The post-war history of Central and Eastern Europe, occupied by the Soviets, was decided in Moscow. It was there that major economic decisions were made. The future development of the European countries, which had been crushed by Soviet tanks, was decided in Moscow, too. In order to maintain their political influence, won through electoral fraud and repressive strategies against the local democratic forces, the Soviets set up bodies meant to impose common policies on the satellite countries in the area. One such body was the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, COMECON.
Founded in 1949 in Moscow, at the initiative of the USSR, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was designed as an organisation meant to compete with the European Economic Community, a creation of the Marshall plan of economic recovery, in the wake of the war. However, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was far from being a serious competitor of the Single Market, because of the deficiencies of the planned economy. In practice, although their members tried hard to design a viable community of interests, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance turned out to be a prison for Poland, the Democratic Republic of Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the founding countries, which were forced to join this formula, based on the so-called principle of socialist ideological brotherhood. In spite of the existence of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, exchanges among the member countries continued to be made under bilateral agreements. The so-called “convertible ruble” circulated in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance system.
As of 1962, 1963, Romania had an erratic attitude within the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, because of a series of economic development strategies to be implemented in the future common space. The Soviet proposals to integrate the economies of the socialist countries and to create a single economic area were considered unacceptable by Romania. The Valev plan of 1964, according to which certain countries had to develop their industries while others had to focus on agriculture generated vehement protests in Romania. This strategy was called, after a Marxist formula, “the international division of labour“. Romania voiced its protest more and more vehemently after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1958 and Nicolae Ceausescu’s attempts to distance himself from the products of the Soviet economy.
Maxim Berghianu was the president of the State Planning Committee, an institution in charge of setting economic plan tasks. In an interview with the Oral History Centre of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation, back in 2002 , Maxim Berghianu explained how Romania reacted to the ideas of creating an international division of labour among the members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance
“Romania barely got a place in the so-called international division of labour within the COMECON. Our bigger friend, the USSR, together with more developed countries like Czechoslovakia and the Democratic Republic of Germany wanted Romania to remain one of the agrarian countries, which should produce mainly farm produce and get machinery and equipment from more developed COMECON countries, mainly from the USSR. Not only was that an attack against the country’s economic sovereignty but also against its national security. Under various forms, when the issue of specialization within the COMECON came under discussion more seriously, they kept pressuring us to remain more of an agrarian country given Romania’s expertise in farm produce: cereals, vegetables, fruit, meat, wine for those who provided us with the needed machinery and equipment.”
In the mid 1950s, intensive probing preceded the Valev plan. After the shy refusal voiced by the Romanian side to the so-called international division of labour, soviet leader Nikita Hrusciov paid a visit to Brasov, an old industrial centre in Romania, plundered by the Red Army in 1945, which was in full reconstruction process at the time. Berghianu recollects that visit.
“Actually there were two visits planned, one at Tractorul factory and another one at the Lorry Plant. We went to welcome the soviet delegation at Tractorul, with people chanting communist slogans, ovations, all that stuff, you know. We visited two sections of the plant, the ‘Engine Block’, which was a modernized section and the ‘Assembly Section’. Hrusciov criticised us for having used so much metal to build those two departments. ‘You should have used concrete instead, it would have been cheaper’, he said. But president Dej responded, ‘Comrade Hrusciov, this one here was built by the bourgeoisie, we have actually inherited it! It was an airplane factory, they used to make warplanes here during the war.’ ’Don’t do that any longer!’ He gave the place a once over but he was not impressed by what he saw, not even by tractors. At that time we were ranking first or second in the world in terms of tractor quality, and we were competing against the world famous Ferguson. From Tractorul we went to the lorry factory, “Steagul Rosu” (The Red Flag). We visited the assembly line there, which was not entirely automated, and workers were still using hammers. ‘This is not a factory, it’s a cooperative manufacture’, said Hrusciov,adding ‘I don’t want to see anymore of it’. He stayed only 5 minutes and left the plant. President Dej was left speechless and rushed after him!”
Decisions within the COMECON were made at three levels of leadership; at the Political Committee level by party secretary generals, at the Executive Committee level, which was made up of prime ministers, and at the level of presidents of State Planning Committees from each member country. All agreements were only meant to cobble together economies ravaged by the communist principle of central planning. In its short and undignified history, the COMECON had never been able to work out a coherent programme of economic development and cooperation. In 1991, when COMECON ceased to exist, central and east-European countries breathed sighs of relief after having bidden farewell to the Socialist system which had brought them only poverty and despair.
|
2010-09-06
Print
