After her speech in the Center for CSIS Yulia Tymoshenko agreed to answer questions of the audience.
Q: (Unintelligible) – this is your
first visit to United States in ten years. You’ve been a frequent visitor to
Moscow, to European capitals. Even last year, you promised to – you pledged to
visit Tehran, but you’ve been conspicuously absent in Washington. And some say
that the reason you haven’t crossed the U.S. border in the last ten years was
because you were concerned about being detained or even taken or asked to
testify in the case of your former business partner and political ally Pavlo
Lazarenko. Pavlo Lazarenko, as we all know, has been in jail in San Francisco
for the last eight years convicted of money laundering and other crimes.
So my question to you is, could you
comment whether these – whether you had such concerns? Could you comment on the
extent of your cooperation with U.S. law enforcement? And most importantly,
could you tell us now whether you have any remorse about your work with Pavlo
Lazarenko in the past? Thank you.
MS. TYMOSHENKO: My dear friends, I
think that my friends today in the United States, and that I can talk to you
freely is practically the confidence and is against what he just said, and I am
thankful to the American government that so warmly has greeted us in the United
States. I thank to all civic organizations that greeting us so warmly here. I
know that you have prepared for my meeting, but dear friends, I have to
disappoint you: everything is okay with us. We do not have why relation to
these things that you just have mentioned.
Q: My name is Vadim Gorevich (ph).
I’m an independent journalist. You described in very sharp tones the dangers
that Ukraine faces today in terms of its democratic development and even
sovereignty, but somehow you forgot to mention the most significant victory of
Viktor Yanukovych since he’s – you know, since he assumed the post of the prime
minister. But your faction in parliament supported the vote for the (law for
cabinet ministers?) which basically stripped most of the president’s powers,
and you did that in exchange for the law on (imperative?) mandate for local
councils. You also said that in future, you are going to support the law for
imperative mandate for Verkhovna Rada, and you know, as most people here
probably would testify, you know, this law had been condemned throughout the
world as antidemocratic. And the third thing, you devote most of your –
(unintelligible) – Ukraine, if not most, then at least a great part to the
issue of tariffs.
Basically, in terms of tariffs –
about (4 ?) percent of Ukrainian budget today is spent on subsidizing energy.
This is a very significant number, for example, in relation to spending on
education. And the energy tariffs in Ukraine have not grown since 1999. They’ve
been under revision lately. So what’s your strategy in terms of, you know,
liberalizing energy markets? Sorry for the long question.
MS. TYMOSHENKO: First of all, after
the changes to the constitution were adopted, practically has changed the
function between the president and prime minister. Practically, it was in favor
of the prime minister of the parliamentary republic making the president of the
Ukraine a figure that has practical limitations in forming policies of Ukraine.
That was voting regarding the constitutional reform. I would like to remind you
that our faction and personally, myself, I was the only political force in
Verkhovna Rada that did not vote – that practically manmade we would change the
constitution and make the mechanism for the – (unintelligible) – practically
changed the constitution. It was not an organization of Ukraine as practically
to sit back and give influence for the old forces and the policy that were
against to the Orange Revolution. Practically all officials that working under
Kuchma are back in the government. You cannot find even one person that’s not
back in the government and doesn’t do the same thing that they have done before
Orange Revolution. That’s fact nowadays.
Talking about the law on cabinet of
ministers, that’s a law that many times was declared by president, Verkhovna
Rada government as a law that separates their powers as per constitution
between the president and prime minister. We, as the opposition force, had to
choose to give a chance to regulate this conflict between the presidential and
government chain, and the government tried to do it as the law prescribes
because the law has separated. It’s better have a bad policy and no policy at
all, but lack of any policy at all gave the opportunity to Yanukovych and his
team much more powers than the law on cabinet of ministers has taken away from
him. From the two worst things we have really chosen the less evil and
practically, we didn’t want any flowers, but the law when it was adopted, we do
not have any differences between two government branches in this issue. So we
think that we have made a right choice.
As to the imperative mandate, it’s
very important issue in Ukraine because imperative mandate – that’s a right on
the highest organ of the party of Bloc, the convention telling the truth of
those deputies that have switched from one political team to another and in
this case from democratic forces to anti-crisis coalition of Yanukovych. So
through way of (convection?), take away this mandate from them.
I have to tell you that Ukraine is a
nascent democracy, all democratic institutions in Ukraine, and at the same time
also some elements of the traditions are just nascent in Ukraine in political
way. But, you know, when you do not have a stable tradition – stable relation
in the political sector, we have to have in place some law. Unfortunately,
nowadays in such a short period of time, we do not have a party and the classic
understanding of the world. We have the leadership parties that we do not have
stable teams in those parties.
And unfortunately, during short
period of time when these parties were formed, not all members are really clean
members in each party. Besides that, Ukraine has temporarily stopped after all
these things that happened to get revenge – stopped all these. On the other
hand, great amount of money were given to the politics and this money complies
with the function that the money should not do. Unfortunately, this money is
not use for business in parliament. That’s why – unfortunately, that’s why
every day we have pressure on deputies of the democratic parties, pressures on
small businesses, pressure on the corruption propositions. And nowadays, the
only thing that we can do to protect (temporarily?) the Ukraine’s polity from
not very logical steps of politics that’s irresponsibility of the politician
for his political party orientation.
When he changes his political
orientation for in depending of the causes, please give up your mandate. Yes,
this procedure cannot be used for all entireties in Ukraine; maybe for five
years, maybe for ten years, but temporarily so we have opportunity to
strengthen the party, to strengthen our tradition, and to have opportunity not
to change many people after some deputies were attracted to work in some other
political forces.
And moreover, now in constitution
courts, the topic of the imperative mandate is under contemplation. It could be
adopted; it could not be adopted. So if they will not be adopted by the
constitution court, I am risking saying that since we have a majority in
constitution, we will have the majority in Yanukovych side more. So that’s why
we are practically fighting now for Ukrainian’s independence from its
democratic choice. We have to use sometimes political mechanisms that are not
used in the developed democratic countries, but it’s the only opportunity in
the nascent democracies.
As to tariffs, I will not spend too
much time for this. In the basis of tariffs that is raised, all of them, about
60 percent is the cost of gas. Ukraine, dear friends, was put not only on
knees, but there are forces that tried to destroy Ukraine entirely through
increasing this price by factor of – by high factor that destroys the budget,
the local budget, the budget of the country. And today we have the results of
access of – (unintelligible) – to our market and all our – with results of our
agreement and each person in Ukraine is a victim of this gas aggression, gas
terrorism that Ukraine for the past two years sees in its course. It is very
unpleasant to say that both governments led us to this situation, but we’ll try
to protect ourselves as much as we can.
How do we do it? Today, we are
trying quickly to go through all procedures of energy saving and energy
conservation. We are changing from natural gas to coal, other alternative fuel
resources in order to get rid of this dependence. It’s too bad it was not done
15 years ago and now we have to do it fast without destroying Ukraine’s
economy. You’re right: we have much high inflation today than it was predicted;
lower domestic production because we have inadequate influence on the gas price
that we didn’t expect in our economical models.
Q: Andrei Behun (ph) from Washington
Group, former diplomat. Ms. Julia, if you can say about your Third Way, we hope
that we will move in that Third Way. What kind of obstacles can be predicted,
serious barriers that coalition could do or newly combined democratic forces?
MS. TYMOSHENKO: They will have to
overcome these challenges and obstacles. Yes, I understand what you’re talking
about. You are saying about third way early election. You’re talking about
early election, legal election. This is the hardest. The best way to protect
Ukraine today. I agree with you and I am viewed as a person who is able to make
revolutions, but in reality I am very calm person in life and it is much better
for me to move legally forward in order to try to move Ukraine to meetings and
-- (unintelligible). That is why I believe that this is an adequate way: early
parliamentary election.
What do we need for that? We need to
have a very clear legal framework. Our political forces applied – appealed to
constitutional court to explain to us whether the president has this kind of
basis and we gave our arguments to the constitutional courts and we believe that
there is basis for it. We are waiting for the decision of the constitutional
court. After that, the presidential order – executive order has to be done and
then early election.
What am I afraid of? I’m afraid that
the Party of Regions said many times that they will not obey to the decision of
president, the decision of the constitutional court. They will not obey any
democratic decisions or procedures if it will be a threat for them to lose
their power.
I believe that no government in the
world would take a risk and make that statement that they will disobey the
constitutional court’s decision except for Ukrainian one. They said that: “We
are different; we are not the same people as you saw us in 2005. Don’t expect
us to give away power as fast as we did it in 2004 and ‘05.” This is their
official position. You can read on the internet.
And what is important here: the
constitutional court of any country is practically the last resource for
interpretation of constitution and if we have these kinds of decision and the
presidential decree will be there, and the procedure will be established, we
expect that the democratic world will support us in order to see that nobody
will throw their words like – that we will disobey the decision of the
constitutional court or presidential decree.
We would like to see that if there
will be need, legal opportunities and legal ways, will explain to Ukraine – all
the forces of the world will explain to Ukraine that these steps that people
have to be responsible and include these issues. And that is why we are moving
towards this direction. We see the only way out in this manner and we are
disturbed and concerned seeing what is going on today in problems that are
related to the independence of Ukraine. As long as we are there having some
position in politics, we will try our best to protect Ukraine, protect with all
our efforts.
Q: Steve Larrabee, RAND Corporation.
This follows up your last remarks. What would the legal basis for dissolving
the parliament and holding early elections? Sorry it’s such a short question.
(Laughter.)
MS. TYMOSHENKO: Answering to you,
I’d like to say once again what arguments we stated to the constitutional
court, but I’ll be brief. In reality, the constitution includes two options for
the president to announce early elections. First, if during the 30 days there
is no legitimate coalition majority in parliament; and second, 60 days from the
time of loss of legitimate – there is no legitimate government established.
Those are two reasons.
But in reality, we have a whole area
of laws that were violated by both prime minister and officials when they were
members of Verkhovna Rada and later became prime ministers and vice presidents
because they did not declare their Verkhovna Rada membership and they did not move
on time away from that and they lost. They are working today in that
atmosphere.
And unfortunately, in Ukraine people
know about their violations, changing from the parliament to government, but
the laws are not enforced all the time in Ukraine and we believe that we have
legal basis to announce early election. But I would not say about early
election only about legal basis: there are other issues besides the letter of
law formulate or create the necessity to have early election.
We have three issues here. First,
Ukraine is going through deep constitutional crisis. We heard it from the
leader of the Party of Regions. He said clearly that there is a national, deep,
political, constitutional crisis. The president of Ukraine stated the same.
Prime Minister of Ukraine stated the same. And in reality we cannot ignore the
fact that Ukraine is losing elements of stability every day and the standoff of
two branches of government ruins our health, the investment climate, and the
Ukraine’s position as a stable partner – trustworthy.
And on the other hand, deep social
and economic crisis in Ukraine. It has a lot of components, but people are
frustrated and we see that, and the social problems that are related to high
tariff on gas and also absence of compensatory politics. Those are the other
issue.
And the third issue is the
dissatisfaction of the government’s work by middle and large and small
businesses. Those are both are domestic businesses and investors and foreign
investors. We have some restrictions with regard to export, including grain,
that brought it to the shadows level and some – another that exporters are not
refunded. Their taxes – value added taxes are not refunded to exporters. We
know about it. Those are well known facts. In addition to that, we have the
revision of ownership in Ukraine and everybody sees that (acts of raiders?)
today for the first time this issue was raised today and the first time there
is a draft of law to prevent raiders. And that is why all of these components
lead to the fact that even if the government of Yanukovych will want to be at
the power forever, he will not be able to do that, taking into account what is
going on in Ukraine today.
Q:. My question is regarding – could
you just shed some light on the reasons why in the presidential administration
and in Our Ukraine there seems to be a situation where the left hand doesn’t
know what they right hand is doing? And I’m saying this in the context of why
this is leading – this inability to have a coherent policy platform with the
president is leading to a sense of Ukraine fatigue in Washington about
President Yushchenko.
And I’ll give you – and so please
shed some light on why that is the case. Why Ukraine or the president of
Ukraine seems to have a multivector domestic policy when he deals with various
policies and particularly related to this one example is the great development
that you signed an agreement on the opposition, on a joint opposition with Our
Ukraine is, I think, a positive development. But in the same week that this was
signed, President Yushchenko signed a decree awarding a medal for his alleged
contribution to the rule of law in Ukraine to Mr. Portivenko (ph). You know
this individual particularly because he instituted trumped up charges against
yourself that led to your imprisonment in 2001.
So why would in the same week an
agreement be signed with Our Ukraine, which the president endorses, and then in
the same week he signs a decree promoting Mr. Portivenko? Thank you.
MS. TYMOSHENKO: As to the fatigue of
Ukraine from all these processes, Ukraine can feel fatigue from inconsistency
in politics, but Ukraine will never feel fatigue to protect its independence
and its right to be Ukraine. Ukraine got never tired of this for the past 100
years. That is why I would like to tell you directly even if we see some
difficulties in democratic camp and maybe some acts are inconsistent, that’s
why we have our team there under my leadership in order to stop all kind of
steps to right or left, but rather move – keep the course and with one concept
and this direction was announced by our forces during presidential campaign. We
did not just simply sign this agreement on Saturday. This is a program to
reform Ukraine. That is our domestic policy and our joint steps with regard to
foreign vector. This joint position, this common position is stated in the
program document that was signed.
With regard to awards, I believe
that awards are fine. In any country, any president decided to award this
person, then he knows why he gave that award – granted that award to him, but
at this time I would not focus on these aspects. I would rather think how not
to allow to have this multivector policy, as you said, because in reality there
was – each politics has its own specifics. Kuchma had multivector politics in
all areas, and very often in the morning he didn’t know what kind of vector he
will follow that day, and that sometimes depended upon circumstances, sometimes
because of the weather or something else – some other factors affected it.
With regard to Viktor Andreevich,
Yushchenk, and myself, I would like to say that in our case, multivector is not
allowed. We are people of very strict line and there are no changes or
deviation from it. With regard to Viktor Fedorovich, people are trying to make
him look like Kuchma with his multivector policies, but nobody can do it. This
is a person with one vector, which is in opposition to what we are doing today
– our team.
That is why in this context today, I
would like to say that we put an end to multivector situation in Ukraine. The
issue is what vector will be chosen by our country and which politician would
follow what vector, and I would like to thank the democratic countries of the
whole world today who are trying today to shed a light to our prime minister
that there is a multivector situation, but I don’t know any politician who
would be able to explain to me Mr. Yanukovych that there is one vector which is
directed to Euro-Atlantic integration, to cleaning and reform of domestic life
in Ukraine with European standards. That is why we would like to ask you to
take into account that each politician has his own mentality, its own view, its
own politics and take that into account.
I know today there is a quite
popular view among politicians that Yanukovych and his team, including Akhmetov
– those are big businessmen who would not want to go on the auspices of Russia;
they will stay independent because they need to be independent in their
business. Dear friends, this is a naïve position – absolutely naïve because
Yanukovych and his team are not free to do – to choose anything in this context
and protect the business. For example, in Naftohaz and Minister Boyko, minister
of fuel and energy, you know this name, this is a person who is not accepted
either by Yanukovych or Kluyev, but Boyko works anyway because that’s the order
he got.
We know that the firing of Tarasyuk
from the position of minister of foreign affairs was absolute confrontation on
the side of prime minister towards president. That was a direct confrontational
act. What do you think? Yanukovych he wanted this confrontation? No, he
couldn’t make any other decision because he had – he felt great pressure and
maybe even wanted to protect their business, but they are not free in following
the policy that they can do in Ukraine.
Q: Mrs. Tymoshenko, you said in your
talk that the majority of the Ukrainian people still support the values of the
Orange Revolution, but you just said that the president and you still hold the
same principles. If that’s a case and you have early elections, what outcome
could you predict in the composition of the parties as a result of elections?
MS. TYMOSHENKO: In Ukraine,
sympathies are not stable and – but we believe that Ukraine will elect
democratic forces for the third time. And the democratic forces, regardless who
will represent them in the Ukrainian government, will be in favor always
because nobody can see in Ukraine that there will be a reemergence of old
format.
Sixty-five percent of Ukrainians see
European integration, implementation of European values, see Ukraine to be
cleaned of corruption, not allowing corrupting clans to the power in Ukraine,
seeing deep reforms in Ukraine based on transparent, honest, fair procedures,
and nobody would be able to convince this part of the society to vote for a
different camp. They can stay without gas. They can start use firewood. They
can lose last pennies of their budget. They can be disenchanted by politicians
who are in democratic camp, but they will never vote differently because this
is on the level of genes, the level of people’s life and their blood, and
nobody will convince them otherwise.
Yes, in Ukraine we have 30 percent
of people – still have – who still dream that they would be able to live better
in a new form of the Soviet Union – those are 30 percent; 70 percent do not
live that kind of life. That’s why all supporters of Yanukovych who are there
that were – they expect and they are waiting for steps, but at the same time,
they are disenchanted by illiterate policy of the government with the
challenges that have Ukraine today.
I am an optimist about democratic
forces. Regardless what kind of forces will have – they will be – they will
win. What kind of structure? Probably majority would go for our bloc, probably
the same as Nasha Ukraina. I do not exclude the fact that there might be one or
two parties of democratic (course?) that can overcome that 3-percent threshold,
but we early – before the early election, we signed the agreement stating that
we are together today in opposition, but this agreement also predicts all kind
of coalition agreement in the future and in the case of early election and in
case of democratic forces win.
Q: You answered somewhat question
today. Party of Regions said that they are ready for presidential and
parliamentary election in September of this year. Social polling shows that if
this kind of election would be there, then Yanukovych can win during this kind
of election. Do you see this opportunity to have a parliamentary and
presidential election at the same time? If the presidential and parliamentary
elections are scheduled, are you going to run for president? With regards to
the ideology of your party, you said that party is not of western model or
nevertheless, I’d like to know more about your ideology.
MS. TYMOSHENKO: I will start with
the first question that today, as I said earlier, the team of Yanukovych stated
that they have a draft submitted to their parliament about having parliamentary
and presidential election at the same time. This is not a serious conceptual
decision that they want to approve, but today, besides the presidential
impeachment, there is no other procedure in constitution that would be
applicable for the announcement of early election. The president is officially
elected and the election was the most honest election. All the legal work was
done, and all the judicial system – it went through all the judicial system and
his presidency is legal.
And they know that there is no other
legal way to announce a new presidential election besides impeachment, but
there is not reason for impeachment. There is no basis for impeachment. I
believe that this kind of statement is the understanding of the Party of Region
that early elections are real and that the Ukrainian society has accepted it as
a better way than the chaos that, unfortunately, the parliamentary majority
created today. That is just a political statement which doesn’t – is not
supported by legal framework.
With regard to our party, our party
is leftist and with understanding that the course of Ukraine is only towards
European community and the European Union. Well, there is an issue when and
how, but we believe that that’s the course that our political force will move
Ukraine forward.
With regard to reforms that Ukraine
has to implement today, regardless of the fact that we are in opposition today,
regardless of the fact that we have a very complicated situation in Ukraine,
our political force submitted several drafts of law – bills.
First, it’s a bill about reforms of
judicial system in Ukraine. I know that there will never be a very big
investment development in Ukraine on corrupt government in Ukraine, if we are
not enforcing the laws. So we attracted – invited experts and we have
a bill that Ukraine can be proud of
today because it addresses all the weaknesses of our legal system today. That
is; if this bill will pass, then we will overcome these problems.
The second thing that we’re trying
to do today also to better the investment climate is we are trying to introduce
into parliament – today we introduced the conceptual document of protection of
the majority investors in Ukraine. We think that the market of actual not work
in the Ukraine if we don’t have the regulations in place. Our bill is already
at its first reading in the Verkhovna Rada and also was highly appreciated by
European experts with regard to the economic topics.
The third project: in one month
we’re going to introduce in the parliament, independently that we are opposition.
This is a very important project of the pensioners in the Ukraine – retired
people in the Ukraine. Among our other laws, this law will take away all
complications, all corruptions. And also the law about the land use, because
we’re trying to stop the corruption. This bill about land use is already in its
first reading in the parliament.
I don’t want to take more of your
attention, but I want you to know, for us, whatever we were able to do after
the Orange Revolution – first of all, the first honest privatization in
post-Soviet space is proud that it was able to implement the program to stop
the contraband with all the laws that we have accepted, practically the
contraband, the illegal transfer is practically impossible in Ukraine now, and
being in opposition we do not stop even for one day to create all (legal bases
?) to continue reforms in Ukraine and we have to vote for very important
projects in Ukraine. We’re going to vote with the power force, with anti-crisis
coalition, because even we have this opposition coalition, but it cannot strop
Ukraine’s movement toward the stability in society, reforming the people’s
life, and accession into this WTO and European Union.
Thank you very much dear friends for
your questions and thank you very much for coming to this meeting, but in spite
of this fact that we have talked to you about the complications, challenges of
Ukrainian politics that we talked about not very nice things, maybe even of
pre-term elections if there is need for it, but what happened in Ukraine during
the Orange Revolution has no return back. Nobody can take it away from us. Even
if the opposition will be weak and power party will be strong, even if forces
will be eliminated, they are ready to support the process of moving Ukraine
toward this or the other side, but you have to know that Ukraine has people
with very great strength. This people understand where Ukraine has to be now,
its place in the society and what to do to progress. And if we will do some
steps toward the back, we will do in the future some hundreds of steps forward.
So nowadays in Ukraine we have at
least two political forces that have in parliament more than 200 force – voices
– votes, but no political force. This force foresees the independent Ukraine,
strong Ukraine, European Ukraine and fourthly,
Ukraine that we will be proud in the
world. And this will be a very difficult way because democracy – development of
democracy was never easy without struggle. I think in the United States this
democracy has also a difficult way with steps forth and back, with some
achievements and failures, so that’s why I would like you to understand.
Please, do not dismiss Ukraine as something that they will be laid back. That’s
not typical for Ukraine. If we have businessmen in this room, please do not
lose the hope, start your businesses in Ukraine. A few more steps and you will
see that Ukraine is not only the business partner, but is a strong partner and
none of the revanchist – the problems will spoil this relationship, and I thank
you for the support of Ukraine on this way. Thank you.
MR.: Thank you for a brilliant
speech and for answering, frankly, a lot of questions. Normally, prime
ministers and former prime ministers evade a lot questions and I didn’t hear
too much evasion there, so I appreciate that.
Transcript by:
Federal News
Service, Washington, D.C.
Material provided by U.S.-Ukraine Foundation
