Academician Evgenii Velikhov, a specialist in the field of plasma physics and controllable nuclear fusion, has contributed to the development of gas lasers and the creation of pioneering magneto-hydrodynamic high capacity impulse generators.

But the prominent scientist combines his work as a research physicist with directing a large research center. He also finds time to engage in politics.

Velikhov was among the first to arrive at Chernobyl in 1986 to take part in the cleaning up of the nuclear reactor explosion there. He now considers that the accident acquired the character of an international catastrophe not as much because of the radioactive pollution the accident emitted as the wrongheaded and ignorant action the Soviet regime took after the blast.

Velikhov became full member of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences in 1974 at the age of 39. In addition to numerous Russian awards, Velikhov has won the American Physics Society's Scillard Prize and a prize from the Science and World International Federation of Scientists.

Velikhov's career as a manager has been no less successful. He became head of the Kurchatov Institute of Nuclear Energy in 1988. In 1993, the institute acquired the prestigious status of national research center thanks to Velikhov's efforts. In addition, Velikhov is chief executive and initiator of an international program set up to create an experimental nuclear fusion reactor.

Velikhov was a people's deputy during the late Soviet era. He recently joined the ranks of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov's Otechestvo movement and rumor has it that he enjoys special influence with the mayor.

In his interview with The Russia Journal, Velikhov discusses nuclear energy, the prospects of international cooperation and, of course, politics.

Russia Journal: This interview coincides with the 13th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

Evgenii Velikhov: Yes, although you have to realize that there are a lot of other important issues at the moment.

RJ: In nuclear energy?

EV: Yes, and in other areas. The main issue for us today is to keep our nuclear power stations operating efficiently and safely. We have to concentrate on the facilities we have, because there won't be any investment in the foreseeable future. We keep the country supplied with cheap energy all year round, even when no one pays us. If everyone were to start paying, we'd have the money to spend on security, modernization and development. We don't have the money, but nor are we neglecting these areas. We put a lot of emphasis on international cooperation. At the moment, we're working on a high temperature, helium-cooled reactor. This is the new generation of reactors, safe and environmentally friendly, and we're working with the USA, France, Japan and other countries on this project.

RJ: Still, people can't forget Chernobyl, and it's a weighty argument against nuclear energy, especially here in Russia.

EV: We've learnt a lot from Chernobyl, and our nuclear industry has shown some good results. No one says, for example, how in Armenia, after the 1988 earthquake, the only power station still working was a nuclear power station. That was an old station, at the end of its service life, but it saved thousands of lives. How would people have lived without light and heat? How would rescuers have been able to do their job? But there was immense pressure to close the station, Elena Bonner came...

RJ: Andrei Sakharov's wife?

EV: Yes, she and Sakharov both came to Armenia. There was all this outcry about Moscow carrying out a policy of genocide against the Armenian people.

RJ: And Sakharov said that too?

EV: Probably, he was influenced by her. Different people threatened the director of the station and even his children. We had plans to modernize the station, we were going to work with American companies. But we had to give in and close the station. That was when the Armenian people began to suffer. How can you live in town in winter without electricity and warmth. We could have built a solar- or wind- power station back then, I said we should, but where were all the 'greens' then, why didn't they come and help Armenia when there was still a chance?

RJ: The nuclear power station in Lithuania has also had a lot of bad publicity.

EV: It's a similar situation - accusations of genocide - such a big power station for such a small country and so on. But because most of Lithuania's energy is nuclear, its air is cleaner than in Germany or England. That's the conclusion of studies carried out by an independent group.

RJ: The more reactors in the world, the more acute the problem of what to do with nuclear waste.

EV: It's the most urgent issue to be addressed. We have a lot of nuclear waste, not just from power stations, but from submarines too. The attitude was that by the time we'd have to deal with the problem, we'd have the money to find solutions. Now the time has come, and we haven't got the money. We've got to do something with the spent fuel; we've got to clean up irradiated territory too. That radioactive pollution is the legacy of the military program, not the energy industry. Of course, there was the Chernobyl disaster, but its consequences, especially in Russia, are exaggerated. It's not radiation that's the real tragedy, but the terrible social and economic consequences. Our tragedy is that in Russia, people are still more or less treated as serfs. The state has always tried to look after everyone, and at the same time stopped them from taking initiative and being able to look after themselves.

RJ: Talking about initiative, is it true that attempts were made to privatize nuclear power stations at the beginning of the '90s?

EV: The idea was to carry out a demonopolisation of Nuclear industry in a way it was being done with the aviation industry and shipbuilding and privatize it.

RJ: You were one of the people who fought those proposals.

EV: Yes, there were some others too; Mikhailov [former atomic energy minister], Adamov [current atomic energy minister], they both supported our fight. Our main argument was that this industry is all about nuclear weapons, nuclear safety, power stations, and it isn't in private hands anywhere. Well, maybe in France, but France is a stable country. In our conditions, it's just unthinkable to privatize the nuclear industry.

RJ: And the government listened to you then?

EV: Yes, at that time. Yeltsin supported us too on issues regarding the Academy of Sciences and the Space Agency. I also managed to convince him that we couldn't just hand over the Arctic shelf to some consortium like we did with Sakhalin. We have to ensure that whoever develops the shelf will provide work for our industry, in particular, for the defense industry. That's why Ros-shelf was set up. My logic is simple: We need the West because we need investment. We need the market, and the market is in Asia. We need to sit down together...

RJ: Who exactly?

EV: Russia, the market - India, China, Asia, and the investors, that is, the West and the Japanese. We have to reach an agreement. We've got the natural resources, the West has the capital. The market is there, and we have to spread the jobs around. With Ros-shelf, we're hoping to clinch a good deal, we have all the relevant laws.

RJ: What's the situation like now with international cooperation in the nuclear industry?

EV: The best example is the international thermonuclear reactor project. Our contribution is intellectual rather than financial. We're still leading the project; the initial idea was ours.

RJ: And who will actually implement the project?

EV: We need to take a decision on that. As often happens, the USA was enthusiastic at first, but now they're hesitating. Officially, Russia, Europe, and Japan are carrying out the project. We've been working successfully with the Americans, though, on nuclear waste storage. Here, we also need an international program, the issue is too big for one country alone. We've been accused of wanting to turn Russia into a dump for nuclear waste, but that's not true. We want different countries to build treatment and storage facilities, and see who comes up with the best solutions.

RJ: Turning to politics, what impact could events in the Balkans have on international cooperation?

EV: I hope that, ultimately, common sense will prevail and a political solution will be found. I also hope that both we, and the Americans will be able to see beyond these events. Just remember that we were already working together on the thermonuclear reactor at the time of Brezhnev and Nixon. So many things have happened since then: the war in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan calling the Soviet Union the 'evil empire.' I don't see any reason why we won't be able to continue working together as we have done. Of course, our interests and America's diverge at times, but we need each other if we are to solve the global issues facing us.

RJ: Such as?

EV: Nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear arms in general, and then, after the Asian crisis, there's the whole issue of energy supplies.

RJ: Going back to the Balkans, do you think Milosevic will back down, or will NATO pull out?

EV: I don't have any liking for Milosevic. I don't like what's happening either to the Albanians or to the Serbs. There's no sense in going on about our Orthodox ties either, it's a dangerous attitude. Religion and nationality are individual things, not a basis for whom to support. I consider myself Russian, but if I were to look at myself through, say, Hitler's eyes, I could be anything you want, a Tatar, no doubt. The lives of both Christians and Muslims must be respected. Of course, it's all very complicated, and as the writer Aleksei Tolstoi said, "You can't chase people into paradise with a stick." But the Americans are trying to decide everything from Washington without a clear idea of what's going on.

RJ: What do you think about the sceptics who say that working with the USA is just opening the door to all our secrets?

EV: The thing with secrecy is that if you make everything secret, it's like making nothing secret. You pay for it in the end. I've been working at the Kurchatov Institute for 40 years now. We've had international projects going all that time, and no one has stolen any of our secrets.

RJ: It seems that the biggest threat to nuclear safety in Russia today is unpaid wages and falling living standards.

EV: If the technicians are always worrying about what they and their families are going to live on, it doesn't make for a good atmosphere at work. We don't need any subsidies or loans, we just need our people to be paid the wages they've worked for.

RJ: That means solving the non-payments problem.

EV: Yes, the problem is that our free-marketeers - Gaidar, Chubais and so on - had the theory but not the practice. It's like with a vegetable garden, if you don't work in it, you get no vegetables, only weeds. If you just leave the market to take care of itself, you get monopolies, criminals and corrupt officials. We can't just pull everything out by the roots, either, like the communists suggest. We need to work.

RJ: And you think that Yuri Luzhkov is the man who could oversee that work?

EV: He's proved himself a man of action. Of course, there are always grounds for criticism, but I just don't see any other suitable candidate at the moment. That's why I joined "Otechestvo" (Fatherland - Luzhkov's political movement).

RJ: Some say that he consults with you almost every day on various issues.

EV: No one consults with me, Gorbachev didn't; Yeltsin doesn't. If I sometimes get a chance to meet with Luzhkov, that's a good thing, but it's not often. And my involvement in Otechestvo is only at local level.

RJ: Does Luzhkov listen to you?

EV: Yes, more than Gorbachev or Yeltsin. Of course, he also wants to be running the show. They all do, but Luzhkov has experience at the head of a whole, complex system. I've been running the Kurchatov Institute for the last 10 years, and I know how complicated that is. And you can't compare an institute to the city of Moscow. Moscow is like a state in itself, and Luzhkov has proven that he can survive and obtain results.

RJ: What are the main differences between Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and Luzhkov?

EV: Yeltsin and Gorbachev are political animals, Luzhkov puts the emphasis more on economics. The question is, who will join him. Though he has plenty of people behind him, he prefers to rely on individuals; while Yeltsin, he likes to choose a whole team.

RJ: On the basis of personal likes and dislikes.

EV: He had a limited choice. Another thing is that we've forgotten our history. We had a centrist movement once, the pre-revolutionary Cadet Party, and we're coming back to that now. On the political spectrum, what we'll have is the far right and the far left, and we'll have the centrists in the middle, outside class and group interests. And it's they who will get Russia back on its feet. The idea of a strong state is a good foundation. We've tried to go from 'Marx to Sachs,' and all we have to show for it is a big mess. Now we have to give the market room to grow; get rid of the weeds - water the seeds.

RJ: It's no secret that Luzhkov is a contender for the presidency. He's got that old Russian authoritarian streak in him, though.

EV: We need a lot of strong will. We haven't yet developed truly democratic institutions. Look at the upcoming Duma elections, what's going to happen there? We have all these imported election technologies, but it's doubtful that the right people will get into the Duma. There's too much at stake, too much of a fight for power. We need a democratic leader, and here, Luzhkov stands out because he has experience and achievements to his name. As for the future, I think that just as tsars and emperors have become a thing of the past, so presidents will someday go the same way.

RJ: So Russia could become a real parliamentary democracy?

EV: Yes, though not yet. We can't achieve anything through revolution, only through gradual change. We have to take the constitution we have, the laws we have, and change them slowly. I think Luzhkov could do that. The whole process will take decades, though.

RJ: You think Luzhkov would be able resist the temptation of power? The present constitution gives the president so much power, after all.

EV: It's important that he have convinced democrats backing him, it's the team that can nudge a leader in the right direction.

RJ: Flattery is a good test. How does he stand up, in your opinion?

EV: He's very democratic in manner. But then, so were others earlier. What counts is that he listens to people.

RJ: Does he handle criticism well?

EV: I haven't got a lot of experience with him, but what I say, he listens to; and when I raised criticism at the Otechestvo congress, my points were given due consideration.

RJ: Are there any other politicians in Russia whose ideas you like?

EV: I've always had a liking for Yavlinskii, but he doesn't have Luzhkov's experience. A union between them would be a positive thing, though. Almost everyone can make some contribution, I think - though Zhirinovskii, he's rather an original character. Lebed could make a contribution, but not on his own.

RJ: So, you think a union between Yavlinskii and Luzhkov would be possible?

EV: I think it would be natural. I think we'll see new names on the horizon soon, too.