The Big Orange

ARMENIA: Good but not good enough

March 2008 (Under State of Emergency)—It has been nearly four months since we last reported on Armenia. Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisyan had been elected on Feb. 19 in a hotly disputed presidential election. Sarkisyan was the handpicked successor of President Robert Kocharian.

Thousands of Armenians took to the streets and were violently dispelled by riot police on March 1, resulting in the deaths of ten protesters and more than 100 injured. The Armenian government instituted a 20-day state of emergency. The United States and other Western democracies called on the government to lift the state of emergency.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close ally of Kocharian, came out in support of the government crackdown. Putin said he was certain "that the efforts made by the Armenian leadership will serve to provide for constitutional order."

By March 8, the last obstacle to Sarkisyan's presidency was removed when the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of opposition candidate and former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan. The court concluded that there were some election violations, but not serious enough to affect the outcome. Two days later the government began to lift some of the state of emergency restrictions by allowing political parties to resume activities and discontinuing the expulsion of non-residents from the capital. The government's harsh controls over the media remained fully in effect, however, until March 13.

After meeting with both Sarkisyan and Ter-Petrosyan, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza returned home and sharply criticized the government over the handling of the elections and protests that followed. "The violence really was deplorable," Bryza said. "It seems clear that the reaction by the government was harsh and brutal."

The U.S. government called on Armenia to release those close to Ter-Petrosyan who were under arrest. "It is not only frustrating that the government has imposed restrictions on independent media and left in place a state of emergency, but also that it has stepped up arrests of opposition leaders," Bryza said. "It is crucial that the arrest of opposition figures stops."

The government "ended" its state of emergency restrictions on the mass media on March 13, allowing journalists to resume their independent reporting with the caveat that "obviously false or destabilizing information" about domestic political affairs would not be allowed, as well as any calls for participation in unsanctioned demonstrations.

Journalists complained that media freedom had been set back to the conditions under the old Soviet Union. One independent newspaper was not allowed to go to print on March 14 because of its coverage of a press conference by Ter-Petrosyan. KGB officials declared that Ter-Petrosyan had made several false statements in his address.

The state of emergency officially ended at midnight on March 20 with the army pulling out of the capital earlier that day. But before that happened, parliament passed a law on March 17 that will give the government more control over political protests. The new law states that a rally can be banned if the security service or police make an official report that such a demonstration would threaten national security, public order, or violate a citizen's rights.

With the state of emergency lifted, hundreds of protesters returned to the streets and lit candles and held up pictures of those arrested during the government crackdown of March 1. The protesters locked arms when police began to approach them and yelled curses at the police when they were asked to disperse. The police used no force, and there were no clashes.

The following day protesters again gathered to march through the capital in protest of the 10 people who died in the March 1 government crackdown. They were held back by police armed with shields and rubber clubs. The protesters dispersed after two hours.

BELARUS: Crude attempts to control media

Police were more subdued on May 16, when dozens of protesters gathered in the central square, holding signs demanding the release of political prisoners. Police disbanded the crowd, but made no arrests.

Toward the end of March, the authorities started a new crackdown on independent media. During the March 25 Freedom Day Protest, two journalists from the independent weekly Nasha Niva were beaten and arrested despite the fact that they showed the police their press badges.

One of them received a 15-day jail sentence for organizing the protest, even though he had nothing to do with its organization. Two Lithuanian journalists were also arrested during the protests, but were later released with their video footage confiscated.

Then on March 27, KGB officers raided the offices of several independent broadcasters and the apartments of more than a dozen journalists, confiscating computers, videotapes, voice recorders and other equipment. The raids occurred simultaneously in several cities – Minsk, Brest, Gomel, Mogilev, Vitebsk, Bobruisk and Beryoza. The agents were looking for defamatory statements against the government, which carries a four-year prison term.

An estimated 30 journalists were arrested during the raids. It was believed that the government operation was retaliation for an offensive cartoon that ran on the Internet in 2006 that lambasted President Alexander Lukashenka.

Then in late April a coordinated cyber attack was made against Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that shut down their Web site, preventing them from reporting on a planned protest on April 26 in honor of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster anniversary. RFE/RL was able to restore their site within two days.

Other Web sites from within Belarus came to their rescue in the interim and posted their news. It showed that the Web is still one medium the Belarus government has not gained control over. The fact that several Belarusian opposition Web sites were also attacked at the same time points the finger at the Belarusian government for these attacks.

BELARUS: No day for freedom

March 25 was Freedom Day in Belarus, a banned holiday celebrating the brief independence of Belarus in 1918.

Thousands of protesters, mostly students, gathered illegally around the central square of Minsk, shouting "Long live Belarus" while waving EU flags. Heavily armed police blocked the protesters from entering the square and began moving into the crowds, beating protesters with truncheons and carrying them away to waiting police vans. More than 100 protesters were arrested.

"The authorities have resorted to extreme measures. By doing this, they are showing to the world that Belarus is a dictatorship with no freedom of speech nor freedom to gather," said opposition leader Anatoly Lebedko.

Hundreds of protesters broke from the main crowd and attempted to march on the presidential palace. Officers in riot gear dragged the protesters into the police trucks that were blocking the road. The following day 55 sentences, with penalties ranging from fines to 15 days in jail, were issued for disorderly conduct. The United States and EU condemned the police action, calling it "unacceptable."

Two protesters received longer prison terms for demonstrations that took place last January. Andre Kim received an 18-month sentence for allegedly attacking a police officer while being arrested. Sergey Parsyukevich, who had received a 15-day sentence for participating in the same protest, received a 30-month prison sentence for attacking a guard.

Opposition leader Mykola Statkevich received a 10-day jail sentence for unfurling an EU flag quietly outside the National Library in Minsk on May 1. More than 20 other protesters had been arrested that day. Thousands of pro-government demonstrators took to the streets the same day in honor of International Worker's Day, but none of them was harassed by police.

BELARUS: Severing relations with the West

On March 17, the Belarus Foreign Ministry gave an "urgent recommendation" that the U.S. embassy reduce its staff to the level of the Belarus delegation of 18 staff in Washington. The United States announced on March 24 that it was reluctantly complying with these wishes.

"The unfortunate actions by the Belarus authorities demonstrate that Belarus has taken a path of confrontation and isolation rather than a path of engagement and democratic reform," U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "We would like a different relationship with Belarus, but that can only happen when the government of Belarus shows commitment to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."

The U.S. embassy did respond that due to its reduced staff it would no longer be able to process visas, effectively making it difficult for all Belarusian citizens to visit the United States.

On April 24, the Belarus Foreign Ministry again demanded that the U.S. embassy staff be reduced further to five people. It requested U.S. charge d'affaires Jonathan Moore to submit within a week a list of the five people who will remain. Moore warned the ministry that such a step would have dire consequences.

On April 29, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenka officially ended his attempts to restore relations with the West. Under pressure to release his 2006 presidential opponent Alexander Kozulin from prison, Lukashenka referred to the Western democracies as "used toilet paper" and declared that Belarus does not need them. The following day, Belarus gave 10 U.S. diplomats 72 hours to leave the country.

On May 1, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte approved the decision to close the U.S. embassy in Belarus and shut down the Belarusian Embassy in Washington and the Belarusian Consulate in New York. Just minutes before U.S. officials were to give the official notice to Belarus, the United States backed down to give the Belarus government more time to reconsider their demands.

Charge d'affaires Jonathan Moore was already at the Belarusian Foreign Ministry when the reversal order came. Meanwhile, the United States agreed to reduce its staff to five people but will consider options of retaliation, including the termination of diplomatic relationship with Belarus.

"We told them we would comply with the expulsion order and we warned them that there is a range of actions that we can take," Moore said. "We have to consider whether, after drawing down our staff, we can effectively operate there."

BELARUS: Diplomatic war with U.S.

The relations between the United States and Belarus have continued to deteriorate over the last few months.

The United States, with European allies, have instituted economic sanctions against the "last dictatorship in Europe" in protest over the government's persecution of opposition leaders and repression of free media. In addition to sanctions, many Belarusian officials are denied entrance into most Western democratic countries.

On March 7, the Belarusian Foreign Ministry unofficially requested that U.S. Ambassador Karen Stewart return to the United States for "consultation." U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Stewart was not formally expelled and added, "If the Belarusian government wishes to shoot itself in the foot, they're welcome to do so."

The Belarusian government said the request was in response to the U.S. sanctions leveled against state-owned oil-processing and chemical company Belneftekhim, barring American companies from doing business with it. Belarus had released several opposition leaders the previous month in hopes that the sanctions would be lifted. When no such action was taken by the U.S. government, Belarus threatened to break off relations.

Even though the Belarus government recalled its ambassador in Washington, the U.S. government initially announced it had no plans to bring Stewart home. "[Stewart] is in Minsk, and she'll remain in Minsk while we continue to review the situation," Casey said. "It's important, we think, to have our embassy there in Minsk and to have high-level diplomatic representation there to engage with the Belarusian government on a number of concerns."

On March 11, Belarus reiterated its desire that Stewart leave the country. The following day Anatoly Lebedko, the leader of the ruling United Civil Party, announced that Stewart had decided to leave Belarus for consultations. Lebedko did add that the U.S. government saw her departure as "temporary." Later that day the U.S. State Department confirmed Stewart's departure but added, "Ambassador Stewart's absence is temporary and she remains the U.S. ambassador to Belarus."

UKRAINE: Dirty politics in Kyiv mayoral election

Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko has suffered an embarrassing loss from the president in the fight over the mayor of Kyiv.

Timoshenko had forced a new election, claiming that mayor Leonid Chernovetsky was corrupt and had sold strategic real estate to friends at bargain prices. But her plan backfired when Chernovetsky joined the race to secure his position and was leading in the polls.

Timoshenko tried to change election laws to increase her chances of preventing Chernovetsky from winning the election by forcing a run-off election if no candidate wins a majority of votes. In a two-man race, Chernovetsky probably would be defeated. But in a large field of candidates, he was likely to win the most votes.

President Victor Yushchenko, intent on embarrassing his democratic "partner," refused to sign the bill, setting the scene for the return of Chernovetsky to power. The elections were held on May 25, and Chernovetsky did win with 38 percent of the vote. Timoshenko's candidate, Oleksandr Turchynov, who had converted Timoshenko to the Protestant faith several years ago, came in a distant second with 19 percent of the vote. Boxing champion Vitaliy Klitschko came in third with 18 percent.

It was a dirty election. Chernovetsky used state resources unfairly during his campaign. He monopolized the metro system advertising. City-owned newspapers smeared his opponents but had nothing but praise for him. He also used city government offices to store his campaign literature.

The opposition was not innocent of election pranks, though. Voters received telephone calls after midnight encouraging them to vote for Chernovetsky. The ploy was to make the electorate angry at the Chernovetsky campaign. Graffiti were sprayed all over the city alleging that another candidate was a secret homosexual.

Probably the height of election pranks was the passing out of free tickets to the circus to children supposedly from the campaign of Victor Pylypyshyn. The result was angry parents who took their children to the circus only to find out their passes were bogus.

UKRAINE: Timoshenko puts politics ahead of country

Both President Victor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko are locked in battle over who controls the State Property Fund (SPF), which decides what government resources to privatize. Timoshenko has been working hard to privatize the Odessa Portside Plant to pay for her programs returning lost savings to citizens.

Timoshenko has nominated Andriy Portnov to direct the SPF, but Yushchenko supports Valentyna Semeniuk-Samsonenko. Whoever controls this lucrative position stands to make a lot of money on the side.

On May 19, the Prosecutor General filed criminal charges against Portnov for illegally attempting to privatize state property and overstepping his authority. The controversy has caused investors to be wary and forced Timoshenko to cancel the privatization of the Odessa plant since first-class investors have been scared away.

But it seems that Yushchenko is not the only one willing to sacrifice his country in order to stay in power. Timoshenko has struck back as well, to embarrass the president at the expense of the country.

Russia maintains great influence over Ukraine because of Ukraine's dependency on Russian natural gas and oil. But where can Ukraine find its own energy resources with its coal mines "drying" up and nuclear power, thanks to Chernobyl, not being a welcome alternative? The answer is in the Black Sea.

The problem is that the only unexplored regions of the Black Sea are at depths that only two companies in the world have the expertise to explore. One of those is Texas-based Vanco. Yushchenko approved, giving Vanco the exploration rights in a large portion of the Black Sea, but had to cut a secret deal to ensure then-Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych would not block it. Timoshenko smelled something rotten when she came back to power and immediately became an enemy of the deal, even though Ukraine desperately needs energy alternatives.

Suspecting the Russian oil giant Gazprom was part of the secret partnership and claiming that Ukraine could not turn over such a strategic resource that could fall into Russian hands to one investor, Timoshenko canceled the deal.

Vanco responded the next day by releasing all the partners in the venture, which included Ukraine's richest man and the financier behind Yanukovych, Rinat Akhmetov. Akhmetov controlled a 25 percent stake, Vanco another 25 percent, Russian businessman Evgeny Novitsky, 25 percent, and the remaining 25 percent belonged to an Austrian investment firm.

Timoshenko canceled a legitimate deal for no reason at all and has plunged Ukraine into at least another 10 years of dependency on Russian energy resources while the deal is battled in the courts. And worse is yet to come. She has made Ukraine a pariah to other investors wary of a paranoid prime minister who can cancel a deal at her whim.

UKRAINE: President and prime minister feuding (again)

When Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko began making the first restoration payments to people who had lost everything during the currency crash, President Victor Yushchenko blocked the related sales of state resources. The state quickly found itself in economic troubles because all of these funds have been paid out without the necessary revenues to cover the expenses.

Inflation has soared already 30 percent this year and is on track to reach 50 percent before the year is over, the worst inflation rate in all of Europe. Yushchenko has laid all the blame on Timoshenko.

On May 13, Yushchenko was forced to cancel what should have been his second state-of-the-nation speech. The first such speech had been blocked by the opposition forces led by Victor Yanukovych in opposition to the government's movements toward joining the NATO alliance.

This time the podium was blocked by the forces of Yulia Timoshenko in protest against Yushchenko's betrayal once again of the democratic forces. "For the first time in our history we have an unprecedented case when the parliamentary majority, which bears responsibility for the work of the Ukrainian Parliament, is blocking it," lamented Yushchenko in the hallways outside parliament.

Timoshenko accused the president of attempting to bring down her government and laid the blame for the economic problems on the president. "As is well known, no one else but the secretariat of the President (President's office) is responsible for placing legislation on the parliament docket," Timoshenko charged. "Unfortunately for the four months we have been in (control of) parliament, not once has such legislation been introduced."

The following day, Timoshenko threatened to end her alliance with Yushchenko. "If the situation in the country does not improve, the prime minister cannot be the partner and ally of the president," Timoshenko said. "To humiliate your own country, practically destroy the economy and everything that we are creating – this is no way to fight for the next presidential election."

Both Yushchenko and Timoshenko were able to put their differences aside on May 17 to pass legislation they had promised during the campaign that restores power to the president. Timoshenko called off their parliament blockade under the condition that parliament also be allowed to discuss some economic reforms that were also part of their campaign promises.

"At the president's request, our political team voted for a new law on the cabinet, reducing the government's powers and increasing those of the president," Timoshenko told a press conference. "We supported (the legislation) for the sake of the unity of the democratic coalition."

The new legislation returns to the president the power to block prime ministerial appointments and returns the appointments of the Foreign and Defense Ministers to the president.

UKRAINE: Orange coalition disintegrating

The biggest threat to democracy in Ukraine continues to be the personality clash between the two revolutionary leaders – President Victor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko.

The duo came to power after the Orange Revolution in 2005, which overthrew the previous pro-Russian corrupt regime of President Leonid Kuchma and Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych. Within months, Yushchenko had removed Timoshenko from power and began to build bridges back to Yanukovych, who took advantage of this weakness of Yushchenko and almost succeeded in reversing the democratic revolution.

The Big Orange was highly critical of Yushchenko, laying most of the blame on his inept leadership, only giving some passing evaluation of some abrupt and not wise policy decisions on the part of Timoshenko.

Round Two began after Yushchenko used his last thread of power that Yanukovych had not yet been able to remove and forced a new parliamentary election where the democratic Orange forces barely squeaked by a victory. It was the rise in popularity of Timoshenko that saved the democracy, as the party of Yushchenko was all but obliterated in the election. Timoshenko returned as prime minister, and the two leaders vowed to remain united this time.

It did not last long. Yushchenko seems to be more concerned about being re-elected than leading the country, and Timoshenko has become even more paranoid, seeing the enemy under every rock. This time they are both equally to blame for the threat of democracy falling apart again in Ukraine.

Yushchenko knows that the only way he can get re-elected is to undermine Timoshenko and destroy her popularity. Timoshenko brought the democratic forces back to power with many populist promises. One of these promises was to restore the savings of people who lost everything when the Iron Curtain fell and their funds became worthless.

This economic plunge was caused by corrupt government leaders who converted all of their funds to dollars and then crashed their own currency, making them all instant millionaires. Within 10 years they turned those millions into billions as they methodically began to steal the resources of the country. Timoshenko promised to restore the lost funds to the people. Her plan was to pay for this largesse by privatizing some strategic state resources.

Yushchenko was opposed to this, claiming that these funds would be better used to build the national economy by investing in infrastructure.

GEORGIA: Tensions with Russia ease

Potential conflict between Georgia and Russia eventually quieted down somewhat even though Russian troops continued to build up their defenses not only in Abkhazia, but in another breakaway region of South Ossetia.

Tensions flared again on May 16, when the Russian Foreign Ministry announced it had captured a Georgian spy aiding terrorists in the Caucasus regions of Southern Russia. Georgia denied having any involvement in such activities. By making this claim, Russia is preparing a justified reason to bolster its forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, claiming Chechen terrorists are finding refuge in northern Georgia.

The tension finally motivated the UN to take action after 15 years of sitting idly by and doing nothing. On May 15, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution recognizing "the right of all refugees and internally displaced persons and their descendants, regardless of ethnicity" to return to Abkhazia and recover their property. This despite the frantic midnight calls of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to more than 30 countries trying to convince them to vote against the resolution.

"It is absolutely incomprehensible why Russia should be angry about this resolution," Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said. "The resolution does not even mention Russia; it only notes that people have been expelled from their homes and that their property rights should be protected. Why should Sergey Lavrov have to phone over 30 foreign ministers of various countries?

"Does not Russia have any other work to do except of trying to block rights of Georgian internally displaced persons and to prevent them from returning back to their homes? And if Mr. Lavrov will have a bad sleep if IDPs return, it is totally incomprehensible and it is demonstration of unreasonable and sick logic. I do not understand why this should be a matter of dispute with Russia."

On May 26, the UN Observer Mission in Georgia concluded its investigation of the attack on April 20 of the Georgian spy drone plane. Its investigation showed that the fighter jet that shot down the spy drone was indeed a Russian aircraft.

Abkhazia had claimed it shot down the drone with one of its L-39 jets. But the craft in the video clearly had a twin-finned tail, which only the Russian MiG-29 or SU-27 has. And Abkhazia does not have any such aircraft in their military inventory. The UN also provided evidence of the radar tracking of the aggressor aircraft, which returned to Russian airspace after the attack.

The following day, Georgia officially demanded that Russia pay compensation for the downed aircraft. Russia continues to deny it was involved and rejected the UN report. They were careful not to attack the professionalism of the UN Observer Mission, but questioned the credibility of the evidence it had to work with.

So, why is Russia doing this? Russia has a history of conquest in the Caucasus region. The glory of Russia has been intertwined in this region. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are two pieces of this region that were arbitrarily included within the Georgian Republic during the days of the Soviet Union. Russia wants them back.