Lustration — a Kiev regime perspective

Lustration is a practice to purge government officials connected to past administrations.

This article is “part of the Kyiv Post’s Reform Watch project, sponsored by the International Renaissance Foundation“ (George Soros’ foundation).

What is civil society? Who is the “popular” support? The first sentence speaks volumes.

Lustration law faces sabotage, legal hurdles
Oct. 23, 2014
by Oleg Sukhov

PHOTO Right Sector activists demanding lustration and exploding a smoke grenade near the Central Elections Commission building on Oct. 2. Lustration has become a key demand of civil society. 

The sight of public officials being thrown into trash cans all over Ukraine has become the visible expression of popular anger with corrupt bureaucrats, with lustration becoming a key demand by civil society.

Supporters of the lustration law, signed by President Petro Poroshenko on Oct. 9, say that the cleansing of government is necessary to root out old corrupt practices and entrench Western values as part of Ukraine’s efforts to become a civilized European country.

But the law is likely to be sabotaged by officials and faces legal obstacles. Lawyers say that it will be hard to enforce it because courts may rule that it contradicts the Constitution and international law.

In September, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that the law would apply to about 1 million officials. Earlier in October he said that the first 39 top officials had been fired.

Yegor Sobolev, head of the non-governmental Lustration Committee, told the Kyiv Post that the passage of the law was a victory of civil society.

The parliament, president and Cabinet didn’t really want this law but society forced them to pass it,” said Sobolev, who is one of the lustration law’s authors and has actively pushed for its passage.

He added, however, that civil society had to make some concessions, for example, by excluding members of parliament from the list of people subject to lustration.

Sobolev urged civil society to be actively involved in the enforcement of the law.

“Without citizens and journalists’ active engagement, control over the implementation of lustration will be sabotaged,” he said.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Czech President says ‘only poorly informed people’ don’t know about Ukraine coup

Eric Zuesse, January 4, 2015
Posted on Washington’s Blog

The Czech Republic’s President Milos Zeman said, in an interview, in the January 3rd edition of Prague’s daily newspaper Pravo, that Czechs who think of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych, on 22 February 2014, as having been like Czechoslovakia’s authentically democratic “Velvet Revolution” are seeing it in a profoundly false light, because, (as Russian Television translated his statement into English) “Maidan was not a democratic revolution.” He said that this is the reason why Ukraine now is in a condition of “civil war,” in which the residents of the Donbass region in Ukraine’s southeast have broken away from the Ukrainian Government.

He furthermore said that, “Judging by some of the statements of [Ukrainian] Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, I think that he is rather a prime minister of war because he does not want a peaceful solution, as recommended by the European Union (EU), but instead prefers to use force.” (By contrast, George Soros, who has invested in Ukrainian bonds, and whose International Renaissance Foundation — also called The International Renaissance Fund — helped finance the overthrow of Yanukovych, as well as the hate-mongering Hromadske TV in Ukraine, is proud of it, and has repeatedly said that the EU must invest whatever is necessary for Ukraine to win its war against the residents of Donbass, and carry the war to victory against Russia. His alleged passion for ‘democracy’ has evidently been actually a hatred of Russians; it wasn’t an opposition to communism, after all; he hates Russians even after they have abandoned communism. Today’s Czech President is instead committed to democracy, not to hatred and bigotry of any sort. He’s a real democrat.)

Zeman added, by way of contrast to Yatsenyuk, the possibility that Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko “might be a man of peace.” So: though Zeman held out no such hope regarding Yatsenyuk (who was Obama’s choice to lead Ukraine), he did for Poroshenko (who wasn’t Obama’s choice, but who became Ukraine’s President despite Obama’s having wanted Yatsenyuk’s sponsor, the hyper-aggressive Yulia Tymoshenko, to win the May 25th Presidential election, which was held only in Ukraine’s pro-coup northwest, but claimed to possess authority over the entire country).[Editor: Further events have confirmed that Poroshenko is not at all a man of peace, including his lie at Davos that 9000 Russian troops had invaded Ukraine.]

What this statement from Zeman indicates is that the European Union is trying to deal with Poroshenko, as the “good cop” in a “good cop, bad cop” routine, with Yatsenyuk playing the bad cop; and, so, the EU’s policies regarding Ukraine will depend upon what comes forth from Poroshenko, not at all upon what comes from the more clearly pro-war, anti-peace, Yatsenyuk.

Furthermore, Zeman’s now publicly asserting that the overthrow of Yanukovych was a coup instead of having merely expressed the democratic intentions of most of the Maidan demonstrators, constitutes a sharp break away from U.S. President Barack Obama, who was behind that Ukrainian coup and who endorses its current leaders. Continue reading