“The
shameless approval, mock sympathy, or idiotic indifference with which the upper
classes of Europe have witnessed … heroic Poland being assassinated by Russia”
was proof enough for Frederic Engels, one attendee, that the ruling class of
Europe could no longer be trusted with foreign policy. “But with the working
classes it is different. They mean intervention, not non-intervention; they
mean war with Russia while Russia meddles with Poland.”
Karl Marx,
another delegate at the Paris conference, later wrote that the organizers had
adopted a motto: “A free Europe based upon a free and independent Poland,” and
displayed a banner reading: “Resistance to Russian encroachments upon Europe –
Restoration of Poland.” The Paris conference in support of Poland was,
according to Marx biographer Rolf Hosfeld, the origin of the Communist
International.
“Ukraine:
Thinking Together,” a five-day conference in Kyiv that ended on May 19, brought together celebrated
intellectuals from around the world and from across the political spectrum. It
was sponsored by the embassies of France, Germany, Poland, the United States,
the Ukrainian ministries of foreign affairs and culture – and a long list of
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.
But it was
the initiative of two scholars of liberalism, Leon Wieseltier of The New
Republic and Timothy Snyder of Yale University, that set the program in motion.
In some
ways, the conference was a restoration of a left tradition that has strayed far from its origin
in the democratic national liberation movements that sought to free Europe from
a reactionary Russian Empire a century and a half ago. It further illustrated
the ways in which Ukraine’s politics confound simple notions of left and right.
Throughout
the “intellectual marathon,” as Konstantin Sigov, a professor at Kyiv Mohyla
Academy, rightly described it, many speakers criticized the left in particular
for its response to the events in Ukraine, citing its irresponsible willingness to accept the Kremlin narrative of
events without question.
In opening
remarks that set the stage for the week’s deliberations, Snyder spoke of a
growing movement of European political parties – from Germany’s Die Linke on
the left to Greece’s Golden on the right – united against the EuroMaidan Revolution
by a Moscow determined to undermine the European Union’s democratic vision in
favor of an alternative Eurasian ideology.
Snyder described the Kremlin as drawing from a
“grab bag” of history, shamelessly creating contradictory explanations to
justify its actions: The Ukrainians are intolerant fascists, the Kremlin tells
the EU; the Ukrainians are decadent supporters of gay rights, it tells
Russians.
As if to
illustrate his point, within a day of his remarks, a Soviet-style denunciation
of the conference made the rounds, published by an organization calling itself
the Fourth International. Exemplifying grab-bag historiography, the author
ignored the origins of the International, not to mention the hawkish stance Marx himself took against the Russian empire, to attack the
conference as a gathering of “right-wing” intellectuals gathered “in the
service of imperialism.”
Unfortunately,
one need not read the leftist fringe press to encounter the logic underlying
this criticism. Several speakers took to task established liberal media outlets,
such as the Guardian, for their charge that the U.S. has
dragged Europe and
Ukraine toward war with Russia.
“There has been an impression that if America
was for it, we had to be against it,” said Slawomir Sierakowski, a New York
Times columnist and head of Political Critique, an international movement of
left-wing intellectuals based in Poland. “This disregards the concrete
realities of the place this is happening – Ukraine.”
The often
complex realities of the EuroMaidan Revolution, especially its political
diversity, underscored the fluidity of political alliance within Ukraine. The
conference mirrored an uneasy process of realignment and reappraisal across the
spectrum of right-left intellectual movements in Ukraine – with support of the
Maidan movement emerging as the new fulcrum.
“The
international left defined itself in opposition to empire and everybody knows
the greatest imperialist, well, that’s America. It was convenient to ally with
Moscow against America and now it is hard for them to get past that and
critically examine Russia,” said Vasyl Cherepanyn, director of the Visual
Culture Research Center. “Even here in Ukraine, the left – and here I’m
speaking about the non-Communist left – was divided 50-50 over the Maidan.
There were those who refused to participate at all because of the right-wing’s
involvement.”
Self-described
new left organizations, like Political Critique and the Visual Culture Research
Center, played a central role in organizing and providing
local staff for this week’s conference.
But, just two years ago, in 2012, the
center ran afoul of the
socially conservative administration of Kyiv Mohyla Academy – one of the
conference hosts – after its staging of “Ukrainian Bodies,” an art exhibit controversial for what some considered
obscene content. In the ensuing debate, university President Serhiy Kvit, known for his
affiliation with pro-Ukrainian groups, expelled the center from the
academy.
During the
EuroMaidan Revolution, the center became active on the Maidan, first suggesting
guards in field hospitals to prevent the abduction of injured protestors by
police. Proposals of this kind placed the Center on the same side of the
protests as its former adversary: Serhiy Kvit, who post-Maidan now also serves
as Ukraine’s minister for education. It would be an overstatement to suggest
the conference marked reconciliation; members say they aren’t optimistic about
the prospects for an official reinstatement.
In Ukraine
and Moldova, the same divisions in society that made it difficult for
authoritarian leaders to consolidate their power now pose distinct challenges
to cooperation in pursuit of liberal reform, explained Tatiana Zhurzhenko, a
political scientist from the University of Vienna. The ability to cooperate, if
not agree, is the essence of the democratic process.
Although
“Thinking Together” was organized to provoke conversation between Ukraine and
the international community, the most important dialogue may have been between
the Ukrainian participants themselves. It is still unclear whether the
experience of the Maidan alone can provide the common ground on which to build
a new, more inclusive Ukrainian intellectual community. But it could be crucial
for Ukraine’s future.
As tensions
between Kyiv and Ukraine’s traditional communist left come to a head over
charges of sedition, the opportunity and need for a new liberal left in Ukraine
is clear. In a country of dueling oligarchs and rampant inequality that in the
words of Snyder, resembles a parody of Marx’s expectations for late-stage
capitalism, the most basic elements of liberalism – equality and accountability
– hold an appeal that endured the failed Soviet experiment.
The
questions Ukraine seeks to answer after the Maidan have international
implications. If Ukraine is capable of uniting the so-called left and right in
pursuit of common goals like the abolition of corruption, its example will have
influence far beyond its borders.
To Carl
Gherman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, this is why Russian
President Vladimir Putin so fiercely opposed Ukraine’s revolution: “If Ukraine
is capable of becoming a successful democratic state, it will ultimately have
an effect on Russia.” Or, as Adam Michnik, the brash veteran of Poland’s
Solidarity movement put it, with ironical relish: “A specter is haunting
offices in the Kremlin. The specter of EuroMaidan hangs over Red Square.”
William Schreiber is a Coca-Cola World Fellow
at Yale University.
