Sunday, November 20, 2005
SENT NOV. 20, 2004
This was sent as an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal in reaction to a letter from Viktor Yanukovych that the WSJ published earlier in the week; it didn't get published. . .
I could not find a link on the internet to Yanukovych's letter today. . .
WHO IS THE CENTRIST FORCE IN UKRAINE'S ELECTIONS?:
This Sunday, November 21 Ukrainians will vote in a second round of presidential elections which will greatly effect the future of this country of strategic importance to both Russia and the West. Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal published a letter by Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's current Prime Minister and one of two candidates on the ballot this Sunday. Yanukovych downplayed the seriousness of widespread claims that the first round of the elections, which took place on October 31, were anything but free and fair. He also staked the claim that he--not his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko--is the one candidate with a moderate, centrist policy that is pluralist and democratic, thereby implying that only he is free of the kind of dangerous nationalism the West is fond of warning Ukrainians against. One should recall George H. W. Bush's infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech in 1991, when he warned Ukrainians against "suicidal nationalism" and against voting for independence from the USSR.
True to his style, Yanukovych is lieing. Only observers from the CIS were willing to state that the first round proceeded in a free and fair manner, while all other foriegn observers have condemned not only the election itself, but the entire campaign season leading to the election, as unfree and unfair. Before the election, President Kuchma and other oligarchs allied with Yanukovych did everything they could to promote Yanukovych's candidacy through their control of both State and non-State media in Ukraine. The abuse of State media and campaign election laws were so widespread that one observer of Ukraine, Professor of Political Science Paul D'Anieri at Lawrence University in Kansas, commented before the first round, "It is no longer imaginable that the election will be regarded as free and fair."
Indeed it was not, and authorities seem ready to try again to falsify results. Early this week, "budget workers" whose wages are paid from the government's budget were ordered by the presidential administration to turn in both their voter registration cards and passports, both of which are necessary to vote on Sunday. The presidential administration's stated rationale for this move was that it intended to vote on behalf of workers to make it easier for them to attend election parties and other events on Sunday. However, the presidential administration is staffed at the highest levels with individuals allied to Yanukovych, and few in Ukraine believed the sincerity of the government's intention. In fact, so few believed that on Wednesday a wave of grassroots demonstrations broke out across the country in protest against this renewed attempt to falsify the elections even before they begin. Particularly large gatherings itook place n Lviv and Kyiv, and smaller, town-hall type meetings took place elsewhere. The outcry was so great that on Thursday the Ukrainian parlaiment decreed that Ukrainians could vote Sunday only in the towns where they live, thus undercutting the administrations ability to vote on behalf of workers.
Such is the kind of democracy Yanukovych supports, one that is hardly any different from the Soviet "democracy" he claims to be replacing. In the end, he believes that authorities, not the people, should decide the outcome.
He is also lieing when he claims that he is a centrist and non-nationalist. Yanukovych has consistently attempted to politicize issues of culture in Ukraine in an effort to split Ukrainian and Russian voters. One example is polticization of issues surrounding the closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Yanukovych--as well as many others in Ukraine--has frequently waxed critical of his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko, for the way in which he closed the plant while he was himself Prime Minister in 2000-2001. The closure of the plant was a serious financial burden on Ukraine that made it more energy-dependent, and the West, which demanded its closure, did not offer any financial assistance to off-set the costs of the closure on Ukraine's fragile economy. Yanukovych has used this as an example of the way in which Yushchenko promotes an allegedly Ukrainian nationalist agenda of appeasing the West while alienating it from Russia--thus frightening Russian voters.
In truth, the Chernobyl matter was a dilemma whose solution in any direction was bound to anger many and please few. It had been one of the main elements crippling Ukraine's relations with the West for some time, and Yushchenko took a controversial decision that increased Ukraine's standing with the West, while at the same time his own government as Prime Minister continued to work closely with Russia. Ukraine's ties with Russia are unquestionable--it is wholly false to politicize the matter of cooperation with the northern neighbor, as Yanukovych does. Yanukovych also tries to split Russian votes by stating that he would support dual-citizenship with Russia; Yushchenko counters with the notion that simplifying the procedures of border-crossing for Russians with ties in the Russian Republic should be enough. Both men have a solution for a problem--that of Russian voter's frustration with delays and complications during border-crossings into Russia--but which solution has the mark of nation-building?
Most oppositionists regard Yanukovych as intending much more than cooperation with Russia, and it is important to note that the truly radical, Ukrainian-nationalist parties have rejected Yushchenko. Yushchenko's main concern is the economy; he has never descended into the realm of cultural polemics, except to state that he intends to build a Ukraine for all who live in Ukraine. He often speaks publically in Russian, and what is more, he is a serious challenger to Yanukovych's claims to success in what is the most critical matter in this election--economic reform.
Given Ukraine's dire economic straits, it is true to say that economics matters more in this election than cultural politics. Yanukovych claims that his government has succeeded in stimulating a rise in wages. Yushchenko counters that prices have risen more than wages, and that inflation is returning en force because of Yanukovych's policies. Yushchenko is credited with having had brought Ukraine's skyrocketing inflation under control in 1995 with the successful introduction of a new currency when he was head of Ukraine's National Bank. In the end, it is Yushchenko who cares more about what average Ukrainian voters care about--their daily bread. And while Yanukovych is encouraging voters to think in terms of khlib or khleb, Ukrainian and Russian respectively for bread, he is busy preparing to steal the dough.
It is regretable that the Wall Street Journal has reproduced the unbalanced promotion of Janukovych that has been the halmark of the campaign season in Ukraine, by publishing only his article and nothing by the opposition candidate, Viktor Jushchenko.
Since I wrote this, I learned that the WSJ did publish a piece by Yushchenko earlier, on August 24, 2004. Read it here.
The WSJ also published another letter by Yushchenko later on, after the OR had more or less succeeded. It was a good piece; but I can't find a link and I know I have it saved somewhere in my e-files, but have no time to look for it now. . .
I could not find a link on the internet to Yanukovych's letter today. . .
WHO IS THE CENTRIST FORCE IN UKRAINE'S ELECTIONS?:
This Sunday, November 21 Ukrainians will vote in a second round of presidential elections which will greatly effect the future of this country of strategic importance to both Russia and the West. Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal published a letter by Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's current Prime Minister and one of two candidates on the ballot this Sunday. Yanukovych downplayed the seriousness of widespread claims that the first round of the elections, which took place on October 31, were anything but free and fair. He also staked the claim that he--not his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko--is the one candidate with a moderate, centrist policy that is pluralist and democratic, thereby implying that only he is free of the kind of dangerous nationalism the West is fond of warning Ukrainians against. One should recall George H. W. Bush's infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech in 1991, when he warned Ukrainians against "suicidal nationalism" and against voting for independence from the USSR.
True to his style, Yanukovych is lieing. Only observers from the CIS were willing to state that the first round proceeded in a free and fair manner, while all other foriegn observers have condemned not only the election itself, but the entire campaign season leading to the election, as unfree and unfair. Before the election, President Kuchma and other oligarchs allied with Yanukovych did everything they could to promote Yanukovych's candidacy through their control of both State and non-State media in Ukraine. The abuse of State media and campaign election laws were so widespread that one observer of Ukraine, Professor of Political Science Paul D'Anieri at Lawrence University in Kansas, commented before the first round, "It is no longer imaginable that the election will be regarded as free and fair."
Indeed it was not, and authorities seem ready to try again to falsify results. Early this week, "budget workers" whose wages are paid from the government's budget were ordered by the presidential administration to turn in both their voter registration cards and passports, both of which are necessary to vote on Sunday. The presidential administration's stated rationale for this move was that it intended to vote on behalf of workers to make it easier for them to attend election parties and other events on Sunday. However, the presidential administration is staffed at the highest levels with individuals allied to Yanukovych, and few in Ukraine believed the sincerity of the government's intention. In fact, so few believed that on Wednesday a wave of grassroots demonstrations broke out across the country in protest against this renewed attempt to falsify the elections even before they begin. Particularly large gatherings itook place n Lviv and Kyiv, and smaller, town-hall type meetings took place elsewhere. The outcry was so great that on Thursday the Ukrainian parlaiment decreed that Ukrainians could vote Sunday only in the towns where they live, thus undercutting the administrations ability to vote on behalf of workers.
Such is the kind of democracy Yanukovych supports, one that is hardly any different from the Soviet "democracy" he claims to be replacing. In the end, he believes that authorities, not the people, should decide the outcome.
He is also lieing when he claims that he is a centrist and non-nationalist. Yanukovych has consistently attempted to politicize issues of culture in Ukraine in an effort to split Ukrainian and Russian voters. One example is polticization of issues surrounding the closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Yanukovych--as well as many others in Ukraine--has frequently waxed critical of his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko, for the way in which he closed the plant while he was himself Prime Minister in 2000-2001. The closure of the plant was a serious financial burden on Ukraine that made it more energy-dependent, and the West, which demanded its closure, did not offer any financial assistance to off-set the costs of the closure on Ukraine's fragile economy. Yanukovych has used this as an example of the way in which Yushchenko promotes an allegedly Ukrainian nationalist agenda of appeasing the West while alienating it from Russia--thus frightening Russian voters.
In truth, the Chernobyl matter was a dilemma whose solution in any direction was bound to anger many and please few. It had been one of the main elements crippling Ukraine's relations with the West for some time, and Yushchenko took a controversial decision that increased Ukraine's standing with the West, while at the same time his own government as Prime Minister continued to work closely with Russia. Ukraine's ties with Russia are unquestionable--it is wholly false to politicize the matter of cooperation with the northern neighbor, as Yanukovych does. Yanukovych also tries to split Russian votes by stating that he would support dual-citizenship with Russia; Yushchenko counters with the notion that simplifying the procedures of border-crossing for Russians with ties in the Russian Republic should be enough. Both men have a solution for a problem--that of Russian voter's frustration with delays and complications during border-crossings into Russia--but which solution has the mark of nation-building?
Most oppositionists regard Yanukovych as intending much more than cooperation with Russia, and it is important to note that the truly radical, Ukrainian-nationalist parties have rejected Yushchenko. Yushchenko's main concern is the economy; he has never descended into the realm of cultural polemics, except to state that he intends to build a Ukraine for all who live in Ukraine. He often speaks publically in Russian, and what is more, he is a serious challenger to Yanukovych's claims to success in what is the most critical matter in this election--economic reform.
Given Ukraine's dire economic straits, it is true to say that economics matters more in this election than cultural politics. Yanukovych claims that his government has succeeded in stimulating a rise in wages. Yushchenko counters that prices have risen more than wages, and that inflation is returning en force because of Yanukovych's policies. Yushchenko is credited with having had brought Ukraine's skyrocketing inflation under control in 1995 with the successful introduction of a new currency when he was head of Ukraine's National Bank. In the end, it is Yushchenko who cares more about what average Ukrainian voters care about--their daily bread. And while Yanukovych is encouraging voters to think in terms of khlib or khleb, Ukrainian and Russian respectively for bread, he is busy preparing to steal the dough.
It is regretable that the Wall Street Journal has reproduced the unbalanced promotion of Janukovych that has been the halmark of the campaign season in Ukraine, by publishing only his article and nothing by the opposition candidate, Viktor Jushchenko.
Since I wrote this, I learned that the WSJ did publish a piece by Yushchenko earlier, on August 24, 2004. Read it here.
The WSJ also published another letter by Yushchenko later on, after the OR had more or less succeeded. It was a good piece; but I can't find a link and I know I have it saved somewhere in my e-files, but have no time to look for it now. . .
