LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (05/10/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Program regulations exclude most aid

Dear Editor:

Our organization, Hand in Hand Together, is dedicated to sending humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine. Much of our aid was sent through the U.S. government program Operation Support Freedom (OSF).

With the help of this program, which paid for land and sea shipping costs, we were able to send 130 tons of much-needed food, clothing and medical supplies. The aid is carefully distributed by our committee in Ukraine to needy families, pensioners, orphanages, schools and hospitals.

Unfortunately, Operation Support Freedom was canceled at the end of 1996. By all accounts, it was an extremely effective foreign aid program. The aid was donated, gathered and packed by private citizens and volunteer organizations. Therefore, the only expense for the U.S. government was the shipping costs. No other program could boast such cost-effective service with such tremendous benefits to needy people. From my first-hand experiences while working on humanitarian projects in Ukraine, I can attest to the great good provided by the OSF.

In 1997, Congress wisely realized the need for such a program and called for a new program to replace OSF. It is called Operation Provide Hope. However, the regulations for this new program are so restrictive and burdensome that it virtually excludes most aid - especially from small groups such as ours. These rules even exclude help to the orphanages that we aid. For example, we cannot send food or used clothing to Ukraine.

It was my hope that this program would help humanitarian organizations to keep the candle of hope burning for countless needy people in Ukraine. However, the oppressive restrictions effectively shut down many good organizations that are trying to help against all odds.

The new program purports to "provide hope," but instead offers discouragement to the sending and receiving groups, as they find it almost impossible to comply with the oppressive regulations.

Clifford Netz
Maple Grove, Minn.

The writer is president of Hand in Hand Together.

Historical atlas full of inaccuracies

Dear Editor:

I would like to draw your attention and that of the readers to the 1997 edition of the National Geographic Society's "Atlas of World History."

The overall presentation, illustrations, photographs and artwork are most impressive. How disappointing, in comparison, are the various inaccuracies and distortions of European history. Especially disturbing is the superficial treatment of the emergence and political and economical importance of Kyivan Rus'. Following Russian sources, authors describe Kiev [sic] as the principal city of Russia (p. 222). As another example that can be pointed out is the statement that refers to activity in the 16th century, namely that many "Russians" moved into borderlands - into a region called Ukraine (p. 225) - clearly implying that Kozaks under the leadership of various Hetmans were, in fact, Russian.

Scholars in the Western Hemisphere continue to base their research on Soviet sources, which clearly had an interest in establishing the theory that Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians are one and the same people. To support this theory, the Soviet Union in 1954 celebrated the "300th anniversary of reunification of Ukraine and Russia" and built a monument in Kyiv collectively known as "The Yarmo" (The Yoke).

Letters can be sent to "Atlas of World History" National Geographic Society, 1145 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036-4688.

Bohdan Maciw
Dollard des Ormeaux, Quebec

Olympic rings over the tryzub

Dear Editor:

Ukraine is probably the only country in the world that allows the Olympic emblem to manifest itself over its national symbol, the tryzub. Even fast-food outlets, pizza parlors, etc., saw to it that their logos and trademarks were proudly imposed atop the Olympic logo during the Winter Games in Nagano, Japan.

One doesn't have to be a heraldry expert to know better and to move the Olympic "rings" under the tryzub where they belong.

Let us show ourselves some self-respect by displaying our national symbols proudly and properly.

Ivan Jaciw
Windsor, Ontario

More questions on fraternal mergers

Dear Editor:

The more I read these days, the more confused I get. I just don't understand this whole issue of changing the UNA's name. When did this get started? The article by Dr. Myron Kuropas (May 3) brings up more questions than answers.

Who are all these alphabet soup fraternals? Why are they looking to merge with the UNA? Financial solvency, I guess. How much of a drain will this be on the UNA? What is the financial justification for this?

I certainly hope these issues will be discussed and questioned in Toronto, and that answers are provided to the delegates.

The ad placed by Michael Yurcheniuk in The Weekly (April 26) sounded very ominous regarding the future of the UNA. Do others feel the same way? Why?

Let's all work together for the good of the UNA. Remember, it's for the children.

Roman Golash
Schaumburg, Ill.

Would the UFA change its name?

Dear Editor:

I read the most recent column by Dr. Myron Kuropas (April 26). I would be very surprised if the UFA would want to take on a new name if the UFA and UNA merged.

I recently rejoined the UNA. I have been very aware of the UNA name and all the great things the organization has done. They run Soyuzivka, print The Weekly and Svoboda, the list goes on and on.

However, I have not heard much about the UFA and I don't feel it has the same name recognition. Therefore, I think it makes sense to keep the UNA name.

Alex Stanko
Orlando, Fla.