LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (12/26/04)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Has Yushchenko sabotaged himself?

Dear Editor:

I always thought that there was a lot of truth in the popular joke which states that a camel is actually a horse designed by a committee. I am certain many of us know from our own experiences that whenever a large group of opposing thinkers get together for a discussion, at the end of it, in order to break a prolonged stalemate, the parties involved will come up with a compromise that "satisfies" both sides and does not "offend" anyone. Of course, some time later the vast majority will admit that the compromise brought more complications than solution. Thus, the horse becomes the camel; it does not really run, but it moves, and one can still ride it, well, sort of.

I think a similar, "horse to camel," compromise was reached in Ukraine just a few days ago when Viktor Yushchenko began shaking hands with the "godfathers" of political genocide in Ukraine and even signed with them a pact of so-called political reforms. Indeed, many of us who were hoping to gallop the mustang of change into the Ukrainian government's rotten pigsty found that the "Orange Smarty Jones" has stalled right in the middle.

Unfortunately, the opposition began compromise negotiations with the regime; it began shaking hands with murderers of journalists and jailers of protesting students, it began smiling for the cameras together with European mediators on one side, and a criminal from Dnipropetrovsk (Leonid Kuchma) and one from Donbas (Viktor Yanukovych) on the other side. Not exactly a pretty picture one would hang on the wall.

But why such pessimism, one might ask? Was not there a good bill passed making fraudulent elections much harder to stage? Yes, that is true, but at what cost was this "great victory" achieved? And what did the opposition gain at the end? One of the demands was to fire the whole government, this demand was not met, the only person who has left the office thus far is Procurator General Hennadii Vasiliev. The rest of the gang is still there, at their old, now un-blockaded warm offices.

Moreover, the important governmental positions will, from now on, have to be approved by the majority in the quasi-democratic Parliament which, as recently as a few days ago, wanted to recall its own vote to dismiss Mr. Kuchma's government. So much for their "decisiveness." That makes Ukraine's future ministers more faithful to the dominant majority party in the Rada rather than to the president and the people of the country. This is a dangerously irresponsible move, especially considering the fact that Mr. Yanukovych's party, Party of the Regions, is still very sizeable at 61 deputies, combine that with the 59 Communist deputies and 33 deputies of the Social Democratic Party - United - the party of ex-President Leonid Kravchuk, gives a total of well above the number of pro-Yuschenko's and pro-Tymoshenko deputies together.

Furthermore, these deputies just increased their term, through the same political compromise, from four years to five. If this is not a Pyrrhic victory, then we must all be blind! Perhaps that is why the European Commission for Democracy through Law, also known as the Venice Commission, was rather critical of this "deal" that vests "supreme executive powers" with the Cabinet of Ministers appointed by the very same shady and largely corrupted Parliament.

And that is the true story of the young and promising orange-colored thoroughbred that was fed on the choice grass of popular support and high aspirations of justice and law, and than ran all the way to become ... a feeble pony?

Mr. Yushchenko will probably still win the December 26 election, providing that honest elections take place, but the real question remains. Is he going to be able to govern effectively and bring about real changem in this, democracy-vs.-totalitarianism, EU-vs.-Russia-torn country or has he already sabotaged his own future presidency?

Alex Kozhushchenko
Wilmington, Del.

Jews in Ukraine not monolithic entity

Dear Editor:

We know that we are not alone in adding our voices to that expressed in the recent letter of distinguished young historian John-Paul Himka in which he takes offense at the most recent shameless generalization Myron Kuropas levels at the Jewish community in Ukraine ("Jews for Yanukovych," October 31). Like any other group, the Jews in Ukraine are most certainly not some vast monolithic entity.

On December 9 of this year, Viktor Yushchenko accepted an invitation to Kyiv's Central Synagogue, where he lit the first Menorah candle, and he and his wife received a standing ovation. Many in the crowd wore orange scarves, orange ribbons or Yushchenko "TAK" campaign buttons. According to the Canadian Jewish News (http://www.cjnews.com/view article.asp?id=5135), Yuschenko praised the Jewish people and likened their struggle for independence to Ukraine's struggle. He also noted that Ukraine "should respect the diversity of our world with different voices" and added that, when president, he will "always support different nationalities living in Ukraine."

The Canadian Jewish News reported that "Many Jewish voters had said they supported Yanukovych because they feared the anti-Semitism associated with some nationalist groups that are members of Yushchenko's coalition," but Eduard Dolinsky, executive director of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine umbrella organization noted that "This visit demonstrated Yushchenko's human and political position and his respect toward the Jewish community."

This is not the first time that Mr. Yushchenko has received praise regarding his attitude towards Jews in Ukraine. In May of 2000 Jewish organizations, led by Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Yakov Bleich, hosted then Prime Minister Yushchenko on Capitol Hill and, at a ceremony in the U.S. House of Representatives, awarded him a beautiful silver chalice for his attitude towards Ukraine's Jews. Mr. Yushchenko said on that occasion. "You will not find anti-Semitism at the state level in Ukraine. I am committed to fighting anti-Semitism in our country" (National Committee for Soviet Jewry, newsletter, May 5-9, 2000).

In his December 12 column titled "Go orange!" Dr. Kuropas champions the cause of Viktor Yushchenko and Ukraine's youth for their initiative, but in his earlier column he does not note, as does the Canadian Jewish News, that Jewish Ukrainians were also among the demonstrators for Mr. Yushchenko in Kyiv. Moreover, he apparently does not realize that such columns as he has written about Jewish-Ukrainian relations can harm not only his own reputation but that of the Ukrainian National Association, as well as relations between the Jewish community and the Ukrainian people, and the cause of freedom and justice in Ukraine that Mr. Yuschenko is working so courageously to advance. As Ukrainians say, "Hanba!"

Natalie and Ihor Gawdiak
Columbia, Md.

Let's support people of Ukraine

Dear Editor:

Democracy does not come easy for Ukraine after three generations of Soviet Russian subjugation. Communism still exists in Russia and has again shown its ugly head in Ukraine as well. However, the events of the past weeks clearly demonstrate that the Ukrainian majority wants a Western form of government and rejects the fraudulent, demeaning, inhumane practices of Russia's form of governing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeated his call for the crisis in Ukraine to be resolved without international intervention and that the dispute should be settled without outside interference. Look who's talking! Russia has been interfering in Ukraine's destiny for centuries. The end is near - let's support the Ukrainian people who simply want to be free and independent.

Long live Ukraine!

Paul S. Ewasko
Glenburn Township, Pa.

Putin's intentions quite transparent

Dear Editor:

In 1991 Ukraine declared its independence and proved its "good will" by giving up the world's third largest nuclear arsenal. This apparently was inadequate for Comrade Vladimir Putin, a hard-line Stalinist whose objective is to recreate a new, albeit smaller Soviet Union - with "spheres of influence" of the past.

One can clearly see what Mr. Putin has done, and is doing in Russia today. He obviously has no intention of democratizing Russia, now, or in the future. As a former Russian general, T. Lebed, stated before his tragic helicopter accident and death "Russia is, was, and always will be an empire."

Russia is an enormous country with an elaborate nuclear arsenal - clearly it needs no "spheres of political or military influence" for its safety. Thus, when it attempts to "rig elections" forcefully and even to assassinate outspoken candidates and journalists, this is no longer "Ukraine's problem - but a worldwide concern."

Few remember the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. This was not merely a non-aggression alliance - it was a 10-year accord by means of which Stalin supplied the Nazis with goods and war material during the Allied blockade of Germany. Some recent archives even claim that Stalin and Hitler may have actually met in Lviv personally to seal their accords and secret protocols.

After partitioning Poland and executing 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn Forest, Stalin nevertheless cut a deal with President Harry S. Truman - exempting the Soviet Union of all past crimes against humanity while damning the Nazis "for following orders."

And yet, to date, all Soviets charged with past war crimes have been exonerated because they did, in fact, follow the orders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. What a contradiction of terms!

And our diaspora wants an acknowledgment of the Holodomor? From America maybe, eventually; but from Russia - never!

Andrew M. Senkowsky
Van Etten, N.Y.

Kuzio too hasty in critique of deal

Dear Editor:

The usually astute Taras Kuzio may have been too hasty in his sharp critique of the compromise agreement accepted by Viktor Yushchenko in negotiations with Leonid Kuchma, facilitated by European Union emissaries. If Mr. Yushchenko was "trapped," as Dr. Kuzio suggested, the question is: Trapped by whom? By the presidents of Poland and Lithuania? Not likely. Certainly not by Mr. Kuchma, who earlier this year floated somewhat similar (but far less favorable to the opposition) proposals.

A more plausible explanation, favored by cooler heads, goes as follows.

Part I: If no agreement had been reached, the government could arbitrarily falsify the results of the upcoming December 26 re-run election, as it did in the run-off on November 21, even if the job would be more difficult this time. Condemned again by international observers, the fate of the run-off would again land on the Supreme Court's shaky scales. Could the opposition again master the people power of 500,000 for two weeks in a January freeze? And how would the court decide that time? Wouldn't another statement or even bloodshed be among possible outcomes?

Part II. The compromise agreement will not make a president-elect powerless. He will have full powers before the constitutional change takes effect in September or December 2005 (depending on future provincial reforms) - enough time for a substantial clean-up.

When the modified form of government takes effect, the president will largely control the Foreign Affairs and Defense ministries and the intelligence service, and appoint oblast chairmen. He will also have veto power. The Rada would need a two-thirds vote for an override.

Finally, future constitutional changes are also possible - with the elements of uncertainty weighted in favor of Mr. Yushchenko (if he is elected).

As for the December 26 election itself, with the electoral reform in place, the opposition has greatly improved its chances of winning by official protocol, even though Viktor Yanukovych may still spring some surprises. Mr. Kuchma, humbled but not humiliated by the agreement, is apparently resigned to sulking at his dacha and saying he is no longer for Mr. Yanukovych. The smart money (including the oligarchs' component) is now riding on Mr. Yushchenko.

As for Mr. Yushchenko's "poor negotiating skills," as asserted by Dr. Kuzio and others, such an assessment reminds one of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Mr. Yushchenko probably got the best deal he could without risking violence at some point, with an uncertain outcome. The Internal Affairs Ministry troops guarding the president's offices stayed loyal to the regime. (This is the single remnant of the ex-Soviet KGB, the tool of mass terror that must be disbanded ASAP.) And, lest it be forgotten, the opposition camp itself had long favored a balanced parliamentary system to replace the present one with its vast presidential power that invites autocratic ambitions and corruption, as it did for President Kuchma.

Boris Danik
North Caldwell, N.J.

| Home Page |