Privatization On Hold

Chairman of the State Property Fund Oleksandr Bondar believes that UAH 2 billion to be transferred to the budget as proceeds of the sales of state enterprises’ stocks next year is the best possible plan. He says that this time the plan was not dictated from above, as usual, but worked out jointly with the Ministry of Finance. Incidentally, the most expensive property to be put up for sale next year is Ukrrudprom [Ukrainian Ore Industry], valued at UAH 543 million, and UMC (443 million). No sales of Ukrtelekom and oblenerho regional electricity distribution companies are included in the plan, but these might well be socked away. Mr. Bondar intends to actively defend the 2 billion ceiling in the parliament and to prevent raising it any higher to an unrealistic value. Political consultations are underway in Verkhovna Rada, so The Day’s first question to the SPF chairman had to do with politics (Mr. Bondar agreed to an interview provided no questions would be asked about the latest privatization scandal involving the Southern Ore Mining and Processing Enterprise, but then he himself could not help touching on the subject, albeit upholding his image of an apolitical seller of property).

Do you have any contact with the Green Party or you aren’t interested in politics after losing the elections?

Actually, I wasn’t very fond of politics even during the elections. I didn’t take an active part in the campaign. I just went off on vacation as a public servant, that’s all. Of course, there are personal contacts, but none along party lines. I mean I have nothing to do with any party.

Could the seat of the SPF chairman be part of a bargain in today’s coalition debate?

I think that anything is possible, but I treat all this philosophically. If they think it necessary they’ll make a decision, and I’ll take it in stride. It’s something that will happen whether I like it or not – and on a scale considerably larger than, say, the SPF chairman’s jurisdiction – or even what will happen to that man next. However, I believe that everything will be fine.

Actually, how much political weight does the SPF chairman actually have? How often does this position become a subject of closed political consultations and speculations?

There is always a degree of political noise. Outwardly, my post looks interesting and there are always many who want it. These people seem to be kept in reserve. I know them and we have no problems communicating; we know each other and get along very well. From a purely political standpoint, the issue will be solved in a complex manner, so there is no use in trying to prevent anything. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be appropriate to try to speed it up. As for political weight, I think I’ve lost some pounds during the past couple of years. Honestly, I can hardly figure out why I’m still here and who needs this post. Most issues within my jurisdiction have long been solved outside the SPF, leaving me with frayed nerves and responsibility. The more so that the privatization process is actually on hold. We are in a transition phase; either we change something or everything will stay the same, with privatization grinding to a halt.

It’s been a long time since the SPF last reported in the parliament. Does the fact that the parliament has not insisted on a public discussion of the report indicate satisfaction with your performance or just that the people’s deputies have other things to keep them busy?

There are very many aspects, but I’ll explain the situation the way it is. I reported on 1999. Unlike many previous SPF chairmen, I passed muster and received 250 ayes, meaning that the SPF chairman’s stand was supported in principle. That was back in 2000. I never submitted the 2000 report because that parliament was nearing the end of office and the next election campaign was starting. We submitted the report and now everything depended on the lawmakers. We didn’t press, but nor did we try to draw it out. We have submitted the next 2001 report this year. Essentially, this report covers the two past years.

Some of the deputies would like to hear it, but no one is showing any particular interest or is trying to hurry it. Everything is in keeping with established procedures, except that I’m not sure the lawmakers will want to deal with the SPF and me under the circumstances. They have too many other problems. Well, I’m ready to report in principle. Previously, whenever someone had reason to find fault with any of my predecessors, the report issue would be raised immediately. I don’t remember how many times the issue was raised with Lanovy. Nothing like that has ever happened to me yet. Of course, it doesn’t mean that everybody is happy with the SPF or me. There is some criticism, but I’m prepared to listen and to answer all questions.

After the latest privatization scandal, in this case the Southern Ore Mining and Processing Enterprise, did you change your mind about preserving the so-called additional clauses of giving potential buyers access to tenders and industrial investor status? Isn’t its restrictions on privatization bidders the most frequent cause of lawsuits?

The trouble with such scandals is that the press and public see just the tip of the iceberg. The bulk is under water, visible only to experts and bidders. Those lashing out at the SPF deliberately skip the subject. We can’t discuss it, because there’ll be another lawsuit, and we’ll find ourselves accused of every possible sin. As a result, we discuss the notion of industrial investor, which has, so to speak, no direct bearing on such scandals.

Then what’s the real problem?

It’s just an excuse: some financial groups getting even with each other, with the SPF held hostage, exposed to all sorts of attacks. I’ve said more than once that all those structures fighting to get hold of Southern Ore would do best to sit down and talk things over. Why get the SPF involved? Why all that industrial investor and such? Too bad most our [salable] property is like that. There are only two options: (a) allowing everybody to bid, so whoever has most bills payable will announce the enterprise bankrupt on the date we publish the invitation to bidders and the tender will be canceled, or (b) impose limitations so the creditor can be negotiated with. The SPF has no other options. In both cases the tender will be called off or terminated by the court anyway.

What are those engineering such scandals actually after?

The thing is that our leading financial structures are not interested in transparent privatization, just as they are loath to take part in it. Everybody is trying to lead the process into a blind valley, so that there are no results whatever. In this sense all those who favor or oppose such tenders are the same.