LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (10/09/05)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Right balance needed in Ukrainian studies

Dear Editor:

I am impressed that my letter on Ukrainian studies (August 21) received such a detailed response from Dr. Taras Kuzio and Orest Deychakiwsky (September 18). The authors are expert political analysts, but their methods for examining Ukrainian studies programs perhaps are not where they should be.

Their response purports to show how established centers of Ukrainian studies may have consciously downplayed contemporary studies. But their analysis reduces almost everything in contemporary studies to political science. A more insightful approach would have also considered teaching and research on language, culture, literature, art, film, religion, ecology, education, health care, etc. These subjects are just as relevant to contemporary studies as is political science. Furthermore, established Ukrainian studies centers work extensively on many of these subjects.

There is another context which was left out altogether, namely, the trend in political science as a field away from area and country studies that are based on languages, histories and culture, to one immersed in equations and graphs and quantifiable problems that are not always relevant. The core of Ukrainian history, literature and language that figures so prominently in established Ukrainian studies programs is essential for any deeper study of Ukraine.

We should be concerned about the declining number of universities in the U.S. that teach the core subjects today. The ranks of qualified Ukrainian studies specialists in the U.S. has thinned out dramatically. We face the inevitability with this trend that, sometime in the future, experts in Ukrainian history or literature may come from Russian studies or other disciplines, or have had little formal training in the Ukrainian area. This is one reason that finding the right balance of subjects in Ukrainian studies is so important.

Roman Procyk
New York

The letter-writer is executive director of the Ukrainian Studies Fund.

Luciuk's commentary is way off the mark

Dear Editor:

The events of last winter on the "maidan" may be behind us, but the transformation of the Ukrainian society has only just begun, and will continue to take place for years to come. So why does Lubomyr Luciuk sound so displeased with the new Ukraine and its people - barely nine months into the new administration, in his August 7 article in The Ukrainian Weekly? Must we in the diaspora be already so disenchanted, because they don't wear orange in Kyiv anymore?

Let's remind ourselves that the Yushchenko government has inherited the problems of governing Ukraine from the corrupt Kuchma administration and the decades of the Soviet rule. Corruption at all levels of government in Ukraine is still rampant, there is still lack of faith in authority, and a stubborn intransigence of the established business interests persists. Unfamiliarity with democratic procedures, and confusion about individual rights and obligations has not disappeared overnight either.

It seems that Dr. Luciuk is very much off the mark in painting the scene in Kyiv as practically all sex-related, where Ukrainian women all but prostitute themselves to visitors. The truth is that the root of that problem lies primarily with the naive American and European men who pursue e-mail-order bride fantasies via the Internet, then come to Ukraine to live them out.

Some diaspora Ukrainians and the liberals in the Western media, such as the notoriously anti-Ukrainian Anders Aslund of the Cold War-era Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, are the ones who are dizzy with unrealistic expectations for the new Ukraine. Their pessimism and the recurrent message of doom and gloom is very much misplaced and uncalled for.

The noted political commentator Taras Kuzio gives us a much better assessment of Ukraine in his article, "Yushchenko and the Orange Revolution, few real signs of crisis are seen," as does Zenon Zawada in his very practical travel news update on Ukraine. Both articles appeared in the same issue as Dr. Luciuk's commentary.

I had trouble swallowing Dr. Luciuk's portrayal of Kyiv, and was more puzzled by the inordinate amount of time devoted to sex issues. I believe that those who want to see problems in Ukraine will certainly find them - in nightclubs, casinos and discos. Kyiv has many things to offer besides the sex industry. It has wonderful boulevards, parks, cafes and restaurants, a decent public transportation system, medieval churches, museums and galleries. Side trips and visits to the beautiful Ukrainian countryside can be easily arranged. But most of all, Kyiv has many wonderful people eager to welcome the outside world. The recent lifting of the visa requirements should provide a major boost to the fledgling, if still underdeveloped, Ukrainian tourist industry. No such travel liberalization can even be imagined in Russia or Belarus.

My friends in Kyiv assure me that no doom and gloom is in evidence, although everyone would like to see President Yushchenko deliver on his election promises. Many people are disappointed with the slow pace of change. The stunning government overhaul just executed by Mr. Yushchenko need not be seen as a sign of weakness, and as The Times of London put it; given the stagnant political situation in Ukraine, it should have been done months ago. How the political reality will come to play itself out, especially with the ominous split between President Yushchenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, remains to be seen, but at least we should remain firm in the belief that Ukraine is moving forward, albeit while committing numerous missteps.

Nestor Wolansky
Berkeley, Calif.

| Home Page |