VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO: POLITICAL ACCORD IN UKRAINE DEPENDS ON UNIFICATION AROUND NATIONAL PRIORITIES

Ukrinform`s photo

Inflation and the ways of curbing it, situation over organization of Verkhovna Rada's productive work, improvement of the Constitution, and Ukraine's course towards Euroatlantic integration - those were the key subjects of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's interview with UKRINFORM on the occasion of the news agency's 90th anniversary.

This part of the interview includes analysis of the current situation in the Ukrainian parliament, the head of state's position on the vital questions of constitutional reform, his vision of the ways for improvement of the country's political system, current and future perspective of this country concerning its participation in the European collective security.

Q: Mr. President, on the one hand, Verkhovna Rada's work has been finally unblocked, and on the other, the situation over the bill on elimination of parliamentary immunity brought to light serious problems with unity of the coalition. What is your assessment of the possibility of changing its format in the light of the current developments in parliament? Could we hope for the parliament's further work without crises?

A: It seems to me that the parliamentary situation in the past two months is aggravating not the problem of coalition unity, but the one that the other part of people's deputies, the opposition, including by violating the rules of procedure, may block meetings and impede effective work of the top legislative body.

How much appropriate this behavior within the parliamentary walls is? Democracy implies that one part of the session hall may have viewpoints different from the other's, but this is not tantamount to blocking the work of the parliament on the whole. The more so that the reason for the blocking of the past 30 days was absolutely far-fetched.

It was not at all a reaction to the letter seeking Ukraine's participation in the NATO Membership Action Plan. It was fight for power, its division between some or other political forces. It seems to me that a functioning parliament was sacrificed to mercantile interests: it was just necessary to please electorate with protest patterns.

And the main thing we see is that the Constitution, with its current parameters and counterbalances, in fact causes a lasting political crisis, irrespective of its motives. I may be a Membership Action Plan, Russian language, translation of films into Ukrainian, or any other strained reason.

He spoke for the path proposed by the National Security and Defense Council which envisages normalization of the NaftoGaz of Ukraine operation through restructuring of its debts to the budget. The current developments, when UAH 8 billion of compensation to NaftoGaz for the difference between the gas purchase price and the price on the basis of which it was selling to the population, has not been offset both by the government in force and the previous one, "affect the NaftoGaz work". Apart from this, the situation prevents NaftoGaz from investment activity intended to increase own gas production.

The society is also forcing us to seriously consider the fundamental problems caused by the 2004 amendments to the Constitution. Prolongation of parliamentary crisis, to my mind, is a rather expensive luxury calling in question political stability in the state. Thus, we have to attend at the civil level the constitutional process, its dynamics and essence. Irrespective of who and how behaves in the country's political life, the state must draw a clear-cut pattern of its stability.

Now as regards the situation in parliament, relations between its majority and minority. I openly said and repeat: the advantage of two votes encourages both the majority and minority for an active dialogue. One may lose two votes for any reason: some MPs may be on business tours, others on sick leaves, or they may have any other circumstances... That is why we must speak about the atmosphere in the parliament itself. The lawmakers must realize that they are no enemies - just opponents and nothing more.

The essence and the only precondition for reconcilement is acknowledgement of national priorities, the things serving the national interests. This is what may bring closer political positions of the current parliamentary factions. I am sure that the smaller the goal is, the harder it is to reach understanding on it. I believe, this is the main problem of not only the Ukrainian parliament, but also of all the political forces. We are not used to a dialogue in essence, which would guarantee our national progress.

Q: Judging by all, this is also confirmed by the situation over preparation of amendments to the fundamental law of Ukraine. How, do you think, the Party of Regions' declaration on withdrawal from the National Constitutional Council may tell on the process of constitutional reform?

A: Frankly saying, on the one hand I am sorry about this declaration, but on the other, this is each party's right. I see no problems about that. I hope the Party of Regions will revise its positions. Withdrawal from dialogue and consolidated work on amendments to the fundamental law looks like a demonstration of weakness. In conditions when two thirds of the nation stand for adoption of the Constitution at a referendum and support the formation of its new wording, it is a minor thing whether we will do so with the participation of all political forces, or not.

Finally, if we have one common care about Ukraine, we should not hide our heads in sand; we should open fair debates and explain our positions. The point at issue is Yushchenko's competence rather than distribution of posts. But I do not care about that. My concern is how to guarantee stability in this country. Because I more than others feel the discredited rules of the game, which were introduced in 2004.

The majority of the nation remember how the place, role and competences of the President were formed before 2004. At least, we lived with that almost 15 years. The overwhelming majority of the society simply cannot realize he negative things brought by the 2004 reform. Without blaming that period now, I am calling on everyone to be responsible for the period we are living in. We must give answers to those questions, which takes hard work rather than shielding with all sort of allegations.

The President of Ukraine has the right to a constitutional initiative. And I wish to involve in this initiative as many participants as possible. I know that the Constitution can be formed only within a circle of political parties.

People representing public initiatives, human right activists and constitutional law experts were also invited. And it is all the same uneasy to draft amendments to the Constitution even in such a company.

Q: Everyone has his own opinion, hasn't he?

A: Of course. But I will naturally table in parliament a new wording of the Constitution, which will reflect, in the first place, the work of the commission in charge. I would like Verkhovna Rada to be involved in the constitutional process, as well. Although the parliament is not the instance to pass the Constitution in a new wording. This function was delivered to the people.

But it is very important that the parliament would partake in this affair. That is why its position, as well as positions of the political parties represented in it, is greatly important. As the President I do not wish to neglect the parliament, its idea of the issue. But if a certain political party believes it unnecessary to get involved in this job for some or other considerations, it may do. It may wish or not to shoulder joint responsibility for getting out of the protracted political crisis. In a broader sense, this is not even a matter of wish; this is a matter of responsibility before the nation, the state and its people for overcoming the crisis provoked by the constitutional reform of 2004.

It is impossible to respond to this question without amending the Constitution. If these initiatives are formed by political forces through a referendum, I am sure it will aggravate tensions on the society. We need to competition. We need a consolidated position on the format of work on a new wording of the Constitution. If amendments and addenda are concerned, the parliament may set up its own commission for examination and adoption of this decision at Verkhovna Rada.

It would be best if the Ukrainian nation and democratic forces realize that the constitutional process takes rather high dynamics, because the longer we think on the issue, the harder it is to form fundamentals of political stability. It is very important to pass lawful, constitutional decisions.

We should start a dialogue and find a way that would not give preferences to anyone, but would form a balance of relations between power branches. There is only one authority - the authority of people, which has three branches. How could we guarantee stability of those three branches, including through the presidency institute? How could we remedy the situation when the parliament is dragging behind the developments? Who may put things into order without constitutional powers? A bright proof is adoption of just eight bills in four months, for which nobody shoulders responsibility.

Q: Maybe the problem is much deeper? For example, with the proportionate election system...

A: Indeed. Those are both the triangle of government, parliament and president, and the representative power. Let us analyze the list of people's deputies: what regions and how are represented in parliament. There are regions having not a single delegate. If we are so much devoted to the proportionate systems, we will always have what we have now. Then it is probably necessary to resume the discussion on a bicameral parliament, so that one of its chambers would represent regional interests. We need to hold this discussion and draw a conclusion based on some or other mechanism.

The situation is similar at the level of local government bodies. Thanks to ill-considered amendments to the Constitution, we have found ourselves in a situation when we politicize even agencies having no political party representation. If there are no political forces required, they are being artificially created. This is quite a good ground for corruption.

In other words, why are we kindling passions over the issues that are not of a broad public interest? I am not saying I do not believe in the perspectives of political parties. No, I believe in them. Maybe humankind created them as an easy way of answering some or other questions emerging in public life. But restructuring, including political, takes much time.

Q: Is a mixed election system a way out?

A: As far as I know, in the political discussion on local government from the lowest to the regional level there are just few supporters of proportionate election. The practice of the past two years shows that it was a wrong move. We must have either a mixed or a majority model. We have lost direct ties between voters and their representatives. This is most painfully felt at the level of local government bodies.

Q: If we return to parliamentary problems, the main subject of its work now is quite not the constitutional reform...

A: Really, the most popular subject there is Ukraine's joining the NATO Membership Action Plan. And it is quite paradoxical, I would say. Because the only strategy working at the national level now is the strategy of the country's development until 2015, which was drawn in 2004 under the supervision of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, and was introduced by a presidential decree.

What the authors of the decree and the program planned then is entry in the Membership Action Plan in 2006 and NATO membership in 2008. We may also recall the voting of 2003, when the constitutional majority backed the law determining national security grounds. And now problems emerged with those who in fact set forth this idea, outlined it by law, and included it in the national strategy.

The problem may be not over the essence of relations, but over something occasional. Since nobody denied from support of the strategy and the appropriate program. All signatures stay there. But as far as implementation is concerned, political profiteering appears, when it is necessary to please someone either in the east or in some other places. Toughly saying, this is betrayal of national interests. When security system is concerned, it takes more than 12 or 18 months. No security systems can be built during such a short period of time. And it would be good to see more statesmen than politicians. Because a politician thinks about elections in a year or two, while a statesman considers the country's security policy for dozens of years in advance.

Q: Do you think Ukraine has no alternative to the collective security model?

A: Let us give up NATO, and just ask one another: what kind of security or defense policy Ukraine needs to have firm stability. In the past 80 years Ukraine declared independence six times, and in five of them something prevented us from becoming independent. I do not wish this repeat a seventh or eighth time. This is a more serious question than that of the budget or inflation. This is much more important. And it is necessary to say what kind of security, defense strategy of national policy must be pursued.

Not many European powers can determine their own defense policy. Almost no one. Starting with Germany, Britain, and ending with France and Spain. Hardly would anyone advise to return to confrontation now. Whatever discussion on the issue we would have, the answer is only one: practically all European countries of the former Soviet camp chose the model of collective security. Today they are members of the European security model. And their sovereignty is confirmed by signatures of dozens of European presidents.

Now think about our own history. When did dozens of neighbor countries confirm Ukraine's security? Never. And I wish political sovereignty of the nation, its territorial integrity to be sealed at the level of international commitments. It is possible only in the context of collective European security. If we realize that, the subject of the Membership Action Plan, to say so, is just a small prolongation of this policy, and nothing more. It is already the result of our understanding that we need to find a better security policy, and we are searching for it.

Q: Then what are you awaiting from NATO's Bucharest summit?

A: I am confident that we are talking about succession of integration of the Euroatlantic defense union. The Bucharest summit is exactly the turning point at which Ukraine must start cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance as a participant in the Membership Action Plan.

I will formally and openly say that the Ukraine - NATO action plan approved by the government of Viktor Yanukovych last October de-facto is equal to relations within the Membership Action Plan frames. Addressing different political forces spreading the bulk of speculations on the issue, I wish to call for being frank and sincere with the nation while speaking about the national interests like security policy.

I know it is necessary to do a big homework to face a positive decision on Ukraine at the Bucharest summit. I wish to have more devoted partners in this affair, starting with the press, which, to my mind, should much deeper realize the subject, and conduct more comprehensible, in the first place explanatory work in the society.

In my opinion, even the illogical, complicated and inconsistent parliamentary debate gave a lot of new information to the society. We started to more or less publicly talk about things like intensified dialogue, law of the national security guarantees, the national development strategy for 2004 - 2015... A lot of things were brought to readers and spectators concerning the Alliance, its targets and management rules. The majority of the Ukrainian public thought NATO is just an army with guns, tanks and other stuff. It was not so easy to understand that it is a political treaty by 90% aiming at development of democracy, security models, and maintenance of economic freedoms.

I have no doubt that we will win this discussion. This world has not yet invented anything better than the collective security model. Mind that nobody withdraws from collective security, and everybody is just trying to get there. Those unwilling have their own arguments. But one should take into account the fact that we do not have our own oil or gas, we cannot form a budget that would provide our army with high-tech ammunition. These problems can be settled only through the collective security system.

Bucharest alone does not bear simple answers like Yes or No. This is just an assessment of our devotion, our comprehension of the idea. If we talk about that at all levels - governmental, parliamentary, presidential, journalistic and expert - we will enjoy victory. But if the President alone is speaking and others are sitting and waiting to see how it may tell on election ratings, the matter will not move, which is also a betrayal of voters.

This is guilt of the previous system, when during dozens of years we did not give complete and true information about things like a collective security pattern. We were brought up on Soviet cartoons in Pravda, Krokodil and Perets publications. Unfortunately, we had no chance to duly inform people who would give a conscious answer to the question about the best security model, its formation and institutions. It is very good that the nation starts realizing that we must be involved in the interstate processes of forming this response, that there are fewer statements to the effect that we have our own army, our own borders and our own wheat.

I know how many discussions inside the nation are needed. But two and a half years ago we had just 17% of those talking about NATO, and now there are 36% of them. It is seen from public opinion polls on a NATO referendum that 18% say it is required immediately, 22% that it is not needed at all, and 37% that it should be held after 2011 when we would have greater knowledge. We have a few years in store to hold a deeper, professional discussion on the issue, without taking refuge in presidential elections or anything else. Let us give a conscious answer to the question how to find a model that would guarantee Ukraine's existence for ages. This is a real task of this discussion.

Q: Viktor Andriyovych, thank you for the interview and congratulations on UKRINFORM's jubilee. We would like to present you the news agency's medal, and invite to the festivities in May.

A: Thanks.

The interview was taken by Viktor Chamara and Hennadiy Chernenko (UKRINFORM).

UKRINFORM