Iraqi Insurgents spike in April '05

U.S. money has helped opposition in Ukraine

By Matt Kelley
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 11, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit poll indicating he won last month's disputed runoff election.

U.S. officials say the activities don't amount to interference in Ukraine's election, as Russian President Vladimir Putin alleges, but are part of the $1 billion the State Department spends each year trying to build democracy worldwide.

No U.S. money was sent directly to Ukrainian political parties, the officials say. In most cases, it was funneled through organizations such as the Eurasia Foundation or through groups aligned with Republicans and Democrats that organized election training, with human rights forums or with independent news outlets.

But officials acknowledge that some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the Russian-backed government candidate - people who now call themselves part of the "Orange Revolution."

For example, one group that received grants through U.S.-funded foundations is the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, whose Web site has a link to Yushchenko's home page under the heading "partners." Another project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development brought an official with Ukraine's Center for Political and Legal Reforms to Washington, D.C., last year for a three-week training session on political advocacy.

"There's this myth that the Americans go into a country and, presto, you get a revolution," said Lorne Craner, a former State Department official who leads the International Republican Institute, which received $25.9 million last year to encourage democracy in Ukraine and more than 50 other countries.

"It's not the case that Americans can get 2 million people to turn out on the streets," Craner said. "The people themselves decide to do that."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "There's accountability in place. We make sure that money is being used for the purposes for which it's assigned or designated."

Since the Ukrainian Supreme Court invalidated the results of the Nov. 21 presidential runoff, Russia and the United States have traded charges of interference. A new election is scheduled for Dec. 26.

Opposition leaders, international monitors and Bush's election envoy to Ukraine have said major fraud marred the runoff between Yushchenko and current Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was declared the winner.

Yushchenko is friendlier toward Europe and the United States than his opponent, who has Putin's support and backing from the current Ukrainian government of President Leonid Kuchma. Putin lauded Yanukovych during state visits to Ukraine within a week of the Oct. 31 election and the Nov. 21 runoff.

Yushchenko's backers say Russian support for Yanukovych goes beyond Putin's praise and includes millions of dollars in campaign funding and other assistance. Putin has said Russia has acted "absolutely correctly" with regard to Ukraine.

Documents and interviews provide a glimpse into how U.S. money was spent inside Ukraine.

"Our money doesn't go to candidates. It goes to the process, the institutions that it takes to run a free and fair election," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

The exit poll, funded by the embassies of the United States and seven other nations and four international foundations, said Yushchenko won the Nov. 21 vote by 54 percent to Yanukovych's 43 percent. Yanukovych and his supporters say the exit poll was skewed.

The Ukrainian groups that did the poll of more than 28,000 voters have not said how much the project cost. Neither has the United States.

The four foundations involved included three funded by the U.S. government: The National Endowment for Democracy, which receives its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which receives money from the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation, part of a network of charities funded by billionaire George Soros that receives money from the State Department. Other countries involved included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

Grants from groups funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development also went to the International Center for Policy Studies, a think tank that includes Yushchenko on its supervisory board. The board, however, also comprises several current or former advisers to Kuchma.

Craner's Republican-backed group used U.S. money to help Yushchenko arrange meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and GOP leaders in Congress in February 2003.

The State Department gave the National Democratic Institute, a group of Democratic foreign policy experts, nearly $48 million for worldwide democracy-building programs last year. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is chairwoman of the institute's board of directors.

The institute says representatives of parties in all the blocs that participated in Ukraine's 2002 parliamentary elections have attended its seminars to learn skills such as writing party platforms, organizing bases of voter support and developing party structures. It also has been a main financial and administrative supporter of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, an election watchdog group that said the presidential vote was not conducted fairly.

The institute also organized a 35-member team of election observers led by former federal appeals court Judge Abner Mikva for the Nov. 21 runoff vote. Craner's group sent its own team of observers.

The U.S. Agency for International Development also funds the Center for Ukrainian Reform Education, which produces radio and TV programs aiming to educate Ukrainian residents about reforming their nation's government and economy. The center also sponsors press clubs and education for journalists.

Parados!

You asked for evidence. You have evidence.

I hope you learned something.

That wasn't so hard now was it? OK, now we have the first part of your statement about the Republican's doing something. Now I can disprove your claim of the Democrats doing nothing.

As it should be clear by all the following links, Clinton alone did quite a bit, thus making your claim non factual. If this isn't enough I will be happy to find links from Congressional action supported by Dems. Like I said you are not entitled to your own facts. You claimed the Dems did nothing.

http://www.nationalstrategy.com/index_files/Page673.html



http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1998/089801.shtml
http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2005/2005126715.html
http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2004C2924.html

Speech by Yushenko to Congress -April 6, ,2005

http://www.ukraineinfo.us/embassy/press-releases/press-releases-05/050406.html


The Clinton record on Democracy Promotion

Perhaps now you can learn something. :wink:

By the way, the last article you posted lists George Soros and Madeline Albright as being involved in those NGOs. More evidence refuting your "nothing" claim but you seemed to miss that one too in your reading.

When you accept your claim was not factual we can move to the next item on your list.

Disclaimer: I swear I was just following Parados around - when I see his name as the last poster on a thread I tend to click - and am in no way after Lash or anything.

But this, as Parados already outlined, too is just nonsense - be it "nonsense" more in a just factually incorrect kind of way.


Not all that difficult to find out either - I got this on my very first Google search now:

National Democratic Institute: Programs in Ukraine

The NDI, as their "about" page will tell you, "is proud to draw on the traditions of the U.S. Democratic Party [..] the Institute's identification with the Democratic Party enhances its standing throughout the world".

The NDI has in fact been one of the major supporters of democratic-minded NGO's and political groups in the Ukraine. I've seen it mentioned a lot more often than its counterpart the International Republican Institute, in any case, though that organisation, too, has done its share of activities in the Ukraine:

International Republican Institute in Ukraine

I suspect, in fact, that they've been pretty much out in the same field supporting the same organisations - though I'd hesitate to assert that this necessarily means they worked together.

Let's look at funding of the NDI and IRI.

I'll be back.

PLEASE, let's not go through that again!!!

Actually, I'm sincerely sorry to see that the two of you don't realize the NDI and the IRI are working together.

They are. They are working together against oppression, totalitarianism, Communism--and for self-determination. They are both teaching people about their rights and their inherent freedoms. They are educating people all over the world --whether Parados knows it or not-- how democracy works.

They most definitely are working together.

People like you, with such a brimming hatred for people you should be working along side of is very sad.

And, of course, you knew this--but the Democrats: nuthin represents the Democrats who do nothing but whine, complain and block everything in Congress.

Lash,

I find your attempt humorous but it must be torturous to defend yourself.

You stated...


Does that not mean you are claiming the Democrats did NOTHING to bring about the historic elections in Ukraine? As I clearly pointed out. Not only did the Clinton administration contribute money and rhetorical support, not to mention the political support for the democratic attempts, but the new leader even thanked Clinton for his work.

Is money nothing? Or is it only something when a Republican supplies it?
As I clearly pointed out George Soros has contributed heavily to an NGO there. You provided the source for that.

So let me get this straight. The NDI and the IRI are working together but the democrats are doing NOTHING?



You claim people are working together but then claim one of them is doing nothing. Your claim makes no sense at all. People can't work together if one of them is doing nothing.

LOL! The ultimate irony ... <grins>

Lash, in whose world Democrats cant do anything right, and can safely be assumed to be wrong in everything - who is so insistent that its simply not possible that Democrats (or, say, the French, or the UN) might actually be doing the very things she claims to stand for and applaud - lecturing us about "brimming hatred for people you should be working along side of" ...

Meanwhile, if you prefer to interact on threads where the praise goes to President Bush, Lash, you're welcome here: President Bush, Yalta and the Baltic States/Eastern Europe - nobody else seems to want to bother. I won't hold my breath for the day when you'll accord credit where credit is due to a Democrat President, though ...

You have mischaracterized me, nimh.

I have given credit to many people whose political actions and beliefs I disagree with. Where is your disdain for the overwhelming majority of posters, who do exactly the same thing--on the other side of the spectrum? There is precious little, so I'm not feeling this one.

The rabidly hateful environment has an effect as you well know. It pushes people to their extremes. I'm not holding myself to higher standards than everyone else.

I was obviously referencing the current administration and the current Congress and related politicos in my comments.

As Bush gets credit for absolutely nothing, you'll excuse me if I adopt the same rules that everyone plays by here.

The current crop of Democrats spend most of their energy assassinating Bush. If they are doing anything of value, they are keeping a tight lid on it. But, if the Democrat party is sending money to these Democratic agencies, I'll be pleased to admit it.

Just because they are called what they are, doesn't mean they are funded by their associated parties in the States. It may be that both are shadow corps for getting DOD and <slush> funds to support opponents of the pseudo-Soviet administrations.

I'll see.

Meanwhile, parados, I didn't see you cop to the fact that the Bush administration has taken steps to effect the Revolutions. A point you scoffed a couple of pages back.

For anyone who is interested...
it appears there is a considerable effort by our country, the current administration and moneyed individuals to ....export democracy.

In that link, however, it appears this is not too popular among some.

Is it a good thing?

Bad?

Why?

Actually, couldn't find evidence of the Democrat Party funding anything. Soros, yes.

I scoffed at your feeble attempts to show evidence for something so easy perhaps. Asking you to provide evidence for a claim is not scoffing. It only sets you up for your fall. I never claimed Bush did nothing unlike you that claimed the Dems did nothing.

Now I see you are claiming you meant only current Dems in office? ROFLMBO.. excuse me while I scoff some more...

Lash,

I see NOTHING anywhere on this thread to imply that you only meant a few dems. You referred to Fanatical libs and Dems. You didn't clarify the Dems statement until you were cornered on your fact checking and now make a feeble attempt to pretend the statement meant something other than I am sure your claim was meant to be.

But don't worry, I am sure I can prove your redefined statement also false.

BBL

I have no problem admitting when I was wrong. It happens.

But, you will never see me lie to try to worm out of something.

You insinuated that I had concocted facts. My post also proves clearly I was addressing the actions current Democrats. Had you wanted me to travel back to Roosevelt, you should have made that clear.

I don't mind disagreeing with someone, but it is a waste to contend with someone who is dishonest in their exchanges.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has made these policy decisions...

Enclosure I Page 16 GAO-04-314R Taxation of U.S. Assistance USAID Estimated Assistance Allocations, by Country, for Fiscal Year 2003 Country and entity, by regionTotal allocated
(Dollars in millions)
Africa
Angola $16.2
Benin18.3
Burkina Faso10.1
Burundi 4.0
Cape Verde 3.5
Democratic Republic of the Congo 23.5
Eritrea 11.9
Ethiopia 77.3
Ghana 53.7
Guinea 26.4
Kenya 58.8
Liberia 6.2
Madagascar 29.0
Malawi 37.2
Mali 34.6
Mauritania 3.5
Mozambique 62.4
Namibia 7.0
Niger 6.9
Nigeria 65.2
Rwanda 29.2
Senegal 28.4
Sierra Leone 3.9
Somalia 2.9
South Africa 61.4
Sudan 22.3
Tanzania 32.9
Uganda 78.8
Zambia 50.3
Zimbabwe 16.1
Subtotal $881.9
Asia and Near East Asia
Bangladesh $110.5
Burma 6.5
Cambodia39.5
China 5.0
East Timor 19.0
India 191.5
Indonesia 141.5
Laos 2.0
Mongolia12.0
Nepal 37.7
Pakistan 250.0
Philippines 71.2
Sri Lanka 10.1
Thailand 3.3
Vietnam 12.5

Near East
Egypt 615.0
Israel 800.0
Jordan 250.0
Lebanon 32.5
Morocco 6.7
West Bank/Gaza 75.0
Yemen 10.0
Subtotal $2,701.5
Europe and Eurasia Europe
Albania $28.0
Bosnia-Herzegovina 50.0
Bulgaria 28.0
Croatia 30.0
Cyprus 15.0
Ireland 29.0
Kosovo 85.0
Macedonia 50.0
Romania 29.0
Serbia and Montenegro 135.0
Eurasia
Armenia 70.0
Azerbaijan 46.0
Belarus 9.5
Georgia 87.0
Kazakhstan 43.0
Kyrgyzstan 36.0
Moldova 32.5
Russia 148.0
Tajikistan 22.5
Turkmenistan 7.0

Ukraine 155.0

Uzbekistan 31.5
Subtotal $1,167.0
Latin America and Caribbean
Bolivia$62.3
Brazil 18.5
Cuba 6.0
Dominican Republic 22.9
Ecuador 29.4
El Salvador 33.7
Guatemala 52.2
Guyana 3.2
Haiti 47.4
Honduras 40.3
Jamaica 16.8
Mexico 30.4
Nicaragua37.7
Panama 10.5
Paraguay 10.1
Peru 78.2
Subtotal $499.6
Total - 90 countries and entities
$5,250.0 Source: USAID.