PR vs. Ethics

Yuliya Tymoshenko’s open letter recently published in The Financial Times bears the signature “prisoner of conscience,” a term applied to political prisoners in the former USSR. The Western public has been sensitive to this clichй since those times. Obviously, this catch phrase is effective in terms of propaganda. But is the author not overstepping the line here? This is the subject of commentary by former Soviet dissidents. We suggest the reader himself assess the depth of the interviewees’ reasoning.

Volodymyr MALYNKOVYCH, member of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group, forcibly exiled from the USSR in 1979:

“That Yuliya Tymoshenko calls herself prisoner of conscience in the Financial Times letter testifies to her incredible ambition and the absence of a sense of reality. First, it is only a certain organization or some authoritative impartial people who can call themselves or others prisoners of conscience. Calling oneself a prisoner of conscience amounts to saying ‘I am the nation’s savior.’ This is bad manners, to put it mildly. This term is applicable primarily to people who have suffered for their convictions, and as a rule the title, prisoner of conscience, is bestowed upon a person when he/she has been recognized as such by international human-rights organizations, primarily by Amnesty International, the most authoritative of them. From this perspective, this organization never applies the title of the prisoner of conscience to someone who used force to attain his/her goals. UPA combatants were also denied the status of political prisoners for the same reasons. Nor, in my opinion, should those who took part in the March 9 clashes be called political prisoners because they resorted to violence, even if for political purposes: from the viewpoint of Amnesty International, they cannot be political prisoners. As to Ms. Tymoshenko, there are no ground at all to consider her a prisoner of conscience. I admit that the decision to arrest Ms. Tymoshenko may have been influenced by certain political considerations, for at that time she was a leader of the opposition to the president and could use some funds to keep that opposition afloat. I even suspect she not only could but also did resort to this. But the reason why she was arrested was entirely different, specifically, gross embezzlement of public funds.”

“And I think it highly hypocritical to take theft as a basis for proclaiming somebody a prisoner of conscience. Besides, Ms. Tymoshenko is just a person without conscience if she dared to misappropriate so dishonestly a title owned by those who have suffered, often very dearly, for their convictions. Incidentally, an individual can be called prisoner of conscience if he/she is denied an opportunity to freely express his/her views. But in Ukraine, Tymoshenko had access to the media, so this claim is totally groundless. This consummate speculation has nothing whatever to do with what was occurring during the years of stagnation and the human rights movement. I am also very much surprised that other dissidents and political prisoners do not protest against this. I think they violate their own conscience in this situation.”

Yevhen SVERSTIUK, former prisoner of conscience, who served 12 years:

“The term prisoner of conscience appeared in the West as a kind of compliment to people who, if forced to choose between conscience and the criminal regime, opted for the former. When Yuliya Tymoshenko calls herself a prisoner of conscience, a customary term for the British, this is above all her own choice and moral obligations, which are of great value for a person of principle. In reality, she has made and is following up her choice of principle. As to her past activities during the period of our so-called primary accumulation of capital, we know about them very well, but we must also appreciate her honesty and achievements in government service. And if the Ukrainian oligarchs made such a choice and went through such ordeals, then people would believe them and be unwilling to dig up information about who, when, and how much. We should appreciate and respect the choice of conscience.”

Semen HLUZMAN, former political prisoner for 10 years:

“In spite of my warm attitude toward Yuliya Tymoshenko, I do not think she is a prisoner of conscience. On the other hand, if our law enforcement bodies have really set about purging Ukrainian society of corruption and other ills, this raises a logical question: why do the next-door cells not contain those many gentlemen who helped to send Ms. Tymoshenko to prison? I mean not only prominent businessmen but also certain representatives of the law enforcement bodies. I feel affection for Ms. Tymoshenko: she was the only man in the Ukrainian government, because I don’t consider even Mr. Yushchenko one.”