ANALYSIS: Who is in charge of Ukraine? (11/30/03)

ANALYSIS

Who is in charge of Ukraine?

by Taras Kuzio
RFE/RL Newsline

Recent contradictory events in Ukraine force us to choose between two conclusions. The first is that President Leonid Kuchma is no longer in control of political life in Ukraine and has become a puppet of presidential administration chief Viktor Medvedchuk, who is chairman of the oligarchic Social Democratic Party-united (SDPU). Mr. Medvedchuk reportedly relishes playing the same behind-the-scenes role that former Russian oligarch Boris Berezovskii did in the last years of Boris Yeltsin's presidency in Russia.

The second option is to conclude that Kuchma remains in charge of daily political life in Ukraine, but is simply playing a game of deception in league with Mr. Medvedchuk. Under this scenario, President Kuchma is saying one thing to the European Union, NATO and foreign diplomats, while simultaneously ordering Mr. Medvedchuk to do the opposite. Analysts believe this conclusion is more likely to be true.

In February, then Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Yevhen Marchuk said at a Kyiv conference that "the time for declarations and the elaboration of intentions has passed" with regard to Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration. Mr. Marchuk became defense minister in June and is known to be a strong supporter of cooperation with, and integration into, NATO. Mr. Kuchma also complained on the eve of the annual EU-Ukraine summit in October that he is tired of waiting for the EU to offer Ukraine a timetable for membership.

Mr. Marchuk's problem is that the left opposition - the Communists and Socialists - are hostile to NATO membership, which has strong support only from the opposition national democrats. There is broader political support for joining the EU, but membership in that organization is seen as far more unrealistic than of NATO.

The pro-presidential center is either ambivalent or, in the case of Mr. Medvedchuk, even hostile to NATO membership, something that gives him added incentive to undermine Ukraine's drive toward NATO. Support for NATO membership is low within the pro-presidential oligarchic parties.

The shared preoccupation of Mr. Kuchma and the pro-presidential center with blocking a victory by Our Ukraine leader Viktor Yushchenko in the 2004 presidential election could present another obstacle to Ukraine's NATO aspirations. A repeat of Ukraine's democratic 1994 election process, which resulted in a smooth transfer of power from Leonid Kravchuk to Mr. Kuchma, seems unlikely. The crucial difference between 1994 and 2004, however, is that the issue of presidential immunity and the fate of the oligarchs and their assets has only recently become an issue. In 1994 there were no oligarchs, as economic reform had yet to begin. The issue of immunity from prosecution for President Kravchuk simply never came up.

On November 10 a joint meeting of three parliamentary committees was held to discuss alleged violations of the law by the security forces and the Internal Affairs Ministry in Donetsk on October 31, when Mr. Yushchenko's party was prevented from holding a regional congress. At that meeting, leading SDPU member Nestor Shufrych told opposition deputies, "You are struggling for power, but nobody will transfer this to you."

It is widely believed that Mr. Medvedchuk and the SDP have the most to lose from a Mr. Yushchenko victory - as they did during the 1999-2001 Mr. Yushchenko government. Mr. Medvedchuk, therefore, sees his role as twofold. First, he must maintain President Kuchma in office beyond next year's elections, either through a third term or by amending the Constitution. Mr. Medvedchuk is opposed to either Mr. Yushchenko or Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych becoming president. Secondly, he must block the emergence of any alliances between the pro-presidential clans and Mr. Yushchenko's Our Ukraine.

Mr. Yushchenko took with him to Donetsk a large group of EU ambassadors so that they could witness first-hand the tactics employed against the opposition by the presidential administration. After Donetsk, he met with 11 Western ambassadors and showed them a 15-minute film about the Donetsk events. German Ambassador to Ukraine Dietmar Studemann was aghast at the Donetsk events, and he told the online newspaper "Glavred," that they were "completely inadmissible ... from the point of view of civilized European countries." Mr. Studemann said the Donetsk events showed a "well-thought-out action developing in line with someone's scenario."

Hanne Severinsen, head of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's monitoring committee on Ukraine, said last week that "if there is no possibility of enjoying freedom of assembly, then we cannot expect there to be fair and free elections" in Ukraine. The EU troika issued a "demarche" to the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Ministry on November 7, the same day that the largest faction in the European Parliament, the center-right European Peoples Party, condemned the Donetsk events. Visiting Kyiv on November 10, EU External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten also warned President Kuchma that the EU will closely monitor the election campaign.

The United States and other NATO countries repeated these condemnations. U.S. Ambassador John Herbst said that after Donetsk he understood that a "normal election campaign" is impossible in Ukraine. Such presidential tactics would harm Ukraine's bilateral relations with the United States and Ukraine's efforts at integration into NATO, he said. At a Kyiv conference on Euro-Atlantic integration, ambassadors from NATO member-states made clear that Ukraine's chances of joining the alliance are contingent on its holding democratic elections.

If Mr. Medvedchuk's tactics against the opposition continue unchanged in the year preceding the 2004 election, their impact on Ukraine's efforts toward Euro-Atlantic integration will be disastrous. After Donetsk, Our Ukraine continued to face similar problems that prevented the holding of regional congresses in Sumy, Lutsk and the Crimea.

On November 11, President Kuchma issued a secret decree calling upon the security forces to investigate the blocking of Our Ukraine congresses around Ukraine. This is ironic as leaked internal documents signed by the deputy chief of the presidential administration prove that the executive branch is actually behind these very tactics against the opposition, tactics that the EU, the Council of Europe and NATO have condemned.

At the same time, President Kuchma reportedly assured Ambassador Herbst in a recent private conversation that next year's elections in Ukraine will be free and fair. A November poll conducted by the Ukrainian Democratic Circle on behalf of the Institute of Politics revealed public doubts, with a staggering 72 percent of Ukrainians not believing that next year's elections will be free and fair and only 6 percent thinking otherwise.

Dr. Taras Kuzio is a resident fellow at the Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of Toronto.

| Home Page |