Ukrainian independence is 20, our newspaper is 15. This means this country has lived three fourths of its full-blooded life with Den. Our readers know that Den has always been taking a firm stand on crucial matters.
As we were going to publish the anniversary issue, we could not but interview a person who took an active part in building the Ukrainian state and is well aware of the long way the newspaper Den has passed.
In the early 1990s, when the groundwork was being laid for an independent state, Yevhen Marchuk spearheaded the establishment of and, in 1991, headed the Security Service of Ukraine. Then he held top governmental offices, including that of prime minister. Did he picture 20 years ago that Ukraine would be the one it is now? What is the condition of Ukraine’s national security today? Does society need to learn? What impact has Den had on the formation of a quality informational space in Ukraine? Here is our conversation with Yevhen MARCHUK.
Mr. Marchuk, the Ukrainian state recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of its independence. If you look back, did you think that Ukraine would be, 20 years later, the one it is now? What challenges have we managed and failed to meet?
“Here are the challenges we have managed to meet. Firstly, the most important thing is that there was no bloodshed in Ukraine during the attempted coup in 1991. We must give credit for this not so much to politicians as to the wisdom and traditionalism of ordinary people. It is very important that our country remained bloodless during that dangerous turn. Why am I emphasizing this? Because the Soviet Union’s three largest military districts were located in Ukraine – a little more than a million armed men. All these huge facilities were subordinated directly to Moscow. That was a very serious challenge, even the danger of a likely civil war.
“Secondly, the Crimea. That the peninsula remained part of Ukraine, although there was a real danger of losing it, is another challenge we coped with – naturally, thanks to the efforts of many people and organizations. I also had to make quite an effort to resolve this problem. In this context, Ukraine had to face dangerous conflicts later over the Zmiiny Island and the Tuzla spit.
“What represented a special danger with far-reaching consequences was the conflict the Russian side provoked around Tuzla in 2003. The dispute was all the more acute because military units had already been brought up to the place of conflict. The conflict had been gathering on the border of two neighboring countries, supposedly strategic partners. No analysts in Russia, Ukraine, Europe and elsewhere could have forecast, even in their wildest dreams, an event like this. And it is very good that we managed to smooth things over. I can remember the Russians even harboring some grudge against me for saying that Russia could pursue an unpredictable policy towards Ukraine. What is more, I said it was good that a conflict had occurred because it taught a lesson to all, including the then president of Ukraine. The conflict showed that any partner in the world of today, even a friendly one like Russia, always remains an economic, political, and, when the dispute comes to a head, a military rival.
“Thirdly, we managed to solve – fast enough – the problem of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. This issue is difficult to deal with superficially, but it is quite clear to experts. It was about not only Ukraine’s nuclear-free status but also about guarantees for Ukraine, the scrapping of what had remained of the 43rd Missile Army, the supply of fuel for nuclear power plants as compensation for the nuclear weapons, etc.
“Fourthly, Ukraine managed to quickly (in 4-5 years) solve the problem of joining and establishing cooperation with important international organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe. It may seem today that events occurred automatically in the 1990s, but, in reality, all this could have happened much later in case of serious problems.
“Now about the challenges we failed to meet. In my view, the biggest of them is failure to solve the problem of poverty. This automatically triggers another problem – emigration of the millions of educated and able-bodied people out of Ukraine. One more problem that derives from poverty is the people’s political indiscriminateness. It is when poverty breeds the infection of social populism very fast: it is far easier to cheat the poor, rather than people with at least minimum incomes, with empty promises. Also unresolved remains the fundamental problem of pension and land reforms. These three urgent problems (poverty, pensions, and land) are hindering the political reform.
“One more problem is surplus ammunition. Ukraine inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union about 1.5 million tons of ammunition with different storage lives. This problem has come up more than once. Why has it not been resolved? As long ago as 1995, when I was the premier, we drew up a ten-year program that allowed gradually neutralizing all this ‘treasure’ flung all over Ukraine. But, as it was a nonprofit program, nobody wanted to carry it out. So we have not yet coped with this challenge to the end.”
You said back in 1998 that “one must learn to be the president.” And does society need to learn?
“One should learn to be not only the president but also, say, a minister and the prime minister, even after being appointed to an office. Good managerial qualities are not always enough. Yes, society also needs to learn, but it is very difficult to force people, who struggle to survive, to reflect on the meaning of life. All the more so when another challenge has not been met: we failed to raise the value of intellectual professions (scientists, doctors, agronomists, engineers, teachers, journalists, etc.) to a proper and adequate level.
“If the current government manages to really, not declaratively, meet these challenges, it will be forgiven for much of what it is being criticized today. For example, we can see Vice-Premier Serhii Tihipko making desperate attempts at least to tackle this problem. That he has taken up this difficult job only gives him credit, but he is undoubtedly burning his political prospects. He is burning political bridges ahead of, not behind, himself. He will be duly appreciated some 15 years later. History has seen this before.”
As the situation is rapidly changing in the world, Ukraine still has unresolved problems. While the developed countries are coping with new challenges, we are tailing behind and accumulating problems. How would you assess the condition of Ukraine’s national security today?
“I can see no serious threats, as far as external security is concerned – not because we are so strong and well-prepared but because many of our neighbors are busy tackling their own complicated problems. There are no special dangers from the military viewpoint, either. But this does not mean that everything is OK with the national armed forces. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have more than once been a source of danger: explosions at storage places, suicides among the personnel, etc. All this raises alarm, as does the chronic underfunding of the Ukrainian army.
“As for domestic dangers, there really are more problems here: a disintegrated society, a hyperpoliticized life, etc. As is known, political conflicts polarize society. ‘Political dynamite’ is gradually being accumulated during kitchen chats: in other words, from the viewpoint of national security, conflicts are so far hidden at home. Of course, all this discontent can spill out onto the streets, although this is dangerous in its own way: you can have the government replaced, but this not always solves problems. What also aggravates the situation is large-scale corruption that permeates all spheres of sociopolitical life.
“Undoubtedly, Russia was, is, and will be a major player in our domestic politics. No matter how one may explain the frequent visits of Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill to Ukraine, their number exceeds that of his trips in Russia itself. You don’t need to be a big expert to begin to analyze the reason why – especially if you take into account that, throughout history, the Russian Orthodox Church has always cooperated with the government. In Russia, the church is sort of a branch of power. It is the tradition.
“Russia is playing in various – religious, economic, political – sectors of the Ukrainian field. The vast majority of Ukrainian electric power distributing companies belongs to Russian business. This is normal in the democratic world, but in our conditions this may pose certain threats to national security. For this reason, the Ukrainian leadership should make a thorough analysis of such things as Russian World, the activity of Patriarch Kirill, and economic expansion. Naturally, there will be no good relations with Russia if we keep on conflicting with it. For example, Viktor Yushchenko struck a ‘high note’ in the Ukrainian-Russian relations but gained nothing as a result. Although the rhetoric was right, patriotic, and even expressive, it was essentially declarative. Patriotism is only true if it produces a result for your country. Heroic patriotic poses look effective, but if they bear no result, this patriotism is not worth a dime.
“Having broad experience in the Russian-Ukrainian relations field, I can say that the Russians are professional and tough partners. They know how to defend their interests. So the current leadership of Ukraine will find it not so easy to negotiate with Russia. On the other hand, I can hardly imagine that Viktor Yanukovych can easily give something away to the Russians, be it the gas pipelines, Naftohaz, or something else. I think the hard-gained Kharkiv Accords added experience to our leadership.
“Taking into account Ukraine’s noticeable retreat in the European field, Russia may resort to all kinds of leverage to finally divert us from Europe. For this reason, we should not take leave of our senses but be aware of reality. Russia is not hiding its intentions. And Ukraine cannot scare Russia with anything, much less with some kind of ultimatums. All we need is a difficult, exhaustive, not always successful, but persisting, flexible, and strategically well-considered negotiating process. Those who have been seriously working in the Russian direction for a long time know this only too well. So Ukraine may have to alter its foreign policy to some extent, but I think it will after all keep its European options open. The crux of the matter is that if the government fails to lay a powerful domestic groundwork for solving the problem of poverty, carrying out land, pension and other reforms, it will only be able to pursue a weak foreign policy. The reforms themselves will only begin to work if this groundwork has been laid. The government has now every possibility to do so: the Presidential Administration and the Cabinet of Ministers can use their parliamentary majority to push any law through parliament. What is the problem? Besides, the opposition is unable to block any pro-governmental decisions in the Verkhovna Rada.
“Another delicate problem is the relationship between the government and the opposition. Both sides have work to do here. What is the main problem? Although the Soviet era formally ended 20 years ago, it is still deep-seated in today’s political life. In the Soviet era, opposition meant anti-Soviet propaganda, i.e., Article 62 of the Criminal Code. The Soviet system considered any oppositionists, its enemies and used the entire punitive mechanism of the state to fight them. And oppositionists considered all the authorities as their enemies. We are not going to analyze now the reasons why the two camps were hostile to each other. Indeed, it was a life-and-death struggle that ended up with the collapse of Soviet power. It sometimes seems to me that the germ of the Soviet-era life-and-death struggle between the go-vernment and the opposition is infecting our current political life – not only today, for this also existed during Yushchenko’s presidency and Tymoshenko’s premiership. And just listen to what present-day politicians are saying at TV talk shows or during election campaigns: as a Soviet song had it, ‘we shall die, one and all, in fighting for this.’ It is difficult to say how this infection can be killed. But, as long as it continues to ramble in our political life, there will be no good. Unless we shake off Soviet legacy in relations between the government and the opposition, negative processes will only be growing.
“Yet, in spite of all the national security problems, I still remain optimistic.”
The newspaper Den is celebrating its 15th anniversary. What impact do you think the publication has had on the formation of a quality informational space in Ukraine over the past 15 years?
“The newspaper Den has a unique staff. What is the proof? Firstly, Den is the first and the only newspaper that has its own Ukraina Incognita Library which undoubtedly influences the intellectual milieu. Secondly, Den is the first and the only one that holds annual photo exhibits. These actions also have a visual effect on society. Thirdly, on the initiative of the editor-in-chief Larysa Ivshyna, Den is the first and the only one that holds the annual Summer School of Journalism, the newspaper’s staff development center of sorts. Fourthly, it is Syndicate, an international quality-press project. Den is also the first here. Fifthly, it is the recent launching of a new website, Ukraina Incognita, which provides for online excursions. It is an altogether unique project. Den is the first here, too, not to mention that the newspaper comes out in three languages. In addition, Den is one of the few publications that correspond with their readers and prints their comments and articles.
“You deserve praises for making a newspaper like this. Let the team spirit help you be always optimistic! Let the number of ideas exceed the possibility of implementing them!”
