The renewed cohabitation between Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko has quickly begun to show stress. Will they repeat the 2005 experience, when Tymoshenko was sacked, and how do these tensions complicate Ukraine's current domestic and foreign policy challenges?

Synopsis

Ambassador Pifer begins his talk by recapping the past relationship between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. Mr. Pifer then proceeds to analyze the general political situation between the two at this early stage in their coalition. He explains that Yushchenko’s camp is seriously worried about the votes Tymoshenko could take away from him in the 2009 presidential election. Mr. Pifer also reveals that many businesses that work closely with Yushchenko’s administration are more politically aligned with the opposing Party of Regions rather than Tymoshenko’s bloc. In addition, Mr. Pifer discusses the concerns with the maneuvers of the head of the presidential administration who is perhaps working for his own agenda in links with the opposing Party of Regions.

Mr. Pifer briefly analyzes the political situations for the nation’s major party leaders as well. He explains that Yushchenko is losing support as he seems more focused on the 2009 elections and has failed to advance on forming and implementing a policy agenda. Similarly, Viktor Yanukovych, head of the opposing Party of Regions, is also losing support primarily due to poor political tactics such as physically blocking the speaker of Ukraine’s parliament from entering the parliament to speak. Mr. Pifer explains that there are also rumors of internal divisions within the party. However, Mr. Pifer argues Tymoshenko seems to be staying on top and maintaining support. This is arguably due to the achievements she already has to her name with her new cabinet.

Although, it seems that this coalition arrangement is detrimental to Yushchenko politically, Mr Pifer argues that there is little alternative. He explains that it is very difficult to break a coalition and such a move could split Yushchenko’s party. At the same time, Mr. Pifer believes it is clear that Yushchenko and Tymoskenko’s relationship is costing Ukraine. Mr. Pifer feels there is too much infighting and not enough governance, and this is illustrated by the lack of much shared domestic policy. Mr. Pifer also cites the two’s competing trips to negotiate with Gazprom and disputes over the NATO membership action plan as evidence for their disagreements and inefficiency.

Mr. Pifer concludes by arguing that while this coalition is fragile, he feels it may last longer than many believe as there is very little alternative. However, although this coalition will probably not be effective in policy-making, the fact that the economy is sound and both candidates are playing by democratic rules should be taken as a good sign.

about the speaker

Steven Pifer is a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A retired Foreign Service officer, his more than 25 years with the State Department focused on U.S. relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe, as well as on arms control and security issues. His assignments included deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (2001-2004), ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000), and special assistant to the president and National Security Council senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia (1996-1997). He also served at the U.S. embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London, as well as with the U.S. delegation to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces negotiations in Geneva. He holds a B.A. in economics from Stanford University, where he later spent a year as a visiting scholar at Stanford's Institute for International Studies. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Dick Leonard wrote the best-selling book, The Economist Guide to the European Union  (9 editions, translated into nine languages), widely recognised as the most authoritative guide to the EU.  A former British Member of Parliament, he has been covering the European Union as a Brussels-based journalist for over 25 years.

A former Assistant Editor of The Economist, he has also worked for the BBC and The Observer and has contributed to leading newspapers in the United States, Canada, Australia, India, Japan and New Zealand, as well as the Brussels-based publications, European Voice and The Bulletin. He was for many years a contributing editor of the Washington-based magazine, Europe.

Apart from his work as a journalist, he has been a Professor at Brussels University (ULB), a senior consultant to the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), the well-known think tank, and European Advisor to the British publishing industry.

A long-term campaigner for British membership of the European Union, he was one of the minority of Labour MPs who voted in favour of British entry in 1971, despite the opposition of his party. During his time as an MP, he served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Anthony Crosland, who was later Foreign Secretary.

Dick Leonard is the author or part-author of some 20 books, including Eminent Europeans, How to Win the Euro Referendum, Elections in Britain (five editions) and The Pro-European Reader, which he co-edited with his son, Mark Leonard. The ninth edition of his book, The Economist Guide to the European Union, published in 2005, has been widely and enthusiastically reviewed. Since then he has published the highly praised A Century of Premiers: Salisbury to Blair, to be followed by 19^th British Century Premiers: Pitt to Rosebery, which will appear in May 2008.

A highly experienced broadcaster and public speaker, he has made five successful lecture tours in the United States and Canada, as well as lecturing regularly in London, Brussels and other European cities.

"Eastern Europe" is a concept many political scientists, area studies scholars, and lay people have been using over the years almost by default. But what does "Eastern Europe" mean geo-poltically, culturally, and historically? It is increasingly difficult to define where "Eastern Europe" may or may not be: since the fall of the Soviet Union and the break-up of the Soviet bloc, the term is one that carries a nuance of belonging to the list of losers of globalization, rather than the winners. My contention is that the very notion of "Eastern Europe" is slowly, but surely disappearing. The question that emerges is what are the viable alternatives for talking about and defining this region as it enters into negotiations or joins the EU. What place, if any, does the "East" have in the political agenda of European governments, elites, and the general populace?

Klaus Segbers is Professor of Political Science at Freie Universitat in Berlin. He is the Program Director of the Center for Global Politics and directs a number of the Friei Universitat's innovative graduate studies programs, including East European Studies Online, International Relations Online, German Studies Russia, and Global Politics Summer School China. Segbers conducts research on a range of topics involving contemporary Europe: Germany's foreign relations with Eastern European countries, EU enlargement, the impact of globalization on world cities, elections in Russia, comparative analysis of institutional changes in Russia and China, and an analysis of area studies as practiced in academic settings. Segers is a visiting scholar at the Center for Russian, East European & Eurasian Studies at Stanford University for Winter 2008.

In recent decades the Middle East's strategic architecture has changed significantly with the rise in the regional influence of the non-Arab states of the Middle East: Iran, Turkey and Israel and the considerably reduced influence of the key Arab states, that used to be the prime movers in the Arab world: Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Secular nationalism is in apparent retreat as free elections in Turkey and the Palestinian Authority seem to indicate. What does this all mean for the Arab-Israeli peace process, and especially for the arrival at a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians? What does this mean for the chances of success of greater US and European involvement?

Synopsis

To Prof. Susser, the Middle East is dealing with a variety of key issues. He explains that the fallout of Iraq has led to widespread anxiety that the Middle East could shatter into a chaos of sectarian violence, beginning with a breakdown in Iraq. In addition, Prof. Susser notes the social economic decline in the Middle East which has caused emigration and, most importantly, a changing power dynamic in the region. Citing Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as previous regional superpowers, he believes that the current major players are Iran, Turkey, and Israel, all of which are non-Arab. Prof. Susser argues this power shift was accelerated by the fall of the USSR, as well as the presence of the US. He focuses particularly on the role of Iran, a country he feels is trying to establish a “crescent of influence.” Prof. Susser believes the Israel-Hezbollah war was the start of a new era of conflicts between Israel and Iran as they battle over the regional architecture that will shape the future of the Middle East. He argues that Lebanon is therefore a key battleground in the conflict.

Prof. Susser feels this conflict is a struggle against Iran and Shiite influence. One can notice the shift in dynamic in the region through the fact that other Arab states are now on the same side as Israel, whereas before no Arab state would side with the Israelis. Prof. Susser believes this is partly because there is a shifting power balance from Sunnis to Shiites in the Middle East, a radical change that goes against the traditional order of the region.

Prof. Susser moves on to focus to another potential radical change, a two state solution between Israel and Palestine as set out by the Annapolis conference in November 2007. He argues that it is most unlikely that the US will actually get the two sides to sign a final agreement resolving the conflict in the near future. At the same time, Prof. Susser reveals his belief that it is imperative that negotiations do not shoot to high. This “courts failure” and leads to disaster. In fact, Prof. Susser argues for “courting success.” He explains that this must be achieved through realistic goals such as a secure ceasefire, and that the Palestinians may be less reluctant in agreeing to interim solutions. Finally, Prof. Susser emphasizes that if an interim approach is unsuccessful and a permanent solution is not agreed upon, then Israel must not ignore the unattractive but perhaps necessary option of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Prof. Susser argues that although this may seem like a failure, the status quo works better for Arabs such as Hamas who seek to delegitimize Israel.

About the speaker

Professor Asher Susser, Director for External Affairs of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at TAU. Professor Susser holds a PhD in Modern Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University and he taught for over twenty-five years in the University's Department of Middle Eastern History and is presently a visiting Professor at Brandeis University. He has been a Fulbright Fellow, a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Chicago and Brandeis University and a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In 2006 Professor Susser was selected as TAU's Faculty of Humanities Outstanding Lecturer. In 1994 Professor Susser was the only Israeli academic to accompany Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to his historic meeting with King Hussein of Jordan for the signing of the Washington Declaration.

Presented by the Forum on Contemporary Europe.