Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made a surprising confession on New Year’s Eve, promising that the present he’d like to place under the fir tree for the holidays would be a fair presidential election in March 2012.
In a gesture intended to show election transparency and boost his legitimacy, the prime minister earlier suggested installing webcams at each of the country’s 96,000 precincts.
But experts are skeptical about the effectiveness of the new initiative – and whether it will turn out to be sincere. “It’s just a nice way to divvy up the 14 billion ruble pie,” Andrei Buzin, department director at Golos, an independent election monitor, told The Moscow News. Buzin, whose organization came under fire from national television during the parliamentary elections, was referring to state funds allocated towards transparency measures at polling stations.
Webcams and transparent ballot boxes were being purchased starting Wednesday in line with pledges by Putin.
Earlier this week Buzin published an analysis in Vedomosti pointing out the main flaws of the current election system.
“I don’t think forgers will do their dirty job in front of webcams,” Buzin wrote.
“There are lots of more convenient places for that, for example, territorial election commissions, where they can just make a new protocol of a lower-level commission.” Buzin emphasized that the main flaw in the elections process is indirect fraud – a lack of competition and the use of government leverage. Most of the members of local election commissions work in government-funded sectors and often face threats of losing their job if they fail to ensure the “right” vote results.
Buzin believes that the only effective way to fight vote fraud is to have enough election observers with full access to monitor what election commission members are doing.
Opposition parties and movements are recruiting monitors, some of whom are even eager to work for free. The leader of the Demokratichesky Vybor (Democratic Choice) movement, Vladimir Milov, expects to cover 3,000 to 5,000 polling stations, while last time his organization had a staff of only 1,000 monitors.
Ilya Yashin, a leader of the Solidarnost movement, told The Moscow News that “monitors are the only effective means for us to control what’s going on at a polling station.”
“You can’t switch [a person] off like a webcam,” Yashin said.
Andrei Buzin agrees. “Unlike a webcam, a monitor can look around and knows of a great deal of fraud schemes.”
But according to Buzin, an observer’s independence is precisely what makes him so unwanted at polling stations, where many were kicked out without any legal basis in the recent elections.
Golos has launched additional training courses for future monitors to teach them to use a camera properly and post their files on the Golos’ Map of Violations portal, from where information can be accessed publicly, Golos CEO Lilia Shibanova told The Moscow News, adding that an increasing number of partners have been joining the project recently.
Buzin has been urging election authorities to ban the practice of kicking out election observers from polling stations. “An amendment on illegal eviction of observers to the Penal Code could save the budget 14 billion rubles because an observer will record everything on his camera at his own expense.”
The expert’s view has been supported by presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov, who wrote in his blog that kicking out an election observer should be treated as a crime. The oligarch also welcomed the prime minister’s initiative to equip polling stations with webcams.
The chief of the Central Election Commission, Vladimir Churov, believes that vote transparency can be ensured through the use of webcams and transparent ballot boxes, which will be installed at two-thirds of polling stations.
In an interview with Ekho Moskvy radio last week, Churov highlighted that courts do not necessarily need to consider evidence recorded by observers. He also remarked that if an observer’s removal “was not documented, it can’t be considered removal.”
“If a monitor is filming secretly without notifying the election commission chief, it’s a violation,” Churov said.
Lilia Shibanova told The Moscow News that there are no provisions in the law that oblige an observer to notify an election commission chief.
“How does Mr. Churov imagine that? A monitor should ask ‘Would you mind if I film your ballot rigging?’” Shibanova said.
According to Buzin, election legislation makes it possible for certified protocols to be rewritten. “This explains why there are so many cases where the figures stated in the protocols that observers have differ from those of the Central Election Commission. Evidence and common sense notwithstanding, courts refuse to cancel the vote at precincts where this is the case.”
Buzin also stressed that no one has ever been brought to justice for refusing to give an observer a copy of a protocol or for giving a false copy, which is one of the common violations that give courts grounds to dismiss a vote fraud lawsuit. In late December two Moscow district courts ruled that protocol copies presented by observers showing that United Russia had received fewer votes than election authorities claimed were “trial copies,” dismissing the evidence.
According to Buzin, one of the most crucial stages of the vote count process are carried out in separate rooms that observers have no access to at all – and that those are precisely the places where much of the rigging can take place.
So far, the Central Election Commission has ignored Golos’ proposals to improve legislation and the voting system.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Ukraine's Tymoshenko Gathers Strength For New Political Assault
KIEV, Ukraine -- Over the past few weeks Yulia Tymoshenko has suffered a series of humiliting defeats in front of the Ukrainian people, but analysts say she will soon be seeking political revenge.
The prime minister's defeat in the February 7 presidential election against sworn enemy Viktor Yanukovych came as a numbing shock to the Orange Revolution princess who had expected Ukraine's top job to become the pinnacle of her high-flying career.
Instead, she has suffered a series of wounding blows and sneers from foes.
Tymoshenko threatened mass street protests if Yanukovych rigged the polls. She had to backtrack on that after it became clear noone was in the mood for a second Orange Revolution.
After the polls she disappeared from public view. There was three days of silence before she declared she would never recognize Yanukovych's win.
Then she vowed to challenge his victory but in a dramatic backdown asked the country's top court to drop her appeal.
"Her task was simple -- to make the legal process part of a new political legend about the stolen elections," said Andriy Yermolayev, director of the Sofia social research centre.
For now, analysts said, she will have to regroup and be patient. In a deeply divided, impoverished country she has time on her side.
Yanukovych inherits a nation badly hit by the economic crisis and it will not take long before people become disillusioned by the lack of economic progress in Ukraine torn by rivalries and dependent on foreign aid, including from Russia and the IMF, analysts said.
"Tymoshenko is a very emotional woman who has been renowned for her powerful political tactics only," said Viktor Nebozhenko, the head of the Ukrainian Barometer polling agency.
"Today however she has finally got some sort of strategy. She is thinking about the future for the first time."
"In about six months Tymoshenko's fight for justice will bring her political dividends."
After Tymoshenko ignored Yanukovych's calls to volantarily resign from the post of prime minister, his Regions Party launched an official motion in parlaiment to throw out her government.
To do that, Yanukovych must secure a majority in the 450-seat parliament, getting political rivals to join his coalition. The new president will have to call early elections if he fails to forge a majority. None of it will be easy.
A top politician from Tymoshenko's BYuT party, Andriy Kozhemyakin, said her camp will go into opposition if the government is dismissed.
Analysts say the charismatic 49-year old prime minister, who enjoys solid support in the country's west and centre, can make life difficult for Yanukovych, whose win by a margin of just over 3.5 percent was unconvincing to many.
Many observers fear Ukraine could become stuck in a paralysing new political confrontation, with Tymoshenko now taking out her wrath on Yanukovych instead of Viktor Yushchenko, the outgoing president and her one-time ally.
"Tymoshenko will do everything to keep the old coalition in place," Yermolayev said.
"In Ukraine real power rests with the coalition and the government because they control budget, economic policies, the corporate sector and even most of the security forces."
Both rivals have good ties with Russia to which the two are expected to take their disputes.
Yanukovych is believed to enjoy President Dmitry Medvedev's backing and is to meet him in Moscow in early March. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is said to favour Tymoshenko, whose camp has already said it will boycott Yanukovych's swearing-in set for February 25.
The prime minister's defeat in the February 7 presidential election against sworn enemy Viktor Yanukovych came as a numbing shock to the Orange Revolution princess who had expected Ukraine's top job to become the pinnacle of her high-flying career.
Instead, she has suffered a series of wounding blows and sneers from foes.
Tymoshenko threatened mass street protests if Yanukovych rigged the polls. She had to backtrack on that after it became clear noone was in the mood for a second Orange Revolution.
After the polls she disappeared from public view. There was three days of silence before she declared she would never recognize Yanukovych's win.
Then she vowed to challenge his victory but in a dramatic backdown asked the country's top court to drop her appeal.
"Her task was simple -- to make the legal process part of a new political legend about the stolen elections," said Andriy Yermolayev, director of the Sofia social research centre.
For now, analysts said, she will have to regroup and be patient. In a deeply divided, impoverished country she has time on her side.
Yanukovych inherits a nation badly hit by the economic crisis and it will not take long before people become disillusioned by the lack of economic progress in Ukraine torn by rivalries and dependent on foreign aid, including from Russia and the IMF, analysts said.
"Tymoshenko is a very emotional woman who has been renowned for her powerful political tactics only," said Viktor Nebozhenko, the head of the Ukrainian Barometer polling agency.
"Today however she has finally got some sort of strategy. She is thinking about the future for the first time."
"In about six months Tymoshenko's fight for justice will bring her political dividends."
After Tymoshenko ignored Yanukovych's calls to volantarily resign from the post of prime minister, his Regions Party launched an official motion in parlaiment to throw out her government.
To do that, Yanukovych must secure a majority in the 450-seat parliament, getting political rivals to join his coalition. The new president will have to call early elections if he fails to forge a majority. None of it will be easy.
A top politician from Tymoshenko's BYuT party, Andriy Kozhemyakin, said her camp will go into opposition if the government is dismissed.
Analysts say the charismatic 49-year old prime minister, who enjoys solid support in the country's west and centre, can make life difficult for Yanukovych, whose win by a margin of just over 3.5 percent was unconvincing to many.
Many observers fear Ukraine could become stuck in a paralysing new political confrontation, with Tymoshenko now taking out her wrath on Yanukovych instead of Viktor Yushchenko, the outgoing president and her one-time ally.
"Tymoshenko will do everything to keep the old coalition in place," Yermolayev said.
"In Ukraine real power rests with the coalition and the government because they control budget, economic policies, the corporate sector and even most of the security forces."
Both rivals have good ties with Russia to which the two are expected to take their disputes.
Yanukovych is believed to enjoy President Dmitry Medvedev's backing and is to meet him in Moscow in early March. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is said to favour Tymoshenko, whose camp has already said it will boycott Yanukovych's swearing-in set for February 25.
Ukraine's Tymoshenko Set To Fight On
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko withdrew her appeal case against the elections results from the Supreme Administrative court and the court has closed the case. But she has not conceded.
She said once again that Viktor Yanukovich will never be considered Ukraine's legitimately elected president.
This is in stark contrast to her fellow Orange Revolutionary - incumbent Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.
On Saturday he finally congratulated his long-time rival, Mr Yanukovich, on a legitimate victory.
Sergei Mishchenko, an MP from Mrs Tymoshenko's party, has said their party is planning to boycott the inauguration ceremony scheduled for 25 February.
He also added Mrs Tymoshenko is not giving in, she will not recognise the elections results and she will continue to work as prime minister.
Mr Yanukovich has asked Mrs Tymoshenko to step down from her post on several occasions. And she has said that she will not.
As president, Mr Yanukovich does not have the right to fire or to appoint a prime minister - that is up to Ukraine's parliament.
At the moment Mrs Tymoshenko's party is still part of the parliamentary coalition, but negotiations are under way to form a new coalition based on Mr Yanukovich's Regions Party.
One of the leaders of the Regions Party, Nikolai Azarov, speaking to Ukrainian TV channel Inter, said it was fantastic to even consider the possibility of Mrs Tymoshenko remaining in her post for much longer.
But no-one here in Ukraine thinks it will be an easy task to remove her.
Country in limbo
Once MPs form a new coalition they are likely to vote Mrs Tymoshenko's government out, but until a new government is formed - and that can take weeks in the current political situation - Mrs Tymoshenko will remain as acting prime minister under President Yanukovich.
Analysts agree that little will be achieved in those weeks, and the country will remain in limbo.
Of course, these coalition talks depend on many factors, on internal politics and favours.
If they fail, Ukrainians will have to vote once again - in early parliamentary elections.
Either way, despite peoples' hopes, the economic situation is not likely to improve drastically.
Last year the country's economy shrank by 15%.
Mr Yanukovich has promised to improve the lives of those most disadvantaged - state workers and pensioners.
During his election campaigning he also promised to create more jobs.
But with a government run by his rival he will experience difficulties in fulfilling any of his promises.
Mrs Tymoshenko will also not be able to push any of her priorities.
The country is still living according to last year's budget. It is even unclear where the money for the inauguration is to come from.
Ukraine is also waiting for the much needed last tranche of the $16.4bn (£10.6bn) bailout programme from the International Monetary Fund.
This payment was suspended last year - until after the presidential elections with a specific demand from the IMF for political stability and a democratic transfer of power.
However, Mr Yanukovich will have to consider what his rival stands for. Half the country did, after all, vote for Mrs Tymoshenko, and he won by a small margin.
He promised to unite the country - the Russian-speaking east and south that backed him overwhelmingly, and the Western Ukrainian-speaking half that backed Mrs Tymoshenko.
But no-one is really certain how he will achieve that.
Just after the elections Mr Yanukovich said he was still undecided whether to visit Russia or an EU country first, but now the Kremlin is saying Mr Yanukovich will go to Moscow in early March.
There are no announcements about a visit to a Western European capital yet.
Ukraine's Tymoshenko Drops Legal Challenge On Election
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko on Saturday dropped her legal case challenging the election of rival Viktor Yanukovich as president, saying the court could not be trusted to reach a fair verdict.
The about-turn by the fiery Tymoshenko left the way clear for Yanukovich to be inaugurated as president on Feb. 25 as scheduled. His first announced trip abroad as president will be to Moscow, according to comments by his party and the Kremlin.
The charismatic 49-year-old prime minister, who had alleged vote cheating by her opponent in the Feb. 7 runoff and had been pressing for a new round of voting, said she withdrew her case as the court had refused to study the evidence put before it.
She insisted Yanukovich had not been legitimately elected.
"It became clear to us that the court has not given itself the aim of establishing the truth," she told the Higher Administrative Court.
"Under these circumstances, we simply do not see the reason for continuing with this case being considered. We are withdrawing our suit."
Yanukovich, 59, has denied any vote-rigging by his side. He beat Tymoshenko by 3.5 percentage points in the vote.
Few commentators had expected Tymoshenko to win the court action, which she launched on Friday with a plea to the 49 judges to "study carefully" the evidence before it. But her sudden announcement on Saturday took most by surprise.
With her hair plaited in her trademark peasant braid, she looked tired and tense on Saturday as she announced her climb-down after months of battling with Yanukovich for the leadership of the former Soviet republic of 46 million.
Tymoshenko had been pressing for a new presidential vote as took place in the 2004 "Orange Revolution" which ended with President Viktor Yushchenko being elected. Yanukovich was denied the top job then by protests against electoral fraud.
"A fraudulent vote took place and the will of the people was fraudulently handled. Sooner or later, an honest prosecutor's office and an honest court will come to the view that Yanukovich was not elected president of Ukraine and that the will of the people was falsified," she said.
The court later confirmed it would cease studying the case.
"The court is deprived of the possibility to continue examination of the suit and is obliged to leave the case without its examination," Judge Oleksander Nechytaylo told a closing hearing. "This decision is final and cannot be reviewed."
MOSCOW VISIT
Yanukovich is expected to tilt Ukraine towards Russia after relations with Moscow deteriorated under Yushchenko.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke to Yanukovich on the telephone and congratulated him on his "complete and final, legitimate and internationally recognised victory in Ukraine's presidential election", the Kremlin said.
Yanukovich will visit Moscow in the first 10 days of March.
Yanukovich has said he wants to renegotiate a gas deal with Russia struck by Tymoshenko after a three-week stand off with Moscow that led to supply cuts to Europe.
There has been talk of Russia's participation in a group to run Ukraine's pipeline network and of a loan from Moscow. Russia also wants to extend the stay of its Black Sea fleet, stationed on Ukraine's territory under a lease that runs out in 2017.
Ukraine now badly needs to return to stability -- its economy took a battering in the global downturn with valuable steel exports losing markets and the state has relied on a $16.4 billion bail-out programme from the International Monetary Fund.
This has been suspended because of breached promises, and the fund will return only once a stable government emerges.
After a bitter campaign of smears and insults, Yanukovich has ruled out any alliance with Tymoshenko and has asked her to quit. She has refused and can be replaced only if the Yanukovich camp forges a new coalition among the fickle deputies in parliament -- normally a long and tricky task. If he fails to do this, he may be forced to call early parliamentary election.
The about-turn by the fiery Tymoshenko left the way clear for Yanukovich to be inaugurated as president on Feb. 25 as scheduled. His first announced trip abroad as president will be to Moscow, according to comments by his party and the Kremlin.
The charismatic 49-year-old prime minister, who had alleged vote cheating by her opponent in the Feb. 7 runoff and had been pressing for a new round of voting, said she withdrew her case as the court had refused to study the evidence put before it.
She insisted Yanukovich had not been legitimately elected.
"It became clear to us that the court has not given itself the aim of establishing the truth," she told the Higher Administrative Court.
"Under these circumstances, we simply do not see the reason for continuing with this case being considered. We are withdrawing our suit."
Yanukovich, 59, has denied any vote-rigging by his side. He beat Tymoshenko by 3.5 percentage points in the vote.
Few commentators had expected Tymoshenko to win the court action, which she launched on Friday with a plea to the 49 judges to "study carefully" the evidence before it. But her sudden announcement on Saturday took most by surprise.
With her hair plaited in her trademark peasant braid, she looked tired and tense on Saturday as she announced her climb-down after months of battling with Yanukovich for the leadership of the former Soviet republic of 46 million.
Tymoshenko had been pressing for a new presidential vote as took place in the 2004 "Orange Revolution" which ended with President Viktor Yushchenko being elected. Yanukovich was denied the top job then by protests against electoral fraud.
"A fraudulent vote took place and the will of the people was fraudulently handled. Sooner or later, an honest prosecutor's office and an honest court will come to the view that Yanukovich was not elected president of Ukraine and that the will of the people was falsified," she said.
The court later confirmed it would cease studying the case.
"The court is deprived of the possibility to continue examination of the suit and is obliged to leave the case without its examination," Judge Oleksander Nechytaylo told a closing hearing. "This decision is final and cannot be reviewed."
MOSCOW VISIT
Yanukovich is expected to tilt Ukraine towards Russia after relations with Moscow deteriorated under Yushchenko.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke to Yanukovich on the telephone and congratulated him on his "complete and final, legitimate and internationally recognised victory in Ukraine's presidential election", the Kremlin said.
Yanukovich will visit Moscow in the first 10 days of March.
Yanukovich has said he wants to renegotiate a gas deal with Russia struck by Tymoshenko after a three-week stand off with Moscow that led to supply cuts to Europe.
There has been talk of Russia's participation in a group to run Ukraine's pipeline network and of a loan from Moscow. Russia also wants to extend the stay of its Black Sea fleet, stationed on Ukraine's territory under a lease that runs out in 2017.
Ukraine now badly needs to return to stability -- its economy took a battering in the global downturn with valuable steel exports losing markets and the state has relied on a $16.4 billion bail-out programme from the International Monetary Fund.
This has been suspended because of breached promises, and the fund will return only once a stable government emerges.
After a bitter campaign of smears and insults, Yanukovich has ruled out any alliance with Tymoshenko and has asked her to quit. She has refused and can be replaced only if the Yanukovich camp forges a new coalition among the fickle deputies in parliament -- normally a long and tricky task. If he fails to do this, he may be forced to call early parliamentary election.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Ukraine: A Tale Of Two Elections
KIEV, Ukraine -- The victory of the “pro-Russian” Opposition candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, in Ukraine's presidential election was greeted with dismay in the West as a setback to the “orange revolution” the United States and Europe helped orchestrate in the country five years ago.
The western media, however, took some consolation from the fact that the 2010 election was a clean and democratic race. This, they said, stood in stark contrast to the 2004 election, which was rigged in favour of Mr. Yanukovych, provoking large-scale street protests in capital Kiev.
The “orange revolution” overturned Mr. Yanukovych's victory and vaulted his pro-western rival, Viktor Yushchenko, into presidency. Mr. Yanukovych has since become “contaminated with the ‘Orange virus',” as The Times put it, and the bad guy of the 2004 poll won a fraud-free election.
How far does this story square with reality? It would be interesting to compare the results of the 2004 and 2010 elections. In 2004, Mr. Yanukovych polled 49.46 per cent of the votes against Mr. Yushchenko's 46.61 in the run-off that was later overturned by the “orange revolution.”
The 2010 vote tally was remarkably similar: Mr. Yanukovych garnered 48.95 per cent against 45.47 for Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, former “orange” ally-turned-foe of Mr. Yushchenko.
Could it be just a coincidence? Hardly so, if we look at the way the Ukrainian regions voted in both elections. In 2004, Mr. Yanukovych won 80-90 per cent of the votes in Russian-speaking eastern and southern provinces and Mr. Yushchenko received just as strong support in the western and central regions, oriented towards Europe.
The east-west divide was strikingly evident again in the 2006 parliamentary election, in which Mr. Yanukovych's Party of the Regions won most votes.
In the Yanukovych-Tymoshenko faceoff in 2010, the pattern of voting was once again the same — the east and south voted for Mr. Yanukovych, and the west and the centre gave their votes to Ms Tymoshenko.
This means the support base of the pro-Russian and pro-western candidates remains the same as it was five years ago. Those who voted for Mr. Yanukovych in 2004 backed him again in 2010.
The identical results refute the claim that in 2004, Mr. Yanukovych's returns were heavily padded, and in 2010 they were not. Yet the same western observers who denounced Mr. Yanukovych's victory in 2004 as fraudulent, in 2010 hailed it as “an impressive display of democratic elections.”
Interestingly, the 2004 electoral violations were never properly investigated, and nobody was punished maybe because, as many analysts claimed, both sides resorted to rigging.
In 2004, the U.S. and other NATO countries refused to accept the legitimacy of Mr. Yanukovych's election and sent a high-power team of “mediators” to Kiev to push for a cancellation of the vote.
A re-run of the run-off between Mr. Yanukovych and Mr. Yushchenko brought victory to the “orange revolution” leader with the score 52-44. However, the outcome was heavily impacted by media hysteria over alleged vote rigging and the West's massive support for the Opposition leader.
This year, western leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, congratulated Mr. Yanukovych on his victory without even waiting for the losing side to take its case to court. The West ignored Ms Tymoshenko's allegation that electoral fraud in the eastern and southern regions was just as bad as in 2004 and exceeded the 10,00,000-vote lead the official count gave to Mr. Yanukovych.
“The so-called Orange Revolution … was essentially political theatre (or political circus) not more legitimate than the presidential elections that it overturned,” says analyst Vladimir Belaeff of the U.S. Global Society Institute.
Why did the U.S. and Europe in 2010 hail the victory of a man whom they denounced as a crook five years earlier? The western media called it the “Ukraine fatigue” — disappointment with the inefficient leadership in the past five years.
“Yushchenko proved to be one of the least competent politicians ever elected head of state,” writes U.S. Republican conservative Doug Bandow, former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. “Ukrainian politics has been marred by corruption, vote fraud, brutal infighting and violence.”
During Mr. Yushchenko's presidency, bribery and cronyism have ballooned; his self-destructive war with the “orange” princess, Ms Tymoshenko, paralysed decision-making. Living standards declined, prices soared as the global crisis shattered Ukraine's commodity-sector economy.
“Ukraine's under-reformed economy teeters on the edge of national bankruptcy, the rule of law is elusive, courts remain corrupt and the parliament resembles a trading platform for business tycoons in which deals are made and seats bought and sold,” The Economist fumed.
However, the main reason for the “Ukraine fatigue” in the West lies in Mr. Yushchenko's foreign, rather than domestic, policies. His top-priority goals were to drag Ukraine into NATO, throw out the Russian Navy from its Soviet-era naval base in Sevastopol and turn the Black Sea into a NATO lake.
However, Ukrainian voters rejected Mr. Yushchenko's anti-Russian policy, eliminating him from the presidential race with a dismal 5 per cent of the votes. To save her campaign, Ms Tymoshenko made a U-turn, from criticising Russia to vowing to rebuild close ties with Moscow.
“As Yushchenko dramatically demonstrated, even the most committed pro-American candidate could not force his countrymen in a direction which they opposed,” said Mr. Bandow, who today works for the Cato Institute.
Mr. Yushchenko failed to advance the strategic objective of the U.S. “orange” project — tear away Ukraine from Russia and deny Russia a strategic reach in Europe and the Caucasus.
As the former U.S. National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in his famous book The Great Chessboard: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia.” “The Orange Revolution is dead,” Mr. Bandow wrote in the National Interest journal.
The end of the “orange” regime alters the balance of power in Eastern Europe. “Relations with Russia and the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States, a Russia-dominated loose alliance of former Soviet republics] will be our priority,” Mr. Yanukovych said in his first statement after winning the run-off. “Our countries are closely tied by economy, history and culture.”
Mr. Yanukovych has voiced support for the Russian proposal to set up an international consortium to manage the Ukrainian gas pipelines, and called for joining the Customs Union Russia has set up with Kazakhstan and Belarus.
This shift is dictated by economic realities: Russia meets 80 per cent of Ukraine's gas needs and, together with other former Soviet states, accounts for 34 per cent of Ukrainian exports.
Russia is Ukraine's best hope of avoiding imminent national bankruptcy by playing “the role of ‘Abu Dhabi' to Ukraine's ‘Dubai',” as The Wall Street Journal put it.
Mr. Yanukovych has ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and signalled his readiness to consider extending the basing rights of the Russian Black Sea Naval base in Sevastopol beyond 2017, when the current lease agreement expires.
Without Ukraine, the U.S.-built cordon sanitaire around Russia will fall apart. Georgia, which is still reeling from the thrashing Russia gave it in a five-day war in 2008, has lost a valuable ally.
The U.S. is unlikely to accept these strategic shifts. In contrast to the heady days of the “orange revolution,” Washington did not openly interfere with the 2010 election in Ukraine. Some suggested that Mr. Obama did not want to jeopardise his policy of “reset” with Russia.
However, Washington has repeatedly stated in recent months that the “reset” does not mean U.S. recognition of Russia's special interests in the former Soviet Union. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed the point in a keynote address at Ecole Militaire in France last month.
“We object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one country seeks to control another's future,” she said.
The newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, John Tefft (whose previous assignment was Georgia), made it clear that the U.S. would continue its policy of driving a wedge between Ukraine and Russia.
“…We have some serious differences with the Russians over the way they conduct relations with their neighbours,” he said in one of his first interviews to the Ukrainian media. “The administration has been quite clear about the Russians in Georgia, and we have been very clear in stressing our support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity in all of these countries, including Ukraine.”
The envoy said Washington remained committed to the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine.
“With regard to NATO, the Bucharest [2008 NATO summit] decision was made that Ukraine will become a member,” Ambassador Tefft said. Unless Moscow and Washington agree to extend their “reset” to the former Soviet space, the Ukrainian election will set the stage for a renewed battle for influence in Eurasia.
The western media, however, took some consolation from the fact that the 2010 election was a clean and democratic race. This, they said, stood in stark contrast to the 2004 election, which was rigged in favour of Mr. Yanukovych, provoking large-scale street protests in capital Kiev.
The “orange revolution” overturned Mr. Yanukovych's victory and vaulted his pro-western rival, Viktor Yushchenko, into presidency. Mr. Yanukovych has since become “contaminated with the ‘Orange virus',” as The Times put it, and the bad guy of the 2004 poll won a fraud-free election.
How far does this story square with reality? It would be interesting to compare the results of the 2004 and 2010 elections. In 2004, Mr. Yanukovych polled 49.46 per cent of the votes against Mr. Yushchenko's 46.61 in the run-off that was later overturned by the “orange revolution.”
The 2010 vote tally was remarkably similar: Mr. Yanukovych garnered 48.95 per cent against 45.47 for Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, former “orange” ally-turned-foe of Mr. Yushchenko.
Could it be just a coincidence? Hardly so, if we look at the way the Ukrainian regions voted in both elections. In 2004, Mr. Yanukovych won 80-90 per cent of the votes in Russian-speaking eastern and southern provinces and Mr. Yushchenko received just as strong support in the western and central regions, oriented towards Europe.
The east-west divide was strikingly evident again in the 2006 parliamentary election, in which Mr. Yanukovych's Party of the Regions won most votes.
In the Yanukovych-Tymoshenko faceoff in 2010, the pattern of voting was once again the same — the east and south voted for Mr. Yanukovych, and the west and the centre gave their votes to Ms Tymoshenko.
This means the support base of the pro-Russian and pro-western candidates remains the same as it was five years ago. Those who voted for Mr. Yanukovych in 2004 backed him again in 2010.
The identical results refute the claim that in 2004, Mr. Yanukovych's returns were heavily padded, and in 2010 they were not. Yet the same western observers who denounced Mr. Yanukovych's victory in 2004 as fraudulent, in 2010 hailed it as “an impressive display of democratic elections.”
Interestingly, the 2004 electoral violations were never properly investigated, and nobody was punished maybe because, as many analysts claimed, both sides resorted to rigging.
In 2004, the U.S. and other NATO countries refused to accept the legitimacy of Mr. Yanukovych's election and sent a high-power team of “mediators” to Kiev to push for a cancellation of the vote.
A re-run of the run-off between Mr. Yanukovych and Mr. Yushchenko brought victory to the “orange revolution” leader with the score 52-44. However, the outcome was heavily impacted by media hysteria over alleged vote rigging and the West's massive support for the Opposition leader.
This year, western leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, congratulated Mr. Yanukovych on his victory without even waiting for the losing side to take its case to court. The West ignored Ms Tymoshenko's allegation that electoral fraud in the eastern and southern regions was just as bad as in 2004 and exceeded the 10,00,000-vote lead the official count gave to Mr. Yanukovych.
“The so-called Orange Revolution … was essentially political theatre (or political circus) not more legitimate than the presidential elections that it overturned,” says analyst Vladimir Belaeff of the U.S. Global Society Institute.
Why did the U.S. and Europe in 2010 hail the victory of a man whom they denounced as a crook five years earlier? The western media called it the “Ukraine fatigue” — disappointment with the inefficient leadership in the past five years.
“Yushchenko proved to be one of the least competent politicians ever elected head of state,” writes U.S. Republican conservative Doug Bandow, former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. “Ukrainian politics has been marred by corruption, vote fraud, brutal infighting and violence.”
During Mr. Yushchenko's presidency, bribery and cronyism have ballooned; his self-destructive war with the “orange” princess, Ms Tymoshenko, paralysed decision-making. Living standards declined, prices soared as the global crisis shattered Ukraine's commodity-sector economy.
“Ukraine's under-reformed economy teeters on the edge of national bankruptcy, the rule of law is elusive, courts remain corrupt and the parliament resembles a trading platform for business tycoons in which deals are made and seats bought and sold,” The Economist fumed.
However, the main reason for the “Ukraine fatigue” in the West lies in Mr. Yushchenko's foreign, rather than domestic, policies. His top-priority goals were to drag Ukraine into NATO, throw out the Russian Navy from its Soviet-era naval base in Sevastopol and turn the Black Sea into a NATO lake.
However, Ukrainian voters rejected Mr. Yushchenko's anti-Russian policy, eliminating him from the presidential race with a dismal 5 per cent of the votes. To save her campaign, Ms Tymoshenko made a U-turn, from criticising Russia to vowing to rebuild close ties with Moscow.
“As Yushchenko dramatically demonstrated, even the most committed pro-American candidate could not force his countrymen in a direction which they opposed,” said Mr. Bandow, who today works for the Cato Institute.
Mr. Yushchenko failed to advance the strategic objective of the U.S. “orange” project — tear away Ukraine from Russia and deny Russia a strategic reach in Europe and the Caucasus.
As the former U.S. National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in his famous book The Great Chessboard: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia.” “The Orange Revolution is dead,” Mr. Bandow wrote in the National Interest journal.
The end of the “orange” regime alters the balance of power in Eastern Europe. “Relations with Russia and the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States, a Russia-dominated loose alliance of former Soviet republics] will be our priority,” Mr. Yanukovych said in his first statement after winning the run-off. “Our countries are closely tied by economy, history and culture.”
Mr. Yanukovych has voiced support for the Russian proposal to set up an international consortium to manage the Ukrainian gas pipelines, and called for joining the Customs Union Russia has set up with Kazakhstan and Belarus.
This shift is dictated by economic realities: Russia meets 80 per cent of Ukraine's gas needs and, together with other former Soviet states, accounts for 34 per cent of Ukrainian exports.
Russia is Ukraine's best hope of avoiding imminent national bankruptcy by playing “the role of ‘Abu Dhabi' to Ukraine's ‘Dubai',” as The Wall Street Journal put it.
Mr. Yanukovych has ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and signalled his readiness to consider extending the basing rights of the Russian Black Sea Naval base in Sevastopol beyond 2017, when the current lease agreement expires.
Without Ukraine, the U.S.-built cordon sanitaire around Russia will fall apart. Georgia, which is still reeling from the thrashing Russia gave it in a five-day war in 2008, has lost a valuable ally.
The U.S. is unlikely to accept these strategic shifts. In contrast to the heady days of the “orange revolution,” Washington did not openly interfere with the 2010 election in Ukraine. Some suggested that Mr. Obama did not want to jeopardise his policy of “reset” with Russia.
However, Washington has repeatedly stated in recent months that the “reset” does not mean U.S. recognition of Russia's special interests in the former Soviet Union. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed the point in a keynote address at Ecole Militaire in France last month.
“We object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one country seeks to control another's future,” she said.
The newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, John Tefft (whose previous assignment was Georgia), made it clear that the U.S. would continue its policy of driving a wedge between Ukraine and Russia.
“…We have some serious differences with the Russians over the way they conduct relations with their neighbours,” he said in one of his first interviews to the Ukrainian media. “The administration has been quite clear about the Russians in Georgia, and we have been very clear in stressing our support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity in all of these countries, including Ukraine.”
The envoy said Washington remained committed to the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine.
“With regard to NATO, the Bucharest [2008 NATO summit] decision was made that Ukraine will become a member,” Ambassador Tefft said. Unless Moscow and Washington agree to extend their “reset” to the former Soviet space, the Ukrainian election will set the stage for a renewed battle for influence in Eurasia.
Yulia Tymoshenko Drops Ukraine Election Challenge
KIEV, Ukraine -- Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has dropped her legal challenge against her rival's victory in Ukraine's presidential election, reports say.
Mrs Tymoshenko reportedly said she did not see any sense in pursuing the case against the winner, Viktor Yanukovych.
The Kiev court had suspended the result when Mrs Tymosheko appealed on Tuesday, claiming the poll was rigged.
International monitors deemed the vote free and fair, and Mr Yanukovych is due to be inaugurated on 25 February.
Ukrainian Central Electoral Commission's declaration on Sunday that Mr Yanukovych had won the vote by a margin of 3.48%.
Mrs Tymoshenko had so far rejected Mr Yanukovych's appeals for her to accept defeat, claiming the election was marred by "systemic, fundamental and general falsifications".
As recently as Friday she had appealed for the poll to be declared void, saying: "I cannot accept double standards and I cannot give up".
Mrs Tymoshenko reportedly said she did not see any sense in pursuing the case against the winner, Viktor Yanukovych.
The Kiev court had suspended the result when Mrs Tymosheko appealed on Tuesday, claiming the poll was rigged.
International monitors deemed the vote free and fair, and Mr Yanukovych is due to be inaugurated on 25 February.
Ukrainian Central Electoral Commission's declaration on Sunday that Mr Yanukovych had won the vote by a margin of 3.48%.
Mrs Tymoshenko had so far rejected Mr Yanukovych's appeals for her to accept defeat, claiming the election was marred by "systemic, fundamental and general falsifications".
As recently as Friday she had appealed for the poll to be declared void, saying: "I cannot accept double standards and I cannot give up".
World To Yulia: You Lost! Yulia To World: I Was Robbed!
KIEV, Ukraine -- The door to Ukraine’s presidency has all but been shut in the face of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. But now she has managed to stick her foot in just before the door closed. She won a court ruling that suspended the results of the Feb. 7 runoff, pending an investigation into her allegations of election fraud.
Nevertheless, Western leaders and election observers have already been quick to recognize Victor Yanukovych, the same man they accused of trying to steal Ukraine’s presidency during the 2004 election, as victor in 2010.
Tymoshenko’s opponents and independent analysts, meanwhile, interpret her tenacity in challenging the election results more as an exercise in political survival than a genuine attempt to overturn the outcome.
On Feb. 17, Ukraine’s Higher Administrative Court suspended the official election results announced on Valentine’s Day by the country’s Central Electoral Commission, which declared Yanukovych the winner by a slim margin of 3.5 percentage points, or 888,000 ballots.
Tymoshenko personally delivered her case to the judges in Kyiv on Feb. 16, tunneling her way through a crowd of Party of Regions supporters camped outside, after having vowed to never surrender the nation to Yanukovych’s “gang of criminals.”
“I want to make it clear: Yanukovych is not our president. However the future circumstances play themselves out, he will never become the legitimately elected president of Ukraine,” Tymoshenko said in a televised address on Feb. 13, breaking nearly a week of public silence.
The court is expected to take a final decision by Feb. 25, the scheduled inauguration day of Yanukovych.
At issue are 1.5 million votes from the Feb. 7 runoff, which Tymoshenko’s team claims was stolen from them by the Yanukovych camp through various fraudulent schemes.
Vadym Karasyov, a political analyst at the Institute of Global Strategies, said fraud may have been significant in the Feb. 7 runoff. But Karasyov said it wasn’t limited to the Yanukovych team.
In a newsletter released by Tymoshenko’s team, her claims of election fraud included damaged or spoiled ballots, illegal changes to voter lists on election day and unusually high turnout figures in Yanukovych-friendly eastern Ukraine, in addition to suspicious home voting.
Add it up, and Tymoshenko’s side alleges the fraud cost their candidate more than the margin of Yanukovych’s victory.
“It’s even possible that Yanukovych was responsible for more [fraud] than she was, but I don’t think she would have let him get away with a million votes,” Karasyov said.
So why is Tymoshenko still kicking up a fuss in the face of recognition of Yanukovych’s victory by international heavyweights such as U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the European Parliament?
According to analyst Karasyov: “She wants to hold together her faction, remain prime minister and – most of all – retain her image as an unbeatable candidate for future elections.”
It was Tymoshenko who helped reverse Yanukovych’s fraud-marred victory in the 2004 presidential race. She mesmerized the crowds of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators in the center of Kyiv during the 2004 Orange Revolution, the culmination of years of opposition struggle against international pariah and former President Leonid Kuchma, who had chosen Yanukovych as his successor.
Tymoshenko went on to become the first prime minister of President Victor Yushchenko. Then, after Yushchenko fired her as part of post-Revolution squabbling, Tymoshenko retook the government and the lead position among Orange leaders during a snap parliamentary election held in 2007.
Now, by stubbornly refusing to admit defeat, Tymoshenko might be finally showing signs of vulnerability. “This is just her Achilles heel showing. I think she just doesn’t know how to get out of this situation with dignity,” Hanna Herman, a close confidant of Yanukovych and veteran of the 2004 election, said.
“After this ruckus that she has kicked up, I think her chances of winning a future election have been seriously diminished,” Herman concluded.
Although Yanukovych clinched the Feb. 7 runoff by a slim lead, the growing general consensus is that he has won fair and square.
Election observers from the OSCE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and other Western institutions endorsed the validity of Yanukovych’s victory even earlier than the CEC, during a press conference held on Feb. 8.
Klas Bergman, director of communications for the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly, said the OSCE and its Western partner institutions fielded 700 observers for the runoff, not including hundreds of other international observers.
“Of course, we don’t see everything. There were polling stations where we weren’t present,” Bergman said. But he added: “We took part in numerous activities across the country and we were aware of this [issue of home voting] and looked into it.”
Charles Tannock, a British lawmaker and Tymoshenko supporter who monitored the Ukrainian runoff for the European Parliament, also acknowledged the possibility that Western observers had missed some fraud during the runoff, “though normally the long-term observers who are very experienced pick up on this if [it is] on a large scale, as there are usually intelligence leaks from the opposition which are investigated,” Tannock said.
Regarding the suspicions about home voting, which have been raised by Tymoshenko’s team, Tannock said: “I am not aware of any serious scrutiny of the home voting but understand the ballot boxes are escorted by a mixed team from both parties to avoid any tampering, making such a thing on a large scale very difficult, as this has been raised in previous elections and dismissed in 2004.”
So does the tenacious lady in braids have a chance at overturning the Feb. 7 runoff and calling a new vote, as she helped do against Yanukovych in 2004?
Karasyov says, “No. This is just a diversion. The court gets to show they are objective, and Yulia gets another chance to trumpet her case.”
Tymoshenko has already suffered losses in her campaign to challenge the vote in lower Ukrainian courts.
“She’s scored another goal, but she won’t win the match,” Karasyov said.
Nevertheless, Western leaders and election observers have already been quick to recognize Victor Yanukovych, the same man they accused of trying to steal Ukraine’s presidency during the 2004 election, as victor in 2010.
Tymoshenko’s opponents and independent analysts, meanwhile, interpret her tenacity in challenging the election results more as an exercise in political survival than a genuine attempt to overturn the outcome.
On Feb. 17, Ukraine’s Higher Administrative Court suspended the official election results announced on Valentine’s Day by the country’s Central Electoral Commission, which declared Yanukovych the winner by a slim margin of 3.5 percentage points, or 888,000 ballots.
Tymoshenko personally delivered her case to the judges in Kyiv on Feb. 16, tunneling her way through a crowd of Party of Regions supporters camped outside, after having vowed to never surrender the nation to Yanukovych’s “gang of criminals.”
“I want to make it clear: Yanukovych is not our president. However the future circumstances play themselves out, he will never become the legitimately elected president of Ukraine,” Tymoshenko said in a televised address on Feb. 13, breaking nearly a week of public silence.
The court is expected to take a final decision by Feb. 25, the scheduled inauguration day of Yanukovych.
At issue are 1.5 million votes from the Feb. 7 runoff, which Tymoshenko’s team claims was stolen from them by the Yanukovych camp through various fraudulent schemes.
Vadym Karasyov, a political analyst at the Institute of Global Strategies, said fraud may have been significant in the Feb. 7 runoff. But Karasyov said it wasn’t limited to the Yanukovych team.
In a newsletter released by Tymoshenko’s team, her claims of election fraud included damaged or spoiled ballots, illegal changes to voter lists on election day and unusually high turnout figures in Yanukovych-friendly eastern Ukraine, in addition to suspicious home voting.
Add it up, and Tymoshenko’s side alleges the fraud cost their candidate more than the margin of Yanukovych’s victory.
“It’s even possible that Yanukovych was responsible for more [fraud] than she was, but I don’t think she would have let him get away with a million votes,” Karasyov said.
So why is Tymoshenko still kicking up a fuss in the face of recognition of Yanukovych’s victory by international heavyweights such as U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the European Parliament?
According to analyst Karasyov: “She wants to hold together her faction, remain prime minister and – most of all – retain her image as an unbeatable candidate for future elections.”
It was Tymoshenko who helped reverse Yanukovych’s fraud-marred victory in the 2004 presidential race. She mesmerized the crowds of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators in the center of Kyiv during the 2004 Orange Revolution, the culmination of years of opposition struggle against international pariah and former President Leonid Kuchma, who had chosen Yanukovych as his successor.
Tymoshenko went on to become the first prime minister of President Victor Yushchenko. Then, after Yushchenko fired her as part of post-Revolution squabbling, Tymoshenko retook the government and the lead position among Orange leaders during a snap parliamentary election held in 2007.
Now, by stubbornly refusing to admit defeat, Tymoshenko might be finally showing signs of vulnerability. “This is just her Achilles heel showing. I think she just doesn’t know how to get out of this situation with dignity,” Hanna Herman, a close confidant of Yanukovych and veteran of the 2004 election, said.
“After this ruckus that she has kicked up, I think her chances of winning a future election have been seriously diminished,” Herman concluded.
Although Yanukovych clinched the Feb. 7 runoff by a slim lead, the growing general consensus is that he has won fair and square.
Election observers from the OSCE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and other Western institutions endorsed the validity of Yanukovych’s victory even earlier than the CEC, during a press conference held on Feb. 8.
Klas Bergman, director of communications for the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly, said the OSCE and its Western partner institutions fielded 700 observers for the runoff, not including hundreds of other international observers.
“Of course, we don’t see everything. There were polling stations where we weren’t present,” Bergman said. But he added: “We took part in numerous activities across the country and we were aware of this [issue of home voting] and looked into it.”
Charles Tannock, a British lawmaker and Tymoshenko supporter who monitored the Ukrainian runoff for the European Parliament, also acknowledged the possibility that Western observers had missed some fraud during the runoff, “though normally the long-term observers who are very experienced pick up on this if [it is] on a large scale, as there are usually intelligence leaks from the opposition which are investigated,” Tannock said.
Regarding the suspicions about home voting, which have been raised by Tymoshenko’s team, Tannock said: “I am not aware of any serious scrutiny of the home voting but understand the ballot boxes are escorted by a mixed team from both parties to avoid any tampering, making such a thing on a large scale very difficult, as this has been raised in previous elections and dismissed in 2004.”
So does the tenacious lady in braids have a chance at overturning the Feb. 7 runoff and calling a new vote, as she helped do against Yanukovych in 2004?
Karasyov says, “No. This is just a diversion. The court gets to show they are objective, and Yulia gets another chance to trumpet her case.”
Tymoshenko has already suffered losses in her campaign to challenge the vote in lower Ukrainian courts.
“She’s scored another goal, but she won’t win the match,” Karasyov said.
Ukraine Court Hears Tymoshenko Poll Challenge
KIEV, Ukraine -- A top court in Ukraine on Friday started hearing a complaint by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko alleging that presidential elections she lost to Viktor Yanukovych were marred by widespread fraud.
Addressing the hearing, Tymoshenko said she would accept any decision as long as it was fair.
"If everything is studied objectively, I will accept the decision (of the court), which is the will of the people, but I cannot accept double standards and I cannot give up."
Addressing reporters just before the hearing started, Tymoshenko, who wants to force Yanukovych into a third round, pledged to fight until the end.
"Today I have not come to defend the presidential elections, I have come to defend Ukraine," she said.
Known for her predilection for beige designer dresses, the glamorous politician wore a funereal black outfit to the court.
"I don't want the future of my state, my people to be built on lies, on deception as happened during the 2010 elections. Today I will fight."
Around 300 of her supporters gathered outside the court to support the defiant prime minister, but their numbers were dwarfed by a much larger pro-Yanukovych crowd.
Earlier this week Tymoshenko filed a complaint with the court demanding the results from the February 7 ballot be invalidated due to what she says were mass falsifications.
The court ruled that final election results be suspended while it hears the case of Tymoshenko.
Yanukovych defeated Tymoshenko by around 3.5 percent or just under 890,000 votes in the election, according to the final official results.
Tymoshenko contends that mass violations, which she says amount to one million votes, put the outcome in doubt.
Ukraine's parliament -- where Yanukovych's Regions Party is the largest faction -- has already set the inauguration for February 25 amid fears of a looming political crisis.
"Nothing threatens the inauguration," Vladyslav Lukyanov, a deputy with Yanukovych's Regions Party, promised reporters before the start of the hearing.
"I've already bought myself a tuxedo for the reception which will happen on the evening of the inauguration."
Lukyanov said that if the court did not procrastinate it could deliver a verdict within the next two days.
Olexander Chernenko, head of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, a non-governmental organization, told AFP, "They should end the hearing before Sunday, 48 hours from the beginning of the hearing."
Tymoshenko is facing an uphill battle as international observers have already praised the elections as fair and democratic.
Western leaders including US President Barack Obama have also congratulated Yanukovych on his victory.
Yanukovych vowed Friday not to allow the division of Ukraine, while his party accused Tymoshenko of using her influence to pursue personal gains.
"Tymoshenko continues to demonstrate a cynical and unceremonious violation of the constitution and law," the Regions Party said in a statement.
Yanukovych's victory heralded a return to a more pro-Russia orientation for Ukraine after the 2004 Orange Revolution which brought a pro-Western government to power in Kiev.
In 2004 he was initially declared the winner of disputed presidential polls. But following mass street protests against vote-rigging, the courts overturned his victory and ordered a new election which he lost.
Addressing the hearing, Tymoshenko said she would accept any decision as long as it was fair.
"If everything is studied objectively, I will accept the decision (of the court), which is the will of the people, but I cannot accept double standards and I cannot give up."
Addressing reporters just before the hearing started, Tymoshenko, who wants to force Yanukovych into a third round, pledged to fight until the end.
"Today I have not come to defend the presidential elections, I have come to defend Ukraine," she said.
Known for her predilection for beige designer dresses, the glamorous politician wore a funereal black outfit to the court.
"I don't want the future of my state, my people to be built on lies, on deception as happened during the 2010 elections. Today I will fight."
Around 300 of her supporters gathered outside the court to support the defiant prime minister, but their numbers were dwarfed by a much larger pro-Yanukovych crowd.
Earlier this week Tymoshenko filed a complaint with the court demanding the results from the February 7 ballot be invalidated due to what she says were mass falsifications.
The court ruled that final election results be suspended while it hears the case of Tymoshenko.
Yanukovych defeated Tymoshenko by around 3.5 percent or just under 890,000 votes in the election, according to the final official results.
Tymoshenko contends that mass violations, which she says amount to one million votes, put the outcome in doubt.
Ukraine's parliament -- where Yanukovych's Regions Party is the largest faction -- has already set the inauguration for February 25 amid fears of a looming political crisis.
"Nothing threatens the inauguration," Vladyslav Lukyanov, a deputy with Yanukovych's Regions Party, promised reporters before the start of the hearing.
"I've already bought myself a tuxedo for the reception which will happen on the evening of the inauguration."
Lukyanov said that if the court did not procrastinate it could deliver a verdict within the next two days.
Olexander Chernenko, head of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, a non-governmental organization, told AFP, "They should end the hearing before Sunday, 48 hours from the beginning of the hearing."
Tymoshenko is facing an uphill battle as international observers have already praised the elections as fair and democratic.
Western leaders including US President Barack Obama have also congratulated Yanukovych on his victory.
Yanukovych vowed Friday not to allow the division of Ukraine, while his party accused Tymoshenko of using her influence to pursue personal gains.
"Tymoshenko continues to demonstrate a cynical and unceremonious violation of the constitution and law," the Regions Party said in a statement.
Yanukovych's victory heralded a return to a more pro-Russia orientation for Ukraine after the 2004 Orange Revolution which brought a pro-Western government to power in Kiev.
In 2004 he was initially declared the winner of disputed presidential polls. But following mass street protests against vote-rigging, the courts overturned his victory and ordered a new election which he lost.
Ukraine Court Hears Tymoshenko Appeal Against Poll
Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko launched a court appeal on Friday aimed at blocking the inauguration of President elect Viktor Yanukovich and forcing a fresh vote for President.
"I have not come to defend the elections.I have come to defend the future of Ukraine.I do not want the future of my people to be built on lies and fraud",Tymoshenko told journalists before entering Kiev's Higher administrative Court.
Yankovich,59,is due to be sworn into office on feb 25 after beating Tymoshenko by a narrow margin of 3.5 per centage points in a runoff vote earlier this month, but the 49 year old premier says she was robbed of victory by vote rigging.
Yanukovich,who was denied the top job by the 2004 "Orange revolution" protests against electoral fraud,and his regions Party have denied any wrong doing,as happened in the Orange Revolution which ended with President Viktor Yushchenko being elected.
She is also trying to get declared illegal the official declaration that Yanukovich was elected.
Few commentators expect her to win and most believe the court will throw out the appeal in time for Yanukovich's inauguration to go ahead next Thursday.
Tymoshenko, wearing a black dress with her hair plaited in it's trade mark peasant braid, sat next to Leonid Kravchuk,a former president,in the court room. Others supporting her in court included former foreign minister Borys Tarasiuk.
"I have not come to defend the elections.I have come to defend the future of Ukraine.I do not want the future of my people to be built on lies and fraud",Tymoshenko told journalists before entering Kiev's Higher administrative Court.
Yankovich,59,is due to be sworn into office on feb 25 after beating Tymoshenko by a narrow margin of 3.5 per centage points in a runoff vote earlier this month, but the 49 year old premier says she was robbed of victory by vote rigging.
Yanukovich,who was denied the top job by the 2004 "Orange revolution" protests against electoral fraud,and his regions Party have denied any wrong doing,as happened in the Orange Revolution which ended with President Viktor Yushchenko being elected.
She is also trying to get declared illegal the official declaration that Yanukovich was elected.
Few commentators expect her to win and most believe the court will throw out the appeal in time for Yanukovich's inauguration to go ahead next Thursday.
Tymoshenko, wearing a black dress with her hair plaited in it's trade mark peasant braid, sat next to Leonid Kravchuk,a former president,in the court room. Others supporting her in court included former foreign minister Borys Tarasiuk.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Tymoshenko's unwise move
Almost a week after the presidential election, Ukraine's prime minister and disappointed candidate, Yulia Tymoshenko, has finally broken her silence, and not in a helpful way. Ms Tymoshenko, who might have had a chance of remaining prime minister under a new president, has decided instead to challenge the result in court. If she acts on this intention – and she is not known for graceful retreats – Ms Tymoshenko will be doing herself and her country a big disservice.
This presidential election was the third to be held in Ukraine since independence. Unlike many elections in post-Soviet countries, Russia included, Ukraine can pride itself on the fact that in none of them was the result a foregone conclusion. It was popular anger at what was seen as the rigging of the last election, against the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, that precipitated the Orange Revolution. Then, the election was re-run.
The circumstances this time around are very different. Both the first round and the run-off were closely scrutinised by international observers and found to be free and fair. Although Ms Tymoshenko's camp had warned loudly of fraud before the run-off (when she looked set to lose by a convincing margin), neutral analysts say the pattern of actual results does not support such allegations.
In the event, Ms Tymoshenko lost by less than four per cent to Viktor Yanukovych. But in a democracy – even a relatively young one – a narrow defeat remains a defeat. The conduct of this election, and the creditable turn-out, had fuelled the belief that Ukraine might, after years of turmoil, at last be able to settle down and tackle its ingrained problems. Disillusionment with politics set in within 18 months of the Orange Revolution, and the economy has been in steep decline, in part because of the global recession. The hope was that, whoever won would use the electoral mandate to unify and not to divide.
Ms Tymoshenko – who jointly led the Orange Revolution – has now taken the contrary course. Regrettably, she seems not to have understood that in a democracy, leading a responsible opposition is also a noble, and necesssary, calling.
This presidential election was the third to be held in Ukraine since independence. Unlike many elections in post-Soviet countries, Russia included, Ukraine can pride itself on the fact that in none of them was the result a foregone conclusion. It was popular anger at what was seen as the rigging of the last election, against the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, that precipitated the Orange Revolution. Then, the election was re-run.
The circumstances this time around are very different. Both the first round and the run-off were closely scrutinised by international observers and found to be free and fair. Although Ms Tymoshenko's camp had warned loudly of fraud before the run-off (when she looked set to lose by a convincing margin), neutral analysts say the pattern of actual results does not support such allegations.
In the event, Ms Tymoshenko lost by less than four per cent to Viktor Yanukovych. But in a democracy – even a relatively young one – a narrow defeat remains a defeat. The conduct of this election, and the creditable turn-out, had fuelled the belief that Ukraine might, after years of turmoil, at last be able to settle down and tackle its ingrained problems. Disillusionment with politics set in within 18 months of the Orange Revolution, and the economy has been in steep decline, in part because of the global recession. The hope was that, whoever won would use the electoral mandate to unify and not to divide.
Ms Tymoshenko – who jointly led the Orange Revolution – has now taken the contrary course. Regrettably, she seems not to have understood that in a democracy, leading a responsible opposition is also a noble, and necesssary, calling.
Ukraine's Yanukovych pushes for early inauguration
Supporters of Ukrainian President-elect Victor Yanukovych pushed for an early Feb. 25 inauguration on Monday to put pressure on rival Yulia Tymoshenko as she prepared a court challenge to his election. Parliament appeared set on Tuesday to approve the early date for Yanukovych's swearing-in before Tymoshenko's followers opened their challenge in a high court in Kyiv.Backers of the 49-year-old prime minister say they have evidence to support their allegations that fraud by the Yanukovych camp robbed her of victory in the Feb. 7 vote.Although she is unlikely to succeed, the move will prolong uncertainty in the former Soviet state of 46 million, which has been hit by an economic crisis and is making do without a $16.4 billion IMF programme, suspended last year.The charismatic Tymoshenko, who lost to Yanukovych by the narrow margin of 3.48 percentage points, according to official results, says she will never recognise him as a legitimately- elected president.She has refused to step down as prime minister and concede defeat, despite the urging of Western governments which have formally congratulated the 59-year-old ex-mechanic and hailed his election as a victory for democracy.The Yanukovych camp was clearly eager to see the Kyiv court reject the Tymoshenko appeal quickly so that he could be installed by the end of the month, two weeks earlier than had earlier been expected.Referring to parliament's expected agreement to a Feb. 25 inauguration, Oleksander Yefremov, a representative of his Regions Party, said: "This decision will give a signal to the court not to draw matters out."The stand-off spells more instability and political manoeuvring with Tymoshenko continuing as prime minister after Yanukovych is sworn in until she is forced out by a vote of no confidence.Even then, she will be able to stay on as acting prime minister while Yanukovych embarks on the long and complicated business of trying to forge a coalition in parliament to find her successor.TIGIPKO, A POSSIBLE PMIn an interview with the BBC's Ukrainian service, Yanukovych said: "I understand very well that the coalition will be created around the candidature of the next prime minister, so I will encourage the process of unifying parliament and the negotiating process will show how much parliament is willing to unite around one or another candidate".And he raised the possibility of the job going to businessman and former central bank chief Sergey Tigipko, 50, who secured a good negotiating position for himself after coming a strong third in the first round of voting."I do not rule out the candidature of Tigipko. Tigipko is on the list which, in my opinion, will be discussed next week in parliament," Yanukovych said.Other candidates have been touted too, among them former finance minister Mykola Azarov, a loyal ally of Yanukovych, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a 35-year-old former finance minister and one-time Speaker of parliament.Oleksander Turchynov, a close aide of Tymoshenko, said she herself would appear at Kyiv's High Administrative Court and was pressing for proceedings to be televised."Our side is preparing a large quantity of video material which confirm cheating at polling stations and in constituencies. A large number of witnesses are ready to give evidence about types of falsification," he told journalists.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Ukraine Needs A President Who Can Break The Spell
KIEV, Ukraine -- No matter who is ultimately elected Ukrainian president in the February 7 runoff, the winner cannot become president of all Ukrainians. The mere fact of being elected will not make the winner president of all Ukrainians.
Considerable efforts will be required to win the acceptance of even a majority of the country's citizens, and there is no guarantee that such efforts will be successful.Judging by the prevailing moods in society, it is unlikely the winner of the election marathon will manage to mobilize much more than one-third of the electorate. The remainder will either vote for the other candidate or "against all" or will simply not bother to go to the polls.Also, neither candidate managed to win an absolute majority even among voters in Kiev. Can a head of state claim to be president of all of Ukraine without even the support of the majority of voters in the capital?This is the first time in the modern history of Ukraine that such a situation has arisen. Even during successive presidential ballots in 1994, 1999, and 2004, when there were problems enough and regional divisions were also a factor, the victors still had the support of more than 40 percent of all voters, while the capital gave a clear indication of whom it wanted to see become president. (Both in 1994 and 1999, Leonid Kuchma had to contend with Kiev voters' skepticism toward him.)Ukraine's Recent HistorySince these elections are not going to give us a "president of the whole of Ukraine," perhaps it is time to wonder aloud what kind of figure a president should be to be able to count on the mass support of the citizens, rather than waste his or her term on populist steps taken in a state of panic.In 1991 Leonid Kravchuk won the presidency in the first round everywhere except for three western provinces, and he garnered over 50 percent of the vote. That gave him the authority to accomplish some momentous achievements: to play an active role in the final destruction of the USSR, to lay the foundations of an independent Ukrainian foreign policy, to refuse overtures to draw Ukraine into some new confederative structure, and to quash attempts to foment unrest in the armed forces (which was a real threat in early 1992).Kravchuk did not, however, manage to take the Black Sea fleet under his control (which would have reduced by at least half the threat of Crimean separatism) or to implement decisive economic reforms that would have made it possible to create an integral national economy from the post-colonial rubble, or to take to its logical conclusion -- the holding of preterm parliamentary elections with open lists -- the creation of a multiparty political system.But he failed not because he did not have sufficient popular support, but because he lacked the requisite political decisiveness.Kravchuk also failed to summon the courage to take a firmer stand against the Kremlin, mindful of the fact that Ukraine gets its oil and gas from Russia. (For some reason the president and his entourage forgot that Russian hydrocarbons cannot reach Europe except via Ukrainian pipelines.)And he did not set about implementing systematic linguistic Ukrainianization that would encompass a publishing blitzkrieg, the swift transition from the use of Russian to Ukrainian in radio and television broadcasts, perfecting scientific and technical terminology, and, lastly, organizing classes for those who wished to study Ukrainian.Kravchuk was clearly afraid of losing the status of "president of all Ukrainians," and soon after he did lose it, because he had voluntarily relinquished the political initiative.Leonid Kuchma did not manage to become "president of all Ukrainians" in 1994 insofar as he did not win an overall majority or a majority in Kiev or a more or less equal share of the vote across the country.Aware of this, he kept demanding additional powers, and when he got them he had to struggle to keep supporters of union with Russia and Ukrainian patriots alike happy.In the 1999 presidential election, Kuchma was perceived by a relative majority in almost all regions of Ukraine as "the lesser evil" in comparison with Communist leader Petro Symonenko. But that wasn't enough, and after the murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze, society began to view the lesser evil as the greater one.By 2001, every region of the country had a negative opinion of Kuchma's presidency.'Time Squandered' Viktor Yushchenko became president of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians not because of the election that brought him to power, but as a result of his first six months in office, during which he had significantly greater support than at the time of the election.That was when he could have implemented radical reforms, from structurally rebuilding and modernizing the economy to granting state recognition of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and implementing anticorruption measures. But the time was squandered with nothing to show for it.This brief historical diversion shows us two things.First, that even if it is that the next president will become the genuine national leader by virtue of the February 7 vote, the head of state still has a chance to muster the support of a majority of citizens and count on that support to implement an agenda.Second, there are certain things that are approved equally in all regions of the country and of which a majority of Ukrainians approve. What are they?If you consider the ideology espoused by Serhiy Tihipko, the candidate who placed third in the first round of the election, we find amazingly that he has no clearly formulated ideology whatsoever.He is not a man of the left, or of the right, or a liberal. Sometimes his ideas are dubbed technocratic, but for a technocrat he does not have enough concrete programs to resolving key problems. In a word, he is a decent human being and quite an effective business manager, with no skeletons in his closet.He advocates acting on the basis of common sense, avoiding extremes, in a calm, balanced, and confident way. That is the secret of the only candidate who won almost an identical level of support in eastern and western Ukraine.Paradoxical as it may seem, Kravchuk adopted a similar position in 1991. Do nothing radical; preserve everything that is of value; move gradually toward the new; do nothing that would worsen living standards.All of this gave him the image of a good person, an effective politician who steered Ukraine "between the raindrops" (Kravchuk was mocked for being so slick he could walk between raindrops during a downpour without getting wet) at the time of the August 1991 attempted putsch against then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.And Kravchuk had never been the subject of a major corruption scandal, in contrast to runner-up Vyacheslav Chornovil, the former dissident who had served several prison camp terms for anti-Soviet activity, and who was an impetuous and stubborn man with a clearly formulated ideology -- and not a chance of becoming head of state!And what about Yushchenko in 2004-05? Almost the same. He was probably the most moderate of the Orange Revolution leaders. He had no clear ideological position, but in comparison with Kuchma at that time he appeared "an absolutely sound president," in the words of Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz.Even Yushchenko's opponents sensed that he sincerely believed in the almost abstract humanistic values he espoused and that he sincerely wanted a decent life for all Ukrainians. And while all this remained at the level of a conversation between Yushchenko and the electorate, it was enough to win him the people's affection.The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not a particularly happy one: the majority of Ukrainians don't want a head of state with clearly formulated ideological priorities, with the experience and attitudes of a radical political fighter, with an explicit geopolitical orientation, and with an economic-reform program that can be hard on their wallets.That may explain why different groups of Ukrainians have such widely diverging views of their country's past and future.Even if a potential reformer becomes head of state, that person will not become "president of all Ukrainians," or of all regions and segments of the population. A reformer might possibly win the trust of the majority for a limited time, but that is unlikely: the society’s insistence that reforms yield a positive result would be too great.On the other hand, the voting habits of the majority of Ukrainians could still enable a politician to become head of state who is capable both of winning the support of the majority of voters and of implementing genuine modernization.That politician would simply have to have enough human virtues, combined with managerial ability, to overcome all possible objections on the part of either the east or the west of the country, and both the right and the left.That may sound like a fantasy, but then the whole of Ukrainian history for the past 20 years has resembled a fantastic saga of wandering in circles locked in time, waiting for a knight to break the spell.
Considerable efforts will be required to win the acceptance of even a majority of the country's citizens, and there is no guarantee that such efforts will be successful.Judging by the prevailing moods in society, it is unlikely the winner of the election marathon will manage to mobilize much more than one-third of the electorate. The remainder will either vote for the other candidate or "against all" or will simply not bother to go to the polls.Also, neither candidate managed to win an absolute majority even among voters in Kiev. Can a head of state claim to be president of all of Ukraine without even the support of the majority of voters in the capital?This is the first time in the modern history of Ukraine that such a situation has arisen. Even during successive presidential ballots in 1994, 1999, and 2004, when there were problems enough and regional divisions were also a factor, the victors still had the support of more than 40 percent of all voters, while the capital gave a clear indication of whom it wanted to see become president. (Both in 1994 and 1999, Leonid Kuchma had to contend with Kiev voters' skepticism toward him.)Ukraine's Recent HistorySince these elections are not going to give us a "president of the whole of Ukraine," perhaps it is time to wonder aloud what kind of figure a president should be to be able to count on the mass support of the citizens, rather than waste his or her term on populist steps taken in a state of panic.In 1991 Leonid Kravchuk won the presidency in the first round everywhere except for three western provinces, and he garnered over 50 percent of the vote. That gave him the authority to accomplish some momentous achievements: to play an active role in the final destruction of the USSR, to lay the foundations of an independent Ukrainian foreign policy, to refuse overtures to draw Ukraine into some new confederative structure, and to quash attempts to foment unrest in the armed forces (which was a real threat in early 1992).Kravchuk did not, however, manage to take the Black Sea fleet under his control (which would have reduced by at least half the threat of Crimean separatism) or to implement decisive economic reforms that would have made it possible to create an integral national economy from the post-colonial rubble, or to take to its logical conclusion -- the holding of preterm parliamentary elections with open lists -- the creation of a multiparty political system.But he failed not because he did not have sufficient popular support, but because he lacked the requisite political decisiveness.Kravchuk also failed to summon the courage to take a firmer stand against the Kremlin, mindful of the fact that Ukraine gets its oil and gas from Russia. (For some reason the president and his entourage forgot that Russian hydrocarbons cannot reach Europe except via Ukrainian pipelines.)And he did not set about implementing systematic linguistic Ukrainianization that would encompass a publishing blitzkrieg, the swift transition from the use of Russian to Ukrainian in radio and television broadcasts, perfecting scientific and technical terminology, and, lastly, organizing classes for those who wished to study Ukrainian.Kravchuk was clearly afraid of losing the status of "president of all Ukrainians," and soon after he did lose it, because he had voluntarily relinquished the political initiative.Leonid Kuchma did not manage to become "president of all Ukrainians" in 1994 insofar as he did not win an overall majority or a majority in Kiev or a more or less equal share of the vote across the country.Aware of this, he kept demanding additional powers, and when he got them he had to struggle to keep supporters of union with Russia and Ukrainian patriots alike happy.In the 1999 presidential election, Kuchma was perceived by a relative majority in almost all regions of Ukraine as "the lesser evil" in comparison with Communist leader Petro Symonenko. But that wasn't enough, and after the murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze, society began to view the lesser evil as the greater one.By 2001, every region of the country had a negative opinion of Kuchma's presidency.'Time Squandered' Viktor Yushchenko became president of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians not because of the election that brought him to power, but as a result of his first six months in office, during which he had significantly greater support than at the time of the election.That was when he could have implemented radical reforms, from structurally rebuilding and modernizing the economy to granting state recognition of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and implementing anticorruption measures. But the time was squandered with nothing to show for it.This brief historical diversion shows us two things.First, that even if it is that the next president will become the genuine national leader by virtue of the February 7 vote, the head of state still has a chance to muster the support of a majority of citizens and count on that support to implement an agenda.Second, there are certain things that are approved equally in all regions of the country and of which a majority of Ukrainians approve. What are they?If you consider the ideology espoused by Serhiy Tihipko, the candidate who placed third in the first round of the election, we find amazingly that he has no clearly formulated ideology whatsoever.He is not a man of the left, or of the right, or a liberal. Sometimes his ideas are dubbed technocratic, but for a technocrat he does not have enough concrete programs to resolving key problems. In a word, he is a decent human being and quite an effective business manager, with no skeletons in his closet.He advocates acting on the basis of common sense, avoiding extremes, in a calm, balanced, and confident way. That is the secret of the only candidate who won almost an identical level of support in eastern and western Ukraine.Paradoxical as it may seem, Kravchuk adopted a similar position in 1991. Do nothing radical; preserve everything that is of value; move gradually toward the new; do nothing that would worsen living standards.All of this gave him the image of a good person, an effective politician who steered Ukraine "between the raindrops" (Kravchuk was mocked for being so slick he could walk between raindrops during a downpour without getting wet) at the time of the August 1991 attempted putsch against then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.And Kravchuk had never been the subject of a major corruption scandal, in contrast to runner-up Vyacheslav Chornovil, the former dissident who had served several prison camp terms for anti-Soviet activity, and who was an impetuous and stubborn man with a clearly formulated ideology -- and not a chance of becoming head of state!And what about Yushchenko in 2004-05? Almost the same. He was probably the most moderate of the Orange Revolution leaders. He had no clear ideological position, but in comparison with Kuchma at that time he appeared "an absolutely sound president," in the words of Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz.Even Yushchenko's opponents sensed that he sincerely believed in the almost abstract humanistic values he espoused and that he sincerely wanted a decent life for all Ukrainians. And while all this remained at the level of a conversation between Yushchenko and the electorate, it was enough to win him the people's affection.The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not a particularly happy one: the majority of Ukrainians don't want a head of state with clearly formulated ideological priorities, with the experience and attitudes of a radical political fighter, with an explicit geopolitical orientation, and with an economic-reform program that can be hard on their wallets.That may explain why different groups of Ukrainians have such widely diverging views of their country's past and future.Even if a potential reformer becomes head of state, that person will not become "president of all Ukrainians," or of all regions and segments of the population. A reformer might possibly win the trust of the majority for a limited time, but that is unlikely: the society’s insistence that reforms yield a positive result would be too great.On the other hand, the voting habits of the majority of Ukrainians could still enable a politician to become head of state who is capable both of winning the support of the majority of voters and of implementing genuine modernization.That politician would simply have to have enough human virtues, combined with managerial ability, to overcome all possible objections on the part of either the east or the west of the country, and both the right and the left.That may sound like a fantasy, but then the whole of Ukrainian history for the past 20 years has resembled a fantastic saga of wandering in circles locked in time, waiting for a knight to break the spell.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Ukraine's Yushchenko signs election law change
Outgoing President Viktor Yushchenko has signed into law a change in Ukraine's electoral legislation three days before the vote on his successor.
The amendment allows vote-counting at polling stations across Ukraine to go ahead whether or not representatives of both candidates are present.
PM Yulia Tymoshenko said the change would help supporters of her opponent, Viktor Yanukovych, to commit fraud.
Mr Yanukovych said his rival's complaints were a sign of weakness.
Sunday's vote is a run-off, between the winner and runner-up of the first round on 17 January. President Yushchenko was ejected in the first round.
Mrs Tymoshenko has called on her supporters to take to the streets if she is defeated in Sunday's poll, saying the protests could be larger than those of 2004's Orange Revolution, which swept Mr Yushchenko to power.
"If we are unable to guarantee the honest expression of the people's will and honest results, we will mobilise the people," said Mrs Tymoshenko in Kiev on Thursday.
"I ask you not to allow Yanukovych to rape our democracy, our election and our country!"
But former Prime Minister Mr Yanukovych, who finished 10% ahead of his rival in a first round of voting last month, said her threat was merely an act of desperation.
"This is a sign of her weakness and an indication that she is losing," he said during a penultimate day's campaigning in central Ukraine.
"If people go (to the protests), it will just be a handful, lovers of the same kind of meals that Tymoshenko loves to cook - filth, lies and slander."
The amendment allows vote-counting at polling stations across Ukraine to go ahead whether or not representatives of both candidates are present.
PM Yulia Tymoshenko said the change would help supporters of her opponent, Viktor Yanukovych, to commit fraud.
Mr Yanukovych said his rival's complaints were a sign of weakness.
Sunday's vote is a run-off, between the winner and runner-up of the first round on 17 January. President Yushchenko was ejected in the first round.
Mrs Tymoshenko has called on her supporters to take to the streets if she is defeated in Sunday's poll, saying the protests could be larger than those of 2004's Orange Revolution, which swept Mr Yushchenko to power.
"If we are unable to guarantee the honest expression of the people's will and honest results, we will mobilise the people," said Mrs Tymoshenko in Kiev on Thursday.
"I ask you not to allow Yanukovych to rape our democracy, our election and our country!"
But former Prime Minister Mr Yanukovych, who finished 10% ahead of his rival in a first round of voting last month, said her threat was merely an act of desperation.
"This is a sign of her weakness and an indication that she is losing," he said during a penultimate day's campaigning in central Ukraine.
"If people go (to the protests), it will just be a handful, lovers of the same kind of meals that Tymoshenko loves to cook - filth, lies and slander."
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Yanukovych denies Tymoshenko's premiership if he elected president
The leader of the Party of Regions and presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych has denied a chance of Yulia Tymoshenko premiership if Yanukovych were elected president. "First, this won’t happen," he said on the Ukraina television channel on Friday.Yanukovych said that today it's honestly to say it is possible to speak about a candidate for the premier post only after the election and formation of a new parliamentary majority.Yanukovych said that coalition proposes a candidate for the premier post, and not the president.Yanukovych added that it would be more honest in Tymoshenko's case not to promise the post of prime minister to Sergiy Tigipko if she were elected president, but to guarantee the support of her faction in the parliament.Answering the question on the candidate of the future premier, he said that he does not have abruption with other politicians, including Tigipko and Arseniy Yatseniuk.
Friday, 29 January 2010
Tymoshenko To Win West Ukraine, Lose Presidential Vote - Survey
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko will beat opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych in western Ukraine but will not do well enough in the east to win the presidential election, a survey said.
Strong backing for Tymoshenko in traditionally nationalist western areas of the country will not outweigh support for Yanukovych in predominantly Russian-speaking eastern and southern parts of the country, Research&Branding Group reported on Thursday.Yanukovych won the first round of Ukraine's presidential elections on January 17, and faces runner-up Tymoshenko in the second round on February 7.According to the survey, Tymoshenko is ahead in western Ukraine with the support of 60.6% of voters, but in the central Ukraine she has 42% and only 11.9% in the southeast.Yanukovych is polling at 14.2% in the west, 29.3% in central Ukraine and 69.2% in the southeast, giving him 44.9% nationwide, against 31.6% for Tymoshenko.The poll was carried out on January 19-25 among 3,108 respondents in 24 populated areas of Ukraine.Tymoshenko last week accused Yanukovych of attempting to secure victory in the second round by bribing losing candidates from the first round with the promise of seats in the parliament.Yanukovych hit back on Thursday during a visit to Simferopol by accusing the prime minister of trying to sabotage voting in areas where he is expected to do best."I am 100% confident that Tymoshenko is trying to disrupt the elections on the south-east of Ukraine," Yanukovych said in comments broadcast on Crimean TV, adding that he would impede these plans.Yanukovych won 35% of the vote in the first round, 10 percentage points more than Tymoshenko.
Strong backing for Tymoshenko in traditionally nationalist western areas of the country will not outweigh support for Yanukovych in predominantly Russian-speaking eastern and southern parts of the country, Research&Branding Group reported on Thursday.Yanukovych won the first round of Ukraine's presidential elections on January 17, and faces runner-up Tymoshenko in the second round on February 7.According to the survey, Tymoshenko is ahead in western Ukraine with the support of 60.6% of voters, but in the central Ukraine she has 42% and only 11.9% in the southeast.Yanukovych is polling at 14.2% in the west, 29.3% in central Ukraine and 69.2% in the southeast, giving him 44.9% nationwide, against 31.6% for Tymoshenko.The poll was carried out on January 19-25 among 3,108 respondents in 24 populated areas of Ukraine.Tymoshenko last week accused Yanukovych of attempting to secure victory in the second round by bribing losing candidates from the first round with the promise of seats in the parliament.Yanukovych hit back on Thursday during a visit to Simferopol by accusing the prime minister of trying to sabotage voting in areas where he is expected to do best."I am 100% confident that Tymoshenko is trying to disrupt the elections on the south-east of Ukraine," Yanukovych said in comments broadcast on Crimean TV, adding that he would impede these plans.Yanukovych won 35% of the vote in the first round, 10 percentage points more than Tymoshenko.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Yanukovych expects radical measures from Tymoshenko aimed at disrupting election
Regions Party leader Victor Yanukovych has said he does not rule out that the public will soon witness radical measures taken by presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko in order to disrupt the presidential run-off vote. "They [Tymoshenko's team] are planning a lot of things. I think that we'll soon see their actions, they will be radical and they will be aimed at disrupting the election or rigging the vote," he said on Poltava television and radio company on Monday.Yanukovych said that any attempt to use falsifications with the printing of ballots would fail, "because it's impossible to [print] the number of ballots Tymoshenko would need even if all of the country's printing and publishing companies printed ballots.""They will fail to do this, because we'll oversee the voting process, and there are currently many international observers," he said.
Television debate between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko scheduled for February 1
The televised debate between Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko, who will compete in the second round of Ukraine's presidential election, is scheduled for February 1, the press service of the Central Election Commission (CEC) has reported. If one of the candidates refuses to participate in the debate, the entire air time will be offered for the other candidate, the press service said.It was decided at a commission meeting on Monday that on January 28, the commission would make the draw for the order of giving air time and print space to presidential candidates for election campaigning on television, radio, and in the media, using budget funds.The law on the presidential election foresees that each of the candidates will have a chance to hold election campaigning on the First National TV Channel two times during 45 minutes and on national radio two times during 30 minutes, using budget funds.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Did Georgian Leadership Try To Influence Ukraine Presidential Election?
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Several prominent Georgian oppositionists have expressed concern at the political implications of two telephone conversations, posted first on Ukrainian then on Georgian websites, which could be construed as evidence that the Georgian leadership sought to influence the January 17 Ukrainian presidential election to secure a victory for Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
Relations between Tymoshenko and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili have been haunted by rumors of a torrid love affair between them. Saakashvili denied those rumors as early as 2005, but that did not prevent the production of a movie chronicling the alleged romance.The first conversation posted online was apparently between Saakashvili and Tymoshenko, who thanks him for sending a team of election observers. Saakashvili's administration responded on January 15 to that recording by denying that Georgia supports any of the presidential candidates.The second conversation purportedly took place on January 14 between all-powerful Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili and Givi Targamadze, chairman of the Georgian Committee on Defense and Security, who at the time of the conversation was in Donetsk. Merabishvili tells Targamadze that Akhalaya (Georgia's defense minister) has promised to provide personnel; Targamadze replies that they have already arrived in Donetsk. Merabishvili then orders Targamadze to impress upon his Ukrainian contacts the need to provide air transport for additional Georgian observers prior to the second round of voting.The Georgian authorities have not formally denied the authenticity of either conversation. Targamadze was quoted on January 20 as saying "I think Ukraine now needs to be focused on a more important issue [meaning the second round] rather than wasting time listening to my mobile phone conversations."The Ukrainian Central Election Commission (CEC) refused on January 11 to register 2,011 would-be election observers from Georgia, having already registered a total of 3,149 from other countries. Targamadze was quoted as saying that CEC members from presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions were behind that refusal, and that the 300-plus Georgian election observers already in Donetsk were being hindered in their activities.The Yulia Tymoshenko bloc (BYuT) appealed the CEC decision to the Kyiv Appellate Court on January 13 and demanded that the Georgian contingent be accredited. The BYuT subsequently alleged that members of Yanukovych's campaign staff beat up two Georgian journalists in Donetsk on January 16.Saakashvili told journalists on January 18, the day after the election, that the dispatch of 2,000 Georgian election observers was agreed in advance "with all Ukrainian political parties" and that the objective was "to express solidarity and provide assistance to Ukraine," not to "interfere in politics."But prominent Georgian opposition politicians have argued that whatever Saakashvili's intent, his apparent meddling in the Ukrainian presidential ballot could negatively affect relations between the two countries. Eka Beselia of the Movement for a United Georgia argued that in any other country, an interior minister or prominent parliamentarian would have resigned if such damaging allegations came to light.Former Foreign Minister Salome Zourabichvili argued that "it is not the business of an interior minister to deal with the sending of election observers -- assuming that the persons in question were bona fide observers" and not, as some have alleged, Georgian Interior Ministry personnel.Former Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli, for his part, was quoted by Caucasus Press as telling journalists on January 21 that a formal investigation should be launched and that Merabishvili and Targamadze should be held criminally responsible if that probe yields evidence that they violated the law.
Relations between Tymoshenko and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili have been haunted by rumors of a torrid love affair between them. Saakashvili denied those rumors as early as 2005, but that did not prevent the production of a movie chronicling the alleged romance.The first conversation posted online was apparently between Saakashvili and Tymoshenko, who thanks him for sending a team of election observers. Saakashvili's administration responded on January 15 to that recording by denying that Georgia supports any of the presidential candidates.The second conversation purportedly took place on January 14 between all-powerful Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili and Givi Targamadze, chairman of the Georgian Committee on Defense and Security, who at the time of the conversation was in Donetsk. Merabishvili tells Targamadze that Akhalaya (Georgia's defense minister) has promised to provide personnel; Targamadze replies that they have already arrived in Donetsk. Merabishvili then orders Targamadze to impress upon his Ukrainian contacts the need to provide air transport for additional Georgian observers prior to the second round of voting.The Georgian authorities have not formally denied the authenticity of either conversation. Targamadze was quoted on January 20 as saying "I think Ukraine now needs to be focused on a more important issue [meaning the second round] rather than wasting time listening to my mobile phone conversations."The Ukrainian Central Election Commission (CEC) refused on January 11 to register 2,011 would-be election observers from Georgia, having already registered a total of 3,149 from other countries. Targamadze was quoted as saying that CEC members from presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions were behind that refusal, and that the 300-plus Georgian election observers already in Donetsk were being hindered in their activities.The Yulia Tymoshenko bloc (BYuT) appealed the CEC decision to the Kyiv Appellate Court on January 13 and demanded that the Georgian contingent be accredited. The BYuT subsequently alleged that members of Yanukovych's campaign staff beat up two Georgian journalists in Donetsk on January 16.Saakashvili told journalists on January 18, the day after the election, that the dispatch of 2,000 Georgian election observers was agreed in advance "with all Ukrainian political parties" and that the objective was "to express solidarity and provide assistance to Ukraine," not to "interfere in politics."But prominent Georgian opposition politicians have argued that whatever Saakashvili's intent, his apparent meddling in the Ukrainian presidential ballot could negatively affect relations between the two countries. Eka Beselia of the Movement for a United Georgia argued that in any other country, an interior minister or prominent parliamentarian would have resigned if such damaging allegations came to light.Former Foreign Minister Salome Zourabichvili argued that "it is not the business of an interior minister to deal with the sending of election observers -- assuming that the persons in question were bona fide observers" and not, as some have alleged, Georgian Interior Ministry personnel.Former Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli, for his part, was quoted by Caucasus Press as telling journalists on January 21 that a formal investigation should be launched and that Merabishvili and Targamadze should be held criminally responsible if that probe yields evidence that they violated the law.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Russian observers do not any record serious violations in Ukraine's election
Russian State Duma observers did not record any serious violations in the Ukrainian presidential election, Alexander Babakov, leader of the Russian observers has said. "We did not record any violations that could make it possible to doubt the legitimacy of the election. Apparently, candidates for the second round have been defined, and this is an expected outcome," Babakov told Interfax on Sunday.He did not make forecasts as to results of the runoff, saying that one should wait until the official first-round results are publicized."In my opinion, given the way the election was organized and held, one can say that Ukraine turned another page of its history and that the country is moving along the track of creation," Babakov said.
Yanukovych wins first round of Ukrainian election
Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych took the most votes in the first round of the nation’s presidential election and will face the prime minister in a runoff vote in three weeks, an exit poll shows.
Yanukovych, 59, won 31.5 percent, not enough for a first- round victory, according to the exit poll of 12,349 voters nationwide conducted by a group of three research organizations as of 6 p.m. in Kiev. Premier Yulia Timoshenko had 27.2 percent, and will also take part in the Feb. 7 second round. Incumbent Viktor Yushchenko got 6 percent, losing his bid for re-election. The margin of error was 1.3 percent.
The election, held five years after Yushchenko beat Moscow- backed Yanukovych to office during the Orange Revolution, ends Yushchenko’s dream of leading Ukraine into the European Union and NATO. Still, the legacy of the Orange Revolution may trip up Yanukovych again as voters turn to Timoshenko, who stood with Yushchenko during the massive street demonstrations. This time around, Yanukovych and Timoshenko both promise closer trade ties with the EU and improved relations with Russia.
“Timoshenko has the chance to win the runoff as people who supported candidates linked to the Orange Revolution such as incumbent Viktor Yushchenko are potential voters for her,” said Yuriy Yakymenko, an analyst at Kiev-based Razumkov Center for Economic and Political Studies.
Preliminary turnout at 8 p.m. was 67 percent, the Central Election Commission said on its Web site.
The exit poll results “show that Ukraine has not changed its road, which we started in 2004,” Timoshenko said at a press conference in Kiev. “I understand all the people who voted” for candidates linked to the Orange Revolution “and I will ensure the country develops as you want. Ukraine will be a democratic, independent European state.”
Another exit poll, conducted by Ukrainian TV channel ICTV together with London-based GFK NOP gave Yanukovych 35.06 percent, while Timoshenko was backed by 25.72 percent.
“Today, is the last day of the Orange Revolution Team ruling as Yanukovych leads,” said Hanna Herman, a close ally of Yanukovych, at a press conference.
Under Yushchenko, Ukraine attracted $36 billion in foreign direct investment from the start of his presidency through November 2009. FDI totaled $5.7 billion between 1999 and 2004.
WTO Membership
The country also won membership in the World Trade Organization and the European Union declared Ukraine a market economy. Unemployment also fell to 6.9 percent in 2008 from 9.2 percent in 2004, using International Labor Organization standards, Ukrainian state data shows.
Still, bickering between Yushchenko and Timoshenko several months after the 2004 revolution disappointed voters, clearing the way for Yanukovych’s party to win parliamentary elections in 2006.
Yanukovych took the post of the prime minister, though disputes with Yushchenko led to early elections in 2007, allowing Orange allies to reunite. Timoshenko became premier again in December 2007. Since then, the country has been locked in a political stalemate because of disputes between three politicians.
Political instability complicated Ukraine’s fight with the global credit crunch.
The country faces its worst recession in at least 15 years, with gross domestic product plummeting a record 20.3 percent in the first quarter of 2009, 17.8 percent in the second and 15.9 in the third.
Ukraine was forced to line up a $16.4 billion International Monetary Fund bailout loan in late 2008 as the global credit crisis cut demand for its exports, dried up investment and shaken currency.
Its cooperation with the Washington-based lender is now stalled because of political infighting and the government’s failure to cut spending.
Ukraine’s relations with Russia deteriorated after 2004 as it officially backed Yanukovych then and opposed Yushchenko’s plan to join NATO. Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine twice since 2006 because of price disputes, affecting the European Union. Ukraine depends on Russia for more than 50 percent of its gas needs, while ships 80 percent of Russian fuel to Europe.
Ukraine one-year credit-default swaps, the highest worldwide, will probably fall as the Yushchenko era ends and the prospects grow about improved relations with Russia and the International Monetary Fund, Commerzbank AG said in a research note on Jan. 15.
The cost to insure against non-payment by Ukraine’s government for one year has tumbled more than 4,600 basis points from a record in March to 1,411 basis points.
Yanukovych, 59, won 31.5 percent, not enough for a first- round victory, according to the exit poll of 12,349 voters nationwide conducted by a group of three research organizations as of 6 p.m. in Kiev. Premier Yulia Timoshenko had 27.2 percent, and will also take part in the Feb. 7 second round. Incumbent Viktor Yushchenko got 6 percent, losing his bid for re-election. The margin of error was 1.3 percent.
The election, held five years after Yushchenko beat Moscow- backed Yanukovych to office during the Orange Revolution, ends Yushchenko’s dream of leading Ukraine into the European Union and NATO. Still, the legacy of the Orange Revolution may trip up Yanukovych again as voters turn to Timoshenko, who stood with Yushchenko during the massive street demonstrations. This time around, Yanukovych and Timoshenko both promise closer trade ties with the EU and improved relations with Russia.
“Timoshenko has the chance to win the runoff as people who supported candidates linked to the Orange Revolution such as incumbent Viktor Yushchenko are potential voters for her,” said Yuriy Yakymenko, an analyst at Kiev-based Razumkov Center for Economic and Political Studies.
Preliminary turnout at 8 p.m. was 67 percent, the Central Election Commission said on its Web site.
The exit poll results “show that Ukraine has not changed its road, which we started in 2004,” Timoshenko said at a press conference in Kiev. “I understand all the people who voted” for candidates linked to the Orange Revolution “and I will ensure the country develops as you want. Ukraine will be a democratic, independent European state.”
Another exit poll, conducted by Ukrainian TV channel ICTV together with London-based GFK NOP gave Yanukovych 35.06 percent, while Timoshenko was backed by 25.72 percent.
“Today, is the last day of the Orange Revolution Team ruling as Yanukovych leads,” said Hanna Herman, a close ally of Yanukovych, at a press conference.
Under Yushchenko, Ukraine attracted $36 billion in foreign direct investment from the start of his presidency through November 2009. FDI totaled $5.7 billion between 1999 and 2004.
WTO Membership
The country also won membership in the World Trade Organization and the European Union declared Ukraine a market economy. Unemployment also fell to 6.9 percent in 2008 from 9.2 percent in 2004, using International Labor Organization standards, Ukrainian state data shows.
Still, bickering between Yushchenko and Timoshenko several months after the 2004 revolution disappointed voters, clearing the way for Yanukovych’s party to win parliamentary elections in 2006.
Yanukovych took the post of the prime minister, though disputes with Yushchenko led to early elections in 2007, allowing Orange allies to reunite. Timoshenko became premier again in December 2007. Since then, the country has been locked in a political stalemate because of disputes between three politicians.
Political instability complicated Ukraine’s fight with the global credit crunch.
The country faces its worst recession in at least 15 years, with gross domestic product plummeting a record 20.3 percent in the first quarter of 2009, 17.8 percent in the second and 15.9 in the third.
Ukraine was forced to line up a $16.4 billion International Monetary Fund bailout loan in late 2008 as the global credit crisis cut demand for its exports, dried up investment and shaken currency.
Its cooperation with the Washington-based lender is now stalled because of political infighting and the government’s failure to cut spending.
Ukraine’s relations with Russia deteriorated after 2004 as it officially backed Yanukovych then and opposed Yushchenko’s plan to join NATO. Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine twice since 2006 because of price disputes, affecting the European Union. Ukraine depends on Russia for more than 50 percent of its gas needs, while ships 80 percent of Russian fuel to Europe.
Ukraine one-year credit-default swaps, the highest worldwide, will probably fall as the Yushchenko era ends and the prospects grow about improved relations with Russia and the International Monetary Fund, Commerzbank AG said in a research note on Jan. 15.
The cost to insure against non-payment by Ukraine’s government for one year has tumbled more than 4,600 basis points from a record in March to 1,411 basis points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)