happened in
Ukraine over the past year, as the state authorities and the opposition and
pro-democratic forces engage in an ongoing struggle in the political sphere,
media, business and civil society as a whole. The elections are the tip of
an iceberg, which represents a huge systemic problem: Ukraine's ruling
elite is still largely made up of the same people who ran Ukraine under the
Communist system. They were able to transform themselves into the leading
politicians of the newly independent state, and have managed to hang onto
that power until now. Access to the instruments of power has made many of
these people very rich and in some cases crimes both large and small that
would be investigated and prosecuted if rule of law existed, have been
covered up.
Ukraine's record has not been all bad, particularly in the pro-western
foreign policy orientation pursued in the 1990s; in the mid-1990s Ukraine's
media was relatively free if somewhat unsophisticated, and it should be
remembered that Ukraine was the first post-Soviet state where there was a
peaceful transfer of power from one president to another in 1994. But the
major problem today is that this group does not want to give up its control
over government and Ukraine's resources. It does not want to submit to an
open and fair process that would allow the citizens of Ukraine to express
their will as to who should represent them in government.
Distilled down to the basics, the struggle between the ruling elite and its
supporters and those who seek to challenge the old order with a new vision
for Ukraine will be played out in the candidacies of the current Prime
Minister, Viktor Yanukovych, who has been nominated as presidential
candidate by the pro-presidential side and the acclaimed leader of the
opposition, Viktor Yushchenko, leader of a coalition of democratic political
parties "Our Ukraine." There are of course many shades of grey in between
these two positions and there will be other candidates, but according to the
last independent opinion polls, if the presidential election were to have
taken place one month ago, the result in the second round run-off would have
been a Yushchenko victory with 36.4 percent with Yanukovych at 32.8 percent.
Current political developments in Ukraine
Ukraine today is a country whose future is hanging in the balance between
east and west, between democracy and authoritarianism, and where the country
is deeply divided between a political culture which is increasingly
polarized and a civil society that is moving forward and has made
significant advances in the past few years in its level of sophistication
and readiness to act as a counterweight and check on the exercise of
executive power.
It is a society hovering on the edge of a deep crisis, where the next few
months promise to show us a pitched battle between the authorities who are
determined to crush all efforts to have free and fair elections and those
within civil society who share the profound aspiration that Ukraine should
finally join the democratic community of nations, but who are at a huge
disadvantage in terms of resources and support.
This struggle began in earnest at the time of the March 2002 parliamentary
elections, when some 75 percent of Ukraine's electorate voted against the
parties allied with the president. Although, the opposition was
outmaneuvered when it came to the distribution of functions within the
parliament, it was clear that manipulating future elections was not going to
be easy. In the wake of this revelation several initiatives were launched,
emanating mainly from the president's allies in parliament, to explore the
redistribution of executive power.
The main elements of the proposed political reform -or so-called
"politreforma"--were 1) to shift power, particularly authority over the
power-ministries, that is the Ministries of Defense, Interior, Finance and
Industry from the presidency to the Prime Minister and his cabinet, 2) to do
away with direct election of the president and go to a
parliamentary-presidential system where the parliament elects the head of
state, and 3) to change the election of members of parliament to a
completely proportional, party-list system, from the current mixed system.
Such fundamental changes to the distribution of power in Ukraine can be
accomplished only through a change in the constitution, which requires the
agreement of the Constitutional Court, passage through parliament and a
two-thirds majority vote. Several politicians have introduced a number of
different bills over the past six months, which include these and other
changes. Some of these bills have contradicted the Ukrainian Constitution
according to Western experts who have examined them, but the main effect on
the population of Ukraine has been to create a great deal of confusion as
who supports which bill and why, and what the ultimate result of the reform
might be.
The entire debate on changing the constitution and system of government
has been conducted in the absence of objective reporting in much of the
media, which has represented mainly the one-sided arguments of the
government authorities. In fact, public opinion polls show that 18.3
percent of Ukraine's adult population believes that "the topic of reforms
was constantly in the news, but there was absolutely no discussion with
concrete arguments for and against."
A bill that would have eliminated the direct vote for the president met with
a turbulent passage through the parliament, which included tragi-comic
scenes played out in the parliament in December 2003 such as the sabotage
of the automated voting system and many extra-procedural moves by the
parliament's leadership. It was finally defeated on April 8, 2004 by six
votes, when some key pro-presidential supporters failed to show up to
support the bill. In amongst all of the turmoil of the political reform,
President Kuchma has also managed to get the Constitutional Court to
approve his own candidacy for a third term, thus adding another
unpredictable element into the presidential election mix.
A number of other issues should be highlighted as important in the current
political situation.
The media in Ukraine continues to come under pressure to conform to the
message coming from the President's Administration. All three of the
national TV channels-UT-1, Channel One Plus One, and Inter, reflect only the
political line of the President's Administration. Some of the other smaller
stations ICTV, STB, and Novyi Kanal, because they are owned by a more
broadminded segment of the political elite have recently started to
broadcast a somewhat wider range of opinions and political views, while
Channel 5, owned by a supporter of Viktor Yushchenko continues a valiant
struggle to remain on the air even though its broadcasts are not
particularly in support of the opposition but offer an objective perspective
from many points of view.
The truly independent broadcast voices, which provided Ukrainian citizens
with unbiased reporting and balanced debate, have now been silenced: the
Ukrainian service of Radio Liberty, which has for the past decade been
broadcast over AM radio to a growing Ukrainian audience, was taken off the
air, so that the political debates on issues in the run up to the
presidential election will no longer be heard, nor, for that matter, the
excellent Radio Liberty reports on the trial of former Ukrainian Prime
Minister Pavlo Lazarenko for laundering millions of dollars of stolen money
through US bank accounts, which began its deliberations in San Francisco
just at the time when Radio Liberty was pulled off the air. When Tom Dine,
the Director of Radio Liberty came to Kyiv last month, President Kuchma
declined to meet with him. Another major independent broadcaster, who has
suffered much harassment in the past few years, Radio Kontynent, was closed
and its assets seized, with its owner fleeing Ukraine in fear of his life.
There have been attempts to close "Sil's'ki visti," the newspaper of the
Socialist Party, which has generally been in opposition to the president.
And now the flagship of independent Internet publishers, "Ukrains'ka
Pravda," whose founder and editor-in-chief Heorhiy Gongadze, was found
decapitated in November 2001, is once again under pressure from a court
case emanating from the President's Administration. The system of
controlling the media through "temnyky" or theme directives issued from
the President's Administration continues. They are issued daily and explain
to the press how they are to report and spin the news. For the most part,
lately they have instructed that any critical statements coming from the US
State Department, from the EU, or Council of Europe are to be simply
ignored.
Another incident that exemplifies the weird world that Ukraine is becoming,
was the visit of George Soros at the end of March. In addition to having a
major conference derailed by local officials in Crimea and then given
permission from Kyiv to go ahead, he was also pelted in a most undignified
manner, with mayonnaise, flour and glue at a meeting in Kyiv, by thugs
considered by most observers to be in the pay of the authorities.
Intimidation of the opposition continues: One notable incident was the
severe beating of the son of one of Ukraine's foremost independent trade
unionists, Mykhailo Volynets, who is the President of the 124,000-strong
Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Ukraine, which includes miners,
steelworkers, railroad engineers, metro workers, dock workers and others.
Mr Volynets is also a supporter of Yulia Tymoshenko. This was a change of
tactic, since Volynets himself, a former coalminer, has undergone many
repressions, but an attack against a member of his family was designed
purposely to unnerve and intimidate him.
The most bizarre and troubling events in the current political situation
have occurred around the elections for the mayor of the Western Ukrainian
city of Mukachevo, which took place on April 18, 2004. Independent exit
polling and also according to copies of the protocols which were secured by
observers from the opposition "Our Ukraine" group indicated that the Our
Ukraine candidate Viktor Baloha had won with 57 percent over the candidate
of the presidentially allied SDPUo candidate Ernest Nusser, who received 40
percent. The election commission announced Nusser the official winner.
Even though around fifty parliamentary deputies from the Our Ukraine faction
traveled to Mukachevo to monitor these elections the violations were
outlandish in the extreme: skin-head thugs roughed up a number of the
deputies and smashed up some of the polling stations, legitimate domestic
observers were thrown out of polling stations, individuals working the exit
poll were threatened and harassed, and in the end, the ballot papers were
stolen after the close of voting.
These incidents took place in full view of the international observers
present. This was all in addition to the usual violations which have now
become standard in Ukraine, where the opposition candidate is not allowed
air time or coverage in the press, where his representatives are prevented
from participating in the election commissions even though this is mandated
by law, and where the head of the electoral commission often tries to keep
both the list of voters and the final protocol away from the scrutiny of
independent observers.
The reason for going into all of this detail, and there is much more, is to
demonstrate that the political environment in the run up to the presidential
elections is already prejudicing the vote from being free and fair, and to
show the circumstances in which the election campaign will be conducted.
Assessment of Ukraine's Democratic Credentials
Despite the actions of the government authorities, of all of the post-Soviet
states, (with the exception of the Baltic states and now Georgia) Ukraine is
a country where there are realistic prospects for the development of
democracy: there is a real political struggle, the fledgling institutions of
civil society are evolving and the population constantly expresses its
discontent with the current situation and desire for better and more open
governance. There are numerous institutions of civil society that continue
to operate independently in support of a more open and accountable system
and to promote participation of the citizenry in Ukraine's political and
social life. The U.S policy expressed toward Ukraine last year, specifying
that Ukraine's leadership should be regarded separately from the nation as a
whole, was a good and sound approach that is well-justified by the situation
on the ground.
The Ukrainian parliament, the "Verkhovna Rada," of all of the parliaments in
the region, is unique in being a forum where different points of view are
discussed and real political struggles are fought out. Ukraine's political
parties, while still a long way from being of the Western-type that
represent a particular constituency and set of policies, are distinct and
independent, and some enjoy considerable support among the population.
There are thousands of non-governmental organizations in Ukraine, which
work on a whole variety of social, humanitarian and also political issues.
Ukraine's think tanks and analytical centers are among the most advanced in
the region and have helped to create the backbone of the emerging civil
society. Many of these NGOs worked with great effect during the March 2002
parliamentary elections in getting out the vote, monitoring and observing,
conducting opinion polling and providing voter education and information
where the government controlled media failed.
Ukraine's third sector is largely independent and beyond the control of the
government and its allies. This contrasts positively with Russia, where the
government has exerted great pressure to bring Russia's independent NGOs
under the control of the Kremlin especially through events like the Civic
Forum convened in the fall of 2001.
Ukraine's fledgling civil society and particularly the NGO sector are rising
to the challenge of preparing for the October elections. For example, a
broad group of over 100 non-governmental organizations has come together
under the umbrella of the Civic Coalition "New Choice 2004" with the purpose
of working for free and fair elections, with new member organizations
joining every week. Its members have analyzed the methods used to
manipulate previous elections and for the upcoming elections they will be
working for equal opportunities for all candidates and to ensure that voters
have adequate information to cast an informed vote.
They will monitor the mass media; watch the legislative framework; advise
voters on their rights; provide polling information; publicize the abuse of
administrative resources and campaign finances; and investigate many other
instances where electoral fraud might take place. This is a nation-wide
effort with member organizations operating in over 150 different locations
to date.
The National Endowment for Democracy in Ukraine
The National Endowment for Democracy and its institutes are fully engaged in
working with the pro-democratic forces in Ukraine to strengthen the
institutions that support democracy. In fact, NED support has been going to
Ukraine since 1988, when the community of dissidents and former political
prisoners were preparing the ground work for launching a mass movement for
democracy and independence within what was then the Soviet Union. The
Endowment continues to support a broad range of democracy programs including
youth initiatives, think tanks and programs in support of the free media.
Over the past ten years, the National Democratic Institute and the
International Republican Institute have worked with all of the major
pro-democratic political parties to help them become more professional,
responsive to their constituents and to enable them to consolidate their
political skills. The Center for International Private Enterprise has
worked closely for many years with a community of think tanks and
associations of small and medium entrepreneurs to improve the conditions for
developing a free market economy. The American Center for International
Labor Solidarity, formerly known as the Free Trade Union Institute, has
worked with Ukraine's independent trade unions since the early 1990s.
In its annual review of priorities, the NED and its institutes came to the
conclusion last August, that Ukraine should be a priority for our work this
year, as the place where our concerted efforts could have the greatest
effect in terms of promoting democracy, and where the political situation is
most conducive to our assistance. The presidential elections in Ukraine
were also the subject of a meeting of donors and implementers convened by
the NED in January this year, when we provided a forum for both private and
USG funded organizations to share information, coordinate activities and
determine priorities.
Significance of the Upcoming Presidential Elections
The stakes are high for the upcoming Presidential elections: the outcome
could determine Ukraine's future for many years to come. As well as the
significance for the internal developments in the country, one area where
the election will have a great impact will be in Ukraine's international
relationships, in determining whether Ukraine faces east or west. Unable to
respond to or to accommodate the requirements of the European Union, we see
that President Kuchma has recently been backtracking on the commitment to
pursue European Union membership. On April 20, 2004, the pro-presidential
majority in the Ukrainian parliament ratified agreements on the Single
Economic Space signed by President Kuchma earlier in the year.
This set of agreements initiates the creation of a common tax code and a
customs union ending trade tariffs among the four signatories-Ukraine,
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Some members of the opposition have gone
as far as condemning this as the attempt to recreate Russian control over
Ukraine. Others have just stated the obvious; this set of alliances is
contradictory and incompatible with Ukraine's declared intention to comply
with requirements to bring it in line with EU membership. President Kuchma
has just recently gone on the record as saying that Ukraine doesn't need to
hurry towards Europe.
This is the just the latest in a series of flip-flops of orientation from
west to east that are characteristic of the Kuchma presidency. Not only do
they sew confusion among Ukraine's Western neighbors and allies, but they
also confirm the impression that Ukraine's foreign policy is not based on a
well thought out and systematic strategy that takes Ukraine's best interests
into account or on the consensus of views of the citizenry, but rather are
the outcome of infighting within a narrow circle of insiders around the
President.
What about accession to NATO? Major public pronouncements on this issue
ceased after the President was snubbed by western leaders at the Prague
summit in November 2002. Despite the existence of a detailed Action Plan
for Ukraine, which clearly outlines steps Ukraine needs to undertake in
terms of strengthening democracy in as far as NATO is a community of nations
based on shared democratic values, the Ukrainian leadership has not done
much to put this plan into action.
While it is true that Ukraine's troops are the fourth largest contingent in
the coalition forces in Iraq at the moment, this decision was also the
result of faction fighting at the top and was never open to public debate.
Ukraine's leadership has benefited from the prestige value of participating
in the coalition because it is helping to erase the memory of all the
unresolved issues that created impediments to smooth US-Ukraine relations
such as the approval to sell Kolchugas, the still unsolved Gongadze murder
and the broken promise not to sell arms to Macedonia during a civil war.
Ukraine's population, however, is in the dark about why Ukrainian troops are
in Iraq. There have been no major speeches from the leadership outlining
Ukraine's purpose or its solidarity with a community of values in support of
the toppling of a dictator and liberating an enslaved Arab nation. A
glimpse of what might lie in the future was revealed in a statement by Prime
Minister Yanukovych, however, when he indicated a few days ago that if
Ukraine is not allowed to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq,
consideration should be given to withdrawing its troops.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Ukraine's leaders need to regain the confidence not only of the
international community but most importantly the confidence of their own
people. In public opinion polls conducted in April 2004, 60.4 percent
stated that they believe Ukraine is moving in the wrong direction, and 70.4
percent believe that there will not be equal opportunities for candidates
campaigning in the election. Only 25.5 percent believe that there is a
truly secret ballot.
Ukraine's elections have become the focus of attention for the United
States, the European Union, Council of Europe as well as international
bodies such as the OSCE-all of which have put forward sound recommendations
that will keep up the pressure on the Ukrainian authorities to ensure that
the upcoming elections are free and fair. These are recommendations that
have appeared elsewhere, but they are worth repeating:
With regard to the media: all candidates should be given access to the
national TV channels and debates should be encouraged and fully covered.
Radio Liberty should be allowed to negotiate contracts for rebroadcast
without its Ukrainian partners suffering intimidation;
With regard to the electoral law: all violations should be swiftly
adjudicated in a fair manner and where guilt is determined, prosecutions
should be seen to ensue. Ukraine has effective legal procedures on paper,
but few are ever carried through to create a better electoral environment.
With regard to the electoral commissions: all efforts should be made to
make sure that the candidates' representatives are able to participate in
the commission, with an equitable distribution of the heads of commissions
according to party affiliation.
With regard to observers and monitors: the work of the OSCE and
international observers should be welcomed and provision made for the
participation of domestic observers. Unfortunately, during the week that
Deputy Secretary Armitage was visiting Ukraine and engaging in discussions
on the importance of the elections, a provision to guarantee the
participation of domestic NGOs as official observers was left out of the
legislation.
The government of Ukraine should pledge to guarantee the physical
safety of observers, poll watchers and officials engaged in ensuring a
free and fair election.
Serious thought should be given to exploring Madelaine Albright's
recommendation in a recent op-ed piece in the "New York Times"
suggesting to Ukraine's leaders that their entry into Western
institutions will slow and that their own bank accounts and visa
privileges will be jeopardized if the elections are fraudulent.
Just a couple of final thoughts:
There has been a lot of discussion and soul searching in Washington and
throughout this country over the past few months about "values," "the values
of democracy" "American values" and the values of simple human decency.
My hope is that while continuing to stress that "the process is important,"
which is always the official US message at the time of an election, we also
expend more effort on all levels with the Ukrainians to emphasize the
importance of values, and to evaluate the main players accordingly.
Those of us who watch Ukraine closely are often told that there are "good"
forces and "bad" forces around President Kuchma and that he is not always
free to act the way he would like to. These protestations are all very well
and good, but it is time for all right thinking citizens of Ukraine to
realize the tremendous responsibility each has for the future of their
country in the next few months. We all wish for the best. (END)
U.S. House Of Representatives, Wash, D.C., Wed, May 12, 2004
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee:
I welcome the opportunity to be here today to comment on the topic of the
hearing "Ukraine's Future and United States Interests." And I would also
like to thank you Mr. Chairman and all of the members of the Committee for
your continuing support for the National Endowment for Democracy over the
years.
I would like to focus on the main event that looms in Ukraine's immediate
future, and which the entire international community will be watching-the
election for the post of President of Ukraine scheduled for October 2004.
Concerns about the conduct of these elections are very well expressed in the
concurrent resolutions recently introduced in the House and Senate under the
title "Urging the Government of Ukraine to Ensure a Democratic, Transparent,
and Fair Election Process for the Presidential Election on October 31,
2004."
The upcoming elections have already determined much of what has happened in
Ukraine over the past year, as the state authorities and the opposition and
pro-democratic forces engage in an ongoing struggle in the political sphere,
media, business and civil society as a whole. The elections are the tip of
an iceberg, which represents a huge systemic problem: Ukraine's ruling
elite is still largely made up of the same people who ran Ukraine under the
Communist system. They were able to transform themselves into the leading
politicians of the newly independent state, and have managed to hang onto
that power until now. Access to the instruments of power has made many of
these people very rich and in some cases crimes both large and small that
would be investigated and prosecuted if rule of law existed, have been
covered up.
Ukraine's record has not been all bad, particularly in the pro-western
foreign policy orientation pursued in the 1990s; in the mid-1990s Ukraine's
media was relatively free if somewhat unsophisticated, and it should be
remembered that Ukraine was the first post-Soviet state where there was a
peaceful transfer of power from one president to another in 1994. But the
major problem today is that this group does not want to give up its control
over government and Ukraine's resources. It does not want to submit to an
open and fair process that would allow the citizens of Ukraine to express
their will as to who should represent them in government.
Distilled down to the basics, the struggle between the ruling elite and its
supporters and those who seek to challenge the old order with a new vision
for Ukraine will be played out in the candidacies of the current Prime
Minister, Viktor Yanukovych, who has been nominated as presidential
candidate by the pro-presidential side and the acclaimed leader of the
opposition, Viktor Yushchenko, leader of a coalition of democratic political
parties "Our Ukraine." There are of course many shades of grey in between
these two positions and there will be other candidates, but according to the
last independent opinion polls, if the presidential election were to have
taken place one month ago, the result in the second round run-off would have
been a Yushchenko victory with 36.4 percent with Yanukovych at 32.8 percent.
Current political developments in Ukraine
Ukraine today is a country whose future is hanging in the balance between
east and west, between democracy and authoritarianism, and where the country
is deeply divided between a political culture which is increasingly
polarized and a civil society that is moving forward and has made
significant advances in the past few years in its level of sophistication
and readiness to act as a counterweight and check on the exercise of
executive power.
It is a society hovering on the edge of a deep crisis, where the next few
months promise to show us a pitched battle between the authorities who are
determined to crush all efforts to have free and fair elections and those
within civil society who share the profound aspiration that Ukraine should
finally join the democratic community of nations, but who are at a huge
disadvantage in terms of resources and support.
This struggle began in earnest at the time of the March 2002 parliamentary
elections, when some 75 percent of Ukraine's electorate voted against the
parties allied with the president. Although, the opposition was
outmaneuvered when it came to the distribution of functions within the
parliament, it was clear that manipulating future elections was not going to
be easy. In the wake of this revelation several initiatives were launched,
emanating mainly from the president's allies in parliament, to explore the
redistribution of executive power.
The main elements of the proposed political reform -or so-called
"politreforma"--were 1) to shift power, particularly authority over the
power-ministries, that is the Ministries of Defense, Interior, Finance and
Industry from the presidency to the Prime Minister and his cabinet, 2) to do
away with direct election of the president and go to a
parliamentary-presidential system where the parliament elects the head of
state, and 3) to change the election of members of parliament to a
completely proportional, party-list system, from the current mixed system.
Such fundamental changes to the distribution of power in Ukraine can be
accomplished only through a change in the constitution, which requires the
agreement of the Constitutional Court, passage through parliament and a
two-thirds majority vote. Several politicians have introduced a number of
different bills over the past six months, which include these and other
changes. Some of these bills have contradicted the Ukrainian Constitution
according to Western experts who have examined them, but the main effect on
the population of Ukraine has been to create a great deal of confusion as
who supports which bill and why, and what the ultimate result of the reform
might be.
The entire debate on changing the constitution and system of government
has been conducted in the absence of objective reporting in much of the
media, which has represented mainly the one-sided arguments of the
government authorities. In fact, public opinion polls show that 18.3
percent of Ukraine's adult population believes that "the topic of reforms
was constantly in the news, but there was absolutely no discussion with
concrete arguments for and against."
A bill that would have eliminated the direct vote for the president met with
a turbulent passage through the parliament, which included tragi-comic
scenes played out in the parliament in December 2003 such as the sabotage
of the automated voting system and many extra-procedural moves by the
parliament's leadership. It was finally defeated on April 8, 2004 by six
votes, when some key pro-presidential supporters failed to show up to
support the bill. In amongst all of the turmoil of the political reform,
President Kuchma has also managed to get the Constitutional Court to
approve his own candidacy for a third term, thus adding another
unpredictable element into the presidential election mix.
A number of other issues should be highlighted as important in the current
political situation.
The media in Ukraine continues to come under pressure to conform to the
message coming from the President's Administration. All three of the
national TV channels-UT-1, Channel One Plus One, and Inter, reflect only the
political line of the President's Administration. Some of the other smaller
stations ICTV, STB, and Novyi Kanal, because they are owned by a more
broadminded segment of the political elite have recently started to
broadcast a somewhat wider range of opinions and political views, while
Channel 5, owned by a supporter of Viktor Yushchenko continues a valiant
struggle to remain on the air even though its broadcasts are not
particularly in support of the opposition but offer an objective perspective
from many points of view.
The truly independent broadcast voices, which provided Ukrainian citizens
with unbiased reporting and balanced debate, have now been silenced: the
Ukrainian service of Radio Liberty, which has for the past decade been
broadcast over AM radio to a growing Ukrainian audience, was taken off the
air, so that the political debates on issues in the run up to the
presidential election will no longer be heard, nor, for that matter, the
excellent Radio Liberty reports on the trial of former Ukrainian Prime
Minister Pavlo Lazarenko for laundering millions of dollars of stolen money
through US bank accounts, which began its deliberations in San Francisco
just at the time when Radio Liberty was pulled off the air. When Tom Dine,
the Director of Radio Liberty came to Kyiv last month, President Kuchma
declined to meet with him. Another major independent broadcaster, who has
suffered much harassment in the past few years, Radio Kontynent, was closed
and its assets seized, with its owner fleeing Ukraine in fear of his life.
There have been attempts to close "Sil's'ki visti," the newspaper of the
Socialist Party, which has generally been in opposition to the president.
And now the flagship of independent Internet publishers, "Ukrains'ka
Pravda," whose founder and editor-in-chief Heorhiy Gongadze, was found
decapitated in November 2001, is once again under pressure from a court
case emanating from the President's Administration. The system of
controlling the media through "temnyky" or theme directives issued from
the President's Administration continues. They are issued daily and explain
to the press how they are to report and spin the news. For the most part,
lately they have instructed that any critical statements coming from the US
State Department, from the EU, or Council of Europe are to be simply
ignored.
Another incident that exemplifies the weird world that Ukraine is becoming,
was the visit of George Soros at the end of March. In addition to having a
major conference derailed by local officials in Crimea and then given
permission from Kyiv to go ahead, he was also pelted in a most undignified
manner, with mayonnaise, flour and glue at a meeting in Kyiv, by thugs
considered by most observers to be in the pay of the authorities.
Intimidation of the opposition continues: One notable incident was the
severe beating of the son of one of Ukraine's foremost independent trade
unionists, Mykhailo Volynets, who is the President of the 124,000-strong
Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Ukraine, which includes miners,
steelworkers, railroad engineers, metro workers, dock workers and others.
Mr Volynets is also a supporter of Yulia Tymoshenko. This was a change of
tactic, since Volynets himself, a former coalminer, has undergone many
repressions, but an attack against a member of his family was designed
purposely to unnerve and intimidate him.
The most bizarre and troubling events in the current political situation
have occurred around the elections for the mayor of the Western Ukrainian
city of Mukachevo, which took place on April 18, 2004. Independent exit
polling and also according to copies of the protocols which were secured by
observers from the opposition "Our Ukraine" group indicated that the Our
Ukraine candidate Viktor Baloha had won with 57 percent over the candidate
of the presidentially allied SDPUo candidate Ernest Nusser, who received 40
percent. The election commission announced Nusser the official winner.
Even though around fifty parliamentary deputies from the Our Ukraine faction
traveled to Mukachevo to monitor these elections the violations were
outlandish in the extreme: skin-head thugs roughed up a number of the
deputies and smashed up some of the polling stations, legitimate domestic
observers were thrown out of polling stations, individuals working the exit
poll were threatened and harassed, and in the end, the ballot papers were
stolen after the close of voting.
These incidents took place in full view of the international observers
present. This was all in addition to the usual violations which have now
become standard in Ukraine, where the opposition candidate is not allowed
air time or coverage in the press, where his representatives are prevented
from participating in the election commissions even though this is mandated
by law, and where the head of the electoral commission often tries to keep
both the list of voters and the final protocol away from the scrutiny of
independent observers.
The reason for going into all of this detail, and there is much more, is to
demonstrate that the political environment in the run up to the presidential
elections is already prejudicing the vote from being free and fair, and to
show the circumstances in which the election campaign will be conducted.
Assessment of Ukraine's Democratic Credentials
Despite the actions of the government authorities, of all of the post-Soviet
states, (with the exception of the Baltic states and now Georgia) Ukraine is
a country where there are realistic prospects for the development of
democracy: there is a real political struggle, the fledgling institutions of
civil society are evolving and the population constantly expresses its
discontent with the current situation and desire for better and more open
governance. There are numerous institutions of civil society that continue
to operate independently in support of a more open and accountable system
and to promote participation of the citizenry in Ukraine's political and
social life. The U.S policy expressed toward Ukraine last year, specifying
that Ukraine's leadership should be regarded separately from the nation as a
whole, was a good and sound approach that is well-justified by the situation
on the ground.
The Ukrainian parliament, the "Verkhovna Rada," of all of the parliaments in
the region, is unique in being a forum where different points of view are
discussed and real political struggles are fought out. Ukraine's political
parties, while still a long way from being of the Western-type that
represent a particular constituency and set of policies, are distinct and
independent, and some enjoy considerable support among the population.
There are thousands of non-governmental organizations in Ukraine, which
work on a whole variety of social, humanitarian and also political issues.
Ukraine's think tanks and analytical centers are among the most advanced in
the region and have helped to create the backbone of the emerging civil
society. Many of these NGOs worked with great effect during the March 2002
parliamentary elections in getting out the vote, monitoring and observing,
conducting opinion polling and providing voter education and information
where the government controlled media failed.
Ukraine's third sector is largely independent and beyond the control of the
government and its allies. This contrasts positively with Russia, where the
government has exerted great pressure to bring Russia's independent NGOs
under the control of the Kremlin especially through events like the Civic
Forum convened in the fall of 2001.
Ukraine's fledgling civil society and particularly the NGO sector are rising
to the challenge of preparing for the October elections. For example, a
broad group of over 100 non-governmental organizations has come together
under the umbrella of the Civic Coalition "New Choice 2004" with the purpose
of working for free and fair elections, with new member organizations
joining every week. Its members have analyzed the methods used to
manipulate previous elections and for the upcoming elections they will be
working for equal opportunities for all candidates and to ensure that voters
have adequate information to cast an informed vote.
They will monitor the mass media; watch the legislative framework; advise
voters on their rights; provide polling information; publicize the abuse of
administrative resources and campaign finances; and investigate many other
instances where electoral fraud might take place. This is a nation-wide
effort with member organizations operating in over 150 different locations
to date.
The National Endowment for Democracy in Ukraine
The National Endowment for Democracy and its institutes are fully engaged in
working with the pro-democratic forces in Ukraine to strengthen the
institutions that support democracy. In fact, NED support has been going to
Ukraine since 1988, when the community of dissidents and former political
prisoners were preparing the ground work for launching a mass movement for
democracy and independence within what was then the Soviet Union. The
Endowment continues to support a broad range of democracy programs including
youth initiatives, think tanks and programs in support of the free media.
Over the past ten years, the National Democratic Institute and the
International Republican Institute have worked with all of the major
pro-democratic political parties to help them become more professional,
responsive to their constituents and to enable them to consolidate their
political skills. The Center for International Private Enterprise has
worked closely for many years with a community of think tanks and
associations of small and medium entrepreneurs to improve the conditions for
developing a free market economy. The American Center for International
Labor Solidarity, formerly known as the Free Trade Union Institute, has
worked with Ukraine's independent trade unions since the early 1990s.
In its annual review of priorities, the NED and its institutes came to the
conclusion last August, that Ukraine should be a priority for our work this
year, as the place where our concerted efforts could have the greatest
effect in terms of promoting democracy, and where the political situation is
most conducive to our assistance. The presidential elections in Ukraine
were also the subject of a meeting of donors and implementers convened by
the NED in January this year, when we provided a forum for both private and
USG funded organizations to share information, coordinate activities and
determine priorities.
Significance of the Upcoming Presidential Elections
The stakes are high for the upcoming Presidential elections: the outcome
could determine Ukraine's future for many years to come. As well as the
significance for the internal developments in the country, one area where
the election will have a great impact will be in Ukraine's international
relationships, in determining whether Ukraine faces east or west. Unable to
respond to or to accommodate the requirements of the European Union, we see
that President Kuchma has recently been backtracking on the commitment to
pursue European Union membership. On April 20, 2004, the pro-presidential
majority in the Ukrainian parliament ratified agreements on the Single
Economic Space signed by President Kuchma earlier in the year.
This set of agreements initiates the creation of a common tax code and a
customs union ending trade tariffs among the four signatories-Ukraine,
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Some members of the opposition have gone
as far as condemning this as the attempt to recreate Russian control over
Ukraine. Others have just stated the obvious; this set of alliances is
contradictory and incompatible with Ukraine's declared intention to comply
with requirements to bring it in line with EU membership. President Kuchma
has just recently gone on the record as saying that Ukraine doesn't need to
hurry towards Europe.
This is the just the latest in a series of flip-flops of orientation from
west to east that are characteristic of the Kuchma presidency. Not only do
they sew confusion among Ukraine's Western neighbors and allies, but they
also confirm the impression that Ukraine's foreign policy is not based on a
well thought out and systematic strategy that takes Ukraine's best interests
into account or on the consensus of views of the citizenry, but rather are
the outcome of infighting within a narrow circle of insiders around the
President.
What about accession to NATO? Major public pronouncements on this issue
ceased after the President was snubbed by western leaders at the Prague
summit in November 2002. Despite the existence of a detailed Action Plan
for Ukraine, which clearly outlines steps Ukraine needs to undertake in
terms of strengthening democracy in as far as NATO is a community of nations
based on shared democratic values, the Ukrainian leadership has not done
much to put this plan into action.
While it is true that Ukraine's troops are the fourth largest contingent in
the coalition forces in Iraq at the moment, this decision was also the
result of faction fighting at the top and was never open to public debate.
Ukraine's leadership has benefited from the prestige value of participating
in the coalition because it is helping to erase the memory of all the
unresolved issues that created impediments to smooth US-Ukraine relations
such as the approval to sell Kolchugas, the still unsolved Gongadze murder
and the broken promise not to sell arms to Macedonia during a civil war.
Ukraine's population, however, is in the dark about why Ukrainian troops are
in Iraq. There have been no major speeches from the leadership outlining
Ukraine's purpose or its solidarity with a community of values in support of
the toppling of a dictator and liberating an enslaved Arab nation. A
glimpse of what might lie in the future was revealed in a statement by Prime
Minister Yanukovych, however, when he indicated a few days ago that if
Ukraine is not allowed to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq,
consideration should be given to withdrawing its troops.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Ukraine's leaders need to regain the confidence not only of the
international community but most importantly the confidence of their own
people. In public opinion polls conducted in April 2004, 60.4 percent
stated that they believe Ukraine is moving in the wrong direction, and 70.4
percent believe that there will not be equal opportunities for candidates
campaigning in the election. Only 25.5 percent believe that there is a
truly secret ballot.
Ukraine's elections have become the focus of attention for the United
States, the European Union, Council of Europe as well as international
bodies such as the OSCE-all of which have put forward sound recommendations
that will keep up the pressure on the Ukrainian authorities to ensure that
the upcoming elections are free and fair. These are recommendations that
have appeared elsewhere, but they are worth repeating:
With regard to the media: all candidates should be given access to the
national TV channels and debates should be encouraged and fully covered.
Radio Liberty should be allowed to negotiate contracts for rebroadcast
without its Ukrainian partners suffering intimidation;
With regard to the electoral law: all violations should be swiftly
adjudicated in a fair manner and where guilt is determined, prosecutions
should be seen to ensue. Ukraine has effective legal procedures on paper,
but few are ever carried through to create a better electoral environment.
With regard to the electoral commissions: all efforts should be made to
make sure that the candidates' representatives are able to participate in
the commission, with an equitable distribution of the heads of commissions
according to party affiliation.
With regard to observers and monitors: the work of the OSCE and
international observers should be welcomed and provision made for the
participation of domestic observers. Unfortunately, during the week that
Deputy Secretary Armitage was visiting Ukraine and engaging in discussions
on the importance of the elections, a provision to guarantee the
participation of domestic NGOs as official observers was left out of the
legislation.
The government of Ukraine should pledge to guarantee the physical
safety of observers, poll watchers and officials engaged in ensuring a
free and fair election.
Serious thought should be given to exploring Madelaine Albright's
recommendation in a recent op-ed piece in the "New York Times"
suggesting to Ukraine's leaders that their entry into Western
institutions will slow and that their own bank accounts and visa
privileges will be jeopardized if the elections are fraudulent.
Just a couple of final thoughts:
There has been a lot of discussion and soul searching in Washington and
throughout this country over the past few months about "values," "the values
of democracy" "American values" and the values of simple human decency.
My hope is that while continuing to stress that "the process is important,"
which is always the official US message at the time of an election, we also
expend more effort on all levels with the Ukrainians to emphasize the
importance of values, and to evaluate the main players accordingly.
Those of us who watch Ukraine closely are often told that there are "good"
forces and "bad" forces around President Kuchma and that he is not always
free to act the way he would like to. These protestations are all very well
and good, but it is time for all right thinking citizens of Ukraine to
realize the tremendous responsibility each has for the future of their
country in the next few months. We all wish for the best.
E. Morgan Williams, Coordinator
The Action Ukraine Coalition
Senior Advisor, Government Relations
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation (USUF)
Publisher and Editor, "The Action Ukraine Report"
Ukrainian News Website: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
P. O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013
202 437 4707
Office In Kyiv: 380 44 212 5586
Mobile in Kyiv: 380 50 689 2874
FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC
USE ONLY |
|
back
