“National reconciliation” broached again
It looks as though we are in for another roundtable debate, this one devoted to the question of national reconciliation. President Viktor Yushchenko announced this when we were celebrating the fifteenth anniversary of Ukrainian independence. In his speech at St. Sophia Square he said: “Ukrainian society wants the government to honor national memory. Therefore, I suggest today that we resume the nationwide roundtable debate on historical reconciliation and mutual understanding.”
A week earlier, the theme of “national reconciliation” ran through Yushchenko’s speech to the delegates of the IV World Forum of Ukrainians. “We are speaking about historical reconciliation. More than once I have gathered former Red Army soldiers and the side representing the OUN and the UPA for a single noble purpose. Veterans, whose ranks are constantly thinning, should do another good thing, in addition to the good things they have already done: extend their hands to one another.”
In the president’s view, this problem should not be left up to the next generation to solve. He also noted that many politicians have personal reasons to take one stand or another, but one must “look at history,” which teaches that reconciliation in the name of the country is the main thing, and “the rest is trifles.”
The president’s words were a response to a speech made at the forum by Askold Lozynsky, president of the World Congress of Ukrainians, who leveled harsh criticism at the current authorities for procrastinating over official recognition of the OUN and UPA’s struggle.
Time will reveal the format and “agenda” of the next roundtable. As of today, the situation is this: President Yushchenko considers “national reconciliation” to be an important issue and is sincerely striving to resolve this question. The initiative to hold a roundtable debate is not the only proof. During the parliamentary coalition marathon, Yushchenko repeatedly demanded that the coalition agreement text clearly reflect the attitude to the recognition of the OUN-UPA as a combatant in World War Two. The political forces in parliament failed to heed the president’s words. The coalition agreement, signed by the Orange politicians, interpreted the problem of recognizing members of the national-liberation movement exclusively in terms of social security. The current parliamentary majority has failed to do even this. The coalition agreement signed by the Party of Regions, the Socialists, and the Communists does not even mention OUN and UPA veterans. Paradoxically, the question of recognizing the OUN and the UPA is not reflected in the National Unity Universal either.
So, with the help of a nationwide roundtable debate, President Yushchenko intends to return to the problem of recognition for the OUN and the UPA and, hence, “national reconciliation.”
Obviously, this problem can be solved in a positive fashion if the current government takes into account its recent mistakes. Since the authorities have never admitted those mistakes and may be unaware of the seriousness of this problem, I consider it necessary to dwell on what I consider to be crucial points.
First of all, the subjects of “reconciliation” should be clearly defined. President Yushchenko told the World Forum of Ukrainians that he has sought a negotiated settlement with representatives of the “parties of the conflict,” i.e., the OUN and the UPA, and the former Red Army. But it is common knowledge that Yushchenko negotiated with the heads of two war veterans’ organizations, including the communist Ivan Herasymov and MP Ihor Yukhnovsky from Our Ukraine. While the former represented the “Soviet side,” the latter was not at all a representative of the OUN or the UPA. This does not, of course, diminish the prestige of Yukhnovsky, who succeed in uniting WWII veterans who support Ukrainian statehood.
Still, the obvious fact cannot be denied: OUN and UPA veterans did not participate in the talks with the president of Ukraine. The president also failed to meet the OUN(m) leader Mykola Plawiuk, the last president of the Ukrainian National Republic in exile. For some reason, it was not deemed constructive to invite to the talks the son of Yuriy Shukhevych, the commander-in-chief of the UPA, and other well-known people, who have an historical, political, and legal right to speak on behalf of those whom the head of state is going to reconcile with the “red” veterans.
If the president’s roundtable debate still fails to take into account the real participants as a factor in the negotiating process, the result will be a foregone conclusion.
However, solving the problem of “national reconciliation” depends not only on the “format” of the participants who will be discussing or trying to resolve it. The crux of the matter lies elsewhere. National reconciliation will only be possible when historical, social, and political justice is restored with respect to one side, i.e., the Ukrainian national-liberation combatants of the OUN and the UPA, those who fought for Carpathian Ukraine, and other formations that defended, arms in hand, the ideals of an independent state. This is so obvious that sometimes I am amazed that those who claim they long “to do something for national reconciliation” still cannot grasp it.
At one time a special governmental commission made a careful study of OUN and UPA activities and came to the unambiguous conclusion that there is no reason why the government should not pass a decision to recognize the OUN and the UPA as combatants in the last world war, thereby taking a real step toward restoring historical justice and “national reconciliation.”
How can this be done? This is what Plawiuk said in this connection: “It seems to me that it is now time to settle this matter by means of relevant decrees of the president of Ukraine. I think the next step should be taken by the president, who, in possession of recommendations from the Institute of History, the Ministry of Justice, the Security Service, and various political forces, cannot side with those politicians who are so tied up in their ideological past that they do not see reality. The president should take the initiative and complete the process that will clearly and surely manifest the Ukrainian state’s positive attitude to the OUN and UPA warriors.”
There is also another way. The previous Cabinet of Ministers passed the draft law “On the Social Security of Participants of the 1939- 1956 National-Liberation Movement Aimed at Achieving Ukraine’s Independence.” This law affirms the legal status of participants of the 1939-1956 national-liberation movement and provides them with social security by granting them state-sponsored privileges and benefits. Under this law, the definition “participants in the 1939-1956 national-liberation movement aimed at achieving Ukraine’s independence” applies to the combatants of the Carpathian Sich, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), and other guerrilla formations and underground organizations that were waging a national-liberation struggle for a free and independent Ukraine in the period 1939-1956.
At first glance-and only at first glance-it is doubtful that the current Verkhovna Rada will vote for this bill. At the current stage, when the question of “national unity” is being actively exploited by the largest parliamentary faction and earnestly lobbied by the president of Ukraine, it can be honorably settled within the walls of this country’s highest legislative body.
If this is done, the roundtable debate that President Yushchenko intends to hold will be a pleasant formality that will confirm genuine national reconciliation in Ukraine.
