Lutsenko goes on trial - The Ukrainian Weekly

6THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, MAY 29, 2011No. 22The Ukrainian WeeklyEnemies of the pressAround May 3, World Press Freedom Day, there were many stories about thestate of the press around the globe. According to Freedom House, which tracksdemocracy and freedom worldwide, press freedom has dropped to its lowest pointin over a decade and only one in six people have access to free and independentmedia. That was the bad news delivered in the report “Freedom of the Press 2011:A Global Survey of Media Independence,” which pointed to “significant declines inpress freedom” over the past year in such countries as Egypt, Hungary, Mexico,Turkey and Ukraine, where press freedom under the administration of PresidentViktor Yanukovych has suffered an alarming drop. True, Ukraine was not in the top10 worst countries in terms of free media (Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran,Myanmar, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya and North Korea), but Ukraine’spress was rated as only partly free,” putting it in the same category as Serbia,Montenegro, Croatia, Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo andMoldova. Previously, the report said, Ukraine had consistently been among the bestperformers in the Central and Eastern European region in terms of media freedom.Likewise, Reporters Without Borders said Ukraine fell from 89th to 131st in itsranking for freedom of expression over the past year. And, in related news, theInstitute of Mass Information and Kyiv Independent Media Trade Union, in itsreport “Enemies of the Press 2010 Edition,” ranked President Yanukovych as theNo. 1 enemy of the press in Ukraine, Prime Minister Mykola Azarov as No. 2 andVolodymyr Storozhenko, head of housing services in Kyiv, as No. 3.In April, Freedom House had released a detailed report on the state of democracyand human rights in Ukraine titled “Sounding the Alarm: Protecting Democracyin Ukraine.” (That’s in addition to the “Freedom in the World” report released inJanuary in which Ukraine was downgraded to party free.) Noting that, over all,“there is no question that President Yanukovych has consolidated power at theexpense of democratic development,” Freedom House underscored that “the trendsare not favorable” as regards press freedom. Most major media outlets in Ukraine,it said, are controlled by politically connected oligarchs and “the relationshipbetween media ownership and political power is clearly more intimate than before.”Since the majority of Ukrainians get their news and information from television,“dominance of the medium by the state and government-friendly oligarchs givesviewers a distorted picture,” Freedom House explained. While there do not appear tobe explicit written instructions à la the “temnyky” of the Kuchma regime, “a cultureof self-censorship is fostered.” Furthermore, Freedom House reported that – contraryto the statements of the Yanukovych administration that there are media which representalternate views – “access is narrower than it used to be.” The report cites informationfrom various media watchdog groups that indicates there were “notablyfewer television appearances by opposition politicians in the early months of thisyear, and that serious commentary on current events is becoming increasingly rare.”In Ukraine’s regions, the status of press freedom is even worse than on thenational level, Freedom House noted. There are numerous instances of conflicts ofinterest, as political authorities control the news media; and journalists are harassed,facing physical threats and attacks. (You can read the full report at http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/98.pdf.)In short, the people of Ukraine suffer from a dearth of free press and reliableinformation. The most credible information may be amassed from trustworthysources online, but less than a fifth of the population – some 17 percent, accordingto the results of a 2009 survey by the International Telecommunication Union – areInternet users. That’s proof yet again that ending Western radio broadcasts toUkraine was a foolish and foolhardy decision.Ukraine needs a truly free press to ensure its democratic development. It isimperative that Ukraine’s independent news media get the support they need toserve Ukraine’s public and to propel the country’s progress.May291953Turning the pages back...Fifty-seven years ago, on May 29-31, 1953, the UkrainianNational Women’s League of America held its 10th conventionsince the organization’s founding in 1925, at theUkrainian Temple, located on Martin Street in Detroit.More than 70 delegates participated in the three-day eventover Memorial Day weekend, presided over by OlenaHordynska of Newark, N.J. Olena Dobush Lototsky of Philadelphia was re-elected aspresident of the organization, which counted more than 5,000 members in 63 branchesthroughout the United States.Approximately 300 guests attended the banquet held on Saturday, May 30, withgreetings delivered by Gov. Mennen. G. Williams and Mary Beck, the first womanever elected as councilmember of the city of Detroit and an original member of theUNWLA, who spoke on behalf of Detroit Mayor Albert E. Coho.Olena Kysilevska, honorary president of the UNWLA and head of the WorldFederation of United Ukrainian Women’s Organizations, greeted the banquet guests.At 83 age, she was seen as the matriarch of Ukrainian women’s organizations.A youth forum was held during the convention on Saturday, May 30, for juniorleague members, headed by Olga Kachner of Detroit. The forum’s theme, “The Futureof the Junior League,” focused on critical self-analysis and re-organization to get moreyoung women involved.A lively discussion followed the forum and a planning commission was appointed,which formulated a two-year agenda calling for closer cooperation with the seniorleague, for membership of each branch in the American Federation of Women’s Clubsat the city and the state levels, and membership in each community’s Ukrainian organizationsas publicity directors for the affairs of the community.Source: “Ukrainian National Women’s League of America holds 10th convention,”The Ukrainian Weekly, June 6, 1953.FOR THE RECORD: FBIreport on Demjanjuk caseFollowing is an excerpt from redactedfield office report of the FBI’s ClevelandField Office, dated March 4, 1985, thatwas recently uncovered by theAssociated Press. The newly declassifiedreport questions the authenticity of theso-called Trawniki ID card purportedlyissued to John Demjanjuk.As noted in the memorandum in supportof the motion to reappoint theOffice of the Federal Public Defender toserve as co-counsel in the Demjanjukcase in the U.S., “The defense had neverseen this report before, even though ithas been in existence presumably forover a quarter century.”The memorandum, written by DennisG. Terez of the Office of the PublicDefender, argues that legal representationis necessary so that “the Office caninvestigate and review the recentlydeclassified materials, confer with Mr.Demjanjuk and pro bono counsel Mr.[Michael E.] Tigar on the results of thatinvestigation, and to take whatever proceduralsteps may be appropriate inlight of these materials to ensure theprotection of Mr. Demjanjuk’s legalrights.”As reported in The Ukrainian Weeklyon May 15, U.S. District Judge DanAaron Polster did appoint a publicdefender for Mr. Demjanjuk, indicatingthat his denaturalization might bereopened in view of the new informationthat a key piece of evidence used againsthim was judged not credible by the FBI.Investigation at Cleveland [blackedout portion] has strongly indicated thefollowing scenario, involving Soviet utilizationof the USDJ Office of SpecialInvestigation (OSI) to effect Soviet purposes.1. Through its spotter service withinthe Soviet émigré community in the“ T h e P e r s e c u t i o n o f J o h nDemjanjuk,” by Patrick J. Buchanan,http://buchanan.org/blog/, May 13:“ ‘John Demjanjuk Guilty of NaziDeath Camp Murders,’ ran the headlineon the BBC. The lede began:“ ‘A German court has found JohnDemjanjuk guilty of helping to murdermore than 28,000 Jews at a Nazi deathcamp in Poland.’“Not until paragraph 17 does one findthis jolting fact: ‘No evidence was producedthat he committed a specificcrime.’“That is correct. No evidence was produced,no witness came forward to testifyhe ever saw Demjanjuk injure anyone.And the critical evidence that putDemjanjuk at Sobibor came – from theKGB.“First was a KGB summary of analleged interview with one IgnatDanilchenko, who claimed he was aguard at Sobibor and knew Demjanjuk.Second was the Soviet-supplied ID cardfrom the Trawniki camp that trainedguards.“There are major problems with bothpieces of ‘evidence.’“First, Danilchenko has been dead fora quarter of a century, no one in the Westever interviewed him, and Moscowstonewalled defense requests for accessto the full Danilchenko file. His veryexistence raises a question.“How could a Red Army soldier whoturned collaborator and Nazi camp guardUnited States, the KGB learns of prominentémigré dissidents speaking out publiclyand/or leading émigré groups inopposition to the Soviet leadership in theUSSR.2. The KGB, in continuation of internalsecurity measures extended into theUnited States, initiates an anonymousletter to USDJ/OSI, accusing the émigrédissident of being a former war criminal,guilty of atrocities during World War II.3. USDJ/OSI initiates an investigationinto background of the accused émigré.Lacking evidence of the allegation’sveracity, USDJ/OSI, thereupon sendsresults of their investigation to KGB/Moscow, requesting review of recordsseized from Nazi Prison Camps in theaftermath of World War II for evidencewhich might substantiate the accusation.4. The KGB then produces a recordpurporting to tie the accused with thecommission of Nazi atrocities, whichrecord may be falsified for the expresspurpose of discrediting the accused.5. The KGB then makes the questionedrecords “available” to USDJ foraction against the accused in immigrationcourt. A KGB officer is dispatchedfrom a Soviet embassy or consulate inthe United States, to “present” the questionedrecords in court, but not to permitits examination by document experts.6. In court, the KGB officer thereupon“shows” the documents to the judge, butdoes not permit the documents to be presentedin evidence or to be otherwisecopied; thus barring United Statesauthorities or the court from examiningthe authenticity of the records.7. The end result is that justice is illservedin the prosecution of an Americancitizen on evidence which is not onlynormally inadmissible [sic], in a court oflaw, but based on evidence and allegationsquite likely fabricated by the KGB.IN THE PRESS: Demjanjuksurvive Operation Keelhaul, which sentall Soviet POWs back to Joseph Stalin,where they were either murdered or sentto the Gulag?“As for the ID card from Trawniki,just last month there was unearthed at theNational Archives in College Park, Md.,a 1985 report from the Cleveland officeof the FBI, which, after studying the card,concluded it was ‘quite likely’ a KGBforgery. …”“In pursuit of justice; U. S. must investigaterevelations of likely forgery inDemjanjuk case,” editorial, BuffaloNews, April 17:“…the legitimacy of 30 years of proceedings[in the case of John Demjanjuk]has been cast into severe doubt based ona 1985 FBI report that has just come tolight. In it, the FBI’s Cleveland officereports the likelihood – not the possibility,but the likelihood – that the key pieceof evidence used against Demjanjuk hadbeen forged by the KGB.“The Associated Press discovered thedocument at the National Archives inCollege Park, Md. None of Demjanjuk’sdefense attorneys was aware of it and neitherwere prosecutors in Germany.“But what about in the United States?Here is what the report concluded:‘Justice is ill-served in the prosecution ofan American citizen on evidence which isnot only normally inadmissible in a court(Continued on page 22)