Ukrainian News -- 06 May, 1994

[ Article crossposted from ukr.politics,relcom.politics ]
[ Author was Rostyslav Onyshchak ]
[ Posted on Fri, 06 May 1994 18:28:10 EDT ]

"UKRAINIAN NEWS"
No 17 (142)
May , 1994
Published by
Ukrainian Press Agency

* * * * * * UPRESSA * * * * * * *

EDITORIAL STAFF:
Serhiy Skrypnyk - editor-in-chief, Victor Tkachuk,
Kostyantyn Yerofeev, Vyacheslav Pikhovshek and Dmytro
Polukhovych as free lance.


        The UKRAINIAN PRESS AGENCY was established in
1987 to provide accurate and current information dealing with
all aspects of Ukraine.
        UKRAINIAN NEWS is published four times monthly in
Ukrainian and English by the Ukrainian Press Agency in Kyiv,
a politically independent research and news service.
Subscribers can obtain UKRAINIAN NEWS directly by fax, by
modem and by post from the above number.
        For further information please contact the Ukrainian
Press Agency (Kyiv).

CONTENTS

ANALYSIS
CURRENT INTERVIEW
DOCUMENTS
OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PRESS DIGEST
ANALYSIS
Nomination is over. Who will become candidates?

Victor Tkachuk

Ukrainian taxpayers will have to pay 1618,4 million of
karbovantsi for the forthcoming presidential elections. Only a
week ago, the President's Administration was going to find
better use for this money. Bohdan Ternopilsky, Deputy head
of the Department of territorial issues, said it would be
reasonable to use this substantial sum for health care the
annual budget of which totals to 4,5 trillion karbovantsi.
Arguing for his position, he claimed the election was illegal,
as the decision to hold it had been adopted by the Supreme
Council in contradiction to the Constitution, without prior
referendum about trust in the President. Evidently, this
reflects hesitation in the President's team. However, today
there is one think that raises no doubt: the premature
election will take place. The best proof is that Leonid
Kravchuk was registered as candidate for presidency one day
before the deadline. Hence, the period of uncertainty is over,
because only the acting president could cancel the election.
Obviously, Ivan Plyushch is anything but happy to
have such a serious competitor as Leonid Kravchuk. Head of
the parliament press center Adam Voitovych believes that
emergence of the President will make hesitate those who
were going to support the ex-Speaker. Ivan Plyushch is so
eager to become the President, that he even refused the offer
of his colleagues to nominate him for the speaker again. "I
am not going to try and sit on two chairs",  Mr.Plyushch
confessed, "a speaker would have illegal additional
advantages while running for presidency". However, his
former closest ally and current rival does not care about pre-
election ethics that much. Kravchuk-Plyushch opposition is
not a piece of gossip or contradictory journalists' forecast; it
is a matter of fact.
"I would argue with those who claim that election
commissions are under control of Plyushch", said Adam
Voitovych, one of Pliushch's closest aids in the election
campaign, "Some of regional Election commissions are under
strong influence of Kravchuk's people." He pointed out that
"bureaucratic will" could well disrupt the signature collecting
procedure - for instance, cause delay in issuing and
processing signature sheets. However, this might become a
matter of concern for the President's team as well. Actually,
the winner will be the one who enjoys more popularity,
including popularity among election commission
clerks.Meanwhile, local information suggests that the most
popular is the ex-Speaker. He has already been nominated by
more than 30 working collectives, while Leonid Kravchuk
failed to be nominated in some areas. Naturally, such
information is not disclosed by television, which Plyushch
supporters believe to be totally under Krawchuk's control.
The President has issued an Order recently, "On creating the
National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting". The
fact that Kravchuk appointed his relative Prof.Anatoly
Moskalenko to the Council is interpreted by observers as
enhancing presidential control over TV and radio before the
forthcoming election. This is also confirmed by the fact that
Volodymyr Barsuk, Deputy head of the President's forecast
and analysis service, is another one of seven members of the
Council.
While the two nomenclature leviaphanes are afraid of
each other, ex-Prime Minister Leonid Kuchma gets better
chances to be elected. Recently it seemed that this bright star
would be somewhat put down by the attraction of the "simple
pal" Ivan Plyushch. However, today Kuchma has only one
serious competitor - Volodymyr Lanovy. Both are regarded by
majority of population as reformers who failed and were
dismissed because of their positions.
Another part of simmingly alike, but still competitors,
are Oleksandr Moroz, Chairman of the Socialist Party, and
Petro Symonenko, a leader of the Ukrainian Communist
party. Attraction of the presidential seat damaged friendship
of these two former comrades who had introduced ideas of
Leninism into reality. Oleksandr Moroz also intends to run
for the Speaker position as well. His team overtly claims that
this tactics will help him in the pre-election marathon.
However, according to Adam Voitovych, the Socialist leader
would be quite happy to obtain only the Speaker position,
thus having distributed spheres of influence with Petro
Symonenko.
For other aspirants, there is very low chance to
overcome the 100 000 signature barrier. Each of the three
pairs named above are backed either by a wide-spread
organization (Moroz and Symonenko); or considerable
financial support of businessmen and entrepreneurs (Kuchma,
Lanovy), or feelings of part of influential nomenclature
(Plyushch, Kravchuk). Meanwhile, Mr. Victor Pynzenyk has
neither organization, nor nomenclature.
it is interesting to observe the current re-orientation
of a number of national-democratic parties. After their severe
failure at the parliamentary elections, they are likely to draw
proper conclusions  and have not nominated their candidates
for presidency. Instead, the most influential opposition parties
concentrated on local  authority elections. These local
elections will cost the budget almost twice as much as the
new President: 2,251.5 billion karbovantsi. As to the
presidential election, national democrats still cannot decide
between extremities. For instance, the People's Rukh, whose
leadership reportedly decided to support Volodymyr Lanovy,
switched to Kravchuk as soon as he was nominated. The
notorious Conservative-Republican party of Stepan Khmara
agitates for Ivan Plyushch, who had continuously been
accused of every possible evil by Khmara.
However, the next month is sure to bring us more
surprise. Adam Voitovych, or instance, claims that Plyushch
can change his decision not to run for the speaker position in
case he fails to collect 100 000 signatures. Well, Leonid
Kravchuk has already reconsidered his recent attitude to  the
election. Before his visit to the United States, he stressed he
would not run for the office again, but appeared to be a
"real" master of his word - he might give it as well as take it
back.
EIGHT STEPS TO SOLVING THE BLACK SEA FLEET
QUESTIONS

Taras KUZIO (Honorary Research Fellow, School of
Slavonic & East European Studies, University of London)

THE FAILURE OF ATTEMPTS.

The fifth attempt to the Black Sea Fleet question
failed again after talks broke down between the Russian and
Ukrainian Defence Ministers. Did anybody really expect two
military figures to reach a compromise and agreement? The
Fleet has no strategic or military value, the quarrel over it
purely historical, emotional and financial.
Since the collapse of the former USSR both Russia
and Ukraine have at different times claimed the entire Fleet,
divide it 50:50 or give Ukraine 20-30 percent. None of these
formulas have worked for a number of important reasons that
will continue to prevent an agreement being reached.
The issues which have prevented a solution to the
Fleet question include:
- Ukraine and not Russia, demand an inventory of the
Fleet,
- how do you divide a combined fighting force such
as the Black Sea Fleet. Russia says Ukraine should obtain
only small and coastal vessels. Ukraine demands a share of
the larger ships as well,
- the entire Russian political spectrum, including
Foreign Minister Andriy Kozyrev demand the use of
Sevastopol as the base of the Russian Fleet. President Leonid
Kravchuk agrees that Sevastopol naval base (not the city) can
be leased to Russia and that Ukraine should base its Fleet
elsewhere in Balaklava. Defence Minister Vitaly Radetsky has
argued that both the Ukrainian and Russian Fleets can be
based in different docks in Sevastopol and that the Russian
lease should last five years,
- will the Ukrainian parliament agree to the lease of
Sevastopol naval base? The Russian parliament has
previously opposed a lease because this would imply
international of Ukrainian sovereignty,
- will there be conditions attached to the five year
lease, as proposed by Radetsky? For example, that during
this period the Russian Fleet should be reduced in size?
- the Russian demand for Sevastopol is linked to ins
new security policy towards the former USSR to establish
thirty military bases outside the Russian Federation. The
demand by Grachev to remove all Ukrainian naval forces
from the Crimea and to establish Russian bases in three other
Crimean bases (Kerch, Feodosiya, Balaklava and Donuzlav),
besides Sevastopol, is part of overall Russian strategy to
loosen the Crimea from Ukrainian control. It is no
coincidence that President Yury Meshkov has also demanded
that all Ukrainian armed forces be removed from the Crimea
and that the Black Sea Fleet will then guarantee its security,
- what of the coastal infrastructure and four other
Fleet bases outside the Crimea in Ukraine (Odesa, Izmail,
Ochakiv and Mykolaiv). Grachev claims that the split in the
Fleet also applies to the above bases and infrastructure. It is
highly unlikely Ukraine would agree to this encroachment on
its territory,
- if the Russian Fleet is confined to leasing only Sevastopol
naval base Ukraine would be able to apply pressure though
its control of the infrastructure, supplies and repair yards.

EIGHT STEPS TO SOLVING THE FLEET QUESTION.

A) involve the US in the same manner as the nuclear
weapons, Ukraine and Russia, even at the presidential level,
will never be able to implement any agreement reached by
both presidents. It is in the interests of the US to become
involved because the Fleet question is directly linked to a
threat to Ukrainian territorial integrity which could damage
Ukraine's commitment to denuclearization.
B) accept that the majority of the Fleet apart from a
small number of vessels cannot be divided. Let Russia then
purchase the largest section of the Fleet either in hard
currency or offset against Ukrainian energy debts. The split
can be undertaken quickly within one year after which no
sailors or officers who are Ukrainian citizens should serve in
the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
C) with the help of international lawyers sing a lease
for this Russian Fleet to utilize the Sevastopol naval base for
six years to the year 2,000. The lease should stipulate that it
applies to the base only, not the city, be recognized as an
international legally binding document that recognizes
Ukrainian sovereignty over the city. The lease should also
stipulate that Russia cannot increase its military forces in
Sevastopol during the six year time frame; any attempt to do
so will be regarded as a breach of the lease.
D) to avoid confrontation the Ukrainian and Russian
navies the one year deadline to split the Black Sea Fleet
should have separate bases. The Ukrainian Navy would have
its main base during the six year period in other Crimean and
Ukrainian bases, principally Balaklava and Odesa. All other
naval bases and infrastructure of the former Soviet Black Sea
Fleet in Ukraine, besides Sevastopol, should be taken over by
Ukraine during the one year when the Fleet is to be divided
by 1995.
E) during the six year period until 2,000 Russia
should transfer its share of the Black Sea Fleet to other naval
bases outside Ukrainian territory. The Us should provide
financial aid to help relocate servicemen and their families
from Sevastopol. After 2,000 the naval base of Sevastopol will
then become either Ukraine's principal naval or demilitarized.
F) Ukraine and Russia will be follow this solution to
the Black Sea Fleet question because during the same period
Ukraine will transfer all its nuclear warheads to Russia for
destruction. The US would monitor the simultaneous transfer
during this year period of both nuclear warheads and the
Russian Black Sea Fleet from Ukrainian territory.
G) the foreign ministries of Russia and Ukraine and
international experts should draw up a mutually acceptable
draft treaty by 1995. Both Russian and Ukrainian parliaments
then have one year to ratify the Treaty on Friendship and
Good Neighborly Relations by 1996. The Treaty should
recognize the territorial integrity of both states in
international law and include clauses relating to support for
national minority rights which are the duty of the host
country, not foreign powers, to guarantee.
H) by 2,000 Ukrainian would be both free of nuclear
weapons, Russian and Ukraine sparked by the Black Sea
Fleet, Crimean and nuclear questions would have
disappeared. Ukrainian insecurity from the loss of its nuclear
weapons would be balanced through the strengthening of its
security by the removal of Russian bases beyond its territory
and their support for Crimean separatism. The removal of
Russian naval from the Crimea would dampen support for
separatism.
I) after 2,000 the Crimean republic, as a sovereign
component of Ukrainian territory, could be demilitarized.
Ukrainian armed forces (naval, air force and army) could be
removed to bases within Ukraine with US financial aid.
Ukraine could maintain internal security forces in the Crimea
(Security Service, Ministry of Internal Affairs "Berkut",
National Guard and Border Troops).
Achieving solution to the Black Sea Fleet question
has evaded both Ukraine and Russia during the last three
years. Yet, achieving a solution quickly is in the interests of
both countries, the US and European security generally. The
only potential possibility of a Ukrainian-Russian military
conflict would arise from the Crimean - Black Sea Fleet
questions. Any such conflict could then easily escalate
beyond that in the former Yugoslavia.
Failure to find a solution to the Black Sea Fleet also
sharpens Ukrainian security fears. Continuous pressure by
Russia to lease or give up Sevastopol and other naval bases
in the Crimea go hand in hand with the proposals for
removing Ukraine's military presence from the Crimea, make
Crimeans undertake their military service on the peninsula
and changes of key personnel in the MVD and Security
Service to Meshkov's appointees. Continuous Russian
pressure in support of Meshkov's separatists plans would
severely damage Ukraine's commitment to denuclearization.
The nuclear powers have given security assurances to
Ukraine over its territorial integrity.
These seven steps to solving the Black Sea Fleet
question are all embracing. They would require compromise
on both sides, backed by a US guarantee to observe and
assist in its implementation. It is only through compromises
on both sides that tensions can be lowered, support for
separatism reduced and Russia recognize Sevastopol and the
Crimea as integral components or Ukrainian territory.
CURRENT INTERVIEW

INTERVIEW WITH DEPUTY HEAD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON
TERRITORIAL ISSUES, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE
UKRAINIAN REPUBLICAN PARTY BOHDAN
I.TERNOPILSKY

UPressA: Who will the URP support at the Presidential
election: Plyushch or Kravchuk?
B.T.: At our congress there was an opinion that if
there is no possibility to prevent this premature election, it is
necessary to make our choice and support one of the
candidates. However, as far as I know, Kravchuk will not run
in this election even if it occurs. Being the guarantor of the
Constitution and the legally elected President, he can not be
a candidate at the election which is nonconstitutional.
UPressA: Are you speaking as a politician or as a
representative of the President's administration? Is this your
personal opinion or the President's position?
B.T: This is a fact. The Supreme Council does not
have the right to adopt a decision on new presidential
election even if the President agrees to it.
UPressA: But this decision was adopted under civil
pressure of students, miners on strike, etc...
B.T: Even if angels in Heaven are on strike, the only
decision the Parliament is authorized to adopt is that of a
referendum on trust in President. There is yet another way -
to impeach the president by the decision of the
Constitutional Court. The Court has not been created in this
country; the issue of impeachment has not been raised; and
no referendum has been held. That is why the decision to
hold this premature presidential election is illegal. On the
other hand, the Law on Presidential election is also
nonconstitutional, since it was not adopted by the
constitutional majority.
UPressA: But the President himself has never spoken
about this?
B.T: This is his business - to speak or not to speak.
For the legitimate president it would be funny to participate
in an illegal election.
UPressA: Hence, Plyushch and other candidates for
presidency are breaking the law?
B.T: They are acting according to violation of the
Constitution by the former Supreme Council. I believe the
President should have taken measures to protect the
Ukrainian Constitution and withdraw his signature from this
law. Actually, he agreed to sign this law while stating that
was being done under pressure and that he caring for the
Ukrainian people's interests. Moreover, as you remember,
then it suggested only about the parliamentary and the
presidential elections and nothing had been said about
electing heads of local authorities. The current situation
reminds of 1920s when every village council declared
independence of its village. This is mere chaos, and it leads
to the collapse of Ukraine.
UPressA: What are legal means to chancel the
decision you consider illegal?
B.T: The best way would be to have at least one-third
of new MPs to address the President urging to halt this
process, and to suspend it until the new Parliament adopts a
decision on the issue. Plenty of money has been wasted, and
the election machine rotates at the top speed. The country is
lacking fuel and medicine, while budget money is thrown to
break down Ukraine.
UPressA: Is it possible to do so?What is you opinion
about the parliamentary election results?
B.T: I am negative about them. I can not regard these
elections as democratic. Obviously, this is what our society
appears to be today. However, I don't think the new
parliament is worse than the previous one.
UPressA: But this time democrats won less seats than
four years ago.
B.T: I don't know how many seats democrats had in
the former parliament. You see, this notion "democrats"...
UPressA: Who will your party's small faction bloc
with?
B.T: As a member of the party's leadership, I will
advocate the idea of blocking with parliamentary groups
which share URP's interests. For instance, we stand for a
presidential-parliamentary republic with elements of
presidential rule for the transition period. We will temporary
bloc with those who support this idea. It is absurd to divide
the parliament into democrats and partocrats again. I would
not wish to have anything in common with some of so-called
"democrats"
I will talk to MPs, and to everybody who might have
an impact on this summer "power reform"; and I believe there
will be enough votes to cancel the presidential election.
UPressA - Thank you.
DOCUMENTS
STATEMENT
OF THE UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY PRESS SERVICE

Sevastopol, April 21-22, 1994. Ukrainian and Russian
military delegations met for negotiations in Sevastopol. The
negotiations were aimed at considering the issues of
realization of the agreement on step-by-step division of the
Black Sea Fleet, and temporary separate bases.
The Ukrainian party, striving for realistic and
mutually acceptable solution, suggested a step-by-step
approach to regulation of the issue, and forwarded several
possible variants. Argumentated position of the Ukrainian
military allowed to reach agreement on principal quantitative
dimensions, including a list of ships and vessels of the Black
Sea Fleet supposed to become a part of the Ukrainian Navy.
Regretfully, the problem of temporary Russian Navy
base at the Ukrainian territory has not been solved.
According to the necessity to divide the two
countries' fleets, as provided by the agreement signed on
April 15, 1994, the Ukrainian party suggested several options
for bases, including separate basing of the Ukrainian and
Russian Navies at different sites in Sevastopol.
The Russian party insisted on basing the Russian
Navy at all Crimean sites, while leaving the Ukrainian Navy
outside the peninsula. The Ukrainian delegation argued and
proved that creation of a viable Ukrainian Navy is impossible
without bases in the Crimea. However, Russia's approach has
not changed. Moreover, unwilling to follow common sense,
and understand the lawful Ukraine's position as to locating
its Navy bases on its own territory, the Russian delegation
broke the negotiations and disappeared without any
explanations at the very moment when the experts were
trying to fix a number of dimensions and provisions already
agreed.
The Ukrainian Defense Ministry Press Service is fully
authorized to state that the Ukrainian party regrets this
behavior of the Russian delegation that contradicts
international negotiation ethic norms. Moreover, after the
recent Ukrainian-Russian summit brought forth real
opportunities for solution of the Black Sea Fleet issue. The
Ukrainian Defense Ministry refers all responsibility for
disruption of the negotiations to the Russian party and
informs about their willingness to continue the negotiations
any time.
TO PEOPLE'S DEPUTIES OF UKRAINE
ON FORMATION OF THE 'CENTER' MP GROUP

We propose to create a group of MPs of constructive
centrist orientation.
At the Ukrainian Parliamentary elections, most of
seats in the Supreme Council were won by candidates who
stood for enhancing of Ukrainian statehood and were
nominated by working collectives and groups of voters.
Voters based their decision on candidate's personality, his life
position, experience of state, governing, management or civil
activities, human features and attractions of his pre-election
program. These candidates' programs featured thoughtful
approach, aimed at constructive participation in development
of Ukrainian statehood, reasonable reforming of the political
system, economy, and other spheres of social life, at people's
well-being.
These MPs are characterized by considerable
intellectual potential, strive for co-operation and
collaboration. Although, separately, the will not be able to
use their potential efficiently.
The situation in the new parliament poses an
objective necessity for independent MPs to unite into a
centrist parliamentary group. This group will not hesitate to
forward an initiative and develop its own position, motivated
by the people's and the state's interests, and common sense,
and involve MPs of other groups. In future, the parliamentary
group will be able to become a professional and creative
nucleus of the Ukrainian Supreme Council able to play a
consolidating role in legislation and bringing the country out
of the crisis, and providing for its gradual development.
According to the abovementioned, we forward the
initiative to create the 'Center' MP group.
The 'Center' parliamentary group sees its main task
in creating a faction bloc for effective political and economic
reforms, aimed at amelioration of living standards, enhancing
discipline and order in the state, providing for fruitful
activities of the Ukrainian Supreme Council.
Those striving to work for independent Ukraine and
its people, who are willing to join the 'Center' parliamentary
group, are asked to sign this appeal.

Initiative group.
Presently, over 30 MPS have joined the 'Center'.

POLITICAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL BASIS OF THE
'CENTER' MP GROUP

Aims and Tasks of the MP group
The 'Center' MP group sees its aims in:
- uniting intellectual and organizational potential of
MPs for solution of tasks challenging Ukraine; fulfillment of
their pre-election programs; streamlining their actions;
- assisting MPs in realization of their right for
legislative initiative;
- development of a common position on issues
discussed at parliamentary sessions; and making the Supreme
Council aware of the group's position;
- reaching agreement in forming organs of executive
and juridical power, individual elections, appointments,
dismissals;
- providing for representation of the group in all
Supreme Council bodies and official parliamentary
delegations;
- establishing contacts and collaboration with other
parliamentary groups; search for ways of achieving concensus
on individual issues.
Conditions of joining the MP group
MPs join the group on the basis of common principle
provisions of their pre-election programs.
Mandatory conditions for joining the 'Center' group
include:
- approval of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of
Ukraine and the Act of Independence of Ukraine; standing
for territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine's borders;
- recognition of the necessity of market-oriented
economic reform and respect to equal rights of all forms of
property and household;
- participation in searching for ways and means to
halt free fall of living standards; and providing for social
security of the population; especially for its most vulnerable
part; opposing any attempts to use the hard living conditions
of the people for pursuing destructive political aims;
- willingness to establish friendly relations with other
states on the basis of universal principles of international law,
wide economic integration with the CIS countries, gradual
enhancing of Ukraine's participation in European and global
economic institutions;
- supporting political system reform aimed at creation
of a civil society and building a law-governed state;
- compliance with constitutional norms and
regulations adopted by the current legislation in solution of
all issues; negation of non-parliament and force methods; as
well as destructive activities within the Supreme Council:
session disruption, boicotts, etc;
- active participation in efforts aimed at developing
and enhancing civil peace and good relations in the society;
negation of war propaganda, class hatred, international,
interregional or interconfessional enmity;
- compliance with principles of the universal
Declaration of Human Rights;
- recognition of a multiparty system; the right of a
personality for views different from those of the MP;
- assisting to combatting crime, in particular,
organized crime.
Organization of the group's activities
The group is created on the basis of benevolence.
A people's deputy is regarded as a member of the
group after signing this document. A people's deputy has the
right to leave the group having submitted the necessary
petition. In case of failure to comply with the admission rules,
the people's deputy can be expelled by a decision of the
general meeting.
The parliamentary group acts overtly and decides all
its issues by broad and democratic discussion by majority of
MPs present at the meeting. A meeting is considered valid if
attended by more than half of the group's members.
A position of the group on an individual issue does
not deprive any of the deputies from the right to vote
according to his own opinion.
In order to provide for organizational functions of the
group, a Coordinative Council of five coordinators is
established, who chair the group's meetings in turn.
The Coordinative Council represent the PM group in
relations with Supreme Council's leaders and bodies, other
parliamentary groups and foreign parliamentary delegations.
The Coordinative Council provides the group's
members with all information available on the decision to be
adopted.

ON ELECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, HEADS
AND DEPUTIES OF LOCAL COUNCILS
RESOLUTION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY CONGRESS OF
THE UKRAINIAN REPUBLICAN PARTY

Last autumn, the Ukrainian Supreme Council
appointed the pre-term elections of the Ukrainian President,
heads and people's deputies of local Councils for June 26,
1994. The election process has already started. Unfortunately,
we regret to admit that with no developed power structure
subordination and responsibility principles, these elections
mean initiation of disarray in the state.
The idea to hold this grand action in June is absurd
also because it would distract agricultural and industrial
workers from preparation to harvest time and involve them in
political battles, meetings with numerous candidates which
would inevitable mean extensive expenditures. Moreover, the
elections are very much likely to be invalid, as majority of
voters will be reluctant to participate. No doubt, large
number of bills and candidates at such elections will provoke
falsification.
Taking into account the above mentioned, we believe
it reasonable to postpone the elections till late 1994 or early
1995.
The Congress of the Ukrainian Republican Party
resolved:
1. Consider the preterm elections of the President of
Ukraine, heads and deputies of local Councils scheduled for
June 1994 as highly unadvisable and dangerous for the fate
of the Ukrainian state.
2. Consider possible to hold the elections in late 1994
or early 1995 after developing special documents regulating
power structure subordination and responsibility principles.
3. Taking into account that postponing the elections
look rather problematic, all party organizations should
immediately:
- select URP candidates for positions of heads and
deputies of local Councils;
- prepare election campaign logistics;
- develop detailed campaign plans.
4. URP members, deputies of the Supreme Council,
should forward a proposal to postpone elections of the
President and local authorities, hold them separately, and
streamline adopting the new Constitution or Law on Power.
5. Entrust the URP Leadership to decide on the
party's attitude to candidates for Ukrainian presidency.

Kyiv, April 23, 1994.
ON CREATING A GROUP FOR PREVENTING CRIMEA
CRISIS RESULTS
RESOLUTION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY
CONGRESS OF THE UKRAINIAN REPUBLICAN PARTY

With regard to the threat to Ukrainian sovereignty
and territorial integrity that might be result of separatist acts
of the Crimean leadership chaired by Y.Meshkov, and in
order to avoid civic conflict, the Extraordinary Congress of
the Ukrainian Republican Party resolves:
1. Urge the President of Ukraine to use in full his
constitutional authority and reinforce laws of Ukraine on the
territory of the Crimean Republic, up to introducing direct
Presidential rule by May 10, 1994.
2. In order to mobilize spiritual and material
resources of the URP, other national-democratic parties and
organizations, to enhance peace, democracy, promote
economic reform and Ukrainian state-building in the Crimea,
to create a Group for preventing Crimean crisis results. The
Group will include Stepan Lytvyn, Oleksandr Fedorenko, Ihor
Banakh, Mykola Porovsky, Hennadi Kozhevnykov, Ivan
Poliovy.
3. Suggest that other political parties and civil
organizations delegated their representatives for collaboration
in the Group.

Kyiv, April 23, 1994.
OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PRESS DIGEST

(25.04.94 - 2.05.94)

        In making this Digest, the following acronyms were
used - with paren       thetic explanations "HU" ("Holos Ukraini" -
"Voice of Ukraine"), "VK" ("Vechirnij Kyiv" - "Evening Kiev") ;
"KV" ("Kyivskiy Visnyk" - "Kiev Herald"); "DU"
("Democratichna Ukraine" - "Democratic Ukraine"); "PU"
("Pravda Ukraine" - "Truth of Ukraine"); "MU" ("Molod
Ukrainy" - "Youth of Ukraine"); "MH" ("Moloda Hvardiya" -
"Young Guard"); "Nezavisimost" ("Independence"); "RG"
("Robitnicha Gazeta" - "The Workers' Gazette"); "SV" ("Silski
Visti" - "The Countryside News"); "NA" ("Narodna Armiya" -
"The National Army"); "KP" ("Kyivska Pravda" - "Kiev Truth");
"UK" ("Uriadovyi Kurier" - "The Government Courier").