RFE/RL NEWSLINE 
Vol. 1, No. 98, 19 August1997

ROMANIAN NATIONALISTS DEMAND ANTI-HUNGARIAN GUARD... In
a declaration released on 18 August, the Bucharest branch of the
anti-Hungarian Romanian Cradle organization called for establishing
a "National Guard" of Romanian ethnics in Transylvania to defend the
ethnic majority in the region against the Hungarian minority there,
Radio Bucharest reported. The organization also demanded the
dismissal of Victor Ciorbea's cabinet, sharply criticizing its decision to
allow bilingual signs in localities where ethnic minorities make up at
least 20 percent of the population and to amend the education law.
The organization also called on President Emil Constantinescu to
"analyze" the situation created by those policies and to avoid "a
further escalation of 'Hungarianism' in Transylvania."


 ...PROTEST HUNGARY'S COMPENSATION LAW. The Party of Romanian
National Unity (PUNR) has protested the law recently passed by the
Hungarian parliament that provides compensation to Hungarian
army veterans who were prisoners in the Soviet Union during World
War II and to former Hungarian citizens deported to the Soviet
Union, regardless of their current citizenship. PUNR leader Valeriu
Tabara said that before paying compensation, Hungary should
apologize to states and citizens of countries that suffered as a result
of Hungary's wartime policies. Gheorghe Funar, the nationalist mayor
of Cluj, said compensation will be given to those Hungarian
Transylvanians who are guilty of crimes against Romanians. He also
called on the Romanian government to urgently pass a law
stipulating that those who were forced to Magyarize their names
during Hungarian rule in Transylvania revert to their original names,
Mediafax reported.

FORGET THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

by Paul Goble

        Six years after a failed coup in Moscow sent the Soviet Union
toward its demise, many people around the world continue to search
for a single term to describe the group of countries that emerged
from the rubble. None of the terms proposed until now has proved
entirely successful. And with each passing year, the search for such a
term seems increasingly unnecessary, if not counterproductive.
        Among the terms most frequently suggested are the former
Soviet Union, the new independent states, and Eurasia. But, like all
other suggested terms, they fail to capture some important features
of the new landscape and carry some significant political baggage.
        The term "former Soviet Union" is perhaps the most obviously
problematic. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991; continuing to
        The term "former Soviet Union" is perhaps the most obviously
problematic. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991; continuing to
refer to it both diminishes the status of the successor states and
encourages those in Russia and elsewhere who would like to restore
the union. Equally important, it dramatically overstates the
similarities among countries whose only real feature in common was
Russian and Soviet occupation. While that had a major impact on
each, it did not wipe out the differences increasingly on view.
        At first glance, the term "new independent states" appears to
be more neutral; but, if anything, it is even more politically charged
than the other two. Prior to the demise of the Soviet Union, no
government in the world referred to independent countries arising
from the ruins of empires as "new independent states." Instead,
those countries were quickly viewed as countries much like all
others.
        Consequently, the use of this term so long after the end of the
USSR implies that the relationship between those countries and
Moscow is somehow different. That has led many people in the
region to wonder aloud whether their states are less equal than
Moscow is somehow different. That has led many people in the
region to wonder aloud whether their states are less equal than
others. Both the citizens of those countries and others are beginning
to ask just how long those countries will have to be "independent"
before they cease to be "new."
        The term "Eurasia" also has some negative connotations,
although they are perhaps less obvious. It indiscriminately lumps
together countries that are definitely part of the European cultural
world with some that most definitely are not. It also has a history
that is anything but encouraging. One group of Russian nationalists
popularized the term to suggest that Russia represented an amalgam
of European and Asiatic civilizations and that it had a civilizing
mission across the region.
        But if none of the terms advanced thus far is adequate, the
continued search for one highlights three more fundamental
problems.
        First, many people are unwilling to accept what happened in
1991 as an irreversible watershed in world history. When other
empires dissolved in this century, few world leaders felt compelled
1991 as an irreversible watershed in world history. When other
empires dissolved in this century, few world leaders felt compelled
to reiterate support for the independence and territorial integrity of
their successors five years after the fact. No one was saying such
things about the successors to the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, or
Russian empires in 1924. But in the post-Soviet case, many leaders
have done just that and thus have sent a message to those countries
very different from the one they say they intend to send.
        Second, many people are unable to recognize how diverse the
countries of the region are and how many now have far greater ties
with countries beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union than
with countries within those borders. Other than Russian and Soviet
occupation, Armenia and Kazakhstan, for example, have little in
common in almost any respect. And despite the impact of the past,
Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are both looking beyond the Soviet
borders rather than to the former imperial center.
        Third, the search for a single term reflects an unwillingness on
the part of some Westerners to challenge the desire of some Moscow
circles to remain the dominant power in the region, regardless of the
the part of some Westerners to challenge the desire of some Moscow
circles to remain the dominant power in the region, regardless of the
wishes of people in those countries. Through instruments such as the
Commonwealth of Independent States and via statements about the
relevance of the borders of the former Soviet Union, the Russian
government has advanced a claim to a sphere of influence across the
region.
        Such assertions make Western terminological discussions all
the more important. To the extent that the West uses terms that
imply the territory once occupied by the Soviet Union is a single
region, some circles in Moscow will be encouraged to believe that the
West has recognized Russian claims. To the extent that the West uses
terms that treat the countries of the region as separate and unique
states, each of those states will be encouraged to develop along its
own lines.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               Copyright (c) 1997 RFE/RL, Inc.
                     All rights reserved.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx