Taras Kuzio’s Blog

Tarasiuk Goes, What Remains?

Borys Tarasiuk’s resignation as Foreign Minister on Tuesday sends many signals to the outside world as well as to domestic Ukrainian politics. As I wrote last week in Eurasia Daily Monitor, the battle for power between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych has reached into the dangerous field of the security forces.

Tarasiuk was removed in early December on the eve of Yanukovych’s visit to the USA. This move by the Anti-Crisis coalition was a strange backdrop to Yanukovych’s carefully choreographed visit organized by his American public relations advisers. Presumably the leadership of the Anti-Crisis coalition, including Yanukovych himself, did not care how Tarasiuk’s unconstitutional dismissal by parliament would be seen in Washington, and more broadly in the West.

After Tarasiuk’s dismissal he was repeatedly humiliated by not being permitted to attend cabinet of ministers meetings. The most disconcerting step occurred a week ago when the Yanukovych government cut off of funds to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Such a step was unprecedented in international affairs and further damaged Ukraine’s international reputation. Following this step, senior Western leaders and Ambassadors began to ask who was in charge in Ukraine?

Tarasiuk’s dismissal answered this question: it is Yanukovych. The Anti-Crisis coalition and Yanukovych have obtained what they wanted, the dismissal of the pro-western Foreign Minister Tarasiuk.

This sounds all to similar to October 2000 when Tarasiuk was also dismissed. Both then, and today, Tarasiuk’s dismissal was in the interests of Russia whose leader lobbied for this staunch defender of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration to be removed. On the eve of Yanukovych’s visit to the US he visited Moscow on an unexplained visit and without prior coordination with the Foreign Ministry. One wonders what they discussed in Moscow over vodka and zakuski.

Following the resignation of Tarasiuk, Ukraine’s foreign policy is set to fully return to the multi-vectorism of the Leonid Kuchma era. This means a return to constant vacillation and deception. Yanukovych has brought back holdovers from the Kuchma era to assist him in this.

What of Yushchenko’s fate? In the USA, presidents whose ratings have dropped below 30 percent are seen as such. It has taken Yushchenko, who has ratings of only 6-7 percent, only two years to reach the same low support that it took Kuchma 7-8 years to reach in his second term. A second term is simply out of the question for Yushchenko.
Yushchenko’s low popularity is a consequence of his inability to fight back and to be constantly on the retreat in the face of the Party of Regions onslaught. As Ilko Kucheriv, head of the Kyiv-based Democratic Initiatives NGO said to me in Washington recently, ‘vin nichoho ne robyt’ (he is not doing anything). Apart from, that is another round table on 14 February. As Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) representatives said today in Washington, they will be there only in terms of symbols as that day is Valentines Day and BYuT’s symbol is a red heart.

If he continues to not fight back, or to not dismiss parliament, by the next election cycle in 2009-2011 the country will have de facto become a parliamentary republic. Think of how Ukraine looks after 5 months of Yanukovych in office and then close your eyes and take a pot shot into the future as to how the country will look in 50 months when the next elections will be held.
Tarasiuk’s only mistake was to remain as head of a political party (Rukh) which followed Our Ukraine, of which it is a constituent part, in going into opposition to the Anti-Crisis coalition. Even a Ukrainian Cossack hopak dance would find it difficult to dance around the paradox of being a member of a government that you oppose. But, I suspect that was more an excuse than the real reason for this crisis.