"Yuliya Tymoshenko: However we lay out the game of patience, Medvedchuk is just not there. Medvedchuk is like Volochkova from Moscow's Bolshoy Theatre"

Yuliya Tymoshenko interview by Serhiy Leshchenko
Ukrayinska Pravda web site, Kiev, in Ukrainian 26 Mar 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Apr 05, 2004

The following is the text of Tymoshenko's interview with Serhiy Leshchenko, entitled "Yuliya Tymoshenko: However we lay out the game of patience, Medvedchuk is just not there. Medvedchuk is like Volochkova from Moscow's Bolshoy Theatre" and published by the Ukrainian web site Ukrayinska Pravda on 26 March; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

Political reform will be revoked after the opposition wins the [31 October] presidential election. Yulia Tymoshenko promises this will certainly happen, and she has sent a plan for forming an election coalition ahead of the 2004 elections to [the centre-right opposition bloc] Our Ukraine and the Socialist Party. It has yet to be signed, but [Our Ukraine leader Viktor] Yushchenko said he and the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc had "a full understanding". This and the latest steps in political reform are discussed in Tymoshenko's interview with Ukrayinska Pravda.

New proportional election law may camouflage return to majority system

[Leshchenko] For several years, the opposition demanded a law on proportional elections and raised this slogan during the "Arise, Ukraine!" campaign [anti-presidential street protests in 2002-2003]. And now some of the opposition from Our Ukraine and the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc have been doing their utmost to block and delay this vote.

[Tymoshenko] Intelligence differs from stupidity in that it is conscious that each event has its time and place. Even very good concepts can be ineffective in certain circumstances and at a certain time. It would be wrong to support a law on proportional elections at this time just because it was demanded during the "Arise, Ukraine!" campaign. Currently, a proportional system is a precondition for constitutional reform. It is this reform that is destroying the country and is robbing us all of the hope that common sense will gain a victory at least in the future. Today nobody needs the proportional system which [presidential administration chief and United Social Democratic Party of Ukraine leader Viktor] Medvedchuk is bending parliament to push through. MPs from [the pro-presidential parliamentary] majority are prepared to eat their voting cards or dispense with their right hands just to avoid voting for the proportional electoral system. Ideas that are not based on natural agreement will inevitably be revised in the future. So engaging in such a comedy is utter nonsense. I do not have proper words to describe what is currently going on in parliament.

[Leshchenko] You said earlier that after the changes to the constitution are passed in their entirety some amendments will be made to the law on elections so as to return to a majority system. How could this be done if the bill on constitutional amendments explicitly states that this should be a purely proportional system?

[Tymoshenko] I am certain that the majority of 300 votes will no longer be needed if the constitutional amendments are passed. [Pro-presidential majority coordinator] Stepan Havrysh's law [on a proportional election system] is an example of how the clause of the constitution on proportional elections does not matter to the majority at all. It has the same title as required by the bill on constitutional amendments, and its essence, a nation-wide list, looks as if it were the same. But, when enforced, it would result in a pure majority system. Today this law has been rejected, and the law on proportional elections was voted for. However, if constitutional reform is voted for, at some point the Havrysh law on proportional representation might be amended by the same masters of parliament, despite the resistance of the Communists, the Socialists and all of us.

Cooperation between left and regime jeopardizes future of democracy

[Leshchenko] But [Socialist Party leader Oleksandr] Moroz and [Communist Party leader Petro] Symonenko also realize this. Yet they guaranteed the immunity of the law on proportional elections?

[Tymoshenko] I think the Socialist Party and the Communist Party's actions were not logical. This is their suicide. By entering a coalition with Medvedchuk and [Ukrainian President Leonid] Kuchma, they are disorientating their supporters among the people. People who have believed them for many years cannot grasp what these moral and spiritual leaders are doing in dubious company like this. The leftist parties will not gain anything from this reform. Moreover, they will raise great doubts whether the path chosen by the left-wingers is right. Today's reform is killing the Communist Party of Ukraine [CPU] and the Socialist Party of Ukraine [SPU]. It is killing Ukraine's leftist movement in general. One cannot conduct "partnership negotiations" about the principles of vegetarianism with cannibals. To protect their reputation and save their parties' authority, it would be better to retain a mixed system for another century than to sit at the negotiating table with Medvedchuk and carry out his reforms. I understand the leftist supporters of the reform. Not to seek a change in the system of power means you have no heart. However, playing at reform with the authorities means you have no intelligence.

[Leshchenko] But Moroz, whom you have just paraphrased, repeatedly presented his argument. The mechanism for political reform was the same, but its goals were different.

[Tymoshenko] There is a better quotation from Symonenko which he said at the CPU's plenum and which was quoted in the Znak Zapytannya magazine, "At this stage our party's political demands and the selfish, insidious interests of the authorities have partially coincided." There is no need to comment on this. It is not possible for two honest politicians to have plans in which their interests coincide with the insidious interests of Kuchma and Medvedchuk. In view of the fact that the left-wingers engage in the authorities' adventures, I have a few rhetorical questions to their leaders. I would still like to hear public replies to these questions. First, why are they depriving the people of real power? Currently, society can receive a fully fledged president, the de-facto leader of the executive. However, after the reform, instead of the president, we would get a fictitious figure without rights, and all the genuine powers will be usurped by a dependent parliament. Is this what the transfer of power to the people should look like?

Second, who is this specific person empowered by the authorities with whom they are negotiating about political reform on behalf of their parties? Third, do you honestly believe Kuchma and Medvedchuk launched this reform to balance the branches of power and democratize the political processes rather than to retain power in their own hands?

Fourth, do they believe that the political groups headed by Medvedchuk, [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych and [influential MP, businessman and Kuchma's son-in-law Viktor] Pinchuk will actively participate in forming the new authorities after constitutional reform is carried out?

Fifth, who do they think will become prime minister and receive all genuine levers of influence in the country after the constitutional reform is carried out in 2004? Which political groups will have their members appointed as prime minister and governors? In view of the current majority, do they honestly believe that these people will be representatives of the opposition?

Sixth, which political coalition in parliament will appoint heads of law-enforcement agencies in October 2004 after the constitutional reform? Are they assuming that these heads of law-enforcement agencies will truly combat corruption and the shadow economy, and fight against those who appointed them? Seventh, does it make sense, as is envisaged by the constitutional reform, to transfer full power in the state to parliament in its current composition which, according to Symonenko, has 300 shadow millionaires?

Eighth, how much compromise is possible between leftist forces and the majority in the process of forming new authorities, a new government and law-enforcement agencies after constitutional reform is carried out? How will the left forces deal with clans and their top leaders in a coalition like this?

MPs from first-past-the-post constituencies to play a key role

[Leshchenko] This week you and Our Ukraine tried as hard as you could to impede political reform by tabling many amendments to the law on elections. In part, your goal was achieved. Parliament will return to the issue only in April. Does this diminish the chances of political reform?

[Tymoshenko] The fate of reforms to the constitution will largely depend on a small group of MPs elected in first-past-the-post majority constituencies. Today, Ukraine's fate is in their hands. What a turnaround! The SPU and the CPU whose declared goal throughout their political life has been to rid Ukraine of the criminal regime have currently become the right and left arms of this regime. Actually, they are bringing this regime to power in future from 2004 onwards. And the group of MPs elected in first-past-the-post constituencies, who are believed to be dependent on the president, not free in making decisions and who have something to lose in their private lives, has shown more understanding of the situation, courage and civic position. I believe in them. May God give them courage and wisdom. They have a chance to become true heroes of contemporary Ukraine.

[Leshchenko] On Thursday [25 March] you could be seen having a lively discussion with [MP] Oleksandr Volkov in parliament's lobbies. Is this the way to work with MPs elected in first-past-the-post constituencies?

[Tymoshenko] All of us MPs communicate with one another. Volkov did not vote for the law on proportional elections, and it was interesting for me to know what his position will be in the vote on political reform. Sometimes a true civic position emerges where we do not expect it.

Speaker resisting attempts to undermine parliamentarianism

[Leshchenko] What position do you think speaker [Volodymyr] Lytvyn has taken? Is he for or against political reform? For example, he did not vote for the law on proportional elections.

[Tymoshenko] Lytvyn occupies the post of speaker of the Supreme Council [parliament]. At the same time, he is worthy of this post! As regards his voting the day before, it is an honest position, the position of a man who has become wary of the situation when there are attempts to crush parliament, humiliate it and show MPs and parliamentary leaders that their place is in front of the presidential administration's doors. As the speaker of the Supreme Council, Lytvyn understands and sees how roughly and flagrantly Ukraine's parliamentarianism is being destroyed. And as the speaker he tries his utmost to stop these processes because they will not benefit anybody, including the president.

[Leshchenko] Why?

[Tymoshenko] Because a country whose parliament is violated, destroyed and humiliated will not do honour to the president. Lytvyn realized this faster than Kuchma did.

Current premier likely to be urged to run

[Leshchenko] Some pro-presidential political scientists, in particular [pro-presidential political analyst Mykhaylo] Pohrebynskyy, say that, on the contrary, the opposition should be interested in political reform. If the opposition loses the presidential election, it will have a chance to exact revenge in the parliamentary elections which are held one and half years after the presidential elections.

[Tymoshenko] They are not political scientists. They are brainwashed mouthpieces of Bankova [Street, where the presidential administration is located]. They say what they are told to say. Events will unfold in the following manner. If reform goes through, [Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych will be pulled out of his comfortable chair and pushed to run in the presidential election because after the reform the president will have fewer powers than the head of the Donetsk regional state administration. In view of the president's "love" for Yanukovych, there will be attempts to deprive Yanukovych of a position with power.

[Leshchenko] Isn't there any "love" between them any more?

[Tymoshenko] It seems to me the harmony has gone as time passed. That is my personal impression. I think that the masters of the parliamentary majority will sign in blood that they will vote for Kuchma as prime minister. Otherwise, he would not be putting in so much effort. No doubt, Medvedchuk has reserved the post of speaker for himself. Sometimes it even seems to me that at night he comes to the Supreme Council to secretly sit in the speaker's chair and to excitedly thumb through the speaker's papers.

The SPU and the CPU should realize that after the constitutional reform is passed none of the scenarios envisages them in principle. The proportional system would be supplanted by bringing it close to the majority system while the way it is formulated in the constitution would be preserved. 2006 would witness elections according to the majority system, and they would be held on the basis of the very powerful administrative resource of the three clans and the current president. We would get a parliament with a minimal left and right opposition which would be hard even to discern, let alone have an influence on anything. In addition, there will be less people who have voted for the Communists and the Socialists in all these years. This will also be the consequence of their work with Medvedchuk. If the reform is passed, from 2004 onwards oligarchy will reign in Ukraine. Even now and then one can already hear the "smart" ideas of political scientists that oligarchy is the best form of governance in Ukraine, that oligarchs are the sincerest patriots, and that it is the oligarchs who will protect Ukraine's interests... [ellipsis as published] Intellectual slavery to satisfy the appetites of unattractive criminal warlords is emerging already today. I sincerely believe that power and capital, which currently look like Siamese twins whose every limb and organ are joined together, can still be operated on, and that after surgery there is hope that both will stay alive.

Opposition to take direct action if constitution changed

[Leshchenko] You said that on the day when constitutional amendments were passed, one should prepare "a people's uprising by getting hold of our civil arms". Are these plans still in force?

[Tymoshenko] We are preparing for this event. It is to be organized by Our Ukraine and the bloc of parties I am in charge of.

[Leshchenko] What did you mean by saying "civil arms"? Machine guns?

[Tymoshenko] What machine guns are you talking about? Are we playing war games? I had in mind protests, demands to the authorities and pressure on them. These are direct actions. This is a normal thing which exists in all civilized countries. Incidentally, I envy the Spanish! I was envious of the way their nation responded to the threat which the authorities posed!

After the terrorist acts in Madrid, millions of people took to the streets to say "no" to the authorities! They accused not only the terrorists but also the authorities which had led the country to terrorism. This is strong evidence that the nation and the people continue to live. I would like Ukrainians to respond in the same way.

[Leshchenko] For four years protests have been unable to remove the regime. Do you believe the chances are greater now?

[Tymoshenko] I believe that the protests by the people should match the actions and plans of the authorities. How many people will be prepared to respond in kind depends on the people and the organizers who belong to the opposition. This should be done to demonstrate that people do not accept what is being called an "anticonstitutional revolt".

[Leshchenko] Are you going to storm the Supreme Council?

[Tymoshenko] I think people will come to express their nonacceptance of this position. Spain had neither storming, nor violent actions, but the old authorities stepped down.

Opposition alliance continues to be forged

[Leshchenko] At an opposition meeting on 9 March, Yushchenko said that a protocol about joint actions of Our Ukraine and the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc in the presidential election had been signed.

[Tymoshenko] The conclusion of our negotiating process to form an election coalition for the presidential election will be the signing of a coalition agreement. Our political force drafted and developed the coalition agreement in every detail and passed it on to Yushchenko's headquarters. And we have been waiting for a reply. Besides, we are expecting Moroz's replies to these questions because he also received these documents.

[Leshchenko] Yet Yushchenko's words then implied that you had agreed this coalition agreement?

[Tymoshenko] I have no doubt that Our Ukraine will support it, and Yushchenko's statement is evidence of this. However, we are expecting a formal conclusion of this process so as to define the role of each political force in the elections and thereafter.

[Leshchenko] What role will the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc have "in the elections and thereafter"?

[Tymoshenko] Developing and implementing the consequences of our victory.

[Leshchenko] Who, for example, will be in charge of the electoral headquarters?

[Tymoshenko] The coalition agreement will be announced in due course. At this point the parties agreed not to disclose its content.

[Leshchenko] Does it have the distribution of posts if the coalition wins the presidential election?

[Tymoshenko] It has three parts. The first is our joint actions after the victory, our programme with the help of which we are going to get Ukraine out of its difficult situation. The second is how we will distribute duties and responsibility for carrying out this programme among the three political forces after the victory. That is, who will be responsible for which sector when setting things in order. And the third is how we will join our efforts to run a presidential campaign. Our headquarters drew up the text of the coalition agreement professionally and sincerely. We sought to give those proposals which could be understood and supported by the two other political forces.

[Leshchenko] Do you think the SPU could join this coalition? Moroz said that the SPU's support of another candidate was dependent on whether Our Ukraine and the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc engaged in political reform. But you sabotaged it, didn't you?

[Tymoshenko] Our faith in the rightness of actions is forming reality. We will be working hard to create the [opposition] "troika".

[Leshchenko] Did you talk to Moroz about supporting this coalition agreement after all these events surrounding political reform?

[Tymoshenko] We did not just talk. We held quite a few meetings and negotiations on the coalition agreement over the past weeks. Neither Moroz nor his headquarters categorically object to the content of the agreement. I think Moroz has been waiting for the outcome of political reform. Yet whatever its outcome is, we have to be together!

[Leshchenko] Does this document contain the name of a single candidate?

[Tymoshenko] Yes.

[Leshchenko] Who is this person?

[Tymoshenko] You will not be disappointed!

Opposition to set things right in state property and privatization sectors

[Leshchenko] Does the document list re-privatization and redistribution of property after the presidential election is won?

[Tymoshenko] It says property relations in the country should be put in order.

[Leshchenko] Does this mean that Pinchuk or [tycoon and USDPU MP Hryhoriy] Surkis might be dispossessed of their enterprises?

[Tymoshenko] This means that all things that were done in an unprecedentedly illegal way will be brought back to the legal domain. If enterprises were brutally undervalued when they were sold, their value will be restored. And many other interesting things. The principles of order and common sense will return to the state property sector.

[Leshchenko] But with these promises you are making the mentioned people work even harder to defeat you!

[Tymoshenko] They won't be able to do this any harder and more openly than they are doing now. All that they are doing is the limit of their tremendous effort. This is the most they can do whether they are motivated or not. They are working sincerely. And we should be sincere to these people. Therefore, in the coalition agreement we will warn them so that they do not have unnecessary illusions. If we do not put things in order in the country, then we should write this in the coalition agreement: everything built by three or four people in the country over the past 10 years will remain unchanged, as they wish.

Opposition will revoke political reform

[Leshchenko] Will you be seeking to revoke political reform if the single candidate wins?

[Tymoshenko] I can firmly state that all the stages which the constitutional reform has gone through are profoundly illegitimate. Starting from the fact that on 24 December [2003] during a vote by a show of hands only 156 votes, instead of 274, were given for the reform. That is what we got when we counted hands on video. For this reason, I do not conceal that if this dirty "reform" gets through, and they will force men whose bodies have not been adapted by nature for giving birth to "bear" these 300 votes through an unknown place, it will be revoked anyway when the opposition's president comes to power. And he will come!

[Leshchenko] How can this be done?

[Tymoshenko] There are at least three ways. I will not disclose them. They still do not know what mistakes they made in drawing up legal documents! It is even hard to assume that any other country could have such legal nonsense and mess in passing amendments to the constitution! Therefore, we have the three ways to revoke political reform legally, not by force. The documents have already been drawn up; they just need to be signed... [ellipsis as published] [Leshchenko] By the new president?

[Tymoshenko] They have a technology which includes all signatures, let us put it like this (laughing). Therefore, let those MPs who do not want to dirty themselves with political reform avoid doing this. Because it will have no result anyway.

[Leshchenko] Do you think the Socialists will support the nomination of a single presidential candidate after this? If he destroys what they have been struggling for in the past six months.

[Tymoshenko] I know that the door to the coalition to nominate the single opposition candidate is open. I firmly know that the single opposition candidate will win whatever composition this opposition has. Constitutional reform, which is a revolt against the constitution, will be revoked. As a result of this disgrace which is today called constitutional reform, public shame will be brought on the heads of those who are now carrying out Medvedchuk's programme. With this shame they will find it difficult to carry on politically in the future.

As regards Medvedchuk, however we have laid out the game of patience, none of the combinations includes him. He is like [ballet dancer Anastasiya] Volochkova from Moscow's Bolshoy Theatre [who brought lawsuits against Bolshoy managers over comments on her weight]. He is far too heavy a partner, and nobody wants to have a dance with him. He should just acquiesce to this and should not stir up the whole country and parliament. An end should be put to this. It is just a matter of time.

[Leshchenko] Don't you believe that after the reform Medvedchuk can leave the presidential administration and be elected to parliament?

[Tymoshenko] That is the case when he can go wherever he wants to. He can even follow his boss's advice and fly to the moon. This will not help. He has a human trait which has bred a critical mass of hatred surrounding him. There is already no room for this person in the future.

Meeting with Armitage

[Leshchenko] On Thursday [25 March] you along with other members of the opposition met US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. What did you talk about?

[Tymoshenko] It was a very frank meeting. We talked about problems in Ukraine, how it is impossible for US interests to maintain Ukraine's current regime. The fact that the Ukrainian president initiated the vote to send the Ukrainian contingent to Iraq does not mean that the US can artificially maintain this regime, applying double standards.

[Leshchenko] Did he promise any moral assistance from the United States in the election?

[Tymoshenko] This is impossible. How could an official promise things like this? I am certain that the US will uphold the development of democracy in Ukraine because it is the global goal of the US.

[Leshchenko] Did he say what possible consequences unfair presidential election in Ukraine might have?

[Tymoshenko] I got the impression that people who have spent all their lives in countries where all is smooth cannot grasp everything. They cannot understand such things, which we regard as banal, as the possibility to easily manipulate the constitution, to buy an MP, etc. They cannot grasp that Radio Liberty can be shut down. They cannot grasp many things, and it is hard for them to respond appropriately to those challenges posed by a bunch of ignoramuses. That is why such conversations are not easy to hold. It takes a lot of effort to believe. And then there is little time left to realize how to act in this situation.

Lazarenko likely to be acquitted

[Leshchenko] In your interview with the Izvestiya newspaper, you said you were going to go to the US for [former Prime Minister Pavlo] Lazarenko's trial.

[Tymoshenko] At the moment the political situation in Ukraine has become so acute that it is hard for me to find free time for such a long trip. Yet I have nothing to conceal.

[Leshchenko] But your testimony would help to find out the truth.

[Tymoshenko] I gave all my testimony in Ukraine when American lawyers were here.

[Leshchenko] Do you think the US will acquit Lazarenko or not?

[Tymoshenko] When I saw a rating of the most corrupt people in the world where Lazarenko was ranked eighth, I was about to laugh. The money and sums that are currently circulating in the shadow sector are absolutely different from those in the times of Lazarenko. If this rating were based on real calculations, then the representatives of Ukraine's current authorities would rank first, leaving "poor" Suharto and [Ferdinand] Marcos far behind.

If he had something to be tried for, he would not be held in jail without trial and verdict for six years. I think Lazarenko will be acquitted... [ellipsis as published]