Back to the Filthy Business of Diplomacy : Soviet Union: Shevardnadze was prescient to resign when he did, but his continued silence is staining his reputation.

It would be hard to imagine a more unpleasant debut as Soviet foreign minister than the one forced on Alexander Bessmertnykh: He had to announce the postponement of the U.S.-Soviet summit. I felt sincere sorrow as I looked at the face of my old friend Sasha, facing the TV cameras during his joint appearance with President Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III.

At the same time, I was happy for another old friend--Bessmertnykh’s predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze. His timely resignation allowed to him to escape the otherwise unavoidable humiliation of having to personally destroy all that he had created during the last five years--including, inevitably, his genuine personal relationship with Baker. It would have involved more than just politics--it would have destroyed his image, his very persona , by demonstrating to the world that he wasn’t a statesman--only a puppet.

The dramatic events of the past few weeks make it obvious that Shevardnadze’s resignation was not an impulsive manifestation of tempestuous Georgian temperament, but rather a deliberate decision by a politician able to predict the future, and whose vision showed a sharp turn toward dictatorship.

The bloody events in Lithuania and Latvia have painfully confirmed the validity of this prediction. If Shevardnadze were still in his old office on the 10th floor of the foreign ministry building in Smolensk Square, he would have been the one obliged to repeat the fake version of what happened in the Baltics. It would have been political suicide.

Furthermore, by spreading these lies he would have sanctioned additional bloodletting, including in his native republic of Georgia.

Diplomacy is a filthy business. Diplomats get paid--among other things--for lying in the “interests of the State.” It might be useful to recall that just before the Cuban crisis erupted into headlines, at a time when President John F. Kennedy had already seen the aerial photographs of Soviet rockets in Cuba, Andrei Gromyko, on a visit to the White House, tried to convince the President that no Soviet missiles had ever been placed there. Kennedy, after the visit, swore that “this liar” would never set foot in the White House again. But Kennedy rests in Arlington National Cemetery and Gromyko has since made several visits to the White House. Not long before his death, I asked Gromyko whether he had ever had a guilty conscience about that lie. “Never,” answered the veteran diplomat, “I am proud of what I did. These were sacred, patriotic lies.”

After Shevardnadze’s exit, Moscow’s spokesmen on every level--from the President down--kept insisting that it would have no effect on Soviet foreign policy, but this is already being shown as false. The personality of the former foreign minister is hardly the deciding factor in this. New directions in the internal policies of the Soviet Union can’t help but affect foreign policy. Postponement of the summit is the best proof of this. The rising influence of the Soviet military-industrial complex is responsible for more than just the bloody events in the Baltics. It is also making it difficult to conclude START-1 negotiations and hindering full compliance with the already-signed accords on the reduction of conventional forces. Now we are also seeing shifts of attitude and interpretation on the crisis in the Middle East.

On the eve of Bessmertnykh’s arrival in Washington, President Mikhail S. Gorbachev gave a press conference in Moscow during which he attempted, after considerable delay, to justify the events in the Baltics. The justification was far from persuasive and the “father of glasnost” refused to answer the media’s questions. Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh was among the silent audience listening to the president. I was embarrassed and pained on his behalf.

Shevardnadze has also been silent since his declaration of retirement. Psychologically this is not difficult to understand; he is involved in a major political drama as well as experiencing a deep personal trauma. He needs a little time to recuperate. Having said this, we must realize that silence, in this case and at this time, is not golden--it is an unaffordable luxury. It is already being interpreted in ways that are counter to Shevardnadze’s political direction. An old Russian proverb says that “Silence is a sign of consent.”

And so, I appeal to Shevardnadze to break his silence. He must do this to repudiate his old office, which declared that his silence was tantamount to support, and to help stop our country’s dangerous slide into dictatorship. Leo Tolstoy, opposing the Czarist regime, proclaimed, “I can’t be silent!” Shevardnadze’s choice now must also be based on morality, not diplomacy.