NEWS AND VIEWS: Kuzio commentary causes kerfuffle in Canada (08/08/04)

NEWS AND VIEWS: Kuzio commentary causes kerfuffle in Canada

by Oksana Zakydalsky

TORONTO - Three months ago, an op-ed article by Taras Kuzio in The Kyiv Post under the title "Myths about Canada's Ukrainian Diaspora" caused somewhat of a kerfuffle, particularly in the Canadian academic community. The gist of the article was the contention that, although the world - from the Ukrainian World Congress to the presidential administration in Ukraine - believes that the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada is very influential, this is a myth.

"I wrote the article to puncture the myth which is very widely held. I was at a conference in November in Sweden where even the Swedes think that the one place where Ukrainians are powerful is Canada. This is a commonly held view in Ukraine and everywhere. After living here three years, I have seen that, although this may have been the case in the past, it is no longer true. That was my idea of writing the op-ed," Dr. Kuzio explained.

The article was reprinted in several publications and elicited responses mostly from persons connected to institutions that Dr. Kuzio attacked for believing this "myth of the Ukrainian diaspora" or being a part of it. The Kyiv Post published only one response; the ensuing discussion took place mostly on the Internet.

For the past three years, Dr. Kuzio has been resident fellow at the University of Toronto's Center for Russian and East European Studies (CREES) as well as professor in the department of political science. This summer he takes up an appointment at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University in Washington.

British born, he is a graduate of the University of Sussex. He received his M.A. at London University and his Ph.D. at the University of Birmingham in 1998 where, for three years, he was also senior research fellow. Before coming to Toronto, he was head of mission of the NATO Information and Documentation Office in Kyiv and did post-doctoral research at Brown and Yale universities.

Dr. Kuzio has published widely - he has five books, several monographs and countless articles in scholarly and academic journals to his credit - but his name is most familiar to anyone interested in contemporary Ukraine through his analytical articles on Ukrainian politics that appear in many Internet publications (and are regularly reprinted in The Ukrainian Weekly). Outside the United Kingdom, most people probably heard about him for the first time in 1989 when he was among the few people from the West invited to the founding congress of Rukh in Kyiv.

Dr. Kuzio's presentations at numerous CREES seminars in Toronto and at Ukrainian venues throughout Canada were popular and usually provocative. He became somewhat of an "enfant terrible" - or, given his part-Italian heritage, "birbante" - in the academic community.

But he has also been an admired teacher. At the University of Toronto, his two political science courses - "NATO and EU Enlargement" and "Nationalism, Myth and Identity" - last year attracted about 20 students, only five of whom, according to Dr. Kuzio, had any Ukrainian background.

The sole Canadian-Ukrainian in the course, fourth-year student Paul Terefenko, offered his opinion of Dr. Kuzio: "I was a student in both of Dr. Kuzio's courses. His vast knowledge and ability to convey ideas in a brilliantly informative manner deepened my interest in current Ukrainian political issues. Dr. Kuzio's approach was very direct, he never skirted any issue, tied together theory and opinions in a coherent rational way while not forgetting that politics can be very humorous. If I had the opportunity of taking another of his courses, I wouldn't hesitate to do so. Sadly, no one at the University of Toronto will have that option next year."

In his Kyiv Post article, Dr. Kuzio breaks down the "diaspora myth" into three components - Ukrainians in Canada have no influence on attracting the attention of the Canadian media to Ukraine, or establishing business links between Canada and Ukraine, while "academic inertia" permeates Ukrainian studies at Canadian universities.

Among those who responded to Dr. Kuzio's article was Dr. David Marples of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) who wrote that, "Taras Kuzio has said some very unkind things about the Ukrainian Canadian community." He took Dr. Kuzio to task for the lack of accuracy in his comments, his claim that there is general disinterest in Canada in contemporary Ukraine, for his statment that there is "limited federal support" and pointed out that "there is a plethora of government and non-government programs related to Ukraine initiated by Ukrainian Canadians," citing the numerous projects funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), such as the more than $1 million project on legal reform in Ukraine.

Dr. Kuzio was also criticized for false analogies made with the U.S. For example, he wrote that the Canadian press rarely publishes feature material about Ukraine such as Madeleine Albright's article about Ukraine in The New York Times. He neglected to mention that the former U.S. Secretary of State now heads a consulting firm, a frequent second career in the United States for star politicians. Such consulting firms are rare in Canada, whose politicians seldom achieve international celebrity standing (except when they hide Americans from raging revolutionaries as happened in Tehran a number of years ago).

Dr. Marples commented on Dr. Kuzio's lack of understanding or appreciation of Canada's federal and decentralized structure - both political and academic. That the center of Ukrainian studies in Canada is Alberta does not mean that it is found in some backwater, but reflects the fact that social programs and education, including higher education, are the primary responsibility of the provinces rather than the federal government. Therefore, Ukrainian studies have acquired a western orientation because that is where Ukrainians can leverage more government funding whereas the Ukrainian studies programs in place in Ontario - chairs of Ukrainian studies, the Jacyk Center or the newly established Danyliw program - have had to be funded by the community. CIUS in Toronto exists only because CIUS of Alberta does.

Canada has neither the centralized higher education structure of the U.K. nor the large number of private universities and tons of money of the United States, a country 10 times the size of Canada. If in political science studies related to Eastern Europe "the action is in Toronto and Ottawa," as Dr. Kuzio writes, it is partly due to the larger Jewish presence in Eastern Canada, a community with an Eastern European heritage.

In one of his responses to comments on his original article Dr. Kuzio claimed that in Canada there is "non-acceptance of non-Canadians" and that his criticisms of Ukrainian studies in Canada were found not acceptable because he is an "outsider." But the reality is that Canadian institutions have always had an "open door" policy to academics, especially to those from the U.S. and the U.K. Many of the academic positions and programs created in the 1970s through leverage by the Ukrainian community (e.g., CIUS in Alberta) or through funds collected in the Ukrainian community (e.g., the Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto) are held by Americans - Paul Magocsi, Orest Subtelny, Frank Sysyn, Zenon Kohut, Maxim Tarnawsky are all from Harvard; Wsewolod Isajiw and Jean Paul Himka are also from the U.S., while both Dr. Marples and Myroslav Shkandrij are from the U.K.

In his response, Dr. Denis Hlynka (University of Manitoba) raised the question of the use of the term "diaspora" as a descriptor of Ukrainians in Canada. Diaspora is made up of groups that feel displaced and that consider their main allegiance to be to some country other than Canada, in this case, Ukraine. By calling Ukrainians in Canada "diaspora" and criticizing them for being involved with "Canadian issues" rather than working on behalf of the interests of Ukraine, is another misreading of the Canadian reality. In fact, Ukrainians in Canada are 95 percent Canadian-born (as shown first with the 1991 Census) - more Canadian-born than any ethnic group other than Native or French.

Dr. Kuzio also leaves out an important factor influencing Canada's attitude to Ukraine - independent Ukraine itself. He urges the Ukrainian World Congress to move to Washington because "that's where the action is - IMF, World Bank, WTO" or to New York where the United Nations is headquartered." But influencing attitudes toward Ukraine is not the province of the UWC but of the Ukrainian state.

Nestor Gayowsky (Canada's consul general in Kyiv during the first years of Ukraine's independence) takes up this point: "It is surely the responsibility of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainians to ensure their country receives the attention and respect it deserves." Dr. Hlynka also notes that "Ukraine is at last an independent country. Before 1991 we considered ourselves the guardians of a culture under siege. Now it is time to give that culture back."

Two points raised by Dr. Kuzio should be discussed further. The first is the question of the use of the media. The Ukrainian community does not appreciate the importance of the media. One need only look at the sorry state of most Ukrainian newspapers in Canada - Ukrainian language, English language or "half-na-piv" language. News is culled from news services posted on the Internet, reprinted with no context, signed by people noone knows anything about, pushing opinions coming from who-knows-where. Ukrainian newspapers have become vehicles mainly for publicizing events or reporting on them to show something is happening.

This decline of Ukrainian newspapers has shrunk the public sphere in the Ukrainian community. With such low expectations about the importance of the press as a medium of information and discussion, is it any wonder that the cultivation of the Canadian press is not given due attention? Added to that, as Mr. Gayowsky noted, no help comes from Ukraine, where the Ukrainian administration does not understand what foreign media can do for the country. Perhaps the Ukrainian Canadian Congress should give consideration to the creation of a Ukrainian Reuters-type news service through the pooling of the resources of existing publications or by tapping into some existing news service (perhaps even the Kyiv Press Bureau of The Ukrainian Weekly) and setting up contacts with the Canadian press. As things stand today, there is little appreciation of the fact that relations with the press are a process that needs to be maintained over time.

Secondly, Dr. Kuzio writes that "I don't think that in Canada there is any interest in encouraging the political science study of Ukraine." Political science studies is a new area for Ukraine - there is little understanding on what it involves, on how it differs from history or even journalism. Many people don't understand what actually constitutes political science. The study of contemporary Ukrainian elites, power structures or parties bears little resemblance to romanticized ideas about Ukraine.

The various analytical concepts and frameworks used for the study of post-Soviet societies - transition, nationhood, identity, etc. - have not been fully absorbed. But their understanding and application are important for the study of Ukraine, for political science is one of the vehicles that brings Ukraine into mainstream academic study. Dr. Kuzio highlighted the current circular problem - no classes, no graduates, no scholars and no publications. More forums for presentations - conferences, round tables or lectures, no matter how distinguished - are no substitute for scholarly study. Dr. Kuzio's emphasis on the importance of the support of graduate students in political science study of Ukraine should be heeded.

Just before the end of the semester I asked Dr. Kuzio: "Your career so far has been multifaceted - in which position do you consider that you are making your most significant contribution - as scholar, teacher, policy advisor?"

He answered: "That is a difficult question. Most academics especially in political science find it difficult to give talks to policy-makers. I feel very comfortable in doing so and that is partly because I can write. If you can speak to different audiences, you can write to different audiences. But one also needs time to do research. The ideal world for me would be to work half the time in a think-tank, and half the time in academia. I think it's fascinating to be in both worlds. Teaching is a separate thing completely - where the teaching is interesting is in trying to build on what the students already know. I also think that students benefit if you circulate in the real world. They can benefit from your experience, you can talk about examples of theories you are proving or analyzing, and hence you can be a better lecturer."

Perhaps Canada is too small, too globally unimportant for people with high ambitions. In the United States, Soviet studies always occupied an important place (bolstered by IREX, Fulbright grants and USAID) and with the geopolitical and strategic importance of Ukraine to the U.S., some of the attention and funding continues. Canada has never played in this league. Perhaps Dr. Kuzio will find a more receptive environment for the political science study of contemporary Ukraine in Washington, while what he calls "the establishment" in Canada re-reads his article and all the responses - this time looking past the "grudge factor" to dig out the valid criticism.

| Home Page |