September
10, 2000 This Date's Issues: 4502
Johnson's Russia List #4502 10
September 2000 davidjohnson@erols.com
[Note from David
Johnson: 1. The Sunday Times (UK): Matthew Campbell, Bush's ice
maiden targets Russia. (Condoleeza Rice) 2. The Electronic
Telegraph (UK): John Keegan,
Memories of Red glory, reality of ineptitude. 3. The
Russia Journal: Nikolai
Shmelyov, Russia doesn’t want another bloody
revolution. 4. Reuters: Influential Russian political show
pulled from TV. (Dorenko). 5. Interfax: KRASNOYARSK GOVERNOR SETS UP UNION
TO FIGHT FOR REGION'S ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE. (Lebed) 6.
AFP: Army cuts are modest start
to Russian military reform: experts. 7. Ray Thomas: re Menshikov/Economic
Outlook/4501. 8. Washington Post: Jim Hoagland, Trying Not to Be
Gorbachev. 9. Russia Journal: Andrei Piontkovsky, A bench for the
president. ("Meditation on Putin hysterics in wake of Kursk
crisis.") 10. The Electronic Telegraph (UK): Guy Chazan, Votes for
sale in the Duma, says Russian banker. 11. Robert Bruce
Ware: King Interview and
Dagestani Vote/4501. 12. Moscow Times: Diederik Lohman, Putin in
Vidyayevo.]
******
#1 The
Sunday Times (UK) 10 September 2000 Bush's ice maiden targets
Russia Matthew Campbell, Palo Alto
THE Kremlin
may feel a Siberian chill from Washington if America's Republican
presidential candidate moves into the White House next
year. George W Bush's top foreign policy adviser says the days of
financial assistance to Russia will be
over.
Condoleeza Rice, 45, an academic widely expected to
become America's first black national security adviser if George
W Bush wins in November, believes America should halt assistance
from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to Moscow until Russia
puts its house in order.
Her comments are likely to
depress Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, who was trying to
woo hearts, minds and investment on a visit to America last week.
He appeared on a television show in New York, expressing
"optimism" over the Russia policies of both presidential
candidates. He has obviously not yet met
Rice.
"They [the Russians] took the money and didn't
reform anything," she said in an interview, referring to broken
promises from Moscow to usher in market reforms in exchange for
IMF money. "Russia has a lot of work to do before you want even
to think about IMF assistance."
The West has pumped more
than £15 billion into Russia since the collapse of communism.
Billions have allegedly been diverted into offshore accounts
by corrupt officials. Instead of entering the fold of European
democracies, Russia is displaying its authoritarian colours, says
Rice, with leaders reminiscent of the
tsars.
Sipping coffee at a tidy desk on the campus of
Stanford University in California, Rice laid into Putin for
failing to interrupt his Black Sea holiday to deal with the Kursk
submarine disaster. "He didn't know what to do. My guess is that
this has hurt him," she said.
Putin, on a charm offensive
in New York after the United Nations millennium summit on Friday,
acknowledged that it would have looked better if he had removed
himself from the beach. In an interview with Larry King, the
chat show host, Putin said he hoped President Bill Clinton's
"positive" approach to Russia would continue, whoever won the
election. He may be disappointed.
Under a Bush
administration, said Rice, Russia would have "to make its way
to whatever it's going to become largely on its own". She added:
"The days for assistance are largely over."
She
savaged the Clinton administration's "very romantic view of
Russia", under which the White House continued backing
"reformers" even as they waged a brutal counter-insurgency
campaign in Chechnya and siphoned off IMF funds. "They [the IMF]
just kept pumping the money in," said Rice. "They [the Russians]
would find some way to cook the books."
Rice, who served
as a Soviet expert on the National Security Council in the last
Bush administration, said that Al Gore, the Democrat candidate,
was tainted by dealings with Russia and suggested that Bush would
use this to attack him in the presidential
campaign.
As vice-president, Gore developed a close
relationship with Viktor Chernomyrdin, the former Russian prime
minister, despite a CIA report claiming that the former head of
the Soviet gas industry was corrupt. "It's not that Gore
shouldn't have talked to the prime minister of Russia,"
said Rice. "But did he really have to certify him as a
reformer?"
Often accused of lacking experience in foreign
affairs, Bush has found in Rice, who was Stanford's youngest
provost, a formidable guide in the minefield of international
diplomacy.
A humble background as the only child of a
preacher brought up in Alabama at the height of the civil rights
movement makes Rice a triumph of ability over racial divisions.
Like the Gulf war hero General Colin Powell, who is also tipped
for high office in a Bush administration, she is an extremely
useful ally in wooing minority voters.
Her
mother, a church organist, infused her with a love of music - her
name derives from the Italian musical term con dolcezza, to
perform "with sweetness" - and the young Rice toyed with a career
as a concert pianist before becoming a university professor at 26
and a White House Kremlinologist a decade
later.
These days Rice, known as "Condy" to friends, is
honing what she hopes will become the foreign policy blueprint of
the next White House team: a tougher stance on Russia, including
support for a more expansive "son of star wars" missile defence
system; greater backing for opposition groups fighting to topple
Iraq's Saddam Hussein; less American military involvement in
"other people's civil wars"; and the encouragement of British
influence in shaping the policies of the European
Union.
She says "the United States should not try to
appear [to Britain] as an alternative to Europe", because America
wants "the British version of economics to have a strong foothold
in the European Union".
A lean, athletic-looking figure,
Rice talks almost daily to Bush as he prepares for televised
debates with Gore; and her tutorials appear to be having some
effect.
With a gap-toothed grin, Rice dismisses concerns
about Bush's lack of qualifications by comparing him with his
father, America's leader in the Gulf war. She says that, when she
worked in the White House, the senior Bush "didn't sit around
debating the ins and outs of Russian politics with me" but was a
master of personal diplomacy.His son, she added, shared that skill.
So, it seems, does Rice.
******
#2 The Electronic Telegraph (UK) 9 September
2000 Memories of Red glory, reality of ineptitude By John Keegan,
Defence Editor THE announcement yesterday by the Russian Defence
Minister, Igor Sergeyev, that Russia's armed forces are to be
reduced in size by a third over the next three years has been
long expected.
In July 1997, Boris Yeltsin decreed a halving of
the armed forces, to be carried out by Gen Sergeyev, who had just
been appointed to the Defence Ministry. The International
Institute of Strategic Studies' Military Balance then commented
that the decree "appeared to acknowledge reality, not herald
a rigorous programme of action".
The Kursk submarine
disaster was a direct result of underfunded
maintenance programmes. Kursk, moreover, was an operational ship.
Such formerly closed ports as Sebastapol are crammed with laid-up
submarines, on which the only sign of activity is a lazily
flapping ensign of the St Andrew's cross.
Even in reserve the
rusting fleet consumes money. As it dribbles away, there is
decreasingly enough to spend on the forces which really require
funding, the armoured divisions, fighter squadrons and, above
all, the strategic nuclear force.
Russia's second
military problem is lack of manpower. As many as half
the conscripts called up do not report for duty. Pay is not the
problem, for the conscripts receive only a pittance. Young men
dodge the column partly because service is no longer seen as a
patriotic duty, but also because military service is loathed and
feared by young men and their parents alike. The long tradition
of brutal bullying of juniors by senior conscripts,
sometimes resulting in death, has not been stamped
out.
Russia's ill-conducted wars in the provinces, most
recently Chechnya, bring further deaths. Parents with any
influence wangle exemptions for their children. Poor but
streetwise boys disappear into the black economy. It is only the
dim and underprivileged who end up in the ranks.
Russia's most
enlightened regular officers recognise that redemption of
the once-great national institution to which they belong lies
in professionalisation. Many branches are already employing what
are called "contract" servicemen, the equivalent of regulars.
They are over-represented in the elite airborne and special
forces units, which achieve such successes as have been won in
Chechnya.
Russia really needs to go the way of Western Europe's
armed forces which, traditionally raised by conscription, are now
becoming all-regular. France has announced that its services will
be all-regular by 2012, Germany is following suit, and Italy and
Spain are proceeding in the same direction. The Anglo-American
system, of small, highly trained, well-paid professionals, is now
accepted as the model for any military establishment which wishes
to remain viable and credible.
President Putin has
said that Russia must have smaller, more professional forces and,
though he did not announce a move to regularisation, he
appears to accept by implication that it is unavoidable. His
trouble is how to get from here to there. At the end of the Cold
War, the Soviet Union had half a million officers, perhaps as
many effective servicemen of all ranks as it has today. Many of
them hang on, with nothing to do. Others are on pension,
but still a drain on the defence
budget.
Regularisation is always an expensive exercise. To fund
it requires precisely the sort of capital surplus Russia does not
have on hand. Moreover, while semi-employed old-timers burden the
ranks, morale suffers. A clean sweep would make for renewed
military enthusiasm. As things are, the Russian army remains
stuck between memories of Red glory and current ineptitude.
No
doubt a way out will be found. Among all historically large
European armies, Russia's has no record, as do the German and
French, of illegality or disobedience. It was as loyal to Stalin
as it was the Tsars. Its tradition is of grandeur but also
servitude. Russia needs an army with such a tradition. The weak
governments of its former Central Asian empire, challenged
by fanatic fundamentalists, cannot survive without Russian
military support. It has its own internal subversives,
particularly the Chechens whom Russians regard as hereditary
criminals.
On its distant Siberian frontier, the vast Chinese
People's Liberation Army stands watch. Neither the PLA nor the
Beijing government is in aggressive mode. Power, however, abhors
a vacuum and much of eastern Russia remains, in the historic
memory of the Chinese, theirs. The announcement of
Russian military reductions ought therefore to be welcomed in the
West. They are the first stage in the rebuilding of a military
force in which ordinary Russians will be able to take pride once
more.
Strong armies commanded by aggressive leaders are a
menace to their neighbours. Weak armies held in contempt by a
disgruntled population are equally dangerous. Russians are
disgruntled, and with reason. They have suffered the sharpest
decline in economic and military power experienced by a great
European people. No sensible person in the West wants to see a new
Red Army, flexing its muscles to win respect. It must be hoped
that the Sergeyev reforms take early
effect.
*******
#3 The Russia
Journal September 9-15, 2000 Russia doesn’t want another bloody
revolution By Nikolai Shmelyov, director of the Institute for
Europe Stability is key to economic growth and development. A lot of
people call Russia a historically doomed nation. If I switch off my
emotions and think logically, it seems I have to
agree.
The Pugachev rebellion took place here;
collectivization happened here with the help of the poor peasants
themselves; and the Gulag system was run not by machines, but by people
made of flesh and blood. The list could go on, and it would all be
true. But there is a reason for the state we have got ourselves into,
and hope remains nonetheless.
Russia has lived through
catastrophes of a kind hitherto unknown in world history, where a
country-turned-cannibal killed off a third and best part of
its own population. Biologists think that this genetic damage,
the scars of this massacre that began in 1917 and ended in 1953,
including World War II, will take five generations of living in normal
conditions before being repaired.
This means that
Russian society will recover only somewhere in the mid-21st century. I
hope that the creative instinct will take the upper hand. We are no
worse than anyone else, and I think the West understands
this.
The world needs a stable Russia, a country busy with its
own affairs and a balance to other centers of power. The world wants a
quiet Russia, one that isn’t a source of fear. It’s better to have a
calm and wealthy neighbor than an unpredictable one. The United States
knows that the policy of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski
who wanted to wipe this monster from the map of the world and have it
cease to exist as a historical, geographical, political and military
phenomenon is doomed to failure.
I don’t have any
universal recipe to offer Russia, its president or government. The
first thing we need is political stability, some kind of guarantee that
there will be no more crises of the kind that took place in 1992 or
1998. Change mustn’t be too drastic in nature. And there has to
be certainty that economic matters won’t fall into the hands of
soldiers with guns.
As for state regulation of the economy,
I wouldn’t be afraid of the word Gosplan, rather, I would welcome it.
We have been living without any picture, any idea of where it is we’re
heading. Every economy needs its general headquarters, and we need a
plan outlining structural and industrial policy.
What
is state regulation anyway? Sometimes, it’s forced intervention in
the economy, and sometimes this is necessary. The United States, for
example, has the anti-monopoly regulation that made it possible to
pressure Microsoft boss Bill Gates into breaking his single company
into several pieces. State regulation is a collection of economic
instruments that includes budget, tax and monetary policy. The
stupidity of today’s situation is that people don’t understand that our
economy needs these things. Look at Japan, it has a developed economy
and more state regulation than we do.
And don’t forget that
the unstable and chaotic state of our economy plays into the hands of
robber capitalists from street criminals to commercial bigwigs
who have become used to making money out of thin air. So long
as this situation continues, optimism is
difficult.
The latest economic development statistics
give hope, but if we take a more global view, then we’re still at about
70th place in the world for overall economic performance. It’s
insulting, but then, we have ended up in a unique situation. The
challenges we face were resolved by developed countries a long time
ago.
But we need to have at least a minimum of optimism
if we are to overcome our troubles. One good sign is that some Western
banks are beginning to trust us more. A year and a half ago, they made
use of only 4 percent of the bank capital quota allocated to foreign
banks; now they have increased this to the maximum 12 percent. I will
believe that things are improving not only when I see General Motors
and Chevron investing, but also when I see small- and medium-sized
foreign investors coming in.
If we keep our society stable,
then by 2010, our economic indicators will have reached their 1990
levels. We can make this happen, and 1917 isn’t going to repeat itself
in Russian history. We’ve already seen enough blood, and people don’t
want another revolution. This is perhaps the greatest achievement of
our tragic history.
******
#4 Influential Russian political show pulled from TV By
Peter Graff
MOSCOW, Sept 9 (Reuters) - One of Russia's most
influential television programmes was pulled from the air on
Saturday, the latest volley in a bruising battle for the
country's airwaves that has pitted the Kremlin against once
powerful media bosses.
Konstantin Ernst, director of ORT
television, said in a statement he had replaced the weekly Sergei
Dorenko Show with a regular news broadcast because Dorenko had
refused to keep silent on a tussle for control of the
station's shares.
But Dorenko told Ekho Moskvy
radio he thought the order had come from President Vladimir Putin
himself.
``Ersnt cannot take such a decision himself,''
Dorenko said. ``I meet with the president once a month, and
without his decision, nobody can touch a hair on my
head.''
Dorenko's often stridently political show was the
flagship programme on ORT, once the main state broadcaster of the
Soviet Union, now 49 percent owned by businessman Boris
Berezovsky, who has been feuding with the Kremlin for control of
his share.
Although the other 51 percent of ORT is held
by the state, Berezovsky says he has called the shots at the
station for years. Dorenko is Berezovsky's close ally, and the
cancelling of his show will be seen as a setback for
the financier.
RIVAL GIVES SYMPATHETIC
COVERAGE
In an unusual twist, officials at ORT's heated
rival, commercial channel NTV, initially said they planned to
show portions of Dorenko's
programme themselves.
``We can't show the entire
programme, because it is the property of ORT, but we are planning
to give the airwaves to Dorenko and let him show excerpts,'' NTV
Editor in Chief Vladimir Kulistikov told Reuters.
In the
end, NTV did not show excerpts of Dorenko's show, but
broadcast portions of an interview he gave to Ekho Moskvy, NTV's
sister radio station.
ORT did not mention the scandal in
the newscast that replaced
Dorenko's programme.
Dorenko said the transcript
of his programme was available on his website (dorenko.ru). By
Saturday evening the full text had not been posted, but the title
of the first report on the cancelled programme was listed as
``The Kremlin against society.''
The main
television networks are virtually the only nation-wide sources
of information in a country spread across eleven time
zones.
Berezovsky's battle for his stake in ORT has
turned into a noisy row at a time when Putin has made clear he
intends to rein in the country's
commercial media.
This week Berezovsky said
Kremlin aides had threatened to jail him if he did not relinquish
his stake. Instead, he offered to give control of his shares in
trust for four years to a group of journalists and
intellectuals.
The Kremlin did not comment on
Berezovsky's claim he was threatened, but Putin has praised his
offer to relinquish control of his stake.
Ernst's
statement said he had cancelled Dorenko's show after the
journalist refused ``to refrain from commentary on the conflict
between the state and private shareholders in
(ORT).''
But Dorenko told Ekho Moskvy he thought Putin
was personally angered by his reporting on last month's Kursk
submarine disaster, in which 118 men died.
``I went to
(the Kursk's base) Vidyayevo and did my reporting, not hiding
my interviews with the widows and those who served alongside the
victims. (Putin) came back from America and gave his answer,''
Dorenko said.
Putin has said it is important for Russia
to have a ``free'' press, but he has fiercely attacked the
businessmen who own the country's commercial media, saying they
use the airwaves to settle business scores and battle
``against the state.''
*******
#5 KRASNOYARSK GOVERNOR SETS UP UNION TO FIGHT FOR REGION'S
ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE Interfax
Krasnoyarsk, Russia,
9th September: Krasnoyarsk region governor Aleksandr Lebed, a former
Russian security chief, on Saturday set up a party to campaign for the
economic independence of the vast region rich in
natural resources.
The party follows a personal
initiative by Lebed, the regional administration's press service told
Interfax.
One reason for the Union's emergence are
changes to Russian tax legislation [due] to come into force next year.
Under them the Krasnoyarsk administration would have to deduct a large
part of its revenues for the national treasury.
It is
expected that the majority of leading local businessmen and politicians
will join the Union.
Those who join will have to sign an
address to the local population which says the group is not a political
organization but a "moral union of people who may disagree on many
points except for one - none of us are indifferent to what will happen
to Krasnoyarsk territory".
"Today the territory lives off
its own means: it is humiliating to beg. Especially for a territory
like ours. Moreover, they may give us nothing," the address says. "We
must do everything to preserve the territory as an economically
independent region. And all of us will have to work for
this."
Lebed promised to consult Union members on vital
local issues.
At the Union's founding meeting, the
address was signed by Lebed, Krasnoyarsk Mayor Petr Pimashkov, members
of the local legislature and the leaders of the local branches of
several political parties, including
the Communists.
*******
#6 Army cuts are modest start to Russian military reform:
experts
MOSCOW, Sept 10 (AFP) - A 30 percent cut in
Russia's once proud military is only a first step towards radical
reforms needed to create the efficient new model army envisioned
by President Vladimir Putin, experts say.
Today, the
1.2 million-strong Russian armed forces are a pale imitation
of the once mighty Soviet Red Army which boasted four million men
under arms in its Cold War heyday.
A decade of
helter-skelter economic reform has seen the defence
budget shrivel leaving a legacy of poor equipment, poor training
and plummeting living standards which have sent morale to rock
bottom.
Military experts say the limitations of the largely
conscript armed forces, bloated by non-combat or paper divisions,
has been highlighted by the failure to crush rebels in Chechnya
despite a massive 11-month crackdown.
Russia's sharp decline
was given tragic illustration last month during the Kursk nuclear
submarine disaster, which cost 118 lives.
A humiliated Putin
was force to accept international offers to mount an ultimately
vain bid to save the men, an incident many experts
believe hardened the Kremlin chief's desire to embark on radical
change.
"I think it's more than a coincidence," said Paul
Beaver, spokesman for the British defence analysis group Jane's.
"I think it (the Kursk disaster) has made a huge difference to
them."
Under-threat Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev last week
said Russia would axe 350,000 from the ranks by 2003, the bulk
coming from the land forcesfollowed by the navy, airforce and
interior ministry.
In addition, the strategic missile force
will be almost halved from 22 divisions to 12 by 2006, and
incorporated into the airforce.
"I think the penny has finally
begun to drop that they need quality not quantity and that Russia
is not under threat," said Beaver.
"Nobody is going to invade
it ... Russia probably needs an army no greater than 450,000
soldiers, sailors and airmen," he said.
That should give the
remaining 850,000 men a bigger share of the seven billion defence
budget, but independent Russian analyst Pavel
Felgenhauer remained sceptical.
"Cuts to the armed
forces are not enough on their own. You can have a small army
which is totally inefficient and incompetent, like in
Congo.
"An army's professionalism does not depend on its force
levels. It depends on efficient and reliable training and that
doesn't exist in Russia," he said.
Political commentator Sergei
Markov said Putin was the main driving force behind the reforms,
whose main weakness was "that they have been drawn up by Russian,
one could even say Soviet, generals, which explains their
defects."
These include failure to impose a civilian as defence
minister (Sergeyev is a marshal) or tackle hazing. Of the 3,000
non-combat deaths each year, 28 percent are suicides, say
servicemen's support groups.
But while the current plans, drawn
up by Chief of Staff General Anatoly Kvashnin are seen as part of
a drive to create a leaner, better-funded conventional force,
experts warn the job losses will not save money in
the short-term.
"The cost of cutting an infantry
regiment is equal to one and a half times its annual maintenance
cost," said Yury Gladkevich, an analyst with the respected AVN
military news agency.
Plans to raise funds by allowing the
military to engage in commercial enterprises such as training
brought various degrees of derision from analysts, who noted
previous schemes had engendered monstrous
corruption.
Nevertheless, Putin's reputation for seeing things
through gives the military its best chance in a decade of
effecting a root and branch overhaul, say analysts.
"I
think it's a good first step towards a new Russian model army,"
said Beaver. "But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
We have to see just how efficient they
are."
******
#7 From:
R.Thomas@open.ac.uk (Ray Thomas) Subject: Menshikov/Economic
Outlook/4501 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
Stan Menshikov
says that rouble profits can easily be converted in dollars and stored
in Russia? Surely the only safe place to store dollars in Russia is
hidden in a mattress in a flat protected by a steel
reinforced door?
Is is safe to store substantial
amounts of dollars in any Russian bank? Putin himself won't actually
appropriate the dollars. But there is a good chance that the bank will
just be instructed to pay them back only
in roubles!
Do Russian banks respect the privacy of
deposits? Evidence of profitability is an invitation to the tax
authorities and Mafia alike to ensure that they have their
share.
These are the reasons why $13 billion (on an annual
basis) earned inside Russia is 'invested' abroad. Russian firms and
other firms operating in Russia will go to any lengths to keep their
working capital abroad in an independent banking
system.
Meshikof is right to point out that unless this
money is redirected to productive domestic use, the Russian economy
will never have a solid basis for sustainable growth. But this is an
understatement. The 'capital flight' is both a symptom of the lack of
an independent banking system in Russian and a factor that prevents the
establishment of an independent banking system.
It is a pity
that Tony Blair did not explain to Putin that one of the key acts of
the new Labour government in 1997 was to increase the power of
the independent Bank of England. That independence helped Labour to win
the confidence of business and has proved to be an important component
in achieving economic growth.
Putin is going in the reverse
direction. Centralisation just reinforces the message that it is not
safe to keep money anywhere in Russia. Facing down the tycoons may get
Putin a bit of applause, but the effect is simply to encourage the
tycoons to secure their assets beyond Putin's reach in some foreign
bank.
******
#8 Washington
Post September 10, 2000 [for personal use only] Trying Not to Be
Gorbachev By Jim Hoagland
NEW YORK. In full rhetorical
flight, Mikhail Gorbachev seems little changed from the days when
he ruled the Kremlin. Spiraling sentences about global politics
collide with stream-of-consciousness anecdotes with increasingly
obtuse points. Then Gorbachev crafts a couple of
sharp-edged, evocative sentences that pull his listeners, and
Gorbachev as well, back to concrete issues he poignantly
summarizes.
Almost a decade after he lost power and an
empire, Gorbachev is global metaphor as well as flesh-and-blood
man. The ex-Soviet leader's name stands for the notion of noble
doomed efforts to reform entrenched repressive political
systems.
When President Ernesto Zedillo reformed Mexico's
political system so deeply that his party lost power a few months
ago, he was quickly dubbed the Mexican Gorbachev. In Iran,
President Mohammed Khatemi's efforts to dilute the repressive
control of Islamic revolutionaries and to inch Iran into a
new century--anything after the 17th would be a change--are often
termed Gorbachevian.
Ultimate irony: One leader who
does not risk earning the label is Vladimir Putin, the successor
of Gorbachev's successor in the Kremlin, Boris Yeltsin. Putin
dislikes the fruits that have grown from Gorbachev's seeds of
glasnost: freedom of expression and association in Russian daily
life. Putin's KGB experience was to disrupt free institutions, as
he has bragged.
These four men--Gorbachev, Khatemi, Putin and
Zedillo--were among the hundreds of heavy hitters in New York
last week during the U.N. Millennium Summit. They stood out in
the kaleidoscope of power and pomp because their careers are
compelling and connected statements about the perils
and opportunities of political reform.
The Mexican
Gorbachev, it turns out, is no such thing. He succeeded where
the Russian original failed. At a glittering dinner at the New
York Federal Reserve Bank, Zedillo persuasively recounted how he
had set out with two goals for this year's election to choose his
successor: "I wanted the Mexican people to have a choice, and I
wanted my party to be that choice."
But Zedillo's PRI, which
ruled Mexico for 71 years, came up short. In his six-year term,
Zedillo fostered strong independent institutions that were
to survive his rule and entrench democracy. Zedillo did not
miscalculate: He gambled honestly, and he gracefully accepted a
defeat that was his biggest victory.
At the height of
his power, Gorbachev did not push for a multiparty system that
would provide alternative institutions to the Communist Party. To
save time he even passed up the chance to win a direct election
to the presidency and gain a popular mandate that might have
saved him from being overthrown in 1991 by Yeltsin in the wake of
a failed coup.
Today Gorbachev labors to create a Social
Democratic Party in Russia. He wants to temper Yeltsin's
robber-baron capitalism while preventing a return to
authoritarian socialism. But at a news conference and in other
appearances around town, Gorbachev was surprisingly sympathetic
to Putin's "strong measures" to instill order in a country
threatened by every authoritarian's friend, the specter of
chaos.
Gorbachev still operates on a highly personal level.
Questions challenging his intentions are met with the same high
emotion and facial flush he showed in a 1988 interview in the
Kremlin.
Putin apparently stroked the fallen leader's ego in a
three-hour meeting in Moscow last month. Gorbachev came away
urging critics to give the new president more time and
understanding--apparently harboring hopes that Putin might yet
turn on and punish Gorbachev's enemy for life, Yeltsin, and
those around him. Durable institutions may not survive in Russia,
but the desire for revenge lives on.
The Iranian
president met with American reporters over corn flakes
Thursday and described his balancing act in pushing for more
freedom while not endangering Iran's security. He too warned of
the dangers of extremism and chaos. And he bristled when I asked
if the comparison with the failed Russian reformer was
apt.
"My name is Khatemi, not Gorbachev. . . . In the Soviet
system before Gorbachev Marxism had already been demolished.
Soviet rule was just sitting on the fake framework of communism.
He took that frame away and it disintegrated. Our revolution is
based on the principles of our identity . . . including our
religion."
Khatemi's public remarks in New York were notable
for their emphasis on building civil and cultural institutions on
a global scale and for their relative moderation. But he
repeatedly cautioned that now was not the time "to push demands
for freedom beyond what is possible in the current reality."
As
the Russian Gorbachev demonstrated, revolutions often overtake those
who wait for the perfect moment.
******
#9 Russia Journal September 9-15, 2000 SEASON OF
DISCONTENT: A bench for the president By Andrei
Piontkovsky Meditation on Putin hysterics in wake of Kursk
crisis. President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with families of the Kursk
submarine crew member Aug. 22 was full of tension and drama. This was
to be expected. But real hysterics were seen from only one
person.
"Now, concerning foreign assistance," a patient
and somewhat bored president tried to explain. "As soon as offers of
foreign aid came on the 15th [Admiral] Kuroyedov
immediately agreed to it. Let’s count."
Here, the record
of the meeting follows with: "Noise in the hall, shouting." This was
also to be expected. We all remember full well the scene in Sochi on
Aug. 16 the president with his suite, everyone looking tanned and
happy in their summer clothes. Standing next to Putin, Ilya Klebanov,
busy directing the rescue operation in the Barents Sea from Sochi,
condescendingly explained that the military structures he
was responsible for have the best rescue equipment in the world and
were in no need of any outside help.
Putin also remembers
full well, and in line with the laws of psychoanalysis, the only means
at his disposal with which to erase this painful recollection was
hysteria:
"It’s true, it’s true! Television? They’re lying
then! They’re lying! They’re lying! There’re people in television
making more noise than anyone else, and who for the last 10 years has
brought the Army and Navy to the state of ruin that has people dying
today. For several years now, they’ve been stealing all they can and
are now buying everything and everyone! Look at the laws they’ve made!
… There’s not a crumb left in the country! It’s as simple as
that!"
So was everything still in abundance on Aug. 16, and was
the country left without a crumb only on Aug. 22? By accusing
television three times of lying, Putin was desperately trying to divert
attention from the repeated and ongoing lies of the authorities.
Jupiter is angry, and Jupiter is clearly in the wrong.
Putin
grasped hold of this idea of enemies robbing the Army, Navy and country
as the life buoy that could save him in such a dramatic moment. Kremlin
PR people then found this lucky find so appealing, they decided
to develop it the next day in the far more comfortable atmosphere of
an official interview given to the court
correspondent.
The enemies were personified and the
rightful wrath of the people was channeled towards recognizable and
highly unpopular figures: "It would be better if these people sold
their villas on the Mediterranean coast of France. But then they would
have to explain why all this real estate is registered under the names
of other people, or of companies. And then we would probably start
asking where the money comes from."
What’s interesting is why
"we" didn’t put these kinds of questions to Russia’s most well-known
owner of Mediterranean villas when he used this money to cobble
together a pocket party Unity for Putin.
"I am
ready to bear responsibility for the 100 days that I have
been president. But as for the preceding 15 years, I’m ready to sit
with you on the same bench and put these questions to others," Putin
told families of the Kursk victims.
"Others" obviously
refers to the politicians and oligarchs who held power in the country
before Putin’s 100 days, and who, Putin is deeply convinced, "have
robbed bare the country, Army and Navy." But what was modest
Colonel Putin doing as he made a brilliant career for himself under
this kleptocratic regime?
Former Prosecutor General Yury
Skuratov is not a model of family virtues. He was publicly destroyed,
however, not for his little erotic misdemeanors, but because he got too
dangerously close in his investigations into the affairs of those
"others" who Putin would now like to question.
But back
during that dramatic moment, the country saw on their screens
an upright colonel reporting in a military manner that his organization
had confirmed the authenticity of the unfortunate prosecutor’s
genitalia as shown on the scandalous tape. Interior Minister Sergei
Stepashin, sitting next to Putin, kept silent, turned red and lowered
his eyes. That was when Stepashin failed the test to be presidential
successor.
Putin wouldn’t look very convincing sitting on the
same bench as the widows putting questions to those same "others" who
appointed him Yeltsin’s successor. He would look much more natural
sitting on another bench along with Valya, Tanya, Roma and Boris
Abramovich.
(Andrei Piontkovsky is director of the Center of
Strategic Research.)
*******
#10 The Electronic Telegraph (UK) 10 September
2000 Votes for sale in the Duma, says Russian banker By Guy Chazan
in Moscow
CORRUPTION among in the Duma, Russia's lower
legislative assembly, has become endemic, according to a former
member who says he is speaking out because he is "sick and tired
of the vileness of it all".
Votes and party loyalty are sold to
the highest bidder while businessmen buy their seats to ensure
they can lobby for their own interests, alleges Vladimir Semago,
a flamboyant Left-wing entrepreneur nicknamed the "Red Banker".
He said: "MPs know the Duma is just a decorative organ, they
can't change or influence anything that happens in the country
but they also know that the Duma's a great place to earn
money."
He said he had been offered $5,000 (£3,125) in cash to
vote for the prime ministerial candidate Viktor Chernomyrdin
during Duma confirmation hearings in 1998. He also claimed that
deputies, whose official salary is $300 (£187) a month, were
offered $5,000 each to vote down last year's attempt by
the Communist-led opposition to impeach President
Yeltsin.
Anatoly Kulikov, a former interior minister, told a
newspaper in April that "independent deputies were offered
$50,000 plus a monthly salary of $5,000" to join pro-government
factions in parliament when the newly-elected Duma met last
January. Bribe-taking affects all Russian political institutions,
not just the parliament. According to a study released by the
influential think-tank, the Council for Defence and Foreign
Policy, last year corruption cost the state $20 billion (£12.5
billion), equivalent to the entire federal budget.
One
of those involved in producing the report, Vladimir Rimsky, said:
"People prefer to give bribes rather than pay their taxes." Votes
and party loyalty are not the only things with a price tag.
Official passes carried by MPs' aides can be bought, for between
$500 and $2,000, Mr Semago said. The much sought-after passes can
smooth access to government officials and are particularly
popular with organised criminals.
Before a recent crackdown on
false ID cards, there were thought to be 20,000 aides for only
450 Duma MPs: one Communist lawmaker was surprised to find
she had as many as 400. Last March a Duma official, Vladimir
Trofimov, was sentenced to five years in jail for corruption
following an incident in 1998 when he was approached by a nuclear
research institute trying to acquire tax-free status. Trofimov
was arrested after demanding $10,000 for getting the necessary
papers through the Duma.
If demanding a bribe can be
risky,refusing one can be even more so. A former deputy from the
liberal Yabloko party, Viktor Gitin, says he was offered $500,000
in 1998 by associates of the then deputy finance minister - and
now prime minister - Mikhail Kasyanov. The men wanted Mr Gitin to
suspend a parliamentary investigation he was heading into the
causes of Russia's 1998 financial crisis. He says he refused the
money.In March he was arrested on charges of
bribe-taking.
Mr Gitin says that prosecutors who raided his
office seized material relating to investigations into some of
Russia's most serious corruption scandals. He has been released
on bail but as yet none of the confiscated documents has been
returned. There are more than 60 businessmen among the latest intake
of 450 Duma MPs. Eight of them represent the Communist Party
which is ideologically opposed to capitalism.
They
include five company managers and the president of a bank. Mr
Semago says the businessmen simply bought their way on to the
party list of official candidates. The Communists admit that some
of their deputies are from the business world, but flatly deny
that they paid for their seats. A party spokesman said: "They're
red directors - factory bosses with communist views. Semago has
no evidence for his claims, he's just angry because we
excluded him from the party."
All parties,
including the Communists, are increasingly reliant on
cash infusions from big business to cope with the soaring cost of
running an election campaign. Andrei Piontkovsky, of the Moscow
Centre for Strategic Studies, says: "In the 1995 Duma elections,
the Communists got hand-outs from big banks and corporations who
were hedging their bets in case the left won. This time round the
Communists hardly got anything, because no one believes they'll
ever come to power. So they had to resort to other revenue
sources."
The benefits for businessmen of Duma membership are
clear. MP status gives them access to government offices where
all important decisions affecting the economic life of the
country are taken. "In some ways, getting into the Duma is the
last resort of businessmen trying to protect themselves from
state interference," said Alexei Melnikov, a Yabloko
MP.
Every month Russian businessmen spend $500 million on
bribes to officials, according to the Council for Defence and
Foreign Policy.
******* #11 From:
"Robert Bruce Ware" <rware@stlnet.com> Subject: King Interview
and Dagestani Vote/4501 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
I do
indeed hope that the transcript of Putin's interview with Larry
King (JRL #4501) is to be "updated". For it repeatedly claims that the
Kursk was sunk in July. This comes just before Larry's assertion that
the American businessman, Edmund Pope, is "inside a Russian President"
(it was only a matter of time until Putin was accused of cannibalism).
No doubt this gastronomical peculiarity will explain why Putin
erroneously claims (as observed by JBE) that the people of the Caucasus
are predominantly Shiite Moslems, and erroneoulsy alledges that
Chechnya invaded Afghanistan, which seems, in the transcript, to have
become a region of Dagestan (though if Chechens are truly Shiite then
perhaps they had a motive). All of this confirms my longstanding
suspicion that the Dagestanis sunk the Kursk on July 4 as part of their
annual salute to Thomas Jefferson, and as a prelude to their annexation
of Kabul. It also may confirm Al in his recent rejection of Larry as a
moderator. On a slightly more serious note, the MT account of electoral
fraud in Dagestan (JRL #4500) is consistent with patterns established
in past federal elections in Dagestan, though estimates concerning the
extent of the fraud appear to be exagerated. In 1997 I interviewed
local electoral officials in southern Dagestan who had documented the
disappearance of ballot boxes en route to Mahachkala. In this month's
edition of Nationalities Papers (v. 28, no 3) Enver Kisriev and I
discuss electoral fraud during last December's Duma election in
Dagestan ("Conflict and Catharsis: A Report on Developments in Dagestan
Following the Incursions of August and September 1999"). Then the votes
were "reassigned" to give Dagestan a full 6 representatives in the
DUMA. Both Unity and FAR benefitted at the expense of the Communists.
This is typically the case in recent Federal elections in Dagestan. In
the past, the communists have been able to count on 55% of the
electorate, which is approximately what they received in the first
round of the 1996 presidential election. Hence, it was more than
surprising when Yeltsin won the second round by a landslide. In
1996 and 1999 the Dagestani communists protested, just as they are
doing in 2000. However justified those protests seem to be they have
never come to anything. Yet while electoral fraud is routine in
Dagestan's federal elections, there are relatively few irregularities
in Dagestan's local elections. Dagestan depends upon financial support,
and recently upon military support, from Moscow. The Chair of
Dagestan's State Council, Magomedali Magomedov, traditionally has
sustained that support by playing upon the Kremlin's need for his
personal assistance and its fears of further instability in the
Caucasus. However, independent polls have shown both Putin and FAR
making inroads among Dagestan's traditional communists. Going into the
election Putin had the genuine support of 38% of the Dagestani
electorate. Since there are approximately 2.1 million Dagestanis of all
ages, and since some of these did not vote in the election, speculation
in the MT article that either 700,000 or 500,000 Dagestani votes were
fradulently transferred to Putin appears to
be exaggerated.
******
#12 Moscow Times September 9, 2000 Putin in
Vidyayevo By Diederik Lohman Diederik Lohman is the
director of the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch. He
contributed this comment, in which he expresses his own views, to
The Moscow Times.
I was very surprised to see
that The Moscow Times paid so little attention to the transcript
of the meeting in Vidyayevo between President Vladimir Putin and
the relatives of the Kursk crew published last week in Kommersant
Vlast. The transcript reveals things about the president that I
believe should have made your front page. The transcript shows
the following:
1. Putin does not take criticism well.
During the meeting, Putin lashed out at the media three times,
accusing them of lying. It suddenly turns out that Russia
accepted foreign help as soon as it was offered and that claims
by nonstate media that the government waited for days to accept
help are an evil plot by the media to discredit the army and
fleet. In any case, according to Putin, the media are to blame
for the pitiful state in which both army and fleet find
themselves these days. It remains unclear how exactly
NTV television and other nonstate media outlets achieved this.
After piling mistake upon mistake in handling the Kursk crisis, a
little more humility would have been well-placed. As it is,
Putin's intolerance to criticism does not bode well for the
future of press freedom.
2. Putin seems to care little
for the sailors or their relatives. As I read the transcript, a
question kept popping into my head: Did Putin prepare for this
meeting at all? One would assume that after facing harsh criticism,
he would have taken the opportunity to prepare diligently for his
meeting to make up for his mistakes.
However,
Putin seemed to make up rules for compensation as he went along.
He made long and boring calculations and engaged in long
discussions over the salaries of the sailors. He promised
compensation to everyone, but these promises seemed more like
those made by a populist politician during an election campaign
than like serious commitments. When one man persistently asked to
whom he should turn later to make concrete arrangements, Putin
first evaded the question several times, then told the man to
approach the wife of the captain of the Kursk. As if that poor
woman doesn't have anything else on her mind but to take care of
compensation arrangements! If Putin had cared about the suffering
of these relatives, he would have made sure that
clear compensation arrangements had been prepared before the
meeting. He would have brought the official responsible for
disbursement of compensation with him and introduced him or her
to the relatives.
The words of Pavel Felgenhauer, which
ran in his Moscow Times column "Defense Dossier," ring very true:
The government likes dead heroes because they don't talk. Putin
declares the Kursk sailors heroes, but does not have the
decency to set up clear arrangements for compensation so as to
avoid burdening the relatives with administrative hassles on top
of their grief. And even Putin's acknowledgement of
responsibility made during the meeting hardly
sounded genuine.
3. Putin shows his vulgar side
again. It appears that whenever he gets angry, Putin forgets
everything his image-makers tell him. For the spectator, this is
an advantage; on these occasions, we get to see the real Putin. At
one point during the meeting, Putin talked about special economic
zones and angrily explained why they are no good. During his
expos_, he used a word that one might use when drinking with
friends in the banya, but certainly not in public. A female
colleague of mine could not believe her eyes when I pointed the
word out to her. She was deeply embarrassed that the president
of her country would say something like that. It is not the first
time that Putin publicly has used street language. A while back,
he talked about "wasting" the Chechens "in the
outhouse."
4. Putin has a selective understanding of the
"presumption of innocence." Putin claimed in the transcript that
some of his advisers recommended that he fire some people over
the catastrophe or jail them. Putin said, "You know, nothing
would be easier than to take someone and jail him." (Has Putin,
a lawyer by education, forgotten that the nation's president does
not have the authority to jail anyone?) However, Putin continued
to say that he will not fire or jail anyone until the incident
has been investigated exhaustively. A laudable
position.
Strangely enough, however, the presumption of
innocence does not apply to the media or their owners. According
to Putin, they are guilty of ruining the army and fleet. Any
investigation? Putin showed a similar selective approach earlier
this year in an interview with Kommersant. In that interview,
Pavel Borodin _ under investigation for large-scale corruption _
was generously given the benefit of the doubt, while Andrei
Babitsky was branded a traitor, once again without any kind of
investigation. (For the record, Babitsky was never even charged
with any wrongdoing while reporting from Chechnya.)
5.
The government may prosecute the journalist who published the
transcript. As Ana Uzelac pointed out in her story about the
media last Saturday, only a few journalists were allowed to
attend the meeting, and the use of dictaphones was strictly
forbidden. Only one television camera (that of RTR, of course)
was present, and the footage that reached the television
screen was carefully selected by RTR's general director. Andrei
Kolesnikov of Kommersant Vlast, however, managed to tape the
meeting, and that is how the transcript made it into the public
arena in the first place. What is going to happen to this
journalist, who defied a presidential order? Is he going to
be investigated, just as prosecutors are now investigating
Komsomolskaya Pravda for publishing the list of sailors on board
the Kursk? That list was secret, and Komsomolskaya Pravda said it
had paid 18,000 rubles for it to a military official. Will the
authorities prosecute journalists who refuse to put up with
officialdom, denying them their constitutional right to
information?
Is this the same Putin Western leaders have
hailed as "impressive"? Can we expect a man who deals with such a
crisis so clumsily and is so intolerant to turn this country _
with its phenomenal problems _ into a blossoming market economy
with a free press? I somehow doubt it.
*******
Return to CDI's Home
Page I Return
to CDI's Library
|