(5 of 7)
By interacting with my colleagues, I'll try to let them know what my position is and help them to come together and reach agreements. But I don't want to be like the guest of honor at a banquet. I don't see that as my role. What I want to do is participate in formulating the framework of the commonwealth and giving it substance.
The ideas in the union treaty and the commonwealth agreement are coming together. Many parts of the union treaty will be used: the big difference is that this will be a commonwealth of states and not a single state.
I thought, and still think, that a softer union, with some of the institutions I was proposing, would be a better way. But unfortunately we've already shattered the links among the republics, and the national economy is collapsing. An amorphous commonwealth won't bring about the kind of cooperation we need, which is why I think it's a mistaken concept. But I want to make it a half-mistake rather than a full mistake.
Q. What is your relationship with Yeltsin really like?
A. We've parted company over basic concepts. I'm for the preservation of the union as a country. I'm against what I've described as the pie being sliced up and served with tea. ((Gorbachev doodles on a pad; what emerges is a picture of a pie with crisscross lines through it.)) Who has the right to cut this country into pieces?
If the process leads to the establishment of a commonwealth, I'll accept it as a reality. Even though I don't share their concept of what's required, I wish them success. But I don't want this question to be decided on the streets, and I'll use my authority to see to it that the process goes forward normally and constitutionally.
At the same time, I am still firmly convinced we are making a mistake. I'd rather be proved triply wrong. But I want to stay the course. If the process gets out of hand, then I'll have buried everything to which I've devoted the best years of my life.
Q. Last night you were obviously furious with Yeltsin.
A. Look at the way Yeltsin behaved. We handled the whole union-treaty process together, sent it to the republics and suddenly Yeltsin comes up with a different approach in Brest. I cannot accept this. He didn't even call me. I found out that he had talked with George Bush and not to me. There was no need to draw Bush into this. It's a question of Yeltsin's moral standards. I cannot approve or justify this style of behavior. It's inadmissible.
Q. Then what basis do you have for a partnership with Yeltsin?
A. There are higher interests that should unite us. Gorbachev and Yeltsin simply cannot get away from that.
Q. Does Yeltsin agree about these higher interests?
A. Unquestionably. On a human level there are no obstacles in the way of having a dialogue with him. We have drifted apart on this conceptual question of a commonwealth.
Who knows? Maybe I am wrong. But I am firmly convinced that I am right.That shouldn't stop us from cooperating, as far as I am concerned. I hope he feels the same way.
Q. How can the West help the process of reform?