LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (02/25/96)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Reagan presidency's achievements ignored

Dear Editor:

In their January 28 letter to The Ukrainian Weekly, Andrew Fedynsky and Julian Kulas point to the Clinton administration's many positive achievements with respect to Ukraine. There is much evidence to support this, and it is obvious that the Clinton administration, like much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, increasingly recognizes the geostrategic, political and economic importance of Ukraine and is willing to back this recognition up through concrete deeds.

To be sure, some administration actions vis-a-vis Ukraine can give grounds for criticism, and it sometimes still lapses into Russocentrism. Nevertheless, the case can be made that the Clinton administration's over-all track record with respect to Ukraine is solid. It should also be noted that many members of Congress - Republicans and Democrats alike - have been instrumental in encouraging and ensuring the favorable U.S. stance towards Ukraine.

Where I take some issue with my good friends is in their characterization of the Reagan administration. First of all, comparing the Reagan and Clinton administrations is like comparing apples and oranges, as Ukraine simply was not an independent country during the Reagan era. Upon Ukraine's attainment of independence, an entirely different relationship had to be constructed and put into place, which could not have been possible when Ukraine was, for all practical purposes, a colony.

Furthermore, before independence, Ukraine was not a priority either for the foreign policy establishment or the media in this country - both of which have a significant influence on the formulation of foreign policy for any administration. Anectodally, one need only recall how the occasional objective article or feature story in a major news publication about Ukraine during the 1980s would be met with enthusiasm by members of the Ukrainian American community. Now, these articles are relatively commonplace.

Today, too, for instance, in contrast to the pre-independence era, influential Washington foreign policy think-tanks host seminars or conferences on Ukrainian issues, often with visiting Ukrainian officials as featured guests. This is not to say that more does not need to be done to keep Ukraine on the proverbial "radar screen," nor is it to say that Ukrainian issues were completely ignored before Ukraine became independent - they weren't, especially by Congress and governmental entities like the Helsinki Commission. It is merely to underscore the dramatic changes that have taken place in American knowledge of and perceptions of Ukraine in the last few years.

In short, the reality of independence makes a huge difference.

Mr. Fedynsky's and Mr. Kulas' assessment of the Reagan administration towards Ukraine, unfortunately, does not tell the complete story. To claim, as they do, that other than saying all the right things about Captive Nations, Reagan "failed the Ukrainian community in every other way," does not mesh with the facts. True enough, the Reagan administration's record was not perfect. However, it was the Reagan administration's strong human rights stance that consistently and persistently pressed the Soviets on various human rights issues, including Ukrainian political prisoners (many of whom led the struggle for independence and became prominent players in independent Ukraine) and the then-banned Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox churches.

To cite just one of many examples, in 1988 (i.e. during the last year of the Reagan administration), it was the U.S. delegation to the Vienna CSCE meeting that held up agreement until all of the then few remaining Soviet political prisoners were released. Who was the last of these prisoners? None other than Levko Lukianenko, who went on to become an important force in the establishment of the Ukrainian state (and Ukraine's first ambassador to Canada).

Moreover, it was the Reagan administration's strong anti-Communist and anti-Soviet stance, manifested in so many ways, that was a major contributing factor in bringing down the Soviet empire. To mention just a few: the major defense build-up; the checking of Soviet troublemaking around the globe; the attempt to establish the Kyiv Consulate and hence to reduce Ukraine's isolation; the support for VOA and RFE/RL and other public diplomacy and democracy-building efforts; the courage - despite harsh criticism - to characterize the Soviet Union as the "evil empire" it was. Did all of these efforts not help in preparing the ground for Ukraine's independent statehood? Did all of these actions "fail the Ukrainian community?"

In their letter, Messrs. Fedynsky and Kulas fondly recall the fanfare surrounding the November 1994 White House ceremony with visiting Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. It was, indeed, a stirring and meaningful event that any Ukrainian American present will not soon forget.

But I also recall another event, six years earlier, at the White House. On a hot July day in 1988, during a Captive Nations ceremony in the Rose Garden, President Reagan spoke of Ukrainian political prisoner Petro Ruban, who had shortly before arrived in the United States after having been released from the Soviet gulag, and now was standing alongside the president, being singled out by Reagan for his courage and commitment. Obviously, a ceremony with a Ukrainian president, with all its attendant fanfare, would not have been possible in 1988; but this event, too, while more modest, was also very meaningful for Ukraine and, in its own way and within the context of that time, illustrated that administration's support for Ukrainian aspirations.

Let's give the present administration its just due, while not ignoring the accomplishments of the Reagan administration, keeping in mind the qualitatively different circumstances.

Orest Deychakiwsky
Washington

Addendum regarding translator's identity

Dear Editor:

In his letter (January 28) Victor Babanskyj states that Ihor Shevchenko could not have been the translator of the Ukrainian edition of Orwell's "Animal Farm" because the edition lists Ivan Cherniatynsky as the translator. Ivan Cherniatynsky was a pseudonym used by Ihor Shevchenko (Cherniatynsky, in fact, was his mother's name). Prof. Shevchenko's authorship of the Ukrainian translation has been confirmed by Prof. George Luckyj, who also pointed out a letter by Orwell where the writer mentions the Ukrainian edition of "Animal Farm."

In a letter to Arthur Koestler (September 20, 1947), Orwell writes:

"I think a Ukrainian refugee named Ihor Shevchenko may have written to you - he told me that he had written and that you had not yet replied. What he wanted to know was whether they could translate some of your stuff into Ukrainian, without payment of course, for distribution among the Ukrainian DPs, who now seem to have printing outfits of their own going in the American Zone and in Belgium. I told him I thought you would be delighted to have your stuff disseminated among Soviet citizens and would not press for payment, which in any case these people could not make.

"They made a Ukrainian translation of 'Animal Farm' which appeared recently, reasonably well-printed and got up, and, so far as I could judge by my correspondence with Shevchenko, well translated. I have just heard from them that the American authorities in Munich have seized 1,500 copies of it and handed them over to the Soviet repatriation people, but it appears about 2,000 copies got distributed among the DPs first.

"If you decide to let them have some of your stuff, I think it is well to treat it as a matter of confidence and not tell too many people this end, as the whole thing is more or less illicit... I am sure we ought to help these people all we can, and I have been saying ever since 1945 that the DPs were a godsend opportunity for breaking down the wall between Russia and the West. If our government won't see this, one must do what one can privately." (The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell," Vol. IV, London, 1968)

Oksana Zakydalsky
Toronto

Do not compare Ukraine and Quebec

Dear Editor:

I would like to refer to one sentence by Mr. Primak: "What surprises me most is that Ukrainian Quebecois who were so strongly for an independent Ukraine are so ready to deny the same right to French Quebecois." While I'm not of Ukrainian descent, I'd like to make a point. Can Quebec be compared to Ukraine? In my opinion, it cannot!

In 1992, Canada celebrated its 125th birthday and from the very beginning Quebec was a part of this country. Ukraine celebrated 1000 years of Christianity in 1988. Christianity was introduced by Prince Volodymyr the Great in 988 in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. Ukraine is an independent country with Russia as its neighbor. Being rich in resources (e.g. agriculture, gold, ore, gas, oil and titanium) it has been called the "bread basket" of Europe.

In the past, foreign invaders were plentiful and have been a source of great distraction. To name just a few, in 1240 Ukraine was invaded by Mongols, Tatars and others. In the 18th century the Russian rulers Peter I and Katherine II destroyed the Ukrainian Hetman state and reduced many Ukrainians to serfdom.

In 1917 Ukraine again became independent. In the 1920s the Russian Red army marched into Ukraine. Ukraine unwillingly became part of the USSR. In 1933, in eastern Ukraine Stalin forced a man-made famine and 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children perished. In 1986 many people suffered horribly (and will continue to suffer for many years) as a result of the nuclear accident in Chornobyl. This particular incident is indicative of the neglect and exploitation experienced by Ukraine at the hands of the USSR. These are just a few of the hardships endured by the Ukrainians in the centuries past.

In 1991 the USSR became bankrupt, i.e. it fell apart and collapsed. All the republics became free and declared independence. Seventy years of Communist occupation could not dampen their spirits. Out of the ashes of their country Ukrainians are rising once again. They have suffered! They have survived!

Today Ukraine, with 52 million people (plus 3 million Ukrainians residing outside of Ukraine), plays an important role in Europe. Ukraine is represented in the United Nations and is a member of NATO.

Slava Ukraini! Viva la Ukraina!

M. Gulak
Burlington, Ontario

Control of energy is crucial to Ukraine

Dear Editor:

Washington Post correspondent James Rupert correctly identified the "Achilles' heel" of Ukrainian independence (February 4). It is the "horrendous dependence" on Russia as the source and transmitter of its energy supplies.

Confirmation of Rupert's thesis appeared a few days later in the Los Angeles Times (February 14). Under the heading, "Ukraine in State of Emergency after Power Cut," the L.A. Times reported that "This nation of 52 million people went on emergency footing, shutting down factories throughout the country to cope with energy shortages after Russia uncoupled it from a joint power grid. It was the second cutoff ordered by Moscow in three months." Having failed in military conquest in Chechnya, Moscow is attempting to resurrect the Russian empire via economic strangulation of former Soviet republics.

No modern nation can exist in today's industrialized age without reliable and affordable energy supplies. Indigenous energy supplies in Ukraine are limited, and existing sources are used in an inefficient way. Of all the industrial nations, Ukraine is at the very bottom in energy conservation technology. Attacking this "Achilles' heel" Russia is waging a war of economic strangulation of Ukraine through control of the energy supplies, disconnecting electricity, shutting off gas supplies. It is a difficult fight for Ukraine, and there are no easy or simple solutions to the problem of its energy shortage.

The L.A. Times quotes Olexander Svetilyk, an official of Ukraine's power distribution system: "I see no prospect for improvement. There are no coal reserves; there are problems with heating oil and gas; water levels are falling at hydroelectric stations. The situation could turn awful with the system breaking into little pieces."

The Ukrainian community in the West has been highly effective in the cause of Ukrainian independence by providing expert advisory groups and other forms of assistance to the political institutions of Ukraine. But today the battlefield for independence has shifted from the political to the economic field, and control of energy supplies is the key to the outcome of this struggle.

To protect its independence from the Russian economic offensive, Ukraine needs technological help and expertise in the extraction, transportation, production, utilization and conservation of energy. Mobilization of our professional resources and talents in these fields, and establishing appropriate means for delivery of needed help should be the first priority of the Ukrainian community in the West.

Ihor Lysyj
West Hills, Calif.

| Home Page |