The latest reports from the Council of Europe say that the next debate on the Ukrainian question has been postponed until the autumn session of its Parliamentary Assembly (PACE). This gives Ukraine perhaps its last chance to fulfill at last its commitments taken five and a half years ago and to put an end to the formally justifiable claims from this organization. Nonetheless, both before and after the PACE April session, mass media reports have in fact been coming down to the same thing: Ukraine could face sanctions, including expulsion from this organization. Vice Chairman of the Ukrainian delegation in PACE, People’s Deputy Vasyl KOSTYTSKY, is convinced that it is completely wrong to say PACE is laying down the law to this wayward child Ukraine. Instead, we must not only defend our interests more vigorously and argumentatively but also take a more active part in the discussion of common European problems.
“The Council of Europe has again raised the question of stripping the Ukrainian delegation of its right to vote. How would you, one of the actual participants in the latest PACE session, assess this situation?”
“The Ukrainian question is being heard for the sixth or even, if you recall the issue of Crimean Tartar resettlement, seventh time. And in virtually every case, except for that of national minorities, we have been warned of possible sanctions. In contrast to previous instances (this pressure began in January 1997), the Council of Europe is now striking some new notes. While earlier they said they had complaints about the executive and would deprive Ukraine of CE membership, this time there was a proposal to not only deprive Ukraine of the CE membership but also to cancel the accreditation of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly.
“The Parliamentary Assembly itself can only make recommendations, while the final decision will be taken by the Committee of Ministers. Just a few votes to the contrary will be enough for the committee to block a decision, for it makes all its decisions through an absolutely democratic consensus. The assembly can apply sanctions only to Ukraine’s parliamentary delegation, i.e., it can strip it of the right to vote. In such case we could take part in the session proceedings and make speeches but not vote, as was the case with Russia. But if the parliamentary delegation is stripped of accreditation, then it has no right at all to participate in Parliamentary Assembly sessions.
“On the other hand, I do not think the Council of Europe will take an anti- Ukrainian stand. Yes, we have problems with the balance of political forces as well as with Ukraine’s economic potential which, in spite of our continuous talk about our poverty and crisis, still remains a very tasty morsel for Europe, the US, and Russia. The Council of Europe is acting in an absolutely pragmatic political way, with various political forces solving a lot of their problems there. Thus it would be naive at least to think that the CE has nothing else to do but discuss Ukrainian problems every day.
“As to the fact that the mass media largely ignore the ongoing political struggle in the Council of Europe, let me tell you this. On April 26 the assembly was debating the questions of Chornobyl and funding programs related to CNPP closure. This was really a true debate because only 48 Parliamentary Assembly members were left in the session room, with 24 of them voting against and 22 for our amendment. So we in fact fell two votes short in pushing it through. A certain role in this was played by Mme. Rosmarie Zapfl- Helbling, chairperson of the PACE Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, to whom it was sufficient to say during the debate on this amendment that the committee supports it. Instead, she began commenting on the situation, so the audience did not quite grasp the committee’s position. A PACE tradition requires that the majority stick to the committee’s decision. And the committee had not clarified its position until the session chair asked it to do so. Our delegation is inclined to believe that this had some effect on the vote. In addition, on the morning of the same day, when Ukraine’s report was being discussed, Mme. Zapfl-Helbling had spoken on behalf of the European People’s Party group to which I also belong. And her stand about Ukraine was almost diametrically opposed to that in the evening: it was more balanced. She said that although Ukraine might be having problems, it simultaneously has the right to build its own model of democracy and that the Council of Europe should help Ukraine. The press also left the following question unanswered: why was there no speaker from the Committee on the Environment and Agriculture? For Mr. Martti Tiuri from Finland was very resolute, and the draft report he had to make public at a committee sitting included phrases like ‘Finland is exposed to higher radiation than Ukraine,’ ‘there are now practically no special post-Chornobyl problems in Ukraine; rather, there are serious problems with a widespread fear of radiation, so one must finance the media and cultural institutions to combat the fear of radiation,’ and ‘we should not help Ukraine.’ When the environmental committee met shortly before, we managed to persuade the committee members not to make a report like this. In other words, the Ukrainian television viewer as a rule does not know what goes on behind the scenes in European politics (which accounts for 90% of all the work): all he sees is what is being played onstage.”
“Does the CE perhaps not want the Ukrainian citizen to know about all this kitchen cabinet decision- making? For otherwise we might take a much calmer view of this organization’s remarks because we would then know their true price?”
“On the one hand, the claims they are raising are formally just. But on the other, I have long said that we made a reckless decision when we joined the Council of Europe: we ourselves laid the basis for today’s claims. For example, I have a question: why did PACE resolution No. 190 on Ukraine’s membership in the Council of Europe again comprise a clause on the necessity of passing a framework document on the judicial and legal reform, while a relevant concept which was later included in the new Constitution of Ukraine was already in force at the time?
“I don’t want to condemn anybody. I think that it was most probably a state of euphoria caused by the fact that we were marching toward Europe quicker than Russia, that the process was developing fast enough, and there was a hope that we would soon adopt the Constitution thanks to our political stability. A common perception at that time was that we would pass all the other indispensable legislative acts immediately thereafter and feel very comfortable in the Council of Europe.”
“Is there mutual understanding today among the Ukrainian PACE delegation members about the issues of vital importance for Ukraine? For we don’t get the impression that Ukraine demonstrates any kind of monolithic position.”
“There is and there isn’t, you know. When the question is about some absolutely concrete things, each of our PACE deputies takes a somewhat different stand. But when the question is about the danger of Ukraine being stripped of its Council of Europe membership, about the interests of our states as such, then more often than not we stick together. It also seems that we too often create a situation such that Ukraine’s domestic problems and political confrontations become objects of CE debate. Take, for example, the problem of ethnic minorities. In 1999 PACE tipped its hat to Ukraine because we were successfully solving the problems of national minorities and had ratified a framework convention on human rights. But the just-passed resolution suddenly raised claims on us concerning the rights of national minorities. I think we should not only take a defensive position but also defend our own interests with dignity and understand that we are not the only state with problems. For example, PACE has drawn up a written declaration raising the problem of the rights of Bretons in France. The French representative voiced a strong protest at a PACE meeting and, walking out of the room, slammed a pile of papers on the table. This made everybody understand him very well.
“In my opinion, we should perhaps regroup our forces and begin to work somewhat differently in European institutions. We must not only defend our interests but also raise burning issues. We should play a more active role in European politics.”
“Why haven’t we ever heard a detailed and serious analysis of our delegation’s work with due account of all the problems that arise when one decision or another is made?”
“The PACE session considered the question of freedom of expression in all European countries. This report was made by the representative of Hungary, a very courageous person. In his report, he not only pointed out problems that exist in Ukraine and Russia but also gave a very detailed information about freedom of speech problems in Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Greece. He also said that Reporters Sans Frontieres had once defined the freedom of speech expression in Hungary as in crisis. He painted an unvarnished picture of such problems in France and Britain. And this became the subject of a debate. But emphasis was put, of course, on Ukraine and Russia.
“We have not noticed that the mass media have acquired real power. Real power is able to influence and force people to act in one way or another. And it is obvious that the worldwide media have taken precisely this stand today. This is why it seems to me the real freedom of expression is in the middle of a rectangle in which one of the angles is responsibility of the media to society (let it be, for instance, the situation concerning the death of Princess Diana). The second factor is independence from the authorities, government, big business, and the ability to give unbiased information so that society, having a true picture of the world, can draw its own conclusions. The third is the honesty of the mass media. And the fourth point is connected with such problems as the persecution of journalists and crackdown on the media. It is one thing when (speaking of honesty) the media, by force of various circumstances, are on the verge of bankruptcy, do not pay off loans, become the object of absolutely legal and justifiable punitive actions, but still appeal to the world public and pose as victims. But it is quite a different thing when journalists have indeed been victimized. Incidentally, 60 journalists were killed in 2000. This is a really high figure. Out of them, if I am not mistaken, 20 died in Europe, 14 in the Americas, and 14 in Asia.
“Somewhere in this rectangle, there is also a new branch of power in the shape of the media to be reckoned with. It is also so far impossible to ensure absolutely legal coverage of the interconnections between civil society and the media or between the state and the media. It seems to me that modern civilization as a whole is not yet prepared to solve this problem. But it is noteworthy that this same Council of Europe, which now has condemned the authorities and big business for the harm and problems they do the media, condemned journalists a few years ago, when they discussed the tragic death of Princess Diana.
“The media work the way they can. I think that the problems of ethics and moral responsibility to society, the feeling of real strength that can influence and induce society to act one way or another are the three barriers our press and all other media have to surmount. Only then will there be no question about covering the Ukrainian delegation’s painstaking backstage efforts in the Council of Europe.”
