INTERVIEW: Yevhen Marchuk on integration, Chornobyl (04/14/96)

INTERVIEW: Yevhen Marchuk on integration, Chornobyl

KYIV - Yevhen Marchuk, 55, Ukraine's prime minister since June 1995, has developed a reputation as a polished and professional politician over the last several years, trouble-shooting for President Leonid Kuchma on such issues as the Black Sea Fleet division, Kyiv-Crimean peninsula conflicts and Ukrainian-Russian relations.

Tough, but polite, the former high-ranking KGB official is regarded as a political mystery in Ukraine. Although he does not have the backing of any political party, and is not allied with any one force, Mr. Marchuk is regarded as one of Ukraine's most popular political figures, often ranking second only to President Kuchma.

This has begun speculation in political circles about trouble between President Kuchma and Prime Minister Marchuk, but both Western analysts and Ukrainian insiders say the two men seem too wise to let political intrigue interfere with their relations as government leaders. Mr. Marchuk, who sets a striking figure with his jet-black hair and dark eyes, has been mentioned as a probable candidate for Ukraine's third president. Currently, however, he has his hands full as prime minister and a deputy in the Supreme Council elected from the Myrhorod region in the Poltava Oblast in December 1995, capturing more than 83 percent of the vote in the first round.

One Western diplomat recently told The Washington Post that "Mr. Marchuk is one of the hardest to pin down in terms of what he actually thinks. He has the tightest circle of people around him, and none of them talks." Many political observers add that Mr. Marchuk, coming from many years of experience at the KGB, knows more about everybody than anybody knows about him, giving him the upper hand in various situations.

Born in the Kirovohrad region in central Ukraine, Mr. Marchuk completed his higher education at the pedagogical institute there in 1963, graduating as a teacher of Ukrainian language and literature. It was that year that he began his career with the local KGB in Kirovohrad, later moving up through the ranks to the Poltava region and in 1990 winding up as first deputy chief of the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR.

When Ukraine declared independence, Gen. Marchuk was appointed director of the new Security Service of Ukraine, which replaced the KGB. His appointment elicited surprisingly little opposition from former political dissidents elected in 1990 to the Parliament.

He declassified KGB archives from the 1930s through the 1950s, and advocated legal rehabilitation and compensation for dissidents repressed by the Soviet regime. Mr. Marchuk served in that post until 1994. When Mr. Kuchma was elected Ukraine's second president, Mr. Marchuk was appointed a deputy prime minister, and headed a special government commission on organized crime and corruption.

When Prime Minister Vitaliy Masol resigned in March of 1995, President Kuchma named Mr. Marchuk acting prime minister.

An ethnic Ukrainian, Mr. Marchuk is married and has two sons. He is fluent in English and German, is an avid amateur weight lifter and an excellent pianist.

On March 27, Mr. Marchuk granted a rare interview to Andrew Nagorski of Newsweek and Marta Kolomayets of The Ukrainian Weekly.

Q: Russian politicians from Boris Yeltsin to Gennadiy Zyuganov are talking about reintegration of the former Soviet republics. Is Ukraine open to this possibility or alarmed by it?

A: The healthiest influence on Ukrainian-Russian relations is economic ties based on mutual benefit. I have often said that cooperation in the sphere of market reforms, for example the formation of trans-national companies that share capital and interests, can be very effective during this transitional period in our society. This kind of movement in the economic sphere is of great importance and, in turn will have an influence on the political situation.

Our economic history was always intertwined, and this past makes it necessary for us to cooperate closely.

So, any twists and turns in relations between our two countries are always pretty complicated and must be dealt with responsibly.

Integration is a normal process for us in both economic and humanitarian terms. But, we strongly object - and President Leonid Kuchma also has often said this - to any supranational structure that signals a new central power.

Q: So the recent agreement between Belarus and Russia is not a model for Ukraine?

A: No, it is not a model for Ukraine.

Q: Is there any possibility of a new Soviet Union?

A: Retro is good in art, maybe in fashion, but not in politics. Attempts to rebuild the Soviet Union on any basis are fraught with serious consequences, including conflict. The creation of a union like the European Union - where mutual economic interests prevail and customs barriers are eliminated - is another question. But not a political union, of course. The resurrection of the Soviet Union is impossible.

Furthermore, time will tell if this new union of states - which is being referred to as the CIS-2 in some circles - will have a future. [Mr. Marchuk was speaking of the integration agreement signed by the leaders of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan on March 29 in Moscow.]

At this point in time, the Commonwealth of Independent States formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union does not even function on an economic level.

Q: What is Ukraine's role in the CIS?

A: On April 12, the heads of state of the CIS countries are scheduled to hold a summit in Moscow. [Mr. Marchuk will head the Ukrainian delegation, where 14 blocs of issues, including socio-economic, organizational, technical and financial topics, will be discussed.]

Ukraine, which is an associate member of the CIS, will take part in the meeting. We are interested in cooperation between states, especially in terms of economic relations.

But, I must point out that Ukraine has always been very careful in putting its signature on any CIS documents. We have always thought twice before acceding to any appeal or proposal, even those most innocuous in nature. We analyze each document thoroughly, reviewing it carefully, submitting it to a team of experts before we agree to anything.

I don't remember a single time that Ukraine just signed some CIS document; why even our approach has elicited chuckles from other member-states, which are astounded when Ukraine does not have any objections or corrections to a document presented at any CIS meeting.

Q: What if Zyuganov wins the presidential elections in Russia and pushes for the restoration of the Soviet Union?

A: I don't see any danger here. These are different times, not the same world as before. Something bad can happen, but any politician who comes to power in Russia cannot ignore the realities of Ukrainian-Russian relations, especially in the economic sphere. Whatever hypothetical pressure there could be, Russian gas goes through Ukraine to the West; so does oil and electricity. Any pressure could evoke a reaction, and it is unlikely that any Russian leader would not realize that Ukraine can adequately respond.

Q: Does Ukraine want to join NATO?

A: We do not pose the question in such a way. We would like to cooperate with NATO; we are active in the Partnership for Peace program. This is how we have established contacts and a relationship with NATO.

Regarding Russia and NATO, its point of view should be taken into consideration by NATO. After all, Russia is a very large country, a superstate and a nuclear state, and no matter what anyone may think of Russia, it is very difficult to ignore Russia. Any steps taken to expand NATO eastward - without Russia's participation - may create a line of tension.

Q: As a KGB official, you targeted dissident nationalists. Has your personal view of Ukrainian nationalism changed?

A: You mean, do I have any complexes and did I change my convictions?

When my name came up as a candidate to head the Security Services of Ukraine, a special parliamentary committee was formed, composed of deputies who were repressed during the Soviet period, including Mykhailo and Bohdan Horyn, Stepan Khmara. They, and other members of the commission, closely studied my biography and my activities in the KGB, and had no objections to my appointment.

Let's just say that during my time in the KGB I was able to save some very prominent and serious people, although this was not part of my description. I was even able to get some released from prison.

I am talking about some fundamental things, like my vision and my understanding of my state, of statehood and all the other things that flow from it. Because of my circumstances, I could get hold of the information that not everyone else saw. I saw how really important it was to do a lot of serious, complicated work in order to turn Ukraine into an independent state. We could see Ukraine's complete dependence on the Soviet system. A simple example: even a KGB worker could not dream of going abroad - except on a special mission without written permission from Moscow.

The centralization was so strong that there was no talk about any independence - especially in the areas of budget and the economy. The most glaring example was Chornobyl, and how at the very first stages there were attempts to hide the accident. I saw how functionaries coming from Moscow tried to hide the real information about Chornobyl, although this was practically impossible.

In fact, Chornobyl showed the value of a state and its independence.

Q: How did you find out about the accident?

A: It was about 7 a.m. on the morning of April 26. All of those who were responsible for the security of the energy industry were summoned to take part in a special meeting. But even we were not told about the seriousness of the accident. We were told "there are some slight problems at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant, and you should be prepared to take care of issues that may arise because of them."

Q: Concerning Chornobyl, what outcome do you wish to see from the G-7 nuclear safety summit scheduled to take place in Moscow on April 19-20?

A: We have made a political decision to close down the Chornobyl nuclear power plant. But Ukraine cannot close down Chornobyl on its own. And this is not only because we are going through a difficult transitional period.

The Chornobyl tragedy had many consequences, consequences for which we are now paying, and will continue to pay for many years. And after closing down the plant, our costs will rise, not fall. For example, the loss of energy production alone will amount to $300 million a year.

The next issue will then be to put the reactors unaffected by the accident out of operation - to completely shut them down and take them apart. And then you cannot just abandon the sarcophagus [the shelter entombing the fourth reactor].

What are we to do with all the workers who are employed at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant and call the town of Slavutych home? It is a young town, where the average age of a resident is 25.4 years. What are they to do?

A whole complex of problems arises that requires huge sums of money. No matter how and when the question of shutting down Chornobyl is solved, we will still have to cover the ongoing costs of this disaster. Chornobyl is creating huge additional tax pressures on us.

We want the G-7 to finally decide to what extent, in what form and in which amounts they are going to participate in the resolution of this problem.

Q: How much does Ukraine need to close the Chornobyl nuclear power plant?

A: I don't want to cite figures. There has been pressure for us to close down the station, and once it is closed, all the problems, including the financial burden, will rest on Ukraine's shoulders. The problems of cost will be gradually decided, but we need assurances that the funds will be provided.

Already we have the problem that we have not yet been compensated for the tactical weapons we sent to Russia. The tri-partite agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the United States included this point. It is now two years since that agreement was signed, and yet we have no compensation.

Now various circles in Ukraine worry that this may happen with the Chornobyl shutdown.

We have made a political decision to close it down. We have proposed an entire program and technology, presented a list of costs associated with the shutdown. Now the G-7 must get together and decide how much it can help.

[Last week, the G-7 major industrialized states raised their aid offer to $3.1 billion in an apparent effort to appease Ukraine and accelerate the shutdown. This money is earmarked not only for the shutdown of the plant, but also for the restructuring of the energy sector.]

Q: How many people died because of Chornobyl?

A: A few thousand, although I cannot give exact numbers. For example, many suffer from a weakened immune system, which may have been caused by exposure to radiation.

Q: When will Ukraine adopt a new constitution?

A: It is not important whether the constitution will be adopted before or after presidential elections in Russia. However, it is very important that a new constitution is adopted this year.

It is just imperative that we adopt a fundamental law, whether in the Parliament, or by referendum. I don't think it is necessary to explain why Ukraine needs a constitution. Ukraine is already the last of the post-Soviet republics to be without a constitution.

If a constitution is not adopted, the government will be forced to work more seriously, because without a normative base there will be no system of checks and balances in place.

If a constitution is not adopted, I don't foresee a government crisis, but there will be some difficulties.

| Home Page |