• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Oleksandr MOROZ:One step forward, two steps back 

10 April, 1999 - 00:00

  Oleksandr MOROZ

Former Speaker of Verkhovna Rada, now Chair of the Committee on agrarian
policy and land relations Oleksandr Moroz visited Luhansk last week and
answered questions from The Day's correspondent Alla ANTYPOVA.

The Day: Oleksandr Oleksandrovych, your faction voted both
for ratification of the treaty on Black Sea Fleet and for joining the Interparliamentary
Assembly. Don't you think that it limits Ukraine's sovereignty and in case
of armed conflict between Russia and NATO we could become involved?

O. Moroz.: It seems to me that Ukraine's sovereignty could hardly
be limited more than it is today - in both the political and economic spheres.
What is there to be afraid of here? If only by the means of these treaties
and ratification; we got an instrument for defending Ukraine's interests.
The Interparliamentary Assembly offers such an opportunity, and that is
why our faction voted for joining it. And in determining relations that
arise with division of the Black Sea Fleet the forms, methods, and the
scope of defending these interests are clarified. On the other hand, I
may not agree with everything in these treaties from a legal standpoint
or ratification procedures, for they are not completely in accord with
the Constitution. Perhaps in this case political decisions were more important
than legal ones, though the Parliament cannot use it as an excuse. However,
the decision has been made.

As for possible conflict and its consequences for Ukraine, I will not
discuss such a topic. Ukraine cannot escape the conflict, no matter whether
the treaty on Black Sea Fleet is ratified or not, but we can avoid it by
creating a mechanism of state security.

The Day: What is your opinion on the possible consequences
of Parliament's decision on revision of Ukraine's nuclear-free status?
Doesn't it seem to you that your faction's vote pushed it beyond the bounds
of civilized politics?

O. Moroz: First, there is no such decision. Second, the discussion
of the problem was strongly influenced by the bombing of Serbia. This may
explain the action of faction members, though I would not rule out something
else: demonstrating unity with other political groups and factions supporting
the idea and nothing more. In my opinion, the renewal of nuclear weapons
in Ukraine is impossible. To liken the subject to a threat is a mistake.
The problems of national security need to be solved another way, and in
this case nuclear weapons will not help. In general, we need not have made
the mistakes we did earlier, starting in 1990. But what is the use of going
into history now? We must try to avoid mistakes now, and one such mistake
would be the restoration of Ukraine's nuclear status and breaking relations
with the NATO countries. It would be inexcusable, for no one considers
Ukraine in that context. We don't need to amuse others. And then before
reconsidering Ukraine's nuclear-free status one ought to think whether
Ukraine is able today to create its own nuclear production cycle to provide
its nuclear power stations with the necessary fuel. All this is not so
simple.

The Day: There has been active discussion recently about the
Peasant Party of Ukraine and Agrarian Party of Ukraine merging. What do
you think of this, and what are its consequences for the Left Center faction?

O. Moroz: Let's wait and see what happens. There have been quite
a few changes and unusual political migrations by the Peasants. The fragmentation
of the Peasant Party began with the creation of the Agrarian Party, which
was designed as a counterweight to the Peasant-Socialist bloc, and afterward
we started negotiations between our two parties. It turned out later that
the Agrarian was being created under a person that went no further. And
it turned out that those in power neglected agrarians' interests for the
sake of the NDP, Social Democrats, and others. Big money was involved.
I would prefer that the Peasant Party is not used as small change in political
games. The events of today are also connected with some political alignment
of forces at the given time. I think, the Peasants and Agrarians will cooperate
with us. It is unavoidable.

The Day: What is your attitude to the conflict in Rukh and
the Ministry of Justice verdict?

O. Moroz: I cannot comment on the Ministry of Justice decision.
I do not have the necessary documents at my disposal, so I can add nothing.
As for Rukh, I think it should remain a single political organization,
and there are enough strong politicians who will handle the problem properly.

The Day: Why did not you join Communist Party for the second
time, when it was possible?

O. Moroz: A difficult question for me. I have to think before
answering. Frankly, I had no doubt that I had to preserve the Socialist
Party of Ukraine. If I had not, we would have vacated this political niche
for those who would use the socialist image for the sake of their own mercenary
interests. Meanwhile, the Communist Party using its old methods has been
developing other public relationships and on other state system that now
cannot be restored. If we talk of democracy in public life and the multiparty
system, they should be real. And I could not simply return to some principles,
partly stereotype, partly orthodox. So far it has not been a big contradiction
or spiritual ordeal for me. I did it deliberately. Moreover, I fought to
reform the Communist Party while still a member. And I did it not by destroying
the party but by trying to change the principles of its organization. I
even offered Gorbachev my methods, tried to publish them and implement
in practice as the secretary of a large party committee. And, after all,
we should bear in minds that time has also changed me.

 

Rubric: