Press Center TV: The territory of Glasnost. Vladimir Pozner. Part 1


Uploaded by yukoscase on 11.03.2010

Transcript:
Hello and welcome to Glasnost Territory.
I am Natella Boltyanskaya and
I am introducing Vladimir Pozner. Hello.
Hello.
Predictably, we are talking about the trial,
nd my question to you, Vladimir Vladimirovich,
may well be considered impolite:
Why are you here?
I am here] because I could not help but come -
that would be the shortest way to answer your question.
I have spoken on more than one occasion
about the situation with Khodorkovsky,
but those were private conversations with people,
and I have never been asked about hat on air.
Now that I have been given such an opportunity,
I decided that I must do it.
I view this trial as a purely political one,
and therefore I am -
word would be appropriate here
hurt, indignant, and depressed by what is happening,
because I understand that all of what is said
has nothing to do with real grounds.
And the grounds are political.
I am very concerned that the political trial
is being conducted under the general headline
Violation of economic laws"
first, tax evasion and then the theft of oil,
whereas in reality the motivation is totally different,
of which I am convinced.
And could you characterize that totally different motivation?
Yes, of course.
First, I would like to say that oligarchs are no more,
if we speak about the true meaning of the word "oligarch,"
which is an ancient word of Greek origin
used to denote a man who is not only rich
but also wields political power.
Neither Khodorkovsky nor, I don't know, Potanin or Prokhorov, of course,
has any political power.
They have money.
That is called a tycoon
or many other names.
But they have been [oligarchs], of course,
and that was before Putin came to power.
They had a lot of political power.
I knew some of them fairly closely,
in particular, Berezovsky.
And yes, they were oligarchs.
When Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin came to power,
that began to change,
and certain rules of the game were suggested,
as far as I know.
The rules are these:
we, people in power,
know how you have earned your money,
but we will not go back to that.
Go on earning it, but stay out of politics.
Stay out of it.
Moreover, that was formulated in the so-called "shish-kebab pact," was it not?
Well, so they say.
I was not present there,
but it seems to have taken place, and I believe that so it was.
As I understand, Mikhail Borisovich [Khodorkovsky]
did not agree with that.
Well, formally he did and said, "Alright."
But he continued doing politics, of course,
that is, supporting some or other people in politics,
some or other parties, with his money.
I also know that he was warned, "Have we not agreed?"
"Yes, yes, we have agreed."
But he continued, nonetheless
As a result, he has gotten what he has gotten.
Well, look here, for example, Robert Amsterdam, an attorney of Khodorkovsky,
and not only he, many, by the way support him
by asserting that there are people in the government
who are direct beneficiaries
from the fact
that Yukos has been taken away from its owners.
And they believe that this motive
is no less important
than the one about which you have spoken,
which is:
the man violated the agreement
failed to stay out of politics when he was told to stay out of it.
I mean, the famous question "qui prodest?" (who profits?)
is also present here
from the point of view of experts?
Would you agree with that?
I do not know.
Frankly, I do not know.
The fact that due to what happened,
certain people obtained very much is true.
But is it the principal motive of what is happening?
Company that earned millions?!
Maybe in this sense I am a very conservative,
old man, but I like to have proofs.
As for speculation, yes, that may be,
it is very evident.
But I cannot say that I know
that this is precisely so, because I do not know that.
Please tell me, why do you think
is the trial prepared in such a way?
Witnesses for the prosecution in fact
become witnesses for the defense,
because, whatever questions are asked,
they cannot provide proof of that oil has been stolen.
I think they could not prepare it better.
I think that in general our prosecution
is incapable of working indeed professionally.
It is a direct descendant of the prosecution
that existed in Soviet times,
where you did not need to prove anything.
It was enough for the prosecution to say "guilty,"
and that was all.
Nothing else was needed.
We had it that way,
how could you argue against that,
that was the [Communist] party,
that was the ruling power,
consequently that was correct.
I think that those people in general have never learned to support their stance with arguments;
I think that all that is continuing to this day.
You know, I even think that that is not simply continuing
but we have a fairly sad picture.
On one hand, there is a trial,
reaction to which seems to be present inside
the garden ring [downtown Moscow].
On the other hand, those who want to see it are welcome.
Those who want to watch Glasnost Territory are welcome.
hey are welcome to visit the www.khodorkovsky.ru Web site,
to read Novaya Gazeta with reports on the trial,
other periodicals, etc.
A certain act is played out
before the eyes of amazed or indifferent public,
which takes it in and remains impassive.
That happens in those media
that are watched or read or listened to
by a very small number of people.
By the way, that shows the cynicism
of the ruling power
in questions concerning the freedom of the media,
freedom of speech.
If it concerns a small group,
let them talk whatever they wish.
They may criticize Putin and Medvedev
and defame them,
but when the target audience is potentially large,
that will not be.
Such is the game.
And what will you say, for example,
about the results of a survey by the Levada Center,
which show that over the years (imagine that, already years!)
of this trial of Khodorkovsky,
the attitude toward him has changed a lot,
and has changed for the better?
That is happening because
my favorite statesman of all times, Abraham Lincoln,
once said these wonderful words:
You may fool some of the people all the time,
and you may fool all of the people some of the time,
but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."
At some point down the road,
some things leak out.
In some mysterious way,
they become known to an ever greater number of people.
That is what is happening.
Please tell me, do we need to explain [to the people]
that the situation in Butovo or the situation with Rechnik
and the situation with Yukos
are indeed links of the same chain?
We do.
We do. Who will assume the function?
The question is not about
who will assume the function.
The question is about whether or not that will be allowed.
Will that be allowed?
If that chain is to be traced,
where does it lead?
It leads to very high echelons of power.
Then again:
if we wish to do it here,
they will let us do it.
But on Channel One…
But if I decide to do it on Channel One,
they will not let me do so.
I understand that perfectly well.
That is the standing policy at this point.
It does not ban everything.
It does not say no to Novaya Gazeta,
no to Radio Ekho Moskvy,
no to all that, period.
This is a finer calculation.
Because the overwhelming majority of the people
do not have access to these media,
fine, they may keep going.
Glasnost seems to exist,
as does the freedom of speech.
What will you say against it?
Can you not express your views?
You can.
You cannot do that on Channel One?
So what?
That does not mean anything.