LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Kuropas column negates achievements

Dear Editor:

The year 1996 was filled with important milestones for Ukraine: the adoption of a new Constitution; improved relations with the United States; passage of a foreign aid bill that secures Ukraine's position as the third largest recipient of U.S. assistance.

Instead of finding cause for celebration in these developments, Myron B. Kuropas does his best to start off the New Year on an abysmal note. Dr. Kuropas appeals to our deeply ingrained Slavic fatalism (as if it needed reinforcement) and tries to cast grave doubts on Ukraine's long-term survival. His December 8, 1996, and January 5, 1997, columns ("It's a matter of trust" and "Is Ukraine 'constitutional'?") are calculated to undermine public confidence in the reform process, and they are likely to perpetuate a false sense of powerlessness among many readers of The Weekly.

Dr. Kuropas contends that the new Ukrainian Constitution is as "meaningless" and ineffectual as the old Soviet model. This kind of Cold War rhetoric may strike a nostalgic chord with some, but it's time to acknowledge that the Cold War is over, and to adopt our thinking to new realities unfolding in Ukraine. For the first time since the fall of the Zaporozhian Sich, Ukrainians have a bona fide democracy - with real choices between candidates (from former political prisoners to socialist hard-liners), with real elections monitored by international observers, with robust debates in the Verkhovna Rada, in the media and on the streets. Freedom of religion and expression have been fully restored, and all of this has been constitutionally protected.

By dismissing these stunning changes as "meaningless," Dr. Kuropas reveals his contempt for a constitutional process that, however fragile, is the only hope for Ukraine's future. Instead of treasuring Ukraine's newly independent democracy, Dr. Kuropas denigrates it as a farce equivalent to its Soviet predecessor - a state that was morally and institutionally bankrupt and that deserved to be abolished.

Such a blind and reckless indictment, coming from a leading columnist in a reputable paper, can only bring comfort to Ukraine's enemies. Russophiles and imperialists would like nothing better than to see our community succumbing to disillusionment and turning its back on Ukraine just at the point where it is gaining ground in the political arena.

Dr. Kuropas curious dismissal of Ukraine's "constitutionality" begs for a major reality check, and a healthy dose of historical perspective.

Consider the major doctrines of human rights and equal protection: Ukraine is light years ahead of the newly independent American colonies during the first decade of their freedom. In fact, if we were to apply Dr. Kuropas one-dimensional standards and dwell entirely on the negatives, the United States could easily be branded as having been "unconstitutional" for the first 180 years of its existence. For starters, America's "founding fathers" were slaveholders who defied the core principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. Long after the Civil War, America continued to deprive its black citizens of equal opportunity, decent accommodations and the equal protection of its laws. It implemented a policy of genocide against the Native American tribes. It subjected children to the ravages of industrial labor in coal mines and sweatshops, and it denied women the right to vote. In many respects, the U.S. Constitution and public policy remained a jumble of blatant contradictions until the mid-1960s, when the civil rights movement finally forced Congress to pass the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts. Does this mean that we should impugn the United States as a "meaningless" or bogus democracy?

Despite many blemishes throughout its history, America is still considered the paradigm for constitutional democracy, and Americans hold sacred the documents and the institutions that provide the underpinnings for their freedom.

How does Ukraine (in its newly independent form) compare with the constitutional track record of the United States? Very well, indeed. Its respect for due process, for the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, and for the integrity of the electoral process is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, Ukraine's enforcement of its newfound democratic values is often far superior to the policies and inhumane interpretations of law that characterized the first two centuries of legislative action and judicial review by the U.S. courts and Congress.

Before picking apart Ukraine's compliance with every clause and comma in its Constitution, Dr. Kuropas should first try to see the forest for the trees. He should exercise more caution before he devalues the groundbreaking liberties and reforms that have already taken hold.

We can all sympathize with Dr. Kuropas desire for a new generation of leaders, free of the taint of Communist dogma, but societies evolve within a historical context, not in a sterile theoretical vacuum. Democracy has never guaranteed that given the choice, citizens will choose the best candidates available. The majority of deputies in the Verkhovna Rada may leave a lot to be desired, but their election does not constitute a fatal breach in the constitutional system.

For better or worse, democracies evolve by the will of the people, and Ukraine could have done much worse than select its current government. President Leonid Kuchma has consistently opposed any attempt to sell out Ukraine's independence or its Constitution. He has shown no inclination to adopt the sort of autocratic policies that are leading Belarus and Yugoslavia down the road to ruin. The Helsinki Commission and other human rights monitors have repeatedly praised Ukraine as one of the exemplary new democracies of Eastern Europe, and for the most part, this praise is richly deserved. To paraphrase Rabbi Yaakov Bleich, Ukraine has taken many steps to ensure that religious freedom and cultural diversity are nurtured, not only in words but in public policy and practice.

Dr. Kuropas ignores these factors, and tries to convince us that investment climate is a more telling indicator of a nation's "constitutionality." This is highly debatable. The investment climate in South Africa or the Philippines was excellent during the period of apartheid and the Marcos dictatorship. Nations can be very successful in attracting foreign investment while stifling domestic liberties and repressing dissent. Dr. Kuropas exposes the flaws in his logic when he offers China as a nation whose investment opportunities should be the envy of Ukraine. To be sure, Western investors have ignored the slaughter and the legacy of Tiananmen Square in the hopes of gaining access to China's lucrative markets, but China's most-favored-tyranny status says nothing about its political integrity.

There is no question, Ukraine has an awful lot of work to do to put its financial house in order, to stem the tide of corruption sweeping government institutions. It must go much farther to secure a prosperous future for its citizens. But human and political imperfection lies at the heart of the constitutional process. For this very reason, America's constitutional framers devised a flexible document that could help our fledgling democracy "to form a more perfect union." Economic depression struck the United States repeatedly throughout its early history, but this was not interpreted as a sign that its political process was bankrupt.

If the diaspora is truly concerned about the strength of Ukraine's economy and the durability of its democratic institutions, it should not assume the "wait-and-see" attitude Dr. Kuropas seems to suggest. On the contrary: we need to intensify our involvement in the process of democracy building. This cannot be accomplished by preaching from Olympic heights, but by wading into the decay of post-Soviet society, seeking out and working with gifted Ukrainians who are capable of developing solutions, from the grassroots level up.

If the diaspora found the courage to serve as a voice in the wilderness during the bleakest years of the Cold War, then surely we can find the courage and the pride to continue the struggle now that Ukraine is gaining recognition and winning support from the international community.

If we really care about Ukraine's future, the last thing we should be doing is wallowing in despair. For all the crippling effects of past oppression, Ukraine has entered the most promising and exciting period of its modern history. There are thousands of younger, progressive Ukrainians who are eager to replace the Old Guard, and there are thousands of ways for Ukrainian Americans to muster the resources and the creativity to help them overcome the worst vestiges of Soviet rule.

This is a time for our community to cherish the democracy that Ukraine was denied for so long. The fight for Ukraine's future is just beginning. The stakes are enormous, and there are too many opportunities for constructive action to be squandered on premature and self-indulgent despair. Given the unforeseen victories Ukraine has already won, the defeatism expressed by Dr. Kuropas cannot be justified.

Alexander B. Kuzma
Hamden, Conn.

Kudos for Kolomayets: we'll miss her reports

Dear Editor:

I was very disappointed to read about the departure of Marta Kolomayets from The Weekly staff.

For those of us of Ukrainian descent born outside of Ukraine, Ms. Kolomayets brought Ukraine to life. She managed not only to convey information on the rapidly evolving state of affairs in Ukraine but she also captured the mood of the country.

From her stories it was evident that she was one of the best informed people in Ukraine, in terms of details of events, trends that were happening, who's who, and a multitude of insights obtained from other journalists, politicians and Western diplomats.

She went in at a time when the country was not very open to journalists and aggressively pursued contacts with the very people who would later play key roles in Ukraine's road to independence. I read with interest her reporting over a period of years, watched the evolving developments in Ukraine from before independence to the adoption of the new Constitution. I was confident that if there was something of importance happening, Ms. Kolomayets would be on it and quickly; that if there was something offbeat and interesting going on, she would share it with us.

I appreciated her openness and humor in her columns, especially the one describing kiosks appearing on the streets of Kyiv selling everything from cigarette lighters to car parts and lacy lingerie all in one place and how it felt being an American Ukrainian living in Ukraine.

I had the opportunity to visit The Weekly office in Kyiv. Like Ms. Kolomayets herself, it was a hub of activity. Ms. Kolomayets was instrumental in establishing The Weekly office not only as a press bureau but as an information center, the place to be, with phone calls and visits from other journalists, people with interesting stories to tell that were not finding their way to the pages of the other Ukrainian press.

Her writing has been colorful, lively, knowledgeable. Her valuable contributions are evident in considering her many published articles with your paper.

From this one reader: many thanks, Ms. Kolomayets. I wish you well - and hope you'll drop a line to The Weekly once in awhile and fill us in on what's happening in Kyiv.

L.M. Babiak
Toronto

Kuropas' writings are crucial to community

Dear Editor:

The Weekly has become a must-read paper covering the evolution of our communities and describing political developments in Ukraine. The Weekly will survive only if the readers become engaged in the process of becoming community activists on some level.

The recent "criticism" of Dr. Myron Kuropas needs to be put into perspective. Some will say that I am "biased" because Dr. Kuropas is a friend of mine. Yes, he is. However, what Dr. Kuropas writes is important and crucial to our community. If you don't agree, tell him why. I would like to know as well. The interaction on the pages of The Weekly is very healthy, inspiring and adds vigor to our daily lives.

I find unsubstantiated criticism demoralizing. It's fine to say "I don't like his article," but where is the disagreement? What are the issues? If you find an article by Dr. Kuropas to be "insulting" then say so, but say why it is insulting.

Our communities and The Weekly will survive only if we interact. Let's join hands and work together. Let's look for solutions that will work. Constructive communication should be our goal.

Roman G. Golash
Schaumburg, Ill.

Ukraine does not need religious confrontation

Dear Editor:

As the polemic regarding Dr. Myron Kuropas' column "Christmas in Ukraine, 1996" indicates, the consequences of his comments are much more grave than I anticipated. Personally, I am a great believer in the freedom of expression and consider it to be one of the cornerstones of Western civilization. Consequently, I fully agree with Dr. Kuropas that his opinions are his own, and that he has the right to express them anytime - but not necessarily on the pages of The Ukrainian Weekly, a highly respected and influential publication central to Ukrainian life in the U.S.

Furthermore, freedom of expression is not an unlimited right. For example, to cry "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not considered an appropriate practice of the freedom of expression, neither are public insults to a leader of any religious faith, at least not in polite society.

As the pages of The Ukrainian Weekly testify, with all its current problems, Ukraine does not need the additional trouble of religious war. As it is, there are too many unfortunate examples of such around the world. Consequently, the sooner we relegate this unfortunate episode of "Christmas in Ukraine" to the dust-bin of history, the better we all will be.

Ihor Lysyj
West Hills, Calif.

Letters reveal lack of religious tolerance

Dear Editor:

The letters critical of Myron Kuropas' column "Christmas in Ukraine, 1996" reconfirm two characteristic attitudes. First, the tendency of not seeing the forest for the trees, or of disregarding the whole tenor of the article in favor of a few selected references. Certainly anyone who has read Dr. Kuropas' column on a regular basis knows that he's not some Catholic zealot, but argues his case from a Christian perspective. In any case, Dr. Kuropas eloquently argues his position in "My views are my own" (January 19).

Secondly, the letters dispel any doubts that religious intolerance and distrust among Ukrainians are long dead and buried. It appears that the dialogue between Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics is not progressing as it should. The forces of animosity and ignorance among our Catholic/Orthodox brethren are still deeply rooted. Perhaps one way of opening up our hearts and minds to one another is to attend, on alternate Sundays, each other's liturgical services. With best wishes.

Yuriy Hanas
Hamilton, Ontario

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, February 16, 1997, No. 7, Vol. LXV

| Home Page |