By Nicholas Tatsis

As the last leader of the Soviet Union, President Mikhail Gorbachev presided over a peaceful end to the Cold War and liberated the former Eastern Bloc from totalitarianism’s iron grip. In a roundtable discussion with a group of journalists held on December 4, 2007 at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Gorbachev, who won the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, discussed nuclear proliferation, the results of the recent Russian elections, and other domestic and foreign policy issues Russia faces in the future. Questions asked by the HPR, which was present at the event, are denoted as such.

Question: What was your assessment of the recent Russian Parliamentary Elections?

Answer: Well, the results were as expected. We watched the campaign and it was absolutely clear. So far as I know, there were some irregularities. But, overall, it’s very important that many voters turned out to vote. And I believe they responded to Putin; the results could have been different, without this decision, to Russia. We shall now see what they [the United Russia Party] will be doing, now that they have power. The country is facing the need to modernize and the problems of modernization, which should affect all spheres of life. The expectations of the people are very high. So the people will be watching whether those in power will remember their demands, and their promises. So, people will be watching and the media will be helping to monitor United Russia, a party that now holds a two-thirds majority in parliament. That means that they will be assuming greater responsibility. So this is a new phase for them, a new life for them.

Q: Are you concerned they [the United Russia Party] might change the constitution to give the President another term?

A: The President has said that he is against changing the Constitution and that he doesn’t intend to become Prime Minister. So, he probably has some other things in mind, and he will be making them known. I don’t think that once the President has said it to the country and to the world, he will then flip-flop and change his position. Putin is a serious person; he will not do that.

Q: I was wondering if you think the results of the election are legitimate, in light of Putin’s muzzling of the media.

A: They certainly are legitimate. And I believe what you said about muzzling the media is not so. Please, get yourself invited to Russia. Get yourself invited to Moscow University and then read our newspapers. If we were not a model press, we would not have so many articles everyday that are critical of Putin.

Q: I’m interested on hearing your position on Russia’s stance toward the status of Kosovo, which differs from [the position] of the United States, and that of the E.U. Should the independence of Kosovo be declared and recognized internationally? What could be the potential repercussions and effect in the international community?

A: Well I think we should all proceed very prudently, very cautiously, and that includes the Kosovars, because we could get a situation that could surprise us. So I would not rush things. I would continue the interaction, the contact, among the different parties. And we should look for some sort of decision based on consensus. Otherwise, we would not get a solution to the problem. It’s a time bomb. And so I recommend prudence. I recommend caution.

Harvard Political Review: President Bush has said the missile defense system America plans to build in Central and Eastern Europe will guard against Iran. Do you think this shield is necessary?

A: I don’t think so, particularly given what I am told the current publications and newspapers say: That in 2003-2005, the CIA had information that the Iran was not working on nuclear weapons. So it appears very similar to the war in Iraq. They started the war because they accused Iraq of developing nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. They bombed the country. They found Saddam Hussein, of course, but they didn’t find anything else. They thought they would get a more stable Middle East, but that is not the case. The situation is more complicated and more difficult than it was before. Also, Iran, I think, has been the victim of a double-standard approach. The non-proliferation treaty does not require the things that are now demanded of Iran—these are additional demands. And Iran could create a graver and even more serious situation than Kosovo. But my impression is that there seems to be some emerging hope that this problem will be handled on the basis of reliable information, and will also take into account these new circumstances that have come to light. But there certainly is no difference between the views of the United States, Russia, and the European Union, as to the unacceptability of letting Iran develop nuclear weapons. On this score, there is one view. This makes it possible to develop cooperation on this issue.

Q: Where do you see the primary threat of nuclear terrorism coming from?

A: I think that when we talk about the threat of nuclear terrorism today, we should talk about it in preventive terms. We should prevent that threat from emerging. And it could become more real, if we have the proliferation of nuclear weapons. You have to bear in mind that an act of nuclear terrorism could have extremely grave consequences.

Q: Given the long history between the United States and Russia, and given the fact that we are going through elections right now, do you have any advice for the next United States President about continuing good relations with Russia, and the world at large?

A: Well, Russia and the United States do not have a very long history, just 200 years of diplomatic relations. There will be no problem on the part of Russia. But there is just one thing that Russia will not accept. It will not accept the position of a kid brother, the position of a person who does what someone tells it to do. This should be totally out of the question. And whenever I talk to Americans, whenever I give speeches to Americans, Americans agree with me, that is to say we need equal cooperation. We need equitable cooperation. I can tell you that I believe that there is an agenda for relations between our countries. We could shape a very positive relationship. I will tell you something that I will tell people tonight. We see that there has been very harsh rhetoric between our two countries—between our 2 states I would say, not necessarily between our two nations. I think we see that Americans respect Russians, just as Russians respect Americans.

But while this kind of rhetoric, this kind of polemic rhetoric has been under way, many American companies have been entering Russia and doing very successful business in Russia: Ford, General Electric, John Deere, Boeing, etc. Those big corporations are working very successfully. They have 100% annual growth in their annual Russia operations. Boeing has a technology center, employing hundreds of Russian engineers. Russia Boeing is cooperating with the Russian Aircraft Sukhoi Corporation. So, while there is all this rhetoric, Americans are working in Russia. And there is a lot of work in Russia to be done. We need cooperation. Russia will now emphasize new technology, which requires business cooperation. So, it would be silly to ignore this kind of market, to lose this kind of market. So, please make this point. And tell your people that Gorbachev invited Harvard grads and Harvard alumni to work in Russia. There is a lot of work to be done in Russia.

Q: With regards to our elections, there are about a dozen topics that continually come up. But the issue of relations with Russia is never a subject. How do you feel about that?

A: Well Russia has made its points. Russia has made all of the proposals that are constructive, but Russia will not kind of stand on its knees. Russia will not beg the United States on its knees for relations. Currently, the companies from Japan, from China, from South Korea, and from European countries, are entering the Russia market and making investments in Russia. Perhaps there isn’t much interest in the United States, because both the United States and Russia are basically self-reliant. But Russia is more self-reliant, because Russia has so many natural resources.

Q: Is Russia actually developing, because it seems most of its economic growth has come from natural resources?

A: Well, real development of course should be the result of modernization. For the time being, Russia’s growth has been mostly as a result of the resource sector, you’re right, oil and gas. But, there is also the chemical sector, and we are selling chemical products throughout the world. There is steel. We are selling our steel products throughout the world. Russia is making pipes that it sells in different countries. It is developing a car-making industry, an auto industry. The Japanese have bought a whole bunch of factories near St. Petersburg, and Toyota is starting new production soon there. What we need is a total modernization of our manufacturing sector. And Russia’s approach is that old technology should be phased out. We need to have new technology, new production services. And what is particularly significant is to build up medium-size business. And this requires some support. And just about everyone, starting with the President, has committed themselves to the support of small and medium-sized business.

Q: Do you think Russia can do more to exercise positive moral leadership in neighboring countries?

A: You have to bear in mind that all of these former Soviet countries, they still remember the period when we had a center that kind of pressured the republics. So Russia has to be very cautious in its relations with those republics. ]]>