LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (05/16/99)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Let's not squander community's capital

Dear Editor:

I wish to offer a modest proposal: that we conserve our capital for truly important and effective investments.

The capital I have in mind is the "Action Item" rubric in The Weekly.

The item regarding the James Rubin remark about "a bunch of Ukrainians ... running around with guns on their sides" to me is squandering of this capital.

Was I not offended by Mr. Rubin's remark? Of course I was. I even began to compose in my head a letter protesting it. But shooting from the hip is rarely a good policy.

In this case, Mr. Rubin did put a spin on it at the first opportunity, during the next day's State Department briefing where - unlike at a live TV talk show - he has a thick briefing book in front of him, with questions and answers cleared by half a dozen policy specialists on every imaginable subject. That's when he is spelling out U.S. policy; a TV talk show, after all, is entertainment. Let him or her who has never blurted out a regrettable remark cast the first stone, and let us throw action items at officials when we don't like the policy they pronounce.

In your editorial you suggest Mr. Rubin's remarks were bigoted or prejudiced. Those are strong words.

Let's put things in perspective: top people at State have been under considerable pressure over the past month. What if Mr. Rubin appeared in the TV studio physically drained and edgy at suggestions (originating in Belgrade and Moscow) that NATO troops must not be leading the protective force for displaced Kosovars, when Rubin's policymakers insist that they must? Is an infelicitous remark a definite possibility under such circumstances?

And to sugest that Mr. Rubin be immediately dismissed over his remark - after he, as you put it, "almost apologized" - is, to put it mildly, naive. There's no hope in hell the secretary of state would dismiss her virtual son and close confidant over an infelicitous remark on a no-brain TV talk show. So why ask for it? Just to feel good?

It would have been far better not to hurl insults at an important State Department official via an avalanche of "action item" faxes that would only make him angry at Ukrainians, and instead to do nothing (after his "almost apology"). But at the same time, keep in mind that Jamie Rubin knows that we know, that he owes us one.

Let's conserve our capital for worthy, effective investments.

R.L. Chomiak
McLean, Va.

More on Ukraine and EU membership

Dear Editor:

David Marples' article on national minorities in Central and Eastern Europe mistakenly states that Latvia's request for European Union membership has been turned down because of its national minority policies. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Latvia and Lithuania are both in the "slow track" group of five future EU members. Estonia, which has the worst national minority record of the three Baltic states, is actually in the "fast track" group of six future EU members (together with nationally homogenous states such as Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic).

Ukraine, with one of the best national minority records in the former Soviet bloc that even outshines many Western liberal democracies (many of whom do not even legally recognize the concept of national minorities), is neither in the fast nor slow track groups of future EU members. Why? Ukraine's former Ambassador to the Benelux countries, Borys Tarasyuk, said the reason was twofold: first, the EU believed it could not let in Ukraine without Russia: second, Ukraine was a member of the Eurasian CIS, which meant it lay outside Europe.

Both of these reasons do not stand up to scrutiny and are more a reflection of the Russophilism permeating the EU. Let's remember that the Council of Europe likewise wanted to let in Ukraine only together with Russia. Yet, the latter was in the middle of a very violent conflict in Chechnya at the time while Ukraine had resolved the Crimean question without a shot being fired.

The EU (and NATO), therefore, both need to re-evaluate their membership criteria which at the moment are inconsistent.

Dr. Taras Kuzio
London

The writer is honorary research fellow at the University of North London.

Location of museum is key to its future

Dear Editor:

Given the recent decision by the board of The Ukrainian Museum in New York to postpone construction of a new building pending the availability of additional building funds, perhaps it is wise to revisit the issue of where to build.

Consider this: The New York Times routinely runs an ad for the "Museum Mile" featuring "eight museums" in "one destination" on Fifth Avenue between 82nd and 104th streets. Included in that list is the renowned Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as the essentially unknown El Museo del Barrio.

The building housing the Ukrainian Institute of America is just south of this prestigious row. Millions of visitors walk by the institute's building every year. Why can't the institute's building serve as The Ukrainian Museum for the world to see?

And if space is an issue, then I leave you with this thought. It seems that it would be more beneficial to have 1 million visitors view three exhibit halls than 100,000 visitors view six.

Location. Location. Location. That, together with some genuine community cooperation, can create a magnificent center stage for exhibiting things Ukrainian.

Andrew Fylypovych
Willow Grove, Pa.

| Home Page |