by CKR
I’ve been wondering about Natan Sharansky and his book’s reported influence on George Bush’s inauguration speech and foreign policy. So I did some googling and found several interviews, portions of which I share with you here in chronological order. I include questions (italicized) to provide context where that seemed necessary. I focus on comments relating to the idea that nations must become democratic for peace to prevail.
Conversation with Natan Sharansky (News Hour, 22 July 1997)
And that’s why, for me, the symbol of the defeat of the Soviet system is not Berlin Wall. It’s not the battlefields between East and West, and it’s not international congresses and even not demonstrations of our supporters. That is a punishing cell, or the KGB’s prison, where they tried to conquer the brains of the people, and where they failed.
***
The most interesting journey is what’s happening with yourself. I was a loyal Soviet citizen and tried to be a successful scientist, but as a loyal Soviet citizen, I was a slave and never thought myself free. And then I went back to my Jewish roots, and as a Jew, felt myself a free person, free to speak for the rights of you, the other Jews, and then the rights of non-Jews--and then to be free Jew, even in prison, you continue being a free person with a lot of power, a lot of strength, and with the feeling of belonging to the history.
***
And then you move to Israel and then the challenge is how to continue being free person in the free country when you are involved in thousands of different choices and different compromises and debates, and to be yourself--and to protect your freedom, and at the same time to continue influencing this process.
Conversations with History (Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, 16 April 2004)
A theme that emerges again and again in your book is that in becoming Jewish, you became free, even though you were trying to practice Judaism in a state that didn't want you to do that.
Yes. I believe that in order to be free, you must have the base, the source of strength to be free. The Soviet regime understood it very well, and it was cutting the roots, it was depriving people of their national identity, or their religious identity, or their property, pretending that everybody should be equal. In fact, they tried [to make] everybody dependent on them. They tried to destroy all the sources of support and solidarity. The family was very important social strength for people; they tried to destroy the family.
The moment I felt strong enough because of my Jewish identity to speak my mind and to speak on behalf of my rights and the rights of the other Jews, I felt already strong enough, also, to speak about the rights of other people whose rights are undermined.
***
Now, this intuitive, automatic feeling that you want to continue being free and to enjoy your inner freedom, in prison that was the basis of your resistance. But it is very dangerous to rely only on intuition, on non-rational things. As a religious, national person, I was relying on my instincts, but as a scientist, I had to rationalize these instincts. I had to explain to myself, rationally, why I should not cooperate with them. I had to make sure that I was controlling my behavior during interrogations, in spite of the fear, which they could insert in me, threatening to sentence me to death. That's why I developed the whole system of rationalization, of what are my aims and means. I was writing in my mind the whole tree of my behavior, and the reasons why I should say no to KGB. It was very important rational support; but in fact, the basis of it was irrational, the basis of it was this feeling of inner freedom which I wanted to keep in myself.
***
Now, you emigrated to Israel. In a few years, whether you wanted to or not, you became a political leader of Russians in Israel. There are now a million people from Russia who are there. So I'm curious: how did this experience make you a better politician, a political leader? In what ways was this an education for this later career?I think it helped me to be a worse politician. I don't think I'm a good politician. I don't feel myself comfortable in the political world.
But it made you -- what? What did it make you?
You said it makes you a better politician. I think it makes me a worse politician. I'll explain why. Because, in fact, what was so good and so important in that struggle, and was critical in that struggle, was to make no compromise between yourself and your opponent, to say no to KGB. It was the clear world of good and evil, of light and darkness, of enemies and friends. We don't have this luxury in normal life. In fact, from this point, morally, in prison, life is the most comfortable, the most simple. You say no to KGB, and by this you fulfill all your moral commitments in the world.
Normal life is different. You have to make choices all the time, especially in politics. Politics in every country is built on compromise, or on negotiations, on not making any clear division between friends and enemies, because they can be half-friends today, half-enemies tomorrow, it's politics. So I don't think that dissident activity, confrontation with a totalitarian regime, is a good school for politicians in a free country.
The View from the Gulag (Weekly Standard, 21 June 2004)
Can it really be said that Ronald Reagan was actually responsible for an event as great as the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Yes.
One man in one office?
Yes. Absolutely. But not one man alone. If I would be permitted to widen the credit a little more, I would say the collapse of the Soviet Union is attributable to three men. Andrei Sakharov, Scoop Jackson, and Ronald Reagan. These were the people who brought moral clarity to the conflict and started the chain of events which led to the end of Soviet communism. Sakharov to the Russian people, Senator Jackson to the American government, and Ronald Reagan on behalf of the American people to the world and thus back to the Soviet Union. They created the policy of linkage: That international relations and human rights must be linked. That how a government treats its own people cannot be separated from how that government could be expected to treat other countries. That how governments honor commitments they make at home will show the world how they will honor their commitments abroad.
***
His [Reagan’s] biggest single contribution was that he stopped allowing the Soviet Union to use the United States to strengthen itself at America's expense. The Soviet Union had learned--been taught, actually--that the United States and Europe were there to provide the very source of energy and support the Soviet system needed to survive. Ronald Reagan instinctively understood this when no one else did. This is the most important paradox of all. Freedom's greatest threat was in many ways the product of this freedom. Soviet tyranny was completely dependent upon the West for its very survival. Reagan knew this. The Soviet Union, a nation of 200 million slaves, could not possibly keep pace with the technological, economic, or scientific developments taking place in the West. The moment Reagan took that support away from the Soviet Union, it started to fall apart.
How is it that truths about freedom and totalitarianism which appear today so evident and obvious can be completely missed for so long and by so many people?
Appeasement is not the exception for democracies. It is the rule for democracies. Appeasement is a powerful side effect of democracy. The West's appeasement policy toward the Soviet Union began almost the moment its appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany ended. It didn't end until Ronald Reagan. Democratic leaders need peace to survive. Because democracies have to reflect the will of their people, democratic leaders choose appeasement because anything is preferable to war. Free peoples go to war only when they have no other choice. By the way, this is democracy's great strength as well as its great weakness. Democracies are both so free, so stable, and so prosperous because their people don't want war. Therefore, Western leaders were only continuing in this tradition by believing that the Soviet Union needed to be transformed from a deadly rival into a partner for cooperation. Even President Carter, who understood human rights better than any president before him, always chose to appease the Soviet Union rather than to force it to compete with the West.
The Case for Democracy (FrontPageMag.com, 17 December 2004)
What inspired you to write The Case for Democracy?
I was inspired to write this book by those who are sceptical of the power of freedom to change the world. I felt that the arguments of these sceptics had to be answered. The three main sources of scepticism are first, that not every people desires freedom; second, that democracy in certain parts of the world would be dangerous; and third, that there is little the world’s democracies can do to advance freedom outside their countries.
***
The two most important things that can be done to promote democracy in the world is first, to bring moral clarity back to world affairs and second, to link international policies to the advance of democracy around the globe.
When we are unwilling to draw clear moral lines between free societies and fear societies, when we are unwilling to call the former good and the latter evil, we will not be able to advance the cause of peace because peace cannot be disconnected from freedom.
***
When Ronald Reagan called the USSR an evil empire he was fiercely criticized by many in the West who saw him as a dangerous warmonger. But when we in the Gulag heard of Reagan’s statement, we were ecstatic. We knew that once there was no moral confusion between the two types of societies, once good and evil were kept separate, the Soviet Union’s days were numbered. Soon, the most fearsome totalitarian empire in human history collapsed without a shot being fired and the cause of peace and security was advanced. I have no doubt that moral clarity will have the same effect today and equally serve the cause of peace, stability and security around the world.
The Middle East Quarterly Winter 2005
Pundits and European governments criticized President Bush for the crudeness of his "Axis of Evil" reference. How important is rhetoric?
The world is full of doublethink. What it most lacks is moral clarity. It is extremely important to call a spade a spade. It is necessary to understand the nature of the war that we are in the midst of. The battle is not between Israel and the Palestinians or between the United States and Iraq. Rather, the current fight pits the world of freedom against the world of terror. I have told President Bush that the two greatest speeches of my lifetime were Ronald Reagan's speech casting the Soviet Union as an evil empire and the president's own speech on June 24, 2002, when he said that Palestinians deserve to live in freedom and that only with freedom would the Middle East enjoy security.
***
I was very happy to hear the president say that freedom is not something that was given to America but rather it is a gift from God to all mankind. I feel very strongly that peace will only come after freedom and democracy. These are the ideas for which I have been fighting all my life, and these are the ideas to which I believe the president is going to devote the next four years.
***
I told the President, "You don't look like a politician. You look like a real dissident, because politicians always look at what polls say, but you believe in democracy and freedom … Even when your colleagues in Europe tell you that democracy is impossible, you go ahead with it. You are a real dissident."
***
The more resolute the free world is in not appeasing dictators, the less often it will have to use military power. If you look at the history of struggle between democracies and dictatorships, you will see that outright war is almost always preceded by a period of appeasement. This was the case with both Hitler and Stalin. In the Middle East, Palestinian violence and terror followed a period of appeasement. In Iraq, too, a decade of appeasement emboldened Saddam Hussein and contributed to war. We would not have had this problem in Iraq if the free world had not once thought that Saddam Hussein was good for stability. Had the United States and the West linked their foreign policies to basic human rights, not one shot would need to have been fired in Iraq.
***
Are Palestinian elections at all worthwhile?
Elections are worthwhile, but casting votes in and of itself is not enough. Democracy can only start when the new leadership selected in these elections embraces reform. A lot depends on our policy. If we embrace a leadership that embraces reform, or if we refuse to give any legitimacy or support to a leadership that refuses to bring democracy and reform, then there is a serious chance for success. In the upcoming Palestinian election, different faction heads will decide the candidates in advance. Voters will not really have the freedom to express their opinions. The leadership selection has nothing to do with democracy, but it is important that this selection take place as soon as possible.