This seems pretty urgent and serious to me

[JasonRichmond]

Please correct me if I am wrong about this, but my understanding is, the Tymoshenko and Socialist blocs in the Ukrainian Parliament have the best track record on human rights, of trying to push through democratic reforms, especially in relation to the public finances, and defending the rule of law against oligarchy.

It also seems, from where I am standing, that, given the recent murders and strange car accidents, and the Parliamentary coup, the position of these politicians has become perilous.

I would have thought that the West has a vested interest in the survival of these two blocs, unless they want to wake up one morning and find that the world has another rogue state with a nuclear capability. Therefore, should not Bush and Blair make it clear to Kuchma that certain consequences would follow (beyond the current economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation) if he so much as lays a finger on Tymoshenko or her allies? Is it worth a letter-writing campaign or something to urge them to do this? And what form should those consequences take?

Jason

[JasonRichmond]

Thanks for posting an alternative viewpoint. I can see that anybody who once worked for a foreign occupying power is, by strict definition, a traitor. However, the Ukrainian SSR was a one-party State, and if I were in my twenties (as she was then), jealously patriotic and wanted to change conditions in my country for the better, I would face an awesome choice between becoming a dissident and achieving little except a term in a Siberian labour camp; or joining the Soviet Communist Party and playing the chess-game of trying to influence policy from within.

Gorbachev did the latter, and then used his position to liberate all the East European SSRs and client states, by withdrawing the tanks and exposing the discredited leaders of those countries - or do you read that period of history differently? Until that happened (it seems to me), there was little point in becoming another Dubcek unless you were only interested in martyrdom?

I don't know what Tymoshenko's track record was when she was in the Communist Party but, interestingly, her biography on her web site does not admit that she was ever a member. For all I know, she might have rounded up dissidents and sent them to the labour camps herself.

The criminal charges against her were thrown out by the courts, but you can't read too much into that because the independence of the courts can't be counted on. However, Kuchma is the President and dispenser of both patronage and persecution (hence the recent defections in the Rada); and if I were a corrupt judge, my bread would be buttered on his side. What's in it for me to find in favour of an isolated opposition Deputy with a rump of about 6 others?

Anyway, that doesn't mean I am right - what would I know - that's just my logic.

However, the relevance of her past is based on the assumption that redemption is not possible. Some members of the Northern Ireland government were terrorists, but the idea is that a line was drawn under their past when the Belfast Agreement was signed. Yulia's manifesto is a tad idealistic and radical for someone who is supposed to be a cunning operator, or is that standard practice and the manifesto is destined for the shredder if and when she gets to power?

If that's the case, who or what is the credible alternative to the oligarchic status quo? The current situation is surely tragic for your country: a President whose power base is the dominant clan rather his electoral mandate; with no hope of human rights for the children I am hoping somebody can trace, or anybody else whose lives and livelihoods are obligated to gangsters.

Jason

[albatros]

... with a few of your comments made above.

"Gorbachev was an oligarch in service to the system"

Olicharch in service to the system? That's kind of a contradiction isn▓t it? Olicharch's usually service themselves, not systems. Besides I don't believe Gorbachev acquired huge personal wealth. Therefore if you define an olicharch as someone who has succeeded in converting a position of power into substantial personal gains, Gorbachev doesn't qualify as an olicharch. In fact, Yeltsin fits the definition much better, although not completely.

"He had no intention of changing anything"

Gorbachev allowed the countries that made up the East Block to go their own way. Big change compared to previous soviet policies. Also at the 19th party conference in 1988 Gorbachev effectively removed the communist party from management of the Soviet economy and introduced semi-free elections. Again a big changes.

It's true Gorbachev set changes in motion over which he subsequently lost control. He attempted to reform both politics and the economy at the same time. History shows there are few success stories of this kind of "dual reform".
Gorbachev▓s reforms eventually resulted in a political and economic chaos. He was a reformer nevertheless.

Albatros

[albatros]

Kathy thanks for your reply, interesting info too. I still have a different perspective on several issues. But perhaps such a discussion belongs in the history section.

I'll start a thread there soon.