Standards of national politics still plummet
“What do you think about the article ‘Sensation: Ponamarchuk’s New Tape’ in today’s (January 15, 2002 —Ed.) Stolichnye novosti? How would you feel in the shoes of an individual whose private conversation was secretly recorded and then made public?”
“This can hardly be called a private conversation. Under no circumstances will I lay my heart on the line before this man, Vadym Rabinovych.
“I really had the reported conversation with Rabinovych. Rabinovych phoned in and said he wanted to see me. I agreed. I came to his place, and we talked in an isolated room.”
“Did you suspect the place was bugged?”
“I didn’t. But what surprised me were Rabinovych’s longwinded harangues.”
“But you did not think you were being taped, did you?”
“I’m not afraid of being taped. By the way, he tapes everybody.”
“Did you feel anything?”
“I did, but by pure intuition. As to Rabinovych, I had some more valuable conversations with him, when my voice even cracked.”
“Do you mean you can show Rabinovych some tapes in return?”
“No, God forbid! He belongs to a different circle. He likes rubbing shoulders with Yushchenko, Omelchenko, Medvedchuk, and Pliushch. You can see this even in today’s newspaper collage. But he’s not there. As to their claim that ‘the editorial office managed to get the tapes,’ this is aimed at those who don’t know who Stolichnye novosti belongs to. The editors did not ‘manage to get’ the tape, they had it. They just took it from one floor to another.”
“We already know that NRU for Unity has categorically dissociated itself from Dmytro Ponamarchuk, saying that you were bribed and that your task was to tarnish the reputation of the superbly moral bloc of the Popular Movement (Rukh) of Ukraine. Why did they do so?”
“I think they did so first of all out of fear. For they were not initiated in what I was going to do as a journalist and a politician. On the other hand, they felt pressure put on them. They were forced to hold a press conference (January 14, 2002 — Ed.) and make the statements you heard.”
“Who pressured them?”
“I think they are being pressured from various sides. They have projected such a weak image of themselves that anybody can now pressure them. They failed to give their own assessment of what happened. They said, ‘Had Dmytro warned us, things could have taken a different shape.’ But I can also reprove them, ‘Please warn me, as a participant in the process, of what you are doing.’ Bohdan Boiko is well aware that Rukh Press has always had its own opinion, which served, first of all, the interests of the NRU. We were an institution that portrayed Rukh to the Ukrainian people precisely the way we saw it. This was such a wide margin of independence that we were in fact internal opponents under any circumstances that existed in the Rukh Central Leadership. Nobody has ever intruded on the way we presented what was going on in the NRU.”
“You said they were to have let you know about some of their steps. Does this mean something in Boiko’s Rukh did not suit you, and so, in reply, you decided not to inform them about your step?”
“If I had informed them, that press conference (January 9, 2002 — Ed.) would not have been held. On the other hand, I did inform my closest like- minded people, for example, Serhiy Koniev. Shortly before, I told him my concept and found support. In his turn, he enlisted the support of Roman Vasylyshyn.”
“But they, also present at the press conference, never voiced their support of Ponamarchuk!”
“Koniev attended the press conference, but Roman did not. Koniev was also present at my press conference but refrained from speaking. But his silence was in fact consent.”
“You think so?”
“Yes, I do.”
“In fact, you now have no allies in the NRU(e) [Rukh III, for unity — Ed.] camp.”
“There is a difference between public and personal support. In personal terms, they support me, but in public terms they are biding their time to see the consequences of this situation. Should the consequences be positive, they will all want to say they were involved in it.”
“And what will you say about some allegations that this affair was masterminded in Moscow by Russian ‘political technologists’? This makes you an agent of ‘Muscovites,’ the sworn enemies of Rukh.”
“It is difficult to find greater enemies of the Popular Movement of Ukraine than those who were in the NRU itself. Rukh was broken in three by its own hands.”
“But, still, who stands behind this business?”
“Nobody but me is responsible for making the materials public.”
“But this doesn’t mean you taped it by yourself, does it?”
“Of course, not. I don’t have the equipment required. It was recorded by professionals. Now I understand that what was going on at the election headquarters of Our Ukraine and Yednist (Unity) is now occurring in the NRU bloc headquarters as well. I am no longer surprised that what is going on at the headquarters of one party or another during an election campaign becomes known to all, especially its rivals. I am sure this tape originated from the Yednist headquarters and the next one will come from Our Ukraine. Incidentally, I have up to now immediately thrown away all materials coming from Our Ukraine if only because they were prepared by my political opponents.
“By the way, I wonder why nobody pays any attention to the last passage of the taped conversation, where Omelchenko shouts at Yushchenko, ‘Why did you betray me? You’re a traitor!’ How could ‘the conscience of the nation’ have betrayed the mayor of the capital?”
“Can you answer this question?”
“I wanted everybody to find the answer.”
“What is your attitude toward the statement of the Journalistic Ethics Commission, which has judged your actions very harshly?”
“This is an unprecedented statement. They did not even speak to the author of the events. I will refrain from comment. Those who make up part of the commission are supposed to be colleagues and friends of mine. Let this be on their conscience.”
“What did you count on when you decided to disclose this telephone conversation? For this conversation is unlikely to make any major impression — either by force of emotions or pragmatic calculation — on those who are for Yushchenko. On the other hand, those who assess Yushchenko’s activities from the viewpoint of common sense and reason, rather than emotions, saw nothing new in these conversations.”
“We planned to present these materials in such a way as to show that Yushchenko shifts his ground whenever he speaks. As a journalist, I intended to show that he is not the man he claims he is. Yushchenko has swallowed the spineless snails who have now become Popular Movement of Ukraine leaders. Look, George Bush choked on a pretzel, but this one devoured so much without a hint of choking. I want them to understand this. Yet, I think they are already beginning to understand, for he cheated them by promising a 25% quota on the list, while the true price of Rukh has now dropped to 6-7%.”
“In other words, was this a case of an internal party debate on your part?”
“I hoped until the end of last year that people would return to their senses. Now it is no longer an internal party debate. I want to show on a national scale who Yushchenko really is.”
“Or perhaps you did so because Yushchenko left you out of his bloc?”
“Not at all. Do I resemble those whom he invited to join him? To join the Yushchenko bloc would mean for me to become as gray as everyone else around him. In my opinion, it is inadmissible for an individual who thinks about his political future to join the Yushchenko bloc.”
“Is there such a thing as independent politicians in Rukh? Well before currying favor with Yushchenko, they got entangled in their financial liabilities and looked like people who needed to be urgently rescued.”
“Yes, but, what is more, they sold the Rukh trademark for a song in exchange for a short-lived political future until March 31. They have long been surviving by striking deals before elections. And, incidentally, they cherish an illusion about the next presidential elections: they think Yushchenko will become president.”
“Do you rule out this kind of outcome for Yushchenko?”
“Absolutely. The next parliament is certain to show this.”
“Dmytro, your action seems to have knocked you out of the election process altogether. Do you have a sensation of being used and thrown away?”
“No. I have never let anybody use me, let alone throw me away. It still remains to be seen who cheated whom. I’m not exactly bursting to be on the NRU bloc list. I proved by my action that, first, I am and will be Ponamarchuk, and, secondly, I’m not going to be bought with promises of an NRU or, even more, an Our Ukraine seat. Incidentally, it is I who came up with the idea of a Popular Rukh of Ukraine election bloc. This is the most valuable thing I’ve done in the past two years. Now this most precious thing has announced it was dissociating itself from me. But it is in fact dissociating from itself, not from me.”
“But you can no longer hope to be a peoples’ deputy...”
“Why not? There are also winner-take-all electoral districts.”
“And what parties do you think would support you?”
“I think the voters will. Today I have come for the first time to the conclusion that politicians are by and large liars and cowards. Nobody said he was not afraid of being taped because he has nothing to hide. Everybody began to leaf through the Criminal Code to find out what it sets forth for eavesdropping.”
“Incidentally, have you already had contacts with law enforcement over this matter?”
“No.”
“And if you still have to testify and the court rules to take you into custody? What will you do?”
“I’ll do the time. For the truth...”
“And if they force you to reveal the sources?”
“They won’t because I can actually only guess who did the recording. I did not inquire about that. So the sources can sleep soundly.”
“And have you already hired a lawyer?”
“Yes, for 150 hryvnias at the Lawyers’ Collegium of Kyiv’s Shevchenko district, 10 Artem Street. Last Saturday I approached the lawyer on duty and told him about the case. He said I had to pay 150 hryvnias. I immediately gave him the money and asked, ‘Are you taking the case?’
“He said, ‘And what is the article?’
“I said, ‘Article 163 of the new Criminal Code, part 2.’
“He said, ‘Oh, you’re setting a precedent for us. We haven’t had any cases under this article yet.’”
“But don’t you think Ukraine simply lacks martyrs of its own and this action can undermine you without producing the result you want? Mr. Yushchenko’s fans do react to arguments. Are you in general satisfied with the results of your campaign?”
“Sure. At last we hear about morality in politics.”
“But we hear more about your morality than that of those on the cassette.”
“Any other journalist would have done the same. With presidential elections to be held in France on April 21, the newspaper Le Monde has published some top secret materials dealing with President Jacques Chirac and even state security. But if I got hold of some materials dealing with state security, I would never make them public. We are too young a state to play with such things.”
“And what is your attitude toward being compared with Major Melnychenko? The media have already launched the catch-phrase of Major Ponamarchuk.”
“I studied journalism; he was taught to be a guard — so we had different goals. As a journalist, I consider it a routine fact of professional interest. And I have never taped the conversations of someone who employed me.”
“And why has this caused such a stir?”
“Because one of the characters projects himself as a great messiah. It looks like he really thinks he is. He is used to hearing fifteen minute panegyrics at congresses and meetings. But, once fed up with singing, the panegyrists come out into the corridor and how they dump on him!”
“Addressing a Journalistic Ethics Commission press conference, UNIAN Information Agency Director Mykhailo Batih said he had denied Dmytro Ponamarchuk a second press conference (the first one, when the tapes were made public, was held January 9 precisely at UNIAN —Ed.) on the grounds that ‘the information was obtained unlawfully and out of ethical considerations.’ Would you comment on this?”
“Yes, this is true. The point is Batih works in the Yushchenko headquarters information department. He might have said plainly: I work for Our Ukraine, Ponamarchuk is our political opponent, so he will be holding no more press conferences here until after the election. I would have understood him. Otherwise, this is again at those who don’t know what’s going on. Does he think he is a judge who has ruled whether or not the recording was carried out by lawful means? Well, I agree that the taping was probably done unlawfully. But the point is what a journalist is supposed to do with such tapes: publicize them or not? This is a really debatable issue. If I’m jailed, it will set a dangerous precedent. Then every journalist, before publishing some sensational material, will think first about Ponamarchuk and only then about his journalistic duty. I hope things won’t go this way.”
“Do you feel any change in attitude toward you among journalists and politicians?”
“I never expected anything else from politicians. They want journalists to only report what they say on television, in Verkhovna Rada, and to their voters. But I am generally satisfied with the journalist corps. The subject is being discussed. And yesterday one journalist invited me to his birthday party.”
