I have accepted with enthusiasm a proposal to contribute my share to the anniversary in honor of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.
And immediately I asked myself how gratifying this venture can be if one doesn't confine oneself solely to comments befitting the occasion.

It is clear that no one expects eulogies from me. I remember Mikhail Sergeyevich frowning at obsequious praises. I, in my turn, have always felt confused when I have to give a public testimonial about anyone.

To my mind, the task is serious because of the outstanding personality in question and his historical and political contribution on the global scale.

Back in 1990 in connection with Mikhail Gorbachev I wrote that the history of any cause is - always and above all - the history of the person who leads this cause. Today I would word this in a different way: the work of a remarkable person is bound to surpass the limits of his personal history.

When I recall the period when Mikhail Sergeyevich and I collaborated, just over five years flash vividly before me - from 1985, when I was made the offer "to get down to business immediately" as the head of the Foreign Ministry up to January 1991. Those were the years full of breath-taking events which demanded prevailing over oneself and the circumstances which were electrified to the highest degree.

I suppose Mikhail Sergeyevich remembers our conversation in Picunda, on the threshold of my appointment. The content of that conversation can be summarized as follows: "Everything is in decay. Should be reformed decisively..." Regarding my appointment he spoke in a tone which allowed no objections and rejected my doubts concerning the lack of diplomatic experience whatsoever and even my nationality. "It has been decided," was the answer. "Yes, you are a Georgian, but you are a Soviet person! No experience? Well, maybe that is good thing! Our foreign policy needs fresh ideas, audacity, dynamism, a novel approach."
I understood that my honored interlocutor also implied that these desirable qualities referred to him. And I was right.

We both saw this decision as the choice made by persons holding the same views, the choice on the grounds of solidarity. At the same time this was a friendly agreement, which is, to my mind, if not the determining, then definitely the key component, guaranteeing fruitful cooperation, however high the level.

To my mind the transition had to be smooth and natural as far as political reform and the ministry which had been entrusted to me were concerned. As Mikhail Gorbachev stated at the April Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee in 1985, all steps in this direction had to be correspondent to the foreign and domestic policies strategic objectives.

Later, after I had already resigned I heard an opinion which previously had not been expressed publicly: that the very new concept was in contradiction with the realities of life. However, life itself and the development of international relations soon refuted such conclusions.

However, there was one snag.

When Herbert Wells introduced the idea of nations joining up in a universal organization, everyone regarded this as another fantasy of the author. Nowadays the UN is a reality irrespective of the criticisms that each of us can address to this organization.
Looking at the earlier period of history we can remember Jean Jacques Rousseau's appraisal regarding the idea of unification of the Old World countries: "The project was not good enough for Europe as Europe was not good enough for the project."

So, implementation of global ideas demands appropriate conditions and circumstances. Big ideas always outstrip the time they were born in. With time the idea of a united Europe also has been implemented, to some extent.

In this respect I do not make any comparisons with cases of great historical insight, but here the parallel with the willingness to perceive the new thinking is more than obvious. Mikhail Gorbachev talked about this during the time when international relations involved the categories of antagonism, when force was esteemed as the principal means of state policy, when polarity of the world order seemed to be, and in fact was, insurmountable.

Nothing at that time boded a light at the end of the tunnel of the frantic arms race, when suddenly, unexpected prophetic words were uttered: "A new way of thinking is indispensable for the survival and further development of mankind..."

After all the tenacious survival of an enduring idea of the right of using force was also nourished by the struggle for power, never voluntarily relinquished by anyone. The new thinking implied a global revolution in the minds of people and had to wait for the time when awareness of the impending dangers yields to the inevitability of the historic process and compels politicians to thinking in a new way.

Someone who would dare to bring together the new realities with the new thinking had to turn up.

And whatever is being said today in pursuit of "the locomotive of history," one thing is indisputable - even the most conservative minds have been affected by the new thinking.

In almost daily communication with Gorbachev I could distinguish the moves of thought going in an absolutely unexplored and, frankly speaking, rather dangerous direction from the point of view of the exponents and the advocates of dogmas, who had been obeyed by everyone and had dominated all spheres of life for decades. Whoever subverts century-old postulates always takes a risk. Orthodoxy does not forgive assaults upon "the holy of holies" and automatically turns itself into an inquisition, hastening to punish "the heretic." The drama of ideas, alas, is almost always fraught with personal tragedy for their author and bearer. So the "dangerous" direction of thoughts did not promise easy implementation.

Today, the tension and drama for the individual who starts on the critical divide between the old and the new, when the road to the new is obscure to those who live according to former rules is even more evident. In medieval times, as we know, this led to auto-da-fe. Nowadays is the politician obliged to be burnt at the stake? A new idea is just a declaration until it takes hold of public consciousness and defines the motivation behind the action.

And the auto-da-fé did take place - as medieval and as cruel. The critical turning point in Gorbachev's epoch fell on August 1991. No one should ever forget this time. Let me mention one episode which I find significant in this context: on August 20 I communicated my statement to the representatives of a French TV Company. I said then that those events were not unexpected. They had been foreseen.

In those days we did not yet know anything about the fate of the President. Still it was clear that the "shadow" power, i.e. the anti-constitutional underground, whose existence I had spoken about many times, came out against the legal power and was acting openly and boldly.

Today this fact and all the details of the failed coup d'etat are known to everyone. And I write about those days because new character traits of Mikhail Sergeyevich became apparent, which were unknown to many. A person reveals himself in emergencies.
Among these traits of character - steadfastness and self-reliance, which I remember failed him only once when he realized the reality of having lost the most devoted and dearest person - Raisa Maximovna. He had the confidence that those he promoted and trusted were incapable of betrayal - a rather naive confidence for a statesman, I would say. He was also incapable of compromises, even when it was necessary to review one's concepts.

Even taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances, I do not think that I am neglecting the norms of gentlemanly etiquette. None of us are beyond reproach, whatever the degree of responsibility fate has attributed to us.

Nevertheless, the ability of not relinquishing one's priorities however lofty the authority is a highly valuable gift, one which Mikhail Sergeyevich was richly endowed.

And still what do I - as a politician and now former associate of Mikhail Gorbachev - think he will be remembered for?
First of all the fact that after the settlement in Afghanistan the civilized world believed us.

Secondly, that as early as during the Soviet-French meeting he uttered the idea of a common European home.

Thirdly, that in Geneva the Soviet leader and the President of the United States formulated the common political credo of the inadmissibility of nuclear war.

Fourthly, the fact that "armed" with his innovations, Gorbachev embarked upon a permanent "battle" with systems, camps and blocs, thereby repudiating the "image of the enemy." Here, to my mind, he achieved a most important victory over the dangerous trend, which was leading the world towards nuclear war, global environmental catastrophe and the crash of the world economy.
And finally, Gorbachev convinced the world that his country would never again send tanks to suppress democracy.

It is not the inflamed speeches full of hatred, nor the use of labels from the great-power vocabulary, nor the symptoms of a particular form of imperialism concealed behind the slogans of class approach and struggle between the two systems, which are the most distressing in the criticism which descended on us at that time (and sometimes continues today). What upsets one most is the absence in these statements of a trace of reasonable alternatives as well as the simple ability to listen and understand.
The opponents themselves - both past and present - do not risk anything when they state that we have ruined a geopolitical structure in Europe, deprived the country of allies and broken the external belt of its security, that we have brought closer to the boundaries of the state the area of influence of the adverse military-political bloc and eliminated its counterbalance which existed in the form of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, contributed to the unification of Germany, etc.

And behind all this - the ordinary desire to put the reformers of all times and kinds in the dock. This wish is so strong that the prosecution pays no attention to providing the relevant evidence and proofs.

It should not be forgotten that at the most crucial moment for Gorbachev and for the country, when he was surrounded by two-faced partners, and in a situation of complete despair, he made a trenchant statement in defense of our policy. Gorbachev pointed out that not only were he and Shevardnadze responsible, but the majority of those now silent had also applauded it.

In addition, it was not only Gorbachev's inspiration or so to say, the wave of his hand that changed the world order and the USSR itself. The truth is simple and well known: there are patterns of historic development; there is a logic of the world order, that bring about certain changes. Though, there is no doubt that they are performed by the worthy chosen ones - the Goodwill heralds, and if there is enough strength - also by their executors.

In all sincerity I can now repeat what I wrote and said many times: contradictions, certain insularity, and possible lack of coordination in actions and thoughts surely did take place. This was also worsened by confusion in the public consciousness, which by the way, is still cultivated in respect of those fatal events. But my strong conviction is that all this not only fails to disavow the basic principle, which should always be the guiding one, but underlines it - only a moral policy is invincible; the only idea which is invincible is that which has been inspired by the highest moral values.

I will say this: All the activity of Mikhail Gorbachev should be seen as an edifying lesson in politics and in everyday life, which is always fraught with unexpected repetitions.

And today, as far as I can judge, the International Public Foundation, whose President knows the value of everything, who survived all possible ordeals, who stood on the very brink of an abyss, and went through betrayals and bereavements, aims at a consolidation of a moral approach to politics. As a result he rose above all his victories and defeats, having acquired what is so difficult to achieve for a politician and a statesman - his magnanimity.

In the final chapter of my book My Choice there are the following lines: "Even unwillingly my thoughts sometimes take me to Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, his personal fate and its upheavals."
Now I would like to add a few words about my fate and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. We were connected and are still connected not only by the difficult years lived through but also by the feeling of duty in respect of each other. And for this reason we are able to pay tribute to each other at the same time remaining sober when making mutual assessments.

We live by this fundamental, very human principle up to the present day. And in conclusion let me illustrate.

In February 1998, which is very well remembered by me, I received a telegram from Mikhail Gorbachev saying: "Dear Eduard! I was indignant at the bloody provocation against you and against peace in the Caucasus and beyond. I believe that it is the duty of each decent person to resolutely oppose any manifestation of terrorism and moreover political terrorism.

During these troubled times from the bottom of my heart, I wish you, your loved ones and all people of goodwill (who are in majority, I am sure) fortitude, self-control and happiness."

I am also sure - as well as about the fact that Mikhail Gorbachev is still in the front line of this majority.