Selective Application
The enigmatic information People’s Deputy Mykola Tomenko received from SBU General Valery Kravchenko in Germany was finally presented to Verkhovna Rada. Prior to this, Mykola Tomenko, Chairman of the Freedom of Speech Committee, was formally admonished by General Prosecutor Hennady Vasyliev that he would be held legally responsible for disclosing any such information included in “Kravchenko materials” as might contain state secrets, so he shared only four excerpts with the legislative audience, which, in his opinion, were not state secrets, even though attesting the presence of criminal intent with regard to those giving such instructions to General Kravchenko.
One is reminded of People’s Deputy Serhiy Holovaty presenting Major Melnychenko’s testimony at Verkhovna Rada more than three years ago. Mykola Tomenko’s feat of bringing to Ukraine the Kravchenko materials did not cost him any harsh ordeals as had been experienced by Serhiy Holovaty (relying on his testimony) when transferring that “precious” luggage received from Melnychenko. Unlike Holovaty, Tomenko did not have to open his suitcases for the airport customs authorities to inspect. Everything was more civilized. Mr. Tomenko supposedly used his PC to select the desired excerpts from the file, thus preventing exposure of any state secrets that could be used by any individuals that could be regarded as unreliable or lacking loyalty toward Ukraine. Another gratifying aspect is that the radical opposition people’s deputy considers the chairman of Verkhovna Rada and chairmen of several committees worth being entrusted with reading some of the texts. The said officials did receive the unabridged texts from Mr. Tomenko.
Two guidelines became apparent after what Tomenko did on, something on which those interested in the statements made by SBU General Valery Kravchenko should concentrate. First, the texts as such. Any words torn out of context, sentences borrowed from orders and instructions allow for countless interpretations. Of course, there were no express instructions to spy on opposition leaders in the said texts, contrary to what Valery Kravchenko had publicly declared. Just as there were no explicit instructions to kill Gongadze on the Melnychenko tapes. But this is no longer relevant these days and Oleksandr Moroz, who had at one time initiated the cassette scandal, is no longer fond of recalling that episode in his tempestuous political biography. The current scandal has a different objective, owing to a different conjuncture. Be that as it may, Kravchenko’s “X-files,” regarded as such only yesterday, are no longer a mystery, not after being duplicated by Mykola Tomenko, even less so after that in camera legislative session. This information will somehow or other reach the public domain, revealing certain aspects of the performance of the Ukrainian special service.
As for the expectations harbored by those architecting and inspiring the General Kravchenko scandal, hardly any of them have come true, even by a quarter. It is impossible to surprise anyone with the news that SBU is tailing someone or secretly gathering information about someone, for this organization is meant for precisely such purposes. Nor is it a state secret that the SBU machine encounters glitches now and then.
Getting back to Mykola Tomenko, the reader ought to be reminded that his revelations in a recent interview with a Western Ukrainian newspaper, to the effect that this people’s deputy is under constant and close surveillance, that his office and phones are bugged, and so on. Well, this is apparently part of the deal; dealing with state secrets and dissident SBU generals, while maintaining the status of the Ukrainian parliament’s number one newsmaker calls for sacrifices. At this stage it is safe to assume that another information bridgehead to launch an offensive on the next political enemy has been created. Most likely, political expedience, rather than national interests and state secrets, will be the key factor determining the situation.