LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (10/10/04)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Few Ukrainians among observers

Dear Editors:

Is the Canadian government discriminating against its own citizens who are of Ukrainian descent? This may be so. Although international observers for elections work in a country under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) it is individual countries themselves who decide who will be the long-term and short-term observers.

Unlike in previous elections, this year anybody wishing to be an observer had to register their CurriculumVitae on www.canadem.ca. I went ahead and did this one year ago.

Nevertheless, both I and at least two others have not been included as short-term observers from Canada.

I have experience as a long-term observer in the 1998 and 2002 Ukrainian parliamentary elections, the first from Britain and the second from Canada. Martha Dyczok, professor at Western Ontario University and an expert on Ukraine's media, also was not included. A third person from Toronto who has long worked closely with Ukraine on social projects also was not included as a short-term observer.

It is suspicious that the Canadian government has weeded out Canadian Ukrainians. Only one of the 15 long-term observers from Canada is of Ukrainian descent. Similarly, only two or three of those chosen by the Canadian authorities to be short-term observers - out of around 45 being sent by Canada as part of the OSCE election monitoring team - are of Ukrainian descent. This is pitifully small.

At an October 1 meeting in Winnipeg between the Ukrainian Canadian Committee and the minister of foreign affairs, this sad state of affairs was raised by the UCC. The minister replied that he was "surprised" at how so few Canadian Ukrainians were included as long- or short-term observers in this year's Ukrainian elections. The decision that has led to the minimization of the Canadian Ukrainian presence in Canada's contribution to the OSCE election mission was taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Should not the Canadian Ukrainian Congress and Canadian Ukrainians be demanding a full investigation into such blatant ethnic discrimination by the Canadian government against Canadian citizens of Ukrainian descent?

Taras Kuzio
Washington

U.S. policy toward Ukraine

Dear Editor:

Re: "Is there a U.S. policy toward Ukraine?" (Editorial, September 19).

The U.S. is in extended war in Iraq and at the same time is involved in combating global and domestic terrorism of Islamic radicals. It should be no surprise for anyone that it will always do what is best for America, namely to win the war and to protect its citizens. It also needs a "coalition of the willing," both politically and militarily.

The recent "flurry of visits to Ukraine by various U.S. officials," especially by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are primarily about keeping the Ukrainian military contingent in Iraq.

However, in all fairness, the U.S. is also concerned about fair, transparent and democratic presidential elections in Ukraine. Strong pressure from the U.S. government to secure a legitimate electoral process, free from internal manipulations and free from outside interference by its northern neighbor, could well have a positive influence on its results. America being the only superpower has also a responsibility to actively support and to promote fragile democracies in other (especially post-communist) countries.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is the author, most recently, of "The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership." He is one of the few political analysts with a deep knowledge and understanding of Ukraine's post-Soviet difficulties and problems. Dr. Brzezinski writes in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, September 20, in an article titled "Moscow's Mussolini" "... Indeed, already today the neighboring Ukraine of nearly 50 million people (whom the Bush NSC has so studiously ignored while naively courting Mr. Putin) is beginning to provide a contrast in two major domains: its economic progress is more diversified and more evident in other cities than just in the national capital; and its politics (while still vulnerable to manipulation) have produced two genuinely contested presidential elections. As of today, no one can predict the outcome of the Ukrainian presidential elections scheduled for late October, a fact that stands in sharp contrast with the Russian 'elections' in which Mr. Putin was the candidate."

He writes further: "Today, many in the newly independent post-Soviet states fear that in the name of a war against terrorism the U.S. may also ignore Mr. Putin's intensifying efforts to encourage manipulated elections in Ukraine, to promote separatism in Georgia (while fiercely crushing the Chechens for seeking it), and to isolate Central Asia from the international economy."

The question and title of The Ukrainian Weekly's editorial of Sunday, September 19, "Is there a US. policy toward Ukraine?" is not only valid and timely, but also long overdue. It calls for more inclusive and objective analysis by Ukrainian and international political experts, who should re-examine U.S. policy toward Ukraine from the time it declared its independence 13 years ago, and publish their findings in book form for a wide readership.

Dr. Myroslaw Burbelo
Westerly, R.I.

The candidates' military service

Dear Editor:

It is not surprising that Myron Kuropas gleefully parrots the accusations of his Republican brethren about Sen. John Kerry's military service and subsequent opposition to the Vietnam War (September 12). These charges have been summarized brilliantly by satirist Jerry Long: "Apparently Kerry volunteered for service in Vietnam to find a peaceful river, where he could wound himself several times to fraudulently win medals, which he planned to throw away in order to help the communists torture POWs."

In his eagerness to discredit Sen. Kerry, however, Dr. Kuropas states that "with the exception of Bill Clinton, recent presidential candidates all served admirably in the U.S. armed forces." President George W. Bush evaded service in Vietnam, as did other high-ranking members of his administration like Vice-President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Saved from active duty through the intervention of the speaker of the Texas House, President Bush enlisted in the Air National Guard where - by the accounts of at least several fellow officers and one instructor - he did not fulfill his obligations. By any standard, Mr. Bush's military service (or lack thereof) could hardly be considered "admirable."

Walter R. Iwaskiw
Arlington, Va

A correction to Vitvitsky op-ed

Dear Editor:

Although I might not agree completely with the September 12 op-ed, "Republicans, Democrats and Ukraine" by Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky, I believe it raised serious and important issues.

However, he did misstate history in one respect. President Ronald Reagan's administration did not send Walter Polovchak back to the Soviet Union against his will. In fact, when the Ukrainian teenager's parents sought to take their son with them when they returned to Ukraine, then-Attorney General William French Smith took the unprecedented action of signing an order that in effect sealed our borders, prohibiting Walter's parents from taking their minor son with them. This denial of parental rights was a significant step taken to protect Walter Polovchak.

Another thought Dr. Vitvitsky's piece raised in my mind is the challenge the Ukrainian American community presents to office holders in both political parties. Sometimes political officeholders support a "Ukrainian" request at their peril.

It is not infrequently that people from the community petition government officials for an action relating to Ukraine only to have another community group or organization attack the position sought by the first group. If an official tries to be responsive to community concerns, sometimes he or she is simply stepping into a crossfire.

Such a situation presents itself right now. Concerned and frustrated by escalating election law violations and preparations for extensive voting fraud in Ukraine, Ukrainian forces in opposition to the Kuchma-Yanukovych regime have urged for some time that the United States government put some teeth in its calls for free and fair elections in Ukraine. They propose sanctions not against Ukraine but against individual wrongdoers. They urge that the granting of visa applications consider whether individuals have engaged in election law violations and voter fraud.

Many in the community are working hard in Washington to support this request and to get our government to establish such restrictions against Ukrainians known to be engaged in election violations and voter fraud. At the same time, however, other members of the community are opposing these efforts. The conflict within the community does not make it easy on our public officials.

I do not advocate that a community as large as the Ukrainian American community must have only one view. I do offer that the community might look at the positions American officials take on Ukrainian issues with awareness that the official might have had differing views delivered to him or her by the community itself.

Robert A. McConnell
Washington

The volunteer army and the draft

Dear Editor:

The rumblings of reinstating the military draft in the United States have become louder recently. Such an event should be of profound concern to all, especially if you have teenage children.

As I correctly predicted 17 months ago (letters, The Ukrainian Weekly, May 11, 2003), the war in Iraq has become a quagmire, and now the U.S. is running out of the volunteer army pool. Afghanistan is another drain - where we landed to blow steam in response to the 9/11 attack.

As the September 11 Commission winds up its work, a key question remains unanswered in its report: What would have prevented the attack on America? A collective memory lapse persists despite the answer in plainly visible messages: Get out of the Arab land.

Since the end of the Cold War the U.S. continues to maintain military bases in over 50 foreign countries, including puppet states on the Arab peninsula, and is building more to control the sources of cheap oil. Underline cheap. If this does not suggest that the U.S. has become a colonial power and global empire, try to turn off Rupert Murdoch's Channel 5 and trust the obvious.

Prominent neo-conservatives Charles Krauthammer (The Washington Post), Max Boot (The Wall Street Journal), Robert Kaplan and others, all pillars of President George W. Bush's clairvoyance - cheerfully acknowledge the United States empire status, according to The New York Times of March 31, 2002.

Considered to be descendants of a group of mostly Jewish intellectuals who switched from the political left to the right in the 1970s, the neo-conservatives are defined largely as advocates of aggressive use of U.S. military power "for the good of the world." They are closely identified with influential advisers of President Bush and with Paul Wolfowitz, now in operational control of the Pentagon as second-in-command to Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense. The same Mr. Rumsfeld, as the CEO of a U.S. chemical company in the 1980s, had extensive business contacts with none other than Saddam Hussein, although it is not clear what exactly he was selling.

Empires are costly in money and blood. When the U.S. military is invited into other countries (pardon the oxymoron), we expect humble acquiescence from the local population, or, if there is pervasive and intractable resistance, designate them as terrorists. Well-meaning Americans at home are conditioned to become amazed and highly indignant when the militants strike back.

Prompted by fear-mongering from right-wing oratory, the over-zealous media conglomerates and the squishy politicians of regular stripe, many Americans appear eager to give up their civil rights for the sake of illusory safety and, as a result, lose both. At various levels the word "freedom" is being deliberately scrambled with the culture of militarism. Spending for weapons as much as the rest of the world combined and tax-cutting for the upper class are breaking the bank. The ethical vacuum is filled by the tenuous rationale to send U.S. soldiers, mostly from poor families, to risk their lives in Iraq, and then have the chicken-hawks say, "We have a volunteer army that we support, don't we?"

Boris Danik
Maplewood, N.J.

Observations on Kerry statement

Dear Editor:

Recently, Sen. John Kerry released a statement regarding the state of U.S.-Ukraine relations, which was, at best, uniformed and at worst, intentionally misleading.

Consider this claim from Sen. Kerry: "While Ukraine has generously contributed troops in Iraq, the Bush administration has ignored democratic reversal in that country."

Recognizing that we are in the middle of campaign silly-season, one might be tempted to cut the Democratic presidential candidate some slack, but to let this statement stand would be unacceptable and unfair to the Bush administration.

Consider the facts: in the past few months, many administration officials and top-level Republicans have visited Ukraine to express concern about the upcoming election, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Beth Jones, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Richard Lugar. And, during the NATO Summit in Istanbul in late June, President George W. Bush conveyed the message to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma personally and directly.

Instead of only conveying in words the importance of free and fair elections, the administration is working to ensure that they happen. The administration is working closely with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and others to provide international election observers. In the past fiscal year, the United States government spent no less than $55 million in direct support of democratic reform programs on the ground in Ukraine.

Finally, for Sen. Kerry to use the phrase "generously contributed troops in Iraq" is disingenuous. Isn't this the same man who called those fighting with us in the war against terror the "coalition of the bribed and coerced"?

Ukraine is at a crossroads, and the United States of America is watching with great interest. As Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs, said,recently at a conference at George Washington University, "the Bush administration is committed to seeing the development of an independent, democratic, and market-oriented Ukraine, and is determined to assist in making that vision a reality."

As the election approaches, the Bush administration can rightly claim that it has made a policy of supporting the democratic process in Ukraine. Only with a fair and free election can the citizens of Ukraine control their destiny, and western democracies will most certainly welcome their elected decision.

Undoubtedly, the situation in Ukraine is complicated, but one thing is for certain: it is not being ignored.

Orest Holubec
Columbus, Ohio

A reaction to letter from Boris Danik

Dear Editor:

More than any other group of people, Ukrainians should understand that liberals don't think lying is wrong, if it's in a good cause. Almost by definition, they reject traditional ethics in favor of utilitarianism: the good ends justify the bad means. From Walter Duranty of The New York Times covering up the Great Famine of 1933, to the smearing of Ukrainian partisans as Nazi collaborators, to CBS's "60 Minutes" presenting "The Ugly Face of Freedom," liberals have misinformed the world about Ukraine for several generations.

In this election year, of course, the main object of liberals' vilification is George W. Bush. It's no accident that CBS's "60 Minutes," the same journalistic organization that compared Ukrainian nationalists to Nazis, recently embarrassed itself by falling for some amateurishly forged documents, out of eagerness to hurt President Bush.

Which brings me to the recent letter from Boris Danik, who seems to have swallowed a great deal of disinformation about President Bush. Here's a sampling of untruths.

"[Bush] shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history, and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury." The second part of that is too nonsensical to bother refuting. The first part, however, is "true" - if you fail to figure the deficit as a percentage of GNP, the real measure of its economic impact. Thus, in real, not nominal terms, it is smaller than the deficits Ronald Reagan ran when he was rebuilding the economy and defeating the Soviet Union. Remember how those deficits were supposed to bring about economic ruin?

"[Bush] violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to launch construction of an ABM defense system." In fact, the treaty itself provides that either party may withdraw from it, giving six months' notice.

"[Bush] violated both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law concerning the treatment of POWs." The Geneva Conventions do not apply to irregular forces operating out of uniform; in spite of that, the U.S. has voluntarily chosen to apply some of the conventions.

"During the Vietnam war, Mr. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard and could not be found for several months." This is a garbled version of a smear about Mr. Bush's fifth (!) year in the Air National Guard, which his Democratic opponents have unsuccessfully tried to use against him in every election since his first run for governor of Texas.

The reality: required to earn 50 points a year, based on days reporting for duty, in his first four years Bush earned 840 points, including hundreds of hours flying a jet fighter in training and on patrol over the Gulf of Mexico. Then, with the glut of pilots produced by the winding down of the Vietnam War, Mr. Bush cut back his service for the last two years, still earning 56 points each year; and then, like John Kerry, he was granted an early release.

As Mr. Danik says, "one could go on and on filling pages," but I will stop here.

Taras Wolansky
Jersey City, N.J.

A vote to re-elect President Bush

Dear Editor:

As during the dark days of the Soviet Union, we turned to the Republican leadership for action, not rhetoric. Once again, in the post-September 11 period, we need leadership that articulates a policy that leaves no doubt as to its goals.

The Bush administration considers Ukraine a strategic partner - a stabilizing force in the region. The standards applied toward Ukraine are much higher than those vis-à-vis Russia.

The administration encourages Ukraine's quest for European integration and partnership in NATO.

Presently, Ukraine is at a crossroads. The Bush administration has sent strong messages of concern to the Kuchma leadership, stressing the need for free, fair and transparent elections in Ukraine. Ambassador John Herest and other high-level representatives of the administration have articulated their unequivocal support of the Ukrainian people and their strong criticism of the Kuchma administration's manipulation of the Constitution, suppression of the media, and intimidation of oppression leaders and sympathizers.

We need President Bush to continue to put pressure on the Kuchma administration while not bringing Ukraine closer to Russia - a delicate balancing act. It is in the interest of the United States that Ukraine remains a free and democratic European nation.

Vera M. Andryczyk
West Norriton, Pa.

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor and commentaries on a variety of topics of concern to the Ukrainian American and Ukrainian Canadian communities. Opinions expressed by columnists, commentators and letter-writers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of either The Weekly editorial staff or its publisher, the Ukrainian National Association.

Letters should be typed (double-spaced) and signed (anonymous letters are not published). Letters are accepted also via e-mail at [email protected]. The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes. Please note that a daytime phone number is essential in order for editors to contact letter-writers regarding clarifications or questions.

| Home Page |