Can Glasnost Survive Ethnic Nationalism?
Until Mikhail Gorbachev came to power three years ago, the outside world knew very little about the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. But now, thanks to Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost (openness) the world is seeing on its TV news some of the problems facing the Kremlin leadership.
In an attempt to improve the Soviet economy, some of the steps taken by Gorbachev include relaxation of central control and the encouragement of local initiative. A result of this policy has been a series of demands by unassimilated ethnic groups in various parts of the nation. The tiny Baltic provinces of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, that were independent nations between the two World Wars and still harbor separatist aspirations, were the scene of protest demonstrations recently over what they consider unfair treatment by the central government.
A few days later, at the southern end of the country, ethnic Armenians turned out for demonstrations by the tens of thousands in Yerevan, the ancient capital of the Soviet Republic of Armenia. At issue was the status of the Armenian Christian majority in Karabakh, a region in the neighboring predominantly Muslim Republic of Azerbaijan.
The demonstrations began peacefully and the attitude of the central government was conciliatory with Gorbachev issuing a personal appeal to the Armenian leaders for restraint. Clashes with police soon became more violent and the Moscow government now faces a dilemma which will require the utmost skill to resolve. If the government allows the dissidents to get what they are requesting, it is likely that other nationalistically inclined ethnic groups throughout the country will make similar demands. If the uprisings have to be put down by force, the reforms that are being implemented will have proved a failure.
Western analysts of the situation are concerned that if the unrest continues and Communist Party control in the outlying provinces is perceived to be threatened, the more conservative members of the party may force a return to the secrecy and repression that until recently have held together the Soviet empire. From the reports of these events, it is interesting to note that despite 70 years of attempted suppression of religion by the Soviet government, religious fervor still plays as prominent a role in Soviet politics as it does in the politics of much of the world today. The work of the immortalized saints in preaching the Aeonian gospel to these lands will be an interesting challenge indeed.
Persian Gulf Remains a World Hot Spot
The long war between Iran and Iraq appears to be entering a new phase. These two combatants on the Soviet’s southern border are now battering each other’s cities with missiles. At the time of this writing, over 30 have been rued by Iraq at several Iranian cities including Teheran, the capital, and Qom, the Shiite religious center. Iran has rued over a dozen missiles at Baghdad and Bosra.
Both sides are believed to be using Soviet-made Scud-B surface-to-surface missiles but the Soviet Union has denied supplying them. Iraq’s newspapers have issued editorials stating that the missiles fired are only a sample and that there are plenty on hand to continue the bombardment until Iran accepts the United Nations’ call for a cease fire.
Iranians are blaming the Soviets and are reported to be threatening the Soviet embassy in Teheran. Whether the Soviets are involved or not remains to be seen but it is certainly in Moscow’s interest to keep either side from gaining a clear-cut victory. In view of the unrest occurring just a few miles to the north within the Soviet Union, this is a development to be watched with great interest.
NATO Takes New Approach to Conventional Arms Talks
The top leaders of the 16 member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization met recently to consider guidelines for new negotiations with Warsaw Pact nations regarding reduction of conventional forces. The meeting approved a document that outlines the approach to be taken in negotiations that are expected to begin later this year. Instead of focusing on numbers of troops, as has been done in the past, the document concentrates on the numbers of those types of weapons that would be used in a surprise attack on Western Europe.
When the United States and the Soviet Union last December agreed to eliminate their short and medium range missiles in Europe, the issue of conventional weapons and troops assumed top priority for the alliance. President Reagan stated the concern of the United States when he said, “the most direct threat to our security and stability in Europe lies in the Soviet Union’s massive military presence at a level far exceeding its defense needs.” The President also sought to reassure the allied leaders of a continued American commitment to Western Europe in spite of warmer relations with Moscow.
The general secretary of the alliance, Lord Carrington, cautioned the delegates of the need for vigilance in the negotiations despite recent progress in arms control. He pointed out that one agreement which reduces some weapons and a leader who is ready to reduce some tensions, however significant, do not in themselves remove the military capability and potential of the Soviet Union. President Reagan is expected to meet with Gorbachev in Moscow in late May.
U.S. Renews Mideast Peace Efforts
Several months of rioting in Israel’s occupied territories has had the effect of getting the United States involved again in the attempt to bring about negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors over the Palestinian problem. Secretary of State George Shultz has been engaging in shuttle diplomacy with leaders throughout the region trying to find a basis on which they might agree to begin negotiations.
So far, little concrete progress has been reported although Shultz has expressed the hope that a joint delegation of the Palestinians and Jordanians may be a viable approach. The Arab nations have been refusing to compromise on the demand that the PLO be part of any delegation, but Israel and the U.S. have been just as adamant in opposition to the PLO because it refuses to recognize Israel. Because of the close family and cultural ties that Palestinians have with Jordan, Shultz is hopeful of a breakthrough from this direction.
The Israeli government is split over the question of the occupied territories. The hard-line Likud party led by Yitzak Shamir refuses to give up control of any more territory and expects ultimately to annex the occupied areas. The labor party under Shimon Perez is more willing to compromise and would accept an international conference to negotiate a settlement even though it might not accept Jordan’s demand for a pre-commitment to yield territory for peace. With the complexities of the Middle East such as they are, the possibility seems very remote that a solution to the troubles of the region will result from the present efforts.