The conflict that took place on Saturday, Oct. 15, in Kyiv during the celebration of the UPA’s 63 rd anniversary continued within the walls of parliament. The communist faction, in the person of Petro Tsybenko, demanded that President Yushchenko abandon any further attempts to rehabilitate the soldiers of the OUN and UPA. At the same time, the Ukrainian People’s Party (UNP), People’s Rukh of Ukraine, Our Ukraine, and the Reforms and Order factions are insisting on the need to recognize the soldiers of the OUN and UPA as combatants. Mykhailo Ratushny of the UNP spoke about this from the parliamentary rostrum. Both parliamentarians expressed their thoughts concerning the reasons behind the confrontations that took place on Oct. 15.
The Day offers several other views of this incident.
Until recently, Khreshchatyk Street and the Maidan were considered places where exclusively peaceful demonstrations and rallies take place. Even during the Ukrainian revolution no one succeeded in provoking any kind of forceful confrontation — until recently.
Everything changed during this year’s celebrations to mark the feast of Saint Mary the Protectress and to honor OUN and UPA veterans. In fact, even this time nothing serious would have happened had it not been for the provocations of progressive socialists, communists, and other marginal pro-Russian groups.
The “Battle of Khreshchatyk” became the logical continuation of the permanent provocations by political forces that did not reconcile themselves to their shattering defeat in the last elections, and which in the past several months have been looking for an excuse to “brandish their clenched fists” after the general battle. The fact that so-called “radical leftist organizations” were preparing for provocations could be understood even during the events connected with the transfer of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church from Lviv to Kyiv. Even then some leftist “revolutionaries” were openly hinting that they were ready for “decisive actions” in order to “suppress” any manifestations of Ukrainian nationalism in Kyiv. We saw what this looks like in practice on Oct. 15 in Kyiv.
The conflict on Khreshchatyk has another subtext, one that is directly linked to the “saga” of the state’s recognition of the OUN and UPA. That day the Ukrainian authorities had an opportunity to see what consequences would ensue from delaying the need to restore historical justice for the veterans of the national-liberation movement, particularly Ukrainian nationalists and insurgents, who fought for Ukrainian independence during WWII. Obviously, if the issue of recognizing the OUN and UPA were a “closed topic” today, the events of that day in the capital of Ukraine would not have occurred. Unfortunately, the current government is continuing past governmental practices and has set a course for engaging in talk rather than resolving the problem. Thus, on the eve of the feast of Saint Mary the Protectress, Deputy Prime Minister Viacheslav Kyrylenko presided over a meeting of the cabinet commission to study the activities of the OUN and UPA. According to the deputy prime minister’s press service, “the governmental commission approved the findings of a working group of historians from the Institute of History at the National Academy of Sciences, who were studying the activities of the OUN and UPA. This is the official historical finding that now serves as the basis for the official assessment of the OUN and UPA’s activities during the Second World War.”
According to Kyrylenko, “the governmental commission also approved a bill submitted by the Ministry of Labor and Social Policies, concerning amendments to the Law ‘On the Social Status of War Veterans and Guarantees of their Social Protection.’ This bill envisages granting appropriate social guarantees to UPA fighters, who fought for Ukraine’s freedom and independence in 1939-1956.”
The deputy prime minister also announced that “parliament will render a decision on the enactment of the bill; we have carried out our technological mission by offering certain official documents for consideration by the general public.”
On the face of it everything looks very optimistic. But anyone who has ever taken an interest in the problem of recognition for the OUN and UPA knows that a similar decision was made once before. In August 2000 the National Academy’s Institute of History published a booklet entitled Interim Report of the Working Group for the Preparation of a Historical Finding on the Activities of the OUN and UPA. Historical Finding on the Activities of the OUN and UPA. The “working group’s” verdict states unambiguously: “The UPA, like the Soviet Army, was a combatant in the conflict between the United Nations [sic] and the bloc of fascist states. There are no facts that would indicate the participation of the UPA as a military formation in the war against the United Nations, on the side of Germany.” At this same time a draft Law of Ukraine was developed “On the Restoration of Historical Justice in Regard to the Fighters for the Freedom and Independence of the Ukrainian State from 1939 to the mid-1950s of the XXth Century.” What happened to this draft law? Why was it lost in the corridors of power? As a final point, why does no one mention this today? Instead, work that was already done is being carried out. This must also be mentioned because this year’s provocation against OUN and UPA combatants was calculated primarily to undermine the authority of President Yushchenko, who this past May called for reconciliation between UPA and Red Army veterans. On the one hand, the action on Khreshchatyk has seriously damaged this idea, and on the other, it is supposed to become the pretext for a serious reconsideration of this idea, which is impossible to implement by ignoring the legal rights of one side, particularly the nationalists-veterans.
One of the first government dignitaries to respond to what happened on Khreshchatyk and Maidan was Volodymyr Lytvyn, the head of the Verkhovna Rada. Yet even he resorted to general and banal phrases, like “No political truth must be proved with the aid of blood.” In a nutshell, Lytvyn “tossed” the problem over to the government, implying ‘it has been dealing with it, so it should bring it to its logical conclusion.’
I am certain that the OUN and UPA veterans did not expect to hear such words from one of the political leaders of this state. But after all is said and done, they have grown tired of words, even though they have not lost their faith in Ukraine for whose independence they once fought.
I very much hope the conflict on Khreshchatyk will be the “UPA’s final battle.”
