INTERVIEW: Viktor Yushchenko on the crisis in Ukraine
by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau
KYIV - Viktor Yushchenko is the leader of the Our Ukraine political bloc and the eponymous parliamentary faction in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada. The bloc took the largest number of seats, with nearly 25 percent electoral support in the March 31 elections. However, Our Ukraine subsequently was excluded from the parliamentary leadership in a political power play in which pro-presidential forces allegedly used strong-arm tactics and blackmail to convince a large number of non-aligned lawmakers to join their side.
Denied the leadership position Mr. Yushchenko thought was due his bloc, he made a series of demands upon President Leonid Kuchma, whose presidential team he accused of masterminding the ploy, and announced that he would call a democratic forum in which like-minded forces would develop an action plan for the true democratization of society. Mr. Yushchenko has maintained that Ukraine is in the most significant political crisis since it became independent in 1991.
Prior to the forum, Mr. Yushchenko also announced that his political group would support and participate in nationwide anti-Kuchma demonstrations that had been scheduled for September, which it consequently did. However, until recently Mr. Yushchenko continued to maintain a dialogue with Mr. Kuchma and the government in the hope that he could help develop a democratic parliamentary majority to eventually form a government. Those talks recently broke off.
Mr. Yushchenko has been particularly critical of President Kuchma's new chief of staff, Viktor Medvedchuk, the former head of the Social Democratic Party-United, who has his own presidential aspirations and whom many consider a ruthless and effective political player. Many believe it was Mr. Medvedchuk who organized the ouster of the Yushchenko government in 2001.
The following is an edited interview with Mr. Yushchenko conducted on October 2 in the Our Ukraine offices.
Q: With the breakdown of negotiations with pro-presidential forces over a parliamentary majority, can you now say that you have fully gone over to the opposition, or are you continuing to maintain a dialogue with the authorities and with the president?
A: As you know, political power here is divided into two categories, those that are in power and those that are against the authorities, or the opposition.
Has Ukraine gone into opposition? It has, absolutely, and has expressed such a stance for the last six months, since [parliamentary elections]. The current attitude is that democratic processes must take hold in Ukraine.
So then what is currently getting in the way? Today the attitude of those in power stands in the way. In my opinion the authorities do not adequately understand that only through a dialogue can a way be found to democratically escape this Ukrainian crisis, the deepest in the last 11 years.
Currently these problems are not being discussed. All types of conflicts end with peace negotiations, even wars. We believe in a process of negotiations, it is the shortest and most rational way out of the Ukrainian crisis.
Another question, can and do the authorities currently accept negotiations as alternative, adequately, sincerely and fully? Absolutely not. This is why radical steps are required. As we demonstrate our willingness to submit to a dialogue, we also understand that the radical steps we are undertaking is another way to develop motivation for [dialogue].
So the two are found in a single context, they are not mutually exclusive.
Q: There are those who believe - and I have heard this on the streets myself, although I haven't seen it in political surveys - that your attempts to both maintain a dialogue with those in power as well as keep ties to the opposition movement without taking a strong stance either way will lead to an image of you as an indecisive fence-sitter. Does it concern you at all that such an image could lead to loss of support among the populace, which you currently enjoy?
A: No it doesn't trouble me. It doesn't trouble me for one reason: we cannot concern ourselves with surveys or emotions at the moment; we need to be smart.
We need to put our hands to our hearts and answer the question: What needs to be done so that Ukraine does not tumble towards dictatorship, but turns to democracy? If you have the answer, then go down that road and do not let the behavior of some political activist or political power sway you.
I understand that for some of the powers that be coloring the world in black and white is their expertise, more so because most of them, do not see any other shades. This is a very simplistic approach to politics, to give a person a simple choice of either this or that, because it rarely occurs that way in real life. When we talk of the current political situation in even the most optimistic tones - let's say to turn Ukraine into a true democracy in a matter of weeks - I would express real concern about whether such a possibility exists.
I do not know how much more I can say on the record. However, I can tell you that if the consensus is that there is no hope for democratic negotiations in Ukraine, then I have little hope that there is a way for Ukraine to become democratic.
While not wanting to hold a single individual responsible, please understand that a system has been developed in Ukraine down to the village level, a system of intimidation. If this system is given merely five to eight months between [parliamentary elections and upcoming presidential] elections for unfettered development, there will be no possibility for democratic elections in the country.
I really do not know how else to make this clearer, while staying on the record. I can only say do not be afraid of complicated but honest answers. We must be open and sincere.
I know why the people are ready to go to the streets. The Parliament must provide answers. The authorities need to start being more forthcoming, but they remain deaf, dumb and blind. They do not hear the questions.
Q: So what do you propose then?
A: I propose two ways that change can occur. There are sufficient democratic forces in the Ukrainian Parliament to form a democratic majority. But the Ukrainian Parliament has effectively always been a branch of the presidential administration. This is why there never has been a democratic majority. This is why there never was real democratic change and an independent Parliament.
To correct this situation and to attempt to form a democratic majority without those currently in power, we have said let's propose to some political powers through a democratic forum to move towards a democratic majority. We should form the manner of entry and exit, the various guarantees within the majority, the rights and the responsibilities - in short, develop the coalition model.
This process was open and we proposed to the democratic forces how to consolidate their efforts around this document, that is, to those political forces that have been our partners, who have a philosophy closer to our own.
As for those who are further from our path, let them retain their old attitudes. The goal, however, is to enter into a new democratic orientation.
That's one alternative. The second option - if this process is not occurring and if the questions being asked by political powers are not being heard by the authorities - then it becomes a matter for the streets to pose the questions. This would take longer and cost us more; nonetheless it too would end with the formation of a parliamentary majority. It could be imperiling democratic processes, but it, too, is an alternative.
Today as we attempt to initiate democracy we have strong doubts that the authorities will accept the single mechanism we propose to get beyond the crisis. That is why we keep gunpowder in one hand while continuing efforts at dialogue.
Q: What would need to happen for Our Ukraine to stop being in opposition and to declare that it has achieved its goals?
A: The formation of a democratic majority in the Parliament and the formation of a government of national trust would do it. The final phase would occur with the signing of a political accord between a democratic parliamentary majority, a new government and the president on political, economic and social reform in Ukraine.
Q: What is your stance on an effort to impeach the president?
A: When we speak about the impeachment of the president, we all know that I regularly vote for the removal of the president. It is easy for me to answer this question.
The position of our political faction is that in Ukraine the procedure for removal of the president has yet to be developed legislatively. It would be politically honest to propose in the Parliament a procedure for the removal of the president, whether it be within the current law on the president or through separate impeachment legislation. This type of procedure would be fair, open and honest.
Q: Turning to the matter of the Kolchuha air defense systems that Ukraine allegedly sold Iraq, could these allegations simply be a scenario, an exclusively political situation that has been developed by the U.S. to further destabilize President Kuchma and the government?
A: I cannot exclude this because there are foreign powers that would like to take advantage of such developments to destabilize the situation in Ukraine. I do not believe that additional comments are necessary. In every similar situation there is always a party keenly interested.
But, from another viewpoint, a huge political responsibility ensues as a result of such a scandal. The legal aspect is much more straightforward because here facts need to be ascertained, facts to prove the allegations, which requires investigations.
Since the recordings have been proven to be authentic, there is room to believe that it could have happened. Without a doubt, the matter of proving the facts is far from done. There needs to be more investigation and analysis in Ukraine. Only afterwards will responsibility be able to be ascertained.
I am more concerned, however, with the moral and political aspect of this matter. Simply the fact that [the sale of Kolchuha air defense systems] was even considered carries much responsibility. This, after all, could have affected relations between partners. There was a strategic relationship. Morally, this is very complicated.
Q: Do you and Our Ukraine have contacts with the U.S. government or with the U.S. Embassy and Ambassador Carlos Pascual?
A: We maintain a working relationship through meetings, joint participation in roundtables, during events to which we invite all the diplomats, whether from the European Union, the United States, Canada or Eastern Europe, Japan and a host of other countries. We try to maintain an open political attitude. We are interested in having U.S. diplomats and other diplomats know the political positions of Our Ukraine on a variety of subjects. These are beneficial and responsible relations. Both sides benefit. They are trusted relations. We value the cooperation of the U.S. Embassy, our work with Ambassador Carlos Pascual, as well as our relations with all the diplomatic missions in Ukraine.
Q: Did the U.S. Embassy contact you or consult with you before the announcement in Washington of possible illegal Ukrainian arms sales to Iraq?
A: No, on a working level there were no contacts.
Q: Does that mean you were surprised by the announcement?
A: Yes. These types of operations (arms sales) take place in a very specific regime, a special regime. The announcement was quite unexpected.
Q: In your opinion, what is the role the Ukrainian diaspora should play in the transformative processes still under way in Ukraine? Should it be a passive role or an active role?
A: What Ukraine needs most today is a democratic process that cannot be turned back. We wouldn't have the problems we do if we had a transparent leadership structure, an open economy, a politically responsible system that formulated and secured domestic and foreign policy. The key, therefore, is to change the political system. The system must become democratic.
How can the [diaspora] contribute? They must understand that Ukraine has large domestic and foreign policy problems at the moment. They should not forget that Ukraine is not just its president. They should not forget that there is a healthy democratic element in Ukraine that cares about Ukraine and knows how to change the situation.
Today what is needed is for the democratic forces in the Ukrainian Parliament to form the first truly democratic, transparent parliamentary majority in 11 years. The political life of the Parliament is key. The Parliament must become the active center of political life in Ukraine, which forms the government. Then the government and the parliamentary majority form a healthy domestic and foreign policy, and proceed with economic and social reforms.
We need formal relations with the diaspora. As prime minister I proposed a structure that included various circles of the diaspora for the preparation of a formal agreement that would include a schedule for the development of relations; to develop the tasks and goals of our mutual interest, the government on one side and diaspora representatives on the other.
I would only add that both sides need each other. The diaspora needs our attention and support so that its attributes and its community life do not lose their Ukrainian roots, their Ukrainian legacy and history, and the Ukrainian language. Broad contacts are required, which Ukraine needs to maintain.
From the other side, Ukraine needs for its brothers and sisters abroad not to forget about it during those times when help is needed, to give the basic support required.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, October 6, 2002, No. 40, Vol. LXX
| Home Page |