Russian online newspaper Gazeta.Ru conducted an interview with Sergei Guriev; English translation can be found below.

The sudden departure for Paris of the renowned economist Sergei Guriev and his subsequent resignation as Rector of the New Economic School (NES) has become one of the most discussed political topics this summer. Meanwhile, the Russian Investigative Committee continues to call in for questioning other experts who reviewed the second ‘Yukos case’.

Nadezhda Pomerantseva from Gazeta.ru, met with Guriev in Paris to ask him ‘off the record’ questions, including the details of his cooperation with Alexei Navalny who has been running for Moscow mayor, the ‘Kirovles case’ and about his new life abroad.

Fugitive or Émigré?

— The media has described you as ‘a victim’, ‘an exile’, or even ‘a fugitive’.  What do you make of such interpretations and what is your own definition of your status given that the authorities claim they did not persecute you?

— It is a matter of definition. I do believe it was dangerous for me to stay in Russia. Technically, there are no charges against me; I still have the status of a witness. But it has been my experience that the Investigative Committee officers cannot be trusted. Investigators claimed they wished to question me, but came instead with a search warrant and a court order to seize my e-mails (incidentally, the illegality of the search warrant and court order were obvious to anyone who read them). When I told the Investigator he had promised one thing but done another, he did not answer. So I have no reasons to believe the Investigative Committee’s activities are in the least bit trustworthy.

— What is your definition of your status – “victim of circumstances” or “a person who made a difficult decision”?

— I cannot see any difference between the two. I want to live a normal life without being subjected to the risk of losing my freedom. It is clear that in Russia I am not protected against the risk of losing my freedom, so I left. Whether it means I was expelled, I do not know.

— I can see a major difference between the two terms. It is one thing to flee because someone is after you; it is another to make a decision to stay out of a situation…

— If I ended up in prison, you would have known for sure that I was a victim. I am not going to prove to you that I am a victim. I could see for myself the risks were too high and I was not willing to take them. The risks arose because I did what I deemed was the right thing to do. I only wanted to comply with the Russian Constitution and as long as there was no danger for me to end up in prison, I carried on living and working in Russia and…

— Kept silent?

— No, I did not keep silent. I said what I deemed was necessary. I supported Navalny publicly. They say now that many people both supported Khodorkovsky and stood up for Navalny. It is true. But nine people, including three foreigners, were engaged in the expert review of the second “Yukos case.” A total of 16 people, including me and my wife, supported publicly Navalny’s Fund for Fighting Corruption in May 2012. Strange as it may seem, one person — me — is at the intersection of the two cases. I have nothing to reproach myself for. You are probably thinking I should have manned the barricades.

[…]

Letters as Evidence

— The print media have written a lot about USD 50,000 the New Economics School (NES) received as a donation from NK Yukos in 2003 and which is probably why you are of interest for the Investigative Committee. When compared to the size of the NES the amount is small indeed. Moreover, you were out of the country and were not NES Rector at that time. But maybe you know how the money was spent?  To be blunt, just how many NES school-desks, and computers are under suspicion?!

— The Investigative Committee were given a complete report about how the funds had been spent. NES provided exhaustive information to its donors both now and a decade ago about how donations were spent. NES submitted such a report to the Institute for Open Economy – from where the donation had come – in early 2004. We made available the same report (along with hundreds of other documents) to Investigative Committee. The donation was both received and spent absolutely lawfully. I did not receive any of this money. I was not the Rector at the time, I was teaching at Princeton University and was not a salaried staff member at NES. But even if I had received the money, there would not have been anything unlawful in it.

— Before his arrest in 2003 Mikhail Khodorkovsky had announced that his company would invest about USD 100 million in the Russian State University for the Humanities (RGGU) following which the number two person in Yukos, Leonid Nevzlin, was elected as the university’s Rector. It is unknown how much money was transferred to RGGU’s accounts; but no information has been released to the public suggesting that the Investigative Committee followed up this donation. Why do you think this is the case?

— As far as I understand, RGGU staff were not involved in the expert review of the second case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev.

— Other experts who took part in the report of the second “Yukos case” got into a situation similar to yours. For instance, the former Judge of the Constitutional Court, Tamara Morshchakova, confirmed that her correspondence had been seized too, and that you are not alone here…

— Yes, yes, hers too. But Tamara Georgievna has an approach and a view of her own of the situation.  Another expert, Mikhail Fedotov, said, “What was Guriev scared of? He has nothing to be afraid of.” I have nothing to be afraid of, except that my right to the privacy of my correspondence was restricted by a court order not founded in law. The de facto situation was that they came and put a hand in my pocket. It is not a humiliation; it is an unlawful deprivation of my rights and my freedoms.

— And who invited you to the expert council for the second ‘Yukos case’?

— Morshchakova and Fedotov. They sent me a letter and I agreed.

— Do you stay in touch now? What is their view of your decision to stay in France?

— Yes. The Council for Human Rights apologised to me but I do not think they are to blame just like Dmitry Medvedev is not to blame either — the people who violate the law are to blame. I shall reiterate – my mail was seized on the basis of an unlawful court decision, which is obvious to anyone who reads the documents concerned.

— Other than the matter of the expert opinion which, incidentally, had no legal force, the “Yukos affair” had nothing to do with you personally. You did not work at the company, you did not come into contact with it in any way, and you did not get any money from the people worked there. In other words, it was not your war in the first place…

— Yes, it is my war — I am asserting my right to live in the way I want.

— ‘Small person’ against the big system?

— From your perspective, I am a small person. But I am the biggest person for myself, and being proud of what I do is the meaning of my life. My “life rules” include dignity, too. You know when I was Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I attended the Global Dignity Day each year. My WEF colleagues and I would speak to schoolchildren and students around the world and ask them on the 20^th October each year, “Do you know what dignity is? Do you know what it comprises?” It would seem there are many other problems in the world, but I believe a world one could be really proud of is the one where you can be proud of what you do, of what you are, and of letting other people be proud of what they do. I disagreed with the Investigator on this one, of course.

Third ‘Yukos Case’

— What else do you think Investigative Committee could want from you if they were able to access all your documents, including your personal mail?

—The question is not for me.

— Maybe they were looking for an answer to the question of your loyalty?

— First, I have a reason to presume they did read my correspondence. Second, an acquaintance of mine (I will not mention his name now) found out that they were wanting me to be a witness for the prosecution in the third ‘Yukos case’.

But I am not willing to play the part — on the one hand, I cannot lie, on the other, I do not want to follow the path of Vasily Aleksanyan, Svetlana Bakhmina, or Vladimir Pereverzin (NK Yukos employees who were given prison sentences – Gazeta.Ru). Moreover, the quality of the evidence required in these cases is such that you, Nadezhda, could become a witness in the third ‘Yukos case’, too!

— Have the investigators contacted you following your departure?

— Not yet.

[…]

Capital Flight and the Brain Drain

— You have written a lot about corruption.  The ‘state within a state’ has been doing a great job for its end users in contrast to the poor service Russian businesses and state authorities have been providing. Maybe it is our perfect economic system?

— Yes, on the one hand, it (corruption) seems to be functioning perfectly, but, on the other hand, we can see how much Russian shares are worth and the extent of capital flight. Something went wrong, as a TV presenter said, when the rocket fell. Oil prices are high, macroeconomic indicators are good, Europe is in crisis, and yet capital has been fleeing Russia to go there.

Yes, Russian people live better now than they have ever lived in their history. But they could live much better still — at the oil price of USD 100 per barrel.

Let us imagine ourselves back in 2003 and what Russia would be like with oil costing USD 100 per barrel. Back in 2003 you would not believe that there could be a budget deficit, concern about a recession, and capital outflows, rather than inflows, with oil at such a price.

— You said, in many of your interviews, yours was an “isolated case”. However, it was your departure which became something of a cause célèbre – including for economists – to ponder whether “it was time to take a hike” and to leave too? Are Russian economists needed in Europe and in the USA?

— If people are thinking that and face risks similar to mine, I would not talk them out of it. But if there are no such risks, I would carry on working in Russia. I do not rule out that there will be cases similar to mine where someone else will be asked to participate in an expert review regarding ‘Kirovles case’, they will agree, and then what will follow is clear.

— There is a lot of discussion nowadays about how, exactly, the regime should be changed and by what means. What is your position regarding this issue?

— I am in favour of the absence of violence. And I know for sure it [violence] will not come from Bolotnaya Square. Middle class people in Moscow have too much to lose.

— In the event of the most drastic scenario, that is, complete regime change, what is your prediction – does the economy have a safety cushion to weather such a political storm?

— Evolutionary peaceful regime change is the best scenario.

— Do you regret the fact that you entered into the political arena by taking part in the expert review of the ‘Yukos affair’ in the first place?

— No, I do not. I had no choice. I was invited to take part in the second case against Khodorkovsky, as an expert in economics in 2011. What should I have said? “I do not understand anything?” Or pretend I did not understand anything? It was a part of my job. It is a scholar’s duty to tell the general public what they know. I did.