Well dear readers, what to make of this? That is the official statement from Cathy Ashton the EU High Representative over the detention of Yulia Tymoshenko by the PGO’s office in Ukraine via the courts.
Whether Ms Tymoshenko is guilty or not remains to be seen, although given the international reputation of Kroll Inc upon whose forensic accounting report much of the prosecution evidence is based, it would certainly suggest there are questions to answer.
It can hardly be claimed that Ms Tymoshenko has turned up every time she has been summonsed by the PGO and has often deliberately turned up without a legal representative to delay matters. Sooner or later her game of brinkmanship with the PGO was going to get a response.
I wonder how many times German or Dutch prosecutors would allow people to simply not turn up or turn up unrepresented to slow matters down before they were taken into custody?
Regardless, the statement of Cathy Ashton holds within certain inferences that may or may not have some foundation. Unfortunately inferences that political interference with the course of justice in Ukraine may or may not be the driver for the prosecution of Ms Tymoshenko may seem a little duplicitous to some when her own statement seeks to put political pressure on the judiciary in Ukraine during an on-going investigation.
The response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Baroness’ statement is a very forceful rebuke full of very useful contemporary comparisons and obviously interprets her statement as an attempt to use political weight to influence the sovereign judicial process in Ukraine.
“One of the fundamental principles of European democracy is the equality of all citizens before the law. Confirmation of the effectiveness of this rule is the anti-corruption investigations that were conducted or are underway against former Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, Sergei Stanishev of Bulgaria and Romania’s Adrian Nastaze. In this regard, a suggestion that someone of the former Ukrainian officials, and now the oppositionists, should be untouchable for the law enforcement agencies, would indicate an attempt in a dialogue with Ukraine to selectively use other European standards.” – MFA Ukraine
Quite – It is very difficult to prove, given that there are also a number of the party in the governing majority also under investigation, not to mention an ex-President in Kuchma, that this is indeed a selective witch-hunt as inferred by Cathy Ashton’s statement.
The argument goes that the PoR people being investigated are not of the same level as that of Ms Tymoshenko and former Ministers, but then how can they be as they were not in power to be a former Prime Minister or Minister. To abuse the office, you must first hold it would seem to be a reasonable consideration, no matter how high or lowly that public office may be. Ergo if the ruling PoR people under investigation for corruption have never had the opportunity to hold and abuse high office, the profile of ex-Prime Ministers and ex-Ministers will always put theirs in the shadow. It does not necessarily make them any more or less corrupt however.
What is exceptionally interesting, was this statement “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reminds that the confirmation of Ukraine’s openness has become a recent meeting of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine with ambassadors of EU member states and the U.S. ambassador, during which they have been presented a detailed explanation of all legal cases that are of interest to them.”
If that is true, and there has been no rebuttal of this statement by any EU Member Ambassador or the US Ambassador that you would expect if it was a lie, then the case of Ms Tymoshenko will be one that all have an interest in. One imagines there were a lot of cables and communiques sent back to home nations after that meeting.
It is also interesting that there was such a meeting at all over an internal legal matter. Obviously Ukraine is well aware of the sensitivities of the case within the EU even though it is an absolutely sovereign affair.
So the question is, was Cathy Ashton’s statement well considered?
Rather than fill it full of inferences and implications, would something along the lines of “The EU High Representative is aware of the detention of Ms Tymoshenko and is monitoring the situation very closely” not a far better (and shorter) statement to make?
It would not have caused any ruffled feathers in public for those in Kyiv but would have made sure that those in charge insured things are as they are meant to be, plus taking into account the wider geopolitical issues the EU and Ukraine are deeply involved with at this time to the annoyance of Russia. Publicly annoying Kyiv will only encourage the Kremlin.
I wonder what my fellow blogger, unofficial mentor, retired Ambassador and former FCO speech writer, Charles Crawford would make of Cathy Ashton’s statement in light of the current geopolitical struggle between the EU and Russia over Ukraine, the subsequent rebuke from the Ukrainian MFA, and who won that little war of words.
Odessablog's Blog 