Press Office

Aired: Tuesday, 1 May, 2007 06:00
Sky News

Please find below highlights and full interview conducted by Robert Nisbet, Sky News' Environment Correspondent, with Mikhail Gorbachev in his capacity as chair of Green Cross International.  These quotes are issued on the strict understanding that, if any extract is used Sky News is credited.  

EMBARGO: 0001,  Tuesday 01.05.07

Sky News Environment Correspondent Robert Nisbet spoke exclusively to Mikhail Gorbachev in his capacity as chairman of Green Cross International, an environmental version of the Red Cross, which works in over 30 countries to repair the damage caused by war and weapons manufacture and over-exploitation of the worlds’ resources.

 

GORBACHEV ON IRAQ AND BLAIR

The former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev said he believes Tony Blair’s decision to send British troops to Iraq has damaged his legacy. In an exclusive interview with Sky News he said: "I believe that the beginning and the middle part of Tony Blair’s course were good, were successful. And I think that he regrets and others regret what happened."

“It certainly was a mistake. On the day when hostilities started against Iraq, I said it was a major policy mistake. It turned out to be an even bigger mistake than I had thought.

“I don't know who actually played a bigger role, whether the information that Americans received from you or their own intelligence information or they invented the intelligence where there was none, but ultimately they did not find weapons of mass destruction and they got a lot of bloodshed."

GORBACHEV ON US MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM

The man who helped bring an end to the Cold  War and the nuclear arms race also condemned America’s plan to build a missile shield in Poland.

“[In Russia] we have been trying to avoid the arms race. But right in front of us, the United States has now a bigger defence budget than it was during the height of the cold war. What's happening? Why is that? And we cannot fully explain it by just the need to fight terrorism, you cannot fight terrorism with nuclear warheads. That is going too far.”

“They want democracy in their own country but what about democracy in international affairs? There is no democracy, There is the rule of the fist instead.”

CLIMATE CHANGE: “too many declarations, too little action”

Mr Gorbachev told Sky News that governments are still not doing enough to protect the environment.

“There are too many declarations, too little action.”

“It’s amazing that some major powers are led by people who don't understand the importance of these problems. This is very odd. How can you lead a big nation, a major nation and not understand the importance of these problems?”

The Chair of Green Cross International told Sky News there needs to be a new ‘sermon on the mount’ with environmental principles to which all countries should adhere to avoid irreparable damage to the planet.

“It’s five minutes to midnight,” he warned.

_____________________

The full interview can be seen on Sky News TV and sky.com/news . 

 

 

Full Transcript:

Mikhail Gorbachev:

"Green Cross International is an organisation that was born as a result of the proposal made by the global forum of non-governmental organisations that was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 parallel to the summit that adopted the declaration on sustainable development - the United Nations summit on sustainable development. At that time, representatives of many countries, members of parliament, religious leader public figures, artists and others who gathered at that non-governmental forum, proposed that there should be a global environmental organisation that would complement many other environmental organisations and would try to address environmental problems at the global level and work together with global institutions on the problems of sustainable development on the environment and since by that time I had stepped down, I was no longer president in 1992, they sent a cable to me from those representatives, 108 countries and I had to accept because a few years before, in 89 if I'm not mistaken, when I was speaking in Moscow, I said we need an organisation that would be similar to the Red Cross and would be called Green Cross - an Environmental organisation - and so they said since Gorbachev proposed it, he should take the burden of organising this organisation. Frankly, I didn't, yet, at that time, feel up to it, but I suddenly felt that the environment was a very important issue, it was important to me because I had worked on the Environment when I was a member of the Supreme Soviet, when I was leader of one of the regions, the governor, to put it this way, of one of the regions of Russia, I addressed environmental issues when I was a member of the Breshnev leadership, I was secretary of the central committee on agriculture and my various responsibilities also included addressing the problems of the soil, of the environment and at that time I learned, because a lot of the things were classified, at that time I learnt that the building of hydroelectric power stations - those famous communist projects that were actually really important to provide power, to provide energy for the country.

But the building of those hydro-electric power stations when big, huge reservoirs were built as a result of that, whole villages and sometimes towns were flooded and a as a result of that we lost 14 million hectares of the best arable land - of the most fertile land. Rivers were damaged, fisheries were damaged, so at that time, I got the full picture of what was happening with the environment. And of course, the nuclear programme, nuclear testing for example and also some nuclear waste waters that damaged whole, big lakes in Siberia, all of that information made me an environmentalist and so Green Cross International was born in 1992, 93, now it has more than 30 national organisations.

Here in Britain we are working to set up an office of Green Cross International which will then emerge into a national organisation of the Green Cross. We have done the same thing in France and we're working on a number of projects. But Green Cross International works on the global environmental issues. First of all, we thought that people can become involved in protecting the environment, can take a stand on the environment when they know what the state of the environment today is, when people are familiar with the problem. So first of all, we call for environmentalising education from the very first years, so that kids begin to learn about the state of our planet, and we are doing that, Russia, the Russia organisation has done a lot. Last fall, they had their 12th conference on environmental education - so this has become a movement in Russia.

Another global issue is that we have decided that it is very important to state - to make a statement - almost like a sermon on the mount, or the environmental commandments. Do not do harm to the environment, do not kill this kind of thing. So we decided to write that set of environmental commandments and with the support of the government of the Netherlands and the Queen of the Netherlands personally, we started to work with the Earth Council, another environmental organisation, on the draft of the earth charter, so we worked for 5 years. At every continent there were representatives for the Earth Charter Project. I and represented Europe and it was amazing work sometimes, very, very contentious discussions, but ultimately the earth charter was written. It contains 18 points - not 10 points - not the 10 commandments but 18 very strong points that give people guidance on how to behave towards the environment. My view of that document is very high and now in various regions, we are working to spread the word and in various regions also, we are doing it in the form of the 'Earth Dialogues' based on the 'Earth Charter'.

The next project is a project on fresh water. I will not give you all the details but we are working very much on the water problem. We are in contact with countries in Asia, in Latin America, in North America, in Asia in other regions. Because the problem of water today is the number one environmental problem, the shortage of water. And there are not enough legal regulations in particular, there is no convention that would state that water is a human right. How can that be? A human organism is 80% water, so maybe some people think that there's a lot of water in the world. But water should be a human right - so that's our project. We are working on regulating water basins - the shared water resources. We are preparing, I have signed letters on behalf of Green Cross international to forty nations to support our idea of drafting an international conventional. That international convention can only be written within the United Nations at the initiative of states. So we want the states to take the initiative. 20 states have responded positively and they're prepared to start this work. So we are planning to continue to push for this convention. Also we have done a great deal but a lot still remains to be done as part of what we call the legacy project. The legacy of the arms race of the cold war, cleaning up the consequences of the arms race, that is to say the destruction of nuclear and chemical weapons. I am in correspondence with heads of state. We are pushing for allocations of money. The Ministries of Defence initially were very suspicious of us. They thought well what is this environmental organisation doing? But then they actually have been asking us to continue to be involved in this.

So were are working on a number of other issues and projects that I will not all list, but we are hoping that national organisations which are gradually gaining strength, that they will work within their countries to address their specific problems as well. Green Cross International today, I believe is an organisation that has been recognised, it has been registered at the United Nations when the Johannesburg Environmental Conference was held, we represented non-governmental organisations there and some of our proposals were accepted, some were not. But still we are working. Our task is to give a push to push the people, to push the governments, to give an impetus so that people recognise that we should change our behaviour, that we are crossing the red line. I have just been interviewed by another media outlet and I said that its 5 minutes to midnight."

Robert Nisbet:

“Are you frustrated at the pace of change? that there are some countries that are just not listening to the message. If you've got America and Australia that refuse to ratify the Kyoto protocol, are there countries that are not realising how serious the environmental situation is?”

MG:

"Well its amazing that some major powers are led by people who don't understand the importance of these problems. This is very odd. How can you lead a big nation, a major nation and not understand the importance of these problems? The Kyoto protocol is not a panacea. It calls for just 5% reduction in emissions. The scientists have proposed that 25% reduction in emissions is necessary. I cannot say today that emissions are the only factor in global warming but definitely they are a factor. Maybe we are already within a kind of warming cycle in the world. There have been such warming cycles in the history of the world for millions and thousands of years, so maybe this is a cycle, but let us not exacerbate it. Let us not add to that cycle by human emissions. So from every standpoint it is right to reduce emissions and I believe that attitude, to kind of discourage the people from action, from doing something, from thinking about how to live better, I think this is wrong if we just do nothing while the climate is warming, then the forecasts tell us that certain island nations will cease to exist, certain coastal towns will be flooded and so we will have again mammoths in Siberia. We have been joking that Russian super patriots, chauvinists have been saying Russia is the birth place of elephants. But certainly it appears there was a time that mammoths lived in the territory of Russia and their remains are shown in museums in Siberia, that's how warm the climate was in Siberia and now its cold there, there's oil there, etc etc, but anyway, I don't think that we'll see elephants in Siberia... Even so, I think the time now is for us to act because we are in a global environmental crisis already and we must all understand, we must all act. Too many declarations, too little action - that's the situation today."

RN:

“You talk of your concern of potentially another arms race starting. If you look at Vladimir Putin at the moment, pulling out of the conventional arms treaty because of his concerns of what America wants to do in Eastern Europe with the missile shield, you look at Britain renewing Trident. Does this concern you?

MG:

"Yes. Yes. And I actually share Putin's position when you look at the country's economic situation, at the social conditions of the people, certainly after the break up of the Soviet Union, life for the Russian people has been very difficult. But we  have been trying to avoid the arms race. But right in front of us, the United States has now a bigger defence budget than it was during the height of the cold war. What's happening? Why is that? And we cannot fully explain it by just the need to fight terrorism, you cannot fight terrorism with nuclear warheads. That's, I would say, going too far. So what I think is happening is that the economic model in a way calls for militarisation in certain countries. They cannot develop without militarisation. And they may be concerned, the U.S. may be concerned that they need resources and so their own resources are not enough for their own development and so they want to control resources elsewhere, perhaps. And hence Iraq. Hence Iran. And many other things. Well I think that Americans, Americans who are very much for democracy, who are very much for transparent, open discussion of problems, they should be democratic. They want democracy in their own country but what about democracy in international affairs? There is no democracy, There is the rule of the fist instead. I think that's a mistake. No one, no country, not the United States, not a group of countries can dominate the world, can command the world. We need cooperation, we need projects that are proposed to the world through the United Nations, which should be a platform for managing the affairs of the world. This is what they must be doing. But trying to rule the world by force, well look, a small country, a small country cannot be destroyed. But when policies affect interests of countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil, those giants - using force against them would mean destroying the world. So I think that's not the right way. We need democratic governance of world affairs. That's not easy. That will not be something that can easily be achieved. But certainly, we were able to work together when fascism threatened the world. And we defeated fascism. And I think that's how we should operate now. We should united our efforts. Unilateralism, unilateral actions by even the strongest power in the world will not solve any problem - I think there is a beginning of the understanding of this. Maybe Cheney does not understand that. I don't think so. But well forget about Cheney, there are others. "

RN:

“Are you linking then, the misuse of the earth's resources to terrorism?”

MG:

"There is a link. Because the sources of terrorism are on the one hand, a certain mindset, a certain kind of fundamentalism, that's one source. But terrorists have a big area for recruitment because many regions in the world live in the poverty and backwardness and some people are ready to do anything in order to get out of that situation and there is also the problem that I believe all of us together, we have underestimated the importance of the Islamic factor and as a result this has affected dozens of nations, 1.2 billion people in the world live in Islamic nations and during the middle ages, Islamic nations did a great deal for the world, in culture, in architecture, in medicine. Now they have been kind of sidelined. I think that the adaptation of the adaptation of the Islamic world to the new challenges is a problem not only for those countries but for the international community. And when they adapt and when they feel the problems of poverty and  backwardness is being addressed, that their problem of security is being addressed, when they feel that they indeed are independently acting in international affairs and managing their affairs, if they're properly represented, I believe that will change the situation - so the link is there."

RN:

"Lets talk about nuclear energy now. The Prime Minister of this country is saying that we need a new generation of nuclear power plants to make the move to a low carbon economy. Do you think he's making a mistake?"

MG:

"Well I think that at this time we've had a lot of discussions in Green Cross International of this problem and we have taken a position on this and that is that building up nuclear power is not the way forward on the one hand, but on the other hand, over the past ten years we have seen changes in the situation, rapid changes in the situation. We have only 30 or 40 years to go with oil and gas, 80 or a 100 years to go with coal and we do not yet see a fundamental solution to the energy problem in the world. And therefore I think we should draw a line. First of all, as regards nuclear weapons, there should be a very clear and a very firm stand. And that is to say we should move toward the goal that President Reagan and I discussed in Geneva in ‘85 and the in Reykjavik in ‘86 we should work toward ultimate elimination. Reduction and ultimately the abolition of nuclear weapons. I believe that this is a position that is not Utopian, that is not chimeric. This is a real goal that we should work for. As of today I think that we should be realistic and agree to the fact that nuclear power, nuclear power which, by the way, is not very cheap and the more we have nuclear power facilities the more danger there is that perhaps terrorists could perhaps do something. But still, I believe there are ways, there new possibilities, technical technological possibilities of improving the reactors, of improving the safety and efficiency of those reactors and frankly, all countries have now come to the conclusion that for the time being, we need nuclear power, so condemning just one person or one government would be wrong. Its  one way of addressing the energy situation today but it requires a lot of work, a very responsible approach towards safety and security and certainly uniting the efforts of nations to find new sources of energy that will replace the existing ones. Well they're already using grain to get gasoline or grass to get gasoline in America and some other countries but still this is not yet the solution. If India and China continue to develop at the same rate as they have been then these two nations alone will require so much energy, as much energy as we have available today, what about all the others? Will they have to die? Well what I'm saying is that the situation is very severe, very acute and in this kind of situation and I think that a step , a decision to build some new nuclear power facilities for peaceful purposes, well its probably inevitable today. We are hoping that perhaps in the near future, new sources of energy will become available and that would perhaps make us adjust the current plans but as of now, that's it."

RN:

"With you interest in renewable energies then does it concern you that Gazprom has become so powerful in Russia and extending on from that, do you think that Vladimir Putin is a good steward of the environment in Russia?"

MG:

"As regards Gazprom, I actually created Gazprom, Gazprom was created during, on my watch in the Soviet Union and the Minister of Gas Industry, who later became Prime Minister was the first head of Gazprom under me. I think that we made the right choice at that time. We saw the importance of gas production and solving problems of domestic supply of energy and industrial supply of energy and I believe that Gazprom was the right and the reasonable step to take. I believe that there is no reason to reproach Russia of being a bad supplier, not a good faith supplier. What happened with Ukraine and Belarussia, with Georgia also, those are, I believe, in a way the effects of the Soviet Empire and its easy to question why should they pay just one third if what western Europe pays for gas supplies - one third, just one third - so you can't explain that they should pay this ludicrous price. If we are in a market economy then there should be a common approach and that's the only reason for what happened at that time. I believe that perhaps Russia wasted some time but  certainly Russia notified all those countries and they were in discussion but they thought they could drag their feet and continue to get cheap gas, billions of cubic metres of cheap gas and live on those soviet legacies. But they are independent nations, they chose independence and therefore, I think, independence implies paying world prices. So at some point the decision needed to be take and it was in protest and there was this crisis, but anyway, as regards the whole story of the gas trade and Russia's links with its European customers, there hasn't been any complaints that Russia was not acting in good faith. There were some commercial disputes. That's natural, not just on gas but always there are some problems when big commercial projects are done. Sakhalin II for example, this is a project where certain adjustments had to be made. Our partners ultimately agreed and they found a way of step by step adjusting the terms of that project, so I think that overall, there is no reason for us now to criticise Russia. There are some problems, referring, relating to pipelines, the development of pipelines and this is being addressed. Russia is equally interested in the right kind of gas trade, equally the same as its customers, Russia is a vendor, Russia sells and if Russia cannot sell, then Russia cannot live, so we are interested in gas trade, we want to develop our economy. But let me ask you this question, which I did not ask others, now, you asked me some questions, I'll ask you one question, you want to receive, to get energy resources, you want a stable supply of energy and you want this to be on the basis of market economics. But we and other suppliers, suppliers from the middle east and from central Asia  are one day see their energy resources, which are in short supply in the world today, they want the kind of trade that allows them also to get the technology, the new know how but try to buy new technology from the European Union but we're not fools, they shouldn't think that we're fools, we are not, we have shown on many occasions that we are no fools, that we are very smart people, so I'm very frank with you, so we want a relationship with Europe, Russia wants to build this relationship for the future...

MG:

"Whether Putin is a good steward of the environment in Russia... I think that during these years, of Putin's watch, many things have been changing for the better in our country. First of all, the consequences of the nuclear arms race. These consequences are being taken care of. They have created facilities to utilise the old submarines, the decommissioned submarines, more than 200 such submarines are now being decommissioned. With the help of the United States and other countries, the European countries, using their investment, Russia is destroying chemical weapons. Billions were spent on producing those weapons now billions are needed to destroy them and this is happening. We have complied with many needs caused by the Chernobyl accident but a lot remains to be done to clean up after that. Also, we used to have a situation when forestries were being plundered and our foreign partners were mostly making money as a result of this, but some of our Russian people , profiteers were also benefiting from that chaos. Now, this forestry sector is being put in order. In the fisheries there was a totally chaotic situation and now we also have the coast guards and services that protect that and so if other countries want to fish in our waters that should be done on the basis of formal agreements. We are still facing problems in so far as the chemical industry is concerned, environmental problems, and finally, Russia is working now to improve  the conditions of the river Volga. Actually, in the Volga basin, about 70% of the population of Russia live. Volga is the central street, the main street of Russia, so they say. Alexander Likhotal who is the President of Green Cross International and who is with us today, he recently participated in a conference, one of the conferences that addressed the problems of improving the river Volga. Public opinion has become very effective in protecting nature in protecting natural parks and rivers and people sometimes protest in a rather vehement way - particularly they protest against those who would like to use land to privatise land contrary to the wishes of the people. The people sometimes picket for hours and days, day and night. This is how democracy works. So I believe that yes, there are many environmental problems in Russia, but nevertheless, 60% of Russia's ecosystems have not been damaged, have not been destroyed. So when companies go to the north and to the tundra to develop oil, today they have to operate in a very strict environmental framework, which was not the case in the Soviet times. So a positive change has taken place and it will continue."

 

RN:

"How did Chernobyl affect you personally and your attitude to the environment?"

MG:

"Well certainly I lived before Chernobyl and I lived after Chernobyl. But as for my position on the main positions regarding nuclear weapons, nuclear power, my position had been set even before Chernobyl. Chernobyl reaffirmed the correctness of that position and that is to say that we need to move toward abolition of nuclear weapons - so you ask me about Chernobyl and nuclear power but I'm talking about nuclear weapons - well - why is that? Because one, SS-18 missile (the Americans I think call it Satan or something) contains the power of 100 Chernobyl's. So my outlook, my mind was of course affected by what happened in Chernobyl but it kind of reaffirmed my position and the discussion that we had here in London a few years ago with professor Rotblat, the late Professor Rotblat, my very good friend, at the conference, in which he participated as head of the Pugwash conference, I can repeat what I said then, that we must do everything possible to preserve the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but all provisions of that treaty should be observed and that means that the members of the nuclear club, the nuclear weapon countries, should, in accordance with that treaty, start reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons. Up until now, only the Soviet Union, Russia and the United States were part of the process of nuclear reductions. Now we need international agreements on nuclear weapons that would actually impose obligations on all members of the nuclear club because they did give assurances that they would, at some point, start reducing their nuclear weapons. So I believe that we need an international treaty so that those countries too should start reducing their nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union, Russia and the United States have been doing and those countries should continue the process of nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, the Americans have undermined many things. For example, the Americans have not ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. They withdrew from the ABM treaty and now they would like also to also undermine the rules that exist in the world as regards ABM, that is to say, they are placing their missile defence bases far from their own territory. When the defence budget was discussed, Mr Gates, secretary Gates, said that we need more forces because he said China and Russia are unpredictable countries and who knows, maybe we'll have to defend against them. So this is what they have in mind. So today I'm speaking at the Winston Churchill context and I will be sharing my views and I will be speaking, not just about Winston Churchill,  but also about what is happening today. Churchill once said that you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. After they have tried everything else. And I think that they should do the right thing at the right time and I will be saying that today.

RN:

"And do you think that whoever moves into the White House after President Bush will be an improvement on the current administration?"

MG:

"Well I would very much wish so.....I am saying that with some caution because actually, there wasn't that much difference in the foreign policy democrats and the republicans. And also Great |Britain always working along with the United States. "

RN:

"Do you think Iraq was a mistake? including the environmental consequences of what is happening there?"

MG:

"Well it certainly was a mistake. On the day when hostilities started against Iraq, I was in the subway in Tokyo in Japan and they gave me a call from Moscow and I said it was a major policy mistake. It turned out to be an even bigger mistake than I had thought. They harmed a lot of things and other than Great Britain, the other American allies, very close American allies, the Germans, the French and Russia, also an important partner to the United States, had been trying, trying hard as friends but also very firmly to persuade the United States that it was wrong to go into Iraq. Well I don't know who actually played a bigger role, whether the information that Americans received from you or their own intelligence information or they invented the intelligence where there was none, but ultimately they did not find weapons of mass destruction and they got a lot of bloodshed."

MG:

"I don't know who misled, whom or perhaps they misled themselves, and they are still trying to understand in the United States whether perhaps it was British intelligence that gave them the wrong leads and therefore they acted in this way - we don't know. But anyway, they made a mistake going into Iraq and of course, the fact that such a big Arab country was treated this way, well I think that we were very close and it was very possible to solve the problem in a diplomatic, political way. S I think that many factors came into play, they thought that they could control a resource-rich region, they thought that they could change the overall situation in the middle east for the better but it was exactly the opposite that happened and now I think that through common efforts we should find some closure, find some way to get out of it. The President of the United States has already said that he will not sign the law adopted, the act adopted by the Senate to start withdrawing from Iraq so it means that a difficult situation there will continue but I think that the most important thing is to learn lessons from these mistakes.

RN:

"Finally, do you think that it has damaged Tony Blair's legacy, he will be leaving as Prime Minister at some point over the next few months, we don't know when. But do you think what has happened in Iraq has damaged Tony Blair's legacy?"

MG:

"I think so. I believe that the beginning and the middle part of his course  were good, were successful. And I think that he regrets and others regret what happened."