1Reviews and everything / Oligarchy - Hard Talk
.docAlex Kvartalny @ flamedragon27.blogspot.com
Group 501
An Analytical Review of the Programme HARDtalk with Bob Amsterdam – Oligarchy
According to Wikipedia, an oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγος olígos) and "rule" (ἀρχή arkhē). Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. Some city-states from ancient Greece were oligarchies. The combination of the words plutocracy and oligarchy make the word plutarchy.
It is worth mentioning some facts about the presenter. Tim Sebastian is a television journalist and was the presenter of BBC's HARDtalk. Sebastian was stated by his BBC employer to be a rigorous and skilful interviewer, and the seven years that he spent at HARDtalk were described by the BBC accordingly. Sebastian is the author of eight novels and two non-fiction books. In 1982 Tim was awarded the British Academy of Film and Television Arts Richard Dimbleby Award and was named Television Journalist of the Year by the Royal Television Society. Additionally he has twice won the Royal Television Society's Interviewer of the Year Award for his HARDtalk interviews.
The arrest last October of Russia’s richest man, Michail Khodorkovsky, provoked mixed feelings. There was outrage, along with cries of a political witch-hunt, from his supporters, with lukewarm expressions of concern from Europe and the United States. Many Russians were already antagonistic towards the oligarchs before the allegations of tax evasion and corruption. Tim Sebastian interviews Bob Amsterdam, one of Michail Khodorkovsky’s lawyers, about the case. During the programme Tim Sebastian asked most poignant questions about the Russian oligarch Khodorkovski, his activities, his present condition and others.
Sebastian started the program with the question “Is Khodorkovsky a political prisoner, or a high-state gambler, who ran out of luck?” The guest of the show Robert Amsterdam – a lawyer of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – tried to delve deep into the incident. The debate on the topic started immediately, almost without introduction. The host started to ask his questions and the guest answered them in an active way. The lawyer sounded grounded and well prepared in his arguments.
Bob Amsterdam defined Khodorkovsky as a fabulous patriot of his country, a genius and, certainly, not the one to be imprisoned. Sebastian argued the point of view that Mikhail knew what was right and what was wrong and what he was doing, meaning such crimes of Mr. Khodorkovsky as tax evasion, embezzlement, etc. The presenter did not side with Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The lawyer then asked why Khodorkovsky was the only one to be charged, while there are a lot of other oligarchs. He regarded it to be a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Tim Sebastian described his opinion of the oligarch saying that Mikhail used to be a model Soviet citizen, a member of Komsomol. He insisted that Khodorkovsky knew that his actions were a breach of the law imposed by the Russian government.
Then Sebastian touched upon the topic of privatization and Mr. Amsterdam suggested they should analyze other politicians’ activities in that sphere to see that no one was an “angel”. At the same time, Mr. Amsterdam stated that the prosecution of Khodorkovsky is political in its character and has nothing to do with the events of the early 90s. Amsterdam said that they simply tried to get rid of the main president’s rival on the election by putting him into prison. Khodorkovsky’s lawyer gave examples of harassment of lawyers.
But how did the oligarch describe himself? He once said that he did not set himself as a shiny example, nor has he ever said he was a model citizen, he admits that he’s done some pretty questionable things in his early career. “Not everything was ethical, this is not something for me to be proud of. There were tough times, and the way we dealt with minority shareholders was not ethical. I did some pretty lousy things that wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny”. Bob Amsterdam argues that Mikhail Khodorkhovski needs a fair and open trial. The subtext is that the prosecution is not political, but for the oligarch and his lawyers, there is no doubt it is, and the reasons behind this prosecution relate to nothing about the early 90s – they relate to the political issues of today in Russia.
Tim Sebastian quotes Vladimir Putin’s words that “there are people that within 6 years made billions of dollars. There’s no Western country where this would have been possible. Having made those billions, they are now spending tens of hundreds of millions to save those fortunes; they spend it on lawyers, PR-firms, and politicians.” He decided to turn the blind eye open to the things that went on in the heady days of privatisation.
According to Bob Amsterdam, the oligarch was put on trial because, basically, Khodorkovski pushed Russia to be transparent; he got involved pushing in the Duma against production sharing agreement that would not allow politicians to put money for oil in their pockets. This was about trying to push an oil pipeline to China to benefit Russia and not allow the FSB to line their pockets with money going to the transaction. This is about his support for “Yabloko”, his fighting against the attack of Mr. Putin of the independent media. It is not justifiable that there is no independent media outside a handful of deprived radio stations and newspapers. They just decided to take the one major opponent of Putin, put him in jail during the election. It was Russia that on trial, not Khodorkovski.
Mr. Amsterdam strongly supports the view that Mr. Khodorkovski deserves bail under the Russian legal system because he is illegally in jail. There’s no reason for him to be incarcerated, as there is no reason for lawyers to be harassed by the procurers. He gave examples of harassment of lawyers, saying that Tatsiana Akimtseva and Mr. Lebedev were treated badly even with threat to their health. The FSB secret police, who shouldn’t be involved in normal investigations, went into the attorney’s office, ran the office without a search warrant, took documents critical to the defense and removed them. Bob Amsterdam is very critical about the FSB actions because in 1996 Russia agreed as part of its entry into the Council of Europe that the FSB would stop running penitentiaries and stop getting involved in prosecution. They have breached those laws, the lawyer thinks.
Perhaps there was a conspiracy of silence among Western leaders, the presenter reasonably suggests. Mr Amsterdam is absolutely positive about it and continues that the major problem is the lack of rule of law, lack of independence with the judiciary. He makes casual mention of a term called “Basmanny justice”, the justice of closed hearings of Basmanny court in Moscow.
As for applying Western standards and ethics to the case, the presenter says that when Khodorkovski was making his own billions, he didn’t play by the Western rules. He made up his own rules and it would be unfair to accuse somebody of behaving the same way. Bob Amsterdam argues that Russian authorities are not breaking the western rules, they are breaching their own code of criminal procedure, their own obligations.
Tim Sebastian touches upon the deal between Putin and oligarchs, which was widely reported about in 2000. The deal was that the rich men could keep their money, but they stay out of politics, this was a kind of a historic compromise “keep your money, but play by my rules”. The presenter asks why Khodorkovski violated this deal. But Mr. Amsterdam says that the deal was related with media assets of certain oligarchs, and these assets were not to be deployed to make the playing field uneven, and no one was going to give up civil and political rights – a deal in this meaning violates any sense of fair play.
The lawyer points out that Khodorkovski didn’t have political ambition and was not going to run for the presidency. As for putting his own money into political parties, Yabloko, for instance, it was about fighting against the attack of Mr. Putin of the independent media. It is not justifiable that there is no independent media outside a handful of deprived radio stations and newspapers. He wanted real reforms to take place.
Mr. Amsterdam believes that the oligarch is the greatest philanthropist and urges everyone to bear in mind Khodorkovsky’s investments in schools and universities. The oligarch was not a ruthless businessman who had sailed close to the wind and crossed the line, but he is a man, who still believes in Russia. He assured that Mr. Khodorkovsky is a man of principle.
The business community didn’t support Mikhail Khodorkovsky ralling around him though his arrest is a big threat to business in Russia because there’s a totally nontransparent society, where proximity to the Kremlin is the only thing that counts, suggests Bob Amsterdam. That is the reason for the situation. For instance, when Lukoil made a statement that it will no longer even try to reduce taxes Putin rewarded them. In a Western country, the board would be thrown out immediately. Khodorkovski was trying to change it, so that proximity to the Kremlin would not automatically mean power. For Amsterdam, this is why Khodorkovski was now being in jail.
As far as the reasons behind the fact that the majority of the Russian people did not support him are concerned, Bob Amsterdam says that in a country with a state-controlled media, you can make almost everyone unpopular. Secret hearings in courts create the atmosphere of Stalin’s times. This situation is untenable for the country that is supposed to be Europe’s partner in the common area of justice. The Russian authorities are making attempt all the time to criminalize the opposition; they’re piling new charges all the time. The conditions in pre-trial detention don’t meet international requirements – there should not be 4 people in a cell. Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s case is emblematic of the gross violation and deterioration of the law.
At the end of the programme Bob Amsterdam expresses his doubts that the trial will be free and fair. He rails at the prosecutors acting in a manner that departs from the rules of law. According to him, the conduct of prosecution in Russia is illegal; defense lawyers are attacked, documents are seized illegally, people are put to the point of death and tortured. Khodorkovski’s lawyer thinks that one of the last ways to stop this farce is to resort to the International Court in Strasburg.
Speaking about the aftermath of the arrest, the following should be said: Khodorkovsky's arrest alarmed foreign investors and policymakers alike. nitially news of Khodorkovsky's arrest had a significant effect on the share price of Yukos. The Moscow stock market was closed for the first time ever for an hour in order to assure stable trading as prices collapsed. Russia's currency, the ruble, was also hit as some foreign investors questioned the stability of the Russian market. Media reaction in Moscow was almost universally negative in blanket coverage, some of the more enthusiastic pro-business press discussed the end of capitalism, while even the government-owned press criticised the "absurd" method of Khodorkovsky's arrest. A week after the arrest, the Prosecutor-General froze Khodorkovsky's shares in Yukos to prevent Khodorkovsky from selling his shares although he retains all his rights to vote the shares and to receive dividends. On August 22, 2008, he was denied parole by Judge Igor Faliliyev, at the Ingodinsky regional court in Chita, Siberia. The basis for this was in part because Khodorkovsky "refused to attend jail sewing classes". On March 31 2009, a new trial of Khodorkovsky began in Moscow for fresh charges on embezzlement and money laundering. The man faces up to 22 more years in prison. Khodorkovsky pleaded non guilty and denounces vague accusations.
So both the parties expressed their views and opinions and the question asked at the beginning of the programme “Is Khodorkovsky a political prisoner, or a high-state gambler, who ran out of luck?” was exhaustively supported by Bob Amsterdam and Tim Sebastian. On the one hand, Mikhail Khodorkovsky can be viewed by many international journalists, politicians and businessmen – both in Russia and internationally – as a political prisoner who did his best to create a better Russia, make the life of its people better with all the money he had. On the other hand, the oligarch is frown upon both by the government and a vast number of the Russians as the person who had stolen the money from the poor and was rightfully prosecuted and the money taken from him served the good purpose of helping those who needed them most.
As for my personal attitude towards the problem I am convinced that both sides had violated the law. Russia is still on its way to creating civil society. There is still a lot of work to be done. While listening to some of the BBC reports I could not help hearing how corrupt the Russian government is, that there is no freedom of speech – those journalists who advocate it get murdered as a rule, take Politkovskaya for instance. Many cases when the international law was breached have been reported as well. It still remains unclear how long it will take for Russia to become a democratic country, if ever. But as long as there are people who consider the welfare of their neighbours as important as their welfare, who make their contributions to peace, stability and security, Russia has hope. Whether Mikhail Khodorkovsky was one of such people is still not known. But as the saying goes, let us hope for the best. And get ready for the worst. We shall see.