User:Scpaulsen/sandbox

A Peaceful Brezhnev Doctrine

When the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 ended, the Soviets adopted the mindset that governments supporting both Communism and Capitalism must coexist, and more importantly, build relations. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union called for a peaceful coexistence, where the war between the United States and Soviet Union would come to a close. This ideal, further stressed that all people are equal, and own the right to solve the problems of their own countries themselves. The idea was that in order for both states to peacefully coexist, neither country can exercise the right to get involved in each other's internal affairs. The Soviet's did not want the Americans getting into their business, as the American's did not want the Soviets in their's. While this idea was brought up following the events of Hungary, they were not put into effect for a great deal of time. This is further explained in the Renouncement section.[1]

Afghanistan - 1979

The Soviet's desire to get involved in foreign affairs, as it relates to the doctrine, was even further proven when they got involved in Afghanistan in 1979. This was perhaps, the last chapter of this doctrine's saga. The political uneasiness in Afghanistan at the time, made it the perfect target for intervention. Strategically, it was in the Soviet's best interests to make their way to Afghanistan if they wanted to expand their communist influence even further.[1]

In April of that year, Afghanistan had two political groups facing deep struggle in efforts to get along with one another. It was this notion that provided Moscow a soviet government in Afghanistan. Two groups that worked together as a part of this process were known as Khalq and Parcham. The Khalq in particular, held communist ideologies. In the fight for power, the communist Khalq became the leading force in the Afghanistan homeland, with Parcham getting pushed out o the equation in a falling out. Along with Parcham, their leader, Babrak Karmal was sent away. He did so to fill as the Ambassador for the government in relations with eastern Europe. This was a huge victory for the Soviets, because they now had infrastructural power in Afghanistan. Islamic fundamentalists took issue with the Communist party taking charge. In result, they attempted to overthrow the Khalq leader, Hafizullah Amin. However, the fundamentalist's leader, Nur Muhammad Taraki, died instead. This was just one side effect of the failure of the fundamentalist's rebellion.[1]

Exploiting this turmoil, the Soviets, on December 27, 1979, had somewhere around 5,000 troops in Afghanistan. During his talks with the Soviets during his time as Ambassador, Karmal coordinated with the Soviet government. It was this coordination that led to both Soviet soldiers and airborne units attacking the Amin lead Afghanistan government. In light of this attack, Amin ended up dead. The Soviets took it upon themselves to place their ally, former-Ambassador Babrak Karmal as the new lead of the government in Afghanistan.[1]

The Soviet Union, once again, fell back to the Brezhnev Doctrine for rationale, claiming that it was both morally and politically justified. The Soviets also begged that it was out of protection of their Southern border. It was also explained by Soviets that they owed help to their friend and ally Babrak Karmal. While the real reason seems to be for the sake of their own expansion, the world will never really know their exact intentions.[1]

Renouncement

On May 29, 1972, it was implied in an agreement between Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, that the Brezhnev Doctrine was to be repealed from the Soviet's agenda. This was made possible because the Doctrine allegedly violated the sovereign equality of the socialist state's that they were trying to manage. As the meeting between both political figures went on, the USSR accepted the agreement believing that the United State's was planning to repeal the Monroe Doctrine. This section of the Moscow Declarations, explained that as long as one country remained in accordance with the removal of their own explorational doctrine, then the other must abide as well. However, if that agreement was infringed upon, then the other country withheld the right to come back to their own doctrine, and enforce it as such. This was a sigh of relief for both the Middle East and other regions that fell victim to the Brezhnev Doctrine, and Latin America. Latin American's rejoiced as that meant they were free of situations like the incident that happened in the Dominican.[2]

The ultimate goal of this renouncement of both doctrines was to enact the idea of peaceful coexistence. However, the United States time and again had shown that while they agreed to the idea, they fled from any scenario that dealt with it. Brezhnev believed that while they were trying to exist peacefully together, it would not be possible. He was a firm believer that the two opposing ideas from both countries on matters such as social class would never mesh. Despite that thinking, the Soviet Union strongly pushed for the idea of peaceful coexistence to become a part of the United Nations Charter. The United States continually insisted that this notion should not be allowed to happen. Many critics of this political behavior believe this to be one of the United States' most stubborn actions of Cold War time.[2]

Post - Brezhnev Doctrine

With the agreement to terminate the Brezhnev Doctrine, later came on a new leader for the Soviets, Mikhail Gorbachev. The foreign policies of his Soviet-Russia, were much more relaxed. This is most likely due to the fact that Brezhnev Doctrine was no longer at the disposal of the Soviet Union. This had a major effect on the way that the Soviet's carried out their new mentality when dealing with countries they once tried to control. This was best captured by Gorbachev's involvement with a group by the name of the Council off Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). This organization lessens the control that the Soviet's had on all other partners of the agreement. This notion provided other countries that were once oppressed under communist intervention, to go about their own political reform. This actually carried over internally as well. In fact, the Soviet Union's biggest problem after the removal of the Brezhnev Doctrine, was the Khrushcev Dilemma. This did not address how to stop internal political reform, but how to tame the physical violence that comes along with it. It had become clear that the Soviet Union was beginning to loosen up.[1]

It is possible to pinpoint the renouncement of the Brezhnev Doctrine as what started the end for the Soviet Union. Countries that were once micromanaged now could do what they wanted to politically, because the Soviet's could no longer try to conquer where they saw fit. With that, the Soviet Union began to collapse. While the communist agenda had caused infinite problems or other countries, it was the driving force behind the Soviet Union staying together. After all, it seems that the removal of the incentive to conquer, and forcing of communism upon other nations, defeated the one thing Soviet-Russia has always been about, the expansion of Communism.[1]

With the fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine, came the fall of the man, Brezhnev himself, the share of power in the Warsaw Pact, and perhaps the final moment for the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall. The Brezhnev Doctrine coming to an end, was perhaps the beginning of the end for on elf the strongest empires in the world's history, the Soviet Union.[1]

Brezhnev Doctrine as a UN Violation

This doctrine was even furthermore a problem in the view of the United Nations. The UN's first problem was that it permits use of force. This is a clear violation of Article 2, Chapter 4 of the United Nations Charter which states, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” When international law conflicts with the Charter, the Charter has precedent. It is this, that makes the Brezhnev Doctrine illegal.[1]

Brezhnev Doctrine vs. Monroe Doctrine

The Brezhnev Doctrine is essentially a Soviet version of the Monroe Doctrine. This perhaps is best exemplified by a connection between American intervention in the Dominican in 1965 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviets in 1968. Both events are extremely similar in the fact that they used a set of doctrines to justify their actions.[1]

Despite their likeness, there are some strong distinctions between the two. During the Soviets’ invasion, 500,000 soldiers were sent. This is a much higher number than the 14,000 that America sent to the Dominican Republic. Not only was size a major difference, the United States intervention was much more justifiable than that of the Soviets. The Soviets seemed to only invade Czechoslovakia out of their own communist agenda. The United States only intervened out of interest of liberty, and their containment philosophy. In general, the US only intervened in the Dominican to ultimately give the people of the country the opportunity to choose how their government would function.[1] Obviously, America would have much rather preferred that they chose a non-communist route. However, there is no doubt that their goal was to give Dominicans the liberty of making that choice for themselves, rather than just being forced into it. Additionally, the Dominican Republic requested America’s help, as both Dominican AND American lives were at stake.[1] This provides a rationale for acting out of self-defense as well.