Shevardnadze Speaks Out

By Eduard Shevardnadze, John Kohan, James Carney

When Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze addressed the Congress of People's Deputies last December, not even Mikhail Gorbachev was prepared for his old friend's shocking announcement. Warning that "reactionaries" were trying to gain control of the government and that "dictatorship is coming," Shevardnadze angrily resigned his post. Though Shevardnadze never directly criticized Gorbachev, his words were interpreted as an admonition to Gorbachev that he risked becoming a captive of the military as he struggled to control the country's chaos.

When Shevardnadze tours the U.S. this month, he will have a new title: president of the Soviet Foreign Policy Association, an independent think tank on international issues that he helped found in February. Last week Shevardnadze met for 40 minutes with TIME Moscow correspondents John Kohan and James Carney in the association's sparsely furnished Moscow headquarters, which still smells of fresh paint and plaster. Excerpts from the interview:

Q. Do you still believe that a dictatorship may be coming?

A. The threat has not diminished. I'd say the situation has become more tense, whether we're talking about the economy, society, politics or ethnic conflicts. But nobody can tell where the dictator might come from. History knows many examples when political unknowns have emerged. Take Hitler, for example. Who knew him? The situation in his country was so bad that he managed to force his way into power and cause so much misery and tragedy. I don't mean to say this will happen here. But if we fail to stabilize events and the country plunges into chaos, the people may demand a man with a strong hand and dictatorial inclinations who would bring about order.

Q. What do you think about the joint statement calling for a new union treaty that Gorbachev and the leaders of nine of the country's 15 republics signed two weeks ago?

A. It is an important, positive development. I have often spoken out in favor of dialogue between Gorbachev and Russian leader Boris Yeltsin. What they have agreed on does not cover everything, but it sets forth some basic principles. It is a good beginning.

Q. What did you think of the Communist Party plenum that was held after Gorbachev met with the nine leaders?

A. I don't want to comment on the plenum. I have an unpleasant feeling about it, particularly because some participants called for the introduction of a state of emergency and demanded Gorbachev's resignation. This goes against my own convictions.

Q. How are your relations with Gorbachev?

A. They are normal. Of course, we don't have as much contact with each other as before. He is very busy, and I have many things here to take care of.

Q. Has Gorbachev consulted your association?

A. We had a long conversation recently in which we covered many subjects, including major political issues. Our future contacts will depend on how well the association works. President Gorbachev will need us if we can produce interesting, useful and original ideas. But if we limit ourselves to collecting membership dues, then nobody will want us.

Q. Many people believed your resignation signaled the end of "new thinking" in Soviet foreign policy. Are we entering a period in which the pursuit of national interests will once more be dominant?

A. You know, there is one particular issue where the national interests of the Soviet Union and the U.S. are completely identical. This is the problem of stability in the Soviet Union. If we manage to control our domestic situation, & we can count on good Soviet-American relations. If our country should plunge into anarchy, it will be hard to predict the consequences and how they will affect our relations.

Q. What role does the military-industrial complex play in the life of your country?

A. Our military-industrial complex has an immense potential that has not been properly used so far, especially when we consider the reductions going on in weapons and armed forces. We are late in coming up with a program for conversion. We should have done this back in 1985, when we first proclaimed the principles of new thinking, and after the Geneva summit, when we talked about the impossibility of waging a nuclear war and decided to normalize relations with the U.S. We invite Americans to visit our military-industrial complex. I cannot say that all doors are already open, but many enterprises are ready to cooperate.

It would be naive to think we could demilitarize the Soviet Union in two, three or even four years. It's a process that requires an equal response from our partners. Work is going on now to reform the military. I support a professional army. It would be better to have fewer but better-equipped soldiers, who are guaranteed a better standard of living.

Q. When you resigned, you spoke about democratic-minded reformers slinking "into the bushes." Are they still in hiding?

A. Those small saplings have since grown into large trees. But, seriously speaking, there is a different trend now -- and not necessarily because I made that warning. Democrats have begun to think about the need for unity and developing a common platform. That is all for the good. But I think they should move faster.

Q. Do you ever have any regrets about your decision to resign?

A. No, I have no regrets. I suffered a good deal in making my decision, but it was based on my moral principles, my political convictions. I believe what I did was right. I don't know how much use it was to society, democracy and perestroika. But I am convinced I was right.