If you are having trouble reading ePOSHTA, click HERE.
Якщо Ви маєте труднощі читати еПОШТУ, натисніть ТУТ.

image
20 of these military vehicles spotted on the streets in Kyiv on
Friday night. Watch Kyiv’s Independence Square via webcam:

Веб-камери на Майдані Незалежності:
http://inter.ua/uk/webcam#kyiv
http://www.earthtv.com/en/camera-destination/kyiv-ukraine
http://webcam.guru.ua/city/Kiev/

image
-- Тарас Шевченко

image

October 27 жовтня 2012
Vol.13 No. 15
People&Culture&Politics&Business

Know someone who'd like a trial copy of ePOSHTA? Send their e-mail address to:
subscription@eposhta.com
with "Subscription" in the subject line.

In this issue:

  Editorial

New political map for Ukraine

  Редакційна Сторінка

Як перекроїти політичну карту України
Відповідь апологетам авторитарного режиму Януковича
  Focus

              Sponsored by:

               image
               Currency Exchange • Money Transfer
               Toronto • North York • Oakville/Mississauga

Tymoshenko and the Ukrainian Diaspora: passivity and irrational hostility
Is Julia Tymoshenko Europe’s Aung San Suu Kyi?
Canada takes lead to keep out criminals
Genocide's Definition Revisited
The New foreign aid map: Implications for Ukraine

  Фокус

Юлія Тимошенко: вибори – це голосування кожного з вас за своє виживання за існування України
Нова мапа зовнішньої допомоги: наслідки для України
Партія регіонів уже програла, ще до голосування!
СБУ та УБОЗ взялися за патріотичні спільноти в соцмережах та вербують людей

  Viewpoint

Where is your tent city?
Yanukovych after the fall

  Незалежний Погляд

У нас заберуть 20 років незалежності і будуть плювати в обличчя
У Канаді гречки не їдять. «З’їдять» політика, який «роздає гречку»...
Януковські спецслужби та міліція перетворюють Україну на кадирівську Чечню

  Call to Action

Request for financial support for observers monitoring election in Ukraine
Join the cause Yahoo УКРАЇНА!

  Заклик до дії

Вибери волю!
Не піддавайтесь. Прохання поширити

  Events

Send information on social events, conferences, and employment to: events@eposhta.com at least two weeks before the event date. See the guidelines for submitting EVENT announcements.
Links to event postings
New York: Exhibit by Georgian-Ukrainian artist Temo Svirely -- Oct. 19 - Nov.11
Winnipeg: The story of Plast: 100 years of the Ukrainian scouting movement -- Oct. 21 - Jan. 27
Toronto: Watch the Ukrainian Parliamentary election results - Oct. 28
Toronto: Concert: Dance to My Song - Oct. 28
Washington DC: 2012 Parliamentary elections in Ukraine: Moving towards or away From democracy and Europe? - Oct. 31
Chicago: Art exhibit by Anatole Kolomayets -- Nov. 2 - 25
Toronto: Icons Unite Us/Ікони Нас Єднають - Opening - Nov.3
Los Angeles: Ukrainian Insurgent Army 70th anniversary commemoration - Nov. 4
Toronto: Upcoming events -- Jacyk Program for the Study of Ukraine, CIUS, CERES -- Nov. 9 -14
New York: Solemn march: Ukrainian genocide 80 years later - Nov. 17
UCC - National Holodomor Awareness Week -- Nov. 19 - 25

  Події

Вінніпеґ: Життя в Пласті: 100 років Українського Пластового Руху -- 21 жовтня -- 27 січня
Торонто: Іскра - Пластова вечеря і забава і День відкритих дверей -- 27 -28 жовтня
Торонто: Прийдітъ спостерігати висліди виборів в Україні – 28 жовтня
Торонто: Спортивний клуб Карпати запрошує на товариську гру команд і бенкет - 28 жовтня
Блумінґдейл, США: Патріарх Філарет удостоїть Катедру Святого Апостола Андрія Первозваного святими можами - 29 жовтня
Київ: Засідання Українського клубу на тему: "Україна у контексті наступних виборів (парламентських, президентських) - 29 жовтня
Чікаґо: Виставка Анатоля Коломийця - 2-25 листопада
Луцьк/ Чернівці / Харків / Київ: Фестиваль "Червона рута" - відбірковий конкурс -- 3 листопада - 9 грудня
Лос Анджелес: Віддайте шану героям УПА - 4 листопада
Торонто: Зустріч громади з Людмилою і Владиславом Гриневичем - 5 лситопада
Конґрес Українців Канади: Всеканадський тиждень вшанування Голодомору -19 - 25 листопада

  Programs & Conferences

Washington, DC: Ukraine in Washington 2012 - Gala & conference -- Nov. 30 - Dec. 1
Kyiv: 2012 Kyiv Model Ukraine Conference "Different Roads to the Rule of Law" -- Nov. 23-24

  Current Affairs

The Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine asks government of Canada to freeze assets of violators in Yanukovych's regime
Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj reacts to Supreme Court ruling – VIDEO
The Borys factor
Will democracy in Canada benefit from Borys Wrzesnewskyj's persistence?
Tories under fire for staffing of Canadian monitor mission to Ukraine
The Canadian Museum for Human Rights annual report fuels the need for a forensic audit
Member of Parliament Bezan denounces Thanksgiving dinner for former KGB agent
UCCLA's 15th Conclave held in Ottawa
Vin Weber, top Romney adviser, lobbying for Ukraine group
A Russian election without voters
The Coming collapse: Authoritarians in China and Russia face an endgame
You thought the whole 'EUSSR' thing was over the top? Have a look at this poster

  Сучасні Пoдії

КГСДУ просить уряд Канади збільшити тиск на режим Януковича

  Arts & Letters

Outgoing CIUS Director honoured
2012 Tarnawecky Distinguished Lecture Series honours Luba and Ireneus Zuk piano duo from Montreal
Modern Ukrainian drama in English translation
Feature film receives support from UCCLF
Seeing Ukrainian Socialist Realism
Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine: The Moloda muza and Ukrainian modernist literature in western Ukraine

  Культура

У Торонто презентували нову книгу про Йосипа Гошуляка
Олег Скрипка та Олександр Попов презентували міжнародний музичний фестиваль «Rock'n'Sich – 2013»
Антологія української драми англійською

  Election in Ukraine - October 28

Corruption No. 1 problem as Ukraine heads for election
Risk elections won’t be recognised as free and fair says Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Online election violation maps set the pace
Ukrainian voters hope for knockout punch
Activists sum up campaign, report low quality of politics
Ukraine's election as dirty as in 2004
Fresh approach to voter fatigue turns zombies loose in Ukraine - VIDEO

  Вибори в Україні

Блаженніший Святослав (Шевчук) про вибори: "Голосуйте по правді.  Будьте вільними" - ВІДЕО
Як змінити дух і репутацію влади: Звернення до виборців Олександра Сугоняко, президент Асоціації українських банків
Mission Canada документує різноманітні відхилення та порушення під час передвиборчого періоду
Акція ЧЕСНО -ВІДЕО
Чорний гумор....а може ні...?
Зомбі в Україні - ВІДЕО
  Ukraine & the World
CNN: Tymoshenko blasts Ukraine leader from prison - VIDEO
Popular Italian painter Antonio Matragrano painted icon of Yulia Tymoshenko in support of Free Yulia movement - VIDEO
In US, it's a game of good cop, bad cop with Ukraine
Ukraine's economy nears post-election crunch time
The secrets of Ukrainian inflation
Russian 'rendition': Kremlin grabs opposition figure from Ukraine streets
Hilary Clinton & Catherine Ashton: Ukraine's troubling trends

  Україна і Світ

Наступ «регіонів» на суспільство. Інфографіка
Юлія Тимошенко: ніякий дарвінізм не зможе шакала перетворити на лева
Юлію Тимошенко хочуть забрати з лікарні через заклик скинути мафію - заява «Батьківщини» + ВІДЕО
Популярний італійський іконописець Антоніо Матраграно  приєднався до всеєвропейської громадської акції Free Yulia і намалював ікону - ВІДЕО
При ПР Фірташі, Коломойські то інші окупанти захопили надра України які належать українцям

  Business Report

Forbes: Investigation: Oleksandr Yanukovych’s enrichment
  Історія
Жвава дускусія на телепрограмі " Велика Політика" про Українську повстанську армію - ВІДЕО

  Society

UWC President at founding meeting of Union of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
Ukraine Unveils Large Jewish Center, Holocaust Museum
  Суспільство
Зображення українських жінок в ЗМІ - ВІДЕО
Президент СКУ взяв участъ в установчих зборах «Об'єднання українсъких організацій у Німеччині»
Хто тут живе? – ВІДЕО

  А король таки голий!

Моя дорога Канада

  Ukrainians in the News

Teacher receives surprise for commitment to students
Vasyl Markus: Ukrainian scholar never forgot his homeland
  Religion
Christian? No. Orthodox? Apparently so.
Your words cannot remain unanswered: Open letter to Mitred Archpriest Dr. Ihor G. Kutash of UOCC

  Релігія

Братство Катедри Св. Володимира: Асоціяція УПЦК із Константинопольським Патріархом мусить бути анульована
Відкритий Лист до Митрата Д-ра Ігоря Ю. Куташа про загрозу рішень єрархії Українській православній церкві в діаспорі

New political map for Ukraine

TOP

A journalist who is used to living in the democratic world, feeling protected from any governmental "disorder or whim", feels a disturbing spine-chilling sensation when faced with today’s pre-election orgy in Ukraine.  The most outrageous circumstance here is the fact that the pre-election gangsterism is inspired and organized by the power 'elite' and its bribery sustained Ukraine’s Party of Regions (UPR), employing law enforcement agencies with the orders to 'deal with’ those of a different mind than theirs.

image
Two days before the election brings in troops and armored vehicles into the centre of Kyiv.
Watch Kyiv’s Independence Square via webcam:
http://www.earthtv.com/en/camera-destination/kyiv-ukraine

So, what is awaiting Ukraine after the 2012 election if the country's citizens do not support the opposition and do not vote for it?  What comes to my mind now is the fragment from an old Soviet song: "You think this is trouble? You call this trouble? Wait till I'll show you that!"  What it means is that the authoritarian regimes of Putin and Lukashenko will seem like a family picnic as compared to the power-drunken orgy of the Donetskian bunch of thugs.

The information on the current election campaign in Ukraine leads to a rather worrisome conclusion, that the Donetskian gangster schemes that were used by UPR during the previous elections in order to drive the tested white-and-blue belt residents into their criminal pen are now being used throughout the entire country.

However, it is worth adding that the falsification schemes, now that the UPR is in power, are becoming increasingly more aggressive and brutal. The Yanukovych and Company’s election campaign's conduct is not democratic, or to be more precise, it is evidently criminal: the law “On Elections of People's Deputies of Ukraine” was passed by the Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament) in the absence of an alternate option for the opposition forces.  It is a return to the less controllable mixed election system; the application of selective justice for the opposition leaders; the creation of new election districts for the benefit of UPR; the universal use of administrative resource;  the unfair advantages for UPR and CPU (Communist Party of Ukraine) in the formation of district election commissions (DEC);  the involvement of small, marginal political parties in establishing district and election site commissions (ESC); the registration of "twins" (people with identical names) in order to lower the threshold for majoritarian opposition candidates; the mass bribing of voters by UPR, its satellite parties and pro-government majoritarian candidates; the use of criminals in preventing the involvement of 'undesirables' in the operation of ESCs; fictitious resignation letters from innocent members of district commissions aimed at replacing them;   re-voting in ESCs aimed at exclusion of the few representatives of the opposition; the prevention of opposition advertisements; the involvement of police and court members aimed at inclusion of UPR-loyal individuals into ESCs as well as at the neutralization of opposition's majoritarian candidates;   the bloody retributions against majoritarian candidates; the government's brutal pressure on independent media, most remarkably - TVi, a case where the channel's closure proved to be the government's ultimate and unrealized desire. 

All those facts indicate one simple reality - that the government is preparing for an unprecedented, mass-scale of election falsifications throughout entire country.  And it also means that the anti-people, anti-Ukrainian, anti-democratic government must be immediately removed from behind the steering wheel of the country.

The democratic world is becoming increasingly aware of the danger intrinsic to the Yanukovych's authoritarian regime.  Recently, a penultimate warning bell rang for Viktor Yanukovych in the US Senate.  It was the announcement of visa sanctions for persons involved in political persecution in Ukraine.  The last bell for the ruler of Ukraine and his mates will ring immediately once the parliamentary elections are recognized as non-transparent and undemocratic.

image
“Did we not warn you? We warned you. So, no need to be offended.”

Is it at all possible to stop the Donetskian bulldozer that is destroying everyone (unless it is their kin) and everything in its way?  It is.  It is both possible and essential.  Although a lot of chances and opportunities have already been lost since the Donetsk oligarchic-criminal clan came to power.  How can we stop them?

Only civil action can change Ukraine for the better.  Only civil activity at the parliamentary elections this year gives us a chance to remove that government that we despise. 

image
People do not know that it is they who are the real power.

We are not talking here about mere mass voting but also about mass consolidated defense of the voting results at the doors of our election polls.  And for that we Ukrainians have to reignite faith in ourselves, faith in our strength.  We need to think for a minute about the future of our children and grandchildren.

image
Tired of doing battle? …
Think about what kind of country you are leaving for her.

I would like to give you a rather descriptive example here of how a civil society is capable of changing a political landscape of a country.  To do that there is no need to dig deep into the annals of history.  The example I want to draw is lying on the surface of our very recent past.  I am talking about the political re-tailoring that took place in Canada during the parliamentary elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011.

Although for me, who is a great sympathizer of the Canadian Liberals, it would have been much more pleasing to present everything from a different perspective - history is implacable and does not permit otherwise. I know how awkward it is at times to make comparisons between an established Canadian democracy and the authoritarian regime of Yanukovych.  Nevertheless, that is what I will do.

What I am talking about here is the Canadian Liberal Party that had governed Canada for twelve years in a row.  It had been enjoying maximum support from the citizens of the country of the maple leaf quite securely, as in Canada liberal values and outlooks are traditionally cultivated.

And so, prior to the January 2006 election the Liberal Party headed by the then Prime Minister Paul Martin (2003-2006) enjoyed the bright blue sky without any hint of a thundercloud.  However, a few weeks before the election journalists publicized a corruption scandal in the Canadian media, a scandal in which the previous Prime Minister Jean Chretien (1993-2003) was involved.  By Ukrainian standards the issue was innocent.  The matter of the scandal was transfer of public funds for the cultural development of the French-speaking province of Quebec.  And the aim was noble too.  It was to neutralize the separatist intentions of the French-speaking element.  However, in time part of the money made its way - no, not to some private pockets as it does happen in Ukraine - it actually made its way to the Liberal Party treasury.  That was the essence of that corruption scandal.

A few weeks before the elections the electoral support of the liberals dropped by over 30 per cent.  And within a relatively short period of time the Canadian Conservative Party won, previously absolutely unforeseeably, the 2006 federal election.  By the way, at that time the latter was going through an internal crisis while experiencing a generational change, which resulted in their inability to gain a majority of the seats in parliament.

The 2006 parliamentary elections in Canada manifested the great potential of a mature civil society (Conservatives – 36,27%; Liberals – 30,23%; New Democrats – 17,48%) which is capable of radical amendments in the political layout of the country.  The 2008 federal elections (Conservatives – 37,65%; Liberals – 26,26%; New Democrats – 18,18%) confirmed that corruption deals in the democratic world face severe judgement, while the voters tend to keep them in their memory for quite some time indeed.  Early federal elections in May 2011 brought the ultimate judgement to the Liberals.  They received a double punishment that time, as to the previous memories was added the impact of the arbitrary decision of the party bureaucrats of promoting the over-controversial, new leader Michael Ignatieff. The Liberal pogrom at the election was not slow in coming.  The results were: Conservatives – 39,62%; New Democrats – 30,63%; Liberals – 18,91%.  As we can see in 2011 the Canadian voters completely re-tailored the political map of their country having firmly placed the Conservatives at the leading position while placing a previously less influential party of New Democrats in the second leading position.

In the context of moving the Liberals to the third rung position, I would like to note here that in Canada very little is changed when a new political party takes the helm of the country.  For the country stands firmly on its democratic positions while defending the rule of law, free enterprise, civil liberties and human rights.

Unlike Canada, Ukraine in this year's parliamentary election is dealing with crucial, fundamental and existentially important choices.  This year we are choosing between either a European perspective or an authoritarian obscurity complimented with the Yanukovych cleptocratic dynasty as a questionable, let's face it, bonus.

2012 parliamentary elections also have a political subtext.  As the voter one has to make choice that will ensure we finally get rid of the criminal, occupational regime.  I believe one has to give one’s vote to a person who will not become a ‘body-for-sale’ the minute he/she crosses the Verkhovna Rada's threshold adding to the rows of impunity-drunk, old yobs from the Party of Regions and their henchmen.

Meanwhile, it is common sense that will help each of us choose the recipient of our support.  We ought to support the political force whose leaders are sitting behind jail bars, the political force that presents a true and real danger to the power of the Donetsk gang, the political force that is being physically attacked in order to completely crush it.

It is clear as day that the lessons of history have to be learned to make sure Ukraine is not pushed into the abyss and the lives of our dearest and loved ones are not lost.

image
28.10.2012 is your choice:
to the left is Europe – to the right is “Improvement”
Don’t make a mistake!

Marta Onufriv

Translated by Ihor Plastun-Syrovatchenko

Як перекроїти політичну карту України

TOP

Журналістові, для якого стало звичним жити в демократичному світі, захищеному від владного «бєзпрєделу», стає моторошно від нинішньої передвиборчої вакханалії в Україні.  Найстрашнішим є те, що перевиборчий бандитизм надихає й організовує саме владна верхівка та її кишенькова  ПРУ, запрягаючи силові структури до розправи над  інакше думаючими.  

image
Два дні до виборів влада стягує війська і бронетранспортерів в Київ. Це вони військами будуть звільняти від українців майдан Незалежності, а також мітинги під ЦВК?
Слідкуйте через Вебкам:http://www.earthtv.com/en/camera-destination/kyiv-ukraine

Так що ж очікує Україну після виборів-2012, коли її громадяни не згуртуються навколо опозиційних сил і не проголосують за них?  Замість відповіді напрошуються слова давньої совєтської пісеньки: «То лі єщьо будєт, то лі єщьо будєт! Ой-йой-йой!». А це значить, що авторитарні режими Путіна й Лукашенки здаватимуться милими квіточками в порівнянні з отруйними ягодами донецько-кримінального розливу.

Із наявної інформації про перебіг виборчої кампанії в Україні можна зробити дуже тривожний висновок: донецько-бандитські схеми, якими під час усіх попередніх виборів ПРУ заганяла  у своє кримінальне стійло піддослідних мешканців біло-синього пояса, нині активно впроваджуються по всій Україні.

Однак слід додати, що схеми фальсифікацій виборів із приходом до влади ПРУ стають все агресивнішими й нахабнішими.  Уже сьогодні можна говорити про недемократичне, а радше кримінальне ведення передвиборчої кампанії  В. Януковичем і Ко: Закон «Про вибори народних депутатів України» прийнято Верховною Радою за відсутності альтернативи для опозиційних сил, повернення до мало контрольованої змішаної системи, застосування вибіркового правосуддя до опозиційних лідерів, нарізання нових виборчих округів на користь ПРУ, повсюдне використання адміністративного ресурсу, невмотивовані переваги для ПРУ і КПУ при формуванні окружних виборчих комісій (ОВК), залучення до жеребкування в окружних і дільничних виборчих комісіях (ДВК) маргінальних партійок, реєстрація двійників з метою зниження порогу проходження мажоритарників-опозиціонерів, масовий підкуп виборців ПРУ, її сателітами та провладними мажоритарниками, використання кримінального елементу для недопущення до роботи в ДВК небажаних осіб, фіктивні заяви про вихід членів із дільничних комісій із метою їхньої заміни, переголосування у ДВК задля виведення зі складу нечисельних представників опозиції, недопущення до розміщення опозиційних рекламних щитів, задіяння правоохоронних органів і судочинства з метою формування ДВК  із лояльних до ПРУ осіб, а також для нейтралізації опозиційних мажоритарників, криваві розправи над кандидатами-мажоритарниками, владний тиск на незалежні ЗМІ, передовсім ТВі, аж до спроби їхнього закриття тощо.

Усе це свідчить про те, що в масштабах усієї України влада готується до небувалого розмаху фальсифікацій на виборах-2012. А, значить, антинародну, антиукраїнську, антидемократичну  владу потрібно негайно усувати від керма держави.

Усе більше демократичний світ усвідомлює небезпеку, що таїть в собі  авторитарний режим В. Януковича. Нещодавно в Сенаті США пролунав передостанній дзвіночок для В. Януковича: візові санкції США для осіб, причетних до політичних переслідувань в Україні. Останній, нищівний дзвіночок для керманича України та його оточення прозвучить одразу ж після визнання парламентських виборів непрозорими й недемократичними.

image
Чи можна зупинити донецький бульдозер, який нищить всіх  (окрім своїх) і все на своєму шляху? Можна і необхідно! Хоч багато можливостей уже втрачено з часу приходу до влади донецького олігархічно-кримінального клану. Яким чином?

Тільки громадянська активність здатна змінити все в Україні на краще. Тільки громадянська активність на парламентських виборах-2012 дає шанс усунути від керма держави ненависну владу.

image
Ідеться не тільки про масове голосування, але й про багатолюдне відстоювання результатів виборів під виборчими дільницями. А для цього нам, українцям, потрібно повірити у власні сили, потрібно подумати про майбутнє наших дітей-онуків!

image
Хочеться привести наглядний приклад, як громадянське суспільство здатне змінювати політичний ландшафт країни. Для цього  не потрібно занурюватися в аннали історії. Бо цей приклад лежить на поверхні сьогодення. Слід лише згадати про кардинальне політичне перекроювання, яке сталося в Канаді  під час парламентських виборів 2006, 2008, 2011 років.

Хоч мені як великому симпатикові канадських лібералів хотілося б подати все у протилежному ракурсі. Але історія – річ неблаганна.

Знаю, якою невдячною справою є проводити порівняння між усталеною демократією Канади й авторитарним режимом Януковича. Одначе зроблю це.

Мова піде про Ліберальну партію Канади, яка урядувала в країні впродовж 12 років. Її підтримка населенням країни кленового листка була максимальною, оскільки тут традиційно культивувалися ліберальні погляди.

Отже перед виборами, які відбулися в січні 2006 року, над правлячою Ліберальною партією на чолі з чинним прем`єр-міністром Пол Мартіном (2003-2006) було політичне небо чисте, без будь-яких натяків на грозу. Однак за декілька тижнів до виборів журналісти «розкрутили» в ЗМІ корупційний скандал, до якого був причетний попередній прем`єр-міністр Канади Жан Кретьєн (1993-2003). Ішлося як для України ніби про безневинну передачу державних коштів на культурний  розвиток франкомовної провінції Квебек. Мета шляхетна: нейтралізувати сепаратистські наміри франкомовних радикалів. Однак із часом частина грошей, скерованих на розвиток Квебеку, повернулася, нІ, не в приватну кишеню - як це буває в Україні, а в партійну скарбницю лібералів. Ось і вся сутність корупційного скандалу.

За декілька тижнів до виборів електоральна підтримка лібералів впала більше ніж на 30%. І з віддалі невеликого відрізку часу, цілковито непрогнозовано перемогла на федеральних виборах-2006 Консервативна партія. До речі, остання перебувала в стані внутрішньої кризи, в партії відбувалася зміна поколінь, а тому вона не мала належної обсади для більшості урядових місць.

Парламентські вибори-2006 в Канаді показали великий потенціал зрілого громадянського суспільства (консерватори – 36,27%; ліберали – 30,23%; нові демократи – 17,48%), яке здатне вносити кардинальні  корективи в розклад політичних сил. Федеральні вибори-2008 (консерватори – 37,65%; ліберали – 26,26%; нові демократи – 18,18%) підтвердили, що корупційні оборудки в демократичному світі піддаються суворому осудові та про них довго пам`ятають виборці. Позачергові федеральні вибори, травень 2011 р., винесли остаточний вирок лібералам. Вони були подвійно покарані, вдруге -  за валюнтаристське рішення партійних бюрократів висунути новим  лідером надто контроверсійного Майкла Ігнатьєва. Погром лібералів на виборах не забарився: консерватори – 39,62%; нові демократи – 30,63%; ліберали – 18,91%. Як бачимо, канадські виборці в 2011 р. повністю перекроїли політичну карту країни,  закріпивши позиції консерваторів і водночас висунувши на чільне місце нових демократів, досі невпливову партію.

У контексті усунення лібералів на третьорядні ролі, хочеться зазначити, що в Канаді мало що міняється від приходу до влади тих чи інших політичних партій. Бо держава твердо стоїть на демократичних позиціях, відстоюючи верховенство права, вільне підприємництво, громадянські свободи, права людини та ін.

На відміну від Канади парламентські вибори-2012 стануть для України вирішальними:  європейська перспектива чи авторитарний морок із клептократичною династією Януковичів.

Парламентські вибори-2012 мають ще й політичний підтекст:  потрібно визначитися за  кого голосувати, щоб урешті позбутися в Україні кримінально окупаційного режиму. Думаю, що потрібно віддати свій голос за тих, хто скопом не стане тушками, поповнюючи лави знахабнілих від безкарності та розжирілих від розбою регіоналів і таких же їхніх підручних.

А вибрати об`єкт для голосування допоможе здоровий глузд: потрібно підтримати на виборах ту політичну силу,  провідники якої знаходяться за тюремними гратами, хто є найбільшою небезпекою для  влади донецьких і кого прагне знищити, з ким повсякчас фізично розправляється тощо.

Безперечно,  уроки історії варто засвоїти, щоб остаточно не штовхнути Україну в прірву та не загубити життя найдорожчих.

image
28.10.2012 твій вибір:  
ліворуч Європа - праворуч Покращення.
Не помились!

Марта Онуфрів

Відповідь апологетам авторитарного режиму Януковича TOP

Вочевидь, мене надзвичайно розвеселив той факт, що моя скромна особа удостоїлася уваги одного з рупорів авторитарного режиму В. Януковича – Інституту української політики, а конкретніше  - директора політичних програм Олега Витягова.
Ідеться про статтю згаданого «таваріща» під заголовком «Україна і українці Канади», вміщену 21 вересня ц.р. в «Газеті по-українськи» (http://gazeta.ua/articles/politics/_ukrajina-i-ukrajinci-kanadi/456814). Правду кажучи, мене здивувала тональність статті, тим паче - накидання на діаспорних українців усілякої відповідальності.
Дивним є те, що керівництво Інституту української політики досі не знає й не відає, що весь прогресивний світ змальовує кримінально-авторитарний режим Януковича в найчорніших тонах. Однак браво, пане Витягов! Ваша відповідь написана в кращих гебістських традиціях, спочилого в Бозі Совєтського Союзу!  Перше: зумисно не подано заголовок моєї статті «Україною крокує мовний шабаш. Як зупинити?» (http://gazeta.ua/articles/sogodennya/_diaspora-pogrozhue-partiji-regioniv/455106). А це, гадаю, щоб огульно очорнити мене за нищівну критику «на адресу України та її керівництва, змалювавши нинішню ситуацію в Україні у виключно чорних кольорах».  Дивним є те, що керівництво Інституту української політики досі не знає й не відає, що весь прогресивний світ змальовує кримінально-авторитарний режим Януковича в найчорніших тонах. І не тільки. Але й б`є тривогу, запроваджуючи санкції поки що лише проти тих, хто виконував замовлення головного керманича на ув`язнення Юлії Тимошенко та Юрія Луценко з політичних мотивів.

Друге: завдяки такій маніпуляції авторові вдається відвернути увагу читачів від надзвичайно важливої теми, порушуваної у статті: злочину етноциду супроти світового українства (бо в нас, сущих у всіх світах українців, рідна мова - одна!) через прийняття злочинного Закону «Про засади державної мовної політики України». І - грядуща кримінальна відповідальність В. Януковича, В. Литвина, В. Колісниченка, С. Ківалова за розв`язаний ними етноцид українців.

Третє: огульне звинувачення канадських українців у всіх бідах в Україні, зокрема у відсутності спрощеного візового режиму для в`їзду громадян України до Канади. Це, як виглядає зі статті О. Витягова, єдине, що заважає громадянам України втішатися демократією й верховенством права, всілякими свободами, жити у великому достатку й добрі.

Четверте: як журналіст, автор багатьох мовних розвідок, людина зі західним способом думання навіть не намагаюся повчати донецьких верховодів як їм жити: кримінальну ментальність верхніх ешелонів влади не в змозі змінити навіть довготривале перебування за тюремними гратами. Адже дехто з найвищих посадовців уже відбував дві-три ходки в зону і, як бачимо, безрезультатно. Всього навсього прагну внести свій вклад у діаспорні заходи, щоб зупинити геноцид/ентоцид українського народу.

Замість того, щоб просторікувати про доволі незнану вам діаспору, ви, п. Витягов, краще з`ясували б, чому насправді закордонні українці «втратили інтерес до подій в Україні та навколо неї». Зазначу, що помаранчевий Майдан неабияк сколихнув українську діаспору, розкривши її неймовірний потяг до України. Однак потяг до Батьківщини західного зразка, а не до совєтсько-кримінальної зони, в яку нині перетворюють усю Україну.
Тим паче - не з вини діаспори з України нині втікає кожен, кому це лише вдається, а через витворені регіоналами феодальні відносини.І не потрібно перекладати проблем із хворої голови на здорову. Позаяк відомо, що не через байдужість діаспори, а внаслідок антидемократичної, антидержавної, антинародної політики державних керманичів Україна стала ізгоєм у всьому цивілізованому світі. І саме через це від офіційної України відчужилася діаспора. Тим паче - не з вини діаспори з України нині втікає кожен, кому це лише вдається, а через витворені регіоналами феодальні відносини. Отже шукайте причину відсутності спрощеного візового режиму для громадян України в сутності всіх режимів в Україні, а найбільше – в пануючому нині повсюдному бандитському розбої, який донецькі братки звели в ранг державної політики.

І насамкінець. Як керівник одного з підрозділів Інституту української політики ви, пане Виглядов, урешті мали б розрізняти прості базові речі: французи – емігранти на канадській землі, їхню мову, хоч і осучаснену, плекають і захищають у Франції, українці – титульна нація в Україні, мову якої нині знищують донецькі україножери та іже з ними на українській прабатьківській землі. І саме в цьому контексті діаспора трактує Закон «Про засади державної мовної політики в Україні».

Марта Онуфрів, журналіст із Канади

Tymoshenko and the Ukrainian Diaspora: passivity and irrational hostility TOP

( Source )
September 27, 2012

image of Taras KuzioTaras Kuzio

Ukrainian News/Ukrayinski Visti, 13-26 September 2012.

Developments under Viktor Yanukovych should be sufficient to show that nationalists and others in Ukraine and the diaspora, encouraged by then President Viktor Yushchenko, were very wrong to call for a vote against both Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko in the second round of the 2010 presidential elections.

The adoption of the new language law in July reversed twenty years of nation-building by returning to russification policies in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the imprisonment of opposition leaders is the first example of political repression for a quarter of a century before Mikhail Gorbachev came to power as Soviet leader in 1985.

In adopting the language law and returning to Brezhnev era political repression, President Viktor Yanukovych will be remembered in Ukrainian history as the new Volodymyr Shcherbytsky who ruled and russified Soviet Ukraine in the last two decades of the USSR. Yanukovych’s first three years in power will be viewed in the same manner by future historians as the 1971-1972 pogrom of Ukrainian culture, language and dissent.

The adoption of the language law came on the back of the appointment of the Ukrainophobe Dmytro Tabachnyk as “Education Minister” who reintroduced Soviet ideological tirades against Ukrainian nationalism as “fascism” and removed any mention of the Orange Revolution from school textbooks. In addition, Yanukovych signed the “Kharkiv Accords” that extended the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol until the middle of this century, became the first Ukrainian president to no longer seek NATO membership, and appointed Russian citizens as Minister of Defense, Chairman of the Security Service (SBU) and head of his personal bodyguards. Ukraine’s integration into the European Union (EU) is frozen because of selective use of justice against the political opposition.

Nevertheless, the Ukrainian diaspora in the US and Canada remains divided and, in some cases, continues its irrational hostility towards Tymoshenko.

I believe there are four factors behind this.
Nevertheless, the Ukrainian diaspora in the US and Canada remains divided and, in some cases, continues its irrational hostility towards Tymoshenko.

I believe there are four factors behind this.

Firstly, lack of prioritization of politics. As I have written previously (Ukrainian Weekly, July 29), politics and political science in the Ukrainian diaspora and Ukrainian academic institutions are not a priority. Despite the massive attack on democracy and Ukrainian language and culture, the Canadian Ukrainian Congress (KUK) has not supported civic organizations like the Committee Group for Democracy in Ukraine (CG4DU).

“KUK has dropped the ball on this as it has in keeping the general community motivated with rallies. They could have organized rallies in support of demonstrations in Ukraine during Euro 2012 and would therefore have received Canadian media exposure, which normally is very hard to obtain,” a CG4DU activist commented. “They refused to support or have any interest in the Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine which organized 3 demonstrations throughout last summer in front of the Toronto consulate when Yulia Tymoshenko was on trial. We are too small a group to continue to do this and the result was that the momentum burnt out.”

KUK-national did not provide any financial support to CG4DU and believed their activities were misplaced. CG4DU reported on the first anniversary of its formation last month that “discussions with established diaspora organizations failed to yield results” (see report on their activities at http://world.maidan.org.ua/2012/canadian-group-for-democracy-in-ukraine-marking-the-first-year-of-activities).

Last month, the KUK-national statement on the anniversary of independence ignored the most important political element of Ukraine’s backsliding: the incarceration of political opposition leaders. A CG4DU activist asked “Why is this? Is this a policy (by KUK-national)? Is this a deliberate obfuscation or just an inability to understand Ukrainian politics?”

The former president [Yushchenko] also knows that, if the Yanukovych regime were genuinely interested in weeding out political and economic malfeasance, he, his wife, and his brother would probably be the first to be put on trial—and that Yanukovych and his two sons would be a close second. Indeed, one has to ask why KUK-national has been so weak in condemning political repression in Ukraine. Alexander Motyl writes in a World Affairs blog (August 27): “Now, if there’s anything Yushchenko knows, it’s that the case against Tymoshenko has been motivated exclusively by politics and nothing else. The former president also knows that, if the Yanukovych regime were genuinely interested in weeding out political and economic malfeasance, he, his wife, and his brother would probably be the first to be put on trial—and that Yanukovych and his two sons would be a close second.”

Some KUK activists have preferred to continue to attack Tymoshenko rather than seek to defend political prisoners while those with pro-Tymoshenko views have been ostracised since the 2010 elections. Yushchenko has an irrational hostility towards Tymoshenko, as seen in his Wall Street Journal op ed published on the anniversary of Ukrainian independence, but why does this pathology continue to exist among some members of the Ukrainian diaspora?

The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS), in the same manner as Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (HURI), has no active programs on Ukrainian contemporary politics, economics and international relations and in the first case does not invite experts. The last issues of Journal of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) and Harvard Ukrainian Studies (HURI) were published three and five years ago respectively.

This disinterest contrasts with a lack of prioritization of Ukrainian politics outside diaspora organizations and academic institutions. Since the 2010 elections, for example, I have received invitations to speak on four occasions to the US government, twice to train US diplomats transferring to Kyiv, twice to speak to the Canadian parliament and government, twice to brief the Japanese government and 25 (!) times to give lectures to academic and think tank audiences in North America and Europe.

Disinterest in Ukrainian politics translates into Ukrainian diaspora organizations and academic institutions exerting little influence over discussions, publications and policy making on, and towards, contemporary Ukraine. Disinterest in Ukrainian politics translates into Ukrainian diaspora organizations and academic institutions exerting little influence over discussions, publications and policy making on, and towards, contemporary Ukraine.

Secondly, Tymoshenkophobia. In 2009, a senior Ukrainian-Canadian activist said he hoped Ukrainians would not vote for that ‘Jewess’ (a reference to Tymoshenko). This repeated a commonly heard theme in Galicia that Tymoshenko is Jewish that I witnessed in leaflets in Ivano-Frankivsk in the second round on the day of the 2010 elections (in actual fact, her father’s name is Grigoryan, a typical Armenian name).

The focus on Tymoshenko’s ethnic origins is surprising in view of the fact that there is practically zero focus on Yanukovych who is of Belarusian-Polish descent and from the Sovietized region of Donetsk. Such irrational inconsistencies are not explained by political science and require recourse to psychological analysis and may be additionally an outcome of gender bias.

Thirdly, naivety about Yanukovych and personal and business ties. Meeting with Ukraine’s leaders has a long tradition among senior Ukrainian diaspora leaders encouraging them to keep quiet on human rights violations in exchange for much coveted photographs with the president. A Ukrainian-Canadian activist commented, “Senior KUK leaders never seem to be critical of Yanukovych and some argue that he is like Leonid Kuchma, playing at being pro-Russian but would soon become a Ukrainian patriot.”

Why does this school believe Yanukovych could become a Ukrainian patriot but Tymoshenko could not?

“Kremlinological” views of the Party of Regions and Ukrainian oligarchs split between “good doves” and “bad hawks” have long been touted by other more well-known Ukrainian-American apologists on the pages of the Wall Street Journal and Kyiv Post. Yet, to argue that Vladislav Kaskiv, head of the State Agency for Investment and National Projects of Ukraine who has family connections to a senior Ukrainian-Canadian leader, and Economy Minister Petro Poroshenko, are examples of “good guys” and “patriots” in the Yanukovych camp is a reflection of extreme naivety about Ukraine.

Kaskiv, who in 2004 led one wing of the young NGO Pora (It’s Time) and was elected to parliament in 2007 in Our Ukraine, is one of the biggest traitors of the Orange Revolution and was one of the first to jump ship to Yanukovych. Poroshenko can be heard on the Mykola Melnychenko tapes professing his undying loyalty for Kuchma from whom he is pleading for money to split the Socialist Party in parliament. In 2005, as secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, Poroshenko undermined the Tymoshenko government and after the 2006 elections his unwillingness to allow SPU leader Oleksandr Moroz to receive the position of parliamentary chairman (rather than himself) led to the collapse of the orange coalition and unexpected return of Yanukovych as Prime Minister.

Kaskiv and Poroshenko, like parliamentary chairman Volodymyr Lytvyn, are three of the biggest chameleons in Ukrainian politics.

Fourthly, divisions among nationalists. OUNb, Svoboda (Freedom) nationalist party and other nationalists followed Yushchenko in calling for a vote against both candidates in the second round of the 2010 elections. Yushchenko’s reward has been to continue to live in the presidential palace (Yanukovych has no need for the presidential palace as he lives in his illegally privatized former state residence, the Mezhyhirya palace).

Today, OUNb – like all nationalist organisations in Ukraine and the diaspora – is divided over Tymoshenko with many still having their doubts. According to an OUNb informant, a large group within OUNb – upwards of forty percent – support Tymoshenko.

Another twenty percent of OUNb members, primarily older generation OUNb members, retain a sympathetic view of Yushchenko because of his focus on the holodomor and OUN-UPA.

Thirty percent of OUNb members remain confused but lean towards UDAR (Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform) led by Vitaliy Klichko because UDAR includes many disillusioned Yushchenko people, such as former SBU Chairman Valentyn Nalyvaychenko. This wing of OUNb members also supports former Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko who is running for parliament in Ukrainian Platform “Sobor”.

A final ten percent of OUNb members – primarily young people and OUNb members in western Ukraine – have moved from KUN (Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, a party established by OUNb in 1992) to Svoboda.

KUN was led by Yaroslava Stetsko until her death in 2003 when it was taken over by gas trader Oleksiy Ivchenko who headed Naftohaz Ukrainy in 2005-2006. Ivchenko was dismissed following a public outcry over corruption after he used the funds of this state gas company to buy a Mercedes car for a quarter of a million US dollars. Although allegedly a Ukrainian “nationalist”, Ivchenko supported the inclusion of the opaque gas intermediary RosUkrEnergo in the 2006 gas contract that tied Ukraine closer to Russia.

KUN is running in the October elections in a de facto pro-Yanukovych nationalist bloc together with Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine and Yuriy Kostenko’s Peoples Party.

There have also been ideological changes within the new, fourth wave diaspora. Tymoshenko was greeted as a heroine at a meeting with the Ukrainian diaspora in the U.S. Congress in February 2007. But, in 2008-2009, attitudes towards her in the diaspora soured and since then the fourth wave Ukrainian diaspora have switched their support from Tymoshenko to Svoboda.

Since coming to power three years ago, Yanukovych – as the new Shcherbytsky – has destroyed Ukraine’s democratic gains from the Orange Revolution and resumed the russification of Ukrainian culture and language. By 2020, if Yanukovych remains in power for a second term, he will be president of Little Russia – not Ukraine.

Nevertheless, after all the policies we have witnessed under Yanukovych some nationalists and other apologists in the Ukrainian diaspora continue to remain illogically hostile to Tymoshenko while others continue to remain naïve about him. If the “proty vsikh” (against all) in Ukraine and the diaspora had not called upon Ukrainians to vote against both candidates in round two of the 2010 presidential elections Tymoshenko would not have been defeated by less than 3%. As president, Tymoshenko would never have appointed Ukrainophobe Tabachnyk as Education Minister or permitted parliament to adopt a language law reintroducing russification. Sevastopol would also not have been transformed into a de facto permanent Russian naval base. Under President Tymoshenko the EU would have signed and ratified the Association Agreement with Ukraine making the country’s integration into Europe irreversible, ruling out Ukraine ever joining Russian President Vladimir Putin’s CIS Customs Union and Eurasian Union.

There can therefore be no doubt that Tymoshenko was the only – and therefore right – choice in the 2010 elections. Nevertheless, after all the policies we have witnessed under Yanukovych some nationalists and other apologists in the Ukrainian diaspora continue to remain illogically hostile to Tymoshenko while others continue to remain naïve about him.

Negative energy that continues in some quarters to be directed against Tymoshenko should be transformed into positive energy defending Ukraine’s democracy, human rights, culture and language. Only then will Yanukovych be defeated.

Is Julia Tymoshenko Europe’s Aung San Suu Kyi? TOP

image

( Source )
Oct 23, 2012

imageGeoffrey Robertson

As Ukraine heads to the polls this weekend, former prime minister Julia Tymoshenko languishes in prison at the mercy of her political enemies—all for averting a humanitarian crisis. Geoffrey Robertson on why the U.S. and Europe should call for justice.

It’s election time in Ukraine, but the heroine of its 2004 “Orange Revolution” is not standing. Julia Tymoshenko languishes in a prison hospital, her privacy grotesquely invaded (almost every move she makes is videotaped). She has been jailed for seven years on a trumped-up charge by the Stalinists whose rigged election her revolution overthrew, whilst Europe (for all its claims to protect human rights) still pretends that Ukraine is a democracy. At the United Nations tomorrow, when Ukraine’s human-rights record is reviewed, the U.S., Canada, and Australia will have the opportunity to condemn this hypocrisy: Julia Tymoshenko is Europe’s Aung San Suu Kyi.

Incredibly, she has been jailed for an action, as prime minister, which led to the saving of hundreds and perhaps thousands of lives in central and western Europe in the freezing winter of early January 2009. That was when Vladimir Putin, like a brutal businessman, ordered Gazprom to stop the gas supplies to these countries, which transited through Ukraine. His price for turning on the gas taps was a renegotiation of the transit and supply contracts which had for years been favorable to Ukraine, stemming from the days before the Orange Revolution when it was a close ally. As the days passed, and people began to die of hypothermia in the Balkans, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Union leader José Barroso begged and badgered Prime Minister Tymoshenko to renegotiate with Putin (who would not talk to Ukraine’s president) and resolve the crisis. She flew to Moscow on the 18th of January and reached an agreement which she signed the following day, the 19th. Her cabinet ratified her actions when she returned on the 21st. The next day Putin turned the taps back on, and the humanitarian crisis was averted.

In Ukraine, Tymoshenko received some kudos for resolving the crisis, but her political enemies denounced her for making a “bad deal.” Putin had, in effect, ended Ukraine’s most-favored-nation status and made it pay market price for its gas. Tymoshenko had played what cards she had, and deserves credit for insisting on the removal from the new contracts of corrupt Russian intermediaries. The suggestion by her critics that she should have held out until the spring for better terms was questionable in terms of Ukraine’s own gas reserves and would have caused a humanitarian disaster in Europe. Tymoshenko was entirely transparent about the deal, and its pros and cons were canvassed a few months later in the presidential election, in which she was very narrowly beaten by Viktor Yanukovich, the Stalinist ex-criminal whose rigged election victory in 2004 her Orange Revolution had overthrown.
Now it was time for revenge--easily arranged through the court system Ukraine inherited from the Soviet era, where the prosecution controls the courts and judges have no independence. Yanukovich appointed a crony, Viktor Pshonka, as prosecutor general, who subsequently announced that he considered himself “part of the team of the president” and was ready to fulfill his orders. His deputy, Renat Kuzmin, began an investigation of Tymoshenko, possibly abusing his prosecutorial powers by ordering her not to leave Kyiv and to undergo interrogation on no less than 42 occasions—a deliberate obstruction of her ability to function as opposition leader. Then came an indictment and trial over “the gas case,” which ended in October 2011 with a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, loss of civil and political rights for a further three years, and an order to pay an incredible $186 million in damages. All for the actions she took as prime minister to resolve the gas crisis, which were alleged to be the offense of “abuse of office.”

In no other democratic country in the world would these actions be regarded as a crime. The transcript of the judgment of her trial judge and Court of Final Appeal (on August 29, 2012) is now available in English, and it is plain that no suggestion was ever made that she had acted for personal gain, or in any sinister or underhanded way, or that there was any trace of fraud or dishonesty in her conduct. She was jailed not for committing a felony, but for making a deal that her political enemies thought was bad for the country. Any suggestion that her trial was other than a process to eliminate a political enemy from this Sunday’s Ukrainian election is refuted by the judgment itself. Here is the crucial paragraph on her guilt, repeated verbatim in the judgment:

“Being aware of unsoundness and groundlessness of the requirements of the Russian side during negotiations between her and the top officials of the Russian government, on the higher cost of the natural gas for Ukraine with the transit rate unchanged; wishing to create for herself a positive image of an efficient leader of the state who managed to settle the “gas crisis” in relations with the Russian Federation on the eve of presidential election in Ukraine, she decided to agree with the abovementioned unfavorable terms for Ukraine and by all means, including through abuse of power ensure signing of purchase contract between “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and “Gazprom,” as well as contract of transit of the natural gas through the territory of Ukraine for the period of 2009–2016, having an irresponsible attribute toward the consequences of her actions and causing thereby a material damage to the state.”

Note that the judge begins with the assumption that the Russian bargaining position was “unsound” and “groundless”—it was, in fact, soundly grounded on the claim that Ukraine should pay market prices. As for Tymoshenko’s attributed wish “to create for herself a positive image of an efficient leader,” this is what motivates democratic politicians throughout the world. The judge and the prosecutors were simply incapable of understanding Winston Churchill’s point that “democracy is the worst system of government—except for all the others”.

Europe has been pathetic in its defense of Tymoshenko.Section 365 of the Ukrainian criminal code, which creates this vague offense of “abuse of official powers,” was exploited in Tymoshenko’s case to punish the entirely legitimate, if politically controversial, actions of a prime minister properly and responsibly discharging her duties in a democracy. There was no one else who could have done so in the growing gas crisis of January 2009—Putin would not negotiate with anyone else--and the EU was reliant on her to prevent a humanitarian disaster. Whether the deal she did was the best that Ukraine could have done may be open to question but it is a question that should be answered by the electorate and not the criminal courts. It was a deal approved by her cabinet on January 21. There is no basis for holding her guilty of a crime, let alone for subjecting her to a lengthy prison sentence and an order to pay a massive sum viciously calculated to drive her forever from seeking public office.

Europe has been pathetic in its defense of Tymoshenko.

How could this grave wrong have been inflicted on Tymoshenko? The answer lies in the fact that Ukraine has not reformed its Stalinist system of criminal justice, where an all-powerful prosecutor, appointed by the president, controls the courts. The lack of independence of Ukraine’s judges has been a constant and unanimous refrain of human-rights experts and can be proved by one single statistic: 99.8 percent of those who are prosecuted are convicted. In other words only .2 percent of defendants arraigned by the apparatus of the state prosecutor escape unscathed—the prosecutor is almost never wrong.

Here are some of the reasons that have been identified by other experts as resulting in all-powerful prosecutors and craven judges:

The prosecutor-general is appointed by the president, and serves his regime.

The High Judicial Council, which appoints and disqualifies judges, has a majorty of members from, or appointed by, the prosecutor-general, the president, and his party in Parliament.

Judges are provisionally appointed for five years. Only if their rulings do not discomfort the regime during that period are their appointments confirmed.  Political trials are generally conducted by these “P-plate judges.”

Moreover, all judges are subject to discipline at the discretion of the prosecution—there is no independent disciplinary body. More than 600 cases have been brought against judges by the prosecution in the past two years—some have been accused of being “untrue to their judicial oath” by ruling in favor of defendants, e.g. on bail applications which the prosecution opposes. Any judge who rules against a prosecutor is liable to be prosecuted.

These factors were present to produce what could have been a nonindependent and biased judge in Ms. Tymoshenko’s case. This, it must be remembered, was the trial of a former prime minister for actions while in office—perhaps the most important trial in Ukraine’s history. In any other democracy, the chief justice or a very senior judge would have been deputed to try it. Instead, Judge Kirayev, a “P-plate judge” with only two years’ experience, was plucked from a small-town courtroom in April 2011 and mysteriously made the judge for the Tymoshenko trial. Having no tenure, and his future career being at the sufferance of her political enemies, objectively he lacked independence.

He soon showed his bias. In August 2011, three months before he convicted her, he ordered that she be detained in prison. This was not done for any legitimate reason, it seems—she had turned up every day on time (on one day she was briefly delayed)--but was an act of petty revenge, justified, apparently, because she had refused to call him “Your Honour” and had at one point thrown the indictment on the floor. These are not acts that should be punished by deprivation of liberty, especially in the middle of a difficult trial and in relation to a person with no previous convictions, who had served the state in high office. It was a brutal and unnecessary decision.

Kireyev showed his bias in other respects. At the outset he refused Tymoshenko’s request for jury trial (which is available under Ukrainian criminal law). Her sentence was manifestly excessive (the order to pay an extortionate $186 million alone proves his bias).  The appeal judges were subject to the same form of pressure.  What was particularly obnoxious is the way in which the President and his two most senior prosecutors went on television, both before and after the verdict, to proclaim her guilt.  Yanukovych announced that she had to “prove her innocence” and deputy prosecutor Kuzmin, as soon as she was arrested in April 2011, went on television to denounce her gas contracts as “a grave violation of Ukrainian law.” He has repeatedly accused her of committing a murder, despite the fact that the crime in question took place in 1996, a number of people were convicted and her name was never mentioned in the investigation or trial. Somewhat hysterically, he recently proclaimed himself a Christian and emailed all members of Congress offering to come to Washington and address them about her guilt.

The irresponsible behavior of these legal lickspittles is unsurprising, but they have managed to disable the Orange opposition in time for Sunday’s national election, which cannot therefore be regarded as fair.The irresponsible behavior of these legal lickspittles is unsurprising, but they have managed to disable the Orange opposition in time for Sunday’s national election, which cannot therefore be regarded as fair. They have not only silenced Tymoshenko, but have prosecuted with similar brutality 12 of her senior officials: four ministers, five deputy ministers, and the heads of three national agencies, mainly on charges that have put them in prison but do not require proof of dishonesty or corruption.

Europe has been pathetic in its defence of Tymoshenko: much as it lays down human-rights standards for everyone else, and relishes every opportunity to condemn the U.S. for Guantanamo and rendition, it has done no more than pass mildly critical resolutions about her sufferings. The Council of Europe, disgracefully, still regards Ukraine as a fully democratic member, and has not suspended it for persecuting its opposition. The U.S. will have two minutes at the U.N. to review Ukraine’s abuses: it should spare a few moments to mention Europe’s human-rights hypocrisy over its own Aung San Suu Kyi—a woman jailed for the “crime” of averting a humanitarian disaster.

Geoffrey Robertson’s new book Mullahs Without Mercy--Human Rights, Iran and Nuclear Weapons is published by Biteback next week.

Canada takes lead to keep out criminals TOP

image
"It is not yet possible to calculate the economic effect of Euro 2012"

The Hill Times
October 22, 2012

image of Oksana Bashuk Hepburn Oksana Bashuk Hepburn

It is critical for democracies to work together and follow Canada's lead in keeping out criminals especially those in high places and shame them as the United States has done. When the terrorist is the state, other states of goodwill must take action.

Canada is taking a decisive step towards keeping undesirables out of the country. The proposed Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act will, among others, make it harder for those who abuse human rights to enter the country.

"We want an immigration system that is open to genuine visitors, while at the same time prevents the entry of foreign criminals," says Jason Kenney, minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism about the proposed legislation.

This is manna for democratically-minded Canadians including members of the Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine (I'm one) who have been seeking entry restrictions for individuals connected with the violations of human rights in Ukraine. There, selective application of the rule of law is standard practice in arrests and incarcerations of opponents to the regime of President Viktor Yanukovych. The most notable examples are the seven-year sentence handed to ex-prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and four years to former minister of internal security, Yurij Lutsenko.

Canada's proposed legislation follows months of warnings by Canada and other Western democracies about "serious consequences" should the president fail to live up to Ukraine's Constitution and meet international democratic standards. Now the pussy-footing has stopped. With less than a week left to the Oct. 28 Parliamentary elections, Canada's legislation puts Ukraine's regime on notice.

Canada is not acting alone. The United States' Senate passed a resolution last month calling on its Department of State "to institute a visa ban against those responsible for the imprisonment and mistreatment of Tymoshenko and the more than dozen political leaders associated with the 2004 Orange Revolution."

Such restrictions are much needed to prod deviant rulers around the globe not just in Ukraine to abide by their constitutions, and signal a move from warning to naming and shaming. The Senate Resolution specifically names Viktor Pshonka, prosecutor general of Ukraine, and deputy prosecutor General Renat Kuzminkey figures in the demise of Ukraine's independent judicial system.

When passed by Parliament, the proposed legislation will make foreign nationals, who have been playing loose and fast with the rule of law, "inadmissible" to Canada. It specifically cites those dangerous to security, human or international rights violators, or organized criminality. It provides ministerial authority "to refuse entry." Kenney says, "Canadians are generous and welcoming people, but they have no tolerance for criminals and fraudsters abusing our generosity." Most Canadians agree.

Certainly the Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine does. In a letter of Sept. 18, addressed to Conservative MP Laurie Hawn and a member of the Treasury Board Cabinet Committee copied to the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and others the group urges the publication of names subject to visa restrictions.

However, the group fears that such public shaming may not be enough: criminals world-wide are using Western states to safe-keep their ill begotten gains. Restricting them does not prevent their money from leaving rogue states and entering safe havens. In Ukraine, publicized information shows that billions of dollars were moved to Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands in 2011. This occurred as Ukraine's 2011 per capita GDP languished around US$ 3,600 placing this largest, and one of the richest in natural resources European states near the bottom of the World Bank's scale; far below its much smaller neighbours Poland, at $13,000 and tiny Slovakia pushing $18,000. Canada's was above $50,000.

Despite pressures to move forward, Ukraine's government is not relenting; rather the opposite.

Late last month, the Cabinet of ministers took measures to control opposition, dissent and the media even further. Prime Minister Nikolaj Azarov signed an order increasing the authority of security and defence entities to deal with "terrorism"acts designed to bring down the state, "vlada." A few days later, to underscore the point that it will because it can,' the president's Party of Regions announced its draft legislation calling for up to five years imprisonment of journalists for slander. The media called it a "war on journalists." An immediate media strike and swift and forceful reaction worldwide, the draft has been withdrawn. Many fear that should the Party of Regions return to power, restrictions on freedoms, including speech will continue be exacerbated.

The concerns with the crack-down are three-fold: the harshness of the measures; that they happened on the eve of the elections for maximum curtailment of freedoms; and, very significantly, there is no recourse to false accusations or apprehensions as Ukraine's judicial system has shown itself over and over again to be corrupt and beholden to the president and his party the best evidence of that being the abduction of the former minister of internal security Yurij Lutsenko. The overarching fear is that the latest steps to suppress hark back to the 1930s when Nikolaj Yezhov, Stalin's head of the NKVD, began an era of purges known as the Great Terror.

Unless there is a regime change, the political situation in Ukraine, dire as it is, may deteriorate even further without intervention from friends. It is therefore critical for democracies to work together and follow Canada's lead in keeping out criminals, especially those in high places and shame them as the United States has done. When the terrorist is the state, other states of goodwill must take action.

Oksana Bashuk Hepburn is an international commentator and a member of the Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times

Genocide's Definition Revisited TOP

( Source )
October 19, 2012

image

Alexander Motyl Alexander J. Motyl

If you think you know what Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide, thought about genocide, think again. A dissertation-in-progress on Lemkin and the history of the United Nations Genocide Convention by Douglas Irvin-Erickson, a doctoral student in global affairs at Rutgers University-Newark, is likely to change how we think and talk about genocide.

As Irvin-Erickson writes in an article (“The Romantic Signature of Raphael Lemkin”) scheduled to appear in the Journal of Genocide Research:

Lemkin used the work of an art historian to define nations as “families of minds”…. Lemkin intended the word genocide to signify the cultural destruction of peoples, which could occur without a perpetrator employing violence at all. In his 1944 Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin wrote that genocide was “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” A colonial practice, genocide had two phases: “One, the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.” 

Genocide, in other words, is not, in Lemkin’s understanding, about mass killing per se, but about the destruction of nations qua nations. Mass killing is, thus, a means to the end of genocide, and not its goal.  Genocide, in other words, is not, in Lemkin’s understanding, about mass killing per se, but about the destruction of nations qua nations. Mass killing is, thus, a means to the end of genocide, and not its goal. 

Lemkin adopted his definition of a nation as a family of minds in the context of his writing on the French genocide against Algeria, where he believed that the French colonial power was breaking the “bodily and mental integrity” of the Algerian people.… The goal of the genocide, Lemkin wrote, was to integrate Algerians into the French Republic and prevent Algeria from emerging from colonial rule.

Keep in mind that here, too, genocide for Lemkin is not the bloody and brutal war fought between France and the Algerians in the 1950s and early 1960s, but the entire French colonial project that attempted to destroy the Algerian “family of mind.”

Lemkin believed the political regimes led by Hitler and Stalin both committed genocide…. [T]hese two regimes shared the defining characteristic of attempting to destroy the national patterns of the oppressed groups and replace it with a “Sovietness” or “Germanness.” Lemkin argued that the Russian and Soviet attack on the Ukrainians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Jews, the Crimean and Tatar Republics, the Baltic nations of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, and the total annihilation of the Ingerian nation, were all genocides, before and during Stalin’s reign.

Just as the Nazi genocide sought to eradicate the national patterns of the occupied territories and install a distinct “Germanness” to consolidate state control, “the leaders of the Kremlin will gladly destroy the nations and the cultures that have long inhabited Eastern Europe.” Genocide, Lemkin asserted, was a long-term element of the Kremlin’s internal policy and “an indispensable step in the process of ‘union’ that the Soviet leaders fondly hope will produce the ‘Soviet Man,’ the ‘Soviet Nation.’” Just as the Nazi genocide sought to eradicate the national patterns of the occupied territories and install a distinct “Germanness” to consolidate state control, “the leaders of the Kremlin will gladly destroy the nations and the cultures that have long inhabited Eastern Europe.” The Ukrainian genocide was “an essential part of the Soviet program for expansion, for it offers the quick way of bringing unity out of the diversity of cultures and nations that constitute the Soviet Empire.”

It follows from the above that, according to Lemkin, the Holodomor—the famine of 1932-1933—was only one of the means employed by the Stalinist regime to Sovietize and Russify the Ukrainian nation. The actual genocide was Sovietization and Russification, processes that were initiated during the Civil War of 1918-1921, revived by Stalin in the late 1920s, and then vigorously pursued by him and all his successors, including Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, into the early 1980s. It was only under the liberalizing rule of Mikhail Gorbachev that the Russificationist project, and hence genocide, was abandoned.

The genocide was not that Stalin’s regime killed so many people, but that these individuals were killed with the purpose of destroying the Ukrainian way of life, an argument in line with his writings on how the French colonial state sought to eradicate Algerian national consciousness through state terror, political disenfranchisement, and poverty.… The most devastating aspect of the genocide for Lemkin was not the death of individuals, but the potential loss of a cohesive group who shared a common belief in their unity through language, customs, art, or even a sense of shared history.

The most devastating aspect of the genocide for Lemkin was not the death of individuals, but the potential loss of a cohesive group who shared a common belief in their unity through language, customs, art, or even a sense of shared history. Irvin-Erickson here raises the intriguing possibility that the cultural policies of the current Yanukovych regime would qualify as genocidal in Lemkin’s eyes. After all, there is little doubt that their purpose is: “One, the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.” In this case, “the Ukrainian way of life” would, in the Yanukovych regime’s scheme of things, be replaced with the “Donbas pattern of the oppressor”—a way of life that is Soviet, criminal, and Lumpen-Russian. As the pesky Ukrainian “family of mind” gives way to a “family” of, as Czeslaw Milosz might have put it, “captive minds,” what’s left of Ukrainians as a “cohesive group who shared a common belief in their unity through language, customs, art, or even a sense of shared history”?

Naturally, you needn’t reach this conclusion—but only if you disagree with Lemkin’s views on genocide.

The New foreign aid map: Implications for Ukraine

TOP

International Centre for Policy Studies
#19, 2012

Nataliya Borodchuk

Over the last 10 years, the world has witnessed a significant shift in the aid industry: official development assistance (ODA) between developing countries has risen substantially.

The recent (re)emergence of donors among two BRIC countries, China and Russia, as well as among some of Ukraine’s post-communist European neighbors may have a direct impact on this country:

  • aid from the East brings with it new development models;
  • the development market is becoming more competitive, bringing both opportunities and challenges;
  • Ukraine, a net recipient of development aid, is gradually being surrounded by newly emerging donors that use foreign aid as a tool for promoting their own economic and political interests.

The traditional view of international development cooperation as a matter of North-South relations was revised when post-soviet countries switched from being donors—the Soviet Union provided massive amounts of aid during the Cold War—to being net recipients of assistance in early 1990s. Over the last 10 years, the world has witnessed another significant shift in the aid industry: a substantial rise in official development assistance (ODA) between developing countries. ODA implies a transfer of resources for the purpose of economic development and improved welfare, and is different from humanitarian assistance, which has primarily short-term goals. ODA takes the form of grants and concessional loans by governments and international organizations and excludes private flows.

The club of rich industrialized countries that are members of the Development Assistance Committee established 50 years ago still dominates the development agenda. Yet non-DAC development aid is rapidly increasing. While statistics from developing countries are far from clear, a recent study by Global Humanitarian Assistance estimates a 14% rise in non-DAC aid between 2005-2008. This may have a direct impact on Ukraine, especially with the emergence of new donors among the BRIC countries: China and Russia, as well as some other post-communist European neighbors.

The year of the dragon

China, a developing economy that had until recently been a recipient of large sums of official development assistance, has been experiencing consistent economic growth of about 10% per annum for a number of years now and has become the second largest economy in the world. It has also become a net aid donor. Africa is the main recipient of Chinese aid, but Beijing’s geographic reach is broadening, as recent large aid transfers to Belarus, Europe’s last dictatorship, testify. Chinese aid is mainly channeled through its embassies and is negotiated on a bilateral, country-to-country basis.

The significance of the current pattern of Chinese aid is not so much in the magnitude of the financial resources, but in a general trend that is steadily growing and in the nature of its relationships with recipients. China claims to have a market-centered approach to aid “with no strings attached.” However, Beijing is often accused of using aid to secure natural resources and access to markets. According to critics, the large-scale loans it provides are tied to the procurement of goods and services in the donor country and provide employment for donor citizens. While it is hard to objectively assess the impact of Chinese aid because of its restricted transparency, it would be fair to state that many Western countries face similar accusations.

In order to prevent such criticisms, China published its first aid report in 2011 (full text here). This stated that less of 10% of Beijing’s concessional loans had been channeled towards the development of resources. The paper further declared that Chinese aid was essentially mutual help between developing countries, providing an alternative to Western donors who impose “onerous” political conditions on aid recipients. Although a step forward, the so-called Chinese White Paper on foreign aid lacks the kinds of details that could indicate, aside from other reasons, the resistance to revealing information about foreign assistance by a country that still has a large percentage of its own population living below the poverty line.

The re-emerging donor

Russia is another recent graduate from western foreign assistance programs. While its aid budget is still the smallest in the G8 bloc, this rose significantly in 2009, to US $785 million, but then dropped back down in 2010, to US $472mn (The Russian Federation ODA, National report here). Russia is clear about the reason for increasing its development assistance: as a tool for strengthening its regional influence, maintaining a cordon sanitaire of good neighbors, and improving its international image. In 2009, as a response to the then-emerging crisis, Russia set up a US $ 7.5bn fund to support its neighbors, namely Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan._ Recent, the Kremlin’s activity in the Pacific region became highly controversial after Russia gave vast sums of money to the tiny island nations of Tuvalu and Nauru, apparently in exchange for their recognition of the sovereignty of two Caucasian regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Both the increase in funding and recent institutional changes suggest that Russia is placing more attention on development cooperation. The establishment of a Federal International Development Agency (FIDA) demonstrates a willingness to catch up with other successful mid-income countries, as Brazil and India have already set up specialized development organizations and South Africa is in the process of launching one.

Western neighbors

New donors can be found not only among big developing countries, but also among the smaller ex-Warsaw Pact countries. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Estonia, among others, have made the transition from being aid recipients to aid donors in a relatively short time. By joining the EU, these countries also joined the club of aid donors and committed 0.__% of their GDP by 2015 as part of their commitment to providing aid. A large proportion of ODA is channeled through multilateral instruments. Development cooperation is seen by many of the smaller countries as a way to increase international recognition and raise their profiles.

While the aid volumes are modest, what distinguishes the aid policies of new Eastern European donors is their regional focus: assistance to less-developed European countries is given priority.

What are the implications for Ukraine?

The direction and nature of aid is transforming

Aid to Ukraine is channeled not only from the West, with the US and the EU still the biggest donors, but increasingly from the Far East, which brings with it new developmental models.

Since Presidents Yanukovych and Ju met in Kyiv and Beijing in 2010 and 2011, economic and political cooperation between Ukraine and China has received a boost and Chinese aid to Ukraine is an established fact now. In June 2011, in addition to contracts worth US $_.5 billion being signed, Ukraine expected to receive US $12 million in the form of a grant (Joint Declaration on the Establishment and Development of Strategic Partnership between Ukraine and China, June 2011 here (in Ukrainian)) Chinese loans, guaranteed by the Ukrainian government, are mainly focused on transport, energy and agriculture. The best-known examples are probably the Boryspil-Kyiv speed railway project and recent negotiations over a trade port located in western Crimea. After the IMF stopped its standby program in November 2011, Ukrainian media sources reported that the Central Bank of China had offered Ukraine’s government a credit line.

A “business approach” to foreign aid, with fewer questions about human rights, rule of law and democratization, does not, however, imply that Chinese aid is free of non-financial obligations. There clearly are strings are attached, but they take different form. For instance, Kyiv’s tolerance to Beijing’s politics towards Tibet and Taiwan, as well as the recent boycott of Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, where Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was recognized, demonstrate the role of Chinese aid in recruiting political allies. Therefore, for Ukraine it is critical to understand the new donors and their ‘rules of the game’.

The development market is becoming more competitive

While the EU and the US are preoccupied with their financial problems, emerging donors are prepared to provide aid to Ukraine. As a rule, an increase in the number of sellers gives more leverage to buyers by strengthening their bargaining position. But any possible positive gains for Ukraine are based on two conditions: first, having a clear vision of the purpose of ODA; and second, having the capacity to negotiate the most favorable terms and carry out the plan.

The first condition is problematic—and not because of the absence of documents that regulate what type and quantity of foreign aid that Ukraine wishes to attract and its purposes. There are only too many such programs: the President’s Economic Reform Program for 2010-2014, the Strategy for Drawing International Technical Assistance 2010-2012, and so on. But because none of these documents reflects a clearly-defined vision, foreign aid strategies are often not aligned with socio-economic development programs and, more importantly, are not reflected in related budgets. Thus, foreign aid policies tend to effectively represent the ad hoc interests of rival groups rather than following established consensual national priorities.

Historical evidence suggests that aid is effective when it is short-term and has a clear focus, such as the Marshall Plan for post-war reconstruction in Europe, and more recent aid flows to Botswana and South Korea. Otherwise, there is a danger that aid for current consumption is likely to simply keep a failing system running, postpone structural reforms and increase aid dependency.

As to the second condition, Ukraine’s capacity to make a rational choice among donors and its ability to handle the administrative burden imposed by multiple donors and use resources effectively are also questionable. An increase in budget support from the EU in recent years exposed the weaknesses of Ukraine’s system of public finance, especially as related to state procurements. Moreover, the absence of leadership for aid coordination at the national level and the constant shuffling around of the agencies responsible for international aid are not conducive to effectively planning and implementing aid programs.

The foreign aid landscape is changing

Itself a net recipient of development aid, Ukraine is gradually being surrounded by newly emerging donors. Aid brings knowledge, the culture of doing business, and resources. It is also used as a policy tool to promote the donors’ economic and political interests. As the world becomes more interlinked, aid is not only about helping poorer countries. Many countries now play the roles of providers and recipients simultaneously and often use aid as a tool for opening business doors and ensuring access to necessary resources. European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek writes: “Development assistance is today one of the crucial areas of international cooperation.” (European Development Policy Guide here).

The question is, should Ukraine—as a middle-income country—join this group of emerging donors? Besides the vital question of resources - whether or not Ukraine can afford to send aid abroad, there is, of course, the question of political support, especially at a time when the country is suffering from many domestic socio-economic problems. On the other hand, if Ukraine does not follow this path, might it lose opportunities for regional development cooperation and become a passive follower of the agendas of others? The expansion of aid from neighboring countries, as well as from Far East emerging powers, suggests that these are vital and urgent questions that Ukraine cannot ignore. It is already difficult to imagine the future foreign aid map without new donors. Still, it remains to be seen whether Ukraine will be on such a map and what its role will be.

e-mail: office@icps.kiev.ua www.icps.com.ua

Nataliya Borodchuk – ICPS associate analyst, graduated from the London School of Economics with MSc degree in Development Management; consulted for Transparency International, Berlin and contributed to a number of programs funded by USAID in Ukraine.

English editor Lidia Wolanskyj. European Focus is an ICPS periodical that raises debate on key issues of European integration for Ukraine, EU policy towards Ukraine, and other important issues connected to Ukraine’s European ambitions.

 
Юлія Тимошенко: вибори – це голосування кожного з вас за своє виживання за існування України TOP

( Джерело )
25 жовтня 2012

Звернення голови партії "Батьківщина" Юлії Тимошенко до українців напередодні виборів

image Дорогі мої українці,
вітаю вас та дуже сумую за вами.

Дякую вам, мої рідні, за те, що підтримуєте мене в цій непростій ситуації, дякую за ваші молитви… Дякую за ваші теплі листи, дитячі малюнки, за вашу любов, яка зараз і є моєю головною силою, моєю опорою, моєю вірою.

До останньої хвилини в мене були сумніви, чи маю я моральне право звертатися до вас із будь-якими закликами напередодні виборів, бо відчуваю частину своєї відповідальності за повернення Януковича до влади, за трагічні наслідки його правління для кожного з вас та для України. У мене є велика потреба вибачитися перед вами за кожну свою дію, за кожне своє рішення, які проти моєї волі вплинули на повернення в Україну неодиктатури. Прийміть, якщо можете, мої вибачення.

Парламентські вибори, які відбудуться 28 жовтня, особливі. Це не окремий тактичний бій, який ви можете дозволити собі програти, це – війна, яка може завершитися або вашою перемогою і шансом на зміни, або нашою повною історичною поразкою. Якщо Янукович завдяки вашим голосам виживе як політик на цих виборах, він завершить установлення диктатури та мирним шляхом більше владу не віддасть. Диктатура, як пожежа, випалить благополуччя та спокій у кожній вашій родині, на кожному вашому підприємстві, поглине дихання свободи з кожної клітини вашого життя, ізолює Україну від іншого світу.

Вибори, які наближаються, – це не змагання між правлячим режимом та об’єднаною опозицією й навіть не змагання мажоритарних кандидатів між собою на округах. Ці вибори – голосування кожного з вас за своє виживання, це боротьба за існування України, за існування українства. Це, врешті-решт, визначення, кому буде належати країна: її земля, її державні монополії, надра, бюджетні гроші, інші можливості та ресурси – вам чи 5 кланам, які правлять вами сьогодні. На цих виборах буде вирішуватися, чи будете ви взагалі належати самим собі та мати можливість реалізовувати своє життєве призначення. Вас уже намагаються переплавити в покірну, залякану масу, яка змириться з таким життям та буде передавати його в спадщину своїм дітям.

Я не хочу проголошувати пусті гасла або давати солодкі обіцянки, зараз їх навколо вас і так достатньо. Солодко не буде, бо важка ситуація в країні. Я візьму сміливість дати вам лише п’ять порад. Можете дослухатися до них або ні. Врешті, це ваше життя й ваше право проводити або не проводити над собою політичні експерименти.

Жодного голосу за Партію регіонів. Тому моя перша порада - скористайтеся своїм правом голосу та спробуйте усунуте олігархію від влади саме зараз на цих виборах раз і назавжди та раз і назавжди спробуйте змінити своє життя. Не віддайте їм жодного голосу! Чуєте? Жодного голосу! Ви ж не самогубці, ви розумні та гідні люди! Не звертайте увагу на бруд, який ллють на об’єднану опозицію.

Ви ставите правильне питання, чому ми не усунули від влади олігархію і не зупинили все так, як обіцяли Помаранчевої революції? Хочу ще раз повторити: тому що всі п’ять років олігархи мали свого президента, свого генпрокурора, свою більшість у Верховній Раді та 2,5 роки з п’яти свій Уряд. Вони не відходили від влади, вони просто завжди купували для себе президентів та більшість в парламенті.

Друга моя порада така – пам’ятайте, що головну перемогу Янукович та його клани запланували отримати на мажоритарних округах. Не допустіть цього! На мажоритарних округах вам доведеться боротися проти себе. Вам доведеться, якщо ви хочете вижити, наступити на власне горло та не ковтати матеріальні подачки. Вам доведеться, якщо хочете жити, проголосувати проти того кандидата в депутати, який будує вам дитячі майданчики, ремонтує школи, лікарні, ваші під’їзди та ліфти, прокладає асфальт та розносить безкоштовні продукти, гроші та ліки.

Вам доведеться проголосувати проти мажоритарного кандидата в депутати, який вам більше за всіх інших чогось "подарував".

Всі ці подарунки закінчаться одразу після виборів, і ви побачите своїх "щедрих" депутатів у Верховній Раді в болоті Януковича, і вже ніхто нічого не буде дарувати, заберуть останнє. Рибу перед тим, як засмажити та з’їсти, теж годують наживкою. Не ковтайте її – там гачок і там закінчення життя. Ще раз наголошую - моя друга порада – проголосуйте на своєму окрузі за єдиного кандидата в депутати від об’єднаної опозиції "Батьківщина", навіть якщо він вам не дуже подобається, навіть якщо він вам нічого не подарував та не заплатив. Проголосуйте саме за нього, дійте проти своїх емоцій, керуйтеся інтелектом та переможною стратегією.

Третя моя порада – знайте, що головна технологія, яку вам намагаються нав’язати, що влада та опозиція – це одне й те саме.

Так, опозиція - не ідеальна, не бездоганна, вона має вади, як і все наше недосконале молоде суспільство. Але вона суттєво відрізняється від правлячої мафії в усіх без виключення аспектах. Вона не привласнювала державні підприємства, землі та надра, не будувала Межигір’я, не робила податкову, пенсійну та судову антиреформи, не нівечила Конституцію та мову, не формувала правлячу корумповану родину, не вбивала середній клас, не закривала дорогу до європейської перспективи. Якщо б опозиція була такою, як правляча мафія, ми сиділи би не по тюрмах та засланнях, а на державних дачах, у ВІП-ложах із ними на Євро-2012, прислуговували б їм в їхніх конституційних асамблеях та їхніх гуманітарних радах. Саме тому, що опозиція відрізняється й має непохитні цінності, мафія нас бачить тільки в тюрмах.

Я звертаюся до чесних журналістів, громадських діячів та організацій, до гідних своєї країни громадян не допомагати режиму поширювати обман, що криміналітет на чолі з диктатором у владі – це теж саме, що справжня опозиція. Я звертаюся до лідерів громадянського суспільства, чесних журналістів та опозиції. Будь-ласка, припиніть ваше протистояння, воно виглядає зі сторони, як Кайдашева сім’я, яка почала безглузду сварку на вулкані, який прокинувся, а зі сторони виглядає самовбивчо. В більшості країн СНД уже немає ніякої опозиції, але її знищили диктатори. Жорстоко та по плану. Не створюйте унікального українського абсурду – коли слабке, але амбітне громадянське суспільство та не досконала, але реальна опозиція можуть знищити один одного самостійно, за власним бажанням. Давайте разом усунемо неодиктатуру у своїй країні, а потім будемо нещадно критикувати один одного.

Моя четверта порада – не голосуйте за фальшиві опозиційні партії. Спробуйте усвідомити, що проти вас працюють вже не гопники 90-х в спортивних костюмах, а мільярдери, яким є що втрачати і на яких працюють цинічні, професійні та коштовні політичні технологи. Вони, маючи телебачення та необмежені гроші, можуть зліпити опозиційного кандидата в президенти або нового, свіжого лідера опозиційної партії практично з будь-якого підручного матеріалу, навіть з мавпи. Вже другі вибори олігархія успішно створює для себе фальшиву опозицію, яка виконує на виборах своє завдання, забираючи голоси довірливих громадян, а після виборів повертається з вашими голосами в свою зграю.

Яскравим прикладом фальшивої опозиції, яка вдало спрацювала на президентських виборах був Сергій Тігіпко та його партія "Сильна Україна". Спрацювало? Так, добре спрацювало. І де тепер цей щирий опозиціонер?

Сьогодні влада веде декілька своїх опозиційних партій, які мають всі шанси потрапити до парламенту. Отже, моя четверта порада – не віддайте свій голос фальшивим опозиційним партіям, навіть, якщо дуже хочеться і рука сама тягнеться, контролюйте свої руки. Спробуйте розпізнати фальшивих опозиціонерів до виборів. Після виборів просто буде запізно!

І остання п’ята порада, але, можливо, найважливіша. Усунути від влади мафію – це завдання не лише опозиції. Цього разу опозиція сама із цим завданням не впорається. Це війна проти диктатури, проти несправедливості, яка потребує мобілізації кожного з вас. Усі, хто розуміють, яка небезпека, яка біда повстала перед Україною, мусять негайно почати діяти самостійно. Без вас нічого не вийде. Ідіть до ваших рідних, знайомих, друзів, сусідів, які купилися на подачки, які взяли гроші за фальсифікацію результатів на виборчих дільницях, які введені в оману інформаційними технологіями Партії Регіонів, які заплуталися в політичних подіях, які збираються голосувати за Партію Регіонів або створену ними фальшиву опозицію. Негайно включайтеся в роботу, встановіть собі щоденний план та переконуйте тих, хто не дуже добре розуміється на політиці, очевидними фактами, прикладами із власного життя, журналістськими розслідуваннями з Інтернету, не допустіть, щоб ваші близькі люди своїми власними руками будували для себе політичну гільйотину. Потім виправити цю фатальну помилку буде неможливо. Якщо когось не зможете переконати з першого разу, зробіть це сотні разів, але не бездійте – це найгірший вибір.

Частина українців від образ та відчаю взагалі не хоче йти на вибори. Особливо на Сході та на Півдні. Це найгірша помилка. Бюлетені всіх, хто не прийде, заповнять та кинуть за Партію Регіонів. Знайдіть в собі сили та, якщо вас усе дістало й ви все ж таки проти всіх, прийдіть на вибори та жирним хрестом перекресліть свій бюлетень, зіпсуйте його, але не залишайте свій чистий бюлетень для фальсифікації.

Просто знайте, що зараз ваш час, ви визначаєте хід історії, ви простою позначкою в бюлетені можете вбити кілок у серце олігархії, неодиктатурі, українофобії, ви можете повернути Україні повноцінне сьогодення. Зробіть це, і ваше життя отримає вищий сенс. Я особисто буду завжди в вас вірити.

З любов’ю
Ваша Юлія Тимошенко, голова партії "Батьківщина"

Нова мапа зовнішньої допомоги: наслідки для України TOP

International Centre for Policy Studies
#19, 2012

Наталія Бородчук

За останні десять років у світі спостерігаються великі зміни у сфері зовнішньої допомоги: суттєве зростання обсягів офіціийноії допомоги для розвитку (ОДР) між краіїнами, що розвиваються. Поява донорів серед краіїн БРІК: Китаий і Росія, а також серед деяких посткомуністичних європеийських сусідів може мати прямиий вплив на Украіїну:

  • допомога зі Сходу приносить нові моделі розвитку;
  • ринок зовнішньої допомоги стає дедалі конкурентнішим, що надає нові можливості та виклики;
  • Украіїна – яка є нетреципієнтом ОДР – поступово опиняється в оточенні нових донорів, які використовують іноземну допомогу як інструмент для просування власних економічних і політичних інтересів.

Традиційний погляд на міжнародне співробітництво для розвитку як питання взаємовідносин Північ – Південь було переглянуто, коли пострадянські країни змінили свій статус донорів – Радянський Союз надавав велику допомогу під час холодної війни – на статус реципієнтів на початку 1990-х років. За останні десять років світ став свідком ще одного зсуву у сфері зовнішньої допомоги: суттєвого зростання обсягів офіційної допомоги для розвитку (ОДР) між країнами, що розвиваються. ОДР передбачає передачу ресурсів для економічного розвитку та поліпшення добробуту і відрізняється від гуманітарної допомоги, яка в основному переслідує короткострокові цілі. Офіційну допомогу для розвитку надають у формі ґрантів і пільгових позик уряди і міжнародні організації, і вона не включає приватний капітал.

Клуб багатих промислово розвинених країн, які є членами Комітету сприяння розвитку (КСР), що був створений 50 років тому, як і раніше домінує у сфері надання зовнішньої допомоги. Утім, офіційна зовнішня допомога країн, що розвиваються, стрімко зростає. Статистичні дані з цих країн не завжди доступні чи прозорі, проте недавнє дослідження організації Глобальна гуманітарна допомога оцінює 143% зростання допомоги між країнами, що розвиваються, впродовж 2005–2008 років. Ці зміни на мапі зовнішньої допомоги можуть мати прямий вплив на Україну, особливо з появою нових донорів серед країн БРІК: Китай і Росія, а також деяких інших посткомуністичних європейських сусідів.

[...]

Які наслідки для Украіїни?
Напрямок і характер допомоги змінюються

Допомога в Україну надходить не тільки із Заходу – США та ЄС як і раніше залишаються найбільшими донорами, – а й дедалі частіше з Далекого Сходу, що приносить нові моделі розвитку.

Після зустрічі президентів Віктора Януковича та Ху Цзиньтао в Києві та Пекіні в 2010 та 2011 роках економічне та політичне співробітництво між Україною та Китаєм отримало новий імпульс. Надання Пекіном зовнішньої допомоги Києву є встановленим фактом. На додаток до контрактів на суму 3,5 мрд доларів США, що були підписані в червні 2011 року, Україна очікує отримати 12,3 млн у формі ґранту4. Китайські кредити, гарантовані українським урядом, в основному спрямовано в галузі транспорту, енергетики та сільського господарства. Найбільш відомими прикладами є, імовірно, швидкісна залізниця Київ – Бориспіль і недавні переговори про торговий порт, розташований у західному Криму. Після припинення МВФ програми stand-by в листопаді 2011 року українські ЗМІ повідомили, що Центральний банк Китаю запропонував уряду України кредитну лінію. Комерційний характер зовнішньої допомоги, з меншою кількістю запитань про права людини, верховенство права та демократизацію, не означає однак, що зовнішню допомогу з Пекіна надають без жодних політичних зобов’язань. Зобов’язання існують, проте вони мають інший характер. Наприклад, терпимість Києва до політики Пекіна щодо Тибету і Тайваню, а також недавній бойкот церемонії вручення Нобелівської премії миру китайському дисиденту Лю Сяобо демонструють роль китайської допомоги в рекрутингу політичних союзників. Таким чином, для України дуже важливо розуміти нових донорів: їхні правила гри.

Ринок зовнішньої допомоги стає дедалі конкурентнішим

Тим часом як ЄС і США стурбовані своїми власними економічними проблемами, нові донори готові надати допомогу Україні. Зазвичай збільшення кількості продавців посилює позицію покупця. Проте будьякі можливі позитивні вигоди для України від збільшення кількості потенційних донорів можливі лише за виконання двох умов: поперше, наявності чіткого бачення мети залучення ОДР, подруге – наявності інституційної спроможності витримувати адміністративне навантаження численних донорів і реалізувати окреслений план.

Перша умова є проблематичною, і не через відсутність документів, які регулюють характер, обсяги іноземної допомоги, які Україна планує залучати. Радше навпаки, існує велика кількість таких програм: Програма економічних реформ на 2010–2014 роки, Стратегія залучення міжнародної допомоги на 2010–2012 роки та ін. Проте жоден із документів не відображає чіткого бачення мети; стратегії залучення ОДР часто не збігаються із соціальноекономічними планами розвитку і, що не менш важливо, не знаходять відображення у відповідних статтях бюджету. Таким чином, політика залучення зовнішньої допомоги зазвичай відображає ситуативні інтереси політичноекономічних груп, а не національні пріоритети.

Історичні дані свідчать, що допомога ефективна тоді, коли вона має короткостроковий характер і чітку спрямованість, як у випадку Плану Маршалла для післявоєнної перебудови Європи й недавньої допомоги Ботсвані та Південній Кореї. В інакшому разі існує небезпека, що допомога, яку витрачають на поточне споживання, сприятиме підтриманню системи, яка не працює, та поглиблюватиме фінансову залежність.

Що стосується другої умови, а саме здатності України зробити раціональний вибір між донорами, спроможності витримувати адміністративний тягар, спричинений численними донорами, та ефективно використати ресурси, вона є також сумнівною. Збільшення бюджетної підтримки з ЄС за останні роки продемонструвало слабкі сторони системи державних фінансів України, зокрема системи державних закупівель. Навіть більше, відсутність керівництва на національному рівні і постійні перетасовки навколо установ, відповідальних за міжнародну допомогу, не сприяють ефективному плануванню і реалізації програм допомоги.

Мапа зовнішньої допомоги змінюється

Україна, яка є нетреципієнтом ОДР, поступово опиняється в оточенні нових донорів. Зовнішня допомога приносить нові знання, культуру провадження бізнесу і ресурси. Її також використовують для просування економічних і політичних інтересів донорів. Оскільки світ стає дедалі взаємозалежніший, ідеться не лише про допомогу бідним країнам. Багато країн зараз відіграють роль донорів та отримувачів зовнішньої допомоги одночасно і часто використовують її для налагодження сприятливого клімату для бізнесу та забезпечення доступу до необхідних ресурсів. Президент Європейського парламенту Єжи Бузек зазначив: «Допомога для розвитку є сьогодні одним з найважливіших напрямів міжнародного співробітництва»

Питання в тому, чи варто Україні – країні із середнім рівнем доходу – приєднатися до групи нових донорів? Крім важливого питання ресурсів – іншими словами: чи може Україна дозволити собі посилати допомогу за кордон, – є, звичайно, питання про політичну підтримку такого рішення, особливо в часи, коли країна потерпає від багатьох внутрішніх соціальноекономічних проблем. З іншого боку, якщо Україна не рухатиметься цим шляхом, чи ризикує вона втратити інструменти впливу, відповідно можливості реґіонального співробітництва, та стати пасивним гравцем на ринку зовнішньої допомоги? Зростання ОДР від країнсусідів, а також із Далекого Сходу свідчить, що це важливі та нагальні питання, які Україна не може ігнорувати. Зараз уже складно уявити майбутню мапу офіційної допомоги без нових донорів. Проте залишається відкритим запитання, чи буде Україна на цій мапі і яка її майбутня роль?

Партія регіонів уже програла, ще до голосування! TOP

image

( Джерело )
24 жовтня 2012

image

Володимир ПИЛИПЧУК,
академік Академії економічних наук, професор

У сьогоднішньому  інтерв’ю пана Томенка є теза, що майбутнє України і своїх дітей українці визначать на виборах, керуючись ”... розумом, серцем, чи шлунком”. Хоча, я б замість сполучника „чи”, поставив би сполучник „та” (шлунком).

Наступне. Читаю останні соціологічні дослідження, які  показують, що ПР, начебто, „набирає” від 20 до 26% голосів виборців. А Тигіпко (найнездаліший за результатами роботи урядовець, не рахуючи Азарова) замахнувся аж на 30-35% голосів підтримки ПР за партійними списками.

Попереду –  суттєва девальвація валюти і такий же суттєвий зріст інфляції. Резерви НБУ невпинно і впевнено тануть. Збереження українців розтануть, як морозиво в літню пору.Спершу стосовно соціологічних досліджень. Методологія соцопитувань, що використовується в Україні, розрахована на застосування в умовах демократичного суспільства і не може вважатися прийнятною для  суспільства з авторитарною системою влади, тому що всі, хто незадоволений владою, але її бояться, відповідатимуть, що цю владу підтримують, або не знають. як голосуватимуть, або не знають, чи прийдуть на вибори. Згадана категорія (боязливих громадян) ніколи не відповість відверто, що голосуватиме „проти” влади. Не відповість, бо не знає наступного:

  • хто і для чого проводить опитування;
  • куди  і кому дослідники-„опитувачі” цю інформацію спрямують;\
  • чи не зашкодять його відповіді його ж кар’єрі, доброботу, спокою, свободі, чи  навіть-  його життю.

Соціологи мають розуміти, шо опитування проводиться не у вільній країні, а при диктатурі криміналітету. Люди-боягузи чи хитрі, завбачливі, не відверті завжди будуть казати, що вони "ЗА" владу.Соціологи мають розуміти, шо опитування проводиться не у вільній країні, а при диктатурі криміналітету. Люди-боягузи чи хитрі, завбачливі, не відверті завжди будуть казати, що вони "ЗА" владу. Але соціологи цих моментів не враховують, задаючи людям питання  “в лоб”.  У методології передвиборчих досліджень відсутні розрахунки кількості „заляканих” громадян, тому і відсутні поправочні коефіцієнти „на страх” людей перед владою.

Тому я пропоную будувати аналіз рівня підтримки влади на виборах на основі іншої методології. А саме тієї, про яку натякнув пан Томенко.

 Проаналізуємо, на яку максимальну підтримку населення може розраховувати ПР, відштовхуючись від згаданих вище висловлювань, при умові, що вибори відбудуться без фальсифікацій.

30-35% % підтримки  ПР (за Тигіпком) - це фантастика і велика неправда - одночасно! Моя оцінка  наступна: максимально можлива кількість голосів, що теоретично можуть бути віддані за ПР коливається в межах 17-19 %. І я так стверджую не як провидець, а як науковець, що знайомий з методологією статистичних досліджень. Такий висновок я зробив на основі аналізів результатів інших опитувань громадян, де предметом опитування були запитання на зразок наступного: „Чи задоволені своїм життям?” „Чи бажаєте ви змін у країні?”,  „Чи у вірному напрямку розвивається ситуація в державі?” , „Чи вірите у своє світле майбутнє в Україні?” та інші подібні. Так ось, мій аналіз результатів саме таких опитувань висвітлює число, що стійко коливається біля 17%. Якщо 17% громадян України всім задоволені і їх усе влаштовує, то саме вони за власним покликом душі МОЖУТЬ проголосувати за ПР. Повторюю –„можуть” голосувати за ПР, але чи будуть, чи всі вони прийдуть на вибори?

Одночасно, уявити собі людину, що не відноситься до згаданих 17% „щасливих” громадян, яка буде голосувати за владу, яка щасливими їх не зробила, важко.  НЕМОЖЛИВО собі уявити виборців, яких влада зробила НЕщасливими, і вони „забажають”  знову проголосувати за ПР, якщо вони не психічно хворі, чи неадекватні. Такі теж є. Недавно я прочитав думку одного луганчанина, який про відомого там регіонала сказав, що той бандит і обікрав Луганщину до нитки, але він голосуватиме за нього і ПР, бо основна біда - „бандери”!!!. Максимум, чого бажає цей донецький раб – стати рабовласником українців, але не рівним серед рівних. Тобто, для України не так страшний сам чорт, як .....чортенята.

80% активів України сконцентровано в руках 5% сімей жителів України. Не всі, але більшість із них – потенційні прихильники ПР. Щастя олігархів – загроза Україні!Сьогодні 73,5% жителів Луганскої області вважають, що ситуація в країні розвиваєтся в неправильному напрямку. А скільки „проголосує” проти влади – покажуть вибори. Якщо більше 27%,  то фальсифікація – основний прийом ПР. Якщо жителі центру, півночі і заходу України сприймали ПР на попередніх виборах як небажану політичну силу, то зараз сприймають як ворожу. По іншому склалась ситуація в південно-східному регіоні. Якщо жителі  цього регіону сприймали ПР на попередніх виборах як бажану і навіть любиму  політичну силу, то зараз частина з них змінила свою любов на відверту ненависть до них.  Тобто ПР в серцях і умах їх виборців вже програла.

Результати вищезгаданого аналізу „кількості щасливих” прихильників ПР підтверджуються  (збігаються) з результатами іншого аналізу, що проводився в інших площинах. А саме :

- 80% активів України сконцентровано в руках 5% сімей жителів України. Не всі, але більшість із них – потенційні прихильники ПР. Щастя олігархів – загроза Україні!

-  близькі друзі олігархів, що мають значний зиск від кооперації з ними - в межах 3-4%. Не всі, але більшість із них – потенційні прихильники ПР.

- весь чиновницький апарат, призначений ПР, та їх сім'ї - 1-1,5%. Не всі, але більшість з них – потенційні прихильники ПР, особливо на півдні-сході України.

- у кожній країні психічно хворих 2-3%. Це їх генетична "ніша" незалежно від національності, віросповідання, країни проживання та ін. Вони завжди „люблять” владу, навіть якщо вона не турбується про їх побут і лікування.

- фанатичні і агресивні прихильники "руськаго міра", або затяті, "професійні" анти українці: на всіх попередніх виборах вони не набирали й 2% голосів виборців.

- частина тих російськомовних, для яких російська мова - більший пріоритет, ніж рівень їх життя і демократичні цінності - приблизно 3-5%. 

У підсумку: знову отримуємо максимальне число гіпотетичної підтримки ПР у межах 17-19%. Як кажуть математики, це "максимум максиморум", що можуть набрати регіонали на виборах. Усі інші проценти (понад 17-19%) – то або "художній свист”, або передвиборчі, виборчі, післявиборчі маніпуляції, або незаконні "схеми”. Але якщо вибори відбудуться без належного контролю зі сторони виборців, то вони можуть почути  що за ПР "віддано" і 130% голосів виборців...

Одначе, влада вже програла, програла ДО початку голосування. Програла симпатії виборців, програла, бо кількість незадоволених владою громадян суттєво перевищила кількість нею „ощасливлених”.

Вивели за кордон біля 60 млрд. доларів і саме на таку суму збільшили заборгованість перед іноземними державами.Про провали влади написано багато:

- провал у економіці, коли за перше півріччя зріст ВВП був лише 3%, а за результатами року очікується ще нижче - 1% зростання, а в промисловості й сільському господарстві – стрімке падіння обсягів виробництва;

- провал пенсійної реформи, провал податкової реформи, провал соціальної політики;  

- бюджетна політика „розпиляна” на олімпійській циркулярці і досягла вершин „вишок Бойка”. Граються в управління економікою держави, як діти, але грабують, як дорослі;

- провал грошово-кредитної, курсової і монетарної політики. Вивели за кордон біля 60 млрд. доларів і саме на таку суму збільшили заборгованість перед іноземними державами. Нормальній владі Україні іноземні кредити для бюджету і НБУ не потрібні. Кредити потрібні злодіям при владі. Тому й курс гривні – під загрозою. Попереду –  суттєва девальвація валюти і такий же суттєвий зріст інфляції. Резерви НБУ невпинно і впевнено тануть. Збереження українців розтануть, як морозиво в літню пору .

- провал у боротьбі з корупцією, контрабандою, наркоторгівлею, работоргівлею, чорними трансплантологами, відмиванням „брудних” грошей, втечею капіталу в офшори... Складається враження, що не з самими негативними явищами покінчено, а покінчено саме з боротьбою проти них. Укріплюється думка в суспільстві і за межами країни, що саме влада очолює (“кришує”) згадані процеси.

Янукович із Азаровим, Тигіпком та ін., вступаючи перед „ЛОХторатом”, не перестають нахвалювати про небувалі успіхи за ці майже три проклятих роки, які „снізошлі” на Україну і її населення з донецьких териконів. Янукович із Азаровим, Тигіпком та ін., вступаючи перед „ЛОХторатом”, не перестають нахвалювати про небувалі успіхи за ці майже три проклятих роки, які „снізошлі” на Україну і її населення з донецьких териконів...

Одним словом, у боротьбі за „покращення” вже сьогодні найбільших досягнень здобула лише статистика. Чим більше чуємо про донецьке „покращення”, тим більше хочеться у „помаранчеву” руїну. При правильній ситемі управління державою, при цивілізованій владі чесні її громадяни не повинні бути бідними, а нечесні – багатими.

Провали в зовнішньо-економічній політиці влади:

- обсяги експорту продукції невпинно падають, а імпорту – ростуть;

- спільне українсько-російське будівництво АНів  виявилося блефом;

- знижку за газ (Харківські угоди) оформили як зростання боргу України перед Росією;

- зменшення ціни на російський газ, яку обіцяли перед виборами - довгограюча буфонада, спектакль ;

- будівництво терміналу для прийому зрідженого газу, отримання газу з Європи та інші „прожекти” стали анекдотами;

Чи бачили очі, що підписували? Чим керувалися депутати (ПР+ комуністи+ литвинівці), коли ратифіковували невигідний Україні договір, що призвів до падіння темпів зросту ВВП, до ескалації „сирної” війни? - підписання угоди про зону вільної торгівлі (ЗВТ) з Росією і СНД відбулося влітку, коли Україна досягла 3% зосту ВВП. Перед підписанням тигіпки-азарови обіцяли, що ЗВТ дасть додатковий приріст ВВП України в 3,5 відсотки. Тобто на кінець року мали вийти на 4,5 % зросту. Але вже сьогодні (за два місяці до кінця року) ті ж дійові особи вже повідомляють, що приріст ВВП України в 2012 році складе всього... 1%.  Як же ви рахували, втягуючи Україну в ЗВТ із СНД? Чи бачили очі, що підписували? Чим керувалися депутати (ПР+ комуністи+ литвинівці), коли ратифіковували невигідний Україні договір, що призвів до падіння темпів зросту ВВП, до ескалації „сирної” війни?

Наступне. Провали в зовнішньо-політичному курсі влади:

- команда ПР „успішно позбулася” політичної підтримки не лише Європи, США, але й Росії;

- а ні сухопутний, а ні водний кордони України з Росією, відповідно - не демарковані і не делімітовані, тобто не узаконені;

- євроінтеграція  - „наказала довго жити”;

- наближення України до європейських стандартів життя  відбувається способом „рака-самітника”; 

- лідери команди ПР стають „нерукопожатними” в світі через  пусто-порожні обіцянки і їх наступне НЕвиконання . 

Після обрання Януковича президентом України російські шовіністи почали називати нашу державу УРКАїною. Бо у ПР немає внутрішнього почуття, що вони керують великою європейською державою, немає любові до народу котрий фінансує їх утримання.

Вся активність ПР спрямована на любов до розваг, до приємного відпочинку, до міжнародного туризму, до власної розкоші, до власного збагачення, до майна за кордоном, до навчання дітей за кордоном, до лікування за кордоном, до спорту й мисливства (в тому числі й на власних громадян та на їх майно)....

Чесно кажучи, до  приходу ПР до абсолютної влади я оцінював їх  набагато сильнішими і якщо не розумнішими, то хитрішими, ніж виявилося тепер. Тепер вони плюс до їх піратських „достоїнств” виглядають банально некомпетентними в макроекономічних розрахунках і управлінні економікою держави. Лише один маленький приклад. Півроку „ламали собі голову” і „забивали баки” населенню, що якщо піднімуть пенсійний вік, то Пенсійний Фонд у 2013 році стане бездефіцитним. Запропонували і провели відповідний закон. Але.... дефіцит Пенсійного Фонду в 2012 році ЗРІС у 1, 5 рази.... Грамотні – аж жуть.

image

Якщо українці бажають європейських стандартів життя в Україні, то мають переймати приклад з європейців. І для початку – масово вийти на вибори і до кінця проконтролювати весь процес, аж до остаточного підрахунку голосів. Шановні мої співвітчизники, шановні виборці, шановні громадяни Держави Україна!

Всі ми прагнемо щасливішого майбутнього не лише для себе, а й для дітей та онуків, для майбутніх поколінь усіх громадян. Але прагнути змін на краще мало - майбутнє необхідно  самим „створювати”. Самим змінюватися, змінювати систему влади, змінювати людей у владі, активно реагувати на всі проблеми держави, регіону, проблеми своїх сусідів, друзів... Учора подивився новини з Європи. Громадяни Іспанії вийшли на масові протести тому, що їх не задовольняє проект бюджету на наступний рік. Хто в Україні виходить на протести проти прийняття „не такого” бюджету? Громадяни Італії виходять на протести, бо недостатньо виділено коштів на освіту. Хто в Україні виходить на протести? В іншій країні вийшли громадяни за збільшення фінансування медицини... Ось це є ознаками цивілізованого суспільства. Ознакою, що влада належить народу. Якщо українці бажають європейських стандартів життя в Україні, то мають переймати приклад з європейців. І для початку – масово вийти на вибори і до кінця проконтролювати весь процес, аж до остаточного підрахунку голосів. Україна має „йти в Європу” прикладом власних дій її громадян. Громадяни України мають примусити владу перейняти досвід і шлях Європи. А якщо нинішня влада відмовилася від європейських стандартів для вашого життя, то її слід змінити. Лише так європейські стандарти життя в Україні стануть реальністю.

Нашій країні давно вже потрібні не сильні (загребущі) руки, а розумні голови... Нинішні ПАСТИРІ не „пасуть овець”, а лише їх стрижуть. ПарикМАХЕРИ !

Треба бути готовим до опору влади чесним виборам. Для неї всі, хто не хоче й надалі бути рабом, являються ворогами.

Тому виборці півдня і сходу (по відношенню до ПР і комуністів) мають виконати роль Тараса Бульби - „ я тебе породив, я тебе і вб’ю!” Особливо слід активізуватися „жителям Донбасу”, щоб їх надалі не лякали американськими валянками й наколотими апельсинами, щоб ніхто не зміг сказати, що „Донбасс - это не регион, а диагноз”. Тому виборці півдня і сходу (по відношенню до ПР і комуністів) мають виконати роль Тараса Бульби - „ я тебе породив, я тебе і вб’ю!” Південь і схід мають стати такою ж частиною громадянського суспільства, яким уже частково став захід, центр і північ України. У 2005 році виборці саме цих територій привели до влади Ющенка, але коли виявилося, що він їх обманув з „покращенням”, то саме ці ж виборці і проголосували „проти” обрання його президентом повторно. Люди сказали: хоч ти й наш, але не справився - йди геть! Так має зараз вчинити й південь і схід України по відношенню до ПР та комуністів, які забагато часу керують на місцях, та й у центральних органах також. За партію регіонів і комуністів може проголосувати лише той, хто ненавидить Україну, кого не цікавить доля своїх дітей та онуків!

Щоб змінити ситуацію в Україні на краще, всі, хто має право голосу, мають прийти на вибори і проголосувати. Якомога більша кількість виборців має проконтролювати хід виборів та підрахунок голосів. Щоб надалі не мучитися під владою „донецького паханату”, слід проголосувати за об’єднану опозицію – “Батьківщину” та “Свободу”. Деякі закликають проголосувати і за УДАР. Моя сім’я на виборах мера Києва голосувала за Кличка, в якому ми були впевнені. Але не впевнені в його команді... Я її не знаю, але насторожує те, що в пресі постійно публікуються факти, що багато членів УДАРу або працють на ПР, або ПРівцями являються вже, або перейдуть до ПР у новому парламенті. Я був би радий, якби цей негатив не справдився. Сам факт створення політсили „Україна-Вперед” я вітаю, оскільки це є свідченням розколу між олігархами в ПР. Тобто, не всі олігархи поділяють залізобетонну практику діяльності ПР. Не всі олігархи впевнені у своєму благополучному „завтра” в умовах, коли внутрішньо-ПРівська „сім’я” заявила про свою гегемонію.

Особисто я голосуватиму за СВОБОДУ. Якщо ми бажаємо змін, то повинні привести до влади не лише нових людей, але й нові політичні сили. Не змінивши домінування нинішніх політичних сил у парламенті, досягти змін у результатах його роботи неможливо навіть теоретично!

Голосуватиму за СВОБОДУ, бо це партія не лише патріотична, але й ідеологічна. І я надіюсь, що навіть якщо хтось із них і подумає продатися, то йому „скрутять роги” свої ж однопартійці і їх виборці, що є досить рішучими.

  На сьогодні партія Ющенка може набрати 0,5% голосів. Знаючи цю ситуацію, Ющенко мав би закликати своїх виборців голосувати за СВОБОДУ. Тоді потужність нинішніх опозиціонерів була би більшою. Якщо Ющенко, знаючи передвиборчі рейтинги своєї політсили, так не вчинить, то це ще раз підтвердить, що він „Троянський кінь” Партії Регіонів на електоральному полі демократичних сил. Знову підтвердить, що він продовжує ставити свої особисті інтереси, інтереси своєї „партійки” вище суспільних інтересів, вище інтересів Держави. Підтвердить, що він, пробувши 5 років у кріслі президента України, так ним і не став - ні за мисленням, ні за характером своїх дій! Надіюсь на здатність Ющенка проаналізувати ситуацію.

 Та й якийсь процент виборців ОО “Батьківщина”, яка впевнено проходить до парламенту, могли б віддати голос за СВОБОДУ. Тоді, сумарно, кількість нинішніх опозиціонерів, могла б збільшитися в парламенті мінімум на 6 відсотків! ТАКА математика спільного  успіху.

Думайте українці, дійте і перемагайте супостата у своїй Вітчизні.

СБУ та УБОЗ взялися за патріотичні спільноти в соцмережах та вербують людей TOP

( Джерело )
25 жовтня  2012

Вчора зі мною сконтактував один із адміністраторів найбільшої патріотичної й антивладної групи в соцмережі «Вконтакті» «Ми – Патріоти України», яка налічує близько 170 тисяч учасників. Хлопець повідомив, що на колег-адміністраторів їхньої групи почався тиск і залякування з боку СБУ та УБОЗУ.

image
Фото: Макс Левин

Зокрема львів’янина Романа Чернецького, одного з адміністраторів, 16 жовтня викликали в УБОЗ (Управління боротьби з організованою злочинністю) щодо діяльності спільноти "Ми – Патріоти України". За словами Романа, бажання поспілкуватися проявили начебто якісь "вершки" з Києва, котрі ще залишилися після приїзду міністра внутрішніх справ Захарченка до Львова. Під час «спілкування» натякали на підривну діяльність Інтернет-спільноти супроти теперішнього режиму. Проте поводилися міліціянти доволі адекватно, нічого конкретного не приписували, зводили до того, що це просто виховна бесіда. Романа схиляли до співпраці з СБУ.

А вчора, 24 жовтня, до ще одного з адміністраторів групи – вінничанина Сергія Шайдаюка – навідалися невідомі особи, що представилися співробітниками СБУ. Вирахувавши по ip-адресі місце перебування адміністратора з псевдо «Пересічний Українець», вийшли сбушники спершу на брата Сергія. За словами хлопця, його брата, який перебуває на лікарняному, викликали на роботу – в лікарню, де він працює. По приходу на робоче місце його оточили працівники СБУ, які відмовилися пред’явити посвідчення, та почали випитувати про діяльність спільноти і чи це він володіє сторінкою адміністратора Інтернет-спільноти. Згодом, коли силовики виявили, що сторінка належить братові хлопця, примусили викликати Сергія. Нічого не запідозрюючи, Сергій приїхав до брата, де його одразу ж оточили працівники СБУ та відвели у складське приміщення сусідньої будівлі, де посадили на стілець задля проведення допиту.

Під час розмови Сергієві сказали, що в спільноті «Ми – Патріоти України» були заклики до масових заворушень у разі фальсифікацій виборів. Силовики почали погрожувати хлопцеві кримінальною відповідальністю, адже це начебто «заклик до повалення режиму». Сергія запевнили: якщо після виборів будуть заворушення, то він понесе за це відповідальність. Також погрожували, що дістануться до родини. Сказали, що звільнять брата, а особисто хлопець ніколи не знайде роботи. Після цього Сергія поставили перед вибором: або його везуть у райвідділок і «оформляють», або хлопець дає доступ до сторінки адміністратора «Пересічний Українець», якою він керує. Сбушники одразу змінили пароль до сторінки і перереєстрували її на себе. Представник СБУ зазначив, що вони будуть контролювати все, що відбувається в групі, та читатимуть персональну переписку адміністраторів. Сергієві порекомендували створити нову сторінку й стати новим адміністратором спільноти, однак надалі писати тільки на «патріотичні теми».

На запитання, які ж це такі патріотичні, йому відповіли, що «чоловік має мати дружину, дітей, ходити на роботу і дивитись ТБ-новини» – саме в такому стилі й потрібно писати. В підсумку Сергієві дали папір і наказали писати зобов’язання про нерозголошення всього, що там відбувалося, та зобов’язання співпрацювати з СБУ. Опісля Сергієві присвоїли псевдо «Пересічний». Також дали номер телефону +380638738757 якогось Максима Віталійовича, якому потрібно подзвонити днями, щоби той розповів про плани подальшої співпраці.  Однак після того, як Сергія відпустили, він сконтактував з іншими адміністраторами Інтернет-спільноти, які видалили з адміністрації вже «сбушного» користувача «Пересічний Українець». Також під час допиту Сергій почув, як співробітники СБУ між собою говорили про те, що їдуть і до іншого адміністратора спільноти в мережі «Вконтакті» – Дмитра з Одеси.

Велике прохання до журналістів максимально поширити інформацію, оскільки в ці дні відбувається планомірне захоплення інформаційного простору України. Ось уже кілька днів йдуть ddos-атаки на сайт Всеукраїнського об’єднання «Свобода», а також, як відомо, схоже відбувається з сайтами наших партнерів – ВО «Батьківщина», Арсенія Яценюка та Анатолія Гриценка. Наступним етапом, звісно, є захоплення патріотичних груп у соціальних мережах, де є можливість оперативно розміщувати інформацію. Це ж і відбувається зі спільнотою, яка налічує 170000 людей. Погодьтеся, цифра велика, а якщо враховувати коло друзів цих людей, то канал інформації розповсюджується на кілька мільйонів українців. Силовики чинять тиск на людей, які формують опозиційну думку суспільства. Варто зазначити, що всі нещодавні революції на Близькому Сході були розпочаті саме завдяки координуванню дій її  учасників у подібних Інтернет-спільнотах. Підконтрольна режимові Януковича СБУ намагається перекрити українцям канали поширення опозиційної проукраїнської інформації. Дії, які чинять сьогодні силовики, вкотре доводять, що вони є простими прислужниками режиму Януковича та сприяють тому, щоби в Україні укорінилася диктатура олігархів.

Для детальної інформації прохання зв’язуватися зі мною або з адміністраторами спільноти, на яких чинять тиск:

Олександр Аронець – 093-485-57-88;
Сергій Шайданюк – 063-275-39-02;
Роман Чернецький – 093-442-98-82.

Where is your tent city? TOP

( Source )
October 7, 2012

Greg Satell

image I learned most of what I know about innovation during the 15 years I spent living and working in the former Eastern Bloc.  People are surprised when I tell them that and I admit, it’s a strange thing to say.

After all, the Soviet Union failed miserably.  It was a drab place, filled with heavy tractors and people with gray clothes and dour looks on their faces.  Innovation isn’t the first word that comes to mind.

However, while the system was crumbling, people still had to get things done.  They needed housing, food, electricity and means to entertain themselves.  Officially, these things weren’t a priority and the power structure put forth little effort to provide them. When leadership fails, innovation goes underground and people learn to hack to get by.

A Short Economic History of the Soviet Union

In 1956, at the height of the second red scare, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev famously said, “We will bury you!

He meant economically, of course, and he had good reason to be optimistic.  His country had achieved an economic miracle, moving from an agrarian to an industrial society in a single generation.  They had no Great Depression in the ‘30’s like the West had, economic output was growing and unemployment was nonexistent.

Yet things were not as they seemed.  Underneath, the system was crumbling. Economists now know that total factor productivity, the ratio of capital and labor to output had begun to fall in the 50’s and would become negative during the 70′s and 80′s, meaning that what they put into making a product would be worth less than what they got out of it.

That’s no way to run a society.  It was only a matter of time before the system collapsed under it’s own weight and, in the end, it didn’t matter how many tractors they built, because measuring total output doesn’t tell you whether you are building the right things or not.

Warning Signs

There were, of course, early signs of trouble, including the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Prague Spring in 1968 and the Polish Solidarity movement of the 1980’s, just to name a few.  To meet these challenges, Soviet military spending grew to almost 15% of GDP.

They fell prey to what is known as a “Hobbesian paradox.”  Any law that the majority of people aren’t voluntarily willing to follow is ultimately doomed, because enforcement costs exceed any benefit  When you have to expend enormous effort to keep your people in line and they, in turn, spend their days trying to break the yoke, very little gets done.

You have to wonder what would have happened if someone stopped and said, “Hey, it seems like we have serious problems that we need to fix,” and some did, including Khrushchev himself, but their first loyalty was to the ideal and the leadership as a whole was convinced that it would win out in the end.

They also had some successes they could point to; tanks put down the uprisings, the Berlin Wall kept the East Berliners from walking across the border, there were political triumphs in the third world and scientific achievements like Sputnik.  All of these things helped obscure the uncomfortable fact that core needs were not being met.

Hacking Things Together

Above all there were shortages.  Top officials could shop at special foreign currency stores, but most could not, so they had to find another way.  The Poles called it “kombinować” and it worked like this:

If you wanted to build a house and needed bricks, you couldn’t easily buy them, so you might get a bicycle instead.  You could then trade the bicycle to get some chocolates and bring those chocolates to the lady at the meat store.  With that invaluable extra ration of meat, you could get your bricks.  You then repeated the process for nails, wood, etc.

And so, in the end, you got your house built.  It was all an incredible waste of time and effort, but when there is no official way to get things done, people will go to great lengths to get what they need.  They learn how to hack the system and pretty soon, the system itself becomes a hack.

The Orange Revolution

I learned all of this second hand.  Some from researching the history of the region, but most over beer and vodka, listening to old stories my friends would tell me.  What struck me about the stories was how much fun everybody had scamming for toilet paper and other necessities.  In a world of absurdity, there is always room for laughs.

However, I did have the opportunity to witness a major historical event first hand, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004.  To the outside world it looked like this:

image

That’s the conventional view of a revolution, an inspirational leader unifying the people and driving them towards their objective.  However, the truth is that the leaders are often the beneficiaries, rather than the drivers, of the movement.  The real changes happen in places that look like this:

image

This was the tent city, which lay just down the street from the stage at Independence Square.  There were no celebrities there, nor were there speeches, just students in the freezing November cold, living in tents.  Many came and donated blankets, warm food and other things, but it was mostly a mixture of frustration and hope that sustained them.

It had started from a student movement called Pora, which was inspired by the Otpor movement that overthrew Slobodan Milošević in Serbia and the Kmara group that led to the Rose Revolution in Georgia. While most of the country had just joined the revolution, the students had been organizing long before.

Anywhere you see immense change, somewhere lurking behind the scenes is a group of young revolutionaries on the fringe, meeting in anonymous, out of the way places.  Few care to look and history often forgets them.  Everybody knows Steve Jobs, hardly any have heard of the Homebrew Computer Club; LOLCats are famous, 4Chan is not.

Potemkin Villages and Tent Cities

In 1787. Catherine the Great travelled to visit Crimea by train.  Her adviser, Grigory Potemkin, had facades of villages built so that the new conquest would appear prosperous to his Empress as she travelled past.  It was that elaborate ruse that inspired the phrase ”Potemkin village.”

The term has resonance because it points to a truth that we all know but often forget. Bosses want to see results and everybody wants to impress them.  However, it is often easier to create the illusion of success.  Tractors and railroads provide concrete output, but they often obscure the fact that people need to hack to survive.

And it is the hacking that produces change.  There is no plan to guide it nor a metric to evaluate it, because it arises when plans and metrics leave needs unmet.  People do what they need to get by, often under the guise of secrecy.  Leaders are always the last to know that their private carriages are passing by Potemkin villages.

So, if you want to create an innovation revolution, don’t go in search of a messiah, find your tent city instead.  You can be sure it is close by, but it is usually hiding, waiting to be set free.

Yanukovych after the fall TOP

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/yanukovych-after-fall?utm_source=World+Affairs+Newsletter&utm_campaign=03e96712eb-Motyl_Sinclair_10_26_2012&utm_medium=email
October 26, 2012

Alexander MotylAlexander J. Motyl

What will Viktor Yanukovych do after he falls from power?

That’s a question that should concern Ukraine’s current president, especially as Ukrainians are preparing to go to the polls on October 28th. After all, just about everyone in Ukraine hates him: from the regular folk to the intellectuals to the elites to his supposed supporters. It didn’t have to be that way. Even a half-hearted commitment to reform and good government would have won him accolades. Since it’s too late to save his ruined presidency, there’s nothing left to do but wait for it to end.

image

And sooner or later end it will. It could happen in 2015, if the oligarchs who back him decide he’s a loser and send him to the showers. It could happen in 2020, after his second term is up and Ukraine has been devastated so thoroughly that no one in the country—not even well-fed Regionnaires—will want him around. It could happen between now and 2020, if some Regionnaire cabal decides that his incompetence has gotten to the point of undermining their privileged status or if the people realize that the prospect of endless Regionnaire rapine is no way to live one’s life and chase poor Viktor out of the presidential palace. Or it could happen anytime Yanukovych’s health begins to crumble under the pressure of too many late nights.

After all, although Yanukovych the man may not believe it now, he’s just human and humans have been known to suffer from creeping mortality. And although Yanukovych the president certainly can’t envision the end of his presidency—what aspiring tin-pot dictator doesn’t dream of misruling forever?—that presidency will end. Presidencies always do, even good ones, and Viktor, like his role models Vladimir Putin of Russia and Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus, will someday just be a bad memory.

Were Viktor a bit more inclined to pick up an occasional book, he’d do well to read up on Poland. He might notice that independent Ukraine, which is supposed to resemble post-Communist Poland, actually resembles Communist Poland.

Were Viktor a bit more inclined to pick up an occasional book, he’d do well to read up on Poland. He might notice that independent Ukraine, which is supposed to resemble post-Communist Poland, actually resembles Communist Poland. Ukraine’s independence in 1991 was pretty much a repeat of Poland’s abandonment of Stalinism in 1956. Ukraine’s first two presidents, Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma, are strikingly similar to Poland’s Communist leaders, Stanislaw Gomulka and Edward Gierek. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was virtually identical to Solidarity’s revolution of 1980–1981.

Which means that the man who crushed Solidarity, General Wojciech Jaruzelski, is none other than Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych himself.

Jaruzelski was incapable of doing anything but cracking down on the democratic opposition. Poland stagnated, regime legitimacy declined, and the ruling Communist Party decayed. Similarly, Yanukovych is incapable of doing anything but cracking down on the democratic opposition. Ukraine is stagnating, regime legitimacy is declining, and the ruling Party of Regions is decaying.

When 1989 came along, the Jaruzelski regime was exposed as a house of cards, and the collective efforts of the opposition and population brought it down in a matter of days. Ukraine’s 1989 will also come and, when it does, the Regionnaires will head for the hills and Yanukovych will become a pariah.

Where will the Regionnaires go? Their wealth is in Western Europe and the United States, but it’s unlikely that any Western democracy will open its doors to thousands of crooks.

Where will the Regionnaires go? Their wealth is in Western Europe and the United States, but it’s unlikely that any Western democracy will open its doors to thousands of crooks. Russia and Belarus might welcome some of them, but will they want a mass influx of embittered and impoverished Regionnaire schemers? Probably not. That leaves such offshore havens as the Cayman Islands. Keep that in mind when you’re planning your vacation a few years from now.

And how about ex-president Yanukovych?

If Putin’s still in charge, Russia won’t be an option, since Vlad famously detests Vik. Minsk might work, but who wants to live in what Lukashenko proudly called Europe’s last dictatorship? Either way, Yanukovych would have to say good-bye to all the goodies his family has squirreled away in the West. And besides, the West is likely to put him and his sons on some black list anyway, so forget the Riviera or Palm Beach.

Which leaves three options: the first is some pariah state, such as North Korea (too cold), Zimbabwe (too hot), or Somalia (too dangerous). The second is to try to make it to the South Pacific on his Spanish-style Galleon (too leaky). The third is to stay in Ukraine and face the music. He’ll have to do it on his own, of course, as all his erstwhile yes-men will publicly denounce him and claim that they had secretly supported democracy all along.

At a minimum, some future democratic Ukrainian court will strip him and his sons of all their assets. Will the former president then get a job as a security guard at some Donetsk coal mine? At a maximum, the court will put him in jail, and, if the judges have a sense of humor, they’ll also do so on the same grounds as Yanukovych’s imprisonment of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko.

Viktor Fedorovych may then take some consolation from the poetry of it all. His political career will have ended in the same place it began.

У нас заберуть 20 років незалежності і будуть плювати в обличчя TOP

image
Покращення всім!

 

image Віталій Портников

( Джерело )
10.08.12

"Регионалы" чудово здійснюють комуністичну програму знищення українського в Україні.

А ви, напевно, думали, що це все буде вічно - герб князя Володимира, синьо-жовтий прапор, українська мова? Дарма  думали. За свою країну потрібно боротися, за неї І доти   ми будемо прощатися із завоюваннями двадцяти років нашої незалежності, а ці люди будуть проїжджати повз нас у своїх крадених "мерсах" і плювати нам в обличчя, щоб ми не забували, хто ми".потрібно переживати, її потрібно відчувати. Якщо країна для тебе просто дійна корова, що зобов'язана платити тобі пенсію із зарплатою й у якій ти голосуєш за чергового пройдисвіта тільки тому, що він пообіцяв тобі поглибити й поліпшити - не сумнівайся, рано або пізно все відберуть, нічого не залишать. І пенсію теж, але це вже не важливо."

"Адже у сусідів- білорусів теж все це було - красень біло-червоний прапор Білоруської Народної Республіки, гордий герб "Погоня", про яке складали натхненні вірші поети. І мова була - державний білоруський, котрий тільки починав відроджуватися. А потім прийшов Лукашенко й нічого цього не стало. Ні мови, ні герба, ні прапора. Так вирішив народ. На референдумі. Петро Симоненко, властиво, і призиває до референдуму. А як же!

А Колесниченко й Кивалов що, комуністи? Тепер вже ні. Але чудово здійснюють комуністичну програму умертвіння українського в Україні.Можете, звичайно, утішати себе, що це всього лише Симоненко, комуніст, що це ж не "справжня" влада! А яка влада - справжня? А Колесниченко й Кивалов що, комуністи? Тепер вже ні. Але чудово здійснюють комуністичну програму умертвіння українського в Україні. І Симоненко - не чужа Януковичу людина, без нього і його ситого ополчення цієї влади б не було. І Симоненко добре знає, що насправді   подобається "татові". А те, що "тато" цього не говорить - ну так це поки. Ви ж не вірили, що "тато" насправді   атакує українську мову - а він атакував і все в нього вийшло. У нього, а не у вас, що голодували в Українського будинку й розійшовшись цілком впевні  в перемозі. Цікаво, коли українська розділить долю білоруської, коли він буде "уявною" державною мовою, мовою села й тролейбусних зупинок - ви також погвалтуєте й розійдетесь? І поясните собі, що людей зараз хвилює інше, їм треба виживати.

Тому готуйтеся - готуйтеся прощатися з нашим прапором і нашим гербом.Тому готуйтеся - готуйтеся прощатися з нашим прапором і нашим гербом. Двадцять років у цій країні жоден  мерзотник не зважувався ображати державну символіку України - не тому, що вона їм подобалася, а тому що вони боялися нас - тих, хто вірив у цю країну й хотів щоб вона була. А тепер більше не бояться - чого нас боятися то насправді? Що ми можемо?

Тому вони її демонтують. Відправлять українську мову пасти теляти, замінять прапор яким-небудь червоно-синім виродком, перемалюють радянський герб - і це вже й не Україна буде а так, союзна держава. Це тільки Росія може гордо виступати під прапором імперії - і там ніхто навіть не заїкається, що його потрібно б замінити, тому що під цим прапором Гітлера зустрічали й власівці воювали. А нам не положено - ми холопи, ми повинні знати своє радянське місце, на нас можна тепер просто не звертати уваги тим, хто захоче нагадати, що немає ніякої України й ніякої мови, прапора й герба в неї теж немає. І так будемо, поки ми будемо дозволяти себе ображати, поки ми будемо голосувати за тих, кому немає місця не те що в парламенті - просто в пристойному суспільстві. І доти   ми будемо прощатися із завоюваннями двадцяти років нашої незалежності, а ці люди будуть проїжджати повз нас у своїх крадених "мерсах" і плювати нам в обличчя, щоб ми не забували, хто ми".

У Канаді гречки не їдять. «З’їдять» політика, який «роздає гречку»... TOP

( Джерело )

image Дещо про цінний досвід канадського парламентаризму.
Ігор Осташ, Посол України в Канаді (2006-2011 рр.)

Однією з умов демократичного розвитку є відокремлення бізнесу від політики, що є основою боротьби з корупцією. Це гасло Майдану і на сьогодні є для нас стрижневим. У канадській системі заслуговує на увагу прозорість фінансування політичних партій. Логіка проста – партія повинна бути спроможною показати кожен долар чи гривню, зібрану для проведення виборчої кампанії. Збір коштів на вибори кожна партія проводить відкрито, як правило, це робиться у престижних залах із запрошенням місцевих бізнесменів і симпатиків партії. Але головний запобіжник “олігархізації” політичних партій, – одна людина може внести у “партійний котел” максимум тисячу доларів! Виняток робиться лише для пожертв за заповітами померлих прихильників партій. На минулій виборчій кампанії “працювали” гроші... покійника у провінції Британська Колумбія, який заповів десь сотню тисяч доларів політичній партії.

Кожен жертводавець робить це публічно й отримує посвідку – для зменшення сплати податків. (Уявляю собі українські реалії: на другий день багато бізнесменів, що підтримали опозиційні партії, побачать “маски-шоу”). Результати збору коштів оприлюднюються, і це перший рейтинг політичних партій перед виборами.

До речі, саме через скандал з партійними фінансами ліберальна партія за часів прем’єр-міністра Пола Мартіна втратила владу.

Пригадую, як ми свого часу обстою­вали державне фінансування партій, залежно до результатів виборів. Ми тоді розуміли, якщо немає державного фінансування, то буде фінансування олігархів. “Святе місце порожнім не буває”...

Сьогодні в Україні маємо парламент і уряд великого бізнесу, великих монополій, а це речі несумісні з політичною відповідальністю за прозорі і чесні рішення щодо державних фінансів і ресурсів.

У Канаді важко уявити кандидата в депутати, який щось пропонує виборцям, – комп’ютери чи спортивну форму. А гречки канадці взагалі не їдять... Така спроба була б останньою для кандидата. Для правової країни нормою є те, що депутати працюють так, щоб кожен громадянин був спроможний сам собі купити цієї “гречки”, скільки він хоче.

Одне з моїх найглибших вражень від політичної Канади – з’їзд ліберальної партії у Монреалі, який тривав чотири дні. На пост голови партії, крім діючого, претендувало ще четверо кандидатів, серед яких був і політик українського походження. Процедурно це виглядало так: щоразу вибував один кандидат, поки не залишився один. Усі п’ятеро презентували свою програму, і виглядало це як змагання інтелектів. А зараз на пост лідера лібералів претендують восьмеро (!) кандидатів. У нас важко уявити собі, як в українських партіях відбуваються альтернативні вибори... У Канаді політична традиція така, що лідер, який програв парламентські вибори, відразу ж подає у відставку. У нас же навіть результат 0,3% чи 1% здобутих голосів виборців не є підставою для змін.

Змагальність влади і опозиції є основною ознакою парламенту. Щодня відбувається процедура запитань уряду, яка триває годину, і у цей момент у парламенті сидять усі члени уряду на чолі з прем’єром, які одночасно є і депутатами. У такий спосіб прем’єр практично щодня звітує про всі кроки уряду і змушений публічно реагувати на все, що відбувається в країні.

У канадському парламенті не може бути порушення процедури, як це було у випадку з ратифікацією харківських угод чи скандального мовного закону, – бо рішення з порушенням процедури не схвалить сенат і не підпише генерал-губернатор.

Парламент у Канаді відкритий для людей, будь-хто може прийти до парламенту на екскурсію. Особливо багато тут школярів і студентів! Виборці повинні мати можливість бачити, як працюють їхні обранці. Це святе. Думаю, нам варто замислитися над проектом, подібним до прозорого купола реконструйованого рейхстагу. Замість існуючого закритого купола треба зробити купол прозорий, через який кожен виборець міг би бачити, чи його обранець у залі, чи голосує сам за себе, чи за сусіда... Ви би бачили, що відбувається перед голосуванням у канадському парламенті. Це театр, у якому звучать, умовно кажучи, три дзвінки, і це є момент істини для депутата – він за будь-яких умов має бути в залі. Повторюю, за будь-яких! Жодних виправдань. Інакше це загрожує депутату жорсткими санкціями фракції.

У канадській політичній системі є таке явище, як міноритарний уряд. Це коли не створюється коаліція для отримання більшості, а уряд формує партія, яка набрала найбільшу кількість голосів – це може бути 30-40 відсотків. Був свідком того, як міноритарний уряд консерваторів на чолі зі Стівеном Гарпером понад два роки був при владі. Це є найвищий пілотаж управління, бо прийняття кожного рішення в парламенті вимагає підтримки хоча б частини опозиції. У такій ситуації треба шукати спільну мову з кожним депутатом, прислухатися до думки опозиції і вміти йти на поступки. Це все вимагає і найжорсткішої дисципліни. За наших обставин це важко уявити, але на той час жоден з депутатів на час сесійних засідань не міг пропустити сесію, було табу на будь-які закордонні відрядження. На момент голосування всі депутати сиділи в залі.

Багато моїх канадських друзів, депутатів і міністрів – скромні люди, які не мають величезних достатків. Ці люди працюють у парламенті роками, і є справжніми професіоналами своєї справи. У парламенті немає ніякого парку автомобілів, ніяких особливих пільг чи привілеїв. Якщо прибуває якась закордонна делегація, то для транспортного забезпечення гостей на цих кілька днів замовляють транспорт у приватних компаній.

Коли я летів разом зі спікером сенату з Франкфурта до Оттави (а це був рейсовий літак), то був ошелешений тим, що його ніхто не зустрічав в аеропорту. Він як звичайний громадянин взяв свій багаж, і ми удвох вирушили по домівках. Потім зрозумів, що в Канаді ніхто не витринькує державні гроші на церемоніальні речі.

Четверта влада у Канаді є справді владою. Як правило, критика журналістів стає приводом для відставки. Показовим був один із політичних скандалів, коли миттєво було звільнено з посади міністра Джерджіс. Причиною відставки став той факт, що її чоловік, використовуючи авторитет дружини, обіцяв бізнесменам пролобіювати те чи інше питання. І навіть використав факс в офісі дружини, щоб відіслати листа. І цей факт коштував посади його дружині!

Парламент має стати об’єднуючим ядром для усієї нації. У канадському парламенті існує спеціальна парламентська група, яка організовує Сніданок Національної молитви. Ця група складається з депутатів усіх фракцій і покликана, цитую, “продемонструвати найвищий пріоритет духовних цінностей для тих, хто приймає відповідальні рішення у державі. Зібрати усіх відповідальних лідерів для міжконфесійної молитви за усіх громадян і за націю”. Таких молитов за Канаду відбулося вже 45. На них збираються спікери і депутати, члени уряду і Верховного суду, усі національні лідери та увесь дипломатичний корпус. На цю молитву запрошують також усіх національних авторитетів – науковців, митців, спортсменів, бізнесменів.

Такі публічні молитви – багато у чому запорука національної єдності, високої відповідальності і чесності у політиці.

Януковські спецслужби та міліція перетворюють Україну на кадирівську Чечню TOP

image

19 жовтня в центрі Києва, біля будинку, де розміщується представництво Верховного комісаріату ООН з справ біженців, було по-бандитському викрадено російського опозиціонера Леоніда Развозжаєва і після двох днів катувань вивезено до Росії. ( Джерело ) Таке могли вчинити лише януковські «силовики». Навіть за Кучми, коли беззаконня «силовиків» в Україні сягнуло найвищої величини, «силовики» людей на вулицях не викрадали і шукачів політпритулку не вивозили таємно до країни, звідки вони втекли.

Леонід Развозжаєв є одним з активістів «Лівого фронту» РФ, лівої опозиційної організації, очолюваної С. Удальцовим. Російське кривосуддя сфабрикувало справу проти цілої групи активістів, куди включило й Развозжаєва. 21 жовтня Басманний суд санкціонував його арешт на два місяці. Засідання відбувалося без участі адвоката – так захотіло слідство, зазначає С. Удальцов у пості в Facebook, закликаючи росіян зібратися на мітинг на захист заарештованих Развозжаєва та Костянтина Лєбєдєва.

Що б не відбувалося, якщо Україна претендує на європейський шлях, то вона повинна дотримуватися міжнародно визнаних норм ставлення до пошукачів політпритулку, ким би вони не були. Є визначена правова процедура вирішення подібних інцидентів. Викрадення людей на вулицях, утримання у таємних місцях, катування та таємне вивезення – це методи, які не входять до числа цивілізованих. Вони відпрацьовані Луб’янкою у кадирівській Чечні і тепер таємно поширюються російськими та проросійськими «силовиками» поза межі Росії. Україна повинна вирішити: чи вона буде й надалі керуватися європейськими орієнтирами, чи перетвориться на кадирівську Чечню.

Надія Банчик
Сан-Госе, США

Request for financial support for observers monitoring election in Ukraine TOP

Dear Community Supporter:

RE:  Request for Financial Support for Observers Monitoring the October 28, 2012 Parliamentary Election in Ukraine.

Today the most effective way the Ukrainian community can support democracy in Ukraine is to monitor the election process to ensure the will of the Ukrainian people is heard and the legitimacy of the elections are properly evaluated based upon international standards. Our observers also serve an important role in deterring electoral fraud both leading up to the elections and on election-day.

As such, we have organized a large 300-person volunteer election observer mission to Ukraine under the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC). To ensure their success we need your financial support! All the observers are volunteering their time and paying their own costs associated with the mission. However, costs associated with training and logistics in Ukraine required to properly prepare and outfit our observers are desperately needed. For your reference I have attached further background on the mission.

Please generously donate to the UWC International Election Observer Mission to Ukraine. Donations can be made:

  • · Online: http://ukrainianworldcongress.org/Support_the_Ukrainian_World_Congress_today__en_511cms.htm
  • ·       Or by cheque payable to:       Ukrainian World Foundation (RE: Election Observer Mission) 145 Evans Avenue, #207, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8Z 5X8
  • ·       Your donation is eligible for a Canadian tax receipt.

Help us to protect democracy in Ukraine!

Thank you and best regards,

Paul Grod, President Ukrainian Canadian Congress

 
Join the cause Yahoo УКРАЇНА! TOP

http://www.causes.com/causes/570288-yahoo/about

About Yahoo УКРАЇНА!

Тo raise the awareness of the Yahoo company of the urgent need of the website version for UKRAINE in the Ukrainian language!

Yahoo Inc. should understand the necessity of creation a separate version of its engine for the second largest country in Europe - Ukraine - with its over 46 mln people and another 20 mln dispersed throughout the world in its numerous diaspora. We encourage the above-mentioned corporation to take that into consideration and facilitate that addition. Thanks for understanding and cooperation.

Sincerely,
the Ukrainian community of the world.

We, the Ukrainian community, formally request the management of the Yahoo Inc. to create a separate website for the second largest European nation!

Вибери волю!

TOP
image
Не піддавайтесь. Прохання поширити TOP

( Джерело )

Микола Жаленко

Годину тому зателефонував головний лікарь однієї лікарні міста.По великому секрету поділився: заступник мера міста зібрав сьогодні всіх головних лікарів.Сенс зборів-вибори. Ромова йшла в такому напрямку-В тебе скільки койка-місць?-300-А скільки правильно проголосує? -чоловік -190..-Мало,потрібно всі -300...Що хоч роби,виписуй незадоволених,клади родичів,знайомих..Потрібно -300.Не зробиш,рахуй себе звільненим+ перевірка прокуратурою і комісєєю на профпригодність... Збири у всіх лікарів заяви про звільнення..Нема фото з галочкою, бюлетеня, результату - ЗВІЛЬНЯЙ к Ё... М...

Друзі, прохання поширити. Такі вибори відбуваються в м. Кривий Ріг. Люди бояться дати інтерв*ю. Говорять пошепки, навіть по телефону. А скільки "хворих" і "немічних "з’явиться на голосуванні на дому? Це не вибори,це ЗАГАЛЬНИЙ КАРНИЙ ЗЛОЧИН! І відповідальність лежить на провладній партії.

Links to event postings TOP

Do you maintain a website of events for your city or region? Let us know and we'll add a link to your site in the ePOSHTA newsmagazine.

 Canada

image Ukrainian Golf Across Canada

 

 United States

USA flag New York: Exhibit by Georgian-Ukrainian artist Temo Svirely -- Oct. 19 - Nov.11

TOP

image

Canadian flag Winnipeg: The story of Plast: 100 years of the Ukrainian scouting movement – Oct. 21 - Jan. 27

TOP

image

Canadian flag Toronto: Watch the Ukrainian Parliamentary election results - Oct. 28 TOP

The Ukrainian Canadian Public and the media are welcome to come out and watch the Ukrainian Parliamentary election results 2012 (exit polls will be available starting just after 2pm Toronto time or 8 PM Kyiv time, early election results from polling protocols, analysis,  TVi commentary)  ALL LIVE from Ukraine, plus commentary from political experts in Toronto on

Sunday OCT 28 starting at 2 pm
UNF Community Centre
145 Evans Ave.
Toronto, ON

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is pleased to participate with the Ukrainian Canadian Media Centre Initiative in a live, interactive observation, interpretation and discussion of results in the 2012 Ukrainian Parliamentary Election, featuring analysis and opinion from prominent Ukrainian Canadians and friends of Ukraine.

2:00 - 5:00 PM
Open doors and real-time viewing and analysis of live TV election results.

5:00 - 5:45 PM
Panel 1- Topic: What will the results mean?
Wolodymyr Derzko (Moderator)
Andrij Zhalko-Tytarenko, Research Director:  Strategic Foresight Institute
Mary Szkambara, Former Head:  World Federation Ukr. Women’s Organizations

6:00– 6:45 PM
Panel 2- Where to from here and what to expect?
Andrij Holowaty (Moderator)
Wolodymyr Derzko,  Executive Director:  Strategic Foresight Institute
Dr. Taras Kuzio,  Academic, author and consultant on Ukraine: Kuzio Associates

7:00 – 7:45 PM
Panel 3- What can we do to remain strong, connected and constructive?
Stefan Andrusiak (Moderator)
Boris Potapenko, Executive Director, League of Ukrainian Canadians
Andrij Semotiuk, Immigration Lawyer:  Pace Law Firm

8:00 – 8:45 PM - Final thoughts with the latest results, questions and wrap-up
More panel discussants as they confirm.  This schedule is subject to change.  Optional donations at the door to cover associated costs will be much appreciated.

For more information please contact: Steve Andrusiak ph: (519) 657-5882

Canadian flagToronto: Concert: Dance to My Song -- Oct. 28

TOP

image

USA flag Washington DC: 2012 Parliamentary elections in Ukraine: Moving towards or away From democracy and Europe? - Oct. 31

TOP

( Source )

image of Taras Kuzio
Taras Kuzio

On October 31, 2012 Dr. Taras Kuzio, Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins SAIS, will discuss the parliamentary elections in Ukraine. Ukraine will hold its first parliamentary elections under President Viktor Yanukovych on October 28. In the face of growing international condemnation of democratic backsliding on his watch, the election will be a test of President Yanukovych’s stated commitment to holding a democratic election and support for European integration. Doubts persisted ahead of the elections if they could be defined as democratic with opposition leaders jailed and the US Senate and European Union warning of negative consequences if the elections are not declared to be democratic. The stakes are high for President Yanukovych: if he holds a democratic election he may satisfy the international community’s concerns but at the same time will not control parliament which is key to winning a second term in 2015. Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy remains in a precarious position, with no agreement with the IMF or resolution of its gas relations with Russia. 

Taras Kuzio is Non-Resident Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR), School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University. In 2010-2012 he wrote the book Contemporary History of Ukraine as a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, and as a Senior Visiting Fellow at CTR, Johns Hopkins-SAIS. Previously he was a Visiting Professor at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, and a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Birmingham. He is the author and editor of 14 books, including Open Ukraine. Changing Course towards a European Future, Democratic Revolution in Ukraine (2011), From Kuchmagate to Orange Revolution (2009), Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives on Nationalism (2007) and Ukraine-Crimea-Russia: Triangle of Conflict (2007).

Wednesday, October 31, 2012
2:00 - 3:30 p.m.
Fourth Floor Conference Room
CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies
1800 K Street
NW Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-887-0200 Fax: 202-775-3199

Presentation by:
Dr. Taras Kuzio
Non-Resident Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations,
School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University

Discussant:
Edward Chow
Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies

Moderated by:
Dr. Andrew Kuchins
Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies

USA flag Chicago: Art exhibit by Anatole Kolomayets -- Nov. 2 - 25

TOP

image

Free Parking is available beside the Museum. For driving instructions, visit the Museum's website at www.ukrainiannationalmuseum.org. For additional information, e-mail info@UkrainianNationalMuseum.org or call (312) 421-8020.

Anatole Kolomayets, an artist well established in Chicago and within the international community, will feature a selection of his work “Art Exhibit by Anatole Kolomayets” which opens November 2, 2012 at 7pm at the Ukrainian National Museum. Viewers will have an opportunity to see the complex, influential, and deeply moving body of work shown in this exhibit. Kolomayets’s style blends both his Ukrainian heritage and his artistic training in Europe. You are invited into the amazing world of color that he creates. The artist was awarded with the prestigious title of “Merited Artist of Ukraine” in 2007. Exhibit continues through November 25, 2012. Anatole Kolomayets was born in Ukraine in 1927. He received his training at St. Luke’s Institute (1948 - 1952) and at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts (1952 - 1953), both in Leige, Belgium. Since coming to the United States in 1953, he has resided in Chicago, Illinois. More than four hundred of the artist’s works are in numerous private collections and galleries in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, England, France, the United States, Canada and Ukraine. The artist has had one-man exhibits in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Toronto, New York, Los Angeles and Denver. Kolomayets is also one of the co-founders of the Ukrainian Artist’s Group “Monolith” of Chicago in 1954. His works have been reviewed in various magazines and journals, among them “Suchasnist” and “Ukraina”.

Ukrainian National Museum
2249 West Superior Street
Chicago, Illinois 60612

Hours: Thursday through Sunday 11 am to 4 pm
Admission: Adults $5.00, Children under 12 - Free with parents.

Canadian flag Toronto: Icons Unite Us / Ікони Нас Єднають - Opening -- Nov.3

TOP

The Ukrainian Catholic Education Foundation (UCEF)
and
St. Vladimir Institute

invite you to attend the opening of

Icons Unite Us/Ікони Нас Єднають

Saturday, November 3, 4pm
St. Vladimir Institute
620 Spadina Ave.
Toronto, ON

A guest lecture by Bishop Borys Gudziak will be followed by a wine and cheese reception.

We would ask that you please forward this invitation to interested parties.

For further information, please contact the UCEF office at (416) 239-2495 or SVI at (416) 923-3318

 

image

USA flag Los Angeles: Ukrainian Insurgent Army 70th anniversary commemoration -- Nov. 4

TOP

image

image

Canadian flag Toronto: Upcoming events -- Jacyk Program for the Study of Ukraine, CIUS, CERES -- Nov. 9 -14 TOP

N.B.: Registration is required for attendance of these lectures. Go to: http://www.utoronto.ca/jacyk/events_2012-2013.htm

Friday, November 9, 5:30-7:30 pm

Alexander Motyl (Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University), Toronto Annual Ukrainian Famine Lecture: "The Holodomor and History: Bringing the Ukrainians Back In."

Alexander Motyl is a professor of political science and deputy director of the Division of Global Affairs at Rutgers-Newark. He  is noted for his prolific writings on contemporary politics in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and Russia, as well as for more theoretical explorations into the nature of nationalism, empire, and revolution. Over the past two and a half decades, he has written six books of nonfiction and contributed dozens of articles to academic and policy journals, newspaper op-ed pages, and magazines. He also has managed, by dint of enviable self-discipline and resourcefulness, to publish two novels, while also pursuing a career as a painter.

Room 100 of the Jackman Humanities Building
170 St George Street
University of Toronto
Co-sponsored by the Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies, the Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, the Petro Jacyk Program for the Study of Ukraine, The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Toronto Branch, and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Toronto Branch.

Tuesday, November 13, 12:00-2:00 pm

Sofia Dyak (Director of the Center for Urban History of East Central Europe in Lviv, Ukraine), Doing History: Public Outreach, Applied History and Research Challenges at the Centre for Urban History in Lviv."

Dr. Dyak holds a PhD in Sociology from the Polish Academy of Sciences (Warsaw), an MA in History from the Central European University (Budapest), and a BA in History from Lviv University. She was a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies in Amsterdam, and a Junior Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. Her current book project, (Re)imagined Cityscapes: Lviv and Wroclaw after 1944/45, focuses on rebuilding, heritage, and urban space in the postwar socialist space. Her talk will focus on the work of the Center for Urban History, both as a research institution, and as a vehicle for shaping public discourse on history and memory in a region where such debates are greatly politicized. She will also cover the challenges of negotiating between public history and scholarly research, and academia East and West.

Room 208, North Building
Munk School of Global Affairs
1 Devonshire Place
University of Toronto
Sponsored by the Petro Jacyk Program for the Study of Ukraine, and the Centre for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies.

Wednesday, November 14, 12:00-2:00 PM

What People are Thinking A Conversation with Vasyl Gabor:
Petro Jacyk Program Meeting Ukrainian Writers Series (Mr Gabor will be interviewed by Profs. Taras Koznarsky and Maxim Tarnawsky)

Vasyl Gabor is the author of numerous short stories collected in volumes entitled "A Book of Exotic Dreams and Real Events," 1999 and "And that which People Are Thinking," 2012. His stories have been translated into English, German, Serbian, Slovak, Croatian, Czech, Japanese and Bulgarian.

Mr. Gabor is also known as a literary critic and publisher. He is best known as the editor of an award-winning series of books of contemporary Ukrainian literature published under the general title Pryvatna Kolektsiia (A Private Collection).

Room 108, North Building
Munk School of Global Affairs
1 Devonshire Place
University of Toronto
Sponsored by the Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, Petro Jacyk Program for the Study of Ukraine, and the Danylo Husar Struk Programme in Ukrainian Literature of CIUS

Canadian flag New York: Solemn march: Ukrainian genocide 80 years later -- Nov. 17

TOP

image

Canadian flag UCC - National Holodomor Awareness Week -- Nov. 19 - 25

TOP

image

Canadians prepare to mark the 79th anniversary of
the Ukrainian Famine Genocide

October 24, 2012 - Ottawa, Ontario-The Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) is launching the fifth annual National Holodomor Awareness Week November 19-25. The goal is to annually unite the Ukrainian community and all Canadians in remembering the victims and raising awareness of this genocide.

International Holodomor Memorial Day will be observed on Saturday, November 24. In Canada, this day has been enshrined in both federal and provincial legislation as Holodomor Memorial Day.

The Holodomor, by its geographical focus and intensity, is one of the greatest genocides in human history. It is an example of the deprivation of the human right to food and embodies the human rights violations suffered by the victims of communism around the world.

The UCC continues its efforts to secure this genocide's rightful place in the new publicly funded Canadian Museum for Human Rights and to ensure that the Holodomor is included in school curricula across the country. The UCC believes it is vital that this tragedy not be forgotten as it is the best hope against history repeating itself.

For a complete list of events across Canada marking the 79th anniversary of the Holodomor visit here.

Let's reveal the truth about the Holodomor to the world!

Ukraine remembers - the World Acknowledges

Canadian flag Вінніпеґ: Життя в Пласті: 100 років Українського Пластового Руху -- 21 жовтня - 27 січня

TOP

image

Canadian flag Торонто: Іскра - Пластова вечеря і забава і День відкритих дверей -- 27 -28 жовтня

TOP

image

image

Canadian flag Торонто: Прийдітъ спостерігати висліди виборів в Україні – 28 жовтня TOP

Українсъка громада  та англійсъка та українські ЗМІ запрошені до ПРЕС ЦЕНТРУ, щоби спостерігати висліди украінських Виборів 2012 у Неділю 28 Жовтня від 2оі до 9оі  години у залі УНО на 145 Evans Ave and Islington.

З 2ої години буде жива транзлація на ТВі з Київа та  “exit polls”, аналітика, та почуєте політичні коментарі від експертів у Торонті.

Запрошуємо всіх що будуть голосувати та всіх зацікавлиних у долі демократії  на Украіні щоби завітали після полуднйя або вечером до ПРЕС ЦЕНТРУ.

Прийдіть числено та виявіть Вашу підтримку перед англійськими ЗМІ,  так як громада зібралася  масово  підчас ПОМАРАНЧЕВОІ РЕВОЛЮЦІЇ в 2004 року.

Вступ за добровільними датками які призначені на Конґрес Українців Канади.

 За інформації дзвоніть до організаторів ПРЕС ЦЕНТРУ, Володимира Держка (416-819-9667) Андрія Головатого (416-804-8051) або до  Стефана Андрусяка (519-657-5882) з КУК, Онтаріо.

Canadian flag Торонто: Спортивний клуб Карпати запрошує на товариську гру команд і бенкет -- 28 жовтня

TOP

image

USA flag Блумінґдейл, США: Патріарх Філарет удостоїть Катедру Святого Апостола Андрія Первозваного святими можами -- 29 жовтня

TOP

image

Ukrainian flag Київ: Засідання Українського клубу на тему: "Україна у контексті наступних виборів (парламентських, президентських) -- 29 жовтня

TOP

У понеділок, 29 жовтня 2012 року о 15:00
відбудеться 288 засідання Українського клубу на тему:

Україна у контексті наступних виборів (парламентських, президентських). Прогноз нового складу Адміністрації президента: хто сформує, хто очолить, склад, програма дій, місце і роль у системі влади

Ведучий
Голова  Правління  Українського клубу Роман КУХАРУК.

Доповідає експерт Українського клубу
Микола СПІРІДОНОВ

Огранізатори:
Громадська Конституційна Рада, товариство "УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ КЛУБ"
Центр "Свобода слова"
Інститут української політики
Інформаційне Агентство НАЦІЯ
Українська політична група

Вхід за членськими квитками Українського клубу .
Адреса: вул. Харківське шосе, 160,
2 поверх, конференц-зал
Телефони: (044)2374440

USA flag Чікаґо: Виставка Анатоля Коломийця - 2-25 листопада

TOP

image

Ukrainian flag Луцьк/ Чернівці / Харків / Київ: Фестиваль "Червона рута" - відбірковий конкурс – 3 листопада - 9 грудня

TOP

image

USA flag Лос Анджелес: Віддайте шану героям УПА -- 4 листопада

TOP

image
image

Canadian flag Торонто: Зустріч громади з Людмилою і Владиславом Гриневичем -- 5 лситопада

TOP

image

Конґрес Українців Канади: Всеканадський тиждень вшанування Голодомору -19 - 25 листопада

TOP

image

Всеканадський тиждень вшанування Голодомору
19 - 25 листопада

Канадці приготовляються до відмічення 79-тoї річниці ґеноциду в Україні

24 жовтня 2012 р.- Оттава, Канада-Конґрес Українців Канади влаштовує п'ятий щорічний Всеканадський тиждень вшанування жертв Голодомору, що проходитиме з 19 по 25 листопада цього року. Намір Конґресу - щороку об'єднувати українську громаду, а також усіх канадців для спільного вшанування жертв та проведення просвітницької роботи про ґеноцид.

Міжнародний день пам'яті жертв Голодомору відзначатиметься у суботу, 24 листопада. У Канаді цей день також проголошено Всеканадським Днем Пам'яті, як федеральним, так і провінційним законодавствами.

За своїм географічним осередком та інтенсивністю, Голодомор є одним із найбільших ґеноцидів в історії людства. Голодомор є зразком позбавлення права людини на їжу і уособленням порушень людських прав, від котрого постраждали жертви комуністичного режиму довкола світу.

Конґрес Українців Канади продовжує свої старання у напрямку забезпечення справедливого місця для висвітлення ґеноциду у новоствореному на громадські кошти Канадському Музеї Людських Прав та включення тематики Голодоморуу канадські навчальні програми. КУК переконаний у важливості не забувати про цей злочин, що є найкращою запорукою його неповторення в історії.

За повним списком заходів по всій Канаді, що присвячені вшануванню 79 річниці Голодомору, відвідайте інтернет-сторінку:( Джерело ).

Відкриймо світові правду про Голодомор!
   Україна пам'ятає - світ визнає!

USA flag Washington, DC: Ukraine in Washington 2012 - Gala & conference -- Nov. 30 - Dec. 1

TOP

image
2ND ANNUAL CONFERENCE & GALA

 A 2-DAY EXTRAVAGANZA - COME SPEND A WEEKEND IN AMERICA'S CAPITAL

CONFERENCE:
LEADERSHIP IN A GLOBAL WORLD

FRIDAY, NOV 30th & SATURDAY, DEC 1st

 FRIDAY CONFERENCE:
Business Builds a Better Ukraine - Capitalizing on Market Opportunities

OMNI SHOREHAM HOTEL
25OO Calvert Street NW
Washington, DC 20008

SATURDAY CONFERENCE:
Growing Leaders for the 21st Century Through Education and Public Service

THE CAPITAL HILTON HOTEL
1001 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

SATURDAY GALA AWARDS DINNER, ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCE 

THE CAPITAL HILTON HOTEL
1001 16t Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

GALA/CONFERENCE INFORMATION: http://www.usukraine.org/gala/

BUY YOUR "EARLY BIRD" DISCOUNTED TICKETS NOW
SAVE WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!
CLICK HERE:  http://www.usukraine.org/gala/tickets

INDIVIDUAL TICKETS ("Early Bird"):
Entire 2-day Conference & Gala Package:  $250 
Saturday Gala Awards Dinner, Reception, Entertainment & Dance: $150
Dance (for students or young professionals to age 25): $30

Friday Conference: $75 
(Includes Continental Breakfast, Lunch, & Reception with Michael Duffy)

Saturday Conference: $50
(Includes Continental Breakfast and Lunch)

To pay online, please visit:  http://www.usukraine.org/gala/tickets

To pay by check, make payable & mail to  U.S.-Ukraine Foundation,

1 Thomas Circle NW,10th Floor Caplin Mailroom, Washington, DC 20005

MEET MICHAEL DUFFY

Appearing at the Ukraine in Washington 2012
Conference/Gala  

The U.S.-Ukraine Foundation is honored to present TIME Magazine's Executive Editor and Best-Selling author, Michael Duffy, at the upcoming "Leadership in a Global World" Conference on Friday, November 30th.

 Co-author of the Best-Selling book, The Presidents Club, Mr. Duffy is one of Washington's most distinguished journalists, specializing in U.S. national affairs.

Since beginning his work at the Washington Bureau of TIME Magazine in 1985, Mr. Duffy has produced over 50 TIME cover stories, regarding presidents, politics, the Pentagon, the White House, and the U.S. Congress. His work has earned him numerous awards such as the Gerald R. Ford Award for both his reports on the White House in 1994 and U.S. defense and national security in 2005.

Alongside publishing his distinguished work, Michael Duffy taught as a Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University and is a frequent guest on PBS's Washington Review talk show. In his newest Best-Seller, The Presidents Club, Mr. Duffy discusses the interrelations among U.S. presidents following the end of World War II. This unique discourse shines light upon the more personally humbling journey that U.S. Presidents first experience when entering office, and the knowledge bequeathed from predecessor to successor. The book captures and discusses the pattern and importance of "cooperation, competition, and consolation," from leader to leader, beginning with President Truman's initiative in asking Herbert Hoover to help lead the effort against starvation in Europe. Above all, this work depicts an optimistic view of U.S. presidential leadership - that a bipartisan partnership does exist in the maze of U.S. politics. Aside from being a historically compelling look into U.S. politics and the secret brotherhood of current and past presidents, Duffy's work also exemplifies the notion that there is unity where diversity exists.

The U.S.-Ukraine Foundation is fortunate to host Mr. Duffy as he discusses this and other works of his, along with his outlook on political and global leadership, policy building and much more. His insights, which will come only a month after both Ukraine and U.S. presidential elections, will be especially timely.

The U.S.-Ukraine Foundation's International Conference and Gala from November 30th to December 1st will be held to promote a more productive, democratic and internationally-connected Ukraine by highlighting advancements in business, education, public service and foreign policy leadership.

This special discussion with Mr. Duffy will be held during the Conference on Friday, November 30th. You will not want to miss it!

Ukrainian flag Kyiv: 2012 Kyiv Model Ukraine Conference "Different Roads to the Rule of Law" – Nov. 23-24

TOP

image

Ukraine’s students return to Parliament

(Ottawa, CUPP) On September 17, three hundred and five Members of Parliament, went back to work in the first Session of Canada’s 41st Parliament since Confederation.  Thirty-three Interns from the Canada Ukraine Parliamentary Program (CUPP), which is in its 22nd year of operation in the House of Commons, accompanied the MPs.

The Interns came to Canada from universities in Berlin, Vaasa Finland, Tbilisi Georgia, Algarve Portugal, Irkutsk Russia as well as Simferopol, Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Dnipropetrovs’k, Mykolaiv, and Odesa.

In 1990/1991 Toronto Attorney Ihor Bardyn founded the Program, to celebrate the centenary of Ukrainian group immigration to Canada and the renewal of Ukraine's Independence.

On their arrival in Toronto, Mr. Bardyn greeted the Interns and urged them “to use their time in Parliament wisely, in their daily contacts with MPs, government officials and ordinary Canadians, and to experience Canadian civil society; observe the relations between the elected MPs and their constituents and the transparency of the Canadian political system; ask questions and compare and record your observations and findings; and vote on October 28”.

Thirty-seven MPs are participating in the 22nd annual CUPP Program among them Ministers Jason Kenney and Bal Gobal, as well as former Ministers, Judy Sgro, Scott Brison, and Dr. Carolyn Bennett. Also meeting the Interns and sharing their experience will be Senators Raynell Andreychuk and David Tkachuk.  The Interns will publish 2 issues of the CUPP Newsletter and return to Kyiv on November 22.

In Kyiv the Interns will participate in the CUPP sponsored, Kyiv MODEL UKRAINE Conference, which is co-sponsored with National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy, under the topic of “Different Roads to the Rule of Law”.  Among the conference speakers are Serhiy Kvit, President of the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy/ Allan Rock, President of the University of Ottawa/ Neil Boyd, Simon Fraser University/ John Lucas, Oxford University/ Hanne Severinsen of the Danish Helsinki Group/Bohdan Vitvitsky, USDJ/ Taras Kuzio, Johns Hopkins University/ Sofiya Fedyna, University of Lviv/ Mykhailo Kirsenko, Kyiv Mohyla University, as well as CUPP Alumni Yaroslav Kovalchuk, University of Algarve, Olha Dmytrenko, European Court of Human Rights, Pavlo Shopin, University of Luhansk, Liliia Ibadova, Yaroslav the Wise Law Academy, Kharkiv, Alona Shkrum, Cambridge University, and Maryna Rabinovych, University of Odesa, Stanislava Tsarkova, Kyiv Mohyla University, and Olexiy Soshenko, Yaroslav the Wise Law Academy, Kharkiv, Attorney at Clifford Chance in Kyiv.  The previous three Model Ukraine Conferences were held at George Washington University, University of Ottawa and Oxford University.

For more information contact:  Ustyna Mykytyuk, Olya Shudrak or Oleksandr Zheka.

The Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine asks government of Canada to freeze assets of violators in Yanukovych's regime

TOP

image The Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine is asking the Government of Canada to increase pressure on the regime of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych by listing names of individuals tampering with the rule of law.  In a letter, the Group asks that violators be disallowed from entering Canada and their assets here, frozen.  

Ukraine’s democracy has been deteriorating since the President came to power, the most visible indication being the incarceration of political opponents including Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko.  Despite calls from Western powers to adhere to the rule of law there has been no response.  In fact further draconian actions of the last weeks underscore the regime’s determination to cripple the opposition and snuff out the last vestiges of free media on the eve of Ukraine’s parliamentary elections in October. 

The government has been trying to get TVi, the only independent television broadcaster left, off the air.  “It has lost some 10 million viewers and some $2.5 in ad revenues,” says Andy Holowaty a Toronto media consultant.  “The government’s National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council is directly responsible for this.” The network has also been slapped with bogus back taxes.  Even if paid, there is concern other fines may follow.  

Then last week the Cabinet of Ministers unexpectedly enlarged the reach of its security and defence entities aimed at “preventing and dealing with” terrorism.  Many consider the Order to be a new open-season on political opposition, dissidents and non-complying media, recalling the Great Terror, Velykyj Teror, of the 1930s’ under Nikolaj Yezhov--Stalin’s head of the NKVD -- when fear and hunting for what the state called “enemies of the people” terrorized the country.

Further concern was raised again by last week’s announcement that the Party has drafted legislation that will sentence journalists up to five years in prison for libelous statements. “The problem with this law, as with the Order, is that there is no recourse to an independent tribunal. Ukraine’s judicial system has shown itself to be seriously flawed,” states the CGDU letter (Sept. 19, 2012) addressed to Laurie Hawn – a keen supporter of Ukraine’s democracy and member of the Treasury Board Cabinet Committee -- copies to the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and others. The letter asks Canada to take action now with other Western states against individuals who misuse their positions of power and apply laws selectively.

“It is necessary to send a strong message before the election that Western governments will not tolerate further violation of democratic norms in Ukraine. Publicizing such a list is vital.  Ukraine’s authorities must realize that there are serious personal consequences for violating international commitments,” says Serhiy Kudelia, a Ukraine expert.  “Without a threat of personal sanctions they will continue business as usual.”

If the sanctions are to work fully, the participation of the British Virgin Islands and Cyprus is needed, according to the letter. 

President Viktor Yanukovych is scheduling a visit the United States later this month to attend a session at the United Nations in New York.

Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj reacts to Supreme Court ruling – VIDEO

TOP

image
http://www.5min.com/Video/Borys-Wrzesnewskyj-Reacts-
to-a-Supreme-Court-Ruling-Thurs-517517722

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/video/232895

Supreme Court ruling leaves issues of voter fraud unresolved, say opposition MPs

( Source )
October 25, 2012

Les Whittington and Tonda MacCharles

On Etobicoke election, the Supreme Court is wrong: Walkom

The Supreme Court was wrong to uphold the contested — and controversial — election results in Toronto’s Etobicoke Centre. …

An Ontario Superior Court judge agreed. Three Supreme Court judges (including Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin) also agreed.

McLachlin and fellow dissenters Louis Lebel and Morris Fish made a simple argument. They looked at the law governing who gets to vote and determined that — in more than 26 cases in Etobicoke Centre — this law was not followed. Some 65 people not entitled to vote were allowed to do so.

The majority foursome dismissed the minority’s reasoning as overly technical. But in a context like today’s, where citizens mistrust politicians even more than usual, the letter of the law takes on great importance. …

But judges do get to decide on matters of law. And, in the case of Etobicoke Centre, the law as outlined by McLachlin seems clear. (Source )
OTTAWA—Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj says his unsuccessful electoral court challenge will improve polling station practices, but he and federal opposition parties say the Supreme Court of Canada decision did nothing to clear up the problem of “dirty tricks” meant to defraud voters.

The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled voting irregularities experienced during Wrzesnewskyj’s May 2, 2011 election loss in Etobicoke Centre to the Conservative Ted Opitz did not warrant throwing out the result.

The high court overturned an Ontario Superior Court ruling that the irregularities made Opitz’s 26-vote win null and void.

Elections Canada has already promised to implement tighter controls over voting practices as a result of his court action, Wrzesnewskyj told the Star Thursday.

“It’s clear that Elections Canada will run elections very differently because of all of the things that went so seriously wrong in Etobicoke Centre,” he said.

Wrzesnewskyj said he plans to continue to work to bring about reforms to Canada’s election laws. His court challenge focused on record-keeping and voter identification problems in Etobicoke Centre during the election.

But Wrzesnewskyj has also alleged outside of court that Conservative organizers tried to distort the outcome in that riding through a series of “dirty tricks” meant to suppress voting.

The Conservatives have denied they engaged in any questionable practices in the election. But Wrzesnewskyj says Canada’s election rules need to be overhauled to protect the public from vote-suppression tactics.

“The law is full of loopholes and outdated,” he said. “The last election has taught us an important lesson: You have people out there who are willing to do anything to win — including taking away peoples’ right to vote.”

Opposition MPs agreed the Supreme Court decision left open important questions about wider voting problems, which have thrown a cloud of doubt over the conduct of the 2011 election.

The issue has taken on national importance as Canadians have come forward with 1,394 complaints about harassing political phone calls as well as robocalls — automated phone messages misdirecting voters to the wrong polling station. Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand says these practices are undermining Canadians’ faith in democracy and must be addressed.

“The issue in this case had nothing to do with some of the big election concerns that we’ve had in the last year or so,” NDP MP Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth) told reporters.

“It’s questions of dirty tricks and fraud in elections in Canada that still need to be resolved. It’s on the agenda of elections Canada and it’s very much on the NDP’s agenda.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper welcomed the Supreme Court decision, saying it upheld the right of voters to make the decision in Etobicoke Centre and “that’s the way a democracy is supposed to work.”

But “as you know, we promised to look at some reforms to our election laws,” Harper told reporters.

The Borys factor TOP

( Source )
Oct 11, 2012

“Sometimes fate tests you.”

The words belong to Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

image

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


Photo: Roman Misiuk

They were spoken in the fading light of a spartan office in the Future Bakery, the family business just west of the sallow smudge perpetually hanging over downtown Toronto.

In Borys’s case, the sparse phrase may be the political understatement of the year, and not just because his current case before the Supreme Court of Canada is the most important in the land.

The businessman and former Liberal MP knows about tests of fate and of nerve. His education began long before he entered Canadian politics. When the former Soviet Union was falling apart, Borys smuggled photo-copiers and fax machines into the USSR. He wanted to help advocates of democracy to enjoy a privilege the state viciously reserved for itself – the right to communicate.

This was no mean feat. In those days, citizens needed permits for carbon paper. Borys pulled off his ruse under the guise of a government-to-government trade mission from Ontario. His fellow delegation members were not amused by his political interventions, including clandestine trips to cities under regime lockdown to help political protestors. His more senior delegation members from Ontario were worried about contracts: Borys was consumed with the dizzying possibilities of independence for Ukraine.

The copying equipment, initially impounded by the Russians, ended up in the hands of dissident groups trying to break Moscow’s totalitarian choke hold on their country. That was made possible in part because Borys won a game of chicken with the head of customs for Soviet Ukraine and the First Secretary of Ideology, “Comrade Kravchuk.”

It was tricky work, even for a man who could “disappear in Ukraine”, as Borys could. Agents he suspected were working for the KGB held a gun to his head at one point to express their displeasure at his efforts to bring democracy to his ancestral country. Borys talked them down.

“I said their world was falling apart and in a couple of years everything would be changed and they would be out of work. I said by then we could have a drink together and laugh about it. Luckily for me, they agreed.”

There wasn’t much to laugh about when officers from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) contacted Borys with ominous news, a warning they shared with him during a meeting at Toronto’s Valhalla Inn. They had intercepted “a credible death threat” against him if he carried out his plans to travel back to Ukraine. The agent who contacted him shared the details of the information and advised against the foreign trip.

“He told me that they had intercepted a message that I was going to be on such-and-such a train and that I was going to ‘fall off’ the train before it got to its destination. I told them I was going ahead with the trip, but that since I was a Canadian citizen and they knew about this threat against me, they should provide me with security.”

CSIS obliged, Borys returned to Ukraine, and a CSIS-supplied bodyguard kept him out of harm’s way. What made Borys’s work on behalf of democracy in Ukraine even more dangerous was that he concentrated his efforts in the south and east of the country, including some places that were closed to Westerners.

“My fear was, in certain regions, the majority would vote against independence. I targeted those areas which still had an attachment to the Soviet regime.”

Fate tested Borys again when he entered public life. At the time of the 2006 Lebanon War, Borys was the member of parliament for Etobicoke-Centre. He was one of four MPs who were part of a parliamentary delegation going to Lebanon to view firsthand the aftermath of the 34-day conflict that engulfed Lebanon, northern Israel and the Golan Heights.

Borys remembers being called by Alan Baker, the Israeli Ambassador of the day, and bluntly told that he wasn’t going to make the trip.

“I’ve never told anyone this before. Very forcefully, he said I wouldn’t be going to Lebanon and if I did, I would be fully discredited by the time I got back to Canada. Here was an ambassador of another country dictating to an elected representative of the Canadian people. This is not the way diplomats conduct themselves.”

Borys was horrified by what he saw in the war zone, from the sheer scale of the destruction, the toys and shoes in the rubble, to the ubiquitous stench of death – the full reality of war so completely filtered out on distant TV screens. He was advised by his own party people against talking about the devastation he had witnessed in southern Lebanon, parts of which are uninhabitable to this day because of Israeli cluster bombs.

“I begin every day in prayer. I’ve never had any difficulty in those conversations. If I’m unable to speak of what I’ve seen, I won’t be able to have that conversation. If I’m silent now, I’ll end up having to be silent when it comes to that conversation I have every day. So I can’t be silent now.”

Anyone who knows him knows this: Borys Wrzesnewskyj is not a come-when-he’s-called kind of guy. When the chips are down, Maggie Thatcher would be proud; Borys doesn’t go wobbly.

Fate’s latest test for Borys is a judicial gamble with exceedingly high stakes. The bets are down, over $300,000 in unrecoverable legal costs, the judicial roulette wheel is slowing to what must surely be an imminent stop, and any day now the ball will settle into its final compartment and Borys will either win or lose. As he knocks on doors every night in his former riding, this son of immigrants still doesn’t know if the next election in Etobicoke-Centre will be in a few weeks or a few years.

The prize? Wrzesnewskyj hopes that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), will uphold a decision by Superior Court Justice Thomas Lederer that threw out the May 2011 victory of Conservative MP Ted Opitz. Opitz’s margin of victory was 26 votes. The Superior Court declared the vote null and void because it found that 79 votes were invalid – three times the number needed to skew the outcome.

“What happened in Etobicoke-Centre stands for the true context of the whole 2011 campaign. It was about how ridings were targeted, it was about a decision someone made to subvert the electoral process,” Borys says.

Mr. Justice Lederer’s decision was so carefully written and so narrowly focused that some experts who have read it say it is all but appeal-proof. It is like a stinging left jab – short and straight and jarring. Based on technical irregularities at the polls, it is simply not possible to know who actually received the most votes in Etobicoke-Centre in 2011. In such circumstances, the interests of democracy would seem to demand an immediate by-election.

There is another possibility to explain what happened on election day back in May 2011, a far darker scenario that so far has not been part of any legal action but may ultimately become the big story here – non-existent voters might have cast ballots in Etobicoke-Centre and a phantom Elections Canada official may hold the key to how that was done. Depending on what the Supreme Court decides, that is a case that Borys Wrzesnewskyj may yet have to argue in the court of public opinion, a venue where he is as comfortable as his grandmother once was in her bakery.

For now though, Borys is hoping that his personal battle to force a by-election in his former riding will be successful. It would not only give him a chance to reclaim his seat in parliament, it might also have profound implications for the stability of the Harper government.

“Obviously, the first thing I want to restore is the integrity of democracy in Etobicoke-Centre. But there is a chance, a small chance, that the government’s majority could be in the balance if the Supreme Court upholds Judge Lederer’s decision.”

In fact, Borys has encouraged the Liberal party to closely scrutinize the results in several other ridings where the same things he believes cost him his seat in parliament may have been at play – technical irregularities, voter suppression and obstruction, and the possibility of out-and-out voter fraud.

The implications are clear. If the Supreme Court sends the voters of Etobicoke-Centre back to the polls, what would stop other defeated MPs from seeking the same remedy when the margin of their loss was razor thin and a case could be made that it was the result of a tainted electoral process? The answer doesn’t look good on the Liberals. They simply didn’t do the work that Borys has done.

“I tried to get the party to take a very careful look at these close seats, but there really wasn’t much interest. Nor was there much encouragement in my battle in Etobicoke-Centre. But you know what? My grandmother used to take me by the hand with her every time she went out and voted. That’s how important voting was to her and the integrity of voting is to me.”

One could levitate on the speculation that the Harper government might lose its majority over the ripple effect of a victory for Borys in the highest court in the land. The reality is that isn’t likely to happen. But the mere possibility could explain a minor mystery in the matter of Etobicoke-Centre. Why has the Supreme Court taken so long to make its decision?

True, the Court rarely enters the 100 meter dash. It’s speciality is the marathon, as it weighs complex matters of law at the legal terminus of the system. It is also true that Supreme Court decisions have not only to be written but translated. And it goes without saying that there could be profound differences of opinion in the matter at hand. Those differences often lead to dissenting opinions on the Court, which also have to be written and translated. It all takes time.

And yet, this is something of an institutional emergency for Canada, so the argument that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly and exceedingly fine is not totally persuasive when it comes to accounting for the delay in getting an SCC decision. Even though his victory has been declared null and void, Ted Opitz continues to act as if he is the duly elected MP for Etobicoke-Centre, giving speeches, larding out goodies in the riding with cabinet luminaries like Jim Flaherty at his side, and voting in the House of Commons even though he may actually have lost the election.

For better or worse, Opitz has not only opted to appeal the Ontario Court of Justice ruling, but to act as if it hadn’t been given. In these rare cases the SCC is urged to act expeditiously and rightly so. Until it decides the matter, the people of Etobicoke-Centre are consigned to democratic limbo by a tainted electoral process. They may be represented in parliament by the man who lost the election.

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court asked the principles in this case if they would agree to a media lock-up when its decision is rendered. An answer was required by September 24, suggesting that their decision was at hand. Borys agreed and he and the other party to this case are still waiting.

There are two theories to explain the delay. One is that a decision that throws out the Ontario Court of Justice ruling ordering a by-election could easily be seen as a blow to democracy in Canada. For that reason, it is particularly important that the Supreme Court’s reasons be fully and convincingly laid out. If they are not, the prestige of the court itself will suffer.

If the first theory is geared toward how the public might react to confirming an election result ruled null and void by another court, the second theory speaks to how Stephen Harper might respond to a decision that could cost his party a seat in parliament and lead to new challenges in other close ridings. It is not for nothing that the Conservative Party has already filed multiple motions to dismiss the robocalls lawsuit brought against it by the Council of Canadians.

Under this second theory to explain the law’s delay, the Supreme Court will have to make crystal clear that it is not reversing a democratic result, but creating a path towards one. Although it will play no material part in their decision, it is also true that every member of the Supreme Court is well aware of the current prime minister’s view laid out in 2006 that he believes the system was against him – a Liberal Senate, a Liberal-appointed public service – and an interventionist Supreme Court.

Samuel Beckett has written the script but this time around it is not Godot everyone is waiting for but the Supremes. With so much at stake, Borys Wrzesnewskyj is remarkably calm about the momentous events about to unfold in his life from the stately building at 301 Wellington Street.

“I just don’t know what to make of the time this has taken. I can’t imagine this going beyond October, but I just don’t know.”

As the man says, sometimes fate tests you.

NOTE: When contacted in Jerusalem early this morning about Borys Wrzesnewskyj’s account of their phone call, former Israeli Ambassador Alan Baker told iPolitics “I really don’t recall ever having such a conversation with him, and in any case it was not my style to threaten Canadian MPs! That’s not what Ambassadors do.”

One of the other three MPs who was a member of the Canadian delegation to Lebanon, Conservative MP Dean del Mastro, decided not to make the trip. NDP MP Peggy Nash and Maria Mourari of the Bloc Quebecois travelled to Lebanon but did not get calls from Mr. Baker.

Will democracy in Canada benefit from Borys Wrzesnewskyj’s persistence? TOP

( Source )
Oct 24, 2012

Michael Harris

On Thursday night, at an Etobicoke pub called The Longest Yard, there will be one of two things – a party or a wake.

The nature of the event will depend upon the decision taken 450 kms away by people not likely to darken the door of The Longest Yard or any place like it – the esteemed members of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court will announce on Thursday whether the voters of Etobicoke Centre have an MP, or will be going back to the polls to select one. Whatever the ruling, the merry-makers or mourners in the pub will have to get along without the man they have followed doggedly for more than a year in his quest for electoral justice – Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

For Borys, the defiant former Liberal MP, Ukrainian freedom-fighter and restlessly successful businessman, will be in his car today taking the solitary, reflective drive to Ottawa from Toronto. “I think better when I drive.” He wants to be in the nation’s capital when the Court decision is revealed so that he can look the decision, the media, and his fate squarely in the eye.

“I’m actually quite glad we will finally have a decision,” he says.

Why wouldn’t he be?

After months of legal trench warfare, first in the Ontario Court of Justice, and then in the deeper waters of the Supreme Court of Canada, Borys has spent over $300,000 in legal fees, handed off his parental responsibilities for his two young daughters to his wife Lina Fedko and spent hours every night knocking on doors in his former riding to explain this sanguine, complex, private war being waged on the public’s behalf by a private citizen.

Win or lose, Borys thinks the long, expensive scrap will pay dividends for the country.

“We couldn’t even address the issue of voter-suppression in Etobicoke Centre. Our elections legislation is silent on that point. That has to change. And something else that has to change is that you shouldn’t have to be blessed as I have been to be able to afford to challenge corruption in court. Everyone should have that ability in a democracy.”

As for Prime Minister Harper’s timing in calling three by-elections just days before tomorrow’s decision on Etobicoke Centre, Borys says the cynicism is consistent with Conservative tactics.

“He waited all this time to call those by-elections and then couldn’t wait three or four more days? The only reason we didn’t have a by-election after the Ontario court threw out the 2011 election result is that the polls showed me 10 points ahead. That’s the only reason.”

Remarkably, given the stakes for his embattled Liberal Party, it is a war he has mostly fought on his own. There has been no encouragement from the party’s legal counsel, no pat on the back from either party leader Bob Rae or leadership hopeful Justin Trudeau, no big cheque from the party’s National Director Ian McKay.

Perhaps this is pay-back for an inconvenient truth: Borys refused to sign off on the installation of Michael Ignatieff as party leader; in his view, it didn’t pass the democratic smell test. For better or worse, Iggy’s guys still carry a big stick in the party.

It could also be that Borys is no shrinking violet when it comes to laying it on the line about what is wrong with the party’s notion of renewal. People “who are not Liberals” have been let in on the decision-making process. Many of Paul Martin’s policy initiatives have been dropped like an old girlfriend for the shorter hemline of untested charisma – or so Borys believes.

Which is not to say that none of his former colleagues have wished him well in the heat of this most important night of the soul. Liberal MPs Frank Valeriote and Jim Karygiannis have. But for the most part, he has fought on with a devoted band of supporters in the riding, his family, and his own resources. He has no regrets.

“From the moment I found out that Ted Opitz’s team targeted seniors to take away their right to vote, I knew I had to do this. When officials of Elections Canada confirmed what happened at St. Demetrius, I had no option.”

Interestingly, the word for both “voice” and “vote” in Ukrainian is the same – “holos”. And in Borys’s family, that “holos” is holy, a sacred word, a seminal value.

“You know, your character is shaped when you are child. I came from a family that lived in the heart of darkness of the 20th century’s two most horrific systems – Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and survived. The vote is no academic exercise to me or the people who raised me. My grandmother loved the vote and taught me to love it.”

From the blue and yellow baker’s certificate his grandfather earned in Czarist Russia back in 1905 to memories of his father, Roman, shouldering hundred pound sacks of flour at the family business west of Toronto, Borys has no shortage of inspiration for his fight against “the Tory politics that are killing democracy in Canada.”

But it is tough on people like his mother, Irene, a woman in her late eighties, who probably hoped for more serene times for her son and his family.

“My mother has resigned herself to the fact that this battle is based on values she herself instilled in me. Would she rather it wasn’t happening? Of course. Does she understand why it is? Better than anyone.”

Nor does Borys have to look a long way back for inspiration as the moment of judicial truth draws near. Long before they were married, his wife Lina battled through the hazards of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, just as Borys did. And then there is his personal anger at the ditch politics that may have deprived him of a rightful victory in Etobicoke Centre – and his constituents of an honest election.

“Stephen Harper politics are putting the greatest country on earth, one with a special mission, in danger. I despise the politics of targeting demographics to manipulate elections – our seniors, poor single mothers, the disenfranchised young. We have to keep standing up to the bully until we have no strength left.”

And then there is a very unlikely source of strength – Popeye the Sailor Man.

“When I was a boy, I could never quite hear what Popeye was muttering under his breath. So I put my ear to the TV set and liked what I heard. He was saying, “I am what I am, and that’s all that I am…

And whatever happens, that’s what they already know about Borys back at The Longest Yard.

Tories under fire for staffing of Canadian monitor mission to Ukraine TOP

( Source )
October 19, 2012

image Ted Opitz speaks to reporters at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on July 10, 2012. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Joan Bryden and Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - A Conservative MP whose election was overturned due to numerous voting irregularities is being sent as part of a Canadian observer mission charged with ensuring free and fair elections in Ukraine.

And while Ted Opitz will be part of the mission, at least two former Liberal cabinet ministers have been given the boot.

The makeup of the mission is sparking accusations that the Conservative government is compromising Canada's international reputation by injecting domestic partisan politics into its staffing of the 500-member team.

However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending Opitz's involvement and the overall composition of the mission.

"Our government, and especially MP Ted Opitz, stands strong as a supporter of the Ukrainian people as they seek to build a nation based on democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law," Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall said in an email.

"This will be an all-party delegation that is reflective of Canada's care and concern for free and fair elections in Ukraine."

Most observers depart Ottawa on Saturday to monitor Ukraine's Oct. 28 election — a campaign itself marred by corruption charges against the ruling Russian-leaning party.

The selection of Opitz is drawing particular criticism because of the uncertainty that lingers over his own election victory.

The Supreme Court of Canada is to decide whether Opitz was the actual winner of the Toronto riding of Etobicoke Centre in the 2011 federal election over Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

Opitz is appealing a decision by an Ontario Superior Court judge who threw out 79 ballots due to procedural irregularities, nullifying the MP's narrow 26-vote victory.

If the Supreme Court denies Opitz's appeal, he would have to square off against Wrzesnewskyj in a by-election in Etobicoke Centre, which has a large Ukrainian-Canadian population. The top court heard the landmark case in early July and is expected to rule on it soon, conceivably while Opitz is in Ukraine.

While the court case focused on procedural snafus, Wrzesnewskyj has made more serious charges, backed up by affidavits sworn by Elections Canada officials, of voter suppression and intimidation by members of Opitz's campaign team.

None of those allegations has been proven in court.

Opitz played a prominent role last August when Immigration Minister Jason Kenney — the government's political point man on wooing ethnic communities — chose the riding next door to Etobicoke Centre to announce the mission.

Meanwhile, former Liberal cabinet ministers Elinor Caplan and David Anderson both received telephone calls earlier this month from Canadem — the independent agency that recruits observers for the federal government — telling them they didn't make the cut as election monitors.

"You don't need to be a genius to figure this out," Caplan said in an interview. "Obviously, this is seen as very political by the government."

Caplan, who served as an observer in Belarus and has taken United Nations courses on election monitoring, said she was asked by Canadem to apply. She did and was notified that she was "good to go," other than the formality of having the minister sign off on her involvement.

Then over the Thanksgiving weekend, Canadem left a message on her home phone advising her that "at the direction of the government of Canada, we've been directed to remove you from the delegation."

She said it appears the government is bumping Liberals while "doing what they can to keep (Opitz) front and centre" with his Ukrainian-Canadian constituents in case he winds up having to fight a byelection.

"It's a pity because, you know, it tarnishes Canada's international reputation ... if the message is we're sending over a partisan, highly unbalanced (delegation) or there are political reasons for who gets selected."

Anderson received a similar telephone call on the same weekend, and was told he was off the team. He said he has questions, given that he's very familiar with the practices and policies of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, a recognized leader in international monitoring.

"I'm happy to apply for these things. But if I'm always going to get blackballed, I'd like to know that too. Whether it's my age, my politics, the colour of my eyes."

As for Opitz taking part in the mission, Anderson said: "It's a curious choice, given the controversy surrounding his election."

Taras Zalusky, the mission's chief of staff, said the selection process "was exactly the same" for this mission as it was when Caplan and Anderson were in cabinet.

"So, it sounds like sour grapes to me," Zalusky said.

Zalusky, who has been involved in two earlier Canadem missions to Ukraine, said 1,500 people applied for the 490 available short- and long-term observer spots. Another 10 are reserved for parliamentarians, chosen by their respective parties.

"The delegation is made up of lots of people with all kinds of expertise," Zalusky said. "There are people who are electoral experts, there are people with language skills, there are people with all kinds of backgrounds."

However, the mission has raised eyebrows, even among some observers, with the disproportionate number of Ukrainian Canadians who've been selected — many of whom, including Zalusky himself, are connected to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC), an organization that has been highly critical of Ukraine's governing party.

One observer, who asked not to be identified, estimated that 50 per cent of Canada's observers are of Ukrainian heritage.

"It's hard to imagine they're objective," the observer said.

Anderson said it's understandable that the Ukrainian community in Canada tends to be "more hostile to the Russian party," but that makes it problematic for members to serve on a supposedly neutral election monitoring mission.

"They tend to be more on one side. That means that Ukrainian Canadians like any other ethnic group in the diaspora of any country are not necessarily accepted by the home country as unbiased."

Harper's spokesman MacDougall said it's "outrageous" that a former Liberal minister is "against the participation of Ukrainian speakers in this mission."

"These Canadians' language abilities make them ideal for an election-observation role in Ukraine."

However, the diaspora-heavy contingent would seem to be contrary to Canadem's own guidelines for election monitoring missions.

"Regardless of how impartial and professional an observer is, the perception of bias or conflict of interest is a huge challenge, particularly for observers who are returning to their country of origin," Canadem says on its website.

"Therefore, in many situations, election observer missions cannot be staffed by observers who originated from the country in which the election is taking place.

"Regardless of how good they are, local voters will assume that they are not impartial. At a minimum, the standard practice is that the number of country-of-origin observers on an international mission must be relatively small."

Zalusky, who is taking a leave of absence from his job as executive director of the UCC to take part in the mission, dismissed any concerns. "Every single one" of the observers is a Canadian citizen, he said; there are no "new arrivals" from Ukraine.

They have all passed both Canadem and United Nations training courses and must adhere to "a very strict code of conduct on not being biased," he added.

Moreover, Zalusky argued, it's an asset that 40 per cent of Canada's long-term observers, who've been in Ukraine for the past two months, speak Ukrainian or Russian.

"Frankly, when you have people on the ground for two months, in order to catch nuance, in order to be able to understand what's going on in a complex political system like Ukraine — where, as good as they are, interpreters won't catch everything and sometimes they're afraid to translate everything — it's good to have people who actually understand what's being said."

Many have been involved in previous election observation missions to Ukraine, added Zalusky, who previously served as an adviser to Liberal ministers, including former international co-operation minister Aileen Carroll.

"I have every confidence that the Canadian observers know that when they go out in the field that they're representing Canada and that they all behave appropriately," he said.

"The usual suspects are going to complain about this but I can honestly say that Canadem runs a top-rate operation ... They do a first-rate, bang-up job."

Wrzesnewskyj declined to comment on Opitz's involvement in the mission, but he defended the heavy involvement of Ukrainian Canadians.

He took credit for persuading former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin to make use of the diaspora in Canada's first election monitoring mission to Ukraine in 2004, over the objections of Foreign Affairs bureaucrats who worried about objectivity.

Canadem is not involved in choosing the parliamentary contingent. Opitz's office said he'll be accompanied by three other Tories: Manitoba MP James Bezan and Toronto-area MPs Wladyslaw Lizon and Corneliu Chisu.

The New Democrats are sending Toronto MP Peggy Nash, Hamilton MP David Christopherson, Edmonton MP Linda Duncan and Montreal MP Eve Peclet. The Liberals are sending Toronto MP Judy Sgro and Prince Edward Island MP Lawrence MacAulay.

The final list of observers has not yet been released, nor has the head of mission been named. Harper is to speak today at a public send-off for short-term observers.

Read more: ( Source )

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights annual report fuels the need for a forensic audit TOP

( Source )
October 14, 2012

We couldn't figure it out at first.

Why did they stall so long before submitting the latest annual report of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights when everything in it was known ten months ago? What were they hiding?

We had to dig deep---30 pages into the 58 page report before we spotted it---there in a summary of the funding collected for the project:

"Cash contributions from the Province of Manitoba ($38.8 million) and the City of Winnipeg ($16 million) have been received, as well as the private sector installments from The Friends of CMHR ($87.8 million)."

Problem was, by March 31, 2012, the fiscal year end, the Friends of CMHR were crowing they had raised $130 million.

It turns out that the CMHR was sitting on $42 million in IOU's at the same time it was about to shut down construction because it had no money.

The museum fundraisers had collected only two-thirds of the private donations they claimed to have raised. When the CMHR was telling people it had a 60 million dollar shortfall, it was actually $102 million shy of what was needed to finish the project.

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights was misleading the public---again.

That comes as no surprise to readers of The Black Rod where for years we have been chronicling the steady stream of lies and deception flowing from the pet project of the Asper family. Here are just a few of those stories:

( Source1 ) ( Source2 ) ( Source3 )

And the more we looked, the more variations of the truth we found in the 2011 annual report.

"The Museum’s physical structure and associated building systems have been designed to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver designation." CMHR Annual Report 2011-2012

"There were two big items that cost... the building to go up in cost. One, was the board at the time, a few years ago, made a decision that the building had to be a Gold LEED standard building...That came with a price tag---if memory serves---about $37 million price tag." Heritage Minister James Moore.speaking at the Winnipeg Free Press News Cafe, Sept. 13, 2012.

"Hiring was limited to ‘critical positions’. For example, while we projected hiring 35 employees in 2011-2012, only 13 new positions were hired." CMHR Annual report 2011-2012

"Instead of the projected 35 new hires, as of today (December 6, 2011) the Museum has hired just 17 positions. Cost savings related to staffing are approximately $2.5 million." CMHR CEO Stu Murray speech, Dec.2011

"Angela Cassie, director of communications for the CMHR, said the museum sought and received permission to direct the savings into its capital budget. That means the amount owing on a $45-million advance provided by the federal government over the summer is down to $35 million." Winnipeg Free Press, Oct. 12, 2012

"Amid all this, the museum was reaching out to Ottawa and the provincial government for a bailout. That finally came in the form of the $45-million advance payment from Ottawa and a $35-million loan guarantee by the provincial government..." Winnipeg Free Press, Oct. 12, 2012

"$35 million...." James Moore, News Cafe, Sept. 13, 2012

The museum says it got a $45 million advance from the federal government and the federal government says it was $35 million. What's ten million?

Is all this confusion a result of incompetence? Or is it deliberate?

Winnipeg citizens are asking that very question about another scandal---the firehall boondoggle which involves some of the very same people in the CMHR fiasco, namely Mayor Sam Katz who has been channelling millions into this pet project of his friend Gail Asper.

Two audits have now been ordered to try and make sense out of the firehall debacle and to sort out the roles of Katz, his friend Phil Sheegl and his other friend Sandy Shindleman.  

The CMHR fiasco is 25 times bigger than the firehall deal and just as murky and shady.

Lying to the Senate, auctioning off space to ethnic groups, a secret loan for millions of dollars, allegations of a breach of provincial law on sweetheart financial deals, non-payment of taxes in deliberate breach of federal regulation, a litany of lies to justify never-ending money shortages. And because of government collusion at all levels everyone turns a blind eye.

The CMHR will argue that its annual reports contain financial data that's reviewed by internal and external auditors. And the reports do contain an Independent Auditors Report signed by the assistant auditor general of Canada. It's a boilerplate insert and declares "the transactions of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights that have come to my attention" have been in accordance with the relevant laws, rules and regulations.

But a closer reading of the Independent Auditors Report leads to an astonishing conclusion. It's not an endorsement of the CMHR financial information. It's a disclaimer.

The independent auditor declares that before designing his audit procedures he assessed whether the CMHR had relevant internal controls (such as an audit committee, etc) that produced the financial statements "but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control."

In plain English that means he refuses to vouch that the financial statements are reliable and in compliance with the law. He will only go so far as to say the financial data was provided to him and by what looks like a legitimate process.

Wow. Now we see how Enron could run a criminal enterprise and Crocus could be a Ponzi scheme and still get their auditors to approve the books.

That's just not good enough for an enterprise that's swallowing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars under the guise of provable lies and false statements, a constantly moving bottom line and no end in sight.

The situation screams for a forensic audit of the project from the day they lied to the Senate about who would be responsible for cost overruns to the future opening date which is already two years later than promised.

This would include the mythical projections of tourists to be attracted by the museum and the secret business plan that's never been submitted to any of the funders.

All we know today, courtesy of a single television newscast, is that the CMHR intends to charge admission that's "more than a movie ticket and less than a theatre seat."

And we need this forensic audit fast, because, if our Spidey Sense is right, the biggest scam is around the corner.

Angela Cassie told the Free Press the CMHR got a $45 million advance of which $10 million has been repaid through some legerdemain by which the $10 million of annual funding that wasn't spent last year was redirected to redeem the part of the advance.

James Moore told the News Cafe audience that the $35 million advance he was making would be repaid with annual installments from the $21.7 million in annual funding the federal government will give the CMHR.

The problem is that neither statement makes sense. The 2011-2012 annual report states that the savings in the annual funding was being "reprofiled." We didn't know what that meant either. We looked it up and reprofiled means rescheduled. They're going to spend this year (2012) the money they didn't spend last year (2011). That means the amount of annual operating funds left to pay back the, ahem, "advance", is zero.

As for coming years? Well, that will be zero too. The CMHR has already said it needs more annual funding, not less.

From the 2010-2011 annual report:
"The Museum will be seeking the government's approval to augment the operating funds already committed by an amount sufficient to cover the required property tax (PILT) payments and to address ongoing pressures of inflation in operating, maintenance and capital repairs."

How much more? Start with an estimated $5 milliion to $9 million in property taxes, add the cost of utilities which they forgot to include, and work up.

In short, there's no hope the "advance" is being paid back.

But, what about that $42 million in IOU's? Couldn't they collect those pledges over the years and use it to pay the government back?

They could, but we're betting they won't. They have a better use for that money. And if they stiff the government, what are the feds going to do? Shut them down?

No, that $42 million would be better served to make up the $35 million to $50 million endowment fund that's always been an integral part of the museum project. The endowment fund is intended to finance bringing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children to the CMHR.

Here's how the Friends of the CMHR stated it on their website:

A Unique Student Travel Program
Inspired by the impact of The Asper Foundation Human Rights and Holocaust Studies Program, one of the cornerstones of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is a funded national student travel program that will bring up to tens of thousands of students to the Museum each year, and interact with thousands more via the Internet and traveling exhibits. No other national museum offers such a program.

It had to be shuffled off to Phase Two of the project when costs of construction went into the stratosphere. But here's all that money just sitting there in a registered charity, waiting to be put to use and no reason not to.

Isn't there?

Bezan denounces Thanksgiving dinner for former KGB agent TOP

image Selkirk, MB - James Bezan, Member of Parliament for Selkirk-Interlake, delivered the following statement in the House of Commons, strongly condemned NDP MP’s Peter Julian and Don Davies for hosting a Thanksgiving dinner for former KGB agent, Mikhail Lennikov, in East Vancouver.  Bezan said:

“Three years ago, the Federal Court of Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board ruled that former KGB agent Mikhail Lennikov was inadmissible to Canada.”

“Lennikov is now a fugitive evading deportation orders, and has illegally taken sanctuary in a church basement in Vancouver.”

“Two weeks ago, the NDP MP`s from Burnaby-New Westminster and Vancouver-Kingsway had Thanksgiving dinner with the former KGB agent in a show of support.”

“It must be said that anyone who was part of the former KGB assisted in one form or another with the atrocities carried out by the KGB.”

“It doesn't matter how basic or advanced their role was, they all worked together to fulfill the KGB`s brutal mission.  How many people were wrongfully arrested or killed by the KGB as a result of Lennikov`s services?”

“These two NDP MPs have insulted Vancouver's Ukrainian community and over 1.2 million Ukrainian-Canadians across Canada, as well as the other ethnic groups who suffered under the cruel hand of the KGB. I demand these MPs apologize.”

Upon arrival to Canada in 1997, former KGB agent Mikhail Lennikov failed to reveal his past membership in the Soviet Union’s secret police. After this information came to light, the Federal Court of Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada ruled that Mikhail Lennikov has no right of sanctuary in Canada; does not have refugee status; and is inadmissible to Canada because of his membership in an organization that engaged in espionage against a democratic government. Lennikov has evaded his deportation orders by living in the basement of Vancouver’s First Lutheran Church for the last 3 years.

Video can be viewed at here.

UCCLA’s 15th Conclave held in Ottawa TOP

Meeting in the Nation’s capital, the executive of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association held a series of discussions that touch upon some of the more pressing issues important to the organized Ukrainian community in Canada.

Top on the list is the continued presence of veterans of the notorious Soviet secret police, the KGB. Recently, two MPs of the New Democratic Party held a potluck Thanksgiving meal with an (ex) KGB Captain, Mikhail Lennikov, who remains illegally in Canada, despite an order for his deportation dating back to June 2009. UCCLA activists met with staff from the office of the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, Jason Kenney, to press for the immediate removal of all KGB veterans found in Canada. 

As well, UCCLA is committed to continuing with its efforts to ensure that all of the galleries in the taxpayer-funded Canadian Museum for Human Rights have thematic, comparative and inclusive content. UCCLA executive also voted to provide financial support for the “Tribute to Liberty” memorial to the Victims of Communism being built in Ottawa.

UCCLA also held a memorial service for two Ukrainian Canadians, Michael Bahry and Thomas Konyk, executed on 14 January 1920 in the Peterborough County Jail, members of a so-called “Russian Gang of Five," two of whose members suffered judicial execution because of widespread anti-foreigner prejudice at the time of Canada's first national internment operations. Their remains were finally re-interred in the Beechwood National Service, with a panachyda by Reverend Dr. Petro Galadza.

Before leaving Ottawa, the group paid their respects at military grave site of Corporal Filip Konowal, VC at the Notre Dame Catholic Cemetery.

Next year’s UCCLA conclave is scheduled for mid-June in Banff, to coincide with the opening of a pavilion dealing with Canada’s first national internment operations at the Cave & Basin site in the heart of Banff National Park.

Vin Weber, top Romney adviser, lobbying for Ukraine group TOP

( Source )
Jul 12, 2012

Eli Lake

imageMitt Romney and Vin Weber

Records show the former Minnesota Congressman is a registered lobbyist for a group that seeks to burnish the reputation of Ukraine.

One of Mitt Romney’s top foreign-policy advisers recently took a side job: Burnishing the reputation of the government of Ukraine, a country condemned by international human rights groups and European governments for alleged corruption, unlawful imprisonment of opposition figures and a slide into authoritarianism reminiscent of Putin’s Russia.

[…]

According to forms filed in May under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, Vin Weber, a former Minnesota Congressman and special adviser to Romney, is a registered lobbyist for a Brussels-based group known as the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The group’s mission, according to its website, is to push for a comprehensive trade agreement between the European Union and to strengthen ties with the United States. Its founding president was Leonid Kozhara, a senior member of parliament for Ukraine’s ruling Party of Regions.

On the campaign trail and on his website, Romney has criticized Russia, promising that as president he would “be forthright in confronting the Russian government over its authoritarian practices,” and contrasting his more-hawkish stance with President Obama’s “reset” of U.S.-Russia relations. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has at times sought closer ties with Vladimir Putin even as he has courted the West. In 2010, Yanukovych extended the lease for the Russian Navy’s use of a Black Sea port in Sevastopol. This week, he will meet with Putin in Yalta for a major summit.

[…]

Advisers to presidential campaigns are generally hired for their expertise on important topics. They can be called upon to tutor candidates on issues, prep them for debates and help them respond to fast-breaking news. If all goes well, they might score a coveted Cabinet position. Because advisers are often unpaid, it’s not unusual for them to have other jobs, including as lobbyists. In 2008, the Obama and McCain campaigns both had advisers who were lobbyists for foreign companies or governments.

[…]

A special report on Ukraine issued last year by the Washington-based human-rights group, Freedom House, said, “Ukraine under President Yanukovych has become less democratic and, if current trends are left unchecked, may head down a path toward autocracy and kleptocracy.” A follow up (PDF) to that report released on July 5 found that “a year later, most of those key concerns remain, and in some cases the problems have grown considerably worse, especially in the area of selective prosecution of opposition figures and corruption.”

[…]

A special report on Ukraine issued last year by the Washington-based human-rights group, Freedom House, said, “Ukraine under President Yanukovych has become less democratic and, if current trends are left unchecked, may head down a path toward autocracy and kleptocracy.” A follow up (PDF) to that report released on July 5 found that “a year later, most of those key concerns remain, and in some cases the problems have grown considerably worse, especially in the area of selective prosecution of opposition figures and corruption.”

Complete article here.

A Russian election without voters TOP

( Source )
17 October 2012

image Vladimir Kara-Murza

The best assessment of Russia’s October 14th local elections was undoubtedly made by political analyst Alexander Kynev: commenting on United Russia’s “victory,” he observed that “the authorities formally receive a high percentage [of support], but there are almost no real people behind it. It is the rating of a void.”

The official figures for Vladimir Putin’s party—which include 71 percent in the Penza Region and 78 percent in the Saratov Region—bear little relation to actual voter preferences. Russians’ verdict on Putin’s electoral system was expressed in the rate of abstention: 87 percent ignored the polls in Vladivostok; 83 percent did not show up in Petropavlovsk; 79 percent failed to turn up in Kaliningrad. Indeed, the authorities themselves sought to minimize the turnout by providing almost no public information on the elections (including on the locations of polling places): it is much easier to rig a vote when few real voters show up.

image

Their place was taken by virtual “voters.” Poll monitors reported an unusually high percentage of people voting at home (a practice intended for sick and disabled voters; normally no more than 5 percent of the electorate): 20 percent in the Krasnodar Region; 16 percent in the Penza Region; and 13 percent in the Saratov Region. “Carousels,” whereby groups of people were driven around polling places, repeatedly casting their ballots for the regime’s candidates (with the complicity of local electoral officials), were a major factor. In the Siberian city of Barnaul, for instance, as much as a quarter of all the ballots cast reportedly came from organized “carousels.” As a result, support for the opposition Republican Party of Russia–People’s Freedom Party here was artificially reduced from 10 percent to 5.4 percent (still over the minimum threshold: despite the authorities’ efforts, the Republicans will get a seat in the legislature).

Other violations included forcible removals of poll monitors and journalists from vote counting sessions, physical threats against monitors, coerced applications for absentee certificates, and outright rigging. Golos, Russia’s largest independent poll monitoring organization, received more than 800 reports of violations. Many were captured on video, such as this incident of ballot-stuffing in the Krasnodar Region (watch after 2:10). In a well-publicized incident in the town of Khimki (where, according to the official tally, Acting Mayor Oleg Shakhov defeated opposition candidate Yevgenia Chirikova by 48 to 18 percent), all monitors were evicted from a polling place before the count. In the Bryansk Region, where residents were voting for governor, machine-counted tallies showed Communist challenger Vadim Potomsky leading incumbent Governor Nikolai Denin by 67 to 33 percent. According to the overall official results, mostly tabulated manually by electoral officials, Denin defeated Potomsky by 65 to 31 percent.

“I have no illusions about [Putin-style] elections. We cannot change the regime through them. But we can damage it,” stressed opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, noting that it was the participation of anti-Kremlin candidates and their monitors that made the fraud so evident. In Nemtsov’s view, the Russian opposition must continue to take part in elections to reach as many people with its message as possible, and to shed the maximum light on vote stealing.

After all, it was large-scale fraud in last December’s parliamentary election that triggered Russia’s largest pro-democracy demonstrations since 1991. And no authoritarian regime in history has ever fallen as a result of a boycott.

The coming collapse: Authoritarians in China and Russia face an endgame TOP

( Source )
September/October 2012

image

Jackson Diehl

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, China and Russia have been constants in the world. They have been autocratic, resistant to the spread of freedom, occasionally belligerent toward their neighbors, and increasingly prosperous. They have consistently joined together in order to block Western initiatives in the UN Security Council and to defend dictatorships like Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

The two countries have created the illusion of durability. Vladimir Putin has just begun a six-year presidential term, with an option for another. Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao are planning to hand over power in October to a new tandem, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, who are expected to serve for ten years. Yet the evidence is growing that the apparent stability in Russia and China is untenable. For similar reasons, the two states have exhausted their current political and economic systems. Their rulers have grown rigid and are mired in corruption. Both their political elites and their average citizens are growing visibly restless. In the next decade, it is likely that one or both of these global powers will undergo an economic crisis and a dramatic political transformation. When and how it will happen is the most important “known unknown” that Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will face during the next US presidential term.

The predictions that systemic change is inevitable, and that it might be tumultuous, are coming not just from lonely dissidents or hostile Western observers but from stalwarts of the establishments in Moscow and Beijing. In February, a report prepared by experts from China’s Finance Ministry and the Development Research Center of the State Council, in cooperation with the World Bank, concluded that “China has reached a turning point in its development” and that a “strategic” and “fundamental shift is called for,” comparable to Deng Xiaoping’s embrace of the market economy three decades ago. “China 2030” warns:

There is a broad consensus that China’s growth is likely to slow, but when and at what pace is uncertain and there is no saying whether this slowdown will be smooth or not. Any sudden slowdown could unmask inefficiencies and contingent liabilities in banks, enterprises and different levels of government—heretofore hidden under the veil of rapid growth—and could precipitate a fiscal and financial crisis. The implications for social stability would be hard to predict in such a scenario.

“research shows that the crisis” in the Russian economy and political system “has become irreversible, regardless of the scenarios of its further development. Maintaining political stability, let alone a return to the pre-crisis status quo, is no longer possible.”Similarly, in late May a group of experts convened by Aleksei Kudrin, a mainstay of the Putin government for more than a decade until his resignation last year, issued a report declaring that “research shows that the crisis” in the Russian economy and political system “has become irreversible, regardless of the scenarios of its further development. Maintaining political stability, let alone a return to the pre-crisis status quo, is no longer possible.” In a press conference, Kudrin said there was a fifty-percent chance that Russia was headed for a recession that would produce a political breakdown and a change of government.

Despite such auguries, the Obama administration continues to pursue a policy toward both Russia and China that assumes that the existing power structures will continue indefinitely. Its primary aim is to “engage” the top leaders on a transactional basis—a strategy that, for Obama, has become a quasi-ideology in foreign policy. Thus did he welcome Xi to Washington in February with talks that focused on economic issues and geopolitical cooperation—and ignored the incipient domestic political turmoil in China that had prompted a senior police official from the city of Chongqing to seek asylum in a US consulate days earlier, in a development that would soon become a full-blown leadership crisis.

After Putin’s controversial election as president in March, Obama, overlooking the growing street protests in Moscow, invited him to an early meeting at Camp David (which Putin later cancelled) and dispatched National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon to Putin’s dacha outside Moscow to deliver what a Russian official described as “a multi-page detailed document, whose main message is that Obama is ready to cooperate with Putin.”

While critiquing these advances, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign also appeared unprepared for the possibility of upheaval in Russia or China. The GOP candidate described both countries not as unstable autocracies but as dangerous powers to be contained. He claimed that Russia “is without question our number one geopolitical foe,” and promised to designate China as a currency manipulator, subject to trade sanctions, on his first day in office.

In short, it appears that neither Obama nor Romney is contemplating the possibility that Russia or China could become destabilized in the next several years, with all of the opportunities and dangers that would pose for the United States. Such shortsightedness is hardly unprecedented: George H. W. Bush denied the possibility of revolutionary change in the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia until it occurred, and Obama himself was blindsided by the Arab revolutions of 2011. Yet by now, after witnessing the successive collapses of dictatorships over a quarter century in Latin America, East Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, US policymakers should know better than to assume that the autocracies of Russia and China are invulnerable. The next administration ought to be prepared for, and encouraging of, changes in both these countries.

Revolutions are, of course, unpredictable. Some regimes fall sooner than seemed possible until the event occurs; some linger long after their demise has become inevitable. But the recent history of unfree countries has shown that while breaking points are hard to anticipate, there is a common set of conditions that sets the stage for change. Perhaps most important is the emergence of a middle class with growing non-material expectations, along with the exhaustion of the economic model that produced that class. There is the deterioration of the old elite, which is weighed down by corruption and paralyzed by power struggles. There are factors that can accelerate change, ranging from failure in war and environmental degradation to demographic implosion and the proliferation of technologies that allow citizens to communicate and to organize in spite of official repression.

From a distance, Russia and China may seem immune to these conditions. For now, both economies appear to be relatively prosperous compared to sickly neighbors like the European Union and Japan. Both have large foreign reserves: $500 billion in Russia and $3 trillion in China. Though there have been regular street protests in Russia since late last year, and a visible power struggle has been under way within the Chinese leadership, neither regime appears to be in imminent danger of collapse. In foreign affairs, the two governments exude confidence, even arrogance: at mid-year, China was bullying neighbors like the Philippines in the South China Sea, while Russia was propping up the Syrian dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in defiance of the United States, Europe, and the Arab League.

Upon closer examination, however, both governments are saddled with economies that have lost their most dynamic means of growth. They are facing the imperative of far-reaching restructuring in order to avoid stagnation or recession in the coming years; but it’s questionable whether either regime has the strength to push through the changes necessary to hold off crisis. Meanwhile, by the summer of 2012 each faced the possibility that a recession in Europe would spread eastward, inducing a “hard landing” for their economies at a sensitive political moment.

For Russia, the dilemma is summed up in the prices of oil and gas, and the role those two commodities have come to play during the Putin era. When Putin first took office in 1999, oil and gas earned less than half of Russia’s export revenue. Now that share is more than two-thirds. In part this increase is due to rising prices and production, but Russia has also deindustrialized under Putin. According to a report in Business New Europe, this year the country gave up the effort to maintain its own auto industry, and stopped producing the Lada sedan. The company that manufactures the iconic AK-47 rifle went bankrupt, largely because of its failure to develop a more modern version of the Kalashnikov. And a new civilian passenger jet promoted by Putin as an answer to Boeing and Airbus flew into a mountainside during one of its first demonstration flights, killing the deputy transport minister of Indonesia and forty-four others and throwing its future into question.

Now the energy industry itself is declining. From 2000 to 2004, Russian oil and gas production grew by an average of 7.5 percent per year as private companies flourished and foreign investors bought in. But following Putin’s political crusade against magnates like Mikhail Khodorkovsky and mistreatment of Western oil firms, the average increase dropped to 1.4 percent between 2005 and 2011. Foreign capital needed to increase production will be difficult to attract, given Putin’s record, and the development of large new oil and gas reserves in Europe and the United States has further dimmed the prospect for export revenues in the next few years.

At the same time, the Russian government budget has become more dependent than ever on oil and gas. Energy revenue pays for more than half of government spending—and that spending has mushroomed from fifteen percent of GDP four years ago to nearly a quarter this year. Putin has compounded the problem by promising vast new outlays: a doubling of the wages of doctors, police, and teachers; higher payments to families; and $790 billion in new defense spending.

Russians now commonly measure the state of the economy by calculating the price of oil needed to balance the state budget. In 2008 it was $55 a barrel; in 2011 it was $100. Now experts guess that it would take an average price of $117 to cover this year’s planned spending, and somewhere between $130 and $150 a barrel to meet Putin’s promises for the next several years.

Within weeks of beginning his new mandate, with oil prices well under $100, Putin was already hinting that the budget would be scaled back. The question was whether he could avoid the swelling of public unrest that austerity might provoke. Two major polls, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project and the Associated Press, released in May and July, showed that while Putin remained relatively popular among the general population, support for him in Moscow and other big cities had plummeted—and the demand for political freedom, and support for ongoing popular protests, had expanded.

Backed by eighty percent of the population as recently as 2008, Putin now attracts overall support of fifty-eight percent, reported the AP—and only thirty-eight percent in Moscow. Since 2002, according to Pew, “five of the six measures of democratic freedom tested by the Global Attitudes Project have witnessed double-digit increases in terms of the percentage of Russians describing them as ‘very important.’” Only thirty-one percent say they are satisfied with the state of democracy in the country—and sixty-four percent describe the economic situation as bad. A solid majority of fifty-eight percent said they supported the post-election opposition street demonstrations.

At midyear, Putin still looked relatively strong, because the largely middle-class freedom protesters gathering in Moscow had not been joined by blue-collar workers, and rural areas were not as restless as the cities. But with the Internet’s stream of uncensored information rapidly growing, that seemed unlikely to last. According to the AP, the percentage of Russians using the Internet daily has grown from twenty-two to thirty-eight percent in just two years.

Kudrin’s report outlined several scenarios for the future, chief among them “modernization through dialogue between the government and opposition,” stagnation, and a “chaotic radical transformation of power.” The director of the study, Mikhail Dmitriev, of the Center for Strategic Research, was quoted by the news agency RIA Novosti as saying that “the most likely scenario is mounting pressure on protests” by the regime, “eventually resulting in public backlash and sudden transformation of power.”

[…]

Putin conceded a primary reason for these reactionary approaches during a June speech on the economy. After calling the dependence of the budget on oil prices “the Achilles’ heel of our economy,” and conceding the desperate need to attract foreign investment into the energy industry, he added: “Unfortunately corruption is without exaggeration the biggest threat to our development. The risks are even worse than the fluctuation of oil prices.”

In fact, corruption paralyzes the Kremlin. The political system cannot be opened up without exposing the criminal networks that have infected every part of the bureaucracy, siphoning off billions of dollars in what should be public revenues. By many accounts Putin and his inner circle have participated robustly in the looting; but even midlevel officials have stolen hundreds of millions with impunity. More than a dozen prominent journalists and human rights activists have been murdered in the last decade—including one on Putin’s birthday in 2006. A more open system would inevitably lead to demands for accountability that would imperil Putin and most of those around him.

[…]

A forward-looking US policy would aim at putting pressure on these obstacles to change. A good model is the bipartisan Magnitsky Bill, which has been moving through the US Congress this year. It mandates visa revocations and an asset freeze for Russian officials who are guilty of killing or persecuting people fighting corruption or abuses of human rights. A forward-looking US policy would aim at putting pressure on these obstacles to change. A good model is the bipartisan Magnitsky Bill, which has been moving through the US Congress this year. It mandates visa revocations and an asset freeze for Russian officials who are guilty of killing or persecuting people fighting corruption or abuses of human rights. It is named for Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who uncovered a $230 million embezzlement scheme by tax and Interior Ministry officials and then was imprisoned by those same officials and subjected to mistreatment that caused his death in 2009.

Tellingly, the prospect of such sanctions has shaken Moscow to its core. Putin issued a directive in May that listed stopping the bill as a top priority in relations with the United States. Equally remarkable, the Obama administration chose to take Putin’s side, and lobbied heavily on Capitol Hill to block the legislation.

Obama clearly still hopes that in a second term he will be able to strike deals with Putin, starting with a new treaty to reduce nuclear arms. He will seek to forge an early partnership with Xi as well, focused on reducing trade frictions and stopping the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. Rhetorically, Romney promises a harder line. But neither is prepared for the hard landing many Russians and Chinese see in their near future. 

Jackson Diehl is the deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, where the column from which this article was expanded originally appeared.

Complete article ( Source ).

You thought the whole 'EUSSR' thing was over the top? Have a look at this poster TOP

October 19 2012

image

Read the story here .

By Daniel Hannan

КГСДУ просить уряд Канади збільшити тиск на режим Януковича TOP

( Джерело )

Канадська група сприяння демократії в Україні просить Уряд Канади «збільшити тиск на режим президента України Віктора Януковича, склавши список осіб, причетних до порушення верховенства права. У листі Група просить про те, щоб порушникам заборонили в’їзд до Канади, а їхні активи тут заморозили», - йдеться у прес-релізі групи від  23 вересня.

«Стан демократії в Україні постійно погіршується після приходу до влади Януковича. Найбільш яскравим проявом цього процесу стало ув’язнення його політичних опонентів, включаючи Юлію Тимошенко та Юрія Луценка. Заклики західних держав дотримуватись верховенства права були проігноровані. Насправді, драконівські дії режиму в останні тижнів лише акцентують його наміри знищити опозицію та позбутися останніх залишків вільних ЗМІ напередодні парламентських виборів в Україні у жовтні цього року», - заявляє Канадська група сприяння демократії.

Занепокоєння у групи   викликає і нещодавнє рішення   Кабінету Міністрів України розширити коло повноважень своїх органів у сфері безпеки і оборони, призначених для «протидії тероризму». «Багато-хто вважає, що ця постанова є оголошенням нового сезону полювання на опозицію, дисидентів і ЗМІ, які не підкоряються, згадуючи про Великий Терор 1930-х років при Миколі Єжову, сталінському голові НКВД, коли страх і полювання за тими, кого держава називала «ворогами народу», тероризували всю країну», - йдеться у прес-релізі.

прес-реліз ( Джерело )

Окрім того, Канадська група сприяння демократії засуджує тиск режиму Януковича на ЗМІ, та законопроект, що підготувала законопроект Партії регіонів, який передбачає засудження журналістів на термін до 5 років за наклеп.

Outgoing CIUS Director honoured TOP

image
Eugene Zwozdesky, Zenon Kohut, and Genia Leskiw, Alberta MLA

image
Zenon Kohut passing the bulava to Volodymyr Kravchenko

A farewell celebration honouring Dr. Zenon Kohut, the outgoing director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta, took place in Edmonton on 2 October 2012. Dr. Kohut served as CIUS director for eighteen years, leading the Institute during a time of transition following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rebirth of Ukraine as an independent state. He has numerous achievements to his credit, including the creation of the Kowalsky Program for the Study of Eastern Ukraine, the Kule Ukrainian Canadian Studies Centre, and the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine project. He was honoured with a Ukrainian state award for his role as head of the Baturyn Archaeological Project.

About 100 guests gathered at the Faculty Club to greet Dr. Kohut, including provincial dignitaries, university officials, and community members. Following an invocation by the Rev. Hryhorij Fil, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Eugene Zwozdesky, spoke about governmental support of Ukrainian studies and culture in Alberta. He emphasized the role of CIUS as the leading scholarly and educational institution in this process, indicating a number of successful projects, such the bilingual school program. Andrew Hladyshevsky, the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko, noted the crucial role of the community, whose dedication and generosity have made it possible to sustain and develop the institute’s programs and projects. Dr. Manoly Lupul, the founding director of CIUS, shared his recollections about the formative years of CIUS in the context of the Canadian politics of multiculturalism and available community resources.

Other speakers greeting Dr. Kohut were George Pavlich, Associate Vice-President (Research); Jars Balan, coordinator of the Kule Ukrainian Canadian Studies Centre at CIUS; Iryna Fedoriw, representing the non-academic staff of CIUS; Lesley Cormack, Dean of Arts; and Peter Savaryn, former Chancellor of the University of Alberta.

In his response, Dr. Kohut said that he had been privileged to serve as director of CIUS for almost two decades, working to promote the development of Ukrainian studies in Canada, Ukraine, and throughout the world, and to make CIUS a viable and vibrant institution. He noted that “the many achievements would not have been possible without the work of outstanding colleagues and staff, family, friends, donors, and Ukrainian community members who have given me such outstanding support.” Dr. Kohut will stay at the Institute to direct the Kowalsky Program for the Study of Eastern Ukraine.

Dr. Kohut then introduced the new CIUS director, Volodymyr Kravchenko, and spoke about their long-standing collaboration, which began when Dr. Kravchenko became director of the Kowalsky Eastern Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the V. N. Karazin National University of Kharkiv in 2000. In a symbolic gesture, Dr. Kohut passed the ceremonial mace (bulava) to Dr. Kravchenko and wished him every success in his new endeavours. Dr. Kravchenko assured the audience that he would do his best to continue the work of the Institute, making the changes required to attain new objectives and respond to the challenges of the day.

The celebration also featured a launch of the English translation of volume 6 of Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s History of Ukraine-Rus', prepared by the Peter Jacyk Centre for Ukrainian Historical Research at CIUS and published by CIUS Press. Dr. Frank Sysyn, director of the Centre, spoke about the translation project and highlighted topics presented in the new volume—economic, cultural, and national life in the Ukrainian lands from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century. The preparation of volume 6 was supported by a generous donation from Dr. Jeanette Bayduza, a medical doctor and alumna of the University of Alberta, and the late Dr. Peter Jacyk of Toronto, the founding benefactor of the Jacyk Centre. Additional funding came from the estate of the late Edward Brodacky of London, England, and numerous individual donors. Volume 6, like all published volumes of the History of Ukraine-Rus', is available from CIUS Press.

The event was graced with works for cello and piano performed by two young musicians, Julian Savaryn and Julia Hui. Letters of greeting were received from Linda Duncan, Member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona, and Senator Raynell Andreychuk.

The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) is a leading centre of Ukrainian studies outside Ukraine that conducts research and scholarship in Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Canadian studies. If you would like more information on the Institute, please visit our website at http://www.cius.ca or contact Dr. Bohdan Klid at (780) 492-2972; cius@ualberta.ca.

Канадський інститут українських студій (КІУС) — провідний осередок українознавчих студій поза межами України, покликаний розвивати науково-дослідну роботу з української та українсько-канадської тематики. Щоб отримати детальнішу інформацію, просимо відвідати наш веб-сайт http://www.cius.ca або зв’язатися з д-ром Богданом Клідом (780) 492-2972; cius@ualberta.ca.

2012 Tarnawecky Distinguished Lecture Series honours Luba and Ireneus Zuk piano duo from Montreal

TOP

image

The 2012 Professors Michael and Iraida Tarnawecky Distinguished Lecture Series honoured the Montreal based Piano Duo of Drs. Luba and Ireneus Zuk. The event was held on Wednesday Oct. 3, 2012 at 7 PM in Eva Clare Hall, Faculty of Music, University of Manitoba. The Lecture-Recital was organized by the Centre for Ukrainian Canadian Studies (Faculty of Arts, U of M), under whose auspices the series is managed.

The evening was chaired by Prof. Roman Yereniuk, Acting Director of  CUCS who provided the background to Prof. Michael and Dr. Iraida Tarnawecky, two longtime professors of the University of Manitoba.  Their important vision to establish the Distinguished Lecture Series in 2002 has provided the U of M and the Ukrainian Canadian community of Winnipeg with a most prestigious event every two years that honours prominent Ukrainian Canadian academics. Further Dr. Yereniuk provided the background to the two academics chosen for 2012 – Drs. Luba and Ireneus Zuk.

The Zuks provided the attentive audience with an evening of foremost duo piano music, with an introductory description of each work as well as a critical evaluation and information about each composer.  Subsequently music was performed by such Ukrainian or Ukrainian Canadian composers as: Myroslaw Skoryk  (1939 - ) – “Entrada”; Fedir Akimenko (1876-1945) – “Six Pieces Ukrainiennes – two were performed ‘Dumka’ and ‘Lystopad’”; Ihor Bilohrud  (1916-1992) – “Sonatina”; Yuriy Fiala (1922 - ) – “Concerto da Camera”; Evhen Stankovych (1942- ) – “Ancient Dances of Verkhovyna”; Gary Kulesha (1954 - ) – excerpt from “Mythologies”; Halyna Ovcharenko (1963- ) – “Five Fragments”; Hennadij Lashenko (1938 - ) - “...i Dzvony Dyvnoho Zvuchannia” and Lesia Dychok (1939 - ) – “Dramatic Tryptych”. The balance between the Ukrainian composers and those from Ukrainian Canadian origins was most appropriate. Also it should  be recognized that four of the composers wrote their works especially for the Zuk Piano Duo, a true honour for their outstanding mastery of the pianos.

All the musical compositions provided some form of rootedness in the Ukrainian experience – Ukrainian folklore and traditions. Sometimes folk songs provided inspiration for the music or even church bells as well as the church music Resurrectional chant of “Khrystos Voskres”(Christ is Risen). As such, this enriched the music of the XX century composers from Ukraine and Canada.

The two distinguished piano artists were presented with flowers by two students of the Faculty of Music and who are also involved in CUCS’s courses – Melita Mudri-Zubacz and Viktoria Grynenko. The evening ended with the entire audience standing up and singin a vigorous and resounding “Na Mnohi Lita – May They Be Granted Many Years” as a fitting salute to the two performers.

The final remarks and gratitude were expressed by Dr. Denis Hlynka, Chairperson of the Policy Council of the CUCS. In his remarks he stated “we have witnessed a cornucopia of music: Skoryk’s Spanish melodies, Akimenko’s Ukrainian themes, Bilohrud’s pedagogic excusions and Fiala’s wonderful atonality – the kind that the uninitiated will listen to thinking that every single note sounds wrong(!) and intuitively understand that it was exactly right. Then we heard Kulesha’s “Khrystos Voskres” coming from one piano, with contemporary soundscapes coming from the other. There was Stankovych’s pounding rhythms from Verkhovyna; there were not one but two women composers – Halya Ovcharenko and Lesia Dychko, the latter departing from her often heard choral music. Finally Lashenko’s impressionistic sounds of a storm brewing, coupled with bells and the rustling of leaves and the sound of wind, like an early October blizzard.  We have witnessed an amazing evening of piano music and deserving recognition is due to the polished piano duo of Luba and Ireneus Zuk. This event is the quintessential example of the Ukrainian and Ukrainian Canadian contribution to the Canadian arts and the world of fine music”.

Altogether the  partnership of the Tarnawecky Distinguished Lecture Series and the Luba and Ireneus Zuk Piano Duo along with the coordinating work of the Centre for Ukrainian Canadian Studies (U of M) produced the concert event of the year, unmatched in its teamed lecture style, its musical execution and its artistry.

Modern Ukrainian drama in English translation TOP

 
    
 


    image
   

The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press has just published An Anthology of Modern Ukrainian Drama (538 pp.), compiled, edited, and with introductory essays by Larissa M. L. Zaleska Onyshkevych. This is the first extensive anthology of modern Ukrainian drama to appear in English translation. The idea for this collection arose in the late 1970s, when Dr. Onyshkevych was teaching Ukrainian literature at Rutgers University in New Jersey. As she prepared a course on Ukrainian drama in translation, she discovered that only a few Ukrainian plays had been translated into English and that all of them were by a single author—Lesia Ukrainka. Consequently, she started planning an anthology of translated plays by several modern Ukrainian authors for use as a college textbook.

The resulting anthology contains ten dramas by nine Ukrainian playwrights—Lesia Ukrainka, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, Mykola Kulish (two plays), Ivan Kocherha, Oleksii Kolomiiets, Valerii Shevchuk, and the postwar émigré authors Eaghor Kostetzky (Ihor Kostetsky), Liudmyla Kovalenko, and Bohdan Boychuk. This volume is a useful textbook and an invaluable source of information for students of Ukrainian literature in English-speaking countries. It is also an excellent introduction to the study of modern Ukrainian literature, as well as a useful reference for the general study of drama. The book is a parallel volume to Dr. Onyshkevych’s Ukrainian-language anthology published by CIUS Press in 1998.

Four of Dr. Onyshkevych’s students at Rutgers—Christine Oshchudlak, Roxolana Stojko, Charles Steck, and Don Boychuk—translated one play each. The others were translated by the late Professor George S. N. Luckyj and his wife, Moira; Anthony Wixley, an interwar British translator of Soviet literature; the late English poet and translator Vera Rich; John Prasko, who wrote a master’s thesis about Kulish’s play The People’s Malachi; and Dr. Onyshkevych herself. Each translation is preceded by Dr. Onyshkevych’s brief bio-bibliography of the playwright and an essay about the play itself.

Dr. Onyshkevych is a specialist in Ukrainian drama and theater. She has taught Ukrainian literature at Rutgers University and served as president of the Princeton Research Forum, as well as president of the Shevchenko Scientific Society in the United States (2000–2006). She is the author of Tekst i hra (Text and Performance, 2009), a collection of articles on Ukrainian drama, and editor of several anthologies and books in Ukrainian studies.

The book can be purchased from CIUS Press for $39.95 (paperback) and $74.95 (hardcover). The parallel Ukrainian-language anthology can be purchased for $39.95 (hardcover). Outside Canada, prices are in US dollars. Orders can be placed in a number of ways: online by credit card via a secure internet connection at www.ciuspress.com, by e-mail (cius@ualberta.ca), by telephone (780-492-2973) or fax (780-492-4967), or by mail: CIUS Press, 430 Athabasca Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2H8.

The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) is a leading centre of Ukrainian studies outside Ukraine that conducts research and scholarship in Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Canadian studies. If you would like more information on the Institute, please visit our website at http://www.cius.ca or contact Dr. Bohdan Klid at (780) 492-2972; cius@ualberta.ca.

Канадський інститут українських студій (КІУС) — провідний осередок українознавчих студій поза межами України, покликаний розвивати науково-дослідну роботу з української та українсько-канадської тематики. Щоб отримати детальнішу інформацію, просимо відвідати наш веб-сайт http://www.cius.ca або зв’язатися з д-ром Богданом Клідом (780) 492-2972; cius@ualberta.ca.

Feature film receives support from UCCLF TOP

Oct. 16, 2012

At a meeting in Ottawa, the Nation’s capital, Actor/Film Maker Ryan Boyko appealed to the executive of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation (UCCLF) for support of a new Feature Film about Canada's First National Internment operations of 1914-1920.

The film "Enemy Aliens" is a fictional account that takes historical events from 24 internment camps and the culture of hysteria at the time and weaves them into a fantastic tale of adventure, betrayal, love, injustice, hope and a struggle for survival against all odds.

In particular, "Enemy Aliens" tells the story of two brothers who leave Ukraine in 1913 for the promise of a better life in Canada, only to be swept up in the politics of the War Measures Act under which they are deemed "enemy aliens". One alarming turn after another shapes an epic adventure that changes lives forever.

The members of UCCLF in attendance voted unanimously in favor of supporting the project. UCCLF contributed the sum of $25,000.00 toward the Feature Film. Further to their donation, UCCLF's members took an extra step by earmarking "Enemy Aliens" as one of their supported projects. Donations to "Enemy Aliens" can now be made directly to UCCLF, a not-for-profit organization that will issue tax receipts for donations.

This project has also received support from the Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund http://www.internmentcanada.ca.

For more information on the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, please visit their website at http://www.ucclf.ca.

For more information on this and other upcoming projects, please visit http://www.ryanboyko.com and www.armisticefilms.com.

Seeing Ukrainian Socialist Realism TOP

( Source )
October 5, 2012

image

If you’re in New York, go see the Ukrainian Institute of America’s “Ukrainian Socialist Realism” exhibit, which opened on September 14th. The Soviet-era paintings from the Collection of Jurii Maniichuk and Rose Brady will force you to consider some tough questions.

Socialist realism is an intrinsically controversial art form, having been adopted and imposed by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s and surviving in one form or other until the mid-1980s, when Mikhail Gorbachev abandoned most official strictures on the arts. Although socialist realism resembles traditional 19th-century realism and has roots in both Ukrainian and Russian artistic traditions, it also resembles the art of other totalitarian states, such as Nazi Germany, Communist China, North Korea, and the socialist satellites of East Central Europe. Happy, healthy, and exceptionally well-groomed peasants and workers abound, almost invariably in heroic poses. Leaders usually have visionary expressions, pointing to the future and smiling at the adoring masses.

It’s hard not to feel unease viewing paintings that were part and parcel of the self-promotional ethos of what may be the most murderous regime of the 20th century. It becomes doubly hard not to feel unease when one considers that socialist-realist painters made conscious choices to collaborate with such a regime, very often to the detriment of the non-conformists who refused to go along and paid for their stubbornness with their lives. Those who cringe upon viewing socialist-realist paintings may be excused: their doubts are no different from those of Israelis who cannot listen to Richard Wagner’s music, or Germans who refuse to consider Adolf Hitler’s watercolors as art.

And yet it’s equally hard not to conclude that socialist realism is a legitimate form of realism, and that many of the works produced by socialist realists were of high artistic quality, possessing a variety of laudable formalistic qualities on the one hand and being bereft of all too obvious propaganda on the other. Indeed, the distinction between art and propaganda is at best overdrawn and at worst false. Artists have historically promoted the cause of the state, the church, or the rich, being more than happy to draw hefty honoraria from institutions and individuals with morally dubious qualities. The bottom line is that art can be propaganda and propaganda can be art. Moreover, the fact that artists themselves are often odious does not detract from the quality of their work. Few would suggest that T.S. Eliot’s anti-Semitism or Ezra Pound’s fascism or Mykola Khvylovy’s Bolshevism or Ernst Jünger’s proto-Nazism disqualifies these men from the status of great poets or writers.

Indeed, as Lyudmyla Lysenko of Kyiv’s Academy of Art and Architecture pointed out, seeing Ukrainian socialist-realist art out of context—not in Ukraine’s museums, but thousands of miles away, on 79th Street and Fifth Avenue—was a jarring experience for her. Understandably so, as “decontextualization” inevitably transforms the paintings themselves from manifestations of the cultural policy of Stalin and his successors to examples of a particular artistic genre that resembles those a few blocks away in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Context therefore matters: where we see art affects how we see it. And who sees it also affects how it will be seen. And while a Ukrainian-American audience is unlikely to be sympathetic to socialism in any of its guises, it is by the same token less burdened by the specifically Soviet past that afflicts Ukrainians in Ukraine.

Whatever one’s take on socialist realism as art, it’s unquestionably the case that the subgenre constitutes a large part of modern Ukrainian history and culture. Some may laud that fact, others may bemoan it, but everyone must, for better or for worse, recognize it. The challenge for Ukrainians everywhere is to imagine Ukrainian history and culture as consisting, as they obviously did, of Communism and anti-Communism, collaboration and opposition, villainy and heroism—as well as everything in between. Reconciling such irreconcilables may very well be a project that can succeed only with the passage of much time and the emergence of new generations unfettered by the past. After all, how long did it take for the American North and South to find something resembling a common narrative? Or for whites and blacks to do the same?

The American experience suggests that the coexistence of irreconcilables, even after one side’s defeat in war, eventually leads to reconciliation. Germany’s experience suggests that irreconcilables can be reconciled only if one of the options—totalitarianism—is condemned and suppressed. Spain’s experience suggests that reconciliation can work, more or less, if one of the options—fascism—is forgotten.

Ukraine’s three main regions appear to have taken these divergent routes. The Center wants totalitarianism and its opposite to coexist. The West has condemned and suppressed Communist totalitarianism. The East has forgotten the horrors of Communist totalitarianism.

Which approach is best? America, Germany, and Spain are all decent places and their experience may mean that all three approaches can work—eventually. Perhaps that’s the good news for Ukraine: that, given enough time and perturbations, decency will in fact triumph. Of course, given too much time and too many perturbations, there may be no one around to enjoy the victory.

Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine: The Moloda muza and Ukrainian modernist literature in western Ukraine

TOP

image

Toward the end of the 19th century realism in Ukrainian literature started to give way to modernism. Emerging as a rejection of populism, Ukrainian literary modernism championed the idea of creating 'pure art' in the vein of Western European literature of the time. The Lviv-based Moloda Muza group (in Western Ukraine) and the Kyiv-based journal Ukrains'ka khata (in Russian-ruled Ukraine) believed that the necessary modernization of Ukrainian literature required a change in thematic focus from the social to the psychological and the greater sophistication of literary form. The most prominent members of the Moloda Muza were the poets Petro Karmansky, with his end-of-the-century pessimism, and Vasyl Pachovsky, remarkable for his formal diversity. Some members of the group were influenced by its Polish counterpart Mloda Polska. But though they were much less radical than their Polish 'modernist' friends, to say nothing of the Western European symbolists and decadents whose works they often translated, the members of Moloda Muza not only did not receive popular support (their ambitious magazine S'vit had to give up its international profile and turn to more mundane matters after only nine months of publication), they had to contend with attacks from such notables as Serhii Yefremov and Ivan Franko. Franko's criticism, despite his sensitivity to their talent, centered on the absence of proper and meaningful purpose in their creativity. At a time when so much still had to be done in the social, national, and political spheres, there was, according to Franko, little room for the luxury of esthetics. The group members' sensitive brooding was labeled destructive pessimism, their attention to form, needless formalism, and their striking imagery, decadence...

Learn more about the Moloda Muza group and modernist literature in Western Ukraine by visiting:
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/featuredentry.asp

or by visiting:

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com


and searching for such entries as:

MOLODA MUZA. An informal modernist group of writers and artists in Western Ukraine, founded in 1906. The group's manifesto, as expressed by one of the founders (Ostap Lutsky), was 'freedom and liberty in content and form' and an emphasis on the more subtle and gentle experiences of the human soul. The group established a publishing house with the same name, which during its brief existence (1906-9) brought out more than 10 books and the extremely ambitious but short-lived magazine S'vit. The members consisted of the writers Bohdan Lepky, Vasyl Pachovsky, Petro Karmansky, Mykhailo Yatskiv, Stepan Charnetsky, Ostap Lutsky, Sydir Tverdokhlib, and Volodymyr Birchak, the painter Modest Sosenko, the sculptor Mykhailo Parashchuk, and the composer Stanyslav Liudkevych. Although the style and quality of their literary production is varied and uneven, some common traits which characterize the group as a whole include a predilection for the esthetic above the utilitarian in life and an affinity for the pessimism of the Western European intelligentsia of the turn of the century..

KARMANSKY, PETRO, b 29 May 1878 in Chesaniv, Galicia, d 16 April 1956 in Lviv. Poet, civic leader, and journalist. Karmansky was a prominent member of the modernist group Moloda Muza, and his early poetry, starting with the collection Z teky samovbyvtsia (From the Briefcase of a Suicide, 1899), reflect the typical fin-de-siecle ennui and pessimism of the modernist poets throughout Europe. His particular idiom is characterized by the frequent use of religious imagery and the often satiric tone provoked by the estrangement between the brooding modernist poet and 'callous' society. Discontent did not leave him even when he tried to work within the needs of the society by being a high-school teacher, then a representative in the diplomatic missions of the Western Ukrainian National Republic to Rome, the United States, Canada, and Brazil, and finally an editor (1922-5). After the Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine, Karmansky lectured at Lviv University and wrote two collections distinguished by their official optimism...

YATSKIV, MYKHAILO, b 5 October 1873 in Lesivka, Stanyslaviv county, Galicia, d 9 December 1961 in Lviv. Writer; member of the modernist group Moloda Muza. Yatskiv began his literary career in 1900 with a collection of prose miniatures, V tsarstvi satany (In the Kingdom of Satans), which was influenced by Western modernists, and in particular Charles Baudelaire and Edgar Allan Poe and their predilection for the 'darker' elements in life. Yatskiv transformed these motifs into naturalistic sketches of the brutality of life. Besides other collections of miniatures and short stories (which constitute Yatskiv's most important literary achievement), he also wrote the novelette Ohni horiat' (Fires Are Burning, 1902) and the novel Tanets' tinei (Dance of Shadows, 1916-7). In 1921 Yatskiv edited the newspaper Ridnyi krai in Lviv, and after the Soviet takeover of Western Ukraine he worked in the Lviv Library of the AN URSR. A volume of his collected works, Muza na chornomu koni (Muse on a Black Horse), appeared in 1989...

PACHOVSKY, VASYL, b 12 January 1878 in Zhulychi, Zolochiv county, Galicia, d 5 April 1942 in Lviv. Poet, dramatist, publicist, and teacher. Pachovsky studied at Lviv University (medicine) and Vienna University (history) and completed his studies with a teacher's certificate in 1909. He worked as a cultural representative of the Union for the Liberation of Ukraine in the internment camp at Knittelfeld, Austria (1914-15), edited Strilets' (1918-19) while serving in the Ukrainian Galician Army. Pachovsky was a prominent member of Moloda Muza and made his literary debut in 1901 with a collection of lyric poetry, Rozsypani perly (Scattered Pearls). His poetry is marked by a highly melodic line and folk-song stylizations. His dramas, written more in the modernist manner as highly lyrical allegories, at times too publicistic, are stylized patriotic visions of Ukraine in its quest for freedom. Similar in style to his plays is Pachovsky's epic poem, Zoloti vorota (The Golden Gates), of which only two of the projected four volumes were finished...

LEPKY, BOHDAN, b 4 November 1872 in Krehulets, Husiatyn county, Galicia, d 21 July 1941 in Cracow. Galician writer, literary scholar, civic figure, and artist. Lepky studied at Lviv University, the University of Vienna, and Cracow University and then taught in gymnasiums in Berezhany (1895-9) and at Cracow University (1899-1914). His home in Cracow was a well-known meeting place for Ukrainian writers, artists, and scholars. In 1906 he became a founding member of the Moloda Muza writers' group. Some of his poems were put to music by Ukrainian composers; the requiem song Zhuravli (Cranes) is the most famous of them. From 1898 to 1911 over a dozen collections of Lepky's realistic stories and impressionist prose poems appeared. Between the years 1901 and 1920 he also published over 15 collections of predominantly neoromantic and lyrical (elegiac and introspective) but also social and patriotic poetry. After the Second World War Lepky turned to writing historical novels, such as the (unfortunately esthetically uneven) Ukrainian historical prose epic Mazepa...

CHARNETSKY, STEPAN, b 21 January 1881 in Shmankivtsi, Chortkiv county, Galicia, d 2 October 1944 in Lviv. Poet, feuilleton writer, theatrical producer and director, drama critic, and a member of the Moloda Muza writers' group. In 1913-14 he was in charge of the Ruska Besida Theater in Lviv. He co-edited (in 1916-18) the daily Ukrains'ke slovo (1915-18) and then the weekly Ukrains'ke slovo (1922-5) and wrote feuilletons under the pseudonym Tyberii Horobets. He published several collections of modernist lyrical poetry in which he expressed moods of melancholy and unease as well as his affinity for the decadent literature of Central and Western Europe of the turn of the century. His short stories and feuilletons appeared in several collections and in the posthumous, abbreviated edition Vybrane (Selections, 1959). Charnetsky also translated Polish and German literary works and wrote a short history of the Ukrainian theater in Galicia (1934)...

The preparation, editing, and display of the IEU entries about the Moloda Muza group and the Ukrainian modernist literature in Western Ukraine were made possible by the financial support of the CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR UKRAINIAN STUDIES.

ABOUT IEU: Once completed, the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine will be the most comprehensive source of information in English on Ukraine, its history, people, geography, society, economy, and cultural heritage. With over 20,000 detailed encyclopedic entries supplemented with thousands of maps, photographs, illustrations, tables, and other graphic and/or audio materials, this immense repository of knowledge is designed to present Ukraine and Ukrainians to the world.

At present, only 23% of the entire planned IEU database is available on the IEU site. New entries are being edited, updated, and added daily. However, the successful completion of this ambitious and costly project will be possible only with the financial aid of the IEU supporters. Become the IEU supporter (http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/donor.asp) and help the CIUS in creating the world's most authoritative electronic information resource about Ukraine and Ukrainians!

У Торонто презентували нову книгу про Йосипа Гошуляка TOP

Вікторія Іванців

6 жовтня, осіннім суботнім вечором, в Торонто у приміщенні галереї КУМФ відбулася презентація четвертої книги про нашого славетного земляка, оперного й камерного співака Йосипа Гошуляка «Орав свій переліг. Йосип Гошуляк: від маминої пісні до вершин вокалістики», упорядником якої вкотре стала його дружина, журналіст Марта Онуфрів. На майже тисячі сторінках розміщені статті про пана Йосипа, листування, музичні рецензії на виступи, витяги з книги спогадів «Й свого не цурайтесь», а також нотний репертуар, фотографії, концертні програмки, афіші тощо.

imageНавесні М. Онуфрів презентувала книгу в Україні: Києві, Тернополі, Львові, Стрию, Дрогобичі, та на батьківщині пана Йосипа - с. Палашівці Чортківського району, Тернопільської області, а також у місті Чорткові, в гімназії «Рідна школа», в якій свого часу навчався Йосип Гошуляк.  У вересні книга була представлена на книжковій ярмарці у Львові, де її відзначено спеціальною премією Меморіального музею Соломії Крушельницької.

Та, нарешті, черга дійшла й до самого Торонто, де ось уже багато десятків літ проживає Йосип Гошуляк, і де його добре знають та шанують.

Вечір був особливим, адже презентація книги відбулася напередодні 90-літнього ювілею маестро. Тому відповідно й атмосфера була теплою і родинною.

Вступне слово виголосила дружина і упорядник книги Марта Онуфрів, котра подякувала усім присутнім, що прийшли в цей вечір вшанувати Йосипа Гошуляка, а також В/Д «Києво-Могилянська академія» та особисто почесному президентові Національного університету «Києво-Могилянська академія» В. Брюховецькому за приємну співпрацю й посильну допомогу: «… Книгу видали трохи більше як за місяць. З мого попереднього досвіду,  так скоро і без проблем ще жодної книги не видруковували. Я надзвичайно задоволена з оформлення й поліграфії книги», - зізналася пані Марта. Окрім того, зупинилася на окремих етапах творчого життя співака.

image
Йосип Гошуляк у сяєві свого 90-річчя

Далі слово перебрала доктор музикознавства Дагмара Турчин-Дувірак, випускниця Львівської консерваторії, яка дала нові й надзвичайно цікаві оціночні судження творчому доробкові Йосипа Гошуляка. Вона, зокрема, зупинилася на дивовижній відновлюваності української культури в трагічному для неї ХХ столітті. Коли в 30-их роках у  підсовєтській Україні розвій української музичної культури було перервано «нещадним сталінським терором», то неочікувано вона дає рясні плоди в Західній Україні. Коли ж в 50-80-их роках в СРСР відбувалося знищення «цілих велетенських пластів української музичної традиції», то «тут, по інший бік Атлантики, на іншому континенті, з’являється, спалахує надзвичайно яскравий феномен Йосипа Гошуляка. Видатний співак з першорядним голосом, великий артист, музикант, він один, по добрій волі, поклав на себе місію пошуків, віднайдення, вивчення, високо художнього виконання та доведення до найширшого слухацького загалу (і не тільки українського) кращих перлин української вокальної скарбниці, що на той час були занедбані, забуті та заборонені на їхній батьківщині». Підсумовуючи творчий шлях співака, доповідачка відзначила: «Ім’я Йосипа Гошуляка, його творчі осягнення назавжди вписані в золоту книгу української музики».

image
Велика подяка д-рові Дагмарі Турчин-Дувірак

 В якийсь момент доповіді до зали увійшов сам винуватець урочистої події у супроводі сина Андрія. Стоячою овацією всі присутні привітали ювіляра, а в залу внесли величезний торт зі свічками.

image
Мартуся Скіра - юна зірка на музичному обрії

Після щирих привітань відбулася мистецька частина вечора, яку розпочала наймолодша учасниця, надзвичайно талановита 10-річна Мартуся, у виконанні якої присутні мали змогу почути «Бой Паганіні» Е. Моленгаммера (скрипка, у фортепіанному супроводі матері Оксани Скіри), а також «Коломийку» О. Нижанківського (фортепіано). Далі пролунали солоспіви: Лариси Стельмашенко – «Білі акації» сл. М. Матусовського (переклад із російської Р. Василенка), муз. В. Баснера, «Осіннє золото» сл. Д. Луценка, муз. І. Шамо; заслуженої артистки України Марина Чиженко (Харків), котра якраз завітала до Канади - арія «Віють вітри, віють буйні» з опери М. Лисенка «Наталка Полтавка». А Петро Стельмашенко вітав ювіляра добірною поезією Василя Симоненко.

image
Лариса Стельмашенко в задушевній пісні

І линуло у святковій залі могутнє «Многая і Благая Літа!».

 Олег Скрипка та Олександр Попов презентували міжнародний музичний фестиваль «Rock’n’Sich – 2013» TOP

( Джерело )

image

12 жовтня у столичній держадміністрації відбулася спільна прес-конференція відомого українського співака і громадського діяча Олега Скрипки та голови КМДА Олександра Попова. На зустрічі було презентовано концепцію нового міжнародного фестивалю «Rock’n’Sich».

Як повідомив ініціатор та засновник фестивалю Олег Скрипка, «Rock’n’Sich – 2013» буде спільним українсько-шведським проектом, який поєднає у собі якісну українську та шведську рок-музику, козацькі забави, розваги у стилі вікінгів, змагання з екстремальних видів спорту, лицарські турніри, байк-парад та змагання з автотюнінгу. Фестиваль матиме одразу сім майданчиків, у тому числі дві сцени, збудовані безпосередньо на Дніпрі у вигляді козацьких чайок.

«Я вирішив модернізувати «Рок-січ», бо раніше це був суто український рок і відчувалося, що треба відкривати кордони, робити фестиваль інтернаціональним, – розповідає співак. – В мене виникла ідея, що можна зробити такий братерський, дружній фестиваль «Rock’n’Sich», який кожного року прийматиме якусь країну, і очевидно, що першими на Трухановому острові потрібно прийняти саме шведів».

Також на прес-конференції було офіційно оголошено конкурс серед столичних молодих скульпторів на кращий проект монументу «шведському уболівальникові», який буде відкрито на Трухановому острові у рамках фестивалю «Rock’n’Sich».

«Цей монумент ми хочемо встановити до Дня Києва наступного року на Трухановому острові – місці, де зафіксовано абсолютний рекорд УЄФА за кількістю вболівальників на території одного фан-кемпінгу, – зазначив голова КМДА Олександр Попов. – Ми відберемо найкращі пропозиції столичних скульпторів, але обрати переможця серед них доручимо Асоціації уболівальників Королівства Швеція, яка обіцяє, що їхня делегація на «Rock’n’Sich» налічуватиме кілька тисяч шведів».

Стартує фестиваль у травні наступного року і проходитиме під патронатом Київської міської державної адміністрації.

Організатор фестивалю – «Країна Мрій».

Антологія української драми англійською TOP

image

17 жовтня 2012 — Видавництво Канадського інституту українських студій щойно видало An Anthology of Modern Ukrainian Drama [Антологія модерної української драми] (538 с.) — першу обширну антологію модерної української драми, опубліковану англійською мовою. Її укладач, редактор і автор вступу Лариса Залеська-Онишкевич. Ідея антології з’явилася наприкінці 1970-х рр., коли д-р Онишкевич викладала українську літературу в Ратґерському університеті, Нью-Джерзі. Готуючи курс з української драми в перекладі, вона усвідомила, що лише незначна частина українських драм перекладена англійською, та й ті єдиного автора — Лесі Українки. Зрештою вона почала планувати антологію перекладних драм кількох сучасних українських авторів для використання як університетський підручник.

Дана антологія містить десять п’єс дев’яти українських драматургів: Лесі Українки, Володимира Винниченка, Миколи Куліша (дві п’єси), Івана Кочерги, Олексія Коломійця, Валерія Шевчука та повоєнних еміґраційних авторів Ігоря Костецького, Людмили Коваленко й Богдана Бойчука. Нова книга — це проникливий підручник та цінне джерело інформації для студентів української літератури з англомовних країн. Вона також являє собою чудовий вступ до модерної української літератури, а також корисний матеріял до загального вивчення драми. Це паралельне видання укладеної д-ром Онишкевич україномовної антології, виданої Видавництвом КІУСу 1998 р.

Четверо студентів д-р Онишкевич — Христина Ощудляк, Роксолана Стойко, Чарлз Стек та Дон Бойчук — переклали кожен по одній п’єсі. Решту перекладів здійснили бл. п. Юрій Луцький та його дружина Мойра, Ентоні Вікслі (британський перекладач радянської літератури міжвоєнного періоду), бл. п. поетеса і перекладачка Віра Річ, Джон Праско, який написав маґістерську дисертацію про п’єсу Куліша «Народній Малахій», та сама д-р Онишкевич. Кожна драма супроводжується короткою біо-бібліографією драматурга та есеєм про самий твір, підготовленими д-ром Онишкевич.

Д-р Онишкевич — знавець української драми й театру. Вона викладала українську літературу в Ратґерському університеті й була президентом Прінстонського дослідницького форуму та НТШ у США (2000–2006). Вона автор збірника власних статтей з української драми «Текст і гра» (2009) та редактор кількох антологій і книг із українських студій.

Антологія наявна у Видавництві КІУСу за 39.95 дол. (м’яка палітурка) та 74.95 дол. (тверда палітурка). Український ориґінал антології коштує 39.95 дол. (тверда палітурка). Поза межами Канади ціни в долярах США. Замовлення можна зробити кредитною карткою через захищену електронну систему (www.ciuspress.com), e-поштою (cius@ualberta.ca), телефоном (780/492-2973), факсом (780/492-4967) або поштою: CIUS Press, 430 Pembina Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2H8.

The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) is a leading centre of Ukrainian studies outside Ukraine that conducts research and scholarship in Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Canadian studies. If you would like more information on the Institute, please visit our website at http://www.cius.ca or contact Dr. Bohdan Klid at (780) 492-2972; cius@ualberta.ca.

Канадський інститут українських студій (КІУС) — провідний осередок українознавчих студій поза межами України, покликаний розвивати науково-дослідну роботу з української та українсько-канадської тематики. Щоб отримати детальнішу інформацію, просимо відвідати наш веб-сайт http://www.cius.ca або зв’язатися з д-ром Богданом Клідом (780) 492-2972; cius@ualberta.ca.

Corruption No. 1 problem as Ukraine heads for election TOP

image

( Source )
Oct 24, 2012

As a Ukrainian, Viktoria quickly picked up on the subtext of the doctor's words at the Kyiv hospital where the 22-year-old had gone for emergency treatment.

It was appendicitis and she needed surgery, he said. Then he added: "You know, us doctors and the hospital are not particularly well off. I am sure you want the operation to go smoothly."

Viktoria got his drift: though medical care in state-run hospitals is theoretically free for Ukrainians, it would need a financial back-hander to ensure she got the treatment she required.

She paid $100 to an anaesthetist for the operation to go ahead. "It took place at night. The next day he (the doctor) kept coming back into the ward to ask about the money we had agreed for the operation. Finally $200 changed hands," she said.

There is corruption at every turn in Ukraine: it pervades the police, the courts, the clinics, the parliament and the corridors of power, education and welfare, urban planning and housing.

A 100 hryvnia (12 dollars) back-hander to the highway police will get you out of a speeding offence. But it will cost you ten times more than that to get a place in the school you want for your child.

"It even costs you money to die," Vitaly Klitschko, the world boxing champion who is campaigning for parliament, said caustically at a rally outside the capital Kyiv last Friday. "You have to bribe your way into finding a place in the cemetery now."

What Victoria paid out represents the relatively cheap end of the market. The scale of bribes rises into the hundreds of thousands of dollars when it comes to, say, securing a licence to start a business or getting building permission, foreign business associations say.

Fighting corruption is a drum every party is beating on the campaign trail ahead of a parliamentary election on October 28 when the ruling Party of the Regions expects to hold off a challenge from a divided opposition.

But whatever the outcome in the former Soviet republic next Sunday, few people expect an end to a cancer which hits personal incomes, kills entrepreneurial spirit and deters vitally needed foreign investment.

President Viktor Yanukovich, who wants a Regions victory to cement his leadership, has time and again stated his commitment to ending corruption in high places.

His aides use it to justify imprisonment of his rival, former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the country's most vibrant opposition figure. She is serving a seven-year jail sentence for abuse of power and her political enemies say they are piling up proof of more alleged malpractice by her.

Yanukovich's opponents denounce this as hypocrisy.

Cronyism and corruption have only spread during his 2-1/2 years in office to the advantage of the 'fat cat' industrialists who back him and members of 'The Family', an inner circle of trusted lieutenants which includes his two sons, they say.

The practice of demanding financial back-handers in exchange for commercial transactions only complicates further Ukraine's attempts to integrate into the European mainstream, the opposition says.

Arseny Yatsenyuk, a former economy minister who heads the unified opposition in the absence of Tymoshenko, says the whole process of privatisation is now designed to benefit those in government or linked closely to it. "In this investment climate, we just cannot attract foreign investors."Arseny Yatsenyuk, a former economy minister who heads the unified opposition in the absence of Tymoshenko, says the whole process of privatisation is now designed to benefit those in government or linked closely to it.

"In this investment climate, we just cannot attract foreign investors," he said in an interview with Reuters.

BRIBES, BLACKMAIL

Bribes and other pressures such as blackmail to induce deputies to switch political allegiance are an undercurrent of parliamentary life in Ukraine which often makes pre-election alliances difficult to form, insiders say.

Screening candidates ahead of an election is a headache for opposition party strategists.

Tymoshenko's bloc, for instance, numbered 156 deputies in parliament in 2007 - but after Yanukovich was elected president in early 2010 one third of these defected to the other side.

Some of these were business people who were blackmailed with threats of investigation into their tax affairs, a parliamentary insider, who did not wish to be identified, told Reuters.

Despite the unpopularity of the Yanukovich government over tax and pension policies, the Regions, which dominates in the east and the south, seems likely to hold its majority in the 450-seat assembly.

It is opposed by a union of parties headed by Yatsenyuk and a Western-style liberal party, UDAR or Punch, led by Klitschko, the reigning WBC heavyweight boxing champion, which has surged up the ratings.

The opposition is seeking to weaken Yanukovich, who will be up for re-election as president in 2015.

It says his leadership is holding back democratic progress and locking Ukraine into a "grey zone" adrift between Moscow, Brussels and Washington instead of moving it towards integration into the European mainstream.

Yatsenuyk, an erudite, bespectacled 38-year-old with government experience, and the massively built Klitschko, are both harsh critics of the Yanukovich leadership. They ought to be natural bedfellows.

But the 41-year-old Klitschko refused to sign up to a pre-election opposition coalition, arousing suspicions within the Yatsenyuk-led opposition over his deputies' loyalties once they are in parliament.

CORRUPTION RATING

It was sleaze and ballot-box fraud which triggered the "Orange Revolution" street protests of 2004-5 that doomed Yanukovich's first bid for the presidency and paved the way for Viktor Yushchenko's election in a re-run vote.

But the new 'Orange' leaders never purged the system before they were swept away by Yanukovich's comeback in a 2010 vote which won a clean bill of health from international monitors.

Findings of international agencies support the view that corruption is only accelerating under the present leadership.

Transparency International, which monitors corporate and political corruption, downgraded Ukraine to 152nd place out of 183 countries in a study in 2011.

Ernst & Young has set Ukraine among the world's three most corrupt nations alongside Colombia and Brazil. Ernst & Young has set Ukraine among the world's three most corrupt nations alongside Colombia and Brazil.

In the run-up to Sunday, opposition leaders - including the jailed Tymoshenko - are loudly alleging that the ruling party may try to rig the vote.

Yanukovich, though, is now more isolated in Europe than ever before because of the Tymoshenko affair.

He will be eager to secure overall approval for Sunday's election from OSCE monitors - especially since Ukraine is due to preside over the regional security, development and democracy promotion body from January.

Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili is alone among leaders of former Soviet republics in being credited with stamping out corruption in his country.

But whatever caveats, remarks or criticism international monitors direct at Ukraine after next Sunday's election, nobody is expecting Ukraine to follow Georgia's example in cleaning up the system.

"There are no grounds for expecting from Yanukovich the sort of fight against corruption that we have seen with Saakashvili," said Volodymyr Fesenko of the Penta political analysis center.

(Additional reporting by Natalya Zinets and Pavel Polityuk; Writing by Richard Balmforth; Editing by Giles Elgood)

Risk elections won’t be recognised as free and fair says Secretary General of the Council of Europe TOP

October 23, 2012
www.byut.com.ua

Anna Szyptur, a coordinator for the Canadian observer mission in Ukraine, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying there was evidence of certain "drawbacks" in the run-up to the elections. ( Source )The Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland, has said that the parliamentary elections in Ukraine, scheduled for 28 October, 2012, could be declared unfair. The European leader echoes the thoughts of many in the international community appalled at the politically motivated imprisonment of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko. Both are leaders of opposition parties and unable to participate in the election.

“Could the international community consider an election in the UK free and fair if Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg were jailed on politically motivated charges and prevented from competing?” asked Hryhoriy Nemyria, deputy chairman of the United Opposition - Batkivshchyna. “I think not and the same applies here,” he added.

Mr Jagland, in an interview with Tagessiegel, said, “there is a risk that these elections will not be recognised as free and fair." Mr Jagland also called upon the Ukrainian government to respect the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the arrest of Mr Lutsenko.

On 3 July, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights found that Mr Lutsenko’s arrest had been arbitrary, with no reasons given for his detention. Judges also ruled that the accused had not been duly informed of the reasons for his detention, and that the lawfulness of his arrest and detention had not been properly reviewed.  The court ordered the Ukrainian authorities to pay Mr Lutsenko €15,000 compensation. As with the politically motivated imprisonment of Mrs Tymoshenko, there has been international condemnation from the international community, particularly from the EU and US, at the treatment of Mr Lutsenko with calls from officials for his release along with that of Mrs Tymoshenko.

Online election violation maps set the pace TOP

image

The United Opposition-Batkivshchyna is appealing to citizens to report any incidents of election violations to monitors and report them online. Online tools will make this easy with �violation maps� providing observers with an overview of the quantity and types of violations being reported.

Election monitor OPORA has a website where people can report violations and view them on a Violations Map. OPORA states that for any report to be taken into account it must not be provided anonymously. Accordingly, it must contain the full name, surname and phone number of the individual reporting the violation. The watchdog insists that this information will remain confidential.

Another site, also available in English, is Electua.org, an initiative of Internews-Ukraine. It bills itself as a “politically neutral source” that is open to everyone who wishes to report violations. People can do this online and by email, Facebook and Twitter. Again, its map allows citizens, journalists, and NGOs to visualise violations in near real time.

Another useful English-language resource is Maidan Monitoring which features a violations map that is viewable by violation category e.g. administrative pressure, bribery, fraud, violence, violation of media rights, etc. From August to today the map reveals 1,002 reported violations.

The Central Election Commission says that so far it has registered a total of 3,797 observers from 35 countries and 35 international organisations as of Monday this week. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is sending the biggest delegation of official observers - 635 members.

Ukrainian voters hope for knockout punch TOP

( Source )
October 17, 2012

image
Vitali Klitschko

Roman Olearchyk in Cherkassy

Ukrainians have for years cheered on the reigning world heavyweight boxing champion Vitali Klitschko as he conquered his opponents in the ring. Now millions of voters want to see the boxer deliver a political knockout to their president, Viktor Yanukovich.

They may get their chance next week. Riding on the shoulders of its towering national icon, Mr Klitschko's party is enjoying a surge in popularity ahead of parliamentary elections on October 28.

"His first punch as a politician should be against Yanukovich and his Regions party," said a smiling Natalia Tomenko of Cherkassy, a provincial capital in central Ukraine.

 Looking on as Mr Klitschko rallied more than a thousand voters in the town's central square, the 20-year-old student, a first-time voter, said other politicians "had their chance in power, enriched themselves but did nothing for average people".

Speaking in broken sound bites, Mr Klitschko said it was time to knock out corruption, cronyism, autocracy and kleptocracy, telling his mainly disillusioned, impoverished voters that hope had to be kept alive.

The speech in Cherkassy this week was part of a campaign tour through rural regions where Mr Klitschko says his ancestors were once Cossack warriors. His Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform party is better known by its acronym, UDAR, which means punch in Ukrainian.

"I am not entering politics to make money, I don't need money," Mr Klitschko told the crowd, lashing out at billionaire oligarchs and bureaucrats who abuse power for personal gain.

Polls show support for UDAR has doubled since the spring to 16 per cent, threatening to eclipse the party of jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, and creeping up on the 23 per cent held by Mr Yanukovich’s Regions party.

Mr Klitschko has twice unsuccessfully bid to be mayor of Kyiv, Ukraine's capital. But his leap on to the national stage has injected a fresh jolt of energy and hope for voters in this country of 45m people that seeks closer relations with Europe but feels the strong pull eastward by Russia.

The opposition is feeling the void left by last year's jailing of Ms Tymoshenko, an ex-prime minister and leader of the pro-democracy Orange Revolution eight years ago. Western leaders have condemned her seven-year jail sentence as politically motivated, while the EU has put a landmark free trade agreement on hold until Ukraine demonstrates a stronger commitment to democracy.

Mr Klitschko says he would support legislation to free Ms Tymoshenko, who is "no doubt a political prisoner". But his success is partially thanks to the absence of her charismatic campaigning. UDAR has made big gains in Ukrainian-speaking western and central Ukraine, Ms Tymoshenko's heartland. But polls show Mr Klitschko also doing well in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, where Mr Yanukovich draws much of his support.

Should the opposition win this election, Mr Klitschko said UDAR would unite with Ms Tymoshenko's Fatherland party to steer Ukraine back towards EU integration, democracy, rule of law and open politics.

In a country where politicians race down highways in luxury vehicles guarded by police escorts, Mr Klitschko is campaigning from a Volkswagen minivan. Rare for Ukrainian politicians, he takes questions – sometimes tough – from voters at rallies. This week he was criticised by villagers, for example, for building a party out of untested new faces and "discredited" bureaucrats.

"To some extent he is an unknown quantity," says Mychailo Wynnyckyj, a social sciences professor at Kyiv Mohyla Academy. "But Ukraine needs new political faces and Klitschko’s party is bringing many in."

Positioning UDAR as centre-moderate, Mr Klitschko talked of reforms that would lift the middle class and small businesses. "This is a rich country with lots of natural resources," he tells the Financial Times, but it is all in the hands of a few "oligarchs" and the "family" – Mr Yanukovich's inner circle.

The untainted superhero status of UDAR's leader has struck a chord following years of political infighting and economic pain.

"He's not the best public speaker, but is honest and clearly wants to change the country for the better," said Halyna Doinova, a villager who struggles to survive on a $200 monthly pension. Having voted for Tymoshenko in the past, Ms Doinova now pins her hopes on the boxer. "He is younger, stronger, he can give our children a future," she says.

Ukraine's authorities have repeatedly pledged to hold a free and fair poll. Prime minister Mykola Azarov highlighted the installation of webcams in all 34,000 polling stations.

But cynicism is sky high with many voters. The pre-election atmosphere is fearful; many voters in rural Cherkassy region refused to speak to this newspaper, fearing that authorities would punish them or their relatives.

Holding up his three-year-old son in the crowds of Klitschko supporters, Pavlo Zelenko, an unemployed 30-year-old, said: "I will vote for Klitschko’s party to see what he does. There is not a lot of hope left."

A recent poll gives Mr Klitschko the highest level of voter trust at 42 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for Mr Yanukovich. Political analysts are already talking about a 2015 Klitschko-Yanukovich showdown for the presidency, although the boxer says it's too early to discuss.

But if he leads the opposition into victory this autumn, Mr Klitschko would at the very least shake up Ukrainian politics, much like Georgian billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili did this month in Georgia, another former Soviet republic.

"I don't know how many rounds it will take, but I will fight to the finish," Mr Klitschko said. "And in the end, when we win, it will be a knockout."

Activists sum up campaign, report low quality of politics TOP

image
«I took the buckwheat.
But who gave it to me – I forgot.»

( Source )
Oct. 22, 2012

Svitlana Tuchynska

Most candidates from Ukraine’s leading parties do not meet democratic criteria and the current campaign is violating electoral law. 

Such are the findings of Ukrainian civic organizations that summed up their monitoring of the campaign and candidates up until Oct. 22, just six days before the Oct. 28 parliamentary elections.

“While citizens have few mechanisms of control, politicians have very few restrictions. They can distribute bribes and create so- called charity foundations when the campaign has started, they can enjoy a lifestyle that does not match their tax returns, and they are not obliged to report to the voters in any way,” said Sergiy Taran, one of the members of Chesno civic organization.

Chesno has been evaluating candidates based to four criteria of honesty – involvement in corrupt schemes, infringement of human rights and freedoms, trustworthiness of declared incomes, and adherence to a political position.

The result of the analysis can be found on each candidate's profile on the website of the Chesno organization.

Complete article here.

Ukraine’s election as dirty as in 2004 TOP

image
Each era has its brutal morons

( Source )
Oct. 25, 2012

image of Taras Kuzio Taras Kuzio

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe last Friday issued its second report that pointed to massive and blatant abuse of state administrative resources by the Party of Regions. One poll found that more than 55 percent of Ukrainians queried say election fraud would be organized by the Party of Regions compared to 14 who thought it would be the opposition. Independent no-governmental organization such as Opora (Resistance), Chesno (Honesty) and the European Network Election Monitoring Organizations have reported similar widespread abuses.

[…]

Andriy Mahera: “This election is reminiscent of 2004, because that was probably the only time when so much dirt was dished up.”

The Deputy Chairman of the Central Election Commission speaks about “trading” with election commission members, counteracting the bribing of voters, the inefficiency of the cameras installed at polling stations, the prospects of international recognition of election results and attempts to besmirch his reputation ( Source )
Buying up votes is not restricted to the Party of Regions -- a recently posted video showed Petro Yushchenko, elder brother of the disgraced president, bribing voters in his home region with foodstuffs.

[…]

Yanukovych is in fact a serial election fraudster who has presided over seven non-democratic elections, three as Donetsk governor (1998, 1999, 2002), two as prime minister (2002, 2004) and two as president (2010, 2012).

Complete article here.

Fresh approach to voter fatigue turns zombies loose in Ukraine - VIDEO TOP

( Source )
October 18, 2012

image
http://www.youtu.be/4w4fYdLk9vA

October 18, 2012 -- The crowdsourced election monitoring platfrm ElectUA.org, a project of Internews Ukraine, is using an unconventional marketing approach to encourage Ukrainians, especially young people, to vote in the country’s upcoming Parliamentary elections and to report potential election violations during the campaign and on Election Day (Oct. 28). A promotional video for the site (above), which has garnered more than 16,000 views on YouTube so far, features zombies roaming among the masses on the streets of Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. While unsuspecting locals scream upon discovering the walking dead in their midst, subtitles convey the message: “Why are people turning into zombies? Who you are is up to you! Stop the epidemic: follow the elections.”

The ElectUA website, which was launched in mid-September, collects reports of potential election violations from the public and displays them on an interactive map (designed by Citivox and DevSeed) that users can filter by type of violation, region, date, verification status, and submission medium. Citizens can report suspected violations directly on the website, through its Facebook page or Twitter feed, and via e-mail, phone, or text message. A team of moderators examines each submission and checks its veracity. 834 violations have been reported to date, in categories from campaign obstruction and attempting to influence election officials to “buying” votes. If necessary, submitters may request legal assistance directly on the site.

One reported violation alleges that Andrei Putilov, an UDAR party candidate for representative of a district in the Kherson Oblast in southeastern Ukraine, is buying the support of elderly voters by providing them with round-trip transportation, gift bags, and a free lunch of borscht and mashed potatoes with gravy at the local factory he owns. See the video shot by a young reporter for the newspaper Khersonskie Vesti who hopped on the bus with the group before he was taken away for questioning by factory security, who attempted to force him to erase the video until he was able to call the police for assistance.

This project of Internews Ukraine was supported by Internews with funding from USAID.

Блаженніший Святослав (Шевчук) про вибори: "Голосуйте по правді.  Будьте вільними" - ВІДЕО

TOP
image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZpXjlnP9crs

 

Як змінити дух і репутацію влади: Звернення до виборців Олександра Сугоняко, президент Асоціації українських банків

TOP

image
http://sugonyako.info/video/181-zvernennya-oleksandra-
sugonyako-do-viborcv- svyatoshinskogo-rayonu.html

Mission Canada документує різноманітні відхилення та порушення під час передвиборчого періоду

TOP

КИЇВ , 16  жовтня  2012

image

Другий проміжний звіт представляє результати роботи спостерігачів в усіх областях України  
парламентським виборам в Україні, які   відбудуться  28 жовтня,    передує передвиборчий період,  характерними ознаками якого  стали масштабний підкуп голосів, використанням адміністративного ресурсу, процедурні порушення та  занепокоєність стосовно неналежного процесу розгляду  виборчих спорів, повідомлень про підкуп виборців  у багатьох регіонах  та використання дезінформації.

Це, наразі, становить основні  висновки  другого проміжного звіту, який сьогодні представляє  Mission Canada – Ukraine Election 2012,  міжнародна виборча спостережна місія.  Команда у складі    65  довгострокових спостерігачів  працює по всій території України,   20 жовтня до неї приєднаються  ще 365 короткострокових спостерігачів   Mission Canada представляє найбільшу в історії канадського уряду групу спостерігачів за виборами; її фінансує уряд Канади, а виконує неурядова організація CANADEM.

Новий Український парламент складатиметься  з   450 депутатів, які обираються на термін 5 років,   за змішаною  виборчою системою  (50% за пропорціональною системою  по партійним списками , 50%  за мажоритарними округами). Для голосування зареєструвалося  36 мільйонів  громадян .

“У Mission Canada  продовжують викликати занепокоєння недоліки у адмініструванні виборів, зокрема:   підкуп виборців,  неналежний доступ до збалансованої та достовірної інформації у ЗМІ,  неефективний  розгляд скарг  та відсутність поступу у притягненні до відповідальності за виборчі порушення”  -  сказала Ганна Шиптур, координатор довгострокових спостерігачів Mission Canada.

Упродовж останніх шести тижні спостерігачі  зауважили такі проблеми:

  • неналежний рівень прозорості, різноманітні відхилення, неузгодженості та порушення  в адмініструванні виборів  на окружних та на дільничних рівнях.
  • Зловживання адміністративним ресурсом  продовжує негативно впливати на справедливість  виборчого процесу і створює враження нерівних правил гри.
  • Повідомлення про підкуп виборців продовжують надходити з багатьох регіонів, це явище  відбувається у багатьох формах  –   зокрема, кандидати від різних партій  використовують благодійні фонди.
  • Розгляд органами адміністрування виборів та судовими органами  скарг та апеляцій пов’язаних з виборами  і надалі  не відповідає фундаментальним принципам  прозорості, належного відправлення правосуддя, верховенства права.
  • У парламентській виборчій кампанії 2012  доступ виборців  до достовірних та плюралістичних джерел інформації  надзвичайно обмежений, що згубно позначається на  можливості виборців зробити  поінформований вибір.

Скасування  Верховною Радою  законопроекту, який пропонував поновити кримінальну відповідальність за дифамацію  та наклеп  – вважається позитивним кроком. 25 вересня законопроект було відкликано його автором  а на початку жовтня  –  після масштабних протестів  журналістів, власників медіа та активістів захисту прав людини законопроект було скасовано.

Ще один позитивний крок -   органи  ведення Державного реєстру виборців  почали запроваджувати нові правила стосовно  тимчасової зміни  місця голосування, що ускладнює можливість доставки  виборців на інші дільниці. Крім того, органи адміністрування виборів  та інші державні органи доклали істотних зусиль для поширення попереджень проти  виборчих махінацій.
www.canademmissions.ca/ukraine/

image

Згідно з п.8 ст.74 Закону України "Про вибори народних депутатів України" забороняється "розміщення політичної реклами на зовнішній поверхні та  всередині транспортних засобів громадського користування"

Відповідно - ознаки адміністративного правопорушення, відповідальність за яке встановлено ст.212-14 КУпАП: "Порушення порядку розміщення агітаційних матеріалів чи політичної реклами або розміщення їх у заборонених законом місцях"

Акція ЧЕСНО -ВІДЕО

TOP

image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99NbNuRyMxY

27 вересня 2012 року на Вічевому майдані в Івано-Франківську за ініціативи громадського руху «Чесно» мешканці обласного центру спробували описати портрет депутата, якого вони хочуть бачити у парламенті. Разом з тим журналіст Руслан Коцаба провів опитування на тему: кого підтримають мешканці Івано-Франківська на виборах до Верховної Ради?

image
http://oko.if.ua/2012/09/28/50547/

Чорний гумор....а може ні...?

TOP

image

Зомбі в Україні – ВІДЕО

TOP
image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w4fYdLk9vA&noredirect=1

CNN: Tymoshenko blasts Ukraine leader from prison – VIDEO TOP

( Source )
September 30, 2012

image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvSzZUWlMQ8

Ukraine's imprisoned opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko accuses the country's president of running a "mafia" government in a video smuggled out of her prison by her lawyer, the lawyer told CNN Sunday.

The video, shot on lawyer Sergiy Vlasenko's cell phone, is the first time Tymoshenko has been seen since December of last year.

Yulia Tymoshenko: only elections can stop Ukraine from becoming a criminal country

( Source )
Sep 29, 2012

"I want to appeal to the people – if you understand that right now Ukraine is run by crime and the mafia, later nothing can protect you from what is happening today with Yanukovych in power. I’m certain that people will rise and overthrow this criminal group in theses elections, otherwise the way they treat everyone under their ownership is how they will treat every person. Today the whole country, unfortunately, is living under a criminal authority, and the more the people allow this, the more and worse every person will feel this criminal rule on their lives," said Yulia Tymoshenko.

She said that Ukraine is living in a criminal country that Yanukovych built for himself. "Every person can feel that the law is being trampled, that people are completely destitute. And here I feel all this on my own fate, my own life. Everything that is written in the laws regarding human rights means nothing to Yanukovych’s mafia. The only things that mean anything to them are enrichment, corruption and everything else that they made for themselves in Ukraine. I can imagine how disenfranchised every person is in a criminal police country. How they can’t depend on the law, the courts and law enforcement because it has all been transformed into a single criminal mafia group," she said.

Yulia Tymoshenko also said that every day she is under pressure. "Every day the pressure isn’t just psychological. Every day here is transformed into hell, deliberately and intentionally. And this is Yanukovych’s direct plan," she stressed.

Popular Italian painter Antonio Matragrano painted icon of Yulia Tymoshenko in support of Free Yulia movement – VIDEO

TOP

image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZdFd7WybaI&feature=results_video

On the painting, signed ´Yulia free´, the artist depicted the Ukrainian politician in two images - a saint with a halo and behind the bars. 

Reproduction of his work the iconographer posted on Twitter.

Note Matragano gained fame thanks to the icons with images of famous women. In particular, on his icons he immortalized Monica Bellucci, Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie and others.

In US, it's a game of good cop, bad cop with Ukraine TOP

image

US ambassador to the Ukraine John Tefft (R) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Thomas O. Melia speak to reporters after meeting with jailed Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko at a hospital in Kharkiv on May 14. Sentiment is growing in the U.S. to apply visa and other sanctions against Ukrainian officials involved in the imprisonment of Tymoshenko and abuse of human rights.

( Source )
Oct. 22, 2012

Katya Gorchinskaya

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ukraine's officials are getting the good cop, bad cop treatment from the U.S.  Congress is playing the bad cop with President Viktor Yanukovych and his entourage, threatening them with individual sanctions for pursuing what they say is a policy of selective justice against imprisoned former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

In the executive branch, the U.S. State Department and others are playing the good cop role: Officials are still trying to engage and persuade Ukraine’s leaders that political prisoners, democracy and human rights are more important for the Western world than Yanukovych thinks.

In conversations with the Kyiv Post, State Department officials stress that sanctions will inevitably lead to Ukraine's growing isolation and, therefore, are not on the U.S. agenda as long as Ukraine’s leaders return to the democratic path.

However, it appears that if Ukraine’s leaders keep moving in the wrong direction, the U.S. may put more bite to its bark. In the past year, Washington has sent clear messages to official Kyiv. To express their concern, many top officials -- including U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Thomas Melia – have made trips to Ukraine.

Melia alone has visited four times since 2010. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton furthermore has made several statements regarding Ukraine and sent messages to Tymoshenko, who has been incarcerated for more than a year after being convicted of abuse of office in signing a 2009 gas deal with Russia.

The latest Clinton letter came on Oct. 15. It called for Tymoshenko’s immediate release and assured continued U.S. support. The legislative branch in the U.S. also has made its position known in unambiguous language.  The Senate held two hearings on Ukraine this year.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois visited Ukraine this summer, and had a conversation with Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. Durbin is said to have left with the impression that action to release Tymoshenko was forthcoming.

But months went by and nothing changed. As the Oct. 28 parliamentary election neared, more human rights concerns were raised as it became evident that the election playing field is tilted and that pressure on the media is rising. Amid growing frustration in Washington, a Sept. 22 resolution was unanimously approved in the U.S. Senate, co-authored and pushed through by Durbin and Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahama. Another resolution is pending in the House of Representatives.

The Senate resolution, approved unanimously on Sept. 19, calls for an end to political persecutions and the immediate release of Tymoshenko. It also urges the U.S. government to consider visa sanctions against officials involved in her imprisonment and that of others regarded as political prisoners in the West. Ukraine’s government reacted sharply to the resolution, with the Foreign Ministry claiming that it “reflects the position of two of its authors known for their sympathies to the opposition.”

And despite all 100 members of the Senate voting for the resolution, high-ranking members of the ruling Party of Regions questioned its validity, infuriating some on Capitol Hill. The resolution pending in the House is even tougher. Authored by Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, and chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, a government human rights watchdog, it addresses a broader range of issues, including election-related freedoms and other human rights.

 It calls on the government “to take immediate measures to reverse the current anti-democratic course.” It also calls for “denying United States visas to Ukrainian officials involved in serious human rights abuses, anti-democratic actions, or corruption that undermines or injures democratic institutions in Ukraine, including officials responsible for and participating in the selective prosecution and persecution of political opponents.”

Former Deputy Prosecutor General Mykola Obikhod in July said the Smith resolution “is a direct result of the work of lobbyists.” Other Ukrainian officials, including Obikhod's ex-colleague, First Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin, said in a recent open letter that the Senate resolution was influenced by Tymoshenko allies.

Jim Slattery, a former Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1995 who now works for Wiley Rein law firm, is on Tymoshenko’s case. Slattery has lobbied on behalf of Tymoshenko in Congress with former colleagues he describes as “friends of 20 years.” 

Slattery’s luxurious K Street office has many signs of his work for Tymoshenko: stacks of papers and folders on bookshelves labeled with her name. He points to another stack on his table. He says he has “an ongoing contract” to represent Tymoshenko, the ultimate goal of which is her release and political reconciliation in Ukraine. He will be coming to Ukraine later this year to talk to Yanukovych on the matter.

But others think the lobbyists are very limited in their ability to influence either U.S. policy or events in Ukraine.

Orest Deychakiwsky, a policy adviser at the Helsinki Commission who knows Ukraine well, says the influence of lobbyists is overstated in the case of the resolution on Ukraine. “They were helpful, they did lobby for it, but they can't claim credit for it,” he says.

But their efforts help in the good cop, bad cop game that Washington is playing, and to keep Ukraine on the U.S. foreign policy agenda ahead of the Nov. 6 presidential elections in America.

If sanctions came, who would they be against? State Department officials merely say “we’re trying to identify the people who could potentially face sanctions.”

Such targets on that list are broadly defined as “those who are involved in political prosecutions.” But outside the State Department, certain names are an open secret. In particular, General Prosecutor Viktor Pshonka and his deputy Kuzmin are frequently named high on the list.

Some Ukrainians have already had trouble getting into America. Rinat Akhmetov, the nation’s richest man, has been in limbo for years as to whether or not he will be granted a visa, despite buying United Coal, the sixth-largest coking coal company in the U.S., for up to $1.4 billion in April 2009. There may be others, but these cases often come to light only if the visa-seeker makes an issue out of the troubles.

Sanctions do not appear to be imminent, no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election.

When it comes to Ukraine, the U.S. tends to act with a broad bipartisan consensus. Proof of that is the fact that the tough resolutions on Ukraine, including the latest one on Tymoshenko, are traditionally passed with strong bipartisan support. Ukraine’s behavior is the biggest factor that drives U.S. foreign policy towards it. 

The next big test is how Ukraine holds the Oct. 28 parliamentary election. What is also closely monitored is political persecutions and the possible trial of Tymoshenko on murder charges. Prosecutors say she was behind the assassination in 1996 of Yevhen Shcherban, a businessman and politician from eastern Donetsk region.

Ultimately, the behavior of Ukraine’s officials may determine whether the good cop or the bad cop prevails in U.S. policy involving its increasingly wayward ally.

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

Ukraine's economy nears post-election crunch time TOP

“The main point is that we have stability here.”
image
“The main point is that we have stability here.”
Party of Regions: STABILITY ACHIEVED!

( Source )
Oct. 22, 2012

Crumbling concrete pillars resemble ancient Greek temples, abandoned and overgrown, next to slag heaps that smell like piles of rotten eggs just a mile away from the centre of the Ukrainian town of Makiyivka.Makiyivka, Ukraine - Crumbling concrete pillars resemble ancient Greek temples, abandoned and overgrown, next to slag heaps that smell like piles of rotten eggs just a mile away from the centre of the Ukrainian town of Makiyivka.

Once a showcase for communist industrialisation accounting for more than a tenth of the Soviet Union's coal and steel output, the town of 400,000 today is a symbol of poverty and decay.

With its steel mill obsolete and state-run coal mines stagnating, Makiyivka is a stark symbol of the problems facing the economy as Ukraine approaches an Oct. 28 election: extreme vulnerability to external shocks and lack of reforms resulting in a dismal business climate.

Official statistics show that Makiyivka boasts one of the highest average wages in Ukraine at about $400 per month. But the town's aspect and its residents tell a different story.

Abandoned and looted buildings and frozen construction sites dot the town which has all but merged with Donetsk, the centre of President Viktor Yanukovich's home region.

"I make 30-50 hryvnias ($4-6) a day ... We just barely get by," says Svetlana, 33, a single mother of three who now sells socks and slippers at an open-air market after she was made redundant at a local shoe factory two years ago.

Makiyivka's steel mill, which relied largely on outdated open hearth furnaces, was shut down in 2003 and has since been reduced to a rolling facility processing steel from another nearby mill.

Some facilities, such as furnaces, have been dismantled. Others, such as temple-like circular water purifiers, have been left to rot. The plant's work force has been reduced to about 1,000 people from 7,500.

With demand for steel, Ukraine's main export, sagging due to the euro zone crisis, other local producers are under threat as well. Ukraine's steel production fell 5.6 percent in January-September compared with the same period of 2011.

Just as in Makiyivka, the steel sector's troubles are having a knock-on effect on the wider economy across the country.

Ukraine's industrial output shrank 7.0 percent year-on-year in September after falling 4.7 percent in August and some analysts say overall economic growth could be zero this year.

The problem is aggravated by the fact that the hryvnia has been pegged to the dollar since early 2010, making Ukrainian exports less competitive and causing a domestic credit crunch as banks anticipate depreciation.

Analysts say the exchange rate policy was at least partly driven by political considerations and meant to demonstrate stability achieved under Yanukovich, who came to power in February 2010.

"A lacklustre performance by the export sector and the tight hryvnia-to-dollar peg are the key reasons why Ukraine's foreign trade and current account deficits have kept widening," HSBC said in a report on Monday.

"The latter is approaching 10 percent of GDP, which we believe is hardly sustainable."

Analysts say the question is not whether the hryvnia will depreciate after the election but when exactly and by how much, although the authorities say it will remain stable.Analysts say the question is not whether the hryvnia will depreciate after the election but when exactly and by how much, although the authorities say it will remain stable.

STAGNATION

Yanukovich's Party of the Regions, which seeks to retain a majority in the vote this weekend, has touted stability as its key accomplishment during the campaign.

Indeed, output has been stable and wages grew by several percentage points every quarter at Makiyivvuhillya, the state-run coal firm that is now the main industrial enterprise in Makiyivka, for the last two years, says local mining trade union official Anatoly Akimochkin.

But no new mines are being built and coal is now often being stockpiled rather than sold because of falling demand, he said.

This means that next year, when the company is scheduled for privatization along with hundreds of other state assets, investors are likely to break it up and close some facilities.

"Lay-offs are inevitable," Akimochkin said.

Utilities are another sector where state policies have focused on preserving the status quo. Ukrainians are paying only a fraction of the market price for household gas and heating services, with the rest subsidized by the state budget.

The price of gas, which Ukraine imports from Russia, has been rising steadily but the government has so far refused to raise household gas and heating prices, losing access to a $15 billion International Monetary Fund facility as a result.

The Fund, whose programme could have provided Ukraine with much-needed fiscal and foreign exchange cushions, says price hikes are essential in order to cut the budget deficit and avoid falling into a debt trap.

Ukrainian officials now say they are making progress in talks on renewing IMF lending, although the Fund has made no such indications and the government insists it will not raise utility prices.

Meanwhile municipal infrastructure, plagued by inefficiency and under-financing, is falling apart. In large parts of Makiyivka, water flows from taps only a few hours per day.

"Last time hot water ran from my tap was in April 1997," says Akimochkin. "Sewers often leak into the streets."

With key reforms delayed and corruption remaining rampant, private investors - aside from Yanukovich's financial backers such as billionaire industrialists Rinat Akhmetov and Dmytro Firtash - are reluctant to put their money into Ukraine. With key reforms delayed and corruption remaining rampant, private investors - aside from Yanukovich's financial backers such as billionaire industrialists Rinat Akhmetov and Dmytro Firtash - are reluctant to put their money into Ukraine.

A business climate index based on a survey of more than 100 Ukrainian and foreign companies carried out by lobbying group European Business Association fell to a three-year low in the third quarter of 2012.

"Investors have been spooked by looming fiscal pressure, corruption, and general uncertainty in the run-up to October's parliamentary elections," the group said in a statement this month.

Uncertainty is the world that best matches the sentiment of Makiyivka's residents who see the relative stability of the last few years as stagnation.

"We are just treading water," says Akimochkin of the trade union.

The secrets of Ukrainian inflation TOP

image
Economic illusionist
“The economy has grown by more than 10%. Note, it has really grown.”

( Source )
October 23, 2012 

Liubymyr Shavaliuk

Official inflation rates are being artificially understated in Ukraine to manipulate consumer expenditures

[…]

Compared to countries with a similar GDP per capita (see chart 1), the Ukrainian consumer basket reflects the high level of poverty of Ukrainians which, in turn, signals the unequal distribution of social welfare. Daily necessities, such as food, housing and travel expenses, constitute up to 70% of Ukrainians’ consumer basket. According to the State Statistics Committee, the monthly financial resources of households constitute UAH 1,483 or around USD 185 per person. With this income, many Ukrainians cannot afford a lot of simple pleasures in life. They have very little left for household accessories and utilities, entertainment or eating out. Obviously, pensioners are even poorer. This is why they travel on public transport no more than once a week. Instead, they spend all their money on medicines which are a daily necessity for virtually all of them.

The first things that draw attention are the high expenses of Ukrainians on food and non-alcoholic drinks. They constitute 53% of the total consumption set cost. This is the highest rate among most analyzed countries where people spend at least 1.5 times less on these items. Even the Congolese who import virtually all their food at world prices, since all they produce is sugar, coffee and cocoa, spend only 48% of their income on food.

To satisfy their own needs for food, Ukrainians are forced to spend too much money on it compared to other goods. However, the domestic cost of most food produced in Ukraine is lower than what it costs in the world. Apparently, it is the poverty of Ukrainians, not high prices that is the main reason for such high food expenses. Labour income which includes salaries and pensions is significantly lower in Ukraine compared to countries with a similar GDP per capita. The gap is at least 1.5 times - and twofold, given the fact that food is cheaper in Ukraine. How is this possible? Low salaries and pensions are offset in the structure of Ukrainian GDP with a significant share of taxes and non-labour income, such as the income of corporations, interest or rent, in the GDP. This illustrates how the oligarch monopoly dominates the entire country.

Since food and non-alcoholic drinks prevail in the Ukrainian consumption set, this item group has become the key target of an administrative struggle against inflation – with the authorities openly manipulating the figures. The government has compiled a list of socially important goods made up of 23 products. Bread, flour and buckwheat make up 20% of the total consumption set. 37% of it is the Food and Non-Alcoholic Drinks product group. The Ministry of Economy monitors the prices of these social goods twice a week and restrains overpricing with an iron fist. As a result, supplying many of those products to the market does not pay off, which is exactly what made buckwheat and flour disappear from the shelves in spring 2010 and fueled laments – or in some cases protests – among some bread makers.  (Another example of the government’s efforts at manipulating inflation rates was in 2010 when the price of buckwheat soared while grocery stores were forced to sell it at discount prices. The state monitoring method does not cover products on sale when calculating the inflation rate – Ed.)

The current consumption set structure leads to significant fluctuations in inflation rates, sometimes influenced by secondary factors. In Ukraine, for instance, pensioners and public sector employees are the poorest categories of the population. This means that they spend most of their income on food. Thus, whenever the authorities throw them a bone by raising their salaries or pensions slightly before yet another election, virtually the whole amount ends up on the food market with a relevant effect on the CPI. By contrast, whenever Ukraine collects record-breaking crops, such as in 2011, the CPI declines steeply – and tempts the government to take credit for it.

[…]

Utility and electricity bills are eating up more and more of Ukrainians’ expenditures even though the consumption set of official statistics reflect the opposite. And this is before the gas price policy for the population is liberalized and raised to world levels. In other words, the share of this group in the consumption set is also unrealistically low.

[…]

The composition of the consumption set which the Ukrainian government is using to calculate inflation, offers the following portrait of an average Ukrainian: poor, prone to the abuse of alcohol and tobacco, and only dreaming about eating out or going on a vacation. The policy to restrain inflation provides for the intentional overstatement of the share of so-called socially significant goods in the consumption set as a result of Ukrainians’ low income which, in reality, often leads to considerable inflation rate fluctuations. In an attempt to restrain it, the government is making every effort to manually keep the prices of social goods stable, yet it sometimes gives in to the temptation of backstabbing, replacing the share of “disobediently” priced goods with those it can control. At times, this causes deficits and panic on some markets and distances the CPI even further from the actual inflation rate in Ukraine. 

Complete article here.

Russian 'rendition': Kremlin grabs opposition figure from Ukraine streets TOP

image
Mentor

( Source )
October 22, 2012

KGB has full reign in Ukraine, while MFA, SBU and prosecutors office does not react or protest. Analysts worry that Leonid Razvozzhayev's alleged kidnapping from a Kyiv street and subsequent imprisoning is start of a full-scale, no-holds-barred crackdown by Putin's Kremlin.

Russian secret services have allegedly carried out a "rendition" by plucking a Russian opposition figure, Leonid Razvozzhayev, from a Kyiv [Kyiv] street in broad daylight last Saturday and transferring him to Lefortovo prison in Moscow.

The alleged kidnapping occurred just as Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was heading to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a variety of bilateral issues, including the price Russia charges Ukraine for natural gas.

The episode has Ukrainian human rights activists in an uproar over what looks like the completely illegal seizure of a foreign national on Ukrainian soil, and it has left many Russian experts fearful that the much-predicted, full-scale, no-holds-barred crackdown against the anti-Kremlin opposition has begun.

Complete article here.

Hilary Clinton & Catherine Ashton: Ukraine’s troubling trends TOP

( Source )
October 24, 2012

Op-Ed Contributors
By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and CATHERINE ASHTON

IT has been 21 years since Ukraine gained its independence from the Soviet Union. Since then, Ukrainians have made much progress on reforming and modernizing their country. Ukraine has also become an important partner on a number of pressing global and regional issues, from nuclear nonproliferation to food security and the settlement of protracted conflicts.

Ukraine now stands at an important juncture. Many of its neighbors in Central and Eastern Europe have shown the world what can be accomplished in terms of democratization and economic prosperity. Ukraine has the capacity to do the same. Important steps now have to be taken by the Ukrainian government to fulfill its full potential.

This is especially true when it comes to strengthening democratic institutions to ensure the respect of fundamental freedoms. Ukraine’s parliamentary elections at the end of this month will be an important bellwether for the state of these institutions. At the moment, there are some worrying trends, as confirmed by the latest interim report by the election observation mission of the O.S.C.E.’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

We are concerned about reports of the use of administrative resources to favor ruling party candidates and the difficulties several media outlets face. Similarly, we are concerned about the continuation of the practice of the Central Election Commission holding closed pre-session meetings and the lack of representation of some political parties on district and precinct election commissions. Distribution of material or financial benefits to voters is another issue that should be investigated and halted.

We regret that the convictions of opposition leaders during trials that did not meet international standards are preventing them from standing in parliamentary elections. The Ukrainian government needs to address these selective prosecutions, including the case of former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko and other former senior officials.

The United States and the European Union are doing their part for a free and fair election, supporting election observers and helping to train election officials, encourage voter education and protect the rights of candidates and voters.

But these are not the European Union’s elections or America’s elections. They are Ukraine’s. This is a moment when Ukraine’s leaders should deliver for their citizens. They expect President Viktor F. Yanukovich and his government to address these concerns, especially to ensure that the right to political participation is upheld and to provide for fair media access for all candidates.

We know this is possible because Ukrainians have done it before. Just over two years ago, they elected a new president in what many observers consider the country’s freest and fairest national election. With that contest, Ukrainians set their own high standard, a standard that should be met in this month’s election.

We are also mindful of Ukraine’s broader reform agenda. While some progress has been made, we hope the elections will lead to a vigorous and effective effort by the country’s leaders to advance important core reforms, including the investment climate and the energy sector. Much is at stake here for Ukraine’s future.

The European Union and Ukraine have completed negotiations on an ambitious Association Agreement that will provide for the country’s political association and economic integration with the European Union, including by establishing a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. It would offer Ukrainian businesses greater access to 500 million consumers in the European Union and advance Ukraine on the path toward a modern European democracy.

But the European Union will only be able to move forward with such an ambitious agenda if the democratic rights of the Ukrainian people, including freedoms of expression, political participation, association and media, are respected, the rule of law is put on strong footing, and progress is made on the overall reform agenda.

It remains deeply in our common interest to see an independent, prosperous and irreversibly democratic Ukraine that is associated with the European Union. We want to pursue deeper, mutually beneficial partnerships with Ukraine and will continue working toward a day where Ukraine will fully realize its own potential and take its place among the modern democracies of Europe.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the U.S. secretary of state. Catherine Ashton is the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy.

Наступ «регіонів» на суспільство. Інфографіка

TOP

image

Більша світлина тут: http://texty.org.ua/action/file/download?file_guid=39509


Юлія Тимошенко: ніякий дарвінізм не зможе шакала перетворити на лева TOP

( Джерело )
19 жовтня 2012

image

Відкритий лист екс-прем'єр-міністра України Юлії Тимошенко громадянину Віктору Януковичу

Вікторе Федоровичу!

Вчора, у пересувній в’язниці, в яку ви перетворили мою лікувальну палату, я побачила по всім каналам вашого телебачення відеозаписи мого тюремного побуту, знятого прихованими відеокамерами. Враховуючи крайню аморальність цього вашого вчинку, вирішила написати вам відкритого листа.

По-перше – я підтверджую автентичність цих матеріалів на 90% їх обсягу. Особливо в тій частині, яка стосується моїх занять лікувальною фізкультурою з лікарем-реабілітологом в кімнаті для медичних процедур.

По-друге – відеозаписи в процедурній кімнаті та інших приміщеннях зроблені прихованими камерами відеоспостереження, які встановлені за вашим особистим дорученням. Тепер факт наявності постійної прихованої відеозйомки є доведеним і це є вашим кримінальним злочином.

По-третє

– значна частина медичних заходів, які проводяться в цій процедурній кімнаті, потребує повного зняття одягу, і приховані відеокамери це все фіксували та продовжують фіксувати в безперервному режимі весь період мого лікування. А це вже моральний злочин, який ви робите.

По-четверте – працівники колонії, які мене підтримують, після оприлюднення цих відеозаписів на каналах телебачення, передали мені точний план розташування всіх прихованих відеокамер, які встановлені за вашим дорученням в приміщеннях, де я перебуваю. Суспільству, можливо, буде цікаво дізнатися, що три відеокамери встановлені в кімнаті для конфіденційних зустрічей із захисниками, дві приховані відеокамери безпосередньо в душовій кабінці та по одній над кожним з двох унітазів (вибачте за деталі). Камер скритого відеоспостереження встановлена така кількість, що від них неможливо ніде сховатися ні вдень, ні вночі.

І останнє – в спеціальній кімнаті біля моєї тюремної палати розміщені монітори цілодобового відеоспостереження за мною, яке здійснюють виключно чоловіки-офіцери, які працюють в колонії, чоловіки-офіцери, які працюють в прокуратурі – це покривають, чоловіки-офіцери, які працюють в СБУ – це технічно забезпечують. Це робиться демонстративно, відверто, у мене на очах, очевидно, для додаткового психологічного тиску. На жаль, який президент, такі й офіцери, які його обслуговують.

Ці відеозаписи щоденно передаються вам в електронній формі.

У зв’язку з цими обставинами у мене немає до вас ніяких прохань або пропозицій.

Просити вас припинити це неподобство? Так ви самі це організували. Попросити порушити кримінальні справи проти виконавців цієї брудної роботи? Так хіба ваш генеральний прокурор порушить проти Вас кримінальну справу? Ви – ідеолог, організатор і виконавець цього безпрецедентного за своєю гидотною дійства. Саме тому у мене до вас є тільки три питання, на які прошу вас відповісти публічно.

По-перше – що ви особисто хочете побачити на відеозаписах, зроблених прихованими відеокамерами в душі, в туалетах, в тюремній палаті, в кімнатах, де здійснюються медичні процедури з повним роздяганням?

Що ви робите з цими фільмами? Проглядаєте самі або в веселій компанії з друзями? Можливо, ви отримуєте від спостереження за політичним опонентом-жінкою в роздягненому вигляді додаткову впевненість в собі та своїх політичних можливостях? Можливо, ви насолоджуєтесь такою специфічною владою над своїм політичним опонентом та відчуваєте себе завдяки цьому сильнішим та успішнішим?

Якщо на всі ці запитання ви самі собі відповіли позитивно, то це, Вікторе Федоровичу, - діагноз і вам треба негайно анонімно лікуватися, бо це може перейти в хронічну стадію.

Друге запитання, яке у мене є до вас. Коли по вашим каналам телебачення буде продовження цього цікавого для вас серіалу? Коли очікувати продовження відеозаписів вже в стилі "НЮ"? Можливо, ви думаєте, що демонстрацією цих матеріалів ви принижуєте мене? Ні. Ви принижуєте себе, відкриваєте Україні та світу свою справжню сутність. Кожен такий "злив" відеоматеріалів, записаних прихованими камерами про мій тюремний побут перетворює вас для всіх нормальних людей в… Та краще вам не знати…

І останнє третє запитання. Ви не хотіли б спробувати помістити під цілодобове публічне відеоспостереження з прямою трансляцією в інтернеті вашу дружину Людмилу або свою матір, якщо вона ще жива? Покажіть по своїм каналам телебачення, як вони живуть, як сплять, роздягаються, приймають душ або справляють свої нужди. Якщо у вас є такі екзотичні фантазії таємно стежити за приватним життям жінок по типу шоу "За склом", почніть з жінок своєї родини.

Можливо тоді ви зрозумієте межу між садизмом та моральністю, між ніцистю та гідністю.

Враховуючи, що я добре розумію з ким маю справу і повністю розумію ваш психологічний портрет, я вас ні в чому не звинувачую і, навіть, пробачаю.

Ви такий, який є. І ніхто вас не зможе зробити іншим. Ніякий дарвінізм не зможе шакала перетворити на лева і навпаки.

В принципі у мене немає крім цих запитань до вас жодного прохання.

Прохання у мене є до всіх жінок України та світу, які мають честь, гідність та солідарність. Перед тим, як будете спілкуватися з Януковичем, просто згадайте, що він цілодобово спостерігає за тюремним побутом свого політичного опонента-жінки через приховані в туалетах відеокамери і не подавайте йому руки, бо потім її буде неможливо відмити.

Таке саме у мене прохання до чоловіків в Україні та за її межами, які люблять своїх матерів, дружин, доньок, сестер.

Не подавайте руки Януковичу, бо цим ви принизите всіх жінок, які мають гідність, підтримаєте Януковича в його брудних повсякденних розвагах.

А вам, Вікторе Федоровичу, я повідомляю, що відмовляюся від такого "лікування" під відеокамерами з трансляцією в інтернеті та на TV, яке більше схоже на перебування в катівнях ГУЛАГу. В таких умовах не лікують, а калічать.

Я вимагаю повернути мене до колонії в такому стані, як є. Лікуватися я буду на свободі, коли ви не будете підглядати за мною у замкову щілину.

Сподіваюся на рішення Європейського суду з прав людини та на те, що українці, нарешті, зрозуміють, ким ви є та знесуть вас з президентської посади разом з мафією, яку ви очолюєте.

Без поваги до вас,
Юлія Тимошенко,
17 жовтня 2012 року

Юлію Тимошенко хочуть забрати з лікарні через заклик скинути мафію - заява «Батьківщини» + ВІДЕО
TOP

image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gPx6x-ZNEdo#t=0s

Юлія Тимошенко: Або на цих виборах люди повстануть, або
кримінал і надалі правитиме в Україні (відеозвернення)

( Джерело )
30 вересня 2012

Партія «Батьківщина» розцінює заяву тюремників про незаконне та негуманне припинення лікування лідера опозиції у лікарні «Укрзалізниці», як помсту режиму Януковича за відеозвернення, в якому Юлія Тимошенко закликає співвітчизників на виборах висловити свій протест корупційній владі.

Партія «Батьківщина» у своїй заяві вимагає негайно звільнити Юлію Тимошенко.

«Режим Януковича вчергове продемонстрував світу своє звіряче обличчя. Їм виявилося замало незаконного ув’язнення Юлії Тимошенко і вони вирішили активізувати свої зусилля в напрямку реалізації злочинного плану по її знищенню», - йдеться у документі.

«Тюремники, за наказом Януковича, збираються викинути хвору людину з лікарні «Укрзалізниці» та знову заховати Юлію Тимошенко за грати Качанівської колонії, аби без зайвих свідків продовжувати тортури над нею», - наголосили у партії.

«Всі подивилися та пересвідчилися, що Юлія Тимошенко не може пересуватися без ходунків, однак, режим вперто продовжує брехати, тримає всю країну за ідіотів та заявляє про якесь міфічне «розширення рухової активності», - зазначили у «Батьківщині».

У партії нагадали, що «навіть Янукович змушений був неодноразово публічно визнати, що суд над Юлією Тимошенко не відповідав жодним стандартам, а відтак є незаконним».

«Янукович достеменно знає, що Юлія Тимошенко не скоювала ніяких злочинів, тому вимагаємо від режиму та Януковича особисто негайного звільнення Юлії Тимошенко із застосуванням усіх існуючих важелів та механізмів», - наголошується у заяві.

«Також, з огляду на чисельні звернення ЗМІ до пенітенціарної служби щодо інтерв’ю Юлії Тимошенко та наданий нею особистий дозвіл, вимагаємо припинити відмовляти журналістам в отриманні інтерв’ю, оскільки суспільство має знати правду про все, що відбувається навколо лідера опозиції, яку на президентських виборах підтримало півкраїни», - резюмується у документі.

Популярний італійський іконописець Антоніо Матраграно  приєднався до всеєвропейської громадської акції Free Yulia і намалював ікону – ВІДЕО

TOP

image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZdFd7WybaI&feature=results_video

Популярний італійський іконописець Антоніо Матраграно (Antonio Matragrano) приєднався до всеєвропейської громадської акції Free Yulia, яка присвячена поводженню з лідером української Об'єднаної опозиції  Юлією Тимошенко.

На картині "Юлія Тимошенко - вільна" художник зобразив українського екс-прем'єра в двох образах - святої з німбом та ув'язненої за ґратами.

Репродукцію свого твору Матраграно розповсюджує через Twitter.

Матрагано відомий своїми іконами відомих жінок. Серед його героїнь - Моніка Белуччі, Скарлет Йохансон, Анджеліна Джолі та інші.

При ПР Фірташі, Коломойські то інші окупанти захопили надра України які належать українцям

TOP
image
Forbes: Investigation: Oleksandr Yanukovych’s enrichment TOP

image

Yekateryna Kaplyuk  —  23 October 2012

image

The story of how five coal preparation plants have been quietly taken under control by structures close to the president’s son thanks to an amendment to the law made by Viktor Yanukovych

At the beginning of September, Oleksandr Riabchenko, chairman of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, announced the start of privatization of five coal preparation plants in Donetsk region: Krasnaya Zvezda, Komsomolskaya, Uzlovskaya, Ukraina and Rossiya. He didn’t say they were already under control of structures close to president’s son Oleksandr Yanukovych.

Coal preparation is a necessary procedure to improve its quality, so coal mines often work in “liaison” with preparation plants. Today, about 60 plants work in Ukraine, every of them can handle up to 2-2.5 tons of coal a year at the average. Komsomolskaya preparation plant is among the biggest: it can process about 4.5 tons. Like other plants mentioned by Riabchenko, beginning from 2000 it was taken on lease by interconnected structures controlled by Donbass Calculating and Financial Center (DCFC) . Riabchenko assured that plant workers can buy its shares on a priority basis, but in reality the situation is quite the opposite. The majority share in the enterprises is in the hands of private companies since the beginning of summer.

Pinochet’s lawyer and the president’s son

From the moment of its founding in 1998, DCFC association was chaired by Eduard Prutnik, current MP and a member of Donetsk regional council at the time, who was called “Viktor Yanukovych’s godson”. Such preparation plants as OJSC Donbassuglepererabotka, OJSC COF Uzlovskaya, OJSC Donbass Preparation Plant, PC COF Kalininskaya as well as Vostokuglemash plant were part of it.

Since the status of association didn’t allow it to deal with corporate rights and to conduct economic activity, at the end of 2009 a limited liability company of the same name was founded. According to the Antimonopoly Committee, the company obtained the mentioned rights. Having created a new legal entity Donbass Calculating and Financial Center was in no haste to close the old one. The association existed until spring 2012.

In 2010, Eduard Prutnik quitted the coal business and lost his influence on DCFC. As Forbes.ua already wrote, his place was taken by the president’s elder son Oleksandr Yanukovych. Today, other managers are indicated in the company’s documents – in 2011 both the association and the limited liability company were chaired by nonpublic Donetsk businessman Vitaliy Beliakov. The Forbes.ua correspondent called Beliakov’s office and asked about an interview. The secretary agreed only to write down the phone number and added: “We will contact you”. No representative of DCFC has called our editorial office during two weeks.

DCFC Structure before 2012

image

Recently, Prutnik has invested into foreign companies (e.g. diamond mining in Africa). There are no references to the coal empire on the site of his company Uvercon Investments Ltd.

 

After Beliakov’s arrival, the association has become a favourite of tenders, and in 2011 it earned nearly UAH 1 billion on coal preparation. DCFC cooperates, among others, with such big enterprises as Krasnoarmeiskugol, Ordzhonikidzeugol, Torezantratsit, Makeyevugol and Selidovugol.

DCFC has from time to time acted on the verge of breaking the rules. In 2010 the State Financial Inspection accused the association of being involved into embezzlement of UAH 5.3 million of budget funds allocated to GP Krasnoarmeyskugol to pay for energy. The state-owned enterprise used DFCF to change the intended purpose of the funds.

In the same year, the Control and Revision Office in Donetsk Region established that as a result of unreasonable discounts for DCFC a subsidiary motor transport company of Krasnoarmeiskugol received UAH 3.2 million less. According to another report, DCFC allegedly overstated figures of ash content in coal.  The decision was appealed against in court, and the following appeal by the CRO was dismissed.

However, Serhiy Kuziara, an assistant to the Minister of Energy and Coal Industry, is happy with how DCFC manages the plants taken on lease: “The plants are in good technical condition, and this is the reason why we communicate with them. Unlike some other our plants, they supply the volume they process. There are no suspensions there.”

Forbes.ua has already reported that Kuziara is considered to be Oleksandr Yanukovych’s new manager. He himself denies this, adding that he communicates with DCFC as a representative of the Ministry.

Vitaliy Beliakov is a minority co-owner of DCFC LLC. The company is controlled by Sarone Holdings Limited offshore company from the British Virgin Islands, which, according to the Antimonopoly Committee, manages the corporate rights of the enterprises. In the record received with the help of OCCRP it is said that Sarone Holdings was registered by Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee Trust (BVI) Limited Company and its documents were drawn by Blondell Challenger. He is known internationally as a lawyer involved in money laundering by Augusto Pinochet’s family. In Ukraine, Challenger came into the spotlight as the founder of Follberg Investment Limited, one of the beneficiaries of future TV-monopolist Zeonbud.

Old assets in new packaging

At the end of May, DCFC association went out of business, and PC COF Komsomolskaya became its successor. Komsomolskaya plant, attractive from the point of investments, has long been DCFC’s basis. For example, in court decisions dated 2010 the names of the enterprises were written as one – DCFC (COF Komsomolskaya), whereas the plant was still owned by the state and taken on lease by DCFC.

On 1 June 2012, a public company was created to privatize the plant. The leaseholder – DCFC LLC – received 74.18% of the company’s shares. Apparently, free of charge: according to all documentation, control over the company was changed by means of simple company reorganization.

The same LLC, according to the National Commission on Securities and Stock Market, appointed the head of the public company’s supervisory board for 3 years. The head office of Komsomolskaya is not in Dimitrov where the plant is situated, but in Donetsk, in DCFC’s building. Komsomolskaya’s phone number is assigned in the database of the Ministry of Justice to entrepreneur Andriy Fedoruk. This entrepreneur today heads Donetsk Regional council. Before that, Mr Fedoruk chaired MAKO Company that belongs to Oleksandr Yanukovych. In 2000-2005 he was the founder of OJSC COF Uzlovskaya, one of the leaseholders of the plants from DCFC’s orbit.

In the image and likeness of Komsomolskaya, public companies have been created on the basis of other preparation plants. Their supervisory boards are headed by Vitaliy Beliakov. For instance, Krasnaya Zvezda public company is the successor of OJSC Donbass Preparation Company, and COF Uzlovskaya public company has inherited the assets of OJSC COF Uzlovskaya (both initial companies were in the sphere of DCFC influence). By the way, it was OJSC COF Uzlovskaya that was the connecting link between DCFC and the Yanukovych family. According to the Antimonopoly Committee, it purchased 25% of JCB Ukrainian Business Bank connected with the president’s elder son.

PC Ukraina and Rossiya are newly-created enterprises on the basis of plants in Ukrainsk and Mykhailovsk (Donetsk region) taken on lease by OJSC Donbassuglepererabotka. Over 70% of shares in both companies are owned by OJSC DCFC.

Forbes.ua has failed to find any traces of DCFC paying for shares in the preparation plants. Quite often an OJSC is founded on the basis of a certain enterprise together by the state and the leaseholder. Investments made by the private company over the period of lease are taken into account, and, a result of this, shares of the state and investor are defined. We have requested information about the plants’ privatization at the State Property Fund, but within the term defined by law, and even in a week, we haven’t received the information, and the Fund’s employees said that a regional office - not central - was in charge of the issue. Forbes.ua would be glad to publish the response from the State Property Fund concerning the privatization of the preparation plants.

Forms of the companies’ ownership were changed, and their management and activity were not. For example, former director of Donbass Preparation Plant Ihor Zaika became the acting director of OJSC GOF Kraznaya Zvezda. Serhiy Ilyanoi changed his position of the director of OJSC COF Uzlovskaya for the position of the director of PC COF Uzlovskaya. The destiny of their colleagues at Ukraina and Rossiya plants Oleksandr Kanashevych and Ihor Miakshin, who used to work in OJSC Donbassuglepererabotka, was the same.  It’s not the easiest thing in the world to speak to the directors of the new joint-stock companies. No one of them has agreed to hold even a phone interview. Evhen Zinchenko, lawyer of Komsomolskaya, has refused to talk with Forbes.ua referring to some “agreement on non-disclosure”. An accountant from Uzlovskaya, who asked not to mention her name, told us that the shares for workers will be sold till the mid-November. “Now, a preferential sale of shares for workers is taking place. Concerning some outside organizations, we have received no instructions, and I don’t think we will receive them. Because they sell only to employees,” – she told the Forbes.ua correspondent.

According to Mykhailo Volynets, Chairman of the Independent Trade Union of Miners of Ukraine, DCFC is interested not only in the preparation plants themselves but in the mines not far from them as well.

“DCFC, i.e. Yanukovych’s son, is directly interested in Ukraina, Rossiya and Novogrodovskaya mines (all – GP Selidovugol). All of these mines are in perfect condition,” – Volynets told Forbes.ua. As Delovaya Stolytsia wrote, Oleksandr Yanukovych’s business group is really interested in Selidov’s mining enterprises. In spring this year joint stock companies with the same names as the local mines were founded.

The trade union activist adds that it’s beneficial for the preparation plants’ managers that the mines receive aid from the state. “It’s one complex,” – Volynets says. – “A plant is a “neck”. Mines produce coal called simply “run-of-mine” coal. And “marketable products” are produced by the plant. Budget funds used for supporting mines can be pumped away through a higher price for processing.”

DCFC Reorganization

image

The Yanukovych law

A scheme similar to that used by DCFC to obtain control over the plants before their privatization has been recently recognized by Ukrainian court as unacceptable. At the end of August, the Economic Court of Kherson region delivered its judgment in the case about privatization of Kherson Glass Works. In 2001, investors founded CJSC Ukrstekloprom on the basis of the enterprise. An agreement was signed between the State Property Fund and the CJSC about the lease of the works for 10 years. In 2006-2007, the works was privatized be means of establishing Industrialnaya Stekolnaya Kompaniya public company. In the new company, 76.71% of shares went to CJSC Ukrstekloprom. But, according to the old version of the Law on Management of State Property, the state’s share could not be less that 50%. Thus, the court ruled the privatization was illegal, and the CJSC had to return the works to the state.

DCFC was luckier: on 13 March the Law on Management of State Property was amended. A paragraph was added to the law saying that the provision about the minimal 50% share of the state doesn’t concern the cases of transforming leased enterprises into business entities.

Who was the person who made amendments to the law and thus allowed DCFC – close to the president’s elder son - to gain control over the plants? The author of the amendment submitted on 17 February, 2012 was President Viktor Yanukovych himself. This can be verified on the site of the Verkhovna Rada. MPs supported the president: on 13 March, the Party of Regions, People’s Party and Reforms for the Future group voted for the draft law. There is an interesting coincidence: the decision about establishment of public company COF Komsomolskaya was taken by its founders on 12 March, 2012 –a day before the law was amended.

The Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry, which should control privatization of the assets under its jurisdiction, has nothing against DCFC’s actions. “Concerning the Ministry’s opinion, the plants have not de facto been managed by the Ministry for a long time,” – assistant to the Minister Kuziara said. – “There are minority shares left, and, basically, they are fully commercial organizations that do business on the competitive basis. And today there are DCFC plants, there are plants that are part of Energoimpeks system; DTEK has its plants, as well as Metinvest. The Ministry doesn’t interfere in the preparation process”.

Translation from Russian ( Source ).

Жвава дускусія на телепрограмі " Велика Політика" про Українську повстанську армію - ВІДЕО TOP

image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFpXrfccbI0

Коли ж, нарешті, від боротьби за той чи інший міф, в цьому контексті, політики перейдуть до спроб серйозно розібратися в історії України 1940-1950-х років? Гостями «Великої політики» після години ночі були Данило Яневський, Володимир В'ятрович, інші історики, а також міністр освіти і науки України Дмитро Табачник.

Ред.: Тільки прикро що, хоч всі гості, навіть міністр освіти Табачник говорили українською мовою, ведучий Кісельов неміг себе заставити промовити ні словечка українською мовою. Правда, і було соромно за Україну що так званий доктор наук Табачник, який так примітивно ар ґументував свою позицію, є міністром освіти.

UWC President at founding meeting of Union of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany TOP

image
E. Czolij with the newly elected Executive.

On October 6-7, 2012 in Berlin, Ukrainian World Congress (UWC) President Eugene Czolij participated in the founding meeting which established a Ukrainian  national representation in Germany. The meeting was called by an organizing committee struck at a meeting of Ukrainian organizations held on April 1, 2012 in Munich on the initiative of the UWC.

Demonstrating the willingness of their organizations to unite for a common cause, 20 representatives and 10 guests convened in the German capital. Eugene Czolij was elected chair of the meeting.

During the two-day meeting, delegates unanimously established the Union of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany (UUOG), developed and adopted a constitution, including UUOG's main objectives, and elected an executive headed by Roman Rokytskyy. The goals of UUOG encompass the development of Ukrainian-German relations and cooperation with the European Union in the cultural, educational, scientific, sport, social and charitable spheres of activity, preserving the Ukrainian national identity in Germany and support for Ukraine's democratic processes and Euro-integration.

Extending greetings to the participants, the UWC President, Eugene Czolij, referred to the establishment of a Ukrainian national coordinating body as a historic moment and emphasized its role in representing the interests of Ukrainians in Germany, as well as coordinating and mobilizing their activities. He also called for close cooperation with the UWC.

Ukraine unveils large Jewish Center, Holocaust Museum TOP

image
The opening ceremony was attended by Jewish leaders from Ukraine, Russia,
and other former Soviet republics, and officials from Israel.

( Source )

image

DNIPROPETROVSK, Ukraine -- A large Jewish cultural center with a Holocaust museum has opened in Ukraine's eastern city of Dnipropetrovsk.

The museum, which opens to the public this weekend, is a complex of seven buildings arranged in the shape of a menorah, the traditional Jewish candleholder. Named the "Menorah Center," it houses thousands of artifacts plus a community center, hotel, kosher restaurant, and art galleries.

The museum occupies almost 3,000 square meters in the 50,000-square-meter Menorah Center.

The complex hosts an Institute for Jewish Culture In Ukraine and a gallery that features photographs of 40 major synagogues in Dnipropetrovsk before the Nazi occupation and video footage about the Holocaust.

The opening ceremony was attended by Jewish leaders from Ukraine, Russia, and other former Soviet republics, officials from Israel, and the president of the Jewish Communities of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Levi Levayev.

Yuli Edelstein, Israel's minister of public diplomacy and Diaspora affairs, praised the local authorities and the Jewish community for reviving Jewish heritage and culture in Dnipropetrovsk. He expressed hope that the new Jewish center will serve the local Jewish community, its children, and its future.

"The real achievement will be when we get here in a year from now, in two years from now, and we will see this place full of kids, full of different Jewish activities, full of different organizations working here," Edelstein said. "I think that this will be the real answer to what Nazis and communists tried to do to Jewish communities in the Ukraine and in the former Soviet Union."

Rabbi Levi Yitzchok Matusof of the Brussels-based European Jewish Public Affairs group was also present at the ceremony. He said that Jewish centers in Ukraine would help Jewish communities to fully integrate into European society.

"When there is a center like such in Dnipropetrovsk and also in other places in Ukraine where there are striving Jewish communities in terms of buildings and spaces," he said, "people feel that there is a place where they could come, there is someone they could talk to, there is a meal they could share, there is a place where they could send their children to learn, to be educated better, to have a proper Jewish life, and at the same time living integrated fully in the society with a European perspective."

Beth Moskowitz from Boston's Jewish Community Relation Council called the Jewish center’s opening in Dnipropetrovsk a revival of Jewish life in the city.

"We all thought that there would be no Jews here today in 2012," she said. "And to see the amount of Jews that actually take part in the Menorah Center and in the synagogue, in the Golden Rose Synagogue, the activities here -- it's hard to believe. I actually think this is the center for Jewish community and the center for thriving and there has been an incredible revival."

At least 12,000 Jews from Dnipropetrovsk were killed by the Nazis in 1941.

The Jewish cultural center in Dnipropetrovsk was initiated and financially supported by local businessmen Henadiy Boholyubov, a banking magnate whose net worth is estimated by "Forbes" at $2.8 billion, and his partner and fellow billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyy.

Some sources put the cost of the building during the time of its construction at $60 million. That figure could not be independently confirmed.

Reported by RFE/RL Ukrainian Service correspondent Yulia Rastybaska. Written by Charles Recknagel in Prague

Зображення українських жінок в ЗМІ - ВІДЕО TOP

image
https://vimeo.com/51088721

Відео презнетація про зображення українських жінок в ЗМІ на з'їзді Світової федерації українських жіночих організацій 11- 14 жовтня 2012

Президент СКУ взяв участъ в установчих зборах «Об'єднання українсъких організацій у Німеччині»

TOP

image

6-7 жовтня 2012 р. у Берліні президент Світового Конґресу Українців (СКУ) Евген Чолій узяв участь в установчих зборах із заснування української крайової центральної репрезентації в Німеччині. Ці збори підготував організаційний комітет, створений на ініційованій СКУ зустрічі українських організацій, що пройшла в Мюнхені 1 квітня 2012 р.

Щоб засвідчити бажання своїх організацій об’єднатися для спільної діяльності, в столиці Німеччини зібралося близько 20 представників українських організацій та 10 гостей. Головуючим делегати обрали Евгена Чолія.

У ході дводенних зборів було одноголосно створено Об’єднання українських організацій у Німеччині (ОУОН), розроблено й затверджено його статут, включно з основними напрямками праці, та обрано управу, яку очолив Роман Рокицький. Метою ОУОН є зокрема розвивати українсько-німецькі стосунки і відносини з Європейським Союзом у культурному, освітньому, науковому, спортивному, соціальному та благодійному напрямках, сприяти збереженню української національної ідентичності в Німеччині та розвиткові демократичних процесів в Україні і її євроінтеграції.

Виступаючи перед учасниками зборів з вітальним словом, президент СКУ Евген Чолій назвав створення української крайової центральної надбудови історичним моментом та наголосив на її ролі в репрезентації інтересів українців Німеччини та в координації і мобілізації його діяльності, а також закликав до тісної співпраці з СКУ.

Хто тут живе? – ВІДЕО TOP

image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Odp3AvH9PmE

На їхню долю випали важкі випробування. Війна, тюрми, багаторічні переслідування.

Політики до цього часу намагаються використати їх у своїх брудних іграх. Їх головною перемогою стала незалежна Україна. Як сьогодні живуть ветерани Української Повстанської армії -- дивіться сьогодні у програмі. Ми також запросили до студії учасників студентської «Революції на граніті», які фактично стали продовжувачами боротьби воїнів УПА за Незалежність.

Моя дорога Канада TOP

image

Олесь Маркович

У  багатьох казках  існують  казкові засоби для     відмикання замків – чи то заповідне  слово, чи якась там «розрив трава» - одним  словом,  замки з  послужливим клацанням тут – таки і відчиняться, а рипучі  металеві або й камінні двері  покірно  запрошують увійти. І  у мене, в цілком реальному житті, а не у якійсь там вигадці, завівся  свій секрет долання перешкод, правда,  замки його не  дуже - то й бояться,  хіба що на людей  певної категорії він  діє безвідмовно. І ця категорія називається «українці».

У телефонній слухавці щебече  російською мовою жіночий голосок. Мені пропонують на вигідних умовах  підключення до інтернету. Я мовчки слухаю привабливе щебетання, а потім кажу:

- Ви пробачте мені, але я народився і виріс в Канаді, тому із сказаного вами я мало що зрозумів. Чи не могли б ви  повторити все  українською мовою?
Я майже фізично відчуваю у голосі щебетухи  нотки  надзвичайної поваги до мене і Канади, хоч в Канаді я зроду - віку не бував, і знаю лише, що вона знаходиться на півночі американського континенту, і що там живе велика громада українських емігрантів.
І милий голосок  повторює мені  рекламну спокусу чистою українською мовою.
Я  роблю подібну містифікацію не вперше. Спочатку мені було ніяково так  дурити своїх співвітчизників, але  від досить частого вжитку  власної  «розрив - трави» я призвичаївся і, навіть дозволяю собі часом  для колориту вставляти  одне – друге англійське слово: «sorry»  або і «thank you».
Діє.
І що дивно, я вже й сам починаю  почуватись таким собі «канадійцем».
Тим часом я почав вдаватись до національної мімікрії не лише у телефонних розмовах.

- Как записать вашу фамилию? – питає мене довготелесий сільський юнак  в українській  міліцейській формі  біля  вікна  перепусток у  відділку міліції по Московській,30 Печерського району Києва. Російська  вимова  українського селюка , напевно, така, як моя канадська. Я намагаюсь зробити заклопотаний вигляд і майже  присоромлено додаю  про нещастя бути  неповноцінним українцем з Канади.. Ми гарно порозумілись українською, але підіймаючись сходами на другий поверх, я обертаюсь і кажу:

- Пане сержанте, я вибачаюсь, але  в Канаді  я був, так, як і  ви.
Скажіть,  ваше село  вже повністю перейшло на російську?
Мені зі сходів не видко, чи  хлопець почервонів.

- У нас нє запріщіца гаворіть па– русскі.
Завершивши свої справи, я повертаюсь  на перший поверх до вихіду через турникет.
Довготелесий сержант чомусь ніяково усміхаючись, наче вибачаючись за нашу недавню «канадську історію», запитує  українською,чи  я гарно залагодив свої справи.
Я дякую  за турботу і додаю:

- Пане сержанте, у одній з п’єс Марка Кропивницького хтось з персонажів говорить: «Ви гарно говорите по – московському, тільки по – нашому «гекаєте».

До зустрічі в моїй дорогій Канаді!

«Welcoме!»

Teacher receives surprise for commitment to students TOP

( Source )
10/10/2012

image

Springfield Heights teacher Alexandra Nazarevich received a surprise prize package from Grand & Toy last week. (PHOTO BY CHERYL MOORE)

A Springfield Heights School teacher received surprise at the school last week.

Alexandra Nazarevich was one of 17 teachers from across the country who were surprised with A Day Made Better prize package on Oct. 2.

A Day Made Better is an initiative of  the Grand & Toy office supplies chain. It rewards extraordinary teachers with a prize package that includes $1,500 in school supplies and a new ergonomic chair from Safco.

The award program, which is in its fourth year, recognizes teachers who provide special treatment to students, parents or their colleagues. Teachers are selected through a nomination process involving submissions from students, parents or colleagues, which are then reviewed by a selection committee.
Susan Zuk nominated Nazarevich for the award because of her commitment to the English-Ukrainian Bilingual Program at the school.

Zuk, who is the president of Manitoba Parents for Ukrainian Education, said Nazarevich goes the extra mile to ensure her students receive the best education possible.

"Alexandra is a teacher who I saw would go above and beyond in looking for resources which would enhance the learning of the students in her class and for the EUBP as a whole," said Zuk, who has two children who were taught by Nazarevich.

"She often worked many extra hours to ensure the resources were identified and created. This showed me her dedication and caring nature in regards to teaching her students and ensuring she had the tools to allow them to succeed. I found this an extremely admirable trait and deserving of recognition."

Nazarevich, who teaches the Grade 3 and 4 English-Ukrainian program at the school, said she never expected to receive an award for doing what she loves.

"There were lots of emotions, I was a little shocked initially," said Nazarevich, who was one of the pioneers of the English-Ukrainian program in Manitoba.

"I told my school staff that they all deserve awards for their hard work. It takes teamwork to accomplish anything in life."

Nazarevich said taking part in the bilingual program offers a unique opportunity for students.

"I feel it is important to have the opportunity to be educated in the English-Ukrainian Bilingual Program so that children can discover and explore their roots and heritage, although not everyone enrolled in the EUBP is of Ukrainian descent," she said.

"Springfield Heights School is a fine environment to learn languages and about cultural diversity since it is a unique triple-track school including English, French Immersion, and Ukrainian Bilingual Programs. It’s a passion of mine to teach kids."

For more information on A Day Made Better, go to grandandtoy.com/betterday.

­—With files from Dani Finch

Vasyl Markus: Ukrainian scholar never forgot his homeland TOP

October 23, 2012

Graydon Megan, Special to the Tribune

image Vasyl Markus, 1922-2012

Vasyl Markus' beginnings in a tiny village in Eastern Europe soon after World War I gave little indication of how far he would go or how much he would accomplish.

"It was a small village stuck in the 19th century, without lights or running water," said Mr. Markus' son, Vasyl Jr., of his father's hometown in what is now Ukraine. "And he's gone on this remarkable journey as a very accomplished 21st century man."

Those accomplishments included editing large portions of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine in both Ukrainian and English and a distinguished 26-year academic career as a professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago, according to his family.

He also helped found the Ukrainian Catholic parish of Sts. Volodymyr and Olha in Chicago's Ukrainian Village neighborhood.

"He was a member of the core group that started the parish," said the Rev. Ivan Krotec, pastor since 1992. Krotec, who first came to the parish as an assistant in 1971, said work to form the parish began in 1968. Construction of the church was completed in 1973. "He was quite instrumental in many ways."

Mr. Markus, 89, died of complications of pneumonia Monday, Oct. 15, at the St. Mary campus of Sts. Mary and Elizabeth Medical Center in Chicago, according to his son. He lived for many years in Chicago's Peterson Park neighborhood before moving about five years ago to Ukrainian Village.

Mr. Markus was born in the village of Bedevlya in what is now southwest Ukraine, a region that at various times was under the control of other countries, including Hungary and what is now Slovakia. He studied Latin and Slavic languages at what was then known as the University of Budapest.

In 1942, he was arrested by Hungarian authorities for pro-Ukrainian political activities and was sentenced to five years in jail, his son said. But he was given amnesty six months later and was soon in Khust, Ukraine, teaching at the high school from which he had graduated.

In 1945, with Ukraine under Soviet occupation, he fled to Germany. There he earned a doctorate in the Ukrainian language from the Ukrainian Free University in Munich, his son said.

He also studied political science and law at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland and completed his formal education with another doctorate in international law from the Paris Institute of Political Studies, according to his son. Markus Jr. speculated that his father strung together freelance writing for Ukrainian publications with student stipends and odd jobs to pay for his education.

In France, Mr. Markus began a long association with the Shevchenko Scientific Society working on the Encyclopedia of Ukraine.

He came to the United States in 1959 and taught Slavic studies and the Russian language at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., for several years.

He spent some time in New York before going to South Bend. There he renewed an acquaintance with Daria Hasiuk, also born in Ukraine but a Canadian citizen when the two met in Paris when she also was a student. They married in 1960. Mrs. Markus died in 2008.

Mr. Markus joined the faculty of Loyola in 1962 and taught political science until 1990. His tenure included several stints at the school's Rome Center.

He was editor of several volumes of the English-language edition of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and was editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia of the Ukrainian Diaspora, all under the auspices of Shevchenko.

"He was like many others very much in love with the country of Ukraine," Krotec said, "but because the communists took over, they fled. He made a new life here."

In addition to his work for the parish, Krotec said Mr. Markus was active in the community and with his late wife played an important role in helping establish a Ukrainian consulate in Chicago in the early 1990s after Ukraine achieved independence.

"It is pretty amazing the different spheres his life touched," his son said, "and the many feats he accomplished."

Mr. Markus is also survived by two daughters, Taisa Ivashkiv and Ustina, and two grandchildren.

Services were held.

Christian? No. Orthodox? Apparently so. TOP

image

The Brotherhood for the Revitalization of Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Canada
October 2012

Also see the next article: Your words cannot remain unanswered: Open letter to Mitred Archpriest Dr. Ihor G. Kutash of UOCC by Fr. Oleh Saciuk, Pastor, Holy Trinity Parish, Kyiv Patriarchate, California (Former member of the Church Court of the UOCofUSA). Many in the Ukrainian community are aware of what is happening in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (UOCC) and many are not. More specifically, there is a serious division amongst the faithful as to the future direction of our church.

There are two sides to the dilemma. There are those who support the UOCC’s decision to work towards the unity of all Orthodox faithful in North America, under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (EP). This is a virtuous ideal but leads to the other side of the dilemma: many Ukrainian Orthodox faithful are deeply disturbed by the intent of pan-Orthodoxy to blur, if not eliminate, the ethnic component of our church. This is disturbing, as this intent was not disclosed as part of the 1990 agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch. In addition, as the Ecumenical Patriarch regards the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) as the only legitimate Orthodox church in Ukraine, any sort of affiliation with the Ecumenical Patriarch provokes deep concerns. And, to the profound astonishment of many, it appears that the UOCC supports this position as evidenced by the events surrounding His Holiness Patriarch Filaret’s visit to Canada.

As the Ecumenical Patriarch [of Constantinople] regards the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) as the only legitimate Orthodox church in Ukraine, any sort of affiliation with the Ecumenical Patriarch provokes deep concerns.As the common people argue amongst themselves, our hierarchy continues to remain silent on these issues, with the exception of a published rebuttal to the hundreds of letters and emails sent to the consistory regarding the visit of His Holiness Patriarch Filaret, Kyivan Patriarchate (KP). The scandal is out in the open and the hierarchy is only hurting itself by keeping silent.

In 1990, at the Sobor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, delegates voted to enter the union with the EP. However, we need to address the questions that persist today – what exactly does the union with the EP mean for our church moving forward and has our hierarchy been clear and transparent all along with its members? And with its clergy, as well?

What exactly does the union with the EP mean for our church moving forward and has our hierarchy been clear and transparent all along with its members? And with its clergy, as well? If the “elimination” of the “Ukrainian” in our church was part of the original agreement between the UOCC and the EP and if the delegates were fully aware of this and the vote was still in favour, then why are there so many parishioners completely unaware of this? Has there been anything in any of the publications released by the Consistory clarifying this for the people? Have the concept and implications of pan-Orthodoxy been shared with parishioners and with all of our clergy? Obviously not, since there are so many people that have been taken aback by this revelation and the UOCC’s current position on the matter. Most, particularly in eastern Canada, are not aware that they are on the road to being members of the Orthodox Church of Canada, without the “Ukrainian” in it.

On the other hand, if the delegates were led to believe that the union would allow the faithful to continue as they were, to retain their Ukrainian culture and heritage, and full sobornopravnist’, then the recent events that have taken place with the visit of His Holiness Patriarch Filaret to Canada have proven this to be false and that the terms have been broken. If the delegates were mislead, then we can cry foul and we should be demanding our hierarchy take responsibility for this deceit and/or ultimately demand their removal from the positions they hold. The faithful have been denied and continue to be denied access to the actual Articles of Agreement as agreed upon between the UOCC and the EP.

One cannot truly believe that their soul will be “saved” by those that deliberately have lied to further their own personal agendas. If pan-Orthodoxy has been the intended path all along, then action is required by the people. Without the people, there is no parish. Without parishes, there is no money. Without the faithful, our hierarchy and clergy would have their place in monasteries and not amongst us. The UOCC must be accountable to its paying members and should be acting on their concerns with the EP; we should be pressuring them to do so. And if they cannot, then we should be demanding to know why. And we do deserve some explanations. Educate us, if you deem that we do not understand the complicated nature of your negotiations.

On the matter of canonical or not – these laws were made by man and there is no reason that they should not be challenged if they are contrary to our faith; the greatest commandment that Jesus Christ put forth “Love thy neighbour as thyself” overrides all canonical laws, therefore, the people should have been allowed to meet and greet His Holiness Patriarch Filaret on that principle alone. If this mandate came down as stated in the letter from the Ecumenical Patriarch, then he himself, with all due respect, is not following God’s commandments and therefore, there is warranted suspicion that he, too, has a hidden agenda - one that serves his own personal plan.

Giving the UOCC hierarchy the benefit of the doubt, the pan-Orthodox plan may have only become known after the union with the EP in 1990 and has been evolving over the years. But if so, once again, why did our hierarchy not share this vision with all the members of the UOCC? Were there ongoing concerns that letting parishioners know exactly what was happening would be like opening Pandora’s Box and they chose not to have to deal with it? If this is the case, the head of our hierarchy, has not only betrayed his flock, but Ukraine and his own Ukrainian ancestors and heritage. Especially so, if he was aware of the road he was taking us down, all along.

The amalgamation of all Orthodox churches, without ethnicity regarded as a priority, will slowly erode and eliminate the Ukrainian aspect of our parishes. The amalgamation of all Orthodox churches, without ethnicity regarded as a priority, will slowly erode and eliminate the Ukrainian aspect of our parishes. Those wanting to retain their Ukrainian heritage and the Ukrainian Orthodox church in both Canada and the USA are having a very difficult time accepting this reality. As a result, some have chosen collectively to remain Ukrainian Orthodox by turning to the Kyivan Patriarchate because the Ecumenical Patriarch’s vision of a unified Orthodox faith does not embrace the ethnic lines of division.

The EP’s vision is moving steadily forward in North America and it will only be a matter of time before it directly affects each and every one of us. For those in the Eastern Eparchy, it already has – the title of Bishop of Toronto, which has been in place for over 50 years, has been revoked because there is already a Bishop of Toronto, albeit Greek. As well, parishioners are being told whom they can and cannot welcome into their churches as evidenced by His Holiness Patriarch Filaret’s visit to Canada.

For many, both religion and ethnicity are inseparable. Many are at a loss as to why our Metropolitan did not have the courage to stand up to the Ecumenical Patriarch, particularly for what he knows defines us as a people. Most of us have grown up in churches that are both Orthodox and Ukrainian. Our religion and ethnicity are one. Our communities revolve around this fact. If it did not matter, one could join the closest Orthodox church in the vicinity. If the Ukrainian part of it is no longer important for some, then it is completely understandable that the amalgamation is a wonderful thing. However, for many, both religion and ethnicity are inseparable. Many are at a loss as to why our Metropolitan did not have the courage to stand up to the Ecumenical Patriarch, particularly for what he knows defines us as a people. The issue here is what we don’t know - the reluctance on the part of our hierarchy to be honest with us, and their failure to accept the consequences of their actions and/or inactions.

Now that Ukraine is free, there is no reason for the Moscow Patriarchate to continue its reign in Ukraine, except one of monetary greed. If you consider yourself Ukrainian and Orthodox, it is a given that you believe the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine needs to be free of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). Currently, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine that stands independently of Moscow is under the Kyivan Patriarchate and we should be supporting the KP, not just with words but also by actions. This does not necessarily mean by joining the KP but by preserving our church in the Diaspora, by rallying to see the Moscow Patriarchate leave Ukraine, to see the return of all Ukrainian property back to the Ukrainian people and to see a truly independent church, free of foreign intervention in order to support a truly independent Ukraine. And, ultimately pressuring the EP to recognize the KP in Ukraine on their terms, not on Moscow’s. Now that Ukraine is free, there is no reason for the MP to continue its reign in Ukraine, except one of monetary greed. As good Christians, they should return what they have taken from Ukraine, what is rightfully belonging to the Ukrainian people – the churches, the monasteries, the power...

Our hierarchy must listen to the words being spoken. It is their responsibility as role models to make peace amongst the people – not allow them to continue arguing. They should be striving to help those parishes that are failing financially to find solutions – not closing them down without compromise, as recently has been happening. Their obligation should be finding a way to keep the people in our churches – whether it is amalgamating our Ukrainian parishes, sharing priests and/or rotating priests... but shutting down parishes in which parishioners have bounced back with the will to continue? To not find amicable solutions? That the only way is to sell the property?

The people in New Westminster, BC, who are suing the UOCC for the return of the deed to their church, looked for a solution – they had only two choices, it was either join the Kyivan Patriarchate as a member church or shut its doors and have the Consistory assume title and sell their property. They chose to join the KP rather than be without a church. Ask yourself the question – what would you do if you were told you had to close down your church and that the Consistory would sell the land and keep the proceeds? Would you fight to save it? Without personally knowing anyone in this parish, one can still sympathize with them. It is very disillusioning in that a compromise was not found. One would think that if a group of people came back wanting to save their church that our hierarchy would have worked with them to find a solution. From the rhetoric seen in recent chains of emails amongst the faithful, it does not sound like that was the case. Therefore, it should not be held against them in that they wanted to save their parish – they did not flip to the KP on a whim. We now are waiting to see what will happen with St. Anne’s in Scarborough, Ontario. Once again, it has been reported that the UOCC is not willing to entertain viable solutions that would keep the parish viable and active.

The Sobors have lost credibility in the eyes of many as the outcomes have been often compromised. So where does that leave the people? If the current concerns of his followers were truly important to His Eminence, then he would listen and value their opinions rather than waving them off. The Sobors have lost credibility in the eyes of many as the outcomes have been often compromised. So where does that leave the people?

The parishes will need to decide what the future holds for them. Moreover, they should be let go freely if that is what they choose. However, that would only happen if this were not about money. It is not about doing what is right by the people and staying true to the commandments. Sadly, these words are all moot because everything points to the fact that this is about politics, power and money.

Christian? No. Orthodox? Apparently so.

Your words cannot remain unanswered: Open letter to Mitred Archpriest Dr. Ihor G. Kutash of UOCC

TOP

image

Dear Father!

Last April, His Holiness, Patriarch Filaret visited Canada together with other primates from Ukraine. Metropolitan Yurij issued a sharp letter forbidding clergy and faithful from greeting him, or even being in his proximity. You subsequently explained and excused his actions on the radio program “The Evangelist” and through the Internet. In our worldly weakness, many of us were deeply affected and bitterly saddened by Vladyka Yurij’s actions, and no less so by subsequent public statements and letters, including your commentary. Your words cannot remain unanswered.

You write that “informal meetings with the Patriarch took place nonetheless,” and that “Patriarch Filaret was also welcomed at a banquet …in the St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Orthodox Cultural Center in Oakville.” It is unfortunate that Vladyka Yurij could not compel himself to refer to Patriarch Filaret by his proper title, as you did. Nonetheless, it is impossible to overlook the fact that Patriarch Filaret heads a Church of 15 million. Vladyka Yurij’s use of the word “patriarch,” in parenthesis, was an affront to those 15 million faithful, and to dozens of hierarchs and thousands of priests. Vladyka Yurij, of course, cannot take credit for the banquet held in the St. Volodymyr Center. Only the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, as host of the event, chose whom to invite. The Orthodox faithful who attended the banquet were not there with the blessing of Metropolitan Yurij. They chose to attend despite the Metropolitan’s prohibition.

You were quite moved by the Patriarch’s words to the effect that, not withstanding all opposition “(the) local Church in Ukraine nevertheless shall be,” as if the Patriarch in some way conceded that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate is not now “particular” and autocephalous. You misinterpreted these words. When His Holi-ness states that the Church in Ukraine “shall be,” he does not imply that it is not so now, but emphatically and unequivocally reiterates, in the power of the Holy Spirit, that the Church both is now, and forever shall be, despite all ungodly attacks against Her. In this, His Holi-ness expresses the will of the All Ukrainian Church Councils, the Councils of the UAOC in Ukraine and in the Diaspora, and the Councils of the Kyiv Patriarchate. In this, Patriarch Filaret is also the successor of the unshakeable positions taken by Metropolitan John, Metro-politan Ilarion, and Patriarch Mstyslav, who never succumbed to earthly temptations, and never sold out the autocephaly of our Church for a contrived “canonicity.”
Imagining that the matter of autocephaly may be relegated to the future may be “wel-come and impressive” to you. Nevertheless, this is a matter of immediate vital importance which cannot be shoved under the rug. It may suit some to ignore God’s Will, but we follow the Word of the Lord, which is the only Truth. It is plain to see that the forces of evil are arrayed anew against Ukraine and that they intend to tear it to shreds. Those ungodly forces are now assaulting the Ukrainian language and our devout Ukrainian people. At the Great Judgment, each of us will be called to answer whether we, on this day, in this hour, rose in defense of today’s martyrs for the Truth, or whether we did nothing while witnessing the rape of innocents, because it pleased us to be received at the feasts of the aggressors, deluding ourselves with visions of a future in which the victims are united with their attackers.

Your impression that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate “is here and now that local Church which others simply need to join” is absolutely correct. I assume that yours is the impression of a bystander, since Vladyka Yurij has openly declared that the UOCC will never leave the Greek Church of which he is a loyal subject.

After all, you have stated that the UOCC was never a Ukrainian Church, but has always been strictly Canadian. Consequently, you only as a bystander have a negative impression of the Kyiv Patriarchate’s assertion of its autocephaly, since you believe that Ukraine cannot have its own autocephalous Church until the three Orthodox Churches there unite. It is ironic that your views support Moscow’s stand in this respect. The only goal which Moscow has in propagating this position is the indefinite prolongation of the divisions within the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Moscow’s politics of division fly in the face of today’s realities. They oppose the will of the Ukrainian people. They oppose the Will of God.

Dear Father, admit it. The Ukrainian Ortho-dox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, is Ukrai-nian in name only. It is a Russian Church, a loyal part of the Moscow Patriarchate, and an instrument of the Russian government. The only mission of this church is to preserve the Russian empire. The hierarchs of this foreign occupying church openly advocate the de-structtion of the Ukrainian language. They openly oppose Ukrainian independence and the restoration of Russian rule in Ukraine. You cannot be suggesting that the Kyiv Patriarchate unite with this foreign church as with an equal in Ukraine. The only hope for the Ukrainian clergy in the MP is to come to their senses and to flee from this church as from evil itself, and, yes, to return to the Holy Church of their ancestors, the Kyiv Patriarchate.

As to the UAOC, you yourself noted that its Metropolitan was not given the same reception by UCC and the Toronto community as Patriarch Filaret. It is an open secret whom this hierarch serves. The KP and the UAOC have more than once explored their unification. Last year, bilateral episcopal committees arrived at an agreement. Patriarch Filaret approved the agreed terms of unification. Metropolitan Mefodij rejected them without explanation. Obviously, uniting of the two Churches would pose a threat to Moscow. That is why Metropolitan Mefodij rejected the agreement.

When a portion of the UAOC broke away from the local, particular, autocephalous Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, with which it had been united, it had a similar number of parishes as the KP. Since then, the Ukrainian people have made their choice. The UAOC has steadily declined and continues to decline, while the KP increases visibly from day to day. The Ukrainian people have made their choice through God’s Will. Today, the Kyiv Patriarchate is easily the largest Church in Ukraine in terms of faithful. The KP has almost twenty times more faithful than the UAOC, and almost six times more parishes. Undoubtedly, the KP is the only local Ukrainian Church in the eyes of the people. But for Metropolitan Mefodij’s veto, the UAOC last year would have willingly become a part of the Kyiv Patriarchate. Yes, dear Father, the hierarchs of the UAOC themselves have decided that the KP “is here and now that local Church which others simply need to join.” Let us pray for the Lord to soften Metropolitan Mefodij’s heart, and for him to finally declare himself a Ukrainian, rather than something else.

You were also troubled by Patriarch Filaret’s call for Vladyka Yurij to leave the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We not only support our Patriarch’s words, but pray for Vladyka Yurij and for all the hierarchs of our Churches in the Diaspora. We pray that they hear the voices of their ancestors, and that they correct their mistakes. We pray that they elect Truth and the wellbeing of their Church and people over the vanity of earthly honors and comforts.

You were not pleased when the reporter who interviewed our Patriarch called the Patriarchate of Constantinople a Greek or Turkish church. Why should this surprise you? That Church is both Greek and Turkish. It is ecumenical only in title. It has its beginnings in the (Greek) Byzantine Empire. Except for a few “Barbarians” such as the UOCC, it is composed almost entirely of Greeks. Its hierarchs are almost exclusively Greek. The Ecumenical Patriarch is required to be Greek. The EP is, above all, a Greek church. It is located in Turkey and is subject to Turkish law, which requires the Ecumenical Patriarch to be a Turkish citizen, and through which the Turkish authorities prohibit his Church from calling itself “ecumenical.” If the UOCC is a Canadian church, then, through the same logic, the Church of Constantinople if Turkish.

You were surprised that “the Patriarch depicted the Communion of the UOCC with the Church of Constantinople, as subjugation to that Church, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement between these Churches in 1990.” Before this agreement was made, the UOCC was a self-ruled metropolia with all the attributes of autocephaly. The agreement changed this. The UOCC is no longer inde-pendent. Vladyka Yurij’s relying on the “in-structions and blessing” of Patriarch Bartho-lomew in forbidding meetings with patriarch Filaret are proof of this, as is the fact that Vla-dyka Yurij was elected Metropolitan by the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and not by the Sobor of the UOCC, as would have been the case before the agreement. The Church which was completely independent before 1990 became dependent after the agree-ment. What causes you to imagine that the UOCC was not subjugated through its agree-ment with the Greeks?

You state that subjugation to the EP is con-trary to the terms of the agreement. Perhaps you and I have read different agreements. The Articles of Agreement clearly describe the loss of independence of the UOCC. But, even assuming that your interpretation is correct, this year’s scandal reveals that the signatories never intended to abide by its terms, because both Metropolitan Yurij and Patriarch Bartho-lomew are behaving as if the agreement did not exist, and as if the UOCC is a simple and obedient Greek eparchy.

The current unresolved status of His Grace, Bishop Andriy of Toronto, brings this clearly into focus. The EP is blocking his enthrone-ment. The Articles of Agreement provide the title of Bishop of Toronto and Eastern Canada for Vladyka Andriy. However, provide for only one bishop of Toronto, who for them is Metropolitan Soterios. The diptychs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople list Bishop Andriy only as the Titular Bishop of Krateia. There was a recent attempt to enthrone His Grace as Bishop of York, in a direct breach of the Articles of Agreement and in violation of the decisions of the 22nd Sobor of the UOCC. But, dear Father, please remind us of just one agreement of Russians or Greeks with the Ukrainian people which they did not dis-regard. For them, agreements are convenient vehicles for our subjugation. They make them without ever intending to abide by them. They rely on mesmerizing us with “canons,” and on subsequent hierarchical complicity in the de-ception of Sobors, which blindly adopt new Constitutions and allow our Churches to be sacrificed on the altars of Greek and Russian political interests. But, maybe we protest too much. After all, our faithful may now bask in the joyful radiance of the visage of Vladyka Yurij’s stirring cauldrons of myrrh with his patriarch, of having a seat at the only “canon-ical” Orthodox table, and of even having the privilege of warm embraces and kisses with his brother in communion, Kirill.

Also, dear Father, please explain why, if the agreement with the Greek patriarchate was made in 1990, did the Consistory only ten years later find the need to publish the Articles of Agreement and your explanation of them. Was it not because the faithful in most parishes in the USA and in Canada had stood in support of the Kyiv Patriarchate and against the dragging of our Holy Churches into a Greek, and not Ukrainian, Orthodoxy? Was it not because a significant number of parishes in North America returned to the Kyiv Patriar-chate, and the Consistory of the UOC of USA was mired in losing lawsuits against its faith-ful? Was it not because your Consistory felt compelled to avoid similar events in Canada? Still, what was there to fear, if the Sobors had adopted the agreement with the EP? Was it the fact that the Sobors had never really approved the agreement between the EP and Vladyka Yurij and the Consistory, because the terms of the agreement were not disclosed to the Sobors?

You state that the UOCC “is still” a Canadian Church. Recently, some of your youth have repeated this mantra over the Inter-net with apparent hatred towards the Ukrai-nian, non Canadian, Church. Father, is this what you have instilled in them? Let us exam-ine the causes of this moral malaise. In 1986, the UOCC published an English translation of Metropolitan Ilarion’s The Ukrainian Church. This outline of the history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was edited by Fr. Stephan Jarmus, Chair of the Presidium of the Consis-tory of the UOCC, who was later recognized as the “architect” of the agreement with Constan-tinople. In Addendum II of that work there appeared an article by Fr. Michael Yurkiwsky, The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, in which the author described the UOCC as a Canadian Church which did not have a Mother Church. One may assume that Fr. Yarmus, at least, read the article, read and published it, in Metropolitan Ilarion’s book! If a priest of the UOCC wrote such nonsense, and the Chair of the Presidium of the Consistory published it, the selling out of our Church was already being carefully prepared. What is most distressing is that the book was published to celebrate the Millennium of the Baptism of Ukraine. Let us recall Moscow’s vicious attempts, still ongoing, at misappropriating this single greatest event in the history of the Ukrainian people. It goes without saying that Moscow employed and continues to employ every resource at its disposal to tear apart the Ukrainian Church and to incorporate it into non-Ukrainian jurisdictions. At what price did Moscow’s temptations become irresistible to our hierarchs and priests?

Our Holy Trinity parish in Los Angeles is organized as a California corporation. One may call it “still” a California church, just as every other parish in the USA is “still” a church of the state in which it is incorporated. The UOCC “is still” a Canadian Church only in the same manner, and in no other.

The first three Sobors of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada, in 1918, 1919, and 1920, resolved to maintain close spiritual union with the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, especially if the latter gained its auto-cephaly. The Bolshevik conquest of Ukraine made this impossible. However, the Fourth Sobor (1924) elected Metropolitan John Theo-dorovich as acting hierarch of the UGOCC, despite his being an “uncanonical” hierarch of the UAOC, and he simultaneous headed our Churches in the USA and Canada until 1947. He had been appointed as administrator of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States in 1924 by the All- Ukrainian Church Rada, after the Church in America had pro-claimed its unity with the UAOC in Ukraine, the Church of the “uncanonical” martyr, Metropolitan Vasyl’ Lypkivsky. Although Vladyka John was the acting bishop of the Church in Canada, he lived in Philadelphia and was the ruling hierarch of the UOC in the United States, and the UGOCC did not have its own bishops.

Let us recall that in January of 1947, the Administrator of the UGOCC, Fr. S. Savchuk, travelled to Germany to find a bishop for Canada from among the hierarchs of the UAOC. On March 7, 1947, the Consistory in Canada sent a written request to the Council of Bishops of the UAOC to assign to Canada Bishop Mstyslav, the future Patriarch of the UAOC. The Council of Bishops approved the request in the context of the unification of all the Churches in the United States and Canada. The next Sobor elected Vladyka Mstyslav as Archbishop of Winnipeg, and he served as the only hierarch of the UGOCC until 1950, when he asked Metropolitan Polikarp to relieve him and to oversee the Church in Canada until the election of a new episcopate. Vladyka Mstyslav had disagreements with the Consisto-ry, the same as Metropolitan John, as to lay interference in matters of strictly hierarchical competence, and with the Consistory’s assert-ion of its autocephaly without an ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is impossible in Orthodoxy.

Nevertheless, in 1951, the Consistory decid-ed to end its formative period (in the words of Fr. Savchuk), and requested assistance from Metropolitan Polikarp. Following discussions between Metropolitan Polikarp and Metropo-litan Ilarion and Archbishop Michael, in which Frs. Savchuk, Hrycyna, and Metiuk, and prof. L. Bilecky participated, they signed “Principles of the Joining of the Most Reverend Metropo-litan Ilarion With the Ukrainian Greek Ortho-dox Church in Canada.” The agreement was read to the clergy and the Consistory and was ratified by the Sobor in 1951, which elected Vladyka Ilarion as Metropolitan of Winnipeg and All Canada, and Vladyka Michael as assistant metropolitan and Archbishop of Eastern Canada. Thus, although some of us today attempt to erase history, the hierarchy of the UOCC was created through the UAOC. Maybe you could explain to those of us who do not understand, in exactly what manner the UOCC is not in its essence a Ukrainian Church.

Father, do you even remotely doubt Metropolitan Ilarion’s deep love for Ukraine? Is there a single word in the monumental volume of his teachings which even allows discussion about the direction in which he led the Church? Are you not convinced by his prophetic words for us to “Cherish All That Is Ours”? Metropolitan Constantine, of blessed memory, and Metropolitan Yurij, and Metropolitan Nominate Antony were students of Metropolitan Ilarion. Each of them more than once told me that Vladyka Ilarion was undoubtedly the best teacher they ever had.

Perhaps you can fathom what possessed each of them to turn away from the legacy of their greatest teacher.

It is beyond dispute that both Metropolitan Ilarion and Patriarch Mstyslav could have at any minute succumbed to the temptation of “canonicity” and could have taken their places at the ecumenical tables you so deeply cherish. Neither of these venerable, titanic figures of Ukrainian history lowered himself to it. They each offered an open hand of brotherhood to the primate of every one of the national Orthodox Churches, without exception. Unfortunately, these brothers of ours in Christ begrudged us the Cup of Communion. Earthly dominion was more important to them than the Word of God. Fully aware of the suffering and martyrdom of our Church and of our people, the Second Rome preferred to remain in the embrace of the Third Rome, and was not only complicit with Moscow in its silence, but shared with their Moscow “brothers” a cup of indifference and death. When was it, Father, that Metropolitan Ilarion’s students rejected his teachings and his memory? When did they heed the whispers of evil? Was it still during the life of the Teacher, or after the Crucifixion?

You state that the Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate is not conciliar. Perhaps you are thinking of your brothers and concelebrants of the Moscow Patriarchate. If you would take the time to read the Constitution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, you would notice that our Church has a conciliar form of governance.

You “enjoy Communion” with the Moscow Patriarchate and decry as tragic not being able to have Communion with your brothers in Ukrainian Churches. Who is keeping you from it? After all, you assert that the UOCC is not subjugated to Constantinople. Unfortunately, through your words and actions you prove otherwise. Whether to be in Communion with the Church of the Kyiv patriarchate is not a doctrinal matter. You have the absolute right, and owe a duty to your to your ancestors and predecessors, to decide this matter for yourself, without seeking permission from your Greek masters.

We have not forgotten Metropolitan Yurij’s heroic letter to the Russian Church. I recall greeting and joyfully congratulating him at the Sobor of the UOCofUSA in 2010. Sadly, it quickly became apparent that his views were not shared by our other hierarchs, and even less by the masters in Moscow and the Phanar. Their stern disapproval and rebuke were manifested in his unnecessary actions this year.

You state that the UOCC could not return “to a position where she could not concele-brate, share Communion, or speak officially in inter-Orthodox forums.” By this, you mean that it is impossible for you to contemplate a return to the status which the Church enjoyed before she was subjugated to the Phanar, under conditions still undisclosed, to her state under the pastoral care of Metropolitan Ilarion.

You state that the undoing of the agreement with Constantinople would only strengthen Moscow’s position. You are mistaken in this, as well. The only hope and guarantee for the independence and welfare of the Ukrainian people lies in a local autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, which has resoundingly been chosen as such by the people of Ukraine in the past 20 years. Moscow is focused on the destruction of the Kyiv Patriarchate, above all else. The uniting of all the Ukrainian Churches in the Diaspora with the Kyiv Patriarchate would be fatal blow to Moscow’s ambitions to restore its empire.

You state that the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not interfere in the affairs of the UOCC. Reverend Father, in all honesty, admit it. The published Articles of Agreement are but a deceitful façade. We all know that the actual agreement signed by our hierarchs is a detailed and exhaustive document, worthy of Byzantine tradition, and that the Phanar has the right to interfere in the affairs of the UOCC.

In the United States, the Consistory at first denied even the existence of any written agreement at its Sobors. This, of course, later proved to be untrue. I served on the Constitution Committee at the Sobor of the UOCofUSA in 2010, which reviewed a previously written proposed new Constitution. There, Vladyka Antony briefly circulated one copy of Articles of Agreement, virtually identical to the ones published by you. At my request, a copy was made for me. On the reverse sides of the two pages I received, there appeared portions of printed paragraphs, which someone, apparently, neglected to delete. Article XV. is entitled Omophorion Rights and Obligations. The following paragraph was deleted. Paragraph 2. is entitled Financial Obligations of the UOCofUSA to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The following instructions follow, in parenthesis: “A note to the Constitution Committee of the UOC ofUSA: please provide the necessary informa-tion required under the above heading.” The Consistory of the UOCofUSA denies that it has any financial obligations to the Phanar. But, it appears that the hierarchs have made agreements binding upon Church which violate its Constitution. It now appears probable that the Constitutions proposed to and adopted by Sobors are disregarded by the Consistories. The published Articles of Agreement do not reflect the true agreements made by the Church hierarchs. The true agreements are hidden where the faithful may, perhaps, have access to the in half a century, at a time when the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora will no longer exist, unless the faithful arise from their slumber, and the clergy recover the courage to return to the way of truth.

But we have placed out faith in the Lord, Who shall hear our prayers and shall save us, and shall illumine us by His Wisdom, and shall lead us to the unity of faith, for He is Holy and glorified to the ages of ages. Amen.

Fr. Oleh Saciuk, Pastor, Holy Trinity Parish, Kyiv Patriarchate, California (Former member of the Church Court of the UOCofUSA)

Братство Катедри Св. Володимира: Асоціяція УПЦК із Константинопольським Патріархом мусить бути анульована

TOP
image
image
image
image
image

Відкритий Лист до Митрата Д-ра Ігоря Ю. Куташа про загрозу рішень єрархії Українській православній церкві в діаспорі

TOP

image

Дорогий Отче!

16-го червня ц.р. Ви виголосили коментар на радіопрограмі «Благовісник,» який пізніше був розповсюджений по Інтернеті, в якому ви загладжували поведінку Митрополита Юрія і Консисторії УПЦК у зв’язку з забороною духовенстві і вірним приймати або вітати Святійшого Патріарха Філарета в храмах, або навіть до Патріарха наближатися. В своїй тілесній слабості багато з нас були глибоко вражені і гірко засмучені цією помилковою поведінкою Владики Юрія, і не менше пізнішими публичними заявами і листами, включно з Вашим коментарем, якого не можна проминути.

Ви пишете що «зустрічі неофіційні з Патріархом все ж таки були,» і що «Патріарха Філарета вітали на бенкеті...в Православному Центрі Св. Володимира в Оквіл.» Шкода що Владика Юрій не був спроможний назвати Патріарха Філарета патріархои, як Ви це зробили. Всеж таки неможливо заперечити що Патріарх Філарет очолює 15 мільйонову Церкву. Владики Юрія вжиток слова «патріарх,» в скобках, було зневагою тих 15 мільйонів свідомих українців, разом з десятками ієрархів і тисячами священиків. Те що бенкет відбувся в Центрі Св. Володимира, очевидно, не було заслугою Владики Юрія. Тільки Конгрес Українців Канади, як організатор бенкету, рішав кого запрошувати. Вірні прийшли на бенкет не через благословіння Владики Юрія, а не зважаючи на його заборону.

Ви були «приємно вражені ... зворушливими словами Патріарха Філарета» що помісна Церква в Україні обов’язково таки “буде,» ніби то Патріарх якось признав що Українська Православна Церква Київського Патріархату ще не є помісною. Ви не правельно інтерпретуєте це слово. Коли Його Святість каже що помісна Церква в Україні «буде,» то не означає що Її тепер нема, а є твердим і безсумнівним підтвердженням, силою Святого Духа йому даною, що Вона і є тепер, і буде в майбутньому, не зважаючи на пекельні на Неї напади. В цьому Його Святість висловлює волю помісних Всеукраїнських Соборів, Соборів УАПЦ в Україні і в Діаспорі, і Соборів Київського Патріархату. В цьому Патріарх Філарет також є наслідником непохитних становищ Митрополита Іоана, Митрополита Іларіона, і Патріарха Мстислава, які ніколи не піддалися земним спокусам, і ніколи не продали автокефалію нашої Церкви за якусь вигадану «канонічність.»

Хоч Вам може бути «приємно вражливим» уявляти що справа помісної української Церкви є питанням майбутнього, це питання є актуальним і невідкладним. Сьогодні Є День Господній. Його на завтра не відкладається. Може комусь вигідно відкладати Правду Божу на майбутнє, але ми виконуємо Слово Господнє, яке Є Істина. Ми всі знаємо і бачимо що сили пекельні зібралися щоб знов розбити і роздерти Україну. Ми бачимо як сили зла повстали проти української мови і проти смиренного українського народу. На Страшному Суді кожний з нас відповідатиме чи тепер, цього дня, в цю годину, встав «зо зброєю правди в правиці і лівиці» в обороні нових мучеників за Правду, або чи нічого не зробив бачачи знесилення немічних, бо було вигідніше сидіти за чужими столами і надіятись на ілюзію майбутнього в якому знесилені поєднаються з напасниками.

Ваше враження що УПЦ КП «вже зараз і є тією помісною Церквою, до якої інші просто повинні приєднатися» є цілком правельне. Припускаю що Ви в цьому висловлюєтесь тільки як спостерігач, бо Владика Юрій відкрито заявив що УПЦК вже ніколи не відійде від грецької церкви якій він підлеглий. Ви ж і самi кажете що УПЦК ніколи не була церквою українською, а що все була канадською церквою. Значить що Ви, тільки як спостерігач, негативно вражені претенсіями УПЦ КП на помісність, бо на Ваш погляд помісної Церкви в Україні не може бути аж поки три православні Церкви не з’єднаються. Як цікаво, але Вашим поглядом Ви вірно підтримуєте позицію Москви. Це московське становище, єдиною ціллю якого є унеможливити поєднання Церкви в Україні, заперечує актуальну дійсність, заперечує волю українського народу, і заперечує Волю Божу.

Дорогий отче, признайте. Українська Православна Церква Московського Патріархату є українською тільки в назві. Вона є московською церквою, послушною частиною Московського Патріархату, частиною уряду Росії. Головним завданням цієї церкви є затримати російську імперію. Ієрархи цієї окупаційної церкви відкрито підтримують знищення української мови, відкрито виступають проти української незалежності і за відновлення російської диктатури в Україні. Сумніваюся що Ви пропонуєте щоб Київський Патріархат з цією окупаційною церквою на рівні поєднався. Єдина надія для духовенства цієї церкви є схаменутися і від неї втікати як від нечистих сил, і, дійсно, вернутися до Святої Церкви своїх предків, до Київського Патріархату.

Що до УАПЦ, Ви самі помітили що ні КУК, ні торонтська громада, не прийняли Її митрополита так як Патріарха Філарета. Не є великою таємницею кому служить цей первоієрарх. УАПЦ і КП вже не раз домовлялися про з’єднання. Минулого року, двосторонні комісії єпископів знайшли згоду. Патріарх Філарет поблагословив їхній договір на з’єднання Церков. Митрополит Мефодій без пояснення його відкинув. Очевидно що поєднання Церков булоб загрозою для Москви. Тому Митрополит Мефодій цей договір не підписав.

Коли частина УАПЦ відійшла від з‘єднаної помісної Церкви Київського Патріархату, то Вона мала подібне число парафій як УПЦ КП. Від тоді, український народ зробив своє рішення. УАПЦ від тоді, і сьогодні, постипенно зменшується, а УПЦ КП з дня на день росте. Рішення народу є з Божої Волі. Сьогодні УПЦ КП без сумніву є найбільшою Церквою України по кількості вірних. В Київському Патріархаті є майже 20 раз більше вірних ніж в УАПЦ, і майже шість раз більше парафій. Без сумніву, Українська Православна Церква Київського Патріархату є єдиною Українською помісною Церквою в очах українського народу. Якби не Митрополит Мефодій, то в минулому році УАПЦ добровільно сталаб складовою частиною УПЦ КП. Так, дорогий отче, рішенням свого єпископату УАПЦ вже признало що Київський Патріархат є «зараз тією помісною церквою до якої інші повинні» приєднатися. Молімось щоб Господь помякшив серце Митрополита Мефодія і щоб він нарешті виявив себе українцем, а не чимось іншим.

Також Вас затривожило що Патріарх Філарет закликав Владику Юрія відійти від Вселенського Патріархату. Ми патріарші слова не тільки повторюємо, але і молимось за Владику Юрія і за всіх ієрархів наших Церков в Діаспорі, щоб вони почули голоси своїх предків і направили свої помилки. Молимося щоб вони вибрали Правду і добробут Церкви і народу понад свої суєтні світські почесті та вигоди.

Вас дивує що репортерка підчас інтервю з Патріархом назвала Церкву Константино-польську «грецькою,» чи «турецькою.» Що в цьому не ясно? Ця Церква є і грецька і турецька. Вселенська вона залишилася тільки титулярно. Походить вона з грецької Візантійської Імперії. Крім деяких «варварів» як УПЦК, вона майже цілковито складається з греків. Майже виключно в неї ієрархи є греки. Вселенський Патріарх не може бути не грек. Вона є, понад все, грецька церква. Знаходиться вона в Туреччині і підлягає турецьким законам, згідно з якими Вселенський Патріарх мусить бути турецьким громадянином, і якими Туреччина забороняє йому себе називати «вселенським.» Якщо УПЦК є церквою канадською, то на тих самих засадах Константинопольська Церква є турецькою.

Вас здивувало що «Патріарх насвітлив сопричастя УПЦК з Константинопольською Церквою, як підкорення Її цій Церкві, що не сумісне з договором, якого прийняли обидві Церкви в 1990.» Перед цим договором, УПЦК була соборноправною метрополією з всіми атрибутами автокефалії. Договір це змінив. УПЦК вже не є незалежною. Покликання Владики Юрія на «благосло-вення» Патріарха Варфоломея в своїй забороні на зустрічі з Патріархом Київ-ським є цього доказом, як і факт що Владика Юрій був вибраний митрополитом рішенням Синоду Константинопольського Патріархату, а не Собором УПЦК, як булоб перед договором. Церква яка була цілковито незалежною перед 1990 стала залежною після договору. В який спосіб Ви вважаєте що УПЦК не підпорядкувалася договором з греками?

Ви кажете що підпорядкування «не сумісне з договором.» Можливо Ви і я читали інакші договори. Точки Домов-лення чітко описують втрату незалежності УПЦК. Але, припускаючи що Ви правель-но інтерпретуєте договір, то останні події показують що ніхто з осіб які підписали договір не збиралися його дотримуватися, бо сьогодні і Митрополит Юрій і Патріарх Варфоломей поводяться так ніби такий договір не існує, а УПЦК є тільки звичайною смиренною грецькою єпархією.

Ще більшим доказом нехтування договором є існуюча невиразна ситуація Владики Андрія Торонтського, якого грецький патріарх не допускає до інтронізації. Точки Договору вимагають щоб Владика Андрій був Єпископом Торонт-ським і Східної Єпархії. Проте, грецькі канони передбачують тільки одного єпископа в Торонті, а ним є грецький Митрополит Сотеріос. Владика Андрій в диптиках Константинопольського Патріар-хату названий тільки як Єпископ Кратеії, один з «Помічних Єпископів Трону.» Тому недавно була невдала спроба на його інтронізацію як єпископа Йорку, хоч це було зривом Точок Домовлення і запе-реченням постанов 22-го Собору УПЦК. Але, пригадайте нам, дорогий отче, хоч один договір, чи греків чи росіянів з українським народом якого вони в історії дотрималися. Їм вигідно договори підпису-вати щоб над нами панувати, знаючи що не треба буде їх дотримуватися, знаючи що, так само як вірні і Собори були підколисані «канонами», так само і пізніше можуть бути приспані підчас прийняття нових статутів і затоплення наших церков у вирі грецьких і московських інтересів. Проте, може нам не нарікати. Все ж таки, тепер наші вірні мають незамінну радість знання що Митро-полит Юрій може разом з своїм патріархом помішати котел мирону, сидіти за одним «канонічним» православним столом, і навіть тепло обціловуватися з своїм братом і співпричасником Кирилом.

Крім того, поясніть отче, якщо договір з греками підписано в 1990, то чому щойно десять років пізніше Консисторія відчула потребу видати Точки Договору разом з Вашими поясненнями? Чи не тому, що вірні і в США і в Канаді в більшості парафій піднесли голоси за Київським Патріархатом і проти введення наших святих Церков у грецьке, не українське, Православ’я? Не тому що значна кількість парафій в північній Америці повернулися до Київського Патріархату і Консисторія в США загрузла в судах яких програла? Чи не тому що Консисторія відчувала що мусіла в Канаді запобігти подібну ситуацію? Але, якщо Собори затвердили з греками договори, то чого було боятися? Може того, що Собори ніколи не затвер-дили договорів поміж Вселенським Патрі-архом і Владикою Юрієм і Консисторією, бо справжні умови тих договорів було перед Соборами скрито?

Ви пишете що УПЦК є, «всежтаки,» канадійська церква. Останньо, по Інтернеті деякі з Ваших дітей такі думки висловлюють з вражаючою ненавистю до української, не канадської, Церкви. Чи то Ви, отче, це їх навчили? Варто віднайти початки цієї моральної недуги. В 1986, УПЦК видала англійський переклад Митрополита Іларіона Українська Церква. Редактором цього нарису історії Української Православної Церкви був о. Стефан Ярмусь, того часу Голова Президії Консисторії УПЦК, і пізніше загально визнаний як «архітект» договору з Константинополем. В додатках до того видання була поміщена стаття о. Михайла Юрківського, Українська Православна Церква Канади, в якій автор говорить що УПЦК є канадська, і що не має матірної церкви. Можна припускати що, всеж таки, о. Ярмусь прочитав цю статтю, прочитав і помістив, в книзі Митрополита Іларіона! Якщо священник УПЦК такі абсурдні думки висловлював, а Голова Президії Консисторії їх публікував, то значить що грунт на запродання Церкви вже давно приготовувалося. Найсумніше те, що цю книжку видано щоб відзначити Тисячуліття Хрещення Рисі-України. Пригадаймо яку війну Москва в ті дні провадила (і далі провадить) щоб собі присвоїти цю найважливішу подію в історії українського народу. Самозрозуміле, що Москва вклала і зужиє всі свої ресурси щоб роздрібнити Українську Церкву і влити Її в не українські юриздикції. За яку ціну вдалося Москві спокусити наших ієрархів і священиків?

Наша парафія Святої Трійці в Лос Анджелес юридично заснована як корпора-ція штату Каліфорнії. Можна сказати що вона є «всежтаки» каліфорнійська церква, так само як кожна інша парафія в США є «всежтаки» церквою штату в якому заснована. УПЦК тільки в цей спосіб є «всежтаки» канадська церква.

Перші три Собори Української Греко Православної Церкви в Канаді, в 1918, 1919, і 1920 постановили підтримати близьку духовну єдність з Православною Церквою в Україні, особливо якби Церква в Україні сталаб автокефальною. Більшовицьке поне-волення України це унеможливело. Проте, Четвертий Собор (1924) вибрав Єпископа Іоана Теодоровича предстоятелем УГПЦК, хоч він був «неканонічний» ієрарх УАПЦ, і він до 1947-го року одночасно був перво-ієрархом наших Церков в США і в Канаді. Він був призначений до Америки Все-українською Церковною Радою в 1924, після того як Українська Православна Церква в США офіційно проголосила свою єдність з Українською Автокефальною Церквою в Україні, Церквою «неканонічно-го» мученика, Блаженнішого Митрополита Василя Липківського. На жаль, хоч Влади-ка Іоан опікувався Церквою в Канаді, він жив в США і був предстоятелем УПЦ США, а всі ці роки УГПЦК фактично не мала свого єпископату.

Пригадаймо що в січні 1947, Адміністра-тор УГПЦК, о. С. Савчук, їздив до Німеччи-ни щоб знайти для Канади єпископа з поміж ієрархів УАПЦ. Сьомого березня 1947 канадійська Духовна Консисторія листовно звернулася до Собору Єпископів УАПЦ з проханням відрядити до Канади Єпископа Мстислава, майбутнього Патріарха УАПЦ. Собор Єпископів цю прозьбу задовольнив в контексті поєднання всіх українських Церков в Америці і в Канаді. Владика Мстислав був вибраний Собором Архієпископом Вінніпегзьким і служив до 1950 як єдиний ієрарх УГПЦК, після чого просив Митрополита Полікарпа звільнити його і опікуватися Церквою в Канаді до вибрання нового єпископату. Так як Митрополит Іоан, Владика Мстислав мав з Консисторією розбіжності що до світсько-го втручання в справах суто ієрархіальної компетенції, і що до старання існувати як автокефальна церква без єпископату, що є в Православ’ї неможливим.

Всеж таки, в 1951, Консисторія УГПЦК рішила завершити свій (в словах о. Савчука) формативний період, і просила в Митропо-лита Полікарпа помочі. Після переговорів поміж Митрополитом Полікарпом і Митро-политом Іларіоном та Архієпископом Михаїлом, в яких брали участь протоп. Савчук, прот. Є. Грицина, прот. Г. Метюк, і проф. Л. Білецький, були підписані «Засади Приєднання Високоприосвященного Ми-трополита Іларіона до Української Греко Православної Церкви в Канаді.» Цей договір був прочитаний перед Консисторією і перед духовенством, і був прийнятий Собором, який вибрав Владику Іларіона на Митрополита Вінніпегу і Всієї Канади, а на заступника митрополита і архиєрея Східньої Канади, Владику Михаїла. В цей спосіб, хоч деякі з нас сьогодні стараються затерти історію, ієрархія Церкви в Канаді створена завдяки УАПЦ. Може Ви ще раз моглиб нам, менше здібним, пояснити в який спосіб УПЦК не є глибинно українською Церквою?

Чи Ви на мить сумніваєтеся, отче, в глибокій любові Митрополита Іларіона до України? Чи якесь одне слово в його мону-ментальних навчаннях дає можливість за-становитися в який напрям він провадив Церкву? Чи Ви не переконані його пророчими словами «Бережімо Все Своє Рідне»? І покійний Митрополит Констан-тин, і Митрополит Юрій, і Митрополит Номінат Антоній були учнями Митропо-лита Іларіона. Кожний з них мені не раз говорив що Владика Іларіон був їхнім най-кращим вчителем. Може Вам знано чому вони всі відвернулися від його заповітів?

Нам всім без сумніву знано що і Митрополит Іларіон, і Патріарх Мстислав, могли в будь яку хвилину піддатися спокусі «канонічності» і засісти за Вами мріяні вселенські столи. Проте, ні один, ні другий, з цих двох святих велетнів в історії українського народу і Церкви на це не пішов. Кожний з них простягав руку братерства до всіх, без виннятку, перво-ієрархів помісних Церков, і просив щоб вони нашу Церкву визнали як кожну іншу національну Церкву. На жаль, ці наші брати в Христі жалували нам чашу при-частя. Важливіше їм ніж Слово Господнє виявлялося земне панування. Знаючи про страждання і мученство нашої Церкви і народу, Другий Рим волів перебувати в обіймах Третього Риму, і не тільки мовчав, але і був «співпричасником» чаші забуття і смерті. Коли Ви вважаєте, отче, що учні Митрополита Іларіона відкинули його навчання і пам’ять? Коли піддалися шептанні лукавого? Чи ще за життя Вчителя, чи вже по Розп’ятті?

Ви пишете що Церква Київського Патріархату не є соборноправна. Ви можливо думаєте про Ваших братів співпричасників Московського Патріархату. Якщо Вас цікавилоб прочитати Статут Української Православної Церкви Київського Патріархату, то Ви помітилиб що наша Церква є соборноправною.

Ви «втішаєтеся» своїм співпричастям з Московським Патріархатом але оплакуєте як трагедію що не можете приступити до причастя з Вашими братами в українських Церквах. Хто Вам це забороняє? Виж говорите що УПЦК не підкорена Константинополеві. Але, Ваші слова і дії доказують щось інакше. Співпричастя з Церквою Київського Патріархату не є доктринальне питання. Ви маєте повне право, і відповідальність перед Вашими предками і попередниками, цю справу самі рішати, без дозволу грецьких господарів.

Ніхто з нас не забувся героїчного листа Митрополита Юрія до російської Церкви. Я особисто після цього Владику Юрія радісно вітав і поздоровляв підчас Собору УПЦ США в 2010. На жаль, скоро відчулося що його думками не раділи інші наші ієрархи, а ще менше вожді у Фанарі і Москві. Наслідки цього незавдоволення ясно проявилися в його непотрібних вчинках цього року.

Дорогий отче, Ви говорите що не можна Вам повернутися до стану «де УПЦК не могла ні сослужити, ні сопричащатися, ні говорити офіційно на форумах все-православних.» Значить що вже неможливо повернутися до того стану в якому Церква перебувала аж до того часу коли Вона була підпорядкована Фанарові, ще не знати точно на яких умовинах, до стану в якому Її провадив Митрополит Іларіон.

Ви кажете що зривання договору з Царгородом ішлоб на руку Москві. І в цьому Ви помиляєтеся. Єдина надія і запорука для незалежності і добробуту українського народу є помісна Українська Православна Церква Київського Патріар-хату, яку за останніх 20 років без сумніву вибрав український народ. Знищення УПЦ КП є найвищим завданням Москви. Приєднання всіх українських Церков Діаспори до Київського Патріархату булоб смертельним ударом московським амбіціям відбудувати імперію.

Ви кажете що Патріархія Константино-польська не вмішується в справи УПЦК. Всечесний отче, всежтаки признайтесь. Ми всі знаємо що оприлюднені Точки Домовлення є тільки фасадою для замилювання очей. Ми всі знаємо що договір якого підписали ієрархи є обширним і вичерпним документом в найкращих візантійських традиціях, і що Фанар має право втручатися.

В США, Консисторія заперечувала перед Соборами існування будь яких на письмі домовлень. Це, очевидно, пізніше вияви-лось неправдою. Підчас Собору УПЦ США в 2010 я був членом Статутового Комітету який розглядав раніше написаний новий Статут. Нам тоді Владика Антоній коро-тенько показав одну копію, для всіх, Точок Домовлення майже ідентичних до Ваших. Я попросив для себе копію, яку було зроблено. Там, на зворотніх сторінках, видруковані параграфи яких хтось забувся змазати. Заголовок Розділу ХV. є Омофору Права Та Відповідальності. Під тим, стерто параграф перший. Параграф 2. Має заголовок Фінансові Зобов’язання УПЦ США Перед Вселенським Патріархатом. Під цим, в скобках: «Примітка Статутовому Комітетові УПЦ США: просимо тут виповнити належну інформа-цію яку вимагає цей заголовок.» Консисто-рія постійно заперечує що УПЦ США має фінансові зобов’язання перед Фанаром. Але, виявляється що існують договори поміж ієрархами які зобов’язують наші Церкви, не зважаючи на наші Статути. Можна навіть передбачати що статути представлені Соборам не є тими яких дотримуються Консисторії і Фанар. Точки Домовлення, як в США так і в Канаді, не є договорами поміж Церквами. Дійсні договори зберігаються десь де вірні може їх побачуть за пів століття, тоді як вже не існуватиме українська Церква в Діаспорі, якщо вірні тепер не розбудяться, і якщо духовенство не знайде в собі відваги навернутися на дорогу правди.

Але ми надіємося на Господа, і Він прийме наші молитви і нас визволить і приведе до єдності віри і до пізнання неприступної Своєї Слави, бо Він Благословен на віки віків. Амінь.

о. Олег Сацюк, Настоятель Парафії Святої Трійці в Каліфорнії, Київського Патріархату (Бувший Член Церковного Суду УПЦ США)

ADMINISTRATION, subscribing, unsubscribing, etc. TOP

Myroslava Oleksiuk
-- editor-in-chief


Марта Онуфрів
-- кореспондент
Marta Onufriv
-- correspondent

diana
Діана Мережко
-- кореспондент
Diana Merezhko
-- correspondent


John Heron
-- webmaster www.eposhta.com


Ihor Prociuk
-- story layout and design

We hope you found ePOSHTA informative and will share it with others. Your submissions and suggestions are always welcome.

eposhta-CanadaUS@yahoogroups.com
or
myroslava@rogers.com

Use the following e-mail addresses to:

SEND us e-mail:
eposhta-CanadaUS@yahoogroups.com

Subscribe to the ePOSHTA-CanadaUS NewsMagazine:
Is one of your friends forwarding ePOSHTA to you? Why not subscribe directly! Just enter your e-mail in the box below and click on Subscribe Now!.

Unsubscribe from the ePOSHTA-CanadaUS NewsMagazine:
Send an email to:
eposhta-CanadaUS-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
YahooGroups (which managers our subscriptions) will send you an e-mail -- to which you must reply -- in order to confirm that you want to unsubscribe.

Subscription Issues:
Having difficulty subscribing (or unsubscribing)? Or maybe you want us to add your friends to our newsmagazine? Contact:
subscription@eposhta.com
Make sure you have "Subscription" in the subject line.

Events, Conferences, Employment:
Send announcements at least two weeks before the event date to: events@eposhta.com
See the guidelines for submitting EVENT announcements.

If you maintain a website of events for your city or region, let us know. We will add a link to your site in our ePOSHTA newsmagazine.

ePOSHTA acknowledges the technical support of www.eposhta.com in the production of the ePOSHTA Newsmagazine.