.

LTTE fanatics terrorise united kingdom

By Tina Edwards
The image of gun toting LTTE fanatics is usually associated with the arid lands of Jaffna or the jungles of the Wanni, but now the LTTE has introduced their acts of despicable violence to the very society that is hosting them and shielding them from the violence they are allegedly fleeing from.

The recent events that unravelled at Warren Farm Sports Center in Southall and East Ham during LTTE functions, have displayed the callous disregard the LTTE have in observing law and order in the land they have adopted as their haven away from the war torn battlefields in Sri Lanka.

The LTTE cricket festival held under the banner of the UTO, a front of the LTTE in the Western World collapsed in to chaos and mayhem when a Tamil gunman opened fire on another Tamil, shooting him in the leg. The shoot out attracted herds of police personnel to curtail the violence and also to disperse the gathering which looked menacing.

There is no doubt That the Tamil cricket festival was organised by the LTTE. There were stalls selling LTTE merchandise which included pictures of their leader Prabhakaran and the LTTE flags. The presence of the LTTE international figure A. C. Shanthan who the police actually questioned, smacks of an active LTTE involvement to say the least.

The youths walking about clad in UTO uniforms exercising their authority would have looked equally at home wearing camouflage green uniforms, carrying AK47’s with a cyanide capsule around their neck. To say that most of these people are ex-LTTE’rs who have claimed asylum here would not be erroneous.

These people have come here seeking asylum, they claim to be fleeing violence, so it is utterly baffling as to why they want to continue to stain their hands with violence and associate themselves with such a violent organisation like the LTTE who have largely contributed to their reasons for fleeing Sri Lanka.

The result of the LTTE gun battle at Warren Farm Sports center brought out to the open the fact that the LTTE have a larger than life presence in this country - a fact that the British authorities have always liked to turn a blind eye to. In the past nothing much was able to be done against the LTTE terrorists who have based their international head quarters in this country and continue to raise funds for their guerrilla war operations in Sri Lanka.

The strata of Tamils who do not support the LTTE’s violent actions have been galled by the fact that the LTTE have dared to commit a dastardly crime such as this on the streets of the land they sought refuge and peace from. Surely they come here in search of peace and they should leave their criminal intentions and acts behind and make new lives for themselves here and not become degenerates of this society.

Instead of contributing to the benefit of this society these gun toting, criminal minded people are amply contributing towards plunging this society in to a state of lawlessness with scant regard for human life which also crassly displays ingratitude to their host country. This country is already being used to assist the LTTE in their clandestine acts of drug trafficking, extortion, gun running and money laundering.

More often than not the renegades that are involved in these acts are supported by the state for which honest peace loving hard working people are taxed very heavily to pay for these terrorists to indulge in their criminal activities. This surely is a case of biting the hand that feeds them.

This latest incident is ample evidence that the LTTE is collecting money in the West, this surely must meet the Foreign office criteria required to ban them - that they are collecting money to perpetrate acts of terrorism overseas. This should be the basis for the foreign office to declare the LTTE as a terrorist organisation in this country.

For a long time the foreign office has been dragging its heals in banning the LTTE in the UK on the grounds that they have not broken the law in this country. The free for all gun battle at Warren Farm Sports on the occasion of the LTTE cricket match amidst a hive of LTTE activity is sufficient evidence for the Foreign office to swing in to action and follow their friends across the pond in the USA and declare the LTTE as terrorists and ban them from the United Kingdom. The British intelligence agents or their moles should visit such functions and build up a dossier on the fund raising activities that take place, this should be the evidence the British Government needs to throw the book to the LTTE - fund raising in the UK to sustain terrorism in Sri Lanka.

If the LTTE remains unchecked and is given a free reign to do as they please in this country, the Great British public will see a sinister turn of events. The LTTE are very versatile at learning and teaching new methods of destruction. These people are masters in the art of suicide killing and bombings and who knows if the LTTE are given the liberation to use this country as a base they may even teach a trick or two to the IRA or other middle eastern terror groups keen to avenge retribution from Britain.

Time is fast running out for the United Kingdom, this country should shed its lackadaisical attitude towards the LTTE and be very vigilant of them and ban them immediately or else Sri Lanka’s problem today will be UK’s problem tomorrow.

L E G A L W A T C H
When silence is not an option

by Nayana
Never in its history has the Bar Association of Sri Lanka maintained such a deaf silence on a matter of such public controversy in the legal sphere.

The failure of the Association to express any collective opinion on the controversy surrounding the recent appointment of the Chief Justice has not only surprised many members of the public but is also in sharp contrast to the behaviour of the Association in the recent past over other contentious appointments to high judicial office.

As we mentioned previously, the Association passed a resolution protesting the superseding of Justice Wanasundara for the post of Chief Justice in the late 1980s. Then, when the comparatively young dean of the Colombo Law Faculty, Shirani Bandaranayake, was appointed to the Supreme Court, four members lodged strongly worded (and identical) petitions in the Supreme Court asking for the appointment to be quashed.

Of course there were also reasons cited to justify those appointments, and likewise there are those who defend the appointment of former Attorney-General Sarath N. Silva as Chief Justice. The appointment of the Attorney-General directly to the highest judicial post in the land is not without precedent, and the new Chief Justice’s record when he served a term in the Court of Appeal is worthy of mention.

He established himself as a legal administrator who took firm steps to reduce appellate court delays and surprised his erstwhile colleagues in the Department by cracking down on their applications for unreasonable lengths of time for filing objections in habeas corpus applications.

The best remembered feature of his term on the Bench is probably the judgment he delivered in the Provincial Governor’s case which contained these ringing words: "There are no absolute or unfettered discretion in public law, discretions are conferred on public functionaries in trust for the public, to be used for the public good, and the propriety of the exercise of such discretions is to be judged by reference to the purposes for which they were so entrusted"

The Special Commission of Inquiry of which Justice Silva was a member, which looked into the assassination of Vijaya Kumaranatunga, was conducted in a speedy and circumspect manner compared to the flamboyant, protracted and now discredited proceedings before certain other Commissions of Inquiry. It also made useful recommendations for the future including the establishment of an independent quasi- judicial commission to look into public complaints of inaction, abuse of authority, suppression of material and partiality on the part of the Police in the discharge of their duties.

Thus, in terms of his public career, there is much that can be said to recommend Justice Silva for high judicial office, though whether he should have been appointed in a manner that superseded more senior and equally able judges already serving in the Supreme Court is a separate question. As mentioned above, the BASL, when so minded, did not hesitate to voice objection to the mere superseding of one Supreme Court judge by another who was already on the Bench.

However, the main issue is that, notwithstanding the plus side of his record, there were, at the time of his appointment, two petitions from the public seeking the removal of Sarath N. Silva from the roll of Attorneys-at-law on the grounds of professional misconduct. These complaints were considered sufficiently serious to merit investigation by the Supreme Court and the relevant files had reportedly been referred to two of tits Judges for investigation.

It could be argued that a judge, no less than any other person, is entitled to be considered innocent until proved guilty. On the other hand, it could also be pointed out that the presumption of innocence does not prevent ordinary persons from being remanded, placed on bail or interdicted from their places of employment while inquiries against them are pending

Another argument is that public confidence in the judiciary is so important that any taint of suspicion should be avoided and talented careers may sometimes have to be sacrificed for the greater good of the institution.

It must also be pointed out that the matters of controversy surrounding the new Chief Justice were public knowledge before the appointment was made, and hence, if the appointment is to be faulted, the primary blame lies with the appointing authority. In fact the appointment has re-fuelled debate about the wisdom of giving sole discretion in respect of judicial appointments to the President.

The Bar Association may argue that by ceremonially welcoming the new Chief Justice to the Bench, it has in fact expressed its stand. The public perception, however, appears to be that the Association has ducked the issue. Members of the public have alleged that the appointment is unsuitable in view of the controversy and the pending investigations. If the Bar Association disagrees, then they must have the courage to say so, with reasons.

Whatever its stand on the issue, some statement of principle was required from the Bar Association. The public and the judiciary had a right to expect it. Silence is not an option for a learned profession so intrinsically connected with the administration of justice.

Press colloquium

Coinciding with the Chief Justice’s appointment was an international colloquium on "Freedom of Expression and Defamation" jointly organized by the international press freedom group "Article 19", the Commonwealth Press Union and the Colombo based Centre for Policy Alternatives. The Editors’ Guild, the Newspaper Society and the Free Media Movement were associated with the event.

The focus of the colloquium was the law relating to civil and criminal defamation and Sri Lanka was apparently chosen as the venue due to the high number of criminal defamation cases pending against editors of mainstream newspapers.

At the end of the colloquium a declaration was issued, the full text of which has already received wide publicity. Its salient feature was a call for the total abolition of the law of criminal defamation, on the grounds that the privilege of using the criminal process to vindicate one’s reputation was generally made available only to the politically powerful,, while the threat of imprisonment which the offence carries had a chilling effect on freedom of expression which was not justified..

Civil remedies were considered adequate, with a rider that damages should be proportionate to the harm done, and not such as to stifle freedom of expression generally. The law’s delays - the excuse usually given by the powerful for retaining criminal defamation - were acknowledged, but the conference considered that the remedy should be a speeding up of court procedures, with courts having the power and responsibility to make sure that cases were conducted with reasonable dispatch.

Certainly, in the Sri Lankan context, it should be remembered that dilatory court proceedings affect plaintiffs not only in defamation cases but also those who have lost eyes, limbs and employment prospects in running down accidents and other acts of negligence. In England the analogy with negligence cases was used when the Court of Appeal finally put a cap on the massive damages awards that juries had taken to making during the last two decades or so. The maximum award of general damages for loss of reputation is now said to be the same as that which a paraplegic accident victim could expect to receive — about 130,000 Sterling Pounds.

The Media Minister who graced the opening of the colloquium not surprisingly voiced the traditional politician’s concern that a free press must also be "responsible". While this word tends to be greeted with scepticism by journalists who see it as a means to stifle criticism of the government in power, there was an incident last week which brought out another aspect of this responsibility.

This was the killings of Tamil civilians in Mullaitivu and Sinhala civilians in Ampara.. Tamil politicians and international commentators have faulted both the Government and the mainstream media for giving wide coverage of the killings of the Sinhalese while ignoring the deaths of the Tamils or merely referring to them in passing to explain the motive for the Ampara attack.

While the killings in Mullaitivu, which are said to be the result of an Air Force bombing raid, are generally acknowledged to have been unintended, and air forces in other parts of the world, equipped with more sophisticated technology, are known to have made similar mistakes’ such incidents have been speedily highlighted in the media and the governments concerned have expressed their regret.

While there is no doubt that the ongoing military censorship, and the indirect censorship imposed by banning journalists from the conflict zone, have contributed to this apathy on the part of the media, it is also a fact that the media has never mounted a concerted agitation against this censorship.

It is the freedom of the media to choose their stories and to decide how much coverage each story will get. However they should be aware that their choices will be seen to reflect their values and also, unfortunately, the values of the public they serve.

The Week That Was
Referendum on the cards?

by Shan Wijetunga
President Chandrika Kumaratunga accompanied by Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar and by Foreign Ministry officials left to the United States to attend the last sessions of the United Nations for this century while the Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe left to London via Germany.

After participating in the United Nations sessions the President will participate in the annual sessions of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For these sessions the President will be accompanied by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Prof. G. L. Peiris.

Ranil Wickramesinghe attended the Inter-Democratic Association sessions in Berlin. In London he will hold discussions with Britain’s Foreign Minister Peter Henes, meet former Prime Minister, Margeret Thatcher and representatives of the Conservative Party. He also met Liam Fox, MP to discuss the agreement between the President and himself that was brokered by Fox.

He explained to Liam Fox the present situation in the North and East here and the Liam Fox agreement on the North East conflict.

Ranil’s main intention in visiting London was to study the new electioneering techniques for this purpose. His Media Co-ordination Secretary, Ervin Weerakkody, accompanied him.

Despite no official announcement of holding elections has been made Ranil believes the government party was making preparations to hold elections during year 2000.

Although the President’s confidantes want the presidential election in January next year, she hasn’t agreed as the sixth budget of the government will be introduced in parliament on November 1 and the budget will continue till end of December with hardly any time for the ministers and the party MPs to indulge in election propaganda campaigns. It is believed that the government party lads unofficially commenced their election propaganda campaign by holding the government’s fifth year anniversary celebrations at Galle.

The President’s anxiety to push through the Parliament the Equal Opportunity Bill is another reason for expecting early elections as it is expected to satisfy minority aspirations.

Prior to the President’s departure to the United States she directed her ministers to hold the Deepavali festival celebrations at school level.

The government’s leftist constituents wants the constitutional reforms abolishing the executive system presented in Parliament before any elections.

It was this reason that prompted the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Raja Collure to request General Secretary of the People’s Alliance, D. M. Jayaratne last Saturday to convene a meeting of the working committee of the People’s Alliance.

Jayaratne promised Collure that a meeting of the working committee will be convened after consulting the President.

The Tamil political parties are also not well disposed towards holding presidential elections first as they believed they would lose their bargaining power. The President has instructed her ministers to discuss the issue with the leaders of the Tamil political parties and gain their confidence.

Common Candidate

Meanwhile the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna is in the forefront seeking a common Presidential candidate who would promise the abolition of the executive Presidential system.

For this purpose the JVP has had discussion with the Nava Samasamaja Party, Eksath Samajavadi Peramuna and Muslim Eksath Vimukthi Peramuna participating last Monday at the JVP headquarters at Aththidiya.

The JVP was represented by its General Secretary, Tilvin Silva, Propaganda Secretary, Wimal Weeravansa and member Nandana Gunatilake.

Leenus Jayatilake led the Nava Samasamaja Party, Mujeebar Rahuman led the Muslim Eksath Peramuna, while Sirithunga Jayasuriya led the Eksath Samajavadi Peramuna.

This group will meet again in the first week of October.

Referendum

It is also rumoured among members of parliament that the government was looking into the possibility of holding a referendum to extend the present life of the parliament by another five years. Certain MPs met Minister D. M. Jayaratne at the private cafeteria of MPs at the parliament last Wednesday and Rupa Karunatilake inquired from Jayaratne whether the government will hold a referendum to extend the life of the present parliament.

Minister Jayaratne replied "Government has not come to such a decision. We are not going to repeat the UNP tactics. There is absolutely no necessity for a referendum."

Cabinet Sub Committee

The Cabinet sub committee to study and make recommendations on the Equal Opportunity Bill met at Visumpaya last Saturday morning presided by Minister, Prof. G. L. Peiris. Other members of the sub committee present were Richard Pathirana, Alavi Moulana, Batty Weerakoon, Indika Gunawardena, M. H. M. Ashraff and D. P. Wickramasinghe.

The first subject of discussion was the proportion of children of other religious denominations to be admitted to Buddhist schools such as Ananda College.

As most members expressed conflicting ideas on this subject it was decided to alter the sections of the present circular followed with regard to admission of students and to introduce an alternative proposal.

The Legal Draftsman was entrusted with the preparation of the alternative proposal and submit it to the cabinet by Wednesday.

The alternative proposal submitted stated that the power to decide the ratio of admission of students to schools was vested in the minister concerned and he should decide so taking into consideration the necessities at any particular time.

Cabinet meeting

The usual weekly cabinet meeting was held on Wednesday at Temple Trees.

In the absense of the President who is away in the United States the only subject discussed was the inhuman massacre of villagers in Gonagala, Ampara by the LTTE.

Anura, Mervyn

Members Anura Bandaranaike and Mervyn Silva were best of friends from the time they were party members in the SLFP. It was this friendship that persuaded Mervyn to follow Anura when he left the SLFP to join the UNP.

But in recent times the friendship has cooled with Mervyn criticising President Kumaratunga on baseless allegations.

Anura also fell out with Dr. Rajitha Senaratne for similar reasons. But things were made up at a dinner hosted by Mervyn Silva at his residence where Anura explained that he detested anyone criticising his sister, Chandrika on baseless allegations.

Media Law

On the leader of the opposition’s proposal to amend the media law the party leaders decided at their meeting to take up the proposal for discussion in parliament on October 8. But surprisingly this proposal is not in the agenda in parliament for October 8.

Secretary to the leader of opposition, Nowfel Abdul Rahuman immediately contacted Ranil Wickremesinghe in London and informed him of the discrepancy. ‘Ranil then contacted Ronnie de Mel and instructed him to attend the party leaders meeting and inquire from the Speaker the reason for the proposal being not in the agenda for parliamentary debates on October 8.

Ronnie attended the party leaders meeting last Thursday in the company of party member W. J. M. Loku Bandara.

Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake represented the Government.

When Ronnie de Mel raised the question regarding the media law amendment proposal not being in the parliamentary agenda for October 8. Ratnasiri Wickramanayake said that the Attorney-General has informed Parliament that there were several criminal defamation cases connected to the media law pending in courts and therefore it was irregular to discuss the amendment proposal in parliament.

But Ronnie argued that parliament decided to debate the proposal and therefore the Attorney General had no authority over parliament.

After lengthy discussions it was decided to await the return of Ranil Wickremesighe to the country.

Ashraff -Richard fray

When oral questions were over in parliament last Friday Muslim Congress MP for Puttlam district, Dr. I. M. Illiyas stated that he had not received his allocation of rupees 2.5 million under the decentralized funds from Douglas Devananda.

But speaker, K. B. Ratnayake prevented him from continuing his statement and informed Dr. Illiyas that he should obtain prior permission to make a statement in parliament. But Dr. Illiyas argued that according to Standing Orders any members in parliament can make a statement at any moment.

Then there was confusion inside the chambers as members from both the opposition and the government began to talk in loud voices. The Speaker did not permit member Illiyas to continue his statement.

Dr. Illiyas thereafter sat in the centre of the chambers as a protest holding a poster that stated "Douglas Devananda give me my 25 lakhs." Though the Speaker ordered Dr. Illiyas to leave, he never obeyed.

The speaker had no alternative but to postpone sessions for ten minutes.

Minister Richard Pathirana requested Dr. Illiyas several times to get up and go to his seat but it was in vain.

The Speaker’s appeal on his return to the Chair to get back to his seat was of no avail. Finally the speaker postponed parliament to October 05.

When the members were leaving the chambers Minister Richard Pathirana found fault with members Mohideen and M. Zuhair for the confusion. Deputy Minister, Vishva Warnapala joined Minister Pathirana in blaming the two members. When Minister, Ashraff walked up Mr. Warnapala told Ashraff, "this contravenes parliamentary conventions. You are a party leader. Don’t you know that it is wrong to indulge in such action."

Ashraff replied "Hon. Minister, they have not given us money. Member Illiyas did not receive his money. It is the duty of the government to give us money." Minister Ashraff continued, "It is we who helped to form the government."

Minister Pathirana in an angry tone asked Ashraff "So you say it is the Muslim Congress that brought this government to power. Then what do you think we did carpentry?"

Continuing Minister Pathirana said "All this is to bring the government to disrepute. We will not allow these actions to continue."

Minister Ashraff in an equally loud voice replied "If you all say so then we will go and sit in the opposition."

Then it was ministers, Kingsley Wickremaratne and Alavi Maulana who separated the quarrelling parties.

Minister Wickramaratne look Ashraff aside while Minister Moulana accompanied Minister Pathirana.

Minister C. V. Gooneratne requested Ashraff to forget the whole episode.

Minister Ashraff replied "I have forgotten the whole incident. I will not speak any more on the incident."

Ashraff on Anura

Minister Ashraff speaking on the Ports Authority agreement, said "Anura always takes wrong decisions. If not for that he would have been the President of this country. But it is not too late yet."

Anura Bandaranaike who replied, "I have not taken wrong decisions. I did not resign from the party. I was chased out of the party. Underhand workers are there in your party".

Minister Ashraff wished that Anura Bandaranaike should be the President of this country in the near future.

But this speech by Minister Ashraff had created a furore in political circles. Political analyst believe that "Future events cast their shadows."

Russia seething in a political cauldron

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
The Russian Federation, successor to erstwhile superpower Soviet Union, is struggling to make the transition from communism to democratic practice and a market economy. The economic slide of 1997 aggravated Russia’s economic problems. Rampant corruption, increased criminality and a tardiness in building the institutions for democratic governance have further obstructed economic and social progress. Above all, the political instability resulting from the unpredictability of an ageing and ailing Boris Yeltsin has caused virtual chaos in Russia and her constituent provinces.

Right now, Russia is facing serious problems on its southwestern flank in the Caucasus region. Chechen rebels have infiltrated into the neighbouring province of Dagestan. And, in retaliation for Russia’s attacks on rebel bases in Chechnya, bomb explosions have rocked Moscow and different parts of Russia.

Several thousand Russian troops have been digging in along the border between Russia and Chehnya. After more than a month of fighting, government forces in southern Russia have driven out Chechen troops who twice invaded Dagastan. Lying to the east of Chehnya. To Russia, Dagestan is a strategic asset. The loss of Dagestan would mean instability in the entire Caucasian region and the disintegration of Russia’s provinces bordering the Caspian Sea.

Dagestan vital to Russia

Dagestan is strategically located at Russia’s south-western tip, abutting Azerbaijan and Georgia and claims more than half of Russia’s Caspian Sea coastline. But more than that, Dagestan’s importance can be traced to oil and Islam.

Through Dagestan runs a pipeline and a railroad ferrying oil from the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, from where it is carried by tankers to the Mediterranean. The latest fighting has shut down that railroad. The pipeline runs through Chechnya where thieves siphon off the oil. Russia is keen to build a new pipeline skirting Chechnya and running exclusively through Dagestan to Novorossiysk.

Ethnic Chechens still live in Dagestan, parts of which were Chechen territory before the Soviets carved out Dagestan. A mixture of almost 40 ethnic groups live in Dagestan, most of them practising a traditional form of Islam. Dagestan is a sort of buffer to the more fundamentalist and politically active brand of Islam practised further south in Iran.

Chehny’s military powers, led by warlord Shamil Basayev and a terrorist who goes by the single name of Khattab, profess to be radicals who hope to establish an Islamic fundamentalist state across the Caucasus. It is said that they are supported, at least to some extent, by radicals in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, among other places.

Chechen president declares an emergency

Chechyan president Aslan Mashkadov has declared an emergency in Chechnya to control the elements that are fighting in Dagestan. He says that they are really rogue elements over whom he has no control.

On the other hand, Russian authorities are undecided as to whether to send ground troops to the breakaway territory of Chechnya. This might well ignite a major conflict with Chechnya. It will be recalled that in the 1994-96 fighting in Chechnya, Russian troops lost more than 275 men and the Chechens probably many more.

Since Russian troops pulled out nearly three years ago, Chechnya has been effectively independent, but the territory is mired in poverty and corruption and is ungovernable. In the environment of a deteriorating economy, Muslim militants operate freely.

To prevent the Chechen problem from spilling into the adjoining areas, both President Yeltsin and his prime minister Vladimir Putin are seeking to close the frontier between Russia and Chechnya.

Terrorist bombs explode in Russia

During the past three weeks random terrorist bombings have rocked Moscow and other parts of Russia, killing more than 300 people. Russian authorities believe this to be the work of terrorists from Chechnya in retaliation for the air attacks on Chechen territory. It seems also as if the Chechens are determined to continue their two-year war with Russia which ended in 1996 in a stalemate.

In 1996, Russian troops withdrew from Chechnya after suffering a humiliating defeat. At the cease-fire agreement crafted by Alexander Lebed, then Russia’s national security chief, and now governor of Siberia, postponed a decision on the status of Chechnya for five years. Since then, Chechnya claims it is independent, but Moscow regards it as part of Russia even though the federal government has no control there.

Meanwhile, Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov also seems to have lost control of the region. Chechnya has sunk into violence, poverty and a cycle of kidnapping since its two-year war for independence from Russia ended. Evidently Russia’s neglect of Chechnya in recent years is one reason for the latest violence.

For the chaos in Chechnya, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin blames the August 1996 agreement halting the Chechnya was Putin says: "They were seeking understandable aims. They wanted to end the war, to avoid further victims."

But Putin believes that Russia failed to enforce the agreement and Russian officials turned a blind eye to the crime and violence now gripping Chechnya. Putin calls for all measures to fight terrorism, but does not elaborate how this should be done. Security forces have been sweeping basements for explosives and rounding up criminals in markets and railway stations around the country for days.

Alexander Lebed, who was fired a few months after striking the deal blames Russian commanders for not deploying peacekeepers and carrying out terms of the agreement. Lebed says: "For three years no one has done anything, and the vacuum was filled in for us."

Forthcoming elections

Russia is heading for elections - to the State Duma (the Russian parliament) in December 1999 and the presidential elections in July 2000. In the run-up to the elections, scandals and allegations of corruption and malpractice by all sides are inevitable. But in terms of policy there is little difference between Russia’s political contenders.

While the Communist Party and other left-wing groups are being squeezed out, other contenders can offer no realistic alternative to the slow, uneven progress towards a legislated market economy. The era of radical economic reforms may be over but there are no plans to step backwards on the freedom of the private sector.

Any new leader will have to come to terms with the increasingly limited powers of the federal government. Moscow does not matter to many of the leaders of Russia’s 89 regions, which have gained increasing de facto autonomy. For foreign investors this is both good and bad. Investors stuck in bad regions, led by corrupt and recalcitrant governors, can expect little help from the centre. On the other hand, progressive regional leaders can create good business environments without interference from the Kremlin.

Yeltsin is the problem

The main danger to a peaceful transfer of power in Russia at the 2000 elections comes from President Boris Yeltsin himself. Although the constitution bars Yeltsin from standing for re-election, he and his assorted courtiers are not keen to give up power to any of their opponents. Yeltsin has prepared a succession of potential heirs only to sack each of them in turn when their absolute loyalty seemed in question. His latest choice, prime minister Vladimir Putin, seems unlikely to last the course. And no viable pro-Yeltsin alternative has emerged from Russia’s disunited liberal parties.

The main opponent to Yeltsin and the business empires that have benefited from his rule is the new left-of-centre alliance of former prime minister Yevgeny Primakov and Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov. They look set to win December’s parliamentary elections, providing a platform for either of them to challenge for the presidency. The West may not like Primakov as an economic reformer but he is one of the few leaders who can offer political stability by achieving compromise among rival political forces.

If Yeltsin gives up power peacefully at the 2000 elections, a new consensus on policy and gradual economic stabilisation may at last allow the vast potential of Russia to begin to emerge. Rampant corruption, widespread criminality and the everyday hassels well know to investors will remain for years to come. But the light on the economic horizon means that investing in Russia is not the gloomy prospect it was one year ago.

Yeltsin, weakened by poor health, and confused by Russia’s economic woes and by Western allegations of corruption in his entourage, has never looked more politically isolated or distrusted.

Even the Federation Council’s Stroyev, a long-time Yeltsin loyalist, has caused a stir with an interview in the New York Times which quoted him as saying the president should quit. In another worrying sign for Yeltsin, some members of the Council have drawn up a declaration urging him to step down. But the resolute Boris Yeltsin has hitherto ignored such warnings.

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |