Most of the deliberations at annual general meeting of the Ukrainian World Congress, held for the first time in its 43 year history outside of North America or Ukraine in Peremyshyl (Przemysl), Poland, from Aug. 22-23, focussed on relations with Ukraine, particularly on how to deal with the new government and executive led by President Viktor Yanukovych.
What sparked this was the memorandum presented Yanukovych by WCU President Eugene Czolij and General Secretary Stefan Romaniw in which they outlined some of the major concerns the diaspora has with recent developments in Ukraine during their meeting with him on June 21. Yanukovych promised a reply, but as of two months it had not been forthcoming.
Four days after the congress, and three days after a Ukrainian-language story headlined “Diaspora won’t boycott Yanukovych. For now…”, appeared on the web site of Radio Svoboda (Radio Liberty), the UWC received a letter from an assistant to Anna Hermann, Head of the Presidential Administration, dated Aug. 2, stating the memorandum had been referred to the Cabinet of Ministers, to which Czolij sent a subsequent letter asking when can the UWC expect a reply? (See page 2)
While there were voices raised during the UWC’s congress calling for a boycott of the Yanukovych regime, this was rejected. Instead there were proposals to increase cooperation with community organizations and, in those countries where sizeable Ukrainian communities exist, to start bringing attention to the attention of their elected representative, such issues as the erosion of democracy and freedom of expression in Ukraine. Canadian representatives, in particular pointed to the need for such pro-active measures. Other countries have begun doing so. During Yanukovych’s visit to Berlin on Aug. 30, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the issue of freedom the press. During her visit to Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton pressed Yanukovych on his commitment to democracy. Less than a week after two powerful pro-democracy institutes from the U.S. criticized Yanukovych for approving the legislation for “restricting” political competition, he called a special session of parliament to loosen some of the restrictions that govern the Oct. 31 local elections. Canada is currently engaged in free trade negotiations with Ukraine. These can be used as leverage to pressure Yanukovych into maintaining democratic rights.
A debate similar to that which took place at the UWC, can be expected at the XXIII Triennial Convention of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress to be held Nov. 5 – 7 in Edmonton – the first such gathering outside Winnipeg.
While we certainly agree that a dialogue with the government should be maintained and a “boycott” would be counterproductive, we also think that our relations with Ukraine should be re-examined. The emphasis on increased cooperation with community groups is valid. When we support projects in Ukraine, we should support projects that actually help the people of Ukraine and promote democratic and moral values. For example, support for such humanitarian projects like those helping orphans (Children of Chornobyl), providing safe houses to prevent human trafficking (both Bridge of Hope and Maple Leaf), are very worthwhile. So are educational projects especially for those institutions which help promote western democratic values like the Ukrainian Catholic University, the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and Grant MacEwan’s business school in Kyiv. What we should stop doing is raising money for state-sponsored projects or subsidizing employees of the state.
The UCC will be issuing a public memorandum on how to deal with the new Ukraine in the near future. It is something we should study carefully and discuss thoroughly. While we certainly do not want to close the door on any future cooperation, we have to be a lot more selective in what we do and what we don’t want to support.
