THE UKRAINIAN REVIEW a Quarterly Journal Devoted to the Study of Ukraine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T he U krainian R eview A quarterly journal devoted to the study of Ukraine Spring, 1991 THE UKRAINIAN REVIEW A Quarterly Journal devoted to the study of Ukraine EDITORIAL BOARD Slava Stetsko Roman Zwarycz Editor Associate Editor Prof. Nicholas L. Fr.-Chirovsky Borys Potapenko Assistant Editor Associate Editor Prof. Lev Shankovsky Dr. Oleh S. Romanyshyn Assistant Editor Associate Editor Prof. Volodymyr Zarycky Stephen Oleskiw Assistant Editor Associate Editor Price: £5.00 or $10.00 a single copy, Annual Subscription: £20.00 or $40.00 Editorial correspondence should be sent to: The Editors, “The Ukrainian Review”, 200 Liverpool Road, London, N1 ILF. Subscriptions should be sent to: “The Ukrainian Review” (Administration), d o Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, Ltd., 49 Linden Gardens, London, W2 4HG. Overseas representatives: USA: Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc., 136 Second Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003. Canada: Ucrainica Research Institute, 83-85 Christie Street, Toronto,Ont. M6G 3B1. Printed in Great Britain by the Ukrainian Publishers Limited 200 Liverpool Road, London, N1 ILF. Tel.: 071-607-626617 T h e U k r a in ia n R eview Vol. XXXIX, No. 1 A Quarterly Journal Spring, 1991 C o n t e n t s Editorial: D emocratic Referendum — or Imperialist H oax? 2 1990 in U kraine: The Empire Strikes B ack Eugene Kachmarsky 3 Q uo Vadis; The D ialectics of Liberation Politics in the Soviet U n i o n ...................................................... Roman Zwarycz 10 U kraine and The U nion Treaties of 1920 and 1922 Yaroslav Dashkevych 19 England, Russia and the U krainian Question D uring the Great N orthern War (Part 1 ). Theodore Mackiw 26 NEWS FROM UK RAINE..................................................................35 DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS..................................................... 80 Published by The Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain Ltd. Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine Inc. (U.S.A.) Ucrainica Research Institute (Canada) ISSN 0041-6029 ED ITO R IA L Democratic Referendum — or Imperialist Hoax? The right of every nation to independence, sovereignty and statehood cannot be denied, particularly in this contemporary historical period in the development of humankind, which has oftentimes been characterised as the “age of decolonisation”. This right was one of the cornerstones upon which US President Woodrow Wilson laid the foundation for a “new world order” in his Fourteen Points. It has been “guaranteed” in a series of binding international documents and agreements, most prominent among which is the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960. The level of respect and active adherence accorded to this right of all peoples to national independence has been one of the critical benchmarks by which a nation-state’s behaviour is judged and measured in the international community. A nation, or a people, which has been colonised, i.e., forcibly annexed, within an imperialist structure, can never genuinely express its national will. With regard to the USSR, the entire Soviet political and legal system in the so-called “Soviet republics” has fundamentally been a colonial device, the primary purpose of which was two-fold: a) to establish a legal basis for the legitimacy of an ostensibly “democratic and federated” Soviet state, through which a colonial policy of subjugation could be further reinforced under the legal auspices of maintaining “law and order”; b) to create and promote the illusion of “lawfulness” and of the “rule of law” before the world, and to, thereby, obscure the inherent lawlessness and illegitimacy of the Soviet Russian imperialist infrastructure. Imperialism, in all its forms, precludes democracy. There can be no basis for genuine citizenship in a colony, in which each individual is alienated from a forcibly-imposed political and pseudo-legal system that is buttressed by brute military force, and disenfranchised from participating in real, genuinely democratic processes. Democracy can never develop within the constricting, politically asphyxiating conditions of colonial subjugatio r. A colonised nation is comprised only of serfs without any rights, since the fundamental prerequisite for such human rights and individual liberties is completely lacking: an independent and sovereign nation-state. On March 17, 1991, a referendum will be held throughout the USSR on the draft proposal of a new union treaty, which purports to allocate greater “sovereign” powers to the “republics”. In Ukraine and the other subjugated nations, this referendum is being presented as an opportunity for “Soviet citizens” to manifest their will in a popular, mass expression of “self- determination”. Regardless of the results of this deceptive colonial referendum, under no circumstances can it become an acceptable vehicle for the expression of the genuine will of the subjugated peoples. Under conditions of military occupation, continuing state-sponsored terror, political, cultural and religious repression, and colonial lawlessness, any and all political, legal and/or constitutional procedures cannot be regarded as valid, since there are absolutely no grounds for Soviet — or more precisely — Soviet Russian colonial legitimacy and legality. How can a colonised nation truly, fully and freely express its will within the parameters of a political process that has been initiated, sanctioned and “legitimated” by the very same illegitimate system of repression and lawlessness, within which this nation is denied its fundamental right to independence, and within which every individual is treated as a politically disenfranchised serf? Simply put — this referendum is completely non-binding on the Ukrainian people, regardless of how Moscow decides to manipulate and present its results. 3 1990 in Ukraine: The Empire Strikes Back By Eugene Kachmarsky With the dawning of 1991, yet another year has passed and, in Ukraine, high hopes turned to great disappointments and harsh, brutal realisations. Revival The new year in Ukraine was rung in with a sense of long-awaited jubilation. Glasnost was allowing Ukrainians to release the anger building up from over seventy years of repression. Perestroika was promising to rebuild the political and economic systems and usher in a democratic polity and a better life. Ukrainians, at least massively in western Ukraine and on a smaller scale in the eastern half, openly celebrated Christmas in the traditional Ukrainian way — with religious services, carolling and public vertepy (dramatisations of Christmas themes). The events of the months preceding 1990 saw increased nationalist activity go unpunished by Soviet authorities and this caused the latent nationalist spirit in Ukraine to reawaken, bringing with it great expectations for the year to come. Following the Christmas season, the first popular manifestation of this rebirth on a wide scale was the commemoration of the 22 January 1918 Declaration of an Independent Ukrainian State. The public meetings to mark the date held in various cities throughout Ukraine served to emphasise the point that the nationalist rebirth was not an isolated outburst, but a nation-wide phenomenon. Nothing better underscored this than the human chain which was formed in Kyiv, passed through Zhytomyr, Rivne, Temopil, and was finally completed in Lviv, a distance of over 500 km. Although the chain remained intact for only one hour, the very fact of its completion and the massive turnout it inspired demonstrated to Ukrainians, to Soviet authorities and to the world, that the Ukrainian people stood united in their desire for an independent state. The human chain became the symbol of this unity. Perhaps most indicative of the popular distaste for the Communist Party and its rule was a demonstration to commemorate the anniversary in Donetsk. The party proposed a counter-demonstration on the same day, and pleaded with the people of Donetsk to rally around the red flag of the USSR. The people, however, crossed to the other side of the square where the blue-and-yellow Ukrainian national flag stood. This act is especially significant when considering the fact that due to several hundred years of direct Russification, eastern Ukraine was thought to have been lost to the nationalist cause. The people of Donetsk and elsewhere proved this an erroneous assumption. The early months of 1990 prior to the 4 March elections witnessed the continuation of the national rebirth in all spheres of public and even private life. 4 THE UKRAINIAN REVIEW Publicly, the time preceding the elections saw the creation of various political parties and organisations, youth and student groups, cultural and religious organisations, all of which had a strictly Ukrainian character and supported the concept of Ukrainian independence, autonomy and freedom of choice in all affairs. Thus, groups such as Rukh (which existed in the pre-1990 months), the Ukrainian Language Society, the Ukrainian Helsinki Union (later reorganised into the Ukrainian Republican Party), the Ukrainian Christian-Democratic Front, the Memorial Society, the Lev Society, and the Union of Independent Ukrainian Youth became more and more open in their activities and prominent in public Ukrainian life. The proliferation of such organisations and the wide scale support they received from the general populace was evidence that Ukrainians wanted to live in a state where for once they could be proud of their national character and their