In analyzing this subject, Holodomor, it is compelling to take into account the lapse of time, the lack of legislation at the time, the weakness of international law, and the current improbability of punishment.
It is necessary to recognise the Genocide Convention of 1948, that is, when the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was formally adopted, and to take into account the legal axiom that law does not function retroactively, and perhaps even more so, that international law is mostly not implemented or enforced.
However, a discussion of genocides in the modern era that preceded the Convention of 1948 are not exclusively academic. Morality, although often insignificant in politics and relations between sovereigns, is not completely an irrelevant topic.
Obviously, the events of genocide prior to the Convention should include in the modern era the well-known Armenian Genocide from 1915, the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33, the Jewish Holocaust of 1939-45.
The last resulted in a lower number of deaths, but is subject to the definition of Genocide in the UN Convention as an attempt to destroy a nation or an ethnic group partly and culturally. 
Regarding Holodomor, the intention was manifested in Stalin’s letter to Kaganovich from August 1932, the decree closing the borders of the Ukrainian SSR and Kuban from January 1933. Regarding the Holocaust, the resolution of the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, although the process of extermination of the Jews began long before that.
Considering genocide as a crime of the most heinous nature as per the International Criminal Court today, it is instructive to establish three factors, namely: the committed crime (corpus delicti), intent (mens rea), and identification of the criminal.
The last one is probably the easiest to relate to Holodomor and a contemporaneous state. The Holocaust by Nazi Germany. Holodomor was perpetrated by Stalin and the USSR.
The contemporary Russian Federation succeeded to the assets and privileges of the USSR manifestly and aggressively.
Within the United Nations, the Russian Federation directly took over all the seats of the USSR on its own initiative and, one might say, by aggression, even though this happened outside the framework presented by the UN Charter.
The Kremlin thereby confirmed that it is the same state.
Although this behaviour of the Kremlin serves against the interests of the Kremlin in assuming the liabilities of its predecessor, it does not give the Kremlin the legitimacy of membership in the UN.
That is, the fact remains that the Russian Federation never applied for membership in the UN or its Security Council. Its membership was never approved by the UN General Assembly, and therefore today the Russian Federation is de jure not a member of the UN, and more importantly is not a permanent member of its SC with the right of veto.
Punishment for the crime internationally prior to 1948 was manifested only in relation to Germans and Germany, and not in relation to genocide, but war crimes.
Condemnation and criminal punishment of individuals took place through the Nuremberg Trials, and the German state, under pressure, accepted responsibility for the financial compensation of the victims, which in some cases continues to this day. It is unlikely that the Russian Federation, Poland or Turkey will ever agree to punishment in any form or compensation.
However, the moral consideration remains, that is, the recognition by states or international organizations of genocides perpetrated prior to the Convention. The UN has recognized Holocaust and designated a special day for remembrance.
The heirs of the criminal states will probably not agree to this. There remains the rest of the world and an organisation such as the UN to recognise the Armenian Genocide fully, Holodomor and the Vistula crime.
Israel stubbornly does not recognise any genocides other than its own. The motivation for this is immoral.
However, it is important for Ukraine and Ukrainians that as many countries as possible be familiarised with Holodomor and recognise it as genocide.
This is a moral condemnation, not a punishment, but it probably opens a window to prevent future attempts at genocide against the Ukrainian people such as the current Russian aggression.
The UN Convention of 1948 is called the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” In the real politics in which we find ourselves, this should be enough. Laws are meant not only to punish but to prevent.
Therefore, as a nation Ukrainians should honour the memory of all the victims, and for this to happen, scholars must further research the events of 1932-33.
Determining the number of victims is very important for remembering and honouring, as well as for a better understanding of Ukraine’s present and the future. The number of victims is not necessary to establish genocide according to the definition of the Convention, but for a moral recognition and a historical perspective.
Although morality seems not of great importance in international politics, it is an indispensable attribute for us as human beings.
The Norwegian parliament has dealt with the Holodomor twice, in 2008 and in 2023, but still refuses to recognize the Holodomor as genocide. We are currently registering a growing attention among Norwegian politicians who are willing to take political responsibility and recognize the genocide of the Ukrainian people in 1932-1933.
Source: Askold Lozynskyj
The National Holodomor Museum, Kyiv
Comments powered by CComment