Vyacheslav Chornovil : Why the West Has So Much at Stake in the Ukrainian Drama

A man who spent 15 years in Soviet prisons for protesting human-rights violations might be expected to be full of bitterness and resentment. But Vyacheslav M. Chornovil, former-prisoner-of-conscience-turned-deputy to the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, speaks with an intelligence and optimism that is admirable in light of his turbulent past.

As governor of the Lvov Oblast in the western half of the republic, Chornovil, 54, is at the helm of the democratic independence movement in Ukraine. Last week, the Ukrainian legislature voted to delay until mid-September all debate on the proposed Union Treaty. Many Ukrainian nationalists regard the draft treaty as a sellout.

The region Chornovil governs is undergoing rapid political transformation, serving as a model for the rest of the republic. In political circles from Kiev to Moscow, Chornovil is known as a progressive politician who reflects the territory he governs. The Ukraine, marked by a tragic history of interethnic strife, now displays genuine ethnic cooperation--in contrast to the recent bloody confrontations in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

During his U.S. visit, Chornovil regularly reminded listeners that the western half of the Ukraine, incorporated, in 1939, into the Soviet Union in 1939 at the same time as the Baltic States, is more experienced with Western-style economics and traditions, and therefore more viable for Western business interests.

Chornovil projects a calm that is subtly underscored by a sense of urgency, particularly when discussing hurdles the Ukraine must overcome before making the transition to a democratic form of government. Speaking in precise sentences--perhaps a legacy of his early career in journalism--he admits his support for political pluralism, the de-ideologization of society, rejection of imperialism in nationalities policy and privatization of state-owned enterprises.

Chornovil gained fame in the West when his eyewitness accounts of illegalities during the 1965-66 “secret trials” of leading Ukrainian intellectuals were smuggled to the West and published in book form as “The Chornovil Papers.” He won the London Times’ Nicholas Tomalin International Journalism Prize and honorary membership to the International PEN club.

In addition to his political duties, Chornovil is the editor of the the Ukrainian Herald, a journal, and on the executive board of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group. He lives in Lvov with his wife, Athena, a poet and political activist.

Question: What did you stress in your visits with U.S. government officials?

Answer: In my meetings, I was regrettably surprised that the West, primarily the U.S. government, still hasn’t grasped the fact that the Soviet empire is crumbling, and the reasons for this are political, as well as economic. The political ideology on which the empire is based, otherwise defined as communist ideology, is a system of socialist management that has absolutely discredited itself . . . .

Even the military attempts to crush the national spirit of sovereignty in the Baltics and Georgia, to name a few, have not been successful. Controlling the Soviet Union, such a mass territory, from one central point is impossible.

What (U.S. legislators) need to understand is that history cannot be stopped from moving forward. Despite their fears and reservations, the disintegration of the Soviet Union is inevitable. Perhaps it’s not a pleasant way to put it, but the failure of our economy and the overall impoverishment in the Soviet Union is propelling democracy and the development of a free-market system.

Q: Until recently, many publications urged policy-makers to support Gorbachev and the union due to fears of economic and military instability. Now, opinion seems to be changing. What are the economic aspects of these arguments?

A: None of these arguments are new to me, and none present justifiable reasons for countries in the West to fear disintegration. If the goal is to maintain a centralized economy, one planned from above or one which is socialistic, then the union is necessary. But if we’re talking about a market economy, then what need is there for a union of republics?

People frequently say the republics, if independent, would never survive because the current structure of the Soviet Union is such that each member of the union is economically dependent on the other. . . . If Ukraine becomes independent, it won’t break the existing economic ties it has with Russia or any other republic. As an independent nation, we would retain those ties which are advantageous to us and likewise, I’m sure, Russia would maintain those which benefit it . . . .

Q: What about the fear of nuclear instability that many believe would result from the dissolution of the union?

A: Now that’s a completely different issue. In the West, people are afraid that a disintegrated Soviet Union will place nuclear weapons directly in the hands of republican governments which could be run by extremists. I think this is ridiculous, because not one of the republics bidding for independence has any intention of retaining nuclear weapons on its territory. In any case, Russia would never leave them outside of her control.

Q: The army is another point of contention cited by Kremlin supporters. What would happen to the army if the Soviet Union dissolved?

A: Every republic proclaiming independence would have its own army. Small countries like Belgium and Holland have armies; why shouldn’t Ukraine or the other republics have theirs as well?

Q: Is it true that the communists are trying to co-opt the national liberation movements and reimpose a totalitarian system?

A: You have to understand that what the communists are most afraid of is a market economy--that would make some 15 million bureaucrats expendable. Naturally, they don’t want to lose their privileges; they are doing everything in their power to impede the march toward such an economy.

. . . . Some of the more pragmatic communists are anticipating the future and taking steps to save themselves. Those communists in Western Ukraine who lost their seats in government left the party and became democrats. Now they serve us the same way they once served the party.

Q: What role does the Soviet Army play in restraining the democratic process?

A: The army is not as monolithic and reactionary as some in the West believe. I recently had a meeting with the general and officers serving in the trans-Carpathian district. The general--whom I would describe as democratically minded--vowed that he would never send his soldiers against the people of Ukraine, the way the KGB special forces unleashed them against the people in Georgia and Lithuania.

The reactionary forces are made up of the general staff, not the mid-level officers. Only the generals are members of a privileged class--which stands to lose a great deal if the Soviet Union disintegrates.

Today’s officers are a class of people most unhappy with the current system. Not only are they treated like outcasts, but they don’t lead normal lives. Some are now beginning to understand the process of disintegration that’s taking place, and some are afraid they’ll be used to suppress their own people. As a result, troops stationed in Ukraine are more supportive of our plans to form a national army--which would serve only on the republic’s territory. They understand that as an independent republic we would provide our army with the kind of support that the current system is unable to do.

Q: Why hasn’t the Ukraine joined the other republics pressing for independence?

A: Before attaining complete independence, Ukraine must first shift into a transitory period in which it would voluntarily join with a confederation of sovereign states, from which it could later freely secede.

Q: What kind of structure do you propose for an independent Ukraine?

A: A federative one.

Q: Along the lines of the United States?

A:. No, closer to the structure in West Germany.

Q: Another reason that people fear a rebirth of national consciousness in the republics is that it brings to the surface latent feelings of ethnocentrism, anti-Semitism and even isolationism. What is the situation for minority groups in the Ukraine?

A: In Ukraine, we haven’t had any inter-nationality conflicts. Rukh (Ukrainian democratic independence movement) announced in its platform that, in a democratic Ukraine, Russians will live better than in Russia and Jews better than in Israel. If Jews are leaving the Ukraine, it is for economic reasons . . . . When the referendum question was being voted on, Russians living in Western Ukraine voted for independence.

If you’re talking about anti-Semitism, it doesn’t exist in any organized form. Jews, more often than not, cite Ukraine, particularly the western part, as the area in the Soviet Union where they feel most at peace.

Q: What guarantees can the Ukrainian Parliament provide for Western businessmen that their investments will be sound?

A: There are no guarantees that they’ll see profits right away but, on the other hand, there is no danger that their investments will go completely to waste.

Businessmen shouldn’t invest in areas where the situation has not yet stabilized, areas where the KGB and the Communist Party apparatus have been able to incite inter-nationality conflicts.

However, now is a prime opportunity for businessmen to fill the vacuum. Let’s assume the Americans are building a factory in Western Ukraine and are putting up capital. Under present conditions, we cannot offer them the incentive of a convertible currency. Many would view this as an obstacle. But there are ways to circumvent this problem--such as forming joint ventures--that will allow investors to manufacture at low cost. Additionally, the wealth of inexpensive labor allows investors to manufacture cheaply and export for hard currency.

Q: What legal rights does your region have to pass laws without the sanction of the Ukrainian Parliament?

A: Unless the Supreme Soviet nullifies our resolutions, they remain legal. Despite the fact that our Supreme Soviet passed a government-ownership law covering practically every sector, our regional government is still moving ahead with plans for privatization. A good example of this is land use. I recently had a conversation with (Leonid M.) Kravchuk (chairman of the Supreme Rada), who said that anyone who leases land from us will have it for lifetime use. In essence, it becomes private property.

In order to convince people that we truly have the right to do this, we in the western province are providing anyone who wants to own land with a legal document stating that it is under their private ownership. The document states that even in a change of legislative authority, they will not be subject to the laws of any new leadership that will come to power. People are still afraid to lease land from us, but, little by little, they’re doing it.

Q: What aid should the West provide?

A: In our meetings with senators and congressmen, we stressed the need to begin economic cooperation with the individual republics. In no circumstance should the West prop up the center. It’s a big mistake to give loans to Moscow, because there will never be any guarantee that the money is being well spent. The loans the U.S. allocates are distributed among the central apparatus, which knows how to extract what it wants.

If funding was channeled directly to the republics, to the democratic city governments, the transition to privatization and market economics would occur much faster.

Q: What about the fears that even independent republics could fall into a backward slide toward totalitarianism?

A: Why not see to it now that the governments that form after the dissolution of the union become democratic? The democratic West has the power and the moral influence to direct these processes in the direction of democracy. But if there is no support for democracy, and no economic cooperation and no pressure placed on the central government, then anti-democractic forces can rise to power as a result of these inevitable changes. If this is not done, the safety of civilization will be threatened, along with democracy and nuclear stability.

Therefore, the immediate mission for the West is not to impede or stabilize these processes, but to provide the forces of change with democratic experience. This is a very crucial moment which needs to be finally understood, because without this kind of assistance, democracy will be defeated.