“Victory can happen much faster than we expect”

Last year was the most difficult in the history of Ukraine, and as a result of a number of events – the Maidan, the war in the East of Ukraine, weaned Crimea – Ukrainians suddenly become volunteers, volunteers, immigrants, refugees, activists – representatives of social categories, which are for the peaceful years, We had time to forget. Together with the new reality and the problems appeared, and became especially noticeable people who are used to solve them and pulls the longest government in its desire to build all and deprived of all rights and freedoms – human rights activists. So the journalist Dusia.telekritika.ua decided on a serious conversation with one of them – Borisom Zaharovym, head of the advocacy center of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, to discuss the shutdown of channels, the Ministry of Information has arisen, the investigation of murders on the Maidan, and network-centric war on Russia against Ukraine.

– What is the function of advocacy center, which you lead?

– Advocacy – is to promote the ideas and values ​​of human rights, legislation in this area, community initiatives and the impact on public opinion, it is actually lobbying. Advocacy and lobbying are, in principle, the same meaning, but completely different hue. Lobbying has a negative connotation, as this word is meant to promote the interests of business, and an advocacy – on the contrary – representation of the public interest, and not only in the legislative sphere. If we understand that there are some negative trends in society that regards human rights, we can appeal not only to the state but also to society. For example, right now, during the war, when society is slowly flies into a rage, which is quite understandable, and people constantly on social networks will post half-decayed corpses separatists, and pleased by this photo.

– On the reverse side acrobystitis half-decayed corpses of the Ukrainian military.

– Absolutely. But the fact that the reverse side, of course, none of them any good and can not wait. And the fact that our society behaves like a beast, carries certain risks.

– For whom?

– For human rights, of course.

– So you are, in fact, a PR in Ukrainian society, human rights ideas?

– Yes. But I want to say very clearly that in terms of human rights and the minimization of violence – the violence is allowed in some cases. If there is a threat to freedom, dignity, life-threatening, violence is acceptable. There are legal violence – for example, if a dangerous offender under arrest resists.

– What is violence permitted by the state? War, ATO?

– Yes. Resistance to interference of foreign countries. Or, for example, from my point of view, it is absolutely legitimate violence, though not allowed by the state – is the resistance of Maidan Yanukovych government. It is right to revolt, the natural right of the people.

That is, from the point of view of the law, it was the delegitimization protest, but from the point of view of natural law – this is definitely a legal approach. As stated in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations […] reveals the desire to reduce them under absolute despotism, the right and the duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

– But we’re not in America.

– Yes. Our Constitution does not say so – our constitution generally lousy in this sense, it should be changed. But, in my opinion, it took the Maidan natural right of the people to revolt and led to the overthrow of the government, which is trying to usurp power.

– And the difference between the natural right of property rights?

– How is the natural right of the positive? Positive law – that right is regulated by law. Here, Nazi Germany passed anti-human laws, and for them to destroy the Jews, Gypsies, commit mass violence, and unleashed the greatest war in human history – and it’s all under the law. But at the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis condemned for crimes against humanity, based on natural law – because from the point of view of positive law, the Nazis did not commit any crimes.

– Then what, from the point of view of natural law to the uprising, the situation is different from the Maidan natural right to the rebellion in eastern Ukraine?

– Very simple. The fact that the uprising in eastern Ukraine was not inspired by the ideas of liberty and human rights. It was inspired by the neighboring country, which is led and leads hybrid war against Ukraine. This uprising was not at all be, if not Russian.

I know very well the eastern region, I am from Kharkov. Donbass, of course, is very different from Kharkov, but I know Donbass, including Slavyansk, I am there very often. So I can say that Ukraine’s east has been accustomed to so-called “stability” – “The salary is good, but a little”, as long as everything was stable. This “stabilizdets”, which imposes the Party of Regions, very well settled in the minds of the people, and that is why most of them have a negative attitude to the Maidan, which in their minds associated with instability. And then against Ukraine network-centric war has been unleashed …

– not a hybrid?

– network-centric warfare – it’s more military terminology. There is a military doctrine developed in the United States, in my opinion, in 90 years, which links the information war with weapons of war, involves the formation of an information network of sources of information and sabotage and reconnaissance groups, their links with the center and a mechanism purely already military strategy execution of tasks. Russia uses this technology to create controlled chaos and more extensive use of false propaganda. If you now check out the official Russian military journals (sometimes very useful to read the enemy), they are one of the classic success of network-centric military campaigns consider the occupation of Crimea. They never write: “This is what we are cool, running Shoigu, we have created a system where we can effectively conduct network-centric warfare, and we have already won it with virtually no casualties in the Crimea. ” Crimea they had captured, and the East of Ukraine did not happen.

So that between the Maidan and the area of ​​the so-called ATO definite difference – in the absence of the uprising. In the East, network-centric war of Russia against Ukraine. In fact, on the Maidan Russia also participated in the de-legitimization of the protest influence the situation and by Yanukovych and its agents in the manual and zasylaya agents in Independence itself. But there it did not fulfill its tasks.

– Do you have proof of Russian intervention?

– I do not have. But a lot of information and circumstantial evidence. In their totality, you can draw clear conclusions. But the Ukrainian special services have a direct and evidence. The fact that Russian agents were among the ultra maydanovtsev, so that Russian agents tried to delegitimize the process and 24 November and 1 December near Bankova, and especially on 19 January. And even now there is evidence in the hands of the SBU about their involvement in the firing operation.

– So you want to say that Russia fully responsible for the radicalization process?

– Not entirely. Just as in the East, of course, there is a certain part of the radically-minded people, and part of it was on the Maidan. Moreover, I am sure there are adventurers who have collaborated with the Russian special services, taking pro-Ukrainian stance – just money does not smell, and why money Russian occupiers kill Muscovite “on camera”, so to speak? There are such people. A January 19 the people lost patience, and in half an hour after the start of collision on Grushevskogo already there is fought not only the right, and the entire Ukrainian people: students, pensioners, IT specialists, farmers, businessmen, artists and musicians. This was a miscalculation of the Russian special services. They expected a much less resistance in Kiev. Historically, most likely, delegitimization of protest and armed uprising, played, as a result, for the benefit of Ukraine.

– Yegor Sobolev, told me that in every tent on the Maidan was at least one agent of the SBU. And they, in terms of Sobolev, anyway, that the FSB.

– Since then, he sees them everywhere and everyone wants lyustrirovat.

– Do you support the Venice Commission in the request to change everything in the Act?

– From the beginning we said that the law is not perfect. Now that we have spoken, says the Venice Commission. We had a bill that was introduced. Authors – Vladimir Yavorsky and Evgeniy Zaharov. Lustration of all projects that were considered, was chosen worst. There generally was incorrectly established the principle of lustration, so now the law on lustration looks like a pursuit. A sense of the lustration legislation to restrict access of people who systematically violate the rights of people to positions of responsibility. Lustration is a tool of transitional justice, «transitional justice», it is used during the transition from dictatorship to democracy in order to protect democracy and human rights. To adopt a law, for example, exclude elected officials – and it was a huge mistake. For example, People’s deputy of Ukraine – this post is one of the key to democracy, and a much greater threat to society from taking this position, the person who violates human rights, than the position of any officer, the chief of a department in any ministry. Therefore elective offices did not need to be excluded, and officials consider only the first three ranks – nothing lyustrirovat everyone.

– Do you think that the lustration law should have to make, and those who occupy elected positions – even though it violates the constitutional right to be elected?

– Yes. Those who participated in human rights violations, they may not be elected to any mayor or MP. But these restrictions are simply required to post under “job” so to speak. In addition, lustration should be performed only by an independent body.

– Non-State?

– State, but completely independent. In this case, the body must be partially represented by the executive partially – legislative. And there must be some kind of authoritative people from the community, of which public authorities, for example, the Verkhovna Rada and the President, authorize engage lustration.

– The Venice Commission has given us three months. In the future will look like the work of the law?

– I think we will give a comparative table with the changes in the law – we have already addressed the deputies. We were massively treated people for making a complaint to the European Court, because the law violates the European Convention on Human Rights, and we’re helping these people. One more thing – is the publication of the open list lyustrirovannyh persons, this is absolutely wrong practice. A person can quietly resign, nothing to make this process public. And we have these people got into the black list, became the object of discrimination. And to create certain public mood against these lyustrirovannyh people – they will come to be arranged, for example, to my company, and I look to see if they list on the website of the Ministry of Justice. Violated their right to privacy and protection of personal data, it’s worthless. It is difficult to agree with the Venice Commission only at the point that you can not lyustrirovat people who once had to do with the Communist Party and Soviet secret services because of the statute of limitations. We can look at the Russian experience. the roots of evil in the Soviet past.

– Let’s go back to a confrontation in the information war. Back in March, you supported the idea of ​​a necessary counter-propaganda by Ukraine.

– I still support.

– Do you consider it necessary to establish the Ministry of Information?

– Ministry – no. I am very good attitude to Yuriyu Stetsyu, but there is a strategic threat to the creation of such a ministry: Stets tomorrow for some reason leave, will change the power, and the Ministry will remain. It seems to me that it is wrong to create the Ministry of Information.

– And what was to be done?

– There are two approaches. First – this is a full non-interference of the state in the information policy and the ban on state information resources; I believe that it should be ideally. But, unfortunately, other geopolitical reality, so now, in the information war, we must do everything, to tell the truth and not to conduct counter-propaganda – lies in the answer to the lie. Against the lies you need to tell the truth.

– Then what is the function of counter-propaganda?

– It is to promote the truth. Propaganda – it’s not always a lie. I was inclined to believe that it is necessary to tell the truth, whatever they may be. This, of course, does not include the disclosure of state secrets and state secrets should be clearly spelled out – there is a list of information constituting a state secret. Moreover, for the dissemination of information constituting a state secret shall be liable only official who had access to it. If the state secret came to the journalist and he distributed it, the journalist should not bear any responsibility.

– we are now in an ideal situation – and the state somehow interferes with the media.

– This is bad. The first option is ideal for peace and for the future, you can keep in mind as a goal towards which to strive. Present as the only correct, in my opinion, an option – the state is committed to telling the truth, and thereby generates a specific information policy. I believe that in the Donbass and the Crimea it was imperative to start the information they there at all believe that we have cut people on the streets, all die of hunger, children eat, bullfinches snack. And all these myths, which are flush with the Russian channels, about the crucified boys and two slaves, it is necessary to debunk. Here it should be handled by the state.

– That’s it, and created a Ministry of Information.

– Ministry – it is a bad option. First – it is the executive branch. And I believe that this must be some inter-agency body, which could be set up at RNBO, a kind of clearinghouse for information warfare. There have to be Gromadska pleased to be able to access, including classified information – these people need to be aware of everything, but they have to control the process of dissemination of information. In such a data center makes sense. Second – this agency should not be eternal. It should have a time frame of work, with a possible extension of powers.

– Now, it seems, the main information of the state strategy – keep silent about everything bad happening in the country as a whole, and in the ATO zone in particular. For example, the crimes committed by the Ukrainian military.

– From my point of view, it does not always have to deal with such things in public. You know, we were very busy enters the Kharkiv Human Rights Group, which relate to human rights violations, and we try to solve them in direct communication with government agencies – the Interior Ministry and prosecutor’s office – and many of our problems, I want to tell you, it is successfully implemented. It does not always make a fuss like Amnesty Inernational and Human Rights Watch, as in some cases it is detrimental to human rights. Sometimes I am very aware of Israeli soldiers beating butt in the face to some obseshniku ​​or representative of Human Rights Watch. Often, some human rights activists, like me, there is a desire nepravozaschitnoe.

– kick butt in the face of the OSCE employee?

– Yes. Because some of them quite frankly operate on the opposite side.

– Do you think that the OSCE stands for the interests of Russia?

– Not all of the OSCE, but some of its employees.

– How do you assess the work Avakov and Jarema?

– Work Yarema I appreciate as insufficiently effective. A job Avakov, despite some mistakes and fundamental disagreement with some of the things in general, regard as very good. For one simple reason – it is necessary to compare with what might have been, if in place Avakov turned out to someone else.

It should be clearly understood that in late February, the state was on the two blades, as the Ukrainian people won the war in their own government and law enforcement agencies and security forces were completely demoralized. At this point, the police simply refused to work. In fact, we should be proud of our people, because at this moment you can safely start robbing banks and looting, which almost was not. Avakov in a short period managed to establish control over the police. Moreover, thanks to the creation of volunteer battalions managed to localize the conflict in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, and significantly narrow its geography. It is to his credit in the first place, still, of course, Turchinov, and Kolomoisky, too, had a hand.

In general, Avakov many non-standard, very tough managerial decisions were made, which can applaud. Plus the government adopted a good strategy of reforming the law-enforcement bodies, civil society developed by experts.

– Above all, what is happening now, all greatly concerned with what happened a year ago. Has some human rights groups have participated in the investigation of the events of February 18-21 on the Maidan?

– Specifically, I do not do it, and only attended a couple of meetings with civil society organizations that are engaged – euromaidan the SOS, CHS (Center for Civil Liberties) and Poshukova іnіtsіativa Maidan. I’ve heard some information about the course of the investigation and of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. I can say with confidence that is valid until February 23 were destroyed material evidence of crimes committed.

I consider that this consequence can be effectively carried out only after the victory over Russia, after the start of the investigation of this story at all – all the secret talks between Putin, Yanukovich, and many other secret negotiations, as well as disclosure of the FSB-shnyh documents.

– You think someone from participants of Maidan will live up to this?

– Victory can happen much faster than we expect, I think, in the range from two to five years.

On this optimistic note I finish – and tomorrow promise you talk continued: on migrants, the problems of the Crimean Tatars and the courts, which will lose or win Ukraine from Russia.

Sourse, 13/01/2015