No society can move ahead without a full realization of what happened to it 20, 50, 70, and 100 years ago or without understanding what tragedies, sacrifices, and horrific sweeping changes its forefathers, parents and grandparents, were forced to experience. This is especially true of Ukrainian society today. Looking back at the past is the only way we can comprehend (in mind if not in heart) the vast depths of the abyss from which we started climbing out only recently. This is why the restored historical memory of the Ukrainian nation and historical truth, no matter how bitter it may be, may be the only way out of this abyss.
Remembering the 1932-33 Holodomor, the atrocious crime that was perpetrated by Stalin’s Kremlin, is absolutely essential for overcoming the post-genocidal syndrome that weighs so heavily on the Ukrainian nation. This was the idea uniting all the participants of the scholarly-artistic roundtable “The 1932-33 Holodomor in Ukraine as a Crime of Genocide,” which was organized and hosted by the Department for Common Law Sciences of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and the Union of Ukrainian Women.
The artistic component of the roundtable was represented by the work of Mykola Rudenko, the outstanding Ukrainian poet, writer, and civic leader. The well-known actress Larysa Kadyrova recited his poem “Khrest” (Cross), which recreates the tragedy of the Holodomor in a powerful, concise, and horrifying way (“One living man in a hundred households...”). The poetry reading was followed by the roundtable discussion. The organizers, guests, and invited speakers resolved to concentrate on little-known or controversial aspects of the tragedy rather then reiterate well-known theses, slogans, and arguments. This approach was reflected in the presentations of the distinguished historians Stanislav Kulchytsky, Vasyl Marochko, Yurii Mytsyk, and Viktor Brekhunenko, and a few civic and political leaders: MP Ivan Zaiets and Ihor Yukhnovsky, the head of the Institute of National Memory.
Special attention was paid primarily (and deservedly so) to the political and legal aspects of qualifying the Holodomor as an act of genocide. Myroslava Antonovych, a legal scholar and associate professor, drew the participants’ attention to the content of a fundamental document that cannot be ignored in considering this question-the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted in 1948, and especially Article 2 of this document. She noted that despite the fact that at the highest international level there is an agreed definition of genocide, there are a few legal issues concerning the application of this definition to the Holodomor in Ukraine. These problems pertain to the exact formulation of the concept of “guilt” with respect to the organizers of the genocide, legally accurate definitions of the groups mentioned in the definition of genocide (which refers to ethnic, racial, religious, and political motives of human destruction), and the correct definition of the term “acts” as used in Article 2 of the convention. These were the problematic issues that international tribunals recently had to face while investigating genocidal acts in the former Yugoslavia and the East African country of Rwanda.
There are two fundamental aspects in the investigation of the crime of genocide, which must be acknowledged no matter whether it pertains to the Armenians, the Jews in World War II, or the Ukrainians in 1932-33. First, there is an identification of the victims of the genocide (who were these millions of victims?). Second, it has to be established that there was a known intent to destroy people. This is very important, but even more important is the fact that through their joint efforts Ukrainian historians have succeeded in providing documentary proof that Stalin and his followers indeed had this intent.
Another notable fact is that in contemporary international legal practice the concept of nationality is interpreted mostly as the status of belonging to a nation (or as a legal or social bond of a particular individual). This was confirmed by the Nottebohm case, which was once a cause celebre in legal circles. Another consideration is that in the investigation of the Holocaust there was a fully justified departure from the so-called objective consideration of the case (Were the people destroyed real Jews? How did they acknowledge themselves?), which was thought unacceptable. We, Ukrainians, need to take this into account when analyzing and proving the genocidal nature of the Holodomor because the key thing is not whether Stalin destroyed exclusively ethnic Ukrainians in 1932-33, but the fact that there was deliberate intent to wipe out millions of Ukrainians, and that there were actions. This is precisely the approach that was used by the famous lawyer Rafael Lemkin, who coined the word “genocide” at the Madrid conference devoted to the Armenian genocide in 1933, Antonovych noted in the closing lines of her presentation.
Volodymyr Vasylenko, a professor at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, pointed out certain purely legal aspects of the problem. A common argument employed by those who oppose the recognition of the Holodomor as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people is that there was famine in other republics of the former USSR. This thesis, according to Vasylenko, does not stand up to scholarly scrutiny because the famine in these republics, except Kazakhstan, was not on the same scale as the Ukrainian famine. Most importantly, the famine was used as a political-terrorist weapon precisely in the regions with significant Ukrainian populations (primarily the Kuban), which is an additional argument in favor of qualifying the Holodomor as genocide.
Vasylenko noted that there are two ways to create a legal framework for the political-legal recognition and punishment of the crime of “terror by famine.” First, amendments may be made to the current Nov. 28, 2006, Law on the Recognition of the Holodomor as Genocide against the Ukrainian People. Second, the Prosecutor General’s Office may (and must) open a criminal case on the proven fact of the crime that is the Holodomor. Its organizers lived in the Kremlin, but the executors resided in Ukraine and are now known. These people are no longer alive, but there is an urgent need to adopt this political decision. We have to take into account that the Russian Federation proclaimed itself the successor of the USSR and according to current international legislation, the state itself is accountable for the criminal actions of its top officials.
Mykhailo Skurativsky, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the head of its Department for International and Humanitarian Cooperation, welcomed the participants on behalf of Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko. He said that the Holodomor has been recognized as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people by the parliaments of 12 countries. There is also the UNESCO Resolution of Nov. 1, 2007, even though it is not entirely satisfactory to the Ukrainian side. All of this is the result of persistent efforts by our politicians and diplomats, and the outcome of 16 years of intense political debate. Skurativsky emphasized that we will need to continue amplifying and reinforcing the contractual-legal basis in order to prove the genocidal nature of the Holodomor. This is a question of our conscience and of paying tribute to the millions of innocent Holodomor victims.
Stanislav Kulchytsky, one of Ukraine’s leading experts on the history of the Holodomor, said that the work on the historical-political and legal assessment of the Holodomor has an extremely large scope now that state bodies have also become involved. A fundamental 1,100-page-long collection entitled The 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine: Documents and Materials, has been published and a thematic issue of The Memorial Book of Ukraine is forthcoming. A three-volume edition of oral testimonies on the Holodomor, collected by the unforgettable James Mace, is also being prepared for publication. In general, a large body of facts has been accumulated-now is the time to interpret them.
Kulchytsky underlined that the Holodomor was not sociocide, even though this was one of its components. The purpose of the terror by famine was to transform the Ukrainian people from a “nation state” into an ethnographic entity and render it lifeless. The professor warned against making a terminological and historiographic mistake: we should not mix the two genocides-the Jewish Holocaust of 1939-45 and the Ukrainian Holodomor of the early 1930s. These two atrocious crimes have a different nature: the Holodomor was terror by famine, whereas the Holocaust was ethnic cleansing. Kulchytsky pointed out another controversial aspect: the different content of the idea of “nation” in Eastern and Western European countries. In the first case, a nation is an ethnic body of people, whereas in the second — and this is crucial — it is a “nation state.” These considerations must be taken into account in analyzing the historical and legal aspects of the Holodomor.
There were other highly informative presentations during the roundtable. Dr. Marochko brought out one telling fact: until now the State Duma of the Russian Federation has not recognized famine on its territory as an act of genocide or tragedy.
The goal that brought together the participants in whose hearts the ashes of the tragedy are still smoldering pertains to the conscience and memory of each one of us. Step by step this goal will be achieved.
