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.

A workshop on designing and delivering effective oral presentations.

A workshop on designing and delivering effective oral presentations.

The UN and the Cambodian government have finally established a “hybrid-style” tribunal in Phnom Penh to begin prosecuting senior leaders from the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime that caused the deaths of 1.7 million Cambodians more than thirty years ago. This tribunal is widely viewed as one of the most important experiments in transitional justice in a post-conflict society. Prof. Hall will show, however, that the hybrid structure mixing international and local lawyers, judges, and staff is deeply flawed. Cambodia’s legal system is notoriously corrupt, inefficient, and politically controlled. Predictably, the UN-sponsored tribunal has been plagued by accusations of corruption, opacity, distrust, and woeful human resource management. Against this backdrop, the international lawyers and judges at the tribunal continue their up-hill battle to forge a venue that meets minimum international legal standards.

John A. Hall specializes in international law and human rights. His controversial 21 September 2007 op ed in the Wall Street Journal (“Yet Another U.N. Scandal”) helped focus international attention on corruption and mismanagement at the Khmer Rouge tribunal. In addition to writing widely on Cambodia, he has worked for Legal Aid of Cambodia in Phnom Penh and the Public Interest Law Center in the Philippines. He holds a doctorate in Modern History from Oxford University, graduated from Stanford Law School in 2000, and before going to law school was a tenured professor of history.

John Ciorciari is Senior Legal Advisor to the Documentation Center of Cambodia, a leading NGO dedicated to accountability for the abuses of the Khmer Rouge regime. He holds a JD from Harvard Law School and a PhD from Oxford University.

During the Cold War, China was regarded in many corners of Southeast Asia as a sponsor of subversion and communist insurgency. Until the “four modernizations,” its anemic economy and limited ability to project power offered little incentive for Southeast Asian governments to cozy up to Beijing. Relations were often frosty or worse. Clearly, times have changed. Essentially all of the states in Southeast Asia have robust diplomatic and economic engagements with the PRC. Yet security concerns have not evaporated. Most Southeast Asian governments now embrace China, but “hedge” by setting up fall-back security options with the United States and other partners in case the PRC becomes more menacing.

This seminar will explore some of the nuances in Southeast Asian “hedging” strategies. How do various governments view China’s intentions and capabilities? How have they variously sought to engage the United States and others to gain and retain security without antagonizing Beijing? How do these strategies relate to multilateral diplomacy in ASEAN and related forums, and how do they affect the overall “balance of power” in the Asia-Pacific region? Lastly, what pitfalls might hedging entail? These questions are critical, because the reaction of Southeast Asian states to China’s rise will have a major effect on the shape and stability of regional security for years to come.

John D. Ciorciari is a 2007-08 Shorenstein Fellow and is currently completing a manuscript entitled Hedging: Southeast Asian Alignments with the Great Powers since the Fall of Saigon.  He has extensive work experience in Southeast Asia, both as an academic and as a U.S. government official.  He also served as a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore in 2003-04.  He holds a JD from Harvard Law School and DPhil from the University of Oxford.

Lant Pritchett is Professor of the Practice of Economic Development at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (as of July 1, 2007).

In addition he works as a consultant to Google.org, is a non-resident fellow of the Center for Global Development, and is a senior fellow of BREAD. He is also co-editor of the Journal of Development Economics.

He graduated from Brigham Young University in 1983 with a B.S. in Economics and in 1988 from MIT with a PhD in Economics.

After finishing at MIT Lant joined the World Bank, where he held a number of positions in the Bank's research complex between 1988 and 1998, including as an adviser to Lawrence Summers when he was Vice President 1991-1993. From 1998 to 2000 he worked in Indonesia. From 2000 to 2004 Lant was on leave from the World Bank as a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In 2004 he returned to the World Bank and moved to India where he worked until May 2007.

He has been part of the team producing many World Bank reports, including: World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development, Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn't and Why (1998), Better Health Systems for Indias Poor: Findings, Analysis, and Options (2003), World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for the Poor, Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reforms (2005).

In addition he has authored (alone or with one of his 22 co-authors) over 50 papers published in refereed journals, chapters in books, or as articles, as least some of which are sometimes cited. In addition to economics journals his work has appeared in specialized journals in demography, education, and health. In 2006 he published his first solo authored book Let Their People Come.

Lant, an American national, was born in Utah in 1959 and raised in Boise Idaho. Perhaps because of this, he has worked in, or traveled to, over forty countries and has lived in three other countries: Argentina (1978-80), Indonesia (1998-2000), and India (2004-2007).