Shevardnadze: "Allow Me to Disagree"

By John Kohan, Ann Blackman, Eduard Shevardnadze.

In his first interview with a U.S. magazine, Eduard Shevardnadze met with TIME Moscow bureau chief John Kohan and correspondent Ann Blackman last week in a small sitting room next to his office on the seventh floor of the Soviet Foreign Ministry. After handing over his written answers to several questions that had been submitted in advance, the Soviet Foreign Minister spent 45 minutes fielding spontaneous questions.

Q. Do you think President Bush's foreign policy is in disarray?

A. To some extent. We fully understand that a new Administration needs a certain amount of time to assess its foreign policy priorities. But I will be able to give a fuller answer after my talks with Secretary of State James Baker. We have to begin working together. There are quite a few problems.

Q. What do you think of U.S. Defense Secretary Cheney's public expression of doubt about perestroika and of his speculation that Gorbachev may be replaced by a leader less friendly to the West?

A. That particular statement is incompetent and not serious. I think President Bush understands the situation quite well when he says perestroika is an irreversible process. We had no alternative, and we have no alternative. Perestroika will succeed.

Q. Are you concerned that Bush may be taking a harder line than Reagan toward the Soviet Union?

A. Well, if that were to happen, the U.S. people would fail to understand the policy. The world would not understand such a turnaround.

Q. Is the Soviet Union trying to drive a wedge into the alliance by persuading West Germany to push for the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons?

A. We have absolutely no intention of trying to drive a wedge between the NATO allies. But we do have a position of principle. We must begin negotiating the reduction and eventual elimination of tactical nuclear missiles. We shall in the future be even more aggressive in pursuing this goal because it is in the interest of all European nations, the Soviet Union and the U.S. Why can't we negotiate along parallel tracks on strategic weapons, conventional arms, chemical weapons and also tactical nuclear weapons? And then, later on, we shall discuss the naval forces, which is a topic the West does not like.

Q. How far can the countries of Eastern Europe go in developing relations with the West?

A. Just as far as any NATO country can go in developing its relations with the East.

Q. Can you imagine any scenario under which disturbances inside a Warsaw Pact country would require Soviet military intervention?

A. No, I cannot. Let me point out that the U.S. refuses to rule out the possibility of the use of force in a situation that, in the U.S. view, threatens American "vital interests."

Q. If you could get only one concession from the U.S. in arms-control talks, what would it be?

A. A single concession will not suffice. And it's not concessions that we should be talking about, but rather a joint search for formulas that will ensure universal security. I am convinced that this is quite possible. Conditions are now ripe for a breakthrough in the prohibition of chemical weapons, the reduction of conventional arms in Europe and cuts in Soviet and U.S. strategic offensive weapons.

Q. With General Secretary Gorbachev preparing to travel to China later this month, what kind of relationship do you envision with that country? Can it be as close as it was in the 1950s?

A. We foresee normal, good-neighborly relations with China. Of course there can be no return to the 1950s. That is not the objective. But neither can there be a return to the 1960s.

Q. Now that Soviet forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan, are you confident that the government in Kabul can bring peace to the country?

A. I am confident that it will be able to do so. The situation is made more difficult by Pakistan's massive intervention in support of the intransigent Afghan opposition. That interference must stop. But lasting peace in Afghanistan can be secured only by the Afghans themselves.

Q. Has the slow progress of perestroika made your job as Foreign Minister more difficult?

A. Allow me to disagree with your assessment. Without perestroika there would have been no changes in international relations. Recently your magazine printed a special issue called The New U.S.S.R. This is a very fitting title. The Soviet Union is indeed new. It will take time to get settled in this house, which we are now rebuilding, so that life in it will be comfortable.

We are not saying everything is going well both inside the country and in our foreign relations. In both areas there are difficulties. Nevertheless, these are just trees, and we must prevent ourselves from not seeing the forest of perestroika for the trees of imperfection.

Q. As the former First Secretary of the Georgian Republic, you went there to restore calm last month after the army killed 20 demonstrators. But there have been differing accounts of whether the protesters died from poison gas. Why is it that glasnost sometimes disappears in times of crisis?

A. Sometimes we are somewhat late in responding and reacting to sudden events. There is an investigation under way, and the results will be published. It's not for the American press that we are doing this. We are doing this for our people.

Q. How serious is your country's nationalities problem?

A. It is among our most complex and difficult issues. Here too we must move faster in adopting a new way of thinking. In a number of places, senior party and Soviet officials have clung to the old habit of commanding and administering; there are examples of extreme intolerance to any criticism and an unwillingness to talk with people holding unorthodox views. Occasionally, there is a trend to stick labels on people, to accuse them of all sins imaginable and not to hear them out.

Naturally, one wonders why it is that if we maintain civilized dialogue with representatives from other countries, we sometimes are unable to do that with various members of our own society.

Q. What has been your greatest achievement as Foreign Minister?

A. I am hard put to answer that question. I keep no records and make no comparisons. I am pleased with every positive result, big or small. What I take to heart much more is the failures and missed opportunities, which, unfortunately, have been many.

Q. How do you keep up the pace?

A. That's my secret. I go in for some sports, particularly swimming. Maybe I'll tell you the other secrets in a few years. At the moment, however, all of us have to work very hard. After we have eliminated all nuclear weapons, all chemical weapons, after we have substantially reduced conventional weapons so that they are within the limits of reasonable defensive sufficiency, after we have completed our perestroika, then we shall take up sports very seriously.

Q. We understand that you work so late that you are the person who turns out the lights and shuts the door.

A. I accept that criticism. ((He smiles.))