Quentin Peel. "Full transcript: FT interview with Mikhail Gorbachev"

     Quentin Peel of the Financial Times interviewed Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev, former Soviet president and chairman of Green Cross International in Fort Meyers.

FT: Congratulations on your recent birthday. It sounds like you had a good celebration in Moscow.
Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev: Yes, it was a good celebration. And I am very happy that I am now of an age they call the age of wisdom.
FT: I must also congratulate you on being named by the United Nations as a Champion of the Earth.
MSG: That was quite a surprise for me. We have been working. Certainly, we have been doing things. I am reminded of the words of Willy Brandt (the former German chancellor). When he thought he was dying, he told his friends and family that he only wanted a simple stone on his grave. He said: “I just want a marker with the very simple words: We tried.”
     So we have been trying, too, and as a result (we got) this award, which is quite a surprise. It was the second time I was surprised. The first one was the Grammy award that I was given with Bill Clinton and Sophia Loren, when we made a new recording of Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf. That was environmental, too. It was quite environmental. And the result was the Grammy award. So sometimes one gets nice surprises.
FT: Didn’t you get your first award when you were 18 years old, as a Leading Tractor Driver?
MSG: I was 17 actually, when I was given that medal. At that time Stalin had his way of doing things. The operators of combine harvesters were to be given special incentives, because for Russia, and the Soviet Union, bringing in the harvest was a real struggle. If an operator of a combine harvester brought in 10,000 centners – that is about 1,000 tonnes of grain – he became a Hero of Socialist Labour. For a little less, the award was the Order of Lenin, and a little less, another medal. My father and I, my father as the operator and I as his assistant, brought in 9,000 (centners). So my father was given the Order of Lenin, and I was given the Red Banner of Labour. Those were very important awards at the time. So I am proud of that first medal I received.
     The most interesting thing is that 1946/47 were the years of drought, right after the war, and famine was driving people from urban centres into the countryside. People were ready to sell their last possessions (to buy food). That was all because of the drought. And then in 1948 there was a dust storm in the northern Caucasus. So when that happened, all the farmers were panicking. My father asked me to go with him to other parts of the region to see what was happening. We saw plants whose roots were almost bare because of the dust storm, and my father said: “This year again we will not have grain.” And then the next day those dust storms were followed by rain, for three whole days. It was raining 24 hours a day. And then for the first time since the War we had a really good harvest.
     So many things had happened during the War. There were trenches. There were bombs. There were Soviet and German troops on our soil. So it was at that time I saw what nature was all about. I saw that it was important to till the soil in a way that avoids dust storms. That was my first experience of living in harmony with nature; long before the words “ecology” or “environment” were even known.
     The black earth was blown away by dust storms. The forests were full of black earth carried by the wind. So that is the history of the first medal given to me, the Order of the Red Banner of Labour.
FT: Are you still a peasant at heart?
MSG: Of course. I’ve no doubt about that. I think this is the wisest occupation. One cannot imagine a wiser person than a peasant, because a peasant has to know how to handle the soil, what to sow, what not to sow, how to handle animals. A peasant is very much dependent on nature. He must always look around, to ask will it rain or will it not. So that gave me many lessons. That was my first university: my peasant upbringing.
FT: Let me turn to your other great experience of environmental disaster: Chernobyl. The 20th anniversary is coming up: have we yet learned the lessons from that tragedy?
MSG: The short answer is yes. It was a unique drama and a real tragedy. I was at that time in charge of the country, although all those nuclear power stations had been built long before I became leader. There had been some failures, some shutdowns at nuclear stations, but nothing like the kind of accident that we faced at Chernobyl. Something similar happened at Three Mile Island, but I only learned about that later. So it happened very unexpectedly. That nuclear power station (at Chernobyl) was regarded as the best. We still don’t know exactly what were the real causes of the accident. Something really bad happened. Apparently they were doing some kind of an experiment to learn how to regulate energy supply better between night-time and day-time. They wanted to see how they could even out the supply. At some point there was a failure in the process, and the whole thing misfired.
     It happened at night. Early in the morning I received a call from (Nikolai) Ryzhkov, the chairman of the government (prime minister), and he told me that he had received news about that accident. At first no one knew how bad it was. Only after 24 hours, on April 27, did it become know that it was not just an accident, but a reactor explosion. And an explosion meant a lot of (radioactive) emissions.
     The scale of that accident was a bad surprise for everyone. Everyone was taken unawares. There were two commissions working at the time, one appointed by the government, and one by the Academy of Sciences. When they came to Chernobyl at the end of the day on April 26, they reviewed the situation and they were not clear about what had happened. They spent the night in the town, had dinner there and had over-flown the site without any precautions. And those were outstanding nuclear scientists.
FT: But many people say the real lesson is that we should abandon nuclear energy.
MSG: Correct.
FT: Should we give it up?
MSG: I must say that I have studied everything, having done all the work to clean up and to de-activate the unit, and create a tomb, a sarcophagus around it. On July 3 of that same year we discussed the issue of nuclear energy at the Politburo, at a meeting specially convened for that purpose.
     At that time we were discussing what needed to be done in order to make the station safe. We didn’t know what was happening under the sarcophagus. At that time we instructed our scientists to study very carefully the reactor (design) itself, that was still in operation at other nuclear power stations.
     We agreed measures to improve safety at all nuclear power stations, and then we instructed our people to study whether the power stations were properly located in order to see whether perhaps a similar tragedy could happen again. And at that time we decided to suspend the construction of nuclear power stations. Some smaller countries, and very densely populated, had decided to stop construction of nuclear power stations even before that, and I think that was the right decision for them.
     At the time, the International Atomic Energy Agency considered our report and recognised that we had taken all the necessary measures for safety. They appreciated our work and also our openness in providing information. We were not hiding anything. So then for many years we did not build any new (nuclear) power stations. With the help of western countries we also took a number of measures to improve safety at existing nuclear stations. So those lessons were learnt. Also the operational manuals and procedures at all stations were renewed, so an entire set of steps was taken. And also what we did of course was helping those who were the victims of the accident.
FT: Let me come forward to today. The G8 is proposing to revive nuclear energy. Is that wise?
MSG: The situation is that for those 20 years when building new nuclear stations was suspended, we didn’t find alternative sources of energy. Of course wind energy, solar energy, bio-fuel, all of them are usable, but they don’t solve the problem by supplying sufficient energy. At Green Cross International we have been discussing what should be the position of our organisation. Our position is that we should look for renewable energy options and energy efficiency. Up to 20-30 per cent could be saved very quickly if robust policies are applied by governments and appropriate standards observed by businesses and consumers.
     We cannot simply reject nuclear energy. Today there are more than 400 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. More will probably be built in the coming years. China will be building more nuclear power stations, Japan and France are not giving up their nuclear power programmes, the US is resuming building nuclear power stations and Russia, too. Even if we were to admit that nuclear energy is an “evil”, we would also have to recognise that this “evil” is inevitable: we simply cannot do without it. Today, renewable sources of energy (excluding hydro-power) provide just over one per cent of humanity’s needs.
     But nuclear power of course is neither the answer to modern energy problems nor a panacea for climate change challenges. You don’t actually solve problems by finding solutions that create more problems down the track. It doesn’t add up economically, environmentally or socially. Of all the energy options, nuclear is the most capital intensive to establish, decommissioning is prohibitively expensive and the financial burden continues long after the plant is closed. In the US, for example, direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to 5 billion between 1947 and 1999, with a further 5bn in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar combined during the same period totalled only .5bn.
     As a practical step in this direction Green Cross International proposes the creation of a Global Solar Fund. This idea reflects our vision of a way of helping the energy impoverished in the developing world, while creating concentrations of solar energy in cities that could be used to prevent blackouts, would result in lower electricity bills, and would provide a source in the future for generating renewable hydrogen fuels .The Global Solar Fund could provide bn over 10 years that could be easily raised by cutting subsidies for fossil fuels like oil and coal, to install solar photovoltaic equipment around the planet, thereby driving down the price, and creating a mass market for a clean fuel technology.
     Soon I am going to send a letter to the parliaments of all the G8 countries calling for action to stimulate the development of renewable energy options.
FT: Couldn’t Russia be further damaged by the use of nuclear energy? Siberia seems to be the only place on the planet where people are prepared to dispose of nuclear waste. Isn’t that a threat to the environment?
MSG: In our society there is a division on this issue. Society is divided but the parliament has decided to accept it. Environmentalists and a lot of people in the community are against it because carrying all that nuclear waste in railway cars across the country (is dangerous), we know that all kinds of things can happen on our railways and on railways anywhere, so subjecting the country to this risk is something many people are concerned about. So this is a problem I don’t think has been finally decided. We will have give more thought to it.
FT: What about the G8 proposal for St Petersburg?
MSG: They will be discussing energy security as a whole. That is on their agenda. And this discussion should review the state of the energy resources of the world today. Even today, energy resources are a problem, as we see from the current price of oil and gas. China and India are two countries that are planning rapid development, and therefore for them energy will be the number one deficit. There will be a shortage of energy. Russia believes that the construction of nuclear power stations should be resumed. Although they are not planning to build many stations, they will be building some. The same is true for the United States and other countries. Iran wants to build additional nuclear power stations; India as well. So this is a real issue.
     For decision-makers today we believe, at Green Cross International, that the greatest energy security challenge facing humanity is switching to renewable energy solutions for sustainable development. Addressing climate change and providing energy to the world’s poorest people is the only way to achieve real, lasting energy security. The issue of water and the issue of energy are the two most difficult issues facing us today.
FT: What is the primary purpose of the fund you have mentioned. Is it for researching alternative energy, or is it more than that?
MSG: Specifically, the purpose is to develop renewable energy options that already exist. I believe that solar will probably be the number one priority for this fund. Quite naturally, if this fund is to be created, and if it is to be set up by some founders then they should discuss the main avenues of the fund’s activity, sources of financing and concentration of the best scientists, and I believe that the existing scientific centres should be tasked with this research. So these are the special matters to be discussed once the decision is taken about the fund. It is not that we want to set up this fund. We are just suggesting the idea and it is for the governments to set up this fund.
     Such projects are always difficult to implement, and therefore support from the media and from the public is extremely important. Look at the problem of fresh water. We believe there is a need for a convention that would be based on the rights approach; that is to say, every person has a human right of access to water. Such a convention can only be concluded by the United Nations, and it can only be concluded at the initiative of governments. So that is why we approached a number of governments, 23 governments in fact, asking them to take the initiative. We have received at least nine positive replies that recognise that this needs to be done, that such a convention is necessary. In the past we had plentiful water. This is no longer the case on a global basis. Water has become the number one deficit in the world today. I think that the problem of water is even more acute than the problem of energy.
FT: Certainly for the poorest people…
MSG: Of course, so many among the population of the world don’t have access to safe water. 1.2bn people drink unsafe water. 2.4bn people live without basic sanitation. 6,000 people die every day because they use unsafe water. Scientists at the World Health Organisation estimate that 80 per cent of infectious diseases are caused by unsafe drinking water.
FT: But how does a convention solve the problem? Nobody will pay attention to it, will they?
MSG: We have worked on this problem at Green Cross International, and we already have a number of proposals for the principles and guidelines for this convention. I have spoken to ministers; I have spoken to the Sustainable Development Commission that consists of the environmental ministers of various countries. The convention will be a basic legal document and will concern for example commitments and obligations about the regulation of water, because there are some river basins where there are up to 25 nations in one basin. So basic regulation, the question of the ownership of the various distribution lines, and communications would be covered by the convention.
     Regarding role of business, Green Cross is against the deregulation of water resources and water management. On the other hand Green Cross recognizes that national and local companies, as well as international corporations, may contribute to overcoming the water crisis and is prepared to work with them. Having declared big business the source of many social and ecological problems, scientists and experts soon realised that corporations are the only institutions that possesses sufficient organisational, intellectual and financial potential to solve them. Of course, most businessmen rarely pay attention to the results of research done by ecologists. They are more preoccupied with the situation at the stock market, the revenues etc. And this is normal of course – the business of business is business after all. At the same time I am pleased to note that lately a growing number of entrepreneurs have come to realise that the principles of corporate responsibility, or sustainable development, not only do not affect the prosperous development of a company or society at large, but facilitate it. After all, corporate pollution is not only bad for the environment; it is also a sign of economic waste and the unproductive use of resources. Addressing it with adequate technology and working methods would be beneficial for all.
     For my part, I am convinced that social progress and business success are not antagonistic. Quite the contrary. Not only can corporate and social aspirations meet, but the growing prosperity of the developing world is of fundamental strategic importance to almost any company.
But you are right. Sometimes governments adopt commitments but then do not fulfil them. So this convention should have monitoring mechanisms and implementation mechanisms. The convention could become a legal instrument to be used by citizens to go to court, to their local courts. Perhaps they could be special water resources courts. Otherwise you will see something similar to the millennium declarations and other environmental commitments. During the past five years they have not done very much. They have done very little.
FT: Declarations alone won’t change matters, will they? What makes you think you can make a difference?
MSG: The most important issue that I would like to raise in this interview is about the role of civil society. Civil society should be involved. I feel that civil society, which in the last years has turned from an abstract notion into a real force, should take a more pro-active stand in solving the mounting problems, rather than simply blaming governments for their inertia and lack of political will. One good example is the UK-based initiative, Make Poverty History.
     I would like to focus the world’s attention on a major environmental concern surrounding water, as well as on the Chernobyl humanitarian catastrophe, and announce the launch of the Green Cross appeal fund. My citation for the UN award underlined the importance of the Green Cross “water for life and peace” programmes. I believe water is the key to life. But it is a resource that millions of people, many of whom life in powerless abject poverty, are denied.
     Every eight seconds, a child dies as a result of water contamination. Ten thousand people die every day from water and sanitation-related diseases, making them the world’s biggest killers. In the last 10 years, diarrhoea has killed more children than all the people lost in armed conflict since World War II. There is no irony in Mahatma Gandhi’s dictum that “sanitation is more important than political freedom”.
     It will cost millions to ensure that we can go forward in getting safe clean water to everyone. Green Cross has already achieved a great deal, but we desperately need more funds to make this a reality. We want to appeal to the business community, to CEOs who can make a real difference to help Green Cross achieve this goal. Our goal is to create a m fund that will enable us to dramatically expand out work.
FT: But haven’t you been very critical of business for encouraging consumerism, and therefore causing damage to the environment?
MSG: There is no point in demonising the multinationals or leading the charge against big business. The problem is not business. It is the state of the economy, which is decoupled from social concerns, and business is playing by the rules of the situation.
     The economy has become divorced from society. Separated and detached from all social control, human or state, the economy has run amok. It functions according to its own logic, that of maximising profits, minimising investments and reducing the payments on one’s debts to the greatest extent possible. And that is occurring on a global scale, with no concern for ecology.
FT: Why should business support your fund?
MSG: We are not requesting charitable support. What we are saying is that we are open for business with business. The current world presents a lot of opportunities where we can create synergies, advantages for both parties. We are working together with maybe 100 corporations around the world. We are working, for example, on water with Suez, Lyonnaise des Eaux, and Vivendi, with a number of companies on the destruction of chemical weapons. New markets for business are opened up while making it possible for us to achieve the goals we have set ourselves.
     We believe that we could help to enshrine the principles of corporate social responsibility in their strategy, and thus many companies will be able to sharpen the competitive edge of their businesses.
Let me give you a concrete example: we are currently planning to expand Green Cross activities beyond the 31 countries where we already have branches. We are working on a preliminary basis with China and India. Our friends in Taiwan will help us to publish an internet version of our magazine, the Optimist. If we see that there is real interest in our journal, we will print it in Chinese. At present it is in English and Russian.
     China is changing, and in regard to environmental issues as well. They have to find a new role for the state in the economy. All of us have a stake in these two countries. This very much includes the question of environmental protection. In the Soviet Union when we announced glasnost, people rallied around the clock in almost 100 cities demanding improvements in their environment. Most were concerned about improvements in chemical production facilities. As a result, the Politburo decided to stop production at 1,300 factories.
     Time is a great force. With time people have to change. I believe our friends in China too will have to change. The water table is lowering in China – the UN has recorded a 1-metre drop in the level. So they will have to rethink their irrigation schemes. And energy is their number one problem. Also poverty.
FT: Is Green Cross already active in China?
MSG: Not yet. We have to see how we can get the Chinese to join our family. They would have to agree with our philosophy. It is contained in the Earth Charter. We believe that the adoption of the Earth Charter is a great achievement of Green Cross International. And in my book Manifesto for the Earth I tried to catch it in terms that everybody will understand. Sixty per cent of the eco-systems that actually support life on earth have degraded – not just human life, but animal life too.
FT: What is the message you are trying to get across in America?
MSG: We started our work on the issue of values. We need a value shift to get people to put an end to the superiority complex when man condescends to nature: the idea that man is king of nature. This is a delusion that has to be overcome. In implementing our prospectus, our first priority is to involve the public. We have annual award ceremonies particularly here in the US to honour people who have done a great deal for the environment. Hollywood is very active and effective. There are many actors and actresses who are passionate about the environment.
FT: Is Hollywood more active than Washington?
MSG: Yes, that’s true. I certainly disagree with the US (government) position on the Kyoto protocol. It is not asking for much. It would require cuts of only five per cent in greenhouse gases. Scientists say the actual cut should be more like 25 per cent. Yet there were so many efforts to undermine the conclusions of the Kyoto protocol. They set up one commission after another to undermine the conclusions. But each commission actually agreed that the conclusions were right. It is so easy in just a week or two to find billions of dollars to finance wars. It is far more difficult to raise money for the environment.
     On my visits to the US I speak about the environment. Young people, particularly American young people, are my most captive audiences on the environment. They show enormous interest. I have spoken to groups of 5,000 or even 15,000 people at American universities. It is a long, slow process, but like water, a drop can destroy a stone by regularly dripping on it.
FT: Tell me more about Green Cross International. Would you describe yourselves as an environmental pressure group?
MSG: Yes. We are a non-profit, non-governmental organisation whose main goal is to help in the development of a global environmental consciousness. We don’t want to supplement other environmental organisations, and we don’t want to assume governmental functions. We are a constructive pressure group, a constructive dialogue group. We hold conferences, we work with the media, we write letters, and this has produced some results. I also think that it is entirely possible, as I have always said, that there might be situations where we would call upon people to organise and to rally and to demonstrate for the environment, to support the environment, particularly in those countries where the governments do not respond to their pressure. We would organise people where, at national and regional level, not enough is being done, where business is not doing enough. We want to be constructive: our choice is constructive dialogue. But if we are ignored, then we could even organise demonstrations. We are not a political party. We are not an environmental political party. We are an environmental non-governmental organisation.
FT: If you lived in Germany, would you vote for the Green party?
MSG: Well, when I am asked this question in any country, I say that I don’t want to interfere. In terms of my own outlook and world view, my political position is that I am a social democrat and that refers to all areas. I cannot agree, for example, with some of the methods of the Greenpeace organisation, but Green Cross supports Greenpeace. We support them because we see that sometimes they take risks, even physical risks, in order to get the attention of people and the governments. We believe this is good. So in Germany, the Greens are my friends. The Germans I think are doing more for the environment than most other countries. The Earth Charter is going through its third 100,000-copy printing in Germany. Those are our environmental commandments.
FT: What about Russia? You had a passionate public debate during the years of glasnost, when so many environmental problems were exposed…
MSG: And you remember the turning of the northern rivers to the south – that project was stopped.
FT: But so many bad things needed to be cured…there were environmental disasters in every corner of the map. Have people stopped getting angry about these things in Russia today?
MSG: No, no. That is wrong. People are still angry. We can say today that in Russia this problem once again is a common problem. In the past there were just some environmental groups that took the initiative. Today the environment is a problem that is considered by parliament, the regional parliaments and the state Duma. Tatarstan considered the Earth Charter, and on the basis of that charter adopted its own environmental programme. At the present time I think new possibilities are emerging. There was a gap between glasnost and the current period. That gap was caused by the fact that the country was going through an extremely difficult situation. There were a lot of hardships. Now that Russia is beginning to rise, and new financial possibilities are emerging, I think that solutions to environmental problems are possible, at the federal level and at the regional level. Therefore Russia is coming to grips with the environment. A priority project is the Volga: creating a healthier environment in the Volga basin. We in Green Cross International co-operate with those who are implementing this general project to improve conditions in the river Volga.
FT: Who is involved in that project?
MSG: The Ministry of Natural Resources is the co-ordinating government ministry, but the main work is being done in the regions. We have an excellent relationship with the State Duma committee for the environment.
FT: But you are an NGO, and the Duma has passed very negative legislation about NGOs…Where is this going?
MSG: Well, there was a lot of confusion in that whole thing about the NGO law. The representatives of Russia went to the Council of Europe to show them that draft law, and the experts of the Council of Europe initially supported that draft law. But then the whole thing came to a boiling point. Because I am head of the Gorbachev Foundation, which is another NGO, people were asking me to speak out. I read the draft law and I agreed there were many things in that draft that should not be accepted. So the president refused to sign the law, and he asked the Duma to reconsider it. During the process of reconsideration I think they made it acceptable. The president believes the current version of the law is acceptable. You are surprised? You are sceptical.
FT: My experience is that many NGOs in Russia are finding it very difficult.
MSG: Well, I think that the issue of the freedom of the press, and of how we minimise authoritarian tendencies in the Russian government, is a serious issue and a real issue. We do see an assault on the media, particularly in the regions of Russia. At the same time I am sure that if you read the Russian press, you know that the Russian print media today is perhaps even sharper than the western media. It criticises government, and it criticises the president, very sharply. They publish my criticisms of the government very openly.
     I want our western friends to bear in mind that Russia is making a transition from a totalitarian society, and it is developing democratic institutions. It still has a long way to go for us to say this is an advanced democracy. There is no doubt about it. Speaking in America I say: “You Americans are criticising us. You want our democracy to be as good as yours.” I tell them: “You must think that we are very talented people. Yes indeed. We are even more talented than you Americans, but not as much as you think. It took you 200 years to create your democracy. You want us to create a similar democracy in 200 days.” It is a long way for a society to build democracy. If it doesn’t happen, then the whole thing goes haywire. If society itself does not develop democracy gradually, it goes haywire. So we have to move forward along that path.
     I said that perestroika would never happen without glasnost. Today too, I insist on a free media. Without freedom of the press, public opinion will not be able to realise its potential. So therefore, yes, we need to further develop a free and democratic press. But as they say, when people live in hardship, when many of them do not have enough to eat and clothe themselves, for such people democracy is not as important as it is for you or me. Many people believe that democracy has not delivered. Many people say that the democrats took power with Yeltsin, but they only ruined the country. They did not deliver. And paradoxically at that time when the country under Yeltsin was declining, what was the West doing – including the Financial Times – they were applauding Yeltsin. You were applauding the Washington consensus.
     Now that Putin is consolidating the country, now that there is some governance – and no Russia can succeed without governance – you are demonising Putin. And what happens as a result is that Putin’s (popularity) rating is very high, and getting higher and higher. People in Russia were wondering during the Yeltsin years. They said things were getting worse and worse in our country, and the West was praising Yeltsin’s reforms. So people were sceptical. They said the West does not care about us. Now some people are demonstrating, carrying Stalin’s portrait. You can imagine what that means to me. People are saying that with Stalin, this kind of disorder didn’t happen, this kind of bribery, this kind of thievery didn’t happen. This is what people think.
FT: And that is the fault of western criticism of Putin?
MSG: Not at all. I am saying that people who are poor might think this, and do this. Half the population of Russia, perhaps two-thirds of the population of Russia, is poor. This is happening in an educated country with tremendous scientific and natural resources. And this is why people sometimes don’t care about the press and don’t care about democracy: because their lives are so poor. When our authorities take certain authoritarian measures against those who were thinking only about getting rich, people accept that. They don’t question that kind of government action. You should be concerned with what concerns the Russian people. You shouldn’t impose your vision of what we should do in Russia. We are not stupid. We are not less intelligent than Americans or Englishmen.
FT: Let me put to you a Russian vision, which I remember quite vividly from the Congress of People’s Deputies. It was the speech made at the Congress of People’s Deputies by Yuri Vlasov, the weight lifter.
MSG: His was a voice crying in the wilderness. There are a lot of Vlasovs.
FT: You let a lot of people speak.
MSG: It doesn’t happen overnight that today we are Stalinists and overnight we are anti-Stalinists.
FT: But can I just remind you what Yuri Vlasov said? He started talking about the environment, just what we are talking about. He talked about all the disasters of the environment.
MSG: I don’t remember that speech. He spoke many times against Gorbachev.
FT: Not this time. He talked about values. He said, “Our attitude to the environment showed what was wrong about Soviet attitudes to the human being.” It showed that the human being was not valued enough in the Soviet system. And he went on to talk about the KGB. That organisation also did not respect individual human beings, either, he said.
MSG: Well, he was not alone. There were so many people who were saying the same thing…people were jailed for those opinions. Without such people who were ready to be jailed for their opinions, we would not need perestroika. Of course, I let everyone talk. If you put any subject up for discussion in Russia, there will be a big debate in the media. Russia is changing. This is what I want the West to know. This is the opinion I want to convey to the West. Our country needs time, and our country needs intelligent policies. So don’t rush us. We will go our own way to our own democracy. China will have its own democracy. It will not be American democracy. In Iraq they will never have American democracy. It will be a different democracy based on the mentality and history of the Arab countries, the Islamic mentality and values. Democracy cannot be programmed as a bed of Procrustes, and we should give time and a chance to everyone. So if we see this attitude on the part of the West, there will be a better attitude in Russia towards the West. You remember that there was euphoria towards co-operation with America in Russia. Now there is a lot of anti-Americanism, now there is wild anti-Americanism in Russia and we, those who defend the relationship with America, those who want to develop a partnership with America, find it very difficult today to defend our position.
FT: If Roman Abramovich were to give you a very big donation for your Green Cross fund, would you accept it?
MSG: We would have to discuss it. We cannot be indifferent to the source of sponsorship, to the source of donations. At the present time I understand that he is buying his third yacht, and a second soccer team, and then he will buy up all of London. Fifty per cent of the people of Russia live in poverty. At the same time the number of billionaires in Russia is second only to the United States. That is ridiculous.
FT: Finally, what about Russia and the European Union? Is that relationship as good as it should be?
MSG: I believe that today Russia and the European Union have not positioned themselves towards one another in a proper way. As a result we are not properly expanding our co-operation. I believe that today Russia is not ready to accept EU guidelines or principles, the entire book of rules. But the fact that we will be together with the EU in the World Trade Organisation will in itself be of great importance for bringing closer together our principles. Ultimately I think we should orient ourselves towards the European way, and to relations and connections with Europe, even though we border on all kinds of states. But Europe too is afraid of Russia becoming part of the EU. It’s afraid.
FT: Just like they are afraid of Turkey.
MSG: I think they are afraid of Turkey because of different values, a different orientation. But we are Europeans. Therefore I believe that we need what I call an advanced partnership, advanced co-operation – more than just partnership. It would be a strategic partnership of an associative kind. This is the way to go.
FT: That sounds like the British relationship with the EU!
MSG: I think the British are still not really part of the European Union. You still keep the pound, for example. A really strong united Europe is what Americans do not really want to see. They have not yet decided for themselves if this is what they want.

"The Financial Times", April 17, 2006