150 Tanja Penter
of the Supreme Soviets in both Soviet Republics. 48 Even in the final phase
of the Soviet Union, various national actors had clear room to maneuver in
regulating threshold values and resettlements. In so far, the situation was
different from the first phase of disaster management after the 1986 accident, when the Soviet Union initially reacted with well-known strategies of
bureaucratization and secrecy and controlled all decisions from Moscow. As
Melanie Arndt has argued, it was the situation of disorder, excessive demands
and improvisation on the part of Soviet authorities, as well as a general loss
of legitimacy on the part of the party and the state, which provided more
freedom of action for the regional actors in Minsk and Kyiv. The double crisis
of post-Chernobyl and post-Socialism confronted all actors with unexpected
new challenges, while also creating new corners of freedom. 49
The Ukrainian and Belarusian laws, which responded in both countries
to the demands of the affected populations and national movements, bear
substantial similarities. Both started with the similar statement that the
Chernobyl catastrophe struck the fate of millions of people and created new
ecological, social, and economic conditions in the regions with radioactive
contamination. Both laws declared the countries to “zones of national ecological emergency” 50 and acknowledged the necessity to mobilize considerable financial, material, and scientific resources to cope with the ecological and
social consequences of the disaster. Both the Ukrainian and the Belarusian
laws determined basic provisions regarding the realization of constitutional
rights of the citizens, who suffered from the Chernobyl catastrophe with
regard to the protection of their life and health and the granting of amenities
and compensations (according to their category of suffering). This included
the right of all citizens to receive complete, credible, and timely information about all questions connected to the Chernobyl catastrophe. 51 In both
laws, the state explicitly took responsibility for the compensation of the harm
caused to the citizens, including health damages, loss of workability, and loss
of a family’s breadwinner by death.
The laws in Ukraine and Belarus defined two main groups of victims:
firstly, so-called liquidators, citizens who directly participated in the accident
and the liquidation of its consequences (among them members of the military
and firemen); and secondly, residents of the contaminated zones, including
evacuees. The comprehensive lists of compensations included free medical
treatment, annual treatments in sanatoria, food assistance, assumption of
housing costs, unemployment benefit at the level of the previous wage, free
building loans, free use of public transport, and preferential treatment when
allocating kindergarten places or access to university programs. The highest compensation payments were made to former liquidators and radiation
patients, depending on their health problems. Evacuees and resettled citizens
were able to receive new housing and compensation for the property left
behind. According to the law, they should also be supported in their professional reorientation. 52 Belarus and Ukraine set different priorities in their
Chernobyl programs: while until the mid-1990s Belarus initially invested
of the Supreme Soviets in both Soviet Republics. 48 Even in the final phase
of the Soviet Union, various national actors had clear room to maneuver in
regulating threshold values and resettlements. In so far, the situation was
different from the first phase of disaster management after the 1986 accident, when the Soviet Union initially reacted with well-known strategies of
bureaucratization and secrecy and controlled all decisions from Moscow. As
Melanie Arndt has argued, it was the situation of disorder, excessive demands
and improvisation on the part of Soviet authorities, as well as a general loss
of legitimacy on the part of the party and the state, which provided more
freedom of action for the regional actors in Minsk and Kyiv. The double crisis
of post-Chernobyl and post-Socialism confronted all actors with unexpected
new challenges, while also creating new corners of freedom. 49
The Ukrainian and Belarusian laws, which responded in both countries
to the demands of the affected populations and national movements, bear
substantial similarities. Both started with the similar statement that the
Chernobyl catastrophe struck the fate of millions of people and created new
ecological, social, and economic conditions in the regions with radioactive
contamination. Both laws declared the countries to “zones of national ecological emergency” 50 and acknowledged the necessity to mobilize considerable financial, material, and scientific resources to cope with the ecological and
social consequences of the disaster. Both the Ukrainian and the Belarusian
laws determined basic provisions regarding the realization of constitutional
rights of the citizens, who suffered from the Chernobyl catastrophe with
regard to the protection of their life and health and the granting of amenities
and compensations (according to their category of suffering). This included
the right of all citizens to receive complete, credible, and timely information about all questions connected to the Chernobyl catastrophe. 51 In both
laws, the state explicitly took responsibility for the compensation of the harm
caused to the citizens, including health damages, loss of workability, and loss
of a family’s breadwinner by death.
The laws in Ukraine and Belarus defined two main groups of victims:
firstly, so-called liquidators, citizens who directly participated in the accident
and the liquidation of its consequences (among them members of the military
and firemen); and secondly, residents of the contaminated zones, including
evacuees. The comprehensive lists of compensations included free medical
treatment, annual treatments in sanatoria, food assistance, assumption of
housing costs, unemployment benefit at the level of the previous wage, free
building loans, free use of public transport, and preferential treatment when
allocating kindergarten places or access to university programs. The highest compensation payments were made to former liquidators and radiation
patients, depending on their health problems. Evacuees and resettled citizens
were able to receive new housing and compensation for the property left
behind. According to the law, they should also be supported in their professional reorientation. 52 Belarus and Ukraine set different priorities in their
Chernobyl programs: while until the mid-1990s Belarus initially invested