|
 
Viktor Yanukovych: A policy independent of the Ukrainian people should not be pursued
05.09.2008, 21:39
The Party of Regions Leader Viktor Yanukovych answered the questions of a Channel 5 correspondent.
- You have not visited Channel 5 for five years. Today You have come to us for the first time. Why?
- First and foremost, thank you for the invitation. Because, generally speaking, I have been invited for the first time. Earlier we have met with you in the party's office. It was the first meeting with Channel 5.
I would like to congratulate Channel 5 on such a remarkable anniversary – the 5th anniversary of Channel 5. And today, definitely, it is a next step towards democracy, towards establishing a democratic country. Because when Channel 5 welcomes the opposition leader so heartily, I dare say that we will surprise some people in Ukraine...
- May I say that now You do not consider Channel 5 as an "orange" channel?
- I have recently noticed more often that Channel 5 has changed its image. Nowadays, it is not a politically biased channel any more. The information today provided by Channel 5 is practically unbiased. Treat these words as a gift for you.
- Now let us talk about the politics. The day before yesterday President Viktor Yushchenko in his TV address clearly stated that Yulia Tymoshenko's Block and the Party of Regions had agreed to create a coalition and had almost formed it. Is it right?
- Certainly, it is not, because there have been no agreements, and any kind of coalition has not been planned so far. We just had an idea that it is necessary to begin the process of uniting the country. The process should be launched in such a way so that the authorities, whatever they are, should be dependent on the Ukrainian people. It is impossible to pursue a policy independent of the Ukrainian people. We strongly oppose it. Therefore, we set an aim for ourselves – firstly, to change the system of power. To this end we initiated alterations to the Constitution, and at the end of past session we introduced our draft version. Presently we are looking for like-minded people who would pursue this path together with us. It is difficult to say now who will share our views because the negotiating process is under way.
- You have arranged with Tymoshenko's Block to make alterations to the Constitution. But in order to change it, two sessions are required. Will you have enough time to do it?
- We have not arranged anything so far. We are negotiating now. By the way, today we do not aim to agree only with Tymoshenko's Block. We believe that the more members of parliament we coalesce over the future Constitution, the more we will unite the Ukrainian people. There is no doubt that the system of power should be more efficient, that it should be dependent on the Ukrainian people (and it means that it will pursue an effective policy). As during the years of independence the people's trust in power has become too low. And without this trust it is impossible to build up a strong country.
- What kind of power do you see in the future? Which power would you like to talk about, and which power would you like to create together with the other political forces?
- Primarily, we have the Party Program, where we stated that Ukraine, in our view, should have a parliamentary-presidential form of government. It is the first point. We set down a lot of directions, which, in our opinion, should shape alterations to the Constitution of Ukraine and later its fulfillment. In other words, legislation should be one for all, and supremacy of law should be established in Ukraine forever. It is inadmissible so that the laws would be violated either by the officials, even by the highest-rank officials or policy makers, or by ordinary Ukrainians.
Nowadays we see that in many cases the judicial system humiliates ordinary citizens and becomes blind when laws are broken. The law is substituted with the concept of political expedience. It should not occur in our country if we mind democracy.
- Yesterday Volodymyr Lytvyn, leader of his block, visited our studio. He, in particular, said about one of the scenarios of development of the political situation. According to him, You allegedly agreed with Tymoshenko's Block that the position of speaker would be occupied by Viktor Yanukovych...
- I do not care about any position in the country. I have drained the power in my life, as it is said, to my heart's content. I am interested how we can realize our aim. And if any position is required for this purpose, and if to this end an appropriate political decision is made by political forces which show their political will to share this path, I will obey any decision. Because the main thing is not a position, the most important is achievement of the aim. And we want to change life in the country for better, we want to unite the country, we want stability in the country. We want to stop the squabbles and political struggle. The fight over one or another position cannot be an aim. The fight for the country's future should be the aim.
- Could these squabbles and split of the country be terminated if Tymoshenko becomes the prime minister, Yushchenko becomes the president, and Viktor Yanukovych becomes the head of Verkhovna Rada?
- It is an item of the negotiating process among the political forces. Today I want to say that we had been watching for a long time what was taking place in the so-called democratic coalition. We saw that this fight was not over. However, we said from the very beginning that these two political forces could not be together. And it proved in 2005, when all authorities were "orange", when the trust was at the highest level, as well as support from the Ukrainian people – it reached 60 per cent then... And what do we see presently? What do we hear from the people today?
Why did it happen so? It happened because both the system of power and some politicians have been carried away with political fight over offices instead of listening to the people and carrying out the policy supported by the people.
I will cite one of the last examples. What was in fact, I would say, a substantial impetus to recent political decisions – both personally mine and my party's? Primarily, it is the issue of Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Ukraine should not have been plunged into this conflict for the sake of someone else's interests, as President Yushchenko made it. We oppose Ukraine's participation in this conflict. We strongly oppose it. We want to live peacefully.
That is why this matter triggered considerable home policy discussion. And I also expressed my point of view – and I have already voiced it more than once, – that today we are faced with the peacekeeping issue. Why Ukraine should assert someone else's interests?
- In Your statement You decided to support independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but did not condemn Russia's interference in Georgia's internal affairs...
- I would like to say that presently there is not doubt that, certainly, Georgia, I would say so, provoked this conflict. Firstly, it is inadmissible to attack the peaceful population at night and annihilate it. These are the things which the Party of Regions and personally I opposed. Precisely these things. Further actions were foreseeable: Russia will answer. How rigidly did it answer cannot be measured. I do not know such a device which would measure its rigidness. Probably, more rough than it was necessary.
But we oppose the policy of double standards, which was used while solving the issue of Kosovo independence. Therefore, in my statement in Verkhovna Rada I said that the first and main problem is the policy of double standards. It is needed to summon immediately a global conference (probably, the UNO should do it) and stop this practice, fix the common international rules or laws. It is a key point. Therefore, our reaction was rigorous. But given what had happened there, Ukraine should not have been involved in the conflict, standing on the side of one or another part. We should have remained neutral. We should have taken part in forming international peacemaking mission and should have actively participated there. And, definitely, we should have responded to the actions of one or another side. Russia acted within a peacemaking mission. It is under question whether it exceeded its authority. But it is indisputable that Georgia, if it wished to keep its territories, territorial integrity, should not have acted as an aggressor against civilian population. It is intolerable to have it out with civilian population by means of weapons. It should be banned once and forever.
- Did I understand You correctly that, in the view of the Georgian events, now Ukraine (if You will be in power) will not join the North Atlantic alliance, Ukraine does not need a Membership Action Plan, and Ukraine should conduct a very prudent policy regarding Crimea so that the Russian peacemaking contingent would not suddenly enter our territory?
- Ukraine enjoys such geopolitical position, such economic relations with mighty states that it should assume neutrality. Therefore, we support for maintaining Ukraine's neutral status. And it should be stipulated in the Constitution. And it requires conducting of an all-Ukrainian referendum. Let the Ukrainian people express their opinion about our state's security system. Why are we afraid of the Ukrainian people to say their word? We are obliged to do it, and it should be done right now, immediately. Today we should find our position and not engage other countries in a combat for our state's future. Let the Ukrainian people say it. Why should we be pushed now? Tell me, please, do we respect ourselves or do we not?
- Returning to Ukraine's home policy... Still the voting now taking place in Verkhovna Rada includes alterations to the legislation on the Prosecutor General's Office, on the Security Service of Ukraine, on governors, on the Cabinet of Ministers. They testify that Ukraine is gradually becoming even more parliamentary than a parliamentary-presidential republic. Parliamentary republics very often envisage abolition of the president post. In this case does the Party of Regions support a post of the country's head in Ukraine or it does not?
- Certainly. There should be the country's head in Ukraine. A parliamentary-presidential form of government stipulates it. The functions of the country's head should be identified, and the country's head should have all leverages of influence on keeping up the constitutional order, on absolute control over it, etc. To put it another way, the functions of the country's head – the President of Ukraine – are set down in the currently effective Constitution, but they should be more clear-cut. The country's head should be strong enough and have all powers to carry out his constitutional duty. Definitely, it should be accompanied with competent executive power. You see, during all years of independence any government has not been allowed to work. I myself passed through this. And all the time, when I even was not in Kyiv, I asked myself: "Why do governments change every year, and why the government is guilty every time? Why not anyone else, any other branch of power is guilty?"
That is why, the government, executive power should have such authority so that it could work efficiently solving social problems (and they cannot be settled without raising the economy's level). I know this matter well, and I am sure that if there is such distribution of powers, and it is fixed in the Constitution, and there is a political will, and these powers are stipulated in the appropriate laws, the country will enjoy stability.
- This week much has been said about the presidential elections, louder every time... Will Viktor Yanukovych run in the 2010 elections?
- As you know, this decision is made at the party congress.
- And would You personally wish it?
- Personally, I will definitely support the party's participation in these elections, and to date it seems to me that I will not avoid this process. But I would like to return back a little bit – we should pass a difficult way in order to, as it is said, be on the finishing line. I do not want any elections to divide Ukraine again. I want the elections to give hope to everyone, every Ukrainian, that the country after any elections will not be worse, but will be better.
- I am sorry, will there be the parliamentary pre-term elections before the presidential ones or not?
- The parliamentary elections can take place provided the only condition: if political forces will fail to agree and unite. I think that any political force aiming at the struggle for power has no future. If the issue of strengthening the state, consolidation of the country becomes the goal, it means work, primarily, for the society, for the people. And the Ukrainian people are the main holder.
- I am hinted that there is little time left, so the last question: now configuration of these alterations to the legislation testifies that actually (if all laws are adopted after approval in the parliament) not the president, but the prime minister becomes the country's head in Ukraine. I ask why should one strive for the president's post?
- I do not agree with such a statement. First and foremost, parliament is a collective body, in which political forces will unite into a coalition. It will control any government, and all this should be stipulated in the Constitution. It means that the government should be accountable to the parliament. The function of the parliament dismissal should be obligatory in the part concerning the president's powers. If a coalition is ineffective, if the political forces which compose it do not fulfill their obligations before the Ukrainian people, the president should have the leverages to dismiss this parliament. The criteria should definitely be stipulated in the Constitution.
- Thank you.
- I thank you also. | |
|
| 
| 
| 
