Altid interessante Christopher Hitchens skriver i Slate om The lessons of 1989:
In fact, the Communist leaderships of Eastern Europe had almost wholly ceased to believe in anything but their own survival and self-interest, which is one of the reasons their demise was so swift. While the revolution from below was not animated by any great “new” idea, as had been the case in 1789, 1848, or even 1917, the intellectuals and the masses were agreed that they wanted the unexciting objective of “normality”—a life not unlike that of Western Europe, where it was possible to express everyday criticism, register a vote, scrutinize a free press, and become a consumer as well as a producer. These unexciting demands were nonetheless revolutionary in their way, which gives you an idea of the utter failure and bankruptcy of the regimes that could not meet them.
Hitchens kommer godt rundt og har læst i arkiverne. Han gør op med fortællingerne om “Ostalgie” – der er absolut ikke noget at være nostalgisk over. Også Margaret Thatcher får på hattepulden, fordi hun angiveligt advarede Gorbatjov imod at åbne jerntæppet, da det ville destabilsere hele regionen. Hun tog heldigvis fejl.
De ikke-voldelige “fløjsrevolutioner” i Østeuropa var et lykkeligt mirakel, og vi har brug for endnu flere af dem andre steder i verden. Et af stederne er Iran, som Hitchens skriver følgende om:
Today, the memory of the “velvet revolution” or the “soft revolution” is very strong in Iran, where arrested intellectuals and activists are accused in so many words by the secret police of having a “velvet” agenda. In Tehran, alas, there are still many in the clerical leadership who believe, as the Communists no longer did, in their own primitive and oppressive ideology, and who are willing—if not, indeed, eager—to kill for it.
Her var mit eget lille bidrag til 89-høsten – om Ronald Reagan.
