The world does not stand still while America struggles over presidential succession. Russia, for one, always sensitive to being sidelined by the American superpower, has stepped into a perceived vacuum in order to increase its standing.

For years, the United States has sought to keep Russia from any decisive role in the Middle East. Now, while we remain transfixed by the next move in Tallahassee, President Vladimir Putin has been conferring with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in Moscow. He arranged for Mr. Arafat to talk to Israeli Premier Ehud Barak on the telephone.

Signs are that Russia will support Arafat in trying to internationalize the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by bringing in some United Nations force.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov says that Russia is getting into the act because violence is threatening to spread beyond the borders of this volatile region.

The 43rd US president will have his work cut out for him reasserting American leadership in the Middle East.

In this period of confusion in American leadership, and with the Russian economy benefiting from higher oil prices, Russia has also thumbed its nose at the US about weapons sales to Iran.

Russia has reneged on its 1995 pledge, negotiated with Vice President Al Gore, to phase out its arm sales to Iran. Mr. Ivanov now says, "You cannot speak to Russia in the language of ultimatums. The language of sanctions is not the kind of language you can use with Russia."

Parliament leader Konstantin Kosachev says Russia was forced to make the deal on no arms sales to Iran when it depended on help from the UN and the International Monetary Fund. Now, he said, Russia is not afraid of American sanctions.

Russia also has been active in seeking to link up with Western Europe. President Putin has had his fourth meeting in recent months with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, seeking agreement on a common European defense policy that would reduce US influence. They shared their concerns about the creation of a US missile defense system.

At a European Union meeting in Berlin, Ivanov expressed Russian readiness to cooperate in creating a European rapid-reaction force outside NATO. Ivanov said Russia would even study the possibility of contributing troops to such a force.

After the inaugural ball is over, the president will wake up on Jan. 21 and find America lost a lot of ground in the world while it contemplated its electoral navel.

Back to the Top


#2
Moscow Times November 30, 2000
DEFENSE DOSSIER: The Lure of Arms for Iran
By Pavel Felgenhauer

The Russian-Iranian arms trade has been a bone of contention between Moscow and Washington for many years now. In June 1995, the issue seemed to have been settled by U.S. Vice President Al Gore and then-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, when they signed a secret memorandum stating that Russia will not sign any new arms contracts with Iran, but will honor all existing ones until 1999.

However, in Moscow the Gore-Chernomyrdin memorandum was opposed by the arms lobby as an unjust punishment; in Washington many thought it too lenient. Over time, these differences grew: In 1999 Russia failed to stop supplying arms to Iran as it had agreed, and this month Moscow is reported to have scrapped the deal entirely.

The Gore-Chernomyrdin accord was not, of course, a legally binding treaty, but merely a letter of understanding that was never ratified. By disavowing this letter, Moscow is not breaking any international obligations.

On the contrary, Russia's previously signed bilateral arms-trade agreements with Iran demand that Russia continues to service and supply the Iranian military until 2011. Legally speaking, the contracts with Iran are more binding than the Gore-Chernomyrdin memorandum, and Russia believes it is entitled to sell conventional weapons to Tehran.

In the early 1990s, Russia sold Iran 24 Mig-29 fighters, 12 Su-24 jet bombers, 120 T-72C tanks, three Kilo class submarines, an S-200 long-range air-defense system and other weapons worth more than $4 billion. These purchases were only the first part of a long-term arms agreement.

With Russian help, Iran has built a modern tank factory and produced more than a thousand T-72C tanks as well as 1,500 BMP-2 armored vehicles.

A further agreement for Iran to build 126 Mig-29 fighters under license was finalized, but not signed because of American pressure. Still, year after year Iranian officials constantly probed Russia's attitudes and signaled that they are ready to sign additional deals worth $1.5 billion immediately, with others to follow if Russia defies the United States. Tehran is still interested in acquiring the know-how to make Mig-29s and Kilo subs. It wants Su-25K attack planes, S-300PMU1 air-defense systems, modern naval mines, torpedoes and so on.

Such massive purchases could produce not only revenue, but also jobs for the depressed Russian arms industry. However, in the past there were many problems getting real money out of deals with Iran. Of almost $5 billion worth of Russian arms and technology purchased by Iran in the 1990s, only just over $1 billion was paid in cash. The rest was settled in write-offs of outstanding Soviet debts to Iran and in various barter deals, mostly Iranian oil handed over to Russia for resale.

In the late 1990s, the price of crude was fairly low and many in Moscow argued that there was no rationale for resuming arms deals with Iran. Today, though, Iran is awash in oil money and ready to pay cash. The temptation is too great, and it seems the Kremlin has decided to defy Washington.

The U.S. part of the Gore-Chernomyrdin deal was a decision to allocate Russia a quota for launches of U.S. communications satellites. Since all modern communication satellites use U.S. technology, the Russian commercial space-launch industry may be wiped out if Washington decides to repudiate its section of the Gore-Chernomyrdin memorandum and impose a full ban.

Russian space launch rockets are cheap compared with similar U.S. and French vehicles, but they are also relatively old-fashioned. If, as a result of arms exports to Iran, Russia loses the segment of the space market that it managed to occupy during the 1990s, it may never be able to recover.

Apparently, the Kremlin hopes that Washington will not retaliate in full. Russia is heavily involved in the international space station project and serious sanctions would gravely delay ISS construction and greatly increase the cost. Russian officials also believe that a future Republican administration in Washington would be less influenced by "Zionists" and so less inclined to punish Russia for closer ties with Iran.

In any event, Russia's military-industrial lobby does not seem to fear sanctions since the United States is not buying their products anyway. On the contrary, sanctions will simply promote more anti-American feelings among the Russian public f a development that much of Russia's ruling elite would only applaud.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent, Moscow-based defense analyst.

Back to the Top


#3
RUSSIAN URANIUM STOCKPILES MAY RUN DRY IN 20 YEARS

MOSCOW. Nov 30 (Interfax) - Russia's uranium stockpiles, which are among the world's biggest, could run dry in 20 years as the nuclear energy sector and exports grow.

Russia and the Eastern European nations that consume Russian uranium use about 16,000 tonnes per year. Russian nuclear plants get through 4,500 tonnes of this and nuclear submarines 1,000 tonnes, according to a joint report by the All-Russian R&D Institute for Chemical Technology and Atomredmetzoloto, the company that controls the Russian uranium industry. Yet Russia mines at most 2,500 tonnes of uranium per year, and compensates the difference between mine output and consumption by drawing on stockpiles.

Russia's stockpiles are equivalent to 500,000 tonnes of low- enriched uranium. This includes 1,400 tonnes of high-enriched, or weapons-grade uranium extracted from nuclear warheads and which is equivalent to 420,000 tonnes of low-enriched uranium, and 80,000 tonnes of uranium stockpiled from years past.

Russia has already committed itself to shipping 150,000 tonnes of low-enriched uranium derived from 500 tonnes of HEU from dismantled warheads to the United States under a 20-year agreement signed in 1993.

Thus, Russia effectively has no more than 350,000 tonnes of uranium with which to plug the gap between mine output and consumption.

Russian nuclear installations are likely to be consuming up to 7,500 tonnes of uranium per year by 2020, and 8,500 tonnes by 2030. New uranium mines would not be able to meet more than 40% of demand for uranium by 2010, the report says.

Back to the Top


#4
No Kursk radiation threat but "ecological" need to lift sub: Russia

MOSCOW, Nov 30 (AFP) -

The wreck of the Kursk nuclear submarine would not pose a radioactive threat for at least 10 years, but should still be raised for "ecological" reasons, a senior Russian minister said Thursday.

Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who heads a government commission investigating the August 12 tragedy, in which all 118 submariners died, expressed hope that an international operation would lift the Kursk from the bottom of the Barents Sea next summer.

"The lifting of the Kursk will relieve tensions and dispel international fears about the ecological threat to the Barents Sea," he told a news conference here.

He predicted that the operation would not cost more than 80 million dollars, although a final decision on the cost would be made at the end of December after a feasibility study had been concluded.

He dismissed suggestions that deep-sea corrosion would cause radioactivity to leak from the submarine's two nuclear reactors into the marine environment.

"International experts and the constructors of the nuclear reactors have said there will be no danger for the next 10 years, but we must raise the sub, remove the reactors and put it behind us, because otherwise it will be a constant international problem," Klebanov said.

The Kursk is lying at a depth of 108 metres (335 feet) in a stretch of the Barents Sea actively used by international fishing trawlers.

Speaking at the news conference called to announce the creation of an international fund to raise cash to pay for the lifting operation, Klebanov said only technical or financial problems would abort the salvage effort.

Four companies will collaborate in the hazardous task of raising the Kursk -- Dutch firms Smit International and Heerema, the US Halliburton firm and the Russian Rubin design bureau, which helped build the 15,000-tonne submarine.

Earlier this month, the Russian authorities called off an operation to recover the bodies of the dead sailors after an international team of divers, headed by Halliburton, succeeded in raising only 12 bodies.

Klebanov reiterated at Thursday's news conference that the Russian government was still investigating three possible causes for the submarine disaster.

The authorities favour the theory that the Kursk collided with a foreign -- probably US or British -- submarine, but have not excluded the possibility of an explosion in one of the submarine's torpedo tubes, or an incident involving a World War II mine.

"We are not going to issue a final explanation until there is only one version left, which we expect will be the case before we start to raise the Kursk next summer," Klebanov told reporters on Thursday.

Back to the Top


#5
Marshal Sergeyev Cited on Threats to Russian Security
Rossiyskaya Gazeta
November 25, 2000
ITAR-TASS report under the "Direct Speech" rubric:
"What Does America Think It Is -- the Central Committee?"

This was how Russian Federation Defense Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev responded to a question about the threats, issuing from Washington, to introduce economic sanctions against Russia in the event of its resuming military deliveries to Iran.

Marshal Sergeyev believes that the accusations against Moscow, leveled by individual U.S. politicians on the question of military-technical cooperation between Moscow and Tehran, are groundless. "Russia has always been and remains very disciplined in honoring international commitments, including commitments regarding the nonproliferation of prohibited weapons -- nuclear, biological, and chemical," he told journalists Thursday [23 November]. Moreover, the marshal stressed that we are committed to obeying all international rules also in the future.

In Marshal Sergeyev's opinion, the greatest danger for Russia's security today is posed by threats originating from the North Caucasian and Central Asian directions. In his words, religious extremism has acquired the framework of classical struggle. "Nowadays these are not isolated terrorists but a well armed and constituted army under centralized control and enjoying major funding," the head of the Russian military department noted. He stressed that Afghanistan's territory is the center of international terrorism, with about 1,000 training centers and terrorist camps operating there. Drug supply routes run from Afghanistan's territory. Drugs make their way from there to Europe via Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Igor Sergeyev emphasized that a decision has been made to strengthen the groupings of Russian forces in Central Asia and the southwest, including for the purpose of blocking the transit of drugs.

Back to the Top


#6
Nezavisimoye Voennoye Obozreniye
No. 44
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
WASHINGTON FINDS REPLACEMENT FOR PERSHINGS
Moscow is ready to accuse the USA of reviving the prohibited intermediate-range missiles
By Sergei SOKUT

Russia is ready to publicly accuse the USA of violating the 1987 treaty on the liquidation of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles (INF Treaty) and demand that Washington stops the creation and flight tests of the Hera ballistic missile. Besides, Moscow thinks the already produced Heras must be liquidated, this newspaper has learned from informed sources in the Russian power departments.

The Pentagon's organisation for the protection of ballistic missiles is actively using Hera as a Scud imitator for testing the THAAD and Patriot PAC-3 ABM systems. Both are theatre ballistic missile defence systems and hence are not banned by the 1972 ABM Treaty.

Moscow regards Hera as an intermediate-range land-based ballistic missile, and the INF Treaty prohibits such missiles. In accordance with it, Russia liquidated its RSD-10, R-12, R-14 and a number of shorter-range missiles (including the Oka, which Gorbachev liquidated without a valid reason) in 1987-91. In its turn, the USA liquidated Pershing-2s and several other missiles.

Washington describes Hera as a booster whose existence is allowed in Point 12 of Article 7 of the INF Treaty. The said point allows the use of existing types of booster stages, which are not intermediate-range or shorter-range missiles, for testing new payloads, such as geophysical instruments. However, Subpoint 12(b) specifically says that "such booster systems are used only for research and development purposes to test objects other than the booster systems themselves."

But Hera is a fundamentally new booster system. Although made up of the second and third stages of the liquidated Minuteman-2 ICBMs, it appears to be equipped with the control and tracking systems from the Pershing-2 missiles. In the past, the USA removed that equipment from the missiles slated for liquidation and stored it. It is still regarded as highly sophisticated, as its radar compares the terrain picture with the one memorised by the onboard computer, which ensures a CEP of barely a few metres. No country in the world has missiles with such characteristics.

Consequently, Hera is a full-fledged intermediate-range missile weighing 10.8 tons and with a range of over 1,000 kilometres. The Pentagon, which describes it in its documents as "an intermediate-range target," specifically mentions that Hera's warhead has no explosive materials. However, it admits that Hera's warhead could be regarded as equal to armed warheads in terms of mass, size and physical characteristics. By the way, the technical order for the creation and production of Hera, issued by the Pentagon to the Coleman Research corporation, Orlando, Fla., included the demand for making the said warhead indistinguishable from armed warheads.

Moreover, initially Hera was tested separately, beyond the framework of experiments on ABM defence. Its first (and unsuccessful) launch took place at the White Sands range on November 17, 1997, and the first successful launch was held in March 1998. To this day, Hera was launched about a dozen times.

It is apparent that, whatever the initial intentions of Washington, it is actually recreating a missile that was prohibited by the INF Treaty. And it will not take the Pentagon much time to deploy around 200 such missiles in any part of the world. Its warehouses have a few hundreds of the second and third stages of the Minuteman-2 missiles and the bulk of the 234 targeting blocks from Pershing-2s.

The example of Hera shows that, when drafting treaties, Washington includes in them elements that would later allow it to bypass their key provisions. And this ensures not only a military, but also an economic effect.

Gennady Khromov, who took part in the INF negotiations, said the USA could easily choose another way to create target missiles, which is to use the permitted missiles (with the range of under 500km), aviation boosters, or other devices. But the Pentagon clearly regarded this as too complicated and expensive.

The planned demarche by the Russian authorities will revive the practice of the 1970s and 1980s, when Moscow and Washington accused each other of violating disarmament treaties and agreements. But this time the USA cannot retaliate. According to this newspaper, US spokesmen admit that Russia is fully honouring all such agreements. It is interesting that secret debates over Hera have been going on for some time, but it is only now that the Russian Foreign Ministry has reached a point where it is ready to make its complaints public. We can only assume that the US colleagues did not budge an inch, which is why the Russian diplomats decided to go public.

On the other hand, information about violations of the INF Treaty could be leaked as the first move in a sweeping diplomatic and propaganda offensive by Moscow, designed to present Washington in an unfavourable light and force the new US president to review the plans to bury the ABM Treaty and the entire system of disarmament treaties and agreements.

Back to the Top



#7
ECONOMIC GROWTH THE MAIN RESULT OF 2000 - GREF

MOSCOW. Nov 30 (Interfax) - A 7% growth in the GDP is the main economic result of 2000, Minister for Economic Development and Trade German Gref told journalists on Thursday.

"Economic growth will bring in all the other things - additional budget revenues and the solution of an enormous amount of problems that have accumulated over the past ten years," Gref said.

"The repayment of debts to the budget and the beginning of structural reforms are long-term and extremely important government initiatives," he said.

Gref said it is extremely important to reorganize the natural monopolies - the Ministry of Railways, the Unified Energy Systems power grid and Gazprom. "The beginning of a judicial reform, which is being prepared at a fast pace, and the land code reform are among the other important government initiatives," he said.

Trade with the European Union is perhaps more important for Russia today than trade with the United States, Gref said. "Germany's total investment in Russia is almost comparable with that of the United States. If the investments made by all the countries of the European Union are combined, the results will be even greater," he said.

"Russia is part of Europe, not America, and our mentality has more in common with the European mentality," he said, adding that "we are creating our laws, guided by our traditions - European traditions."

Back to the Top



#8
The Russia Journal
November 25-December 1, 2000
Easing tensions or revealing secrets
By Vladimir Mukhin / Nezavisimaya Gazeta

State Duma deputies have promised the Defense Ministry that by December they will have discussed, and most likely ratified, the Open Skies Treaty, signed in 1992 by 25 countries to reinforce mutual confidence and openness.

Through the treaty, countries agreed to have some of their military operations monitored from the air. The treaty also sets out procedures for environmental monitoring, monitoring the situation in disaster areas, supervision of territory and the activities of conflicting parties within the framework of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) operations.

Sixteen NATO members, the former Warsaw Pact countries, Russia and several post-Soviet states have signed the treaty. The headquarters for the planned flight procedures is based in Vienna, and officials there say that Russia's full approval is critical before the project can move forward. It is one of the only countries not to have ratified the treaty.

"This treaty is very important for Russia," said Col. Fyodor Syemkin, a representative of the National Center for Reduction of Nuclear Danger. "It gives other countries the chance to monitor the activities of our armed forces, and gives us the chance to do the same.

"Now that the Duma has ratified the START-2 treaty, the 1972 ABM Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, there's nothing in the way of ratifying the Open Skies Treaty. The Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry are urging deputies to do so today."

Syemkin said Boris Yeltsin had submitted the treaty to the Duma in 1994. Discussions on ratifying it were held in the Duma last spring, but final conclusions haven't yet been adopted.

Deputy Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee Nikolai Bezborodov said this was because the deputies felt they didn't have enough analytical and factual information on the treaty to be able to decide firmly in favor of ratification.

He said the deputies decided not to take a "purely mechanical and automatic approach to ratifying the treaty," preferring instead to "examine the issue in relation to the foreign policy situation, when NATO works through the question of renewing cooperation with Russia."

Another Duma deputy, Vitaly Sevastyanov, said that before the treaty could be ratified, a number of issues had to be settled. One major problem, Sevastyanov said, was ensuring reliable storage of the information obtained through aerial photos and making sure it wasn't circulated.

Duma Deputy Yevgeny Zelyenov was more blunt: "The material obtained during monitoring flights could be used by NATO countries to create digital models of the terrain and geo-informational systems, and to map out flight routes and target details for high-precision weapons. Without taking these circumstances into account, it would be too soon to ratify the treaty."

But Defense Ministry officials said fears are "highly exaggerated."

"Any treaty on defense issues is a compromise -- you lose something and you gain something," Syemkin said. "At a time when NATO could continue its eastward expansion, when there's the possibility of new kinds of weapons being deployed and new ABM systems created, the Open Skies Treaty gives Russia the chance to monitor the military activities of European countries and the United States."

Syemkin noted that many other nations have realized the potential of the Open Skies Treaty and ratified it. Only Russia and Belarus have yet to do so. But Syemkin also said that many Duma deputies are beginning to recognize the importance of ratifying the treaty. The three Duma committees involved in the discussions -- Defense, Security and International Relations -- are generally more inclined now to ratify the treaty, even if some individual deputies would rather wait.

Although the treaty hasn't yet come into force, "test" flights over countries that have signed it are already taking place, according to the National Center for Reduction of Nuclear Danger.

The idea is that these tests will prepare countries for the full monitoring procedures once the treaty is ratified. At the moment, specialists on the monitoring flights use photographic equipment, but after the treaty comes into force, they will be able to use infrared and radar systems.

Russia is one of the countries already conducting monitoring flights over other signatory statesâ'territories. In 1997, it carried out seven observation flights, eight flights in 1998, seven in 1999 and 10 so far this year. Next year, another 10 test flights are planned.

Once the Duma gives Vienna its nod of approval, headquarters will start planning the quarterly schedule of flights over military sites in signatory countries' territory. The cost of each flight is borne by the country that wants to carry it out.

Money for the flights is budgeted under "international activities" in the state budget. From this year, the government has already begun financing an "Open Skies" program.

Back to the Top



#9
THE JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION
PRISM
A MONTHLY ON THE POST-SOVIET STATES
NOVEMBER 2000 Volume VI, Issue 11 Part 4
--------------------------------------------
WHO DID RUSSIA VOTE FOR IN THE U.S. ELECTIONS?
By Peter Silantyev
Peter Silantyev is a Russian journalist working as a consultant with RIA Novosti.

Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, so-called "ordinary people" are not noted for political correctness, either in the West or especially in Russia--particularly if they are fed up with their lot and cannot see a way of changing things themselves. Their discontent finds expression in their vilification of the authorities, the mafia, foreigners and so on--and they name names. They speak their mind without worrying about accusations of slander, defamation and so on. But what the people say does figure in the thoughts of the politicians, firstly because politicians were ordinary people themselves once, and secondly, because ordinary people occasionally head for the ballot box or--worse--riot on the streets. The opinion of a "moonlighting" taxi-driver I chanced to meet was, I thought, typical of this. He drove me from the outskirts of Moscow into the center one day last summer. It turned out he was a geologist with a Ph.D. and he was using his old Lada to earn extra gasoline money. He had saved for many years for an apartment for his daughter, but lost all his savings: In the savings bank in 1991, and in the "commercial" bank in August 1998.

He blames his misfortune on, amongst others, Al Gore, who "helped plunder Russia." So he supports Bush.

Our conversation took place long before U.S. Congressman Christopher Cox's "Russian" lecture was published. Its authors, however, precisely caught the mood in Russia which helped Putin to victory--indeed, his domestic approval rating is still very high.

It should be noted that within the Russian political elite one can detect, on the one hand, a determination to exploit this mood in the battle between the "Putinites" and the "Yeltsinites." On the other hand, there is a fear that this determination is becoming too transparent and may damage the declared continuity in politics in general and in Russian-American relations in particular. With transparency, a spade is a spade and names are named. But more of this later.

There are other reasons for other fears about the new administration in Washington. These reasons have also been used by supporters of "continuity" who have retained their influence in the media and amongst pollsters. Judging by some Russian publications preceding the U.S. elections, most Russians would prefer Gore or even Clinton to the Republican candidate. I believe my geologist more than that majority, but I understand the respondents' fears.

The main thing is uncertainty. Russians are used to Gore because of the frequent mention of the Russian-American Commission for Economic and Scientific Cooperation, which has borne the name of the U.S. vice-president for eight years now, though the name of the Russian prime minister has changed several times. Until recently George W. Bush was practically unknown in Russia.

During the election campaign the Russian press emphasized his tough talk on antimissile defense, on passing military technology on to Iran and on Chechnya, paying particular attention to the "anti-Russian" influence of Condoleezza Rice, and the lack of foreign policy experience of the Texan candidate--basically a cowboy who shoots first and asks questions afterwards.

More assiduous readers were offered investigations into the "mercenary" interests in Russia of vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney, as contrasted with the politically correct nomination of an Orthodox Jew for this post. (However, this probably worked against Gore among Russia's anti-Semites--but I don't want to go into the details of my conversation with the politically incorrect geologist.)

Nevertheless, experienced observers of American political extravaganzas know that pre-election rhetoric and the candidate's CV may have little in common with his actual behavior after the elections. Some veteran Russian Americanists, incidentally, prefer the Republicans, because "it has always been easier to work" with them despite their hawkish cries. One could present counterarguments, but I am not interested here in historical statistics or an analysis of party platforms. There is something which seems to me much more important.

That something is the deliberate, politically incorrect, downright scandalous comments George W. Bush made about Viktor Chernomyrdin. Not the content, but the motives, both conscious and subconscious.

Of course, the most obvious aspect of it, and as far as we are concerned the least interesting, was that it was an attack on Gore. It was below the belt, and he could be sued for it (as Chernomyrdin promises to do). But as pre-election campaigns in the United States and in the "fledgling democracies" have shown, in politics anything goes. What is more interesting is that for the first time the scornful irritation felt in the United States over the long-drawn-out "transition period" in Russia has blown off the lid of diplomatic politeness. Bush was speaking the truth as it seems to him and to the voters, who are not inclined to delve into the nuances of recent Russian history. The hints spoken behind closed doors by U.S. and Russian negotiators are now entering open politics.

The perception of the original concepts of good and evil are the same for "ordinary" Americans and for "ordinary" Russians. In this sense Russians are impressed by the American politician's condemnation of "villains" in their own country--unless all Russians are now considered villains. Instinctive anti-Russianism is just as dangerous as the instinctive anti-Americanism of some Russian politicians and their supporters. Neither of these bode well for the world or for me, a Russian citizen. But I respect politicians whose instinct is to go beyond putting a brave face on a sorry business; politicians who, in speaking to the Americans, also speak to us: The last eight years and billions of dollars have been spent to no avail; from now on Russia had better rely solely on its own efforts, and start by putting its own house in order.

How very transparent! And this is basically what the geologist said to me. The same thing has been felt in the words and deeds of the Kremlin for a year now. It is another matter altogether what "order" means to Russia's current leaders and how they will impose this order. What is their understanding of good and evil? It is an interesting question. Certainly, some of the results of "strengthening the power hierarchy" and of the "dictatorship of the law" are supported by the Russian public, but by no means all and not indefinitely. As regards transparency, in a recent interview with western journalists, Putin unceremoniously talked of a "cudgel" for the oligarchs, which the state is "keeping at the ready, and may use just once, but on their heads". I do not think a cudgel is a suitable tool for maintaining law and order, as I have previously written in relation to the Gusinsky affair. But I must qualify that by saying that sometimes I myself, living as I do under current conditions in Russia, want to grab hold of a cudgel. This is, of course, an impulsive, instinctive--incorrect--reaction. Perhaps it is this instinct which guides Putin? Or perhaps he is knowingly giving voice to the feelings of those fellow citizens of his who never got a share of the pie after the collapse of the Soviet Union--neither property, nor power, nor money?

In the USA a different pie is currently being divided up--and in a different way. Whatever proposals the Democrats or Republicans have for the budget surplus, one thing is certain: Regardless of the party affiliation of the American president, Russia will not see any "spare" money from the USA nor any loans from the IMF in the foreseeable future. This is now understood even by Unity, the so-called party of power, which is full of Soviet-style youthful optimism. The main achievement of its ideologues and propagandists, I think, was not the publication of a book for schoolchildren about the young Vladimir Putin, but a leak to the press (before their October party conference) about one of the points in their draft party manifesto, with a title which deserves to become a popular Russian catch-phrase: The 2003 Problem. It focuses on the real rather than the anti-American fears of the Russians, who have hardly recovered from the collapse of August 1998, but have had to face in just the last six months a huge number of disasters the like of which perhaps no other country has experienced in this day and age. By 2003 there will have been more disasters like the Kursk tragedy or the fire in the Ostankino television tower; the resources of the technical infrastructure created back in the Soviet Union have been exhausted. In three years' time, the number of Russian pensioners receiving a pittance will increase to a critical level. And, last, repayments of Russia's foreign debt will reach their peak in 2003, totaling US$17 billion, which is comparable with Russia's entire budget at the moment.

The current level of world oil prices allows for some self-sufficiency in the budget for 2001. However, the government is right not to rely on such good fortune in the future, and is continuing to negotiate with the West with a view to restructuring old debts and renewing the IMF loan--but for a much smaller amount and for a shorter period than under the great friends "Bill and Boris".

Chernomyrdin's indignation was not the only reaction in Russia to Bush's invective. I, for example, felt shame. If such a high-ranking American politician deems it acceptable to offend my country's former prime minister, and then wins half the votes in the presidential election, then it means that the Americans feel the same way about my country--and about me. We could become embittered, and haughtily shield ourselves with a new iron curtain. We could look for new "friends" to protect us from our old ones in other parts of the world; but it is predicted that in the 21st century countries and continents will become one global village, and it will only be possible to protect oneself from trouble in isolated settlements.

For all my pride, when people around me display a negative attitude towards me it forces me to reassess myself honestly. This self-reassessment, which is essential both for the individual and for society in such a situation, should certainly not be reduced to the famous Russian metaphysical tendency to start digging about in one's soul. A sort of crisis management of one's own fate--and the fate of the country--takes over.

I would like to believe that something similar is now happening in Russia. I would like to believe that the process currently underway of cleaning out Russian business, with the open participation of the authorities, is a sign of the long-awaited structural changes. I would like to believe that the new division of property will result in what's left of the country's financial and material resources (not loans) being collected together for the good of all Russian citizens, not the new oligarchs.

I would like to believe that politicians are scrupulous--or at least that their motives are. And in this sense the belief of American voters that the "outsider" from Texas will turn out to be more honest than "our man in Washington" is shared by Russians. I think that the simple (or calculated) sincerity of Bush secured him quite a few "votes" in Russia--if only on the principle of "the worse it is, the better it will be".

Regardless of the free-for-all at the end of the U.S. elections, and irrespective of who wins, the elections have stimulated the only choice which has any significance for Russia, the transparent choice: Manna from heaven, the wonders of Russian democracy, or belt-tightening, creative entrepreneurial spirit, an honest social contract between the state and the citizen. The final result will be known in four years--and not in America, but in Russia.

Back to the Top



#10
Moscow Times
December 1, 2000
EDITORIAL: Can This Be The Road to Democracy?

Despite innumerable official assurances that Russia is striving to become a democracy, it all too often seems that the country is running full speed in exactly the opposite direction. This impression was reinforced this week by a series of government actions designed to deny the Russian people the ability to express their will and participate actively in government.

Most vividly, the Central Elections Commission on Wednesday declared invalid more than 600,000 signatures of the 2.5 million gathered by environmentalists to force a referendum on importing spent nuclear fuel. This was particularly shocking because when the signatures were checked by the local election commission in St. Petersburg, where many of them were gathered, less than 1 percent wererejected.

The result: In all likelihood, the referendum will not be held, and the Nuclear Power Ministry will be able to force through this patently unpopular measure.

At the same time, the State Duma gave preliminary approval to a Kremlin-backed measure that would enable many regional governors to seek a third term in office. The bill, which uses a technicality to slip around a 1999 law explicitly limiting governors to two terms, is intended to enable a number of pro-Kremlin governors, particularly Tatarstan President Mintimer Shaimiyev, to hang on to their posts and perks for another five years.

While protecting its friends, the Kremlin is also sparing no effort to eliminate its enemies. In October, Kursk Governor Alexander Rutskoi was struck from the ballot on the eve of the election there. On Thursday, the newspaper Kommersant reported that Vyacheslav Kislitsyn, president of the republic of Marii-El, will be the next victim. While it is hard to be sympathetic to either Rutskoi or Kislitsyn f both administrations have featured equal measures of incompetence and corruption f we are alarmed at the Kremlin's arrogant assumption of the right to pick and choose who can run for governor.

Still more disturbing than these case-by-case violations of democratic principles are the changes that the CEC proposed this week to the laws governing political parties. If the proposals are adopted, only organizations with more than 10,000 total members and at least 100 members in at least one-half of Russia's 89 federal regions would qualify to put forward candidates. As things now stand, only the Communist Party and the pro-Kremlin Unity party would be likely to qualify. The proposals would certainly spell the end of any pretense of grassroots democratic participation.

In the headlong drive to establish central control, the Russian people are being pushed out of the political process. Seems like a strange way to build a democracy.

Back to the Top



#11
UN: Officials Alarmed By AIDS Spread In Former Soviet Union
By K.P. Foley

Tomorrow (Friday) is World AIDS Day, a United Nations-sponsored observance established in December 1988 by the World Health Organization. It is meant to serve as the focal point of the UN's annual anti-AIDS campaign. Washington correspondent K.P. Foley reports that this year, AIDS experts are particularly concerned about the spread of the disease in the former Soviet Union.

Washington, 30 November 2000 (RFE/RL) -- The United Nations, the World Bank and other international organizations renew their annual anti-AIDS campaign tomorrow (Friday) with the observance of World AIDS Day, and this year, experts report they are particularly alarmed about the spread of AIDS in the former Soviet Union and the infection that leads to its development.

AIDS is the English language acronym for "acquired immune deficiency syndrome." HIV is the English language acronym for "human immunodeficiency virus." AIDS is caused by infection with HIV. HIV destroys the body's ability to fight infections and certain cancers by killing or damaging cells of the body's immune system. People diagnosed with AIDS may develop life-threatening diseases called opportunistic infections.

The United Nations and other international institutions say some 5.3 million new HIV infections have been reported this year. An estimated 36.1 million people worldwide are living with HIV or AIDS. Since the worldwide epidemic began about 15 years ago, about 21.8 million people have died of AIDS.

The UN's office for coordinating the worldwide fight against the disease, UNAIDS, says the European and Central Asian regions of the former Soviet Union were previously characterized by a very low prevalence of HIV and AIDS. However, a UN report released this week says several of the former Soviet republics are witnessing a sharp rise in the number of people living with HIV and AIDS.

According to the report, the number of people in the region living with HIV and AIDS has risen from 170,000 in 1997 to about 700,000 today. The AIDS coordinator for the World Bank, Debrework Zewdie, says, "the epidemic literally has exploded in Russia." She told a press briefing in Washington this week that during the past year, an estimated 50,000 new HIV infections were recorded by Russian Federation health authorities. She says this figure is more than the total number of infections registered in Russia between 1987 and 1999.

The main reason for the rapid spread of HIV infections, says Zewdie, is the sharing of contaminated needles and syringes by people using illegal drugs.

"The major transmission for HIV/AIDS in Eastern Europe is injection drug use. More men than women are affected through this, and the epidemic is spreading into the general population because the men bring it to the women."

Zewdie also blames health authorities and governments in the region for refusing "to accept that this is an epidemic which would explode." She says the steep rise in infections, "is the result of inaction."

The World Bank says the HIV/AIDS epidemic is believed to have started in the Eastern European and Central Asian regions in the early 1990s. The bank says infections spread rapidly from 1995, notably among drug users. Increases were seen in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, and Kazakhstan.

The Bank says that by the end of 1999, the number of infections in the entire region -- that includes former Soviet states in Europe and Central Asia -- is estimated to have reached 360,000. The greatest number of cases continue to be found in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, and Kazakhstan.

According to the Bank, the national rates of HIV prevalence are all less than one half of one percent within the general population. This figure is considered low by international comparison. However, the Bank says that, "the particularly worrisome aspect is the high rate of increase in the number of cases in the past few years."

UNAIDS officials say the potential for the further spread of HIV and AIDS through illegal drug users is enormous. In its report for the year 2000, UNAIDS notes that Russian authorities estimate that some two percent of the population -- between 1.5 million and 2.5 million people -- are injecting drug abusers. UNAIDS Executive Director Peter Piot says, "clearly, hundreds of thousands of drug users and their sex partners are at immediate risk of infection."

The World Health Organization (WHO), a UN agency, says that despite the rapid spread of HIV in Russia, Russia's epidemic is still at an early stage. WHO Executive Director Gro Harlem Bruntland says Russia has an opportunity to curb the spread of AIDS through effective interventions.

However, she warns that while the Russian epidemic has been mostly among drug users, "a second wave of HIV infections spread by sexual contact could follow the current drug-driven epidemic." In three to four years, she says, "Russia may well have a generalized epidemic."

The UNAIDS report says Ukraine remains the most severely affected country in the region, although it notes that some uncertainty surrounds the epidemic there.

According to the report, the annual number of new cases registered in Ukraine seems to have declined since 1997, but, it says HIV appears "to be making inroads into the general population."

In Ukraine, UNAIDS says the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections jumped from virtually zero before 1995 to around 20,000 a year from 1996 through 1999. In addition, UNAIDS notes that -- in contrast to Russia -- the proportion of HIV diagnoses in injecting drug users dropped sharply, suggesting that an increasing number of Ukrainians are becoming infected through unsafe sex.

The situation is grim but not hopeless, international experts say. UNAIDS says increased efforts are being made throughout the region to raise awareness about AIDS. The agency cites Belarus as one example of a strong government response and it says prevention efforts among teenagers have been especially successful in Belarus.

In Kazakhstan, UNAIDS says a team of prevention officers delivers safe sex information and condoms to prostitutes and others engaged in the sex trade. In Ukraine, UNAIDS says a new law has endorsed the principle of voluntary HIV testing and AIDS education.

The World Bank's Zewdie says a number of steps can be taken to restrict the spread of HIV and AIDS.

"There is nothing to date which beats prevention. So that is one thing that could be done."

However, she adds that there must be a drastic change in attitudes among people who refuse to accept the reality of the HIV/AIDS crisis. For example, she says that if drug users "are stigmatized and forced to go into hiding," there will be no way to control the epidemic.

Back to the Top



#12
Russian Daily Eyes US Role in IMF Moscow Mission Failure
Rossiyskaya Gazeta
November 29, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
Report by Aleksandr Velichenkov under the "Notes A Propos" rubric:
"Hint of Sanctions Against Russia"

The IMF mission's visit to Moscow which ended last week has effectively killed off the Fund's budget substitution loan of $1.8 billion. This means that the likelihood of a deferral of the USSR's debts to the Paris Club, for which Russia is responsible, will shift from the realms of the expected to the illusory.

Consequently in 2001 the country's budget will have to pay the Club $3.1 billion. Instead of using that money to develop the country's economy.

It is curious that this mission's visit itself was somewhat strange. There were no television cameras or protocol visits and the communication was emphatically dry. Finally, there is the summary itself: "They have so much money in Russia, let them pay." So there you have it. Even though this financial breathing space is now far more important for us in terms of economic recovery than it has ever been.

Is it the case, then, that the failure of the Fund mission's visit was programmed in advance?

Against the background of these formal failures of our financial diplomacy, which could cost our budget $5 billion, Russia's withdrawal from the classified 1995 agreement with the United States (Chernomyrdin-Gore) on the non-delivery of Russian arms to Iraq [as published] was a bolt from the blue.

This event has already provoked "righteous anger" across the ocean where we have been openly threatened with economic sanctions. The only question is this: How do they intend to resolve this question at the UN Security Council, where Russia has the right of "veto"?

After all, apart from the Russian arms supplies to Iraq the question of building an oil pipeline from Iraq to the Caspian shore is already on the agenda of our Near East diplomacy, and this could entail Russia's withdrawal from the sanctions regime against this country.

It is obvious that these questions sharply complicate our relations with the IMF and, consequently, with the Paris Club of international creditors. The anti-Russian stance of the United States is also sure to have an effect within the IMF. After all, America is the only country which, as the main shareholder, has the right to block decisions made by the Fund.

But has Russia been rash in denouncing the closed agreement with the United States reached in 1995? Hardly. Such agreements operate as long as their signatories are in power.

This is because these are in effect nothing more than gentleman's agreements which do not have a public legal character. Neither the Russian State Duma nor the U.S. Congress has approved or ratified it. Russia has given notice of its withdrawal from the agreement. Furthermore, it withdrew at the moment when an informal decision to ease the West's relations with Iran was made at the G-8 conference in Okinawa in summer. Russia has not withdrawn and does not intend to withdraw from the formal international accords -- on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technologies. So what is the problem? Or do they not like Russian business in Iran?

The subsequent development of events is already obvious. The attempts to pressure Russia via the international financial organizations, first and foremost the IMF and the Paris Club, will not lead to anything good for our relations with these countries. This is not like the early nineties, when we were forced to agree to any Western and IMF "wishes" and recommendations. Furthermore, we were forced to agree even in those instances when these recommendations were completely not in accordance with our national interests.

Furthermore, the result of such attempts could be that Russia uses its right not to pay the debts to the Paris Club at all. And we have a formal right to do this. After all, the official, internationally recognized entity responsible for these debts since 1997 has been the USSR Vneshekonombank. But given that it does not have the means to settle these debts let the international creditors declare it bankrupt in Stockholm. Its furniture, computers, and $280,000 in incorporation capital will be completely at their disposal.

What will happen if this is not enough? In that case it will be necessary to negotiate whatever the stance of the United States and the IMF. We owe the Club $48 billion and we are owed $52 billion in debt recognized by the Club. And what do Iran or Iraq have to do with this given that in Tehran today our arms exports have now clashed, not for the first time, with extremely fierce competition from France and that for 10 years now the UN commission on Iraq has been granting export quotas and contracts for the supply of output to Iraq virtually exclusively to U.S. companies?

For the first time in all the years of the reforms, Russia is trying to defend its right to conduct business wherever it deems this necessary.

In this context you cannot help thinking of Vladimir Putin's comment about the strange foreign debt restructuring that is going on in our country if every two years it is necessary to ask the creditors for more deferrals again. And the debt still gets no smaller....

Everyone needs clarity and certainty on these questions -- not only Russia but the West too. And a constructive basis for talks fully exists. But the international market, including the conventional arms market, must be open to all, not just the chosen few.

Russia has its own national interests and we are only just beginning to understand them now as we attempt to operate independently and intelligently. It is perfectly natural that this should displease some people. But is this a reason to reject normal, civilized relations and switch to threats? Russia has never rejected dialogue on equal terms: Should we give way now just like that when the outline of the new multipolar world are taking shape?

Back to the Top