September 2008 Archives
Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada adopted bill #2635 aimed at a national program for decommissioning the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and turning the “Shelter” covering Reactor 4 into an ecologically safe system. The decision was approved by 354 of 441 deputies present for the vote. The law, approved on its first reading, also provides language for budgeting the finances for these activities.
According to Ukraine’s legal framework, the decommissioning of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant must include the following items:
According to Ukraine’s legal framework, the decommissioning of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant must include the following items:
- Cessation of operations (the preparatory phase of decommissioning) - removal of nuclear fuel and moving it to the spent nuclear fuel facility intended for long-term storage. Completion of this stage is expected no earlier than 2012.
- Final closing of the reactor and conservation of the plant. At this stage, there will be conservation of the reactors and the most radioactively contaminated equipment (2013-2022).
- Extract reactor facilities during the period in which the natural decline in radioactivity to an acceptable level occurs (2022-2045).
- Dismantling the reactors. At this stage, the equipment will be dismantled and the site cleaned in order to maximize the lifting of restrictions and regulatory control (2046-2064).
- Reducing the risks of the influence of ionizing radiation.
- Creation of additional protective barriers, particularly those that will ensure proper conditions for work in the next stage.
- Withdrawal from the "Shelter" of fuel-containing materials and high-level radioactive wastes, transferring them in safe condition, intermediate-controlled storage and disposal in deep repositories (stable geological formations) in case of early deterioration(approximately 30-50 years). An alternative method to ensure safe storage of materials at the "Shelter" site was not proposed.
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia’s state-run Rosatom, recently told an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference the Russian Federation intends to help Ukraine improve security at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant and speed up the start of work on the plant’s decommissioning. To assist in these efforts, Russia is contributing $17 million to the Nuclear Safety Account and the Chernobyl Shelter Fund.
Both the Nuclear Safety Account and the Chernobyl Shelter Fund are operated by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Nuclear Safety Account finances nuclear safety projects in Central and Eastern Europe. The Chernobyl Shelter Fund is helping to pay for the construction of the New Safe Confinement structure that will cover the remains of Reactor 4 and the original Sarcophagus at the Chernobyl Plant.
Both the Nuclear Safety Account and the Chernobyl Shelter Fund are operated by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Nuclear Safety Account finances nuclear safety projects in Central and Eastern Europe. The Chernobyl Shelter Fund is helping to pay for the construction of the New Safe Confinement structure that will cover the remains of Reactor 4 and the original Sarcophagus at the Chernobyl Plant.
I hate to write an off-topic post, but I can’t hold back any longer. After watching the presidential debate last night, I am fed up with John McCain’s complete and blatant disregard for the obvious. He seems to be operating in a vacuum and it’s time to call him out.
In regards to the “surge” in Iraq, McCain and Bush constantly tell us about the continued success of this tactic and how it has caused a major decrease in violence. I will concede that the “surge” has helped. However, McCain and Bush have consistently failed to acknowledge that, coincidental to the timing of the “surge,” Moqtada al-Sadr implemented a cease fire with his Medhi Army. Isn’t it possible that al-Sadr’s cease fire has been an important and direct cause of decreased violence in Iraq?
Not only that, Bob Woodward recently made it known that the US has been using a covert operation targeting insurgent leaders in Iraq. This tactic is separate from the “surge.” Sure, the success of the covert operation may be due in part to the “surge,” but has had success on its own merits. Therefore, if I am correct, the reduction in violence in Iraq is due not only to the “surge” as McCain would have you believe, but also because of al-Sadr’s cease fire and a covert US operation.
In the debate, McCain inferred that Russia’s recent military action in Georgia was unprovoked. Did he forget that Russia did nothing until Georgia made a military incursion into South Ossetia? Did McCain forget that his friend, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, was warned by Western countries, including the US, not to make any military moves that could provoke a response from Russia? Saakashvili ignored those warnings and we have seen the results. I am not saying that Russia was completely right in the way they handled the situation, but McCain’s inference that Russia was unprovoked is flat out wrong.
If you don’t believe me, think of what the US has done itself. In the original Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US, being friends with Kuwait, went in with military force, pushing Iraq out of the country. Sounds similar to Russia, a country supporting South Ossetian independence, going into South Ossetia and pushing Georgia out with military force, doesn’t it? Remember, this is not a discussion about Russia’s failure to abide by the cease fire agreement, it is about their initial actions.
Let’s not forget the US invaded Iraq in 2002, without any provocation. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks, had no weapons of mass destruction, and al-Qaeda had no presence in the country. In reality, we did not like Saddam Hussein’s regime and have a huge interest in the region’s oil reserves.
McCain needs to realize that in our new global society, the US cannot operate under one set of rules and expect the rest of the world to function with a different set of rules. That is why the US is disrespected and no longer liked around the world. The US can be a world leader without dictating rules to other nations. Ultimately, all countries should be operating under a single set of rules that are agreed upon by a majority of nations.
Other examples of McCain’s obliviousness do exist, but I won’t discuss them here. Just don’t get me started on how un-presidential it was for McCain to say he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw three letters, KGB. I have no problem with McCain thinking that way, but it was absolutely stupid to say it out loud. Nice way to insult a world leader, John! Why doesn’t McCain just say if he is elected to the presidency, he wants to have poor relations with Russia? It would accomplish the same thing, but is much more diplomatic.
In regards to the “surge” in Iraq, McCain and Bush constantly tell us about the continued success of this tactic and how it has caused a major decrease in violence. I will concede that the “surge” has helped. However, McCain and Bush have consistently failed to acknowledge that, coincidental to the timing of the “surge,” Moqtada al-Sadr implemented a cease fire with his Medhi Army. Isn’t it possible that al-Sadr’s cease fire has been an important and direct cause of decreased violence in Iraq?
Not only that, Bob Woodward recently made it known that the US has been using a covert operation targeting insurgent leaders in Iraq. This tactic is separate from the “surge.” Sure, the success of the covert operation may be due in part to the “surge,” but has had success on its own merits. Therefore, if I am correct, the reduction in violence in Iraq is due not only to the “surge” as McCain would have you believe, but also because of al-Sadr’s cease fire and a covert US operation.
In the debate, McCain inferred that Russia’s recent military action in Georgia was unprovoked. Did he forget that Russia did nothing until Georgia made a military incursion into South Ossetia? Did McCain forget that his friend, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, was warned by Western countries, including the US, not to make any military moves that could provoke a response from Russia? Saakashvili ignored those warnings and we have seen the results. I am not saying that Russia was completely right in the way they handled the situation, but McCain’s inference that Russia was unprovoked is flat out wrong.
If you don’t believe me, think of what the US has done itself. In the original Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US, being friends with Kuwait, went in with military force, pushing Iraq out of the country. Sounds similar to Russia, a country supporting South Ossetian independence, going into South Ossetia and pushing Georgia out with military force, doesn’t it? Remember, this is not a discussion about Russia’s failure to abide by the cease fire agreement, it is about their initial actions.
Let’s not forget the US invaded Iraq in 2002, without any provocation. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks, had no weapons of mass destruction, and al-Qaeda had no presence in the country. In reality, we did not like Saddam Hussein’s regime and have a huge interest in the region’s oil reserves.
McCain needs to realize that in our new global society, the US cannot operate under one set of rules and expect the rest of the world to function with a different set of rules. That is why the US is disrespected and no longer liked around the world. The US can be a world leader without dictating rules to other nations. Ultimately, all countries should be operating under a single set of rules that are agreed upon by a majority of nations.
Other examples of McCain’s obliviousness do exist, but I won’t discuss them here. Just don’t get me started on how un-presidential it was for McCain to say he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw three letters, KGB. I have no problem with McCain thinking that way, but it was absolutely stupid to say it out loud. Nice way to insult a world leader, John! Why doesn’t McCain just say if he is elected to the presidency, he wants to have poor relations with Russia? It would accomplish the same thing, but is much more diplomatic.
According to Sofia Social Research Center expert Oleksandr Levtsun, Ukrainian citizens would prefer a new parliamentary coalition consisting of the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT) and the pro-Russian Party of Regions.The poll of 2,005 people, conducted between September 9 and September 17, followed the dissolution of the “Orange” coalition between BYuT and President Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine People’s Self Defense Bloc (OU-PSD). Poll results revealed the following:
Positive Responses
- BYuT/Party of Regions - 41.4%
- Party of Regions/Communist Party/Lytvyn Bloc - 34.4%
- BYuT/OU-PSD - 26.4%
- OU-PSD/Party of Regions - 7.5%
- OU-PSD/Party of Regions - 77.7%
- BYuT/OU-PSD - 57.9%
- Party of Regions/Communist Party/Lytvyn Bloc - 48.5%
- BYuT/Party of Regions - 42.1%
Wow. I’m surprised the researchers found enough participants that currently care about a parliamentary coalition. My understanding is that most Ukrainian citizens have had enough of all the elections and political battles that have plagued the country since the 2004 Orange Revolution.
Photo: Qatar - Creative Commons
With 99.99% of votes counted in Slovenia’s September 21, 2008 parliamentary election, the opposition Social Democrats hold a narrow lead over the incumbent Slovenian Democratic Party. Total turnout was estimated to be 62.2%. Official results are not expected until September 30 or October 1 so votes from abroad can be counted.Borut Pahor, leader of the Social Democrats, said coalition talks would begin as soon as the official results are announced. The new coalition will likely consist of the Social Democrats, Zares, Democratic Party of Pensioners and Liberal Democracy of Slovenia.
The vote reflects the feelings of many Slovenians - that conservative Prime Minister Janez Jansa failed to properly deal with high inflation. Allegations of corruption also hurt Jansa’s party.
Currently, the State Electoral Commission has provided the following unofficial results (with vote percentage and number of seats won)*:
- Social Democrats (SD) - 30.5% (29)
- Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) - 29.3% (28)
- Zares - 9.4% (9)
- Democratic Party of Pensioners of Slovenia - 7.45% (7)
- Slovenian National Party - 5.46% (5)
- Slovenian People’s Party/Youth Party of Slovenia - 5.24% (5)
- Liberal Democracy of Slovenia - 5.19% (5)
- New Slovenia - Christian People’s Party - 3.25%
- Lipa - 1.82%
- List for Justice and Development - 0.56%
- Greens of Slovenia - 0.49%
- Christian Democratic Party - 0.43%
- List for Clear Drinking Water - 0.39%
- Party of the Slovenian People - 0.24%
- Green Coalition: Green Party and Green Progress - 0.21%
- Forward Slovenia - 0.04%
- Acacia - 0.02%
I am sad to report that Rabbi Yossie Raichik, director of the charity organization Chabad’s Children of Chernobyl, died today due to complications from a lung infection. Raichik was 55 years old.After the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, Raichik moved to Israel to help facilitate the airlifting of children hardest hit by the Chernobyl accident. Since the organization’s founding in 1989, Children of Chernobyl has brought more than 2,500 children and 1,700 parents from the Chernobyl area to live in Israel.
Photo: Chabad.org
In accordance with a clause in the agreement of Ukraine’s recently failed democratic coalition, Verkhovna Rada Speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk resigned his post today. The coalition agreement between the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT) and Our Ukraine People’s Self Defense Bloc (OU-PSD) specifies that both the parliamentary speaker and prime minister are required to step down if the coalition collapses.
Yatseniuk stated that if new elections were scheduled, he would form his own party. Former Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn said this is Yatseniuk’s first step towards an independent political career.
At a Wednesday press conference, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said she would not resign. Tymoshenko stated, “The coalition has not collapsed ... We are not a flock of sheep who jump into the abyss just because one sheep has done so.” Tymoshenko added that the government will continue to work for a “long time” despite the “not very nice political events” that have occurred.
I don’t know how Tymoshenko personally defines a collapse of a coalition, but you would think that if one of two participating groups leaves the alliance and the speaker of parliament formally announces the end of the coalition two weeks later, the coalition has indeed collapsed.
This is an interesting move by Tymoshenko. People could view her refusal to resign as caring so much about the country that she will not allow the government to stop work while either a new election takes place or a new coalition is formed.
However, by not resigning, Tymoshenko could also be seen as someone who is power-hungry and does not honor her own agreements. This would make it difficult for BYuT to secure a new majority coalition agreement, whether in the next 30 days or after a new election.
In line with my previous comment, details have emerged about the rumored deal between BYuT and the Party of Regions that has failed to materialize. Apparently, Viktor Yanukovych, leader of the Party of Regions, was to be appointed Speaker of Parliament while Tymoshenko would remain as Prime Minister. In 2010, Yanukovych would be elected President while Tymoshenko would remain in the prime minister’s post.
Powerful members of the Party of Regions opposed the deal, saying that as the larger group in Parliament, their leader should become the Prime Minister (Party of Regions holds 175 seats, BYuT has 156 seats). The two parties also have failed to reach common ground regarding future presidential powers, a problem for Tymoshenko’s desire for constitutional reform.
Yatseniuk stated that if new elections were scheduled, he would form his own party. Former Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn said this is Yatseniuk’s first step towards an independent political career.
At a Wednesday press conference, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said she would not resign. Tymoshenko stated, “The coalition has not collapsed ... We are not a flock of sheep who jump into the abyss just because one sheep has done so.” Tymoshenko added that the government will continue to work for a “long time” despite the “not very nice political events” that have occurred.
I don’t know how Tymoshenko personally defines a collapse of a coalition, but you would think that if one of two participating groups leaves the alliance and the speaker of parliament formally announces the end of the coalition two weeks later, the coalition has indeed collapsed.
This is an interesting move by Tymoshenko. People could view her refusal to resign as caring so much about the country that she will not allow the government to stop work while either a new election takes place or a new coalition is formed.
However, by not resigning, Tymoshenko could also be seen as someone who is power-hungry and does not honor her own agreements. This would make it difficult for BYuT to secure a new majority coalition agreement, whether in the next 30 days or after a new election.
In line with my previous comment, details have emerged about the rumored deal between BYuT and the Party of Regions that has failed to materialize. Apparently, Viktor Yanukovych, leader of the Party of Regions, was to be appointed Speaker of Parliament while Tymoshenko would remain as Prime Minister. In 2010, Yanukovych would be elected President while Tymoshenko would remain in the prime minister’s post.
Powerful members of the Party of Regions opposed the deal, saying that as the larger group in Parliament, their leader should become the Prime Minister (Party of Regions holds 175 seats, BYuT has 156 seats). The two parties also have failed to reach common ground regarding future presidential powers, a problem for Tymoshenko’s desire for constitutional reform.
As expected, Verkhovna Rada Speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk announced the formal dissolution of the pro-Western “Orange” majority coalition between the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT) and President Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine People’s Self Defense Bloc (OU-PSD). A new majority must be built within the next 30 days, or the nation faces another election.
BYuT claims it is not responsible for the collapse because the group did not quit the alliance. Instead, they point fingers at OU-PSD, which quit the coalition on September 3. BYuT has also shown an instruction from OU-PSD leadership to their regional party organizations stating the main task is a snap election, not saving the coalition.
Obviously BYuT did not quit the coalition, but that, in itself, is not enough to claim they are not responsible, or share responsibility, for the breakup. OU-PSD did not leave without reason, or what they saw as a just cause. Not only that, but Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and President Yushchenko have been at each other’s throats almost since the day Tymoshenko took office last December.
While there have been issues with many of Yushchenko’s decisions and actions, some of Tymoshenko’s have also been quite suspect. Not only that, Tymoshenko has typically been completely resistant to any policy compromises. It seems to be either her way or the highway. It is time (actually way past time) for Tymoshenko and Yushchenko to stop placing blame elsewhere and simply look at themselves - there is plenty of blame to spread around to all parties. These two have been so completely focused on themselves they forgot they are supposed to be in office to serve the Ukrainian people - you know, the people who are really suffering through all this.
At this time, I should also apologize for being so excited last year when the “Orange” coalition assumed power. I should have known better than to believe Yushchenko and Tymoshenko could get along and that the coalition would last and be successful.
BYuT claims it is not responsible for the collapse because the group did not quit the alliance. Instead, they point fingers at OU-PSD, which quit the coalition on September 3. BYuT has also shown an instruction from OU-PSD leadership to their regional party organizations stating the main task is a snap election, not saving the coalition.
Obviously BYuT did not quit the coalition, but that, in itself, is not enough to claim they are not responsible, or share responsibility, for the breakup. OU-PSD did not leave without reason, or what they saw as a just cause. Not only that, but Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and President Yushchenko have been at each other’s throats almost since the day Tymoshenko took office last December.
While there have been issues with many of Yushchenko’s decisions and actions, some of Tymoshenko’s have also been quite suspect. Not only that, Tymoshenko has typically been completely resistant to any policy compromises. It seems to be either her way or the highway. It is time (actually way past time) for Tymoshenko and Yushchenko to stop placing blame elsewhere and simply look at themselves - there is plenty of blame to spread around to all parties. These two have been so completely focused on themselves they forgot they are supposed to be in office to serve the Ukrainian people - you know, the people who are really suffering through all this.
At this time, I should also apologize for being so excited last year when the “Orange” coalition assumed power. I should have known better than to believe Yushchenko and Tymoshenko could get along and that the coalition would last and be successful.
Arseniy Yatseniuk, Speaker of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, is reportedly ready to formally announce the breakup of the “Orange” democratic coalition during tomorrow’s parliamentary session. The coalition had been between the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT) and Our Ukraine People’s Self Defense Bloc (OU-PSD). The announcement would be in line with article 65 of the Verkhovna Rada Temporary Regulations.
Today, rumors have been running rampant about a possible new ruling coalition between BYuT, OU-PSD and the Lytvyn Bloc. Officials from the Lytvyn Bloc concede that talks have occurred, but fail to acknowledge any more substance to the rumor.
Another rumor has BYuT joining forces with the pro-Russian Party of Regions. This rumor began after the groups recently joined forces to pass new laws decreasing Presidential powers. It is not clear if talks have commenced between these groups.
Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, chairman of OU-PSD, indicates his group has received no proposals from any faction about creating a new coalition. He also stated that OU-PSD would never agree to a coalition with the Party of Regions.
So, it’s another governmental crisis for Ukraine - what else is new? I have absolutely no idea what will happen there tomorrow or in the next month. I’m not sure anyone in Ukraine knows, either. If Yatseniuk makes the formal announcement tomorrow, Ukraine’s political groups will have 30 days to create a viable majority coalition in parliament. If they fail to do so, President Yushchenko could they dissolve Parliament and call for new elections.
New elections likely will not solve the problem. The results of a recent poll published in the weekly Zerkalo Nedeli show BYuT with 24.1% and the Party of Regions at 23.3%.
This indicates the winning group in a new election will still not hold a majority of seats in Parliament. Ukrainian law requires a parliamentary majority, so a new coalition agreement would be necessary. If these political groups cannot form a coalition now, how will they do so after a new election. Is it any wonder so many Ukrainians are completely apathetic and disinterested in their country’s politics.
Today, rumors have been running rampant about a possible new ruling coalition between BYuT, OU-PSD and the Lytvyn Bloc. Officials from the Lytvyn Bloc concede that talks have occurred, but fail to acknowledge any more substance to the rumor.
Another rumor has BYuT joining forces with the pro-Russian Party of Regions. This rumor began after the groups recently joined forces to pass new laws decreasing Presidential powers. It is not clear if talks have commenced between these groups.
Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, chairman of OU-PSD, indicates his group has received no proposals from any faction about creating a new coalition. He also stated that OU-PSD would never agree to a coalition with the Party of Regions.
So, it’s another governmental crisis for Ukraine - what else is new? I have absolutely no idea what will happen there tomorrow or in the next month. I’m not sure anyone in Ukraine knows, either. If Yatseniuk makes the formal announcement tomorrow, Ukraine’s political groups will have 30 days to create a viable majority coalition in parliament. If they fail to do so, President Yushchenko could they dissolve Parliament and call for new elections.
New elections likely will not solve the problem. The results of a recent poll published in the weekly Zerkalo Nedeli show BYuT with 24.1% and the Party of Regions at 23.3%.
This indicates the winning group in a new election will still not hold a majority of seats in Parliament. Ukrainian law requires a parliamentary majority, so a new coalition agreement would be necessary. If these political groups cannot form a coalition now, how will they do so after a new election. Is it any wonder so many Ukrainians are completely apathetic and disinterested in their country’s politics.
I recently ran across a 15 slide photo essay on the Unicef website. The photos were taken by 12-17 year old children from Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation for the International Conference on Chernobyl held in Belarus, April 19-21, 2006.
I highly recommend you take several minutes to view this slideshow. It is interesting to see these images - effects of the Chernobyl disaster as seen through the eyes of the children.
I highly recommend you take several minutes to view this slideshow. It is interesting to see these images - effects of the Chernobyl disaster as seen through the eyes of the children.
If you ever had the desire to work a management position at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant, here’s your chance:
Energy Recruitment Solutions (ERS), a recruiting firm specializing in personnel for the nuclear energy industry, is looking for a Project Manager, with the position located at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.
This person will be part of the Project Management Unit (PMU) and is expected to manage two ongoing projects, the Interim Dry Fuel Storage Facility and Liquid Radwaste Treatment Plant. The project manager will also oversee several smaller support contracts. The purpose of the main projects is to support the decommissioning of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Salary is dependent on qualifications and experience.
My guess is that this person will be required to live in Slavutych, the city that was built to replace Pripyat in the late 1980’s. The city is located approximately 50 km northeast of the plant, and commuting would be accomplished via a one hour train ride from the city to the plant. This guess is due to Chernobyl Plant workers being required to live in Slavutych. Also, as I previously reported in March, a US physicist working on the Chernobyl Shelter Implementation Program lives in Slavutych with his family.
Energy Recruitment Solutions (ERS), a recruiting firm specializing in personnel for the nuclear energy industry, is looking for a Project Manager, with the position located at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.
This person will be part of the Project Management Unit (PMU) and is expected to manage two ongoing projects, the Interim Dry Fuel Storage Facility and Liquid Radwaste Treatment Plant. The project manager will also oversee several smaller support contracts. The purpose of the main projects is to support the decommissioning of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Salary is dependent on qualifications and experience.
My guess is that this person will be required to live in Slavutych, the city that was built to replace Pripyat in the late 1980’s. The city is located approximately 50 km northeast of the plant, and commuting would be accomplished via a one hour train ride from the city to the plant. This guess is due to Chernobyl Plant workers being required to live in Slavutych. Also, as I previously reported in March, a US physicist working on the Chernobyl Shelter Implementation Program lives in Slavutych with his family.
In case you haven’t heard, 16 year old Tanya Kazyra, a participant in a summer program for children from Belarus’ Chernobyl-affected areas, refused to return home to Belarus at the end of her summer holiday with the Zapata family in Petaluma, California. She has not requested asylum - only refusing to return home. The Zapatas have willingly allowed Tanya to remain in their home. In response, the Belorussian government has temporarily placed a ban for all children on future travel abroad organized by charities.
These programs are designed to provide rest and recuperation for Belorussian children affected in some way by the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster. The programs allow these children to spend 6 to 8 weeks with a host family in another country.
Some charitable organizations believe these programs allow the children’s immune systems to recover, making it easier for them to fight the effects of lingering radiation at home in Belarus.
When considering the Belorussian government’s decision, don’t immediately assume they are doing something horribly wrong. All participants, including the sponsoring families, sign an agreement indicating the children will return to Belarus at the end of their stay. These children visit other countries on temporary visas. The programs are not exchange or adoption programs. The Belorussian government is merely trying to insure these agreements are honored by seeking bilateral agreements with the governments of participating families’ countries to ensure this type of situation does not happen again.
You may think Belarus is using a heavy-handed tactic, but these children (approximately 1,400 participate in such programs each year) can be looked at as ambassadors for Belarus. The entire country receives aid, due in part to the presence of these children in other countries. If a child does not return home, the country loses a powerful face in their attempt to obtain aid and improve conditions at home.
In Tanya’s case, not only is the young lady violating the terms of the agreement, but the Zapatas have violated their agreement as well. I am sure Tanya’s life in Belarus is nowhere near as good as she has it with her sponsoring family in California, but her decision is jeopardizing many children’s opportunity to enjoy the same holiday abroad that she has had for the last nine years.
Tanya’s visa expires December 25, and her attorney has proposed that Tanya would seek a student visa to study in the United States, publicly apologize to the Belorussian government, help raise awareness in the US about Belorussian culture, history and traditions and help raise money for the Chernobyl Children’s Project charity in the area.
I don’t agree with all policies of the Belorussian government, but I can’t blame them for trying to enforce these agreements and not losing valuable ambassadors for their country. Hopefully this issue can be quickly resolved so these Belorussian children can again get a much needed holiday abroad.
The information presented here comes from a myriad of news stories and my own feelings. In the near future, I hope to contact people involved in the current situation (including Belorussian officials) to get a more complete picture of what is really happening. I will post an update when I have additional information.
These programs are designed to provide rest and recuperation for Belorussian children affected in some way by the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster. The programs allow these children to spend 6 to 8 weeks with a host family in another country.
Some charitable organizations believe these programs allow the children’s immune systems to recover, making it easier for them to fight the effects of lingering radiation at home in Belarus.
When considering the Belorussian government’s decision, don’t immediately assume they are doing something horribly wrong. All participants, including the sponsoring families, sign an agreement indicating the children will return to Belarus at the end of their stay. These children visit other countries on temporary visas. The programs are not exchange or adoption programs. The Belorussian government is merely trying to insure these agreements are honored by seeking bilateral agreements with the governments of participating families’ countries to ensure this type of situation does not happen again.
You may think Belarus is using a heavy-handed tactic, but these children (approximately 1,400 participate in such programs each year) can be looked at as ambassadors for Belarus. The entire country receives aid, due in part to the presence of these children in other countries. If a child does not return home, the country loses a powerful face in their attempt to obtain aid and improve conditions at home.
In Tanya’s case, not only is the young lady violating the terms of the agreement, but the Zapatas have violated their agreement as well. I am sure Tanya’s life in Belarus is nowhere near as good as she has it with her sponsoring family in California, but her decision is jeopardizing many children’s opportunity to enjoy the same holiday abroad that she has had for the last nine years.
Tanya’s visa expires December 25, and her attorney has proposed that Tanya would seek a student visa to study in the United States, publicly apologize to the Belorussian government, help raise awareness in the US about Belorussian culture, history and traditions and help raise money for the Chernobyl Children’s Project charity in the area.
I don’t agree with all policies of the Belorussian government, but I can’t blame them for trying to enforce these agreements and not losing valuable ambassadors for their country. Hopefully this issue can be quickly resolved so these Belorussian children can again get a much needed holiday abroad.
The information presented here comes from a myriad of news stories and my own feelings. In the near future, I hope to contact people involved in the current situation (including Belorussian officials) to get a more complete picture of what is really happening. I will post an update when I have additional information.
The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant administration has announced that work on the assembly and testing of equipment at the new solid radioactive waste processing facility (PKTRO) is near completion.Each phase of Technology on the Treatment of Radioactive Waste Management (RAO) passes separate verification. Later, the complete process chain will be tested in its entirety.
The process chain includes:
- Main source of waste: radioactive waste accumulated in the repository of solid waste (HTO).
- Waste is extracted from HTO storage compartments, loaded into a transport container and moved in cell-sorting and fragmentation (SIF) to PKTRO.
- Waste materials removed directly from the Chernobyl Plant reactors will be taken directly to PKTRO.
- Other automated processes used to incinerate and cleanse the materials.
- The remaining materials will be delivered to the storage site “Vector”
Comprehensive tests of the entire process chain will be conducted through the end of 2008. After these tests are determined successful, further tests will be conducted with materials transferred directly from the Chernobyl Plant reactors.
Photo courtesy of Chernobyl NPP
Members of Our Ukraine People’s Self Defense Bloc have left their Democratic coalition with the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT) following a parliamentary vote in which BYuT and the pro-Russian Party of Regions adopted new draft laws reducing the powers of President Viktor Yushchenko.
Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has said the laws are simply meant to properly define the roles of both the President and Prime Minister. On the other hand, Yushchenko accused Tymoshenko of making a power play and participating in a constitutional coup.
Tymoshenko replied to Yushchenko’s power-play accusations by stating that she is ready to back out of running in the next Presidential election. She has also given the members of Our Ukraine People’s Self Defense Bloc 10 days to return to the Democratic coalition without any ultimatums or provocations.
Yushchenko has threatened to dissolve parliament and call for another pre-term, snap election unless a new coalition can be formed.
This is very disappointing, but not surprising. Yushchenko and Tymoshenko have been butting heads all year and something like this was almost bound to happen. Unfortunately, the biggest loser in this situation are the Ukrainian people, who are suffering due to the inadequacies and personal agendas of its governmental officials.
Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has said the laws are simply meant to properly define the roles of both the President and Prime Minister. On the other hand, Yushchenko accused Tymoshenko of making a power play and participating in a constitutional coup.
Tymoshenko replied to Yushchenko’s power-play accusations by stating that she is ready to back out of running in the next Presidential election. She has also given the members of Our Ukraine People’s Self Defense Bloc 10 days to return to the Democratic coalition without any ultimatums or provocations.
Yushchenko has threatened to dissolve parliament and call for another pre-term, snap election unless a new coalition can be formed.
This is very disappointing, but not surprising. Yushchenko and Tymoshenko have been butting heads all year and something like this was almost bound to happen. Unfortunately, the biggest loser in this situation are the Ukrainian people, who are suffering due to the inadequacies and personal agendas of its governmental officials.
