LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (10/05/97)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

A second sellout of Ukrainian Church?

Dear Editor:

In reference to the article "Ecumenical patriarch calls on Russian Church to lead reunification of Ukrainian Churches" (September 28) I would like to comment on this issue.

As a lay Ukrainian Orthodox Christian I consider it to be a second sellout to the Russian Church of the Ukrainian Church by the Greek patriarchs.

These mighty soul traders consider themselves to be canonical and our Church uncanonical because we do not want to be controlled by the Moscow patriarchs, who destroyed our Church tradition, our culture, our language.

Why would Patriarchs Aleksei II and Bartholomew do such evil to another Orthodox Church, or to any Church for that matter?

Therefore, I do not wish to belong to either of these Churches. I would be happy to belong to an "uncanonical" Church that doesn't have a history of manipulation, lies, coercion, treachery and subjugation. I do not want to be a voiceless member of their club and to loose my self respect, self-esteem and my backbone.

Alla Lehka Heretz
Rutherford, N.J.

Ukraine must learn to use tools it has

Dear Editor:

The September 14 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly contained several articles which combined provide the conclusion that Ukraine must look internally and reduce its reliance on the diaspora and outside assistance to keep its ship of state afloat.

Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are looked upon by macroeconomic experts as examples of economies that accepted structural adjustment programs and used foreign aid for the purpose of softening the shocks of early reform. Poland was recently invited to join the European Union due to its development of a viable market economy.

Ukraine has been split between the philosophies of President Leonid Kuchma, who has been an early advocate of radical change, and Leonid Kravchuk, his predecessor, whose program emphasized the development of the economy eventually through gradual acceptance and slowly building a supporting infrastructure. The two views are paradoxical.

The IMF and the World Bank endorsed Mr. Kuchma's pragmatic approach, which made the state the centerpiece of radical reform. The Kuchma proposals prior to the 1997 crisis and his July 1997 crisis-abating proposals are practical and logical as goals to be attained. They represent an ambitious program requiring strong state action.

In order to attain these goals, which could lead to eventual economic rehabilitation for Ukraine, he would need the cooperation of the Verkhovna Rada. During the last few years of his administration, this has not been forthcoming. A president cannot create an effective government in a democracy alone, especially in a new one. This is the reason Mr. Kuchma told Parliament to cooperate with his programs or he may find it necessary to withdraw from seeking re-election in 1998.

The opportunities for structural adjustment under the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank offered Poland, with its prior market economy experience, were offered to Ukraine. Poland, having had a taste of the advantages of a market economy and consumer satisfaction, quickly appreciated the opportunities and took ownership of the structural adjustment program.

Ukraine, with its long experience of state control, looked upon these opportunities for foreign aid as means of governmental financing, rather than tools for long-term growth. Commitment to reform wasn't present. A writer for the Economist, referring to Ukrainian economic conditions last July, stated, "it is representative of what an incompetent government can do to destroy its programs."

A recent World Bank survey of developing economies surprisingly suggested that even Russia, with its current alarming problems, will emerge as a viable economy within the first quarter of the next century.

The World Bank and IMF conditions should be looked upon as prescriptions for curing an ailing economy, not as intrusions into home rule.

In looking at several newly independent economies, there are those with commitment to a market economy and others that are ambivalent. Ukraine has the tools to emerge strong. However, it has to learn to pick them up.

Paul Thomas Rabchenuk
Salem, Mass.

No surprise regarding Vatican-Moscow talks

Dear Editor:

I would like to comment on your "News and Views" section in the September 21 edition of The Weekly.

I am surprised that Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine and in the diaspora were astonished by the "bilateral conversations" between delegations of the Holy See and the Patriarchate of Moscow regarding relations between Ukrainians of the Greek-Catholic and the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine without the participation or consultation of the concerned parties. A simple reference to history books will show that the actions of Rome and Moscow vis-à-vis Ukraine in December of 1996 were perfectly logical and consistent with the policies of those two religious centers in effect since the 16th century. History teaches us that the policies of Rome and Moscow in Eastern Europe principally involve competition for dominance without much regard for the impacted population. In the case of Ukraine, the policies of Rome and Moscow were, and apparently still are, directed towards division of Ukraine into religious and political spheres of influence, and as such are against Ukrainian national interests. In view of this, one can appreciate the wisdom of the Ukrainian government in disinviting the pope last year from visiting Ukraine.

Ihor Lysyj
West Hills, Calif.

| Home Page |