A Ukrainian delegation took part in a European workshop on reconciliation of events in European history. Oleh Turiy shared with RISU his thoughts on this event and, in particular, on historical memory in Ukraine.
The conference gathered people who look at difficult issues in the past form the Christian perspective. The participants discussed the experience and role of the church and faith in that time, and the role Christians or organized church communities should play today in finding reconciliation in both the past and present, for the present is often burdened by the past. The newly founded German Maximilian Kolbe Foundation organized the conference. This foundation was formed by a German bishop with the help of foundations for the reparations of victims of Nazism. And although the formal process of reparations is complete, the Kolbe Foundation was founded to maintain contacts and work in the area of reconciliation and overcoming the consequences of WWII.
The main topic of discussion was the conscience of peoples about the past, what place these past events have in today societies and view points, and how they influence relations between one another. Furthermore, the participants looked at different models of reconciliation, discussed what is forgiveness and the role of forgiveness in reconciliation.
The discussion of Polish-Ukrainian relations was important for Ukrainians. On the official level, the relations that have developed since Ukraine declared independence have been fairly good. There are, however, real problems that exist and from time to time arise and need reaction and resolution, in particular, reactions from Christian communities, eparchies, and the secular environment. We often hear various clamorous declarations from the Polish side, but in reality these declarations come from marginal groups and are multiplied by the media, distorting the real public opinion. In reality, in intellectual and church environments, as well as those open to a wider European context, there is a lot of sympathy toward Ukraine, toward Ukrainians, toward the democratic development of Ukraine, and to the prospect of this development.
As for Russian-Ukrainian relations, there have been attempts to start a dialogue. The dialogue is not as structured or as worked out as the case of the Ukrainian-Polish dialogue. The dialogue is hindered by Ukrainian fragmentation and the very strong process of nationalizing history, which is controlled by the Russian state. Consequently, these discussions are mostly held in intellectual circles, and so far they don’t have a way out to a wider academic community and also because these communities still gravitate toward the Soviet past, from which they cannot free themselves.
In Ukraine a problem exists in the nature of what we call historical memory. Our biggest problem is our inner dialogue, the search for some common coordinates for the memory of the past and to build a common future in the Ukrainian society.
We must decide if we are following European principles and condemn totalitarianism in all of its manifestations, or if are we talking about one regime, like some hierarchs say, that was human-hating, and another that was simply bad.
In Ukraine we clearly see two opposite points of view: the ultra-nationalist approach, fostered in the diaspora in certain environments, and the typical Soviet approach. And we now observe two tendencies. On the one hand, we see how from pressure from Russia this Soviet way of thinking is united with imperialism and builds a new neo-imperialistic Orthodox civilization discourse. And on the other hand, we see how nevertheless certain groups want to integrate the Ukrainian perspective into the broad democratic, European process. This is our main dilemma. In fact it doesn’t concern the past as much as the future: where we are going, where we want to go.
The church should engage in its direct work, that is if should form responsible citizens who base their public position on the principles of faith. Specific issues of history, of the past, the evaluation of history must nevertheless be left to the experts. We often begin arguments where their simply lacks elementary knowledge of the facts.