June 3, 2005

Learning From The Past

By Congressman Joe Pitts

In 1953, Hungary had a new ruler.  Imre Nagy came to power with plans for reform, hoping to heal the damage done to his nation by the influence of the Soviet Union .  While he was no champion of democracy, his reforms gave the Hungarian people a great deal more influence and freedom.

The Soviet Union was not happy.  Hungary was among the empire’s network of satellite nations propped up to create a buffer between Moscow and Germany .  These governments were installed in places like Hungary , Romania , Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia, and Poland . 

As Nagy gained influence, he was denounced and, in early 1956, he was replaced by someone more sympathetic to Soviet interests.  The new government was brutal, but after nearly three years of Nagy’s reforms, the Hungarian people would not tolerate the crackdown.

Emboldened by Nagy and his allies and assured of Western support by radio broadcasts produced by America and Radio Free Europe, groups of students began a peaceful demonstration against Soviet influence in their homeland.  In less than a week, these peaceful protests had become armed conflict.

The Soviets had had enough.  Hungary ’s puppet government appealed to Moscow for help.  The Soviets, more than happy to oblige, sent 200,000 troops and 2,500 tanks into Hungary .  Just weeks later, more than 20,000 Hungarians were dead and nearly a quarter million more were wounded.  In response to the invasion, our ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council that, “Soviet troops and tanks at this moment are annihilating the patriots of Hungary .  We cannot afford to temporize over this cynical and brutal breach of the peace.”

Not much changes.  Then, as today, the UN was faced with the challenge of aggressive action by tyrannical governments.  Then, the question was should the international community, which claims freedom and human dignity as core values, stand by as tyranny threatens those values.

In 1956 we stood by as the Soviets reclaimed domination over Hungary .  At that time it was the latest in a string of events that allowed the Soviet Union to expand its influence in Eastern Europe .  President Bush discussed that period during a recent trip to Russia and the two former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Latvia , honoring the 60^th Anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.  He said,

“As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox.  For much of Germany , defeat led to freedom.  For much of Eastern and Central Europe , victory brought the iron rule of another empire.  V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression... Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable.”

The President intended to highlight how the U.S. and Great Britain allowed the Soviet Union to claim control of Eastern and Central Europe, including Hungary , following World War II.  Looking back, it is easy to make such a judgment.  In 1945, however, it would have been difficult to convince the American people of the necessity of going to war once again to fight a nation that just months earlier had been one of our closest allies in the fight against Adolf Hitler. 

However, President Bush was absolutely correct to highlight the paradox.  Sometimes our actions do not always match our rhetoric.  That was the case in 1956 Hungary where those fighting for independence said things like,

"It will be hard to forget the unkept promises… [O]n November fourth, we heard the transmission from the UN building in New York , and we cried with joy. There was the American delegate solemnly declaring that the big United States would never let the brave Hungarian people down.”

We let Hungary down.  We broke our promise.  There were no more radio broadcasts.  There were no more calls for action from the UN.  The Hungarians were deserted, just like the people of Georgia and Latvia .  It was wrong.

These lessons of the past do not mean endless war in order to free every nation from tyrants.  It does mean that we can learn from our past.  Today’s number one enemy, terrorists, are intent on aggressively and violently expanding their influence, much like the Soviet Union was decades ago. 

They believe that we care more about stability than freedom.  That ties our hands and prevents us from meeting with determination and, when necessary, force. Hungary , Georgia , and Latvia teach us that when it comes time to oppose tyranny with force, the international community must be willing to do so even at the expense of stability, particularly when it means defending innocent lives from terrorists.

In those times when we must work with dictators, though, we must make absolutely clear that the international community is not content with the status quo in those nations.  We will tolerate stability to an extent, but at some point dictators must cede control to the people.  This is the best and most just way to conduct foreign policy.  And the only way to keep our promise to people around the world.

#  #  #