Letters

National Interest, The, Fall, 2000

* My work is not focused on Sachs. Goldman's attempt to defend Sachs personally by reference to his behavior in other countries is wholly irrelevant to my article on U.S. Russian transactors.

* Goldman puts words in my mouth and assumes emotions that are not part of my work and then says that I am unfair. For example, nowhere do I say that any of the transactors "prescribed knowingly flawed advice" [my emphasis] or that Sachs was "the central architect of the reforms" or "provide[d] insider information" to Harvard. Transactorship does not imply that all transactors take part in or know of all activities; a division of labor is at the very essence of the concept. Contrary to what Goldman suggests, Sachs and some other key transactors (such as Anders Aslund) continued to work together and defend their earlier actions long after USAID cut off HIID's Russia money and U.S. investigations into HIID's activities began.

In the end, it is the Russians themselves who must bear the blame for the "reforms", which both Goldman and Sachs characterize in worse terms than I. But where is the responsibility of Western advisers? Is it not childish to say that, "Everything I advised was good", and lay blame for everything that went wrong on others? What concretely can the "big boy", as Goldman calls Sachs, point to as his success?

Anders Aslund's Letter is a condescending ad hominem attack. The last refuge of someone whose troubling conduct has come to public light is to attack the credentials or character of the individuals who helped bring the public scrutiny to bear. Aslund's attack is particularly unpersuasive given that he ignores the other experts who wrote letters that echo my findings. If Aslund wants "rumor" and "gossip", he and the other transactors whose activities are detailed in my article have left a whirlwind of that behind them. My work is based strictly on facts that I carefully document with myriad named sources. Teliingly, in his letter above, Aslund fails to challenge a single finding or source, let alone the central thesis of the article.

Living With a New Europe:

Zbigniew Brzezinski's article on the U.S.-European relationship ("Living With a New Europe", Summer 2000) was a generally admirable analysis but contained a few demonstrable misperceptions. "The British, more skeptical, have finally concluded that there will be a Europe of sorts and that they must be in it if they are to infuse some genuine significance into their own special relationship with America." They haven't concluded anything of the kind and there is no doubt that the majority, including the official opposition, would prefer to retain membership in the Common Market (re-inforcing the accuracy of Dr. Brzezinski's view that Europe is essentially an economic organization) while also joining NAFTA. In all respects except geography, Britain is closer to the United States and Canada than it is to France and Germany, and is awaiting some indication that the United States does not wish to take the self-punitive step of dismissing its deputy sheriff and only serious functioning ally by banishing it into an i ntegrated Europe.