“A Danger to the Safety and Security of Russia”

My theory is that it’s a convergence of her journalism becoming an irritant (perhaps by getting too close to the truth) with her past activities as “Other Russia”’s press secretary, a fairly prominent member of Maria Gaidar’s DA! movement, and one of the organizers of the MGU Sociology Department student protest (in connection with which she appeared on REN-TV), as well as participating in other opposition events. Veteran attack dog Leontiev publicly noted Morar’s Moldovan citizenship in connection with her student activism in May of last year, with the implication that her study and presence in Russia should be a “love-it-or-leave-it” kind of situation.

None of those things should justify refusing her admittance to the country, but I think they made the decision an easier one for whoever made it, especially in an atmosphere where being involved in – or even having been involved in the past in – opposition movements makes one a target. And I suppose that if you believed she had been involved in Dissenters’ Marches and the like – and that such events were threats to public order – you could have a tenuous justification under Article 27 (quoted in your post).

But the fact that her colleagues at the New Times say they have documented that their inquiry to the FSB about her case was directed to the FSB’s Economic Security Service, which is headed up by one of the people Morar’ had accused of corruption, suggests it did not have to do with her previous career as a student activist. I think it’s kind of an unfortunate way to treat a journalist, but at least now she has a piece of paper on which to base a legal protest (which is in the works, according to her). So we may be hearing more about her in the future.

Sean – and some other observers – have assumed that she is simply a conduit for leaks, but I’m not sure her journalism should be discounted so simply. Recall, for example, that the guys who broke the Watergate story were young and relatively inexperienced journos basing stories on an anonymous source (I confess that the thought about Watergate this context is not original). Even Gleb Pavlovsky admitted that she practiced journalism and not propaganda, although he assessed her journalism as “weak” and “based on rumors and information collected on the level of a note-taker.”

Also, strictly speaking, I don’t think she had the Russian equivalent of “permanent residence” (vid na zhitel’stvo), which is rather hard to acquire unless one is a black belt in the bureaucratic arts. Like all Moldovan citizens, she has the right to go to Russia without a visa (for up to 90 days at a time) and work there on the basis of a work permit (which she apparently had), and had lived in Moscow as a student and journalist for 6 years. In fact, she had applied for and was expecting to get her Russian citizenship in April of this year.

She has a blog, by the way. You can read her FAQ from when she was denied entry in December, as well as see a copy of the notice she got at the Russian Embassy in Chisinau this week. You can also watch her describe her non-admittance to Russia on video here – don’t be put off by the anchor and intro to the segment being in Romanian, she gives the interview in Russian, which sort of deflates some of the more xenophobic comments I’ve seen on Russian blogs about her being some kind of “ne-nasha.”

FWIW, New Times is widely believed to be the black PR vehicle one “siloviki” faction within the government usues against the other. This could just be conspiracy theorizing though.

It’s a rumor that may or may not be in the press — if it is I haven’t seen it, but I haven’t been looking for it either.

“permanent Russian resident”

Sean, she is not a resident. She had residence permit (разрешение на проживание и работу).

If we look at the number of people who were refused visas to enter USA – without any explanation – then Morar could come to conclusion that USA is a very weak state.

I don’t see anything wrong in this ban. She is not banned from writing whatever comes to her head (or ass). Simply free speech and free travel are different subjects.

A major unreported fact this month is that, depending on whether you follow Reporters without frontiers or the International Institute of Journos, no journalists were murdered in Russia in 2007 or one if you doubt a certain strange suicide out of a window. The Western media regularly misreports the record of Putin’s government in this area by conflating all the murders since the fall of the Soviet Union and then failing to mention that the number under Putin has fallen substantially, whilst at the same time hinting that it has risen. No one at all has mentioned the improvement last year. I wonder whether the Russian government decided that apart from the fact that she was, to them, a pain in the arse, that it would be better for everyone if she was out of harm’s way, to pre-empt a black flag or a freelance termination?

If we look at the number of people who were refused visas to enter USA – without any explanation – then Morar could come to conclusion that USA is a very weak state.

This is a common talking point in the Ru-blogosphere on this issue (and indeed on any issue – “мы плохие, а вон америкосы ещё хуже!”), and it’s even less convincing in this case than usual, because Morar’ does not need a visa to go to Russia. The situation is more like a journalist from the UK or Germany (countries with visa-free regimes with the US) who had been living legally in the US for years being turned back at the American border. There may well have been instances where this has happened, but I haven’t seen anyone actually provide examples.

FWIW, New Times is widely believed to be the black PR vehicle one “siloviki” faction within the government usues against the other.

This is a viewpoint that I’ve seen most strenuously expressed by “polittekhnolog” Pavel Danilin:

Морарь работает в сливном бачке одной из контор. Морарь писала заказушные тексты по информации, которую ей сливали заказчики.

It’s funny to see a paid liar (Danilin works for Pavlovsky’s FEP, and the most positive or charitable way to describe his work is as a “spin-doctor”) accusing someone else of being something similar. Anyway, Chris, this rumor may seem more credible because it’s not the usual shrill accusation made of opposition media outlets – that they are funded by foreigners (though I’ve seen that accusation about New Times as well – people must not think the folks who own REN-TV have enough money to set up a magazine).

In general, I’m inclined discount the various accusations leveled against New Times and Morar’, because of the involvement of people like Danilin and because I’ve noticed that the black-PR machine has been cranked up to sully Morar’s name (and yes, I think a completely unsubstantiated allegation that someone is sleeping with Belkovsky qualifies as black PR indeed!).

I wonder whether the Russian government decided that apart from the fact that she was, to them, a pain in the arse, that it would be better for everyone if she was out of harm’s way, to pre-empt a black flag or a freelance termination?

That is quite original. Even the nationalist trolls commenting in the Ru-blogosphere haven’t come up with such a charitable interpretation of events, but you get points for creativity. The FSB is full of humanitarians! And VVP is the самый человечный человек of all…

That is quite original. Even the nationalist trolls commenting in the Ru-blogosphere haven’t come up with such a charitable interpretation of events, but you get points for creativity. The FSB is full of humanitarians!

I do not think that the FSB is any more full of humanitarians than the CIA but I do think it is occasionally worth breaking out of the accepted discourse every now and then. What do you do to stop ruthless people killing rash journalists when it does not suit you to have them dead? I am sure that Putin has thought about it. The figures speak for themselves.

Actually, sarcasm aside, I do appreciate your outside-the-box originality. But I don’t think this approach could possibly be considered as a solution to the broader problem of journalists being killed for what they write. After all, most of the journalists writing in Russia are either Russian citizens (much harder to evict them from the country) or work for Western publications (ditto, though for other reasons). Morar’ was almost uniquely vulnerable to this kind of measure.

What do you do to stop ruthless people killing rash journalists when it does not suit you to have them dead? I am sure that Putin has thought about it.

Oh, I don’t know. I’ve seen commentators insist that Pu the great doesn’t know who Morar’ is (and that may be true), and his own downplaying of Politkovskaya’s significance (rather like crapping on her fresh grave, but that’s beside the point) spoke volumes.

And I’m not sure that getting rid of all potential victims is the way to cut down on crime. By this logic, one might suggest that if Putin can’t stop bank robberies, he should close all banks in Russia. Or if people are getting mugged on the street, everyone should stay at home. Maybe when they put Nikitin and Pas’ko in jail, it was to protect them from contract killings…

A simpler solution to murdered journalists might be to actually prosecute the people who have killed journalists in the past and thus demonstrate that it’s not an acceptable thing to do. Or, if you know who’s responsible but can’t prosecute them for political reasons (i.e., they are “on your team”), just tell them to stop. Maybe that’s what’s happened.

What is more troubling is that your comment seems to suggest that journalists who do their job are “rash” and should somehow expect to be targeted (though I realize I may be putting words in your mouth, I think this was implied). This is a bit like suggesting that women who wear short skirts are “asking for it.”

If we look at the number of people who were refused visas to enter USA – without any explanation – then Morar could come to conclusion that USA is a very weak state.

This is a common talking point in the Ru-blogosphere on this issue (and indeed on any issue – “мы плохие, а вон америкосы ещё хуже!”), and it’s even less convincing in this case than usual, because Morar’ does not need a visa to go to Russia. The situation is more like a journalist from the UK or Germany (countries with visa-free regimes with the US) who had been living legally in the US for years being turned back at the American border. There may well have been instances where this has happened, but I haven’t seen anyone actually provide examples.

Yes, I agree with your examples, Lyndon – although, it must be said that the US government is pretty much a big obnoxious dick to many people trying to get legitimate visa’s to visit our country. I don’t buy that it is all for security’s sake either – if that were the case we wouldn’t allow millions to walk across the border illegally (yes, I know there are domestic political considerations.) Really, our visa policies keep out more moderate and middle-class elements who are unwilling to break the rules or enter illegally, and force more desperate elements to be illegal immigrants. Those with the resources who want to do the US harm should still have very little trouble finding their way into the country. Consider the Andrew Speaker case (not that he was a terrorist, but he was quickly able to find his way back into the US, despite attempts to specifically stop him.)

US has a real reputation among Russians for rejecting visas for no apparent reason. My mother-in-law was worried sick that she would be unable to get a visa for their visit last fall because of that, and she kept herself awake at night extrapolating it to all sorts of problems in the future (unable to visit grandchildren, etc.) That being said, my in-laws were very easily able to obtain tourist visas. If they keep renewing them each year, they should be able to return here almost anytime that they wish (at least this is my understanding of their visa situation at the moment).

As an aside, I’ve heard some Russians complain about the US requirement for “biometrics” (i.e. fingerprints) for people entering the country, and that it is a turn-off for Russians to be “treated like criminals”. Therefore, the reasoning goes, they prefer Europe. I’ve had to burst the bubbles of a few of these misguided souls – Europe is requiring biometric data (likely fingerprints again) be incorporated into all passports (started with most EU states around 2005 to 2006).

What is more troubling is that your comment seems to suggest that journalists who do their job are “rash” and should somehow expect to be targeted (though I realize I may be putting words in your mouth, I think this was implied).

Yes, and this idea is culturally implanted into our heads all the time, via government and media channels. Misinformation or gray or black propaganda leads to all sorts of false conclusions about reporters or activists who bring attention to dissident causes or ideas. I could easily cite examples from the COINTELPRO era in the US and there is considerable evidence that the US government still uses story implantation in the news media to smear people, reports, or stories that they don’t like. I expect the Russian government is at least equally skilled in these techniques.

“It’s funny to see a paid liar”

You mean like the people who write for New Times? Have you ever read this thing?

Gleb Pavlovsky was mentioned a few times. He does not have the influence he once had, but when he was at his peak I have to say I was not too thrilled because of my personal impressions of him.

Sometime in 1992 (or 91), when I was living in California, I went to the Berkeley campus to get together with a Russian I met in Moscow. Pavlovsky, whom I did not know, was with her. While she was busy giving a seminar (or something along those lines), Pavlovsky and I walked around campus. He struck me as a very intelligent man with a very cynical and rather bleak view of things. In other words, it wasn’t an attitude of healthy skepticism, it was bleak cynicism.

I remember asking him one of those general questions about Russia and he sort of snorted in derision and said that Russia is destined to be an India with nuclear weapons. (Ironically, a few years later India tested its first nuclear warhead). When I asked him to clarify, he said that India is proud of its crumbling historical buildings and so-called past glory but is somehow incapable of having an effective and stable democratic government and strong economy despite having a large pool of well educated and intelligent people. He thought that this was Russia’s most likely future.

Keep in mind that this was about fifteen or sixteen years ago and I have never seen or contacted him again. Things change. You all know what’s going on in Russia, and India now is a nuclear power and there is more and more talk of a resurgent and prosperous India.

In any event, besides his Russia as India remark, what I remember most was his cynical attitude towards everything. Who knows, maybe he was going through a bad time. I know he was not getting along with our mutual acquaintance.

“It’s funny to see a paid liar”

You mean like the people who write for New Times? Have you ever read this thing?

No, I mean like someone who works for Pavlovsky’s media manipulation outfit and is proud of that fact. I cut muckraking journalists more slack than I cut people who work for the government.

Kolya, thanks for the interesting bit of background about Gleb Olegovich.

PS Wally, I agree with you generally about the problems with visa issuing – it is a huge public diplomacy problem as well as an issue of economic competitiveness when students and professionals can’t get into the US legally – and so I understand why Russians are quick to bring it up. I just don’t think it’s actually relevant to this particular situation.

“What is more troubling is that your comment seems to suggest that journalists who do their job are “rash” and should somehow expect to be targeted (though I realize I may be putting words in your mouth, I think this was implied).”

Are you not perhaps being a little naive and super correct? Journalism is not a religious practice. Of course I am saying it can be rash for a journalist to go on doing the job despite the risks. It is also be brave and sometimes but not always a public service but that is a separate issue. A close friend of mine was kidnapped in Iraq and survived the experience and was advised never to go back. To go back would be rash, if the word means anything. In Iraq you are either embedded or you risk your life – is that rash? I do not know enough about this case to judge but I can tell you an experienced journalist has a little alarm that rings in his head when he or she is on dangerous ground – yes even in the democratic West. If he ignores it he knows he does so at his real peril but that is the choice. Look up the history of Denis Robert who blew the whistle on the Clearstream Bank if you want an instance and so launched the billion pound Elf corruption case. He will not be killed but he is being wiped out by writs. Inconvenient French journalists have been killed working abroad. At home in France as elsewhere they just find they are unemployable. The difficulty for the responsible journalist is to decide what to do when to “do their job” is to risk death or financial annihilation. Equally in a highly charged political situation it is very difficult to disentangle political action and journalism.

Lyndon said: “PS… so I understand why Russians are quick to bring it up. I just don’t think it’s actually relevant to this particular situation.”

Lyndon, yo missed the point. Russia banned ust one person – Morar. USA is banning thousands. By Morar’s logic this means that USA is more weak thus banning more “potential threats”.

PS. By my logic Morar is just plain stupid. And BTW the Immigration officer has the final authority – he/she can kick you out even if you have a valid visa. Just in case if you don’t know.

Robert, perhaps I am idealizing the journalist’s role too much. Maybe I’ve seen too many movies about heroic journalists taking on the corrupt corporations. But maybe it’s just that I wasn’t precise enough in my initial statement. I’m not saying that journalists can never be irrational and should always do whatever it takes to get the story. I’d like to believe that people sometimes take stupid risks in the service of what they regard as the higher value of the truth; but clearly there are also times when people just take stupid risks because they have made a stupid decision.

However, just as obviously, some journalists realize they are taking risks and report the story anyway. This may make them “rash,” or non-risk-averse, in your eyes, but perhaps they value their safety less or are more dedicated to or obsessed with getting the story. Whatever the case, I don’t think it means they deserve to be persecuted in an extralegal manner.

Of course anyone who decides to write about certain subjects – organized crime, for example – should realize that they are taking a risk and act accordingly, and sometimes journalists are reckless in ways that get them killed. But should the workings of government really be such a no-go area for reporters? Or is it just that in today’s Russia those workings are similar to the operations of an organized criminal structure?

Anyway, what bothered me was that it sounded like you were saying that, if a journalist, weighing the risks, still decides to speak truth to power (I know, what an insanely idealistic idea!) or expose corruption, then that person deserves whatever they get – i.e., if they are stupid enough to risk their safety by doing their job of informing the public, then whatever happens to them, even if it’s at the hands of the government (as opposed to catching a stray bullet in a war zone, falling into a stream of lava while covering an erupting volcano, or becoming the victim of a mob hit, though of course I don’t think journalists “deserve” those things either), is entirely their own fault. In the case of genuinely stupid risks with predictably catastrophic outcomes (e.g., taking a stroll across the front lines in an active conflict just to see what happens), I can almost agree with you. But in the situation we’re discussing, I can’t decide which is more troubling – your suggestion that journalists working in Russia should assume that writing things critical of the government will get them in career-ending trouble; or the fact that it seems we are moving toward a situation where that might be the case.

By the way, the examples you provide are telling. Yes, I imagine that upon getting out of a wartime kidnapping situation one might decide not to go back, and prudent people might advise one not to go back. Are you suggesting that writing about political intrigue and corruption in Moscow is now as dangerous as being a war correspondent?

Also, you talk of a journalist being “wiped out by writs.” Obviously journalists have to obey the law and are subject to civil suit. That usually involves a public proceeding before an impartial judge, where evidence is weighed, etc. The situation we’re talking about here is one where a journalist’s career has been essentially derailed without any charge or evidence that she violated any law, and without her getting a hearing in court.

Since legal systems can sometimes be gamed by corporations with lots of money, I have no doubt that some journalists (presumably in countries with stricter libel laws than the US has) are unjustly dragged into court. But I don’t think the failure of western journalism (or western legal systems, for that matter) to live up to its own ideals should be seen as a reason to abandon those ideals.

Here’s the thing about the “little alarm” you talk about, which of course in many situations involving obvious risk of physical harm is simply common sense: the Russian authorities’ goal is to make journalists’ “little alarm” (also known in this context as a self-censorship mechanism) extremely sensitive, so that writing anything that goes after the power structure will seem “rash” and not worth the risk. Then the scribbling classes will focus on figuring out what to write to please the powers-that-be rather than on how to root out whatever there is to be rooted out behind the scenes.

Your solution seems to be that journalists should just keep quiet and not be “rash” and write critical things about the authorities, because they might get in trouble. It surprises me that you don’t see anything wrong with the situation that has developed, where the choice journalists have in Russia is to be silent or to ignore their internal “alarm” and write whatever they are able to learn about how the authorities operate “at their own peril.” Reporting on the activities of the government should not be an activity that exposes journalists to peril, even if it’s “only” the peril of being barred from the country. And if it’s a peril so great that, as you suggested earlier, the authorities were doing Morar’ a favor and making her safer by kicking her out of the country, then there really is a problem.

Ivanov, I didn’t miss the point at all, because there is no valid point of comparison. In most cases, the US doesn’t turn down visa applicants from countries like Russia because they are potential security threats. It turns them down because statistically many of them are people who would overstay their visas. Furthermore, those people are not “banned,” they are free to apply for a visa again if their financial or other circumstances change. I know their chances of success are not high, but they are not “banned.”

The way the US visa application process is administered is unnecessarily opaque and may sometimes seem demeaning for applicants, and I agree it should be changed, but it has very little to do with the situation we’re discussing here.

If you can’t see the difference between a journalist who has lived, studied, worked legally and built a life for six years in a country which she doesn’t need a visa to enter being denied re-admission for no good reason, on the one hand (or rather, simply for doing her job); and a random visa applicant who has never visited the country on the other hand, then I guess we’re talking past each other.

Anyway, you’re wrong about Morar’s case being unique. It is actually sort of similar to William Browder’s situation, in the sense that someone with longstanding ties to Russia is denied the right to return there based on a financially motivated zakaz.

And I am well aware of the discretion “na meste” of the immigration officer – and even of the people who check you in before you board an international flight, since I once got stuck in Chisinau for several days before I could convince the “profiling” people at the airport that my Russian visa was valid. Thanks for the heads-up, though

“Or is it just that in today’s Russia those workings are similar to the operations of an organized criminal structure?”

“Today’s Russia”? It’s far less criminalized than in the 1990s. The criminality of which was, by the way, rationalized and justified by the very nihilists, ahem liberals who write at New Times. Ah, sweet poetic justice.

” there is more and more talk of a resurgent and prosperous India. ”

This is the India of Thomas Friedman, not the actual India.

Chris, it’s a minor point, but I didn’t say anything about the “criminalization” of Russia at large; rather, what I mentioned was similarity of the workings of government to the operations of organized crime groups, which as I’m sure you know can appear very civilized, have their own internal order and logic, and can make all of those involved very rich.

As for “sweet poetic justice,” Natalia Morar’ was in grade school in the 1990s and probably wasn’t defending criminality in Russia at the time; the same can be said of some of the other young journalists at the New Times. Lesnevskaya (the editor-in-chief) was wrapped up in ORT and in the PR work surrounding Yeltsin’s re-election before founding REN-TV, so I understand some of the basis for your statement.

But if we take a different sample individual in the New Times’ management (a representatively “liberal” one, and one often vilified as typical of the group), deputy editor Yevgenia Al’bats, here is how she was rationalizing and justifying criminality in 1997:

Human rights activists cited government pressure on the media in the case[] of Yevgenia Albatz, an investigative journalist…Albatz was fired by the newspaper Izvestiya after she had completed a major article exposing alleged illegal activities by the FSB. Human rights activists charged that FSB pressure on the newspaper was responsible for her firing, noting that her editor had promised her article front page coverage only days before.

So I guess the stories about how the 1990s were some kind of Bacchanalian feast of false freedom and impunity for the evil liberals who want to bring about Russia’s collapse are at least in part the product of modern-day myth-making. Actually, Al’bats was on the Russian President’s Clemency Commission under Yeltsin, so I guess you could say that she did at times try to rationalize criminal acts, assuming she made decisions in favor of clemency in at least some cases. But I doubt that’s what you had in mind.

Anyway, the criminality of the 1990s was rationalized by just about everyone at the time, including some of the same sycophants who today venerate Putin and brook no criticism of him. Even people who like to compare Russia to the US had a rationalization for the ’90s at the time, just as they have many rationalizations for what is happening in Russia today. Except that then those people were saying “well, you had your robber-baron era, now we’re having ours”; and now they’re saying “well, you guys don’t have a perfect democracy, either.”

“the criminality of the 1990s was rationalized by just about everyone at the time”

If by “everyone” you exclude the majority of the population, I suppose. And if by “everyone” you exclude Zyuganov, Primakov, Lebed, Khasbulatov, Yavlinsky, the people in the Duma when it was shelled, and other such nonentities.

“I cut muckraking journalists more slack than I cut people who work for the government.”

Lyndon, get it through your head. They are not muckraking journalists. This is a fantasy. They are writers of tabloid sensationalism. They write for money. They are told what to write, they write it, and they are paid. End of statement.

Chris, I’m basing my comments on what I heard from Russians I talked to during the 1990s. Of course people were unhappy with lost savings, corruption, the war in Chechnya, etc. (if we were to really discuss this properly, we would have to define exactly what is meant by “criminality” – the Oct ‘93 crisis? wage arrears? loans for shares? the Chechen War? You would get slightly different outrage constituencies for each of these, not to mention the fact that it’s hard to speak in generalities about a decade, which is, after all, a long time), but nevertheless one very often heard rationalizing statements about how things would get better and this was just a phase; I heard the one about the oligarchs being akin to the American robber-barons a number of times. And in fact it was the people who one could safely call “liberal” – then as now – who were some of the harshest critics of many Yeltsin-era excesses, especially regarding the Chechen War.

Please note that I didn’t say people liked the 1990s – of course they didn’t – just that they rationalized and justified their quality of life in various ways. The reality of the 1990s was accepted by people just as today’s reality is accepted by people – with much less enthusiasm and more complaining in the ’90s, to be sure, but still, people found ways to rationalize the status quo just as people do in all times and places. After all, Zyuganov didn’t deliver his promised 20 million people in the streets after his electoral defeat in 1996, and he didn’t even have Nashi to contend with. A good many people in ‘96 believed they should “Choose [Yeltsin] or Lose,” just as a good many people in 2007 believed in “Plan Putina.”

By the way, I’m not sure about including Primakov and Lebed in your list, as both of them profited tremendously at different times from the type of media coverage which I’m sure you would consider to be part of the “criminalized” system of the age. I don’t think you can include people just because they may have spoken out against corruption – then as now, eto delali vse, komu ne bylo len’. Folks who were part of the ruling elite at one time or another (like Primakov and Lebed) must somehow have rationalized their involvement in the system, whatever their rhetoric was. But this discussion turns into vague hair-splitting with such a broad field of play (all of Russian politics for the whole ’90s).

And I’m surprised your list doesn’t include Zhirik He appeared to be the genuine opposition early on.

“By the way, I’m not sure about including Primakov and Lebed in your list, as both of them profited tremendously at different times from the type of media coverage which I’m sure you would consider to be part of the “criminalized” system of the age. I don’t think you can include people just because they may have spoken out against corruption – then as now, eto delali vse, komu ne bylo len’.”

I don’t think there is any way to avoid corruption if you live in a deeply corrupt system, except by wandering off and being a hermit. That would be like Sean renouncing capitalism. He can’t.

Good comments, Lyndon!

You could jump into the ocean, far from land! Or be devoured by a tiger. Then you would be safe.

Chris, to my:

” there is more and more talk of a resurgent and prosperous India. ”

You wrote:

“This is the India of Thomas Friedman, not the actual India.”

Maybe that’s the India of Thomas Friedman. I almost never read his columns and don’t remember ever reading by him about India (maybe in one of his books?). I have never been to India (would love to go, though) and have no idea how realistic this talk about India is, but my main sources, besides what I read in the web here and there, are Indians themselves–personal acquaintances. They are a very smart and well-informed bunch and I have never seen them so optimistic about their country as now. One of them moved back to India and several of them are talking about it. Once again, that’s about all I know.

India, like China, is a mostly peasat country — and unlike China, it has a very high illiteracy rate. Again like China, it is becoming an economic power, but the people are still largely illiterate peasants who live by subsistence farming. There are over a billion people in India. The population is simply too large for prosperity to distribute through more than a small urban population.

I should have clarified that with “in my opinion.”

“Chris, I’m basing my comments on what I heard from Russians I talked to during the 1990s.”

You know, this is so different from my own experience that if I did not know you (sort of) I would think you were making it up. God knows my fiancee at the time wouldn’t have agreed with you. (She was from Sakhalin by the way. Her father’s a miner.)

India, like China, is a mostly peasat country — and unlike China, it has a very high illiteracy rate.

True that the literacy rate in India is less than in China. But it’s at about 61%, and — promisingly — it’s 73.3% among those aged 15-24.

I’m curious — what language is that literacy rate in? I assume one’s local language?

“True that the literacy rate in India is less than in China.”

One thing Communists are good at is literacy.

Good question Chris. I was checking the usual sources (ie, CIA Fact Book and wiki) but don’t have time just now to go farther.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India

A related question is whether/how much it matters, from the point of view of economics. If anyone has an insight into that, I’d be grateful.

(and indeed on any issue – “мы плохие, а вон америкосы ещё хуже!”)

It’s called ‘And you are lynching Negroes!’ (А у вас негров линчуют), a fallacious version of the common ‘Tu Quoque’ rhetorical device.

It’s logically fallacious, but not practically. Russians (and Chinese etc.) are perfectly aware that many interested parties use these issues not out of disinterested benevolence, but because they see them as means to attack countries they do not like from a position of a supposed (usually fictitious) moral high ground. Everybody knows this. It’s why there is so much OUTRAGE!!!! (in the West anyway) about Iran, but not Egypt.

‘Tu quoque’ is a valid argument, as you have pointed out. However, ‘А у вас негров линчуют’ takes it to the ironic extremes. Sad part is that many take this seriously, despite it being little more than applied noise to drown out any criticism however valid. And not even criticism, I’ve sometimes noted that negative news (i.e. plane crashes) get covered after talking at length about something vaguely analogous outside of Russia first.

“And not even criticism, I’ve sometimes noted that negative news (i.e. plane crashes) get covered after talking at length about something vaguely analogous outside of Russia first.”

True. I trump this up in part to the annoying Russian inferiority complex.

To expand on what I just said, many Russians seem to have the incredible need to constantly compare themselves to people in other (mostly Western) countries (we all know the historical reasons for this I think) and find out “where we stand,” as if they were involved in some kind of competition. Among some of the liberals/Westernizers this takes the form of an idealization of events in the West and a corresponding belief that Russia is some kind of eternal backwater in which, for instance, plane crashes are of deep significance as a sign of almost metaphysical “Russian backwardness,” whereas if a plane crashes in France it’s just an accident. I think this leads to an opposite maneuver on the part of patriots/Slavophiles, as it were preempting the liberals by finding some Western counterpart to anything bad that happens in Russia.

It’s why there is so much OUTRAGE!!!! (in the West anyway) about Iran, but not Egypt.

At the risk of the thread going off on a tangent (oh ya, like that has never happened) – I’m curious in what way you are trying to compare Iran and Egypt? Egypt isn’t pursuing the ability to enrich nuclear materials and isn’t governed by Islamic fundamentalists. Egypt’s planned nuclear power plants are supported by the west because Egypt won’t be enriching nuclear materials – this was the basis of Russian’s offer to supply enriched uranium for Iran’s power plants (an offer which Iran rejected).

Maybe Iran wasn’t the best choice. I was thinking of the “Iran-is-a-dictatorship-cruelly-oppressing-its-people” rhetoric, when it is actually far more democratic than Egypt (and a lot of other places). Substitute unpopular-government-of-the-month for Iran if you prefer.

Thanks for the clarification, Chris. I was just about to write a detailed comment about Iran executing women for adultery and gay men for having sex. The fact that Iran is more democratic than Egypt is true, though.

By the way, in the paper yesterday I read about the plight of a married couple from Saudi Arabia that were divorced against their wills. They found out about it only after the fact. A truly sad story that is amazing by its ridiculousness–hey, it’s the XXI century! Yes, it is embarrassing that such things happen in a country with which the US has such a mutually dependent relationship.

Link to the story:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTGnwH3eea7RnUbhSEnBwRvV5d-AD8U9OTA00

CM: I think this leads to an opposite maneuver on the part of patriots/Slavophiles, as it were preempting the liberals by finding some Western counterpart to anything bad that happens in Russia.

Chris – You’re 100% right about this and about it happening both ways. It’s as if we’re all locked into some bizarre lazy-brained ritual, Russian “westernizers” and western Russophobes collaborating to depict everything Russian as crap, and Russian patriots and western Russophiles forever making excuses and offering up exaggerated counter-factual comparisons. We do it ourselves. Or, well, sorry, I do it anyway. And BOTH things – both feeding the stereotype AND propagandizing against it.

Once one thinks about this a little, it’s suddenly obvious why the news coverage, in both directions, is so screwed up, with correspondents reaching for home-readership “resonance”.

CM: Lyndon, get it through your head. They are not muckraking journalists. This is a fantasy. They are writers of tabloid sensationalism. They write for money. They are told what to write, they write it, and they are paid. End of statement.

Chris, I missed this earlier, but it’s an interesting comment. I wonder how much you thought about it before you posted it. To break it down:

They are writers of tabloid sensationalism.

You are simply using the pejorative “tabloid” without defining what you mean. If it’s a question of format, the New York Post (not the most, but hardly the least, serious paper one might read) is a tabloid; if its a question of sensationalism and questionable credibility, even the National Enquirer has broken political stories once in awhile (that is not to suggest a comparison between the New Times in its current incarnation and these other newspapers).

Anyway, should those newspapers be shut down or their journalists persecuted if they write something the government doesn’t like? Why should government action against a “tabloid” or its journalists be any more legitimate than action against a mainstream newspaper? I guess I missed the part of Russia’s Press Law that talks about how it’s ok to shut down anti-government “tabloids” or go after their journalists.

They write for money.

Is this really surprising or supposed to be some kind of indictment? Like many professionals, journalists of all political stripes and levels of sensationalism generally get paid for their work.

They are told what to write, they write it, and they are paid.

This is also not very surprising. I think it’s standard practice in the print media to have editors assign stories to journalists, who then research and report them. And then, yes, the journalists get paid, and so – horrors! – do the editors.

Furthermore, often, journalists work for publications with editorial views that coincide with their own political views; and media outlets prefer to hire people whose worldview coincides with the editorial slant, to the extent an outlet has one.

Unless you’re suggesting they are being “told what to write” by someone other than the magazine’s editors, or you’re suggesting that someone just emails them texts to which to attach their names (which I know has been suggested by others, though without any proof that I’m aware of), I’m not sure what’s wrong with a reporter covering stories based on editorial assignments and getting paid for it.

Actually, the funniest thing about the arrangement you describe (“They are told what to write, they write it, and they are paid.“) is that it is exactly the relationship that, for example, RIA Novosti and Russia Today have with their employees.

Me: “Chris, I’m basing my comments on what I heard from Russians I talked to during the 1990s.”

CM: You know, this is so different from my own experience that if I did not know you (sort of) I would think you were making it up. God knows my fiancee at the time wouldn’t have agreed with you. (She was from Sakhalin by the way. Her father’s a miner.)

I think there are two reasons you find it incredible that I recalled Russians in the 1990’s by-and-large rationalizing the criminalization of their government and society. In brief: 1) different ideas about what it means to rationalize something; 2) you talked to one Russia, and I talked to a different (though not an Other ) Russia.

Please note (once again) that I am not saying that people defended or supported the situation, just that they rationalized it one way or another, which in my mind encompasses a wide range of attitudes (perhaps this definition is overbroad, but it’s what I’m working with): optimism (“this sucks, but it is a transition”), dislike of the past (“this sucks, but I don’t want the Soviet Union back”), and – probably most common – resignation (“vezde voruiut,” “u nas vsegda tak bylo”), in some cases combined with one of the first two, and becoming apolitical.

Human beings in general are good at rationalizing bad situations as a survival mechanism. Russians are especially good at coping and tolerating bad situations, which is a very admirable trait in many contexts (but may work against getting a responsive government). People raised in the Soviet Union also possess an amazing “umenie vykruchivat’sia,” to make the best of a situation and find ingenious workarounds and coping strategies. This is what people – including the current ruling elite – did during the 1990s, with varying degrees of success.

For all sorts of reasons, people may remember things differently now (if they were optimistic, they realize they were being naïve; if they were resigned, they realize they should have been more active, if they actively profited, well, naturally they’d want to downplay that).

Maybe I’m not remembering the whole story, either, it’s been a few years, but most likely the divergence in what you’ve heard and my recollections of what I heard at the time has to do with my interlocutors (to be clear, I’m talking about the period from 1996 to early 2001 when I was visiting Russia a couple times a year on average, not later on when we lived there). They were young people I met in bars (who obviously had enough money to go out or were bartenders and thus employed), people I met professionally (who obviously had jobs), Russians visiting America, or family friends from when we lived in SPB in the ’80s (mostly members of the creative intelligentsia).

All of these people I met in Moscow, SPB, or the US (well, I met a few people when I visited Novosibirsk, but most of that visit was spent ringing in 1999 in an extended fashion and trying to recover my lost passport). Practically none of them worked in the state sector or depended on the state for their income (even my grade school teacher had become financially independent thanks to her success with AmWay or some other MLM program), other than officials who weren’t dealing with payment arrears the way other state sector employees or pensioners were. Some of these people were casual acquaintances and not close friends, so perhaps they concealed the depths of their despair or rage or told an American what they thought he’d want to hear. I don’t mean to prattle on about this, I just want to dissect why our impressions might be so different.

I know that the 1990s were bleak, and they were much bleaker for some than for others, but at the time they did not necessarily seem like the universally dark, hopeless, Hobbesian time they are portrayed as in retrospect.

“Anyway, should those newspapers be shut down or their journalists persecuted if they write something the government doesn’t like?”

They’re not shut down…

I think the elites view outlets like New Times as a tool used by other members of the elite in the power struggle, which I think is largely true. They are not standing up for the proverbial little guy (if anybody is doing that, it’s Sovetskaya Rossiya and Zavtra). Thus I am kind of jaded about action taken against them. I think you are using
“the government” in a far too unitary sense — as MAB (God bless her) used to point out, it is a bardak in there. If somebody in the FSB or whatever organization takes action against something, that does not mean it was “the government.”

I have no opinion about the Morar case specifically, since I know nothing about it.

Now, if somebody started engaging in a campaign against SR or Zavtra, I would be upset (although I do not have much in common ideologically with either publication). (However I am willing to bet money that were such a thing to happen you would see little outcry liberal and/or foreign outcry about it. My experience is that “liberals” only cry “oppression!” when they are the ones being oppressed.

By the way, Sean, the eXile translated your piece into Russian: http://www.exile.ru/russian/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15896&IBLOCK_ID=45

Lyndon on January 20, 2008 9:22 pm sorry to be so long replying – been busy. You pose some fundamental questions.

Perhaps I am idealizing the journalist’s role too much. Maybe I’ve seen too many movies about heroic journalists taking on the corrupt corporations.

Probably. Particularly in the States there is a romantic view of journalism that does not sit well with reality past or present. Read David Edwards & David Cornwell Guardians of power: The Myth of the Liberal Media ISBN 0745324827. You don’t have to agree with everything but the undisputed fact is bad enough.

Are you suggesting that writing about political intrigue and corruption in Moscow is now as dangerous as being a war correspondent?

Actually I pointed out more or less the opposite that the number of journalists being killed in Russia had fallen under Putin to none or one, not risen as is often implied in the Western press. That should be acknowledged even if you then say it is because the journalists have learnt to keep their mouths shut or whatever but it should not be ignored as if it never happened. This is particularly the case as the all time world record for murdering journalists is in Western occupied Iraq.

I find it distasteful that journalists in dangerous countries are constantly egged on to take serious risks whilst in the West the great majority of journalists do not want to take the relatively minor risk of spoiling their careers. The western media is largely self censoring. There is no great plot; it is simply that if you do not hold views that are reasonably acceptable to the political and business establishment you don’t get into prominent media jobs. It is no coincidence that Chomsky who has analysed this problem so well is a distinguished philologist. Take the Kosovo affair. Hardly anywhere will a journalist spell it out that in giving Kosovo independence the Western powers involved are breaking their word given in resolution 1244 of the UN security council that ended the war, that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. They just slide past it and say that the Serbs are sentimental about Kosovo because it was the cradle of their civilisation etc which is not a lie, but it is far from the whole truth.
I am not saying what journalists should do or governments should do. Total secrecy is the friend of tyranny and oppression. Absolute press freedom is impossible and in an unstable or a divided society a contributor to chaos. There will always be a struggle between media and power but it seems to me wrong constantly to harp on the failures of one and apparently ignore the very obvious limitations of the other. Criticism should at least be balanced and accurate. AFP are still writing that the Iranian President said that ‘Isreal should be wiped from the face fo the earth’ when it is quite clear that whatever he said it was not that. A further complicating factor is the now well established fact that, particularly in poor developing countries, powerful outsiders urge democracy and press freedom and then use those very freedoms to undermine the government of the country in question to dispose of leaders who do not do what they are told. Read Stephen Kinzer ‘Otherthrow: America’s century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq’ Times Books New York 2006. An important reason, but not the sole one, Cuba became a dictatorship was because Castro saw what happened to democratic Guatemala a few years before and was determined to remain independant. One thing I think is essential is a more humble and constructive attitude from critics in the West. Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise I doubt if I would know what the exact terms of UNSCR 1244 are.

“Or, well, sorry, I do it anyway.”

I do it all the time!

“By the way, Sean, the eXile translated your piece into Russian”

Thanks for the tip, Chris. Now I finally know how to pronounce the name of the esteemed and hard working author of this blog: Шон Гиллори.