table of contents
 |
|
 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Interview with Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma
[Kichyhin] Mr President, the public in Ukraine over the past few days has been stormily discussing the result of the voting on political reform on Thursday, 8 April. As we know, a few votes were lacking to pass the draft changes to the constitution. An annoying fact. After all, in essence the negative voting to some extent drew a line under the 18 months of your and your team's efforts to get the political reform through. [Kuchma] I would be insincere if I were to say that I was entirely unconcerned by this. There remains a certain unpleasant taste in my mouth that the voting in general turned out to be negative. And you were right to say that that it was the result of 18 months of hard work to explain the need for political changes in our country. But I don't at all believe that this is a failure of our hopes, and mine in particular, concerning reforms. We haven't lost, it's simply that we haven't won yet. But we will win. I have no doubt about that, because, if one can put it this way, we have already sown the seeds of political reform, and they have germinated. If the shoots have not yet appeared, they will certainly appear later. It is now irreversible. The majority of Ukrainian citizens already understand and support the need for reform. And if the question has been put on hold because of a certain political unevenness, its elimination is a matter of time.
[Kichyhin] Can you name those people? No pressure on deputies [Kuchma] They can be named or not named. That's not the main point. Names were voiced - [Viktor] Musiyaka, [Andriy] Derkach... [ellipsis as published] So, faction leaders asked me what should be done. I said: nothing. No persuasion and no pressure. I only asked the faction leaders to try to ensure the presence of deputies in the hall of sessions. And there let each of them vote according to their conscience. [Kichyhin] But, Mr Kuchma, it is not a question of an ordinary plenary day in parliament, but of a vote that should have been - already is - a historic event in our country's life. Surely it was not necessary in that case to persuade deputies individually to come to parliament? Do you not feel that this is overkill? [Kuchma] I don't entirely agree with you here. The moment was indeed historic. But even in such situations there is the human factor. And this factor, as history shows, has at times so sharply turned around the course of events in some countries that subsequently entire historical institutions could not understand the logic of what had happened. Therefore I considered it my duty to ask the faction leaders to stress to deputies over and over the exceptional historic importance of the forthcoming event. It's like in the army: a soldier has been on guard and knows his manoeuvres by heart, but the commander still instructs him as if for the first time. Why reform failed [Kichyhin] Mr Kuchma, we know the leaders of the parliamentary majority were absolutely confident of getting the reform through on 8 April. While some politicians said that they were only 99 per cent confident, it meant that they were fully 100 per cent confident, but were answering diplomatically. However, there were deputies who still did not vote. Why was that, do you think? [Kuchma] You know, people's deputies, it can be said without exaggeration, are representatives of one of the most prestigious civil groups in our country. Whatever our attitude to them, we must always remember the powers to decide the fate of the state were entrusted to them by the people - supremely sovereign in Ukraine. However, at the same time we all also well know the other side of the current reality. It is no secret that very many deputies are under various political "roofs" [patronage] and so do not always have the possibility of acting in accordance with their own conscience. The fact that the reform failed to get through this time for the lack of a few votes is, I believe, a manifestation of that "non-independence" of deputies. [Kichyhin] Do you mean the so-called opposition "secret agents" in the majority camp? [Kuchma] I'm not talking about the opposition. It has nothing to do with this at all. The feelings of opposition factions are understandable, their behaviour was calculated, and their tactics were predictable. But if you are asking which specific political puppet-master was pulling his invisible strings and arranged so that this or that deputy disappeared from the hall at the moment of voting, then I'll say that I don't know. Rather, I can guess, but, you understand, I don't always prefer to speak about my guesses out loud. I am sure that it was done with one aim: someone very much wanted to show everyone that he had enough strength to influence the course of history in Ukraine. Here I will probably agree with him (or them) and say: yes, gentlemen, so far you have enough strength to put a brake on the country's development. But you are still too weak to halt progress. You are throwing a stone into the course of the river and obstructing its flow. But all this is temporary, because the river will go round the stone and flow further. So you are trying in vain. You would have done better to think about how to use your strength for the good of the future development of the Ukrainian state. Timing of reform [Kichyhin] Your opponents often voice the criticism that the president, they say, by initiating political reform, is only pretending that he wants democratic changes. In fact, he is striving to stay in power. If he had really wanted to change the system, he would have launched the initiative earlier, and not under the curtain of the constitutional term of his powers. [Kuchma] People who talk like that either really don't know (or don't understand) Ukrainian history, or are frankly speculating with it. Let us recall what we had over the past decade. The collapse of former moral ideals and a tortured quest by society for principles and values of a new life. Political problems caused by the fact that Ukraine had no experience of independent statehood or playing its own game on the international scene. A most profound economic crisis - disruption of traditional production links on the scale of the USSR and Comecon, a not fully functioning monetary system, inflation. In addition to that there was a real threat of a territorial split in the country, attempts by separatist forces to play on ethnic and religious factors. In such conditions there was an absolutely real question: will Ukraine exist as an independent state? Such were the conditions in which the presidency of Leonid Kravchuk passed, and such they were, if not worse, in the first years of my presidency. I believed, and still do, that the significant concentration of powers in the president of the country was absolutely justified at that time. We did not have the right to weaken power and give cause for the activation of forces that were not concerned how to improve the life of the people, but how to gain power over that people. That is why in those years there were no initiatives on my part to transform the political system. Moreover, the main - in my opinion - mechanism was not there: influence over parliament or the right under certain conditions to dissolve parliament. However, I still believe that we should have started political reform a couple of years earlier. There were enough economic and political prerequisites in the country to hope for success. But a lot of time and effort were taken up by attempts to destabilize Ukraine from outside. I am referring to the "tape scandal" [recordings made in Kuchma's office apparently implicating him in serious crimes] and the "Kolchuga scandal" [allegations that Ukraine had sold Kolchuga radar systems to Iraq]. I consider it absolutely inappropriate to say now that the political time chosen does not correspond to the tasks posed. In recent years Ukraine has had stable economic growth. Our GDP growth rates are the best in Europe according to the results of last year. And in the first quarter of this year Ukraine's GDP has already grown by 10.8 per cent, and industrial production by about 19 per cent. On the eve, as you know, there was a scientific-practical conference, "Strategy of stable development and structural investment restructuring of the Ukrainian economy (2004-2005)". In my speech at the conference I said, and I want to repeat it briefly now, that as a result of an analysis of our achievements, the Ukrainian model of the economy was one of the most effective in the entire post-Soviet space. What is more, not only in CIS countries, but also in states of Central and Eastern Europe, specialists are now posing the question of the need to interpret the effect of the Ukrainian economic upsurge. On indicators of GDP growth we have even exceeded the rates that the Ukrainian SSR had in the period of maximum economic growth of the republic in 1976-1980. Under the [Soviet] Union Ukraine provided 3.4 per cent of the growth, while over the past four years we are giving 7.4 per cent. If the Ukrainian political scene even in these favourable conditions turns out to be incapable of passing political reform, the present generation will not forgive us. I have already said, and I repeat it now: the system of power must be restructured in such a way as to ensure that one person who has received constitutional powers in this country could not turn the system back or side-road it somewhere. We need guarantees at a constitutional level that whatever the dispositions of power, under whatever subjective factors and circumstances, development will move only forwards, only along the path of progress. Problems of administrative reform [Kichyhin] Mr Kuchma, you say that in the first years of your presidency, objective conditions in the country did not facilitate the carrying out of political reform. But over a number of years you were a consistent adherent of the idea of carrying out administrative reform. Is this not an attempt to change internal political practice? [Kuchma] I absolutely disagree with you that the intended administrative reform can be considered part of a big political reform. However, I must admit that all attempts to optimize in some way the structure and functions of the bodies of the executive have not led to the intended aims. Once again, all because the administrative apparatus in our country was simply incapable of reforming itself. And if we call a spade a spade, it did not want those changes and opposed them in every way. As a result, it turned out that all attempts at optimization led only to a reformatting of the management structures. There were changes in the formulations of juridical names, labels on offices were changed, but in fact the powers and functions of the managers remained (or even expanded), and the number of officials increased after every new wave of reform. It became obvious that the situation could not be changed by a desire from above. The political will of society, parties, parliament and a politically responsible government was required. But in order to achieve that, we need precisely that same political reform that we are talking about today. Only the Big Four, which is what I call this political formula, will be the guarantee that judicial reform will be successfully carried out in the country. And they will finally stop criticizing Ukraine for the fact that courts in our country are used as instruments of reprisal against political and economic rivals. Only the Big Four will be the guarantee of a successful transformation of the system of local government. And this, in the final analysis, will make our citizens not indifferent to what is happening in their village, town and region. Local authorities will be forced to become more accountable to the people whose interests they are meant to ensure. But, incidentally, I do not at all view our failures in administrative reform as a political loss for the authorities. It is only a negative result. And, as is known, in science that is valued no less than a positive result. Because we now know how not to act, and what is not worth hoping for. Optimism on political reform [Kichyhin] Can this optimism of yours extend to the result of the recent vote on political reform? [Kuchma] Of course! I repeat once again: we did not lose, we simply did not win at this stage. I worked as an engineer for many years in my life. This means that I had dealings with various mechanisms. Of course, that is far from being the same as working with people. But in some situations, I think, there are completely relevant parallels. Thus, in a designer's work it is no good to panic if the machine assembled does not fly or move on the water or on the ground... [ellipsis as published] If a mechanism doesn't work, it means only one thing: it needs to be taken apart, the defect has to be found and eliminated, and you have to try to launch it again. I think that in relation to political reform, we also need to carry out analysis of the situation without panicking, do more work on it and again move to get the decision passed. [Kichyhin] What is the most advisable way to do that? Should you now take up [majority coordinator] Stepan Havrysh's bill No 4180? Perhaps it is worth waiting for a year in order to return to bill No 4105 [the bill voted down on 8 April]? Or maybe there are other options? [Kuchma] I would not want now to propose any specific options. I don't want to give cause to our ill wishers to make accusations that the president is exerting pressure. I only want to say that the most important thing now is not to lose heart and to continue insistent explanatory activity. Ukraine needs political reform and there are no other methods of achieving it apart from conducting a broad political dialogue and working with factions and deputies. As to which precise formula should be used to return to parliamentary consideration of reform without violating the constitution, I think that this can always be determined. Ukraine's image abroad [Kichyhin] What can you say about Ukraine's image abroad? [Kuchma] Ukraine's prestige on the international scene is steadily growing. We are taking part in complex UN programmes (for example in peacekeeping missions) and the positive results that Ukraine has shown have been noted more than once by prestigious observers. We have forged strongly ahead in questions of international trade. There is growth in the number of manufacturers that have received international recognition for the quality of their output. We are participating in international space and aviation projects... [ellipsis as published] Overall, one could take a long time to list the positive examples. And that's good. But speaking as whole, I have to admit that our country's image is still far from the one we would all like to see and feel. I think that we could have built up our prestige faster. But here, of course, there are both objective and subjective factors at work. Among the objective ones, one could point to the fact that Ukraine for many years, even though it was a member of the UN, was nevertheless perceived in the world as a province of the USSR. For that reason we are even now often perceived "via Moscow". It is difficult to break through this attitude on the part of the West in a short historical period. It simply has to melt away in time. And this process is under way. As a subjective factor I could name the behaviour abroad of some representatives of the Ukrainian opposition, who very forcefully engage in exporting negative aspects. They don't want to talk about what is good in Ukraine. But as soon as they spot some shortcomings in the actions of the authorities, they immediately seize on them and run to Europe to complain. Moreover, on the way it is all over-egged and exaggerated. There is no way that I can call such behaviour patriotic. But undoubtedly we too in our activity should show less negative examples that can disrupt out image abroad. For example, there is the actions of all those who took part in the recent conflict in Mukacheve. [Allegations have been made that the polling stations were attacked by groups of thugs, and the final result rigged to deliver victory to a pro-government candidate.] Whatever they were guided by, each one of them should not forget what resonance it might provoke outside Ukraine. I would like to speak separately about the activity of the institutions that by definition are meant to promote Ukraine abroad. Primarily this applies to the Foreign Ministry and news agencies. Some managers there have already forgotten that one of their main tasks is provide the Ukrainian political elite with quality information about our country's ratings abroad. Such information needs to be obtained from various sources. And not just by going to the Ukrainian diaspora for it, as is often done by some of our diplomats and journalists. And the diaspora - if, of course we mean those ethnic Ukrainians who are interested in the homeland of their ancestors - are themselves concerned about how and where to learn more about Ukraine. And for that reason they eagerly listen to what our opposition brings them. And then they all interpret it and recount it to our diplomats. Can you imagine what sort of information the Ukrainian political elite receives as a result? The Foreign Ministry and our information structures that are meant to present the truth about our country beyond its borders are still working quite poorly on the level of informing state structures and the public of foreign states about events in Ukraine, about our real problems, affairs and achievements. No need for personnel purge [Kichyhin] Mr Kuchma, in connection with the vote in the Supreme Council [parliament] on political reform and some other events in Ukraine, the media are crammed with "information" that you are allegedly extremely displeased with the work of the presidential administration and your entire vertical power structure and that, so it goes, major personnel purges are to be expected, regardless of personalities. How would you comment on this? How do you assess the work of the presidential administration? [Kuchma] You know, I am against revolution. Including a personnel one. I believed and still do that personnel revolution has never led to positive results. The same is true for frequent changes of government, ministers and so forth. Of course, when someone, as they say, is not pulling his weight, it's another matter. But I can't say that about the present team of professionals. They are in their right place. And the fact that the arrows are flying right at the presidential administration is completely understandable. Who wants to shoot arrows at themselves? And the Supreme Council is no exception. I'm sorry, but it is always accepted to seek and find a scapegoat on the side. And so my attitude to such attacks against the presidential staff, as I say, is philosophical. Everyone has the right to express his opinion, and it is my right to make a decision. Relations with Russia [Kichyhin] Today the Supreme Council ratified major treaties with Russia - on the SES [Single Economic Space - economic union with Russia] and on borders. How do you rate this event? What would you say about prospects for the SES? [Kuchma] I am glad that this has happened. After the signing of the agreement on the SES in Yalta with a reservation that the implementation of those major accords should not contradict the Constitution of Ukraine, we will finally move to practical implementation of the agreements. It is a step forward on the road to closer economic, scientific and technical cooperation, primarily with our main CIS partners. I supported the idea of the SES from the very outset, since I believe that the treaty corresponds to the strategic interests of the Ukrainian state. If, of course, all the other participants in the process are together with us on the main thing: the treaty has to be of an economic nature. I cannot agree with those analysts who are trying to attribute all sorts of political components to the document. Only one condition is relevant: the economy first and foremost, without any political superstructures. And we have to start by creating a free trade zone. At the same time, all the time I want to add that it is not only a single economic space, but also a single scientific and technological space. Because without preparing a base for development of the economy, and this means both fundamental science and technological developments, we cannot think about serious prospects for the 21st century. The border was also a very important and sometimes painful question. We have resolved the problems in a civilized way, especially on the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait. It is an example of how such problems should be resolved witho ut politicizing them. We must always seek rational roots to ensure that the solution does not damage the interests of either side. That was precisely the result that we achieved. Presidential election chances [Kichyhin] How do you rate the chances of [Prime Minister] Viktor Yanukovych of winning the coming elections? To what extent, in your opinion, is there a mutual connection between the nomination of the single candidate from the majority and the task of further and successful promotion of political reform? [Kuchma] I am sure that he has a very big chance. Mr Yanukovych is the current head of government, and has the possibility of campaigning not only with political statements and slogans, but also with concrete economic matters that concern every Ukrainian. In general I am always more sympathetic not to the person who speaks a lot, but to the person who does a lot. And Yanukovych does a lot. That the government is providing economic growth is a fact that the whole world recognizes. The nomination of a single candidate will certainly promote a strengthening of centripetal tendencies within the parliamentary majority. The parties and parliamentary factions that are part of it are simply forced to be more united for the sake of the victory of their common candidate, and that means that the chances for greater mutual understanding and interaction during the further promotion of political reform will grow. The essentially democratic coalition majority will be even more interested in successful completion of political reform, since the candidacy of Yanukovych was raised by them in the context of those changes to the state system of Ukraine that political reform presupposes. At the same time, I want the opposition to reflect on the fact that the chances of the authorities to win the election are not worse, and maybe even better than the opposition's. So the nearer we get to the elections, the greater will be Yanukovych's chances of victory. And under certain circumstances the majority can take the same position as [Viktor Yushchenko's opposition bloc] Our Ukraine, which believes that it has the staff of office within its hands and that it does not need reform. Personal issues [Kichyhin] Thank you for this very thorough and frank interview. I think that what you said will help many of our readers, who have not yet made up their minds on their attitude to political reform, to take a conscious position in this matter. In conclusion, allow me to put a few questions of a personal nature, so to speak. Your daughter recently said approximately this in an interview: "I don't yet have the attraction to gardening that my parents have -they are interested in planting and growing things..." [ellipsis as published] Tell me, do you really like gardening? [Kuchma] I grew up on our Ukrainian soil. I love it very much. And if I see a landscape that does not correspond to my idea of order, I try to restore that order. And so I enjoy working with a spade, a rake and an axe. And everyone well knows that. [Kichyhin] There has recently been increasing talk about your daughter in the press. She gives interviews on various topics. Does she agree her public statements with you? [Kuchma] Not at all. She decides everything herself. For example, her decision to take part in the public humanitarian action to give help to people with AIDS was completely independent. But naturally I approve that sort of activity of hers. [Kichyhin] Do you often see your grandchildren? [Kuchma] Often, especially my grandson. He likes being with us. Especially at weekends. He is a born techie. I'm amazed that from a very early age he could come to terms with complex technology. He is 13 now, and a computer for him is like a pen for us. It's an extraordinary time. At the same time, I'm sad that the Internet and computer technology have torn children away from books. [Kichyhin] By the way, talking about books. Your book, "Ukraine is not Russia" can be said to have become a bestseller. Are you working on any new books? [Kuchma] You know, I have a lot of material about the situation that Ukraine and me personally are coming up against in the area of the economy. And I very much want to analyse what we have done right and where I, both as president and previously as prime minister, have missed some opportunities. And hence to warn all subsequent politicians against similar mistakes. Analysis of the past is a most important condition for making correct decisions in the future. [Kichyhin] Does the book have a title? [Kuchma] Not yet. There is still a lot of work ahead. FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY |
||||||
 |
 |
