Konrad Schuller, a correspondent from the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, stated publicly in August that Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) had questioned at least two people he had contacted in Ukraine while preparing an article about the presidential elections. The meetings with SBU officers took place in April 2010.

Schuller stated that he had written to the head of the SBU, Valery Khoroshkovsky, asking for an explanation but received none. He is also recorded as informing the president of this SBU activity when, during a press interview with German journalists at the end of August, Viktor Yanukovych suggested that he had not received specific information about pressure on journalists.

At the time the SBU denied Schuller’s allegation, calling it provocation. But in an Oct. 10 interview Khoroshkovsky told Schuller: “I have checked it and yes, it did happen.” The “it” here being the tapping of the journalist’s phone.

This was, he claimed, because of a problem with Schuller’s press accreditation. “Therefore the officers ascertained whether he was there as a journalist or in some other capacity.”

Khoroshkovsky claimed that the surveillance had begun under President Viktor Yushchenko, and that it was merely due to the “inertia of the system” that it had been carried out under the rule of Yanukovych.

Khoroshkovsky claimed that the surveillance had begun under President Viktor Yushchenko, and that it was merely due to the “inertia of the system” that it had been carried out under the rule of Yanukovych.

If you want to be believed, you might want to keep your story consistent. But in August the SBU denied the allegations, while in October Khoroshkovsky confirmed them, asserting that the impetus had come from the previous regime.

It’s a difficult to set a time limit on inertia, but it seems that if people the journalist had talked to in January-February were contacted by the SBU in April, the demand on our credulity would seem excessive. Yet the SBU issued a statement claiming that the whole process had been set in motion in 2009, conveniently ignoring that people were interviewed in April.

We might also ask why the SBU, which is supposed to have considerably more important tasks, should be dealing with what clearly is an administrative hiccup. Whether or not Schuller had accreditation, it was quite clear what newspaper he worked for. Why seek out people he contacted?

The questions are becoming increasingly rhetorical, as the heavy-handed methods for demonstrating “vigilance” become all too avert. Schuller had previously, under Yanukovych’s last tenure as prime minister, been much less than complimentary in his coverage.

Moreover, Nico Lange, Director of the Kyiv Office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, who was held at Kyiv airport for around 10 hours on SBU instructions in late June, had at the beginning of June written an article in which he spoke of authoritarian tendencies emerging under President Yanukovych.

The crass stupidity of measures against those who express views the regime doesn’t like does not make the measures any the less worrying.

It is frustrating that Ukraine, which badly needs support and investment, is being so ill-served by the present regime. The full interview with Khoroshkovsky began with him being introduced as “one of the most powerful men in Ukraine. You own a media empire. You head the Security Service SBU with 30,000 employees and occupy a seat in the High Council of Justice which oversees the justice system and lawyers. Of the three branches of power, you have control over two of them, the Executive and the Judiciary, as well as the fourth estate, the media.”

Khoroshkovsky’s claim that he controls nothing, that he is simply a member of these institutions, is less than convincing. Concern over his position, and the inevitable conflicts of interest, as well as over methods used by the SBU has been expressed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as well as many other Western observers.

Frankfurter Allgemeine notes that it is unclear why the head of the SBU suddenly admitted to the surveillance. The degree of ineptitude required to notch up quite so many scandals over the last seven months does give rise to the suspicion that subterfuge and secrecy are not the name of the game.

The trouble with this game is that it undermines Ukraine’s reputation. And it’s not just the political reputation that is at stake. All those who have business and other interests in the country should be concerned.

Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group.