PBS: Think Tank: Transcript for "Democracy Unleashed, Part One"

« Back to Democracy Unleashed, Part One main page

Transcript for:

Democracy Unleashed, Part One

THINK TANK WITH BEN WATTENBERG
#1315 SHARANSKY, Pt. 1
FEED DATE: June 9, 2005
Natan Sharansky

Opening Billboard: Funding for Think Tank is provided by...
(Pfizer) At Pfizer, we’re spending over five billion dollars looking
for the cures of the future. We have 12,000 scientists and health
experts who firmly believe the only thing incurable is our passion.
Pfizer, life is our life’s work.

Additional funding is provided by the Bernard and Irene Schwartz
Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry
Bradley Foundation.

MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. President George W Bush
says that promoting freedom and democracy is the focus of his
presidency. He believes it is not only right, but it will also help
reduce terrorism. Today’s guest, a former Soviet political prisoner,
agrees, particularly so in the Middle East – but has some problems with
what America is doing. While democracy has revolutionized many nations,
is it the universal medicine for everyone? And are we doing it right
in the Middle East?

To Find Out, Think Tank is joined by Natan Sharansky, a former Minister
in the Israeli government and co-author of The Case for Democracy: The
Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.
The Topic Before the House: Democracy Unleashed, part one, this week on
Think Tank.

MR. WATTENBERG: Natan Sharansky, welcome from Israel and welcome to
America and to Think Tank. I thought we would talk about your book in
two ways because it really is split in two ways. First, about your
remarkable life and lessons learned in the old Soviet Union and then
about the current situation in the Middle East, particularly in Israel
and Palestine. What is your basic theme?

MR. SHARANSKY: My basic theme in this book, which I wrote with my
coauthor and friend Ron Dermer, is that we are responding to three
types of skeptics.

MR. WATTENBERG: Skeptics?

MR. SHARANSKY: Skeptics. Those who don’t believe in this power of
democracy to change the world. So three types of equations which they
usually are raising are: but who said that democracy’s for everybody?
Maybe it’s simply western invention, which is good only for western
civilization. The second type of equation is: even if it is good for
everybody, who said that their democracy is good for our stability?
Maybe it’s much better to deal with the dictator who can guarantee you
stability?

MR. WATTENBERG: That they would rather have stability than democracy?

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes, exactly. That maybe democracy there means
destabilization, means dangers for us. So let’s – better have a
dictator that will guarantee our stability.
And the third type of doubts is, even if they agree that
it’s good for everybody and that it’s also good for our stability, but
who said that we, free world, has any role to play?

MR. WATTENBERG: That we who?

MR. SHARANSKY: That we, the free world have any role to play. We
cannot send armies all over the world to establish democracies.

MR. WATTENBERG: Where are you from originally?

MR. SHARANSKY: I’m originally from the Soviet Union.

MR. WATTENBERG: No, but where in the Soviet Union?

MR. SHARANSKY: From Ukraine, from...

MR. WATTENBERG: From Ukraine.

MR. SHARANSKY: From a town called Donetsk...

MR. WATTENBERG: And then you went to Moscow.

MR. SHARANSKY: Then I went to study to the University of Moscow. I
graduated from there. I became a dissident...

MR. WATTENBERG: As a scientist.

MR. SHARANSKY: As a applied mathematician. Yes. And became a
dissident and then my real alma mater became Soviet prison.

MR. WATTENBERG: Before you got to prison, your cause was the right of
emigration for Soviet Jews and for Evangelicals to leave Russia – leave
the Soviet Union. Is that correct?

MR. SHARANSKY: In fact I was – I applied for visa and they wanted to
go for Israel - and I was denied visa as many other Jews.

MR. WATTENBERG: That’s what they called it – they refused it?

MR. SHARANSKY: They refused it.

MR. WATTENBERG: You were refused.

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. But very quickly I became a spokesman of two
movements. One is Jewish Emigrational Movement and the other is
dissident movement, the democratic movement, movement for human rights,
where my teacher was Andrei Sakharov and I became one of the founding
members of Helsinki Group...

MR. WATTENBERG: Of which group?

MR. SHARANSKY: Helsinki Group, so-called Helsinki Group, which was
the monitoring of the – we were monitoring the fulfillment of the
humanitarian articles of Helsinki Final Act. And in fact we all were
arrested for this.

MR. WATTENBERG: Many of the hawks, and neoconservatives, myself - I
believe even yourself, you allude to it in the book - were originally
against the Helsinki Accords because it was said that, 'oh, it’s just
another Soviet promise they don’t keep – about human rights – they
don’t keep their promises'. Is that right?

MR. SHARANSKY: In 1975, after years and years of negotiations,
finally the 35 countries – America, Canada, and all European counties,
including communist block - came to the agreement, to Final Helsinki
Act, where there were three parts. First part political, where in fact
the free world recognized final the borders after the Second World War.
In fact, it accepted the occupation of Soviet Union of Eastern Europe,
of the occupation of Baltic Republics, so they recognized the fact that
that belongs to Soviet Union.

MR. WATTENBERG: And President Ford was criticized for legitimizing
those conquests.

MR. SHARANSKY: Exactly. So though it was very problematic. There
was second part about economical cooperation between East and West, but
also was in the interest of the Soviet Union. And there was a third
part.

MR. WATTENBERG: The famous ’Third Basket’.

MR. SHARANSKY: The so-called ’Third Basket’ which was about
principles of the respect to human rights; to the right of people to
emigrate, to the right of people to – for the freedom of speech,
prohibiting arrest of the people because of their convictions, and so
on. And the fear was that, like in many other cases, Soviet Union will
give all the lip service: will be speaking about human rights, will be
arguing that human rights - which he respects, which Soviet Union
respects - are much more important than the human rights which – the
interpretation of the West and so on.
While at the same time Soviet Union’s getting something
very serious. Soviet Union is getting recognition of the Second World
War borders; recognition of its occupation of Eastern Europe; Soviet
Union will get economical cooperation which is – it is very interested
in, as every dictator, Soviet Union was very weak from inside and it
needed support of the free world. And at the same time will be paid
back on lip service. That was the fear. The fear of us of dissidents.
That’s why some of us were speaking against Helsinki Agreement. We
were eleven dissidents and I was in this group representing the Jewish
movement. We formed – founded Helsinki Group. And we declared that we
will start monitoring the fulfillment by the Soviet Union of this so-
called ’Third Basket’. Whether the Soviet Union’s fulfilling its
obligations on ’Third Basket’ or not, and of course we knew that it
means that we’re taking a big risk.

MR. WATTENBERG: You say in your book that the Soviet officials called
this a group of students and housewives. It was just a bunch of people
around the world. It had no official standing, these Helsinki
monitors. In fact, what happened?

MR. SHARANSKY: Our group was a very small group of dissidents.

MR. WATTENBERG: In Russia.

MR. SHARANSKY: In Russia.

MR. WATTENBERG: In...

MR. SHARANSKY: But the minute when we started publicly doing it,
thousands and thousands of Soviet people sent us - or came to us - to
tell us their case; the case in which Soviet Union was clearly
violating their human rights. And we connected, in fact, helped them
to communicate. We sent a lot of information to American Congress, to
different human rights organizations, and very quickly we were all
arrested.
But the issue of human rights, the issue of fulfillment with
Soviet Union of this ’Third Basket’, became central issue in
international relations. And here was the case. The KGB hoped that
very quickly we will be forgotten. That the world will follow their
own interests of appeasing Soviet Union. That the interests of having
stability from Soviet Union will be more important for the leaders of
the free world than the fate of the bunch of dissidents.
And they were telling us this. While I was in prison they were
telling me, 'Look who’s supporting you. It’s not the leaders of the
free world who are supporting you. It’s only bunch of students and
housewives. Some Jewish organization, some young students, but they’re
all... In another month, another two months, these people will forget
you; will go back to their universities. The leaders of the free world
will deal with the real issues.'

MR. WATTENBERG: Some of the Jewish organizations were afraid to
endorse it because they thought people would then say the Jews are
holding up progress for détente with the Soviet Union.

MR. SHARANSKY: Well, it’s true that some of the Jewish organizations
were afraid of our activist position. When we were encouraging the
Western countries to link their relations with Soviet Union with the
creation of economical cooperation they thought that maybe it put us in
a problematic station. We were told that Jews were undermining peace,
détente and so on. But I have to say that when we were arrested,
practically all the Jewish world was united in the struggle for our
release and very quickly the Jewish world really proved that it’s not a
bunch of students and housewives. Yes, the -- students and housewives
go created the army, which in fact then defeated the Soviet Union.

MR. WATTENBERG: And you were in prison then for nine years. Is that
right?

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. Well, I was sentenced to – I was threatened
that I would be sentenced to capital punishment. I wasn’t sentenced to
capital punishment after eighteen months of interrogation and trials
because of the big pressure of the free world. And he gave – President
Carter personally intervened and said that he checked all the archives
of CIA, there is no such a spy as Sharansky. And of course there was a
big pressure from the public opinion of the free world. Then I was
sentenced to thirteen years and after nine years of imprisonment I was
the first political prisoner who was released when Gorbachev came to
power.

MR. WATTENBERG: And I recall you were allowed to walk across a bridge
and they told you to walk straight across, no funny business, and you
walked zigzag just to tell them...

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes, well when they asked me to go straight and they
said, 'Agreed?' and I said, 'Well for so many years I never agreed with
you' - agreed with – that was my position, never to agree on any
compromise with KGB. So I said, 'And on that you want me to agree with
you? Of course I don’t agree.' That’s why I went zigzag.

MR. WATTENBERG: So you are not a compromiser. That’s basic to your –
I mean...

MR. SHARANSKY: I am not a compromiser with the dictators because I
know that you can only encourage more oppression and more terror if you
are compromising with dictators. But in the free world, of course, you
– what is the politics of the free world? It’s all compromises.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let me ask you just very quickly about some of the –
your impressions, because they are in the book, about some of the
characters who were at important in this whole development. First,
President Ronald Reagan.

MR. SHARANSKY: When I’m asked who defeated Soviet Union, I always
say there are three people who deserve special credit for this. Andrei
Sakharov, the leader of the dissidents; Senator Jackson...

MR. WATTENBERG: Senator – Scoop Jackson. Right.

MR. SHARANSKY: The first politician in the free world who linked the
practical interests of the Soviet Union, relations between East and
West, with the creation of...

MR. WATTENBERG: In other words what he did with the Jackson-Vanik
Amendment was say if you behave morally, allowing immigration, then we
will trade with you. But only – and that’s the word you use again and
again in your book, 'linkage', right?

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. In fact that was the first piece of legislation
in the free world which linked directly economical interests and the
issue of human rights. Senator Jackson said without free movement of
people there will be no free movement of goods. And in fact, he did -
Just at the moment when the free world - when President Nixon was ready
to sign agreement to give Soviet Union the status of the most favorite
nation, just at the time when the Soviet Union believed that finally
they can have both: they can have America as the enemy and they need
America as the enemy in order to unite their own people for the sacred
struggle against the enemy, but they can also have America as a source
of energy, as the source of their own support.
That moment came when Senator Jackson said, 'You cannot have
both. You want to have us as a friend, then you come to respect human
rights. You will not respect human rights, you will have us only as
the enemy.' And from this, I believe, started the new era in the
relations between East and West and the new dynamics developed. The
days of Soviet Union were counted. But in order it will really happen
you needed also the leader of the free world who will bring moral
clarity to this equation.

MR. WATTENBERG: That’s the other big word. In your book, you read
through, it’s 'linkage and moral clarity'. That’s right.

MR. SHARANSKY: Well, yes. What – what did – President Reagan. Just
at the time when there were so many discussions, what should be the
tactics stop Soviet Union? On the one hand, of course we want Soviet
Union not to be such a totalitarian regime; on the other hand, we have
so many interests in the world. So tough language and on one hand and
the same time soft tactics on the other. It all went together.
Here came President Reagan, and said, 'That is evil empire. As
long as this evil empire keeps its own people in prison – in fact
Soviet Union is one big prison – we cannot see them as a reliable
partner in building real peace.' And we are sitting in Soviet prison
and we hear this speech – which of course we couldn’t hear this speech,
of course we couldn’t read New York Times.

MR. WATTENBERG: You were communicating with your cellmates through
the toilet, is that right?

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes, well, one of the most dangerous but most
effective ways to speak from cell to cell - and very dangerous, of
course - was to talk through toilet. You pump – you take water from
your tubes, your neighbor from his tubes, then you put your head deep
into the toilet and you speak like by phone. Much better than mobile
phone because it’s good connection.

MR. WATTENBERG: You really...

MR. SHARANSKY: But of course it’s very dangerous. The moment the
guard will see that you’re in such a strange position you’ll be sent to
punishment cell. But there was a moment when we...

MR. WATTENBERG: To a punishment cell.

MR. SHARANSKY: Immediately.

MR. WATTENBERG: And what is that?

MR. SHARANSKY: If they caught you...

MR. WATTENBERG: That’s solitary confinement.

MR. SHARANSKY: No, solitary confinement I spent many years. It’s –
it’s not a punishing cell; it’s simply that you are alone. But a
punishment cell is very small room: two meters to two meters, very
dark, very cold, they take away all warm clothes. Three pieces of
water and three – bread, and three cups of water a day. Nobody to talk
to, to write, to do anything. It’s dark and no furniture. Nothing.
Officially it’s no more than fifteen days. But they – under different
pretenses they make it longer and longer and longer. I spend all
together 405 days in punishment cells.

MR. WATTENBERG: How many days?

MR. SHARANSKY: Four hundred and five days. So there was one day when
we forgot about all precautions. When we read in Soviet newspaper,
Pravada, the article condemning Reagan for calling Soviet Union the
Evil Empire. We knew that here is the day when the Western leader said
the truth, called spade a spade, and now there’ll be no more illusions
about the nature of Soviet Union. And we knew that moment there’ll be
clear moral position of the West. And we know there’ll be no more
illusions about the nature of the Soviet Union and the dangers of the
Soviet Union to the free world. The days of Soviet Union are counted.
And that’s why we were so excited, which why we knocked from one cell
to another by Morse, or by talking through toilets to say to one
another the great day came; now there is the leader of the free world
who understands the nature of the Soviet Union.

MR. WATTENBERG: Wait, when you knocked on the cell doors that was in
Morse code, right?

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. You have to learn Morse before you go to
prison.

MR. WATTENBERG: Alright. Just very quickly, about some of the other
personalities during this great Cold War era that we lived in. Just
your own quick view – Kissinger and Nixon.

MR. SHARANSKY: Well, Kissinger and Nixon probably were great
statesmen. And now that I am friends with Dr. Kissinger, I can say one
of the most wise and interesting political strategists. But they
believed in the policy of détente. And for us détente meant appeasement
of the Soviet Union; meant that this policy will help the Soviet Union
to survive and to continue exploiting its own people and to be a threat
to the West. And we were very much against this policy of appeasement
to Soviet Union, which was then called détente.

MR. WATTENBERG: What about President Carter?

MR. SHARANSKY: President Carter, even before he became a president,
during the campaign, he made an issue of human rights as the highest
issue. And for us dissidents it was great encouragement. And I remember
the day when I helped Andrei Sakharov to send some of the tourists
letter to Carter expressing our appreciation that he, newly elected
president, speaks about human rights so highly, and what the big
excitement was when President Carter answered and sent a letter back to
Sakharov. For the first time there was established direct connection
between the President of the United States and dissidents. It was all
very great day for us. And of course I personally am very grateful to
Carter that after I was arrested he...

MR. WATTENBERG: After he was elected, yes.

MR. SHARANSKY: After he was elected and after I was arrested, he
spoke publicly saying that I am not a spy; that he checked all the
files of CIA. Having said all this, I’ve got to say that very quickly
after some – after he already acted as a president, we were
disappointed with the fact that his words about human rights were very
tough but his policy on this issue was not tough. Soviet Union
arrested practically all the dissidents who were encouraged by the kind
words of President Carter. And at that point – moment had practically
no consequences for the relations between the East and West.

MR. WATTENBERG: Alright, finally on the personality side, what about
Gorbachev?

MR. SHARANSKY: Well, Gorbachev – the importance of the leadership of
Gorbachev is that he, being relatively young leader after the number of
old Gods…

MR. WATTENBERG: Antiques.

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. Antiques, yes. …Came young leader - who was a
true communist, who believed in communist, who wanted to save communist
regime - but he was fresh enough to understand and to say publicly that
we are losing in our competition with capitalism. The system is not
working. In order it will start working we have to make people a
little bit more free. He understood that he needs to bring some
freedom. He was pressed by the free world, by President Reagan, by all
the others. That he understood he has no choice...

MR. WATTENBERG: This was perestroika, right?

MR. SHARANSKY: But as a communist, he couldn’t understand that there
is no such a thing as a little bit of freedom. That you’ll give people
a little bit of freedom and they’ll take all the freedom. And that’s
why, in fact, he started the reforms without real understanding how
deep and far-going they are. And that’s why then later this type of
these reforms was quicker than he was ready to make. That’s why he
very quickly found himself in the strange position. He is the
initiator of these reforms who’s resisting all the time. He was
fighting against multi-party system. That was his big battle with
Sakharov. Later he was fighting against independence of Baltic
Republics, against dismantling of the Soviet Union, and he was losing
on every step. Why? Because he was the man who gave to these people a
little bit of freedom...

MR. WATTENBERG: What they say...

MR. SHARANSKY: ... and they took all the freedom.

MR. WATTENBERG: What they say is a little bit of freedom is like
being a little bit pregnant.

MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. Well, so every – the world was lucky that he,
as a true communist, was not understanding the dynamics of this. He
understood that he has to start giving people some freedom. And then
the process went ahead very quickly. And that’s why - by the way,
that’s what explain this strange phenomena. Gorbachev is very popular
in the free world, very popular in the West as the one who started
these reforms. And very unpopular in the former Soviet Union as the
one who all the time was resistant to these reforms.

WATTENBERG: Do you think that President Putin’s visit to Israel –
the first time ever for a Soviet Russian to do that – was that
significant or just cosmetic?

MR. SHARANSKY: It could be significant because really it’s
historical visit for the first time President of Russia is coming to
Israel. I think it wasn’t significant because in fact there was no
news in this visit. There was no new proposals in this visit. There
was - in fact Russia is go – it looks as if Russia goes back to its
traditional role of being clearly and one-sidedly on the side of
regimes which of course have nothing to do with the democracracy.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. On that note, thank you very much, Natan
Sharansky, for joining us on Think Tank. And thank you. Please
remember to join us for a future episode where we will continue our
discussion of democracy. Also, remember to send us your comments via e-
mail. We think it makes our program better. For Think Tank, I’m Ben
Wattenberg.

ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend on your views to make our show
better. Please send your questions and comments to New River Media,
4455 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite C-100, Washington, DC 20008 or email us
at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank, visit PBS online
at pbs.org and please let us know where you watch Think Tank.

Funding for Think Tank is provided by...

(Pfizer) At Pfizer, we’re spending over five billion dollars looking
for the cures of the future. We have 12,000 scientists and health
experts who firmly believe the only thing incurable is our passion.
Pfizer, life is our life’s work.

Additional funding is provided by the Bernard and Irene Schwartz
Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry
Bradley Foundation.

17

Back to top

Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc.

©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved.

Web development by Bean Creative.