• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Power Politics 

13 November, 2012 - 00:00

Odd Man Out

With all the intrigues in his entourage, the President could find himself
dispensable to it
As was to be expected, Tuesday morning in Parliament saw a battle over
the interparliamentary conference. Rukh accused the Left and Speaker of
acting against the interest of the state and spending budget money for
the wrong purpose. The other side shouted "shame" and suggested their opponents
report on the travel expenses of all those envoys sent to NATO. Oleksandr
Tkachenko explained that the conference did not cost the budget a single
kopiyka and that all the bills were footed by those taking part in and
arriving for the conference.

In fact, this "fiscal" topic faded compared to a draft resolution setting
up an ad hoc committee of inquiry into the opening of "exchange bank accounts
abroad, use, and concealment of hard currency by ranking officials of Ukraine."
An explanatory note attached to the document, signed by lawmakers Omelchenko
and Yermak, reads that a parliamentary check established that there is
an official statement issued by Jules Colpen, Press Secretary of the Brussels
Court, on the strength of which Judge Collette Clevert pressed money-laundering
charges against Presidential Aide [currently working part time - Author]
and People's Deputy Oleksandr Volkov. The judge ruled to block Mr. Volvkov's
and his business structures' exchange accounts opened in 1994-97, currently
amounting to 135 million Belgian francs (about $4 million) and impounded
his limousines and immovable property in Belgium.

It would be needlesly banal to point out that everything now happening
in Ukraine is regarded mainly from the angle of the election campaign.
The national patriots' belated outrage (i.e., after the interparliamentary
conference) is explained primarily by the realization of how effectively
presidential candidate Oleksandr Tkachenko is using sentiments in favor
of fraternal integration, precisely the trump Leonid Kuchma played to access
Bankova Street in the first place. Likewise, the new anti-Volkov wave was
triggered off by his opponents precisely after Mr. Volkov surfaced on television
as Leonid Kuchma's principal image-maker. Those who saw it arrived at the
inspiring conclusion that he should be allowed on the air and kept there
until October 31 while the others took a break. Fighting the President
made no sense under the circumstances, he would blow it anyway, a godsend
for all home-recruited and Russia-exported campaign headquarters.

Well, maybe. But there is also the fact that all previous attempts of
truth-hunters Omelchenko and Yermakov to get law enforcement and the General
Prosecutor to start a criminal prosecution in the Volkov case met with
vague responses boiling down to a clean legal bill of health. One and all
understood that the President would not let his man be thrown to the wolves.
Now that there is a sequel to the case he will find himself dependent on
Parliament, rather on Oleksandr Tkachenko, for the Speaker is in a position
to slow down, step up or stabilize the process, as the case may be. True,
the double Lazarenko scenario seems unlikely, at least as far as the Speaker
is concerned; to discredit the President it would suffice to raise enough
hullabaloo which would gradually subside provided Oleksandr Volkov shows
enough understanding of who can spare him the trouble and at what cost.
The Speaker knows how to take advantage of the situation, as evidenced
by the Russian-Belarusian-Ukrainian interparliamentary conference's epilogue.
Mr. Tkachenko must thank his stars for having Vice Speaker Medvedchuk,
a clever, flexible, legally trained politician, on his side. Mr. Medvedchuk's
presentation at a press conference, arguing the need for the fraternal
republic's economic integration, the latter being impossible without a
serious target-oriented cooperation in the legislative domain, was faultless.
A speech delivered by a mature statesman compared to which all the emotional
verbiage of all those champions on an independent state especially helpless.
And his attack on the Foreign Minister opposing Tkachenko's stand, launched
after the Speaker's thrust, was no less effective, except that Mr. Medvedchuk's
language was more diplomatic and correct. Mr. Medvedchuk thinks that the
Foreign Minister should not have spoken "so radically" against the conference.
As for Mr. Tarasiuk's resignation (which the Speaker claims he should tender),
the Vice Speaker actually did not say anything to the contrary. "This is
something Mr. Tarasiuk must decide himself. He may tender his resignation
if he has his reasons or this will be a matter of the Cabinet's responsibility
in accordance with the Constitution," he said, stressing that "the Foreign
Ministry knew about the guests arriving in Kyiv and the parliamentary dignitaries
were received by the President and Prime Minister." Mr. Medvedchuk also
skillfully refuted all attempts to accuse Oleksandr Tkachenko of acting
contrary to the Verkhovna Rada Standing Orders in holding the conference
on the premises, by referring to the Constitution. He even reminded that
the conference took place "as resolved by the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly,
not according to Oleksandr Tkachenko's decision." And that the Speaker
did not even mention Ukraine's membership of the Union (which is true,
by the way). Which makes one wonder whether the Speaker composed his speech
himself or used someone else's learned recommendations.

Finally, now that Premier Pustovoitenko, promoted within the CIS framework,
and Speaker Tkachenko as the Chief Interparliamentary Integrator, working
to turn the post-Soviet space into a free economic area, only one question
remains curiously open: Where does the President fit in? Maybe he has been
chosen to play the odd man out? Sounds probable, with or without Medvedchuk.
Or even Volkov.

By Tetiana KOROBOVA, The Day

 

Rubric: