A tactical move or political memory adjustment?
In early March, after Viktor Yanukovych had just taken office as President of Ukraine, Andrii Yermolaiev, the newly appointed director of the National Institute of Strategic Studies, told The Day about the disappearance of the Holodomor section from the presidential website: “I think everything pertaining to national politics, including such a sensitive sphere as historical memory, will be reflected on this website. There is also the likelihood of upgrading the presidential website in the near future, with new sections, and everything will be put in order.”
In actuality, putting everything “in order” took more than six months. Recently, the presidential website did reinstate the Holodomor feature, entitled In Memory of the Victims of 1932-33 Famine in Ukraine,” along with international and national documents, and Photos. Moreover, on that date the president of Ukraine sent a letter to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), answering some of their markedly critical questions.
He wrote: “You know, I’ve never been involved in or with a single [political] squabble. I have always responded to words with deeds. When they told me that our SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] was hunting down historians in Lviv’s Lonsky Street Prison Museum, I instructed the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to transfer that museum from the jurisdiction of the SBU to that of the Institute of National Memory. Those in charge of the central budget were instructed to secure appropriations for this museum, within the framework of the Institute of National Memory (Den wrote about the arrest of the historian, Ruslan Zabily, followed by SBU search of the Lonsky Street Prison Museum, in its No. 167-168 issues on September 17, 2010.)
“I’m told that I refuse to recognize the Holodomor, yet I was the one to come up with the idea of declassifying all [KGB/SBU] archives relating to that period and transferring this information to the Institute of National Memory, so its historians could handle this data, having unimpeded access to the sources.” Yanukovych added, “I am against any attempts aimed at distorting history, just as I’m against any politicians trying to capitalize on such attempts.” In response to the accusations of putting an end to the freedom of expression in Ukraine, Yanukovych wrote that there would be a Public Television Channel, and that he would make every effort to have the regional elections held in a fair, transparent manner.
Needless to say, the reappearance of the Holodomor feature on the Ukrainian presidential website and Yanukovych’s message addressing the UCCA are positive signals. Yanukovych deserves every praise for this. It stands to logic, however, to wonder about what the SBU did in Lviv. We all remember Yanukovych’s statement in Strasbourg concerning the Holodomor. No one has refuted this statement. Also, we all of us know about the Communist Valerii Soldatenko being appointed as director of the Institute of National Memory, and his statement to the effect that the Holodomor wasn’t an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Another aspect (loath as this author is to mention it): the Holodomor feature on the Ukrainian president’s website and Yanukovych’s message to the UCCA emerged on the eve of his working visit to the US (September 21-24) and his speech during a plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly.
COMMENTARIES
Volodymyr FESENKO, political analyst, director of Kyiv’s Gorshenin Institute of Management Problems:
“These are tactical moves. In this particular case one finds no essential changes to the existing political course. The stand taken by Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions remains the same: recognition of the Holodomor as a tragedy that befell the Ukrainian people, but not as an act of genocide. His letter to the UCCA is meant to neutralize the critique in his address from the Ukrainian Diaspora. He wants a positive backdrop when meeting with the president of the United States. I think this visit envisages meetings with ethnic Ukrainians, and that these meetings are designed to demonstrate that Yanukovych is a [true] Ukrainian president. The Holodomor [website] and his letter [to the UCCA] are campaign stunts, rather than political moves.”
Vladyslav VERSTIUK, historian:
“There are two options. If our president really meant what he said on two occasions, concerning changes to our political memory, then I welcome them with all my heart. We remember our president’s statement concerning the Holodomor [made in Strasbourg]. That was a rash statement. Now he appears to be speaking as a genuine head of the Ukrainian state. I don’t know who helped him, but his statements were perfectly correct. However, if they were simply made in view of his visit to the United States, then any further comment would be difficult to formulate, for this would surpass all conceivable norms [of political ethics]. Viktor Yanukovych will show us which of these options he has chosen.”
Hanna Herman, deputy chairperson of the Presidential Administration, commented on the re-emergence of the Holodomor section on the presidential website: “We have reinstalled the Holodomor section, so that people can familiarize themselves with their country’s past experiences. However, this feature will no longer be updated because the subject has been sufficiently investigated.”
