CDI Russia Weekly-#180 16 November 2001 Edited by David Johnson Center for Defense Information 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington DC 20036 phone: 202-332-0600; fax:202-462-4559 djohnson@cdi.org The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, economic, social, military, and foreign policy issues. With support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur Foundation, CDI Russia Weekly is a project of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information (CDI), a nonprofit research and education organization. CDI Russia Weekly Home Page (with archive): http://www.cdi.org/russia/ CDI Home Page: http://www.cdi.org Contents: 1. strana.ru: Nothing "Revolutionary" Yet. Russian daily newspapers sum up the first results of Bush-Putin summit. 2. Moscow Times editorial: Economic Index Off The Mark. 3. Versty: Boris Makarenko, RUSSIAN EXPERT COMMENTS ON PUTIN'S US VISIT. 4. Komsomolskaya Pravda: Yuri Sergeyev, IS RUSSIA READY FOR FRIENDSHIP WITH USA? 5. RFE/RL: Jeffrey Donovan, American Activists Fear For Human Rights In Russia. 6. The Daily Telegraph (UK): James Sherr, We must not sacrifice our own interests to keep Putin sweet. 7. International Herald Tribune: Max Jakobson, Putin Says He Wants Russia to Put the Cold War Behind It. 8. Los Angeles Times: Rose Gottemoeller, U.S. Must Help Russia Diminish Nuclear Risk. 9. BBC: Russia defies Opec oil cartel. 10. MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Speech by President Putin of Russia before the Representatives of the American Public and US Political Figures November 13, 2001, Russian Embassy in Washington. 11. BBC Monitoring: Russian military seen in the political ascendant as defence minister disappoints. ****** #1 strana.ru November 15, 2001 Nothing "Revolutionary" Yet (The RussianIssues.com) Russian daily newspapers sum up the first results of Bush-Putin summit By Denis Maternowski According to Izvestia ("Time for White Nights"), the Washington part of the summit can hardly be called revolutionary, but it can seriously stimulate relations between the two countries. "It is symbolic that Putin will become the first foreign guest to visit the ranch of the US president. It signifies that two leaders' relations are beyond formal protocol." Joint declarations talk on a number of issues relevant to Russo-American cooperation. Nuclear arms reduction is one of the key issues. As it had been expected, president Bush announced his willingness to reduce the number of warheads to 1700-2000. Russia agreed to do the same. Another issue is the future of Russia-NATO relations. Both presidents talked of the necessity of new "mechanisms of joint decision-making." According to Izvestia, "few experts doubt that sooner or later Russia will be part of political (not to be confused with military!) structures of NATO." Future of Afghanistan was also discussed. Putin, when asked about the growing American influence in former Soviet republics, stressed, "I am more worried about the terrorist bases in Northern Afghanistan... If we look to the future, there is nothing to be worried about." Therefore, concludes Izvestia, "Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are no longer oriented towards Russia exclusively. This "geopolitical diversification" may be seen as a correct move on Putin's part: Moscow now shares responsibility for its southern borders with Washington and, to a certain extent, can save a lot of resources." Economic matters were also discussed during the meeting. The infamous Jackson-Vanick amendment may be abolished in the nearest future: Jewish organizations have already announced that they would contribute to the cancellation of this 1974 anti-Soviet amendment related to the rights of Jews in the USSR. In addition to that, the "new economic" statement talks of the necessity to speed up negotiations on Russia's WTO joining "on standard conditions." Nezavisimaya Gazeta ("New Rules of the Strategic Game: Bush insists, while Putin is still unsure") points out that the very nature of negotiations is very different from what it used to be. "In the past it took years of expert discussions before any documents could be signed… As the two presidents showed us in Washington, all it takes now to agree upon nuclear arms reduction is a handshake. George Bush believes that the process of regulation of strategic stability will become more dynamic. Putin is forced to agree: Russia's economic capabilities would not allow it to maintain more than 1500 warheads in 2010." Vremya MN ("Nuclear Algebra: how many warheads do we need for secure life?") sees this number as more than reasonable for Russia's security. "Presidential aid Igor Sergeev still stands for "maintaining nuclear balance with the US". Why? Should not we attempt to get rid of the old Soviet complex to "catch up America"? We do not need to have an exact number of warheads America does. All we need is to be capable to inflict "irreparable damage." If the US want to have 2000 warheads "it is their money they spent". As for Russia, "we must reduce the number of our warheads to bare minimum needed to "hold back." Nezavisimaya Gazeta calls the reduction agreement a gesture of good will on America's part: "America can easily sustain 6000-7000 warheads it currently has. The same is economically impossible for Russia." Overall, the US demonstrated a remarkable willingness to compromise: president Bush agreed that the Jackson-Vanick amendment must be abolished; there will be no Taliban members in a new Afghani government, like Moscow insisted; Bush promised to "work with NATO" to create new mechanisms of interaction with Russia. This signifies, in newspaper's opinion, that "struggle against terrorism is not the only thing capable of uniting Russia and America." ****** #2 Moscow Times November 15, 2001 Editorial Economic Index Off The Mark The "2002 Index of Economic Freedom" survey by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal released this week had one senior analyst at a loss as to whether to laugh or cry. With El Salvador beating Germany and Armenia ahead of France in terms of economic freedom, we quite understand. And given that the index is billed as a "tool for policymakers and investors" and that the organizations behind the survey carry a lot of weight, its sometimes off-beam conclusions cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. The 450-page report classifies Russia as one of the 25 least economically free countries in the world, with commensurately little likelihood of achieving economic growth. Furthermore, Russia's rating has remained unchanged for the past two years and is actually worse than it was in the years 1995-99. This country has a lot of problems, but you don't have to be overly bullish to see that the economy has been growing and that important economic reforms (from taxes to de-bureaucratization and the Land Code) have been implemented in the past year. Just focusing on the Russia section, there are a number of points that seem to seriously undermine the report's credibility and its aspirations to be "systematic and empirical." In the first paragraph of the Russia country write-up, the authors appear to contradict themselves by first stating that among Russia's economic problems is the "inability to close the gap between available public resources and government spending," and then a few lines later praising President Putin for his "balanced budgets." In the same paragraph, the bold assertion that "the black market continues to account for at least 50 percent of GDP" is left totally unsubstantiated. Due to methodological idiosyncrasies, Russia gets the worst possible score for inflation, despite inflation having been brought down to reasonable levels in recent years. Russia justifiably scores poorly on property rights, and few would argue with this. However, why Russia's score has been downgraded since last year is a bit of a mystery. One would expect either no change or possibly that the recently adopted Land Code might even have nudged its score up a notch. The fact that Russia's rating climbed in 1998 at the height of investor euphoria over Russia (the report having been written in 1997) suggests that the index is far from immune to subjective assessments, and that the set of criteria used is not as objective as the report would have us believe. In any case, claims that because the index is published annually readers can "see how recent changes in government policy affect economic freedom," aren't borne out. In fact, quite the opposite. ******** #3 Versty No. 131 November 15, 2001 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] RUSSIAN EXPERT COMMENTS ON PUTIN'S US VISIT By Boris MAKARENKO, deputy director of the Center of Political Technologies, comments on the Russian leader's current US visit. Many people expected the current Russian-US summit to create a new world order. Still I get the impression that both Presidents have altered Russia's status instead. It goes without saying that the world continues to change after those horrendous September 11 terrorist attacks. Relations between the United States and Europe continue to change in different directions and at varying speeds. US and European positions are being strengthened in some areas. However, the most serious changes have something to do with Russia's global positions. The vestiges of the Cold War have now been overcome completely. Russia used to hang in limbo during the last decade, that is after the downfall of communism, with the West regarding our country as its half-enemy and half-friend. Each of these two aspects used to prevail time and again; however, one can now safely say that the foundation of Russia's new and long-term relations with the Western world and the United States, in particular is now being created. This seems to be the gist of the Putin-Bush summit at the US President's Texas ranch. We are witnessing many positive signals at this stage; however, such signals are mostly symbolic, rather than real. International relations are bedevilled with some extremely complicated problems; as a matter of fact, experts, diplomats, institutions of state authority, etc. should fill each such problem with real content. For example, it became clear after the summit's first day that Russia expected the United States to abolish the discriminatory Jackson-Vanick amendment, which doesn't grant most-favored nation status to Russia. However, US Congress alone can accomplish this objective. Nonetheless, we have become convinced for the first time in ten years that this amendment will be abolished. How long will such proceedings last? Well, it's still hard to say. Frankly speaking, the President of the United States used to rescind this amendment each year by his directive. However, it was always possible that the Jackson-Vanick amendment would be enacted once again in case of aggravated bilateral relations. Russia will, doubtless, be recognized as a market-economy country. However, this will require judicial proceedings for several consecutive months. It goes without saying that our two countries are going to compromise on the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty. I personally was alarmed, after learning about the gist of linking the ABM issue with the reduction of strategic offensive arms. Bush then made a unilateral statement to the effect that the United States was ready to scale down its ICBM potential. In response, Putin hailed the US intention, noting that Russia was also ready to examine this issue. Strange, as it may seem, but unilateral moves are much worse than a bilateral treaty just because such moves can't be called something mandatory. I'd like to stress once again that I don't oppose the linkage of these two issues because Russia would perceive this as a very good option. The gist of such linkage seems essential. Quite possibly, the United States and Russia, which are meeting each other halfway, can go back to their respective "jump-off positions", if need be. Naturally enough, a concrete treaty stipulating mandatory joint actions has to be signed in this sphere. The sides continue to discuss the NATO issue in a positive manner; however, this still constitutes nothing but a declaration of intent. Quite a few predictions were made before the summit, with some people talking about a grandiose break-through. Still others claimed that the summit won't produce any results whatsoever. Paradoxically enough, all of them are right. No specific landmark decisions have been reached during the summit. You see, it will take months and even years to solve all problems and to adopt the relevant decisions. However, we can see obvious progress, with the sides merging their positions on virtually every issue (that had divided Russia and the United States only six months ago). This constitutes the main result of the Putin-Bush summit. It's pretty hard to over-estimate the summit's global significance because we should assess subsequent developments. Russia will apparently obtain a new global status, if this process continues to develop. ******* #4 Komsomolskaya Pravda No. 210 November 15, 2001 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] IS RUSSIA READY FOR FRIENDSHIP WITH USA? By Yuri SERGEYEV The latest polls show that Russian society has split over attitude to the USA into two roughly equal parts. One half welcomes rapprochement, while the other half loathes it. Not that bad, for in the past the bulk of our people were firmly anti-American. Yet the decision of Putin to virtually independently make a breakthrough in relations with the West was extremely courageous. The communists and their fellow travellers - so-called patriots - will certainly try to hinder the implementation of agreements reached in the USA. The defence industries and possibly the army and a part of the state apparatus will not be overjoyed either. Who will support the agreements then? Businessmen who want broader markets, rightwing and centrist parties and movements, and students, that is, all those who want more democracy and market reforms without delay. Vladimir Putin will find it difficult to implement his policy in conditions of such fragile balance. He needs a breakthrough at home, too. Before his visit to the USA, Putin was simply the chief executive. But the talks he had in the USA show that he is now claiming the role of the national political leader. And he will have to become such leader - or retreat. ******* #5 U.S.: American Activists Fear For Human Rights In Russia By Jeffrey Donovan Despite claims of a new era in U.S.-Russian relations, there is growing concern among American activists that the issues of human rights, freedom, and democracy are no longer top priorities in Washington's relations with Moscow. Washington, 15 November 2001 (RFE/RL) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin is visiting President George W. Bush at his Texas ranch today for what's being billed -- to quote Hollywood legend Humphrey Bogart -- as "the beginning of a beautiful friendship" with the United States. But American human rights activists are up in arms over what they perceive as the Bush administration turning a blind eye to Russian abuses -- especially in the war-torn Caucasus region of Chechnya -- as the price for Moscow's friendship and its support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Prior to the terrorist attacks of 11 September that killed nearly 5,000 people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, the United States had often publicly taken Moscow to task for its conduct in Chechnya. According to human rights groups, tens of thousands of civilians have been indiscriminately killed since the war first broke out in Chechnya in 1994. But Moscow and Washington have forged closer ties following the terrorist attacks, with Putin even comparing Russia's Chechen war to the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan. That war is aimed at toppling the ruling Taliban and destroying the Al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of September's attacks. Putin says the Chechen war is also an antiterrorist action, launched after Chechen terrorists allegedly blew up Moscow residential buildings in 1999, killing some 300 people. Putin also says Al-Qaeda members are fighting in Chechnya, and last month Bush acknowledged for the first time that Russia faces an international terrorist threat in the region. U.S. human rights activists are now wondering whether this new relationship with Russia will prevent Washington from showing its traditional concern for Russian rights abuses -- both in Chechnya and also manifested in the increasingly restricted freedoms enjoyed by the media and NGOs. Catherine Fitzpatrick is the executive director of the International League for Human Rights, one of the main U.S. rights groups with observer status at the United Nations. Fitzpatrick, citing recent reports of fresh atrocities in Chechnya compiled by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, says Russian abuses appear to have worsened since this "new friendship" with the U.S. started: "Because of the events of 11 September, because of the U.S.-Russian rapprochement and the war against terrorism, there's a definite climate of impunity. It's a kind of green light, you know, that is given -- that the forces there feel that anything goes." Indications of the apparent shift in U.S. priorities can be found in statements made by Bush himself. Three weeks ago in Shanghai, Bush told Putin that the war on international terrorism should not translate into a war on minorities -- a clear reference to Chechnya, human rights activists say. But at the 13 November White House news conference with Putin, Bush praised what he called Russia's progress in dealing with its minorities, as well as Putin's efforts to forge a political solution in Chechnya. Tom Malinowski is the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which, like Fitzpatrick's group, wrote to Bush and Putin this week to urge them to bring an end to the killing in Chechnya. Malinowski -- citing Bush's statement on 13 November -- suspects a change has occurred in the U.S. stance on Chechnya: "He welcomed the progress in Chechnya, which was rather stunning, given the fact that there really has been no progress in Chechnya. It indicates there may, in fact, be a trade-off between Russian support for the war on terrorism and U.S. criticism of human rights violations in Chechnya." The report by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee was drawn up after its members recently spent two weeks interviewing Chechen refugees in neighboring Ingushetia. The report concludes that the situation in Chechnya is getting worse, with murder, disappearances, and torture occurring on a daily basis. But Fitzpatrick warns that other rights abuses loom in Russia, including the possibility that Western-funded NGOs are being forced to either give in to government demands on their activities or else face harassment and taxation. "We need to be concerned not just about unsavory people that need to be put on the payroll for the war against terrorism. We need to be concerned about how you support civil society in a positive way and people who understand American objectives and if those objectives are about universal values, who share those universal values. That is not what's happening." Fitzpatrick says the situation brewing in the Central Asian countries -- where she said crackdown on dissent is commonly carried out in the name of "antiterrorism" -- could come back to haunt both Russia and the United States. Fitzpatrick urges authorities in those countries, particularly in Uzbekistan, to legalize civil society NGOs: "When you don't legalize society, they begin to take other forms to vent their protests. It's a recipe for disaster and [for the] breeding of terrorism." Malinowski agrees. And he adds that if the U.S. turns a blind eye to Moscow's abuses, then Bush's efforts to ensure the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan is not seen as a war on Islam could be undermined by suspected Russian atrocities against Muslim civilians in Chechnya. "The United States is not going to be able to fight an effective global war on terrorism if it's associated with practices -- for example, in Chechnya -- that fail to distinguish between terrorists and people with legitimate political aspirations." But even if Bush privately presses Putin on Chechnya, does a U.S. government bent on getting Russian backing for its war in Afghanistan and concessions for its missile defense system really have much leverage? Fitzpatrick thinks so. Ultimately, she says, if Russia wants to be part of the West, it will have to play by Western rules, such as respect for democracy and human rights. She believes strongly that Russia is gravely violating these concepts in Chechnya: "There's no other member of the G-8 [group of industrialized countries] that has been slaughtering civilians on this massive scale. That's all there is to it." After the Bush-Putin summit ends today in Texas, the Russian president will depart for New York and the United Nations. Both Malinowski and Fitzpatrick hope that before Putin leaves, Bush will press him to open Chechnya to United Nations human rights monitors, to hold his military officers accountable for brutalities in Chechnya -- not one has been found guilty of abuse since the first war began in 1994 -- and to keep human rights high on the U.S.-Russian agenda. ******* #6 The Daily Telegraph (UK) November 15, 2001 We must not sacrifice our own interests to keep Putin sweet By James Sherr James Sherr is a Fellow of the Conflict Studies Research Centre, RMA Sandhurst. Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Ministry of Defence THERE is very little to criticise in President Putin's support of the United States since September 11, but there is much to consider. His support is almost unequivocal, strident even, particularly in comparison with that of several other American allies. The provision of this support - particularly in Central Asia - has forced Putin to overrule one of his closest associates, minister of defence Sergey Ivanov, and exercise truly presidential authority over a Russian military establishment that still sees America as the main enemy. By promising to cut American strategic nuclear arsenals by two thirds on the first day of his summit with Mr Putin, President Bush has demonstrated recognition of this fact. But by adhering to a tough line on the revision of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Mr Putin has shown his recognition of the strength of military suspicion of the US. Like the military establishment, Mr Putin does not believe that September 11 has changed Russian interests. What he does believe is that it has changed American interests. No less important, he believes that a trend is now accelerating which is changing interests throughout Europe - to the immense and long-term benefit of Russia. Mr Putin articulated what those interests are in a speech he gave to the Bundestag, to great applause, on September 25. "Nobody doubts the great value of Europe's relations with the United States," he said. "However, I simply think that, certainly and in the long-term, Europe will better consolidate its reputation as a powerful and really independent centre of international politics if it combines its own possibilities with Russia's human, territorial and natural resources, with Russia's economic, cultural and defence potential." Mr Putin also articulated the belief that Europe and North America now need Russia. This to him is the real significance of September 11. There will be no return to the condescending "partnership" of the Clinton-Albright years, dedicated more to the micro management of Russia's reforms than to the accommodation of its geopolitical interests. Gone is the early priority of the Bush administration - that America has to pursue its core interests and if the Russians don't like it, "they can go to hell", in Truman's words. The attacks of September 11 mean a reconsideration of the Chechen conflict and the moral authority of Russia as the country which "stood alone" and which, in the words of the former head of Russia's foreign intelligence service, "forms the real barrier to drug trafficking, organised crime and fundamentalism crossing from Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Caucasus to Europe". The most important gain for Russia comes with the widening recognition that the elusiveness and tenacity of al-Qa'eda - and the vulnerability of America - will persuade the European Union that Russia must become its indispensable partner as it enlarges towards the east. At least, this is how matters are seen in Moscow. Given these perceptions, the possibilities and risks of the new partnership need to be understood. A closer relationship between the European Union and Russia is to be welcomed. The risk is that the EU will make unwise concessions to secure it. The extension of the acquis communautaire - all the legislation and agreements that membership of the community entails - and the Schengen accord to Russia's borders will be a profound challenge to Russia, as will the enlargement of the EU to include several avowedly Atlanticist states. Today, the EU accounts for 35 per cent of Russia's foreign trade, but the volume of this trade disappoints Russia and Europe alike. The situation since September 11 provides Europe with the opportunity to propel Mr Putin further down the path he is already taking: towards systematic economic and legal reform. Such a framework will provide Europe with a breakthrough into Russia no less significant than Russia's hoped for breakthrough into Europe. But if the EU abandons its interests and principles - by putting a spanner into Nato enlargement, by delaying its own enlargement and by ignoring the security needs of newly independent states - it will delay Russia's transformation, rather than advance it. The second area of concern is Nato. Russia is not reviving schemes to join Nato. It is reviving schemes to transform its relationship with Nato if the alliance, as the Russian foreign ministry says, "becomes a different structure". Ukraine endorsed Nato's invocation of Article 5. Russia has not. The argument that Russia has been a stronger ally of America than Nato is designed to marginalise Nato, and also to persuade key Nato members that they should not allow the question of Nato enlargement to jeopardise alliance with Russia. The most complex, but least discussed area of concern is how the "war against terrorism" will affect Russia's relations with the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. For the Russian military establishment, the presence of American forces in Central Asia is the realisation of a nightmare. For Mr Putin, it could strengthen rather than weaken Russian influence. If civil war returns to Afghanistan in the coming months and years, will Uzbekistan's president, Islam Karimov, turn to America for assistance, or will he seek the assistance of the power with permanent interests in the region, Russia? Mr Putin claims that the events of September 11 vindicate a conviction which has always been questionable: "Terrorism, national hatred, separatism and religious extremism have the same roots everywhere and bear the same poisonous fruit." Nevertheless, he has behaved with shrewdness and prudence, even to the point of seeking discussions with Chechens. Putin wants Europe to understand that Russia is part of the West, and he knows that the West has its standards. To abandon these standards - principally on the matter of Nato enlargement and the rights of newly independent states - would be worse than shameful, it would be pointless. ******* #7 International Herald Tribune November 15, 2001 Putin Says He Wants Russia to Put the Cold War Behind It By Max Jakobson The writer is a former Finnish ambassador to the United Nations. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. HELSINKI A recent statement by President Vladimir Putin of Russia has puzzled Western observers. He said the Cold War had now ended. But didn't the Cold War end more than 10 years ago? Yes, it ended for the West, but Russia remained stuck with one foot in the past. The economy has been opened up, but foreign policy has been conducted in a Cold War spirit. NATO has been regarded as a hostile alliance, to be kept at bay by a buffer zone on Russia's western border. Attempts have been made to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States. Relations with client states of the former Soviet Union - Cuba, Iraq and Vietnam - have been cultivated. Now Mr. Putin appears to have realized that Russia's efforts to create a "multipolar world order" as a counter to American hegemony have proved futile - pretense without substance. His statement about the end of the Cold War was addressed to his own people, telling them, in effect: If we can't beat them, let's join them. Signs of a shift in Russian foreign policy had emerged already during Mr. Putin's meetings with President George W. Bush last summer. Sept. 11 acted as a catalyst. The Russian president was the first foreign leader to call Mr. Bush and offer to join the campaign against terrorism. Of course, Mr. Putin used the opportunity to deflect Western criticism from Russia's war against the Chechens. But the Chechen rebellion is only the tip of an iceberg of trouble that Russia faces along the southern rim of the former Soviet Union. The feud between Armenia and Azerbaijan has not yet been resolved. Georgia is fighting a separatist movement from Abhasia. And the five former Soviet republics in Central Asia face revolutionary Islamic influences from Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "buffer zone" along Russia's European border is no asset, either. Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova are all governed by corrupt regimes looking to Russia for economic assistance. Of all the 14 former Soviet republics only the three Baltic states are democracies with functioning market economies. They look to NATO and the European Union for security against possible Russian attempts to pull them back into Moscow's sphere of influence. Until recently the prospect of the three Baltic states joining NATO was believed to portend a severe crisis in Russia's relations with the West. It seems, however, that Mr. Putin will not let it become a stumbling block in his search for partnership with the United States. He has abandoned the former Soviet bases in Cuba and Vietnam, and he is moving toward an accommodation with Washington on missile defense. During a recent visit to Brussels, he described NATO as a political rather than a military institution and called for closer cooperation between NATO and Russia. He proposed that the NATO-Russia Joint Council established in 1996 meet regularly once a month. Potentially there is indeed a heavy agenda of crises and conflicts that the joint council could begin to deal with. From the ruins of the Soviet Union and the Federation of Yugoslavia, 17 new independent states have emerged, with two more (Kosovo and Montenegro) on the waiting list. So far only four, the three Baltic states and Slovenia, have qualified for entry soon into NATO and the European Union. The rest are instant states with no meaningful experience of independence. They form a wide zone of instability stretching from the Balkans into Central Asia. A joint effort to stabilize this area would surely be in the long-term interests of both the West and Russia. It would require some kind of agreement about exploitation of the Caspian Sea oil reserves. In light of historical experience, such a rational approach may seem utopian. In order to pursue his new foreign policy Mr. Putin will have to overcome strong opposition from those who cling to the traditional belief in Russia's separate and unique destiny. Suspicions of Western, particularly American, motives and intentions persist. On the Western side, Mr. Putin's new line is viewed with understandable skepticism. Is it just a cover for Russia's brutal action in Chechnya and other violations of human rights? Western opinion tends to judge Russia by its progress, or lack of it, toward democracy. Uncertainties abound. Will pragmatism on both the Russian and Western sides prevail over history, tradition and ideology? The meetings between Presidents Bush and Putin this week are the first test. ******* #8 Los Angeles Times November 12, 2001 U.S. Must Help Russia Diminish Nuclear Risk By ROSE GOTTEMOELLER Rose Gottemoeller is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. During the Clinton administration, she was assistant secretary for nonproliferation and national security at the Department of Energy Nuclear weapons in the hands of Osama bin Laden. A suitcase bomb detonating in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge. A radiological bomb spewing plutonium over the White House, creating a keep-out zone in central Washington to last for thousands of years. Suddenly, the press is full of scenarios like these, and people are worried. The United States has committed funds to responding to these threats, such as training crack nuclear emergency search teams and deploying good nuclear sensor systems. But funding for one critical priority is missing: We must stem the nuclear flow at its source. The meetings this week between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin provide an excellent opportunity for the two to talk about bolstering nuclear threat reduction efforts. Nearly a decade ago, we began working with Russia and other countries in the region to build better fences around nuclear facilities and to train workers to be reliable custodians of nuclear assets. These programs are our first line of defense against a nuclear terror attack. And yet these programs have not seen a penny of increased spending since the Sept. 11 attack. Why is this, when the country is sick with worry that the next attack will be a nuclear one? It seems that ambivalence in the White House may be keeping new funds from flowing in this direction. The Bush administration has complained that the Russians shouldn't let us foot the bill for programs that ought to be their top priority as well. This issue has peaked over the shutdown of Russia's three plutonium production reactors. Originally built to pump out plutonium for the Soviet bomb program, the reactors now provide heat and electicity to the cities of Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk. In the process, they continue to produce 11/2 tons of weapons-grade plutonium every year, enough for about 375 new bombs. For this reason, shutdown of the reactors has been a top priority. The Bush administration, however, has not been enthusiastic about the shutdown plan, which involves replacing the three plutonium reactors with fossil-fuel plants. "We don't build enough energy plants in this country," I heard one administration official say, "why should we build them in Russia?" The Bush team has a point. The Russian Federation is no longer in such desperate straits as it was a decade ago. Indeed, while the U.S. economy has ceased growing, the Russian economy is perking along at an annual growth rate of 5%. Russia should therefore, the administration reasons, be in a position to shoulder more of the responsibility for nonproliferation priorities--such as the shutdown of the plutonium reactors that the U.S. finds difficult to fund. We should not take this argument too far because the size of the Russian economy is still minuscule compared with that of ours. As one Russian colleague commented when he heard about the $40-billion post-Sept. 11 supplemental funding, "That's nearly double the entire Russian defense budget for this year." Nevertheless, we could take special action to help the Russians finance such programs. One good idea is the so-called debt-for-security swaps that have been proposed. Under this concept, we would forgive Soviet-era debt in exchange for Russia putting rubles into nonproliferation programs. These swaps would have to be carefully structured, with firm agreement on what projects and when. But we need more dollars going into these programs too. We cannot afford to cut the budget and shunt nuclear threat reduction programs to the back burner. We need to take urgent steps to further counter theft at Russian facilities. Every time we go into a Russian nuclear site, we immediately survey it to decide what quick fixes are needed to upgrade security. Is there a splintered old door that needs to be replaced? Do windows need to be bricked up or equipped with bars? If we began next April, the start of the summer construction period, within nine months we could complete quick fixes on all of the facilities in the Russian weapons complex that we so far haven't touched. The Russians would have to give us access to the sites, and the U.S. government would have to quickly get all the planning and paperwork in place. But it could be done and would give a huge boost to the nuclear security of both the United States and Russian Federation. Bush and Putin should focus on this cooperation as a critical part of our fight against terrorism. The next attack on the United States or the next attack on Russia could be nuclear. ******* #9 BBC November 15, 2001 Russia defies Opec oil cartel Opec's hopes of patching together concerted oil output cuts have taken another blow. Russia has said it will not scale back exports to help support plunging prices. The oil cartel wanted non-members - notably Russia, Norway and Mexico - to agree a combined production cut of 500,000 barrels per day. Support from outside the cartel was a vital pre-condition of Opec's 14 November agreement to reduce daily output by 1.5 million barrels, but has proved difficult to achieve. That prospect has now receded sharply, after Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov said a reduction would not be forthcoming. "We are not going to at any time reduce production on a big scale, it's impossible," Mr Kasyanov said. Mexican and Norwegian dilemma Earlier, the Mexican energy ministry said it was willing to cut by 100,000 barrels per day - but only as long as other nations joined in. Norway has said it is studying the situation, but has declined to say how low the oil price would have to go before they cut production. Norway's oil minister Einar Steesnaes told the BBC's World Business Report:"We want ... the price to rise to a more reasonable level, about $20 a barrel," a level that Opec is also targeting. "If the price is still falling, we should cooperate with Opec countries and also with countries outside Opec to stabilise the price," he added. Prices fall further The Russian announcement has put further pressure on oil prices, which had fallen by one-third since 11 September even before Opec's meeting this week. In early trading on Thursday, Brent crude oil futures slid to below $18 per barrel, before bouncing back slightly to $18.40 by midday, 35 cents down on the day. The falls stem from a huge excess of crude oil, caused largely by heavy production in recent years from the three main non-Opec exporters. Meanwhile, demand for crude oil - especially in the United States - has taken a sharp knock since the global economy started to slow down earlier this year. At the same time, oil traders have lost their faith in the ability of Opec to influence prices, largely because there are evident differences between members of the cartel. Doubts over Russia Mr Kasyanov's announcement is not the final word on Russia's reaction to Opec. The Russian government has little influence over its oil industry, which is now in the hands of dozens of mainly privately-owned companies. These firms may, it is hoped, impose production cuts on their own initiative. "Russia still has time to take a concrete decision about reducing oil production," said Viktor Khristenko, Russia's deputy prime minister. "Russia is continuing consultations with Opec members about the stabilisation of the oil market." But achieving any kind of output cut would always have proved a challenge for Russia, which has no experience of enforcing the sort of quota discipline that has become the rule in Opec. Non-Opec producers, 2000, million barrels per day US: 7.7 Russia: 6.5 Mexico: 3.5 Norway: 3.4 ******** #10 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Speech by President Putin of Russia before the Representatives of the American Public and US Political Figures November 13, 2001, Russian Embassy in Washington Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, Dear friends, I am very glad to see and to welcome you all here on Russian territory. The Ambassador has just told me that, first, it is the pride of our Embassy because there is no other hall in Washington like this one, and second, that this hall has never seen such a representative delegation, such a representative assembly. So, I would first of all like to thank you for gathering here, for taking time off your affairs and coming here to visit us. Thank you. I remember well our first meeting with President Bush in Ljubljana. We were nervous, and this was quite natural. But the important thing was that we were ready for dialogue. The dialogue did take place. It was a very important conversation for us and for our countries. We said then that the Cold War had receded into the past, that our countries were no longer adversaries of each other. We said that the very nature of our relations was changing. They should be founded on common interests, common values and mutual respect. But let us be frank. At that time in Ljubljana these were merely intentions. We thought that we had a lot of time ahead for reflection and for making decisions. We did not know what America was to experience and what all of us were to experience. It is two months since the monstrous terrorist acts in New York and Washington, but I, like all of us, I think, still see before my eyes the frames that recorded that tragedy. An unheard of evil act had been perpetrated against the whole mankind, against each and every one of us. And, as happened in human history more than once, the larger the scale of the misfortune the stronger human solidarity and mutual help manifest themselves, the greater the heroism and courage of the people who were caught in the eye of the catastrophe. I am proud that Russian citizens and our former fellow-countrymen were among them. I am proud of the Russian engineer Yevgeny Knyazev who rescued about 70 people from the building before he himself died under the debris. Special words of thanks must go to Russian journalist Yuri Kirilchenko who was helping to rescue people at the World Trade Center until he fell, stricken with a heart attack. We have no right to forget about the victims of these terrorist acts, it is our duty to take care of those whose lives are still in danger, those whose lives are threatened by terrorism. Today we know that not a single state in the world, not a single people in the world is secure against this threat. Russia was one of the first countries to confront modern terrorism. We were using our own resources to combat it. Today a broad coalition of countries has been formed which is ready to stand up to this threat. The terrorists hoped to intimidate us, to take advantage of the contradictions between states, to split the world and the world community. But instead they were faced with our cohesion and our solidarity, I should say, unheard of solidarity in modern conditions. Likewise, their hopes that our thirst for revenge would make us like them and use similar cruel methods have not been justified: the anti-terrorist coalition is not fighting any state or people. It has no other enemies except the terrorists themselves. The terrorists tried to drive a wedge between the Christian and Muslim worlds, to kindle a "conflict of civilizations". But this has not happened. Today all the states belonging to the Islamic world condemn terrorism. Our common enemy is beyond nationality, beyond religion and beyond civilization. This is obvious to Russia: we have unique historical experience. For centuries both Christian and Islamic cultures have been coexisting in harmony and developing on the territory of Russia. Proceeding from this experience we can say confidently that there is no more pressing task than cementing unity in the struggle against terrorism. What is needed above all is concerted actions of law enforcement, customs and financial bodies, and the special services and coordination of information policies. That calls for an entirely new level of interaction between the leading powers. What is needed is a full-fledged and permanent working alliance. Ladies and gentlemen, The United Nations is called upon to play the key role in strengthening the unity of the world community. That organization is and will be as we, members of the organization, want it to be. First of all, it is necessary to seek unstinting compliance by all the states with the UN Security Council resolutions aimed at undermining the material base and infrastructure of terrorist activities. We propose to speed up the drafting and adoption of a Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism and an International Convention Against Nuclear Terrorism. Finally, all the states should accede to previously adopted international agreements on combating terrorism and bring their national legislations in line with them. I am sure that we will succeed in creating an atmosphere of zero tolerance of terror in the world. But we can only achieve this if the "terrorist international" -- and it has emerged in the past few years -- is countered with a "an international of law and legality". Besides, the social and economic roots of the new threats and challenges demand special attention on our part. They include the gap between wealth and poverty both within states and on the world scale. If the Afghan peasant can only rely for his livelihood on the meager pay he gets from an opium poppy trader it means that the terrorists and criminals of every stripe will be able to manipulate huge financial flows in the future. So, we welcome and support the efforts being exerted by the UN, the G-8 and other forums to combat poverty. Poverty that often drives people to commit crimes. Dear friends, It is a matter of fundamental importance that the interaction between our countries in the struggle against terrorism should not remain a mere episode in the history of Russian-American relations, but should mark the start of long-term partnership and cooperation. Today we should look back on the history of our relations. To quote the great Russian thinker and historian Vladimir Klyuchevsky, "History is not our teacher, but our overseer. It does not teach us anything, it merely punishes us for ignorance of its lessons." After the Second World War the relations between our countries have had their ups and downs. But eventually the main achievement has been that our countries have stopped being afraid of each other. It has enabled us together to get rid of what for decades has stricken fear into the peoples the world over, the arsenals of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons. Their quantitative level today is totally at odds with the current situation in the world and with the character of modern threats. I had no doubt that we would meet with understanding on the part of the United States on this issue and the statement by President Bush today confirms that fact. That is why Russia declares that it is ready to make deep cuts of strategic armaments. That is why we are proposing today a radical program of further strategic offensive arms cuts, at least by three times, to a minimum level required to maintain the strategic balance in the world. We no longer need to scare each other in order to come to terms. Security arises not from weapons and mountains of hardware, it is created by the political will of states and the leaders of these states. Yes, the world has still a long way to go before international relations are built solely on trust. This is regrettable. But this is why it is so important today to rely on the existing foundation of treaties and agreements in the sphere of disarmament and arms control. I think this is a favorable moment for tapping fully the immense potential of cooperation between Russia and the United States in the settlement of regional conflicts. One manifestation of that potential is joint participation of Russia and the US in the search for a solution to the Middle East crisis. Such interaction is badly needed today to achieve a just and enduring settlement inside Afghanistan. I am absolutely sure that in the face of common threats and challenges "co-sponsorship" over regional issues must become the main formula of Russian-American cooperation. We should also understand what model of security is the best for the European continent. Intensive work with our European partners is required. We need a new level of interaction to enable us to make joint decisions. As for the relations between Russia and NATO, we intend to follow the path of promoting equal cooperation with that organization. To go -- and I would like to stress this -- as far as the North Atlantic Alliance itself is ready to go and as far as it will be able, of course, to take into account the legitimate interests of Russia. Ladies and gentlemen, Russia today is a rapidly changing country which has made an irreversible historical choice. The problems we are tackling have to do with ways of forming a mature democratic state and a modern and effective market economy. Today Russia is a country whose integration into the community of free democratic countries has become irreversible. The destinies of our peoples are different in many ways. For many years they have followed different paths. But if one looks back on the more than two hundred years of our relations one thing immediately leaps at you: at sharp turns in history, at so-called "moments of truth" when the very existence of our states was sometimes in the balance, Russia and America always stood together. They were together at the dawn of American independence when -- let it be remembered -- Russian Empress Catherine II politely but directly and firmly refused the request of King George III to send Russian soldiers to take part in putting down an uprising in the American colonies. Our countries were together in the era of emancipation reforms, in Russia in the middle of the 19th century it coincided with the era of the Civil War in the US. It is symbolic that two great statesmen -- Emperor Alexander II and President Abraham Lincoln -- abolished slavery in their countries at about the same time, and both fell at the hands of terrorists, by the way. It is symbolic that Russia has made its financial contribution to erecting the Statue of Liberty in New York which today is a symbol of freedom all over the world. Finally, our peoples were together during the Second World War. I am sure that today, when our "destiny again meets history" we will be not only partners, but we may well be friends. It is necessary to act vigorously remembering the call of a character from Jack London's novel. "Time does not wait," he said. Thank you. ****** #11 BBC Monitoring Russian military seen in the political ascendant as defence minister disappoints Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow, in Russian 13 Nov 01 A perceived contrast between the efficient performance of Russian Chief of General Staff Anatoliy Kvashnin and that of Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov in the conduct of the war against terrorism would appear to have encouraged the military to believe they have increased political influence on the president. The reactionary views of many serving commanders have been expressed in a public appeal issued by former top military men, but President Putin seems to have left for the USA confident that his armed forces policy is secure. The following is the text of an article by Vadim Solovyev "Generals go into opposition to the Kremlin. Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov is losing control of the armed forces, all hope is pinned on the president" in Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta on 13 November In literally the last few hours before his departure for the USA, President Vladimir Putin deemed it necessary to hold a lengthy meeting behind closed doors with the top Russian military leadership. And there were serious, not to say critical, reasons for doing so. The more closely Moscow cooperates with the US administration, the sharper the reaction to these actions in the "Trans-Arbat Military District" [allusion to Defence Ministry headquarters on Moscow's Arbat Square]. And the configuration of the political alignment in this district itself has also changed. Disagreements with the Kremlin have been developing for a long time, but the mechanism of political leadership of the armed forces had stopped them coming to the surface. War against terrorism shifts civilian-military balance Putin placed at the head of the Defence Ministry the civilian Sergey Ivanov, former head of the Russian Federation Security Council. However, with the start of the antiterrorist war a military man came to the fore - Chief of the General Staff Anatoliy Kvashnin. He was the one who would report to the Kremlin on the course of combat operations, make predictions about the situation and prepare recommendations. And Kvashnin did all this very competently. As for Sergey Ivanov, he did not shine in this kind of knowledge. Indeed, at first he even used to make military-political statements that were "inappropriate to the moment" (for which, apparently, he was scolded by the Kremlin bosses). Now career military men believe they are capable of exerting even a strictly political influence on the president and his entourage. There are at least three key issues on which the military want to influence the country's leadership - strategic parity with the USA, geopolitical alignment in Central Asia and the Middle East and the social position of servicemen. Whatever statements the president may make about readiness for compromise with the USA on the 1972 ABM Treaty, serving generals adhere to their own view in full accordance with the tradition of the Soviet period - the treaty cannot be changed in any circumstances! It would be better to let the Americans secede from it unilaterally than to compromise. Putin's entourage sees this position as a return to cold war times. The Kremlin's current man in the Defence Ministry, Sergey Ivanov, admitted this the other day when he called the ABM Treaty a "relic of that period". That statement was bound to annoy the generals, especially in the context of the policy of reducing Russian nuclear missile capacity by approximately three-quarters, down to 1,500 nuclear weapons. The generals cannot help intuitively feeling that their own social weight is falling by the same proportion, if not more. Russian military resent US presence in Central Asia From the geopolitical viewpoint, there is also a growing disagreement within the Defence Ministry with the way in which the Kremlin is structuring its participation in the antiterrorist coalition. To put it in agitprop style, the boot of the American soldier is trampling the recently-Soviet soil of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. That is absolutely at odds with the philosophy of the rulers of the "Trans-Arbat District". And the reason is clear - throughout their professional lives they have trained to destroy that very enemy. That was why in many of them the New York events of 11 September caused undisguised glee. The presence of the Pentagon in the former Soviet republics with Russia's consent is only intensifying these sentiments. Furthermore, the Americans seem to be achieving in Afghanistan something that the Russian military failed to do in 10 years of war. And many of those who are high up in our military now received a career boost thanks to the ill-fated Afghan war of 1979-89. The dissatisfaction is also spurred by the Kremlin's decision to close the bases in Vietnam and Cuba, the reduction in the Russian peacekeeping contingents in Bosnia and Kosovo and the reduction in the Russian military presence in the Transcaucasus and the Dnestr region. And NATO is coming closer all the time. The president's military policy with regard to his own armed forces is also not inspiring. Almost two years of Vladimir Putin's presidency have brought nothing new either as regards re-equipping the army and navy or as regards the impoverished status of military men. The promised pay raise, the increase planned in two stages, for the beginning and the middle of next year, has itself proved ephemeral. Foreboding that the military will be let down yet again is instilled by the rather sluggish situation on the world oil market - the lower the prices, the fewer illusions among officers and generals that the Kremlin will keep its word. Retired generals express serving commanders' resistance to change And then last Saturday [10 November] an appeal from "generals and admirals of the Soviet armed forces and the Russian army to the Russian president, State Duma deputies, government members and governors (presidents) of the regions of the Russian Federation" was published in a radical left newspaper. "Reforms of death" - that is how the authors describe the current changes in Russia, including the military-political reforms. "This is a lie and deception of the people" - that is how the armed forces reforms are described. The solution to the crisis is seen in restoring power to the people and dealing in the cruellest way with the former and present leaders of the state. Here there is a slogan: "The people must decide their own fate", and a definition of the goal: "The people must have returned to them not only their stolen wealth but the social gains that they had secured under Soviet power." Incidentally, this is a call for the violent revision of everything that has taken shape in the Russian state in the past decade. Sometimes the tone is more important than the words. In this case the tone leaves no doubt that what they have in mind is chiefly the violent path of achieving the goal. The signatories' jobs speak for themselves. All of them without exception held various leadership posts at the head of the branches of service and certain service arms in the armed forces. And it does not matter that they have now retired. "There is no such thing as an ex-St Bernard," as Bunin once said. Ranks such as commander of the navy, commander of a military district or fleet, commander of airborne troops or the air defence Forces, or chief of a directorate of the Russian Federation armed forces general staff are borne for life. In addition it is reliably known that all the high-ranking signatories are in close contact with the General Staff and the attribution in the heading "Appeal of general and admirals...of the Russian Army" certainly does not indicate that they are retirees. No, the retirees are speaking in the name of serving generals and admirals, acting in this case as the mouthpiece of offices at the General Staff. The retirees have said what is on the minds of serving personnel. Putin most likely went to the conference with the military with a fairly light heart: After all, propagandist appeals are in the spirit of Soviet times. People in the know say that if two or three generals happen to strike up a confidential conversation, it will be known to the competent bodies literally straight away, before they even part. But will the competent organs enter into collusion with the generals? Apparently not, there are people everywhere there who are loyal to the president. As for the General Staff's excessive pugnacity, of course emotions are all very well, but as [popular singer] Vysotskiy said, "somehow there are not many troublemakers nowadays and no leaders" among the generals. However, you can never tell what might happen when the president goes off to Texas for three days. *******