LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (02/05/06)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The year 2005 in Washington

Dear Editor:

In looking over your comprehensive and informative "2005: The Year in Review," we noticed that only a relatively small percentage of Washington events pertaining to Ukraine were mentioned or covered. This is certainly not meant as a criticism of The Weekly, which remains an invaluable resource to the Ukrainian community. We fully realize that it is not possible to cover each and every event especially without a full-time Washington correspondent, which would be difficult given The Weekly's unfortunately limited resources or to include it in the year-ender. Therefore, we would like to take this opportunity to amplify on the panoply of Ukraine-related events in D.C.

It is worth recording that Washington continues to remain the pre-eminent location for the study of contemporary Ukraine. This is at the government, policy-making and academic levels. No other location in the United States has such a large number of events taking place dealing with contemporary Ukraine. Washington is also the location for the largest number of students studying contemporary Ukraine.

We, therefore, think readers of The Ukrainian Weekly would find it of interest to know of the large number of substantive Washington Ukraine-related events - conferences, roundtables, meetings, briefings that took place in 2005 that underscore the high level of attention that Ukraine receives in Washington. This is something that is still not fully understood by many Ukrainian Americans. This was one of the principal themes in our August 7, 2005, article "A Guide to Who's Who in Washington, D.C.'s Ukraine-related activities."

In addition to the several Washington events mentioned in "2005: The Year in Review," over 40 public or semi-public events took place that dealt exclusively or primarily with Ukraine in 2005. Most took place at various influential policy think-tanks, including the Woodrow Wilson Center's Kennan Institute (which hosted an impressive 20 events), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, George Washington University, Georgetown University, International Republican Institute (IRI), The Washington Group (TWG) and Johns Hopkins' School for Advanced International Studies, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Rand Corporation, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Freedom House/Poland American Ukraine Cooperative Initiative (PAUCI), National Democratic Institute (NDI) and elsewhere. Many of these events/discussions were covered by Voice of America TV and other media broadcasts to Ukraine. In numerous additional forums, Ukraine may not have been featured exclusively, but still was addressed in some capacity.

Speakers and panelists at these events included a wide variety of experts, academics, government officials, some from Ukraine or of Ukrainian heritage, as well as many non-Ukrainians. It is worth noting that the majority of attendees were various experts, policy-makers, academics and students, most of them non-Ukrainian American, as many of these events take place during the work-day.

Moreover, there are numerous limited U.S. government or semi-governmental Ukraine related meetings and scores of meetings by visiting Ukrainian officials or non-governmental organizations with their U.S. Washington-based governmental, Congressional and non-governmental counterparts, testifying to the vibrancy of interest in contemporary Ukraine in Washington. Also worth noting is the Congressional hearing in July devoted exclusively to Ukraine, as such hearings are an important, albeit relatively infrequent occurrence, as well as the unanimous passage of resolutions in both the Senate and House early in 2005 congratulating the people of Ukraine on the free and fair December 26, 2004, elections.

The attention by these influential institutions to Ukraine, in the city where U.S. policy toward Ukraine is formulated, is a testament to how far interest in Ukraine has come in the last decade. This level of meaningful attention by American organizations should be welcomed by Ukrainian Americans everywhere. Ukraine's future integration into Euro-Atlantic structures during the Viktor Yushchenko presidency will be formally decided in Brussels where the European Union and NATO are based. At the same time, preparatory work and the support of the U.S. administration in Washington will be decisive in backing Ukraine, especially with respect to NATO.

Orest Deychakiwsky
Taras Kuzio
Washington

Reaction to report by UNA officer

Dear Editor:

Mr. Eugene Iwanciw has produced some admirable work over the years but his latest report as a member of the UNA Executive Committee appearing in the January 22 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly really muffs it when it comes to his calculations of how many people use Soyuzivka.

To suggest that we measure the number of people that use Soyuzivka by basically dividing the annual revenue by the cost of a weekly stay for a family and to then conclude that less than 2 percent of our members use it is just plain incorrect. To base further decisions about Soyuzivka on such faulty reasoning would be disastrous. Soyuzivka is used by many people who stay less than a week and even more by those who do not even stay the night. This is unfortunate because they are missing out on a fun and relaxing place at a reasonable price, but this is a community-building service our fraternal performs for the public along with the publication of two fine newspapers, etc.

There is no point in talking about concentrating on our core business being insurance because the core business of the UNA has always been community building. It is nice to know that my premium envelope is being opened by a Ukrainian in a Ukrainian entity, but its tough to get too excited by it. Unlike the pioneer miners in 1894 in Shamokin, we have plenty of options for insurance. It is fraternalism that defines the UNA and is its core business.

Yes, the worrisome subsidies to these worthy activities could and should be less but they are not large by today's standards of the cost of things and should not have a material impact on an organization supported by a community that has come into its own financially.

Trouble is the UNA simply does not sell enough of its bread-and-butter whole life insurance to allow it to make these relatively small annual subsidies. The face amount of policies being bought by individuals, often well-meaning individuals, is minuscule. I know of grandparents (why it's not the parents is the topic for another letter) that proudly enroll their grandchildren with the purchase of a $5,000 face amount policy with a $400 one-time premium. The UNA is then required to manage and invest such funds, keep records of them, file annual reports with the respective state agencies, hire actuaries to figure out the values of such policies for the next 70, 80 years. The sum of $400 represents less than a very modest three-day weekend away from home, and it certainly won't get you through a deb.

How many of us have stopped to consider what it costs to run an insurance company? You don't need an actuary to tell you it's a lot more than can be earned on the above policy. Some individuals note the lack of a dividend as a reason for not buying more insurance. If the UNA doubled the amount of insurance in force its overhead would certainly not double and there would be a lot more black ink flowing down to the bottom line. These funds that could be used to support Soyuzivka, The Weekly and other worthy causes, as well as to restore the dividend to members.

Dr. Myron B. Kuropas had an interesting article in the January 22 issue about the origins of the UNA. Is it not incongruous that the supposedly simple coal miners of late 19th century Pennsylvania could figure out how to maintain a truly fraternal and yet profitable UNA while the newer generations with all their Ph.D.s, etc. cannot?

What we need is a pact between management and members that members will buy policies in real-world amounts and not demand twice the service for half the price at our resort, and that management will see to it that every premium penny is spent as it should be, the UNA dividend will be restored as soon as possible, and fraternal activities maintained. Hopefully we can all rise to the occasion.

Zenon B. Masnyj
New York

More on meaning of "nationalism"

Dear Editor:

The January 22 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly contained the letter "The meaning of nationalism" by Bohdan Pasichny.

I would like to add that, in today's Ukraine, not all patriots are nationalists, and not all nationalists are patriots, because some of them work for the special services of enemy states, and some work to the detriment of Ukraine.

Eugene Stakhiv
Waldwick, N.J.

Ukraine still in grip of uncertainty

Dear Editor:

The uncertainty that gripped Ukraine in the last quarter of year 2005, after President Viktor Yushchenko dismissed Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and continues into the new year stands in sharp contrast to the president's stated goal of stability.

As Mr. Yushchenko's popularity evaporated in the wake of wide-ranging corruption allegations, pro-democracy strategists were also troubled by rising poll numbers of Viktor Yanukovych and his pro-Russian Party of the Regions. Still, they are unable to get their act together. The phrase "The Orange Revolution is irreversible" emerged as an antidote to creeping doubts. "The big picture" characterization of shaky civic conundrums became a verbal escapism replacing the specifics.

And it became more bizarre. The "Orangization of Yanukovych" was postulated by some specialists in the diaspora as a distinct possibility just around the corner, while Mr. Yanukovych was actually tying the president up in knots in a deal that included official rehabilitation of organizers of the election fraud that sparked the Orange Revolution a year ago.

In all fairness, it is not clear whether President Yushchenko understood the essence of corruption that allegedly, if not apparently, had pervaded the circle of his political cronies, or the self-destructive quality of the image created by his intemperate response to media criticism of his son's antics. In a country where no one was ever convicted, much less jailed for high-level malfeasance during the post-Soviet period, the ruling strata have become desensitized to despicable conduct. In contrast, in permissive America, every governor of the state of Louisiana in recent memory, except the present one, has served jail time.

It is not an exaggeration to note that no contemporary statesman has squandered the political capital and the good will of the people in such a short time as did Mr. Yushchenko.

The timing of Russia's President Vladimir Putin's "gas attack" at the end of last year has not helped, except perhaps by sobering up Mr. Yushchenko's view as a self-acknowledged economist. Remarkably, he is no longer extolling the "infallibility of markets," as he did during the gas crisis last May, when he was faulting Prime Minister Tymoshenko for supposedly causing the crisis. He is now lambasting Moscow's political motives, as did Ms. Tymoshenko last May. But Mr. Yushchenko still has "no regrets" about firing her, thus inviting even more skepticism about his own reflexes.

The energy supply and cost issue is not going away any time soon; in fact it keeps Ukraine and Russia "joined at the hip." Given also a pronounced desire in Ukraine's east and south for dual citizenship with Russia, the art of governing the country as an independent nation seems like running a circus from a monkey cage. The country probably would have caved in by now if it were not for substantial diplomatic support from the West - which did not exist in centuries past. Everything has changed with the splash of central Asian oil and the subsequent extension of the American sphere in the region, witness the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Kyiv at the beginning of the gas confrontation in December.

But the turmoil goes on. The Financial Times of January 12 quoted Igor Ostash, a Yushchenko supporter: "The possibility of a return of a criminal government in the form of a coalition with one or the other of the former Orange forces - whether Our Ukraine or Tymoshenko - is very real." Writes Tom Warner in the same article: "Mr. Yushchenko is left looking as if he is losing control, not just of the government, but of country's political future."

The official rosters of political blocs' candidates for the parliamentary elections in March include family members and relatives of the highest party leaders near the top of the list, virtually guaranteeing their election under the new law, with all votes cast for parties rather than individuals. Cozy nepotism is hardly an inspiration to come and vote. Many may decide to sit it out.

Boris Danik
North Caldwell, N.J.

| Home Page |