Nov. 27, 2013 - 36 hours to go – will Yanukovych sign?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mychailo Wynnyckyj

(Михайло Винницький)

Sent: Nov. 27, 2013 @ 17:16 EST

To: [GROUP]

Subject: 36 hours before scheduled signing in Vilnius

(Please distribute as appropriate.)

36 hours to go – will he sign?

Since yesterday I have become more pessimistic about the results of the upcoming Vilnius summit. In my opinion, the odds of a signature on the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (which includes a pact on Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade) now seem to have dropped to about 3:1 against. A deal is not out of the question, but EU leaders need to come to Vilnius in the same haggling mindset as Yanukovych. The price of a deal is probably about 2-3 billion euros per year over the next few years. Is this too high? By tomorrow we should know…

Sadly, Ukraine’s President seems to be convinced that EU Association is about money. Tonight, Ukraine’s TV channels aired an extensive interview/discussion between Yanukovych and 5 journalists (excerpts were made available on websites this morning) during which he angrily condemned the EU for its laughable offer of 610 million euro per year in aid in the event of a deal. Apparently this figure represents the amount offered by the EU to Ukraine as a stabilization fund to be made available in conjunction with an IMF stand-by loan agreement. For Yanukovych, this amount of money is like offering “a little bit of candy in a nice wrapper” - an insult to a “serious country”. During the televised program, the President repeated the phrase “defending our own interests” several times with respect to his motives for signing or not signing any agreement with the EU – clearly pointing to quantifiable economic benefits to the nation as the price for his signature on the Association Agreement.

Unlike Yanukovych, the protestors on the “Euromaidans” of Ukraine’s cities understand the Agreement not as an economic deal, but rather as a proclamation of common values, and a declaration of Ukraine’s European identity. Accordingly, for them, the question of how much money Ukraine’s eurointegration will cost is irrelevant. To some extent this non-materialist (romantic?) paradigm reflects the youthful exuberance of the students gathered in Kyiv and in other centers, but it also reflects a very real social cleavage between Ukraine’s leaders and its people.

Clearly many of the students who marched to Independence Square today from Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, from Kyiv State University, and from Kyiv Politechnic Institute (the country’s 3 top-ranked universities) were motivated by a desire to live through their own version of a kind of Orange Revolution (most were too young to have taken an active part in events in 2004). But many others - particularly those who have traveled to the EU for studies – are genuinely attracted by the egalitarian, communitarian social model of Europe.

In his televised address to the nation on Monday, Yanukovych proclaimed his unwavering belief in a “Ukrainian dream”, and his desire to build “a society of equal opportunity”. Even if one discounts the lack of credibility of Ukraine’s current President with respect to such visionary proclamations, the materialism of his discourse sounds hollow to protesters gathering in sub-zero temperatures to demand a deal in Vilnius. Tonight, for over an hour, the President’s discussion with TV journalists touched on gas price negotiations with Putin, Ukraine’s trade volumes with Russia and the EU, comparative macroeconomic indicators, import tariffs, aircraft assembly, unemployment levels, pensions, salaries, prices… Values such as social justice, freedom of movement, expression, and association, and rules-based government (not surprisingly) were not mentioned by the President.

Sadly, Yanukovych’s materialist paradigm is irreconcilable with the post-materialist worldview of Euromaidan’s protesting students, and is probably incompatible with the frames of reference of the EU leaders currently on their way to Vilnius. If a deal is to be reached between these two worldviews, one side needs to give way for the sake of the greater good. One option may be to sign an Association Agreement without a Free Trade Agreement. Another option may be to increase the EU’s economic aid offer to Ukraine (essentially “buying” Yanukovych’s signature), and then to use the financial “stick” as a means of ensuring the Ukrainian government keeps its promises after the summit becomes history. Clearly neither option is attractive to EU leaders not accustomed to haggling over the price of joining the European family.

In Vilnius, the EU’s leaders not only face a difficult decision with respect to values, they must also deal with the problem of the persona of Yanukovych – a counterpart that few of them find personally amenable. By supporting the Ukrainian people’s desire to join Europe’s community of values, they risk allowing the country’s President (the embodiment of the antithesis of such values) to return from Vilnius as a hero with a strong chance of re-election in 2015. On the other hand, if the Ukrainian people’s aspirations for a European future are denied in Vilnius, the EU risks social unrest on its borders. Ukraine is not Belarus, and Yanukovych is not Lukashenka, so an authoritarian clamp-down (to be followed by EU isolation) is unlikely. This country will not tolerate dictatorship, but the EU’s most populous eastern neighbor may yet succumb to its regional, generational, and linguistic cleavages. One shudders to imagine the human losses of such a scenario.

Yesterday I posted a note analyzing current events in Ukraine in which I placed 3:1 odds in favor of a successful conclusion to the Vilnius summit. That post generated two mutually contradictory reactions: a) I was accused of wishful thinking by people who see Yanukovych as the embodiment of evil, surrounded by essentially stupid advisors who could not possibly have crafted a plan to improve the President’s bargaining position with the EU and simultaneously his chances of re-election; b) I was accused of pessimism because I dared to mention that the current situation could potentially lead to violence on the streets, widespread social unrest, and even Ukraine’s possible disintegration if the Association Agreement is not signed. On the one hand, I guess, I was/am too optimistic, and simultaneously too pessimistic.

I remain hopeful that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will in fact be signed on Friday in Vilnius. On her birthday, Yulia Tymoshenko, whose continued imprisonment was considered only a week ago to be a major obstacle to any deal, today issued a statement asking EU leaders to swallow their distaste, to ignore her confinement, and to sign the deal for the sake of the Ukrainian people. For the EU this is clearly a difficult pill to swallow, but the alternative is much worse…

According to news reports from Europe, the draft of the final communique from Vilnius (to be finalized at the Summit) still includes a reference to a signed Association Agreement with Ukraine. European Commissioners Fule and Ashworth have both stated that the Agreement remains on the agenda of the Vilnius meeting. Clearly this is a polite way of saying that the decision is up to Yanukovych. Today, Ukraine’s President publicly broadcast that he is willing to bargain and haggle. That may be disgraceful (perhaps even disgusting from a European perspective), but it’s a fact that leaders in Vilnius must now deal with.

One can only hope that those who proclaim their belief in European values, and are called upon to lead their nations with values as guides for their decisions, will heed the calls of the young people demonstrating their belief in these same values on the freezing squares of Kyiv and Ukraine’s other cities. Distasteful as a deal may be for EU leaders today, it is these young Ukrainians who will benefit in the long term. And they are worth it!

Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD

Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

Nov. 26, 2013 - Will Yanukovych sign the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mychailo Wynnyckyj
(Михайло Винницький)
Sent: Nov. 26, 2013 @ 08:40 EST
To: [GROUP]
Subject: 36 hours before scheduled signing in Vilnius

(Please distribute as appropriate.)

Will he sign?

In my opinion, as of 3pm Kyiv time on Tuesday November 24 (approx.. 70 hours before the start of the Vilnius summit) the odds are 3:1 in favor. So at this point – I say “yes”. My reasons, and analysis of current events in Kyiv are laid out below.

First a recap of what the newswires and social media have been broadcasting for the past 4 days. Last Thursday, a somewhat surprising announcement appeared on the website of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine: apparently, in secret session, the government of Prime Minister Azarov voted to cease all preparations for the signing of the Association Agreement (which includes a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade pact - DCFTA) with the EU. Given that according to Ukraine’s Constitution, foreign affairs are the exclusive domain of the President, the fact that such an announcement should be posted on the Cabinet of Minister’s website, at a time when President Yanukovych was on a state visit to Austria, is suspect at least. But more on that point later…

The reaction to the announcement was swift. On Friday evening I participated in a demonstration of about 5000 students in Lviv (I was on a teaching assignment in western Ukraine Thursday to Saturday), and apparently a similar number of young people gathered on Ukraine’s central “maidan” – Independence Square in Kyiv. Smaller groups began gathering on city squares in other regional centers. The organizers called for a mass demonstration of people power – untarnished by politics, and without official participation of political parties. To be fair however, the Lviv students’ initiative was immediately and publicly supported by Ivan Vakarchuk, the rector of Lviv State University (former Minister of Education), by Bishop Borys Gudziak, the President of Ukrainian Catholic University, and by the city’s mayor Andriy Sadovyj. Although the student initiative was clearly a grassroots campaign organized primarily through social media, throughout western Ukraine (similar demonstrations were organized in Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil), the students received swift and vocal support from local authorities. This was not the case in Kyiv, and other eastern Ukrainian cities (e.g. all public gatherings have been banned in Kharkiv – officially due to a risk of flu epidemic).

In a direct parallel with the Arab spring, the current Ukrainian demonstrations were initially called by young activists using social media. In each case the instructions were clear: no party flags or other political party symbolism.

The romanticism of the demonstrators lasted for a few days, and then on Sunday, the organizational machines of Ukraine’s opposition parties kicked in. In the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, the right-wing Svoboda party attempted to take over the central square from the students, but the politicos were pushed back, leaving the area in front of the Shevchenko monument under the control of grassroots organizers.  Clearly the widespread disillusionment with politics in general, and in political parties in particular (irrespective of their “color”) has resulted in a desire to distance this protest from the party establishment. Although Svoboda is clearly in opposition to the Yanukovych regime in Kyiv, the right-wing party currently has a majority in the Lviv city council, and so over time has lost part of its anti-system association.

The scene in Kyiv was different: Svoboda activists quickly took center-stage in the Independence Square protests, and although their flags were not necessarily prominent, their leaders and activists were clearly in control. Andriy Iliyenko, the 26-year old Parliamentary deputy from Svoboda (representing a constituency in the city of Kyiv), and the 29-year old Yuriy Levchenko, the Svoboda’s candidate in the upcoming run-off election in one of Kyiv’s districts, have been prominent and vocal on Independence Square. Sunday’s clashes with police in front of the Cabinet of Ministers building are rumored to have been instigated by Svoboda, and last night (Monday) a Svoboda activist who had participated in the previous night’s violence was arrested and taken to the Pechersk police station. A scuffle erupted in front of the police station when Iliyenko and Levchenko brought about 100 of their followers there (approx. 30 minutes walk from the city centre) just before midnight in an attempt to free their comrade.

But the political story of the current protests is not just about Svoboda. The other two opposition parties (Batkivshchyna – led by Arseniy Yatseniuk, and founded by Yulia Tymoshenko; and Udar – led by Vitaliy Klychko) have also been active, but somewhat subdued. It is becoming increasingly clear that Ukraine’s opposition leaders were caught completely off guard by the government’s announcement of a policy-about-face on Thursday. To their credit, the opposition parties organized a mass rally on Kyiv’s European Square (approx. 300 meters from Independence Square) on Sunday that drew upwards of 100 000 people. The mood on the square on Sunday was festive with popular singers and bands playing both recent hymns and music inspired by the 2004 Orange Revolution on the stage. My wife and I attended the rally with our four small children, and felt absolutely safe – a kind of festive carnival with Ukrainian, EU and party political flags everywhere.

However, in a testament to the fact that this was NOT 2004, when every move of the protestors on the streets was organized, preplanned, and controlled, at around 3pm, Oleksandr Turchynov (one of the leaders of Batkivshchyna, and a close confidant of the jailed Yulia Tymoshenko) called on the crowd on European Square to march towards the Cabinet of Ministers building and then on to the Presidential Administration. Based on the reaction of the demonstration’s “speaker” this was clearly not a planned action. Immediately after Turchynov, the speaker asked Petro Poroshenko (a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Economics, and owner of Roshen chocolates and Channel 5 TV) to take the stage. Poroshenko is a charismatic speaker, so a part of the crowd remained on the Square to hear him speak, but a large group carrying party flags began to move towards the government buildings where they were met by riot police with tear gas. The skirmishes were minor and localized, but nevertheless, they occurred. Unlike the Orange Revolution of 2004, this time, demonstrations of “people power” Ukrainian style have not been bloodless.

Last night (Monday), yet more evidence surfaced demonstrating the dangerously spontaneous nature of the protest actions. According to eye witnesses (I was not on European Square at the time), Tetiana Chornovil, a vocal opposition journalist who unsuccessfully ran for Parliament in the last election, discovered a white van parked near the center of the demonstration. Inside, were several SBU (Ukrainian Secret Service) agents with electronic eavesdropping equipment. The surrounding crowd (estimated at 30-40 thousand) became enraged, and started beating the van with rocks – Chornovil herself apparently smashed the sunroof. Riot police were called in to rescue the secret service agents, and according to the opposition parties, were able to successfully retrieve them from the van with the help of Yatseniuk (Batkivshchyna leader) and Tiahnybok (leader of Svoboda). According to a source within the riot police squad sent to the scene, the two party leaders were actually orchestrating the whole operation – playing for the cameras, and provoking the crowd against the police officers.

Whichever side of the story one believes, it is clear that the ongoing street demonstrations in Kyiv are not well organized. If in 2004, within the first two days the tent city on Kyiv’s main square had established a clear chain of command, food supply, and security hierarchy (including, according to some accounts a communications link with the secret service and police), this time only food and blankets are plentiful in the protesters’ tents. Last night’s events have now resulted in a semblance of order in the small tent city on European Square, and the students on Independence Square (a much smaller number of radicalized youth) have retreated to the relative safety of the central monument, on the steps of which they have set up a kind of “open microphone” from which anyone can speak their mind. This morning, about 70 people were milling around on the square listening to poetry, drinking tea and trying to keep warm. Although the square is still accessible, this group of protestors is practically surrounded by a ring of police dressed in riot gear – standing at approx. 5 meter intervals.

Today Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’s students announced a 4-day strike, and marched across town to join their counterparts at Kyiv’s much larger Shevchenko State University. Officially both universities are still holding classes, but students are not attending. Instead they plan to spend the next few days on Kyiv’s squares encouraging the President to sign a pact with the EU. The flywheel of mass protests seems to be gaining momentum…

And now the main question: will President Yanukovych sign the DCFTA and Association Agreement with the EU at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius on Friday? At this point I am still more convinced that he will than otherwise (although as time passes more doubts begin to creep into my head). Indeed, when I first heard the Cabinet of Ministers’ announcement last Thursday, I was convinced (and I still want to believe) that this was actually a well planned ruse put together by Yanukovych’s closest advisors. They anticipated street protests, and understood from the very beginning, that if the cards are played right, their boss may yet emerge from this seemingly chaotic situation as the popular hero – the man who understands the will of the people, and therefore deserves to be re-elected as the whole nation’s President in 2015. At least that’s the image that they will try to present both to Ukraine’s voters and to the international community.

Let me explain: Yanukovych’s main goal for the summit was to get the Agreement signed with the EU, and at the same time to avoid releasing his archrival, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, from jail. Clearly there are also economic concerns associated with a Ukraine-EU deal: the likely deterioration of trade relations with Russia in the immediate aftermath of a signature in Vilnius will hurt Ukraine’s large industrial concerns, primarily located in the east of the country which is Yanukovych’s traditional base of support. Nevertheless, these economic problems could be overcome if the IMF and EU agree to provide bridge financing to Ukraine. And with a Presidential election scheduled for 2015, the political benefits of an Association Agreement to Yanukovych far outweigh any short term economic problems: having signed the agreement, Yanukovych could legitimately position himself as the President of the Whole Nation (as Kuchma once did), mitigating his current image as the “President from Donetsk”, and taking away an important political argument from his opposition opponents.

Now let’s play out a scenario: the President’s advisors receive an instruction from the boss – to improve the President’s popularity. At the same time they understand Yanukovych’s fear of Tymoshenko – an emotion that is both rational, given her prowess as a political opponent, and vengeful – Tymoshenko is seen as the initiator of criminal investigations against the losers of the Orange Revolution (primarily from Donetsk) during 2005-2010. But the EU has been clear that one of its main demands (to be met before any agreement is signed) is Tymoshenko’s release – at least for health reasons, if not an outright amnesty. So, the President’s advisors seem to have a problem… But what if the Cabinet of Ministers were to announce a “cessation of preparations” to sign the Agreement (officially) without the President’s prior approval? That would surely spark street protests (N.B. the former leader of the radical wing of the Orange Revolution “Pora”, Vlad Kaskiv, who was the primary organizer of students in November 2004 now works for Yanukovych, and is a close personal friend of the Serhiy Liovochkin – the head of the Presidential Administration). If the President were to react positively to the street protests, and to announce on the eve of the Vilnius summit that he actually intends to sign, Yanukovych could claim that was “duped” by his Prime Minister. Clearly Prime Minister Azarov would have to resign at that point, but according to analysts close to the government, Azarov’s resignation has recently been seen as just a matter of time: deputy PM Arbuzov (former chairman of Ukraine’s National Bank and close confidant of Yanukovych) has been preparing for the top executive post for months. If the resignation of the government, and the “heroic” announcement by Yanukovych of his support for the demonstrators were to occur on the immediate eve of the Vilnius summit, the President would be able to legitimately claim that the Parliament did not have sufficient time to pass a law that would allow Tymoshenko to be released. He would then ask Ukraine’ s EU partners for an extension with respect to this final demand. Meanwhile Tymoshenko would be obliged to also make a gesture to her political supporters on the streets, and to ask the EU to sign the Agreement for the benefit of the whole Ukrainian people, irrespective of her own fate. In such a scenario, the EU would almost certainly sign, and Yanukovych would return from Vilnius as a national hero…

During the next 3 days we will see whether such a scenario will actually be played out or not. Many of my friends in Kyiv tell me that I give too much credit to Yanukovych and his advisors: apparently Ukrainians do not believe that their political leaders are smart enough to plan such a complex series of events. My answer to such criticism is the following: I would like to believe that Ukraine’s political leaders are smart enough to plan and execute such a scenario because the alternative is just too scary. If Yanukovych does not sign the DCFTA and Association Agreement with the EU at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius on Friday, Ukraine is destined to become a place of protest, violence, and eventually revolution during the next 12-18 months. The fact that popular mobilization has been accompanied by sporadic violence during the past few days is proof of the fact that this time the revolution will not be bloodless.

Ukrainians – particularly the country’s youth – have lost all faith in their politicians. But they have not lost the will fight for better lives for themselves, and their children. This ideal (at the moment) is embodied by the EU.

Yanukovych can either recognize that Ukrainians are European, or they will sweep him away. There is no other choice.

Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

Feb. 25, 2013: EU-Ukraine Summit - Joint Statement

Joint Statement adopted at 16th EU-Ukraine Summit

Feb. 25, 2013 ... News - MFA of Ukraine

1. The 16th EU-Ukraine Summit took place in Brussels on 25 February, 2013. The European Union was represented by Mr Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council and Mr José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission. Ukraine was represented by President Viktor Yanukovych.

2. Acknowledging the European aspirations of Ukraine and welcoming its European choice, the leaders reaffirmed their joint engagement in the political association and economic integration of Ukraine with the European Union on the basis of respect for common values and their effective promotion.

3. The leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the signing of the already initialled Association Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, as soon as determined action and tangible progress are demonstrated in the three areas emphasized at the 2011 EU-Ukraine Summit, possibly by the time of the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius in November 2013. Therefore, Ukraine is determined to comply with those areas/elements specified by the Conclusions of the 10 December 2012 Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union to this end. They agreed to focus on these issues as a matter of priority. The signing could be accompanied by an opening for provisional application of parts of the Agreement.

4. The leaders took note of the actions taken so far by Ukraine, and looked forward to it achieving concrete progress by early May 2013.

5. The leaders noted the Resolution of the European Parliament of 13 December 2012 and the Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of 22 February 2013.

6. The leaders noted the OSCE/ODIHR’s final assessment of the 28 October 2012 parliamentary elections in Ukraine, acknowledging the need to fully implement its recommendations. They agreed on the importance of follow up to electoral irregularities, including early steps to establish a reliable electoral legislation by giving consideration to an Election Code and clear rules for balanced media access for electoral competitors, in close consultation with the OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of Europe/Venice Commission, as well as addressing the inconclusive results in single mandate constituencies.

7. The leaders expressed full support for the European Parliament’s monitoring mission to Ukraine headed by former Presidents Cox and Kwaśniewski, including the need to address the judiciary cases of particular concern. Ukraine also expressed its firm commitment to early implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the recommendations by the Council of Europe related to detention conditions and medical assistance to persons in detention.

8. They stressed that the rule of law with an independent judiciary is a critical element underpinning the Association Agreement, as set out in their joint statement after the December 2011 Summit. They discussed key elements of judicial reform in Ukraine and welcomed the entry into force of a new Criminal Procedure Code, new legislation on the Bar, as well as the establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism against torture. They emphasized the importance of their effective implementation and the need for a comprehensive reform of the judiciary in line with European standards. They looked forward to an early in-depth review of the laws and legislation on the functioning of the Prosecutor’s Office, on the role of the High Council of Justice, on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges as well as a reform of Criminal Code and the Police, in close consultation with the Council of Europe/Venice Commission. They welcomed the launch of the informal dialogue on judiciary on 6 February 2013 to facilitate Ukraine’s progress on these matters.

9. The leaders noted the 3rd joint report on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda. In light of the report’s conclusions, they stressed the importance of overall reinforcement of its implementation and its early update. They emphasized the importance of inclusive reforms through constructive engagement between Government, majority and opposition within the Verkhovna Rada, and civil society. They looked forward to determined and timely efforts by Ukraine to implement the agreed reforms, notably in the Association Agenda and the Action Plan on Visa Liberalisation.

10. They positively noted the new legislation on freedom of association and recognized the critical importance of constitutional reform to create the necessary checks and balances and of pursuing the freedom of assembly and media reforms.

11. The leaders agreed on the importance of progressing on reforms needed to prepare for a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) in line with the Association Agenda and the need to refrain from any measures going against the spirit of the DCFTA. They reiterated their full commitment to the principles of rule-based bilateral liberalisation embodied in the DCFTA, in particular by refraining from introducing protectionist measures. They reaffirmed adherence to WTO principles and readiness to continue joint efforts to strengthen multilateral trading system. The leaders also stressed the priority given to improving the business and investment climate. In this context, they welcomed the signing of an arrangement between the EU and Ukraine on the establishment of an informal business climate dialogue aimed at identifying priority actions to improve the business climate.

12. The leaders welcomed the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding and Loan Agreement for EU Macro-Financial Assistance to Ukraine of up to €610M which will complement a future agreement between Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund.

13. The leaders took note of the seventh joint report on the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding on energy cooperation and reaffirmed that Ukraine as a transit country remains a reliable partner of the EU, willing to ensure stable and secure gas flows to Europe. They also stressed the importance of Ukraine’s Gas Transit System (GTS) for transporting gas to the EU Member States. The EU will continue its support for the modernization of the Ukrainian GTS as a key part of the European grid network and support Ukraine in intensifying its dialogue with the International Financial Institutions in order to disburse the first loan for the emergency gas transit project “Reconstruction of Line Facilities of the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod Natural Gas pipeline, first stage”. In this context, joint high level roundtables will be organised to promote the development of a regional gas market involving the EU relevant countries, financial institutions and companies. The leaders noted with satisfaction that since November 2012, Ukraine has been connected to the EU gas market through effective bi-directional gas flows. Recent investments by European energy companies in Ukraine were considered a positive development to link Ukraine to the European market. The leaders welcomed Ukraine’s progress in implementing their obligations under the Energy Community Treaty and recognised that further efforts are required to implement all the obligations. The Parties agreed to further promote energy cooperation based on principles of solidarity and mutual benefit. They also welcomed Ukraine’s full participation in the nuclear “stress tests” on the basis of the EU specifications and looked forward to early finalization of the EBRD and Euratom loans for upgrading Nuclear Power Plants in Ukraine.

14. The leaders noted that the finalization of negotiations on a Common Aviation Area Agreement will be a priority for 2013. They took note of the progress by Ukraine on public finance management and looked forward to further progress in order to enable EU financial assistance in the form of budget support. They agreed to launch consultations on how future EU assistance could take into account the Association Agreement including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between the EU and Ukraine.

15. They paid particular attention to citizens’ mobility, recalling the shared commitment to move towards a visa-free travel regime in due course, provided the conditions for well-managed and secure mobility are in place. They took positive note of Ukraine’s progress in the implementation of the first phase of the Action Plan on Visa Liberalisation and the increased efforts towards fulfilment of the benchmarks. They looked forward to the early conclusion of the Agreement amending the Visa Facilitation Agreement signed in July 2012, with a view to further facilitating the issuance of visas to Ukrainian citizens.

16. The leaders exchanged views on international and regional matters, notably in light of Ukraine’s OSCE Chairmanship in Office. Ukraine is well placed to build bridges in the OSCE and to lead the organisation in a way that supports and strengthens it institutionally. They expressed convergent views on the Transnistria settlement process and look forward to a positive dynamics in the 5+2 talks. They also expressed satisfaction with Ukraine’s participation in CSDP missions.

The OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara, discussed Ukraine’s priorities in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law during a meeting with Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

http://mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/10445-za-rezulytatami-16-go-samitu-ukrajina-jes-bulo-prijnyato-spilynu-zajavu

<> <> <> <> <>

Prove that it did not happen: Yanuk Vader attempts to storm Cabinet of Sinisters

I knew it all along! The Evil Empire is in charge in Ukraine! Watch the video!

PreSSident Yanuk Vader and his Administration Stormtroopers try to take over the Cabinet of Sinisters to continue their diabolical goal of turning Ukraine into Yanukstan. With Princess Yulia and Luts Skywalker in prison, will Yats Solo and Chewklychko - along with Lando Tiahnybokian - free Ukraine's political prisoners and restore Ukraine's democracy?

http://youtu.be/e3espGNFjzo

Action Item: STOP THE YANUKOVYCH BULLDOZER!

The Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine (CG4DU) is appealing to the European Union (EU) to rethink its approach towards Ukraine as long as the Yanukovych regime continues its authoritarian chokehold over the Ukrainian people.

Unquestionably, Ukraine's place is in the EU.  However, as long as her current administration, legislature and judiciary are unconstitutionally controlled by a select group of autocrats under the direction of the president and his cronies, Ukraine will never be a true democratic and sovereign partner in Europe's family of nations.

The EU must insist that Ukrainian officials return the country to the people by restoring human rights, by stopping the pillaging of state coffers, by giving the media its deserved freedom - by following the constitution.  Political prisoners - namely former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former Interior Minister Yuri Lutsenko - must be freed immediately and unconditionally by the judiciary from illegitimate incarceration.  These must be the first steps to give Ukraine back to her citizens.  This is the correct path to EU integration for Ukraine.

For more information, please read ...

"WELCOME TO BRUSSELS, PRESIDENT YANUKOVYCH!"

http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/kuzyo/512650c7005d4/

Also, please read this advertisement, which the CG4DU placed in the European Voice on February 21st - leading up to the scheduled EU-Ukraine Summit in Brussels on February 25th ...

Download the above using this link ...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_Vg3shnUkpMQzBaRWlTQ3ZpdVU/edit?usp=sharing

Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine

http://cg4du.blogspot.com

Verkhovna Rada 7, Session 2, Day 1 ... STALEMATE!

Headlines from Twitter @UANews4ENMedia ...

#450ua #Рада2012 #Rada2012 #Рада2013 #Rada2013

1. Opposition blocks #Ukraine parliament over proxy voting row

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/05/uk-ukraine-parliament-idUKBRE9140TX20130205

2. #Ukraine opposition blocks work of parliament, demands individual voting

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/oppositionists-block-work-of-parliament-demand-individual-voting-319833.html

3. What guests at opening of 7th #Ukraine parliament's 2nd session saw

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/guests-invited-to-attend-opening-of-parliaments-second-session-leave-verkhovna-rada-319847.html

4. #Ukraine parliament argues over fingerprint voting, new session stalls

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/parliament-fails-to-open-amid-fighting-over-fingerprint-voting-319868.html

5. #Ukraine's Rada TV channel avoids parliament's stalemate

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/rada-tv-channel-fails-to-see-fun-in-session-hall-319891.html

=====

Opposition blocks Ukraine parliament over proxy voting row 

Feb. 5, 2013 ... By Olzhas Auyezov

KYIV (Reuters) - Opposition lawmakers surrounded the speaker's rostrum in Ukraine's parliament on Tuesday in protest at what they say is proxy voting by the pro-government majority, stopping the work of the legislature.

Dozens of opposition members, reinvigorated after the ruling party lost seats in an election in October, joined in the protest on the first day of the session after a winter break

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/05/uk-ukraine-parliament-idUKBRE9140TX20130205

=====

Oppositionists block work of parliament, demand individual voting

Feb. 5, 2013 … by Interfax-Ukraine via Kyiv Post

Members of the oppositional parliamentary factions have blocked the presidium and the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, before the beginning of its second session of the seventh convocation.

According to an Interfax-Ukraine reporter, posters reading "Deputy, Go to Work, Vote Individually!" and "No to Button-Pushing!" are hanging in the sitting hall. The MPs also hung a poster reading "The Rada Rots from Rybak" above the presidium. A banner reading "Button-Pushers, Get Out of the Rada!" is hanging on the presidium.

Members of the UDAR faction came to the sitting wearing red pullovers reading "UDAR" and "Vote Individually."

[ PHOTO: Members of the oppositional parliamentary factions have blocked the presidium and the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, before the beginning of its second session of the seventh convocation. © Kostyantyn Chernichkin ]

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/oppositionists-block-work-of-parliament-demand-individual-voting-319833.html

=====

Guests invited to attend opening of parliament's second session leave Verkhovna Rada

Feb. 5, 2013 … by Interfax-Ukraine via Kyiv Post

Members of the Regions Party parliamentary faction have collected their voting cards from the voting slots at their seats in the sitting hall of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, as the opposition factions blocked today's parliamentary sitting.

According to an Interfax-Ukraine reported, the diplomats that were invited to attend the opening of the second session of the Verkhovna Rada of the seventh convocation have left their seats on the balcony.

The Veryovka National Academic Folk Chorus, which was supposed to sing the national anthem of Ukraine, has also left the sitting hall.

Around 200 MPs, including members of the oppositional and other factions, remain in the hall.

As reported, this morning members of the opposition parliamentary factions blocked the presidium and the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada before the beginning of its second session.

Verkhovna Rada Chairman Volodymyr Rybak called a meeting of the parliamentary faction heads in his office.

[ PHOTO: Members of the Regions Party parliamentary faction have collected their voting cards from the voting slots at their seats in the sitting hall of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, as the opposition factions blocked today's parliamentary sitting. © Ukrafoto ]

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/guests-invited-to-attend-opening-of-parliaments-second-session-leave-verkhovna-rada-319847.html

=====

Parliament fails to open amid fighting over fingerprint voting

Feb. 5, 2013 … by Katya Gorchinskaya, Kyiv Post

Ukraine's parliament failed to convene after a long winter break on Feb. 5 due to disagreement between the majority and the opposition on personal voting by the deputies.

This constitutional demand – that lawmakers must cast their votes only for themselves, not colleagues -- has for years been ignored by the pro-presidential majority.

This unconstitutional practice has infuriated voters and made Ukraine's 450-member Verkhovna Rada the butt of jokes worldwide. It has bolstered criticism that the legislative body is a rubber-stamp institution whose members are not accountable to the people who elected them and don’t take responsibility for their actions.

In Ukraine, deputies who pressed buttons for colleagues were nicknamed “pianists” or “button-pushers.” A public campaign for personal voting activated before the Oct. 28 parliamentary election, in which the opposition captured 40 percent of the seats, and the momentum is carried on by the three opposition factions in the new year.

On Feb. 5, the opposition showed up in the session hall early and well-prepared. Vitali Klitschko’s faction UDAR turned up in similar red sweatshirts in support of personal voting by deputies. With the help of Batkivshchyna and Svoboda, they hung up banners with slogans like “No to button pushers!” and “Deputy, come to work! Vote personally!” One of the posters had a picture of a guillotine hanging dangerously over a hand, another one – a bleeding, chopped-off hand.

The deputies from the majority did not seem to be put off, though. They walked about visibly in a good mood, joked with colleagues about the opposition's initiatives, and started to leave parliament half an hour after the scheduled start of the session, assuming that it would not start at all.

Speaker Volodymyr Rybak said the majority deputies “showed up, but were not permitted to work,” so they left the parliament building. He said only two majority deputies failed to show up for the session because they're sick.

Oleh Tiahnybok, leader of the opposition Svoboda Party, explained at a briefing that the opposition “do not consider it expedient to start the session until the sensor button is activated.” The button, which requires a fingerprint to register a vote, was installed in the Rada when Arseniy Yatseniuk was speaker in 2007-2008.

Tiahnybok said the pro-government party is “afraid of personal voting” and coming up with excuses, such as the voting system is bad for the deputies’ health.

Rybak lashed out at the opposition for disrupting the session and failing to compromise on personal voting, and refusing to unblock the podium.

“The laws that I propose to vote on today, there is one that contains the issue of fingerprint voting,.. but the Rada hall continues to be blocked,” Rybak complained at a briefing.

Yatseniuk, leader of Batkivshchyna, the biggest oppositional minority faction, said that personal voting “is not an ultimatum of the opposition, this is a demand of the Ukrainian Constitution and Ukrainian people.”

Yatseniuk said that if the fingerprint voting system truly does not work or is not suitable for the ruling pro-presidential Party of Regions, the opposition is ready to move to old-style voting, casting ballots with a show of hands.

[ Kyiv Post editor Katya Gorchinskaya can be reached at gorchinskaya@kyivpost.com ]

[ Deputies of Ukrainian opposition block the parliament's platform during their openning session in Kiev on February 5, 2013. The opposition deputies were trying to reclaim respect for the individual's right to vote, after having accused pro-government deputies of giving away their votes in their absence. AFP PHOTO/ SERGEI SUPINSK © AFP ]

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/parliament-fails-to-open-amid-fighting-over-fingerprint-voting-319868.html

=====

Rada TV channel fails to see fun in session hall

Feb. 5, 2013 … by Katya Gorchinskaya, Kyiv Post

As Ukraine's parliament buzzed with excitement because of the stalemate between the majority and the opposition on Feb. 5, there was one TV channel that was uninterested in the colorful images from the session hall: parliament's very own.

Rada TV channel, which was created in 1998 and is subsidized by the taxpayers, failed to see the attraction of deputies blocking the podium, opposition wearing uniform red sweatshirts in support of personal voting by elected deputies, and huge slogans and images of guillotine and bloody chopped-off hand plastered around the perimeter.

The channel, which by 10 a.m. was ready for a live broadcast the first session after the winter break, instead chose to run ads for its own shows and meaningless graphic images, to the disgruntlement of at least some of the viewers, who complained in social networks.

“There is nothing happening in the Verkhovna Rada, according to the version of the main political channel, as they call it. The taxpayers are supporting these falsifiers,” Vlad Sodel, a photographer for Kommersant daily wrote on his Facebook page.

Vasyl Klymchuk, the general director of the Rada channel, told the Kyiv Post there is nothing extraordinary about the Rada channel being blank in the midst of a major stand-off between the majority and the opposition. “We do not switch on the broadcast according to the rules of procedure, until the speaker or deputy shows up in the hall,” he said.

The channel's coverage of the day's events started with the briefing of the speaker, who lashed out at the opposition for blocking the work of parliament.

Rada TV is financed from the state budget. Its financing is hidden under the article that sets aside money for for parliament's functioning, says Andriy Pyshny, a deputy from Batkivshchyna. The total Rada budget for this year is just under Hr 850 million.

Olena Bondarenko, a deputy with pro-presidential Party of Regions and deputy head of the freedom of speech committee in parliament, says last year's budget for Rada TV was Hr 7 million.

Parliament also has its own newspaper and magazine, which is getting a budget subsidy of just under Hr 29 million in 2013. The Cabinet's newspaper gets another Hr 5 million, according to the state budget.

Bondarenko said it was “traditional” for the Rada channel to not show parliamentary fights and the blocking of the podium. “I am not sure that this mess should be shown anyway,” she said. She also added that if the deputies wanted to establish new rules for the broadcasting, it was up to them. The opposition is in a good position to make changes through the media and freedom of speech committee, where seven out of 10 members are their representatives.

Rada TV is not the only channel that fails to serve the public interest, a recent media study showed. On Feb. 5 Telekritika watchdog published the results of its December media monitoring, which showed that the state-run Channel 1 consistently fails to observe most journalistic standards.

[ Kyiv Post editor Katya Gorchinskaya can be reached at gorchinskaya@kyivpost.com. Kyiv Post staff writer Denis Rafalsky contributed to this story. ]

[ A deputy of the Ukrainian opposition receives help as he puts up a sign depicting cut-off hand and reading "No button pushers!”during the opening session of Parliament in Kiev on February 5, 2013. Opposition blocked the parliamentary tribune requiring pro-governments parties to put an end to the practice of deputies voting for their absent colleagues in violation of the Constitution. AFP PHOTO/ SERGEI SUPINSKY © AFP ]

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/rada-tv-channel-fails-to-see-fun-in-session-hall-319891.html

=====

Canada-Ukraine relations: reset for reality required

Can fair-minded Canadians and desperate Ukrainians hope for a reset in Canada-Ukraine relations in order to start dealing with the reality of the political, economic and social crisis in Ukraine?

In the past three years, Canada has done very well to offer Ukrainians moral and material support in many different areas but it is falling short in its responsibility to point out and address the blatant and repeated breaches of basic human rights and disregard of fundamental democratic principles in the policies and actions of the President of Ukraine - those of his administration, as well as the legislature and judiciary, which are unconstitutionally under his influence and/or control to a great extent.

Will Canada finally stop simply slapping the wrists of the corrupt Yanukovych regime, with what mostly appears to be a series of quiet warnings and soft incentives, and start putting the anti-democratic authoritarian oligarchy on notice to clean up its act?

In Ottawa, on January 28th of 2013, Vadym Prystaiko - Ukraine's recently-appointed Ambassador to Canada - met with Canadian Members of Parliament, who also happen to be part of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group: Robert Sopuck (Chair), James Bezan, Ted Opitz, Ed Komarnicki and Stella Ambler.

While smiles, courtesy and diplomacy were probably on the on the agenda - well ahead of substance, policy and aid - Canadians and Ukrainians require an effective plan of action to be devised and implemented by Canada's MPs to guide the House of Commons and the Prime Minister's Office in helping to restore democracy and freedom in Ukraine.

A summary of the meeting was issued by Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the form of a media release. Here is an reiteration of the points in that release:

1) Participants in the meeting had a sincere exchange of thoughts on a large scope of issues in Ukraine:
- social;
- economic;
- political development of its foreign policy;
- foreign policy priorities;
- perspectives of Ukraine-Canada bilateral relations.

2) The Ambassador highly appreciated Canada’s practical assistance to Ukraine through the programs of the Canadian International Development Agency:
- helping small and medium businesses;
- reforming the public sector;
- reforming judicial power;
- reforming local governance.

3) While discussing Ukraine's democratic development, he called on MPs to advocate for the beginning of interaction between Ukrainian and Canadian experts with the purpose of improving the Ukrainian electoral process.

4) There was consensus that trade between Ukraine and Canada, which stands at several hundred million dollars, is not in line with the potential of the two economies

5) It was expressed with confidence that the future Ukraine-Canada Free Trade Agreement will promote Ukrainian and Canadian businesses.

6) The Ambassador raised the issue of liberalizing the visa regime between the two countries, having expressed the hope for reciprocal steps from Canada in response to unilateral elimination of Ukrainian visas for Canadians back in 2005.

7) The Ambassador informed MPs about the main priorities of Ukraine's Chairmanship of the OSCE in 2013.

8) He also expressed readiness to actively promote contact between Ukrainian and Canadian Members of Parliament in order to foster relationships.

These points are indeed positive. However, they lack the necessary details to give Canadians and Ukrainians hope for change in Ukraine. Perhaps the near future will bring these details from the Ukrainian Embassy and the C-UPFG. A follow up to this first meeting is in order and the release of a detailed communique - joint or separate - regarding any developments is necessary.

Canadians and Ukrainians are patiently waiting.

Note: the original media release from Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the meeting with C-UPFG can be found online via this link ...

http://canada.mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/10001-posol-vadim-pristajko-zustrivsya-z-golovoju-kanadsyko-ukrajinsykoji-parlamentsykoji-grupi-druzhbi-robertom-sopakom-a-takozh-chlenami-grupi-druzhbi--deputatami-dzhejmsom-bezanom-tedom-opicom-jedom-komarniki-ta-steloju-ambler

(Photo courtesy of http://canada.mfa.gov.ua)