May 23, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4318 • 4319 • 4320

Johnson's Russia List
#4318
23 May 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Elizabeth Piper, Russia's women say they have never had it so bad.
2. RFE/RL: Irina Lagunina, Chechnya: Doctor Works To Save Lives -- Chechen and Russian.
3. REMARKS BY MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AT THE PRESENTATION OF HIS REPORT 
"THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF RUSSIA", MAY 15, 2000.]

*****

#1
Russia's women say they have never had it so bad
By Elizabeth Piper

MOSCOW, May 22 (Reuters) - Russian women have never had it so bad, 
politicians and women's groups said on Monday, decrying post-Soviet reforms 
for eating away at wages and turning politics into a "men-only club." 

Russia's top female politicians unveiled measures designed to restore the 
position of women, which they said had plummeted since Communist times, hit 
by punishing reforms and a pervasive belief among men that women were better 
off at home. 

"We have thankfully watched the fall of the Berlin Wall, but unfortunately 
the wall fell on women's heads," one speaker said. 

First Deputy Speaker Lyubov Sliska told the meeting in parliament, attended 
by dozens of women and four men, that women's pay fell way short of men's and 
discrimination between the sexes ensured that women rarely made it to the 
top. 

"Women were the victims of the reform years," Sliska told the meeting, which 
included representatives of over 100 groups. 

"They have fallen into the most economically vulnerable groups of the 
population. Women form the majority among the unemployed, pensioners and 
among those who work in the state sector of the economy." 

Sliska, one of a handful of women in the State Duma lower house, said market 
reforms and high inflation had forced more women than men out of the 
workplace despite an often superior standard of education. 

"We teach the children, cure the sick but we receive nothing in return," said 
Yekaterina Lakhova, head of the Women of Russia political party, proposing 
that some form of minimum wage and positive discrimination should become law. 

"Women work even in heavy industry but we are not allowed in the halls of 
power," she said, adding that women fought in the front-lines during World 
War Two but were still treated by many men as if they were "a special sex 
which cannot make decisions." 

Out of 450 seats in the Duma, women occupy only 29 compared with the 
Communist quota system when up to a third of deputies in the Supreme Soviet 
were women. 

Two women have penetrated what Lakhova called "a closed shop" at the top of 
Russian politics -- Valentina Matviyenko has a seat in the cabinet as a 
deputy prime minister and Tatyana Paramonova is first deputy head of the 
central bank. 

But women at the top are few and many at the meeting blamed male politicians 
for failing to warm to a new culture. 

"We are not against men, we just want to use our experience," Lakhova said, 
adding that hundreds of male deputies had been invited but had failed to take 
part in the discussion. 

One male deputy after being told what the dozens of women were debating may 
have summed up some of the men's thoughts. 

"It's dangerous in there," he said. "There's no way I'm going in." 

******

#2
Chechnya: Doctor Works To Save Lives -- Chechen and Russian
By Irina Lagunina

Russian troops are continuing their military campaign in the breakaway 
republic of Chechnya. The exact number of both military and civilian 
casualties is not known. Human rights groups accuse the Russian forces of 
targeting hospitals and clinics, especially in the Chechen capital Grozny. 
But little is known about the situation in the villages. RFE/RL correspondent 
Irina Lagunina reports about the story of a doctor who has witnessed a great 
deal of bloodshed. 

Washington, 22 May 2000 (RFE/RL) -- Last fall, the Chechen government of 
Aslan Maskhadov ordered medical personnel to provide assistance to the 
villages affected by the war in Chechnya. One of the doctors who followed the 
directive was Khasan Baiyev, a dentist by profession who became a surgeon 
during the first Chechen war of 1994-1996.

Baiyev took his medical equipment, moved to the small village of Alkhan-Kala 
in the outskirts of Grozny and, with the help of the local population, 
started the hospital that had been abandoned at the beginning of the war. 

Baiyev says that last October, 17 wounded were brought to the hospital. The 
hospital lacked basic medical supplies. Baiyev says he was forced to use an 
ordinary saw to conduct amputations.

The Russian troops also delivered their own wounded to the hospital. Baiyev 
says he was negotiating a ceasefire, trying to convince them that there were 
no Chechen fighters in the village. But the village remained under fire and 
there were from 30 to 50 wounded every day needing treatment.

Baiyev said at a recent briefing conducted at the Washington headquarters of 
RFE/RL that his commitment to treating victims on all sides during the war 
had infuriated both Russian officers and some Chechen gunmen who captured 
Alkhan-Kala this January. Says Baiyev:

"They seized me, dragged me into the hospital and started to shoot with 
machine-guns at my feet and above my head, saying that I opened the hospital 
for the Russian soldiers. I said that I opened the hospital for those who 
need medical help."

In a few days, the Chechen group left the village and the Russian federal 
forces came in. They also wanted to shoot the doctor. Baiyev continues his 
story:

"They seized me and put me to the wall saying that I was treating the 
Wahhabis (members of a strict Muslim sect). Then one of them said 'we'll have 
enough time to execute him, let's use him as a shield in the street fighting. 
They will not shoot at doctor.' When they finally put me to the wall to 
execute me the old men, women, and children -- all in all about 30 people -- 
stood in front of me and said 'If you want to shoot our doctor shoot him 
together with us.'"

The Russian federal forces left and on January 31 the village was once again 
crowded with wounded Chechen rebels who tried to find some medical help after 
having left Grozny through a Russian minefield. As Baiyev describes it, the 
hospital was full, even the corridor and the stairs were packed with wounded. 
He conducted more then a hundred surgeries in two days. Baiyev says the 
second patient he had these days was the well known Chechen commander Shamil 
Basaev. The Russian military jets bombed the hospital several days later when 
they found out that Basaev was there, and the Russian authorities were 
looking for the surgeon because he treated the famous rebel commander.

"I don't see people as terrorists or bandits or anything else. For me they 
are all patients. I am not a prosecutor. I simply followed the Hippocratic 
Oath."

But Baiyev says he was finally forced to leave the region and the country for 
treating the wounded of both sides of the war. 

*****

#3
TITLE: REMARKS BY MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AT THE PRESENTATION OF HIS 
REPORT "THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF RUSSIA"
(IPC, 11:07, MAY 15, 2000)
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE
DATE: 05/15/00

Moderator: Good morning, dear colleagues, ladies and
gentlemen. We are glad to welcome you again at the International
Press Club and we are glad to welcome once again Mikhail
Sergeyevich Gorbachev and the members of his team or, if you like,
you can call them officials of the Gorbachev Foundation. It is a
very worthy event that brings us together today. It is not
connected with the events of yesterday or the day before yesterday.
This event was preceded by two years of intense work on a research
project called "Russia in the Global System". And today the authors
of the project will present its results to you.

Let me introduce the participants. Mikhail Sergeyevich is one
of the few people in the Russian Federation who needs no
introductions. Also present here is corresponding member of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Law Yuri Shakhnazarov. Also
corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of
Economic Sciences Vadim Medvedev and members of the working group
of the project Alexander Galkin, Doctor of Economics and Yuri
Krasin, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences. 

It is heartening that many journalists are present. This is an
indicator of the public demand for truly independent judgements and
assessments. And I doubt that anyone can accuse Mikhail Sergeyevich
Gorbachev of not being independent. Once again, thank you very much
for joining us, Mikhail Sergeyevich. I give you the floor.

Gorbachev: We thank you, the organizers, because we have asked
that such a meeting be arranged, and I thank the journalists who
have responded to the invitation.

I will just take two minutes of your time. This report is the
result of research work for which the Carnegie Foundation gave a
grant. And most importantly it is part of our wide-ranging research
over nearly three years as part of our large project. It is a sub
project as it were. The overall project is called "Globalization:
Challenges and Responses". We have completed this work, the
research part. And now we are working in the final report on the
project and preparing a book which will elaborate on our positions,
assessments and conclusions on this highly relevant issue of
globalization.

Russia in the changing, globalizing world is what interests us
Russians especially since the processes taking place in the world
are overlaid by our internal processes. And if you add the profound
civilization changes the world is experiencing and how difficult it
is to analyze this subject and at the same time how important it is
to draw conclusions because we are again faced with a choice.

And this is what our report is about and this is what our
judgements are concerned with. We had wide-ranging discussions.
Materials are going to be distributed to you. It is a major study
involving more than 100 researchers, well-known and less
well-known, new but very serious people. The head of the project
was Yuri Shakhnazarov. And I pass the floor to him...

Moderator: ...Dear colleagues, we will now take questions.
Please use the microphone. Do not forget to name the media outlet
that you represent and clearly indicate the person to whom your
question is addressed.

Q: I have a question to Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. What is
the future fate of this report? Do you intend to present it
personally to President Putin? You see, this is a very important
theme. Will you be in any competition with the program that has
been drawn up by the Gref Center? And my second question. The
recent events, in particular the latest presidential decree on the
enlargement of regions... What do you think about this move? Is
this the first step to a moderate authoritarian regime or something
else? 

Gorbachev: Throughout the years of the Foundation's work all
these reports... We made attempts to get all these reports
published because they were devoted not to partial but to general
problems. We also submitted our reports to the president, the
government and parliament.

But they had the same fate as the report drawn up by the
Economics Section of the Academy of Sciences. All the variants of
that report seem to have simply vanished and we have information
that nobody actually ever read them. That was a conscious decision.
Those were tactics of a bulldozer that was to crush everything.
What the blade missed was to have been destroyed by the tracks. The
idea was that the market would sort things out automatically. A
very mistaken idea, I must say.

I have just returned from a discussion in New York, from a
forum in which Kissinger participated. I will give you some details
of that discussion. Senator Kerry (sp.) and other prominent
personalities took part. At that discussion foreigners said how
they saw America's role in the 21st century and the Americans
presented their own perceptions. This was very unusual for America
which usually says that everything is clear for it, that it should
dominate, that it should keep all the others in a semi-strangled
state. It appears that this is not really attainable and this is a
very good symptom.

Well, Senator Kerry said that the role of government in recent
years was a very substantial one and produced positive results. He
said that further thought should be given to this.

In other words, there is a search of the role that the state
should play in society. 

In answer to your question I would like to add a few words to
what has been said by Georgy Khasroyevich and what has been said in
the report.

This, indeed, is a serious work. We worked hard and for a long
time on it. There were numerous discussions and different points of
view were outlined. This was a serious search. The report was
published on April 10. All this was done before all those programs
and actually before all the elections. In other words, we did not
proceed from any transient considerations, we did not try to
coincide the publication of the report with anything. As I said,
this is a serious piece of work. In fact, this is a result of four
years of work. And please treat it thus. 

This report is less of an applied nature. True, the previous
reports were of an applied nature. For instance, the problem of
security, the problem of Islam for Russia and so on. 

But you definitely should know that this is not a program. The
report is in no competition with anything. This is just our
independent study. It reflects our point of view. Besides, the
report integrates the views of its authors but there is no full
coincidence of views. The process of drawing up the report was
quite a contradictory one and this is reflected in it.

I think it is very important that we have issued our report at
a time when we have numerous discussions in the country of the new
role of the state in the contemporary world, after the Cold War,
after the things that happened in the Soviet Union, in post-Soviet
space, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Germany and so on. I am a
very informed person by virtue of my participation in various
events and my connections. I must tell you that these processes are
now being very intensively discussed.

I mentioned the Americans. Who could have expected that they
would want to know what we are thinking about them? It turns out
that they are interested not only in what they are thinking about
themselves. This is something that must be welcomed. You see,
responsible forces, circles and politicians in the United States
are raising such a question. I spoke on this matter. I believe my
remarks and those of the former Secretary General of the Japanese
Liberal Party Kato were the most definite ones. That was a really
serious discussion and it was widely reported. And we all agreed
quite unexpectedly that what is expected of America are partnership
relations. The United States today is a leader in many areas, for
instance in social accomplishments, economics, even the development
of democracy -- for all that we see and criticize and draw
attention to -- nevertheless, it is undeniable, it is an objective
process. By the way, this is the conclusion that we arrived at
analyzing the process of globalization at the Institute of
International Economics and International Relations when we
discussed these issues with Academician Simonia. But it does not
follow that the world should deify America and worship America and
look at America like a rabbit at a boa constrictor. No. We have
raised this topic. 

But what is surprising and unexpected is that the
representatives of France, Germany, Japan and Russia and others
came to the main conclusion, namely that they expect partnership
from the United States. There were no condemnations, there was a
serious analysis. 

I have just returned from Germany and a very serious process
is going on there, a lot of soul-searching on the new role of
Germany, in Europe and the world. All this is very important. And
I heard the same in a conversation with the EU chairman Prodi who
asked the question, what conclusion should be drawn by the
Europeans and the Russians. And he took a more constructive view
of prospects of our cooperation than Shakhnazarov. Because Prodi
said in so many words, we should turn a new page in the relations
between the EU and Russia. We see that Europe cannot develop
without Russia. It cannot emerge as a powerful force, a world
center capable of providing a new stimulus and ensuring a new role
for Europe in the future. 

But we understand that Russia, too, needs cooperation with
Europe, perhaps even more than Europe in the current context. And
to finish with this topic, I heard the same from the Portuguese
prime minister who takes an even broader view of the new role of
Russia. He thinks that a big Europe will not be former without a
constructive and active role of Russia on large spaces.

So, as we continue to work and to reflect on these matters, we
should understand that all the country have in fact found
themselves in a new situation. America is the sole superpower,
Russia is something totally different than the Soviet Union. It is
in a different context and it plays a different role and this
prompts many serious conclusions for politicians. All this should
be borne in mind so as to be able to tackle immediate problems in
this context. Otherwise we will lose our way.

For the first time people in Japan have suggested, with regard
to Russian-Japanese cooperation, that perhaps Japan, too, should
revise its attitude because up until now it has put the territorial
claims ahead of everything else. Ahead of cooperation. Yes, you
shouldn't drop this issue. Yes, a peace treaty is needed and a line
should be drawn under the previous period of our relations with
Japan. But this should be done even as links increase. And it may
open new scenarios for the solution of these problems.

Just like our government is beholden to public opinion so is
the Japanese government. But if we start acting in such a way as to
open new areas of cooperation and rapprochement -- and I was
pleased to hear it because I have received delegations which had
important authorization from very high-ranking politicians, both
holding government office and party activists.

So, this is the first thing I would like to add. And secondly,
I would stick my neck out and say something on my own behalf. I
think that all our problems during the 20th century have stemmed
from our failure to combine the development of Russian society --
when I say Russian society I mean both former Russia and the former
Soviet Union and the present-day Russia -- how to combine the
development of society with democracy.

The first attempt was under the slogan, "Down with Autocracy,
Freedom and Democracy", but the Provisional Government, for a
number of reasons which I need not look into here, did not rise to
the challenge and proved incapable of taking the situation under
control. And then the Bolsheviks came forward and seized power.
They cast aside democracy and put their stake on dictatorship.
True, they argued that dictatorship was the highest form of
democracy, but we have since had ample opportunity to see that it
is not so. So, that was one attempt. 

Another attempt was perestroika. And all this has to be
understood. Why did it come to such an abrupt end? Why has it
released forces which the reformers could not control? Yes, there
have been mistakes. But there were deeper underlying reasons. 

And more recently there has been an attempt to establish
authoritarianism, far greater authoritarianism and autocracy that
we had under the 1993 Constitution which was embodied in the regime
that has existed up until now. And that, too, was a setback. 

So, the overriding question is, perhaps Russia is incapable of
combining social development and democracy in spite of being a
highly educated country which prizes solidarity and justice which
seem to favor democracy -- are we at all capable of combining the
processes of transformation and governance with democratic
institutions or is it an inherent sin and we are doomed to a
moderately authoritarian regime as Shakhnazarov argues in the
report. But who can identify the line beyond which authoritarianism
ceases to be moderate?

It reminds me of how we were fighting the anti-terrorist
forces in Chechnya, and we did the right thing and I supported that
action, but then this action led to more devastation and the death
of soldiers. I think about 4,000 died within a year. There are
conflicting assessments of the number of dead. But we will only
learn the final death toll later, perhaps, we will not to live to
know this, but our children and grandchildren will.

During the 10 years of the war in Afghanistan there were more
than 14,000 dead and we thought that it was intolerable and that
the war should have been ended. So, the most probably type of
regime will be moderately authoritarian. He spoke in a very cursory
manner, but I would like to stress that what you find here is not
what we would like to see. You can ask him a question and he may
tell you what we would like to see. But this is a possible
scenario. We proceeded with a view to past and present history. All
these processes will influence one way or another the forming of
government and its choice.

The most likely possibility is reflected here.

Shakhnazarov: I hope to God that freedom of speech is
preserved. 

Gorbachev: This is a very important question. And we must
disprove first of all in science and in the press the claim that we
need a strong state, that it should be a dictatorial one. That is
why they are recalling Stalin, saying that Pinochet could serve as
a model for us and so on. All this is rubbish. A dictatorial state
or regime is a weak state or regime. It is not by chance that
virtually all such regimes have either departed from the political
arena in the world or are in the process of doing this. 

For instance, I read in Novaya Gazeta two materials about
Kasyanov, the contender for the post of prime minister. It turns
out that his nickname was "Misha-Two Percent". And being published
are documents with signatures on the basis of which he acted, which
gave him powers to sell debts. If this is so, why won't we told
this? I would like to welcome the thesis proclaimed by our
President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin that we will act openly and
honestly.

In this connection, what are the federal districts? I believe
they should have said what this means, they should have explained
the purpose of doing this, that the purpose of this is to make the
presidential power more effective and to ensure observance of the
Constitution throughout the country, that the purpose is to cut
short all irregularities, strengthen law and order. In fact, our
federation can be viable and effective only if it rests on law and
order.

If this is so, we should welcome this approach. But they
should have explained the purpose of their action. This is not
something that one suddenly learns before going to bed and then
does not know whether to go to sleep after all or to start studying
the problem. I believe we are entitled to an explanation by the
leadership of its actions... It is impossible to terminate the
electivity of governors because this may be opposed by the public.
Perhaps this is an attempt to first take this measure and then
replace territories and regions with bigger entities, perhaps,
federal districts through which our federation will live and
function.

But this is an even bigger issue. In a democratic state, in a
democratic society, and this is what we want to be, it is necessary
to say that we are going to act resolutely but on the basis of law,
that we will be open and honest.That is why I find it difficult to
answer your question. I would like to hear an explanation because
this project can be channeled in any direction.

Q: Professor Alex Batnorhen (sp.). My question is directed
rather to Mr. Shakhnazarov or Mr. Krasin, who I believe is
responsible for international affairs. No? Then, perhaps, to
Alexander Abramovich. In any case the section that he is head of is
responsible for the international aspects of the report and the
project in general.

You see, when we in North America, that is Canada and the
United States, start forecasting something or set some strategic
tasks we try to calculate the cost of the attainment of the set
tasks. For instance, the task is to drive Russia out of the Caspian
region. We try to estimate how many billion dollars this is going
to cost us. When you start working on a scenario, when you set some
aims or draw up a concept of national security, do you count the
amount of money that will be required for this? For instance, how
much it will cost you to stay on the level of a medium power or a
great power?

For instance, when the Americans want world leadership they
know that this is going to cost them some 350-400 billion
dollars...

Gorbachev: They want to get this cheaply...

Q: No, I mean an annual budget, only the budget. In reality,
of course, the price is much higher.

Well, Russia has a foreign policy budget... Do those in Russia
who deal with its foreign policy really know the size of Russia's
foreign policy budget? When Russian scientists write about foreign
policy they use such terms as "global power", "super power",
"regional power" and so on. Do they really understand how much it
costs to play such a role? This is my question. 

Shakhnazarov: I must apologize for failing to mention that our
international sector was headed by Professor Karen Nersesovich
Brutents, a Doctor of History, a well-known specialist on the
so-called Third World. Unfortunately, he could not join us today.

Concerning your remarks. I regret to say that this knowledge
of finance and interest in finance typical of Americans is not yet
sufficiently developed in us. But it would be wrong to say that we
never made any calculations. We will be happy to provide you with
booklets reflecting such discussions. You will see that many of our
specialists definitely discussed the financial aspects, made their
calculations.

When I asked where could we find the money to finance our 
breakthrough, I was referring precisely to this. In many reports it
is said that for Russia to enter the information sphere quickly it
will have to spend from 250 to 300 billion dollars. There are
various estimates. True, we do not engage in this. This is mostly
done by economists. But we readily use the data provided by others.

I believe Vadim Andreyevich could add something here.

Medvedev: As to the economic section, it is based on studies
carried out by various institutes in our economic community,
including the Economic Section of the Academy of Sciences, the
Institute of Economy in which I work as a senior researcher and so
on.

Of course, if such calculations are not present in the report
in detail it does not mean that there aren't any. Not I personally
but other economists have estimated that for Russia to attain some
level of post-industrial development of society, and this also
means to solve other tasks connected with restoring Russia's status
of a great power, we would need from 5 to 7 annual GDP. Of course,
this is a tremendous sum and it includes the necessary capital
investments. There are two ways of getting such an amount of
resources. One way is to introduce rigid centralization of all
possible accumulations and distribute them in a centralized way...

Gorbachev: That is a mobilization model.

Medvedev: Yes, the mobilization model. This inevitably will
affect the social sphere, recreate the former
command-administrative system. For this reason alone it is
unacceptable.

But there is also another way. I mean the use of the
cumulative effect. This means starting with small things. I mean
the mobilization first of domestic accumulations. At the first
stage, as different from what some hot-heads are saying, we should
not strive to sweep aside all the old things. I remember the
expression used by Mr. Yasin -- to clear the field and grow on it
only super modern production entities and so on.

No, I think that this is not acceptable. This will not produce
any good. We are simply not ready for this. We have no conditions
for this. 

As to the cumulative effect, at the first stage it is
necessary to put to use the viable apparatus that we inherited from
the past and which has not yet been destroyed. After that,
gradually, exploiting the cumulative effect, the growth of the
domestic market, increasing accumulations we can accelerate this
process and reach the parameters of technological and innovational
transformations that are needed for the attainment of future tasks.

It seems to us that this way is a more acceptable one. Fate
has made us a gift, has given us a rare possibility... I mean when
elements of economic growth are beginning to appear despite the
terrible dislocation and crisis. I will not speak about the causes
of this. They have been analyzed and are well known. But the matter
is how we should treat this. For instance, one can simply observe
the process. Will it peter out or result in some other positive
consequences? Or by means of an active policy ... I will not
enumerate since everything is said in the report... On the other
hand, by means of a very active policy, not an administrative but
an economic one, one can give every possible support to the
commenced growth and turn it into a more or less stable development
of the economy. And gradually embark on the road that I have
already mentioned.

We are for this and not for returning to the former command
methods, on the one hand, and on the other, revert to super-liberal
measures and leave everything to the destructive and creative role
of the market alone. I think that a middle road is more acceptable,
but that depends on the choice that the current leadership, the
government and the state will make. So far, unfortunately, there
are fewer signs that such a reasonable scheme will be adopted than
the signs that indicate the restoration of the former
radical-liberal course which the restriction of the social sphere
of the state and so on and so forth. And this may again recreate
the serious problems we have confronted in recent years.

Going back to the question that was asked, I have just taken
advantage of it in order to give you a better insight into the
economic substance of our report. I would like to tell you that
there are few figures and statistics, but each of the provisions we
put forward is supported by serious analytical material accumulated
not only by us, but by economic community as a whole.

Moderator: Thank you, Vadim Andreyevich. Dear colleagues,
we've been working for an hour. Let's see if there are more
questions. You have raised your hand, yes? You and you. Your
question, than your's and your's will be the last.

Q: Professor Slavin. I represent the magazine Alternativa. I
have two questions to whoever cares to answer. The first question.
What does your concept say about the relationship between a
unipolar and multipolar world? That's the first question. And the
second question. Because Illarionov has become Putin's adviser, and
Illarionov is an ultra-liberal, for whom Gaidar is a socialist, in
terms of your model, is your model based more on the reality of
Western Europe, or the ultra-liberal reality of America or some
other country, what is the place of your economic model amongst the
modern models of the world? And the first question, the
international question, is probably for Mikhail Sergeyevich. The
reason I am asking it is that Brzezinski recently published a book,
you have probably all read it, it is called "The Great Chessboard"
where he argues that there is no place for Russia in the monopolar
world, Pax Americana.

Gorbachev: A month ago I was among the reporters at the
military academy in Portugal where generals and ambassadors of NATO
countries were present. I spoke there and the second speaker was
Zbigniew Brzezinski and the third was Klaus Naumann former chairman
of the NATO planning committee, he has just completed his mission.
It was a pretty tough discussion.

But the most interesting things were to happen when we were on
the same plane with Brzezinski on the way from Portugal to New
York. We talked a lot with him and when you just talk to him like
that -- and I am of the same opinion as you, what he writes and
what he says in his interviews, at least what was published here,
he renounced his scenario of the disintegration of Russia and it
was a bit of wishful thinking and it would lead to a situation from
which perhaps we would be unable to extricate ourselves, all of us.

But we told him that we were drawing on his interviews that
were published. As for the reflections on the role of Russia, he
believes that it is hard to discuss the role of Europe without the
participation of Russia in the building of Europe, just like the
United States must be involved in the restoration of a united
Europe.

So, I did not notice any aggressive elements that are really
present when that author is mentioned. I don't know, perhaps his
position is changing. So, I would say that Americans have some very
serious scientists, above all, from Harvard, including Huntington
who heads up the international relations department at Harvard. And
many others. In our Gorbachev Foundation seminar for North American
we discussed Russian-American relations for two days. We asked what
is in store for these relations. We came to the conclusion that a
new agenda is needed and that both the American government and the
Russian government are derelict in their responsibilities. They
seem to have distanced themselves from it.

It was an interesting discussion and perhaps we will put out
a memorandum on the basis of the discussion. Most of the
participants think that we have left that behind. There is no
question of a unipolar world. It is an illusion. The world is
diverse and we should see what new world order we should have to
help introduce an element of governability in his huge
restructuring that is taking place in all areas: economics,
information, security, and new regional systems are arising without
which it is impossible to maintain stability in the above areas. In
short, it was a wide-ranging conversation and it is now quite clear
that the formation of a new world order should be the cornerstone. 

And we shouldn't be scared by the noises that the new world
order is a new hegemony on somebody's part. In depends on what
principles it will be based.

In this connection, the new role of the UN, the Security
Council, its composition and powers and so on. It is a big question
in the regional system, including the European system. On the eve
of the meeting and the discussion in Portugal, the Italian
newspaper Corriera Della Sera carried an interview with Cowcroft,
a general who was President Bush's security adviser. And what did

he say? He said that European security should be viewed not from
the angle of NATO, but from the position of the united Europe and
that a directorate for Europe should be set up. And I have been
advocating a European Security Council for four years. And Dumas is
of the same opinion and Genscher is of the same opinion.

So, this topic is again brought up. He says let the EU and let
Russia be represented in the directorate, let the neutral countries
be represented there. But it is another question who will be there
and who will be represented. But this viewpoint is gaining
strength, the view of a new world order based on cooperation, on
national institutions that emerged as a result of the Second World
War and the regional systems which arose in order to maintain
security, trade and economic cooperation, and environmental
cooperation. Such regional systems sprang up all over the world.
And this was one of the aspects of discussions on Europe.

So, this is the period we are living in. I think, professor
Slavin, we have passed that station, thank God, when claims were
made for a unipolar world. Nobody recognized them. Americans
recognize that there is already a move, at least they have
discovered it when studying these processes that an alternative
international organization has to be set up. Who will lead it?
China, Russia, India or all of them together? But it would be the
most unfortunate outcome of the great victory which we all achieved
together by putting an end to the Cold War and starting the
destruction of nuclear weapons, chemical and bacteriological
weapons -- and to allow, through geopolitical games, to overthrow
all that we have achieved -- 

Moderator: And an economic question was also asked.

Shakhnazarov: Before taking up the economic question, I would
like to add to what Mikhail Sergeyevich said regarding the sort of
order that exists. I think that now, after the breakup of the
Soviet Union, during these 10-12 years, and perhaps for another
5-10 years it will be a transitional period when it can safely be
said that we live in a unipolar system. In fact, during the past
period the United States has had the final say on everything. The
others went through the motions of taking part, made some noises,
protested, or supported, but the decisions were made in Washington.

But I am absolutely convinced that this cannot go on because
already the forces have awakening an are asserting themselves,
power centers that will not succumb to Washington easily: Western
Europe, Japan and China. And of course, there is the process of
globalization because several hundred or thousand companies,
transnationals, determine half of the climate in the world.

So, as Mikhail Sergeyevich has just said, the building, or
rather, determining the architecture of the new world order is on
the agenda. And this will be a question that will attract great
interest. And we hope that our foundation will also become involved
in this work. 

Gorbachev: I think it will even be a follow-up, this is what
we have been doing over the past years, the new project called "The
New World Order". There are a growing number of people wishing to
cooperate and even to finance the studies.

Medvedev: The Russian model of a post-industrial economy is,
of course, in the future, but it is something not to implement but
to have as a benchmark. It is not a West Europe or an American or
a Chinese or a Japanese model. It is a Russian model. It is based
on what we see as trends of world development, trends of post
industrialism. I use these as short-hand terms and these trends are
combined with the specific Russian features.

What does it mean? It means, of course, a market economy, a
modern market economy with a substantial role of the state, above
all, in economic and social infrastructure, in scientific,
technical and investment policies, but it should not be a state-run
economy, but it should combine state guarantees and state
investments, but above all, the amount of private sector
investments and the savings of households and so on and so forth.

It also implies a strong social safety net with the use of the
principles of a socialist economy. This is how I see the model of
the economy we should seek and which one should bear in mind in
implementing economic reform. Of course, it rejects a return to the
command economy, it presupposes the development of market
relations, but it takes into account modern trends.

It doesn't mean that we should copy the West European model
which is perhaps closer to us than any other. It doesn't mean that
we should copy the American model. We should build our model giving
priority to universal post-industrial processes, but in the context
of the Russian economy.

Gorbachev: Excuse me, I would like to make a substantial
addition. In this discussion with Kissinger at the forum which
discussed how we see foreigners and the role of America in the 21st
century and how the Americans themselves see that role, I was very
much interested in the discussions between Gingrich, the former
Republican leader in Congress, and Senator Kerry. They were
forceful in pointing out that international affairs should not be
pursued in this way, without listening to the allies, having lost
the habit of listening to the allies, not to speak of other
partners, the subjects of international politics.

This proves that there is a growing realization there that
putting the stake on a unipolar world would be a delusion, it would
be an unjustified claim and this concept is untenable. And one
should take note of and give due to the position taken by the Pope.
He says that the future new world order will be more peaceful, more
stable, more humane and more just. This is the topic he addresses
in all his speeches during his trips. This is very interesting.
This is serious dialogue between different forces which influence
people's minds and the formation of a new philosophy. From a new
philosophy to a new policy and from a new policy to a new life, and
new institutions. Let us hope so.

Q: Golos Ukrainy. In Ukraine we are preparing a study called
"Ukraine at the Turn of the Millennia" and, partly in this
connection, and partly as a follow-up to your previous question,
what will the world be like in 15-20 years time? The hopes,
disappointments, economic and geoeconomic and geopolitical
developments? And the second question: what are the most probable
scenarios for the development of Ukraine?

Shakhnazarov: Some questions there. 

Q: I mean, in 15-20 years time. And what place will Ukraine
occupy in the world?

Gorbachev: I can tell you exactly that things will be better
than they now in a hundred years time.

Shakhnazarov: Including in Ukraine.

Gorbachev: I would like to address just one topic, and leave
the others to my colleagues. I would like to express my deep
conviction, arising from studies and knowledge and political
experience and the feelings that I think I share with many
Russians. I think that we in Russia, in Ukraine and in Byelorussia,
like in other countries, but especially here, when we think about
the future we must be aware than in the future we will be countries
with the closest interrelationships, countries cooperating toward
mutual interests.

In general, I cannot imagine us Russians, or let us say,
Russian and Ukraine, finding themselves on different sides in a
military conflict and so on. In that case one should simultaneously
replace the governments in Russia and Ukraine or in any case remove
the source from which such a concept may emanate. 

So, I think we should determine -- and a section in our report
is devoted to it -- what should be revised, the approaches to how
to arrange the entire relationship between the Council of Europe
countries, but above all with such countries as Byelorussia and
Ukraine. These should be the top priorities for our leadership. And
one can understand when they say that CIS countries owe Russia 7
billion for various supplies and so on and are not in the mood to
pay. Why is it so? And why are we reacting the way we do? But we
are being patient, we argue and press our point home. This is
because even though we live in different states, we still think of
ourselves as one country.

I think we should preserve the desire of our peoples who have
acquired their independent statute and which was sealed in all the
constitutions, the Stalin Constitution, the Brezhnev Constitution
and all their modifications. They have at last implemented that
idea. And this should be welcomed, it should be accepted as the
basic reality so that people should be confident of this. And by
arguing, one can remove contradictions over details in order to
promote our economic, cultural and scientific ties. It is still
possible to implement through major programs and projects. This
would be the correct policy. All the rest -- attempts to command,
declarations that we don't want to be bossed around by anyone --
and this hurts us when we are treated in this way, but the CIS
countries, too, resented when we assume a similar position. If,
however, Russia offers projects for cooperation, for the pooling of
efforts, respecting present-day realities, that will bring us
dividends.

I think our new President has every chance there. He is not
associated with what was done by Russia in these areas of policy.

Q: Military analyst of the German Wave Radio station. Mikhail
Sergeyevich, you have extensive experience dealing with Republican
administrations (George Bush and Reagan before him) and you know
the results of the Russian leadership's dealings with the
Democratic administrations. I think that your detente, the easing
of tensions between the US and the USSR created good conditions for
perestroika in the USSR. In the upcoming elections in the US who
will you root for, which of the candidates? This is the first
concrete question.

Gorbachev: My answer is, I do not root for anyone, I observe.

Q: Okay. Putin's new missile, Topol-M and other smaller
missiles, this missile sword that has appeared, don't you think
that such actions prompt the United States to create its own
missile sword? I would like to know how you see the rivalry between
the sword and the shield in the 21st century?

Gorbachev: My short answer to this extremely important and
alarming question is that we should get rid of nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons without any doubt. This line should be
pursued. If we coped with this task it would be easier to control
the situation in the world. Since this has been signed, the world
community has the right to bring anyone to account. Meantime we
have a strange situation. In the club of nuclear powers the
processes, thank God, have resumed, but at the same time there
crops up the theme of the rejection of ABM and the non-ratification
by the United States of the prohibition of nuclear tests. The
threshold states watch this and say that the nuclear club intends
to perpetuate its monopoly and dictate terms to them with the help
of its super weapons, absolute weapons. That is why it is necessary
to continue this process.

How can this be carried out in the international context, in
the Russian-American context? I believe that a very serious
dialogue is necessary. I think that this dialogue has resumed and
that the ratification of START-2 was a correct thing. I am not
saying that this is more to the advantage of Russia, that Russia is
to gain more from this than the United States. There are voices in
the United States stating: why should we do this since Russia will
have to get rid of its weapons anyway while we can leave as many
weapons as we find it necessary? That is why we must pursue an
active policy and intensify our tactics, we must conduct a dialogue
and engage in discussions.

I was surprised when Brzezinski said that he had no idea how
this project to revise the ABM Treaty had originated and how it was
linked with the idea that it is necessary to create a territorial
ABM system because of terrorist threats to America posed by rogue
states. And he demanded that such states be listed to him. And he
said this at the conference in Lisbon. He subjected this approach
to withering criticism.

We discussed these problems at a round table in Boston. It was
attended by many researchers, really serious people. There were
Matlock, the former CIA director Deutch and so on. I will not list
the various participants. Real experts, a very serious audience.
They said that there should be no haste whatsoever with the
revision of the ABM Treaty, they said that some sort of private
interests were involved, that somebody was eager to make points. In
other words, this is a most serious matter. In fact, why should
such an issue be raised at the peak of an election campaign? 

And the consensus was that it is necessary to put this off, to
conduct a serious discussion. If Brzezinski has questions to ask,
others have even more of them. We should not dodge negotiations, we
should take part in a responsible dialogue. We will thus be able to
advance step by step to the aim of liquidating arms.

I think one can understand the position reflected by the new
Russian leadership in the new military doctrine. Weakened Russia in
this respect emulates Europe. You see, Europe has clung to nuclear
weapons as the most economical ones. But such calculations, I
believe, cannot withstand political and especially moral criticism.
We must remember that nuclear weapons are capable of putting in
question the very existence of our world. That is why this is
absolutely unacceptable. 

But if we act in the way that I mention we will be able to
channel developments in the right direction. 

Moderator: I believe Georgy Shakhnazarov has an announcement
to make.

Shakhnazarov: I would like to make a statement, in fact. As
you know, throughout the past four and a half years our studies
were financed by the Gorbachev Foundation and the Carnegie
Corporation in New York. There is a lot of talk here, and this has
been reflected even in some publications, that he who pays orders
the music and by this token imposes his views and so on.

I must say in full honesty, placing my hand on the
Constitution and the Bible, that throughout these four and a half
years while giving us substantial support the Carnegie Corporation
has never tried to intervene in our studies. There was only a
purely technical control over spending. Naturally, we presented our
financial reports. In all the rest we acted absolutely at our own
discretion, how we felt it necessary.

Gorbachev: Interference is absolutely unacceptable for us, for
the Foundation. 

Shakhnazarov: I would be very grateful if somebody would write
about this to the heads of the Carnegie Corporation in New York, to
its former leader David Hamburg, a major biologist, and its current
president Vartan Grigoryan.

Second, I want to inform you that we will have an English
variant of the report. This may be of interest to those who
represent the foreign press. 

Moderator: The translation has been completed.

Shakhnazarov: It only remains now to print it and hand out the
copies. I would like to remind you that we have a booklet with
records of dialogues on the entire set of these issues. Researchers
will find lots of interesting and useful things there. You are
welcome to have it. We will readily share what we have with you.

Moderator: I would like to thank Mikhail Sergeyevich and his
colleagues for coming here today. I thank everybody. Till we meet
again in the International Press Club.

*******