Is common history possible?

“We have interesting findings regarding the creation of a common textbook for history and social studies for teachers. We have rather different curricula and I understand that it is a very Manilov-like idea to create a common textbook. Hence we will start with a pedagogical textbook for teachers. …I think that it will be possible to create the textbooks for Ukrainian and Russian teachers by the end of the calendar year. We will publish them soon after. They will encompass the period ranging from ancient history to the 21st century,” the Minister of Education and Science Dmytro Tabachnyk said in May this year. Yet there are still no results. In this regard, one can often hear Ukrainian historians affirm that the main problem is Russia’s desire to impose its views. The director of the Russian Institute of General History Aleksandr Chubaryan recently said that there were no results, meaning no methodological textbook.

The Day asked the candidate of historical sciences Vladyslav HRYNEVYCH, who participated in a recent meeting of Ukrainian and Russian historians, about the prospects of such a textbook:

“The joint commission of historians based at the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been working for many years. It is headed by Valerii Smoliy and Aleksandr Chubaryan from the Ukrainian and Russian sides, respectively. This commission started working more or less actively a year ago, when we decided to create a common project for the anniversary of the beginning of the war between the Soviet Union and [Nazi] Germany in 1941 — the beginning of the World War II. The Belarusian party was also involved in the project. Today some texts are written, and a collection of do­cu­ments concerning those events has been prepared. There will be three parts in one book: Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. The project set itself an ambitious task: answering questions about the causes and consequences of that confrontation.

“Some two weeks ago I participated in the work of this commission for the first time. The meeting took place in Moscow. Three questions were discussed. The first one concerned the common collection I have mentioned. We agreed that no one would interfere with the work of the three institutes. The Ukrainian party is going to improve its conception and make it more balanced. Certainly, it is difficult to create a common model of [the events that took place in] 1941 because Ukraine’s perspective is peculiar, different from the Russian one, as is the perception of the World War II in general.

“The second question concerned the Ukrainian side’s proposal to write a common historiographic reference book about the controversial issues of our past. In response, the Russian side suggested writing a general reference book of Ukrainian and Russian history. But all this is available in separate Ukrainian and Russian encyclopedias. Therefore a question arises: why redo the work? We believe it is necessary to outline problematic issues. There should be two views on each contested question.

“The third question concerned electronic editions, portals, and websites we already have. Actually, it dealt with an exchange of experience on how history portals help history as a science.

“The question of common textbooks was not discussed. But Oleksandr Udod was part of our commission, representing the Ministry of Science and Education of Ukraine. He was supposed to stay for one more day and negotiate with Chubaryan on how to write this common textbook for teachers. But we didn’t consider this question and didn’t want to.”

Isn’t there a separate commission dealing with writing this common textbook?

“Yes, this commission exists, but it doesn’t work with the Institute of History of Ukraine. Therefore there is no information on how this commission works or who belongs to it. We didn’t speak about it ‘offstage’ in Moscow.”

Dmytro Tabachnyk talked about establishing it back in May…

“I think some people are already working [on it]. We have had many possibilities to see that the current government works ‘behind the scenes,’ and we learn about important social issues just before they are discussed. Therefore it is possible that tomorrow we will learn that such a textbook was created already, though no one discussed it.”

At the same time, in his interview to the magazine Ogoniok Aleksandr Chubaryan stated that all attempts of the two countries to create the textbook, which would present a moderate view of history, have failed.

“He didn’t mention it during our meeting. Moreover, as I have said, Oleksandr Udod stayed in Moscow for the negotiations. Chubaryan said several times there was nothing special in such common textbooks. He even gave examples, such as the common French-German textbook. Generally, if there were no wish to impose their model on us, everything would be fine. But if this textbook was written in the time of Yushchenko, this would be taken differently. Now we have a pro-Russian policy slant. As they say, there is nothing personal, or nothing Ukrainian.”

But such a joint commission existed under Kuchma, Yushchenko, and now it exists under Yanukovych. Aren’t these commissions an instrument in the hands of politicians, which is used for political games?

“I think there is a political will now from both sides. Usually such commissions are in session for a long time because there is no political will. In addition, today there are people ready to realize this will. Therefore the project will be realized.”

In your opinion, what will this textbook be like?

“Undoubtedly, this textbook will represent only one identity. It will be non-Ukrainian. One can say that in different ways: Ukrainian-Russian, Ukrainian-Soviet... In this textbook the Holodomor will be called a “common tragedy,” but not a genocide. The attitude to Mazepa, Petliura and hetman Skoropadsky will be something between the present Russian and Soviet views. The current government, unfortunately, doesn’t want to form the Ukrainian identity.”

Why? One cannot build a strong state this way…

“In order to understand it, one should get into the heads of the authorities. There are many reasons. People who have power today do not have a Ukrainian identity. It is an empty sound for them, they are not interested. Moreover, some government representatives have technocratic Soviet thinking and social issues are the least of their concerns. People who are directly involved in Ukrainian social policy today are guided by narrow party interests. They protect the interests of a minority in Ukraine oriented towards Russia, its values, and common integration projects.

“This is a wrong policy of the current government. This policy will fail in our current information society, with already two generations of Ukrainian youth having their own idea on the Ukrainian identity, when the majority of intellectuals are in the opposition.”