Mykhailo Pohrebynsky on Freedom of Speech
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CE) will meet again, Wednesday, February 26, to discuss the status of the media in Ukraine. This meeting is to pass a resolution, reports the Ukrainian service of Radio Deutsche Welle. In January, the Parliamentary Assembly amended its resolution on the subject, to the effect that the Presi dential Administration of Ukraine instructs the media on how to “correctly” elucidate major political developments. The amendment was initiated by a group of opposition-minded Ukrainian journalists and experts visiting Strasbourg. February 17-18, CE invited another delegation to Strasbourg as experts on freedom of speech and information issues. It included Serhiy Vasyliev, head of the Presidential Administration’s chief information policy directorate, Serhiy Kychyhyn, chief editor and publisher of the newspaper 2000 , and political analyst, Mykhailo Pohrebynsky, who kindly agreed to an interview with The Day .
How well do you think the Council of Europe is informed about the actual situation of the Ukrainian media market?
The discussion at the Council, particularly within the working group involving the ambassadors of all member countries, showed that the CE expert findings don’t reflect the whole reality. They lack precision in many respects and offer a one-sided view. I think (I have mentioned it to various departmental heads and in my address to the prestigious meeting) the reason is that the experts were supplied data mostly from opposition- affiliated sources or from people taking a definite political stand. In other words, some within the Ukrainian political establishment are using CE as a weapon in the domestic political struggle. The result is a somewhat inadequate concept of what is actually going on in Ukraine. While addressing the meeting, I related my views on the situation, particularly the presence of a great many problems addressing the freedom of speech. I think that my views were heard and appropriate conclusions made, particularly that the number of sources used should be expanded.
From your personal standpoint, is Ukraine treated the same way as problem countries like Belarus or better?
No one at CE is trying to compare Ukraine to Belarus or, say, Albania. However, opposition people visiting the Council — and elsewhere — along with those representing part of the Ukrainian political elite and journalists harboring certain political views did their best to build the worst possible image of Ukraine. It’s a big problem. Granted we are faced with countless problems, it’s still unfair to regard Ukraine as though it were an Eastern European version of Iraq. Yet, talking to CE people about the situation in Ukraine leaves one with precisely that impression.
How would you explain another round of the campaign for the freedom of speech in Ukraine?
There are two aspects. The first one is domestic political and it is quite obvious. The opposition uses every opportunity to discredit the existing regime. In this sense, campaigning for the freedom of speech is quite effective, as the subject is very popular in the West. That way the Ukrainian regime is made to look even worse in the Western public eye. What I mean is that the opposition has done a thorough job and now we’ll have a hard time building a more adequate picture of what’s happening in Ukraine.
On the other hand, organizations such as the Council of Europe simply have to justify their existence. Considering that a lot of its functions are taken over by organizations such as the European Union, OSCE, and so on, the Council’s field of endeavor is steadily narrowing, so they are happy to investigate an issue addressing their original objectives. They have to justify their funds raised by member countries (by the way, Ukraine’s share in the Council’s budget is over two million dollars and this country receives quite a negative assessment in return). That’s how I feel and I think any unbiased individual would feel the same.
Stating facts, feeling strained, assessing things emotionally is one thing. It’s true that we have problems in our legislation, just as there are problems with the National Television and Radio Council, economic dependence of the media, and so on. All these problems must be solved, among other things by using the European experience. What I mean is that protecting human rights and freedoms is a great idea. This is the principal objective, the essence of the Council of Europe. And it is also true, regrettably, that, as a bureaucratic structure, CE starts working for its own reproduction at a certain stage. I believe that the CE example is quite eloquent. I would even say that the international bureaucracy presents an especially complicated case, because bureaucracy in a given country, at least in a democracy, is rather effectively placed under public control. In nondemocratic countries like Ukraine, this control is ineffective, but society is at least trying to get it under control. International bureaucracy is absolutely uncontrollable, so they live under their bylaws, mostly to justify their existence. My assessment may seem too harsh, but I am sure that I have a point there.
Getting back to domestic political problems as factors spurring the freedom of speech campaign, what is your forecast for the presidential elections in Ukraine? Will they use freedom of speech as a motto?
No, I think that this freedom is for use outside Ukraine. It would be rather problematic to rally the Ukrainian public opinion with the idea of several periodicals being unable to exist without a greater freedom of speech. So the campaign architects (all of them experts, no doubt) will, of course, focus on social issues. They will all talk about higher pensions, health reform, and such things. Campaigning for the freedom of speech is basically a way to present various domestic political forces to the West as “good” ones (opposition) championing it and “bad” ones (those in power) suppressing it. This topic is very important out there, but for the Ukrainian public it comes not even third, but, say, twenty-fifth.
What about parliament’s effort to find a precise definition of censorship (pertinent amendments were adopted at the Verkhovna Rada last Thursday — Ed.)?
I am not prepared to offer any assessment at the moment. All I can say is that an effort to introduce legal norms defining censorship deserves every praise. However, being a young polity still to be ruled by law, we tend to abuse this status and try to legalize things that practically can’t be legalized or which can be interpreted in whichever way. Why such attempts are made is more or less understandable. We are not a law- abiding body politic. So it seems to us that life will change after we pass this or that law. It won’t happen, of course, so most laws are passed and then vanish because no one needs them.
Do you agree that terminology is one of the main problems involved in the discussion of freedom of speech?
I have no doubt that this problem exists, but it is linked to real political life. When this life gets stable, we won’t need any legal definitions, for all of us understand such things in more or less the same way. On the other hand, if a legal norm is introduced and society rejects it, meaning that this norm does not become social, the rest of the law is sure to be ignored. It’s a long established fact that laws are born when certain norms appear in the life of society and are then entered in those laws. More often than not, such laws prove effective. New rules imposed on society either don’t work or are twisted around.
