Gorbachev on Gorbachev 23. október 2006 00:01 Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik twenty years ago. Twenty years ago, the leaders of the USSR and USA met at the height of the Cold War to resolve the nuclear arms race that threatened the safety of the entire world. Twenty years later, Mikhail Gorbachev was in Reykjavik, at the site of that decisive meeting in 1986, to reflect on his country's transition to democracy, the end of the Cold War, and the current state of world affairs. Speaking through an interpreter, Gorbachev took the stage at Háskólabío in front of an audience of politicians, reporters, and those lucky private citizens who could afford the 22,000 ISK ticket price. The two-hour lecture, which included 45 minutes of questions-and-answers, showed that although much has changed in geopolitics in the last 20 years, the old man with the birthmark has little to say of any relevance. One might think that a leader responsible for leading his country - nay, his empire - on the most important transition to democracy in history and away from an escalating nuclear threat would have valuable insights about current efforts to establish democracy in the Middle East and to encourage nuclear disarmament in Iran and North Korea. What he did say reflected deep misunderstandings about the current players on the world stage. His assertion that, "we need to engage in preventive diplomacy rather than preventive wars" and his reflection that, "the lesson of Reykjavik is the importance of dialogue" describe Gorbachev's philosophy of New Thinking. His ideas, though, rest on the assumption that the leaders of both sides of a conflict can sit down and hash out their differences in a neutral conference room somewhere near the Arctic Circle. Unfortunately, Mr. Gorbachev seems blind to the fact that there are no longer two sides to any conflict, and that those responsible are sometimes individuals in hiding, not heads of state in presidential palaces. George Bush cannot sit down with Osama bin Laden to discuss the diverging worldviews of Muslims and Western Capitalists. Nor can the Lebanese president with Hizbullah guerillas. Among the best of the questions not asked during the Q&A (the mic never reached this reporter) is the one of how to deal with countries such as North Korea and Iran, whose leaders pay halfhearted lip service to diplomatic efforts as a smokescreen to escape the military action that might be needed to ensure that no more aggressive countries go nuclear. This scenario worked well for North Korea, who sat down at the 6-party talks for years while building the bomb that it tested just three days before Gorbachev's speech. What it learned through this process of "preventive diplomacy" was that its bargaining position would be a lot better if it had a nuclear bomb. So much for New Thinking. All misguided analysis of current politics aside, Gorbachev certainly made some friends in Iceland with his assessment of the role of small states in world politics. Concluding the first, lecture portion of the presentation, he insisted that, "the peace we seek should not be a pax Americana. It should be a peace for all, and we should listen to all countries - small, medium, and large - in the UN, who can contribute much to our understanding of the world." Iceland, as one of the smallest of "small states," has already played an important role in world politics, not least for hosting the 1986 meeting. The choice of Reykjavik, he said, was made for Iceland's neutrality, geographical at least, as it is positioned roughly halfway between the United States and Russia. Though absent from his musings, it would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on neutrality and Iceland's current security situation, which has adjusted to the Post-Cold War world with little more than an ad-hoc police force and a feeling of abandonment. In all, Mr. Gorbachev did well to provide an inside look at the discussions that shaped the end of the Cold War, and expressed his requisite "desire to thank the government and the people of Iceland for supporting and organizing such an important, unprecedented meeting." Many times, the former leader identified the Reykjavik summit as pivotal, saying that "Reykjavik was where the Cold War ended." Unfortunately, he left many in the audience still hoping for insights as to where the current Terror War will eventually end.By Greg Bocquet Feature Articles News News in English Mest lesið Albert mættur í dómsal Innlent Skilur ekkert í niðurstöðu Guðrúnar Innlent Svarar fyrir að hafa banað syni sínum í Kópavogi Innlent Talinn hafa svipt barn frelsi sem hann grunaði um að stela veipi Innlent Gerði sér mat úr kattaráti andlega veikrar konu Erlent „Lærisveinn“ Pélicot sagður hafa beitt sömu aðferðum á eigin konu Erlent „Fólk fer hreinlega grátandi frá mér“ Innlent Helgi í Góu og fyrrverandi borguðu brúsann Innlent Sigurður Helgi Guðjónsson látinn Innlent „Það var mikil geðshræring á heimilinu“ Innlent
Twenty years ago, the leaders of the USSR and USA met at the height of the Cold War to resolve the nuclear arms race that threatened the safety of the entire world. Twenty years later, Mikhail Gorbachev was in Reykjavik, at the site of that decisive meeting in 1986, to reflect on his country's transition to democracy, the end of the Cold War, and the current state of world affairs. Speaking through an interpreter, Gorbachev took the stage at Háskólabío in front of an audience of politicians, reporters, and those lucky private citizens who could afford the 22,000 ISK ticket price. The two-hour lecture, which included 45 minutes of questions-and-answers, showed that although much has changed in geopolitics in the last 20 years, the old man with the birthmark has little to say of any relevance. One might think that a leader responsible for leading his country - nay, his empire - on the most important transition to democracy in history and away from an escalating nuclear threat would have valuable insights about current efforts to establish democracy in the Middle East and to encourage nuclear disarmament in Iran and North Korea. What he did say reflected deep misunderstandings about the current players on the world stage. His assertion that, "we need to engage in preventive diplomacy rather than preventive wars" and his reflection that, "the lesson of Reykjavik is the importance of dialogue" describe Gorbachev's philosophy of New Thinking. His ideas, though, rest on the assumption that the leaders of both sides of a conflict can sit down and hash out their differences in a neutral conference room somewhere near the Arctic Circle. Unfortunately, Mr. Gorbachev seems blind to the fact that there are no longer two sides to any conflict, and that those responsible are sometimes individuals in hiding, not heads of state in presidential palaces. George Bush cannot sit down with Osama bin Laden to discuss the diverging worldviews of Muslims and Western Capitalists. Nor can the Lebanese president with Hizbullah guerillas. Among the best of the questions not asked during the Q&A (the mic never reached this reporter) is the one of how to deal with countries such as North Korea and Iran, whose leaders pay halfhearted lip service to diplomatic efforts as a smokescreen to escape the military action that might be needed to ensure that no more aggressive countries go nuclear. This scenario worked well for North Korea, who sat down at the 6-party talks for years while building the bomb that it tested just three days before Gorbachev's speech. What it learned through this process of "preventive diplomacy" was that its bargaining position would be a lot better if it had a nuclear bomb. So much for New Thinking. All misguided analysis of current politics aside, Gorbachev certainly made some friends in Iceland with his assessment of the role of small states in world politics. Concluding the first, lecture portion of the presentation, he insisted that, "the peace we seek should not be a pax Americana. It should be a peace for all, and we should listen to all countries - small, medium, and large - in the UN, who can contribute much to our understanding of the world." Iceland, as one of the smallest of "small states," has already played an important role in world politics, not least for hosting the 1986 meeting. The choice of Reykjavik, he said, was made for Iceland's neutrality, geographical at least, as it is positioned roughly halfway between the United States and Russia. Though absent from his musings, it would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on neutrality and Iceland's current security situation, which has adjusted to the Post-Cold War world with little more than an ad-hoc police force and a feeling of abandonment. In all, Mr. Gorbachev did well to provide an inside look at the discussions that shaped the end of the Cold War, and expressed his requisite "desire to thank the government and the people of Iceland for supporting and organizing such an important, unprecedented meeting." Many times, the former leader identified the Reykjavik summit as pivotal, saying that "Reykjavik was where the Cold War ended." Unfortunately, he left many in the audience still hoping for insights as to where the current Terror War will eventually end.By Greg Bocquet
Feature Articles News News in English Mest lesið Albert mættur í dómsal Innlent Skilur ekkert í niðurstöðu Guðrúnar Innlent Svarar fyrir að hafa banað syni sínum í Kópavogi Innlent Talinn hafa svipt barn frelsi sem hann grunaði um að stela veipi Innlent Gerði sér mat úr kattaráti andlega veikrar konu Erlent „Lærisveinn“ Pélicot sagður hafa beitt sömu aðferðum á eigin konu Erlent „Fólk fer hreinlega grátandi frá mér“ Innlent Helgi í Góu og fyrrverandi borguðu brúsann Innlent Sigurður Helgi Guðjónsson látinn Innlent „Það var mikil geðshræring á heimilinu“ Innlent