The Ukrainian election: Another view

A reader named Liz C sent me some links on the Ukrainian election. It's easier to republishe her words than to re-write in my own idiom, so you will find her (lightly-edited) take on the controversy below the asterisks:

* * *

This article is pretty interesting: It states that Yushchenko was not poisoned, that his supporters are a bunch of anti-semitic thugs, and that the support of the US is primarily based on further weakening and isolating Russia...

The kids in the square may look like Kerry supporters, but the whole thing could be a lot like the Karl Rove FL vote-count stopping "riots." There's been a lot of legit press about western intervention and funding in this election, on the Yushchenko side.

I went to Google news to look for confirmation of alternative views of events in Ukraine and found that they are out there, albeit nearly drowned out.

Russian oil and gas pipelines run through Ukraine (isn't everything about oil, etc.?) western part of Ukraine (threatening autonomy) is Catholic, is eastern Orthodox.

Al Jazeera also reporting the geographical divide in the Ukraine results and calls for a new federal republic with more autonomous regions:

More here. Excerpts:

Votes in the heavily pro-Russian Donetsk and other eastern regions were deemed "probably falsified" but we were not informed of equally credible claims that vote-rigging was rampant in Yushchenko's western Ukrainian strongholds, including turnouts in excess of 100 percent of registered voters, total local media control, and multiple voting by persons in possession of numerous IDs belonging to Ukrainians residing in western Europe.

The attempted technique was well rehearsed. Yushchenko has rejected Yanukovich's victory and claims fraud, pointing to exit polls by his supporters as evidence. He even proclaimed himself president, and tens of thousands of his followers have taken to the streets of Kiev in support of his claim. Their campaign of civil disobedience relies on expectation of support from Washington and the EU. The White House declared that Ukrainian authorities should not certify results "until investigations of organized fraud are resolved.

Strong Western bias in Yushchenko's favor has been evident throughout the campaign. The monitoring of election abuses has focused exclusively in areas favorable to Yanukovych but it has ignored or even suppressed documented abuses in pro-Yuschchenko areas. A seasoned Western analyst who visited western Ukraine reported that the news media "is all under Yushenko's control, even state TV"...."In fact, Yushenko and the mob control Kiev and all points West."

USAID's grant for election monitors went only to activists known for their hostility to Yanukovych; they delivered predictable results. It is ironic that some of those activists are also funded by billionaire George Soros -- President Bush's arch-enemy -- whose investment in Yushchenko's victory is said to be $75 million. "Two generations ago we had the Comintern," says a Western analyst familiar with the situation. "Now we have the Demintern and its related NGOs which have an increasing global reach."

About a half of all Ukrainians who voted for Yanukovych did not do so solely on the grounds of his pro-Russian outlook, however. As the Financial Times noted on November 19, strong economic growth of 13 percent has helped his campaign of "peace and stability." This year's grain harvest will reach 45m tones, the highest since Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Increasing social spending, including payment of pensions and state salaries, are attributed to the Prime Minister's policies.

Washington would be well advised to accept the result with equanimity. As Doug Bandow of CATO Institute says, the United States and Europe aren't going to "lose" Ukraine: it will continue to expand its commercial and political ties with the West regardless of outcome. On the other hand, excessive insistence on the preordained outcome would unnecessarily alienate Russia at a time when her cooperation is sorely needed in the war against Jihad.

Well, hard to get to the bottom of this, but things are never as black and white as reported in western press. It appears likely that USAID funding of Ukraine elections since 1998 included funding for The Committee of Ukraine Voters (CVU).

Ukrainian Embassy in Israel reported during election:

The Committee of Ukrainian voters...conducted a parallel count of the ballots, cast in the October 31 presidential election, both Viktor Yanukovych and Viktor Yuschenko collected 39.6 percent of the votes. As the Committee's vice chairman Yevhen Peberezhny noted, the Committee's conclusions were obtained through randomized sampling of 14.500 polling stations, or 5 percent of their told number.

But which 5 percent and is that enough? What percent, I wonder, was sampled by the NEP during the 2004 election in the United States?

Helsinki Human Rights Group is challenging the media reports of government sponsored election fraud in Ukraine.

Although Western media widely claimed that in Ukraine the opposition was, in effect, excluded from the broadcast media, particularly in western Ukraine the opposite was the case. On the eve of the poll – in flagrant violation of the law banning propaganda for candidates – a series of so-called “social information” advertisements showing well-known pop stars like Eurovision winner Ruslana wearing the orange symbols of Mr Yushchenko’s candidacy and urging people to vote appeared on state television!

Although BHHRG did not encounter blatant violations in either the first or second rounds, the Group’s observers were alarmed by a palpable change in the atmosphere inside the polling stations in central Ukraine in particular. In Round 1, a relaxed and orderly mood prevailed throughout the day. In Round 2 the situation had become slightly tense and chaotic. In BHHRG’s observation the change in Round 2 was attributable primarily to an overabundance of local observers, who exercised undue influence over the process and in some instances were an intimidating factor. The vast majority of observers in the polling stations visited were representatives of Viktor Yushchenko.

Transparent ballot boxes meant that these observers could frequently see how people had voted. This OSCE-approved innovation made intimidation of voters for the more unpopular candidate in any district easier since few supporters of the minority would wish it to be seen how they had voted.

From what BHHRG observed, the opposition exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places, giving rise to concerns that the opposition – not only the authorities – may have committed violations and may have even falsified the vote in opposition-controlled areas. So-called “administrative resources” in places visited by BHHRG appeared to be in the hands of the opposition, not the government, and this may have frightened voters. After all since Sunday, police and security personnel in some western towns have declared their loyalty to “president” Yushchenko.

In spite of concerns, BHHRG finds no reason to believe that the final result of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine was not generally representative of genuine popular will. The election featured a genuine choice of candidates, active pre-election campaigns, and high voter participation. It is clear that Ukrainian opinion was highly polarized. That meant many people backing a losing candidate would find it difficult to accept a defeat. Foreigners should not encourage civil conflict because the candidate on whom they have lavished expensive support turned out to be a loser.