For a society without lies

The coverage of the Gongadze case moves to a new level. Den’s consistent and meaningful work in this direction during many years, which was accompanied by lone voices from the journalist environment, gained wider support today. 1+1 TV channel undertook a quest for justice in this high-profile case. At first, a 10-minute report in TSN Week, then a show The Right to Power, where sensational statements were voiced, and finally, a powerful and convincing documentary Ukrainian Sensations. Participants were selected in a professional and interesting way, which allowed for a broad grasp on the subject. The program and film were replayed multiple times after that. And most importantly, a new journalist investigation was announced.

The reaction of society and political circles was different. Some remained silent, either because of indifference or because they know everything, but are part of the system and therefore are afraid of speaking up. Some started focusing on secondary issues: why now, why the TV channel that belongs to Ihor Kolomoisky, and the rest of similar questions: where, how, and why. Firstly, this topic is relevant, because a trial of Oleksii Pukach, the main perpetrator of journalist Heorhii Gongadze’s murder and the crime against public figure Oleksii Podolsky, is in process. Secondly, the Gongadze case does not have a limitation period, it will remain relevant until the masterminds of the crime are sentenced. And most importantly, the essence of this issue must remain in focus. Den supports everyone who keeps the process in motion and brings the possibility of legal conclusion of the case nearer.

And also there are those who understand everything, support, and emphasize the necessity of further pursuit of truth. This part of society and political elite should definitely be expanded, because the quest for justice in this high-profile case damages the roots of the existing Kuchma clan and oligarchic system. It has great resources and offers violent resistance. So far, neither two revolutions nor the war in the east of the country managed to eliminate it. Kuchma’s system continues infecting and creating new problems and tragedies. But it cannot go on like that anymore. We talk on the essence of this system, how it was created and destroyed its opponents, and also on high-profile cases with Cherkasy city mayor, a politician who was directly affected by Kuchma’s regime, Serhii ODARYCH.

Today the Gongadze case acquires new forms of struggle against Kuchmism. In your opinion, how is this perceived by society?

“Society has largely lost interest in this topic. If we talk about the Gongadze case, 14 years have elapsed. And if we talk about the crimes that were committed against me and members of our team, the association “We,” 16 years have passed. But despite that, the case must be brought to an end, since the non-investigated cases of 1998-2000 brought about impunity of the law-enforcement bodies. It resulted not just in threats, assaults, and murders of separate individuals, but in mass murders which took place early this year on Maidan. And these cases must be finished, perpetrators and masterminds behind these crimes must be punished.”

Various versions which distracted attention from the essence were fed to the public for many years. Is society ready to accept the truth today?

“The public must be always told the truth, whether it is ready to accept it or not. A society that lives in lies degenerates sooner or later. We have an example nearby: our northern neighbor. We see that society got used to living in lies and continues to do it there. As a result, the whole society entered the dead end of confrontation against the whole world. The ending of this story is yet unknown, but it will hardly be something good for the Russian people. That is why society has to know the truth, even if it is painful and not the way we would like it to be.”

Today we hear that the activization of this topic is a result of oligarchic wars. Perhaps, it is true. What would you focus the attention on?

“I think that other interests of the participants of the process or influential players on the political front can be a factor. It has always been that way. But if there is an opportunity today to form the critical mass of public opinion and political will, and bring the case to a logical end of an open investigation, it must be done.

“We have witnessed how this case gradually died away during Yushchenko’s presidency, perhaps due to some of his personal obligations made during the Orange Revolution. It looked rather like he gave guarantees of immunity to former president Kuchma. We saw how this case suddenly popped up and vanished during Yanukovych’s presidency. But if there is an opportunity to resume and finish it today, it must be used.”

Let’s go back to the 1990s. Tell us    about the Ukrainian Perspective Foundation and the public association “We.” What was the goal of these institutions, what were you engaged in back then?

“The Ukrainian Perspective Foundation was started by a group of active politicians. Among them were Mykola Tomenko, Yurii Orobets, Serhii Kudriashov, famous back then journalist Yurii Shkarlat, Oleh Danyleiko, and I. We were engaged mostly in political and legal analysis and investigation of the then government’s activity. We were very busy in 1995-96 because of the Constitution. We paid a lot of attention to the draft Constitution, its criticism and discussion. There was a unique situation, when on the night the Constitution was adopted subjects of legislative initiative, the president and MPs, took into consideration suggestions made by the Ukrainian Perspective Foundation. They were so weighty and reasonable, that almost 80 percent of them were accepted.

“If we talk about journalist investigations, there was a broad range of them. Issues of weapons trade, notarial forms fraud, and personal enrichment of separate individuals were examined. There were local issues too: Oleksandr Omelchenko’s parking business in Kyiv, allocation of land there, etc.”

Did your activity become a problem for the then government?

“I think so. We investigated a lot of things in political analytics, relations between Russia and Ukraine in particular. The concessions Ukraine and the then president Kuchma made to please the Russian Federation in issues relating to Crimea, Sevastopol, or gas. Later our work was much supported by the public, which led to creation of a large public association ‘We.’ Several thousand people joined it in Kyiv. As a result, we managed to publish a newspaper under the same name, We, with the circulation of a million printed copies. Thanks to the efforts of a few thousand members of the organization, it was distributed for free into every mailbox in Kyiv. Undoubtedly, such activity had great impact on people’s thoughts and drew response, to which the political leaders of the time had to react.”

What was the reaction? Was force applied?

“Yes. Everything started with harsh counteraction around the election of 1998. Representatives of our team won in many Kyiv constituencies, in particular, Serhii Holovaty, Yurii Orobets, Oleksandr Chobotenko. But the government did not acknowledge the majority of these victories. For example, election results in Yurii Orobets’s constituency were voided. Further, his victory was not recognized twice more, even though the government failed to get Ivan Salii through in 1999.

“A series of harsh reprisals started after we published the investigation on weapons trade. They started with Serhii Kaunov, our team member and Yurii Orobets’s election campaign manager. They waited for him hear his house. As soon as he got out of his car, they attacked him, pushed him back to the car, and took near Zhytomyr, where they beat him severely and left in the woods. In a week, another activist, member of the Kyiv City Council Leonid Safonov was beaten up in his apartment building. He was taken to the hospital with brain concussion and numerous fractures. In a week, there was an attempt to shoot me.”

Was Oleksii Podolsky attacked later?

“Yes, in a year and a half, in June 2000. He was kidnapped in Kyiv, taken to the woods, and beaten up. A bit earlier, in February of 2000, MP Oleksandr Yeliashkevych was assaulted and severely beaten. He was not a member of the ‘We’ team, but we worked together and were going to run for parliament together, as members of the association ‘Ukraine – Forward!’”

And what about Podolsky?

“He was an active member of ‘We’ team. He was the author of a part of the articles and journalist investigations that were published in our newspaper.”

Did you manage to preserve your team?

“We preserved friendly relations and worked together for a while. I will be honest, there was a lot of pressure on us. Starting from 2000, Yurii Orobets and I had to decrease political activity and start thinking about the survival of our families, and we took up business. But in 2001 we resumed active political life. In particular, I  was helping Yurii Orobets during the parliamentary election. When I  ran for Cherkasy mayor in 2006, it was Yurii Orobets who helped me, he even led the parliamentary investigation committee which investigated the disruption of the Cherkasy mayoral election by Volodymyr Oliinyk. Podolsky and Kudriashov also were in Cherkasy and helped me with the election campaign. We weren’t constantly together, but our views did not change.”

Your foundation had an expressive name “Ukrainian Perspective.” But you failed to achieve many things and Ukraine received a different perspective, which the then government has built. In fact, we still exist in this system.

“We don’t have the perspective we deserve. Despite the fact I had to oppose the government for my whole life, or sometimes even fight it, I do not tend to blame the regime. Regimes appear only as a result of our indifference. When the people of Ukraine elect a government, they let these people abuse power by often choosing unsuitable people. When we talk about the two Maidans, they are given as examples of the civic society’s activity manifestation. And I think it is the other way around: if there was a civic society in Ukraine, these Madains would not have happened at all. Such preconditions would have simply not appear: no one would even think about brutal application of force against peaceful protesters; no one would have come up with an idea to promise the pro-European course for two years, and turn into an opposite direction a day before signing the Association Agreement with the European Union. This indicates the absence of a civic society, which leads to such disasters.

“The second example put me out of active political struggle for a year. It was the end of 1999, the presidential election. I was in line at my polling station to receive a ballot paper. There was a couple of grown-ups in front of me, who decide whom to vote for. They spoke loudly and were not ashamed of what they said. The essence of the conversation was as follows: ‘There is Kuchma. But he is a thug and thief, who stole and killed people!’ Yet later they decide to vote for Kuchma, because they ‘know him and got used to him.’ It is not the regime that must be blamed, but the society’s indifference, which lets people turn the government delegated by them into a regime. Our perspective depends on how much our society has matured.”

What is your evaluation of the situation today? Will the crimes against Gongadze, Podolsky, Yeliashkevych be solved after all these events?

“I think it is a great advantage that public coverage forced the head of the SBU and then the minister of internal affairs to declassify the Pukach case. This is a great achievement, because our whole society will be able to hear the testimony of the perpetrator of politically ordered crimes in the future trials. I hope this will promote the objective judicial investigation.”