How the Estonian Press Covered the Resignation
Shevardnadze Threatens to Resign. December 21, 1990
Published in Estonia as the USSR lurched toward breakup, this short news report captured how quickly Shevardnadze’s resignation became a proxy fight over the Soviet future. It summarized his warning from the Congress of People’s Deputies that a “dictatorship” was taking shape, then immediately mapped the political split: democrats in the Interregional Group treated his exit as a moral alarm, while the hardline “Soyuz” bloc mocked him as a Western-leaning tactician who withdrew troops too fast. Read from the Baltic, the story sounded like Moscow’s crisis, not the periphery’s.
Original Estonian: Sevärdnadze ähvardab tagasi astuda. Rahva Hääl, nr. 294, 21 detsember 1990
The main event of the fourth working day of the 4th Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR was the statement by the USSR foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, that he intended to leave his post. He said that it was impossible to work in that position because of attacks and persecution by reactionary circles that insulted his dignity. According to Shevardnadze, the last straw was the speeches of some deputies at the previous session of the congress. They criticized the Soviet leadership’s foreign policy, especially in connection with the crisis in the Persian Gulf. The foreign minister said that the leadership’s repeated statements that no Soviet servicemen would be sent to the conflict zone were also being called into question. In Shevardnadze’s view, such statements were not accidental. He recalled that two deputies, colonels with epaulettes, had said that they had managed to “remove” the interior minister, and now it was time to settle accounts with the foreign minister as well. “One must understand who is behind this,” Shevardnadze said, expressing the conviction that a dictatorship was emerging. “I am leaving my post in protest against the advance of dictatorship,” Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze declared from the rostrum of the 4th Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR.
“Eduard Shevardnadze’s speech at the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR was not unexpected; it was included in the deputies’ program at their request. Unfortunately, his resignation statement was completely unexpected both for the hall and for President Gorbachev,” said the USSR president’s press secretary V. Ignatenko in a conversation with Soviet and foreign journalists. “The president said that he knew nothing about it. Mikhail Gorbachev had a brief conversation with Eduard Shevardnadze, but only after the resignation statement had been made. Mikhail Gorbachev asked that Eduard Shevardnadze continue to carry out his functions, because under the constitution such a request can be granted either by the Supreme Soviet or by the president. Mikhail Gorbachev asked once again to emphasize that the goals and methods of our foreign policy remain the same.” In Vitaly Ignatenko’s view, Shevardnadze’s speech was very emotional. “In any case, Eduard Shevardnadze has had a long political life; it is entirely possible that he will take up any other post,” he noted.
During the break, a meeting of the Interregional Deputies Group took place. As it became clear, the group supported Shevardnadze’s decision to leave office. Representatives of the “Soyuz” group who were present, N. Petrushenko and V. Alksnis, also supported the USSR foreign minister’s decision.
In the first issue of the sociological research information bulletin of the 4th Congress, the responses of representatives of the Interregional Deputies Group and the “Soyuz” group were published to the question of what measures were needed to overcome the crisis situation. The Interregional Group deputies proposed: the USSR president and government must resign; a government deserving the people’s trust must be formed; a nationwide election of a new president should be held; the activities of all parties, including the CPSU, should be banned for 2–3 years; the center’s diktat should be replaced by a coordinating function; full freedom of enterprise should be granted. “Soyuz” proposed: to introduce presidential rule, restore economic ties among the republics, strengthen labor discipline, begin a counteroffensive against the shadow economy and crime, carry out a radical monetary reform, introduce a ration-coupon system, and conclude a union treaty as quickly as possible.
Interregional Group co-chair Arkady Murashov said about the foreign minister’s resignation that Shevardnadze does not want to take part in what is coming; he does not want to support a future dictatorship. The resignation of Bakatin and Shevardnadze and the emergence of Pugo and Gromov on the political scene should make one vigilant.
“Soyuz” representative Colonel Mikhail Petrushenko called Shevardnadze’s statement a tactical maneuver with far-reaching consequences. “His policy ran counter not only to the interests of the state, but also to openness,” Petrushenko said. “As a deputy, for example, I have not seen many very important political documents at all. This secrecy can be explained by the fact that the minister made too many concessions to the West. He took many extremely important steps too quickly, even dangerously quickly. As an example one can cite the unjustifiably rapid withdrawal of half a million servicemen from the countries of Eastern Europe.” Colonel Petrushenko added that he would like to see in that post a determined person who would better defend the interests of the people and the state.
These are the completely opposite positions of the two deputy groups regarding the way out of the crisis and Shevardnadze’s resignation. It should be noted that “Soyuz” includes 459 deputies and the Interregional Group 330. Together this makes about 40 percent of the total number of deputies. In practice, fewer deputies regularly take part in the work of both factions. It is interesting to note that 26 deputies belong to both.
Presidential Council member Aleksandr Yakovlev called Shevardnadze’s decision the result of the advance of reactionary forces. He said he was very sorry. “We share the same views; we have good, comradely relations,” Yakovlev said, adding that “we are witnessing the advance of vindictive and ruthless conservative forces.” I asked Yakovlev whether this meant the fading of the renewal processes in the country. He said that depended on all the deputies and on the whole people. “I am very worried by the indifference and fatigue of the democratic forces, their stratification and fragmentation,” he added.
The chairman of the Supreme Economic Council of the Russian SFSR, Mikhail Bochkarov, believes that Shevardnadze’s departure is extremely undesirable. “It is a disaster for us. His decision testifies to great courage: to say out loud what he knows and to warn us about dictatorship. Only an honest and courageous person can act this way,” Bochkarov emphasized.
The chairman of the Soviet of Nationalities of the USSR Supreme Soviet, Rafiq Nishanov, said that he does not support Shevardnadze’s resignation either at the congress or in the USSR Supreme Soviet. “Personally, I will not vote for it,” he said. I asked whether he knew the composition of the new cabinet and whether Shevardnadze would be included in it. Nishanov said he did not know the composition of the new cabinet, but he believes that Shevardnadze will remain active in politics for a long time.
Andrei Birov