[translation, for personal use only,
of an article by Maksim Zarezin]

[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]

MOSCOW. Oct 12 (Interfax) - Former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin has described as "unworthy" the remarks U.S. presidential candidate George Bush, Jr. made during televised debates on Wednesday.

As was reported earlier, Bush had criticized the top management of the International Monetary Fund and mentioned Chernomyrdin and other Russian politicians in an offensive context.

"I can assess these utterances with just one word-unworthy. Especially for a person aspiring to the highest post in such a country as the United States of America," reads a statement by the former Russian prime minister obtained by Interfax on Thursday.

"Bush is unlikely to achieve serious success in his political career if the steps he takes in the election campaign are directed towards a revision of economic cooperation with Russia and, in doing so, he discredits authoritative international institutions as well as Russian politicians," the document reads.

Back to the Top


#2
Moscow Times
October 13, 2000
EDITORIAL
A Dialogue We'd Love To See Next

VIKTOR CHERNOMYRDIN Hello! George Bush Junior? George Bush Junior?

GEORGE W. BUSH Yes, I'm here Mr. Chorny-, Mr. Churna-, Mr. Prime Minister.

CHERNOMYRDIN George Bush Junior, I heard your revelations about me, you said last night, in your presidential argument, about how I took all my money out of the pocket, and filled it from the International Money Fund. And, well. I'm very angry you would say such a thing on international television, in front of a national audience, lots of listeners. It's wrong!

BUSH Well, Mr. Prime Minister, I'm looking at a report. It's on white paper. And it says here, in black-and-white letters, that the Money Fund is missing some. And, ah, we have oil in Texas. But no one, we don't, the Big Money Fund doesn't pay us to steal that oil, no one has to pay us.

CHERNOMYRDIN I don't know your report. We have lots of spravki, we have a word, it's called kompromat, and in our country, smart people know that it's a waste of time to look into what uncultured people do. You have to understand our Soviet realities We had a massive, large-scale privatization going on everywhere, and mistakes were made. But it was not for lack of trying.

BUSH All I'm saying is that in Texas, we have oil. So don't, don't start with me.

CHERNOMYRDIN George Bush Junior Let's be frank. You have genetically engineered mad cows, and we import grain from them, and you had just better watch it. Because you need us, too.

And we know things, too. How would your debaters, in your election, like it if we started talking about how your Vice President Halliburton sank our Kursk submarine? Maybe your polls then wouldn't jump so high and make you so happy!

BUSH Hey, hold on! I know you wanted the best, and it just turned out f

CHERNOMYRDIN Don't apologize. I've heard about you. I know about your slibliminal, sibsliminal f

BUSH Sulibinal, slibilimal f ?

CHERNOMYRDIN Your psychological warfare. You know what I'm talking about. Those fast rats.

BUSH Oh, c'mon, that sliminibal advertising stuff doesn't even work. We tried. And anyway, this is America. I've got a report onwhite paper, mister. And I can go outside and shout it from the rooftops.

And that's how America's different from Russia Because if we wanna shout a little, we'll damn well do it. And if we want to sink your submarine and then bring it back up again, well, we'll damn well do that too. So leave our Big Money Fund alone and stop calling!

Back to the Top


#3
Russian Nobel laureate received by Vladimir Putin
MOSCOW, Oct 12 (AFP)

The Russian Nobel laureate Zhores Alferov was received on Thursday by President Vladimir Putin, whom the award-winning physicist said had pledged to support Russia's cash-starved scientists.

Alferov said that in post-Communist Russia, "we have preserved an important scientific potential which needs firm support," and described his meeting with Putin as "very productive," the ITAR-TASS news agency reported.

Russia's first Nobel laureate in a decade said that his conversation with Putin had focussed on "the problems of the financing and development of national science and its strategic direction, which is important for Russia."

In particular, they discussed work in the sphere of new telecommunications techologies.

The aims he had fixed before seeing the president had been fulfilled "500 percent," Alferov added, without giving further details.

The Russian president congratulated the scientist in the name of Russia and its second city Saint Petersburg, which they both come from, Alferov said.

The physicist, who is also a Communist deputy in the State Duma (lower house of parliament), used a speech on Wednesday before deputies to make an impassioned plea for more state funding for science.

The director of Saint Petersburg's A.F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, Alferov will split nearly one million dollars in prize money with German-born Herbert Kroemer and Jack Kilby of the United States.

Alferov was honoured for his pioneering work with semi-conductor and laser technology now used in everything from satellites to cellular phones and bar-code scanners.

Back to the Top


#4
BBC
11 October 2000
Cosmonaut is Woman of the Century

Russia's first female cosmonaut has won the Greatest Woman Achiever of the Century award in London.

Valentina Tereshkova, 63, the first woman in space, was given the award by the International Women of the Year Association. According to the Russian news agency Itar-Tass, "her unsurpassed successes in the cause of equality, exploration of the outer space for the benefit of peace, and protection of the planet's ecology" made her the association's unanimous choice.

Former South African President Nelson Mandela was also honoured as the Leader of the Century.

Ms Tereshkova made her one and only space flight in Vostok-VI in June 1963.

"We are incredibly proud that Tereshkova will be attending the ceremony," said the association's president, Lady Lothian. "[She] remains the only woman in the world to have carried out a solo flight into space for the duration of three days. This is an amazing achievement."

Ms Tereshkova, who has a moon crater named after her, chaired the Soviet Committee for Women from 1968 to 1987.

She now heads the Russian Government's Centre for International Scientific and Cultural Co-operation.

Celebrity event

About 500 high-profile women attended the lavish lunchtime ceremony at London's Café Royal. Speakers at the ceremony included Germaine Greer, Mary Quant, Joan Armatrading and former racehorse trainer Jenny Pitman.

The women invited were asked to vote for the most influential woman of 2000 and selected former UK Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam, who won with 13% of the poll.

Cherie Blair, Hillary Clinton and Aung San Suu Kyi all received 7% of the vote, followed by Madeleine Albright and Harry Potter author JK Rowling.

The poll also found that most women felt they would see equality in the workplace within this lifetime, but not within 10 years.

The women also named pollution as the greatest threat to the world over the next 100 years.

The event was attended by men for the first time in the association's 45-year history.

The association said the decision to invite men was in recognition of the fact that excellence had no gender.

Back to the Top


#5
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
October 12, 2000
KURSK RESCUE MISSION APPROACHES AMID SEA OF DOUBTS.

Russian plans to recover the bodies of sailors lost in the Kursk disaster have moved forward in recent days, but uncertainty continues to dog the effort. The Regalia, a vessel normally used by the offshore oil industry, departed from a Norwegian port on October 8 en route to the site in the Barents Sea where the Russian submarine went down on August 12. The rig is carrying an eighty-member crew which includes eighteen divers--nine from Russia and nine from Britain and the Scandinavian countries. Norwegian reports said that the attempt to recover the remains will begin around October 18 and is expected to last about three weeks. The operation is being conducted by Russia's Rubin military design bureau and the Norwegian subsidiary of the U.S.-based Halliburton oil service company. Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, commander of the Russian navy, is in charge of the effort.

The Russian commander has himself cast some doubt upon the wisdom of the recovery mission, however. In comments to the Russian media made on October 9, Kuroyedov that there was "very little chance for the recovery" of bodies from the Kursk. He also described the mission as "extremely complex" in all aspects, and warned that "risks are very high." He said that his main task is to "prevent the loss of any crew members." Russian divers are expected to do the bulk of the work in the recovery effort and will apparently be the only divers allowed into the submarine itself.

Kuroyedov's remarks may be just an attempt to lower expectations before the recovery mission starts. Aside from the risks to the divers, a host of Russian observers have warned that only a small number of bodies from the 118-man crew are likely to be recovered. All of them, moreover, will have suffered the ravages of two onboard explosions--the second of them believed to have been an especially powerful blast--and more than two months of being underwater. One Russian newspaper quoted military experts off the record as saying that divers will likely manage to recover only fifteen to twenty bodies from the Kursk.

But Kuroyedov's remarks may also reflect a genuine reluctance by the Russian military leadership to undertake the recovery mission. According to one Russian newspaper account, for example, Defense Minister Igor Sergeev is said to have prepared a memorandum listing over twenty risk factors connected to the recovery effort. Meanwhile, a senior Russian naval officer with extensive experience in naval rescue operations has reportedly also called on the government to give up the idea of recovering the bodies right now. Like many others, he urged that it be left until next year, when the Russian government is expected to try to raise the Kursk submarine as a whole. In fact, a number of experts have warned that the upcoming recovery mission could ultimately complicate next year's effort to raise the sub. They say that plans by the diving teams to cut eight holes in the hull of the vessel--to gain access to its interior--will weaken the structure of the Kursk and make later efforts to raise it both riskier and more difficult.

Against this background, and considering that even many of the families of the sailors lost on the Kursk have urged postponement of the recovery mission, the determination to proceed with the recovery operation appears more and more to be driven by President Vladimir Putin's personal pledge to ensure that the bodies are recovered. Putin's position on this score may be part of an attempt to recoup some of the political popularity that he lost through the Kremlin's gross mishandling of the Kursk accident. Yet Putin's seems to be a high-risk course. A mission which manages either to recover few bodies or, even worse, results in a new tragedy of some sort in the Barents Sea, will only compound the political problems faced by the Kremlin in connection with the Russian submarine disaster (AP, October 8; AFP, BBC, October 10; Izvestia, Novye Izvestia, October 11; Argumenty i Fakty, October).

Reports over the past few days, meanwhile, have suggested that the loss of the Kursk may be at least partly responsible for another embarrassment to the Kremlin and the Russian navy. On October 10 Kuroyedov apparently confirmed rumors that a much-ballyhooed plan by which the Russian navy was to dispatch a naval group to the Mediterranean Sea has been postponed "indefinitely." The order to prepare for the Mediterranean mission was signed by Putin on March 4 and described the mission as an opportunity for "restoring Russia's naval presence in the most important parts of the world's seas." It also ordered that the mission be undertaken "in order to support peacekeeping activities, fly Russia's flag in the given region, and improve crew combat skills." The August naval maneuvers in which the Kursk was lost represented the final training exercise for the Mediterranean mission, however. Although broader problems related to naval readiness probably explain the decision to cancel the mission, the loss of the Kursk is likely to have figured in the calculation. The collapse of the mission is an embarrassment both for Putin, who has embraced the navy with special fervor, and for the naval leadership, which has hoped to use Putin's support to reestablish itself as a formidable presence on the world's oceans (Russian agencies, March 10; Vremya novostei, October 11).

Back to the Top


#6
Russia slams US Congress threat of sanctions over spy case
MOSCOW, Oct 12 (AFP)

Russian officials, deputies and analysts spoke out Thursday against a US Congress threat of economic sanctions in retaliation for the continued detention of a suspected US spy.

Former US naval officer Edmund Pope was arrested by Russian special services in April on charges of obtaining secret sketches of a high-speed torpedo and of soliciting information on weaponry from Russian scientists.

The 63-year-old businessman, who suffers from a rare form of cancer, has been holed up in a Moscow jail since the arrest. He faces a 10- to 20-year sentence if found guilty. His trial is due to begin next Wednesday.

The US House of Representatives passed a resolution late Tuesday urging President Bill Clinton to consider cutting off the bulk of economic aid to Russia unless Pope is immediately released.

Russian observers called the move a hidden attack on the US Democratic Party ahead of presidential elections. It was also criticised as undemocratic interference in the judicial system of a sovereign state and as inconsistent with America's own practices of dealing with alleged spies.

"The noisy minority in the US Congress is again attempting to grossly interfere in Russia's internal affairs and pressurise Russian investigative and judicial bodies," the foreign ministry said in a statement Thursday.

"This result can only damage mutually beneficial trade between the two countries. The investigation has proved that Pope was engaged in illegal activities in Russia and it is Russian judicial authorities, not US Congressmen, who will make the final verdict," the ministry said.

Former Russian ambassador to Washington, Vladimir Lukin, on the other hand, said he believed Russia was unfortunate to get caught up in a US pre-election war between the Republican and Democratic parties.

"The Republican-dominated Congress just threw this at the Democrats, who cannot afford to appear less patriotic than their competitors ahead of the presidential elections," Lukin said in a report shown on NTV Thursday.

Speaker of the State Duma, lower house of parliament, Gennady Seleznyov, said the resolution violated international practices, noting that sanctions had never before been imposed in such circumstances.

"The US should send less spies to Russia if they want to avoid such situations. Then we wouldn't have to conduct lengthy investigations and trials," he told journalists.

Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Duma foreign relations committee called the threat "absurd" and suggested that only a totalitarian regime could have such disregard for a country's judicial system.

He noted that during the high-profile case of Aldrich Ames, found guilty of spying for the Soviet Union, the US rejected any calls for mitigation despite the man's ill health.

"I am 100 percent certain that if a Russian tried to buy US military drafts, even if they were from the WWI-era, that they would arrest him and that there would be a huge drawn-out spy case," he told NTV television.

Rogozin added that President Vladimir Putin could step in by offering Pope amnesty or by exchanging him for a Russian national detained in the US, but only after the final verdict is pronounced.

According to political analyst Vyacheslav Nikonov, the only favourable outcome would be an amnesty, as the US would refuse an exchange, which would suggest Pope's guilt.

It would be impossible for Russia to concede to the US request by releasing Pope, thereby admitting a mistake in the arrest and publicly embarrassing the special services, Nikonov told NTV.

Despite an impulse by the Clinton administration to appeal to voters in the pre-election frenzy, Russia has expressed serious doubts that Washington would slap economic sanctions over the spy case.

Speaking after a meeting with US ambassador to Moscow James Collins late Wednesday, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov said the case was not discussed, but that neither the US nor Russia were interested in creating such drastic barriers.

Back to the Top


#7
RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY DENIES RUSSIA IS READY TO CONSIDER CHANGING ABM TREATY

MOSCOW. Oct 12 (Interfax) - The Russian Foreign Ministry has categorically denied certain U.S. allegations that the joint statement on strategic stability made by the Russian and U.S. presidents in Moscow on June 4 contains a provision stating that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missiles and rocket technologies must be opposed, including by considering changes to the ABM Treaty.

The allegation is contained in a document released by the U.S. delegation to a disarmament conference in Geneva.

"We think it necessary to note that there is no such provision in the aforementioned joint statement," Russian Foreign Ministry representative Alexander Yakovenko has said in a statement obtained by Interfax on Thursday. Nor is there is any such a provision "in any other joint documents adopted by the presidents of Russia and the U.S.," he said.

"The U.S. knows very well that Russia has not conducted and does not intend to conduct any negotiations with the U.S. on changing the ABM Treaty for the purpose of adapting it to the U.S. national ABM system," Yakovenko said. "Such an adaptation is not at all possible the central provision of the ABM Treaty is a ban on the deployment of ABM systems on a country's territory, and the creation of a basis for providing such a defense or any other change to this provision would deprive the Treaty of its very meaning," he said.

"In the dialogue with the U.S. on START and ABM issues we have more than once pointed out and are continuing to point out the harmful consequences that the destruction of the ABM Treaty would have for disarmament and strategic stability," he said.

"One would like to hope that the distortion of the documents adopted by the presidents of both countries is unintentional - it does not help achieve constructive goals," the Russian Foreign Ministry representative said.

Yakovenko called on the U.S. "to concentrate on positive joint work aimed at ensuring international security and strategic stability while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as stipulated in the joint statements by the Russian and U.S. presidents."

Back to the Top


#8
BBC MONITORING
LEADING RADIO STATION CONDEMNS PERCEIVED INCONSISTENCIES IN RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY
Source Ekho Moskvy news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1424 gmt 11 Oct 00

Andrey Cherkizov, the main commentator of the Ekho Moskvy radio station owned by Vladimir Gusinskiy's Media-Most group, has criticized what he described as inconsistencies in the foreign policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government. Cherkizov said the inconsistencies were evident on the issue of the change of power in Yugoslavia and when Russia signed an arms deal with India while trying to coordinate with Pakistan on the security situation in Afghanistan. The following is the text of Ekho Moskvy news agency's transcript of Cherkizov's comments as broadcast on the radio on 11th October

[No dateline as received] A meeting of Collective Security Treaty member-countries has taken place in Bishkek. The choice of time and place for the summit are obvious the Taleban have practically reached the Tajikistan border and Kyrgyzstan has already experienced rebel attacks originating from neighbouring countries.

It is also pretty obvious that Russia bears the main responsibility within the Collective Security Treaty. This is by dint of its military and economic strength and of Russian troops and border guards being stationed on the Tajik-Afghan frontier.

By the way, we asked our listeners on Wednesday [11th October] whether the Russian military should participate in combat actions on the territory of CIS countries. About 1,100 people took part in the telephone poll. Eighty per cent of respondents believe that the Russian military should not engage in combat actions in the CIS countries, while, correspondingly, 20 per cent said that they should.

The collective need of a responsible level of security - that is the way the task facing the summit participants may be phrased.

Speaking on Ekho Moskvy radio, political scientist Vyacheslav Nikonov said that "Russian diplomats are right when they try to ensure collective efforts in the event of a Taleban offensive".

However, it is worth remembering that collective security is expressed in combat actions only in an emergency.

This is the main point. "In general, Russia is ready to act as an intermediary in hot spots, if the countries and parties concerned express an interest in that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin told a news conference in Bishkek.

Ready to act. And does it know how to act as an intermediary? I'd rather not rush forward with an affirmative reply.

Let's recollect [presidential aide Sergey] Yastrzhembskiy's visit to Pakistan - and Putin's visit to India which resulted in a Russian military hardware export contract.

Let's recollect Putin's invitation to Kostunica and Milosevic to come to Moscow - and his immediate departure to Delhi afterwards.

Let's recollect the blitz visit by [Russian Foreign Minister Igor] Ivanov to Belgrade to recognize Kostunica as president elect.

Let's recollect other things. Russia's role in unleashing the war between Abkhazia and Georgia. The removal of Russian arms and ammunition from [Moldova's] Dnestr region that was approved by Kishinev long ago and still has not taken place even now.

We come to a sad conclusion Russia is not ready for an intermediary role yet. Russia is not able to react quickly and delicately to the challenges it faces. Russia is not flexible and not objective. Russia is self-seeking and thus - too often - its actions demonstrate a lack of depth of consideration.

Russia is a diligent pupil of the Soviet experience that is unable to draw a lesson from the past.

Lack of home analysis of past mistakes - plus a failure to overcome outmoded imperial thinking - is the main reason for the low efficiency of Russia's mediation efforts.

Back to the Top


#9
BBC MONITORING
RUSSIAN AIDS EXPERT NOTES THREAT OF EPIDEMIC
Source 'Kommersant', Moscow, in Russian 12 Oct 00

Text of report by Yelena Vansovich entitled "Russian politicians infected with AIDS, Academician Pokrovskiy claims" in Russian newspaper 'Kommersant' on 12th October

Russia is threatened with an AIDS epidemic. According to Academician Vadim Pokrovskiy, head of the Federal Scientific and Methodological Centre for the Prevention and Combating of AIDS, the number of people who are HIV-positive in the country is over 53,000 and the figure is still rising.

According to Academician Pokrovskiy, there are over 9,300 people who are HIV-positive registered in Moscow today but that is just 20 per cent of the real figure. At a news conference yesterday the academician said that Moscow Region and Irkutsk Region account for 44 per cent of all cases of HIV infection in the Russian Federation since the start of the year (about 20,800 and 7,800 respectively). According to Mr Pokrovskiy, there are around 400,000 sufferers in Russia in total, for whose treatment 4m dollars is required. However, just R44m have been allocated this year for the anti-AIDS programme, of which just 10 per cent is being earmarked for treatment. And the World Health Organization estimates that 65m dollars per year should be spent on AIDS prevention in Russia.

Virologists predict that there will be 600,000 people who are HIV-positive in the country by the end of 2000. A considerable increase in the incidence of HIV infection is anticipated in Moscow and St Petersburg as well as in Irkutsk, Tyumen, Perm, Ryazan, Samara, Ulyanovsk and Orenburg Regions. Furthermore, according to Mr Pokrovskiy, a person who is HIV-positive lives for at most 12 years and existing medical technologies do not enable the disease to be fully treated. The academician said that the recently developed preparation "armenicum" is not suitable for the treatment of AIDS.

The reasons for the spread of the disease in Russia, in the academician's opinion, are the same as elsewhere Failure to observe the requisite sexual precautions and drug addiction. Around 15 per cent of the prostitutes in Moscow are infected with AIDS.

The academician is sure that in two years the number of people who are HIV-positive in Russia could top 1m. Vadim Pokrovskiy believes that the first wave of the disease is now being recorded, which is mainly linked with drug abuse. And in four to five years another outbreak can be expected where the disease is sexually transmitted in the course of heterosexual contact. According to the academician, despite the fact that "a great deal is said and written" about AIDS, "only just over 10 per cent of Russians use condoms". Hence Mr Pokrovskiy said with certainty that there are also people infected among those attending the news conference (journalists looked at one another in fear) and among the highest-ranking politicians. "And they feel perfectly well," Mr Pokrovskiy concluded.

Back to the Top


#10
Russian New Information Security Doctrine an Orwellian Deja vu
October 10, 2000
UPI ANALYSIS
By ARIEL COHEN

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is a Reseach Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and the author of "Russian Imperialism Development and Crisis" (Praeger, 1998).

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) - Russian President Vladimir Putin recently signed a 37-page document entitled "Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation." The document aims to protect Russia's national security in view of the information revolution, a phenomenon which began impacting the Russian scene primarily after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, the document goes much further, and is extremely statist in character. The doctrine, which has been posted on the Internet in Russian, and analyzed by UPI, confuses legitimate concerns about the protection of classified information in databases and government owned information networks, with a preoccupation with ideology and control of the mass media.

If the various measures it proposes are actually implemented, they will serve to stultify growth and investment in the Russian information technology (IT) sector and scare away foreign investors, who only recently began to acquire Russian websites.

The doctrine includes much in the way of Soviet-style, nationalist diatribe, editorializing against attempts of purported foreign "monopolization" of the Russian mass media and access by foreign intelligence services to Russian government economic statistics. It also warns against the "negative influence of foreign religious organizations," which are now allowed to practice in the former Soviet country.

On the economic side, the doctrine prescribes development of a "necessary protectionist policy" toward domestic manufacturers of information technology (IT) and "information defense technology," presumably encryption hardware and software. "Unlimited access and unregulated competition in the areas of data collection, protection of databases, and participation of foreign companies in these activities creates conditions for access to that data by foreign intelligence services," the document intones in unmistakably Cold War language.

A heavy-handed state function in the "certification and licensing" of any and all "information defense" technology is stipulated, and a security establishment role in operating and protecting "sensitive information" in both the public and private sectors, "regardless of the form of property," is envisaged.

According to reports in the Russian media, the security services are already deeply involved in economic activities related to IT and telecommunications. For example, "certified" and "licensed" equipment and software, required by the state, are usually imported and distributed by firms run by former or current intelligence officers with ties to the IT branches of the national security establishment. An ex-KGB signal intelligence service known under its Russian acronym FAPSI is one of the most prominent IT regulators in Russia. Some of the prescribed use of state-licensed telecom equipment is clearly an attempt to enrich specific businessmen under cover of the national security mantle, or to squeeze licensing fees from entrepreneurs. Earlier this year, the Russian ministry of telecommunications, headed by President Putin's personal friend, Leonid Reiman, demanded that all Internet service providers (ISPs) install equipment allowing all e-mail and world wide web traffic to be copied to servers of the FSB, the post-KGB secret police, which is Russia's largest counter-intelligence service.

Later on, telecom watchdogs in the Russian secret police implemented a system known as SORM, in which all digital telephone traffic, pager messages and other communication also began to be copied to the FSB. The most ironic aspect of these developments is that Internet service providers and telecom operators are supposed to pay for the equipment. The cost is added to the bill, thus forcing the client to pay for the government 's eavesdropping.

The fact that the Russian constitution proclaims the right to privacy, protection and the secrecy of personal data has apparently evaded the Russian government's attorneys. The information security doctrine further warns of the dangers inherent in relying on imported Western hardware and network equipment, as well as allowing Western firms to work in Russia, which ostensibly facilitates penetration by Western intelligence services of the country, thus endangering national security.

The doctrine also prescribes state involvement in domestic and foreign propaganda operations. It demands that the state plays a greater role in disseminating its version of "key and most significant events" affecting domestic policy.

One of the self-proclaimed intentions of this PR policy is to limit the "monopoly" of domestic and foreign media in the Russian market -- an interesting notion, specially in view of the fact that the Kremlin is currently engaged in a virtual media war to gain control of two TV channels. NTV, which is owned by MOST-Media, is the only Russian national channel in private hands, while controversial tycoon Boris Berezovsky owns a minority stake in ORT (the balance of ORT's shares are already in the hands of the Russian government). Thus, the state is attempting to create its own TV monopoly, directly and actively violating its own calls for "de-monopolization" of the media.

The doctrine further advocates that the Russian government take "counter-propaganda" measures against foreign "disinformation activities" aimed against Russia. The authors of this piece, who are employed by the Kremlin's National Security Council and have intelligence background, do not shy away from providing ideological guidance to the Russian rulers. They call for balancing the interests of the "state, society and the individual," while advocating that emphasis be placed on "constitutional limitations of the freedom of speech" in the interests of "forging and maintaining social consensus," social morality, public health, spiritual renewal, "patriotism and humanism."

Clearly, the authors do not doubt that government officials called upon to implement the information security doctrine have a better judgement of both "morality" and "spiritual renewal" issues than journalists or owners of the media. The document de-facto proposes the introduction of censorship and boosts the role of the security services as a moral guide for Russia - something that did not exist even under the Soviet regime, when the communist party, not the security services, supervised ideology. In the meantime, the Kremlin has already begun implementing some of the elements of the plan.

According to a report in the opposition-leaning Segodnya newspaper, owned by MOST-Media, the Kremlin has created a "Fast Reaction Group" headed by political operative Simon Kordonsky under the Domestic Policy Division of presidential administration. According to Segodnya, the Group will attempt to discredit not only information which may be deemed unpalatable or inconvenient by the Kremlin, but will also collect "compromising materials" about the private lives of opposition journalists. This information will then be publicized in the pro-Kremlin media, allegedly to destroy opposition journalists. It is worth noting that former President Boris Yeltsin, acting on advice by his former legal counsel Mikhail Krasnov, refused to sign the doctrine until his resignation, while Putin, a Soviet lawyer by training, found it acceptable and signed it.

Alexei Simonov, chairman of the pro-democracy Glasnost Defense Foundation, recently stated in a Russian TV broadcast that the country is quickly returning to Soviet-era patterns of media manipulation and censorship. If that is the case, the goals Putin has repeatedly proclaimed - further integration with Europe, attracting foreign investment, and economic modernization through the rule of law, may be in direct conflict with the new security doctrine he himself signed. One of the popular explanations among Russia experts is that Putin, who was trained as an intelligence officer, is skilled at advocating different policies to different audiences. Put into practice, the security doctrine will not only limit the flow of information in and out of Russia, it will become a bugaboo that will scare away much needed foreign investors in the high tech sector of the Russian economy - investors who thus far have been in extremely short supply.

Back to the Top


#11
US Policy 'Aggravated' Russian Problems, Congress Reports
Rossiyskaya Gazeta
October 6, 2000
[translation for personal use only]
Article by Maksim Zarezin "Support for Reforms Subsequently Unmasked. The U.S. Authorities Found Within Their Own Ranks Those Who Are to Blame for Russia's Woes and Intend Calling Them to Account"

What Did the Dead Man Say?

A 183-page (!) report, compiled in accordance with the recommendations of House Speaker Denis Hastert, was published in Washington recently. The report analyzes U.S. policy toward Russia. The authors of the document, among whom the Republican Christopher Cox played the lead role, came to the conclusion that the Clinton Administration's activity in this sphere has "aggravated Russia's problems by destroying the incentives to reform and reinforcing the government's predatory policy toward the Russian people." Cox himself compared work on the report to the opening up of a corpse which is necessary to establish cause of death.

The executive has not lagged behind the legislature either. The U.S. Department of Justice has prepared a $120 million law suit against Andrei Shleifer and Jonathan Hay, Harvard University specialists and former consultants to the Russian Government. The accusations against the trailblazers of the reforms and pals of Anatoliy Chubays is that when working in Russia they used their official position for personal gain. Using confidential information that they possessed by virtue of their status, they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars at a profit in Russian securities.... Whereas at the height of the Cold War it was the House Un-American Activities Committee that operated at full power, now it seems that the time is ripe across the ocean for the creation of a similar structure to study the Un-Russian activity of its fellow citizens.

Attacks on U.S. policy in Russia and its supporters are not news in the United States. You get the impression that both the Congress and the Department of Justice have drawn their inspiration from Janine Wedel's book "Collision and Collusion" from which you could learn about the adventures of Hay and Shleifer and their life partners in a Russia that is undergoing reform. In addition, Wedel indicated the pernicious nature of U.S. influence on the character and results of the transformations. For example, the privatization process, in her opinion, "helped to create the system of magnate capitalism that exists to enrich a corrupt political oligarchy, which has pocketed Western aid and the nation's plundered wealth to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars."

The Congressmen from Working Russia

The Congressional report, like Wedel's book, with its zeal for exposure and well-honed phrases, calls to mind [Working Russia leader] Viktor Anpilov's fiery speeches and lead articles in the newspaper Zavtra. Admittedly, the Congressmen flavored their text liberally with toasts to American values and democratic freedoms. For example, during the years of stagnation the authors of works that were dubious from the viewpoint of orthodoxy tried to compensate for their ideological vulnerability with abundant quotations from the classics of Marxism-Leninism and party Central Committee decrees. This trick did not always work and the concealed gesture of contempt was triumphantly exposed for all to see. Now this method has backfired on the Americans.

The upshot is that by compromising the Democrats' policy, the Republicans have cast a dark shadow on the free world's values.

Judge for yourselves. In the Congressmen's opinion, the planning and implementation of foreign policy in relations with Russia was monopolized by a group headed by Vice President Albert Gore, Strobe Talbott (from the Department of State), and their associate Lawrence Summers, [the then] deputy treasury secretary, who were to blame for all of Russia's woes, as it now transpires. But the logical question here is this What kind of democracy is this if for eight years an extraordinary trio usurped the most important area of the world superpower's foreign policy which, eventually, in the opinion of the report's authors, led to the collapse of U.S.-Russian relations. Either the Congressmen are pulling a fast one and must share the responsibility with the Clinton Administration or else the American model suffers from some extremely serious defects and the dithyrambs in its honor are completely inappropriate.

Transatlantic PR with a Russian Content

Commentators were unanimous in assessing the appearance of the Congressional report as a Republican maneuver in the election contest with Albert Gore. It is hard to dispute this conclusion. Admittedly, the U.S. voter is hardly going to be so concerned with our problems that he takes them into account when electing a president. But let us note that this propaganda campaign fits very well with the other one. Recently, for example, a book entitled "The Red Mafia" by the journalist Robert Friedman was published in the United States. The book's subtitle is "How the Russian Gangs Conquered America."

It is a pretty picture While the Americans were participating in the ruin of the Russian people, our fellow countrymen were ensnaring the whole of America in their criminal web. From time to time attempts are made to scare the Transatlantic public with stories about the terrible Russian mafiosi. You only have to think back to the scandal surrounding the Bank of New York, which is alleged to have laundered billions of "dirty" Russian money. Now we have the latest episode in this horror story. In such a situation an inhabitant of the Oklahoma boondocks takes fright and has some harsh words for Clinton and Gore, who disturbed the Russian anthill, sending all this scum to their blessed land.

Incidentally, detractors attribute Janine Wedel's counter-reform fervor to personal gain as well. The point is that this Kremlinologist is a staffer of the George Washington University Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, a rival structure to the Harvard Institute for International Development, whose professors got along so famously with the "Chubays clan" and the "St. Petersburg mafia" (in Ms. Wedel's words). At one time, Dmitriy Vasilyev, former chairman of the Federal Commission for the Securities Market and Chubays' comrade in arms, even turned down a grant from another U.S. university -- Stanford -- in case he offended his friends from Harvard.

And What Next?...

But even if the Cox group's report is pure "PR" and even if there are ill-wishers of the Democrats ensconced in the U.S. Department of Justice, these signals deserve attention. For several reasons. If Bush wins, the Congressmen's conclusions will probably form the basis of U.S. policy toward Russia. But if Gore wins, he will be forced to pay heed to his opponents. When people at the highest level in Russia today are talking about the most glaring errors and mistakes in past years and about the need to dismantle the oligarchic model, it would be absurd for them in the Democrats' place to insist that their policy was entirely right and that they intend continuing in the same vein.

The most astonishing thing is that it is hard to disagree with the Congressmen's main arguments. U.S. officials and advisers did indeed prefer close personal contacts with a narrow circle of Russian figures even after they became mired in corruption. They did indeed ignore parliament, the regions, and public organizations. They did indeed welcome the attempts to establish democracy by undemocratic methods and did not want to amend the political course despite the obvious failures.

All this (and much else) is right. But what would the Republicans do in the Clinton Administration's place? What approach do the authors of the report espouse? This is what we read "Russia is a great country and must ultimately choose its own path." Golden words indeed! But one sentence later we read this "As the world's leading state the United States offers a model for Russia's future...". Forgive me but a great country cannot live according to someone else's yardstick even if it wanted to. Otherwise, the result will be similar to that which the Republicans so fervently condemn. Therefore, what must be revised is not the Democrats' policy but this viewpoint. Otherwise, any (even if sincere) attempt to help us will rebound on Russia and its helpers themselves.

Back to the Top


#12
Izvestia
October 12, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
A EURASIAN NATO
Russia's Zone of Military Responsibility Increasingly
Less Coincides with Its Borders
By Svetlana BABAYEVA reporting from Bishkek

Russia and its five Collective Security Treaty allies on October 11 signed an agreement, which actually stimulates the creation of a regional armed force. Right now the decision promises benefits by the sale of weaponry to these countries for Russia and low prices on these weapons for their buyers. It is not excluded, however, that in a year Russian soldiers will have to repel a threat somewhere at the borders of Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan.

Having gathered in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, the Presidents wasted no time and in a narrow circle started discussing the future of the Collective Security Treaty, or DKB. The discussion concerned such subjects as the status of the collective security system formations and means, a plan for the period up to 2005 (which includes a joint crackdown on narcotic drugs and urgent exchanges of information between their secret services, among other things), and a joint statement on challenges to Central Asia, in which they urged the international community and the UN Security Council to intensify their efforts with regard to Afghanistan, which has already become a source of global terrorism.

It is too early to say that Russian soldiers will again fight in Central Asia. However, judging by the agreements signed in Bishkek yesterday, this is not excluded. During the next month the general staffs of Russia, Byelorussia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are to elaborate and coordinate their proposals concerning the numerical strength of a potential collective force and other concrete questions. The first step has already been made. A number of joint military exercises, including the ones under the code name of The Southern Shield of the Commonwealth, have already been conducted this year. There is the ground to presume that the troops, which participated in these exercises, will become the core of the new collective force. The exercises showed, however, that the defense space of the former USSR is disintegrated and it is sometimes very difficult to move military hardware from one country into another because of customs restrictions and other barriers. The Bishkek agreements make it possible to avoid in future such "customs procedures" by asserting a clear-cut legislative base for the movement of the military. They also hold out another advantage - arms deliveries at lower prices, compared with world prices. Hence advantaged for the buyer-countries, with which military-technical cooperation has noticeably intensified in the past year. According to Russian Security Council secretary Sergei Ivanov, Russia, too, stands to gain.

However, it will take a long time when the issue at hand will be the movement of "European Blue Helmets," or the "Eurasian alliance" force personnel. Each of the participating countries has its own procedures of bringing troops into another state. It is very unlikely that their parliaments will easily approve, for instance, of the participation of Russian troops in the settlement of the situation on the border of Kyrgyzstan or Byelorussian troops in the same measures on the Tajik border. As for a potential regional collective force, its numerical strength and dislocation are unclear. Finally. The decision to bring the collective force into the territory of any country to take part in a "new Chechnya" can only be made with the permission of the country in question. In other words, the repetition of what has happened to Kosovo is extremely unlikely either in Central Asia or in the Caucasus.

It seems that the creation of new Eurasian institutes has been given a boost in the past few months. On October 10 in Astana, Kazakhstan, the five presidents created a Eurasian Economic Community, as the prototype of the European Union, if things go on as planned. Yesterday they made an attempt to create a hybrid of NATO with the UN Blue Helmets. Such an enhanced activity of the former Soviet republics can possibly facilitate the development of an altogether new kind of integration at least in a part of what used to be the USSR, on the one hand. But its mechanisms are too amorphous and vague to draw the conclusion about the viability of the new structures, on the other. There is nothing in their favor but the assurances by officials that the principles of their formation are similar to the ones used all over the world. However, it is common knowledge that in Russia (like in the Soviet Union before it) everything has always taken a special way.

* * *

Excerpts from the Agreement on the Status of the Collective Security System Formations and Means

"The Parties, in line with the procedures determined by their national legislation, can send their military formations to the territories of the countries-signatories to this Agreement, at their request and on coordination with them, to jointly repel a foreign military aggression and carry out joint counter-terrorism operations or command and military exercises. The decision to bring in the troops, their tasks and the composition of 14 military formations... shall be made by the heads of state of the member countries of the Collective Security Council."

"The personnel of the military formations should respect the sovereignty of the laws of the receiving country..., should not interfere in its domestic affairs..., and should not be involved in political activities and conflicts in its territory unless this is connected with the fulfilment of their tasks." "The servicemen of the military formations temporarily deployed in the territories of the Parties shall wear military uniforms and distinctive signs of their national armed forces. Should the need arise, common distinctive signs can be established for the servicemen by the decision of the military formation command."

"The entry/exit visa procedures of the receiving country shall not be applicable to the members of military formations." "The bringing in and withdrawal of armaments and other military hardware... shall be made on a priority basis... and no duties, taxes and other collections shall be necessary." "The receiving country shall lay no claims to the forwarding country and the command of its formation with regard to the redemption of any damage done by individuals or legal entities and connected with the death, bodily damage and incapacitation of its citizens..., if such damage was done in the process of fulfilling the task for repelling a foreign military aggression, eliminating terrorist armed units in its territory and carrying out measures aimed to ensure one's own security."

For the Record The Collective Security Treaty was signed in Tashkent on May 15, 1992, and entered into force two years later after its ratification by the parliaments of its signatory-countries. When the term of this treaty expired in spring 1999, only six countries - Russia, Armenia, Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - extended it, while Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan refused to follow suit.

Creating a collective security system of the member countries, encouraging them to form a defense union, preserving military infrastructure facilities, non-participating in unions and blocs aimed against any of the signatory-countries are the main goals of the 1992 Treaty. In addition, it stipulated, "in the event of common interest in this," transition to the principle of military basing at the same time clearly defining the legal status of Russian military bases and the status of the servicemen and members of their families stationed in these countries."

Back to the Top