LEGACIES OF 1968: AUTONOMY AND REPRESSION IN CEAUŞESCU’S ROMANIA, 1965-1989 A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Ashby B. Crowder August 2007 2 This thesis titled LEGACIES OF 1968: AUTONOMY AND REPRESSION IN CEAUŞESCU’S ROMANIA, 1965-1989 by ASHBY B. CROWDER has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by T. David Curp Assistant Professor of History Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 Abstract CROWDER, ASHBY B., M.A., August 2007. History LEGACIES OF 1968: AUTONOMY AND REPRESSION IN CEAUŞESCU’S ROMANIA, 1965-1989 (224 pp.) Director of Thesis: T. David Curp This thesis examines the relationship between foreign policy autonomy and domestic repression in Romania from 1965 to 1989. This time period coincides with the rule of Romanian communist leader Nicolae Ceauşescu. The thesis argues that Czechoslovakia’s 1968 Prague Spring and the Warsaw Pact invasion that spelled its end had a significant impact not only on Romanian foreign policy, but also on Romanian domestic policy, until the December 1989 Revolution. The legacy of the Prague Spring shaped the prism through which Romania’s communist government evaluated threats domestic and foreign; in fact, it led the leadership to conflate the two, to the point where foreign interference was a necessary condition for domestic opposition in the official conception. Approaching the study of Romanian communism within this autonomy/repression dialectical framework, the thesis examines the relationship between ideological fanaticism and public policy in the Ceauşescu regime. It discusses the ways in which the regime used tactics of manipulation, persuasion, and repression to cope with threats it saw as simultaneously domestic and foreign. The theory behind this approach, therefore, could be applied to other cases of repressive, autarchic dictatorship. 4 The thesis offers new perspectives, arguments, and evidence, as it includes substantial original archival research as well as discussion of recent Romanian language literature. It is divided into four chapters. Chapter I reviews the literature on Romania’s autonomous foreign policy as well as the literature discussing the relationship between the autonomy policy and Romania’s domestic affairs. Chapter II discusses Romania’s political “thaw” in the 1960s, Romanian interpretations of the Czechoslovak Prague Spring, as well as Romanian evaluations of the Soviet threat it faced, or did not face, in the late 1960s and beyond. Chapter III discusses the “re-Stalinization” of Romanian politics and society in the years following the Prague Spring and relates the atmosphere of domestic repression to the perception of foreign threat. Chapter IV examines the effects of the autonomous course on the development of Romanian dissidence, opposition, and resistance in the 1980s. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ David T. Curp Assistant Professor of History 5 Acknowledgments I have benefited from the assistance and support of numerous individuals and organizations over the course of conceptualizing, researching, and writing this thesis. Ohio University’s Contemporary History Institute provided resources for research travel in addition to the generous support I received throughout my time as a CHI graduate fellow. An Original Work Grant from Ohio University’s Graduate Student Senate allowed me to travel to the Romanian National Archives and the Romanian Foreign Ministry Archives in Bucharest in the winter of 2006. Support from the American Council of Learned Societies also helped to fund a research visit to the Romanian capital in the summer of 2006. At Ohio University I must thank first and foremost my advisor, Professor David Curp, from whom I have learned much and for whom I have developed a great respect. He has helped me to form and articulate the scope of the thesis from the very start. His comments and observations have helped me to tie the project into regional developments in Eastern Europe and the greater Cold War. Professor Curp’s talent at using Eastern Europe as a springboard for examining larger, crucial questions about the modern and contemporary worlds has served as an example I will try to emulate. I owe thanks to other members of Ohio University’s Department of History. Professors John Brobst and Steven Miner served as readers on my thesis committee. Their comments have helped me formulate the scope of the project. I must also thank Professors Norman Goda and Chester Pach, who offered useful comments, posed penetrating questions, and gave constructive criticism on portions of what follows. 6 Fellow graduate students have also offered useful comments in workshops and seminars. Indeed, this graduate program constitutes an ideal, closely-knit community of scholars and their apprentices. I must also thank Contemporary History Institute Administrative Associate Kara Dunfee, her counterpart in the History Department, Sherry Gillogly, and Graduate Program Coordinator Misty Milstead for their assistance with paperwork and university bureaucracy. I owe thanks to Professors Dennis Deletant and Peter Siani-Davies, both of London University’s School of Slavonic and East European Studies, whose advice on conducting research in Romania has been invaluable. Mircea Munteanu of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Cold War International History Project offered useful advice on accessing primary documents. This project has also benefited from conversations and correspondence with Mihaela Albu, George Bălan, Pamela Ballinger, Daniel Barbu, Elizabeth Borgwardt, Ana-Maria Cătănuş, Dan Cătănuş, James Cohen, Annette Laborey, Adam Michnik, and Vladimir Tismăneanu. I must also thank the staffs of the Diplomatic Archives of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Romanian National Archives, especially Ms. Burtica, Prof. dr. Corneliu Lungu, and Constantin Moraru for facilitating access to relevant materials in these collections. While access to the toilet at the Diplomatic Archives was usually denied, permission to review documents relevant to my inquiry was not, for which I am grateful. The staff of Bucharest University’s Central Library helped me navigate through their well-guarded collections. My dear friend Roxana Tănase was enormously helpful as my surrogate in dealing with photocopy orders in the archival bureaucracy after I had left 7 Romania in the Winter of 2006. Mulţumesc mult, draga! While on the topic of sources, I must also express my thanks to Ohio University Library’s Interlibrary Loan office, which did a remarkable job fulfilling my requests for some rare Romanian language publications. Marcia Weigle introduced me to the study of Eastern Europe as an undergraduate at Bowdoin College and encouraged my interest. The College’s Langbein Award allowed me to begin studying Romanian in country in the summer of 2003. I also thank Frank Sellin, my de facto advisor at Bowdoin in 2003-2004 and an authority on the politics of southeastern Europe, for his advice and encouragement. My parents have been full of support since my interest in a neglected corner Europe began. I also owe thanks to Bill Topich, Laura Newman, Patrick Campbell, and Zina Trost for their comments, encouragement, and support. Finally, I express my gratitude to three dear friends and remarkable bănăţeni: Adina, Cleopatra, and Petru Unguraş, who introduced me to Romania with a warmth of spirit that could have come from nowhere else. 8 Table of Contents Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………3 Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………5 List of Abbreviations and Foreign Terms…………………………………………………9 Chapter 1: An Introduction to the Literature on Romanian Autonomy………………….10 Chapter 2: Through Romanian Eyes: Cadres, Diplomats, and the Road to the Prague Spring…………………………………………………………………………………….45 Chapter 3: After 1968: The Drive for Unity…………....................................................103 Chapter 4: Dissent as a National Project: International Affairs and the Preemption of Opposition………………………………………………………………………………153 Conclusion: Towards a Framework for Analyzing Autarchic Dictatorship………........199 Bibliography…………………………………………………………............................205 9 List of Abbreviations and Foreign Terms ACNJ: Arhiva Comandamentului Naţional al Jandarmeriei [Arhchive of the National Command of the Gendarmerie] ANR: Arhivele Naţionale ale României [National Archives of Romania] ASRI: Arhivele Serviciului Român de Informaţii [Archives of the Romanian Information Service] CC: Comitetul Central [Central Committee] CMEA, COMECON: Council for Mutual Economic Assistance DDR: Deutsche Demokratische Republik, official full name of the German Democratic Republic DSS: Departamentul Securităţii Statului, official full name of the Romanian Securitate [Department of State Security] FSN: Frontul Salvării Naţionale [National Salvation Front] KGB: Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti [Committee for State Security], Soviet Security Agency KSČ: Komunistcka strana Československa [Czechoslovak Communist Party] MAE: Ministerul Afacerelor Externe [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization PCE: Partido Comunista de España [Spanish Communist Party] PCF: Parti Communiste Français [French Communist Party] PCI: Partito Comunista d’Italia [Italian Communist Party] PCR: Partidul Comunist Român [Romanian Communist Party] PMR: Partidul Muncitoresc Român [Romanian Workers