LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (05/23/99)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Some comments on Temple interview

Dear Editor:

In the interview with Larysa Barabash-Temple (April 18 and 25), some of the interviewees' comments on the relationship between our diaspora and Ukraine's sports establishment suffer from glaring omissions, while others call for commentary.

When enumerating diaspora sources of funding for sports in Ukraine and expressing her appreciation to those individuals responsible for the fund-raising, Ms. Barabash-Temple, incredibly, failed to mention one of the biggest (if not the biggest) single contributors: the Ukrainian Sports Federation of the U.S.A. and Canada (USCAK). As far back as 1991, the leadership of USCAK (Myron Stebelsky, president, Omelan Twardowsky, vice-president; Alexander Napora, treasurer) had established the Fund for the Rebirth of Sports in Ukraine, followed by the Olympic Fund, as well as some smaller ad hoc funds. Thanks to the money raised for these funds within the Ukrainian American community, USCAK was able to pay for the international membership fees of 38 Ukrainian sports federations, which enabled Ukraine's athletes to compete abroad. Subsequently, USCAK paid for the round-trip air fare, as well as the per diem and some other expenses of Ukraine's team at the 1994 Winter Olympiad in Lillehammer.

In conjunction with the 1996 Summer Olympiad in Atlanta, USCAK contributed significant funds for the transportation as well as room and board of Ukraine's athletes both for their pre-Olympic acclimatization visit here in 1995 and for the Olympiad proper. It is worth mentioning that when Ukraine's Olympic gymnasts found themselves in desperate need of modern gymnastics equipment in the course of their preparation for the 1996 Olympiad, Ms. Barabash-Temple turned for help to none other than the USCAK President Stebelsky. In response, USCAK immediately purchased the required equipment for Ukraine's soon-to-become gold and silver medalists, and had it shipped to Kyiv (price tag: $40,557). The combined contributions of USCAK towards the financing of Ukraine's participation in the 1994 and 1996 Olympiads amounted to more than $166,000. To date, overall USCAK spending in support of sports in Ukraine has exceeded $300,000.

Ms. Barabash-Temple was too quick to dismiss the legitimate concerns of Ukrainian patriots here and in Ukraine about the November 1998 agreement between the State Committee of Ukraine on Physical Culture and Sports and its Russian counterpart. This agreement does indeed provide for joint instruction and training of Ukrainian and Russian teams, as well as individual athletes in common training camps located in both countries, for the utilization of each other's sports facilities; for the exchange of coaches, trainers, sports scientists and other specialists with the objective of sharing their expertise, for the exchange of scientific-methodological information, specifically by holding joint conferences and seminars devoted to physical culture and sports. Also envisioned are consultations between Ukraine and Russia with respect to international sports.

Anyone familiar with Ukraine's tragic historical experiences cannot treat this type of a joint venture with Russia with the same equanimity as might apply to a bilateral agreement with, say, Italy. Its one certain consequence will be the continued and intensified Russification of sports in Ukraine. As noted by Ms. Barabash-Temple herself, "the Ukrainian system is constantly being criticized because the Russian language is, in fact, the prevailing language in sports."

Yes, we've all been embarrassed to hear athletes who represent Ukraine resorting to Russian in their public appearances abroad. Until recently, however, our disappointment was mitigated by the hope and expectation that in an independent Ukraine a gradual Ukrainization of the sports establishment was inevitable. Any such hopes have now been dashed by the November 1998 agreement. It is clear that a joint sports program between Ukraine and Russia, involving not only joint training, but also the sharing of theoretical and pedagogical work, is bound to be conducted in Russian. As a result, within Ukraine's sports establishment the legitimacy of the Russian language in general, and of Russian sports terminology in particular, will now be reinforced - if not enshrined.

One critic of this Ukraine-Russia agreement, writing in a Lviv newspaper, remarked sarcastically that language might be the only area in which Ukrainian athletes could benefit from this joint program with Russia, because many of the Russian-speaking Ukrainian athletes still betray an undesirable Ukrainian accent.

Gallows humor may bring Ukrainians some solace, but it only underscores the gravity of the situation, as the "union" between the sports establishments of Ukraine and Russia is but one unfortunate symptom of a more general malaise threatening the independence of Ukraine.

Dr. Orest Popovych
Newark, N.J.

UNF background and current events

Dear Editor:

Further to the column "Return of the Natives" by Dr. Myron B. Kuropas (January 24): the controversy over the internal struggles for control of one of Canada's largest Ukrainian organizations, the Ukrainian National Federation, has continued for the past 35 years. Because of the Cold War and the fear of splitting or weakening this once powerful and influential organization, the issue was never fully resolved or brought to a head. Dr. Kuropas's article in The Ukrainian Weekly finally tells it as it happened.

The Melnykites, led by Mykola Plawiuk, always maintained and continue to maintain, as Ivan Woychyshyn stated in his letter to the editor in the New Pathway on March 6, that the changes in UNF leadership took place according to democratic procedures approved at national conventions. This may be true, but that was not the whole story as told to me by my former father-in-law, the late Sen. Paul Yuzyk. Allow me to share some of his remarks based on our lengthy discussions and conversations.

Sen. Yuzyk was a second-generation Canadian-born Ukrainian Canadian. Although he was immensely proud of his ethnic roots and heritage, he was an equally proud Canadian patriot. For him Ukrainian Canadians were not immigrants, but equal citizens of a proud new country they had helped build. In his numerous scholarly publications and speeches in the Canadian Senate, Sen. Yuzyk emphasized the many contributions of Ukrainian Canadians in opening Canada's western prairies.

According to Sen. Yuzyk, the UNF was founded in 1932 by Ukrainian Canadian pioneers and their first-generation offspring as a non-denominational Canadian organization that would act as a counter-balance to the then powerful Communist Ukrainian Labor Farmer Temple Association. However, the organization was soon taken over by the Sichova Hromada, an organization composed of World War I veterans with a liberal and democratic outlook, who immigrated to Canada in the 1920s. The war years and the Canadian government's total commitment to the war effort, in which Ukrainian Canadians played an important role, mitigated any internal organizational problems.

Beginning in 1947, the third wave of Ukrainian immigrants to Canada began to arrive. They were mainly displaced persons from the refugee camps in Germany, Italy, Belgium and Great Britain. This new wave was young, energetic and fiercely nationalistic, as well as anti-Communist. To them the achievement of a free and independent Ukraine was now the central issue.

As Dr. Kuropas has stated, the OUN (M), or Melnykivtsi faction, gravitated to the already established Ukrainian National Federation. For the newcomers the old immigration appeared soft and lacking initiative, while the Canadian-born generation's strong Canadian loyalty bordered on treason and a betrayal of the national cause.

The whole issue of the direction the UNF would take came to a head in 1960 when the Melnykivtsi decided to go for control. The older membership could be outvoted by sheer numbers, while the Canadian-born posed a greater problem. Some were hounded out of the organization by those who continually pointed to their inadequate knowledge of the Ukrainian language. Ukrainian usage in all organizational operations became de rigeur. Rather than fight with and be continually humiliated by the arrogant and articulate newcomers, many of the Canadian-born simply left.

The die-hard Canadians, such as Sen. Yuzyk and others, formed a "Committee for the Rebirth of the UNF" but were purged from the organization at a convention overwhelmingly stacked with Melnykivtsi delegates. This fact has been substantiated by Walter Klymkiw, who now resides in Winnipeg, and in a book recently published by Dr. Mykola Sukhoverskyj, "Moji Spomyny" (My Reminiscences).

When Mr. Yuzyk was appointed to the Canadian Senate in February 1963, an embarrassed UNF national executive, hastily called a convention in Hamilton and rehabilitated the newly appointed senator.

However, Sen. Yuzyk was never allowed to play any active role in the organization, even up to his untimely death in 1986. A serious blow for him was UNF's 50th anniversary celebration in 1982. Although he was one of the organization's founders and an active member of MUNO (the youth arm of the UNF), he was neither invited to attend nor asked to speak. Instead, the banquet organizing committee invited and paid $10,000 to Ken Winters, the hero of the Iran hostage crisis, to appear as the main speaker. (Although he received an invitation at the last minute, Sen.Yuzyk did not attend.)

Mr. Woychyshyn's statement that "Mr. Plawiuk objectively valued the work of Sen. Yuzyk and that over the long years Sen. Yuzyk worked together with Mr. Plawiuk and that they helped each other in a friendly way in community and political work ..." is sheer nonsense and a blatant misrepresentation. The truth of the matter is that Sen. Yuzyk and Mr. Plawiuk hated each other and never ever found any common ground upon which they could cooperate or agree. According to Sen. Yuzyk, Mr. Plawiuk was a professional political émigré who temporary settled in Canada because he had nowhere else to go. Sen. Yuzyk placed the blame squarely on the Melnykivtsi, and upon Mr. Plawiuk, for destroying a well-established Ukrainian-Canadian organization.

If he were alive today, Sen. Yuzyk would be appalled at the antics of Mr. Plawiuk in Ukraine and the chutzpah of Plawiuk and company in attempting to seize UNF assets in Canada and use the funds to finance their activities in Ukraine. Yes, Dr. Kuropas was correct in stating that Mr. Plawiuk descended to a new low in hypocrisy when praising the late Sen. Yuzyk who considered him to be "a thorn in his side."

George Duravetz
Winnipeg

News of papal visit prompts dismay

Dear Editor:

Following are my comments regarding the Vatican's announcement about the pope's possible visit to Ukraine. Let me state at the outset that l am a Ukrainian Catholic. Normally, a visit by the pope to Ukraine would be welcome news. However, the issues noted in the announcement, as reported by RFE/RL (February 28), prompt dismay. In view of these issues, perhaps it would be better for everyone if Pope John Paul II just stayed in Rome.

First, the Vatican's recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate as (the only) canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine is highly improper. The Vatican has no right to interfere in the affairs of other Churches; it is best for the Vatican and the pope to attend to the many controversial and unresolved problems within the Roman Catholic Church itself. The issues among the Orthodox Churches must be resolved by them alone, without outside interference.

Second, the Vatican's position unnecessarily and improperly drives another wedge between Ukrainian Orthodox Churches and the Ukrainian Catholic Church. It makes reconciliation between the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic Churches and, indeed, the faithful that much more difficult.

Also, by taking this position, the Vatican whimsically and unjustifiably submits the Ukrainian Churches and people to Moscow's supremacy, which the Vatican has no right to do. Certainly the Vatican is familiar with the dubious role the Moscow Patriarchate has played throughout history- under the tsarist and communist regimes. The pope, having fought and worked for the liberation of Poland from communism and from control by Moscow should be particularly sensitive to these issues.

Consequently, recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate by Vatican authorities is a direct and inexcusable affront to all Ukrainians. The position of the Vatican is even more tragic considering that it did not need to say anything at all.

This "recognition" is a political position that has nothing to do with faith or religion. Apparently the Vatican is ready to seek an accommodation with the Russian Orthodox Church at any cost, including at the expense not only of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, but of all Ukrainian Christians and the Ukrainian nation, even as it is well aware of the huge sacrifices by Ukrainian Catholics for their loyalty to Rome. Again, politics reigns supreme.

Finally, why has the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy remained silent? Why have they not condemned or at least protested such a grossly improper, unwarranted intrusion by the Vatican in the affairs of our Orthodox brothers? How long will unquestionable, indiscriminate submission and servitude prevail even when matters of faith are not involved and when the survival of Ukrainian Churches, including the Ukrainian Catholic Church itself, is at stake? Is it too much to expect courage and leadership from our Church authorities?

Z.L. Melnyk
Cincinnati

| Home Page |