Grigory Yavlinsky

[PeterWolf]

It is too bad that Dr. Yavlinsky and the Yabloko Party will not be the dominant force in the coming Russian elections. Nevertheless, in case anyone is interested in a competent, progressive thinker in Russian politics, Dr. Yavlinsky has a few words to say. Of course, since the following address, NATO bombing in the Balkans, and the Chechen conflict have dragged the tone of dialogue back toward the Cold War.

Dr. Yavlinsky concentrates solely on NATO and America in this short talk. However, the fact that China will have the LARGEST economy on the planet early in the next century seems to me to be a modifier to the idea of a “European” Russia.

The Future of Reform in Russia: A Perspective

by Dr. Grigory Yavlinsky, Member of the Russian State Duma
Patterson, Belknap was pleased to host Dr. Grigory Yavlinsky for a second time on December 16, 1998 in a luncheon address to clients and friends at the University Club.

Dr. Yavlinsky, Head of the Yabloko Party in Russia, is an elected Member of the Russian State Duma. He is a presidential hopeful for the millenium elections. He serves as Chairman of the Board of the Center for Economic and Political Research, known as EPItsenter, a private, non-governmental research institution based in Moscow. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics and is well published internationally. The Yabloko Party which Dr. Yavlinsky founded in 1993 has steadily won seats in Parliament over the last few elections.

I am very thankful for your interest in my country. If you look through the newspapers, you read a lot of nasty things about Russia. Generally speaking, there have been two theories in the Western press about what's going on in Russia in the last ten years. From 1991-93, there was euphoria - everything in Russia is great. Russia already had democracy, a free market and everything was wonderful. Now, you see only bad things in the press - Russia is going to hell, they have no government, no budget and they're killing each other. Each of these approaches is mistaken; Russia is neither so good nor so bad as the press indicates. Russia is moving through a very difficult and painful transition. And the reason why this transition is so difficult and painful is because of the choice we made in 1990-91 for a peaceful transformation.

We started with peaceful changes, which has meant that the majority of Russia's leaders today are the same ones that were in power in the Soviet period. The same faces are in the Kremlin and White House, and thus the vision of reform is limited by the communist past. Since 1917, there has not been a single day when Russia has not been governed by a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. We have never had a Prime Minister, except for two or three months this year, who has not been a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. I am not talking about personalities; I am talking about a mind set and life experience.

Sometimes people say the President is a former member of the Politburo. But the Politburo and the pinnacle of the Communist Party was such, that if you spent 60 years reaching these epicenters of power, in the process you would change even your genes. Your children would be members at least of the Central Committee and your grandchildren would at least be members of the Communist Party. I'm joking, of course, but I want to give you a feeling for what's going on. Russian reform has been essentially flawed as it has been led by those who were inextricably linked to the old order. This is the explanation for why the reforms in Russia are so painful and incomplete. Germany and Japan, by comparison, after their national tragedies, wiped out the parties which had brought them to catastrophe and attracted new people to government. Russia did not follow this course, and that is why we have a much more difficult way ahead.

Russian reform has been essentially flawed as it has been led by those who were inextricably linked to the old order. This is the explanation for why the reforms in Russia are so painful and incomplete.

We are now in the final stage of the Yeltsin era. This is an important watershed because the 1999 and 2000 elections will provide answers to Russia's direction in the next century. Only now are we really coming to the end of the Soviet era, and not with banners, slogans, and nostrums about democracy and the like. The Yeltsin era is coming to a close, and this is the moment of truth for the country. What will be next? Russia is at a crossroads, exemplified by the contradiction between two major political forces in the country. One of these forces is surely the Communist Party of Russia, which stands for national isolation and for a very special understanding of Russian history which is dangerous for the Russian people and for the world.

The other political force is the Yabloko Party, which I represent here. This party is saying that in 25 years, Russia must be a European country. This is the call, this is the future. Such a country might not be the greatest country in the world, but it would be a country based on European values, freedom, human rights, private property, competition and a market economy. The country would have an open society and real law and order. This is what we want to bring to the Russian people. There is a real choice. And it is important to mention that in 25 years, Russia must be part of the world security system; I would like to see Russia be a part of NATO. But in both cases, in the case of being a European country and part of NATO, I am not referring to bureaucratic structures. I am talking about a political future; I am talking about a strategic direction.

It is extremely important that Russia has a common understanding with European countries and the United States regarding its future for the next 25 years in its politics, economy and security. Only if we agree about the goals can we make a plan about how to reach them. If we have no goals or any ideas about where we are going, then we will always be vulnerable to situations like August of last year. The program of my party is a program which we think can allow Russia to achieve these goals.

In conclusion, I want to say that I am looking for a new type of Russian-American relations. First, I need for such new relations to reflect a deeper and more serious understanding of Russia's economic transformation. I need the American government to understand that the Russian economy, unlike the Polish or Czech economies, was not simply damaged by central planning. The Russian economy was created by central planning and thus is a very different animal. We need grassroots reforms from the bottom up which will touch every single citizen in the country. We have to give people private ownership, access to resources, legal protection and the opportunity to take private initiative. That must be the goal of economic reforms, and not simply measuring the inflation rate. Certainly the level of inflation is important, but if we are talking about political economy, our approach must be much deeper, and must deal with issues such as Soviet monopolies and corruption.

Second, American-Russian or Russian-American relations must include a very clear vision of the future. Maybe with the vision I have explained today, relations could be with different political forces in Russia, if, of course, Europe, the United States and U.S. allies agree that such a vision is desirable.

Third, we need more candid and sincere relations with the government of the United States. Let me explain what I mean. When the war in Chechnya started, the U.S. President issued a statement declaring that, while the U.S. government did not approve of Russia's actions, the United States had itself been engaged in a civil war in the last century. Such statements undermine Russia's future. Secretary of State Albright has come to Russia and said that although NATO is expanding, it should not be viewed as a military expansion, but rather as something more akin to the expansion of an organization for children and culture. It is much better to say that the United States is expanding NATO because the Russian military is collapsing, because you are afraid of Russia's unpredictable president, because you are afraid of corrupt people in Russia's government or because Russia had a civil war that killed 100,000 people. Any of these reasons would be understandable to the Russian people. If relations between our countries can be established in this new way for a new century among new people, then I believe these developments will be in the vital interests of my country and the American people. Thank you.

Greetings PeterWolf,
You seem like a Socially and Politically aware individual. I would like to have you give me your thoughts on the following subjects:
It seems to me that getting rid of Michail
Gorbachev was a terrible mistake. He was making changes, perhaps not fast enough to please the USA, still he was making reforms.
He was loved in the West and he had a good looking wife. Naturally the USA could not stand for a leader of the EVIL CCCP who was loved in the West. In the dark of the night,
President George Bush, and Boris the Drunk,
figured out a way to get rid of Gorby, break
up the CCCP and make Boris the Drunk the leader of the new Russian Federation. President Bush gave all assurances to Boris the Drunk. Next morning Gorby was unemployed.
The way I see it, since the Russian Federation was formed, things have been going down-hill. The strategy of Divide and Exploit has been working to perfection. At the start Russia owed very little money to the West. Now- they owe Billions and Billions and have nothing to show for it. The money is sitting in the foreign bank accounts of Boris the Drunk and his Maffia friends. The oil and gas fields of Kazahkstan
Uzbegistan, Russia and other former Republics are being pumped dry by foreign companies. Once again the people get nothing. How much longer are you going to put up with this?
I do not think that I am wrong on the way I see things. I would be interested to know how you see things. Others may jump in also.

[PeterWolf]

B.U.,

Of course you are right about the exploitation of not only Russia, but the entire planet, by corporate behemoths with no enlightened moral control on their thirst for profits. This is beyond just class struggle, since it involves structures of cognition that are scientifically and aesthetically stunted.

To do justice to the above theme would require a large tome.

RE Gorbachev: In 1988 he introduced his new policies at the UN. "... human interests take precedence over the interests of any particular class; the world is becoming increasingly interdependent; there can be no victors in a nuclear war; security has to be based increasingly on political rather than military instruments; and security must be mutual, especially in the context of US-Soviet relations, since if one side is insecure it will only make the other side insecure too." These policies reject Marxism-Leninism in its pursuit to displace the capitalist world.

Logically, Gorbachev has ended up in the directorship of a major global environmental organization. His own career aims were always taking him into an expansive viewpoint. Economically speaking, Gorbachev's miscalculation in former USSR was in his removal so quickly of the centralization of the economy. He removed this and did not have a market system for its replacement.

In the ensuing economical vacuum, people after being oppressed for so long were unwilling to wait for Gorbachev's gradual, methodical reforms. They insisted on immediate, visible relief. Local politicians claimed they could bring the benefits of reform to the people faster and thereby gained support among the people, signalling the downfall of the central government. The individual republics then no longer had any need to follow directives of the central government in Moscow.

The Soviet Union did depend on their foreign enemy and their military to remain in power. Their ideology rested on the belief that war was inevitable and therefore one must be prepared. Perhaps you give too much credit to Bush and Yeltsin for a stream of events that Marx himself would perceive in a much more impersonal way. The communist regime was an artificial rigidity imposed from above and devoid of internal supports.

Russian culture is very logocentric, much more inclined to go into great depth about political issues than America. I expect Russia to come up with lots of interesting innovations. Gorbachev's present interest in international environmental law could be very applicable to Russia's most pressing problems.

[Bernikov11]

Peterwolf-

As an American with a lot of Russian heritage, I too am quite concerned as to the course Russia will take in the future. I just want to say that I hope things work out for you guys over there. If the party you represent gains a significant foothold in the government over there, then i'm sure things will get better. As for Russian/American relations........I certainly hope that things work out with that too. It seems that a lot of youth in America today are either indifferent to Russia or have an ignorant bias towards it based on no evidence. But besides that I feel that things will work out as far as foriegn relations go. Best of luck for you guys in Russia in this new century!

Justin

[Kremlin]

An european Russia? are you nuts! You´re only thinking in the little circle of nations that concentrate money and power. Will Russia at last be the mediocre occidntal nation that USA wants to make? Another slave of chapitalism like Europe or Japan? They have money but no power. And the large list opf countries that have nothing? What willl be of us if we don´t have any hope? Will Russia transform into another opressor? The whole nations MUST be equal and unite. You´re thinking in the future of one nation, not of all the world. That´s the only future of human race. Not a centralized comunism or an absurd chapitalism. A true world.

[joydiver]

The second response sounds more like a fairy tale in a Russian folk style.
Kremlin, what is TRUE WORLD? Your description is very vague to put it mildly.
Yavlinsky speech sounds intelligent and honest, not like "demagogia". The only problem - WHY HIS PARTY CAN'T GET ENOUGH VOTES FROM RUSSIAN PEOPLE? I would love to know the answer, the only explanation i could find is that he's got too many references to the US in his speeches(NATO, for example). Unfortunately, Russians, my wonderful mnogostradal'nye people, didn't learn to trust anybody, especially the US, a former cold war enemy, and a loud condemner of the current Russian policies. I think Yavlinsky should be more subtle about it.