“Treason” has always been one of the most commonly used words in the vocabulary of Ukrainian politicians. Sometimes, however, it is applied to those who do not deserve this appellation. The t-word and its synonyms have been especially popular in the last while. TV promotional clips are strongly urging voters “not to betray the Maidan.” The opposition is accusing the government of “betraying national interests” by signing a gas deal with Russia in early January. Members of the once united Orange team are accusing each other of treason because of the breakup.
Those without whom the Orange Revolution would have been impossible are also blaming the “presidium” of the Maidan. “After the second round of the elections a record number of indignant people took to the streets and squares of eastern Ukraine,” says the forum on www.maidan.org.ua. “Maybe they didn’t enthuse over the Trypillian culture and didn’t have a portrait of Shevchenko on their wall, but they were Ukrainians in the normal European meaning of the word, i.e., citizens of their country. They were the human reserve of the Orange ones, which the latter could have tapped after their victory if they had had enough brains. But they didn’t. Now the east is anything but Orange-minded, and the situation looks far more disastrous than it was in 2004. So, in case somebody doesn’t know, the Orange people have been betrayed in Ukraine’s Russian-speaking regions. Will there be any consequences? Certainly. Will they be catastrophic? Quite possibly. Can the situation be corrected? Of course it can, but there’s nobody to do this. The national democratic guys are too busy to reach out to the ‘Soviet-style louts’.”
This “cry of the heart” only strengthened our determination to conduct our own survey of the phenomenon of treason in history, literature, and politics. What can or cannot be called treason? Who betrayed whom? Below, some historians, political scientists, politicians, and civic figures share their thoughts with The Day.
Andriy OKARA, political scientist, Moscow:
“Throughout all of its history Ukraine has always found it difficult to conceive a national project. When there is no project, there is no consciousness of one’s place in history — hence the absence of certain criteria and attitudes in political life and in general. As a result, Ukraine is not a full-fledged subject of the political process but a place where other subjects compete. That is why the country is always full of factions and parties ready to betray one another. This means that treason is an inalienable part of Ukrainian history. I keep asking myself what is worse: $50 yesterday or the day after tomorrow, or $95 today? Who should be called traitor? The one who prefers $50 yesterday or the day after tomorrow, or the one who favors $95 today? I’d rather not attach labels, especially in the hotly debated gas issue. This issue involves specific vested interests and, much to our regret, not everything can be put down to national interests and ideals alone. In both cases there are certain interested legal entities that reap benefits one way or another, both from $50 yesterday and the day after tomorrow, and from $95 today.
“There are also at least three different geocultural identities in Ukraine — western Ukrainian, central Ukrainian, and southeastern. So, from the viewpoint of Lviv and Donetsk, there will be different Ukraines with different histories and futures. Even treason will be interpreted differently in Lviv and Donetsk.”
Larysa SKORYK, professor of architecture; corresponding member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts; deputy chairperson of the United Ukraine civic forum:
“I don’t think the Orange team members have betrayed each other: all of them have betrayed ordinary Ukrainians and state interests, for they are just vying for power, high positions, and clout — they are in no way concerned about Ukraine. And Ms. Yulia Tymoshenko should not spin tall tales to the naive electorate that when she was in the government she was doing everything well. I remember all too well how we all had shivers from her so-called ‘reforms’ and accusations of ‘conspiracy’ against the Russian side. You can make a lot of complaints against any state that strives to be a superpower, but you must always try, first and foremost, to restrain your own ambitions that take precedence over the interests of the state. It would be to the point here to recall Winston Churchill, the all-time great politician, who said roughly: ‘There are no true friends in politics; I only have the interests of my state.’ This Orange team — as a whole and individually — is by no means an embodiment of people who are fighting for the state’s interests. You cannot betray a politician if s/he is concerned about national interests. How can they speak about betrayal or non-betrayal of some universal ideals if they are telling their voters: we stand divided today, but we will pull together once we get into parliament? These are elementary political ruses, for they are well aware that their rating has fallen ‘thanks to’ their deeds. There’s no question of treason among them: these guys and gals will always come to terms with each other if they manage to make a deal about the division of their powers. Each and every one of them is ready to betray national interests for the sake of their own.
“Incidentally, there is already an act of treason on these people’s conscience, terrible treachery indeed, when the so-called ‘national democrats’ betrayed Leonid Kravchuk and did their best to catapult Leonid Kuchma to the prime ministership, against whom they had allegedly fought on the Maidan the year before last. That was a betrayal of national interests and, indirectly, of President Kravchuk.”
Yuriy SHAPOVAL, Ph.D. (History):
“In my opinion, one can talk about the phenomenon of Ukrainian politicians’ orientation on a certain time period rather than about treason in Ukrainian history. For instance, we have the figure of Ivan Mazepa whom Russia still considers a traitor of Peter I and hence Russia. I believe that treason in politics is not the same thing as treason in our everyday life or the life of some self-sufficient structures in society. It is common knowledge that there is such a thing in history as allies and temporary allies. If we look at Ukrainian history and, say, at the figure of Bohdan Khmelnytsky from this angle, we will see primarily the problem of orientation. Khmelnytsky’s conduct did not mean that he betrayed the Poles and threw himself at Russia’s mercy. It was the problem of expediency at one historical turn or another. If we consider the behavior of the Ukrainian left Socialist Revolutionaries in the 20th century, who went and gave a huge part of the cultural potential to the Bolshevik regime, this can be interpreted as a banal betrayal of their independence ideals. But on the other hand one can interpret this as an absolutely realistic attitude aimed at implementing the idea of Ukrainian culture and intellectual autonomy within the framework of what was called the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. So I categorically oppose the very idea of treason. I think Ukraine’s present-day politicians often use this cliche for a very banal purpose. All they want is to push aside or, better still, destroy and stigmatize their rivals by these kinds of definitions. In my view, even if there were treason in today’s independent Ukraine, it was treason with respect to Ukraine and its people rather than treason among certain groupings of politicians. As for the pursuit of Ukraine’s national interests and politicians’ honesty, it is true that this country has always lacked this. I think this is a key problem of our state. Let us not forget that when Viktor Yushchenko, who was prime minister at the time, spoke about pan- Ukrainian interests, this stirred up a storm of protests and scathing criticism, although all that he was saying in very simple and easy-to-grasp terms was that every country is primarily guided by its own interests. And, in conclusion, I’d like to tell The Day readers a funny story that I think is a good example of how one should not betray national interests. I was recently in Egypt and visited a Nubian village, a very colorful but unattractive one. I came across two old German women there. As we talked, I asked where they came from. They said they were from Dusseldorf and asked me the same question. ‘I don’t think you know my country. I am from Ukraine,’ said I. But they said in reply, ‘We know your country because it caused problems with gas in our country.’ Those elderly women taught me an object lesson of how one should understand national interests and never betray them, even in an Egyptian Nubian village.”
Myroslav POPOVYCH, director, Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“As a matter of fact, the problem of treason somehow does not figure in Ukrainian literature. Conversely, Russian literature has always branded Ukrainians as traitors, starting with Mazepa. This was part of a whole concept of what Ukraine and Russia are. Ukraine and Russia were considered two different homelands that had one Fatherland. For example, Russian literature never accused the Poles of being traitors, because they had a different Fatherland and were simply supposed to obey the Russian Empire, but whenever Ukrainians chose the way of independence, it was considered guilt and treason. Take Pushkin’s poem “Poltava,” for example, which vividly describes this ideology. As for Ukrainian literature, I cannot recall descriptions or analyses of the phenomenon of treason. I think this is not typical of us at all. Ukrainian politicians are really abusing this terminology now. I would say the point is not the word ‘treason’ but rather the uncertainty of national interests. Our politicians occasionally do things that would be considered treasonous in the Western world, but the Ukrainian public takes a tolerant attitude to such things, accusations, and projects that in fact amount to betrayal of national interests. I don’t mean the talk about how much should be paid for a cubic meter of gas — the word ‘treason’ is totally out of place here because this is trade. But when it is about serious things, some politicians behave extremely carelessly. In fact, there are no elementary rules about what is inadmissible. Still, there are cries about treason from every rooftop. I believe there are three groups of values that all politicians must protect — if they do not protect them, they betray our national interests. The first is the independent existence of our state. The second is democracy and freedom, for Ukraine is not just our Mother, it is a democratic state. So, all attempts to suppress democracy in this country are a betrayal of our national interests. And, finally, the third group of values is the well-being of our citizens. The attempt to sacrifice public well-being for the sake of achieving some expedient political goals means going beyond the limits of Ukrainian national interests. In all other cases the word ‘treason’ is absolutely out of place.”
Viktor KOTYHORENKO, Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“In my view, treason in both political and interpersonal relationships is of the same dimension: treason is when people declare certain goals and patterns of behavior, but guided by certain temporary interests they eventually act otherwise.
“There are hardly any grounds to claim that someone has betrayed someone else on the Orange team because the latter has never in fact been a team. This was a pragmatic alliance of people with different visions of the country’s future and mainly different business interests. So when they came to power and the common enemy disappeared, these differences led them down different paths. The point is that the politicians who pulled together against Kuchma failed to develop a common vision of programs and transformations in the country: Yushchenko, Tymoshenko and Moroz had entirely different conceptual approaches. In other words, it is impossible to speak of treason here. They simply lacked a common platform for further activities. It is necessary to develop this platform.”
