INTERVIEW: Kyiv newspaper editor on Shmarov, Kosakivsky

On June 4, The Weekly was visited by one of Kyiv's more controversial figures, Vitaliy Karpenko. Mr. Karpenko, since 1985 editor-in-chief of Vechirniy Kyiv, the only Ukrainian-language daily in Kyiv, is in the United States on a brief tour of diaspora communities at the invitation of the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms of Ukraine.

A former deputy in Parliament, Mr. Karpenko is an active member and co-founder of the Congress of Ukrainian Intelligentsia, an organization working to consolidate the Ukrainian national idea and the Ukrainian national state.

This two-part interview was conducted by The Weekly Editorial Assistant Yarema A. Bachynsky and Svoboda Editor Olha Kuzmowycz.

PART I

Q: What will be the primary theme of your meetings with diaspora communities?

A: I will address, primarily, the present-day socio-political situation in Ukraine.

Q: What is the legal basis for Defense Minister Valeriy Shmarov's lawsuit against Vechirniy Kyiv and yourself?

A: According to Ukrainian law, anyone may bring a suit against a newspaper, if he believes that newspaper has defamed his dignity and good name. But this law is directed against the press. Let me explain in brief. An individual bringing such a suit decides himself the size of damages to be pleaded. This can be 10, 20, 40 billion karbovantsi - as much as one wants. But court fees remain the same, regardless of how large or small the requested damages are. This is discrimination against the press, because, should we lose against Shmarov and be forced to make an appeal, our court fees will rise to 10 percent of the damages requested by Mr. Shmarov [ $1 = 185,000 kbv., thus a 10 billion kbv. suit = more than $10,000 - ed.], just to enter an appeal. This is exploited by those who are suing our newspaper. And at present there is not one but six such lawsuits against us.

Q: Do all these suits have to do with the government?

A: As a practical matter, yes. The plaintiffs are, as a rule, either highly placed government officials or mafia structures.

Q: Would you name any of the litigants?

A: There are officials of the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Kyiv Mayor [Leonid] Kosakivsky, Mr. Shmarov, a mafia structure that wooed Ukrainian girls into the Netherlands as "dancers" and then forced them into prostitution. For us this one is the scariest, because a court in Utrecht, Holland, convicted members of this group with regard to this matter, but they have since won an appeal there and have now turned their attention to us. But we have not yet clarified that situation, and the Utrecht court is to send us all the documents.

Q: Some time ago Vechirniy Kyiv ran an editorial about the opposition of certain generals to the new national defense doctrine drawn up under Mr. Shmarov's direction. Mention was made of a "secret general staff" which allegedly forced this new doctrine upon other high military officials. Is there a nexus between the content of that editorial and the suit brought by Mr. Shmarov?

A: There is a very direct connection between the two matters. But there is a different angle to this. Having analyzed the stature of the various plaintiffs involved in suits against us, not one of them was brought by some ordinary individual. I believe this is a well-coordinated campaign against our newspaper.

Because even under present circumstances, one cannot shut up a free press through force in Ukraine. Ukraine is not quite like Belarus. So attempts are made to crush the press through the courts and financially. And our judiciary is not yet, unfortunately, fully independent, although it is a far cry from the judiciary of bygone days.

Regarding the Shmarov matter, it is absolutely clear that someone has put him up to this lawsuit. He has caused so much damage to Ukraine, and he is well aware of that fact, that to institute such a lawsuit of his volition would have been very inopportune. And we are aware of this and exploit it in order to show the people how high government officials damage Ukrainian interests by ruining the Ukrainian army. It is much more than just showing Mr. Shmarov's conduct.

Q: Could you name some of the individuals who you say put Mr. Shmarov up to this lawsuit?

A: I can't name these people, because I am in the midst of a court action and do not wish to complicate matters for Vechirniy Kyiv or myself anymore than is necessary. I do not need another lawsuit.

Q: In that case, what about the substance of Mr. Shmarov's complaint?

A: As to the substance of the [Shmarov] proceeding. A plan for the reform of the armed forces has been developed. An earlier version of this doctrinal reform was proposed by the former general staff but was rejected at higher levels. The new military doctrine, which these "experts" pushed on the president, is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that Ukraine has no potential military enemies, that the world situation has changed to the extent that Ukraine has no need for an offensive military capability, and that outside security guarantees ensure that no one will bother our country.

This is a serious error because the guarantees in the Trilateral Agreement are purely declaratory, they do not go beyond the scope of the Helsinki Final Act [which recognized post-World War II European borders and encouraged signatories to monitor human rights in other signatories' states - ed.] and this is pure foolishness. Yet pretensions to our territory exist both on the part of our northern and western neighbors. We need an army adequate for self-defense, otherwise we will not maintain our state.

Also, in accordance with this concept, they decided not just to reduce the army, but to effectively ruin it. The reform envisions the abolition of the three military districts (Kyiv, Karpaty and Odessa) and their replacement with regional operational groups.

Q: What is the difference between the present system and the regional operational groups?

A: The new system envisions the abolition of divisions, the enactment of a corps system composed of brigades and divided according to groups of oblasts (regions). Let's say the Donbas will have two or three corps, which it will support materially and financially, out of its regional budget. That is the crux of the matter.

Patriotically inclined generals believe that, first and foremost, a regional operation system will ruin the present command and control system, causing needless chaos. Furthermore, it will make the armed forces dependent on the regions, and if, let's say, the Donbas is feeding two corps, these two corps will carry out the directives of the regional leadership.

Q: How is this dependence possible if there is a central Ministry of Defense with a unitary defense budget? Would not the ministry disburse funds to the regions?

A: This budget exists but it is not maintained, and the military does not receive proper funding on a regular basis.

By the way, we recently noted that the air defense unit responsible for the president's airborne security has not received its pay for the past three months. How can one allow people sworn to protect the president to go unpaid? So this gives one cause to wonder about financing of the military. All this was told to me by a number of generals who invited me for a conversation. They requested to remain anonymous, because they are serving officers, and the moment their identity becomes known they will be removed from their posts.

At this time any serving officer who shows an inkling of national-patriotic orientation is swiftly and literally booted out of service, often under the guise of personnel reduction. But we have other testimony from other, named generals, who will appear in court and confirm the damaging nature of the current "reform."

Recently, ORT (Russian Television) ran a story about a similar reform of the Russian military, which is to be announced after the presidential elections. This reform also involves the creation of regional operational groups and gives the appearance of a unification of the Ukrainian and Russian armed forces. If one factors in the wide range of agreements signed between Mr. Shmarov and Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev [last year in Sochi], which damage Ukraine's interests, then this reform takes on a truly ominous character.

Incidentally, another potential problem is the cost associated with the reconstruction and expansion of certain military bases, which were built in tsarist times and require time-intensive and expensive reconstruction in order to accommodate larger military units, their personnel, etc. That's the situation with the "reform" of the military and many observers see in it a creeping coup d'etat, inasmuch as the economy has been ruined, next will be the army and, finally, Ukrainian state independence.

Q: What is the expected outcome of the court proceedings vis-a-vis Mr. Shmarov?

A: No matter what the court decides, Shmarov will lose in the court of public opinion. We are striving for this. We have a large number of witnesses, among them Stepan Khmara, Levko Lukianenko, Vyacheslav Bilous [of the Parliament's Committee for National Defense], the Union of Officers of Ukraine.

Q: Who are your attorneys?

A: Vechirniy Kyiv is represented by Prof. Vasyl Kostytsky, also a people's deputy, while my attorney is Viktor Nikazakov...

Q: The attorney who has represented the Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self-Defense organization?

A: Yes, indeed, he's also worked with Rukh; he likes these "scandalous" affairs. We work with him on a regular basis. We have our strategy and I believe [knocks on wood] that we are better prepared than Mr. Shmarov. We've boxed his ears once already, when, as your publication wrote, we demanded that the proceedings take place in Ukrainian and that Shmarov re-write his complaint in Ukrainian rather than in Russian, as it was originally served.

Q: Speaking of which, what was the reaction of the court and of public opinion in Kyiv or throughout Ukraine? Was there political or press commentary on the matter?

A: This is a question of principle. It would have been morally irresponsible not to have brought up the language question. Secondly, not to have protested would have meant ceding the initiative to Shmarov, and this, too, we did not need. We demanded that the proceeding be carried through in Ukrainian, in accord with the Civil Code of Ukraine, which requires that all court proceedings be in Ukrainian, with a translation if necessary.

The judge took a slightly different position, but now is not the time to raise the question of the judge's fitness to hear the case. They [Mr. Shmarov's counsel and the court] took a different tack and insisted that I in fact know the Russian language, so I was forced to demand a translator, insofar as I do not understand Russian.

Q: So the proceedings have been stopped?

A: No, the other side was given five days to rewrite their complaint in Ukrainian and they have done this. The position taken by our side was positively appraised by democratic circles. The foreign press, in particular, took an interest, the BBC foremost of all. The courtroom is always packed; the citizenry is interested. We have asked the judge to move the proceedings to a larger facility. I have even proposed to the judge that the Defense Ministry or our newspaper's auditorium be utilized, but she is not enthusiastic about moving and both requests were denied. There have been three sessions so far. At the second session, on May 23, after the translation of the other side's documents, the plaintiff's presentation began. We asked that Mr. Shmarov appear, instead of his adjutant, because according to the Supreme Court, if actual damages are claimed by a plaintiff, then there must be sufficient evidence of psychological or emotional suffering by the victim-plaintiff. We argued that no one, other than Mr. Shmarov himself, could tell the court about his psychological and emotional suffering.

Q: Can Mr. Shmarov be forced by the court to take the witness stand?

A: Mr. Shmarov cannot be a witness because he is the plaintiff. In any case, we requested the court mandate his appearance, however, this was rejected.

Then we asked Serhiy Hayduk, Mr. Shmarov's representative, questions he was completely unable to answer. Such as "How many pages does the security concept examined by the National Security Council run to? Did Mr. Shmarov present this document to the president in person, or through the office of the president? What was the president's reaction, and what did he tell Shmarov? You see, he could not answer these questions. Yet even after another motion, the judge refused to call Mr. Shmarov to testify.

The judge also refused our request to summon President Kuchma as a witness, although due to a technical error, National Security Council Chairman Volodymyr Horbulin may well testify, as he was not stricken from the list of witnesses. We also asked for Col. Gen. Anatoliy Lopata, who will testify, two other generals, who were disallowed because we did not know their patronymics... All in all we have many witnesses. At the following session we continued presenting questions to the other side, and on the third day we, that is a member of the editorial board and myself, gave statements in our defense.

Q: And the member of the editorial board who appeared with you that day was?

A: Stepan Poradiuk, my first assistant editor. The other side did not expect two things. First of all, Mr. Nikazakov led them up a blind alley by forcing them to read excerpts from the editorial in question and insisting that they precisely point out what they consider to be published falsehoods. And so it went. Mr. Hayduk did not know what to do. Secondly, they did not expect that we would produce documentary evidence contradicting virtually every one of Mr. Shmarov's accusations.

For example, Mr. Shmarov claimed that he did not organize a "coup d'état." He demanded that we prove the truth of those words. So I simply answered that we, as a newspaper, do not concern ourselves solely with breaking news. We report and comment on those events or facts that have become, through their publication, common knowledge. And so it was with this matter. Recently, at a military affairs conference organized by Levko Lukianenko, where a Gen. Kravchuk said forthrightly that Mr. Shmarov's actions vis-a-vis the national security concept in question constituted a coup d'état. And I told them that such and such newspapers had published this at the time of its uttering, and that such and such witnesses will confirm this fact.

Later Mr. Shmarov wrote that we twisted all the facts in commenting on the matter at hand. So I read him the following phrase: 'Everything written in Vechirniy Kyiv corresponds precisely to what was said at the National Security Council conference.' The author of those words was Mr. Horbulin, appearing on television. Here is the transcript, I told them. They were at a loss and requested a recess. After consulting our side, the judge recessed the proceedings until June 20.

CONCLUSION

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, June 16, 1996, No. 24, Vol. LXIV

| Home Page |