BRAMA, Nov 12, 2003, 1:00 am ET
CORRECTION Nov 12, 2003 5:00 PM
Genocide: yea or nay?
by Hanya Krill
Issuing resolutions in support of positions that are important to national groups are fairly common occurrences for marking 10 year or quarter century anniversaries. 2003 has been a bumper year for statements in support of the 70th anniversary of the Ukraine Famine. Recently, the Parliaments of Canada, Australia and the Basque Autonomous Community have declared their solidarity with the victims of the Stalin genocide against Ukrainians. [Modified content begins here] The U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution on October 22, 2003 that falls a little short of full acknowledgement of the true nature of the Great Famine. At the United Nations just the other day, a Joint Statement on the 70th Anniversary of Holodomor (Great Famine) was declared, but with softer language than originally proposed.[End]. Now, the U.S. Senate is approaching a possible vote on a resolution in support of the Ukraine Famine of 1932-33. However, it seems that the wording of the resolution has caused something of a stir in Washington, DC.
The debate comes down to whether or not the word "genocide" will be included in the text of the resolution.
For Ukrainian Americans, there is no question whether or not the 1932-33 Famine in Ukraine was an act of genocide - the answer is an unequivocal "yes." For the Senate, the decision involves a set of complex issues that have little or nothing to do with the definition of genocide, and little or nothing to do with the wishes of its constituencies.
Support for S.Res.202 - "A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the genocidal Ukraine Famine of 1932-33" - has been growing among members of the Senate, but at an agonizingly slow pace. Only 21 senators have become cosponsors since Senator Campbell (R-CO, Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman), introduced it on July 28, 2003.
Despite the compelling, or to some, overwhelming, evidence supporting the case of genocide, there are those in Washington who would prefer to soften the language of the resolution by striking the term from S.Res.202.
An alternative suggestion is to substitute the text of S.Res.202 with the language used in the House resolution [H.RES.356.EH] that has recently been unanimously agreed to. However, though the House version includes the term "genocide" in its preamble (the "Whereas" section), it is conspicuously missing from the resolutions section.
Thus, Ukrainian Americans who are fighting for the passage of the Senate version view any toning down or substitutions as untenable solutions.
In the last week, Senator Charles Schumer (D) from New York joined the ranks of cosponsors. This is not the first time that Senator Schumer has publicly expressed his support for Ukrainian Americans and the Famine in Ukraine. The Senator was a featured speaker at St. Patrick's Cathedral during the annual memorial service for the Famine in 1999, and is slated to speak again at this Saturday's commemoration ceremony. Four years ago, he spoke passionately about the horrors of the Famine, and compared it to the Holocaust during World War II.
Ihor Gawdiak, President of the Ukrainian American Coordinating Committee (UACC) and other concerned Ukrainian Americans have been feverishly lobbying in Washington, DC for the resolution's passage. Mr. Gawdiak has sensed a conspicuous resistance to the use of the term "genocide" in the text. As reported by Mr. Gawdiak, opposition is coming from the general direction of the White House, probably the National Security Council, although it may be originating in the State Department - not much difference between the two in the eyes of the Ukrainian American community that wants to finally have the suffering of its ancestral past officially acknowledged by the leadership in this country.
S.Res.202 is currently in the hands of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC). It is rumored that Senator Lugar, Chairman of the SFRC, is proposing to amend the text of the resolution by removing the term "genocide," or simply substituting it with the House version. The Senate is likely to accept whatever version the Foreign Relations Committee proposes.
Needless to say, this is unacceptable to the UACC. The Famine, first of all, was deliberately engineered to bring the Ukrainian nation to its knees, and second of all, it was appallingly deadly - estimates run as high as 10 million victims, although the most widely accepted number is 7 million.
* * *
The 1932-33 Famine was undeniably a genocide based on criteria defined in the universally accepted Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of the Convention states … "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part [our italics], a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The Convention was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1986, and signed into U.S. law in 1988. Interestingly enough, both Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Russia, being distinct members of the United Nations, ratified the Convention in 1954.
The purpose of the Convention was not just to establish the criteria for defining an act of genocide, but also to delineate the terms for punishment of those who commit genocide. Article 1 states that "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." Article 3 identifies what acts shall be punishable: "a. Genocide; b. Conspiracy to commit genocide; c. Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; d. Attempt to commit genocide; e. Complicity in genocide." And Article 4 tells us who can be indicted for an act of genocide: "Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." The courts in which perpetrators are tried determine the exact nature of the punishment.
* * *
It may be that the notion of punishment for committing an act of genocide is sticking in everybody's throat. Russia, for example, having had a leading role in the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation being the successor state to the USSR, could become vulnerable to its own ratification of the Genocide Convention. Not only would this be an indictment against Russia's history and historians, but it may also be feared that it could open the door for criminal charges to be levied against individuals, alive or dead even 70 years after the fact. There is no statute of limitations for the criminal act of genocide.
In his 1999 speech, Senator Schumer drew a parallel between the Ukraine Famine and the Jewish Holocaust. The similarity is most readily evident when comparing the number of victims, which in both cases is remarkably close (~6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust; ~7 million Ukrainians were starved to death by the engineered Famine). The two atrocities are similar in more ways than just the numbers.
|
Jewish Holocaust
|
Ukraine Famine 1932-33 (Holodomor)
|
|
~6 million Jewish victims
|
~7 million Ukrainian victims
|
|
The Holocaust against the Jews was an executable plan designed to exterminate Jews everywhere. The strategy included a variety of methods for extermination including starvation, overwork, medical experimentation, and one of the most heinous weapons of murder ever conceived - the gas chambers.
|
The 1932 Famine was used as a weapon by Soviet authorities as part of Stalin's goal to bring Ukrainians to their knees. The strategy was to decimate the peasantry that resisted collectivization as well as the intellectual elite and clergy, whose ideas for cultural growth and nation building posed significant threats to the growth of communism in Ukraine. Confiscation of grain harvests and access to other foodstuffs denied by the authorities led to mass starvation, sometimes even murder and cannibalism followed by suicide.
|
|
Denial that the Holocaust ever took place is still present today.
|
The Soviet Union denied that the Famine ever took place. Its successor state, Russia, continued denying that it was deliberately engineered until recently. Russia persists in denying that the primary target of the Famine was the Ukrainian nation.
|
|
Hitler did not limit his extermination campaign to the Jews alone, even though they were his principal targets. The Nazis also wiped out other civilian populations as they stomped through Eastern Europe: several hundred thousand Gypsies, more than 2 million (non-Jewish) Poles, approximately 3 million (non-Jewish) Ukrainians, and more than 1 million (non-Jewish) Belorussians - all considered to be "untermenschen" or sub humans in Nazi philosophy. Yet the Nazi atrocities of World War II are collectively known as the Jewish Holocaust because a majority of the victims were Jewish, and it was primarily the Jews that had suffered the most brutal of the engineered exterminations.
|
Stalin had no compunctions about including others in his war on Ukraine - the effects of his planned Famine were also felt in the northern Caucasus and Lower Volga regions. True, the Kuban' region in the Caucasus was predominantly populated by Ukrainians (approx. 80%), but others suffered alongside them. Regional famine as a weapon is not a very discriminating one.
|
|
Hitler blamed Jews for everything that failed in Germany and the world.
|
Stalin blamed Ukrainian peasants, and ultimately all Ukrainians, for the failure of communism in Ukraine.
|
|
The German penchant for accurate statistics provided reliable sources for data when adding up the victim tolls in the Holocaust.
|
Although statistics for victims of the Famine are less definitive than those for the Holocaust, there is, nonetheless, a large compendium of documented evidence and published research in support of the 7 million figure. The previously sealed archives that were opened to researchers after the breakup of the Soviet Union have provided new and important documentation demonstrating actions taken to smother Ukraine.
|
Thus, by placing these two events in 20th century history side by side, it is easy to see why both the Holocaust and the Famine were acts of genocide. Both were deliberate. Both had specific populations as targets. Both suffered losses in the millions. Both used abominable tactics to achieve their goals.
In 1988, the U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine concluded "Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33." In light of this report, which was submitted to the Congress on April 22, 1988, combined with other transparent and readily available evidence sustaining the notion of the Ukraine Famine as a genocide, it boggles the mind how the Senate could hesitate to show anything less than unanimous support for S.Res.202.
* * *
It is only when viewing this situation through a Washington prism that one might see the subtle but unambiguous political pressures to preclude the issuance of a clear statement by the U.S. Senate on the genocide committed against Ukrainians.
There are those who doubt that the resolution will make it through the Senate due to political factors. Askold Lozynskyj, President of the Ukrainian World Congress, believes that because the U.S. is courting Russia for military support in Iraq, President Bush would not do anything to displease Russia's President Putin (Russia has made its objections to the term genocide very clear, both in the United Nations and to the U.S.).
Indeed, with the exception of a few allies who have offered ground troops and other military assistance Mr. Bush has been having a tough time securing foreign military support for the war in Iraq. Incidentally, Ukraine has provided such support, and it has also suffered casualties.
Russia, however, is in a position to blackmail the U.S. by offering its men for battle in return for the U.S. turning a blind eye to Russia's human rights abuses. Following in the footsteps of its predecessor, the USSR, Russia has managed to block every United Nations effort to interfere in the bloody military conflict in Chechnya - a clear example of Russia's aggression. Violations of press freedoms, torture of prisoners, infringement on privacy rights, arbitrary arrests are commonplace … and yet the U.S. is prepared to yield to a regime with such a dreadful record in human rights. [See the State Department's report on Russia]
Another reason for the U.S. not wanting to step on Russia's toes is the political theory that subscribes to the notion of regional balance of power. The breakup of the Soviet Union left a so-called "power vacuum" in Eastern Europe, and ever since then, the U.S. has been busily trying to prop Russia back up in order to "restore the balance." However, the balance of power theory is just that - a theory - and it has lost favor with contemporary political analysts. The trends today move along more relevant lines that are compatible with globalization. In other words, a strong Russia is not an essential element for stability and peace in the region.
The Bush adiministration has also been making overtures to the Republic of Turkey. Even though Turkey has not allowed troops to cross its territory to Iraq's northern border, the U.S. has persisted in getting some sorts of material commitments from the country. Ever mindful of not offending a potential ally, the U.S. may be yielding to pressures from Turkey not to recognize the 1915 - 1918 Armenian genocide, which was perpetrated by the Turks. The thinking goes like this: if Ukrainians get to use the word genocide to classify their tragedy, this will compel the Armenians to do likewise with theirs. There is concern that the Bush administration sees this as pushing Turkey away just at the time that it wants to bring it closer in the U.S.'s efforts in Iraq.
Finally, another factor may be that Washington "intelligence" is still operating with a Cold War textbook, i.e., one that is not consistent with more recent research that supports the case of genocide with respect to the Ukraine Famine of 1932-33.
* * *
At the end of the day, the fact is that the proposed text of S.Res.202 does not indict the Russian Federation. Instead, the blame is placed squarely on the former Soviet Union - the word "Russia" is never mentioned in the document. Mr. Gawdiak feels that this critical point should dispel any fears of recrimination and retribution.
But if Russia's concerns are the major obstacle to obtaining unanimous support for S.Res.202, then the Senate should carefully study what the consequences may be in the event that it votes to accept the resolution as originally written.
Would Russia threaten the U.S. with nuclear destruction if the resolution were passed?
No. The odds for success are not in Russia's favor.
Would Russia return to Cold War politics?
Hardly. It is too entrenched moving forward with its market economy, and for that it desperately needs the West. Furthermore, it cannot afford the buildup in military defense.
Would Russia withhold oil sales from the U.S.?
Maybe, but who cares? The U.S. is sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world - in Iraq.
Would Russia attack Ukraine?
No.
On second thought … Considering that Russia has been running a war of aggression against one of its own autonomous regions, Chechnya, there is no reason to believe that it would hesitate even a moment to attack Ukraine should it decide that there was any advantage in doing so. Speaking at a press conference on October 22, 2003, Putin's administration chief, Oleksandr Voloshyn, threatened that Russia "do everything possible and impossible" to hold its position on the Tuzla dam issue, including "dispatching a bomb there." (The territorial dispute erupted when, without warning, Russia started to build a causeway into Ukraine's territory.)
Be that as it may, the intrusions that Ukrainians resent and fear most by their more powerful neighbor to the north are of a political nature rather than a military one. Russia's interference with Ukrainian efforts to right a historical wrong is just one of many such incursions into its affairs.
"Stalin is dead, the Soviet Union is gone," said Senator Schumer in his speech at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1999. But today it looks as if Stalin and the USSR have simply been supplanted by two equally menacing entities: Putin and Russia ... and both are very much alive and here with us today.
* * * * *
Postscript:
Ihor Gawdiak, President of the UACC, remains hopeful that there is still time to convince the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to retain the original language of the resolution. He urges everyone to fax letters to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to the Senators that haven't yet joined as cosponsors.
Call 202-224-3121, the Capitol switchboard, who will forward the call to your Senator's office, or go online at www.senate.gov to obtain all Senators' e-mails. Fax a letter to Senator Lugar's office in care of Jessica Fugate at fax number 202 224 0836, send e-mails to: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov, or telephone Senator Lugar at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (202) 224-4651. To contact members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, refer to this webpage: http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html.
Copyright © 1997-2011 BRAMA, Inc. All rights reserved.
The images and information contained in BRAMA News and BRAMA Press reports may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of BRAMA and/or author/photographer.
The views and opinions of authors expressed on Brama.com do not necessarily state or reflect the views of Brama - Gateway Ukraine or its officers, directors or associates.
|
|
|
|
![[BRAMA Client Websites]](http://www.brama.com/banners/miniads17.gif){kind=small}
Foto I
