INTERVIEW, Page 46He Stopped The ShootingEGON KRENZ overruled his bosses to prevent bloodshed duringdemonstrations in East Germany. But despite a West Germanproposal to develop closer ties, he sees no chance forBy James O. Jackson and Frederick Ungeheuer and Egon Krenz
Q. After 28 years, the Berlin Wall is open. What motivated you
to make this move after all these years?
A. My starting point is that freedom of movement is a basic
human right. Thus there could be no better proof of our sincerity
about renewing socialism than by starting with human rights. I
considered it a disadvantage that we were signers of the Helsinki
Final Act and the Vienna declaration yet we did not abide by
certain parts of those agreements. We intend by this action to
emphasize the unity between word and deed. Last but not least, let
me stress that to open the border does not mean that its existence
should be questioned.
Q. Do you mean to say there are other classes that should now
be included in the formation of political consensus?
A. I am in favor of a solution of all the problems of this
society by reaching consensus by all the existing social and
political forces in the country. There is always more than one
solution for a given problem. The most important element of
consensus is that it serves the majority of the people. Nothing
should happen that would serve only a part of this society and not
the majority.
Q. Several very senior members of the party and the government
have been expelled recently from the Politburo, the Central
Committee and the party. What were the most serious infractions
they committed against the state and the people?
A. First and foremost, their actions and their behavior led to
the loss of the confidence that the people had put in them. There
was a gap between words and deeds.
With regard to Gunter Mittag, who was in charge of the economy,
he did misuse his office and was expelled from the party for it.
I hesitate to say more at this point in time because it would be
wrong for me to interfere in a case that is the subject of judicial
proceedings.
Q. In your long career, you have been responsible for youth
affairs and, as a member of the Politburo, for state security. Why
did you not insist on reforms much earlier?
A. There are many steps along a career path, and every honest
politician goes up a learning curve. In the beginning, I felt that
Erich Honecker was a person worth emulating because of the way he
combined economic achievement with social progress and the great
attention he paid to youth affairs.
Later I felt very strongly about decisions that had very little
to do with reality. I expressed this view on repeated occasions in
the mid-'80s, when great changes were taking place in socialist
societies, primarily in the Soviet Union. In the leadership there
was a majority, influenced by Honecker, Mittag and others, that
opposed these international changes. You can imagine that as a man
less than 50 at that time, faced with a General Secretary over 70,
my views were not always accepted.
Q. He considered you a mere youngster . . .?
A. Yes, you could say that. But furthermore, to change policies
you need a political majority. My political friends will confirm
that I felt very much inspired by the ideas of Gorbachev, without
thinking that the same changes had to be introduced here. We were
and still are different countries. The essential thing is socialism
with a human face combined with democracy. I am convinced that if
we had opted for this course earlier, we would not have stumbled
into the political crisis in which we find ourselves now.
Q. Is it true that on Oct. 9 you personally intervened to
prevent another Tiananmen Square happening in Leipzig by
countermanding a written order by Honecker to use military units
in and around the city -- which had received live ammunition -- to
put down the demonstrations by force, on the grounds that they were
counterrevolutionary?
A. These demonstrations had been going on for several weeks.
The situation became more aggravated on Oct. 9. Members of my and
other parties refused to acknowledge that we were confronted with
a popular movement aimed at bringing about a renewal in this
country. I cannot confirm the existence of any order to shoot or
that a distribution of ammunition took place. But clashes between
demonstrators and the People's Police were possible.
I was telephoned that evening by one of my political friends,
then the second secretary of the district Helmut Hackenberg, who
was in charge of the action. He informed me that several local
personalities, including three secretaries of the party, had joined
Gewandhaus Orchestra director Kurt Masur in a public appeal against
the use of violence. Although I was not empowered to do so by the
office I held at the time, I told my political friends that their
appeal was correct, and I encouraged them to act in such a way that
everything would end without the use of force.
That same week, in preparation for the next Monday, Oct. 16
(when more demonstrations were expected), I went to Leipzig,
together with people who were responsible for security. We drew up
instructions that 1) any kind of violent confrontation must be
avoided, 2) in no case should firearms be used, and this was summed
up in an order by the chairman of the National Defense Committee.
I then went to the room in which we are now sitting and presented
the order to Honecker. I insisted on his signing it, which he did.
And there is one more thing, which I have not yet said in
public. I told my political friends in Leipzig, no matter what the
final order looks like, even if it should be a different order, you
will refuse to use firearms. Today I'm glad we acted this way
because it enabled us to protect the peaceful revolution in our
country.
Q. You told them in effect that if there was any order to
shoot, they should ignore it?
A. Yes. It was not an easy decision for me because I was not
General Secretary at the time. For me it was a question of
conscience and a deep personal conviction that in the civilized
world, conflicts can be resolved only by political means.
Q. How can relations between the two German states and their
respective allies be improved?
A. Today we have a unique opportunity to contribute to the
construction of the "European home." This seems to me a more
constructive approach than to give priority to the unity of
Germany. It is obvious that the citizens of the Federal Republic
have no interest in joining a socialist society, while people in
this country do not want to change their socialist society into a
capitalist one.
Besides, the existence of two German states is a stabilizing
factor for European security. To be perfectly frank, despite
differences in views, I know of no serious politician, either in
the East or the West, who is interested in the unification of the
two states.
If one speaks of confederation today, one must ask, On what
basis? It would be necessary to have a common foreign policy, a
common defense policy. I ask you, Do these conditions exist? We are
prepared to leave the Warsaw Pact, if the Federal Republic is
prepared to leave NATO. So long as both states remain in their
political and military alliances, a confederation of the two states
is simply not possible.
Allow me to add that I think that in the future the Warsaw Pact
and NATO will have greater political importance than military, and
that it is in this context that a common "European home" will be
built.
It has been generally accepted that the creation of the G.D.R.
marked a turning point in European history. Now you could reverse
the whole thing and say the disappearance of the G.D.R. would also
constitute another turning point. At the present time, it would
serve neither the interests of peace nor stability, nor would it
be in the interest of human beings.
Q. Do you think that- at the end of this whole process, there
will be a neutral, nuclear-free zone in Central Europe as already
exists to the north in Finland and Sweden and to the south in
Austria and Switzerland?
A. Quite simply, yes. I can imagine that the center of Europe
could become a nuclear weapons-free area. The G.D.R. has declared
that it would not be necessary to wait for the completion of the
common "European home" to accomplish this but that it could start
immediately.
Q. How do you see developments in relations between the G.D.R.
and the U.S.?
A. President Bush sent me a very significant and friendly
letter in connection with both my election as head of state and the
removal of travel restrictions. I consider this a signal for closer
relations with the U.S. There are some issues that still need to
be clarified.
Q. What issues? Would you like most-favored-nation treatment,
for instance?
A. Well, why not? Trade is always stabilizing.
Q. As you know, Malta rhymes with Yalta. Do you think one day
we will look back at Malta as another historic turning point?
A. Times have changed. Today responsibility for the world is
borne by all countries, great and small. There are aspects of the
Yalta agreement that must remain intact. It is difficult to look
into the future, but I do think Malta is a meeting of historic
