Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume VI, Soviet Union, October 1986–January 1989

174. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, September 22, 1988, 8–10 p.m.

SUBJECT

• The Secretary’s Dinner with Shevardnadze

PARTICIPANTS

• U.S.

  • Secretary and Mrs. Shultz
  • Lt. Gen. and Mrs. Powell
  • Amb. Kampelman
  • Amb. Nitze
  • Amb. Matlock
  • Assistant Secretary Ridgway
  • Dr. W. Hopkins (interpreter and note-taker)

• USSR

  • Foreign Minister and Mrs. Shevardnadze
  • Deputy Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh
  • Amb. and Mrs. Dubinin
  • Amb. Karpov
  • Mr. Stepanov Senior Assistant to the Foreign Minister
  • Mr. Tarasenko, Chief, General Secretariat of MFA
  • Mr. P. Palazhchenko (interpreter)

The substantive portion of the dinner conversation concerned the subject of ethnicity and growing religious fundamentalism, and the Soviet government’s attitude toward these phenomena and human rights.

Secretary Shultz observed that, since the roots of the people in the U.S. traced from all parts of the world, it was always very interesting for Americans to hear about different places as well as to visit them. He recalled a trip he had once taken to Turkey and Greece. In Greece he visited the Minister of Foreign Affairs who had a world map on his wall. In the place where most maps show Turkey, there was only the designation “Asia Minor.” He observed that around the world at present one could see powerful and conflicting forces which increase the sense of ethnic identity in many national groups. He referred to the current situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. He asked what the Soviet Government intended to do to handle the situation there.

Shevardnadze replied that indeed there were many problems in the region because of ancient ethnic and religious conflicts. He noted that, whereas the United States had a mixed population which had blended into one, in the Soviet Union an attempt had been made to preserve the ethnic character of the various national groups. Because of that fact, a number of problems came about and had existed for a very long time; however, those problems had either been ignored or handled by the government in ways which were no longer acceptable. The times were now such that different solutions must be sought to help resolve current problems. He observed that now it was necessary to value every single individual. The government could no longer act precipitately to solve such problems. People would no longer tolerate such government action. Therefore, it was necessary to seek new solutions.

Shevardnadze noted that in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh the current dilemma was complicated further by certain intricate constitutional prohibitions which disallow shifting lands from one political jurisdiction to another, or regions seceding from a republic, even when a majority of the population voted to do so. Despite all that, Shevardnadze’s remarks implied that, if there should be a constitutionally-permissible vote in a republic to secede from the Soviet Union, in view of new attitudes and approaches, even that would have to be accepted. However the point, he said, was to create conditions in the USSR such that there would not be any desire on the part of the populace to secede or to engage in ethnic, religious and territorial disputes. Conditions must be created so that each nationality would see that it was in its interest—culturally, economically, politically and socially—to remain a part of the Soviet Union. Partially, this could be accomplished by attempting to solve the fundamental long-standing conflicts of an ethnic, religious nature. He alluded to the ancient vendettas which existed, e.g., between the Armenians and the Turks, as well as to the fact that in his native Georgia there were many diverse ethnic groups represented, and education was offered in at least seven languages.

The Secretary said that in certain places in the world today a kind of religiosity had appeared that was “intolerant” in the old sense, i.e., “if you are not with us, you are against us.” He noted that few countries were composed of representatives of only one ethnic group. Most countries had a mixed population. The United States had the largest such mixture. The mix in the Soviet Union was of a very different nature and had come about for different historical reasons.

The Secretary continued that historically nation-states had asserted their sovereignty; the tendencies about which General Secretary Gorbachev and Shevardnadze had spoken about, he observed, testified to the fact that the world was now a more integrated entity. Consequently, sovereignty no longer carried the weight it once did. Furthermore there was a time when information coming into this or that country and which was available to people could be managed. Such was no longer the case. Peoples and groups of people were interacting more and more. So, in attempting to manage the foreign policy of a country, leaders were now contending with new phenomena. As he had noted in his luncheon remarks, the Secretary said, what Shevardnadze had identified in the speech he had quoted was true and responsive to these points.²

The Secretary said that Shevardnadze’s remarks suggested an awareness of the fact that “simple” formulas were often fraught with difficulties. For example, the notion of self-determination, as a general principle, was something that was recognized as good. One of the factors involved in the U.S. Civil War, for example, was the principle of self-determination. However, in that instance the North, attempting to preserve the Union, prevented the South from realizing for itself the principle of self-determination.

The Secretary observed that the notion of self-determination could be viewed in various settings; take, for example, Lebanon. If a president were not found for that country in the following day or so, there would be collapse of the government. Drawing on Shevardnadze’s remarks he noted that it was possible for certain enclaves to desire to be alone and independent. However, they would not be able to survive economically and politically by themselves. When such areas got lost in the notion of “self-determination,” it led to something that was not workable for them. In Lebanon a rather bizarre situation was at hand, namely the U.S. was working with Syria to find a president for the country. While conditions might stabilize, ethnic and religious assertiveness were threatening to break the country up. He noted the especially tragic nature of the situation, for it was a beautiful country, the flower of the Mideast. He said that Christian factions must recognize a broader confessional base for the government.

General Powell remarked that of six newly-appointed cabinet ministers, three Christian and three Moslem, the latter three had resigned. The possibility of allowing a vote near the Green Line was brought up. It was observed that Syria was against that. The situation in Lebanon was described as crucial; however, some potential for resolution existed, if necessary measures were taken in a timely fashion.

The Secretary continued that the case of Lebanon represented an illustration of an extreme situation which showed what happened when narrow interests take control. That led to a breakdown of order and a destruction of community. He tied this to the situation which came about when there was no toleration of others. To that extent, despite the sweep associated with Iran and its sense of invincibility, the fact that Iran had not gotten its way was perhaps a good thing.

The Secretary noted that it had been a long and interesting day. He said in some respects the present conversation had been as interesting as any that had yet taken place. He thought his and Shevardnadze’s dialogue more and more had the character of a true exchange: on the one hand views were shared concerning broad developments; on the other hand solutions were discussed to particular problems which the U.S. and the Soviet Union were attempting to solve. Such conversations increased his respect for Shevardnadze. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to explore with his counterpart those deep trends which affected the world now and that would continue to do so in the future.

Shevardnadze expressed similar sentiments. The evening concluded shortly after 10 p.m.

1. Source: Department of State, Executive Secretariat, S/S Records, Memoranda of Conversations Pertaining to United States and USSR Relations, 1981–1990, Lot 93D188, Ministerial Memcons. Secret; Sensitive. Drafted by Hopkins; cleared by Ridgway. The meeting took place at Blair House.
2. See Document 169.