|

|
 |
|
Opinion-editorials decyphered - 25 May 2005
The Orange Disappointment
Decyphering
Anders Aslund presented his disappointment in the Washington Post. The Swedish diplomat, who for a long time kept politically active in favor of the old Soviet bloc transformation into a capitalist paradise, yearns for his dream of a great liberal night in Ukraine. Some months after the orange «revolution», the expected balance had not yet been reached. The new steering team did not change the State structures, it instead put them to work for its exclusive benefit. Growth decreases whereas inflation is rocketing. However, such disappointment verges on naivety: even before the elections and the «revolution», we explained in these columns how the CIA had been manipulating the Ukrainian opposition in order to bring to power their own servants, not to improve one iota in that country, of course. Shut away in his primary anti-Russian ideals, Aslund found this, on the contrary, as a spontaneous popular movement and signed a letter of request against Vladimir Putin. Today, he realistically looks at the results but refuses to recognize his mistakes and prefers to believe that the promises were betrayed.
_On his part, in the SNG Gazette, Russian parliamentarian Viatcheslav Irgunov maintains that the Yushchenko-Tymoshenko duo is in full crisis. The single wish of the new Ukrainian leaders is to nationalize the properties of other oligarchs, to privatize them again, but this time for their own profit. The difficulty lies in the fact that they have already wolfed down almost all the pie and there is very little left to share.
In the same daily, Yuri Pomanenko, from the Kiev Global Strategies Institute, enjoys the schizophrenia of the leaders from Ukraine, Georgia and other winners of the colored revolutions that owe their power to the U.S. and plan something against Russia, but whose national interests lead them, in contrast, to get closer to Russia and against the United States. Probably it is this apparent contradiction, rather than the economic disappointment, which really explains Anders Aslund’s and his friends’ bitterness, a point of view that the new Ukrainian Transportation Minister Evgueni Chervonenko seems to bear out in Vremya Novostvey.
Against any expectations, Chervonenko is pleased about the rapprochement between Kiev and Moscow, and he says that these relationships enjoy better health today than they ever did. In other words, by manipulating the Ukrainian opposition to put a submissive government in power, Washington would have bet on some opportunists who, once reached their aim, would have disappointed their sponsors to take on again their national interests.
EuropaNova - an Euro-enthusiast association of young French leaders - shares its joy concerning the European Constitution with the readers of the Figaro. For this group, the principle of a Constitution for Europe is good in itself. It is, therefore, superfluous to set about discussing precisely its contents. We have to vote «yes» in the referendum. The problem is, as Argentinean jurist Alejandro Teitelbaum has shown in our columns, that this Constitution treaty is only a name and actually corresponds to the adaptation for 25 of a Free Trade Agreement derived from the WTO treaties.
Among the «no» supporters, former socialist Minister Laurent Fabius should resort to his educator’s qualities to convince the readers of Le Mondethat this is not racist to oppose the fact that rich countries may compete against poor countries. In the face of his speaking precautions, we can retrospectively assess up to what extent one part of the French leftwing has used and abused the term «racist» to discredit the National Front and to divide the rightwing and how upset they become when it comes to vote «no» together with the National Front. However, the «yes» supporters, on their part, are not in the least embarrassed to have to vote together with the Latvian presidency and their SS friends.
And what is more surprising, Mr. Fabius continues to denounce the secret measures, which, in his opinion, the «yes» supporters would like to implement after winning. Of course, the former Minister speaks of his rightwing opponents, but this is how he tries to get further away from his «economic liberal image» and slander his false friends of the Socialist Party.
Voltaire Network
|
 |
|

25 May 2005
Tools

Print
Send
All the versions of this article:

français
Español
Authors and Sources of Op-Eds Decyphered
|
 |
“Betraying a Revolution”
Author
Anders Aslund
Source
Washington Post (United States)
Reference “Betraying a Revolution”, by Anders Aslund, Washington Post, May 18, 2005.
Summary The orange revolution in Ukraine was a joyful event, a liberal revolution for democracy and freedom. Viktor Yushchenko was elected president and promised the population he would make them free of fear and corruption.
Unfortunately, the new Primer Minister, Yuliya Tymoshenko, a heroine of the revolution too, surprisingly opted for a socialist and populist economic policy. The results have been immediate. The growth has dropped from 12% last year to 5% and the inflation has surged to 15%. How could all these happen so soon?
The biggest blow to the economy was the re-privatization policy which nationalized the oligarchs’ companies to privatize them again. In the case of Kryvorizhstal, Ukraine’s biggest steel mill, the owners took the case to the European Court of Justice and the proceedings are still undergone. Since the government is trying to nationalize many enterprises, the owners prefer to sell them to Russia or to transfer their capitals there and, of course, they stop making investments. Besides, the statements of the new minister of privatization and those of the Prime Minister sounded like state capitalism. Finally, in order to finance pay raises the government has raised taxes despite the contrary promise made by Viktor Yushchenko. The new fiscal system has forced thousands of small entrepreneurs to close their businesses whereas the oil and meat prices control policy has caused shortages.
The friends of Ukraine need an explanation.

“Strong Tensions Exist Between Tymoshenko and the Yushchenko Team"
Author
Viatcheslav Irgounov

 |
 |
Viatcheslav Irgounov presides over SLON (Union for Culture and Science), he is deputy of the Russian Duma and director of the International Institute of Political and Humanitarian Research.
|
Source
Gazeta SNG (Russia)
Reference “ Существует очень серьезное напряжение между Тимошенко и командой Ющенко ,” by Viatcheslav Irgunov, Gazeta SNG, May 19 2005. Text adapted from an interview.
Summary There exists no doubt that the current judicial process in the Ukraine has a political character. Nor is there any way around the fact that the Minister of the Interior has reasons to affirm that he given no order at any time which has violated the law. The situation has not changed after the revolution: 18,000 officials have been fired and that wave of dismissals had a repressive character. Currently the régime is trying to substitute loyal people for those who are not supportive. The falsification and manipulation of the elections has also been profitable for Yushchenko, but nobody has ever heard that anyone in a position of responsibility worried about that. The same thing can said for the presidents of universities and their educational personnel. At present it is evident that numerous people in the administration are incompetent, which will create a problem for the operation of the administrative apparatus. It is regretful that corruption can drown that new apparatus more quickly than before. Strong tensions are expected that, much more given the fact that the economic situation in Ukraine has not been good in recent years.
The transfer of property is not so important. People would like to return to privatization, but in Ukraine there does not exist a handful of millionaires with sufficient belongings. That is one of the difficulties. At another level, loyal people are rewarded, but not as much as promised in the revolutionary hay days. That process can cause foreign investors to become skeptical. At the moment, outside of politically motivated American investments, no capital has in fact entered the country.
The harsh methods of the government have tended to unify the opposition, directed in fact by Yanukovic, but they can also lead to division in the winners camp. In my opinion, the current group will have to be broken up. Strong tensions exist between Tymoshenko and Porochenko and between the Tymoshenko and Yushchenkos team. The legislative elections will be almost more important that the battle for the presidential seat. The opposition is fractured and diverse; it doesn’t have a leader and can lose votes. I think that the government will find itself in a compromising situation in the Rizak and Kolesnikov matter [ 1], the example of Yukos was useful in that sense. The reputation of Russia is spotted, and although the European Union-and even more the United States-applies law with double standards, I think they will not forgive it being done to their own people.

“ The moralism of Kiev and Tbilisi leads to internal political schizophrenia”
Author
Yuri Pomanenko
Source
Gazeta SNG (Russia)
Reference “ Моралистичность Киева и Тбилиси приводит к внешнеполитической шизофрении ”, by Yuri Pomanenko, Gazeta SNG, May 18, 2005.
Summary After Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, it is clear that Russia has lost its stabilizing role in the region. The different types of revolutions, whatever their names may be, are a diagnosis of Russia’s foreign policy. The changing situation in the periphery forces Moscow to bet on another CIS - Community of Independent States - (the union of non-recognized states, Abkhazia, North Osetia, Transnistria, Karabash). It shows Russia’s incapacity to maintain its satellites in its area of influence and makes it a destabilizing factor in the post-Soviet region. Moscow is not interested in getting involved in a series of local conflicts that would make it hostage of a third force, particularly of the United States. The strategy of US lightning revolutions is understandable. However, Washington does not want to show the Putin government that it is convenient for them. China is the main adversary of the United States in the region as it struggles to build a sort of Socialism with a “human face”. The Americans’ willingness to limit China’s access to the Russian resources and technologies should solve Russia’s domestic policy problems.
The main card of the revolution is Ukraine, due to its geopolitical, economic and demographic weight in Eastern Europe but also as a model of power transfer in revolutionary conditions. The orange revolution has become a standard for the opposition movements in CIS countries. The traditional willingness of that country to be Russia’s alternative leader is another factor. Ukraine is in fashion and its leaders are trying to have a more active foreign policy, reviving the GOUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldavia) which lost the O (in French) with Uzbekistan. This GUAM revives thanks to the Americans who try to defend their interests: it is not an energy criterion anymore but political and, above all, related to security.
According to Ukrainian political analysts, their country is currently to play three roles: regional leader, exporter of democracy and peace mediator in different regional conflicts. Such eclecticism is not good for the country. The Tbilisi-Kiev axis seriously opposes Russia since the Declaration of the Carpathians. The problem for the Russians comes from the fact that those countries are supported by the United States and if they were not, they would not pose any danger. With Kyrgyzstan, and potentially Kazakhstan and Belarus, these countries are long-lasting anchorage points for the United States in the “Heartland”. Counting on that support, Georgia and Ukraine feel safe from Russia. The other side of the coin is that the ideology and the moralism of Kiev’s and Tbilisi’s foreign policy contradict the pragmatic economic interests that would demand a rapprochement with Russia. A sort of schizophrenia stems from that. Yushchenko proves that he has reassessed his policy: he understood that it is not time for his country’s integration into the European Union and that there are problems that can not be solved without Russia’s assistance.

“A call of EuropaNova in favor of the yes”
Author
Personalities of the EuropaNova group
|
Nikos Aliagas, Jean-Louis Aubert, Edwige Antier, Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Patrice Chéreau, Pierre Cornette de Saint-Cyr, Catherine Deneuve, David Douillet, Jean-Baptiste de Foucauld, René Frydman, Antoine Garapon, Marie de Hennezel, Stéphane Hessel, Marek Halter, Philippe Herzog, Guillaume Klossa, Nicole Nottat, Bernard Layre, Jean Nouvel, Thierry Pech, Jean Peyrelevade, Bernard Ramanantsoa, Jacques Rupnik, Philippe Starck, Bernard Thomas, Elisabeth Tordjman, Alain Touraine.
|
Source
Le Figaro (France)
Reference “ Un appel d’EuropaNova pour le oui ”, by personalities of the EuropaNova group, Le Figaro, May 21, 2005.
Summary The debate about Europe has never been son passionate in France. It is not about going back to the debate between sovereignty and federalism. What is at stake is very different. What can the Europe we’re building do to have a fairer, safer and more equitable world?
Through the project of the European Constitution and for the first time in the history of mankind, 25 States have decided to create together a new form of political community based on the double legitimacy of the States and the citizens. Its soul would be the president and the towns or cities legitimacy would be guaranteed by a strong European Parliament elected by universal suffrage. With a European Minister of Foreign Relations, Europe would be able to implement the Union’s foreign policy based on the principles of solidarity, sustainable development and democracy. The success is not guaranteed but, for the first time, we are providing the means to achieve it and that is already something.
We feel proud of the vision of the world outlined in the European Constitution. It proposes a new model of relations between the States and the people based on the awareness of a common fate, trust and an open and respectful cooperation. Its Charter of Fundamental Rights shows there is a group of values which are the pillars of a being-created European society. In other words, we know what unite us is more powerful than what divide us. We not only want a base-on-the-market Europe, but a Europe in accordance with a true political, social and humanist project. Our values only make sense when we share them. That is why, as French and European citizens, we will say “yes”.

“The Right Has a Plan C for a Post-Yes Vote”
Author
Laurent Fabius

 |
 |
Former Socialist prime minister (1984-1986) and Minister of Finance (2000-2002), Laurent Fabius is a deputy in the French National Assembly.
|
Source
Hull Him
Reference “Il y a un plan C de la droite pour l’après-oui,” by Laurent Fabius, Hull Him, May 21, 2005. Text adapted from an interview.
Summary I am impressed by the interest of the French in the European debate and hope that this translated into a high voter turnout. I’m sorry that the traditional left electorate-workers, employees, the middle class, a great part of the youth-is opting more for “no” while, at the same time, having a base that is pro-European and in favor of different type of Europe - more social, more of a community. I’m also confirming that the arguments of those in support of “yes” have had difficulty asserting themselves. Finally, I’ve observed that one hears little from employer organizations that, nonetheless, are as much unanimously behind the constitution as they are for using it against the French social model.
One has to admit that rules that work for six or even for fifteen countries cannot work for 25 or 30 whose social legislation is not tuned to ours. “Free and non-deceptive competition” can be positive among countries with comparable economies, but its mechanical application runs the risk of triggering dumping when the social and fiscal levels are radically different. To say this doesn’t mean one is racist or nationalist, in fact local characters fade. I, on the contrary, think Europe should make the necessary financial attempts to welcome new member countries. But true internationalism must not consist of putting a salaried Chinese worker, for example, in “free” competition with a Romanian or French worker so that, “she/he who cost less wins.”
If one or several countries says “no,” the constitution will be discussed again later, that can be expected - it’s included as statement 30 on page 186. The true revelation is instead what I call “Plan C:” the hidden plan of the rightwing after the “yes” vote wins out. Many measures have been shelved until after May 29 in case the “yes” prevails. These include the publication of tons of letters on troop level reductions, negotiations with the unions about the control and sanctioning of strikers, ordinances penalizing patients who do not designate a doctor to treat them, the meeting of the commission that establishes the total amount of social security, an increase in gas rates, etc.-in summary, Europe will see a new version of the Bolkestein- Barroso directive, the budget with a maximum limit of 1% of the GDP, reform of regional assistance such that France is penalized, the liberalization of urban transport, etc.
If the French vote “no,” every one will take that into account, but the left will have to work for the sake of the union. It is not a debate between the reformists and the radicals; we are reformist, but to achieve effective reform it is necessary to have the appropriate means.

|
|
|
 |
 |
Information base about the 9/11th attacks
Information base about Gulf wars
|
 |