#43_1-8

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 No.43 AUGUST 23, 2018 TOPIC OF THE DAY WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA Leonid Kravchuk is now actively working on a new book. He is going to celebrate his 85th birthday in early 2019 – a venerable age indeed. The first President of Ukraine wants to surprise everybody with the political details he has never disclosed before. “I want to show historical and stateformative stages of Ukrainian political life,” Mr. Kravchuk says to The Day. “It is very important that the new generation should have first-hand information about our recent past, draw conclusions, and make no mistakes again.” The work on the publication still continues, but Mr. Kravchuk has handed over to The Day, just on the eve of Independence Day, some extracts from the book about the decisive events in 1991. ● DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE We decided on holding the Verkhovna Rada’s extraordinary meeting on August 25, although we weren’t sure that any resolution would be passed. After the August Coup [aka 1991 Soviet coup d’etat attempt. – Ed.], the situation was changing so quickly, there was no time to make any coordinated decisions. We had to act fast and do it the right way. During a meeting of the VR Presidium, we resolved to work out a document proclaiming Ukraine’s national independence, although, on August 24, no one had a clear idea about it. We didn’t have a draft ready to submit. There were several groups of MPs working on it, including Dmytro Pavlychko, Volodymyr Yavorivsky, and Levko Lukianenko. The latter worked on his draft alone, although they all kept in touch with each group and, partially, with me. Dmytro Pavlychko cooperated with me especially actively and fruitfully. Viacheslav Chornovil was also involved, but kept his distance. Levko Lukianenko submitted his draft on August 23, on the eve of the [VR extraordinary] meeting. I read all the drafts submitted in Dmytro Pavlychko’s presence and told him: “I think that Levko Lukianenko’s draft is short and to the point, compared to the others. Mr. Pavlychko, please take it and work on it with Levko Lukianenko, so we can have a bill.” Later, after the bill had been submitted, we had to resolve another issue, namely who would present it in parliament. Dmytro Pavlychko suggested Levko Lukianenko, considering that he was author of the draft. I said I didn’t mind, but what about the audience, considering the communists’ attitude to Levko Lukianenko, that there would be jeers and catcalls once he took the floor. Dmytro Pavlychko then suggested Volodymyr Yavorivsky and I said I didn’t mind, but that we should consult Levko Lukianenko first; also, we both knew how the communists would respond to Volodymyr Yavorivsky, what with his [anti- Soviet] articles. In the end, I said: “I’ve talked to the leaders of all regional groups and chairs of committees, so I guess I should be the one to present the bill. They won’t respond to me the way they would to Lukianenko or Yavorivsky. Most importantly, I’ll speak as Chairman [Speaker] of the Verkhovna Rada.” Meanwhile, the group of MPs led by Communist Stanislav Hurenko were working on their draft. It read, in part, that Ukraine must support the August Coup in Moscow, thus trying to preserve the Soviet Union. In fact, he said as much, addressing the Verkhovna Rada. Let me tell you what happened. I was at the rostrum when I saw Larysa Skoryk gesture her desire to take the floor. I gestured back: Be my guest, but then Stanislav Hurenko, seeing Larysa Skoryk on her way to the rostrum, followed suit, so in the end there were three of us in front of the rostrum: Skoryk, Hurenko, and yours truly. I stepped back and let them take their turns addressing the audience. On August 24, we were ready to pass the bill, but we weren’t sure how many MPs would vote for it – there could be 226 or over 300 yeas. This was especially important for me; I wanted a constitutional majority vote. To figure out the situation, I met with the leaders of regional groups [factions] and then The way independence was gained Ukraine’s first President Leonid KRAVCHUK shared some of the chapters of his future book with The Day Photo by Ruslan KANIUKA, The Day “ It was clear that the Declaration of Independence would be adopted, but there was another issue to be resolved: would it be legitimate in the context of the All-Union Referendum of March 17, 1991? ” realized that the bill would be passed. After that I acted confidently and put it to the vote. There is something else, however. Larysa Skoryk ran over to me before the vote and said: “We had a meeting and we’re against this vote because we don’t want the commies to offer us our independence on a silver platter.” And then Deputy Speaker Volodymyr Hryniov echoed her. It transpired that they had had a meeting on the third floor and made their decision: decommunization first and independence second. And then Dmytro Pavlychko ran over, enraged, shouting he’d shove it all up their – you know what I mean. I saw that he was ready to hit the roof, so I said, “Take it easy, man, we’ll figure it out.” But he insisted: “Can’t you see what’s happening? They’re doing everything to screw up everything!” Come to think of it, what would happen if they tried decommunization in August 1991? Would their bill be passed, considering that most MPs (370 out of 450) were communists? As it was, they had another meeting and finally decided to vote for the independence bill. In the end, we had 346 yeas, three abstained, 12 “absent,” and only one nay from Serhii Tsekov (Crimea). Remarkably, Leonid Kuchma was among those “absent.” The man would before long become Prime Minister and then President of Ukraine. When filling in the first Verkhovna Rada registration card, he wrote “Russian” in the nationality column. Most importantly, Ukraine’s independence was supported by the parliamentary majority – and you should see what happened in the audience after the vote! People were cheering, singing and dancing... I think that most communist MPs voted for independence simply because they were scared, especially after Boris Yeltsin’s victory in Moscow. The leadership of the Communist Party of Ukraine was aware of what was happening in Kyiv – they were scared they would be physically assaulted if they didn’t vote for it. ● REFERENDUM It was clear that the Declaration of Independence would be adopted, but there was another issue to be resolved: would it be legitimate in the context of the All-Union Referendum of March 17, 1991? Ukraine had voted for the preservation of the Soviet Union: 70.2 percent yeas, although it was the lowest positive result compared to those in the other [Soviet] republics. There was no way to cancel its results, so another referendum was the only alternative. I addressed the Verkhovna Rada with the alternative. Some objected that there was no such law in the republic, that there was only the law on an all-Union referendum. Moscow was quick on the uptake and I received a phone call from one the secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The man said: “I hear that you’re organizing a referendum, but you have no legislation for it, so it won’t be legitimate.” I replied: “We have a revolutionary situation here and the people want it. Come visit us, you’ll see what’s happening at the Verkhovna Rada and in the street. Soviet flags are being replaced with Ukrainian ones everywhere. It’s a revolution, do you understand? I must act accordingly.” I moved to put the referendum on the agenda, but then our national patriots, led by Chornovil, stepped in, saying that my initiative was foolish. They went on to say that Leonid Kravchuk was a smart alec who wanted a referendum that was a losing game, instead of rejoicing in our victory, and that this would surely make their cause fail. After that I refused to take the floor and just proposed those who believed in the vox populi to vote for it. Save for two MPs, Les Taniuk and Viacheslav Chornovil, all said yea. Then they [Taniuk and Chornovil. – Ed.] went to St. Sophia Square and addressed a rally, saying things [about me] that made my hair stand on end, but we did it! A republican referendum was assigned for December 1 that year. That day, the question “Do You Support the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?” was entered into the secret ballot. The turnout showed 31,891,742 Ukrainian nationals, or 84.18 percent of the registered voters. A total of 28,804,071 (90.32 percent) said yea and 7.58 percent said nay. Hadn’t we made that decision, Ukraine wouldn’t have been independent now. By the way, its independence was recognized [internationally] only after the all-Ukrainian referendum. Within a month, this recognition was confirmed by 56 countries, with Poland and Canada topping the list. Why did most people support independence? That period was marked by public unrest, especially in the Donbas (coal miners would visit the apartments of ranking apparatchiks, opening their refrigerators, revealing sausages and other food and drink [no ordinary citizen could buy]). Mikhail Gorbachev was said to have engineered the August Coup, especially after he started telling tales about finding an old Grundig radio in the attic and learning about what was happening in Moscow. Some tales! People could see what was happening, that the Soviet Union was falling apart, that Gorbachev had lost control of the situation, and that independence was the only option. In fact, I feel sure that most people in Ukraine shared my view on the matter at the time. Some might not realize that the Soviet Union was falling apart, they wanted more [civil] rights and independence. As it was, practically all of them voted for it, in every town and village, even in Sevastopol 57 percent yeas – something few had believed at the time. That referendum is still legally valid, and the same is true of the Crimea. The so-called referendum staged in 2014, at Russia’s gunpoint, cannot override the results of Ukraine’s true democratic vox populi of 1991. Leonid KRAVCHUK, special to The Day
WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA TOPIC OF THE DAY No.43 AUGUST 23, 2018 5 By Mariia PROKOPENKO, photos by Artem SLIPACHUK, The Day “A ll my thoughts are now with Oleh Sentsov, who is risking his own life for the sake of all the political prisoners. We must remember that freedom is an inalienable human right, which must be protected by all possible means and through every effort. Although Sentsov is in prison, his ideas are free. And his voice is carried across all the continents as we pick it up,” the writer and historian Olena Stiazhkina said as she read out a letter to Sentsov sent by the Scottish writer Ian Rankin. In the afternoon of August 21, activists brought to the Russian embassy in Kyiv dozens of letters sent to Sentsov from around the world. The “Solidarity with Oleh Sentsov” event became part of the initiative launched by PEN International in London (that organization brings together writers, editors, and translators from all over the world and is a powerful human rights body). The Sentsov letter-writing marathon began on August 14. Simultaneously with Kyiv, solidarity events took place in Sweden, Denmark, the UK, and the US. Also, Ukraine saw such events not only in the capital, but also in Lviv and Vinnytsia. ● “IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERY ONE OF US HEARS THESE LETTERS AS WELL” “We received news in recent weeks, primarily from Sentsov’s lawyer, that he had stopped receiving letters,” said Tetiana Teren, executive director of the Ukrainian PEN, to describe the idea of the campaign. “The lawyer said that Sentsov felt himself to be in an information vacuum and did not know anything about what was happening in the world. He had the impression that the message he wanted to convey to the world – not about himself, but about all the political prisoners – had begun to fade, that the protests had begun to wind down. Sentsov was very worried about it. This situation is dangerous, many political prisoners of the Soviet era recall that the authorities used the same technique then, namely to limit a prisoner’s access to information so that they find themselves in a psychological vacuum. We believe that this situation is not only difficult, but illegal and unfair. Therefore, this campaign began first of all as a protest against the fact that Sentsov did not receive correspondence, which is his legal right, recognized all over the world under international and European law. These letters have already crossed some boundaries, probably going beyond even this campaign as we are now reading them out. I think it is important that every one of us, not just Sentsov, hears these letters as well.” Letters in various languages were sent to PEN International’s e-mail address from all over the world. There they were translated into Russian in the last two days, since only letters in that language may be delivered to the Labytnangi prison camp where Sentsov is held. During the marathon, several hundred letters were collected. Well-known people, such as the Nobel Prize winner Svetlana Alexievich, writer Margaret Atwood, writer and film director Mike Leigh also addressed Sentsov, and this list goes on and on. “Ordinary people from around the world write to Sentsov as well,” Teren added. “Often they tell him something about themselves. Some letters are touching and poignant, like one telling about its author living by a river and describing that river. Someone wrote that they had seen a sunflower field. There is a letter from a seven-yearold girl, and she says she attends such and such grade, lives in such and such city, learned about Sentsov from the news and resolved to write a letter.” According to Teren, PEN International will try to do everything in their power to get the letters to the prisoner. In particular, they will use the resources available to his lawyer and human rights activists. “I am grateful that you do not forget me” August 23 marks the 102nd day of Oleh Sentsov’s hunger strike. Why it is important to write and read out letters to the “prisoners of the Kremlin” ● GREETINGS FROM SENTSOV On August 21, a letter from Sentsov, dated August 14, was posted at change.org, the website where the petition calling for saving him and other “prisoners of the Kremlin” had been posted. “Hello everybody! Thank you very much for the birthday greetings that I received from various people through the RosUznik website (the letters’ delivery was much delayed). Thank you for the warm words and wishes. I will try to not let you all down, not surrender and not die. True, it is likely that out of these three desires, only a maximum of two will be fulfilled! :)) Folks, I cannot respond to everyone, but there is no special need anyway. Still, I am grateful that you do not forget me, and support not only me but all the other Ukrainian political prisoners in Russia! I wish you all luck and happiness in this life and in all the next ones! :)) Yours respectfully, Oleh Sentsov,” this letter reads. The petition, published in the first days of the prisoner’s hunger strike, has already been signed by almost 203,000 people. Meanwhile, Ambassador of Ukraine to the US Valerii Chaly used a press conference held at the Ukrinform news agency (and dealing with the partnership between America and Ukraine) to call on everyone to sign a similar petition on the White House website (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/save-oleg-sentsov). To receive an answer from the US administration, we still need to collect almost 79,000 signatures out of 100,000 needed by September 8. You can sign a petition in just a couple of minutes. ● “SUCH EVENTS ARE NOT ABOUT QUANTITY, BUT RATHER ABOUT TAKING A STAND” The international community has regularly made appeals in support of the “prisoners of the Kremlin” (one made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Lithuania is a recent example). At the same time, there have been such weird moves as Vladimir Putin being invited to the wedding of the head of Austria’s MFA. “Putin, besides attending the wedding, had a meeting with Angela Merkel [the German Chancellor. – Ed.] later on. Thus, activists of the Save Oleh Sentsov group held a picket just before the venue where it was held... Putin’s motorcade was greeted by shouts ‘Murderer!’ and ‘Save Oleh Sentsov!’ All these details make up the complex picture that we are creating by ourselves,” believes Oleksandra Matviichuk, who serves as chairperson of the board at the Center for Civil Liberties which became a co-organizer of the solidarity campaign in Kyiv. She reminded us that the Save Oleg Sentsov campaign events had been held in 45 countries, even though nobody initially expected such broad coverage. By the way, almost a hundred people attended the Kyiv event. It is a pretty good result, considering that it happened on a weekday, when many people were at work. Matviichuk emphasized that other things are important in these events. “Firstly, it is about simultaneity. When such events are held simultaneously in France, Germany, and Ukraine, it is noticeable. Secondly, it is about regularity. People think like that: we attended one time, then another one, but someone will replace us on the third occasion. No one will replace you. And this is an important feature of these events,” the human rights activist explained. Support initiatives for the “prisoners of the Kremlin” are regularly joined in by Russians. “We have active colleagues there who hold very risky events in Kazan, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other cities. During the FIFA World Cup, all protest activities were banned in Russia, so they staged one-person pickets, distributed leaflets, and posted Save Oleh Sentsov banners on bridges,” Matviichuk added. “I know about a Russian who has been arrested at least three times while staging one-person pickets. She was alone, but her example is very important. Therefore, this is not about quantity. This is about taking a stand.” ● “WE MUST BUILD UP PRESSURE FOR A POLITICAL SOLUTION” A week ago the Kremlin in fact rejected Liudmyla Sentsova’s plea to pardon her son. According to Hromadske Television, the Russian President’s Administration stated that the convict himself should make this kind of plea. “No decision has been made yet. It is not Putin’s rejection, and all of these refusals comprise a phrase that the final decision is to be made by the President of Russia,” Oleksandra Matviichuk says, describing the Oleh Sentsov situation. “This means we must build up pressure for a political solution. For pardon is just a way to formalize it.” In Matviichuk’s view, the Ukrainian leadership must stay in close contact with the international partners that can influence the situation with the Kremlin’s captives and Donbas prisoners of war. Human rights activists know about 70 people imprisoned for political motives in Russia and the occupied Crimea. Moreover, these activists are aware that it is just the tip of the iceberg. “We are not in a position to examine the materials of all cases in the occupied Crimea, so relatives do not need to apply immediately,” Matviichuk notes. “What matters here is that there is a tendency. Russia has launched a campaign against citizens of Ukraine with the aim to set up the specter of the enemy in Ukrainians. That’s why they trump up charges of spying, sabotage, atrocities against civilians, etc. As for Crimea, we can foresee an increase of such cases.” *** “There are dozens of political prisoners today, and we know that the regime is trying to stand to the end. To ask and entreat it is the same as to expect mercy from the serial killer who derives sexual gratification from torturing,” Mykola RIABCHUK, president of the Ukrainian PEN club, said at a Kyiv protest rally. “Public opinion is the only thing that can have an impact. We are here for this very purpose – to remind this regime that we remember and expect political prisoners to be freed, to say this to our compatriots who vacation in and make tours of the occupied Crimea and earn money in Russia, and to remind this to our Western partners who dance at wedding parties with representatives of this regime and think every six months about whether or not to continue those feeble sanctions against this regime. We must behave more firmly, for only firmness can exert influence. Only the prospect of a new Nuremberg or Hague trial can stop them.” Please write to Oleh Sentsov and other “Kremlin’s prisoners” via the RosUznik website: http:/rosuznik.org, or the FSIN-Pismo system: https://fsinpismo.ru/client/app/letter/create.
Page 1 and 2: AUGUST 23, 2018 ISSUE No. 43 (1175)
Page 3: WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA DAY AFTER DAY No.43
Page 7 and 8: WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA CULT URE No.43 AUGU

#43_1-8

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?