My senior thesis at Willamette
University in 1960 studied the possibility
of peaceful reform in a totalitarian country.
Inspired by the reform efforts of Nikita Khrushchev, I studied reforms in three non-totalitarian
countries---women suffrage in the U.S. , repeal of the “corn laws” in England ,
and the freeing of the Russian serfs in
1862. Drawing conclusions about
successful reform strategies, I extrapolated
them into the challenging circumstances facing reformers in the U.S.S.R.
I concluded that two roads were open to a Soviet reformer. You could become a literary person, develop a
reputation, and then gradually write more and more radical political
commentaries, leaving censors wondering where to draw the line and force you to
shut up. Or you could join the Communist
Party, worm your way up to the top, then pull out your horns and use the vast
powers of the top leader to reform the system.
Years later, my
analysis was vindicated. Alexander
Solzhenitsyn’s literary career followed the first road, and was very successful
until his criticisms went too far and Leonid Brezhnev deported him. The second road was followed by Mr.
Gorbachev, whose successful reforms brought in freedom of speech, competitive elections, and détente with the U.S.
but then resulted in the demise---relatively peaceful---of the U.S.S.R.
Before Gorbachev, however,
the first example of a road two
reformer was Alexander Dubchek in Czechoslovakia ,
whose 1968 “Prague Spring” reforms were only halted when the Soviet
Union invaded and threw Dubchek out.
Of course when Gorbachev first came to power it was not
obvious that he was a Soviet Dubchek.
It was only when Pravda, the
Communist Party newspaper which I read for 29 years, printed a poem claiming censorship was
un-Marxist that I realized that Gorbachev was a real reformer. Not all American leaders were as quick to
catch on, and many were horrified when President Reagan started the negotiations
with Gorbachev which ended the Cold War.
This is all history,
but it may have great relevance to today. The
recently elected Iranian president,
Hasan Rouhani, appears to be
interested in improving relations with the United
States , and serious negotiations have
started. However influential voices
including Israeli leaders, many U.S.
politicians, and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, have been condemning these
negotiations. They insist that Iran
cannot reform, it cannot be trusted, and
that Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Of course they could be right about Rouhani. Even
some of the Politburo members who made Gorbachev General Secretary
expected him to continue the old Soviet policies. Foreign minister Andrei Gromyko, who
nominated him, told the Politburo that
Gorbachev had a nice smile but had teeth of iron. Coming from Gromyko, known to some as “old iron pants,” this was intended as a compliment! But Gorbachev turned out to be a real
reformer. And so might Rouhani, no
matter what the intent of the leaders who propelled him to the Iranian
presidency.
Since there is a chance that Rouhani, like Gorbachev, is the real deal, we ought to make an honest effort to
negotiate with him, and we ought to presume that he is sincere until events
prove otherwise.
The U.S.
should announce that if we reach an agreement and Israel
tries to sabotage it by bombing Iran , we will end all U.S.
foreign aid to Israel . There is too much at stake here to allow
anybody, including the Israeli leader,
to stand in the way of testing Rouhani’s sincerity and political ability
to make a reasonable deal
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are e-mailed to me. I will post excerpts from those I think will most interest readers.