September
9, 2000 This Date's Issues: 4500 4501
Johnson's Russia List #4500 [DJ: This
issue is the 500th this year] 9 September
2000 davidjohnson@erols.com
[Note from David Johnson: 1.
Moscow Times: And the Winner Is?
(DJ: We are in Pultizer Prize territory here. Today's issue of
the Moscow Times contains a collection of detailed
articles exploring falsification of the March presidential election.
Western experts on Russian elections, who for the most part minimized
falsification, should pay attention. Go to www.moscowtimes.ru My
admiration for the Times is not misplaced.) 2. AFP: Tearful Muscovites remember victims
of deadly terror blast. 3. Anatol Lieven: Brzezinski on a Turkish model for
Russia. 4. Washington Post: Robert Kaiser, Vladimir Putin
Dishes With the Media. 5. Reuters: Putin ends U.N. summit with frank
interview. 6. BBC MONITORING: RUSSIAN PAPER SAYS NUMERICAL
DOWNSIZING OF MILITARY UNLIKELY TO ACHIEVE AIM. 7.
Reuters: IMF says Russia
managing well without IMF loans. 8. Moscow Times: Primakov Assures
West.]
*******
#1 Moscow
Times September 9, 2000 And the Winner
Is?
The Moscow Times has documented enough falsification
in the March 26 presidential election to question the legitimacy
of the vote. Yevgenia Borisova reports from Dagestan, Saratov,
Tatarstan, Ingushetia, Bashkortostan and Moscow, and by telephone
from Novosibirsk, Kursk, Nizhny Novgorod, Kabardino-Balkariya and
Mordovia. With additional reporting by Gary Peach from
Kaliningrad, Nonna Chernyakova from Vladivostok and Mayerbeck
Nunayev from Chechnya.
Abdulla Magomedov, a
42-year-old police officer and a father of three, was on duty
guarding the entrance to a government building in Dagestan when
two Volgas pulled up _ one black, the other white. Three men and
a woman got out, flashed government ID cards to enter the
building, and then reemerged carrying large
sacks.
"I am supposed to control anything leaving the
building," Magomedov recalled. "I checked what was in the bags.
They were stuffed with ballots filled in for [Communist candidate
Gennady] Zyuganov, with the seals and signs of polling stations _
I know how they look, I was an observer at the
elections."
It was 11 a.m. on Sunday, April 16 _ three
weeks after the March 26 election that had confirmed Vladimir
Putin in office with 52.94 percent of the vote.
In the
aftermath of that vote, two leading national opposition parties _
the Communists and Yabloko _ had alleged widespread elections
fraud. Dagestan had been fingered for such fraud often enough
that a commission from the State Duma had come to Makhachkala to
investigate. And officer Magomedov had evidence of a deadly
serious federal crime.
"I got very angry, and tried to
take one of the bags from the woman, one of the four. But she
told me, 'Do you really need to get involved in this?' And the
men also told me not to interfere."
The four carried
their bags of ballots a little ways off, with an
uncertain Magomedov following. They took out the ballots and
began to tear them up and then to burn them.
"I
know ballots must not be destroyed. I protested, but they only
threatened to have me sacked," Magomedov recounted in an
interview on April 19, three days after the fact. He assumed they
were destroying evidence to foil the Duma commission's
investigation.
"I told them I would not leave it like
this, that I was not going to shut up because I am a Communist
and I voted for Zyuganov," Magomedov said.
The next day,
he filed a complaint with the local Communist Party.
The complaint was forwarded to the headquarters of Makhachkala's
Kirovsky district _ the building Magomedov had been guarding _
but there has been no reply.
April was dry in
Makhachkala, and on a visit later that month to the site of the
fire indicated by Magomedov, The Moscow Times was able to collect
the ashes of the ballots. The names of the candidates in the
March 26 elections can be clearly seen.
"This is
not right, what they did," said Magomedov. "They are just a
mafia structure prepared to do whatever they
want."
Magomedov says he is ready to testify in court to
what he has seen. But he also worries: His colleagues have been
telling him to shut up or risk losing his job _ and his monthly
salary of 800 rubles ($28) is the only pay coming in to support
his family of five.
Six Months of
Testimony
In the six months since the elections, The
Moscow Times has met dozens of ordinary people like Magomedov.
Federal elections authorities, foreign observers and the criminal
justice system have all been dismissive of fraud allegations like
his _ admitting that fraud existed and lamenting it,
but insisting it was insignificant (and apparently, punishing no
one for it).
But fraud was far from insignificant. Given
how close the vote was _ Putin won with just 52.94 percent, or by
a slim margin of 2.2 million votes _ fraud and abuse of state
power appear to have been
decisive.
Consider:
oIn Dagestan alone,
it is possible to definitively document about 88,000 votes stolen
from other candidates and given to candidate Putin _ simply
by comparing documentation at about 16 percent of the local
precincts, or polling stations, to documentation at the national
level. The cheating leaps out immediately.
And
that is only in the minority of Dagestani voting precincts that
were willing to provide election-day documentation. Other
precincts _ where observers were kicked out or otherwise snubbed
_ seem to have been engaged in, if anything, more extensive
fraud.
A State Duma commission investigating Dagestan
under Communist Deputy Alexander Saly has extrapolated from
documented fraud to assert that about 700,000 votes in Dagestan
must have been wrongly awarded to Putin. But the methodology, as
laid out in an April 27 issue of Rossisskaya Gazeta, is highly
questionable. And inexplicably, Saly's team has apparently only
made intelligent use of about half of the hundreds of protocols
it has collected. (A "protocol" is a certificate of a precinct's
official vote tally.) Moreover, when Saly was asked to share
copies of at least some of his findings with The Moscow Times, he
agreed to show only some of the protocols, and joked that
Zyuganov kept the rest in a folder with him.
A more
conservative calculation by The Moscow Times _ one that assumes
fraud in the precincts that would not give out protocols was no
worse than it was in those that did _ settled on a figure of
about 551,000 votes that were crudely falsified in this
way.
In other words: After a visit to Dagestan alone, it
is possible to challenge almost a fourth of Putin's national
margin of victory as highly questionable.
In other
regions, the same sort of correcting-fluid falsification _
the clumsiest imaginable, where higher-level elections officials
simply contradict the official reports of lower-level officials,
and hope no one will notice _ can also be documented. In Saratov,
Communist-collected protocols chronicle discrepancies in Putin's
favor to the tune of 11,779 votes; in Kabardino-Balkariya
involving 7,126 votes; and in Bashkortostan involving 1,497
votes. Again, protocols in these and other regions
were notoriously difficult to obtain, meaning this sort of crude
falsification could actually be much larger.
oIn
Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, where all told Putin won 2.87 million of
the 4.46 million votes cast, fraud was more carefully organized.
Voters and observers report a precinct-by-precinct conspiracy to
stuff ballot boxes in every manner imaginable. If in Dagestan,
Kabardino-Balkariya and Saratov higher-level officials rewrote
lower-level results, in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan lower-level
officials were already on board _ they produced the "correct"
results the first time around.
In Tatarstan, one
ballot-stuffing game was so prevalent that it was even given a
name _ "the caterpillar" _ and its perpetrators even approached
the Tatarstan president's spokesman on election day to ask him to
help.
This more closed sort of vote-rigging is much
harder to put an exact number on. But a conservative guess would
be that fraud was on a scale of that of Dagestan, meaning
hundreds of thousands of votes stolen for Putin in
each republic.
oIn all of the above-named
regions and also in Kursk, Mordovia, Kaliningrad and Nizhny
Novgorod _ nine regions where Putin won a total of 6.96
million votes _ regional governors resorted to a vertical chain
of bullying: Everyone from collective farm workers to college
professors was forced to vote for Putin. Some critics have gone
so far as to argue that on the eve of the 21st century, such
bullying excluded villagers as a class from the
democratic process.
The effect of this so-called
"abuse of administrative resources" on the vote tally is
impossible to quantify. But those who have studied it and who
spoke to The Moscow Times said bullying shifted several million
votes from other candidates to Putin. Nearly all observers argued
that it was far more influential than, say, the crude
falsifications seen in places like Dagestan and Tatarstan. (This
article does not look at how the Kremlin's abuse of media power
influenced the outcome of the election, although the
relentlessly positive national coverage almost certainly added
even millions more to Putin's vote).
oIn
Chechnya, Putin officially won 191,039 votes _ or 50.63 percent _ from
a population made up of families whose homes and lives have been
destroyed by the war and rank-and-file soldiers dropped into the
middle of a bloody and terrifying guerrilla war. In other words,
refugee camps and conscripts supposedly voted en masse in favor
of Putin.
Even otherwise timid international observers
were not amused by this. They have refused to recognize results
from Chechnya, which was under martial law on election day, and
there were no observers there. With the exception of the federal
government and the Central Elections Commission, almost no one
sees the vote in Chechnya as
legitimate.
oPerhaps the most startling discovery of our
six-month investigation was one that emerged from the CEC web
site: The official number of registered voters grew by 1.3
million in the three months between the Dec. 19 State
Duma elections and the March 26 presidential elections _ and
there is no good explanation as to why.
All
potential voters are automatically registered by the state upon
turning 18 years old. That's why the appearance of 1.3 million
new voters in such a short period has left Russian and American
demographers interviewed for this article baffled _ and troubled
by the lame nature of explanations offered by the CEC and other
federal authorities. An unofficial explanation is that these 1.3
million voters are mostly fictional _ "dead souls," to borrow
a term from Nikolai Gogol's famous novel, summoned up from the
imagination of corrupt elections officials. (See sidebar, page
VII).
Crime But No Punishment
Voters
have complained about fraud, but no one seems to be
listening.
In small villages where it is possible for
someone to poll his neighbors and determine how they all voted,
dishonesty turns up easily. Some villages have written open
letters to the president and to other higher authorities
to protest their votes being "stolen," and The Moscow Times has
obtained such letters.
In some cases, voters
have testified to having the pens and ballots snatched out of
their hands at the voting booth and filled in for them. In
others, they have been bullied into voting for Putin with threats
from local leaders that they will lose their jobs, or be denied
state welfare support. Other voters recounted seeing elections
officials adding "dead souls" to registration lists _ by listing
children as adults, or listing people twice, or simply by adding
names at random. In some cases, corrupt elections officials have
added fictional floors to apartment buildings, and filled
the resulting fictional apartments with fictional voters _ who as
one cast their ballots for Putin.
And
everywhere, local government can be found to have worked for Putin _
by leaning on factory directors, school principals, hospital
administrators and farm chiefs, who in turn bullied their
employees and others dependent on them. Those reluctant to vote
"correctly" report being threatened with losing their jobs, being
evicted or being denied their right to state support such as
pensions. "Of course we were pressured from the top, and we pressured
our people to vote for Putin," said one collective farm chief in
an interview in Kazan, on condition of anonymity. "But it is
forbidden to talk about it."
This and more is among the
evidence assembled by The Moscow Times _ reporting that echoed in
similar investigations carried out by the Communist
Party, Yabloko, foreign observer missions and the Saly commission
in the Duma.
The inescapable conclusion is that Putin
would not have won outright on March 26 without
cheating.
At the same time, those months of reporting
indicate that the conventional wisdom of the time was correct:
Putin was far and away the most popular candidate for president
in the spring and summer of 2000. Had he won less than 50 percent
of the March 26 vote, he most likely would have faced _
and easily defeated _ Communist leader Zyuganov in a
runoff.
Tellingly, in every region visited by The Moscow
Times, the same top Communist members who so indignantly laid out
evidence of fraud in the first round all freely conceded Putin
would have easily won in a second
round anyway.
According to Saly, the Communist
Party member who heads the Duma's commission to investigate
elections fraud, about 440 lawsuits were filed in courts across
the nation to contest fraud of one kind or another in the March
26 vote. Saly also said the nation's various elections
commissions have received untold thousands of formal
complaints.
But those who file such complaints say they
get no satisfaction.
And those who appealed to the courts
were often told to readdress their complaints to federal or
regional prosecutors _ in other words, to complain to the
executive branch ultimately headed by Putin, and not to
the theoretically separate judicial branch. Prosecutors, in turn,
often send such appeals back to the courts, or to elections
officials _ in a never-ending game of go-nowhere
football.
Such has been the experience of Ilyas
Magomedov, an aide to a Communist State Duma deputy from
Dagestan. Magomedov filed suit in two separate courts
in Makhachkala alleging specific instances of fraud and
violations in both the December 1999 Duma vote and the March 2000
presidential vote. In both cases the courts declined to hear the
matter, sending Magomedov written orders to appeal instead to
prosecutors. When he then appealed to Makhachkala's
deputy prosecutor, he received written instructions to appeal to
the courts.
Many others reported that they did not even
bother to complain about fraud they witnessed because they saw it
was hopelessly futile.
"Undoubtedly there was large-scale
forgery here, but we did not prepare a complaint," said Dmitry
Fomin, who campaigned for Grigory Yavlinsky in Tatarstan's
Naberezhniye Chelny district. "For Tatarstan, the definition of
a court is: Something that takes a lot of energy but provides a
very equivocal result. Everything is under such tight control
here that we expect better results from publications in the media
than from court decisions."
See No
Evil?
Federal elections law gives Russian and foreign
organizations broad powers to observe all voting day activities,
and observers are supposed to prevent the most crude
abuses.
But observers were not everywhere. Communist and
Yabloko party observers allege having seen, or heard of, massive
fraud, to the tune of millions of votes. Zyuganov has claimed to
have had 7 million votes stolen from him, quite a lot if Putin
won by about 2 million _ but the evidence provided for such
claims, while often troubling, is not
complete.
Meanwhile, it's hard to know how seriously to
take foreign observers. Consider the biggest, the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sent a team of
about 400 people to observe both the 1999 Duma elections and then
again three months later the presidential vote. As with other
foreign observer groups, about a 10th of the OSCE teams
were "long-term" observers with strong knowledge of Russia and
Russian, who arrived months beforehand to take an in-depth look
at the situation, while the other 380 or so were flown in late in
the game to watch the voting day.
Edouard Brunner, head
of the OSCE delegation, told The Moscow Times a week before the
Duma vote that he expected "international observers will come
up with a statement [after the Dec. 19 vote] that the elections
were conducted in a democratic way." They did indeed (with the
exception of the least well-known of the lot, the European Media
Institute, which characterized the Duma vote as "sad" and a step
back from democracy for Russia).
The short-term foreign
observers usually include the top officials like Brunner _ and it
is they who tend to set the tone of the crucial morning-after
news conferences and press releases.
Following the
presidential elections, long-term OSCE observers interviewed
by The Moscow Times, on strict condition of anonymity, expressed
disgust for the cheery tone of the day-after OSCE commentary _
and dissatisfaction that the more thorough, official OSCE report
on the elections _ which was published two months later and was
harsher and more informed _ got no attention.
"They make
the OSCE's press statement on the elections before the
long-term observers _ and it's the long-term observers who really
know the story _ have actually given their reports," said one
long-term OSCE observer. "They don't actually hear all the
evidence before they write it _ and then what happens is, the
longer report that the OSCE writes, which is sometimes more
critical, its overall tone is set by the press
statement.
"Because the press statement is the official
stamp of approval. That's what gets quoted in the newspapers ...
That's what Putin's people carry around with them in their hand.
Nobody will read the detailed report."
That detailed
report, released May 19, is posted on the OSCE web
site (www.osce.org/odihr/elecrep.htm). In it, the OSCE sticks to
its initial finding that the elections were democratic and a step
forward for Russia. But the report also cites anecdotal evidence
from the long-term observers similar to stories heard repeatedly
by The Moscow Times _ even as the report downplays the
significance of the abuses it chronicles and goes into
little detail.
The OSCE report states, for
example, that in fully half of all polling stations visited by
OSCE observers, "some of the cumbersome procedural requirements
for the vote count were circumvented in order to expedite
the process."
It also notes that the Communist
Party observers in particular had documented "episodic violations
that, in and of themselves, would not appear to be sufficient to
alter the outcome," and then goes on to give a
jargon-softened list:
"For example, sporadic
instances of family voting, inclusion of deceased persons on
voter lists, occasional denial of requests to receive copies
of protocols, various abuses of administrative resources,
improper influence of administrative authorities seen to be
directing the work of polling station commissions, expulsion of
individual observers from some sites, incidents of inequities
regarding access to the mass media, distribution of
campaign material during the 'silent period,'
etc."
Why Did They Do It?
"Other
allegations were more serious and deserve the full weight
of investigation," the OSCE report continues. "They involved
charges that protocols were falsified, in some instances by
reversing or increasing the vote totals recorded for Putin over
Zyuganov."
The report concludes that the OSCE observers
"are not in a position to judge the validity of the complaints
raised by the Communist Party and can draw no conclusions as to
the proficiency and seriousness with which they were reviewed by
competent election commissions or the courts."
Yet the
OSCE did in effect reject the validity of those complaints _
when they endorsed the elections as free, fair and democratic. In
similar cases, such as the fraud-tainted April re-election of
Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, Western observers complained
until new elections were held. The winner, again Fujimori, today
enjoys more legitimacy thanks to the exercise.
"Why did
[Western observers] do it [endorse the Putin election
as legitimate]? In obvious support for what they call Russian
reforms," said Boris Kagarlitsky, a sociologist and political
analyst with the Institute for Comparative Politics. "And of
course in support for Putin as a reformer. It is a credit of
trust to Putin and an extension of the support of the
Chubais group," he added, referring to long-running Western
support for Anatoly Chubais, the architect of Russian
privatization programs.
"Many of these organizations,
they have as it were a political statement that they want to make
before they go," said an OSCE long-term observer unhappy with the
organization's soothing official findings. "I thought it was
very, very ... totally cynical and unsatisfactory, and if I had
been writing the press statement I'd have given it a different
slant."
Who Gave the Orders?
Not one
person of those interviewed over the six months since the
election could offer compelling evidence that fraud was part of a
national conspiracy organized on direct orders from anyone in the
Kremlin.
But there is abundant evidence that in some of
Russia's 89 regions, orders to falsify the vote came down
directly and formally from the governors' offices _ in a nation
where governors from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok all
publicly embraced Putin's political vehicle Unity. And there are
reasons to believe that Kremlin officials might have made clear,
with not-always-subtle hints, that regional leaders were expected
to deliver the Putin vote by hook or
by crook.
Consider just the example of the 1995
Duma elections, when then-Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin
angrily and publicly berated regional governors for not
delivering the vote _ and even threatened to engineer the downfall
of governors of regions where Our Home Is Russia did
worst.
That the Putin team saw the apparatus of
government as subordinate to their campaign needs is suggested by
the composition of the team itself. According to the OSCE's final
report on the March 26 vote, Putin campaign staff included, among
many others, three deputy heads of the Kremlin administration;
top Interior Ministry officials including the first
deputy minister and deputy police chiefs across the nation; top
Railways Ministry officials representing all of the country's
major railroad routes; and top officials from the tax and
agriculture ministries.
"[OSCE observers] in different
regions encountered incidents where campaign materials for the
acting president were found in offices of territorial election
commissions," the OSCE report says, referring to the unit
that oversees 20 to 30 polling stations. "Some territorial
commissions acknowledged that they were instructed by the
administration to pick up Putin campaign materials for
distribution in their areas. Corroborating reports were submitted
from territorial commissions as far distant from one another as
[Vladivostok] and Kazan.
"In one instance, the chairwoman
of a territorial commission acknowledged that one day earlier,
she had received her first specific order regarding promoting the
acting president's campaign. At that time she had been instructed
to pick up campaign literature promoting his candidacy at the
same time as she picked up the ballots for her
territory."
Elections officials were also apparently
bullied into making up results _ whether by adding "dead souls"
to their count (see sidebar, page VII) or "correcting" official
lower-level results to favor Putin.
******
#2 Tearful Muscovites remember victims of deadly terror
blast
MOSCOW, Sept 9 (AFP) - Scores of tearful
Russians laid floral tributes Saturday on the site of a Moscow
housing block where 92 people died exactly a year ago in a
terrorist bomb attack.
An open air memorial service
was held on the building site in Moscow's Guryanov Street around
a large wooden Orthodox where the eight storey block of 72
apartments once stood.
"There were a lot of people here between
10:00 p.m. and midnight (Friday) when the explosion went off,"
one pensioner told the NTV television station.
"This will
remain with us all our lives. As long as we are alive we
will remember those that died," said a tearful army officer in
full military uniform.
"We will take our revenge on
these bastards, to the last drop of blood. We will never forgive
them for what they have done," he said.
Former resident
Gennady, who lived in the destroyed building for 26 years, said
he had only escaped the bombers because he and his family were
staying with his mother-in-law at the time.
"All my
childhood has been wiped out in one go," he said. "I lost my
best friend here. I lost everyone here," he
added.
Children's cuddly toys were placed among the floral
tributes, a poignant reminder of the many youngsters who died in
the blast.
A plastic beaker of vodka with slice of black bread
placed over it was set down on the site where new flats are being
built, a traditional mark of respect by relatives on the
anniversary of the death of a loved one.
As many as 16 people
remain officially missing following the Guryanov Street blast and
a second explosion in Moscow four days later in which a further
118 people died.
Two men, Taukan Frantsuzov and Ruslan
Magayayev, have been arrested and charged in connection with the
two Moscow blasts but have yet to come to trial.
In
total, 292 people died in four apartment bombings across Russia
last September. The deadly blast stunned Russia and marked the
first time the country had been confronted by terrorist bomb
attacks on civilian housing estates.
The attacks were
cited by the Russian authorities as a key factor in prompting the
Russian ground invasion of Chechnya on October 1, 1999.
But
Russian media have often speculated that the FSB domestic
intelligence service could have planned the bombings in order to
precipitate a war in Chechnya likely to boost the popularity of
then prime minister, now President Vladimir Putin.
The
head of state, a former FSB chief, has rejected the suggestion
as preposterous.
However, the theory gained credence
when it emerged that FSB agents had planted a "fake" bomb in a
housing estate in Ryazan, 200 kilometresmiles) southeast of
Moscow.
FSB officials said the move was an elaborate security
test.
******
#3 Date: Fri, 08 Sep
2000 From: Anatol Lieven <alieven@ceip.org> Subject:
Brzezinski on a Turkish model for Russia.
Dear
David,
I'm profoundly tired of commenting on Brzezinski's
writings about Russia. So with regard to his bizarre suggestion in The
National Interest that Russia should follow the path of Kemal Ataturk's
Turkey, I'll just attach below a discussion of this issue from the
conclusion to my book, Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power, published
three years ago.
I'll only add- which should be obvious
to everyone - that whenever Russia does in fact begin to take even the
most limited steps in a Kemalist direction (authoritarian
centralisation in the name of reform, militarisation and a dominant
political role for the security forces, suppression of minority rights)
Brzezinski is the very first to break out in furious
denunciations.
Up to now - thank God - Russia has not in
fact gone very far in that direction, above all when it comes to the
ethnic minorities, whether Tatars, Yakuts, Karachai or whoever. As long
as these do not engage in outright revolt against the Russian
Federation, they enjoy a political, cultural and territorial autonomy
of which the Turkish minorities can only dream. The preservation of
this under Yeltsin was one of that figure's few genuine claims to
respect, and a key reason why, except for Chechnya and some other parts
of the North Caucasus, ethnic peace prevails across the greater part of
the Russian Federation. We must all pray that this continues, and that
Putin does not follow the path of Ataturk and his successors. I know
that Turkey is a NATO Member and a Vital Strategic Partner and a Force
For Stability in the Middle East - but this argument
is ridiculous! From: Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power
(Yale University Press, 1998), pages 383-384:
There is
a historical model for how Russia might react in these circumstances,
and strangely enough, it is one which has been advanced by some Western
commentators as a positive model for Russia: this is Turkey as reshaped
by Mustapha Kemal ‘Ataturk’.
The reasons why this is seen
as a positive model in the West are threefold: that Ataturk’s Turkey
gave up the Ottoman Empire’s pretensions to lead the Muslim world
(through the caliphate) and rule over huge areas beyond Turkey’s ethnic
borders; that Ataturk and his successors have crushed both conservative
and radical Islam in the name of Western-inspired modern secularism;
and that they have aligned themselves with the West geopolitically,
first by refusing to ally with Germany in the Second World War, then by
joining NATO in the Cold War, then by lining up alongside the USA and
Israel in the Middle East.
The possible parallels with
contemporary Russia look clear enough - and it is probably only
traditional Russian contempt and hatred for the Turks which has
prevented them being picked up by Russian thinkers. By the early 20th
century, the Ottoman Empire had experienced decades of
repeated humiliation at the hands of the West, and of failed reforms.
The multinational empire itself, and its claims to leadership of the
Muslim world were fading fast. With defeat in 1918, they disappeared
altogether, and former subject peoples advanced towards the heart of
ethnic Turkish territory itself.
In these
circumstances, younger and more radical elements of the Turkish elites,
and especially the military, decided to rebuild and strengthen their
state on the basis of Turkish ethnic nationalism. Hitherto, this
had been almost completely lacking in the Ottoman elite’s ideology and
culture. ‘Turk’ had been almost a term of abuse, implying a coarse and
uneducated Anatolian peasant. In terms of blood, the elites (and most
probably Ataturk himself) were overwhelmingly
non-Turkish.
It was in reaction to all this that Ataturk
launched the slogan, ‘Be Proud to Be a Turk’, and launched a brutal
attack on religious tradition in the name of modernisation. In part
because of the strength of the traditions he had to overcome, and in
part because of the Turkish military’s traditions (and its Wilhelmine
German models), the state that he founded embodied very strong
authoritarian, military and chauvinist elements. As James Pettifer has
written, to this day external and internal enemies are seen
everywhere: ‘It is very difficult to be Turkish. In the loyal
bureaucrats’ view great national discipline is necessary to surmount
these ever-present threats...’
Kemalist Turkey also had
quasi-absolutist claims to total cultural control over the entire
population within Turkey's new and much reduced borders - something
which had also been lacking in the intermittently savage, but generally
lazy and pluralist governing philosophy of the Ottoman
empire.
Despite the fact that by the early 19th Century,
the Turks had been written off by many European (and some Turkish)
commentators as hopelessly decadent and incapable of reform and
regeneration, the result of the Kemalist national revolution was in
fact - or seemed to be for many years - a relatively successful
experiment in modern state-building and development. However, it is one
which has been a disaster for Turkey's ethnic minorities, Armenians,
Greeks and Kurds, who were respectively subjected to genocide, massacre
and expulsion, and an attempt at complete suppression of their language
and cultural identity (though the Turks reply, with considerable
justice, that this was no worse than the fate with which these enemies
were threatening them). Later of course this state philosophy
also threatened intervention in neighbouring states harbouring ethnic
Turkish minorities, like Cyprus - for while Kemalist nationalism had
abandoned claims to non-Turks beyond Turkey’s borders, it certainly did
not imply the abandonment of claims to protect ethnic Turks; and in
this context, it needs to be emphasied that no Russian state - even a
liberal, capitalist and democratic one - is ever going to be able to
abandon all claim to a right of protection over ethnic Russians outside
Russia, at least against actual physical attack. This may also be true
of the Russian stake in Sebastopol.
The parallels to
Russia’s position could hardly be clearer; and the advocates of a
Kemalist path have not thought through the impIications of their
arguments, or what a true Ataturk and his programme, with a
capacity for mobilising and inspiring the Russian army and people,
would mean for Europe today. Apart from anything else, just as it would
in part be a reaction against the ethnicist nationalism of neighbouring
states, so it would in turn produce further reactions in this direction
among Russia’s neighbours (and of course her own minorities) risking a
downward spiral of hatred, oppression, unrest and ultimately
war.
******
#4 Washington
Post September 8, 2000 [for personal use only] Vladimir Putin
Dishes With the Media By Robert G. Kaiser
NEW YORK - At the
bar downstairs, an animated crowd of burnished New Yorkers, a
bartender in white shaking and pouring martinis: just
another Wednesday night at the 21 Club. But upstairs in the
paneled Remington Room (with Frederic Remington's images of the
West in gilded frames on every wall), a most unusual dinner
party: 20 media heavies from print and broadcast, and the
president of Russia. It was Vladimir Putin's first visit to
21.
Hard to imagine Joe Stalin at 21--or even Mikhail
Gorbachev. But Putin--small, calm, unassuming in manner--seemed
perfectly comfortable. This may have been his mission:
reassurance. Before the night was over, he had surprised his
dinner companions with several observations.
Putin's pal Tom
Brokaw (they met in Moscow last June, when Brokaw interviewed the
president for NBC) was the host. When Putin arrived for dinner at 9,
he circulated among the guests a little stiffly, shaking hands
and saying "good evening" to each, without much of an accent. The
guests were programmed to make a memorable impression on the
president. But the president was programmed to say "good evening"
(the last that was heard of his English) and didn't seem to be
absorbing their efforts.
In the days before, Brokaw spent a lot
of time on the phone arranging this dinner. "Protocol is not my
thing," he acknowledged. When he proposed the idea, Putin's
people wanted to know who would attend, so Brokaw suggested
the editor of the New York Times, the editor of The Washington
Post, the editors of Time and Newsweek and the New Yorker, Diane
Sawyer and Katie Couric, Maureen Dowd and Richard
Cohen.
The Russians agreed. Then on Wednesday one of Putin's
guys called back. Have you invited too many people, he asked. Can
such a large group have an informal conversation? Brokaw
convinced him that they didn't want to start disinviting the
people on this guest list.
As the media types arrived some
minutes ahead of the president, Brokaw broke some bad news to
each of them, one or two at a time: Putin had insisted that the
gathering be "off the record." Brokaw promised to try to persuade
Putin himself to change that rule, but Putin initially said he
wanted a private exchange of views.
There were three
round tables. Katie Couric sat two seats from Putin, next to his
interpreter, and got the president talking about the tragedy of the
Kursk submarine. Evidently, her winning manner works even through
an interpreter. Soon Putin was holding forth.
Brokaw,
sitting on his other side, realized that Putin's comments
would interest the whole group, and asked everyone to listen. Was
Putin willing to talk about the Kursk on the record? He was. (His
comments are reported in today's A section.) From then on, he
seemed comfortable staying on the record nearly all the
time.
Maureen Orth of Vanity Fair, author of a profile of Putin
in next month's issue, aggressively questioned the president
about harassment of media owners in Moscow, which led to spirited
exchanges, but no conceptual breakthroughs. Orth asked how the
government could harass tycoon Boris Berezovsky since Berezovsky
had helped choose Putin as Boris Yeltsin's successor. Did
he really, Putin asked. "He wanted you to believe that." Putin
seemed to enjoy the repartee, and enjoyed not answering the
questions.
He was asked, "What kind of a democrat are you?" and
replied by asking the questioner, "Were you a member of the
Soviet Communist Party?" No. Then he explained: "We had 12
million members of the Communist Party. . . . The biggest problem
we face is the poisoned consciousness of our people. It will take
a long time for our people to realize that the quality of their
lives will depend on their own effort."
Russia, Putin
went on, needs "a real multiparty system"--not parties
"that represent only themselves, but rather . . . reflect the
interests of large groups of society," which could "shape the
policies of the state." But Russia doesn't have such parties.
Instead it has candidates for office "whom people vote for
because they like them."
"Like you?" he was asked. Putin won an
overwhelming majority in this year's presidential election after
forming a new party whose only platform was to support
Putin.
"Like me," he agreed. "And that's very
dangerous."
A politic reply. As was his response when asked if
Russia needs a free press--really free, the way Americans
understand the term.
"A modern state is not possible without
freedom of the press," he replied. Really free? "Absolutely." But
in Russia, he has denounced "the anti-state press"--which is what
the American press thinks it is supposed to be. He has also
denounced Russian media coverage of the Kursk accident.
Putin
did least well trying to explain why he remained on vacation on
the Black Sea after the Kursk submarine sank with 118 hands on
board. He had a lot to say about the accident, but very little to
say about his own decision. If a similar accident happens again,
will he behave differently?
"I couldn't have done anything that
would have helped," he replied. He meant he couldn't have helped
the sailors. A politician better attuned to public opinion would
have found a way to at least help himself. "I didn't have
a choice between a good and a bad response," Putin added. "I had
a choice between a bad and an awful option." He didn't explain
which he had chosen, or what the other one might have
been.
At 11:25, the party broke up. When it began, Putin had
said he hadn't slept for 20 hours, but when it was over he didn't
rush to leave. He signed autographs and schmoozed. This old KGB
man, easier to sum up before you'd met him, had enjoyed
himself.
******
#5 Putin ends U.N.
summit with frank interview By Ron Popeski
UNITED NATIONS, Sept
8 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin closed
a lackluster U.N. visit on Friday with a freewheeling television
interview laying bare his thoughts on the Kursk submarine
tragedy, disarmament and hitherto unknown aspects of his private
life.
Putin raised eyebrows at the U.N. Millennium Summit
by adopting an uncharacteristic low profile at his
appearances.
Largely absent was the poise so evident in
previous foreign appearances or at summit talks with U.S.
President Bill Clinton in Moscow last June. Back then, his calm,
off-the-cuff approach to difficult issues left his guest
looking wooden.
His colourless performances
invited comparison with the buzz which Boris Yeltsin always
generated at such gatherings, although the lively
atmosphere around Putin's predecessor was badly harmed by his
increasingly shaky demeanor and unpredictability in the final
stages of his mandate.
Putin's chance to shine -- he was
among the first of more than 150 leaders to speak after Clinton
-- fell flat in a speech highlighted by two relatively obscure
proposals.
Putin said he had received favourable
responses to his calls to hold a conference on the militarization
of space call and entrench peaceful uses of uranium and
plutonium.
But they barely got a public mention amid a
welter of speeches, four round tables and broad calls for U.N.
reform.
PUTIN STICKS TO KNOWN
POSITIONS
His speech to a special Security Council
session on boosting the U.N.'s peacekeeping effort stuck to known
Russian positions on insisting on Council approval for any
military intervention. A late-night news conference shed no new
light on Russian ideas for the U.N.'s future role.
The
highly publicised interview with CNN's ``Larry King Live'' allowed
Putin to let his hair down on the tasks facing him as president
and disasters recently befalling him, among them the sinking last
month of the nuclear-powered Kursk
submarine.
Putin said he might act differently if
confronted again with such a disaster. He was lambasted in the
Russian press for not breaking off a Black Sea vacation to rush
to the scene where 118 seamen died.
``The only thing
which could have been changed was ... possibly to halt my working
meetings, to suspend them at my place of vacation ... I could
have gone back to Moscow,'' Putin said, according to a transcript
released by CNN.
``But again, this would have been a PR
(public relations) action, since in any city of the country or
throughout the world, I'm always linked to the military... From
the point of view of PR, that could look better. Maybe yes it
would look better.''
Putin dealt at length with Russian
objections to U.S. proposals to create a national missile defence
system -- Moscow's main point of contention with Washington --
saying the notion upset the nuclear balance established
during the Cold War.
``If we disrupt that
balance, we'll put the whole world before this really great
danger, which doesn't serve the interests of Russia or
other countries,'' he said.
``The most
acceptable solution would be to preserve the balance of
interests as we know it today and jointly try to avert all these
dangers.''
PRESS FREEDOM NOT UNDER
THREAT
Putin dismissed suggestions that press freedom
might be under threat in Russia because of complaints by two
business magnates with media interests -- Vladimir Gusinsky,
jailed briefly in June on embezzlement charges, and
Boris Berezovsky, who has accused the Kremlin of putting pressure
on him.
The real issue, he said, was debts incurred by
both.
He repeated long-held positions that the conflict
against Chechen separatists was coming to a successful conclusion
and that Moscow was confronting Islamic extremists with foreign
funding. The Russian people, he said, were fully behind
him.
``Yes, absolutely so, they do support me,'' he said.
``When federal forces stopped the resistance of organised
troops...the political process was started with the local
population. Today there are no large-scale military operations.
None.''
Putin was enthusiastic about the economy, saying
it had undergone ``dramatic change, unprecedented
internationally.''
Difficulties for Russian consumers, he
said, had not been unexpected.
``Nobody expected there
would be change without imagining what would be entailed. But I
think that right now we can confidently state that the country is
able to deal with it.''
Of his personal life, Putin told
King he had twice visited Israel and had begun wearing an
Orthodox cross, a gift from his mother, after it was nearly lost
in a fire at the family's country house.
Putin, a former
agent of the Soviet KGB secret services infamous for its campaign
of harassment of religious believers, had previously said he
was baptised in Russia's Orthodox church and carried a
cross.
``I was surprised completely when one of the
workers, sifting through the ashes ... found the cross intact,''
he said. ``And the house fell. This was a surprise, a revelation
and therefore I always now keep it with
me.''
******
#6 BBC
MONITORING RUSSIAN PAPER SAYS NUMERICAL DOWNSIZING OF MILITARY UNLIKELY
TO ACHIEVE AIM Source: 'Segodnya', Moscow, in Russian 8 Sep
00
A Russian newspaper has cast doubt on whether a simple
arithmetical downsizing of the armed forces will generate significant
savings. According to 'Segodnya', no amount of downsizing will help
unless Russia stops producing arms for general mobilization and
training for combat operations after a nuclear strike, abandons
strategic air defence, disbands the Internal Troops and transfers the
Federal Agency for Government Communications and Information (FAPSI)
and the Railway Troops either to the Defence Ministry or to civilian
funding. The following is the text of a report published in the
newspaper on 8th September
Information about military
reform is usually circulated in our country by means of rumours and
"leaks". Yesterday the Military News Agency followed by Interfax
reported, citing their Defence Ministry "representatives", that it is
planned to downsize the army alone by 400,000 by 2003 (from 1.2 million
to 800,000). This includes the Ground Forces (180,000); the navy (over
50,000); and the air force (around 40,000), while the Defence Ministry
central apparatus, the logistics services and the military medics will
also shed "live flesh".
But they will retain their
status, which cannot be said about the Strategic Missile Troops [SMT].
Since sources claim that the reform is following Chief of the General
Staff Anatoliy Kvashnin's plan (the worst-case scenario for [Defence
Minister] Marshal [Igor] Sergeyev's supporters), the SMT will not only
lose the Military Space Forces and the Missile and Space Defence
Troops, but will also be considerably transformed themselves - from a
branch of service into a combat arm and in 2005 the SMT as a whole
will become part of the air force. Only 12 of the current 22 missile
divisions will be left, which does, however, fully accord with the
START-2 treaty.
Other troop formations are also falling
prey to the reformers' knife. It is planned to downsize the Internal
Troops by over 20,00 men, the Border Troops by 5,000, the Railway
Troops by 10,000, and everyone else by 22,000. Only Sergey Shoygu, the
emergencies minister, will not lose a single unit of his 25,000 troops,
which is quite permissible for the chief "bear" [reference to Shoygu's
position as head of the Unity party, whose acronym in Russian is
Medved, meaning bear].
'Segodnya' tried to find out how
far the agency reports can be trusted. It is strange that authorship of
the reform is ascribed to the chief of the General Staff (he is not
authorized to decide the fate of all the power departments) - this
smacks of an attempt to turn the "military masses at large" against
Kvashnin, who is seeking to become defence minister. Also dubious is
the source itself, who has allegedly seen the directive that
had already been signed by the chief of the General Staff but failed
to remember any of the pertinent details. It is also clear that this
kind of "information leak" is not possible in principle without
authorization from a military boss with a very real
interest.
The State Duma's Budget [and Taxes] Committee,
which your `Segodnya' correspondent asked to comment, has already
estimated that, even with a really militarized (R206bn) state budget,
there is still not enough money for the procurement of modern military
hardware. Nevertheless, the idea of radically downsizing the army has
aroused interest. However, people are in no hurry to take it seriously.
A simple arithmetical downsizing will in principle have no effect - it
should not be people who are downsized first but the military ambitions
in leaders' heads. No downsizing will help unless we stop producing
arms for general mobilization and maintaining strategic arsenals with
generals as their custodians. Training the army for combat operations
after a nuclear strike is another great anachronism. Nor do we need
strategic air defence - as the Americans are successfully trying to
persuade us. The Internal Troops' tasks could quite easily be
performed by army special troops. Evidently, having two intelligence
services - the [General Staff's] Main Intelligence Directorate [GRU]
and the Foreign Intelligence Service - is a loser, one would be enough.
The Federal Agency for Government Communications and Information
[FAPSI] and the Railway Troops could quite well either become Defence
Ministry structures or transfer to civilian funding - rails can be laid
and communications established without
uniforms.
******
#7 INTERVIEW-IMF says Russia managing well without IMF
loans
WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Russia is managing well
without financial help from the International Monetary Fund, and
there is no pressure for a new reform program with the global
lender, the fund's deputy head said on Friday.
First
Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer told Reuters in an
interview that the Russian economy was "going well" and officials
were starting to implement an ambitious tax reform program. But
he noted that the economy remained heavily dependent on oil,
which hit a 10-year high price this week.
"Clearly the
economy is going well, and the reform program, including the
tax reform, is ambitious and has begun to be implemented,"
Fischer said. "They seem to be able to manage without our
financial assistance and they are repaying us at a good rate,
which is as it should be if the economy
goes well."
He added: "We will maintain close
consultative relations with them, and we will just wait and see
whether they want a program or need a program... Relations are
very cordial, but there is no pressure to be in a
program."
A deal with the IMF, even one which does not
involve cash payments, might help signal to outsiders that the
economic plans were sensible and the country deserved investment
and other forms of financial support.
Russia's last
lending program with the IMF ended in disarray last year
amid doubts about the course of reforms and allegations that
previous payments had been misused.
Independent
audits commissioned by Russia at the IMF's request said
Russia, the fund's largest single borrower, had misled the IMF
about the size of its reserves, but the auditors found no
evidence that money had been misused.
IMF figures show
that Russia owed the fund some $12.7 billion at the end of July,
down from a peak of $18.5 billion in the depths of the world
financial crisis of 1997-99. Russia says it repaid some $235
million in August and an additional $58 million on
Friday.
******
#8 Moscow
Times September 9, 2000 IN BRIEF: Primakov Assures
West
COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Former Prime Minister Yevgeny
Primakov said Friday the West should not fear that Russia is
heading back to become a
totalitarian state.
There has been no noticeable
rise in human rights violations, but activists have criticized
President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, for what he calls a
"dictatorship of law" that targets corrupt officials, gangsters
and shady businessmen.
"Those decision-makers in
the West should understand that there is no return to
totalitarianism and Russia doesn't represent a threat to anyone,"
Primakov said.
Primakov gave a lecture to
lawmakers, officials, foreign ambassadors and reporters at the
parliament building in Copenhagen.
******
Return to CDI's Home
Page I Return
to CDI's Library
|