WHEN INFORMATION DOES NOT SHOOT

Reports to parliament of law enforcement agencies on the March 9 street brawl in Kyiv were awaited with interest and it was expected that the questioning would take a course similar to what it did last December when lawmakers sharply criticized law enforcement chiefs after the cassette scandal broke. On the surface, everything went indentically, even the police video footage was shown on the same screen as the segment recording an interview with Melnychenko. As for the atmosphere, everything was different, reflecting the changes in the political situation that had taken place since December.

While last year the chiefs of the Internal Affairs Ministry, the Security Service, and the Prosecutor General’s Office were at a complete loss with the new environment in which they found themselves and failed to find the appropriate key when talking with the deputies, this time they proved that they did their homework. And the reason is not only that the street scuffles did not bring the result expected by the organizers. Completely different people took the floor in parliament, and they talked in a totally different key. Add to this that before the hearings one of the masterminds of the confrontation, Oleksandr Moroz, had called on his colleagues to resolve the issue exclusively within a legal framework, thus defusing the expected animosity of lawmakers.

Thus the street scuffles that brought Ukraine into headlines all over the world have received an in- depth assessment, something which can provide a shortcut to the final truth, if the quest for truth is in earnest.

Following the December advice by some deputies to shoot himself, Internal Affairs Minister Kravchenko did not turn up in the legislature this time, with Deputy Minister Mykola Dzhyha stepping in for his boss, saying the minister is under medical treatment. Some deputies tried to find out what kind of health problem the minister had but without success. Meanwhile, the deputy minister offered the Solons watch a segment filmed by police of the attack on police cordons outside the Presidential Administration building. The scenes of brutality by the protesters were so shocking and obvious that the accusations by lawmakers of police violence against the students at the railway station the same day did not produce the expected impression. Although Dzhyha pointed to Lutsenko, Chemerys, along with UNA-UNSO leaders Shkil and Tyma as some of the organizers of the street fights, he failed to mention why Shkil has been released by the police. With much more interest the deputies awaited the maiden appearance in parliament of new SBU Director Volodymyr Radchenko. At the same time, how soon the lawmakers will return to the execution of their immediate duties, leaving the investigation to the appropriate agencies assigned to deal with such matters, would depend on how the security chief spoke to deputies. Volodymyr Radchenko said at the start that the lawmakers have already shaped their opinion on the causes and consequences of the March 9 conflict. He then proceeded to inform the deputies about the incident, specifying the number of police involved, in accordance with the law enacted by the parliament to protect the state’s top officials, when they laid flowers at the Shevchenko Monument. The precise information from the SBU, which was based on an individual count, made the police reports more accurate and also captured more attention from deputies. The SBU chief said he did not rule out financial and material influence on this recent development in Ukraine. He also stated that preliminary investigation had revealed that on the eve of the incidents “participants of the disorders had been paid money, trained how to attack police, and how to behave when arrested and questioned.” According to Radchenko, in preparation for the scuffles the protesters bought gasoline to make Molotov cocktails. The SBU is ready for a constructive dialog with the interested parties to prevent similar cases in the future, Radchenko reiterated. He managed to capture the attention of lawmakers when he declared that a Radio Liberty correspondent allegedly made a bomb hoax call saying there was a mine near the monument to Shevchenko.

A truly competent secret service can gather the information making it possible to help impartially evaluate what happened, thus putting an end to mythmaking by both parties involved. It is unlikely that both the authorities and the opposition would like to hear the whole truth presented in public, for the For Truth slogan adopted by one of the political forces of the opposition would take on its full meaning. Afterwards, there would be no place left for hoax and insinuation, with each step having its real, not virtual, meaning, with each politician emerging in his true light, and this is beneficial neither to him nor his opponents. Is this not the kind of truth our society wants? Is such truth not a basis for a dialogue between the state and the opposition, which, skeptics say, has no chance remaining after March 9?

It is a pity that Prosecutor General Potebenko did not take part in this useful exchange of information. The report by his deputy, Vynokurov, in Verkhovna Rada turned out a mere formality, stating that the police acted within the law on March 9 and that, had there been any wrongdoing, the inquiry and court will reveal this, acting within the same legal framework.

Vynokurov stressed that the SBU did not break the law in filing criminal charges against those guilty of mass disorders on March 9 in Kyiv. Similarly, the police actions were absolutely legal, he said. Thus the representatives of law enforcement can maintain their part in a dialogue and even find understanding among lawmakers. Unfortunately, not everyone wants or can hear this.

COMMENT

ALEXANDER RAHR, political scientist (Germany):

“I want to stress that my assessment of what is happening is merely the view of an outsider and that I do not wish to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs. At present, the cassette scandal is growing more and more into a most serious political crisis that is causing widespread anxiety in the West. And the longer it lasts, the more politically isolated Ukraine will become. The EU, which believed the scandal would be defused in one way or another and Ukraine would be ready for civilized talks, is still waiting for some results. Many in the West are concerned over continued violations of human rights in Ukraine, something the West will never cease to ignore. But the West is playing very cautiously and will never interfere in Ukraine’s domestic policy, not because of Leonid Kuchma but due to more substantive problems concerning Ukrainian society and its political elite. Most importantly, the West fears what might come after Kuchma resigns. The incumbent president is not viewed in Europe as Ukraine’s Milosevic or Ceausescu, both of whom would have acted more ruthlessly in a similar situation. There is a hope in Europe that Kuchma will be able to patch up the differences with the opposition and continue reform. By going to Poland and the EU he can stabilize political and economic relations with his Western partners. Still, there is room for anxiety, for no one could hazard the prediction of what’s going to happen to Ukraine if Kuchma is dethroned. At the same time, given the current specific isolation of Ukraine by the West, many in Ukraine exaggerate the risks of being swallowed up by Russia. According to the data available to Western institutions, economic recovery is actually taking place in Russia but not on a such scale which would enable Russia to help Ukraine get back on its feet by itself. In a political sense, neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian elite are ready for such a rapprochement, following almost ten years of going it alone. Hence, Ukraine might seek some ordinary cooperation with Russia, especially in the areas inaccessible to it in the West. Due to the present unsolved political deadlock, the economy is the first to suffer and Ukraine is forced to look for other markets in Russia and the CIS where Kuchma is treated more softly and where he is not reminded to carry out democratic reforms. In addition, the West is currently preoccupied with the transformations in the EU and its own internal problems. And if Ukrainian-Russian integration does not extend to political and military issues, no one in the EU will really be against their close economic cooperation.”