January 27, 1998    
This Date's Issues: 3031• 3032 • 

Johnson's Russia List
#3032
27 January 1999
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Itar-Tass: Yavlinskiy: Primakov Has No Chance To Be Elected
President.
2. Itar-Tass: Maslyukov Accuses Former Ministers of Misconduct.
3. Irish Times editorial: After Yeltsin.
4. Reuters: Russian clergyman says liberalism not always best.
5. Andrei Liakhov: Russian/Soviet oil industry - Caspian reserves.
6. Ilya Vinkovetsky: Re BOOKS ON ELTSIN OR POST GORBACHEV.
7. St. Petersburg Times: FSB Digs Dirt on Starovoitova, Allies.
8. Itar-Tass: Communist Party Ponders Split, Election Prospects.
9. Literaturnaya Gazeta: Aganbegyan Outlines Views on Economy.
10. Sovetskaya Rossiya: Zyuganov Warns of 'Liberal Revenge.']

*******

#1
Yavlinskiy: Primakov Has No Chance To Be Elected President 

MOSCOW, January 22 (Itar-Tass) - Russian liberal reformer Grigoriy
Yavlinskiy, who has actually proposed Yevgeniy Primakov for prime minister
last year, does not share the idea that Primakov can become the next head
of the Russian state.
"He has no chance to be elected president because he failed to ensure
success in the economic sphere", Yavlinskiy told a meeting with Moscow
intelligentsia on Thursday.
Yavlinskiy said that he continues to politically support the prime
minister, but criticises his economic policy.
"Yevgeniy Primakov has solved a part of political tasks, but cannot
solve the economic ones", Yavlinskiy said. The political tasks, according
to him, were to avert a split in the country after the financial crisis of
August 17 and to prevent "the inevitable movement of the pendulum to the
/political/ left".
"We are not like-minded people, nor even fellow-travellers, but
Yevgeniy Primakov has solved the political task and we continue to support
him in this sense", Yavlinskiy, the head of the Yabloko movement, said.
He reiterated that Yabloko would independently participate in the 1999
parliamentary elections and that he himself would run for president in2000.
He evaded a direct answer to the question about his rumoured alliance
with influential Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov. Yavlinskiy only said that he
has "an understanding" with Luzhkov. "I hope to preserve it regardless of
any elections", he added.
Yavlinskiy said he was ready to admit any person to his movement, but
stressed that he would "keep the hygiene in politics".
Speaking on the urgent economic measures, Yavlinskiy said it was
necessary to decrease the income tax to 10 per cent, the tax burden on
enterprises to an overall of 20 per cent and on agricultural enterprises to
15 per cent.
Yavlinskiy, who recently had a heart attack, said he was feeling fine
and jogs several times a week.
The problem of his nationality was not avoided at the meeting.
Yavlinskiy said that his deceased mother was a Jew and his father is
Russian.

*******

#2
Maslyukov Accuses Former Ministers of Misconduct 

Moscow, January 25 (ITAR-TASS)--A senior Communist member of the
cabinet accused officials with the previous government of meddling with
current talks between Moscow and the international lending bodies.
"When officials from the previous government travel around the world
persuading not to give money to the new government--that is at least
swinishness," First Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Maslyukov said at Moscow
State University.
"Russia is asking loans only for the purpose of refinancing its old
debts to western creditors. We will be living within our own means,"
Maslyukov said.
However, he said the matters were not beyond hope, adding that IMF and
World bank delegations are in Russia.
"We are working with them and our main task is to convince them that
we are right, and to solve all the necessary issues," according to him.
Western creditors want "300-per cent guarantees" and the International
Monetary Fund is insisting that the budget deficit should be cut,
introduction of a mild tax system suspended, and redistribution of finance
in favour of the regions prevented, he said.
"Their demands are explicable, but we will be insisting on our ownway,"
he said.

*******

#3
Irish Times
January 25, 1999
Editorial
After Yeltsin 

Reaction in Russia to President Yeltsin's latest bout of illness has been
muted. Politicians have been dispassionate in their remarks. The Moscow stock
and currency exchanges barely registered a tremor at the news that Russia's
president was in hospital again. The mood was best summed up by Moscow's
mayor, Mr Yuri Luzhkov, who told reporters during a visit to Stockholm last
week that he didn't really think the situation in the country had radically
changed. "The president is unwell rather often," he added, in the type of
understatement for which Russian politicians are rarely noted.
Mr Luzhkov is one of the candidates strongly favoured to win the
presidential
election due to be held next year. His coyness can be put down to the fact
that conveying the image of a stable situation in Russia suits his current
game plan. Any political or medical emergency could bring about early
presidential elections and should a vote on the presidency be held this year
rather than next the indications are that it could be won by the country's
prime minister, Mr Yevgeny Primakov, who, the polls say, is currently Russia's
most popular politician. By this time next year, however, with the possibility
of a further deepening of the economic crisis, Mr Primakov could have become
the least popular politician in Russia. 
Other candidates in the race to succeed Mr Yeltsin include the swashbuckling
General Alexander Lebed who, as governor of Krasnoyarsk, rules a vast Siberian
territory several times the size of France, Mr Grigory Yavlinsky who
represents the fragile democratic tradition and the largely-discredited but
extremely wealthy former prime minister, Mr Viktor Chernomyrdin. As for the
communists their challenge for power appears to have been weakened rather than
strengthened by public discontent. Their leader, Mr Gennady Zyuganov, who
finished second to Mr Yeltsin in 1996, has been promoting an alliance with
Mayor Luzhkov to the extent that a split is developing in his party between
his supporters and those who want an undiluted communist programme.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Mr Yeltsin cannot stand for a third
term. But
one of Mr Yeltsin's senior aides recently raised eyebrows by saying a proposed
union between Russia and Belarus could create a new State with a new
constitution which could allow Mr Yeltsin to run for the presidency. Against
this background of political machination, the long-suffering Russian public
struggles for personal survival. In a poll published last week Russians were
asked what were the best and worst events of 1998. There was general agreement
that the economic crisis was the low point of the year but 56 per cent of
those polled could not could up with a single "good event" in the past twelve
months.
Elections for the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, are to be held
this autumn at which the apathy of the electorate will be accurately measured
in advance of the presidential poll. Those who bother to vote are likely to
increase communist and nationalist dominance of the Duma but this swing to
what are known as the "red-brown" groupings will not be a reliable indication
of what may happen in the presidential vote. It seems unlikely in any event
that Russians will get a president capable of leading them out of the current
financial wilderness.

*******

#4
Russian clergyman says liberalism not always best

MOSCOW, Jan 26 (Reuters) - A senior Russian clergyman on Tuesday criticised
the prevailing global ideology of liberalism, saying it was wrong to force the
same values and standards on every society irrespective of local traditions. 
Metropolitan Kirill, who is in charge of international relations for the
Orthodox Church, was echoing a favourite theme of Russian Communists and
nationalists who resent their country's embrace of market economics and
political pluralism. 
``We should not unconditionally submit all our legislation and life, or
indeed
that of any other country, to (the liberal standard),'' Interfax news agency
quoted Kirill as saying. 
He said Russia's main problem since ditching Soviet Communism had been the
misunderstandings between liberals and traditionalists trying to preserve the
best from the past. 
``I would not want to give the impression that international documents on
human rights are the devil incarnate...But it is very important not to destroy
the way of life and the traditions of different peoples,'' he added. 
The conservative Orthodox Church resents the post-Soviet missionary
activities
of ``foreign'' churches in Russia, saying it needs time to rebuild its own
influence after decades of official atheism and Soviet religious persecution. 
Its support for a controversial new law that curbs the freedom of minority
religious groups in Russia has drawn criticism from human rights groups and
foreign governments. 
Kirill said liberalism erred by making man, not God, the measure of all
things: ``Such anthropomorphism has led not only to environmental damage but
to destruction of the individual, of the family and of civilisation at the end
of the 20th century.'' 

*******

#5
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 
From: "Liakhov, Andrei" <liakhova@nortonrose.com> 
Subject: Russian/Soviet oil industry - Caspian reserves
To: 'NATMOSER@ONLINE.RU'

The off-shore reserves in the Caspian were known to exist since mid 40ies
when the Soviet government was frantically looking for new oil reserves
which would allow to supply the Red Army should the WWII continiue beyond
1945. The off-shore Caspian reserves of C2 category (possible - meaning
that there are substantial geological structures capable of bearing oil)
were included in the Blue Book (official Geolcom's geological database) in
late 40ies (in '49 if my recollection is correct).

However as you have rightly pointed out three factors prevented further
exploratory work in these areas:

1. Inconsistency and unclear results of preliminary drilling performed in
mid 50ies. That alone in combination with the apparent successes of
Siberian geological exploration parties would be a sufficiently dissuading
factor for the Soviet government planners (who needed to know as exactly
as possible when and how much will be extracted at least 7-8 years in
advance) which would prevent them from spending money on an off shore
exploration programme.

2. Siberian exploration programmes were relatively cheap in comparison
with the projected cost of Caspian off-shore seismic and drilling
programmes. Even now all the Caspian consortiums will have to pour several
billions of dollars into drilling alone to ascertain whether the reserves
are really there (at the moment all the figures quoted for various fields
(Karabakh, Shakh Denis, etc. are just re-estimates of the Blue Book
reserves). The Soviet Government was always prepared to spend unlimited
money on a clearly visible aim and not on something which may or may not
be there (for example billions of USD were spent on developing Siberian
oil infrastructure only after the geologists confirmed A1(proven,
extractable) reserves of Samotlor and Yamal - but not a minute earlier);

3. Strategic location - (Turkey, Iran, Iraq and close proximity of very
unstable Pakistan/Afganistan/India triangle) made these areas risky from
the strategic point of view and neither Kosiugin (Soviet PM at the time
who was the international conciliator in 1966 india Pakistan conflict and
had a first hand experience of the reginal instablity) nor his advisors
were convinced that having a major source of oil 15 minutes away (of
tactic missile time) from NATO is a good idea.

You must also take into consideration several anxilliary factors which
played a role in the general shift of Soviet oil exploration programme
away from Central Asia, such as:
1. General goal to develop Far North and Siberian regions (oil exploration
was a major part of this programme which in the minds of its creators had
to generate cash for other development of these regions);
2. Availability of seemingly easily extractable new exiting huge proven
Siberian reserves;
3. Lack of technology and sufficient experience of deep off shore
underwater drilling;
4. Location of major customers for heavy oil products (various defence and
energy establishments in the Urals and Siberia - the thinking at the time
was that priority development of Siberian reserves would produce huge
economy in transportation costs);
5. Powerful Siberian Academic lobby (most of defence nuclear research,
fundumental physics and missile development was done in Siberia) which was
interested in "civilising" Siberia and saw oil development as one of the
steps to attract capital into the area and attention of the Government.
6. Budgetary constraints - i.e. the Soviet planners simply did not have
enough cash to finance large major exploration works in both regions at
the same time.

However it is completely untrue that the Soviet Government (or the Party)
was unwilling to invest into "non Russian" republics - on the contrary -
despite very high cost of oil at the head (in comparison with Samotlor) in
Baku in 70ies-80ies the Government did not shut these fields altogether
and was investing substantial sums into subsidies and various enhancement
programmes to keep Azeri oil industry alive. You have to bear in mind
that the adjacent Astrakhan oil fields (Russian Federation) were
completely shut down by 1990 for these very reasons! 
The advice to Richard Hellie is - do not look for proof of evil where
there is no evil!!
Thanks. 

*******

#6
Sender: H-Net Russian History list <H-RUSSIA@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 
From: Martin Ryle <mryle@richmond.edu>
Subject: Re: BOOKS ON ELTSIN OR POST GORBACHEV

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:47:31 -0800
From: Ilya Vinkovetsky <vintik@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Dear Professor Getty:

It is difficult to see the forest through the trees on the Yeltsin period.
Nevertheless, a few books do stand out, even among the general
English-language accounts of the period as a whole.

One inspired choice for a book on the Yeltsin period is Anatol Lieven's
CHECHNYA: TOMBSTONE OF RUSSIAN POWER (New Haven, 1998). The book is much
broader than the title suggests.

John Kampfner's INSIDE YELTSIN'S RUSSIA: CORRUPTION, CONFLICT, CAPITALISM
(London, 1994) is an earnest journalistic account of the early days of
Yeltsin's rule and a good read, although it does not attempt any analysis of
the big picture.

David Remnick's RESURRECTION:THE STRUGGLE FOR A NEW RUSSIA (New York, 1997)
is, as to be expected, well written and absorbing, but it is not on the same
level as his LENIN'S TOMB. RESURRECTION is more or less a collection of his
essays for the NEW YORKER. They read better as timely essays in the original
than as book chapters. Remnick no longer lived in Moscow when he wrote most
of these essays, making do with brief research trips, and his selection of
sources reflects his grounding in the Gorbachev era. Nevertheless, some of
the chapters, like the one on the Chechen War (which was pioneering when it
came out in essay form), still set the standard.

On Yeltsin personally, it is instructive to compare his self-serving
autobiographies (AGAINST THE GRAIN and STRUGGLE FOR RUSSIA), co-written by
Valentin Yumashev, and the politically-motivated memoirs of his estranged
underlings (Korzhakov, Kostikov, etc.), with the intriguing book by Pilar
Bonet, a journalist for the Spanish newspaper EL PAIS. Her book LA RUSIA
IMPOSIBLE. BORIS YELTSIN, UN PROVINCIANO EN EL KREMLIN appeared in Madrid in
1994 and was soon translated to Russian and published, apparently in full,
in the Ekaterinburg journal URAL, No. 4 (1994). as "Nevozmozhnaia Rossiia.
Boris El'tsin: Provintsial v Kremle." Unfortunately, it has not appeared in
English; the Kennan Center occasional paper (Pilar Bonet, "Lord of the
Manor: Boris Yeltsin in Sverdlovsk Oblast'." Washington DC, 1995) is a much
shorter and poorer version.

Pilar Bonet spent a lot of time in Sverdlovsk interviewing people who knew
Yelstin when he was first party secretary there. Aside from uncovering
fascinating detail about his past, she also looked at the people who worked
with him, many of whom later ended up in Moscow. As a result, a much
richer, more balanced picture of Yeltsin and his circle emerges, one that
emphasizes continuity as well as the much-publicized break with the past.
This book is a valuable addition to any course on late Soviet as well as
early post-Soviet history.

Of course, the Yeltsin period is still a work in progress, and the
information in all these books, excellent as they may be, invariably gets
dated.

Best regards,
Ilya Vinkovetsky
University of California, Berkeley

At 02:06 PM 1/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 14:23:08 -0800
>From: Arch Getty <arch.getty@ucr.edu>
>Can anyone suggest a good book for classroom use on the Eltsin
>period? Or Gorbachev to the present?
>As an historian, I've had a hard time seeing this as anything other
>than current events, but as time goes on (and I get older), I'm
>forced to admit that it's history.
>Anyway, any suggestions would be welcome.
>Arch 

*******

#7
St. Petersburg Times
January 26, 1999
TOP STORY
FSB Digs Dirt on Starovoitova, Allies 

Investigators looking into the assassination of State Duma deputy Galina Sta
ro voitova have been interrogating St. Petersburg journalists, and those who
have been through such interviews say the questions are leading, irrelevant
and offensive.
One journalist, Daniel Kotsubinsky of the weekly local newspaper Chas Pik,
said his interrogator told him that the youth wing of Starovoitova's political
party regularly held orgies with animals. Kotsubinsky said Interior Ministry
Detective Mikhail Balukhta tried to get him to confirm immoral behavior by
Starovoitova's allies.
Tatyana Likhanova, another journalist interrogated, now works as an aide to
Duma Deputy Yuly Rybakov, an artist and Soviet-era dissident who was one of
Starovoitova's closest allies. She says Detective Balukhta gleefully informed
her that he had personally detained Rybakov 15 times during the Soviet period
for taking part in pro-democracy meetings - and then added that he saw Rybakov
as a suspect in Starovoitova's murder.
"At the end of the interrogation he said to me: 'We are going to solve this
case in such a way that it buries your de mo cratic movement,'" Likhanova
said.
"He also said that he understands why people would want to kill
Starovoitova,
since 'She was always defending ethnic minorities and has never done anything
for the Russian people.'"
St. Petersburg Times reporter Brian Whitmore is among the reporters who has
been subpoenaed to give testimony, in particular regarding his relationship
with Ruslan Linkov, Starovoitova's aide, who was shot by her assailants but
survived the attack. 
The FSB has denied requests to have either a lawyer or a U.S. consular
official present during the questioning, which is scheduled to take place on
Thursday at the Bolshoi Dom on 4 Liteiny Prospect, the former St. Petersburg
headquarters of the KGB, and today of the FSB, the successor agency to the
KGB.
Likhanova, Kotsubinsky and Whitmore are among at least five of Linkov's
friends - four of them journalists - whom investigators have targeted for
questioning as "witnesses" in the murder case.
All who have been through the process say investigators are seeking dirt on
Starovoitova and allies like Linkov.
"It was clear that they wanted to hear something bad about Ruslan
[Linkov] or
about Starovoitova," said Kot subinsky, adding that eighty percent of the
interrogators' questions were attempts to glean some sort of damaging or
embarrassing material about Linkov. "At one point I was asked: 'Don't you
think Ruslan Linkov is an immoral person?'"
"They asked me who Linkov's girlfriends and lovers were. When I said I
didn't
know, they followed up with a question about what his relations with
Starovoitova were." 
Kotsubinsky also said that investigators sought dirt on the Young Christian
Democrats, the youth wing of Sta ro voi to va's political party Democratic
Russia.
That was Thursday. On Friday, Detective Balukhta called in Likhanova, who is
the editor of the newspaper Severnaya Stolitsa, a publication loyal to
Starovoitova and Rybakov.
"The whole thing was absurd and offensive," said Likhanova of the
questioning.
She said that Balukhta brought up a feature article she had written last year
about the 69 Club, a St. Petersburg gay nightclub, and asked "what I thought
about homosexuality."
Three days prior to Starovoitova's death, a report in Likhanova's newspaper
alleged that Gennady Seleznyov, the speaker of the Duma, was abusing his post
by extorting money for his Communist Party out of St. Petersburg businesses.
On the day of Starovoitova's funeral, Se leznyov filed an 800,000 ruble
libel
suit against Severnaya Stolitsa that named Likhanova as a defendant. Lik ha
nova said that Detective Balukhta repeatedly tried to get her to reveal
sources, saying he could help her with that lawsuit if she would only give him
"what he wanted."
What he wanted, according to Likhanova, was incriminating information about
Linkov, Rybakov and the Young Christian Democrats.
The interrogations follow what can only be described as a smear campaign
a gainst Linkov in St. Petersburg media.
Earlier this month, the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda ran a story based
entirely on an interview with local television producer Alexander
Borisoglebsky, the first person on the scene after Starovoitova was killed.
Borisoglebsky claimed that Linkov might have participated in the
assassination. As evidence, he claimed Linkov had not been injured in the
attack - an absurd suggestion that was rejected out of hand by doctors and law
enforcement officers, and also by journalists who have visited Linkov in the
hospital.
An article in last month's weekly Novy Peterburg, meanwhile, suggested that
former prime minister Yegor Gai dar and former deputy prime minister Anatoly
Chubais - who move in the same political circles as Starovoitova - had killed
her to create a martyr for their political cause. Novy Peterburg compared
gunning down Starovoitova to the Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag as a
prelude to taking power.
"I am simply at a loss for words," said Rybakov in an interview Monday,
asked
to comment on the interrogations as described by Likhanova, Kotsubinsky and
others. "These are typical KGB methods and they show the low intellectual
level of these people."
Linkov has also been subpoenaed and must appear for questioning soon, but
for
now is convalescing under police protection at an undisclosed location. He was
equally dismayed to hear how the murder investigation is progressing, saying
that local investigators are more interested in smearing Starovoitova and her
allies than in solving the crime. 
"The FSB is continuing in the spirit and style of the Soviet KGB," he
said in
an interview on Monday. "That organization is completely unreformed."

*******

#8
Communist Party Ponders Split, Election Prospects 

MOSCOW, January 22 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian Communist party fears it
will lose some 50 seats in the next State Duma which is to be elected in
December, but hopes to get a fifth of seats in the lower house.
An expert of the party told Tass on Friday that it "will get its 20
per cent at the parliamentary elections". At present the communists have
165 seats in the Duma. "In the new parliament there will be 115-120
communist deputies", the expert said.
A reason for the decrease is the split in the National Patriotic
Union, in which communists dominate. Last October the Communists decided
to participate in the parliamentary elections by themselves. It was decided
that the leftist forces would run in three blocs - the communists, the
agrarians and the "Patriots of Russia". The latter were to be united by
the "Spiritual heritage" movement of Alexei Podberezkin.
However, communist allies in the union reacted painfully to the plans
and a further split shaped out when the radical communists, headed by
Viktor Ilyukhin and Albert Makashov decided to run with their "Movement in
support of the army".
A source in the Communist party told Tass that its leader Gennady
Zyuganov was far from happy upon learning the news. The source explained
that no split in the party can take place before presidential elections of
2000 and that Ilyukhin-Makashov can rob it only of some 1-2 per cent ofvotes.
However, they can surpass the 5-per cent hurdle by winning over
supporters of ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and strong-rule
General Alexander Lebed. Thus, an ultra-leftist faction may emerge in the
lower house which would definitely cause problems for Zyuganov.
Now Zyuganov is speaking about three other blocs. They include his
communists, the "radical Russian front" of Ilyukhin-Makashov and the
"enlighted patriots". The latter are to be formed from the agrarians, the
"Spiritual heritage" of Podberezkin and the so-called "Orthodox circles". 
However, agrarians may decide at their congress in March to run
independently. Podberezkin may follow suit, although the communists are
sure that he would never surpass the 5- per cent hurdle all by himself.
If the "enlighted patriots" do emerge, they may be headed by Duma
speaker Gennadiy Seleznev.
The communists expect the main competition from the Yabloko movement
of Grigoriy Yavlinskiy and Otechestvo of Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov. 
Initially Zyuganov was rather reserved in assessing Yavlinsky, but in the
latest interview said that the Yabloko leader is always singing to an
American tune.Zyuganov said that Luzhkov's movement consists of
ex-supporters of
President Boris Yeltsin and that Luzhkov does not miss a change "to fire at
the patriots". However, he did not rule out that Luzhkov may become "a
strategic partner" of the communists.
On Saturday the Communist party is to hold a plenum to discuss its
economic programme. No documents are to be adopted and Zyuganov will
deliver no report. Despite the economic topic of the meeting, it is sure
to touch upon the election strategy and tactics of the party.

*******

#9
Aganbegyan Outlines Views on Economy 

Literaturnaya Gazeta
13 January 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Interview with Academician Abel Aganbegyan by Andrey
Pavlov; place and date not given: "Management Trainer: Academician
Abel Aganbegyan Answers Questions for Literaturnaya Gazeta"

[Pavlov] Abel Gezevich, during the last Soviet years and the
years of perestroyka you were perhaps the most noteworthy figure in
economic science. And suddenly since the beginning of the liberal
reforms you have disappeared somewhere (at least as far as the
public is concerned). How do you explain this disappearance?
[Aganbegyan] In the fall of 1989 I was appointed rector of the
Academy of the National Economy under the Russian Federation
Government and I am still working in this position. Since it is a
government institution, I am not free to make statements and, it
seems to me, for moral reasons I cannot criticize the government or
evaluate its actions publicly. At the same time, I could not speak
out with approval of these actions either, since I disagreed with
the government policy to a large degree.
[Pavlov] Which government?
[Aganbegyan] All the governments there were during theseyears.
[Pavlov] I know it is possible to talk about the reforms for a
long time, but briefly, what do you think of them? How do you
evaluate the best-known reformers--Gaydar, Chubays, Nemtsov,
Kiriyenko? In my opinion, when it comes to evaluating the reforms
you are somewhat distanced from such "Soviet academicians" as
Abalkin, Lvov, Petryakov, and Sitaryan. Or am I mistaken?
[Aganbegyan] I have positive feelings toward all the reformers
you mentioned. In 1991 Yeltsin and Gaydar adopted a strategically
correct decision to change over to the market. As distinct, say,
from the Ukrainian leadership. And it was conducted rather
courageously. But it was conducted with very large mistakes and
deviations. I think this was more their misfortune than their
fault. The reformers themselves were young people; they had little
experience in life... If one is to speak of their academic level,
it is very high. In general I consider Gaydar to be the best
Russian economist. I simply cannot think of anyone who can stand
next to him. And Chubays is a brilliant administrator. He is a
very consistent and efficient person. He is a man of his word, of
which there are few. It seems to me that Boris Nemtsov is a very
capable person. Kiriyenko studied at our academy for two years.
That was when he was still working in Nizhniy Novgorod. He too is a
very gifted person. He was unlucky: He became the head of the
government at the most difficult time. The Duma did not support
him. Nothing that he proposed was adopted... The Kiriyenko
government and the Central Bank made a very serious mistake--they
should have devalued the ruble immediately. Incidentally, it should
have been devalued again in November 1997 when we were hit with the
first wave of the crisis from Southeast Asia. The ruble was clearly
too high--by 30-50 percent. And attempts to divert this wave by
raising the refinancing rates and increasing the income on
securities only made the situation worse and ultimately led to thecollapse.
[Pavlov] What are you doing now? Are you participating in the
solutions to current economic problems?
[Aganbegyan] Now, unfortunately, I am forced to engage in
mainly noncreative, administrative work.
[Pavlov] How are your relations with the government? Do you
advise them? What advice do you give them?
[Aganbegyan] I am a supporter of the market economy, but I
think that if it takes 100 steps to get to the market, we have taken
only 20. We have large transformations ahead of us. Above all, in
the area of privatization. I do not consider voucher privatization
to be real privatization. It is more destatization--it is a
necessary but not sufficient step. Now we must privatize according
to market prices. This is the only way to produce an effectiveproperty owner.
I am not speaking about the fact that we have not solved the
problem of ownership of the land. And this means that we still do
not have full-fledged ownership of real estate...
And the most difficult thing is the series of social problems
in combination with the tax and budget reforms. We still have the
same old social sphere. The state subsidizes 70 percent of the
housing. It pays all the pensions. It pays for more than 90
percent of the public health care... But, after all, it does not
have that kind of money. And in principle it cannot have it. The
people should be paying for all this themselves. But to do so they
must have the corresponding wages. But we still have Soviet wages.
Both in terms of amount and in terms of structure: 70-80 percent
goes for food and industrial goods. Such a thing does not exist in
a single market country. In a market country, 25 percent of the
income should go to income tax, a minimum of 25 percent should go
for housing, a minimum of 5 percent--for future pensions, up to 5
percent for medical insurance... That is, there is something left
to live on: in America--25 percent, in Europe--30 percent...
So here is my viewpoint: We need to raise people's wages 2- to
2.5-fold, and at the same time make them fully responsible for
housing, pension deductions, and medical insurance. As soon as
labor becomes more expensive, the enterprises will start cutting
people. Or else they will increase labor productivity. The state
will have to create new jobs and better conditions for small and
medium-sized business... As a result, after several years we will
have powerful incentives for development. But now we are simply
closing off our path to the future...
[Pavlov] You are the rector of the Academy of the National
Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation. Was there
some demonstrable purpose for retaining this "Soviet" name?
[Aganbegyan] Well, why is it Soviet? This term--national
economy--is used today as well. In English it is national economy.
Our academy is a training center for government bureaucrats and
high-level managers. During the 20 years of its existence it has
trained 40,000 business managers.
[Pavlov] Are you satisfied with their quality? Where are
they, these 40,000? Our people are still being sent abroad to learnbusiness.
[Aganbegyan] No, I am not satisfied. You know that previously
we trained personnel for a planned economy, and now we are training
them for a market economy. We have no experience in this business.
Russia has no one who can give mother's milk to the young of a
market economy. Of course we have sent our teachers to study
abroad. Moreover, each year we send more than 1,000 of our students
abroad--for additional training after the completing the course at
the academy, for on-the-job training.
[Pavlov] Do you receive large complaints from the AccountingChamber...
[Aganbegyan] It has audited us four times during the past year
and a half. In the first two cases the result was favorable to us.
In the third case they discovered serious shortcomings. We are
rectifying them. The fourth commission is still working... As for
the series of newspaper articles directed against the academy, they
contain both falsehoods and juggled facts... Different controllers
were called in. Last year we had a total of 18 audits. The 19th is
now underway. I do not know of a single other organization that has
been audited so much.
[Pavlov] What is your prognosis for the Primakov government--
will he be able to improve the situation at all or will he drive it
further into the ground?
[Aganbegyan] I hope very much that he will be able to improve
it. I have known Yevgeniy Maksimovich for many, many years. He was
in charge of the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations, which had the largest economic unit. And it was the most
progressive for that time. Eminent scholars and great experts on
economics worked there. And Yevgeniy Maksimovich himself was
undoubtedly a very qualified person in this area. And the fact that
his government enjoys the support of practically all the leading
politicians is an exceptionally important circumstance.
[Pavlov] What that is remarkable has taken place in your
personal life in recent years?
[Aganbegyan] The most important thing is that four
grandchildren have been born. I have a son and a daughter, and each
of them has had a boy and a girl.
[Pavlov] What do members of your family do? How do you spendyour free time?
[Aganbegyan] My wife, unfortunately, is still working. She
does not think we can live on my wages. She works as a senior
scientific associate at the VTsIOM [All-Russian Center for the Study
of Public Opinion]. My son is a lawyer and works in the Moscow
division of a leading foreign firm. My daughter worked for the IMF,
in the Russian delegation in Washington. Recently because of forced
cuts she was dismissed (by the Russian government). In my free time
I read and surf the Internet. I go to the bath twice a week. I
have retained this custom since the days when I was at the
Novosibirsk Akademgorodok.

*******

#10
Excerpt
Zyuganov Warns of 'Liberal Revenge' 

Sovetskaya Rossiya
19 January 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Interview with CPRF leader Gennadiy Zyuganov by Valentin
Chikin and Aleksandr Prokhanov, chief editors of Sovetskaya
Rossiya and Zavtra, under the rubric "Elections '99. Patriots'
Strategy"; date and place not given: "In the Russian Direction.
Sovetskaya Rossiya and Zavtra Chief Editors Valentin Chikin and
Aleksandr Prokhanov Talk With CPRF and NPSR Leader Gennadiy
Zyuganov" -- passages within slantlines published in boldface

Main Task

[Question] Following Christmas and the New Year the country is once
again back into its gloomy political and social rhythm. Once again storms
are in the air, strikes are rolling, popular discontent is mounting, there
are threats from the Kremlin once again, social intrigues, and a sense of
uncertainty, yet, at the same time, there is in people's hearts a strange
and as yet incomprehensible hope for some kind of escape from the grim
thrall of this catastrophic decade of restructuring. It would be
exceptionally important to hear from you, the leader of the patriotic
movement, just how you see events developing in the coming year. What is
the strategy of patriotic politics? Which main avenues are being selected
in order to achieve your cherished political and moral goals? In short,
Gennadiy Andreyevich, what is your vision for this year in the shorter and
longer term?
[Zyuganov] First a few words about 1998. Last year was a year of
unprecedented trials, a year of insight. There were two government crises.
There was the collapse of Yeltsin's criminal-mafia capitalism. There was
the hunger strike by the teacher Motorin. There was the financial
whirlwind in Southeast Asia. There was the crazy bombing of Iraq. There
was the complete breakdown of the entire system of international relations
that emerged after the Great Patriotic War. All this is a matter for
profound consideration by all responsible people. This year, in my view,
will be strategic and a turning point in the direct sense of the term. It
will be crowned by the State Duma elections, and victory or defeat for the
patriots in the Duma elections will largely determine their victory or
defeat in the presidential elections. So today, at the very time when we
are having our conversation, the as yet distant but quite obvious
presidential campaign has virtually kicked off.
/Victory in the parliamentary elections is the main strategic task for
the entire year./ By gaining a decisive mandate from voters in the Third
State Duma and by creating a stable patriotic majority there, we will be
capable of forming the country's leading organs and of carrying out our
main legislative initiatives in the interests of the working people, state
building, and our high ideals. We will be able to block all the
counterstrikes from defeated liberalism. We will be able to substantially
influence the country's sociopolitical climate, improving the situation
throughout the political area of Russia.
If we fail to achieve this, if we fail to gain a broad mandate in the
State Duma elections, the country will once again find itself in a split
political field and our opponents will be able to continue manipulating
public awareness and divorcing the people from the key task of overcoming
the national catastrophe and elaborating a saving state-patriotic
ideology.
/Thus, the question of power will arise starkly in 1999,/ just as it
did in 1996, during the last presidential election campaign. Back then
those who hate Russia were able to use their "black techniques" to get
control over the ballot boxes and the news channels, ensuring a "win" in
the presidential elections through cynical lies and blatant falsification. 
That "win" was ruinous for the country, but nor did it strengthen the
Yeltsin regime, which is rotten and is collapsing before our very eyes.
For us the last two years -- 1997 and 1998 -- were a time to build up
new abilities, to reassess our failures, and to shape a modern political
strategy.
Today we can quite obviously state that /the question of power is a
central political issue for us./ Our strategy and all of our efforts and
abilities are aimed at achieving this main goal. Only power held by us
will be capable of radically changing the country's course and extracting
the damaged giant ship of Russian statehood from the dead end where it has
been left by the traitors of the fatherland. Consequently, summing up what
I have said, I would reiterate that /the main strategic task for this year
is to restore people's power in Russia./....

Main Danger

[Question] This precise distribution of forces and columns, this
mathematical integrity could ensure victory, but only in the event of an
advance across level ground, in good weather, and against a weak and
unmaneuverable adversary. But such adversaries do not exist either in
battles or in politics. Our current adversary is superbly equipped, has a
good knowledge of maneuvers, is supplied with funds, has major analysis
centers at its disposal, and is backed by world imperialism and Zionism. 
What dangers await you on the road to victory, what threats are already
looming on our political horizon?
[Zyuganov] The main danger that awaits the country is /the
possibility of liberal revenge and a constitutional coup./ The possibility
of a return to politics of dyed-in-the-wool antipeople, anti-Russian forces
linked by the mutual support of bloodshed and innumerable crimes. They are
consolidated by the hatred that the people feel for them. They are
toughened by their last chance of revenge.
We recall the "second coming" of Chernomyrdin -- how much brutal
tenacity was on display.
In order to hold on to the fortunes they have plundered, the
revanchist democrats could embrace tough forms of suppressing popular
opposition. It only seems as though the Chubayses, the Gaydars, and the
Nemtsovs have left politics once and for all. It only seems as though
there are no more Urinsons, Kokhs, and Yasins in politics. No, like
dragon's teeth sown in the ashes of a ruined Russia, they are ready to
return to the helm of power at any time, and then the country can expect a
repetition of the horrors it has experienced recently.
/The liberal dictatorship which the mass media is constantly talking
about/ is still possible. It is symbolized by Berezovskiy and the
oligarchs who are close to him. They are the people calling for the
dissolution of the Duma, the slicing up of the government, a ban on the
Communist Party, and the establishment of a state of emergency in Russia. 
They are constantly pushing Governor Lebed of Krasnoyarsk, who clothes
himself in the toga of Russian patriotism, for the role of dictator.
The threat of liberal revenge is still plausible. The president --
who, under the Constitution, is the absolute "master" of politics, an
unpunishable despot, and who has already repeatedly demonstrated his
unpredictability -- could organize another bloodbath, toeing the line of
shadowy corrupt consultants and staging his last tragic coup. Of course,
this criminal dictatorship would not be able to hang on to today's Russia
for long, and would soon fall. But that fall would be a terrible one for
the country, it would lead to the complete collapse of the territory.
The country's main asset is its people and their ability to remake
themselves in each new period of history. That ability has now been
undermined. The population is melting away. Genocide accounts for 4,000
of our fellow citizens every day.
Russia's second greatest asset is our boundless expanses. In 1991 we
lost a third of our territories through the fault of the Belovezhskaya
Pushcha Accord plotters. Today people are ready to take away what is as
yet still undivided Russian land. This will happen if the main danger
currently posed at every liberal-democratic turn becomes a reality. The
threat of revenge by the plunderers of Russia, the threat of a
constitutional coup.

The Conditions for Stability 

[Question] There is no doubt that the threat stated is recognized by
our political partners and is a subject for profound consideration. What
can we do to counter this threat? What ways of overcoming this terrible
threat can you offer the people?(more) 19 jan pp/owen
[Zyuganov] A liberal-revanchist coup could stall provided several
conditions are observed. First and foremost, it is very important for us
to preserve the unity of all the patriotic forces and of the fronts we are
organizing. Each of them, while operating independently on the basis of
their own ideas and values, must work very clearly on their flanks and have
a sense of who their political neighbors are. Under no circumstances
should a split be allowed within this complex patriotic unity, since our
adversary is relying on just such a split to set the leaders of the popular
opposition at odds and to sow dissension among our ranks.
/Electoral blocs should be clearly synchronized. We are obliged to
coordinate nominations of candidates from a single headquarters./ The
misunderstandings that are inevitable in an acute political situation must
be immediately submitted to a patriotic arbiter for a ruling. 
Incidentally, your two newspapers -- Sovetskaya Rossiya and Zavtra, which
have already worked out an approach toward the assessment of such conflicts
through the mobile and prestigious rubric "from the Patriotic Informburo"
-- could constitute just such an arbiter. The collective arbiter could
include well-known representatives of our intelligentsia. Their prestige
would be a yardstick of moral political behavior for the parties to
electoral clashes.
Another condition for preventing the revenge of the country's
destroyers lies in pooling the efforts of those who cherish Russia and
would like to harmoniously and democratically overcome the very severe
crisis, and in our selecting reliable allies. This is an exceptionally
delicate and difficult matter. But the patriotic field, for all its
factionalism and diversity, can nonetheless gel and coalesce around a
general overarching task. As for some of our rivals, cooperation with them
is complicated by previous conflicts which have hurt both sides.
Nonetheless, we need to seek allies and hold a constructive dialogue. 
The Harvard clerk Yavlinskiy cannot be such an ally for us. He almost
always sings a transatlantic song. Nor can the player Zhirinovskiy, who
hates us and whose "share company" is ready to sell out anyone to make more
money. There is no point in even holding a dialogue with the unprestigious
and diligently pro-Yeltsin underling Chernomyrdin. Their "home's" roof has
long since gone. And his movement will finally collapse in the very near
future. Nor, clearly, can General Lebed -- who, we believe, is included in
Berezovskiy's prime plan -- be such an ally.
Our attention is drawn to the Luzhkov party that is vigorously taking
shape. There seem to be many attractive signs evident there. From its
borrowing of the name of the patriotic "Fatherland" association from the
Cubans to its constantly demonstrated statist [derzhavnyy] actions. 
Luzhkov has consistently evolved from his early profoundly pro-Yeltsin
democratic posture toward a state idea of reviving the country and toward
the defense of Russian national interests....

*******