LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (10/01/06)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Kucinich explains his vote on bill

Dear Editor:

Americans for Human Rights in Ukraine (AHRU), as a member of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment Coalition to lift trade restrictions, lobbied members of the U.S. Congress in February to vote for HR 1035, a bill that proposed rescinding the amendment. HR 1053 was supported by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives, which ultimately resulted in the revocation of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.

As reported in The Ukrainian Weekly, two members of the House, Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), voted present, meaning they withheld their vote of support. AHRU followed up this issue by writing to them on April 10, questioning their decision.

On September 6 AHRU received a reply from Mr. Kucinich with a perplexing answer and explanation of his decision not to support HR 1053.

He wrote the following to Bozhena Olshaniwsky, president of AHRU: "In Ukraine, the concentration of resources became increasingly pushed into the hands of the wealthy oligarchs at the expense of the Ukrainian people. I had concerns that repeal of Jackson-Vanik restrictions, and subsequent WTO accession for Ukraine, would greatly heighten the negative effects of this disturbing trend on the majority of Ukrainians."

What Mr. Kucinich is stating is that if Ukraine is opened to non-restrictive trade opportunities the average person in Ukraine would suffer further deprivation and become poorer, while the oligarchs would become richer.

He further stated that: "It is because of my strong connection to the people of Ukraine that I could not vote for this bill. I do not want to see a race to the bottom in Ukraine. I do not want to see the patrimony of Ukrainians taken over by multinational corporations."

This statement of Mr. Kucinich is worthy of our attention and should open up a discussion on the subject of what is beneficial for Ukraine and what is detrimental.

Walter Bodnar
Newark, N.J.

No good news from Ukraine

Dear Editor:

The March 2006 election in Ukraine has been praised as a remarkable achievement of the democratic process, untainted by fraud or blatant manipulations. However, those in the diaspora who see it as an end in itself regardless of who won it may have glossed over the "sideffects." Although the operation was successful, the patient is now told to prepare his last will - as the new government, formed by the Party of the Regions, is planning a push for Ukraine to join Russia's Single Economic Space and approve official status for the Russian language.

There is hardly any doubt that this will lead to self-liquidation of the Ukrainian state, despite the absurd rhetoric about closer ties to NATO coming from the dejected minister of foreign affairs.

These developments are not good news for roughly one-half of the people of Ukraine and probably for a majority of ethnic Ukrainians within its borders. It is also not good news for the United States, although the U.S. Department of State says, per protocol, that it can work with new faces. Translation: Ukraine was supposed to be on our side after the Orange Revolution, but now is going down the tubes.

The U.S. is used to dealing with consequences of apparently honest elections in a foreign country when they are perceived as harmful to American interests. In the last 100 years in almost every place in the southern hemisphere the U.S. has been helpful in overthrowing governments at one time or another. But no one would try it when the foreign partner is a serial bungler like Viktor Yushchenko.

The democratic exhibit in Ukraine is far overshadowed by failure to fulfill the promises of the Orange Revolution. The cause of revolution was building up over several years from a growing resentment against the corrupt, autocratic regime of President Leonid Kuchma. The people wanted change.

Instead the same oligarchic elite still wields the levers of power. There is high-level corruption and no rule of law. Consider the existing de facto qualification requirements for top leadership positions. Being a choice of the monied elite (the similarity to the connection between money and power in America is striking) or a recognizable member of the ex-Soviet nomenclatura is the No. 1 requirement. This explains why, in the words of people who were for the Orange cause, "There was nobody except Yushchenko." He was persuaded to run against the officially promoted choice in 2004.

This means that "honest and patriotic" individuals like Yurii Kostenko have no chance - and no funds. It means that the winner is beholden to the monied elite - not to the people who stood on the maidan. The oligarchs win either way. It means that democracy is not "alive and well" in Ukraine.

It also means that in the foreseeable future the only electable candidate for the top post in Ukraine - with Ukrainian credentials - who can breach this system is Yulia Tymoshenko, if she physically survives the current "triumph" of democracy.

The established power elite sees Ms. Tymoshenko as an outsider and a threat to its monopoly, to be marginalized at all costs. To some, she is a populist, or a statist like Russia's President Vladimir Putin, or "overly ambitious."

As a woman in somewhat less than open-minded Ukraine, Ms. Tymoshenko had to play second fidde, even though it was she, not Mr. Yushchenko, who galvanized the throngs at maidan and was the leader on the ground.

Boris Danik
North Caldwell, N.J.

We welcome your opinion

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor and commentaries on a variety of topics of concern to the Ukrainian American and Ukrainian Canadian communities. Opinions expressed by columnists, commentators and letter-writers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of either The Weekly editorial staff or its publisher, the Ukrainian National Association.

Letters should be typed and signed (anonymous letters are not published). Letters are accepted also via e-mail at staff@ukrweekly.com. The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes. Please note that a daytime phone number is essential in order for editors to contact letter-writers regarding clarifications or questions.

| Home Page |