Struggling with Imperial Debris

Amid aftershocks still emanating from the collapse of the former Soviet Union, TIME editors recently toured the region, where they spoke with the leaders of two newly independent states.

EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, CHAIRMAN OF THE GEORGIAN SUPREME SOVIET

On the danger of Russian imperialism: It’s impossible to restore the empire. This isn’t the 19th century. All states of the world are now interdependent. In spite of very painful local processes, there is one big universal logic ((of independence)). The disintegration of the Soviet Union was a manifestation of this logic. It could have occurred in a different form or at a different pace, but it had to happen. This process is irreversible. Georgia may lose out on some things. There will be difficulties. But ultimately, a new relationship will be built among these countries, probably the kind of relationship that exists in Europe, where there is positive cooperation in economics, science and so on. Russia must understand that its empire will never be restored and must encourage and support the building of the new independent states. A belt of democratic states around Russia will help Russia build its own democracy. Russia has to build this kind of society. Then it could have a good relationship with Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and others. Russia is in the best position of all of these countries to do this. One thing must not happen, though. No new confrontation should emerge between Russia and the West.

On prospects for Russian democracy: I still believe it is going the way it should. Real democracy cannot be born without serious struggle. How can a viable democracy be created in a militarist country overnight? Yeltsin is trying to form democratic institutions by using a certain kind of authoritarianism. This is necessary in a transitional period.

On Zhirinovsky: If his name were not Zhirinovsky, it could be Ivanov, Petrov or Sokolov. For a huge country like Russia, it’s almost impossible not to have someone like Zhirinovsky emerge in a transitional period. I know Russia very well. Unless something totally unforeseen occurs, Zhirinovsky won’t be able to control Russian society completely. How can Zhirinovsky dominate the thinking of Russia’s intellectuals?

On Georgia’s predicament: Here, the people who came to power were democratically inclined, but they came off the street. They destroyed everything because it had been built by Communists — factories, railroads and hydroelectric plants. But the situation is better today than it was yesterday or a year or two ago. People are still hungry. The Abkhazian issue has not been resolved. But it’s much quieter now. There is a greater understanding that we have to build this country with our hands — certainly with the help of our friends, but mostly by ourselves. No miracles will occur. It’s only by work and struggle that we can build real democracy and real independence.

On his personal philosophy: What motivates me is the survival of my people. I believe in my people. Nobody will be surprised if I say I love them. They are a small but splendid nation and have a huge potential. One should not spare his own life to save his people. Now, we are standing at the threshold. We either survive or we perish. I want to be with my people at this most difficult time.

UZBEKISTAN’S PRESIDENT ISLAM KARIMOV

On the problems of independence: We have so many, you couldn’t list them all. The basic problem is how to change the mind-set of people. This is really the key to establishing a truly independent state. When the U.S.S.R. ceased to exist, all the newly emerged countries, including Russia, experienced a certain euphoria. But it soon became clear that political independence was not the most important goal for people. Economic independence has proved to be much more important.

On human rights: We favor an American presence in Uzbekistan and Central Asia as a guarantor of our democratic development, but you’ve got to help us, rather than assume moralistic poses. We will build democratic institutions — but keeping in mind our own special circumstances. Do you think it was possible to create other political parties in a state long-dominated by the Communist Party? We aligned ourselves by the stars atop the Kremlin, and you suddenly expect us to have a democratic state in only two years? Why should this issue become a stumbling block in relations with Uzbekistan?

On nostalgia for the old empire: Once the people in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus experienced crisis and hardships, they started to have doubts about whether they needed independence at all. The more hardships crop up on the way of reform, the more ground Bolshevik forces gain. A major danger for us in Uzbekistan is the possible re-emergence of the Communist Party. We are going through the same crisis that everybody else is, but our people have not attained the level of political sophistication of Europe or even of Russia. Should a Bolshevik show up at a street corner again and promise to give the $ people back everything they used to have, they might be tempted to follow him. But we will see that it never happens here. An important factor is that we have rejected shock therapy. We have protected the young, the old and the poor. Ask anyone in the streets. They will tell you that no one has been left out.

On Zhirinovsky: I’m less concerned about Zhirinovsky than I am about the kind of environment that produces him. Zhirinovsky only says in public what’s on the mind of many politicians and government officials in Russia. What really concerns me is that Zhirinovsky meets no ((official)) opposition, nobody opposes him in the legislative branch. I have asked Yeltsin to take a stand against these xenophobic and anti-Semitic statements. I must know where the state stands on this issue. Zhirinovsky’s maniacal concepts reflect, in fact, the traditional goal of Russian imperialists to reach the Indian Ocean. As far as they are concerned, we are just some gray mass that happens to be in their way and has no value of its own.

On the danger of Islamic fundamentalism: Aggressive developments in Algeria, Libya and Iran are all links of the same chain of extremism. The ideology of this extremism is expansionism. When ((fundamentalism)) is viewed geographically, it presents a very serious threat. Back in 1990-1991, the threat here was serious and too real to be ignored. Things went so far that we had to apply authoritarian measures. You may blame me for them, but no other options were available to me. The war in Tajikistan worked as a real eye- opener for many of our people. More than 50,000 people have died in the four years of strife in Tajikistan. Only then did people start to understand what kind of medieval horror was re-emerging on our borders. It had a sobering effect. Now the time has passed when this kind of mood could gain the upper hand here.