In the political arena of independent Ukraine Yevhen Marchuk’s activity has always been coupled with leading positions in structures that in one way or another are connected to the protection of national interests and to national defense. He has been the chief of Ukraine’s Security Service, the head of the government, the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (RNBO), and, finally, the Defense Minister of Ukraine.
Today Marchuk is somewhat removed from active involvement in politics. With increasing frequency experts are pointing out that there is a dearth of people of his caliber in great politics. But the timing is not right, so I refrained from asking questions about his political activity.
Yevhen Marchuk celebrated his birthday on Jan. 28, 2007. Together with our many readers, The Day extends heart-felt wishes to him on this occasion.
As it turned out, Marchuk was not sitting at home on his birthday: he was in Davos, where the world political and business elites had gathered for the annual economic forum. In 1996, as Ukraine’s prime minister, he was our country’s first official representative to attend the forum.
The Day asked Marchuk to comment on the Ukraine-related results of the Davos forum:
You attended the forum for the first time in 1996. It is now 2007 but we are hearing the same question, “Where is Ukraine going?”
“True, this is one of our Ukrainian problems. After 11 years international business and political elites are again wondering: where is Ukraine going? If Yanukovych’s team manages to answer this perennial question, it will be one of their greatest successes.”
Was Viktor Yanukovych well-received in Davos? Was there any interest in a dialogue with the Ukrainian delegation?
“The Ukrainian prime minister was generally well received and attracted some genuine interest. It is very unfortunate that international business is losing interest in President Yushchenko’s team. The business elite is not all that interested in basic things, like the ups and downs of Ukraine’s domestic politics. They are looking for people they can deal with to advance their businesses, people who will play by the rules for at least five years.”
“I am not saying that the West began to believe that Yanukovych’s new team is made up of people they can deal with. However, compared to last year’s forum, interest in the prime minister’s team was much higher than in the 2006 Ukrainian team.”
Did they succeed in grasping who Mr. Yanukovych is?
“They are not jumping to conclusions. What predominates in Davos is informal interaction, what they call business get-togethers. People talked not just with Yanukovych but also Taruta, Akhmetov, Pinchuk, and others.”
“I heard George Soros speaking at the conference “Where is Ukraine going?” The message of this financial mogul may be called neutrally positive. He was neither in raptures over Ukraine’s political reality, nor did he deprecate it. Soros embodies serious international capital that first conducts a scrupulous and in-depth study of the people it is going to deal with and only then invests on a large scale. Undoubtedly, the West is not yet ready to come to Ukraine with multibillion-dollar investments, but Yanukovych’s team made the first step in this direction.”
So on the whole Yanukovych made a good impression? Was it a success?
“Yes, I think it was a success. And here is why: after the Orange Revolution Yanukovych’s image in Europe was not so good, to put it mildly. But in these past two years Yushchenko’s team has demonstrated how weak it is. And business people watch to see who is stronger, who decides important questions, and who is not afraid to take responsibility. Rather than a success, it was the first positive impression by Yanukovych’s team.”
“One has to give Yanukovych his due-he managed to shed the negative image he had after the Orange Revolution and the presidential elections. I would like to mention that he replied to questions very skillfully. To deliver a prepared speech is one thing, but to answer questions you cannot know beforehand is a different matter altogether. He is learning fast. And I don’t have to say that he has mastered Ukrainian very well.”
“But he still has to put his money where his mouth is. Let’s say, the struggle against corruption-he said a lot about this during his speech. This is extremely important for Western investors. If he really manages to do this, it will be a real success.”
How did you spend your time in Davos? Who did you meet with?
“I met with some of the people I know-Aleksandr Kwasniewski, Marek Sivets (who is now a high official in the Council of Europe), and Vaira Vike-Freiberga, even though I am only slightly acquainted with her. I also met with well-known political scientists, including Alexander Rahr from Germany.”
What do they think about the situation in Ukraine and the conflict between the president and the prime minister?
“Naturally, they talked about this. But even without their comments, it is clear that this is hurting Ukraine’s reputation badly. The situation with the foreign affairs minister and now the transport minister expose how unbalanced the government is. Of course, we tried to explain that these are all side-effects of the government’s transformation and the transition from the presidential to parliamentary-presidential form of government. But our excuses are of little interest; what matters is the real state of affairs.”
“The main investors from Davos will not come to Ukraine with their multibillion-dollar investments as long as we have such confusion about who has what authority. That is why both the government team and the presidential team should finally come to their senses and look at themselves through the eyes of the Davos players.”
