Oleksandr MOROZ:One step forward, two steps back 

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.