Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

When the Orange Revolution went sour

Vladimir Radyuhin

A Ukraine embroiled in endless political infighting would be a headache for both Russia and the rest of Europe, more so with the U.S. fishing in troubled waters.

A YEAR after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine suffered a major setback at the polls, President Viktor Yushchenko backed by the west has attempted to tip the balance of power again in favour of the Orange forces. On April 2, Mr. Yushchenko decreed to dissolve the Verhovna Rada Parliament dominated by anti-Orange parties and called new elections for May 27. The Parliament refused to disband and asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the legality of the presidential decree. It is doubtful though that the highly politicised court, which is split down the middle into supporters and opponents of the Orange Revolution, may be able to pass a ruling or even if both sides will accept it.

The current crisis has again pitted pro-western President Yushchenko against Russia-friendly rival Viktor Yanukovich. The two politicians had first faced off in the November 2004 presidential poll. Mr. Yanukovich won the election in a runoff, but allegations of vote rigging triggered off massive street protests and the Supreme Court eventually cancelled his victory and ordered a re-vote, which was marginally won by Mr. Yushchenko.

However, a little over year later Mr. Yanukovich staged a remarkable comeback. In March 2006, his Party of the Regions won a parliamentary election and teamed up with the Socialist Party and Communists to form a majority coalition, which appointed him Prime Minister. In the ensuring political tug of war, President Yushchenko tried to push his pro-western agenda, including eventual membership of NATO, while the government and the parliamentary majority favoured a two-vector balanced relationship with Russia and the west. The cards were staked against Mr. Yushchenko, as under a constitutional reform that came into force last year the President lost most of his powers to Parliament and the government.

In an effort to regain lost ground, Mr. Yushchenko ordered the dissolution of Parliament in blatant violation of the Ukrainian Constitution. The Constitution gives the President three reasons to send Parliament packing: if deputies fail to form a parliamentary majority within 30 days of the new house opening; if it fails to appoint a new Cabinet within 60 days of the dismissal of the previous Cabinet; and if fewer than 225 deputies (half the house) turn up for the session for 30 days running.

None of these grounds was available to Mr. Yushchenko, so he claimed the ruling coalition in Parliament had breached the Constitution by recruiting opposition MPs to its ranks. This, Mr. Yushchenko argued, was unconstitutional and could have secured a political advantage for Mr. Yanukovich out of proportion with his victory in last year's elections. Eleven deputies from a pro-President bloc did change sides recently. But then MPs jumped from party to party last year too, while the President showed no concern. The Ukrainian Constitution says nothing about defections, while the parliamentary rules explicitly allow them.

Mr. Yushchenko's decision to ban Parliament continues the Orange tradition of trampling on the Constitution, which dates back to 2004 when the Orange Revolutionaries insisted on a re-run of the second round of presidential elections instead of calling an altogether new poll. The western tradition of supporting the "right democrats" in the former Soviet Union is even longer: in 1993 the U.S. and Europe took the side of President Boris Yeltsin when he sent tanks to shell the Russian Parliament into submission in the name of rescuing democracy.

Moscow, anxious not to repeat the mistakes of its unsuccessful intervention in the 2004 presidential race on the side of Mr. Yanukovich, but still determined to keep Ukraine in its orbit, stated its position clearly. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Yushchenko, President Vladimir Putin voiced "great concern" about the possible negative economic effects of the crisis and called for "constructive dialogue." And, the Russian Parliament denounced Mr. Yushchenko's decision to dissolve the Verhovna Rada as unconstitutional and "driving political forces beyond the bounds of law."

By contrast, the west did not manage as much as a whisper of protest. Had Mr. Yanukovich signed a similar decree this would have provoked uproar in the west. The crisis in Ukraine has highlighted the hypocrisy and double standards of the "free" western media, which failed even to mention that Mr. Yushchenko had acted in outrageous breach of the law. Instead, they justified his patently unconstitutional and undemocratic move on the grounds that he was defending democracy.

"In the face of a creeping restoration of the old regime Viktor Yushchenko had no choice but to play hardball and call a new election," wrote France's Le Figaro. The Times of London called on the west to "help Yushchenko to tug Ukraine a little closer towards the West," warning that failure to do so would be an "expensive mistake."

Mr. Yushchenko, who has long sworn allegiance to the U.S. and NATO, would not have dared to violate the Constitution without first securing western approval. Western "help" to Mr. Yushchenko was transmitted through firebrand Orange Revolutionary Yulia Timoshenko, who had for months been campaigning for early parliamentary elections. She persuaded the Ukrainian President to declare war on Parliament and the government after returning from Washington, where she was received by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Ms. Timoshenko's U.S. visit signalled a shift in Washington towards a more aggressive strategy of containing Russia, whose policy of gradually increasing its influence in Ukraine with the help of the Yanukovich Cabinet has been paying.

The shift is particularly striking on the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine. The defeat of U.S.-backed Orange forces in last year's parliamentary elections dampened American enthusiasm for early induction of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. American officials cited low public support for NATO in Ukraine, public protests in the Crimean peninsula against U.S. preparations for war games with Ukraine, and infighting within the Orange camp. NATO first told Ukraine to wait till the alliance's summit in Riga in November 2006 to get a "membership action plan," then struck off the issue of enlargement from the agenda altogether.

However, last month the U.S. Congress voted to speed up NATO's further eastward enlargement and allocated $12 million in aid to Ukraine, Georgia, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to help them prepare for membership. The NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 said that all the five countries "have clearly stated their desire to join NATO and are working hard to meet the specified requirements for membership." This assertion is a pure lie as far as Ukraine is concerned. Ukrainian polls show that Mr. Yushchenko's enthusiasm for NATO membership is shared by no more than 18-20 per cent of the population, while Prime Minister Yanukovich clearly stated that the country was not ready for the move and the issue must be decided in a national referendum.

The U.S. support for Ukraine's membership of NATO was a reminder to Mr. Yushchenko of his pledge to Washington to get his country into the Atlantic Alliance. A week after the U.S. Congress vote, he declared the anti-NATO Parliament dissolved. The move was not only illegal, but also self-defeating. Opinion polls indicate that new elections, favoured by less than 30 per cent of Ukrainians, will produce broadly the same line-up of forces in Verhovna Rada, with Mr. Yanukovich and his allies retaining or even consolidating their parliamentary majority. At the same time, Mr. Yushchenko's bloc, Our Ukraine, is likely to be a big loser, reflecting the President's declining popularity. Mr. Yushchenko's votes are likely to go to Ms. Timoshenko, his competitor for the Orange electorate.

The conflict between the President, on the one hand, and Parliament and the government, on the other, has re-opened Ukraine's traditional split into pro-Russian East and South and Europe-leaning Centre and West. Regional assemblies in the East have sided with Mr. Yanukovich, while Western regions have backed Mr. Yushchenko.

A protracted standoff in Ukraine is fraught with the danger of civil strife. The Defence Minister has publicly supported the President, while the interior troops and police have pledged loyalty to Parliament.

To avoid the worst scenario, the ruling coalition repealed its decision to induct 11 defectors from Mr. Yushchenko's bloc and offered to rewrite the law limiting the President's authority if Mr. Yushchenko withdrew his decree dissolving Parliament. However, Mr. Yushchenko said he would not go even one step back. The unexpected firmness of the otherwise indecisive President has an explanation: he is being backed by the U.S., the only key player in the region, which would benefit from destabilisation in Ukraine.

A Ukraine embroiled in endless political infighting and tottering on the brink of disintegration would be a headache for both Russia and Europe but could be an easy catch for U.S. anglers in murky waters.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A major consolidation
A diverse field
When the Orange Revolution went sour
Global warming and India
`Trickle-down' theory doesn't hold up
Corrections and Clarifications
Iraqi resistance only against the occupation
Shocking
On enlightenment
OBC reservation
Avoidable slip

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu