Has Yushchenko Made the Right Decision?
April 7, 2007 – 4:48 pmNobody expected the decree, either within the so-called Anti-Crisis coalition or Western governments. Right up until only a few weeks ago, Yushchenko was against disbanding parliament and holding new elections. Yulia Tymoshenko traveled around Western Europe and Washington in February-March and alone within the Orange camp supported this serious step. Why then did Yushchenko change his mind? After all, Yushchenko was never a revolutionary and issuing such a decree (which Leonid Kuchma only threatened but never did) is a sign that his patience ran out.
The cause is Viktor Yanukovych. Unlike Tymoshenko, who never saw anything positive in Yanukovych, President Yushchenko gave Yanukovych a chance in 2006 and the Prime Minister blew the opportunity. Yanukovych could have peacefully cohabitated for the next four years with a President at times more interested in historical injustice (the 1933 famine) and agriculture (bee keeping) than current affairs. Especially as constitutional reforms had transferred many powers from the President to the Prime Minister. But, these powers were insufficient for Yanukovych. And through a combination of Donetsk political culture that seeks to monopolise economic and political power and a desire for revenge for his ‘betrayal’ and ‘defeat’ (in Yanukovych’s eyes) in 2004 led to the Anti-Crisis coalition constantly poking Yushchenko in the eye. For Tymoshenko just one poke is sufficient to warrant a serious response. For Yushchenko it takes a lot more pokes to distract him from history and agriculture.
I told a businessman in Kyiv last night that ‘Yushchenko is really angry this time’. His response was ‘It’s about time!’ And, indeed many Ukrainians are surprised that Yushchenko was willing to accept so many pokes in his eye before drawing the line and saying ‘Enough!’
For Yushchenko there was also a sense of de ja vu that broke his patience. The defection of Anatoliy Kinakh to the parliamentary coalition, after an earlier Japanese bid fell through when they found out he was not a ‘robot’, reminded Yushchenko of 2002 when Federation of Trade Union leader Oleksandr Stoyan and the Liberals were bribed by the pro-Kuchma parliamentary majority to defect from Our Ukraine. The police raid on Yuriy Lutsenko’s apartment, the questioning of his activists and the planting of weapons to incriminate them as ‘terrorists’ also had echoes of police activity against Pora in October 2004. On top of this the Toloka television programme was closed on State Channel 1.
Will Yushchenko back down and accept a compromise that Yanukovych is offering? My sense after my week in Kyiv is that Yushchenko will not back down and will hold elections on 27 May with – or without – the Party of Regions. To back down would be an early end for Yushchenko. To succeed could raise his ratings to enable him to stand in the 2009 elections. My interlocutors in the presidential secretariat told me that Yushchenko, Lutsenko and most of Our Ukraine now have a strong distrust of Yanukovych that resembles the long held view of Tymoshenko.
This is a major defeat for Yanukovych and the ‘Party of Revenge’ in the Party of Regions. The Anti-Crisis coalition was the worst possible outcome after the 2006 elections as it was dominated by anti-Orange hardliners. Yanukovych is clearly a handicap for the Party of Regions as he can never fully change his Kafkaesque political culture or remove his association with 2004. The Party of Regions needs a new leader from the ‘Party of Peace’ within itself.
New elections may bring similar results (without the Socialists) but the coalition choice will at least be Orange or Grand. After being Prime Minister, Yanukovych will be unlikely to accept a junior position in a grand coalition (as he was prepared to do in 2006) and therefore the only alternative looks set to be an Orange coalition. It looks likely that Tymoshenko may well be Prime Minister after all, but a year later than she expected.
15 Responses to “Has Yushchenko Made the Right Decision?”
Why didn’t Yushchenko force a change after the Socialists defected to POR? IIRC, only a part of the Socialists changed sides – Yuschenko is not consistent here.
In any case I doubt things will ever change in Ukraine until the political system 1) clarifies the current vague constitution and 2) learn to share power.
Keep up the great work Taras!
By Taras S. on Apr 9, 2007
Ukraine Crisis: Recent Poll indicates no change in outcome of new election
A public opinion poll taken the day after the Presidents decree calling fresh parliamentary elections indicates no change in the outcome of fresh elections. Up to 36 percent of Ukrainians will be disenfranchised by Ukraine’s electoral system as a result of Ukraine’s 3% threshold quota. Governing Coalition (223 to 243) Orange Opposition (174 to 207)
One big hurdle
Monday, April 09, 2007
PACE: Ukrainian president had not enough legal grounds to dissolve the parliament
Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) monitoring committee co-reporter Renate Wohlwend believes that the Ukrainian president had not enough legal grounds to dissolve the parliament
The announcement by PACE is a serious blow to Yulia Tymoshenko and the President’s campaign for fresh Parliamentary elections. PACE had no alternative but to express its concerns over the constitutionality of the President’s decree dismissing Ukraine’s democratically elected Parliament. The dismissal of a Parliament by a head of state sets a very dangerous precedence that effects not just Ukraine but also Western democracy. Most Western parliamentary democracies have very strict limitations on the right of a head of state to dismiss a parliament.
Yulia Tymoshenko had hoped that Europe would back the oppositions call for fresh elections. It has not.
PACE has made the correct call. The actions of the President is a last gasp of a failed Presidency. The consequences of his actions seriously undermines Ukraine’s democratic development and rule of law.
Media reports over the weekend have indicated that the President had met (in secrete) with members of the Constitutional Court on Friday in an attempt to influence the determination of the Court. Yushchenko wants the Court to defer its consideration and determination no the governments appeal. The President is of the false belief that if the Court delays its decision long enough the elections process will be secured and the President if need be will declare a state of emergency if protests continue.
There are also reports that the President is ordering the Military to take control of the Parliament should the conflict continue and elections are not held.
The Constitutional Court must not bow to pressure from the Office of the President. It must rule on the validity of the President’s actions according to rule of law. Any different or delay in it’s decision would results in ongoing conflict and division.
- Extract Copy of News aralce published on RegNum —
The main cause of the presidential decision [to dissolve the parliament] was his attempt to cease MPs changing their factions. I am afraid, legally, it is not enough to dissolve the parliament,†Renate Wohlwend said. The PACE co-reporter expressed hope that Ukraine’s Constitutional Court would speed up its consideration of the question whether Yushchenko’s decree was constitutional. “I am afraid, if it takes months for the Constitutional Court to rule whether the president was right or wrong, clashes in the streets can start between those, who support the opposition, and those, who support Yanukovich,†Renate Wohlwend believes.
According to her, early elections will not help in settling the problem. “If the Constitutional Court decides to support the elections, they must be conducted. After the elections, Ukraine will be brought back to 2-3 years backwards in development of its democratic institutions and establishment of the rule of law,†Ms. Wohlwend said. “If the decree is pronounced unconstitutional, President Yushchenko will have to resign,†the PACE co-reporter believes.
On April 2, the power crisis in Ukraine developed into a new stage. President Viktor Yushchenko signed a decree to dissolve the Supreme Rada and appointed a date for the early elections, May 27. The parliament and the government agreed to obey the decree, only if the Constitutional Court decides the decree does not breach the constitution. On April 5, Ukraine’s Constitutional Court confirmed that it opened the case on determining whether President Viktor Yushchenko’s decree to dissolve the Supreme Rada was constitutional and pronounced the case urgent.
By UkraineToday on Apr 9, 2007
One thing I haven’t heard too much in about in all the questions about the crisis is what exactly new election results might look like. Is it clear that Party of Regions would emerge weaker following a new election? I thought I saw somewhere that Our Ukraine was only polling in the single digits — is the Tymoshenko party polling high enough to make up for this? Or is the thought that Our Ukraine will be strengthened by Yushchenko’s “bold actions”? Would be interested in what you are hearing about this in Kyiv.
By Joshua Tucker on Apr 9, 2007
The polling data suggests that 4 out of 5 forces in the current parliament will enter it, with the Socialists failing to do so. The Socialists could though be replaced by the Progressive Socialists. The results of the most recent opinion polls conducted by two respectable Kyiv-based pollsters show that the ruling coalition has nothing to fear if the Constitutional Court upholds Yushchenko on parliament dissolution and early elections. The Pary of Regions would obtain 35.3%, according to Sofia, and 33.5%, according to the Razumkov Center. BYuT would be second (25.1% according to Sofia and 24.9% according to Razumkov), followed by Our Ukraine (Sofia’s 5.4% and Razumkov’s 9.6%), and the Communists (Sofia’s 4.7% and Razumkov’s 5%). The Socialists would fail to enter(Sofia 2.8%, and Razumkov 2.1%) and the Vitrenko Bloc would also fail (1.6% Sofia, and 2.5% from Razumkov).
This would give a final result of:
40%/38.5% Regions + Communists (Sofia/Razumkov)
30.5%/34.5% BYuT + Our Ukraine
Translated into seats this would give Regions + Communists a majority.
By Taras on Apr 10, 2007
Yushchenko should be impeached and removed from office for this blatently illegal act. He thinks that he is dictator. He is not. He required a big tent coalition to take power and after doing so decided to disregard the constitution and his coalition partners.
The reason why he lost his support in the Rada is not because of Yanukovich’s mysterious evil. It’s because Yushchenko refused to accept that the old ways of “winner take all” presidency, with those who helped him get the presidency eligeable to be disposed of with no consequence, was over. He had to work to maintain that coalition.
After the 2006 election, the Orange Coalition did win a majority in the Rada. What did Yushchenko do? He told the kingmaker, Oleksandr Moroz, without whom he would have surely lost in 2004, to get stuffed. Yanukovich did what a competent politician would do; he offered Moroz that which Yushchenko refused to offer, the speakership of the Rada. Yushchenko insisted that his chocolate factory boss Poroshenko take that post because his party absolutely required one of the major posts up for grabs in the parliamentary election. That his party had the presidency of course he refused to consider and to his cost.
Yushchenko would later refuse to accept that parliament was supreme, refuse to accept the conditions that allowed him to be president to begin with, and then, in a renewed alliance with Timoshenko, vowed to block everything that the parliament passed. So this annoyed members of his own six-party bloc who wanted a more constructive policy, particularly with growth rates returning to levels known in the first Yanukovich premiership. So one of these leaders, former premier Anatoly Kinakh, who was also instrumental in Yushchenko’s winning the presidency, switched to the more competent side, that of Yanukovich. Who could blame him?
Now that Yushchenko has decided to declare war on the constitution, could the Rada be blamed for wanting a veto-proof majority. At stake is the influence of all the deputies, not just the Anti-Crisis Coalition. Now that Yushchenko’s plan is being countered, Yushchenko commits a blatently illegal act in his false dissolution of parliament.
Yushchenko claims some kind of super democratic legitimacy that parliament does not have, that votes for him are an endorsement of his entire platform. Nonsense. Many voted for him not because they liked Nato, but because they hated Kuchma. Kuchma is out of the picture now. Moroz, for instance, was an enemy of Kuchma as Yushchenko served Kuchma as a failed central bank governor and failed premier. Yushchenko benefited by Yanukovich’s being seen as Kuchma’s man. Moroz, for one, opposes Ukraine’s membership in Nato, and polls show 80% of Ukrainians feel likewise. How dare Yushchenko claim a mandate for joining this military alliance, how dare he claims a legitimacy greater than that of the elected parliament where legislators respond to competence, to direction, to compromise, to a way forward where their opinions are taken into account, as opposed to a president who thinks that people should submit to his will and their opinions be damned.
By R on Apr 10, 2007
I am puzzled. The Taras K in the first post sounds optimistic. The Taras commentor seems to think the polls currently are indicating that the election is not going to change things.
If that were the case then why is the coalition going to spend millions protesting the election?
It does not compute.
By dlw on Apr 10, 2007
It would also be cool if you got a Google Maidan going, not unlike what is being done now for Darfur.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/04/10/google.genocide/index.html
dlw
By dlw on Apr 10, 2007
It is too early to give accurate forecasts of election results. We know that 3 will get into the Rada:
Regions, Our Ukraine, BYuT
It is unclear about the Communists. The Socialists will not. Two which could this time break through are the Progressive Socialists and Lytvyn bloc.
I suspect that orange parties (Our Ukraine, BYuT and possibly Lytvyn) will receive a slim majority.
The Anti-Crisis coalition is not happy at elections because:
The Socialists are finished as a political force.
The Communists are border line.
After the elections, Regions will either be in opposition or a junior partner in a coalition. The Anti-Crisis coalition is the only coalition of the 3 (Grand, Orange, Anti-Crisis) where Yanukovych is Prime Minister. It does not matter if Regions come first as in a proportional system who creates a coalition forms the government.
By Taras on Apr 12, 2007
that makes sense.
As I understand it, Ukraine’s constitution is a mess with bad precedents and so it seems fair to say that it is a constitution that is being written or the real issue is one of values(or influence), not what the constitution specifically says.
That wd seem to raise what the Constitutional Court “decides” as a serious source of concern…
dlw
By dlw on Apr 12, 2007
I disagree with the statement that the Socialists will not secure a seat in the Parliament if and when fresh elections are called. According to recent polls both the Socialists and Our Ukraine party have lost support since March 2006. There are a number of parties listed as being close to the 3% threshold quota, the socialist Party being one of those that could readily increase its support when the campaign proper gets going.
Also the Government is not afraid of facing fresh elections. It knows that it has a good chance of retaining control of the parliament. What is at stake here is the principle of rule of law and the ongoing abuse of authority and power by the Office of the President.
Fresh Parliamentary elections will not resolve the current conflict and crisis.
In the absence of electoral reform the main change that will occur is that the opposition parties will re-select representatives that will hold the party line. IE weed out those dissidents in the ranks that did not support the oppositions tactics. in any event there is no indication that the overall results will change. The ongoing conflict between the Office of the President and the Parliament will remain.
Ukraine’s constitution is not in that great of mess. Yes there is need for review and further reform in order to strengthen Ukraine’s Parliamentary Democracy. The main problem is in the constitution’s interpretation and the failure of the Constitutional Court to perform its duties and obligations. Again divided along political lines and not on the basis of rule of law.
The principle of rule of law is just as important as the principle of democracy itself.
The President’s authority to dismiss Ukraine’s Parliament comes from Article 106 The President …(8) terminates the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in cases specified by this Constitution;”
Article 90 outlines in which circumstances the President may terminate the authority of the Parliament.
The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is terminated on the day of the opening of the first meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a new convocation.
The President of Ukraine may terminate the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine prior to the expiration of term, if:
(1) there is a failure to form within one month a coalition of parliamentary factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as provided for in Article 83 of this Constitution;
(2) there is a failure, within sixty days following the resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, to form the personal composition of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
(3) the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine fails, within thirty days of a single regular session, to commence its plenary meetings.
The early termination of powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall be decided by the President of Ukraine following relevant consultations with the Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and with Chairpersons of Verkhovna Rada parliamentary factions.
The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, that is elected at special elections conducted after the pre-term termination by the President of Ukraine of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the previous convocation, shall not be terminated within one year from the day of its election.
The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall not be terminated during the last six months of the term of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or President of Ukraine.
There is no other specific provisions in Ukraine’s constitution that grants authority to the President to dismiss or terminate the authority of the parliament.
The President and his supporters speciously claim that the provision of Article 102 gives the President the dictatorial authority and the right to dismiss the Parliament as the President is guarantor of state sovereignty and territorial indivisibility of Ukraine, the observance of the Constitution of Ukraine. it does not. Reason the president is not the arbitrator or interpreter of what is and what is not constitutional. They is the sole responsibility of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court
Article 102
The President of Ukraine is the Head of State and acts in its name.
The President of Ukraine is the guarantor of state sovereignty and territorial indivisibility of Ukraine, the observance of the Constitution of Ukraine and human and citizens’ rights and freedoms. Give absolute and unrestricted entitlement to the president to dismiss the government. This is a very mute argument and one that would not withstand serious scrutiny.
A Policeman has the moral and legal obligation to uphold the law but it does not entitle the police to summarily execute a person who jay walks. The President is not the arbitrator or interpreter of what is and what is not constitutional. Interpretation of Ukraine’s constitution is solely the responsibility of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court.
The main issue at stake here is the question of constitutional authority and the right of the President to dismiss a democratically elected Parliament and a government that continues to maintain the confidence of the peoples parliamentary representatives.
Only Ukraine’s Constitutional Court can decide this question.
The problem facing Ukraine is that the Court is under considerable pressure to not make a decision. The only person who can gain from the Constitutional Court being unable or unwilling to make a decision is the President himself.
If the Constitutional Court rules against the President’s decree then the President would have no other option but to resign. A fact pointed out by Ms Renate Wohlwend (Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/809351.html)
Clearly the Constitutional Court must make a decision. Failure or refusal to consider the matter would seriously undermine public confidence in Ukraine’s Court something that neither side can afford to allow.
One way forward, as outlined by Ukraine’s governing coalition, is to request a review and submission by the Council of Europe – Venice Commission on the constitutionality of the President’s decree. The Venice Commission being the most appropriate independent external professional organisation to consider and make a submission to Ukraine’s Constitutional Court.
In making a submission the Venice Commission would outline the issues according to international law best practice and the provisions of Ukraine’s Constitution. The Venice Commission is fully aware of the provisions of Ukraine’s Constitution and legal system. A submission by the Venice commission would facilitate and enable the Constitutional Court to consider the question of legality of the President decree without fear or favour as the whole world would be looking on. The assistance of the Venice Commission’s opinion would only strengthen Ukraine’s commitment to rule of law and compliance with its constitution.
The other way forward is the issue of fresh Parliamentary and Presidential elections.
The governing coalition has indicated that they are prepared to consent to early parliamentary elections the basis that the President resign so as to enable fresh Presidential elections to be held simultaneously with fresh elections for the Parliament.
If the President is sincere in his desire to allow the people of Ukraine to decide who should represent them then the compromise proposed by the government is fair and reasonable. Both the President and the Parliament would face the people and seek renewal of their respective mandates. After all the dispute that inflicts Ukraine at present is a conflict and battle for power between the Office of the President and the Parliament. It would be wrong and unjust to only subject one branch of power to renew their mandate.
Viktor Yushchenko will not accept this compromise why? Because all polls indicate that if the President resigned and stood for re-election he himself would not be re-elected. The President is not about seeking a political compromise and most certainly is not about respect for the democratic rights of the people of Ukraine
In the absence of a political compromise
In the absence of any agreement the only course of action is to continue to pursue review and judgment through Ukraine’s Constitutional Courts. Until the Constitutional Court decide the division and conflict will only escalate.
Many commentators have stated that the increase in the governments parliamentary support strengthens Viktor Yanukovych’s power. This is false and misleading. Power is not invested in the Prime-minister it is invested in the Parliament. It is the governing coalition that collectively decides policy and governance of Ukraine aided and guided by its executive. It is no different to any other parliamentary democracy.
Ukraine has only been a democracy for one year. Prior to March 2006 it was rules by a presidential dictatorship with little to no checks and balances. Under the parliamentary system currently i place the President still holds significant power and authority. Power and authority that the President has and continues to misuse and abuse.
Ukraine’s transition from a Presidential dictatorship to a Parliamentary democracy has brought Ukraine in line with other European Union member states, all who are successful Parliamentary democracies. Make no mistake this is a battle for power between the Office of the President and the democratically elected Parliament fuelled by the opposition. It is also an issue of Rule of Law and political statesmanship.
The dismissal of Parliament without further constitutional or electoral reform will not resolve the current crisis or conflict.
If the president sincerely believes there should be fresh elections then he should agree to the proposed compromise of holding simultaneous elections for the Office of President and the Parliament. A fair and noteworthy political compromise.
Ukraine’s Constitutional Court is expected to consider its position on Tuesday April 17.
The Council of Europe will also consider the current crisis facing Ukraine next week.
More information http://ukrainetoday.blogspot.com
By UkraineToday on Apr 13, 2007
I do not have any legal training! And therefore I pass the floor to Judge Futey. See his remarks at GWU at:
http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/news/index.cfm?ann_id=25386
By Taras on Apr 13, 2007
(Yes, I will quote from a paper but as it is a quote of a quote I should be fine – no copyright infridgement.)
Dear Dr. Kuzio,
“A plague o’ both your houses! (Mercutio)”
NOW is NOT the time to argue over domestic economic or ego based issues, as what awaits Ukraine in future is “the buffer zone”*!
It is NOT a zero sum game. Both of you complement one another even though on opposite sides of the fence and ‘cooperative-collaboration’ would expand influence and expertise. The world is big enough for the both of you. Please, negotiate a way to work together unless it has already gone past the tipping point.
Signed,
Truth teller as I see it.
——-
*(‘Buffer zones often result in large uninhabited regions (similar to nature reserves, although without tourism) which of themselves are somewhat unique in many increasingly paved/developed, crowded parts of the world.’)
By A very concerned Ukrainian on Apr 15, 2007
PACE report calls on Ukraine to adopt a Full Parliamentary System
The Council or Europe – Parliament Assembly has called on Ukraine to adopt a full parliamentary system in line with European Standards
“It would be better for the country to switch to a full parliamentary system with proper checks and balances and guarantees of parliamentary opposition and competition.”
The PACE: Explanatory memorandum presented to the Assembly meeting held on April 19 by Mrs Severinsen and Mrs Wohlwend, co-rapporteurs on Ukraine raised concern about the inevitable conflict of power under Ukraine’s Parliamentary-Presidential system between the Parliament and the President.
The report states: “The failure to establish clearly defined and law-based institutions to guarantee in practice separation of power, democratic rights and freedoms, by providing for an effective system of checks and balances is at the very heart of the political struggle that has unfolded in the country over recent months and sparked into an open crisis upon the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada (parliament) by the President of Ukraine on 2 April 2007″
As co-rapporteurs of the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee, we are deeply concerned about the political and legal implications of President Yushchenko’s decision and the constitutional, institutional and political crisis that has unfolded thereafter. Even more worrying is the fact that the crisis has paralysed many already seriously ailing institutions which should be guaranteeing democracy, rule of law and human rights
…
The undecided question on competencies and limits of different branches of power first led to a considerable confusion over the formation of the majority coalition and the new government following the March 2006 legislative elections, and has ever since evolved into an incessant tug of war between the President and the Prime Minister.
…
The parliamentary–presidential system opted for by the Ukrainian lawmakers in 2004 has an in-built structural problem: it can work smoothly only if the presidential and parliamentary powers represent the same political vision. Cohabitation works in the case of highly mature democracies, which is not the case in Ukraine. Largely because of this structural cohabitation dilemma, all established European democracies apart from France (Also Cyprus) have opted for the fully parliamentary form of governance.
What we have also seen since the establishment of the current parliamentary majority coalition and the formation of PM Yanukovych’s government is the struggle to move towards a fully parliamentary system, which in the existing constitutional order has been perceived by the opposition as usurpation of power by the majority.
Although Ukraine understandably has its own historic reasons to avoid the accumulation of power into the hands of one political force, it should nevertheless consider in the course of future constitutional amendments whether it would not be better for the country to switch to a full parliamentary system with proper checks and balances and guarantees of parliamentary opposition and competition.
By UkraineToday on Apr 24, 2007
Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice – Legal Opinion on President’s April 2, 2007 Decree
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE HAS PREPARED THE LEGAL OPINION WITH REGARD TO THE RESULTS OF LEGAL EXAMINATION OF DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE “ON PRE-TERM ABATEMENT OF AUTHORITY OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE”
Following interpellation of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the Legal Opinion with regard to the results of legal examination of Decree of the President of Ukraine dated April, 2 the year 2007 N 264 “On pre-term abatement of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”
The full text of the Ministry of justice Legal Opinion
By UkraineToday on Apr 24, 2007
In response to Ukraine Todays attempt at disinformation regarding the statements made by
Renate Wohlwend, I would refer readers to the following letter submitted by Mr. Wohlwend to Maidan.org. This letter has been brought to the attention of Ukraine Today on numerous occasions occasions, yet he continues to pursue a policy of disinformation, this should reflect respectively on his other ill informed, and slanted posts.
An Appeal for Balanced and Truthful Information from Renate Wohlwend
I would like here to fully endorse the position taken by my colleague, Hanne Severinsen and published on the Maidan website: (http://eng.maidanua.org/node/711).
Comments I made recently in a telephone interview to a Ukrainian journalist would appear to have been distorted in so far as they suggest a categorical tone and that I am taking sides in the present issue. Since these comments were reported and embellished in various publications (including the newspaper “2000″ and the official site of the Party of the Regions), I would like to stress that any other opinions and statements regarding the present situation in Ukraine made in those publications did not originate from me. I would also suggest that the conclusions and general tone of all of these publications bore little resemblance to what I did in fact say.
I would like to take this opportunity to call on all Ukrainian journalists to be extremely careful during this volatile time and to ensure that they accurately and fairly represent opinions expressed. It is also vital that they clearly state their sources.
In any democracy it is vital that the public have full and impartial information about events which directly impinge upon their lives.
It is always to be regretted when politicians and the media endeavour to influence public opinion by distorting information and making vague and unsubstantiated remarks regarding the position of people outside Ukraine.
I would therefore support the suggestion made by Maidan that all future interviews with any public figures should be agreed in writing before publication.
I would also assure the Ukrainian public that while we are concerned for a peaceful and constructive outcome to the present situation, it would be quite improper and inappropriate for us to take any sides.
Please bear these comments in mind when reading any statements made in the coming weeks. I would respectfully suggest that any further distortions of what I or any other official has said should lead you only to draw conclusions about those making such irresponsible claims.
Renate Wohlwend
PACE Monitoring Committee Co-Rapporteur
By Vlodja on Jul 8, 2007