>One interesting part of the failed impeachment drive was the rallying by
>Zhiranovsky in defense of Yelsin and his calls for Yeltsin to declare the
>Communists illegal and disband them.
>
>This seems to be a rather major break in the red-brown opportunistic
>alliance that, while always shaky, had defined much of the opposition to
>Yeltsin's policies. Partly, this is obviously a break in ranks due to the
>weakness of Yeltsin and falling out as both sides jockey for power, but it
>seems quite significant.
>
>Any others with deeper analysis on what's been going on behind the scenes on
>this whole impeachment drive and its divisions?
Sort of supports the conspiracy theory of Zhirinovsky, though - that he's some agent provocateur from the intelligence services.
Three items from Johnson's Russia List.
Doug
----
#5 From: "Fred Weir" <fweir at glas.apc.org> Date: Sun, 16 May 1999
For the Hindustan Times
From: Fred Weir in Moscow
MOSCOW (HT May 16) -- As he has so often done in his long and stormy career at the summit of Russian politics, Boris Yeltsin confounded his enemies by walking away unscathed from a weekend effort by the Communist-led State Duma to impeach him.
"Reason prevailed. A potentially serious political crisis has been overcome," acting Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin said after parliamentarians turned down five charges of treason and other grave crimes against Mr. Yeltsin on Saturday.
The impeachment proceedings had been in preparation for almost a year and Communist leaders seemed confident that at least one of the charges -- Mr. Yeltsin's responsibility for the bloody 1994-96 war in Chechnya -- would win the required two-thirds support in the Duma.
But after votes were counted Saturday, it was clear that only 283 deputies -- well short of the 300 needed -- had backed the Chechnya indictment. The other charges fell further short of the two-thirds mark, though all won simple majorities of the Duma's 450 members.
"I don't see this as a moral defeat, because the majority of deputies voted for impeachment," Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov said. "Our conscience is clear".
However, the voting represented a stunning setback for the Duma, and for the Communists and other left-wingers who dominate it. After nearly a year of meticulously preparing the articles of impeachment and carefully lobbying for the vote, it is clear they were outmanouvered by the Kremlin.
"The impeachment results do not necessarily mean that the President is strong. He is not," says Andrei Kortunov, director of the Moscow Scientific Fund, an independent think tank. "The results just mean that the opposition to the President is even weaker than most of us expected it to be".
After making a fiery speech in the impeachment debate, ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky led his nearly 50-strong fraction out of the Duma before the voting began -- thus effectively throwing their support to Mr. Yeltsin.
Anti-Yeltsin demonstrators waiting outside the parliament wept and and screamed in rage when the voting results were announced. "Yeltsin is the devil, he has destroyed everything we loved," shouted Anya Makareyeva, an elderly protester. "Why won't he go away!"
It was the second defeat Mr. Yeltsin handed to his Duma opponents in less than a week. Last Wednesday he unexpectedly fired Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, whose left-leaning government and economic stabilization policies had enjoyed wide support among parliamentarians.
In one swoop, Mr. Yeltsin appears to have cancelled his humiliation of last Autumn, after Russia's economy imploded and he was nearly forced to resign. The President kept his job, but he was forced to swallow a compromise with the Duma and appoint Mr. Primakov as PM. Mr. Primakov, a wily bureaucratic infighter, brought Communists into his government and moved to consolidate his power base throughout the apparatus.
Mr. Yeltsin may now be set to bring back the "young liberal reformers" who were discredited by last year's financial crash. It is probably no coincidence that former deputy prime minister Anatoly Chubais, the Kremlin's master of intrigue who helped Mr. Yeltsin through many crises but was banished after last year's debacle, has claimed a role in the deposing of Mr. Primakov.
Mr. Yeltsin appointed an old Kremlin loyalist, Mr. Stepashin, who is first deputy PM and head of Russia's police forces, to replace Mr. Primakov.
Mr. Stepashin now faces a difficult task in getting the angry Duma to approve him. Under Russia's 1993 Constitution if the Duma turns down the President's nominee for PM three times, the Kremlin must dissolve parliament and rule by decree until fresh elections are held.
The Duma is now faced with the unpalatable choice: it can cave in to the victorious President, and ratify a Prime Minister chosen against parliament's will. Or it can defy the Kremlin and face dissolution and early elections. Parliamentary polls are slated for December in any case, but if the Duma were disbanded by Mr. Yeltsin, deputies would be evicted and have to face the electoral campaign without their parliamentary offices, staffs and publicity budgets.
The first of the three votes on Mr. Stepashin must be held by Wednesday of this week.
*******
#6 From: R.Thomas at open.ac.uk (Ray Thomas) Subject: RE: 3287- Impeachment Prospects Date: Fri, 14 May 1999
So the New York Times thinks that Yeltsin
'is also implausibly accused of waging a campaign of genocide against the Russian people with his economic policies. The only remotely tenable charge involves the war in Chechnya ..'
Should not NYT check the facts of the case? It is estimated that two million people, mostly of working age, died prematurely in Russia in the three year period 1992-94 alone. That is many times the whole population of Chechnya. The number of premature deaths is continuing.
Is there any case in world history where a nation has lost so many people without having suffered from a famine or a war??
Is no one to blame? Judging from a large part of the discussion on the list US advisors are to blame for disastrous economic policies. But Yeltsin has been in the position of authority. If, as it seems, he was reckless as to whether this advice would be likely to cause extensive economic and social damage then he is culpable.
Interesting that it was speculated that the Stepashin appointment heralded the introduction of a Pinochet-style government. Pinochet himself is in England under arrest pending extradition to Spain against charges of murder and torture. One of the main planks of Pinochet's defence lawyers is that heads of state are immune from all crimes committed in that role. It is good that the US constitution does not support this immunity and allows impeachment of the head of state.
So please think again, Mr Leader writer on the NYT. If lying about your love life is reasonable grounds for impeachment of a US President, surely allowing many millions of people to die through economic mismanagment can hardly be considered as 'implausible' grounds for impeachment of a Russian President.
Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University Email: r.thomas at open.ac.uk Tel: 44-1908-679081 Fax: 44-1908-550401 Post: 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY, England
*******
#7 Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 From: "Jerry F. Hough" <jhough at duke.edu> Subject: Re: 3286DJ/Russia's America Problem
Your piece was right on the money. Deterence theory starts with a state that is a hostile force. Years of debate showed the theory is very shaky in dealing with nuclear threats. Instead deterence theory should start with how to prevent dangerous people from coming to power in potentially dangerous countries. You are doing a great service in trying to widen the debate so that people will think of US security interests in Russia, not just the interests of the doctrinnaire ("arrogant" is the word the press uses in discussing the change at Treasury).
Alas, this Administration never seems to get the message. The testimony of McFaul once again expresses its position exactly. The only pro-Western forces are completely subservient both to US and IMF. Normal pro-Western politicians (e.g., Primakov and probably Luzhkov) are anti-Western. And then in the appalling statement by the president's press secretary, the only thing that matters is economic reform--defined as a Gaidar-Chubais policy. No sympathy for the Russian people and hope that living conditions will improve, no concern about American security interests.
Commentators have explained the replacement of Primakov by Yeltsin's psychological problems. No doubt, this is right. But as one reads the memoirs, it is quite clear how both the democrats and Korzhakov's have played on his paranoias about potential political competitors--and with stupid results for his interests in both directions. With his mind as confused as it is now, he must be even less able to judge the motives of those manipulating him, and thus we too must be careful about judging what is going through their minds.
No one has emphasized that Yeltsin's statement removing Primakov was quite respectful and quite accurate. He did not simply say the economy was bad. He said the fault was Primakov's neoliberal position, his excessive attention to the IMF. As readers of your newsletter know, I have never understood whether the inaction--which meant de facto an intensification of shock therapy--was a deliberate policy of Primakov's or whether it was the result of Yeltsin's insistence that the government contain both Zadornov and Masliukov. If Yeltsin has been convinced by the strength of anti-Americanism that he must change economic policy and seek other scapegoats to try to remove himself from that role, his economic words may mean more this time than usual. No sane person would ever bet on Yeltsin's words, but the resignation of Sysoev was certainly a welcome sign.
The role of Stepashin remains very murky to me. Steve Cohen was right on PPS when he said that many in Moscow think that the US was trying to engineer the removal of Primakov--and for motives they cast in the darkest of lights. Any self-respecting Russian conspiracy theorist will note that the man who went to Moscow in September 1993 to support Yeltsin's attack on the Congress in exchange for Gaidar returning to government and running a madly radical campaign in the 1993 election (well-described in Colton's and my book, Growing Pains) was named Treasury Secretary on the day Primakov was removed. The conspiracy theorist will note the talk about the Stepashin-Chubais alliance and the comments of the American press secretary and will conclude that the US is trying to engineer another coup against the Duma--or, perhaps more realistically, one by Stepashin and the police against Yeltsin to impose a Pinochet economic policy.
It is, of course, often difficult to distinguish between conspiracy theory and sound analysis. No doubt, some in Washington are musing in the way described in the previous paragraph, but most conspiracies never gain enough support to become policy and many that do are too stupid to succeed. It boggles the mind to think that anyone who seizes power in Moscow now would think it politically feasible to go against the anti-American mood so directly. But precisely because the situation is so volatile, because the promotion of Summers (and the prize to Shleifer) will be read in such conspiratorial terms in Moscow, Washington needs to exercise great care in trying to reassure Russia and work with a new government.
Nothing would be so reassuring than if Summers himself would say that he has learned something from the Russian and Asian disaster--and China's weathering of both--and thinks that a variety of models are possible in early capitalism. As Sachs has said, Russia, China, and India are alike in their size and their lack of a Roman law tradition. The obvious implication is that they must come to a market economy by different paths, and maybe Summers can draw it, if not Sachs.
Nothing is so disastrous as treating as pro-Western only those who will negotiate Milosevic's surrender and then trying to use Russia as a scapegoat for Administration failures and as a threat to hold NATO together in the face of these failures. It is sound analysis, not a conspiracy theory, to say that that idea is alive and well, but nothing will so unite Western Europe against the United States. The 21st century is not the 20th, and the adoption of the Euro has implications that few in this country have understood. We can hasten those implications--and in extremely unhealthy directions--by continuing to behave foolishly toward Russia. To repeat, you are absolutely right that our security interests need to be put foremost.