I notice BTW that the Western press is already using
the murder of Klebnikov as a means of attacking the
evil press-crushing Putin -- even though K. was
pro-Putin and was almost certainly killed by somebody
connected with big business, not the Kremlin. Gee, one
might think they had an agenda or something. Have ANY
Western journalists been killed by the Russian
government they keep attacking for supposedly
assaulting their profession? (Question is rhetorical.)
No, the one guy that gets offed is the anti-oligarch
pro-Kremlin guy. Kinda makes you think.
>From the Russian newspaper Izvestia:
Izvestia
July 13, 2004
PAVEL KHLEBNIKOV'S LAST INTERVIEW
Author: Tatiana Vitebskaya
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
[Russian Forbes Chief Editor Pavel Khlebnikov gave
this interview
seven hours before his death.]
Question: You are author of The Kremlin's
Godfather [a book
about Boris Berezovsky - Izvestia]. Do you think
Berezovsky was to
be blamed for everything indeed? Has anything changed
in Russia?
Pavel Khlebnikov: Russia is at a crossroads now.
Sure,
oligarchs' clout with the federal authorities is not
what it used
to be, but monopolies survived all the same. It is
their very
existence that prevents appearance of free market
economy without
which any economic development is impossible.
Question: But something must have happened since
the 1990's.
Pavel Khlebnikov: Not that much, if you ask me.
Like before,
just a few men control a substantial part of economy.
Like before,
these men wield influence with the state policy. The
state is
supposed to establish a parity among interests of
various social
strata, but major businesses have much better lobbyist
capacities
nowadays than, say, the military or retirees.
Question: But this is what Putin has been saying
- that
oligarchs should be put to an equal distance from
decision-making
centers...
Pavel Khlebnikov: But it has never happened in
real life!
Compare Sibneft and YUKOS. Sibneft is much worse than
YUKOS in all
formal and informal charges pressed against YUKOS -
tax debts,
lack of patriotism, political interests... And yet,
Sibneft is
fine and dandy, its owners have patrons in the
Kremlin, while
YUKOS is being taken apart.
Question: When was it that one of the oligarchs
made a
mistake (Khodorkovsky) while the other (Abramovich)
behaved in a
correct manner?
Pavel Khlebnikov: I'd say that one of them is a
presidential
buddy, that's all.
Question: And the other?
Pavel Khlebnikov: And the other is just an
independent man. I
do not rule out the possibility that the prosecutor's
office was
quite within its rights to press charges against YUKOS
and against
Khodorkovsky personally. What I'm talking about is why
is the law
applied so stiffly against one oligarch and is not
applied at all
against another, the one who broke the law and went
against public
morale in an even worse manner?
Question: And yet, representatives of major
businesses are
different now from what they were like in Berezovsky'e
era.
Pavel Khlebnikov: That's the truth. This is one
of Putin's
accomplishments. A lot of business tycoons improved
their behavior
indeed. They pay taxes, invest in domestic projects,
participate
in charity campaigns. They are aware of their
responsibilities
now.
Question: These days, they fear the president
they used to
control once.
Pavel Khlebnikov: That's great. That they fear,
I mean.
Restoration of respect the state commands in society
and major
businesses is to be welcomed. Unfortunately, the state
is
currently bullying its way into another extreme. It is
meddling in
absolutely everything it thinks should be meddled in.
All too
soon, we may begin talking of another danger. Instead
of being
posed by oligarchs, is will be posed by the
bureaucratic machinery
applying the law as it sees fit.
Question: Perhaps, we just do not see the new
oligarchs who
run the country? After all, Berezovsky boasted of the
clout he
wielded with the Kremlin. Can it be that new oligarchs
know better
than that and do not advertise their influence?
Pavel Khlebnikov: Yes, Berezovsky was boastful
in this
respect, and this was his major mistake. If they
wanted to retain
their influence, major capitals should have been more
diplomatic.
All the same, I disagree with the assumption that
there are some
oligarchs in the country nowadays that run the
president the way
they or their predecessors did in the middle of the
1990's. Sure,
there are some wealthy men who are quite close to the
corridors of
power and who enjoy certain preferences and
privileges. But they
do not "control" the president. They are merely
"buddies".
Question: Who do you think belongs to this
circle?
Pavel Khlebnikov: Heads of the companies like
Gazprom,
LUKoil, Surgutneftegaz, and Severstal. They belong to
the inner
circle of buddies. There is the second echelon of
friendly
business structures as well. They are smaller in size
and the
history of their closeness to Putin stretches back
into the St.
Petersburg past.
Question: Would you say that you lost the
conflict with
Berezovsky over your book?
Pavel Khlebnikov: The book was based on the
article titled in
the similar manner, The Kremlin's Godfather. The
article itself
relied heavily on Berezovsky's own interviews. I still
remember
how he described privatization in Russia. He said that
it included
three phases. Income become private first - the asset
remains
under state control, but the income is privatized. A
number of go-
betweens are established around some company that lay
their hands
on the income because of their "personal relations"
with the
general director. The asset itself becomes private
afterwards: the
enterprise is bled dry, it is insolvent, and as such
it may be
bought for a song. In phase three, debts themselves
become
private. New owners accept responsibility for the
enterprise's
debts. This is a cynical but truthful account of how
privatization
proceeded and how Berezovsky himself operated with
regard to, say,
Aeroflot.
Question: But Berezovsky eventually collected in
court, did
he not? Forbes lost the case.
Pavel Khlebnikov: He did not, and neither did
we. The
widespread opinion that we lost is a result of the
powerful
propagandistic campaign initiated by Berezovsky
himself. As a
matter of fact, he asked for our permission to annul
his lawsuit -
and did so. We did not apologize, pay a fine, or
denounce the
article.
Question: Why do you think our oligarchs prefer
Great Britain
these days?
Pavel Khlebnikov: Because they are accepted
there. London is
the largest financial capital of Europe. Besides,
Great Britain
accepts everybody - including political dissenters -
particularly
when they bring in money.
Question: There were the rumors once that
Abramovich was
going to move into Great Britain for good...
Pavel Khlebnikov: So far as I know, Abramovich
lives mostly
in the West now, his Russian businesses practically
abandoned. The
matter of a coach for Chelsea worries him much more
than Sibneft.
Translated by A. Ignatkin
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
