(11 of 13)
I envision Europe as a union of states with common institutions to assure military and environmental security, along with cooperation in science and culture. Each state would retain its local and national character and have the right to protect its special interests without prejudice to others. Borders must remain inviolable, but they should also acquire a new quality of openness, permitting all kinds of cooperation and communication, as long as it is based on equity and mutual respect.
You ask how my approach differs from that of President Bush. Indeed, there are some differences. According to the American scenario, as far as I can tell, NATO -- and that means a NATO strengthened by the inclusion of a united Germany -- should be the foreman and guarantor in the building of a new European order.
I can understand that Americans and many Europeans have their own perception of this organization. They give it credit for keeping peace throughout the cold war. On that basis, we are being told that the role of NATO, in the new phase as well, will be entirely positive and will even serve the interests of the Soviet Union. But that's just not serious. For our people too, NATO is associated with the cold war -- but as an organization designed from the start to be hostile to the Soviet Union, as a force that whipped up the arms race and the danger of war. Regardless of what is being said about NATO now, for us it is a symbol of the past, a dangerous and confrontational past. And we will never agree to assign it the leading role in building a new Europe. I want us to be understood correctly on this.
We have in mind an alternative approach. One key element would be to institutionalize European development and establish totally new structures on a Pan-European basis, naturally with the U.S. and Canada actively involved. Another would be to synchronize the political and disarmament processes with the pace of German unification, or at least link them as closely as possible. Incidentally, in our view, this synchronization is one of the main functions of the "two plus four" mechanism ((the current negotiations among the wartime Allies -- the U.S., Britain, France and the Soviet Union -- plus the two Germanys)).
Another point of difference we have with the American viewpoint concerns the issue of foreign military presence in Europe. We are ready to bring our own soldiers home. We're already doing so. The U.S. Administration assumes that Soviet troops on foreign territory are an absolute evil while American troops are always good. Therefore the Americans are looking for any pretext to delay their departure.
Q. Would you elaborate on your view of German unification?
A. We accept that there will be a unified German state in Europe. That is the natural right of the German nation. But let me remind the Germans that the unification of the two Germanys concerns not only them. It is pivotal to the entire European process; it affects the vital interests of many countries in Europe, including the Soviet Union, which sacrificed more than anyone to make sure that war should never again come from German territory. Not even the most + sincere assurances given now, in this headlong rush, can substitute for solid international guarantees that Germany will always pursue peaceful development and peaceful policies toward other countries.