The language issue: European standard on Ukrainian soil

President Leonid Kuchma has moved that Verkhovna Rada ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The ratification bill says that the Charter provisions apply to such minority languages of Ukraine as Belarusian, Bulgarian, Gagauz, Greek, Yiddish, Crimean Tartar, Moldovan, German, Polish, Russian, Romanian, Slovak, and Hungarian. The Charter was drafted under the Council of Europe aegis, opened for signing on November 5, 1992, and came into force on March 1, 1998. As of October 17, 2002, it was signed by 29 and ratified by 17 European states. In line with the commitments taken while entering the Council of Europe in 1995, this country was to join the charter within a year. Ukraine signed the Charter as early as in May 1995. A few years later, on December 24, 1999, the parliament passed the charter ratification law. However, the Constitutional Court soon ruled that the law was unconstitutional due to the breach of certain procedural clauses. Today, Verkhovna Rada faces again the problem of ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

The charter’s basic idea is that protecting the historical languages of ethnic minorities is indispensable for the maintenance and development of European culture. Its provisions do not apply to dialects of the official language and the languages of migrants. The charter demands that the signatory states take resolute actions to support and preserve regional or minority languages. In more concrete terms, this means using the regional languages in public life, creating conditions for teaching and learning the regional or minority languages from daycare facilities through universities, as well as conditions for receiving primary, secondary, and higher education in these languages. In addition, the charter contains a requirement that speakers of the regional or minority languages be allowed to freely use their languages in court, other public administration bodies, and for the purpose of concluding certain international documents. At the same time, the charter emphasizes that “the protection and encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the need to learn them.”

The ratification of the Charter can be an important step for Ukraine to achieve civilized European standards in the field of human rights, culture, and language. The pace of this country’s European integration will also depend to some extent on whether the Ukrainian parliament will approve it. Yet, there are different viewpoints in Ukrainian society and political circles on this document. A certain part of society interprets the initiative to enact the charter as an exclusive attempt to upgrade the status of the Russian language. According to some analysts, this document could also become an apple of discord for the opposition, particularly between its left and right wings which differ in assessing the problem of language policy.

COMMENTS

Pavlo MOVCHAN, Our Ukraine fraction:

“Is this charter really so pressing for Ukraine? If it has not been and is not going to be ratified in the nearest future by France, Spain, and Germany — Europe’s largest states — then why should we hurry? The charter is supposed to protect endangered languages, i.e., the minority languages on the verge of extinction under the pressure of the more powerful tongues. In Ukraine, this applies to the Crimean Tatar and Gagauz languages. Ukrainian ranks third. Yet, pro-Russian forces use the charter as a means for giving more rights to the Russian language which is absolutely protected because it has its own linguistic environment, Russia, where it faces no danger. This is why ratification is now no longer a pure formality but a political issue. And, in general, any language issue in Ukraine tends to divide, rather than unite, our society. This is a political card usually pulled out by someone who needs a smoke-screen to draw public attention away from really pressing issues.”

Mykhailo BASARAB, Chairman, Board of Directors, ZNAK Center of Applied Politics:

“I think the greatest benefit of the charter ratification is that Ukraine will again show the world community its adherence to European values. What in fact interests Europe above all is not ratification of this document as such but the way the top leadership will behave during the adoption. For the West, it is sort of an acid test to help guge Ukraine’s loyalty to Europe within the context of the current complications in relations. Ratifying the charter will cause no revolutionary changes in the government’s language policies. What is more, although out state has not ratified this document, it still follows the absolute majority of its clauses. The only negative consequence of charter ratification might be intensification of political debates on the now low-profile language problem.

“It seems to me the main problem that will come up in the process of ratification is the status of the Russian language. And, no matter how hard we are being pressed to believe that Russian stays out of the charter, this will not solve the problem. The document in question writes clearly that minority languages are, let me quote, ‘traditionally used within a given territory of a state by nationals of that state who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the state’s population...’ On this premise, Russian can be characterized as a minority language. It is for this reason that political forces, for whom the language question is a clear indicator of philosophical and ideological attitudes, will link the charter with the problem of the Russian language. Those who rant about the alleged infringements of the Russian language will use the charter factor to voice again the problem of its official status. Accordingly, the opposing side will get an opportunity to raise the problem of Russian language dominance in Ukraine. However, no matter how heated the Russian language debates may be, it is highly improbable that the status of Ukrainian and Russian will be changed.

“I think the charter stands quite a good chance to be ratified. The Communists will back this document as another way to reinforce the positions of Russian. Our Ukraine, which constantly calls for European integration, cannot but support a Council of Europe document. Otherwise, the actions of this political force could be viewed as illogical. The Socialists are likely to take a neutral stand because Oleksandr Moroz has long shunned the Russophile electorate. BYuT can assume the most irreconcilable position in Verkhovna Rada on this matter if its Right wing becomes more active. The majority factions are sure to favor the ratification, first of all, out of a desire to show support for the president’s initiative.”

Petro SYMONENKO, leader of the Communist Party of Ukraine:

“The problem many individuals raise in eastern, southern, and central Ukraine is about using the languages that are close and understandable to them. By all accounts, the problem is whether the Russian and Ukrainian languages will enjoy equal rights. Our fraction’s position in this matter is based on the following points. First, full use must be made of the provisions of the existing law on languages. Secondly, we moved our own bill on languages, which was discussed at the last plenary sessions of the previous-convocation Verkhovna Rada. Thirdly, we favor the application of European norms of minority language protection, which was one of the chief requirements for Ukraine to enter PACE. From the KPU’s point of view, the Russians in Ukraine should in no way be regarded as an ethnic minority because an estimated 11 to 13 million citizens of this country are either Russians or use Russian as their mother tongue. Also noteworthy is the following detail: according to a survey conducted by the Institute of Sociology of Ukraine, 67% of the Ukrainian citizens use Russian in everyday life. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages sets out that a parliament can identify the conditions whereby the second language may be considered as official. The Charter was ratified by Verkhovna Rada of the previous convocation. However, when the parliamentary human rights committee studied in detail the situation in Ukraine, it found that on the territories where people of a certain ethnicity account for 20% or more of the population the language of these people can well be used as the second official one. This was used by the Right-wing forces as a pretext to refer the case to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court handed down a ruling that the ratification of the charter was unconstitutional on the grounds that no financial guarantees were allegedly made. This is an outlandish and ridiculous explanation. Yet, the president refused to sign the charter already ratified by the third-convocation Ukrainian parliament. Now he has again proposed ratification. The Communist position remains unchanged: we believe there should be two official languages — Ukrainian and Russian — in Ukraine.”

Borys ANDRESIUK, SDPU(o) faction:

“The president of Ukraine has clearly stated that this country strives to integrate with European structures. This idea was supported by the majority of the political forces that declare a democratic orientation. European integration is not an affair of one day. It is a difficult and multistage process. Yet, one of its most crucial elements is bringing the nation’s law into line with that of the European Union. This is a requirement for all the countries entering the European structures — there is no escaping it. From this perspective, it is quite logical to demand that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages be ratified, for language policy is one of the most important spheres which reflect the level of democracy in a state. Minority languages need to be supported. Ukrainian, as the official language, must undoubtedly enjoy top-priority treatment, but other ethnic languages should also develop. The better the ethnic minorities feel in Ukraine, the better it will be for the whole nation. I think that not only the majority factions but also a considerable part of the opposition are aware of the importance of this document.”

Valery PUSTOVOITENKO, NDP faction:

“The problem of ratifying the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages must be solved. I do not think this will in any way cause any expansion of the Russian language. A considerable part of the Ukrainian population is and will be using it irrespective of political decisions. The ratification of the charter will pull the rug from under the feet of those who try to politicize the problem of the Russian language in Ukraine.”

Oleksandr MOROZ , SPU faction:

“We should take into account, first of all, that this is an international document. It must be ratified if we really strive to abide by international law. As to the fears of Russian language domination, I will say we now have the language of Verka Serdiuchka (pidgin God-knows-what). This is far more dangerous. If one knows well and uses Russian or any other language, let him do so. For nobody encroaches on the official status of Ukrainian. Unfortunately, many of today’s politicians swear their love of Ukrainian, doing precious nothing to protect it. Take our television, for instance: is this the official language?”

Andriy SHKYL, BYuT faction:

“The Charter for Regional Languages contains many positive points to be reckoned with. On the other hand, we should not blindly copy its provisions. The charter provides for the equal right of all ethnic minorities to use their native languages. In this country, this definition applies to the Crimean Tartar, Hungarian, Romanian, and, to some extent, Polish languages. Yet, some people hope to turn the European Charter to the advantage of the Russian language in Ukraine. This means failure to grasp the spirit of the law. We are not going to vote for the ratification of this document.”