| The Outside World |

Monday, December 6, 2004

Wacky Ukrainians Demand Justice After Faulty Elections
Evolved Americans Content to Watch "Desperate Housewives"
NEWS ANALYSIS by Konstantin Medvedovsky

In Ukraine, in a remarkable move, the Ukrainian Supreme Court overturned the results of the country's disputed presidential election. A second runoff has been scheduled for December 26 of this year, due to what the court termed "systemic and massive violations" of election laws that were observed in the first runoff.

The ruling ended two weeks' suspense over the results of the election, which was initially declared to have been won by the Prime Minister, Viktor F. Yanukovich. Widespread allegations of fraud led thousands of supporters of Viktor F. Yushchenko to take to the streets in protest of the results.

The saga included allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had tampered with the election results in favor of Yanukovich, a medical mystery over what caused the disfigurement of Yushchenko's face, as well as calls for secession by Ukraine's eastern regions. It additionally brought to the fore tensions between Russia and the West, as while Russia made clear their preference for Yanukovich, most western countries have leaned towards the more liberal Yushchenko.

Supporters of Yushchenko however were dealt a setback on Sunday when the Parliament failed to pass reforms to electoral laws intended to prevent a repeat of the situation. Perhaps most significantly, the Parliament refused to remove the ability of voters to cast absentee ballots, which was reported to have been the cause of much of the alleged election fraud that occurred. In spite of the decision, however, most polls show that Yushchenko is favored in the new runoff, should nothing major go wrong.

The vote by the Supreme Court has encouraged many observers, who have been heartened to see the court break from the influence of Prime Minister Yanukovich, and outgoing president Leonid Kuchma, who had endorsed Yanukovich. Ukraine's judicial system, although technically independent of the executive branch, has previously had a questionable history in exercising that independence.

In India, Russian President Vladimir Putin endorsed the idea of making India a permanent member the United Nations Security Council, along with full veto power over any potential resolutions. This comes shortly after a report from the United Nations called for changes to the Security Council, including an expansion of the number of veto holding permanent members.

Currently, the United States, Russia, China, France, and Britain are the only permanent members. Critics of the current permanent membership rolls say that they reflect a 60-year-old power structure which is no longer representative of the world situation. Defenders say that while the situation may not be ideal, it does still represent the five most powerful countries in the world accurately, and that changing the system would be impractical.

In order to change the setup, a vote of two thirds of the General Assembly is required, as well as the consent of all veto holding member of the Security Council. While Russia's endorsement of the induction of India is a big step forward for advocates of reform, the United States has indicated reticence towards increasing the number of veto holding members.

Russia has said that reforms will lead to a fairer system, while critics of the Russian endorsement have pointed out that increasing the number of permanent members makes it less likely that any meaningful resolutions actually get passed. Additionally, due to tensions in the region, inducting India into the permanent membership rolls of the Security Council would surely lead to demands for a similar change in status from Pakistan.

Until India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1990s, the Security Council permanent membership had included every acknowledged nuclear power(Israel has not admitted to having a nuclear force), thus giving the Council a great deal of legitimacy, as pertains to power politics. While the Security Council was not established to safeguard the rights of nuclear powers, realistically, no major resolution was able pass without their consent. Thus, when India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, the relevance of the Security Council became increasingly questioned, as it no longer accurately represented the most powerful countries in the world.

These proposed changes come as the United Nations is under attack over the revelation of massive corruption in the oil for food program between the UN and Iraq. The scandal has been made even higher profile due the fact that Secretary General Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, has been directly implicated as a recipient of funds.

In Washington, President Bush nominated the former New York City police commissioner, Bernard Kerik to be the new director of the Homeland Security Department. Kerik replaces the outgoing Tom Ridge, who resigned last week, citing health concerns.

Rumors were initially swirling that the President had offered the job to Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, and like Kerik, in office during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The move is a continuance of the September 11 theme that the administration had played up during the election season, as it is unlikely to be a coincidence that both of the President's top choices were from New York City.

The move is the latest in a shakeup of Bush's cabinet, which has occurred since his successful bid for reelection. Other high profile changes have occurred at the Justice Department, the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Meanwhile Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, often rumored to be on his way out the door, due in part to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, has been reported to be kept on for the president's second term.