[Ohio UZO News] Ukraine: WT; FT; WSJ; OD; KP; UW

[Deychak, Orest]

Here are some articles that have appeared since my last mailing on November 23:


The Washington Times


www.washingtontimes.com

November 30, 2009


Ukraine leader calls '30s famine Soviet genocide 


Natalia A. Feduschak THE WASHINGTON TIMES

KIEV 

Standing before a monument dedicated to the millions who perished from the Great Famine of the 1930s, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko marked the famine's anniversary with a fresh appeal for the world to recognize the tragedy as an act of genocide by then-Soviet leader Josef Stalin. 

The ongoing effort by Mr. Yushchenko to revive a history long suppressed by the Soviet Union, and still dismissed by many in Russia, could well define his presidency. 

"We did almost the impossible," the leader told a large crowd on Saturday gathered near the memorial on an overcast day. "We saved and returned to the people the truth about the Great Famine of 1932-33. We returned it from the abyss, from the precipice, from that which fails to return." 

Ukraine's Soviet-era archives, opened to the public by Mr. Yushchenko, has allowed historians to take a fresh look at the Holodomor, or death by hunger. It refers to the famine that killed between 3 million and 7 million Ukrainians, mostly from the country's central and eastern regions, in 1932 to '33. Some estimates of the toll run as high as 10 million. 

Mr. Yushchenko and scholars say Stalin ordered the famine as a way of breaking the Ukrainian people and its leadership. Both had serious disagreements with the Soviet leader over his collectivization policies and were unwilling to meet quotas that he had set for the agriculturally rich Ukraine. 

Using agricultural records as proof, historians have argued there was no reason why millions of people should have died of hunger in Ukraine during that time, because the country enjoyed bumper harvests those years. The only way to explain the deaths, they say, was if the famine was purposefully planned. 

Mr. Yushchenko earlier this year signed a decree opening up Ukraine's secret Soviet archives to scholars and journalists for study. 

Ukraine 3000, a nonprofit foundation that Mr. Yushchenko founded before becoming president, has sponsored books and a documentary film about the Holodomor. Mr. Yushchenko ensured the erection of the famine memorial, which resembles a candle, and accompanying underground museum in record time. 

Ukraine's parliament officially recognized the famine as genocide in 2006. Thirteen countries, including Canada, Poland and Australia, have followed suit. 

The United States had been reluctant to call the famine genocide -- a view that offends many Russians. 

However, earlier this month, President Obama said, "Ukrainians could have fed themselves and saved millions of lives, had they been allowed to do so. 

"As we remember this calamity, we pay respect to millions of victims who showed tremendous strength and courage. ... Remembering the victims of the man-made catastrophe of Holodomor provides us an opportunity to reflect upon the plight of all those who have suffered the consequences of extremism and tyranny around the world. We hope that the remembrance of Holodomor will help prevent such tragedy in the future," the president said in a statement. 

Mr. Yushchenko early on found an unwavering ally in his search for historic truth in Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, the director of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). As head of the service that is the successor to Ukraine's KGB, Mr. Nalyvaichenko has been a major force in ensuring that the archives, which fall under his domain, are declassified. 

Not only have archival personnel been especially helpful to scholars and journalists looking into the Holodomor, but the SBU has also opened several reading rooms across the country where individuals can gain access to archival documents, which are now being digitized. 

In addition, the SBU itself has been on a fact-finding mission, gathering information about alleged perpetrators of the famine in order to initiate court proceedings against those responsible, even though it is unlikely any are still living. 

Mr. Nalyvaichenko told Ukraine's Channel 5 news channel over the weekend that prosecutors from his service may be ready to send criminal cases to the courts by year's end. He said no statute of limitations exists on crimes against humanity. 

Critics have charged it is not the SBU's role to be probing into archives and bringing cases against people who have long been dead. In a recent interview with The Washington Times, however, Mr. Nalyvaichenko said bringing people to justice is an essential ingredient of democracy. 

"First you need the truth, and then you move forward with that," he said. 

During his televised address on Saturday, Mr. Yushchenko said a substantial amount of work has already been done that proves not only the massive scale of the Holodomor, but its criminality as well. The identities of 2 million who died during the famine have been restored, 14,000 affected villages in 18 regions have been identified and the locations of 3,577 mass graves have been determined, he said. 

"We have constituted concrete orders from the communist authorities, instructions and telegrams for murder," Mr. Yushchenko said. "They exist. Thankfully, the archives have not burned." 

Despite Mr. Yushchenko's demands that the doors to the famine be opened, his political future remains uncertain. He faces a tough re-election battle in January 2010. 

The once-popular president's ratings have plummeted, in part because of very public battles with former allies. Others have criticized Mr. Yushchenko for being too open with the past. 

Should he not win re-election, there is concern the president's efforts to address Ukraine's Soviet-era past may be rolled back. 

"We need to maximally ensure that there is no road back," said Volodymyr Viatrovych, who heads the SBU's archives. "We want to open all the documents of the totalitarian system." 

The Financial Times

www.ft.com

The west should not lose patience with Ukraine

By Oleh Rybachuk and Taras Chornovil

Published: November 23 2009 

Konrad Adenauer, the former German chancellor, said: “History is the sum total of things that could have been avoided.” It is an appropriate epigraph to what Ukraine has lived through since the Orange Revolution five years ago last weekend. 

There are different views on what happened, but it is clear there are no winners and losers. Ukraine has been united by common disillusionment. 

The bitter taste of frustration gave people some hope. Perhaps politicians are still not fully aware, but Ukrainians have become wiser and more mature. Upcoming presidential elections will no longer split the country: people understand they are regular occurrences and not an irreversible choice. 

No longer do people perceive political leaders as either godlike messiahs or synonyms for national disaster. Lower expectations and fears will enable us to vote using not only our emotions but our wisdom as well. Whoever becomes president will not be an icon, and people will try to use the institutions of civil society to force them to keep their pre-election promises. We are gradually returning to fundamental European principles for how politicians are elected and interract with the electorate. 

In the same way, presidential candidates know the emotional background of the previous election is unlikely to be repeated. Although they played the traditional blame games afterwards, they have also made more of an effort to persuade us which of them would be the best manager of the country. They may slip into populism, but their discussions of who is better at taking care of social standards or at fighting the financial crises will not split the country. Some will still hunger for absolute power, but we have learnt how to combat that.

There was no festive mood on the day of the anniversary last weekend, but the Orange Revolution has set the foundations of the country Ukraine must become. 

First there was the emergence of real political competition. No one has a monopoly on politics, business or mass media any more,and those in power cannot abuse the resources at hand. In the parliamentary campaigns of 2006 and 2007, the opposition gained the upper hand. The country is now in the middle of a presidential campaign and again the opposition looks set to win.

The most frequently mentioned result of what took place five years ago in Independence Square is the arrival of freedom of speech. It is now taken for granted by Ukrainians but it must be continuously guarded by civil society as something very precious and fragile.

Another achievement, which has been overshadowed by the global economic crises, was the long-awaited accession to the World Trade Organisation as well as noticeable progress in the European integration process. The latter gives Ukrainian businesses a chance to access the largest market in the world. 

To understand Ukraine one has to understand its history. There was no well-established democratic tradition and no time-tested checks and balances of government or political culture. There remains rocketing corruption, and the irresponsible ruling elite are not concentrating on the vital issues facing Ukraine, even as the world has fallen into one of its most severe financial crises. 

Increasingly, we hear from Europe and the US that they are “fed up with Ukraine”. But while one can be frustrated with individual Ukrainian politicians whom were often indulged by Europe and the US, one should not be disappointed with the country as a whole. 

Today Ukraine is more mature than it was five years ago. And any partial rejection of Ukraine by the democratic world, which is occasionally inspired by our partners in Russia, may become an unfair and very dangerous blow in this complicated period. 

Today it is important to give Ukraine clear conditions for EU membership, using small, specific steps such as action plans and supervision. Deepening integration will follow. One priority must be to build a transparent energy security system which involves Ukraine, Russia and Europe.

Ukraine is on the eve of its presidential elections. There is a strong feeling that it does not matter who wins, but how the position will be influenced, monitored and controlled by the Ukrainian people. The country needs a more responsible citizenry to make the political elite more responsible.

Oleh Rybachuk was the chief of staff to President Victor Yushchenko in 2005. Taras Chornovil was the chief of Victor Yanukovych’s presidential campaign in 2004


The Wall Street Journal 


http://online.wsj.com


Opinion Europe

November 23, 2009


Ukraine: A Democracy at Risk 


Those longing for strong-armed rule may outnumber those who want to preserve their imperfect democracy.


By MYROSLAVA GONGADZE <http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=MYROSLAVA+GONGADZE&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>  


Five years ago this month, an orange sea of Ukrainians flooded the streets of Kiev. Protesting the attempt of then-President Leonid Kuchmas' administrative machine to falsify election results, they demanded the right to choose their country's leader. They demonstrated to the world their desire for freedom, justice, and democracy. They brought new leadership to power but it failed to deliver most of the promises given to the people on the frozen Maidan. Disillusioned and discouraged, Ukrainians are coming to the polls once again this January. And now, those longing for strong-armed rule may well outnumber those who want to preserve their imperfect democracy. It's time for the West to take note.

Over the past five years, the people's desire to see political leaders held accountable for their wrongdoings remains unfulfilled. The promise of justice, which became the mantra of the Orange Revolution, was betrayed in its aftermath. Most of the crimes of Mr. Kuchma's regime remain unpunished, while many of their alleged instigators still enjoy privileged status and material comfort. Some even received awards or promotions from the new authorities. Moreover, Ukraine's current rulers retain immunity from prosecution and engage in corrupt activities with the same sense of impunity as their predecessors. According to a 2009 Transparency International report, Ukraine's corruption level remains on par with Russia, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe, showing no improvement since 2004. 

Unrealized reforms and widespread corruption have had a major corrosive effect on the Ukrainian public. According to the last poll by the Pew Research Center, over two-thirds of Ukrainians believe that only a leader with a strong hand can solve the country's problems. By contrast, jonly one in five Ukrainians thinks that democracy is an answer. Even though disappointment with democracy and capitalism shows in most of the countries of the former Soviet bloc, Ukraine still stands out. Only a third of Ukrainians approve of the country moving from a state-controlled to a market economy, and a change to multiparty democracy. 

From a once promising democratic leader in the region, Ukraine has transformed into an example of disenchantment for the democratic and civil society activists in neighboring countries. Belarusian activists and Russian opposition can no longer show their followers that effective public protest can bring genuine changes to the country. 

Responding to public demand and pursuing their own agenda, the front runners in the 2010 Ukrainian election are promising to restore Putin-style vertical power with centralized political control. Moreover, they lack transparency in decision making and possess a weak commitment to fighting corruption especially in their close circles. They hide their true personal wealth and publicize dubious income declarations that have become the target of many investigative reports. 

Day-by-day it is becoming harder for Ukrainian journalists to do their job. Even before the election campaign started, a Ukrainian court barred criticism of one presidential candidate, current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko The ruling was later revoked after a major outcry from civil society groups. Still, TV reports are not covering the sharpest criticism of the front runners. The main achievement of the Orange Revolution, freedom of the press, is now in danger. Having once managed to reclaim their rights and freedoms in front of the world, Ukrainians risk losing it all over again.

The EU and other democratic nations need urgently to develop a clear constructive and principled policy with regard to Ukraine. Their calls for free and fair elections today will not have much of an effect on the Ukrainian authorities without a real commitment to hold them to their word. Whoever will become the next president of Ukraine needs to be watched closely, and they should get that message now. Another honeymoon with a Ukrainian leader, if similar to the one with Mr. Kuchma in 2000 and with Victor Yushchenko in 2005, could lead to the complete collapse of Ukraine's fledgling democracy. 

If the next leaders of Ukraine prove unwilling or unable to bring about change for the country, and instead continue down the path toward their authoritarian past, the only solution for the west will be to focus on the growing civil society and support new emerging leaders. This, at least, will guarantee that the few gains of the Orange Revolution will not be reversed. And even if Ukrainians lose their way today, the basic democratic reforms they have earned will ensure that their destiny will still remain in their own hands.

Ms. Gongadze is a Ukrainian journalist and human rights activist, and the widow of slain Ukrainian journalist Georgy Gongadze. 

openDemocracy.net

17 November 2009

Treat Ukraine as a European Democracy

William Courtney and Denis Corboy <http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/william-courtney-and-denis-corboy> 

 Ukraine faces considerable economic challenges, but democracy is becoming stronger. The upcoming presidential elections could, however, result in more authoritarian politics, which would lessen Western support and increase its vulnerability to Russian coercion. Ukrainian ties with EU and America are vital, warn William Courtney and Denis Corboy 

Presidential elections

 As Ukraine advances to likely free and fair Presidential elections in early 2010, it is becoming a stronger democracy and further escaping Russia’s trajectory.  Ukraine should be treated as a European democracy.  How the EU treats populous and strategically-located Ukraine is important to the future of Europe.  This reality must be faced, not mishandled as in the case of Turkey.

 Democratic development in Ukraine is gradual but steady.  Ukraine is reinforcing a recent record of free and fair elections and allowing open debate.  TV networks are more open to opposing views than, for example, those in Russia or Italy.

 The main candidates for president are running as centrists, not as pro-Russian or pro-Western extremists.  Five years ago Moscow endorsed Viktor Yanukovich, a kiss of death in parts of Ukraine.  He lost an election after the peaceful Orange revolution.  Now Yanukovich touts nonalignment and trade with Europe.  Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko occupies centre ground between Yanukovich and the vocally pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko.  Yanukovich and Tymoshenko will likely be the top vote-getters in January’s elections and face each other in a February run-off.

Despite leadership squabbling and frequent central governmental gridlock, Ukraine remains politically stable and socially tolerant.  Although Yushchenko has approval ratings well under 10%, Ukrainians are patiently waiting and preparing for scheduled presidential elections.  A comparably unpopular leader in Russia might have confronted a palace coup, as did Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.  Or in Georgia, faced peaceful street demonstrations and been forced to resign early, as did President Eduard Shevardnadze in 2003.

 Economic challenges

Beyond recovering from the severe downturn, Ukraine faces major economic challenges.  Agricultural land, the richest black earth region on the continent, is not yet fully privatized.  Domestic energy prices are far below international levels, incentivizing huge waste.  Stifling corruption is an economic deadweight.  In the 2009 Transparency International index of corruption perceptions -- in which 1 is “not corrupt” and 5, “extremely corrupt” -- Ukraine registers 4.3, higher than, for example, Russia’s 3.9 or Italy’s 3.7. 

Nonetheless, Ukraine has a basis for progress.  As Anders Aslund points out in his insightful new book, How Ukraine Became a Market Economy and Democracy, Ukrainian prices and trade are mostly free.  From 2000 to 2007 GDP in current dollars grew by an average of 24% per year.  This surge owed largely to private enterprise, which accounts for over three-fifths of output.

Ukraine's urgent need is to restrain government spending in return for more IMF support to help it recover from the downturn.  Unfortunately, the parliament recently passed and President Yushchenko signed a fiscally irresponsible bill mandating increases in minimum wages and pensions.  This step puts at risk the next tranche of a much-needed IMF loan for Ukraine. 

Democratic transition

Ukraine’s democratic transition will face continued pressure.  A recent 14-nation survey of Central and Eastern European countries by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project found that Ukraine was the only country where more respondents disapproved than approved of the transition to a multiparty system and market economy.  In 1991 72% of Ukrainians approved of the change to democracy, whereas only 30% now approve. 

Thus, the presidential election may be a vital inflexion point for Ukraine’s future.  If the next president and parliament cooperate to accelerate reform, Ukraine will become a stronger democracy and an engine of sustained economic growth.  If not, Ukraine could succumb to authoritarian politics.  This would make the diverse country more unstable and leave it twisting in the wind with less Western support and more vulnerable to Russian coercion. 

Ukrainians are divided about joining NATO but united in wanting to be Europeans.  The industrialized east has nearly ten million ethnic Russians but they have never voted to secede or join with Russia.  Most have family ties there but seem to prefer a freer Ukraine.

Ukraine is developing a promising regional support network.  It sold weapons to Georgia when Russia threatened.  Ukraine has become the unofficial leader of six countries negotiating with the EU on its Eastern Partnership.  The others are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova.

Ukraine is widening the democracy gap with Russia.  It is also outpacing Georgia, to which it has been linked as a reforming once-Soviet country.  Backsliding on media freedom and arbitrary executive power in Georgia should cause NATO and the EU to decouple the two countries in consideration for membership.

NATO and the EU

What does treating Ukraine as a European democracy mean in practice?

First, the EU ought to offer Ukraine a credible roadmap for eventual admission and complete promising negotiations on a meaningful free trade pact under the Association agreement.  Not giving Ukraine a clear message for the future destabilizes its internal politics.  In two decades its economy may be one of the largest in the EU, which is Ukraine's largest trading partner and donor.

Second, NATO should make clear that Ukraine is nearly ready for admission and can join when it develops a national consensus for this.  Ukraine’s military is substantially reformed and already contributes to NATO.

Third, anxieties over Crimea should not impede Ukraine’s entry into NATO or the EU.  The Kremlin has artificially inflamed two situations there -- the future of the Black Sea Fleet, based at Sevastopol, and disquiet of the majority ethnic Russian population.  President Yushchenko’s demand that the Fleet depart when its lease is up in 2017 has not helped.  The next president should seek a practical solution to the Fleet, some of which is decaying or will relocate eastward.  Crimea is not Abkhazia.  Kyiv has taken key steps to tolerance in Crimea and should do more.  U.S. and European embassies in Kyiv ought to bolster this outreach by opening consulates in Crimea.

Fourth, Europe and America should encourage the new president and parliament to accelerate reform, especially decentralization of power.  The only way Ukraine can become fully European is through comprehensive reform, however politically painful are the decisions required for this.  Ukraine’s ties with Europe and America are a vital anchor to bolster confidence for such decision-making.

William Courtney was US ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia, and Senior Director of the US National Security Council staff for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia.  Denis Corboy is director of the Caucasus Policy Institute at Kings College London and was European Commission ambassador to Georgia and Armenia. 

 Kyiv Post

www.kyipost.com

Ukrainians took to the streets as never before during the 2004 Orange Revolution to protest the attempted rigging of the presidential election on behalf of Victor Yanukovych, the choice of ex-President Leonid Kuchma and Kremlin leaders. 

Election fraud in 2004 was extensive, flagrant

November 26  Orest Deychakiwsky 

Orest Deychakiwsky recalls what Ukraine’s Orange Revolution days were like, and what was at stake. 

For the fifth anniversary of the Orange Revolution, I thought I’d share remarks delivered at a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty forum in Washington, D.C., just a few days after returning from Ukraine as an election observer for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe after the infamous Nov. 21, 2004 presidential elections.

My colleague Ron McNamara and I observed in Kirovohrad, one of the worst places with respect to election fraud. Afterwards, we drove back to Kyiv, where we witnessed thousands upon thousands of people wearing orange streaming into the center of the city. Irrespective of how one might assess the aftermath of the Orange Revolution five years later, it was an inspiring, exciting, historic moment. I hope these remarks – made in more or less “real time” -- capture a small slice of that dramatic period in Ukraine’s history. And let’s hope that the promise of the Orange Revolution someday realizes its potential.

Here were my remarks five years ago:

The bottom line is that the elections were stolen. The independent and respected Committee for Voters of Ukraine asserted that at least 2.8 million ballots were rigged in favor of Victor Yanukovych, the then prime minister. Violations were too numerous to enumerate.

They were extensive and they were flagrant, and what happened in Donetsk in terms of “getting out the vote””and the positive vote for the “right” candidate was reminiscent of the electoral zealotry of Soviet times. My colleague from the commission, Ron McNamara, and I were in Kirovohrad -- on the dividing line between the northern and western oblasts that voted for Victor Yushchenko and the eastern and southern regions that went for Yanukovych.

On election day and night [on Nov. 21], we were in the infamous territorial electoral commission (TEC 100), where problems were legion during the first round on Oct. 31. Unfortunately, we weren’t disappointed. While at some polling stations, the voting process was orderly and normal, at others it was highly problematic. Pro-Yushchenko polling station commissioners had been thrown off the commissions, but many were pushing back. The local court was crowded with those dismissed seeking reinstatement. We hurried to the court where we spoke with people, some crying, who recounted their frustration and disbelief at this injustice. (We heard from some of them, as from so many others in Ukraine: “We just want to live in an honest, decent country.”) We met with some of the judges who were reinstating these people as polling commission members, clearly displaying courage in doing so, given the possible consequences.

These mass expulsions contributed to an air of confusion throughout the afternoon of the election day, and into the night. Some polling station chairmen were not allowing polling station commissioners back on even after they had been reinstated. In one case, we accompanied a woman whose case my colleague McNamara had heard back to her polling station, where the reception towards her was cold. I strongly suspect the only reason they let her back in was because there were international observers present.

Another polling station we observed had only opened up at 4:10 pm, as eight out of the 18 members of the polling station commission simply failed to show up to open the station in the morning, thus potentially disenfranchising hundreds of student voters at the technical university. The other polling station workers finally had to break into the safe in order to obtain the ballot papers and other materials so that the voters -- mostly students -- could exercise their right to vote.

At the count we attended, a pro-Yushchenko observer was forced to leave right before the count commenced. I spoke with this woman and it became clear that the reasons for her being thrown out were specious at best. Others had been thrown out earlier in the week. Despite this, the counting process seemed to go relatively smoothly, and Yushchenko emerged victorious with 1,221 votes to Yanukovych’s 725. Or so we thought...

After our return to Kyiv the next day, we learned that the territorial election commission had reported that in that particular precinct, Yanukovych “won” by 1,670 to Yushchenko’s 276. A reversal of the count, with a vengeance! At the polling station where my colleague McNamara observed the count neaby in Kirovohrad and where Yushchenko won by nearly a three to one margin, there were 312 unmarked ballots missing, which meant that the results were not accepted. And this is just the tip of the iceberg in Kirovohrad alone.

Group voting with the notorious absentee ballots, organized by state-owned and some private companies, was one of the major violations that significantly altered the results (nearly 5 percent, according to OSCE), or, something which has gotten less attention, the high numbers of people who participated in mobile voting (i.e. voting at their homes or hospitals), which is ripe for fraud, in certain oblasts compared to the first round. And, of course, there was pressure on state employees to produce the right results or vote the right way.

In the east, voter turnout in the second round increased by 9 percent. For example, in Donetsk oblast there was 96.65 percent turnout compared to 78 in the first round (and 96 percent voting for Yanukovych). But in western Ukraine, the turnout grew only by 1.5 percent. In some precincts in Donetsk, turnout reportedly exceeded 100 percent. This meant major ballot box stuffing, a widespread technique in communist times in order to reach very high voter turnout.

We had seen the pictures of masses of people on the Maidan and on Khreshchatyk, gathered in support of Yushchenko, braving the freezing cold and snow. My colleague McNamara and I were on the Maidan on the night of Monday, Nov. 22 and the morning of Tuesday, Nov. 23. The mood was one of determination, yet there was an element of festivity, optimism and ebullience, which by all accounts has remained as hundreds of thousands more have poured in from all over Ukraine.

Witnessing this massive expression of support for democracy was deeply inspiring. There appeared to be virtually no overt police presence in the center of Kyiv. The rally was peaceful, orderly, and remarkably well organized. The organizers were appealing to the crowds to only listen to instructions from them on what and how to proceed, and not to give in to any provocations.

The countless numbers of protestors in Kyiv and across Ukraine were the front lines in the struggle for democracy, human dignity, respect for the will of the people and against a return to the past. They were on the front lines in the struggle against any return to Ukraine’s colonial past. They were struggling for freedom and, in a very real sense, true independence.

Orest Deychakiwsky made these remarks at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 30, 2004.

 

The Ukrainian Weekly

www.ukrainianweekly.com

 

Stalin and the D-Day Memorial by Roma Hadzewycz, 

Editor in Chief

The Ukrainian Weekly & Svoboda

Editorial 11/29

The Holodomor and D-Day

While the Ukrainian community worldwide was marking the solemn 76th anniversary of the Holodomor – the Famine-Genocide of 1932-1933 in which millions of our kinsmen were murdered – we heard news that the National D-Day Memorial Foundation plans to erect a bust of Joseph Stalin, Soviet dictator from 1928 to 1953 and mastermind of the Holodomor, at the D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Va. The bust will be the fourth in a series that includes Allied leaders – busts of Winston Churchill, Harry Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt are already on display at the memorial — all of whom opposed Nazi Germany during World War II.

Stalin is, without a doubt, the greatest mass murderer of modern times. He is responsible for the deaths of millions in the Holodomor, the executions and persecution of millions during the Great Terror, and the imprisonment, torture and deaths of millions in the Soviet gulag. That he was a situational ally of the United States during World War II – and he was an ally of Hitler before he became his enemy – does not excuse a decision to honor him at the National D-Day Memorial, a venue that Dr. William McIntosh, president of the National D-Day Memorial Foundation, calls “a sacred place.” 

 Dr. McIntosh argues that Stalin was crucial to the Allies’ success on D-Day. “No one was naive, Churchill, Roosevelt, that Stalin was going to be a friend; this was a temporary arrangement,” Dr. McIntosh told Virginia’s ABC 13 News. “He’s a vital part of the story, not a nice part of the story, but one of the jobs of the foundation is to preserve the lessons and legacies of D-Day.” Presumably, among those legacies is the Soviets’ decades-long subjugation of nations in Eastern Europe, the erection of the Iron Curtain and the launch of the Cold War, also the work of U.S. ally Stalin, or “Uncle Joe” as some liked to call him.

The Stalin statue has already received funding via a private donation from an individual, according to Dr. McIntosh, who would not name the donor. The memorial’s intent, he claims, is not to portray Stalin as a hero, but rather as an ally who played a part in the timing and unfolding of D-Day. In a story published by The News and Advance of Lynchburg, Va., that is reproduced on the dday.org website, Dr. McIntosh says, “He certainly was a fact of life and a major ally during the second world war … there’s nothing about the presentation that’s going to be flattering of Stalin.”

Flattering or not, a statue of Stalin at the National D-Day Memorial is an outrage. The memorial foundation’s plan to erect the statue demeans Stalin’s victims and dishonors the true heroes of World War II. (Interestingly, a reader poll on ABC 13’s website, where 1,623 votes were cast as of the writing of this editorial, reports that 78 percent of respondents said “no” to the question “Is it fitting to have a bust of Joseph Stalin at the National D-Day Memorial?”; 22 percent said “yes.”)

We cannot let this travesty go unchallenged. We must halt this ill-conceived and unfathomable tribute to Stalin. It is imperative that we all write to: National D-Day Memorial Foundation,
P.O. Box 77,
Bedford, VA 24523; e-mail dday at dday.org; fax 540-586-7200; and call    540-586-3329    or 800-351-DDAY (toll-free). 

Furthermore, since the D-Day Memorial is struggling financially and looking to the U.S. government to declare it a national monument under the aegis of the National Park Service, and thereby eligible for federal funding, we must get members of the House of Representatives and Senate, as well as President Barack Obama to take a stand against putting Stalin on a pedestal at a U.S. memorial.

President Obama’s statement on Ukrainian Holodomor Remembrance Day (published in last week’s issue) noted: “Seventy-six years ago, millions of innocent Ukrainians – men, women and children – starved to death as a result of the deliberate policies of the regime of Joseph Stalin.” 

Could it be that, 76 years after the murder of up to 10 million during the Holodomor, Stalin will be honored – HONORED – at a memorial just outside the U.S. capital? Inconceivable!

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 39470 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://clevelanduzo.org/pipermail/uzonews_clevelanduzo.org/attachments/20091130/fb1a248b/attachment.bin>