#14
Novoye Vremya
November 18, 2001
LUKIN: RUSSIA IS NOT CLOSED IN ON ITSELF
An interview with Duma Deputy Speaker Vladimir Lukin
Author: Nairi Ovsepyan,
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

VLADIMIR LUKIN ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS OF JOURNALISTS ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE US, AS WELL AS THE CURRENT POSITION OF THE YABLOKO MOVEMENT AND OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES. HE COMMENTS ON PUTIN'S REFORMS, RUSSIA AND THE WTO, AND THE MISSILE DEFENSE DEBATE.

Alexander Pumpyansky: We get impression that the present is a very important time for our country.

Vladimir Lukin: ... I think at present we are going through a transition period, and it will last for a long time. There are still lots of social cells that still live like they used to live under the totalitarian period; but there are also people who act absolutely differently. As a result, we have a schizoid mixture of various elite staff: nouveau riches, party bosses, director of various plants, gangsters with all kinds of ideas and without ideas at all.

... Russia's national interest is to be in the 21st century as close as possible to the countries that are a pattern of the 21st century. In these terms the policy of President Putin since September 11 is the right path.

... So, the main direction of Putin's development is correct, and this means there is a possibility to correct other things as well. I believe from the standpoint of macro-processes the situation is developing normally.

... I think Putin is shaping his surroundings to his needs. There are two aspects here: an economic aspect, and a psychological aspect - Russia is a complicated county and reforms cannot be carried out here simply. The real historical goal is to preserve the strong state during reforms and not to allow it to transform into the well-known monster. I do not know if the present power understands it, but at the declaration level it seems to understand all.

As far as I remember the president declared in his address an anti-bureaucratic revolution. But this is a very difficult thing to implement: we need reforms not arrests. And so far we have arrests, they are also necessary but just a few: we need to arrest only those who interfere with the reforms.

Tatiana Kamoza: How would you comment on the recent events involving Railroads Minister Nikolai Aksenenko? There are different theories: from getting even with officials to cardinal personnel changes. What is this - reforms or arrests?

Lukin: As for Aksenenko, the issue is clear. I do not think anything was falsified in this case.

There were several strange things at the Railroads Ministry: it was simultaneously a ministry and a commercial company. I think if they had put this ministry in order earlier there would not be any criminal cases now. All criminal cases are consequences of neglect and unwillingness of the authorities to carry out intensive reforms.

As for Sergey Shoigu, I noticed that some time ago it was thoroughly checked if Shoigu's status of simultaneously a minister and a party leader conforms with legislation. In these terms, the recent investigation may be "ordered"; I have no idea who could do this. But I would never believe this could be done without approval of top Kremlin bodies.

Alexander Pumpyansky: When Putin came to power, it was stressed that a security officer came to the Kremlin. Are there any dynamics and changes in these terms?

Lukin: Vladimir Putin understands very well that the majority of Russians do not support the policy of tough support of the anti- terrorist coalition. At the same time, the Russians support the idea of putting tycoons in their places and he is doing this now. He feels that his popularity rating allows him to realize reforms and he shows people auto-da-fe of the tycoons and the people are very glad about it. So, if I am not mistaken, we are to wait for new reforming initiatives. Isn't it a serious politics?

Tatiana Kamoza: Doesn't it seem to you that there are too many external circumstances that aid President Putin, in particular, the economic growth, that Putin had nothing to do with. Or, for instance, pardon my heartlessness, the September 11 events. He always has conditions that allow him effectively represent himself. Could you estimate how much the situation aid Putin in his deeds?

Lukin: Not a single person can create reality, but a person can use it. The difference between a good politician and a bad politician is that the good one can use the reality in order to achieve his goal. Of course, at present Putin is not missing a chance, and he is right.

Tatiana Kamoza: Does he use his opportunities effectively enough?

Lukin: Concerning the relations with the US, he does. Undoubtedly, collecting and exchanging information is a very useful thing. Rendering the US the possibility to carry out aviation and even commando attacks in southern Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is not a very popular measure, but, please believe me, this would never happen without Russia's permission and support. At present everything depends on whether the US realizes that it needs to make some steps in response. And the us has already started moving towards Russia; there are some changes in relations between Russia and NATO, concerning the 1972 ABM Treaty issue, and if course, concerning economic issues. It is considered that the negotiations on Russia's joining the WTO are already finished.

Alla Mirovskaya: How do you assess our intention to join the WTO? Do you think Russia will benefit or lose by it?

Lukin: The main thing here is the conditions of Russia's joining the WTO. During the latest Brussels meeting with the European Union (EU), the EU, which is our major trade partner, announced that by November they would prepare new "realistic suggestions." The essence is that Russia loses in terms of short-term conditions, but profits from the standpoint of long-term conditions.

Alexander Pumpyansky: I have an impression that we have too many false positions and values inherited from the past. For instance, the endless fight around NATO expansion, the ABM Treaty, the logic of missile reduction. In fact, everything has changed, but we still are bargaining and stand our grounds.

Lukin: It was said many times that there are new threats and new problems in the present world. However, the issue is whether all three sides, including Europe, should reject all this. When Condoleezza Rise and Donald Rumsfeld say that the ABM Treaty is out-of-date today, I ask them if NATO is not out-of-date. NATO was established against the Warsaw Pact, against the Soviet Union, and now the Cold War is over. Why should the alliance expand unilaterally now, without including us into the alliance? That is what we need to agree on at present.

Or speaking about the nuclear balance; it is possible to finally dismount all nuclear warheads only when the trust level of both sides is very high, but it is not as yet. However, sooner or later we will have to dismount our warheads as outdated - perhaps we should agree with the US now, when it is ready to make concessions.

Valeriya Novodvorskaya: Don't you think that we should simply and honestly admit that we were wrong concerning European standards and try to sincerely profess European values? Poor Americans are so miserable that they are ready to consult us. I wonder, what positive experience we have to give advice to the US? Is that our bright results in Afghanistan or Chechnya?

Lukin: I like Govorukhin's words: "In about two hundred years we will be as rich as American, but in four years we will be as stupid as Americans." Statistically, an average Russian is smarter than an average American. US people do not have to make much efforts, while absence of constant serious effort to do something now or never prevents people from realizing their essential human features. Although, the US is a very young, energetic, and talented nation. And youth entails a natural selfishness, self-confidence, and a feeling that everything is easy to achieve. I do not think Russia is an interior country, but we have some peculiarities of our historical fate. We started our battle to have a state based on the rule of law later than other countries, and we have to break through our old traditions. But I think we have a lot to learn from the US, for instance the rules of democracy.

Lyubov Tsukanova: Could you objectively estimate how the Russian parties influence the power and the society?

Lukin: unfortunately, the most developed and strongest Russian party is the Communist party. They can influence the power at the regional level, they can exert pressure on regional leaders. As for Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces, they are real parties, but unfortunately they are not big enough. Although in countries with young democracy it my happen that a new party may suddenly become a major party in the parliament. So, today I would not like to say who is doomed to die.

Yabloko is a rather influential party. The Duma passed the tax legislation, and other economic systems suggested by Yabloko. The other thing is that the government is politically more skillful and powerful: Yabloko was not mentioned as creator of these things. Nonetheless, I believe that Yabloko's influence in the society exceeds is electoral results, that is formed by too many factors. At present the opposition of the party depends on how many times the party supported the government and how many times it resisted it. If the party does not make any decisions it has nothing to do with development of the political system.

Valerya Novodvorskaya: Does Yabloko still position itself as an opposition party?

Lukin: I would say we oppose the attempts to form the civil society as a system of riving belts, including the political parties. I think it is a principally important issue. The democracy can either rule or be ruled. We oppose the ruled democracy.

Lyubov Tsukanova: Tell us, please, why have we said for ten years that we have no civil society? Is it true?

Lukin: From the standpoint of the civil society the main thing is whether the human autonomy exists, whether they are people's groups inside the system. If we are autonomous, we will say what we believe is necessary to say, and we will address the authorities about the things we believe are necessary to be discussed. This is what the real civil society is.

(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova )