петък, 11 декември 2009 г.

Лъчезар Тошев: България се присъедини към общоевропейския процес на осъждане на тоталитаризма
























Интервю на Петър Добрев с народния представител от Синята коалиция Лъчезар Тошев

Петър Добрев: Г-н Тошев, на 19 ноември Народното събрание най-сетне прие вашето предложение 23 август да бъде отбелязван като ден на памет за престъпленията, извършени от комунизма в България.

Лъчезар Тошев: Да, всъщност бяха приети първите четири точки от нашето предложение. С тях Народното събрание подкрепя приетата на 25 януари 2006 г. от Парламентарната асамблея на Съвета на Европа Резолюция 1481/2006 за необходимостта от международно осъждане на престъпленията на тоталитарните комунистически режими.
Подкрепя също така Резолюцията на Европейския парламент от 2 април 2009 г. „Европейската съвест и тоталитаризма”, както и Резолюцията на Парламентарната асамблея на Организацията за сигурност и сътрудничество в Европа от 3 юли 2009 г. ”Ново обединение на разделена Европа”. Много важна е четвърта точка - обявява 23 август за ден на памет за престъпленията на националсоциалистическите, комунистическите и другите тоталитарни режими и за почитане паметта на жертвите на тези режими. Това е фактическата ситуация.

- Отвъд фактологията, смятате ли, че този път вече ще има и някакво приложение на практика на тези решения, защото и преди Народното събрание е осъждало под една или друга форма комунизма, но без реален резултат?

- Това са усилия, продължаващи много години. Това е поредната стъпка, която беше направена. Така България се присъедини към приетите решения на три европейски институции. В тези резолюции категорично е посочена необходимостта от реално осъждане на престъпленията на тоталитаризма, както и отбелязването на 23 август като ден на памет за тези престъпления. В България тоталитарен режим беше комунистическият. Но ние се присъединяваме към общия европейски процес, към общия ден на памет за престъпленията на тоталитарните режими, за да може да не се забравя това, което се е случило. Това е част от нашата история и трябва всички да имат възможност да знаят какви ужасяващи неща са били извършвани в името на тези режими. Тогава ще можем да имаме едно определено отношение и към различните идеологии, стояли в основата на тоталитарните управления. Затова се смята, че познанието за тези режими би помогнало и за националното помирение. Просто всеки мислещ човек, който се смята за демократ, би трябвало да осъди престъпленията, независимо точно какъв тоталитарен режим ги е извършил. Става въпрос както за тези, изпратили евреите в газовите камери, така и за тези у нас, които в първите месеци след 9 септември са убили почти 30 хиляди души, 18 хиляди от които с висше образование. 200 хиляди души пък са изпратени в лагери, повечето без никакво обяснение и правно обвинение. Тези тежки репресии трябва да бъдат помнени.


- Има ли политическа воля в това Народно събрание тези истини да станат масово достояние? Защото вестник „ПРО и АНТИ“ отдавна говори за тях, но за жалост в обществото все още няма масов консенсус.



- Затова е нужно да има институт за национална памет. Вече имаме новина от политическа партия ГЕРБ, че такъв институт ще има. Остава да обсъдим подробностите как ще изглежда той, какви ще са отношенията му с комисията по досиетата. Според мен комисията по досиетата трябва да довърши работата си по уточняване на сътрудниците на репресивния апарат. Но трябва да се знае и какви точно са били деянията на този апарат, как е вземал той решенията си, каква е съдбата на жертвите. Затова комисията не може да бъде достатъчна за целите, които си поставяме. Ние работим в името на човечността – не за отмъщение или търсене на реванш. Всички би трябвало да застанем зад решенията на европейските институции – като съвременни европейски граждани. За съжаление при крайното гласуване нямахме пълно единодушие – за пореден път БСП не се присъедни към предложението за национален консенсус.

- Не е ли жалко, че БСП по този начин отново подчертава, че не е осмислила и преодоляла вината на комунистическите си предшественици?

- Някои от депутатите на БСП все пак предварително подкрепиха резолюциите на ЕП и ОССЕ, но не и тази на ПАСЕ. Това е нещо неаргуменирано, защото подкрепените от тях резолюции се позовават на тази на ПАСЕ. В крайна сметка от БСП не гласуваха и за целия проект. Явно те просто не бяха подготвени за този дебат.

- Какви са вашите следващи стъпки в подетия процес?

- Трябва да се приеме закон за институт за национална памет, което вече ще е нещо значително. В момента текат и дебатите по закона за давността. Това е нещо, което стои от много години. Не трябва парламентът да играе ролята на съд, но не бива и тези, обвинени в най-тежки престъпления, да се прикриват зад давността. В момента за жалост в наказателния кодекс максималната давност за най-тежките престъпления е 35 години, което не дава възможност много от престъпленията на комунистическия режим да бъдат осъдени. Където става дума за престъпления срещу човечеството, е записан единствено геноцидът. Както вече съм писал на страниците на “ПРО и АНТИ”, римският статут на Международния наказателен съд дава една много по-подробна дефиниция на това какво са престъпленията срещу човечеството. Тази дефиниция включва убийствата по политически причини, изселванията, безследното изчезване на лица и т.н. Всички тези неща са били извършвани от комунистическия режим в България. Затова за тях не трябва да има давност. Други държави вече са приели такива решения – Германия през 93-та, Полша. Трябва да отбележа и че престои правителството да внесе нов закон за образованието. Тогава ние ще внесем отново предложение престъпленията на комунизма да се включват в учебниците по история, ако подобно предложение не се съдържа в проекта.

- Можем ли тогава да разчитаме, че още в този парламент ще се реши и въпросът за давността?

- По много от вече приетите неща ние работим от години. С постоянство и упоритост постигаме своите цели. Дори един отказ не означава приключване на въпроса. Дебатите винаги са актуални, защото справедливост трябва да има. Когато престъпленията са извършени и няма наказание, това разрушава обществения морал. Затова не трябва и един тоталитарен режим да бъде представян като алтернатива на демокрацията, защото той просто не може да бъде такава. Затова ние продължава да работим по всички тези посоки.



КАРТИНИ ОТ АДА

Нася Кралевска – САЩ



Съветска Украйна. Хиляда деветстотин тридесет и трета година.

Безлюдни пътища. Опустели нивя. Онемели села. Празни хамбари. Обори без добитък.

Вкоченясали трупове по стърнища, улички, дворове, мегдани. Къщурки с мъртъвци по кревати и подове. Сайванти с обездвижени от немощ човекоподобни призраци. Плевни с полуживи деца с телца като ембриони в спиртни стъкленици. Жени с плитко дихание, подути кореми, морави лица, избелели зеници. Мъже-скелети, копаещи собествените си гробове, за да не попаднат в общата яма наедно с другите смъртници. Дървета със самообесили се окаяници.

Залитащи от безсилие баби, оставящи осиротели пеленачета по друмове с надежда случайно премираващ пътник да ги прибере. Обезумели майки, подаващи през прозорци на влакове децата си на непознати хора. На тях самите е забранено да напускат обречената на смърт от тотален глад територия. Нямат право на пътни документи.

Все пак по чудо някои селяни успяват да се доберат до близкия град, следвайки жп релсите. И там недоимък, глад, купони, опашки. Болници с лекари и медицински сестри, на които е наредено да не оказват помощ на умирающите.

Озверени от немотия граждани, подритвайки като кучета бегълците – земеделски стопани, продавали им години наред по пазари пресни храни, плодове, зеленчуци. Партийна полиция, която бие клетниците, а после ги захвърля в тъмни складове, за да умрат без свидетели. Със сетни сили нещастниците пълзят навън в желанието си да издъхнат под открито небе.

Границите на съветската република са блокирани от въоръжена охрана. Украинската провинция е превърната в гигантски лагер на смъртта.

По селата с всеки изминат ден адът добива по-зверски очертания. Хората, подложени на бавната, унизитела, неизбежна загуба на живот, предизвикана от насилствен глад в един от най-плодородните райони на света, губят човешкия си образ. Ядат плъхове, мърша, отпадъци, бурени, треви, изпражнения. Алчно поглъщат закланите си кучета и котки.

Гладът – и то пълният - е лош съветник. Преди да причини смърт, той предизвиква у жертвата си продължителни неописуеми физически страдания. Подбужда я към престъпления, кражби, лудост, аморални действия.

Съпрузи насърчават жените си да проституират с болшевишки функционери срещу парче хляб. Родители изпъждат децата си в града да просят, където вместо залък те намират смъртта си в безхлебни сиропиталища. Мъж и жена заживяват в дива омраза. Синове и дъщери се насъскват срещу родителите си. Властта очаква от тях да следат и предават бащите, майките, роднините си.

И накрая настъпва най-лошото, най-ужасното, най-нечовешкото, за което е страшно дори да се мисли, камо ли да се говори и пише – с продължителния глад в някои домове идва канибализмът.

Майка сварява сина си, за да нахрани себе си и дъщеря си. Шестгодишно момиченце – спасено от роднини - за последен път вижда баща си, когато той точи ножа си, за да го заколи. В друго домакинство отсичат главата на снаха, за да опечат тялото й във фурна.

Лекарка пише до близките си в града, че още не е канибалка, но преди редовете й да ги достигнат, може и да стане. Група дечица късат парчета от месото на най-малкото сред тях и заедно с него ги ядат, отпивайки от кравта му…   

Не, това не са картини, рожби на болна фантазия, а спомени на очевидци и на оцелели страдалци, документирани в наскоро излязлата и добила широка известност книга “Кървави земи” на професора по история от Университета Йейл Тимоти Снайдър. И ако има нещо болно в цялата тази история, то е садизмът на бащицата Йосиф Сталин, обрекал съзнателно и планомерно на гладна смърт милиони свои поданици в благодатната, обширна земя на Украйна. Част от населението на републиката трябва да бъде затрито, за да може московският сатрап да наложи колхозите си и да създаде съветска нация, годна да строи комунизъм.

В името на “висшите” цели в селата на Съветска Украйна през 1933 г. на ден умират десетки хиляди души. За Йосиф Сталин, оставил милиони без житно зърно, троха хляб, грам месо и какъвто и да било зеленчук, мъчителното им съществуване и грозна гибел, не са друго, а саботаж срещу червената власт.

Забравил е, че сам той е разпоредил на няколко пъти през 1932 г. – когато започва по-страшната и от мор трагедия - да се изземе от селяните чрез убийствено завишени квоти за доставки цялата им реколта; че ги е оставил без зърно за посев; че със заповод е забранил изпращането на стоки и храни за селата; че е претърсил чрез зловещите емисари от политическата си полиция хамбарите, оборите, къщите, плевните на земеделците и е конфискувал до шушка всичко намерено в тях. Не се и сеща, че през ноември и декември 1932 г. е предприел седем допълнителни насилнически действия, превърнали през 1933 г. Украйна в гробище без гробове, а с плитки трапове, от които години наред ще се подават части от телата на обезобразени от глад мъртъвци. Не малко от тях - заровени преди да настъпи краят им.

По времето, през което провинцията на Съветска Украйна е подложена на смъртоносен глад, съдистът-болшевик разполага с 3 милиона тона резервни зърнени храни в правителствените си складове. Но нали трябва да се зида комунизъм и да се утвърждава традицията строят на “равенството и братството” да бъде граден върху човешки трупове!

А на мястото на умъртвените, т.е. в самите им къщурки, скоро ще се заселят подбрани руснаци, надъхани с болшевишко верую…

Не само Украйна е превърната в земен ад. Подобна е съдбата и на други райони на многонационалния Съветски съюз, осъдени на смърт чрез Големия глад: Казахстан, Молдава, Беларус и зърненопроизводителните терени на Средното и Долното Поволжие, Северен Кавказ, Централния чернозем, Южен Урал, Западен Сибир.

През 1933 г. в частни разговори съветски първенци споменават цифрата 5,5 милиона души като най-вероятната за унищожените от глад. Четири години по-късно преброяването на населението установява с 8 милиона по-малко поданици в страната на комунизма от очакваната цифра. Сталин забранява да бъдат оповестени резултатите и заповядва екзекуция на установилите ги демографи.

Едва ли някога ще се узнае точният брой на жертвите от Големия глад. Смъртта на огромна част от тях не е регистрирана. Някои историци твърдят, че пострадалите са 10 милиона. Други са на мнение, че те са седем. Според демографски изчисления, извършени по поръчка на ръководството на днешна независима Украйна, в някогашната съветска република са убити чрез глад 3,9 милиона души. За Съветски Казахстан се приема, че ликвидираните чрез глад човешки същества са 1,3 милиона, повечето от които принудително заселени номади.

А сега ми се иска да опиша друга една картина - не от ада, а от циничното ни съвремие.
На 27 януари 2011 г. Комисията по правата на човека в Народното събрание на Република България обсъжда отлично мотивирана декларация, внесена от сините депутати Лъчезар Тошев и Иван Иванов. Същността на документа е да осъди умишлено предизвикания глад в Украйна - известен като Гладомор - и в другите републики от бившия Съветски съюз като едно от най-мащабните престъпления срещу човечеството и да изрази почит към милионите невинни жертви на червения режим, сред които има и хиляди български земеделци.

Към декларацията са приложени две резолюции: на Парламентарната Асамблея на Организацията за сигурност и сътрудничество в Европа от 3 юли 2008 и на Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа от 28 април 2010 година.

Като припомнят, че парламентарните институции представляват волята на народите на съответните страни и определят до голяма степен хуманитарната политика и законодателство, текстовете им обявяват Големия глад за едно от най-тежките престъпления срещу човечеството. В заключение документите окуражават парламентите на всички държави да приемат закони относно признаване и осъждане на масовото безпрецедентно убийство, осъществено от съветската власт.

Като членка на Европейския съюз и на гореспоменатите организации от България се очаква да подкрепи резолюциите без всякакви проблеми. Разбира се, всичко трябва да мине по установения ред. А според правилника на нашия парламент декларацията, подготвена от Тошев и Иванов, първо трябва да бъде одобрение от Комисията по правата на човека и след това да влезе в пленарната зала на Народното събрание за гласуване.

Колкото и да е невероятно, последното няма да се случи в близко бъдеще. Защото от деветимата депутати в Комисията по правата на човека само двама определят Големия глад като престъпление срещу човечеството. Това са Йордан Бакалов от СДС и Тунчер Кърджалиев от ДПС. Други двама народни избраника с гласа си отхвърлят декларацията - ще рече за тях убийството на милиони човешки същества не заслужава да бъде заклеймено, а седмина изобщо нямат отношение по въпроса.

Какъв цинизъм, какво бездушие и каква липса на човещина са проявили деветимата депутати, гласували с “против” и с “въздържал се” по повод подобно чудовищно злодеяние!

А липсата на човещина не е безобидна черта на характера. Тя крие сериозни заплахи. Така например според регистрирани сведения на оцелели от Гладомора украинци именно люде с това качество са ставали канибали.

Добре е, че въпросните парламентаристи не са недохранени. 


                                                                    Вх.№ 154-03-2 /13.01.2011г.

ДО
ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛЯ НА
ХLI НАРОДНО СЪБРАНИЕ
Г-ЖА ЦЕЦКА ЦАЧЕВА




УВАЖАЕМА ГОСПОЖО ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ,

На основание чл. 86, ал. 1 от Конституцията на Република България и чл. 78, ал. 1 от ПОДНС внасяме проект за Декларация с мотиви към него.
Молим проектът за Декларация да бъде предоставен за разглеждане и приемане съгласно установения ред.



София, 13.01. 2011 г. 

                                               Вносители:

                                     н.п. Лъчезар Тошев


                                     н.п. Иван Н.Иванов



РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ

ЧЕТИРИДЕСЕТ И ПЪРВО НАРОДНО СЪБРАНИЕ

Проект!

ДЕКЛАРАЦИЯ

Относно: възпоменание на Големия глад (Гладомор) в Украйна
1932-1933г. и другите републики на бившия Съветски съюз


Народното Събрание на Република България :

1. Като изразява своята подкрепа за Резолюцията на Парламентарната Асамблея на ОССЕ „Гладомора 1932-1933г. в Украйна”, приета в Астана на 3 юли 2008г., Резолюцията на ЮНЕСКО от 1 ноември 2007г. за „Възпоменание на жертвите на Големия глад (Гладомор) в Украйна през 1932-1933г.” и Резолюцията 1723/2010г. „Възпоменание за жертвите на Големия Глад (Гладомор) в бившия СССР”, приета от Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа

2. Като осъжда остро това престъпление срещу човечеството, извършено умишлено от тогавашното ръководство на Съветския съюз което е довело до смърт от принудителен глад над 7 милиона души в Украйна и на милиони хора в Казахстан, в Република Молдова, в Беларус и в зърнопроизводителните райони на Русия (Средното и Долното Поволжие, Северен Кавказ, Централния чернозем, Южен Урал, Западен Сибир)

3. Като припомня, че сред жертвите на Гладомора са и българите живяли в Украйна и в други републики от бившия Съветски съюз, занимавали се със земеделие - факт припомнян нееднократно от сдруженията на украинските българи

4. Като припомня задължението на страните членки на ОССЕ „ясно и недвусмислено да осъдят тоталитаризма”, съдържащо се в Чл.40 на Копенхагенския документ от 1990г., приет на 29 юни 1990 г. на среща на Конференцията за сигурност и сътрудничество в Европа - предшественик на днешната Организация за сигурност и сътрудничество в Европа, в което е участвала и Република България


5. Като изразява удовлетворение от осъждането на Гладомора от
Образователната и Научна Организация на Обединените Нации

6. В съответствие с Резолюция 1481/2006 за „Необходимостта от международно осъждане на престъпленията на тоталитарните комунистически режими”, приета от Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа


ДЕКЛАРИРА:

Осъжда умишлено предизвикания глад в Украйна (Гладомор) и в другите републики от бившия Съветски съюз 1932-1933г. като едно от най-големите престъпления срещу човечеството, извършено от ръководството на Съветския съюз и изразява почит към невинните жертви на на комунистическия режим в бившия Съветски съюз.




София, 13.01.2011 г. 

                                        Вносители:


                                н.п. Лъчезар Тошев


                        н.п. Иван Н.Иванов






М О Т И В И

На 7 ноември 2003 г. 35 държави - членки на ООН направиха съвместно изявление по повод 70-тата годишнина от масовият глад в Украйна - наречен „Гладомор” в периода 1932-1933г., извършен умишлено от тогавашното ръководство на Съветския Съюз и предизвикал смъртта на над 7 милиона украинци и отнел много милиони човешки животи в Казахстан, Беларус, Република Молдова и Русия.

Сред жертвите на Гладомора, попадат и значителен брой от украинските българи, занимавали се със земеделие.

Това е едно от най-тежките престъпленията на тоталитарните комунистическите режими, които са отговорни за смъртта на над 100 милиона души в целия свят.

Целта на тази престъпна политика е била да се премахне евентуалната съпротива на селячеството н бившия Съветски съюз срещу насилствената колективизация и формирането на „съветска нация”.

С редица свои актове Съветът на Европа, Европейският парламент, Организацията за Сигурност и Сътрудничество в Европа призовават за недвусмислено осъждане на такива престъпления.


Настоящият проект е в съответствие с резолюциите на Парламентарната Асамблея на ОССЕ и Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа, чиито текстове са представени по-долу.










Приложение към мотивите

Неофициален превод!
Резолюция
на Парламентарната Асамблея на ОССЕ за Гладомора от 1932-1933 г. в Украйна
Астана, 3 юли 2008г.


1. Като препотвърждава важната роля на ОССЕ за разпространението на човешките права и ценности
2. Припомняйки, че парламентарните институции играят решаваща роля в определяне на хуманитарната политика и законодателство и представляват волята на хората на съответните страни
3. Подчертавайки, че повишаването на информираността на обществото за хуманитарните трагедии в нашата история е средство за възстановяване на достойнството на жертвите, чрез познание за техните страдания и за предотвратяване на подобни трагедии в бъдеще
4. Напомняйки на държавите-членки на ОССЕ за задълженията им ясно и недвусмислено да осъдят тоталитаризма (Копенхагенският документ от 1990 г.)
5. Припомняйки, че управлението на сталинисткия режим в бившия СССР доведе до огромни нарушения на човешките права и лиши от право на живот милиони хора
6. Припомняйки също, че престъпленията на сталинисткия режим са вече разкрити и осъдени и че някои от тях все още изискват национално и международно признаване и недвусмислено осъждане
ПА на ОССЕ:
7. Почита паметта на милионите невинни украинци, загинали по време на Гладомора 1932-1933 г. като резултат от масово гладуване до смърт, предизвикано от жестоки преднамерени действия и политика на тоталитарния сталински режим
8. Приветства признаването на Гладомора в ООН, от Образователната и научна организация на ООН и от националните парламенти на редица от страните- членки на ОССЕ
9.Одобрява съвместната декларация на 31 страни -участнички в ОССЕ по повод 75-ата годишнина от Гладомора от 1932-1933 г. в Украйна, обявена на 15-ата среща на Съвета на Министрите на ОССЕ
10. Подкрепя инициативата на Украйна за разкриване на цялата истина за тази трагедия на украинския народ-в частност чрез повишаване на общественото познание за Гладомора на международно и национално ниво, организирайки възпоменания на Гладомора, както и академични, експертни и граждански събития, имащи за цел да се дискутира този въпрос.
11. Поканва депутатите от страните, членуващи в ОССЕ, да участват в събитията, посветени на възпоменанието на 75-ата годишнина от Гладомора 1932-1933г. в Украйна
12. Силно окуражава всички парламенти да приемат закони относно признаване на Гладомора.




Неофициален превод! 
 
ПАРЛАМЕНТАРНА АСАМБЛЕЯ НА СЪВЕТА НА ЕВРОПА

РЕЗОЛЮЦИЯ 1723/2010
(приета на 28април 2010г.)

ВЪЗПОМЕНАНИЕ НА ЖЕРТВИТЕ НА ГОЛЕМИЯ ГЛАД (ГЛАДОМОР) В БИВШИЯ СССР

  1. Парламентарната Асамблея позовавайки се на Резолюция 1496/2006 за необходимостта от международно осъждане на престъпленията на тоталитарните комунистически режими, в която категорично се осъди масовото нарушаване на човешките права извършено от тоталитарните комунистически режими и се изрази съчувствие, разбиране и признание към жертвите на тези престъпления. Тя също заяви че познаването на историята е едно от предварителните условия за недопускане на подобни престъпления в бъдеще.
  2. Тоталитарният сталинистки режим в бившия Съветски съюз доведе до ужасяващи нарушения на човешките права, които лишиха милиони хора от тяхното право на живот.
  3. Една от най-трагичните страници в историята на народите от бившия Съветски съюз е масовият глад в зърнопроизводителни зони на страната, която започва в края на 1920-те години и достига своята кулминация 1932-3г.
  4. Милиони невинни хора в Беларус, Казахстан, Молдова, Русия и Украйна, които са били част от Съветския съюз, са загубили своя живот като резултат от масова гладна смърт, предизвикана от жестоките умишлени действия и политика на съветския режим.
  5. В Украйна, която е пострадала най-много, особено засегнато от Големия Глад е било селячеството и милиони отделни фермери и членовете на техните семейства са загинали от глад последван от насилствена колективизация, забрана за напускане на засегнатите зони и конфискация на зърното и друга храна. Тези трагични събития се отнасят до Гладомора (политически мотивирано гладуване до смърт) и са признати със закон в Украйна за акт на геноцид срещу украинския народ.
  6. В Казахстан също милиони хора стават жертви на масовото гладуване и делът на загиналите спрямо цялото население е най-висок в Съветския съюз. Традиционно номади, животновъдите казахи са били принудени да се заселят и били лишени от добитък. Големият Глад се помни като най-голямата трагедия на казахския народ.
  7. В зърнопроизводителните зони на Русия ( Средното и Долното Поволжие, Северен Кавказ , Централния чернозем, Южен Урал, Западен Сибир и някои други региони), гладът причинен от „колективизацията”и отнемането на собствеността на частните фермери е отнело милиони животи в селските и градските райони. Според точните данни е оценено, че населението на Русия е понесло най-висока смъртност като резултат от съветската аграрна политика.
  8. Стотици хиляди фермери умират и в Беларус и Република Молдова.
  9. Въпреки, че тези събития са имали своята специфика в отделните региони, резултатите са били еднакви навсякъде: Милиони човешки животи са били безмилостно жертвани в изпълнение на политиките и плановете на сталинисткия режим.
  10. Асамблеята почита паметта на всички онези които са загинали в това безпрецедентно човешко бедствие и ги признава като жертви на жестоките престъпления на съветския режим срещу неговия народ.
  11. Тя остро осъжда жестоките политики изпълнявани от сталинисткия режим, довели до смъртта на милиони невинни хора, като престъпления срещу човечеството. Тя категорично отхвърля всички опити да бъдат оправдани тези смъртоносни политики независимо с какви мотиви и припомня, че правото на живот е неотменимо.
  12. Тя приветства усилията насочени към разкриване на историческата истина и повишаване на информираността на обществото за тези трагични събития в миналото. Такива усилия трябва да целят обединяване, а не разделение на хората.
  13. Асамблеята приветства извършеното в Беларус, Казахстан, Република Молдова, Русия и особено в Украйна с цел улесняване на достъпа до архивите и призовава компетентните власти на тези страни да разсекретят архивите си и да улеснят достъпа до тях на всички изследователи включително от други страни.
  14. Освен това тя призовава другите страни-членки на Съвета на Европа да направят националните си архиви открити и достъпни.
  15. Асамблеята призовава историците от страните на бившия Съветски съюз пострадали от Големия глад, както и историците от други страни, да провеждат съвместни независими изследователски програми с цел да бъде установена пълната, безпристрастна и неполитизирана истина за тази човешка трагедия и тя да бъде направена обществено достояние.
  16. Тя настоява политиците от всички страни на Съвета на Европа да се въздържат от всеки опит за политическо влияние върху историците и предрешаване на изхода от независимото научно изследване.
  17. Тя приветства решението на украинските власти да определят национален ден за възпоменание на жертвите на Големия Глад (Гладомор)в Украйна и окуражава властите в другите пострадали страни да направят същото по отношение на техните жертви.
  18. Тя допълнително окуражава властите на всички тези страни да се споразумеят за участие в общи мероприятия за възпоменание на жертвите от Големия Глад без значение на тяхната националност.


София, 13.01.2011 г.  

                                                       Вносители:



2010 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Second part)
REPORT
Fifteenth sitting
Wednesday 28 April 2010 at 3 p.m.


(…..............)




4. Commemorating the victims of the great famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to the debate on the report from the Political Affairs Committee on commemorating the victims of the great famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR, Document 12173, presented by Mr von Sydow, followed by an opinion presented by Mr Rowen on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 12181.
I remind members that we have agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.30 p.m. I ask members to restrict their speaking time so that we can ensure that the largest number possible have an opportunity to express their view.
I call Mr von Sydow to present the report on behalf of the committee. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – Dear colleagues, I have the duty of presenting on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee the report on commemorating the victims of the great famine, Holodomor, in the former USSR. I do so in my capacity as chair of the committee. Our rapporteur, Mr Çavuşoğlu, cannot do that himself because he now presides over our Assembly.
The great famine in the former Soviet Union in the early 1930s is one of the most tragic pages in European 20th century history. Millions of people died of hunger in the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and especially Ukraine as a result of the cruel, inhuman policies and actions of the totalitarian Stalinist regime. In Ukraine, which suffered the most, those tragic events are referred to as the Holodomor, and are recognised by Ukrainian law as an act of genocide against Ukrainians.
The tragic issue was brought to us in the Assembly in January 2008 when a motion on the need for international condemnation of the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1932-33 was tabled. It called on the Assembly to condemn the deeds of the repressive Stalinist regime and to commemorate the millions of Ukrainian victims of the Holodomor, which means “artificial famine” or “killing by hunger” in Ukrainian.
In March 2008 another motion – on the 75th anniversary of the mass famine in the territory of the former USSR – was introduced in the Assembly. It was intended to address the tragedy of all those who became victims of the ’32-‘33 mass famine in the former Soviet Union, including in Ukraine. Both motions were referred to the Political Affairs Committee. In May 2008, the committee decided to merge the two motions in a single report.
By means of that report we, the committee, sought to find ways leading to reconciliation. That is why the rapporteur invited the parliamentary delegations directly concerned by the issue, whose countries suffered during the great famine, to submit written contributions to complete his findings. We are grateful to our colleagues from Ukraine, Moldova and Kazakhstan for their input, which may be found as an attachment to the report and which allows us better to comprehend the variety of views on the great famine. We also received a written contribution from Russia and it has been circulated in the committee, but it came too late to be attached to the report.
Now, briefly, the facts. In the late 1920s the Soviet leadership launched a policy of industrialisation, the rapid development of heavy industry to transform a largely agrarian nation into an industrial power. That policy required enormous human and material resources. The Soviet leaders decided to step up grain exports to the west as a source of foreign currency for industrialisation. At the same time the Soviet state started a policy of collectivisation – the creation of collective farms instead of individual privately owned farms. Peasants had to give up their private plots of land and property. The produce of collective farms was sold to the state at a low price set by the state. As peasants were not eager to join, in November 1929 the Soviet leadership decided to implement accelerated forced collectivisation. That led to a catastrophic drop in farming productivity from 1929-30.
The famine started in 1929 in the grain-producing areas. Documents now available show that the Soviet leadership was aware of the harsh famine in those parts of the USSR but did not change its policy. The central government and local and regional authorities persistently required the fulfilment of grain and food procurement at all costs, and did not hesitate to resort to repression and the use of force against civilian peasants in the process of food requisition.
The Soviet regime sought to hide all the information about the famine, both inside the country and abroad. The facts were hidden by the Soviet regime not only during the events but also many years afterwards, until the late 1980s and Perestroika.
Millions of people died, and there is horrible evidence that people had to cling to cannibalism – they had to eat corpses. If you did not experience this or you do not have relatives who did, or if you are aware of it only through literature, you cannot appreciate the grim horror. The Soviet regime bears the responsibility for the deaths of millions of people in Ukraine and in all the other regions concerned in the then USSR, and it is guilty of the crime against its own people.
The issue of the Holodomor is still dividing Ukrainian politicians and society. Former President Yushchenko and his party, as well as other parties, call the Holodomor an act of genocide against Ukrainians. They believe that the famine in Ukraine, contrary to the other regions of the former USSR, was a deliberately organised act of genocide aimed at physically eliminating Ukraine as a nation. According to them, Ukrainian peasants were starved to death not because they were peasants but because they were Ukrainians.
We heard, however, President Yanukovych’s position yesterday. In his view, the Holodomor was a crime of a Stalinist totalitarian regime and a common tragedy of the peoples of the former USSR, not an act of genocide targeting one specific group: the Ukrainians.
The report comes to the conclusion that the great famine in the Soviet Union was the result of the policies of the Soviet totalitarian regime led by Stalin. The food shortages in the grain-growing areas of the USSR that led to mass famine and the deaths of millions of peasants were caused by the policy decisions taken by the highest authorities of the Soviet state and actively implemented at regional and local levels. We strongly condemn these policies and actions as crimes of the Soviet regime against its own people and crimes against humanity. We reject any attempts to justify these deadly policies, for whatever purposes.
We honour the memory of all those who perished in the unprecedented human disaster, and recognise them as victims of the deliberate crime of the totalitarian regime. We welcome all efforts aimed at revealing the historical truth and at raising public awareness of these tragic events. We believe that such efforts should unite, not divide, peoples.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr von Sydow. You have four minutes left at the end of the debate. I call Mr Rowen, rapporteur, for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr ROWEN (United Kingdom) – On behalf of my committee, I welcome the report of the Political Affairs Committee and its strong condemnation of the acts committed during the Holodomor, in which millions of ethnic Ukrainians perished. The question, as the rapporteur has rightly highlighted, is whether such acts should be considered genocide.
As rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I refer the Assembly to the definition under Article II of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It states that genocide is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, 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.”
Although there is some argument about the motives, there is no doubt that this act was specifically targeted against the Ukrainian people, whether in Ukraine itself or in those parts of the Soviet Union where they were the predominant community. For that reason, I ask the Assembly today to consider this issue and I have moved a number of amendments relating to it. In 2003, 25 members of the United Nations signed up to a declaration stating that this act was genocide. The United States, Canada, and many Latin American and east European countries recognise this act as genocide.
A few weeks ago, the president of Poland was tragically killed on his way to Katyn. Katyn was an horrendous experience for the Polish people, but the one thing that that tragic event did was to bring the peoples of Russia and Poland closer together in reconciliation. If there is to be true reconciliation, the fact that this act was primarily aimed against the Ukrainian people and was genocide needs to be recognised. If we cannot do that, we cannot bring about true justice and reconciliation.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you.
The debate is now open. The first speaker is Mr Meicar, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr MEIKAR (Estonia) – The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe welcomes the strong condemnation of the Soviet regime’s policies in the 1930s. We strongly support the victims of the great famine and the relatives of the Ukrainians, Kazakhs and all other peoples who suffered. We thank the rapporteur for his outstanding work and I recommend that everyone read the memorandum to find more facts.
The tragic events in Ukraine are referred to as the Holodomor, a politically motivated famine that is recognised by Ukrainian law as an act of genocide against Ukraine. The Holodomor has been recognised as genocide by several other countries as well. To honour the memory of the great famine and the relatives of those involved in it, historians from countries of the former Soviet Union that suffered during the great famine, as well as historians from all other countries, should conduct new, joint, unbiased and unpoliticised research. All the countries concerned could allow historians full access to all their archives.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Boswell to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – It is entirely right and fitting that this Parliamentary Assembly should resolve solemnly on its condemnation of the events of 80 years ago in which so many European citizens perished over a wide territory, albeit all within the Soviet Union at the time. The great famine reminds us, as democrats today, of the excesses of Stalin’s totalitarian regime, both negatively, in failing to provide the necessities of life for its people, and, more cynically, in using this as a vehicle of oppression.
Although much of today’s work should be the proper responsibility of historians and archivists – I have a strong personal interest in archives – it is right that we in this Assembly should also come to terms with great events, however terrible they were. I therefore warmly welcome this report and the draft resolution, although I have certain reservations about the use of legally precise terms, such as “crimes against humanity” or even “genocide”, when yesterday in this Chamber we heard the President of Ukraine himself express some scepticism about this. They are terms best defined and used in the law courts. Frankly, the terrible facts of the case are bad enough to speak for themselves, without needing a specific descriptive label.
However, although it is right to commemorate the past, not least in order to avoid repeating it, I would warn the Assembly against one danger in taking such an approach today. We should never take up the sometimes unclear and often disputed records of past events – in this case of 80 years ago – as weapons to brandish in our current political controversies. We should learn, for example, from the experience in my country and its neighbour, the island of Ireland, where until recently who had done what to whom in 1689 – or frankly, almost any year after that – passed for current debate, but was a material factor in holding back progress, which is now being made, towards an agreed settlement of an historic tragedy.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Hunko, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr HUNKO (Germany) thanked the rapporteur for the report and said that historical tragedies were often used as a political tool by the politicians of today. This case was no different, but the Council of Europe should reject this. He had a personal connection with this tragedy as many of his family had died as a result of the famine.
The historical context of the tragedy was crucial. The famine was a result of the brutal industrialisation programme of Stalin. The Russian revolution could not be blamed for the tragedy as it was an attempt to create a new regime which subsequently failed. By the time of Stalin, the regime in Russia could not be recognised as communist, and the report was accurate in its balanced representation of this fact, describing it as totalitarian. The tragedy could not be described as genocide and it certainly could not be compared with the Holocaust. Mr Yanukovych, President of Ukraine, had recognised these points in his balanced speech yesterday.
It was important to recognise the plight of the victims and prevent a repeat of such tragedies through more education.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Herkel, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – It is extremely difficult to start this speech standing between two Ukrainians in the Chamber, one of whom has left for the moment. I would like to thank the President of the Assembly for this important report. It is a valuable contribution to a larger process, which was initiated several years ago with the Assembly’s report on the necessity of condemning the crimes of totalitarian communism. I raise that report in connection with today’s discussion, as it was also mentioned by the rapporteur.
The President has taken a clever approach in the explanatory memorandum and the appendices by including comments from various national parliaments. I can only regret that I did not find the comment from the State Duma of the Russian Federation, although there were interesting comments from the parliaments of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Moldova.
There is one big question, which is sometimes very sensitive, especially in the case of the Holodomor: whether what happened was genocide. I fully agree that, after several millions of victims, the Ukrainian Parliament has the right to call it an act of genocide. However, if it was a genocide – or a “terror famine” or “famine genocide”, as some historians call it – there must also be perpetrators, as well as victims. Any kind of national accusation must be excluded, of course, but I return to the totalitarian communist regime. The memorandum refers to a lot of evidence that the collecting of cereals and the isolation of starving villages was initiated by the political decisions of the Bolshevik élite. This historical fact cannot be denied. Therefore, we can call what happened a “terror famine”, as the great historian Robert Conquest did, or a “famine genocide”, but it would be incredible hypocrisy for anyone to say that it was just the consequence of bad weather.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Iwiński, on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – In the three minutes at my disposal, it will be impossible to deal with even the main aspects of the tragic, but at the same time complicated, phenomenon of the Holodomor in Ukraine, as it is called – the great famine in the Soviet Union.
On behalf of the Socialist Group, I congratulate Mr Çavuşoğlu on his valuable report, which is based on many documents, visits to several countries and analysis. The report, which is devoted to a very difficult subject, is undoubtedly balanced, and contains many important appendices. At the same time, I welcome the substantial opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, prepared by Mr Rowen, which, frankly, also deals with quite controversial issues in parts.
The Holodomor, which started in the late 1920s and culminated in 1932-33, was the terrible result of the forced collectivisation policies implemented by the Stalinist regime. The exact number of victims – not only in Ukraine, but in Kazakhstan, the Volga region, Stavropol, Krasnodar, various zones of Russia and Belarus – is not known. The figure is perhaps as high as between 7 million to 10 million. Those innocent people died of hunger. They faced a cruel ban on leaving the affected areas as well as the confiscation of grain and other food. They were mercilessly sacrificed to Stalin’s projects, which constituted a crime against humanity.
Of course, many issues deserve to be clarified, and some opinions and qualifications remain contentious. One of them was raised yesterday in this Assembly by President Yanukovych, whose approach seems to me to be realistic. He said that the Holodomor had been a consequence of the Stalinist regime and that his country had been affected. He also said that to recognise the Holodomor as genocide in respect of one or another people would be incorrect and unfair, and that it had been a shared tragedy among all members of the Soviet Union.
All details of the Holodomor tragedy should be analysed and all the accounts should be thrown open. Historians should be encouraged to establish all the facts. Obviously, any attempt to justify Stalinist policies must be rejected.
The Socialist Group sees today’s discussion as a small, modest tribute to the victims of the Holodomor.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr von Sydow will reply at the end of the debate, but does he wish to speak at this stage?
That is not the case.
Mr Lindblad is not present, so I call Mr Sudarenkov.
Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that in discussing the issue today, there was one thing that needed to be avoided: the manipulation of the famine for political purposes. There was a danger that the Assembly would be looking after people who were long dead, rather than those who were alive.
The 1932-33 famine could not be divorced from previous agricultural chaos. Agriculture had always been difficult in Russia and famines were common. It had happened before the revolution when grain had been sent to Europe to save it from famine. Records had shown that Stalin had said that Ukraine would be lost and it had to be ensured that Ukraine was educated and transformed. History needed to be recorded in an accurate way.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Toshev.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – I greatly appreciate the fact that after the adoption of Resolution 1481 in 2006, our Assembly is again addressing the crimes of totalitarian communist regimes, which makes society aware of this bloody page in the history of mankind. 
Our rapporteur, who is also our President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, should be admired for his commitment to bringing to our attention today the Holodomor – one of the severest crimes by a communist regime. 

I would also like to express my support for the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which would make our resolution legally more precise.
The Holodomor, which means starvation to death, and is also known as hunger terror or murder by hunger, was a policy that the Soviet regime intentionally applied in 1932-33. 

It caused the death of several million people in Ukraine, mainly peasants, who were considered as potential opponents to the creation of the homogenous Soviet nation and of the Soviet regime. 

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union even adopted special measures to prevent peasants escaping from this area. 
Such a criminal policy was applied not only in Ukraine. As the rapporteur fairly pointed out, in Kazakhstan 1.5 million to 1.8 million people out of a population of 4 million died of starvation. However, the policy to crush potential opponents in Ukraine was very carefully planned. 

Thousands of teachers, writers, actors, thinkers and political leaders were assassinated. Thousands of the Ukrainian leadership were sent to the gulag – to concentration camps in Siberia. 

Churches were destroyed and the clergy killed or persecuted. Many Ukrainians were displaced to other parts of the Soviet Union and other nationalities were forcibly settled in Ukraine. 
Dr. Raphael Lemkin, the father of the United Nations Convention on Genocide, stated in his article, “Soviet genocide in Ukraine”, which I have here, that the Holodomor and mass murder of millions of people falls directly within the definition of genocide. Our draft resolution defines the crime as a crime against humanity, but many states accept that it is genocide. 
I believe that today our Assembly will unanimously condemn the Holodomor without hesitation or ambiguity. The decision will not only maintain the credibility of our Assembly, but strengthen the cohesion of European parliamentarians around our common values. 

Gloria victis.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mrs Guţu, you have the floor.
Mrs GUŢU (Moldova) congratulated the President on his excellent report, which was very balanced and not an easy task to have undertaken. Moldova welcomed steps by the Ukrainian authorities to reveal the truth about the great famine. It had affected Russia, Kazakhstan, Belorussia and citizens of the Republic of Moldova. The Moldovan delegation welcomed the draft resolution and the work of the Council of Europe.
The Republic of Moldova had initiated the 2006 Assembly Resolution No. 1481 on the famine. It had not been possible during eight years of communist government prior to this to initiate such work. Before Moldova proposed a solution, it wanted to listen. It had to be recalled that 300 000 Moldovans had died during the great famine, organised by the Stalinist regime. She hoped that the resolution would be adopted.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Kosachev, you have the floor.
Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) said that today’s debate was important, but there had been some distortion. There was a need to look at the Soviet Stalinist regimes’ relationship with its own people. There were still some forces which continued to justify their regime and make a hero of Stalin. However, they were a marginal fringe that should not jeopardise Russia’s position today as a modern democratic state. Stalin’s regime was totalitarian and its crimes should be condemned.
Relatives of victims were trying to politicise the issue. There was no discord between Russia and Ukraine; the President of Ukraine had made this clear on the previous day. The disputes were internal disputes thought up by political forces associated with the former President of Ukraine.
He congratulated Mr Çavuşoğlu on his excellent report. The Council of Europe should do everything it could do to ensure that every page of the report was accessible to all. The Assembly should not support the amendments.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Kosachev and called Mr Slutsky.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that today should be the last attempt to manipulate history for political ends. It had been a terrible tragedy, but there was no right to say it had only affected the Ukraine; it had affected many states. Using words such as genocide in Ukraine whipped up hysteria and implied that the famine had just been directed at Ukraine; this was a gross distortion of the truth.
The great famine had been looked at by many experts. For example, the 2007 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization report and the 2003 United Nations General Assembly found that the victims of Ukraine were a result of the Stalinist regime.
Today should be the last discussion of it in international institutions. Instead, victims should be commemorated. Mr Çavuşoğlu’s report gave an historical account and was not about genocide. The report should be supported and the Assembly vote against the amendments of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Zingeris, the floor is yours.
Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – Dear friends, today we had discussions in the Political Affairs Committee at which the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights presented some questions about the legacy of a most horrible totalitarian regime – the regime of Joseph Stalin.
Every nation has the right to their history. The Ukrainians have the right to their history next to Russia; they have the right to their history of Holodomor and Mazepa. Our friend Mr Kosachev mentioned a legacy of 5%. I do not think that this represents a marginal story in Ukrainian history. Some 90% of Ukrainians believe that they have the right to have their own story separately from that of Russia. We will support them in their right to construct their own history, based on the unanimous view of all parties and historians in Kiev.
The Russian people have the right to their story about Joseph Stalin and the genocide against the Russian people. The Kazakhs have the same right. If the Kazakhs and the Russians present their own histories of the horrible things that happened under Joseph Stalin, we would greatly support them, but today we are talking about Ukraine and the wonderful report by Mr Çavuşoğlu. I ask the Assembly to support the suggestions made by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and not to support some other opinions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Zingeris. I call Mr Rafael Huseynov.
Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The great famine and political repressions which took place in the former Soviet Union in the 1930s are a sorrowful and unforgettable part of the lives of many people who gained independence, having saved themselves from the Soviet space. It is a part of the biography not only of the persons who directly suffered this tragedy but of the generations born far later than the above-mentioned events.
I was born much later than that period. Being a researcher, I thoroughly investigated the period, referring to the most diverse archives of the Soviet times. However, my notions of these horrors and those of thousands of others are not generated just from sources and books. My parents’ childhood coincided with those years, and they described these events to us like horror tales.
The people of that generation had a particular love and respect for bread, which we cannot feel as they did. I repeatedly witnessed such people picking up a piece of bread from the ground, kissing it and putting it in a high place to prevent it from falling down. I heard from people whose childhood and youth coincided with the 1930s that they ate oilcake that had been kept for months for domestic animals, as well as nests and plants similar to bread. This went on for weeks because of the lack of bread.
A lot of people in Azerbaijan lost their lives owing to the famine of those years. Even the scanty stock of grain that people preserved to prevent their families from starving was confiscated by the state. Those having two or three pouches of grain were arrested as kulaks and sent into exile in the remote cold regions of the USSR. My grandfather through the maternal line was one of those who were subjected to arrest as kulaks.
The torments suffered by Azerbaijani people due to the cruel collectivisation policy and mass famine, as in many nooks of the Soviet Union, reverberate not only in scientific works but in fiction and motion pictures. Though a substantial historical panorama of that period was created in the report presented, it is a pity that Azerbaijan, which also suffered from such misfortunes, is not listed among the related countries. As a memory of those years, a prayer came into being in the Azerbaijani language which says, “Let God not examine anybody through famine.”
The phase called Holodomor was a period when the totalitarian Soviet regime tested human beings via starvation and the lack of bread. None the less, the most terrible thing was the liquidation of the most distinguished intelligentsia of the different peoples residing in the USSR by subjecting them to political repression. The aim was to deprive the peoples of their national particularity by annihilating their advanced descendants, thus leaving them without leaders, memory or future.
The Assembly should prepare separate reports on Soviet political repressions, which were the most terrible manifestation of the inquisition. It would be better to inform member state representatives thoroughly of these truths. Certainly, the destructive policy implemented through famine and repression by the Soviet regime against dozens of peoples as well as millions of individuals is a genuine genocide, and this should be indicated in official political documents.
As for defining a separate day for the commemoration of the Holodomor in Ukraine and other countries, I too have a proposal. The issue is one of tragedy and mourning, and I would not wish another entirely sorrowful day to appear in our memory calendar. Instead, it would be better for the countries that suffered that tragic history to choose one day of the year to celebrate as a common day of bread. I actually wish for that day to be a holiday. Let various events related to bread be organised in each country. Nevertheless, let Holodomor, the trial of human beings through bread and their fight with famine, also be commemorated on that day.
A human being is the most precious and exclusive work created by God. God would never forgive those who subject his supreme work to such misfortunes, and neither would we.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Huseynov. I call Mr Timchenko.
Mr TIMCHENKO (Russian Federation) said that the famine had been terrible and represented a total breakdown in relations between the state and the farmers who produced the food. It was an open question as to whether the cyclical period of harvests was as responsible for the famine as the policies adopted by the Soviet regime. Even now there were lean years and years of plenty, but the famine of 1932-33 was far greater than anything since. Nobody could say exactly how many perished, but the greatest tragedy was that few remembered and even fewer discussed the Holodomor. Many of the archives containing information about the famine had been opened in the 1980s, and it had only been then that the scale on which grain had been confiscated had become apparent.
It was important to remember that Kazakhstan and the North Caucasus had also suffered greatly. He remembered that his grandparents never lost their instinct for hoarding which had been developed during the crisis. It was, however, unfortunate that a very human tragedy was now being manipulated by some Ukrainian politicians for nationalistic ends. The Stalinist regime had undoubtedly been responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but what was needed was balance rather than bias in the consideration of this terrible event.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Timchenko and called Mr Podlesov.
Mr PODLESOV (Russian Federation) thanked Mr Çavuşoğlu for his fine report but noted that the Political Affairs Committee had rejected amendments tabled to include reference to genocide. Some members had argued that the report was not clear enough that the Holodomor had been directed at the Ukrainian nation. It was necessary to look at all the processes which formed the process of collectivisation in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The Stalinist government had not wanted independent farmers to exist in its planned economy. All Russians now regretted the deaths of the victims of Stalinism, but the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly had rejected a resolution that had described the Holodomor as genocide. Such a resolution had, in the end, been agreed by only 25 national delegations.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Podlesov and called Mrs Marin.
Mrs MARIN (France) said that Mr Çavuşoğlu had produced an excellent report on which he ought to be congratulated. It was essential that this great crime was not ignored. Europe in the 21st century needed to move further away from totalitarianism, but condemning the past was not without risk. Individual groups ought not to be condemned unnecessarily, and the report wisely had not placed a value on one tragedy over another. Russia had recently started a process of opening up politically to the west as demonstrated by the actions of President Medvedev. Russia was looking to build new strategic relations with the United States of America and had even begun a process of rapprochement with Poland. It was unfortunate that the recent tragedy at Smolensk should have drawn attention away from the memorial at Katyn.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mrs Marin and called Mrs Bondarenko.
Mrs BONDARENKO (Ukraine) thanked the rapporteur for his report, which was a fine body of work. The Holodomor was the worst tragedy to have affected Ukraine since the advent of the Soviet Union. It followed 3 000 separate uprisings in the 1930s in the region that had fought for independence. The Soviet regime had wanted to get rid of independent farmers and Ukrainian intellectuals, and had also placed prohibitions on religious worship. The regime had prevented farmers from leaving their villages, with the secret police having orders to shoot any of those who attempted to do so. The Holodomor had been acknowledged as genocide by the Ukrainian Parliament and 25 others. The new President was, however, not working in the interests of the Ukrainian nation and took a different view.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mrs Bondarenko and called Mrs Reps, who was not present. He then called Mr Zelenskiy.
Mr ZELENSKIY (Russian Federation) said that the Holodomor had been discussed well in Mr Çavuşoğlu’s report. There was a historical controversy over the numbers who had died in the famine, with an American scientist having written recently that there was no attempt to eliminate an ethnic group. Rather, whole groups of farmers and peasants had suffered at the hands of the Soviet regime, and the report made this point very well. His mother was ethnically Ukrainian, his father coming from Stalingrad. He had in his veins both Polish and Russian blood and was wary of any amendments which would unwittingly mislead or confuse the truth. The group that had suffered the most had been the Russians, especially in the Volgograd area. He noted that a representative of Norway had been to the Volga to establish the truth there quite recently.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Zelenskiy and called Mr Renato Farina.
Mr FARINA (Italy) said that there was no doubt that the famine was the result of socialist programming and was willed by the Soviet regime – it was not a natural phenomenon. Russians were not guilty of the crime and so should accept that the tragedy was genocide, as it was a crime of the Soviet regime.
Politics was answerable to the historical truth, and as an Italian he apologised for Italy’s silence on the tragedy. Mussolini had remained silent despite knowledge of the tragedy and in 1933 had signed an Italian-Soviet friendship treaty. Representatives of both countries had congratulated each other on crushing peasant resistance.
The Council of Europe should recognise the truth and its responsibility for helping people crushed underfoot, and so should recognise the Holodomor.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Farina and called Mr Jemilev.
Mr JEMILIEV (Ukraine) thanked Mr Çavuşoğlu for his work on the report and for uncovering the crimes of the Soviet regime, for which the nationals of many countries would be grateful. It was a fact that people were killed in a most awful way, but the question was whether the tragedy was a result of deliberate Soviet genocide against another people. NKVD officials were recorded, in some cases, as taking the last piece of bread from the houses of starving peasants; this was deliberate killing. This differed from the Nazis, however, as it was not on the basis of race, but was a politically motivated killing. The Ukrainian economy posed a danger to Bolshevik control, and in order to combat this threat the Bolsheviks did not care about the death of other nationalities as a result of the famine. It was the intention of the Bolsheviks to break Ukrainian nationalism.
He was not an ethnic Ukrainian but a Crimean Tartar, and they had been the victims of another attempted genocide at the end of Second World War. He called on the Assembly to recognise the crime as genocide.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Jemiliev and called Mr Federov.
Mr FEDOROV (Russian Federation) said that it was a fraught problem that should not be used for political advantage. The report was successful in achieving an objective assessment of the events.
Many innocent people had died as a result of hunger, which was caused by a bad harvest and the negative attitude of those in the agricultural industry. The famine in the USSR should be recorded as a tragedy caused by a totalitarian regime, but it was not the result of a deliberate action. To argue that it was would be to distort the historical truth. It should be noted that the Ukrainian people did not see it as genocide and the previous President of Ukraine had failed in the attempt to present it as such.
Other European nations had continued to buy grain from the USSR, despite their knowledge of the famine under way in Ukraine. A total of 10 million tonnes of grain had been bought by European nations as the famine was under way.
It was important to learn the lessons of such a tragedy and to bring people together, rather than divide them. He urged Mr Rowen to withdraw his amendments.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Fedorov and called Mr Maglieri.
Mr MAGLIERI (Italy) said that the famine had affected many different countries and although the figure of 7 million had been mentioned, it may never be known how many had died as a result. The European Union had recognised the holocaust of Ukraine.
The general public in western Europe had for much of the 20th century been unaware of the tragedy. Historians should research the famine to shed light on the tragedy and open the events to the public.
The decisions of the tyrant Stalin on the socialist economy, which attempted to introduce collectivisation and industrialisation, had led to many deaths and wiped out the Ukrainian peasantry. The Council of Europe should encourage Ukraine to institute a day of commemoration of the tragedy. President Yanukovych, however, had yesterday denied the fact that the tragedy was genocide.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Maglieri and called Mrs Beck, who was not present. He then called Mr Pochinok.
Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) said that the terrible issue under discussion should unite countries. Many countries had recognised the terrible tragedy caused by the totalitarian regime. There were many monuments to the tragedy, including in Moscow, to which he had recently taken his daughters to whom he had had to explain the enormous number of people who had died because of the famine.
The orders of Stalin had made the tragedy possible, the results of which were recorded in many historical documents, the contents of which were horrific. It was not right, however, to say that one people had attacked another as Russians had suffered as well. This was a common tragedy and the Council of Europe should unite against such events.
THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Pochinok and called Mr Vareikis.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Pochinok. Mr Vareikis, you have the floor.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Let me start on an interesting note. Some time ago we heard the speech of Mr Slutsky, who glorified the report. Just afterwards, we heard Mr Zingeris speak, who is a very different person from Mr Slutsky. They are on opposite sides in their political thinking, but Mr Zingeris said that the report was perfect. So if two people on almost opposite sides in the Chamber say that the report is good, I have no choice but to say that it is good. It is indeed a good report, and it sets a precedent because it is so informative. It is not often that we have a report that contains so many facts. We will therefore probably support the report, whether amended or not, but I want to speak about the background and why we disagree on some points.
The Soviet Union was a unique country, with a unique idea in implementing huge projects. The Russian words that I used to hear when big projects were being implemented were “lyudi ne zhalet” – the value of the human being is very low; we have enough people. There were other crimes at the same time. There were economic crimes, with the implementation of an ill-thought-through economic idea. People were sacrificed, and there were political crimes too. The Soviet authorities not only wanted to implement economic ideas, but wanted to get rid of some groups in the population. Indeed, it was publicly stated that we had to get rid of certain foreigners.
There is something else that I would like to say, because I have experience of the Soviet Union. We are discussing whether there was a crime against the Ukrainians. I would say yes and no. Why do I say that? If you are committing a crime, you are committing a crime in a specific area, in a given place. You could say that you were against particular types of people in a given place, and in this case that place was Ukraine mostly, although other nations were affected. Whether by accident or not, Ukrainians were victims, although someone could say that Stalin was not necessarily exterminating Ukrainians. Let me give an example from the Balkans. If I went to the former Yugoslavia and said, “I am not shooting Serbs or Croats; I am shooting Roman Catholics,” what would that mean? It would mean that I was shooting Croats, even though I might say, “No, no, no, I have nothing against Croats; I am only against the Catholic Church.” In the same way, the government was against farmers, and farmers were Ukrainians. So, was it against Ukrainians or not? This is exactly what we are talking about.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I do not see Mr Lipiński, so I call Mr Sasi.
Mr SASI (Finland) – I congratulate Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu on an excellent report, which shows that he must be a good President for this Assembly. The report is well drafted, describes historical facts well, gives reasons for the famine – collectivisation – and clearly shows that the crime was that of communism. It was the crime not of a particular state, but of a cruel ideology. We must remember that this political famine was not the only one in history. Other examples include the collectivisation of Mao Tse Tung, during which tens of millions of people died in China. Today, North Korea has a similar system and perhaps tens of thousands of people are dying there. We must do something. The historical case that we are considering is important – we must learn from it and never repeat such a crime.
We should also consider the matter from the point of view of certain rights in society. There was an infringement of the right to employment and to earning one’s living through entrepreneurship, and an infringement of the right to own property. One has a right to keep the income that one has earned through one’s work and there should be no right to confiscate, at least not without compensation.
In future, if we do not let people work, or if we say that they have to work in a certain way, that will limit entrepreneurship. Before we tell people how they should work, we must ensure that we have important reasons for doing that. Restrictions must be as limited as possible.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Mr Parfenov.
Mr PARFENOV (Russian Federation) said that today the Assembly had returned to the history of the past century. History was politicised; it formed the political consciousness of people. The evaluation of the 1932-33 famine was a great responsibility and would form the way people assessed the past and its impact. The politicisation of history was being done in the interests of certain individuals. Today, a political version of the former leadership of Ukraine was being accepted, which the current Ukrainian President did not share.
The terms Gulag and Holodomor had been used to convince people that genocide had occurred. Certain groups were using it to gain power rather than unite people. It had to be understood that genocide could not be perpetrated against one people and not others. The Council of Europe had an opportunity to demonstrate that it was the conscience of Europe and it should make the right decision.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Mr Sobolev.
Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – First, I would like to thank Mr Çavuşoğlu for his excellent report. Five years ago, the Ukrainian Parliament and Ukrainian officials began a real investigation process, which was closed to us for decades during the communist regime and even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I believe that now, in our Parliament, many people can say that the Holodomor was a tragedy for the people who lived in the affected territories.
For me, the subject of our discussion is very important. Investigations show that in the 1930s we had a genuine tragedy, involving Ukrainians, Kazakh people, Russian people and others. However, it is important that Ukrainians as well as Jewish people have a name for “Holocaust”. The tragedy that we are considering now has its own name – the Holodomor. When our Russian colleagues say, “golodayo pomoshch” – we will support you – I emphasise that we need the truth and the facts of the tragedy. For our country, Ukraine, that is important not just for the millions and millions of people who died, but for those who live today, and not only in our country.
We go to the monuments with our children. We have thousands of monuments in Ukraine, where we can place flowers to the memory of those millions of people who died because of the Holodomor. We can now show people these monuments. We do not have graves for the people who died in the Holodomor, because thousands of them were placed in one big hole. So, for us, remembering is important.
The report states that we should thank all delegations. I want to thank one more person – Mr Çavuşoğlu, for making our national term, the Holodomor, an international term. Every nation that the Stalinist and Communist regime killed every day and every night will be remembered by millions of us.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Ms Pashayeva.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – First, I thank Mr Çavuşoğlu for his detailed and comprehensive report. Today, we are talking about the Holodomor. Millions of innocent people became the victims of crimes committed by Stalin’s totalitarian regime. We should speak about such events, condemn them and remember the victims of the tragedy to prevent such crimes from being committed in future.
As well as supporting all the proposals in the report, I would like to emphasise that we, as the Parliamentary Assembly, should condemn other crimes, tragedies and mass violations of human rights committed by totalitarian Stalinist regimes. I would like to inform the Assembly that tens of thousands of educated people – scientists, writers and poets – were killed in some countries of the empire during Stalin’s totalitarian regime in 1937. In those years, thousands of educated Azerbaijani people, such as scientists and writers – basically, most of the thinking brains of the nation – were killed by the Stalin regime.
I should also like to remember the people who were deported from their houses and their lands – millions of people whose human rights were violated in a mass way by the totalitarian Stalin regime. The consequences of that horrible tragedy faced by Crimean Tatars continue. Although they have obtained the right of repatriation to their native lands, they still suffer from a number of problems. We should increase our support in working towards a solution to the problems that they face.
I refer to another nation. All Meskhetian Turkish people were deported from their houses and native lands by the totalitarian regime. We should do our best to accelerate the repatriation process of Meskhetian Turks, who obtained the right of repatriation due to the support of the Council of Europe.
I am a representative of a nation that suffered from the tragedies and crimes committed by the totalitarian Stalin regime. In the 1920s, the Zangezur region, which is an ancient part of Azerbaijan, was forcibly taken away from Azerbaijan and given to Armenia. Between 1948 and 1953, during the period of the totalitarian Stalin regime, hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were deported from Armenia. The human rights of hundreds of thousands of people, whose houses, properties and belongings were forcibly taken away, were violated. The consequences of the crime committed in that period continue until now. Those people could not return to their houses and native lands for 60 years, because the Armenian Government does not allow their repatriation. Thousands of people die longing to return to their houses and native lands. Is this not another horrible tragedy? I call on the Assembly not to be indifferent to these people.
Yes, as stated in the draft resolution, we should study history so that we do not allow the recurrence of such events in the future. I think that today’s report and discussion serve this purpose. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Markov.
Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) said that there was agreement in the Assembly that the great famine was one of the most awful tragedies of the 20th century and that there had been many victims. It was also agreed that the totalitarian Stalinist regime was responsible. Mr Çavuşoğlu’s report was an excellent evaluation and had dealt with a difficult question in a balanced way. It was not clear why there was disagreement or why a particular group had been separated out.
The amendments of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights would change the thrust of the report by singling out one group, when the crime had affected many different groups. He said that that view of genocide had prevented him from entering Ukraine because of censorship, and people were being made to assess genocide in a certain way. The amendments were using contemporary law to judge former crimes. But it was a principle of law that present laws should not be applied to history. Real historians had not accepted this genocide, and no documents had been found to support it. He called on the Council of Europe to criticise the Stalinist regime and not to support the bizarre amendments of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr von Sydow to reply.
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) –Today, the rapporteur, Mr Çavuşoğlu, appeared before the Political Affairs Committee, by my invitation. He told us how he had worked on the final phases last year in order to finish this report, which colleagues have been so kind and welcoming about. He tried to achieve a compromise and to adopt a draft resolution that could be supported by all the parties involved. The core of this compromise was that we should not try to apply the notion of genocide but should talk about other notions.
Our Ukrainian friends thanked the rapporteur for this result, even if all their demands were not accepted. They acknowledged that the report was fair and balanced. The rapporteur thanks them and all colleagues for making a compromise possible. I know from what he has said that he deems it possible for the Assembly to preserve this compromise today and not to accept amendments that would change the balance in the draft resolution.
I think that I can summarise the rapporteur’s political, emotional and ethical view in his absence. He strongly calls on our Ukrainian friends not to oppose his and the committee’s approach. He is of the view that, in the first place, the Ukrainian people have the perfect right to commemorate the victims in their country. However, if they want others to share their sorrow, they should be ready to share the sorrow of others. This is the only way to go for reconciliation.
I hope that I have made it clear in the absence of the rapporteur, who has been so warmly talked about in the interventions today, why we in the Political Affairs Committee followed his intentions when we took our position on the various amendments. I hope also that I can give his views when we come to the individual amendments.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr von Sydow. The debate is closed.
The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 18 amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled.
They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the organisation of debates. I remind the Assembly that Amendment No. 1 will be taken at the end of the amendments, as it relates to the title of the resolution.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mrs Ana Guţu, Mr Vitalie Nagacevschi, Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi, Mrs Stela Jantuan and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to replace the word “Moldova” by the following words: “the Republic of Moldova”.
I call Mrs Guţu to support Amendment No. 6.
Mrs GUŢU (Moldova) said that she supported the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Kosachev.
Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) – I have no big problems with accepting the amendment. However, the Republic of Moldova was not internationally recognised at the beginning of the 1930s – it was a part of the Soviet Union in the same way as were Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus and other parts of the Soviet Union. This is illogical – it does not make any sense. Either we call each part of the Soviet Union by its full official name or we mention them by their short names. Making an exception for Moldova is simply illogical.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 6 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Paul Rowen on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, in the first sentence of paragraph 5, after the words “which suffered the most,” to insert the following words: “and territories of the North Caucasus where Ukrainians constituted the majority of residents,”.
I call Mr Rowen to support Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.
Mr ROWEN (United Kingdom) – Whatever the views on whether this was genocide, it is a historical fact that the majority of people who suffered and perished in the Holodomor were Ukrainian and of Ukrainian origin. The amendment seeks to establish that fact.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Pochinok.\
Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) – This is not only about Ukraine but about the Northern Caucasus. At this time, 3.8 million Russians and 3.1 million Ukrainians live in the Northern Caucasus. The Stavropol Krai region, for example, has 65.2% Russians, 33.8% Ukrainians, 3.5% Chechens, 1.9% Ossetians, and so on. There is a common problem in this case.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 2 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Renato Farina, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Giacinto Russo, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Paolo Giaretta, Mr Gennaro Malgieri and Mrs Fiamma Nirenstein, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “forced ‘collectivisation’”, to insert the following words: “(which had already been proposed by Lenin)”.
I call Mr Farina to support the amendment.
Mr R. FARINA (Italy) said that Lenin had been responsible for the Holodomor. Lenin had said that it would be a serious mistake to think that the Soviet Union would not have to return to economic terrorism in pursuit of the revolution. He referred members to the writings of Solzhenitsyn on this point.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Pochinok.
Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) – It is a fact that Lenin died in January 1924, and the documents on collectivisation were prepared in 1929. The mass famine began in 1929 to 1930. I am against Lenin – he is a very dangerous man – but he did not make any document about collectivisation.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 11 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Paul Rowen on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the first sentence, to insert the following sentence:
“This deliberate deprivation of food was aimed at creating such conditions of life as to bring about the partial physical destruction of the Ukrainian people.”
I call Mr Rowen to support Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr ROWEN (United Kingdom) – I should like to refer members of the Assembly to a letter written by Stalin on 11 August 1932 to the secretary of the Communist Party, in which he stated: “if we do not start rectifying the situation in Ukraine now, we may lose Ukraine”. That is, in my view, very clear evidence that this policy was deliberately targeted at the Ukrainian people.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Markov.
Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was simply not correct in that the Holodomor had been a crime against everyone affected by it, not just the Ukrainian people. The amendment would upset the whole balance of the report and as such should not be made.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 3 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Paul Rowen on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, in the second sentence of paragraph 5, to replace the words “are recognised by Ukrainian law as” with the following words: “should be recognised as”.
I call Mr. Rowen to support Amendment No. 4 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr ROWEN (United Kingdom) – In my earlier remarks, I referred to the definition of genocide. That definition was produced by Raphael Lemkin, who, in 1953, in a speech in New York, said that the Holodomor incident was genocide. If the author of our definition of genocide says that it is genocide, I find it very difficult to understand why members of the Assembly are not prepared to accept it.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Slutsky.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that this was the most unacceptable amendment of all. It simply was not accurate to call the Holodomor an act of genocide, as all groups in Ukraine had suffered at the hands of the totalitarian Stalinist regime.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 4 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Silver Meikar, Mr Aleksei Lotman, Mr Indrek Saar, Mr Egidijus Vareikis and Mr Göran Lindblad, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, replace the words “are recognised by Ukrainian law as” with the following words:
“could be recognised as”.
I call Mr Meikar to support Amendment No. 18. You have 30 seconds.
Mr MEIKAR (Estonia) – It was said that the resolution was a compromise and my proposal is exactly that. We propose that instead of the word “should” we use the word “could”. That accepts the fact that the Parliament of Ukraine and other countries have recognised the Holodomor as genocide. Using the word “could” is a good, balanced compromise for everybody.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Kosachev.
Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) – This is another attempt to suggest that the tragedy was directed towards certain people in the Soviet Union. That is completely false. Changing the word “should” to “could” does not change the content of the proposal. If it is accepted, that will be the position of our Assembly and it will be a strong signal to everybody. It is not a compromise; it is a clear position and it should be rejected. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 18 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Roman Zvarych, Mrs Olena Bondarenko, Mr Serhiy Sobolev, Mrs Chiora Taktakishvili and Mr Göran Lindblad, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the words “are recognised by Ukrainian law”, insert the following words:
“and by the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 13 January 2010”.
I call Mr Zvarych to support Amendment No. 10.
Mr ZVARYCH (Ukraine) – On behalf of the Ukrainian delegation, and in view of the fact that there have been so many calls here for a compromise document, I hesitate to insist on the amendment. Therefore, on behalf of the authors, I shall not move the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Renato Farina, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Giacinto Russo, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Paolo Giaretta, Mr Gennaro Malgieri and Mrs Fiamma Nirenstein, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, delete the word “wealthy”.
I call Mr Farina to support Amendment No. 12.
Mr R. FARINA (Italy)) said the amendment was intended to remove an unfortunate turn of phrase, which could inadvertently give the impression of anti-Semitism.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee adopted the amendment unanimously.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 12 is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mrs Ana Guţu, Mr Vitalie Nagacevschi, Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi, Mrs Stela Jantuan and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the word “Dozens” by the following word:
“Hundreds”.
I call Mrs Guţu to support Amendment No. 7.
Mrs GUŢU (Moldova) said that the amendment was meant only to replace “dozens” with “hundreds”, so as better to reflect the true number of Moldovans who had perished in the famine.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee was in favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mrs Ana Guţu, Mr Vitalie Nagacevschi, Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi, Mrs Stela Jantuan, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the word “Moldova” by the following words:
“the Republic of Moldova”.
I call Mrs Guţu to support Amendment No. 8.
Mrs GUŢU (Moldova) said the amendment was the same as one which had been opposed earlier and reflected the fact that some parts of Moldova had not experienced a famine.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kosachev.
Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) – I am far from denying that mass famine took place in Moldova. I have no problem with that at all. What we are talking about here is a completely different story. Certain members of the Moldovan delegation want to correct the text. It is right theoretically, but we are not doing the same thing for other regions of the former Soviet Union. Other national delegations have never taken such an initiative, so this proposal is illogical. Strangely enough, the amendment was supported by the Political Affairs Committee but it brings no logic to our document. Stay logical please.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee adopted the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Renato Farina, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Giacinto Russo, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Paolo Giaretta, Mr Gennaro Malgieri, Mrs Fiamma Nirenstein, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, after the words “victims of a cruel crime” insert the following words:
“, a veritable ‘terrorist famine’,”.
I call Mr Farina to support Amendment No. 13.
Mr R. FARINA (Italy) said that the amendment introduced the concept of a terrorist famine, used as a political weapon in order to exterminate a population. Stalin had stopped the flow of grain to certain areas and had decreed that people would be killed by hunger. He recalled the words of Vasily Grossman on this point
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Kosachev.
Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) – Terrorist famine is an invention. We are trying to introduce an amendment without further discussion and trying to implement new wording in, let us say, international law. We create legal documents in this Assembly, and I do not like the way this amendment has been presented. I would not mind if we had further discussions later and perhaps produced another document, but just to present an amendment such as this is completely unnecessary.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee rejected the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 13 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mrs Ana Guţu, Mr Vitalie Nagacevschi, Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi, Mrs Stela Jantuan and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, after the word “Kazakhstan”, to insert the following words:
“the Republic of Moldova”.
I call Mrs Guţu to support Amendment No. 9.
Mrs GUŢU (Moldova) said that the amendment was intended to introduce the correct terminology for the Republic of Moldova into the report.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Markov.
Mr MARKOV (Russian Federation) said that there was some logic to the amendment, but its spirit seemed to be divisive.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The committee adopted the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 9 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Paul Rowen, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 15 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly calls on historians and lawyers from all over Europe to conduct joint independent research in an unbiased and depoliticised manner in order to fully establish the facts about this human tragedy, and to assess these facts in terms of current international law.”
I call Mr Rowen to support Amendment No. 5 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr ROWEN (United Kingdom) – I welcome the rapporteur’s recommendation on further unbiased research. The difference between my amendment and the main text concerns the inclusion of lawyers. Whether one considers the Holodomor to be genocide or simply a crime against humanity, the fact is that when these issues are investigated – be it in The Hague, the International Criminal Court or the Court next door – lawyers are involved. To achieve a better balance, there ought to be the involvement of international lawyers.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Kosachev.
Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) – We are definitely in favour of conducting further research into this tragedy, and I am absolutely in favour of assisting in that work at all possible levels and in all the countries concerned. However, I am not sure that assessing this tragedy in terms of current international law is a legal demand. If we use such terms for an historical situation that occurred 80 years ago, we will start a very unpredictable process in many other cases as well.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 5 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Artsruni Aghajanyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr René Rouquet and Mr François Rochebloine, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 16 with the following paragraph:
“It urges the politicians in all Council of Europe member states to abstain from any acts aimed at the falsification or review of history and of recognised historical facts.”
If this amendment is adopted, Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 will fall.
I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment No. 14.
Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that the amendment would avoid any unobjective assertions and ensure that history was assessed objectively.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Seyidov.
Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – This is a very important report and we do not wish to use it for political reasons. The amendment would change the essence of the report, and that is why I am fully against it.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 14 is rejected.
We now come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Artsruni Aghajanyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan and Mr Armen Rustamyan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 16 with the following paragraph:
“It urges the politicians in all Council of Europe member states to reject policies of denial of past crimes against humanity and to abstain from any attempts to exert political influence on historians and prejudge the outcome of independent scientific research.”
I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment No. 15.
Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that the amendment would reject the negation of the crime.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Seyidov.
Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – The same logic applies here, and this would be very dangerous. We do not want the report to be misleading concerning the tragedy of the Ukrainian, Moldovan and Belarusian people. That is why we are fully against changing the essence of the report.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 15 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Artsruni Aghajanyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan and Mr Armen Rustamyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16, to replace the words “in all Council of Europe member states” with the following words:
“of the Council of Europe member states concerned”.
I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment No. 16.
Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that all the amendments to which he had spoken called for precision in drafting. This amendment would ensure the objective was addressed to the Council of Europe
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mrs Hajibayli.
Mrs HAJIBAYLI (Azerbaijan) – Again, this is an attempt to use the tragedy affecting millions of people for political purposes. This amendment has a very serious and obvious political connotation and contradicts the philosophy of the report. That is why I am absolutely against it.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 16 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Artsruni Aghajanyan, Mrs Naira Zohrabyan and Mr Armen Rustamyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16, after the word “historians”, insert the following words:
“and public figures in their countries who promote an honest and impartial dialogue on their national history, including, where relevant, by means of reviewing their national legislation which impedes such dialogue”.
I call Mr Rustamyan to support Amendment No. 17.
Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that it was not enough to refer only to historians; other figures were interested in promoting historical dialogue
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mrs Hajibayli.
Mrs HAJIBAYLI (Azerbaijan) – I am absolutely against this amendment, because it contains hints about circumstances that have nothing to do with the philosophy of the report, which is dedicated to the human tragedy of the millions of people who died in Ukraine. I am absolutely against the political connotations of this amendment; indeed, I am against the amendment entirely.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 17 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Paul Rowen, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, to change the title of the report to:
“Commemorating the victims of the Holodomor in Ukraine and of the great famines in Kazakhstan and other regions of the former Soviet Union”.
I call Mr Rowen to support Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr ROWEN (United Kingdom) – This amendment seeks to change the title slightly, while not detracting from the content of the report. It recognises that the tragedy of the Holodomor occurred principally in Ukraine. Although other regions of the Soviet Union were affected, it is a historical fact that the vast majority of the people who died were Ukrainian.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Kosachev.
Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) – We have heard enough proof that we should produce a report that will reconcile and unite the people of the various countries of the former Soviet Union. In that context, this report, as amended, is a very important text, but to change it suddenly by giving it a name that does not correspond with the content of the resolution is absolutely unacceptable. I am therefore definitely against this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee?
Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – The amendment was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment No. 1 is rejected.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12173, as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 12173, as amended, is adopted, with 81 votes for, 4 against and 3 abstentions.
I congratulate both the rapporteur and Mr Çavuşoğlu, the author of the report. I also thank you all for a very good debate on this subject.
(The sitting, suspended at 6.35 p.m., resumed at 6.45 p.m.)

 

Престъпление срещу човечеството ПАСЕ осъди Гладомора

От нашия специален кореспондент 
Гладоморът - умишлено предизвиканата смърт чрез глад в Украйна и други страни от бившия СССР през 1932 - 1933 г. - беше осъден категорично от Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа (ПАСЕ). На своята априлска сесия Асамблеята прие Резолюция 1723/2010 за възпоменаване на жертвите на големия глад (Гладомор) в бившия СССР. Документът се прие на основание на изискването в Резолюция 1481/2006 на ПАСЕ за международно осъждане на престъпленията на тоталитарните комунистически режими.
Сталинският режим в СССР е извършил ужасяващи нарушения на човешките права. Една от най-трагичните страници от историята на човечеството е именно Гладомора, смята ПАСЕ.
Най-засегната е Украйна, където от умишлено предизвикания глад са загинали милиони хора - главно в селскостопанските райони. Такава престъпна политика е провеждана и в Казахстан, Молдова и други части на СССР, където безброй много хора са умрели от съзнателно предизвикан глад. Милиони са били безмилостно пожертвани в изпълнение на политиката и плановете на сталинисткия режим.
В резолюцията си, ПАСЕ почете паметта на жертвите на това безпрецедентно бедствие за човечеството, признавайки ги за жертви на съветския режим срещу населението на страната.
Същевременно, Асамблеята категорично осъди жестоката политика на сталинския комунизъм, довела до смъртта на толкова невинни хора и я определи като престъпление срещу човечеството.
ПАСЕ решително отхвърля опитите за оправдаване на тези убийства и препотвърди, че правото на живот е неотменимо.
В края на резолюцията се приветства решението на Украйна да определи Ден за почитане на жертвите на Гладомора и призовава и другите пострадали страни да последват украинския пример.
Дебатите в ПАСЕ за приемане на резолюцията, осъждаща Гладомора, се проведоха на 28 април 2010 г. Докладът по темата беше изготвен от турския депутат и сегашен президент на ПАСЕ Мевлют Чавушоглу. От българската делегация в ПАСЕ, в дебатите взе участие Лъчезар Тошев.


 


Монументалният срам

Към гражданите на София. Към гражданите на България.


   Вече 50 години в центъра на София стърчи, изграден по волята на Българската комунистическа партия, паметникът на Съветската армия. Според “Енциклопедия България” (1986 г.) паметникът е “издигнат в знак на признателност на българския народ към Съветската армия – освободителка”, а една от трите бронзови композиции в долния край на монумента е композицията “Октомври 1917”, символизираща ”победния порив на съветския народ под развято знаме с надпис “Вся власть Советам”.

   Не е ли срамно за всеки софиянец, за всеки български патриот и родолюбец, че най-внушителният по своите размери паметник в столицата на нашата родина (площ от 2000 кв. м и височина над 50 м) е на един чужд войник с шмайзер в ръка и на една чужда армия, които донесоха на щиковете си една комунистическо-болшевишка тирания, избила с невиждана жестокост десетки хиляди българи, прекършила стотици хиляди човешки съдби, заграбила разбойнически собствеността на милиони хора? Тирания, прекъснала за десетилетия естественото европейско развитие на България и нанесла огромни поражения върху изконната нравствена и ценностна система на българина.

   Днес, когато вече сме част от могъщата и свободна евроатлантическа общност, този паметник на потисничеството все повече се превръща в нетърпимо предизвикателство към хилядите безкръстни гробове на жертвите на комунистическия терор, към достойнството на сегашните и бъдещите поколения българи, към самата историческа истина. Защото през септември 1944 г. България не само не бе поробена страна, за да бъде освобождавана, но бе насилствено окупирана от своите “освободители”. И защото днешна и бъдеща демократична България няма и не може да има нищо общо с “Октомври 1917” и с развятото знаме с надпис “Вся власть Советам”.

   Ето защо заявяваме високо: време е за незабавни действия! Време е демократично мислещите софиянци, всички демократично мислещи българи да обединим усилията си и с нашия могъщ глас и воля на свободни граждани да принудим компетентните общински и държавни органи да се вслушат в нашето решително искане: освободете колкото се може по-скоро българската столица от този мрачен символ на едно още по-мрачно минало!

   Инициативен комитет за освобождаване на столицата от паметника на Съветската армия – окупаторка (по азбучен ред)

22.07.2004 г.
   

Анастасия Мозер депутат в 37-ото, 38-ото и 39-ото НС
   Васил Станилов – председател на Комитет “Съединение”, писател, депутат в 38-ото НС
   Проф. Георги Марков – председател на Общобългарски съюз “Истина”
   Иван Глушков – зам.-председател на 7-ото ВНС, депутат в 37-ото и 38-ото НС
   Иван Н. Иванов - депутат в 38-ото и 39-ото НС
   Любомир Банковски – почетен председател на Съюза на възпитаниците на ВНВУ, ШЗО и РВГ
   Лъчезар Тошев – депутат в 36-ото, 37-ото, 38-ото и 39-ото НС
   Проф. Михаил Огнянов – общественик, публицист
   Тошо Пейков – депутат в 36-ото и 39-ото НС
   Д-р Христо Димов – председател на Гражданко сдружение “Диалог”, зам.-кмет на София (1991-1993 г.)

 

Вехти политици си правят пиар с паметници
Крайно време е някои господа да разберат, че 10 ноември 1989 г. бе победа на демокрацията, а не реванш на фашизма

Д-р Божидар Димитров

През миналата седмица група политически маргинали, очевидно почувствали пред наближаващите парламентарни избори, че трябва да се пошуми около позабравените ни имена, решиха да сформират комитет - то ли за събарянето, то ли за преместването на паметника на Съветската армия. Предложенията за построяването или за събаряне на паметниците напоследък станаха метод в пиара за лансиране в публичното пространство на изкарани (или в процес на отпадане) от политическата игра личности. Поради липсата на каквито и да е конструктивни идеи за развитието на страната въпросните личности разчитат на идеи за паметници. Няма значение кои. Предложенията валят - от хан Аспарух през героите от Сливница до Сюлейман паша и Филип Македонски. Разбира се, никой не предлага и лев от джоба си, а разчита обществото или чужда държава да даде парите за паметника. От нас идеите - от вас парите. Това не беше ли идея на Остап Бендер?

Премахването на паметника на Съветската армия се мотивира по следния начин: Тя била армия завоевателка и установила тоталитарен ред в една кротка демократична държава. Тази държава не участвала във войната срещу СССР, който подло и непредизвикано ни нападнал на 5 септември и ни окупирал. И не дал нито една жертва във войната с нас. Но избил чрез незаконен Народен съд елита на нацията по обвинения във фашизъм, а България не била фашистка държава - в нея нямало дори фашистка партия.

Но историята за съжаление на членовете на комитета не е това, което им се иска да бъде, а това, което е станало. А станалото е, че България на 2 март 1941 г. стана член на фашисткия блок държави начело с Германия. Не обяви война на СССР, но предостави територията си, жп линиите си, летищата, пристанищата, минералните и хранителните си ресурси на Вермахта. А за участие във война срещу една страна международното право смята не само изпращането на войски на фронта, но и логистичната подкрепа. В България не загина нито един съветски войник, но благодарение на горната логистична подкрепа с бази, суровини и материали загинаха може би десетки хиляди съветски войници на Източния фронт. Военният и търговският ни флот участваха в съвсем реални бойни действия в Черно море, пренасяйки боеприпаси в окупираните съветски пристанища и конвоирайки немски кервани.

Освен това правителството на България обяви война на 13 декември 1941 г. на съюзниците на СССР - великите западни демокрации САЩ и Великобритания. А от 1943 г. сваляме техните самолети, бомбардиращи нефтените находища и рафинериите в Плоещ. Много американски летци, скочили успешно с парашути, бяха разстрелвани на земята от жандармерията и полицията в нарушение на Женевските конвенции. На едни такива открихме онзи ден паметник в Кула. Впрочем управниците разстрелваха и пленените английски военни инструктори като майор Томпсън например. Разстрелваха и партизаните, макар че бяха обявени за "съвоюваща страна", т.е. за редовна армия на антифашистката коалиция и трябваше да се третират като военнопленници.

В България нямаше фашистка партия, но нямаше и демокрация. Търновската конституция бе отменена още през 1934 г., а царят лично назначаваше министрите в правителството. И без фашистка партия парламентът през декември 1940 г. (без дори да сме станали още член на Оста) прие фашисткия закон срещу евреите, който ги лиши от работа, права и имоти. Впрочем, имотите им бяха разпродадени на управляващия политически елит за жълти стотинки. Единадесет хиляди от евреите намериха смъртта си в нацистките лагери, а останалите се спасиха, само защото вече се беше случил Сталинград.

И Народният съд се състоя не защото го искаше Червената армия, а по настояване на САЩ и Англия. Помислете си, той бе създаден през есента на 1944 г., а присъдите, произнесени и изпълнени в началото на 1945 г., когато войната още не беше свършила, а комунистите все още нямаха пълната власт. Англосаксонците просто искаха да елиминират физически прогерманската част на българската политическа класа, донесла и сериозни неприятности й в двете световни войни. Силни бяха и настояванията на мощното еврейско лоби в САЩ и Великобритания. Затова под Указа за Народния съд първият подпис бе не на комунист, а на Никола Петков, изпълняващ волята на американските и английските си приятели. Затова депутатите и министрите, привърженици на Оста напълниха на 2 февруари 1945 г. трапа от американска бомба в Орландовци. Ако нещата зависеха само от Сталин, той щеше да ги изпрати да секат дървен материал по лагерите в сибирската тайга.

И по принцип като всяка армия и Съветската армия не бе овластена да взема решения - не само фундаментални, не само политически, но и каквито и да е. Оставането ни в съветската сфера на влияние бе в резултат на решенията в Ялта, взети с консенсус от Рузвелт, Чърчил и Сталин. На тях трябва да се сърдят юнаците от комитета, а не на Съветската армия.

Защото не само ние, но и всички страни в Европа имат паметници на Съветската армия и не ги рушат. Не заради броя на убитите съветски войници в съответната страна, а затова, че тя имаше основния принос в разгрома на най-човеконенавистната идеология (и практика) на ХХ век - фашизма. И всяко рушене на паметник на Съветската армия се смята за реванш на недоубити фашисти или на овластени техни запъртъци. Членовете на комитета би трябвало да знаят, че 10 ноември 1989 г. бе победа на демокрацията, а не реванш на фашизма.
Ако нещо ме учудва, това е присъствието на г-жа Мозер в комитета. Не беше ли нейният баща Георги Михайлов Димитров-Гемето осъден на смърт за шпионаж в полза на САЩ, Великобритания, Гърция и Югославия от същия този "благороден и демократичен политически елит, отстранен от Съветската армия". Кой е бил правия - баща й или въпросният "елит", паднал от власт, благодарение на Съветската армия, чийто паметник г-жа Мозер иска да руши.

26.7.2004 г.

 

 

Защо не бе демонтиран паметникът на Съветската армия

Малко предистория


   Съвсем накратко ще напомним на читателите на “ПРО и АНТИ” неуспеха на Столичния общински съвет и съответно на тогавашния кмет Янчулев да демонтират поне част от паметника на Съветската армия (ПСА). Оттогава минаха повече от 11 години, което в днешната ситуация само ни кара още веднъж да се замислим за резултатите от т. нар. посткомунистически преход у нас.

   На 18 март 1993 г. СОС приема решение, чиято точка 2 визира демонтажа на барелефите и скулптурните фигури на ПСА. Въз основа на това решение кметът Янчулев издава заповед, с която възлага на Христо Димов, първи зам.-кмет на Столична голяма община “да извърши в срок до 15.04.1993 г. всички необходими процедури във връзка със съгласуване на демонтажа, съхранението и опазването на фигурите и барелефите на паметника в съответствие с действащата законова и подзаконова нормативна уредба”.

   След 5 дни кметът издава нова заповед, с която възлага на д-р Хр. Димов “демонтирането на бронзовите фигури на ПСА”.

   На 12.04.1993 г. Хр. Димов с докладна записка уведомява “уважаемите общински съветници”, че “са взети необходимите мерки за цивилизовано демонтиране на фигурите с оглед тяхното запазване като история на София по време на комунистическия режим”. Зам.-кметът предлага СОС “да вземе решение за създаване на музей на открито на паметниците на тоталитарния режим, като възложи на главния архитект на София да определи подходящ терен за музея”.

   Минават само още два дни, но ситуацията вече е съвсем променена. Кметът професор Янчулев пише на премиера професор Любен Беров писмо, в което тревожно му съобщава: “…при съгласуван със СДВР план за влизане на строителна организация с техника в района на паметника рано сутринта на 14 април т. г. с устна заповед на министъра на вътрешните работи не е било разрешено на строителя да работи. До този момент няма никаква писмена забрана от никаква държавна инстанция с мотивирани аргументи за това.”

   “ПРО и АНТИ” допуска, че вероятно няма такава писмена забрана и до днес. Но да завършим с едно писмо от общинския съветник социалист Т. Модев до кмета Янчулев, датирано пак след два дни – 16 април 1993 г. В него Модев моли “най-настоятелно до 20 април т.г. да ни се предостави цялата документация на органа на изпълнителната власт по демонтажа” на ПСА, понеже “многократно ни бе съобщавано, че е разработена и утвърдена план-сметка за демонтажа…” Същия ден проф. Янчулев резюлира до Хр. Димов да предаде на Модев “всички искани от него изработени и съгласувани преписки по цялата документация по демонтажа”.

   Не разполагаме с информация дали г-н Модев е останал доволен от “план-сметката за демонтажа”. След 11 години 3 месеца и 13 дни обаче е съвсем ясно, че след 1989 г. повечето от “план-сметките” на комунистите бяха реализирани. Включително и по отношение на ината им уродливото чудовище да продължи да стърчи в центъра на София за срам и позор на България.

   Васил ПЕКУНОВ

29 юли - 4 август 2004 г.

http://www.pro-anti.net/show.php?issue=658&article=9

 

"В становище по законопроект за изменения в Закона за реабилитацията Консултативният съвет по законодателството при НС е определил масовите убийства в първите дни след 9 септември 1944 като оправдано възмездие..."


Получих това предупреждение от приятел преди 2 дни. Така научих за тази срамна инициатива на царисти и комунисти. Сега чета омекотени подробности в Медиапул:

http://www.mediapool.bg/show/?storyid=136435

Намерих релевантния текст от Становището. Той е поразяващо циничен и по старому-комунистически нагъл. Направете си труда внимателно да го прочетете:

"...Консултативният съвет по законодателството е на мнение, че предлаганата редакция има абстрактен характер и не е съобразена с исторически известни факти. По-конкретно, такава промяна не отчита предходното поведение на лицата, които законопроектът обявява за репресирани. А връзката между това поведение и събитията от 9, 10 и 11 септември 1944 г. най-често ще се окаже безспорна. През тези три дни насилствените въздействия от страна на установяващата се нова власт са били насочени преди всичко срещу лица, известни на обществото от онова време като участници в преврата от 9 юни 1923 г., в мъченията и убийствата, които са го последвали, срещу лица, участвали в потушаването на Септемврийското въстание от 1923 г. и последвалите го масови убийства, в събитията след атентата в църквата "Св. Неделя" от 1925 г. и срещу лица, извършвали убийства и други зверства през периода от м. юни 1941 г. до 9 септември 1944 г. Тези исторически доказани факти безспорно са репресии заради политическите убеждения на жертвите на тези репресии. Ако предлаганото изменение на чл. 1 бъде прието,  палачите и главорезите от периода между 9 юни 1923 г. и 9 септември 1944 г. ще бъдат политически и граждански реабилитирани. Поне този извод следва от цялостното тълкуване на чл. 1, променен както се предлага. Нещо повече. Участниците в посочените по-горе събития ще бъдат поставени под един знаменател с лицата, репресирани след 12 септември 1944 г. заради техните демократични или либерални политически убеждения. Образно казано, такива личности като Петър Дертлиев или Йосиф Петров ще се озоват в една компания с палачите на демократа Стамболийски, с черните жандармерийски капитани или с печално известния борец Ферещанов. А това сигурно няма да им хареса...."


Също толкова нагли са били и защитените днес в НС от мръсната фигура Пантев (кой беше писал добра дума за него напоследък тук?) и от Пирински позиции.

 

 

1 коментар:

Анонимен каза...

много интересно, благодаря