Scholars discuss controversial decrees by Kuchma and Putin

by Yaro Bihun
Special to The Ukrainian Weekly

WASHINGTON - A series of recent "ukazes" by Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and his Russian counterpart have stirred up a hornets' nest in Ukraine and its Western diaspora.

There were decrees proclaiming "The Year of Ukraine in Russia" and "The Year of Russia in Ukraine," establishing coordinating committees and appropriate programs to mark the 350th anniversary of the Council of Pereiaslav, which "reunited" Ukraine with Russia, and a joint Russian-Ukrainian government commission to "harmonize" the history texts used in both countries.

And if, after all that, there was a hornet or two still asleep in the nest, there was the ukaz (decree) calling on Ukrainians to mark the 85th birthday of Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, the former First Secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine, now deceased, remembered primarily for the brutality with which he clamped down on any remnant of Ukrainian cultural revival in the post-Stalin period and dispersed Ukraine's writers, poets, artists and other dissidents to the far reaches of the Soviet gulag.

There were protests and petitions signed in Ukraine and abroad, and on January 30, overshadowed by two-weeks of politically important U.S.-Ukrainian meetings in Washington, these issues were discussed during an academic seminar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

The seminar, featuring Dr. Frank Sysyn, the director of the Peter Jacyk Center for Ukrainian Historical Research at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS), and Dr. Sergei Zhuk, a research scholar at the Kennan Institute, focused primarily on the issue of the Russian and Ukrainian governments trying to "harmonize" their history textbooks. The discussants, however, commented on the other decrees as well.

Both the American-Canadian-trained historian Dr. Sysyn and the Ukrainian-Russian-American-trained Dr. Zhuk were critical of any and all attempts by governments to intervene in historical scholarship. Using the occasion to plug the release of Volume 8 of Mykhailo Hrushevsky's "History of Ukraine-Rus'," a CIUS project, Dr. Sysyn excepted the government's role in helping fund academic endeavors, as the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities did in providing funds for the translation into English of Hrushevsky's Volumes 7 and 8.

"The National Endowment for the Humanities did not interfere to tell us how the text was supposed to turn out, I might add. It gave us the money, trusted us, and we put it out," he interjected. "And I think the Ukrainian government could learn much if it would follow such a policy."

Dr. Sysyn said that attempts at "harmonization" between unequals is nothing more than a euphemism. In practice, it means that the smaller country "will give up part of its sovereignty and will do what the 'big brother,' or as it is often called, the 'elephant,' wants them to do."

"If you want to see where this has been effectively done, look at Belarus, at what was published in 1990 and 1991, and what is being published today," he said.

Leading up to the ukaz, Dr. Sysyn said, the Russian side cited two specific complaints about how history was being presented in Ukraine: the treatment of the Great Famine and the Bolshevik-Ukrainian war that ended in the establishment of Soviet rule in Ukraine. The Ukrainian side, he noted, had no complaints.

Academic commissions are not bad per se, he said. There is a Polish-Ukrainian commission looking over textbooks, and very effectively, he added. But the proposed Russian-Ukrainian commission would not be between equals and would be directed by the vice prime ministers of the two countries - neither of whom is a historian.

"But above all, we don't have the basic research," he stressed. "The kind of research that other societies did decades ago on the early 20th century and centuries ago on earlier periods have yet to be done. And it is, therefore, more difficult to agree about events until you have researched them carefully."

Some historical questions are unresolved within Ukrainian society, where there are varied and conflicting views about a number of issues, especially concerning such "flashpoints" as World War II and the role of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).

"Until Ukrainian society has that internal debate and discussion, it is very hard to expect Ukrainian society to go out and do so with other societies," Dr. Sysyn said, pointing out some of the many difficulties that come up in dealing with Russian-Ukrainian historical difficulties:

"With all the good will, it is very difficult to write histories where one glorifies Peter I - or Peter the Great - but also believes that Mazepa was doing the right thing, and that the population of Baturyn should not have been slaughtered to the man, woman and child. It is very difficult to view Catherine as a wonderful 'centralizer' and in the same text write that the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich was a tragedy for the Ukrainian people. It is very difficult to believe in the glories of the spread of the Russian language and yet, on the other hand, write that, perhaps, the Ems Ukaz prohibiting Ukrainian was not a good thing."

Dr. Zhuk, who was educated and taught at Dnipropetrovsk State University and the Institute of World History in Moscow, where he received his Ph.D., shared his observations about Russian and Ukrainian historiography and historians. He later received another Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University and also taught at a number of American universities.

He said that one must not forget that the majority of former Soviet historians now writing and teaching history majored and specialized in the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In Ukraine they comprise 80 percent of historians. And most of the history textooks used today in Russia and Ukraine are based on the old Soviet historiography. New history texts in Ukraine, based on Hrushevsky and Orest Subtelny, "are the exception rather than the rule," he said.

While old Soviet history books dealt with non-Russian nationalities, Dr. Zhuk said, the new Russian texts, for the most part, ignore them, while idealizing the Russian monarchy and empire. In one of the three currently approved high school history texts, the Ukrainian Central Rada's independence efforts are described in one sentence, which, he added, is more than the independence movements of other republics receive.

"The entire interpretation of the recent textbooks became more nationalistic, Russian-centered and xenophobic," Dr. Zhuk said.

One of the approved texts characterizes the colonization of neighboring non-Russian nations as something "natural," which brought to the colonized peoples peace, friendship and harmony, for which they should be grateful, he observed.

"Russia was always bringing civilization and high culture to other less-populated and less-civilized nations, including Ukraine," he continued. While some Soviet history texts admitted Ukrainian contributions to Russian culture, "now, these textbooks dismiss Ukrainian influences completely," he added.

On the other hand, Dr. Zhuk cited one example of a new Russian history text, written by a prominent historian, that went to the other extreme, denigrating most things Russian and Soviet, and heaping praise on Western accomplishments. He said the publication was financed with a Western grant, suggesting that Soviet-trained historians strive to adapt their product to the perceived viewpoint of those who provide the funds.

"No funding. No books," was how he summed it up.

As Dr. Sysyn pointed out, the situation is not much different in Ukraine, where teachers and professors are badly paid and dependent on political authorities. While he could not find anyone in higher academic circles who would admit to being the "father or mother" of the proposals for joint commissions on history texts and the Pereiaslav anniversary, Dr. Sysyn said he expects many to participate.

"They come from a very strong tradition in which when the 'vlada' (the authorities), the elite, tells you to move in this direction, you jump quickly and you wait for signs," he said. "And if they tell you that Pereiaslav is good, you jump into line."

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, March 2, 2003, No. 9, Vol. LXXI

| Home Page |