One of America's more insightful and candid analysts of Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian affairs is Ethan S. Burger (pictured), a Scholar-in-Residence at American University's School of International Service and an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Burger has in excess of 50 published works, taught classes concerning Russian law and politics as well as international economic crime and corruption. He has given presentations at the Kennan Institute, Harvard University's Davis Center, the International Monetary Fund, the Institute for State & Law, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the World Bank, and other institutions concerning a range of topics such as corruption in the Russian judiciary, the consequences of the break-up of the Soviet Union for global security, the "Sovietization" of contemporary Russia, and U.S. policy towards Belarus. His writings reflect his practical work experience in the region with a deep understanding of its history and politics. La Russophobe is honored to publish the following original essay from Professor Burger, who provided LR with contributory analysis for her post about the recent condemnation of Russia's human rights record by the U.S. Department of State, including our link to the DOS publication (and who has contributed previously to the blog in the form of a brilliant essay about Anna Politkovskaya).

In various fora, Professor Burger has sought to promote thoughtful discussion over the DOS report, asking one simple question of the Russophiles: Can you identify any factual errors in the DOS Report, and if so can you document your contention(s)? La Russophobe would like to facilitate his efforts, which he plans to use as the basis for an article about the state of human rights conditions in Russia.

Letters, we get letters, we get lots of cards and letters every day!

La Russophobe has received and is pleased to publish the following letter from reader/contributor Professor Ethan Burger of Georgetown University regarding her recent post about Peter Lavelle (look for another installment from Professor Burger, this time regarding corruption in the Russian arbitrazh courts, in the coming days):

Greetings:

I think La Russophobe has been unfair to Peter Lavelle as some of the comments to the piece about him. It is one thing to attack one's views, it is quite another to attack a person. He has been willing to publish views inconsistent with his own. He views force those who disagree with him to be more intellectually vigorous.

We are all products of our experience, for example, when Jerry Hough was hired to update Merle Fainsod's "How Russia is Ruled" he produced "How the Soviet Union is Governed." Hough, unlike the emigres and middle class academics who dominated Soviet studies, grew up in a lower-income household. His critique of Soviet Society was unique.He recognized the importance of interest group politics and put the Totalitarian Model. Although I do not share all of Mr. Hough's views his writings at least triggered debate in what had been a stale field.

Peter has shown the courage to publish on-line two items I wrote on, when the mainstream press would not raise questions as to President Yushchenko's first Prime Minister (Yulia Timoshenko) who I regard as at best morally challenged. He also co-authored one piece that supported political change to make the country a more democratic state. I do get annoyed when some of his discussion groups pro-Putin agitprop-types make unsubstantiated statements, but they should ignored or shown to be wrong. We must not lose sight of the fact that former Italian Berlusconi and Jacque Chirac may have been engaged in corrupt activities, that the western press with certain exceptions are not independent, and it is no crime for a country to pursue its foreign policy interests. Finally, I have found some of Peter's commentaries insightful. He is a contrarian who enjoys going against the convention wisdom, but he has sought to maintain a level civility in his discussion group.

Sincerely,

Ethan S. Burger

Dear Professor Burger:

Thank you for your comments about our post Mr. Peter Lavelle. We certainly agree that if he has had the good judgment to publish your thoughtful and scholarly analysis of the Russian question, then he can't be all bad.

However, we must question the depth of his commitment to publishing "views inconsistent with his own." If you think it is a profound one, we suggest you write something praising this blog, submit it to him for publication and see what happens. As an aside, we assume you are not suggesting that Mr. Lavelle disagreed with your views on Yulia Timoshenko, a leading Russophobe in the Ukraine. To the contrary, we believe that Mr. Lavelle, a hard-core Russophile from way back (as we understand it, he's now employed by government-owned propaganda mouthpiece Russia Today), would have been only too delighted to publish any material criticizing her and therefore undermining the Ukraine's efforts to free itself from the yoke of Russian oppression. We might also mention, just for the record, our view that though Ms. Timoshenko may very well be tainted by various types of corruption, its hardly likely that she's as dirty as convicted criminal Victor Yanukovich, her Russophile adversary for control over the future of the Ukraine. As between the two, we'd take Yulia in a heartbeat.

We heartily agree with your observation that personal abuse should be avoided. That's why we found it particularly offensive to be the target of unprovoked recent personal abuse from Mr. Lavelle, someone we haven't said a word about for months and have mentioned only once in our whole history, and several of his readers in a e-mail communication to which we were not even made privy. We trust you will express your displeasure at Mr. Lavelle's unfair and inaccurate comments about this blog, which has also had the good judgment to publish your writings, to him. We look forward to reading it when he publishes it on his venue (that is, if he still has one).

More important than the issue of personal abuse, however, is the question of accuracy. Quite simply, Mr. Lavelle was lying (or experiencing a fit of delusional egomania) when he claimed to be a "favorite target" of this blog. What's more, only an utter fool could think he could get away with making such statements about this blog without receiving the type of response we provided, so if Mr. Lavelle is half as clever as you suggest he knew full well what he was letting himself in for. The statements of Mr. Lavelle's correspondent about David McDuff were still more outrageous and lacking in factual basis. Part of the reason for our existence is to impose a stiff sanction on those who enter the blogosphere making statements as factually irresponsible as those offered by Mr. Lavelle's little clique. Such people must know that a permanent web page will be created documenting their nefarious deeds that will follow them to the end of their days.

Don't get us wrong. We'd be the last ones in the world to disdain free thinkers and contrarians, and we generally ignore Mr. Lavelle because he's such an insignificant little flyspeck where the blogosphere (or anything else for that matter) is concerned (and besides, he's almost indescribably boring). In fact, the only reason we mentioned him is that he mentioned us first. But we don't think Mr. Lavelle fairly reports on what's going in in Russia today. We think he minimizes or ignores the bad and maximizes or fabricates the good, and we think that helps push Russia down the road to destruction (however marginally). Therefore, we can't stand him. If he's associating with Russia Today, that's beneath contempt. Maybe, we feel, his publishing occasional criticism of Russia is just a way of sugarcoating his propaganda for the unwary (that is, if he's really doing it, and we're not aware of any such publications). Mr. Lavelle may well think this blog maximizes the bad and minimizes the good, and thereby harms Russia. He has the right to his opinion, but he doesn't have the right to tell outrageous lies about us, and if he does he'll receive our censure in the strongest terms we can enunciate. If he can't stand the heat, he should stay out of our kitchen.

Sincerely yours,

La Russophobe

Professor Ethan S. Burger (pictured, left) of the Georgetown Law Center and American University had an article in the Christian Science Monitor on October 12th analyzing the Politkovskaya murder. La Russophobe is pleased to reprint the article below, followed by the Russian version that appeared on the web. Professor Burger writes to tell us that "While I did not receive a single e-mail message when the OP-ED appeared in the newspaper, when the Russian version appeared on the web, I received in excess of 200 e-mail messages -- almost exclusively from Eastern Ukraine and Belarus."

Needless to say, the situation Professor Burger describes is a moral outrage of the first magnitude, proof positive that those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it. How CAN Belarus and Ukraine show more interest in the contract killing of Russia's most important journalist, in all likelihood at the order of the Kremlin, than those in the United States and Russia itself? How CAN the world possibly expect to avoid the degeneration of the Russia situation into a new Cold War, or possibly worse, followed by a massive human rights crisis that will make Africa look like a 4-H project, if it cannot even manage to muster interest in events of this kind that exceeds Ukraine and Belarus?

La Russophobe is hard-pressed to decide whether it is more outrageous that the Kremlin would execute Anna or that the West -- and worst of all the Russian people -- would turn a blind eye to it. We have been sounding a warning since April, long before Anna stepped in front of that bullet, that an urgent situation is present in Russia, and we are not alone. But just as was the case with the Bolshevik Revolution, too many people are prepared to sit on the sidelines with their fingers crossed. What was done by the West to publish Politkovskaya, and protect her, while she was alive? Precious little. And now? Even less.

How many deaths will it take til we know that too many people have died? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in wind.

ENGLISH

The Price of Russia's "Dictatorship of Law"

The contract-style killing of Novaya Gazeta correspondent Anna Politkovskaya this past weekend has caused shock and outrage in the human rights and journalistic communities in Russia and abroad. While thousands attended her funeral Tuesday, the Russian government was apparently represented only by a deputy minister of culture. The significance of her death can only be understood within the context of recent developments in Russia that must not be ignored by foreign political and business leaders.

Ms. Politkovskaya's assassination cannot simply be regarded as retribution for her reporting about atrocities committed by the Russian armed forces in Chechnya or her critical assessment of Russian President Vladimir Putin's policies. Rather, her murder - the 13th contract-style murder of a Russian journalist since Mr. Putin came to power in 2000, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists - is the latest example of the lawlessness in Russian society.

This state of affairs is a by-product of a conscious effort by prominent individuals representing powerful interest groups to intimidate the opponents of the political and economic order, as well as to drive foreign competition in the natural resource and financial sectors out of Russia.

Last month, Russian Central Bank Deputy Director Andrei Kozlov was murdered in Moscow. Mr. Kozlov was widely regarded as a supporter of further economic reform and opening up the country's banking sector to increased competition, including from foreign banks. Earlier this month, Enver Ziganshin, the chief engineer for the Anglo-Russian oil producer TNK-BP, was gunned down in Siberia - perhaps as a warning to BP.

Mr. Ziganshin's killing took place shortly after Russia's government jeopardized Shell's multibillion-dollar oil-development investment in the Sakhalin II fields by revoking a critical license. The Russian authorities allegedly took this step on the grounds that Shell had caused significant harm to the environment. This action has been met by a great deal of skepticism given the generally weak enforcement of Russian environmental regulations.

After becoming president six years ago, Putin promised to end the disorder of the Yeltsin era and establish a "dictatorship of law." This phrase was ambiguous then. Not so today. Given Putin's time as a KGB agent and his education as a lawyer, it's clear that he envisioned a "Bismarckian" model that would combine a rule-based society with an expanded safety net. The presumption was that Russians, raised in the communist Soviet Union, would be willing to give up civil rights in exchange for economic growth and stability in their daily lives. But Putin has largely failed to deliver as expected.

The Russian government has pursued a course of taking direct or indirect control of much of the country's natural-resource sector under the guise of law. Consider the government's heavy-handed tactics toward Mikhail Khodorovsky's Yukos oil company in recent years.

Today, those who know how Russian state policy is determined and who controls it are limited to a small group in the Kremlin. Analysts note that some 6,000 former KGB officials hold key positions in the Russian government at a time when power is increasingly centralized in Moscow.

It is not clear that Putin has the power to set policy unilaterally. He faces pressure to accommodate the interests of the siloviki - the powerful senior figures in the Federal Security Service, the military, and the Ministry of the Interior.

Two likely explanations for recent events is that either Putin has sanctioned deliberate policies, or his lame-duck status - his term is scheduled to end in 2008 - means that he no longer has the power to ensure domestic order, or set the direction for Russia's foreign policy. The latter may explain Russia's increasingly disturbing policies toward Belarus, Iran, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

Russia's direction is making many governments nervous. Private-sector attitudes are likely to change, too. Companies should think twice about making large investments in unstable countries without a well-established rule of law.

For Russia to attract both domestic and foreign investors, its legal and corporate governance must become more transparent and accountable. This will not occur without an independent press that reliably reports about conditions that affect commerce - or if the Russian government continues to intervene on behalf of its political favorites. It cannot live on energy exports alone, especially given its falling population.

If current conditions persist, only those who have good political connections with the Russian ruling elite will be willing to be active in the country's economy. In some respects, this may resemble centralized control over economic activity and political life as it was in the not-so-distant past.

Ethan S. Burger is a scholar-in-residence at American University's School of International Service and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.

RUSSIAN

Цена, которую приходится платить за российскую «диктатуру закона»
15:04, 16/10/2006, Этан Бергер, «Christian Science Monitor», (США)

Заказное убийство корреспондента "Новой газеты" Анны Политковской в конце прошлой недели вызвало потрясение и возмущение в рядах правозащитников и журналистов как в России, так и за рубежом. На ее похоронах во вторник присутствовали тысячи людей, но от российского правительства там был лишь заместитель министра культуры. Значение этого убийства можно понять лишь в контексте последних событий в России, которые не должны оставаться без внимания зарубежных политических руководителей и лидеров делового мира.

Убийство Политковской нельзя рассматривать лишь как месть за ее репортажи о злодеяниях российских военных в Чечне или за критические оценки политики президента Владимира Путина. Нет, это убийство, ставшее, по данным Комитета в защиту журналистов, тринадцатым заказным убийством российского журналиста с момента прихода к власти Путина в 2000 году, является самым свежим примером беззакония, царящего в России.

Такое состояние дел - это побочный продукт преднамеренных действий известных людей, представляющих интересы влиятельных групп, по запугиванию оппонентов существующего политического и экономического порядка, а также по выдавливанию из России иностранных конкурентов в сфере добычи полезных ископаемых и финансов.

В прошлом месяце в Москве был убит заместитель руководителя российского Центробанка Андрей Козлов. Козлова многие считали сторонником дальнейших экономических реформ и усиления конкуренции в банковском секторе страны, в том числе, и со стороны иностранных банков. В начале этого месяца в Сибири был застрелен главный инженер совместного англо-российского нефтепроизводителя ТНК-ВР Энвер Зиганшин. Возможно, это было предупреждение British Petroleum.

Убийство Зиганшина произошло вскоре после того, как российское правительство поставило под угрозу срыва многомиллиардный инвестиционный проект Shell по добыче нефти "Сахалин-2", отозвав необходимую для его осуществления лицензию. Российские власти пошли на такие меры на том основании, что Shell якобы нанес существенный ущерб окружающей среде. Эти действия были встречены с глубоким скептицизмом, поскольку в целом Россия крайне слабо требует соблюдения норм охраны окружающей среды.

Став шесть лет назад президентом, Путин пообещал положить конец беспорядкам ельцинской эпохи и создать "диктатуру закона". Тогда эта фраза звучала довольно двусмысленно. Теперь двусмысленность исчезла. С учетом того, что Путин был агентом КГБ, а по образованию является юристом, становится ясно, что он имел в виду "бисмарковскую" модель, которая сочетает в себе основанное на системе правил общество и мощную систему безопасности. Его предположения основывались на том, что воспитанные коммунистическим Советским Союзом россияне с готовностью откажутся от гражданских прав в обмен на экономический рост и стабильность в повседневной жизни. Однако Путин во многом не оправдал возложенных на него надежд.

Российское государство следует курсом установления своего прямого или опосредованного контроля над значительной частью сферы природных ресурсов страны, действуя при этом под прикрытием законности. Достаточно вспомнить силовые действия в отношении нефтяной компании Михаила Ходорковского ЮКОС, предпринятые в последние годы.

Сегодня лишь малочисленная группа в Кремле знает, как формируется политика российского государства, и кто ею управляет. Аналитики отмечают, что сегодня, когда происходит все большая централизация власти в Москве, на ключевых постах в российском правительстве находится примерно 6000 бывших руководителей из КГБ.

Не совсем ясно, обладает ли Путин возможностями для единоличного определения политического курса. Он испытывает давление со стороны силовиков - влиятельных людей из руководства ФСБ, вооруженных сил и министерства внутренних дел - и вынужден удовлетворять их интересы.

Есть два возможных объяснения последних событий. Либо Путин преднамеренно санкционировал проведение такой политики, либо в условиях, когда в 2008 году подходит к концу его второй президентский срок, он уже не обладает достаточной властью для наведения порядка внутри страны или для определения направлений российской внешней политики. Последним соображением можно объяснить вызывающую все большую тревогу политику России в отношении Беларуси, Ирана, Грузии, Молдовы и Украины.

Направление движения России вызывает нервозность во многих странах. На этом фоне вполне сможет измениться и отношение частного сектора. Компании дважды подумают о том, стоит ли вкладывать крупные инвестиции в нестабильных странах, где отсутствует твердо установившийся правопорядок.

Чтобы Россия стала привлекательной для местных и зарубежных инвесторов, ее юридическая система и корпоративное управление должны быть более прозрачными и ответственными. А этого не произойдет без независимой прессы, которая постоянно и достоверно сообщает обо всем, что влияет на коммерческую деятельность. Не произойдет этого и в том случае, если российское государство будет продолжать интервенционистский курс в интересах своих политических фаворитов. Россия не может жить лишь за счет энергетического экспорта, особенно в условиях снижения численности ее населения.

Если нынешняя ситуация сохранится, экономической деятельностью в стране готовы будут заниматься лишь те, кто обладает хорошими политическими связями с правящей элитой России. В определенной мере это будет напоминать централизованное управление экономической активностью и политической жизнью из не столь далекого прошлого страны.

Этан Бергер - научный сотрудник Школы дипломатической службы Американского университета и адъюнкт-профессор Вашингтонского юридического центра университета Джорджтауна.