1: Euro 2012 chants could land fans in Jail
2: Ukraine’s government seeks to deter protest
3: More groups speak out about worsening poverty
4: Media struggles to escape censorship
5: Quote of the week. Boutros Boutros-Ghali

With poverty worsening the government seeks to clamp down on protest and gain stronger controls on the media before Euro-2012 and the Parliamentary elections this year

Euro 2012 chants could land fans in Jail

A government initiative aimed at tightening security during Euro-2012 proposes banning football fans from crying or carrying political slogans at football matches. Vadym Kolesnichenko, Party of Regions deputy, submitted a draft law to this end to Parliament. The submitted draft calls for various behaviours to be added to the current list of administrative violations: proclaiming or bearing slogans of xenophobia, racist or discriminative nature, including the demonstration of posters, banners and flags of political character or damaging the dignity of official figures and other people. The draft provides for the following punishments: a fine from 170 UAH to 340 UAH (roughly $21 to $42), community services or administrative arrest for up to 15 days(1). 

 According to Kolesnichenko, the law would secure public order during and after sport events and thus preserve the image of Ukraine. From his statement it is unclear whether he thinks fining or arresting foreign as well as local football fans for calling out political chants will benefit the national reputation. Such a dramatic move would most definitely engage football fans into Ukrainian politics. The precedent was set in 2011 when anti-governmental songs chanted by football fans got into the top five topics which Ukrainians searched for on Google(2).

(1) http://galinfo.com.ua/news/101773.html

(2) http://ua.sport.comments.ua/2012/01/03/167898/pr-proponuie-zaareshtovuvati.html

People First Comment: Hooliganism, hate-speech and violence are negative trends that have plagued the world’s most popular sport since at least the late 19th century: When team advocacy gets mixed-up with regional or national identities what results is a tribal attitude that, whilst adding to the emotional dynamics of the game, is vulnerable to subversion into violence.

For countries hosting major football events pro-active measures are a must. These can include: public awareness campaigns, featuring high-profile sports figures, to condemn hooliganism outright; multi-cultural street events in the areas surrounding stadiums, as used in the 2006 World Cup in Germany; a 24-hour multilingual hotline to report racist or violent incidents; a significant police presence with a clear directive on what behaviors to identify and isolate.

It is in the sense of this directive that Ukraine’s proposed law clearly differs from the general approach of other host nations and the international football association FIFA to the policing of hooliganism. An examination of the current FIFA disciplinary code and the various legislative measures applying to national leagues, for example the UK Football Offences Act of 1991, repeatedly brings up penalties for promoting either civil disorder or discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, religion or ethnicity.

The question that must be asked is why Ukraine has elected to add defamation of political figures to the mix? With the eyes of Europe so focused upon Ukraine this summer it seems ‘protecting the reputation of Ukraine’ is top of the government’s agenda: which apparently involves silencing any citizen who wishes to express dissatisfaction with the impoverished reality of the nation.

If their objective is to hide popular discontent then the authorities should ask themselves: what will arresting students for wearing T-shirts, for example printed with the President’s face on pineapple, look like in the eyes of the world’s media? Or perhaps they think that black-masked militia officers manhandling topless FEMEN protestors into a van just isn’t the sort of thing to make world news.

Ukraine’s government seeks to deter protest

In hope of preventing the development of further social and political unrest in 2012 the government has decided to call in the Secret Services to prosecute illegal protesters in Ukraine. This is enacted in a law, established by President Yanukovych, which broadens authorities of the Secret Services of Ukraine, entitled "On mass disorders". From now on the SBU, rather than the militia and prosecutors office, will deal with violations during mass disorders. Apparently the authorities hope this ‘show of force’ will reach the general population and prevent high protest activity(3).

However, the people will hardly look favourably on the increased involvement of the SBU in their lives. According to the latest social surveys, 26% of Ukrainians are afraid of being wrongfully convicted. Experts believe this to be indicative of the low response from law-enforcement agencies on receiving information from citizens regarding violations of the law. The study also shows that the people don’t trust law-enforcement agencies in general. The SBU has the highest level of trust: 16% of the people believe this agency can be trusted, 25% say it can be trusted more or less and 26% do not trust it at all. Only 12% of respondents have confidence in the prosecutor's office, whilst the Militia, tax office and customs office receive only 10% each(4). Tighter powers of control over the population when the population has such low confidence in the law-enforcement agencies themselves can only result in a widening of the gap between the authorities and the rest of the country.

(3) http://ut.net.ua/News/39052

(4) http://www.unian.net/ukr/news/news-480363.html

People First Comment:The message from the authorities is clear: take any part in a protest that we deem illegal and find yourself at the mercy, not of the relatively public prosecutor generals office, but at that of the highly secretive SBU. The move suggests that the government is seeking every possible tool for quashing popular protest in the run-up to Euro 2012: opting in this case to create a stronger sense of deterrence by playing on the inherited fears of the organisation from which the SBU was born – the Soviet KGB.

A quick review of the populations who have risen in protest over the last 12 months shows that the use of such a deterrent is unlikely to have any effect. The two largest protest groups in 2011 were made up of either Chernobyl clean-up workers, Afghan war veterans and other pensioners, whose sole financial support has been under direct threat, or small and medium enterprise owners, whose businesses were crushed by the new tax code.

Surely, since both groups are characterised by their refusal to accept unjust treatment, the threat of potential misuse of justice at the hands of the SBU can only act to fan the flames of discontent thereby creating greater inspiration towards protest.

In any case, the social surveys above far from demonstrate a consensus that the security services are something to be feared. Between the 16% that trust the SBU and the 26% that do not lies a large majority waiting for the State Security Service to make its position clear: Does it follow its former director Khoroshkovsky’s reasoning that the SBU exists for the protection of the President above and beyond the national interest, or should it be expected to perform a more patriotic function?

An article in the New York Times from 2005 suggests that during the final stages of the Orange Revolution the SBU acted to thwart a brutal crackdown against the gathered protesters: as 3,000 armed Ministry of Interior troops descended upon Maidan on full alert SBU officers were applying pressure behind the scenes to avoid bloodshed and prevent a potential civil war.

It is interesting to note that from the constitutional perspective the security services are under the authority of Verkhovna Rada, and thereby assumedly the people of Ukraine; not, as some would have you believe, the government or the President. Perhaps protesters should be encouraged: with protest violations managed by the SBU citizens rights might finally be enforced by the book, rather than by the bribe.

More groups speak out about worsening poverty

Various trade unions in Ukraine are speaking out about the growing poverty and social stratification in the country. Petro Petrichenko, Secretary General of the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Ukraine, announced that nearly half of Ukraine’s citizens are categorised as poor since 2011; with another 40% voicing fears of falling into poverty. The rich are getting even richer whilst more and more Ukrainian’s are falling below the estimated poverty line of 1025 UAH ($128) per month, claimed Serhiy Kondratyuk, Deputy Chairman of the Ukrainian Federation of Trade Unions. He believes that poverty in Ukraine touches over 25% of the population and half of families with three or more children. In addition, the poverty level in the country is expected to grow by over 26% by the end of the year (5).

Despite the outcry from trade unionists, Ukrainian Prime-Minister Azarov announced a GDP growth of 5.2% when reporting the results of 2011. According to his estimates, inflation was 4.6% (whilst international organisations report something between 8 and 10%) and average salaries have grown by 8.5%(6). Sociologists do not share in his optimism. Olha Balakireva, Board Chairman of the Ukrainian Institute for Social Research, announced that 85% of Ukrainians had to save on food, leisure activities, holidays and clothing in order to survive last year. She also affirmed that a quarter of people consider themselves to be poor(7). In summary, despite the optimism of the government, trade unions and experts report ever growing poverty and stratification within the Ukrainian population, which is likely to lead to escalating social protest in 2012.

(5) http://society.lb.ua/life/2011/10/24/120591_CHetvert_ukraintsev_zhivut_za_cher.htm

(6) http://novynar.com.ua/business/207182

(7) http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15467021,00.html

People First Comment: The World Bank has reported that 31.5 million (75%) Ukrainians are living in relative poverty and that 13.8 million (30.66%) are living on less than $3 per day making Ukraine one of the poorest in Europe. 

The government claim that inflation is at only 4.6%... yet food prices in Ukraine are higher in real terms than in the UK and in some cases supermarkets have had to resort to selling basic foods straight from the sack to ensure that people can at least afford something…

The IMF is refusing to lend more money to Ukraine until there is major structural reform… so in order to raise the funding needed the government has established one of the most punitive tax regime in the world, thereby adding to the poverty by killing off fledgling businesses. 

The international investment community are investing but not in Ukraine as this government and the systems they have created are not conducive to secure business and why should investors risk their hard earned capital on a government that has systematically failed to protect investors’ rights. 

And now even the Ukrainian trade unions, who have never been known for their outspoken criticism of the system, have finally admitted that poverty is real in Ukraine.

This government is systematically bleeding the nation to death.  Millions have already left and many more are trying to get out.  The SME sector has been reduced to virtually nothing and the rich live in hope that the international markets will continue to flourish.  Unfortunately the IMF are reporting that a European recession is now very likely and that is going to hurt the whole world and in particular countries like Ukraine where the government have done nothing to protect the population against the possible impact.  Times are set to get appreciably more difficult.

Media struggles to escape censorship

Freedom of speech in Ukraine faces severe problems. The situation within one major newspaper, 'Segodnya' owned by Renat Akhmetov – Ukraine’s richest man, is a perfect example to this. The publication has been on a continual strike over the last few months, which has already resulted in the dismissal of Guzhva, editor in chief of the newspaper, and Gromnitska, General Director. The editor in chief [now former] has revealed the true reasons behind both the strike and his dismissal; claiming that the staff have refused to work under the current system of censorship. Guzhva explained that the conflict started after the paper published photos of the presidential residence in Mezhygirya, near Kyiv, which were taken from a helicopter(8). According to Guzhva today’s Ukrainian media is forced to strictly avoid many subjects concerning the governing authorities and certain Ukrainian politicians.

In addition to various scandals concerning censorship, including 'Segodnya' newspaper, the government has removed opposition politicians from senior positions on the Parliamentary committee for freedom of speech and information, further curtailing the freedom of speech in Ukraine. The governing majority in Verkhovna Rada forced Shevchenko, a deputy from BYUT, to resign from the Head of the Committee; the position has been taken by Bondarenko, deputy from the governing party. Political analysts believe that the government is intentionally robbing the opposition of any control over the media prior to the parliamentary elections in the autumn of 2012 (9).

(8) http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2012/01/17/6915277/view_print/

(9) http://www.unian.net/rus/news/news-480228.html

People First Comment: The staff of ‘Segodnya’ are to be congratulated for their bravery in standing up not only for their Editor in Chief but also for the principles of a free press.  What is so sad is that not one journalist from any other publication has come out on strike in sympathy.  In Europe, an attack of this nature would be met by an equal response from the industry as this is one of the only means of worker protection.  Journalists would go on strike if only for a day just to make the point and if that did not work then the whole industry would be shut down until the media owners see reason… but not in Ukraine.  We may have seen eloquent articles on the internet and brave speeches but that is all and fine words, worthy as they are, do not bring about change within ruthless media owners.

Whilst the political powers in Ukraine understand that they can divide and rule, brave efforts such as those by the journalists at ‘Segodnya’ are doomed to failure.  It is at times like these that journalists need effective and powerful trade unions made up of rank and file members that can use their collective power to bring management to the negotiating table and, as a last resort, bring the industry to a halt. 

Ukrainian’s may be fearful of political rallies and the repression that may follow but everybody has the democratic right to withdraw their labour if only for an hour to demonstrate their personal abhorrence of repression.  

Quote of the week. Boutros Boutros-Ghali

Democracy is an objective. Democratization is a process. Democratization serves the cause of peace because it offers the possibility of justice and of progressive change without force.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Egyptian diplomat, 6th Secretary-General of the United Nations (1992–1996)