The cassette scandal has become a control situation for many processes in Ukrainian politics. The president of Ukraine has on more than one occasion made statements on the subject, yet no one has heard his opinion at length. The following is a slightly abridged interview of the president with Radio Liberty, hosted by its Russian Service Editor Olena KOLOMIYCHENKO. Mr. Kuchma also answered questions posed by The Day ’s editor-in-chief Larysa IVSHYNA and German journalist Ulrich HEYDEN representing the Tagesspiegel and Deutschlandfunk German radio.
“THOSE IN POWER ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHATEVER HAPPENS, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT”
Olena KOLOMIYCHENKO: Mr. President, Ukraine’s very diverse opposition united, most likely temporarily, into a National Salvation Front. In their words, the initiative is aimed at “putting an end to the criminal regime, asserting truth and law, and guiding Ukraine toward the European road of development.” It sounds not bad.
Leonid KUCHMA: The idea is very attractive
O. K.: The Ukrainian opposition is ideologically heterogeneous. Besides, one of its leaders, former Vice Premier Yuliya Tymoshenko, is under criminal investigation and no one can predict the outcome. Don’t you think that all those in power are in one way or another responsible for what is happening and that this also applies to you as president? There are many aspects to the scandal that your fellow countrymen fail to understand. Perhaps as president you should make a public statement and explain the situation?
L. K.: I will not deny that those in power are always responsible for everything that happens, including the president. Certainly not all means possible were used to place events the way they actually happened and not like some members of our so-called opposition would have it. Today (February 10 — Ed.) we have arrived at certain conclusion and the National Security Council had a sitting, that’s why I was late for this meeting. I would describe that committee — perhaps not with regard to all its members — as a Committee of Saving Ourselves. Ukraine does not have to be saved; Ukraine clearly chose its road to Europe and our ten years of independence have consistently confirmed this choice. Some want to drag themselves out of the cobweb of forgotten politicians or do something to save themselves, but that’s a different story.
O. K.: The National Salvation Front includes people whose views would seem totally incompatible with the opposition, people who found themselves unneeded by the government.
L. K.: Maybe so. In this country people considering themselves undeservedly offended invariably join the opposition: Yuliya Tymoshenko, for example (you just mentioned her) or Serhiy Holovaty. They were all in power, they were together with this president, all following his course, including our European choice. But once they were denied power they joined the opposition.
“AS FOR YULIYA TYMOSHENKO, I WAS INFORMED THAT HER BIOGRAPHY WASN’T COMPLETELY CLEAN. I TOLD VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO SO”
Larysa IVSHYNA: Mr. Kuchma, I think that a lot of problems in Ukraine exist because those in power and opposition often ignore the rules. For example, when the government was formed a mine was laid which has only now gone off; the interests of the majority were not taken into account, and that majority gave their votes for the prime minister. At the same time, Yuliya Tymoshenko, an odious figure, also became a member of the cabinet. Why did you agree to her appointment?
L. K.: I absolutely agree with you; indeed, the premier’s candidacy was suggested to me unanimously, by all majority factions. I agreed and gave Yushchenko carte blanche in forming his government because this was one of his conditions, except for the military and security ministries and agencies. I think that this carte blanche was Yushchenko’s mistake, perhaps mine as well. Under the circumstances consultations ought to have been held with all fraction leaders and on that basis take Ukraine’s first step toward structuring parliament and organizing the work of its majority on the same basis as that on which all parliaments in Europe work. There is a coalition which forms the cabinet jointly with the president and prime minister. We didn’t do this. As for Yuliya Tymoshenko, I was, of course, informed that her record was not completely clean. I told Viktor Yushchenko so. I said, “I’m against her being a member of the cabinet; if you don’t have information, just call or visit the General Prosecutor’s Office. They’ll show you all the documents.” I did this, but he asked me to let him have his way, that he would undertake the job only if Yuliya Tymoshenko, as an energy sector expert, would be a member of the government. I agreed, perhaps because I didn’t have the will or for some other reasons that could be viewed differently, maybe because he was strongly insistent. But shortly afterward I and many others, including the Verkhovna Rada Chairman, realized that it was a mistake. On more than one occasion we suggested that Viktor Yushchenko correct that mistake.
L. I.: The political capital converted by Yuliya Tymoshenko in that post will long cause reverberations, and I mean more than just as money. I would like to know your opinion. Do you agree that now the cabinet doesn’t look like the president’s political ally?
L. K.: Why? ... Even now we had a conversation that even under these difficult and critical circumstances the president — I purposefully omit Kuchma’s name and mention just the president of Ukraine — the government doesn’t take a stand. Yet I strongly oppose the idea that the prime minister should be replaced now. I think that we should wait until the 2002 elections, even if with some changes, and then try to do what is being done elsewhere in the world.
Ulrich Heyden: Mr. President, it would be interesting to hear your opinion, how you personally view Yuliya Tymoshenko’s attainments and failures? Is there anything she did wrong in the energy sector?
L. K.: I think that most of the steps she made are not market ones by nature, none whatsoever. What she did was to centralize power, resources, and money flows in her own hands. When we announced privatization of the seven largest regional energy companies, the foreign companies willing to take part in the privatization immediately declared that they were resolutely opposed to such centralization. Money had to be forwarded to those providing electricity, not Kyiv where that money would be allocated. And then there was the rejection of privatization, also by Yuliya Tymoshenko, in the energy sector. She always strongly opposed the privatization of generating, and most importantly distribution companies.
I won’t even mention the situation concerning gas supplies to Ukraine. After her joining the government our relationships with the Russian Federation were ruined. The Unified Energy System’s debt to Russia’s Defense Ministry — she just cheated the Ministry — amounts to $350 million and the money was transferred from Moscow to offshore companies, never reaching Ukraine. And so many Russian Defense Ministry officials are under criminal investigation. Second, I had to step in, otherwise we would be without gas this year; I had to fly to Turkmenistan and negotiate a supply of 130 billion cubic meters of gas on conditions that are very favorable for Ukraine. Although the Russian Federation was not helpful — I mean Russia’s Gazprom and the Russian leadership.
O. K.: I would like to pose a final question concerning Yuliya Tymoshenko. If she is under criminal investigation, what will be the outcome and when?
L. K.: You know, this question is not for me. Ask the General Prosecutor’s Office. I always ask them to work on highly publicized cases without delay, but I can’t say what the outcome will be and when. They say the case is very complicated and requires a lot of work. The reason is simple. Until last year practically no countries or banks provided any information about bank accounts. They started doing so several years ago, on the G-7’s initiative, I mean the effort to combat money-laundering; it was then that the countries with which we have treaties on legal help began to assist us. Of course, the Lazarenko case being investigated in the United States shed light on many aspects; we would have never dug up as much as America did. There is no secret that the Unified Energy Systems is a principal character in the Lazarenko case and Lazarenko makes no secret of the fact.
GONGADZE CASE: WE’LL DIG OUT THE TRUTH
L. I.: Mr. President, now that we have that prestige [i.e., cassette] scandal in Ukraine, perhaps the regime is lucky (and I think that the regime is showing a very passive attitude). People show little confidence in the opposition, perhaps even less than in those actually in power. Much will depend on how well they can convince the sober- minded part of society that they are doing right. Do you have fresh arguments, something people will want to hear?
L. K.: I wouldn’t want to refer to those behind that action as an opposition, because if it’s a real opposition, it would act under altogether different laws; it would not act contrary to this country’s national interests. What we see now has a lot of negative aspects, and there are signs that special services are involved. Let me ask you something as a noted journalist and editor-in-chief: Who in Ukraine knew Gongadze as a journalist?
L. I.: I must say that our newspaper was one of several saying that the assumption that this was a political assassination is still to be proven, because Heorhy Gongadze was a noted Kyiv journalist but not the most conspicuous opposition figure. I can say so, because our newspaper challenged your right to a second term for quite some time.
L. K.: Precisely. I didn’t known that journalist and never met him. Except that I had heard about his appearance on Pikhovshek’s television show. He hadn’t written anything about me. Later, I had to familiarize myself with some of his publications, and he wrote about other people without using his own name. Although I do not rule out the possibility — as I have stated on more than one occasion — because I am a manager and have an appropriate lexicon, and so on. If someone reported something, I might have used strong words about anyone. I’m not ashamed of it. At my age it’s difficult not to use unprintable terms, because sometimes it’s more effective than any arguments.
O. K.: Suppose we leave it to the stylists.
L. K.: All right, now tell me why should a president bother about a journalist after winning a second term and no longer needing to worry about his political career. Let them say that I offended or humiliated someone or said something impolite. I tell everybody that I don’t read the newspapers, I just ask them to prepare summaries on articles dealing with interesting economic topics, political reviews, or intergovernmental relationships. I never ask them to give me all that dirt. In this sense, they show me what I should pay attention to and read. At one time I tried to read before going to sleep, but you know, I couldn’t go to sleep afterward.
O. K.: Don’t you think that the Gongadze case must reach its end one way or another and that the body should be properly buried?
L. K.: Absolutely. You know, the whole thing outrages me as a human being. I give you my word that from day one, I told them, “The sooner you make things public, the better it will be for society, for Ukraine. I insisted on part of the DNA sample being sent to the Russian Federation, considering that they have the famous expert Ivanov. He said it tallied 99.6 percent. I am a technician and I know that it can’t be any higher.
U. H.: Mr. President, in any case, the conflict centered on the Gongadze case is extremely politicized. However, the Western European public is alarmed by the situation with the freedom of expression in Ukraine, primarily because the investigation has been underway for almost five months. You understand that this worries Western European institutions and civil society.
L. K.: Believe me, I do understand your question and the responsibility, and how much the situation aggrieves the family, mother, wife, and children. I am convinced that we’ll dig out the truth. I’m absolutely certain we will. Yet I also have a question to pose you and myself. Every year 35,000-40,000 persons are reported missing here, of whom 10% are never found. Second, it would be improper of me to ask you questions, but why haven’t you found Swedish Premier Palme’s assassin? We still don’t know why President Kennedy was killed. I could ask you many such questions. If Europe wants to help us, we need more than criticism, not just that there is nothing being done in Ukraine. Let’s sit down, look all the facts over, and think of what should be done to at least reduce the number of such resonant issues in Ukraine and elsewhere.
IF WE CAN BE 99 PERCENT SURE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS EAVESDROPPED, WHAT’S THE USE OF OUR SPECIAL SERVICES MEANT TO KEEP THIS COUNTRY SECURE?
L. I.: Mr. President, some might say in Europe that our law enforcement agencies are our problem and our responsibility. Would you please comment on the National Security Council’s sitting? We all know that our law enforcement authorities are faced with a lot of problems and they may have lacked sufficient public control and remained insufficiently transparent. What decisions do you intend to make to change the situation?
L. K.: To begin with, I’ve made several decisions. In the first place, there’s the law enforcement reform. There is a most representative task force, including people’s deputies, politicians, and most importantly experts, jurists, and lawyers, that are to analyze the condition of our law enforcement system. Parliament is still to pass the Judicial, Civil, and Criminal Codes. So I hope that we will soon hear proposals on what’s to be done, and we’ll do it. Where things can be done by presidential decisions, such decisions will be made; where we require legislative confirmation, appropriate proposals will be submitted to Verkhovna Rada.
Also, an oversight department has been set up under the president. In other words, the first step toward public, more transparent control has been taken, starting with personnel and other changes. The NSDC secretariat will have more powers in terms of coordinating law enforcement agencies. They can’t exist each by itself, from the standpoint of duplicating functions and responsibility. In fact, I have made the first decision today (February 10 — Ed. ), and not the last one, to replace the head of the Security Service of Ukraine [SBU].
WITHOUT DOUBT, THERE SHOULD BE NEW NAMES AND FACES ON THE TEAM
L. I.: Mr. President, you have mentioned bills still to be passed. Yet we know that the parliament is half paralyzed. Will it be able to function? What do you think? The more so that there are people among your political allies and entourage, generally known as hawks, tending to persuade you to make sharper, more radical decisions. Perhaps the opposition also want such decisions. How do you propose to build your relationship with the parliament?
L. K.: Over the years I could have been studied like the back of one’s hand, so you should know my character and be able to predict what I’ll do. Over the years I have had a lot of opportunities, including more favorable ones, to disband the parliament. Perhaps I should and it would be the right thing, serving Ukraine’s interests. Yet I couldn’t, because this would be unconstitutional. I’ll never under any circumstances use force.
O. K.: Mr. President, we have touched on the subject of freedom of the press and the situation with the media in Ukraine which, of course, leaves much to be desired. Practically every TV channel and every print outlet reflects some group’s interests, but to form an overall picture of what is happening in Ukraine, one has to read and sift everything, then one might understand it all, even if with difficulty. Don’t you think that a truly public television network is necessary that will not reflect the interest of just political parties? This topic is very acute in another country of the post-Soviet bloc, the Czech Republic, which is faced with similar problems. Is there a possibility of such a network or perhaps newspaper being placed under real public control?
L. K.: I strongly disagree with what is being said about Ukraine and its freedom of the press in many respects. After all, no one can cite a single example of the president interfering with or closing down this or that newspaper. For example, The Day, which was expressly opposed to the president of this country, especially during the election campaign. Ask its editor, has she ever experienced any problems, any attempts to obstruct her work? Now this newspaper was in opposition in the true democratic sense of the word. When those in power apply the law to some organ or another, or when someone having nothing to do with those in power sues a newspaper and the court rules it closed, tell me why do we have to raise the issue of freedom of the press? When those mudslingers, trying to save face, say there is political persecution, sorry, I don’t understand it. As for public television, I’m all for it, but I am resolutely against the kind of public television proposed by parliament, I mean a budget-sustained network. That’s not public television. Actually, I’m thinking of turning to the Council of Europe, maybe it will help us. I will indeed assist with the formation of an organ truly independent of the state, treasury, or any private structures.
L. I.: Mr. President is right, our relationships with the regime are far from cloudless. Are you prepared to update your team and attract people wishing to cooperate with the constructive part of society? The regime needs new faces.
L. K.: You must be aware that I signed an order to further improve the media’s performance and their protection. As for my team, I have no doubt that there should be new names and faces. But you also know that I am criticized by many for changing, so to speak, faces over the years. Life never stands still and I always wholeheartedly welcome those wishing to work not for the president, but for this country in the first place, people bringing specific constructive proposals. Regrettably, we also know that there aren’t many professionals in Ukraine, for reasons we also know, just a handful.
O. K.: Mr. President, I would like to expand on Larysa Ivshyna’s question. You have mentioned that there are many new faces on the team.
L. K.: I didn’t say many, I said that there are new faces and that the faces are changing.
O. K.: All right, there are new faces, but there are also the administration’s old operating procedures, lobbying ones to an extent; some do not like others, others are trying to crowd out still others... That’s human, after all, but perhaps the administration’s performance should be made more transparent, more understandable to the people?
L. K.: I agree with you. Perhaps just the press secretary providing information is not enough. Perhaps if Press Secretary Lytvyn acted the way Tabachnyk had — I mean his constant appearances before journalists and being able to answer their questions, having more information than a press secretary... You’re absolutely right. The president should perhaps first build a pattern of performance for the entire executive branch, so the ministers, including those in charge of the military and security ministries and agencies could meet the people face to face and look them straight in the eye, reporting on what they are actually doing about the problems the people are concerned with. An open dialogue with society should go on constantly. I think I will take measures in that direction by all means.
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH HAS COME FOR UKRAINE
U. H.: Mr. President, any crisis in any society might have negative as well as positive aspects. Could you say what positive consequences the currently sharpening situation could have?
L. K.: Thanks for using the word sharpening, because I would not want to use the word crisis again, even though attempts, including an attempted coup d’etat, are on the minds of many experts and politicians. I think that if this crises is supported, especially from the outside, it can have only one outcome: the ruin of Ukraine. And there isn’t a single positive aspect in it. First, it has practically caused the majority to fall apart, and I don’t know how much effort it will take to put it back together. And the government will be a nonentity without the majority. We must submit a report to the Council of Europe by June on how we are complying with our obligations. And all we have to report on is legal reform, that’s all. We have no Budget Code, Tax Code, Land Code, nor do we have the laws on political parties and elections.
O. K.: Mr. President, thank you for finding it possible to spend an hour with us. By tradition, a short resume at the end of the program.
L. I.: At this time all forces in our society should work to develop a new set of rules to reign supreme, so the regime can get out of the conflict with the understanding that the old rules can no longer be applied; so that the opposition is left with the understanding that it will not be an opposition using its current methods.
U. H.: I do hope that the conflict will not further aggravate in this country; I do not want to use words like blood spilling conflict. I am sure you will find solutions to your problems that will secure peace and stability in Ukraine.
O. K.: I would like to point out that today’s meeting makes it possible for one to hope that Ukraine can find a way out of the present situation which I personally regard as quite critical. Regrettably, some decisions seem to have been late, yet I do hope that the crisis will be solved and that Ukraine will actually start to move forward.
L. K.: I would like to state that the moment of truth has come for Ukraine. Is the political elite capable of settling the problem, acting under the Constitution and in accordance with the law, or will it choose some unpredictable option, bringing Ukraine nothing but trouble and suffering? Also, I would like everybody to understand that one should not make speculations using the president’s statements. The president has declared Ukraine’s European choice. None other but President Leonid Kuchma. All these years we have been moving in that direction, albeit slowly, at the pace our strength and capabilities allow — and I mean also the ability of the political elite to act united in a strategic direction. Many are pulling us in the opposite direction, among them Comrade Moroz who all these years has done his utmost to worsen the situation in Ukraine. At the time he could have a better chance to come to power. He is the one to have practically rejected our European choice, who refused to recognize the development of a market economy, who even now says that the land in Ukraine will be privatized “over my dead body.” All of a sudden we now see him now as an outspoken champion of that very European choice. That’s immoral! And so I think that the moment of truth will come indeed, and that Ukraine and its president to some extent will emerge cleansed.
O. K.: We will end using the Ukrainian leader’s words he said after I stopped the tape: “I will not resort to Lukashenka-style measures.”
