Leonid KRAVCHUK: If, back in 1990-91, I had decided that the people weren’t ready, we wouldn’t have independence to this day

Twenty years back the historic referendum of December 1 registered more than 90 percent votes for national independence and for Leonid Kravchuk as the first president of independent Ukraine. Below is a telephone interview with Mr. Kravchuk.

This year marks quite a few anniversaries, including Ukraine’s Independence Day, 20 years since the GKChP attempted coup d’etat in Moscow, also 20 years since that fateful referendum in Ukraine. You have repeatedly said that the referendum idea was conceived under very difficult circumstances. Perhaps the 90.32 ballots cast for Ukrainian national independence signified historical memory, including the Holodomor, Stalin’s purges, and Chornobyl. Over the past 20 years this 1991 potential has sustained heavy losses, primarily because of politicians and their bad mistakes. We are now witness of efforts being made to rock the boat of national identity, with Ukraine being persistently invited to join the Eurasian Union. How can Ukraine protect itself under the circumstances?

“There is an important aspect concerning the 1991 referendum; it allows to build bridges spanning past and current realities. I’m often asked about that referendum, about that singular public response, about 90.32 percent of the ballots cast [for national independence]; about what was there to cause this turnout, considering that there were 3.5 million members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Ukraine; that there were military bases and administrative regions (oblasts), such as Sevastopol, and the Crimea that rejected the national independence idea. As it was, not a single region/oblast showed less than 50 percent support of the Declaration of National Independence. This is significant statistic; it reflects the Holodomor, repressions, the belittling of the Ukrainian language, national culture, and Church. Then why did the party-affiliated bureaucrats vote the way they did? They did because they had remained practically powerless under the Soviets, having to obey Moscow’s instructions, when a construction project [in Ukraine] worth over three million [rubles] had to be okayed by Moscow; when any major decisions had to be approved by Moscow. Many bureaucrats said at the time that all they were entitled to do was building a doghouse. It was then patriotism, the suffering man in the street, and political ambitions ‘upstairs’ combined to produce an independent Ukraine, although they [i.e., the bureaucrats. — Ed.] didn’t mean the kind of independence Ukraine has today. All they wanted was to have the final say in their domain. Now this makes one wonder about who will start ordering Ukraine around after this country joins another alliance. All those power-seeking bureaucrats constitute the foundations of the current regime, but they are human, they want to live and be able to make their own decisions, without receiving directives from anywhere [outside Ukraine]. Therefore, our political leadership, all of our political parties should know that any political alliance or business corporation membership opportunities (and I mean that such corporate opportunities may take years to materialize) offered Ukraine will infringe on this country’s inherent domestic decision-making process. Denikin said that Russia — White or Red — would never part with Ukraine. I watched Vladimir Posner’s recent talk show. He said that any agreement with Russia would mean Russia giving rather than receiving orders.”

Are those “upstairs” aware of all these complexities?

“They aren’t. What makes the situation worse is that the current political leadership (I mean some of the ranking politicians, not all of them, of course) believes that joining this alliance will make Ukraine an equal member. Let me tell you for the umpteenth time: Ukraine will never be treated like that. I remember taking part in the debates on the Eurasian Economic Community as a member of the Ukrainian Parliament. Also when the Verkhovna Rada deliberated this alliance, and when it was clear that Russia would have 70 percent interest, leaving the remaining 30 percent to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, period. I’m not going to comment on this membership, but I think that any pertinent data should be made public knowledge, that the Ukrainian public should know every clause, because there will be complaints, trust my word, but then it will be too late.”

There is a noticeable difference between the politicians who acted 20 years back and their counterparts today. Polls show that Ukrainians are mostly skeptical about those currently “upstairs” being capable of making the kind of crucial decisions, the way you did, I mean your political generation. Where do you think there is a way to start a new, upgraded, kind of politics?

“Over the years of [Ukraine’s] independence, the so-called patriots have been fighting the so-called unpatriots. So-called because there have been no such people, just those who wanted to make a fortune quick, no questions asked. This resulted in the appearance of a political leadership, with ranking officials lacking high school skills, let alone university training in national history, political culture, and philosophy. Among them are people who know next to nothing about Ukrainian history except their ‘home turf.’

“I carried out a poll asking what important anniversaries Ukraine would mark in 2012. None of the respondents mentioned the fact that Kyivan Rus’ was founded 1,160 years ago, or that Prince Oleh made the first diplomatic agreement with the Byzantine Empire 1,100 years back. How about following in Russia’s footstep, considering its festivities marking the capital’s 800th anniversary, marking Ukraine’s 1,160th jubilee. The Ukrainian state wasn’t made 20 years ago, although many are trying to convince us that it was, 20 years back. It is true that Ukraine has remained independent over the past 20 years, yet our [national] history dates back hundreds of years, more than any given Eastern European country. I recently visited Sweden: they have no such statistics. In other words, Ukraine has its history rooted in the mist of centuries, yet many in this country are unaware of the fact or unwilling to learn or publicly acknowledge the truth because this truth, made public knowledge, would serve to enhance Ukraine’s position, demonstrating its national history as one boasting hundreds of years, marked by dramatic events. In the end, people were found to fill in the top-level executive posts, but these people can’t comprehend or analyze the current situation. They are unaware of the social environs; they can’t carry out the tasks assigned them. President Yanukovych has embarked on reforms. This takes a strong political will, but his entourage is unaware of this; all they want is a set of reforms that will help them build their own fortunes; forget about the people’s needs, about making Ukraine a prospering democracy. All they want is their own well-being.

“I belong to a Bolshevik generation. The Bolsheviks who were in power at the time were mostly well-educated and cultured individuals, even though many were Russia-minded and party-affiliated. There was Marxist culture. Those people were graduates of the Marxist school, having learned its lessons the hard way. After all, it’s best to make a deal with a learned individual than an ignoramus, although negotiating this deal may take longer and prove harder. What do we have now? The tragic events in Donetsk. Picketers attacking the Verkhovna Rada building, with occasional outbursts in front of the Cabinet building. In other words, the domestic political situation is seriously complicated. It can be solved by making serous uncompromising decisions. Such decisions have to be made.”

In view of all this how do you feel about the new elections law?

“This law isn’t as democratic as it should have been. It isn’t acceptable to the Ukrainian electorate. Personally I don’t understand the clause about secret party nominee lists. I would prefer open lists, without the majority districts. This is my personal opinion. This law can be challenged, condemned, along with the calls for ignoring the coming election. The process is underway, so the best we can do is to find ways to prevent the election from being rigged. I don’t like this election law, but I must admit that no other bill would have been passed by parliament under the circumstances.

“You have to face the reality of the situation. I don’t understand Hrytsenko’s stand – I mean his repeated statements about this law being wrong. Its shortcomings are common knowledge. So what? Oppose it rather than join the opposition to produce a single presidential candidate, to beat the current one? This would surely help the current one win the race, with the opposition saying afterward something like I have been consistent all the way, never accepting options. If, back in 1990-91, I had decided that the people weren’t ready, we wouldn’t have independence to this day. I made my decisions depending on the situation. There was the GKChP coup followed by the Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords. I was there and knew I stood a chance I couldn’t miss. Likewise, this election law offers a chance of making the most of it for the sake of democracy.”

President Yanukovych appears in a complicated situation. About a year ago Den carried an article entitled “Who Will Protect President Yanukovych?” This question seems to be topical these days. Do you think the current head of state is aware of the risks and challenges, and that there is more about this man than meets the eye?

“Yanukovych means what he says about Ukraine’s European choice. He knows that any other option would mean his status reduced to that of a governor general. He made a meaningful statement in an interview, saying you can’t expect friendship with Russia, considering that Ukraine has to pay for gas supplies more than Germany does. What was the Russian leadership’s responses? They said Ukraine was a dependent, an encumbrance. In other words, Russia was topping the list and would remain there, come what may. A typical imperial stand, philosophy and practice. He [i.e., Viktor Yanukovych. – Ed.] is well aware of this, so his stand under the circumstances corresponds to his mood. There is also the Party of Regions and there is no telling about its unanimous yes-sir attitude to the current head of state. Nor is there any proof that he can adequately influence all of his Parteigenossen. In fact, I would personally rule out the possibility. There is no telling that millions will support this president, each of his moves. The man is facing a choice. Another point is Europe, the Tymoshenko case, all the relevant events that are like heavy weights he’s lifting, weights that are pulling Ukraine back into [Russia’s] embrace. I can’t tell whether this man will meet this challenge… All I know is that this issue must be resolved. If Ukraine wants to become another European country, it has to act the European way, including the supremacy of law, the Criminal Code, let alone philosophy and culture. This is a complicated matter; considering that no one is willing to solve the problem by holding a joint VR-Cabinet session with the president, December 19 isn’t going to offer pleasant surprises. This may take time. Ukraine will remain a tasty morsel for another country – being promised most favorable terms and conditions – until it finds a firm footing within the European community of nations. The Polish president said Ukraine should bide its time. Now this is a dangerous formula. Back in 1991, had I believed that the Ukrainian people wasn’t prepared for national independence – and it wasn’t actually prepared at the time – Ukraine would still be waiting to become an independent nation-state. You have to make a decision whenever you have a chance to do so. Problems can be solved if and when you work on them really hard. Ukraine’s EU membership (even as an associate member) would start business competition focusing on solutions to all such problems. Otherwise, Ukraine can count on pigs flying.”