Ever since the Lithuanian crisis began, an unending stream of official pronouncements from Washington has expressed "deep" and "profound" concern over the wellbeing and future of the Baltic republics.
If it isn't the White House, it's the State Department and even Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney expressing concern for the independence of Lithuania and warning the Soviet Union.
Of course, this deep, profound concern for the independence of small nations does not include Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or above all the small nations of the Pacific held hostage to atomic experiments and now to radioactive waste, for which they have suffered long and never been fully compensated. This concern about regions being incorporated into a larger power has nothing to do with the annexation of Alaska and Hawaii.
Only a government that is thoroughly hypocritical and corrupt can talk about the wellbeing and independence of the far-away Baltic republics after having invaded Grenada, caused devastation and havoc in Panama, carried out a ten-year aggression against Nicaragua, and escalated military and political maneuvers against Cuba. The media news is filled with Lithuania and is completely silent on Panama, as though freedom and peace reigned supreme there instead of daily arrests of the opponents of U.S. occupation.
For the two centuries that the Baltic peoples (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) were oppressed by the czarist autocracy, Washington never noticed. But suddenly, in the midst of the coldest days of the Cold War, the U.S. discovered that it had not really recognized their incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940. It immediately began to finance and politically support the bogus Baltic governments in exile — stationed in the U.S., of course.
It is impossible to consider the situation of Lithuania and the Baltic republics separate and apart from the series of reactionary developments that have taken place in the USSR and Eastern Europe. And it would be disregarding the historical record to believe that the capitalist countries, in particular the U.S., do not see them as an attractive "window of opportunity" and are not scheming to bring the republics within the fold of imperialist expansion and capitalist exploitation.
The incorporation of the Baltic republics into the USSR in 1940 (by a valid referendum) was not the result of some whim of the Soviet Union. Indeed, it can only be understood in light of the historical evolution of the 1930s and '40s. Detaching them from their historical context and isolating the events to suit the purposes of imperialist interests is the worst of all blunders.
Soviet diplomacy in the period of the '30s was wholly oriented toward maintaining peaceful coexistence and the European status quo. Stalin himself, in a well-known interview in 1936 with Roy Howard of the Scripps-Howard newspapers, said of Soviet foreign policy: "We don't want a foot of foreign territory, nor will we give up an inch of our own."
Indeed, the Soviet leaders pursued a peaceful and, from a revolutionary internationalist point of view, even a pacifist posture. The USSR wanted nothing more than to be left alone to unfold its domestic economic planning, which was bringing stupendous industrial progress at a time when the capitalist world was undergoing the deepest depression.
But what happened? The victory of the Nazi Party, the destruction of the working class organizations in Germany, and the menacing, militaristic rise of Hitlerism changed the entire character of the international situation. However, that by no means signaled an adventurous, expansionist military policy by the USSR. On the contrary, USSR diplomacy was characterized by a continuing diplomatic approach to the imperialist democracies — the U.S., Britain, France and the others — to form a bloc to defeat the war plans of the Nazi regime. These countries, however, turned a deaf ear to the Soviet Union's plea for a serious alliance against the Hitlerite menace.
Putting aside the question of proletarian internationalism and how it was affected by a policy of relying so much on the imperialist democracies to fight another imperialist (fascist) power, it has to be noted in the current context that the USSR was making an effort to at least retain the status quo against the menace of Hitler, Mussolini and the rising tide of Japanese militarism — which was inflicting a cruel, merciless war on China, Korea and throughout Asia.
During this period, the USSR paid scant attention to the Baltic states. Their status was the same as it had been after the Bolshevik Revolution, when proletarian insurrections in these states failed, mainly because the Baltic bourgeoisie got "bipartisan" support from both the Entente governments and the Allies against working class insurrection.
What changed all this? It was the conspiracy of the Western "democratic" imperialists with Hitler, resulting in the 1938 Munich Pact. The pact, signed by Chamberlain (Britain), Daladier (France), Mussolini (Italy) and Hitler (Germany) gave Nazi imperialism the green light to move into Czechoslovakia, clearly opening the road for aggression against the Soviet Union.
No amount of diplomatic protests by the USSR were of any avail. They were all brushed aside. As the cynical imperialist democrats put it, peace was bought with Hitler for a small price.
The more brutally frank elements in the ruling class were openly elated. The prospect of the Nazis fighting the Communists in a life-and-death struggle seemed a happy occasion to the Patterson-McCormick chain of newspapers, the ultra-isolationists who controlled the Chicago Tribune. They were delighted by the prospect of a war in which the U.S. supplied both camps with economic and military means in exchange for cash. They assumed that the USSR would merely sit by with folded arms and watch Hitler strengthen his hold in the East while the Allied imperialists were beginning to prepare militarily in the West.
The USSR had to decide what to do to obtain a breathing spell and turn the diplomatic situation around vis-a-vis Nazi Germany and the imperialist Allies.
This is how the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of 1939, also known as the Stalin-Hitler Pact, was born. In principle, there was nothing wrong with playing one group of imperialists against another in the interests of defending the workers' state. It was wholly proper in the self-interest of the working class and consistent with proletarian internationalism.
However, what blunted this important diplomatic maneuver was that the Soviet leadership had so oriented the working class and progressive, anti-war movement to idealize the bourgeoisie's attachment to democracy that it identified the imperialist democracies with the struggle against Hitlerism. That the USSR would resort to a maneuver to safeguard itself, particularly its western borders, disoriented a great many in the movement.
What was the objective of the pact with Germany? To fortify the USSR against Nazi Germany and also against any combined attack of the Allies along with Germany. Considering that the West had given Hitler the green light in Czechoslovakia, in clear violation of the Soviet-French agreement of 1934 (the so-called Stalin-Lavalle Pact), the USSR saw the need to secure its western borders. It was in effect a defensive measure, when one considers the threat it faced from Hitler's takeover of Central Europe.
Seen from the point of view of military necessity and diplomatic expediency, there was nothing unusual in such an arrangement once the Allied imperialists had signed the Munich Pact with Hitler.
Thus, the move into the Baltics arose out of military necessity in the face of a truly terrible threat of imperialist attack. Viewed in the light of the global struggle that was developing, it was a minor incident.
The outcry in the West against the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact was not based on what was happening in the Baltics. When the imperialist war against the USSR broke out in full fury, and the Nazis occupied the Baltics, that was only discussed in the press from the viewpoint of how it affected the military situation as a whole. None of the imperialists were worried about the independence of the Baltics. Their concern as always was whether the USSR would emerge victorious over the Nazis and become a "superpower."
One would have to look high and low throughout the capitalist press of the period to find any concern about the independence of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Not even after the Cold War started did this become a public issue in the U.S. It was only after the USSR demonstrated that it also had a nuclear capability, and was building a navy and a submarine force, that the U.S. began to look around for areas which would become of military significance to them at a later date.
One of the first things to note about Lithuania's so-called independence movement is that it is utterly unlike any national liberation movement of modern times. The movement, and particularly its leadership, is so notoriously oriented to imperialism that it has been unable to acquire even a modicum of international supporters.
Take, for instance, its so-called declaration of independence. It is not addressed to the world community, the United Nations, or the Non-Aligned Movement. A carefully worded telex communication from the leadership calls only upon the governments (not the nations) of the "world family of democratic nations," asking for "kind assistance," political and moral support. The only acknowledgment it has received thus far, judging by press reports, came from Washington, where this "independence movement" has been lodged and financed since the 1940s.
This movement has no affinity to the guerrilla struggles in the Philippines or Peru, the masses in Southern Africa, or even the Quebecois or the IRA. It may be called an aristocratic group of bourgeois dissidents, who are depending on the largess of their paymaster.
Moreover, the Baltic bourgeoisie have displayed an openly chauvinist attitude toward the Russian and Polish workers in the republics, who officially make up 15% of the population.
The bourgeoisie from the several Baltic republics believe they can play an independent role in contemporary global politics — an illusion, especially at this time when the large imperialists in Europe are uniting against competition. These states can only become a source of capital accumulation, based on an intensification of the exploitation of Baltic workers. They can only be swallowed up with the conversion of social property into private property.
Such a development has significance for the Third World. Capital accumulation will become a source for further expansion and greater exploitation, strengthening the hand of the bourgeoisie over the workers and intensifying the exploitation of the oppressed countries.
What progressive interest do the workers and oppressed people have in this kind of self-determination? Self-determination of nations has to be consistent with the worldwide interests of other oppressed nations and of the working class. Here it is not so at all.
The leaders of this movement thought they would catapult into power with the support of imperialism. But it hasn't turned out to be so easy.
Vytautas Landsbergis, the so-called president of Lithuania, is reported by the New York Times (March 28) to have said, "The U.S. sold us out." But Landsbergis's mouth usually runs ahead of Washington's plans.
He seemed to be totally unaware that a week ago the Senate passed a unanimous resolution on Lithuania which deliberately failed to recommend that the White House officially recognize the independence of Lithuania. That's because of the intense maneuvers between Washington and Moscow. Notwithstanding all the talk about the end of the Cold War, an irreconcilable struggle between the two antagonistic social systems continues.
The privileged status of the Baltic bourgeoisie did not begin with the Gorbachev administration. It is a product of the struggle between imperialism and the USSR and flows from the geographical position of the Baltics. Unlike the underdeveloped southern republics of the USSR, the Baltics have had privileges showered on them for years merely to prevent their defection to the imperialist camp at a time when the war danger has been a principal factor motivating Soviet policy toward this part of the USSR.
It is not to be wondered at that when the Soviet Deputy Ambassador to the U.S. was asked on CNN on March 27 if the situation in Lithuania and Soviet troop movements are a matter of negotiation between the U.S. and the USSR, he cautiously replied that Foreign Minister Shevardnadze would soon be visiting the U.S. and that might be a topic of discussion.
This then is the essence of the matter. The Lithuanian crisis has to be seen in the context of the world struggle. To separate it out and move the topic to somewhere in the stratosphere to an abstract discussion of the self-determination of nations would do violence to reality.
Were the issue of self-determination really what was involved, the working class of the world and all the oppressed people should support it. It's a Leninist principle. The right of secession was championed during the Leninist period and is stated in the Soviet constitution to this very day (although at present it is under modification by the Congress of Soviet Deputies, a matter we defer for later discussion).
A struggle for self-determination led to Norway's separation from Sweden in 1905 after a referendum. Lenin remarked that although historically Marxists favored the amalgamation of all countries into a world federation of nations, separation was important in order to improve the relations between the Norwegian and Swedish workers.
Notwithstanding possible changes in the constitution of the USSR, the right of nations to self-determination is an extension of the principle of making socialism fully consistent with democratic procedures and relations between nations.
But here again, it is important not to lose sight of the reality of the contemporary period we are living in — a period when bourgeois reaction has gone so far in the USSR as a result of the Gorbachev reforms that it threatens the very existence of the Soviet Union as a multinational state. The disintegration of the USSR has become a topic of discussion. Violence and disruption in a number of the republics is splintering the USSR and opening it up to dismemberment. Even in the Ukraine, which has had the most solid relationship with the center, there are alarming signs of centrifugal forces at work, bringing to the fore a recrudescence of bourgeois nationalism.
Gorbachev first experimented with his reforms in the Baltic areas. He followed his predecessors' tack of making concessions to the bourgeois elements, expecting this to strengthen the ties of the Baltics to the USSR. It boomeranged; the bourgeois elements, after being fattened by concessions over the years, had become arrogant and impatient.
Another factor is that the Soviet leadership at varying times since the Second World War has regarded the Baltics as their window to the West. But this also worked in reverse.
Lenin himself at one time signed a decree on the independence of Finland, during a short-lived period when imperialist aggression seemed to have waned. And after World War II, the USSR under Khrushchev agreed to end the occupation of Austria. While bourgeois, and dominated to a large extent by German and U.S. interests, its neutral status nevertheless posed no threat once Soviet troops vacated the area.
Were this a possibility for the Baltics under the present circumstances, similar considerations might be entertained. But today the centrifugal forces unloosed by the Gorbachev administration pose the question of the dismemberment of the USSR. The very fact that it is a negotiating element in U.S.-USSR relations indicates that what's involved is not any abstract principle of self-determination but the reciprocal relations of imperialism to an ever-more besieged Soviet Union.
We are now facing a struggle for the survival of the Soviet Union as a workers' state, notwithstanding all its deformations and notwithstanding the serious contributions that the Gorbachev regime has made in the direction of bourgeois restoration. What then are the progressive, working class and anti-imperialist elements to do under these circumstances?
Clearly, the developments in what we used to call the socialist camp are such as to embolden imperialism and make it more aggressive than ever. Were we to side with the Lithuanians in this matter, it would be giving objective support to the trend against socialism in the USSR and for the aims of imperialism.
Our tactics and strategy have to be based on the recognition that whatever the bourgeois deformations in the USSR, and regardless of the current policy of the leadership, the axis of the world struggle is still between the two social systems. Notwithstanding all the efforts of both Washington and Moscow to propagate the illusion of amiability and good neighborly relations, holding out an end not merely to military warfare but to class warfare as well, the fact that Washington is pushing to the limit its advantages in the Baltics shows up the grim reality of the contemporary world struggle.
Our position should be based on the defense of the integrity of the USSR as a multinational socialist state against imperialist incursions, interventions and the like. But our support has to be of a critical type, in the sense that we are unreservedly opposed to the bourgeois orientation of the Gorbachev leadership, which has led the Soviet camp from one disaster to another, from the Baltics to the borders of Mongolia.
Last updated: 23 March 2018