LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (01/26/97)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Ukraine's trade rep appreciates coverage

Dear Editor:

It was a pleasure for me to read the article "New York City looks to Ukraine as a new emerging market for U.S. investments," published in The Ukrainian Weekly on November 17, 1996.

The conference "Ukraine - A New Emerging Market for U.S.-Ukrainian Trade and Investments," held at City Hall on October 29, and the following roundtable presented a good example of collective cooperation.

In this regard we would like to express our gratitude to The Ukrainian Weekly and the TV program "Kontakt" for the informational support of the conference, and look forward to future productive cooperation.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the New York City authorities, American businessmen and the Ukrainian community, all those who worked together with us in organizing this important event in American-Ukrainian relations.

Taking this opportunity, we would like also to express thanks to Askold Lozynskyj, Andrij Lastoweckyj, Walter Baranetsky, Julian Baczynsky, Iwan Wynnyk, Bohdan Kekish, Michael Hrynenko, Myroslaw Kyj and Paul Marshal for their assistance and personal contributions.

Ihor Gayduchok
New York

The writer is deputy trade representative of Ukraine in the U.S., and trade representative in New York.

Patriarch Filaret held in high esteem

Dear Editor:

On December 22, 1996, you published a colum by Myron B. Kuropas titled "Christmas in Ukraine, 1996."

The Ukrainian Orthodox community in the United States cannot share the radical and unsubstantiated opinions of Dr. Kuropas regarding the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv and all Ukraine.

Furthermore, an opinionated column causes great harm not only to the Ukrainian community in the United States, but destroys efforts toward peace between Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

Throughout our existence our enemies found means to divide Ukrainians along political affiliations and religious beliefs. At this time in history the Ukrainian nation has united 52 million inhabitants of Ukrainian territory, regardless of their religious association. (Of course, there are minorities and fanatical groups that are trying to split the country for their own selfish hidden agenda.)

Dr. Kuropas' column is based on bold lies regarding the patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine and the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Let me remind you that the dominant religion in Ukraine was Orthodox until 1596, when western Ukrainians elected to recognize papal supremacy. Throughout the years, both Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainians managed to co-exist very peacefully, with some minor misunderstandings among Christian believers in western Ukraine.

Five years after the fall of the Soviet Union, religious life in Ukraine seems to have normalized, but, once again, outside forces are responsible for creating tensions among peace-loving people. Today many dignitaries visit Ukraine without creating discord, without creating any tensions among the Ukrainian people. We must ask ourselves: What kind of benefit will the papal visit bring? Do we think his visit will further strengthen friendship among villagers and city dwellers? If the answer is "yes," then we support his visit. But if we have any doubts about the outcome of a papal visit, then perhaps the visit should be postponed until such time as such a visit will be applauded by all Ukrainians.

Regarding the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Patriarch Filaret, I would like to share the following facts. Metropolitan Filaret was one of the three candidates for the seat of Moscow patriarch, and he was held in greatest esteem in all Orthodox Churches.

After Ukraine declared independence Metropolitan Filaret began to inquire and demand an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Moscow then began a propaganda campaign against the metropolitan of Kyiv. Now certain ambitious individuals are using Moscow's data to benefit their own cause.

Metropolitan Filaret was elected to the Kyiv Patriarchate by more than 90 percent of the delegates present in St. Volodymyr Sobor in Kyiv. The Orthodox Church in Ukraine has not had a leader of such high esteem since Metropolitan Petro Mohyla.

The patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine will survive the attacks by his enemies and he will be instrumental in uniting all Orthodox Ukrainians throughout the world.

Victor Poliarny
Davie, Fla.

Dr. Kuropas needs to take a break

Dear Editor:

I am calling from New Mexico with a letter. I am 80 years old, I have arthritis and cannot write, but would like to respond to Dr. Myron Kuropas' recent columns and add my voice to those other letters that express opposition.

Dr. Kuropas needs to take a break. Maybe a column once every six months. I take strong issue with his tactics (very aggressive and often offensive), as well as with his opinions. I found both his recent columns, the one about the visit of the pope and the one about "unconstitutional" Ukraine to be insulting. I cannot go into great detail about each column, I just wanted to make my thoughts known.

I also suggest that editor Roma Hadzewycz suggest to her columnist Dr. Kuropas that he decide which foot he wants to stand on. I suggest he put both feet on the ground and, as younger people say, "get real."

On another note, I also appreciate your recent news story about the work of the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Center in Canada. Thank you. The real history of Ukraine and Ukrainians is yet to be known.

Irena Kmetyk
Albuquerque, N.M.

(At the writer's request, this letter was dictated over the phone to staff and read back for approval.)

How about ... one Christmas?

Dear Editor:

It was encouraging to read Dr. Myron Kuropas' reminiscences of "Christmas in Ukraine, 1996" (December 22, 1996), and how our two main Ukrainian Churches might well "concelebrate a service of common cause," designating a Sunday between December 25 and January 7. In that same spirit, might we not consider a truly unique "Ukrainian Christmas" (for all faiths) to be celebrated on January 1, and to commence about three or four years hence - depending upon when one considers the next century to begin.

Since the introduction of the Gregorian calendar by Pope Gregory in the 7th century, the Julian calendar "loses" a day each century, now being 13 days later. Therefore, since the January 7 holiday presumably will have to be modified in any event, to January 8, in 1999-2000 (or more precisely in 2000-2001) - when the calendars' spread will be 14 days - why not then fix the new date exactly in between the two competing dates of December 25 and January 8? Namely, January 1.

Although Ukrainians since time immemorial appear to crave a dichotomy of opinions, we now have an upcoming opportunity (at least for the winter holidays) to precisely coordinate our religious, social and community calendars. Just imagine the undisputed knowledge that you have a "day off" on January 1 without the need to provide justification to bosses, co-workers, etc., who themselves are engrossed in various holiday festivities. At that time we would be doubly celebrating our very own 'New Ukrainian Christmas" together with the customary North American New Year - and maybe even with a Ukrainian Christmas float in the Rose Bowl parade!

Perhaps to do so would dispel the myth of "inertia" in our communities, and show that we can compromise and take positive initiatives when it comes to our cherished winter "sviata." Perhaps also such a "compromise" holy day would encourage the more modern thinking and faithful young people to proudly attend their churches, or new participation in koliadky, vertepy, etc.- traditions of a Ukrainian Christmas.

In any event, a mid-date Christmas should finally put to rest the outstanding differences of "staro-" and "novo-" kalendarnyky. Such a "January First Christmas" project could well be the focus of joint efforts by our Churches, whose capacity to work together to welcome the new millennium could be illustrated by their consensus in this regard. Also, perhaps by starting some discussions on this subject of when Ukrainian Christmas should be celebrated, there will be a better appreciation of just why we note this annual holiday, and for whom.

Roman B. Karpishka
Lachine, Quebec

Pope's state visit deserves support

Dear Editor:

As a practicing Orthodox Christian and a Ukrainian American, I strongly support the state visit of Pope John Paul II to Ukraine.

In his December 22, 1996, column Dr. Myron Kuropas was somewhat intemperate in castigating the opponents to that visit, and I do agree with the commentary by the Rev. John R. Nakonachny (January 12), that Orthodox Kyivan Patriarch Filaret is a Ukrainian patriot and a staunch advocate of cooperation with the Greek-Catholic Church in Ukraine.

But the Rev. Nakonachny goes too far when he advocates that the visit of the pope should be postponed lest it create difficulties with the less enlightened flock of Patriarch Filaret. I do agree with the Rev. Nakonachny that both recognition of Patriarch Filaret by the patriarch of Constantinople and the bestowal of the status of patriarch upon the head of the Greek-Catholic Church in Ukraine by the Vatican would be highly desirable, but I beg to differ with him about the means. Recognition of Patriarch Filaret may have been postponed unto the Greek kalends, that is to say forever and ever, and for reasons known only to the Greeks in Constantinople. However, the postponement of the state visit of Pope John Paul II to Kyiv will surely not help the Greeks to reconsider their agenda; in fact, the refusal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to approve the visit by the pope may be viewed as weak and impolitic.

Nor will the postponement of the visit help the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics with the pro-Russian faction in the Vatican. If Ukrainian Orthodox-Ukrainian Greek-Catholic relations are to improve, Ukrainian Orthodox Church leaders should realize the importance to Greek-Catholics, as well as to themselves, in neutralizing the pro-Russian faction in Rome. Pope John Paul II should be welcomed immediately, with bread and salt, and open arms.

There are three reasons of state that favor a visit by the pope, two of which are obvious and one that is more subtle. First, Pope John Paul II, by international diplomatic protocol, is a head of state. Once the possibility of a visit by a head of state has been publicly broached, no self-respecting member of the international community will postpone, much less cancel such a visit, barring an earthquake in their country, or public riots in the streets of all major cities.

Second, since at least early 1996, the foreign policy of Ukraine has been to approach and then join European political, economic and security structures. Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany, one of the few real friends of Ukraine in Europe, is known to be a practicing Catholic. Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana is a Spaniard; Spain is, of course, a Catholic country. Any reconsideration of the pope's visit by official Kyiv will not be viewed kindly in Bonn, Brussels, Madrid and Rome. Nor will it really help Ukraine in dealing with Moscow.

Third, whether or not most people understand, independent Ukraine owes Pope John Paul II a great deal for being the foremost moral authority behind the independence of Poland and the transformations in Central Europe, and for being, together with U.S. President Ronald Reagan and others, a political co-architect of the overthrow of Russian-led communism in East Central Europe, the region to which Ukraine belongs culturally and historically.

How many of us recall that in the first half of 1981, both President Reagan and Pope John Paul II were subject to bizarre assassination attempts. John Hinckley nearly killed the American president because, allegedly, he wanted to impress actress Jodie Foster. A young Turk, of the non-fanatical variety, came within inches of causing the pope's death allegedly because he objected to the pope's travels abroad. Both plots, enacted within weeks of each other, and literally within inches of "success," were probably hatched in the kitchen of Yurii Andropov and authorized by Leonid Brezhnev, even though cut-off agents were used in both instances: terrorist groups with Middle Eastern connections in the case of Mr. Reagan and the Bulgarian secret service in the case of the pope. In any case, instead of taking a well-deserved back seat in history after dodging assassins' bullets, both Pope John Paul II and President Reagan got together and planned to counter the assassination attempts.

Enlisting a number of discreet aides, of whom the late William Casey of the CIA was the most prominent, the Protestant American president and the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church unleashed a veritable destabilization campaign against the Russians in Poland. Solidarity was given moral, financial, diplomatic and propaganda support through international trade unions that were secretly backed by the U.S. government, and the Catholic Church worked in the same direction through its agencies. Even in the underground, Solidarity was strong, but the support by Pope John Paul II and President Reagan made it even stronger. It was in Poland, not in Germany or Czecho-Slovakia, that non-Communists won for the first time in the elections of mid-1989 and that the Russian-backed Communist regime was forced into retreat.

To make a long story short: if one of the true makers of history, one of the architects of the profound transformations in East Central Europe shows his desire to pay a visit to Ukraine, an independent Ukrainian state cannot but welcome him with more than the usual courtesies befitting a head of state.

Pope John Paul II is not getting any younger; his health is not good. The pope may learn some things from visiting Ukraine in the near future. This writer, however, is convinced that the real learning experience will be on the part of the government of Ukraine and the non-Catholic believers. We should learn from great men while they are still among us.

Yaroslav Bilinsky
Newark, Del.

The writer is a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware.

| Home Page |