Inspiring to A Generation of Musicians - Van Cliburn

Click here for news of his passing.



Media Photo

 

Definitely Not "Professional" Protestors - An Authentic Impression

Media Photo

The nature of the protests in Moscow at this point, and in the foreign capitols is impressive as many Russians are seen to be apolitical, and however reluctantly, followers of the leaders of the current regime.  The reasons for this are that Russia itself does appear to still be dealing with breaking from its leftist orientation during the 1900's, and the current regime does promise better economic and business development for the country as a way of dealing with this.  These are just two simple reasons (promises) that allow for the populace to usher in the Putin regime in 2012.  That even small protests have taken place, and in cities abroad, indicates the overall scepticism of Russians about 'Team Putin,' as well as the renewed emphasis in government apparently on the military and security services.  The reaction of the crowds in Moscow and abroad are classic with respect to the apparent resented and reviled alchemy of the state to exercise dominion over its populace at home and abroad and its political promises among other things.

That there is question as to the legitimacy of results of recent elections gives rise to ordinary curiosity about related details and the methods of the various parties who benefited from the outcome of the elections.  Usually, even in political regimes that are quite large, there is some acquiescence as to official looking into the election problems, and then some certification of results either way.  The protests do not appear thus to have enough of an impact to warrant this, even to test the proposition of improprieties, and this is probably the result of the spontaneity of the gatherings and some lack of organisation and influence over the regime that ignores them apart from security issues.  It is unfortunate the crowds are pointing out the unfulfilled promises of the post - Soviet era, and it is as well unfortunate there appears to be no direction in Russia today along the lines of more liberal reforms:  The regime continues to favour a public emphasis on heavily profitable commercial activities, business influences as beholden to the state, and public policy, even confiscatory and intrusive as it can be, probably just as arbitrary as it was before the Yeltsin era.  All these points bring up more politics and some of these are points of contention that will never be resolved, and because, and again anew, the regime has found fertile and profitable ground in fixed ideas and a preoccupation with constitutional decisiveness and a strict rule of law, centrism, the regional power and even arbitrary edicts of Moscow and its workings over all of the country.

One is far from the dictature of the proletariat here, it does seem, and there is nonetheless a 'United Russia' party line that dispenses with the efforts at forming a government of consensus or some coalition of parties and interests without regard to efforts to further centralise rule and pre - determine regional politics as secondary to those in Moscow.  This is a kind of tradition in politics and administration in Russia and is important insofar as constitutional and other powers and rights of the people are concerned - especially insofar as it is allowed through public debate and resolution through the coming elections.

The Moscow Show Trials (Khamovniki District Court) - another attempt.

HOWEVER BELATEDLY.

Open Letter to the Moscow Khamovniki District Court:

There must be some discussion on the outcome of the Yukos chief executives’ trial in Moscow that is soon to be decided, especially since it affects so many of the Khodorkovsky family and friends everywhere, and people like me do not want in the least to override the judicial powers of the Russian state, nor the invisible hand – type commerce that Yukos apparently afforded to its employees and their families, and efforts of that business to change the status quo in the hydrocarbons markets in view of O.P.E.C., and so forth.  What is apparent from reading about these matters, currently being decided in a contest at Khamovnichesky (sp?) / Khamovniki District Court, is that it is clear in a way that the Prosecutor’s office represents one side of the Yeltsin legacy, and the defendant’s apparently another.  People like me know the significance of the Yeltsin years is extremely powerful in its symbolism and subordinates that of the October revolution of 1917 and its aftermath in many ways, though the actual observable truth of this is subject to interpretation, and one is not at present in a place to definitively opine on these items.  With respect to this and the hope and uplifting denouement of the Yeltsin years, I refer you to, for example, the autobiographical portrait of George Shultz; or the co – written tome by Bush and Scowcroft in its portrayal of same, or any similar text on the era.  Yeltsin does deserve great credit, and enshrinement, for his economic reforms and this will become apparent more and more as the years pass.  Also, one can not question, in any way whatsoever the Kremlin’s power to adjudicate, without competitive dramatics, matters such as those being decided in the Yukos executives’ case.

It is possible that if Mikhail Khodorkovsky can be accused of anything, it is for not remembering his upbringing under the Yeltsin regime.  Most Russians can be said to be embittered, or at least not so invigorated by the memory of this time in their history, though there are cogent and complex reasons why Boris Yeltsin as head of state made choices and promoted economic and commercial policies that were intended to benefit everyone; every Russian person.  This should not be forgotten in these court proceedings, neither by the prosecutor, nor by the defendants and their attorney(s.)  People like me who understand a little about business know the Yukos business affairs were conducted by executives, well meaning, and very well – advised, and they performed their duties to stakeholders in excellent fashion, probably even with respect to taxation compliance and other regulatory measures – though that might not be the determination of the courts.  

In my reading about this case, it is important to understand the successes of many businesses are a mystery to most people, and that of Yukos was no exception to this axiom.  The success and overall assurances provided by government regulators and how they facilitate a healthy commercial environment is also something few people understand, either.  With this in mind, and as the judicial opinions are expressed in the outcome of the statutory charges currently being tried, and where the laws are clear and well – defined, and where this adjudication does have application to Russian society as a whole, including the ‘perspective of the world’ to paraphrase the great sociologist Fernand Braudel, the direction Russian commerce will take for the future, and the status of the defendants in this case as prophets (who will be regarded as real or false, depending on who’s whom, and what’s what) and the power of the legacy of previous times in the history of your country and its meaning at present and obvious present legal and other conditioning, and popular acclaim of these juridical matters in your capitol; the responsibilities of the parties to this trial are significant and quite serious.  These and other legal and economic processes and principles will be changed and otherwise affected by this judicial turning point.  It is important that you know outsiders to Russia understand this.  

While Mr. Khodorkovsky can be accused of forgetting his upbringing, the parties represented by the prosecution against him can in parallel be admonished for bringing a halt to a very large and constructive business concern in Russia, as illustrated in press reports and other open sources, that provided and promised a decent living and hope for a bright future for many Yukos employees, their families and considerable value, monetary and organisational, bestowed upon Russian society as the result of the innovations and initiatives of the defendants.  It is entirely possible, and given my own impression of the way in which market economics is interpreted and practiced in Russia, the country’s chief administrators, at the time Yukos activities were suspended or abrogated, did not themselves understand precisely the value of what good Yukos meant to many people, and the mysteries of its successes.  It is perhaps in the remnants of dialectic reasoning that remain in the consciousness of many people in your country that did call for an investigation of the way things happened or were “done,” and then further dicing up of what was found that makes one possible outcome of these proceedings to be so unpalatable.  What has apparently happened is the focus of the trial has not been on the business for lack of understanding of those operations, but on the defendants only.  In my studies at university I have often encountered insoluble problems, of ethics, for example, and could not revert to a solution which muddied the waters further as there are even natural rules and guidelines against this.  The prosecution in this case has apparently chosen to delve into and question matters of private business, the methods of which were in exegesis at the time of Yukos, and that have been rendered incomprehensible to observers and jurists alike with the efforts to dissect them at trial.  Both the jurists and attorneys need to comprehend what the legacy of Boris Yeltsin represents to those outside your country, and what great values and integrity he instituted in his time, in effort and in deed; at least in what concerns his own administrative efforts.  That is what really is being contested here, and this is an interpretation, and it is a political / administrative view.  No one during the time of the 1990’s to today, a great time of business innovation and invention everywhere, and especially so in Russia, can be blamed for being ambitious and, again, inventive as the Yukos executives had been.  Any decision of the courts that finally decides this case should account or compensate for this, and that Russian society has run through a crucible of economic events need not be on the heads of those Yukos people who apparently and sincerely wished for the better of the Russian economy and country.  Good day.

Sincerely,

THS

Either, or.

Tyranny and “anti –“ tyranny.

In the story of the Michael Khodorkovsky trial, and that of Platon Lebedev, it is important given Mr. Khodorkovsky’s talk at Khamovnichesky Court, Moscow; on November 2, 2010, that ‘in Russia’ the goals of the new generation of business people who have built up the country again are not necessarily congruent with those of the centrist and now dominant officials in the realm.  The business people who ran Yukos and its related businesses, and they made a tidy sum at it, worked privately to promote economic activities and the development of that society, especially in the Far East.  The disagreement between the judiciary and Mr. Khodorkovsky with Mr. Lebedev is the state considered much of what Mr. Khodorkovsky was doing to be its business, including the spending of petro – currency it intended to use in the treasury, but that was going to build up one or another region in the country.  

Mr. Khodorkovsky is apparently accused of manipulating people, money and the system, all of which were in flux in Russia during the time of Yukos, and developing his own economic and political fiefdom.  That some good came of the economic and oil booms in Russia is inarguable, and one cannot argue as to the benefits of the ends.  Mr. Khodorkovsky is dealing singly with issues that befall developing sectors in developing economies everywhere:  Growth can be unmanageable, and while Mr. Khodorkovsky was an excellent boss in view of this, the Russian government is arguing he clearly was not.  The trial itself has been, from what I have followed, instance after instance of finger – pointing and name calling, and no one has been able to speak freely about what the operations of the business in this ‘anti – trust’ case were really like, or other pertinent issues.  The court sessions become a profile and precedent of poor interpretation of facts on the one hand and legalistic and oppressive regulation on the other, both parties suffering this and other difficulties in a problem circumstance for everyone. 

In his speech in this court case on November 2, the defendant used the past imperfect tense many times.  It is important to understand this as an appeal to the court to apply the same standard of justice to the operations of the state in this process, in its inventories, checklists, and internal debates, etc., that it has applied to statutes applied against Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev in penalty or penalties against them and any other accused.  The Russian system of justice, probably with its tendency to “nod” to the prosecuting attorney and the judge in fierce enforcement of many statutes, might entirely not have heard this plaintive appeal.  That this is the tradition is highly unfortunate, and one this case challenges the system to begin to reverse.  This is perhaps why the defendants have attempted to highlight the historical context of the trial.  It is unfortunate this tradition dates to the Okrana (sp?) and the courts of pre – revolutionary times, up through Beria and so forth, and why many Russians in this case themselves have cause, especially in view of a prosecutorial decision in this case, to again view their patrimony as unfortunate, and a gain for the state at the expense of, again, common people or those who represented them or stood in their shoes to help their cause.