INTERVIEW: Borys Tarasyuk on challenges facing Rukh and Ukraine (05/18/03)

INTERVIEW: Borys Tarasyuk on challenges facing Rukh and Ukraine

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

Borys Tarasyuk, foreign affairs minister in the government of ex-Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko and currently a lawmaker in the Verkhovna Rada, was elected chairman of the National Rukh of Ukraine Party during its 13th congress, which was held in Kyiv on May 3-4. He succeeded Hennadii Udovenko, who had chaired the NRU Party since 1999, after the death of Vyacheslav Chornovil, one of Rukh's central founders and most charismatic figures.

Mr. Tarasyuk has long been associated with the democratic-patriotic forces in the country. He has been a driving force for Ukraine's pro-European development and a prime proponent of its entry into NATO.

He gave the following, exclusive interview to The Weekly in the Verkhovna Rada Building on May 13.

Q: As the newly elected chairman of the National Rukh of Ukraine Party, what are your plans for the near term? What needs changing?

A: As the head of the National Rukh of Ukraine, my first responsibility is to ensure that decisions made at the Rukh congress are carried out. The congress made several decisions, of which the party's structures must now be informed so that they can be disseminated at all membership levels for organizational implementation.

Second, in a matter of days, there will be meetings of the leadership organ of Rukh: the Political Council and the Central Leadership. At these meetings I will put forward a set of proposals for approval to maximize the party's organizational potential.

I will propose to divide functional responsibility among all the members of the Political Council and Central Leadership, not only among the assistants as the statutes delineate. In this way I want each member of the Political Council and Central Leadership to carry responsibility for specific tasks, so that each one understands that membership in leadership organs is not simply a position of honor, but one that carries daily responsibilities. We will also implement reporting mechanisms so that members of the Central Leadership report on their spheres of responsibility during regular meetings.

We have much to do to release the full, existing organizational potential of our party in order to realize the party's program, as well as that of the political bloc Our Ukraine. Today, we have specific issues before us, such as expanding the party's membership. We have ample reason to believe we can expect serious growth in membership in the National Rukh of Ukraine. Just recently meetings took place of the organizations of another party in which they expressed a desire to join Rukh, specifically from the Lviv Oblast, as well as other oblasts.

Q: Can you name the party?

A: I do not know whether it has been made public, but it is Batkivschyna. The information should be released any time now, if it hasn't been already. It should have been printed in Lviv's newspapers today. [Editor's note: It was officially made public on May 13.]

Q: So this would be the Lviv Oblast party organization of the Batkivschyna Party?

A: Yes, a large part of this organization would like to leave Batkivschyna. They have expressed their dissatisfaction with the leadership line and would like to join National Rukh of Ukraine. You know, of course, that Bohdan Horyn (former national deputy from Lviv) has rejoined Rukh. We are in discussions with other leading figures that were prominent in the creation of Rukh.

We have critical questions before us today regarding the national political agenda that require mobilization of the party's potential in the ranks, as well as in the central organization, specifically on the issue of political reform as proposed by the president. The party needs to develop an operational response.

We would like to improve the informational resources of the party in the near term, between party members and society-at-large, as well as our internal communications between the central organization and the oblast and raion organizations.

I have personally heard that there are internal communication problems. When we gathered local leaders prior to the convention many of them complained to me that they do not receive decisions made by the Central Leadership. How can we work like that? Can we consider ourselves a party when decisions of the central leadership bodies do not reach the raion organizations?

We have concrete plans to strengthen our work within the population to raise the standing of the party among the people. I am not ready to give details, but we have a few ideas that will be discussed today at the Political Council meeting and soon after within the Central Leadership.

Q: Among these several new efforts, which one is most needed for the evolution and expansion of Rukh?

A: First, we need effective cooperation between the leadership organs and the local party organizations. The leadership organs must consolidate into a single team, and the same must happen at the local level. Only by creating a single team within the party can we reach our goals.

We must pay special attention to returning those prominent figures to Rukh that helped to create it, as well as to drawing our youth, people involved in small and medium-sized businesses and schoolteachers. We need to develop specific programs that would interest these people, and we are currently working on this.

Q: Could you say that Rukh is united today as rarely in the past? Even during the first days of Rukh there was disagreement and infighting. Is the situation improved over how it was in the past?

A: Rukh, unfortunately, has lived through difficult times in its history. It was pushed from the outside to division. There were internal participants in the split.

Today we can say that Rukh has survived and become a stronger entity. This does not mean that today within Rukh there are no differing ideas. There must be various viewpoints, and before the convention we tried to stimulate them to feel the pulse of the party.

As the convention showed, the party is one of like-minded individuals, with few exceptions. Only one presentation, only one person suggested that Rukh should not work closely with the Our Ukraine Bloc. The rest supported the resolutions of the convention in regard the development of a quality Rukh organization as well as the participation of Rukh in the Our Ukraine Bloc, with the central aim at this point being the election of our candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, as the president of Ukraine.

This convention was the first political power within Our Ukraine to urge Viktor Yushchenko to agree to become a candidate for the post of president.

Q: Does the possibility exist that Rukh could rename itself at some point and become the Our Ukraine Party or that it could evolve into a part of such a political party if it were formed in the future?

A: I support the idea that only the consolidation and union of democratic-patriotic powers into a single party will strengthen the democratic forces and lead to no small benefit.

Last year's elections showed the weakness that exists when separate parties retain power over the bloc. There were even instances where candidates from differing political parties within the bloc defeated one another in areas [politically] controlled by Our Ukraine. This was one of the central reasons why the bloc did not take more votes. Local "little hetmans" decided to do battle with their partners within the Our Ukraine coalition. This was the reason for our problems in the last elections, and we must do everything possible to avoid a repeat of these situations in the presidential elections.

The dedication and the unity of the members will to a large extent decide the final outcome. If we continue to proceed as we have in earlier elections, there will be serious misgivings about the end results of our efforts.

Within this context I believe the name is of secondary importance, even though I understand and fully respect the feelings of thousands of Rukh members regarding their name, which is doubtlessly legendary and deserves respect. Historically, Rukh will not lose its position. It is an integral part of our history, the history of the reborn Ukrainian state.

Q: Would you insist that the Rukh name be retained in a new party configuration, if it ever came to that?

A: I would have no choice but to insist on that. But the matter of unity is more important in relation to the name. If we want victory, we need to unite, that is most important, [although] we cannot forget our symbols, even in a coalition, they also count for something.

Q: With what specific organizations are negotiations taking place for unification of the democratic-patriotic forces? You've already mentioned that a part of the Batkivschyna Party has moved over.

A: Let me add something regarding the name. On the eve of elections in 2001, meetings and consultations took place among the leaders of the main parties of the Our Ukraine Bloc. During those meetings a discussion took place on a name for a unified party. Even in 2001 there was talk of a single party; this is not something that Tarasyuk has initiated. Leaders were discussing it in 2001. There were several proposals, and in most of them the name Rukh was included.

Given Rukh's accomplishments, society should thank it for organizing the people for the rebirth of our independence - in leading the fight against the Communist system - by retaining the name. This would be a righteous act by society and the other political powers, and not towards Rukh, the political party, but towards Rukh, the platform upon which national independence was attained.

There are other thoughts, that Rukh is not popular in the eastern regions, while we need to develop a nationwide party. But I think we can find a balance between our goal and our objectives, and this should be the fight to obtain power, and our symbols.

Q: Can you name the parties with which you are in negotiation regarding unification or reunification?

A: Don't forget that back yet when Vyacheslav Chornovil was in charge an agreement was made regarding unification with the Reform and Order Party. It was signed in 1998 with [ROP leader Viktor] Pynzenyk.

Later, after Vyacheslav Chornovil's death, an agreement was signed between Hennadii Udovenko of NRU, Pynzenyk of ROP and Slava Stetsko's CUN (Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists). Not long ago a similar agreement was signed with the Republican Christian Party (RCP) and ratified during the convention.

We maintain close contact with all the parties that are part of Viktor Yushchenko's Our Ukraine Bloc. I think, however, that there is every reason to believe we can find partners outside the bloc as well. These would be partners that reflect the principles and goals of Our Ukraine.

Q: But are these simply declarations, or are they concrete efforts?

A: The convention has only just ended, but already I have turned to all the democratic-patriotic forces to respond to our call for unification. This call will gather substance through concrete actions.

I am not telling you anything new, but am simply turning your attention to the consultations that have occurred between the two Rukhs, with NRU, ROP and CUN, with NRU and RCP, with NRU and the Democratic Party. These processes have existed, but now the question is how to continue them after the convention, to move them along without undue pomp and bring them to a pragmatic conclusion. There have been many discussions, documents have been signed, but there have been no concrete actions. I have been, still am and will continue to be a strong supporter of the need to unite all democratic-patriotic forces. Only in this way can we have a realistic chance to gain power. Not by working to fulfill the personal ambitions of little hetmans.

Q: And finally, what is the biggest problem facing Ukraine today?

A: The biggest problem before Ukraine is a ruling force that does not work in support of the nation. And this means that the biggest challenge is victory in the presidential elections and a change in the system of power to make it more accountable to the people. This would be in contrast to a system that deceives the nation.

This is our main assignment and we are fighting to achieve it. We are building a new Ukraine, the type of Ukraine of which many generations of Ukrainian fighters for independence and freedom dreamed. We are building a Ukraine in which each citizen would feel worthy to be a citizen of his country and would not dream of a better life abroad, one in which each citizen - wherever he was, either at home or abroad - could proudly state that he was a citizen of Ukraine.

We understand that this is a difficult assignment, but it is not a fantasy. The leadership of Viktor Yushchenko during a period of 12 months [as prime minister] fundamentally changed the situation for the better. An administration led by the democratic-patriotic forces with Viktor Yushchenko at the helm is capable of changing the situation in the whole country. This is not within the sphere of dreams - it was proven by our work while in the government.

| Home Page |