May 8, 1998   
This Date's Issues: 2168 • 2169 • 

Johnson's Russia List
#2169
8 May 1998
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
Are you starting to feel comfortably informed again?
1. Interfax: Attack On Russia Still Possible - President Yeltsin.
2. AP: Russia Revenues Below Forecasts.
3. RIA Novosti: RUSSIA'S ECONOMY IN SLUGGISH STATE, ECONOMIC EXPERTS SAY.
4. RIA Novosti: HOW RUSSIANS OBSERVE HOLIDAYS.
5. RIA Novosti: THERE MUST BE NO NEW IRON CURTAIN BETWEEN EUROPE AND 
RUSSIA IN THE EXTENSION OF NATO, BELIEVES ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI.
6. Jay Ulfelder: Technocracy.
7. Moscow Times: Andrei Piontkovsky, SEASON OF DISCONTENT: Past Sins Bind
Yeltsin 
In Base Love Triangle.
8. Argumenty i Fakty: DOES RUSSIA REALLY NEED CIS?
9. AP: New Russian newspaper targets parliament.
10. AP: Russian Folk Art Caters to Rich.
11. Executive and Legislative Newsletter: RUSSIANS ON THEIR NEW PREMIER.
12. Jamestown Foundation Monitor: FURTHER SPLITS IN RUSSIA'S COMMUNIST
PARTY. 
13. John Wilson: The Harvard Davis Center for Russian Studies Celebrates
50 Years.
A Report on the Conference.]

********

#1
Attack On Russia Still Possible - President Yeltsin 

MOSCOW, May 8 (Interfax) - The possibility of an attack on Russia is still
there, Russian President *Boris Yeltsin* told senior officials of the
Defense Ministry, the General Staff, law enforcement agencies, service
commanders and commanders of some military districts and fleets at a
reception in the Kremlin Friday. 

"The final goal of the military reform is to form smaller but efficient
Armed Forces, armed with advanced hardware and well-trained personnel.
These requirements are tough but realistic," he said. 
"I am confident that this kind of reform will not impair Russia's
potential to deter, in particular a nuclear attack, and repel an aggression
if necessary. We cannot afford discarding the possibility of aggression,"
Yeltsin said. 
Yeltsin described those present as "the military elite" and said:
"Russia has given you great authority but above all this implies the need
to keep the Armed Forces prepared and the morale of the troops high." 
"You will determine to the decisive degree what the Russian army will be
like tomorrow and how reforms will go, the need for which is recognized by
the nation," he said. 
"The military security of the state is in your trust and every Russian
has a right to believe that our army will reliably protect the integrity,
independence and dignity of the country," Yeltsin said. 
"The Kremlin gives its full backing to the Armed Forces and this is its
consistent policy," he said. 
The military reform is a major state policy priority and the financial
support of the army will increase in 1998, Yeltsin said. 
Since the 17th century military officers had been presented to the head
of state but "since 1917 everything collapsed. Now we want to revive this
glorious tradition," he said. 
Every senior officer will see the head of state when he is promoted,
Yeltsin said. 
He congratulated the meeting on V-E Day and said: "We will drink a glass
on these days and will keep intact the memory of those who died in those
hard times." 
********

#2
Russia Revenues Below Forecasts 
By Vladimir Isachenkov
May 8, 1998

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia's new premier said state revenues would be
about 26 percent below projections this year and the government may
have to make even bigger spending cuts than previously announced. 
``We must live according to our means,'' Prime Minister Sergei
Kiriyenko
said in an interview published today in the business daily Kommersant. 
``We must realize that we're not wealthy enough. Moreover, we must
honestly say that we're quite poor now,'' he said. 
President Boris Yeltsin appointed Kiriyenko to head the new government
after firing the previous Cabinet in March and accusing it of not doing
enough to solve the country's economic problems. 
Kiriyenko has stressed his government will maintain a tight budget -- a
position criticized by the Communist Party, the main opposition group,

which wants to increase government spending to help hard-pressed
citizens and struggling state companies. 
The Finance Ministry said recently the government planned to cut
spending this year by more than $10 billion -- around 13 percent of the
overall budget -- due to lower than forecast revenues. But today's
interview indicated the cuts could be twice that. 
The government has faced chronic problems in collecting taxes, and as a
result, it is months behind in paying millions of state workers and
pensioners. Breaking this cycle of non-payments is regarded as the single
biggest challenge facing Kiriyenko and his new government. 
Before meeting with Kiriyenko today, Yeltsin said the new ``Cabinet is
already working hard to resolve the accumulated problems.'' 
Yeltsin today filled the few remaining posts in the new Cabinet. He
re-appointed Yevgeny Adamov as atomic energy minister and replaced
the ministers of nationalities and health and heads of several government
agencies. He also fired the head of the Russian customs service and told
Kiriyenko to find a successor. 
In the interview, Kiriyenko blamed the previous government for
systematically making overly optimistic budget forecasts. 
He said tough steps were needed to boost sagging revenues, including
bankruptcy proceedings against failing state companies and measures to
ensure the state received the tax money it was due on alcohol sales. 

******

#3
RUSSIA'S ECONOMY IN SLUGGISH STATE, ECONOMIC EXPERTS SAY
//MAY 8, 1998 /RIA NOVOSTI/--
##Russia's economy is still in 'a sluggish state', the
Russia/Europe Economic Policy Centre indicate with reference to
the data released by the State Statistical Committee of the
Russian Federation which shows that in the first quarter of 1998
the real GDP did not change in comparison with the same period
of 1997, while the industrial output increased by 1.4 percent.
The average yield rate of the GKOs in April was equal to
27.4 percent p.a. against 24.5 percent p.a. in March. Experts
explain the climb by a lot of uncertainties relating to the
formation of a new Russian government. 
The deficit of the federal budget in the first quarter of
1998 made up 4.8 percent of the GDP which is lower than
throughout the entire 1997 when this indicator was equal to 6.8
percent. Economists regard this fact as a sign signalling a
possibility of meeting the targeted budget parameters for 1998.
Experts point out that the Russian government's key objective is
to hold the budget deficit under control. 
The economic Policy Centre's experts also believe that
Russia is still suffering from a lack of confidence in its
national currency which is primarily due to an undeveloped state
of its financial system. After several years of consistent steps
towards a financial stabilisation, in March of this year the
money stock accounted for only 13.5 percent of the GDP, which is
much below the level in the countries with a developed market
economy and below that in the transition economies. 

*******

#4
HOW RUSSIANS OBSERVE HOLIDAYS
MOSCOW, MAY 8, 1998 /RIA NOVOSTI/ -- The main holiday of
Orthodox Christian, Easter, ranks first on the list of holidays,
excluding New Year, which Muscovites and residents of other
Russian cities and villages observe. Easter this year--on April
19--was observed by 81 per cent of the Russians polled. This is
evidenced by a poll of urban and rural population carried out by
the Moscow Public Opinion Foundation (FOM-INFO). The foundation
spokesman told a RIA Novosti correspondent that 40 per cent out
of the 1,500 respondents met Eastern within their families, at a
festive table. 29 per cent of those polled consecrated Easter
cakes and eggs. Another Christian holiday--Christmas--in large
cities was observed by 63 per cent of the respondents, and in

the countryside by 38 per cent.
There has been a sharp change in the attitude of Russians
to the First of May, a holiday widely celebrated in Soviet
times. Before the "international day of working people's
solidarity" only 30 per cent of those polled said they would
observe the May Day within their families. 27 per cent intended
to go out of town for a rest, and only seven per cent of the
respondents proposed to participate in rallies and
demonstrations. By the way, in Moscow slightly over 30,000
people came out for Mayday demonstrations.
As to post-Soviet holidays, Russian Independence Day (June
12) are observed by 10 per cent of the Russians polled, and
Constitution Day (December 12) by nine per cent. 

********

#5
THERE MUST BE NO NEW IRON CURTAIN BETWEEN EUROPE AND RUSSIA
IN THE EXTENSION OF NATO, BELIEVES ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
WARSAW, MAY 8. /RIA NOVOSTI CORRESPONDENT VLADIMIR BLINKOV/
-- The ratification of the protocols on the integration of
Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO "is proceeding
without failures" and in a year these countries will be a
full-fledged members of the Atlantic alliance, Zbigniew
Brzezinski told a RIA Novosti correspondent. The well-known
American political scientist who was the national security
adviser to former US President Jimmy Carter is now in Warsaw on
the occasion of the presentation of his new book "The Big
Chess-Board."
In Brzezinski's opinion, the entry of the three countries
into NATO, and then also the process of their final blending
into this structure which is not going to be without problems,
must answer the basic question of "the vector and pace of
further extension of the alliance by admitting new members." In
this process, Brzezinski stressed, one should also take into
account the reaction of Moscow, which "sooner or later will
agree" that the extension of NATO is a "positive factor, not the
other way round."
According to the political scientist, "during the honeymoon
between Washington and Moscow" (the early 1990s) America missed
the chance to "clearly and distinctly tell Russia about its
geopolitical intentions by offering the Kremlin alluring terms
of cooperation with the Atlantic alliance." "Pronounced
pro-Western sentiments" dominated in Russia at the time.
Brzezinski expressed regret that then there was a draught
in the relations between Russia and the USA and that "the moment
of truth" was lost. Hence the "nervous reaction" of Russia to
the plan to extend NATO, which the leadership of the alliance
announced back in 1996. However, he believes that Russia "will
ultimately all the same throw in its lot with democratic Europe,
close to it in spirit and culture," which "does not abolish"
Moscow's cooperation with the near-abroad countries within the
framework of the CIS. The "step-up of Russian contacts" with the
former Soviet republics Brzezinski thinks is due to the
realisation by Moscow that total pro-Western orientation,
especially toward the USA, brings in little profit, but
"requires considerable costs."
Touching on the upcoming presidential elections in Russia,
the political scientist stressed that "a second advent of the
communists is most unlikely." Authoritarian leaders have more
chances, one of whom he says is "General Lebed, so far aspiring
to a gubernatorial post." However, in Brzezinski's words, Lebed
will be able to count on a large electorate only in the case of
"a sharp criminalisation and impoverishment of the country
forcing the population to appeal to a 'firm hand'." Brzezinski
evaded answering the question about the most promising
presidential hopefuls. "The political situation in Russia

changes too fast, and to speak of favourites is too early," he
noted. 

********

#6
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 
Subject: Technocracy
From: jay_ulfelder@juno.com (Jay Ulfelder)

I enjoyed the eXile's piece on technocracy and had a few follow-up
thoughts on the location of that idea in contemporary Russian politics. 
As the eXile article suggests, of course, technocracy is as political a
concept of the proper relationship between state and society as any. In
fact, it has always struck me as a remarkably authoritarian vision: a

government staffed with people selected for their scientific
capabilities (and who determines which capabilities are most important?)
dispensing policies without regard for messy popular opinion and
inefficient democratic decision rules. Hey, c'mon here: benevolent
despotism is still despotism.

Of course, this approach does not seem new in post-Soviet Russian
politics (what was Chubais up to a few years ago?), nor is it exactly out
of fashion internationally these days. Just in the past few months,
we've seen the Clinton administration nod in the direction of
market-oriented technocratic authoritarians in Asia and Africa as an
appropriate response to economic crisis and underdevelopment. Since the
end of the Cold War, the idea seems to have a firm hold that market
economics is a science, and if you can just overcome messy politics and
get the fundamentals right, all other things -- including democracy --
will eventually fall into place. As the eXile pointed out, sound
familiar?

To my mind, the current vogue of this term in Russia is simply further
indication of the authoritarian predilictions of the Yeltsin
administration. It's no accident that Boris Nikolayevich was among the
first to use the term to explain his choice of Kiriyenko. In this case,"
technocrat" simply refers to the presence of "scientific" expertise
combined with the absence of strong political affiliations. The point is
explicitly authoritarian -- avoid all political wrangling that might
interfere with the executive's efforts to implement the policies of its
choosing. As was the case in Latin America, if it works, the political
powers that put the technocrats in place take the credit, and if it
fails, the technocrats take the fall and we're right back where we
started.

*********

#7
For more articles from The Moscow Times, check out their website at

www.moscowtimes.ru

Moscow Times
May 7, 1998 
SEASON OF DISCONTENT: Past Sins Bind Yeltsin In Base Love Triangle 
By Andrei Piontkovsky
Special to The Moscow Times

My last column came out the day Boris Berezovsky was named secretary of 
the Commonwealth of Independent States. Still not knowing about his 
appointment, I had written that Boris Yeltsin was undoubtedly sincere in 
his declared desire to throw Berezovsky out of the country, but it would 
be very difficult for him to do so because of the tycoon's too close 
involvement in presidential family financial affairs. 

I personally didn't see any dignified way out of this political and 
personal dilemma. But Yeltsin demonstrated once again what enormous 
distance lies between a modest political observer and the unpredictable 
and charismatic president of all Russians. Indeed, he didn't dare cut 
off his relationship with the notorious wheeler-dealer, because it would 
have been too risky for him. But he fulfilled his promise and did throw 
Berezovsky out of the country -- into an international organization with 
headquarters outside Russia's borders, in Minsk. 

Describing his presence at this sensitive intergovernmental post as a 
glaring conflict of interest is putting it far too mildly. It opens the 
way for his financial empire to participate in many lucrative projects, 

such as rescheduling CIS countries debts to Russia, privatization 
schemes in these countries, Caspian oil exploration and so on. 

But Yeltsin would not have been Yeltsin if, after giving in to 
Berezovsky and admitting to his dependence on him, he had not decided to 

demonstrate immediately that this dependence on one of the financial 
clans is not absolute. 

The most effective way for him to demonstrate this was to appoint 
Berezovsky's arch-rival, Anatoly Chubais, to the key post of chairman of 
the board of Unified Energy Systems. 

This political love triangle already has a dramatic history of mutual 
passions, intrigues and betrayals. The president has on several 
occasions appointed and fired both Berezovsky and Chubais, who have been 
both political friends and sworn enemies. The positions of this tango of 
three at the top of Russian power is changing, but the partners cannot 
separate from one another. 
Several observers have interpreted the president's most recent 
appointments as a timely way of financing his or his successor's 
presidential campaign. In my view, this is not the case. There are many 
serious constitutional and medical obstacles to Yeltsin's running for a 
third term. As for a "successor," given the current state of war of all 
against all in the party of power, any concept of someone who is 
appointed by the president and approved by the party of power loses all 
meaning. 

It is enough to recall Berezovsky's huge financial infusions into the 
Krasnoyarsk campaign of retired General Alexander Lebed, who by no means 
can be presented as a candidate of the party of power. 

No, the "Big Troika" of Yeltsin, Berezovsky and Chubais are linked not 
by the future presidential campaign in 2000, but by the past one in 
1996. They have since been incapable of settling the accounts of that 
campaign. 

Two years ago, the first president of democratic Russia, the leading 
reformer and the financial adventurer together committed the original 
incestuous sin of collusion between money and power. They won their 
presidential campaign. But since then, they have been walking along 
crooked paths that are joined by an invisible chain of too much 
knowledge, which brings too much sorrow. 

********

#8
>From RIA Novosti
Argumenty i Fakty, No. 18
May 1998
DOES RUSSIA REALLY NEED CIS?
The appointment of Boris Berezovsky as the CIS Executive
Secretary can be regarded as an attempt to revive the
Commonwealth. So far the results of cooperation are
discouraging: of the 1,150 joint documents signed over the
years of the CIS, only seven are being realised. So it is
legitimate to ask: what is more for Russia in the preservation
of the Commonwealth--minuses or pluses?

Minuses

Russia must first stabilise its own economy, and solve its
own social problems before helping its neighbours.
In order to develop industry, it is more profitable for us
to orient ourselves toward the industrialised nations of
Europe, Asia and America than the even more backward than
ourselves near-abroad states.
The Commonwealth's share of Russian foreign trade is less
than 20%. Our commodities are let with difficulty into the
markets of most countries of the former Soviet Union. Today it
is more profitable and simpler to develop relations with Iran,
Iraq and China than with the former Soviet republics.
Russia is in fact for the CIS a financial donor. Debt
under Russian CB technical credits to the national banks of the
Commonwealth's countries is no less than 6.5 billion dollars.
The CIS states are not paying Russia on time for the gas
and oil sold to them. At the same time they are constantly
inflating the charge for the transit of the raw materials
through their territory.
The external borders of the CIS states are
semitransparent. As a result, the Russian treasury does not
receive taxes and duties for imported goods, and contraband of
narcotics and illegal immigration flourish.
Russia bears the load practically alone in the settlement
of conflicts in Georgia, Moldova and Tajikistan, and is
rendering assistance in the protection of the borders of CIS
members. Russian soldiers are dying and receiving wounds in
"hot spots."

Pluses

It is strategically advantageous for Russia to form around

itself a belt of friendly states. This strengthens our
international positions, and enhances our defence capability.
Any disorders and armed conflicts in the near abroad
countries will lead to an avalanche-like growth of the number
of refugees - over the last three years alone about three
million people have arrived in Russia from adjacent republics.
Previously a part of the integrated Soviet economy,
Russia's major enterprises and whole industries can efficiently
operate only in cooperation with enterprises of other
republics.
The CIS market will yet long be for us a priority market,
since the markets of the developed nations are basically
already shared out.
One kilometre of organised frontier costs two million new
roubles, and there are more than 8,000 of such kilometres of
frontier with the CIS.
The export of gas, as well as the bulk of oil to the West
is via pipelines running across the territory of our CIS
neighbours.
Russia has no right to leave the Russian speaking
population in the near-abroad countries at the mercy of fate -
28 million, or a fifth of Russia's population. Approximately 80
million Russians have relatives among the compatriots in the
CIS.

********

#9
New Russian newspaper targets parliament
By Andrei Khalip 

MOSCOW, May 7 (Reuters) - A new paper hit Russia's overladen news stands on
Thursday that aims to build interest in one of the country's less respected
institutions -- parliament. 
``It is a special day in the history of domestic journalism,'' upper
chamber
chairman Yegor Stroyev said in a front-page address launching Parlamentskaya
Gazeta (Parliamentary Newspaper). 
``The people's deputies now have a solid platform for an active dialogue
with
the electorate,'' Gennady Seleznyov, the head of the State Duma lower house,
wrote. 
Many Russians see parliament as nothing more than a noisy, expensive
talking
shop where lawmakers worry more about keeping their perks than about helping
to run the country. Power under the post-Soviet constitution lies mostly with
the president. 
The Federation Council upper house groups regional leaders while the Duma
lower house is currently dominated by Communist and nationalist opponents of
President Boris Yeltsin. 
Deputy chief editor Vladimir Klimov told Reuters parliamentarians would
have
the opportunity to air their views in the newspaper but said most space would
be devoted to publishing new laws and providing high-quality news. 
``We will not just be a parliamentary newspaper, but a general political
publication,'' Klimov said. ``Besides, showing how parliament works may be
exciting, even sensational.'' 
The newspaper will initially appear once a week but will later be
distributed
on a daily basis mostly to subscribers, Klimov said. He said 20,000 copies
would be printed in the initial phase, rising to 150,000 by the end of the
year. 
There are thousands of newspapers in Russia, including about 70 national
publications, but circulation rarely exceeds a few hundred thousand copies,
far below that of some British or Japanese dailies where sales run into
millions of copies. 
Russians enjoy reading tabloids but are not devoted newspaper readers, so
launching a new broadsheet is risky. 
``We have studied the market a lot. The most important thing is that we
will
be publishing laws. It will create a good subscriber base for our newspaper.
Government officials and businessmen will want to read us for that,'' Klimov
said. 
Rossiiskaya Gazeta is the official government paper which publishes new
laws
and government decrees. But Klimov said this would now only publish decrees
and resolutions. 
He said his paper would try to abstain from inter-party bickering and would
show no bias towards any particular party. ``We are against any extremism,
right or left,'' he added. 
However, it may be difficult to be neutral for an official newspaper of the
Russian parliament, known for its conservative views and opposition to the

Kremlin line. 
Thursday's eight-page edition included an analysis of last month's clash
between the government and parliament, letters by both houses of parliament to
President Yeltsin, a long story on police corruption and a small sports
section. 
In its format it did not differ significantly from many other
publications. 
The newspaper is funded by the federal government as a parliamentary
newspaper
but Klimov said this money was not enough to cover all expenses. 
He said the newspaper would try to finance itself through advertising and
state funding as it did not want to become one of the many publications funded
by powerful financial groups protecting their own interests. 
``What we do not want to do is to immediately start dancing to their
tune,''
Klimov said. 

*********

#10
Russian Folk Art Caters to Rich
May 7, 1998
By ANNA DOLGOV

MOSCOW (AP) - The traditional roses-and-strawberries motif of Russian folk art
is out.
What's in is something more modern: Russia's ostentatious new rich, with
their
love of Mercedes, cellular phones and thick gold chains.
That, at least, is how one Moscow souvenir store sees it.
Located in an expensive retail mall in central Moscow, the New Russians'
World
store looks ordinary enough at first glance, with traditional lacquered wooden
boxes, blue-and-white ceramics and black trays painted with intertwining
flowers.
But you won't find paintings depicting young peasants in folk dress.
Instead, they show the flamboyant new rich and their favorite pastimes -
chatting on mobile phones, playing tennis, relaxing at a bathhouse, surrounded
by naked women and hefty bodyguards.
``There are scores of jokes about the new rich, and now I'm providing the
visuals,'' said Grigory Baltser, an artist and businessman who owns the store.
``But I'm not criticizing the way these people make their money - just the
cliche way in which they spend it.''
He has ceramic figurines of potbellied men draped with gold chains, a
mobile
phone in one hand, a pager in the other. His lacquered boxes feature images of
sleek luxury cars.
For an extra few hundred dollars, the store can even custom-make a
lacquer box
with the image of a client's favorite vehicle.
There's also a chess set with pieces representing two rival gangs - Russian
mobsters and their rivals from the southern Caucasus region. The pawns are
thick-necked goons, the knights jeeps, the kings mafia bosses.
``Nobody except collectors and foreigners buy traditional art any more,''
Baltser said. ``But these things are something people would enjoy, and
remember.''
Like the one-inside-the-other Matryoshka dolls with the likenesses of
Soviet
leaders, the souvenirs in Baltser's store are kitsch, he concedes.
But that's how Russian folk art developed hundreds of years ago. Icon
painters
excommunicated from the church began painting what was then popular - fairy-
tale characters. They sold their works to the rich to make a living.

********

#11
>From RIA Novosti
Executive and Legislative Newsletter No. 17/18.

RUSSIANS ON THEIR NEW PREMIER

On April 24, Russia's State Duma approved President Boris
Yeltsin's nominee for the post of premier, Sergei Kiriyenko, by
251 affirmative votes against 25 dissenting votes. 
A week earlier, Russia's National Center for Studying
Public Opinion, known by the Russian acronym VTsIOM,
interviewed a sample of 820 adult Muscovites.

Do you personally think that Sergei Kiriyenko will be able
to handle the job?
Yes 37%
No 36%
Don't know 27%

What makes you doubt Sergei Kiriyenko is up to the job?
(Only 293 respondents opposing his candidacy were polled)

He is too young 11%
He is unexperienced 14%
He does not have enough political clout 2%
He will be acting in Yeltsin's interest 10%
He will be acting in the interest 

of bank structures 2% 
As an advocate of democratic reform,
he will carry on the policy leading
to further impoverishment of the country 
and its people 3%
He opposes democratic reform and will 
therefore hurdle its progress 0%
He is not well-known enough, so it is 
unclear in whose interest 
he will be acting 6%
He is a shallow, weak person, and 
cannot be taken seriously 1%
Other reasons 2%
Don't know 1%

********

#12
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
8 May 1998

FURTHER SPLITS IN RUSSIA'S COMMUNIST PARTY. Russia's leading (some would say
only real) political party, the Communist Party, may be on the verge of
splitting. The credibility of the communist faction in the State Duma was
severely damaged when droves of rank-and-file members refused their leaders'
instructions to vote against Sergei Kirienko as prime minister on April 24.
Next, in a desperate bid to defeat Aleksandr Lebed's return to power in the
election due to be held in Krasnoyarsk Krai on May 17, the party leadership
this week overruled the krai party organization and called on all those who
voted in the first round for the communist candidate to vote in the second
round for the reformist incumbent, Valery Zubov. 

Now there has been a split in the local communist party organization in the
coal mining stronghold, Kemerovo Oblast. In what was once was the biggest
Communist Party organization in Siberia, there are now two communist
regional committees: one led by radical Leninist and former miners' leader
Teimuraz Avaliani, who held the post until he was voted out recently; the
other headed by the slightly more moderate Emilia Zhigulina, a former
secretary of the Kemerovo city committee of the CPSU who has been voted in
as his replacement. Avaliani, who accuses the present party leadership of
being too conciliatory toward the Yeltsin government, is refusing to step
down. He says he will appeal to a party congress to keep his post.
(Itar-Tass, May 6)

Also faced with a potential split is Russia is Our Home (ROH), the political
movement led by former Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin that has promised
to back Chernomyrdin's presidential bid in 2000. First the go-getting
governor of Saratov Oblast, Dmitri Ayatskov, announced that he was leaving
ROH to found his own Landowners' Party. Then, this week, the President of
the North Caucasus Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, Valery Kokov, announced
that he was leaving the ROH leadership. (Itar-Tass, May 6) Observers believe
Ayatskov and Kokov will be followed by a stream of other regional leaders
who will see no sense in tying themselves to Chernomyrdin now that he is no
longer prime minister. 

**********

#13
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 
From: Martin Ryle <mryle@richmond.edu>
Subject: CONF: DAVIS CENTER CONF. REPORT

Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 00:51:29 -0400
From: John Wilson <jrw14@cornell.edu>
The Davis Center for Russian Studies Celebrates 50 Years

A Report on the Conference

By John Wilson, Cornell University

Cambridge, Mass., May 2. In the early years of Harvard's Russian
Research Center, which coincided with a period of acrimonious
anti-Communism in the United States, people routinely threw rocks
through the center's windows until the sign identifying the building
was removed. But as the center celebrated its 50th anniversary today,
the scholars who assembled to hear a series of panel discussions about

Russian studies knew only too well that interest in things Russian,
whether based on ardor or animosity, is flagging and has presented
their field with an uncertain future.

Reduced concern with Russian studies comes precisely at a time when the
country and its one-time satellites figure in international business as
never before, and when it is possible to undertake research there with
fewer impediments of the kind imposed by the Soviet Government.

Despite this paradox, large and established entities like the Harvard
center and Columbia's Harriman Institute are at least financially
secure. The former was renamed the Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis
Center for Russian Studies in 1996, after Kathryn Davis pledged $10
million to its endowment. Mrs. Davis has also recently announced a
donation of $11 million to Wellesley College to enhance its Russian
programs.

Some two dozen presenters examined the current state of Russian studies
in more than seven hours of discussion today, two blocks west of the
Davis Center in an auditorium of the Science Center, a peculiarly
constructed building which some say is supposed to be shaped like a
camera. The speakers were seated in front of a banner depicting the
Davis Center's new logo, a Cyrillic "D" topped with a yellow onion
dome. In keeping with the interdisciplinary intentions of the center,
the panels were not separated by field; each featured a range of
specialists, including historians, political scientists, sociologists,
economists, humanists, and even a journalist and a banker.

Alex Inkeles (Hoover Institution), who was present at the founding of
the Russian Research Center, acknowledged that for many, the feeling of
excitement about Russian studies fostered by the Cold War is now "hard
to muster." But such an attitude is a "great mistake," he said, since
the close of the superpower contest did not signify the end of the need
to study Russia. In the 1970s, some scholars believed that the
shifting of Mr. Inkeles's research interests constituted a withdrawal
from the Russian field, but Mr. Inkeles explained that back then he was
spending less time studying the country's sociological makeup because
"we began to feel we had the answers." Two models -- totalitarianism
and the planned economy -- which Mr. Inkeles conceded "were not perfect
and missed some things," had provided social scientists with convenient
ways of interpreting the Soviet Union. Now, however, there exists no
model of Russian society, described by Mr. Inkeles as "unpredictable
and erratic," but this lacuna enables some rising scholar to propose a
new design. If the model were successful, the scholar "would be
guaranteed a place in social history," Mr. Inkeles said.

Life in contemporary Russia is very much in disarray, Stephen Holmes
(Princeton) said, observing that there is hardly any meaningful
relationship between the Government and the majority of the population.
"The Government does not tyrannize the people like an elephant, but it
pesters them like a mosquito," he said. Many of those in possession of
state power at all levels exist in "symbiosis" with criminal elements,
thus creating an environment that is "anti-rule-of-law," Mr. Holmes
said: "Halfway-liberalism is where they want to be." But Virginie
Coulloudon (Harvard) recommended that contemporary developments be
taken cautiously, since "one has to let events happen before theorizing
about them." The Russian Government is not utterly corrupt, she
argued, saying that there is not one "monolithic elite," but different
kinds of elite groups, which are "fluid categories."

As Russia has changed, so too have those who pursue the study of it.
Thane Gustafson (Georgetown), a political scientist, said that today's
students are far less "concerned about bombs and bullets." Instead,
they are more likely to speak Russian and want to spend time in the
former Soviet bloc in order to understand the region better. It is
time, Mr. Gustafson declared, for "Soviet studies [to] become a normal
field."

However, the political science community has been wrenched by a
conflict between those who adhere to the "area studies" approach and
those who classify themselves as practitioners of some theoretical
concept, such as rational choice theory, which in Mr. Gustafson's
words, is "now out of fashion." Timothy Colton (Harvard), the Davis
Center's director, said he expected "area studies" to lose the contest,

owing to the "great, coercive pressure in comparative politics" to
emphasize theory. This is not a desirable outcome, in Mr. Colton's
view, but it may be expedited by the inherent difficulty of drawing
effective comparisons of countries primarily by means of the "area
studies" method. "The American Political Science Association is
encouraging dual area competence, but we're not going to find enough
people to do it right. It's hard to compare Poland and Russia, for
example," he said.

The field of economics has experienced a similar reaction against "area
studies." Abram Bergson (Harvard) said that scholars identify
themselves mostly by reference to broad, inclusive categories like
micro- or macroeconomics rather than nationally-based ones like Russian
economics, which is in a "very depressed state." The Russian economist
is even an "endangered species," Marshall Goldman (Wellesley & Harvard)
said, despite the fact that it "seems to be a promising field" given
Russia's newfound significance in world trade. In reality, Russian
economics is the "most troubled" economics subject at the present time,
Mr. Goldman said, because few students studying the economics of the
former Soviet empire possess much cultural knowledge about it.

Several more speakers maintained that strong attention to culture is
absolutely necessary in any discipline of the humanities or social
sciences. The historian of science Loren Graham (MIT & Harvard) said
he steadfastly believes that a deep understanding of the context in
which events occurred is required in his field, even though some
scholars wonder why he feels a need to view the history of natural
science in Russia from the perspective of "area studies." Celeste
Wallander (Harvard) cited the failure of nearly all "specialists" to
predict the fall of the Berlin Wall as a consequence of the widespread
lack of knowledge about the Soviet bloc's domestic affairs. "It's a
false dichotomy to choose between 'area studies' and methodology," she
said. Among those voicing similar opinions about the importance of
cultural comprehension were Chrystia Freeland (Financial Times),
Pauline Jones-Luong (Harvard), Craig Kennedy (Morgan Stanley), and John
Schoeberlein-Engel (Harvard).

In acquiring that special cultural training and then researching a
society further, Ms. Jones-Luong, who studies Central Asian politics,
advised against "parochialism" in scholarship. One should not perceive
one's particular geographical area of expertise as the "center" and
everything else as the "periphery," she said, lamenting the marginal
role Central Asianists and Caucasianists usually occupy in research
centers which claim to be "Eurasian" or something more than just
Russian in scope.

Mr. Kennedy offered the audience what he called a "suggested syllabus"
of readings all Russian specialists should study closely. His personal
canon consists of the following eight works: Part One of The Origins
of Rus' by Omeljan Pritsak (Harvard); "Muscovite Political Folkways" by
Edward Keenan (Harvard); The Reign of Aleksei Mikhailovich by Gregory
Kotoshikhin; Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev; The Brothers Karamazov
by Fyodor Dostoevsky; Petersburg by Andrey Bely; The Golden Calf by
Ilya Ilf and Eugene Petrov; and The Master and Margarita by Mikhail
Bulgakov. A Rhodes Scholar who holds a Harvard Ph.D. in medieval
Russian history, Mr. Kennedy said that works such as these provided him
with the kind of "local knowledge" that enables him to be maximally
effective in investment banking in Russia.

Foreign language skills are an essential accompaniment to the cultural
understanding many presenters referred to above. But too few students
and professionals associated with Russian studies seem to possess
extensive language abilities. By means of illustration, Richard Pipes
(Harvard) recalled a faculty meeting at which someone ruefully observed
that the thorough foreign language competence required to pursue study
of the history of Central Asia barred most students from working in

that field. According to Mr. Pipes, Mr. Pritsak, the professor of
Ukrainian history whose book was recommended by Mr. Kennedy, could not
understand why this should be the case. "But what languages? You
merely need English, French, German, Russian, Turkish, Persian, and
Chinese," Mr. Pritsak said. "It was the most natural thing in the
world for him to work with so many languages," Mr. Pipes concluded.

James Collins (State Department) provided information on the language
abilities of the 1,500 employees he directs in his capacity as the U.S.
Ambassador to Russia. One-third of them are Russian nationals, but of
the 1,000 American citizens, 60 to 70 percent know absolutely no
Russian. The remainder possess varying degrees of fluency, but Mr.
Collins declined to speculate how many might be termed completely
fluent. As the number of Federal agencies working out of the American
embassy in Moscow has increased, the need for employees with background
in Russian studies and proficiency in the Russian language has become
particularly keen, Mr. Collins said.

Ms. Freeland, the journalist, said that competency in foreign languages
is "more important than ever before" for reporters even though so many
people around the globe speak English. The Financial Times, however,
intially did not look upon her qualifications in Russian studies
positively, she said, because it has operated under the assumption that
in foreign countries "[British] journalists are [to be] gentlemen with
an outsider's view." More foreign correspondents than previously,
though, do have some knowledge of the areas from which they report, Ms.
Freeland said. She added that in Russia, foreign journalists' interest
in their assignment to cover Russia has ebbed as many no longer look
upon the country as a "good story." But Ms. Freeland answered this
complaint by saying: "In 10 years, if Russia is covered in American
newspapers like Germany is, that'll be fabulous."

Historians on the discussion panels brought up a number of contentious
issues about Russian historical scholarship. Mr. Keenan, the medieval
Russian historian, speaking on the centrality of elites in Russian
history, indicated that the formation of groups that are bound by
kinship and secure special access to resources might be unique to
Russia due to "the weakness of political institutions, laws, and
structures insuring personal security" there. While scholars of
earlier Russian history consistently seem to be observing the
importance of elite networks, Mr. Keenan sensed some problems with
approaches to modern Russian history, in which "there is the problem of
wide access to sources that leads to a loss of perspective and a
tendency to think we are like them." On the subject of doing research,
Mr. Keenan continued: "In a sense, it was better when it was harder."
He said that his reading of modern source material confirms that it
must be used with care. "It's all shot through with mendacity,
cynicism, and obfuscation. These are not White House tapes -- they're
strange documents of a strange system," Mr. Keenan said. Study of the
role of social networks needs to be expanded, Mr. Keenan stated: "We
should study who was at whose New Year's party and who's buried next to
who in the cemetery as much as the Communist Party archives."

The historian Mr. Pipes referred briefly to his experience in Munich in
1953 interviewing Muslim refugees from Central Asia. "It persuaded me
that the Soviet Union was a very artificial empire, not a peaceful
association, and that the whole thing would fly apart," Mr. Pipes said.
But at the time, the notion that people defy the process of
assimilation and instead cleave to national traditions was taken as a
pejorative concept, Mr. Pipes said. Roman Szporluk (Harvard) followed
up on the topic of the nationalities when he said that historians
should not be judged based on whether they predicted the collapse of
the Soviet Union, but that "it is reasonable to say that some
scholarship is better if it's consistent with what happens." In this

manner, Mr. Szporluk praised Mr. Pipes's first book, The Formation of
the Soviet Union. Mr. Szporluk also argued that historians who viewed

the Bolshevik Revolution as a reprise of the French Revolution were
direly mistaken: "One of the stupidest things was to think that 1917
in Russia equalled 1789 in France. It didn't. [The events of] 1917
programmatically liquidated Russia."

Terry Martin (Harvard) warned against "the potential to divide Russian
history negatively" as a narrative of the Russians versus the
non-Russians. "The growth of national studies may entrench the
divide," Mr. Martin said, noting that books which seem to cover the
history of peasants or workers usually mean by that only Russians.
Studies of the minority nationalities tend to emphasize the features
which set the nationalities apart, such as Islamic beliefs in the
Central Asian populations, rather than larger, "general questions"
which appear to be the exclusive province of historians of the
Russians. The Russian and Soviet empires are "best framed as
multiethnic, not Ruso-centric," Mr. Martin said. He concluded by
saying that comparative studies of communist societies, which would
take up subjects such as "how did individuals adapt to the abolition of
the market," would serve "to mark a return to the original intentions
of the Russian Research Center" in that they have an interdisciplinary
emphasis.

Professors of literature contributed their views on current directions
in literary research. William Mills Todd 3d (Harvard) identified six
research topics he called "pressing" and said that they either were
recently proposed to the Davis Center or are actively being worked on
right now. Mr. Todd's list consisted of: the social construction of
literary roles and the "highly centripetal orientation of Russian
literature," by which Mr. Todd meant the peculiar relationship between
writers and the state -- the state would persecute writers, but their
works never died; types of literature previously given short shrift in
the academy, such as popular and mass literature since the Middle Ages;
private life in Russia, which Mr. Todd characterized as "terra
incognita"; the relationship of science and technology with literature,
something Mr. Todd said merited investigation because novels were often
serialized alongside scientific articles, although he did not mention
the level of these scientific works; identities and subcultures in
Russian literature; and the role of the "aesthetic," which Mr. Todd
said is not easy to define, but he did describe it as a "sense of
playfulness and unpredictability; a subversiveness which has had
minimal presence in the centripetal world" referred to above. Also
representing Harvard's Slavic Department were Svetlana Boym, who
explicated her work on Russian private life and spoke of literature as
a "second Government" in Russia, and Donald Fanger, who traced the
development of teaching Russian literature at Harvard and said he
thought that literary research during the Cold War was not immune from
the political agendas of that period.

*******