#40_1-8

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 No.40 JUNE 26, 2018 DAY AFTER DAY WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA By Ivan KAPSAMUN, Valentyn TORBA, photos by Ruslan KANIUKA, The Day Anew security law, “On National Security of Ukraine,” was passed in Ukraine last Thursday, with 248 MPs voting for the presidential bill. The previous law, “On the Fundamentals of National Security and Defense,” had been adopted as far back as 2003. According to Ihor Smeshko, former chief of the Security Service of Ukraine, the latter was “reasonable and balanced enough.” “The law was passed when General Yevhen Marchuk was Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council and I was his first deputy and, therefore, directly participated in drawing up the law. So, I wonder why we were never asked, as experts, to voice our opinion on the new bill. As is known, it calls for repealing three laws now in force,” Smeshko told The Day (article “On unity,” No. 21, April 3, 2018). The laws in question are “On the Fundamentals of National Security of Ukraine,” “On Democratic Civilian Control over the Military Organization and Law-Enforcement Bodies of the State,” and “On the Organization of Defense Planning.” What is written in the new law? Firstly, it lays down the basic principles of national security and defense, the objectives and guidelines of governmental policies which will guarantee society and every individual protection against dangers. More in detail, it specifies the President of Ukraine’s powers to exercise strategic command of the National Guard via the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces when martial law has been declared. The law also sets out that the minister of defense and his deputies are to be appointed from among civilians and that the offices of Chief of the General Staff and Commanderin-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be separated. The Armed Forces’ commander-in-chief is to be appointed and dismissed by the president at the formal request of the defense minister to whom he is subordinated, while the chief of the General Staff is subordinated to the Armed Force’s commander-in-chief. The document is the first step in bringing the uniformed services into line with NATO standards. In particular, the status of the Security Service (SBU) is changing – from now on it will be a special body with lawenforcement functions, which ensures state security, while strictly observing the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Investigating economic crimes is now beyond the SBU’s competence. However, this triggered heated debates in parliament. Particularly, MPs Hanna Hopko and Svitlana Zalishchuk insisted that changes about stripping the SBU of the function to combat corruption and organized crime be introduced directly to the law on the Security Service, but none of their amendments were supported. The law separates defense forces and security forces. From now on, defense forces are to take relevant measures to ensure defense of the state and military security, whereas security forces are supposed to ensure Ukraine’s state and community security. Besides, the Law “On National Security of Ukraine” introduces democratic civilian control over the security and defense sector, including on the part of the Verkhovna Rada and the public. The document says that allocations for the security and defense sector should make up at least 5 percent of the planned GDP, of which 3 percent will be spent on funding the Armed Forces. Ihor Smeshko is rather critical of the new law. “I can conclude from what I saw that it is in fact a collection of political slogans that do not explain the essence of the law’s name and considerably worsen governance in the sphere of defense and national security,” he says. (For more details, see the abovementioned interview.) Logically enough, the pro-presidential PPB faction came to a positive conclusion. According to MP Ivan Vynnyk, the bill signals the beginning of the Ukrainian army’s transition to NATO and EU standards. “An essential innovation is introduction of parliamentary and civil control over the Armed Forces and volunteer formations,” the party’s press service quotes the MP as saying. What do The Day’s experts think of the new draft law? ● “IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO PASS THIS LAW IN THE VERY BEGINNING” Dmytro TYMCHUK, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament: “The law on national security should lay the groundwork for all the reforms associated with the security and defense sector and aimed at Euro-Atlantic integration. We are really in the mess, for we have put the wagon ahead of the horse. There was a Ministry of Defense concept, and there was a Strategic Bulletin – already a road map for THE LAST CORRECTIONS carrying out reforms in line with Belatedbut indispensable What do The Day’s experts think of the new Law “On National Security of Ukraine”? NATO standards. These documents are being actively implemented today, and military control bodies are being reformed. But it is all details. We need a law that will basically determine interconnection between reformation processes and become a reference point of sorts for reforms in the sectors of security and defense. And it is very important to provide for the security and defense sector. It should be a single MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AFTER VOTING FOR THE LAW ON NATIONAL SECURITY body. The problem of interaction between the uniformed services has been very acute since the first days of Russia’s war against Ukraine. But, of course, it would have been better to pass this law in the very beginning. We are late here to some extent. “To tell the truth, there is a traditional rivalry between special services, between intelligence and other branches… And this rivalry has existed since the beginning of independence. Nobody wants a rivaling body to penetrate into an alien territory and begin to establish their own order. It is this approach that hinders interaction. Now our goal is to break these stereotypes and switch to NATO standards in the finest sense of the word. It is not the compatibility of gun calibers that matters to NATO. What really matters to them is effectiveness of defense and security in the country as a whole. The No. 1 thing is to standardize legislation, which we are busy with now. One should also take into account that NATO standards have been honed for dozens of years and are the most effective, and we need them not only for moving towards the Alliance but also, and first of all, for boosting the effectiveness of our security and defense sector.” ● “IN REALITY, THIS LAW SETS OUT A RIGID CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR TWO PEOPLE – THE PRESIDENT AND THE RNBO SECRETARY” Valentyn NALYVAICHENKO, former chief of the Security Service of Ukraine: “In the text of the Law on National Security, I first of all see the increase of the existing and the provision of new supervisory powers of the National Security and Defense Council (RNBO) secretary. I can see strict subordination of security and defense powers to the president and the RNBO secretary. “Secondly, whether or not parliament wanted it, it is unexpected to me, and I don’t think it is a right measure – parliament gave up supervision over almost all the governmental bodies in the defense and security sector, including the SBU. It is accountability and many other ways of control. The law demands that all security agencies submit a written report to parliament once a year only. This innovation considerably narrows parliamentary control over the security and defense sector. “Thirdly, societal control. In reality, this law does not introduce any forms of societal control. On the contrary, it narrows them. Societal control is confined to participation in discussing certain matters – no more than this. I remind you that societal control in accordance with European norms is a possibility to monitor the legality of all the law-enforcement and security bodies’ activity. The law absolutely ignores this important moment. I think our European partners will first of all criticize us for failure to introduce this kind of societal control. “Fourthly and mainly, my expert opinion is that lawmakers did not dare write in the passed law that protecting the security of every individual is the No. 1 task of security and defense bodies. I emphasize this. This law is about national security, but where is security of the Ukrainian citizen? “In general, what is written in this law concerns the activities of RNBO. There is nothing new in it. In reality, the current law on national security set out a rigid chain of command for two people – the president and the RNBO secretary. But it still says nothing about counterintelligence or an antiterrorist center. Instead, this law simply repeats provisions of the existing laws – a juridical tautology of sorts.”
WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA DAY AFTER DAY No.40 JUNE 26, 2018 3 By Natalia PUSHKARUK, The Day Recently, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko made two new appointments to the Ukrainian diplomatic service: he approved the appointment of retired Ukrainian army commander Lieutenant-General Petro Lytvyn as our ambassador to Armenia, and that of Ihor Tumasov as ambassador to the Republic of Peru. The decrees have been made public on the website of the Presidential Administration. The decision to appoint Lytvyn caused a wave of dissatisfaction. After all, the official biography of Lytvyn makes clear that he graduated from Kyiv Armor Engineering Academy, the National Defense Academy of Ukraine and served in various officer postings. However, it lists no experience in the diplomatic service. In addition, there have been numerous damaging media reports, most recently repeated by MP Yurii Bereza, who said in the chamber on June 20: “This is the Lytvyn who abandoned his soldiers in the Sector D in eastern Ukraine. This is the Lytvyn whose actions might have cost me and my brothers-in-arms our lives.” It is worth recalling that the Lytvyn family is quite prominent in Ukrainian politics. Petro Lytvyn’s brothers Volodymyr and Mykola also held high positions. Volodymyr Lytvyn was speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and chief of the Presidential Administration, while General of the Army of Ukraine Mykola Lytvyn served as chairman of the State Border Guard Service. “I want to remind you that we have a ‘heroic’ little family here, with one of its members sitting here in the chamber, who welcomed the Kharkiv Agreements and has attacked the Ukrainian state and Ukrainians every time he has spoken... And another hero is the newly appointed ambassador of Ukraine to Armenia,” Bereza noted in his speech as well. “Mr. President, look into the eyes of the mothers of those who have not returned from this war..,” the MP continued. “Lytvyn’s appointment confirms the thesis that there is corruption in this chamber... Unfortunately, the aggressor state spends a lot of money to ensure that such people as Lytvyn retain influence on the government policy of Ukraine. I would like to appeal once again to Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Friends, you have crossed the line... I know that such a person would not have been allowed to become ambassador in any other country. Shame on you.” Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Foreign Affairs Hanna Hopko has criticized the president’s decision as well. She reminded those present that her committee had been advocating the norm requiring candidates for ambassadorial positions to undergo preliminary consultations, so as to allow the committee to “sift out unprofessional people who bring dishonor to Ukraine.” “Instead, we have seen Poroshenko appointing his own associates. Are we really so short of people? Is the Ukrainian diplomatic service totally lacking people who can represent Ukraine with dignity? We saw other personnel appointments before. I now understand why Poroshenko has vetoed the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Diplomatic Service,’ which we approved here on April 5 with 276 votes in favor. He did not like consultations in the relevant committee. And this is not about specific people serving on the committee. This is about institutions, about the principle which “Are we really so short of people?” people fought for after the Maidan, I mean ensuring that the institutions defend human rights regardless of who occupies what position,” she said. How are experts commenting on this appointment? ● “WE SEE A WEAK CANDIDATE AND A WEAK POLITICAL DECISION WHICH REFLECTS A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM” Bohdan YAREMENKO, chairman of the board at the Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation: “Appointment of Petro Lytvyn as ambassador of Ukraine to Armenia illustrates a systemic problem plaguing foreign policy governance in Ukraine. In accordance with the Constitution, the president of Ukraine, unusually for mixed parliamentary-presidential systems, has been given executive powers: he not only represents Ukraine in international relations, but effectively manages all foreign policy activities, and also very carefully protects his right to stay uncontrolled. “Recently, the parliament attempted, with the law ‘On the quainted with a matter, while consultations are a form of approval, and hence a form of control. We, meanwhile, do not have public and parliamentary control over foreign policy activities. Therefore, the president, guided by the belief that he is constitutionally empowered to do so, makes decisions at his own discretion. “In this case, this decision is subject to criticism in every regard. Firstly, the candidate itself looks suspicious. Why is a soldier getting appointed, and not a diplomat, who knows the Armenian language or understands the intricacies of the diplomatic service? Is not there a better candidate? Moreover, that soldier has, unfortunately, a very problematic reputation, which is associated with the Ilovaisk tragedy. In addition, he is a brother of Volodymyr Lytvyn. Obviously, this appointment is based precisely on such connections and nepotism. He has no professional qualities, knowledge, skills needed to serve as an ambassador, especially in such a complex country with which we have a lot of fundamental disagreements. I do not understand why his candidacy is Diplomatic Service,’ to enact provisions requiring consultations in the parliamentary committee when appointing ambassadors, but the president has vetoed it. However, he made a counter-proposal to present candidates for ambassadorial positions to the committee, but presentation and consultations are different things, since presentation is just a way to get people acany better than the candidacy of any department head in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Secondly, why is our ambassador getting appointed to Armenia at all? After all, that country, which is an ally of Russia, officially voted against the UN resolution that supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and therefore, Armenia does not rec- Hanna Hopko, other politicians and experts have sharply criticized the appointment of career soldier Petro Lytvyn as ambassador to Armenia Photo by Ruslan KANIUKA, The Day ognize the territorial integrity of our state. Thus, the absence of a Ukrainian ambassador there can be considered a way of expressing disagreement with its position. This is a weak demarche, but a demarche nevertheless. “That is, we see a weak candidate and a weak political decision that cannot be explained, because we are completely in the dark about personnel selection with its defining principles and criteria, since it happens behind closed doors and shuttered windows in the Presidential Administration. “All this testifies to the fact that the diplomatic service is in a state of decay, and it is probably already as bad as it gets. The foreign policy service has turned into a PR department for the president. And this is not only about Poroshenko, such a situation took shape quite a long time ago, and it was like this, in fact, with all the presidents. The president has the right to appoint ambassadors at his own discretion, but whether this is reasonable and what criteria are used in exercising this right, we do not know. And this is a big problem.” ● “GIVEN THE BAD PUBLICITY, THE PRESIDENT WOULD DO WELL TO EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THE DECISION WAS BASED ON” Vasyl FILIPCHUK, chairman of the board at the International Center for Policy Studies: “There are two major ways of appointing ambassadors around the world. For example, in the US, these are mostly purely political appointments, while in European countries, ambassadors are appointed from among career diplomats. In Ukraine, as a rule, ambassadors are appointed from among high-level career diplomats who have worked for a certain time in the diplomatic service and meet the requirements for an ambassadorial posting. Still, a certain part of the appointments is political by nature: people who have a certain political weight get appointed to such positions. “It is unclear what was the logic behind the appointment of this person as ambassador to Armenia. On the one hand, he is definitely not a career diplomat who has gone down the diplomatic service path and can occupy this post. On the other hand, he is not a politician either. This is the result of some personal decisions on the part of the president. Considering the problematic qualities of this person, he probably had some compelling reasons to make this appointment. “Indeed, Armenia is not a G7 country and not one of Ukraine’s Top 5 priorities. Still, it is an important country for us: we have a large Armenian community, there are certain interests, we have a partnership with Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijani-Armenian relations are very complicated. Therefore, a highly skilled diplomat should be appointed to this post. Requirements are very high there. Everyone in the diplomatic service remembers former Ambassador Oleksandr Bozhko, who served in Armenia for a long time and worked to maintain good relations between our two countries. “Given the bad publicity, the president would do well to explain to the public what the decision was based on. This is not a personal patronage service for the head of state or a position at his factory. These are government positions that require nation-level thinking and statesman-like responsibility. It is doubtful whether the criteria of statesman-like responsibility were in fact met with this appointment. “The question is important and significant in public opinion, therefore the president should explain to the public why he has made such an appointment, and what determined his decision. “Another aspect is that this decision calls into question the credibility of the diplomatic service. We have a lot of good, high-quality career diplomats. The ambassadorial position is not a sinecure. However, the impression is that it is precisely that: if you are a good friend of the president, but he cannot get you a position here, then you can go serve as an ambassador for a good salary, plus you get to use an ambassadorial residence, a car, a chauffeur, and so on. The impression is that decisions are made sometimes to satisfy one’s friends’ avarice. I really do not want this to be true.”
Page 1: JUNE 26 2018 ISSUE No. 40 (1172) Te
Page 5 and 6: WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA TOPIC OF THE DAY No
Page 7 and 8: WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA CULT URE No.40 JUNE

#40_1-8

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?