#8
TITLE: REMARKS BY MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, GEORGY ARBATOV, ANDREI
KOKOSHIN, VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY AND OTHERS ON
RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS
(ZERKALO RTR SUNDAY PROGRAM, 18:00, NOVEMBER 19, 2000)
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE
Anchor:
We have major jazz musicians present, Igor Butman of
Russia and Joe Lock of the United States and they are taking part
in our talk today. Will you please join us at the table.
And our other guests at this big round table are
representatives of Russia-America Association and prominent Russian
political leaders and scholars, and cultural personalities from
Russia and America. And we will talk about America and about Russia
of course.
My first question is to Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. Why do
developments in America arouse such keen interest here?
Gorbachev:
Well, the interest has always been there, not only
today and not only on this occasion. We continue to look at each
other and interest -- even if something has been happening to our
policy and American policy, the question has been asked recently,
why the cooling? Why did it come to pass? People have decided to
come forward and supplement with their civil initiatives the
efforts of politicians. In any case I am surprised why it happened
so that neither the Duma nor the Congress have been initiating any
meetings, talks, a dialogue? What is happening? I would hardly say
that we have lost interest or the Americans have lost interest in
us. But I think you have a point in asking this question, there
have been worrisome things for all of us in Russia and in the
United States. We have even set up a Russia-United States
Association here and they have set up a Russia-United States
Foundation because new mechanisms have to be found to stimulate the
politicians and all the other civil institutions in order to pass
on a new agenda. So, people condemn what is happening in America
today.
We have had a change of administration here and we have moved
into new times. We are not going to discuss it today. Perhaps you
would like to ask questions. And they are having a change of
administration there. And I think everybody is watching attentively
at what the elections have shown. I think the most interesting and
the most important thing which promises interesting changes and
important changes not only in the internal but also in the external
policy of the United States and in our relations is that for the
first time the struggle in the election was for the control of the
political center. All the political interests have shifted towards
the Center. Because the middle class in America has grown strong as
a result of economic growth and much depends on it.
But I must say that big business has also moved closer to the
center and is thinking about the future in a centrist way. What is
happening there gives us hope that we can form a new agenda
covering politics, business, cultural exchanges and exchanges
between young people, something we had before and have recently
lost to some degree.
Anchor:
Thank you, Mikhail Sergeyevich. In connection with the
election let me just remind you briefly of the current state of
affairs. As a result of recent developments Bush has widened the
lead on Gore, he is leading by several hundred votes. But it is
still unknown what will happened to the hand count. Will it go head
or not. And it looks that at the moment, the indications are that
Bush will become the next president of America. I have a question
for Georgy Arbatov. What does Bush's presidency hold in store for
us?
Arbatov:
Well, I am by no means sure that Bush will be the
president. It is still touch-and-go. You see because both parties
and both candidates have moved toward the Center...
Anchor:
Do you agree that the struggle was for control of the
Center?
Arbatov:
Yes, I agree.
Anchor:
You agree with Gorbachev?
Arbatov:
Yes, of course. And this explains the tiny majority.
Because in practice they offer the same things. There were
arguments about details of taxation, but there were no arguments
about major internal political or external political issues.
However, in principle, we are entering a very complex period when
the two former super powers...
Anchor:
Do you call America "a former super power"? Not only
we, but America as well?
Arbatov:
I don't think a single super power is a viable
proposition. It will either go bust or it will have to share power
with somebody. But that is a separate question. But in general,
they haven't been able to come up with anything after the end of
the Cold War. A unique chance presented itself for a radical change
of the Soviet-American and later Russian-American relations and
international relations as a whole. But neither side had a well
considered long-term policy. It still doesn't exist. And we are
entering a period when new people will be in control. People who
have almost no experience.
Anchor:
Well, Gore has some experience, if he becomes
president.
Arbatov:
I said, almost without experience. And people who are
not very competent professionally will shape policies in both
countries. It is a very dangerous period.
And the most important thing that is missing is that
unfortunately there was no third candidate, a person with gray
matter, an intelligent person with an intelligent team. This is
what is important for the security of both sides and for the world.
Because very often disasters in history occurred not by evil design
but due to lack of forethought. I wouldn't like such a thing to
happen.
Anchor:
Thank you, Georgy Arkadyevich.
I have a question to Andrei Sergeyevich Konchalovsky about
gray matter on both sides and about mutual interest. What do you
expect, not as a political scientist, because you are not a
political scientist.
Konchalovsky:
Yes, I am not a political scientist. An artist
can be forgiven for making a mistake. I don't expect anything. I
see no great difference between Bush and Gore as far as Russia is
concerned. Perhaps even -- we have always slightly better relations
with Republicans than with Democrats. Because the Democrats have
always promoted liberal ideas which don't find much favor in Russia
and they labor under these illusions and are trying to change
Russia. They have their own electorate and they come under
pressure, so they have to impose a lot of myths on the world. They
may be real in America, but they become total myths in Asia and
Southeast Asia even more so. Because they are a different world
altogether.
Russia in general is closer to Islam than, say, to Catholicism
or the Protestant world. So, imposing such ideas on Russia is an
illusion, and that is why instability arises.
Anchor:
And as far as I understand you do you expect Bush to
deliver something more concrete and realistic? Did I get you right?
Konchalovsky:
I don't expect anything in particular. Because
both Bush and Gore are products of a different civilization. To put
it crudely, they are controlled by the same kind of mentality.In
this country nobody controls the government and never has
controlled it, the people have never controlled the state. So, in
this country it is very important who comes to power. And in
America the question who comes to power, and whether it moves a
little to the left or to the right, doesn't have much relevance for
Russia today, especially in the uni-polar world when we don't have
such a confrontation. And I see no reason to be excited about who
will win.
Whoever wins old money or new money will be in control.
Gorbachev:
I forgot to say once sentence to sum up what I
wanted to say. An agreed bi-partisan policy will be pursued with
regard to Russia. It has always been that way.
But I am sure that we will see a more moderate policy,
internally and internationally. And that means that a chance is
presenting itself --
Anchor:
Andrei Afanasyevich Kokoshin would like to take issue
with you.
Kokoshin:
I think changes may be very significant in purely
practical terms. If Bush deploys a full-scale national missile
defense, bringing in outer space, that will mark the end of the
process of strategic arms limitation as far as negotiations are
concerned.
Many Bush advisers say: Let us stop all these boring and
tedious negotiations with the Russians and declare unilaterally
that we will have 2,200 warheads. And let them take it or leave it.
In many ways the Bush policy will be geared not to the
international community but to a more narrow interpretation of
American interests. With elements of perhaps isolationism.
Most probably Bush will reduce American military presence
overseas. He has already spoken about this on more than one
occasion. This is important for us and for the General Staff and
for all our plans. Most probably Bush will not be inclined to
embark on Clinton-style humanitarian interventions which will also
be important for our foreign policy and ultimately for our purse
because it will have an impact on our defense programs. And I do
not rule out that the style and character of Bush's foreign policy
toward Russia will be different than under Clinton.
Clinton, in a sense, had three foreign policies with regard to
Russia: one was pursued by the Treasury Department led by Rubin and
later by Summers, another was the policy of the State Department
and a third, by the Department of Energy which pursued its own line
in Central Asia and Trancaucasia and these policies often...
Anchor:
Thank you. Your point, Andrei Afanasyevich.
Kokoshin:
My point is that we can expect substantial changes.
They won't be dramatic changes leading to war, but they may have a
substantial impact on our foreign policy, our interests and
confront us with tricky questions which we should thoroughly
prepare ourselves for.
Anchor:
Thank you. We have also invited US Ambassador Mr.
Collins in Russia. Unfortunately we got no reaction from the US
embassy, dead silence. But it is not much of a problem for us.
Present among us today is a prominent American political scientist
who is not an official embassy representative and I am sure will be
more relaxed today than the American ambassador. Ariel Cohen. How
do you account for the interest shown here for the US election and
what can we expect from these elections?
Cohen:
One can attribute this interest to the fact that we
haven't had the result for more than 10 days and a kind of media
drama is being acted out. We want to know when the white cloud
rises and we know the next president.
In reality both candidates will pursue a fairly pragmatic
policy with regard to Russia. Candidate Bush said before the
elections that he does not consider Russia to be an enemy or an
adversary, he does not see Russia as a negative factor. That's one
thing. And secondly, he said that deep cuts of nuclear weapons
referred to by Andrei Afanasyevich will bring the number of
warheads not to 2,200 but to 1,500 or even less. Which will save a
lot of money for the American side and for the Russian side. So,
such policy will be good for Russia.
As for strategic defense in outer space, NMD, it is not at all
directed against Russia. It cannot be a far-flung technically. It
will be a limited system aimed at intercepting several warheads
launched against the United States. It is a defensive and not an
offensive system.
Anchor:
Thank you. Thank you, Ariel Cohen. I repeat, we are
discussing America today. Gentlemen, please, concentrate, although
I realize that it is difficult. Actually for many years the world
has been centered on America. There exists a Pax Americana. America
is the leading economic power. Everybody looks at the American
dollar. America has the most efficient army. The American culture
dominates the world. The American movies, American sports.
In order to make a world career and to gain world renown
representatives of many professions, in art and in other fields,
have to make the career in America. A man prominent in Russia is
prominent only in Russia. A person known in Germany is only known
in Germany. But a person known in America is known in the whole
world. And you can't get away from this fact. There are a number of
reasons for that including language. But these are reasons, but the
fact remains. Or perhaps you disagree with me.
Zhirinovsky:
We disagree.
Anchor:
Yes, Vladimir Volfovich, I am all ears.
Zhirinovsky:
We have expressed points of view but we haven't
given assessments. The fact that we are forced to pay so much
attention to America is a major provocation. Last year the whole
world was agitated about Clinton's fly, and now it will be exercise
by the outcome of the election. It has absolutely no relevance to
the rest of the world. What we see is a redivision of the world.
America having created a uni-polar world now realizes that it
cannot run it. But it doesn't want Russia to be the second pole.
This is the main point and the message of our meeting today.
Does America need us? No, it doesn't. America is creating a
second pole, China and the Pacific region. We are forced to channel
our weapons and our electricity there. People are freezing in the
Primorye Territory and, in the meantime, alleged surplus energy is
transmitted to China. Huge amounts of money were funneled there.
And besides, there is a need for an enemy. The 20th century is
coming to an end. Fascists, Communists -- it's all over. Who is the
enemy now? The Islamic extremist. And again Russia is involved.
They are in the Caucasus, they are in Central Asia and in the
Middle East. This is the problem. The American model has failed.
If the Chinese don't follow the lead and realize that the next
stage will be dismemberment, of Russia, and next of China, this
model will be broken today. And finally one other factor. Why is
Bush sure to win? Because the decision was made long ago. It is not
the elections that determine things. The election is just a show.
Today millions of Americans are seemed to have fallen behind Gore
or behind Bush. Actually specialists are making decisions in
America. They have decided that Bush would be better. Why? Because
Gore is a Jew. Because America was created by Jews and Russia by
Russians.
Anchor:
Gore is a Jew?
Zhirinovsky:
Yes. And if there are anti-American sentiments
all around they will automatically spread to Jews. And this is not
in the interests of the world Jewry. They would gain if Bush is
president. America is bad, but Bush is an American. So, what do the
Jews have to do with it? Gore will never be the president if only
because the world Jewry doesn't want to see a future defeat. Look,
you see anti-American demonstrations everywhere. The American flag
is burnt.
Anchor:
Vladimir Volfovich, Shandybin is challenging you to a
duel. You are trespassing on his territory.
Zhirinovsky:
No, no, Shandybin has nothing to do with it. You
can't get away from this topic. It is present and we are afraid to
discuss it. Even in the conditions of democracy we are afraid to
touch on this topic, and it is relevant. It is relevant.
So, the question has military implications. What is in store
for Russia -- further dismemberment. Japan, China and the Pacific
region predominate on Chukotka, Kamchatka and the Far East. And
then further struggle against extremism. Chechnya has been dropped
in our laps. We will be tormented by Chechnya and the Taliban for
50 years. Hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers will die for
alien and false interests. We should on no account...
Anchor:
Thank you, Vladimir Volfovich.
Back to the Top
#9
East: Analysis From Washington -- Jailed Before Judgment
By Paul Goble
Washington, 21 November 2000 (RFE/RL) -- A new study by the Soros Foundation
has found that almost one-third of prisoners in post-communist countries have
been waiting for trial for more than a year and that one in 10 has been
incarcerated for more than two years without having his day in court.
That in turn means that almost 50 percent of the inmates now in prisons there
are men and women who have not yet been found guilty of anything, a sharp
increase since 1989 and one that is already having increasingly negative
consequences for public health, criminality, and the authority of the
judicial system.
And officials in these countries do not expect this trend to change anytime
soon. Last week, for example, Aleksandr Tochelovskis, the deputy director of
Latvia's prison system, said that "if growth continues at the present rate,
our prisons will be filled with people who haven't been found guilty."
Most legal systems have some form of pre-trial detention for those charged
with particularly serious offenses and are considered to be a danger to
themselves or to the community. But most democratic regimes also have
arrangements to allow those waiting for trial on minor charges to post bond
and remain free until trial.
In many Eastern European countries, however, no bail bond system yet exists,
or it is too expensive for most people and especially the young. As a result,
people are sometimes incarcerated for long periods even when they are charged
with petty crimes. In Hungary, for example, one news agency reports that a
man has been in jail for more than a year pending trial on charges that he
stole 138 rolls of toilet paper.
This massive use of pretrial detention already is having a serious negative
impact on public health. In many of these countries, prisons have become
virtual incubators for disease. In the Russian Federation alone, almost 10
percent of all prisoners now have tuberculosis, and many of them contracted
it while they were behind bars. And in several other countries across this
region, the situation is still graver.
Still more serious for the future, the massive incarceration of those who
have not been found guilty of any crime is breeding more criminals. Jaap
Doek, a Dutch juvenile court judge who serves on the United Nations Committee
on the Rights of the Child, said that locking up young people in this way is
making "hardened criminals out of 15-year-olds."
That is particularly true in a region where many governments do not segregate
youthful first offenders from the more hardened adult criminals. As a result,
young people there who are not in fact guilty of any offense may be given a
criminal education by their elders simply while waiting for their trial dates.
And perhaps most serious of all, this practice is alienating many people from
the judicial system, which is one of the foundations of democracy and a civil
society by allowing officials to put people in jail without a judicial
finding.
But according to local human rights activists, there is little popular
support for any change. Anyone who criticizes locking up those charged with
criminal violations, these activists suggest, is likely to be labeled "soft
on crime," something few leaders are prepared to risk.
For all these reasons, such an approach appears certain to backfire. Judges
who use pretrial detention as a form of punishment are in fact undercutting
the fundamental constitutional rights of all citizens. Moreover, those who
experience such detention are likely to be alienated, Doek observes, as are
their families and other members of society at large.
Post-communist governments regularly protest that they do not have the funds
to change the situation. Some countries, like Estonia, are even considering
privatizing their prison systems to improve the situation. But human rights
activists there argue that the problem is not so much a lack of money than a
lack of will to address the problem of those jailed before judgment.
Changing procedures and popular attitudes in this area is unlikely to be
easy, but a failure to do so almost certainly will limit the prospects for
democracy and rule of law in a region that has known far too little of it in
the past.
Back to the Top
#10
Moscow Times
November 22, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
INSIDE RUSSIA: Fighting for The 'Family' Has Its Price
By Yulia Latynina
This week it emerged that Boris Berezovsky has just as much to say about the
"Family" as the Prosecutor General's Office has to say about Berezovsky. The
scandal Berezovsky has kicked off threatens to redefine the political
landscape around the Kremlin.
Berezovsky claims that the Aeroflot money that found its way to the Swiss
Andava company went toward funding the Unity party and in supporting Vladimir
Putin. Boris Abramovich later corrected himself: He said that Andava financed
ORT. "And we all know who ORT was working for," said Berezovsky.
But this doesn't look convincing. Most likely what happened was this: The
president was told that Andava would help Unity, while in actual fact Andava
helped Andava's shareholders. However, this doesn't detract from Boris
Abramovich's service. Witnesses describe the process of creating Unity thus:
Boris Abramovich lies hepatitis-addled and yellowing while the Family stands
mourning. In mourning not, of course, for Berezovsky, but for their warm
spots in cold Moscow. Yury Luzhkov is baying at the door, Carla del Ponte is
in Switzerland, places in Fatherland are being snapped up like hot cakes, and
then, all of a sudden, Berezovsky says: "We will create Unity and win the
elections."
Win they did. The list of Unity members was put together at awe-inspiring
speed. A party poster was printed f Vladimir Putin and Sergei Shoigu stand
side by side. Suddenly a call from the Kremlin: "Have you gone mad? Who's
that on the poster?" Well, it's Putin. And Shoigu. Photographed at some base
or other belonging to the Emergency Situations Ministry. A little grove, a
hillock and an aspen wood. And smack bang right between Putin and Shoigu is a
beryoza, or birch tree. Berezovsky. Beryoza. The birch gets airbrushed out.
After Unity's triumph, Boris Abramovich got bored and took a holiday. After
three months or so, when he once again got the appetite for a bit of Russian
politics, he found hostile Chekists in all the top posts. Berezovsky was
outraged. And at this moment it became clear: He could be wiped from the
political stage with the same ease as the beryoza was airbrushed from the
poster. Because king-making is as unpredictable a business as Frankenstein's.
A few more scandals, however, and the dirt from Berezovsky's linen could
provoke a comprehensive realignment of the political living-quarters.
Berezovsky has information on everyone in Yeltsin's entourage, individuals
who now reject the Family to stay afloat. If all these apostates are engulfed
by a wave of kompromat, then Putin will have the perfect excuse for getting
rid of them. Mikhail Kasyanov and Alexander Voloshin will be fired. The
president will be surrounded by Chekists alone.
In general, king-making is a tricky business. The Byzantine general Aspar who
put Emperor Leo I on the throne was torn into tiny shreds at the order of the
emperor himself. Count Mortimer, who crowned Edward III, was hung f at the
order of Edward III. The Parthian king Orodes showed his gratitude to his
general Suren, who defeated the Romans under Crassus, in a most original
manner. You can guess how.
And that would have been OK. But it doesn't always work out that a leader
placed on the throne by foreign and dirty hands proves his worth.
Yulia Latynina is the creator and host of "The Ruble Zone" on NTV television.
Back to the Top
#11
RUSSIAN MILITARY JOURNALIST'S APPEAL TO BE TAKEN UP BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
MOSCOW. Nov 21 (Interfax) - The Russian Supreme Court's Military
Board, chaired by Lev Zakharov, has accepted an appeal by state
prosecutors that military journalist Grigory Pasko's appeal against the
verdict passed on him be considered during closed-door hearings.
Following consultations with the judges on Tuesday, Zakharov said
that the hearing of Pasko's appeal will be held behind closed doors in
order to prevent the disclosure of state or military secrets.
Pasko's defense lawyers argued, however, that the hearings will
focus on the verdict of the Military Court of the Pacific Fleet, which
has no information that might be qualified as a state secret.
Pasko, a journalist for the Pacific Fleet's Boyevaya Vakhta
newspaper who writes on environmental problems, was arrested on November
20, 1998, at the Vladivostok airport upon his return from a business
trip from Japan. The Pacific Fleet's security services accused Pasko of
committing state treason and disclosing to Japan secret materials about
the Pacific Fleet.
The court martial last July amended the charge of "state treason"
to "abuse of office" and sentenced Pasko to three years in prison. After
having served almost two years, Pasko was amnestied. He then appealed to
the Military Board of the Supreme Court to demand that the verdict of
the court of first instance be annulled.
Pasko's defense lawyers are arguing that since the journalist is
not an official the charges of "abuse of office" could not be brought
against him.
Commenting on the decision to consider Pasko's case behind closed
doors, State Duma deputy Sergei Kovalyov said that in his opinion "the
state keeps its own secrets from its own citizens, namely, the places
where nuclear wastes are dumped and the conditions in which prisoners
are kept."
Former naval office Alexander Nikitin, who was also accused of
disclosing state secrets only to be acquitted, thinks that the
authorities are "putting pressure on the court." "The court surely feels
it. The case has been trumped up and has nothing to do with state
secrets," Nikitin said.
In the opinion of State Duma deputy Sergei Yushenkov, this case is
a manifestation of a "cold war" waged by the state against its citizens
in the fields of ecology and radiation safety. The military decide on
their own what is and what is not a state secret," Yushenkov charged.
Back to the Top
