Інтерв’ю Петра Порошенка британському виданню Financial Times (стенограма)
«Моя єдина вимога – Конституція. Чому? Тому, що я – гарант Конституції. І проти того, щоб вже наступного дня будь-хто міг прийти до Конституційного Суду та призупинити цей закон. Це було б катастрофою», – Петро Порошенко
Президент Петро Порошенко в інтерв’ю британському виданню Financial Times наголосив, що в Україні запроваджено антикорупційну інфраструктуру і завершити її формування має утворення Антикорупційного суду.
«Ми запускаємо величезний антикорупційний пакет. Перш за все, ми представили абсолютно незалежну антикорупційну інфраструктуру, Національне антикорупційне бюро»,- зазначив Глава держави.
Президент також наголосив, що НАБУ є абсолютно незалежне, тому що зараз відкрито кримінальні справи проти низки міністрів, керівників урядових установ, чиновників з регіонів, членів парламенту, включаючи членів правлячої коаліції. За його словами, за 1692 корупційними справами отримано рішення українського суду лише впродовж 2017 року.
Петро Порошенко особливо акцентував, що Верховна Рада підтримала у першому читанні законопроект про антикорупційний суд, ініційований ним. «Ми маємо майже конституційну більшість на підтримку моєї ініціативи», – відзначив він.
Президент нагадав, що ініціював звернення до Венеційської комісії щодо цього проекту Закону. «Венеційська комісія заявила, що він (Закон – ред.) повинен відповідати національному законодавству», – зауважив він.
Президент також зазначив, що розраховує на компроміс між парламентарями та міжнародними організаціями. «І тепер, коли Парламент підтримує мій президентський проект Закону майже конституційною більшістю, ми маємо можливість для (його –ред.) обговорення в Парламенті. І я абсолютно щасливий, якщо всі наші партнери зможуть обмінюватися аргументами та знайдуть певний компроміс», – також зазначив він.
Президент зауважив, що голосування за цей законопроект було підтримане всіма нашими міжнародними партнерами: «Це був тест, що ми маємо достатньо політичної волі».
Водночас, Петро Порошенко підкреслив, що категорично проти того, щоб підготовка законопроекту до другого читання зайняла кілька місяців. «За правилами українського Парламента ми маємо два тижні, щоб підготувати будь-які поправки, і я наполягаю на тому, що Парламент мав короткий час для аналізу всіх поправок, знаходження компромісу та голосування. І моє прохання до Парламенту, будь-ласка, зробіть це якнайшвидше і обговоріть рекомендацію Венеційської комісії», – підкреслив Глава держави.
«Моя єдина вимога – Конституція. Чому? Тому, що я – гарант Конституції. І проти того, щоб вже наступного дня будь-хто міг прийти до Конституційного Суду та призупинити цей закон. Це було б катастрофою», – сказав Петро Порошенко.
Ми робимо реформи не для МВФ, а для українців – Президент
«Останні півроку були надзвичайно насичені активними реформами. І навряд чи ви знайдете будь-яку іншу країну в світі, яка б зробила настільки багато», – сказав Президент Петро Порошенко в інтерв’ю впливовому британському виданню Financial Times, відзначаючи динаміку та прогрес реформ в Україні.
Президент нагадав, що з вересня 2017 року Україна провела освітню реформу: «Реальну системну реформу. Ми змінили радянську освіту на західну, більш інтерактивну, освіту. Ми зробили величезні зусилля, щоб повернути дуже високий потенціал української науки та освіти».
Глава держави також відзначив реформу системи охорони здоров’я, яка не була простою, а «іноді дуже болісною, іноді непопулярною». «Політики не в захваті від того, що потрібно робити непопулярні речі, але ми більше не можемо терпіти стару систему», – сказав Петро Порошенко.
За його словами, значна частина цієї медичної реформи стосується реформи сільської медицини та запровадження телемедицини. В Україні близько 14 мільйонів людей живуть у селах, і вони абсолютно не мають доступу до системи охорони здоров’я. «Я був автором реформи сільської медицини, і я сумніваюся, що хтось може уявити, наскільки це важливо», – наголосив Президент.
«Ми робимо реформи не для МВФ, а для українського народу та майбутнього моєї держави. І я пишаюсь тим, що МВФ сказав, що протягом трьох років мого президентства ми зробили більше реформ, ніж у попередні 25 років», – підкреслив Петро Порошенко.
Президент також навів приклад пенсійної реформи, коли «ніхто не вірив, що буде достатньо політичної волі для пенсійної реформи, відійти від пенсійної системи популістського стилю до системи, яка б мотивувала людей платити офіційні зарплати, а не підтримувати сірі».
«Протягом 25 років моя країна чекала нового Закону про приватизацію, який встановлював би абсолютно нові стандарти приватизації, прозорі правила, можливість для інвестора використовувати британську правову систему, якщо він відчуває себе комфортно з цією позицією», – розповів Президент про нові правила приватизації державних підприємств. Він також зазначив, що без західних радників неможливо продати будь-який об’єкт великої приватизації.
Глава держави також сказав про конституційну реформу в частині судової реформи. «У нас була абсолютно залежна та корумпована судова система. Уявіть собі, що за дуже короткий проміжок часу Парламент підтримав конституційну реформу судової системи. Ми повністю перезапустили всю судову систему, і новий Верховний Суд вже розпочав свою роботу», – сказав Петро Порошенко.
Президент також додав, що, одночасно з величезним реформуванням української армії, яке потребує значних коштів, Україна нарощує обсяги ремонту та будівництва нових доріг. Він навів приклад зростання витрат на будівництво доріг: в 2015 році – 10 млрд гривень, у 2016 році – 20 млрд грн; в 2017 році – 30 млрд грн, в 2018 році заплановано 50 млрд грн. «І все відбувається за абсолютно новою системою державних закупівель, яка економить десятки мільярдів. Саме тому ми збільшили місцеві бюджети в сім разів під час децентралізації. Ось чому ми маємо невелике економічне зростання», – підсумував Глава держави.
Незважаючи на російську пропаганду, санкції працюють – Петро Порошенко
В інтерв’ю британському виданню Financial Times Президент Петро Порошенко відповів на питання щодо можливих сценаріїв та поведінки Путіна після президентських виборів в Росії 18 березня.
«Ми тут не агресори. Агресор – Путін, який має свої війська на нашій землі. Нам нічого не потрібно більше, просто, будь ласка, виведіть свої війська», – сказав Президент.
Глава держави також наголосив на тому, що незважаючи на російську пропаганду, санкції проти РФ працюють.
«Не можна бути Президентом країни в умовах війни і не бути оптимістом. Я був оптимістом у набагато складніших умовах 2014 року. Протягом більше трьох з половиною років ми маємо санкції (проти Росії – ред.), які є надзвичайно ефективним механізмом, щоб спонукати Путіна сидіти за столом переговорів. І санкції працюють, незважаючи на російську пропаганду, яка говорить, що Росія живе щасливо. Це неправда», – сказав Петро Порошенко.
Існує небезпека втручання Росії в українські вибори – Президент
Президент Петро Порошенко в інтерв’ю Financial Times наголосив на існуванні небезпеки втручання Росії в українські вибори і достатньо високій вірогідності цього.
«Я намагаюсь захистити Україну від небезпек гібридної війни, яка включає систему їх фейкових новин, з використанням соціальних мереж», – сказав Петро Порошенко.
Він висловив сподівання, що Україна використає досвід німецького та французького законодавства щодо протидії фальшивим новинам.
«Ми маємо абсолютно широкий спектр небезпек з Росії, починаючи з того, що ми зупинили більше 400 терористичних атак тренувального табору в Російській Федерації. Всі мають розуміти, що це не заморожений конфлікт. Це справжня гаряча війна. На нас нападають кожного дня. Вони використовують снайперів і намагаються вбити наших солдатів. Це абсолютно божевільна поведінка», – підкреслив Президент.
Глава держави наголосив: «Вони використовують величезну армію провокаторів та агентів у соціальних мережах». Він нагадав, що саме тому, в Україні припинено російське телемовлення та російські соціальні медіа. «Тому, що вони (Росія – ред.) використовують їх для пропагандистської війни», – підкреслив Петро Порошенко.
За його словами, Україна має ефективну співпрацю з секретними службами партнерів зі США, Канади та Великобританії. «Я пишаюся тим, що нам довіряють. Але багато роботи слід ще зробити», – додав він.
Transcript of interview with Petro Poroshenko
Ukraine’s president talks to the Financial Times
Edited transcript of the Financial Times’s interview with Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko, March 1 2018
Financial Times: Ukraine has clearly undertaken huge reforms since 2014. But there is a perception internationally that reform progress is slowing or may have stalled on key issues like the anti-corruption court, which has delayed the next IMF transfer. Are people right to have those concerns?
Petro Poroshenko: The last half a year was extremely active in reform. And if you can find any country in the world [that did so much] I would be very much surprised.
Because since September 2017, we have had educational reform, real systemic reform. We changed the Soviet-style education to the western, more interactive education. We undertook enormous effort to return the very high potential of Ukrainian science and education.
Number two is healthcare reform, very painful sometimes, sometimes unpopular. Politicians are not happy to do unpopular things, but we cannot accept any more [the old] system.
This was a populist, Chavez-style, free-of-charge healthcare system, which is absolutely not functional. A significant part of this reform is rural medicine reform, telemedicine.
We have 14m people who live in villages who have absolutely no access to healthcare. I was the author of the rural reform, and I doubt anybody can imagine how big and important this is.
Pension reform — nobody believed that there would be enough political will to [complete] pension reform, to [move], again, from a populist-style pension system to [a system] that has motivated people to pay the official salaries, not in the grey economy.
For 25 years my country was waiting for the new privatisation law, which has established absolutely new standards of privatisation, transparency, possibility for the investor to use the British legal system if he feels comfortable with this position. It is not possible to sell any object of a big privatisation without western advisers.
Then, constitutional reform for the judicial system. We had an absolutely dependent and corrupted court system. Can you imagine, in a very short period of time, parliament supporting the constitutional reform of the judicial system? We had a complete restart of the whole court system, and the new Supreme Court is already launched.
We are launching a huge anti-corruption package. First of all, we presented absolutely independent anti-corruption infrastructure, a national anti-corruption bureau.
My understanding is that this is completely independent because we now have criminal cases against ministers, chiefs of government agencies, governments of the regions, members of parliament, including members of the ruling coalition. 1,692 corruption cases had a Ukrainian court decision just during 2017. And parliament has supported the first reading of the anti-corruption court legislation which was initiated by the president. And we have an almost constitutional majority in support of my initiative.
FT: But the bill on the anti-corruption court does not comply fully with what the IMF and the Venice Commission asked for . . .
PP: It was me who asked [to consult] this commission. This is just a recommendation of the Venice Commission, and Venice Commission said it should be [consistent with] national legislation. If anybody can imagine that foreign donors will form Ukrainian courts, this is against the constitution, because only the Ukrainian people can have a decisive role in creating the Ukrainian parliament, Ukrainian court system, and, through parliament, the Ukrainian government. That is absolutely clear.
FT: But if they are lenders to the country, they have certain rights . . .
PP: And we have a parliament, and now that the parliament supports my presidential draft law by an almost constitutional majority, we have an opportunity for discussion in parliament. And I am absolutely happy if all our partners can exchange arguments and find a definite compromise.
Today’s vote was hugely supported by all our international partners. That was a test that we have enough political will to have this vote. And that was, wow, when it happened today. And during the preparation for the second reading — today I said it to the National Security Defence Council — I hate the idea that it takes months.
Under the rules of the Ukrainian parliament, we have two weeks to prepare any amendments, and I insist that it should be a short period of time for parliament to analyse all the amendments and find compromise and vote. And my request to parliament [is] please do it as soon as possible. Have a discussion about the recommendation of the Venice Commission.
My only request [is] — [consistent with] the constitution. Why? Because I am the guarantor of the constitution. And I hate the idea that the very next day, anyone can go to the constitutional court and suspend or stop this law. That would be a catastrophe.
FT: If the bill is amended as it goes through the Rada, you will sign it into law with whatever amendments?
PP: Not with everything. Just we have one request, the constitution, nothing else. If there could be some demand for the qualification of judges, OK. If we have some demands for the amount of judges, no problem. If we have some demands for the amount of . . .
FT: And the independence of the judges, and the way that judges are selected?
PP: Definitely. I am absolutely for the independent status of judges, independent from the authorities, independent from pressure, independent from political figures, independent from the foreign donors. This is my purpose. Definitely I think that I do my best, and we now have a unique opportunity in parliament.
This is a question of international trust, and I, as the leader of the new anti-corruption infrastructure, who created, who appoints the director of the anti-corruption infrastructure, definitely I was interested in finishing this process by creation of the actual court.
If you asked me, does the anti-corruption court exist in any country in Europe, the answer would be quite strange: just in a few countries. But I made the decision if it was necessary for trust — not the international trust, the trust of the Ukrainian people — we should do that.
FT: You said recently that no foreign institution or other country should be allowed to dictate laws to Ukraine . . .
PP: No, I happily accept advisers.
FT: But if the IMF is providing funding, do they not have the right to set conditions for that funding just as in any situation where a bank makes a loan?
PP: This is not working like that. We have a memorandum of co-operation with IMF. And we did reform not for the IMF but for the Ukrainian people and the future of my state. And I am proud that the IMF said that we’ve done more reform in the three years of my presidency than for the previous 25 years. And I am proud that we created an anti-corruption infrastructure, with [an] electronic declaration [system] which exists nowhere in the world. But that is the fact — that 1.2m Ukrainian public servants fill in an electronic declaration and have a responsibility to explain where they got their wealth. Does the United States or Britain? No.
FT: Talking to Ukrainian people, however, they don’t seem to feel the changes yet. How concerned are you about this?
PP: Look, I do my best to implement the biggest reform programme this country has ever had. Of course we have had some information campaigns, fake news campaigns. When I won the presidential election, I had big figures for my rating, and if wanted to keep it, I just needed to not have a war and to be a populist. But I said frankly to the people, OK, we’re going to do a painful reform, which is what’s happened during the last four years.
I just want to remind you of a few figures. When I was elected president, we had a minus 15 per cent GDP growth, more than 12 per cent budget deficit, more than 50 per cent inflation, almost bankrupt with $5bn in the reserves.
The rate of exchange which was artificially kept by the previous government — they paid a huge amount, billions and billions of dollars, to artificially support the fixed rate of exchange. That was significantly changed. Would people be happy with that? No.
Now it is effectively a floating rate of exchange, which is a main achievement. Yes, it has been unpopular, and people are sometimes not happy, but we don’t have money to support that artificial rate of exchange.
Yes, we have significant numbers of the banks who were bankrupt. We needed to undertake an enormous step to clean up the banking system, but we have this result. And when we’re talking about anti-corruption, of course, we should create anti-corruption infrastructure, but the main thing [is] we should remove the basis for corruption.
What was the main problem which any investor had before? VAT [refunds]. Can you imagine that one year ago I established automatic electronic compensation of VAT, without any corrupt cash flows?
That was dozens of billions of dollars before. Can you imagine that Ukraine had a deficit for its [gas] monopoly, because of the heavily subsidised [domestic prices], of more than $10bn a year? Do you know what the deficit is now?
FT: It’s in profit now.
PP: Yes, zero deficit. Can you imagine that during the last year, we returned $1.5bn which was stolen from the Ukrainian people by the previous president? And today by voiding the absolutely corrupted [gas] contract [with Russia] which was signed in 2009 — it was my and my government’s decision to go to the court to do that.
[We stopped] Russia manipulating, putting pressure on Ukraine through the corrupted gas prices. Now, people are not happy that they should pay three times more for [household gas prices], that’s what people are complaining about. And this is fair play. But I said, OK, if not I, no one can do it. Now the government should do their part of the job.
Can you imagine that we’re doing this before elections, when all others are populists? OK, if the people want populists, if they want to have a Venezuelan-style economy, they should not support me. But I have a right to speak straightforwardly. And with these tariffs and other things, this is why people are not happy. You should understand.
Can you imagine that Ukraine lost 11,000 people in this war [in the Donbass] because of Russian aggression? 11,000 in the 21st century in the centre of Europe. 2,807 soldiers of my army were killed. And I should go to every single family and say sorry for that. Your children are heroes for protecting Ukrainian sovereignty. Can you imagine that I should spend 6 per cent of my GDP, in disastrous economic conditions, on the security and defence sector?
Can you imagine that in 2013, almost one-third of our trade balance was trade with Russia. And in one moment it was closed dramatically. That was, for example, like if one moment for Canada, the US closed their market. We tried to survive.
And in that situation, I think, this is not my achievement. This is the achievement of the Ukrainian people who, under these conditions, support the Ukrainian president, the Ukrainian government and, of course, paid a huge price because of the problems we had because Russian aggression. This is painful for us.
FT: How concerned are you that the very low approval ratings of all the established, mainstream politicians . . .
PP: Can you imagine that in this situation we would have a very high rate of support from the people?
FT: But how big is the danger that populists will be elected in the next elections, and the next government will have a very different composition and not be dominated by reformers?
PP: When I change the country, when I [undertake] the reform, I don’t think about the re-election or ratings. I think about my country and do my best, working seven days a week. Normally I go home late, after midnight. I doubt that I have too many Saturdays off. On Sunday, but never on Saturday. Look, I simply try to do my best to change the country. There is a danger of populist campaigns, definitely, yes. Sorry, but that can happen in any European country.
FT: But approval ratings here are lower for mainstream politicians, so there’s a greater vulnerability . . .
PP: You’re asking me, does the danger exist? Yes, we have a low approval rating for the president, for the prime minister, for the parliament, for the opposition, for any opposition leader. 40-50% of the people [have not made] their decision, and this is dangerous. But the only thing I can guarantee is we will have an absolutely free and fair election.
FT: Are you confident, one year before the next presidential election, that you will be able to turn things round in terms of your own rating and win again?
PP: I do my best to implement the maximum package of the reform, and I can tell you that is my plan for the next year. But I hate the idea that I will fight and my motivation will be the re-election. Because, frankly speaking, I haven’t made a decision if I will participate in the election. That will hugely depend on how much will be done this year.
Because most of the reform that happened two or three years ago is starting to show results now this year. [There] is a rise in our living standard. [There] is a de-shadowing of the economy. [There] is decentralisation, which has allowed a huge amount of power and responsibility to go to local communities, not the central government.
Not only the army is having a huge reform, [where we spend] a huge amount of money. For example, if you take road construction. in 2015 we had 10bn hryvnias. In 2016, $20bn; in 2017, $30bn, in 2018, $50bn. And everything is being done under the absolutely new state procurement system — it’s saved dozens of billions of dollars. That’s why we increased local budgets by seven times during decentralisation. That’s why we have some modest economic growth.
FT: You said you haven’t decided yet whether you would stand next year. If you don’t stand, doesn’t that increase the possibility that some populist candidate could come through?
PP: I promise you I will make a responsible choice. I won’t allow anybody to destroy what my team and I and, mainly, the Ukrainian people have changed over the last four years. Because we paid a huge price, the first price for the [Revolution of Dignity] which was exactly four years ago. And I was in the most dangerous place. I was there, exactly four years ago — the launching of the illegal annexation of the Crimea. And please take into account one very important fact, Russian hybrid war.
FT: Concerning Russia, Naftogaz won an important arbitration case against Gazprom, but Gazprom has said it won’t comply with that. And I understand that pressure has dropped in the gas pipeline today. What is your response?
PP: I take this very seriously. We are in a court case, and this is not a case about $4.6bn for Ukraine. This is a case about if Russia in general can be a reliable energy supplier, if they do not respect the law. They did not respect the international law during their illegal annexation of the Crimea, during the aggression on the east of my country, during the terrorist attack on the MH17 flight.
We launched several cases in the United Nations ICG because of the brutal violation of the convention, starting from the financing of the terrorism and finishing with . . . Crimea. But if Russia does not respect the law and does not respect the court’s decisions, I think the result is Russia will be absolutely destroyed. This is not a case that can be accepted.
FT: How does Ukraine plan to respond?
PP: We launched, on my instruction, an immediate consultation between Ukraine, the European Commission, and Russia. Because Ukraine will be the most reliable supplier of gas using our transit system. We don’t allow anybody to [change] that. We increased the amount of gas we buy from Europe. And this is extremely dangerous — when we received the invoice, paid, and the gas was not supplied. We have absolutely clear procedure in the court that Russia should have a penalty for that.
FT: If Russia doesn’t pay, will you pursue Russian assets?
PP: It is a question for Naftogaz, and definitely they will use all the legal instruments that they have at their disposal, with the systems and support of the Ukrainian president, Ukrainian government, Ukrainian state.
And, of course, we have our own obligations. For example, we should buy at least 4bn cubic metres of Russian gas a year, which is not widely acceptable among Ukrainian people, who are asking why we are buying from a country who undertakes aggression against Ukraine. But we fulfil all the decisions of the court. We do exactly what the court prescribes.
And if Russia [doesn’t comply] with the court decision, that . . . would be ruin for the international trade rules. The same way Russia completely destroyed the whole global security system which was based on the Security Council of the United Nations. When one of the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations becomes an aggressor, it is destroyed. And we only have one effective system left, Nato.
FT: How concerned are you that Russia will interfere in the Ukrainian elections and is Ukraine ready to counteract that?
PP: We try to do our best, but we consider this danger extremely high. This is also the danger for the main attacks of Russia, to me. Of course, I tried to protect Ukraine from the dangers of hybrid war, including the system of their fake news, [and] using social media. But we have an effective co-operation and strategic communication with our partners, and I hope we will use the experience of the German and French legislation against fake news.
FT: Are you preparing for any particular type of interference in the election?
PP: We have an absolutely wide range of dangers [from] Russia, starting from the fact that we stopped more than 400 terrorist attacks by a training camp in Russian Federation. Everybody should understand that it is not a frozen conflict. This is a real hot war. We’re attacked, every single day, they go with snipers and try to kill my soldiers. It’s absolutely crazy behaviour.
They use a huge army of provocateurs and agents in social media. And that’s why I do things like stop Russian TV broadcasting and stop the Russian social media, because they use it for propaganda war.
We have an effective co-operation from secret services with our partners from the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. I’m proud that we have trust there. But there’s lots of work that should be done.
FT: You’ve proposed a peacekeeper plan for the Donbass. The Russian president has put forward a rather different peacekeeping proposal. Is there any possibility these could provide a basis for resolving the conflict?
PP: Peacekeepers are just creating the security package for implementing the Minsk [agreement of 2015]. How can anybody except a fool imagine that we can have a free and fair election [in Donbass] when thousands and thousands of Russian soldiers are staying there?
Can anybody imagine the campaign? Can Ukrainian political parties participate in that, without media, without freedom of press, without freedom of meeting, without a polling station where we can guarantee [security].
The presence of peacekeepers under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council on the whole territory can create a unique condition that is not a possibility when Russian occupational troops are there. They should go out.
Definitely, [peacekeepers] should have a mandate, not on the line of contact, but on the whole occupied territory. They should have a mandate at least to disarm illegal arm formation and foreign troops, exactly as is mentioned in the Minsk Agreement.
Peacekeepers should stay and control part of the Ukrainian-Russian border. Why? For stopping the infiltration of new troops and new armament. And all other things can be discussed.
FT: Do you think Mr Putin, once he’s re-elected on March 18, may be looking for a way out of Donbass and may be prepared to discuss these kinds of issues?
PP: It is impossible to be the president of a country in a state of war [and] not to be an optimist. I was an optimist in the much more difficult conditions of 2014. For more than three and half years, we’ve had sanctions as an extremely effective mechanism to motivate Putin to sit at the table for negotiation.
And the sanctions are working, despite the Russian propaganda that says [Russia is] happy now. This is not true.
We are not the aggressors here. It is Putin who has his troops on our land. And we need nothing more, just please, would you be so kind as to take your troops away? We don’t need anything else.
