Why the problem of “selective justice” in Ukraine is suggested to be solved by means of “selective justice”?
November 5, 2013
The solution of the main problem on the way to signing of the Association Agreement with the European Union – the so-called “selective justice” or “Yuliya Tymoshenko’s question” is accompanied by not completely logical messages and appeals on the side of the European partners of Ukraine. And also, the discrepancy between these messages and appeals to the so-called “European values”.
Judge for yourself: the main point in the EU requirements or the so-called “Fule list” is the solution of “selective justice”, and in their messages representatives of Europe have recently started implying clearly and unambiguously that the solution of this problem means nothing else but the solution of the “Tymoshenko’s question”. If earlier observers could have some doubts or an opportunity to interpret the concept of “selective justice” in different ways, now there is practically no space for doubts and interpretations – various representatives of Europe have voiced their position several times. Point.
At the same time, it is paradoxical, but nonetheless the fact: Europeans sort of like close their eyes on the idea that to solve the notorious “Tymoshenko’s question” (“selective justice”) it is necessary either to adopt a special law on the possibility of her treatment abroad, or to adopt a law on amnesty. Or to somehow make judges’ conscience to suddenly wake up so that they could reduce Mrs. Tymoshenko’s jail term so that she could be eligible for the conditional early release, or somehow pardon her “partially”. And a huge amount of people, lawyers, judges, law enforcement officials, doctors, journalists and political experts has to be involved in this, and all this needs to be done extremely quickly – before the meeting of the Council of the European Union on November 18.
Thus, both representatives of Europe, and representatives of Ukraine close their eyes upon a very strange paradox: the problem of “selective justice” is tried to be solved by that same “selective justice” or “selective legislation”.
There exists another aspect of the problem which European partners of Ukraine obviously don’t imagine. What is meant here is the position of the leadership of the Batkivschyna party group, which is formally headed by Yuliya Tymoshenko, and also other oppositional groups. In words heads of these groups call for the fastest release of the ex-prime minister, and in practice – they block this process in every possible way. In reality such blocking takes place either by advancing obviously unrealizable demands in terms of mechanisms of Mrs. Tymoshenko’s release. The satisfaction of which will be under no circumstances agreed with Viktor Yanukovych and which are extremely unacceptable in the course of finding a compromise. Or in every possible way they delay consideration of legislative initiatives directed at providing Yuliya Tymoshenko with an opportunity of leaving for treatment in Germany which the authorities are basically ready to consider. The reason of similar behavior of the top oppositionists is extremely simple: in case Yuliya Tymoshenko acquires freedom and gets a chance to participate in the presidential race, the present head of the Batkivschyna group and potential candidate for presidency Arseniy Yatsenyuk will be left with nothing, and the leader of UDAR group and also future candidate Vitaliy Klychko will receive a very strong rival.
Therefore, Europeans should understand: both eurointegration, and solution of “selective justice” and everything else in the Ukrainian politicum is perceived in the context of the future elections, which is why nice words shouldn’t always be trusted.
Author : tfranke