How will we get eastern Ukraine and Crimea back?
The Coalition Agreement, despite providing a clear definition of the situation there as one of occupation, has failed to say anything about liberating these regions...
Samopomich Union recently posted on its website a draft of the Coalition Agreement, amounting to 73 pages. In principle, this project may be called not just a base for coordination between the coalition parties, but also a thorough and comprehensive document, which describes directions of the nation’s development. In particular, it lists the steps to be taken to resolve the situation in eastern Ukraine and the starting points of the government’s conduct regarding the occupied territories. Namely, it states clearly the coalition’s position that not just eastern Ukraine, but Crimea and Sevastopol as well should be back under control of the Ukrainian government.
The coalition members intend to file international lawsuits against the Russian Federation in the interests of both Ukraine and individual Ukrainian enterprises. The Coalition Agreement stipulates aspects of the legal protection of citizens who have found themselves in the occupied territories, including those of specific ethnicities. It provides for not only legal protection, but implementation of targeted programs to support various age, ethnic, social, and other groups as well. Effectively, it provides for formation of additional public administration bodies in areas adjacent to the occupied territories. We now witness a heated debate about some leaders’ statements about limiting financing of the occupied territories, or to be more precise, limiting pension disbursements there. The Coalition Agreement, in its turn, calls for “providing internally displaced persons with legal status.” The mechanism of protection of human rights, particularly those of pensioners who are currently residing in areas controlled by the militants, is still missing. In practice, citizens are just asked to move to other areas.
Another provision highlights the urgent problem of information policy. It is no secret that we have lost the information policy competition not only in areas isolated from the Ukrainian information field, but also in the adjacent areas of the country’s east and south. This provision requires a separate law to be adopted and some serious actions to be taken, up to appointing local officials who would be responsible for information influence. So far, not only nothing has been done to explain to citizens in the occupied territories basic things about the actions of the Ukrainian authorities and the military, but the informational influence of the aggressor has actually been allowed to spread throughout the country. Certainly, neither agreements nor declarations will resolve this issue. We need immediate appointments and immediate actions to be taken.
Of course, the draft Coalition Agreement lacks the words “war,” “intervention,” and “aggressor.” The key term, used in it to define the situation in the east and Crimea, is “occupation.” The coalition members, who spent a month after the election unsuccessfully trying to find a common unifying position, promise “a comprehensive response to the occupation authorities’ actions in Crimea and Sevastopol, as well as to actions of the illegal terrorist groups operating in Donetsk and Luhansk regions.” Without a doubt, this procrastination with signing the agreement is caused by the portfolio distribution issues rather than the essence of the text. One can only wish for the power elite to finally decide who will get what position and to appoint the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council at least. The nation, despite being effectively in a state of war, has had this position vacant for several months.
