The political aftermath of Armenia`s earthquake has proven to be almost as unsettling as the disaster itself.
Some of the repercussions may work in favor of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his reform programs, while others may have compounded problems that were plaguing him before.
Whatever the final consequences, the way in which Gorbachev, his advisers and the Soviet media handled the tragedy provided insights into their view of this country`s strengths, weaknesses and role in the world.
Gorbachev seized the opportunity to demonstrate graphically some of the inefficiencies of the Soviet system that he has been talking about for nearly four years and a chance to try to solve the bitter ethnic strife that has been boiling between Armenia and neighboring Azerbaijan for almost a year.
It also offered Gorbachev a way of showing Soviets quite plainly what he had stressed in his UN speech earlier this month, namely that this country, isolated and xenophobic for decades, must integrate itself with the rest of the world.
The earthquake struck Dec. 7, just hours before Gorbachev was to address the UN in New York and have lunch with President Reagan and President-elect George Bush.
Gorbachev continued with his schedule for the day, but after reports made clear the scope of the disaster, he abandoned the remainder of his tour and returned home.
Given that tens of thousand of people were believed to have died, Gorbachev advisers pointed out at the time, it would have been ”immoral” for him to continue his visit, which was to include a shopping trip on Manhattan`s posh East Side.
Two interesting things happened as soon as Gorbachev arrived home.
His return was not covered by state-run television. It was the first time in many years, observers were quick to note, that the departure or arrival of a Soviet leader was not broadcast on national television. It appeared that Gorbachev did not want to draw attention to himself, but rather to leave the victims of the quake and the rescue efforts in the forefront.
Then, breaking all precedent, Gorbachev flew directly to Armenia and spent two full days touring the stricken area. With his wife, Raisa, by his side, Gorbachev was shown on television at first consoling and later castigating.
The consolation took two lines. First, he spoke of the great human tragedy and the sorrow the nation felt over the disaster; but he also urged people to set aside ethnic divisions at a time of such devastation. This was clearly aimed at the dispute between Armenians and Azerbaijanis that has led to widespread violence and nearly 200 deaths since February.
The feud between the two peoples, one Christian and the other Moslem, is centuries old, but the present fighting centers on Armenia`s desire to take control of a region of Azerbaijan known as Nagorno-Karabakh that is inhabited mainly by Armenians.
”He thought that it (the quake) would resolve the Karabakh issue,” said a leading Soviet observer. ”It did not, and that was his first disappointment.”
Not only had the disaster failed to solve the problem, in some ways in exacerbated it. Azerbaijani students at a polytechnic school in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, ran in the streets upon hearing news of the quake and announced that Allah had dealt justice to the Armenians. Later, telegrams were sent anonymously from Azerbaijanis to Armenians congratulating them on their disaster.
There also were reports that Armenians refused aid sent from Azerbaijan. In addition, rumors flew that Armenians who were evacuated from the disaster area would never be allowed to return and that orphaned Armenian children would be sent to homes of Russians to destroy their ethnic roots.
So Gorbachev switched to castigation and, in an interview on national television, blasted those on both sides of the issue who chose this moment to incite unrest in order to further their political ends. That line was taken up by other Soviet officials and later in the Soviet press.
But it was not only the Armenians and Azerbaijanis who came in for harsh words. Gorbachev, his advisers and the press were also strongly critical of the inefficient way the early rescue work was organized.
Not only were local officials accused of having failed to move quickly enough, but the government-controlled press reported daily on the foulups and shortcomings that it said had contributed to many deaths.
Cranes for lifting heavy slabs of concrete were lacking, huge traffic jams snarled the roads, two planes carrying rescue workers and relief supplies crashed while trying to land at overcrowded Armenian airports and there were shortages of everything from tents and blankets to medicines and kidney dialysis machines.
”It showed our technical failures,” a Soviet official said.
At the same time, foreign rescue and relief workers came in for exceptional praise and were held up to Soviet workers as an example of how things should and could be done. The Communist Party daily Pravda gave the bluntest comparison:
”The French (rescuers) in a few minutes managed to set up a moveable electric station, start the lights and disperse the rubble. And with us, for one man working we have about 10 observers who give advice rather than clear the rubble.”
Soldiers-in the end 20,000 of them were sent to the area-were widely reported to be standing around doing little.
”Two weeks, or two months ago these men were ordinary workers,” said a leading Soviet editor. ”Now they are in the army, but they are simply doing what they did on the job-nothing. It shows the level of our work.”
Gorbachev has been telling his countrymen that greater efficiency and harder work are essential if the Soviet Union is going to pull itself out of its economic morass. The message that came through in the media from the disaster area was clear: the country has to do better.
Finally, the Soviets opened their country up to thousands of foreigners who flew in, mostly without visas, to contribute their labor and to deliver food and supplies from abroad. There had been nothing like it in the Soviet Union since World War II.
Gorbachev and other members of the government went out of their way to highlight this and to thank the foreigners for their kindess. This fit precisely into Gorbachev`s theme that the world had reached a point where no nation, however big, or however small, could live in a vacuum.
”Today the preservation of any kind of `closed` societies is hardly possible,” Gorbachev said in his UN speech. ”This calls for a radical review of approaches to the totality of the problem of international cooperation as a major element of universal security.”
