What is Ukraine integrating into? What kind of a gas consortium will there be? Will oil be running through the Odesa-Brody pipeline? How does Leonid Kuchma see the 2004 elections? The president answered these questions in an interview with BBC Ukrainian Service special correspondents Svitlana Dorosh and Rostyslav Khotyn during the European Union summit in Athens.
BBC: “Mr. President, it is often said that Ukraine could have integrated into Europe much faster. Do you think Ukraine is moving toward Europe?”
Leonid Kuchma: “I agree with what you said: we are moving too slowly toward this strategic goal. Sometimes it is just a pity, so to speak, that we are wasting precious time on all kinds of domestic squabbles instead of uniting our forces around this main idea. For if you look, for example, at parliament members, all of them seem to be for it, but when it comes to passing the concrete legislative acts that would bring us closer to Europe, they vote no...”
BBC: “And what do you think about the criticism that this slow pace has been caused because Ukraine can’t decide whether it should belong to the Eurasian economic space or the EU, two very different directions that can’t be reconciled?”
Pres. Kuchma: “When opponents have nothing to say, they have to think something up and say we should not work with CIS countries or in the post-Soviet space but go straight to Europe, our proper place. But look at today’s world. Tell me, please, who is marching today in one direction and takes one side only, forgetting that there are such things as flanks and the rear? We have to work with one and all. Above all with our neighbors, the more so that they are the zone of our economic interests. We just can’t bring to the Europe of today the things we made yesterday and say, ‘Take me, please.’ We cannot just drop what we had yesterday. We must use the present time to make ourselves worthy of and competitive in the environment we are heading for.”
BBC: “But, still, does the strategic direction remains the same?”
Pres. Kuchma: “Our strategic direction was and is integration into the European community and the Euro-Atlantic organizations. I confirmed this once again in my address to the Ukrainian parliament and people. Ukraine has and cannot have any other alternative.”
BBC: “Now about CIS chairmanship: your proposal and consent to head provoked much controversy. Do you really need it?”
Pres. Kuchma: “Ukraine has tremendous interests in this area. And, as CIS chairman, I will be able to do good not only for Ukraine but also to all our CIS partners. I get a little bored, you know: while it is written in the organization’s charter that the chairmanship should rotate every year, the chairman remained the same. And, as you are well aware, this is not always good. We need fresh blood. And another thing: I think the CIS will only have a future if it has an effective free trade zone. Otherwise, the CIS will have no future. So I put the following question first in Chisinau and then at the Kyiv summit: dear colleagues, let us do this. We signed a document. In September, we will be checking our progress and see whether this was another declaration, a political maneuver, or a true desire to draw at least some benefit.”
BBC: “Interesting processes are now occurring in the CIS: new regional organizations are emerging and old ones are being strengthened. The United States is building up its clout in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia. How do you as CIS chairman see the further development of the former Soviet republics?”
Pres. Kuchma: “When I was landing in Bishkek, I myself saw American fighter planes parked next to the runway. We are all aware of the tasks these forces have been assigned in joint antiterrorist operations. But you know very well that the disposition of forces has changed. This is no secret. As to Ukraine, I must say we were a strategic partner of the United States yesterday and want to be one tomorrow. It is quite all right if the US is present in Central Asia, Europe, or Turkey, a neighbor of ours. Meanwhile, the world is facing entirely different tasks today, and I am convinced that, despite some minor setbacks, there is no confrontation between the systems. This means the presence of somebody somewhere has been caused by specific factors. The main thing is in what way to be present.”
BBC: “You said your No. 1 personal task was to improve relations with the US and restore strategic partnership. Do you see any progress now in April?”
Pres. Kuchma: “In general, I wouldn’t like to speak at all about successes and such. The main thing is that we, especially the executive branch and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have a goal: to achieve normal cooperation and come to an understanding that we, above all, have no differences over strategic goals, particularly those in the focus of today’s world. The same applies to other things. We are partners, and we have proved this with our actions all this time. And we have always been grateful to the United States of America for its support — often politically — in this direction. That there is an independent Ukraine today is also the result of these factors. This was a great ordeal for us. But I would like to believe — I am not sure but would truly like to believe — that many of the negative things were caused not by the United States of America but by our own politicians who were swept to power in the Leninist manner (‘any charwoman will be able to run the state’) on the wave of Ukrainian independence and are now seeking ways to rise higher than they can reach.”
BBC: “Now about the gas consortium. Much criticism has been raised about the process being closed. What progress is there in the gas consortium talks? Especially since you met Chancellor Schroeder here in Athens.”
Pres. Kuchma: “In April, we are holding a meeting of the task force in charge of this project. We have invited the German side. I informed the chancellor about this and asked him to confirm the German side’s opinion that this meeting is indispensable. We want to sign in the near future a joint document on the establishment of this consortium. If you are interested, we can do this at any time, no problem. On our part, it is, first of all, Naftohaz Ukrayiny that handles this problem and is prepared to furnish any information in more detail. We have no secrets in this area.”
BBC: “But the impression arises that Russia is working very actively on the bilateral level. As soon as it comes to the trilateral level, there are many refusals and postponements of expert meetings and summits. How would you explain this?”
Pres. Kuchma: “First, the process is not as simple as we would like to see it. One must understand what a consortium is. There were speculations from the very beginning that this means privatizing the pipeline and so on, that Ukraine will wind up losing. But this is not so. What are the main economic components of this consortium? Besides, we still have unresolved problems with Russia over our gas debts. For Russia has not yet accepted the bonds Ukraine issued under the contract signed between Naftohaz and Gazprom. This is a problem. Then, I will say this honestly, we subsidize household utility gas at the expense of the gas we receive as payment for transit. We cannot yet immediately set a price of, say, $80 for residential gas. Nobody in Ukraine can pay such a price. You know, there are some purely economic matters which have nothing to do with big-time politics but which the Ukrainian side cannot ignore because they involve social problems.”
BBC: “After it was suggested that the Odesa-Brody oil pipeline be used in the reverse direction, many began to doubt whether Ukraine might be able to implement this project jointly with Poland and Europe. Do you think Caspian oil will flow across Ukrainian territory?”
Pres. Kuchma: “It certainly will, but not today or tomorrow. For oil is not yet in the quantities that could meet Europe’s requirements and this pipeline’s capacity. This is first. Besides, there are no mainlines to carry such quantities of oil to Supsa. This is the main problem. All those who want to participate in this consortium keep asking if the pipeline will be built as far as Gdansk or, say, still farther — to other European countries, for example, to a German deep sea Baltic port. This project is sure to work if not tomorrow then the day after tomorrow. We have to wait and see what the European Commission says. If this project is of strategic importance for Europe, we must seek a way out of this situation — the European Union does have mechanisms to keep this project afloat. Should we agree to reverse pumping for, say, two years? The pipeline must be filled; otherwise it will rust away. We can’t possibly keep it empty or pump oil in the opposite direction. We should not be afraid because we will deal in this case with either Russian-British or a British-Russian companies. You know what companies I mean: TNC and British Petroleum. So it is practically a joint European venture. I think when we finally sit down at the negotiating table (and such a meeting is scheduled), we will make an absolutely normal decision which will allow Russia to use this pipeline and when the time comes to pump oil to Europe.”
BBC: “The approved government program will be in effect until the end of the presidential term in the fall of 2004. Clearly, political analysts and journalists cannot help wondering about the presidential elections. Do you think the following scenario is possible: Viktor Yanukovych fulfills this program, runs for president, and becomes your successor?”
Pres. Kuchma: “I want to get rid of the word, successor. If he is a ‘successor,’ it would mean that I’ve decided to hand over power to him. I don’t see any secrets here. His main objective is either to fulfill the program or to show during the election campaign that he and his cabinet have done their best to put this program into practice. Today, the program is just a declaration, a letter of intent. And people want to see concrete results. So if he does his job, he will have ample chance to be not just a candidate. Let’s wait and see.”
BBC: “Have you made your personal choice?”
Pres. Kuchma: “I am not the one who must choose. It is the Ukrainian people who must express their will. All I can promise is — and I say it without any emotions or diplomacy — that I will do my utmost to make the elections absolutely open, transparent, and democratic. The people must be free to exercise their right to elect. And what our politicians are saying? ‘People are a herd of stupid sheep,’ and so on.”
BBC: “But the opposition blames the centrist parties precisely for their inability to put forth a joint candidate. Do you think a joint candidate is possible in the conditions when there are quite strong political and politico-business groups in Ukraine?”
Pres. Kuchma: “I would like the opposition to consider this problem among its own members and see if they have this kind of possibilities... Sometimes I just look what they are doing, concerning the constitutional reform: today they say the president is blocking the reforms, so we must switch over to the parliamentary form; tomorrow they claim just the opposite and even sign memoranda. Then the next day, they again say it’s all wrong. In general, I cannot understand an opposition consisting of individuals who hold entirely different political views. I categorically oppose this, for it looks immoral from any perspective. But I do not have the slightest doubt that the current parliamentary majority and the political forces that formed it will be able to nominate a joint candidate.”
BBC: “Now about the law on guarantees for the outgoing president. The overall feeling is that somebody really wants this law...”
Pres. Kuchma: “I never did nor will I discuss or raise this question. I am my own guarantee, period. I guarantee myself with all my actions. Yet, any civilized state must undoubtedly have a law on the president. Take the law on deputies: will you make the simplest analysis and say how many times it was debated upon, how many thousands of amendments were made? For it was a law on them. So let them make a law on the president, the cabinet, on their own rules and procedures for that matter. Let them pass a law on those investigating commissions they form every time they need to stir something up politically. Yet, they avoid discussing the problems they create by themselves. Let them put their own house in order. So these are all links of the same chain.
BBC: “Are you already summing up your second presidential term, your victories and defeats? You once said the appointment of Lazarenko [as premier] was your gravest mistake during the first term. So have you been analyzing any mistakes of the second term?”
Pres. Kuchma: “It’s too early to do this. I have almost two years in office left. I met the president of Switzerland here. He was elected for one year, and nobody makes a tragedy out of this. In our country, by contrast, if the elections are approaching, it’s like the end of life. I think this results from our imperfect information policies and unwillingness of the journalists’ guild to concentrate on the developments in our country. Everything seems to pivot on the navel of the parliament, as if there were nothing else alive in Ukraine. Please tell me in what other country you can see this? Are there no other people except the deputies who speculate about what is going on in Ukraine? Moreover, parliament is full of absolutely accidental people who would have never have got in during normal times and really belong in a district council.”
BBC. “What is your vision of Ukraine ten years later? Where will it be?”
Pres. Kuchma: “Come to me in ten years, and I’ll tell you where we are. I see that Ukraine has undergone sweeping changes in the past few years, both in the economy and popular mentality. Today, we are different from what we were ten, five, or even two years ago or one. Our self-respect is rising because we have undergone trying ordeals and weathered all kinds of storms. We have shown that we deserve to be members of the European community.”
