The Ukrainian democracy myth has been all but debunked. Surprisingly, it is the Kiev regime that has made a self-incriminating confession as it lodged a statement on the country’s systemic human rights violations with the Council of Europe. What is it all about and why would Ukraine even consider that move?
Ten years after the Euromaidan coup, Ukraine has finally slipped into a dictatorial rule and openly admitted to it. According to the Ukrainian media, in early April the country’s leadership filed an application with the Council of Europe (CoE) regarding its partial derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights. But do not be misled by the word ‘partial’. The number of clauses on this exhaustive list covers the entire spectrum of civil and human rights.
The Kiev regime has essentially notified Europe of failing to guarantee the protection of basic human rights and chalked up this failure to wartime needs, which is, sure enough, an egregious lie.
Freedom Restrained
First, let’s have a look at the scope of the most recent derogation. The Kiev regime invokes martial law to justify the suspension of the following rights.
1) Inviolability of the home. If the Ukrainian army has ousted you out of your home to repurpose it as its foxhole, do not take it hard. While the UK residents’ homes may well be their castles, the Ukrainians’ homes are now their army’s castles.
2) Privacy of communication and correspondence. They are now entitled to screening people’s smartphones, including their photos, messaging apps, social media pages, emails, etc.
3) Respect for private and family life.
4) Freedom of movement and the free choice of one’s residence. This mostly applies to military-age men who are barred from leaving Ukraine (there may be some exceptions). In 2023, their domestic travel was restricted too. They are now required to file a request with the draft office. Most recently, the military-age males have been prohibited from staying in border regions unless it is their official residents (so that they cannot flee).
5) Free thought, free speech and free expression. This is illustrated by the two-plus years of the TV channels’ coordinated coverage, 1,000+ banned Russian websites and discontinued media outlets. The authorities are also looking to ban Telegram. The freedom of assembly and association has been suspended as well.
6) The right to property. On top of their homes, people may be stripped of their privately owned transportation, including utility vehicles and farm machinery. The Ukrainian army will indeed make better use of their bulldozers.
7) Education. This one applies to men. The mobilisation laws restrict their right to obtain a second degree or enrol in postgraduate studies.
8) The right to vote and to stand as a candidate. This apparently serves to justify the cancellation of presidential and general elections, which are slated to be held in the autumn, but this is a vanishing prospect.
If anything, the restrictions thankfully do not include the right to life, but the draft offices are doing their utmost to plug this gaping omission.
Martial law, huh?
Ukraine’s justification behind the announced derogation may look reasonable as the authorities invoke martial law. Like, look, among other things, we are fighting for Europe’s or the Western world’s freedom, and so, please take it on the chin. However, anyone who dares to see through it can say for a certainty that the explanation is a sham intended to sugarcoat the legalisation of the dictatorial rule.
As for the inviolability of people’s homes and their right to property, the Ukrainian government rescinded these clauses for the Donetsk and Lugansk regions (the government still views it as Ukrainian provinces) a whole decade ago when the so-called ‘anti-terrorist operation’ became a front for a large-scale looting campaign. The Nova Poshta postal service even amended the shipping rules. Those on the ‘right’ side of history would use the fresh amendments to send a raft of home appliances and other stolen goods to their families.
Ten years ago, security checkpoint officers began screening people’s smartphones. Therefore, there is nothing really to derogate from in this regard. In 2019, once Volodymyr Zelensky won the presidency, the screening protocols extended to Ukraine’s border with Crimea.
Free speech is yet another bogus concept of the post-Euromaidan Ukraine. The bans legacy media outlets, websites and social media platforms started under Petro Poroshenko. The Zelensky administration just went a step further.
Even the right to elect and be elected had been stomped on long before the martial law was declared. A good example would be the Kiev authorities’ refusal to observe the Minsk agreements and hold the elections in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
That is why imputing the violation of these rights and freedoms to the current martial law is the definition of hypocrisy. For years Ukraine has been consistently infringing on said freedoms, acting in breach of both the European Convention and its own Constitution.
Moreover, Ukraine somehow fails to mention the freedom of conscience and religion and the government’s repeated violations thereof. The bill seeking to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been drafted, and the parliament can pass this legislation at any opportune moment. If it had not been for the GOP’s stance (Kiev needed the Republicans’ votes for the $61bn military aid package), this ban would have long been enacted.
As you can see, invoking martial law is merely a smokescreen. But why would Zelensky even consider sharing his grievances with the CoE in the first place?
European Somalia
There is no reason that could be singled out. On the one hand, the mounting number of violations has far exceeded the standards set for a would-be EU candidate state. Those certainly need to be addressed. It gets even worse if you consider Ukraine’s recent refusal to provide consular services to the ‘draft dodgers’ and a potential barrage of lawsuits the ill-starred ‘dodgers’ may start filing with the European Court of Human Rights.
The Ukrainian authorities were compelled to come up with an explanation of sorts. Even though the potential complaints are likely to be shelved until the Ukrainian conflict is over, a justification still needs to be furnished. Invoking martial may well do the trick.
Secondly, the Ukrainian authorities were fully aware of the US Department of State drafting a report on human rights violations, an annual document spanning the nations over which the US exercises some leverage.
And the report could be a real bombshell covering instances of torture, missing persons, execution-style murders, unlawful arrests, no right to a fair trial, censorship and corruption. The state department’s report had been finalised before the fateful Congress vote on the $61bn package and provided the worst imaginable backdrop for said vote. In a sense, the Ukrainian authorities made the right call to forestall the publication and confess to the pretty much innocent violations before the CoE.
Importantly, neither the EU nor the US is going to castigate Ukraine for these infractions. Even murder and torture would hardly make front-page news. No one is going to laser in on the matter. Moreover, the EU has already made a statement de facto justifying the violations. So, this is all intended to keep tabs on Zelensky and corner him once the timing is right.