Law on legal status of Ukrainians abroad suffers setback due to Kuchma's veto (02/08/04)

Law on legal status of Ukrainians abroad suffers setback due to Kuchma's veto

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - National Deputy Ihor Ostash said on February 4 that the presidential veto of the long-awaited law on the legal status of Ukrainians abroad was merely a temporary setback. The lawmaker, who introduced the bill and moved it to approval through the Verkhovna Rada, said the draft law will be reworked and critical remarks made by President Leonid Kuchma will be taken into account.

"I can promise you that it will be approved and signed during this session of the Verkhovna Rada," said Mr. Ostash, who explained that he believed none of the obstacles presented by the president in his comments attached to the veto were insurmountable.

The Ukrainian Parliament finally approved the bill, one of several diaspora rights bills that moved slowly through the Verkhovna Rada for most of the year, on November 20, 2003, after the best features of several editions were combined.

However, President Kuchma expressed several reservations regarding the form and the manner in which the law was to be implemented, and returned it on December 13, 2003, to the Verkhovna Rada for rework.

Mr. Ostash, who is the chairman of the Parliament's Committee on Foreign Relations, explained that the presidential administration had rejected a cost-free, five-year multi-entry visa for those who attained the status of Ukrainians from abroad. While explaining that the president's remarks were not clear on an alternative to the Verkhovna Rada's proposal, the lawmaker said he would try to stand firm on the five-year, cost-free visa because he believes it is necessary to entice ethnic Ukrainian students to study in Ukraine.

The parliamentarian also explained that the president had expressed dissatisfaction with the definition identifying a Ukrainian abroad, which would be the basis upon which the special status would be extended.

While the bill passed by the Parliament defined such a person as "one who identifies himself as Ukrainian," Mr. Kuchma noted that such wording would reduce the rights of legitimate Ukrainians living abroad who are not ethnically Ukrainian, such as the Crimean Tatars who live in Uzbekistan, having been forcibly exiled there by Stalin in 1946. Mr. Ostash said he was inclined to agree that a change in the wording is needed.

"I think we can go another route and change the terminology to show that the requirement is to be able to prove the person's ties to the Ukrainian political nation, that is, one could be a Crimean Tatar or a Russian Ukrainian or a Canadian Ukrainian," explained Mr. Ostash.

President Kuchma also suggested the elimination of a statement in the preamble that identified Ukrainians abroad as an integral part of the Ukrainian nation. Mr. Kuchma pointed out that such wording could conflict with the Constitution of Ukraine, which identifies Ukrainians as all members of the ethnic groups found on the territory of the state of Ukraine. Mr. Ostash said he agreed with the president on this point, too, and would eliminate the clause.

Another issue raised by the president involved the rights and responsibilities of Ukrainians abroad. President Kuchma rejected an enumerative list in favor of a designation that those rights and responsibilities should be the same as those held by Ukrainian citizens. Mr. Ostash did not explain how the president would categorize mandatory military service, which is currently a responsibility of each Ukrainian citizen. This may be only a temporary inconsistency, inasmuch as there are plans currently in place to move from conscription to voluntary military service.

Perhaps the lawmaker's most difficult assignment in getting past the presidential veto is to convince Ukraine's state leader that a new government body will be needed to implement the law and guarantee the rights and responsibilities of those given status as Ukrainians abroad. President Kuchma rejected the idea of a National Commission for Ukrainians Abroad, as delineated in the draft law, which would be subordinate to the Cabinet of Ministers. Mr. Ostash said he believes the commission was necessary, but failed to express how he would overcome the obstacle, except to state that he would "attempt to develop it in a different manner."

The lawmaker said that, while he believes the veto would be overcome within this session, the law would not take effect until January 2005, the beginning of the next fiscal year, because it needed budgetary appropriation to fulfill one of its key aspects - funding Ukrainians abroad who wished to return to their homeland permanently.

"Our ultimate goal is to get all those who were forced to leave over the decades to return," explained Mr. Ostash.

The lawmaker said he believes that was the most important part of the law and a major reason why the National Commission for Ukrainians Abroad is needed. He explained that while he believes the focus must be on the return and resettlement of all those who were forcibly resettled or repressed, initial preferential treatment should be given to those who lived in abject poverty, such as Ukrainians in Serbia, parts of Russia and Central Asia.

Nonetheless, Mr. Ostash did not exclude the return of more prosperous Ukrainians living in North America and elsewhere.

"It is also important that the wealthy ones return because this would increase investment into our economy," explained Mr. Ostash. "But I understand that the return of the more prosperous Ukrainians will only come with very strong assurances for the democratic development of Ukraine."

The lawmaker said he would work with the Kuchma administration to develop a compromise bill to avoid the more difficult task of attempting to forcibly override the veto, which would require a two-thirds vote of the Parliament - and one that is preidentially controlled at that. If simply reworked the amended bill would merely need parliamentary approval by a simple majority.

| Home Page |