(4 of 7)
At the same time, I thought I should also point out the negatives. Those three republics have no right to declare the Soviet Union nonexistent. What do they mean, there's no such country as the U.S.S.R., not even as an object of international law? If there are no laws governing the union as a whole, then who controls the army? The borders of our state have also been established by union law. The same with our territorial waters and airspace, not to mention our relations with foreign countries.
What kind of democrats are these? How can they even call themselves democrats? What about our shared commitment to develop a state governed by law? I said all this to them, and it sobered them up a bit.
They tell me that back in '37, a troika ((a three-man kangaroo court common during the purges of the Stalinist terror)) could decide a person's fate. And now a troika is deciding the fate of entire nations!
Q. The authors of the Minsk agreement have interpreted some statements from Washington as support for their position. What is your view?
A. President Bush and Secretary of State Baker are the two most important people for me on the American side. On the whole, I have always considered their policy to be constructive and supportive. They consider the process taking place in this country as our internal affair.
But the U.S. took some steps recently, particularly on the eve of the referendum in Ukraine, that, I must say, were not well thought out. They were regarded by some here as attempts to stimulate separatism in Ukraine. I told the President this when we talked on the telephone.
I wish that all our partners would adopt a balanced, patient approach in their relations with us, especially now. Mr. Baker was overly hasty in saying, "The Soviet Union no longer exists." Things are in flux here. While we're still trying to figure things out, the U.S. seems to know everything already! I don't think that's loyalty, particularly toward those of us who favor partnership and full-fledged cooperation. It is in our common interest that this process should end successfully without any surprises.
Q. You still enjoy popularity and prestige abroad. Does this help in your talks with leaders of the republics?
A. We deal with each other as partners, not like gladiators stepping into the arena. I am even tempered and have a reserve of constructive ideas, which is by no means exhausted.
Yesterday I sent a message to the parliaments of Russia and Belorussia informing them they had made a mistake in deciding to recall their deputies from the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. I said, "If you continue to act like that, you'll get a reputation for doing things in secret and sidestepping the constitutional bodies of the country. If that happens, the rest of the world is going to wonder what kind of people it is dealing with. You'll be nothing but a bunch of bandit reformers. Who will respect you if you can't respect your own constitution?"
Q. What if they all just ignore you?
A. They pay attention. In fact, we've been talking for days. I can't let myself worry about being insulted. We're trying to meet each other halfway. We've got to really think this through and not improvise. I'll use all my political and legal authority to enrich this process -- even though it's a process I don't recognize.