Paul Goble
Vienna, April 30 – In an unusual but unfortunately not unprecedented development, Russian media are hyping a suggestion by analysts at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch that Moscow should not publish unemployment statistics so frequently lest it lead to “the destabilization of the social situation” in the Russian Federation.
Not only do such notions, however much they might help some investors, violate American principles on the free flow of information, they fail to recognize that such proposals reinforce Moscow’s proclivity to secrecy and generate suspicions among the Russian people that are far more likely to be destabilizing than the release of information would be.
In an article today about the Russian government’s plans to conduct “the anti-crisis Petersburg forum in a new ‘interactive format,’” “Nezavisimaya gazeta” reported that analysts at the US bank have published a new report calling the growth of unemployment in Russia “an ever more significant problem” (www.ng.ru/economics/2009-04-30/4_tvshow.html?insidedoc).
According to the Moscow paper, the American investment analysts, who had earlier identified Russia as one of the most important emerging markets said that “the decision of the [Russian] government to publish statistics on unemployment every month was premature since it could contribute to the destabilization of the situation.”
While “Nezavisimaya gazeta” put this American suggestion at the end of its article, many Russian news outlets have made it the center of their reporting. Newsru.com, for example, headlined its article “The US Advises the Russian Government Not to Publish Unemployment Data in Order to Avoid Instability” (www.newsru.com/russia/30apr2009/bezrabotitsa.html).
But that news agency also noted that this call by an American firm for the Russian government to release even less information than it had was belated. Newsru.com noted that “even before” the Americans offered this advice, the Russian Statistical Committee “had ceased to publish monthly reports.”
That action, one of several cutbacks in statistical and other forms of government information in the Russian Federation, “immediately led media [there] to conclude that the government wants them to reduce their coverage of unwelcome trends,” a desire that the report suggested now enjoyed the support of American bankers as well.
Russian media and Russian officials pay close attention to what Americans, official and otherwise, say about their country, far more than the reverse, and they often invoke such statements to press their own agendas or at least to legitimize them, again in ways very different from the way in which American outlets treat suggestions coming from Russia.
Indeed, Russian outlets have also played up the conclusions of the US-based Eurasia Group on “Risks in an Unstable World” which suggested that growing unemployment and inflation in Russia could lead to a crisis in which Vladimir Putin might soon replace Dmitry Medvedev as president by offering himself as “the savior of the fatherland.”
That makes any American suggestion, especially one for the Russian government to reduce the amount of information available to the Russian people, far more important than it might otherwise be, a reminder if one still is needed for those in the US writing about developments in that country to exercise extreme caution.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Window on Eurasia: How Putin’s ‘Dictatorship of Law’ Led to a ‘Dictatorship of "Ments"’
Paul Goble
Vienna, April 29 – American judges, unlike many U.S. specialists on Russia, according to a leading legal affairs journalist in Moscow, instantly understand the meaning if not the origins or precise definition of the widely used Russian slang term “ment” as well as its implications for the possibility of the creation of a state based on law.
But unless the American specialists integrate this concept into their analyses and unless the Russians are able to overcome its consequences, Leonid Nikitinsky argues in a two-part article in “Novaya gazeta,” both will fail to recognize the importance of an independent judicial system for Russia’s and the absurdity of Vladimir Putin’s call for “a dictatorship of law.”
Nikitinsky, the secretary of the Union of Journalists and a commentator on legal affairs, provides not only an explanation of what he says is a term that is almost impossible to translate but also a discussion of why this uniquely Russian phenomenon behind it is so dangerous (www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/044/15.html, www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/045/05.html)
As Nikitinsky explains, “the word ‘ment’ comes from the lexicon of thieves” and other criminals. In prisons and camps, the word meant “in the broadest sense” any “enemy” of the prisoners who worked and did not violate the rules of his fellows. But in life outside these institutions, it has acquired a broader meaning.
There, the legal affairs journalist continues, it refers to those who exploit their position for financial gain out of entirely selfish motivations and regardless of the rules and includes among others traffic police, the militia, tax officials, and indeed anyone who is in a position to throw his weight around and force those around him to pay up.
Although it is usually discussed in terms of corruption or human rights, in fact, the problem of the “ments” in Russian society is not the one – often what the “ments” are doing is at least nominally legal – or the other – those the “ments” exploit are not having their human rights violated at least in the usual sense.
Nor is the “ment” problem about cruelty and violence, although those are often present or at least implied, Nikitinsky continues. The goal of “ments” “is not cruelty as such but only the use of fear in order to boost the effectiveness of their business.” Indeed, the criminal phrase, “it’s not personal, it’s just business,” perfectly applies.
But at the same time, he continues, “the extreme level of cruelty and force in the system has led to one in which the majority of real [law enforcement] professions who are able to conduct operational work and investigate criminal affairs have left,” opening the way to even crime and even more “ment” abuses.
(Many thought that shifting responsibility for many legal questions from the prosecutors to the courts, something the “ments” actively opposed, would have ended this situation. But in reality, Nikitinsky says, the courts have behaved in such a way that the power of the “ments” has been in no way affected.)
The current “ment” system, which has many analogues in Russian history, took off after Vladimir Putin declared his support for the restoration of “a dictatorship of laws,” an “absurdity” that was popular because it seemed to provide an escape from the wildness of the 1990s and the destruction of “the veneer of civilization” at that time.
By this declaration, Putin “let the genie out of the bottle,” because “each “ment” at his own level” could then “realize” his goals in the marketplace where he could extract the most money from others. In short, Putin established “the dictatorship of the “ment” with its absolute monopoly on profit and its pretensions to a monopoly on ideas as well.”
Such a system could only function at a time of “super profits” from the sale of oil and gas, and its relative stability during that period, now ending, led some people to confuse what Putin had established with “a police state in the usual meaning of that word.” But in fact, what Putin created, was the antithesis of a police state.
“In a police state,” Nikitinsky notes, “the cop on the beat will follow the law whether it is good or bad, but for our “ment”, the law is an optional means of resolving his problems and only that.” As a result, the notion that there is “strict discipline” in the power vertical is a complete “fiction.”
Instead, he continues, “the “ment” state is closer to the formula of feudalism, according to which ‘the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal,’” an arrangement that makes the system far more fragile than it may appear and gives those near the top far less effective power all the way down.
That has many implications, Nikitinsky says. Among the most obvious is that “the level of degeneration (but not corruption!) in the force structures is apparently so great that the traditional measures of ‘struggle with corruption’ are introducing into the administration still greater chaos by intensifying the struggle of “ment” clans among themselves.”
To escape this, the legal affairs analyst argues, will be possible only if Russia pays more attention to the importance of law, independent courts, and the use of juries, something Putin appears to understand, the many judges want out of a desire for self-respect, and that Dmitry Medvedev probably wants but may not be strong enough to insist upon.
If Russia does not move in that direction and soon, Nikitinsky warns, then there is the danger of the rise of precisely the kind of revolutionary situation Vladimir Lenin talked about, one in which “those on top are no longer able to rule, while those at the bottom are no longer willing to continue to live in the way that they have.”
Vienna, April 29 – American judges, unlike many U.S. specialists on Russia, according to a leading legal affairs journalist in Moscow, instantly understand the meaning if not the origins or precise definition of the widely used Russian slang term “ment” as well as its implications for the possibility of the creation of a state based on law.
But unless the American specialists integrate this concept into their analyses and unless the Russians are able to overcome its consequences, Leonid Nikitinsky argues in a two-part article in “Novaya gazeta,” both will fail to recognize the importance of an independent judicial system for Russia’s and the absurdity of Vladimir Putin’s call for “a dictatorship of law.”
Nikitinsky, the secretary of the Union of Journalists and a commentator on legal affairs, provides not only an explanation of what he says is a term that is almost impossible to translate but also a discussion of why this uniquely Russian phenomenon behind it is so dangerous (www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/044/15.html, www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/045/05.html)
As Nikitinsky explains, “the word ‘ment’ comes from the lexicon of thieves” and other criminals. In prisons and camps, the word meant “in the broadest sense” any “enemy” of the prisoners who worked and did not violate the rules of his fellows. But in life outside these institutions, it has acquired a broader meaning.
There, the legal affairs journalist continues, it refers to those who exploit their position for financial gain out of entirely selfish motivations and regardless of the rules and includes among others traffic police, the militia, tax officials, and indeed anyone who is in a position to throw his weight around and force those around him to pay up.
Although it is usually discussed in terms of corruption or human rights, in fact, the problem of the “ments” in Russian society is not the one – often what the “ments” are doing is at least nominally legal – or the other – those the “ments” exploit are not having their human rights violated at least in the usual sense.
Nor is the “ment” problem about cruelty and violence, although those are often present or at least implied, Nikitinsky continues. The goal of “ments” “is not cruelty as such but only the use of fear in order to boost the effectiveness of their business.” Indeed, the criminal phrase, “it’s not personal, it’s just business,” perfectly applies.
But at the same time, he continues, “the extreme level of cruelty and force in the system has led to one in which the majority of real [law enforcement] professions who are able to conduct operational work and investigate criminal affairs have left,” opening the way to even crime and even more “ment” abuses.
(Many thought that shifting responsibility for many legal questions from the prosecutors to the courts, something the “ments” actively opposed, would have ended this situation. But in reality, Nikitinsky says, the courts have behaved in such a way that the power of the “ments” has been in no way affected.)
The current “ment” system, which has many analogues in Russian history, took off after Vladimir Putin declared his support for the restoration of “a dictatorship of laws,” an “absurdity” that was popular because it seemed to provide an escape from the wildness of the 1990s and the destruction of “the veneer of civilization” at that time.
By this declaration, Putin “let the genie out of the bottle,” because “each “ment” at his own level” could then “realize” his goals in the marketplace where he could extract the most money from others. In short, Putin established “the dictatorship of the “ment” with its absolute monopoly on profit and its pretensions to a monopoly on ideas as well.”
Such a system could only function at a time of “super profits” from the sale of oil and gas, and its relative stability during that period, now ending, led some people to confuse what Putin had established with “a police state in the usual meaning of that word.” But in fact, what Putin created, was the antithesis of a police state.
“In a police state,” Nikitinsky notes, “the cop on the beat will follow the law whether it is good or bad, but for our “ment”, the law is an optional means of resolving his problems and only that.” As a result, the notion that there is “strict discipline” in the power vertical is a complete “fiction.”
Instead, he continues, “the “ment” state is closer to the formula of feudalism, according to which ‘the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal,’” an arrangement that makes the system far more fragile than it may appear and gives those near the top far less effective power all the way down.
That has many implications, Nikitinsky says. Among the most obvious is that “the level of degeneration (but not corruption!) in the force structures is apparently so great that the traditional measures of ‘struggle with corruption’ are introducing into the administration still greater chaos by intensifying the struggle of “ment” clans among themselves.”
To escape this, the legal affairs analyst argues, will be possible only if Russia pays more attention to the importance of law, independent courts, and the use of juries, something Putin appears to understand, the many judges want out of a desire for self-respect, and that Dmitry Medvedev probably wants but may not be strong enough to insist upon.
If Russia does not move in that direction and soon, Nikitinsky warns, then there is the danger of the rise of precisely the kind of revolutionary situation Vladimir Lenin talked about, one in which “those on top are no longer able to rule, while those at the bottom are no longer willing to continue to live in the way that they have.”
Window on Eurasia: Without Naming Russia but Describing Problems There, PACE Calls for Defense of Human Rights Activists
Paul Goble
Vienna, April 29 – By a vote of 113 to 3, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe yesterday passed a resolution calling on member states to protect human rights activists, and although that document does not mention Russia by name, the discussion preceding its adoption shows that attacks on such activists there were a major reason PACE took this step.
Even that typically diplomatic approach was too much for two Russian delegates, however, who, while not denying there have been problems, suggested that some people who call themselves human rights activists are in fact something else and that the situation in Estonia, for example, is far worse than in Russia.
In its report on yesterday’s PACE session, Moscow’s “Kommersant” today described not only the “diplomatic” way in which the Europeans acted but also debate which showed that concerns about Russian behavior had led them to take action and the reactions of the Russians that suggested why it was necessary (www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1163171).
As “Kommersant” noted, “although in the text of the resolution there is not one reference to Russia, precisely the incidents with Russian human rights activists were the ones the PACE delegates offered as examples of the lamentable persecution of the human rights movement” in the Russian Federation.
But the paper continued, “this did not disturb the members of the Russian delegation [who included two United Russia representatives, Dmitry Vyatkin and Sergey Markov]: they assured their colleagues that ‘human rights will triumph’ and that they were ready to do everything so that this will happen as quickly as possible.”
In his presentation on the problem, Holger Hainbach, a member of the PACE commission on legal questions and human rights, noted that in many countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Russian North Caucasus, the powers that be call those who work to defend human rights “spies,” “enemies,” “traitors,” and “extremists.”
In such cases, he continued, these activists are often “subjected to strong forms of repression, including murder, kidnapping and arbitrary arrests.” Therefore, because many of these phenomena come from the governments involved, “they need our defense.”
Other speakers pointed to the recent beating of Lev Ponomaryev, the head of the Moscow Movement For Human Rights, the killing of Sergey Protazanov, the Khimki journalist, who was “had the courage to be interested in the activities of the municipal powers that be” in that suburb of the Russian capital.
But this was too much for the Russian delegates. While acknowledging that the report was “important and timely,” Vyatkin said he wanted to ask “an unwelcome question: Are all those who call themselves defenders of human rights actually that?” Many of them, he suggested, are involved in politics and in the “banal” task of earning money.
Such activities, the United Russian delegate said, “discredit the human rights movement,” although others could have responded that his charges against the members of that movement confirm precisely the kind of problems of official refusal to help them that other delegates at the meeting had been referring to.
And his colleague Markov took a parallel approach. He supported the report but argued that PACE should be focusing on the protection of human rights not in the countries the other speakers had named but rather in Estonia, where he suggested the situation was one that should be a matter of “extreme concern.”
“The special services of Estonia two years ago provoked protests and then cruelly put them down” in the case of the shifting of the statue to the Soviet warrior in downtown Tallinn. That action, Markov continued, suggests that “the goal of the Estonian special services was to destroy human rights activists who defended the rights of non-citizens and Russian speakers.”
Vienna, April 29 – By a vote of 113 to 3, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe yesterday passed a resolution calling on member states to protect human rights activists, and although that document does not mention Russia by name, the discussion preceding its adoption shows that attacks on such activists there were a major reason PACE took this step.
Even that typically diplomatic approach was too much for two Russian delegates, however, who, while not denying there have been problems, suggested that some people who call themselves human rights activists are in fact something else and that the situation in Estonia, for example, is far worse than in Russia.
In its report on yesterday’s PACE session, Moscow’s “Kommersant” today described not only the “diplomatic” way in which the Europeans acted but also debate which showed that concerns about Russian behavior had led them to take action and the reactions of the Russians that suggested why it was necessary (www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1163171).
As “Kommersant” noted, “although in the text of the resolution there is not one reference to Russia, precisely the incidents with Russian human rights activists were the ones the PACE delegates offered as examples of the lamentable persecution of the human rights movement” in the Russian Federation.
But the paper continued, “this did not disturb the members of the Russian delegation [who included two United Russia representatives, Dmitry Vyatkin and Sergey Markov]: they assured their colleagues that ‘human rights will triumph’ and that they were ready to do everything so that this will happen as quickly as possible.”
In his presentation on the problem, Holger Hainbach, a member of the PACE commission on legal questions and human rights, noted that in many countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Russian North Caucasus, the powers that be call those who work to defend human rights “spies,” “enemies,” “traitors,” and “extremists.”
In such cases, he continued, these activists are often “subjected to strong forms of repression, including murder, kidnapping and arbitrary arrests.” Therefore, because many of these phenomena come from the governments involved, “they need our defense.”
Other speakers pointed to the recent beating of Lev Ponomaryev, the head of the Moscow Movement For Human Rights, the killing of Sergey Protazanov, the Khimki journalist, who was “had the courage to be interested in the activities of the municipal powers that be” in that suburb of the Russian capital.
But this was too much for the Russian delegates. While acknowledging that the report was “important and timely,” Vyatkin said he wanted to ask “an unwelcome question: Are all those who call themselves defenders of human rights actually that?” Many of them, he suggested, are involved in politics and in the “banal” task of earning money.
Such activities, the United Russian delegate said, “discredit the human rights movement,” although others could have responded that his charges against the members of that movement confirm precisely the kind of problems of official refusal to help them that other delegates at the meeting had been referring to.
And his colleague Markov took a parallel approach. He supported the report but argued that PACE should be focusing on the protection of human rights not in the countries the other speakers had named but rather in Estonia, where he suggested the situation was one that should be a matter of “extreme concern.”
“The special services of Estonia two years ago provoked protests and then cruelly put them down” in the case of the shifting of the statue to the Soviet warrior in downtown Tallinn. That action, Markov continued, suggests that “the goal of the Estonian special services was to destroy human rights activists who defended the rights of non-citizens and Russian speakers.”
Window on Eurasia: Moscow Now Has Reason to Fear the Fascism It Helped to Develop
Paul Goble
Vienna, April 29 – The conviction on the eve of Victory Day of a Russian for opposing fascism calls attention to two interrelated developments in the Russian Federation, Moscow journalist Yuliya Latynina says in a column today: “fascism is convenient for the regime. But during a crisis, it may be turned against the rulers.”
Writing in “Novaya gazeta,” Latynina uses the conviction of Aleksey Olesinov, head of the Antifa Youth Movement, and the violent suppression by the militia of a public demonstration in support of him to point out the ways in which fascism is spreading in Russia and the threat it poses to those in the regime who have sought to use it against their opponents.
“Fascism,” the Moscow journalist writes, “is an ideology which asserts the exceptional quality of a particular people and explains that all around it are its enemies. If you will,” she continues, “try to find ten differences between that and what [the pro-Kremlin youth group] ‘Nashi’ professes” (www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/045/06.html).
Or, she continues, try to find any differences between fascism and “the official ideology of the powers that be who send their children to London, keep their money in Switzerland, buy villages in Nice but explain to the lumpen at Lake Seliger that the West hates us because Russians are a great people.”
If what these groups are propagating is not “the ideology of fascism, Latynina asks rhetorically, “then how should this ideology be called?
Moreover, she says, the current ideology of the Russian powers that be, like fascism, “presupposes enemies of two types: external and internal.” Fighting the latter is not so easy “in an age of nuclear weapons and Swiss bank accounts,” but “conducting a war against one’s own business is far easier” and it is easier still to beat up rights activists like Lev Ponomaryev.
And Latynina points out that despite the views of its adepts, “fascism is hardly an ideology of heroes. Rather it is an ideology which allows the dregs of society to imagine that they are heroes. One can die for the Motherland without any fascism. But to burn up children in concentration camps and feel oneself a savior of the Fatherland, a fascist ideology is required.”
In many countries in the past, there have been “cruelly vertical empires build on the mechanism of institutionalized theft,” she writes. Using power, the leaders of these regimes stole as much as they wanted and remained in power as long as there was more to steal and enough to buy off those who might challenge them. But when the loot ran out, so did their power.
“The situation in Russia is very similar,” she insists. “The unwritten agreement between the upper reaches of the elite and the ruling class of the lumpen bureaucracy is simple: Every year, one must be able to take more money than in the one before from the internal enemy, the businessman.”
The problem for the regime, Latynina says, is that this “unwritten” agreement worked until the current crisis. Now, it is far from clear whether the regime can keep stealing enough to pay off its servants or whether these servants encouraged by that regime to think they have a right to such loot will turn on those who can’t or turn to others who might be able to.
That is clearly a growing concern for the powers that be in Moscow, especially since they have done little or nothing to create the kind institutions such as independent courts or the rule of law that might prevent this reaction by those influenced by fascism from sweeping the “power vertical” and all those in it aside in one more case of “a pitiless Russian revolt.”
To the extent that Latynina is right, a conference on combating extremism that took place this week in Yekaterinburg may prove to be a bellwether event. There, human rights activists, prosecutors, and officials met to discuss how to struggle with extremism through the use of “scientific” measures (www.nr2.ru/ekb/230712.html).
But if the rights activists at this meeting stressed the importance of law in combating extremism, officials there, including prosecutors, appeared as they have in the past to be more concerned about having sufficient police power to combat it, an approach that almost certainly will make the problem worse rather than better in the coming weeks and months.
Vienna, April 29 – The conviction on the eve of Victory Day of a Russian for opposing fascism calls attention to two interrelated developments in the Russian Federation, Moscow journalist Yuliya Latynina says in a column today: “fascism is convenient for the regime. But during a crisis, it may be turned against the rulers.”
Writing in “Novaya gazeta,” Latynina uses the conviction of Aleksey Olesinov, head of the Antifa Youth Movement, and the violent suppression by the militia of a public demonstration in support of him to point out the ways in which fascism is spreading in Russia and the threat it poses to those in the regime who have sought to use it against their opponents.
“Fascism,” the Moscow journalist writes, “is an ideology which asserts the exceptional quality of a particular people and explains that all around it are its enemies. If you will,” she continues, “try to find ten differences between that and what [the pro-Kremlin youth group] ‘Nashi’ professes” (www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/045/06.html).
Or, she continues, try to find any differences between fascism and “the official ideology of the powers that be who send their children to London, keep their money in Switzerland, buy villages in Nice but explain to the lumpen at Lake Seliger that the West hates us because Russians are a great people.”
If what these groups are propagating is not “the ideology of fascism, Latynina asks rhetorically, “then how should this ideology be called?
Moreover, she says, the current ideology of the Russian powers that be, like fascism, “presupposes enemies of two types: external and internal.” Fighting the latter is not so easy “in an age of nuclear weapons and Swiss bank accounts,” but “conducting a war against one’s own business is far easier” and it is easier still to beat up rights activists like Lev Ponomaryev.
And Latynina points out that despite the views of its adepts, “fascism is hardly an ideology of heroes. Rather it is an ideology which allows the dregs of society to imagine that they are heroes. One can die for the Motherland without any fascism. But to burn up children in concentration camps and feel oneself a savior of the Fatherland, a fascist ideology is required.”
In many countries in the past, there have been “cruelly vertical empires build on the mechanism of institutionalized theft,” she writes. Using power, the leaders of these regimes stole as much as they wanted and remained in power as long as there was more to steal and enough to buy off those who might challenge them. But when the loot ran out, so did their power.
“The situation in Russia is very similar,” she insists. “The unwritten agreement between the upper reaches of the elite and the ruling class of the lumpen bureaucracy is simple: Every year, one must be able to take more money than in the one before from the internal enemy, the businessman.”
The problem for the regime, Latynina says, is that this “unwritten” agreement worked until the current crisis. Now, it is far from clear whether the regime can keep stealing enough to pay off its servants or whether these servants encouraged by that regime to think they have a right to such loot will turn on those who can’t or turn to others who might be able to.
That is clearly a growing concern for the powers that be in Moscow, especially since they have done little or nothing to create the kind institutions such as independent courts or the rule of law that might prevent this reaction by those influenced by fascism from sweeping the “power vertical” and all those in it aside in one more case of “a pitiless Russian revolt.”
To the extent that Latynina is right, a conference on combating extremism that took place this week in Yekaterinburg may prove to be a bellwether event. There, human rights activists, prosecutors, and officials met to discuss how to struggle with extremism through the use of “scientific” measures (www.nr2.ru/ekb/230712.html).
But if the rights activists at this meeting stressed the importance of law in combating extremism, officials there, including prosecutors, appeared as they have in the past to be more concerned about having sufficient police power to combat it, an approach that almost certainly will make the problem worse rather than better in the coming weeks and months.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Window on Eurasia: Merchandising of Chernobyl Decried
Paul Goble
Vienna, April 28 – Twenty-three years ago, the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history occurred at Chernobyl, a disaster that devastated the region, forced Mikhail Gorbachev to launch his glasnost program, and continues to claim pre-mature deaths among those exposed to the massive release of radiation.
And this year, as on every April 26th since that time, the victims, their families and activists of various kinds paused to take part in memorial services and demonstrations in the three countries most affected, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation, and to bemoan the fact that while many people around the world recall the accident, they are forgetting its victims.
But in what is likely to strike many as an equally disturbing development, some people are now trying to profit from that disaster by organizing tours to the Chernobyl zone, from which radioactive contamination has driven the population, and by including references to the 1986 disaster in video games.
In an interview posted online today, Aleksandr Sirota, the head of the Internet-based Pripyat.com Center, said that in the pursuit of profit, tour firms in Ukraine are now offering to take people into the “zone” without any knowledge of the rules governing such visits or the risks that visitors still face there (www.ia-centr.ru/publications/4542/).
“In certain cases,” he added, “such ‘businessmen’ … simply disappear after they have collected money from those who want to go there.” But such activities have the effect of detracting attention from the fact that “the Chernobyl zone is not an amusement park” and that those who are thinking about going there need to ask themselves why they are doing it.
Such operators are not the only people who are seeking to profit from the disaster. As the interviewer pointed out, “the very popular computer game ‘Stalker’” has part of the action take place in the Chernobyl zone, something that likely is offensive to many of the victims of the nuclear accident.
Sirota, for his part, was ambivalent about that. On the one hand, he clearly indicated that he understands why some might be upset by that reminder of a tragedy in their pasts. But on the other, he asked, “what can be the harm from this game?” Almost all computer games “are based on real or imagined events.”
And there is at least one positive result from such games: “A large number of young people find out about the town of Pripyat and Chernobyl precisely from ‘Stalker.’” If they did not play that game, it is entirely possible, Sirota said, that they would not know anything about the accident at all.
The activist, who lived through the disaster as a 10-year-old child, said that at the time, the forced evacuation of the population seemed “like an attractive game, only with real military helicopters flying lower over the roofs of the houses, … with an unending line of buses carrying us and all the residents of the town ‘for three days’ into the unknown.”
“We did not know or understand then,” Sirota said, “that we were leaving out town forever.”
Sirota said he made his first return to his native Pripyat only eight years later, and it was at that time that he “finally understand” when, by making this “unique jump into the past, into childhood,” he came to recognize that as a result of the Chernobyl accident, there could be no going back not only anytime soon but ever.
That experience prompted him to become an activist, and he has made a number of visits to the exclusion zone since that time, noting the disappearance of most people and their replacement by wild pigs and other animals that are somehow able to survive in what is still a dangerously radioactive area.
There are a few people left in the zone, mostly older people who were unable to come to terms with the places to which they were evacuated. There aren’t so many of these people, Sirota said, with only 34 in the village of Teremtsy and a total of about 270 for the exclusion zone as a whole.
Sirota gave his interview both to attract attention to the center he heads and a new book his organization has just published about the disaster. The center was established was set up in 2006 in order to press the Ukrainian government to turn Pripyat into a museum city. But up to now, he said, the idea is “nothing more than a beautiful metaphor.”
The book on “The Pripyat Syndrome,” has been in the works for 15years, Sirota said. It describes the lives and in many cases deaths of the residents of Pripyat. It was released on the anniversary of the accident two days ago. And the activist said that he very much hopes that “it will find its reader.”
As to the future of Pripyat itself, Sirota said there are only two possibilities. “The first and the simplest is to leave everything as it is, to await its destruction and then forgetfulness. The second, more difficult and expensive, is to preserve this city as a reminder that no one is ensured against the repetition of such a nightmare wherever he may live.
Vienna, April 28 – Twenty-three years ago, the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history occurred at Chernobyl, a disaster that devastated the region, forced Mikhail Gorbachev to launch his glasnost program, and continues to claim pre-mature deaths among those exposed to the massive release of radiation.
And this year, as on every April 26th since that time, the victims, their families and activists of various kinds paused to take part in memorial services and demonstrations in the three countries most affected, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation, and to bemoan the fact that while many people around the world recall the accident, they are forgetting its victims.
But in what is likely to strike many as an equally disturbing development, some people are now trying to profit from that disaster by organizing tours to the Chernobyl zone, from which radioactive contamination has driven the population, and by including references to the 1986 disaster in video games.
In an interview posted online today, Aleksandr Sirota, the head of the Internet-based Pripyat.com Center, said that in the pursuit of profit, tour firms in Ukraine are now offering to take people into the “zone” without any knowledge of the rules governing such visits or the risks that visitors still face there (www.ia-centr.ru/publications/4542/).
“In certain cases,” he added, “such ‘businessmen’ … simply disappear after they have collected money from those who want to go there.” But such activities have the effect of detracting attention from the fact that “the Chernobyl zone is not an amusement park” and that those who are thinking about going there need to ask themselves why they are doing it.
Such operators are not the only people who are seeking to profit from the disaster. As the interviewer pointed out, “the very popular computer game ‘Stalker’” has part of the action take place in the Chernobyl zone, something that likely is offensive to many of the victims of the nuclear accident.
Sirota, for his part, was ambivalent about that. On the one hand, he clearly indicated that he understands why some might be upset by that reminder of a tragedy in their pasts. But on the other, he asked, “what can be the harm from this game?” Almost all computer games “are based on real or imagined events.”
And there is at least one positive result from such games: “A large number of young people find out about the town of Pripyat and Chernobyl precisely from ‘Stalker.’” If they did not play that game, it is entirely possible, Sirota said, that they would not know anything about the accident at all.
The activist, who lived through the disaster as a 10-year-old child, said that at the time, the forced evacuation of the population seemed “like an attractive game, only with real military helicopters flying lower over the roofs of the houses, … with an unending line of buses carrying us and all the residents of the town ‘for three days’ into the unknown.”
“We did not know or understand then,” Sirota said, “that we were leaving out town forever.”
Sirota said he made his first return to his native Pripyat only eight years later, and it was at that time that he “finally understand” when, by making this “unique jump into the past, into childhood,” he came to recognize that as a result of the Chernobyl accident, there could be no going back not only anytime soon but ever.
That experience prompted him to become an activist, and he has made a number of visits to the exclusion zone since that time, noting the disappearance of most people and their replacement by wild pigs and other animals that are somehow able to survive in what is still a dangerously radioactive area.
There are a few people left in the zone, mostly older people who were unable to come to terms with the places to which they were evacuated. There aren’t so many of these people, Sirota said, with only 34 in the village of Teremtsy and a total of about 270 for the exclusion zone as a whole.
Sirota gave his interview both to attract attention to the center he heads and a new book his organization has just published about the disaster. The center was established was set up in 2006 in order to press the Ukrainian government to turn Pripyat into a museum city. But up to now, he said, the idea is “nothing more than a beautiful metaphor.”
The book on “The Pripyat Syndrome,” has been in the works for 15years, Sirota said. It describes the lives and in many cases deaths of the residents of Pripyat. It was released on the anniversary of the accident two days ago. And the activist said that he very much hopes that “it will find its reader.”
As to the future of Pripyat itself, Sirota said there are only two possibilities. “The first and the simplest is to leave everything as it is, to await its destruction and then forgetfulness. The second, more difficult and expensive, is to preserve this city as a reminder that no one is ensured against the repetition of such a nightmare wherever he may live.
Window on Eurasia: Lenin Should Be Celebrated as Founder of the Russian Federation, Ufa Scholar Says
Paul Goble
Vienna, April 28 – Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik leader who seized power in Russia in 1917 has been praised and condemned for many things, but now a Bashkir scholar has celebrated him for a role few have yet acknowledged: Lenin, Rustem Vakhitov argues, deserves recognition and honor for his role as the founder of the Russian Federation.
In a 4,000-word essay posted online this week, Vakhitov, an Ufa-based academic who writes frequently on contemporary affairs, saysthat that Lenin’s importance for Russians today lies in his role as the creator of the Russian Federated Soviet Socialist Republic, the predecessor of the Russian Federation (contrtv.ru/common/3111/).
Arguing that “the cult of Lenin” in Soviet times was not only something the man himself did not want but also has gotten in the way of focusing on what Lenin actually did, Vakhitov says that the best way to begin is by asking the question: “When did the state by the name of the Russian Federation in which we live arise?”
“Many people consider that this took place in 1991 after the collapse of the USSR, but this is not true,” Vakhitov insists, adding that in fact “on December 25, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR passed legislation according to which the RSFSR was renamed [Vakhitov’s italics] as the Russian Federation.”
In support of that contention, the Ufa scholar notes that the law began with the following words: “The Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR affirms: 1. The State the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) from now on will be called the Russian Federation (RF),” as it is known to this day.
What that means, Vakhitov continues, is that in 1991, the RSFSR simply changed its name, out of which were eliminated the words ‘soviet’ and ‘socialist’ as an indication that the Russian Republic had changed its political system and state ideology.” “But,” he continues, “no new state arose as a result.”
The country “retained all the territories and borders of the RSFSR, all its industrial and economic potential, its armed forces, its interior ministry, its special forces and even its political leadership since RSFSR President B.N. Yeltsin, elected according to the laws of the RSFSR was simply transformed into the RF president with all the powers he had.”
Moreover, “the Constitution of the RSFSR from 1978 continued to operate on the territory of the Russian Federation until 1993.” At the same time, of course, “the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR,” as RF President Yeltsin informed the United Nations and other international organizations on the day” the RSFSR was renamed.
“The relations between the RSFSR and the RF are themselves thus a case of continuity,” Vakhitov says. No one had “disavowed” the legal act of the creation of the RSFSR unlike the legal act which created the USSR and which Yeltsin and his Ukrainian and Belarusian counterparts disavowed in Belovezhskaya in December 1991.
In this way, he says, “the Russian Federation is exactly the same state as the RSFSR but under a different name, with a different social-political and economic system, and a different state shield and hymn.” One “would like to add as well a different flag but that is not precisely so: the tricolor was established … when our country was still called the RSFSR.”
Moreover, Vakhitov continues, “the RSFSR [itself] arose on October 25 (November 7), 1917, when the Second All-Russian Congress confirmed the overthrow of the Provisional Government.” That was the moment when the Russian Federation under its current name was created, something Russians should recognize and thereby acknowledge Lenin’s key role.
“In no way,” the Ufa writer continues, is he “denying the right of citizens to express their moral assessment of the figure of V.I. Ulyanov-Lenin, his political activity, and the ideology which he professed.” But his role as the founder of the state in which they live is something that they cannot deny.
Other nations have gone through the same process in dealing with their founders, Vakhitov points out, with the French still honoring figures from the 1789 revolution as founders of modern France even while decrying the extremism and often vicious anti-clericalism of those individuals.
Indeed, the legitimacy of the French Republic depends on doing precisely that, he insists, and in like manner, the legitimacy of the Russian Federation requires respect for its founder, however much many Russians may be properly horrified by many of the crimes Lenin, the Bolsheviks and the Soviet state committed.
Russians should “respect Lenin as the creator of the USSR, the geopolitical heir of the Russian Empire,” he says. They should respect him as “a Russian patriot,” and they should respect him as “one of the creators of Russian federalism, the flexible system of administering the state which,” Vakhitov says, kept the country together after 1917.
“Let us hope,” Vakhitov concludes, “that after decades of deification and demonization, finally emotions will cool and reason will return, and Lenin will become part of our history – contradictory, bloody, but at the same time part of a great and severe history, as has been the history of any great power.”
Vienna, April 28 – Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik leader who seized power in Russia in 1917 has been praised and condemned for many things, but now a Bashkir scholar has celebrated him for a role few have yet acknowledged: Lenin, Rustem Vakhitov argues, deserves recognition and honor for his role as the founder of the Russian Federation.
In a 4,000-word essay posted online this week, Vakhitov, an Ufa-based academic who writes frequently on contemporary affairs, saysthat that Lenin’s importance for Russians today lies in his role as the creator of the Russian Federated Soviet Socialist Republic, the predecessor of the Russian Federation (contrtv.ru/common/3111/).
Arguing that “the cult of Lenin” in Soviet times was not only something the man himself did not want but also has gotten in the way of focusing on what Lenin actually did, Vakhitov says that the best way to begin is by asking the question: “When did the state by the name of the Russian Federation in which we live arise?”
“Many people consider that this took place in 1991 after the collapse of the USSR, but this is not true,” Vakhitov insists, adding that in fact “on December 25, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR passed legislation according to which the RSFSR was renamed [Vakhitov’s italics] as the Russian Federation.”
In support of that contention, the Ufa scholar notes that the law began with the following words: “The Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR affirms: 1. The State the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) from now on will be called the Russian Federation (RF),” as it is known to this day.
What that means, Vakhitov continues, is that in 1991, the RSFSR simply changed its name, out of which were eliminated the words ‘soviet’ and ‘socialist’ as an indication that the Russian Republic had changed its political system and state ideology.” “But,” he continues, “no new state arose as a result.”
The country “retained all the territories and borders of the RSFSR, all its industrial and economic potential, its armed forces, its interior ministry, its special forces and even its political leadership since RSFSR President B.N. Yeltsin, elected according to the laws of the RSFSR was simply transformed into the RF president with all the powers he had.”
Moreover, “the Constitution of the RSFSR from 1978 continued to operate on the territory of the Russian Federation until 1993.” At the same time, of course, “the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR,” as RF President Yeltsin informed the United Nations and other international organizations on the day” the RSFSR was renamed.
“The relations between the RSFSR and the RF are themselves thus a case of continuity,” Vakhitov says. No one had “disavowed” the legal act of the creation of the RSFSR unlike the legal act which created the USSR and which Yeltsin and his Ukrainian and Belarusian counterparts disavowed in Belovezhskaya in December 1991.
In this way, he says, “the Russian Federation is exactly the same state as the RSFSR but under a different name, with a different social-political and economic system, and a different state shield and hymn.” One “would like to add as well a different flag but that is not precisely so: the tricolor was established … when our country was still called the RSFSR.”
Moreover, Vakhitov continues, “the RSFSR [itself] arose on October 25 (November 7), 1917, when the Second All-Russian Congress confirmed the overthrow of the Provisional Government.” That was the moment when the Russian Federation under its current name was created, something Russians should recognize and thereby acknowledge Lenin’s key role.
“In no way,” the Ufa writer continues, is he “denying the right of citizens to express their moral assessment of the figure of V.I. Ulyanov-Lenin, his political activity, and the ideology which he professed.” But his role as the founder of the state in which they live is something that they cannot deny.
Other nations have gone through the same process in dealing with their founders, Vakhitov points out, with the French still honoring figures from the 1789 revolution as founders of modern France even while decrying the extremism and often vicious anti-clericalism of those individuals.
Indeed, the legitimacy of the French Republic depends on doing precisely that, he insists, and in like manner, the legitimacy of the Russian Federation requires respect for its founder, however much many Russians may be properly horrified by many of the crimes Lenin, the Bolsheviks and the Soviet state committed.
Russians should “respect Lenin as the creator of the USSR, the geopolitical heir of the Russian Empire,” he says. They should respect him as “a Russian patriot,” and they should respect him as “one of the creators of Russian federalism, the flexible system of administering the state which,” Vakhitov says, kept the country together after 1917.
“Let us hope,” Vakhitov concludes, “that after decades of deification and demonization, finally emotions will cool and reason will return, and Lenin will become part of our history – contradictory, bloody, but at the same time part of a great and severe history, as has been the history of any great power.”
Window on Eurasia: Conviction of Activist Who Protested Baptism of Tatar Infants Decried
Paul Goble
Vienna, April 28 – Last Friday’s conviction in a Naberezhny Chelny court of a Tatar activist who had spoken out against the baptism of Tatar infants by a Russian Orthodox priest without the permission of their parents or guardians has sparked protests from the Tatar Social Center (TOTs) as well as from human and religious rights groups elsewhere,.
On Friday, the court found TOTs leader Rafiz Kashapov guilty of provoking interethnic and inter-religious hostility (under Section 1 of Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code) for his article “No to Christianization!” in which he protested the baptism of infants of Tatar nationality, a traditionally Muslim people, and gave him a suspended sentence of 18 months
That article appeared on Kashapov’s blog shortly after a Russian Orthodox priest baptized the children on January 16th of this year without the knowledge or agreement of their parents. His article led to protests in several cities of Tatarstan, and his blog was subsequently suppressed by the authorities.
Now, following Kashapov’s conviction and protests by several rights groups, his own Tatar Social Center has issued an appeal to human rights groups, social and political organizations, and the media of Tatarstan and Russia, denouncing this action and demanding that the authorities reverse course.
But it is a measure of the extent to which the Russian government is in control of the media that the appeal has so far appeared only on other blogs – see, for example, the complete text at blogs.mail.ru/mail/hamm77/38E6454E2B52C97F.html – or on websites hosted beyond the borders of Russia -- mariuver.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/sud-kashapovym/#more-7976.
The declaration, signed by A.Sh. Zalyalutdinov, the chairman of the regional TOTs Assembly, and M.A. Shakirova, the secretary of that group, provides a remarkable portrait of the increasingly frequent misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist laws and the also increasingly frequent cases of official and especially judicial malfeasance in that country.
After outlining the history of Kashapov’s own protest, the declaration states that the investigation of his case occurred “with crude violations of the law,” including moves by officials that prevented the accused attorneys from gaining access to information gathered by the government.
The trial itself, the declaration continues, was “closely controlled by the Moscow FSB and the court was subject to strong pressure from the prosecutor.” Moreover, the court’s decision reflected only the testimony of “experts” from Moscow and Kazan because the judge refused to consider “the declarations of independent experts” that were offered by Kashapov.
Both the facts of the case and these violations of judicial procedure, the authors of the declaration say, provide the basis for considering that “the sentence of the court is both without foundation and illegal.” And they say that lawyers for the accused will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Tatarstan.
“Many human rights activists, public figures and journalists,” the declaration continues, not only in Tatarstan and Russia but in foreign countries have raised their voices in defense of Rafiz Kashapov, an important public figures who has stood up for the rights and interests of the Tatars and other peoples.”
“We express our deep gratitude to them!” the appeal concludes, especially since some of them, like Ulyanovsk journalist Sergey Kryukov, have themselves become the object of Russian government persecution as a result. Kryukov’s location at the present time, the appeal notes, is unknown.
The Kashapov case, as tragic as it is for him and for the Tatars, highlights two more widespread problems in the Russian Federation, both of which have been well-documented in recent times. On the one hand, Russian courts, as Moscow statistics show, are ever more willing to convict anyone the regime brings charges against (www.vestnikcivitas.ru/pbls/650).
And on the other, the Russian government, for all the talk about “a thaw” under Dmitry Medvedev, appears to be increasingly willing to control reporting about what is actually going on, either by taking down websites as in Kashapov’s case or directly corrupting journalists (www.russiamediamonitor.com/News.html).
In Soviet times, the Western media could be counted on to report such things, but unfortunately, their interest in doing so for whatever reason has declined. And as a result, those who do notice such abuses in Russia especially beyond Moscow’s ring road have a special obligation to try to bring them to the attention of others.
Vienna, April 28 – Last Friday’s conviction in a Naberezhny Chelny court of a Tatar activist who had spoken out against the baptism of Tatar infants by a Russian Orthodox priest without the permission of their parents or guardians has sparked protests from the Tatar Social Center (TOTs) as well as from human and religious rights groups elsewhere,.
On Friday, the court found TOTs leader Rafiz Kashapov guilty of provoking interethnic and inter-religious hostility (under Section 1 of Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code) for his article “No to Christianization!” in which he protested the baptism of infants of Tatar nationality, a traditionally Muslim people, and gave him a suspended sentence of 18 months
That article appeared on Kashapov’s blog shortly after a Russian Orthodox priest baptized the children on January 16th of this year without the knowledge or agreement of their parents. His article led to protests in several cities of Tatarstan, and his blog was subsequently suppressed by the authorities.
Now, following Kashapov’s conviction and protests by several rights groups, his own Tatar Social Center has issued an appeal to human rights groups, social and political organizations, and the media of Tatarstan and Russia, denouncing this action and demanding that the authorities reverse course.
But it is a measure of the extent to which the Russian government is in control of the media that the appeal has so far appeared only on other blogs – see, for example, the complete text at blogs.mail.ru/mail/hamm77/38E6454E2B52C97F.html – or on websites hosted beyond the borders of Russia -- mariuver.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/sud-kashapovym/#more-7976.
The declaration, signed by A.Sh. Zalyalutdinov, the chairman of the regional TOTs Assembly, and M.A. Shakirova, the secretary of that group, provides a remarkable portrait of the increasingly frequent misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist laws and the also increasingly frequent cases of official and especially judicial malfeasance in that country.
After outlining the history of Kashapov’s own protest, the declaration states that the investigation of his case occurred “with crude violations of the law,” including moves by officials that prevented the accused attorneys from gaining access to information gathered by the government.
The trial itself, the declaration continues, was “closely controlled by the Moscow FSB and the court was subject to strong pressure from the prosecutor.” Moreover, the court’s decision reflected only the testimony of “experts” from Moscow and Kazan because the judge refused to consider “the declarations of independent experts” that were offered by Kashapov.
Both the facts of the case and these violations of judicial procedure, the authors of the declaration say, provide the basis for considering that “the sentence of the court is both without foundation and illegal.” And they say that lawyers for the accused will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Tatarstan.
“Many human rights activists, public figures and journalists,” the declaration continues, not only in Tatarstan and Russia but in foreign countries have raised their voices in defense of Rafiz Kashapov, an important public figures who has stood up for the rights and interests of the Tatars and other peoples.”
“We express our deep gratitude to them!” the appeal concludes, especially since some of them, like Ulyanovsk journalist Sergey Kryukov, have themselves become the object of Russian government persecution as a result. Kryukov’s location at the present time, the appeal notes, is unknown.
The Kashapov case, as tragic as it is for him and for the Tatars, highlights two more widespread problems in the Russian Federation, both of which have been well-documented in recent times. On the one hand, Russian courts, as Moscow statistics show, are ever more willing to convict anyone the regime brings charges against (www.vestnikcivitas.ru/pbls/650).
And on the other, the Russian government, for all the talk about “a thaw” under Dmitry Medvedev, appears to be increasingly willing to control reporting about what is actually going on, either by taking down websites as in Kashapov’s case or directly corrupting journalists (www.russiamediamonitor.com/News.html).
In Soviet times, the Western media could be counted on to report such things, but unfortunately, their interest in doing so for whatever reason has declined. And as a result, those who do notice such abuses in Russia especially beyond Moscow’s ring road have a special obligation to try to bring them to the attention of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
