WORLD: RUSSIAN ECONOMY Looting Russia's Free Market
Kelly Patricia O'Meara
2 September 2002
Vol. 18, Issue: 32
Americans are becoming only too aware of the financial tricks and deceit in which some of the nation's
largest and most respected corporations engaged during the Clinton administration to pump up stock prices
with fraudulently inflated profits. When the huge bubble no longer could be sustained the men and women at
the top would bail out of their stock and pocket millions, leaving pensioners and other investors holding an
empty bag. To market insiders these are known as "pump and dumps."
While federal investigators are looking into the corporate malfeasance at Enron, WorldCom, Qwest
Communications, AOL Time Warner and Adelphia Communications, to name just a few, little attention has
been paid to similar financial shenanigans perpetrated by alleged American and Russian "reformers" in the
former Soviet Union during the same period. To those who have studied these "assistance" programs, which
were led by Harvard University's best and brightest, what happened was just short of the financial rape of
Little more than a decade ago Americans sat transfixed in front of their TV sets watching the Evil Empire
implode and full of hope that Russians would, like Americans, take up the mantel of freedom. Unfortunately,
say authorities on contemporary Russia, what happened more closely resembles the contemporaneous
looting of corporate America and has left the Russian people disillusioned and angry at what they presume
is the American way.
No sooner had the dust of communism settled than advisers recommended by the U.S. government
descended on what remained of the former Soviet Union. The vision was as simple as it was promising:
Communism was dead and something had to take its place. Why not American-style capitalism?
From 1992 to 1997 nearly $60 million was appropriated to the Harvard (University) Institute for International
Development (HIID), and was distributed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), to help
"countries of the former Soviet Union carry out political and economic reform in support of open markets,
including establishment of transparency in regulatory and other governmental decisionmaking."
This political and economic "reform" was paid for by American taxpayers and placed in the hands of
Russian-born emigre and Harvard professor Andrei Shleifer, the project director and principal investigator for
the program, and Jonathan Hay, the general director in charge of the Moscow offices. With the support of
higher-ups in the Clinton administration, including Harvard men and Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and
Lawrence Summers, Shleifer and Hay and their hand-picked Russian agents - the "dream team" as they
were referred to - took free-market capitalism to a new low.
The federal government now is suing Shleifer, Hay and Harvard University for "false claims submitted by
Harvard University to the United States Agency for International Development, USAID." The lawsuit alleges
that Hay and Shleifer violated the terms of their agreement with the USAID by participating financially in the
businesses they were sent to Russia to set up and advise.
Specifically, the government alleges that the defendants "not only violated the express requirements of the
Cooperative Agreements with USAID, their conduct sent exactly the wrong message about how open and
transparent markets should function, and undermined the objective that they were hired to pursue in
furtherance of the United States' strategic interests in Russia."
How did Shleifer and Hay send the wrong message? The Department of Justice action, filed in the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts, provides examples:
c"In July 1994," the government alleges, "Shleifer agreed to invest $200,000 in Russian equities through a
2008 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
company known as Renova Invest. Shleifer arranged the initial details of the investment and was identified
in the documentation as the owner. The $200,000 came from his wife Nancy Zimmerman's account, but the
profits from these investments were returned to Zimmerman and Shleifer's joint account."
c"Beginning in the summer of 1994 Shleifer transferred at least $99,000 in funds from his own account, and
$165,000 in funds from his joint account with his wife, directly or indirectly, to Channel Island accounts for
the purchase of Russian oil stocks. The stocks were purchased with those funds but registered in the name
of Shleifer's father-in-law, Howard Zimmerman. Shleifer personally solicited Hay's participation in these
investments and asked for and received from Hay a check for $66,000 in 1994 for that purpose."
c"In late 1995 Hay invested $20,000 in the Flemings Russian Securities fund managed by Elizabeth Hebert
(now Hay's wife). That fund focused exclusively on Russian equities, and its stock selections were managed
c"In or about August 1996, Hay's father transferred $200,000 of Hay's funds to his own account and then
used these funds, together with another $200,000, to provide startup financing for Julia Zagachin to
purchase the First Russian Specialized Depository, FRSD, from its then owners, Forum Financial Group."
The 70-page filing concludes that "Harvard, Shleifer and Hay knowingly caused false claims to be submitted
to USAID and are therefore liable under the False Claims Act, FCA. This is not a case where Defendants did
not know the rules - it is one where they did not care. Harvard and its employees, no matter how brilliant, are
still subject to the laws of the United States."
Like Enron and the other corporate failures, the Russian-aid program seems to have been designed
deliberately to confuse, say critics. While there is no exact figure as to just how much assistance money was
under the influence or control of Shleifer and Hay, those who have studied the failed reform programs think it
is in the hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars and resembles Wall Street schemes wherein a few
on top reaped sums stolen from the many.
Anne Williamson is a Soviet and Russian specialist and author of the forthcoming book, Contagion: The
Betrayal of Liberty, Russia and the United States in the 1990s. She tells Insight that "it's great that the
Justice Department has brought this suit against Hay, Shleifer and Harvard, but the problem is they're not
looking at the rape of Russia. All the government is looking at is Hay and Shleifer's personal investments
and abuses of the program the government gave them to control. The suit is just addressing a very narrow
part of a much bigger problem."
Williamson explains, "The larger issue is the amount of U.S. taxpayer money these men had direct and
indirect control over. They could funnel large amounts of money to people who were nothing less than
quislings -Russians who were willing to sell out for money. What we did beyond the economic abuse was we
built up a very small group of people and labeled them as reformers and great democrats. The perverse
result of this was that every other Russian reformer was pushed aside. It was the opposite of open debate
and democracy. Our money - taxpayer money - actually smothered other actors who weren't all communists,
but rather were decent people who were trying to have input into the process in the creation of a new
country, a new government and a new way of life."
"They got pushed aside," continues Williamson, "because they couldn't compete with the hundreds of
millions of dollars the United States was pouring into people Harvard had identified as people who would
work with them on their reform program, which really was just to loot Russia. Harvard's mission was not to
deliver all the legacy of the Russian people into the hands of a dozen people - this is not what was sold to
the American taxpayer. I was there in Russia while it occurred. I was an eyewitness to what happened, and
every Russian knows what happened, every Russian resents what happened and every Russian resents us
Williamson concludes: "Hay and Shleifer took advantage of the opportunities provided to them. Harvard
University privatized our aid program, then they socialized the benefits amongst themselves and their
supporters in the private investment world, then socialized the risk by dumping it on the U.S. taxpayer when
their policies failed and Russia defaulted on its loans in 1998. We now have to deal with a large territory and
significant piece of geography that is controlled by a handful of corrupt people we support. The issue isn't
political or cultural, it's an issue of corruption. It addresses the fact that our government, and representatives
chosen by the government, are corrupt. There are large groups feeding from the public treasury under the
camouflage of foreign aid, humanitarian work, building a better world, exporting democracy - all phrases
under which the theft is organized. The answer is to end all foreign aid - absolutely, tomorrow, shut it down." Janine Wedel
, professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Collision and Collusion:
The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe, tells Insight that "the U.S. supported the creation and
the thriving of the oligarchs by supporting privatization. The entire policy apparently was to underwrite
Anatoly Chubais et al., and the Harvard clique. Much of the economic aid went to them, including USAID
money and also hundreds of millions of dollars from the World Bank and IMF [International Monetary Fund]
2008 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
loans. The Harvard people were intimately involved in the `reforms,' and especially privatization, which werethoroughly corrupt in the way that they were implemented. It was devastating to many Russians." But, Wedel says, "The damage is done. Privatization in Russia is largely over and those who got the spoilsgot the spoils. These things had a beginning and an end, but the end continues in a big way. It's very hard tounderestimate the effect of privatization on economics, politics and society in Russia. Think of a country inwhich practically everything is state-owned and all of a sudden there are all of these enterprises and naturalresources to divvy up. Just think of the politicized corrupt processes that might go on. It's hard for us toimagine, but essentially in Russia a few at the top got almost all of it. With this privatization the people whogot it got it forever, and realistically there's no going back." Wedel concludes: "What happened in Russia is really egregious, and the answer to the problem is that youcan't have a monopoly on policy and information and a clique on both sides dictating policy and information.
That's just a program for disaster. The monopoly on Russian reform was almost 100 percent given to theHarvard/Chubais group with little independent information being considered, and it was enabled at thehighest levels of the U.S. government. A lot of Russians believe the U.S. deliberately set out to destroy theireconomy. What happened in Russia certainly goes against the grain of any sort of reform in the traditionalsense of the word - meaning progress." Joe Wrinn, a spokesman for Harvard, denies that the university was guilty of any of the charges, explainingthat "no one has ever criticized the actual work that was done in Russia by HIID." Did Harvard profit frominvestments in Russia? According to Wrinn, "Harvard doesn't talk about any of the trades. We give outsomething called the "John Harvard Letter" and that goes through different types of investments as opposedto a particular company or particular stock. I don't think the Justice Department has raised issues aboutHarvard Management, the university's investment arm." True, the Justice Department hasn't raised this issue, but Harvard was one of only two foreign entitiesallowed to bid in the "Loan for Shares" program directed by Shleifer and Hay in Russia. What HarvardManagement made on those investments is anyone's guess, but Harvard's endowment went fromapproximately $4 billion in 1992, the first year of HIID's contract, to $19 billion in 1998. Those dates cover a Clinton administration that included Rubin, a former Harvard Management boardmember; Summers, a former Harvard professor and current president of the university; and Harvardgraduate Albert Gore, who personally oversaw Clinton policy toward Russia. Despite Harvard's denials ofwrongdoing, the HIID has been renamed and put under the authority of the Kennedy School of Government,where the university's most reliable political clout is heavily concentrated. While Williamson and Wedel believe Harvard is guilty of the charges against it, both scholars say it is asideshow to the bigger picture of the financial raping of Russia. "Our privatization," Williamson says,"brought forth an absolutely perverse result in that we transformed the majority of ownership of all Russianenterprise from the Russian people as a whole to the Russian government. Not even Stalin attempted that,but we delivered." Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight magazine. Summary - As communism collapsed in the former Soviet Union; U.S. economic `reformers;' led by aHarvard University clique; took free- market capitalism to a new low.
Photos (color), A) NO CAPTION; B) Getting his hands dirty? Shleifer allegedly participated financially in thebusinesses he was sent to advise.; C) Left out in the cold: An elderly woman in Moscow sells clothingshemade to try to support herself.; D-F) Gumming up the works: Action at the Moscow stock market was slow,top, thanks in part to the so-called economic "reforms" that were given full support by Summers, right, andRubin, below., A) By Darren McCollester/Newsmakers; B) By Harvard University; C) By YuriKochetkov/AFP; D) By Ivan Nikitin/Getty; E) By By Joel Rennich/UPI; F) By Ricardo Watson/UPI Document insi000020020919dy920000b
2008 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
DAVID H. EDELFELT MAY 31, 2009 MANY THANKS. to the people who have served in leadership positions during 2008-2009: General Manager . Len BarkerPresident . David HuntSecretary . Nancy FridayTreasurer . Gary HendricksonBoard Members at Large. Anthony Green, Anne Harkonen, Steve WarnerVice President for Concerts . Tom KellerChairs . Jamie Godshalk (Box Offi ce Manager), Anne Harkon
PF-O3 & PF-04 Print Head Warranty Terms & Conditions The Canon companies listed beneath these warranty terms warrant the print head of the PF- O3 and PF-04 series (“Print Head”) sold in the EEA and Switzerland to be in good working order under normal use and service during the warranty period. In the event that a Print Head is found to be defective within the warranty period,