LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (10/17/04)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Who is the best for Ukraine?

Dear Editor:

Never before has the Ukrainian American vote been so important in a presidential election. Approximately 1.5 million Ukrainians and their descendents most living in key battleground states, could swing this year's very close contest to either incumbent President George W. Bush or challenger U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry.

Historically, Ukrainian Americans have tended to vote Republican. Often Republicans appeared better positioned to speak against the oppression, Russification and ruthless exploitation that Ukrainians endured during the Communist era. There were exceptions. Democratic President Jimmy Carter, as did some members of his party in Congress, aggressively fought for human rights during Soviet tyranny. But it is the Republican Party most identified with providing the strongest opposition to communism. As a result, Ukraine was rightly perceived as a subjugated nation.

In the post-Soviet era things have changed. In the last four years there has been limited attention given to Ukraine as it slides toward Russian political and economic influence. The October Ukrainian presidential election will impact the country for the next century. Two candidates have emerged. One is Viktor Yushchenko, who is committed to liberty, fair elections, growing the economy and nurturing a Ukrainian national consciousness. The other is Viktor Yanukovych, a lackey of President Leonid Kuchma, who supports greater integration with Russia.

Russian influence, threats of ballot tampering and the government-influenced press promoting Mr. Yanukovych's candidacy have not brought forth a strong response from Washington. Congress has passed a resolution expressing concern, some American policy-makers have visited Ukraine, and there are ongoing official calls for free and fair elections. These are nice gestures that make people feel good. Are they enough? Should former President Carter be asked to monitor the October election? Should the White House take a stronger public stand about the future of Ukraine similar to its positions on Israel, Taiwan or democracy among Arab nations?

The Bush administration's policy toward Ukraine takes careful steps not to offend Russian President Vladimir Putin. Securing and furthering Ukrainian independence seems to be a distant, secondary concern. Moscow has bellowed that it does not want the West to interfere in any way with Russian-Ukrainian relations. Washington has acquiesced, sending Moscow the signal that it can treat Ukraine as its weaker sibling.

This misguided policy also stems from an unwillingness to deal with what the world community widely perceives as an inept, corrupt administration now in power in Kyiv. The United States has tried to ignore it. By doing so, Washington, perhaps unintentionally, has encouraged the current Ukrainian government to feel isolated, thus justifying its closer alignment with its former overlord to the north.

The West has not acted in a concrete manner to advance Ukraine's delicate democracy. Symbolic gestures or statements don't protect liberty.

This is not to suggest that Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry should be given a pass on his attitude toward Ukraine. In contrast to the current administration, however, the senator does have a greater appreciation for geopolitical dynamics as evidenced by his foreign policy advisers, who consistently express strong, public concern about the future of Ukraine.

No Ukrainian American should vote for a presidential candidate based on their position toward Ukraine. To do so would be un-American. Every voter with Ukrainian ancestry, however, will likely factor their heritage into the overall equation along with such critical issues to America as terrorism, health care, economic growth and proper funding for education. Concern for the ancestral homeland should be only one of many factors in selecting the next president of the United States. We are Americans first.

As a bloc of voters, Ukrainian-Americans can have a significant role in the outcome of this year's U.S. presidential contest. Ukrainians have been taken for granted, and it's time they reassess their allegiances. Their willingness to pressure each of the major presidential nominees regarding Ukraine may contribute to a fair, honest election in the ancestral homeland.

Every Ukrainian American voter, especially in key battleground states - Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Arizona and Pennsylvania should ask: Is Ukraine better off after four years of President Bush? Or would Ukraine be better served if Sen. Kerry were elected president?

Bishop Paul Peter Jesep
Cleveland

The letter-writer is chancellor of the archeparchy and vicar general of government relations of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - Sobornopravna.

Reader's reaction to Vitvitsky article

Dear Editor:

It was with deep disappointment that I read Bohdan Vitvitsky's "Republicans, Democrats and Ukraine" (September 12). This article is a clever example of sophism and will no doubt influence Ukrainians to vote Democratic. However, if Dr. Vitvitsky wishes to push his own liberal agenda to influence politics, then it is important to view major events in their entire historical perspective and not just cherry-pick the ones that agree with his personal viewpoint.

Let us first address the issue of "historical amnesia." While it is a fact that President Harry S. Truman committed the U.S. to fight the Korean War when North Korea invaded South Korea, it was his fault that this invasion occurred. In January 1950 Secretary of State Dean Asheson outlined a "defensive perimeter" vital to national security and in this perimeter he included neither Korea nor Taiwan. As a result of this open invitation, North Korea launched a full-scale attack a few months later. Acheson, as a matter of fact, was and remained a friend of Alger Hiss, a major Soviet spy. Democrats continued to defend Hiss in spite of all the evidence well into the '90s.

As to the triumph of President John F. Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, let us not forget that it was his intelligence failure that allowed these missiles to accumulate there. Someone did not connect the dots. In return for dismantling the Cuban bases, Kennedy had to agree to Nikita Krushchev's demands never to attack Cuba and to reduce U.S. missile bases in Turkey. It was a response to an unnecessary crisis and not a victory for the U.S. Cuba, therefore, continues to be a problem.

The statement about Walter Polovchak is incorrect. He was never sent back to the "evil empire." His case was purposely dragged out in the courts until he reached the legal age of 18 and he decided to stay in the U.S. On the other hand, it was President Bill Clinton and Janet Reno who had Eliot Gonzales forcibly dragged from his home here and returned to Cuba.

Dr. Vitvitsky is also wrong in saying that there were only two Democratic administrations that have given Ukrainian concerns some "attention." Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, ever the hypocrite, called for the self-determination of nations. Subsequently, on June 25, 1919, the Entente (the Western allies and Wilson) Council of Ambassadors acknowledged Poland's right to occupy all of eastern Galicia (western Ukraine) "in order to protect the civilian population from the dangerous threat of Bolshevik bands." Thus, our parents were condemned to Polish tyranny and there was no self-determination for western Ukraine. For this we can thank a Democratic president.

When Republican candidate Barry Goldwater stated he was for an independent Ukraine he was called a warmonger by Lyndon B. Johnson. Of course, President George Bush should greet Mikhail Gorbachev warmly. He was one of the prime players in the dismantling of the USSR. I recall seeing a picture of Jimmy Carter hugging Leonid Brezhnev. I wonder why?

At present the U.S. has temporarily reduced aid to Ukraine because of the authoritarian tendencies of Leonid Kuchma and the sale of arms to Iraq. There was a reason for this, and it was not a lack of concern for the Ukrainian people. The U.S. has been very vociferous in stating to the world and to President Kuchma how important it is that the future presidential elections be fair and be free.

We could revisit the past 70 years of U.S.-Soviet relations to see which party did more to destroy Communism and thereby help Ukraine. If we resisted cherry-picking our facts, the score would certainly be higher for the Republicans. Just look at what the Democratic press has done to us. The liberal and Democratic New York Times steadfastly refuses to revoke Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize, in spit of the intense crusade on the part of many scholars to convince them. This action alone would have given Ukrainians great recognition and satisfaction. Certainly more than the speeches and the committee the Democrats offer and to whom Dr. Vitvitsky thinks we should be so grateful. I often wonder if Duranty had told the truth and if Gareth Jones was not assassinated the Famine could have been stopped. Let us also remember the "60 Minutes" program that declared Ukrainians to be "genetically anti-Semitic." Last I heard the entire staff of this program is liberal and Democratic.

I don't think Ukrainian Republicans need a lecture from Dr. Vitvitsky as to why we should not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. We understand this without his help. We also understand the concept of "realpolitik" not so much as catering to a more powerful country but as dealing with the more dangerous country (Russia still has nuclear weapons). I think it would be more beneficial for Democratic Ukrainians to lessen their vicious attacks on Republican politicians and maybe they would listen.

I must add that I have a lot of respect for Dr. Vitvitsky and his work for our community, but I found this article flawed and felt a need to respond.

Lydia Kossak Kernitsky
Colts Neck, N.J.

A reader's vote for Badnarik

Dear Editor:

Re: The Article by Myron B. Kuropas, "Can the U.S. save Ukraine?" (October 3), my answer is, "no" - not if George W. Bush is elected as president of the U.S. on November 2.

Prior to the 2000 election of Mr. Bush as president of the U.S., Ukraine was a nation respected by the U.S. government.

Now, since Bush's administration has practically kept Ukraine out of the European Union and pushed it into the grip of the Russian emperor, Vladimir Putin, how can any reasonable American Ukrainian vote for the Republican Party on November 2?

No matter what Dr. Kuropas states, the Republican Party is the the worst medicine for the United States, the world and Ukraine.

As a free American Ukrainian, on November 2 I'm voting for a real American, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.

Alex Kachmar
Sacramento

Ukrainians' activity in U.S. politics

Dear Editor:

Recently, all one reads in the Ukrainian American press is about the elections in Ukraine. A day does not go by where someone brings up another opinion regarding what is wrong with the elections process in Ukraine.

Well, Hello! We, American citizens of Ukrainian descent, can't do anything about the situation; we are not Ukrainian citizens and we can't vote in Ukraine's elections. However, there is something we can do.

We have a very important election coming up in this country on November 2. Hardly anyone in the Ukrainian American community speaks about this election, which will have a monumental impact on us all. After all, we grew up here, went to school here, some of us served in the U.S. military, and we have a responsibility to vote on November 2.

To the best of my knowledge, the Ukrainian American community is not active in this upcoming election. Except for a few articles by Dr. Myron Kuropas and Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky, plus a few letters, like those of Boris Danik, to The Ukrainian Weekly, expressing their opinions, there are no debates on important issues.

We do not represent a voting bloc.

The Ukrainian American community is very quick to criticize and demand action from our government on issues regarding Ukraine, but few, if any, are active in politics, either on the local, state or federal levels. We may be wise to follow the example of our Canadian brothers. It's about time we stop dreaming about Ukraine and wake up to the reality of where we live, work, worship, pay taxes, and send our children to school. We need to organize and take our political responsibility seriously and vote.

I, for one, will vote for John Kerry. If you do not agree with me, you can vote for your choice. (Will the people of Ukraine be able to exercise their free choice?

God Bless America!

Jerry Zinycz
Venice, Fla.

Time for Rather to do final show

Dear Editor:

Dan Rather's use of forged documents on his "60 Minutes" segment's distortion of President George W. Bush's National Guard record, once again shows the very subtle liberal bias of the major television news media. While the media's bias is normally done very subtly, this attempt to help to cheat John Kerry into the White House, has made their slyness more obvious than usual.

The fact that Mr. Rather and CBS finally apologized may not be as important as the fact that it took weeks for an apology to be finally forced out of them. And the fact that they apologized only to the duped American public means nothing. More importantly, will he/they ever apologize personally to our president?

We Ukrainian Americans will especially remember "60 Minutes" history of not apologizing for false stories. Twelve years ago the same "60 Minutes" lied about widespread anti-Semitism in newly independent Ukraine. Even after a public outcry from the American public and from prominent Ukrainian Jews, including leading rabbis, and a court case against CBS, "60 Minutes" never apologized for the hoax.

Maybe it's time for Mr. Rather to do a final show: an autobiographical segment on "60 Minutes." He could then retire to be one of the declining celebrities on "Hollywood Squares," a show more reflective of his type of "truth."

George "Yurko" Honchar
Carnegie, Pa.

Kuropas columns too unbalanced

Dear Editor:

I awaited with bated breath the arrival of your October 10 issue publication to see if the vitriolic harangues of Dr. Myron Kuropas continue. Sure enough, there he goes again. It is sad, however, that your otherwise outstanding publication (consciously or not) provides sustained forum for his blatant, unabashed, blind and completely unbalanced (read untruthful) support for the Republican Party.

At the very least, The Ukrainian Weekly should not afford Dr. Kuropas a regular space under the very innocent heading of "Faces and Places." His pro-Republican pronouncements are not the opinions of an ordinary concerned citizen; and why should they be! Dr. Kuropas has anointed himself the "head Ukrainian aparatchyk" of the current Washington Republican gang and has been an "operative" for the Republicans for a number of years. The unfortunate thing is that now, Dr. Kuropas does not even try to camouflage his pro-Republican venomous pronouncements with even a minimum of independent thought.

Even then, Dr. Kuropas had to be very fast on his feet to make the deadline for the October 10 issue where he aped the "order of the day" attacks, e.g., the "dirty liberal" and "the elite press" labels.

Also, Dr. Kuropas, because I can take a little lie here and there, but cannot stand it being shoveled down my throat 24/7, I will take the "elite media" and you can have Fox News with all the pseudo-intellectuals and imbeciles. Furthermore, I will take my demagogues like Soros, Al Sharpton, Franken and Kerry and you can have Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Cheney and above all Zel Miller (now that is one nice gentleman), but wait, you already have them!

Dr. Kuropas, must not think too highly of his Ukrainian compatriots. He preaches to them, he does not opine. Very little, or nothing of his allegations were born of his own thought processes. It is sad and disconcerting that a man of his intelligence and stature in the community has fallen so deep into the crevice of the Republican quagmire that he himself cannot recognize even a little ray of light (truth)? After 40 plus years of government service, I can discern where more "light" is coming from.

Also, in the past couple of months did I detect a little frenzy or paranoia on the part of the Republicans and especially on the part of Dr. Kuropas? Please tell the good doctor not to worry, that if need be, we Floridians are ready to re-enact November 2000. (FYI: I have been a straight-ticket Republican voter for the past 50 years; about three months ago I looked into my soul!)

George D. Velesko
Miami

Some observations re Vitvitsky article

Dear Editor:

Just a couple of comments on the article "Republicans, Democrats and Ukraine" by Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky in the September 12 issue of The Weekly.

1) It is not true that the Reagan administration "sent Walter Polovchak ... back to 'the evil empire.'"

2) The author fails to distinguish between the anti-Soviet policies of President Ronald Reagan and the pro-Soviet policies of the State Department.

3) By invoking the names of patriotic Democrats like Presidents Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy, and Sen. Henry Jackson and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the author attempts to cover up the leftist views of John Kerry, whose support of Communist North Vietnam now comes back to haunt him.

4) FDR and the Democrats sold out Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta. President Reagan won the Cold War and defeated "the evil empire," resulting in Ukraine's independence.

Leo Iwaskiw
Philadelphia

Finds support for Kerry surprising

Dear Editor:

It is with surprise and shock that I react to the news that there are Americans of Ukrainian descent that support John Kerry for President. These individuals must be unaware of Mr. Kerry's foreign policy record in the Senate. As we all know, it was President Ronald Reagan's policies that helped bring down the Soviet Union and free Ukraine from Communist tyranny. Those of us who do know Sen. Kerry's record, know that he took a much different stance during the Cold War.

President Reagan believed we could win the Cold War by fighting the Soviets on several fronts. He started an arms race that he knew the Soviets could not win and in addition would bankrupt their country. He worked with the Saudis to help keep the price of oil down. This, in turn, hurt the Soviet economy because it helped bring in less foreign currency. Oil was the largest export for the Soviets.

Finally, President Reagan funded and armed anti-Communist rebels throughout the world in order to defeat the USSR. He financially supported the Contras against Communist Nicaragua, liberated Grenada from Cuban invasion, and supported the government of El Salvador against Soviet-sponsored soldiers. Most importantly, he provided Afghanistan rebels with surface-to-air missile launchers that helped defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. All of these policies led to the collapse of the Soviet economy, the destruction of the Soviet Union, and the independence of Ukraine.

When Ronald Reagan passed away, Lech Walesa wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal thanking him for freeing Eastern Europe.

So where was Sen. Kerry when President Reagan was working to defeat Ukraine's enemy? While President Reagan was calling the Soviet Union an evil empire, Sen. Kerry was meeting with and praising Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega, two loyal Soviet clients. When President Reagan was increasing the defense budget, Sen. Kerry consistently voted to slash military spending and called for a nuclear freeze with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were always able to count on Sen. Kerry, America's most liberal senator, to side with them on issues. Had the policies of Sen. Kerry been allowed to carry the day, Ukraine would not be free today.

Ukrainian Americans are once again concerned about Russia dominating its neighbors. How can we trust Sen. Kerry to stand up to an imperialistic Russia today if he could not stand up to the evil empire when it was an obvious threat to us during the Cold War? Ukrainian Americans should vote for President George W. Bush on November 2.

Stefko Kuropas
Schaumburg, Ill.

The letter-writer is an Illinois state leader of Ukrainian Americans for Bush/Cheney 2004.

Famine-Genocide and U.S. election

Dear Editor:

I am thoroughly bewildered by the mind-set of those Ukrainians who persist in supporting the Bush-Cheney ticket. Many Ukrainian Americans have a nostalgic affinity for the GOP dating back to the Cold War. This is understandable. But it is time to re-evaluate this attraction in light of recent events which directly impact our community.

The Republican leadership and Sen. Richard Lugar have refused to let the resolution out of committee, suspending this initiative in a state of imposed paralysis. Reportedly, the Bush-Cheney regime is refusing to recognize the Ukrainian Famine as an act of genocide for fear of offending the Russians.

Regardless of our personal feelings about the war, we must remember that the Russians have vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, while the Ukrainians have sent 2,000 young troops, one of the few and one of the largest ally military contingents. One might legitimately wonder why the current Russian government, with its continuing cover-ups of atrocities and imperial pretenses, should be allowed to trump Ukrainians' justifiable aspirations for a long-overdue acknowledgement of one of the greatest acts of genocide in the 20th century.

It is worth noting that many Jewish senators, including Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer, Joseph Lieberman, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer and Arlen Specter, were early and staunch sponsors of the Senate resolution with its clear reference to the genocidal nature of Stalin's policy toward Ukraine. Should we expect or accept anything less from an administration that makes claims of superior moral leadership in foreign policy? Would the Jewish community ever consider supporting individuals aspiring for public office who refused to acknowledge the Nazi Holocaust as anything less than a conscious policy of genocide?

We Ukrainian Americans must break the habit of accepting so much less. Until the Bush regime goes on record in support of the Famine Resolution, our community must withhold its support, and we should certainly not pander to the GOP ticket.

Not only should Ukrainian Americans refuse to support Bush-Cheney, the Ukrainian American community must clearly communicate to this administration that we will hold President George W. Bush accountable for his refusal to recognize the Famine. Until the resolution passes with this administration's support, any suggestion that the Bush-Cheney ticket is worthy of our consideration is simply unthinkable.

Daria Juergensen
Cheshire, Conn.

The letter-writer is on the Steering Committee of Ukrainian Americans for Kerry-Edwards.

A reader's vote against Kerry

Dear Editor:

I would guess that Boris Danik of New Jersey is a liberal who will vote for Sen. John Kerry no matter what the facts are and reverts to name calling when issues become difficult to explain.

Allow me to explain several pertinent facts that may explain Senator Kerry's core values. Although he served in Vietnam for three months (1 month was training), he continued to refuse to release his military records. The Swift Boat Vets have raised numerous issues, however, Sen. Kerry refuses to address the issue of the medals by saying "you cannot question my patriotism."

It is documented that after he returned from Vietnam, he accused soldiers of atrocities which he could never substantiate. He called all of us "Genghis Khan" and worked with Jane Fonda. He also went to Paris to "negotiate" with the Communists. Wasn't he still in the Naval Reserve during this time? There may be a law against this egregious act.

In the Senate, Mr. Kerry voted against every weapons system and cut funding to the intelligence services. Yet, today he states that President George W. Bush is not giving the troops enough. If Sen. Kerry had his way, the troops would be using "spitballs" to fight. He voted for the war, and then voted against funding for the war, yet flip-flops that President Bush is not doing enough. Sen. Kerry cannot have it both ways.

Sen. Kerry has to finally come to terms and decide what he wants to believe. Ever since Vietnam, when he staged missions in order to film himself as a "Rambo" and compared our soldiers to barbarians, he has been an opportunist.

We are in World War IV (WW III was won by President Ronald Reagan), which is a global conflict. Failure is not an option.

Roman G. Golash
Palatine, Ill.

| Home Page |