YELTSIN POSTPONES MEETING WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. Although Prime Minister Sergei Kirienko said recent economic problems were not sufficient to keep him from going to Paris, Boris Yeltsin cited precisely those difficulties in a letter to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma seeking a delay in their informal summit scheduled for later this month. The Russian president also pointed to the need to travel to various parts of Russia. PG

Environmental disasters--some left over from Soviet times, others the product of the actions of weak new governments, and still others the result of the activities of foreign firms--may reignite nationalist passions in many post-Soviet states.

There are three reasons behind this somewhat surprising conclusion. First, as a recently released poll shows, citizens in the post-Soviet states appear even more concerned about the environment than are residents of other countries around the world.

Second, the leaders of many of the national movements in these countries started as environmental activists in Soviet times and thus are now simply returning to their roots as a result of new ecological disasters . And third, the media have focused increasing attention on such disasters, especially when corrupt local officials or foreign firms appear to be to blame.

The United States Information Agency last month released the results of two surveys its researchers conducted in late 1997 in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan on popular attitudes toward environomental issues. Those polls found that majorities in all three countries--including more than 65 percent in Russia--said they favored protecting the environment even if doing so meant that they would have to put up with slower economic growth. Such support for environmental activism would be impressive anywhere; it is especially striking in countries whose economic situation is anything but good.

In addition, the survey showed that the citizens of these three countries were extremely critical of what their respective governments were doing to clean up environmental pollution. Some 70 percent of Kazakhs, 85 percent of Russians, and a similar percentage of Ukrainians felt their national governments were doing a poor job in this respect.

Not surprisingly, politicians both in power and in opposition are sensitive to such attitudes, seeing them either as a threat or an opportunity. And that is particularly the case with those political figures who began their careers as spokesmen for ecological causes in Soviet times.

In the 1960s and 1970s, environmental concerns were among the few issues that opposition groups, especially in the non-Russian regions, could raise without falling afoul of the Soviet state. Many of these environmental activists subsequently became active in the preservation of historical monuments when that became possible. And later still, they adopted an openly nationalist agenda as the Soviet state crumbled around them.

Now in the post-Soviet environment, these same people are drawing strength from others appalled by the environmental degradation visited upon them by past Soviet practices, by the failure of their own governments to prevent new disasters, and by the poor ecological record of many Western firms now operating in these countries. And just as in Soviet times, they are focusing attention not so much on the environment in general but rather on conditions in their own country or even in one part of it. According to the USIA poll, only one person in 50 was concerned about global climate change, but virtually everyone was worried about more immediate environmental degradation.

The media in these countries are playing up these issues, frequently with an increasingly nationalist gloss directed either at the Soviet past, an uncaring and corrupt local regime, or foreign firms. Recently, for example, the press in Kyrgyzstan has called attention to the environmental disaster visited on that country's Lake IssykKul by a Kyrgyz-Canadian gold-mining concern. Ukrainian media have continued to discuss the fallout from the Chornobyl nuclear accident, a disaster made all the worse by Soviet policies and the West's unwillingness to help. And the Georgian media have raised questions about the consequences for that country if Turkey builds a dam on the border between the two countries.

Many both in the West and in these countries may be inclined to dismiss such concerns as relatively unimportant to the political life of this region. But the experience of these countries in the past and the intense feelings that environmental issues can still arouse point to a different conclusion.

They suggest that future environmental disasters in this region may quickly lead to a nationalist response, particularly if those responsible are individuals and groups from abroad. That conclusion, in turn, indicates that anyone seeking to do business with those countries must be especially environmentally responsible to avoid unleashing a popular movement that no one will be able to control.

UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT FAILS TO ELECT SPEAKER FOR FOURTH TIME... In a fourth round of voting for parliamentary speaker, Social Democrat Leonid Kravchuk received 193 votes, Communist Petro Symonenko 168, and Hromada party candidate Mykola Haber 31, Ukrainian Television reported. Eight deputies voted against all three candidates. Since none of the candidates gained the necessary 226 votes, the election was declared invalid. The four right-centrist parties that until now have abstained from taking part in the election supported Kravchuk (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 29 May 1998). JM

...WHILE PRESIDENT THREATENS TO FORM LEFTIST GOVERNMENT. Leonid Kuchma on 3 June said that if either Socialist Oleksandr Moroz or Communist Petro Symonenko is elected parliamentary speaker, he will ask the successful candidate to form the Cabinet of Ministers and assume responsibility for "the entire nation," Interfax reported. "That will be a horrible experiment, but without this experiment it would be simply impossible to dot all the 'i's.'" Kuchma commented. Kuchma added that Kravchuk could be a "proper" speaker. In his opinion, the leaders of the main parliamentary groups should agree on a "package solution" to electing a speaker and his deputies. JM

KUCHMA MEETS VATICAN SECRETARY OF STATE. The Ukrainian president on 3 June met with Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican secretary of state, who is currently on an official visit to Ukraine, Ukrainian Television reported. Both officials noted "the deepening of relations between the two states." Ukraine has 4.5 million Uniates (Eastern rite Catholics loyal to Rome) and 500,000 Roman Catholics. One of Sodano's goals was to discuss a possible visit by Pope John Paul II to Ukraine. The cardinal told Ukrainian Television that the pope's visit is "a question of the future.... I am sure that the pope will come because he wants to and he continually mentions Ukraine in his prayers." JM

UNCLAIMED PRIVATIZATION VOUCHERS TO GO TO BUDGET. Ukrainian Prime Minister Valeriy Pustovoytenko on 3 June said that the government has decided to transfer to the Ministry of Industrial Policy those privatization vouchers that were not claimed by Ukrainian citizens, ITAR-TASS reported. The unclaimed vouchers are worth more than 2.2 billion hryvni. Pustovoytenko believes they can be put into circulation and result in budget revenues worth 22 million hryvni in the near future. JM

Environmental disasters--some left over from Soviet times, others the product of the actions of weak new governments, and still others the result of the activities of foreign firms--may reignite nationalist passions in many post-Soviet states.

There are three reasons behind this somewhat surprising conclusion. First, as a recently released poll shows, citizens in the post-Soviet states appear even more concerned about the environment than are residents of other countries around the world.

Second, the leaders of many of the national movements in these countries started as environmental activists in Soviet times and thus are now simply returning to their roots as a result of new ecological disasters . And third, the media have focused increasing attention on such disasters, especially when corrupt local officials or foreign firms appear to be to blame.

The United States Information Agency last month released the results of two surveys its researchers conducted in late 1997 in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan on popular attitudes toward environomental issues. Those polls found that majorities in all three countries--including more than 65 percent in Russia--said they favored protecting the environment even if doing so meant that they would have to put up with slower economic growth. Such support for environmental activism would be impressive anywhere; it is especially striking in countries whose economic situation is anything but good.

In addition, the survey showed that the citizens of these three countries were extremely critical of what their respective governments were doing to clean up environmental pollution. Some 70 percent of Kazakhs, 85 percent of Russians, and a similar percentage of Ukrainians felt their national governments were doing a poor job in this respect.

Not surprisingly, politicians both in power and in opposition are sensitive to such attitudes, seeing them either as a threat or an opportunity. And that is particularly the case with those political figures who began their careers as spokesmen for ecological causes in Soviet times.

In the 1960s and 1970s, environmental concerns were among the few issues that opposition groups, especially in the non-Russian regions, could raise without falling afoul of the Soviet state. Many of these environmental activists subsequently became active in the preservation of historical monuments when that became possible. And later still, they adopted an openly nationalist agenda as the Soviet state crumbled around them.

Now in the post-Soviet environment, these same people are drawing strength from others appalled by the environmental degradation visited upon them by past Soviet practices, by the failure of their own governments to prevent new disasters, and by the poor ecological record of many Western firms now operating in these countries. And just as in Soviet times, they are focusing attention not so much on the environment in general but rather on conditions in their own country or even in one part of it. According to the USIA poll, only one person in 50 was concerned about global climate change, but virtually everyone was worried about more immediate environmental degradation.

The media in these countries are playing up these issues, frequently with an increasingly nationalist gloss directed either at the Soviet past, an uncaring and corrupt local regime, or foreign firms. Recently, for example, the press in Kyrgyzstan has called attention to the environmental disaster visited on that country's Lake IssykKul by a Kyrgyz-Canadian gold-mining concern. Ukrainian media have continued to discuss the fallout from the Chornobyl nuclear accident, a disaster made all the worse by Soviet policies and the West's unwillingness to help. And the Georgian media have raised questions about the consequences for that country if Turkey builds a dam on the border between the two countries.

Many both in the West and in these countries may be inclined to dismiss such concerns as relatively unimportant to the political life of this region. But the experience of these countries in the past and the intense feelings that environmental issues can still arouse point to a different conclusion.

They suggest that future environmental disasters in this region may quickly lead to a nationalist response, particularly if those responsible are individuals and groups from abroad. That conclusion, in turn, indicates that anyone seeking to do business with those countries must be especially environmentally responsible to avoid unleashing a popular movement that no one will be able to control.