Ukraine elections meetings

Eklaerung von Memorial und der Moskauer Helsinki Gruppe zur Ukraine, der sich inzwischen ueber 50 Organisationen und mehr als 100 Einzelpersonen angeschlossen haben. Die Unterschriften koennen auf de Hompeage von Memorial unter www.memo.ru eingesehen werden.

Appell an die ukrainische Öffentlichkeit

Freunde!

Seit Beginn der „orangenen Revolution“ in der Ukraine, eigentlich unmittelbar nach dem ersten Wahlgang der Präsidentenwahlen werden russische Massenmedien nicht müde zu behaupten, dass in Eurem Land ein Kampf zwischen Anhängern „prorussischer“ und „antirussischer“ Orientierung vor sich gehe, und gleichzeitig unterstützen sie offen eine der Seiten des Bürgerkonflikts. Eine analoge Sicht auf die ukrainischen Ereignisse, nur unter umgekehrtem Vorzeichen der Sympathie biete auch ein bedeutender Teil der westlichen Presse seinen Lesern an.

Wir möchten, dass ihr wisst: In Russland gibt es nicht wenige Menschen, die daran nicht glauben. Wir verstehen sehr gut, dass die ukrainischen Bürger – Ukrainer, Russen, Krimtataren, Russinen, Juden, Armenier, Griechen und andere unabhängig von ihrer ethnischen Herkunft, ihrer Muttersprache, ihrer kulturellen Selbstbestimmung, ihres Wohnortes und sogar ihrer politischen Vorlieben – nicht auf die Straßen Kiews, Charkows und anderer Städte gegangen sind, um eine „antirussische“ Stimmung auszudrücken. Sie hatten es einfach satt, dass man sie nicht wie Bürger, sondern wie Arbeitsvieh behandalt hat. Sie sind empört, dass Politiker, die nur an den eigenen Vorteil denken, versucht haben, sie zu manipulieren, und dass ihr Wählerwillen im Ergebnis grob gefälscht worden ist. Und es geht dabei nicht um den Machtkampf  zwischen dieser oder jener Partei, dieses oder jenes Blockes und dieser oder jener Personen. Das multinationale Volk der Ukraine hat sich erhoben, um seine bürgerlichen und politischen Rechte, seine Freiheit und den Volkswillen zu verteidigen. Eben darin besteht der tiefe Sinn des Volksprotestes.

Es mag sein, dass diejenigen, die die offizielle Politik Russlands bestimmen, der Meinung sind, dass eine Ukraine, die von ethnokulturellen Konflikten geschüttelt wird, eine Ukraine, die von einer schwachen, korrumpierten, halbautoritären Regierung, die sich auf Hilfe von außen stützen muss, geführt wird, ein besonders bequemer Nachbar für unser Land sein wird. Wir hoffen, dass Ihr wisst: Es gibt auch ein anderes Russland.

Ein Russland, das das Recht kennt.

Ein Russland, dass an einer freien, einigen und stabilen Ukraine interessiert ist, die, wie es selbst auch, zur Rückkehr nach Europa strebt.

Ein Russland, dass versteht: Eine Niederlage der Demokratie in der Ukraine wäre ein schwerer Schlag für die Demokratie in Russland.

Ein Russland, das glaubt: Die Werte der Freiheit und der Wahrheit werden – hier früher, da später - in unseren Ländern siegen.

Wir sind mit Euch.

Gesellschaft „Memorial“

Moskauer Helsinki Gruppe

A legal mechanism and stages to overcome the current political crisis

In Ukraine we face a systemic political crisis, which is caused by a number of factors. It is accounted for by mass violations of citizens’ rights to vote and Ukraine’s election law and is an expected result of the attempts to artificially create a system of “manual, regulated, manipulated, puppet democracy,” a result of “dirty” election technologies, lies, falsifications, manipulation of popular opinion, numerous myths, which become common in our life. The root cause of the current political crisis is total inaction and helplessness of the head of state, Cabinet of Ministers, whole system of executive branch, law-enforcement agencies, and prosecutor’s offices. 

During the period prior to Ukraine’s presidential election and on the election day, most of state authorities and their officials were involved into the election campaigning in violation of the law. Article 64 of the Ukraine’s Law on Election of the President of Ukraine directly prohibits “state authorities and local governments, their officials and functionaries” to participate in election campaigning (para 2, part 1). However, quite often officials of various levels not only took part in staging diverse campaigning actions, but also involved their subordinates in preparing, organizing, and performing of those actions, used transport, equipment, materials that belonged to state owned enterprises and organizations (thereby forcing their subordinates to pointless use of state funds, as well as funds allocated for their development). Besides, the officials conducted election campaigning among their subordinates (what, too, contradicts the law), which quite often took form of direct psychological pressure or was on the verge of it. In light of the law, even expression of his or her opinion by a top manager of the organization or its department among the employees (co-workers, etc.) concerning one of the candidates as more acceptable (respectful, balanced, promising, etc.) could well be considered as a means of psychological pressure. Because this triggers a build-up of conditions non-conducive for free exchange of opinions concerning the candidates among the staff members, as this lays a foundation for suspicions that the opposite point of view might be disliked by the top manager and adversely affect future employees’ salary range, working conditions, career, and security of his or her workplace.    

Open interference on the part of many officials of various ranks and levels in the election process, their manifested disregard of fundamental principles of the election law, unduly execution by many state authorities of their functions (first of all, by prosecutor’s offices and police) corrupted the idea of free election. It is indicative that on 27 November 2004 only 75 MPs (of 433 present in the Parliament’s meeting hall) voted for the proposal to recognize the election legal and democratic. It means that fewer than 17% of MPs consider the election was free and fair, that the will of citizens was established completely and truthfully. Surely, among the voters, the percentage of those “blind optimists” is even lower. 

The Central Election Commission, territorial election commissions, and district election commissions did not provide for observance of the election law by all subjects of the election process. The Central Election Commission totally failed to meet its functional obligations and, in fact, kept itself aloof from performing oversight of the compliance to the election law. Quite often it did not notice (or wanted not to notice) even those violations, which were being watched by the whole nation. The Central Election Commission’s suspiciously prolonged vote count after the voting on October 31, and even more suspicious fast vote count after the run-off, in great haste, while noticing no violations, no events, which took place, manifests its inconsistency, bias, and partiality. Thereby the Central Election Commission discredited the principle of free elections, as well as itself. 

The Cabinet of Ministers, top managers of many state authorities, heads of regional and district state administrations, prosecutor’s offices, police failed to prevent from the numerous violations of the election law and discredited themselves in the eyes of the people. As a result of that inaction and bias on the part of the officials, the society is again frightened; so now, like many years ago, on the eve of the election day, we had very undemocratic circumstances (which had not to be in place before elections), when almost 45% of our fellow citizens were not just doubting, but also were afraid of expressing their opinions concerning the presidential candidate, for whom they were going to vote. That fright persisted also after the October 31, and after the run-off. Too many people even today are forced to hide their political preferences. It is accounted for, on one side, by the low political culture of ordinary citizens and by the climate existing in many groups (what is meant here is the situation, when coworkers, colleagues, and fellow students not only fail to respect each other’s choice, but also condemn those, who did not vote for “their” candidate, or even insult and humiliate those, who “do not follow the will of the group” or “do not march in step”). On the other hand, sometimes voters have to hide their attitude toward the candidates, because it could not please their foreman, supervisor, team leader, department chief, or CEO, etc. Such unfriendly, non-tolerant, and then, undemocratic political climate dispirit voters, humiliate them and has nothing in common with the democracy and free elections as they are understood today. A lot of voters had to vote in contradiction to their personal convictions and preferences, because they were afraid of the possibility that their vote would become public (that situation was aggravated with the rumors about hidden video cameras, possibilities of comparing ballots with verification slips and thereby identification of a specific voter, etc.).

The complete helplessness, inertia, and lack of integrity were shown by overwhelming majority of state authorities and officials, from the head of state to line police officers, who, during the sharp increase of the political crisis, “forgot” about performing their duties and using their powers.

It is not the first time, when Ukraine is facing a political crisis. Let’s remember just a few examples. In the fall of 1990, the mass student protests forced the government to resign. On 23 October 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic decided to “meet the request of Comrade Vitaliy Masol and relieve him from his duties as the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers.”

In 1992, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, admitting its own inability and helplessness, yielded to the Cabinet of Ministers the right to issue decrees, which had powers of laws. During six months, the Cabinet of Ministers hastily “manufactured” decrees, a lot of which are in force to date. In summer of 1993, right after the “decree period,” powerful and mass miners’ strikes hit the country. In order to overcome the deep political crisis, “taking into account the socio-political situation, which was in the Donbass and other regions of Ukraine,” on 17 June 1993, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine even ordered a national referendum “on vote of confidence/no-confidence to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” to be held on 26 September 1993. However, later, after conducting political consultations, the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine agreed to hold early parliamentary and presidential elections, so the need to hold the  referendum dropped off. In that case, the parties managed to, first, to put out the strike emotions and anxiety, and second, to prolong their powers (the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for half a year, and the President of Ukraine for almost a year, as a newly elected President of Ukraine assumed office on 19 July 1994).

The current political crisis in Ukraine is deepest and largest in scale for all the years since Ukraine became independent. There are no doubts that, thanks to the mass actions of civil disobedience, which began on November 22 in the Independence Square and spread to many other areas in Ukraine, our society has dramatically changed. These shifts in public opinion, which they have brought about, necessitate a separate study on the part of sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, and other researchers.     

In the same time, it is necessary now to pay attention also to direct adverse affects of the political crisis – first of all, to the state budget. It is an established fact that during the 2004 election campaign and on the election day huge state funds, budget and off-budget, were used pointlessly, in fact, “wasted.” In the circumstances, in any modern civilized nation, its government and top officials would have to resign, acknowledging their guilt for bringing the nation to the sate of ungovernability and embezzlement of taxpayers’ money. However, if they lacked conscience and realization of their guilt for the events, which had place, this step should be made by the head of state and parliament. Inability to rule the state is proved by the fact that the Parliament responded to evidence of numerous violations of citizens’ voting rights and attempts to falsify the election results only under pressure exerted by the actions of civil disobedience, and only on the sixth day after their beginning, while the Council of National Security and Defense of Ukraine responded only on the seventh day.    

But the time for political manipulation, political game, and attempts to “beat” one’s political opponents is over.

Therefore, to overcome the Ukraine’s deep political crisis, the President of Ukraine must fire the whole Cabinet of Ministers, Central Election Commission, General Prosecutor, Minister of Interior, heads of certain regional and district state administrations and assign instead of those individuals acting officials, a list of which should be agreed upon in the course of political negotiations. By the way, the naturally most interested person in these steps should be Leonid Kuchma himself, because only on this condition he could restore his authority as the head of state so that he could be forgiven for his errors and mistakes. In particular, citizens would simply forget about his errors and mistakes for some time and be thankful for his solving the crisis. In the eyes of international community, he would also look like a politician, who subdued the anxiety in peaceful way and led out the great (first of all, in size) Central European nation of the crisis without bloodshed.

The second stage to overcome the crisis should be the creating of a new list of members of territorial and district election commissions, as well as taking certain measures, which would make impossible mass, systemic, and rude violations of the election law and distortion of the voters’ will during a re-run.

The third stage should be holding the re-run on 19 December 2004.
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, Doctor of Law
Fedir Venislavskiy, Candidate of Law
Viktor Kychun, Candidate of Law
Viktor Kolisnyk, Doctor of Law
Pavlo Lyubchenko, Candidate of Law

Open letter from the Kharkiv human rights protection group to participants of the negotiation process
(on political situation in Ukraine as of 07.12.04)

In the light of the latest political events in Ukraine, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group feels an urgent need to address this letter to participants of the negotiation process in Ukraine. This document can be considered as our statement or address on the current situation.

So, we are certain that it is our obligation at the moment to say the following:

1. We consider the attempts to merge in one “package” vote for amendments to the Law on Election of the President of Ukraine, issues of resignation of the Central Election Commission (CVK) and the Ukraine’s Government, and issues of the Constitutional reform morally, politically, and legally unacceptable.

First of all, such a merge seems to us deeply immoral. When the opposition demands the resignation of the government and CVK, as well as amendments to the current election legislation, it is not about these or those political or legal gains for the opposition, but rather about a revival of a fundamental and natural right of the people and each citizen of Ukraine to vote fairly and equally, i.e. effectively, in order to get their sovereign will through, which, we would like to remind you, is not below, but above the participants of the negotiation process.

In this respect, we stress once again that the citizens’ voting rights, rights to fairly elect and be elected, go ahead of all the powers, their branches and departments, as well as all the state authorities and political institutions – from the Parliament and President to the Cabinet of Ministers and CVK altogether. Because two latter institutions, by and large, are no more than political managers, functionaries, servants to the people.  

This is why the voting rights, their range and the procedure of their effecting may not be the subject of short-term deals, bargaining, or any other political gambling. The election procedures may not be artificially worsened or improved depending on individual preferences. In a jural democratic state, they always have (should have) only one vector: improving individual effectiveness, guarantees, and, consequently, political potency.   

Hence, any subject of the Ukraine’s political system may not (has no right) to promise any improvement (a modification, in general) of the election legislation on a security of voting or not voting for the constitutional reform or of any other parliamentary voting in general.

 The will of the Ukrainian people both in material and procedural sense may not subdue to (yield to, depend on) a will of any participant of the negotiation process. This will is a priori sovereign, supreme, naturally superior of any subject of the negotiations, the national political elite in general. We would like to remind you once again that the decisions, whether to make a second round (re-vote) of the presidential election “more” or “less” fair and transparent, may not and should not depend on any insider deals. Because the values, which are directly affected here, are by far superior of the interests of the party leaders, parliamentary factions, presidential candidates, Prime Minister, or the CVK. They are even superior of the personal interests of L. Kuchma, V. Yanukovich, P. Simonenko, O. Moroz, or V. Yuschenko. 

2. Further, the issue of the constitutional reform, honestly speaking, is too important and fundamental, to be “shoved” to existence in the situation of political crisis, which is in place today. Reminder: the Constitution is a superior strategic regulator of Ukraine’s domestic and international political life. In this capacity it may not be a hostage or subject of any operational political tactics. The Constitution is substantially superior of any political tactics, superior of any operational parliamentary or president’s maneuvering, and, consequently, it may not be modified or corrected in the regime of emergency, so to speak, “at odd moments.”

We once again would like to assert that the suggested version of modifications to the Constitution in Bill No. 4180 is far from optimal. It does not agree with basic political and legal logic and quite often contradicts the common sense.

It is well known that the 1996 Ukraine’s Constitution was written following the best examples in Europe and in the world of the time. While being the conceptually borrowed document, it, in its political and legal qualities, surpassed the vernacular creative possibilities of constitutional thought then existed in Ukraine.

Today the situation looks principally different. In contrast to the integrated, publicly well known text of the current Constitution, the draft political reform is a result of our exclusively “home-made” designs and developments, a product of the political culture that virtually exists now. So, although the bill this time is really national, its political and legal qualities remain more than questionable. It’s not an accident that this bill was condemned by the Venetian Commission, which, in polite but transparent form, let us know that the design of our constitutional “bicycle” had not been improved. Unfortunately, however, the sincere and honest criticism by our good colleagues and friends, failed to positively influence our sensible persistence… Furthermore, it looks like that our naïve self-confidence in the issues of constitutional theory even grew.      

We have repeatedly pointed out that almost all the mixed draft constitutional amendments, which the current authorities with various intensity tried to push through in various periods, broke the imperfect but viable executive ladder of management, introduced a disciplinary statute for public deputies, played to the political primitivism of party bosses and faction leaders, completely leveled the expressions of people’s individuality on major levels and steps of the government.  

In this sense, the last version of Bill No. 4180 on the constitutional amendments is another attempt of incompetent constitutional correction. Having no desire to raise its level of political culture to the requirements of the current constitution, the acting authorities stubbornly try to reduce the level of constitutional correction to their confused and shortsighted pseudo-democratic notions.     

And there is no one among the leadership, who feels uneasy, as the bill actually breaks the integrity of domestic and international policies of Ukraine, encroaches on a Cabinet of Ministers’ principle of collective responsibility, ignores a principle of division of power. The bill introduces a basis for non-critical parliamentary collectivism and apparently increases risks of a Parliament-vs-President confrontation… 

However, the most important thing, in our opinion, is that Bill No. 4180 actually narrows down a social base of democracy in Ukraine. According to the constitutional reform design, the nation’s strategy and tactics becomes a prerogative of the Parliament, which, in comparison to the people, after all, could be corrupted. Everybody knows that the democracy of masses is important, just because it is impossible to physically corrupt the people. This classic thought, old-established in political science, has repeatedly confirmed in various places. Therefore, in the Ukrainian situation, the dependency of the influential presidential position on a direct popular vote is absolutely justified, urgent, and doubtless.

This dependency is also a strategic counterbalance against possible international political pressure on Ukraine. Besides, Ukraine is still on such a level of political development, when its financial and economic power and policy is overly merged. This is why, in the Ukraine’s political system, the popularly elected President still plays an important role.    

As it was partly noted above, the President with strong powers is important for adequate national response to Russian and other similar challenges. Moreover, Russia, other CIS countries are all presidential republics, which international policies influence us, and not only in the matters of energy supply. Needless to say that Ukraine must have the presidential mechanisms of rapid force to respond to the challenges of this kind. Obviously, in this case we speak of something bigger than just optimization of relations at the level of executive power.   

That is why we consider that the subject of the constitutional reform could have been even the strengthening the President’s executive powers, direct subordination of the Cabinet of Ministers to the President, along with making him directly politically and legally responsible for actions and policies on the part of the government. 

In any case, the reduction of the President’s status to solely representative functions on the international arena suggested by the reformers, is, in our opinion, not only poorly motivated and justified, but also dangerous for providing national independence and people’s sovereignty. If the reform does occur, the all too great corporate organization of Ukraine’s political system will sharply increase. Influence of self-interest on the part of powerful financial and economic groups on the Parliament will become stronger and of systematic nature.   

A very different story is a Ukrainian moderate federalism, which could, in terms of reform (“two Ukraines”), be discussed in earnest. After all, the idea of decentralization has been recognized in Ukraine since M. Dragomanov. It is well known that M. Grushevskiy, S. Shelukhin, and R. Laschenko were ideological federalists. In general, the constitutional reform of such kind could have been, in fact, timely. However, it should have been a very different, really anti-crisis reform.   

3. We stress, in particular, that the parties, which leaders during the presidential campaign got 5 to 6% or even less of the popular vote may not be lobbyists for the constitutional (political) reform. We cannot understand at all, why the ideas of the reform should be implemented by those, who expressed most reservations about it and on that basis got their most electorate support.

It looks absolutely illogical that V. Yuschenko, using his authority, ha to carry out ideas of political losers (we kindly ask not to take this thesis personally), like P. Simonenko or O. Moroz. We can speak and write a lot of different things on the matter, but in the intention and attempt to carry out the reform at the expense of “Our Ukraine” [political party], we see a situation, when “a winner follows a loser.”

Once again, we would like to bring attention of political leaders to the fact that effecting the constitutional reform with radical transformation of presidential powers between first and second round (re-run) of the presidential election campaign is absurd and unconstitutional. It is obviously unacceptable, when Ukrainian citizens voted for President with one status in the first round, and would vote for President with obviously other status in the second one.

We understand that those hundreds of thousands people on the Independence Square in Kyiv in the December frost stand not for electing a person who just “governs but not rules.” The people on the Square stand for electing their cherished President of truth and good. Consciously and subconsciously, they rely on him personally, on the power and authority of his constitutional post. The people on the Square are fighting for a fair getman [Ukrainian traditional ruler], not a cunning courtier. We don’t think it’s advisable to anybody to forget about that. 

The power of spirit, vivid mind, openness and moral cleanness of the people on the Square is incomparably superior of the obscurant sense of the divisive constitutional reform. Students, workers and businessmen do in fact stand for reform, though not for the reform of formal institutions, but for the change of the pathologically corrupt and dishonest authorities. All of them do not protest against the half-baked legal forms. They protest against that human material, with which these forms are filled under the circumstances. So, they protest against lazy and disconnected people, not against constitutional ABC and norms. This is why the current attempt of the constitutional reform is, in our opinion, an attempt made by the old authorities to divert the energy of human burst into a wrong channel. The dead haunt the alive, the former envy the easygoingness and freedom of the latter, exerting their last strengths the dead pull us back to the old, moldy, and dark political grave.      

We are certain that the people on the Kyiv’s Independence Square protest against their personal humiliation, caused not by institutions, but by absolutely real individuals. However, the traitorous, angry, or just not very intelligent politicians want, at any cost, to convince us that these people’s enemy is not those evil-minded embezzlers of public funds with pretensions of provincial snobs, but something abstract and formally-legal. 

In this sense, the “reformers” are not ironing down the current crisis situation, but rather making it more acute. Because in reality, the Square’s demands are modest: just fair, not falsified elections. In contrast, the reformist demands on the part of authorities are ambitious and totally immoral. They want to turn the public power into a “reform,” which does not augment, but suppresses and kills our best hopes. 

4. And V. Havel, in his commentary on the events of the Ukrainian orange movement, was right: it’s not only about the election of V. Yuschenko, but about a funeral of the Ukrainian post-communism in general. So, the ring, which is in the air over the national capital’s square for half a month already, is for that. In this place, people rid themselves of their fear, and along with it, their feeling of dependency and enslavement. Their leader is an antithesis to immorality, as well as to an authoritarian political style. So, he is an antithesis not  to a form, but to an old political substance. Really, V. Yuschenko is a Ukrainian political “outsider,” a bohemian, in the best meaning of this word. His style of communication with the public is off-hand and easy. His thoughts are both refined and clear. He is really a people’s candidate, a personification of the Ukrainian meritocracy of talent.       

In fact, this is clear to all participants of the negotiation process. On the other hand, rational thinking of these people in power mixes with their many not quite elegant “secondary” feelings. Once T. Mann said about French king Henri IV, “He was simple in his soul, but not in his mind.” Obviously, V. Yuschenko has soul and mind, a natural charisma.      

The real scale of the personality, depth and significance of this figure, are growing literally before our eyes, unfolding day by day. With the same speed, also is growing the human envy to this. We have an excellent phenomenon of the person’s natural augmentation with all the connotations, which usually accompany these things.

A free people rarely make mistakes and love a person, who really deserves it. It just happened that the Ukrainian people fell in love with V. Yuschenko. In comparison to his enthusiastic and genuine popularity, figures, who just very recently were in the foreground, now look very insignificant. It just happened that those people are subjects of the negotiating process. So, our letter is addressed to these people in the first place.

Obviously, the Ukrainians will not stand for any of them in the frost for half a month. But do they have a moral right to be offended with this? And is it reasonable in this situation for them to think about how quickly and skillfully clip wings to the leader, who managed to show people the advantages of dignity and freedom?

Do they really want that strongly the constitutional reform? Do they really want fairness, guarantees of human rights, democracy?

We cannot exclude that our people in power do want to look at these wonders. However, we certainly will never know it. So, having our justified doubts and anxiety in mind for all they have done, we address them our request not to be so die-hardly careful about our interests. 

In the end, we would like to tell these people: give up your political envy, forget about your spiritually petty and poorly thought of constitutionally-separatist scheming, step out, allow the Ukrainian people, at last, to hit the free road.   

7 December 2004
The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group

Constitutional and legal analysis of the Decision by the Kharkiv Regional Council of 26 November 2004
“On the measures to stabilize socio-political situation in the region”

We, the undersigned – the qualified experts in the fields of Ukrainian constitutional law, national and local governments, and other fields of law have carried out a constitutional and legal analysis of the Decision by the Kharkiv Regional Council of 26 November 2004 “On the measures to stabilize socio-political situation in the region” and have come to the following conclusions:

The Decision by the Kharkiv Regional Council of 26 November 2004 “On the measures to stabilize socio-political situation in the region” does not correspond to the Ukraine’s Constitution and laws.

According to Article 19 (Part 2) of the Ukraine’s Constitution “local governments, their officials are obliged to act only on the basis of, within the competence of, and in the way described in the Ukraine’s Constitution and laws.”

The analysis of the Ukraine’s Constitution and laws testifies that the current legislation of Ukraine does not provide regional and district councils with competences for making this kind of decisions.

The Kharkiv Regional Council, by making the decision –

“2. To set up executive committees of the regional council and district councils.

...

4. To elect Ye. Kushnaryov, Head of the [Kharkiv] Regional Council, a head of the Executive Committee of the [Kharkiv] Regional Council.

5. To order the Executive Committee of the [Kharkiv] Regional Council to establish structure, staffing of the executive committee, divisions and departments, as well as the council’s administration.

6. To advise the district councils to immediately hold extraordinary sessions and establish staffs of the executive committees of district councils approved by the Executive Committee of the [Kharkiv] Regional Council.”

– violated a number of provisions or the Ukraine’s Constitution (Articles 7, 8, 19 (Part 2), as well as virtually all provisions of the Ukraine’s Law on Local Governments in Ukraine that define status and competence of regional and district councils.)

The substantive analysis of the paragraphs above testifies that they aim to turn a system of relations between various governmental authorities at the local level to the Soviet times – when district councils acted not in the interest of the public, but rather followed through management decisions made by their superior regional council in the first place.

In particular, the Decision by the Kharkiv Regional Council regarding the creation of executive committees of district councils is unlawful, because, according to the Ukraine’s Law on  Local Governments in Ukraine such a decision can be made only by district councils themselves. The legal decision on the creation of executive committees of district councils cannot be considered as a necessary legal basis for decisions by respective district councils.

Para 3 of the aforementioned Decision “To grant them (executive committees of the regional council and district councils) the competence of the state executive authorities and local governments” also does not correspond to the Ukraine’s Constitution and laws. According to Article 143, Part 3 of the Ukraine’s Constitution, local governments can be authorized by law with some competences of the executive authorities. So, that decision of the Kharkiv Regional Council is a rude interference in the competence of the state executive authorities, violates Articles 6, 19 (Part 2), 92 (Part 1, Para 12), 118, and 119 of the Ukraine’s Constitution, the Ukraine’s Law on Local State Administrations and other Ukrainian laws describing competences of local executive authorities.

According to Article 118 of the Ukraine’s Constitution the executive authority in regions and districts is carried out by local state administrations. The organization and competence of the executive authorities are regulated exclusively by laws of Ukraine (Article 92 (Part 1, Para 12) of the Ukraine’s Constitution).

Taking decision –

To oblige the Ukraine’s State Treasury Department in the Kharkiv Region (R. Yeremchuk) and Ukraine’s National Bank Department in the Kharkiv Region (V. Kachuk) to stop transferring funds to the state budget, starting 27 November 2004.

– the Kharkiv Regional Council also substantially overstepped its competence.

This decision contradicts Articles 19 (Part 2), 92 (Part 2, Para 1), and 95 of the Ukraine’s Constitution, Article 24 of the Ukraine’s Law on Local Governments in Ukraine, Article 7, 47 to 50 of the Ukraine’s Budget Code and Law on the State Budget of Ukraine for 2004, Law on the National Bank of Ukraine. 

The Ukraine’s State Treasury Department in the Kharkiv Region and Ukraine’s National Bank Department in the Kharkiv Region are obliged to act in accordance with the Ukraine’s Constitution and laws.

Para 8 of the Decision –

...in order to maintain law and order, protection of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, and security of the Kharkiv Region’s residents, to subordinate the Ministry of Interior Department in the Kharkiv Region, the Ministry of Interior Department at the Pivdenna (Southern) Railway and Ministry of Emergency Main Department in the Kharkiv Region along with their units to the Executive Committee of the [Kharkiv] Regional Council

– also does not correspond to Article 19 (Part 2) of the Ukraine’s Constitution and Articles 3, 4 , and 7 of the Ukraine’s Law on Police, other laws, decrees by the Ukraine’s President and Cabinet of Ministers.

According to Article 43 (paragraphs 33 & 34) of the Ukraine’s Law on the Local Governments in Ukraine, plenary sessions of district and regional councils deal with the following issues:

33) creation of local police, with approval of respective main departments, the Ministry of Interior departments in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regions, Cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol; approval of designations and resignations of local police chiefs and heads of its structural units and district police officers, filing propositions with respect to their recruitment or punishment;

34) hearing of the reports by departments of  interior’s chiefs on the current crime control, as well as local police chiefs on the current public security and protection of public order in the respective territory, initiating before the competent authorities issues with respect to firing those chiefs, when their work be considered unsatisfactory.

According to Article 26 of the Ukraine’s Law on Police the oversight for police activity is carried out by the Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers, Ministry of Interior, and, within their competences, [local] councils. The councils, while carrying out their oversight, do not interfere in its operative, criminal, procedural, and administrative activity.

An unlawful decision and that, which substantially overstep its competence, is the decision according to Para 11 – “To subordinate the Kharkiv TV & Radio Company and Kharkiv Radio & TV Transmitting Center”– because the fundamental principles of transfers of legal entities in the state property to municipal property of local communities, or to joint property of local communities of villages, townships, towns, or transfers of legal entities in the municipal property to state property are regulated by the Ukraine’s Law on Transfer of Legal Entities in the State and Municipal Property.

The decision to temporary cancel broadcasting by TV companies “Era,”  “5 Kanal,” and “7 Kanal” in the Kharkiv Region for their repeated calls to destroy the constitutional order in Ukraine (Para 12) does not correspond to the Ukraine’s standing legislation.

According to Article 6 of the Ukraine’s Law on TV and Radio Broadcasting, interference of  authorities of the national, local, and regional governments, their officials, groups of citizens, individual citizens in the creative work of TV & radio organizations, as well as censorship as control over the ideological contents of the broadcasts are prohibited; only contents of the information, which is protected by the law, is controlled.

According to Article 28 (Part 5) of the Ukraine’s Law on TV and Radio Broadcasting, work of TV & radio organizations can be temporarily cancelled by court’s decision, in cases, which are described in the election law.

The Ukrainian mass media, according to the Ukrainian legislation, are entitled to cover all aspects of activity on the part of national and local authorities. National and local authorities are obliged to provide the mass media with full information about their activity through respective informational services of the national and local authorities, to provide journalists with free access to it, with the exception of cases, described in the Ukraine’s Law on State Secrets, not to press them in any way, and not to interfere in their working process. The mass media can carry out their own investigations and analysis of the national and local authorities’ and their officials’ activities, assess and comment them. (Article 2 of the Ukraine’s Law on the Manner of Covering the Work of the National and Local Authorities by the mass media in Ukraine). 

CONCLUSIONS:

According to the Ukraine’s Constitution and Law on Local State Administrations, regional state administrations enjoy, probably, the widest range of  authority at the local level, which allows them to effectively maintain human and citizen rights and freedoms in the Kharkiv Region. However, the analysis of the decision by the Kharkiv Regional Council testifies that the leadership of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration, after initiating its adoption, is intending to substantially change the system of public authority at the local level.

We believe that such actions could be accounted for by the intentions on the part of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration to withdraw from the direct subordination to the higher and central state authorities, while practically securing all the powers both pertinent to local state authorities and local governments.

Such decisions by the local governments, merged with the unconstitutional calls for change in the territorial organization of public authority and territorial organization of Ukraine eventually could lead to breach of the territorial integrity and state sovereignty of Ukraine.

In this situation, the absolute inaction on the part of all Ukrainian law-enforcement agencies looks stunning. In turn, it becomes a stimulus to adopting even more unconstitutional and illegal decisions made by the national and local authorities and violations of the law by individual citizens of Ukraine. 

In the same time, we would like to call attention of the local governments at all levels that the court rulings regarding actions or inaction by the legislative branch of the local governments is a credible legal basis for early cancellations of their authorities and setting a date of early elections by the Ukrainian Parliament.

P. Lyubchenko, Candidate of Law, Lecturer at the Department of National and Local Government, the National Yaroslav Mudry Law Academy
F. Venislavskiy, Candidate of Law, Lecturer at the Department of Constitutional Law, the National Yaroslav Mudry Law Academy
V. Kolisnyk, Doctor of Law, Professor at the Department of Constitutional Law, the National Yaroslav Mudry Law Academy
M. Buromenskiy, Doctor of Law, Professor at the Department of International Law, the National Yaroslav Mudry Law Academy

Rede Gernot Erlers in der 144. Sitzung des Deutschen Bundestages am 1. December 2004: Die Demokratie in der Ukraine festigen

Gernot Erler (SPD):  Herr Präsident! Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir sprechen heute zum zweiten Mal innerhalb einer Woche über die Vorgänge in der Ukraine. Das ist neu. Das hat es bisher noch nicht gegeben. Das ist eine Premiere.

Die ganze Welt schaut im Augenblick auf die Ukraine. Dieses Land tritt auf einmal auf eine Bühne, auf der es bisher noch nie war. Dieses Land handelt plötzlich selber, spricht selber, aber nicht in der Weisheit seiner Führung, sondern mit den Stimmen vieler Tausender, die nicht mehr schweigen und dulden wollen.

Das ist ein faszinierender Vorgang, der unsere neugierige Aufmerksamkeit, unseren Respekt, ja unsere Bewunderung für so viel Zivilcourage findet.

Unsere Sympathie ist keine Einmischung in die inneren Angelegenheiten dieses Landes.

Uns geht es schlicht darum, dass wir versuchen, im Sinne der Wahrung europäischer Werte zu helfen, damit so viel Mut, so viel persönliche Risikobereitschaft - übrigens auch so viel Disziplin und Umsicht - nicht mit einer Demonstration dumpfer Macht beantwortet wird, damit nicht mit faulen Tricks versucht wird, diese Bewegung ins Leere laufen zu lassen, sondern damit das Ganze mit einem fairen Ergebnis endet, das dem ganzen Land Ukraine hilft.

Was ist das für ein Land, von dem wir hier sprechen? Ukraine heißt Land an der Grenze, Grenzland. Das spielt auf Mitteleuropa an und bedeutet auch immer, zwischen anderen, größeren Mächten eingeklemmt zu sein. Kein anderer hat das besser ausgedrückt als der derzeit populärste ukrainische Schriftsteller Jurij Andruchowytsch in seinem Essay "Mittel-Ost-Revision", aus dem ich eine kleine Passage zitieren möchte. Da schreibt er:

„Der Platz zwischen den Russen und den Deutschen ist die historische Bestimmung von Mitteleuropa. Die zentraleuropäische Angst schwankt historisch hin und her zwischen zweierlei Sorge: Die Deutschen kommen, die Russen kommen. Der zentraleuropäische Tod - das ist der Tod im Lager oder im Gefängnis, dazu kommt noch ein kollektiver Tod: Massenmord, Säuberung. Die zentraleuropäische Reise - das ist die Flucht. Aber von woher und wohin? Von den Russen zu den Deutschen? Oder von den Deutschen zu den Russen? Gut, dass es für alle Fälle noch Amerika gibt.“

Vielleicht ist das die kürzeste und prägnanteste Ortsbestimmung von Mitteleuropa und damit vom größten Land dort, der Ukraine. Das weist uns aber auch darauf hin, mit welcher Umsicht und Vorsicht wir auf die Vorgänge bei unserem Nachbarn reagieren müssen.

Ich bin froh, dass man diese Sensibilität hier bemerken kann. Ich bin froh, dass Vertreter der EU, der polnische Präsident Kwasniewski, der litauische Präsident Adamkus und der Hohe Repräsentant und Generalsekretär der EU, Solana, jetzt schon zum zweiten Mal in der Ukraine sind, um ihre guten Dienste anzubieten. Ich finde, wir sollten ihnen für diese Bemühungen Dank sagen.

Auch bin ich froh, dass Außenminister Fischer deutlich gemacht hat, dass wir die Menschen und die Demokratie, nicht aber einen einzelnen Kandidaten unterstützen. Im Namen der Koalition und der SPD-Fraktion möchte ich Dank sagen und unsere volle Unterstützung für die Bemühungen des deutschen Bundeskanzlers zum Ausdruck bringen, der seine guten und freundschaftlichen Beziehungen zum russischen Präsidenten hilfreich genutzt hat.

Er hat zwei Telefongespräche mit ihm geführt, die jedes Mal ein gutes Ergebnis gebracht und in Moskau deutlich gemacht haben, dass das Prestige der russischen Politik auf dem Spiel steht.

Der Preis ist hoch. Präsident Putin hat auf dem EU-Russland-Gipfel in Den Haag davor gewarnt, dass sich andere in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Ukraine einmischen. Allerdings ist vorher die ganze Welt Zeuge davon geworden, dass sich Russland ziemlich intensiv in den ukrainischen Wahlkampf eingemischt und dabei eine massive Kampagne gegen den Kandidaten Wiktor Juschtschenko organisiert hat, dem man sogar vorgeworfen hat, ein amerikanischer Agent zu sein. Das ist komisch; ich wusste noch nicht, dass sich ein amerikanischer Agent dadurch auszeichnet, dass er ankündigt, die 500 ukrainischen Soldaten alsbald vom Schauplatz Irak zurückzuziehen. In den letzten Tagen des Wahlkampfes haben wir auch demonstrative Besuche von Präsident Putin in der Ukraine beobachtet. Wir haben gesehen, dass, obwohl die Fälschungen offensichtlich waren, zweimal seine Gratulation an den angeblichen Sieger Janukowitsch erfolgt ist.

Wir haben Respekt vor der - so nennt man es - strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen Russland und der Ukraine. Wir wissen, dass die Ukraine Hilfe aus Russland bekommt, zum Beispiel subventionierte Lieferungen von Energie. Auch wissen wir, dass 5 Millionen Ukrainer als Gastarbeiter in Russland tätig sind und dadurch wesentlich zu Wohlstand und Fortschritt in der Ukraine beitragen. Nach unserer Auffassung kann eine strategische Partnerschaft aber nicht heißen: Kumpanei mit einem Machtclan, der in der eigenen Bevölkerung keinerlei Kredit mehr hat. Sie kann auch keine Diskriminierung eines Kandidaten bedeuten, der im ersten Wahlgang in der eigenen Bevölkerung die überwiegende Zustimmung bekommen hat. Strategische Partnerschaft kann doch nur heißen: intensive Zusammenarbeit zweier souveräner Staaten; Partnerschaft auf gleicher Augenhöhe.

Es stimmt übrigens: An einigen amerikanischen Schreibtischen sitzen Leute, die geopolitische Spiele aus dem Kalten Krieg im Kopf haben und die diese Präsidentenwahl tatsächlich zu einer Art Endspiel im Kampf um Einfluss und Einflusszonen in Mitteleuropa hochschreiben wollten. All denen - egal wo sie sitzen -, die davon ausgehen, die Ukraine sei ein Spielball anderer Mächte, sie sei Objekt der Politik und nicht Subjekt, rufen wir heute aus dem Plenum des Deutschen Bundestages zu: Ihr irrt euch! Schaut auf die Straßen von Kiew, von Charkiw, von Lemberg, von Ternopil und vielen anderen Städten! Die Menschen in der Ukraine sind fest entschlossen, Subjekt von Geschichte und Politik zu werden. Sie wollen nicht eingeklemmt bleiben und zerrieben werden, sie wollen endlich selber über ihren Weg bestimmen. Im 21. Jahrhundert kann die Ukraine nicht mehr Hinterhof von irgendwem oder passives Objekt irgendwelcher geopolitischen Spiele sein.

Wir werden Partner dabei sein, diese Situation zu beenden und dieses von Jurij Andruchowytsch beschriebene Trauma zu überwinden.

Meine Damen und Herren, es gibt keine politische Einmischung von uns - und es wird auch keine geben -, aber es gibt auf allen Ebenen Sympathie für die orangene Revolution. Zum Beispiel hat der Freiburger Gemeinderat gestern einstimmig, über alle Fraktionen hinweg, ein Unterstützungsschreiben an den Gemeinderat in Lemberg geschickt. Ich wünsche mir, dass so etwas "von unten" vielerorts passiert. Das ist Sympathie mit Menschen, die nicht bereit sind, die groben Wahlfälschungen vom 21. November zu akzeptieren.

Wir wissen und wir haben Belege dafür, welchen Umfang diese Wahlfälschungen angenommen haben: dass Wählerlisten gefälscht wurden, dass Busse mit Mehrfachwählern herumgefahren sind, dass Kisten mit vorab ausgefüllten Wahlzetteln gefunden wurden. In diesen Stunden treten vor dem obersten Gericht der Ukraine Zeugen auf, die von Hunderten von Wahlbezirken berichten, in denen eine Wahlbeteiligung von mehr als 100 Prozent festgestellt wurde. Es ist eindeutig: Diese Wahl kann nicht anerkannt werden. Kein Präsident, der nach einer solchen Wahl sein Amt antritt, kann irgendeine Autorität beanspruchen, weder in seinem eigenen Land noch bei uns.

Der Konsens darüber wird breiter. Aber wir müssen auch erkennen, dass es nicht nur um diese Wahl geht; diese Wahl hat eigentlich nur ein Fass überlaufen lassen, das schon vorher voll war. Ich meine damit die Wahlkampagne, bei der die Anhänger von Wiktor Juschtschenko in unfairster Weise behindert wurden. Seine Flugzeuge konnten plötzlich nicht starten, seine Busse kamen nie an den Bestimmungsorten an. Man nennt das "die administrativen Ressourcen nutzen". Es ist schon zynisch, dass nach dem unaufgeklärten Giftanschlag auf diesen Kandidaten, der sein Gesicht bekanntlich sehr entstellt hat, die Gegner sagten: Wie kann eigentlich jemand, der so aussieht, die Ukraine nach außen vertreten? Das ist blanker Zynismus.

Es gab eine neue Studentenbewegung; sie heißt "Pora", das heißt "Es ist Zeit". Schon vor der Wahl sind viele der Studenten, die sich engagiert haben, die sich politisch betätigt haben, festgenommen worden. Sie sind bedroht worden, verhaftet worden, zum Teil aus den Universitäten ausgeschlossen worden. Übrigens gab es dafür ein Vorbild: Das war die Studentenbewegung im Jahr 2000 in Serbien; sie hieß "Vreme", auf Deutsch auch "Es ist Zeit".

Es gab eine massive Einschüchterung und Vermachtung der Medien. Der einzige unabhängige Kanal der Ukraine ist der Kanal 5. Er ist immer wieder in seiner Arbeit behindert worden. Wir kennen die berühmten und berüchtigten "Temniki", die Anweisungen des Chefs der ukrainischen Präsidialverwaltung, Wiktor Medwedtschuk, der den Medien jeweils im Detail vorschrieb, was zu berichten ist und was nicht. Wir haben großen Respekt vor den über 330 ukrainischen Journalisten, die schon vor dem Wahltag ihren Protest gegen diese Bevormundung angekündigt haben und sich damit praktisch die eigene Entlassungsurkunde ausgestellt haben.

Immer mehr Menschen in der Ukraine sagen einfach: Wir machen nicht mehr mit. Wir wollen Ehrlichkeit und nicht mehr diesen Sumpf und diese verborgenen Spiele zwischen politischer und ökonomischer Macht, zwischen Oligarchen und dem organisierten Verbrechen. Wir wollen keine politischen Marionetten mehr, an deren Fäden andere ziehen. Wir wollen auch keine Einmischung in unsere Angelegenheiten von außen mehr, egal woher sie kommt. Das ist eine Revolution mit der Farbe Orange, die zum Ziel hat, die Ukraine zum zweiten Mal nach 1991 - dieses Mal aber richtig - unabhängig zu machen. Sie kämpft für eine neue politische Kultur, die den europäischen Werten und der Würde der Menschen in der Ukraine entspricht. Darum geht es in der Tat.

Vaclav Havel hat die Demonstranten ermuntert, durchzuhalten, weil ihre Bewegung ihn an den Prager Frühling von 1968 erinnert. Lech Walesa ist nach Kiew geeilt, um zu vermitteln, weil er sich an die Solidarnosc-Bewegung Anfang der 80er-Jahre erinnert fühlte. Viele denken heute an die Ereignisse vor dem Sturz von Milosevic in Belgrad im Jahre 2000 und an die Rosenrevolution in Georgien, die genau ein Jahr her ist. Wir haben hier so etwas wie einen "Kiewer Frühling im Novemberschnee". Auf den Erfolg dieses Kiewer Frühlings hoffen und warten sehr viele Menschen auch außerhalb der Ukraine. Deshalb gilt unsere Sympathie den Menschen, die hier aktiv werden.

Es ist gut, dass in der Vergangenheit Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus fast allen Fraktionen des Deutschen Bundestages nach Kiew gereist sind, um diesen Menschen ihre Unterstützung und ihre Sympathie zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Das war eben keine Einmischung. Ich möchte diesen Kolleginnen und Kollegen ausdrücklich danken.

Viele Tricks sind jetzt möglich. Wir müssen damit rechnen, dass Tricks angewandt werden, um Zeit zu gewinnen und die Wahlen zu wiederholen. Es wird heißen, Herr Juschtschenko und Herr Janukowitsch können nicht mehr kandidieren; denn sie haben die Ukraine durch ihren Streit an den Rand des Bruchs gebracht. Ich sage nur: Diese Tricks werden nicht wirken.

Dort sind Menschen aufgebrochen, die nicht wieder zurück in ihre Häuser gehen werden. Wir glauben nicht, dass die Menschen aufhören, für diese neue Ukraine zu kämpfen. Es gibt diese neue Ukraine schon. Wir haben alles Recht und die Pflicht, ihr unsere Sympathie und unsere Unterstützung zuzusagen.

Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

(Beifall bei der SPD und dem BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN sowie bei Abgeordneten der CDU/CSU und des Abg. Jürgen Türk [FDP])

DIE GRUNEN IM EUROPAISCHEN PARLAMENT

PRESSEMITTEILUNG

Brussel, 1. Dezember 2004

EP-Delegation zu Fact-Finding Mission in die Ukraine:

Harms: "Europas gemeinsame Seele zeigt sich heute in den Stra?en Kiews"

Wahrend der Debatte im Plenum des Europaischen Parlaments in Brussel zur Lage in der Ukraine, erklarte Rebecca Harms, Mitglied der EU-Ukraine Delegation:

"Ich habe letztes Wochenende in Kiew verbracht. Zu den Warnungen vor einem drohenden Gewaltausbruch in der Ukraine ist festzustellen: Die Gewalt droht nicht von denen, die ihre Zelte auf der Stra?e aufgeschlagen haben und friedlich demonstrieren. Die Gewalt droht von der alten Macht.

Um aus der gegenwartigen Krise herauszukommen, muss es eine Wiederholung der Stichwahl geben. Dies muss noch vor Ende Dezember stattfinden. Dabei muss eine ausreichende Wahlbeobachtung ermoglicht werden.

Wir Europaer sollten uber unsere Rolle in diesem Konflikt sehr selbstkritisch sein. Polen und andere Erweiterungsstaaten haben eine weitsichtigere Ukrainepolitik gemacht, als der Rest der EU. Doch was heute in der Ukraine geschieht, geht alle Europaer an. Wenn man heute irgendwo fuhlen kann, dass Europa eine gemeinsame Seele hat, dann ist es vor Ort in Kiew."

Rebecca Harms wird heute abend (1.Dezember) als Mitglied einer offiziellen Delegation des Europaischen Parlaments zu einer Fact-Finding Mission in die Ukraine reisen. Sie ist wahrend ihres Aufenthaltes unter der Handynummer +49-171-53 25 721 vor Ort erreichbar.

Press Service of the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament

Solidaritätserklärung der Fraktionen und Gruppierungen von  Junges Freiburg/Die Grünen, CDU, SPD, UL, FW und FDP im Freiburger Gemeinderat

Freiburg, 30.11.2004

An den Oberbürgermeister sowie
die Mitglieder des Stadtparlaments
der Partnerstadt Lviv

Sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen!

Seit zehn Tagen verfolgen wir in Freiburg mit großer Anteilnahme und Sympathie, wie die Bevölkerung in unserer Partnerstadt Lviv mit bewundernswürdigem Bürgersinn und mit Zivilcourage um ein kostbares demokratisches Grundrecht kämpft, um das Recht auf freie und geheime Wahlen.

Wir haben zunächst aus der internationalen Presse, dann von den Wahlbeobachtern der OSZE und nunmehr auch von Ihrem nationalen Parlament, der Verchowna Rada erfahren, dass am 21. November 2004 die Wahlgesetze verletzt worden sind und dass das gefälschte Wahlergebnis der Präsidentschaftswahlen keineswegs den Willen des souveränen Volkes der Ukraine wiedergibt.

Seit jenem Wahlsonntag demonstrieren zehntausende Bürger aus Lviv Tag für Tag auf dem Prospekt Swobody (Prospekt der Freiheit) oder auf dem Maidan Nesaleschnosti (Platz der Unabhängigkeit) in Ihrer Hauptstadt, aber auch an ihren Arbeitsplätzen, in Schulen und Universitäten für eine Wiederholung dieser Wahl unter fairen Bedingungen und unter internationaler Kontrolle.

Wir versichern Sie und die Bürger von Lviv unserer uneingeschränkten Solidarität.

Wir hoffen mit Ihnen, dass Ihr gewaltfreier Kampf schon bald erfolgreich sein wird und dass wir eine Neuwahl unter fairen Bedingungen erleben, deren Ergebnisse unverfälscht den Wählerwillen wiedergeben.

gez. Maria Viethen, Fraktionsvorsitzende JF/DG
gez. Martina Feierling-Rombach, Fraktionsvorsitzende CDU
gez. Renate Buchen, Fraktionsvorsitzende SPD
gez. Michael Moos, Fraktionsvorsitzender UL
gez. Gerolf Staschull, Fraktionsvorsitzender FW
gez. Patrick Evers, Sprecher der FDP

today’s Wall Street Journal:

The Other Neighbor

November 29, 2004

In the weeklong struggle in Ukraine, the Kremlin without hesitation sided with the thugs there who stole the presidential election. But another large, Slavic neighbor with strong historical and cultural ties to this nation of 48 million has quietly emerged to steel Ukraine's democrats and muster European support.

We're talking about Poland, which is now better placed than Russia to help lead Ukraine out of this crisis. On Friday, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski held talks in Kiev with opposition and government leaders. Departing President Leonid Kuchma invited him, along with the EU's foreign policy czar, to mediate. Lech Walesa, along with other Solidarity leaders, came to town, too, standing alongside opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko and urging hundreds of thousands to stay united to win their freedom from corrupt rulers. After Ukraine's parliament this weekend declared last Sunday's poll invalid (a symbolic not legal act), the supreme court today takes up the opposition's case.

The Poles aren't the only interested and far from the strongest nation with a stake in the outcome. As Russia rushed to anoint Kremlin-friendly candidate Viktor Yanukovych president, the U.S., which spent billions to shore up a wobbly Ukraine, deemed the election illegitimate. But Warsaw plays a unique role in its old "borderlands," or kresy, that dates back to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Its longstanding engagement has helped ease the often unrelenting pressure on Kiev from Russia. But as important, Poland was active when the EU, as a whole, pursued a policy of benign neglect toward Ukraine.

In office since 1995, Mr. Kwasniewski knows Kiev and Leonid Kuchma well. In the mid-1990s, with American support, the Polish government tried to be the bridge between the West and Ukraine -- with some notable success. The Poles lobbied for Ukraine's membership in the Council of Europe. They pushed Kiev closer to NATO, which has a special deal with Ukraine, and, since joining themselves in May, the EU. Forgotten now, but Mr. Kuchma back in June 1996 declared in Lancut, Poland that Kiev wants to join the EU. Brussels mostly ignored him.

In contrast to Russia, the other former imperial power in Ukraine, Poland renounced any pretensions to its former territories. Warsaw was the first country to recognize Ukrainian independence, a day after Kiev made it official Dec. 1, 1991. A year later, Ukraine, whose western region of Galicia was part of Poland before Stalin annexed it, settled its western borders with Warsaw -- just as Russia started to haggle over Ukraine's Crimea.

The recent Polish-Ukrainian friendship, after centuries of conflict and distrust, shows that wounds can heal under the right strategic circumstances. At last, the lessons of the 17th century have sunk in with both countries. In 1648, the Ukrainian Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnitsky led a successful uprising against the Polish aristocracy then dominating most of today's Ukraine -- only to form an alliance with a rising Russia six years later at Pereiaslav. That paved the way for Russia's rise to a great power, and for Ukraine's and Poland's demise.

Relatively poor itself, Poland could never offer Ukraine much in terms of economic aid. But trade and business ties flourished. The political ties have stayed consistently strong, assuring leaders in Kiev that Ukraine had a friend in the West even when relations with Washington or Brussels were frosty. That was appreciated nationwide, as much in "nationalist" (as the media clichés go) western Ukraine as in the "pro-Russian" east. In reality, nearly all of Ukraine is committed to independence, though this crisis has aggravated regional tensions.

Poland naturally prefers to have an economically growing, friendly democracy on its eastern border. No one wants to be a frontier state. With a strong voice in the EU, Warsaw can now push the bloc to move beyond the vague promises of its "neighborhood" policies and consider putting Ukraine on track toward eventual membership.

After the events of this month, the EU no longer can tell Ukraine that Europe stops at the Polish border, as EU President Romano Prodi once did. It's immoral: Millions of Ukrainians are presenting their European credentials by fighting for democracy and rule of law. It's also self-defeating: An isolated Ukraine poses a threat to Europe's stability while an open, prosperous one is a great asset. Whether the democrats win or lose, Ukraine won't be the same anymore. Someone needs to tell the eurocrats.

One of the most unusual Polish contributions to Ukraine's centuries-long fight for freedom comes from Waclaw Lipinski, or Vyacheslav Lypynsky. A Polish nobleman by birth, Lypynsky became a prominent Ukrainian nationalist thinker. In a 1920 essay, "The Tragedy of the Ukrainian Sancho Panza," he attacked the corrupt, unimaginative leaders who, lacking vision and courage, failed (just as Khmelnitsky did) to seize the chance to make Ukraine free and independent after World War I. Watching a new generation of committed leaders lead energized masses in Ukraine, his words and hopes ring true today. "When the Ukrainian Don Quixote finds the lost windmill in himself," Lypynsky wrote, "then he will be able to end his horrible, bloody, tragic journey."

Best greetings,

Jan Pieklo

Neues lernen von der Revolution in Orange

An die Oppositions- und Demokratiebewegung in der Ukraine

Verehrte, liebe Freundinnen und Freunde,

mit  Begeisterung sehen wir Ihren mutigen Kampf für eine freie und demokratische Zukunft der Ukraine. Wir empfinden Hochachtung für Millionen Menschen der ukrainischen Nation, die die Angst verloren haben und durch zivilen Widerstand ihre Würde behaupten. Wir sehen mit Ihnen in Wiktor Juschtschenko den künftigen Präsidenten. 

Mit Ihnen gemeinsam verurteilen wir die Wahlfälschungen vom 21. November. Eine Fälschung von Wahlen ist gegeben,

wenn sie nicht frei, geheim und gleich abgehalten werden,

wenn Soldaten, alte Menschen und Staatsangestellte genötigt werden, den Kandidaten des alten Apparats ihre Stimme zu geben,

wenn Menschen mehrfach zur Stimmabgabe gedrängt oder

wenn Wahlscheine manipuliert werden.

Diese Fälschung ist ein staatspolitisches Verbrechen. Sie muss dokumentiert und gerichtlich geahndet werden.

Wir haben selbst in der damaligen DDR 1989 erlebt, wie die kommunistische Regierung Wahlen zu ihren Gunsten fälschte. Die Aufdeckung dieser Lüge bedeutete den Anfang der Friedlichen Revolution und des Falls der Berliner Mauer am 9. November 1989.

Wir gehörten zur Oppositions- und Bürgerrechtsbewegung und rufen Ihnen zu: Behalten Sie die Kraft und die Ausdauer im gewaltfreien Widerstand. Lassen Sie sich nicht einschüchtern. Wir sind sicher – auch die unverantwortliche Drohung mit der Spaltung des Landes wird nicht den Freiheitswillen der ukrainischen Nation spalten. 

Wir bewundern Ihre Solidarität untereinander – einer nimmt den anderen zu Hause auf. Die praktische Unterstützung in Betrieben, Schulen, Universitäten, Kirchen und auf der Straße wird in das Gedächtnis der zivilen Revolutionen Europas eingehen.

In dieser für Sie und ganz Europa historischen Zeit wollen wir daran erinnern, dass der Keim des neuen gemeinsamen Europas mit der ersten demokratischen Regierung, hervorgegangen aus der Solidarność, 1989 in Polen gelegt wurde. Nach den Revolutionen in Ungarn, Ostdeutschland und der Tschechoslowakei 1989 sehen wir in der ukrainischen Demokratiebewegung diesen Geist erneut in eindrucksvoller Weise aufleben.

Gewaltfreiheit, der christliche Geist der Solidarität und der Vorrang der persönlichen Initiative auf der Straße, in der Wirtschaft und im öffentlichen Leben repräsentieren das Projekt der Zivilgesellschaft.

Die alten Kräfte des Apparats, der kommunistischen Illusion und der Mafia sollen die Chance auf einen friedlichen Neubeginn haben – aber ohne Privilegien und ohne die oligarchischen Strukturen aufrecht zu erhalten. Gemeinsam wollen wir nicht zurückweichen in der Suche nach Wahrheit, Versöhnung und einer am Gemeinwohl orientierten Wirtschaft.

Wir sind uns bewusst, dass Ihr Einsatz für eine demokratische Zukunft der Ukraine nicht ohne Antwort aus dem Westen Europas bleiben darf. Dafür wollen wir uns einsetzen. Die deutsche interessierte Öffentlichkeit rufen wir auf, dem großen, aber unbekannten Land Ukraine mehr Aufmerksamkeit als bisher zu schenken.

Wir sind Ihnen dankbar und lernen Neues von der Revolution in Orange!

Ihr Land ist im Herzen Europas angekommen!

Mitglieder der Oppositions- und Bürgerrechtsbewegungen von 1989 (u.a. Demokratie Jetzt, Neues Forum, Demokratischer Aufbruch) grüßen Sie herzlich

Erstunterzeichner:

Thomas Ammer (1953-58 Eisenberger Kreis, heute Zeithistoriker)
Dr. Michael Bartoszek (1989 Demokratie jetzt, heute Chemiker)
Johannes Beleites (1990 Bürgerkomitee Leipzig zur Stasi-Auflösung, heute Publizist)
Stephan Bickhardt (1989 Demokratie Jetzt, heute Studentenpfarrer in Leipzig)
Kathrin Bickhardt-Schulz (1989 Demokratie Jetzt, Pfarrerin)
Bärbel Bohley (1989 Neues Forum, Malerin)
Kathrin Breitenfeldt (1989 Demokratie jetzt, Ärztin)
Dr. Bernd Florath (1989 Unabhängige Sozialistische Partei, heute Historiker)
Joachim Gauck (Theologe, 1989 Neues Forum, Bundesbeauftragter für die Stasi-Unterlagen a. D.)
Joachim Goertz (1989 Sozialdemokratische Partei, Pfarrer)
Detlef Himmelreich (Ingenieur, 1989/90 Sozialdemokratische Partei, heute Geschichtswerkstatt Jena)
Martin König (1989 Demokratie Jetzt, heute Theologe)
Dr. Ruth Leiserowitz (1989 Frauen für den Frieden, heute Historikerin)
Ekkehard Maaß (Publizist, Vorsitzender der Deutsch-Kaukasischen Gesellschaft)
Markus Meckel (Theologe, 1989 Sozialdemokratische Partei, heute Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages)
Ludwig Mehlhorn (1989 Demokratie Jetzt, heute Studienleiter an der Evangelischen Akademie zu Berlin)
Dirk Moldt (1989 Kirche von unten, heute Historiker)
Jörn Mothes (1989 Neues Forum, heute Landesbeauftragter Mecklenburg-Vorpommern für Stasi-Unterlagen)
Prof. Dr. Heinrich Olschowsky (1989 Neues Forum, Slawist und Literaturwissenschaftler)
Rudi Pahnke (1989 Demokratischer Aufbruch, damals wie heute Theologe und Pfarrer)
Sebastian Pflugbeil (1989 Neues Forum, Physiker, Präsident der Gesellschaft für Strahlenschutz)
Gerd Poppe (1989 Initiative Frieden und Menschenrechte, früherer Menschenrechtsbeauftragter der Bundesregierung)
Ulrike Poppe (1989 Demokratie Jetzt und Initiative für Frieden und Menschenrechte, heute Studienleiterin an der Evangelischen Akademie zu Berlin)
Lutz Rathenow (1989 oppositioneller Publizist, heute Schriftsteller)
Uwe Schwabe (1989 Neues Forum, heute Mitarbeiter Zeitgeschichtliches Forum Leipzig)
Werner Schulz (1989 Neues Forum, heute Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages)
Stephan Steinlein (Theologe)
Wolfgang Templin (1989 Initiative Frieden und Menschenrechte, heute Publizist)
Esther Ullmann-Goertz (1989 „Solidarische Kirche“, Theologin)
Dr. Gerhard Weigt (1989 Demokratie jetzt, Physiker)
Ingrid Weigt (1989 Demokratie jetzt, Ärztin) 
Martin Weigt (1989 Anti-Kriegsmuseum und Demokratie Jetzt, Physiker)
Konrad Weiß (1989 Demokratie Jetzt, heute Publizist)
Reinhard Weißhuhn (1989 Initiative Frieden und Menschenrechte, heute wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter im Deutschen Bundestag)

Learning something new from the Orange Revolution

To the opposition and democratic movement in the Ukraine

Dear friends,

With enthusiasm we view your courageous struggle for a free and democratic future in the Ukraine. We highly respect the millions of people of the Ukrainian nation who overcame fear and through the civil resistance defend their human dignity. With you we see Wiktor Juschtschenko the future president.

Together with you we condemn the falsification of the election November 21. Falsification of an election exist,

when it is not free, secret an equal

when soldiers, the elderly and officials are pressured to vote for the candidate of the old structures,

when people are pressured to vote repeatedly or

when ballots are manipulated.

This falsification is a state-crime, which must be documented and be judged by the judiciary system.

We ourselves experienced in the former GDR in 1989, how the communist government falsified the election results in their favour. As this lie was revealed it marked the beginning of the peaceful revolution and the fall of the wall in November 9, 1989.

We belonged to the opposition and human rights movement and call upon you:

Maintain your strength and patience in this non-violent resistance! Stand your ground! We are sure – also the irresponsible threat to divide the state will not divide the desire for freedom of the Ukrainian nation.

We admire your solidarity – one takes the other in at home. Practical support in businesses, schools, universities, churches and on the streets will take place in the European memory of civil revolutions.

In this for you and all of Europe historical time we would like to remain, that the beginning of the new European community with the first democratic government came forth from the “Solidarnosc” 1989 in Poland. After the revolutions in Hungary, East-Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1989 we see once again this spirit come alive in the Ukrainian democratic movement.      

Non violent, Christian spirit of solidarity, the importance of personal initiatives on the street, in the economy and in public life represent the project of civil society.

The power of the old system, the communist illusion and the mafia shall have a chance for a new and peaceful beginning – but without maintaining privileges and oligarchic structures. Together we do not want to make compromises in the search for truth, reconciliation and an economy for the common good.

We are aware, that your efforts for a democratic future in the Ukraine cannot remain without an answer from Western Europe. For that reason we would like to be active ourselves. We call upon the interested German public to pay more attention to the large but unknown country Ukraine.   

Thank you for all what we can learn from the Orange Revolution!

Your country has landed in the heart of Europe!

Members of the opposition and democratic movement 1989 in the former GDR

Sincerely,

Ludwig Mehlhorn
Evangelische Akademie zu Berlin

28 November 2004

In the east and south of Ukraine anti-constitutional separatistic slogans are still in the air. The Governors of Kharkiv, Luhansk, Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk Oblasts in one or the other way have declared their intentions to establish a south-eastern autonomy. Today, Severodonetsk in Luhansk Oblast hosts an assembly of the councillors from southern and eastern oblasts. About 3,000 participants attend this gathering. The Head of the Kharkiv Oblast State Administration was most radically resolute in articulating their intention to create an autonomy. At the moment Kharkiv Oblast has put on halt assigning funds to the national budget. Yanukovych, who was greeted as a new President of Ukraine, was also present at the assembly together with Moscow’s Mayor Luzhkov and a representative of the Russian Embassy in Ukraine.

When speaking at the meeting of 28 November at Maidan Nezalezhnosti Square, Viktor Yuschenko, the leader of the opposition stressed that any separatistic exhortations were against the Law and appealed to President Kuchma to voice his opinion and estimate the activities undertaken by the leaders of certain oblast state administrations from a legal point of view. He also urged General Prosecutor Vasyliev to initiate criminal cases arising under relevant clauses of Ukraine’s Criminal Code.

Yuschenko asked every person standing on Maidan not to leave the square until a total victory. Yuschenko warned the government that if one drop of blood shed, ten times more people would come to Maidan.

The negations between representatives of Yuschenko and Yanukovych headquarters are still going on. According Petro Poroshenko, they have not made a step forward and talks in their current format of a complete absence of understanding cannot last longer.

Comments of Ji Magazine:

1) In our view Russia’s scenario to divide Ukraine is steaming ahead. It looks like that not the victory of Yanukovych, but this plan has been the end purpose of Russia. For this only purpose all possible propaganda and force resources available to Putin are employed.

2) On our opinion, the government procrastinate all negotiation processes in order to rip Yuschenko off his only resource – a rally on Maidan Nezalezhnosti. The only reason for negotiations between the government and Yuschenko is to drag time.

Support of the democratic world is vitally important to Ukraine. The decision of the European Parliament to shoulder the resolution Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine made at its extraordinary assembly on 27 November was a crucial evidence of such support.

STATEMENT

of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group on the run-off presidential election in Ukraine

General assessment

The preliminary results of the run-off on November 21, which were announced by the Central Election Commission (CVK), evidence a large-scale falsification of the election in some regions of Ukraine.

According to the CVK data, on October 31, 27 897 559< people voted, at the run-off, on November 21, 30 511 289 people voted. So, 2 613 730 more people took part in the voting. We claim that one of the sources of the increase in votes for presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovich was the use of these additional 2.6 million votes by means of rude and cynical violations of the election law. How has it happened?   

First, voter lists for the run-off election in some regions were compiled with violations of the standing law. The sharp increase in the number of voters, what is, according to Article 80 (Part1, Para 1) of the Law on Election of the President of Ukraine can be a basis for declaring the election invalid. For instance, according to international observers of the ENEMO (European network of public organizations monitoring elections) from Russia, Belarus, and Azerbaijan, voter lists in the Donetsk Region were inexplicably increased comparing to those for the first round.  

Second, in many areas, polling station commissions (DVK) received “plans” for providing turnout of voters during the second tour of election. There are records evidencing that in the period between the first and second round those people, who did  not vote at the first round, were forced to vote for Yanukovich. In order to achieve that, there were used such unlawful actions as mass rounds of residences by strangers, who were not members of DVKs, though were in possession of voter lists with marks showing who did not vote on October 31. Those individuals tried by any means to find out the reason of residents’ nonparticipation in the voting (the relevant facts are captured on video). Later those residents were subject to administrative pressure. For instance, a rector of the Kharkiv Polytechnic University called those instructors, who did not come to vote at polling station 12 of territorial district (precinct) 172, for “brain-washing.” On the voting day, DVK members recorded those, who did not vote, as well as they phoned the voters or passed their personal data to other people, who one way or another forced the voters to come to the polling station. That was particularly the case for polling stations located in schools, where teachers went to parents of their students, hospitals, where doctors approached their patients. Such actions are beyond the competence of DVKs, described in Article 27 of the Law, and directly violate its Article 5.

Third, there were mass voting by the same people with several “off-list tickets” (certificates authorizing a person to vote off the precinct, where he or she is registered), reported by observers in all regions of the East, Center, and South of the country. That added tens of thousands of votes to the coffer of falsification and became an example of undisguised and cynical abuse of the law. So, the election results at such polling stations must be cancelled by courts. 

The pressure to vote for Yanukovich was used also by forcing students of some universities and cadets of police academies, who were forced to vote on the premises of their school under the supervision of schools’ administrations. For instance, students of the Kharkiv Agricultural Academy were told to take off-list tickets and vote on the premises of the Academy, and 300 cadets of the National University of Interior were just moved out to the town of Valki (Kharkiv Region). 

A lot of violations were recorded on the voting day. They include unusually high number of voting off polling stations, accompanied by numerous violations (at some polling stations in Donetsk, voting off polling stations made up from 20 to 30%, along with the significantly lower number of applications to vote at home); unfounded removals of official observers representing Viktor Yuschenko at many polling stations, especially during vote counts; so called “merry-go-rounds,” when designated individuals voted for those in the list, who were unable to vote and in the end for those, who did not come; injecting ballots into ballot boxes; violating of vote count procedure, etc.

The falsification at the polling stations, where Yanukovich’s victory was expected, was merged with the violence at the polling stations, where Yuschenko’s victory in the first round was “unplanned.” For instance, there were numerous assaults by, in some cases, armed strangers wearing civilian clothes on election commissions and observers aiming to disrupt voting or vote counts. In the Sumy Region, several people, while defending the ballots, sustained bodily injuries. Against this background, prohibitions to film, mass denials of access to members of the media to observe vote counts looks like rather minor offences.    

The mass, systemic nature of those falsifications shows that they were preplanned as integral parts of the authorities’ strategic plan to obtain a necessary percentage of votes for presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovich – in fact, a constitutional coup d'etat.

To sum up the above, we believe that during the run-off election the technologies used, in their substance and form, have criminal content, and, then, fall under the provisions of the Ukraine’s Criminal Code. These violations in no way correspond to international law, European standards of human rights and democracy. Obviously, these actions on the part of the authorities aroused anger in millions of people, who went into the streets of Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv, Sumy, Vinnitsa, and many other cities and towns of Ukraine. The only legitimate way to break the impasse is the review of the election results at those polling stations and precincts, where substantial or mass violations of the law have been recorded. We demand from the CVK to, at last, perform its duties in diligent way and impartially review the election results.

On the results of the run-off election in the Kharkiv Region

According to the parallel vote count as it was made  from the original reports by 23:00 of November 22, voters in Kharkiv and the Kharkiv Region gave Viktor Yuschenko 24.34% of votes (28% in Kharkiv), Viktor Yanukovich – 69.89% (65% in Kharkiv), 4.1% of them voted against both candidates. A number of people who voted increased in the city by 10.5%, in the region – by 6.5%. In our opinion, that was the result of a rude violation of the Law on Elections in the form of forcing people to vote and mass voting with off-list tickets, both in the city and region. On the whole, there were compiled about 2,000 reports about violations of the Law.  

For instance, there are records about LAZ buses (license plates 6424 Р7 and 7551 Р1) with cadets of the Air Force Institute, who voted in the village of Gorodne, Krasnokut District (polling station 101 ТОВ 183) and other villages. All in all, 4 buses with cadets of this institute traveled back and forth in the area. Firemen cadets came to polling stations 26 and 27 in the village of Oleksiyivka to vote with off-list tickets (Ikarus bus, 3431 ХА), they also visited the village of Vodyane. In the Zachepilovka District, at several polling stations in the villages of Berdyanka, Mazharove, and others, passengers of deep-blue Volkswagen minibus (25393 ХВ) voted with off-list tickets. Military personnel voted with off-list tickets in the town of Lozova (School No. 1) and Kupyansk (polling stations 80 and 81). A white Gazel minibus (4367) with 19 passengers, accompanied by a Volga car (100-02-ХФ) rode around District No. 184, where they voted at various polling stations. Employees of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration (regional health, housing and other departments), in 5 buses left the city’s central square, likely, to vote in the region’s districts. Their departure was filmed by Volodymyr Mukhin, a representative of the Ukrainian Ombudsperson and Kostyntyn Sytnyk, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament.  

MP Yaroslav Dzhordzhik found that at polling station 168 of precinct 179 in the village of Mospanovo (Chuguiev District) 439 people voted with off-list tickets (in total, the voter list there included 1,200 people). In the same village, a “merry-go-round” was filmed also. In two cars with Russian license plates, strangers gave away ballots, marked for Yanukovich, and paid UAH100 ($19) for clean ballots. The polling station’s head prevented Dzhordzhik to enter the station, claiming that his MP’s certificate was forged. Later, when Dzhordzhik returned to the village, a column of cars without license plates blocked his car, strangers forced him to get off the car, took away his mobile phone, and drove him to polling station 168.

In Kharkiv, buses and cars rode between polling stations, while their passengers voted with off-list tickets. For instance, students of the Road Transport Academy voted at the Institute of Medical Radiology (polling station 174 of precinct 172). At the territory of precinct 176 (Kominternivskiy and Chervonozavodskiy Districts), a LAZ bus with Kharkiv license plate toured over polling stations 22, 24, and 26. There was recorded a ride between polling stations of a Ford minibus (921 52 ХК) and a gray Volga car (1523 ВК). The Volga car drove four women from one polling station to another in the Dzerzhinskiy District, witnesses saw them holding 10 to 20 off-list tickets. They were seen, in particular, near polling stations 72 and 58. In the Frunzenskiy District, there was seen a PAZ bus (215-09 ХА). Its 10 passengers voted, at least, at three polling stations.

There are records of numerous facts of forcing observers representing Yuschenko and even violence. For instance, in the Izum District, in precinct 180, Andriy Propotilov, a deputy head of “Our Ukraine” district headquarters, was assaulted. On the road between villages of Mykhailivka and Kapytolivka, his car was stopped by a car, from which two strangers got off. They broke a windshield of Propotilov’s car and damaged his video camera.

A lot of violations deal with the voting off polling stations. At precinct 183 (Valki District), lists for voting at home were separated in several pages, which were sent for voting in several cars. In those cars there were “no” room for observers representing Yuschenko: DVK members were accompanied with a police officer, so the observer was not needed. Mass rides with boxes for home voting without Yuschenko’s representatives were noticed in the Vilikiy Burluk District and others. In the lists for home voting, there were included people, who did not applied for it, their applications were written after the voting was finished by one hand (polling station 117, precinct 182). At polling stations 73 and 85 of this precinct, the DVK members disappeared with the ballot boxes and were not found. At polling station 3, precinct 183, voters were unable to vote because somebody wrote in their name applications for home voting.   

At polling station 12, precinct 181, 100 people voted in the open field. There are records of many facts, when people voted twice at different polling stations.

At some polling stations, members of law-enforcement agencies and local state administrations intruded in the work of TVKs (precinct commissions). There were a few facts of campaigning in the day of voting and preparation of clean reports with signatures of DVK members.

In most polling stations in the city and region, members of the press (newspapers Razom, Skhid-Zakhid, Pryvatna Sprava, Pravo Znaty, bulletin Prava Lyudyny, etc.) were not allowed to film and be present during vote counts. A TVK of precinct 171 (Dzerzhinskiy Region) even adopted a special order on the matter on November 21, which said that only those journalists were allowed, who had certificates and pictures. It unfoundedly narrowed the provisions of the Law prescribing that meetings of election commissions and premises of polling stations can be attended by “members of the media (no more than two from one entity). ”   

25 November 2004

Information materials of Media-Group “OBJEKTIV,” Agency Television News, Kharkiv Branch of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, Kharkiv Regional Headquarters of V. Yuschenko, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group were used in this statement.

Solidaritätsadresse von MdB Pflug an die Demonstranten in der Ukraine

Berlin, 24.11.2004

Mit großer Sorge und Betroffenheit habe ich die Vorgänge um die Wahlen des ukrainischen Staatspräsidenten zur Kenntnis genommen.

Auch ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass sowohl im ersten und offensichtlich noch stärker im zweiten Wahlgang von Seiten der staatlichen Wahlkommission Wahlmanipulation und Wahlfälschung betrieben wurde.

Bereits im Vorfeld der Wahlen wurden die so genannten administrativen Ressourcen verschiedener Staatsorgane massiv zur Benachteiligung des Kandidaten Juschtschenko eingesetzt. Dies sollte seinen möglichen Wahlsieg verhindern.

Nun soll er durch die gelenkte Wahlkommission offensichtlich um seinen vermutlichen Sieg betrogen werden.

Dies wäre zugleich auch ein Betrug an dem ganzen Volke.

In diesen Stunden stehe ich mit voller Solidarität hinter den Demonstranten in Kiew, wünsche ihnen viel Erfolg und hoffe auf die Einsicht des alten Präsidenten Leonid Kutschma und der Staatsorgane, dass jede Form von Gewalt zu unterbleiben hat.

Pressemitteilung Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung         25.11.2004

Die Demokratiebewegung der Ukraine braucht den politischen Rückhalt Europas

Für eine entschiedene Haltung der Bundesregierung und der Europäischen Kommission

Die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung unterstützt seit mehreren Jahren Demokratie – und Umweltinitativen in der Ukraine. Unsere guten Wünsche sind mit den Demonstranten in Kiew und der Demokratiebewegung im ganzen Land.

Das Geschehen in der Ukraine geht ganz Europa an. Das demokratische Europa kann nicht tolerieren, wenn Wahlen manipuliert und verfälscht werden, um eine autoritäre Macht am Ruder zu halten. Was jetzt geschieht, ist von großer Tragweite nicht nur für die Ukraine, sondern für eine europäische Friedensordnung, die auf  die Herrschaft des Rechts und die Achtung der Bürgerrechte gegründet sein muß.

Dabei geht es auch um die künftigen Beziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Rußland. Es ist nicht akzeptabel, wenn die russische Regierung sich auf die Seite des Wahlbetrugs schlägt, um ihren Einfluß auf die  Ukraine abzusichern. Dieses Beispiel ruft zu Recht große Besorgnisse in den Nachbarstaaten Rußlands vom Baltikum bis zum Kaukasus hervor. Es geht nicht darum, daß sich die Ukraine „zwischen Rußland und Europa entscheiden“ müsse. Gute Beziehungen nach allen Seiten liegen im Interesse des Landes. Aber ebenso klar muß sein, daß eine antidemokratische Einmischung Rußlands in der Ukraine auf den Widerstand Europas stoßen muß.

Der friedliche Massenprotest in der Ukraine ist ein großartiges Zeichen für die demokratischen Erneuerung der Gesellschaft. Er setzt fort, was 1989 mit der friedlichen Revolution in Mittel- Osteuropa begann und sich vor einem Jahr in Georgien wiederholte. Wenn jetzt die Demokratie­bewegung in der Ukraine siegt, wird das die demokratischen Kräfte in der ganzen Region ermutigen, auch in Rußland selbst. Andernfalls droht eine Zementierung der autoritären Verhältnisse. Es steht viel auf dem Spiel.

Wir appellieren deshalb an die Bundesregierung und die EU-Kommission:

- die illegitime Präsidentschaft von W. Janukowitsch keinesfalls anzuerkennen

- der ukrainischen Regierung deutlich zu machen, daß der Einsatz von Gewalt gegen die Demokratiebewegung mit politischen und wirtschafltichen Sanktionen beantwortet werden wird

- gegenüber dem amtierenden Präsidenten Kutschma auf eine rasche Wiederholung der Stichwahl unter Aufsicht der OSZE zu drängen

- gegenüber Präsident Putin unmißverständlich klar zu machen, daß die russische Politik gegenüber der Ukraine von zentraler Bedeutung für die künftigen Beziehungen zwischen Rußland und der EU ist

- zu verdeutlichen, daß eine demokratische Ukraine mit der vollen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Unterstützung der Europäischen Union rechnen kann.

Ralf Fücks, Barbara Unmüßig
Vorstand Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung

STATEMENT

by the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group concerning the political events in Ukraine (as of 23 November 2004)

In view of the way the political situation in Ukraine is developing, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (KhPG) feels obliged to state the following:

We have the reliable information about an unusually high number of violations of the election law in the Kharkiv region and other regions of the country during the run-off presidential election. We will present a detailed list and analysis of those violations later, according to the law. Nevertheless, we already can testify that the overwhelming majority of the actions were carried out by supporters of the candidate backed by the authorities.   

The violations  of the election law were bluntly cynical and undisguised. They were accompanied with the pressure over members of election commissions, independent monitors, members of the press and TV. Unfortunately, we cannot consider those violations occasional or isolated. We have an impression that all of them were foreseen beforehand as a part of the authorities’ strategic plan providing for mass fraud over the results of the presidential election – in effect, the constitutional d'etat.

We believe, during the run-off, the technologies used were in substance and form criminal acts, directly regulated by the Ukraine’s Criminal Code. Those violations in no way correspond with the international law, European standards of human rights and democracy, expressed in such documents as the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the 1990 Human Dimension at the CSCE, 1990 Paris Chart for New Europe, etc.

We claim that in Ukraine “rights and freedoms and their guarantees define the content and direction of the state’s activity. The state is responsible for its actions before a person. The main responsibility of the state is establishment and provision of human rights and freedoms” (Article 3 of the Ukraine’s Constitution).

Reminder: according to the Ukraine’s Constitution, “the people is an undertaker of the sovereignty and source of the power in Ukraine,” which “performs the power directly and through agencies of state authorities and agencies of local government” (Article 5).

 In this special political moment for Ukraine we also assert that the protection of fundamental civil rights can be as well carried out by the use of democratic uprising, which is an extreme, but entirely legitimate element of the world constitutional culture.

 It is widely known that the democratic uprising is provided for in the 1949 German’s Constitution, which secures the right of German citizens to resist anyone, who would venture to encroach on their democratic way of life, in case when other means could not be used.

Article 23 of the 1992 Czech Constitution says that citizens have right to resist encroachments on the democratic principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in case when work of the constitutional bodies or active use of legal norms would become impossible in the country.

The legitimacy of the democratic uprising aiming at the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms is also mentioned in Article 120 of the 1975 Greece’s Constitution, Article 32 of the 1991 Slovakia’s Constitution, Article 54 of the 1992 Estonia’s Constitution, Article 3 of the 1992 Lithuania’s Constitution, etc.

The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group once again stresses that the highest value of the constitutionalism and rule of law state is political freedom of the people. The freedom of the people’s will constitutes the main content of the 1996 Ukraine’s Constitution. 

We declare our full support of the actions on the part of the Ukrainian citizens on the Independence Square in Kyiv.

We believe that leaders of the opposition will prove their wisdom and the people will restore truth and freedom in the near future and without intolerable sacrifices by the both sides.

We believe in the reason of the Ukraine’s Parliament – the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine – and express our hope that in this crucial time for Ukraine it will find adequate legal measures ad hoc and manage to settle the conflict by legislative means.

We also believe in the adequate humane reaction to the events by the Guarantor of the Ukraine’s Constitution – the President of Ukraine.

We stress that the restriction of freedom of movement for the Ukrainian citizens, which takes place these days and hours around the Ukraine’s capital of Kyiv is illegal. It can be used exclusively in the state of emergency, which is announced by a decree of the President of Ukraine and informed to the UN and is legitimate only when it is confirmed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

We believe that the political freedom of the Ukrainian people will be restored in the near future by the legal means, and truth, therefore, will prevail.

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group

23 November 2004

Lettre ouverte des présidents des universités ukrainiennes
à Monsieur Jacques Chirac,
Président de la République Française

Lviv-Kiev, le 24 Novembre 2004

Monsieur le Président,

A l’heure où nous nous adressons à vous, nos étudiants et nos enseignants sont dans la rue, à Kyiv ainsi que dans la plupart des grandes villes universitaires du pays. Leur combat en faveur du président Victor Iouchtchenko est celui que nous menons depuis 13 ans en faveur de la liberté, de la vérité et des droits de l’homme. C’est pourquoi nous les soutenons ouvertement et très fermement. L’enjeu des événements actuels en Ukraine, c’est la volonté de la nation ukrainienne d’avoir un Etat digne et non corrompu, respectueux de la volonté populaire et des principes constitutifs de la démocratie.

L’Ukraine est une vieille nation slave et européenne qui dans sa diversité dispose d’un seul cœur et d’une seule tête. L’Ukraine n’est pas divisée de façon radicale, comme certains médias le croient, entre l’Est et l’Ouest, entre russophones et ukrainophones, entre l’Eglise orthodoxe et l’Eglise catholique. S’il y a des différences, comme dans tous pays, entre les différentes régions d’Ukraine, celles-ci ne doivent pas être instrumentalisées à des fins politiques. Aujourd’hui en effet l’heure est bien plus grave. Le pays est divisé entre une minorité corrompue et une majorité tournée vers l’Etat de droit, combattant contre les falsifications électorales, et défendant le respect de l’intégrité territoriale.

Les exemples d’intimidation en Ukraine Occidentale, à Lviv ou à Ternopil, de la police ou de l’inspection fiscale ont été largement retransmis sur la 5^e chaîne de télévision, la seule qui ne soit pas contrôlée par l’Etat ukrainien. Tandis qu’à Kharkiv et à Dnipropétrovsk, villes de l’Est, plus de 50 000 étudiants sont en permanence dans la rue. A Donetsk et à Luhansk, des prêtres orthodoxes se sont prononcés publiquement au nom de leurs millions de fidèles en faveur de Iouchtchenko, lui même un chrétien orthodoxe.

Vous n’êtes pas sans savoir que tous les sondages réalisés après le premier comme après le second tour ont donné gagnant avec une large avance le candidat de l’opposition, que plus de 11 000 cas de falsifications ont été dénombrés lors du second tour, et que selon le chef de la mission d’observation de l’Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe (OSCE) à Kyiv, Bruce George, «le second tour du scrutin présidentiel le 21 novembre en Ukraine ne répond pas aux critères de l’OSCE, du Conseil de l’Europe ni à d’autres normes européennes pour une élection démocratique».

Aussi, Monsieur le Président, à la veille de la réunion de La Haye entre l’Union Européenne et la République de Russie, nous nous adressons très solennellement à vous dans l’espoir que le gouvernement français saura condamner vigoureusement les fraudes massives organisées en Ukraine et soutenir le président Iouchtchenko démocratiquement élu par le peuple ukrainien. Quand aux relations entre l’Union Européenne et la Russie, permettez-nous de suggérer que la démocratisation en cours en Ukraine aura des effets positifs sur tout l’espace post-soviétique.

Votre soutien est déterminant pour toute la nation ukrainienne dont vous savez la francophilie et la francophonie. De cela, nous saurons, lorsque le temps en sera venu, vous en être personnellement reconnaissants, et à travers vous à toute la nation française. Nous vous prions de recevoir, Monsieur le Président, l’assurance de notre profonde estime.

Signature :

Viatcheslav Briuhovetski, Président de l’Université Nationale ‘Académie Mohyla de Kyiv’
Père Borys Gudziak, Recteur de l’Université Catholique d’Ukraine, Lviv
Ivan Vakartchuk, Recteur de l’Université Nationale de Lviv Ivan Franko et Président du Conseil des Recteurs de la région de Lviv.

24 November 2004
20:35

After the Central Electoral Committee presented the so-called final results of the presidential elections (Yanukovych -
49.46%, Yuschenko - 46.61%), Yuschenko made a statement at Nezalezhnist Square appealing to the people of Ukraine.

He announced an action program:

1) The opposition has established a Committee of the National Salvation who takes the responsibilities for the situation
within the country.
2) Illegal decision of the Central Electoral Committee has provoked the civil conflict.
3) Frauds of the government and the regime force the people to look for the truth in the open fighting in the streets.
4) The government has chosen the way of exhalation. It didn't join negotiations and ignored this opportunity.
5) Now the only way available is the way for the people of Ukraine to demonstrate its will.

The Committee of the National Salvation has announced the launch of all-Ukraine political strike with an aim to paralyze
the country and stand till victory.

WE WILL WIN!

Today 23 November at 2:00 pm the unscheduled session of the Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) began its work. At this parliamentarian meeting the opposition intended to make a political resolution to state its disbelief in the Central Electoral Committee's trustworthiness. However, this session was not attended by members of the pro-governmental groups and communists. For 191 councilors present at the meeting, their number did not make the required quorum of 226; consequently the decision was not an official resolution of the Ukrainian Parliament. Thus, Powers of the People coalition decided to follow the only way available that was to recognize Viktor Yuschenko as a legal, elected by the majority of the Ukrainian voters, President of Ukraine. At 5:20 pm in the session hall of the Parliament, the only working at this moment legitimate power, Viktor Yuschenko vowed his fidelity to the people of Ukraine. Yuschenko took an oath on the oldest in Ukraine Bible. At that moment the Parliament's Chairman Volodymyr Lytvyn was leaving the session hall.

Reporters of TV Channel 5 inform that military people are gathering in Kyiv, as well as weapons and equipment are being brought into the capital. They also report on the moves of groups of so-called 'provocateurs' from Donetsk who often are under the influence of alcohol and whose actions could be used by the government as such that provoke conflicts and public disorders. At the same time people at Independent Square are in very peaceful and cheerful mood.

As of this moment neither Leonid Kuchma or Viktor Yanukovych or his representative has reacted to the events in the Parliament and/or rallies of thousands of people to support Yuschenko which are taking place in all of the cities across the country except Luhansk and Donetsk.

22 November 2004

As of midday 21 November 2004, observers confirm a number of factors that indicate to serious fraudulence during the presidential elections in Ukraine. The current government has applied all instruments of falsification, i.e.  dropping of stacks of unregistered ballots  ticked for Yanukovych in ballot-boxes in the East and South of Ukraine, assaults and riots at polling stations in the West and Centre, election ‘merry-go-arounds’ (people traveling across the country/region and voting more than one time, in some cases up to five times).

According to the independent exit poll conducted by National Exit Poll, a joint survey of The Razumkov Centre, Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and Democratic Initiatives Fund, Yuschenko got 54% of votes, Yanukovych 43% (according the another exit poll – People’s Choice Exit Poll 49.7% and 46.7% respectively). The run-off events prove that the government is ready to fraud the elections and declare Yanukovych a new President under any circumstances, even up to a force scenario. As a proof, at 2:00 pm 22 November the Central Electoral Committee announced the preliminary results after counting 99.38% of ballots with Yanukovych winning 49.42% and Yuschenko 46.7%.

Today in front of 100,000 people gathered at the central square in Kyiv, Viktor Yuschenko, the leader of the opposition, called to actions of protests, like all-Ukraine strike. At Nezalezhnist Square, a central Kyiv square, a camp town is being put up. As of 6:00 pm above 150 tents have been already set. Key demands are to announce that the Central Electoral Committee is not trustworthy as to the way they count the votes and to declare the elections at the polling stations where unprecedented violations of elections procedures and mass falsifications have been registered illegitimate.

Mass protests have taken place in Lviv. More then 80,000 people came to the central street. Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Kyiv City Councils announced Yuschenko a legitimate newly elected President of Ukraine. The Lviv law-enforcement officials did not interfere with the Lviv gathering. People are getting organized to travel to Kyiv to protect their choice.

According to the unofficial information, law-enforcement agencies plan to clear the central Kyiv square and Khreschatyk Street of the tents and protesting people.

As of  7:00 pm there is no official announcement on behalf of the Central Electoral Committee, Yanukovych or the current President Leonid Kuchma.