Showing posts with label Czech Republic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Czech Republic. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Report From Bratislava, Slovakia (Where A Two State Solution Worked)


By Barry Rubin

Bratislava, Slovakia

A Czech friend, who has achieved considerable success in life since then, reminded me that for several years he was a window-washer under the Communist regime. The government of the proletariat believed that the worst thing it could do to people who had dissented was to send them into the proletariat. During that period, he was very active in the democratic opposition.

Since he spoke good English, he was often asked by his comrades (probably not the right word) in the anti-Communist struggle for freedom to be the guide for visiting Western sympathizers. Often, he recounts, these were Western leftists eager to explain to those Czechs engaged in the battle for liberty that Marxian socialism was really a great idea, they just needed to make a few adjustments.

Imagine if you will, people who had grown up in an ideological dictatorship that sent people to prison for making the wrong joke being lectured by a bunch of spoiled, well-dressed Western intellectuals on the splendor of their prison.

That’s a familiar image today, with many gays, self-identified feminists, Jewish leftists, and leftists in general (including those pretending to be liberals) extolling ideologies and systems that would pound them into the ground. Who are they, for example, to criticize the treatment of women as one step above cattle since after all that’s the local custom? And, they continue, the women really like it! Yesterday’s reactionary racist chauvinism is today’s multicultural progressivism!

In Central Europe the experience with Communism Is still recent enough that people get it. I wanted to make a point about al-Qaida versus the Muslim Brotherhood. “How many of you,” I asked the audience, “have read Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Malady?” Several of them laughed, no doubt having been assigned to reading it like Western students get their American history from Howard Zinn and their political thinking from Saul Alinsky.

Al-Qaida, I explained, was like those now-obscure anarchists that Lenin ridiculed. They only know how to do terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood (and Hizballah, Iran’s rulers, and Hamas, along with others) are like the Bolsheviks, they know how to organize and maneuver. That’s why they are far more dangerous. Everyone remembers Lenin but nobody remembers the anarchists and revolution-now leftists he ridiculed back in 1920.

Like all countries with a heroic past, the Czech Republic has settled into institutionalization and a degree of forgetfulness. Economically, the country is doing as well as anyone in Europe today. But the big disappointment, both in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is corruption. Unfortunately, even in a democracy government officials steal. That problem cannot be eliminated; it can only be reduced by limiting their ability to do so.

I suggest to local colleagues that there should be a regular program of having those suffering under Communism and the dissidents who overthrew it speak to schoolchildren about their experiences. There is nothing like hearing first-hand, as I did from a friend in Lithuania, about how a stubborn and all too outspoken little girl refused to join the Communist Youth Group in his school and soon disappeared from that class forever. Years later, he tried to find her and couldn’t.

Apparently, however, this kind of speaker’s program is hardly being done in the Czech Republic or Slovakia. Memories of life under Communist rule and the struggle it took to get rid of it may soon be forgotten.

Instead, I’m told, television stations are now showing Communist-era films—and even new productions—that include no explicit political material but purport to show that things were pretty good in those days.

Bratislava was, before World War Two, 30 percent Slovak, 30 percent German, 30 percent Hungarian, and 10 percent Jewish. As happened elsewhere, the Jews were killed or fled during the war; after the war, the Germans and Hungarians were deported. Result: ethnic cleansing with no bad publicity or decades of violent conflict.

Of course, during the war, Slovakia became a German protectorate whose government–led by a Catholic priest no less!–eagerly persecuted the Jews. My remaining relatives here were deported to concentration camps. At least one was murdered; two survived and I am searching for them; and of four others I still know nothing. When the liberal government-in-exile returned, it quickly kicked out the remaining Germans and the Hungarians, whose home country’s government had been a Nazi ally.

This was common in central Europe. On the side of my paternal ancestors, in their town, the Jews were killed, the Poles fled, and the Byelorussians were overwhelmed by ethnic Russian settlers brought in by the hundreds of thousands by the Soviet government. In my great-grandfather’s town, the Jews were killed, the Germans thrown out, and Polish settlers brought in.

My maternal ancestors’ towns in Slovakia followed the same pattern as Bratislava

All of this is forgotten—along with the massacres and disposition of so many ethnic groups by those who today often profess themselves pure and benefitted from those demographic shifts. Or perhaps some of those whose own past behavior is too recent in their memory have a sense of realism about how the world works. At any rate, the singling out of one country as sinful in the world—a sort of global scapegoat–is not exactly an accurate reflection of history.

The relationship between Czechs and Slovaks is a remarkable success story. Thousands of Slovaks study or seek work in the Czech Republic. While the languages are not as close to each other as you might think, years of watching television and interaction has made a lot of people fluent in both. Indeed, their differences were externally induced, with the Czechs more influenced by the Germans (or Austrians, to be more accurate) and the Slovaks by the Hungarians.

A Slovak graduate student insisted at one of my lectures that this two-state solution is a great role model for the Middle East. So I asked him: “Have you ever wanted to kill a Czech? If terrorists blew up a Czech kindergarten would you cheer? Would you like to wipe the Czech Republic off the map?” No, not quite the same.

On the other hand, the Czechs and Slovaks today offer a model of how nation-states offer more stable entities if they are just satisfied with what they have.

I’m very fond of both of these countries. The architecture is fascinating; the food better than you think; and the people are very friendly. While they lack Mediterranean warmth they have wonderful senses of humor and are superbly unpretentious. These are people who don’t want to rule the world, they just want to be left alone by it. They also have a refreshing sense of realism about things like identity, dictatorships, ideology, and the preciousness of liberty. I hope they influence the rest of the EU more than it influences them.
: Two States for Two Peoples
September 27, 2011 - 9:14 pm - by Barry Rubin











By Barry Rubin

Bratislava, Slovakia

A Czech friend, who has achieved considerable success in life since then, reminded me that for several years he was a window-washer under the Communist regime. The government of the proletariat believed that the worst thing it could do to people who had dissented was to send them into the proletariat. During that period, he was very active in the democratic opposition.

Since he spoke good English, he was often asked by his comrades (probably not the right word) in the anti-Communist struggle for freedom to be the guide for visiting Western sympathizers. Often, he recounts, these were Western leftists eager to explain to those Czechs engaged in the battle for liberty that Marxian socialism was really a great idea, they just needed to make a few adjustments.

Imagine if you will, people who had grown up in an ideological dictatorship that sent people to prison for making the wrong joke being lectured by a bunch of spoiled, well-dressed Western intellectuals on the splendor of their prison.

That’s a familiar image today, with many gays, self-identified feminists, Jewish leftists, and leftists in general (including those pretending to be liberals) extolling ideologies and systems that would pound them into the ground. Who are they, for example, to criticize the treatment of women as one step above cattle since after all that’s the local custom? And, they continue, the women really like it! Yesterday’s reactionary racist chauvinism is today’s multicultural progressivism!

In Central Europe the experience with Communism Is still recent enough that people get it. I wanted to make a point about al-Qaida versus the Muslim Brotherhood. “How many of you,” I asked the audience, “have read Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Malady?” Several of them laughed, no doubt having been assigned to reading it like Western students get their American history from Howard Zinn and their political thinking from Saul Alinsky.

Al-Qaida, I explained, was like those now-obscure anarchists that Lenin ridiculed. They only know how to do terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood (and Hizballah, Iran’s rulers, and Hamas, along with others) are like the Bolsheviks, they know how to organize and maneuver. That’s why they are far more dangerous. Everyone remembers Lenin but nobody remembers the anarchists and revolution-now leftists he ridiculed back in 1920.

Like all countries with a heroic past, the Czech Republic has settled into institutionalization and a degree of forgetfulness. Economically, the country is doing as well as anyone in Europe today. But the big disappointment, both in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is corruption. Unfortunately, even in a democracy government officials steal. That problem cannot be eliminated; it can only be reduced by limiting their ability to do so.

I suggest to local colleagues that there should be a regular program of having those suffering under Communism and the dissidents who overthrew it speak to schoolchildren about their experiences. There is nothing like hearing first-hand, as I did from a friend in Lithuania, about how a stubborn and all too outspoken little girl refused to join the Communist Youth Group in his school and soon disappeared from that class forever. Years later, he tried to find her and couldn’t.

Apparently, however, this kind of speaker’s program is hardly being done in the Czech Republic or Slovakia. Memories of life under Communist rule and the struggle it took to get rid of it may soon be forgotten.

Instead, I’m told, television stations are now showing Communist-era films—and even new productions—that include no explicit political material but purport to show that things were pretty good in those days.

Bratislava was, before World War Two, 30 percent Slovak, 30 percent German, 30 percent Hungarian, and 10 percent Jewish. As happened elsewhere, the Jews were killed or fled during the war; after the war, the Germans and Hungarians were deported. Result: ethnic cleansing with no bad publicity or decades of violent conflict.

Of course, during the war, Slovakia became a German protectorate whose government–led by a Catholic priest no less!–eagerly persecuted the Jews. My remaining relatives here were deported to concentration camps. At least one was murdered; two survived and I am searching for them; and of four others I still know nothing. When the liberal government-in-exile returned, it quickly kicked out the remaining Germans and the Hungarians, whose home country’s government had been a Nazi ally.

This was common in central Europe. On the side of my paternal ancestors, in their town, the Jews were killed, the Poles fled, and the Byelorussians were overwhelmed by ethnic Russian settlers brought in by the hundreds of thousands by the Soviet government. In my great-grandfather’s town, the Jews were killed, the Germans thrown out, and Polish settlers brought in.

My maternal ancestors’ towns in Slovakia followed the same pattern as Bratislava

All of this is forgotten—along with the massacres and disposition of so many ethnic groups by those who today often profess themselves pure and benefitted from those demographic shifts. Or perhaps some of those whose own past behavior is too recent in their memory have a sense of realism about how the world works. At any rate, the singling out of one country as sinful in the world—a sort of global scapegoat–is not exactly an accurate reflection of history.

The relationship between Czechs and Slovaks is a remarkable success story. Thousands of Slovaks study or seek work in the Czech Republic. While the languages are not as close to each other as you might think, years of watching television and interaction has made a lot of people fluent in both. Indeed, their differences were externally induced, with the Czechs more influenced by the Germans (or Austrians, to be more accurate) and the Slovaks by the Hungarians.

A Slovak graduate student insisted at one of my lectures that this two-state solution is a great role model for the Middle East. So I asked him: “Have you ever wanted to kill a Czech? If terrorists blew up a Czech kindergarten would you cheer? Would you like to wipe the Czech Republic off the map?” No, not quite the same.

On the other hand, the Czechs and Slovaks today offer a model of how nation-states offer more stable entities if they are just satisfied with what they have.

I’m very fond of both of these countries. The architecture is fascinating; the food better than you think; and the people are very friendly. While they lack Mediterranean warmth they have wonderful senses of humor and are superbly unpretentious. These are people who don’t want to rule the world, they just want to be left alone by it. They also have a refreshing sense of realism about things like identity, dictatorships, ideology, and the preciousness of liberty. I hope they influence the rest of the EU more than it influences them.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, September 26, 2011

What The Betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 Can Teach Us About The World Today

“We have no interest in oppressing other people….It is not so much the country of Czechoslovakia; it is rather its leader, Edward Benes. He has led a reign of terror….The Czech maintenance of a tremendous military arsenal can only be regarded as a focus of danger. We have displayed a truly unexampled patience, but I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings.” –Adolph Hitler, April 14th, 1939 (quote not fully authenticated, see note at end of my article)

By Barry Rubin

Prague, Czech Republic

Visiting the Czech Republic prompts thoughts of the 1938 Munich agreement. Analogies with Nazism and the 1930s are overused today, made even more tasteless and cliché-ridden by the fact that many of those using them know very little about the situation then and now.

Beyond the simple narrative usually offered, a more detailed analysis shows a number of points that fit both situations better than people realize. That’s true despite the very important differences between the two cases.

After all, this pattern will not be repeated today. Western countries genuinely don’t want to sell Israel out, the balance of forces favors Israel and the West, they aren’t really afraid of direct war, the “other side” is badly divided, and Israel is much stronger than Czechoslovakia and is unwilling to sacrifice itself. Still there are lessons to be learned.

Let’s look at the 1938 crisis and its relationship with today from a different standpoint.

1. A bad cause with a good cover story

There was a large ethnic German minority in Czechoslovakia. These people, who lived in an area strategically important for Czech defense, certainly had some legitimate grievances British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain actually had some sympathy for the “suffering” Germans. Hitler didn’t just rant and rave. He knew, like radical regimes and movements today, how to play the victim.

Today, many people cannot believe that a humanitarian issue for which a real case can be made might also block understanding of a wider danger and the creation of a worse humanitarian issue.

The Palestinians are suffering. The Palestinians want a state. These are problems worthy of a solution, but what kind of a solution? Like saying the proletariat has poor living conditions or bigotry against Muslims is a bad thing, these are true enough statements but not ones that should overwhelm common sense and a legitimate self-interest.

Even the detail of blaming Netanyahu and Israel’s current government has its parallel in the 1938 case: the problem is portrayed as the intransigence of Benes rather than that of Czechoslovakia as a whole. Incidentally, after 1945 when he returned to power, Benes expelled by law virtually all of the country’s Hungarian and German minorities.

The Germans were victimized by an unfair diplomatic settlement after World War One. Guilt feelings, then as now, led the West to make some dangerous mistakes. Beware of aggressors and would-be committers of genocide asking for your sympathy.

2. Resentment against the “troublemaker” who is just trying to survive

it is forgotten how much antagonism there was at the time against Czechoslovakia. Western leaders made statements that it was all the fault of Czech President Edvard Beneš that there wasn’t peace, just like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is blamed today. In each case, the question was asked: Should this silly little stiff-necked people that is greedy for territory and doesn’t know its own interests endanger our very existence?

Chamberlain said in a radio interview:

“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is, that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

Contemporary terrorism or revolutionary Islamism or hatred of the West among Arabs and Muslims is blamed on Israel. One is going to hate somebody who unnecessarily endangers your life and well-being. This easily passes over into antisemitism: How dare that [expletive deleted] little country, to quote statements made in private by French and British diplomats in recent years, risk the fate of the world. Those same statements were made about Czechoslovakia.

3. Misunderstanding the enemy’s ideology, means and goals

Just as today governments have banned phrases like “the war on terrorism” or “the war on revolutionary Islamism,” so the British and French governments of the time refused to think about a “war on fascism,” “war on Nazism,” or “war on German imperialism.”

Not understanding the enemy—its nature, goals, and ideology—produced a massive miscalculation. Chamberlain believed that Hitler just wanted dominance over Czechoslovakia and there would be no more claims. In the same manner, much of the media, university, government complex (MUG) today thinks that an independent Palestinian state would be the end of history after which there would be no more aggression, claims, demands, or crises.

4. Creating a conflict resolution peace process that ensures war.

The British and French governments repeatedly advised the Czechs to give in and pushed them to do so. They appointed a special mediator (sound familiar?) who devised a number of plans. Each time the Czechs produced a plan, the “international community” pressed for more concessions to please the Germans. On the fourth round the Czechs finally were ready to surrender enough to meet the approval of London and Paris, though Prague still hesitated.

But at that point, Hitler again played the humanitarian card. The Czechs, he claimed, were murdering Sudeten Germans. The idea of Hitler effectively lying that others were murdering civilians in order to get his way while he was sending people to concentration camps seems bizarre but it worked.

Iran and other dictatorships and totalitarian movements do the same thing today. Check out the membership of the UN Human Rights council and the obsession with “human rights” groups in bashing Israel. An imaginary parallel would be if the League of Nations (the UN’s predecessor) had appointed a commission that found the Czechs guilty of human rights violations while refusing to investigate Nazi Germany.

The last straw in 1938 came when the British and French told the Czech government that its policies were so bad that they would not defend it if the Germans attacked. Once again the Czechs gave in.

Guess what happened then? Immediately, Hitler raised new demands and he got still more concessions! Today, the Palestinian Authority says that if it were to get its independence recognized at the UN it would immediately raise additional demands—for example, that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants who so wish can go to live in Israel .

In addition, the basic structure of the 1938 plan parallels today’s proposals on Palstine: first territory is given up by the victim, then once it is strategically weakened the other remaining issues will be dealt with. In exchange for territorial concessions, the victim receives international security guarantees that later prove worthless

5. Search for a cost-free (for them) solution leading the West into a maximum-cost crisis

Underlying the 1938 maneuvers was the search by the Western European allies for a solution that would cost them nothing because the victim would pay the bill. They didn’t want war or confrontation with Germany; they didn’t understand the nature of the adversary; they knew that promising “peace in our time,” Chamberlain’s phrase, would be popular with their constituents, they didn’t care about the Czechs.

Let me repeat, this is not 1938 and Israel is not in the same situation as Czechoslovakia back then. The adversary today is badly divided, for example, and Israel is willing and able to defend itself. Pressure on the West to appease and to give very much is far lower. They just talk and then go away to do something else for a while. Even the existence of the 1938 story contributes significantly to avoiding the same mistake.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn some important lessons.

–Don’t buy humanitarian explanations for aggressive and radical demands.

–Identify your enemies correctly and know their ideology, goals, and tricks.

–Don’t be angry at the intended victim and accept lies about it by your own common adversaries.

–Don’t engage in a process of progressive surrender in which a chain of unilateral concessions are substituted for standing on principle and demanding one’s own interests be respected

–Think about whether a proposed solution is really lasting or is just going to make things worse

–If you fear to confront an aggressive dictatorship or ideology you will end by confronting it on worse terms.

Note: I have not authenticated the Hitler quote to my full satisfaction. It does fit with his policy at the time. I will be happy to remove it if the quotation is not accurate or to add a proper source if it is .

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  
 

KENJI Sponsored by TOPHANT