Some themes

Some of the themes I have seen in articles and my response to them:

1. Yuschenko resurrected Yanukovych. This was mentioned in some articles and was a question asked by an anonymous poster to the website. As a question, it is a good one. As a statement of fact, it is not incontrovertible.

Does it give Yanukovych more status than he had? It may in the minds of people but Yanukovych had no status prior to that agreement. He was a no show as the opposition. You would hear some sniping from the trees by people like Chernovil (his last campaign manager) but it was petty stuff, not the campaign on a broad front that it should be by a serious candidate representing the opposition. (“This government isn’t professional!” said Chernovil. Not a very original statement and not much of an opposition campaign. As an opening salvo, fine. But if that constitutes the whole broadside, pitiful. And that was it.) The agreement showed everyone that Yanukovych was still alive. That may be something to know but it doesn’t go very far in making him formidable opposition. At least, not considering where he has been.

And that agreement is really not much of anything anyway. I said that it can be repudiated and it can. The charge would be opportunism but that is the charge right now. Does that charge help Yanukovych?

The funny thing is that Yanukovych was called in to the prosecutor’s office to answer questions a day or two ago. His supporters said it violated the memorandum. It may have but it just goes to show that Yuschenko has the power so he has he advantage.

The real argument is that it somehow rehabilitates Yanukovych in the minds of the people or that it grants some sort of legitimacy to him. I think it does neither. For rehabilitation, that would mean that an agreement signed by Yuschenko served to change the minds of the people regarding Yanukovych. “He is a bandit but since Yuschenko dealt with him maybe not.” Those ardently for the Orange Revolution were ardently against Yanukovych. The tone of the responses to the memo by those supporters is one of betrayal by Yuschenko not of reconciliation with Yanukovych.

Legitimacy would be a weaker benefit for Yanukovych but it suffers from the same problems: He is a bandit to the supporters. Could it affect any swing voters? I don’t know that there are any. People already have their opinions formed on Yanukovych. In the West, see the first sentence. In the East, he has a lot of support; some of it may be a little soft. But he represents the interests of the eastern part of the country and they just put up with anything else. Who else represents the interests of the East especially after the Orange Revolution? It does a government and a people no good to write off half a country.

Then there’s the idea that Yanukovych could remain a protest vote option, a kind of “devil-we-know.” That is something that is hard to gauge but he would have been that anyway. The memo doesn’t make that any more likely than it was before. There isn’t anyone in Ukraine now who doesn’t know who he is. If his name were on the ballot they would know it--he has name recognition galore. The question would be: Would they vote for him if they were disillusioned by all other parties? I doubt it, but I guess it’s possible. The disillusionment would have to be complete and I don’t see that as being all that likely.

I do have to issue a caveat here. This is based on what Yanukovych has done since the Revolution. It might be that an effective opposition could be mounted by him—the targets of opportunity are all over the place. (Military types would call it a “target-rich environment.”) We heard today that some of the Russian “political technologists”—spin doctors—are making there way back here again. They have learned their lesson according to the report and won’t make the same mistakes again (they said in all lack of humility.) That remains to be seen. It's hard to be effective when you see your adversary as a backwoods hick who stares out in wide-eyed astonishment at the high sophistication of the tailored suits from Moscow. That they see Ukraine as beneath them is the lesson they should have learned. Did they learn it? It’s possible but I doubt it.

But if some kind of effective campaign can be launched for Yanukovych, his stock could go up with some voters. “We had 12% growth when I was PM. Gasoline was cheaper and so was chicken, pork and everything else. Was there corruption? Yes, there was. And the man responsible for it, the man who also worked to take the vote away from the people, is no longer in government. He is out and well he should be. But he is running around loose when he should have been arrested and prosecuted. Why hasn’t he been arrested and prosecuted? He worked to steal the election from the people for his own purposes unknown to me at the time. But he runs now at large, scoffing at the people he sought to defraud, untouched by the law. Why is that? Ask Yuschenko why. I suppose the answer is that if he got something from Yuschenko, Yuschenko must have gotten something from him….” Or something like that.

Anyway, if he comes up with an effective campaign, he could end up with some more legitimacy—it remains to be seen how much more. But that depends on him and his organization, not on the memorandum. And to date, there has been not much of anything coming from his camp.

To be continued…

I talk to my brother-in-law

I was talking to my brother-in-law last night. He was one who was down on the square most every day during the Orange Revolution. In fact, I was with him at Maidan on the night of the first election, November 21st, I think it was, when the protests started. That was a Sunday night, described here.

It was kind of funny because when we met at the subway that night, he seemed to be filled out a bit more than I had remembered. He had on a winter coat but that coat was not thick enough to account for the extra bulk he seemed to have. I didn’t mention it at the time—I thought I might not have judged it right-- and just let it go.

Later, my wife was talking to my sister-in-law and she said that that Saturday before we went, the day before, she thought she heard her husband sawing wood in another part of their apartment. She went to look for him and when she found him, he was sawing wood. When she asked him what he was doing, he hemmed and hawed a bit before he told her that he was putting together some protection—some wood on the front like a breastplate and wood on the back-- in case he went down to Maidan the next day. Wood was the only thing he had to do it with, and the only thing it would stop would have been a knife or blows from a truncheon. It wouldn’t have stopped any bullets from any caliber carried by the police or the military. He knew this but thought that most of the problem would come from crowd dispersion measures rather than from a wholesale gunning-down by the military. He did though accept that as a possibility and something he risked because later that week, when he had been down on the square for a couple of days, he asked me to take care of his wife in case he was killed or imprisoned. The way he put was, “If I don’t come back.”

That’s just some background.

Talking to him last night, he was of the opinion that Tymoshenko hadn’t had enough time to do what she needed to do; she was fired before she could make things better. I think that is the opinion of a lot of Ukrainian supporters of the OR. They think that Tymoshenko was working to reform the system and was sacked before she could finish.

One of the things he mentioned was pensions and government wages. He said that now she was out there would be no increases in pensions and government wages. Though he isn’t affected by either of these—he works in the private sector—increasing both of these is seen by a lot of people as a measure of government effectiveness and even justice. The fact is that pensions have been rather low for a long time, since the economic collapse in the later 90s. The hryvna was devalued and wages and pensions were caught in that devaluation. To make that up is a kind of test of government effectiveness for some people. Tymoshenko resonates with that.

He also told me that a couple of guys at his work had said that Yuschenko was now in with that “bandit” Yanukovych. He proved it by signing that memorandum. My brother-in-law didn’t say if he agreed with that assessment. I think he isn’t settled about that right now. Out of respect for Yuschenko, his mind isn’t made up on that point, at least not yet. This I think is good news for Yuschenko if it is widespread and I think it is. (Others we know say things like, “I don’t know who to believe!” Shows their minds are not made up.) I don’t think people have made up their minds yet about it because they have a lot invested in Yuschenko. But he does have to communicate with them more. I think people are looking for Yuschenko to come and tell them what he has done and why he had to do it. He hasn’t done that yet. He needs to do it.

A new poll out says that Yuschenko has about 20% approval. That doesn’t contradict what I have said. People are upset with him but that doesn’t necessarily mean this is their final position about him. I think they are registering their dissatisfaction. And they ought to.

The interesting thing is that although Tymoshenko polled better than Yuschenko, she was only a couple of points better. Her approval rating is at around 22%. Not good news.

It might be that disapproval of Yuschenko will translate into bad poll numbers for anyone involved with him in the OR. Show Tymoshenko suffers. If Yuschenko builds his case separate from Tymoshenko, she will be left with the worst of both worlds. And there is some argument that she has made a number of mistakes on her own that leave her in a weakened position. That is the argument here. (Need to read it carefully, the translation is a little rough.)

Bothered by it all

I can’t read any of the commentary anymore. I am sitting here just disgusted with it all. If all the Orange Revolution meant to people here was a shot at taking down those on the opposite side, then it was no better than the revolution of 1917. “I get my people in and deal with the people who opposed me.” Then they get their people in by coup or by "legitimate" means and deal with your side. Then you get yours in and do it again and it goes on and on and nauseatingly on. And Ukraine remains some backwater, third world, basket case, with a few people controlling the wealth, the land, and everything else. But the people will have their pound of flesh, while the structures around them crumble to the dust. With the people distracted this way to what are small matters in the end, the oligarchs can just sit and grin as they watch their portfolios get fatter and fatter and fatter.

What should have been bought on Maidan was getting off that kind of ride. Rule of law, discussions held and decisions taken in the open, solid institutions which cannot be bought by someone with the most money or influence. In other words, what should have been bought on Maidan was the ability for what has happened over and over again in Ukraine to never happen again. Ever. If that is not what was paid for, then Ukrainians got nothing. But that is what it looks like. People want someone to pay and they will have it and stagnation, poverty and corruption will remain.

I will put this plainly and it will tick off a lot of Ukrainians (most of whom long ago abandoned this site): Tymoshenko was a disaster for Ukraine. She is a capable woman and gets things done and was instrumental in the Orange Revolution, but she was a disaster for Ukraine. Why is this? Prices are rising steeply on most everything and a lot of investment, investment that should be Ukrainian by right, is passing over this country for places like Romania. Let that sink in for a minute. Romania. If there is a country worse off than Ukraine it has got to be Romania (and the rump state Moldova) but they are getting more investment than Ukraine right now.

A lot of goodwill was generated by the Orange Revolution and companies and investors that couldn’t have told you where Ukraine was in the world before, suddenly found it. And all were charmed, I repeat this, all were charmed by the sight of people out in the streets trying to reclaim their rights. Investment would have come in from that fact alone but Tymoshenko immediately began to talk about revising all privatization deals and only settled on 3000 when pushed. You tell me what a company or investor is going to do when faced with the prospect that any company they might join forces with or any building they might buy or any asset they might purchase here could be swept up in a revision of privatizations from years back. They held back and in honor of the revolution, they waited to see what would happen. But these things don’t wait long. Doors open but they also shut.

There is no way around this. Ukraine needs investment to grow and for the people to better their lives. People don’t leave Ukraine for Europe because of the politics or the way of life or for the European social safety net. They leave Ukraine because they see more opportunities there to provide for their families than are present in Ukraine. And regardless of the troubles that Europe faces right now, there are more opportunities there than there are here for Ukrainians. And that is true in economically stagnant places like Germany. (0.6% growth last year.) There are more opportunities in Germany with its economic stagnation and high unemployment rate, than there are here in Ukraine. That is scandalous.

If Ukraine is going to reverse that, it can only be done with outside investment. And there needs to be a lot of it.

And you can spare me the “resources belong to the people and should be used for their benefit” crap. Those resources are in the hands of a very few right now, much as the resources in any Latin American back water are in the hands of a very few. That is the way it has always been here. These very few now hold them in the name of capitalism. Those same resources were once held in the name of the people. But the results were very much the same. A small group of people enjoyed (enjoy) the benefits of those resources and the rest of the people be damned, or killed, or exiled, whichever is the flavor of the day. Exile is now out and killing is not on the scale it once was, not anywhere near, but I am not so sure that people here are eating like they should—they can’t afford to. So suffering and death may still be very real.

Some blame the oligarchs and argue that the government needs to retain the power to fight these oligarchs who control the resources. They argue that Tymoshenko was the one to do it and she was on her way to doing it until dismissed by Yuschenko.

That she was doing things is true. That she was confronting some of the oligarchs is also true. But what she was really doing economically was redistributing wealth using state power. And the result was greater inflation, rising prices and a people who cannot afford to live.

In her television interview, Tymoshenko said that any rise in prices was offset by the increases her government made in wages and pensions. That was disingenuous. The wage increases don’t track with the price increases and not all are tied to the government—there is commerce and industry here that hasn’t seen much of any wage increase.

We know of people who are living on 300 hryvna a month. That is $60 to live on for the month and these are government employees. A lot of the prices for food are at US levels right now. To buy a chicken, a single, whole chicken, for instance, costs one-tenth that salary. (The increase on chicken has been about 30% in the past 6 months.) And the same thing is true on other items. My wife and I think there are a lot of people who can’t be eating all that well right now. They don’t have the money to.

I’ve got news for everyone, it is not the power of the government that will deal with entrenched oligarchic power. It will be the reforms of government, dealing with corruption and opening things up to competition that will do it.

One thing here is a real type of the attitude of the people in government and most everywhere else. It is the closed door. If you go to any building here, any hospital or government agency or store, you will find a full set of doors across the front to get in just like in any entranceway in any building in the US. The difference here is that only one of those doors will be open. (You will find some exceptions to this--usually Western companies like a McDonalds--but very few.)

If people want to know what is wrong and how to set it right I will just say, “Open up the doors!” Open up for investment and competition--open everything up-- and see the oligarchs wither away and die. And see the people better off than they have been, ever.

I do have something to say about the “Yuschenko is as much responsible for this as Tymoshenko” argument but I have other things I need to do right now.

What was given up

According to this article--FT.com / World / Europe - Yushchenko overcomes crisis in Ukraine--this was given up in the vote for PM:

Mr Yushchenko and Mr Yanukovich jointly pledged to ensure fair parliamentary elections in March and to adopt an amnesty for all people suspected of forging votes in last year's elections, in which Mr Yanukovich was initially declared the winner until Mr Yushchenko convinced the Supreme Court that the voting had been rigged and a re-run was held which Mr Yushchenko won.

In other words, the only thing that could be considered new would be the amnesty. The rest he was sorta, kinda obligated to do anyway.

Of course, there was some talk he would repudiate the amendments giving the PM and Parliament the major power. If that was the case, you could argue that he gave that up with the agreement. But, really, this agreement doesn't obligate him to do anything in the end. If he repudiated it, people would accuse him of opportunism. That wouldn't be anything more than he will be charged with now anyway. But if it serves a larger purpose, he could and should do it down the road if he needs to.

The real problem is that something needs to get done. There needs to be some real reform and quick in the next few months. The past eight months or so have been a total waste in terms of what has been done compared with what should have been done and could have been done, the squandered opportunities. Get something done and all of this will have been justified.

And he needs to get out and tell the people about it.

Yekhanurov is in

According to the radio, Yuschenko resubmitted Yekhanurov to the Rada and he was confirmed. I don't know the vote count right now but it will be interesting to see how close it was.

I wonder how much if anything was given up.

More on New Orleans violence

Here's a bit more on the kinds of crimes and violence that occurred in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina--Katrina highlights Big Easy's violence.

After the storm came the carjackers and burglars. Then came the shootouts and the chemical explosions that shook the restored Victorian houses in New Orleans' Algiers Point neighborhood.

"The hurricane was a breeze compared with the crime and terror that followed," said Gregg Harris, a psychotherapist who lives in the battered area.

And they all just did it for the food.

More hurricanes

First Katrina and now Rita. According to reports, Rita is bearing down on the Gulf Coast of Texas. I didn't get when they thought landfall would be but there is evacuation going on in Houston and Galveston is apparently a ghost town right now. Everyone, or most everyone, is gone. Can't believe it.

I grew up in Texas and remember hurricane Beulah, 1967 it was, and Celia in 1970. Beulah is the one I remember most. Lots of rain and flooding up in San Antonio where we lived, high winds, though not hurricane force, and tornadoes. We of course were 120 miles away from the coast so we wouldn't have gotten the hurricane force winds. What we did get though was quite a bit. But it was a real big deal further down near Corpus Christi and that area.

I was in grade school at the time and I remember walking home and seeing some fish along the fence line of the school grounds. I thought that the hurricane had sucked up fish from the Gulf of Mexico and had dropped them over San Antonio, with some ending up by the school fence. That made the hurricane a very impressive thing to me. The problem with my theory is that I only found fish in that one spot so, thinking about it now, someone probably just dumped some fish there from their trip to the lake to get rid of them. Someone was always making a trip to the lake--can't remember the lake there now-- or to the coast and cleaning out their boat in their driveway or alongside the road.

Even so Beulah was a big deal and it impressed me enough to remember it.

I do hope for the best for Texas. I was born there and lived a lot of my life there.

One thing I can say though with a lot of confidence: Texans will not permit looting and lawlessness. They take that sort of thing personal.

Enough votes now?

Looks like it was a matter of poor "get out the vote" efforts and vote counting. According to this article--Kyiv Post. Yushchenko to resubmit Yekhanurov; rejects Tymoshenko�s offer--they've got the votes now.

[Yuschenko spokewoman, Irina Gerashchenko] said Yushchenko believes Yekhanurov, whose candidacy was rejected Sept. 20, now has the necessary backing to win the 226 votes he needs.

Yushchenko's decision came after a four-hour meeting with parliamentary faction leaders, which also included Tymoshenko and last year's losing presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych, whose party had abstained from the Sept. 20 vote. Tymoshenko had proposed earlier in the day that Yushchenko form an alliance with her that would give her back the prime minister's job.

Petro Symonenko, the leader of the Communist Party, told Ukraine's Channel 5 that Yushchenko hadn't convinced any new factions to support Yekhanurov, but would pick up votes from some groups whose members had split during the Sept. 20 ballot.

They have to learn what Morgan Williams, editor of the Action Ukraine Report, says the experts were saying in Washington yesterday: A non vote is better than a no vote. A no vote is a defeat and a defeat is not a good thing. It means weakness and in politics when weakness is sensed, the politicos gather for a piece of the hide. Makes negotiations tough. "Why give up something when I can wait for the demise and take it myself?"

Tapping files with his finger

Tapping files and saying, "I have the evidence right here!" is a familiar thing to Americans. But it ain't the same thing as evidence--Ukrainian Journal .

Now kompromat is the tactic? Central control of the economy, orders to governors to bring in higher agricultural yields, state control over oil refineries, and now kompromat. Could it be simply a case of nostalgia, a longing for the good old days?

In response to Turchynov's claim, reported here, that there was no evidence he had been poisoned, Yuschenko responded

"That's rubbish," Yushchenko said in New York where he is attending a U.N. General Assembly session. "The SBU didn't have enough time for the investigation
because it had been busy spying on friends."

That says it all doesn't it? And it's a good start. Yuschenko should beat them over the head with those files. All this effort to get a government in place and Tymoshenko and allies give press conferences tapping files with the evidence, well, er, inside of course.

Some of this might be Yuschenko's fault though. He should have been a bit more circumspect in what he alleged about Tymoshenko. But he said she was busy trying to get the debts of her company canceled as PM. Who knows if it is true, but it is an allegation of something big and highly damaging and it is not easily proven. It is natural for people to want some evidence of it rather than a statement that it was done. Without that evidence forthcoming, it is susceptible to the claim that it is just nasty politicking. And it opens up the gate to tit for tat.

He needs better advice than he seems to be getting.

Anyway, just one more reason why Yuschenko needs to come out and make his case to the people.

Yekhanurov Rejected as Premier

OK, this isn't good but I still think that it's a matter of horse trading--Yekhanurov Rejected as Premier.

It all could go to pot here I don't mean to sound like I am minimizing that possibility at all. But I don't think we're there yet even with this result. He only fell three votes short and knowing their history of getting out the vote, this isn't all that big a defeat. It might end up that way but I don't think it is necessarily. It might be more of a botched job of it.

That Yanukovych didn't vote along with his party was no surprise though I think that Yuschenko's meeting with him was a good thing all told. That it might not look good to the people is a different matter and that is a real possibility. But the real problem is not that Yuschenko does these things so much as it is that he doesn't tell the people what he is doing. Yanukovych wants things to go to smash because he believes the people or the powers that be will call on him to pick up the pieces and form a new government. My gut feeling is to say "Not bloody likely even in a crisis" but I guess there is always a way that could happen. I will say that with the people he has and the way he has managed things after the election it isn't all that probable. He's become a marginal political character notwithstanding what the commentators have made of him. That he lost an election that should have been his with hundreds of millions of dollars pouring in to fix it just puts a mark on the guy.

It could have been different and with maybe another crew it could still be. He can argue that things were prosperous under his watch. "Where were the price increases? Where were the central bank manipulations of the dollar?" and etc. Could be effective right now but still nothing from his camp.

The article makes the claim that the Parliament, the Rada, is pushing Yuschenko to adopt the amendments to the constitution on presidential power early. That puts the power for selecting the Prime Minister into the hands of the deputies and most all of the significant powers of government devolve to the PM. Since the Parliament still represents the old guard, the state of affairs under Kuchma, the old guard would have significant power. And Russia is still active around here. There is some evidence that they pulled strings in the WTO vote of a couple of months ago and got some deputies to vote no. The reason for this is that if they get into the WTO first, Ukraine will have to deal with them to get in. (If Ukraine gets in first, Russia will have to deal with Ukraine to get in. That's like your "go-get-the-coffee-grunt" assistant suddenly becoming CEO.)

Ironically, the interests of Russia might just be with Yuschenko on this one. Chernomyrdin (sp) came out in support of Yuschenko the other day in the government dismissal and any hope of having business as usual is more likely with Yuschenko than with Tymoshenko. But they might argue they could get more working behind the scenes with some sort of intrigue than by working more diplomatically. They might be thinking like Yanukovych: If things go to smash Russia will be there to help put the pieces together once more. What will Russia do? Probably the latter because diplomacy is something that is had between equals and this Kremlin isn't all that sane when it comes to Ukraine.

If I were Yuschenko, I would have gone right down to Maidan and made a speech to the people about the results of that vote yesterday. He could have talked about the old guard making their play, about their support for Tymoshenko now, about any recalcitrance on Tymoshenko's part in not supporting the new government. ("She says she is for the people but look who is supporting her now?") I'd hammer them over the head with their own vote and even use the word "coup," a strong word but quite true in these circumstances. They want to supplant the power of a democratically elected president with the power of a crony based, corrupt Parliament.

I don't think Yuschenko will do this though. He has a lot of qualities that serve him well as a good man but may not serve him well as a president. The one big one is that I think he wants people to get along. I called it a desire for harmony. There might be a better word for it; I haven't thought about it enough to come up with one. But that expresses it. Sometimes though you've got to be Machiavellian in government, at least a little bit. And now's the time for that little bit I'm afraid. Hammer them for their vote.

The problem is that a lot may be given away in any revote. I hope not.

Ten days?

I see it's been ten days since the lasts post. Where did it go? I have been busy is the reason. There is a lot more to say about the government dismissal and some of the commentary about it. And I will be posting some more on it-- hopefully. Seems like for some in the media it is either full speed ahead or collapse, nothing in between. Maybe nuance doesn't sell papers and get you air time but it is sometimes very necessary.

Automated comments?

Dont' know what is going on but I just posted something new and immediately I had one of those "Thank you for letting me post to your site. For weddings..." Are there such things as automated programs that wait for a post and place a comment?

Yushchenko Struggles to Win Support for Yekhanurov Vote

This doesn't sound good--Yushchenko Struggles to Win Support for Yekhanurov Vote.

President Viktor Yushchenko scrambled Monday to secure the necessary support or his candidate for prime minister amid growing signs that the Ukrainian parliament would block his choice.

Failure to approve acting Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov's candidacy would lunge Ukraine into another crisis after the dramatic sacking of popular Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, as Yushchenko needs to get a new government in place.

Yekhanurov must win 226 votes to be named prime minister by the 450-member parliament. But as of Monday evening, he had only 199 promised votes and little room to maneuver, with opposition parties either opposing him on principle or as a show of loyalty to Tymoshenko.

Yushchenko planned a series of meetings with faction leaders in a last-ditch effort. He even met with losing presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych for the first time since their heated presidential battle last year. Yanukovych heads the Party of the Regions, which has a bloc of 52 deputies that had said it would abstain.

I bet the author was out of breath when finished. Then I see it's the AP. Not known for complete accuracy recently. "Scrambling," "growing signs," "plunge," "last ditch"? I wonder how you measure these kinds of things. The article says that some of the other factions won't vote for Yekhanurov out of loyalty to Tymoshenko. Rada deputies working from what looks like a principled position? Could be but I don't think so. It would be a bit, umm, uncharacteristic. That they might be trying to curry favor(s) with (from) Tymoshenko would be a little closer to the truth. But Yuschenko has the power right now even if he is working a little harder to get his government picks through Parliament. I suspect a hold out for some of that power--the standard reason. I don't know what they would get if Yekhanurov is not confirmed. Tymoshenko again? They stand to get something now for that vote.

No, I think this is just old fashioned horse trading with pols who sense an ability to get something.

The article mentions Yanukovych and meetings with him. This might raise suspicions in some quarters but I don't think it should. His party shouldn't be marginalized; he does represent the east after all. Bringing them into the government in some way is not a bad idea just like the rapprochement that is happening some with Russia is not a bad idea either. You can't write off a whole region of Ukraine and it's deputies and you cannot write off a whole country that is a major trading partner with historic ties to the country. It's just not smart. Pragmatism should be the rule. Principles which we should have and to which we should refer often to get our bearings, when applied rigorously, however, can cause a lot of misery.

The PM speaks

Notwithstanding the article lede BBC NEWS World Europe Ukrainian ex-PM slams dismissal, this was more in line with what I heard last night:

But on Friday Ms Tymoshenko distanced herself from Mr Yushchenko, who has pledged to root out corruption.

"Today we are two different teams," she said. "I think these two teams will go their own way.

"I will not go to the elections with those people who have discredited Ukraine so much. I do not mean the president, but his closest circle," she said.

She of course did say that Yuschenko had

"practically ruined our unity, our future, the future of the country," and added: "I think this step is absolutely illogical."

But most of what I heard was more conciliatory than that. She said that they were two different teams but that they would be moving in the same direction. Nothing I heard would put her in the opposition against Yuschenko. I suspect she is, but she is not firing the broadsides some of the articles say she is. She was measured and seemed to me to want to put together some kind of vision for Ukraine-- the vision thing. The campaign started last night.

But there was really no attack on Yuschenko that I could see. She will probably be drawn into it later but for now it looks like no.

One thing I have read that is simply not the case is that she was the one who drew the crowds to the square. What brought people down there is a complex thing. Pora was involved initially and word of mouth drew thousands downtown. The immediate cause was the stolen election. What caused them to stay downtown was a combination of a lot of things which included Tymoshenko. But I would not underlvalue what Yuschenko brought and the influence he had on the crowds. That influence was real some of which I noted here. And I think it was his measured response and a certain magnanimity he showed toward those who came to support Yanukovych that helped to prevent any bloodshed and to save people's lives. That set the tone for the revolution.

Anyway, as things stand now, a soft toned Tymoshenko, Yuschenko re-grouping but actually looking stronger, the dollar up slightly against the hryvna, the sun still shining over Ukraine, or at least until a few minutes ago and the press milking this around the world with headlines that suggest reversal, collapse and/or doom. Some things new and some old.

More on Yushchenko firing his government

This is interesting, Yushchenko Fires His Government, especially this part:

"I have spent the last three nights thinking about how to keep together that which has already separated. ... The key issue was the issue of trust," he said. "If there had been a possibility to preserve team spirit, to remain together, it would have been the best answer. We had such an agreement and during the night it was changed, but not by me."

If you had asked me yesterday why Yuschenko dismissed his government, I would have said that he didn't want to but had to. I was thinking earlier on before I found out about it that he might end up trying to patch up holes in his administration and try to make them work with what he's got. I think this statement confirms that. But doing this would have been disastrous for him and for the country. It would not only have reinforced a reputation he has acquired for indecisiveness but it would also have left him with a weaker government as a result.

Why did I think he would do this? I thought he would because Yuschenko has this tendency to want to create harmony. He did it during the Orange Revolution by agreeing with Yanukovych in those idiotic EU brokered negotiations. And it about split the revolution right down the middle. It was at this time you heard the "well-the-revolution-isn't-about-Yuschenko" philosophy showing up. Would have been disastrous if it had happened.

But he is wiping the slate clean and I think it makes him stronger (and makes him look more decisive) notwithstanding what other analysts say. He may seem isolated, but I think that serves him much better than to be linked with Poroshenko and Tymoshenko. This allows him to make his case to the people alone, a case which he has been successful at making in the past. I remember hearing reports of the first rally down on Maidan before the elections where Yuschenko spoke. The crowds were not like those during the OR, but they were still large. When Yuschenko showed up, the crowd parted to let him pass. That was impressive.

And I remember standing down on the square during the OR and hearing the news pass along the crowd "Yuschenko's going to speak!" They would make their way closer to the stage at the news. I was not unaffected by it. That was also impressive. And I think he can do it again. People trust him or at least they want to trust him though more may be wondering about it right now. He needs to get out and make his case more to the people, something he really hasn't done yet much at all. If he does, I think the people will respond.

Will Poroshenko and Tymoshenko campaign against the government? Let's take Poroshenko first. He has lots of money but little popular support. Maybe his money can translate into more support in the end, but it is not as easy now as it once was. He would be left making his case in paid forums (I know, "fora") and his would not be the only voice people heard. And if he were critical of the government and of Yuschenko, it is not clear that that would translate into support for him. It might mean more support for Tymoshenko. The corruption allegations will dog him too.

What about Tymoshenko? She is very popular here. On this morning's call-in show on Radio Era, most of the callers were angry supporters of Yulia. She was the one doing things in the government and doing things that were popular. Prices are going up here and she was trying to stop that from happening (and make the Russians and the privateers behind it all pay for their actions.) Social justice is compelling. It may be reckless economically, but you cannot argue that it is not compelling.

Will she come out against Yuschenko? Maybe, but it would be interesting to see how she does it if so. She was linked with him during the OR but has had a forum all her own as PM. She has been able to distinguish herself there by being the one who is out doing things. (Some Polish somebody or other said she is the one in government making things happen. And that is true, she did make them happen. Whether they should have happened is another matter.) So she can distinguish herself from Yuschenko on those grounds. "I was out there for you, to make the government work for you. I ask you, was I not? Did I not force the Russians to stop raising gasoline prices until I was stopped? Did I not order the governors to come in with higher pork production in a time when there were shortages, until I was stopped? Did I not work to provide relief when sugar almost doubled in price? Is it now double in price? (No, the price has gone back down.) So I ask you, have I not been working for you, working to make sure that the money you bring home is not taken by those who profiteer at your expense?

"But I was stopped in all of this. I was told to back down when I stood up to the Russians. I was told that my methods were interfering too much in the economy, an economy that is eating away at your ability to provide the basics for your family, for your children. I was told that my efforts were hampering the economic well-being of the country. But are you more able now to provide for your families? I ask you are you more able now to do it?

"Who was it that stopped me? Who was it that prevented me from taking action to save the people of Ukraine from the privateers and from Russian interference? Who was it that prevented me from making sure that you can feed your family? I will tell you who it was and you will not like it. You will not like waht it is I have to say because it means betrayal, a betrayal of those who stood out in the cold and snow..."

Would she do this kind of thing? I don't know. She doesn't have to. She could ignore any conflict and try to build a positive case for herself based on the vision thing. But it will be hard to resist contrasting herself with the government in some way if the appeal is populist.

If she did force some kind of showdown pitting her directly against Yuschenko, it would be scorched earth and I don't think it is all that clear she would win. (Making Poroshenko the culprit gets her nothing really.) People like her decisiveness, but I think they trust Yuschenko more or at least they want to trust him. I could be wrong about this, of course, but I think it is true. As in everything else, though, we shall see.

She has a press conference this evening. Ought to be interesting.

Resignations

Man, this is not a good week for Yuschenko. First, Zinchenko resigns saying corruption is rife in the new government and singles out Poroshenko and one other as part of the corrupt cabal. Then Lytvyn piles on with a "the-corruption-is-as-bad-as during-Kuchma's-time" press conference and says Ukraine is weaker now than before. Of course, even a soft authoritarian administration is stronger than a democratic administration any democratic administration, so what is he really saying? He is saying, "Vote for my bloc not Yuschenko's" that is what he is saying. I take back what I said about him during the OR.

Now today, Poroshenko resigns saying that his resignation clears the deck for an inquiry into the corruption alleged by Zinchenko that is supposed to take place soon. That is the stated reason but surely it isn't the real reason. As to what that real reason is, who knows. But rumor is more resignations to follow so it looks like the little band is breaking up to make their own way probably to consolidate their own power in the upcoming elections, if they can. Leaves Yuschenko alone on the ship.

And then Tomenko from Humanitarian Affairs resigns saying he agrees with Zinchenko. He apparently talked with Tymoshenko before he did.

A bad set of days for Yuschenko.

The one who wins from all this is Tymoshenko, of course. Increases her power no end. While Yuschenko may end up floundering trying to stop up holes and prop up his credibility, Tymoshenko emerges popular and unscathed by it all. And the fact that her chief antagonist, Poroshenko is no longer around clears out one obstacle she has had to deal with. Only increases her power.

This may be good news to some who see her as a reformer and don't take seriously what she says she wants to do. But they ought to understand that she has done exactly what she has said she was going to do. They may see some social justice in it all, or even some liberal reforms if they are not looking closely enough, but it will end up in disaster for the country if it becomes state policy. And there will be no oil revenues to paper things over as there are in Russian and Venezuela. It may be popular and the people may rejoice to see it but you will end up with much the same system as before, corruption and all, even though Tymoshenko personally might be trying to stamp it out. If you interfere in the economy and put bureaucrats in charge of it, corruption follows. And economic stagnation follows, if you're lucky.

UPDATE as I write: We just heard on the news that Yuschenko has put someone in as Acting Prime Minister. Unless we heard wrong, does that mean Tymoshenko is out? Does that change anything? Run your own party in the elections and come back in on the shoulders of the people. In other words, not really.

But we shall see.

Another UPDATE as I write: Yuschenko apparently has told the Acting Prime Minister to form a new government. Bold move and the right thing to do under the circumstances. Makes it look like he's cleaning house. Makes it look like it because he is cleaning house.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

Get the story--New Orleans

Things like this just torque me--ABC News: Reporters' Blog: Raw Accounts from the Front Lines of Katrina.

We've got to stop and turn around," I said to cameraman Dan Holdren, who was behind the wheel. Next to a bus stop a frail elderly black woman sat in a wheelchair with a suitcase beside her. She looked as alone in the world as anyone I've ever seen.
In a heavy Southern drawl, Bobbi Sanchez told me she was waiting for a bus to take her to a shelter. "You're gonna die if you don't go," she told me, her glassy eyes ooking directly at me. "It's true."

Another elderly woman walked over to greet us. Bobbi was not there alone. Her sister, Lois Bass, was accompanying her on this exodus. They were heeding the mayor's call to evacuate New Orleans. But like so many of the city's black people they did not have the means to drive out of town or pay for a bus ticket or rent a hotel room on their fixed incomes — Bobbi lives on her disability benefit, Lois lives on Social Security. So they waited for the bus.

I have been thinking a lot about Bobbi and Lois these last few days. When I left them on Sunday I wished them safe passage and assumed they would be taken to the safety of the Superdome, New Orleans' shelter of last resort for those who simply couldn't afford to leave town.

I guess being an objective reporter means you take the story and leave the people. The urgent "we've got to stop and turn around" was not to save the woman but to get her story.

There have been reports from places like I-10 where people have congregated for days. These have come from reporters on the scene. These reporters had to get there some way. Why couldn't they pick up some of these people?

Another reporter from I can't remember where helped to save a man who was stranded with his dog, so it did happen. But I don't think I could live with myself to have phoned in a story, or whatever it is they did, about people I left to fend for themselves.

More on the looting

Some more on the looting going on in New Orleans here. Food and water are one thing, but this?

Days after all the looting that accompanied the Los Angeles riots (after the Rodney King police officer acquitals), some people came to their senses and felt the shame of it. A lot of them brought the stuff back. Maybe the same thing will happen here.

Some questions asked

An anonymous commenter has asked some questions that ought to be talked about. He/she may have meant them to be rhetorical but they are important questions nonetheless.

Increased investment would be great as well as Ukraine being a member of WTO. That being said it does matter who eventually benefits from the investment and more foreign owners will generate jobs

- hopefully more people will stay in the country as more jobs are available

People will stay. The reasons they are leaving is for the money. Some of the advertising here takes advantage of this. One subway poster for a company that allows for wire transfers of money is split into two panels. On the left is a woman setting a table--a waitress? a domestic?-- with a smile on her face. On the right is a young fellow sitting in what is obviously a college class looking rather wistfully--or is his look uncertain? "will it get here in time?"--into the camera. It's all about the money.

The question though is whether the diasporists will come back when things begin to pick up. Maybe if it reaches European levels, maybe. But you have to figure that people get their lives oriented a certain way and get set somewhere and that has to make it difficult to come back.

The big elephant in the room in all this is the movement of people from the villages to the big cities. Ukraine is one of the most rural countries in the world. Lots of people live in villages and there is a kind of culture linked to it. Everyone in the big city has someone they are related to or know who lives in the village. That has been an advantage in allowing them to eat during the bad times because they have had access to the produce of the village from those links.

The problem is that the villages are dying. There is no opportunity for the young people there, no business other than agriculture for them to be involved in. And the agriculture is monopolized by what are often no more than the old party bosses or the new capitalists that are indistinguishable from the old party bosses, who are farming the land non-productively and taking the cream for themselves. They just limp along providing nothing for the young to get involved in and no real economic benefit for the community.

And for those of us who are looking for ways to make the villages more productive, we are faced with three facts that stand in the way, booze, apathy and theft. A lot of village men spend a lot of time either drunk or looking for a drink. That gets in the way of doing something productive. In one village I am aware of, the men got together to set up a fishing business. They would stock a local pond with fish and charge for fishing. I was asked to invest but couldn't see how it would be an economic benefit for the community, how it would generate money and create jobs. The only people I could see who would want to fish there--at the equivalent of the local fishing hole--would be locals, the same people who need businesses to come in so they can have jobs to make money and provide opportunity for the young. This sort of arrangement didn't make the economic pie bigger, which is what is needed, it just rearranged it.

But they went ahead without me anyway and set it up. They sold their memberships to locals, about 72 of them representing most of the male population of the village. And they stocked the pond. Now, on a lot of days, you will find men getting up early to go fishing. They make their way down to the pond and fish?--no, they spend it drinking with a line dangling in the water. And they leave their wives home to work the land and harvest the crops.

Now I have heard that all the fish have died from some kind of a disease. It's hard not to say that it serves them right. But it does.

What will happen is that the young will leave for the big cities leaving the old for the villages. It is happening right now as a matter of fact. When these elderly villagers die off, that will be it. And the link between the village and the city, a link that saved many lives in Ukraine I am convinced, will be severed.

The cities will be hard pressed to deal with the influx of people. Where are they going to live? Housing prices in Kiev have skyrocketed the past couple of years making it unaffordable for a lot of people. They might be able to rent a room here or there but there will be a shortage of places to stay. In Latin America, the problem is solved with shantytowns, slums on the outskirts of town or up in the hills (Caracas.) Might be what Ukraine is faced with. I hope not.

Of course, the decline in the birthrate might solve some of this problem. But it will create another. Who will be around to generate the economic activity needed to take care of an aging population?

-but will the wages be livable?

They aren't livable now. The fortunate thing is that virtually no one is carrying a mortgage payment and energy rates are low and produce comes in from the village--the above linkage. But energy rates could rise to more European levels and that would affect a lot of people. One economist said that if that happened in Russia and mortgages became a much more accepted and common thing, people would be forced to mortgage their flats to pay for their energy consumption. It would put everything at risk. Something like this could happen here.

Western companies pay higher wages here and they provide better benefits on the whole. The low wages and poor working conditions have come on the Ukrainian watch. Incredible wealth has been amassed by a select few while the rest of the people have been scratching out some sort of existence at the wages offered by the companies of these moguls and "entrepreneurs." Looks like feudalism dies hard.

For Western companies, you can't oppress your workforce and end up with anything productive. That may be in their self-interest and nothing to canonize them about. But it does benefit the employee. And there is some conscience involved in this with some. Some people don't surrender their humanity just because they get involved in business.

and the owners will be the ones who ultimately benefit and will they invest in the country (spanning the spectrum from philanthropy to Gucci stores) or will it end up elsewhere?

Privatization in Russia and Ukraine meant capital flight and it still does to some extent. Most of the Western advisors promoted the idea that state companies should be in private hands-- any way they could get there was fine. The argument (and major assumption based on Western cultural perspectives, I might add) was that the owners would take care of those assets, invest profits back into them and lift all boats as a result. That didn't happen. The companies were stripped of profits and the money sent offshore. And the people were impoverished. Needless to say that that wasn't useful.

I think the economists had to invent a new stage of development to account for it. Milton Friedman said that he had been one of the loudest with, "Privatize, privatize, privatize!" He now says he was wrong, it should have been, "Rule of law, rule of law, rule of law!" He still has it wrong. It should have been, "Culture, culture, culture!"--a much different problem.

Western companies are profit focused. They will reinvest and that will improve things. Again, it is in their interest to do so, their long-term financial interests to do so.

what about taxes?

Taxes will be paid. It creates too much risk to not pay them and companies don't like that kind of risk.

The real problem is to make sure that the tax system, including collection, is transparent and fair. Tax inspectors here have had a lot of power and corruption is rife among them. It has been common to get a visit from an inspector who holds his hand out, so to speak, as he tells you that you owe more than you have paid. These arrears have a tendency to disappear when the hand is filled...or not if you are a political opponent or someone in the way of a powerful financial interest.

Businesses tend to understate profits to avoid the risks this presents. So they end up keeping two sets of books, one for the inspectors and one for the business itself.

Yuschenko has made tax policy a focus of his administration and rightly so. He wants to entice businesses back to paying their taxes by overhauling the tax administration and making taxes simpler and fairer. That will help a whole lot. He has done some things and is working on others and there is already evidence that what has been done is working--tax revenues are up.

Good questions.

Charities for hurricane victims

It is Thursday here and in response to Glenn Reynolds' request that we suggest a charity and link to his charity list, I propose Catholic Charities. They have a good reputation for getting things to the people who need it.

By the way, for some of us it has never been about red states and blue states but always about us as Americans.



flood aid
hurricane katrina

New Orleans

I have been to New Orleans and have visited many of the areas now under water. I can't believe that about 80% of the city is under. And they say that it could be a month before people will be allowed to return, around a million people. I can't imagine that. Looks like a lot of people are going to have to open up and take some of them in. I hope they do. Nothing seems to makes us as equal as tragedy does.

Looks like all of us are going to need to contribute to help.

Looting by the poor

I was reading through the hurricane coverage, minding my own business when I hit Brian Williams post here---Nightmare in New Orleans - Nightly News with Brian Williams - MSNBC.com--and tripped over this little jewel:

On a clear morning after the hurricane, water started filling up some of the only dry city streets--including the old French Quarter, this city's storied tourist mecca.

Later, in the downtown area, we also saw what can happen when people have nothing. Looting was everywhere and it was flagrant." (Emphasis mine.)

So the poor are responsible for the looting because they just don't have anything. They must be happy about this kind of disaster then because it allows them to loot which is getting something for their nothing. It is, well, obvious that it has to be the poor because they do have nothing and not some bottom feeding parasites taking advantage of people's misery to make a quick little profit for themselves with not much risk and "no money down." No, it can't be that kind of person at all, it has to be the poor. They are crawling out of their little hovels, picking through the flotsam to get a bit to eat.

And it is, well, obvious too that some of these poor will have guns--too many guns in America! is the awful reason-- and will shoot at the police who are trying to apprehend the poor who have nothing. One particular poor man shot a police officer in the head as that officer disturbed him in his foraging. The policeman will survive fortunately but we will have to be forgiving to that particular poor man because he was just trying to find something to eat. Our hearts will go out to him and to those who depend on him for their daily bread in love and charity because we understand him and them and their plight. If America didn't cast up so many of them--oh cursed land!-- there would not be any poor to loot and shoot.

Of course, these people are taking television sets and microwaves, sports jerseys and clothes as well as other non-edible things. No one made any mention of them taking any food. I guess they don't have any of these things--that is what it means to have nothing--and so they go out and take it. Or maybe they will just sell this stuff to get money to eat. They may be poor but that doesn't mean they are not enterprising.

But not everyone thinks this way. The unfeeling members of our society, usually those closest to what is going on, know that any one of these guys would shoot any of us down like dogs if we made it just a little bit more difficult for them to do what they are doing.

Or is it that people left with nothing will loot? That's gotta be worse.

Come on, Brian! That may cause the Brie eating set to swoon at their dinner parties and charity functions, but the rest of us know better. Why not just report the facts and keep the little editorials that fit in with your social class out, huh?

Give me a break.

UPDATE 9/2: People are now looting for food in New Orleans and that is understandable. It is a catastrophe there and getting them help is difficult. Looting for food you can understand, especially now. But taking TV sets, sporting goods, computers, all kinds of other equipment, and stealing cars is not.

My problem with this was that the "they did it because they were hungry" line was pulled out when the winds hadn't even died down yet to explain people packing away TV sets and carrying guns. It's the explanation of choice for a certain segment and, let's admit it, a certain social class. It has been pulled out to explain 9/11 and terrorism generally, even though it is well known that the people doing these things are often middle class or higher. It ain't the poor.

And it's so damned condescending to people. People can't act any differently because they are hungry. Reminds me of the young girl in one of the concentration camps of WWII I read (or heard) about. She had had her meager rations, some liquid concoction they gave the inmates, flung in her face and, though the temptation to do so was strong and for many (including me) probably overwhelming because she and the others were slowly starving to death, she refused to open her mouth to take any of it in that was dribbling over her lips as it coursed down her face. She found some dignity in that. She found it because it was there. And isn't that one of the meanings of being human, of being a real human being?

It has become tiring to hear it and it, frankly, gets in the way of seeing what the real problems are and of making sound policy to confront them. But it plays to the constituency (or class) and that is what it is meant to do. Politics sets the value of everything.

But there is a wickedness in this world that belies economics.

More expansion commentary

Here's a comment on EU expansion that says including Ukraine is a moral issue--Guardian Unlimited Guardian daily comment We owe them a debt of honour. It is.

I was in Kiev a few weeks ago, talking to journalists. Kiev isn't Istanbul or Ankara. It is stately and tree-lined and well-ordered, with cafe society flourishing along the river bank. Go to the British ambassador's summer party, and the brass band and cucumber sandwiches seem utterly natural.

Of course, out there in peasant country, poverty still hangs heavy - just as it did in Poland 10 years ago. Of course, there are many years of development and sacrifice to go before the EU is accomplished reality.

But reality began, only eight months ago, in the orange revolution, when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians camped out for days in the central square until a corrupt presidency was bundled into history and a tainted election was overturned. Ukraine defined itself on the streets of its major cities as 2005 began. It chose Europe, not more truckling to Mother Russia. It chose its own passionate version of freedom. It looked to Brussels, not Moscow.

And what has Brussels offered in return? Fair words and fair action, a new "neighbourhood policy" with 150 or so tests and reforms that clear the way for
full entry application. These tests go hell for leather after democracy and market economics. They mean reform, expense, pain and some electoral unpopularity - but Kiev is gritting its teeth and ploughing on. It finds faith at the end of this rainbow. With Warsaw's profound encouragement, it has taken Turkey's route to defining national identity...

But old Europe is blocking arguing there is no point to further expansion absent a constitution to guide the EU, a position he calls cynical but which has some logic to it. (I don't know that it does have any except maybe politically.)

He ends:

We helped Turkey's new government put its life in our hands. We said we were there with the orange revolutionaries of Kiev. We owe them both debts of honour. We can't just pack when it begins to rain this autumn. We're leaders, aren't we?

He's right you know.

Some find it hard to see national interests at work asserting themselves in the EU. They seem to see it as an "all for one and one for all" arrangement. But if you look closely enough it is not very hard to see that the EU is appropriate for France, for example, because France has a great deal of power in it. That having to give some of it up might be a reason for some of its intransigence is not something that should be dismissed out of hand.

Questions

It's nice to have some astute commenters contributing here. Makes things more interesting.

Ron has stopped back by and has asked about Ukraine and the WTO. Good question. I also don't think much of the WTO for the US but it may not make all that much difference in practice. The US is the 800 pound gorilla and that means people want to sell there and have to sell there. That gives the US a lot of clout which ends up meaning that we tend to negotiate our way around the WTO when there is a problem. (Foreign sales corporations and the EU are one example.) That sounds like much the same result that would occur without it.

For Ukraine though, I think WTO accession would be a good thing. It would open up more markets for Ukrainian goods and allow for more competition here. (If anyone is looking to break the power of the oligarchs, more competition here is the way to do it.)

But it also imposes a kind of discipline on the goverment that it doesn't seem to be able to come up with on its own. To have to liberalize and do it in some sort of time frame self imposed or not has a tendency to give the government, at least parts of it, some focus. They need that.

So I think it a good thing.

Some respond that that accession would leave the Russians with more power here because they are the only ones who can stomach the risk here right now. (We think that overstated though, the risk part.) There is some truth to that but the response is more liberalization. That means more competition. Deals with it the same way as it would in dealing with the oligarchs.

Ukraine marks independence anniversary for the first time without a military parade

This is a significant thing. Kyiv Post. Ukraine marks independence anniversary for the first time without a military parade.

Power and its projection were celebrated in Soviet times and even afterward here. All parades were military parades and they were for domestic as well as for foreing consumption. To cow the citizenry? Maybe there was some of that but a lot of the citizenry identified with the military and remembered the sacrifices made during the Great Patriotic War against fascism. It was more of a unifying theme for the people, something they all could identify with and made them a part of the whole, a Soviet. And that helped the state, of course.

It was said that Stalin couldn't get anyone to fight for the party so he brought back the concept of the Motherland. The citizens were engaged in protecting the Motherland in the fight against Hitler. I guess that means that communists were pragmatists too. (Stalin is even supposed to have brought back Orthodox religious worship and I think even gave back some of the sacred church icons. All to aid in the war effort. Was the Soviet Union all about communist dogma or was it simply a matter of maintaining power? But I digress.)

But that changed yesterday and I think that means the identity has changed too. Maybe it also means a lack of a unifying theme for the country, I don't know. It is all a result of more democracy but many might be a bit nostalgic here in a few years for those good old days when they were all in it together. (Didn't Plato say that a democrat--small "d"-- had so many things he could possibly do that he had a hard time concentrating on any one of them to the exclusion of all the others? Something like that?) If more were put into cultivating it, the Maidan and the Orange Revolution might just be able to take its place.

Independence Day

Today is Independence Day here in Ukraine. It is the day that independence from the Soviet Union was declared back in 1991. It was declared but not much changed in real fact. The real declaration has been the result of the Orange Revolution.

We were treated to a fireworks display about a block away from our apartment. Could see it all from our windows which was nice for the kids. Must not have been official because it happened after 10 p.m. But it was impressive all the same; these were no squibs. Sounded like mortar rounds and they lit up the sky.

Anyway, congratulations to Ukraine. Took a long time to get here.

Atlanta economist to Ukraine

This sounds like it could be good news.
Atlanta Economist to Advise Ukrainian Prime Minister.

Ms. Tschinkel, who served as senior vice president and director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, has advised Lithuanian, Bulgarian and Uzbekistani governments on implementing economic reform policies since she left the Fed in 1995.

Dealing with debt management, fiscal policy reform and the decentralization of banking systems, Ms. Tschinkel has assisted representatives of the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank.

While she describes her work as helping to implement economic reforms into the day-to-day framework of a country, she is careful to note that she only takes an advising role when working with local government officials. She facilitates discussions between government officials and representatives from international aid agencies and coaches officials into making their own decisions on economic policy, she said.

"It's their government. [Officials] have to make the decision(s) on their own, and they have to take responsibility for their decisions," she said, adding that most government officials who she had worked with had been extremely motivated to implement economic policy changes but needed guidance in making their decisions.

She's highly qualified and is well recommended. (She was recommended to Tymoshenko by US Ambassador Herbst. Herbst is a competent and effective ambassador.)

Maybe we'll get a coherent economic policy from September (when she assumes her duties) on. Let's hope we do.

More on Yuschenko's son

More on Yuschenko’s son.

Even if the Orange Revolution has since turned red (As in Soviet red) preserving its nostalgic remembrance means that it requires safeguarding. This, of course, is obviously why the Orange brand was quietly given to the playboy teenage son of President Yushchenko for safekeeping:

"…Local media said the revolutionary slogan 'Tak!' (Yes) and a downward-facing horseshoe symbol were now registered trademarks owned by [Yushchenko's] 19-year-old son, Andriy.

"The President's eldest son, Andriy has been under media scrutiny after the internet newspaper Ukrainska Pravda publicized his high-stepping lifestyle. "Andriy, a university student, says he has a part-time job that enables him to rent a BMW and a spacious Kiev city centre flat, pay for a personal bodyguard and hang out in chic restaurants, nightclubs and casinos."

Kommersant newspaper adds: "…the Orange theme is widely used till now and Orange goods cost pretty [large amount of] money. For example Orange flag with slogan 'Tak!' costs from 5 to 20 UAH ($1-4) – it is 10% of [the] average Ukrainian pension. So, if an old man decides to present ten [of] his old friends with such flags he must spend all his monthly income given by the state…

Then the usual about how much the brands are worth. (Millions of course.) And then

While the analogy is not exactly precise, there is something to be said here. Ukraine has developed the worst characteristics of America – or at least tiny slivers of its elite have. In 2005, Revolution Industry has become so professionalized that nothing is allowed to be forgotten: the anticipated future profits of branding yesterday's uprisings are earmarked for a sort of trust fund, so that the president's teenage son can enjoy a life of luxury far beyond that of the average Ukrainian, while simultaneously proliferating a legacy that never was.

But why should they complain? After all, like the article said, they can enjoy their civic right to patriotic pride, just by paying their meager pension to feel the special joy that only orange revolutionary souvenirs can bring. After all, this was a revolution of the people. I don't know how the fruit mongers are doing, but chances are among all the problems facing Ukrainians, scurvy isn't one.

Very clever that. My take:

Signing over the brands to the son.

This is suspicious. I have posted about it before. But let’s look at this a little differently. What if it had been reported that the President had created a foundation to protect the symbols of the revolution and had put his son in charge of that foundation? This sort of thing happens all the time in the West, family members putting other family members in charge of foundations to take care of some charitable something or other. Would that sound suspicious? It is nepotism but a nepotism that is expected. I just found out the other day, for instance, that the wife of Christopher Reeve is the head of the foundation created to further research into paralysis. It happens all the time and no one blinks at it. Seems even kind of noble, the family member stepping in to further the legacy.

I can hear the loud voice now, “But there is no foundation here. That’s the difference.” And that is true but misunderstands the problems here in Ukraine. Yuschenko signed over the rights to his son and no foundation was involved. But that is just the sort of lack of connecting of the dots that is so frequent here and maddening to those trying to make some sense of it. Formalities are not necessarily the first thing on people’s minds here when they look to do things. One of the big reasons is that the courts haven’t really meant much of anything-- the rule of law argument. (Ever noticed that the judges in Ukraine sit at a desk rather than on the bench? It has been more a bureaucratic job, getting done what the people who have power want done.) The people have had to depend on players in government with power to get things done, in order to get things done. That means graft and bribes and corruption but it also has meant a kind of personalized sort of justice. The point is that personal contacts and relationships have been more important than the legal niceties.

So it is not unreasonable to suspect that Yuschenko signed over these brands to his son personally for him to make sure that the symbols of the revolution were safeguarded by him personally. A father giving his son some responsibility in helping to safeguard what was in part his legacy.

This makes more sense to me because of

The brands problem

He makes a lot here about the worth of the brands and puts it in the millions. I tell people who want my help putting together a business plan that it is easy to add zeros to any figure. The problem is getting those zeros to match what is actually possible.

In the West, those sums would be the real value of the intellectual property rights in those brands. But Ukraine is not the West. That value in the West is really a function of enforcement more than it is anything else. In Ukraine, there is no such enforcement. A couple of years ago, Microsoft made a big announcement that it had reached an agreement with the pirates in Ukraine regarding its software. Microsoft would grant them a license to sell their software at a reduced rate.

Before that announcement, you could buy a copy of Windows for about $2.50. After that announcement, I went to the local pirate bazaar to check to see how much a copy would cost. I found that you could buy a copy of Windows for $2.50. It was the same price; there had been no change. The point is that what Microsoft had done resulted in nothing changing. Pirated copies of Windows were still being sold. Microsoft stopped nothing.

The same thing still holds true today. The penalties for selling pirated software have been increased in Ukraine following all that push for WTO friendly legislation here. Has that stop the pirates from selling? No, sell it they do. I haven’t checked prices yet but I suspect they haven’t changed..

What is the problem? E-N-F-O-R-C-E-M-E-N-T, enforcement. You can have all the laws on the books you want about things but if they won’t be enforced it is all dead letter.

One reason for this is the same problem--rule of law. But what under girds the rule of law problem is a cultural apathy toward intellectual property rights. The feeling tends to be, If I have a copy, everyone can have a copy. And that is about what happens.

I don’t know of any company here that has a department dealing with IP issues or anyone in a company dealing with them, other than Western companies. It’s just not an issue. This means that when a company here looks to use a symbol—in this case a symbol used very publicly and openly as part of a people’s revolt—they are not all that concerned (read: “not concerned at all”) with determining who the rights belong to. Of course, Yuschenko’s son could have found out that a company is using the symbol and made a demand for a royalty payment. That is a possibility. But I don’t think they could have done that without some sort of disagreement about it that would have eventually spilled over into the public domain. So it is possible but I think it unlikely.

So why then is the price so high? Supply and demand. What we are finding now which we didn’t find in the past all that much before the revolution is that there are a lot of tourists here now. They came after the revolution even before the lifting of the visa requirement but they are out in force now. And they want a piece of the revolution. That usually means a souvenir. For them, what is high priced for a Ukrainian is nominal or even cheap by European and American standards. So I think the price reflects the market for sales of the stuff; the tourist market. They are willing and able to pay the price for that stuff.

Which leaves the

The part-time job/jobs

So if the money isn’t coming from royalties, where then is it coming from for Yuschenko’s son to live the luxury life he seems to be living? The part-time job/jobs he has is where I think it is coming from. That he could not get the kind of money he is alleged to be throwing around from any kind of job he might get at 19 is true. And none of us would be naive enough to think that he is not getting the money he is supposed to be getting in spite of his being Yuschenko’s son. I think it would be clear that he is getting it because he is. And suspicious minds would say that he is simply getting paid for what others before him in the same situation could provide: access to people in power. It is that facial similarity with the ways of the past that makes this very suspicious and is the driving force behind it. And I think legitimately so.

But there is another, more innocent possibility. In the US, in a lot of companies, as an attempt to make investors less jittery about a risky investment or to give the company, usually fledgling, some instant credibility, high profile people are often recruited to sit on the boards of directors of the company. This is true for even legitimate enterprises. It happens all the time. And that director is usually paid handsomely, has an office he never visits, is often given a car and other perks, at company expense, all for lending a company his name--that is, for doing not much of anything.

I think something like that may be going on here.

Putin allied with Yanukovich?

If this is right, it just goes to show how idiotic the Kremlin's foreign policy toward Ukraine still remains--The Jamestown Foundation.

Russian President Vladimir's Putin's Unified Russia party has already signed a cooperation agreement with defeated presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych's Regions of Ukraine party. Russia's Rodina party has agreed to cooperate with the Socialist Party of Ukraine, while Russia's and Ukraine's Communists are eternal allies.

But from a Ukrainian perspective, good. All the polls I have seen have shown that if an election were held today, Yanukovych's party would be lucky to poll half of what they did in the (final) election. (About 14% is the figure.) Maybe Putin can hit up the oligarchs again for $300 million to line the pockets of the Mercedes and BMW drivers here once more. Some of it is bound to trickle down to the people on foot, the vast majority, and that's got to improve the economy here. In one stroke, Putin can pull the chain of the oligarchs reminding them once again who is boss and improve economic conditions in Ukraine at least a little. And he can cement a reputation for having an abysmal understanding of what is happening in Ukraine.

The fact is that Yanukovych is non-existent. He is nowhere to be found these days. An opposition should be opposing and there is none of that. You hear at times Yanukovych's campaign manager, his last, come out and say things, Taras Chornovil, but that is just nuisance sniping from the trees not the frontal assault an opposition ought to be engaged in. It doesn't sound like he speaks for any organzied opposition.

And the administration has been vulnerable the past few months, very vulnerable. The only opposition that has been detectable (and interesting) has been from the administration itself. Nothing from Yanukovych.

I did make a prediction that the Kremlin would cut ties with Yanukovych and that appears to be wrong but I assumed a reasonable amount of reason was available. Bad assumption.

Economics Ukrainian style

This is what you get here a lot when talking about the price of things--someone somewhere is conspiring to raise it simply because they want to. Kyiv Weekly.

Particularly depressing is a drastic rise in the prices of poultry products in Ukraine, which is the most prosperous sector of the country's animal husbandry industry. But that is not the worst of it. Poultry farmers have decided to go a step further. One of the largest producers of poultry in Europe, the Myronivskiy Khliboproduct joint-stock company, which owns the trademark Nasha Ryaba chicken products, announced its intention of gradually raising the prices of poultry to the level of pork and beef. Not only is this a violation of the pricing agreement in the memorandum between the Cabinet of Ministers and the producers of poultry products. It is also another test for consumers...

and

Certainly, compensating the shortage of these products currently estimated at 400,000 tonnes with imported products can fill the market for a certain period and urb price growth. But many experts believe that a prolonged stabilization of the situation in the meat market and a drop in retail prices are possible only in the event that quotas are introduced on imported meat products and directing the proceeds from sales based on these quotas to developing the domestic livestock breeding industry...

The same sort of argument is made seriously here about gas prices. The Russians have refineries they have closed down ostensibly for them to be upgraded but the real reason is to cause a shortage and a rise in the price. The same sort of thing is said about grains and sugar each year; the traders are sitting on supplies to raise the price and then come into the market to make a killing.

To date, this kind of argument has been made for poultry, pork, gasoline, and wheat.

I guess it is possible for a couple of players to so dominate a market as to be able to control prices though I think that means a kind of coordination that I don't see as being a realistic possibility here. Maybe other places but not here. But even if this is the case, the response should not be more control, it should be to open up these markets to competition. But that isn't happening. The reason is that opening up markets would cause a lot of dislocation and that is the last thing the government would like to see. The problem though is that this kind of finessing of a soft landing doesn't seem to be doing anything but cause shortages and rising prices.

A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF ORANGE REVOLUTIONARIES

Here's some interesting information on the demographics of who participated in the Orange Revolution---NEW DATA CREATES DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF ORANGE REVOLUTIONARIES, VOTERS - Eurasia Daily Monitor.

It ends:

The Orange Revolution succeeded because western Ukraine provided participants while eastern Ukrainians remained passive. Some 45% of the Orange Revolution protestors were from western Ukraine, especially from the three Galician oblasts: Ivano-Frankivsk (69%), Lviv (46%), and Ternopil oblast (35%).

A striking 35% of western Ukrainians took part in the Orange Revolution, and 23% of west-central Ukrainians. Besides western Ukrainians, more than one-third of the residents of Kyiv participated, a figure close to that of Galicia. These figures were far lower in eastern (15%), east-central (9%), and southern Ukraine (8%) respectively.

These studies by Democratic Initiatives and IFES point to a close interconnection between national identity and civil society in Ukraine, with eastern Ukraine dominated by passivity and a "managed" civil society. The 2004 election also showed that violence came from eastern, not western, Ukrainians.

The study also states that those in the East believed that those on Maidan were paid to go. This isn't anything new. But the reason for this belief is interesting: They, in the East were paid to go to rallies so those on Maidan had to be paid too. What I see and understand is what everybody else see and understands. In cultural studies this is called self reference criteria and it is the main thing I deal with when teaching people--mostly Americans-- about cultural differences.

More shenanigans

This kind of thing still happens--

TWO GERMAN COMPANIES SAY THEIR UKRAINIAN PARTNER IS INTIMIDATED, ASK GOVERNMENT FOR HELP – DEUTSCHE WELLE

Interfax-Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tues, August 9, 2005 KYIV - Representatives of two German companies Jungheinrich and Dufelsdorf Handelsgesellshaft producing agricultural and other equipments have appealed to the Ukrainian leadership, saying their Ukrainian partner –Kyivtractordetal – is intimidated.

They threaten to leave the Ukrainian market, which may serve a negative signal to German business circles, the Ukrainian service of Deutsche Welle reported. They call upon Ukrainian authorities to avert instability at the Kyiv-based enterprise.

Employees of the Ukrainian producer accuse courts and the Public Prosecutor's General Office of assisting elimination of the enterprise to have its land for
construction of a prestigious housing complex. Particularly, the plant's director
was detained, Deutsche Welle informs.

Now the German businessmen doubt over the execution of its commitments to other European partners because every ready-made mechanism has Ukrainian parts.

Adolf Dufelsdorf, the CEO of Dufelsdorf Handelsgesellshaft, said it is absolutely unclear what is going on for those used to work in another legal framework. He said they had been much more optimistic previously but now see how long Ukraine needs to cover on the way to Europe.

--and it needs an aggressive response by the business. It doesn't look like they have a direct approach to Yuschenko except through official channels so the success of that kind of appeal might be in doubt. But the new openness here creates other opportunities (and lessens risks) for the company to shine all kinds of light on this to get these officials to back off. And this needs to be pursued aggressively by the company to have any success. So an official appeal to Yuschenko is something that should be done but it is one prong of a multipronged attack the company should be pursuing.

One thing to remember is that there is rule of law here except when it makes a difference. That surprises Europeans and Americans and results in some paralysis when it hits them and makes it hard for them to understand what to do next. The rules of the game are no longer the rules. But it simply means that the legal solution is not going to work. There are other extra-legal (and perfectly ethical) methods that work better in these kinds of situations. And they all come down to shining lights on this sort of thing. Get this out in the public. Make it well known. There is a real sensitivity to this kind of thing right now so making it public knowledge will be very effective. One story in the newspaper won't do it, though.

Still the wild east--Russia

It is strictly business, you understand, nothing personal---Canadian Lives to Tell His Tale.

First he had to give up his Mercedes to avoid being killed. Then a man who owed him $1 million tried to kill him, and his girlfriend took out a contract hit on his life. In February, he was kidnapped and forced to pay a ransom of $1.5 million.

Incredibly, businessman Igor Lantsov, who claims to be a victim of circumstance, has not soured on working in Russia and is forging ahead with plans to build several golf courses. Maybe only after that will he go home to Canada.

"I don't walk around with bodyguards, and I don't owe anybody any money. It's strange, but what can you do?" Lantsov said of his recurring troubles.

Moscow city prosecutors on Tuesday charged two men, including a Moscow region police officer, in the February kidnapping of Lantsov, the vice president of the Russian National Association of Professional Golf and a former deputy director of the Kremlin Trading House, which provides food to the Kremlin, Vremya Novostei reported Wednesday...

It may not be like the 90s, though some say it still is, but this sort of thing continues to happen in Russia and here. I think though with the greater openness and transparency the Orange Revolution brought to Ukraine, it will be a harder thing to do from now on.

This also goes to show that unrestrained competition is not what is wanted. Competition must have a basic set of rules that people live by or you will get this sort of thing.

Yushchenko Registers Revolution Symbols

This is the kind of thing that is bound to come up in the scramble for information on Jr. that the press conference touched off--Yushchenko Registers Revolution Symbols.

My response to this new information is that those rights may be worth a small fortune in the US but they aren't worth much in a country where the latest Hollywood film is available for about 3 bucks. (You may have to put up with the occasional dipping of the camera or one or two moving silhouettes--like the old Warner Brothers cartoons. And the picture can be kind of grainy. But if you want better quality for that movie, just wait a couple of weeks.) The point is that intellectual property rights here are virtually non-existent. They may have registered the rights with Yuschenko's son but it will be a tough thing to get any value from them because there is really no serious enforcement going on for any such rights now anyway.

There were a number of musicians that became famous during the Orange Revolution. Grynjolly is the most conspicuous of the bunch. But I think you will find they did not make any money on the song they wrote even though just about everybody has a recording of it. The reason? Pirate copies out there. People around here may think that intellectual property rights are all for those rich Americans but the creative industry here suffers for the lack of enforcement of those same rights too.

So it might look suspicious that Yuschenko Jr. got the rights but in Ukraine they don't mean much of anything. You might say they are not really worth the paper they're printed on.

By the way, it is not as if there isn't a way to protect intellectual property rights. There is. It just takes a bit more than looking at it as a legal problem. And these options are not open to Yuschenko's son at this point.

An apology

From Ukrainsky Pravda:

KYIV - Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has admitted that his answer to a question about his son at a news conference earlier this week was "too emotional" and said that this was "a lesson to him". Yushchenko called the journalist whom he offended at the 25 July news conference, SerhiyLeshchenko, and suggested shaking hands.At the news conference, Leshchenko asked him to comment on rumours that his son lives beyond his means, but Yushchenko called him "a hitman" and said the he "lied" in his articles.

Leshchenko authored a series of articles on the Ukrainian web site Ukrayinska Pravda exposing the reportedly lavish lifestyle of Yushchenko Jr.The following is the text of a report by Leshchenko posted on Ukrayinska Pravda on 29 July: Yushchenko's press secretary Iryna Herashchenko called Ukrayinska Pravda today. She asked me not to switch off the phone, as the president would call in two minutes' time. And so it happened.

Viktor Yushchenko spoke in a quiet voice, though one could feel that the conversation was not an easy one for him. We discussed the recent developments
triggered by the publication about Andriy Yushchenko and the harsh answers by the head of state during the press conference on 25 July.

Viktor Yushchenko said at the beginning that this case had several aspects
to it. As to his son, he said that he had a tough talk with him. Andriy Yushchenko made conclusions and the main thing now is that he should take time to understand what he has been through."In order to [help him] live through this, I want to support Andriy as much as I can and have him near me," Yushchenko Senior said.

He also said that his answer to my question on 25 July "was emotional" and that "this was a lesson" to him. It was clear from his voice that it was not easy for the president to say those words. I said that I understand him and bear no grudge.Yushchenko suggested extending hands to each other and "turning the
leaf in this conflict", which was started during the press conference.

Making use of Yushchenko's own expression, I said that his hand would not hang in the air. We shook each other's hands on the line.Yushchenko added that the consequences of this story may be used to destabilize the situation in the country. To that, I answered that this definitely was not the aim we pursued with our articles.

Yushchenko suggested a meeting during my trip to Crimea tomorrow with a journalist team covering the Cabinet of Ministers' regional meeting. I replied that it is not worth troubling him when he is with his family.I also assured the president that the article in Ukrayinska Pravda was not ordered or paid for by anybody. He sounded as if he accepted my arguments. At the end of our conversation, Yushchenko said, "See you".

This is good.

Yuschenko and the press

There has been a lot of hostility toward Yuschenko from the press for the past few days here because of comments he made--accusations really-- at a July 25th press conference. This article is representative and goes into a bit of the whys--Them's fightin' words...Mr. President.

The problem occurred when a reporter asked a question about Yuschenko's son. His son, according to news reports, drives an expensive BMW, has a large upper story flat here, owns a platinum cell phone worth around $25,000, frequents expensive nightclubs and bars and has bodyguards to accompany him. All of this at the age of 19 and with no apparent means of support to maintain him in that kind of life style.

Yuschenko responded accusing the reporter of being a hitman. He then made the defense that his son had the cell phone from a rich friend, that the car was a rental and that he was able to afford his lifestyle and the bodyguards because of a consulting contract.

The response by Yuschenko hit the press here like a ton of bricks, they feel, from the blind side. A lot of them supported the Orange revolution and considered themselves to be a part of the family. 300 of them have asked Yuschenko to apologize, a thing interesting in itself.

What about the question? Was it out of bounds? I don't think so. The basis of Yuschenko's whole appeal is to end corruption. Yet his son is able to get a consulting contract that allows him to rent an expensive car, live in a flat that is about 5 times the size of our fairly sizable apartment, and to live an expensive nightlife--all at the age of 19. The only kind of contract that would pay that amount of money would be one that is politically indefensible for Yuschenko, at least to my mind. All of this was the elephant in the room in some circles so it was legitimate to ask.

Did Yuschenko have to answer it? No and he shouldn't have. He should have deflected it by saying something about it being his son's own life or that he, like any parent, had only so much influence with a son who no longer lives at home. Something like that. To antagonize the press like he did was not a good thing to have done. And by answering the way he did, he takes the problem on himself. Maybe that is the way of a good parent, I haven't thought that one through. (And I think Yuschenko is a good man and an honest one.) But it isn't wise for someone needing to change a government and in many ways a whole culture.

The problem is that after the initial shock wears off, a shock, by the way, that wouldn't have been felt in the US or Britain, the press are going to not only investigate the son and that won't come out good--too many questions that seem like they cannot be answered with anything politically viable--but they will also not be giving Yuschenko a pass on anything. This is particularly bad because there is no real attempt by the government to make its case. If it has to overcome a negative by the press, this will not be a helpful thing, especially if things begin to turn south with the economy.

And it is Yuschenko that is the liberalizing force in the government just about the only one. If he is dogged at every step and has to make his case over the press, that will just set reform and liberalization all that much further behind, especially again since there has been no attempt to make any semblance of a case for ,much of anything in public.

Why pick a fight with the press on such a peripheral matter and such a small matter? Maybe Yuschenko is frustrated and that frustration just came out at that conference. If that is what happened, he would lose nothing by apologizing and probably gain a whole lot by doing it.

I support Yuschenko and have since the revolution. I think he's an honest man and a good one. And I think the task he has at hand is one that borders near the impossible, at least in the time frames that are there for him to do it. But I want to see him succeed. He deserves it and the people do too, especially them. Ukrainians have had to endure decades of hardships and still endure them. They deserve to have something better than what it is they have now.