home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
123190
/
1231001.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
92 lines
<text id=90TT3476>
<title>
Dec. 31, 1990: America Abroad
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
Dec. 31, 1990 The Best Of '90
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
WORLD, Page 24
AMERICA ABROAD
The Personality Factor
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Strobe Talbott
</p>
<p> The furor over Eduard Shevardnadze's resignation had the air
of a dry run for a much bigger event that suddenly seemed
entirely plausible: Mikhail Gorbachev himself quits in disgust
or exhaustion or defeat, and the world is abruptly confronted
not just with a new Soviet leader but a new--or perhaps an old--Soviet Union.
</p>
<p> Within hours after the news from Moscow, James Baker
appeared in public to assure everyone that American policy is
"not one that's based on personality." Translation: we're not
betting on the fortunes and stamina of any individual foreign
leader; we're pursuing U.S. interests, period. There would
probably be a similar statement from the White House if
Gorbachev departed the scene under almost any circumstances.
</p>
<p> Government spokesmen must say such things, if only because
governments are supposed to be more enduring than human beings.
But Baker's disclaimer should not be taken at face value. In
fact "personality"--that is, the identity of the No. 1 man in
the Kremlin, and even the No. 1 man in the Foreign Ministry--is crucial in Soviet politics and therefore in U.S.-Soviet
relations as well.
</p>
<p> When George Bush took office, he and his advisers, notably
including Baker, groped for a policy no one could call
Gorbocentric, one that would work equally well no matter who was
on the other end of the hot line. The result was a nonpolicy.
The Administration was so determined to be ready for anything
the cunning and unpredictable Soviets might do next that for
months official Washington seemed all but incapable of doing
anything on its own.
</p>
<p> But American advice to wait and see did not sit well with
the West Europeans, who could see how Gorbachev was transforming
their continent. Meanwhile, East European reformers argued to
Bush that the success of their own programs depended on the
continuation of perestroika, and Eduard Shevardnadze convinced
Baker that perestroika depended on Gorbachev's ability to
control the change without resorting to a violent crackdown.
</p>
<p> The President and the Secretary of State came to recognize
that kibitzers who were saying the U.S. should support the
"process of reform" rather than Gorbachev were making a
distinction without a difference.
</p>
<p> In the normal political life of a democracy, laws and
institutions are what count. Even a leader as forceful and as
long in office as Margaret Thatcher can suddenly leave, and
while the world certainly notices, the event doesn't constitute
a national, much less an international crisis.
</p>
<p> But these days there is nothing normal about Soviet
politics. In a way, there never has been. In the bad old days
of Stalinism and stagnation, the personality of the leader
mattered so much because he stood at the top of a hierarchical
system--and at the center of a highly centralized one. What
he said counted because anyone who disagreed with him could be
shot or at least banished from public life.
</p>
<p> Now the familiar edifices of the U.S.S.R. have crumbled; the
center cannot hold. Yet paradoxically the leader matters more
than ever. Now, in the absence of all those ugly but unifying
structures and attitudes (particularly that of fear), he often
seems to speak for all that is left of a single country. What
he says counts because everyone else is arguing not just with
him but with one another. If Shevardnadze's warning comes true
and Gorbachev gives way to--or becomes--a neo-Stalinist,
that personality too must be the focus of U.S. policy and the
outside world's anxious attention.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>