KUCHMA WALKS GLOOMLY AT THE BORDER

CIS DEAD ENDS

"Managed democracy" sounds as ridiculous as "soft totalitarianism" The presidential candidate of Ukraine, and earlier the chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine and the country's prime minister, Viktor Yushchenko, believes that during the upcoming presidential...

"Managed democracy" sounds as ridiculous as "soft totalitarianism"

Presidential candidate of Ukraine, and earlier Chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine and Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko believes that during the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine, its people will have to make a choice not just between "two Viktors" - Yushchenko and Yanukovych - but between fundamentally different development models - democratic and authoritarian. Vladislav INOZEMTSEV, a Russian political scientist and editor-in-chief of the Svobodnaya Mysl-XXI magazine, recently met with Viktor Yushchenko in Kyiv and interviewed him for his magazine and Novaya Gazeta.

— Dear Victor Andreevich! Preparations for the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine are taking place in a very tense atmosphere. As far as one could judge, this situation was generated by the desire of the current authorities to introduce elements of “managed democracy” into the social and political life of Ukraine and thus maintain the current political course. Don't you think that the model of "managed democracy" is becoming something common to all post-Soviet states?

— The term "managed democracy" sounds as ridiculous as, for example, "soft totalitarianism." In fact, Ukraine's problem is that it has not been able to build a system of power that would guarantee democratic freedoms.

We do not have the main components of democracy - freedom of speech, an independent court, the rule of law and, in fact, civil society itself. And, on the contrary, all the components of an authoritarian state are present - censorship in the media, persecution of the opposition, pressure on "dissident" deputies, politicians and entrepreneurs.

A clan-oligarchic regime has been created in Ukraine, the authorities are quite accustomed to non-public politics, half of the economy works “in the shadows”. And the choice today is extremely tough: either Ukraine will remain a clan, or democracy will be established here. The stakes in the upcoming elections are indeed very high. That is why the election campaign has turned - through no fault of ours - from a competition of programs and positions, as it should have been, into fights without rules. No one is surprised by the information about the total surveillance of the opposition, no one is embarrassed by the information from the CEC that the candidate from the authorities is on the air of all national channels ten times more often than all other candidates combined.

But society will go through all these trials. And the Democratic candidate will win the election, not the heir to the regime.

- The Russian media often present the presidential race in Ukraine as a confrontation between the “pro-Russian” Viktor Yanukovych and you, the “pro-Western” oriented politician. Are there any real grounds for contrasting you and Mr. Yanukovych as "pro-Western" and "pro-Russian" politicians?

- Behind the presentation of the election campaign in Ukraine as a competition of “two Victors”, there is a too primitive approach and a too superficial view of the situation. In fact, of course, the Ukrainian people will have to make a choice not just between “two Victors”.

We really have a different school, different life paths, different worldviews and morals. But we are talking about something else - about two positions regarding the future of Ukraine. There is no need to compare me with anyone, I am Yushchenko Viktor Andreevich. I am not Georgian, not Russian, not European, I am a Ukrainian politician who has proven that he knows the country's problems and knows how to solve them. Both as head of the National Bank of Ukraine and as prime minister, I was guided by one thing - protecting the national interests of Ukraine. At the same time, of course, taking into account the position of our closest neighbors.

It was during my premiership that the most problematic issues of bilateral Russian-Ukrainian relations were resolved, including the problem of the so-called unauthorized gas withdrawal, or simply its banal theft. At the same time, for the first time in the last ten years, we managed to reverse the downward trend in bilateral trade between Russia and Ukraine. It was then that a record annual volume of Russian investments was attracted to the Ukrainian economy.

As for the “pro-Russianness” of the current prime minister, I think it is better to ask Russian businessmen about this, who know that not a single ruble of Russian investments was let in when Mr. Yanukovych was governor of the Donetsk region. And if by “pro-Russian” we mean electoral flirting with the Russian side, then it most likely leaves a feeling of awkwardness. Vladimir Putin arrived in Crimea - the Ukrainian government announces a revision of its military doctrine; Donald Rumsfeld visited Kyiv and we are already integrating into NATO again. This is how politicians act, unsure of their abilities.

— Today there is a lot of talk about the fact that Russia is rapidly losing its influence in the post-Soviet space. Some analysts see one of the reasons for this in the fact that the Kremlin prefers to deal only with the official authorities of this or that country, not paying attention to either the existing opposition or the mood in society. Recent examples of this are Vladimir Putin's endless official meetings with Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yanukovych. Do you agree with this assessment?

- Indeed, according to the tradition that has developed over the post-Soviet period, the official authorities communicate only with the official authorities. As for Russian-Ukrainian relations, there is also a peculiarity here. The right to conduct a dialogue with Russia has been privatized by a group of people from the administration of the President of Ukraine, who cannot imagine international relations other than inter-clan ones.

These people profess the principles of a behind-the-scenes, non-public policy, and the result is that bilateral relations are developing far less dynamically than the peoples of our countries would like. I am confident in the enormous potential of bilateral Russian-Ukrainian relations. But only on the condition that such a policy will be formed by a responsible government. Today, both Moscow and Brussels are disappointed with Ukraine. As for the number and regularity of meetings, I must say that, unfortunately, this is far from always an indicator of their meaningfulness.

I would not like my words to be perceived as unfounded criticism. We support all those undertakings of the current government, which are aimed at intensifying relations with the Russian Federation. I have noted many times and will repeat again: I admit that a lot of positive things are happening in relations between Ukraine and Russia, which gives me reason to predict continuity in our relations on most issues.

Ukraine is the largest state that broke away from the Soviet empire. Not surprisingly, it has become a home for many Russians, just like Russia has become a new home for many Ukrainians. What are the foundations of the Ukrainian government's policy towards the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine today, and will it be revised if you win the elections?

“Unfortunately, the current government has not been able to formulate a clear course either in relation to the Ukrainian language, or in relation to Russian, or in relation to other languages. Our current prime minister writes with errors in both Russian and Ukrainian. Another question is that on the eve of each election, the problem of language becomes a bargaining chip for Ukrainian politicians.

Leonid Kuchma in 1994 went to the polls under the slogan "I will make Russian the second state language." So what? Who remembers these promises today? And if the official successor to the current government demonstrates "continuity" in fulfilling such pre-election promises, then they are worthless.

Ukraine is a single country, Ukrainians are a single people. I always emphasize that in a democratic state all conditions must be created for the development of different cultural traditions and, accordingly, the use of different languages. In any European country, citizens are fluent in three or four languages, and we are still tearing our shirts: “What language will we communicate in: Russian or Ukrainian?”

As a result, we speak Russian with errors, and we speak Ukrainian with a dictionary. Yes, this is not at all the question that should divide the nation! Look: in my office there are two busts - Taras Shevchenko and Nikolai Gogol. I do not want to go into philosophizing now about how much the history of our peoples is intertwined, how many difficult and sometimes dramatic pages can be found in the annals of Ukrainian-Russian relations, how our literature and our culture are connected. Russia is our eternal neighbor, our strategic partner. Millions of people live in Ukraine, for whom Russian is the usual language of communication. And there is no doubt that they should be able to watch Russian plays, read Russian newspapers, listen to Russian music and communicate in Russian.

— Recently, Russia has been actively discussing an agreement between Gazprom and JSC Naftogaz Ukrainy on the exchange of debts for gas supplies for future payments for its transit, as well as decisions related to the abolition of VAT on energy resources supplied to Ukraine. What is the basis of these agreements? How beneficial are they to Ukraine? Is it logical that their signing (as far as I know, the agreement between Gazprom and JSC Naftogaz Ukrainy was discussed for at least a year and a half) fell during the pre-election race?

— I consistently advocate constructive solutions in Ukrainian-Russian relations, including in the energy sector. To date, I do not have comprehensive information on all the nuances and subtleties of the agreement between Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukrainy. I do not rule out that it is not devoid of pre-election conjuncture. In any case, this is far from the first example of the Ukrainian government making hasty and ill-considered decisions in search of support from Russia.

With regard to the abolition of the value added tax, we welcome this decision by the Russian authorities, as it is an important step towards the creation of a free trade zone within the Common Economic Space and the CIS as a whole.

— How would you assess Ukrainian foreign policy in recent years? Does Ukraine have a clear foreign policy doctrine? What, in your opinion, was the reason for the decision of the Ukrainian government to send its military to Iraq? Are you going to change the country's foreign policy if you succeed, and if so, how?

— Ukrainian foreign policy is chaotic. The Ukrainian diplomats themselves have become confused in the throwing of power between East and West, who, as a rule, learn about the latest “initiatives” of their president from news releases. This is not a serious policy. The foreign policy course should be based on one principle - the principle of protecting the national interests of Ukraine.

As for the "Iraq question", serious discussions were held in our faction around the vote on sending a peacekeeping contingent to Iraq. On the one hand, we are talking about a strategically important region, which has serious economic prospects. And in matters of collective international security (as well as in matters of the international fight against terrorism), Ukraine must take an active and active position. On the other hand, we understood that the Ukrainian peacekeeping contingent in Iraq was a kind of indulgence for the Kuchma regime in the eyes of the West. And we didn't want the Ukrainian peacekeepers to give the West a chance to turn a blind eye to the strangulation of democracy in Ukraine. Unfortunately, these predictions were not unfounded ...

The Ukrainian authorities preferred not to publicly discuss their policy towards Iraq. Neither the president nor the prime minister has ever explained to the people what Ukrainian interests are in this region, how necessary the presence of Ukrainian peacekeepers there is. Therefore, my faction, taking into account the change in the situation in Iraq in recent months, today demands a public consideration of the issue of the presence of peacekeepers in this country. I believe that our contingent must be withdrawn from there - not in a hurry, but withdrawn. And I will do it after winning the presidential election.

- And the last question. Let's imagine that the elections are over and soon you will have to deliver the inaugural address. How would you rate the role of your predecessor in it?

— I would talk about the future and would prefer not to delve into the past. That is what, I am sure, the citizens of Ukraine want to hear.

COMMENTS

As you know, long before the Ukrainian presidential election, both President Putin and the Russian state-owned electronic media quite clearly and very publicly made it clear that of the two main candidates, they prefer Leonid Kuchma's "successor" Viktor Yanukovych.

We asked the experts: "Why did the Kremlin 'vote' for Yanukovych"?

Answer from Moscow

Vyacheslav IGRUNOV, Chairman of the Public Council of Ukrainian-Russian Cooperation:

- Ukraine is a country with a fundamentally unstable, "pendulum" foreign policy. With any complication of the situation in Russia or in relations between Russia and the West, Ukraine will take sharp steps away from Russia - in this sense, the Russian authorities are concerned about who will be at the head of Ukraine. Yushchenko is assessed as a politician who is rather inclined to take steps away from Russia, towards the West. I can't say that Viktor Yanukovych even in this respect represents a good choice for Russia - it will be very difficult for Russia to deal with him. But it is stylistically much closer to the current Moscow authorities. She understands how to put pressure on such a politician and more or less keep him within his line. In addition, the West does not see him as his man. The combination of these two factors made Yanukovych more acceptable to the Kremlin.

Reply from Kyiv

Volodymyr MALINKOVICH, director of the Ukrainian branch of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies:

- I think that for Putin there is simply no other choice than Yanukovych. Yushchenko's victory is a victory for the Western vector, despite the fact that the West today does not really invite Ukraine to the European Union. But even Yanukovych's victory does not mean that Ukraine will become as dependent on the Kremlin as Moscow is counting on. Nevertheless, this means that the process of forming the Common Economic Space will continue.

Yushchenko will definitely not support the version of the CES agreement that provides for a single supranational regulatory body. Everyone understands that in this case, economic processes in the SES will be managed from the Kremlin, since Russia's economic potential is greater than that of all other participants in the "space", and the agreement refers to the distribution of seats in this regulatory body depending on economic potential.

Putin needs the CES not so much for economic reasons as for political reasons - in order to create a “political space” over it under the auspices of the Kremlin. This is what makes Putin opt for Yanukovych. Moreover, it is necessary to somehow compensate for what Russia has already invested in the construction of the CES: I mean the collection of VAT on the country of destination (a loss for Russia of about $ 800 million only from energy supplies supplied to Ukraine), as well as the creation of a free zone trade, which in many respects is completely unprofitable for Russian producers. Russia agrees to all this, but, of course, it will demand some kind of guarantees from Yanukovych related to his alleged orientation towards the pro-Russian vector of foreign policy.

And what do we get from this?

The ROMIR Monitoring holding conducted a study on the attitude of Russian citizens to the upcoming elections in Ukraine (an all-Russian poll was conducted in August 2004, 1,500 people were polled in 102 urban and rural settlements of the Russian Federation).

Respondents were asked the following question: "In your opinion, which candidate's victory in the presidential elections in Ukraine is in the best interests of Russia?" The answers were distributed as follows:

Viktor Yanukovych - 7%

Viktor Yushchenko - 5%

Other - 11%

Anyone equally - 19%

None of them - 27%

Difficult to answer - 31%

As you can see, the main intrigue of the "fraternal" elections did not particularly excite the Russian society - by and large, it does not care which of the two Viktors will become the next Ukrainian president.

Policy Division