RC#54: A harmony of history

published in Eastern Economist #440, July 9, 2002

Back in January, Vladimir Putin declared 2002 “The Year of Ukraine” in Russia. Actually, it’s the Year of the Horse, according to the Chinese calendar that’s popular among Ukrainians and Russians.

            Maybe the Russians want to start their own zodiac, using the names of the 12 republics that remain within their sphere of influence. Imagine some of the characteristics associated with the various “signs.”

            The Year of Ukraine: Those born under this sign can never make up their minds whether to go ahead and make that big change in their lives, or to go on cheating a little here and there as long as no one catches them. Lesson: Grow up and get a life.

            The Year of Kazakhstan: Those born under this sign have lots of natural talents but they keep thinking they have to make it in Moscow. Lesson: Sell some oil and take a vacation in Hawaii this year.

            The Year of Russia: Those born under this sign have everything on their side – money, history and the bomb – but they’re still not happy. Lesson: Find yourselves a better sign… maybe Tadjikistan?

            In any case, most Ukrainians saw this “Year of Ukraine” as a sop, not a threat. Predictably, this friendly declaration involved setting up an intergovernmental commission to “improve relations.” A little hand-holding went on, but nothing that the press of either country paid much attention to.

            Then in May 24, a working group led by the two countries’ vice premiers was set up to “jointly prepare new Ukrainian and Russian history textbooks.” Russia’s Matviyenko said the reason was “the need to review the contemporary interpretation of history textbooks in the light of the changes of recent years.”

            When this became public knowledge, it caused an immediate stir. “What do you mean, a joint history written with Russians?” a lot of Ukrainians asked aloud.

            There were demonstrations and protests in Kyiv. On Constitution Day, the Administration responded by lining the streets with soldiers and policemen.

            “These officials are not professional historians,” read an open letter to Ukraine’s leaders from historians, academics and civic leaders, signed by historian Yaroslav Dashkevych, “so they have no moral right to be sitting judgment on Ukrainian history books.”

            “Ukraine has just managed to move away from politically driven interpretations of its history during this period,” the letter went on. In other words, its history was no longer being written in Moscow.

            Even so, the country’s leaders cannot face up to all of its history. “Justice has not been fully achieved,” the letter went on. “Ukraine’s leaders still have not been able to acknowledge the OUN-UPA as a Ukrainian liberation movement that was also a warring side in World War II.”

            Ukrainians across the big pond also responded. “Given what I have seen in Russian textbooks on the history of Rus’ over the past decade,” wrote Robert De Lossa of the Harvard Ukrainian Studies program, “I doubt that the influence of the ‘harmonization’ will flow northward and eastward.”

            A hot and heavy debate pulled together by the TV Press Club on July 4 reflected the key problems. History professors and department heads showed up from the NAS Institute of History, the University of Kyiv Mohyla-Academy, Kyiv State University, and Kyiv International University.

            Mohyla’s Dean of History, Yuriy Mytsyk noted that the Council of Europe has declared history a mandatory subject for secondary schools. “That’s why the Russians are so involved in the process of rewriting,” he said. “Otherwise, our children will know the truth about relations between these two countries.”

            “The commission aims to settle conflicting points in the history of Ukraine and Russia,” declared NAS-IH’s Deputy Chair Stanislav Kulchytskiy. “No one’s going to rewrite history.”

            They don’t have to. According to Prof. Mytsyk, the Russian Embassy has already started negotiations to present Russian textbooks to Ukrainian schools free of charge.

            “The Russian side most definitely has some spots that they want to rewrite,” added KSU’s History professor, Viktor Korol. “First of these is Hetman Ivan Mazepa. Russians consider him a traitor, although from Ukraine’s point of view, he was fighting for national independence. Second, the Russians don’t want the famine of 1931-3 to be mentioned at all. And thirdly, they don’t want to say anything about the forced exile of millions of Ukrainians to Siberia.”

            Imagine if Germans demanded a say in the writing of Jewish history in the 20th century and refused to include the Holocaust or the Stern Gang?

            In fact, the first contemporary history text used in independent Ukraine was “A History of Ukraine,” written by Canadian historian Orest Subtelny. It was a big hit.

            “Subtelny’s History of Ukraine was published very quickly, on time, and had a huge circulation,” explained KIU’s Prof. Raïsa Ivanchenko. “But the secret of its popularity was that Subtelny was the first author who offered a point of view on Ukrainian history that differed from the official versions.”

            Prof. Kulchytskiy clearly didn’t like this. “The history of a country should be written by citizens of that country, by those who were born here, who have the national mentality and way of thinking. A foreign citizen can’t describe the history of a country he wasn’t born in.”

            So much for a big chunk of great writing on the history of the world, including Paul Johnson, Barbara Tuchman and Livy.

            “I have long thought of adding a history dimension to the USA/Ukraine Program,” Bohdan Oryshkevich wrote June 16. “With anywhere from 3.5 to 4.5 students from the Russian Federation to 1.0 students from Ukraine at any one time studying in the US, Russians are still dominating the social sciences in American universities… And there are probably more students from Ukraine studying history in Russia, according to old methods, than in the West.

            “Only by educating highly qualified and ethical historians are Ukrainians likely to succeed in persuading the world – and the Ukrainian population – of the character of Ukrainian history.”

            Harmony works best when two voices of equal power sing different notes. •

–from the notebooks of Pan O.

RC#53: Summer evenings on the Uzviz

published in Eastern Economist #439, July 2, 2002

For the last year, almost, an ongoing series of classical concerts has been playing at Andriïvska Tserkva, St. Andrew’s Church, at the top of Andriïvskiy uzviz. I decided to go to hear the Renaissance Chamber Orchestra one Sunday night. One English paper said they were going to perform a Tchaikovsky program. Another one said they were doing Handel.

            As it turned out, they were doing neither.

            But I’m getting ahead of myself. When I got to the church, it was only about half past six. I decided that, with the sun shining brightly on the cobbled street and low-rise baroque buildings, I would take the spare 25 minutes to mosey partway down the Uzviz and see what new goodies were available.

            Unlike winter time, when everyone rolls up their stalls and goes home at or before six o’clock, the historic hill was buzzing with buskers and buyers, artists and artlovers.

            Now, Andriïvskiy uzviz is mostly really an open air arts and crafts market, not a professional gallery. But for that, most of what you see is genuine. It’s locally made, more often than not hand made, of natural materials, and generally quite original – even if a little kitschy.

            I’ve been to Montmartre in Paris. Believe me, the paintings they sell there are every bit as kitschy. That seems to be the nature of popular tourist spots.

            What surprised me lately, though, is that prices on the Uzviz have come down over the last few years. And in some cases, the quality has gone up. Maybe there’s more real competition.

            A collection of hand-made traditional embroidered linen shirts were displayed on the wall below the church. I stopped to admire them. Just as I was fingering one of the shirts to buy for my sister – I’ve been promising her one for years –, a woman dressed in traditional costume asked me pleasantly if I was looking for something particular.

            “Just a shirt for my sister. How much are these?”

            “The shorter ones are around Hr 80-150, the longer ones go up to about Hr 250,” she said. Then she began to point out the regional characteristics.

            The high end was still under $50. It used to be the regular-length vyshyvanky started at $50 and went up from there. Long shirts were generally well over the $120 mark.

            I made up my mind. I picked a beautiful, somewhat untraditional blue and green embroidered blouse that matched my sister’s eyes.

            A few steps down from there, I saw some great little ceramic pendants. Cats of all shapes and sizes, including one that looked like it was walking around a green grassy square as you turned the cube-shaped piece. I have at least three friends with pre-teen daughters who would go mad for them, I knew.

            “How much?” I asked. “Not much,” said the stall keeper, a forty-ish Ukrainian with grey hair. “Hr 8.” That’s about a buck fifty. Definitely “not much.”

            I picked through his selection, noticing that each one was slightly different. I chose a black cat, a ginger, and one with spots.

            “You make these?”

            “Sure do,” said the proud artist. “My wife and I do ’em together. Do you want a string with that?”

            “Yes.” He pulled out some suede strings and swiftly looped one through each pendant and tied it off. He put the three into a small plastic bag and handed it to me as I gave him the money.

            “Na zdorovia.” Your health.

            The sun bounced off the cobbles at the first intersection below the church. A pair of musicians were playing violin and dulcimer, known as tsymbaly in Ukrainian. The pleasing tinny sound of the mountain instrument was perfect for the snippets of jazz and bluesy tunes they played. People had stopped to listen on both sides of the street and clapped when they were done.

            Suddenly I heard someone yell, “Hey!” I turned to find an old friend from my early project days, with his wife and a small dark-eyed boy. He’s from Arizona. We shook hands, then embraced.

            “You’re looking good, dude,” I said, pointing at the slight paunch he was developing. “Whatcha up to?”

            “Just got a new gig with a new SME project. This is my wife, Tanya. And my son, Sam. We call him Sasha among Ukrainians. Why don’t we go have a beer someplace and catch up?”

            “I’d like to,” I said, “but I have a concert starting in about 7 minutes flat.” We exchanged numbers and I wandered back up the street.

            At the entry to the church steps, a uniformed guard checked my ticket. I climbed up the stairs, along with an older couple and an English family. We nodded at each other without saying anything.

            Inside, it was cool and dim. I found my seat and leaned back in it to look around. The orchestra was set up in front of a three-story red and gold iconostas. It was filled with more than 20 baroque paintings. Some were portraits of saints, some were scenes. A beam of sunlight was just touching the outer edge of the leftmost painting halfway up the iconostas.

            Two gilded teenage angels sat just above the door to the altar area, which was closed. At the very top were two statues of female saints, woodcarved and painted in the 18th-century style. Everywhere, there was gold and ornate framework resembling leaves and antlers.

            The genius behind this gem of a church was an Italian architect by the name of Rastrelli.

            When I looked out the windows to either side of the nave, I could see fat white clouds scuttling along in a bright blue sky.

            Just then, the conductor came out. Everybody applauded.

            The music started. It was Bach’s concerto for two violins.

            As I sat there, I thought to myself, this is why I’m still here in Kyiv. •

–from the notebooks of Pan O.

RC#52: Fawlty Forbes

published in Eastern Economist #438, June 25, 2002
A famous American came to town June 19 to tell Ukraine how it can attract investment. Steve Forbes also urged Ukrainians to speed up integration into Europe.

            Mr. Forbes is a publishing magnate who ran unsuccessfully for President of the US. For some reason, President Kuchma invited him to Ukraine to discuss Ukraine’s economic situation and its investment climate. Forbes also delivered a lecture to students at the Institute of International Relations.

            This is the man who openly stated, during his presidential election campaign, “My father once spent $5 million on a birthday party for himself in Tangiers. Why can’t I spend a few more running for President?”

            Lest anyone doubt Mr. Forbes’ seriousness, he also said, “In their late 40s, Forbes men’s hormones seem to change. Pop started riding motorcycles. I would say running for president qualifies.”

            To crown the gentleman’s visit to Kyiv, Foreign Minister Anatoliy Zlenko named Mr. Forbes a “Ukrainian business ambassador” for his “significant contribution to the development of Ukrainian-American business contacts.”

            Just how has Steve Forbes contributed?

            His father’s flagship publication, Forbes Magazine, is known for never publishing bad press about any major advertiser*. A cozy relationship that puts the independence of many media in the US in question. And not unlike the relationship between many journalists and their publishers in Ukraine.

            Perhaps Ukraine should have thought to pay Forbes for some advertising in his magazine back in 1993. But it was struggling with thousand-fold inflation and had other things on its mind.

            In the event, Forbes has published at least two headline grabbing articles about the country.

            The first piece was a June 1993 interview with the founder of IntelNews, a Ukrainian-American from Baltimore. The headline read along the lines, “If you thought business was rough, try working in Ukraine, where business rivals can kidnap you at gunpoint.”

            “That was no business rival, it was her alcoholic boyfriend,” explained an American who worked for the company at the time. Ukrainian staff at the agency corroborated his statement. Not understanding the clout of a magazine like Forbes, they just thought the whole thing was funny.

            With a little professional checking, the Forbes interviewer would have found out that the story was bogus. Instead, Forbes left its tens of thousands of business readers with the impression that Ukraine was a cross between 1920s Chicago and the Belgian Congo in the 1960s.

            In September 1996, Forbes published an article by Paul Klebnikov called “Tinderbox.”

            The impression was that it was written sometime in 1991, when the rest of the world thought the August putsch in Moscow would herald dozens of ethnic wars as the Soviet Union broke up. Everyone thought soviet citizens would be starving by winter.

            Given that the region was not very accessible to foreigners in 1991, some misperceptions of this kind might have been forgivable in the early 1990s. But by 1996, dozens of world media groups had correspondents and stringers working in Kyiv. Visiting Ukraine was as straightforward as visiting Italy.

            Mr. Klebnikov’s article portrayed Ukraine as a country where ethnic tensions were at the explosive stage. “Russia is now a democracy,” Mr. Klebnikov wrote, “and the Russian president cannot ignore the pleas of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine if they ask for his help.” The suggestion seemed to be that Russian troops ought to cross the border into Ukraine just as they had done in Chechnya.

            Forbes seemed to be promoting a fairly bizarre definition of “democracy.”

            Mr. Klebnikov went on to compare Ukraine to war-torn Yugoslavia. It was a cheap shot, given that Ukrainian soldiers were risking their lives in Bosnia, serving with international peacekeeping forces.

            The article caused outrage in the Ukrainian communities of the US and Canada. But their many letters to the editor were dismissed. Because these were not subscribers, the Forbes editor said, the publication felt no need to concern itself.

            When word got out, the American Chamber of Commerce in Kyiv prepared a letter to the editor.

            “The board of American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine has decided that it behooves us, as the main private-sector representatives of American business interests in Ukraine, to go on the record as strongly disapproving of the kind of biased journalism that this article represents, particularly since it concerns the region of the world where we are all engaged in doing business,” read a memo that went out to members on Oct. 18, 1996.

            “We are concerned that your correspondent, Mr. Klebnikov, has done America’s business leaders – your readership – a great disservice. We are concerned, as Americans doing business in Ukraine since 1991, that Mr. Klebnikov appears to have his own agenda and produced a pretty well-executed hatchet job, rather than writing in the best interests of serious American investors who read your publication to find information on which they can base their business and investment decisions.”

            Given Mr. Forbes’ legendary arrogance and aggressiveness, he may be operating on a simple rule. If readers don’t know any better, editors can put whatever spin on things they pretty well want. As long as it sells copy.

            At best, Forbes’ magazine has questionable checks and balances on its journalists. At worst, it has its own hostile agenda towards Ukraine and Ukrainians.

            My question is, What is this country doing giving Steve Forbes an award as “Ukraine’s business ambassador”? •

–from the notebooks of Pan O.

* For those who are interested in a business analysis of Steve Forbes, an article entitled “A Failed Manager With No Real World Experience” is available at www.realchange.org.

RC#51: The Dumpsters

published in Eastern Economist #437, June 18, 2002

Dumping is not a pretty word. Among its many not-too-graceful meanings is the idea of someone eliminating undesirable or ultra-cheap products on unwitting trading partners.

            This meaning has been been around for some time. Most baby-boomers had their first exposure to international “dumping” back in the seventies.

            At the time, the US Food and Drug Administration had declared a well-known infant milk formula unfit for American babies. The big-name manufacturer, Nestlé, turned around and distributed tens of thousands of tons of the now worthless, unhealthy formula in third world countries. No doubt it got a huge tax write-off, while poor Indian and African mothers gratefully fed the stuff to their babies.

            This kind of dumping kept coming up over and over again with US companies. Mostly when one of them wanted to salvage costs on a product that had gone bad. Most dumped products were health-related, from birth control devices (including the lethal Dalkon Shield) to personal care products.

            Whenever it came to light, this raised a hue and cry in America. “What business do we have selling off or giving to poor countries, products we ourselves wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole?” people asked themselves.

            Gradually, the brouhaha would die down, however, and most Americans went on with their usual business.

            Over the decades, as a variety of free trade associations were set up and GATT turned into the WTO, the meaning of “dumping” shifted. Now, Americans began accusing second and third world countries of doing it to the US!

            The more the US insisted that its neighbors and partners remove barriers with the US, the more the US itself began to accuse neighbors, partners and underdeveloped countries of “subsidizing” trade in key commodities. Soon countries in Europe and elsewhere were playing copycat.

            It got really bad when the Soviet Union fell apart. Suddenly, the closed circle of soviet industry was opening itself to outside markets. Russians began pumping out oil and gas. Ukrainians began rolling out steel.

            The difference was, countries like Ukraine weren’t dumping a bad product. Judging from the hue and cry, American companies were more than happy and willing to buy the product.

            Of course, Ukrainian steelworkers were lucky if they got $25 a week, let alone $25 an hour. So the Ukrainians were able to sell a standard product at below standard prices.

            That’s what got the American steel lobby’s goat.

            “Foul!” they cried. “Ukrainians are dumping steel on our doorstep.”

            The truth was, the US steel industry was in a mess. It’s been that way since the 1970s when the mini steelmills began taking business from the Bethlehems and the US Steels. The Big Boys refused to see the writing on the wall and were struggling to survive.

            Of course, their extravagantly paid unionized workers were fighting change just as much as management was.

            And elected officials backed them all the way. Back in May 1997, Sonny Callahan, a Republican congressman from Alabama, accused Ukraine of being “the Nº1 violator” of dumping laws in the US market. “This must cease, and cease now.” Of course, his posturing had the support of a great southern politician by the name of Jesse Helms.

            Over the years, hundreds of anti-dumping suits were launched against Ukraine and other countries. Time and again, exhorbitant tarriffs were slapped on steel and other commodities. Essentially, it’s a means of levelling the price – and continuing to pay US subsidies to those same inefficient domestic industries.

            In an era of Free Trade Agreements with every possible combination of regional neighbors, the concept of “dumping” in the sense that it is now being used makes little sense. It’s mostly protectionism in another guise: “Your products undercut ours because you’re not at our standard of living, so we won’t trade with you.”

            Meanwhile, the “anti-dumping” tarriffs the US keeps slapping on cost countries like Ukraine amounts in real lost business similar to what the US claims is lost to pirated CDs every year. Except that Ukraine has a microscopic GDP compared the US. Who should be crying “Foul!” in this instance?

            The Economist has long been very critcal of US protectionism in steel and farming. It wrote in late May, that, since February, the big US steel firms “are returning to profitability with unseemly haste.” Yet the latest customs duty raised in March was “only third or fourth” among factors behind this turnaround.

            In fact, having cut off cheap exports, the US is now facing an apparent shortage of 8.5mn t of steel!

            In the meantime, countries like Malaysia and Peru have begun suing Ukraine, too.

            Imagine what would have happened in the western world had anti-dumping laws been applied to Taiwan, Japan or Korea in the 50s, 60s and 70s?

            There would be no Asian tigers today. (I can just hear Rep. Callahan howling, “Darn tootin’, that’s exactly my point!”)

            Had anti-dumping been a popular trade weapon then, America would not have enjoyed the prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s, which cheaper consumer good spurred. The Asian tigers would never have materialized to spur radical improvements in the electronics and car markets we all benefit from today. Asia would never have become the formidable consumer market that the West benefits from today.

            That’s why today, it’s equally important for things made in Ukraine, Russia and even Turmenistan to be welcomed in rich markets. The US and Europe have nothing to lose – except their badly run, highly protected corporate and union crybabies. •

–from the duty-free notebooks of Pan O.

FYI: A statistical factoid. EE Daily had 3 items on steel from June 2001 to February 2002. Since Mar. 4, it has had 26.

RC#50: Land snatch #634

published in Eastern Economist #435, June 4, 2002

Now that the goodwill boys have had their say about beautiful downtown Kyiv [see RC #48]], I want to talk about a couple of not-so-high-profile projects that are going up in my neighborhood. It may be egotistical but, as they say, good works start at home.

            Last November, an unpublished letter was addressed to the executive council or RayVykonKom of the Zaliznychniy District by the director of a company called TOV Okean. (TOV means “limited liability company” in Ukrainian.) Okean requested the lot at the corner of vul. Urytskoho and Kudriashova to be handed over to it for development.

            Now this lot happens to be spitting distance from the spanking new southern train station in Kyiv and the nicely revamped original Vokzal. On that same side, a block away, is a large renovated wholesale market, a traveller’s chapel, and UkrPoshta’s fancy new headquarters.

            On the other side of this lot, one of the Kyiv supermarket chains has apparently bought out the Kruhla Birzha, a one-time circular grain exchange that has seen better days. In the last 5-6 years, this round, glass building has been full of a variety of nondescript businesses.

            Said fenced-in lot also happens to be where I and nearly 300 other local drivers park our cars.

            Apparently there is a comprehensive plan to develop the Solomianka area. KyivMiskBud is the general contractor on the residential projects and Arkada Bank is providing financing in the form of advance payments from buyers [see RC #15]. Of course, none of the residents in the area know anything about this comprehensive plot...er, plan.

            A hop and a skip up the street from the exchange building, a 17-story high-rise apartment building is going up on a ripped-up hillside park. This building was the first developer “snatch” in the neighborhood.

            Let me just remind readers of the story of this particular project. The hill it’s being built on is known as Batiyeva Hora. It’s where Batu Khan supposedly fought one of his deciding battles with the Slavs in Kyiv back in the 13th century. It is – or was – also the only park in a neighborhood of apartment blocks filled mostly with poorer families with small children and pensioners.

            Yet, Valeriy Tytarchuk, the municipal administrator responsible for land use approvals, described this park to EE last fall as “overgrown with bushes that local residents had turned into a garbage dump.”

            In fact, the hill was mostly open parkland. A nice spot to walk the dog, toss a ball with the kids, or hang out with the baby on a summer morning. A few oaks flanked the edges, with a small woods at the far end. A neighbor buried her favorite cat in those woods. “I didn’t see any trash coming or going,” she vouches. “Otherwise, I’d never have buried Mourko there.”

            Without warning, in March last year, the park was torn up and a few days later, a fence went up. Residents were stunned, but apathetic. There had been no notice at all, let alone debate or hearings on the project.

            Since then, the high-rise has been being built. Night and day. In the 15 months that have passed, the project has been going very slowly. Possibly because of the physical obstacles that this unfortunate site presents. It’s a steep, sandy hill destabilized by an underground stream. They only began putting in the framework of the lower floors in the last month.

            Not only has the neighborhood had nowhere to play. With pneumatic hammers are going day and night, it’s also had no peace.

            And now it looks like our neighborhood will have no place to park, either.

            On Mar. 29, the City, by Resolution Nº634, agreed to let TOV Okean start working on a project to develop this parcel of land. In addition to being one of only two car parks in a high-density neighborhood, this particular piece of land apparently is the crossroads for all kinds of cables and conduits for water, heating, electricity, sewage and other utilities. One of the reasons it wasn’t developed earlier.

            But the prospect of making some big bucks is clearly irresistible.

            The resolution, which is intended to “accelerate the construction of a commercial and office center,” allows Okean to start a feasibility study. It also acknowledges that issues of ownership are unresolved.

            At the same time, the document tells Okean to hire a general contractor and start construction while the project documents are still being prepared!

            On Apr. 19, the district passed Resolution Nº480 to implement the City’s decision. Now, the plot of land is described as containing a “temporary open carpark” and the resolution contains an “appeal” to the Vse-Ukrainska Spilka Automobilistiv, its rightful user, to free the land.

            The manager of this lot, Natalia Martysheva, is no slouch. She immediately posted a notice explaining the situation. The drivers all got together just before Easter and volunteered a helpful lawyer.

            The result was a petition to the City and District to oblige the developer to prepare another spot, about 1/4 kilometer further away, as an alternative parking lot. A couple of thousand bucks would probably do it. The land is there, officially allocated and ready to clear.

            So far, since submitting the petition May 7, there’s been no response from either office.

            Meanwhile, Mr. Tytarchuk has been bumped upstairs in the City Administration. No one would answer our questions when we called, except to say he was on two weeks’ vacation. In FSU-speak, that means he’s moving to a new post. Congratulations on a job well done, Mr. T!

            I wonder what kind of car he’ll be driving to his new office… •

–from the notebooks of Pan O.

RC#49: Speakerodeon

published in Eastern Economist #434, May 28, 2002

For anyone who thought marathon dancing was a slow form of torture of poor Depression-era people, there’s a political marathon in the Verkhovna Rada these last two weeks, unwinding like a bad movie from the early years of talkies. You even have lots of funny-looking men running around like a 1920’s actor searching for his bow-lipped mistress in a hallway lined with identical doors.

            After fighting to get back the right to observe their lawmakers in action on radio and television, Ukrainians might be forgiven if they are less than thrilled to watch those programs now.

            Not three months ago, Ukrainians very cleverly eliminated 16 of the 22 “parties” balloting for spots in their legislature. They managed to off such wearing folks as the Progressive Socialists led by Ms. Natalia “The Witch” Vitrenko and the Greens under Mr. Vitaliy “Steelworks” Kononov. Not to mention a dozen shiny new clubs filled with friends of Mr. Kuchma.

            Given that last time, in 1998, the VR wasted two entire months s/electing its leadership, it seemed smart to reduce the number of different interest groups, so that the horse-trading might go a bit faster.

            So far, though, two weeks are stretching into three, with very little serious trading and no Speaker in sight.

            The most surprising – and disappointing – aspect of this bad movie is the performance of Viktor Yushchenko. Some of what’s happening could be deliberate efforts to discredit him. But too much of it is his own doing.

            Here’s the man most people in Ukraine, locals and foreigners alike, see as the Great White Hope against a sea of Red Directors.

            Here’s the man who took over the National Bank of Ukraine in spring 1993 and gradually transformed it into a reasonably respectable central bank. He pulled the country through hyperiniflation by choking off massive currency emissions in 1994-5. He oversaw the introduction of a new national currency in 1996. And he helped the country pull through a major financial shock in 1998 that slaughtered the Russian rouble.

            Now Mr. Yushchenko can’t seem to get his priorities straight at all.

            He knew, when the count was in on April 1, that he had, at best, a moral mandate. But he had one.

            He knew who his likely bedfellows would be. If not ZaYedU, all he was left with were the Communists. There was no other group that could give him and his two closest supporters a majority. So he had to put together a deal his rank and file would accept.

            He also must have known that the longer the Speaker selection process went on, the more likely that independents would drift over to his opponents. So he had to put together a deal that would go through with very few hitches.

            In other words, Mr. Yushchenko had his work cut out for him.

            But that’s what he had to expect, as the leader of the first post-independence political organization that is not tied to the past or to the president. And even more so if he has any presidential aspirations.

            So what are all these wretched propositions that he keeps dragging out like half-shorn sheep to the slaughter?

            First Mr. Yushchenko talks about voting for Mr. Lytvyn as Speaker. Then he talks about voting for Communist Adam Martyniuk as Speaker. “Over my dead body,” says 82-year-old Mrs. Slava Stetsko, whose husband fought the communists with Stepan Bandera.

            Then Mr. Yushchenko says, “Since we can’t get consensus on three candidates, let’s try to put together a slate with 53 different posts at the same time. And for good measure, let’s amend the Constitution.”

            Next there’s a vote and nearly 100 ballots disappear and Mr. Yushchenko and his strange bedfellows are suddenly pointing fingers at each other and crying foul.

            What funny mushrooms has Mr. Yushchenko been served for breakfast?

            Meanwhile, Mr. Lytvyn is getting ruder. Mr. Medvedchuk is getting ruder. Mr. Zadorozhniy is getting ruder. They’re just smoking cigarettes and watching Mr. Yushchenko trip over his own shoelaces.

            The only things on Mr. Yushchenko’s side right now are democratic process and a big chunk of the Ukrainian population. But if he fails to use the former effectively and boldly, he will rapidly lose the latter.

            If Mr. Yushchenko thought Mr. Medvedchuk was a vengeful sort [see “A site to behold” RC #415)], then, in the person of Volodymyr Lytvyn, we are talking about a fish of a much smellier sort.

            Mr. Lytvyn is a nebbish. Moreover, everybody knows it. But he’s also got the personality of a pit bull, and he won’t let go of the Speaker position until a tank runs over him. (Don’t anybody get any ideas, there!)

            The best way to deal with Mr. Lytvyn is to put him in, with two very smart, strong and savvy people as his deputies. And to vote non-confidence in him as soon as possible. “Out, damned silver-haired slimeball!”

            Mr. Yushchenko, get yourself some good advisors. No, let me rephrase that. Get yourself one good advisor, preferrably not your old Rukh buddies, not your charming wife, not some sleazy businessman, not a politician – if at all possible.

            Someone outside the whole mess. Someone really sharp who really cares about this country.

            Then, listen to him or her.

            Really listen.

            And do what is necessary to keep the faith of those who voted for you on Mar. 31. •

–from the notebooks of Pan O.

RC#48: The goodwill boys

published in Eastern Economist #433, May 21, 2002

“Kyiv is an exceptionally eclectic city architecturally. This allows it to embrace almost any architectural form. But too many architects have taken advantage this eclecticism and abused it.”

        This sums up a hot debate I watched Thurs­day night on Studio 1+1’s talk show, “Ya tak du­mayu” – “That’s what I think.” The topic was the development of downtown Kyiv, with Serhiy Babushkin, the city’s chief architect and the guy who’s John Hancock you need if you want to put up so much as a dog house in Kyiv, in the hot seat.

        With Mr. Babushkin was a white-haired gen­tleman by the name of Oleksandr Komarovskiy, the architect responsible for the Maidan Nezalezhnosti project.

       Being a true product of the soviet privileged class known as the nomenklatura, the suave Mr. Babushkin was highly disinclined to listen much to his fellow guests or to answer directly any questions from the presenter.

        “We’ve done more to build up the central parts of Kyiv in the last six years than in the last 20,” said Mr. Babushkin. “I don’t need any referen­dum. The happy faces I see on the Maidan, people climbing into the fountains, taking each other’s pictures – that’s the best vote for me and every Monday I go to work happy that I’ve seen that.”

       Being of a soviet generation that thought any speech under 57 minutes was just an interrupted anecdote, Mr. Komarovskiy was disinclined to stop ranting once he got started.

       “You can’t compare the present Maidan with the old fountains and what was build in another epoch. Time has come for the Maidan to become a favorite place for a new generation. You’ll see what it looks like when the fountains are working and everything else. It’s all on a European level of qual­ity.” Etc, etc.

        Given the fact that the statue of Ukraina is al­ready listing forward, less than a year after installa­tion, I’m not sure what Europe Mr. Komarovskiy has in mind.

       There’s another European concept that I have questions about. It’s called town planning and vision.

        Now, I’ll be the first to agree that you can’t build by committee. Yet when a city plans, it ought to be thinking about what that development will mean over many years. It’s not just building a sin­gle house for a particular family. It’s building an environment for tens or hundreds of thousands – even millions – of people. It’s building something more than one administration will have to deal with.

        Build a bad road and you have to rebuild it a year or two or five later. If you’re into laundering money or buying tiles from your son’s factory, fine. At least try to fix up a new location each time, rather than redoing what was badly made the first time around!

        One woman on the show put it beautifully. “A city is a living, evolving thing. It continues to grow and change forever. There’s never a moment when it is complete or perfect, so every moment it must be the best that it can be for its residents in the first instance.”

        Whatever today’s administration plans now will affect what can be planned in the future. Even if it’s an authoritarian regime that simply tears ev­erything down arbitrarily only to put something else up in its place equally arbitrarily.

        “The residents are affected by any city con­struction,” said one of the talk-show guests. “It af­fects their daily lives and their world view. It affects them continually, every day that they use the city and its infrastructure.”

        And these people should be heard – even if, in the end, they are not entirely listened to, for le­gitimate reasons. It’s called building goodwill. A thoroughly European concept.

        But what’s going on in Kyiv is looking worse than building by committee. It’s building without planning, consultation, debate or taste.

         Take the remnants of the original gates which were found under the Maidan.

        Olha Petrova, an art and architectural critic on the show, said, “What a travesty this whole pro­cess has been! When any normal country uncovers a Pompei – which is what was found under the Maidan – these things are preserved. Why were they not preserved in Ukraine?”

        To which Mr. Komarovskiy replied: “Our ar­chaelogical group did what they could to preserve and they fulfilled their program. Of course, there were some difficult situations and things were lost, but I challenge anyone to do better in the circum­stances we were working in.” Etc, etc.

         Take Mr. Babushkin’s notion that the happy faces on the Maidan are a vote for his project.

         In what sense are they? Why should people let his bad planning spoil their happy day in the sun? They’re used to hanging out on the Maidan every weekend. They’ll just learn to ignore the mish-mash of unrelated sculptures and the obstruc­tive conservatory roofs.

        “Nobody is being driven underground,” is Mr. Babushkin’s response. “If it doesn’t appeal to you, don’t go there.”

        Maybe Mr. Babushkin should ask how many people are worried that the roadway could collapse onto the underground mall with time. Or that a well-placed rock will shatter the glass in the mall skylights. Ask how many have tripped walking down the halls of Metrograd with its barely visible half-steps.

        The fact that people adapt is not a sign of approval. In fact, during a telephone poll during the show, 88% of callers said they wanted some say in future developments in Kyiv.

        Goodwill boys, take heed. •

–from the notebooks of Pan O.