CDI Russia Weekly-#204
3 May 2002
Edited by David Johnson
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20036
phone: 202-797-5277; 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 web page (with archive): http://www.cdi.org/russia/
  Visit CDI's web site: http://www.cdi.org

Contents:
  1. RFE/RL: Francesca Mereu, Muscovites Enjoy May Day Holiday, Don't Miss 
Soviet Celebrations.
  2. Moscow Times: Vladimir Ryzhkov, Russia's Festive Postmodernism.
  3. Los Angeles Times: John Daniszewski, Communists Play Second Fiddle.
Trends: They're still Russia's largest political party, but a May Day 
rally shows they're no longer the biggest draw. Putin is in charge.
  4. Jamestown Foundation Monitor: MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON CLAIM PROGRESS 
IN ARMS TALKS.
  5. AFP: US adopts 'the more, the better' formula for NATO enlargement.
  6. Interfax: Russian naval base in Vietnam's Cam Ranh to close on May 4.
  7. Institute for War & Peace Reporting: Sanobar Shermatova, MOSCOW 
SKINHEADS TARGET SOUTHERNERS. Suspicions are growing that attacks by 
groups of Moscow skinheads on Caucasian traders are being carefully 
orchestrated.
  8. Voice of America: Rebecca Santana, An Unlikely Tourist Site: 
A Soviet-Era Gulag.
  9. Rossiyskaya Gazeta: Russian Security Council Official Interviewed 
on Eve of Terrorism Session.
  10. Far Eastern Economic Review: Ahmed Rashid, WITH THE U.S. AS AN 
ALLY, DICTATORS GET TOUGHER. AN ACCOUNT OF REPRESSION IN CENTRAL ASIA 
THIS YEAR.
  11. Foreign Policy in Focus: Armen Georgian, U.S. Eyes Caspian Oil 
in "War On Terror"
  12. pravda.ru: FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS TO BE USED IN OFFENSIVE 
AGAINST IRAQ.
  13. Le Monde: French Editorial Deplores UN Human Rights Commission's 
'Hypocrisy' Over Chechnya.
  14. The Russia Journal: Alexander Golts, General Staff critical of 
paratroops.

*******

#1
Russia: Muscovites Enjoy May Day Holiday, Don't Miss Soviet Celebrations
By Francesca Mereu

The first of May is celebrated around the world as International Workers' 
Day, and Russia is no exception. Large rallies were held in the capital, 
Moscow, and many ordinary Muscovites also celebrated the holiday. But does 
May Day still mean as much to Russians today as it did during Soviet times, 
when people were forced to demonstrate their solidarity with the working 
class? RFE/RL's Moscow correspondent Francesca Mereu hit the streets of the 
capital and filed this report. 

Moscow, 1 May 2002 (RFE/RL) -- Communists and trade unionists held parades 
and rallies in the Russian capital, Moscow, today to celebrate May Day, which 
they continue to call the Day of International Workers' Solidarity, according 
to the old Soviet tradition. 

Police and rally organizers say some 140,000 trade unionists marched in 
central Moscow near St. Basil's Cathedral, while the Communist Party claims 
100,000 people showed up for a separate rally in Revolution Square. Police, 
however, estimated that crowd at only 10,000 to 20,000.

Authorities ordered more than 4,000 police officers to patrol the capital's 
streets, and no major incidents were reported. Hundreds of May Day rallies 
were also planned across the country.

At the Moscow demonstration, Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov called 
on the Russian government to resign, accusing it of what he called "crimes 
against the nation."

"Our main demand is for the government to resign, because this government is 
playing the role of a colonial administration, which strangles the economy, 
hurries to pay off debts to its masters but, at the same time, does not pay 
decent salaries."

Apart from the organized rallies, Moscow's city center today was full of 
people taking leisurely walks, and the streets of the Russian capital were 
empty of the usual chaotic traffic.

If during Soviet times ordinary Russians were encouraged to publicly 
demonstrate solidarity with the working class on May Day, most Russians today 
-- according to a poll by the public opinion center VTsIOM -- prefer to go to 
their dachas or spend time with family and friends.

Twenty-one-year-old Konstantin Italyev is a singer. He was walking with his 
younger brother Vitaly along the garden paths near central Tveskoy Bulvar. 
Italyev says Muscovites his age have forgotten the old Communist meaning of 
the holiday and simply welcome 1 May as a day off.

"[1 May] is just one of the spring days. That's all. If we talk about May 1 
in the context of the Communist era, [for me] this is just a symbol of the 
time gone. That's all. Now, communism is over. I don't understand this day as 
a holiday. Of course, it is fine that today I got a day off, but I can't see 
any other meaning."

Sixty-two-year-old Taissi Kotova was sitting in central Pushkinskaya Square, 
enjoying one of the capital's rare sunny days.

"I really like this holiday. I didn't go to the dacha because I wanted to 
stay in Moscow and enjoy this atmosphere. I went a bit to the demonstration 
[organized by] the Communist Party, but I didn't like the demonstration since 
-- I'm sorry to say so -- people weren't speaking correctly (they were saying 
silly things)."

Kotova, a pensioner, says that in the days of the Soviet Union, the factory 
where she used to work required its workers to attend the May Day rallies 
organized by the Communist Party. Every factory was given a spot where its 
workers had to stand and wave red flags.

Kotova says she has pleasant memories of that time but that she doesn't 
really miss it:

"[During the Soviet time,] we had more fun. The demonstration was big and 
accompanied with music and dances. We used to go there with the families, 
with [our colleagues] from the factories. It was, of course, more interesting 
than it is now. [But] I don't miss it. I just have good memories of it. I'm 
very happy with my present life. I like it."

Lev Yegorov is 76 years old and was heading toward the central Mayakovskaya 
Square to "stretch his legs a bit." Yegorov recalls how he used to celebrate 
May Day under communism.

"[1 May for me means] a spring day, the beginning of the summer. That's all, 
and now I'll take a walk in the Moscow city center. During the days of 
Socialism, everything was different. Then, we were sent to the demonstrations 
from our working place. We sang and danced in columns. We looked at [Lenin's] 
mausoleum. We remembered [Soviet leader Josef] Stalin, Molotov, and many 
other [Communist] leaders. But that time is over. Now we are different. Now 
we look at all that in a different way."

The origins of the May Day holiday go back hundreds of years. It originated 
in pagan Europe as a festive day to celebrate the first spring planting. The 
Saxons began their May Day celebrations on the evening of 30 April, when they 
played games and feasted to celebrate the end of winter and the return of the 
sun. The Catholic Church eventually outlawed the celebrations in the 17th 
century.

The modern celebration of May Day as a working class holiday evolved 
following events in the 19th century in the United States.

On 7 October 1884, U.S. workers united to demand better treatment and more 
reasonable working hours, effective 1 May 1886. The Federation of Organized 
Trades and Labor Unions rallied some 200,000 workers for a general strike in 
Chicago on that date.

A few days later, police in the city attacked a crowd of striking workers, 
killing four. The next day, at a demonstration to protest police brutality, a 
bomb exploded, killing seven policemen. Police in the following weeks carried 
out raids on strikers and trade unionists. Eight anarchists were found guilty 
of the bombing. Four were hanged.

*******

#2
Moscow Times
April 30, 2002
Russia's Festive Postmodernism
By Vladimir Ryzhkov 
Vladimir Ryzhkov is an independent State Duma deputy. This comment originally 
appeared in the magazine Delovye Lyudi (issue No. 132).

We Russians are one of the most festive nations on Earth 
in the sense that we love our holidays. The meticulous calculations of 
statisticians reveal that when it comes to the number of official holidays 
and other sundry days off we take each year, Russia is firmly in the top 10 
worldwide. This year we even gained Soviet Fleet and Army Day (renamed as 
Defender of the Fatherland Day) as an additional day off.
 
If you pause to think about it, we've got a pretty peculiar bunch of holidays.

It all starts with New Year's Day. In Soviet times (and indeed to this day), 
it was undoubtedly the best-loved holiday, traditionally celebrated with 
family and close friends.

Next comes Russian Orthodox Christmas, which these days is an official state 
holiday. The Christmas service is now broadcast on the same television 
channels that 15 years ago stigmatized "religious prejudices." 

Feb. 23 was granted us by the Bolsheviks and personally by Vladimir Lenin and 
Lev Trotsky. On this day in 1918 the newspapers in Petrograd published a 
Soviet government decree titled "The Soviet Fatherland Is in Danger!" which 
launched the formation of the Red Army. It is not entirely clear why this 
day, associated exclusively with the Soviet period in Russian history, is 
seen today as the main day for honoring our country's heroes, rather than, 
say, the anniversary of the Battle of Borodino (Sept. 7, 1812) or the Battle 
of Kulikovo (Sept. 8, 1380). 

March 8 is International Women's Day. Most of us are fond of this holiday to 
celebrate all our womenfolk. We declare our love for them and pay tribute to 
the woman's role as mother, sister and beloved. Historically, however, March 
8 is closely linked to leftwing ideology. In 1910, Clara Zetkin, a German 
socialist, proposed an annual holiday dedicated to the "women's rights 
struggle." Her proposal was accepted by the Women's Socialist International 
at its meeting in Copenhagen.

May opens with another recently renamed holiday. What we knew as the Red 
First of May in the Soviet era has now become the Day of Spring and Labor. It 
misses the actual beginning of spring by quite a stretch, of course. And 
"labor" sends us back to the Soviet period in our history, with all that that 
entails. Victory Day, May 9, is loved and revered by absolutely everyone. 
It's above dispute, just like New Year's Day.

On June 12, we take a day off to remember the adoption of the Declaration of 
State Sovereignty of the Russian Federation. I wonder how many people realize 
that this is in fact the main state holiday in contemporary Russia. The 
declaration for the first time proclaimed the principles of a multiparty 
system and the separation of powers, as well as establishing citizens' 
political and civil rights and freedoms. In other words, it laid new, 
democratic foundations for the Russian state. In the popular consciousness 
June 12, however, is usually associated with the declaration of Russian 
independence, which was soon followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. As 
a result, many people view this holiday negatively, or disregard it entirely.

The situation with Nov. 7 is quite incredible. On this day (Oct. 25 on the 
Julian calendar then in use) 85 years ago, the Bolsheviks seized power in 
Petrograd from the provisional government. For the Soviet state Nov. 7 
naturally became the main national holiday -- the Anniversary of the Great 
October Socialist Revolution. On this day, parades with red banners took 
place across the length and breadth of the country to celebrate the 
achievements of the Soviet state under the leadership and guidance of the 
Communist Party.

On Nov. 7 we now celebrate the Day of Reconciliation and Accord. It is hard 
to imagine a less appropriate date to symbolize reconciliation, not to 
mention accord. Moreover, in effect we now celebrate the fall of Soviet power 
in June and its victory in November. 

Finally, the Russian Constitution was adopted by national referendum on Dec. 
12, 1993. So now we celebrate Constitution Day on that day.

To sum up, we have nine national holidays in all. Six of them are directly 
inherited from the Soviet Union, and four are fatally linked to the ruling 
ideology of the Soviet Union. Then we have three new holidays -- Christmas, 
June 12 and Dec. 12 -- only one of which reflects the founding values of the 
new democratic Russia.

Somehow we have contrived to celebrate both the victory of Soviet power and 
its demise, the birth of Christ and the rise to power of the most godless of 
parties. We celebrate a Constitution adopted after a bloody confrontation in 
Moscow, and the Day of Reconciliation and Accord on the day that unleashed a 
bloody Civil War. We have a Petrine flag, a Romanov seal and a Soviet hymn to 
boot.

Russia is a country of triumphant postmodernism, a thoroughly eclectic state. 
We honor and celebrate without giving much thought to the meaning of our 
actions. 

Of course, the people are used to their holidays and symbols. These cannot be 
changed frequently or radically. Time will gradually invest them with new 
significance, at times probably very distant from their original meaning. 

But this does not free us from the necessity of doing the hard work of 
rethinking our history and in particular of highlighting those events that 
are connected with Russia's progress toward freedom and democracy. Once this 
has been done, it will seem quite natural and obvious to substitute Oct. 17 
-- the day in 1905 that Tsar Nicholas II published the manifesto that first 
provided for the establishment of democratic freedoms and the 
pre-revolutionary State Duma -- for Nov. 7.

In the meantime, however, happy holidays! 

*******

#3
Los Angeles Times
May 2, 2002
Communists Play Second Fiddle
Trends: They're still Russia's largest political party, but a May Day rally 
shows they're no longer the biggest draw. Putin is in charge.
By JOHN DANISZEWSKI, TIMES STAFF WRITER

MOSCOW -- Communist leader Gennady A. Zyuganov, perspiration beading on his 
forehead, climbed down from the speaker's platform Wednesday after a speech 
urging the government's resignation, and posed with elderly supporters. It 
had been a fair-sized May Day rally, yet there still was a sense of futility 
written on his ruddy face.

Although tens of thousands of people had turned out under sunny skies for the 
party's annual march, there was little evidence of the seething anger that 
Communists claim is stirring in Russian society.

And there was little reason to believe that the demonstration would change 
anything. "The government has deteriorated into a criminal dictatorship that 
imposes conditions of banditry all across the country," Zyuganov told The 
Times before stomping away behind a phalanx of bodyguards. "The conduct of 
the government is supported by 5-10% of the population at most."

Be that as it may, pro-Kremlin parties and trade unions loyal to President 
Vladimir V. Putin brought more than 100,000 people to Red Square, dwarfing 
the 40,000 or so supporters that the Communists could muster to their meeting 
in front of the nearby Bolshoi Theater.

Increasingly, the Communists style themselves as the only real opposition 
voice in Russia, saying most other groups have been co-opted into a broad 
coalition directed by Putin's Kremlin. But even die-hard Communists wonder 
whether anybody is listening to their demands and whether their party, 
Russia's largest with more than 500,000 members, is capable of standing up to 
Putin.

Zyuganov said he believes that in general the country "is waking up" and 
showing more active opposition to Putin. But he did not sound very convinced, 
nor did many of the people who attended Wednesday's rally.

"I don't really see results," said Vladimir Derevyansky, a 38-year-old 
physics teacher from Kharkiv, Ukraine, who is working in Russia. "This is 
miserably too few people for such a big city."

The teacher, attired in a frayed shirt and plastic-rimmed spectacles, said 
issues being raised by Communists--corruption, high prices, the collapse of 
industry and education, and the loss of the country's prestige--are important 
to most citizens, especially those living outside Moscow. And yet, few bother 
to demonstrate.

He said it only shows how firmly Putin's people have control of the 
situation: "They have managed not only to fool the people, but to turn them 
into zombies."

Since Putin assumed the presidency in 2000, he and his allies have worked to 
reduce chaos in the countryside and impose discipline on the news media, 
regional governors, big industries and wayward tycoons. The pro-Putin 
political bloc has an effective majority in parliament, and has enacted 
several economic measures, including private land sales, a 13% flat income 
tax and a new labor code that were anathema to the Communists.

Irina Pishchikova, a 50-year-old oil industry engineer at the Zyuganov rally, 
said she was not sure the current Communist Party leadership was up to the 
challenge of providing an alternative to Putin's camp.

"I think it has exhausted itself as an opposition already," she said. "Oh, 
there are honest people in the party, but I am talking about the 
leaders--they have been too well fed by the authorities. It is time to let 
the younger people run it."

Alexei V. Kuznetsov of The Times' Moscow Bureau contributed to this report. 

*******

#4
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
May 2, 2002

MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON CLAIM PROGRESS IN ARMS TALKS.
Another week of intensive negotiations appears to have brought
Russia and the United States ever closer to an agreement on
reducing their strategic nuclear arsenals, but officials
yesterday remained unwilling to say with certainty that the
accord will be ready for signing when Presidents George W. Bush
and Vladimir Putin meet for three days of summit talks in Moscow
and St. Petersburg later this month. Reports out of Washington
yesterday quoted U.S. officials as saying that there is hope
that an agreement can be finalized by the May 23-26 summit. J.D.
Crouch, a top aide to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
told reporters that the last roadblocks to a deal are relatively
minor and could be overcome by summit's start. But Rumsfeld
himself appeared to be more circumspect, describing the
negotiations as a "process," and saying that it has "been going
along very well."

Yesterday's comments follow roughly a week of highly intensive
negotiations between the two countries that began with U.S.
Undersecretary of State John Bolton's April 23-24 visit to
Moscow. Bolton, who has headed the U.S. delegation in talks
between the Russian and U.S. defense leaderships (parallel talks
have also been taking place between the diplomatic departments
of both governments) raised some eyebrows when he departed
Moscow on April 24 prior to what was to have been a second day
of negotiations (see the Monitor, April 25).

Rather than signaling a breakdown in the talks, however, his
departure may have marked a turning point of sorts. Subsequent
reports suggested that the Russian side had advanced some new
proposals during the April 23 meeting and that Bolton had
returned to Washington in order to consult on them. Bolton then
returned to Moscow this week in time for a brief visit that
Rumsfeld paid to the Russian capital on April 29 for additional
talks with top Russian officials, including Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov. Russian reports also said that Bolton had met
with one of Russia's chief negotiators, Deputy Foreign Minister
Georgy Mamedov, during Rumsfeld's stay, and that he stayed on
following Rumsfeld's departure for additional consultations.

The intensive discussions are scheduled to continue today, when
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov arrives in Washington for
two days of talks of his own with U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell and other Bush administration officials. The
Powell-Ivanov talks are expected to center on both the arms
reduction accord and final preparation for the May 23-26 summit.

To date, the Russian-U.S. arms reduction talks have been held
behind closed doors. This relative secrecy has led to some
conflicting media reports regarding both the details of the
agreements under discussion and the points on which the two
sides continue to disagree. Russian and U.S. officials in their
public statements, and most news media reporting on the talks,
are agreed that that one major roadblock to an agreement is
Russia's continued opposition to U.S. plans that call for
storing rather than destroying thousands of nuclear warheads
scheduled for retirement under the Bush-Putin arms cut
initiative. Many analysts are also agreed that Moscow fears the
U.S. plan to maintain a large warhead reserve would give
Washington a "breakout" potential--that is, the ability to
quickly redeploy thousands of warheads beyond the 1,700-2,200
"operationally deployed" warheads mandated under the Bush-Putin
reduction proposal.

Given the deteriorating state of its own nuclear arsenal and
cash shortages faced by the Russian government, the Russian
armed forces would be unable to maintain a comparable reserve
force of its own. Arms control critics of the Bush
administration in the United States, meanwhile, have warned that
the U.S. nuclear reserve plan could nonetheless lead Russia to
store thousands of its own warheads, a development that they say
would pose serious security and proliferation risks. Both the
Russian government and Russian and U.S. critics of the Bush
administration plan have also charged that the creation of an
easily deployable nuclear reserve would in fact do much to
render the announced reductions of "operationally deployable"
warheads meaningless. Indeed, some in Russia have called it a
plan for "virtual" arms reductions.

If news reports are clear that the issue of counting warheads
remains a major obstacle to an arms reduction agreement, they
are less clear about some other aspects of the proposed
reduction plan. News reports have differed, for example, over
whether or exactly in what respect Russian and U.S. negotiators
might be clashing on the related issue of how to count and
dispose of delivery systems affected by the reduction plan
(Interfax, April 29; AP, April 30, May 1; Strana.ru, April
29-30, May 1; New York Times, April 30; Washington Post, April
28).

More important, perhaps, are reported differences between Russia
and the United States over how to address the issue of U.S.
missile defense plans. Numerous news reports have ignored the
issue entirely, yet some Russian and Western accounts have
suggested it remains a major stumbling block. At issue is a
reported Russian insistence that offensive arms cuts be linked
with restrictions of some sort on U.S. plans to develop and
deploy a national missile defense system. According to a
diplomatic source quoted by the Russian Itar-Tass news agency,
Moscow is seeking to address this linkage of offensive and
defensive systems directly in the arms cut agreement currently
being negotiated. The U.S. side, on the other hand, reportedly
wants to include it only in a second document that is being
negotiated for the May 23 summit--a political declaration
devoted to the new Russian-U.S. strategic relationship. An
unnamed Bush administration official has been quoted in this
context as confirming what he described as an effort by Moscow
to negotiate the scope of the U.S. antiballistic missile system
and to codify limitations on the system's development. But he
reiterated the administration's disinclination to discuss
missile defense limits, and suggested that the issue would, in
the end, not be a "deal-breaker" (AP, August 29, 30).

Against this background, and given the weak hand Russia is
playing in the arms cut negotiations, some in Moscow have raised
the question of whether the Kremlin would be better off signing
a "bad" agreement with Washington--that is, one in which its
concerns about warhead storage and other issues are not
satisfactorily addressed--or whether any agreement is better at
this point than none at all (RFE/RL, March 21; AP, April 16).
For Putin, the stakes in making this decision are high. He has
invested considerable political capital in supporting the U.S.
antiterror drive and in embracing the West more generally, and
may feel that he needs an arms cut agreement to properly crown
the upcoming summit and his own pro-Western policies. According
to some reports, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov suggested
following his recent talks in Moscow with Rumsfeld that the new
proposals offered by Moscow do indeed offer a new flexibility in
the Kremlin's approach to warhead counting and the other issues
said to be preventing Russia and the United States from
finalizing an agreement (New York Times, April 30). Whether that
is true should become clearer in the days to come, when the two
sides will have to decide whether a major arms cut agreement is
in fact to be the centerpiece of their fast approaching summit.

*******

#5
US adopts 'the more, the better' formula for NATO enlargement
AFP
May 2, 2002 
  
The United States has signaled it might favor accepting more new members in 
NATO than currently anticipated, arguing that "the more allies we have, the 
better off we're going to be." 

It also expressed its determination to press its European partners to boost 
their military capabilities, including making a contribution to President 
George W. Bush's missile defense program, despite strong reservations about 
it in many European capitals. 

The statements came at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
Wednesday, which featured Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc 
Grossman and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith among the key 
witnesses.

The issue of bringing new members into the 19-nation alliance will top the 
agenda at a NATO summit in Prague in November. 

The applicants include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, 
Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia and Albania. 

But although no final selection has been made, experts had been pointing out 
until recently that about five of these candidates were most likely to make 
the cut. 

According to the well-informed Republican Senator Richard Lugar, that 
unofficial list has now been expanded to seven to include Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania.

But when asked if he believed the alliance could undergo an even "larger 
enlargement', Grossman answered without hesitation: "Yes, sir, I do." 

"The events of September 11 show us that the more allies we have, the better 
off we're going to be," he continued. "The more allies we have to prosecute 
the war on terrorism, the better off we're going to be." 

Both Grossman and Feith made clear the Bush administration remained 
dissatisfied with the contribution provided to the alliance by the European 
militaries, arguing that they lacked sufficient airlift and sealift 
capabilities and were not doing enough to defend the West against weapons of 
mass destruction. 

"If we get to a point where it is the truth that the United States fights and 
NATO cleans up, or the United States fights and the European Union cleans up, 
that is bad for us, and it is very, very bad for our European allies," 
Grossman pointed out. 

*********

#6
Russian naval base in Vietnam's Cam Ranh to close on May 4

MOSCOW. May 2 (Interfax) - In line with international agreements, the Russian 
naval base in Vietnam's Cam Ranh is to cease its existence within the next 
few days, aide to the Russian Navy commander-in-chief Igor Dygalo told 
Interfax on Thursday. 
   Russia completed handing over all facilities and installations at the base 
to Vietnam on May 2, he said. 
   The closure ceremony is scheduled for May 3-4. A high-ranking source with 
the Russian Defense Ministry in turn told Interfax that the Russian 
Ambassador to Vietnam Andrei Tatarinov and head of the transfer commission 
and chief of the Pacific Fleet administrative service Rear Adm. Alexander 
Ivliyev are expected to attend the ceremony. 
   On Thursday, the two sides signed a transfer certificate. The work on 
transferring the installations "was done in the traditional atmosphere of 
mutual understanding and absolute trust," Dygalo said. 
   After all formalities are observed, the last Russian Il-76 military 
transport aircraft remaining at the Cam Ranh airfield will take off to head 
for Vladivostok. 
   After that, the last servicemen from the airfield personnel will board the 
Sakhalin-9 diesel-electric ferry which will leave Cam Ranh on May 4. 

********

#7
From: "Institute for War & Peace Reporting" <info@iwpr.net> 
Subject: Caucasus Reporting Service No. 127 
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 

MOSCOW SKINHEADS TARGET SOUTHERNERS
Suspicions are growing that attacks by groups of Moscow skinheads on
Caucasian traders are being carefully orchestrated
By Sanobar Shermatova in Moscow
Sanobar Shermatova is a correspondent with Moscow News.

Skinhead groups have recently stepped up a campaign of violence in Moscow
that may be linked to a push to drive Caucasian traders out of the city's
markets.

No accurate statistics on the skinhead attacks are available as the police
usually suggest domestic violence or gangland revenge was the cause.
According to a Chechen student in Moscow, the families of Chechen victims
of the attacks never contact the police, as they fear they will only side
with the assailants. "The police would rather take the side of the
skinheads who are Russian than protect Chechens, whom they consider
undesirable aliens," he told IWPR.

The wave of violence can be linked to rising antagonism against migrants
from the Caucasus and Central Asia - which is largely a consequence of two
factors.

Firstly, many Muscovites believe they are behind much of the crime in the
city, a perception fuelled by the tendency of television news to cite the
nationality of criminals. Secondly, the government's "counter-terrorist
operation" in Chechnya has been accompanied by intensive propaganda
directed against Chechens and all Caucasian ethnic groups.

A recent Internet poll conducted by the weekly Moscow News found that only
4.3 per cent of Muscovites would try to stop skinheads attacking someone.
Another 58 per cent said they would simply ignore such incidents, while 37
per cent would run away.

The latest high-profile victim of skinhead violence was a Russian citizen
of Afghan origin, Abdul Haqim Haqrisi, who was beaten to death in central
Moscow last month by a group of skinheads. Haqrisi, 35,  a father of four,
worked as a translator for the Federal Migration Service.

The Afghan embassy protested to the Russian foreign ministry over the
murder, but a few days later several embassies in Moscow received
threatening emails in English from local skinheads, promising more murders
of foreign nationals on or around Hitler's birthday on April 20.

Police went on high alert on April 19. For three days most of the
capital's police were concentrated in the downtown area, with explicit
instructions to suppress skinhead activity. Thanks to these extraordinary
measures, no attacks occurred over this period.

Traders at one small outdoor market at Chertanovskaya Street in southern
Moscow marked Hitler's birthday in their own way. On April 20 they closed
the market, allegedly for cleaning, though there was no visible evidence
of this. A trader explained that this and other markets in the area had
shut because of the skinhead threat. "The market had to be closed because
there are no police to guard it. They are all in the centre of town," she
said.

The outdoor markets, with their enormous cash flows, offer prime targets
for the skinhead groups. Last April and October, they attacked the markets
at Tsaritsino and Yasenevo in southern Moscow. Four people died in the
first incident and two in the second. Dozens were injured in both.

The largest group of traders at the outdoor markets are from the Caucasus,
selling produce at what locals perceive as exorbitant prices. Since the
Soviet era "southerners", usually Azerbaijanis, have had a virtual
monopoly on bringing fruit, vegetables and flowers from their homeland to
Moscow.

About two million Azerbaijanis live in Russia, and most are engaged in
small-time trading. On average, an Azerbaijani expatriate sends 100 to 350
US dollars monthly to his family back home.

Azerbaijanis, Chechens and Dagestanis also sell products from Central
Asia. Since Uzbek tomatoes and pomegranates are far pricier than similar
Turkish produce, only affluent Muscovites can afford them. Uzbekistan has
recently started shipping honey melons to Moscow, but the Uzbeks
themselves have been unable to secure a strong presence in the market
trading sector.

The hierarchy at the markets fuels Russian resentment. At Chertanovo in
the south of Moscow, foreign traders rank higher than local Russian
"babushkas" (old ladies) selling greens, homemade jam and sauerkraut. A
local trader selling fresh parsley and dill recently had to move into the
street. "I cannot afford to pay the owner as much as they do," she
complained, waving at the Asian traders.

On his rare visits to the market, its Azerbaijani owner is accompanied by
three bodyguards. All traders pay him kickbacks on top of the regular fee
required by law. They do everything they can to keep local competition out
of the market, because locals offer the same merchandise far cheaper.

Police are frequently seen driving babushkas from the market and nearby
streets. The old women then have to bribe the police to stay in business,
and increase the price of their produce accordingly. This takes care of
the "price competition", and plays into the hands of the Asian traders.
Ordinary Moscow families, spending 200 or 250 US dollars a month on food,
see the Georgian, Uzbek and Tajik traders as scam artists who keep their
prices artificially high by cutting out the local traders.

Who is standing behind the skinheads? One theory has it that criminal
groups use the young men to do battle with their rivals on their behalf.
Another version holds that the police manipulate skinhead activity to keep
the traders under control. The police have been raiding outdoor markets in
Moscow for two years in a bid to squeeze out traders from the Caucasus. It
has not worked, as they have no legal grounds to ban traders from former
Soviet Republics or the North Caucasus.

But the skinheads also have an agenda of their own. The historian Semyon
Charny, in a study of their movement published recently in Moscow News,
points out that in the Soviet Union their origins date back to the 1950s.
Charny believes the authorities and the KGB were inactive in cracking down
on the skinheads because they wanted to use them to scare the Russian
population.

Nowadays skinheads are active throughout Russia. "Our aim is power," one
of their leaders, Alexander Ivanov-Sukharevsky, told Moscow News.
"Hitler's idea was to liberate Russia from Jewish oppression and put the
Romanovs back on the throne, but God did not let Hitler achieve this at
that juncture. Our mission is to continue the cause of liberating the
Russian people from that oppression."

In the meantime, ethnic Russians traders have been gaining more control of
the markets. It is certainly in their interest to clear them of "aliens"
by whatever means. The idea that shadowy business groups are behind the
phenomenon of skinhead groups may not be far-fetched.

********

#8
Voice of America
1 May 2002
An Unlikely Tourist Site: A Soviet-Era Gulag
By Rebecca Santana
Solovki
  
Shortly after the founding of the Soviet Union, its leaders began building 
the Gulag, a network of concentration camps for those considered enemies of 
the state. At their height in the 1930s, these camps contained as much as 10 
percent of the Soviet population. So brutal were conditions there, that it is 
estimated that half of the tens of millions of people sent to the Gulag died 
in the Gulag; many didn't even survive a winter. 

For many years, discussion of the system was off limits in the Soviet Union, 
but that all changed after the collapse of communism. Now, at least one of 
the former camps is open to the public. 

It is spring in the Solovetsky Islands but the snow is still deep. The only 
way to travel is by trudging through the knee-deep snow or by using 
cross-country skis. 

The islands are considered to be among the most beautiful places in Russia. 
They are covered with green pine trees and fields that are filled with 
flowers and wild berries in the summer. In the winter, they become a frozen 
wonderland, unmarred by the pollution that is so common is other parts of 
Russia. 

But these beautiful islands, known in Russia as Solovki, have a brutal 
history. They were home to one of the first Gulags in the Soviet Union. 

Oleg Volkov, the deputy director of the local museum, tells a visitor that 
the Soviet authorities converted a Russian Orthodox monastery that had been 
built centuries before into the Solovki Gulag. 

"There were beds here, wooden beds, in which the prisoners, slept. There was 
so-called parasha, it means toilet. It stood on the altar part, the most 
sacred part of the church," Mr. Volkov said. 

Conditions in Solovki were harsh. Prisoners were forced to do hard labor but 
were given little food, usually only a few slices of bread a day. In the 
summer, prisoners who were believed to merit special punishment were chained 
to a stake in the ground, where they were easy prey for Solovki's mosquitoes. 
In the winter, prisoners were doused with water and forced to stand outside. 

Given Solovki's location, 150 kilometers below the Arctic Circle, that meant 
the soaking wet prisoners were forced to stand outside in temperatures that 
were many degrees below freezing. Death came quickly.

From its opening in 1923 to the time it closed in 1939 - in an economy 
measure - about 100,000 people were sent to the Solovki Gulag. Almost half of 
them died here. 

Mr. Volkov points to dozens of names etched in a wooden staircase. He 
believes the prisoners wrote their names to leave something of themselves 
before they disappeared. 

"I think it was necessary for them to leave memory, for other people. I think 
that these prisoners knew that they could die here in this place and it is 
very important to them to [leave] those inscriptions for those people who 
would later see their names," Mr. Volkov said. 

After the Solovki Gulag was closed in 1939, visitors were eventually allowed 
to return to the islands. 

Antonina Shopkina moved to islands in 1969 to work at the local museum, which 
at that time, before the Communist collapse, focused solely on local history 
and culture prior to the Communist revolution. She said Soviet authorities 
forbade any discussion of the Solovki Gulag.

"People often asked about the history of the Gulag. The guides were only 
allowed to say that at one time it had been a labor camp but the rest of the 
history was not known," she said. 

But she said some visitors knew the history very well. She recalls that one 
day a man came into her office and started looking around. When Ms. Shopkina 
asked if he needed help, he replied that he simply wanted to see the room 
where he lived as a prisoner. 

But not until the end of the Soviet Union, when Mikhail Gorbachev was in 
power, could the Gulag be discussed. In 1988, the first Gulag exhibit in the 
Soviet Union was opened on Solovki.

At first, tourism was slow - only about 2,000 people a year visited in the 
mid-1990s - but the numbers are increasing. Last year, there were 12,000 
visitors.

Mikhail Lopatkin is the director of the museum. He thinks it serves a 
two-fold purpose. It gives Russians and foreigners a chance to learn about 
the Gulag and it also provides something that is not widely available on 
Solovki, an opportunity for the people who live here to earn a living. 

"There is no alternative here. And why? It's an energy and ecology saving 
resource. If we do everything wisely, it's endless. It will feed a lot of 
generations," Mr. Lopatkin said.

But not all the islanders welcome Solovki's growing popularity. They fear 
their isolation on the beautiful islands is coming to an end. 

Pyotr Leoniv came here from Moscow eleven years ago with his wife, who leads 
the church choir. He said many island residents are becoming obsessed with 
the money coming in from tourists. "As soon as the tourists started coming, 
people started changing. All this business, money, unfortunately this process 
is noticeable in Solovki," Mr. Leoniv said. 

This January a Moscow-based company offered the first winter tour of the 
island, and about 16,000 visitors are expected this summer, and the numbers 
are likely to keep increasing. 

Though the Gulags have been closed for many years, it has been said that 
every Russian family has in some way been touched by its horrors. That gives 
every family a connection to the long-dead prisoners on Solovki who etched 
their names in a staircase.

********

#9
Russian Security Council Official Interviewed on Eve of Terrorism Session  

Rossiyskaya Gazeta
30 April 2002
Interview with Oleg Chernov, deputy secretary of Russian Security 
Council, by Yuriy Yershov; date, place not given:  "There Should Be 
Neither Leaders Nor Led in Fight Against Terrorism" 

   A regular session of the Russian Federation 
Security Council will take place today, devoted to Russia's role in the 
fight against international terrorism.  On the eve of the session our 
correspondent talked to Security Council Deputy Secretary Oleg Chernov. 
   [Yershov]  Oleg Dmitriyevich, the fight against terrorism is probably 
one of the main topics in world politics nowadays.... 
   [Chernov]  Following September 11 it has become a truly dominating 
topic in world politics and has largely changed the architecture of 
international security or, at least, is providing real impulses and 
signals in that direction.  Having actively involved itself in this 
fight, Russia is obviously also taking into consideration the interests 
of its own internal and external security. 
   Incidentally, we sounded the alarm long ago.  Immediately after the 
blasts in Moscow, Volgodonsk, and other cities we said that a joint 
effort must be made to oppose specifically international terrorism, 
because terrorists have long since crossed existing real and virtual 
borders and now have very substantial resources at their disposal.  
Unfortunately, however, few people heeded our appeals.  It was only after 
September 11 that an international antiterrorist coalition was formed. 
   Russia constantly repeats that it is important to us that this fight 
against terrorism should not be used for any opportunist political or 
geostrategic purposes.  There should be neither leaders nor led in this 
fight.  The main organ for coordinating and conducting it should be the 
United Nations; this is of fundamental importance.  It is the United 
Nations that should ensure that the expansion of the fight to certain 
other countries does not give rise to new, even more complex threats to 
mankind. 
   But let us get back to the topic.  Our President Vladimir Putin's 
almost instantaneous -- even quicker than the NATO countries' -- response 
to the September 11 terrorist attacks in America determined Russia's 
strategic choice and did much to enable Russia to start resolving a very 
great many other security-related problems.  Such as rapprochement with 
the West in certain areas, and the prevention of potential direct 
aggression on Russia's southern borders.  It is no secret that both then 
and later we had to plan for pretty major expenditure of resources on 
ensuring security in this region.  Last but not least, it seems to me 
that one of the most serious elements of our participation in the 
antiterrorist coalition has been the consolidation of Russian ministries 
and departments and, very importantly, of public awareness that, in order 
to ensure our country's security, we should work more seriously in the 
CIS area as a whole and in the Caucasus and Central Asian regions in 
particular.  This is stated in our president's message of 18 April, in 
which he defined the objectives that started to crystallize more 
distinctly after September 11.  He identified the main current priority 
of Russian foreign policy as substantive cooperation and work with CIS 
countries, without belittling other foreign policy goals. 
   [Yershov]  The objectives have been set.  What has the Security 
Council managed to do in this area? 
   [Chernov]  After September 11 our president, who is also chairman of 
the Security Council, was in constant contact with the CIS leaders.  At 
his behest Security Council Secretary Vladimir Rushaylo visited all the 
countries in the Central Asian region, including Turkmenistan.  As a 
result it was decided to convene in Dushanbe immediately after the start 
of the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan.  As early as October 8 
there was a session of the Committee of Collective Security Treaty 
Security Council Secretaries, to which representatives of all the CIS 
countries were also invited.  And note that they all attended.  I am 
saying this for the benefit of those people who doubt that the Collective 
Security Treaty is flourishing and that essential consultations take 
place within its framework. 
   There in Dushanbe a collective decision was made that we would all 
participate together in the antiterrorist operation on principles that 
each country would formulate for itself.  Our president defined such 
principles.  They not only chime with the position of the other CIS 
countries but also serve Russia's interests.  Then, at the CIS summit in 
December, came the famous joint statement on the fight against 
international terrorism. 
   [Yershov]  To put it mildly, did the Russian Security Council have a 
part in this? 
   [Chernov]  I cannot assess that, and do not intend to.  But it seems 
to me that in the runup to the 10th anniversary, which we celebrate in 
early June, this could be talked about.  The Security Council is a 
constitutional organ that should help our president to elaborate tactics 
and strategy in domestic and foreign policy.  Moreover, whereas initially 
the Council members were basically the people we refer to as "security 
ministers," the Council has now become much broader, because security is 
a concept that is not restricted to military threats.  The Council 
coordinates the work of virtually all the ministries and departments in 
the security sphere.  We have 10 interdepartmental commissions headed by 
the appropriate ministers.  There is also a scientific council, which 
brings together the country's current best minds in the most diverse 
spheres associated with our security. 

*******

#10
Far Eastern Economic Review
May 9, 2002
CENTRAL ASIA
WITH THE U.S. AS AN ALLY, DICTATORS GET TOUGHER
AN ACCOUNT OF REPRESSION IN CENTRAL ASIA THIS YEAR
By Ahmed Rashid

KAZAKHSTAN
Galymzhan Zhakiyanov, leader of newly formed Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan 
party, seeks shelter in French embassy, but is later arrested as government 
breaks agreement with European Union not to detain him. Other Democratic 
Choice leaders also arrested. Leading opposition figure, former Prime 
Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin, head of Republican People's Party, remains in 
exile. Critical newspapers and TV stations closed down during Davos summit in 
Almaty in April. Government sets up agency to monitor all press. Government 
cracks down on all opposition media and parties after President Nursultan 
Nazarbayev is accused of siphoning off $1 billion to a Swiss bank in 1996. 
Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Toakayev admits existence of fund, explaining 
that it was established to repay the country's debts.

KIRGYZSTAN
Main opposition leader, former Vice-President Felix Kulov serving lengthy 
jail sentence. Police kill five people, injure 61 in mass protest in 
mid-March following mass hunger strike, after popular parliamentary deputy 
Azimbek Beknazarov is jailed for asking President Askar Akayev why he ceded 
territory to China last year without informing parliament. Leaders of 
opposition party Ar-Namys harassed after saying that government is using U.S. 
presence to gag opposition. Government shuts down two opposition newspapers. 
U.S. army driver claims diplomatic immunity after killing Kirgyz woman in 
traffic accident in March, sparking popular outrage. All opposition groups 
are demanding Akayev's resignation.

TAJIKISTAN
President Imamali Rakhmanov sacks several Islamist ministers belonging to the 
United Tajik Opposition from the coalition government set up in 1997. Dozens 
of alleged Hizb-ut-Tahrir activists arrested.

TURKMENISTAN
Leading Turkmen diplomats go into exile in Russia and set up Turkmenistan 
Popular Democratic Movement in January to topple President Saparmurad 
Niyazov. Baptist missionaries harassed and jailed. International lending 
institutions suspend loans due to lack of economic reform. Turkmens banned 
from travelling abroad without government permission. Niyazov sacks 20 senior 
security, intelligence and army officials, fearing more defections and a coup 
attempt. In the absence of state funds for education, 11,000 teachers laid 
off in the past two years. Students forbidden to study abroad.

UZBEKISTAN
7,000 political prisoners remain in jail. Interpol arrests Mohammed Solih, 
leader of opposition Erk party, in Czech Republic on demand of Uzbekistan. 
Referendum in January extends President Karimov's term in office from five to 
seven years. Uzbekistan prevents U.S.-run Radio Liberty from broadcasting in 
country. Government orders all newspapers to produce schedule of articles 
before publication. Uzbek courts step up convictions of opponents to the 
regime; 39 political prisoners convicted in February and March.

*******

#11
Foreign Policy in Focus
April 30, 2002
www.fpif.org 
U.S. Eyes Caspian Oil in "War On Terror"
By Armen Georgian
(Armen Georgian <Georgetown8@aol.com> writes for Agence-France Presse in 
London and writes regularly on international issues.)

The arrival of U.S. military advisors in Georgia on April 29 raised as many 
glasses in Ankara and Baku as it did jitters in Moscow. Touted as a new front 
in the "war on terror," the Bush administration is in reality scrambling for 
Caspian oil in a bid to oust Russia from its traditional backyard. Washington 
insists its "train and equip force'" of 10 combat helicopters and 150 
military instructors is solely intended to help Georgia combat Islamic 
radicals in the lawless Pankisi Gorge, allegedly a safe haven for al Qaeda 
militants and their Chechen allies. But other motives became apparent, 
although largely unnoticed by the Western press when Georgian Defense 
Ministry official Mirian Kiknadze told Radio Free Europe on February 27: "The 
U.S. military will train our rapid reaction force, which is guarding 
strategic sites in Georgia--particularly oil pipelines." He was referring to 
the embryonic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) project, set to reduce Georgia's and 
Azerbaijan's energy reliance on Russia and bring the southern Caucasus into 
the U.S. fold.

Russia's military establishment and domestic opinion are clearly furious, 
although President Putin has played soft on the issue, delighted to see his 
Chechen campaign rebranded as a "war on terror" in return for supporting the 
U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.

"It is hard to see why Russia should react so angrily to a U.S. operation 
promising to neutralize not just al Qaeda fighters but also Putin's longtime 
Chechen bogeys," said Hovann Simonian, author of the acclaimed Troubled 
Waters: The Geopolitics of Caspian Oil. "The U.S. training force is unlikely 
to make much difference given the parlous state of the Georgian military. 
Clearly this is not simply about fighting terror," Simonian added.

Washington has recently injected fresh momentum into its Caspian designs, 
home to the world's third-largest oil and gas deposits. Deputy Secretary of 
State Richard Armitage emphatically re-affirmed U.S. support for BTC on March 
8 during the visit of Turkish premier Bulent Ecevit. Four days later U.S. 
Caspian envoy Stephen Mann told Kazakh authorities he wanted to promote 
pipelines bypassing Iran.

The plot thickened on March 28 when U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense Mira Ricardel announced that the U.S. would provide military 
assistance to Azerbaijan's navy as part of a $4.4 million aid package this 
year. Western energy companies have been intensively exploring a sector of 
the Caspian angrily disputed by Iran and Azerbaijan.

With Turkish airbases due in Azerbaijan later this year, the U.S. is clearly 
promoting a NATO-friendly axis to safeguard the Baku-Ceyhan route and counter 
the Russia-Armenia-Iran alliance. "Some energy analysts say the Turkish 
economy is in no position to support the $2.9-billion project, while U.S. 
taxpayers might be skeptical after the Enron scandal, but BTC is being pushed 
for political reasons," Simonian said.

The Bush administration has particularly compelling reasons to back BTC. Vice 
President Dick Cheney was until 2000 chief executive of Halliburton Co., an 
oil services company named a finalist last year to bid on engineering work in 
the Turkish sector of the route. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice 
was a director of Chevron, a lynchpin of the BTC consortium with extensive 
operations in Azerbaijan. Richard Armitage is a former co-chairman of the 
U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce.

Bush family adviser James A. Baker III has especially thick oil ties to the 
region. Baker, who spearheaded George W. Bush's victory in the Florida 
election dispute, heads U.S. law firm Baker Botts, which represents a 
consortium of companies drilling and exploring the Caspian, including 
Exxon-Mobil, Pennzoil, BP, and Unocal. Baker sits on the U.S.-Azerbaijan 
Chamber of Commerce advisory council, as did Cheney.

While America has successfully used the "war on terror" to wrestle the oil- 
and gas-rich central Asian region from Moscow, the south Caucasus could prove 
a much tougher nut to crack. Pankisi is not the only unruly enclave beyond 
Tbilisi's writ. The breakaway leaderships of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, 
fearful the U.S. deployment could also be used against them, have already 
appealed to Moscow for associate status within the Russian Federation. Such a 
move, which would seriously undermine the pro-Western Georgian President 
Eduard Shervardnaze, is widely supported by the Russian parliament and public 
opinion. In addition, Moscow could foment separatism in Adzharia and 
Dzhavaketia, where ethnic Armenians might seek to disrupt the oil earnings of 
arch-foes Turkey and Azerbaijan.

"There is a danger that Shervardnadze will lose control of Georgia. Russia 
will fight more actively for influence in the region," said political analyst 
Otar Kharabadze. In early March a top Russian general ominously remarked: 
"Georgia had better be aware it cannot exist without Russia." If this veiled 
threat is carried out, Washington's Great Game in the south Caucasus could 
end up as little more than a pipe-dream.

*******

#12
pravda.ru
May 2, 2002
FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS TO BE USED IN OFFENSIVE AGAINST IRAQ

A meeting of Russian and American presidents is to take place very soon, that 
is why the USA hurries up to strengthen military presence on the post-Soviet 
territory (Central Asia and the Caucasus region). Military training in the 
network of the US program for military aid to Georgia is to start in Georgia 
at the end of May and to last for 70 days, official spokesman for the group 
of US instructors Colonel Scott Tine said at the press-conference in Tbilisi. 

The first group of US commandos of 20 people in number came to Georgia Monday 
late. About 200 American soldiers are expected to come to Georgia on the 
whole. 

US instructors will train Georgian soldiers to struggle with radical Muslim 
groups that are allegedly connected with Al-Qaeda. It is believed, Al-Qaeda 
members are taking shelter in the Pankissi Gorge. Colonel Tine says, the 
program provides for study of the Georgian language and culture by US 
soldiers. 

The American authorities report, the commandos will stay in Georgia for about 
six months. However, many people in Georgia suppose that US soldiers may stay 
even for a longer period. There is a suggestion that they will protect the 
oil pipeline that is to connect the Caspian fields with the Turkish port of 
Ceyhan. Construction of the pipeline that is to be laid on Georgia's 
territory, will cost several billions of dollars. Other sources suppose, 
Washington plans to found a standing military base in the Southern Caucasus 
close to Iraq and Iran. 

The USA also pays enough attention to Central Asia. General Paul Mikolashek, 
commander of the US land forces is to arrive in Tashkent in the second half 
of the day on Thursday. A short visit provides for his meeting with 
Uzbekistan Defense Minister Kadyr Gulyamov and visit to the US Embassy in 
Uzbekistan. General Mikolashek will spend less than a day in Uzbekistan and 
will leave for Kuwait Friday early. 

Washington's activity in the region is not connected with the events in 
Afghanistan, although it is officially stated that inspection of the US bases 
in former Soviet republics is held within the network of the US-British 
operation for Al-Qaeda and Taliban liquidation. 

But the situation is much more complicated than it may seem at the first 
sight. The USA needs military bases in Central Asia and in the Caucasus for a 
short-term period, as a subsidiary base for an offensive against Iraq. As for 
a long-term objective, the USA plans to use the bases as a political, 
economic and probably military pressure on the Central Asiatic countries with 
a view to get control over oil and gas that are abundant in these regions. 
The Izvestia newspaper informs, it became evident after Saudi Prince 
Abdullah's recent visit to the USA. According to some sources, the Iraq 
problem was not directly discussed at the meeting, but the Prince declared, 
his country was against US intervention in Iraq, and Saudi territories would 
not be provided for landing and refueling of US planes. Moreover, Saudi 
Arabia will prohibit to use its airspace. 

The USA has to look for states that are ready to provide territories for an 
offensive against Iraq. Turkey, Kuwait and Qatar are really convenient states 
situated near the Iraqi borders. Over the past year the number of US 
servicemen increased from 5,500 to 10,5000. However, Washington is not sure 
so far, whether Kuwait and Qatar would support it. 

The Pentagon considers Central Asiatic republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan 
and Turkmenistan capable of providing second-echelon bases, a prominent 
military expert told the Izvestia newspaper. 

*******

#13
French Editorial Deplores UN Human Rights Commission's 'Hypocrisy'  
Over Chechnya  

Le Monde 
28-29 April 2002
[translation for personal use only]
Unattributed editorial: "Jenin and Groznyy" 

     It is a tradition and has been respected.   
Each year the UN Commission on Human Rights beats records for hypocrisy.  
Its annual session in Geneva sees some states that trample on human 
rights in the most massive fashion -- China and Russia, for example -- 
escaping all condemnation.   They brandish the same shield: do not touch 
the sacrosanct principle of the sovereignty of states.   There are 
violations of human rights only insofar as Moscow and Beijing consent to 
denounce them.   That is the most conditional and most abject defense of 
human rights.   And we have just seen a repetition of this pitiful 
exercise. 
    Act I: the commission examined the Israeli offensive on the West 
Bank.   It voted on 15 April, with the support of France, for a statement 
that pilloried Israel for committing "massive slaughter" against the 
Palestinian people.   Moscow and Beijing stood in the front rank of the 
offensive.   Act II: four days later, on Friday 19 April, the commission 
rejected all condemnation of Russia for the situation in Chechnya.   In 
this latter vote, China, which had escaped any mention of the situation 
in Tibet or in Xinjiang, lent its support to Moscow in the name of the 
"antiterrorist struggle" and defense of the territorial integrity of the 
Russian Federation. 
    To justify their vote some states emphasized the date angle of the 
matter.   The destruction of part of the refugee camp of Jenin on the 
West Bank (probably 50 to 80 dead) took place in April, whereas the 
complete destruction (several tens of thousands killed) in Groznyy, the 
Chechen capital, a city of 450,000 inhabitants, by the Russians goes back 
to 1999.   The argument is a quibble because, without in any way 
diminishing the suffering of the Palestinian population and without in 
any way lessening the condemnation of Ariel Sharon's policy, it has to be 
stated that the situation in Chechnya is increasingly tragic with every 
day that passes.   It knows no improvement whatsoever.   The army is 
pursuing a policy of horror, which every source confirms. 
    In the middle of April the NGO Human Rights Watch mentioned the 
disappearance of 87 people in Groznyy since the start of the year: 
abducted for ransom by the Russian forces or found dead, executed with a 
bullet fired at point-blank range, the body often showing signs of 
torture.   These activities were confirmed by our special correspondent 
in our report "The Disappeared of Groznyy" (Le Monde 24 April).   The 
Russian forces are bent on terrorizing in order to subjugate a people who 
have already undergone an ordeal: perhaps 150,000 dead since the last 
offensive, that of 1999, while only 300,000 to 400,000 Chechens out of a 
population of 1 million before the war are said still to be living inside 
the country.   The others have been forced into exile in neighboring 
republics. 
    By refusing to denounce this tragedy, the UN commission has lost a 
little more of its credibility. 

*******

#14
The Russia Journal
April 26-May 2, 2002
General Staff critical of paratroops
By ALEXANDER GOLTS 

There’s no need to prove that the Russian Army, which can’t get reform
underway, is in the process of disintegration. But what’s especially
amazing is that the top military brass is now finding ways to make things
worse even in the few areas where it still has a semblance of order.

The General Staff has just completed a full-scale inspection of the
paratroops. General Staff officials, who only recently were obsessed with
preventing the slightest leak of information about the state of the Armed
Forces, now happily tell journalists about the problems they’ve unearthed.

Paratroops officers, it turns out, don’t know how to organize combat
training for their troops. In any case, the paratroops’ training grounds
are in no fit state for holding exercises. Finally, the paratroops
commanders don’t know how to plan combat-training exercises jointly with
other branches of the Armed Forces. Clearly influenced by this report,
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov had somewhat vague but definitely
disapproving words for the paratroops: "The paratroops have turned into
something resembling a primitive folk image – they carried out peacekeeping
functions, including in the Balkans, and at the same time busied themselves
breaking bricks with their heads."

All these shortcomings un-doubtedly exist. But the inspectors neglected to
add that no Russian officer – not just the paratroops – knows how to
organize combat training. During Ivanov’s recent visit to the Tamanskaya
and Kantemirovskaya divisions, officers told him how they were obliged to
learn from their sergeants.

Strapped for cash and short of arms, the Russian Army hasn’t been able to
carry out training over the last decade. Even now, commanders have the
resources for just one battalion-level training exercise in each military
district. Most likely, even the officers who inspected the paratroops have
never organized such maneuvers themselves. Certainly, it looks absurd to
single out the paratroops command in this respect.

True, the paratroops level of combat-readiness is far from ideal. And their
discipline could be better. But even the obviously biased inspection
commission rated their combat-readiness as satisfactory. The 32,000
paratroopers are almost constantly in the middle of military operations,
after all. Over the two years of war in Chechnya, four regimental tactical
groups have taken turns being stationed there, and, until recently, the
paratroops were responsible for peacekeeping operations in both the Balkans
and Abkhazia.

These tasks were given to the paratroops, however, because only they could
quickly put together relatively combat-ready units. It’s also significant
that the 76th paratroops division was selected for the Armed Forces’
experiment on setting up a division manned solely by professional soldiers.

But if the paratroops are in a better state than the rest of the Armed
Forces (the Defense Ministry knows this and uses the paratroops to patch up
holes elsewhere), then why carry out an inspection and make paratroops
officers nervous with talk of merging the paratroops with ground forces?

There’s no rational explanation. The only answer is that head of the
General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin, who hopes to become defense minister sooner
or later, is busy trying to get all possible rivals out of the way.
Kvashnin’s most obvious rivals in this respect are the most talented and
respected generals.

Everyone still remembers how Kvashnin berated the Strategic Missile Forces
only because he considered their commander his rival. Kvashnin managed to
convince President Vladimir Putin that the only permanently combat-ready
branch of the Armed Forces should be scaled back even faster than the rate
at which Russia’s missiles are coming to the end of their service lives.
Kvashnin proposes that, of 19 divisions, only two will remain. This would
deprive Russia of its nuclear parity with the United States and its main
bargaining chip in negotiations with Washington.

Now, paratroops commander Georgy Shpak is in Kvashnin’s firing line.
Everything is heading towards the paratroops losing their independence.
Meanwhile, it’s clear that the foundation of future armed forces won’t be
the "heavy" mechanized divisions the General Staff persists in calling the
"divisions of the 21st century," but mobile paratroops and light-infantry
units.

When Sergei Ivanov became defense minister a year ago after public disputes
between Kvashnin and former Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, many thought
the quarrels in the Defense Ministry were over. Instead, however, Ivanov
has found himself dragged into disputes between the generals. The main
problem is that, with no clear reform program for the Armed Forces,
officers, including top-level commanders, have no clear prospects for the
future and give themselves over to fighting for their own personal
ambitions instead. The generals are ready to sacrifice even the country’s
last combat-ready units for the sake of these ambitions.
 
*******