Highlights of Shevardnadze Statement

The following are excerpts from Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze’s resignation speech Thursday:

Yesterday there were speeches by certain comrades . . . who raised the issue of adopting a special declaration forbidding the country’s leadership and its president from sending troops to the Persian Gulf zone. . . . These . . . statements exhausted my patience. . . .

No fewer than 10 times I had to make statements, both inside and outside of the country, clarifying the Soviet attitudes and policies in this conflict. It is a serious, sensible, well-thought-out policy. . . . We have friendly relations with the Iraqi state. . . . These relations remain in force, but we have no moral right to put up with the aggression against and annexation of a small, defenseless country. (To do so) we would have to renege on all that has been done by all of us, by the entire country and people in establishing the principles of new political thinking. . . .

I (have) repeatedly clarified that the Soviet leadership has no plans (to send troops to the Persian Gulf). . . . But now they charge that the foreign minister has such a plan, the plan for disembarking troops in the gulf zone. I explained and stated there are no such plans; they are non-existent, quite simply. And no one is going to send there even a single serviceman, a uniformed representative of the U.S.S.R. armed forces. This was stated many times, but again some people find it necessary to raise the issue. . . .

I said it and I now publicly confirm the fact that should the interests of Soviet citizens suffer . . . no matter where it happens, be it Iraq or any other country, the Soviet government . . . will protect its citizens and their interests. . . .

I want to raise another issue. Is it accidental that two members of Parliament made a statement that the minister of interior has been removed and now the time has come to settle accounts with the foreign minister? . . . Are these boys in colonel’s epaulets really so brave that they feel they may make such statements addressed to . . . members of the government? . . .

Allow me to say a few words about personal dignity. . . . Many think that . . . members of the government, the president or anyone, have been hired, (that) they are serfs and can be treated in whatever way. I think this is impermissible. . . . Just read the press. . . . And what’s most surprising. . . , who stands behind these comrades, and what is all this? Why (is) no one rejecting the charge (and saying) there are no plans? Perhaps there are such plans, after all?

In this connection I recall the party congress. . . . During the congress we witnessed a . . . pitched battle between the reformers and reactionaries. I will not say now conservatives. I respect conservatives; they have their own views, acceptable for the society. Precisely, reactionaries. And this battle was won by the . . . progressive delegates of the congress, and they did so with dignity.

I recall now how my name was put on the voting list without my consent and without asking me. And in secret ballot I received 800 votes against me. . . . Was this an accident or a trend? Was it the unacceptable policy pursued by the foreign minister, or the personality of the minister, at issue? . . . I think all this is not accidental.

. . . I recall now the Supreme Soviet session. . . . The serious issue of the GDR (East German) treaties was put on the agenda. . . . By a coincidence, I was away at the time. My deputies were summoned, and they found themselves in (an) absolutely ridiculous situation. The whole thing just flopped.

And I had to take the floor during the next week. And what happened? The same people, who are the authors of today’s statements, made serious accusations against the foreign minister, of unilateral concessions, incompetence, illiteracy, etc. There was not a single speaker to object to the chairman of the session, to say this was dishonest, that this was not the correct way of doing it, that this was not how it is done in civilized states.

I feel very strongly about it. They sank to personal insults, but I absorbed even that. Comrades, this is hounding. . . . Take, for instance, the Pamyat publications. What expressions they use! Down with the Gorbachev clique! They throw in my name and some others. Who are they, the so-called “reformers”? I have been shaken, comrades, by the events of the first day of our Congress (the Congress of People’s Deputies, meeting this week). A mere push of the button decided the fate of not only the president, but the very policy of perestroika and democratization.

Is it normal? Let me say openly, comrade democrats--and I use this word in the broadest sense here--you have fled. All reformers have taken to the hills. A dictatorship is advancing. I am saying this with full responsibility. No one knows what kind of dictatorship it will be, who will personify it, what kind of dictator he will be and what kind of regime it will become.

. . . I am resigning.

. . . Let this be my contribution, my protest against the advance of dictatorship. I express my deep gratitude to Mikhail S. Gorbachev. I am his friend. I am his co-thinker. I have always supported him and will continue to support the ideas of restructuring, renovation, democracy, democratization until the end of my days.

We have done great things in the international arena, but I believe this is my duty as a man and a citizen, as a Communist. I cannot put up with the events which are happening in my country, and with the tribulations that lie in store for my people. I still believe, I believe that dictatorship will be repulsed, that the future belongs to democracy and freedom!