EDITORIAL: Anniversary of ill-fated Pereiaslav Treaty (01/18/04)

EDITORIAL

Anniversary of ill-fated Pereiaslav Treaty

The year 2004 marks the 350th anniversary of the ill-fated Pereiaslav Treaty of 1654, the pact between Ukrainian Kozak Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Russian Tsar Aleksei Mykhailovich, whereby Ukraine became a protectorate of the tsar of Muscovy. The military alliance, which was ratified by a Kozak council in Pereiaslav on January 18, 1654, was usurped by Russia and brought Ukraine centuries of oppression - first under tsarist Russia and then under the Soviet Union.

Soviet historians, of course, saw the treaty as formalizing the desire of the Ukrainian and Russian people to unite in a single Russian state. Indeed, on the 300th anniversary of the treaty, which was celebrated in 1954 as a "reunion" of Ukraine and Russia, a huge arch of friendship was erected in Kyiv.

It was back on March 13, 2002, that President Leonid Kuchma had issued a decree "On the Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Pereiaslav Kozak Council of 1654. The decree, which was but one example of Ukraine drawing nearer to Russia at that time, raised the ire of the scholarly community and Ukrainians worldwide. First to react in the diaspora was the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies. In a June 14 open letter, the CIUS argued that, "Intentionally or not, the presidential decree of March 13 politicizes historical scholarship in order to legitimize a possible change in the foreign policy of Ukraine and reorient the historical consciousness of the Ukrainian people."

Inasmuch as the presidential decree called for conferences, publications and other commemorative activities involving the scholarly community, the CIUS told its colleagues in Ukraine: "Your participation in these measures - commemorating an event that most historians on the organizing committee continue to regard as a decision forced upon our 'great Bohdan' - will lend legitimacy to those forces in Ukraine and beyond that seek to resurrect the empire that Pereiaslav helped create. That would be a disservice to Russia and Ukraine, whose progress requires not the rebuilding of the empire but the development of democratic nation-states." (For information on CIUS resources on the Pereiaslav Treaty, see the commentary by Dr. Frank Sysyn on page 7.)

The CIUS representatives wrote: "Do the authors of the decree and members of the organizing committee not understand that they are preparing to commemorate the anniversary of an event that led to the abolition of the independent Ukrainian state formed under Bohdan Khmelnytsky's leadership? The March decree calls into question not only the historical legitimacy of Ukraine's current independence, but also the official genealogy of the Ukrainian government. ... Ukraine's first president, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, regarded Pereiaslav as a mistake and declared an 'end to orientation on Moscow' in 1918."

In July 2002 the World Scholarly Council of the Ukrainian World Congress protested the presidential decree and called on Mr. Kuchma to withdraw from observances of the anniversary, which they called "one of the blackest dates in our history." Other signatories to the open letter to Kuchma included the leaders presidents of scholarly institutions, such as the Shevchenko Scientific Societies of Europe and Poland, and the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Science in the U.S.A. The Shevchenko Scientific Societies in Canada and the United States issued their own protest statement, also in July. Soon thereafter, the International Congress of Ukrainian Studies, meeting in Chernivtsi in August, also issued a formal protest.

Similarly, in a statement released to the press in July 2002, the Ukrainian World Congress noted that "the Pereiaslav Treaty was not a 'voluntary reunification' but the beginning of a long period of enslavement of Ukraine by Russia." Furthermore, it noted that "this presidential decree is a striking example of national irresponsibility. The government of an independent country has decreed to officially observe an event that resulted in its people's enslavement and loss of statehood."

Now the anniversary year is upon us. What should one expect from the commemorations of the Pereislav Treaty of 1654? We do not have the answer to that question, but we know that we must be prepared to respond to distortions of Ukraine's history. And we must be armed with the facts. Thankfully, the CIUS has once again taken the lead on this matter by making available to the public significant information resources that will be invaluable in countering what some quarters still insist is cause for celebration by both the Ukrainian and Russian nations.

| Home Page |