Ignatieff
Remains Unconvincing
By
Christina S. Franko
Earlier in May, a meeting with Liberal leader
Michael Ignatieff, spearheaded by Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj and his former
executive assistant, Yvan Baker (now, UCC-Toronto Vice-President) took place
with representatives of Toronto’s Ukrainian community. With a possible election
looming, the fact that such a meeting took place surprised no one. Mr.
Wrzesnewskyj finds himself in an unenviable position, with a party leader most
Ukrainians distrust, and many dislike intensely. Some had hoped that Mr.
Ignatieff might redeem himself as a politician by withdrawing, once and for
all, the derogatory remarks that so many Ukrainians found offensive. Alas, this
was not to be.
Just as in Edmonton one
month earlier, by the end of the meeting in Toronto, notwithstanding his long
litany of standard remarks on issues of foreign policy and immigration, Mr.
Ignatieff failed to do the one thing he needed to in order to repair his image
in the eyes of the Ukrainian community—he failed to withdraw his offensive
historical assessment of the Ukrainian people.
It was back in 1993, two
years before the release of his controversial book, that Ignatieff produced the
documentary mini-series Blood and Belonging for the BBC. The series
later aired in
Before he needed our votes,
Ignatieff, the historian, questioned the legitimacy of Ukrainian independence,
by writing in his book Blood and Belonging:
“My difficulty in taking
Ukraine seriously goes deeper than just my cosmopolitan suspicion of
nationalists everywhere … I am also what Ukrainians would call a Great Russian
and there is just a trace of old Russian disdain for these “little Russians.”
The thought of their independence conjured up only “images of embroidered
peasant shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks
and boots, nasty anti-Semites.”
Many of us wanted to give
Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt, but his stubborn arrogance underscores why
the Bloc Quebecois recently called him “a scornful aristocrat.” During
his
Ironically, while Michael
Ignatieff refuses to withdraw the smear of anti-Semitism which he places on
Ukrainians, he conveniently fails to address his family’s complicity in Tsarist-era
anti-Semitic pogroms. His great-grandfather was Count Nikolai Ignatiev, who
instituted the Tsar’s notorious May Laws against Jews. Yet, according to
Ignatieff’s family biography, The Russian Album, “rounding up all the
Jews” was a necessity “to protect them from outraged peasantry.” So much for
historical objectivity.
Grandfather Pavel was
governor of Kyiv gubernia and served as Minister of Education to
Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia.
Mr. Ignatieff is not likely to change his opinion of Ukrainians, molded
by his family’s Tsarist, imperial past, who have seen Ukraine as nothing more
than a part of a once Great Russia.
I am reminded of a public
event I attended years ago at the
Michael Ignatieff may want
to be Prime Minister, but real leadership requires a dose of humility and
political sensitivity that Ignatieff is dearly lacking. While no politician is
perfect. if pressed, I would choose PM Harper over Ignatieff. Not only has the
PM never insulted the Ukrainian people, in responding to the concerns of the
Ukrainian community, Harper has consistently delivered on issues that previous
government’s failed to address by providing millions of dollars in internment
redress; declaring unequivocal support for Ukraine’s right to NATO membership;
and recognizing the Holodomor-Famine as an act of genocide against the
Ukrainian people.
Mr. Ignatieff, it’s time for
you to realize that the days of Counts and serfs are long gone. By refusing to
recant your offensive views on
Christina S. Franko is a Canadian political
scientist of Ukrainian origin.