We heard in a closing scene of the documentary PR premiered on ICTV a couple of weekends ago that the unburied body of Heorhy Gongadze has become part of a giant PR project still to be completed. Heorhy can be buried or disinterred there as often as deemed necessary by the new customers.
Charles Clover, one of the authors and producers, made his name with The Financial Times and currently works as a special correspondent in Afghanistan. Last year he conducted a thorough investigation into the Gongadze case, ICTV General Director Oleksandr Bohutsky told a press conference. He believes that US experts and Ukrainian politicians say things in the documentary, which they would never have told a Ukrainian journalist. This is hard to deny and PR teems with eyewitness accounts and expert testimonies, ranging from a Ukrainian farmer, whose son found the body at Tarashcha, to President Leonid Kuchma. Even though the Western journalist cannot be found totally unbiased (remarks like the one about a political arson aimed at overthrowing Kuchma belong not only to experts but are also heard offscreen), PR is a good opportunity for the viewer to compare his opinion to that voiced by the Ukrainian press at one time and perhaps place different accents in the Gongadze case and cassette scandal. There is no denying the fact that we are, in a way, still hostages to the official stand taken toward the scandal but never formally stated. In modern geopolitics, one treats seriously only countries capable of taking an independent stand with regard to serious issues. On the other hand, an interactive poll held by Freedom of Expression (ICTV) the Sunday before last showed that many Ukrainians (about a thousand calls) would want such documentaries made in this country and that it is time they started being produced.
Naturally, some of the opinions voiced in the documentary sound strange to the Ukrainian ear, particularly Gongadze’s rather ambiguous profile as a journalist. Andrei Konstantinov, director of Russia’s Top Secret private investigation agency, compares Gongadze to a physician being protected by the Red Cross, but only inasmuch as he remains neutral. Once he gets involved with black PR, this protection is lifted.
The authors of the documentary tried to present the crisis following Gongadze’s disappearance and the cassette scandal within its geopolitical context and the sequence is this: there was a presidential campaign in Ukraine, Washington and Moscow stepping in, with the emphasis on the assumption that, if Leonid Kuchma had to step down in the aftermath of the cassette scandal, this would play into Viktor Yushchenko’s hand (he was then premier, being the president’s legal successor in case of the former’s resignation, and favored by Washington). The authors stress that ousting Yushchenko as premier soft-pedaled the scandal and there is a rather objective assessment of Oleksandr Moroz who made the audio recordings public knowledge, although the voices could not be positively identified by the Dutch experts, the first to deal with them. Other facts, often mentioned by the Ukrainian media (the burial site of the so- called Tarashcha body, chronological discrepancies on the tapes, Radio Liberty’s role in the scandal, etc.) are put in sharper focus. In fact, the same figures appear in the documentary’s limelight: Oleksandr Moroz and Viktor Yushchenko. The latter is quoted by the Internet periodical Forum (www.forum.ua.com) as refuting the PR allegation that his Our Ukraine is being financed by the Americans.
He called this a stupendous lie, adding that his lawyers are preparing documents to sue the TV channel. His motivation is understandable (but why sue the channel and not the authors of the documentary?). In fact, the allegation alone that Mr. Yushchenko is being supported by US billionaire George Soros would suffice to bring the matter to the court. Or Mr. Soros’s words that he knows Yushchenko rather well, maybe better than Kuchma, for the two have more in common. And adding that it is quite difficult to tell who the reformers are in Ukraine and whether they really uphold honest principles or are simply fighting for power. Indeed, the Gongadze case resulted in a domestic political situation quite favorable for Viktor Yushchenko and he must have had a definite purpose in mind, declining in-depth comment on the cassette scandal, meaning that Mr. Soros’s statement in the documentary can be interpreted either way.
Forum quotes Yushchenko as saying, unfortunately, that “such materials began to appear on a television channel run by the president’s son-in-law [i.e., businessman Viktor Pinchuk].” Needless to say, an argument last to be used by Mr. Yushchenko, for he reduces his grievances not to the crux of the matter but to familiar notions such as pulling strings, using family connections, etc. Nevertheless, playing the documentary shortly before the election (even if many of the allegations there sound quite convincing) could well play in none other’s hand but Viktor Yushchenko’s, once again boosting his popularity, relying on the obverse principle; if they say you are bad, you must be good. Actually, Our Ukraine’s campaign coordinator Roman Bezsmertny (until recently the president’s representative in parliament) believes that PR “is not a critique of Viktor Yushchenko or his bloc, but another attempt to discredit the Ukrainian state.” He also regards the documentary played by ICTV as “undisguised and direct interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine by other countries,” adding that the PR authors “edited it in Ukraine but pretended it was a foreign product,” thus acting contrary to the law (granted, but where is proof that it was edited in Ukraine?).
Despite the varying poll turnout (slightly more calls to Freedom of the Press showed a negative attitude toward the British documentary), such films probably have a right to exist, provided, of course, each represents not the only but one of the views on a given problem. Volodymyr Malynkovych, political analyst and one of the experts invited to assess the documentary, said that “an open society must be built in the open.”
That the discussion of the sensational documentary PR televised on ICTV last Tuesday would be pungent had been known a priori. Viktor Yushchenko, whom the film about the cassette scandal showed in a bad light, declined to take part in any part in the discussion (since Yushchenko is on a campaign tour, he was offered, according to Dmytro Kyseliov [ICTV host], to join the discussion via a television bridge). Volodymyr Chemerys, a coordinator of the opposition Ukraine Without Kuchma action, concentrated on accusations against one of the PR authors, journalist Charles Clover: according to Chemerys, Clover distorted the meaning of his words (in the film, it was alleged that the Ukraine Without Kuchma action was financed by American funds, which Chemerys denies). But Charles Clover, by phone from Afghanistan, denied Chemerys’s accusations. In his turn, PR executive producer Peter Powell said during a live insert from the United States that PR was edited at a Washington studio, thus refuting the suspicions that the film was edited in Kyiv. In spite of all statements, refutations and conspicuous “pulling the covers over,” the roundtable discussion did take place. Opening it, Kyseliov said that he would like the personal drama of the Gongadze family to be left outside the discussion and the participants to focus on the subject — as George Soros called it in the film — “Ukraine as a geopolitical football field.”
Still, however contradictory the assessments by PR might be (during the discussion the film was reproached for not revealing any mechanisms behind the cassette scandal), it should be recalled that the film is just one point of view on what is happening in Ukraine. In the meantime, to continue the discussion about the much-talked-about PR. Consider the expert opinions.
Hryhory NEMYRIA, Chairman of the Board, International Renaissance Foundation:
“The Tuesday program was full of talk about politics. What it lacked was facts, particularly about the foundation’s grant to the Respublika Institute. I can tell those who are interested that the foundation’s board on April 2, 2001 supported the project, Law Against Abuse Of Authority. The sum of the grant was $18,500. Its purpose is to fund the monitoring of unlawful actions against students for their participation in political and public activities, free consultations by lawyers to students, legal services for restitution of the victims’ rights, and so on. I want to stress that all this information is open. It was made public almost a year ago. It was also known to Charles Clover. The correspondence with him, dated April 16-19, 2001, is kept in the Renaissance Foundation.”
Dr. Oleksandr MAIBORODA, Chief of the Ethnopolitical Department of the Institute of Political and Ethno-National Studies of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences:
“What’s the main drawback of PR, a professionally made film, as a whole? The authors failed to see the main thing: those events were largely caused by internal processes in the society, alleging instead that they were “designed” by geopolitical players from outside. Whether the incumbent president is or is not involved in the Gongadze case is not the main thing for Ukraine now. The trouble is that, according to a poll conducted at that time, two out of three Ukrainians believed that “one might as well expect far more than that from these authorities.” Obviously, it wasn’t a coup attempt, it was rather an attempt to depose certain people. It would give an opportunity to redistribute property in Ukraine once again.
“The film is a model for Ukrainian documentary film makers, an example of how films should be made, at least in form. The arguments used there resemble the old Soviet techniques. Do they really think it was on Uncle Sam’s orders that people went out into the streets? Dissatisfaction and indignation fill our society. And if this time they didn’t garner a critical mass, it doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future, if the country goes on the way it is.”
INCIDENTALLY
On March 20 the US Embassy in Ukraine released the following statement on PR:
“The film PR, shown on ICTV on March 16 and 17 makes implications about the objectives of US policy in Ukraine that are inaccurate and misleading. It is not our normal practice to comment on false allegations. However, the nature of the allegations raised in the film requires a response.
“US engagement with Ukraine is and always has been based on specific policy goals: support for an independent, democratic, and market- oriented Ukraine integrated with the Euro-Atlantic community. Our engagement is not focused on support for individual leaders or blocs. That is a choice for the Ukrainian people to make.
“US election assistance in Ukraine, provided at the invitation of the Ukrainian government, is focused on supporting a free and fair election process that allows Ukraine’s citizens to select its leaders. The United States does not support individual leaders, parties, or blocs in any of its assistance programs. We have provided in writing descriptions of US election assistance and support for non-governmental organizations to the Presidential Administration, the National Security and Defense Council, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the SBU and other government entities and have always been ready to answer questions. Ukraine, as a member of the OSCE, has accepted and welcomed the OSCE’s standards on democratic elections, including international observers.
“The United States does not support opposition forces or rallies in Ukraine. When a Ukrainian TV program aired such allegations in April 2001, allegations that were repeated in PR, the US Embassy immediately made clear that US officials cover political events in Ukraine in accordance with the Geneva Convention to ensure that we portray events accurately and to be able to advise American citizens of any dangers. After these allegations in 2001, the US Embassy reviewed its coverage of such events with the Presidential Administration, the National Security and Defense Council, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the SBU, and addressed their questions.
“Both Ukrainian and American interests are best served by a prosperous, stable, and independent Ukrainian state. Experience throughout the world has demonstrated that such states are most viable in open and competitive market democracies where citizens elect their leaders and hold them accountable. Political intrigue has no role to play in advancing core Ukrainian or American interests.”
