TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century / TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO / 1990 / 92 / oct_dec / 1005510.000 next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-27 | 10KB | 226 lines

<text> <title> (Oct. 05, 1992) Interview:Eduard Shevardnadze </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Oct. 05, 1992 LYING: Everybody's Doin' It (Honest) </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> INTERVIEW, Page 64 "The Dark Forces Are Growing Stronger" </hdr> <body> Meeting with editors at TIME's New York office, Eduard Shevardnadze, now President of Georgia, offers a bleak forecast for the old U.S.S.R. By the Editors of TIME and Eduard Shevardnadze. Q. Do Boris Yeltsin--and democracy--have a better chance to succeed in Russia than Mikhail Gorbachev did? A. Yeltsin is in great difficulty. He doesn't speak much about it. But I can see, as he describes it, that the dark forces are becoming stronger. It is a very dangerous moment. Q. What are these dark forces? A. They are even more reactionary than the former communists: the most extreme reactionaries of the communists and the chauvinists. I would put them somewhere approaching fascism. Q. As elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, Georgia faces a separatist conflict in the region of Abkhazia. Do you fear it may turn into a quagmire? A. The entire territory that used to constitute the Soviet Union is in a quagmire today. These countries have not had independence for a long, long time. Georgia was part of Russia for 2 1/2 centuries, and now that it has started building a new independent society, it encounters many difficulties. We sometimes have a sense that there are no prospects. We have an economy that is absolutely ruined. Conflicts are raging in the former Soviet Union. In my opinion, these are not the last conflicts. Other conflicts are to be expected, and they will be on a larger scale. But I think the law of necessity will work; Abkhasians and Georgians, for example, have to live together. Even though this has been a tragic event with casualties, it will increase the responsibility of both sides. Q. What are those larger conflicts? A. Social conflicts. They are the greatest danger now. There is conflict in Russia, in the Caucasus. I don't believe that these countries will be able to rebuild their economies themselves; their economies are ruined. I think some bad things may follow. If it were only Georgia, it would not be disastrous for the whole world. It is impossible to say how it will take place, because it will happen spontaneously, and it will not be a long process. It may start in one republic and immediately engulf the others. Q. Should we write off the so-called Commonwealth of Independent States? A. The Commonwealth will definitely not be able to solve all these problems. It is not a mechanism that is capable of taking serious decisions, unfortunately. Q. What is that mechanism? A. I think very serious discussions are necessary on an international level. If the social explosion starts, it is not going to be a local explosion; it is going to go beyond borders. Q. If you were Boris Yeltsin, would you trust the army? A. I think the army is part of the problem, but it is not homogeneous. There are democratically oriented officers, but I am not sure that the most important units are in their hands. But if he doesn't trust the army, what can he do? It is a cruel logic. Q. Can Russia hold together? A. Yes, as long as it can stabilize the economy. But if the economic crisis continues, it will be very difficult. Q. Are nuclear weapons still a problem? A. If we ask which is more dangerous: nuclear confrontation or the hazards of social explosion, social explosion is much more likely, and at the moment, it is much more dangerous. Q. Does the outside world have a responsibility, or should we mind our own business and let you solve the problems? A. We believe that the outside world must do a lot, and we must do it together. Even though these countries are not stable at present, big business should begin investing now. This would be a factor in stability. We are sure that Russia can be saved by foreign business. Q. Including Japan? A. Japanese capital could change things in two years, and certainly it would be very profitable for them. I don't agree with the current Japanese perspective, because the danger of social explosion in Russia is so great that I would not debate the question of who owns the Kurile Islands at the moment. If chaos comes to Russia, no one will remember the Kuriles. Q. What foreign investment would make sense in Georgia now? A. Georgia can connect Iran to Europe through the Black Sea. It can be a transit territory for Central Asia and Khazakhstan, for Turkey, for the countries of the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately, so far business has been limited to the level of discussions, although everyone can see that it is promising. Q. You fought hard for democracy in the Soviet Union, but in Georgia democracy produced a dictator and chaos. A. The disintegration of the Soviet Union was unexpected by everyone. That includes those who received independence; they were not ready for it. That is why elections held in various countries, including Georgia, were held by naive people who trusted the words they heard. They were deceived. But these mistakes seem to be unavoidable in any newly independent country. I shouldn't have gone back to Georgia, but there was a real and absolute danger of complete anarchy. My objective has been, and still is, to hold real elections, regardless of who wins. Q. On a personal level, wouldn't you have had a happier life at a university, writing your memoirs? A. I was on my way to this Shangri-La, but the time came when my small country needed me, and I had to take a step, even though I understood that that step was in the direction of catastrophe rather than success. Q. You sound so pessimistic. Do you find grounds for optimism anywhere? A. If there were no grounds for optimism, certainly it would make no sense to work. As for Georgia, I certainly believe that in these six months, some important things have been done. When I came back, the society had been split into parts; there is much greater consolidation at the moment. The conflicts will be settled. We may have some small successes in the economy--but I think that will be more difficult. Q. Do you talk to your old friend Mikhail Gorbachev once in a while? A. Yes. We were friends. We are friends. Sometimes we speak on the phone. Q. Do you give each other advice? A. Well, we have given each other enough advice. Q. Going back to 1985, what would you have done differently? A. We were late. We were lagging behind. A lot of things were lost because of that, like political reform. Q. Gorbachev could have moved faster? A. Definitely. We knew things had to be done, but we didn't do them on time. And then we were forced to do them. For example, the monopoly of the party: we dragged our feet for such a long time that people forced us to change the constitution. We needed to start economic reforms when we still had credit and confidence; we took this radical step when very few people believed Gorbachev at all. Q. What would have happened if the attempted coup against Gorbachev had succeeded--or never been tried? A. If the coup had succeeded, the Soviet Union would have survived with all its ideological and repressive structures. Remember, I did warn that the coup was going to happen. If they had taken the necessary steps then, there would have been no conspiracy; the democratic process would have continued. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated but at a different stage, and the transition period would have been less painful. Q. When you argued with Gorbachev, why didn't he follow your advice? A. When I say I warned him, that does not mean that I told him everything. I did not see everything. But what I did tell him he sometimes ignored. His vision was different. He had his own way of analyzing things. For example, when I told him that there was the danger of dictatorship, he did not take it seriously at all. Q. Some people say Gorbachev did not want to get rid of communism, only to reform it. A. I think Gorbachev still believes in the socialist idea, the way I believed in it. He believed ideal socialism was possible. If he had been a scholar and believed that, there would have been nothing bad about it. Someone would have read his treatises, and that would have been that. But if you lead a country, your vision is very important. Q. Do you regret the disappearance of the Soviet Union? A. I already said this was predetermined. It had to happen. But it certainly should have happened differently. Earlier on, I was unable to declare that this country had to disintegrate; actually, I did not even think that way. What I regret is that it could have been done differently and in a more civilized manner. </body> </article> </text>