冷戰｜辯護捷克軍事干預

蘇聯外交態度的轉變

細閱資料A及B。

資料A

以下內容摘自蘇聯領導人布里茲尼夫於1968年11月發表的演說，用以為蘇聯對捷克斯洛伐克的軍事干預辯護。

社會主義國家和共產黨確實有自由決定本國發展道路的權利。然而，他們的決策不能損害其他社會主義國家或整個為社會主義而奮鬥的工人階級運動的根本利益。這意味著，每個共產黨不僅對本國人民負責，也要對所有社會主義國家、整個共產主義運動負責。誰若忘記這一點，強調共產黨的獨立性，就會變得片面。他背離了自己的國際主義責任……具體來說，這意味著在行動中，每個共產黨不能不考慮我們這個時代的決定性事實 ── 即資本主義與社會主義兩種社會制度的對立與鬥爭。

捷克斯洛伐克的反社會主義分子實際上掩蓋了所謂中立與脫離社會主義陣營的訴求，卻打著民族自決的幌子。然後，所謂「自決」的實施，也就是捷克斯洛伐克脫離社會主義陣營，會與蘇聯自身的核心利益產生衝突，並對其他社會主義國家造成損害。這種「自決」導致北約軍隊能夠接近蘇聯邊境，而歐洲社會主義國家的團結就會因此破裂，實際上侵害了人民追求社會主義自決的根本利益和權利。為了履行對捷克斯洛伐克兄弟人民的國際主義責任，並捍衛自身的社會主義成果，蘇聯和其他社會主義國家果斷地採取了行動，反對捷克斯洛伐克的反社會主義勢力。

資料B

以下內容節錄自戈爾巴喬夫於1988年在聯合國大會的演講。

選擇的自由是一項普遍原則，不應有任何例外。我們之所以堅信這一原則的不可改變性，並非僅僅出於良好的動機，而是通過對當代客觀過程的公正分析而得出的。當今各國社會發展的多樣性日益成為這些進程中日趨明顯的特徵，無論是資本主義制度還是社會主義制度皆是如此。這種社會政治結構的多樣性，特別是過去幾十年民族解放運動的發展，更加印證了這一點。這一客觀事實預設了對他人觀點與立場的尊重、寬容，以及願意理解不同現象的態度 ── 即不同不代表壞或敵對 ── 並具備「和而不同」、雖意見不合卻能和平共處的能力。

國與國之間關係的「去意識形態化」已成為新階段的需求。我們並非要放棄我們的信念、哲學或傳統，也不要求他人放棄他們的。我們不會將自己局限在自己的價值觀中，否則將導致精神上的貧乏，因為分享由各國獨立創造的原創成果是一種強大的發展來源。在這種分享的過程中，每個國家都應該以實際行動來證明自己制度的優勢、自身的生活方式和價值觀，而非僅靠言語或宣傳。這才是真正坦誠的意識形態較量，但這種較量不應延伸至國與國之間的互動關係中。

(a) 布里茲尼夫如何為蘇聯入侵捷克斯洛伐克辯護？試參考資料A，解釋你的答案。

(3分)

(b) 比較蘇聯在1960年代與1980年代末期對資本主義與社會主義意識形態差異的態度。試參考資料A及B，解釋你的答案。

(8分)

(c) 「戈爾巴喬夫的上台為蘇聯政策的各方面帶來巨大改變。」請參考資料A及B並結合你自己的知識，解釋這句說話。

(8分)

---

Soviet change of diplomatic attitude.

Study Source A and B.

SOURCE A

The following is extracted from the address delivered by the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in November 1968, justifying USSR’s military intervention to Czechoslovakia.

The peoples of the socialist countries and Communist parties certainly do have and should have freedom for determining the ways of advance of their respective countries. However, none of their decisions should damage either socialism in their country or the fundamental interests of other socialist countries, and the whole working class movement, which is working for socialism. This means that each Communist party is responsible not only to its own people, but also to all the socialist countries, to the entire Communist movement. Whoever forget this, in stressing only the independence of the Communist party, becomes one-sided. He deviates from his international duty…Concretely, this means, first of all, that, in its activity, each Communist party cannot but take into account such a decisive fact of our time as the struggle between two opposing social systems-capitalism and socialism.

The antisocialist elements in Czechoslovakia actually covered up the demand for so-called neutrality and Czechoslovakia’s withdrawal from the socialist community with talking about the right of nations to self-determination. However, the implementation of such “self-determination,” in other words, Czechoslovakia’s detachment from the socialist community, would have come into conflict with its own vital interests and would have been detrimental to the other socialist states. Such “self-determination,” as a result of which NATO troops would have been able to come up to the Soviet border, while the community of European socialist countries would have been split, in effect encroaches upon the vital interests of the peoples of these countries and conflicts, as the very root of it, with the right of these people to socialist self-determination. Discharging their internationalist duty toward the fraternal peoples of Czechoslovakia and defending their own socialist gains, the U.S.S.R. and the other socialist states had to act decisively and they did act against the antisocialist forces in Czechoslovakia.

SOURCE B

The following extract is adapted from a speech made by Mikhail Gorbachev in the United Nations General Assembly in 1988.

Freedom of choice is a universal principle to which there should be no exceptions. We have not come to the conclusion of the immutability of this principle simply through good motives. We have been led to it through impartial analysis of the objective processes of our time. The increasing varieties of social development in different countries are becoming in ever more perceptible feature of these processes. This relates to both the capitalist and socialist systems. The variety of sociopolitical structures which has grown over the last decades from national liberation movements also demonstrates this. This objective fact presupposes respect for other people’s vies and stands, tolerance, a preparedness to see phenomena that are different as not necessarily bad or hostile, and an ability to learn to live side by side while remaining different and not agreeing with one another on every issue.

The de-ideologization of interstate relations has become a demand of the new stage. We are not giving up our convictions, philosophy, or traditions. Neither are we calling on anyone else to give up theirs. Yet we are not going to shut ourselves up within the range of our values. That would lead to spiritual impoverishment, for it would mean renouncing so powerful a source of development as sharing all the original things created independently by each nation. In the course of such sharing, each should prove the advantages of his own system, his own way of life and values, but not through words or propaganda alone, but through real deeds as well. That is, indeed, an honest struggle of ideology, but it must not be carried over into mutual relations between states.

(a)      How did Brezhnev justify USSR’s invasion of Czechoslovakia? Explain your answer with reference to Source A.

(3 marks)

(b)     Compare USSR’s attitude towards the ideological difference between Capitalism and socialism in 1960s and late 1980s, with reference to Source A and B.

(4 marks)

(c)      “The rise of Gorbachev brought tremendous change to various aspects of USSR policies.” Explain this statement with reference to Sources A and B and using your own knowledge.

(8 marks)

---

Answer