The Gongadze case is often referred to as a “case without a statute of limitations.” Yet in the mouths of those who, after 15 years, still fail to bring the investigation to an end, it sounds rather as an “ever unfinished case.” Over this time both society and media circles have lost the zeal with which they sought for truth and justice 15 years ago.
In 2006 Sviatoslav Tseholko, now press secretary to the president, said in an interview about his documentary cycle Ukraine’s Independence (one of the episode was dedicated to Georgy Gongadze): “…I would not act as Prosecutor General’s Office and name the masterminds of the assassination only based on my own journalist investigation. Moreover, 26 minutes is hardly enough to squeeze it all in. The case is worth a separate film… It is impossible to make inferences about Georgy Gongadze’s place in history without his case. The case which still remains unsolved, and the process of its unraveling is an inseparable, horrible part of Ukrainian reality.” But it has been now two years since Mr. Tseholko last attended memorial events which, according to him, he never failed to attend before.
In 2010-11Serhii Leshchenko, now an MP, brought out a series of publications on the Gongadze case, sometimes with rather sarcastic and transparent remarks concerning Leonid Kuchma’s involvement. Which, however, does not prevent him now from frequenting Yalta European Strategy meetings and breakfasts in Davos, organized by Viktor Pinchuk. This year’s Ukrainian Pravda. Tabloid published an image-making article about Pinchuk’s daughter – right on the eve of Gongadze’s assassination.
THE BANNER READS: “GEORGY, WE HAVEN’T FORGOTTEN” / Photo by Mykola TYMCHENKO, The Day
“Journalists themselves are steadily less and less like a group of individuals with a mission. It seems the biggest threat to me,” said Natalia Lihachova, chief editor at Telekrytyka, four years ago on Gongadze Memorial Day. However, speaking of a mission is out now, it is better to discuss standards.
At the first memorial action in 2000, people carried a poster with an outline of Gongadze’s head and text “Ukraine, Aren’t You Ashamed?” 15 years of silence is quite a telltale answer. And today, on the 15th anniversary of the journalist’s forgotten death, people are carrying posters saying “Honest Journalists Are Like Unicorns” and “Mass Information or Idiotization Media.” This is both an appeal to those who claim to be democrats, and an important marker: there still are people who demand that justice be served. Even 15 years later.
COMMENTARIES
Oleksandr ZAHORODNII, reporter, Channel 1+1:
“I knew Georgy personally. I cannot say that we were friends, but we did say hi. I learned about who Gongadze was from the program called Epicenter, aired back then by 1+1. Often an archive film of this program is used, featuring Georgy arguing emotionally with Kuchma in the studio. I was present as an extra at the recording of the program, because back then I was a budding reporter, just over 20 years old, and did not know the first thing about politics. And it was Gongadze and his questions who stole the show, not President Kuchma who was invited to the studio. Gongadze’s questions were rather harsh, sometimes even bordering on aggressive. Gongadze kept asking about the then interior minister Yurii Kravchenko. It was then that I saw how uncomfortable Kuchma felt. He was not used to being confronted in such a way, and he would like to avoid the problems. Gongadze probably realized that you must not speak with Kuchma like that, but during that talk show he would not hold himself in check, injustice hurt him so much. He wanted to bring his message across. It was that kind of journalism which takes hold of your heart and soul. When a journalist starts wondering what he is going to hear and how it is going to affect his career, this is no perfect journalism. Meanwhile, Gongadze had everything a successful journalist needs: style, telegenic looks, and most importantly, sharp questions.
“An assassination of a journalist is a shameful thing. That is why we gather for memorial actions and talk about it. At rallies we get kicked, at war we get killed. I have seen journalists die. Ours is an ungrateful job, but in for a penny, in for a pound. We must protect each other. We must show that we will not forget, and we will not forgive. The Gongadze case must be carried through. Four presidents have promised to do this, so the ball is in their court. Why haven’t they? Due to political arrangements, sympathies and alliances, loyalty to concrete persons, to the predecessors? It is a matter of a human being’s life. He was murdered, because someone simply pointed at him. And we will know the truth. This is also a question to journalists themselves. We always ask questions, but we must be asked as well. The Gongadze case is a matter of principle. It is us, not him, who need it.”
Natalia ZUBAR, chair of the board of Maidan Monitoring Information Center (non-governmental, non-profit civil organization registered in Kharkiv oblast):
“The interest in this case in society and in the journalist circles ebbed and flowed. Sadly, now the interest fades altogether. A great part of society has forgotten Gongadze. It grieves me to see this, for me personally the Gongadze case was a stimulus to resume my civil activism, when I saw that Ukraine was sliding in the abyss. In fact, the entire present civic movement has grown out of that case. And until now we have not succeeded in achieving the goals set back in 2000. The masterminds after the assassination are not found and not punished, the whole truth after this horrible tragedy is still undisclosed.
“During Yushchenko’s presidency, protest actions, urging to investigate the Gongadze case, turned into mere memorial actions. I mean 2005-06, when Pukach was arrested. The detention of the hangmen and the start of their trial proved to be enough for many. And after Pukach was sentenced, the majority happily forgot about the case. Unfortunately, forgotten is also the context of the Gongadze case, which became a grave event that altered Ukraine’s history and politics. It was not just the death of one person. It was a serious special operation aimed, among other things, at changing the country’s political course, and this is what has been forgotten. It included media scenarios, too. Suffice it to remember how in the late 2000 Kuchma’s son-in-law Pinchuk spent fortunes to hire a whole crew of political technologists for ICTV channel, including notorious Dmitry Kiselev, well-known now for his anti-Ukrainian activity. The channel launched a large-scale campaign to distract the public’s attention from the case. I remember insinuations, on television and Internet, that Gongadze was very much alive and had been sighted in Lviv. Later, no one in particular was busy investigating the murder. The case faded in the background, other topics appeared: the Orange Revolution, Yanukovych, Euromaidan, so no special systemic efforts were needed to dampen it. On the contrary, now special resources would be required to refresh the case in people’s memory.
“For Kharkiv, the Gongadze memorial action is very important. During Yanukovych’s presidency our city became the scene of the most coordinated processes of rollbacking free speech. All independent media outlets were closed down except one radio station, which today is not working, either. Journalists were browbeaten and advised to move to Kyiv or even further. For Kharkiv, the Gongadze case is first of all the case of free speech, but also more than that. The high-profile murder of a judge still remains unraveled, so the issue of unsolved crimes is well-known in this city. Here people take this injustice close to heart and perceive the unpunished evil as a threat for themselves. The ashes of Holodomor victims, victims of Stalinist political repressions, the memory of past genocides are all remembered in Kharkiv. Despite the attempts to destroy this memory, it exists on the everyday level, and even those who cannot formulate the feeling, experience it in their sensations.
“Today the question ‘Ukraine, Aren’t You Ashamed?’ from Gongadze posters of 2000 is extremely topical. Society has forgotten Georgy, his sacrifice and the simple truth that evil must be punished. This is Ukraine’s age-old, systemic problem with objective historical grounds, it is its genocidal past. People do not realize the necessity to identify the good and the evil, they are incapable even of public condemnation. Georgy’s death is knocking upon our hearts. Yes, Ukraine must be ashamed that this evil still goes unpunished.”
Tetiana DANYLENKO, journalist, TV anchor, Channel 5:
“After Georgy’s death we have seen four presidents and two revolutions, but none has investigated the case to the end, because the alleged masterminds behind this crime are still in power. These people still have considerable clout and, sadly, our government will not confront them. But the problem is not so much in the old guards from the crony times, as in the fact that the Prosecutor General and, basically, the entire law-enforcement system are not an independent branch of power. Neither courts, nor prosecutors, nor the police, nor the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). They are whips in the hands of the president, prime minister, oligarchs, and so on. Therefore, I would like to emphasize that the Gongadze case is the touchstone of democracy.
“How come that certain individuals are still in power? This is a complex question. The power realizes that society will ‘swallow’ those people’s weight in the current political process. The notions of reputation and morals are practically missing in the picture in this country. Politicians, it is presumed, can afford standing above law. Double-faced politics is everyday practice. Why have those MPs and journalists who used to come to Gongadze memorial rallies, and who are sitting in the parliament today, stopped being critical? They believe that in such a subtle matter as war, it is possible to engage Kuchma’s support and believe that there are bad and good oligarchs, and that Kuchma’s son-in-law Pinchuk belongs with the latter. But why condemn some for tolerating Kuchma, if last year we urged the entire world to help us fight in Donbas, while today some of our volunteers and public figures go there to meet with Zakharchenko, and society tolerates that, too? I will not be surprised if a couple of years later all those cutthroats become respectable gentlemen, and society will swallow that hook, line, and sinker. The creeping normalization policy, which is already underway, will lead to our tolerating terrorists from the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s republics,’ and try to sort them out into ‘bad’ and ‘good’ guys. This is a matter of general morals. We lack the notion of honor, which for some reason is traditionally mocked at here. It is considered that in politics there are no eternal friends or enemies, there only are eternal interests, which decide everything. Now these interests dictate being friends with Kuchma. Tomorrow they may dictate befriending Zakharchenko, and the day after tomorrow, Putin. With these considerations in mind, nothing should come as surprise.
“The problem of Ukrainian politics, in particular, in the Gongadze case, is that there are no clear periods, only smudged ellipses. This must be the legacy of the Soviet time. Truth is spread thinly and mixed with lies, and society lives perfectly well with that. There is no unequivocal attitude to things, which are in fact black-and-white. Still it seems to me, that in such a major case as the Gongadze case, the nation might have put a period.”
Leonid FROSEVYCH, investigative journalist, member of the National Journalists’ Union of Ukraine:
“In its time, the Gongadze case sent a powerful shock through the media community, it was a sort of tectonic shift in all information strata: television, newspapers, radio, and the Internet. On one side of the barricades stood those who would only serve the Truth, and demanded that government carry out a principled investigation of Georgy Gongadze’s assassination and that both the masterminds and the hangmen be severely punished. On the other side were those who muffled the press, terrorized it with trials, persecuted it with the police and prosecutors, and hired hoodlums armed with baseball bats. Kuchma’s regime saw it all, using special services to monitor those media persons who were most vocal against the pillars of the Dnipropetrovsk clan and others. The regime delusively believed that it controlled all processes related to the investigation of the Gongadze case. It used the policy of placating: it cajoled certain journalists, presenting them with awards and titles, or turned certain media outlets into its puppets, offering financial assistance, or appointed renowned journalists to high government posts. No wonder then, that with time the Gongadze case was sending fewer and fewer ripples through the media. Another factor was that the Kuchma-Pinchuk clan has been extensively carrying out counterpropaganda campaigns to whitewash Kuchma’s ‘good name.’ Besides, everyone could see that the puppet prosecutors were least interested in finding the masterminds behind Georgy’s murder. What we witnessed was either political games under the disguise of ‘investigation,’ or attempts to cash in on the Gongadze case.
“At a certain moment, there was hope that during Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency the masterminds would at last end up in the dock. There were numerous bombastic promises, and government made a show of principled investigation. But it was a sham fight, and it could not be otherwise. The people in power changed, but the old schemes remained, and smart guys who knew how the budget must be tapped were in demand again. What if journalists demanded to punish the masterminds of Gongadze’s murder? Yushchenko’s government, just as Kuchma’s before him, also promised to do that. At the same time, it paid off certain journalists and did everything possible to create a vacuum around the case. Lots of colleagues lost interest in the subject thinking that you could do nothing but accept the situation, for the case ended up in a dead alley. But that dead alley was in fact the result of government’s efforts! Maybe, had the National Union of Journalists become a center or rostrum to consolidate the fighters in the Gongadze case, the matter would not have vanished into the background.
“Of course, the Gongadze case has put certain journalists in the limelight and made them famous. One must think that they should be the first to push for a fair investigation. Sadly enough, we do not see any of this. We can certainly reproach them, but we must also see the forces causing journalism to lose its teeth, and making media incapable of joint action against injustice. Have they forgotten how this is done? Or were they corrupted by power? Sometimes it seems that journalism needs its own Revolution of Dignity.”
Natalia LIHACHOVA, chief editor at Telekrytyka:
“On September 16, a working conference at the President’s Staff Office took place, with the participation of power-wielding structures and Prosecutor General’s Office, on the one hand, and representatives of media organizations, on the other. The major question on the agenda was the impunity of crimes committed against journalists, and obstructing their professional activities (unfortunately, such incidents abound). In the general context of journalist security the investigation of the Gongadze case was also raised. Today journalists face a choice: are they merely employees of mostly oligarch-owned channels, and do they, even after the Revolution of Dignity, keep serving oligarchs’ interests, which do not always coincide with society’s interests? Or do they still have a voice of their own, represent society, and articulate its interests, putting awkward questions before the power and the politicians, but speaking for the public and not for the owner of their respective media outlet. This is of crucial importance, just as the impossibility of turning a blind eye to impunity when it comes to crimes against journalists in this country, and these themes should be raised and brought to light. War after Maidan has basically aggravated the situation, but on the other hand, the country is undergoing a process of reformatting in government and in business. This leads to conflicts, and journalists become victims. The overflow of problems and conflicts in the country puts journalist security for government and power-wielding agencies on the back burner. Meanwhile, our professional solidarity should bring these matters in their focus.
“For me the Gongadze case proves that there are more people like Georgy among us, prepared to bring truth to the public at all costs. On the other hand, even after 15 years the political circles are not prepared to name the masterminds of his murder. And it is not a matter of failure to understand or unravel something. It is a matter of lack of political will.”
Ostap DROZDOV, host at Channel ZIK:
“The Gongadze case is our common disgrace. Ukraine is doomed to be called a Kuchmist country as long as the remains of an unidentified body lie at a mortuary on Oranzhereina Street, Kyiv. The Gongadze case is an ugly illustration of unscrupulousness and impunity. This case teaches politicians that they can get away even with the most horrendous crimes. And our politicians have learned the lesson well, as they have been practicing it until today. Moreover, the politicians accused of the journalist’s assassination, officially represent Ukraine at the talks in Minsk. We are not Yanukovych’s country. We are still Kuchma’s country. He is unpunished exactly because he feels totally at ease in his own creation, a state of oligarchs, corruption, and backstage deals. The Revolution of Dignity is pointless unless it breaks the umbilical cord to Kuchmism. The Gongadze case is such an umbilical cord: the case that is trampled, babbled away, sold out, rearranged, and discredited. Everyone understands that even after the Revolution of Dignity, no one in this country is going to confront Kuchma’s clan. After the shootings on Maidan, Kuchma’s pupils have become the new political establishment. All of them. The Gongadze case is much more important than that of Yanukovych, or Kurchenko, or Zakharchenko. Because the period in the Gongadze case would be the end to the oligarchic rule in this country. No one is willing to put the period, because oligarchy is the only model that enables one to make billions in a public office. If the country cannot punish those who assassinated a journalist, no wonder that later rallies will be shot down with sharp ammunition. And this will go on endlessly, because impunity grows exponentially. When I visited the now deceased Lesia Gongadze, she said, ‘They don’t need it.’ She was right. We don’t need it, alas. Kuchmaland has swallowed us, and we all accepted it. Once a year we go out with candles to mark Georgy’s birthday, and then happily walk home and live on in the oligarchic, corrupt land of Kuchma, which continues to exist.”
