By Leonid Hrach, Crimean Communist Leader
Kiyevskiye Vedomosti, Kiev, Ukraine, in Russian 20 Apr 04; p 5
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004

The following is the text of the article by Leonid Hrach, entitled "National idea: a moment of truth" and published in the Kievskiye Vedomosti newspaper on 20 April 2004; subheadings inserted editorially:

[Editorial introduction] The term national idea is sometimes applied to pretty odd things in our land. For one, a recipe to transform Soviet Ukraine, erstwhile one of the world's top 10 industrially advanced countries, into Europe's backwater. Further pursuance of this policy, being passed off as gaining national sovereignty, can only confirm Ukraine's status as a raw-material and transit appendage to advanced states.

UKRAINE'S INTERNATIONAL PREFERENCES

[Leonid Hrach, chairman of the all-Ukrainian association Heirs of Bohdan Khmelnytskyy, people's deputy of Ukraine] We have satisfied ourselves that independence does not automatically create a national idea. A national idea cannot come about unless society has developed consciously perceived priorities and values. They are traditionally referred to as national interests because they make it possible to unite isolated ethnic and cultural groups into a political nation.

A recent survey conducted by the Oleksandr Razumkov centre for economic and political research has shown that up to 40 per cent of Ukrainian citizens think that relations with Russia should be a priority area in the state's foreign policy. Only less than one-third (28.2 per cent) of the respondents gave preference to contacts with European Union member states; 16.3 per cent gave priority to CIS states, while 3.4 per cent named other states. Only 2.2 per cent of the respondents said that relations with the USA should be a priority in foreign policy.

A survey conducted in Ukraine by a Moscow-based humanitarian and social academy towards the end of 2002 showed that 53 per cent of Ukrainian respondents supported the unification of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus into a single federal state, 36 per cent were against it, with 65 per cent of the respondents supporting a political union of Ukraine and Russia.

Ukrainian citizens' preferences in foreign policy are obviously in favour of an alliance with Russia and the economic integration of the post-Soviet space. The choice of political and economic alliance with Russia is absolutely conscious. Integration with other republics of the former Soviet Union, above all Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan (being like Ukraine members of the Single Economic Space [SES]) is perceived by most people in society as a priority in foreign policy.

INDEPENDENCE AND NATIONAL IDEA

In this context, the myth about joining the European community is being touted in society as a Ukrainian "national idea". The myth is at variance with political reality. It is obvious that Europe does not want to see Ukraine as part of itself. The role assigned to Ukraine, along with Moldova and Belarus, under the EU leadership's ongoing foreign policy project is to be a buffer zone isolating Europe from Russia. Frits Bolkenstein, the EU commissioner for internal market, stated this idea most frankly.

Thus, EU architects (let alone constructors of a "new world order" in the USA) totally deny Ukraine its right to be a political entity and, correspondingly, to have a national idea. We should be aware that Ukraine will not be able to exist as a third-rate peripheral state helping others for a dole to implement their own plans. To be like that, we will have to give up our own cultural values and historical experience, which is tantamount to giving up national identity.

It looks like Ukraine's political elite is ready to consent to the USA and its allies using our state, its territory and human potential in their hegemonic plans. This approach is reflected in the ratification of the memorandum on mutual understanding between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and NATO granting NATO's armed forces the right of prompt access to Ukrainian territory whenever the alliance needs it to implement its general policy. According to the document, the NATO armed forces' military hardware (planes, helicopters, tanks and ships) may, if necessary, move across Ukrainian territory on the basis of a general permission.

This policy is leading us to giving up our state sovereignty, it runs counter both to Ukrainian laws and Ukrainian-Russian agreements and it can hardly have anything to do with "national idea".

HOW TO BECOME COMPETITIVE

Meanwhile, relations with Russia and participation in the SES are not only related to the foreign political aspect of the national idea but also to society's concepts of the necessary course of economic development.

Ukrainian society is interested in economic growth. To make industrial development effective, a merger of SES member states' national economies is required. It should be kept in mind that the industrial potential of our states was formed in the Soviet era on the basis of a unified national economy. Political independence in no event implies giving up the achievements of the previous historical period. State sovereignty does not require intentionally putting forward demands capable of setting back economic integration.

It is large supranational and international structures rather than individual states, that are competing on the world market today. Neither Ukraine nor any other SES state can rival big world players single-handedly. However, having become part of the SES and drawing on its pool of resources, Ukraine could fill economic niches, from which it is now barred. The process of developing SES structures is giving an additional impetus to administrative reform. In this case, the reform could go on drawing on the world's best practices. Just a reduction in the "rent" going to functionaries could give a strong boost to entrepreneurial competitiveness.

Apart from this, the elimination of corruption will guarantee consolidation in society and give rise to a new political elite. Ukraine's (and Russia's) present elite is evidently unaware of how important it is to have mobilization projects at different levels, ranging from strategic to specific social and economic ones.

The US leadership has overtly declared its ambition for global domination, especially in the ideological, military and political domains. Every big world player, such as China, leading European states, India, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have their own national mobilization projects. No big nation can maintain its inward unity and identity without such a project. No-one in Ukraine's political elite, neither the authorities, nor [Viktor Yushchenko's opposition block] Our Ukraine, has come up with a mobilization project. Russia lacks a properly articulated project.

In both cases, the absence of a mobilization project arises from lack of requisite social and economic resources. Such resources can become available solely within the SES where a whole set of such projects can arise, ranging from joint exploration of mineral resources and upgrading transport corridors from western Europe to the Far East, to creating a common "silicon valley" and space exploration.

We should become well aware that we cannot hope to have any serious economic and political standing in the world without economic unification with Russia and other former Soviet states.