"Desire for freedom is unquenchable in the hearts of people"

Below is the text of the address delivered by Norman Cafik, minister of state for multiculturalism, at the World Congress of Free Ukrainians banquet, Saturday, November 25.

It is indeed a great honor for me to be here tonight before an audience of so many of Ukrainian background from all parts of the world. I have had an opportunity of speaking to many Canadians of Ukrainian background in my own country, but never before you in this international context.

I'm particularly moved tonight because of my own humble beginnings and background. My father came to Canada from Ukraine at the age of 14. He came to Canada into the port of Halifax on board a merchant ship, which he jumped, thereby becoming a Canadian illegally. He had no money, he didn't speak English, and he didn't speak it that well when he died. He fought in two world wars for Canada. He raised a large family. All of us, with the exemption of my older brother, had to leave school quite early because of our humble beginnings. I was 14 years old during the Second World War when I had to leave school because my father and all my older brothers were overseas.

I know that my father who shared your background and mine, if he were alive today, would have been very proud to know that one of his sons had been the guest speaker at this congress tonight.

I, for one, recognize the tremendous importance of this third congress to each and everyone of you. I realize the sensitivity of the nature of the discussions that you have had and the delicate issues that you, I, and indeed the free world, are confronted with. The first issue that I would like to address myself to this evening is the question: Why this Third Congress of Free Ukrainians? First of all the words "free Ukrainians" are a very important concept and are very operative words in the name of your organization. Your very existence acts in a very real way as a mirror to the Soviet Union in which they will see themselves and realize that indeed we know that we are the only free Ukrainians in the world.

This congress is surely committed to a common objective arising from an obligation that we all feel deeply within us: to work in every way that we can to provide freedom for all the oppressed peoples everywhere in the world, including our former homeland.

Secondly, as Ukrainians, it is also self-evident that we have a second objective we feel almost in a messianic way: to protect our language, our culture, our values which arise from the very essence of our Ukrainian background. These are threatened with extinction in the world unless we act positively to preserve them.

Thirdly, we have an obligation to focus not only our own attention but also the attention of the world at-large, particularly the free world, to the real dimensions of oppression in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. We have an obligation to do that day and night so that those are of differing backgrounds will realize the true dimensions of our human tragedy. We must ourselves develop strategies and policies, on an international level, which will help mobilize the activity of Ukrainian organizations in all parts of the free world to help achieve those central objectives. I myself, as a minister of the government of Canada, four-squarely on behalf of my government, and on the full behalf of Canadian people, say that I have no hesitancy whatsoever in identifying myself with the objectives that I have outlined and that we share.

There is no doubt of the importance of the World Congress of Free Ukrainians continuing to be a unified organization. It goes without saying that any community group, even within a country, never mind on the international level can if it is not careful focus its attention on unimportant things that may divide us while ignoring the important and fundamental things that we all hold in common. I say to all of you that we have an obligation, if we are serious about our work, to ensure that we in fact do work together in a unified way towards an important objective.

Traveling to New York, the thought crossed my mind: "Why was I invited and given this great honor?" Perhaps I'll never know the real reason but I did think of three possibilities. The first was that I happened to be a member of a government who is also of Ukrainian background; and I happen to be, I guess, the only one in the free world that fits that category.

The second reason is the very special responsibility which I hold in that government as the minister of multiculturalism. As that minister I have the responsibility of guaranteeing that all Canadians have the right to preserve their cultural background in the Canadian context and to share it with other Canadians. Your common desire to retain your culture in the world is a part of my domestic responsibility.

The third reason that I have been invited is because of my involvement in the area of human rights. Even though I am not the minister of external affairs and do not have the prime responsibility for foreign policy in the government of Canada, in my own definition, I am properly and rightly concerned with human rights. The basis for my actions rests with my multiculturalism portfolio which I view as being the minister of both domestic and international human rights.

It is for that reason that I speak out on this issue, and it is probably for that same reason that I became what I believe is commonly known as public enemy number one in the Soviet Union. I don't mind. I had wondered if I ever did anything right, but when I found out that they were so much opposed to what I did, I thought I had to be doing something the right way.

My remarks tonight are divided into four categories: first of all, my role as the minister of domestic human rights; secondly, a new and important thrust in international affairs for peace in the world - the international policy of cultural freedom; thirdly, the cause of human rights on the international level; and finally a subject area I'll tell you about later.

First in terms of domestic human rights, let me take a moment, particularly because there are many who do not yet know, to describe our policy of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is not only important in Canada, but it is also an essential policy for every freedom-loving nation in the world. The policy essentially is this: we believe in a free society. We are all aware of the right of freedom of association. We all know the right of choosing our own governments. We all know the right of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of all those other freedoms which are so important to us all. In Canada, we have defined freedom in a broader and deeper way. We are pushing back the dimensions of human freedom by saying that we are also culturally free. No one has the obligation to conform to some cultural mold imposed by the state, or imposed by some majority community in any society that calls itself free. People must be free to retain their own values, cultures, languages and to pass them on to their children. They also have an obligation to share them in an integrated society with all the rest of the people in that community.

Canada is the only country in the world that has adopted such a formal policy. I have spoken on this subject in various nations, encouraging them to follow this same example because I believe that this policy is the greatest export opportunity that Canada has in the world.

The world needs such a policy because unless human beings begin to respect one another and each other's values, then we shall never have peace in the world in spite of all the instruments to do so.

The second aspect is that everyone in a free society, regardless of their background, ought to have a free and equal opportunity to participate in the full life of that nation. We believe in an integrated society where we work together, but have no obligation to be assimilated. Our country will be better off with that kind of human understanding. Indeed the world will be better off with it as well.

The government of Canada does not only speak about multiculturalism, we try through pragmatic policies to provide incentives to our communities so that they can live in a country where the principles are practiced and believed by all of our citizens. So we have a whole host of multicultural programs to help achieve that.

The second dimension that I wanted to talk about very briefly is multiculturalism as a new international initiative for peace. There is one lesson that is clear in history: the greatest cause of conflict in the world, from the beginning of time, has been the tendency of one cultural group to dominate and destroy another cultural group. Cultural superiority has caused more war, more death, more bloodshed and more violation of human rights than any other single concept. There is a need for all of us to have respect for each other's cultures and backgrounds. In the international arena, within the United Nations and in the various individual nations of the world, we must preach that message. The only true basis for peace is equality for all people; it is, all people respecting one another in the human dimension.

In discussing the international aspects of human rights, it is important for me to refer to another point I was reminded of today. I have learned this lesson a hundred times and I learned it again today in a meeting that was held in a suite in this hotel with those three very greatly honored dissidents from Ukraine. We talked about their concerns, and I also explained to them what the government of Canada was doing. It became abundantly clear to me that there is a great need for us to work together in this area. In order to do so, we need a common premise of patience, goodwill and understanding. I know how deeply you feel on the human rights issues and on the question of freedom in Ukraine. I not only understand and sympathize with your concerns, I agree with them. If you understand that, then perhaps when I move in one direction and you want to move in another direction you will realize that we are both trying to achieve the same results, albeit in slightly different ways. We have to have confidence in one another.

We need also to have some understanding of the instruments that are available to achieve these objectives. Quite evidently if one wants to create a greater degree of human freedom in the world we must use those international instruments, which exist although many of them may be imperfect. We must use the United Nations, international covenants, the Helsinki Final Act, the charter of human rights, the follow-up conferences and international trade agreements in order to secure more human rights in the world. We must use the exchange agreements between nations, the world public opinion itself which is very important, personal interventions and international organizations such as your own. All of us must learn that each element is essential and that to follow only one course is not the way to maximize our impact. I have a role to play, just as you must do your work. We must encourage and support one another if we are going to achieve results in this very difficult area of human rights.

Let's talk for a moment about one international instrument - the Helsinki Final Act. The act has been viewed in two ways: one as an absolute cop-out on the part of the Western world toward Eastern Europe. Some people think that the West legitimized or even gave a moral sanction to the existing boundaries of Eastern Europe. These people are frustrated and believe this to be almost a criminal act. Now that's one view. Unfortunately, it is not based on the facts but it is a view.

It is important to realize that in the Helsinki Final Act the Western nations did not agree that the boundaries of Eastern Europe will never change. They agreed only that force will not be used to change them. That's different. In today's modern world no one should expect anybody to use force to change those boundaries. There is a much more significant aspect to the accords. It is the third basket of the Helsinki Final Act which has provisions which deal with human rights; specifically the free movement of people, free exchange of information, family reunification and domestic human rights in the signatory countries. In terms of words, the act is a great success; in terms of the practice, an abysmal failure. Obviously there was a trade-off. The government of Canada, I'm proud to say, was the key hold out in Helsinki. We refused to sign the document without the third basket provisions for human rights.

Was the signing of the act a success? Was it a failure? Who won? Who lost? Right after the signing of that document, the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries not only thought they won, they were absolutely convinced of it. They made public, within their own countries, the contents of that agreement. What happened? It unleashed within the Soviet Union and other parts of Eastern Europe those monitoring groups which were latest. They came out into the open. The Final Act has caused more difficulty, more embarrassment internationally to the Soviet Union than any other international instrument since the end of the Second World War. That is a fact.

What was a plus for the Western free world, was that for the first time, it allowed free governments to inject themselves into the domestic affairs of other nations. Since the Soviet Union signed this accord, we now have a right to speak up on behalf of those individuals in that part of the world who are too oppressed to speak for themselves.

The Belgrade conference, the first follow-up conference, is considered by many to be total failure, especially on the basis of the final concensus document. This document did not deal with the issue of human rights in any substantial way. In that respect, they are right. It is a failure from that standpoint but it is not a total failure. There is room for optimism because the Soviet Union was very severely embarrassed by the events in Belgrade imposed upon them by many free nations especially the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France and others who dealt with the human rights issues every day of the week. Between now and the second follow-up conference which will take place in Madrid, there is reason to hope for some degree of accommodation and change. No one can guarantee that, for we do not form the government of the Soviet Union. All that the signatories can do is their best to speak out strongly and without any hesitancy so that our silence cannot be construed as some kind of tacit support for that kind of inhuman activity.

Human rights is a very important and fundamental issue for all of us and I can assure you that at least one free government in the world, the government of Canada, will continue to speaks strongly and clearly on behalf of the oppressed peoples. We will speak out clearly on behalf of human rights anywhere and everywhere in the world. You can be assured that we will not sit back silent. I have not been silent in over a year and I certainly will not be in the future.

My final point this evening is that the forces of freedom buried in the hearts and in the souls of all human beings are stronger than the forces of tyranny. The desire for freedom is unquenchable in the hearts of people. I don't believe that history is on the side of those who would oppress others. As history unfolds, we will find that the tyrannies which exist for a short life today will disappear in the future. Man and his spirit are too strong for those who govern their countries in fear of allowing their own people the human freedoms that are basic and fundamental to the human being.

In conclusion, I will do what I can on your behalf and on behalf of freedom-loving people everywhere. It has been a great honor for me to be here with you and to wish, for all of you, God's blessing so that your spirit and your strength will continue. Your example and your dedication to freedom is very important in the troubled days that we have today.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, December 31, 1978, No. 286, Vol. LXXXV

| Home Page |