Ukraine Election 2010

Image via Wikipedia

The loss of Ukraine to Russia following the election of Yanukovich on Sunday will significantly change the geo-political map in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses.

Assuming that the recent election process change by the Party of Regions in the Rada repealing the requirement that representatives of both candidates be present to supervise vote counting at polling stations is exactly what it seems - an effort to forestall any challenges to the vote due to fraud and the final destruction of the Orange Revolution forces - then the game is over.

In Eastern Europe, Poland and the Baltic States have good reason to become alarmed as Russia regains its historical base in Ukraine. A new line will be drawn and without support from their EU counterparts in Western Europe - particularly Germany -these NATO countries will be looking toward a virtually bankrupt Britain and the overstretched United States for bilateral support. Other than words, the US has committed to major military games in the Baltics during 2010 - a not so subtle hint to Moscow that the annexation of territory from Georgia is significantly different from similar attempts in the Baltics - all of which are NATO members.

The role of non-EU members will need to be ramped up in Eastern Europe to fill the compromised economic positions of Germany - dependent on Russia for energy - and France - whose President is more than easily persuaded to follow purely economic interests (e.g. potential sale of a Mistral class ship to Russia). After Sunday, Europe will be looking at a resurgent Russian Empire in the east - and not a democratic one.

In the Caucuses Georgia now stands alone following the loss of Ukraine to Russia. Previously an important ally, the two countries worked in tandem in opposing Russian expansionism. The relationship now could turn confrontational. Yanukovich was fiercely pro-Russian regarding the invasion of Georgia. When Yanukovich is elected it is likely that he will follow through on a promise to recognize Georgia's rebel regions as independent states. Moscow recognized South Ossetia and another rebel region, Abkhazia, as independent after the war, a move that has so far been followed by only Nicaragua, Venezuela and the Pacific island state of Nauru. This would be an easy foreign policy decision for Ukraine and would be an immediate sign that Ukraine will cooperate with Russia's foreign policies. Even Belarus has refused to take this step, to the annoyance of Moscow.

Turkey will also need take a deep breath as it is Russia's only strong regional competitor. Russia has been calling the shots in the Armenia/Azerbaijan talks. Armenia is already a client state of Russia and Azerbaijan is furious with its cultural brother, Turkey, for attempting to normalize relations with Armenia without resolution of the Ngorno Kharabach dispute. Turkey will need to balance its economic interests with its now much more powerful neighbor in the north against US hopes that Turkey would be a powerful buffer. Also, the Armenia normalization issue will be put on the back burner simply because of Russian control of the negotiations will push Turkey to expand its considerable influence in the Middle East. The continuing opposition to EU membership by France and Germany will add to a Turkish foreign policy emphasis away from Europe and a geo-political settlement in the Caucuses with Russia.

Distant from the borders of Russia and Ukraine, expect the acceleration of NATO membership of Montenegro which will leave Russia's sole ally in the region, Serbia, completely surrounded by NATO members. Additionally, as a move to protect the Baltic States, Sweden will likely move closer to NATO and increase its influence in the Baltic region while the US Defence Department has announced a realignment of forces in Europe to account for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s changing role and security issues such as events of the last couple of years in Georgia.

Following Sunday the map changes, which will mean a realignment of foreign policy objectives by Europe and the United States.

Aside from that it is a very sad day for Ukraine as under Yanukovich, a man with a criminal record who was unfortunately allowed to remain free after 2004 by the now disgraced Yushchenko, expect the media to be suppressed to please Moscow and for future elections to model themselves after the political structure of Russia.

Kazakhstan Takes Up the OSCE

In 2010, the Republic of Kazakhstan will assume the chair of the OSCE. Is this a cause for concern or is it possible that the government in Astana will become more democratic as a result?

I don't really think the chairmanship will turn into the possible debacle that has been portrayed by organizations like Human Rights Watch. Neither will it produce the deep changes in Kazakhstan's human rights record precisely because in order to alter attitudes within the country, laws restricting basic human rights such as freedom of expression and religion, will need to be amended so as to remove the vagueness surrounding, for example, what can be written in the press without charges of affecting the welfare of the state. Unfortunately, Astana is a totally top-down government. Nothing happens unless lower level officials receive explicit instructions from the Presidential Administration and then often it must come from the president himself.

In the meantime, perhaps the first test of the chairmanship will be monitoring the elections in Ukraine in January. Considering that after the Orange Revolution even mentioning the events in Ukraine was met by cold stares from government officials, to have Astana judging a much more robust democratic expression (despite its flaws) in Ukraine is worrying. Astana will need to approve of an election process in Ukraine (and it will) that is in stark contrast to its own.

Astana is in a position to gain considerable prestige from its chairmanship, but it will also focus attention upon its own, considerable, failings. Will the attention prove too much for the government to tolerate? Perhaps by 2011, they will be glad to have done with it. Kazakhstan is a tribal society with a ruler not accustomed or tolerant of dissent. The people were appalled by the Orange Revolution and are repelled by the apparent chaos that it represented. Stability is highly valued, just like it is in China. Holding the reins of the OSCE for a year will not change that perception and although legislation may be enacted to assuage the sensibilities of OSCE members and organizations like Human Rights Watch, implementation will unlikely be pushed very hard.

This is not to say that pressure to change will be entirely unsuccessful or should be abandoned. But more will be needed than simply appealing to Astana's sense of justice and respect for human rights. After all, they are much more interested in economic development as the newest pipeline to China indicates or recent energy deals with France.

Economic strength is a priority for the government and the general population and attitudinal changes only come after people feel economically secure. The misconception peddled by donor agencies that civil society programs alone have a significant impact in societies such as in Central Asia (or in any of the former Soviet Union for that matter)is simply a waste of money in the absence of economic stability. To put it simply, a family does not care about what happens to journalists, who owns the media or the lack of government transparency when there is no job and no food on the table. More, not less, economic development and investment will be needed to establish a foundation for systemic change while at the same time keeping the pressure on for an end to human rights abuses.

Finally, what damage can Kazakhstan possibly do to the reputation of the OSCE? Silvio Berlusconi was President of the EU for a year and the universe did not collapse.

Dreams and Reality in Ukraine

Image via Wikipedia

I normally don't write very much about Ukraine any longer because the political and economic environment is in shambles. But, in what may be the strangest combination of rose colored glasses and stark reality was the statement today by President Victor Yushchenko: "I will win the election, and if not, it is not a tragedy"

From the Orange Revolution hope on Maidan to single digit poll numbers, the squandered opportunities are legion. Meanwhile, Speaker of the Rada, Volodymir Lytvyn, said that there would be no opposition to Yulia Tymoshenko should she be elected, but there would be if Victor Yanakuvich won.

Almost a Greek tragedy.

Biden in Ukraine

Image via Wikipedia

As reported in Hurriyet, V.P. Biden breezed through town yesterday and gave a speech at Ukrainian House where he pointed out the obvious to Ukrainians - that their politicians put personal gain ahead of the nation's interests.

Since about 2005, as the alliance among the Orange Revolution participants began to unravel, the personal political ambitions of the leaders, including opposition leader and perennial presidential hopeful Victor Yanukovych, have trumped Ukrainian national interests. The apathy in Ukraine as to their political leadership is palpable. So, V.P. Biden's correct observation and admonition to, essentially, grow up, may fall on deaf ears.

He also met with all the potential and declared presidential candidates, which, I assume, was to get a read on their positions regarding NATO, the EU, Russia and energy issues. The pity is that the newest and freshest candidate, Arseniy Yatsenyuk pictured here, probably has no chance. It will come down between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. President Yushchenko is dead last in the polls and approaching negative support at 2%.

The Hurriyet article makes a strange statement at the end which is not supported by any facts that "Biden leaves Ukraine later today for Georgia, another post-Soviet country with strong NATO ambitions..." The vast majority of Ukrainians do not support NATO membership.

It Has Begun...

Image by ckaiserca via Flickr

BBC reports that the crack-down on demonstrations in Iran has begun. Regimes don't last long, historically, when they rely on a combination of repression, one party rule, experience cratering economies and international opprobrium. Despite the seemingly endless Cold War, keep in mind that the experiment with fake socialism - Leninism and Stalinism - lasted only 70 years. That may seem like a lot, but it is hardly any time at all from a historical perspective. This is something the old, grey religious "leaders" of the Islamic Republic should study. Sooner or later, they will, like other dictators, vanish. They could be replaced by a stronger dictatorship led by a successor to Ahmadinejad. But they will have only a shadow of their former power. He is likely to take them on.

Ahmadinejad types however, as he is very capable of proving, make serious mistakes as well and although Iran is entitled to build nuclear plants for generating electricity (a fact frequently ignored)what will happen if they decide to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems is something else entirely. If they do, then they should bear in mind that ever since 1945, nuclear weapons have never dissuaded an opponent from launching a war. The side with the weapons has never seen fit to use them no matter how dire the situation seemed. Ask Israel. And if Iran was to use one, well...

No more posts on Iran until it's over or a revolution begins.

Victor Chernomyrdin Goes Home

The article in the Jamestown Foundation Blog regarding Victor Chernomyrdin's recall to Moscow from his long-held post of ambassador to Ukraine contains interesting background on his previous career which I never completely knew, particularly about the report to then V.P. Al Gore by the CIA. It is surprising that Gore dismissed the report given what was known about the state of business ethics in Russia at the time (and now, actually). I met Chernomyrdin at a reception at the US ambassador's home together with Al Gore when the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission was active. At the time I knew little about him and my connection with the Russian Federation was over a short time later as my job changed. What I do remember is that he was really, really short - or maybe that V.P. Gore was so tall. Whatever.

My next involvement with Chernomyrdin came at a small meeting in Kyiv among European ambassadors and Ukrainian officials discussing WTO and other economic issues in 2002.

At that meeting what struck me most was his amazingly dismissive and condescending attitude toward fairly important Ukrainian officials and Ukraine in general. This was pre-Orange Revolution of course, and he pointedly suggested that Ukraine simply allow Russia to lead the way and not try to attempt WTO or EU membership on its own. Of course, in 2008 WTO accession was granted to Ukraine. Russia is still not a member.

Victor Chernomyrdin's replacement will, I assume, be more diplomatic in his remarks and overall attitude.