Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
“НАШЕ ЖИТТЯ”, СІЧЕНЬ 2009 21 was published by Gallimard, one of France’s most prestigious publishing houses. Most of the book ’ s run mysteriously disappeared, and the work received scant attention in the press from French literary reviewers and was not widely read. Ten years later, however, a powerful documentary film based on Barka’s work was produced in Ukraine. Titled “Famine 33,” it premiered in 1991, on the eve of the national referendum on independence. Ukraine voted for independence and democracy, and for Vasyl Barka, this was a personal victory — a victory for the freedom, justice, and truth he had espoused. Toward the end of my visit with Barka, he opened a thick folder and showed me what was apparently his last manuscript. The margins were filled with corrections and additions. With a wink, he said, “This is ready.” I asked if it was a sequel to The Yellow Prince . Barka simply smiled. After Barka passed away in 2003, I asked Professor Eugene Fedorenko, charged with the disposition of Barka’s archives, what the manuscript was about. “The Famine,” he replied. As I had suspected, the heroic writer had fought to the end. Epilogue During the conference in Paris, I was disappointed to learn that the stories recorded by the raconteurs , including myself, would not be played as promised. I was told that they would first have to be cleared by the UNESCO/UN officials in Geneva and/or New York. Although the explanations given were vague, I was shocked to learn that the stories illustrating grave human rights violations had to pass yet another test — apparently a test of political cor- rectness, and this despite the fact that the stories had already been evaluated in New York prior to being recorded. By whom and according to what criteria they were to be evaluated again was never made clear to me, nor did anyone officially inform me, as promised, of the outcome of this additional evaluation. Unofficially, however, I was informed that a Russian representative objected to placing my story on the Web site of the United Nations. Since my story had been judged to be the best of those submitted, it was decided that none of the other stories would be accepted either. No regrets of any kind were expressed. I was to have another disappointment during a break-out meeting following a general session on ways to prevent human rights violations committed by governments. When given the opportunity to speak, I stated my firm belief that in all cases of mass repression the identity of all perpetrators at all levels should be made public and that appropriate punishment be meted out. I added that, to the fullest extent possible, victims should be identified, comforted, and compensated or appro- priately memorialized. I then explained that in order fort this to occur, democratic governments succeed- ing criminal governments should take the initiative in this lustration process. As long as I spoke about principles, there were no objections. However, when I deplored the fact that the current post-Soviet government of the Russian Federation refuses to give historians access to documents pertaining to the 1932 – 1993 Famine- Genocide deliberately ordered by Stalin, a dis- tinguished looking gentleman arose, without being invited to do so, and accused me (in a very irritated voice) of “spreading half - truths.” I was not given an opportunity to respond that what the world expects today is indeed the whole truth about Soviet crimes. The “gentleman,” I was told, was an “observer” and as such had no right to participate. He promptly disappeared after his statement, but I was somewhat mollified by a dozen or so participants who later approached me and expressed their indignation over the altercation caused by the “observer.” My experiences at the UNESCO conference demonstrated to me how seriously post-Soviet Russia takes its status as “successor state” of the Soviet Union. It ferociously defends its Soviet heritage. When the UN committee dealing with the definition of human rights evoked the term of “genocide,” Russian representatives strenuously argued in support of a definition so limited that it would not apply to the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine. Recently, the Russian delegation to the UN gloated over their success in blocking recognition of the Ukrainian Famine as genocide, a success ac- complished through manipulation, technicalities, and intense lobbying or pressure. Sadly, instead of disclosing the whole truth and atoning as much as possible for the crimes of its predecessors, as German democratic leaders have done in repudiating the horrendous events per- petrated by the Nazis, today’s regime in Moscow attempts to minimize, conceal and even deny the crimes committed under Lenin, Stalin, their
Page load link
Go to Top