“Prava Ludiny” (human rights) monthly bulletin, 2001, #08

Mayor of Cherkassy Volodymir Oliynyk, a former judge, intends to become a public advocate in the case of Oleksandr Nikulin, the mayor of Kirovograd. A meeting of inhabitants of Kirovograd was held devoted to this proposal.

V. Oliynyk made his intention public at the press conference with Kirovograd newsmen. He intends to get familiar with the details of this case; besides, he plans to insist to try his client at the open session namely in Kirovograd. Cherkassy mayor is going to demand, in his capacity of the public advocate, the juridical and political assessment not only of Nikulin’s actions, but also the actions of those law-enforcing officers, who carried the investigation. He is convinced that the law was brutally trampled by these officers, and the very ‘Nikulin’s case’ is doubtful, since it not clear whether there is corpus delicti.

The number of violations of law in the cause of the investigation permanently grows. It is sufficient to recall the public statement of the prosecutor, who qualified O. Nikulin as guilty, although he had no right to do so before the court verdict. Now courts have stopped to accept claims against Nikulin, and only recently the wife of the Kirovograd mayor has been permitted to be his defender. Her rights, however, are limited: her meetings with her client are always carried with an official supervisor present. This, in V. Oliynyk’s opinion, is a brutal violation of the Ukrainian operating laws.

Volodymir Oliynyk plans to be a full-fledged side of the process and to question all its participants, including the prosecutor and the investigating officers. He appealed to citizens of Kirovograd to come to the trial and make their own opinion of what would be happening.

For proper studying the case and for taking part in the trial V. Oliynyk plans to go on leave.
Our informant

On 31 August representatives of Sevastopol political parties and public organizations: the Taras Shevchenko ‘Prosvita’, the Maksim Bogdanovich Belarus union, Crimean Tatar Majlis, public committee ‘Ukrainian Sevastopol’, Sevastopol group for human rights protection, OUN, Rukh, ‘Union of Ukrainian officers’ – created a public anti-Stalin committee at the joint sitting of the above-listed organizations. The goal of the committee is not to allow the erection in the city of the monument of Stalin, the greatest hangman of all times and peoples.

The committee worked out the plan of measures and peaceful actions directed against the intentions of the city council to include the question on erecting the monument to their agenda. Among other measures the committee discussed radical methods of the civil disobedience to the communist power in order not to admit disgracing the heroic past of the city.

The meeting also confirmed the plan of holding the scientific and practical conference on 8 September. The topic of this conference is: ‘The union of Slavonic peoples: historical reality and political speculations’. Both supporters and opponents of the pan-Slavonic ideas are invited to the conference (contact phone 54-37-26).

The Internet site ‘Oe?a?inuea ?eooy a Naaanoiiiei’

INDEPENDENCE

If you ask a man in the Ukrainian street what happened on 24 August, he perhaps would not know. Everybody knows what happened on 23 February: ‘Aha, the Red Army fought the victorious battle at Pskov and Narva!’ It is a myth, but a well-known myth. And what about 24 August? The reminiscences about the events of 1991 are gray and fuzzy.

It happened so that on 19 August 1991 I brought to the local newspaper the proposition of the public ecological organization to rename the Communist avenue to the Communist descent (we hesitated, if not to name it the Communist dead-end, but, alas, there was a way out). I asked what had happened. The pressmen did not know. The authorities also knew nothing. The long-distance communication channels ‘for some reasons’ did not work. The town mayor went to his dacha to pick tomatoes (!) to get out of harm’s way, having left his deputy (that is the destiny of deputies). The latter also knew nothing except the fact that we had the president of our own. What did common people do that day accompanied by ‘Swan Lake’? Certainly, they were indignant watching TV. Where are the detective films?! It is disgraceful! A consecutive meeting of the town council was held at 4 p.m. Yet, there not a single word was pronounced about the change of the power. Without waiting for the end of the meeting, I hurried to the bus and went to the countryside.

On the fifth year of the perestroyka the life was scarce, I had to have a sheep herd. They did not understand politics, but bleated loudly demanding food. So I returned to my rams. And did well, because otherwise I would build barricades in the town and would get to the cooler for ‘petty hooliganism’.

Then I went to Kyiv. On 24 August I appeared to be the only representative of my town among the fighters for Ukrainian independence, who gathered near the building of the Supreme Rada. Our number was about 300-400, and we represented the 50-million Ukrainian people. There were many students and people arrived from other places. I remember a poster ‘Here is Odessa’. While the discussions boiled in the Supreme Rada, while the Rukh members reproached the communist majority for the high treason, the crowd at the entrance spread on their shoulders an immense yellow-and-blue banner. Some Orthodox priest murmured prayers and or, maybe, sanctified flags and banners.

But the well-memorized symbol of these events for me became Mr. Mykhalko from the Committee of salvation of the Goloseevskiy forest. He was standing alone in an empty street with some poster, and against him erected the monumental columns of the building of the Central Committee of the Communist party. The building did not show any features of being inhabited, but a dense militia cordon was guarding it. We talked peacefully, bravely disregarding the militia.

He remained at his action station, and I returned to the Supreme Rada. In the late afternoon the banners and their carriers were permitted to come to the session hall. By that time the banners turned from bourgeois-nationalistic to mere national. The sweaty and hoarse deputies were let to go out. They squeezed through narrow passage in the crowd in a file and were appraised intermittently by words ‘Cheer!’ or ‘Shame!’

The independence was ushered.

DEPENDENCE

The brilliant dream, for which other people fight during decades spilling blood, fell down on us quite unexpectedly. The political significance of the event, I believe, was correctly evaluated by that handful of active Ukrainians, who gathered near the Supreme Rada building. Perhaps, they where those, who felt the freedom. But what about the remaining people? The rest remained in the czardom of the past: in ideology, in mind and in economic. Since independence is not a motto, not an anthem, not the own President and Parliament.

Independence is a state of mind. The Ukrainian people had been bred in communist schools and enterprises. That is why the current legal acts, legal relations and moral are impregnated with communist outlook. The people, who walk along Communist avenues and Lenin streets continues to think in the categories of the past. Mentally they go in the direction pointed by the hand of Lenin’s monuments. In this way we were bred from babyhood. ‘He will come on the blue chopper and will show a free film’, the Ukrainian children sing in their nursery schools. The dream to get something for nothing is imprinted in childish brains. The sweet dream about the happy future continues to poison our minds (that is why the sermons of Jehovah Witnesses are so successful in our country). In my opinion, the Biblical expression ‘lazy and sly slave’ is a good description of the state, to which the communist regime drove our nation. But when this regime demonstrated practically how inefficient it is, the people, instead of confessing its errors, introduced a constitutional refusal from any king of ideology. What is it? Is it a complete emptiness, a complete absence of any versions of development of the society? No! This is a camouflaged orientation to the past. It is very probable that the reminiscences of the communist ‘ideals’ and ‘achievements’ will seem brilliant on the background of laxity of morals, lack of ideas and the incessant advertising of consumerism. Thus, it especially dangerous today that sincere supporters of Marxism-Leninism may come back to power on all levels. That will mean new experiments in politics and economy and new sufferings of the people.

Independence is, first of all, the independent economy. This is a high level of technology, low prices of goods, goods capable of competition and participation in the international division of labor. Once the planned economy behind the ‘iron curtain’ began to lag behind the world, in spite of heroic efforts of the people, although ideologists tried to prove the opposite. (It is interesting that today’s ‘left’ never connect the crash of socialist superstrusture with the crash of socialist basis. Have they stopped to regard ‘The Capital’ by Marx?) Ukraine has been trying to become economically independence during the passed ten years. Yet, Ukraine was and is dependent. Having the disproportionately monopolized heavy industry and the repellent investment conditions, Ukraine is doomed to lag behind in her ability to produce modern and competitive goods. The orientation to the industry consuming a lot of energy and the deficit of her own energy carriers means the perpetual political dependence on Russia. Ukraine also depends upon international credits and has to pay enormous interest. Without pretending to the profound analysis of the economic state, I would like to remark that labor productivity at great industrial enterprises and in the still collective agricultural enterprises remains traditionally low. The attempts to become economically independence continue. Western experts, credits, state programs... Are there any successes? Yes. Each consecutive government reports about successes, but in 12-18 months it becomes clear that the government failed and must go. The next government offers the Parliament even a better program. Does the government believe in the success? I do not think so. There exist plenty buts that do not depend on the government. I was always interested in the question, how a member of the government may work knowing that he will loose his post in about a year? What can be done for the country during such short time? Is it worth to begin? It may seem that only patriots work in a government. Or fanatics? Or amateurs? I do not think so. Rather they are common Soviet people, who think of their future.

Summing up my meditations on the Ukrainian economy, I would remark that the real situation, in my opinion, is even worse. If I am mistaken and someone can show me the macroeconomic successes of our state, then I beg them to tell the Ukrainian people about this miracle. I myself consider that our efforts have no prospects. Ukraine is hopelessly dependent. Have we any chances to improve our lot?

HOPES

Meditating about the destiny of Ukraine I habitually thought in the materialistic terms as most Ukrainians do. Indeed, in the framework of such approach when the real reasons of development of the society are material needs only that logically follows from the origin of man from the animal world, the prospects are gloomy. However, even now there many ‘sages’, who do not agree with this reasoning and believe that Ukraine (and maybe the entire mankind) could be made happy by means of some technological and administrative inventions. Sometimes these sages come to power, and then people in practice is convinced in ‘greatness’ of such ideas. This used to happen several times during the last decade. All such attempts are doomed because of one simple reason: authors of such ideas ignore the objective reality of the world, its Creator. Yes-yes, they ignore the actual God, acting force of the Universe, who, as the Bible teaches, ‘forms all their thoughts and knows everything they do’ (Ps 33. 15). It occurs when almost 90% of Ukrainian regard themselves as believers, and the top state authorities recently ensured the people that they revere the Christian religion. For the last decade we have not listened to open atheistic propaganda – the important ingredient of the communist doctrine. Instead, although with some strain, the God’s Word is spread, hundreds of thousands of Gospels are printed and distributed. This raises hope that the God’s Word will not return to Him, but will fulfil its mission. The hope that people will confess their errors and sins. The hope that the Christian ideals will become ideals of the nation. The hope of the spiritual renaissance, without which the economic miracle will never happen. Is it real? Yes. It is sufficient if everyone would try to go this way and to get convinced in God’s succor and grace.

The President, government and Parliament should confess: we are incapable to stop the decline of out Motherland with our own efforts. They should daily, starting to fulfil their difficult duties, to ask God to make them reasonable: help us, O Lord, to govern this people today! It rumors that in the US Senate there is a special chapel, where senators can turn to God ask his guidance in state affairs. That is pity that I did not happen to see this chapel with my own eyes. But even from here we see how efficient method it is for the country is blessed by God and prosperous. The United States was founded by presidents, who held the Bible in their hands. They practically used it and summoned their people to do the same, whereas our leaders summoned our people to catch up with and overtake America. As to the current leaders, they are shy to summon the people to anything. That is a pity. I have no opportunity to appeal to the entire Ukrainian people, but I would like to appeal to our people to imitate the American people and turn to God. Here lies our hope for a better future. The only and the last one.

So we have lived, dear compatriots, ten years each counting since 1991 Anno Domini. I am sure that every adult within Ukraine consciously or subconsciously divides his or her life before and after the year of declaring independence, stormy and uncertain, fearful and hopeful.

I wrote ‘ten years each’ on purpose: after the referendum, during which the people, having surprised the world and intimidated the authorities, almost unanimously voted for the independence of Ukraine, the majority of us took a comfortable position of an aloof observer. We hid in quiet nooks, sincerely believing that someone, but not we ourselves, shall construct our happy future. We permitted to convince us that the life as such under the created conditions is a heroic deed and a hard toil. We did not march in step with Ukraine (we have other occupations), and she went to its ten-year jubilee herself, without super-efforts on the side of the authorities, accompanied by screams from inside and outside about troubles, in spite of roguish authorities and nouveau riches. In contrast to widely spread thesis that we repeat the Russian scenario, Ukraine was going it own way.

And what place has other Motherland reached after ten years on the background of negligence of her sons and daughters?

Recently we had nothing to be ashamed of compared to the former sister-republics (naturally, except the Baltic countries). Our presidents did not attack Parliament with tanks, they did not appoint their successors, not introduced the perpetual presidency; our military did not organize coups; we have no military conflicts; we abolished the death penalty; our laws about languages, national minorities and the freedom of consciousness are the most liberal on the terrain of the CIS, our Constitution is not the worst. But I repeat that our successes are not due to democratic spirit and activity of the society: most of us, during the passed ten years, tried their best to prove the validity of the maxim pronounced in the last but one century: ‘Every Ukrainian oven is our fortress, patriots use to lie on them’.

The political advantage was till going, but only owing to efforts of separate enthusiasts in the government. The majority of bureaucrats wanted the ‘old order’, but they did not dare to act, being under the impression of the December referendum and fearing separate desperados, who raised hue and cry in the press in the cases of the attempts to push Ukraine from the democratic path (and such attempts were made: recollect, for example, the beating of the mourning procession during the funeral of Patriarch Vladimir). As a result, the political Ukraine did move, although rather slowly, in the direction that agreed with the common sense. The zenith of this movement was the election of the current Supreme Rada: a distinct procedure was obeyed, which substantially limited the manipulations with the votes, and we got the parliament we deserve, which correctly reflected the mood of the society. And all that occurred as if by itself, without our intrusion!

As to the economic development, it was quire another pair of shoes. Here, seeming to conceal the economic secrets, which is quite proper (but not for our transitive situation!) the state bureaucracy and ruling elite appeared in the conditions of the complete freedom from any public control. A layer was formed of persons, who had a taste to obtain capital and property in the ‘comfortable’ conditions of the lack of control, they cynically used the ‘holes’ in laws left there by accident or on purpose. I believe that it was the people, who formed what we call clans or oligarchs. Naturally they wanted to petrify the conditions, under which they became bosses of this world. To this end the wished to fix juridically what happened de-facto under the conditions of the legislative chaos and informational vacuum. So, according to my observations, about four years ago they decided that it was the proper time to infiltrate the power structures. The sphere of their interests expanded from their own businesses and districts to the entire Ukraine. And they started to furnish this ground according to their wishes: they brought to politics the aversion to the free spreading of information, the assurance that they were omnipotent, the disdain to the society and the magnified interest to law profitable for them (often illogical and dishonest). It was the time when a number of changes, sometimes scandalous and sometimes quiet, occurred in political parties with respectable democratic image. ‘Father-founders’, liberal romanticists, were pushed aside and exchanged for ‘pragmatic businessmen’. Now these parties belong to the circle of the parties known as ‘centric’ or ‘backing the President’.

These events, that is the appearance of the ‘third side’ in politics, was missed by the public, which must be the main figure in the civil society. This is not surprising, taking into account the talent of our ‘businessmen’ to achieve their goals silently and efficiently. But the further passivity was unnatural and very dangerous.

How could we miss the first display of the political activity of the self-appointed ‘masters of life’? Having lost the election by party lists, oligarchs decided to gain the political capital by supporting the acting President in his attempts to be re-elected. Then new phenomena appeared on the Ukrainian political scene: purchasing signatures for candidates, shaping voters’ lists from various databases (that is massive faking signatures), etc. These were just ‘little tricks’, transparent and transparently immoral. But we were silent. We cannot be excused by the fact that by the time the majority of mass media were already bought, and they refused to publish materials undesirable for the strong of this world. The public ceased to protest against the immoral methods in politics. We agreed with the subterfuge that this was not swindling, but ‘political technologies’.

Then it became worse. Encouraged by our indifference, the ‘political technologists’ became smarter, during presidential races the ‘tricks’ became smoother. It was the time when the remaining fragments of the free press made public the facts of still infrequent cases of forcing workers of budget organizations to vote. This is a brutal trampling both of human rights and Ukrainian laws! We kept our mouths shut and obtained the referendum conducted by the doubtful ‘people’s initiative’ and with doubtful questions. We again kept mum, then they drove us to the senseless pre-term voting; the conditions, under which it was done, did not give guarantees that the results were fair (all this disgrace got a virgin name ‘using administration resources’). That was the time when out authorities began to demonstrate what they did not dare to show for the last 10-15 years: complete ignoring of the public opinion (both inside and outside the country). The bosses ignored how they looked in the eyes of a man in the street. Indeed, why do they pay attention to this figure, if this figure does not pay attention to anything? The behavior of the ‘executive power’ after Gongadze’s disappearance and the ‘cassette scandal’ is a sheer proof of this statement. Other proofs of this are: putting flowers at Shevchenko’s monument surrounded by dense ranks of law-enforcers, dismissal of the first successful government and noisy celebration of the Day of Russia Navy in Ukrainian Sevastopol, etc. We already saw similar tricks 10-15 years ago. And who is to blame that we again ‘have what we have’?

However, although we were sleeping for ten years, these years in Ukraine were not bad and full of interest. Unfortunately, to go on sleeping becomes dangerous. Let us wake up! My congratulations with the great holiday, dear compatriots!

10 August 2001

Only twice in my life I comprehended clearly that I live in the critical moment of history. The first time was in February-March 1987, when prisoners of consciousness were massively released from prisons and concentration camps. The second time was 19-30 August 1991. I hope that a brief chronicle of those days would be interesting to our readers.

On Monday, August 19, I had the first day of my leave. The day before I toiled in the vegetable garden preparing potatoes for digging out. On 19 August I had to drop to my job: to agree with my chiefs the new staff list of the bureau that I headed. That was the final touch: after that I was free to rest.

At my dacha there was neither TV nor radio, because from my childhood I dislike all mass media. That was why I learned about the putsch only in the late morning, when my mother, wife and son came to the dacha. My son ran to me crying: ‘We have a coup!’ I decided that he was teasing me. But when my wife and mother came up with very stricken faces, I understood that it was true.

I remember well my first reaction – overwhelming amazement. How did they dare? It was extreme idiocy! The second reaction was – they must fail! I told it to my family. They did not believe me: ‘You have always been a clinical optimist!’ I thought about my bosom friends in Moscow: Larisa Bogoraz, Aleksandr Daniel, Pavel Marchenko. Where are they, what happens with them?

Mother with my son remained at the dacha to look after our dog, which again gave birth to a lot of puppies, I and my wife hurried up to town.

I came to my office about 2 p.m. All faces were somber, nobody looked straight at other one’s faces. I said to my colleagues: ‘Cheer up! This will last two or three days, a week at most!’ A few people did cheer up and smiled, the rest remained moody.

What to do? I phoned to Henrich Altunian, he knew nothing except what was shown on TV. Nobody knew anything. Now it is difficult to believe, but then any information was unacceptable even to rather high authorities. In the city council (then I was a member of the council) knew nothing either, everyone was dispirited and frightened.

I phoned to Moscow, to ‘Express-Chronicle’ and the Agency of social information. There the people, on the contrary, were animated and ready to fight. They told about the occurring events. I gave them Altunian’s fax number (he was a happy owner of this technical miracle), ask them to dump the news and ran to his home. From the both sources we received the information about the meetings throughout the country and Eltsin’s declaration. The sheets with the news were as large as bed-sheets. Henrich took one sheet to the city council, I took the other one to the organization, where we rented a computer. I typed and printed Eltsin’s declaration in many copies and ran to the square, where people gathered for an improvised meeting. It began, as people told, about 11 a.m. and was held permanently. About one hundred people were present. Many of them were plain-clothed ‘democrats’. To an experienced eye they were easily recognizable.

In general, I do not love to speak at meetings, but here I had to. The more so that many traditional speakers were absent.

I took the floor, told the events and read Eltsin’s declaration. The audience tried not to omit a single word. People cheered up. The plain-clothed were puzzled. Was it new even for them? I repeated that the putsch would last for few days. I passed around the copies of the declaration.

I phoned to Altunian. He told that after having got the information the city council became somewhat calmer. Evgeny Kushnarev, the then city mayor, regained his usual assurance and decided to gather an emergency session of the city council. ‘We shall not manage to do it on Tuesday, so Wednesday it will be’. Aleksandr Maselskiy, the head of the oblast council, on the contrary, postponed the session appointed at 20 August: ’We must reap the harvest’. Altunian told that Maselskiy refused pointblank to disband the meeting in the square. Upon the whole, the local authorities acted in the spirit of Kravchuk’s declaration.

I wrote the text about the Kharkov events and dictated it by phone to ‘Express-Chronicle’. I phone to Larisa Bogoraz. She told that Daniel and Marchenko went to guard the White House.

Next day I was exited and alarmed: what is going in Moscow? How will the army behave? I spent time either at Altunian’s fax in order to get the information or in the square in order to spread the information. In the evening I and my wife hurried to the dacha, to calm down mother and son. We returned very late.

In the morning I learned about the clashes in Moscow, about the three deaths. Alarmed, I went to the session of the city council. Several deputies suggested to denounce the putschists. Two members were against this proposition. One of them was Pereverzev, the deputy head of the oblast KGB. In fact, he supported the putsch. Grigoryeva, the secretary of the Chervonozavodskiy district party committee, told that we should not provoke the youth and we had to wait for the decisions from the top.

Nonetheless, the session took the decision to condemn the illegal actions of the putschists. The communist fraction voted against.

I remember the following two days not so well. What I distinctly remember is a breathtaking feeling of freedom that I experienced then. The information blockade already stopped, people did not leave TV sets. Kushnarev gathered the emergency session of the city council again on 26 August. Stanislav Gurenko vowed at the session of the Supreme Rada that the Ukrainian communist party knew nothing about the putsch.

On Saturday morning some acquaintance (unfortunately, I forget who) phoned to me and said: ‘Run to the obkom(headquarters of the oblast communist party)! A mob gathered there, some papers are burned. They are going to attack the building!’ Obkomis a five-minute walk from my home. I ran there. The mob counted about 60 people, some stranger spoke through a megaphone. I saw militiamen that had to guard the building behind the locked glass doors, their faces were pale of terror. I was recognized by some people in the mob, somebody showed me a whiff of smoke rising from a window on the fourth story. If they wanted to burn anything, I thought, they had plenty of time. I took the megaphone and called them to keep order, not to break the door, but to elect a group of five representatives, which would enter the building peacefully and check what was burning, where, etc. People agreed, and the delegation was elected. I asked the mob to step back from the entrance, knocked on the door, showed my deputy’s ID, asked to open and told about our intentions. The frightened guards told me that they had not to let anybody in without the permission of their chiefs and that they would call fist secretary of the obkomAnatoliy Mialitsa. Two obkomservants in the standard uniform (dark suit, white shirt and dark necktie) left the building through the hooting crowd. They elbowed their way and trotted off. Thank God, their kissers were not beaten.

Some time later Mialitsa appeared. People crowded around him, shouting and hooting. I started negotiations and explained our intentions. He agreed, but asked the crowd to step away; he said that he could not negotiate in such a noise. I repeated his request. The people obeyed. We, I and Mialitsa, remained alone, he started to dodge in any way. He was a first-rate demagogue! We were debating for the best part of an hour. Several times the people got impatient and closed in, then Mialitsa agreed with anything and asked the people to get away. After this he again began to dodge. Suddenly a car came up, Kushnarev and Altunian, who just arrived from Kyiv, stepped from the car. Kushnarev said: ‘Now we shall seal the doors of the obkom– the executive committee will decide further actions. Mr. Zakharov, I ask you to join the commission that will seal the doors. Choose two more deputies to assist you’. He went away, and Altunian remained and told that in Lviv the mob broke into the obkombuilding at night and found there a telegram from the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine of 18 August, in which there were orders of the putschists. We had to seal the obkomto preserve such documents. I asked my colleagues-deputies Sergey Vladimirov and Aleksandr Novikov to assist me.

Mialitsa became gray in the face, stopped debating and returned to the building. Some time later several people, Aleksandr Prymak ( a deputy of the oblast council) and unperturbed poker-faced militia captain, joined us. So the five of us began the procedure. I was in the obkombuilding for the first time. Rugs on the floors, marble, impeccable cleanness. We inspected all rooms on all stories and sealed the doors. We were accompanied by photo correspondent Nina Bezhina, who clicked her camera without stop. People, who served in the obkomwere leaving the building. The much grown crowd at the entrance whistled and shouted. At last we went outdoor and sealed the main entrance. I was the tallest in our commission, so I raised the paper strip with the seal and glued it as high as possible. The crowd roared in triumph. Mialitsa, standing by us, locked the main door with a big key and was turning it in his hands, as if he did know what to do with it. I snatched the key from his hands and told that it would be safer in my hands. He protested, but I did not flinch. The crowd continued to shout. Mialitsa had to agree, but he made me promise that I would bring the key to the door on Monday at 8 a.m. I did not argue, and he went away.

I remember well the strange feeling: I am holding the key that, perhaps, was not used since the day liberating the city from German occupants, when the obkommoved into this building. I was unwilling to give it back to Mialitsa next Monday. An elegant hansom militia colonel came to me, the head of the city directorate of guarding the public order (I do not remember his name) and advised: ‘I say, can’t you disappear somewhere with this key?’ Even militia hated them. Nina Bezhina proposed to take my photo with the key. I refused. Then she asked to let her take the photo of only my hand with the key. Later this photo was printed in all Kharkov newspapers.

The whole Sunday I was trying to think away of not giving back the key. Late in the evening I learned that the Presidium of the Supreme Rada took a decision to prohibit the communist party. Early in the morning I phoned to Kushnarev at his home, told him about this decision and proposed to use this pretext for not returning the key. He agreed and promised to come to obkomat 8 on Monday morning. He came, told Mialitsa about the prohibition and took the key from me. Later the liquidation commission was formed that dealt with the obkombuilding and other inheritance of the communist party.

At the session of the city council all decisions were taken unanimously, communists looked distressed, but voted for. Some commissions were created: for liquidating of party organs, for investigating the facts of obeying illegal putschists’ orders; Dzerzinski square was renamed to Svoboda (Freedom) square, several streets in the downtown and the subway station named after Dzerzhinski were also renamed. Only once the communists showed obstinacy and voted against: when it was proposed to remove Lenin’s monument from Dzerzinski (Freedom) square. In order to be taken the decision needed three more votes, but the decision was blocked. So this monument is still standing. Myroslav Marynovich, when he came to Kharkov for the first time in November 1993, said: ‘How symbolic it is: Lenin, the great strangler of freedom, decorates the square of freedom’.

In the break of the session Kushnarev asked me to head the commission for investigating the facts of obeying illegal putschists’ orders. I agreed to join the commission, but refused to head it.

There were many interesting details in the work of this commission, but the size of the article does not permit to dwell upon them. I will only mention that I rigidly opposed that the commission would consider anonymous letters, and I managed to convince my colleagues. I was working in the commission for a week, during this time I had to seal several party buildings and to talk with party chiefs of various ranks. We managed to find the mentioned above (which found in Lviv) telegram of 18 August and to observe how it was obeyed. The longer was the distance from the obkom, the more unwillingly the orders were obeyed. District party committees developed measures of endorsing the putschists, passed the instructions to party committees of enterprises and organizations, but there all was fuzzy and ineffective. As a result, the putschists got no support from the grass-root organizations. The putschists’ actions were so unnatural that they were doomed to failure.

The unsuccessful putsch catalyzed the disintegration of the USSR. The communist majority in the Supreme Rada gave in and endorsed the Act on the independence, regarding this as a smaller evil than the export of revolution from Russia. Ukraine quite unexpectedly became independent, although in many respects it was not prepared for this.

I often brood, whether we could succeed more, if we acted otherwise? I do not know. History does not present subjunctive moods. It seems to me that the Ukrainian society was not prepared to conduct the process of decommunization, to remove from power those, who participated in repressions dissidents, i.e. to replace the so-called nomenclature. Our society contained not enough people capable of such actions, the society was weakened by 70 years of mass repressions. That was the reason why on 1 December the Ukrainian people voted for the former party ideologist Kravchuk and not for the former dissident Chornovil. The quick and efficient start, like in Poland, Czechia or Hungary, was impossible in our country. Alas, we were doomed for this intolerable decade that we have survived since August 1991. We were doomed to suffer through the post-totalitarian depression aggravated with typical Ukrainian vices.

But every cloud has a silver lining. In spite of all the difficulties, sufferings and misery, the total vector of changes on the country is directed, in my opinion, to the better. The further results will depend upon ourselves.

On 19 August we celebrate the Savior -- a most blessed wake of the Christian religion. On this day the first divine service had to be conducted in the new-opened Kharkov church – the first Ukrainian church in the oblast. On this day the bells tolled in all churches – old and newly opened...

On 19 August 1991 I came to town from my dacha, where my husband remained, and planned to return with my friend. I, like many on that morning, was woken with a phone call. The voice of my interlocutor, a very reticent woman (she is a psychiatrist, after all), did not leave doubts – something abhorring happened. ‘Stitch on the TV set. They (further followed some unprintable characteristics) made a state coup’. I rushed to the TV set and saw airy fairs, who dances on the screen. It was the ‘Swan Lake’ by Tchaikovsky. My friend explained to me the essence of the appeal to people by the GKChP. ‘That is civil war’, was my first thought.

I am still sure that we were at hairbreadth from it. The situation was saved only by the fast loss of control on the side of putschists. It was the consequence of the loss of control by any central organ. On the other side, any power that lost the contact with the population, which is based exclusively on the law (rather lawlessness)-enforcing organs is unable to act adequately.

For several first hours, when alarmed members of the city council (my husband’s colleagues) kept phoning to me asking where my husband was, I was felt fear. I was afraid for my husband, for my friends in Moscow and Kharkov. Then the well-known speech of Kravchuk followed. Many say that he demonstrated a double attitude. I do not know, I did not understand it in such a way. Not to introduce the state of emergency in the republic meant unambiguously that he was not going to endorse the coup. From this moment the situation stopped to resemble a horror film, the more so that some other republics (according to radio ‘Liberty’) also refused to submit. Then the TV channel RTR showed Eltsin’s famous speech. I went to dacha to fetch my husband, and he at once said that the putsch would fail, moreover, he said, it would serve as a catalyst of centrifugal processes in the USSR. An incessant meeting was held on the central square and nobody tried to disband the people. This time the well-known dramatic events were occurring in Moscow; in three days they resulted in the defeat of the GKChP and Ukraine’s independence. All the time we stayed near TV and radio sets: everybody understood that historical events were occurring. It was a very strange feeling to participate in the creation of history. We, Soviet people for decades did not take part in the civil life, observing important events on TV screens only.

Since that time ten years have passed. We have got a country of our own. It is a new and remarkable feeling, since I never regarded the USSR as my country. Maybe the reason was that I was bred by my mother’s parents, who, mildly speaking, did not love the Soviet regime. Maybe because I was bred in the countryside, where practically nobody loved the regime, especially older people, who remembered the great famine of the early thirties. I had hot discussions with my poor parents (who believed in the ‘socialism with the human face), as a result I convinced myself more and more. Now I understand that they tried to convince me in order to save me from possible repressions. Yet, in my teens I felt that we lived in quite different countries. By 24 August 1991 I have been a citizen of Kharkov and the Kharkov oblast, without identifying the place of my birth with the country as a whole. I supposed that one day the USSR should collapse, just because that was the fate of all empires. In 1990 I thought that it would happen in about five years. The immediate independence of Ukraine was unexpected even for those, who understood that the USSR was already disintegrating. There is the opinion that Ukraine is advancing so painfully because it never struggled for its independence like the Baltic republics and Georgia. It is difficult to agree with this idea, because the struggle for independence should mean an inevitable war, split to the East and West and much bloodshed. As to the national movement, which strove for freedom in the peaceful way, this movement in Ukraine was the most powerful.

All former Soviet republics, excluding the Baltic and middle Asia ones, which have their own specifics, are advancing in the construction of their states slowly and with a lot of difficulties. Ukraine does not make an exception. In order to build a state, a town, a house and even a shed one must have the plan and the wish to achieve the result. In Ukraine the majority of citizens do not feel themselves as citizens, even if they do not feel any nostalgia for the Soviet past, even if they do not vote for communists (which is an extreme king of anti-citizen behavior). They do not understand what must they do as citizens. That is why each election is so shapeless, that is why the state bureaucrats may afford a quite arbitrary behavior. That is why ten years later we again speak about a new ‘standstill’, this time in a young independent country. But that is a nonsense to have a standstill in the country still unshaped. If a young country does not develop, then it perishes, loosing its independence partly or entirely. In our times the former threatens us. I do not want to list all our troubles, to sum up all sad results of our underdevelopment...

Yaroslav Dashkevich, reacting to my words said that we live in an alien country again. Yet, after all, we have something like a native country, and here lies our hope.

There is a small church in Kotlova street in Kharkov, which is as old as our country. The church is not completed and already needs repairs; the Ukrainian Autocephalic Church is not rich, but the number of its followers is increasing from day to day. Younger people more and more often say ‘In our Ukraine’, and this is also a reason for hope. Maybe some day a new population will be bred, unlike the Soviet people, who were indifferent to all. It would be good, if we have the country, where law are obeyed, where the Convention is not violated, where helpless old people do not starve, where women give birth to many children and do not give them away to the orphanages. But we shall have such a country only if we desire it very much.

Nobody will make us to become citizens, and without becoming citizens we shall never have a country, which we would like to call our native one.

The answers to the following questionnaire somewhat illustrate our attitude to the putsch.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Questions:

What did you feel when you learned that the GKChP seized the power?

What did you intend to do?

What were your expectations?

Of whom among your friends and relatives did you think first of all?

What were the causes of the defeat of the putsch in your opinion?

Henrich Altunian, a political prisoner in 1968-71, 1980-87, MP in 1990-94.

1. I was deeply depressed and recollected the prison in Chistopol. Rejoicing due to the obtained independence evaporated at once. The air became stale. I was sure that if arrests begin, I should be one of the firsts. Not because I was already imprisoned twice, but because I have made a speech in the Parliament against the KGB, which would not be excused.

2. I went to my friends, I joined the crowds in streets. Many, even strangers, came up and asked, what shall we do? As a rule, I answered: be yourself. I will never forget two facts. First, when 100-150 representatives of the so-called democratic public gathered in one of small halls in Sumskaya street and held a spontaneous meeting. No one of the speakers endorsed the putsch. Second fact: I came to the office of the freshly elected chairman of the city council, where the city top authorities gathered. Everybody was gloomy, with nerves strained. All waited for news from Moscow. They had no fax then, radio and TV gave no information. I tried to cheer up the audience, I added that everyone’s life now has divided into two parts: before and after the 19 August. All our future will depend on our behavior on these critical days. If you want, I joked, I can tell you how jailbirds live in Soviet prisons. Many people paled. They found my humor somewhat somber.

3. About children, grandchildren, family and my bosom friends. I did not want to throw them down to the despondency, grief and long-long separation, the life filled with expectancy of letters, meetings and movements from one prison to another.

4. But from the very beginning I did not believe that the putschists will succeed. Their hands were trembling and the eyes were shifty during the TV demonstration.

5. Because the country has changed: all political prisoners were released, Article 6 of the Constitution was cancelled, centrifugal forces became so great that it was impossible to retain the system in the old form, since the system was based on fear and lies. It is untrue that three ‘conspirators’, several months later, ‘disintegrated’ the USSR in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha. In fact the empire collapsed under its own weight, and no putsches could save it.

Mikhail Blumencrantz, professor of philosophy

1. Horror.

2. That time I was in England and all the time I stayed before the TV screen. I was advised to ask for a political refuge, but I refused.

3. Pessimistic, since the first day. But when the first putschist, Pavlov, went on a sick list, I began to hope that all of them will fall ill soon.

4. About my daughter, who remained in Kharkov.

5. The train has already departed. One year before they had a chance to succeed. Five days before the putsch, talking with professor Piatigorskiy, I said that the country was on the brink of the military coup. Piatigorskiy that it was impossible, that it would be complete idiocy. I retorted that he lived abroad too long. That something is sheer idiocy is an argument-against in England, but in our country it would rather be an argument-for. The talk was on 14 August...

Irina Golets, artist

I thought that the wave of arrests will come to the country and the first, who would suffer, would be artistic intelligentsia. I thought that Stalin’s times would return, that the population of the east Ukraine would not resist, since after many years of the communist regime they were conditioned to bear anything. I think that Leonid Kravchuk, who did not introduce the state of emergency, did a great service to the people.

I did not know what to do, but I did not intend to change my position. That was also a from of resistance. The inner freedom is more important.

The first impression, rather a consternation, passed the next day, it became apparent that the overthrow was being done with trembling hands. Moscow resisted and it inspired us. By the way, recently Pavlov, Yanayev and others gave interviews, in which they spoke about their lofty destination. They told that the GKChP could have saved Russia. On the TV screens they felt themselves as national heroes. This is a terrible symptom, showing that the ‘disease’ is developing.

But at that time we inhaled a breath of liberty and were full of illusions. We believed, maybe naively, that the liberty was forever, it is natural, because liberty is given to us from God. But the sober mind has returned, and nowadays the intelligentsia, which was euphoric in the times of the perestroyka, now is hopeless and depressed. The reason is that Russian and Ukrainian authorities, who determine the fate of the countries, were bred in the best traditions of the totalitarian regime.

About my father, who survived a term in Stalin’s concentration camps. He served 8 years being accused of high treason, since, while fighting Germans, he was wounded and taken prisoner of war.

I have already answered this question: the combat with trembling hands is hopeless.

Nina Mamontova, poetry and prose writer

I felt that my grief caused by the loss of my favorite cat became less painful.

I and my neighbors in the village intended to move to the forest and become guerillas. One of my neighbors, who was building his house, decided to make embrasure for a machinegun. Then we, I and this neighbor, went to the forest, inspected foxholes left after the war and agitated out villagers to join the guerilla unit.

Both pessimistic and optimistic. So, after all, I will not be mistaken.

I intended to demand from the village council to give a refugee status to my numerous friends, dissidents from Kharkov.

They had no resolute people, like myself and my neighbor-machine-gunner.

Svetlana Muravyeva, nurse of the oblast pediatric hospital

I felt awful disappointment in Gorbachev’s promises.

I did not consider myself so influential to undertake anything.

I wished very much the putschists to fail.

The very fact of the putsch did not promise anything good, even in the case of its suppression.

I think that it happened because the progressive minority was active and the retrograde majority was, fortunately, passive.

Marlena Rakhlina, poet

I was terrified to death. I fancied that it was the ABSOLUTE end. I felt great fear for my son, who went in for human rights protection since he was 18.

One hour after the communique I had to meet my 12-year-old grandson, take him to the dacha and stay there with him, with his dog and newly born puppies at least for ten days. Because of my habit to keep my promises I stayed at the dacha for the first two days having no radio and TV. Then my some came and I, to my great and pleasant surprise, learned that everything was more or less quiet.

My expectations were bleak. I never believed in perestroyka and never trusted Gorbachev (by the way, I think that he knew about the putsch and said something like: ‘Do whatever you want, but do not involve me’).

The answer to this question is partly given in item 1.

I think that the people, who could endorse the coup, were elderly, with inbred passivity and lack of initiative. The number of the people, who were full of new hopes, was larger, and they were more active.

Maria Shutaliova, co-chairperson of the Kharkov oblast Union of soldiers’ mothers

I heard about the putsch, we switched the TV set and watched ’Swan Lake’. By the way, we just returned from the leave and the ballet with its consequences meant the return to everyday routine. The putschists’ communique resembled a common beginning of a subsequent campaign.

We had no choice. At worst we hoped to move to some foreign country. All the time we watched the TV screen.

I do not know why, but I was sure that the coup would fail.

Certainly about my children. What would expect them?

It was sufficient to look at their trembling hands to understand what kind of people they were. Such people were unable to keep power.

A loud explosion occurred in the town of Novoarkhangelsk of the Kirovograd oblast. The charge exploded in the yard of the house of Oleksandr Stepanov, the head of the Novoarkhangelsk district organization of the Ukrainian Republican Party (URP). Stepanov incurred material losses. The Kirovograd oblast organization of the URP considers that the terrorist act was a consequence of the struggle of the Novoarkhangelsk branch of the URP with the corruption among several top authorities of the district.

Since September 2000 O. Stepanov was repeatedly threatened through phone. In September 2000 he got stabbed and, as a consequence, he became an invalid of the 3 rdgroup. In May 2001 water in his well was poisoned. More than once he turned to law-enforcing organs, but there was no adequate reaction. The last explosion did not lead to the loss of human life only by a happy accident.

Not long before the explosion the oblast organization of the URP turned to the oblast administration in the connection with obvious violations of operating laws in the Novoarkhangelsk district. On 10 August 2001 the Committee of the oblast URP organization approved the appeal to Vasyl Motsnoy, the head of the Kirovograd oblast administration. In this appeal they proposed to dismiss Mr. Otrokusha, the head of the Novoarkhangelsk district administration, for his inability to fulfil his duties and for violations of operating laws.

The Kirovograd oblast URP organization turned to the heads of state organs and law-enforcing organs with the demand to establish order in the Novoarkhangelsk district, to draw corrupted authorities to responsibility, to find the executors and initiators of the explosion and to protect Oleksandr Stepanov and his family.

These demands were already endorsed by several oblast organizations and political parties.

At least in the Nikolayev oblast. Yuri Didenko, the editor of ‘Ukrainskiy Pivden’, maybe, the only oppositional newspaper in the oblast, is firmly convinced in the truth of this statement.

During the 10 thyear of the independent existence of Ukraine the lot of the Ukrainian language press is, unfortunately, critical, said Didenko. Especially critical it is in the East and South of Ukraine.

The newspaper ‘Ukrainskiy Pivden’ is very unpopular among the owners of no stalls. The competition on the side of Russian newspapers is invincible. The inhabitants of Nikolayev can buy only 3 Ukrainian language newspapers and about 500 Russian language ones.

Ukrainian language press obviously needs support from the state. There is no alternative way to preserve the Ukrainian language press in Ukraine.

‘Ukrainskiy Pivden’ also has considerable problems with the distribution in Odessa. This newspaper began to be distributed in Odessa a month ago. Being oppositional, the newspaper published some materials on the situation in Odessa. The local authorities did not encourage it. As a result, one of the last issues of the newspaper was nearly forbidden for sale in Odessa. The pretext was that we sent the insufficient number of copies to Odessa compared to the order, explained Didenko. We had to send our representative to settle the problem.

Youri Didenko is sure that the real reason of the conflict was the article about the activities of Sergey Popov, an investigating officer of Odessa city prosecutor’s office, who ‘is rather notorious with his illegal and unpunished activities not only in Odessa, but in the entire Ukraine’.

Amnesty International has not obtained yet from the Ukrainian government the exact information about the disappearance and death of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. That is why Amnesty International intends to demand independent investigation of this case. Gerd Domer, the expert of Amnesty International told, without giving details, that on 16 September 2001 (a year after Gongadze’s disappearance) they plan to conduct a number of actions. He also told that Amnesty International tries to learn about the journalist’s lot from other sources.

On 29 August the entire world marked the day of the missed. Amnesty International distributed an appeal directed to all world governments and containing the request to clear up all such cases with the assistance of independent investigating commissions and to punishment the guilty.

The total number of the disappeared people equals 46 thousand in 30 countries. In Europe the leaders are the Balkan countries, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Turkey.

Ukrainian service of the radio station ‘Deutche welle’

It is well-know that the ecological state of the East Ukraine is catastrophic. We know of hundreds of sources and causes of the pollution of the environment. Another source, and rather unexpected one, may be added to this list.

We received from our Moscow friends-ecologists a brochure by L. Fedorov, Doctor of Chemistry and president of the Union ‘For chemical safety’. The brochure describes the history of the development, implementation and use of chemical weapons in the USSR. Moscow ecologists are deeply concerned with Russia’s obligations to destroy in 40 thousand tonnes of poisoning substances (PS) in nearest years, according to the Convention on prohibiting and destroying chemical weapons. Recently they have found, in the State military archives, that on the former Soviet territory (including Ukraine) there more than 100 places, where chemical weapons had been produced or tested. These places are very dangerous for the local inhabitants. From 1933 to the beginning of the WW2 military maneuvers with the application of chemical weapons (yperite, adamsite, etc.) were frequently conducted. These stable PS were used in chemical shells, bombs and in poisoned strips.

The information below concerns us, inhabitants of the East Ukraine: there were 15 training chemical centers in the Kharkov military okrug in 1937. Among them in the Kharkov oblast: Balakleya – Store No. 29 of the artillery ammunition (with storage of chemical weapons); Rogan railway station – Bezliudovka military c Zmiev – Zmiev military c Chuguev – Chuguev military camp, Pavlograd – Pavlograd military camp. In the Donetsk oblast: Artemovsk – Sviatogorsk military camp. In the Dnepropetrovsk oblast: Novomoskovsk-Dneprovskiy – Novomoskovsk artillery range.

The archive data showed that the enormous quantity of PS got into the soil either by way of burying (which was done everywhere) or from unexploded chemical shells and bombs. Fedorov himself found yperite in soil in the district Kuzminki within Moscow 70 years after the closure of a chemical artillery range.

The Artemovsk camp existed from 1937 to 1946. Using the ‘right of the free access to the information about the environment state’, stipukated by Article 50 part 2 of the Ukrainian Constitution, I inquired the information from the military commissariat, military unit AO 621 and the USS. I got no results. There is another weak hope – to turn to the archive in Donetsk. According to the oblique data received from regional museum, in 1945 military camp No. 415 of the NKVD was stationed in the town and it had a summer branch in Sviatogorsk. This military unit could deal with chemical weapons.

In order to unclose this mystery the Ecological and Cultural Center ‘Bakhmat’ appeals to inhabitants of our region: if you know anything about such camps, storage of chemical weapons of some anomalies of soil, please inform us by phone (06274) 6-06-24 or 6-24-25.

‘Dikoye pole’, 16-01, 7-14 August

The Krivoy Rog authorities headed by mayor Yuri Lubonenko did not feel enthusiasm when they got acquainted with the decision of the meeting of the town inhabitants held on 24 May. The decision of the meeting was to hold the all-Ukrainian referendum about the voluntary dismissal of Leonid Kuchma. Later V. Gaevskiy, who chaired the meeting, got a letter signed by mayor’s first deputy V. Zadorozhny. The letter contained the refusal to pass the documents of the meeting to the Central Commission in charge of all-Ukrainian referendums. The pretext was that the documents ‘did not satisfy Articles 7 and 16 of the Ukrainian Law ‘On all-Ukrainian and local referendums’’.

Having analyzed a lengthy list of the demands contained in these articles, the members of the initiative group felt doubts whether the local authorities really found so many violations. The members of the initiative group, taking into account Article 3 of the European Charter on local self-rule, Article 17 of the law on referendums and Article 5 of the Constitution, turned with the request to review the documents for the second time, since the first decision contradicted Article 40 of the Constitution and laws ‘On complaints of citizens’ and ‘On local self-rule’.

The reaction of the local authorities was categorical and unexpected. A. Shtilenko, the secretary of the town council, answered: ‘The Ukrainian Law ‘On all-Ukrainian and local referendums’ does not envisage the opportunity to review the documents concerning the initiative group of referendum, if the documents were not accepted at the first time because of not meeting to the demands of this Law’.

The members of the initiative group were convinced that the essence of the defects found by the authorities was unnamed and that it was impossible to learn anything concrete. They knew that, according to the operating laws, a secretary of the town council has no right to take such decisions instead of the mayor. So, they concluded that the authorities abused their right to participate in preparing and conducting the referendum. They complained to the Dzerzhinskiy town court against the actions of mayor’s first deputy V. Zadorozhny.

On 1 August 2001 the court chaired by judge O. Ognianyk considered the case. In the beginning of the session Valeriy Makarchuk, a mayor’s representative and the head of the juridical department of the town council, unexpectedly requested to refuse to consider the case, because the claim was handed more then one month after the event. He counted the time, in contrast to the plaintiffs, from the reception of the first and not of the second response that obviously contradicted the law. The judge ignored the question of terms and started to consider the case. In the process the validity of mayor’s decision was discussed. V. Makarchuk found incorrect details in the data about 15 participants of the meeting. On this basis he proposed to consider the documents incorrect as a whole. He also affirmed that some participants were registered after the beginning of the meeting, and thus the organizers got a needed quantity of 200 participants. The debate did not prove the viewpoint of the mayor.

Judge Ognianik took the resolution that astonished even the claimants: the claim was rejected because of the violation of the month term.

Then it is not clear, why the process was held, if the reason of refusing the claim was formulated from the very beginning? As a local journalist remarked, the judge, perhaps, hoped to find more plausible reasons during the debate. The expectations were not fulfilled. So the judge had to use the first mentioned doubtful argument.

The claimants intend to hand the complaint to the appeal court.

Ukrainians send fewer complaints to Kuchma

About 59 thousand complaints arrived at the address of Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma during the first 7 months of the current year. This number is 23.1 thousand less than during the similar period of the previous year.

The directorate in charge of citizens’ addresses at the President Administration informed that the number of complaints and applications decreased from all regions, except the Volyn and Lugansk oblasts.

Besides, 6.5 thousand appeals and complaints from citizens were obtained at the personal receptions at the President Administration.

Interfax-Ukraine

On 22 August at 9 a.m. a convoy car sent by general Illichev arrived at the monastery of Paisiy Velichkovskiy (Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchy) in Sevastopol. The convoy got the order from the city militia head to immediately bring archimandrite Paisiy to the city precinct. Having not received any explanations from the militiamen, Father Paisiy refused to go, but he was forced to go to Illichev’s headquarters.

Having come to the place of destination, Farther Paisiy was taken to general Illichev’s office.

On entering the office Farther Paisiy congratulated the general with the 10 ^thanniversary of the independence of Ukraine. In response, the general used a chain of obscenities in the language of the foreign country, which is a perpetual enemy of the independence of Ukraine. The general sense of the speech was the advice to Farther Paisiy to scram from Sevastopol to Kyiv or to the Volyn, since: ‘Sevastopol is and was the city of Russian glory, and we shall not stand you and your Filaret dancing here! No Ukrainian dregs will ever survive here! This must be understood by you!’

‘He followed this instruction with another burst of bad language concerning me and Blessed Patriarch of Ukraine Filaret’, told Farther Paisiy. Being unable to stand such behavior, Farther Paisiy left general Illichev’s office, promising that he, by all means, will inform the authorities about the behavior of a state officer on the eve of the Independence Day.

Although, it natural to ask: to which state does general serve? Hardly to that, which celebrates now its independence.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchy appeals to all national organizations of Ukraine, to everybody, who considers himself a Ukrainian, to protect the Ukrainian church and the population of Sevastopol. We indignantly inform that after yen years of independence Ukrainians are forced to fight in order to survive in the Ukrainian city Sevastopol on the Ukrainian terrain.

The information is authorized by the signature of Father Paisiy
Information issued by the press service of the Patriarchy representation office of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchy in Sevastopol

The editorial board of the Ukrainian scientific and public-political journal ‘SOCIAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL WORK’ invites you to send materials (articles, investigation results, information about news and new publications) concerning social work, social politics and related topics for printing them in our journal.

Please, take into consideration that, by VAK Presidium order No. 3-05/11 of 10 December 1999, our journal is included into the list of scientific editions, the publications in which are counted for defending theses for doctor’s and candidate’s degree in social sciences.

The format of the articles must satisfy the following conditions:

-- language: Ukrainian or English, size up to 15 sheets of A4, font ‘Times New Roman’, size 12, space 1.5.

-- the article must be appended with a summary in Ukrainian and, if possible, English, size up to 200 words.

-- articles are accepted in hard or electronic (file of ‘rtf’ or ‘doc’ format) copies

-- the article must be appended with the information about the author(s) – name, patronymic (or middle name), surname, scientific degree, place of employment, position, scientific interests, home and office addresses, contact phone (home or office), fax, e-mail address.

-- articles in hard or electronic copies may be sent to the address: 04070, Ee?a, aoe. Neiai?iae 2, IaOEIA, ON? (with the note ‘aey ?o?iaeo’); fax (044) 238-25-69; e-mail [email protected] or brought personally to the address i.Ee?a, aoe. Aieinuea, 8/5, IaOEIA, 4 ei?ion, Oeiea nioiaeuii? ?iaioe.

The conditions of our work are the following:

articles are printed gratis.

articles are accepted, if they are not sent to other editions.

the reference to our journal is demanded if articles or parts thereof are reproduced in any from.

the responsibility for veracity of the facts published lies on the authors.

the editorial board has the right to edit the articles.

materials are not reviewed and not returned.

Our journal is regularly issued since 1997. One get to know the previous issued in the libraries of Kyiv and other oblast centers, as well as in the libraries of higher schools, where social work, sociology, social pedagogics and psychology are taught.

The journal is also distributed to oblast departments of social protection of population, to oblast directorates of internal affairs, oblast health protection directorates, the Supreme Rada committees and ministries, research institutes and public organizations, whose activities are connected with corresponding affairs.

The journal can be purchased in the School of social work (i. Ee?a, aoe. Aieinuea, 8/5, 4 ei?ion, eii. 206) or by mail with the payment of postal expenses (additional information may be obtained by e-mail [email protected]).

Any related questions may be asked by phone: (044) 238-25-69.

Oksana Vinnichuk, the head of the information and service Center for specialist in social sphere

Ukrainian education program of market reforms and Winrock International have a pleasure to announce the publication of the new unique manual ‘Public relations for civil (non-government) organizations. Pieces of advice for every day’.

The manual of 80 pages was compiled by Andrey Kulish, the head of the press department of the Ukrainian education program of market reforms (UEPMR). All the advice and recommendations given in the book are fruits of practical experience of the author and the UEPMR personnel.

The book covers practical aspects of the work of public organizations in the sphere of PR, contains many examples, samples and illustrative materials. The main topics elucidated in the manual are:

Which are the methods for public organizations to influence the specific audience?

Planning PR activities of an organization. Practical aspects.

Informational peculiarities of a PR campaign.

Cooperation with mass media.

Practical advice concerning some media techniques.

Lobbying.

Tools for lobbying, some approaches and methods.

Special techniques and measures.

How to convince people?

If you want to purchase the book ‘Public relations for civil (non-government) organizations. Pieces of advice for every day’ send please the following information by e-mail address [email protected] or fax (044) 4906989 (with the note ‘For Andriy Gorbal’):

Name of organization

Head of organization/press secretary

Postal address (+other contact information)

Direction of the NGO activities (1-2 sentences or several keywords)

The UEPMR will pay all the expenditures for distributing the manual.

ATTENTION! The run of the book is small, that is why we address the organizations, which really work in the third sector and have the real need in the manual.

Respectfully yours,

Andriy Gorbal

Ukrainian education program of market reforms

phone (044) 490 6988

fax (044) 490 6989

e-mail:[email protected]

http://smi.ru/2001/08/06/997088162.html