How times change - The Left’s change of attitude towards NATO
The Year was 1983
The town was Sigonella, Sicily, Italy. Protests erupted against the deployment of cruise missiles in NATO bases across Europe. I vividly remember the demonstrations, even participating in some. The prevailing sentiment was a fear of being dragged into a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union.
A Different Worldview
The United States represented capitalism, while the Soviet Union embodied communism. For many Europeans, the choice between these systems wasn't clear-cut. Germany passed legislation effectively banning the Communist Party. In Italy, a strong anticommunist elite took various legal and less-than-legal steps to prevent the Communist Party ever entering government. Other European countries experienced similar trends. As a result, for millions of Europe, NATO was thus seen as an instrument of oppression, of stifling democratic processes.
In this climate, a significant portion of Europe's left-wing held a favorable or neutral view of the Soviet Union. The deployment of cruise missiles, therefore, felt like an unnecessary escalation.
A Lesser Threat?
The Soviet Union didn't appear to have aggressive intentions towards NATO or any European nation. Even events like the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968 were seen as the Soviets asserting control within their sphere of influence.
Gratuitous Escalation?
NATO's missile deployment was viewed by many as a gratuitous provocation. This perspective, I believe, held some merit at the time. During the Cold War, there was little evidence of a planned Soviet attack on NATO. Many on the left saw NATO as a tool for American dominance in Europe. This view, arguably, held some legitimacy given the perceived lack of a serious Soviet threat.
A World Transformed
Over four decades later, the situation is vastly different. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, just before the Berlin Wall fell. This led to the virtual disappearance of real-life communism as implemented by the Soviets. Today, no country follows the Soviet model. Even remaining communist states like China, North Korea, and Cuba have deviated significantly. China has pursued its own path since the 1950s. North Korea has morphed into a dynastic regime, and Cuba's system leans more towards participation.
The Disillusionment
The post-communist world of the 1990s revealed the true nature of what the Soviet system had become – widespread corruption, societal inequalities, and a government increasingly uninterested in its citizens' well-being. All former communist nations in Europe rushed to join Western organizations like the EU and NATO. Even some former Soviet republics joined: Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. For these countries, NATO wasn't a symbol of American domination but a defensive alliance offering protection against a potentially resurgent Russian aggression.
A Stark Contrast
The enthusiastic embrace of the West by former communist countries stands as a powerful indictment of Stalinist communism. The post-Soviet era in Russia was a period of social and economic turmoil, marked by rampant corruption, violence, and criminal gangs.
Shifting Tides
Unsurprisingly, attitudes in Western public opinions have shifted. Criticism of NATO and its leaders as American puppets has dwindled. The progressive camp now identifies as its main enemies not NATO but Islamic fundamentalism, authoritarian illiberalism as in Turkey and India, and dictatorial regimes such as Russia and North Korea. Of these threats, today Russia is the most pressing one. The country has taken a disturbing political turn under Putin and his murderous, neo-imperialist regime.
Bottom line
History has proven that those who in 1983 supported NATO missiles in Europe, and the millions of citizens in Communist countries who felt oppressed by a dictatorial regime were right, and those like me, who at the time naively believed that NATO was an unduly aggressive organisation that was stifling democratic processes in the West, were wrong.
This post offers an interesting hypothesis from a well informed writer. It deserves a close examination, so as to assess its likely validity.
ReplyDeleteThe Hypothesis
A) Russia, “under Putin,” has become a “murderous, neo-imperialist regime;” therefore,
B) “those who in 1983 supported NATO missiles in Europe … were right,” and
C) those “who at the time naively believed that NATO was an unduly aggressive organization that was stifling democratic processes in the West, were wrong.”
First, one of the laws of historical interpretation is that current conditions are irrelevant to assessing the validity of beliefs held in times past. So, no matter what the conditions are at present, what was thought right and true for folks in the far past were indeed right and true for them in their circumstances. Likewise, what we may regard as right and true in our times could well be the subject of smug derision in the future. The past is what it is, and smug derision from the certainty of the present probably risks the same treatment as a naïve member of the past in the eyes of those in the future.
Secondly, if a premise is factually fantastic, then the conclusions drawn therefrom lose their moorings, and will lack substantiation. In this post, the writer, like Moses glaring down at the Golden Calf from atop Mount Sinai, declares, in all his righteousness and moral certitude, that Russia, “under Putin,” has become a “murderous, neo-imperialist regime.”
Of course, no evidence is provided in support of this righteous condemnation of Putin’s Russia. The convenience of this omission is that any facts given in support of the judgment would have to be defended by showing that Russia’s political behavior in the world is any different than the behavior of the United States, China, or France (which still sucks the life blood from its former colonies).
For, if Russia’s behavior in our times is no morally better than these other nations, then there is no support for the Moses-like posture of singling out Russia as somehow uniquely “Evil.”
In conclusion, “The Bottom Line” of this post fails to support the verbiage prior to it, and the entire edifice, under scrutiny, collapses.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
The Political Science Interpretivist
https://interpretat.blogspot.com/
Bill, I would agree with you that when doing historical analysis, the need for academic objectivity indeed requires the observer to avoid basing their judgment of past events on today’s “zeitgeist”. However, in this specific instance, my comment was not meant to provide any form of analysis of past events, but rather a reflection on changing times and changing circumstances, which has resulted in a reevaluation of past positions. I see no harm in changing one's mind on the basis of better information and/or changing circumstances. While in 1983 I was looking at the US cruise missile deployment not as a historical event but as a very current, worrying display of US aggressiveness, today, years later I see how different perspectives are possible and indeed desirable to better understand an event with the benefit of hindsight. To provide a historical analogy, on the day Hitler’s troops invaded Poland, it is quite possible that many observers might have been confused, some believing the German propaganda of the time. Nowadays, however, we can look at that event for what it is - the first chapter of one of the bloodiest wars in human history.
DeleteA separate issue is whether with the fall of the Soviet Union, many people on the left have lost a meaningful realistic alternative to the capitalist model that they decry. This is possibly a serious issue, but one that cannot be resolved by embracing just about any world regime that opposes the US-led system of defence. Instead, it deserves a concerned, involved investigation into how to go beyond the limitations and aberrations of the current liberal/democratic/capitalist world order.
Your reference to a “factually fantastic” premise is puzzling. There is ample documentation from multiple sources of the horrible acts of the Putin regime:
* He is demonstrably responsible for the killing of dozens of Russian politicians, lawyers, journalists and business people, as documented extensively in the press over the years. What is “factually fantastic” about these reports?
* He has passed anti-gay laws, and given positions of power and billions of rubles to the most conservative wing of the Russian Orthodox church. Is this “factually fantastic” or well documented facts?
* He has ordered the carpet bombing of Russian and Syrian cities. Also “factually fantastic”?
* He has been found to be behind numerous disinformation campaigns in Europe and America. “Factually fantastic”? In Europe, right now there is mounting evidence he is supporting a network of far right parties ahead of the European elections in May.
* Putin openly invokes a return of the Russian empire. This is not “factually fantastic”, but based on his own speeches including his delirious historical exposé to Tucker Carlson.
* Putin’s troops are currently invading a neighbouring country, with a death toll of up to 500,000 so far. The fact that he justifies this by providing abstruse and distorted medieval history lessons is sickening.
Your apparent support for Putin’s murderous regime puts you in extremely unsavory company, including far right politicians from Bolsonaro of Brazil to Salvini of Italy, and white supremacists, antisemites, islamophobes, racists, and homophobes from all over the world. It is telling that while in the US in the 1980s the only friends of the Soviet Union could be found among the left wing of the Democratic party, today Russia relies on
¨Moscow Marjorie¨ Taylor Greene and the most right wing section of the Republican Party.
I would appreciate it nonetheless if you would explain how you reconcile your alleged left wing leanings with your quite obvious admiration of Putin.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteFrom my perspective both speakers (whom I number as friends which feeing I hope is reciprocal), speak truth from their perspective, which suffers from adopting the frame of the world as interpreted through major political conflict, the lowest common denominator.
ReplyDeleteNeither democracy (let the people rule themselves and the greatest good will be achieved by the greatest number) nor communism (from each according to their means, to each according to their needs) has been achieved by either system; and perhaps never on Earth, certainly not in modern times. Ancient Greece and Rome were ruled by elites who could be voting citizens (male, propertied, slave holding, tribunes). Marx envisioned the triumph of the working class would lead to peace and prosperity for all, but those who have attempted to follow his prescription end up with authoritarian bureaucracies. Individual freedoms are limited under both systems; each has its pluses and minuses. To argue for the superiority of one of the other necessitates (to me) an unacceptable level of ignorance of the many flaws inherent in one’s system of preference.
Theoretically democracy and international law would provide a fair basis for coexistence, but in practice we see belief in the fairness of the “rules based order” depends on who is making the rules, while international law applies to some but can be safely ignored by others. Orwell’s warning about Stalinism in Animal Farm applies to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle, where obviously “some are more equal than others,” but despite evidence of genocide before our eyes few are willing to decry the America’s one-sided support of Israel as Fascism out of concern that doing so will help usher in “I’ll be a dictator on day one” Trump (who would be no better on Palestine issue, possibly worse though that’s hard to conceive). Israel’s exceptional ability to consistently act outside international law while proclaiming itself the world’s foremost victim depends upon an exceptional form of denial, where even the idea of their denial, that they are denying rights to others, is denied through loud proclamation of support for the opposite of their actions.
This is not to say democracy and international law are not worthy goals, but to proceed under the assumption that they have in fact been established and are applied equally flies in the face of history and current events, limiting our struggle to see them established. Colonialism has led to a post-colonialism in which the U.S. attempts to enforce a global economy favoring the so-called Western democracies over the majority, the rest of the world, comprised of their former colonies. That this should continue indefinitely flies in the face of democracy and the spirit, if not the letter, of international law. Such an effort naturally encounters resistance.
Putin’s justification for his actions is understandable if viewed from the standpoint of Russian history and preservation of the Russian nation (I maintain a nation spanning ten time zones must be referred to as an empire as it was under the Tzars, but some friends object to this characterization, so pick your own word). However, constant change is the reality. We are presented in this century with challenges to longstanding norms. Humanity’s long-term survival depends upon our ability to move past them. “Does Israel have a right to exist?” someone challenged me, while demonstrating. “As what?” I countered.
That the United States, Israel, or Russia finds its existence necessitates them regularly to attack neighbors and engage in mass murder argues something strongly amiss in the way they define their existence. Current forms cannot be sacrosanct. Conditions will force change. That the world is ever poised on the brink of nuclear annihilation over differences in ideology while climate-tipping points go ignored is not a situation that can forever be expected to continue.
Hi Charles!
DeleteYou said, in part, “Putin’s justification for his actions is understandable when viewed from the standpoint of Russian history and preservation of the Russian nation.” I completely agree with those particular words, as they are stated.
You also said that my, and Giacomo’s, “perspective … suffers from adopting the frame of the world interpreted through political conflict; the lowest common denominator, not truly reflective of reality.”
I discussed my vision of World Politics, in part, as a response to that statement. That’s the “reality” we humans live in today.
How about explaining why you think that is “not truly reflective of reality.”
Bill