Sex, Nationalism, and Academic Freedom: The Controversy at Kyiv-Mohyla

By John-Paul Himka

Controversy has erupted at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (NaUKMA) over the recent closure of the art exhibition “The Ukrainian Body” at the university’s Visual Cultural Research Center VCRC) and by the closure of the Center itself a few days later.

One can get a good sense of what was being shown at the exhibition from the review on the internet journal Art Ukraine (http://www.artukraine.com.ua/articles/812.html). It is clearly not pornography, as NaUKMA rector Serhiy Kvit disingenuously told the media when he closed the exhibition down (http://ua.euronews.net/2012/02/14/ukraine-modern-art-controversy/). Clearly Dr. Kvit has not gone on the internet to find out what real pornography looks like. Instead of functioning as pornography, “The Ukrainian Body” challenges the conventional sexual and aesthetic norms in Ukrainian society, and exhibitions like this have naturally caused controversy all over the world but also stimulated important debate about gender, sexual, and cultural issues. One would hope that Ukraine belongs to the set of countries where such a show can exist, rather than to the international pariahs that abort such exhibitions before they can even appear. It is more reasonable to interpret “The Ukrainian Body” not as pornography but as a contribution to the critical discussion about conservative morality that has emerged in Ukraine in conjunction with the proposed law on morality and also as a response to the activism of the innovative “Femen” movement.

The closure of the exhibition has raised questions about the extent to which the higher administration of NaUKMA respects the principle of academic freedom. It is generally accepted in the global academy that the university should be a place where all manner of opinions can be aired.

But the situation soon took a turn for the worse. Following hard on the heels of the closing of “The Ukrainian Body” came the closing of the VCRC itself. This was motivated by the VCRC’s willingness to host a lecture on the Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandera by the German scholar Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe. The talk was sponsored by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, well known for its promotion of democracy and human rights. In his announcement on 24 February abolishing the VCRC, Dr. Kvit referred to the proposed talk by Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe as having a “scandal-propagandistic, and not scholarly, character.” Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe is highly critical of Bandera and the radical right nationalist movement he founded, as am I. The rector, however, is a declared admirer of the nationalist theoretician Dmytro Dontsov and is himself active in radical right political initiatives.

Rector Kvit’s ideological disagreement with Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe, however, do not justify preventing him the latter from speaking; even less can it justify completely shutting down the institution that was to host the lecture. Thorough discussion of alternative perspectives is an integral and normal component of scholarly discourse. Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe has published in serious scholarly venues, such as Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, and will soon be defending his doctoral dissertation on Bandera at the University of Hamburg.

The VCRC has in the past hosted challenging talks on a variety of themes. It is one of the few forums for thinking outside the box in contemporary Ukraine. Far from being perceived as a nuisance at NaUKMA, it should be valued for its intellectual courage in difficult discursive circumstances.

The situation at Kyiv-Mohyla is complicated by a number of factors. The critical and activist VCRC has had a tense relationship with the conservative administration at NaUKMA. Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe not only takes an unpopular position vis-à-vis the heritage of the radical nationalists, but he has a confrontational and accusatory style that has alienated a number of scholars who otherwise agree with the thrust of his research. The ultranationalists in Ukraine, particularly young adherents of the Svoboda (Freedom) party, are aggressive, and there are fears at NaUKMA that a lecture by Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe could result in an unpleasant incident. NaUKMA is also at loggerheads with the Ukrainian minister of higher education, Dmytro Tabachnyk, who, it is feared, might take advantage of controversy and unrest to intefere in the governance of the university. On 27 February unknown persons telephoned Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe at the apartment he has been staying at in Kyiv; the callers claimed to be the police looking for him. Mr. Rossolinski-Liebe went for protection to the German embassy and will be evacuated to Berlin. An informant in Kyiv has reported to me that there have been intimidating calls and messages also to persons associated with the VCRC.

In spite of these complications, it should be clear that in the interest of academic freedom, the exhibition “The Ukrainian Body” and the Visual Culture Research Center need to be restored. Free speech does not require protection when it is easy to protect it; it precisely needs protection when it is difficult to do so.

(Author’s note: Since this commentary was written, the VCRC has been reinstated.)

Toward an Anecdotal History of Ukrainian Politics

By Mykola Riabchuk

The second anniversary of Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency passed on February 25, and his presidency can be briefly defined in three possible ways: as a period of authoritarian consolidation, of imitative “reforms,” or of permanent and pervasive scandals. The latter definition is perhaps the best since it sheds revealing light on the previous two. In February, there were at least four major scandals – dramatic for their participants, anecdotal for outsiders, and highly instructive, in many ways, for political scientists and cultural anthropologists.

First of all, Roman Zabzaliuk, a member of the Parliament from the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, who switched sides at the end of the last year and joined the governing coalition, revealed the typical mechanism of recruiting opposition MPs by Yanukovych’s cronies. He confessed that he had acted as an “undercover agent” on behalf of his party leadership and, therefore, simulated acceptance of a tempting offer to join the pro-Yanukovych faction “Reforms for the [sake of the] Future,” at an impressive price of $450,000, plus an additional monthly allowance of $20,000 in cash for proper voting (http://www.telekritika.ua/doc/images/news/69665/page%2012-15.pdf).

The news by itself was hardly revealing since many other MPs have reported similar offers made to them at various times by Yanukovych’s people. The practice was not invented yesterday and certainly not by the Party of Regions. Observers remember how the pro-Kuchma majority was forged in the parliament in 2002, when two pro-presidential parties won only 20 per cent of votes but mustered eventually a formidable majority of both “independents” and opposition defectors.

Enormous and largely unrecorded and uncontrolled wealth accumulated by post-Soviet oligarchs enabled them to buy a host of officials, MPs, judges, journalists, et al. at dizzying prices. This is why an amendment was made to Ukrainian constitution in 2004 that required the pro-government majority in the parliament to be formed by factions and not by single MPs, i.e. defectors from other factions. In March 2010, Yanukovych’s supporters blatantly violated this law, which resulted in a sort of parliamentary coup d’etat and paved the way to further violations of Ukrainian laws and creeping usurpation of power by the increasingly autocratic ruler.

The only new thing in Zabzaliuk’s revelations is that he recorded his conversations with Mr. Ihor Rybakov, head of the faction “Reforms for the Future,” who allegedly gave him a bribe and discussed with him some other delicate matters. Thus, we can learn from the horse’s mouth not only the price-list for various deeds that can be considered immoral at best and criminal at worst but also how “Mr. Rybakov” (the real Mr. Rybakov, of course, denies any authenticity of the records) encourages Mr. Zabzaliuk to attract more defectors from the opposition and, most interesting, to recruit more “slaves” (in his words) in Western Ukraine in particular to work for the ruling party in the local electoral commissions as fake representatives of the opposition. This is a clear hint, one of many, at how the regime is going to stage the parliamentary elections later this year. Actually, the incumbents have little choice given that the popularity of the president and his party has fallen to the low teens and their staunch desire to stay in power indefinitely.

Zabzaliuk’s accusations were predictably downplayed by the government and pro-government media. The audio-clips are worthless since Ukrainian law does not consider unauthorized records as evidence. The fingerprints on “Rybakov’s money” are also no proof since he and his friends have already admitted they collected $100,000 for Mr. Zabzaliuk at his request, allegedly for a treatment abroad. And Mr. Pshonka, the prosecutor general (and president’s soldier, in case anyone has forgotten his earlier self-designation), announced that he saw no reason for a criminal investigation in this case since it was merely an internecine quarrel among MPs.

Zabzaliuk passed the money on to the Kyiv Children’s Hospital, but the major TV channels, predictably, ignored his generous move. Although the Tyzhden weekly that did report the story in detail and illustrated it graphically with fragments of “Rybakov’s conversation,” it was immediately withdrawn from the newsstands by some enigmatic order “from above” (http://www.telekritika.ua/news/2012-02-17/69665).

This might be considered the second biggest scandal of the month but since the official reaction of the Tyzhden managers to the incident is not yet clear, we can illustrate the creeping censorship in Yanukovych’s Ukraine with a no less revealing event. On February 14, Judge Olha Salamon of the Desniansky district court in Kyiv suspended the popular website “Dorozhny kontrol” (roadcontrol.org.ua) in response to a libel action by Hennady Hetmantsev, a traffic police officer, who had abused and humiliated a driver and then denounced the website for publicizing the video-record of his misbehavior. Remarkably, the judge shut down the site by a simple order, not by a court decision. Moreover, she closed all the content, not just the material in question. Still worse, she suspended the site for the whole period of court deliberations, which could last, in practice, for years. This is how multiple ways to destroy independent media in Ukraine are perfected.

Hetmantsev, one of the heroes of this ugly story, attained notoriety a year ago in Odesa after he tried to intimidate the Roadcontrol activists who had filmed his colleague Oleksandr Shvets insulting a Ukrainian-speaking driver by calling his speech a “cow language.” After the scandal, Shvets was reportedly dismissed from the traffic police, whereas Hetmantsev survived and retaliated as promised (http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2012/02/15/6958817/).

There are probably no business or personal ties between Mr. Hetmantsev and Judge Salamon. Her responsiveness to his groundless demand reflects not only widespread incompetence of Ukrainian judges in legal matters (it is an open secret that many of them simply buy their university diplomas and court positions), but also the arbitrariness of the entire system and its fundamental bias for the government against members of society. The judges, police, and prosecutors protect primarily the state and the authorities – with all their privileges and entitlements—but not the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens.

The third scandal in February was related, once again, to the new government nominations. This time, Viktor Yanukovych surprised everyone by appointing Ihor Kalinin head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and Dmitri Salamatin as Minister of Defense. Neither is a personal friend of the president nor a native of the Donbas region, as has been the norm for appointments over the past two years. Both of them seem to be acts of patronage by the president’s older son Oleksandr, a dentist who has emerged as a successful businessman. Last year, he reportedly placed his acolytes in the upper echelons of the National Bank, Ministry of Interior, and National Tax Administration (http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2012/02/3/6951682/).

None of them as yet gained prominence as major specialists in their fields. But this is probably not why they were hired (http://dt.ua/POLITICS/oy_ti,_ksivonko_moya_bogatirskaya-97141.html). Ihor Kalinin was a Russian KGB officer and Afghan war veteran who in 1992 for unknown reasons moved from Moscow to Kyiv and made a career in the SBU – all the way to the top, which may give Ukrainians pause for thought about Vladimir Putin’s dictum that KGB agents are appointed for life. Salamatin lacks even such dubious professional credentials. His entire experience in defense, to the best of our knowledge, amounts to a couple of scuffles with opposition MPs in the parliament during which he skillfully broke a few noses and jaws of his political opponents, and was rewarded henceforth by the president with the position of the head of the State Arms Trade Agency.

Born in Kazakhstan, Salamatin moved to Ukraine in 1999 as a Russian citizen and how he acquired Ukrainian citizenship remains a mystery. Even less clear is whether he relinquished his Russian citizenship, as Ukrainian law requires. Thus his appointment has led some observers to speculate on the “Russian hand” in Ukrainian politics and Yanukovych’s readiness to cave in to Moscow (http://tyzhden.ua/Politics/42594). More likely, however, is that Yanukovych does not trust his fellow-oligarchs and party bosses any longer, relying instead on a kind of Praetorian Guard. Or, as Alexander Motyl suggests, Yanukovych’s reliance on “complete outsiders can only mean that [he] is expecting serious trouble at home in the coming year and doesn’t think native cadres can do the job” (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/yanukovych-brings-russian-thugs-back).

The fourth scandal is probably the most interesting and unusual. Earlier this month, in Odesa, customs officers confiscated 38 kilos of cocaine worth $7.5 million, hidden in pineapples and transported from Costa-Rica inside a refrigerator. The unusual part of the story is that the incident should not have happened because the cargo was “supervised” by one of four “fashionable” (as they are euphemistically called in Odesa) broker companies that de facto control the green corridor at the seaport. They have, reportedly, such influential patrons in Kyiv that neither customs nor security service officers dare to interfere in their business. At the moderate price of $10,000-$15,000 in kickbacks, therefore, they provide clients with a virtually customs-free access to the Ukrainian market (http://www.segodnya.ua/news/14340652.html).

There are two explanations of why the fashionable company failed to protect its client’s cargo from customs on this occasion. One story is that the power supply was disconnected from the refrigerator for a few days and the customs officers were surprised that the cargo owners were unconcerned. A more realistic version is that the cargo was tracked by the American anti-drug service from the outset and the search in Odesa was made at their request.

And here the unusual part of the story ends and the interesting part begins. The scandal was reported in detail by the popular tabloid Segodnia, owned by Rinat Akhmetov, the leading Ukrainian oligarch and Yanukovych’s main sponsor in the past. Whereas analysts muse on the real meaning of this publication – either Akhmetov is doing a favor for the Americans to persuade them to grant him finally a U.S. visa, or else he is fighting some business competitors, or merely tries to distance himself from the potentially damaging affair: no one (!) believes that the Ukrainian customs merely did their job, that it was a case of business as usual, and they caught the smugglers. And this is the point.

We live in the country in which no one believes the mass media simply report the news, customs take care of smugglers, and law-enforcement agencies protect the citizens rather than themselves and their real masters. Viktor Yanukovych is certainly not the main culprit and did not invent this system. But he is definitely someone who does his best to exploit its faults rather than to fix them. And, frankly, there are no reasons to believe that the next three years of his presidency are likely to be any different.

UKRAINE’S GAS PROBLEMS AND HOW TO RESOLVE THEM

David Marples

Ukraine continues to discuss prices for gas and the volume that should be purchased from Russia, which in turn, through the state-run Gazprom, makes demands on its neighbor, while threatening to divert more supplies to its Nord Stream line, with the prospect of the South Stream starting up in the near future. The impasse poses a serious energy dilemma for the Ukrainian government, which imported up to 70% of its gas and 65% of its oil requirements in 2011. Ukraine is by far the biggest consumer of gas in the central European region, but it has been unable to resolve a problem that started with independence and reached an acute level in 2006 and 2009 (see, for example, Jonathan Stern, “Natural Gas Security Problems in Europe: the Russian-Ukrainian Crisis of 2006,” Asia Pacific Review, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2006): 32-59) .

There are a number of issues at stake. First, there is the economic and political relationship between Ukraine and Russia. The latter country is adamant that Ukraine should join its Eurasian Economic Community and that in order for the price of gas to be lowered, it must make some concessions, such as the sale to Russia of Naftohaz, Ukraine’s national oil and gas company. For its part, the Yanukovych administration has a dual complaint: Ukraine agreed to pay $388 per thousand cubic meters of gas (tcm) under the agreement made by former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in 2009, but this level is extraordinarily high for a neighboring state; and it also wishes to reduce obligatory gas imports from Russia to 27 billion cubic meters (bcm) from the 52 bcm stipulated in the contract (RIA Novosti, Feb 1).

Second, Russia has put pressure on Ukraine in other areas too. In early February it instigated a so-called “cheese war,” by prohibiting imports of cheese produced in Ukraine. According to one account, there was more at stake than dairy products—Russia began a similar dispute with Belarus in the summer of 2009 after that country declined to privatize its dairy industry—and the dispute was linked to Russian territorial claims on Crimea. It cites a statement by Stanislav Govorukhin, a Duma deputy who is the head of Vladimir Putin’s electoral headquarters, reportedly commented that Crimea and Sevastopol should be returned to Russia by means of the economic integration of Ukraine with its neighbor, as well as into its religious and cultural-historical space (Glavred, Feb 13, at: http://glavred.info/archive/2012/02/14/161348-2.html).

Govorukhin’s needlessly provocative statement may have been a means to divert attention from the anti-Putin protests taking place prior to the March 2012 presidential elections in Russia. But they nonetheless put further pressure on Ukraine. The same applies to the construction of Nord Stream, which was officially launched in early November last year, and should account for the transport of about one-sixth of Russian gas exports in 2012 through a pipeline from Vyborg, near St. Petersburg, under the Baltic Sea, to Greifswald in eastern Germany. The anticipated capacity of the pipeline, which may be attained by 2015, is 55 bcm, and would allow Russia to transport about one-third of its gas to the countries of the European Union for the next fifty years (Nord-stream.com, Nov 8, 2011). South Stream, a pipeline that is planned between Russia’s Black Sea coast from the Pochinki compressor station south of Novorossiysk to the Romanian coast just north of Varna is anticipated to start construction in 2012 and to be transporting gas by 2015 (http://south-stream.info/index.php?id=10&L=1).

Ukraine’s energy situation was discussed recently at a round-table of the Kyiv-based Gorshenin Institute under the title “Is Gazprom monopolizing the European gas market?” Anatoly Kinakh, former Prime Minister and Minister of the Economy of Ukraine, and the head of the Party of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, began somewhat predictably by attacking the 2009 agreement by Tymoshenko, and maintained that the contract needs to be renegotiated with Russia without confrontation because the latter country is Ukraine’s “strategic partner.” He perceived the need to balance the interests of suppliers (Russia and Central Asia), the transit region (Ukraine), and the consumers (countries of the European Union). Ukraine also in his view needs to improve its energy policy by developing energy-saving technology and increasing the consumption of domestic energy resources (Levyi Bereg, Feb 7, and ff., at: http://economics.lb.ua/trades/2012/02/07/135340_gazprom_monopoliziruet.html).

Ivan Plachkov, former Minister of Fuel and Energy, and a board trustee member of Kyivenergo, is much in agreement with Kinakh, and he asks how Ukraine might lower its dependence on Gazprom. First, he believes, Ukraine can reduce its consumption, which is 4-5 times more gas per unit of GDP than the average in Europe. The situation would stabilize if Ukraine could cut consumption by 50%. He suggests also reforming Naftohaz, and allowing more gas traders access to the Ukrainian market. There should also be more exploration of shale gas in the Black Sea region as well as reliance on existing energy resources of coal, oil, and nuclear power. His comments, however, raise the issue of whether Ukraine would be permitted to reduce the amount of gas it purchases from Gazprom. Another speaker, Volodymyr Saprykin, who is Director of Energy Programs as the Razumkov Center, notes that the Kharkiv Accords, while not a favorable agreement, at least allowed for a reduction of $100 in the price of gas and elimination of penalties for not purchasing the minimum volume. He also advocates increasing the strategic reserves of oil and gas.

One speaker in the round-table was more sanguine about the prospect of developing domestic resources of gas. Yurii Korol’chuk of the Institute of Energy Research maintains it is impractical to produce shale gas, construct a liquefied natural gas terminal, or carry out explorations of the Black Sea littoral because Ukraine lacks money for such projects. Preferable in his opinion is to raise energy efficiency. Valery Borovyk of the “New Energy of Ukraine” alliance thinks that the issue is not only the fact that Gazprom can influence European officials, but also that it has clout among Ukrainian officials, especially those in the energy sector and government, who have no interest in lowering domestic gas consumption. However, people should not be alarmed by the construction of the Nord Stream and the South Stream (carrying Russian gas under the Black Sea to Romania and thence to other European countries). He believes that Nord Stream can divert a maximum of 15% of gas supplies from Ukraine, whereas the South Stream project is likely to collapse because gas consumption worldwide will fall in the wake of the economic crisis.

Are there any other alternatives for Ukraine? One analyst notes that the year 2011 was important for keeping the country on course for integration into European structures. Ukraine also joined the European Energy Committee and made progress on the issue of liberalizing the EU visa regime. But despite such progress and what she describes as “titanic efforts of several ministries,” the goal of integration is more distant than it was at the start of 2011. Western leaders are very concerned about the increasing authoritarianism in Ukraine, the imprisonment and ill treatment of Tymoshenko, and President Viktor Yanukovych’s defiant refusal to take seriously the criticisms of his European counterparts. As a result Ukraine has frittered its first year in the Energy Community, and the dialogue on visa issues has stalled and will not be resolved by the time Euro-2012 begins in June. Perhaps most significantly, Ukraine is strategically dependent on Russia, a country that has long forgotten Kyiv’s past concessions made against its national interests, as demonstrated by the “cheese war.” Yet there are few alternative openings: the United States is losing interest in Ukraine and few practical steps have been taken toward deepening relations with China. In Silina’s view, Ukraine does not have a foreign policy doctrine (Tatyana Silina, Zerkalo Nedeli, Feb 10, at: http://zn.ua/POLITICS/my_sami_zakryli_vorota,_my_sami-97143.html).

Her article raises another key question: that of Ukraine’s failure, vis-à-vis Russia, to gain more publicity for its part in past gas wars. Part of the problem is the close relationship between Gazprom and local companies and influential statespersons in the EU, particularly in Germany and France. The Europeans prioritize gas supplies over regional squabbles, and in such situations tend to side with the supplier rather than the country providing the conduit. They are also in favor of the development of alternative paths such as Nord Stream and South Stream that will cut into Ukraine’s role as the dominant pipeline provider. Thus Ukraine needs not only to build up its domestic resources, but also to cut back significantly on the amount of energy it uses. Added to that, the Yanukovych leadership needs to boost its public image, and could make a significant start by releasing political opponents such as Tymoshenko and former Minister of Interior Yurii Lutsenko. To add to its embarrassment, the European Court of Human Rights is likely to announce its decision on the Tymoshenko case on the eve of or during the forthcoming parliamentary election campaign (Glavcom.ua, Feb 13, at http://glavcom.ua/vblog/2471.html).

There is little indication, however, that such steps will be taken or even that they are being considered. Morally, and in terms of human rights, there is little to distinguish between the current leaderships of Ukraine and Russia and accordingly neither Brussels nor Washington are likely to endanger their relationship with Moscow by offering strong support for Ukraine’s position in its energy battles with Russia. The problems are not new. They were evident as soon as Ukraine began its independent existence in late 1991, as illustrated by the problems faced by its first president Leonid Kravchuk. That they remain even more acute twenty years later is a sad reflection of the failure of all the administrations to date to devise a viable energy policy, let alone a solution to dependence on Russia. It signifies that Ukraine enters every discussion as the weaker partner in what is essentially a power struggle on several levels and with few clear rules.

Casus Vynnychukus and Freedom of Speech

Mykola Riabchuk

On January 23, 2012 two policemen approached writer Yuri Vynnychuk at his home in the Western Ukrainian city of L’viv and demanded from him a written explanation of the poems he had presented a few months earlier in Kyiv at the “Night of Erotic Poetry” festival. The policemen said they were authorized to do so by the prosecutor general who had received a complaint from the Communist MP, Leonid Hrach, which unabashedly qualified Vynnychuk’s poems as “pornography” and a “call for the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s government” (http://world.maidan.org.ua/2012/statement-on-the-political-persecution-of-the-ukrainian-writer-yuri-vynnychuk).

Yuri Vynnychuk is a renowned author with some international fame, so he has not been arrested, beaten, and forced to confess, as happens on a daily basis all over Ukraine to his less fortunate and not so famous compatriots. Oleksiy Cherneha, for instance, a young activist of the “Patriot of Ukraine” from the provincial town of Vasyl’kiv (Kyiv Oblast), recollects his encounter with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) officers as follows:

Immediately after I was detained [on August 23, 2011], I was taken to the regional SBU center where I was held without charge or sanction from the investigator or court until Aug. 27, much longer than the 72 hours allowed by law […]
While I was at the regional SBU center, I was questioned around the clock. During the interrogation, physical methods were used against me repeatedly – I was beaten on my neck and the soft parts of the body, forced to do the splits, humiliated, threatened with physical violence and also mocked with accusations of pedophilia.
The SBU officers also tried to force me to give untruthful evidence against my acquaintances… After I had refused to give this untruthful evidence, I was shackled and they continued to beat me.
For four days I was interrogated and not allowed to sleep or eat.
During the torture and humiliation I repeatedly demanded to be told my official status in the case and also information about the examination of the things found at my place during the search. But I received no answer to any of my questions. I was also refused a meeting with my lawyer, and all interrogations happened without his presence.
While I was in custody, I informed the SBU that I had been diagnosed with epilepsy and that the doctors had recommended that I stick to a sleep pattern and eat regularly, because not to do so could affect my health and even lead to death.
However, the SBU officers ignored this and for four days I was interrogated without sleep or food. Such behavior is a flagrant violation of human rights and guarantees of respect for dignity contained in the Constitution.
During interrogation on Aug. 25, SBU officers forced a compact disk into my hand which had allegedly been found at the place on Hrushevskogo Street on Aug. 22.
There, like at my residence, the SBU alleged it had found information about assembling a homemade explosive device and a video of child pornography.
Afterward I was told they had “evidence” against me and in a similar way they could create any “evidence,” and for this not to happen I had to write that my acquaintances Shpara and Bevz had left the things in my room that had been found during the search.
When I refused, painful injuries were inflicted on me.
On the night of Aug. 26, I was informed that I would be released if I signed a few documents. I was forced to sign a letter to the head of the SBU saying that no physical coercion had been applied to me and that I voluntarily consented to give evidence from Aug. 23 to Aug. 27.
I assert that all signatures that I made during that time were extracted in ways banned by the Code of Criminal Procedure ( http://www.kyivpost.com/news/opinion/op_ed/detail/112476/). (See also: Katya Gorchinskaya, “Allegations of SBU horrors recall cruel Stasi methods,” 15 September 2011: http://www.kyivpost.com/news/opinion/op_ed/detail/112911/.)

Stories like this are typical in Yanukovych’s Ukraine. They vary in detail but have one thing in common: rampant lawlessness that reigns supreme in the country and unscrupulous use of law-enforcement agencies for the regime’s political goals. The Kyiv Post editorial aptly described Ukraine’s judicial system as “broken, corrupt and manipulated by oligarch-controlled politicians, chief among them president Viktor Yanukovych”:

Police still beat, torture, falsify evidence and extract false confessions. They conduct armed raids with masks with the permission of the manipulated courts.
Prosecutors operate in a web of secrecy in which they are accountable to no one but the chief prosecutor, who is appointed by Yanukovych.
Judges cannot exercise independence for fear of losing their jobs – or worse.
The presumption of guilt replaces the presumption of innocence through the pre-trial jailing of suspects for up to 18 months in horrible conditions, the denial of bail and adequate legal representation, the denial of speedy trial by jury and so on (http://www.kyivpost.com/news/opinion/editorial/detail/114769/).

Yuri Vynnychuk predictably rejected the accusations as absurd and stated that the interference in literary matters by politicians, prosecutors and other officials was illegal and anti-constitutional. The story got broad publicity in the mass media; Ukrainian PEN-center endorsed a protest; the writer himself used a public commemoration of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s birthday in downtown L’viv to read his subversive poems to his cheerful fans. And finally, the sweetheart Hanna Herman, Yanukovych’s advisor and a writer herself, called a L’viv colleague and apologized for the excessive zeal of her boss’s subordinates (http://life.pravda.com.ua/person/2012/01/30/93822/).

Personally, I would prefer her to call Mr. Cherneha, or Ms. Hanna Synkova, or many other victims of the regime’s brutality, and to deal with the officers that tortured and humiliated them rather than the two pathetic policemen sent by their dull bosses to Yuri Vynnychuk’s place. So far, it looks like a Bad Cop versus Good Cop show. However it ends, it should not obscure the much more serious, brazen, innumerable cases of human rights violations in Yanukovych’s Ukraine. The very addition of “pornography” to the alleged “call for a violent overthrow of the government” tends to make the entire story farcical, to downplay and de-contextualize the political message of Vynnychuk’s work. Yet, whatever the initial intentions of both the writer and his opponents, the actual implications of the conflict seem to be broader and more complex.

First of all, the poem in question is certainly not Vynnychuk’s chef d’oeuvre, nor is it an exemplary case of political correctness. There are two English translations of this poetical pamphlet, one of which is entitled “Kill the Bugger” and the other “Kill the Pidaras” (http://durdom.in.ua/uk/main/news_article/news_id/27029.phtml).

The former translation is a much better reflection of the poem’s idea, yet the latter renders properly the ambiguity that exists in the original. The obscenity “pidaras” borrowed from Russian criminal slang has a sexual (actually sexist) connotation related to “pederast,” but in a colloquial speech it means typically a sodomite or a “total idiot” (therefore the female form “pidaraska” can also be used). Nevertheless, the underlying sexist connotation makes the text rather tasteless and implicitly homophobic, even though it clearly hints that the Ukrainian government and the incumbent president may well be considered sodomites rather than homosexuals.

The slogan “kill” (whoever) is also distasteful, though it should not be interpreted literally. The poet may mean symbolic/political “killing,” or even refer to Anton Chekhov’s famous dictum: “to kill a slave within ourselves,” and to Shevchenko’s classical “Testament”: to “wake up and rise up, and break the shackles, and sanctify freedom with the enemy’s evil blood.” Still, in the society with a weak tradition of tolerance and political liberalism, and deeply rooted tradition of homophobia, xenophobia, and daily coercion, all these ambiguities and provocative slogans may reverberate and fuel even more hatred and brutality rather than the desired purification.

As a vice-president of the Ukrainian PEN-centre assigned by the colleagues to draft the protest, I was really in a difficult position. I had to condemn the police interference in literary matters and, at the same time, distance myself and the center from the controversial poem, which I would have certainly advised the author neither to read, nor to publish or produce – at least in its current form. I attempted to solve the dilemma by placing the case in the broader context of the government’s systemic infringement of the freedom of speech and political persecution of writers, scholars, journalists, and civic activists. At the same time, in a personal conversation, I expressed to the author (a friend) disapproval of his dubious text.

The point seems to be obvious: we may profoundly disagree with a writer’s views and forms of their expression but we should guarantee him/her the right to express those views without censorship and political pressure. It is up to the public and literary critics to evaluate the text, not the police, prosecutors, and security service. We defend the general principle, and not a specific author or text. A few years ago, I happened to disapprove of then president Viktor Yushchenko’s intention to criminalize the denial that the Great Famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine was Genocide. By the same token, I staunchly disagree with similar decisions of some other governments to make the denial of Armenian and other genocides a criminal offense. People should have a right to express the most ugly and stupid ideas as long as they do not call directly for illegal and violent actions against other people. This is particularly true about the writers and artists who may bear moral, political, professional, and, in some cases, administrative responsibility for their words but definitely should not be considered criminals. It seems self-evident, but I have noticed from pending public debates the subtle difference between the defense of a general principle and of specific texts. It is usually blurred and politicized.

Yuri Vynnychuk’s case, in a way, resembles that of Yulia Tymoshenko. Here, again, we protest against her political persecution not because we support her politically, share her views or consider her own governmental policies consistent with liberal democracy and rule of law. We simply believe that political decisions should not be criminalized – exactly like poems, novels, or artistic performances.

So, the second question emerges: why does President Yanukovych commit or, rather, allow his lieutenants to perpetrate the blunders that compromise him and his regime both domestically and internationally? The simple answer is that no authoritarian regime can survive without some lawlessness and coercion. However, it is one thing to torture inmates in provincial prisons, to harass young and as yet unknown civic activists, or to take over one’s opponents’ businesses via sheer racket or kangaroo courts. It is quite another to attack outstanding figures whose ordeal draws immediately broad and sometimes even exaggerated public attention.

Viktor Yanukovych may be neither wise enough to adequately understand politics, or diligent enough to keep a careful eye on his political menials. But he has a huge apparatus, doubled in size and salaries since Yushchenko’s times, and he should have no problems with professional analysis, political advice and ultimate decision-making. And this is the point. So far, after two years of his presidency, he has been moving from bad to worse in all his decisions, and steadily losing his popular rating from over 60 percent to single-digit figures. If his advisors are as incompetent as their leader, it is very unfortunate. If they are smart but manipulate him in a cowardly fashion –for Moscow’s or their personal benefits, or both – it could be catastrophic.

The Vynnychuk affair might have been initiated by a senile communist, who felt insulted by the writer’s mockery of Communist rhetoric and paraphernalia. At least, this is what Hanna Herman suggested. One may wonder however to what degree the communists in Ukraine are independent players. So far, they behave like government puppets assigned to do the dirtiest jobs that the government prefers not to engage in openly. Smearing Ukrainian NGOs as subversive agents of the West might be the most graphic example. Neither the Kuchma nor the Yanukovych governments dared to do this themselves since this might have undermined their fake “pro-European” rhetoric. Yet, remarkably, they provided the communists with full logistic support, publicity, and the needed votes in the parliament to pass the anti-NGO laws.

In the Vynnychuk case the manipulators could play one more game and try to capitalize on the president’s fears and phobias. Viktor Yanukovych, indeed, seems to be preoccupied with his personal security. This may stem from his unfortunate 2004 presidential campaign when he was attacked by an egg and became so terrified that he lost consciousness. Taras Chornovil, Yanukovych’s ally and former close adviser, claims that the president’s phobias originate from his peculiar experience in the Donbas region – dubbed the Ukrainian Sicily. Yanukovych sincerely believes that “someone wants to kill him,” Chornovil says http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/116724/.

The President’s paranoia might be an excellent tool for those in his entourage who know how to use it. And Vynnychuk’s poem “Kill the Pidaras” fits them well. Back in September, there was a huge scandal in Kyiv when people wore teeshirts that featured the slogan: “Thanks to inhabitants of Donbas for the [election of the] president-pidaras.” Police raided the store, confiscated the T-shirts, and forced the businessman who produced them to flee abroad. The word “pidaras,” however, has acquired one more connotation hardly unknown to either Yuri Vynnychuk or Viktor Yanukovych.

The Vynnychuk case, even though on a much smaller scale, is as ambiguous as that of Tymoshenko. Both shed a light on the lawlessness that reigns in the country. But both can be used also be used to obscure the scale of repressions and to trivialize the political essence of the events. Therefore, whatever we think about both heroes and their work, we should remember the broader context and perceive the general tendency rather than unpleasant, albeit isolated, incidents.