Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:33:43 EST
From:         HAMMERL@UCS.INDIANA.EDU
Subject:      New York Times on Slovakia

The following editorial appeared in the New York Times on 2
January 1993.

                Shouts and Murmurs in Free Slovakia

        It's not clear that most Czechs or Slovaks really
favored the velvet divorce that became final on Newe Year's
Day.  But Czechoslovakia, once the model democracy in middle
Europe, is no more.  Knocking on wood, and with a nervous
glance at the disintegrating Balkans, Americans can only
join the celebrants and wish a prosperous life to the new
Slovak Republic [sic] and the new Czech Republic.
        Smaller, poorer Slovakia, with 5 million people and
an 11 percent jobless rate, faces the more bruising
readjustment.  Yet 10 million Czechs may soon discover that
when there's frost in Bratislava, the chill will be felt in
Prague.  The two Slavic republics are linked together not
only by history, but the perception of foreign investors.
        The bittersweet end of the 75-year-old federation
has been achieved with impressive civility.  The Czech
Prime Minister, Vaclac Klaus, and the Slovak Prime Minister,
Vladimir Meciar, amicably settled on a 2-to-1 division of
public property, including the armed forces and its
weaponry.  Sensibly, they have agreed on a customs union
that permits free movements of goods and labor.  For at
least six months, the two republics will share a common
currency, giving Slovakia time to set up its bank.
        Polls showed that majorities of Czechs and Slovaks
did not favor complete divorce.  An ardent free-market
reformer, Mr. Klaus knows that peaceful relations with
Slovakia can help win him favorable treatment from the
European Community.  Mr Meciar, a hard-line nationalist,
knows that stability is essential for foreign investment.
        As a matter of sentiment, Americans will sympathize
with underdog Slovaks, who for a thousand years have never
enjoyed statehood with democracy.  Still, that lack of
experience gives pause.  Mr. Meciar shows scant patience
with critics.  And Slovakia has a large, nervous Hungarian
minority.
        Small wonder that worried Slovak democrats plead
with American and European friends, "Don't forget us, don't
abandon us."  The shouts on New Year's Day should not drown
out those murmurs.

[I don't have time to post the other articles on Slovakia,
but would like to point out that now the correspondents are
actually going to Slovakia.  Judith Ingram had an article,
"Fireworks, Tears and Doubt in Slovakia," on 1 Jan.  On 4
January, Stephen Engelberg reported from Svaty Jur.  This
was a "human interest" story.  It compared the attitudes of
a 69-year old Slovak (a retired civilian employee of the
Czechoslovak army) who had always felt himself to be a
Czechoslovak to those of his 35 year-old son (a professor of
logic), who never felt like a Czechoslovak.  The son sees
some benefits in independence, though neither he nor his
father expects any quick end to Slovakia's economic
difficulties.  The son said, "Slovaks for a thousand years
did not have their own ruling class.  Now there is a chance
to take their development in their own hands in all
respects.  If they aren't successful, they can blame
themselves, no one else."  The point of the story is that
the Slovaks have begun a quest for identity.  The father has
begun tracing his family roots.  Although the article
contains two stories that illustrate the negative aspects of
nationalism, they are not directed against the Slovaks.  It
seems to me that this is a new direction in the NYT
reporting on Slovakia.

                                        --Louise Hammer ]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU