09:58
Unknown
By Anna Guzhiy Hougaard
The much-debated 2012 UEFA European Football Championship, commonly referred to as Euro 2012, had suddenly found itself in the center of international attention. While some EU leaders are reserving their position, the members of the European Commission and Council have said they will boycott football matches in Ukraine in protest of human rights violations and corruption in Ukraine. Heads of Britain, France, Germany and Belgium call for a boycott of Euro 2012, but not all European countries have supported the idea of political boycott. Ukraine, which is co-hosting the tournament with Poland, has suffered a deluge of bad publicity in the build up to the tournament, which puts Poland in a difficult dilemma. Poland is against a boycott and calls for a dialogue. Poland’s situation worsens the dilemma; as a result, there can be no single EU position on this matter.
So what is the unique dilemma all Western European countries are dealing with in facing this human rights situation in Ukraine, and in particular Poland? Should European leaders attend football matches in Ukraine, as part of the Euro 2012 championship, but add some protest gesture, or should they boycott them and stay away? Will boycott 2012 make any difference at all?
First of all, in order to understand the difficult choice EU is facing with the Euro 2012 it is necessary to have some knowledge of the so-called Tymoshenko case.
Western leaders call for a Euro 2012 boycott in protest of corruption and human rights violations in Ukraine, in particular, the imprisonment of Ukraine’s former prime minister and opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko. Western leaders believe her conviction was politically motivated and unjust, and see it as an attempt by her rival, President Viktor Yanukovych, to silence her prior to the upcoming parliamentary election in Ukraine in fall 2012.
Yulia Tymoshenko is the former Ukrainian prime minister, a leader of Ukraine's Orange revolution six years ago, and the country's chief opposition politician and rival to the president, Viktor Yanukovych. She is still one of the most influential figures in Ukraine - even from a jail cell in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, where she is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence on charges of abuse of power. She is charged in overstepping her authority as prime minister, when she in 2009 signed a disadvantageous for Ukraine gas deal with Russia. New serious charges with crimes from the distant past are raised against her since her imprisonment.
Tymoshenko, who suffers from a chronic back condition, claimed that she was beaten in prison earlier this year and supporters are worried about her health and lack of appropriate medical care. The assault she suffered in prison has triggered fresh condemnation of her plight and brought the Eastern European nation under the microscope in the build-up to the tournament, resulting in incredibly negative publicity.
“Both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych are people from the past. Throughout the turbulent 90’s in the former Soviet republics it was not possible to make a political carrier by being honest. Everybody within the politics was pickled in corruption”, explains Jakob Tolstrup, Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University. It is entirely possible that she really is guilty. But the paradox is - that is not the point. It is not a question of what she may or may not have done in the past. It is a question of how the law – enforcement system in Ukraine works. “Due to upcoming parliamentary election Yanukovych is interested in keeping her locked up for as long as possible to weaken the opposition.
The Tymoshenko case shows that there is a clear pattern in Ukraine of who is to be punished for the past’s wrongdoings”, says Tolstrup. Another expert on Eastern Europe agrees with Tolstrup’s statement. “It is difficult to interpret her persecution as anything else but politically staged. She is a strong and annoying politician, and that is not the way you treat a country’s political opposition. It has nothing to do with the trial. Ukraine has demonstrated that the whole political elite in Ukraine – probably also Tymoshenko – is corrupt”, explains Mette Skak, Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science at University of Aarhus.
It all looked different when the tournament was awarded jointly to Poland and Ukraine in April 2007. Ukraine was still identified with the “Orange revolution”, and the hope was that Poland would serve as an example to Ukraine in a successful “return to the West”. It was a unique opportunity for Ukraine to shed its Soviet image and show its European mettle. Instead, after the failure of the Orange revolution and the election of a pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2010, Ukraine had travelled in the wrong direction.
As to Poland, it is doubtful that anybody seriously questioned whether Poland could cope, when Poland was chosen as one of the co-hosting countries of Euro 2012. Nonetheless, as any other country hosting a sport event of this caliber, Poland faced neither more nor less challenges during the preparations of the tournament. Poland worked hard to make the tournament a success, it should therefore not come as a surprise that Poland does not appreciate the negative publicity Euro 2012 is exposed to, as well as it is upset with the lack of attention it has suffered due to its much more discussed neighbor.
“Poland would have liked to have more focus on the success stories about Poland during Euro 2012, instead of having all the attention on human rights violations in Ukraine. It is not particularly good publicity for Poland, why they will never join the Western boycott of Euro 2012”, says Tolstrup. Obviously, Poland can hardly boycott a championship which they co-host.
There is more to it. Bad publicity, even if on Ukraine’s behalf, affects the bigger picture. Regretfully, not all Western Europeans can distinguish between different former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe, and Poland fears how that might affect ordinary Western European fans’ understanding of this whole situation.
At last, Ukraine plays an important role in Poland’s foreign policy and, naturally, Poland wishes for a prosperous and a west-facing eastern neighbor. “Based on the geo-strategic and, also, partly, anti–Russian concerns it is in Poland’s best interest to remain in good relations with Ukraine”, points out Skak.
Here, we have some of the main causes for polish political headache during Euro 2012. And what about the rest of EU?
However, politics and sport have mixed before – from the Berlin 1936 Olympic Games till Moscow in 1980 and China in 2008. “The boycott of sports events will always be a free ride. A serious statement would be an enforcement of trade or arms embargo, rather than boycotting sports events”, believes Skak. So it is or it is not pointless to boycott Euro 2012?
”Euro 2012 boycott does have an impact on the Ukrainian government, as Euro 2012 is a huge prestigious project”, says Skak. Tolstrup agrees. “The more EU leaders join the boycott, the stronger political message would be send, and if EU is not together in this the value of this message would be reduced. The boycott hurts Ukraine’s image, telling its voters prior to the upcoming parliamentary election that EU does not approve of Yanukovych. There is a so called “grey zone” of voters who do not feel strongly neither with the opposition nor the current government, and the boycott might have an impact on these voters, in turn, those who do feel strongly about one side or another will be confirmed in their choice”, explains Tolstrup.
Regular Ukrainian citizens are less optimistic. “I do not think that the Euro 2012 boycott will affect anything or Tymoshenko case for that matter. As the government is now preparing for the upcoming parliamentary elections, they will do everything possible to keep her in prison. Ukraine is slowly turning into a criminal state. But I do not support Tymoshenko either”, sighs Oksana Tsyuz, an international student at Aarhus School of Business in Aarhus, Denmark.
Poland’s argument is that you have to find right measures, both symbolic and practical. Perhaps, boycott the corrupt president, but not the noble country. But how are you supposed to mark this difference between a country’s president and its citizens? Boycott the matches or attend the matches, but avoid shaking hands with the country’s president? Culture Minister of Denmark pointed out that he intended to watch the matches with the ordinary fans and not the political elite of Ukraine. But even if it is possible, will an ordinary Ukrainian be able to distinguish between highest-elite lounge and an “ordinary” VIP section? That is if an average Ukrainian will get to see that on the TV at all.
We will yet get to see how successful the hosting of Euro 2012 turns out, and most probable, the big sports dramas and celebrations will outweigh the political ones. Nonetheless, the dilemma remains unresolved. There is no universal rule to determine whether or not to boycott a particular sporting or cultural event. The games are in full swing in Ukraine – both sports and political, and, keeping the presented considerations in mind, the reader would have to make her or his own mind about 2012 Euro boycott.
The much-debated 2012 UEFA European Football Championship, commonly referred to as Euro 2012, had suddenly found itself in the center of international attention. While some EU leaders are reserving their position, the members of the European Commission and Council have said they will boycott football matches in Ukraine in protest of human rights violations and corruption in Ukraine. Heads of Britain, France, Germany and Belgium call for a boycott of Euro 2012, but not all European countries have supported the idea of political boycott. Ukraine, which is co-hosting the tournament with Poland, has suffered a deluge of bad publicity in the build up to the tournament, which puts Poland in a difficult dilemma. Poland is against a boycott and calls for a dialogue. Poland’s situation worsens the dilemma; as a result, there can be no single EU position on this matter.
So what is the unique dilemma all Western European countries are dealing with in facing this human rights situation in Ukraine, and in particular Poland? Should European leaders attend football matches in Ukraine, as part of the Euro 2012 championship, but add some protest gesture, or should they boycott them and stay away? Will boycott 2012 make any difference at all?
First of all, in order to understand the difficult choice EU is facing with the Euro 2012 it is necessary to have some knowledge of the so-called Tymoshenko case.
Tymoshenko – not an innocent offer?
A couple of days after kick off of Euro 2012 on Friday June 8 in Warsaw, Poland, a Swedish Euro 2012 commentator Johanna Främdén made infamous Tymoshenko-braid in support of imprisoned opposition leader. The 51-year-old Tymoshenko's martyr-like reputation has been growing since her imprisonment, and it has only escalated with the approach of Euro 2012. Most European countries sympathize with the imprisoned political leader, but what if Tymoshenko is far from a political innocent?Western leaders call for a Euro 2012 boycott in protest of corruption and human rights violations in Ukraine, in particular, the imprisonment of Ukraine’s former prime minister and opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko. Western leaders believe her conviction was politically motivated and unjust, and see it as an attempt by her rival, President Viktor Yanukovych, to silence her prior to the upcoming parliamentary election in Ukraine in fall 2012.
Yulia Tymoshenko is the former Ukrainian prime minister, a leader of Ukraine's Orange revolution six years ago, and the country's chief opposition politician and rival to the president, Viktor Yanukovych. She is still one of the most influential figures in Ukraine - even from a jail cell in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, where she is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence on charges of abuse of power. She is charged in overstepping her authority as prime minister, when she in 2009 signed a disadvantageous for Ukraine gas deal with Russia. New serious charges with crimes from the distant past are raised against her since her imprisonment.
Tymoshenko, who suffers from a chronic back condition, claimed that she was beaten in prison earlier this year and supporters are worried about her health and lack of appropriate medical care. The assault she suffered in prison has triggered fresh condemnation of her plight and brought the Eastern European nation under the microscope in the build-up to the tournament, resulting in incredibly negative publicity.
“Both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych are people from the past. Throughout the turbulent 90’s in the former Soviet republics it was not possible to make a political carrier by being honest. Everybody within the politics was pickled in corruption”, explains Jakob Tolstrup, Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University. It is entirely possible that she really is guilty. But the paradox is - that is not the point. It is not a question of what she may or may not have done in the past. It is a question of how the law – enforcement system in Ukraine works. “Due to upcoming parliamentary election Yanukovych is interested in keeping her locked up for as long as possible to weaken the opposition.
The Tymoshenko case shows that there is a clear pattern in Ukraine of who is to be punished for the past’s wrongdoings”, says Tolstrup. Another expert on Eastern Europe agrees with Tolstrup’s statement. “It is difficult to interpret her persecution as anything else but politically staged. She is a strong and annoying politician, and that is not the way you treat a country’s political opposition. It has nothing to do with the trial. Ukraine has demonstrated that the whole political elite in Ukraine – probably also Tymoshenko – is corrupt”, explains Mette Skak, Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science at University of Aarhus.
Poland’s unique dilemma
Being one of the relatively new EU member states, and given its particular history one would expect Poland to stand up against human rights abuses. However, Poland, which with Ukraine has spent years and billions preparing for the matches, is calling on Yanukovych to relent on Tymoshenko, while also arguing against a boycott and for a dialogue. Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski warned against a Western boycott of Ukraine during the championships, saying this would “send the former Soviet republic back into the arms of Russia”. Also, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has expressed his concerns about the boycott. "I think the calls for a boycott are inappropriate. I understand the politicians who sympathize with Yulia Tymoshenko, but nothing stands in their way to express this sympathy in a clear way during the championships”, Donald Tusk told a news conference.It all looked different when the tournament was awarded jointly to Poland and Ukraine in April 2007. Ukraine was still identified with the “Orange revolution”, and the hope was that Poland would serve as an example to Ukraine in a successful “return to the West”. It was a unique opportunity for Ukraine to shed its Soviet image and show its European mettle. Instead, after the failure of the Orange revolution and the election of a pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2010, Ukraine had travelled in the wrong direction.
As to Poland, it is doubtful that anybody seriously questioned whether Poland could cope, when Poland was chosen as one of the co-hosting countries of Euro 2012. Nonetheless, as any other country hosting a sport event of this caliber, Poland faced neither more nor less challenges during the preparations of the tournament. Poland worked hard to make the tournament a success, it should therefore not come as a surprise that Poland does not appreciate the negative publicity Euro 2012 is exposed to, as well as it is upset with the lack of attention it has suffered due to its much more discussed neighbor.
“Poland would have liked to have more focus on the success stories about Poland during Euro 2012, instead of having all the attention on human rights violations in Ukraine. It is not particularly good publicity for Poland, why they will never join the Western boycott of Euro 2012”, says Tolstrup. Obviously, Poland can hardly boycott a championship which they co-host.
There is more to it. Bad publicity, even if on Ukraine’s behalf, affects the bigger picture. Regretfully, not all Western Europeans can distinguish between different former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe, and Poland fears how that might affect ordinary Western European fans’ understanding of this whole situation.
At last, Ukraine plays an important role in Poland’s foreign policy and, naturally, Poland wishes for a prosperous and a west-facing eastern neighbor. “Based on the geo-strategic and, also, partly, anti–Russian concerns it is in Poland’s best interest to remain in good relations with Ukraine”, points out Skak.
Here, we have some of the main causes for polish political headache during Euro 2012. And what about the rest of EU?
The other side of the boycott discussion
Again, there is no single position on this dilemma. Culture minister of Denmark Uffe Elbaek and Holland’s Health, Welfare and Sport Minister Edith Schippers visited Kharkiv, one of the host venues in the East of Ukraine, where they first thing met with representatives of Ukraine’s Amnesty International group and members of local NGO’s. In Denmark Elbaek’s visit in Ukraine was wildly discussed, but Skak does not see any political tragedy in his choice. “Elbaek’s participation is on the lowest possible level, also, his involvement with the local activists was highly appreciated in Ukraine. It is possibly a very good solution on Denmark’s behalf”, she said. According to Tolstrup, participation of the Danish royal family would have been enough. “Denmark should have restricted itself to sending the Crown Prince of Denmark, and the Danish political system should have stayed away”, said Tolstrup.Sport and politics - bad cocktail?
“Leave politics out of this”, argue some. As reader might have guessed, Poles are not much for mixing the two. "I don't like it when people mix politics and sport. This is another example of roles and tasks being confused… I believe that Ukraine and Poland should have a chance to organize a good championship, which will be a sporting holiday and bring joy to athletes and fans," Former Polish President and Head of the Board of the Yalta European Strategy (YES) Alexander Kwasniewski told Polish Radio TOK FM, while commenting on statements about a boycott of Euro 2012 in Ukraine in connection with the situation around Tymoshenko, writes Kyev Post.However, politics and sport have mixed before – from the Berlin 1936 Olympic Games till Moscow in 1980 and China in 2008. “The boycott of sports events will always be a free ride. A serious statement would be an enforcement of trade or arms embargo, rather than boycotting sports events”, believes Skak. So it is or it is not pointless to boycott Euro 2012?
Euro 2012 boycott make any difference at all?
One side of this whole discussion is that EU officials refuse to be passive bystanders while the core principles and values of the Western democracies are being violated in Ukraine. The whole point with the boycott is to send a message to Yanukovych that the course of his current governing is going to lead Ukraine away from Europe, and, at the same time, the boycott is a message to Tymoshenko that she “is not forgotten”. Will this message bounce off on Yanukovych?”Euro 2012 boycott does have an impact on the Ukrainian government, as Euro 2012 is a huge prestigious project”, says Skak. Tolstrup agrees. “The more EU leaders join the boycott, the stronger political message would be send, and if EU is not together in this the value of this message would be reduced. The boycott hurts Ukraine’s image, telling its voters prior to the upcoming parliamentary election that EU does not approve of Yanukovych. There is a so called “grey zone” of voters who do not feel strongly neither with the opposition nor the current government, and the boycott might have an impact on these voters, in turn, those who do feel strongly about one side or another will be confirmed in their choice”, explains Tolstrup.
Regular Ukrainian citizens are less optimistic. “I do not think that the Euro 2012 boycott will affect anything or Tymoshenko case for that matter. As the government is now preparing for the upcoming parliamentary elections, they will do everything possible to keep her in prison. Ukraine is slowly turning into a criminal state. But I do not support Tymoshenko either”, sighs Oksana Tsyuz, an international student at Aarhus School of Business in Aarhus, Denmark.
Poland’s argument is that you have to find right measures, both symbolic and practical. Perhaps, boycott the corrupt president, but not the noble country. But how are you supposed to mark this difference between a country’s president and its citizens? Boycott the matches or attend the matches, but avoid shaking hands with the country’s president? Culture Minister of Denmark pointed out that he intended to watch the matches with the ordinary fans and not the political elite of Ukraine. But even if it is possible, will an ordinary Ukrainian be able to distinguish between highest-elite lounge and an “ordinary” VIP section? That is if an average Ukrainian will get to see that on the TV at all.
We will yet get to see how successful the hosting of Euro 2012 turns out, and most probable, the big sports dramas and celebrations will outweigh the political ones. Nonetheless, the dilemma remains unresolved. There is no universal rule to determine whether or not to boycott a particular sporting or cultural event. The games are in full swing in Ukraine – both sports and political, and, keeping the presented considerations in mind, the reader would have to make her or his own mind about 2012 Euro boycott.
