Posted on 11/27/2004 7:24:21 AM PST by doc654
As a recent immigrant to the United States from Kharkov (XAPKOB) Ukraine I am amazed by the lack of insight by the news media.. The closest things to the truth that I have read comes from this blog...
Behind the Scenes -- How and Why the Ukrainian Election was Stolen, Part I Reading through my comments, I'm seeing that the situation really isn't clear to some in the West. Discounting the reflexively silly Bush-haters, there are some normal people who are viewing this simply through the lens of election corruption. That's only the surface. You have to understand the situation in Ukraine. The country is run by a series of oligarchic clans that actually found their beginnings in the Soviet Union, and then grew fabulously rich during the early days of "privatization". Compare the situation to Russia, where an authoritarian Putin faced off against corrupt oligarchs. In Ukraine, authoritarianism and oligarchy are fused. Yanukovych isn't just another unscrupulous candidate, he's the main man of Akhmetov -- the duke of Donetsk and the richest man in Ukraine. The current president, Kuchma, is the head of a different clan, Dnepropetrovsk. The presidential administrator is Medvedchuk, who happens to run the Kiev-based Medvedchuk-Surkis clan. He also owns the two biggest Ukrainian TV stations, which is awfully convenient. While there is jockeying for control among these clans, the overall effect is for them to sustain one another in power. They all depend on the same system for survival, and actively collaborate to keep it in place. A good example of the clan system in action was the recent privatization of the Kryvorizhstal factory. Western firms offered 2.1 billion dollars. It was sold to the presidents son-in-law for 800 million. His son-in-law is Pinchuk, the head of the Pinchuk-Derkach clan. Do you start to see how life works here? This isn't about a few stolen votes. It's about an entire system of fine control over the political, social and economic life of the people. Economics and politics are incestuously fused here in a way that is difficult to imagine for those in the West.
How and Why the Election was Stolen, Part II I've explained a bit about the socio-political composition of Ukraine. We'll go to the next level now and talk a bit about how that interacts with politics and elections. But keep in mind that this is only a really broad overview. Start by understanding that Ukraine has a LOT of political parties, which in turn unite into a few major blocs in the parliament (the Rada.) Now remember we talked about the massively powerful oligarch groups? Parties are how they translate their economic power into political control. On the simplest level, each clan forms its own party. Kiev clan has the Social-Democratic Party. Donetsk clan owns the powerful Party of the Regions. And so on. If only it stopped there. With their money, they buy out smaller parties and use the remaining shell to attract votes. The Green Party suffered this fate, with the actual environmentalists moving on to two small rump parties (thankfully the Greens are back on the Reform side now.) Even creepier, the oligarchs finance gen-tailored spoiler parties. For example, when facing a parliamentary election against Yulia Tymoschenko, they simply financed an on-paper women's party to siphon support from her. So through these parties they take power. The Ukrainian clan system is basically a form of economic tribalism whereby the members bring home spoils for the tribe. So, for example, the Kuchma presidency has been very good for the 200-odd members of his clan. With Yanukovych rising in power, the spoils tilt increasingly his direction. Since Ukraine has only partially de-Sovietized, the group in power has no shortage of levers for socio-political control. The oligarchs have been industrious since taking power, busily suppressing opposition businesses, media and parties. The resiliency of the Opposition in the face of this pressure is admirable. How and Why the Election was Stolen, Part III In the earlier sections we looked at the oligarch system in Ukraine and the way it influences the parties and politics of the country. But WHY steal this particular election? What motive could they have to bring down the wrath of the Free-ish World in such a way? Well, two, actually. The first is that President Kuchma faces almost certain prosecution for murder and corruption when he leaves office and loses presidential immunity. As most of you know, Kuchma features prominently in conversations his bodyguard secretly taped. It really, really sounds like he's telling his people to make independent journalist Heorhiy Gongadze disappear. He did, and then reappeared sans head. Kuchma can also be brought up on countless charges of abuse of office and financial corruption. Unsurprisingly, he's against that. So the plan has been for a couple of years to groom a 'safe' replacement. Yanukovych, the powerful governor of Ukraine's most populous region and the sidekick of Ukraine's richest oligarch seemed a natural choice. So they installed him as Prime Minister and used the office to secure votes -- through an inflationary doubling of pensions, for instance. The problem is, Yanukovych is a kham -- an uncultured thug. He's served two terms in prison for violent crimes, and his CV apparently contained many spelling errors -- this in the world's ultimate phonetic language. So there you have Motive #1 -- the need to ensure the victory of a very unlikable candidate in a competition with the most popular politician in Ukraine.
The next motive is the person of Victor Yushchenko himself. He's imperfect, as all people and especially Ukrainian politicians tend to be. But he's the real deal -- an honest-to-God reformer. I was once very skeptical about this, but the more I studied his record the more convinced I became. He served as Prime Minister under Kuchma from 1999-2001. During that time, he did some true reforming. And whenever he actually made progress in changing the system, Kuchma and the oligarchs would bring down the offending minister. For example, Yulia Tymoschenko was his Vice Premier and handled energy policy. During her tenure she put an end to corrupt oil bartering deals, denounced the oligarchs she'd once supported, and had her work praised for its transparency by the World Bank. And she hit the oligarchs in the pocket book -- bringing in an extra $500 million dollars in oil tax revenue that was used to pay pensions and back wages. She was eventually taken out by Kuchma's allies. Yushchenko's minster in charge of agriculture, Kozachenko, also made some great changes. For the first time, farmers were able to avoid the government grain elevators and corrupt government middlemen and sell their goods directly. And they actually received market value, rather than government-manipulated prices. So Kozachenko was taken out on trumped-up charges. The economic progress Ukraine has seen since 2000 is largely agriculturally-driven. As in so many ways, the progress we see now is a legacy of Yushchenko's tenure as PM. So here you have Motive #2 -- the oligarchs don't want any further half-billion-dollar holes in their wallets. The last thing they want is an actual reformer in office. And so the election result needed to be assured through extralegal means.
That sounds familiar.
Neither American Republicans nor Democrats want the masses to actually have a say in a new direction for government.
Well, I still got lost about the second paragraph, but I understand a bit more. Maybe I'll come back and try again later.
What???? No factory on earth is worth $2.1 billion -- much less a Ukrainian one!!!!!! Can this be real?
When the gains that need to be made, are in the foundations for liberty and prosperity of people, upon whom rest the propositions for taking investment risks.
That "We live in a democracy." and "Look at what capitalism achieves." are easily cited, leaves out of the message, what actually works.
We do not live in a democracy; our system of government is based on democratic-republican processes of authorizing government's and government agents' powers, in addition to the general common law, both of which, authority for government and the justice system, are subject to, versus lording over, the people, who are the enforcers.
Furthermore, we do not live in a "capitalist society;" we find that capitalism, in order to work well, requires a rule book that guides our agreements.
In all this, we have found that, at every step wherein government and /or the courts have any involvement, we must limit both from further intrusion.
The point is, there is nothing actually simple about it, other than, the sovereignty of the people and the need for limiting government, while engaging specific government and specific justice power in order to ensure that basic agreements between two people are both enforceable and enforced, and the kind of agreements as well as the conduct of the parties involved, is in a rule book among the volumes that make up the rule of law.
There cannot be a binding agreement without the words of the agreement being bound to their original intent.
In my humble opinion, these observations of what works, has escaped "the literature" at Harvard and other business schools in the West, as well as the last decade's rush to greed in the so-called "former Soviet Union" and Red China.
You can read a lot about all the financial advisors, but who has gone around "over there," helping people to both realize and setup and enforce, the basic common law upon which commerce and growing economies and capitalism depend?
Le Sabot Post-Moderne is quite an exciting site. Thank you for the connection, Doc.
Ping !
Contrary to the condemnations issued by the team of professional politicians and diplomats deployed by the OSCE mainly from NATO and EU states, the BHHRG observers did not see evidence of government-organized fraud nor of suppression of opposition media. Improbably high votes for Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovich, have been reported from south-eastern Ukraine but less attention has been given to the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine.Yugoslavia reloaded.Whatever may have been the case in south-eastern Ukraine, it was clear to this Group’s observers in central Ukraine and western Ukraine that the opposition exercised near complete control. The broadcast media showed bias towards Mr. Yushchenko in these areas, particularly in western Ukraine where Mr Yanukovich was invisible – not even being shown voting on polling day. It is naïve to think only the government had the facilities to exercise improper influence over the polls. From what BHHRG observed, the opposition exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places, giving rise to concerns that the opposition – not only the authorities – may have committed violations and may have even falsified the vote in opposition-controlled areas. So-called “administrative resources” in places visited by BHHRG appeared to be in the hands of the opposition, not the government, and this may have frightened voters. After all since Sunday, police and security personnel in some western towns have declared their loyalty to “president” Yushchenko.
The open bias of Western governments and their nominated observers in the OSCE delegation, some of whom have appeared on opposition platforms, makes it unreasonable to rely on its report.
In spite of concerns, BHHRG finds no reason to believe that the final result of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine was not generally representative of genuine popular will. The election featured a genuine choice of candidates, active pre-election campaigns, and high voter participation. It is clear that Ukrainian opinion was highly polarized. That meant many people backing a losing candidate would find it difficult to accept a defeat. Foreigners should not encourage civil conflict because the candidate on whom they have lavished expensive support turned out to be a loser.
And why not?
The BHHRG, by the way, accusing anybody of bias is laughable - they were, and remain, a bunch of anti-American leftist toads who seem to think the recent election met democratic standards.
Pathetic.
Why is Putin supporting the corrupt govt?
I heard Soros is back the suppsed good guy which makes me wonder. Soros is vermin. I also wonder if Soros backed the oligarchs who stole most of Russia's oil and other commodities plus steel factories. The oligarch vermin billionaires are all hiding out in London. I was hoping Putin would take back the stolen assets and come up with a way to privatize the companies and give Russian citizens shares in the companies.
The people of the Ukraine and Russia sure deserve some leaders who are not pirates. Not that I think the U.S., Western Europe, Asia, the Middle East (what a joke) are not that much better.
Note that I love America but our govt is filled with a bunch of crooks especially in that lifetime club or semi-royalty in the Senate.
Kuchima could actually go to jail for murder and corruption?
The Ukraine looks less corrupt than the United States when you see Clinton. Clinton probably was more corrupt than Kuchima and he ends up with millions.
This is an excellent article. I hope Soros is not connected to the reform candidate.
It seems like all of the 'human rights' groups hate the US more than they do authoritarian regimes. Guardian has a similar 'it's all America's fault' expose. So much noise, hard to pick out a signal sometimes.
And why Putin supports dictators in all others former Soviet republics except of Baltic states and Georgia? Because he can protect Russian business there better.
As I always recommend how to read Plato: study what you understand, not what you don't understand.
Very good article indeed, all truth. But this don’t change the fact of the Russian plans over there.
The signal on this one is pretty hard to miss, struwwelpeter - the recent election in the Ukraine isn't a valid expression of the electorate's will.
Without speaking to the number of votes gotten by whom, the machinations of the ruling party have invalidated this particular exercise in democracy.
Seychas my tak prikovany k telekam, esli ne na ploshchadi, kak nikogda. Na vsekh kanalakh zhurnalisty proveli zabastovki, chtoby im dali vozmozhnost' realizovat' svoi professional'nye vozmozhnosti i ne rabotat', kak prostye diktory, chitat' o tom, chto napisali v administratsii prezidenta, t.e. po 'temnikam'. I dobilis' svoego. Teper' mozhno smotret' kanaly i informatsiya skol'ko raznaya, chto neuspevaesh' prereklyuchat' kanaly, potomu chto informatsii mnogo i ona nasyshchennaya. Seychas k nam priexali kak posredniki Solan i Kvasnetskiy. Ne uverena, chto dostignut kakogo-to rezul'tata, slyshkom vlast' daleko zashla.But you know, when I lived there she held so many a**-backwards opinions (especially about the US) that I figured her views on this elections were screwy as well. Four years back she thought our problems in Florida were so hilarious."Now we are riveted to our television sets, if not out in the square, as never before. On all the TV stations the journalists cover the strikes, in order to finally realize their possiblities of their profession and not simply work as simple announcers, reading whatever the president's administration has written. And they are getting theirs. Now one can watch the stations and there is so much information and it's all so different that you can't even change the channel because it's so saturated. The mediators Solan and Kvasnetskiy arrived. I'm not sure that they'll reach some kind of result, the government has gone too far."
U menya, v sem'e, kak v strane, obrazovalas' oppozitsiya, kaolitsiya. Ya sobirayus' na nedele uezzhat', khochu poexat' v kakoy-nibud' sanatoriy do Novogo goda pobyt' vne doma i dat' im vozmozhnost' pobyt' bez menya. A mozhet byt', spokoyno tam umru.
"In my family, just as in my country, there have formed an opposition and a coalition. I'm getting ready to leave in a week, I want to go to some sort of sanitorium and stay there until the New Year, and give them some time here without me. Perhaps I'll just die there in peace."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.