Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
UNWLA 100
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
we were very judicious in releasing the cell phone number, it somehow made its way into the hands of many ordinary citizens who had nothing at all to do with election violations. They began calling me at all hours of the day and night with complaints. One woman was quite rightly agitated that she had lived for thirty years in an apartment without indoor plumbing. She considered this a violation of her basic human rights and demanded that the OSCE do something about it. While agreeing that this was indeed an unacceptable situation for her, I gently explained that this is not exactly in the purview of the OSCE mission. Another caller complained that the Verkhovna Rada deputy that she had voted for in the last election, having gotten into Parliament, had not carried out his campaign promises. Was this not a violation of her rights as a voter? I couldn’t help smiling as I tried to explain to her that Ukraine was not unique in this regard, that politicians all over the world don’t do what they promise. She wouldn’t believe me, insisting that her representative was unresponsive to her needs. I then suggested that she simply not vote for the man again. There was a surprised silence on the other end of the line. It’s possible she never really considered simply voting the man out of office. The most wrenching call came from a woman who tearfully told me the story of her mentally unstable teenage daughter who has been in and out of psychiatric hospitals and prisons for many years. In an anguished voice, the mother begged me “woman to woman” to help her get the two of them to the US so that she could get her daughter evaluated and cured. No amount of explanation on my part would convince her that I was not in a position to help her. I clicked off the phone after half an hour with tears in my own eyes. At first I was angry with the callers for refusing to believe that we couldn’t help them. Why were they bothering the OSCE, and me? Couldn't they understand that humanitarian assistance was not what our mission was about? But I realized that my anger was misplaced. The callers were not to blame. The blame should be placed squarely on the inhuman Soviet system that had given these people no place to turn, that had made them live in such conditions, that had forced them to seek assistance from any source, justified or not. One of the lowest points of my stay in Kyiv came halfway through the mission after I had spent an exhausting morning in court listening to a candidate for deputy to the Verkhovna Rada attempting to sue the State Tax Administration. He was running in his home district of the city of Chortkiv in the Ivano Frankivska oblast. In accordance with the law, he had dutifully filled in a financial disclosure form. The Tax Administration, after reviewing the form, had determined that there was a discrepancy and had ruled that he should not be allowed to run, i.e., that he should be de-registered. On the basis of the Tax Administration’s recommendation the district election commission de-registered the candidate. The candi date, claiming that the act was politically motivated, sued the Tax Administration in a Kyiv court. In all fairness, it must be noted that the Ukrainian Tax Administration is a well-known tool used by some in the government to harass and intimidate their op ponents. To my untrained eye, it was not so much a discrepancy as a matter of interpretation that could have gone either way. The OSCE team covering Kyiv was invited to attend the court session. At 9 a.m., Trevor and I and the candidate and his supporters (who had traveled by bus all night from Chortkiv) filed into the courtroom. As required, we promptly informed the court of our presence and the judge seemed very receptive to having us there, asking only that we not disturb the proceedings with our whispered interpretation. She was a young woman, perhaps in her early 30’s, with a no-nonsense demeanor; she appeared to have a firm grasp on order in her court, chiding some supporters of the candidate for walking in and out during the hearing. She rapped the table with her hand when she felt that they were making too much noise. What followed was an eye-opener to me, a citizen of an established democracy who had grown up with the firm belief that the court - as the final arbiter of disputes — is independent and neutral and will render a fair and impartial decision in even the most difficult of cases. The judge proceeded in the usual manner, asking the complainant (the candidate) and the defendants (three representatives of the Tax Administration) to speak and to ask questions of each other. However, it soon became clear that she was not even attempting to hide her partiality to the government tax agency. One had only to look at her body language to realize this. She exhibited open contempt for the candidate by rolling her eyes when he answered a question in a way that she did not like, shaking her head in disbelief at other answers, acting bored when a witness for the complainant was testifying. She badgered the candidate, using sarcasm and irony in turn, yet turned polite and interested when addressing the defendants. The verdict was no surprise. The judge ruled against the candidate from Chortkiv. (When last heard of, two days after the election, he was still fighting the legality of his de-registration, this time in a court in the Видання C оюзу Українок A мерики - перевидано в електронному форматі в 2012 році . A рхів C У A - Ню Йорк , Н . Й . C Ш A.
Page load link
Go to Top