Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2006 17:16:42 GMT -5
"We mock what we don't understand."
"SHOW SOME BALLS, MAN!!!"
"Its too late to try and impress them."
"Sorry I'm late. I had to attend the reading of a will. I stayed til the very end and I found out I received nothing. Broke my arm."
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Nov 30, 2006 17:19:49 GMT -5
I just don't think that's true. I think its re-writing history to say that people on the ground making key decisions were the ones who really brought about the changes. It seems like a stretch to read Regan into causing the rise of Solidarity in Poland, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and The Rise of Charter 77 after the death of Janos Kadar in Hungary. The story of the collapse of the Soviet empire is a story of individuals and societal movements. The role of the Regan adiministration's rhetorical barbs and high defense spending was minimal compared to the forces that were spured on by perestroika and glasnost policies implemented by Gorbachev-era leaders. The economies and government of the Eastern Bloc had become so interlinked ideologically and economically through the exchange of credits and raw materials to maintian autarkic economic systems that once a major shift occured in one country it brought about unintended consequences in another. For example, the Hungarian Magyar movement wanting to have rights to have travel rights to Magyar areas in Austria put tremendous pressure on the Hungarian government to open the border. Once it did East Germany was quickly forced to assent to the dismantling of the Berlin wall and the 2+4 talks.
If the Regan government was so interested in spending the Soviet Union into the ground with new weapons why would it negotiate the START and INF agreements and almost do away with 90% of the missile stocks of both countries at the Reykjavik Conference?
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 30, 2006 17:20:13 GMT -5
The Soviet bloc broke up 15 years ago, with the promise of democracy and free markets for all, and happiness and joy until the end of time. After the initial euphoria wore off, "free" elections left us with the like of Yanukovych in Ukraine (ousted thanks to the Orange Revolution) and Lukaschenko in Belarus (and what a disaster THAT is still, 12 years later). Keep in mind some former SSRs didn't even get free elections. The West let Tajikistan "figure things out" with guns and rockets and ethnic cleansing and radical Islamic rebels for a few years. Kind of agree we "could have done more" in a lot of areas at that time in that part of the world, but US and A can't be everywhere at once. And you can't stop civil war, warlords, or endemic corruption with just NGOs. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Nov 30, 2006 17:29:39 GMT -5
The Soviet bloc broke up 15 years ago, with the promise of democracy and free markets for all, and happiness and joy until the end of time. After the initial euphoria wore off, "free" elections left us with the like of Yanukovych in Ukraine (ousted thanks to the Orange Revolution) and Lukaschenko in Belarus (and what a disaster THAT is still, 12 years later). Outside of the former Soviet states, voters have swung back to much more dangerous leaders in Poland (the Kaczynski brothers), among others (in less important positions). Not to mention the ongoing mess in the South Caucasus and - of course- Borat! In all seriousness, the US government can't just blow stuff up, install democratic systems, and HOPE that things all work out. It's about follow-up. The most stable places in Eastern Europe are the places where NGOs (often with US govt support) went in early, taught people about civil society and political systems, and established a belief in the positive effects. None of these things have happened to any effective extent in the former USSR, and now we're stuck with Putin and friends, and all of the attendant issues that come with it. And - as long as Russia has control over pipelines and oil - they've got us and everyone else by the short ones....I'm guessing we'll have something similar in Iraq if/when the fighting dies down. Democracy and free markets are great, but they're not a magic potion - they don't work without the follow-up. Eastern Germany is - 15 years after reunification - a disaster when compared to the Western half of the country (AND they had the advantage of rolling into an established political system and economy). Yeah, Reagan did a ton to facilitate the breakup of the Soviet bloc, and for that he deserves credit. But the promise of democracy has failed in too many places over the past 15 years to give him immunity from criticism. And GWB seems to be heading down that same path in Iraq (admittedly, on a smaller scale, but...). If you're gonna break something, you better have a plan to fix it. The democratic failures of Ukraine and Belarus came form the fact that they had been possessions of the Russian Empire long before V.I. Lenin was born. They basically got independence because the other 15 Soviet Republics did. Unlike with the Baltic countries where there were pacted transitions to democracy that created early rules for the game and set up institutions that created path dependencies towards stable governments Belarus and Ukraine dropped back 7 yards and punted. They elected the heads of the Communist party, formed ineffectual legislatures, and nearly no court system. The Orange Revolution is failing now for nearly opposite reasons. Yushenko is a moderate who can offer the opportunity to reach out to both sides and transition towards a more democratic regime but Timoshenko emerged as the real domestic star from the Orange Revolution - and she's a firebrand progressive - that's bad for transition if the sides are so diametrically opposed to one another that they can't put down their swords and start working for the long-term stability of Ukraine. Russia - well - to put it politely - had its chances. The 500 days plan of Gorbachev to transition power to Yeltsin failed because of the 1991 coup, Gaidar's shock therapy plan failed because Yeltsin was too much of a populist, and the 1993 constitution was a reaction to the Duma revolt and was essentially a document writen by winners of a struggle for power. Actually all ruling documents in Russia have been just that documents that weren't negotiated but written by winners to give themselves more power. Hence the powers of the presidency are huge in Russia - Yeltsin didn't use them all, but Putin does. Russia is also cursed with resources. Many studies have been done linking an abundance of natural resources to non-democratic government. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2006 17:32:11 GMT -5
The Soviet bloc broke up 15 years ago, with the promise of democracy and free markets for all, and happiness and joy until the end of time. After the initial euphoria wore off, "free" elections left us with the like of Yanukovych in Ukraine (ousted thanks to the Orange Revolution) and Lukaschenko in Belarus (and what a disaster THAT is still, 12 years later). Keep in mind some former SSRs didn't even get free elections. The West let Tajikistan "figure things out" with guns and rockets and ethnic cleansing and radical Islamic rebels for a few years. Kind of agree we "could have done more" in a lot of areas at that time in that part of the world, but US and A can't be everywhere at once. And you can't stop civil war, warlords, or endemic corruption with just NGOs. Agree, Austin. There's no way to police everything and civil society building can only do so much. My point was more that democracy alone isn't a magic potion - there's WAY too much work to do after the fact, and if that work doesn't get done, the instability that results leads to trouble. If we won't (or don't have the capacity to) do that work, we should understand the implications...and I fear that we often don't. |
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,434
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 30, 2006 22:37:16 GMT -5
Who is this "Regan" so often referenced above? Let me see - one of the following:
Former Secretary of the Treasury
Former Dodger pitcher nicknamed the Vulture
Character who became possessed in The Exorcist
Have I forgotten any other possibilities?
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 30, 2006 22:48:33 GMT -5
Cam's point about democratic peace theory in light of the breakup of the USSR is valuable, especially in light of its attempted application in the Middle East vis-a-vis the Iraq War. Lost on some is how two of the more democratic states in the region, namely Israel and Lebanon, attacked each other this year. Democratic "beacons" in seas of tyrants aren't often conducive to peace and usually for good reason, but their proximity is still no guarantor of peace as the Israel/Lebanon example recently showed.
|
|
