Job Discussion Forums

[jpvanderwerf2001]

I have been reading up on the protests in Ukraine first-hand (my brother lives there), and it looks as though something might actually happen! I'm am beyond excitement, it's so great to see the Ukrainian people really make a stand. According to Ukrainian news, the police in Kyiv are standing in solidarity with the protesters, and have promised that there will be no violence; it also looks as though some parts of the military (unclear which ones) are also on the protesters' side.
Stayed tuned folks, this is gonna get more and more interesting...
Shasleevo.

[ibasiram]

Yes, things may change in Kiev, but I wonder what will happen if (When?) the result is changed???? I don't exactly think that people here in the Russified East will accept that so easily..... there's a very clear East - West divide...
I

[jpvanderwerf2001]

That is a good question. If the election is overturned (which I HIGHLY doubt it will), I think there'll be grumbling in the East, but I don't think there will be protests.

[ibasiram]

Sorry jp, but I disagree. Yesterday, the Parliament declared the election result invalid, and all the pressure that Yushchenko has in the streets will lead to the Supreme Court doing the same...
There will be lots of grumbling in the East...and there will be major protests...the authorities here are currently setting a date for a referendum on 'the future of the East'. about whether or not to vote for autonomy....
I

[jpvanderwerf2001]

After sitting home all weekend glued to BBC I would say I agree with you, and stand corrected. I just hope things don't come to the point of secession. I certainly hope it doesn't come to violence!

[Castro]

jpvanderwerf2001 wrote:

According to Ukrainian news, the police in Kyiv are standing in solidarity with the protesters.

Which Ukrainian news? There are at least two different issues contradict each other. Western papers just put absolute trust in papers & TV news controlled by one of candidates!

jpvanderwerf2001 wrote:

it's so great to see the Ukrainian people really make a stand
Take a look at this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1360951,00.html

The revolution televised
The western media's view of Ukraine's election is hopelessly biased

John Laughland
The Guardian

“Whether it is Albania in 1997, Serbia in 2000, Georgia last November or Ukraine now, our media regularly peddle the same fairy tale about how youthful demonstrators manage to bring down an authoritarian regime, simply by attending a rock concert in a central square….
The western imagination is now so gripped by its own mythology of popular revolution that we have become dangerously tolerant of blatant double standards in media reporting. Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, but they are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted, Yanukovich supporters are denigrated as having been "bussed in". The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous….
Or again, we are told that a 96% turnout in Donetsk, the home town of Viktor Yanukovich, is proof of electoral fraud. But apparently turnouts of over 80% in areas which support Viktor Yushchenko are not. Nor are actual scores for Yushchenko of well over 90% in three regions, which Yanukovich achieved only in two. And whereas Yanukovich's final official score was 54%, the western-backed president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, officially polled 96.24% of the vote in his country in January. The observers who now denounce the Ukrainian election welcomed that result in Georgia, saying that it "brought the country closer to meeting international standards".…
Voters in Britain and the US have witnessed their governments lying brazenly about Iraq for over a year in the run-up to war, and with impunity. This is an enormous dysfunction in our own so-called democratic system.”

DITTO!!!

[jpvanderwerf2001]

Is it POSSIBLE that Mr. Laughland is biased as well? Yes. His article is thought-provoking, surely; however everyone has their theories and opinions.
It is my opinion that anyone who believes that this election wasn't rigged has not spent much time in Ukraine, or following Ukrainian politics, since Independence; Kuchma's administrations were particularily corrupt in nearly every aspect of government (including the elections). As I lived in Ukraine for a couple of years, my brother has been living there for six, and my father stayed there for all of '92 helping to set up their agricultural banking system, I have a vested interest in what is happening in that wonderful land.
This revolution has not been created by the western media. The people of Ukraine are simply tired of allowing the government to do whatever it pleases with their votes.
(If Georgians were apalled by Saakashvili being elected by such a margin, then surely we would be watching the same in Tblisi?)
This is a country that has been controlled politically by Moscow since its independence. The people have grown weary of Russia's cronies (Kuchma, Yanukovich, et al) pocketing financial aid and other resources (profits from arms trade, etc.) while most Ukrainians live in poverty. I'm not trying to suggest Yuschenko is clean as a whistle, but he seems to love his country, and has survived a number of assassination attempts (not only during this election), which suggests to me that he's sticking his neck out for the people.
I have been in contact with numerous friends from there and, to a person, they feel it is a time for change.
Of COURSE the election was rigged. And hey, perhaps America's and Britain's elections are fraudulent too, but that is for a different day.

What follows is an e-mail from a friend's friend from my days in Ukraine (sorry about the sentence lengths, it copied strangely from my e-mail):

[Castro]

jpvanderwerf2001 wrote:

however everyone has their theories and opinions

It is not true. Most if not all of the western press would absolutely eat (even engage with) only one candidate and this “Revolution”. But any revolution absolutely eats its own kids! Will see!

jpvanderwerf2001 wrote:

It is my opinion that anyone who believes that this election wasn't rigged has not spent much time in Ukraine, or following Ukrainian politics, since Independence; Kuchma's administrations were particularily corrupt in nearly every aspect of government (including the elections).

It is not true.
First, no one says there is no corruption (BTW, it exists in western countries too). Second, western Ukrainian administrations (supporters of opposition candidate are the same). John Laughland as a member of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group spent much time in Ukraine. The British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) sent observers to the first and second round of the presidential election in Ukraine on 31st October 2004 and 21st November 2004. BHHRG monitored the election in the city and district of Kiev, Chernigov, Transcarpathia. BHHRG also monitored the election in Borispol, Zhitomir and Odessa. Counts were observed in central Kiev and Uzhgorod.

There is a conclusion:

Whatever may have been the case in south-eastern Ukraine, it was clear to this Group’s observers in central Ukraine and western Ukraine that the opposition exercised near complete control. The broadcast media showed bias towards Mr. Yushchenko in these areas, particularly in western Ukraine where Mr Yanukovich was invisible – not even being shown voting on polling day. It is na�ve to think only the government had the facilities to exercise improper influence over the polls. From what BHHRG observed, the opposition exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places, giving rise to concerns that the opposition – not only the authorities – may have committed violations and may have even falsified the vote in opposition-controlled areas. So-called “administrative resources” in places visited by BHHRG appeared to be in the hands of the opposition, not the government, and this may have frightened voters. After all since Sunday, police and security personnel in some western towns have declared their loyalty to “president” Yushchenko.


The open bias of Western governments and their nominated observers in the OSCE delegation, some of whom have appeared on opposition platforms, makes it unreasonable to rely on its report.


In spite of concerns, BHHRG finds no reason to believe that the final result of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine was not generally representative of genuine popular will. The election featured a genuine choice of candidates, active pre-election campaigns, and high voter participation. It is clear that Ukrainian opinion was highly polarized. That meant many people backing a losing candidate would find it difficult to accept a defeat. Foreigners should not encourage civil conflict because the candidate on whom they have lavished expensive support turned out to be a loser.

John Laughland is a trustee of www.oscewatch.org and an associate of www.sandersresearch.com

[jpvanderwerf2001]

[ibasiram]

Ok,
The fact that 96% of Donetsk people voted for Yanukovitch is clearly not rigged!! If anyone lives here, they can see that people are absolutely crazy about him. In class yesterday, my students were doing a project, and no one wanted to use orange markers!!!
a walk around the city will tell that there is not a Yushchenko supporter in sight..
Western media is so vocal about this 96% statistic..however, what the West fails to notice is that the same percentage, or maybe more, I'm not too sure, voted for Yushchenko in Ternopil, in the West..could that be possible???

Ok, there was a problem with absentee ballots, but there were problems all over the country, and this peoblem meant that a person could vote in different constituencies..so people probably did this...Yushchenko and Yanukovitch supporters...

It was rigged..on both sides..They are both 'puppets' . Yushchenko has been put there by America and the West..just like Yanukovitch has been put there by Moscow.

This 'Ukrainian Velvet Revolution' seems to be winning support in the West because they only see Kiev..they don't see Donetsk..there is no velvet revolution here..or there won't be.
Usually I am pro-Western..but I really don't like it when the media writes without knowing all the facts..

[jpvanderwerf2001]

As a comparison, in the US election this year, 90% of the District of Columbia voted for Kerry. There is no city in the country more Democrat than Washington, D.C. Bush received 71% of the vote in Utah, probably the most Republican state in the country (he received 61% in Texas).

My point is that 96% is a huge number in an election, and it is natural that people would look at such a mandate with suspicion.

[Castro]

JUST SOME FACTS:

1. Population:

The East and South - 45%
Kiev and the suburbs - 30%
The West - 25%

2. Territory

The East (including Crimea) was always part of Russia.
The West for hundreds years was occupied by Poland then Austro-Hungary Empire and again Poland. West and East were consolidated only in 1939 with help of Soviet Union. Since the Evil Empire doesn’t exist any longer Ukraine is not actually united. Take a look at all president elections. This is third one since Ukraine is an independent country. And this is third time we have two main candidates – one is westernized and second one is pro-Eastern.

3. Religion

The West: Catholics (the Pope) with influence of Greek Orthodox Church

The East: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Ukrainian Patriarch)

4. Economics

The West: 20 %
Kiev: 20 %
The East: 60 %

[Castro]

When is as mob not really a mob? Why, when it's our mob, of course

Simon Jenkins
The Times

MOBS ARE mesmerising. Yesterday’s crowds in Kiev appeared on the brink of a remarkable triumph in their week-long revolt against the Ukrainian election result. A U-turn by the outgoing President, Leonid Kuchma, and a hearing of the supreme court seemed to presage new elections, or at least the engineered coronation of the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko.

The world’s media has supported this revolt to the hilt. Front pages are adorned with pictures of pretty girls inserting flowers in police shields and dancing to rap music. Seas of orange banners support Mr Yushchenko and his deputy, the “oligarch” tycoon, Yuliya Tymoshenko. The parliament and presidency buildings have been surrounded and government business and banking brought to a standstill. There is no violence, largely because mobs have no need of it. They imply it by insisting that those who oppose them must incur “the odium of violence” to disperse them. This the authorities in Kiev have mercifully been reluctant to do.

The Kiev mob is thus a good mob. It is like the Tiananmen Square mob in 1989, or the Leipzig mob in the same year, or the Belgrade mob in 2000. It is youthful and easy to contrast with the “bad” mobs demonstrating for the election winner, Viktor Yanukovych of east Ukraine, in Donetsk and elsewhere. The latter have been little reported. They are not in Kiev and are mostly old, male, working-class and described as “bussed in”.

Kiev is therefore in thrall not to a mob but to a “crowd”. It is the voice of the people, the masses, public opinion, democracy. When such crowds take to the streets and barricade buildings we cheer them on, and do not apply to them the derogatory term of mob.

I have a problem here, and it is not just a switch in my brain that trips when I hear Tony Blair, George Bush, the European Union, the Guardian, Fox News, the CIA, the BBC, Lech Walesa, All Right-Thinking People, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and All singing Mussorgsky’s Great Gate of Kiev in unison. The mob is the classic default mode of democracy. It is Walpole’s “supreme governor”. It is Les Mis�rables, the physical expression of popular will, seizing and briefly brokering power. It is systematised anarchy. It is never reliable.

The fixing of presidential elections is not a practice confined to Ukraine. Vladimir Putin obliterated his opponents in Russia’s last presidential elections, without a peep from the West. Gerrymandering, ballot stuffing, bribing and corrupting have a long democratic tradition. Given the ostensible narrowness of the Ukraine result — 49 per cent to 46 per cent — and the blatancy of the Government’s fixing, Mr Yushchenko clearly has a case. His view that the election was unfair is supported by overseas monitors. But we have no way of knowing if he was robbed of actual victory, in a country where opinion is strongly territorial and at least appears evenly split. The electoral commission validated the result, with reservations. That may be worth nothing, but is constitutional.

Mr Yushchenko sent his supporters on to the streets because he had nothing to lose. He had himself crowned as President in the parliament building. His deputy, Ms Tymoshenko, demanded the dismissal and conviction of Mr Yanukovych from his current post as Prime Minister, and the house arrest of the outgoing President, Mr Kuchma. They called for passive disobedience and relied on the media and security forces to change sides and not enforce law and order. Behind them lay the power of a mass of people — who knows if they are a majority? — which could only be gainsaid by violence.

The strategy appears to be working. The weight and persistence of the Kiev demonstration has broken the state media, then parliament, now the presidency and, it hopes, the judiciary. Although there is nothing in the Ukraine constitution to permit a rerun election, only a recount, victory for Mr Yushchenko under some rewriting of the constitution appears the most likely outcome. However justifiable, that is a coup.

So far, so post-communist. But what happens next? Ukraine is a substantial country. It has the same population as England, 50 million, and three times the size. With no natural boundaries, it has seen foreign armies dispute its seemingly endless flatlands throughout history. The most prominent feature is the division offered by the north-south River Dnieper. The Catholic-leaning, Ukrainian-speaking west looks towards Poland and Middle Europe. The Orthodox, mostly Russian-speaking east looks towards Russia and the Black Sea. That division was reflected exactly in the election. The potential now for a separatist movement in the east is as great as the separatism that consumed former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The surest path to such a split is for Russia to back the east and Europe and America to back the west.

This is what has occurred. Mr Putin has sided with Mr Yanukovych and the West has sided, en masse, with Mr Yushchenko. Poland and the European Union intervened to try to reverse the election result. This week America’s Colin Powell added his weight to Mr Yushchenko’s cause and demanded that the country not split in two. Yet if the outcome reverses the election result, east Ukraine is unlikely to accept it. Its population clearly feel that their man won. Their affinity to Russia (a quarter of Ukrainians claim to be Russians) and their strong regional loyalty to Mr Yanukovych may lead them to break completely with Kiev. Europe will have yet another proto-nation, embracing Donetsk, the Crimea and Odessa, and an even more paranoid Russia watching and trying to dominate its flank.

The West claims to oppose this division. It feels that states are sacrosanct and must be kept together by hook or crook. Yet the policy is a shambles. In the early 1990s the West encouraged Slovenia and Croatia to break from Yugoslavia and went on to enforce by arms the further partition of that wretched country. Intervention in Iraq seems certain to break that country also into two or three parts, rather than render it a united democracy. Is that what the West wants in Ukraine?

We are obsessed with ordering the world to our will — and complaining bitterly when it declines to be so odered. Mr Yushchenko may be “our sort” of oligarch, as opposed to Russia’s. His victory is probably in Europe’s interest, though not if Ukraine’s wealth, mostly in the east, goes to Russia. But even if justice is on Mr Yushchenko’s side, by its vociferous partisanship the West plays a dangerous game. It may drive eastern Ukraine into separation, dismembering a potential buffer state on the borders of Russia. And all this assumes that Mr Putin will eat humble pie with good humour. Will we then encourage partition in Chechnya?

As for the mob, I will cheer when it does good work. But I am mindful of Mr Pickwick’s advice to his fearful colleague: “Always shout with the largest.” Mobs are wayward monsters and hot to the touch. Mobs brought both communism and fascism to power. It was on the back of the mob that Slobodan Milosevic was elected boss of Serbia in 1989, much the same mob as toppled him a decade later.

The mob may have been outdated by democracy, or at least by opinion polls, but it can still play its lethal game. It made America’s withdrawal from Vietnam inevitable. It reformed and decentralised France after 1968. It signed the death warrant of Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax in 1990. But it does not always win. The largest crowd ever to gather in Britain, against the Iraq war last year, had no impact on the Labour Government. Nor did the pro-hunting crowd in Parliament Square this year.

Such crowds are the manifestation of failure. They suggest that constitutions have lost consent and democratic institutions collapsed. They are an extension of politics in the direction of civil war. A crowd in the street is not an argument won but an argument lost. Its leaders merely hope that crude numbers will silence the guns and get the cameras rolling, to drive forward the blitzkrieg of publicity in support of the great god, No! We may accept the mob as a necessary evil, but should remember that evil it remains.

[email protected]

[GabeKessel]

[quote]JUST SOME FACTS: [/quote: ]


Where pray tell do you get these "facts"?

[GabeKessel]

One more thing- the Khanate of Crimea as well as parts of Southern Ukraine were parts of the Ottoman Empire and/or Tartar- dominated places with Muslim minarets, Turkish style houses, and a very Middle Eastern culture. There were no Russians or other Slavs any place near until only relatively recently.

Near Odessa, many places have Turkish or Muslim names. Haji- Bey, Ismail, Akkarman.

To say that these places were always part of Russia is absolute, total falsehood.