Bătrânul şi marea schimbare
Revista The Nation a decis să marcheze aniversarea căderii Zidului Berlinului prin publicarea unui interviu cu Mihai Gorbaciov, liderul U.R.S.S. care a decis în 1986 că "enough is enough" şi că Uniunea nu are cum să supravieţuiască fără o serie de reforme. Bătrânul politician (78 de ani) are o mulţime lucruri interesante de spus despre evenimentele şi personajele de la sfârşitul anilor '80, începutul anilor '90.
Despre Germania de Est şi căderea Zidului.
I think if the East German leader Erich Honecker had not been so stubborn--we all suffer from this illness, including the person you are interviewing--he would have introduced democratic changes. But the East German leaders did not initiate their own perestroika. Thus a struggle broke out in their country. [...]
On October 7, 1989, I was reviewing a parade in East Germany with Honecker and other representatives of the Warsaw Pact countries. Groups from twenty-eight different regions of East Germany were marching by with torches, slogans on banners, shouts and songs. The former prime minister of Poland, Mieczyslaw Rakowski, asked me if I understood German. "Enough to read what's written on the banners. They're talking about perestroika. They're talking about democracy and change. They're saying, 'Gorbachev, stay in our country!'" Then Rakowski remarked, "If it's true that these are representatives of people from twenty-eight regions of the country, it means the end." I said, "I think you're right."
Gorbaciov şi Honecker în 1989
Despre Reagan şi S.U.A. ...
By the way, in 1987, after my first visit to the United States, Vice President Bush accompanied me to the airport, and told me: "Reagan is a conservative. An extreme conservative. All the blockheads and dummies are for him, and when he says that something is necessary, they trust him. But if some Democrat had proposed what Reagan did, with you, they might not have trusted him."
Şi o excelentă analiză a atitudinii S.U.A. ...
When people came to the conclusion that they had won the cold war, they concluded that they didn't need to change. Let others change. That point of view is mistaken, and it undermined what we had envisaged for Europe--mutual collective security for everyone and a new world order. All of that was lost because of this muddled thinking in your country, and which has now made it so difficult to work together. World leadership is now understood to mean that America gives the orders.
[...] As I said, people in your country became dizzy with imagined success: they saw everything as their victory.
Apoi soarta U.R.S.S., pe care am împărtăşit-o şi noi din punct de vedere economic...
For Russian President Boris Yeltsin, ready-made Western recipes were falling into his hands, schemes that supposedly would lead to instant success. He was an adventurist.
In Yeltsin, Washington ended up with a vassal who thought that because of his anticommunism he would be carried in their arms. Delegations came to Russia one after the other, including President Bill Clinton, but then they stopped coming. It turned out no one needed Yeltsin. But by then half of Russia's industries were in ruins, even 60 percent. It was a country with a noncompetitive economy wide open to the world market, and it became slavishly dependent on imports.
Gorbaciov şi Bush
Şi gustul amar al şansei ratate...
Even before the end of the cold war, Reagan, Bush and I argued, but we began to eliminate two entire categories of nuclear weapons. We had gone very far, almost to the point when a return to the past was no longer possible. But everything went wrong because perestroika was undermined and there was a change of Russian leadership and a change from our concept of gradual reform to the idea of a sudden leap. [...] The fall of the Soviet Union was the key moment that explains everything that happened afterward, including what we have today.
How many things were affected! All our plans for a new Europe and a new architecture of mutual security. It all disappeared. [...]
The moral of the story--and in the West morals are everything--is this: under my leadership, a country began reforms that opened up the possibility of sustained democracy, of escaping from the threat of nuclear war, and more. That country needed aid and support, but it didn't get any. Instead, when things went bad for us, the United States applauded. Once again, this was a calculated attempt to hold Russia back. I am speaking heatedly, but I am telling you what happened.
Iar în spatele politicii stă omul şi filosofia sa...
The times work through people in history. [...]
[...] I am an intellectually curious person by nature and I understood that many changes were necessary, and that it was necessary to think about them, even if it caused me discomfort. I began to carry out my own inner, spiritual perestroika--a perestroika in my personal views. Along the way, Russian literature and, in fact, all literature, European and American too, had a big influence on me. I was drawn especially to philosophy. And my wife, Raisa, who had read more philosophy than I had, was always there alongside me.
I didn't just learn historical facts but tried to put them in a philosophical or conceptual framework. I began to understand that society needed a new vision--that we must view the world with our eyes open, not just through our personal or private interests. That's how our new thinking of the 1980s began, when we understood that our old viewpoints were not working out. [...]