INTERVIEW: Hennadii Udovenko on Rukh's achievements, the road ahead (05/25/03)

INTERVIEW: Hennadii Udovenko on Rukh's achievements, the road ahead

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

National Deputy Hennadii Udovenko, 72, has had a long and distinguished career as both a diplomat and a politician. He was the first-ever Ukrainian president of the United Nations General Assembly, heading the international body during its 52nd session in 1997-1998. Prior to that Mr. Udovenko was Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1994 to 1998 and the independent country's first permanent representative to the United Nations in 1992 to 1994.

Mr. Udovenko entered politics late in his career. He was elected to the Verkhovna Rada from the National Rukh of Ukraine Party in March 1998. In 1999 he was elected to head Rukh after the tragic death of the party's most dynamic leader, Vyacheslav Chornovil.

Mr. Udovenko led the party through its most difficult period, from which the organization has emerged only recently. In early May, during the 13th Rukh convention, Mr. Udovenko stood down voluntarily in favor of National Deputy Borys Tarasyuk, a man whose career has closely followed his own.

On May 9 Mr. Udovenko sat down in his parliamentary office with The Weekly to assess his work and his accomplishments as Rukh leader for the last four years. This is an edited and translated transcript of the interview.

Q: Mr. Udovenko, did you actively push the candidacy of Borys Tarasyuk as your choice to head the National Rukh of Ukraine Party? It is unusual - even though you went along this path as well - that a person who was not even a member of Rukh until a couple of months ago should so quickly became contender No. 1 and then win the chairmanship outright while other well-known figures in Rukh who have been with the political party for far longer could not?

A: Tarasyuk truly was my recommendation. Coincidentally, [National Deputy] Roman Zvarych (who was elected vice-chairman of Rukh) approached me with the same proposition, but only after I had already made my decision. I have heard the comments made by many Ukrainian journalists - there was so much mud slung even before his election that [Mr. Tarasyuk] will need to take a long shower to cleanse himself of it.

First, I cast aside any assertions that Tarasyuk is supported by [the administration of President Leonid Kuchma], and that this is a project of Bankova Street (where the presidential offices are found.) I have had no contacts with Bankova for nearly two years, since when I effectively went over to the opposition. Since then I have not shown any interest in the president, and he hasn't shown any interest in me.

I was an ardent supporter of the president during the time when I was still foreign affairs minister. I did much to develop our foreign policy in conjunction with him. However, that which is happening in the country today does not uphold the fundamental principles of the National Rukh of Ukraine. It does not reflect the strategies, the programs and the statute of National Rukh, and we are fighting this.

I wish the critics of the National Rukh of Ukraine would read at least one decision, even a single resolution accepted by Rukh on the prevailing issues in Ukraine today. Read them and you will see who is who in Ukraine. No political party has such a [thick] tome of resolutions and appeals against the ruling powers as Rukh has developed during my leadership.

We have expressed the position of Rukh on all pertinent matters: the current political situation in Ukraine; the position of the president regarding political reform and changes to the Constitution; commemorations of the 350th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Council.

I came out strongly against that presidential directive. How can we look at the council as some sort of victory when it was an oath of allegiance to the Moscow tsar?

We criticized the resolution of the government of Anatolii Kinakh regarding commemorating 85 years since the birth of Volodymyr Shcherbytsky.

I, and only I from among the political leaders of Ukraine, took part in picketing before the Palats Ukrainy Concert Hall when [Vladimir] Putin and Kuchma marked the opening of the Year of Russia in Ukraine. I was the only one there from the leadership of Rukh. I was the only one representing any political party except for Oleh Soskyn (chairman of the National Conservative Party). Where was Yulia Tymoshenko? Where was [Oleksander] Moroz? Where was [Petro] Symonenko? Why aren't they protesting Russian expansionism in the Crimea?

I want to emphasize that four years after the tragic death of Vyacheslav Chornovil and the schism in the party, which did not take place under me and in which Rukh was torn apart from the left and the right, it remains alive. We have survived; we fulfilled the testament of Chornovil.

The convention was filled with enthusiasm, with a high degree of idealism and went off at a high political, ideological and organizational level. This was a convention of people with similar views. It is important that we in Rukh achieved this level of unity because people saw that we did not need a monolithic point of view to withstand these attacks on the National Rukh.

Q: Would you sum up the achievements of Rukh during your tenure?

A: First, to sum up the activities of Rukh during the last two years - from the time of the last convention - and then for the last four years: it has been exactly four years, a bit more since in 1999 I became chairman of Rukh. I am proud of [what we have done]. Rukh is a part of my being, it is my ideology, it is my life.

But I am 72 years old. I believe that I have achieved not only the survival of Rukh, but also its strengthening. Today, according to the new law on political parties, we must report to the Ministry of Justice on the conformance of the organizational structure of our party with legislation. We must show that we have oblast organizations in two-thirds of the regions.

We, in fact, have them in all [the oblasts]. And we have organizations in two-thirds of the raions of all but two oblasts, as is also required by the law. The law requires oblast organizations in two-thirds of the oblasts, and within those two-thirds, it requires that we have organizations in two-thirds of the raions as well. These are very strict requirements.

We are not as large a party as the Social Democratic Party (United), but you know well how that party gets its members. Our party is built on the Ukrainian national idea, on Ukrainian independence. These are the fundamental pillars of our ideology. To be yet more specific, it is the building of a Ukrainian political state, in the likeness of the American state, in which when you ask a person, "who are you," he answers, "I am an American," and who may even add, "of Ukrainian origin or Jewish origin or Irish origin." But he is an American regardless of his ethnic heritage.

When asked, "who are you?" I want every person in Ukraine to be able to say, "I am a Ukrainian," regardless of whether he is Russian, Jewish, or Moldovan or whatever. In fact this is already beginning, I know of the head of a Jewish organization called Vebytas, who says, "We are Ukrainians," when asked. This is very important. Viewpoints are changing.

Let's do this in order: the declaration of independence; formation of a Ukrainian political nation; the national language, the Ukrainian language must become the dominant language; Ukraine should have fully formed borders with its neighbors. After all of this is accomplished we can say that Ukraine is truly an independent state.

There is also the matter of securing individual human rights and personal freedoms. During these past four years I combined my work [as leader of Rukh] with my chairmanship of the parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, where the influence of the ideology of Rukh was also quite evident.

As for Rukh's current assignment, today there are 31,331 members of the party. After the split we numbered 18,000, which means 13,000 have entered the party since then. Considering the current stringent legal demands, these are not virtual members, but ones with membership cards. The raion representatives of the Justice Ministry check each individual, whether they are actually in the party. And we were very specific about this and we battled our oblast leaders regarding this: do not give us general numbers [on supporters], but specific figures from our database.

I am satisfied: 13,000 new members in these last four years. Now, however, we have put a goal of territorial expansion before ourselves to have a developed Rukh organizational presence everywhere in Ukraine. This is a very difficult assignment, particularly in the south and east. Also, we want more members. At the convention I stated that by the next convention in two years, each member should bring two new members into the organization. That would give us 100,000 members.

As for the other important assignments, we approved more than 20 resolutions and appeals regarding all the current issues. No other party can say that. I am proud of this.

As I have said, I am 72 years old. I led Rukh for four years during a critical time. First the schism, then another split with the departure of [Yaroslav Koshiv] from Rukh; then the formation of the Rukh for Unity by Bohdan Boiko; then the formation of the organization, Chornyi Vil, and the attempt by this organization to tear whole oblasts from Rukh.

Today Rukh is a strong and potent, united force. The situation in the country is changing - a new century, a new millennium.

For a long time I thought, and said so in discussions within Rukh, that changes are needed - the slogan put forward by Chornovil in 1998 was "Change is needed" - and I said those changes were needed in the leadership. A new generation should come to power to address the new demands of the times.

We could not find a candidate around which Rukh could rally. There were various candidates. For nearly two years I carried a handwritten list of people, of outstanding Rukh members, in my wallet. However, I could not get a consensus of support from the leaders of the party with whom I conferred about my list during informal meetings and get-togethers.

Then about a year and a half ago, when we started to actively work at strengthening the party organizationally, I distributed a letter to the raion party leadership asking them to propose how they thought we could strengthen the party ideologically and organizationally. One raion organization, I think it was from the Kirovohrad Oblast organization - unfortunately I can't find the letter - wrote that when the question of a new party leadership arises, don't forget Tarasyuk.

This I remembered, and when we didn't find consensus on a candidate from within the party, I then proposed Tarasyuk. Tarasyuk followed me as minister of foreign affairs.

Q: He seems to follow you everywhere?

A: First, he was with me in New York. I was the permanent representative of Ukraine to the United Nations, and Tarasyuk worked for me. He was second secretary or something, a political position. When I became foreign affairs minister I appointed him my first assistant because he was a patriotic figure who supported statehood.

[Rukh] invited him to meetings of the [Rukh] Political Council, to the Central Leadership. He participated in dozens of conferences held by oblast organizations of the National Rukh. The process took some four months, during which people got a look at him. I gave him his party ticket about two months ago during a public meeting in Lviv attended by 5,000 people in honor of Vyacheslav Chornovil. As I said at the time, it was very proper that the "christening" took place in Lviv.

Q: What about the fact that he abandoned the Reform and Order Party to join Rukh? Doesn't that show lack of allegiance?

A: The other accusation leveled at Tarasyuk is that he came from the Reform and Order Party (ROP). Truly, at the time the Reform and Order Party proposed that he be included in their list and he was elected from their [party] list. And so what?

We have an agreement with the ROP - initiated by Chornovil - regarding unification. At the moment nothing is happening regarding unification because we have been in constant talks with [Yurii] Kostenko (chairman of the splinter Rukh political party, today called the National Party) about unification.

For us, what was most important was that Tarasyuk accepted the Rukh ideology, and that he went through a period of approbation and that 808 delegates voted for him, while only 10 were against and 16 abstained.

Q: What do you consider your biggest achievement, your largest contribution as chairman of Rukh?

A: I already mentioned this, but to sum up, my biggest achievement was that Rukh survived as a party, it was not destroyed. It survived the various splits and today there is a single political party called the National Rukh of Ukraine.

Second, Rukh is firmly planted on the foundation of strengthening Ukrainian statehood. Rukh has a specific program for overcoming the economic crisis in Ukraine and lifting the living standard of the Ukrainian people. And, finally, Rukh has a specific ideology; Rukh actively works for strengthening the political bloc Our Ukraine and during the convention approved a decision to ask [Viktor] Yushchenko to agree to become a candidate for president of Ukraine.

Q: What should be the goal of the new leader of the National Rukh of Ukraine? What should be his main assignment?

A: Presidential elections in 2004 and the fight for a victory for Yushchenko. Then we need to continue the course of strengthening Rukh and its political influence and begin preparations for parliamentary elections in 2006 as a self-sufficient political party.

Q: The last part of your statement is interesting. Your response suggests that at the moment you do not believe it would be constructive for Rukh to dissolve itself in favor of a new party under the name Our Ukraine; should it be formed.

A: The reason why we did not unite with Kostenko's Rukh, even though we have a single ideology is that his party believed that Rukh had completed its mission, that Ukraine had become an independent country, and now we could abandon the name Rukh. We did not agree with this.

Thousands of citizens write to us, both members and supporters. They say we must keep Rukh because the national movement of Ukraine is associated with the party of the same name, which led Ukraine to independence and which today is defending the rights of Ukrainians.

It is a serious question you pose. We cannot speak of the creation of a single party on the basis of the political bloc Our Ukraine because within this bloc there exist several party ideologies. We could unite with Kostenko's Rukh, today the Ukrainian National Party. We could unite with the ROP, with the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists and with both Christian parties; these are the ones that are part of the bloc.

The National Rukh of Ukraine is a conservative party with a national democratic foundation. But [in Our Ukraine] there is the Solidarnist party of Petro Poroshenko, which leans left-of-center. We cooperate with them, but we could not become part of the same party with them.

We can talk about forming a powerful right-center party on the basis of [some] parties that are part of the Our Ukraine Bloc plus [others outside the bloc]. Furthermore, today we have an agreement with our partners in the bloc not to conduct negotiations about unification, but to prepare for elections, this is most important. I think that Rukh has strong perspectives for 2006 - and the Our Ukraine Bloc will no longer exist quite simply because Yushchenko will then be president.

Q: This is a given, then?

A: Of course. We will then continue our negotiations with Kostenko and with other parties, with the other national democratic forces. But that is for the second stage, the first stage is victory in the presidential elections.

| Home Page |