|
Q: Czech woman Q; Russian man Q: Czech
man
A: Soviet political thought certainly
has its own rules. For example, I wouldn't be very surprised
if you find somewhere the idea that the advisor of the
Russian President might be Mr. Hayek and the Prime Minister,
Karl Marx. That would not be very surprising. However,
now I want to say something serious. I want you to stop
getting together with us, together with all Russian journalists
first of all, to stop thinking about what Russian life
is. I'm sick and tired of that. I'm not interested in
the actual name of someone-s advisor. This concerned the
crazy members of the politburo with a combined age of
about two hundred years old. It was clear to me why people
subsequently analysed developments in the Soviet Union
by looking at the people present, considering who was
standing on the right of a particular member of the politburo.
Now the President of Russia is a man who is younger than
me. Only by six months, but nevertheless younger than
me. So I am not interested any more in such an analysis.
I will only look at real steps. His deeds and not his
words, as one day he will say that supports democracy
and a liberal economy and maybe has a portrait in his
office of one of the most liberal economists. On the next
day he will say that anybody who has relations with former
foreigners should be punished. So let us forget about
that. Look at the level of taxes, the regulatory situation,
how big the government is, how complicated are its procedures,
whether it is possible to open your own business and protect
your business against state blackmail. This has to change.
And this will explain what our new President is going
to do. All other questions are no longer important, forget
about that.
Q: Czech man asking in English: Good
afternoon, my name is Vantiska. At one stage privatisation
was possible in this country. So, economically speaking
you made a lot of comparisons with Hungary, the Czech
Republic, and Poland. Could you please now make short
comparisons to other countries, especially those in ex-Yugoslavia
and other ex-Soviet countries, namely Ukraine and Belarus.
A: The main problem, the key problem
can be summed up as follows: we are witnessing very slow
political change in Russia, comparable with Soviet-type
leadership. Such leadership is even more evident for those
countries, which have their own problems. This is especially
true for almost all the republics of the former Soviet
Union. This is our problem. The problem was that at the
beginning of the 1990s there was no real change in the
political system. There was some change, some changing
in the wording, but no change in politics. For example,
you won-t find an independent judicial system in Belarus,
Ukraine or Russia. It is very hard to achieve kind of
economic result, you can only negotiate with your competitor
with a gun. And you cannot speak to anybody through the
law. The same happened to all major former Soviet Union
countries: this is the main problem.
Q: Czech woman
A: In Soviet terms the realities of the
Baltic states are much better now. Russia is a drug addict
in terms of oil and gas. Our economy is based on the pipe.
We have a pipe-type of economy. And this is our problem,
our big problem. Our very richness is our problem. Yes,
and Ukrainians are acting differently, they are making
hole in our pipe and also have problems. This is the way
things are done today. Now this must be all changed. This
is an inherent need.
Q: Russian man
Q: Czech man in English: I am also from
Parliament and I have to tell you that I share many of
your views on international policy. I share your evaluation
on the Kosovo war. I think you are quite right to talk
about double-faced Western policy, but I have a rather
different opinion on the Chechen war. I think that there
is an abuse of human rights on one the hand and at the
same time there is an attempt of one part of Russia to
secede. And let me tell you my worst nightmare: the disintegration
of Russia into hundreds or dozens of pieces: dozens of
so-called independent regions run by their own bosses,
who behave irresponsibly or are not responsible to anybody,
not linked to anybody and running their regions like very
authoritarian rulers. I think that the Chechen problem
is not regulated. This danger is very real: I would like
to know whether you share this view.
A: First of all, I would like to say
that I completely agree that Russia-s disintegration is
one of the main threats. This will be a never-ending tragedy
for everybody, including all of Europe. And secondly,
I want to say one thing that I feel is very important.
Russia has the longest borders with the most unstable
regions in the world. The South and south-east of Russia
are extremely unstable and dangerous places. Starting
from the south-east and going through Afghanistan, Iran,
Iraq, you have the Caucasus. The Western border is the
only safe border which my country has at the moment. That
is how life changes. Our only safe border is on the west.
The west represents the only direction where there is
no threat for my country. Maybe not from the Far East,
where Japan is, I mean the very far east. But all the
other sides present a real problem. Secondly, according
to my understanding, for some reason, for historical reasons,
and according to the polls you have made in this region,
the citizens, the people living in Chechnya, don't believe
that they are Russian citizens. You can kill them, you
can create a concentration camp there, you can take the
territory, you can push them away, but you can't make
subject them to a federation: that is impossible. In their
minds, the people don't believe that they are citizens
of the country. So that is why the main task for Moscow
is to portray the people as Russian citizens. As citizens
- human beings with human rights - and separate them from
terrorists and bandits and implement different policies
to support the people and fight the terrorists. Moscow-s
inability to do this is the main problem. They don't see
that they are different people. They don't see that the
terrorists account for about 10 percent of all the population
from the region. That's the point. And finally, there
are procedures in the Russian Constitution which would
give the separatists the right through political procedures
- normal political procedures and not through armed conflict
- to implement their ideas. I'm not going to say that
they must be isolated, I'm not going to say that they
must be killed or whatever, I'm saying they must stop
the shooting. They have to find a civilised way to implement
those ideas. And even the Russian constitution offers
such an opportunity. So there is a way. But finally I
want to add that the integrity of Russia depends 75-80%
on Moscow. This policy - the key to maintaining the integrity
of Russia - involves protecting human rights from Moscow,
for every citizen in the county. This will constitute
the main fight with feudal forces. With the regional feudal
powers and barons which are really extremely aggressive,
completely Soviet and in this sense very dangerous.
Q: Czech person asking question in English,
very quietly.
A: I'm sorry, but I couldn-t succeed
here.. I'm such from a country that we don't know how
to use that. I failed to keep it in the right time. What
about the second part of your question? About the advice
coming from the Czech Republic. I don't know anything
about that. Maybe that was secret advice to the President.
I simply don't know. Maybe you tell me the substance of
the advice and I will be happy to explain my vision. What
about the advice coming from the United States? Well it
is our business. Let me say again that everybody is entitled
to provide advice, but we must be the ones who decide.
And if we take the wrong decision, it's our problem, not
the problem of the person who gives poor advice. Maybe
he is sincere at heart, but he has been given advice that
is not applicable to Russia, especially if this advice
has been well paid. Why not give the advice free of charge?
We only want to know if this advice is good or bad. First
of all, we have to see whether the person providing this
advice is prepared to use this advice for himself. And
we are asking everybody, especially Western countries,
not to provide advice to Russia that they are not ready
to implement themselves. For example, in April 1996, the
G7 came to Moscow to tell the Russian people that we must
elect Yeltsin. I had the privilege to see almost all of
them and I always asked them, are you prepared to have
Yeltsin as a President or Chancellor of your country?
They smiled. If not, why did you give us such advice?
This is true for all other areas. So we can't rely on
advisors, we should create our own knowledge on what to
do. And we are very grateful to everybody who wants sincerely
to help us. But our reform is our own path and our task
and we have to decide on our own.
Q: Czech woman
A: We have not only illogical problems:
we have very specific problems resulting from the nuclear
issues. I mean the production of nuclear weapons, existence
of nuclear plants, and similar things. We have regions
in Russia which were damaged like Chernobyl during different
nuclear tests and this is certainly a tragedy for us.
But the state of our economy, political instability and
total - I would say utter - poverty in the country did
not enable us to make any serious progress. And so understanding
of this problem becomes more and more visible in Russia
and more and more serious. That is the only move forward
which I can note to date: the practical steps have not
been taken yet, because of the restriction on resources
and also the lack of a political will.
Q: Czech man
A: Several attempts have been made in
Russia over the past ten years to reform the health care
system. And I would say that just now the main task for
the health care system is to restore the level of health
care we had at the beginning of the 1990s. It is a pretty
desperate situation, but this is still the task. Housing
reform has been frozen owing to the lack of leadership:
you know about the situation with Yeltsin over the past
five years. Nothing materialised, there were only talks
about this issue. Q.Czech woman
A: I'll try to answer in English if you
ask me in English. Czech woman
A: First of all, I want to explain what
I was saying about solutions of the key issues. I was
speaking about the different size of the process. First
of all, I was talking about human rights.- Q; Czech woman
A: I was saying that these problems were
solved primarily thanks to protection of human rights:
there can be no doubts about that
Q: Czech woman
A: Respect for human rights is the only
way to combat poverty
A: Liberalism, like economic theory,
always exists, as part of a policy. It never exists as
a pure concept, just as pure iron never exists, in the
same way that pure liberalism never exists. Nobody knows
what pure means. According to this trend, the government
must not get very big, bureaucracy must not interfere
with many details of human life. The taxes must be low,
for example.
A: For example, I want to explain that
today liberalism offers today a real way to the future
for Russia. It is also very pragmatic
A: Why do we need a pragmatic solution?
Because it is impossible today to have government in Russia
which is not corrupt.
A: If it is impossible to create an honest
government, you always have one answer: you must deregulate
the economy, decrease taxes, let the people do something,
as there is a well-known maxim that if you have nothing
to give to the people, then give them freedom. If you
have nothing to give a person, give this person freedom
and this person will make his own decisions.
A: That is why I think that in the next
ten or twenty years liberalism would be very, very creative
in Russia, as it would offer the people an opportunity
to create the things that they need themselves. And Russian
bureaucrats and Russian power have been overly oppressive
by nature for a very long time. That is why it is essential
to reduce government pressure. So I do not favour liberalism
out of belief in liberalism as a religion. No. I consider
liberalism to be a pragmatic solution to the current Russian
situation. I want to take out of the hands of the Soviet,
former Soviet bureaucrats, the power for the people, which
would help my country move forward.
A: It is a great privilege for me to
hear that a solution to Russia-s economic problems might
change the world. So I'm not in a position to think that
Russia is dominating in this sense of the word, but when
we talk about regulation, I want to explain one more very
important thing: liberalism is very tough. Tough not from
the view that the people who cannot manage will die. That
is not liberalism. Tough in the sense that everybody has
to respect the law and financial markets need to be ruled
by law. Law is a key element of liberalism. I would add
that capitalism, which is no framed by law, is a wild
animal that is the enemy of liberalism, open society,
and freedom.
See also:
Mr. Yavlinsky’s speech on receiving award from the Liberal Institute of the Czech Republic
"For contributing to the dissemination of liberal ideas and implementation of the ideas of freedom, private property,
competition and the rule of law"
|
