Leonid KRAVCHUK: We Must Make no Enemies and Be European-minded

The Day held a roundtable last week, hosting Ukraine’s first post-Soviet President Leonid Kravchuk. Below are what the English digest believes are the most interesting excerpts from the discussion, concerning the Orange Revolution, Ukraine’s foreign political prospects, and the new opposition.

Mr. Kravchuk, the Orange Revolution made it clear that many people on the Maidan were opposed to the existing regime led by Yanukovych, his team, and everything associated with Donetsk as a city where specific solutions were offered to certain disputable problems, rather than as Viktor Yushchenko’s devotees; those people were opposed to the rigged runoff turnout; those people wanted to defend their civil rights the way they understood them. Of course, certain campaign technologies were involved, but they didn’t seem the decisive factor. Instead, there was an overwhelming mass demand for such public response. What do you think?

Kravchuk: Campaigning for Yanukovych, I’d ruled out the possibility of the runoff taking the course it did. By the way, I wasn’t involved in or with any campaign headquarters. I acted on my own. I took no interest in any campaign arrangements, in terms of organization or politics. Indeed, when the people realized they were being gypped , that their lawful rights were being violated, especially the most important right to vote, they launched actions of protest. However, that protest was rooted in the extremely negative public view on the powers that be. And the existing regime had done everything possible to deserve it. Those wielding power in Ukraine were a far cry from the universally accepted civilized standards of freedom and rule of law. They said that GDP was up and that something had been added to pensions. True enough, but the cultural and political democratic aspects remained very low. No one spoke about pensions on the Maidan, everybody spoke about freedom; this made people emotional after suffering from constant moral and political pressure for so long. I also noted how our journalists had changed; they had seen the light - if only they could have done so half a year earlier...

In an interview with The Day, a year ago, you said that you would regard Ukraine’s isolation from the West, being thus pushed into Russia’s embrace, as a personal tragedy, considering that you stood by the cradle [of Ukraine’s national independence]...

Kravchuk: My standpoint hasn’t changed. I believe that the first steps in that direction have made Europe and the United States see us in a new light. The door to Europe is open, so we must step inside in due course. Another problem is approaching the door. Here very important efforts must be made. I’m glad to realize that Ukraine is being viewed in a different light; this could be another gain of the Orange Revolution. I’m still convinced that Ukraine should get organized and fold [truly democratic] elections relying on its own resources. My experience (and I hope that you will agree with me, relying on your experience) shows that whatever problems Russia is struggling with, however awkwardly it behaves in the international arena, must not prevent Ukraine from turning to Russia for help with Ukraine’s problems.

At present, much depends on the new administration’s professional level, otherwise yet another Ukrainian project will once again be discredited. You have watched these politicians long enough to form an opinion. What do you think of this coalition?

Kravchuk: I think that this coalition is short-lived, simply because it doesn’t have a single political-cultural platform; it has different political, cultural, and economic principles. Kievskiye Vedomosti reported recently that new voices had been identified on Melnychenko’s tapes. It’s the first sign that there will be new problems. Oleksandr Moroz, after pondering the matter at length and depth, ended up saying he wanted to have the tapes’ exclusive right, so he could use them as he saw fit and retain his role as a man standing by the cradle of the revolution, one who had helped declare that revolution, given an impetus to it, and who could now continue the revolutionary process. That’s what I could tell from what I’d read. If so, any joint efforts are hardly the matter.

I’ve mentioned the problem of organizing political power. Viktor Yushchenko’s pattern, with three influential centers, appears fraught with danger, placing the government in an extremely difficult position, when the cabinet may once again become the scapegoat. Yuliya Tymoshenko will never put up with it, so there may again appear personal and political problems.

You mean like building a personal political image?

Kravchuk: This, too. For her the most important think is to make everyone aware that her cabinet is working, that it’s making important decisions. It’s a matter of principle importance for her, lest the situation develops when the government must carry out decisions made elsewhere...

Decisions made, for example, by the National Defense and Security Council?

Kravchuk: Right.

The president wasn’t the one to form the power block [e.g., law enforcement, security, and defense structures]. How would you explain this phenomenon?

Kravchuk: That was contrary to the constitution. Viktor Yushchenko is a democrat by nature. He believes that, by delegating authority to others, he is following a good cause. He will try to convince others, return favors in good faith, and defend others’ interests. But he won’t have enough strength to accomplish all this... I mean in purely human terms. In politics, especially in the upper echelons, you must not delegate any powers to anyone, not for a second, because they will quickly get used to it and will than act on your behalf, but the responsibility remains yours, all of it! I think that’s the main reason, not because he doesn’t want it — he trusts his team too much, and I think that trusting anyone in politics must have certain limits.

Regrettably, our bureaucrats and certain politicians regard such opinions as attempts to throw wrenches into the works rather than good wishes. I’ve made it clear from the beginning that I’d never interfere with anyone’s efforts as long as they were aimed at benefiting Ukraine. I’ve mentioned Ukrainian national interests and I want to stress that I’ll never act contrary to them, regardless of my party or any other affiliations; [I shall always oppose those acting contrary to] what we declared back in 1991. I spoke with Viktor Yushchenko, wishing him happy birthday and said I’d have an interview with The Day, and that I wholeheartedly supported Ukraine’s European integration course. We have no alternative. We must make no enemies, but we must keep European-minded. If we start shifting again, Ukraine will suffer; this will be an historical disaster. We have been offered a great many lessons in history, so we must learn from them as much as possible. Another thing is whether we should keep running gasping for breath, feeling totally physically exhausted? It’s when you must stop running and start walking, regaining your breath, but never standing still. If you keep running out of breath you’ll eventually stumble and fall, you’re bound to injure yourself, and those watching your futile performance in Europe will smile condescendingly... We must get well pr epared, so we can show a good performance. We must make legislative and democratic arrangements. We must make sure that we have enough strength, that all those others want to make us welcome and help us; that we can positively respond to such help and show progress in return — in that case we must not pass up the opportunity. However, changing the [national] strategy means changing Ukraine — or playing traitor to Ukraine if we change the strategy [to the detriment] of our [national] development.

How does the opposition explain its support of Yulia Tymoshenko’s cabinet?

Kravchuk: Very simply. First, we weren’t sure about opposition when the new government was being formed. Our party convention is still to decide to opposition. That was when the foundations of our relationships were being laid. We could sense certain games being played in parliament. You must be aware that Our Ukraine also experienced certain problems when voting on Yulia Tymoshenko’s premiership. So we got together and had a discussion. The subject could be formulated as “What’s most important now for the United Social Democrats: Staging another premier saga at the Verkhovna Rada or approving the new premier as soon as possible, so the new government could be all set and ready to perform? Whether we lash out at them or help them while discarding certain aspects we find unacceptable, and reserving the right to criticize their program and actions.”