CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION
By Paul Sussman for CNN
CNN International
Oct 23 2006
(CNN) — This year, 2006, marks two significant anniversaries in the
history of the former Soviet Union, anniversaries that in a sense
bookend the disintegration of the once-formidable communist superpower.
Fifty years ago today, on Monday, October 23 1956, the people of
Hungary revolted against Soviet rule, demanding political freedom
and an end to the brand of repressive authoritarian communism that
had been imposed on their country by Moscow.
The uprising marked one of the first, and certainly the most
symbolically important attempts by a nation within the Soviet sphere
of influence to break free of that influence and go its own way.
Although it was short-lived and ended in failure and bloodshed —
the suppression of the revolt saw the worst violence in Europe since
World War II — it can nonetheless be viewed as an early faltering
step on a road that, three decades later, was to culminate in the
domino-like tumble of the Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact regimes and
subsequent dissolution of the USSR itself (a dissolution that was
officially rubber stamped by the Belavezha Accords of December 8, 1991,
the fifteenth anniversary of which will also be celebrated this year.)
In terms of anniversaries 2006 thus recalls both one of the first great
internal challenges to Soviet hegemony, and the final collapse of that
hegemony. On which basis it would seem like an appropriate time to
ask how those countries that once made up the Soviet world have fared
in the post-Soviet era, and whether, over the past decade and a half,
independence from Moscow has proved to be a blessing or a curse.
Success in the west As well as Russia, the overall controlling nation,
the Soviet Union consisted of 14 other states, generally divided into
four geographical groupings: The Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania);
Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan); the Transcaucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia); and
Eastern Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine.)
Ostensibly independent, but in fact as tightly controlled by Moscow as
the member-nations of the USSR itself, were the satellite states of the
Warsaw Pact: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, The German Democratic Republic,
Hungary, Poland and Romania (Albania formerly left the pact in 1968.)
Twenty-one nations, therefore, made up the Soviet world prior to its
fragmentation in 1989-91.
Of those it is the states at the western end of the former Soviet
sphere of influence that have, by and large, adapted best to the
new world order, and reaped the greatest benefits from the fall
of communism.
Independence has brought these nations both newfound economic
prosperity and political stability, as well as social freedoms that
were unthinkable during the Soviet era.
The degree of change and improvement clearly varies from state to
state, with countries such as Bulgaria and Romania still lagging
some way behind more successful neighbors (or near neighbors) such
as Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic.
Even for ostensibly "successful" former communist states such as
Hungary and Poland the transition from totalitarian rule to open
democracy and a free market economy has not been an easy one.
Recent demonstrations against Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc
Gyurcsany, for example — sparked by the latter’s admission that
he lied about the state of the country’s economy in order to win a
second term in office — sparked Hungary’s worst violence since 1956.
The former East Germany, likewise, even 15 years after re-unification,
remains relatively economically impoverished compared to its more
prosperous western twin.
If the road has been, and remains, a rocky one, however, it is
indisputable that those countries in the west have made far more
progress since the end of communism than their eastern former comrades.
"There are vast differences between the western former Soviet Bloc
countries and the eastern ones in terms of economic development,
democratization and the degree to which a civil society exists,"
says Margot Light, Professor Emeritus in International Relations at
the London School of Economics.
"The success stories speak for themselves because they are now members
of the European Union: The three Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary,
the Czech republic, Slovakia and Slovenia.
"As members of the EU they have had to fulfil very strident political
as well as economic criteria, and that is an indicator of the advances
they have made.
"Even Romania and Bulgaria can be considered relatively successful
since they are due to accede to the EU next year.
"All these countries are very much looking to the west now. They see
themselves as European."
Many commentators, including Light, believe that the break-up of
the Soviet Union, far from heralding the end of east-west divide,
has simply moved that divide further to the east.
"What essentially separates east from west now is the Schengen
Agreement," she explains.
"By dissolving borders within the EU and allowing free movement of
people, labor, goods and money, Schengen binds the EU countries very
tightly together while excluding those on the Eastern side of the
divide and making it far harder for their populations to travel or
work in Europe."
Churchill’s "iron curtain" would thus seem to have been replaced by
a "paper curtain", with money, and trade and diplomatic agreements,
rather than military might, now acting as the great divider.
East of the paper curtain And what of those on the other side of
this curtain?
Here the picture is a far less happy one. Some countries, such as
the Ukraine, have made a degree of progress towards democracy and
economic stability, although it is faltering progress at best.
"Ukraine certainly has European aspirations," says Margot Light. "Its
economy was doing reasonably until a couple of years ago, and it
had a ‘color’ revolution that removed its old leaders and ushered in
democratic elections.
"It has recently returned to a state of political strife, however,
and is suffering such turmoil that very little progress is being made."
Elsewhere things seem even bleaker.
Armenia, Georgia, Tajikistan and Moldova have all been weakened by
internal and inter-state conflict, with Moldova now effectively split
into two countries along the Nistru River; Armenia and Azerbaijan in
a state of damaging ethnic confrontation over the Nogorno-Karabakh
region; and Georgia hamstrung by two violent secessionist conflicts
(involving the northern regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.)
Resource-rich states such as the ‘Stans’ — Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan — are doing relatively well financially on
account of their vast oil and gas reserves, which are attracting
significant outside investment.
Against this, however, must be set an alarming lack of political
reform.
"You have to separate out progress on the economic front and progress
on the political front," says Light.
"Economically the ‘Stans’ are doing extremely well right at the moment
because of their oil and gas. Politically, however, they have reverted
to an almost feudal type of rule.
"Turkmenistan is by far the worst, with Uzbekistan not far behind.
These countries are even less democratic now than they were under
Soviet rule. The exception is Kyrgyzstan which is slightly better
than the others although even that still has a very long way to go."
The situation is similar in Belarus, where relative economic stability
has to be weighed against a distinct lack of political freedom and
transparency (President Alexander Lukashenko openly acknowledges that
his ruling style is "authoritarian.")
"Belarus still has a controlled, centralized economy," explains
Light. "Which according to the World Bank doesn’t actually perform
too badly.
"Politically, however, the country is still very repressive."
Russia — both strong and weak And what of Russia itself, the master
of the former Soviet Empire?
"Russia, of all the non-EU countries of the former Soviet Union,
has done by far the best," says Light. "Or at least it has
economically-speaking.
"It’s economy has benefited hugely from oil and gas revenues, and it
is gradually re-establishing its sphere of influence in Caucasus and
Central Asia, where it has a lot of ‘soft’ power on account of its
economic influence."
Just as the western former Soviet States have gravitated towards the
European grouping, there appears to be a similar drawing together of
the southern and eastern states of the former USSR, this time with
Russia as the hub.
According to Dr. Yuri Federov, an associate fellow at the London-based
Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), Russia is
once again dreaming of empire.
"The dominant trend in Russian political thinking at the moment is
the restoration of its former status," he says.
At the same time, however, there appear to be inherent weaknesses in
Russia’s renewed economic, and by extension political bullishness.
"Russia is both strong and weak economically," says Federov. "Its
economic strength critically depends on oil and gas earnings. It is
thus far more dependent on world markets than it was in the days
of the former Soviet Union, and could suffer from a drop in the
international energy market.
"Also, Russia has not been able to create or develop solid sources
of economic growth beside oil and gas exports.
"For instance, it still very much depends on the West for "high"
technologies such as information, communication and bio technologies.
It is only strong so long as oil and gas remain strong."
Federov also points out that politically Russia remains an
authoritarian regime, and one in which many of the democratic gains
of the Yeltsin years are now being rolled back.
"Politically there has been a backward development in the last few
years after the very chaotic and premature democracy of the Yeltsin
days.
"We now have a soft authoritarian regime in which 99 percent of the
mass media is under governmental control, bureaucracy is omnipotent
and the State is all important."
Brave new world?
Fifty years after the Hungarian revolution, and 15 after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the overall picture thus remains one
of east-west division, a separation that is today defined less by
military confrontation than by economics and political systems.
And while the Soviet straightjacket has been removed, all the
states that once formed the Soviet world have gravitated not towards
individuality, but rather into new political and economic groupings,
whether it be the EU in the west, or one of the various alliances
that have sprung up in the east and south of the former USSR:
The Commonwealth of Independent States, the Shanghai Co-Operation
Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
In many ways, it seems, the break-up of the Soviet Union has ushered
in not so much a brave new world as a new and more complex variation
on an old theme.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
