Heading in the Opposite Direction from the Truth
Last week Lesia Gongadze, the mother of slain journalist Heorhiy Gongadze, submitted her fifth blood sample for genetic analysis as part of the investigation into her son’s killing. In the meantime, the lack of results in the search for those who ordered the killing of Gongadze is one of the most troubling trends in post-revolutionary Ukraine. It proves that the new leaders cannot or are unwilling to fulfill their moral obligations. There are several reasons for reaching such a conclusion. First, both in Ukraine and abroad Gongadze’s murder was viewed as the symbol of the former regime’s depravity. Logically, the one that has replaced this regime is duty-bound to solve this crime. Second, President Yushchenko’s team owes much of its political growth and success to Heorhiy Gongadze. After all, it was the anti-government protests sparked by Gongadze’s disappearance that laid the groundwork of the “Ukraine without Kuchma” rallies, which in turn laid the foundations of the coalition opposition forces of 2002-2004. Third, after taking over the levers of power, Viktor Yushchenko and his team solemnly promised to solve Gongadze’s murder before anything else. Notably, as the president himself put it, solving the crime means apprehending those who ordered and organized the killing, and not only the actual perpetrators.
Of course, there is no fixed deadline for solving the crime, and we must keep this in mind. However, the fact that despite broadly publicized arrests of the perpetrators there is no hint as to who ordered the killing leads one to believe that the case is not just facing objective difficulties. With increasing frequency experts are saying that the new leaders have lost the political will to investigate Gongadze’s murder. Indirect proof of this is the strange attitude they have adopted toward the Melnychenko tapes. Leaving aside the former major’s personality, the following question is being officially suppressed: Are the tapes part of the evidence of the so-called “crimes of the regime” (repeatedly mentioned by former opposition figures) or not? Former opposition figures who now hold governmental posts constantly talked about the crimes recorded on these tapes, but now they hardly ever mention them. It appears that the investigators have overlooked the taped facts that directly point to the individuals responsible for harassing and murdering Gongadze. Instead, some mysterious “Berezovsky people” have initiated a discussion in the mass media about how the Melnychenko recordings were made and who ordered them. One may get the impression that instead of bringing to account those who committed the crimes recorded on those tapes (no one has ever tried to prove that the recordings were doctored) the immediate priority is to punish Melnychenko, who illegally taped conversations in the office of the nation’s chief executive. The general impression is that Melnychenko was of interest to the new leadership as a tool in their struggle against Kuchma. Now that Kuchma is gone, Melnychenko seems to have outlived his usefulness. If so, the chances that Gongadze’s murder will be solved seem to be no better than they were under the previous government.
During Kuchma’s presidency the Ukrainian government was under tremendous pressure from the West, which forced the uniformed services to carry out at least some kind of investigation. The public and politicians were also vocal in their demands for an investigation. Now that Viktor Yushchenko has come to power in Ukraine, the West seems to have lost almost all interest in the Gongadze case. And if the Ukrainian government prefers to stall the case and prosecute only those who have been arrested, and their accomplices, the only hope is that international human rights organizations will become involved. Why is there no progress in the search for those who ordered Gongadze’s killing? What is Berezovsky’s motive for pursuing this case? The Day’s correspondents asked some politicians and experts to respond to thes questions.
Andriy YERMOLAYEV, director, Sofia Social Studies Center:
“There are several levels to the Gongadze case. The first level is connected with the journalist’s tragic death and the perpetrators who followed somebody’s evil orders. Moreover, it is now clear that not all the perpetrators even knew how their surveillance of Gongadze would end. The second level involves those who ordered or organized the killing. Now the journalistic and political communities are debating whether those who ordered the killing will ever be found, or if it will be possible to prove that there were in fact such individuals. There are also questions as to how this order should be proved: as one that was politically motivated, or criminal and provocative in nature.
“There is also the third plane, which is as serious as the second. It is linked to the fact that those who ordered the killing were part of a large political plot that extends beyond Ukraine and Ukrainian politics. Whereas it is difficult to prove who ordered the killing, this third plane exists only in the form of an analytical hypothesis. When we start discussing this, we will inevitably touch on such notions as secret service, special operation, etc. But in my view, the third plane is much too serious and finding those who ordered the killing largely depends on it because their motives, plans, and what eventually caused Gongadze’s death are linked to this level of politics.
“In answer to the question whether this case will be investigated at all, I would say that it is no longer Gongadze’s death that has to be investigated. An investigation must be conducted at the international level, with an analysis of special international operations that targeted Ukraine. By analyzing these special operations we will be able to understand the nature of the recordings, the tragedy of journalists who were enlisted as potential executors or transmitters of certain conspiracies or informational hoaxes, whose destinies were decided in this special operation. Then we will be able to interpret the motives of the individuals behind the killing, who decided the fates of individual persons as part of the big game. Meanwhile, the Gongadze case in particular is at a dead end — only the perpetrators will be prosecuted.”
“What do you make of the recently publicized taped conversations between Poroshenko and Kuchma?”
“This information about Poroshenko raises countless questions about the relations within the new group in power. In fact it discredits Yushchenko personally, and in general it is aimed against Yushchenko. In this case, those who are influencing Melnychenko and forcing him to act that way obviously do not care about the future of Ukraine or the Ukrainian government. All this is a tool for influencing politics, the political environment, and the stability of the government system. Right now these manipulations with Melnychenko are posing a national security problem for Ukraine.
“There may be several repercussions of his recent move. The first is the emergence of new conflicts. Now Poroshenko will be trying to explain this to Yushchenko and Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko will not let this pass and will obviously use her arguments about the political past. I have no doubt that in the immediate future new names will surface in connection with this case, including those who used to belong to Tymoshenko’s business team and those who cooperated with Poroshenko under Kuchma. All of this will result in more intense frictions and rifts among those in power.
“The second consequence appears to be more important in terms of the political environment. A new situation is emerging, which is making it possible to discredit the legend about the recordings. After all, if the new leadership, which is now entangled in showdowns, mutual recriminations, and suspicions, begins to actively disprove the recordings as false, this will enable everyone from the previous government whose voices are heard on the tapes to assert that they are innocent as well. They might further insist on prosecuting those who produced these purportedly libelous tapes instead of investigating the alleged crimes recorded on the tapes.
“Lastly and most importantly, how many copies of the recordings are there and where are they? When and how is new information being prepared for release? Is this being done only abroad? Is informational support for such releases provided only outside Ukraine? In my opinion, this is the most important issue, since it involves new informational threats and threats to the government and the upcoming election campaign.”
“What are the goals of Berezovsky and his people?”
“I am quite outraged by the scale of importance attributed to Berezovsky, as though we now have Russia with the Russian elite, the Kremlin; Ukraine with the Ukrainian elite; and now Berezovsky with his group.
“As regards the interests of the former Russian oligarch Berezovsky, he will no doubt be one of the sponsors of a Russian crisis. For him this will be a tool of rehabilitation and an instrument that will enable his return to Russian politics. And Berezovsky will be using Ukrainian politics in an absolutely cynical and pragmatic way to enable his return to Russian politics. He won’t stop even if it takes organizing a crisis in Ukraine. If he needs Kyiv’s support to influence Moscow, he will also do this. Berezovsky also has his business interests: despite being ousted from the Russian market, he has ties and assets and, of course, he will continue working in countries that maintain his capital flows, Ukraine being no exception.”
Leonid KRAVCHUK, SDPU(O) faction leader:
“In the past few years very many people have become involved in the Gongadze case, including those who wouldn’t like this case to be solved — hence the tug of war between those who want the perpetrators to be punished and those who are stalling this process. In my view, there are many of the latter, and among the representatives of the new leadership as well.
“As for Berezovsky’s role and interests in this case, he has made no secret of them. He says that his foremost concern is fighting Russian totalitarianism and the Russian government. Therefore, he views Ukraine as an ideological or perhaps even territorial and cross-border bridgehead, where he can concentrate his resources and influence Russia. Therefore, as you can see, Berezovsky is very interested in successful resolutions to ‘Orange problems’ in Ukraine. This would be a good sign for him and many others, who could say: see, a revolution took place in Ukraine, the government has changed, and things have started to improve. Meanwhile, everything is deteriorating and going backwards. This is why things are not so good with Berezovsky now. The tapes are not so much Berezovsky’s problem as Melnychenko’s — because the major allowed people to play games with him for certain reasons, financial or otherwise; there are amateurs and professionals who are using him.”
Mykhailo POTEBENKO, former General Prosecutor of Ukraine, member of the Democratic Ukraine faction:
“It is hard to speak about progress in the Gongadze case. This is a tough case, the kind that requires fewer unnecessary statements and more dedicated efforts to find the perpetrators and those who ordered the killing. I wouldn’t say that someone is slowing down the investigation. Some cases take up to 15 years to solve. All theories have to be checked, for it clearly involves instances of collusion and misinformation. Everything has to be checked and proven so that innocent people will not be punished. Thus, I do not believe that somebody is deliberately slowing down the case. It is simply proving hard to crack. More statements are being issued than there are solid proofs.
“As for Berezovsky’s motives, I think he is trying to obtain certain dividends from this case. This oligarch and his associates are staging auctions of sorts that are designed to use Ukraine to influence Russia, where their interests are centered. Therefore, I would treat this man and his milieu with caution.”
