LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (02/27/05)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Myron Kuropas deserves thanks

Dear Editor:

Dr. Myron Kuropas deserves our congratulations on his past and present work on the Jewish-Ukrainian question, which was noted in the January 30 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly. He is, without a doubt, A most important voice in the Jewish-Ukrainian dialogue and relations in the U.S. He demonstrated courage, tenacity, perspicacity and logic in both spoken and written dialogue. By his demeanor he succeeded in obtaining support for the establishment of the U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine from David Roth of the American Jewish Committee.

It gives me great pleasure to thank him in the name of our Ukrainian American community and also our organization, Americans for Human Rights in Ukraine. I am sure that many people share my feelings.

The choice by the White House to send him as a member of the U.S. delegation to President Victor Yushchenko's inaugural was appropriate and just. He earned it through many years of constructive and beneficial study and work in the field of education and human rights. We wish him God's blessings and many more years of productive work in the Jewish-Ukrainian dialogue, since much work needs to be done and because, due to its painful nature, it has been generally shunned, ignored and neglected by the leadership of our community and academia.

I hope Dr. Kuropas does not get deterred by spiteful and ignorant comments from individuals, newspapers and organizations that thrive on fomenting hatred and revenge without consideration for innocent victims who have suffered because of these blind and venomous vendettas. We are all behind him, even when we lack the courage to say so. We wish him good luck and success in his future endeavors.

Bozhena Olshaniwsky
Newark, N.J.

The letter-writer is president of Americans for Human Rights in Ukraine.

Orange Revolution and George Bush

Dear Editor:

I would like to congratulate Dr. Myron Kuropas on his selection to the official U.S. delegation to the inauguration of President Viktor Yushchenko. I rejoice with him, as well as with all Ukrainian Americans over the magnificent events that took place in Ukraine over the past two to three months.

Many of us sympathize with Dr. Kuropas with respect to the somewhat unfair criticism he has recently received. But to intertwine his personal situation with the events that occurred in Kyiv is inappropriate. "This entire tawdry affair had one purpose: smear president Bush," writes Dr. Kuropas (February 6). Equating criticism of Dr. Kuropas with criticism of the president is presumptuous. President George W. Bush has presented us with a wealth of material for which we can criticize him - we certainly don't need Dr. Kuropas.

Dr. Kuropas's claim that "much of the credit for the Orange Revolution, of course, belongs to the Bush administration" is beyond laughable - it is offensive. "The United States pumped some $58 million into Ukraine during the past two years." Please, Dr. Kuropas, isn't it more like sprinkled instead of "pumped"? The Clinton administration "pumped" $200+ million per year. George Soros personally "pumped" as much, if not more. Didn't President Bush's inauguration cost approximately that amount?

President Bush's reaction to the recent events in Ukraine has been somewhat less than lukewarm. (Oh yes, he cannot offend his soul mate Vladimir Putin.) Wasn't President Bush one of the last heads of state to congratulate President Yushchenko? Even then, he didn't personally announce this - he had a spokesman do it. (Yes, that makes a difference!) The name "Viktor Yushchenko" has never left President Bush's lips - at least not in public. He mentioned Ukraine twice in his recent state of the union address - each time in conjunction with other countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine) - but never Ukraine by itself. ( Yes, that makes a difference!) He mentioned Ukraine only in a self-serving context, arguing that because of our actions people of Ukraine elected this president.

President Bush probably would like to take "much of the credit for the Orange Revolution," but the credit belongs to the people of Ukraine, those many hundreds of thousands who stayed in the cold, the Supreme Court that ruled for fairness and justice, the soldiers and officers who refused to go against their own people, the political leaders and also Mr. Yushchenko himself.

The credit belongs to Ukrainians in Ukraine, with some help from abroad. To suggest otherwise offends them and should offend those Ukrainian Americans whose heart is still with our homeland.

George Popel
Monmouth Junction, N.J.

Kuropas: defender of Ukrainian name

Dear Editor:

Congratulations to The Ukrainian Weekly for defending Dr. Myron Kuropas. The editorial was phenomenal and the article by Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky was great. The statement written by Dr. Kuropas was well done, concise and all-inclusive. This may satisfy the critics, but I doubt it.

Dr. Kuropas is a staunch anti-Communist who believes in the principles of democracy and self-determination. His lifelong activism centered on building bridges between communities.

When some quarters stated that "Ukrainians are guiltier than the Nazis for the Holocaust," Dr. Kuropas was there to defend the name of Ukraine by explaining historical realities. When elements of our society decided to cast collective guilt on Ukrainians, Dr. Kuropas was there to reply with historical explanations. When John Demjanjuk was accused of being "Ivan the Terrible," Dr. Kuropas was there to defend the man as innocent unless proven guilty.

Most recently, Congressmen Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) accused Dr. Kuropas of anti-Semitism by stating that Dr. Kuropas said "Big money drives the Holocaust industry." Dr. Kuropas never made that statement - it was made by an American historian, Dr. Norman Finkelstein. The congressmen have called on Northern Illinois University to "renounce his remarks" and to "re-evaluate" its association with Dr. Kuropas. The university, however, is holding firm in support of Dr. Kuropas.

Roman Golash
Palatine, Ill.

Spreading freedom or something else?

Dear Editor:

While the world anxiously wonders what kind of pitchfork President George W. Bush intends to use to spread freedom all over, he and some of his good buddies are already claiming the Orange Revolution as one of the accomplishments of this chore. On a TV talk show on Sunday, January 23, Sen. John McCain of Arizona cited Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia's Rose Revolution and the Orange Revolution to elucidate the president's oracular vision of universal freedom being spread.

In his press conference on Wednesday, January 26, the president himself was much less circumspect. Not once, but twice, he neatly sandwiched the Orange Revolution between Afghanistan and Iraq as peaks of the brilliant triumph of his foreign policy. He, incidentally, mispronounced Viktor Yushchenko's last name and referred to Ukraine as "the Ukraine": I guess that Condie was too busy dodging bullets somewhere else to coach her boss on that faraway land and its new leader.

How the president intends to explain to his good buddy Vladimir Putin the evident implication that Ukraine was as oppressed under Vlad's own flunkies as Afghanistan was under the Taliban and Iraq under Saddam is his business. It is, however, very much our business - the urgent business of the Ukrainian diaspora in America - to put a stop to this cynical exploitation of the triumph of the will of the Ukrainian people. (It is interesting, incidentally, that the only authentic individual in the president's medicine show, Colin Powell, addressed his Ukrainian audience in this way; but then, Secretary Powell has been put out to pasture.)

The good buddies in the White House must explain in detail how they accomplished, or even aided, the miracle of the Orange Revolution, and what in the world it has to do with the unholy mess they have concocted in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is indispensable to keep pointing out that instead of spreading new freedom, President Bush keeps shoveling good old horse manure.

Bohdan Rubchak
Chicago

Plast and UCCA: consider the issues

Dear Editor:

I was moved to write this article after reading the letter that the National Plast Council (KPR) of the United States wrote to the National Plast Command in the United States on September 10, 2004, and which was read at the meeting of the Plast branch heads on September 25-26, 2004. In this letter, the KPR proposes that during their meeting the stanychni consider the matter of Plast becoming a member of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), continue the discussion of this proposal at the 26th National Plast Congress and have the delegates vote on the proposal.

It is well-known that for some time now Plast was being pressured by the UCCA to become one of its members. Apparently, some Plast members and even some members of the National Plast Council, are campaigning for this move. This is a new phenomenon, which is alarming and demands some serious thought.

What is at issue? We are dealing here with actions that took place 25 years ago at the 13th Congress of the UCCA. The younger generation of senior Plast members who at the time were just "yunaky," (under age 18) have little or no knowledge of what occurred at that convention. That is why it is not only necessary but critical to remind them of what did happen at the time.

It was at the 13th Congress in 1980 that 27 national organizations, members of UCCA, left it. The reason for these organizations leaving the UCCA was in reaction to blatant statutory and structural violations. Until the 1980 convention, the posts of vice-presidents of the UCCA were in the hands of four fraternal organizations - the Ukrainian National Association (UNA), the Ukrainian Fraternal Association (UFA), the Providence Association of Ukrainian Catholics and the Ukrainian National Aid Association. The top UCCA posts were held on a rotational basis by these four organizations. The 1980 congress negated this rotational principle and elected a permanent vice-president.

In 1983, 19 out of the 27 member-organizations that left the UCCA formed a new national umbrella organization - the Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (UACC), while the other eight organizations, including Plast, remained neutral, belonging neither to the UCCA nor the UACC. As of now, only one organization from the UACC, the Ukrainian National Association, has decided to be a member of both the UCCA and the UACC.

All attempts during the past years to settle the conflict have been unsuccessful. During this time, Plast has been governed by a binding resolution; as long as there are two central organizations, Plast will remain neutral.

Plast is a non-political and non-denominational entity and cannot belong to any organization that is political. Such crucial matters as whether Plast should be a part of a larger organization is the prerogative of the Supreme Plast Council and the Supreme Plast Rada, where these questions can be considered, debated and brought for a vote at a Plast congress.

Therefore, I am sincerely sorry to see that the younger generation of "seniory," who hold responsible positions in the Plast leadership, having the best intentions but not familiar with the whole picture, are naively susceptible to the persuasions of agitators who exploit their lack of full knowledge. As a result, I see proposals put forth that may have very bad consequences and may greatly damage Plast.

Dr. Roman Baranowskyj
Kerhonkson, N.Y.

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.

| Home Page |