The OUN and UPA:

President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine has used his right to legislative initiative and submitted a bill to the Verkhovna Rada entitled “On the Legal Status of Participants in the Struggle for Ukraine’s Independence in the 1920s-1990s” and requested that it be deliberated on a top-priority basis.

Thus begins another chapter in the saga entitled “Official Recognition of the OUN and UPA’s Struggle.” What makes this chapter special is the fact that the bill has been submitted to the highest legislative body by the head of state, who is supported by the official parliamentary majority and the cabinet that was formed by it. Clearly, under these circumstances this draft law stands a better chance of being passed, so in 2008 we can expect to witness the restoration of historical and social justice in regard to one of the most massive and best organized periods in the national liberation movement of Ukraine.

More on chances further on, but let’s focus first on the bill. It is not a long one and consists of only six articles stating that the participants in the struggle for Ukrainian independence are individuals who took part in the political, insurgent, underground, or armed struggle for Ukraine’s freedom and independence in the 1920s-1990s as members of the Ukrainian Military Organization (UVO), Carpathian Sich, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (UHVR), as well as individuals who helped or otherwise facilitated the activities of the said organizations.

We see that the list of organizations in which “the participants in the struggle for Ukraine’s independence” operated includes practically all the political and military structures of the period, except the Ukrainian National Council that functioned in Nazi-occupied Kyiv, and the Galicia Division. Of course, this is one shortcoming in the bill, but the document generally reflects the actual alignment of Ukrainian forces that were waging a political and armed struggle for Ukraine’s liberation from the occupiers.

True, the bill contains a substantial specification. It points out that persons “who conducted activities aimed at Ukrainian independence as members of other organizations or on an individual basis” can also be recognized as participants in the struggle for Ukraine’s independence. A list of such organizations and individual activities aimed at Ukrainian independence is subject to government approval. Let us hope that this list will eventually include former members of the nationalist and insurgent underground resistance movement who were not members of the said formations, but actively operated on the Soviet-occupied territory of Ukraine.

The bill also spells out that the participants in the struggle for Ukraine’s independence are to enjoy the rights and freedoms envisaged by the Constitution of Ukraine and other laws and regulations, and that they are guaranteed social protection by the state. At the same time local self-government bodies may provide these veterans with material and other types of assistence from local budgets.

If this bill is supported by a majority in parliament, the Ukrainian combatants will be issued special identity cards, and each will be guaranteed protection of his/her rights, liberties, and lawful interests in keeping with procedures established by current legislation.

The bill reads that this law is of “great sociopolitical and moral-political importance, [it] will be instrumental in restoring historical justice and enhancing Ukraine’s prestige in the international arena, and will lay the foundations of actual reconciliation and consolidation of society.”

Talking about chances, there is no ironclad guarantee that the bill will be passed, despite the fact that the initiative for approving this bill belongs to President Yushchenko, and the existence of a registered propresidential and progovernment majority in parliament. BYuT MP Andrii Shkil does not rule out the possibility that the business elite in both majority blocs will ignore this vote. “However, I don’t think that this will be the case because passing this bill is a tribute to all those who died, who fought and survived,” stressed Shkil.

NU-NS’s Taras Stetskiv is more optimistic: “Our faction will vote unanimously and resolutely for the proposals and bills submitted by the president. This will be a unanimous vote by two factions, just like when we voted for the prime minister.”

No one seems to doubt that factions of the Party of Regions and communists will vote against the official recognition of the OUN and UPA. Moreover, the well-known communist hawk Oleksandr Holub warned that the communists are prepared to seize the rostrum if the Verkhovna Rada’s standing orders are in any way breached during the vote: “Our faction will resolutely oppose this bill. Passing it would be an offence against the victims of fascism and a challenge to the anti- Hitler coalition.”

As usual, Lytvyn’s bloc has taken an ambiguous stand, although this ambiguity increasingly often reveals antipresidential contours. MP Serhii Hrynevetsky declared that this faction has not determined its attitude to the recognition of the OUN and UPA. He added that there are other issues in Ukraine that must be resolved on a top-priority basis, so Yushchenko’s bill is not that topical. In other words, Lytvyn’s bloc is not likely to vote for official recognition of the Ukrainian national liberation movement.

There is also the Russian factor, which will affect the vote for the recognition of the OUN and UPA. Official Moscow has repeatedly expressed strong objections to the “legalization” of the OUN and UPA and interpreted the nationalist movement in the spirit of communist propaganda - as “bandit formations.” It is also a fact that there are a number of pro-Russian MPs in all factions of parliament, who will not want to “worsen relations” with Russia and will not vote for the bill.

Be that as it may, the deliberation of and voting on President Yushchenko’s bill “On the Legal Status of Participants in the Struggle for Ukraine’s Independence in the 1920s-1990s” in the Verkhovna Rada will be a significant event for all factions, primarily the majority ones. This will be a test of the majority’s viability and its capacity to act as a pro-Ukrainian majority capable of passing bills of special importance to the nation.

COMMENTS

Maksym AVKSENTIEV, Donetsk Institute for Social Studies and Political Analysis:

Sociology shows that public opinion is slowly but surely moving toward a more tolerant and balanced approach to the problem of recognizing the OUN and UPA as combatants. I am referring to the findings that were recently submitted by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation and Ukrainian Sociology Service. A demand for information and ideas has appeared. This could serve as an argument for a constructive debate on whether this law is necessary. Another thing is whether our politicians need this discussion. I don’t think so, and the bill is not likely to be passed in its current wording. The same is true of the current opposition’s bills on the second state language. The point is not only that the current opposition is the strongest in our history and is equipped to block bills it doesn’t like. The prospects of such initiatives are uncertain because participation rather than the end result is what really matters for both sides. Regrettably, those who are truly interested in passing or torpedoing this bill remain outside this debate. These people obviously have things to say, and it’s a shame that their voices are not heard. Those who really want to figure out this problem hear slogans, not facts or ideas. Decisions that are made by relying on slogans cannot be effective.

Prof. Mykola VASKIV, Faculty of Theory and History of Journalism, Kamianets-Podilsky National University:

Passing such a bill is long overdue. Of course, one can object that now is not the best of times for its deliberation in the Verkhovna Rada, where the democratic majority is very shaky while the confrontation has sharpened. I am almost sure that the opposition will use the deliberation of this bill as an excuse for another occupation of the rostrum. This will be done by both the communists, who are traditional enemies of the “independents,” and members of the Party of Regions (whereas MPs Kyseliov, Kolisnychenko, et al., will be predictably aggressive; Chornovil and Herman will have to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds — quite an uncomfortable situation). Putting the bill off until a more convenient time does not seem possible because the search for this block of time may last until none of the champions of Ukrainian independence are left among the living. In this case, one must not seek consolation in the fact that the veterans of the UPA and other formations demand their recognition not so much for material as for moral and ethnical reasons. They wouldn’t want this issue to be postponed until a more convenient occasion. It is also dangerous to put off passing this bill because its opponents feel that those who are in power give in to them every time it comes to this problem, saying that passing this bill is untimely, that it will cause social discord. So, every time they shout the Soviet myth about the “snarling face of nationalism.” Therefore, putting off the bill on recognizing the champions of Ukrainian independence may result in its postponement ad infinitum. As for the social rift, it will remain precisely because of the absence of this law: people will assume that something must be wrong with the bill because it is not passed. After it is passed, all passions will quickly abate, as this will become another page in history that has been turned once and for all. An unbiased elucidation of Ukrainian history in the 20th century will beget a mutually tolerant approach between Ukraine’s east and west, north and south. Another step toward unity between all regions of Ukraine should be a bill envisaging responsibility, including criminal prosecution, for those who fabricated cases against “traitors of the Fatherland” before, during, and after the war, organized barrier troops [that fired on friendly units if they retreated] or were members of false-flag UPA units that were designed to discredit this army, and so on. Such individuals should first be deprived of their “personal” pensions, honors, etc.

Vladyslav ROMANOV, historian, Dnipropetrovsk:

I think that passing the bill submitted by the president is completely sensible. Although the proposals submitted by the head of our state are on a considerably broader scale and also relate to members of the dissident movement, for example, the fight will be over the recognition of the merits of the OUN and UPA veterans. From what I know, in Poland the veterans of the Armia Krajowa and Armia Ludowa have the same status. Here the role of the OUN and UPA remains a stumbling block, primarily for political reasons. I think that if there is a sincere desire to figure out this problem, an individual approach should be adopted. OUN and UPA men who did not commit war crimes and were rehabilitated should be unquestioningly recognized as champions of Ukrainian independence. This is clearly apparent. Another thing is that it is rather hard to figure out who was a combatant and who wasn’t. These people were not on record at military registration and enlistment offices, and far from all documents survived the passage of time. Here we need a large-scale project involving experts: historians, archivists, law enforcement officers. Most importantly, I think that the president’s bill doesn’t stand a good chance. Of course, the ruling coalition has a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, but it is so fragile that there will be problems with passing the bill. There will be heated debates that keep splitting Ukrainian society, and the rostrum may be blocked. One thing is obvious: passing this bill will be easier said than done.

Mykola KORDON, head of the Faculty of Ukrainian History, Ivan Franko State University, Zhytomyr:

The struggle of the OUN and UPA on the territory of Ukraine for our national independence deserves a positive attitude, and the state must turn its face to these people. There must be no ideological and political layers; this problem should be approached from a scholarly historical point of view. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists was founded in 1929, replacing the Ukrainian Military Organization that was created in 1920. They had two spectacular leaders, Yevhen Konovalets and Andrii Melnyk, but at the turn of the 1930s a new generation appeared in the arena of the struggle, namely Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych, and Yaroslav Stetsko. If we look at the 1930s, then this concerns the Western Ukrainian region, which was then part of the Polish state. We can discuss the whole of Ukraine beginning in 1939, when Western Ukraine was annexed to the Soviet Union. I think this law is necessary and here one must consider concrete OUN and UPA figures. The process of rehabilitation should perhaps be on an individual basis. Of course, this bill has a chance of being passed today because there is a democratic majority in the Verkhovna Rada and it can vote for it. We are heading toward a state ruled by law; we need guidelines and a legislative base. Now local councils make certain decisions on their level, but laws about the participants of the national liberation struggle must be passed on the national level.

Prof. Leonid ZASHKILNIAK, Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, and deputy director of the Krypiakevych Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the National Academy of Sciences:

In my opinion, a new law must be adopted in order to place UPA soldiers on an equal footing as combatants, and this law should affect all participants in the Second World War. I am not a lawyer. Let them work out the nuances, privileges, and other things that have to do with legal definitions and terminology. I approach the matter from a global angle: Ukraine needs this law. Politics is the art of compromise, so political steps must be taken toward a compromise that would make passing this bill possible. Regrettably, little has been done over the years of independence to refute old stereotypes that were imposed on our people by past propaganda, education, even science; stereotypes that were meant to carry out the main mission and produce members of a communist society, for whom the world had only two colors. Everything that the communist ideologues found inconvenient was proclaimed hostile to man and civilization. There was only one unchanging truth. Too bad this is firmly imbedded in the minds of the residents of part of Ukraine.

Moreover, this is still being reinforced by certain political circles in and outside Ukraine. Strange as it may seem, these stereotypes are hard to overcome even in conditions of freedom of expression. These stereotypes are being constantly applied and maintained by politicians and the media. We know who they are and their whereabouts. They are easily identifiable with their cliche slogans, like “Slavic world,” “Slavic unity,” “Eurasian civilization,” “The West is corrupting us,” “The future belongs to the East,” “Ukraine’s special way.” These are only a few of many such slogans, yet they give you an idea of what’s happening. Therefore, I believe that passing this bill will be resisted by certain political forces, but never by the whole Verkhovna Rada.

I am sure that even its present composition makes it possible to pass such a bill in one or two years. The odds will be in favor of the young, sober-minded part of the audience. Time will destroy stereotypes. I would say that this bill could be passed today if it were depoliticized and placed on the plane of human ethics and culture, where man is approached as a civilizational value. I don’t even think a referendum will be necessary. It is unnecessary in such sensitive issues that have to do with conscience and spirituality. Referendums are the prerogative of political projects that can resolve political matters on an all- Ukrainian scale, not those that relate to subtle spheres of consciousness and life.

This is my opinion. Of course, I hope that it corresponds to public opinion in all of Halychyna. Practically 99 percent of our young people are aware that this issue is necessary and even overdue. Even noted historians in eastern, southern, let alone the central part of Ukraine, realize the need to resolve the problem of the history of the Ukrainian national liberation movement. They are in the process of revising stereotypes, old notions. By virtue of their profession, historians are ahead of us; they are moving quicker than others. They now have an opportunity to use Ukraine as a comprehensible subject of historical studies. Unfortunately, there is much they haven’t accomplished, but they already represent a subject that is called Ukraine, which is an independent country with a self-sufficient people. Of course, certain issues can be regarded as opportunistic because historians are idealizing and mythologizing this subject to an extent — as is the case all over the world, by the way. All national histories rely on a certain degree of mythologization. It is our historians’ task to create Ukraine’s mythology in the good sense of the word. Gradually it will lose its opportunistic and sensational elements, leaving an image that will become increasingly truthful and humane with each phase of progress in historical research.