The Brezhnev Doctrine: Alive and Well
On August 21, 1968—40 years ago today—the Soviet army entered Czechoslovakia, followed by smaller contingents from four other Warsaw Pact countries. The occupation (“Operation Danube”) marked the end of the Prague Spring, a doomed attempt by Alexander Dubcek’s reformist faction of the Czechoslovak Communist Party to build “socialism with a human face.”
Ideological justification for the intervention was provided by the Brezhnev Doctrine, which was defined by its author as the obligation of the socialist countries to ensure that their “freedom for determining the ways of advance of their respective countries” should not “damage either socialism in their country or the fundamental interests of other socialist countries”:
The sovereignty of a socialist country cannot be opposed to the interests of the world of socialism … [T]he norms of law cannot be interpreted narrowly, formally, in isolation from the general context of class struggle in the modern world… Czechoslovakia’s detachment from the socialist community would have clashed with its own vital interests and would have been detrimental to the other socialist states… Discharging their internationalist duty toward the fraternal peoples of Czechoslovakia and defending their own socialist gains, the USSR and the other socialist states had to act decisively.
This doctrine was applied de facto by the Soviets in Berlin in 1953 and in Hungary in 1956, but only over Czechoslovakia in 1968 was it clearly defined: by entering the “socialist community of nations,” its members implicitly accepted that the USSR—the leader of the “socialist camp”— was not only the enforcer of the rules but also the judge of whether and when an intervention was warranted. No country would be allowed to leave the Warsaw Pact, or challenge its communist party’s monopoly on power.
Thirty years after Prague 1968 the USSR was gone and the Warsaw Pact dismantled, with NATO expanding into its former heartland. The principles of the Brezhnev Doctrine were not defunct, however. They were given a new life in the liberal guise. In 1991 the Maastricht Treaty accelerated the erosion of EU member countriess’ sovereignty by the Brussels regime of unelected bureaucrats. On this side of the ocean the passage of NAFTA was followed in 1995 the Uruguay round of GATT that gave us the WTO. The nineties laid the foundation for the new international order. By early 1999 the process was sufficiently far advanced for President Bill Clinton to claim that, had it not bombed Serbia, “NATO itself would have been discredited for failing to defend the very values that give it meaning.” This was but oner way of restating Brezhnev’s dictum that “the norms of law cannot be interpreted narrowly, formally, in isolation from the general context of the modern world.” The international system in existence ever since the Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648 was dead as far as the United States was concerned.
The old system based on state sovereignty was imperfect and often violated, but nevertheless it provided the basis for international discourse from which but few powers had openly deviated. The key difference between Brezhnev and Clinton was in the limited scope of the Soviet leader’s self-awarded outreach. His doctrine applied only to the “socialist community,” as opposed to the unlimited, potentially world-wide scope of “defending the values that give NATO meaning.” Like his Soviet predecessor, Clinton used an abstract and ideologically loaded notion as the pretext to act as he deemed fit, but no “interests of world socialism” could beat “universal human rights” when it came to determining where and when to intervene. The “socialist community” led by Moscow stopped on the Elbe. It was replaced by the “International Community” led by Washington, which stops nowhere. The credentials of a “democracy” are easy to establish in this scheme: democratic governments act in accordance with the will of the international community—like the late Franjo Tudjman, say. When they don’t, they are ipso facto undemocratic and liable to punishment. The less logic and predictability, the stronger the position of the Hegemon.
Today, forty years after Prague 1968, we have the Bush Doctrine, a mature synthesis of Brezhnev’s and Clinton’s legacy. Initially, when Afghanistan was invaded in 2001, Bush merely asserted the right of the U.S. to treat countries that harbor or help terrorist groups as terrorists themselves. Within a year his emerging doctrine included additional elements: preventive war asserted the right of the United States to depose foreign regimes deemed detrimental to its security even if that threat was not immediate (Iraq); while “promoting democracy,” by force if need be, came to be treated as a legitimate strategy for combating the spread of terrorism.
The formal codification came in The National Security Strategy unveiled in September 2002, which presented the specter of open-ended political, military, and economic domination of the world by the United States acting unilaterally. The strategy defined two main categories of enemies: “rogue states” and “potentially hostile powers.” Both warranted preemptive strikes “by direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power… We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively.” The United States would not only will confront “evil and lawless regimes” but will put an end to “destructive national rivalries.” To that end, the administration pledged “to keep military strength beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.” As AEI’s Thomas Donnelly triumphantly asserted in early 2003, “Any comprehensive U.S. ‘threat assessment’ would conclude that the normal constraints of international politics—counterbalancing powers—no longer immediately inhibit the exercise of American might.”
This doctrine still stands as the ideological basis and fully developed self-referential framework for the policy of permanent global interventionism. Unlike Brezhnev and Clinton, however, Bush has added divine sanction to his doctrine: “History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight,” he announced in his 2002 State of the Union address; “We’ve come to know truths that we will never question: Evil is real, and it must be opposed. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential.” By postulating America as “the good,” and those who resist her will as the incarnation of evil, and by telling the rest of the world that the choice is clear and had to be be made, the President precluded any meaningful debate about the correlation between ends and means of American power: we are not only wise but virtuous; our policies are shaped by values, not by prejudices.
The two “American” doctrines suffer from the same problem, however, as the Brezhnev Doctrine that we are remembering today. Each act of resistance, however costly for the defender, undermines the hegemon’s credibility and self-confidence. After 1968, just beneath the drab surface of “Real Socialism,” anti-Sovietism was rampant. Back then, and for almost two decades thereafter, members of the Politburo were old, sluggish, devoid of fresh ideas, and oblivious to the long-term challenges to their hegemony. The neoconservative strategists who run the show under Bush and who will continue running it under McCain are, by contrast, hyperactive and still convinced that hegemony can be maintained as the divinely-ordained, morally mandated, open-ended and self-justifying mission for decades to come.
The Soviets were dull and dumb. Their heirs in Washington are insane; and quos deus vult perdere, dementat prius. There is hope.
23 Responses »
Trackbacks
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Жив је Брежњев, умро није…, Сиви Соко блог (Небојша Малић)
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Collision Course, Gray Falcon blog (Nebojsa Malic)
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » The Brezhnev Doctrine: Alive and Well, The Chronicles
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » A Major War: Not Just Rumors
- A Major War: Not Just Rumors : Novakeo.com
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » The War That Never Was: America as Casualty of 9/11, antiwar.com (Nebojsa Malic)
Entries(RSS)
Simply, excellent Dr. Trifkovic!
The Clintonesque (Blair's et al.) doctrine , the one of the “international community” has mutated out of Brezhnev’s doctrine in a form of a dangerous, the most powerful virus so far. In that the virus is known yet the cure is still to be found.
Dr. Trifkovic proves again that the noun "maximum" can be exceeded, and all our efforts are practically limitless (at least when it comes to his own ability to connect seemingly unrelated: Dubcek, Peace of Westphalia and assorted military campaigns given poetic names. It's not only that Gods make them mad - whomever they wish to destroy - but it's also the Oedipus's promise to brutally punish the one who has caused plague to his kingdom (resulting in having to gauge his own eyes at the end of the play). Rather brutal world in which we live.
Only one (theatrical aside):
1968 Russian intervention was unilateral there was nobody poking at their borders, nor installing missiles in Poland, etc., while Georgian move was almost custom made to provoke and measure the Russian reaction - hence a good part of EU remains silent.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned “the Brezinski Doctrine” in his book “The Grand Chessboard” were he clearly states what his intentions and geopolitical strategy is regarding Russia.
Probably the world most senior geo-political strategist in his book he clearly views radical Islam as a bulwark against Russian influence in Central Asia and to gain control of the Caspian region.
In the book he mentions Uzbekistan as being a potential centre of Islamic influence for the whole of Central Asia to combat Russia.
The ISI help create the IMU in Uzbekistan in 92 or 94 Brezinski and the CIA has a long relationship with ISAI coincidence?
I think he probably had a hand in the over through of the Shah. As the Ayatollah was anti-Soviet and was a big player supporting the Afghan-Soviet war one that Brezinski pre-planned.
Excellent analysis!
@3 James
You are correct. He should have mentioned the Brezenski Doctrine, along with Brezhnev, Clinton, and Bush.
Like always, brought to us lovingly by Jewish communist intellectuals, Jewish bankers, and Jewish mafia arms dealing profiteers. This would not be complete without our wonderful Jewish-owned media to distort reality for us all.
This is becoming so predictable it is sickening.
Be warned. America will soon have a "crisis" which will have to be "dealt with in the appropriate fashion". This of course will mean that every American will have to relinquish their firearms to the state for the safety and greater good of the American people. It will be at this moment that America will have a choice whether she wishes to restore the constitution and republic, or become something far worse and more far reaching than the Soviet Union ever was.
Elections and politics are irrelevant at this point.
@5Daniel
One of the things that really bothered me about this conflict other than the media failing to mention that Georgia blitzed S. Ossetia first causing a justifiable response is that Jewish Neocons Trotskyite communists were using Bolshevik communist references to describe Russia’s response and mindset when Bolshevism was a Jewish political movement and its leaders were almost all Jews.
It’s this same international Bolshevik one world mindset that got us into the Iraq and pushing us into war with Iran.
Have you noticed how all these geopolitical alliances favour Muslims over Christians.
@6 Daniel
Absolutely! Look at how Muslim "jihad" was funded by the west and used against the Serbs during the break up of Yugoslavia. It is a classic communist tactic. The neocons back then pushed for the bombing of the Serbs and the destabilization of the region followed by the annexing of the area into the EU. They still continue to add insult to injury by taking any territory from the Serbs that they can.
They seem to despise conservative Christianity. It is against everything they represent and it is a threat to their one world mentality. This is the one thing that upsets me about Trifkovic's essays. He rarely ever mentions the Jewish neocon Trotskyite connection. It is always about the "Islamic threat to Western civilization". Radical Islam is but a mere tool of the neocons to be used against anyone standing in their way. Recently this was Serbia and now Russia with the Ossetia conflict.
Christians need to wake up to the fact that Jewish communists are a greater threat to them than Islam ever will be.
@7 Daniel
Bravo, Daniel! That's exactly how it is! As a frequent reader of this website I have often been annoyed over why the Jews have not been described correctly.
@7Daniel
Not only against the Serbs but against the Russians. Western intelligence has supporting Chechen militants since 92 in Bosnia making alliances withs orther groups like the Algerians.
The first war was a trap like in Afghanistan started by ethnic cleansing of Russians.
After Bosnia guess where they went after that.
Look whos on the board of directors of ACPC.
Who runs the lobby groups for them in Europe.
Jamestown foundation director Glen Howard runs there PR, meetings, etc.
All have a similar ethnic thread as did communism.
Neocons are event suggesting a military nuclear first strike against Russia.
What a brilliant analogy (as often by Trifkovic): the doctrine that called for defense of socialism is the same as the doctrine of US imperialism pursued by waging successive wars of aggression. So, the current waste stage capitalism (that is, in theory, to be followed by fascism) is just the same as socialism. Bravo!
@8 Maie Kark & @9James
They have also been instrumental in creating an open border immigration policy both here in America, Canada, and Europe, the devaluation of the US dollar, and the creation of the housing and market bubbles through the shady practices of the federal reserve.
Looking at the situation, one might think that they want to see an economic collapse, putting the country into chaos, and while every different "American" group is at each others throats, they can swoop in with a plan to "save" the country. Of course this will entail the trashing of the constitution, along with the rights of every individual (this has already begun), and the implementing of their version of "democracy".
I live somewhat secluded in a nook or cranny, depending on one's perspective, of the Red River Valley in north Louisiana. I am therefore, perhaps, limited in knowledge and pursuant understanding; however, I dare to make the following analogies which seem to follow what Dr. Trifkovic has stated:
When the Soviet Army and the armies of the Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia, the West and NATO did not budge. Understandably so, since a general war which would have quickly gone nuclear would have ensued.
When the United States undermined the Lisbon Agreement between the parties of Bosnia - Croat, Serb, Muslim - and created the framework for civil war, the Yugoslav Army, which could have played the role that the Russian Army has played in Ossetia did not move. The reasons why the Yugoslav army did not move or could not move I leave to Dr. Trifkovic to explain.
When the United States, NATO, the EU and apparently Israel emboldened the Georgian Army to invade South Ossetia, the Russian Army did move, and what was to be was, at least for the moment, undone.
Thus it would seem that the Brezhnev Doctrine, twice successfully used in Europe (counting the entire Balkans affair as one) since WWII, was the third time thwarted when the necessary will, force and circumstance came together.
I was a child of the Cold War, born in 1949. Very slowly the thrall of that period has been broken, and I have come to see as Pogo stated that the enemy is as much "us" and it was "them."
To Robert Peters: The YPA did not move when the U.S. torpedoed the Lisbon Agreement in 1992 because (1) it was the *Yugoslav* army, committed to the doomed ideal of South Slav unity and therefore unable to act as the *Serbian* army, and (2) its top brass was still infected by the moribund variety of communism known as Titoism.
Dr. Trifkovic @ 13
Thank you.
@11Daniel
There real power is in there domination and control of international banking Rothschilds, Shiffs, Warburgs and the media.
It’s frightening how Neocon’s are quite to suggest a nuclear first strike policy against Iran and Russia as reasonable and justifiable.
Srdja's articles are compelling as always. In the USA if the MMM says it is so that is what flies.
How can we get Srdja on CNN?
None of my Russian, Serbian or Mongolian friends have horns and a tail contrary to FOX reports! Nor do my Jewish friends!
Actually having horns and a tail would get us on CNN right away!