Damn Them Both!

Appealing to the world and accusing each other of usurping power in defiance of the Constitution, representatives from the two opposing camps are using such similar-sounding phrases as “to save Ukrainian democracy”. Their press services keep sending out report after report about contacts made with foreign partners by phone or in person, and about the support they have enlisted.

Both camps already have impressive “collections” of authoritative names and organizations. The coalition’s mouthpieces, for example, began with the Council of Europe – the very organization they had just recently criticized for its “biased” report on the situation in Ukraine. Now their westward cries for help sound rather dissonant considering recent anti-West and anti-American hysteria that followed the worst traditions of the Cold War era…

The pro-presidential side is none the better: the SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] granted Vladimir Zhirinovsky free entry to Ukraine in exchange for his support (though the Foreign Ministry objected categorically). Last year, Zhirinovsky was declared a persona non grata in Ukraine for denying the very existence of Ukraine as a state and for other anti-Ukrainian utterances.

So far, nothing unexpected has happened. Russian mass media, as usual, keep drawing apocalyptic pictures, bringing up the Orange Revolution, and railing at Yushchenko. Western media, as before, are far from positive about Yanukovych. At the same time, they no longer praise Yushchenko. Now their commentaries sound with regret, irritation, and sometimes with sympathy, but with less and less respect for the leader and declining optimism about Ukraine.

Since Tuesday, a great many foreign politicians have expressed their opinions with regard to the situation in Ukraine. All Russian MPs (except for Zhirinovsky) and notable politicians have stated their support for the Yanukovych government and the coalition majority. Western politicians are not unanimous and not so categorical in their assessments of Yushchenko’s move, but they generally express their “understanding”. The only leader to support Yushchenko openly is Polish President Lech Kaczynski. In a phone conversation he said that “the best way out would be a fair and transparent preterm election”. (Yanukovych, who counted on Poland’s mediation, was deeply upset.)

The Kremlin is keeping silent: firstly, Putin remembers too well the blunders he made in 2004; secondly, although he may favor Yanukovych more than Yushchenko, the institution of presidency is sacred and untouchable to him. Federation Council Chairman Sergey Mironov even said in his comment that the developments in Ukraine convinced him of “inexpediency of considering the parliamentary model of government in Russia”. The Kremlin is unlikely to criticize the Ukrainian president, even though his name is Yushchenko. After all, has he done Russia any harm? He talks very much of the EU and NATO and he is reputed to be pro-American. But wasn’t it under his presidency that Russia secured supplies of its natural gas to Ukraine on very favorable terms? And didn’t Yushchenko try to convince U.S. officials how good the new gas contracts were? Notably, comments from Washington are the fewest in the general information flow.

All official comments are practically identical: Russian, U.S., and EU officials as well as representatives from a host of international organizations speak of resolving the conflict by peaceful means, abiding by the law, following democratic principles, and reaching a reasonable compromise. Russia may be willing but is unable to support either side. The West is definitely unwilling – no matter how hard both sides are trying to enlist its support. For some reason, both sides have illusions on that score…

No matter how many times Yanukovych has visited Brussels, or how many Western leaders or ambassadors he has met with, or how convincingly he reads out what his clever aides and speechwriters have written for him, 2004 has not been forgotten. No nice words can out-speak the expressive methods employed by the Yanukovych government and the pro-government coalition. Even Javier Solana, whose comments are usually very reserved, said in the European Parliament last week that the Yanukovych government was “not the one we expected”. During a closed-door meeting of the EU ambassadors to Ukraine, only one of them spoke against Yushchenko’s “undemocratic” actions. The rest either stressed their neutrality, suggesting “the zero option” as the most acceptable solution, or admitted the inevitability of the preterm election.

Meeting with foreign ambassadors at the Cabinet Club, Yanukovych failed to produce the desired impression. The beginning was quite good. His well-prepared speech was supposed to demonstrate his peaceability and readiness for compromise. But his impromptu utterances dispelled all illusions. In his natural manner, Yanukovych tried to convince the ambassadors that there was no gross election fraud in 2004. Then he tried to justify the reinstatement of the former Central Election Committee staff – the one headed by Sergey Kivalov and found guilty of falsifying election returns in 2004 – by feeble explanations that the Regions Party did not have its representatives on the committee. Such utterances quickly erased the polite smiles from the ambassadors’ faces. And when Yanukovych said that the people would soon “carry Yushchenko and his governors out of office on pitchforks”, the foreign diplomats were dumbfounded…

At the same time, appeals to the world community and “democratic parliaments” to support the Ukrainian president sound poor and ridiculous. His image of a brave revolutionary, democrat, and reformer has long lost its luster, his decisions and steps look rather dubious, and his two-year-long presidency has given so much reason for disillusionment… The world community cannot support Yushchenko, because it no longer trusts in his capability, methods, and earnestness in declaring high goals.

There is only one positive thing noted by international observers: the presence of “active and open political discussions” and peaceful demonstrations. In this regard, Ukraine differs strikingly from Russia where police quench any feeble attempts to demonstrate opposition to the government’s policy.

Both confronting sides have to realize that each new day of this political crisis worsens Ukraine’s international image and that the irresponsibility of their stiff-necked leaders increasingly irritates the rest of the world.

In the first hours after the “Ukrainian shock”, EU officials preferred to act by the wait-and-see principle. In a few days, they began to run out of patience. Although the tenor of their official comments remains the same, Brussels has already formulated several messages to the conflicting sides.

One: While everyone in Ukraine is looking forward to the Constitutional Court’s verdict, the Europeans are not inclined to take it as the ultimate resolution.

Firstly, being rather skeptical about Ukraine’s judiciary, they will regard either verdict passed by the CC as politically biased. Obviously, Brussels is not inclined to regard Ukraine’s future as pending on the court’s verdict.

Secondly, Brussels top officials are sure that the current problem is of a political rather than legal nature. European experts recognize the legitimacy of both President Yushchenko and Premier Yanukovych but find their current positions defective in legal terms. They admit that it is impossible to make out who is right and who is wrong.

Hence, the second and key message: a way out of this crisis lies only through a negotiating table, compromise, and political agreement.

Three: There should be not two but three negotiators: Yushchenko and Yanukovych plus Tymoshenko. This week, Javier Solana had phone conversations with these three persons (Parliament Speaker Moroz did not have this honor).

Four: It is evident to Europe that Ukraine cannot do without a new general vote. Therefore, the sides should agree to an early election, which Brussels views as a compromise solution to the crisis.

In this context, the fifth message is extremely important: the President and the opposition should agree to reset the date of the preterm election. Otherwise, the civilized world might recognize it as undemocratic. According to our sources, Brussels has made it clear that Kyiv should refrain from inviting international observers to the election – they may simply refuse to come as they consider the announced schedule as hardly feasible. Calling to mind that the 2006 parliamentary election was recognized as a perfect example of free and fair vote, European officials are stressing that this time they will attach crucial importance to the preparations rather than the poll per se. They know that Ukrainian legislation is far from perfect and are ready to close their eyes to some minor organizational irregularities. However, if some key participants in the election process fall behind the schedule or if the election does not take place in a large number of constituencies on May 27, they will declare this election as undemocratic.

Yushchenko turns a deaf ear to Europe’s advice. After an extraordinary session of the National Security and Defense Council on Thursday, Olexandr Moroz told reporters that Yushchenko flatly rejected his proposal to postpone the election date. Foreign Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk confirmed that the presidential side would not invite international mediators. Obviously, Yushchenko and his team would prefer to avoid their aid, remembering how they persuaded him in 2004 to agree to the much hated political reform. As he justly believes, it is the utter defectiveness of the amended Constitution that has largely caused the current crisis, and Europe recognizes this fact, too.

Six: In case the key figures involved in this political crisis turn a deaf ear to the above messages, the EU will have to act adequately in relation to each of them and even revise its plans of further cooperation with Ukraine. The Foreign Ministry reassures us that “the political situation in Ukraine will in no way affect the preparations for concluding a new enhanced agreement with the European Union”, but the topmost officials in Brussels warn: if the election is recognized as undemocratic, there will be very serious consequences for relations between Ukraine and the EU – up to the latter’s refusal to continue drafting the new agreement. It is no secret that many European politicians, who were gladly wearing orange scarves two years ago, are sighing with relief today: how good that we didn’t go too far in our relations with that unpredictable country!

There is another open question: even if the Ukrainian political leaders come to terms and even if the election is more or less democratic, who can guarantee that the opponents will return to the negotiating table and reach an agreement on amending the Constitution? The Europeans believe, not without reason, that the primary cause of the current political crisis in Ukraine was the constitutional crisis and that the Ukrainian legal field is a minefield. Therefore, the amendments to the Organic Law must rule out any possibility of diarchy: Ukraine must have one top leader and speak in one voice on the international arena.

Europe is sick and tired of the Ukraine problem. This country is losing the last of their favorable attitudes and its last chances for fruitful cooperation. Europe is fed up with Ukraine’s obscure problems. Europe has apprehensions that even a successful settlement of the current crisis might be followed by another crisis in a couple of months. Europe sees no guarantees that the appeased Ukrainian politicians will immediately start reforms and work day and night for the good of this country. Europe sees no such leader at the moment. Europe has never had any illusions about Yanukovych, is disillusioned about Yushchenko, and is still mistrustful about Tymoshenko – an unknown entity with strong populist and authoritarian inclinations... More likely than not, few will volunteer to mediate between the conflicting sides. By far, such statements of intent have only come from Polish President Kaczynski (who would like to make himself known in the eyes of the European community) and the Russians (who are always ready to lend their younger brother a helping hand). Big European leaders are in no hurry to soil their hands and reputations in these dirty political squabbles. Whatever is happening in Ukraine today is no longer taken as a fight between good and evil, between democracy and authoritarianism. It is perfectly clear to everyone in the world that this is nothing but an inane grasping after power – for personal reasons, not as a means of serving this country.