
It will be autumn when the anniversaries start to pile up, with November 12 being the most significant, symbolically. That is the day the East Germans stepped back form the Berlin Wall. While in retrospect the crumbling of the rest of the Soviet-imposed regimes seems inevitable, in reality it was far more difficult. Five days after the Berlin Wall became superfluous, riot police suppressed a peaceful demonstration in St. Wenceslaus Square in Prague; this reaction, however, was incongruous with the momentum across Central Europe and within weeks the Communist Party was gone.
It took the Bulgarians until early 1990 to read the writing on the wall. Yet that writing had already been etched in blood in Romania, in December.
On December 16, a protest broke out in Timişoara in response to an attempt by the government to evict a dissident, Hungarian Reformed pastor László Tőkés. Tőkés had recently made critical comments toward the regime in the international media[citation needed], and the government alleged that he was inciting ethnic hatred. At the behest of the government, his bishop removed him from his post, thereby depriving him of the right to use the apartment he was entitled to as a pastor, and sending him to be a pastor in countryside. For some time, his parishioners gathered around his home to protect him from harassment and eviction. Many passers-by, including religious Romanian students, unaware of the details and having been told by the pastor's supporters that this was yet another attempt of the communist regime to restrict religious freedom, spontaneously joined in.
As it became clear that the crowd would not disperse, the mayor, Petre Moţ, made remarks suggesting that he had overturned the decision to evict Tőkés. Meanwhile, the crowd had grown impatient — and since Moţ declined to confirm his statement against the planned eviction in writing, the crowd started to chant anticommunist slogans. Consequently, police and Securitate forces showed up at the scene. By 7:30 p.m., the protest had spread out, and the original cause became largely irrelevant. Some of the protesters attempted to burn down the building that housed the District Committee of the Romanian Communist Party (PCR). The Securitate responded with tear gas and water jets, while the police beat up rioters and arrested many of them. Around 9:00 p.m., the rioters withdrew. They regrouped eventually around the Romanian Orthodox Cathedral and started a protest march around the city, but again they were confronted by the security forces.
Riots and protests resumed the following day, December 17. The rioters broke into the District Committee building and threw Party documents, propaganda brochures, Ceauşescu's writings, and other symbols of communist power out the windows. Again, the protesters attempted to set the building on fire, but this time they were stopped by military units. Since Romania did not have a riot police (Ceauşescu, who believed the Romanian people loved him, never saw the need for the formation of one), the military were sent in to control the riots, since the situation was too large for the Securitate and police to handle. The significance of the army presence in the streets was an ominous one: it meant that they had received their orders from the highest level of the command chain, presumably from Ceauşescu himself. The army failed to establish order and chaos ensued with gunfire, fights, casualties, and burned cars. Transport Auto Blindat (TAB) armored personnel carriers and tanks were called in. After 8:00 p.m., from Piaţa Libertăţii (Liberty Square) to the Opera there was wild shooting, including the area of Decebal bridge, Calea Lipovei (Lipovei Avenue), and Calea Girocului (Girocului Avenue). Tanks, trucks, and TABs blocked the accesses into the city while helicopters hovered overhead. After midnight the protests calmed down. Ion Coman, Ilie Matei, and Ştefan Guşă inspected the city, in which some areas looked like the aftermath of a war: destruction, ash, and blood.
The end result was the execution of Nicolae Ceauşescu and his wife on Christmas Day, 1989.
Even as these events were unfolding Central Europe, the United States embarked on one of the oddest, little-remarked-upon military ventures of the time, the invasion of Panama. Counterposed with the remarkable events in Central Europe, this event seems almost anitquarian in its attempt to keep alive the American Empire in Central America.
Two decades later, all I can say about these events and their aftermath is this - I think the US pissed away so many opportunities in the wake of these changes, it is difficult to grasp. We will never - NEVER - have such an opportunity again. How sad that our leaders at the time were so short-sighted, so callow, so unimaginative as to be unable to move forward with these changes.
What's even more astounding, to me, is that there were people who voted in last fall's Presidential election who weren't even born when these events took place. I do believe that's a sign I'm getting really old.
7 comments:
Several years ago when we traveled to Europe we spent most of the time in Central Europe,Hungary,The Czech Republic,Slovakia,etc. There were definite signs of the Soviet Regime everywhere. The apartment that our cousin lived in in Slovakia was part of a complex built by the Soviets and really looked like everything you have ever seen oin the movies. All concrete and cheaply built. The apartment houses...there were four...surrounded a park that had playground eqiupment ,and each was on a small street named things like Sputnick Street and Astronaut drive...clearly built in the early 60's. When I mention to people at work about the Soviet influence, they are like..."huh"...unless they are well over forty,most of them just have no memory of it.
All that detritus will litter Central Europe for a while. Interestingly, Ghost Hunters International did an investigation of a Soviet-era prison in Latvia, and one imagines the Orwellian nature of life in Soviet-occupied Latvia, and Kafkaesque nature of such an institution in a country where "law" was really meaningless. The structure itself was horrific, not to mention the uses to which it was put for two generations of Stalinist rule.
It is one thing to bemoan the lack of imagination and foresight American political leaders displayed back in the day; none of this is to deny how much better the entire world is now that that blemish is gone. Sadly, Russia seems bent on its historic trend toward despotism, and while anti-Semitism seems as pervasive in Central Europe as it has always been, no one should ever think for a minute they aren't better off now than 20 years ago.
BTW - Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it.
I'd have to say, having Panamanian in-laws, the US action on Noriega has insured the economic boom the nation has experienced over the last twenty years while owning and running their Canal. There has been tremendous growth and all of it built on infrastructure that the former US military presence brought in its wake: pipelines for water and sewage, electrical grid, roads, etc.
Unfortunately, the city of Colon is suffering the isolated effects of having had a country split in two. It is the predominately black city -- generations descended from the majority black Caribbeans who built the Canal -- and it has not been allowed to share nearly as much in the boom as Panama City, where the financial interests are located.
However, there are some begrudged feelings at how the operation was carried out: Noriega was in a well-known and vulnerable location just a few days before the operation was executed which would have lended itself to a much more surgical strike.
And just the fact that the US came in unilaterally leaves a hurt sense of sovereignty.
GHW Bush, between his stints as head of CIA and Vice President, was on the board of TexasGulf, and mining and oil drilling company with operations in Panama. He despised Omar Torrijos as well, who has a much better reputation in Panama.
But now the US is gone, we are very well loved. As long as we don't free him to go back live. They do fear that event.
For now he is supposed to be released; but extradition requests have come from France, and Panama, too.
The entire Panamanian invasion was so incongruous with the other socio-political events of that year. Also, we went in HEAVY, far more troops than was needed, I think. The Panamanians may be thankful, but as an American - and really that's all I can do is worry about my feelings as an American - I still believe we shouldn't have done it.
No question that the outcome does not necessarily justify the action.
Paradoxically, we did not go in to liberate. We went in to retract our proxy agent informing us on others involved in the Central and South American drug traffic while he himself was benefitting greatly from that traffic.
Noriega just got too out of hand.
The benefits to Panamanians were unintentional.
Many Panamanian men did benefit with an option to serve in the US military during the sixties and seventies and secured tremendous benefits for their families. A lot of them live in retirement in NJ and NY.
I always found ti funny in a frightening way that the media was quite open reporting Noriega's ties both to drug running and the CIA, and the Bush Administration propaganda about what a heinous human being he was. Even though Panamanians referred to him as Pineapple Face.
Just as I think Iraq in ten years will probably be far better off than at any time under the Ba'athists and Sadaam Hussein, all I can say is - so what? While I am pleased there was a beneficial unintended consequence from the Panamanian invasion, as far as I'm concerned that doesn't justify what we did, why we did it, or the way we did it.
Remember, the Panamanian currency (at the time, I don't know about now) was the American dollar. We had them by the balls.
American dollar still.
Post a Comment