Mikhail Gorbachev’s interview to the Editor-in-Chief of Aachener Zeitung Bernd Mathieu on the date he was awarded Martin Buber Medal, November 22, 2008

Q: Let us start our conversation with a concept that is key to the works of Martin Buber, dialogue. How do you assess today the quality of the dialogue between Russia and the European Union?

A: The life story of this man greatly impressed me. In any situation he never swerved from his path – the path of dialogue and cooperation. There are not many people who can stay true to their inner principles. His ideas, his experience are now more relevant than ever.

Q: Do you mean the relations between the West and Russia? What is your criticism?

A: The Cold War ended. It was a truly momentous event! The walls were torn down, frontiers were gone, many conflicts were resolved and we got a feeling then that we could achieve a lot to live in peace with each other, cooperate, help the poor, and start implementing some important projects. We had ambitious plans, but we did not succeed in building our new life by these new rules then. In fact, it was absolutely necessary in the globalizing world! If we do not work towards that – doing that in earnest and together – problems will persist, they will not disappear by themselves. However, every time a problem arose, they tried to address it the same old way.
The only remaining superpower was, regrettably, too busy building a new empire, dismissing the quality of relationships already achieved.

Q: Does it mean that you are blaming – both historically and in the current context – the United States?

A: The United States got used to all others trailing automatically in its wake. Today the United States has to get rid of its role as the world’s cop. We should talk on equal terms with each other and start to finally seek ways to cooperate. Americans are not much of a partner in their dealings with allies in Western Europe; they don’t tolerate any criticism, any debate. Europeans are subordinate to the United States. And the fact is that one can move forward only on the basis of true partnership. Today cooperation is badly needed. Russia is ready for quite broad and deep cooperation with the European Union.

Q: Do you personally feel that the West has failed you, particularly the United States? For instance, when we talk about certain promises – say in the area of disarmament or concerning NATO’s expansion eastwards? Can it be said that we have wasted time?

A: You must know that constant dropping will wear away a stone. And grass grows through the asphalt. In one way or another we will inevitably come to a conclusion that we will not succeed in anything without cooperation, without engagement. You are right: we have lost 15 years. We all should have used these 15 years for much better purposes. Today we have to acknowledge: we failed to do so. What’s worse, we have “achieved” the erosion of trust. That very trust that helped us end the Cold War then. I will be frank: certain public statements and public promises were made during the process of German reunification – this is an indisputable fact.

Q: Promises that were not kept?

A: Those who were giving pledges and making certain promises at the time did not keep them, that’s right. For instance, it was announced unequivocally that NATO would not move an inch eastwards. In fact, the opposite thing happened, as we know. It means that we deal with people devoid of morality. Such is the scourge of this politics, which lacks clear ethical foundations. If you lied once, you will need to work hard to regain trust. So, it’s easy to see why Russia speaks bluntly on certain issues, even if the West is unhappy with it and criticizes this manner of hers.

Q: You were saying about a negative experience and frustrations. What do you think the near future holds for us?

A: We should be able to learn lessons from a negative experience. Today I see a glimmer of hope, a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel which proved to be devilishly long. I think we see now on both sides efforts to shift towards cooperation on a new basis to provide security in Europe and worldwide, address the environmental issues and the financial crisis, overcome poverty, etc.

Q: Will the election of the new U.S. president promote these efforts?

A: Several years ago I was already saying that America also needed its own perestroika. And today Obama says the word “change” – in the Russian language change means exactly that – perestroika! The recent election in the United States became an example of democracy, showed a really high level of political culture.

Q: So, you believe the needed changes will happen now?

A: Yes, we are on the threshold of these changes. As I’ve said, America also needs its own transformation, since it suffers from a kind of winner syndrome. Besides, the United States has also infected our friends in Europe with this disease. It is this disease that prevented us from properly using the chance offered after the end of the Cold War. A trend has emerged of Brussels granting EU membership to as many states as possible, in the shortest possible time – and this led to problems. The process of European integration should be pursued in a thoughtful manner, without unnecessary haste – only then will it benefit every member of the union.

Q: Do you see U.S. domination as a hindrance to cooperation?

A: I will be absolutely frank in answering this question, because few people dare touch this subject. The biggest problem is the role of the United States in Europe and NATO. In the wake of the Cold War a pan-European security architecture should have been created – as a positive example for the rest of the world. However, it never happened. Europeans, including among others my friend, Helmut Kohl, were saying then that NATO would not move eastwards. Germans have really delivered everything they promised concerning Germany and its reunification. However, when the issue of NATO expansion was raised, Germany voted for it, forgetting their promise. We should learn a lesson from this and rebuild the atmosphere of trust.

Q: There is a historical phrase “He who comes too late is punished by life.” People still argue whether you really said this or these words were later allegedly attributed to you by your advisor at the time Gerasimov. What was the real story?

A: (Gorbachev laughs). I really said this! I did not want then to make any direct demands to our friends from East Germany’s leadership. I was just talking to them about our perestroika and saying that situations emerged when we were late and life punished us for that. I said all this at a meeting with the Politburo of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. However, it is not impossible that Gerasimov, too, used these words.

Q: What are your memories of those two days, the 6^th and 7^th of October 1989, in East Berlin?

A: One of my most vivid memories is, of course, that of seeing those demonstrations. There were lots of young people there, people who came from 28 districts across the then East Germany, young people, who were very vocal! And Honecker stood near and was taking it all for a showing of support for him. But they were carrying banners that read different things, they were voicing different ideas. Some directly addressed me: “Gorby, stay with us!” The then Polish prime minister, who stood there with me, asked if I understood German. I said I understood perfectly well what they were chanting and what the banners read! “But this means the end,” he said. And Honecker was standing near us, swaying on his feet, as if he was dancing. I had a feeling he was in a kind of trance, his mind was elsewhere.

In the last period of East Germany’s existence, Honecker made some very serious mistakes. East Germany was the most developed country from among the Warsaw Pact countries, it could have had many opportunities had its leadership been competent. Had it been the case, German reunification, perhaps, could have gone differently. However, East Germany missed that opportunity at the time when revolution and changes had already taken place in Eastern Europe and, first of all, in the Soviet Union. We did not interfere in anything – this was our principle. And everybody knew already then that we would not interfere. At our meetings I was saying: you are the leaders, it is your area of expertise and your responsibility; we are no longer involved. Besides, it was clear that not only Germans in the West wanted reunification - Germans in the East also wanted the same.

Q:  This is not the first time you are in this region, Euregio Charlemagne.

A: I first visited this area in 1972, during a trip to Belgium. I was impressed by many things back then and some things really amazed me. It was suggested that we make a visit to Amsterdam. You can imagine what I felt when we crossed from one country into another, from Belgium to Holland, without anyone bothering to check our documents! I asked those who accompanied me: When will we cross the border? And the driver said that we crossed it long time ago. I blurted out, “Looks like capitalism has really become rotten to the core: they can’t even build a proper border here!”