We’ll talk about the social policy of the new government of Ukraine with the candidate of historical sciences Volodymyr Viatrovych, the former director of the Sectoral State Archive at the Security Service of Ukraine.
“I’d call it retrograde and absolutely non-constructive. The fact is that when the current government was in the opposition, it constantly criticized ‘the orange ones’ for their excessive emphasis on social policy. And now we see that the social sphere receives no less attention than under the previous government. But the difference is that the present government isn’t doing anything new, on the contrary – its destroying the achievements of the previous years. For example, let’s take the recent statements of the minister of education and science Dmytro Tabachnyk, that new history books will mention Bandera and Shukhevych as NAZI-collaborators and criminals, Stalin as a participant of the common victory, and the Holodomor as an accident. I want to ask the minister, and at the same time doctor of historical sciences, what is new in these concepts? These concepts are well known – this is the Soviet history of the 1960s-1980s. That is today we return not just to patterns dating back a few years ago, but to Soviet patterns.”
President Viktor Yanukovych officially stated (in Ukraine and Europe) that the Holodomor of 1932-33 was not the genocide of the Ukrainian nation. At the same time, already the sixth jurisdiction of Canada – Quebec (and Canada as a whole yet in 2008) recognized the Holodomor as genocide. What does it mean?
“It seems to me that, on the one hand, the current government doesn’t fully understand the significance of the Holodomor in the history of Ukraine, and, on the other hand – it doesn’t understand the importance of bringing this truth to the world. This concerned not just Viktor Yushchenko, but a few generations of Ukrainians who fought for the truth despite Stalin’s repressions and Khrushchev’s and Brezhnev’s concealment policies. The tragedy of 1932-33 always united Ukrainians around the world, regardless of where they lived. When the Ukrainian state became independent, this work was intensified considerably; it became one of elements of foreign policy. At present, several dozens of parliaments around the world already recognized the tragedy of the Holodomor – this is a big achievement for Ukrainian diplomacy. Therefore the current statements of the government are bad for the Ukrainian state as a whole. For example, what are the parliaments of the countries which recognized the Holodomor as genocide supposed to do today? Shall they change their position? Obviously not. Since these countries approached the problem of the Holodomor very seriously, relying on scientific research and generally understanding the meaning of this tragedy, unlike our current Ukrainian officials.
“Our government should understand that regardless of who won the elections, there are some basic values which can’t be revised under any circumstances. The Holodomor is among such values. The national interests shouldn’t suffer because of the government’s face change. By the way, Viktor Yanukovych, while being a candidate for presidency, positioned himself as a person who would unite East and West. So far he is doing the opposite, revising the basic values of the Ukrainian state.”
Poland obtained the acknowledgement of the Katyn tragedy from Russia: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin knelt, President Medvedev recognized the crimes of Stalin, and Russian television channels aired the movie by Andrzej
Wajda Katyn. Why doesn’t it work for Ukraine in regards to the Holodomor?
“One should understand that the Polish society and state for twenty years unanimously defended their positions regarding Katyn and demanded, first from the Soviet and then from the Russian government, the complete recognition of this crime. Regardless of who won the elections in Poland – the left or the right, they all realized that this was the tragedy which should be investigated. Unfortunately, our politicians don’t have a single position regarding the Holodomor.
“Concerning the movie, as a historian who likes historical movies, I liked it. It’s very strong emotionally. We can envy Polish colleagues that they managed to create such a movie, and regret that for these five years, despite some success in popularizing the truth about the Holodomor (there are documentaries, for example, Serhii Bukovsky’s movie Zhyvi (The Living)), we failed to shoot a feature film. Except for Holod-33 (The Famine-33) by Oles Yanchuk, there is still no creative or artistic approach to this tragedy in Ukraine, unfortunately.”
Taking the post of the director of the Sectoral State Archive at the Security Service of Ukraine, you did a lot for Ukrainians to have an opportunity to know the historical truth. Is the work on declassifying archives undertaken today?
“The fact is that when we came to the SBU, other people and I personally set ourselves the objective of declassifying the documents. The archive seemingly continues its activity, but there is no any initiative in revealing certain pages of Ukraine’s history. A lot many things, which are done in the archive today, are a kind of inertia of what we already worked on before. And it’s good, since as soon as the current government came, they stated right away that declassifying archives would be discontinued. After this there was a rather harsh reaction of society, in particular, an appeal to the state authorities and the SBU. As a result, the process of accessing documents wasn’t fully closed. However, unfortunately, the situation today is unclear. On the one hand, the legislation supports the society, it speaks about the necessity of declassifying the documents, on the other hand – there is the specific position of the SBU not to declassify the documents. Therefore, using the opportunity, I appeal to society to continue addressing the archives and demanding declassification – this will prevent the government from ‘tightening screws.’”
What is your evaluation of the recent agreement on the cooperation between the Ukrainian SBU and the Russian FSB? Do you think social issues were discussed?
“I think no. The fact is that a year ago the SBU addressed the FSB with the initiative to sign a separate agreement on cooperation in the archival sphere. For example, such agreements were signed with our Polish colleagues, analogous agreements were prepared with Hungarian colleagues. The agreement with Russia would presuppose a mutual exchange of information, digital copies of documents, and joint work of archivists. Unfortunately, we received the response that the Russian party didn’t consider the existence of a separate agreement expedient and, consequently, didn’t want to sign it. Therefore, I don’t think that the new agreement could deal with cooperation in this sphere.”
You’re talking about “tightening screws.” How far can the go-vernment go?
“Unfortunately, we didn’t make use of the previous five years in full. Ukraine, unlike countries of Central and Eastern Europe, didn’t heal the wounds of totalitarianism. That is why, even in the current Ukrainian state, censorship and violating rights and freedoms of citizens will appear.
“Everything will depend on what reaction society will have. If there is silence and absence of resistance, the government can go very far. And if the society constantly reacts to the anti-Ukrainian steps of the government, the latter will sooner or later have to compromise.
“Today’s humanitarian policy is a serious challenge for historians, which above all must remain professionals and continue their research. Despite the change of political conjuncture, they shouldn’t change their views and conform to those of the current government. The English philosopher Edmund Burke once said: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ We are all responsible.”
