At 9:27 a.m. on May 18, I, as rector of Ukrainian Catholic University, received a call on my private mobile phone from a representative of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Soviet KGB successor agency known as the SBU.
The representative wanted to meet.
The meeting was scheduled for 20 minutes later at the rectorate of the Ukrainian Catholic University.
Upon arrival on May 18, the agent politely told that certain political parties – including students — are planning protests and demonstrations against the controversial and inflammatory policies of the new Ukrainian authorities. He said there is a danger that some of the actions may be marred by provocations. He stated that while students are allowed to protest, the university administration should warn them that those involved in illegal activities will be prosecuted.
The illegal activities include not only violent acts, but also, for example, pickets blocking access to the workplace of government officials (or any protests that are not sanctioned by authorities).
After his talk, the agent showed us an unfolded one-page letter addressed to me. He asked me to read the letter and then acknowledge with a signature my familiarity with its contents. He stated that after I had read and signed the letter it would be necessary for him to keep it. Since I could see that the document was properly addressed to me as rector (I also noticed that it had two signatures giving it a particularly official character), I replied calmly that any letter addressed to me becomes my property and should stay with me — at least a copy of it. Only under these conditions could I agree to even read the letter, much less sign it.
The agent was evidently taken back by my response. He called his local superiors by phone to ask for instructions on how to proceed. The superior refused permission to leave either the original letter or a copy, citing SBU fears that I “might publish it on the Internet.” I questioned this entire procedure and the need for secrecy and refused to look at the letter and read its contents. The young official was disappointed and somewhat confused, but did not exert additional pressure.
Our conversation also had a pastoral moment. I cautioned the agent about the fact that the SBU — as the successor law enforcement agency to the Soviet KGB — has a heavy legacy of crippling people physically and morally. I told him that, as a young married person, he should be careful not to get involved in anything that would cause lasting damage to his own identity or shame his children and grandchildren. I sought to express this pastorally as a priest. To his credit, he both acknowledged the past and declared his desire to serve the needs of Ukrainian citizens.
Finally, I expressed profound disappointment that the work of the SBU is so uneven, that security and police officers live lavishly on low salaries because they are involved in corrupt activities and that the legal rights of citizens and the equal application of the law are severely neglected. I gave the recent example of my cousin, Teodor Gudziak, mayor of Vynnyky, who on Feb. 10 (three days after the election of the new president) was arrested in a fabricated case of bribery. The incident was set up by a notoriously corrupt political rival and former police officer through the regional and city police.
Two weeks before the fabricated affair, the mayor — based on a vote of the town council — had given the SBU a video of plainclothes police officers breaking into his office and safe in city hall and using town seals on various documents. The SBU took no action.
The population continues to fear and distrust both state security and police personnel because of the woeful track record of law enforcement and because of police intimidation of honest politicians, journalists, common citizens and the extortion practiced by security institutions and police with respect to businesses.
I asked the young agent to convey these concerns to his superiors. It was clear to me that he was dutifully following orders.
During our conversation, the agent asked me about the May 20-22 General Assembly of the Federation of European Catholic Universities that will be hosted by Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv on May.
I explained that the 211 members of the International Federation of Catholic Universities and the 45 members of the Federation of European Catholic Universities follow closely the development of the only Catholic university in the former Soviet Union. They will be monitoring the welfare of the Ukrainian Catholic University, especially since in Japan in March I had the opportunity to describe some of our socio-political concerns and the threats to the freedom of intellectual discourse (imposition of Soviet historical views, rehabilitation of Stalin and Stalinism, to whom a new monument was unveiled in Zaporizhzhia on May 5) and new censorship of the press and television that are incompatible with normal university life.
There are a few conclusions to be drawn from this encounter:
1. Signing a document, such as the letter that was presented for signature to me, is tantamount to agreeing to cooperate (collaborate) with the SBU. The person signing, in effect, agrees with the contents of the letter and their implication. In KGB practice, getting a signature on a document that was drafted and kept by the KGB was a primary method of recruiting secret collaborators;
2. Such methods have no known precedent in independent Ukraine; The confiscation of the letter after signature makes the letter and signature instruments to be used at the complete discretion of the SBU;
4. The possible scenarios for the exploitation of such a document include the following:
a) In case of the arrest of a student, the SBU could confront the rectorate and charge that the university was informed of the danger to students and did not take necessary measures. In this case, the university administration could be charged with both moral and legal responsibility. A charge with legal ramifications could become an instrument to try to force the university to compromise on important principles (freedom of expression, forms of social engagement and critique, even religious practice, all of which have precedent in recent history).
b.) After the arrests of students, they or their parents could be shown the document with which the administration was warned and counseled to curb student activities. This would be a most effective way of dividing the university community and undermining the university’s reputation among its most important constituents–students.
5. The apparent genuine surprise of the agent at my refusal to do as requested could mean that he is not used to such a reaction. It could be assumed that other clergy (who work with youth, students, etc.) have been approached and that they have not refused to sign such documents.
6. Measures of this nature create apprehension and unease. They are meant to intimidate university administrations and students. They are part of a whole pattern of practice that is well known to the Ukrainian population. The revival of such practices is a conscious attempt to revive the methods of the Soviet totalitarian past and to re-instill fear in a society that was only beginning to feel its freedom.
7. Since only two of the approximately 170 universities of Ukraine have been voicing there protest regarding recent political and educational developments and many rectors have been marshaled/pressured to express their support regarding the turn of events, it is clear that in recent months fear and accommodation are returning to higher education at a rapid pace. It can be expected that UCU will be subject to particular attention and possible pressure in the coming months. The solidarity of the international community, especially the academic world, will be important in helping UCU maintain a position of principle regarding intellectual and social freedom.
8. Speaking and writing openly about these issues is the most peaceful and effective manner of counteracting efforts to secretly control and intimidate students and citizens. State authorities are particularly sensitive about publicity regarding their activity. Information can have a corrective and curing role when it comes to planned actions to circumscribe civic freedom, democracy and the basic dignity of human beings.
It should be noted that on May 11, when Ukrainian students were organizing protests in Lviv as well as Kyiv, a representative of the office of Ihor Derzhko, the deputy head of the Lviv Oblast Administration responsible for humanitarian affairs, called the rectorate and asked for statistics on the number of students participating in the demonstrations. The Ukrainian Catholic University’s response was that the university does not know how to count in that way.
Father Borys Gudziak is the rector at Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv at www.ucu.edu.ua.
