John McCain on Ukrainian elections

[cherokee]

A Crucial Choice for Ukraine

By John McCain
Tuesday, October 19, 2004; Page A23

One election this year will determine the political destiny of a vitally important country, define its international orientation and test its democratic credentials. I do not refer to the recent free elections in Afghanistan, or the elections next year in Iraq or even our own presidential race. All these are critical in their own right, but so is Ukraine's historic step on Oct. 31. When the Ukrainian people line up that day to select a new president, the world will be watching.

The importance of this election lies not so much in the candidate selected but rather in its indication of whether Ukraine will continue down a democratic path. So far the prospects appear dim. President Leonid Kuchma is retiring, and the two front-runners in the race to replace him are Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. The Ukrainian government has used its tax laws to target Yushchenko and other opposition candidates, denied the opposition equal access to the media, disrupted campaign events, and intimidated candidates and their supporters. Most recently, Yushchenko survived a suspected poisoning that left his face partially paralyzed.

In August I traveled to Ukraine to talk to government officials and opposition candidates. What I found was a sense that Ukraine was moving backward, not forward, on the road to democracy. Not only were the reports of intimidation against the opposition widespread, but there was also a pervasive expectation that the October election -- and the second-round runoff three weeks later -- will be rigged by the government. Already a local election in western Ukraine has been stolen, and there have been balloting irregularities in other local elections.

These developments are disturbing not just because they abridge the political rights of the Ukrainian people but because they cast a shadow over the country's international orientation. Should the government continue this crackdown on the opposition and rig the presidential election, Ukraine's relations with the United States and Europe will inevitably suffer. And if our relations deteriorate, we risk Ukraine slipping further into the Russian orbit.

I believe that, if offered the choice, most Ukrainians would choose a future tied to the West. But many Ukrainians believe that they have been denied this very choice: While the West's door seems closed -- neither NATO nor the European Union has offered Ukraine much hope of joining their organizations anytime soon -- Russia's is always open. It would not be surprising if Ukrainian leaders increasingly aligned their country's ambitions with those of their Russian neighbors. As Zbigniew Brzezinski wisely remarked, with Ukraine subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.

So it is incumbent upon both the Western democracies and the government of Ukraine to reassess where things stand today. The Ukrainian government must end its siege of democracy and make the courageous choice to hold free, fair elections. If it does so, the United States and Europe should pursue an enhanced relationship with Ukraine, looking hard at its eventual membership in NATO and the European Union, expanding our bilateral relations, and determining ways to enhance the trading relationship.

Ukrainian officials must understand that more than their country's future is at stake in this election. Their reputations and their ability to conduct business are also at risk. If the oppression continues and this presidential election is stolen, the United States and Europe should institute visa bans against those responsible. These would not merely limit the ability of these officials to go skiing abroad; the visa bans would handicap their ability to conduct business in Europe and the United States. The Western democracies should also consider implementing other targeted penalties. If Ukraine's leaders wish to take their country further in the direction of Belarus, then they will be increasingly treated by the world like the leader of Belarus -- an international pariah.

This outcome is entirely avoidable, but we should be prepared to move in that direction if necessary. The people of Ukraine are free individuals whose democratic rights are under attack. In his most famous work, the great Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko wrote of his desire for Ukrainian independence, hoping that one day his countrymen would join "the family of the free." The people of Ukraine have achieved this dream, and they have grasped their democratic rights. The question now is whether this love of freedom and democracy is limited to the Ukrainian people, or whether their rulers embrace it as well.

The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona.

[Craigjjs]

... in response to John McCain on Ukrainian elections, posted by cherokee on Oct 19, 2004


I find it fascinating that the good Senator deigns himself qualified to lecture the Ukrainians on democracy and free elections.  Our last election was determined by the Suprememe Court amid astonishing irregularities in the state governed by the winning candidate's brother.  

His concern about the reputation of the Ukraine might be credible if he acknowledged how this country's reputation in the world has been affected by the Iraq war he supports.  If the Senator spent a few minutes talking to Ukrainians, he might learn that one of Yushchenko's greatest liabilities is the perception that he is too close to the U.S. and the Iraq war.  

I would be interested to know whether the Senator has any real position on the Ukraine or just an intern with time to kill.

Craig

[Frank O]

... in response to Re: John McCain on Ukrainian elections, posted by Craigjjs on Oct 21, 2004

NT

[Lynn]

... in response to John McCain on Ukrainian elections, posted by cherokee on Oct 19, 2004

"The question now is whether this love of freedom and democracy is limited to the Ukrainian people, or whether their rulers embrace it as well."

"this love of freedom and democracy".....now isn't that a textbook oxymoron.

But then do most Americans know the difference? Ukrainians?

Many of you have seen the reprint of this document. If you have, it's worth reading again. If you have not, it is worth reading, studying, and reciting to your friends, family, and neighbors. It is copied from Training Manual No. 2000-25 that was published by the then War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official Definition of DEMOCRACY

NOTE

Here are four (4) facsimile section reproductions taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30,1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a Democracy and of a Republic, explaining the difference between both. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction. These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definition stake precedence over any "definition" that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical "modification" to please "the powers in office. Shortly after the "bank holiday" in the thirties, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation. This was the beginning of the complete red control of the Government from within, not from without.

-------------------

Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.

CITIZENSHIP

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Atwood. Superior to all others.--Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

"By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.

WHY DEMOCRACIES FAIL

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.

"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive."

Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, January 25th and 26th, 1951, under the titles- Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless

"This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1964 National Convention: A Time for Choosing