Two events, that caught the imagination of the outside world, did more than anything else to change this attitude: One was the \u201eSinging revolution<\/b>\u201c in June 1988. The world had known cases of Gandhian civil disobedience against injustice before \u2013 but singing oneself to freedom was a novelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
The other event, which made it onto the front pages and the TV- screens around the globe, was the human chain<\/b> of August 1989: One million people holding hands, from Tallinn in the North to Vilnius in the South, to protest against the Molotov\/Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocols from half a century before. This infamous pact between the two dictators, Hitler<\/b> and Stalin<\/b>, signaled the beginning of the Second World War; and gave Stalin a free hand to invade the Baltic countries, including Finland.<\/p>\n
The Singing revolution did not only signal a national reawakening. It was a symbol of powerful grassroots democracy. The leaders of the independent movements \u2013 the Popular Fronts \u2013 of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania \u2013 had therefore every reason to believe that they would be welcomed with open arms back into the family of European democracies.<\/p>\n
But they were in for a rude awakening. When they sent their representatives abroad to solicit recognition of their restored democracies, they were received by polite annoyance. The restoration of independence for the Baltic States \u2013 which implied breaking away<\/i> from the Soviet Union \u2013 did not fit in with the scheme of things, which Western leaders were negotiating in partnership with Mr. Gorbachev<\/b> to end the Cold War. Gradually it dawned upon men like Lennart Meri<\/b> and Vitautas Landsbergis<\/b> that they were being treated as unwelcome intruders into the amiable fraternity of the major powers, which simply had a different agenda.<\/p>\n
Unknowingly, the Baltic independence movements had put the leaders of Western democracy on the horns of a dilemma of their own creation, from which they couldn\u00b4t disentangle themselves \u2013 without outside help. This is a chapter in the story of the endgame of the Cold War, which the major powers in the West understandably want to forget, but the current masters in the Kremlin are by the same token unable to forget. This is the untold story of the documentary film, \u201eThose Who Dare…\u201c<\/b>, we are now going to watch.<\/p>\n
First<\/b> we must acknowledge that the Singing Revolution could not have gathered momentum, were it not for Gorbachev\u00b4s policy of Glasnost and Perestroika<\/i> \u2013 his signatory trade marks for opening up and structural reform.<\/i> Even if the opening up was both timid and limited and the structural reform never really materialized, Mr. Gorbachev, by ultimately refusing to use force to keep the Soviet Union together, made it all possible<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Second: <\/b> If successful in restoring their independence \u2013 which meant breaking away from the Soviet Union \u2013 that could signal the beginning of the end<\/i> of the empire. Not only would such \u201epolitical tsunami\u201c <\/i> engulf Mr. Gorbachev himself, but the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as well.<\/p>\n
Question: <\/b> Could a tremendous transformation on this scale happen peacefully? Or would the break-up of empire unleash a bitter war, with unforeseeable consequences? For a while we were teetering on the brink.<\/p>\n
Third: <\/b> The leaders of the West at the time \u2013 Bush sr. <\/b>, Kohl<\/b>, Mitterand<\/b> and the Iron Lady, Mrs. Thatcher<\/b> \u2013 had all staked the success of their policy of ending the Cold War on the political fate of a single individual<\/i>, Mr. Gorbachev. If he were to be deposed \u2013 they thought \u2013 the hardliners would be back. That would mean a return to the Cold War, and \u2013 in the worst case scenario \u2013 an escalation into full blown war.<\/p>\n
Forth: There was a lot at stake: <\/b> Disarmament \u2013 both nuclear and conventional; reduction in military forces and arms control; the peaceful reunification of Germany and united Germany\u00b4s continued membership of NATO; the liberation of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe; mutual hopes for \u201ea peace dividend\u201c, to name but a few.<\/p>\n
For the Soviet leader, Mr. Gorbachev, preventing the break-up of the Soviet Union was his last line of defence. If that line wouldn\u00b4t hold, everything else would go with it.<\/p>\n
The leaders of the West found themselves facing a tough choice: Should all the afore-mentioned benefits of ending the Cold War be sacrificed by supporting the small Baltic nations\u00b4dreams of restored independence? Or should they \u2013 in the name of maintaining peace and stability \u2013 sacrifice the dreams of those small nations \u2013 at least for the time being? <\/i><\/p>\n
There was an almost unbridgeable gap between the official, idealistic rhetoric about the expansion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law \u2013 and the coldblooded realpolitik being pursued de facto behind closed doors.<\/p>\n
This is why<\/b> president Bush gave his infamous \u201eChicken Speech\u201c in Kyiv in 1991. Appealing to the Ukrainians \u201enot to succumb to extreme nationalism\u201c, but to keep the Soviet Union together \u2013 in the name of peace and stability.<\/p>\n
This is why<\/b> Chancelor Kohl<\/b> and president Mitterand<\/b> wrote a joint letter to president Landsbergis<\/b>, urging him to postpone the implementation of Lithuania\u00b4s declaration of independence of March 11, 1990.<\/p>\n
This is why<\/b> the leaders of the restored Baltic democracies were turned away from conferences, where the \u201eNew World Order\u201c<\/i> was being negotiated between the old Cold War adversaries; they were not even allowed to plead their case at a conference in Copenhagen on human rights, as potential \u201espoilers of the peace\u201c<\/i>.<\/p>\n
And this is why<\/b> faraway Iceland \u2013 in the name of solidarity of small nations<\/i> \u2013 tried to solicit support among the smaller nations of Europe for the Baltic cause, since the voice of the Baltic leaders themselves had been silenced; and the leaders of the Western alliance were obviously beholden to a different agenda.<\/p>\n
Why? <\/b> I was simply convinced that the Western infatuation with Mr. Gorbachev was illconceived and dangerous and based on a fundamentally faulty analysis <\/i>of political reality inside the Soviet Union.<\/p>\n
I was convinced that the Soviet system itself was in the throes of an existential crisis<\/i>, for which their leaders had no solution<\/i>. The empire was in the process of falling apart, just as had been the fate of the British, French and other European empires after World War ll.<\/p>\n
Contrary to Putin \u2013 who is on record saying that \u201ethe fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geo-strategic catastrophy of the 20th century\u201c \u2013 I was convinced \u2013 and still am \u2013 that the dissolution of the Soviet Union should be welcomed as perhaps the most beneficial event of the 20th century. If it needed a little push from the Baltic nations, so much the better.<\/i><\/p>\n
What had the Cold War been all about, if not the liberation of the captive nations? I was appalled listening to Western leaders preach to the subjugated peoples that they should accept their fate as captive nations \u2013 so that we in the West could enjoy peace and stability. To my ears this was not only a shameful betrayal \u2013 but also a blatant mistake. <\/b><\/p>\n
When recounting this story, almost a quarter century later, many questions remain unanswered. One of them is this one: Were the leaders of Western democracy really so callous as to be ready to sacrifice the legitimate claims of the Baltic nations to restored independence \u2013 in return for political gain in dealing with the Soviets? Although it looks like it, it is perhaps a little more subtle.<\/p>\n
Keep in mind that the Baltic nations had disappeared from the political radar screen for almost half a century. In that sense they had become \u201eforgotten nations\u201c. \u201eHaven\u00b4t these peoples always belonged to Russia anyway?\u201c \u2013 as the distinguished foreign minister of a NATO-country said to me \u2013 and I quoted before.<\/p>\n
If this was really the accepted view in the chancelleries of Europe, Western leaders were, presumably, not thinking in terms of sacrificing anything. Bear in mind that most of those major powers in the West \u2013 the U.K., France, Spain and also the US \u2013 were all ex-colonial powers. The US suffered a devastating civil war to prevent the break- up of the union. I am not for a moment suggesting that the American Civil War, with the aim of emancipating the slaves, should be compared with imperial aggression with the aim of enslaving free nations. But, preventing the brake-up of the union was the common principle.<\/p>\n
The United Kingdom today is in the grip of an existencial crisis \u2013 as is Spain \u2013 in mortal fear of the break-up of the union. Colonial powers \u2013 think of the British, the French and the Spanish empires \u2013 have fought ferocious wars trying to prevent the break- up of their empires.<\/p>\n
The leaders of major powers with a colonial past are not to be expected to be at the forefront in defending the rights of small nations to national self-determination. Rarely have small nations been liberated by a benevolent act of major powers. They simply have to liberate themselves. Under such circumstances the concept of \u201esolidarity of small nations\u201c <\/b>may have some practical relevance, against all odds. <\/i><\/p>\n
The following story of the Baltic Road to Freedom and the break-up of the Soviet Union \u2013 as told in the documentary film \u201eThose Who Dare…\u201c is a joint effort by film-makers in Iceland and all three Baltic countries. It also tells a forgotten story insight the narrative of the end of the Cold War. Welcome to this film sceening.<\/p>\n
\u00deessi r\u00e6\u00f0a, sem var flutt 19. okt\u00f3ber, s.l. vi\u00f0 Stanford h\u00e1sk\u00f3la, birtist \u00ed vefriti \u00feeirrar deildar sk\u00f3lans, sem f\u00e6st vi\u00f0 kennslu og ranns\u00f3knir \u00e1 m\u00e1lefnum, sem tengjast Nor\u00f0url\u00f6ndum og Eystrasalts\u00fej\u00f3\u00f0um.<\/p>\n
R\u00e6\u00f0unni fylgja myndir og umsagnir og \u00e1bendingar um tengili\u00f0i vi\u00f0 \u00e1hugavert og skylt efni.<\/p>\n