Soviet writings on the future of Eastern Europe acknowledge a failure of Soviet policy as well as poor leadership in the countries concerned. Yet Moscow still regards the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia as having been provoked by the West. Assesses the prospects for Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the GDR. Concludes with comments on the US position and the possibilities for co-operation with the USSR over the future of Eastern Europe.
Charles Gati is Professor of Political Science at Union College and Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University's Research Institute on International Change. He led the American delegation to the first U.S.-Soviet conference on "The Place and Role of Eastern Europe in the Relaxation of Tensions between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.," which was held in Alexandria, Virginia, in July 1988.
No easy generalizations, and certainly none that are conclusive, can be offered about the frequently surprising, fast-changing and ultimately ambiguous and confusing world of Eastern Europe. The observer must aim at a moving target, not only because of the rapid pace of new developments but especially because of the gap between reforms proclaimed and reforms pursued, reforms announced and reforms implemented.
Confusion persists because, on one level, nothing has changed in Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact is in place and functioning. For the time being, the leading role of the region's communist parties-the exercise of one-party rule-remains in force. Some version of "socialism" is embraced by reformers and antireformers alike.
On another level, however, everything about the area is in flux. The term "Soviet bloc" is becoming a political misnomer. Differences among the region's six states are so acute that it is now less appropriate than ever to speak of "Eastern Europe" as a single entity.
Ideologically, the foundation of the East European alliance is sinking, the edifice of its socialism is cracked. "Marx has turned out to be right, after all," began an article published in a prominent Hungarian weekly in the fall of 1988. "It is in the advanced capitalist countries that socialism has come into being." Some East European officials now even regret the split in socialist ranks that took place at the turn of the twentieth century; they speak of the political wisdom and economic achievements of their erstwhile enemies, the social democrats of Western Europe. Meanwhile, at the other end of the ideological spectrum, Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu assails ongoing reform in the Soviet Union and some parts of Eastern Europe as "capitulation to capitalism."
Politically, too, Eastern Europe is in a state of disarray and division. In one ring, Hungarian and Polish reformers and professed reformers meet the region's "Gang of Four"-Brezhnevite Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and East Germany, and neo-Stalinist Romania. In another ring, where the contenders appear in old nationalist uniforms, the main event pits Hungary against Romania, facing off over Ceausescu's particularly harsh treatment of the large Hungarian minority in Transylvania. The bottom of the card features "orderly" East Germans and Czechoslovaks sparring with Polish "troublemakers."
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Related
Heretofore, Western observers of economic reform in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have concentrated almost exclusively on internal changes. Most of us have been fascinated by the provocative debate and by the subsequent decision of the East European governments to emphasize such concepts as profit, interest, rent and managerial autonomy and to deëmphasize centralized planning. This concentration on internal economic reforms has tended to divert attention from the equally significant changes that the East Europeans have introduced into their international economic structure.
In 1992 economic conditions declined dramatically in Russia, leading to a rise of conservative political forces and increased expressions of anti-Americanism. In the new year, Russia faces major challenges: preventing hyperinflation, continuing privatization and obtaining a better price for oil exports. It must also deal with mounting social problems runaway crime, faltering health services and large-scale unemployment. Dangerous ethnic and religious conflicts continue. Meanwhile, in eastern Europe, there are positive economic and political trends among all the problems in Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic. The region remains a priority for renewed and effective U.S. attention.
Site of post-WW2 tensions, Berlin now finds itself relegated to the margin of political and economic change across Europe. Even the FRG is showing less and less interest in Berlin's future. Nevertheless, NATO should not ignore it, but include it in a new vision for FRG-GDR relations and the ending of the division of Europe.
