The past three days have been heavy on news and views coming from Kyiv. An unfolding stand-off between (a part of) Ukraines society and its out-of-touch government has made top headlines. But some important things have been under-reported or omitted altogether. I will try to siphon the trends that matter in this (rather lengthy) blog post. Chief among them are the challenge of (mis)management in the protest camp, the authorities use of force against journalists and the threat of regional dissent in the South-East. Before you read, please be reminded that I am Ukrainian. My understanding of the situation may well be (a tad) biased. Treat the following text as just one of the voices in an increasingly loud choir of comments from Washington to Moscow. Revolution in the air In their attempt to crash dissent in the early hours on Saturday, the authorities in Kyiv miscalculated terribly. The videos of riot police beating up and chasing peaceful protesters are a repulsive watch. The protesters, who had stayed overnight in the tents on Maydan to support European choice, received a typically Eurasian treatment. Some victims had to seek refuge from the bludgeons in the St. Michael’s Cathedral nearby. Although this assault was designed to intimidate the Euromaydan protests, it achieved the exact opposite. Hours after the video of the beatings made rounds in the social networks, people took to the square in front of the Cathedral in a show of support for the victims of police brutality. Demands for the perpetrators’ responsibility soon ensued. President Yanukovych was too late to express his “indignation” at the police violence. From this moment on, the authorities seem to have completely lost touch with the dynamics of the protest in Ukraine. It was no longer about an association agreement with the EU only, but turned into active resistance to the regime losing the remnants of legitimacy. The “People’s Viche”, a public gathering on Sunday, drew hundreds of thousands of people to the cold streets of Kiev. Led by the three opposition leaders (Yatsenyuk, Klichko and Tiahnybok), the rally was meant to start a deadline-free campaign of peaceful disobedience to the authorities. After marching along the streets for an hour, the massive crowd retook the Maydan square. Despite a hastily manufactured court decision banning any protests in the city center, the police fled the square. The number of protesters at its peak time is estimated at a range from to 200 thousand to a half-million (according to the opposition). The opposition’s demands are an ambitious list. First, they expect punishment both for the perpetrators of violence against the protestors and the officials responsible, namely the Interior Minister Zakharchenko. Secondly, they insist on the government’s resignation. Last but not least, they demand new elections, both parliamentary and presidential. The challenges for the protest movement emerged immediately. The problem of coordinating the activities of this massive number of people is the one to begin with. The “occupation” of Kyiv city council by a group of protesters was criticized by some observers. Far from justifying it, I would dare give voice to two “on-the-ground” explanations. From a purely legal standpoint, the council lost its legitimacy, as its term had expired in spring. Yet the Party of Regions declined to appoint the elections, so the Council kept on working (or rather “distributing lucrative land deals”) in direct violation of the law. As the woman in charge of an offensive on the council later claimed, it was a “re-opening” of the public institution to the public proper. From a purely practical perspective, the logistics mattered too: the most vulnerable protestors (such as older people) need a place to warm up after standing in December cold for a while. One way or another, this “occupation” of public administration buildings was the first turning point on Sunday: the protest was not just a massive rally anymore, it was a revolution in the making. The question now was entirely different: will it be a peaceful one? Shoot the messenger A more worrisome turn of events occurred near the presidential administration on the Bankova street. A group of people, allegedly hired troublemakers, provoked the riot police into using tear gas against the crowd. Many were injured in the ensuing skirmishes. However, the riot police’s primary concern was not the aggressive youth, but… those watching the clashes. The riot police purposefully targeted journalists documenting the events at the administration building. While the assault on Saturday was an attack of the freedom of assembly, the riot police’s actions on Sunday was a blatant (and rational) attack on the freedom of press. According to my sources, a Euronews cameraman was forced to the ground and beaten up after he refused to stop filming the clashes. Over 30 other journalists, both domestic and foreign, were assaulted by the riot police while doing their job. This number is an indication of the broader tactics applied by the authorities: to prevent journalists from collecting reliable information about the faces and behavior of the provocateurs. Preventing the police from using brute force against media outlets should be one of the main demands for the current government, both from the opposition and when it comes to the involvement of international mediators.
Posted on: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:47:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015