Excerpts Of “Checkmating Moscow Center: The West’s Role In Securing Soviet Democracy”

Remarks by

GARRY KASPAROV

On the Occasion of His Acceptance of

The Center for Security Policy’s

‘Keeper of the Flame’ Award

The ANA Westin Hotel

Washington, D.C.

November 20, 1991

I should like to regard the award made to me tonight as far more than a recognition of my own personal contribution to the overthrowing of communism and the strengthening of democracy. That contribution can in no way be compared with those gigantic changes that have occurred thanks to the selfless sacrifices of a great number of people.

I am not even talking about the leaders of the democratic movement — who occasionally receive the minimum of publicity due them in the Western media — but about those millions of my compatriots who remained silent during the years of communist dictatorship. Rarely have the so-called "serious" politicians in the West given due weight to the power of popular sentiment in my country. While the leaders of the reform movement have been credited with marshalling and directing this sentiment, it has become evident in recent months that the decisive factor was the unwillingness of the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens of the former USSR that actually signed the death sentence on the criminal communist regime.

* * *

In turn, in the name of many Russian democrats, I would like to take this opportunity to express our great thanks to those in the West — many of whom are here tonight — who have consistently opposed world communism, who have not been carried away be the wave of mass Gorbymania that has swept the West but who have given invaluable moral and political support to the young democratic movement in Russia and the other former Soviet republics.

In particular, I would like to pay special homage to the actions of a few key men in the West. Many democrats in Russia are convinced that it was Harry Truman’s policy of "containment" that halted communism, while Ronald Reagan’s SDI fatally wounded it. We are immensely grateful to them for this and it gives me special pleasure to thank personally two individuals in this room who I understand were instrumental in initiating the Strategic Defense Initiative — Bill Clark and John Poindexter!

* * *

It has somehow become unfashionable to mention that the terrible practice of the communist East was based on utopian socialist theories conceived in the West. Moreover, the Marxist infection — which caused a worldwide epidemic of the communist plague — is staunchly defended even to this day by the authority of "free-thinking" universities and by those in the left-wing press who mercilessly punish heretics. My Russian colleagues simply cannot believe that the word "anti-communist" is often used in Western Europe and America as an abusive moniker.

I do not know how it is in your country, but in Russia it is usual to be proud of one’s anti-communist views — irrespective of what they think about this at Harvard, or what will be written regarding this by the New York Times.

* * *

I am confident that the so-called "social justice" system in my country will be utterly destroyed by exposure to economic liberalism which is inherently predicated on non-interference by the state in economics and the establishing of the priority of individual rights. For one thing, in Russia there is nothing to redistribute and, secondly, our citizens will always be suspicious of any strengthening of the state apparatus.

At the risk of appearing too harsh, I would suggest that the history of how the General Secretary of the USSR Communist Party Central Committee was transformed into the object of a Gorby-culture and a favorite of the Western public has been one of the most shameful pages in the inter-relations of democracy and communism. The West handed over large-scale credits and incalculable assistance of a political and moral as well as financial nature — remember, "The Man of the Decade" and the Nobel Peace Prize? — at a time when the peoples of the then-USSR were preparing for the overthrow of a regime which Gorbachev was desperately trying to save.

* * *

There is no need this evening to dwell further on the historical arguments about the minimal role played by Gorbachev in the dismantling of communism; after all, those present fully understand this reality. Besides, the issue is really moot. Gorbachev simply no longer represents the political danger that he did until quite recently.

In fact, I might offer some advice to President Gorbachev, as he spends what I expect will be the last few weeks in his post: He might consider defecting to the United States. After all, here in America he would find many more — and far more enthusiastic — supporters of his concept of "Socialism with a human face," than he does at home. It would, of course, be just a matter of time before even this ecstatic Western public would realize that Frankenstein, too, had a human face!

But alas, how often there appear specters of the past — raised by darkness, threatening to take us back to our hideous past and denying us the chance to build a normal life in the light of day. Soviet communism is dead, but its advocates are still very powerful in the West. Indeed, it is their categorical refusal to recognize the mistakes made carlier that is preventing the final normalization of the international situation.

Attempts are being made to construct a New World Order on the old foundation of Real Politick, where a momentary tactical gain outweighs long-term strategic interests. It is hard to find a more authoritative evidence of the failure of Western policies with regard to Gorbachev than the following words recently written by the former U.S. ambassador in Moscow, Jack Matlock: "[The West] should stand for principles, not institutions, or — even worse — individuals."

But the insight lately shown by the former diplomat has apparently escaped those who still determine American foreign policy. With a stubbornness worthy of a better application, the latter try to defend that which exists only in their imagination — the Soviet central authorities.

It is particularly striking that the USSR today does not satisfy the criteria enunciated by Secretary Baker for recognition by the United States. You will recall that these criteria — for example, control of national borders — caused America to be among the last states to recognize the independence of the Baltics and are used to justify Washington’s continued hostility towards those former Soviet republics that do not wish to remain under the Kremlin’s control. This view was most baldly articulated by President Bush on August 1st, 1991 during his infamous speech in Kiev in which he dismissed the struggle of the peoples of the Soviet empire for self-determination as motivated by "a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."

The new American ambassador in Moscow, Robert Strauss, just this week took President Bush’s logic one demeaning step further. He derided the democratic forces at the republic level by saying "At times, the republics remind me of our children when they were … teenagers. They thoroughly enjoyed their independence until their laundry got dirty and they need[ed] a good meal."

I think that such a comment might well have been heard in the English royal court 215 years ago. But at the end of the 20th century — let alone from a senior American official — such contemptuous indifference to the 200-year old struggle for freedom and democracy is utterly inappropriate.

* * *

To accomplish a New World Order worth having, the West should stand for principles which alone enabled an unconditional victory to be gained in the Cold War. Otherwise, we will end up in an unresolvable impasse of moral contradictions — where the likes of Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, Hafez Assad and other dictators and terrorists responsible for heinous crimes will be regarded as deserving of respect, international stature and negotiating rights.

* * *

The main thing now, in my opinion, is the immediate recognition of existing realities and the prevention of new mistakes — the inevitable consequence of attempts to justify past errors. Those who today are again urging that additional Western credits be granted to the USSR as represented by Gorbachev would do well to remember the situation that applied before the G-7 summit meeting in London in July of this year. Had those who advocated the immediate implementation of the so-called "Grand Bargain" prevailed, effectively open-ended credit lines would have been granted to a Gorbachev government consisting — yes, quite correct — of Kryuchkov, Pavlov, Pugo, Yazov and Yanaev and company.

In such a circumstance, my people would have had to pay with enormous bloodshed and still further, terrible suffering for the foolhardiness of Western politicians determined to squander their taxpayers’ money while prolonging the agony of decaying dictatorships. Fortunately, the Grand Bargain did not take place and, on the 19th of August, the State organs — like society as a whole — chose not to support the bankrupt regime any further.

It cannot be denied that Russia and other states of the former USSR are in a very difficult position, Nevertheless, for our own good, the West should adopt the following formula: Humanitarian aid — certainly; technical advice — yes; undisciplined financial assistance — no, repeat, NO! Let us be frank: The West does not have the amount of money that it would take to make a significant impact on the economies of Russia or even the Ukraine. And a small and misdirected infusion of new funds would only aggravate the situation by continuing to feed the already corrupt state apparatus.

* * *

Against this backdrop, it is understandable that the democratic forces in the former USSR feel considerable anxiety about the current polices of certain Western governments and international organizations that seem disposed to use Soviet foreign debt to perpetuate their political games. Disagreements about the size of this debt and also about the state of the Soviet gold reserves give rise to fears that the G-7 meeting in Bangkok has prepared the ground for yet another deal with Soviet officialdom.

Democrats who have come to power in a number of republics have the right to expect just treatment from the West in the settlement of this problem. I would hope that Western leaders would agree — as they have elsewhere — to write off a certain percentage of the debt ultimately assumed by "qualifying" republics, namely those who have genuinely committed themselves to democracy and a market economy.

The people of Russia are tired of behind-the-scenes deals at their expense. We want justice and a fair shake. Facing a dangerous challenge this winter, we can clearly see our assets and liabilities. We have, in Boris Yeltsin, a constitutionally elected President who respects the law and who has linked his political destiny with the success of radical, structural reforms. And we have a people who in no way wish to reconcile themselves to a new dictatorship and who are ready to work for the construction of a civilized democratic society.

We have enormous natural resources, which should help us to overcome the most severe ordeals. But our country still retains its ominous communist legacy: a ruined economy, nationalistic enmity and a corrupt consciousness from which it will be terribly difficult to escape. The main thing that we need today from the West is hope, hope for a better future. You can give it to our people, you can strengthen it — or you can destroy it. In any case, we will pay the consequences together.