Tweet
OVER BEFORE IT'S OVER
Russia Profile
http://russiaprofile.org/comments/44377.html
Sept 1 2011
As a Unified Entity, the Soviet Union De Facto Disappeared Long Before
Its Official End
Two thousand eleven is a year rich in significant anniversaries,
but it's easy to note that many of them are directly connected to
the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The unsuccessful attempt
to rescue the Soviet Union by cutting its first and last President
Mikhail Gorbachev off from power further promoted the process of
ethno-political self-determination in the allied and autonomous
republics at the end of August and the beginning of September 1991.
On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared independence. Three days later,
on August 27, Moldova also proclaimed itself an independent state.
However, what seemed to be impromptu political decisions were in
fact very well thought-out. Long before the "hot August" of 1991,
both Kiev, and especially Chisinau, had expressed their interest in
an independent political life.
Moldova's sovereignty was announced on June 23, 1990. The republic
refused to take part in the referendum on preserving a "renewed"
Soviet Union on March 17, 1991, and in the "Novo-Ogaryovo process,"
which dealt with preparations for signing a new confederate agreement.
Ukraine's Declaration of Independence came on July 16, 1990. This
document included certain elements of fully-fledged statehood,
particularly non-aligned status, which was in itself a claim
to conduct an independent foreign policy. In March of 1991 the
Ukrainian republican leadership took part in the referendum on
preserving the Soviet Union, but with one significant deviation. The
main question posed in the nationwide poll in Kiev was accompanied
by another one, which specified the republic's special status: "Do
you agree with the fact that Ukraine should be part of the Union of
Soviet sovereign states on the basis of the Declaration of Ukraine's
state sovereignty?" Unlike Moldova, Ukraine did participate in the
"Novo-Ogaryovo process," but after the failure of the August putsch
in Moscow it began actively preparing to leave the Soviet Union. This
process came to a logical conclusion on December 1, 1991, during a
republican referendum on retiring from the union state.
The political decisions made at the end of August and beginning of
September by the leaderships of Azerbaijan and Central Asian states
were "surprising" to a certain degree. Until August 1991, Azerbaijan
was seen by many as Moscow's outpost in Transcaucasia. It was the
only Transcaucasian entity to partake in the referendum on March 17,
1991, and also in the "Novo-Ogaryovo process." Unlike Armenia, where
the Communist Party had lost its leading position back in 1990,
in August of 1991 Azerbaijan's Supreme Soviet was headed by the
leader of the republican Communist Party Ayaz Mutalibov. But this
role of an "outpost" was ad hoc. Baku tried to preserve control over
Nagorno-Karabakh and tried to lean on the unionized authorities,
although by 1991 it already had a long list of complaints for the
Kremlin. As soon as Baku realized that the union was on the verge
of disintegration, an intensive process of state self-determination
began. On August 30, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan passed
a declaration "On the reestablishment of the Azerbaijani Republic's
state independence."
On August 31, 1991, declarations of state independence were adopted
in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. On September 9, 1991, during an
extraordinary session of Tajikistan's Supreme Soviet, the declaration
of state independence of the Republic of Tajikistan and decrees
on making amendments were passed unanimously as were additions to
the "Declaration of the Sovereignty of the Tajik Soviet Socialist
Republic," approved on August 24, 1990. Here it is important to note
that on August 19, 1991, Tashkent and Dushanbe officials de facto
associated with Gorbachev's opponents from the State Committee for
Emergency Rule (GKChP) and supported a union state. But following
the failure of the putsch, Tashkent and Dushanbe quickly reoriented
themselves toward a strategy called "a way toward independence."
Next on the list was Armenia's independence. This case deserves a
separate discussion. The history of Armenia's self-determination
in 1988 to 1991 rhymed with the struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh. At
the beginning Yerevan hoped to achieve a "miatsum" (unification with
Karabakh) with Moscow's help. But as soon as it became clear that the
union authorities would be of no help in this matter, Armenia set the
course for self-determination. It was outlined by the Declaration of
Independence of August 23, 1990, which eliminated the Armenian Soviet
Socialist Republic and de facto proclaimed all the attributes of new
statehood. In the end, Armenia was the only one of the 15 republics
that made up the Soviet Union to leave the union in accordance with a
procedure stipulated by Soviet legislation. The republican referendum
on independence was announced six months in advance. At that, Yerevan
ignored both the union plebiscite and the "Novo-Ogaryovo process." On
September 21, 1991, the inhabitants of Armenia supported the creation
of their own national state. But unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan,
Armenia constructed its statehood instead of reconstructing it.
The events of August and September of 1991 didn't pass the autonomous
republics by, either. On September 2 the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region declared its independence from Azerbaijan,
and announced the creation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)
together with the Shaumyan District. September 6, 1991, 20 years ago,
marked the beginning of the history of post-Soviet Chechnya, synonymous
with wars, infighting, refugees and terrorist attacks. On this day,
power on Chechnya changed hands, going from the Supreme Soviet of
the Chechen-Ingush Republic (an autonomous entity within the Russian
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) to the All-National Congress
of the Chechen People (OKChN). The mechanism behind this change was
not legitimate or legal, but forceful. That day in September of 1991
was the first tragic incident in a myriad of mishaps that continue
to this day.
Thus the events that took place in August and September 20 years ago
speak against the popular contemporary myth that the "Belavezha pact"
was the main reason behind the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As
a unified entity, the Soviet Union de facto disappeared long before
its official end. And the reasons behind its demise were not the
"Novo-Ogaryovo process" and not the refusal to use force (in 1989 to
1991, it was used multiple times), but the country's leadership's
unpreparedness for the systematic modernization of society and the
state. The national factor wasn't given proper consideration when
choosing and implementing the course of reforms. Moreover, over many
years of the existence of the Soviet Union, nationalism and territorial
segregation were encouraged in some way or another. Who, if not the
Soviet state, institutionalized ethnic groups as the main subject
of policy and state legislation? As the Soviet state's integration
potential weakened and the integrating ideology - Soviet communism -
faced a crisis, the process of ethnic-national self determination
began in the republics that made up the Soviet Union.
And the last leadership of the Soviet Union is mainly to blame not
for the fact that it failed to prevent the disintegration of the
unified state (the groundwork for this was laid by all of its previous
development), but for the fact that it failed to make the state,
firstly, manageable, and secondly, ruled by law. Each one of the
allied republics and autonomous territories was determined based on
political expedience, often not based on the law, but on force. This
resulted in eight inter-ethnic and civil conflicts on the territory
of the former Soviet Union, as well as in unresolved problems along
the borders and inter-state disputes, which in some cases lead to
a severing of diplomatic relations between separate parts of what
once used to be one country. Alas, this period in history deserves
a separate discussion.
Sergei Markedonov, Ph.D., is a political analyst and a visiting fellow
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Russia
and Eurasia Program, Washington, DC.
Russia Profile
http://russiaprofile.org/comments/44377.html
Sept 1 2011
As a Unified Entity, the Soviet Union De Facto Disappeared Long Before
Its Official End
Two thousand eleven is a year rich in significant anniversaries,
but it's easy to note that many of them are directly connected to
the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The unsuccessful attempt
to rescue the Soviet Union by cutting its first and last President
Mikhail Gorbachev off from power further promoted the process of
ethno-political self-determination in the allied and autonomous
republics at the end of August and the beginning of September 1991.
On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared independence. Three days later,
on August 27, Moldova also proclaimed itself an independent state.
However, what seemed to be impromptu political decisions were in
fact very well thought-out. Long before the "hot August" of 1991,
both Kiev, and especially Chisinau, had expressed their interest in
an independent political life.
Moldova's sovereignty was announced on June 23, 1990. The republic
refused to take part in the referendum on preserving a "renewed"
Soviet Union on March 17, 1991, and in the "Novo-Ogaryovo process,"
which dealt with preparations for signing a new confederate agreement.
Ukraine's Declaration of Independence came on July 16, 1990. This
document included certain elements of fully-fledged statehood,
particularly non-aligned status, which was in itself a claim
to conduct an independent foreign policy. In March of 1991 the
Ukrainian republican leadership took part in the referendum on
preserving the Soviet Union, but with one significant deviation. The
main question posed in the nationwide poll in Kiev was accompanied
by another one, which specified the republic's special status: "Do
you agree with the fact that Ukraine should be part of the Union of
Soviet sovereign states on the basis of the Declaration of Ukraine's
state sovereignty?" Unlike Moldova, Ukraine did participate in the
"Novo-Ogaryovo process," but after the failure of the August putsch
in Moscow it began actively preparing to leave the Soviet Union. This
process came to a logical conclusion on December 1, 1991, during a
republican referendum on retiring from the union state.
The political decisions made at the end of August and beginning of
September by the leaderships of Azerbaijan and Central Asian states
were "surprising" to a certain degree. Until August 1991, Azerbaijan
was seen by many as Moscow's outpost in Transcaucasia. It was the
only Transcaucasian entity to partake in the referendum on March 17,
1991, and also in the "Novo-Ogaryovo process." Unlike Armenia, where
the Communist Party had lost its leading position back in 1990,
in August of 1991 Azerbaijan's Supreme Soviet was headed by the
leader of the republican Communist Party Ayaz Mutalibov. But this
role of an "outpost" was ad hoc. Baku tried to preserve control over
Nagorno-Karabakh and tried to lean on the unionized authorities,
although by 1991 it already had a long list of complaints for the
Kremlin. As soon as Baku realized that the union was on the verge
of disintegration, an intensive process of state self-determination
began. On August 30, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan passed
a declaration "On the reestablishment of the Azerbaijani Republic's
state independence."
On August 31, 1991, declarations of state independence were adopted
in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. On September 9, 1991, during an
extraordinary session of Tajikistan's Supreme Soviet, the declaration
of state independence of the Republic of Tajikistan and decrees
on making amendments were passed unanimously as were additions to
the "Declaration of the Sovereignty of the Tajik Soviet Socialist
Republic," approved on August 24, 1990. Here it is important to note
that on August 19, 1991, Tashkent and Dushanbe officials de facto
associated with Gorbachev's opponents from the State Committee for
Emergency Rule (GKChP) and supported a union state. But following
the failure of the putsch, Tashkent and Dushanbe quickly reoriented
themselves toward a strategy called "a way toward independence."
Next on the list was Armenia's independence. This case deserves a
separate discussion. The history of Armenia's self-determination
in 1988 to 1991 rhymed with the struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh. At
the beginning Yerevan hoped to achieve a "miatsum" (unification with
Karabakh) with Moscow's help. But as soon as it became clear that the
union authorities would be of no help in this matter, Armenia set the
course for self-determination. It was outlined by the Declaration of
Independence of August 23, 1990, which eliminated the Armenian Soviet
Socialist Republic and de facto proclaimed all the attributes of new
statehood. In the end, Armenia was the only one of the 15 republics
that made up the Soviet Union to leave the union in accordance with a
procedure stipulated by Soviet legislation. The republican referendum
on independence was announced six months in advance. At that, Yerevan
ignored both the union plebiscite and the "Novo-Ogaryovo process." On
September 21, 1991, the inhabitants of Armenia supported the creation
of their own national state. But unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan,
Armenia constructed its statehood instead of reconstructing it.
The events of August and September of 1991 didn't pass the autonomous
republics by, either. On September 2 the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region declared its independence from Azerbaijan,
and announced the creation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)
together with the Shaumyan District. September 6, 1991, 20 years ago,
marked the beginning of the history of post-Soviet Chechnya, synonymous
with wars, infighting, refugees and terrorist attacks. On this day,
power on Chechnya changed hands, going from the Supreme Soviet of
the Chechen-Ingush Republic (an autonomous entity within the Russian
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) to the All-National Congress
of the Chechen People (OKChN). The mechanism behind this change was
not legitimate or legal, but forceful. That day in September of 1991
was the first tragic incident in a myriad of mishaps that continue
to this day.
Thus the events that took place in August and September 20 years ago
speak against the popular contemporary myth that the "Belavezha pact"
was the main reason behind the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As
a unified entity, the Soviet Union de facto disappeared long before
its official end. And the reasons behind its demise were not the
"Novo-Ogaryovo process" and not the refusal to use force (in 1989 to
1991, it was used multiple times), but the country's leadership's
unpreparedness for the systematic modernization of society and the
state. The national factor wasn't given proper consideration when
choosing and implementing the course of reforms. Moreover, over many
years of the existence of the Soviet Union, nationalism and territorial
segregation were encouraged in some way or another. Who, if not the
Soviet state, institutionalized ethnic groups as the main subject
of policy and state legislation? As the Soviet state's integration
potential weakened and the integrating ideology - Soviet communism -
faced a crisis, the process of ethnic-national self determination
began in the republics that made up the Soviet Union.
And the last leadership of the Soviet Union is mainly to blame not
for the fact that it failed to prevent the disintegration of the
unified state (the groundwork for this was laid by all of its previous
development), but for the fact that it failed to make the state,
firstly, manageable, and secondly, ruled by law. Each one of the
allied republics and autonomous territories was determined based on
political expedience, often not based on the law, but on force. This
resulted in eight inter-ethnic and civil conflicts on the territory
of the former Soviet Union, as well as in unresolved problems along
the borders and inter-state disputes, which in some cases lead to
a severing of diplomatic relations between separate parts of what
once used to be one country. Alas, this period in history deserves
a separate discussion.
Sergei Markedonov, Ph.D., is a political analyst and a visiting fellow
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Russia
and Eurasia Program, Washington, DC.