Opposition demands to be debated next week in the RADA

The United Opposition have stated that the will unblock the RADA next week as agreement has been reached to allow their 4 key “issues” to be considered during that time.

Those 4 key issues are:

The setting of an election date for the position of Kyiv Mayor.

A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

The abolition the new pension reforms.

The removal of the Artilces of law under which Ms Tymoshenko is currently jailed.

And?

Well the issues relating to the Kyiv Mayor are currently being considered by the Constitutional Court which the law proscribes must give their decision upon within 3 months.  Would it not be wise to allow the court to come to its conclusions prior to this debate?  At least everybody would know what cards they have to play with then.

A vote of “No Confidence” is very likely to be unsuccessful and will do the image of the United Opposition no good whatsoever if they prove ineffective at removing the government.  The “Rise Ukraine” campaign is for what exactly if they cannot deliver?  To prove they still cannot deliver perhaps?

And what if they win a vote of “No Confidence”?  New elections at a time when all in the RADA should be concentrating on getting as much EU compatible legislation passed within the very limited time frame available before the Vilnius Summit in November  - as their joint pro-EU statement proclaimed.

Elections under the same electoral laws that are a key EU demand for reform and under which the opposition lost only 6 months ago?  Why is electoral reform not a key demand of the United Opposition – does it not help their cause to have a far more equitable playing field?

Should the EU/Ukraine AA and DCFTA not get signed in November as planned, is that not a far better time to call for a vote of “No Confidence”?  It would be a major failure of both Yanukovych and the government.  Or do the United Opposition believe that it will be signed and that to try and win a vote of “No Confidence” after a successful signing would be far harder?

I have to be honest and say that just as I doubted the timing (and effectiveness) of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, I also have serious doubts about the timing of the attempts to topple the government – a central plank of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign.

I have no problem with the politics, but the timing seems very poor given the wider best interest of Ukraine being at least able to function until November and the Vilnius Summit if there is to be a glimmer of hope relating to signing EU agreements.

Abolishing the pension reforms?  To be replaced by what?  The old and economically unsustainable rules that previously existed?  What is the United Opposition policy to deal with a serious economic issue facing not just Ukraine, but almost all European nations relating to pensions, in lieu of the current reforms?  What is their policy, how will it be financed, and is it any better than the current reforms they are balking against?  Does anybody know?  As a follower of the opposition I am yet to hear their alternatives.

Lastly, the removal of the legal Articles under which Ms Tymoshenko was jailed.  I am not sure if this is the second or third attempt to do so – but previous attempts have failed.  The reality, unfair as the entire process may have been, is even in removing the offending Articles now, they were still the law when she was found guilty under them.  It will not do nothing to remove her conviction even if it would perhaps give greater scope for moral pressure relating to her release.  Laws are not retrospective in their application or removal – and neither are convictions under them unless officially pardoned.

Given the United Opposition’s very subdued reaction to Lutsenko’s release, are the United Opposition simply going through the motions for the public relating to Tymoshenko anyway?

What do they gain by her release in the long run vis a vis her continued incarceration?

What happens to their little power-sharing deals if she was released?  A major “cause” and easy headline maker in her de facto political prisoner/martyr status will also be removed, not to mention they would immediately be standing in her very considerable vocal and political shadow the moment she left the prison gate.

Would or could the United Opposition even manage to remain united if she was released and took the helm of Batkivshchnya again – giving a public perception of sending the three current captains back to being nothing more than deck-hands in the process?

Do Yatseniuk, Klitschko and Tyhanbok willing want to take that chance with their own political futures – or will they simply go through the motions for the public?

More broadly, what are the chances next week of the United Opposition winning any, let alone all, of the above 4 issues over which they have blocked the working of the RADA for months?

If they fail to make any progress after these issues are debated – are they going to block the RADA again?  To what end?  The dissolution of parliament and with it any hope of timeliness in legislative progress toward the EU normative within the EU nominated time frame?

New model for Ukrainian judiciary sent to Venice Commission

Not that long ago I wrote an entry relating to the almost forgotten entity that is the Constitutional Assembly of Ukraine.

Well, the Constitutional Assembly has now sent the Venice Commission its draft for amendments to Chapter VIII (Justice) of the Constitution of Ukraine, a draft that proposes a new judicial model – a model that takes into account most of the previous recommendations of the Venice Commission – apparently.

Of particular note, not to say importance, is the creation of a body to be called the “High Council of Justice”, created from within the judicial system, with members appointed by the members of the judiciary, rather than by parliament or president.

A major step towards a truly independent judiciary – not withstanding the dark and foreboding shadow relating to the fact that politicians in Ukraine currently still appoint and dismiss judges – a fact that necessarily undermines judicial independence – and that any members of this new body will be there, initially at least, due to the political patriarchy that has placed them where they are today.

Another major inclusion is the removal of immunity (and de facto impunity) of judges.  They will be subject to the  laws they interpret and service, just like every other citizen in Ukraine (except the politicians who are yet to vote to remove their own immunity (and de facto impunity)).

Let us hope that the Venice Commission is swift in its appraisal of the submitted draft, finds the vast majority of it acceptable – if not all of it – and returns it for RADA consideration expeditiously whilst there remains some political  momentum to try and appease EU sensibilities.

Lutsenko circus nears its finale

Yesterday, as per the script, the prison sentence of Yuri Lutsenko was upheld by The Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases.

Now, as per the script, it falls to the President Yanukovych to release Lutsenko on humanitarian grounds due to ill health, negating the need for Lutsenko to ask for a pardon which he will not do.

It also follows that his conviction would remain if released from prison on humanitarian grounds.

For the sake of the continuing circus performance, one has to suspect Easter would be a good time for the President to intervene and have him released.  So possibly around 5th May?  It would fall in rather nicely with the EU time line to see some “progress”.

Anyway, the circus performance must go on, even if for just a little longer with respect to Lutsenko – After all it would simply be boring to just have him finish his sentence in 2014 now wouldn’t it?

Italy to open Consulate in Odessa soon

A very short and sweet entry today.

Yet another diplomatic mission will soon open in Odessa – this time Italian - which will please the good woman if it has the ability to produce Visas, as Italy is a nation that particularly attracts her for reasons of history, architecture, food and of course fashion.

Very good.  That makes half a dozen Consulates opened in Odessa in as many years and leaves Odessa housing close to 20 diplomatic missions.

Naturally the UK isn’t one of them – not even an Honorary Consul, despite an ever growing and vibrant local diplomatic community – but I have come to expect nothing less.

Council of Europe – Committee for the Prevention of Torture – Mykola Hnatovsky

Last week, with the usual little or no Ukrainian media coverage, Mykola Hnatovsky, Associate Professor at Taras Shevchenko University, Kyiv, was voted into a 4 year role within the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

He takes up the post of Second Vice President.

Together with Letif Huseynov of Belarus who was reelected as President and Marzena Kzel of Poland who assumes the role of First Vice President, these three now form the Committee’s Bureau.

The role of the Bureau – I will give it the full title, despite it being somewhat lengthy – Council of Europe, Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Committee Bureau, within Mr Hnatovsky now sits for the next 4 years – is to arrange and carry out visits to places of detention throughout Council of Europe geographical region, and assess how detainees are treated.

Indeed, some may be thinking there be more than a little irony in such a Committee Bureau being made up of persons from Belarus, Ukraine and Poland – then again quite possibly such a panel will have more than an “academic” insight into what they are supposed to oversee compared to others that could have been elected to such a Bureau.

Whether there is a trade-off when it comes to being from nations experiencing far more tangible examples that would fall within the Bureau’s remit, compared to other academic candidates of different nations when it comes to the necessary impartiality to hold such a role – then that is likely to be decided by the personal integrity of those successfully becoming Bureau members – and there is no reason to doubt their integrity.

So, despite the lack of media attention and fanfare – congratulations to Mykola Hnatovsky on his successful appointment to this committee on 7th March – One suspects though, that the business cards relating to his new role, if quoting his title and organisation in full, will be close to the size of a table mat.

From the NATO website…..

As all eyes focus on the EU/Ukraine summit in Brussels today, quite unsurprisingly issues such as the NATO/Ukrainian meeting last Friday have been widely ignored.

That said, what appears on the NATO website really doesn’t inspire much coverage.

No mention of the exceptionally unrealistic time line to turn the Ukrainian army from a conscription based to a contract based entity – the last conscription draft due to be September 2013, or the fact that in doing so, the army will be reduced by 50% very swiftly and yet still armed with nothing more than a blunt and rusty knife, fork and spoon for the majority of servicemen and women.

No mention that there is an imperative for a massively reduced Ukrainian military to therefore concentrate on precision equipment – and thus by extension, a necessary imperative for the Ukrainian arms producers to concentrate on developing and producing precision equipment.

No mention of the financial implications of such massive personnel reductions when NATO funds a scheme for the retraining of Ukrainian ex-service personnel.

No mention of the Russians now upgrading the weaponry of the Black Sea Fleet – not that such a Cold War hangover has much effect on the regional balance of power or any significant implications for NATO or Ukraine.  Turkey remains the Black Sea naval presence of note.

Of the usually bland announcements to be found on the NATO website – this is no exception.

The only thing of any interest is a fund to neutralise the legacy of ex-Soviet radioactive sites – which pales in significants to the highly toxic environmental and ecological legacy of ex-Soviet industry still to be dealt with.

Meanwhile, back to paying attention to the EU/Ukraine summit which will neither flatter nor deceive – or produce anything other than the realisation of low to zero expectations by way of concrete action – but it will produce more of the same rhetoric despite the ticking clock!

Great expectations? – Errr No! (EU/Ukraine summit)

OK, having employed a Dickens title within this post title, I will now quote from a Tale of Two Cities – just to keep you Dickens fans on your toes.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

And so it is with Ukraine both domestically and further afield.

On 25th February, Ukraine and the EU have a summit.  Summits when they occur usually like to produce signed agreements to show they were worthwhile in the eyes of a usually disinterested or politics weary public who foot the bill for such events.

Signed agreements are a politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and occasionally diplomats way of apparently justifying such events to anybody who will listen.

So what of the EU/Ukraine summit?  Well if anything gets signed, it will be a case having “something” to sign – anything – so whist they disagree and make very little headway over these serious and complex issues, they did agree on these minor and irrelevant points- and signed an agreement to prove it – despite its irrelevance and despite such agreements would otherwise be signed by far lesser beings than Presidents.

This undoubtedly will be the case on 25th February – at least as far as signed agreements go.

Of far more significants, is what headway if any, will be made over the issues that are difficult (for one side or the other), that do have entrenched positions, and that have publicised those positions to the extent that there is very little wiggle room for any party in either  re-framing demands, or accepting some form of movement – but not quite enough.

Can we realistically have great expectations from the next EU/Ukrainian summit that will take relations forwards to the satisfaction of both sides?  I very much doubt it.

What I expect, aside from the signing of a few agreements of irrelevance, is the search for wiggle room on both sides in order to make some progress, possibly enough, to make the signing of the EU DCFTA and AA documents a reality in November.

Certainly there will not be anything like the significant movement to make ratification of those signed agreements possible this year or next – and even if there were – ratification is still unlikely due to elections in the European Parliament and Germany to name but two where the outcomes of which may have significant implications for ratification.

Ergo anybody with a modicum of sense will know that there will have been a presidential election in Ukraine in 2015 before ratification of this agreement even becomes close to reality, or another attempt to muster the political will on either side is found to try and sign it again – no matter what happens in Vilnius in November this year.

The question is then only whether Ukraine will stand firm against the ever increasing Russian pressure it is under.

Whatever diplomatic and political wriggle room remains, will be a precious thing indeed to both sides for this forthcoming encounter in preparation for November.  Look not to the fluff that may be signed, but the the efforts of the staff in the boiler rooms to expand and exploit any wiggle room within both entities as November moves ever closer.

How best to play the interests verses values matrix with such overt Russian pressure as a complicating factor?

Thus we must also watch the hand of the Kremlin as it attempts to win this geopolitical battle – if not by getting Ukraine to join the Customs Union, then by at the very least, forcing it to abandon the EU – or the EU to abandon Ukraine – temporarily or permanently.

Can enough wiggle room be found within the EU/Ukrainian camps to allow for signing if the specter of Moscow’s shadow looms too great – regardless of progress?

We will soon find out – but not on 25th February.

EU Human Rights – Priorities – (No specific mention of Ukraine)

Sometimes you will hear a speech or read a press release and it is clear that the author (if not the presenter) is a particularly skilled word-smith who is right on (the wanted) message.  Other times you will hear a speech or read a press release that is simply an absolute failure in clearly getting a message across.  That either should be memorable, as well as coherent and concise or absent thereof, makes such public communication one of two things – truly wonderful, or an unmitigated disaster.

However, you then have people like me – people who whilst taking note of what is in a speech or press release, also take note of what isn’t in it – and then ponder why it isn’t in it.

Thus we have the latest press release of 18th February from the European Council listing the human rights priorities for the EU.

Naturally, as somebody who is very much a supporter of anything that attempts to deal with the abhorrent issue of human trafficking, I am somewhat disappointed that as the writer of this press release chose to identify certain generalised (as in not nation specific) human rights issues – human trafficking is missing from the list specifically chosen to highlight.

Perhaps made all the more disappointing because it is a headline item for OSCE under the Ukrainian chairmanship and a continually highlighted issue by the UN.  An issue that affects almost all UN members and EU member states alike.

(That is not to say the EU made no mention of human trafficking yesterday – it did – and I will write about that tomorrow – although Ukraine was absent a mention again – In fact Ukraine was only mentioned in the EU Council of Ministers EaP statement which I will come on to in a few days.)

Secondly, when making nation specific comments, I am left to wonder why Ukraine gets no mention considering the biggest, most technical and protracted policy document ever created by, and due to be applied to the most significant of the EU’s eastern partners is likely to be scuttled in no small part by the issues of “selective/politically motivated” prosecutions of opposition figures – all issues pending the European Court of Human Rights no less.  This is not a human rights priority for the EU given what is at stake?

Whilst I agree that there is often a need to make specific mention of the worst offenders or those in most need of help at almost any given opportunity, looking at the nations specifically mentioned in this press release, the worst offenders and nations in most need of help seem to be somewhat subjective – to be as kind as possible – and willfully selective to avoid certain nations where the EU and/or its allies have vested interests that continue to trump (EU) moral values – to be rather blunt.

Unfortunately, all too often when necessarily broad statements are made and then specific examples are included, those not mentioned tend to draw some form of vindication from their omission whilst others become significantly disheartened by such omissions.  It also appears somewhat scattergun and thus impact seems lessened.

Broad statements for broad issues and separate pointed statements for deliberate targets have far less chance of conveying the wrong message I would suggest.