In the Ukrainian elite there are too many personal global ambitions and too little collective ones
“Could you comment on the clashes near the Shevchenko monument and the Presidential Administration? What mistakes did the authorities and the opposition commit?”
“The Administration’s mistake is that media coverage is not always correct. The opposition’s actions, on the other hand, can be treated as in a way heroic: they did it in all good conscience. It should also be taken into account that this opposition can pursue certain political goals. During the 1990 hunger strike, students put forward their extremely difficult demands but still capable of being fulfilled.”
“You are an advisor to the prime minister of Ukraine. Do you think he should have voiced a more definite opinion about clashes between the demonstrators and the police?”
“I think Viktor Yushchenko has been quite consistent and well-balanced in calling for an open dialogue. One should not blame just one side. The premier does not think the situation in Ukraine can be improved by violent methods. But he points the finger not only at the protesters. The government and other authorities must choose dialogue and answer the questions in everybody’s interest. In my opinion, his statement seems to be blazing a trail toward such a dialogue.”
“You said that what the opposition did on March 9 can be treated as a manifestation of conscience. But is it good to manifest conscience through bloodshed?”
“You know, sometimes blood must be shed. I do not justify anybody, I just look at this as a general question. One of our and our state’s troubles is that we received our independence too easily. I think we would treat our state differently if we had shed some blood. On the other hand, we have given away quite a lot of blood, although it was at times a somewhat involuntary operation: we had our blood taken. But, in the context of today’s events, it would be better not to shed blood.
“One of my main goals is to get closer to Europe, the European Union in particular. I feel very sad, looking at what is now going on in Ukraine. The beginning of last year was quite a revelation for me. A parliamentary majority was formed, even if under duress from the referendum. Mr. Yushchenko became prime minister. The Communist candidate lost the 1999 presidential elections. We had had three positive points before the cassette scandal did us so much harm. I feel this at every step when I go abroad. It’s terrible.”
“Would you comment on versions about the foreign roots of this scandal?”
“I don’t want to avoid answering a direct question, but I just don’t know. Was the scenario hired from abroad? I’m not sure. Could this have happened with certain help from abroad? I also have some doubts here. On the one hand, the West has been disappointed in Ukraine’s governmental capabilities, but, on the other, it still needs Ukraine. Ukraine’s admission to the East Slavic Union would be the worst alternative for the West. At the same time, it is difficult to believe that one Security Service officer could arrange all this, bug the office, etc.”
“Who could stand to gain?”
“First of all, Russia. In a way the cassette scandal pushes Ukraine back toward Russia. However, this kind of reunification would be undesirable above all for Moscow. It is impossible to make Russia a superpower due to lack of social energy. Yes, the annexation of Ukraine by Russia is in the interests of the Russian political elite but not of the Russian people. It is not worth flexing military muscle and trying to restore the empire because this would mean wasted effort. Russia should concentrate on achieving economic victories, which will later bring political might.”
“Mr. Havrylyshyn, you on very friendly terms with George Soros. You will perhaps find it easier to judge what guided him when he wrote an article in The Financial Times on the political crisis in Ukraine?”
“One of the reasons is his abrupt temperament. His attitude toward Leonid Kuchma was very good from 1994 to 1996, but then this attitude changed radically. Mr. Soros thought Mr. Kuchma had taken a wrong path and was procrastinating with reforms. However, in my opinion Mr. Soros’s was unwise to publish an article in the British newspaper because this only created an effect diametrically opposed to what he expected. His advice for Mr. Kuchma to stand down and clear the way to Mr. Yushchenko is absolutely of no consequence.”
“Your appraisal of the Ukrainian opposition?”
“We don’t have opposition as a real alternative to the current leadership. We have a lot of individuals in opposition but no opposition with a clear program. Many of our parties make statements about the changes they want in this country but they possess very few instruments to achieve this. Statements alone are not enough. What is also needed are methods.”
“The cassette scandal has greatly weakened the Ukrainian leadership irrespective of persons. Do you see any geopolitical threats in this connection?”
“We live at a sufficiently fast rate of globalization in a unipolar world. The United States has a political, economic, and military might which it uses rather brutally. But this kind of situation can last only for about ten years, no more, because now there is quite a strong opposition in the world. America will end up unable to preserve such a strong position. In all probability, there will come a tripolar world with the European Union and Asian countries having a great potential to be part of it. Russia is the wrong caliber, a wrong force. First of all, this is because that country does not have a clear idea of building a modern state. How will Russia be able to influence worldwide processes? Its nuclear force is obsolescent, and its military strength is waning. Russia is too dependent on oil and gas, its liquid resources.
“Thus the cassette scandal will have no strong geopolitical effect. It might defer Ukraine’s admission to the European Union, push us a little into the arms of Russia, and perhaps strengthen Russia (more psychologically than economically).”
“It is obvious from what you say that Ukraine’s simultaneous pro-American and pro-Russian policies have no future.”
“First, a pro-American policy can be justified by the fact that Washington supported and might further support Ukraine’s EU candidacy, for this would above all weaken Russia and simultaneously give Moscow a chance to be more powerful. Secondly, it would cost the US nothing. What is the EU key instrument is its structure. Should Ukraine acquire the status of a European Union candidate, we could receive many billions from it, although this would pose a pressing problem on the EU. So the US finds it even easier than European countries do to pursue a pro-Ukrainian policy. For this reason I would not say we should end strategic cooperation with the US.
“Now about a pro-Russian policy. I don’t think it can bring any political or economic benefits. Russia will not supply us with gas or oil out of love. Ukraine will never learn from Russia how to develop its economic links and integrate in the world market, which requires certain quality and expertise. But the latter can only come with heavy foreign investment, not through commercial joint ventures promoting capital flight from Ukraine but through elite businesses which would produce, export, and bring expertise. We will never learn this from Russia. The Russians have taken control of our Mykolayiv Alumina Plant. But will the latter receive state-of-the-art technologies and the most advanced management skills?”
“But Russian capital is quite active in Ukraine, maintaining leading positions in privatization...”
“I know. A year ago I happened to deal with a Russian who said, ‘We don’t need to conquer you militarily. We’ll do this economically by taking possession of key enterprises and will thus be able to influence the policy of Ukraine’. ”
“You must know the Ukrainian elite very well. Do you think our national elite is responding to the challenges of globalization?”
“Unfortunately not. They lack any understanding of the processes of globalization. They do not quite understand that this is an irreversible process. They do not quite know the practice of other countries. We have been studying the American experience too long, without taking into account the Scandinavian or even German ones. It is the Scandinavian countries that show the possibility of combining political freedom, economic effectiveness, and social justice. This not a utopia. This is a reality you might not learn even in America. The Ukrainian state- builders have too many individual global ambitions but too few collective ones. They lack knowledge of the worldwide context in which one must work. There’s too much fragmentation. I once decided to analyze the programs of all the Ukrainian parties. The range is really vast, but, if you exclude the extreme Right and extreme Left, the absolute majority of parties are based on almost the same ideology. This is why we don’t have a political elite. A true political elite means people who assume more obligations than power.”
“You always emphasize that Ukraine has no other choice but the European Union. But are you sure the EU also has no other choice but to admit Ukraine?”
“Ukraine is not active either politically or economically. The EU does not look on Ukraine as a truly European state, except perhaps when they visit Lviv. Yet, is there a certain geopolitical reasoning on how to draw borders and how to diminish the Russian threat? The EU keeps the door closed but not locked to Ukraine. We would do well to speed up developments. Nobody is waiting for us; we seem to be undesirable, but I think we in fact can and must achieve this goal. In the final analysis, this would benefit both Russia and Europe.”
