Newsroom

Moscow News, The Encouraging Voice of America—The United States is Not Telling Us What to Do, but How to Do It

Translated from Russian. Go to the Moscow News site in Russian for the original article.

By Yuliya Larina
October 4, 2002

The only exchanges between the USSR and the USA (aside from roubles for dollars and Bukovski for Louis Corvalan) were the academic exchanges of Soviet and American students and researchers under programs administered by IREX. That’s exactly how two future prime ministers, Primakov and Gaidar; one unsuccessful candidate for that post, Yakovlinsky; and many others received an education in the United States.

One IREX (International Research & Exchanges Board) alumnus is the current president of this international organization that has a presence in 22 countries: Dr. Mark Pomar. Among these 22 countries, there is one he knows particularly well. He has visited Russia more than 50 times; researched legislation and civil society; written articles on Pushkin, Dostoyevski, and Tolstoy; and interviewed dissidents including Solzhenitsin, Sinyavski, Aksyonov, and Voionovich. The interviews were part of Dr. Pomar’s career as a radio journalist who at one time headed the USSR bureau of the Voice of America Russian service.

Coming back to the United States from Central Asia, Dr. Pomar granted an interview to this Moscow News correspondent.

Q. IREX is facilitating democracy building in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Russia. Are you recommending that we follow the same path as those countries?
A. Not all of our programs implemented in Russia are implemented in those countries. It doesn’t really depend on us--we receive program grants from other organizations, such as the US Department of State, For example, we do not have programs that support independent media in Central Asia.

Q. Because independent media don’t exist there?
A.-I suppose the people who distribute grants do not think that there are opportunities. I, on the other hand, think that we could start working there. We are in Belarus now, which, in some ways, is not all that different from Central Asia. We have also worked in Albania and Kosovo. In Central Asia, unlike in Russia, we don’t have programs that support nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) either.

Q. Can you tell us how much money is being earmarked to support independent media in Russia?
A.-Our budget is about $1 million, which is not that much for Russia. With that we support associations that help journalists, instead of working with newspapers directly.

Q. You support independent press. Is it important to you that a journalist who receives your training continues working in independent media and not switch to state media?
A.- Supporting independent media is an American custom. The American approach is not the only one. The European one, for instance, doesn’t rely on that. If a journalist can excel in state media, that’s fine too.

Q.- While working with the Voice of America, you fought against the totalitarian regime of the USSR in a sense. Now you are helping build democracy. Are you happy with the results?
A.- I am a historian by education. If you look at what’s going from a historical perspective, a lot of things are surprisingly positive. For instance, people are not afraid to discuss anything. I really didn’t expect this to happen during my lifetime. On the other hand, and I think this may be inevitable, it’s unfortunate that not all the opportunities to build an open society have been realized. It is unfortunate that this country’s wealth is controlled by just a few, that Moscow is so very different from the rest of the country. It is also unfortunate that Russia has not come to terms with its Communist past yet. It’s not good for the country. In my opinion, Luzhkov suggesting Dzherzhinsky’s monument be brought back is comparable to someone in Germany suggesting a monument to Himmler be erected. This hurts me. At the same time I meet many incredibly talented and smart people coming [to the US] under our programs. And all these people will show their worth somewhere. I think Russia is in pretty good shape.

Q.- For you, personally, is it more difficult to fight a totalitarian regime or build democracy?
A. - I can’t say that I fought really. I had the opportunity to present a different point of view. When we were putting our programs together, we wanted to report on the issues the Soviet press was not reporting on. That was probably easier. The Soviet Union was more stable overall. Now things are more complex. There was this little book, Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? by Amalrik, published by Samizdat back in the ‘60s. The author was pretty good at predicting the Soviet Union would fall apart. In the beginning, though, he writes: “What would ichthyologists say if the fish started talking?” That is, the fish in the Soviet Union were mute, and we, the ichthyologists, in the West were doing all the talking for them. When the fish did start talking, it became much more complicated, but also more interesting. As far as democracy building is concerned, I’d like to say that our programs are not designed to build democracy in the literal sense. They help educate Russians. It’s like college. College does not build democracy, but there will be no democracy without college.