#2 - JRL 7412
TITLE: RADIO INTERVIEW WITH YEVGENY PRIMAKOV, HEAD OF THE RUSSIAN COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY CHAMBER
[EKHO MOSKVY RADIO, 14:00, NOVEMBER 4, 2003]
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)
Venediktov: Our guest today is Yevgeny Primakov. Yevgeny Maximovich, good day.
Primakov: Good day.
Buntman: We have very many topics and events to discuss. These are very complex matters that need to be analyzed and discussed. I think we will begin with the YUKOS affair and the Khodorkovsky case.
Venediktov: Yevgeny Maximovich, what exactly has happened to YUKOS and Mikhail Khodorkovsky? What is your vision?
Primakov: I hope you won't reproach me if I begin with a general analysis. I have closely watched comments regarding anti- Khodorkovsky operation, if I may say so, and all these comments were devoted mostly to who was against who up there at the top, whether these were the tricks of Leningrad FSB people against Leningrad lawyers or whether these were the tricks of both Leningrad FSB people and lawyers against the Family.
I'd like to step aside from this scheme. Let's look at the background. There are 40 million people in the country who live in poverty, who live below the lowest subsistence level determined by the government. There are no jobs in small towns and settlements. People drink alcohol not because it's some national feature, that is nonsense, but because there is no job.
Amidst all this, a small group of people has concentrate huge resources and these resources have been going back and forth between Russia and other countries and are not invested here in the processing industry or other sectors, science and technical progress. Instead this money gets stuck in the oil sector and doesn't really leave that sector.
Several days ago I read the latest issue of the Forbes magazine. It was dated November 10. It listed the 100 richest people in China. Most of these people work with high technologies. The only billionaire among them deals with high technologies. Others represent the automobile industry and construction. But in Russia it's only oil or gas. But why? Apparently these people have huge funds that they have acquired not because of excellent management but because they use resources that were given by God to all people. And they pocket these funds.
Twenty seven percent, I have found this figure in the press, of their revenues turn into net profit in the oil sector and 12-14 percent in the processing industry.
Venediktov: Maybe it should be changed --
Primakov: Wait a minute. Let me say. Perhaps, this is not a direct explanation of what is happening, but I want to say that the background is very important.
Now, this group of people, not all of them, of course, I personally think very highly of Alekperov and as a rule he does not do such things -- so, this group of people uses various schemes to evade taxes. I have recently made a trip to the North, and everybody told me openly that most oil companies create subsidiaries. These subsidiaries are fully owned by these companies but are registered either in special territorial zones where taxes are low or in off- shore zones abroad. Then products are sold to these enterprises at an artificially low price and these enterprises do not pay taxes to our budget at all.
Venediktov: This is a circumvention of the law, but it's not a violation of the law. Then it is necessary to change the laws. And this is something that the Duma has to do.
Primakov: If it is not done through fraud, you are right. But if fraud is involved, this has to be addressed not to the Duma but to the Prosecutor General's Office.
And look at the moral climate. We can't get rid of it. And the climate is as follows. I am the president of a fund that helps homeless people. This fund is a non-profit organization. We exist only on contributions from businessmen in the form of charitable support, and we extend this charitable support to children's homes not in the form of money but in the form of clothes, kitchen equipment, etc. All this is done under strict control of the contributors. They have a right to scrutinize everything we do to the last kopeck.
But the fund can raise a million dollars a year at best. At the same time everybody knows that 230 million are spent on a foreign football team. So, what moral context can you talk about in this situation?
Venediktov: I would like to go back to the law and compliance with the law.
Primakov: I will talk about that too. And there is another point I'd like to make. A small group of people who have acquired sufficient funds but they use these funds in order to propel themselves into a position of power. You know, and this will not be a discovery for you, that a considerable part of Duma deputies use these funds to lobby certain laws or amendments to laws for the benefit of oligarchs. This also happens in the Federation Council. This happens when appointments are made to key ministerial positions or second tier positions in ministries.
Venediktov: Are you trying to say that deputies take bribes?
Primakov: Don't ask me these questions because I don't want to appear before court. You keep on pushing me --
Venediktov: We are law-abiding citizens.
Primakov: But I think that very many people exist on this money. That's how the Khodorkovsky case came to be. Now let's talk about the case itself, if you want. Some oligarchs wrote an open letter to the President. Why did they send it to the President? That is a question for you. What does this mean? Does this group of oligarchs think that we need to support a system where there is no separation of power, where there is no democracy, where the President should telephone the Prosecutor General and tell him to stop it? Is that what they want? Maybe they do. Maybe they hope that this will allow them to influence the situation.
But that is wrong. Why didn't they send it to the Prosecutor General? By the way, when the Prosecutor General authorized the preliminary arrest of Khodorkovsky -- I think it was the wrong thing to do. I am against this, although it was done in accordance with the law. But if the indictment in the Khodorkovsky case does not include the real reasons for subjecting him to such action, and if this is proved and made public, that is different. But if it is not proved and if it is not made public, the Prosecutor General's Office will have to deal with society that is not helpless.
All this must be taken into account. Yes, they are acting by law, but if they are acting by law they have to complete this case and prove everything by law. But if they fail to prove everything by law, what was the purpose of subjecting him to preliminary arrest?
Venediktov: Yevgeny Maximovich, I would like to raise the substance. Indeed, all the accusations, the basic ones that have been presented to Mr. Khodorkovsky and the YUKOS shareholders, refer to events related to 1995, the privatization and so on. What do you
think: is it necessary to take every large privatization auction and let the prosecution take a look at how licitly each project had been privatized. And if not, then they should be deprivatized. If this was illegal.
Primakov: I am opposed to deprivatization and I held that position also when I was chairman of the government, as you would know. We exchanged with you our opinions on that matter. At that time it was much easier, riding the crest of those developments, default and so on -- to decide on nationalization. I will tell you that I was pressured by some in this respect but I would never agree to taking this step.
I am opposed to deprivatization, it is crystal-clear. At the same time, if there are some things that were privatized in a way that simply used the loopholes in the existing legislation of that time. I mean this was done on a legal basis but based on bad laws. And if this was the matter of some cases that were better governed by the Criminal Code, then we have to take a closer look, take a closer look. But I think it would be correct if we had drawn the line. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin made his most recent statement in an interview he gave to the Italian press on the eve of his visit to Italy and I noted that he very clearly said that, in retrospect, despite the fact that it was bad privatization, despite the fact that at times it proceeded dishonestly, by obviating the elementary logic. But despite all this, now in hindsight, we must turn a blind eye to this, not to engage in deprivatization.
Venediktov: You would remember that when you became prime minister and you had even worked already for half a year as premier, there was the rumor that there is a certain list of businessmen -- I remember Boris Berezovsky talking about it, if you remember -- and the list was rumored to include all businessmen who were allegedly violating the law and whose property had to be taken away. Was Mr. Khodorkovksy in that list?
Primakov: I would like to say that such a list did not exist at all. Incidentally, when Novye Izvestia published that pseudo list, I took the matter to court, for the first time in my life, and I won the trial together with 200,000 that I won and I remitted the money to the 5th foster home of the city of Moscow. There was no list and there could not be any list.
Venediktov: But you know how large companies developed. Do you have a personal sense of dealing with YUKOS and Khodorkovsky?
Primakov: I will tell you the following. You see, I cannot now talk about some of my former guesses. It would not be correct. I think that it should be an open process. And at that open process there should be proof and the thing should be proved. If there is failure to prove at that open trial, then the law should prevail and then apologies should be brought to Khodorkovsky.
Buntman: And even if the president himself is not talking about a retrospective, about a revision, but let us take a look at the perspective. You have described the situation as dire, the rift in society, a disproportion at approach. Some specific legislative or other measures that need to be taken, other than the arrest of Khodorkovsky and I take it that it does not resolve the problem. What measures should be taken on the part of the state?
Primakov: I think it would now be correct to conduct some round- table discussion and naturally, this should be done on a legal basis and it would be good to talk with the large entrepreneurs working, say, in the petroleum sector not in the spirit of "you give us back everything and on and on". No expropriation. And the question should not even be raised in this way. But there should be a serious conversation held with them. It is 27 percent and it is 14 percent. This is the lag that exists and it is not due to the management, it is due to the national wealth, due to the raw materials which are supposed to belong to the whole people. There are mechanisms whereby all this can be taken away. When I was chairman of the government, we introduced for the first time the tax on export -- it was five ecu. We did the correlation depending on the dynamic of that law depending on the world prices. If the world price of oil falls, then the law gets less.
Venediktov: The law is now working?
Primakov: Yes, it is working and thank God it is working. But as to the total amount removed, as facts indicate, the law is not sufficient. That means that the figure should just be increased. It should be not five ecu.
Venediktov: You mean the Duma?
Primakov: This is not even the Duma. It is the government. In such cases it is necessary to come to agreement. I think that they will all agree to that because they understand the real state of affairs.
Venediktov: You mean the increase in that export tax by a certain amount.
Primakov: By a certain amount, and one does not have to invent a bicycle.
Venediktov: I will take you back to your capacity of your presidency of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I mean the situation in regard to the trust toward Russia and investment rating as the events around YUKOS have been unfolding. Do you see that there some of the things get reflected and your partners are talking with you. What questions do they pose to you?
Primakov: It depends on what country you visit. For instance, I have now been on a visit to South Korea, they asked me no questions concerning Khodorkovsky.
Buntman: They are polite you know.
Primakov: May be yes, this was due to their politeness. At the same time, I wish to say that our investment rating has gone up. It is a fact. And you will never get away from that fact. And now what was the reaction of the exchange to the exit of Khodorkovsky? The YUKOS shares went up. I don't think it may become some protracted case of a fall, something caused by market forces that may occur at a particular point in time. There will be a leveling off and I don't think that the powers that be will treat us worse if we act in accordance with the law and if we do not engage in deprivatization. When I say deprivatization I mean of companies. If we decide on that, but I don't think we can do that. And now after the statement made by Vladimir Putin, I am inclined to believe in that even less.
Buntman: One nuance. You spoke about talks but on the other hand you said that the president should not be addressed on this. The industrialists should be addressed. In addition to the mention of the laws that already exist and which you steered through when you were the premier, there can be a need for single cases like that of British Petroleum when a tax was introduced in the situation that big rift in society, a need for legislative initiative and a further transparency of the budget, its revenue component and then the expenditure part.
Primakov: A legislative initiative can take place in this case but I am not in favor of such a legislative initiative that introduces a state of emergency and under that state of emergency they take the toll from all the large entrepreneurs. I am opposed to this. I believe that we should proceed on the basis of the existing laws, on the basis of the existing rules of the game and iron them out in a way that a significant part of the natural rent would get into the budget, the rent which is now being appropriated by a small group of people. I will give you the following example. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, 60 billion dollars is received from oil export. Sixty billion dollars is roughly an amount equal to ours. And about the same amount of oil gets exported. It may be a little more or a little less, this does not matter. Out of that, 45 billion
-- three-fourths -- goes to the budget. There is no avoiding that.
Venediktov: Which means that the tax on the oil industry should be at the level of 75 percent?
Primakov: No, I don't think that we should copy any models around, but I say that we need to come to agreement because in the process we could work out certain figures...
Venediktov: But why then doesn't your chamber take it upon itself to organize such a Round Table? Who is to do that?
Primakov: I think, the government.
Buntman: Should the Office of the Prosecutor General be seated at that table?
Primakov: But why?
Venediktov: In this context, since we started talking about the President, the President said that developments around YUKOS became the catalyst of the resignation of the chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin. This is a verbatim citation. Knowing your tender friendship and love for Alexander Voloshin, I would like to hear your comments on the implications of his resignation.
Primakov: Do you want me to answer this one before or after the break?
Buntman: Perhaps, after the break. But still, perhaps, this one could be answered briefly: What do you think about Khodorkovsky's figure in the circumstances you just described -- is this some sort of coincidence, or is he the first candidate for the clarification, maybe legitimate, of the circumstances of the operations of big capital in Russia?
Primakov: This is no chance. I have been reading the latest Profil magazine and other publications, and many serious analysts say that he used to take more liberties than others.
Buntman: Where?
Primakov: Here, in politics...
Buntman: In what sphere?
Primakov: Don't try to catch me out. I want to say that he took more liberties in the sense that in some circumstances he cut some corners. At the same time he took more liberties when he nominated a group of persons for the parties' election lists, and so on. This is unthinkable -- why don't you wonder that, for example, in some Western country a tycoon could buy the lists of all the parties, or a certain number of people in various parties, and try to secure a situation in which he would have half the parliament in his pocket?
Venediktov: Very good deputies we have.
Primakov: Everything that we have is good.
Buntman: But this does not figure in the charges presented to him.
Primakov: You ask me about the motivation -- why he -- not about the charges.
Buntman: We have Yevgeny Maximovich Primakov as our guest, and our next question is about Voloshin.
NEWS BREAK
Buntman: So, we have the question about the impact of the YUKOS situation on Voloshin's resignation. The President said there was some influence. So, what the resignation of Voloshin, your opponent, means to you today?
Primakov: Well, you know, as regards Voloshin, I shared my thoughts in my book published in 2001, Eight Months Plus. I was absolutely frank in my statements on all matters when he was omnipowerful. Now, when he is gone, I do not want to repeat all that. This is not my principle to throw stones into anyone's back.
At the same time I would like to say, generally, to my mind, his main function, his personal function was to serve as a link between the oligarchs and the top echelon of power. That was his main function. His deputies were engaged in party building and other matters, and he also had a hand in that, but his main function was the one I formulated.
And at that time there was some tacit or, perhaps, verbal agreement as follows: the oligarchs must honestly pay taxes and wages, raise wages and make contributions to meet the social needs in the regions where they operate, without making any attempts to carve for themselves any niche in the power structure or to corrupt society. For that, I think, during that period they were given a respite in the sense that they were appropriating a considerable part of the minerals rent. Such compact, such balance must have been in place.
But if this was so -- and I think it was -- Voloshin as the go- between should have noticed in good time that they were breaking all those rules and adjust all that and bring them to their senses, tell them that they should not act in this manner. But it turned out that he was no go-between, but part of that oligarchic camp because he allowed them to operate in that manner. So, I think that in this sense Voloshin's exit is for the better.
Venediktov: But you do not know anything about Medvedev, do you?
Primakov: I have much respect for him, I have had many meetings with him. But I think that with Medvedev the level of operations of the presidential administration will be more technical. This is my view. And this is correct because this is the practice of many countries. In our country the administration has become a power center, which is wrong.
Venediktov: And where will be the political center of the country?
Primakov: I think that the political center should be formed around the President and include his advisers. His advisers and aides should form that political center -- not the bureaucrats from the administrative staff.
Buntman: In view of the fact that Voloshin is often associated with Yeltsin's team, with the Family, won't his resignation provoke any reshuffle in the administration and in the government?
Primakov: You see, I think that the leverage of the Family had grown far weaker even before Voloshin's resignation. But when Voloshin was leaving -- I read about that in our press -- I was surprised by the motivation of his resignation: our press said that he was very unhappy with not having been informed of Khodorkovsky's arrest. So, did he disagree with the fact, or just with his not having been informed? If he was not informed, he must have felt that he was being pushed to the sidelines of power, which he must have craved -- I do not understand that.
Venediktov: The exit of the old Yeltsin team may mean a possible resignation of the Kasyanov government. How does the Chamber of Commerce and Industry evaluate the government's performance?
Primakov: I can't give you a definite assessment as some of our political leaders do as they either fully support the government or think that the government is not fit for this job. I belong to neither.
Just recently I spoke at a government meeting and defended our position with respect to small businesses. I said that it was necessary to make their life easier. It is really so because the middle class in the country depends on small businesses. There can be no stability without it. Economic stability also depends on small business. To a large extent the government adopted a correct decision.
Venediktov: I will pit you against the President. Don't you regret that you didn't run for President in 2000?
Primakov: I don't.
Venediktov: If you had been elected president, what things would you have done differently? After all, three years have passed.
Primakov: I have already told you that I don't regret it.
Venediktov: And yet, what would you have done differently? You are a critically-minded person.
Primakov: I may not be original, but I think that the President is doing his best in the current situation.
Buntman: Just to close this topic, you say you disagree with sweeping criticism or support of the government, but there is one interesting thing: I've got a feeling that there is a common ideology shared by the President and the government that when there is no heating and trains do not run, that is the guilt of the government, but when decisions are adopted that take our country farther along the path of progress, the President gets all the credit for this. If there is a tendency to divide these things, I think it's a rather dangerous tendency.
Primakov: Actually, this tendency exists in all countries. Usually the government is held responsible for all mistakes. But at the same time I want to say that it's not there is some confrontation between the government and the president, after all, the government is under the president in accordance with our Constitution, but there is something else that worries me. What worries me is the total lack or at least the lack of administrative discipline. That's what seriously worries me.
The president issues instructions but very often the government does not implement these instructions. This happens and this is very dangerous. I don't want to draw any analogy, but just imagine if some resolution adopted by the Politburo had not been implemented.
Buntman: But that is different.
Primakov: The chief executive issues instructions, but as a rule these instructions are often kept away from the public and sometimes are put away and not implemented. That is absolutely outrageous. I can't explain this. The government may argue with the president and say that this cannot be done. But when the head of the government instructs ministers to do this, the ministers relay these instructions to their subordinates, everything goes down the drain. We must not allow this to happen.
Venediktov: Let's change the topic. We all see what is happening in Iraq. I would like to ask you as an expert on Iraq and as a person who has been in Iraq many times and knows the structure of its government. How would you assess the current situation in the country and what would be your forecast?
Primakov: It's easier to forecast the situation even in our country than it is in Iraq. The US has gotten into a very difficult situation in Iraq. Take the initial US statements and their current statements and actions. There is a world of difference. When the US entered Iraq, we were against this, we thought it was a historical mistake, and obviously we continue to think so, at least I hope so. But at the same time when they entered Iraq, they said there no UN, UN actions or UN flag would be allowed in the country.
Then the UN Security Council adopted three resolutions, and they are beginning to turn more and more toward the UN because they understand that so called unilateralism, the desire to make decisions and act unilaterally led them into a dead end. Not so long ago I read President Bush's statement which simply shocked me. I am almost quoting him. He said the US would adopt all decisions jointly with its allies and act jointly. But that's not at all what they began with in Iraq.
This shows that the policy of unilateralism does not give anything when it is confronted with the reality. The situation in Iraq is very complex. First of all, there is a guerrilla war. President Bush said in May that the war was over. But the casualties sustained by these forces, primarily by the Americans, have already exceeded, at least my calculations suggest so, the official figures for the pre-war and post-war periods by 1.5 times. No one knows where Saddam Hussein is.
Venediktov: He is not in Moscow, is he?
Primakov: No, he certainly is not here. By the way, when I last met with him, when I delivered a verbal message from President Putin to him, many people here thought we were offering him political asylum. That was nonsense, of course. Putin was proposing, and I think it was the right thing to do at that time, that Hussein should do the last thing he could do, and that was resign as president and announce democratic elections. But he rejected that. But that is only one side of the situation, this guerrilla war.
Another side is how to reconstruct the country. Shiites make up 60 percent of the population. Some say that a federation could solve the problem. But how can it solve the problem? They live in Baghdad and in the South and other places. Even if they create a Shiite autonomy in the South, this will only strengthen the radical religious factor in politics. This will have a negative impact on neighboring Iran populated by Shiites.
Take the Kurds. Kurds want to get more than they ever had under Saddam Hussein. Under Saddam Hussein they had an autonomy. Now they want something more. And what could that be? An independent state? Or do they want to add Mosul and Kirkuk to their autonomy? In either case the Turks say they will deploy their troops there.
It's a knot of contradictions. It might have been easier to think first, but I don't think that anyone in the American leadership thought several moves ahead.
Venediktov: But what should Russia do there?
Primakov: I don't know what Russia should do there. Apparently we should have an economic presence there. That is obvious to me. But no more than that, I think.
I just want to say that our radio listeners understand that we are pursuing a correct policy, both the Foreign Ministry and the President. This policy is that we do not deviate from our original assessments that what has occurred is a historical mistake and that the Americans entered there. And at the same time, we are not allowing an anti-Americanism to develop in our politics. If we permitted our statement concerning a historical mistake to grow into anti-Americanism in politics, it would have been the crudest mistake.
Buntman: As an analyst, could you compare the situation before the war in Iraq and now? It is a huge region and it is not so much the matter of Russian-US relations, relations of Russia and the US with all the countries living there. To what extent is it now the same or fraught with an explosion or complications -- talking about the situation in the Near and Middle East compared to what there was before the Iraqi war?
Primakov: To talk about Iraq...
Buntman: And in connection with Iraq, about the whole of the region.
Primakov: If I am to talk about Iraq, in purely hypothetical and theoretical terms, the situation could be explosive if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Buntman: But there are no such weapons. They don't find it, there is none.
Primakov: It does not exist. So, they have entered into a contradiction with their own special services -- the United States and Britain. And the services respond that they did not provide any such information. There was time when Iraq entered Kuwait. This was an unsightly thing, it was savagery. We were all opposed to this. Then after Iraq withdrew its troops from Kuwait, when it was routed, did it threaten its neighbors? No, it didn't. Can you say something specific, something that can be used as an argument that Iraq had destabilized the situation up to the introduction of troops there.
There were no links with al-Qaeda. If there were links, the Americans would make them public in no time. But there were none. And now I think that indeed there has appeared a source of tension and indeed terrorists will converge on the area and indeed...
Buntman: Despite the military presence?
Primakov: Of course, President Bush confirms this now and others, saying that terrorists are converging on the area from other countries. This has caused a deterioration of the situation. And if we talk about a Middle Eastern settlement, this did not further it in any way, the introduction of the US occupying their forces did not further it and it all got stuck in one point.
Venediktov: But still Saddam ceased paying the Palestinian kamikaze families.
Primakov: When was it?
Venediktov: This was recognized by the Palestinians themselves.
Primakov: When was it? Now let me ask you when did it happen? He ceased paying them a long time ago, a long time ago. This was not on the eve of the US occupation. He did not have any offices of any Palestinian organizations. There was only Abu Nidal who was staying there and indeed he was a terrorist and all. And all of a sudden, Abu Nidal committed suicide.
Venediktov: There are so many unexpected things happening in life, Yevgeny Maximovich.
Primakov: So, here I don't think we need to heighten the colors.
Buntman: What unexpected thing can cause a change in the Middle East? I don't think we can avoid talking of it because Sharon is now in Moscow.
Venediktov: What can cause a change, get it off the ground?
Primakov: If one talks in strokes and seriously, after September 11 the US undertook, I think, a very positive step. They gave up their monopoly on mediation activities in the Middle East. They also agreed -- and now Sharon who is here on a visit says that this was a US plan -- the Road Map. But it is absolutely not a US plan. Russia was the first to propose all this and including the Quartet. The United States agreed to this and it was a very positive step on the part of the United States. And then the Road Map which was approved by the four foreign ministers but actually it was not ministers, it was representatives of the EU and the UN and the Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov and Powell -- they had developed the Road Map. And the Road Map is skidding and it will never be implemented until they understand that an end to terrorist actions in the Middle East will occur precisely when a Palestinian state is established. You see, the Palestinian state involves big conditions concerning security of Israel and the security of the state has to be safeguarded.
At that time the Palestinian state will be a player in genuine terms. And what is there now? Sharon believes that Arafat can stop the suicides. He cannot stop them, he cannot because there is no Palestinian state. And to put it straight, if you want my opinion, I think that sooner or later the world will come to a situation when a compromise plan would be drafted that will be imposed by the parties. Now the compromise plan exists, not a bad one at all. And it has already been initialed on both sides. And everything is envisaged there -- including boundaries and all else. But Sharon does not wish to adopt the plan.
Buntman: You mean that the plan will be imposed from outside on Palestinians and the Israelis?
Primakov: Just think it over how Israel was created. Was it the result of negotiations between Arabs and the Jews? Of course not. The world community imposed this and that was that. The division of Palestine into two states, imposed the existence of Israel on the Arabs. It imposed the existence of a second Arab state in the territory of Palestine, borders were imposed . So, sooner or later this has to be done and they will come to that. And now the basis is provided by what has been developed by the Israelis together with the Palestinians. But these are left Israelis, they are Avoda who are not now in power.
Buntman:This will be the next political generation.
Primakov: This will depend. Now I will tell you it is of course very difficult to predict something because there are the terrorist actions and the suicides who explode innocent people. This has led to a situation in which the mood in Israel is of course very anti- Palestinian. I don't think that now Israeli population would be in favor of adopting some plan developed by the left. Everything is changing. And we were talking with you about Iraq. Now there has been the most recent opinion poll conducted in the US. 51 percent -- for the first time -- do not approve of the policy of Bush in regard to Iraq. And what did we have there before? Seventy percent were in favor. And this can happen in other regions as well.
Buntman: Yevgeny Maximovich, thank you very much. Everything in the world changes and let us hope that this will be steadily for the better. Thank you.
- Back to the Top -