Sunday, April 30, 2006

World Fails On Chernobyl Aid Pledges: Putin

TOMSK, Russia -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has charged that the world had failed to keep promises made over the past two decades to help Ukraine cope with the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster which linger today.

Russian President Vladimir Putin

"The international community, in spite of its promises, is doing almost nothing to help Ukraine," Putin told reporters here during a joint press conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Russian president said he had spoken to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko by telephone on Wednesday, the day marking the 20th anniversary of the catastrophe at a Soviet-era nuclear power station outside the town of Chernobyl in Ukraine.

"We discussed steps to take," Putin said without elaborating.

Yushchenko, who led somber commemorative ceremonies in Ukraine marking the anniversary of the tragedy, called for more international help to deal with its consequences.

"We call on all signatories of the Ottawa memorandum to compensate Ukraine for costs incurred in closing the Chernobyl station," Yushchenko said, referring to a 1995 pact in which Western nations pledged three billion dollars (2.4 billion euros) in aid to Ukraine provided it closed the defunct plant by 2000.

Yushchenko said Ukraine had spent 15 billion dollars over the past 20 years in dealing with Chernobyl after-effects and projected it would spend another 170 billion dollars by 2015.

Source: AFP

Bookmark and Share

Party Time For Ukraine

KIEV, Ukraine -- World Cup debutants Ukraine embark into uncharted waters after securing their first successful qualifying campaign from a difficult group that included European champions Greece, 2002 World Cup semi-finals Turkey and experienced Denmark.

Ukraine’s coach Oleg Blokhin

Only affiliated to FIFA in 1992 following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the country is fairly new to the footballing stage but their progress has been sharp and they are coached by 1975 European Footballer of the Year Oleg Blokhin.

Another Ballon d'Or winner Andrei Shevchenko is the jewel in the crown and the AC Milan marksman gives his side both individual talent and deadly goal-scoring skills.

Blokhin likes to use a three-man attack led by Shevchenko but the team also possess a stingy defence having only conceded seven goals in 12 qualifying matches.

The key results that led to Germany were a 3-0 battering of Turkey in Istanbul, a narrow 1-0 win over the Danes and finally the cornerstone 1-0 win over Greece in Athens that effectively sealed their passage.

Ironically during qualifying for Euro 2004, they finished behind group winners Greece while Spain were seven points ahead.

Until 2006, the closest the team that came to reaching a major tournament was the Euro 2000 squad that finished second behind France and then fell in the play-offs in the cruellest of manners against Slovenia.

Ukraine were the first team from Europe to book their ticket to Germany which displayed the efficiency of their campaign and now maintain a golden chance to reach the knockout phase having been drawn in one of the weaker groups.

With no disrespect to Spain, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, the opportunity for Blokhin and his players to go through is gaping despite their lack of experience.

Source: AFP

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Ukraine's FM Says NATO Membership 'Irreversible' Foreign Policy Goal

SOFIA, Bulgaria -- Describing NATO membership as an "irreversible" foreign policy goal, Ukraine's Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk said Friday that reforms underway in the country's Soviet-style defense sector should ease concerns over its ability to comply with NATO standards.

Ukraine's Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk (L), shares a word with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer during a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission at the National Palace of Culture in Sofia, Friday, April 28

"The aspiration to NATO membership is natural (and) Ukraine's course is irreversible," Tarasiuk told a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia.

The push for membership by former Soviet states Ukraine and Georgia has raised concerns in Moscow that the United States and NATO were seeking to encircle Russia. Russia's foreign ministry has warned such an expansion would force Moscow to reorganize its armed forces in response.

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Ukraine must meet a set of stringent criteria before it can be considered for membership.

Tarasiuk said that Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko "had tasked various security bodies to initiate defense sector reforms ... mindful of the fact that the defense industry preserved the Soviet approach and working style."

According to general NATO requirements, Ukraine's bloated post-Soviet military will have to be brought in line with alliance standards and the country will have to strengthen civilian control over the armed forces.

Tarasiuk said his government was already working to comply with alliance standards through a joint NATO-Ukraine committee, describing this as "a major step forward to substantial practical cooperation and enhancing of our relations."

But he noted that there was still "a lot of homework" to be done to increase public support for the move. Ukraine hopes it could be invited to join by 2008, Tarasiuk said.

"We hope that this year the strengthening of NATO-Ukraine relations will have its logical continuation in the framework of the main preparations program - the membership action plan and ... the invitation to accession talks."

Ukraine hopes it could be invited to join by 2008, Tarasiuk said.

At a joint news conference with Tarasiuk, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that Ukraine was increasingly pulling its weight in being a security provider in regions such as Kosovo, Dharfur and Afghanistan.

"NATO's door remains open and Ukraine's aspirations are ultimately achievable," he said.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Kiev To Challenge Moves To Elevate Russian Language

KIEV, Ukraine -- President Viktor Yushchenko has asked Ukraine's Justice Ministry and the Prosecutor-General's Office to look into the legality of recent local-government decisions granting Russian the status of a regional language.

Viktor Yushchenko opposes making Russian a second language in Ukraine

So far, two local administrations -- the eastern region of Luhansk and the city of Sevastopol, in the Crimea -- have tried to elevate the status of Russian.

Both regions have a predominantly Russian-speaking population.

Yushchenko's deputy chief-of-staff, Anatoliy Matviyenko, said on April 28 that the moves breach Ukraine's constitution, which states that Ukrainian is the sole state language.

The status of the Russian language has become one of the most politically divisive issues in Ukraine.

The pro-Moscow Party of Regions, which won the most votes in last month's parliamentary election, campaigned on a promise to make Russian a second state language.

Source: Radio Free Europe

Bookmark and Share

Friday, April 28, 2006

Troubled Ukraine Eyes NATO Green Light

BONN, Germany -- Ukraine reiterated Friday its desire to join NATO despite Russian qualms, after the Western alliance hinted heavily that the politically troubled ex-Soviet state could soon win approval for membership.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: a red or green light for Ukraine?

During the meeting of NATO foreign ministers in the Bulgarian capital Sofia, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk said: "Ukraine's strategy towards joining NATO is irreversible."

The Sofia talks were the first such contact with NATO since parliamentary elections on March 26 which were widely praised as free and fair, although they have left Kiev in political limbo.

NATO officials at the Sofia talks say there is widespread support for Ukraine's bid, despite its political problems. Speaking on Thursday, NATO head Jaap de Hoop Scheffer hinted there could be an opening to aspiring members at a summit in the Latvian capital in November.

"I have no doubt that in Riga, countries aspiring to NATO membership will want a signal. There will be a signal at Riga," de Hoop Scheffer said.

"When they are ready, NATO is ready," he said in comments that referred also to Georgia, another ex-Soviet republic bidding to join NATO.

Ukraine struggles with a turbulent past

Addressing the political dispute that has dragged on in Ukraine since March 26 parliamentary elections, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the country faced an uphill struggle to join NATO.

"The Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people will have to decide whether or not this is something that they wish to pursue," Rice told reporters on the sidelines of the Sofia meeting on Thursday. "And they will also have to work very hard, I think, to meet the criteria," she added.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has set out an ambitious pro-West agenda since coming to power in 2005 after a wave of popular protests known as the "orange revolution" that brought down a Moscow-backed regime.

But his party performed badly in March and has been forced into coalition talks that could bring to power either a government favoring links with Europe and NATO or one preferring a strong bond with Russia.

New dividing lines in Europe?

Moscow, which held sway over Kiev in Soviet times and maintains a strong influence over its Western neighbor, meanwhile reasserted its opposition to Ukraine's NATO hopes.

"We are against the creation of new dividing lines in Europe," Mikhail Kamynin, Russia's foreign ministry spokesman, was quoted as saying in an interview with RIA-Novosti news agency on Thursday.

"Today there are algorithms of cooperation with NATO that allow states to cooperate in the widest security spectrum without formal accession to the alliance," Kamynin said.

NATO sending Ukraine mixed signals

But NATO on Thursday appeared to play down reports that Ukraine could be offered the alliance's "membership action plan", the key step before being invited to join.

"Ukraine's aspirations to join the Alliance are welcomed by all allies," NATO spokesman James Appathurai told reporters in Sofia. "What I cannot predict is timelines for membership action plans," he added.

Albania, Croatia and Macedonia are currently in the membership action plan with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

Ten countries that were once allied with Russia -- Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia -- have joined NATO since 1999.

Also on Friday, during a sideline meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed a bilateral agreement with Bulgarian officials to establish three military bases in the country as the U.S. shifts troops from old Cold War positions to smaller units closer to the Middle East and Africa.

NATO boosts Darfur aid

Moving from the European to the African continent during talks in Sofia, NATO has said it is ready to boost assistance in Sudan's violence-scarred Darfur region. The alliance has said it will increase logistical support, but said any presence should be limited and only in support of African or U.N. efforts.

In NATO's first operation on the African continent, the alliance has provided training and transportation to African Union troops trying to stem the violence there. Some nations, such as the United States, would like to see a stronger NATO presence on the continent.

Source: Deutsche Welle

Bookmark and Share

Our Ukraine, Party Of Region, Agree On Would-Be Premier

KIEV, Ukraine -- The pro-presidential Our Ukraine bloc and the opposition Party of Regions, led by Viktor Yanukovich, have agreed on the formation of a coalition in the parliament of Ukraine.

Multimillionaire Serhey Taruta

This sensational report was circulated on Friday by a number of electronic mass media organs of Ukraine with reference to reliable sources.

According to their information, the parties reached agreement on Thursday night that Serhey Taruta, chairman of the board of directors of the Industrial Union of Donbass Corporation and one of the three Ukrainian multimillionaires, would be nominated to the post of prime minister.

President Viktor Yushchenko, who is in Latvia on a visit, sent a message from there on Thursday giving his consent to the formation of a coalition by Our Ukraine and the Party of Regions, the sources report.

The political council of the Party of Regions adopted a resolution at its meeting on Thursday, which said that the party would hold talks on the formation of a parliamentary coalition with all the political forces, qualified for the new Supreme Rada, without exception. Yanukovich expressed confidence that the coalition formed by Our Ukraine and the Party of Regions could be the most effective.

Previously the observers forecast that Taruta could well be regarded as a candidate to the post of prime minister. In their opinion, he will be a “technical premier,” because he does not have “clear political orientation.”

This is exactly the thing that could suit both Our Ukraine and the Party of Regions. On the one hand, Taruta comes from Donetsk. On the other hand, he supported the “orange revolution.”

The Party of Regions got 32.14 per cent of votes (186 seats in parliament) at the March 26 parliamentary elections. The Yulia Timoshenko bloc got 22.29 per cent of votes (129 seats).

The pro-presidential Our Ukraine bloc, with Prime Minister Yuri Yekhanurov on the top of the electoral list, got 13.95 per cent of votes (81 seats). The Socialist Party led by Alexander Moroz got 5.69 per cent of votes (33 seats), and the Communist Party led by Peter Simonenko got 3.66 per cent of votes (21 seats).

There are 450 seats in the Ukrainian parliament. A minimum of 226 MPs is needed for forming a parliamentary majority. If Our Ukraine and the Party of Regions form a coalition, it will have a total of 267 seats.

Source: ITAR-Tass

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine Hopes To Get NATO Membership Invitation In 2008: FM

SOFIA, Bulgaria -- Ukraine hoped to be formally invited into NATO membership in 2008, said Ukraine's Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk on Friday.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (R) talks to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk before the informal meeting of the NATO-Ukraine commission in Sofia April 28, 2006

"Our strategic objective is to get an invitation to join NATO, hopefully in 2008," he told reporters at a joint press conference with NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Tarasyuk said he had told NATO foreign ministers in an informal NATO-Ukraine meeting that his country hoped to be invited to join the NATO membership action plan this year.

The membership action plan is an indispensable stage for NATO membership before a formal invitation.

At present, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia are part of the membership action plan, while Ukraine and Georgia are still waiting for a nod from NATO.

Tarasyuk said Ukraine was in the process of creating "a new coalition of democratic forces," which would eventually form a new government.

"Ukraine's strategic foreign policy objective, that is to join NATO, is irreversible," he said.

He admitted, however, that a lot of homework needed to be done, including increasing public awareness of NATO and public support for NATO membership.

He said Ukraine would continue its support for NATO operations in Kosovo, in the Mediterranean and that it was in consultation with NATO for Ukraine's possible role in Afghanistan, where NATO is leading a 9,000-strong International Security Assistance Force.

NATO is trying to increase the multi-national force to 16,000 this summer and expand its service to the south of Afghanistan, where the security situation is volatile.

De Hoop Scheffer said the accession process for aspirant countries was strictly performance-based, and he refused to set up specific timelines for those countries.

"When Ukraine is ready, NATO is ready," he said, adding that this rule applied in a broad sense to all aspiring countries.

He reiterated that NATO operated an open door policy for all European democracies and said NATO was looking forward to working with the new Ukrainian government.

Source: Xinhua

Bookmark and Share

Long-Lost Soldier, 83, Returns To Ukraine

MORIOKA, Japan -- A former Imperial Japanese Army soldier who had a dramatic family reunion in his hometown in Iwate Prefecture for the first time since he went off to Sakhalin Island during World War II left Thursday to return to his home in Ukraine.

Ishinosuke Uwano

Ishinosuke Uwano, 83, who was recently confirmed to be alive in Ukraine, arrived in the town of Hirono, Iwate Prefecture, earlier in April and met with his younger brother and two younger sisters. During his one-week stay, he also visited his parents' grave.

Just before he left, about 50 residents saw him off with one of them saying, "Please bring your family next time you come back."

Uwano visited the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry in the capital later Thursday to re-establish his family registry, which was changed after he was declared dead in 2000.

He described his years after he disappeared as "fate," and did not talk much about them even to his relatives, according to people who met him.

Uwano, accompanied by his son, arrived in Japan on April 19 and went to his hometown the following day. He stayed at the house of his nephew, Yukio, 59, where he was born.

He is scheduled to leave Japan on Friday, arriving in Ukraine later in the day.

Uwano was serving on Sakhalin at the end of the war but his whereabouts became unknown and he was later declared dead.

Uwano, who has been living in Ukraine since around 1965, married a local woman and has a son and two daughters. He currently lives in Zhytomyr, west of Kiev, according to the officials.

Source: The Japan Times

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine's Yushchenko Sees Quick Progress To Join NATO

RIGA, Latvia -- Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko predicted on Thursday a diplomatic breakthrough would soon create the conditions for his ex-Soviet state to join the NATO alliance.

Viktor Yushchenko is eager to have his state join the NATO alliance

NATO has given no commitments to a timetable for Ukrainian membership. Alliance ministers were meeting to discuss those prospects in Bulgaria and were clearly focusing on political uncertainty in Ukraine after a March parliamentary election.

Yushchenko said he believed Ukraine could secure a 'Membership Action Plan' (MAP) at a NATO summit in Riga in November, expected to be attended by U.S. President George W Bush among others.

A membership action plan is one step short of an invitation to join NATO, although it does not make membership automatic.

'I do not rule out that we will be invited to join an action plan leading to NATO membership before the summit this autumn,' Yushchenko told journalists during a visit to Latvia.

'NATO membership will depend on internal developments in Ukraine. Ukrainian politicians should work hard on this.'

In Sofia, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said ministers would examine political developments in Ukraine.

'We shall look forward to discussing political developments in Ukraine following the recent parliamentary elections, particularly of course, their possible impact on Ukraine's aspirations for NATO membership,' he told a news briefing.

Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk is expected to tell the meeting on Friday how Kiev will step up its campaigning to bolster public support for membership and counter anti-NATO sentiment, particularly in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine.

'It's an important meeting. Tarasyuk will need to perform well,' said one alliance source.

SUSPICIOUS OF NATO

Yushchenko has promised any move to join NATO or the European Union will be put to a referendum. Public opinion is suspicious of NATO, depicted as an enemy in Soviet times.

Talks have been under way on forming a government since the election, with divided pro-Western 'orange' liberal parties saying they hoped to set aside differences and form a coalition in a parliament newly empowered to name the prime minister.

But speculation has swirled that Yushchenko's allies in the Our Ukraine party might opt for a coalition with the Our Regions Party, more sympathetic to Moscow and opposed to NATO.

Regions Party leader Viktor Yanukovich, the main loser in the 2004 'Orange Revolution' proposed such a coalition again on Wednesday on condition he take over as prime minister.

Despite U.S. support for Ukrainian membership, there has been resistance from among European members such as Germany.

NATO has urged Ukraine to stop talking about joining the alliance and the European Union and get on with measures to consolidate democracy, rule of law and transparency.

After the euphoria of the Orange Revolution that overturned a rigged election and swept Yushchenko to power, there is unease at slow progress in pushing ahead with reform.

But Ukraine's backers in NATO include Poland and the United States, keen to reward Kiev for its move towards democracy and for sending troops to help fight the insurgency in Iraq.

Source: Reuters

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Kuchma Thinks Yushchenko Will Loose Under Tymoshenko’s Premiership

KIEV, Ukraine -- Former president Kuchma disagrees the coalition of Our Ukraine bloc and the Party of Regions may undermine Yushchenko’s chances to be reelected president for the second time.

Ex-President Leonid Kuchma

“Next elections will take place in three years but Yushchenko may loose if he fails to overcome today’s crisis”, Kuchma said in the interview to Profile edition.

Kuchma added that the president should unite the country instead of thinking about elections.

In his opinion nobody has doubts in orange coalition and Yuliya Tymoshenko’s premiership.

According to Kuchma the Party of Regions as the winner of the parliamentary elections might have formed a coalition and the other configurations may exist only in case of its failure.

Among the problems of the future “orange coalition” the former president called “the ideological incompatibility of its members”.

Yushchenko and Yekhanurov should understand that to achieve success in economics they have to carry out unpopular reforms which were suspended early in 2005.

Kuchma pointed out that the political views of “orange” forces differ cardinally so they can hardly work efficiently. For instance Our Ukraine, having liberal views, comes forward for land privatization unlike opposing SPU and BYuT.

Kuchma reminded that the former government had already raised the problem of land privatization but the Left headed by Moroz hampered its realization.

Kuchma welcomes Yushchenko’s demand to approve the program before sharing posts in the government.

But being asked whether there is any danger the prime-minister does not fulfill the president’s program, he assured that the coalition will bear responsibility for the premier’s activity.

Source: Ukrayinska Pravda

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine Mystery Solved

MOSCOW, Russia -- Two influential Ukrainian businessmen were named Wednesday as the owners of a one-half stake in RosUkrEnergo, a mysterious company that controls Ukraine's gas imports.


Citing audit documents, the newspaper Izvestia said Dmitry Firtash - who has in the past played a role in importing gas from Turkmenistan to Ukraine and owns a Kiev basketball club - and Ivan Fursin, a banker, were the beneficial owners of the 50-percent stake.

Raiffeisen Zentralbank in Austria confirmed the names, saying it was holding the stake on their behalf.

In an e-mailed statement, the bank said Centragas Holding, a company based in Vienna, "is a joint owner of RosUkrEnergo." Firtash owns 90 percent of Centragas and Fursin holds the other 10 percent, the statement said.

Raiffeisen said in the past that it held the stake as trustee but declined to disclose the names of the owners.

Firtash, who reportedly spends most of his time in Hungary, could not be reached immediately for comment. Fursin also was not reached.

RosUkrEnergo bounced into the public eye when it was named as the go-between in a deal to resolve a gas pricing dispute between Russia and Ukraine which interrupted supplies to Europe over the New Year.

Russia's state-controlled monopoly Gazprom owns the other 50 percent of Swiss-registered RosUkrEnergo.

The U.S. Justice Department's organized crime section reportedly opened a probe into RosUkrEnergo, with diplomatic and financial sources saying that Raiffeisen had cooperated by providing information on the company.

Izvestia, which is owned by Gazprom, published extracts from an audit report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers that named the two men as owners of Centragas.

Ukraine's energy minister, Ivan Plachkov, was quoted by Interfax- Ukraine news agency as saying that Kiev may review the January gas deal because of the revelation.

RosUkrEnergo's sales in 2005 were around $3.5 billion and it made profits of $500 million from the sale of about 40 billion cubic metres of gas, Raiffeisen has said. That makes it one of Europe's largest gas marketers.

The disclosures come as concern grew that Ukraine, which is the transit route for 80 percent of Russia's gas exports to Europe, was tolerating opaque gas deals, even after the "Orange Revolution" of 2004, that jeopardize regional energy security.

Ukraine's state energy company, Naftogaz, is struggling to pay for gas imports following the January gas deal, under which the import price Ukraine must pay nearly doubled to $95 per 1,000 cubic meters.

Naftogaz has been unable to pass on the gas price increase to consumers and, according to local media reports, ran up losses of at least $500 million in the first quarter of 2006.

Firtash also figures prominently in a recent report by Global Witness, a non- governmental organization that campaigns against corruption involving natural resources, on the structures through which Turkmen gas has been sold to Ukraine.

Global Witness warned that Europe's energy security was threatened by the opaque nature of gas supply deals in the former Soviet states.

Source: International Herald Tribune

Bookmark and Share

Yushchenko's Team Rejects Tymoshenko's Prime Minesterial Ambition

KIEV, Ukraine -- Yulia Tymoshenko's desire to return to the prime minister's chair has become the main obstacle to restoring the Orange Revolution coalition in order to form a majority in Ukraine's newly elected parliament.

Yulia Tymoshenko

President Viktor Yushchenko's Our Ukraine bloc has rejected Tymoshenko's demand that the distribution of key posts should precede the drafting of an action plan for the coalition. Tymoshenko, in return, has accused Yushchenko's team of foul play.

The junior partners in a would-be tripartite coalition, the Socialist Party (SPU) of Oleksandr Moroz, have apparently sided with Tymoshenko, who offered to them the post of speaker of parliament.

On April 13, Tymoshenko, Our Ukraine, and the SPU signed a protocol on the procedure to form a coalition of democratic forces. This was the first document signed by the three parties after weeks of difficult talks, and most local observers viewed it as a sure sign that the Orange Coalition will be revived.

Tymoshenko considered the protocol her personal victory, as its Clause 6 said that the coalition would be based on the draft coalition memorandum, which was prepared ahead of the March 26 election but never signed.

The draft memorandum reportedly provided for assigning the post of prime minister to the party that scored most votes among the participants in the accord. Tymoshenko's bloc mustered more votes than Our Ukraine and the SPU combined, so she thought it legitimate to claim the post.

Yushchenko's People's Union/Our Ukraine party, however, on April 14 rejected Clause 6, approving the rest of the protocol. The rejection of Tymoshenko's main condition was formalized by Our Ukraine on April 19.

Yushchenko approved the exclusion of Clause 6, telling journalists on April 15, "It is unadvisable to divide portfolios before we approve the general political principles." The SPU, however, approved the protocol without reservations, and criticized Our Ukraine's move, saying it jeopardized the coalition talks.

Tymoshenko went further than that. At a press conference on April 18, she said that Yushchenko's teammates, Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov, former secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Petro Poroshenko, and leader of the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction Mykola Martynenko had persuaded Yushchenko to form a parliamentary coalition with the opposition Party of Regions of Viktor Yanukovych (PRU), which won the election, rather than with Tymoshenko.

She also claimed that Poroshenko and Martynenko conspired to arrest her chief aide, Oleksandr Turchynov, who was Security Service chief in her cabinet in 2005. Tymoshenko also offered a carrot to the SPU, saying that SPU leader Oleksandr Moroz should be offered the post of parliamentary speaker in line with coalition accords.

Our Ukraine issued a statement on the same day rejecting all of Tymoshenko's accusations and saying that she had torpedoed the coalition "by reducing the talks to securing the post of prime minister for herself and the post of parliamentary speaker for Moroz." The SPU, however, issued a statement backing Tymoshenko's point on the distribution of posts.

The SPU and Tymoshenko want to hurry up with distributing portfolios, afraid that Our Ukraine may opt for a coalition with the PRU. Their fears are not totally ungrounded. Yekhanurov has said on many occasions that he does not reject a "grand coalition" including the PRU as a fourth partner.

In such an alliance, the role of the SPU as the smallest party would be naturally diminished, and it would be next to impossible for Tymoshenko to become prime minister. She has already made it clear that she would not join such a coalition.

Yekhanurov is not the only member of Yushchenko's team who has considered an alliance with the PRU. Yushchenko's long-time aide Vira Ulyanchenko told 1+1 TV that the PRU might be included in the coalition, and that the PRU would share the goal of joining the European Union with Our Ukraine, as this corresponds to the big business interests that are behind the PRU.

Yushchenko's economic adviser Oleksandr Paskhaver told a briefing on April 19 that the PRU's "right-wing" economic program is closer to Our Ukraine's ideology than Tymoshenko's platform, which he described as leftist. As for the SPU, it is a leftist party; what's more, it rejects NATO membership, which is one of the main points on Our Ukraine's foreign agenda.

Officially, Our Ukraine keeps saying that the democratic ideals of the Orange Revolution, which then defeated the PRU, leave no alternative to a union with Tymoshenko and the SPU. Our Ukraine, however, insists that the coalition's principles and goals should come first, and that the distribution of posts, including that of prime minister, is of secondary importance.

"The availability of clearly stated and agreed programmatic goals and rules for a coalition should make it easy to solve personnel matters," Our Ukraine ideologists Ihor Zhdanov and Vitaly Bondzyk said in a recent article for Ukrayinska pravda. Our Ukraine makes it clear that it would hold Tymoshenko, for whom the post of prime minister is of primary importance, liable for a possible failure to re-establish the Orange Coalition.

Source: Eurasia Daily Monitor

Bookmark and Share

More Tourists Visiting Ukraine Recently

KIEV, Ukraine -- Whether green or traditional, tourism in Ukraine appears to be rising steadily. In 2005, 17.6 million tourists visited Ukraine, Ukraine’s State Tourism Administration reported on its website.

Cape Fiolent, one of the most picturesque travel destinations in Crimea, is located near the port city of Sevastopol. Situated in this vicinity, called Balaklava, are the remains of the ancient monastery of St. George.

This was a 13 percent increase from 2004, or an additional 3.1 million visitors. This trend should continue, with a projected 19.6 million visitors expected to come to Ukraine in 2006, the STA reported.

According to industry experts and tourism agencies, growth in 2005 was due in part to practical considerations, such as Ukraine’s abolition of its visa regime with neighboring EU countries and its gradually improving infrastructure, as well as subjective factors like the Orange Revolution and Eurovision-2005, which most likely aroused the interest of some of Ukraine’s visitors last year.

That travelers from the EU, Canada and the United States no longer require visas to come to Ukraine has resulted in a palpable increase in tourists from these countries. This is evident not only in the statistics provided by the STA, but by increased business for Ukrainian tourism agencies in 2005.

Slovakia, Poland and Romania provided an additional 155,000, 1.7 million and 64,000 visitors to Ukraine, respectively, in 2005. This marks a 98, 95 and 65 percent year-on-year increase from these countries, in that order.

Thirty-four percent more Germans came to Ukraine in 2005 (189,546) and the number of Israeli tourists increased by 15 percent (51,186).

Overall, tourists to Ukraine are now more frequently opting to travel independently, making their own arrangements, according to STA statistics, rather than going through travel agencies on organized tours, although tourism agencies and operators providing package tours have also reported growth in the last year.

Booking season, every season

Oleksandr Malyovany, incoming tourism manager for Bytsko, a company with a staff of around 90 that primarily services clients coming to Ukraine from abroad, noted that his company saw 10 percent growth in tourists arriving in the country on package tours in 2005 and expects close to 20 percent growth in 2006.

Roughly 30 percent of Bytsko’s business comes from abroad. The remaining 70 percent is usually corporate clients based in Ukraine, for whom the company organizes conferences throughout Ukraine – from the Carpathian Mountains to Crimea.

Bytsko’s foreign clients travel primarily to the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, Crimea, the southern port city of Odessa and the architecturally rich western city of Lviv on organized tours and excursions, and stay in four- and five-star accommodations, which are still insufficient in number, especially given that there are only two five-star hotels in Ukraine – Premier Palace in Kyiv and Donbass Palace in the southeastern industrial city of Donetsk.

There is an adequate number of three- and four-star hotels in Odessa, Malyovany said, adding that the city’s tourism infrastructure is developing effectively. However, there are far too few good hotels in Crimea, and as a result, prices for rooms and the quality of the service rarely coincide.

Malyovany said his company books rooms for tour groups well in advance, most frequently in the winter months. Booking tour groups one to two months before the peak summer season, not to mention individual clients, is quite problematic, he added.

Green and clean

Although traditional tourism still predominates in Ukraine, other forms of tourism have begun taking off.

While traditional tourism requires significant investments in hotels, roads and transportation infrastructure, such as rail lines, green, eco and extreme tourism require much less capital to flourish. Moreover, for budget travelers and international students coming to Ukraine, a network of less expensive hostels is also being developed.

Rural green tourism is aimed at promoting relaxation in Ukraine’s diverse countryside, where tourists can rent rooms in private village homes and try their hand at everything, from gardening to picking mushrooms in the woods.

The development of green tourism in Ukraine is also part of a concerted effort by the Ukrainian government to economically revive Ukraine’s rural areas, which with their aging population, can no longer effectively sustain agricultural production.

The Union to Promote Rural Tourism in Ukraine, a public non-profit organization founded in 1996, lists on its website private homes available to rent in most of Ukraine’s regions. Interested parties state the prices they are willing to pay per night with a meal, when they order.

STA Deputy Director Serhiy Syomkin said that developing rural green tourism does not require tremendous investment because all that’s really needed is a building with “at least minimal comforts… given that accommodations at every price have a buyer.”

Moreover, some of these homes provide a greater variety of accoutrements, including washing machines, garages, and televisions, and are located near some of Ukraine’s more popular summer tourist spots, especially in Chernihiv, which has an impressive landscape of churches, and the mountainous Carpathian regions.

They offer lower rates than hotels, and often provide cooking and other services, although the primary objective of green tourists is to get away from the city, Syomkin said.

He added that it’s difficult to gauge how many people travel to Ukrainian villages to vacation each year, because this sector of the economy legally falls under the domain of agriculture, as opposed to tourism. Nonetheless, his agency is currently working on a mechanism to measure this statistically.

Friendly hostels

Tourists coming to Ukraine looking for hostels will also have more to choose from in the near future.

Several hostelling associations in Ukraine are actively promoting ecotourism, drawing in younger tourists with smaller budgets.

The Ukrainian Youth Tourist Association, a non-profit NGO, is developing a network of hostels in Ukraine, of which they currently manage six.

The UYTA’s hostels provide beds and basic services. Rates at its hostel Venetsiya, in the village of Komsomolsk, Poltava region, which should open in May 2006, start at Hr 40 ($8) a night, said Oleksandr Faynin, president of UYTA.

In April 2006, UYTA opened two new hostels in the Carpathian Kosiv region - Zermatt and St. Moritz - both named after Swiss cities, with 36 and 64 beds, respectively. UYTA signs agreements with the owners of these buildings, who then agree to allow the organization to use its facilities either year round or during the peak summer and winter seasons, depending on the location.

UYTA's aim is to develop socially-driven ecotourism, said Faynin, and by hiring Ukrainian students with English-language skills to work in the hostels during the summer months, the association is attempting to draw travelers from neighboring European countries.

In 2004, the UYTA had just 400 visitors to its accommodations and tours. However, in 2005, with the establishment of its network of six hostels, this number grew to approximately 3,000 visitors, coming primarily from Germany, France and the UK, but also from as far as the U.S., Japan and Australia.

Requests for green, as well as extreme tours are rare for Bytsko, Malyovany said, adding that this is primarily due to the country’s poor tourism and travel infrastructure.

However, Malyovany said that if a request for a green or ecotourism package came from one of their many 20 foreign operators, “they would do everything possible to accommodate the request and meet the client’s wishes.”

Syomkin said tourism agencies and operators reported Hr 2.7 billion ($540 million) in revenues in 2005 for their services, a 26 percent increase from 2005. Moreover, by the STA’s estimates, tourists spent close to Hr 37.7 billion ($7.5 billion) in Ukraine in 2005 on hotels, transportation, food, excursions and other travel-related purchases.

Syomkin added that if Ukraine and Poland win their joint bid to host the World Cup in 2012, this could provide the necessary impetus to rapidly improve Ukraine’s tourism infrastructure, especially in building the sorely needed three- to five-star hotels. Ukraine’s government, he said, has allocated Hr 15 billion ($3 billion) for the improvement of roads and railways over the next five years.

Source: Kyiv Post

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Flowers And Tears Mark Chernobyl Anniversary

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine (Reuters) - Mourners laid red carnations — symbols of grief — in the shadow of the ruined Chernobyl power station on Wednesday as they marked the 20th anniversary of the world's worst civil nuclear accident.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko (R) takes part in a wreath-laying ceremony at the monument for those who died from the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster near the Chernobyl nuclear plant April 26, 2006. Mourners marked the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster on Wednesday, honouring those who died as leaders pledged to ensure it would never happen again.

Hundreds filed past a memorial wall engraved with the names of the local fire crew. They were among the first to perish when Chernobyl's reactor No. 4 blew up on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive dust across Europe.

One old woman in a headscarf made the sign of the cross as she stooped to lay a single carnation at the foot of the wall.

Ukraine's President Victor Yushchenko said it was time to start healing the scars left by the disaster.

"After 20 years of pain and fear, this land must feel progress," he told mourners in Chernobyl — epicentre of a still-contaminated 30-km (19-mile) "exclusion zone" that straddles parts of Ukraine and neighbouring Belarus.

"The trance we were left in by Chernobyl is over. We are a strong and brave people and we are looking to the future."

His ex-Soviet state has been left to deal with a legacy of contamination, ill health among its people and a reactor that, though entombed in a concrete "sarcophagus," will remain radioactive for centuries.

Nuclear power, out of favor for years after the accident, is now making a comeback as governments like the United States and China seek cleaner and cheaper alternatives to oil and gas.

But environmental groups have warned the lessons of Chernobyl should not be forgotten.

The Soviet authorities sent in firefighters and conscripts to extinguish the fire and clean up radioactive material, some equipped only with shovels.

Officials waited two days before telling their own people, and the world, about what had happened.

The World Health Organization puts at 9,000 the number of people expected to die of radiation exposure from Chernobyl, while environmental group Greenpeace predicts an eventual death toll of 93,000.

LINGERING LEGACY

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan called on the international community to honor the victims by continuing to provide aid to affected communities.

"Many hard lessons have been learned from Chernobyl, including the importance of providing the public with transparent, timely and credible information in the event of a catastrophe," U.N. chief spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

Services of remembrance began in the small hours of Wednesday, when hundreds of people filed slowly through the streets of Slavutych, the town built to house the Chernobyl plant's workers displaced by the accident.

Each bearing a candle, they fell silent at 1:23 a.m. Moscow time (2123 GMT Tuesday) — about the time of the explosion.

Later in Ukraine's capital Kiev, Lyudmila Snizhok dabbed her eyes with a tissue as she remembered her husband Leonid, a paramedic at Chernobyl.

"He died three years ago … from the effects of radiation," she said. "He left three children"

President Bush, in a statement, honoured the "lives lost and communities hurt in the devastation."

Pope Benedict said he prayed for the Chernobyl victims and urged world leaders to see to it that, in future, nuclear energy was environmentally safe.

In Belarus, opponents of Belarus's President Alexander Lukashenko— described by Washington as a dictator — were to hold a demonstration to mark the anniversary. The opposition said police might try to break up the rally.

Source: Reuters

Bookmark and Share

Rice Looks To Set Ukraine On Track To Joining Nato

LONDON, England -- Nato is planning to put Ukraine on the path to membership, foreign ministers from the US-led alliance will be told this week.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

At a meeting in Sofia on Thursday, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, will seek the backing of her counterparts for Ukraine’s entry to Nato’s “membership action plan” – the key step before being invited to join the alliance.

The US would like Ukraine to join the membership action plan by September and certainly before a Nato summit in Riga in November. That would give the country the prospect of becoming a member before President George W. Bush leaves office in early 2009.

But resistance is likely to come from Russia, which is concerned at the prospect of membership for Ukraine, with which it has historic and strategic links. Moscow is still smarting from the accession of the former Soviet Baltic states to Nato.

In Ukraine, the US and other like-minded countries such as the UK are keen to consolidate the gains of the troubled pro-democracy “orange revolution” and reward Kiev for having held free and fair legislative elections in March, even though the prospective new pro-western government of President Viktor Yushchenko is far from united on the merits of Nato membership.

“Assuming that the new government came in committed to working towards Nato, you could say by Riga that they had done enough to get into the membership action plan,” said a senior Nato diplomat.

Although within Ukraine the European Union is more popular than Nato, the EU is deeply wary of making any promise of future membership to Kiev. Some western officials believe that the prospect of Nato membership may bolster Ukraine’s claims to join the EU.

The diplomat added that Ukraine was at a similar stage as several Balkan countries some years ago, when they were also put on the Nato membership action plan. Those countries – Croatia, Albania and Macedonia – now hope to join “as soon as possible” after the Riga summit. At the behest of Mr Bush, Nato is planning a second summit, in 2008, devoted to enlargement.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato secretary-general, said on Tuesday he did not think the Riga summit would invite any country to join but that aspiring members had legitimate expectations of a positive signal on enlargement.

Source: Financial Times

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

20 Years Later, Chernobyl's Scars Remain

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainians tried to make sense Tuesday of the Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion through scientific conferences, humanitarian missions and in quiet recollection of an event that still scars this ex-Soviet republic 20 years later.

Ukrainian students try on gas masks as part of a safety drill in a school in Rudniya, just outside the Chernobyl contamination zone

The April 26, 1986, explosion and fire, to be commemorated in the capital with pealing bells and a minute's silence, became the world's worst nuclear accident as it spewed radioactive fallout for 10 days over 77,220 square miles of the then-Soviet Union and Europe.

"The whole country grieves, and the whole world joins us in this grief," said Lena Makarova, 27, one of many Ukrainians to visit the Chernobyl museum in Kiev on the eve of the anniversary.

President Viktor Yushchenko planned to attend a solemn, candlelit memorial service near a small church built to commemorate Chernobyl victims in Kiev, where bells were to toll 20 times starting at 1:23 a.m. Wednesday, marking the exact time when plant workers set off the alarm at Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station two decades ago.

The explosion tore off the plant's roof, releasing about 400 times more radiation than the U.S. atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima.

Death tolls connected to the blast remain hotly debated, as do the long-term health effects.

At least 31 people died as a direct result of trying to keep the fire from spreading to the plant's three other operating reactors. One plant worker was killed instantly and his body has never been recovered, 29 rescuers, firefighters and plant workers died later from radiation poisoning and burns and another person died of an apparent heart attack.

Some 350,000 people were evacuated forever from their homes, leaving a whole city, Pripyat, and dozens of villages to decay and rot away.

About 5 million people live in areas covered by the radioactive fallout, in Ukraine, neighboring Belarus and Russia.

Thousands have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, one of the only internationally accepted illnesses linked to Chernobyl, and the U.N. health agency said about 9,300 people were likely to die of cancers caused by radiation.

Some groups, however, including Greenpeace, have warned that death tolls could be 10 times higher than the U.N. agency predicted, accusing it of whitewashing the impact of the most serious nuclear accident in human history as a bid to restore trust in the safety of atomic power.

Radiation and health experts from international bodies including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, the European Commission and the United Nations, gathered for the second day Tuesday in central Kiev to discuss what the world has learned from Chernobyl _ and what it can do to prevent a similar tragedy.

The head of the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, stressed the importance of international cooperation on nuclear safety matters.

"In remembering the Chernobyl accident, we should renew our determination to ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement, adding the explosions "made painfully clear that the safety risks associated with nuclear and radiological activities extend beyond national borders."

Another conference, hosted by Yushchenko's American-born wife, Kateryna, discussed the humanitarian challenges of the catastrophe. Senior officials from the International Red Cross, which provides free testing for thyroid cancer visited one of their mobile testing units outside of Kiev.

"Chernobyl is not just a Ukrainian problem, it's a disaster of international magnitude," said Markiyan Lubkivskiy, a presidential adviser on humanitarian issues.

European Green parties and environmentalists held their own conference in Kiev, raising concerns about the safety of nuclear energy and warning that the world should heed the lessons of Chernobyl and not build more nuclear power plants.

"There is no technology with such a high risk," said Ralf Fuchs of the Berlin-based Heinrich Boll Foundation, which helped sponsored the conference. "Instead of dreaming up new nuclear power plants, it would be much more profitable to invest money in energy saving and new energy efficiency."

The United Nations has said the aim now should be to reduce the feeling of malaise and doom that grips many in the affected region

"I don't want it to happen again," said Yevheniy Tyutyunnyk, a 19-year-old student as he looked through the often grim exhibits in the Kiev Chernobyl museum, whose hallways are lined with sign posts representing the radiation-dead villages around the region.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Chernobyl Widows Still Cope With Loss

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine -- Once a year, Ukrainian widows board a train for the more than 500-mile train journey to the Mitinskoye cemetery in Moscow to visit their loved ones in their lead-encased coffins.

In this 1999 photo provided by the Shashenok family, Ruslan Shashenok and Petro Polomarchuk are seen near the grave of Volodymyr Shashenok, Ruslan's father and Polomarchuk's former co-worker in Moscow. As the country slept on April 26, 1986, the fourth reactor at the Chernobyl plant exploded during a test in what became the world's worst-ever nuclear accident. Volodymyr Shashenok, an engineer at the station, became the second victim of Chernobyl and died just five hours after the accident. Polomarchuk carried the dying Shashenok from the Chernobyl station after the explosion.

Twenty-nine firefighters, rescuers and nuclear plant workers died in the two months following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which happened 20 years ago Wednesday. Although the Ukrainians could now be reburied in their native soil, the widows are resolved to leave them lying together alongside their dead co-workers from other parts of the former Soviet Union.

Those whose husbands were plant workers have had to cope not just with bereavement, but with the memory of a Soviet government that blamed them for the accident. Their families received smaller death benefits than those of the firefighters, who were officially praised for their heroism.

The Soviet Union is long gone and the widows hope their husbands will be vindicated in time. In the meantime, they stick together for moral support, especially this week as they make their annual journey of mourning - alone, or with families.

"It is an opportunity to share our memories," said Nataliya Lopatyuk, 41, whose husband, a plant electrician, died from radiation poisoning. "All of us came through this grief."

Minutes after the April 26, 1986, explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, Viktor Lopatyuk and a co-worker turned off a hydrogen generator, localizing the explosion at the fourth reactor. They wore no protective suits or masks.

Lopatyuk was one of the victims rushed to Moscow for treatment and because his body was considered highly radioactive and a potential risk.

His wife, Nataliya, was 21 years old and eight months pregnant when her husband left for his overnight shift and didn't come back. After hearing rumors of the disaster, she made frantic calls and was finally told Viktor was safe and in the hospital. They had 15 minutes together before he was taken to the Russian capital.

The next time she saw him was 15 days later in the Moscow hospital, where the doctors and nurses wore special suits to protect themselves from their highly radioactive patients. Viktor looked better, and he tried to reassure his wife, noting that unlike some of his co-workers, he still had his hair.

The hope was short-lived. Within two days, Viktor had gone completely bald, with terrible burns bubbling up on his arms. "I could see his bones," his widow recalled. He died on May 16, less than three weeks before the birth of his daughter, Yulia.

Nataliya has since remarried and has raised Yulia to be proud of her father and his colleagues. Had they not turned off that generator, Yulia says, "Me, you and millions of other people would not exist."

At least 19 other Chernobyl plant workers and liquidators diagnosed with radiation poisoning have died since 1987, and others have reportedly died from leukemia and other illnesses.

They have been buried separately, rather than in the Moscow cemetery where the initial victims were laid to rest amid heavy precautions - such as the lead coffins - for fear of radiation contamination.

Lyudmila Shashenok still struggles with her loss.

Twenty years ago, she was awakened by a phone call and told to run to the hospital emergency room. Her husband had been injured in an accident at the plant.

At first, Shashenok thought that it was nothing serious - her husband, Volodymyr, had told her many times that his engineering job wasn't dangerous. But when Shashenok saw him at the hospital, she was horrified.

"It was not my husband at all, it was a swollen blister," she said. He was connected to a breathing apparatus, but Shashenok, a nurse, knew the situation was hopeless.

"I told him, 'This is the end, Volodya.'"

He was buried two days later in a village cemetery near Chernobyl, but Shashenok wasn't there. She had been evacuated from her home, and officials didn't notify her of the burial.

More than a year later, Shashenok was reburied in Moscow, in a lead-encased coffin under concrete slabs.

Shashenok, who has not remarried, recalls that on the apartment building where she lived in Pripyat, a town built specially for the station's workers, was an inscription: "Let the atom be a worker, not a soldier."

"I never thought the atom would kill my husband," she said.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Chernobyl's Poisonous Legacy Lives On

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine -- Twenty years after the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the poisonous radioactive legacy of the accident is crippling the health of several generations.

Images from around Chernobyl

But while domestic and international agencies are disputing estimates of the damage, many Chernobyl victims remain deprived of aid.

There could have been up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths due to Chernobyl disaster among the people who worked on the clean-up operations, evacuees and residents of the contaminated regions in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, the World Health Organization (WHO) said in a report earlier this month.

"The WHO report on the health effects of Chernobyl gives the most affected countries, and their people, the information they need to be able to make vital public health decisions," said Dr Lee Jong-wook, WHO Director-General.

However, the environmental group Greenpeace challenged the WHO report and claimed that the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancers cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers. Greenpeace report described the U.N. data on Chernobyl "as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering."

Greenpeace's report said it was based on Belarus national cancer statistics and predicted up to 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also estimated that 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

The Greenpeace report said the incidence of cancer in Belarus had jumped 40 percent between 1990 and 2000, with children not yet born at the time of the disaster showing an 88.5-fold increase in thyroid cancers.

Gregory Haertl, a spokesman for Geneva-based WHO, reportedly defended its figures. He said the predicted eventual number of extra deaths in the most polluted areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia was estimated to be 4,000, while another 5,000 deaths were predicted among those who had been living in the less contaminated zones.

Haertl questioned Greenpeace's estimated 10 percent death rate for thyroid cancers, arguing that actual rate is one percent. "They are overstating the figures," he said.

The fourth Chernobyl nuclear plant reactor, located 80 miles north of Ukraine's capital Kiev, exploded on April 26, 1986, sending up a poisonous radioactive cloud over Europe. Subsequently, the staff of the nuclear power plant was accused of causing the disaster by testing reactor number 4 in violation of safety rules. During the ill-fated experiment, the chain reaction in the reactor went out of control, entailing a strong explosion.

In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, 30 firefighters and plant workers died from high radiation. This year's commemoration ceremonies to honor these first victims are held at the Chernobyl Memorial in Kiev, Russia's main Orthodox cathedral and at Mitino cemetery near Moscow.

As a result, radioactive dust blew across wide areas contaminating large parts of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia -- over an area of more than 160,000 square kilometers. An estimated 50 million units of radiation -- 500 times stronger than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb dropped on Japan by the United States in 1945 - was released. Chernobyl is still blighted by a 30-square-km contaminated area surrounding the plant.

In December 2000, Ukraine shut down the plant's last functioning third reactor. All fuel rods from reactor No 3 are to be removed, and all jobs will be shed, by the year 2008. The first of four graphite-cooled reactors at Chernobyl, completed in 1977, was shut off in November 1997.

Reactor No 2 has not worked since a fire in its turbine building in 1991. However, a number of Chernobyl-type reactors, although modernized, still remain in operation in Russia and some other former Soviet states.

The Ukrainian, Belarus and Russian authorities are struggling with the problems of Chernobyl victims as the poisonous radioactive legacy of the accident is crippling the health of millions. Statistics show rising numbers of radioactivity-related diseases. About 3.2 million of Ukraine's 50 million people, including more than 1 million children, have been affected by Chernobyl, according to official figures.

The ill-fated nuclear plant still poses danger as the "sarcophagus" of reactor No 4 is in bad condition. Chernobyl plant officials fear that the structure could collapse and release hundreds of tons of deadly radioactive dust into the atmosphere. There are also 1.5 million tons of irradiated waste in the vicinity of Chernobyl.

In the wake of the disaster, some 57,000 square km of the Russian soil, with a population of 3 million people, is contaminated, according to Russia's official estimates. It is estimated that Belarus spends some 20 percent of its budget, Ukraine 10 percent, and Russia 1 percent to tackle the consequences of Chernobyl.

After the accident 116,000 people were evacuated from the area. An additional 230,000 people were relocated from the highly contaminated areas to other areas in subsequent years, according to the WHO. Russia has approved a series of bills to help Chernobyl victims and survivers, but not all of them are actually receiving promised aid.

Nonetheless, former nuclear power minister Yevgeny Adamov, now in Russian jail on fraud and embezzlement charges, used to describe Chernobyl as a "minor technical incident." Adamov also notoriously suggested that those complaining about the victims "should be sent to mental institutions".

Both local and international non-governmental organizations have been carrying out a program of "Solidarity with Chernobyl Children". Under the program, thousands of children have been sent on vacations outside Ukraine, Belarus and Russia since the disaster.

To deal with the aftermath of the disaster, the U.N. set up a 19-member inter-agency Task Force on Chernobyl, which, together with NGOs, provides aid to people affected by radiation, studies the radiation's environmental impact, facilitates waste disposal and decontamination, and provides technical support for improved nuclear safety. The U.N. Strategy for Recovery, launched in 2002, gave all UN agencies and the international community a framework for rebuilding the affected areas.

Despite the damage cause by the Chernobyl disaster, the Russian authorities allowed the commercial import of spent nuclear fuel. In December 2000, the State Duma, the lower house of Parliament, approved three drafts to change the law that forbids the long-term storage of nuclear waste on Russian soil.

Before December 2000, Russian law prohibited the importation of radioactive waste or nuclear materials from other countries for long-term storage or burial. Russia's Nuclear Power ministry had expected to attract clients to reprocess $20 billion worth of spent nuclear fuel from around the world, but -- luckily for Russia -- these expectations have failed to materialize so far.

As the world marked the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl disaster, available evidence indicates that necessary lessons have not been learned, as the Russian nuclear officials are still willing to take risks of importing nuclear wasted from around the globe.

Source: Ohmy News

Bookmark and Share

20 Years Ago, A Plume At Chernobyl

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine -- Chernobyl still haunts, 20 years after that morning, April 26, 1986, when something went wrong in Reactor No. 4, and it exploded, sending a plume of debris and radioactive particles across the Soviet Union and eventually far beyond.

Memorial to the Chernobyl 'liquidators'

Some have said that Chernobyl - the human and environmental toll it caused, the obfuscations of a sclerotic state it revealed - hastened the end of the Soviet Union. Perhaps. It was certainly never the same afterward.

"What they described in newspapers and magazines - it was all rubbish," said Anatoly Rasskazov, the station photographer who was there that day.

"The ruins that I photographed from the ground and the upper part were retouched so it couldn't be seen that there was a ray coming from there, that everything was glowing," he said. "Just a ruin. So as not to get the public up in arms."

Twenty years later, the anniversary has occasioned new debate among those who have studied its consequences and those who have wielded the results as evidence of what a world in urgent search of energy should do with nuclear power.

A committee of United Nations agencies released a study last autumn concluding that the effects were not as dire as first had been feared. It suggested that only 4,000 would, in the end, die from diseases caused by direct exposure to the radiation. Greenpeace released its own response last week, saying Chernobyl would kill at least 90,000.

The answer may never be known, but the lasting impacts, physical and psychological, are evident in those who came to be known as "liquidators."

They were the hundreds of thousands of firemen, pilots, soldiers, scientists and experts sent to contain the damage, to evacuate the citizenry and encase the deadly ruin in a concrete sarcophagus whose stability appears precarious.

In interviews in Moscow, Kiev and Minsk, some of them recounted their experiences at the time and in the turbulent years that followed.

What they described sounded very much like war.

"Just like the Germans had come, this enemy had arrived," said Arkady Rokhlin, an engineer, who was 58 at the time and so old enough to remember that war. "And we had to defend ourselves."

And like war, it was disorienting. Fear and heroism mingled with bureaucratic chaos and surrealistic calm. "In a real war, shells explode, bullets fly, bodies fall, blood flows," he said. Then he remembered the summer of '86 in the most poisoned place on earth: sun, birds, gardens "bulging with fruit."

"You couldn't possibly have imagined that all this was death."

Source: The New York Times

Bookmark and Share

Monday, April 24, 2006

Ukraine Asks Help For Chernobyl Region

KIEV, Ukraine -- President Viktor Yushchenko appealed to the international community for financial help Monday, two days before the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, to aid the region surrounding the nuclear plant.

The old control room is shown inside reactor No.4 in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. This is the location where Soviet engineers flipped a power switch on April 26, 1986, and two explosions followed one after another immediately, sending radioactive clouds thoughout most of Europe, causing the world's worst nuclear accident.

"We need to get rid of the Chernobyl stereotype as an incurable inflammation on the body of Ukraine," Yushchenko said, opening an international conference of radiation and health experts in the Ukrainian capital. "This is land _ land we should recover and put back to life. ... A new day should come to the Chernobyl area, a day of its recovery."

That will require money _ far more than this cash-strapped former Soviet republic can afford, Yushchenko said, noting that Ukraine had already spent $15 billion on Chernobyl-related projects.

The April 26, 1986, explosion and fire at Chernobyl's No. 4 reactor spewed radiation across much of northern Europe over a 10-day period, resulting in the evacuation of more than 100,000 people and the contamination of more than 77,220 square miles of European land.

Death tolls connected to the explosion, which released about 400 times more radiation than the U.S. atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima, remain hotly debated, although at least 31 people died as a direct result of trying to contain the fire.

Thousands have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and the U.N. health agency said about 9,300 people were likely to die of cancers caused by radiation. Some groups, however, including Greenpeace, have put the numbers 10 times higher.

"The toll of the accident was huge, that is clear. And we can never forget the problems it caused, but there is a way forward," said U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Kalman Mizsei, defending last year's U.N. Chernobyl Forum report that found the biggest obstacle to recovery was a sense of malaise and fear among residents _ rather than lingering radiation.

The U.N. report concluded that most of those affected received such low doses of radiation that it was unlikely to have had any significant health effects.

"The 5 million residents of contaminated areas need not live in fear of radiation _ and that is a hopeful finding," Mizsei said.

The three-day conference in Kiev was co-hosted by U.N. agencies, the European Commission and the governments of Russia and Belarus. It was aimed at "reviewing and better using the experience gained from the accident and enabling the world to be better prepared for a future accident of this magnitude," organizers said.

Yushchenko complained that even 20 years after the accident, much remained unknown about the tragedy. He said people deserved the truth more than anything, adding that while the accident was horrific with almost unspeakable consequences, it should not be used as a "black spot on energy technology."

"We have learned some lessons," said Yushchenko, who has expressed his backing for nuclear energy as a way to reduce Ukraine's energy dependence on Russian gas supplies.

Environmentalists protested outside the Ukrainian Opera House, where the conference was held, carrying signs that read: "Remember Chernobyl. No new Reactors."

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Chernobyl Scientist Warns Of Nuclear Folly'

MINSK, Belarus -- One of the most experienced researchers into the Chernobyl disaster has broken his silence to warn European leaders that flirting with nuclear power "is folly of the first order".

Belarussian scientist Yuri Bandazhevsky, a specialist in nuclear medicine, at his home in Minsk

The views of Yuri Bandazhevsky have cost him his reputation as one of the former Soviet Union's most respected scientists and earned him a five-year stint as a prisoner of conscience in Belarus, where contradicting the government line is always a risk.

Reactor No 4 at the Chernobyl power station, in Ukraine, exploded 20 years ago on Wednesday, spreading a nuclear cloud that stretched from Truro to Tokyo.

Ever since, Mr Bandazhevsky has dedicated his life to studying the effects of low-level radiation around Belarus's second city of Gomel in the heart of the area contaminated by the world's worst nuclear accident.

After years of studying corpses in the mortuaries of Gomel and collecting what available statistics there were on still-births in the affected zones, he concluded that exposure to the radioactive element caesium-137 was causing far more deaths than was generally realised.

Six months after being freed, Mr Bandazhevsky is speaking out again now that he sees that nuclear power is once again becoming acceptable in western Europe.

"Not just because of Chernobyl but also because of nuclear testing around the world, the stratosphere holds huge amounts of caesium," he said.

"To start re-engaging in full-scale nuclear power as Europe seems determined to do is folly of the first order."

An investigation by 100 scientists acting under the auspices of nine United Nations bodies and published last year said that fewer than 50 people died as an immediate result of the accident. It said that the eventual number of deaths attributable to longer-term radiation was unlikely to exceed 9,000.

But Greenpeace issued a report by 52 scientists that put the number of terminal cancer cases at 93,000 and said that a further 200,000 might already have died of radiation related illnesses in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus alone.

Mr Bandazhevsky, too, rejected the UN study. "The authors want to draw a line under Chernobyl," he said. "The report humiliates the people who suffered from this catastrophe."

Mr Bandazhevsky said that vital information had been suppressed first by the Soviet authorities then by the Belarussian government.

The figures did not include non-cancerous diseases, such as heart disorders and birth defects, caused by exposure to low doses of caesium-137. He also challenged the methods used in the study.

Mr Bandazhevsky used to be a member of five academies of science. Now he is shunned by colleagues who are now too frightened to be seen consorting with him and he is reduced to conducting experiments in his study.

He believes that trying to calculate the number of fatalities caused by Chernobyl is futile.

"It is impossible to conclude with certainty that someone died from a cancer caused by smoking or by radiation," he said. "Just as you can't tell if heart disease was caused by radiation or alcohol."

However, that did not mean that there was no evidence, he said. Cardiovascular diseases in Belarus were the highest in Europe, nearly three times as high as in Britain.

Dr Anders Møller, a research director at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie, in Paris, and Dr Timothy Mousseau, a biology professor at the University of South Carolina, agree that current estimates play down the death toll.

They say that Chernobyl studies have attracted only about $10 million for research worldwide - a small sum for a disaster of such magnitude - and are calling for more money.

Source: Telegraph

Bookmark and Share

Chernobyl: 20 Years On

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine -- As the world marks the 20th anniversary of the world’s worst nuclear disaster, environmentalists are releasing new alarming estimates of the future death toll.

Workers sweep radio-active dust in front of the 'sarcophagus' covering the damaged fourth reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Twenty years after the worst nuclear accident in history, a huge concrete shield and small army of workers are all that stand between Chernobyl's deadly number-four reactor and the outside world

Scientists are examining the deadly consequences of the fallout, while survivors go on living in contaminated areas, watching their children, born long after the blast, die.

Last week world news agencies reported that the environmental watchdog Greenpeace said the eventual death toll from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster could be far higher than official estimates, released earlier by a forum of UN agencies.

Based on research by the Belarus National Academy of Sciences, the Greenpeace report said that of the 2 billion people globally affected by Chernobyl fallout, 270,000 would develop cancers as a result, of which 93,000 would prove fatal, the Reuters news agency reported.

However, the Chernobyl Forum, a group of eight UN agencies plus the governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, estimates an eventual death-toll of only several thousand as a result of the April 26, 1986 explosion at the power plant in the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl.

Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaigner Ivan Blokov accused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, of “whitewashing the impacts of the most serious nuclear accident in human history.” In Vienna, an IAEA official rejected the accusation, saying it was responsible in the Forum only for an environmental impact study while the casualty figures were drawn up by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Gregory Haertl, a spokesman for Geneva-based WHO, said it stood by its figures. He said the predicted eventual number of extra deaths in the hardest-hit areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia was estimated to be 4,000. Another 5,000 deaths were predicted among those who had been living in the less contaminated zones of the three countries at the time of the disaster, he added. Haertl also noted that the WHO had not done a Europe-wide study and said Greenpeace’s figures appeared to assume one.

The Greenpeace report said that a further 200,000 people in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus may have died as a result of medical conditions — such as cardiovascular diseases — attributable to the disaster, but that there was no accepted method of calculating the number of deaths from such diseases.

The report said the incidence of cancer in Belarus had jumped 40 percent between 1990 and 2000, with children not yet born at the time of the disaster showing an 88.5-fold increase in thyroid cancers. Leukemia is also reported to be on the increase in the Chernobyl region, as are cases of intestinal, rectal, breast, bladder, kidney and lung cancers, the Greenpeace report said.

Haertl questioned Greenpeace’s estimated 10 percent death rate for thyroid cancers among children and adolescents. “We actually know the death rate is one percent. They are overstating the figures,” he said.

The relocation of hundreds of thousands of people has put further strains on the population. “The Chernobyl accident disrupted whole communities in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia,” Greenpeace concluded.

“A complex interaction between factors such as poor health, the increased costs of health services, the relocation of people, the loss of agricultural territories, contamination of foodstuffs, the economic crisis, the costs of the clean-up to the states, political problems, a weakened workforce ... creates a general crisis.”

In April, 1986 the deadliest nuclear accident the world had ever seen sent out a plume of radioactive dust which blew across northern and Western Europe and as far as the eastern United States.

The accident occurred at Chernobyl in the then-Soviet Ukraine. The nuclear power plant, located 80 miles north of Kiev, had 4 reactors and whilst testing reactor number 4 numerous safety procedures were disregarded. At 1:25am the chain reaction in the reactor went out of control creating explosions and a fireball which blew off the reactor’s heavy steel and concrete lid.

The Chernobyl accident killed more than 30 people immediately, and as a result of the high radiation levels in the surrounding 20-mile radius, 135,000 people had to be evacuated forthwith.

“A huge concrete shield and small army of workers are all that stand between Chernobyl’s deadly number-four reactor and the outside world. The sarcophagus stands over the ruins of the reactor and radioactive fuel in the heart of the 30-kilometer-radius (18.6-mile) exclusion zone, where the gray concrete buildings of the power plant emerge from a pine birch forest near the Pripyat river,” AFP correspondent reported recently from the site of the tragedy.

The only sign of life is a plume of smoke from a thermal plant providing electricity needed for work on dismantling what was once meant to be the world’s largest nuclear power station, with eight reactors planned. On a wall, a barely legible slogan still proclaims: “We are building communism.”

Chernobyl’s last functioning reactor was shut down in December 2000. The 3,500 people still working here for the most part concentrate on maintaining the sarcophagus which was erected in the immediate aftermath to confine the radiation leaks. Over the years they have installed huge steel girders and propped up the sarcophagus’s foundations and outer walls.

Chernobyl’s deputy head engineer, Valery Seida, told AFP the sarcophagus is in a satisfactory condition, but needs further stabilizing before a second and better wall, nicknamed “the arch,” can be built. This 190-meter (623-feet) wide and 200-meter (656-feet) long construction will be in the shape of a half-cylinder and literally slide over the existing sarcophagus.

The steel structure will weigh some 18,000 tons — more than twice as heavy as the Eiffel tower. Two buildings are also being constructed to house the facilities that will process the radioactive waste, consisting of 15,000 cubic meters (529,740 cubic feet) of liquid radioactive discharge and 3,000 cubic meters (105,948 cubic feet) of solid matter, Seida says. In fact, the exclusion zone is already a large nuclear dump, where waste is gathered in designated places, or buried in 30-meter (98-feet) by 10-meter (33-feet) trenches.

The Chernobyl plant has been idle for 20 years, and its last reactor was taken out of service some six years ago. But a dozen other reactors of the same design — albeit modernized — remain in operation and some could be in service for another 30 years. Experts attribute the tragedy to a fatal combination of design flaws and poor staff training. The design problems have been addressed, but doubt remains about the human factor, The Associated Press said in a report.

Vladimir Chuprov, head of energy issues at the Russian branch of Greenpeace, said working conditions are as important as the technology — and more worrisome. Reactors can be modernized, he told AP, but “the majority of nuclear accidents are connected not with technology, but with the human factor.”

A study by Greenpeace and the Russian Academy of Sciences found many nuclear workers in Russia showing up for work drunk or on drugs, Chuprov said. At the Leningradsky plant in northern Russia, pay is so poor that some workers have to moonlight as taxi drivers, he said.

Yuri Sarayev, a nuclear expert at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, said pay hasn’t kept up with the country’s booming economy, so “specialists with solid training and 10-15 years experience are leaving, and being replaced by less qualified people.”

But while environmentalists, scientists and politicians continue to examine and debate the deadly consequences, survivors continue to live — and die — in the contaminated areas.

As the world marks the 20th anniversary of the world’s worst nuclear disaster in the northern Ukrainian town of Chernobyl, survivors still grapple with the memories — and fallout — of the radioactive disaster. “I remember looking back at the plant after the explosion,” recalls Valentina Prokopivna, then head librarian in Pripyat — the hardest hit locality — told journalists. “It was like looking into a furnace.”

Official estimates from the three former Soviet countries affected — Ukraine, Belarus and Russia — say around 25,000 people had died by 2005. But 20 years after the accident, many of the survivors’ descendants are still suffering the effects of the nuclear fallout.

Irradiated parents have passed on problems to their offspring. Out of the 3 million people officially recognised as victims of Chernobyl by the Ukrainian government, 642,000 are children. Many continued to live in the Chernobyl zone, despite the fact that the soil and water for 30 km around the plant are heavily irradiated. They face the likelihood of throat cancer and serious damage to their neurological systems.

Source: MosNews

Bookmark and Share

Truth Still Radioactive 20 Years After Chernobyl

TOLEDO, OH -- Twenty years ago this week a nuclear reactor blew up at the Chernobyl power plant in the then-Soviet Ukraine.

A chimney tower stands over the sarcophagus that covers destroyed Reactor No. 4 at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant on Saturday, April 22, 2006.

The world's worst nuclear-power accident has killed between 50 and 200,000 people, depending on who is counting - independent experts or Russian bureaucrats and their sidekicks in the United Nations.

The latter grossly underestimate the death toll. They simply refuse to acknowledge the link between the accident and the ensuing spike in cancer-related deaths in the area.

Ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union 15 years ago, Russians have been accusing Ukrainians of trying to bilk them by exaggerating the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. These allegations intensified after a U.S.-supported democracy was established in Ukraine early last year.

The Kremlin has recently dredged up another overused allegation - that Ukraine withheld 200 to 250 nuclear warheads when it turned over its nuclear cache to Russia in 1996.

Though the transfer was executed under a U.S. supervision, Russian-affiliated Ukrainian lawmakers have made this claim several times over the past several years, each time without any proof and each time for obvious political reasons of their own.

It happened again earlier this month, but with one significant difference.

The old claim was picked up by a publication in Novaya Gazeta, an independent Moscow newspaper famous for its unabated criticism of the Kremlin.

Moreover, the author of the article hinted that the 250 nukes have ended up in Iran.

Because I held the author and the newspaper in high esteem, I seriously wondered what was going on.

It was soon very clear.

"Russia's general staff has no information about whether Ukraine has given 250 nuclear warheads to Iran or not," Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, Russia's deputy defense minister and the chief of the general staff, said, according to RIA Novosti, a major Kremlin-affiliated news and feature agency.

Does that sound reassuring?

This amounts to saying that there's a 50-50 chance that Iran is in possession of 250 nuclear warheads.

You have to consider the source to see that the chance of that is in fact slim to none.

Russia is simply protecting its multibillion-dollar interests in the Iranian nuclear industry it is developing.

Iran is enriching uranium in defiance of the international community, which is quite certain that it is doing so to build its own nuclear weapons.

Russia has been stalling the process of bringing Iran in compliance with the U.S.-led effort to force it to give up its uranium enrichment program.

As the diplomatic efforts are failing and proposed economic measures appear to be doomed, there has been official U.S. talk that all options (read "including the military") are open to tame Iran. So the Kremlin decided to caution the United States against going down that road.

But unlike the "missing nukes," the broken reactor continues to pose a threat. A degraded sarcophagus entombing the reactor may soon collapse, causing a disaster of a scale similar to the original one, independent Russian experts say.

The Kremlin, however, is ignoring the real nuclear threat from the broken Chernobyl reactor. It focuses instead on playing the fictional missing nukes card, interfering with the international effort to prevent another real nuclear threat - Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

Source: TMC Net

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 23, 2006

The Long Shadow Of Chernobyl

MISSISSAUGA, Canada -- For her daughter Zoya's 12th birthday, Raissa Galechko was hosting a picnic in the woods of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. The infamous date was April 26, 1986.

Elderly Ukrainian women who are illegal settlers in the 30-km exclusion zone around the closed Chernobyl nuclear power plant, wait at the midnight Orthodox Easter service in the town of Chernobyl April 23, 2006

"It was a beautiful day," recalls Galechko, 60, as she pores over old photos in her Mississauga home. "We were in bikinis taking suntans. The mothers were picking sorrel and the kids were playing ball and climbing trees."

She shakes her head at all they did not know then, and all that still lay ahead.

"And at the same time the reactor was on fire and we didn't know anything. Heavy radiation was spreading over the sorrel we were picking and over the trees our kids were playing in and nobody knew."

That just 90 km away, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor had exploded and their lives would never be the same.

For 10 days the fire raged, expelling 172 tonnes of toxic materials into the atmosphere, clouds of which drifted across northern Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and more than 14 European countries. It wasn't until alarm bells went off at a Swedish power station that the world learned of the disaster the Soviets had tried to hide.

The USSR waited almost three long days before it confirmed the "minor accident" with a terse statement read by a Moscow broadcaster. Still, they gave no warning of the poison that had been unleashed.

Galechko was a well-known journalist at the state-run Ukraine magazine when she heard rumours that all communist party officials had suddenly moved their families out of Kiev. "Even if I'd seen the fire at Chernobyl I wouldn't have known what it meant," she explains. "But when you're a mother you have this security trigger inside. You know nothing, but you have the intuition that something is very wrong and my first thought was my daughter, my daughter."

The single mother hastily made plans for them to spend the next few months by the Azov Sea thousands of kilometres away. But for her daughter Zoya, it may have already been too late.

Those living within 30 km of the power plant were evacuated within days. But there was nowhere to hide from the cloud of radiation that drifted over the former USSR.

Nadia Zastavna remembers it as the most glorious spring. On May Day, the biggest Soviet holiday, she and her children joined thousands in her Ukrainian town of Ternopil to celebrate with a traditional parade. "Everybody was outside, my oldest son and my youngest -- he had just been born that January," recalls Zastavna, now the senior administrator of the Children of Chornobyl Canadian Fund. "The weather was gorgeous. Your skin got red but we thought it was from the sun. But it wasn't."

Just a few days later came the terrifying edicts: Wash your clothes, stay indoors, close your windows, don't drink the water. "Everybody was furious and scared to death," she says. "Mentally, it was very difficult."

Her baby would grow to become such a sickly child that doctors feared it might have leukemia. "You can't say it was from radiation 100%, but he was born a very healthy child and after he was constantly sick."

High incidences of childhood thyroid cancer, sudden premature deaths. Two decades have passed and the great debate still rages: To what degree is Chernobyl responsible for the health problems that seemed to follow in its wake?

"There's no real consensus on the effects yet," notes Dr. David Marples, a professor of history at the University of Alberta who has written extensively on Chernobyl. "There's so much controversy over the health effects, the number of casualties, the number of long-term illnesses and what we might expect in the future."

JUST 50 DIRECT VICTIMS

The answers tend to depend on a group's views on the nuclear debate. At one end of the spectrum is the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency report last fall, which suggested health effects had been largely exaggerated and that most of the problems were actually psychological. The IAEA report argued there were only 50 direct victims of the Chernobyl disaster and no more than 4,000 will eventually die because of radiation exposure.

Countering that view is a recent Greenpeace study that claims the atomic agency grossly underestimated the effects. "The IAEA has a vested interest in minimizing the impact of Chernobyl," argues Shawn-Patrick Stensil, of Greenpeace Canada, which launched a haunting photo exhibit of Chernobyl victims commissioned for the anniversary.

The Greenpeace report predicts 93,000 will die of fatal cancers linked to Chernobyl radiation and more than 200,000 in all will eventually die from the disaster. But then, they are hardly objective themselves -- the environmental group has a decidedly anti-nuclear agenda.

"There's no middle ground on Chernobyl," says Marples, who tends to lean more towards the Greenpeace version. "The secrecy that occurred in the Soviet period was really one of the biggest problems because that's why we're in such doubt today about what really happened. All that data was officially classified."

Ruslana Wrzesnewskyj doesn't care about warring statistics; she knows what she has seen. When she adopted her daughter from Ukraine in 1993, the orphanages were crowded with children who had been born with deformities or left by parents who had suddenly died young. The Toronto realtor was so shaken by what she saw that she founded Help us Help the Children, a project of the Children of Chornobyl Canadian Fund that has assisted thousands of orphan victims with summer camps, medicines and scholarships.

'CALLED THE SILENT KILLER'

"All you have to do is travel through Ukraine," she says. "It's called the silent killer. It's a horrible thing to come into a town and see that half of the people in their 40s are dead."

To this day, Raissa Galechko doesn't know if her daughter's brush with cancer was caused by the nuclear disaster. No one can prove that it was. No one can prove that it wasn't. All she does know is that it opened her eyes to seeking a new life.

Zoya had always had moles, but they suddenly began to change during the year after the Chernobyl explosion. When one turned bloody, her mother rushed her to the local cancer hospital. She will never forget the doctor's advice after he diagnosed melanoma and said her daughter needed immediate surgery: "After the operation, leave for a clean zone."

Escape suddenly became her goal. "When this happened to Zoya, I knew where my clean zone was -- Canada," she says. "Chernobyl was the turning point. It pushed me to leave."

When she arrived here in 1989, penniless and unknown, the journalist refused advice to seek charity as a victim of Chernobyl.

"I couldn't show my daughter like a bear in a circus -- look at her scars, give me money," says the publisher of the satirical Ukrainian monthly Bcecmix (Laughter). "So many abuse the term 'victim.' We are survivors."

Unlike Galechko, Mychailo "Mike" Ryndzak has no doubt that Chernobyl is directly responsible for his suffering.

It was just two months after the explosion when the 19-year-old military conscript was ordered to report to the nuclear plant and run evening films and other propaganda for the "liquidators" who spent their days cleaning the disaster zone.

"To me, radiation and death were synonyms. I was preparing myself to die," he recalls from his home in Ottawa.

"According to the officials, everything was calm, under control and beautiful. But as you know and we learned from western media sources, obviously it was not under control."

He could see the mutated plants that surrounded Chernobyl and how all the surrounding grass and leaves had turned the colour of metal. "I didn't have any protection at all. I didn't have any training at all," he says bitterly. "What was happening inside us? Radiation is something invisible but it has such severe power to change who you are."

5 WEEKS 'HOT'

Yet the only time he was issued a respirator was when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev arrived for a few hours to survey the damage.

"And after that, it was taken away."

Due to the high levels of radiation, crews were replaced every 10 days. But there was a scarcity of projectionists, so Ryndzak was left in the hot zone for five weeks.

His body would never be the same.

In 1989, after his arrival in Canada, his teeth suddenly began to crumble. Blood tests revealed an almost fatally low red cell count.

But he believes his time in the radioactive zone left him with a far more crushing legacy.

"It affected my fertility," the 39-year-old says softly. "I will never have children."

So he cannot forget Chernobyl on its 20th anniversary, not when its shadow haunts him to this day.

"This is a tragedy that is ongoing," Ryndzak warns. "God knows what consequences are waiting in the future."

Source: CNews

Bookmark and Share

Ex-Soviet Republics Decline To Put Ukraine's Call To Consider 1930s Famine A Genocide

MOSCOW, Russia -- Foreign ministers from former Soviet republics rejected a bid Friday to recognize the 1930s famine in Ukraine as genocide.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov

They voted against putting the issue on their agenda, in a dispute that underlined sharp differences in the increasingly divided Commonwealth of Independent States.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk urged colleagues from the 12-member organization to put the question on the agenda for their Moscow meeting, saying that the issue "does not receive the appropriate assessment from the countries of the CIS."

Following the meeting, however, he said the request was rejected by Russia and four other nations in a "deeply disappointing" vote that he said displayed the CIS' ineffectiveness and showed that Russia is seeking to assume the mantle of the Soviet Union while avoiding any responsibility for the crimes of the Soviet era.

Soviet dictator Josef Stalin provoked what the Ukrainians called the Great Famine in 1932-1933, which killed up to 10 million, as part of his campaign to force peasants in the fertile republic to give up their land and join collective farms. Nations including the United States, Canada, Austria, Hungary and Lithuania have recognized the famine as genocide.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested the Ukrainian initiative was a bid to score political points, saying the famine was a matter for historians and not politicians. He emphasized that other Soviet citizens also suffered and died as result of collectivization, calling their suffering a "common tragedy" for the former Soviet Union.

"We do not see the purpose of the false politicization" of the issue, Lavrov told reporters after the meeting.

The vote reflected growing enmity in the CIS between those closely allied with Moscow - and increasingly wary of the West - and those that are seeking to shed Russian influence and turn toward Europe and the United States.

Joining Russia were Belarus, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, while Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan favored putting the issue on the agenda and Armenia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan abstained, Tarasiuk said.

The CIS, whose creation by charter members Russia, Ukraine and Belarus cemented the Soviet breakup in 1991, has faced increasing criticism from its own members, whose leaders emerge from an annual summit last summer with fresh pledges to strengthen and reform the organization.

Speaking to reporters separately following the meeting, Lavrov and Tarasiuk offered widely varying assessments of the group's progress, with the Russian minister saying the organization has been "quite effective" in dealing with challenges, while the Ukrainian said that "dozens, hundreds of its decision are not being carried out and do not work."

Tarasiuk, however, stopped short of threatening Ukraine's withdrawal from the CIS.

He said Ukraine would continue to raise the famine issue at future meetings of the organization.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Many Fear Russia Slipping Into Secrecy

MOSCOW, Russia -- For the Soviet Union, Chernobyl was a catalyst that forced the government into an unprecedented show of openness that paved the way for reforms leading to the Soviet collapse.

Gorbachev waited some three weeks before publicly commenting on Chernobyl

But 20 years after the nuclear disaster, many fear Russia is slipping back into its old, secretive ways.

The Kremlin didn't publicly admit the accident until two days after the April 26, 1986, explosion and then only in vague terms and after officials in Sweden, some 700 miles away, raised worldwide alarm about sharply increased levels of radiation apparently coming from the Soviet Union.

Soviet authorities long had failed to acknowledge domestic catastrophes such as airplane crashes. But this time, as winds carried the fallout across much of Europe, their delay angered the international community and exposed their pathological secretiveness even as Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was pushing for new engagement with the West.

Gorbachev himself waited some three weeks before publicly commenting. He denies a cover up, insisting authorities simply didn't know what was happening.

"We spent the first days trying to get the picture," Gorbachev told The Associated Press in a recent interview. "I can't agree that we were trying to conduct a sly policy and hide something."

"We realized the entire drama only later," he said.

Facing a wave of Western criticism, Gorbachev ordered authorities to open up in unprecedented manner. "Journalists suddenly were given access to nuclear officials and doctors treating radiation diseases -- people from another world," said Viktor Loshak, the editor of Ogonyok weekly magazine who was one of a team of Soviet journalists who wrote on the aftermath of the disaster. "That was a powerful push toward greater openness."

The emboldened Soviet media began probing other areas, exposing Stalinist crimes, economic inefficiency and other troubles.

It became known as "glasnost" or openness, and exposed officialdom to widespread contempt from its own people.

"It was glasnost that destroyed the Soviet Union," said Gennady Gerasimov, Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman under Gorbachev. "People opened their eyes and saw what kind of a country they were living in, and they looked at the nation's horrible history."

Media freedoms expanded under Russian President Boris Yeltsin, but began receding after Vladimir Putin became president in 2000.

In August 2000, attempts to cover up the government's botched handling of the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine that killed its entire crew of 118 closely resembled the initial Soviet response to Chernobyl.

The Kremlin responded to this and other controversies by gaining control of all nationwide channels, and critical reporting eroded sharply. Today many critics say the blanket positive coverage of Putin and his government differs little from Soviet-era news.

"The government views the media as a tool to deliver information about its decisions, like it was in the Soviet times," said political commentator Alexander Golts. "It only gives the information it wants to give."

While print media enjoy considerably more freedom than broadcasters, top national newspapers feel the pressure from owners fearful for their business interests.

New laws sharply restrict media coverage of terrorist attacks, and nationwide television stations toe the government line in reporting on catastrophes and accidents, usually focusing blame on midlevel bureaucrats. Broadcasters are regularly summoned to the Kremlin to receive instructions.

"There isn't a single television station doing genuine reporting here," said Alexei Simonov, the head of the Glasnost Defense Foundation, a leading Russian media rights watchdog. "Media freedom has shrunk in Russia."

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Klitschko Batters Byrd - What's Next?

MANNHEIM, Germany -- The supremacy of American heavyweights was shattered at the SAP Arena in Manheim, Germany, when Wladimir Klitschko (46-3, 41 KOs) stopped Chris Byrd (39-3-1, 20 KOs) in seven rounds to capture the IBF heavyweight title.

Vladimir Klitschko of Ukraine celebrates as he is declared the winner and new International Boxing Federation (IBF) heavyweight champion by after defeating Chris Byrd of the U.S. in their title fight in the west German city of Mannheim April 22, 2006.

This was a rematch of bout which took place in October 2000 and on that night, Klitschko busted up Byrd en route to capturing the WBO heavyweight title. During the course of the fight, Byrd was knocked down twice and took a beating. The rematch was far worse, as a more stationary Byrd was hit with the huge right hand of Klitschko almost at will.

The strategy of Byrd was to make Klitschko fight at an aggressive pace in order to zap him of his stamina before the second half of the fight. Byrd was attempting to use the same strategy his cousin, former champion Lamon Brewster, successfully used against Klitschko in 2004.

The problem with Byrd's strategy is the fact that while constantly going to the body, he left his head wide open and despite the best efforts of his corner, he was not showcasing any form of head movement to get away from Klitschko's right hand.

The bout began with both fighters being very tactical. By the second round, Klitschko began to unload with hard jabs that were punctuated by right hand missiles. The right eye of Byrd began swelling rapidly by the third round.

In the fifth round, Byrd was sent to the canvas for the first time in the bout, courtesy of a Klitschko right hand and barely made it out of the round as Klitschko pounced on his prey and threw a voluminous amount of punches to Byrd's head. To his credit, Byrd was able to take the punches and made it out of the round. Byrd was attempting to lure Klitschko into extending a lot of his energy, but a smarter Klitschko picked up on Byrd's strategy and began to pace himself as he battered Byrd for the remainder of the round.

There was no change in the sixth round with Klitscko landing more right hands and Byrd barely landing any punches that would even remotely hurt his opponent. The seventh was the beginning of the end as Klitschko began to impose his will by being more aggressive with his punches. Following a combination and two hard right hands, Byrd was sent to the canvas once again and this time he appeared to be a physical mess once he rose off the deck.

Byrd was wobbling, his face was a bloody swollen mess and the referee, Wayne Kelly, had seen enough and stopped the contest.

Klitschko, only 30-years-old, can make a serious case for himself as once again being the best heavyweight in the division. Now that he holds one fourth of the heavyweight crown, he is looking to unify the division.

Hasim Rahman, the WBC heavyweight champion, already has two fights to contend with and will likely not be an option until 2007. There is a mandatory date in the wings for Rahman to meet Oleg Maskaev, who knocked Rahman out several years ago.

Should Maskaev once again win, all of the heavyweight titles will be held by European fighters from the former Soviet union. Regardless of the winner, the WBC has ordered the winner to face James Toney, which should take place by the end of the year if time permits.

The newly crowned WBO heavyweight champion, Sergei Liakhovich, has a rematch coming his way with Lamon Brewster. The winner of that bout could end up in the Klitschko sweepstakes. Of course Klitschko would be banking on Brewster to win, in order to set up a big-money rematch to avenge his 2004 defeat.

Last, but not least, is the seven-foot Nikolay Valuev, who is undefeated and holds the WBA heavyweight title. A clash between Klitschko and Valuev could be the biggest heavyweight fight to come to either Germany or Ukraine in the history of the two countries. The fight is still big in the United States, but the amount of money involved with staging the fight overseas would absolutely send the promoters packing across the ocean.

All of these fights are possibilities and right now Klitschko is back to being the fighter everyone within the division wants to fight, because he draws the most money among the current crop of heavyweights. Should none of these fights come to fruition, the Klitschko camp is already looking towards a fight against undefeated Calvin Brock, if Brock defeats undefeated Timur Ibrigamov in June.

Source: FOX Sports

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Chernobyl: Ukraine's Soviet-Era Nightmare

KIEV, Ukraine — The first advice we got after the Chernobyl explosion was to take a daily drop of iodine on a sugar cube. We heard it on the Voice of America broadcasts we listened to clandestinely.

AP newswoman Mara Bellaby shows a dosimeter on April 10, 2006, with a high radiation reading just 200 meters from the cracked and crumbling sarcophagus covering Chernobyl nuclear power plant's damaged Reactor No. 4.

Local media, heavily under the Soviet thumb, told us there was nothing to worry about.

A few days after the explosion, my friend Viktor Ivashchenko called me and told me I should flee Kiev and never come back. Viktor's words carried a lot of weight _ he was an engineer at the Institute of Nuclear Physics.

But Kiev, the Ukrainian capital just 75 miles from the destroyed, radiation-spewing reactor, was home. My parents lived there, and leaving never occurred to me.

Staying meant that I eventually was able to go to Chernobyl dozens of times since the world's worst nuclear disaster, whose 20th anniversary falls Wednesday (April 26). There I would take photographs and feed my hunger to learn all I could about the catastrophe that had hit my country.

But staying also meant that I lived with gnawing anxieties and saw good friends die mysteriously or grow thin and sallow.

Some frightened people went overboard on the Voice of America's advice. They drank half-glasses of iodine and ended up hospitalized with throat and stomach burns.

Later I would meet a biologist, Professor Vyacheslav Konovalov, who wore a lead undergarment for years after the explosion. He collected mutated plants, animals and human embryos, planning to create a museum to the perils of radiation, but ended up storing his specimens underground.

May Day, the biggest Soviet holiday, fell just five days after the explosion and those who trusted the authorities' reassurances took part in rallies and parades. I was one of them, carrying a portrait of Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who had taken the helm of the Soviet Union a year earlier promising reform.

Many of us felt a tickle in our throats that day _ apparently a sign of radioactive iodine _ and decided not to linger outdoors to watch the bicycle race.

News of the explosion didn't surprise me. Four years earlier I had visited Pripyat, the city where most Chernobyl workers lived, and had seen trucks spreading soapsuds on the asphalt. There were rumors of a radiation leak.

But after the explosion we were worried enough to get hold of a military radiation gauge and check ourselves, our homes and loved ones. Some of the readings were high, especially aboard city buses which had been used to evacuate residents from Pripyat and Chernobyl.

My neighbor, Bohdan Semenov, a bus driver, told me that since his passengers didn't have protective masks, he wouldn't wear one either. His wife told my mother that he ordered her to throw out every stitch of clothing he wore on those trips. But she refused _ they couldn't afford to replace them.

A week later this athletic man in his 30s was dead of a heart attack. At his funeral, shocked mourners whispered that it was because of Chernobyl.

Kievans panicked. They jammed the railroad station trying to send their children as far away as possible. Many refused to eat dairy products and berries, relying instead on canned fish.

The health effects of the radiation that the blast spewed over a wide stretch of the Soviet Union are still hard to assess 20 years later. A consortium of U.N. agencies said last year that about 9,000 people eventually are likely to die from Chernobyl-caused illnesses; Greenpeace International this month said the death toll will be 10 times higher _ around 93,000.

Back in 1986, anybody's guess was good, and I was dying to know the truth about what happened at Chernobyl. But at that time I was working as an underwater welder at a scientific institute and had no official justification for going to the power station. I tried to meet with Volodymyr Shevchenko, who was making a TV documentary about Chernobyl, but he died _ another victim of a mysterious heart ailment.

A few months later, I managed to get into the "exclusion zone." I was amazed by the dedication of the "liquidators" _ crews of soldiers, workers, coal miners who had been drafted to cover the destroyed reactor in a coffin of steel and concrete.

It was too hot to breathe, so disregarding safety rules, they tore masks off their faces and dug tunnels with shovels to pour concrete under the reactor.

Hundreds of concrete mixers, trucks with sand, and excavators crawled around the plant. Later, I saw them in a graveyard of highly contaminated vehicles a few miles away.

Sergei Chashchenko worked as an engineer on a diesel locomotive that brought building materials to the sarcophagus under construction. He picked up a wrench from the ground and burned his palm. Four years later, he was suffering from leukemia.

People stole anything that might come in handy or make a souvenir. Years later I saw the destroyed reactor's control panel. The buttons were gone.

I met some of those souvenir-hunters in hospitals. They had leukemia.

I made repeat visits to Chernobyl and took photographs. Some of them appeared in the magazine Ogonyok, which at that time was in the vanguard of the Soviet Union's newly assertive news media. In 1989 The Associated Press hired me.

The nuclear specter lingered: I'm 49 and in good health, yet an AP colleague who had never been to Chernobyl was operated on for thyroid cancer, one of the diseases most closely tied to the disaster.

Meanwhile, signs of big change were afoot. In the spring of 1989, the Soviet republic of Ukraine had its first-ever protests. Thousands rallied in Kiev to demand the "truth about Chernobyl," carrying handmade yellow radiation warning signs.

On the waves of Chernobyl rallies, a powerful national movement grew stronger. Millions demanded independence.

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, with some politicians saying the Chernobyl accident speeded the breakup.

In 1992, Kiev, now the capital of an independent Ukraine, saw the first rallies of widows carrying portraits of their husbands and sons who died after being exposed to radiation while participating in the desperate cleanup effort at Chernobyl.

Chernobyl has always stayed with me _ a great tragedy compounded by a shameful coverup whose lesson was to always seek the truth with my own eyes and camera.

Shortly before Chernobyl's last operating reactor was closed in 2000, I went there for AP and got a look into the sarcophagus over the destroyed unit.

I put on two layers of thick white cotton clothes, protective rubber boots, a special hat and a helmet, padded jackets, gloves and a face mask.

I covered my camera with plastic as thoroughly as I could, and followed the guide through high-security checkpoints into the sarcophagus.

My guide's flashlight picked up the sparkle of dust slowly whirling around us _ just a speck of radioactive dust could be lethal if it enters the body. We tried not to take any deep breaths as we wove our way through dark, wreckage-strewn passages.

We reached the old control room, long and poorly lighted, with its damaged machinery, the place where the Soviet engineers threw a power switch for a routine test at 1:23 a.m. on April 26, 1986, and two explosions followed one after another immediately.

We bent our heads to get through the dark, narrow labyrinth leading to the center of the sarcophagus. The walls were covered with lead plates intended to decrease radiation levels. There were piles of lead and boron powder dropped by helicopters to suppress the nuclear reaction.

My Geiger counter registered about 80,000 microroentgens an hour _ 16,000 times the safe limit. It was time to leave.

The nearby city of Pripyat is now a ghostly ruin. The only signs that anybody has been there recently are graffiti drawn by Dutch artists, and compositions of dolls, gas masks and yellowed newspapers placed in a deserted kindergarten to communicate how tragedy still haunts the land 20 years later.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

'14 Hurt' In Ukraine Store Blasts

KIEV, Ukraine -- Homemade bombs exploded in lockers at two supermarkets in eastern Ukraine on Saturday, wounding as many as 14 people, authorities and news agencies said.


The blasts occurred at about noon in supermarkets near one another in Kharkiv, a duty officer at the Kharkiv Emergency Situations Ministry said, reading from a statement.

The explosions apparently occurred in lockers where customers store packages, the ministry said.

Ukraine's Interfax news agency said the bombs were homemade and blew up eight minutes apart.

Emergency officials said two people were injured in one blast, and at least six in another. Ukraine's Interfax news agency said two people were injured in one blast and 12 in the other.

Two of those victims were hospitalized in serious condition, the agency said.

No one answered the phone at the Kharkiv police headquarters. The Interior Ministry confirmed the explosions but said it did not immediately have any other details.

The motive behind the blasts was not immediately clear. Business disputes in Ukraine can turn violent, and Ukrainian media reported that a bomb was found at one of the supermarkets last month.

Source: CNN

Bookmark and Share

Ukrainian President's Bloc Rejects Key Element Of Plan To Form A Coalition

KIEV, Ukraine -- President Viktor Yushchenko's bloc rejected a key element of a plan to revive the coalition that orchestrated Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, refusing to agree to Yulia Tymoshenko's demand that she be restored to the powerful prime minister's post.

The feisty Yulia Tymoshenko

Yushchenko's Our Ukraine bloc, Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko and the Socialist Party signed a tentative agreement last week confirming their wish to form a coalition following last month's parliamentary election. But Our Ukraine on Wednesday refused to endorse a clause in the agreement stipulating that Tymoshenko's party is empowered to name the prime minister because her party won more votes than the other Orange forces in the March 26 election, party spokeswoman Tetyana Mokridi said Thursday.

Yushchenko fired Tymoshenko from the prime minister's job last year, blaming her for the country's economic troubles and criticizing her super-sized ambitions. Tymoshenko countered that the president was getting bad advice from advisers she accused of corruption. The two parties have been feuding ever since.

Vitaliy Chepinoga, spokesman for Tymoshenko, called Our Ukraine's decision to reject part of the protocol a "renunciation" of the talks aimed at restoring the estranged allies. But he said that it did not mean the process was over.

"It's just part of the political game; negotiations will continue," Chepinoga said Thursday.

Our Ukraine said in a statement that it remained committed to the Orange Team, but said the so-called "sixth point" regarding who picks the prime minister "breached all the logic of the protocol and the negotiation process in general." The party has insisted that first the sides must agree on their programs and only then discuss posts. The Socialists have said they support giving Tymoshenko the premier's job.

A reunion of the former allies, whose 2004 street protests against electoral fraud propelled Yushchenko to the presidency, could help cement Ukraine's pro-Western course, but it could further alienate pro-Russian southern and eastern regions.

The pro-Russian opposition Party of the Regions won the most votes, but failed to obtain a majority. It has been watching from the sidelines as the Orange forces try to overcome deep disagreements to reunite. Lawmakers have 30 days after they take office to form a coalition. The new parliament is expected to convene sometime around May 10th.

If they fail to form a coalition, Yushchenko, whose job was not at stake in the election, can disband parliament and call new elections.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

US Investigates Swiss-Registered RosUKrEnergo Gas Company

WASHINGTON, DC -- The US Justice Department is investigating Swiss-registered RosUKrEnergo, a company of murky ownership that supplies Russian and Central Asian natural gas to Ukraine, a newspaper reported.

RosUKrEnergo Executive Directors Konstantin Chuychenko (L) and Oleg Palchikov. The US Justice Department is investigating Swiss-registered RosUKrEnergo, a company of murky ownership that supplies Russian and Central Asian natural gas to Ukraine

Sources familiar with the inquiry told the Wall Street Journal that representatives of RosUKrEnergo and of Raiffeisen Investment AG, a subsidiary of Vienna-based Raiffeisen Bank AG that holds 50 percent of RosUkrEnergo's shares for undisclosed owners, met recently with Justice Department officials in Washington.

"They discussed the company's opaque ownership, though further details of what has drawn the attention of US officials remain unclear," the economic daily said.

In a controversial January 4 deal that doubled the price of gas in Ukraine, RosUKrEnergo was designated as the intermediary to provide the country with gas from Russia's Gazprom and Central Asian suppliers.

Ukranian President Viktor Yushchenko last week said he did not "see a reason to review" the gas deal, which was a contentious campaign issue during recent parliamentary elections.

The deal raised European Union concerns over Gazprom's plans to expand its sales. Gazprom this week warned the 25-nation EU not to politicize gas supply issues, threatening to sell fuel elsewhere if its commercial ambitions in the European market were unfairly restricted.

Doubts over RosUKrEnergo's ownership structure and affiliates prompted its auditors from KMPG International to resign in November, said The Wall Street Journal, citing a resignation letter obtained by the London-based, non-profit organization Global Witness.

"In the letter, KMPG said RosUKrEnergo may be part of a larger undisclosed business group, presenting an unacceptable risk to KPMG's reputation," the Journal said.

The newspaper said that in an upcoming report Global Witness will provide new details about the origins of RosUKrEnergo and its 15-year history of arbitrage by "opaque middleman companies given the lucrative right to sell Central Asian gas to Ukraine via Gazprom's pipelines."

Source: AFP

Bookmark and Share

Staff Of Ukraine's Chernobyl Plant Mourn Colleagues

KIEV, Ukraine -- Staff from Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power station on duty when the plant's fourth reactor exploded 20 years ago honoured colleagues who died in the aftermath and recalled how the disaster shattered their lives.

Staff from the Chernobyl nuclear power station who were on duty at the time of the 1986 explosion pay their respects to deceased colleagues in a Kiev cemetery

Dressed in their best suits and sporting rows of medals, dozens of engineers and firefighters remembered in vivid detail while gathered in a Kiev cemetery the terrifying images of a radiation inferno out of control.

"We have summoned our courage and overcome our pain to come today to bow our heads by these graves," said Oleksander Zelentsov, head of a group which brings together those who were at work at Chernobyl on April 26, 1986.

"What we did with our colleagues will always be remembered. The accident split our lives into 'before and after'. But we have found strength and life supporting each other."

After a memorial service in a church, members of the "Ray 5/2 Union", so named for the two shifts of the day, laid flowers and lit candles at the gravesides of dozens who paid with their lives to contain the world's worst civil nuclear disaster.

A series of explosions at 1.26 a.m. destroyed reactor No. 4 station and several hundred staff and firefighters were thrown into the task of tackling a blaze that burned for 10 days, sending a plume of radiation around the world.

Flames soared into the sky, sparks cascaded down from cables hanging from shattered pumps, dirty water gushed in all directions and the reactor's wreckage was red hot.

Worst of all was a blue-white light shooting skyward -- a shaft of ionising radiation from the exposed reactor core.

LIMITED PROTECTION

Staff toiled without protective clothing and, more often than not, with no equipment to measure the radiation. Their families were asleep a mere 3 km (two miles) away in Pripyat, a town specially built along with the plant.

Absorption of huge radiation doses turned out to be fatal for some. Workers from that shift were ferried to hospitals in Kiev or in Moscow. Many remained for long periods.

"I worked for the entire night," said Oleksander Nikhaev, a senior engineer. "On April 27, I was already in hospital in Moscow. I stayed there until February 1988. Over 80 percent of my skin had radiation burns. I underwent 19 operations."

Twenty years on, all agree that they had lived two lives.

One was anchored in a stable job, with high pay and comfortable housing in Pripyat, a model Soviet town near a river bank and abundant forests.

The other life meant hospitals, disease and destitution.

"The accident took everything away. It changed everything. Health, work problems. It was a calamity," said Oleksander Ogulov, a Chernobyl engineer.

Time has taken a toll.

The Ray 5/2 Union had 250 members when it was founded. Only 174 are left.

"Eight years ago, we brought three baskets of flowers. Today we bring 12 to this cemetery alone," Zelentsov said.

Source: Reuters

Bookmark and Share

Tymoshenko Set To Oust New Mayor Of Kiev

KIEV, Ukraine -- Banker Leonid Chernovetsky has managed to secure the legitimacy of his election as Kyiv mayor. On April 10, the Shevchenkivsky district court in Kyiv ruled that there was no proof of vote buying by Chernovetsky.

Leonid Chernovetsky (L) accepts congratulations from his opponent boxing champion Vitaly Klitschko

Outgoing mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko had accused Chernovetsky of buying votes and demanded that his victory be invalidated.

However, Chernovetsky's position remains shaky. The Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (YTB) has forged a strong alliance to oppose the new mayor at the Kyiv city council, and is seeking a rerun of the mayoral election in order to topple Chernovetsky.

His election has bared yet another rift between the Orange Revolution partners, as the deputies elected to the Kyiv council from the Socialists and President Viktor Yushchenko's People's Union-Our Ukraine party (NSNU) apparently have nothing against Chernovetsky.

In the run-up to the March 26 mayoral poll, the YTB was pronouncedly neutral. Its candidate, Mykola Tomenko, had withdrawn long before the race started in earnest, and the YTB did not back either Omelchenko or his key challengers, Chernovetsky and boxing champion Vitaly Klitchko.

The YTB, however, won more seats than any other party in the election to the city council -- 41 out of 120 -- and Tymoshenko's ally Mykhaylo Brodsky, who is expected to chair the YTB faction in the council, offered support to Chernovetsky, reportedly expects backing for his bid for the post of council secretary in return.

Chernovetsky, however, made it clear that he has a candidate for that position from his own, eponymous bloc. This may have triggered the conflict. On April 15, YTB people, their satellites from the Civic Active of Kyiv (GAK), and the Pora-Reforms and Order liberal bloc (Pora-RiP) ignored the first post-election session of the Kyiv council, which was scheduled to formalize Chernovetsky's election.

Chernovetsky was in a difficult situation, as convening the council without the three parties would not have a quorum. Thus, according to law, Chernovetsky could not have been sworn in. Chernovetsky was saved by three deputies from Pora-RiP, who broke ranks and took their seats. A visibly nervous Chernovetsky was then sworn in.

On the same evening, Tomenko gathered a press conference to announce the creation of a "coalition of democratic forces" called "Fair Kyiv." According to Tomenko, the coalition including YTB, GAK, and Pora-RiP has a majority, with 62 of the 120 seats in the city council. (But without the three dissenters who attended Chernovetsky's inauguration, Fair Kyiv would be two seats short of a majority.)

He also said that Fair Kyiv had elected Klitchko as its leader, and that they would seek a new election for mayor of Kyiv.

Tomenko argued that Chernovetsky has failed to present an action plan for the development of Kyiv, that his legitimacy was in question because he scored only slightly more than 30% of votes in the election, and that Chernovetsky's coalition, "including the Party of Regions and the NSNU," was "a challenge to Kyivites."

Representatives of the opposition Party of Regions (PRU) of Viktor Yanukovych and the NSNU had indeed been among those deputies who did not boycott the council's first sitting.

This prompted the YTB to accuse the NSNU of cooperating with the PRU in the council in violation of previous agreements on a parliamentary coalition, which apparently rules out cooperation with the PRU at any level, including local councils. On April 17, Tymoshenko forbade her own bloc members to join any local alliances with the PRU. She threatened potential dissenters with expulsion.

Tomenko and Tymoshenko said that the Kyiv "coalition" between the NSNU and the PRU was "unnatural." For some reason, however, they abstained from castigating the Socialists, whose representatives attended Chernovetsky's swearing in along with NSNU and PRU deputies.

Tymoshenko's accusations against Yushchenko's party in this case may be an exaggeration as, unlike Fair Kyiv, the NSNU and the PRU did not formalize any alliance at the council.

The quarrel over Chernovetsky coincided with another dangerous development for the Orange coalition. On April 14, the NSNU rejected an accord reached with the YTB and the Socialists a day earlier, which in transparent terms stipulated that the post of prime minister in the alliance would go to Tymoshenko.

Yushchenko's reluctance to return Tymoshenko the post from which he fired her last year, and her reluctance to accept a coalition on different terms, has so far been the main problem in the talks on re-establishing the Orange coalition. The rift over Kyiv mayor should only deepen the mistrust between Yushchenko's team and Tymoshenko.

The creation of Fair Kyiv, meanwhile, has apparently triggered the dissolution of the Pora-RiP bloc. On April 17 Pora leader Vladyslav Kaskiv announced that the bloc had ceased to exist because its leader, Klitchko, had joined Fair Kyiv without consent from Pora. Kaskiv, however, did not make it clear whether his people will be in the opposition to Chernovetsky.

Source: Eurasia Daily Monitor

Bookmark and Share

Friday, April 21, 2006

The Censorship Of Fear

HAMBURG, Germany -- In West Germany they were closing children's playgrounds and distributing iodine tablets. But in communist East Germany life after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster carried on as normal -- at least officially. The government simply censored fear.

May 1986 cover of Germany's Der Spiegel

For East German racing cyclist Olaf Ludwig, winning the International Peace Race -- considered the East Bloc's "Tour de France" -- was a bizarre experience. It started in the Ukrainian capital Kiev on May 7, 1986, 11 days after the accident and 100 kilometers from Chernobyl, and he recalls being startled as he raced past lines of trucks being checked with Geiger counters. The many cancellations by Western teams also came as a surprise to him.

"They told us there'd been an accident but that it was far away and that we would be fine," said the current director of the Team Telekom racing outfit. "They" refers to the high sports and party officials of East Germany who accompanied their team in order to "calm down people who were becoming very unsettled," said Ludwig. Calming people down, glossing over the facts, lying -- that was the strategy of the communist state in dealing with the biggest nuclear disaster of all time.

Three days after the meltdown, a small article on page five of the communist party newspaper "Neues Deutschland" (New Germany) reported about an "accident in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant" in which a reactor had been "damaged." No mention of the cloud that passed over Europe and brought radioactive rain which also fell on East Germany. No word, not even in the following days, of contaminated cows and vegetables.

Only after West German television -- which could be seen in large parts of the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR) -- reported about the panic in West did the newspaper articles get a little longer. They were all written by the government in close coordination with Moscow. Chernobyl had been declared an affair of state, and the role of the press was confined to printing official texts. Whatever was printed served only one purpose: to assure people that they were safe. Fear was simply censored.

The government in East Berlin was one of the first in Europe to publish tables of radioactivity levels in the air. But it added its own interpretation that that the levels recorded had "stabilized at a low level." It declined to say what the levels had been before the accident. And no one was allowed to find out that radioactivity had reached peak levels a day before the reading and rose again on the day after. Neither were people told that rainfall in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt had contaminated the ground to the extent that some milk samples were showing radiation levels up to 700% above the limit for babies.

"You could call it targeted poisoning," said Kathrin Göring-Eckardt, a member of the Greens Party who is vice president of the Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament. Hailing from the eastern German state of Thuringia, she can remember how store shelves were suddenly filled with fruit and vegetables that no one wanted to buy in the West. Neither did anyone in the East. "We all knew what was going on," she said. On the street, among friends and in church, people would whisper to each other the warnings that they had heard in western media. The GDR government ordered that unsold lettuce be distributed in schools and kindergartens.

Tell people what Moscow fabricates

The government was well aware of the risk. "We had mixed feelings about it," said Günter Schabowski, who was a member of the governing Politburo at the time. He knew about the Western reports and was worried about his children. But the iron rule was: "Don't add any of our own commentary. We only tell people what Moscow fabricates."

The truth Moscow fabricated was backed up by radiation readings from the State Office for Nuclear Safety and Protection From Radiation (SAAS), and was designed to serve the official ideology. The readings showed that "there hasn't been and isn't any risk to the health of the population of the GDR," said the SAAS in a press statement on May 8. The nuclear industry was a symbol of technical progress in the socialist state. Nuclear power was seen as a clean and cheap alternative to oil and coal. Officially, there weren't any risks. Anyone who voiced doubts in public was systematically watched and pursued.

"If you put a "Nuclear Power -- No thanks" sticker on your jacket you were punished," said Rainer Eppelmann, the GDR's last defense minister who later became a member of the reunited German parliament. When Chernobyl exploded, Eppelmann was a Protestant priest in the Friedrichshain district of Berlin.

After the accident many people came to him and wanted to talk about nuclear power and the impact of Chernobyl. "People were hugely interested in the issue," he said. He still can't believe that the GDR government prohibited such debate and even sent racing cyclist Olaf Ludwig to the stricken area. "It was an inhuman way to treat people who could have protected themselves."

Source: Spiegel OnLine

Bookmark and Share

Shelter Over Ukraine's Chernobyl Crumbling, Radiation Leaking

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Ukraine -- Chernobyl's coffin is cracking. Birds and rainwater have gotten inside the steel-and-concrete shelter hastily built over the reactor that blew up in 1986, and officials worry about what is getting out.

View of the gray cracked and crumbling sarcophagus covering Chernobyl nuclear power plant's damaged Reactor No. 4. The reactor exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive clouds across much of Europe.

The "sarcophagus" over reactor No. 4 is reaching the end of its life span. A multinational $1.1 billion project to build a new shelter - a giant steel arch designed to last 100 years - is still on the drawing board.

"Twenty years have already passed since the accident, but the risks and the hazards posed by the reactor are still there," said Yulia Marusych, a spokeswoman for the power station.

The sarcophagus of nearly 700,000 tons of steel and 400,000 tons of concrete was hastily built to seal in an estimated 200-ton mix of radioactive fuel and materials like concrete and sand that fused when the explosion spiked temperatures to 1,800 F (1,000 C) inside.

No one knows exactly how much radioactive fuel remains since only 25 percent of the reactor is accessible. Some estimate it all was discharged during the 10 days when the reactor spewed out its insides. Others counter that as much as 90 percent is still there. Sensors constantly check for signs of new reactions taking place.

"Could it begin again? It would need certain conditions and we can say that today those conditions do not exist," Marusych said. "But the chance that a chain reaction could be triggered is not zero. The danger remains."

Didier Louvat, a radiation waste expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency who studies Chernobyl closely, sees no reason for alarm - "The situation is stable ... at the moment the conditions are not a matter for concern."

Some accuse the Ukrainian government of playing up the dangers to get more international aid for the new shelter. But Yuriy Andreyev, head of the Chernobyl Union, an advocacy group, accused the government of not doing enough. He said water accumulating under the reactor is highly irradiated and could leak into the region's groundwater.

Authorities said the priority now is stabilizing the sarcophagus. The roof is not sealed properly. The water inside is weakening the concrete and metal. The shelter's original west wall is leaning precariously.

While a collapse would be unlikely to spark another explosion, it could release a huge burst of poisonous radioactive dust.

For now, while talks continue on who will build the new shelter, construction crews are working to shore up the aging sarcophagus. They have to work in 20-minute shifts to minimize exposure to radiation.

"About the danger? Well, everybody knows where he works and everybody realizes the real hazards, the real risks of working here," said Yuriy Tatarchuk, a Chernobyl official.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Ukrainian President Seeks Support To Recover From Nuclear Disaster

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko on Wednesday called for further support from the international community so that the country can recover from the continuing effects of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Maria Buriak, a seven years old girl suffering from cancer, sits in a children's hospital in Kiev. Greenpeace said in a new report that more than 90,000 people were likely to die of cancers caused by radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

During an exclusive interview with Kyodo News ahead of the 20th anniversary of the accident on April 26, the president said that recovery is "not only a challenge to Ukraine but also to humanity as a whole."

At the same time, however, he said that the country will continue to promote its nuclear power generation policy by ensuring safety, saying it is necessary for a country lacking energy resources.

The president, referring to the accident as an occurrence that people should not forget, like the Holocaust, said that a large part of the national budget has been allocated to support victims of the disaster and that it is "too heavy a burden for one country alone to shoulder."

On an ongoing plan to construct a new coffin -- funded by several industrial economies including Japan -- to cover the burned-out remains of the reactor that caused the disaster, the president reiterated that it will be completed in 2010. The remains are currently covered by a concrete shelter but it is becoming obsolete.

Referring to his visit to Hiroshima last July, the Japanese city that was atom-bombed by the United States in 1945, Yushchenko said that Japanese people would best understand the sufferings of the Ukrainians and expressed his gratitude for the support received from the Japanese government and nongovernmental organizations.

He also expressed hope of further support from Japan in addressing a growing number of cancer patients and other medical problems as well as fighting radioactive contamination.

On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's No. 4 reactor in the then Soviet Union exploded while on a test run, unleashing radioactive contamination that spread across what are now Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

About 5 million people continue to live in contaminated areas.

Source: Kyodo News

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Show A Little Class

KIEV, Ukraine -- Kyiv swore in a new mayor on April 4, businessman and parliamentarian Leonid Chernovetsky, who beat out incumbent Oleksandr Omelchenko by a long shot, getting almost 50 percent more votes.

Leonid Chernovetsky (L) and Oleksandr Omelchenko (R)

Omelchenko has run the city for 10 years, winning two popular elections and successfully resisting attempts to retire him when he turned 65.

During a meeting with foreign ambassadors on April 19, Chernovetsky referred to himself as a “good” and “principled” man who believes in God with all his heart.

Omelchenko had said several days earlier that he planned to continue litigation to keep his job, although at least two Kyiv courts have said he doesn’t have the right to.

The same day he was sworn in, Chernovetsky officially fired Omelchenko, his staff and the head of a local television station, who has since checked into hospital, presumably to hold on to his job, too.

Omelchenko has called the dismissals illegal and accused the Interior Ministry of conniving with Chernovetsky to have his office seized by police, even raising concerns that they might try to plant drugs or weapons there.

To anyone familiar with Ukrainian power politics, none of this is unusual during transfers of authority. Winner takes all, and losers cling to their offices from hospital beds or until paramilitary units in flak jackets drag them out on to the street.

As for courts, they reverse each other’s decisions with such regularity, that one wonders if they are subject to the same laws.

The country’s democratic record has improved greatly since Ukraine gained independence, especially following the Orange Revolution, and it would be nice to think that what has followed Kyiv’s mayoral elections, not to mention the turmoil that has beset post-electoral parliament, is a painful transition.

But the ridiculous recriminations and selfish antics displayed by Ukrainian politicians at all levels reveal as much about the personalities involved as they do about faults in the system they belong to.

Former heavyweight boxing champion Vitaliy Klitschko lost in his bid for the parliament as well as the mayor’s seat, although he took second place in the latter race.

Nevertheless, whatever position he may later take on the Kyiv City Council, Klitschko warmly congratulated Chernovetsky on his victory at a press conference the day after voting, before all the ballots had been counted.

This is surely an example to Ukraine’s so-called political elite from a newcomer who has acted equally gentlemanly in real fights.

Politicians around the world survive on cunning and public drama, but maybe it’s time that Ukraine’s showed just a little more class.

Source: Kyiv Post

Bookmark and Share

Our Ukraine Strays Toward The Regions

KIEV, Ukraine -- The political council of the pro-presidential Our Ukraine bloc confirmed the protocol to found an “Orange coalition” yesterday, with the exception of the sixth point, that is, the one specifying that Yulia Timoshenko is to be prime minister.

Yulia Timoshenko

This in reality makes an Orange coalition impossible and opens the way for new coalitions, such as one between Our Ukraine and the Party of the Regions.
Our Ukraine Says No

The Christian Democratic Union held a congress in Kiev yesterday. It is the last of the six parties making up the Our Ukraine bloc to do so. It had been the only party that had not discussed and approved the protocol on the establishment of an Orange coalition. The fate of that future coalition depended on the small party.

The protocol has been signed a week earlier by the Yulia Timoshenko Bloc, Our Ukraine and the Socialist Party. It contained six points, the last of which stated that, in accordance with a memorandum agreed to earlier, the head of the coalition government should be the head of the bloc that had received the most votes, that is, Timoshenko.

The signing of the protocol would be a victory for former prime minister Timoshenko since it cleared the way for her to regain that position. The ext day, however, the presidium of Our Ukraine confirmed the protocol only in part, without the sixth point. Five of the six parties making up the bloc did likewise.

The Christian Democratic Party was ready to approve the protocol in full, saying that the sixth point was unimportant, since posts would only be divided up after the coalition's working principles ware developed.

The Christian Democratic Party's position elicited a nervous response from the other bloc members. Party members brought copies of yesterday's Ukrainian version of Kommersant with them to the closed congress and discussed the suggestion in the paper that the party may become a fifth column within the Our Ukraine bloc and support Timoshenko.

The Christian Democrats did not want to form a fifth column. They voted against the sixth point as their allies in the bloc advised.

By passing the protocol without the sixth point, Our Ukraine has made its position clear. Timoshenko is completely unacceptable to it as prime minister. That practically eliminates any chance of an Orange coalition as such, since the premiership was always a basic condition for Timoshenko's participation in a coalition.

Our Ukraine leaders now face a tough task. They must convince voters that the stillbirth of the Orange coalition was not their fault but Timoshenko's. Their argument is simple – they united not for the sake of positions, but for principles. That means that guilt for the schism can be laid at Timoshenko's doorstep.

Timoshenko Strikes Back

Yulia Timoshenko was ready for this turn of events. Her election campaign slogan had been “all the people's choice for prime minister.” She promised that she would participate only in an Orange coalition and that the prime minister should come from the strongest coalition. She has been consistent in that position.

Therefore, when Our Ukraine members accuse her of pursuing exclusively personal ambitions, she responds that it is the will of the voters. By happy coincidence, the claim was backed up yesterday by the release of a survey taken by the All-Ukraine Sociological Service in Western Ukraine that should that 44.9 percent of respondents want to see her as prime minister, as opposed to 15.6 percent who supported Our Ukraine's Yury Ekhanuorv.

General director of the All-Ukraine Sociological Service Nikolay Mikhalchenko commented on the survey results that a “reassessment of values” had taken place in that region of Ukraine. Our Ukraine had considered it a bastion of its support, but now Timoshenko was three times more popular than its choice for prime minister. The survey should be an indication to the members of the pro-presidential bloc that they are losing voters by hindering Timoshenko's ascent to the premiership.

Timoshenko is trying to show that the Our Ukrainians are to blame for the failure to form a coalition. Her big weapon against her opponents is the accusation that Our Ukraine is holding behind-the-scenes negotiations with Viktor Yanukovich's Party of the Regions. Timoshenko held a press conference on Tuesday at which she said that Our Ukraine leaders Ekhanurov, Petr Poroshenko and Nikolay Martynenko have formed the concept of a “broad coalition” with the Party of the Regions. She said that she was told this by a member of the Our Ukraine political council who favors “a democratic coalition.”

The Yulia Timoshenko Bloc has one more piece of evidence that it is Our Ukraine that betrayed Orange ideals. Timoshenko associates point out that the pro-presidential bloc has formed a coalition with the Party of the Regions in the Kiev City Council and the Zaporozhye Regional Council.

The Yulia Timoshenko Bloc, on the other hand, has allied itself with another symbol of the Orange movement, Vitaly Klitschko's Pora-PRP bloc. Timoshenko stresses that for her a union with Yanukovich's party is impossible at any level. She sent a circular to all local divisions of her party last week prohibiting any coalition with the Party of the Regions whatsoever.

Yesterday, Our Ukraine leaders followed suit, prohibiting local divisions from forming coalitions with the Party of the Regions without the permission of the presidium.

The Battle for Moroz

Since both Our Ukraine and the Yulia Timoshenko Bloc acknowledge that there is little likelihood that they will form a coalition, they are calculating future moves carefully. If the parties and blocs that were elected to the parliament are unable to form a government by June 10 – the deadline set by the Constitution – repeat elections will be scheduled. If that happens, Our Ukraine will risk losing even more votes to the Yulia Timoshenko Bloc.

To avoid repeat elections, Our Ukraine must form a coalition. Without Timoshenko, that is possible only with the Party of the Regions. Our Ukraine leaders are so far vehemently denying secret contacts with the Party of the Regions. The theoretical possibility is being discussed more openly.

Yesterday, Alexander Paskhaver, an outside consultant to the president, held a briefing in the presidential headquarters and stated that a union with the Party of the Regions makes the most sense ideologically and economically. “The Party of the Regions is a rightist party,” Paskhaver commented, “that proposes cooperation between the state and large financial and industrial groups.

Our Ukraine is a center-rightist party with predominantly liberal views and evolutionary approach.” Paskhaver ascribed the remaining parties to the Left. “The Socialists, judging from their program, are a leftist party. I cannot say that the Yulia Timoshenko Bloc has a definite program but, judging from past experience, when administrative intervention was predominated in the economy, that party is unconditionally leftist. Even further left than the Socialist Party.”

Yesterday's statement by the Party of the Regions is equally indicative. Its press service reported that U.S. President Bush had congratulated Yanukovich on his victory in the elections through his special assistant Jack Crouch. The party thus demonstrated that the West's attitude toward it has changed for the better, which will also draw Our Ukraine in its direction.

Nonetheless, a direct union with Yanukovich's party would unavoidably cost Our Ukraine its leading position and voters in Western Ukraine. That is why Our Ukraine leaders are saying so insistently that the existing protocol remains open to all. That gives Yanukovich the opportunity to join it. Timoshenko would obviously refuse to form a coalition with Yanukovich, which would again make Timoshenko guilty of the schism. But if the Socialists withdraw from it, Our Ukraine becomes guilty for it.

A fierce battle has broken out between the Yulia Timoshenko Bloc and Our Ukraine for Alexander Moroz and his party. The Socialists may prove to be the litmus test for Orange-ness. Moroz has shown his solidarity with Timoshenko and she is doing everything possible to strengthen his allegiance, saying recently that, if an Orange coalition is formed, that Moroz, and not an Our Ukraine member, should become speaker of the Rada.

Obviously, Timoshenko will make harsh accusations against Our Ukraine today and say that it has denounced the coalition protocol. But the formation of the coalition depends on Alexander Moroz.

Source: Kommersant

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine Without Government As 'Orange' Revolution Turns Sour

KIEV, Ukraine -- Efforts to revive the romantic spirit of Ukraine's "orange" revolution and reform a pro-Western government have descended into acrimony, leaving the country uncertain of its future.

The 'dream team' is no more

Almost one month after Ukrainians cast their vote in a parliamentary election, there is still no agreement on who will form a new coalition government despite weeks of talks.

To the general disbelief of orange supporters, the two figureheads of the revolution, President Viktor Yushchenko, and former prime minister Julia Tymoshenko, are struggling to form a government and have instead become embroiled in tit-for-tat recriminations.

A preliminary agreement to form a coalition government of orange forces uniting the politicians who participated in the pro-Western velvet revolution of 2004, was agreed on 13 April. It was seen as the only way of keeping the pro-Russian Party of the Regions, the party that lost the revolution but spectacularly won last month's elections, out of power.

After weeks of talks, it was therefore agreed that Mr Yushchenko's Our Ukraine Party (which came a humiliating third in the election) would join forces with Ms Tymoshenko's bloc, which came second. The smaller Socialist Party was also included in the pact, which was billed as the return of the "orange" dream team.

But yesterday that pact did not look like it was worth the paper it was written on. No sooner had it been signed than it begun to unravel, with Mr Yushchenko's supporters saying they were opposed to any suggestion that the fiery and charismatic Ms Tymoshenko would become Ukraine's new prime minister.

It was a job she did until September of last year, when Mr Yushchenko abruptly sacked her for allegedly spending too much time polishing her own image, for apparently being too radical on the economy, and for picking too many fights with some of his closest advisers.

But it is a job she has made clear she wants back and her getting it appears to be the price of her party's involvement in the new government. She told Ukrainian television that it was not a question of personal ambition but the good of the country. "It's not about the post of prime minister, it's not about the portfolio, or about where you sit or about the beautiful office of the prime minister," she said.

"I would like to take this post ... to show people that not all politicians are the same and that they can get results, quick and good quality results."

Mr Yushchenko appears to have grave doubts about her suitability and has rejected her call for him to take part in the coalition talks personally. Instead, his office issued a statement: "The President is concerned that potential participants in the coalition are delaying work ... and instead waste time and energy on mutual accusations and settling scores in the media," his press service said. "The head of state urges politicians to cease engaging in blackmail and ultimatums."

In case Ms Tymoshenko did not get the hint, Yuri Yekhanurov, the caretaker prime minister and ally of Mr Yushchenko, spelt it out yesterday. "The time of kings and princesses is long gone in Ukraine," he said, a clear reference to Ms Tymoshenko's nickname, the Orange Princess.

Ms Tymoshenko insists that a small circle of ill-wishers close to Mr Yushchenko is trying to block her appointment and that he will "do the right thing" by Ukraine if he gets the chance.

She has also accused Mr Yushchenko's party of holding parallel coalition talks with the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych, an allegation that has been flatly denied.

Source: Independent Online

Bookmark and Share

How Much Has Changed?

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine’s Orange Revolution was above all a revolt against fakery and fraud. By 2004, local vocabulary had filled up with terms like ‘political technology’ and ‘administrative resources’, as though these were perfectly acceptable technical aspects of post-Soviet politics.

Vadym Gladchuk, head of the Youth Is Ukraine's Hope youth organization burns a bunch of orange flags of pro-presidential Our Ukraine political bloc during a protest in front of the Cabinet building in Ukraine's capital Kiev

Over the last 16 months, I have always felt that Ukrainian voters would initially have forgiven a lot economically, if the first two Orange governments had done more to cleanse the system of such practices. Instead, they put economics before politics, hoping to buy votes in the run-up to 2006, and in a crude overture to voters in the south and east.

And of course the economy suffered. But how much has changed politically? The first obvious difference for the 2006 elections is that we heard much less about (normally Russian) ‘political technologists’ this time around. They were still employed on lucrative contracts, but were not strutting around Kyiv like an occupying army, or constantly pronouncing from on high, as masters of the universe.

Indeed, the Ukrainian market has opened up to the outside world and become more of a normal PR market. The Party of Regions, which gained the most votes in the March 26 election, employed Americans. President Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine worked with Russians like Stanislav Belkovsky, according to rumor at least, without of course accepting a Russian agenda.

The second obvious difference is that fake parties were much less successful this time around. Ukrainian voters have wised up to ‘big board parties’, whose million-dollar budgets made minimal impacts. Many of the supposedly omnipotent oligarchs miscalculated badly this time. Tycoon Viktor Pinchuk failed with Viche.

Tycoon Oleksandr Yaroslavsky failed with outgoing parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn. The Industrial Union of Donbass failed with Eko+25%. (The anti-Western) Ne tak! was too negative, or perhaps just too confusing. Nobody wanted to vote for a double negative, ‘No to No to (former President Leonid) Kuchma’.

Ironically, there was a ‘third force’ electorate out there – 21 percent voted for smaller parties that failed to cross the 3 percent barrier – but no single project tapped its potential. Lytvyn’s party was the biggest failure in this respect. Its campaign was too long.

Its inclusive ‘My’ (We) appeal, neutral green colors and pitch to rural voters was just a bit too rich for a party of urban multi-millionaires. Its attempt to portray itself as the civilized party between the warring extremes was just a bit too absurd for a party that in reality functions like the Oakland Raiders in the NFL or Blackburn Rovers in the English soccer league – the teams where all the bad guys eventually end up.

Nor was the negative impact of fake parties as important as in the past. Collectively, they took over a fifth of the vote away from the winners, but neither side suffered disproportionately; unlike in 2002, when ‘fly’ parties took most of their bites out of the then opposition, or in 1998, when they mainly swarmed around the left.

That said, if Natalia Vitrenko’s ‘Popular Opposition’ bloc were to succeed in its appeal against the results, then the parliamentary arithmetic would suddenly look a lot different.

The Orange parties currently have a majority because their three parties took three over-representations from the ‘proportional representation’ system, whereas this effect was much smaller for the one-and-a-half parties on the other side (Regions, the Communists). In other words, only a few more votes for Lytvyn (2.43%), Vitrenko (2.93%) or Viche (1.74%) may have swung the election.

The result is a strange imbalance in the new Rada. On the one hand, Akhmetov is the only major oligarch with a (sub) faction of his own – Regions. On the other hand, every faction now has its ‘sponsors’.

Our Ukraine has its ‘dear friends’, but former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc has the likes of Vasyl Khmelnytsky, who was previously notorious for helping Kuchma set up fake opposition parties to compete with the real opposition; and Bohdan Hubsky, one of the Kyiv business elite’s not-so-magnificent-seven. The Socialists have Andriy Derkach and ‘metallurgists’ like Volodymyr Boiko.

Are the oligarchs, large and small, now so ubiquitous that they will shape the new system, or will the new system dictate to them? Significantly, Voloymyr Boiko failed to deliver his home-town vassal vote in Mariupol.

Pinchuk and Yaroslavsky have sought to clean up their images after their recent deals with Banca Intesa and BNP Paribas (to which the two tycoons recently sold their Ukrainian banks). Akhmetov’s recent attempts to fold his old businesses into more transparent daughter companies like MetInvest and Embrol Ukraine may mean him taking the same route.

The prevalence of business sponsors on all the party lists, however, meant that even the Orange parties fought the elections with a certain virtual veneer. Tymoshenko’s ads promoted the message that social ‘justice’ was provided by her own ‘heart’ when she was prime minister, and sought to identify her conscience with the nation’s own. Her outfits carefully matched the campaign’s colors.

However, the ‘virtual’ part of Tymoshenko’s campaign was well-tuned to her ‘real’ message. ‘Justice’ was what Orange voters wanted. Tymoshenko’s campaign has also set her up well for the next phase. If Our Ukraine does a deal with Regions, her eponymous party may well eclipse it completely. If Our Ukraine does a deal with her, all eyes will be on whether she can deliver ‘justice’ in government.

Our Ukraine’s campaign has already been forgotten. It wasn’t particularly ‘virtual’. It was just bad. The ‘Don’t betray the Maidan!’ slogan prompted the obvious thought that this was precisely what the Yushchenko team had already done. And at a time when voters were desperate to revitalize the Orange Revolution, it was far too backward-looking.

Other aspects of the old political system are alive and well. The political technologists may have taken a back seat, so that there were fewer ‘active measures’ in 2006, but it will take years to disentangle the web of corruption that feeds ‘information wars’ and the Ukrainian addiction to kompromat.

There was plenty of shocking negative campaigning, such as the flyers depicting Tymoshenko as menopausal. There were so many PR ‘hits’, like the Pukach ‘disclaimer’, that it is still difficult to distinguish virtual scandals from real. Continuing information wars may also give virtual parties a new lease on life as channels for black PR, as with the notorious ads for Za soyuz.

Ultimately, the revolutions we remember are the ones that earn labels, the ones that come to symbolize great changes of epoch, like the ‘springtime of nations’ in 1848 or the Iranian ‘Islamic revolution’ in 1979.

Future historians will continue to write of the ‘Orange Revolution’, if 2004 acquires adjectives beyond mere color, i.e., if the changes in Ukraine come to be seen as a turning point in the region, after which politics moved away from the ‘technology’ of trickery and actually began to improve people’s lives.

So far, however, apart from an arguable immediate impact in the Romanian election of December 2004 and some inspiration of the half revolution-half coup in Kyrgyzstan, the Orange contagion has failed to spread to other states. It has inspired movements, but no actual repeat performances. So far, negative lessons and the spread of counter-technology have been more apparent.

The Belarusian election, for example, was won through an overdose of ‘administrative resources’, but equally important were new counter-revolutionary ‘technologies’. The authorities prevented any meaningful parallel count or exit poll that might have served to set off an ‘electoral revolution’.

They also made it difficult for the opposition to replicate the tactics of ‘strategic non-violence’ advocated by the likes of Gene Sharp, by maintaining a united front and cutting off communication with potential hinterlands of civic support.

They also used ‘political technology’ (Gleb Pavlovsky visited Minsk before the vote). As in 2001, Siarhei Haidukevich was again used to fake the politics of protest and split the opposition vote. But more serious questions should be asked about the fourth candidate, Aliaksandr Kozulin, long-rumored to be a Russian ‘project’.

Certainly, his rash call for direct action on the key day of demonstrations, Saturday, March 25, provided the authorities with the excuse they needed to crack down, and gave them the virtual ‘story’ they needed for the domestic audience. It will be interesting to see how much Lukashenka now ‘owes’ Russia for its help.

So at least the contrast with Ukraine is now remarkable. Politics in Ukraine is a long way from becoming totally clean, but it has already moved a long way from the regional norm. We should not forget the progress that has been made since 2004, but we should also not underestimate the strength of the old system to fight back.

Source: Kyiv Post

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Ex-Imperial Japanese Army Soldier Found In Ukraine Visits Japan

NARITA, Japan -- A former Japanese soldier traveled from Ukraine to Tokyo on Wednesday to see relatives he had not contacted since World War II.

Former Japanese Imperial Army soldier, Ishinosuke Uwano, 83 (C), speaks to media as his son Anatolii Zaichuk (R), listens upon his arrival in Narita, east of Tokyo, Wednesday, April 19, 2006. Uwano, who last seen by his family when he went off to fight in World War II and later resurfaced in Ukraine arrived in Tokyo Wednesday on a visit to see his relatives for the first time in 60 years. Woman at left is an unidentified official of the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry.

Ishinosuke Uwano, now 83, seemed surprised by the large number of reporters awaiting as he disembarked at Tokyo's international airport in Narita with his Ukrainian son, Anatolii Zaichuk.

"I have not spoken Japanese for more than 60 years," Uwano said through an interpreter. "So, the first thing that I want to say to all of you is 'konnichi wa' (good afternoon)."

Uwano - who despite a shock of white hair looked younger than his years - said he was grateful to the Japanese government and consular officials in Kiev and Moscow for making his return home possible.

Uwano and his son will travel to Morioka, Iwate prefecture (state), on Thursday to meet the former soldier's older brother and other surviving relatives. Uwano said he was looking forward to seeing his brother, though he wasn't sure what they would say to each other.

"I'm sure once we've met we'll find topics in common to talk about," he said.

He is also expected to call on the deputy governor and stay with his relatives in Iwate - about 470 kilometers (290 miles) northeast of Tokyo - for a week.

In his old hometown of Hirono, Uwano's relatives were making final preparation for his arrival Thursday. "A week of visiting would be very short, but I hope (my uncle) would make himself at home," Uwano's nephew Yukio told nationally televised interview on Japan's public broadcaster NHK.

Uwano was an Imperial Army soldier serving in a force occupying the island of Sakhalin in Russia's Far East when the war ended in August 1945.

Suminori Arima, a health ministry official in charge of locating war veterans lost overseas, said Uwano was last reported seen there in 1958.

Uwano - who will be in Japan for 10 days altogether- said Wednesday that he had not been able to return earlier "due to the former Soviet regime," without elaborating.

According to Arima, the aging Uwano asked someone in his local community in Ukraine to help him track down his Japanese relatives. Inquiries by the acquaintance eventually reached the health ministry, which sent staff to interview Uwano at the Japanese Embassy in the Ukraine capital, Kyiv, Arima said.

The health ministry declined to provide more information on the former soldier and details of his Japanese and Ukrainian families were not disclosed.

Kyodo News agency said Uwano moved to Ukraine in 1965 and has three children. He lives in Zhytomyr, a city about 144 kilometers (90 miles) west of Kyiv, the report said.

The government believes about 400 former Japanese World War II soldiers are living in the states of the former Soviet Union, and 40 of them have been identified.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine's Orange Parties Squabble Over Coalition Leadership

KIEV, Ukraine -- The two parties at the heart of Ukraine's Orange Revolution continued squabbling Tuesday over how to form a coalition government, with Yulia Tymoshenko insisting she should be re-appointed as prime minister.

Yulia Tymoshenko at press conference

Tymoshenko, who heads her own Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko party, said her party, which won more seats in parliament than President Viktor Yushchenko's Our Ukraine Party in March 26 elections, should be allowed to name the cabinet.

Tymoshenko said, "we will be insisting that the right to name the prime minister and the prime minister's cabinet be given to our bloc - the bloc which I head," she said at a news conference.

Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko, Our Ukraine and the Socialist Party signed a tentative agreement last week confirming their wish to form a coalition following parliamentary elections last month.

A senior Our Ukraine official reiterated Tuesday that the party is unwilling to endorse a clause in the agreement stipulating that Tymoshenko's party is empowered to name the prime minister.

Ihor Zhdanov, deputy chief of Our Ukraine's central executive committee, insisted would-be coalition members should first agree on their program and only then discuss nominations for the post.

"We believe it is necessary to form an Orange coalition, while issues on dividing up spheres of responsibility should be (discussed) only after we decide what we will be doing and how we will be doing it," Zhdanov told reporters.

Our Ukraine said on its Web site the bloc will issue a formal decision Wednesday on whether to approve last week's tentative coalition agreement.

The political party Our Ukraine, one of the six parties making up the bloc, has already rejected the clause on Tymoshenko's bloc picking the premier. This could further deepen disputes, since Tymoshenko has said the agreement will not be valid without that clause.

A reunion of the former allies whose 2004 street protests against electoral fraud propelled Yushchenko to the presidency could help cement Ukraine's pro-Western course, but it could further alienate pro-Russian southern and eastern regions.

Tymoshenko also called on Yushchenko to lead coalition talks, accusing several senior Our Ukraine officials of seeking to drag out and discredit the coalition formation process with the aim of then uniting with a rival party.

Yushchenko has stayed out of the negotiations, saying he was open for cooperation both with Tymoshenko and with the pro-Russian opposition Party of the Regions, led by his former presidential campaign rival Viktor Yanukovych, which won the most votes in the parliamentary balloting.

Yushchenko has been reluctant to see Tymoshenko return to the prime minister's job, from which he fired her last year in a bitter falling out, blaming her for erroneous policies that led to a series of crises and corruption.

Instead, Yushchenko has indicated that allying with Party of the Regions, which enjoys wide support in the country's Russian speaking east and south could help unite the country.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Graduate Wins Deportation Appeal

LONDON, UK -- An "Anglophile" Oxford university graduate who moved to Britain from the Ukraine at the age of 13 has won her appeal against Home Office deportation.

Eleonora Suhoviy does not know if she can ultimately stay in the UK

Eleonora Suhoviy, 24, from Lincoln, won the decision at the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Tribunal in London.

The secretary of state has five days to appeal the decision.

The tribunal heard how the graduate, who is backed by several public figures, wanted to join the Royal Navy and "preserve the British way of life".

Her campaign to stay in Britain has been supported by former government ministers Michael Howard and Lord Carrington and the broadcaster Jeremy Paxman.

This is a very worthy example of British youth. She should be allowed to stay to fulfil her ambitions of becoming a Royal Navy officer

Her victory came on the same day as Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a plan to increase the number of overseas students in Britain.

Miss Suhoviy came to Lincolnshire on a six-month tourist visa at the age of 13 in 1994.

She was unable to speak English but taught herself by reading Sherlock Holmes novels.

Despite graduating from Oxford, Miss Suhoviy was due to be deported in 1999.

'Committed Anglophile'

Miss Suhoviy's lawyer, Jonathon Goldberg QC, argued that the exceptional circumstances of the case meant she should be allowed to stay in the country.

He told the tribunal how his client "has shown herself a committed Anglophile who wished to protect the British way of life with a career in the Royal Navy".

Mr Goldberg said: "This is a very worthy example of British youth. She should be allowed to stay to fulfil her ambitions of becoming a Royal Navy officer."

He said she was "an asset to this country".

The barrister also described the support given to her by public figures such as Lord Carrington, Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman.

Miss Suhoviy is currently working as a PA to cancer doctors at Oxford's John Radcliffe hospital and plans to embark on post-graduate studies once her immigration status is settled.

'Very relieved'

Mr Goldberg said: "We hope and believe that the home secretary will turn over a new leaf and give this very meritorious girl hope and consideration."

After the hearing Miss Suhoviy said she was "very relieved".

"I am also very grateful for all the support from everyone, from the press and the general public," she added.

A Home office spokeswoman said: "We are considering the verdict of the tribunal. We cannot comment on an individual case."

Source: BBC News

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Ukraine's Tymoshenko Wants Govt Talks With President

KIEV, Ukraine -- Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko on Tuesday demanded direct talks with President Viktor Yushchenko to try to break the deadlock over coalition talks more than three weeks after parliamentary polls.

Yulia Tymoshenko

Tymoshenko, whose party came second in the election, accused Yushchenko aides of undermining a liberal "Orange" coalition between her party and his Our Ukraine party.

The two leaders headed the 2004 "Orange revolution" street protests against electoral fraud, but fell out afterwards over major policy issues and corruption allegations.

Tymoshenko said presidential aides wanted to form a government with Viktor Yanukovich, the pro-Moscow candidate she and Yushchenko toppled in 2004, but who came back to win the March elections.

"We insist talks with the Our Ukraine bloc should be held by Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko to eliminate from the negotiations all these people who fail to help, but torpedo the creation of such a coalition," Tymoshenko told a news conference.

"We lay the responsibility for creating the coalition on Ukraine's president. Only he can stop all intrigues today."

DEAL OR NO DEAL?

A deal between Our Ukraine, Tymoshenko's party and the Socialist Party of Oleksander Moroz -- would give the Orange coalition 243 seats in the 450 member parliament.

Yanukovich's Regions Party won 181 seats and the rest went to the Communist party.

Yushchenko's first year in power was marked by economic slowdown, rising inflation and the corruption scandals which cost Tymoshenko her job as prime minister.

But last week the three "Orange" allies signed a preliminary deal to create a coalition. Then further talks stalled over Yushchenko's reluctance to yield to Tymoshenko's key demand of getting back the post of prime minister.

Raising the political heat further, Tymoshenko told the news conference some of the president's closest aides were trying to make a deal with Yanukovich's Regions Party.

Current Prime Minister Yuri Yekhanurov has been quoted by local media as saying that Our Ukraine and the Regions party had a lot in common in their economic programmes.

Regions party officials say they would enter a coalition only if their leader Yanukovich is named premier and they have control over finances, the economy and the energy sector.

Parliament is expected to convene for its first session in May and will have two months to approve a government.

Source: Reuters

Bookmark and Share

Report: Chernobyl Toll May Top 90,000

KIEV, Ukraine - Greenpeace said Tuesday in a new report that more than 90,000 people were likely to die of cancers caused by radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, countering a United Nations report that predicted the death toll would be around 4,000.

Flowers placed on the monument for victims of the Chernobyl's nuclear disaster, in the city of Slavutich

The differing conclusions underline the contentious uncertainty that remains about the health effects of the world's worst nuclear accident as its 20th anniversary approaches.

A reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive clouds over much of Europe. The fallout was particularly severe in northern reaches of Ukraine, western Russia and Belarus.

Areas immediately around the now-inoperative plant remain off limits, but people in other areas that received significant fallout are anxious about their health.

A report by the Chernobyl Forum — a group comprising the International Atomic Energy Agency and several other U.N. groups — last year said only 56 deaths thus far could be connected to Chernobyl and about 4,000 deaths total would ultimately be linked to the accident.

But Greenpeace, in a report citing data from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, harshly disagreed and suggested the Chernobyl Forum report was deliberately misleading.

"It is appalling that the IAEA is whitewashing the impacts of the most serious nuclear accident in human history," Ivan Blokov of the environmental group's Russia office said in a statement. "Denying the real implications is not only insulting to the thousands of victims but it also leads to dangerous recommendations and the relocation of people in contaminated areas."

The Chernobyl Forum report had suggested that many of the health problems and complaints in the regions around Chernobyl were connected with unhealthy lifestyles, including heavy drinking and smoking, and with a culture of victimization.

Greenpeace countered that statistics from Belarus indicate there will be 270,000 cases of cancer attributable to Chernobyl radiation throughout the region and that 93,000 of those are likely to be fatal.

Greenpeace also cited a report by the Center for Independent Environmental Assessment of the Russian Academy of Sciences that found a sharply increased mortality in western Russia over the past 15 years, suggesting the rise was due to Chernobyl radiation.

"On the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have died additionally in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident and estimates of the total death toll for Ukraine and Belarus could be another 140,000," Greenpeace's international office said in a statement.

The report also finds that "radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors" other than cancer cases — "damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated aging, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosome aberrations and an increase of deformities in fetuses and children."

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine Rivals 'Plan To Team Up'

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine's former PM Yulia Tymoshenko says her erstwhile Orange Revolution ally, President Viktor Yushchenko, plans to team up with his arch-rival.

Former PM Yulia Tymoshenko

Ms Tymoshenko, who fell out with Mr Yushchenko last year, said her information came from members of the president's Our Ukraine bloc.

The liberal leaders of the 2004 Orange Revolution were beaten in last month's general election by Viktor Yanukovych.

He heads a pro-Moscow party opposed to their pro-Western liberal agenda.

Rivalry

Ms Tymoshenko said Mr Yanukovych's Party of the Regions and Our Ukraine were planning to form an alliance. She condemned it as "a plan to discredit the talks between the democratic forces".

She accused Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov and two other top Ukrainian politicians - Petro Poroshenko and Mykola Martynenko - of undermining her efforts to form a coalition with President Yushchenko's bloc.

"It has been decided to torpedo, annihilate and ruin the protocol which was signed by the Socialists, Our Ukraine and our bloc," she said.

Mr Yushchenko sacked Ms Tymoshenko as prime minister last September.

Ms Tymoshenko's key demand was to return as prime minister. Her party came second in the 26 March election, ahead of Mr Yushchenko's Our Ukraine.

Sour Orange

The two pro-Western liberal leaders had stood together before huge crowds of supporters in Kiev during the 2004 Orange Revolution - the huge street protests which swept them into power.

But their alliance collapsed last year amid bitter rivalry between Ms Tymoshenko and some of Mr Yushchenko's top aides.

Speaking on Ukrainian television on Tuesday, Ms Tymoshenko railed against "Yekhanurov, Poroshenko, Martynenko and all the team who, inside the Our Ukraine bloc, are practically ruining the creation of a democratic coalition and ruining the future of Ukrainian reform as a whole".

"I believe that the president is capable of defeating those people and of doing his utmost so as not to ruin the future of Ukraine."

Mr Yanukovych was declared the winner of the presidential election in November 2004, but allegations of widespread vote-rigging sent hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians out onto the streets to demand change.

In the Orange Revolution - named after Mr Yushchenko's campaign colour - the election result was overturned and Mr Yushchenko went on to win a re-run.

Mr Yanukovych had been backed by former President Leonid Kuchma, whom the opposition accused of cronyism and corruption.

Source: BBC News

Bookmark and Share

Japanese Soldier Missing Since WWII Resurfaces In Ukraine With A Son

TOKYO, Japan -- A long-lost Japanese soldier last seen by his family when he left to fight in the Second World War is returning to Japan from Ukraine to see his relatives.

Japanese WW II flag

The family of Ishinosuke Uwano, now 83, had agreed in 2000 to have him declared dead.

Japanese officials declined on Monday to say where Uwano has been for all the time he was missing, and why he hadn't contacted his family.

They say he will arrive Wednesday with his Ukrainian son. They are expected to spend 10 days with surviving relatives in Iwate, about 470 kilometres northeast of Tokyo.

Uwano was part of an occupying force on the island of Sakhalin in eastern Russia when the war ended in August 1945. He was last reported to have been seen there in 1958.

Japanese officials say Uwano asked someone in his community to help him track down his Japanese relatives. The acquaintance's inquiries reached the Japanese Health Ministry, which sent staff to interview Uwano at the Japanese Embassy in Kiev.

Kyodo News agency said Uwano moved to Ukraine in 1965 and has three children. He lives in Zhitomir, a city just west of the capital, Kiev, the report said.

The Associated Press reports that the government believes about 400 former Japanese soldiers who fought in the Second World War are living in the states of the former Soviet Union. Only 40 have been identified.

Source: CBC News

Bookmark and Share

Monday, April 17, 2006

Turning Point At Chernobyl — Mikhail S. Gorbachev

MOSCOW, Russia -- The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl this month 20 years ago, even more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later.

Mikhail S Gorbachev

Indeed, the Chernobyl catastrophe was an historic turning point: there was the era before the disaster, and there is the very different era that has followed.

The very morning of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear station on April 26, 1986, the Politburo met to discuss the situation, and then organised a government commission to deal with the consequences.

The commission was to control the situation, and to ensure that serious measures were taken, particularly in regard to people’s health in the disaster zone. Moreover, the Academy of Science established a group of leading scientists, who were immediately dispatched to the Chernobyl region.

The Politburo did not immediately have appropriate and complete information that would have reflected the situation after the explosion. Nevertheless, it was the general consensus of the Politburo that we should openly deliver the information upon receiving it. This would be in the spirit of the glasnost policy that was by then already established in the Soviet Union.

Thus, claims that the Politburo engaged in concealment of information about the disaster is far from the truth. One reason I believe that there was no deliberate deception is that, when the governmental commission visited the scene right after the disaster and stayed overnight in Polesie, near Chernobyl, its members all had dinner with regular food and water, and they moved about without respirators, like everybody else who worked there. If the local administration or the scientists knew the real impact of the disaster, they would not have risked doing this.

In fact, nobody knew the truth, and that is why all our attempts to receive full information about the extent of the catastrophe were in vain. We initially believed that the main impact of the explosion would be in Ukraine, but Belarus, to the northwest, was hit even worse, and then Poland and Sweden suffered the consequences.

Of course, the world first learnt of the Chernobyl disaster from Swedish scientists, creating the impression that we were hiding something. But in truth we had nothing to hide, as we simply had no information for a day and a half.

Only a few days later, we learnt that what happened was not a simple accident, but a genuine nuclear catastrophe — an explosion of Chernobyl’s fourth reactor.

Although the first report on Chernobyl appeared in Pravda on April 28, the situation was far from clear. For example, when the reactor blew up, the fire was immediately put out with water, which only worsened the situation as nuclear particles began spreading through the atmosphere.

Meanwhile we were still able to take measures to help people in the disaster zone; they were evacuated, and more than 200 medical organisations were involved in testing the population for radiation poisoning.

There was a serious danger that the contents of the nuclear reactor would seep into the soil, and then leak into the Dnepr river, thus endangering the population of Kiev and other cities along the riverbanks.

Therefore, we started the job of protecting the river banks, initiating a total deactivation of the Chernobyl plant. The resources of a huge country were mobilised to control the devastation, including work to prepare the sarcophagus that would encase the fourth reactor.

The Chernobyl disaster, more than anything else, opened the possibility of much greater freedom of expression, to the point that the system as we knew it could no longer continue.

It made absolutely clear how important it was to continue the policy of glasnost, and I must say that I started to think about time in terms of pre-Chernobyl and post-Chernobyl.

The price of the Chernobyl catastrophe was overwhelming, not only in human terms, but also economically. Even today, the legacy of Chernobyl affects the economies of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Some even suggest that the economic price for the USSR was so high that it stopped the arms race, as I could not keep building arms while paying to clean up Chernobyl.

This is wrong. My declaration of January 15, 1986, is well known around the world. I addressed arms reduction, including nuclear arms, and I proposed that by the year 2000 no country should have atomic weapons. I personally felt a moral responsibility to end the arms race.

But Chernobyl opened my eyes like nothing else: it showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when it is used for non-military purposes. One could now imagine much more clearly what might happen if a nuclear bomb exploded. According to scientific experts, one SS-18 rocket could contain 100 Chernobyls.

Unfortunately, the problem of nuclear arms is still very serious today. Countries that have them — the members of the so-called “nuclear club” — are in no hurry to get rid of them. On the contrary, they continue to refine their arsenals, while countries without nuclear weapons want them, believing that the nuclear club’s monopoly is a threat to the world peace.

The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe reminds us that we should not forget the horrible lesson taught to the world in 1986. We should do everything in our power to make all nuclear facilities safe and secure. We should also start seriously working on the production of the alternative sources of energy.

The fact that world leaders now increasingly talk about this imperative suggests that the lesson of Chernobyl is finally being understood.

Source: Daily Times

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The Orange Princess

KIEV, Ukraine -- She is not yet 50, but she has already stage-managed a revolution, served time in jail, made a fortune on the ashes of a collapsed empire, served as her country’s prime minister, and inspired a bizarre pornographic film.

Yulia Tymoshenko campaign posters

Julia Tymoshenko, arguably Ukraine’s most powerful politician, and indisputably its most glamorous public figure, has a colourful and action-packed past and a fiercely strong personality to go with it.

In the West she is best known for the pivotal role she played in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004, an event that swept away a corrupt Soviet-style regime blamed for trapping Ukraine in neighbouring Russia’s sphere of influence for too long.

It was an event that put her on the global stage; last year she was inaugurated as Ukraine’s first woman prime minister, a position she held until September when her political fortunes dramatically waned.

Though she has only recently come to prominence in the West, Yulia Tymoshenko has been a household name in her native Ukraine for years, loved and loathed in equal measure but never guilty of inspiring indifference. Her detractors see her as a self-serving power-hungry radical who wants to reform the country for the sake of reform.

Her supporters see her as a passionate patriot controlled by nobody whose heart is in the right place and wants the best for Ukraine. Ms Tymoshenko herself brooks no self-doubt; she sees herself as nothing less than Ukraine’s saviour.

On her way up the treacherous ladder that is Ukrainian politics she has picked up almost as many nicknames as she has expensive designer dresses. ‘The goddess of the revolution,’ ‘Ukraine’s Joan of Arc,’ ‘the samurai in a skirt’, ‘the Princess Leia of Ukrainian politics’, ‘iron Julia,’ ‘the orange princess’ and the ‘gas princess’, are among her many monikers.

In July 2005 US magazine Forbes named her as one of the world’s three most powerful women after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Wu Yi. When she was unceremoniously sacked as Ukraine’s prime minister last September she abruptly entered a political wilderness, however, and appeared to have been publicly and permanently humiliated.

Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yushchenko, (whose face was badly disfigured in a mysterious poisoning incident before the elections), complained that she had become too divisive and obsessed with self-promotion and insisted she had to go. To this day Ms Tymoshenko claims that Mr Yushchenko dismissed her only under pressure from a group of powerful oligarchs who divided up Ukraine’s juiciest industrial jewels among themselves after the Soviet Union’s demise.

One of her idées fixés as prime minister was to claw back such assets from some of Ukraine’s richest men, first for the state, and then for private investors willing to pay what she considered to be a fair price for them.

It was an approach that won her powerful enemies and saw her accused of populism, a charge she strongly denies. But rather than blaming Mr Yushchenko for her dismissal, she cleverly laid into his entourage whom she has accused of systematically misleading him and turning him against her.

Though she has criticised him, she has never done so too personally or too sharply, always blaming his perceived shortcomings on poor advice from others. Other politicians might have been tempted to bow out of politics after being so publicly driven from office.

But Ms Tymoshenko dug her elegant heels in, portrayed herself as a political martyr, and tenaciously sought to win back Mr Yushchenko’s favour. Frequently emotional when discussing the topic, she openly describes her dismissal as the most painful moment in her eventful life. Indeed, she shed a tear on national TV after being publicly upbraided by Mr Yushchenko, a moment of theatre that endeared her to the nation.

Though many Ukrainians sympathised with her, six months ago her prospects looked uniformly bleak. But if a week is a long time in politics, then half a year has turned out to be an age for Yulia Tymoshenko. A self-confessed workaholic who regularly puts in a 16-hour working day, she has staged a remarkable comeback to the point where she is now poised to win back her old job as prime minister. Her political recovery has as much to do with her unusual, contradictory and gritty character as anything else.

Though she portrays herself as a tireless champion of the working man, if Ukraine had a royal family she would be in it, if not running it. For much about the petite 45-year-old is regal, from the stylised way that she sashays into a room, to the instant attention she commands, even from her political enemies.

The ‘Orange Princess’ moniker which she gained during the Orange Revolution was well deserved. During what turned out to be one of the former Soviet Union’s most profound yet peaceful transitions of power, she made a name for herself as a passionate yet always stylish voice of change.

While the rather uncharismatic Mr Yushchenko ploddingly spoke of the need for change in a monotone voice, she whipped up hundreds of thousands of people into a revolutionary fervour that set the country on a Westwards course.

At a stroke, hundreds of years of Russian influence were rolled back and, together with Mr Yushchenko, she emerged as part of a winning team that exposed the pro-Russian presidential challenger, Viktor Yanukovych, as a fraud and demanded and got a re-run of the country’s presidential election.

Even Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had little reason to like the feisty Ukrainian nationalist, was said to be charmed when he met her after she and Mr Yushchenko had effectively blunted the Kremlin’s influence in the area.

However there is also a lighter side to Julia Tymoshenko. In Ukraine her personal and professional activities are subject to the kind of intense media interest usually reserved for royals in the UK. What she is wearing, which restaurants she is patronising, who her daughter is marrying, and which man she is dating.

All these details are hungrily consumed by Ukrainians in the same way that some Brits obsessively followed the life and times of the late Princess Diana.

She obviously enjoys the attention and has appeared on the front of Ukrainian Elle magazine and said that any ‘real woman’ would be happy to appear on the front cover of Playboy magazine. Intriguingly Ms Tymoshenko has simultaneously managed to maintain a ‘common touch’, a skill that has done wonders for her poll ratings.

Though she lives a fairytale existence well beyond the reach of most of the population, and is reported to hold any number of Swiss bank accounts, she is still viewed by ordinary Ukrainians as ‘one of us’. Her no- nonsense behaviour and populist rhetoric go a long way to explaining such a paradox.

For though she may look like a princess, she has a reputation for straight talking and telling it like it is in a way that some male Ukrainian politicians find hard to take. She is known for making colourful jokes at her opponents’ expense and is not shy of indulging in sexual or suggestive innuendos in a political culture that, like much of the former Soviet Union, is still dominated by unreconstructed machismo.

Her distinctive hair-do – blonde plaits moulded closely to her head like a princess’ crown or ears of wheat – is a traditional and authentic Ukrainian style favoured by peasant girls in the 20th century. It both reinforces her stylised down-to-earthness, chimes nicely with her uncompromising Ukrainian nationalist views, and helps her stand out from the crowd, a talent she has honed to perfection.

But though Ms Tymoshenko’s glamorous image makes waves in a part of the world where politics have traditionally been dull and conformist, she can claim to have substance as well as style

Her gutsy political recovery is a testament to that and barring a major upset, the blonde mother of one will become Ukrainian prime minister for the second time in her life in a matter of weeks. Last month’s parliamentary elections sealed her comeback.

The political bloc she was leading, immodestly named ‘Julia’s Bloc’, came second with some 23 per cent of the vote, more than that of Mr Yushchenko’s party. Her unexpectedly strong showing saw her crowned as the ‘true’ heiress of the Orange Revolution and guaranteed her a place in negotiations to form a new government. She made it clear from the start that there was only one job she would consider in the new government: that of prime minister.

Under newly introduced changes to the Ukrainian constitution, it is a post that carries more power than the president whose powers have been scaled back. In person Ms Tymoshenko comes across as someone with searing self-belief and confidence.

Meeting her is a bit like interviewing a pop star. When The Sunday Herald Magazine had an audience with her in Kiev recently at the headquarters of her ‘Fatherland’ party, she kept her would-be interrogators waiting for over an hour after cancelling a previous interview on a different day.

When she finally entered the room she walked in swiftly and confidently, made no reference to her extreme lateness, and then proceeded to win the room over like a real pro. One of her favourite colours is white, largely because, along with her trademark blonde plaits, it helps her stand out from the crowd and gives her an almost saintly aura.

This occasion was to be no different – a white fur coat hung off her narrow shoulders, and she wore a skinny white polo neck with the logo of her party on her chest – a blazing scarlet heart which symbolises her love of the Ukrainian people.

Though much has been made of her supposed hostility to Russia and her language of choice is always Ukrainian, she spoke fluent Russian on this occasion. Over the course of the next hour she laughed and joked, looked weepy-eyed, held the gaze of any journalist who asked her a question for as long as it took her to answer, and promoted herself as if she had just taken a Max Clifford master class in the subject. She was also characteristically blunt speaking.

“Yes, I really do have a negative attitude towards people in Mr Yushchenko’s entourage,” she admitted. “These people have been giving the wrong advice to the president for the past year and a half.”

She speaks without pausing, her hands clasped together, and at times her manner resembles that of a vexed school teacher. She is also not shy of playing on her femininity and indeed on her sexuality.

“It’s very interesting,” she says with a hint of a smile “that men prefer to put women (rather than themselves) forward when it comes to the front row of politics.”

The image of herself as a strong decisive female figure is clearly one she likes; she relishes recounting how her male rivals – the pro-Russian politician Viktor Yanukovych and the man who succeeded her as prime minister, Yuri Yekhanurov – refused to face her in live TV debates. “I invited them, but they didn’t have enough courage to face me unfortunately. Elections without live TV debates are like phone sex. They don’t end satisfactorily.”

The idea that her opponents are afraid to face her on equal terms runs through the interview. When asked who she would rather meet in a dark alley she quips that none of her political opponents would dare to meet her in such a situation with or without bodyguards.

Her immodesty is as apparent as her knack for relentless self-promotion. “If I had the energy to talk about all my achievements (as prime minister before she was sacked) I’d be here all night, but I value your time,” she remarks without a hint of irony. She is unapologetic about this side of her character. “Every politician worries about their image, it’s normal. Public relations is extraordinarily important for political figures.”

Cheekily, she then uses the question to reel off a long list of her alleged achievements when she was prime minister last year. So successful were her reforms, she claims, that some probably qualify for the Guinness Book of Records. Coming from another politician such hyperbolic self-aggrandisement would be hard to take, but somehow she manages to get away with it and still seem likeable.

Her answers have her audience laughing out loud and shaking their heads in disbelief at her sheer boldness, but always rapt. She talks a good talk. Though the Orange Revolution has undoubtedly disappointed in some respects she robustly defends it.

The media is freer, she points out, last month’s elections were the country’s most democratic to date, and political life is genuinely vibrant. Not, she admits, that there isn’t a lot to do such as achieving final victory over the oligarchs, sacking corrupt government officials and taking back more state companies that she considers were ‘stolen’ from the people in the wild Nineties.

When asked whether she feels bitterness towards Mr Yushchenko for sacking her and what the state of their relations are (there are reports that they have not been on speaking terms since she was fired) she comes up with another quirky sound bite quoting none other than Queen Victoria.

“I just close my eyes, lay back and think of Ukraine,” she says. “I don’t have any bitterness.”

Her life story would make a good film. Though technically still married to her husband Oleksander Tymoshenko, it is an open secret that the two live apart and she has been linked to a string of well-known and powerful men. Educated as an economist, she made her first serious money in 1988 taking out a loan with her husband to start a video rentals business before moving into the energy sector.

In 1995 she became the president of United Energy Systems of Ukraine, one of the former USSR’s biggest companies, but was forced to leave after she and other senior company figures were accused of fraud.

It was during this period that she is reported to have made serious amounts of money – analysts estimates’ of her personal wealth vary wildly, but the real figure is said to run into billions of dollars. In 1996 she moved into politics becoming an MP, going on to lead the nationalist ‘Fatherland Party,’ and eventually serving as deputy prime minister.

She has had two brushes with the law, but has successfully cleared her name in both cases arguing that she was persecuted for her political activism. In the first instance the Ukrainian authorities accused her of illegally siphoning off billions of dollars of Russian gas, a charge that saw her spend 42 days in jail.

In the second, Russia accused her of bribing officials in its defence ministry. In Ukraine a novel loosely based on her life called To Kill Julia recently appeared and sold strongly.

She also has the dubious distinction of being one of the world’s few female politicians to have inspired a pornographic film. The trashy movie, made by a Russian nationalist MP, has her conducting an intimate relationship with the president of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

Her daughter Yevgenia, who studied at the London School of Economics, recently married an Englishman who sings in an amateur rock band called The Death Valley Screamers, a move that generated yet more publicity for Tymoshenko senior.

If and when she is confirmed as prime minister it will be a return to the political and indeed global stage that she will savour. She is certain to keep generating headlines for years ahead and is unlikely to lose her skill for winning even her most recalcitrant critics over.

“Do you really think I can charm people?,” she once said in an interview. “That’s interesting, I never would have thought so.”

Source: Sunday Herald

Bookmark and Share

Twenty Years On, Effects From Chernobyl Disaster Go On

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine -- Twenty years ago, explosions at the Chernobyl power plant sent a huge radioactive cloud into the air in the world's worst civilian nuclear accident that still affects millions of people today.

Part of the 60,000 "liquidators" sent in to clean up the radioactive debris on the roof of reactor number 4

At 1:23 am on April 26, 1986, a series of explosions ripped through reactor four at the plant in the north of what is today Ukraine, near its border with Belarus. Radiation fell across much of Europe.

For days, the Soviet leadership refused to admit -- either to its own people or to the world -- what had happened less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) north of a major city, Kiev, and near the huge Dniepr River that criss-crossed Ukraine and provided much of its water supply.

Only after the news blackout ended were 135,000 people evacuated from the most affected areas around the plant.

To this day, Chernobyl fuels controversies over the use of nuclear power, attracts tourists and researchers, feeds fears of another release, continues to claim victims, and gobbles huge amounts of international funds.

An army of some 600,000 "liquidators" -- firemen, soldiers and civilians -- helped to construct a concrete sarcophagus meant to contain the reactor for 20 to 30 years before a more permanent structure could be built.

The fate awaiting these people and others exposed to radiation from the blast is one of the main controversies still surrounding the plant.

In its latest report on the disaster released in September, the United Nations estimated that fewer people will eventually perish than was initially predicted.

The report, the work of some 100 scientists from eight UN agencies, said up to 4,000 would eventually die as a result of the accident, in addition to the nearly 60 people who have already died.

Environmental groups like Greenpeace rejected the findings as "whitewash," collusion "with the nuclear lobby" and "insulting for the victims." They estimate that the death toll will be in the tens of thousands.

In addition to health effects like thyroid cancer, survivors also deal with psychological problems.

A study of more than 2,000 "liquidators" by the Serbsky Psychiatric Institute in Moscow found that two thirds of them suffered from psychological illnesses.

"Considering their young age at the time of the accident, all of the negative effects have not appeared yet," said Galina Rumyantseva, who led the study.

Regions affected by the accident remain today both socially and economically devastated. Some 350,000 people have been evacuated from the surrounding areas in all. Some 784,320 hectares of prime agricultural land remain ruined, as do 700,000 hectares of forest.

The United Nations estimates that the eventual price tag of the disaster will run to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Today, the sarcophagus over reactor four is cracked and crumbling, raising fears that more radiation can be released.

Some 28 countries have pledged to chip in more than 750 million dollars toward the construction of a new 20,000-tonne steel case. The cover is expected to cost between one and two billion dollars and is hoped to be finished by 2012.

But it will take at least a hundred years to safely get rid of dangerous fuel and debris inside the plant, said spokeswoman Yulia Marusich.

The plant, whose last reactor was shut down for good only in 2000, continues to attract attention -- tourists come to gawk, while researchers come to observe the remarkable flourishing of flora and fauna.

Hundreds of mostly elderly people who lived in villages around the plant have ignored government restrictions and warnings of radiation to resettle in the 30-kilometre (18.6-mile) exclusion zone around the plant, raising animals and eating fruits and berries from the radiation-soaked land.

The final effects from the series of explosions that occurred in the early hours at a Soviet nuclear power plant in 1986 may not be known for years, scientists say.

"We may not see anything today, but genetic modifications can appear in 20, 50 years," says Rudolf Alexakhin, director of the Agricultural Radiology Institute in Moscow.

Source: AFP

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 15, 2006

A Tour Of Chernobyl Is Troubling Visit

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Ukraine -- The visit to the Chernobyl power plant begins as a bit of a letdown. I had expected the 30-mile-radius contaminated zone around the plant to be strewn with shriveled tree trunks and rotting cottages and empty of life.

View of the gray cracked and crumbling sarcophagus covering the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's damaged Reactor No. 4. The reactor exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive clouds across much of Europe. Ukraine is preparing to mark the 20th anniversary later this month.

But after camouflaged guards check our passports and motion our van through the barrier at the edge of the zone, there is oncoming traffic. In the town of Chernobyl, 11 miles from the plant, laundry hangs on balconies, people chat with each other on the street and a small store has well-stocked shelves: bananas, vodka, pasta sauce.

About 4,000 people live in Chernobyl _ but only for two weeks at a time. They are workers brought in for short rotations to keep watch on the contaminated zone around the reactor and carry out decontamination work.

Others live in the zone permanently, despite official warnings.

One of them is 71-year-old Mariya Urupa, who lives outside town in a cozy brick house.

"Radiation does not exist because you can't see it," she tells us.

You almost start to believe her, and then the tour changes drastically.

The plant, which had been just a hazy mass on the horizon, comes starkly into view as our van bumps down a potholed road. First, we pass the abandoned hulks of what would have been Chernobyl's new fifth and sixth reactors, surrounded by giant cranes frozen in place since the April 26, 1986, explosion.

The station's core complex is laid out flat and long like a sleeping giant. As we circle it, we count up: Reactor No. 1, No. 2. Mathematically, we know we are headed toward No. 4. But we seem impossibly close. The van turns a corner and stops. Dead in front of us are the adjoined hulks of the structures housing Reactors No. 3 and 4.

We are no more than 650 feet away from the reactor that blew up and spewed radiation across Europe.

Radio music wafts over the low concrete wall that surrounds the complex. A women's voice relays something indistinguishable over loudspeakers.

But there is nothing ordinary about this. The beeps of our dosimeter, which until now has done little to alarm us, turn frenetic, bumping together: 490 microroentgens an hour, then 520, then around 700.

"Normal background levels are around 12 microroentgens," our guide, Yuriy Tatarchuk, tells us cheerfully.

Standing there, peering up at the reactor, my first instinct is not to breathe. My second is: Wow! And we all temporarily abandon the journalistic aim of our trip, and turn into tourists, snapping photographs of each other with Reactor No. 4 towering behind us.

Tatarchuk watches patiently. He's used to this, having brought many journalists into the zone on behalf of the Emergency Situations Ministry.

When we are done posing, Tatarchuk beckons us inside a separate building where a model of the ruined reactor and the sarcophagus surrounding it are on display.

The concrete sarcophagus is in trouble. Soviet authorities ordered it built over the reactor's spewing insides in a hurry; today it is crumbling and covered in cracks. Inside, we're told, the reactor's original columns are leaning Tower of Pisa-like. The roof in places doesn't fully close. Birds have gotten inside. It leaks radiation.

When it's time to move on, no one argues. Next stop: Pripyat, a Soviet-town constructed in the 1970s to house the plant's workers. At the gated entrance, a lone mutt comes up to our van's open door while the guards again check off our names.

"He's the last one left," Tatarchuk says.

Pripyat's streets are empty and thick with snow. We are struck by the silence. This is the lifelessness I expected. An amusement park that was expected to open May 1, 1986 _ five days after the explosion _ sits desolate: bumper cars on their sides, the Ferris wheel frozen in place.

Pripyat's 47,000 people were evacuated in convoys of buses and boats down the Pripyat River in four hours the day after the explosion. They were told that they would be leaving for three days; they had to leave their pets behind.

Their apartments, once meant as a reward to the Soviet Union's proud nuclear workers, are now crumbling and vandalized. We climb the iced-over steps into the city's tallest structure, a 16-story apartment building. Dust, debris and broken glass litter the floor. The wallpaper is peeling off in big, curlycue strips.

"Not only adults but children too are responsible for cleanliness," a Soviet-era sign exhorts.

We have no face masks, so cover our mouths with scarves as we trudge into apartments, most emptied of everything, even toilet seats and electrical fixtures.

On the roof, the entire city stretches out below us _ noticeable for its Soviet-era absence of church domes.

When will people return here, we ask.

"Return to what?" Tatarchuk answers.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine’s Orange Coalition Suffers Setback

KIEV, Ukraine -- A day after Ukraine’s “orange revolution” parties signed an agreement to form a governing coalition, cracks have appeared in the fragile union, AFP reported.

Can Yushchenko (R) ever make peace with Tymoshenko (L)?

Members of President Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc have voted to support all but one of the points of the agreement in principle signed by party leaders the previous day. The rejected section would have made it easier for Yulia Tymoshenko, the President’s estranged “orange revolution” partner, to become the prime minister in the new Government.

Yushchenko is widely believed to oppose her appointment.

Yulia Tymoshenko has blasted the move as a “torpedoing of this agreement”. “We think ... that Our Ukraine should get together once more and approve the complete protocol,” she said.

The Socialists, the third party in the “orange” coalition that would control 243 seats in the 450-member Upper Rada legislature, also criticizes the measure.

The agreement the trio signed lays out six major steps they will take on their way to formally creating a majority coalition in Parliament following legislative elections in late March. The sixth step was inserted at the last minute by Tymoshenko.

It states that the final coalition agreement will be based on a memorandum that the three parties prepared but never signed ahead of the March 26 ballot.

That memorandum says that the party that gets the most votes will get to name the next premier.

Tymoshenko, who trounced Yushchenko’s party in the poll, has demanded that she return to head the government in any union. The fiery and ambitious Tymoshenko helped Yushchenko lead the “orange revolution” protests that kept a Russian-backed candidate out of power in late 2004. But she split with the President after he fired her as premier in September.

The pro-Russian opposition, Regions Party, is due to receive 186 seats in the new Parliament, Tymoshenko’s bloc 129, Our Ukraine 81, the Socialists 33 and the Communists 21.

Source: MosNews

Bookmark and Share

Stalling Is Dangerous For Ukraine

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainians should be proud of what they accomplished during the parliamentary elections on March 26.

President Viktor Yushchenko

They chose, once again, the values they had stood by during the 2004 Orange Revolution: a pro-Western president, an end to corruption and greater economic well-being through the re-privatization of questionably acquired state property. Around 42 percent gave the Orange parties the go-ahead to form a government to implement this platform.

The pro-Russian forces, comprising the Donetsk-based Party of Regions and the Communists, received 36 percent. The majority of voters rewarded politically those who wish to take them forward. They punished those who prefer ties with the past.

However, President Viktor Yushchenko does not appear to be listening. Weeks after the elections, there is little progress in the formation of a government, even though Ukraine badly needs to get on with national reforms in the judicial process, tax structure, health, education, social safety nets and much, much more.

There is little clarity why the Orange – former Prime Minister Yulia Tymosheno’s bloc with 22 percent, Our Ukraine with 13.9 percent and the Socialist Party with 5.6 percent – are not being asked to govern Ukraine.

In an April 4 Wall Street Journal Europe article, President Yushchenko listed his achievements of yesterday and lectures on the need for unity among all three winners. Unity in a democracy may not be the best option.

Without a strong opposition to serve as a people’s watchdog, it may tempt insiders to cut a favorable deal for themselves. It could even be dangerous. Ukraine has a long history of the ultimate in political unity – communist dictatorship.

Ukrainians should be very mindful of the danger this carries. The president’s stalling is undermining the will of the people. It is dangerous for Ukraine.

By stalling, President Yushchenko is not redeeming himself in the eyes of the people. Many blame him for splitting the Orange vote during the elections.

Despite that, and thanks to the former prime minister whom he fired, Yulia Tymoshenko’s commanding support gives the three Orange parties enough to lead in the Rada for the next four years.

For this, she seeks and rightfully deserves the position of prime minister. Asking her to put her political interests aside at this juncture seems inappropriate and begs the question: where do the President’s interests lie?

Ukrainians may recall that after the 2002 Rada elections Mr. Yushchenko allowed over 20 Our Ukraine members to join parties loyal to then-President Leonid Kuchma, thereby losing Our Ukraine’s rightfully won majority. Before that, there was his prominent absence from the anti-Kuchma riots.

Even then, Yushchenko would not join in with others to oust the corrupt pro-Russian government of President Kuchma. Many believe that he was instrumental in firing Yulia Tymoshenko twice: last summer, and when she served under President Kuchma in the late 90s.

The last election campaign of Our Ukraine was a bad judgment call, too. It was anemic and confusing, as if the president’s heart wasn’t in it. Sometimes the president’s interventions were simply not helpful. For instance, he undermined his credibility and that of the Orange parties by talking of punishing those who violate the electoral process.

Good. However, this was being said while the key violator of the 2004 elections, now former Central Election Commission chairman Serhiy Kivalov, was enjoying his sinecure. Ironically, Kivalov has become head of the justice department at Odessa’s National Academy of Law.

The ineffective Our Ukraine campaign was but a top-up to a year of ineffective politics under President Yushchenko. The year culminated in the dismissal of the Cabinet and the gas fiasco with Russia.

The situation in Ukraine could have been dire if the European Union, fearful that its gas may be cut off, had not cried foul. But why did the president of Ukraine not lead the charge and cry foul when his own people were in danger of freezing to death? Why the hush-hush RosUkrEnergo deal? Why the continuing lack of transparency on this matter?

If he is the pro-Western democratic Ukrainian patriot of the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko needs to ask Yulia Tymoshenko to form a government now. That is what the people have called for in their vote. They have given her a mandate. A true democrat would honor that. A good president of Ukraine would honor that.

However, if Yushchenko is being lured into another game, one that might favor Russia’s interests over Ukraine’s, one that is pro-oligarch rather than pro-Ukrainian people, or is in some other way kept from responding clearly and transparently to the voters’ choice, he will vacillate.

He will do this by calling for conferences, rationalizing the election results, catching paralyses by analyses and faltering until some powerful hand forces an option favorable to its self-interests rather than those of Ukraine. This is the danger for Ukraine.

That force might be Viktor Yanukovych of the Party of Regions. However, Yanukovych lost nearly half of the support he had during the presidential elections of 2004. This does not make him a winner in the eyes of Russia or the oligarchs. It makes him yesterday’s man.

More than likely, the next force will be the Party of Regions’ real money and power man, Rinat Akhmetov. Considered one of the richest men in the world by Forbes magazine, Akhmetov made it rich in Ukraine on questionably acquired state properties.

Obtaining such a lofty position as prime minister of the second largest country in Europe would be good for Akhmetov. He aspires to be an international entrepreneur with a seat on international stock exchanges.

This requires not only money, which he has, but respectability and gentrification, both of which come with a prime minister’s title. But is this good for Ukraine?

The people did not think so. They did not choose this. Against all odds, they rallied around Yulia Tymoshenko. They elected her at the expense of the Party of Regions and the likes of Mr. Akhmetov. And despite the abysmal showing of the president’s own Our Ukraine.

The president can respond to the will of the people or respond to other interests. His reputation in history and the future of Ukraine lie in the balance.

Source: Kyiv Post

Bookmark and Share

Split Appears Among Ukrainian Parties Over Coalition Deal

KIEV, Ukraine -- Cracks have emerged in Ukraine's three-bloc union on Friday -- just one day after the parties clinched a preliminary deal to form a governing coalition.

Ukraine's former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko (C), Socialist Party leader Oleksander Moroz (R) and Roman Bezsmertny, campaign chief of the pro-presidential Our Ukraine party

The split centers on one of the trio's refusal to fully endorse the deal.

Members of President Viktor Yushchenko's Our Ukraine bloc voted to support all but one of the provisions of the agreement signed by party leaders on Thursday.

The rejected provision relates to the proceeding concerning the nomination of prime minister, which Our Ukraine said would make it easy for ex-premier Yulia Tymoshenko to be restored to the post.

Tymoshenko, after whom her political bloc has been named, was fired from the job last year.

Tymoshenko blasted the move as the "torpedoing of this agreement" and called on Yushchenko to intervene as the leader of Our Ukraine bloc.

"We think ... that Our Ukraine should get together once more and approve the complete protocol," she said.

Our Ukraine bloc's move was also criticized by the third party in the coalition, the Socialists, who said it deprived the coalition of a working mechanism.

Ukraine held parliamentary elections on March 26. Five parties won seats in the 450-member parliament, but none of them held an outright majority, making a coalition government inevitable.

The Yulia Tymoshenko bloc, Our Ukraine, and the Socialist Party, which belong to the same so-called "Orange" coalition, struck the preliminary deal to form a governing coalition on Thursday and would control altogether 243 seats -- a majority in the 450-member parliament.

Source: Xinhua

Bookmark and Share

New Russian Missiles To Be Unrivalled For Next 15-20 Years

MOSCOW, Russia -- New Russian missiles will easily be able to penetrate any prospective missile shield and will remain unrivalled for the next 15-20 years, the head of Russia’s top missile design institute has said.

Topol-M ballistic missile

Yuri Solomonov, the head of the Heat Technology Institute, the top Russian missile-design center, quoted by AP, said the Topol-M and Bulava ballistic missiles would form the core of the nation’s nuclear forces until 2040 and allow Russia to maintain nuclear parity with the U.S..

Each Bulava missile is equipped with six nuclear warheads, and Solomonov said Russia would easily be able to maintain at least 2,000 nuclear warheads by 2011. “By 2011, 2016 and even more so by 2020 the number of warheads will be no fewer than 2,000,” he said.

“The Russian people can sleep calmly through 2040,” Solomonov said when asked to comment on allegations that a slow pace of replacement of Russia’s Soviet-built nuclear arsenals with new strategic weapons systems was eroding the nation’s nuclear deterrent capability.

He said Russia would soon unveil specific plans to adapt the Bulava missile being developed for Russian nuclear submarines for use with land-based strategic missile forces as well.

Source: MosNews

Bookmark and Share

Chernobyl Health Effects Still Not Known

KIEV, Ukraine -- With every cough and sore throat, every ache and pain, Valentyna Stanyuk feels Chernobyl stalking her.

Shoes and a gas mask for children are left in a kindergarten in Ukraine's ghost town of Pripyat - near Chernobyl

"It's only a matter of time," she said as she waited for a thyroid test at a mobile Red Cross clinic in her village of Bystrichy, 240 km west of Chernobyl.

The tests came back clean, but that's little reassurance to this 54-year-old or to millions of others who live in parts of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia that were heavily irradiated when the nuclear reactor exploded 20 years ago, spewing radioactive clouds over Ukraine and much of Europe for 10 days.

The April 26, 1986, disaster forced the evacuation of large swaths of some of the Soviet Union's best farmland and forests. The radiation spread far enough to be detected in reindeer meat in Norway and rainfall in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

It shocked most European countries into a generation-long freeze on building nuclear plants. And the effect on the health of the people exposed to its invisible poisons? That is the most heatedly debated legacy of Chernobyl.

"There is so much that we still don't know," said Dr. Volodymyr Sert, head of a team of Red Cross doctors who canvass Ukraine's rural Zhytomyr region in search of thyroid abnormalities — one of the few health problems that all scientists agree is linked to Chernobyl's fallout.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Friday, April 14, 2006

Ukraine Wants To Restart Suspended AIDS Programme

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine wants to restart a $60 million World Bank programme to fight tuberculosis and AIDS suspended by the global lender because the money was misused, Health Minister Yuri Polyachenko said on Friday.


Polyachenko acknowledged the problem but said the programme was crucial for fighting the growing threat of tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS and a deal to revive it could be reached within a month.

"Unfortunately these funds have not been used for the most urgent needs," Polyachenko told reporters. "They went to buy office furniture, cars and computers."

"At the latest meeting with the World Bank leadership, we agreed that we will review the purchases portfolio. If there is an agreement we will resume the project," he added.

The World Bank said earlier this week it was suspending the loan because it had proved ineffective and the money had not been properly distributed. Only two percent of the $60 million available had been disbursed in three years, the bank said.

Ukraine, a country of 47 million people on the border with the European Union, has one of the fastest growing rates of AIDS and HIV in Europe. More than 1 percent of the adult population is infected.

Tuberculosis is a major problem, particularly in prisons.

Source: Reuters

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine's 'Orange' Parties Move Closer To Coalition

KIEV, Ukraine -- The three parties that were central to Ukraine's Orange Revolution on April 13 signed a protocol aimed at advancing the process of forming a coalition government and ending a long wrangle after last month's parliamentary elections.

Three parties after the signing of the protocol

But more talks will be needed before the Our Ukraine, Bloc Tymoshenko and Socialist parties formally agree to a coalition.

The parties comprise politicians who supported the 2004 "Orange Revolution" demonstrations that helped bring President Viktor Yushchenko to power, but who later divided amid squabbles and maneuvering.

A reunion of the former Orange Revolution allies would keep Ukraine on its pro-Western course, but could further alienate the country's east and south, which leans toward Russia.

The party that got the most votes in the March 26 elections is led by Viktor Yanukovych, who ran against Yushchenko in the fraud-plagued 2004 elections that sparked the Orange Revolution. However, that party fell short of getting a majority of seats in the Verkhovna Rada, the country's parliament.

Yushchenko had not excluded the possibility of trying to form a coalition of Our Ukraine and Yanukovych's Party of Regions.

But Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister who heads the party bearing her name, insisted that the April 13 signing of the document meant the coalition would exclude Yanukovych's party.

"The coalition consists of three and only three forces, and that's all there is to it," Tymoshenko told reporters. "This document begins all the procedures regarding the formation of the coalition ... I am happy this took place."

The most contentious question apparently remaining to be resolved in forming an "Orange" coalition is that of Tymoshenko's role. She intensely wants to return to the prime minister's post, which she held for several months after Yushchenko's election but from which she was fired last fall.

Tymoshenko claimed the protocol stipulated that the party in the prospective coalition with the most votes - hers - would choose a prime minister. But Roman Bezsmertny, a senior Our Ukraine official, said it was too early to discuss who would be premier.

Bezsmertny was also cautious about the document, saying more work was still needed.

Yanukovych's spokeswoman Anna German expressed skepticism, saying the revival of the alliance that triumphed over Yanukovych in 2004 was far from final.

Yanukovych would continue consulting with all parties in parliament and putting forward his own proposals for cooperation, she told The Associated Press.

The document confirms the parties' intention to unite in a parliamentary coalition and lays out a long list of rules and procedures for its formation.

It also calls for drafting a coalition agreement that should be approved by each party in the proposed coalition. The agreement will address the main political and economic issues facing Ukraine, which is a potential source of discord.

Yushchenko said April 12 that candidates for prime minister should be discussed only after a governing coalition is formed and agrees on these issues.

Lawmakers have one month to convene parliament, then 30 days to form a parliamentary majority and another 30 days to form a government. If they fail to form a parliamentary majority in time, Yushchenko can dissolve the legislature and call new elections.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

U.S. Congressional Delegation Visits Ukraine

KIEV, Ukraine -- A group of U.S. senators on Thursday praised Ukraine's recent parliamentary election as democratic, and said the United States was ready to work with any coalition government that will be formed.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko (L) greets U.S. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist in Kiev April 13, 2006. The U.S. congressional delegation visited Ukraine as part of their trip to several ex-Soviet states aimed at improving bilateral relations.

Leading politicians elected in the March 26 vote, billed by this ex-Soviet republic as its most democratic ever, are in the midst of uneasy coalition talks aimed at forming a Cabinet because no party won a majority.

"We congratulate the people of the Ukraine for their free and fair recent elections; we witness the Ukraine strengthening its democracy through such elections," said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, who is leading the delegation.

"We look forward as a nation to working with whoever emerges in that government," First told reporters.

The pro-presidential Our Ukraine party, which came in third in the voting, has held several rounds of talks with its former allies in the 2004 street protests against electoral fraud that ushered Viktor Yushchenko to the presidency and became known as the Orange Revolution.

A reunion of the former Orange Revolution allies would keep Ukraine on its pro-Western course, but could further alienate the country's east and south, which leans toward Russia.

The delegation has met with representatives of all the main political forces, including Yushchenko, his ally-turned-rival Yulia Tymoshenko, and his opponent in the bitter 2004 presidential contest, Viktor Yanukovych – who leads the pro-Russian party that won the most votes in the parliamentary elections.

"The United States and Ukraine have a strong relationship that continues to grow and strengthen the ties between our two peoples," Frist said.

Yushchenko's administration has sought closer ties with the West, and Frist praised Ukraine's progress in building democracy and civil society, citing the recent decision by U.S. Congress to repeal Cold War-era human rights legislation that had stood in the way of Ukraine joining the World Trade Organization.

Frist urged Ukraine to enter the world's biggest trading club as soon as possible and pledged U.S. support. "We strongly support Ukraine's membership in the WTO ... it will help Ukraine's economy grow, it will help the creation of jobs," he said.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Lose Flashy Car, Leader Tells Top Official

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine's president has told a top member of his administration to sell a flashy new car with built-in massage seats, paid for with state funds because the official was used to riding around in the latest top of the range models.

$200,000 S-Class Mercedes

"Yesterday... we had a talk and I asked him that the car be sold immediately," Viktor Yushchenko told a news conference in Kiev on Wednesday.

The move came after a muckracking online newspaper here reported last week that Olexiy Ivchenko, head of the state oil and gas firm Naftogaz, was riding around in a new Mercedes worth more than $200 000 (about UAH1,2-million).

Ivchenko said the car was bought by a Naftogaz subsidiary for his use because "since 1992 I've ridden around in the latest models. The only thing that's changed is that every two years I have upgraded to the latest Mercedes model... I won't betray my traditions."

"I think that a director of such an enterprise should ride around in the most decent and most expensive car," Ivchenko told Ukrainian media after the report was published in Ukrainska Pravda.

The car's cost "is a drop in the ocean that can hardly affect Naftogaz's finances," he said.

The Ukrainian president disagreed.

"State structures should behave themselves adequately to their needs," he said on Wednesday, adding that he told Ivchenko to "get back to the car that you used to drive and it will in no way affect your status".

The Ukrainian leader himself was embroiled in a scandal last summer after revelations by Ukrainska Pravda that his oldest son Andriy, a university student, drove a top-end car worth well over $121 000 and used a cellphone with a €4 000 price tag.

Yushchenko said at the time that his son had rented the car with earnings from a part-time job.

Source: Independent Online

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine Leaders Inch Towards Coalition Deal

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko, and the leaders of three pro-western political groups were yesterday edging towards a coalition pact that would set the stage for the return of his rival Yulia Tymoshenko at the head of a new "Orange" cabinet.

Yushchenko meeting with the parliament election winners

Mr Yushchenko, who last September fired Ms Tymoshenko after a seven-month term as prime minister that was marked by constant cabinet infighting, held back yesterday from endorsing her return.

But he made clear he would not stand in the way if his Our Ukraine bloc agreed to back Ms Tymoshenko, an outcome that looks increasingly likely.

"I don't have any objections to any candidates. My position will be formed not on the basis of my emotions, but on the extent to which we have a clearly defined plan of action of the future coalition," Mr Yushchenko said.

Ms Tymoshenko's return has been widely predicted since a March 26 vote made her Tymoshenko bloc the largest of three pro-western Orange groups - so-called because they supported the 2004 Orange Revolution - which together will hold 243 of parliament's 450 seats.

Talks were scheduled to continue today with a meeting between Ms Tymoshenko, Socialist lead-er Olexander Moroz and Roman Bezsmertny of Our Ukraine.

Yosyp Vinsky, deputy leader of the Socialists, said the three partners would sign a preliminary coalition agreement today.

Mr Yushchenko said he also wanted "constructive" ties with the opposition, made up of the pro-Russian Regions and Communist parties. He said he would "take into account" opposition victories in eastern and southern regions when appointing regional governors.

The new parliament is expected to have its firstsession in mid-May. But the opening could be pushed back by a court challenge to the election results brought by the People's Opposition, a radical pro-Russian group that narrowly missed the 3 per cent minimum needed to enter parliament.

Source: Financial Times

Bookmark and Share

U.S. To Keep Providing Aid To Ukrainian Media

KIEV, Ukraine -- Despite widespread acknowledgement that Ukraine’s media have become much freer since President Viktor Yushchenko came to power over a year ago, the United States plans to continue spending millions of dollars financing the development of independent journalism in the country.

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst told a conference in Kyiv April 10 that the U.S. will allocate $2.3 million to support the growth of objective sources of news in Ukraine in 2006.

Herbst credited the authorities who came to power on the crest of Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, noting that journalists are no longer being killed, and law-enforcement agencies aren’t harassing them anymore.

The U.S. will continue funding the development of Internet sites and special reports on economic and social subjects, Herbst said.

The United States Agency for International Development alone has earmarked around $2.4 million for its two major media development programs in fiscal year 2005, according to Assia Ivantcheva, deputy director for USAID’s office of democracy and government. Ivantcheva said the budget for fiscal year 2006 would be about the same.

The Kyiv branch of Internews, a U.S.-based non-governmental organization, and Ukraine’s Center for Ukrainian Reform Education, have received multi-million-dollar grants from USAID over several years.

Internews is mostly involved in providing things like training for journalists, media lawyers and managers, plus legal aid and legislative assistance.

This training and assistance is implemented by Ukrainian partner organizations like Kyiv NGO Telekritika.

Telekritika, which offers a website and monthly journal, analyzes media and conducts sociological surveys, radio shows and roundtables on media issues.

Supported primarily by Internews, as well as the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy, Telekritika receives an average of $100,000 a year in funding, said Natalya Ligacheva, who heads the NGO.

Internews also provides some grants for equipment purchases, production of radio and TV programs and the kind of monitoring and research work mentioned by Ambassador Herbst.

Ivantcheva said that grants, or direct financial assistance to media-related projects conducted by Ukrainian NGOs, are allocated on a competitive basis through the so-called Open Media Fund, which is jointly sponsored and implemented by the International Renaissance Foundation – a part of the Soros Foundations Network, founded and chaired by billionaire and philanthropist George Soros – and USAID-funded Internews.

The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv also awards grants directly, which are approved by a board.

“Most of these grants run from three to eight thousand dollars,” said Brent Byers, press attache at the U.S. Embassy.

Byers said the Embassy allocated around $750,000 in 2005 and plans to allocate as much this year. The money is used to finance websites for Ukrainian newspapers, the occasional purchases of office equipment and special projects.

“But we don’t tell them what to write,” said Byers.

“The only restriction is that we don’t support state media,” he added. “The whole idea is to help Ukrainian media become independent.”

USAID’s main focus is development of regional media, said Ivantcheva. Indirectly or directly, the agency supports 20-30 local radio and TV broadcasters and 15-16 local newspapers.

The Center for Ukrainian Reform Education, USAID’s second major recipient of funding, concentrates on public education and press events through its 25 regional centers.

Ukrainian media also receive support from Europe.

"The EU no doubt is the biggest donor to Ukraine and its support has been significantly raised since 2003,” said Helene Chraye, head of operations for the Delegation of the European Commission to Ukraine.

According to the delegation, between 2003 and 2004, the EC approved three grants totaling over 325,000 euros and one service project for 1.2 million euros to support independent media in Ukraine.

Since 2005, the EC has sponsored a 2-million-euro project called “Development of Media Skills”. Currently, the EC is conducting an ongoing tender for grants under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, an EU program that promotes human rights and democracies in developing countries, to support freedom of expression, with grants of between 300,000 and 1 million euros.

“However, the point is not which donor organization is spending more or less money in a specific area or on specific modalities, like grants or loans,” said Chraye. “We are developing strong coordination mechanisms with other donors, not only through meetings, but by preparing joint projects.”

Source: Kyiv Post

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Poison And Power In Ukraine

KIEV, Ukraine -- Tell someone in the Ukrainian capital that you have an appointment with President Viktor Yushchenko, and you will quickly be showered with advice, suggestions and requests.

President Viktor Yushchenko

"Please, tell him to ask the Americans to fund Radio Liberty," one woman begged. Another gave me a book she had published, asking me to pass it on. A Ukrainian journalist said not to bother asking Yushchenko whether he had yet found out who had attempted to poison him with dioxin during the bitter 2004 presidential election campaign.

Surely he knew the criminal's identity perfectly well. Instead, he said, it would be more interesting to find out why, exactly, the president had withheld this important information from the public.

Particularly given the atmosphere of semi-hysteria that surrounds the president -- the extra-high security, the canceled and rescheduled appointments, the multiple telephone calls from multiple aides -- this sort of talk made me feel as if I were about to encounter a remote, all-powerful figure, the sort of politician who can make things happen with the snap of a finger.

And at some level, this is indeed what Ukrainians expect their president to be: Consciously or otherwise, they assume that their democratically elected leader has the same omnipotence that their communist leaders once had, the same bureaucratic resources, even the same access to secret information. He can get the Americans to fund Radio Liberty, help a publishing house survive and manipulate information about infamous crimes, all at once.

But, of course, he does not have the same powers and resources, as Yushchenko himself makes clear. I met him in his office, a vast room whose pretentious, palatial design has been hidden beneath the president's equally vast collection of Ukrainian folk art.

One of the first things he told me was that the criminal investigation into his poisoning had stalled. When he first came to office, the Ukrainian chief prosecutor -- still loyal to the previous, post-communist regime -- had dawdled, prevaricated and let the top witness in the case depart for Russia.

The president, whose face is still mottled by side effects of the poison, said that Ukrainian authorities had asked the Russians to hand the witness over for questioning.

And? He shrugged. "You see how it is," he said.

In any country, poor relations with a larger neighbor could damage a president's political career. But for Yushchenko they pose a particularly difficult problem. Far from omnipotent, he is surrounded by corrupt officials, many of whom are easily won over by a Kremlin awash in oil money, most of whom are still loyal to the previous, pro-Russian, post-communist regime.

As president in a parliamentary system, his powers are limited in any case, but in Ukraine, where secret information his police officers intercept is more likely to be sent to Moscow than given to him, they are almost nonexistent.

This might be true even if the Russian government were deeply committed to keeping Yushchenko in power: But Russian authorities have never tried very hard to hide their disapproval of Yushchenko, who was declared winner of the election only after mass demonstrations -- the Orange Revolution -- of a kind the Russians themselves fear.

Yushchenko speaks carefully about this problem, calling the Russian decision to switch off Ukraine's gas in January a "development that didn't help our relations" and describing his personal relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin as "very good."

He also tried to be positive about Russia and Ukraine's attempts to resolve their long-standing disputes: over borders, over Russian naval bases on Ukrainian territory, even over historical issues such as the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, which Ukrainians remember as an attempted genocide and Russians don't officially recognize at all.

Commissions had been set up, Yushchenko said, and committees had been established. But not much, he conceded, has been resolved.

Some of this explains, at least in part, the poor performance of Yushchenko's political party in Ukraine's recent parliamentary elections (which, incidentally, he calls "the most successful in Ukrainian history," because they were the first to be conducted without "allegations of tricks by the authorities").

True, many around Yushchenko agree that his party ran a strangely inept campaign. The breakup of the "Orange Coalition," the group of politicians who put him in power in 2004, didn't help either. Yushchenko himself told me that many Ukrainians saw the coalition as a "political ideal" and have been disillusioned by the economic and political disagreements that have haunted the diverse group since they united to bring him to power.

Nevertheless, the unusually large gap between his supporters' extremely high expectations and his own extremely limited authority are an important source of the growing disappointment with his presidency, too.

When I emerged from my interview with him, my acquaintances in Kiev again peppered me with questions. What had he said? Why hadn't he convicted anyone of electoral fraud? Why were his reforms taking so long?

They suspected a conspiracy, assumed there must be a secret explanation for the slow pace of political and economic change. But the truth seems much more straightforward to me. There is Yushchenko, alone in his big office.

There is Ukraine, a country of 50 million people. And in between the two are thousands of people -- civil servants, politicians, journalists, business people -- who have deep financial and personal interests in maintaining the corrupt status quo.

For Ukraine, the Orange Revolution was the easy part, compared with what lies ahead.

Source: Washington Post

Bookmark and Share

Council Of Europe Will Not Cancel Monitoring Ukraine

STRASBOURG, France -- Council of Europe is not going to cancel the procedure of monitoring Ukraine.


After announcing positive report about democratic elections in Ukraine, co-reporter of PACE Monitoring Committee Hanne Severinsen declared that this conclusion would contribute to stoppage of further monitoring of Ukraine. But Kyiv has to make great efforts for this, specified Severinsen.

According to her, holding of free elections in Ukraine is a great step towards stoppage of monitoring by PACE, but not the last one. “We don’t need to continue paying attention to elections.

But now monitoring should help to see the way Constitutional court functions, as well as other state institutes do, especially General Office of Public Prosecutor. There are a lot of problems there,” noted Severinsen, UNIAN reported.

According to Severinsen, PACE Monitoring Committee hopes for effective cooperation with new Ukrainian government and parliament with the framework of realization of Venetian commission.

First of all, the matter concerns supremacy of law and effective work of state institutes, for which it is needed to strictly distribute plenary powers between power’s branches. PACE co-reporter supposes that the next visit to Kyiv will take place in autumn.

Source: ForUm

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine's Yushchenko Conundrum

KIEV, Ukraine -- President Viktor Yushchenko and his Our Ukraine party have suffered a stinging blow just one year after Ukraine's Orange revolution.


As Geoffrey Berlin argues, a broken compact of integrity has created a lack of confidence in Yushchenko's government — and he now faces the difficult task of creating a coalition from a position of weakness.

It is rare to see such a flameout as Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko and his Our Ukraine party have suffered in the year from Ukraine's Orange Revolution to the country's March 2006 parliamentary elections.

The Ukrainian people catapulted Viktor Yanukovitch and his Party of Regions back to the forefront of politics with a first place finish with 32% of the vote, after coming up on the losing side of Ukraine's Orange Revolution.

They dealt another blow to Yushchenko by giving the former "Orange" prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko's Fatherland party 22% of the vote, well ahead of Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party with 14%.

Vibrant democracy

Democracy is indeed vibrant and coherent in Ukraine. Those who supported Yanukovitch in the presidential election confirmed that Yushchenko's performance as president has not led them to rethink their original choice.

Likewise, a majority of the "Orange" voters have chosen to sanction the president by backing Tymoshenko.

Despite a flourishing of civil society during the last year, with a newfound openness for the Ukrainian press and media, why have Yushchenko and his coalition partners not been able to expand their base? And why did Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party lose so much ground to Tymoshenko's Fatherland party in these elections?

A heightened sense of disillusionment

Were expectations unrealistic after the Orange Revolution, with people expecting "too much, too fast"? Did Ukraine's economic slowdown trump Yushchenko, with GDP growth declining from 12.1% in 2004, when Yanukovitch was prime minister, to 2.6% in 2005, when the Orange coalition came to power?

Speaking directly with Ukrainians, one finds a different reason: There is a heightened sense of disillusionment, particularly among those who supported the Orange coalition parties. Taking a taxi in Zhitomir, about 80 miles west of Kiev, a few months before the elections, I asked the driver what he thought about the political situation.

"I had never concerned myself much with politics," he said. "But I went to Kiev and spent three days and nights out on Maidan in the bitter cold for the Orange Revolution, and now I'm fed up with these Orange politicians."

I hear the same message from the person who sweeps the tennis courts in Kiev, from secretaries in offices and the managers in those same offices, even from civil servants in the government.

What are the people of Ukraine so fed up about?

Compact of integrity

The Orange Revolution was first and foremost a compact of integrity with the people. When Yushchenko dismissed the Tymoshenko government in September, he acknowledged that the government's compact was not being fulfilled, stating that "at some point my colleagues simply lost the team spirit and faith…. I am convinced that it was not for this that millions of people stood in squares."

Yushchenko was right, but his own compact with the people was already fragile. A few months earlier, he had stepped forward to defend his justice minister, who had been exposed for misrepresenting his education credentials. "If the justice minister is not held accountable for speaking the truth," was the common refrain in Kiev, "then who in government will be?"

In July, Yushchenko lashed out at a journalist for questioning why his 19-year-old son was driving a high-end BMW and flaunting a platinum cell phone.

He later apologized, but his reactions with the justice minister and his son led people to question his personal commitment to end corruption and embrace a greater transparency in government.

Unsolved political crimes

In the meantime, investigations into high-profile political crimes, for which Yushchenko had promised answers and justice, remain unsolved, such as the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze, Yushchenko's own poisoning during the presidential election campaign and the electoral fraud that precipitated the Orange Revolution.

Moreover, when Yushchenko dismissed the Tymoshenko government in September, he created the impression that he was diverting attention from allegations of corruption that the state secretary in the presidential secretariat, Oleksandr Zinchenko, had leveled against people in Yushchenko's inner circle.

Orange dissolution

Yushchenko then signed a political pact with Yanukovitch to secure the support of the Party of Regions for his nominee for prime minister, Yuriy Yekhanurov.

One point of the pact called for "the impermissibility of political repressions against the opposition," effectively offering amnesty to perpetrators of voter fraud in the presidential election.

This pact marked the effective dissolution of the Orange coalition, just nine months after coming to power, and Yanukovitch's return to the forefront of Ukraine's political stage.

The Ukrainian people's confidence in Yushchenko eroded further in January, when his team signed a gas deal with Russia in which a holding company, Rosukrenergo, was named to supply all of Ukraine's gas imports.

Anonymous holdings

Gazprom officials claim that they own 50% of Rosukrenergo and that the other 50% stake is held anonymously by Ukrainians. Yushchenko claimed ignorance when asked who was behind this stake: "I don't know," he said, "they may be Ukrainians, but I really don't know who these people are."

Does the president really not know which Ukrainians are allegedly behind a company with so pivotal a role for Ukraine's energy security?

Coalition choices

Now that the people have spoken, it is Yushchenko's turn to choose. With no party holding an outright majority of seats, a coalition must be formed between at least two of the three leading parties to form a government.

Weakened by this electoral setback, Yushchenko nonetheless holds the cards to choose between an "Orange" majority with Euro-Atlantic ambitions or a majority with a pro-Russian tilt that covers Yanukovitch's electoral base and is more appeasing toward Ukraine's leading business interests.

Orange hopes

For a reconstituted Orange coalition to succeed with a thin majority of 54% of seats in parliament, Yushchenko and his party would have to respect the voice of the "Orange" voters and cede control by making the necessary concessions for Tymoshenko to establish a cohesive team.

Such a coalition would have to overcome past tensions from Tymoshenko's stint as prime minister, when she led a campaign of retribution toward Ukraine's leading business interests. Yushchenko sought to heal such rifts after her dismissal with the appointment of the Yekhanurov government.

Yanukovitch's first place victory and the internal pressures at play could point toward a Yanukovitch-Yushchenko alliance, with at least 59% of seats.

This would require overcoming the divergent priorities of integration with the West or expanding ties to Russia and the East, as Yanuovitch espoused during his election campaign.

This would also cede control back to the very person who just over a year ago was imploring then-president Leonid Kuchma to quash the Orange Revolution protests in Kiev to affirm the results of a fraudulent vote that would have given him the presidency.

Wishful thinking

Is it wishful thinking to consider that Yanukovitch and his Party of Regions have turned over a new leaf, embracing greater transparency and integrity in government?

On April 4, Ukraine's parliament voted to lift the immunity of prosecution for local council deputies, an important step toward cleaning up local government. The measure received the least support among Yanukovitch's Party of Regions, with only one deputy supporting it.

A third alternative to form a government would be a grand coalition of the three leading parties, with an absolute majority of at least 88% of seats. This would be the worst possible outcome: Ukraine needs above all a strong opposition.

A grand coalition would be a tenuous alliance and a recipe for corruption, where these parties could collude by divvying the economic spoils of power among the business interests that back them.

Strong opposition

The question of who will lead the opposition is just as critical as who will lead the government. Tymoshenko established her credentials in opposition in the lead up to the Orange Revolution and since the dismissal of her government.

Yanukovitch has also demonstrated his capacity for leadership in opposition, which would only be strengthened by his recent electoral success — although his democratic credentials remain tainted from the presidential election.

However Yushchenko chooses, he must respect the voice of the Ukrainian people at the urns and then govern to restore his compact with them.

Source: The Globalist

Bookmark and Share

Orange Revolution Leaders Decide To Re-Unite

KIEV, Ukraine -- After weeks of difficult consultations, the Our Ukraine bloc of President Viktor Yushchenko, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, and the Socialist Party have decided to re-establish their alliance.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuri Yekhanurov (L), ex-prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko (C) and main opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich attend a meeting with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev April 11, 2006.

On April 10, they launched talks on the shape of a cabinet coalition. Our Ukraine rejected coalition proposals from the opposition Party of Regions (PRU) of former presidential contender Viktor Yanukovych. The main intrigue now is whether Tymoshenko will succeed in persuading the coalition partners to give her back the post of prime minister, from which Yushchenko sacked her in September 2005.

Two weeks ago, Our Ukraine seemed close to forming an alliance with the PRU. "There is a threat that a coalition between Our Ukraine and the Party of Regions will be set up," a visibly angry Tymoshenko warned at her press conference on March 30.

She said that certain influential people in Yushchenko's team were in favor of a coalition with Yanukovych. She meant the pragmatic business wing of Our Ukraine, who apparently preferred a marriage of convenience with the PRU to Tymoshenko as prime minister. Tymoshenko accused several of them of corruption last year, but failed to prove her accusations in court.

Tymoshenko did not back down on her main demand, reiterating at the same press conference that she would not drop her prime ministerial ambition. In her recent interviews and comments, she has repeatedly said that an alliance between Our Ukraine and the PRU would not be the unification of the east and the west of Ukraine, but "a unification of the old and new clans," and that the post of prime minister has to belong to her because only she knows "how to implement deep reforms."

She, however, did not hurry to dispel the fears both at home and abroad that her return would trigger a resumption of the infamous reprivatization process that scared many investors last year.

The PRU failed to take advantage of the standoff between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko. Even the most pragmatic members of Our Ukraine must have been taken aback by the conditions for a government coalition that the PRU presented on April 5.

Their claims far exceeded those made by Tymoshenko -- not only the prime minister's chair, but also the positions of first deputy prime minister, deputy prime minister for energy, and leading positions in "the ministries that shape the budget and the economic system," probably meaning the ministries of finance and economics.

The PRU's enormous ambitions must have made it an easy job for the principled supporters of the Orange Revolution coalition in Our Ukraine, who have always argued that an alliance with the PRU is impossible because of different views on democracy, to take an upper hand.

On April 6, the political council of Yushchenko's People's Union-Our Ukraine party -- which is the core of Our Ukraine -- voted in favor of a coalition with Tymoshenko and the Socialists. The council ruled that the PRU may not be part of the coalition. Even the council's chairman, Roman Bezsmertny, whose personal relationship with Tymoshenko has been far from warm, conceded, speaking at the "Freedom of Speech" show on ICTV that unification between the orange forces and the PRU "would be naturally impossible."

Earlier on the same day, he admitted that Tymoshenko might return to prime minister's chair. And Yushchenko's chief aide Oleg Rybachuk said in an interview with Profil that Tymoshenko might be given another chance.

In a radio address to the nation on April 8, Yushchenko made public Our Ukraine's conditions for an alliance with Tymoshenko. These are "improving the constitution" -- meaning reversal of the constitutional reform enhancing parliament's authority at the expense of the president's, which came into effect this year -- and implementing Yushchenko's action plan for economic development.

Yushchenko's conditions did not discourage Tymoshenko. On April 10 she took part in the first round of coalition talks with Bezsmertny and Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz. Addressing journalists after the talks, Tymoshenko said it was agreed that the coalition would be formed on the basis of a memorandum that was drafted by Our Ukraine before the election, stipulating that the party within the coalition receiving the most votes in the election shall be entitled to nominating the prime minister.

Tymoshenko's bloc scored more votes than Our Ukraine. This should mean that Tymoshenko will likely get the coveted post back.

In return backing her bid for prime minister, Our Ukraine apparently expects from Tymoshenko her bloc's support in reversing the constitutional reform in order to strengthen Yushchenko's positions vis-à-vis parliament, as well as some kind of control over her activities in the cabinet -- hence the demand to implement Yushchenko's action plan -- in order to prevent unwanted developments such as indiscriminate reprivatization and pressure on businesses, of which Tymoshenko's opponents held her responsible last year. Coalition talks will continue from April 12, and it remains to be seen whether Tymoshenko will be happy with these conditions.

Source: Eurasia Daily Monitor

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Ukraine’s Parliamentary Elections: What Next?

KIEV, Ukraine -- On March 26, Ukraine’s voters elected 450 members to the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, from an array of 45 parties and blocs.

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko (L), Socialist Party leader Oleksander Moroz (C) and main opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich smile while talking to journalists after their meeting with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev April 11, 2006.

Charles Tannock, a British Member of the European Parliament (MEP), who oversaw the Parliament’s election observers, said Ukraine had passed an important test of democracy in an “exemplary” fashion.

Now the difficult task of forming a ruling coalition must begin. No matter who is the next prime minister, Washington should continue to support liberalization in Ukraine and the country’s membership in the World Trade Organization and NATO.

The Emerging Coalition

The parliament now has one month from the publication of final results to assemble, two months to form a majority, and three months to nominate a cabinet.

In the newly elected Rada, the Party of Regions led by the pro-Moscow former Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich holds 186 seats; the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, 129; the Our Ukraine Bloc (the party of President Viktor Yushchenko now led by Prime Minister Yuri Yekhanurov), 81; the Socialist Party of Ukraine, 33; and the Communist Party of Ukraine, 21.

Together with Socialists, Our Ukraine and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc have enough seats to relegate Yanukovich’s Regions Party to the opposition; however, it remains unclear whether Yushchenko and Tymoshenko will be able to overcome personal animosity and forge a coalition.

Tymoshenko, formerly President Yushchenko’s ally and prime minister, has pushed publicly for a reunification of the Orange Coalition. President Yushchenko appears willing. Yushchenko may find the idea disagreeable, but it may be the only way for him to preserve his support in western Ukraine.

Tymoshenko said she is confident that “a democratic coalition will be born as we have a common vision for Ukraine’s future and for the future coalition.” That vision includes political and judicial reforms, membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and fighting corruption. While she would likely strengthen relations with Euro-Atlantic organizations, Tymoshenko would almost certainly complicate Ukraine’s relations with Moscow.

She has pledged to annul Ukraine’s controversial gas contract with Gazprom, signed in January of this year. Тhe contract grants exclusive management of Russia-Ukraine gas sales to a non-transparent “RosUkrEnergo” company.

Yushchenko and Tymoshenko do have their ideological differences. Yushchenko is a former central banker committed to liberal economic reform who has pursued a strategic course toward integration with Europe and stable relations with Russia and all of Ukraine’s neighbors. Tymoshenko is a populist who seeks to increase welfare spending and attack those businessmen who profited illicitly from the rule of former president Leonid Kuchma.

The Russian Connection

Yanukovich is expected to lead the biggest parliamentary faction and will likely play a key role in shaping Ukrainian politics—although the Orange Coalition, if revived, could keep him at bay. He has the support of the industrial magnates of eastern Ukraine and calls for closer ties with Moscow and to an end to Kiev's bid to join NATO.

Still, Yanukovich does support European Union membership for Ukraine, but this is unlikely in the near future.

Although Moscow appeared calm during Ukraine’s parliamentary-election campaign, while supporting Yanukovich, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for cooperation with Ukraine and qualified the election as a reflection of Ukrainians’ support for good relations with Russia.

According to polls conducted by the Democratic Initiatives’ Fund and the Social Monitoring Center 42 percent of Ukrainians prefer closer ties to Russia, while only a quarter support NATO membership.

It will take weeks of negotiation before the Orange Revolution parties divide up governmental posts. Hopefully, the next Ukrainian government will not be characterized by the murky practices of the Kuchma Administration or the squabbling of the first year of Yushchenko’s rule. Regardless of the color of the ruling coalition, it will face popular pressure to push through economic reform to boost growth and raise living standards.

Recommendations

The U.S. praised Ukraine’s parliamentary elections even though they were a setback for Yushchenko’s party. “The Ukrainian people have shown the world that they are committed to important ideals of economic freedom and democratic progress and open trade,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

“That lays the groundwork for a promising future.” The EU also expressed satisfaction with the election process and proclaimed its support for Ukraine’s ambition to continue working towards EU accession.

Now the difficult task of putting together a functioning cabinet begins. In the aftermath of the elections, it matters less who is going to be the prime minister than what policies the prime minister and his cabinet will execute. To aid Ukraine’s painful post-Soviet transition, the Bush Administration should:

Support free market economic policies, transparency, and the rule of law. The new cabinet must learn from the mistakes of the first year of the Yushchenko Administration and implement much-needed economic and administrative reforms, such as focusing on inflation. It is important that Ukrainian voters retain their trust in democratic government. Improving the rule of law and fighting corruption will be paramount tasks.

Boost Ukraine’s integration into global and Euro-Atlantic structures. Specific targets should include accession to the WTO, a plan for an associate membership in the European Union, and closer cooperation with NATO. While the Ukrainian electorate favors close ties with Russia, Ukraine’s future and its economic interests lie primarily in the West.

Yushchenko’s third cabinet must be more efficient, coherent, and transparent than its predecessors. Otherwise, the Ukrainian electorate could sour on the ideals of the Orange Revolution for years to come. It is not too late to restore the confidence that led Ukraine towards real democracy.

Source: The Heritage Foundation

Bookmark and Share

Golden Goals

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine has passed a test of its democracy with flying colors. Time, then, to head for some other big goals.

Members of the election commission count ballots at a polling station in Kiev.

One thing is clear from Ukraine's parliamentary elections: whoever is responsible for revamping how elections in Ukraine are run – and President Viktor Yushchenko can presumably take the ultimate credit for this – has proved a quick and effective learner. The European Union said these elections were "exemplary." One monitor said they were better than the British elections.

In the space of a less than a year and a half, Ukraine has gone from providing one of the most venal examples of post-Soviet politics to offering perhaps the most inspiring example of a well-run election that the region has seen. These were ordinary elections and that alone is evidence that Ukraine has traveled a long way.

The political landscape shows less change. Ex-prime minister Viktor Yanukovych continued in an essentially defensive position, offering more insults than policies, looking more to the past than to the future. Our Ukraine are "rats." The Orange Revolution was an "illegal coup." Russian-speakers are second-class citizens. In short, he played to his existing base. Yulia Tymoshenko maintained her position as the firebrand of the revolution.

She sought to downplay her contribution to some of the acrimony of the past year, but her depiction of Ukrainian politics as a bitter, personal battle comes through clearly even when talking of former colleagues-in-arms during the revolution. "I think those guys [from Our Ukraine] would rather 'eat their own hand' today than sign a memorandum which gives our political force the right to form a government," she said after the election.

But in one way the political landscape did change significantly. Having trounced Our Ukraine, Tymoshenko has effectively assumed the position of champion of the revolution from Yushchenko. That is not just by virtue of her election success; it is a consequence of constitutional changes that confer greater executive power with the prime minister than the president – and Tymoshenko will probably emerge as the new prime minister.

THE TEMPTATIONS TO BE AVOIDED

Each of the three main groupings faces dangers as they contemplate their responses. One danger is that the predominantly Russian-speaking east may continue to follow Yanukovych's lead, in a bunker lobbing insults, trying to stall attempts at reform, and resenting reform for reasons born essentially of political defeat and of an endangered sense of identity. Such a position may convince some in the east to continue to turn out to vote for Yanukovych. More likely, it will convince them not to vote.

That seems to have happened this time. Relatively few easterners voted. The result was that, though Yanukovych's Party of the Regions emerged with the highest number of votes, his support was well down on 2004. A higher turnout would have put him in a far more commanding position. In short, acting as a negative force in the new Ukraine will probably do little to advance the cause of Yanukovych's supporters. Instead, it may marginalize them, creating the danger that they will become yet more resentful.

The danger of such significant gains for Tymoshenko is that it may encourage her to continue on her current approach – which is effectively a triumph of style over content.

The third danger is of an inappropriate response by Our Ukraine to its new, relatively marginal position. It could now look at the electoral map, see itself squeezed into a western corner of the country, note that Tymoshenko dominates the huge central swathe of Ukraine, and conclude that Tymoshenko is its main political adversary and not Yanukovych, who remains safely tucked away in the eastern third of the country.

Our Ukraine's decision over the weekend to hold talks with Yanukovych is therefore a concern. At the moment, the concern is limited – this is probably a ploy to strengthen its bargaining position with Tymoshenko – but it would become a serious worry if they moved from talking to sweet-talking.

WHAT UKRAINE NEEDS

Why are these scenarios dangerous?

Ukraine needs the Russophone east to become positively engaged, to fight on the battlefields of policies rather than cursing the past and nursing perceived slights.

Ukraine needs Tymoshenko, as the probable new prime minister, to start delivering substantial change.

And Our Ukraine must not waste the credit built up by its revolutionary past by forging an alliance with Yanukovych. That would be a bad management of political assets. It would also be an odd electoral gambit. If a large swathe of Middle Ukraine preferred Tymoshenko's feistier, adversarial style, a Yushchenko-Yanukovych linkup is hardly likely to encourage them to return to Yushchenko.

It is, then, clear what government Ukraine needs: it needs another Orange coalition. This seems almost certain to happen. If so, Ukraine will presumably have another Tymoshenko premiership. What Ukraine will then need is evidence that Tymoshenko and the Orange coalition have learnt something from the problems that marred the first post-revolution year.

A new Orange coalition would also underscore what the Russophone east now needs – and that is a new leader. Yanukovych led the region to one catastrophic defeat – in 2004 – and, now, to a Pyrrhic victory in which the region's vote declined. The pool of potential leaders is small. Given how closely money and politics are twinned particularly in eastern Ukraine, a replacement for Yanukovych would be another rich, powerful businessman.

And the region's new political hope would need to oust Yanukovych to take over the Party of the Regions, given that, under Ukraine's constitutional reordering, there are now limits on politicians switching parties – a commonplace in Ukraine's highly factional kaleidoscope of a parliament. Still, someone from that pool needs to come forward to seize Yanukovych's position.

Then, what would essentially be an electoral calculation – to ditch an unsuccessful leader – could also turn into a debate about the direction and nature of the party. That would be good for the region and good for Ukraine. Whether it will happen is, of course, another matter.

THE STRATEGY NOT NEEDED

But, while it may be clear what the opposition needs and what government Ukraine needs, it is perhaps less obvious what strategy the government should adopt. That is largely, too, a matter of what lessons ought to be learned from the first post-revolutionary year.

One lesson seems to be that the government should not make an attack on the oligarchs the centerpiece of its strategy – or, rather, allow it to appear a dominant theme. Issues of justice need to be addressed, but the room for maneuver is limited.

The oligarchs in the east have managed to transform themselves from being the chief strippers of the region's assets to being the region's chief champions. In other words, the political costs of specifically pursuing the oligarchs – rather than focusing on advancing law and order more generally – may be to antagonize ordinary Ukrainians in the east and feed a perception that laws are essentially merely political tools.

Such a policy would run the risks – as it did in 2005 – of dividing the coalition, since the Orange coalition has its own, albeit less monied oligarchs.

So the centerpiece needs to be something more forward-looking. Here, we encounter the problem of Tymoshenko's triumph of style over content. Stylistically, of course, she was forward-looking – indeed so forward-looking that Ukrainians were transported into the world of Star Wars with Tymoshenko as a new Princess Leia.

In one television spot, for example, she stood dressed all in white in the gleaming white center of an orb with the faces of Ukrainians rotating on television screens around her.

But she provided very little of substance. The aims outlined in her manifesto mix school-pupil politics ("to understand people's problems and social conflicts and restore justice taking account of the interests of all"), ersatz politico-spirituality ("to make morality and spirituality the country's main development priority"), unconvincing trend-surfing ("to use the Internet to give the public greater influence over the legislative process"), a convenient recipe to bypass party politics (referendums should "become as normal as breathing air" because "the more referendums a country holds, the more honest the authorities"), and primitive economic radicalism ("to abolish VAT," which seems the main plank for of a "more humane" tax system).

This is, apparently, a case of back to the future, to the concept of "solidarism" that flickered in the early 20th century.

It will be nice if it happens, for "solidarism in its pure form is harmony and justice." But the Ukrainian government – and, ultimately, Ukrainians themselves – will need something a little more substantial. This should be a case of forward to the future.

THE FUTURE

The key elements of a truly forward-looking strategy are complex in the longer term, but not necessarily in this government term.

In the longer term, there is a need to bridge the divide between east and west, perhaps, for example, by a quid pro quo over language: Russian could at some point become the second state language, but on the proviso that the Russophone east demonstrates that it also accepts that Ukrainian is a state language by actually teaching Ukrainian in its classes and airing more broadcasts in Ukrainian.

But that is a longer-term issue, for another government. The strategy for the term of this government should be to take measures that might emulate the new election commissions, by bringing institutional change. The first-phase changes should particularly aim to give ordinary Ukrainians a "democracy dividend" – in the form of a greater sense of security, freedom, empowerment, and better services – by focusing, for example, on reforming the judiciary, freeing up small business, and improving local government.

And the basic content of those changes is clear: if the Orange revolutionaries want to lead Ukraine into the EU, they should push Ukraine's claim for membership by voluntarily embarking on doing what the EU's new member-states did, which is to bring thousands of pages of EU laws onto their statute books and to reform the country's institutions accordingly. Those laws may of course need some adjustment to reflect the specifics of Ukraine's situation here and now, but the government must quickly demonstrate that it is "European" in action as well as in words and by right.

And it needs so do that if it is to keep the EU's attention. It may all too easily lose that attention. EU leaders have, for instance, been frustratingly muted in their applause for Ukraine's elections (when they have made any comments), another sign perhaps that a hobbling Europe is not over-enthused about Ukraine joining it.

SELLING THE FUTURE

But the Ukrainian government also needs to find ways – at home as well as in Europe – of maintaining some of the momentum left from the revolution. "Solidarism" will not go far. "Europe" too has its limitations as a rallying cry: "Europe" is not an idea that is particularly easy to associate with; it can empty political discussion of much of its content (as it did in Central Europe), and nor does it particularly excite ordinary people.

And, of course, there is the problem that in the east it is not a selling point, but rather a rallying point of resistance – and that Europe is less enthusiastic about enlargement than it should be.

Ukraine somehow needs to bridge the gap between its two halves and the gap between itself and Europe. To bridge the gap, it needs not just a different leader in the east, but also a new discussion about nationality. And, to bridge the gap with Europe, it would be good to burnish its national image. It needs to find something somewhat more inspiring and impressive than the Eurovision song contest was in 2005.

What might prompt discussion about nationality, nurture pride across the regions, encourage some serious mobilization of national resources, convince the oligarchs to plow more money back into their communities, create a buzz in Europe, slowly begin to change international attitudes, draw attention to Ukraine's many virtues and to the achievements it will notch up in the years ahead? In June and July, we will all learn once again how much the hearts and minds of much of the world's population are dominated by one thing.

If Ukraine wants to create a useful buzz, now is the time to float the idea. What about a Ukrainian bid for the World Cup in, say, 2018 followed by another – more promising – bid for 2026?

Source: Transitions on Line

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine CEC Announces Official Results Of March Polls

KIEV, Ukraine -- After two weeks of vote counting Ukraine’s Central Election Commission on Monday announced official results of the March 26 parliamentary elections.

Yaroslav Davydovich, head of Ukraine's Central Election Commission formally announces the results of the March 26 parliamentary election in Kiev April 10, 2006.

The opposition Party of Regions led by former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich received 32.14 percent of votes, former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko 22.29 percent, the pro-presidential Our Ukraine bloc 13.95 percent, the Socialist Party 5.69 percent, and the Communist Party 3.66 percent.

Several parties and blocs failed to overcome the 3-percent barrier. These include Natalia Vitrenko’s People’s Opposition bloc received 2,93 percent of votes, Vladimir Litvin’s bloc 2.44 percent, the Kostenko and Plyushch Bloc 1.87 percent, the Veche party 1.74 percent, Pora-PRP 1.47 percent, Not So! Bloc 1.01 percent. Other parties and bloc received less than 1 percent.

Now that the results have been announced, the main question is which parties and blocs will team up to form a parliamentary majority to create a government and elect a new prime minister.

The results of the elections, which for the first time were held by party lists, were announced despite some political forces’ demands for vote recounting.

Central Election Commission Chairman Yaroslav Davidovich said of more than 300 complaints received by the commission “some were rejected because there was no subject to consider: all claims of vote theft from one party in favour of another were not confirmed.”

Davidovich said the Central Election Commission had worked “in an independent and unbiased manner, in compliance with the norms of law.”

“The organisational measures undertaken by the commission ensured transparent and free elections,” he said.

Fifty-three political parties and blocs announced their decision to run for the parliament. Forty-five were registered.

Davidovich said the elections had cost 631,234,000 hryvnas (about 126 million U.S. dollars). Most of this money (83 percent) went to territorial election commissions, he said.

Source: ITAR-Tass

Bookmark and Share

Monday, April 10, 2006

Ukraine Orange Revolution Groups Inch Towards Govt

KIEV, Ukraine -- Liberal parties behind Ukraine's 2004 'Orange Revolution' inched towards a deal on a coalition government on Monday, with the increasing likelihood that fiery Yulia Tymoshenko will get back her job of prime minister.

Roman Bezsmertny (L), Olexander Moroz (C) and Yulia Tymoshenko (R) appearing on TV

With post-election talks on building a government in their third week, Tymoshenko met representatives of two other liberal parties to try to bridge differences after her estranged ally President Viktor Yushchenko sacked her last year.

Though the opposition Regions Party took first place, it was outscored by the combined 'orange' vote. Tymoshenko's bloc had the best score among liberals, beating pro-Western Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party and the Socialists.

'I am very pleased with the talks because the agreement proposed by our group has been approved in principle,' Tymoshenko said in a statement issued by her press service.

Tymoshenko has said previously that the agreement proposed by her party includes it choosing who becomes prime minister – almost certainly her. Yushchenko though is reluctant to have her back in that role.

On Monday, Tymoshenko was evasive when asked whether the three liberal parties had agreed on who was to be premier.

She said only that the provisions of a memorandum had been approved and would be submitted to further discussion later in the week.

Roman Bezsmertny, representing the president's party, made no commitments about the prime minister's job.

'Once we have established the first two key elements – a programme and overall principles, we will look at the principle of who assumes what responsibilities,' Internet news site Ukrainska Pravda quoted him as saying.

'The memorandum could be one way of solving this issue.'

CHOOSING THE PRIME MINISTER

Under new constitutional rules, the president's powers have been reduced at the expense of parliament, now empowered to choose a prime minister on the basis of a working majority.

Tymoshenko, backed by her electoral success, has insisted she will settle for nothing less than getting her job back – as head of the largest party in an 'orange coalition'.

She has accused Yushchenko's party of wasting time in clinching a coalition accord.

Yushchenko, no longer empowered to name the premier but still influential in the process, last week made plain his reluctance to put Tymoshenko back in the job. He said a 'system of values' had first to be agreed.

The results of last month's election were being formally declared on Monday. That starts the clock ticking on the process of forming a government under new procedures.

Parliament must convene within 30 days and a government must be formed within 60, failing which the president can dissolve the chamber.

Tymoshenko roused crowds with calls to action during weeks of protests in late 2004 that ultimately led to Yushchenko taking power after winning the re-run of a rigged election.

He immediately appointed Tymoshenko prime minister, but dismissed her less than eight months later amid squabbling and uncertainty over her attempts to control markets and calls for a broad review of dubious post-Soviet privatisations.

Observers say the president has ruled out a 'grand coalition' with the Regions Party of Viktor Yanukovich, the rival sympathetic to Moscow he humiliated in winning the 2004 presidential race.

Source: Reuters

Bookmark and Share

Ukrainian Journalist In Hospital After Violent Street Attack

KIEV, Ukraine -- A newspaper editor has been severely beaten in the Ukrainian capital Kiev in what police said was either an act of hooliganism or an attack motivated by his professional activity as a journalist.

Vladimir Katsman

Two young men beat Volodymyr Katsman of the Stolichniye Novosti (Capital News) newspaper with wooden sticks in his apartment building as he returned home late Saturday, the TV5 channel said.

Katsman was hospitalized suffering from severe injuries to his head and arms, but his condition is stable. Police have launched a criminal inquiry.

Attacks on journalists have become fairly rare in Ukraine since Western-leaning President Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in 2005 after the Orange Revolution street protests, declared freedom of speech as one of his priorities, the Associated Press points out.

Source: Mos News

Bookmark and Share

Ukrainian Parliament Hosts Another Round Of Coalition Talks

KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine's parliament is hosting another round of talks on the formation of an "orange" coalition to satisfy legal requirements for a majority in the legislature.

Tymoshenko (L) and Yushchenko (R) during their honeymoon. Can they ever get back together?

Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's bloc is meeting Monday with pro-presidential bloc Our Ukraine and the Socialist Party to discuss signing an agreement on forming a coalition in the Supreme Rada.

The talks, being held behind the closed doors, are the latest in a string of consultations on forming a coalition proposed by Tymoshenko after parliamentary elections March 26. Tymoshenko's bloc gained more votes than the other two parties at the talks but still finished second behind the pro-Russian Party of Regions in the poll.

Tymoshenko said earlier that the coalition would be effective under two conditions: First, that she be re-appointed prime minister, and second that the coalition not cooperate with the Party of Regions, led by former presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych.

President Viktor Yushchenko dismissed Tymoshenko and her government in September 2005 after a clash that saw Tymoshenko's ministers and several members of the president's inner circle trade allegations of corruption.

The March 26 vote saw the Party of Regions come out on top but without enough seats to form a majority in the 450-seat Supreme Rada, or parliament. Under the Ukrainian Constitution, the Rada must form a coalition majority within 30 days of the new parliament starting work, and appoint a new government in the next 30 days.

Source: RIA Novosti

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine`s New Politics

WASHINGTON, DC -- The recent parliamentary elections in Ukraine were a wake-up call, not just for President Viktor Yushchenko, but also for the European Union and the United States.

President Viktor Yushchenko with his son Taras

Voters handed Yushchenko`s pro-Western Our Ukraine Party a humiliating defeat that was a resounding rejection of his weak leadership and inability to implement a coherent reform program for Ukraine.

While Yushchenko should be credited with holding Ukraine`s first free and fair election, which stands as a dramatic contrast to elections held a week earlier in Belarus, his party came in a distant third in balloting with just 14 percent of the vote, ten less than in 2002.

The Russia-backed Party of the Regions, led by former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych -- who lost to Yushchenko in the presidential elections in November 2004 -- came out on top with 32 percent of the vote, although still less than the 44 he garnered in 2004.

The party led by former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko -- Yushchenko`s one-time ally whom he fired last September -- placed second with 22 percent of the vote.

However, while badly battered, Yushchenko can still salvage his presidency if he puts the goals of the Orange Revolution ahead of his personal resentment toward Tymoshenko.

In essence, Yushchenko now faces a stark choice. He can either form an alliance with Tymoshenko and several small parties, or form an alliance with Yanukovych. The outcome could determine whether Ukraine sees its future linked to the West or to Russia.

An alliance with Yanukovych`s Party of the Regions, as some Western analysts are urging, would be a fatal mistake. It would further undermine Yushchenko`s credibility at home and in the West.

Yanukovych`s agenda is incompatible with the goals of the Orange Revolution and Western integration. His Party of the Regions is opposed to Ukraine`s membership in NATO. It favors closer ties to Russia and Ukraine`s full membership in the Common Economic Space, an economic union of post-Soviet states dominated by Russia. And the Party of Regions is opposed to Ukraine`s membership in the World Trade Organization.

Moreover, under the amendments to the Ukrainian Constitution adopted in January, the president`s powers will be reduced vis-a-vis the prime minister. Thus Yushchenko risks being little more than a figurehead, while the real power on a day-to-day basis would be exerted by the prime minister.

As prime minister, Yanukovych or one of his allies would be in a position to steer Ukraine in a dramatically different direction than Yushchenko.

If Yushchenko hopes to salvage his tattered presidency, he has little choice but to ally himself with Tymoshenko. She has made no secret that she wants to regain her former position as prime minister. Her record in office, however, was mixed.

While she aggressively sought to root out corruption, her economic policies, especially regarding re-privatization, frightened off foreign investors and contributed to rising inflation.

Tymoshenko`s appointment as prime minister thus entails some risk for Yushchenko. But these risks pale beside the costs of an alliance with Yanukovych. That would result in a return to the discredited policies of the era of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma -- a stagnation of reform, a vacillating multi-vector foreign policy, a slowdown of Euro-Atlantic integration, and an increase in corruption.

By contrast, an Orange coalition with Tymoshenko would send a strong signal that the ideals and goals of the Orange Revolution were still alive. It would give Yushchenko a second chance to salvage his presidency and could give new impetus to Ukraine`s hopes for closer integration into Euro-Atlantic structures.

At the same time, both Yushchenko and Tymoshenko need to learn from their mistakes and cooperate more effectively than in the past. For Yushchenko, this means an end to half measures and half-baked compromises.

Such compromises include Yushchenko`s signing of the memorandum of cooperation with Yanukovych in September and Yushchenko`s failure to pursue aggressively charges of abuse of office and election fraud, both against former Kuchma-ites and members of his own camp.

'Bandits to prison,' the slogan of the Orange Revolution, was never seriously acted upon by Yushchenko. This failure was one of the chief reasons for his party`s poor showing in the recent elections.

Yushchenko also needs to exert greater hands-on leadership. He wasted a year when he had uncontested power and strong popular backing but failed to use it to push through badly needed reforms. Instead, he spent much of his first year traveling abroad while his ministers engaged in fruitless and debilitating turf wars.

If a new Orange Coalition emerges, Ukraine should be invited to join the World Trade Organization this year and receive a Membership Action Plan from NATO at its Riga summit later this year. The EU should also develop a more forward-leaning strategy towards a democratic Ukraine.

Source: UPI

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 09, 2006

The Resurrection - Chernobyl 20 Years On

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine -- Armed guards, a round metal danger sign, and a disturbing radiation map mark the entrance to Chernobyl’s eerie dead zone, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident.

The Pioneer mobile inspection robot, developed in the United States, was designed specifically in order to explore the interior of reactor No. 4 at Chernobyl after the reacter exploded in 1986.

For the first-time visitor, the map is a powerful reminder that this remains a dangerously polluted corner of Europe. It shows how radioactive the area’s mushrooms are (extremely), how radioactive meat from wild game and fish is (very) and how irradiated the zone’s rivers are (dangerously). The message is clear: you can look but you can’t touch.

Two decades after Chernobyl’s reactor number four exploded on April 26, 1986, the dead zone, a piece of land in modern-day Ukraine with a radius of around 18 miles, remains heavily irradiated and is regarded by widely as a post-apocalyptic no man’s land.

Beyond a red and white barrier, a straight road flanked first by silver birch trees, and later by a thick pine forest, stretches into the distance for as far as the eye can see. You could be anywhere in the former Soviet Union, except that the road is utterly devoid of traffic. There are no pedestrians.

Passing through the checkpoint is anti-climactic. A guard scrutinises our passports (visitors need special permission from the Ukrainian government) and nonchalantly waves us through. After a few minutes the forest ends, giving way to abandoned villages, farmhouses, and wooden peasants’ cottages on either side of the road; sometimes they are hard to make out because they are entwined by dark trees which blend into the woodland behind.

Untouched for the past 20 years, the area resembles a war zone: windows are smashed, roofs collapsed and there is not a human soul in sight. Patches of snow melt slowly on the plains.

In the dead zone, visitors are never left to their own devices. Our guide, a man called Sergey Franchuk, exudes cheerfulness and boasts that you need to be as fit as a cosmonaut to work here. He has been associated with Chernobyl since 1982 and lives in a small village with his family just outside the zone, spending four days working here and three days resting at home.

Franchuk explains that 337 people live permanently within this supposedly uninhabitable region. Called “samosely”‚ they left the area immediately after the accident, only to return within a few weeks or months. Most are elderly: the youngest resettler is said to be 63; the oldest 93.

Apart from these apparently masochistic indiciduals, the zone hosts a 4000-strong army of temporary workers employed to repair the cracked sarcophagus that covers the remains of reactor number four. Others work for the local forestry company, the police force, the handful of hostels that accommodate employees or, bizarrely, in the tourist industry.

Chernobyl, it seems, is a popular destination among a small band of intrepid tourists. Most come in the summer, explains a smiling Franchuk, who adds that the disaster zone is especially popular with Dutch, Japanese and American tourists. “The first thing people think of when they think of Ukraine is Chernobyl. It’s a curiosity thing. It has a special pull for Japanese people because of Hiroshima.”

Slightly unnerved that Franchuk makes no mention of safety precautions, we enter the zone. The landscape is bleakly beautiful. As we drive along empty roads at breakneck speed (speed limits seem to have little value here), the scenery is uniformly flat and forested. Wooden poles supporting power lines have collapsed as if hit by a cyclone and there are frequent signs warning of the risk of forest fires. “Fire is the forest’s most bitter enemy,” reads one.

Fires, Franchuk explains, are particularly unwelcome since they send plumes of radiation-soaked smoke high into the atmosphere and possibly out of the zone. During the 1990s, the authorities imported wild Przewalski’s horses to the region. By nibbling the grass, they help reduce the risk of fire.

Our first stop is the village of Illintsi and the home of Maria Shaparenko, an 82-year-old peasant woman, who refuses to leave the area despite the obvious danger to her health. “I was born here and I will die here, ” she says as she ushers us into her small cottage. Outside in the yard, hens scratch the earth and a cockerel crows, as a weak spring sun beats down. The scene is deceptively normal.

“It [the Chernobyl disaster] happened on a Sunday,” says Shaparenko in a matter-of-fact way. “But during the week that followed we didn’t know that anything had happened. We were only told the following Saturday.” In fact, the Soviet government waited almost three days – until the drifting radioactive fallout triggered alarms in Sweden – before publicly acknowledging that an accident had occurred.

By the evening of April 27, however, local people were being bused out of the area. Maria Shaparenko’s small, lively eyes flash as she remembers being told that she would only need to leave for three days. As a result, she took little luggage. “We sensed that something had happened when we saw people who worked in the local administration evacuate their families. They just took everything they owned and left.”

In the event Shaparenko was only away for two weeks before she crept back to her home, hiding from soldiers stationed along the way to prevent people returning. “The soldiers kept saying, ‘Why do you want to go back? There’s nothing there any more.’ But I told them my home is here, and so are my apple and pear trees.”

Though she admits she has felt lonely since her husband died three years ago, she does not feel sorry for herself and seems happy. “I have a lot of relations [outside the zone] and they keep asking me why I live here by myself. But I tell them I will be here until I die and that I don’t want to bother anyone.”

Before the accident, the village was full of life; nostalgically, she remembers Sunday lunches with relatives and friends. She seems to have no real grasp of what radiation is. “It’s very nice here in summer, everything blooms. In fact, nothing is wrong here, it’s just that people have been scared off by the radiation.”

In a cottage a few doors away, the picture is starkly different. Katerina Yushchenko, 74, and her husband Roman, 76, appear to be barely surviving. Roman has cancer and his skin is drawn tightly across his bony face as he lies inert on a corner bed built above a stove. He groans intermittently, each time he tries to move. His face is wracked with pain; his eye sockets are almost hollow.

“He’s turning black now,” whispers Katerina . “He’s going to die soon.”

Like many of the resettlers, she makes no link between the area’s high radiation levels and health problems. “Oh, Roman had heart problems a long time ago,” she says quickly. “I don’t think it’s connected.”

The tiny room is filled with the stench of decay and hopelessness. Asked what kind of cancer Roman has, Katerina says something about his bladder. To underline her point she produces a tin chamber pot full of his urine, full to the brim. It is blood-red.

Katerina, too, has happy memories of how the village used to be but admits the reality today is less appealing. “I don’t know what I am going to do. In the summer the land needs to be worked [many settlers grow their own vegetables]. If I’m really bored I do embroidery. Otherwise I just watch the walls.”

A short drive takes us to the source of her troubles – Chernobyl’s hulking and infamous nuclear power station. Planned as the largest such plant in the world, Chernobyl’s fifth and sixth reactors were still being built when the fourth reactor exploded during an ill-fated test, in the early hours of the morning of April 26, 1986. A plume of radiation equivalent to 400 Hiroshimas was blasted into the atmosphere.

Some of the 176 staff on duty that night were killed instantly; others would die later in hospital. In the immediate vicinity, dozens of fires were ignited. The reactor core burned for 10 days, and the resultant pollutants – including plutonium isotopes with a half-life of 24,360 years – drifted around the world, raining toxicity as far as the lakes of Japan and the glens of Scotland.

The clean-up operation brought its own casualties. Some 20 firefighters died immediately, while hundreds more became seriously ill as a result of exposure to radioactivity. The reactor-core itself was eventually sealed off with a cement mixture, dropped from the air. There is no public record of the radiation doses received by the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and reservists charged with cleaning up the contaminated landscape of Ukraine and neighbouring Belarus.

Today, cranes stand stock still around Chernobyl’s half-built fifth and sixth nuclear reactors. Visitors, who are permitted to get surprisingly close to the fated fourth reactor, peer silently at it through an observation window, or from the nearby car park. Covered by a giant metal and concrete sarcophagus designed to stop radiation leaking out, it is not unlike an enormous bus station.

The sarcophagus itself is riddled with holes and the authorities admit that at least 100 square metres are open to the elements; a new sarcophagus is planned in the next few years.

The Chernobyl visitors’ centre is tiny – though the zone is popular with a trickle of “extreme tourists”, large tour parties clearly never come here. Julia Marusich, a guide, is unexpectedly open , admitting that “hazardous risks remain and there is still a lot of irradiated fuel inside the reactor. Our information [on the situation] is not complete”.

Radiation levels within the reactor unit are still so high that only 25% of the rooms are accessible and repair workers are allowed to operate inside for just minutes at a time.

As Marusich talks, an electronic geiger counter flashes on the wall behind her: it registers 1.25 micro roentgens per hour, a level that is apparently perfectly safe in short bursts.

Nearby in the dead zone’s so-called Red Forest, a pine woodland that took the brunt of the radioactive explosion, levels can be as high as one roentgen, more than 50,000 times normal background levels.

Our final stop is Pripyat, an eerie husk of a town which remains frozen in time: the hands of the municipal clock are fixed at six minutes to 12. Built in 1970 to house the nuclear power plant’s workforce, the town’s 50,000-strong population was evacuated one grim afternoon in 1986. Long afterwards, the streetlights continued to come on each night.

Located just two miles from the reactor, Pripyat is sealed by high fences and watched over by armed guards at a checkpoint. Radiation levels here, in the heart of the dead zone, are too high to support human habitation. Not even stubborn settlers such as Maria Shaparenko have dared return.

For a long time, the furniture and possessions that had been left behind in the apartments remained undisturbed. Then 10 years ago, says Franchuk, many were mysteriously stolen and, presumably, sold outside the dead zone despite the fact that they would have bristled with radioactivity. Nobody knows who did it, though ironically, it is suspected that it was the handful of armed guards left behind to keep out the curious and the looters.

Before the accident, Pripyat was a model Soviet town populated by power station workers and the men and women who built Chernobyl. Back then, its shiny concrete tower blocks represented the Soviet Union’s bright atomic future.

Tower blocks were, and remain, crowned by giant steel Soviet emblems, and the town’s facilities, its crèches, its shops, and its apartments, were regarded as the best the USSR – and by definition, anywhere else – could offer.

Two decades on, Pripyat’s central Lenin Square is a shadow of its former self. Each year, trees encroach further into its space; the steps are carpeted with moss; and tall yellow grass abounds. As the winter snow melts, the paving stones become a shallow river bed carrying rivulets of water into a drainage system that has long ceased to be serviced.

The square’s Palace of Culture, its hotel and what was once the town’s main restaurant, are open to the elements and, as the concrete cracks, nature is pushing in.

In one of the town’s children’s play areas the only sound is cheerful birdsong. Strong branches have spread across what used to be an enclosure for bumper cars, a giant ferris wheel stands idle, apparently never inaugurated, and trees and weeds press in on every side.

For 20 years, the town of Pripyat has been slowly rotting. In a further two decades, it may be hard to discern its central features as nature continues to make inroads.

Less than a mile from the stricken fourth reactor, not far from Pripyat, we come upon an extraordinary spectacle. In a copse of silver birches a pair of wild elks graze quietly on irradiated grass.

In the background the brightly coloured metal cranes of Chernobyl crowd the horizon and the power station’s red and white ventilation chimney juts menacingly into the evening sky.

Franchuk believes that, in some inexplicable way, radiation has purified the soil. “We think that the land has been cleansed,” he says. “Nature is flourishing here, even more so than it was before the accident. When Viktor Yushchenko [Ukraine’s president] came here last year he even suggested turning the area into a nature reserve. ”

Like many locals‚ Franchuk believes that animals can sense whether the land they inhabit is poisoned. He views their return to Chernobyl as evidence that the ecosystem is recovering, a state of affairs he believes could see people moving back to parts of the zone within 15 years. Others, perhaps more realistically, think that it will be centuries.

Astonishingly, most of the animals, with the notable exception of the herds of wild Przewalski’s horses, appear to have returned to the zone of their own accord.

The last “animal census” carried out by the authorities showed that the zone is home to 66 different species of mammals including 7000 wild boars, some 600 wolves, 3000 deer, 1500 beavers, 1200 foxes, 15 lynx and several thousand elk.

An ornithologists’ paradise, the area is reckoned to contain 280 species of birds, many of them rare and endangered. Wild dogs are in evidence though their numbers have dwindled as they are prime targets for wolves, a quirky detail that prompted American thriller writer Martin Cruz Smith to call his latest novel, which is partly set in the zone, Wolves Eat Dogs.

Biologist Mary Mycio, who is an American foreign correspondent in the area, was one of the first people to begin cataloguing nature’s unlikely comeback in Chernobyl. She has made 24 separate trips to the dead zone. “On the surface,” she says, “radiation is very good for wildlife because it forces people to leave the contaminated area which opens it up to wildlife.

They removed 135,000 people from an area twice the size of Luxembourg. The people there now carry out very localised activities and in vast regions of the zone there are no people.

“It is a radioactive wilderness and it is thriving.”

As for the effects on people, despite the passage of time, no consensus has been reached on the scale of the human tragedy linked to the accident. Estimates of fatalities, both direct and indirect, vary wildly, from 41 in the immediate aftermath to 10s of thousands in the years that followed.

More broadly, it is estimated that five million people were exposed to radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and that the radiation fallout triggered an epidemic of thyroid cancer that has yet to abate.

Doctors claim convincingly that cancer rates are far higher than they were before 1986 and that thousands of Ukrainians and people in neighbouring Belarus (which was worse affected than Ukraine because of the wind direction) may have died prematurely as a result.

As we prepare to leave, a man with a geiger counter takes radiation readings from the tyres of our vehicle and we are forced to step through an archaic-looking radiation detector that resembles a piece of airport security machinery.

A light on the device turns green and I am declared “clean”. With some relief we drive off into the evening, leaving the dead zone behind.

Deep in the forest, the elk and the wild boar roam free: unhindered, and unobserved, by humankind.

Source: Sunday Herald

Bookmark and Share

Yushchenko's Choice Will Answer Crucial Questions

KIEV, Ukraine -- It was a difficult week for Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. Following a far worse showing than he expected for his Our Ukraine bloc in the parliamentary election, he began weighing the pros and cons of his two possible coalition partners – both apparently unpalatable to him personally.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko

His response so far has been to do nothing. But soon, he will need to make a choice, and that choice will be informed by three fundamental questions.

Does Yushchenko want to continue moving Ukraine westward, or does he want to turn back to Russia? Does he want to continue to represent the goals of Maidan, or does he want to maintain the status-quo and the natural stability that comes with it? Does he want to serve a second term, or would he be content with one? The president’s choice of partners will tell much about his answers to those questions.

On one side, there is Viktor Yanukovych, Rinat Akhmetov and the Party of Regions. The party has gotten good press recently, announcing that it supports Yushchenko’s Europe-oriented goals for Ukraine. But the party’s votes in the Rada don’t support this contention.

PR voted with great fanfare in October 2005 against enacting the NATO action plan, opposed WTO-related bills introduced last year, opposed synchronizing Ukraine’s customs standards with the EU and fought against free-market measures that would have increased competition in certain industries. All of these measures were supported by the president, but many failed to pass because of opposition from the Party of Regions.

Given the platform of Regions, and judging from years of votes cast, a coalition with this party would likely mean closer ties with Russia, looser ties with EU countries and the United States, and an end to attempts to create an independent energy policy.

It could also mean the official closure of criminal cases surrounding the deaths of journalists and the 2004 vote rigging, and a drastic slowdown of EU-modeled economic and democratic reforms.

On the other side of the coalition equation is the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (Byut). Tymoshenko and her deputies joined with Yushchenko and Our Ukraine to vote in favor of the NATO action plan last year. Her bloc either supported or initiated most WTO-related legislation, new customs regulations and anti-monopoly measures also supported by Our Ukraine. On just about every major EU-related bill, Tymoshenko’s bloc voted loudly in favor, alongside Our Ukraine and in opposition to the Party of Regions.

A coalition with Byut would keep Ukraine enthusiastically on the road to Europe, with a possibly greater chance than last year to pass needed reforms. It would also mean a recommitment to promises made on Maidan – in particular, further investigation into who organized the murder of Georgy Gongadze and other journalists and the possibility of undoing certain murky privatization deals, although it is notable that Tymoshenko has implied she may be willing to forgo re-privatizations if “her team” is allowed to ensure the completion of investigations, such as the Gongadze case.

Finally, a union between Our Ukraine and Byut would accomplish something important in a democracy: It would respond to the apparent will of the people.

Byut placed first in 13 of 24 regions, and accomplished the best ever showing in eastern Ukraine of any West-oriented party. These votes, when added to Our Ukraine and the partner Socialists, show that a plurality of Ukrainians support Ukraine’s movement westward and that support for the Party of Regions has decreased in the last year.

It seems then that if the president wishes to maintain a trajectory toward Europe, continue reforms promised on Maidan and bolster his political career by responding to the voters, the natural union would be between Our Ukraine and Byut. But here is where personalities and politics intrude.

The blunt fact is that President Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko don’t seem to like each other very much. Their personalities and work habits are worlds apart. Therefore, a coalition between Our Ukraine and the Party of Regions appears to be a real possibility.

Such a coalition may mean that Yushchenko must be content with one term, since it would signify a final break with Tymoshenko and contradict the reform-oriented will of his supporters. The fact is that in any democracy, elections are messages to the incumbent. Incumbents who respond to those messages survive. Those who do not, don’t.

Source: Kyiv Post

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Chernobyl: 26 April, 1986

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine -- The accident in reactor no. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station took place in the night of 25 to 26 April 1986, during a test.

On 26 April 1986, at 1:23:44, reactor no. 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power station exploded. One hundred times more radiation was released than by the atom bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The operating crew planned to test whether the turbines could produce sufficient energy to keep the coolant pumps running in the event of a loss of power until the emergency diesel generator was activated.

In order to prevent the test run of the reactor being interrupted, the safety systems were deliberately switched off. For the test, the reactor had to be powered down to 25 per cent of its capacity. This procedure did not go according to plan: for unknown reasons, the reactor power level fell to less than 1 per cent.

The power therefore had to be slowly increased. But 30 seconds after the start of the test, there was a sudden and unexpected power surge. The reactor's emergency shutdown (which should have halted the chain reaction) failed.

Within fractions of a second, the power level and temperature rose many times over. The reactor went out of control. There was a violent explosion. The 1000-tonne sealing cap on the reactor building was blown off. At temperatures of over 2000°C, the fuel rods melted.

The graphite covering of the reactor then ignited. In the ensuing inferno, the radioactive fission products released during the core meltdown were sucked up into the atmosphere.

Determining the causes of the accident was not easy, because there was no experience of comparable events to refer to. Eyewitness reports, measurements carried out after the accident, and experimental reconstructions were necessary. The causes of the accident are still described as a fateful combination of human error and imperfect technology.

The test during which the accident happened was conducted under time pressure. Shortly after it started, on Friday 25 April 1986, the test run was interrupted for nine hours. Electricity still had to be supplied to the capital, Kiev.

The test then took place at night. Today, several flaws in the technical design of the reactor type are thought to have been decisive.

These include the handling of the control rods. In a reactor, the power level is controlled by raising and lowering the control rods: the fewer control rods are positioned between the fuel elements, the greater the reactor power. In this type of reactor, however, the management of the "braking" process has a fatal flaw.

If the control rods are raised and then, to "put on the brakes", lowered between the fuel elements, the initial effect is the exact opposite: reactor power is increased.

If, as was the case in the test at Chernobyl, too many control rods are raised at once and then reinserted simultaneously during an emergency shutdown, the power level rises so dramatically that the reactor is destroyed.

A similar error, but with much less severe consequences, had already occurred in a reactor of the same type in Lithuania in 1983. This experience, however, was not passed on to the operating crew in Chernobyl.

What technical measures were taken to extinguish the fire in the reactor? To put out the fire and thus stop the release of radioactive materials, firefighters pumped cooling water into the core of the reactor during the first ten hours after the accident.

This unsuccessful attempt to put out the fire was then abandoned. From 27 April to 5 May, more than 30 military helicopters flew over the burning reactor. They dropped 2400 tonnes of lead and 1800 tonnes of sand to try to smother the fire and absorb the radiation.

These efforts were however unsuccessful. In fact they made the situation worse: heat accumulated beneath the dumped materials. The temperature in the reactor rose again, and thus also the quantity of radiation emerging from it.

In the final phase of firefighting, the core of the reactor was cooled with nitrogen. Not until 6 May were the fire and the radioactive emissions under control.

The 600 men of the plant's fire service and the operating crew, who were employed in firefighting, were the most severely irradiated group. 134 of them received doses of radiation between 0.7 and 13 sieverts (Sv).

This means that within a few hours they received a quantity of radiation up to 13,000 times higher than 1 millisievert: in the European Union, 1 millisievert per year is the maximum effective dose of radiation to which individuals in the population near a nuclear power station should be exposed.

31 workers died shortly afterwards. A total of around 800 000 men were involved in the clean-up operations in Chernobyl up until 1989. Today, they are still suffering from the damage to their health. 300 000 of them are believed to have received doses of radiation of more than 0.5 Sv.

How many of them have died to date from the effects is a controversial question. According to government agencies in the three former Soviet States affected, about 25,000 "liquidators" have so far died. Estimates provided by the liquidator associations in the three countries are well in excess of the official figures. The Chernobyl Forum's 2005 Report on the other hand attributes a far lower number of liquidator deaths to the reactor disaster.

These discrepancies in numbers are due to different methods of assessment. The Chernobyl Forum bases its assessment on the assumption that a dose of under 500 mSv cannot result in death. Applied to the Hiroshima-Nagasaki data, however, this assumption would lead to an entirely new appraisal of the internationally recognised consequences of the two atom bomb explosions.

Besides, the liquidator statistics (number of casualties and amount of radiation received) were deliberately and accidentally distorted by the Soviet authorities, something which is nigh to impossible to rectify this stage.

Source: Chernobyl Info

Bookmark and Share

Yushchenko's Advisers Criticize Moroz In New Spat

KIEV, Ukraine -- President Viktor Yushchenko's advisers on Wednesday sharply criticized the Socialist Party leader for blocking efforts to appoint several Constitutional Court judges, a spat that comes amid crucial talks on forming a new governing coalition.

Socialist Leader O. Moroz

The Socialist Party supported the 2004 Orange Revolution and the party's participation is needed to resurrect the estranged Orange team that led those mass protests. But with 33 seats in the new parliament, the Socialists also could be a major - but not decisive - prize for pro-Russian opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych, who won the most votes but fell short of a majority in the March 26 race.

The Socialists have said they want to be in a coalition with their Orange Revolution allies, Yushchenko and his one-time partner Yulia Tymoshenko, but they were always odd bedfellows. The party is wary of WTO membership, doesn't support joining NATO and wants to limit presidential powers.

Resurrecting the Orange Team was already a hefty task because of the bitter falling out between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko. Now the latest spat with the Socialists could cause more problems.

The feud came after the Socialists again blocked efforts to fill the Constitutional Court's empty benches. Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz accused Yushchenko of wanting the judges in place so he could appeal the new constitutional reforms that transferred many presidential powers to the parliament.

It is those reforms that made the March 26 vote so critical because the parties that form the majority - rather than the president - will now be able to name the prime minister and some members of the Cabinet.

"I think this is a demonstration of distrust, even more so coming from a party that is in the coalition," said Anatoliy Matviyenko, Yushchenko's deputy chief of staff. "It's a sign of disrespect."

Ukraine's Constitutional Court has been sitting empty for several months, with lawmakers refusing to approve the president's candidates or name their own to fill the 13 empty seats.

Yushchenko had initially planned to attend Tuesday's parliamentary session and watch the judicial candidates take their oaths, but the measure was blocked when Yanukovych's Party of Regions and Socialists seized the tribune.

Mykola Poludonniy, Yushchenko's legal adviser, blamed the "very negative position" of both parties for the impasse. "I hope that we all understand that this situation can't continue indefinitely," he said.

The Socialist Party currently holds seats in Yushchenko's Cabinet, including the powerful interior minister portfolio. But the party has sometimes caused headaches for Yushchenko. The Socialists refused to support some bills that Ukraine needed for membership in the World Trade Organization, forcing Yushchenko to miss his goal of membership last year. They also object to some of Yushchenko's free-market reforms.

Yanukovych's party said Wednesday that it planned to hold talks with the Socialists and the Communists - which would give it enough votes to form its own coalition. Socialist lawmaker Yosip Vinskiy, however, ruled out a union with the Party of Regions. "Not one of our members is in support of such a coalition," he said.

Coalition talks are proceeding slowly as all the parties wait for the final results, due next week.

Source: AP

Bookmark and Share

Ukraine’s Choice Is EU, Not Russia

KIEV, Ukraine -- As Ukraine has chosen “the road of democratic development”, attempts to force the country to make a choice between the EU and Russia are provocative, the Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk told UNIAN news agency.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk

“Ukraine has conscientiously chosen the road of democratic development, European and Euro-Atlantic integration, as stipulated by the Supreme Rada (parliament).

That is why the question about the choice is provocative in itself. The choice has been made. Once and for all,” Tarasyuk answered a question regarding a recent statement by his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to the effect that sometimes certain European countries urge Ukraine to choose whether it is with Russia or with Europe.

He stressed, however, that Ukraine is not on the receiving end of either the EU policy or the Russia’s policy, and it can decide independently how it should shape its own foreign political course.

“That is why, prior to making such comments, I think one should have first asked Ukraine about its choice,” he said.

But Tarasyuk noted that Ukraine, just like the EU, believes it is necessary to closely cooperate with Russia and that it should become a democratic and predictable partner, as this, without a doubt, is in line with our national interests.

In this context, the development of equal partnership with Russia on mutually beneficial terms has been and will remain one of Ukraine’s foreign political priorities.

Source: MosNews

Bookmark and Share

Squabbles Hinder Ukraine's Attempts To Form Coalition

KIEV, Ukraine -- The world may be congratulating Ukraine on its first "free and fair" elections, but not all of its newly elected legislators are happy. Many are considering asking the president to dissolve the new parliament and try again.

Yushchenko (L), Tymoshenko (C) and Yanukovich (R)

The vote two weeks ago, in which a divided pro-western "Orange" camp won a narrow victory over "Blue" pro-Russian forces, has led to a stand-off in coalition talks that some say could be a stalemate.

The outcome depends mainly on whether the two "Orange" leaders - Viktor Yushchenko, the president, and Yulia Tymoshenko, who was his prime minister until they fell out and he sacked her - can be reconciled.

The trouble for Mr Yushchenko is that Ms Tymoshenko's bloc won the biggest share of the "Orange" vote, which she says gives her a mandate to return as prime minister. If Mr Yushchen-ko's bloc disagrees, there will not be any coalition, she says.

Mr Yushchenko argues that the "Orange" camp should commit to a coalition but put off the decision about a prime minister.

He wants signed promises from the Tymoshenko bloc and the third prospective partner, the Socialists, that the coalition would carry out a programme in line with the president's vision - including quick entry to the World Trade Organisation, a free-trade agreement with the European Union, and no revision of past privatisations, one of the issues Mr Yushchenko and Ms Tymo-shenko quarrelled over.

But, privately, Our Ukraine insiders say the real obstacle to a coalition is the animosity that exists between Ms Tymoshenko and leading Our Ukraine members, including several whom she has accused of corruption. At a closed-doors meeting this week where Our Ukraine leaders voted on a draft coalition agreement, many opposed giving her the premiership.

A group around Petro Poroshenko, a businessman and Ms Tymoshenko's leading opponent within Our Ukraine, proposed a draft that would have invited pro-Russian "Blue" parties to join the coalition talks, which was voted down by a three-to-two majority.

Viktor Yanukovich, leader of the pro-Russian Regions party, which came first in the elections with 32 per cent of the vote, is calling for a "universal" coalition embracing all five parliamentary parties.

Most Our Ukraine members say their bloc would prefer new elections to an "Orange-Blue" coalition. But they say the stand-off is likely to continue until June or even July. Parliament is expected to open session in the second week of May. If it fails to appoint a cabinet within 60 days, the president can call new elections.

Mykola Katerynchuk, an Our Ukraine leader, says Ms Tymoshenko will be able to get herself nominated as prime minister, but she may not win confirmation as only 18 supporters would have to defect to undermine her bid.

The uncertainty is testing investors' nerves. The central bank released data this week showing it spent $1.8bn (€1.5bn, £1bn) of reserves defending the currency during the three months before the elections. Analysts say a coalition failure could precipitate a currency crisis.

But Mr Katerynchuk says the threat of new elections will force a compromise. "There's a lot of 'he doesn't like her' and 'she doesn't like him' and 'he doesn't like him' around. We need to put all that behind us."

Source: Financial Times