I had the memorable experience this evening of attending Mikhail Gorbachev's lecture at the Kentucky Center. Attached is a photo, which is not stellar, but the best I could do from my seat.
He began by stating that he is now, unfortunately, 76 years old. The sound system made it difficult to hear him for the first ten minutes, as the volume levels of his voice and the translator's were equally set. There were three video screens set above the stage. I forced myself to avoid looking at them and tried to focus instead on his physical person, but couldn't avoid glancing back and forth throughout. He looked older, grayer, a bit paunchier. But not much different from the pictures we remember.
He recounted his schooling, his rise through the party, and said that his impression of Krushchev, although he'd never met him face-to-face, was of a man who seemed open to new ideas. But he was young and idealistic then. He went through the litany of successive directors, noting that a slew of them were elderly upon reaching office and died quickly. But there had been, in his view, a continuation of progress, and a gradual alleviation of oppression.
He said that the Communist system he inherited had stagnated the talent and ability of its citizens. Ronald Reagan, who he referred to as a "right-wing" person, recognized the value of working together for change. He objected to an unnamed U.S. politician who had designated the 20th century as the "American" century and had gone on to state that the 21st century would be another American century. "What should be the reply to this?" he asked. "The reply of India, of China, of Russia?" He also objected to our viewing of the end of the Cold War as an "American victory."
Gorbachev cited the late pope as one source of the term "New World Order", a term which had stuck with him, and went on to say that the opportunity of establishing a more cooperative world effort since then had failed. He spoke against the idea that one country could sustainably direct world affairs without the recognition and cooperation of other nations. He said that the US decision to invade Iraq, against the consensus of so much of the globe, was a blow to the promise of international cooperation. (Someone booed here). He pointed out that this was not an advocation of one-world government, but a plea for participation of other countries who are affected by U.S. decisions.
Gorbachev said that environmental issues are the most important concern of the world, that an enormous amount of our environment has been despoiled. He cited that only 1/3 of the human population lives in relative comfort; the rest subside on extremely meager wages. Improper sanitation and polluted drinking water cause most otherwise-avoidable deaths worldwide. He quoted Kofi Annan that the next wars will be fought over drinking water.
Overall, his main plea was for international cooperation as the only realistic means of solving global problems, problems that increasingly include the first world and must inevitably be dealt with.
During the Q&A time, a student said that she was writing a paper on Gorbachev, and wanted to know how he would like to be know for. He replied that he is often asked this question. He would like to be remembered for trying to do the right thing, although he is very aware of many mistakes, then went on to list at least six, mostly dealing with the economic disruption of the former Soviet Union and the failure to hold all of its parts together.
Another questioner asked what his position was on Vladimir Putin. He said that he supported Putin, but that his support was not unqualified. Putin, said, had inherited a system in chaos and on the point of disintegration. Putin had, in his opinion, stabilized the worst problems so that they could focus on the rest, which were significant. He didn't address Putin's tightening of his power and restriction of press freedom, and certainly not the controversial backlash (and possible murders) of objecting reporters. Or Chechnya, for that matter.
One thing that struck me about this speech was Gorbachev's rigor at getting his points across. He probably has a surfeit of personal anecdotes about world leaders, but he didn't use them. I, for one, am not used to being spoken to this seriously, at this length, by a political "leader" without a bit of pandering to the crowd. With most, you laugh, and then remember that their marketing staff has advance-profiled your audience and written appropriate punchlines.
I'm aware that this is a food forum, not a soapbox - so I apologize if this is way-too-off-topic (Robin, et al). And I'm just relaying the speech, so please don't spam me.
But, given the variety displayed throughout this forum, it seemed appropriate to offer this to "All About Louisville."
