CDI Russia Weekly-#210 14 June 2002 Edited by David Johnson Center for Defense Information 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington DC 20036 phone: 202-797-5277; fax: 202-462-4559 djohnson@cdi.org The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, economic, social, military, and foreign policy issues. With support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur Foundation, CDI Russia Weekly is a project of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information (CDI), a nonprofit research and education organization. CDI Russia Weekly web page (with archive): http://www.cdi.org/russia/ Visit CDI's web site: http://www.cdi.org Contents: 1. Press release for DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War/A Rare Look at the Rebel Republic of Chechnya. 2. AFP: Russia set to "minimise" US withdrawal from ABM: FM. 3. strana.ru: Vladimir Putin: Russia Does Not Aspire to Be Special. We simply have a duty to achieve real results of reforms, the president said. 4. Moscow News: Power Men Prove Powerless. Were the riots on Moscow's Manezh Square organized? 5. BBC: Russia tops US arms exports. 6. ITAR-TASS: Russian defence chief sees "considerable conflict potential" in Central Asia. 7. Vremya Novostei: Yuri Golotyuk, Russia is Closer but the United States is Wealthier. Moscow may lose Kirghizia as its major military and naval ally. 8. CDI Weekly Defense Monitor: Tomas Valasek, Terror and Oil in Central Asia. 9. Wall Street Journal: Gary Fields and Sharon Begley, Customs Trains Old Soviet Ports In Thwarting Nuclear Smugglers. 10. The Russia Journal: Andrei Piontkovsky, WMD sellers international. 11. Ekspert: Iskander Khisaimov, NUCLEAR TEMPTATIONS. Non-proliferation of weapons is the top priority for today. 12. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Marina Kalashnikova, Russia and Ukraine vie for the title of favorite associate in the East. The "Russian threat" seems to remain the main fear of some NATO countries. 13. Asia Times: Sergei Blagov, Russia's anti-extremism bill too much for some. 14. Izvestia: Sergei Mironov, RUSSIA MUST NOT BEND TO FIT THE EVER-CHANGING WORLD. 15. RFE/RL (Un)Civil Societies: Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, NGOS TACKLE TORTURE WITH HELP OF UN PANEL. ******* #1 From: Steve Sapienza (ssapienz@cdi.org) Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 Subject: Press release for DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - June 13, 2002 CONTACT: Eric London (202) 986-0033 x 105 Michael Gordon & Azimuth Media Present DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War A Rare Look at the Rebel Republic of Chechnya Saturday, June 15, at 8 p.m. (ET) on CNN International Washington, DC -- DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War, a new documentary, presents a rare look at the rebel republic of Chechnya. DEADLOCK combines the efforts of New York Times national security correspondent Michael Gordon (formerly the Times Moscow bureau chief) and Russian filmmakers in a compelling documentary that takes viewers deep inside the brutal, decade-long struggle in Russia's breakaway republic. This 40-minute documentary, produced by Azimuth Media for CNN Presents, offers an unprecedented view of how this protracted war is affecting both Russians and Chechens. Told through the eyes and voices of Russian soldiers and civilians as well as Chechen fighters and refugees, DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War features remarkable footage of a torn and broken land, including video footage -- never seen before on Russian or Western television -- of a Russian unit being ambushed. The filmmakers also gained exclusive access to the induction of a conscripted Russian soldier and shot rare interviews with Chechen rebel leaders. The documentary is scheduled to air on CNN International on Saturday, June 15, at 8 p.m. (ET). The U.S. broadcast will air Saturday, June 22, 2002 at 8 p.m. and again on Sunday, June 23, 2002 at 7 p.m., 11 p.m., and 2 a.m. on CNN/U.S. Narrated by CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War features Mr. Gordon's trip into dangerous and highly restricted areas of Chechnya and captures horrific scenes of war and brutality. The documentary also looks at the impact of the war on civilians, especially on the families of those fighting. An on-again, off-again war since the mid 1990s, the Chechen conflict has alternately gained and lost the world's attention. In the wake of September 11, the politically charged conflict, which pits Russia against predominantly Muslim Chechen fighters, has taken on new meaning. Russian president Vladimir Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials have accused Chechen separatists of having direct links to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. With the world's attention elsewhere, Russia has stepped up efforts to take down the rebels. Chechen fighters, however, say they want freedom and independence. Both vow to stay the course, whatever the cost. Meanwhile, human rights groups allege acts of brutality on both sides. New York Times reporter Michael Gordon and Azimuth Media's Stephen Sapienza are available for interview about DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War. To schedule an interview call Eric London at 202-986-0033 x 105. This documentary was produced by Azimuth Media in association with CNN Productions. Support for this program was provided to Azimuth Media by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Azimuth Media is a non-profit production company based in Washington, DC, whose mission is to produce in-depth documentaries that investigate global security issues and present them to public audiences worldwide. Its goal is to make security-related topics relevant, comprehensible, and engaging for international and American audiences. Azimuth Media's documentaries, free from government and corporate influence, are crucial to fostering public understanding and informing policymakers about today's vital security issues. Visit www.azimuthmedia.org for more information. Press kits with VHS screening copies of DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War are available to the media by contacting Dora Ruhs at 202-797-5278 or emailing your name, address, and telephone number to info@azimuthmedia.org. Individuals can purchase a VHS copy of DEADLOCK: Russia's Forgotten War for $29.99 by sending a check or money order to Azimuth Media, 1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036. PAL (European Standard) versions of the film are available for $39.99. Phone orders will be accepted at 202-797-5278. CONTACT: Eric London (202) 986-0033 x 105 Visit www.azimuthmedia.org for more info. ******* #2 AFP Russia set to "minimise" US withdrawal from ABM: FM June 13, 2002 Russia hopes to "minimise" the effects of the United States' withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was quoted as saying. Russia regretted the US move, which formally takes effect this week, to abrogate the treaty seen by Moscow as a cornerstone of arms limitation agreements for 30 years," Ivanov told Interfax in the Canadian city of Whistler. "The primary aim is to minimise the negative consequences of the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty," the Russian foreign minister added. "Thanks to Russia's efforts, the negotiating process on strategic offensive weapons and missile defence has not been terminated," Ivanov said. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart George W. Bush signed a historic deal at a summit in Moscow last month slashing each side's nuclear arsenals by two thirds to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads over the next decade. However Bush gave notice in December, despite Russian objections, that the United States would unilaterally withdraw from the 1972 treaty signed with the now-defunct Soviet Union in order to develop an anti-missile defence system. The first step towards the Bush administration's new missile doctrine is set for Saturday, when Air Force General Ronald Kadish, head of the Missile Defence Agency, attends a ceremony to break ground on silos for six interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska. It is due to be completed by September 2004. It will be the first time in 30 years that there are no constraints on Washington's ability to test and deploy systems able to down long-range enemy missiles. Bush, who has dismissed the ABM treaty as a "relic of the Cold War," believes the United States is vulnerable to long-range missile attack coming from Iran, Iraq or North Korea, nations he regards a part of an "axis of evil." So far, the Pentagon has successfully shot down four "enemy" missiles in seven preliminary tests, but US critics of the missile defence plan note the shield would have done nothing to stop the attacks of September 11. Philip Coyle, a senior Pentagon official under former US president Bill Clinton, wrote in the Washington Post that the basic missile program would cost 70 billion dollars. But he added that some 20 developmental tests, each costing 100 million dollars would be needed before the program could advance to the next stage of realistic operational testing. Russia, China and the United States' European allies initially protested Bush's decision to pull out of the ABM treaty, but even in Moscow that opposition has become muted with Russian firms hoping to win key missile defence contracts. Reaction to the ABM withdrawal was muted in Moscow Thursday with senior lawmakers and defence experts saying the six-month notice period had given Russia time to come to terms with what the State Duma, the country's parliament, termed a "serious political mistake." The ABM Treaty was signed by US President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on May 26, 1972, in Moscow. It outlawed either nation developing a unilateral shield against intercontinental ballistic missile attacks, and also banned testing or deployment of all mobile antiballistic missile systems. ******* #3 strana.ru June 13, 2002 Vladimir Putin: Russia Does Not Aspire to Be Special (Strana.ru) We simply have a duty to achieve real results of reforms, the president said By Maria Arzumanova What and how we do today is crucial not only for the quality of our life in the near future but also for what kind of country Russia will be and what it will be able to do for the world and for her own people in the 21st century, Vladimir Putin said at the ceremonial reception marking the Day of Russia in St. Andrew's Hall of the Kremlin Great Palace. The President of the Russian Federation said this: "We simply have a duty to achieve real results of reforms, which took place in the last few most difficult years." In his words, it is necessary to strive for economic growth, business advancement, creation of new jobs, everything, which will "give people an opportunity to live and work like human beings." Any initiatives today must be tested "for social suitableness." "Russia does not aspire to be special in any way. But she does aspire to a place in the world and to an attitude to herself, which correspond to her rich history, the creative potential of the people and the huge size of our great country. We are building a truly democratic society for ourselves and we want to be active participants in a multi-polar world order," Vladimir Putin said. In evaluating results of the past years, during which Russia had developed "the space of democracy and market relations," the president stressed that "it was a difficult and unexplored path." The last ten years proved "a difficult trial for most people, many vital problems got aggravated to the extreme, some of them took on a delayed character." The time had come today to deal with them, he emphasized. At the same time, he pointed out, achievements in the area of creation of the foundations "of what is in principle a different state and public system" were obvious. Conditions had been created during that time for "the state's free economic development." For the first time in many decades "we are not involved in conflicts or confrontation either with the world as a whole or with separate countries." But "we must yet learn how to defend our positions and win in the fierce competition, which reigns in the world and primarily in the international markets." Changes, which Russia had gone through, were due to start paying off, were due to work for society, for the citizens, Vladimir Putin stressed. Indicating that Russia was a federated state and that the reception was being attended by the heads of almost all regions of the country, Vladimir Putin stated that "Russia's main success is being accomplished in its territories." The more successful people's life in the regions, the more "significant and important" the occasion celebrated today, the president said. Vladimir Putin suggested a toast "to the people of Russia, to peace and accord, to Russia!" The ceremonial reception was attended by the first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, and wife Nayina Yeltsina, Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Aleksiy II, presidential chief of staff Alexander Voloshin, and representatives of Russian business and political elite. ******* #4 Moscow News June 12-18, 2002 Power Men Prove Powerless Were the riots on Moscow's Manezh Square organized? MN Investigations Desk The June 9 events showed the power structures' utter inability to ensure public order. For one and a half hours the center of Moscow was fully in the hands of a disorderly mob. It does not take a seer to foresee what could happen in front of a giant screen during a live broadcast of a soccer match with one of the sides being Russia. Look at how the police are out in force at the Luzhniki stadium for a routine tournament between Russian clubs. Scuffles at the stadium have taught law enforcement agencies something. Why then were there virtually none to be seen on Manezh Square, where, according to some estimates, more than 10,000 fans had turned out? Clearly it was not our side's defeat that triggered the rampage. Our victory could have caused it just as easily. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. No matter what, bottles would have been hurled at the screen and a melee would have begun. Sensing the helplessness of the authorities, the fans became more rowdy, and scuffles grew into mass riots. Obviously neither the Interior Ministry nor the capital's Internal Affairs Main Administration learned any lessons from the event that recently shocked Moscow - a violent attack on the Tsaritsyno outdoor market which left several people dead. The leaders of neither the aggressive fans nor of skinheads or any other hooligans were neutralized, which points to an extremely poor organization of the Manezh event. Police proved ineffectual in an emergency situation. Frequent personnel changes within the police department must have been a factor. Was the violence spontaneous or stage-managed? Certain facts give cause to think that it did not happen spontaneously. Some of the "fans" were carrying baseball bats and sharpened iron bars which were then used to smash cars and shop windows, and beat up passersby. It is indicative that the cars were torched in a very professional manner. Damage caused by the June 9 riots is substantial but not catastrophic. The political repercussions are far more serious. First of all, they dealt a serious blow to the image of the Russian president who in his state-of-the-nation address to parliament put a special emphasis on the need to fight extremism, urging law enforcers to take the same measures against extremists as are used against the criminal community. Could the Sunday afternoon events be seen as a response by the power agencies? Moscow has seen no riots on this scale with loss of life since October 1993. While before June 9, most political and economic experts agreed that an Argentinian scenario, including mass riots, was impossible in Russia, now this is no longer the case. A distinguishing feature of the latest violence, compared to 1993, is that it was accompanied by the looting of food stalls and shops - like in Argentina. If a goal scored against a national side can provoke such violence, what could it be like in the event of more serious causes for protest? It so happened that in an RTR television weekly review, the Manezh Square riots coincidentally followed a story about a possible collusion by oil cartels to raise gasoline prices. What if a conflict flared up between the oil tycoons, the public, and the ruling authorities over gas prices? What could that lead to? Who will spearhead the boisterous mob - fans, skinheads, or someone else? There is yet another ingredient to these events. It is no secret that the so-called democratic part of the political elite tried to exert pressure on the president over its concern that Russia is increasingly taking on the trappings of a police state. This complicates relations with the West. According to these politicians, the president agreed: Indeed, the state's police functions should be somewhat curtailed. Yet after June 9, there can be no question of any curtailing. After the mass riots just outside the Kremlin walls and the State Duma building, police functions can only be reinforced. ******* #5 BBC 13 June 2002 Russia tops US arms exports Russia has overtaken the United States to become the world's leading conventional arms exporter for the first time, increasing deliveries sixfold over the last five years. The annual report for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said that there was a sharp reduction in US deliveries last year, though it remained by far the largest exporter for the last five years. At the same time, Russia increased its volume of exports to India and China. However, the SIPRI report said the relatively small number of outstanding orders compared with those of the US could not sustain Russia's position beyond 2001. China topped the list of importers for 2001, though India and Pakistan both increased their spending on arms imports over the year. Increase predicted Russia's exports rose 24% to nearly $5bn in 2001 compared with the US figure of $4.6bn, a drop of 65% since 1998. But the US was still by far the biggest exporter over the last five years, with $44.8bn compared with Russia's $17.4bn. Two years ago, experts predicted an increase in Russian conventional arms sales after US President Bill Clinton decided to deploy a missile defence system. The increase is likely to be shortlived, though, as Russia has only a small number of major recipients and has made only limited investments in military research and development. Indian change India currently receives 80% of its weapons from Russia. But Delhi changed its acquisition policy after the US lifted its arms embargo in September. Though the US itself is unlikely to benefit significantly from the change, France and Israel are now likely to weaken Russia's position in the Indian market. ******* #6 Russian defence chief sees "considerable conflict potential" in Central Asia ITAR-TASS Bishkek, 13 June: There is "considerable conflict potential" in Central Asia. Therefore, Russia, together with its partners, including the United States, Britain and China, "is actively working" to prevent this conflict from "conflagrating". This statement was made today in Bishkek by Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov, now on an official visit here. Under the present situation, he continued, "powder should be kept dry", while "collective rapid deployment forces should be trained". Ivanov signed several agreements on military cooperation at the talks with Kyrgyz Defence Minister Esen Topoyev today, including one on prolonging the stay of Russian military facilities on Kyrgyz territory. "I'd like to explain that Kyrgyzstan has our station for monitoring the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction." "We have reached an understanding that all information of the station will be also used by civil structures to prevent emergency situations, not only in Kyrgyzstan, but also in other countries," Ivanov noted. According to the minister's appraisal, relations in the military sphere between Russia and Kyrgyzstan "are allied, and they will undoubtedly develop in future". Russian military facilities will remain in Kyrgyzstan at least for another 7-15 years, the Russia minister stressed. He specially underlined at the same time that the Russian military contingent would not increase numerically in the republic. Turning to the military and political situation developing in the Central Asian region, Ivanov noted that "there is no direct threat to Kyrgyzstan's sovereignty". It has considerably decreased after the start of the operation by forces of the international antiterrorist coalition in Afghanistan, but "it could not be fully precluded". Taleban and Al-Qa'idah gunmen were not fully routed, and small gangs of them still remain. According to the Russian minister, he reached several agreements with Topoyev at their talks on prolonging military and technical cooperation between the two countries. For instance, the two sides are planning the joint training of troops and the use by the Russian side of Kyrgyz munitions factories. "Bishkek and other Kyrgyz cities have had many munitions factories since Soviet times, and Russia is ready to use their products, since there is no need to create something an ally has in Russia," Ivanov stated. He promised that Kyrgyz cadets would continue to study at Russian higher education establishments "on easy terms". The minister is confident that Russian-Kyrgyz military relations will be even more "trustworthy" in future, while Russia's military presence will change in quality. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1321 gmt 13 Jun 02 ******* #7 Vremya Novostei June 13, 2002 Russia is Closer but the United States is Wealthier (Vremya Novostei) Moscow may lose Kirghizia as its major military and naval ally By Yuri Golotyuk (therussianissues.com) A delegation of the Russian Security Council led by its Secretary Vladimir Rushailo arrived in Bishkek on Monday for talks with Kirghiz leadership in which Russian Atomic Ministry Chief Alexander Rumyantsev will also take part. A large Russian military delegation to be led by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov is expected to arrive in Bishkek on Wednesday. Concurrently, Russian combat army units from the 201st motor rifled division will participate in the first stage of the "Southern Shield Commonwealth-2002" military exercise. Security Council Secretary Vladimir Rushailo and the two Russian ministers will meet Kirghiz President Askar Akayev and Prime Minister Nikolai Tanayev. Besides, Mr. Rushailo will hold separate consultations with Kirghiz counterpart Misir Ashirkulov, while Mr. Ivanov will meet Kirghiz Acting Defense Minister Esen Topoyev. New Russian-Kirghiz agreements in military-political and military-technological spheres will be the dominating subject at all talks. Mr. Rushailo will also discuss a wide range of issues related to Russian-Kirghiz bilateral relations and contemporary state of international regional security. Alexander Rumyantsev will face a much more complicated task of discussing the most painful subject of bilateral relations - Kirghizia's outstanding debt to Russia which Moscow estimates at about one and a half billion dollars while Bishkek claims that its size is nearly four times less. Mr. Rumyantsev has been categorically forbidden to exert pressure on Kirghiz negotiators. During his recent talks with President Akayev Russian President Vladimir Putin chided the inter-governmental commission for poor performance in the economic sphere. The Russian-Kirghiz trade turnover dropped by 25% in 2001. Simultaneously, Mr. Rumyantsev will have to advance cooperation in military and technological sphere whose state has been positively assessed by President Putin. It was not accidental that the Russian Minatom chief has been appointed to supervise military and technological cooperation. His ministry is responsible for most Russian-Kirghiz joint projects in this field. Kirghizia needs Russian electronic systems that Minatom produces at its enterprises to guard its borders. In turn, Moscow expects to acquire a share in extracting uranium in Kirghizia and to inherit most of the Soviet-era defense enterprises in swap for writing off Kirghiz debts. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov will have to discuss the future of Russian bases in Kirghizia. That has not caused any problems until recently. The issue was settled when Russia and Kirghizia signed a treaty on military cooperation in 1993. Since the late 1990s Bishkek started to charge Russia five million dollars a year for maintaining its military presence in the Kirghiz territory. Kirghizia wanted cash. The Russian army paid debts by training Kirghiz officers in schools and academies. However, each idyll comes to an end sooner or later. The United States and its allies who have deployed their military contingents at Manas airport offer 7,000 dollars to the Kirghiz owners for the landing or take-off of one military plane. One flight by a French Mirage-2002D plane brings 2,000 dollars to the Kirghiz budget. Russia cannot lose its military bases in Kirghizia on which the Kremlin heavily relies in building Russia's future military and naval might. The Russian navy has one of its two remaining distant communication stations in Kirghizia. The other one is in Belarus. Besides, Russia has been testing its latest weapons for submarines and warships at its naval base on Issyk-Kul Lake since the 1960s. ******* #8 CDI Weekly Defense Monitor Volume 6, Issue #18 June 13, 2002 Terror and Oil in Central Asia Tomas Valasek, Senior Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org Is the United States fighting for oil or combating terrorism in Central Asia? A number of recent articles raise questions about the true goals behind the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. "Bush’s concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin," charged the British tabloid The Mirror. Other writers point out that Zalmay Khalizad, a member of President Bush’s National Security Council and current U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, used to work on behalf of Unocal, a U.S. oil company, which in 1998 tried to build a pipeline exporting Turkmen gas through Afghanistan. Back then Khalizad advocated engagement of the ruling Taliban regime, over whose destruction he later presided as one of the architects of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. The real story is, as usual, more prosaic. The actual or potential importance of oil in Central Asia is shrouded in myths and misconceptions. First of all, the Caspian is not the next Middle East, nor will the oil there significantly affect the U.S. supply/demand problem in the long run. (Caspian Sea natural gas reserves are much more promising but the exports will primarily go to Turkey, Western Europe and possibly to Asia). The Caspian countries simply do not have enough oil to seriously add to the world’s reserves in the long run, and their impact on oil prices is also limited (the one exception is Iran, but the bulk of its reserves are far from the Caspian shores). The potential contribution of the former Soviet republics to U.S. energy needs is minimal. The United States still produces about half the oil it consumes, and of the other -- imported -- half, most comes from sources in the Americas, especially from Venezuela and Canada. The gap between what the United States produces and what it consumes is expected to grow – oil reserves on U.S. territory are increasingly scarce while consumption is expected to grow by as much as 25% over the next 20 years, necessitating the search for more foreign sources of oil. However, much of the increase in imports will come from the Middle East, which is home to a lion’s share of the world’s proven oil reserves. The Caspian, with oil reserves roughly equivalent to those of the North Sea, is simply not in a position to help make up the expected shortfall in U.S. oil needs. None of the states of the region are anywhere near the top of the list of countries holding large proven oil reserves. Saudi Arabia leads with 25 percent of the world’s proven reserves, followed by Iraq with 11 percent, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iran each with 9 percent, and Venezuela at 7 percent. Nevertheless, it is the policy of the United States to diversify world sources of oil, not only for itself but also for other oil importers. The idea is the reduce dependency on any particular region, and thus reduce the possibility that a political upheaval in one country/region will significantly affect oil supplies and possibly bring about a global economic crisis. The switch to new exporters outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) also helps keep global oil prices down: "The addition of Caspian oil could weaken the OPEC monopoly, providing greater leverage over the pricing policies of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries, ultimately contributing to lower world oil prices," one American expert told the U.S. House of Representatives. Moreover, American firms are among the world’s largest oil producers, and their interests in developing and exporting Caspian energy resources neatly coincide with the U.S. desire to add to the world’s sources of oil. The task of developing Azeri or Kazakh mineral riches, however, requires a lot more than simply opening doors for U.S. oil companies to the producer countries. The Caspian is a treacherous territory for doing oil business. Most of its oil deposits are under water, and the actual legal status of the Caspian Sea has yet to be defined eleven years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the Caspian is considered a sea by some countries and a lake by others. An April 2002 conference of the presidents of the five littoral states, which was meant to divide up the sea’s surface and bed, ended in acrimony. Ownership of a number of oil fields is being disputed -- Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan went to court over one such field, and in summer of 2001 the Iranian Navy forced a British Petroleum exploration vessel from a disputed area near the Azeri-Iranian border. Producers are understandably shy about investing millions of dollars into wells that could be expropriated or destroyed in an attack. Exporting the region’s oil is also proving a challenge. The shortest route connecting the Caspian oil to the world’s shipping routes leads across Iran. But the U.S. embargo on trade with and investment in Iran has ruled out this option for the foreseeable future. The straight line west -- through Armenia -- is also out of the question because of Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s blockade which dates back to the 1994 Nagorno Karabakh war. A new pipeline is scheduled to connect Azeri (and possibly Kazakh) oil fields to Turkey via Georgia but the companies have yet to break ground on this expensive and somewhat controversial project. Pipelines across Russia are frowned upon by producer states, but for the time being remain the only alternative, together with a smaller pipeline running through Georgia. While potentially immensely important to Turkmenistan -- and beneficial to the companies that would build it -- the trans-Afghan gas pipeline that Unocal advocated in 1998 is just a small piece of the overall export route jumble. It was effectively abandoned in favor of another route, across the Caspian Sea, long before Sept. 11. Neither pipeline was ultimately built, not because of the Taliban or geopolitics but because of hesitation by the Turkmen government and lukewarm interest among energy companies. The interim Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, renewed calls for the trans-Afghan pipeline in May 2002. The attraction of Caspian oil to the United States clearly has its limits. Unlike, for example, Saudi Arabia, the southern region of the former Soviet Union doesn’t hold enough mineral reserves to be considered strategic and indispensable to the United States. Other interests argue against too much involvement. Washington has long been reluctant to offer substantive military aid or to deploy troops in the Caucasus and Central Asia for fear of alienating Moscow, and it was the terrorist threat, not oil, changed that mindset after Sept. 11. Nor were the countries of the Caspian brought into NATO, despite repeated requests by Georgia and Azerbaijan for inclusion in the alliance. As the RAND Corporation concluded (before Sept. 11), "NATO and the West do not have vital interests at stake in the Caspian region … NATO’s engagement in the Caspian should not command a high priority in terms of resources, planning, or attention." It would be wrong to view the limited U.S. involvement in the Caspian exclusively through the prism of oil and gas. Military assistance and joint training serve a number of other useful purposes. Prevention of future conflicts in the Caucasus is a goal in its own right, regardless of the region’s mineral reserves. Increasingly, U.S. policy toward the former Soviet South -- and U.S. foreign policy in general -- is dominated by a single-minded determination to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. Oil is no doubt a part of the puzzle that is the U.S. policy toward Central Asia -- but by no means the only, or even the most important part. ******* #9 Wall Street Journal June 12, 2002 Customs Trains Old Soviet Ports In Thwarting Nuclear Smugglers By GARY FIELDS and SHARON BEGLEY Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL [for personal use only] WASHINGTON -- The first line of defense in the government's fight to keep terrorists from smuggling a dirty bomb into the U.S. isn't at the nation's borders -- it's at ports thousands of miles away in the former Soviet Union. Since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has dispatched neutron flux detectors and gamma ray detectors that can detect nuclear materials to points of entry around Washington, New York and other major cities. At the same time, the U.S. Customs Service has outfitted its inspectors with some 4,000 personal radiation detectors -- souped-up Geiger counters -- with plans to provide another 4,500 in the coming months. Customs also has been installing radiation detectors large enough for cars and trucks to pass through, at some border crossings. Beyond that, customs has been using State Department and Pentagon funds and working jointly with the Energy Department to boost training for its agents and those of foreign agents from the former Soviet Union. In recent years, the agency has shipped more than 600 radiation detectors to those countries to help authorities there stop smugglers. While no smuggling has been detected since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, agents have been on highest alert since then. Obtaining Nuclear Materials Monday's announcement that an American citizen had been working with al Qaeda to detonate a dirty bomb in the U.S. has renewed concerns about al Qaeda's abilities to obtain nuclear materials. The alleged al Qaeda scout, Jose Padilla, now being held at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., was on a mission to pinpoint either bomb sites or potential places to find nuclear materials, law-enforcement officials said. Unlike the military's nuclear arsenal, a dirty bomb is made with radioactive material that is wrapped around explosives. Rather than setting off a nuclear reaction, the bomb disperses relatively low-level radiation in a limited area. "We have improved our training and detection capabilities and we are pushing our zone of security out further," said Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner. The agency is focusing on Eastern Europe from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, in the north to Turkey, Cyprus and Malta in the south. One customs official said the agency fears that "a lot of unsecured [radioactive] material in the former Soviet Union" is being smuggled into Uzbekistan, which abuts Afghanistan and is near Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. "We don't want this stuff going there," he said. Much of the material comes from weapons programs and power-generating plants. Radioactive Lead Containers One smuggled shipment nearly ended up in Pakistan in March 2000, customs officials said. The hand-held radiation detectors provided by the U.S. started beeping wildly when a truck filled with scrap metal tried to cross the Uzbekistan border. Inside, agents found 10 radioactive lead containers, and an Iranian driver intent on delivering his load to Quetta, Pakistan, a border town known as a smuggling center to Afghanistan. Detection is a matter of the training and equipment that needs to be close by to pick up radioactive materials as opposed to satellites, which are too far away, scientists say. "To detect a suitcase bomb you have to get very close," said senior scientist Thomas B. Cochran at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. "If the radioactive source is plutonium, a neutron detector can see it up to a few tens of meters away." Gamma detectors, which sense the radiation signature of cobalt-60 and cesium-137 need fairly sophisticated instrumentation to sort out the energy spectra of the radiation; that spectrum determines whether the source is plutonium or uranium-235, or some innocuous background source, Dr. Cochran said. These work from a few meters away -- with one obvious caveat: "If it's shielded, you'll never see it." 'Thousands of Facilities' "Radioactive materials that could be used for such attacks are stored in thousands of facilities around the U.S., many of which may not be adequately protected against theft by determined terrorists," said Henry Kelly, a physicist with the Federation of American Scientists. Radioactive materials are used in laboratories, food-irradiation plants, oil-drilling facilities and medical centers, among other places. The agency also is getting permission from foreign countries to station inspectors in their ports, looking at ship containers that come in, rather than waiting for them to arrive in the U.S. and be inspected. Canada is already allowing it and Singapore, the world's second largest port in terms of shipping containers, recently agreed to let U.S. inspectors come there. Customs also is in discussions with Tokyo, Rotterdam, Netherlands and Antwerp, Belgium. ******* #10 The Russia Journal June 7-13, 2002 WMD sellers international By ANDREI PIONTKOVSKY Overall, the Russian-American summit was all bliss and sugary sweetness. The one slightly sour note came during the two presidents’ joint press conference when the subject turned to Iran. This confirms that Iran remains probably the main stumbling block between the two countries, which have declared that they are "already allies in the global struggle against international terrorism." With regards to Iraq, the two sides said in a joint declaration that Russia and the United States would "continue their constructive dialogue." The use of the word "constructive" means, no doubt, that despite intense pressure from home-grown Saddam supporters, Moscow no longer sees Saddam Hussein’s backside as Russia’s national asset, and is taking a more pragmatic approach, seeking guarantees for its economic interests in a post-Saddam Iraq. But concerning Iran, President Vladimir Putin used home-produced arguments at the press conference, both unexpected and interesting. First, Putin said that Moscow had convincing proof that a number of Western companies are helping Iran develop its missile and nuclear programs. That such a statement should be made at such high level leaves no doubt that this proof does indeed exist and that it was most likely shown to U.S. President George W. Bush. This in itself is no real sensation. The nearly forgotten 19th-century German economist Karl Marx rightly pointed out that, even at the risk of the gallows, there is no crime capital wouldn’t commit, so long as a good profit could be guaranteed. It’s well known, for example, that French, British and other Western companies helped Iraq with its nuclear-missile programs. Russia’s young capitalists are no less ambitious than their Western colleagues. There is a known case when containers containing a special steel needed for missile production were seized on the Azerbaijan-Iran border. More scandalous was the incident when the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry was caught red-handed going behind the Russian leadership’s back to sign an agreement to deliver to Iran a uranium isotope separation centrifuge able to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium. Of course, the Atomic Energy Ministry is not exactly a private company, but a minister in Russia is more than a minister, and Marx’s words about capitalists apply equally well to Russia’s capitalist-minded state officials. Putin’s argument also lets slip an admission that it would be foolish and impossible to deny. Iran seeks nuclear missile potential, and the United States is right to feel concerned about this. At the same time, by providing proof of Western companies’ involvement in Iran’s programs, Putin takes the issue beyond the traditional boundaries of unilateral accusations against Russia, placing it in the context of multilateral international cooperation in "ensuring the security of technology, information, specialized knowledge and materials related to weapons of mass destruction and missiles." As one well-known character would have said, "That’s a strong move, Vladimir Vladimirovich." The second argument, suggested by some Foreign Ministry official, raised concerns about Taiwan’s missile program – and it wasn’t such a success. As for Russia’s policy toward Iran, the issue goes far beyond simply being a point on the Russian-American agenda, especially in light of the evermore open challenge Iran is raising for Russia regarding the Caspian Sea. But I will save that subject for the next column. The writer is director of the Center for Strategic Research. ******* #11 Ekspert No. 22 June 10, 2002 NUCLEAR TEMPTATIONS Non-proliferation of weapons is the top priority for today Author: Iskander Khisaimov [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] PREVENTING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR ARMS AND OTHER MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS IS BECOMING THE TOP PRIORITY FOR THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY. RUSSIA SHOULD USE ITS AUTHORITY TO PROMOTE PEACE. WITHOUT RUSSIA, THE WORLD CANNOT RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM. President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan spent ten years to create an Asian analogue to the OSCE, while even the original was rapidly losing the ability to strengthen international security. Perhaps, at times he wished he had not that easily parted with the Soviet nuclear heritage, exchanging it for the unstable image of a Eurasian integrator and peacemaker. Meanwhile, the nearby neighbor, India and Pakistan, passionately rushed into acquiring nuclear weapons, and finally gained them. The present Indian-Pakistani deadlock is justifiably compared with the Cuban missile crisis, when the two great powers - intoxicated with their own strength - were rapidly approaching the point of mutual annihilation and a global disaster. What happened in 1961 did not turn into a tragedy, but what is happening now is not a farce either. Putin's talks with the Indian and Pakistani leaders in Almaty were generally described as a failure. So they were, if the very consent of these countries to Russia as the intermediary is not considered a success. However, even this fact does not convince everyone. Indeed, why all these Sharons, Arafats, Musharrafs, and Vajpayees always apply to Putin with the request to judge them and why America always readily giving him another chance to gain the laurels of a peacemaker? We have no money, our fleets are unable to leave harbors, and they do not need our soldiers. Here there's a common assumption: we are simply framed, aimed at certainly unachievable targets and then we are mocked. All these talks are because of an understated national self- esteem. The aforementioned heads of suffering peoples cannot afford jokes or dirt-cheap intrigues. They apply to Russia not only habitually, not even because it is still one of the two actual powers in the world, one of the two founders of the nuclear club. They simply want to see it play this part. One sheriff is so far not enough for the planet, others have not grown up as yet, and collective sheriffs are inefficient. And Washington understood this. The Indian-Pakistani strain which is quite possible to be ruled managed by the people responsible for the terrorist act of 11 September has shown that today's top priority task is to stop the proliferation of mass destruction arms. The world as usually found itself totally unprepared for challenges which had been thousands of times predicted - terrorism, extremism, and nuclear blackmail. The world had not been building organizations and configurations which are able to meet these challenges. The UN, NATO, and other OSCEs gaped and stared how for example India and Pakistan were getting armed with atomic bombs and actually did nothing to stop them. Meanwhile, the process is under way. Today, 43 states have research reactors which use arms uranium as fuel; many of them are ready to make up an atomic bomb, someone is most likely to have got one, only secretly. And if something is not undertaken now, one of these 43 guns will start to shoot. The Nunn-Lugar draft "Global coalition against terrorism leading to disasters" says that global efforts leaders must reach an agreement concerning joint actions to ban non-purpose use of arms and materials through teams of response in emergencies. They must also agree to cooperate in the sphere of managing the consequences in case of radiological and nuclear incidents throughout the world. We are actually invited to use force against organizations and countries that pose a threat to humanity. There is much that is unresolve between us and America, but this offer must not be turned down. Because they are not going to make it without us - and if they don't, everyone will be worse off. (Translated by P. Pikhnovsky) ******* #12 Nezavisimaya Gazeta June 11, 2002 Russia and Ukraine vie for the title of favorite associate in the East The "Russian threat" seems to remain the main fear of some NATO countries Author: Marina Kalashnikova [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] THE ANGLO-AMERICAN NUCLEUS OF NATO IS MOVING TOWARD GLOBAL CONTROL, USING THE SLOGAN OF COMBATING TERRORISM AS A PRETEXT. IN SETTING OUT ITS NEW GLOBAL OBJECTIVES, NATO HAS NOT FORGOTTEN ABOUT ITS TRADITIONAL REGIONAL CONCERNS. MEANWHILE, UKRAINE IS AHEAD OF RUSSIA IN COOPERATION WITH NATO. There can be no doubt that NATO is steadily expanding on the global scale. It even instituted the so-called NATO Twenty, to create the illusion of fully-fledged partnership with Russia and to appease Moscow's unpredictable response to the status quo and particularly to NATO's planned expansion. Until now, NATO has always discussed with Moscow its own actions outside its traditional zone of responsibility only in the form of consultations, and only with regard to specific instances. The recent meeting of NATO defense ministers finally admitted this strategy. In this regard, it was a sensation. NATO Secretary General George Robertson says that from now on NATO will send its troops to fight terrorism "wherever it is necessary." Five or six mobile groups will be formed, and a system of strategic transportation established (transport aviation, a network of air force bases, and other infrastructure). The coalition contingent of ground forces intended for operations around the world will be doubled. The units and formations will be airlifted to occupy whole regions and countries, not merely strike at the enemy from the air or from the sea. This much is stipulated by the program of development to 2008. In this way, the Anglo-American nucleus of the Alliance is moving toward global control, using the slogan of combating terrorism as a pretext. Central Asia is the major arena for implementing this concept; it has been the major arena for months now. The other day, the status of the US contingent was raised. Media reports say the contingent is now 7,000 strong. Meanwhile, other countries of the region are trying to use the Anglo-American presence to their benefit as well. Taking into account the interests of the United States and Britain, the leaders of India and Pakistan resolved to try to take advantage of the situation. India took part in a ten-day naval exercise together with the United States in late May. Responding to this rapprochement, and referring to the conflict with India, Pakistan threatened to withdraw its troops from the border with Afghanistan; troops posted there at Washington's request. All these developments led to a series of visits by high- ranking American and British envoys to the region. Observers in New Delhi and Islamabad comment that while hoping to ease tension and cool down emotions, leaders of the United States tried to divert some of India's and Pakistan's demands to Moscow. This was one of the central motives of the Asian security summit in Almaty, Kazakhstan. It should be noted, however, that Moscow was benevolently permitted to partake in crisis-management only, not in basking in triumph as a peacekeeper. The latter is a prerogative of the United States, and had better remain undisputed. For the time being, the struggle between Russia and Ukraine for NATO's benevolence is less violent. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said in Brussels that Russian ministries and departments are prepared to send teams of delegates to no less than half of NATO committees. This scale is beyond Kiev's capacities. On the other hand, Ukraine is ahead of Russia in the sphere of direct military cooperation with NATO. A meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Commission that took place at the same time as the NATO session resolved to begin work on a treaty "on the status of recipient nation". When signed, the document will make Ukrainian airfields and airspace available to NATO, long before Ukraine itself joins the Alliance. Ivanov, speaking in Brussels, could only counter this (ineffectively) by saying that Moscow was prepared to allocate Russian transport planes for NATO troops. In setting out its new global objectives, NATO has not forgotten about its traditional regional concerns. Minutes of the Brussels meeting indicate that "nuclear deterrence and defense" remain the fundamental strategy. As for whom this is meant to deter, Czech Defense Minister Jaroslaw Tvrdik made a revealing slip of the tongue - attributing the purchase of Swedish Grippen fighters to the same old "Russian threat". Such friction, and the Kremlin's refusal to condone NATO expansion into the Baltic states, still provide Moscow with an excuse to ignore the NATO summit in Prague this November. On the other hand, the Russian-Ukrainian competition may force President Vladimir Putin to reconsider his options and attend the summit. (Translated by A. Ignatkin) ******* #13 Asia Times June 13, 2002 Russia's anti-extremism bill too much for some By Sergei Blagov MOSCOW - The Russian government is pushing through a new bill to combat extremism amid fears that it could also be used to silence public protest. The bill passed its first reading in the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, on June 6 with 271 votes in support and 141 against. Russian authorities have been expressing concern over extremist threats for some time now. President Vladimir Putin said in his State of the Nation address in April that the police lack effective powers to tackle organized gangs. The definition of extremism covers a wide range, such as illegal activities aimed at violent takeover of power, terrorism, incitement of ethnic and religious hatred, and hindering the legitimate activities of authorities. The bill says advocacy of "legitimate rights and freedoms" does not amount to extremism if such campaigns or protests are carried out within the law. The bill gives courts the power to outlaw an organization classified as extremist. Official agencies can suspend the activities of the organization pending a court decision. The bill gives the government powers to combat dissemination of extremist ideas in the media and on the Internet. Media promoting what the government considers extremism can be ordered to shut down. If the bill is passed, the government will have new powers to deal with financing of extremist organizations. Authorities will have power to confiscate their property. The Russian branches of foreign organizations, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and religious groups, could also be closed down if they were found to be engaged in "extremist" activity. Russia's civil and criminal codes and its laws on religions and social organizations would be amended. The new legislation provides for the creation of a federal commission to combat extremism. The commission would keep a database of suspected extremist organizations. Justice Minister Yuri Chaika, who introduced the bill in parliament, says Russia needs the law to fill in legal loopholes that extremists are taking advantage of. But the bill gives the government sweeping powers, opponents say. Among these would be the power to disband any NGO holding an unauthorized protest, critics say. The bill does not meet international standards because it is "significantly different" from laws against extremism in other countries, says Valentin Gefter, head of the Human Rights Institute in Moscow. The proposed law, he said, can be used against legitimate dissent. Opponents of the bill argue that existing legislation is sufficient to combat extremism. The difficulty lies with loose enforcement of the existing laws, they say. The vague definition of extremism means that authorities could declare any opposition group such as strikers or protesting environmentalists to be extremists, they say. "I do not believe that the bill constitutes an attempt to combat extremism," says Communist lawmaker Valentin Romanov. He called the bill an "ill-intentioned" attempt by the government to impose total control over society. Independent deputy Sergei Yushenkov says the bill is intended to combat opposition, not extremism. Activists say the human-rights situation within Russia is bad enough already without draconian legislation. Oleg Mironov, who handles complaints to the Russian government over human-rights abuses, says in his report for 2001 that his office received more than 30,000 complaints last year. An example of how widely new powers could be used came as the bill was being debated last week. The bill defines "extremism" widely enough to cover even soccer riots such as those that occurred after Russia's recent World Cup loss. The state-run RTR Television said that such violence was evidence of the need for the new bill against extremism. (Inter Press Service) ******* #14 Izvestia No. 97 June 2002 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] RUSSIA MUST NOT BEND TO FIT THE EVER-CHANGING WORLD By Sergei MIRONOV, chairman of the Federation Council The world keeps changing and each new generation of Russian politicians has to search for its own version of foreign policy that would be adequate to modern reality. The current generation is taking too long. More than ten years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union but Russia still has not found its place in the new world. We are hindered by two myths that dominate the mind of most politicians and many diplomats. One of them is trying to turn Russian policy back to imperial ways and put it up against the rest of the world. But the new Russia is not strong enough for another cold war. The unjustified dreams of regaining the status of superpower are engendering the disease of isolationism, which is fraught with turning Russia into another North Korea. The other myth is born of the wish to bury the first myth. Its advocates are inspired by a desire to integrate Russia in the family of civilised nations, meaning Europe. And they see pro-Western policy as the shortest route to this goal. This strategy was applied in the first half of the 1990s, with catastrophic consequences. In both cases the current policy is being based on yesteryear realities. But the trouble is that there are facts that can be explained in different ways but cannot be ignored. Russia has no way other than the European one. We exhausted the potential of our "special way" when we collapsed as a great power. At the same time, the non-Western world clearly sees Russia as a Western country. The Middle East and the Far East see no fundamental difference between Russians, West Europeans and Americans. Our road to Europe is not strewn with roses. The Western countries have reached a much higher material level than Russia did in the 20th century and, pragmatically speaking, are not interested in enlarging their club. Besides, the West, just like Russia, is suffering from a crisis of foreign policy concepts. Too much has changed at the turn of the millennium for politicians to clearly understand the new challenges and find precise answers to them. Consequently, the priority task of Russia's modern foreign policy should be the development of partner relations with the West. But we must remember that the partnership of modern states presupposes not only cooperation but also competition. We must know that the leaders and citizens of Europe and the USA need truly weighty reasons for changing their attitude to Russia and accepting it as an equal partner and member of their narrow club. To attain this goal, Russia should pursue not a pro-Western or an anti-Western policy. It should pursue an egoistic policy oriented at cooperation but harsh in upholding national interests, above all economic ones. However, while walking the Western way Russia must not show its back to Asia for too long. Russia has and will have interests (and prospects) in Asia. Of course, modern policy cannot be purely pragmatic and devoid of any ideals. This became particularly clear after September 11, 2001. Regrettably, neither Russia nor the West have fully evaluated the significance of that tragedy and its consequences. Many prominent politicians in this country and abroad still say that nothing has changed and that problems and contradictions are the same as before. I think they are wrong. The civilised world is now facing a threat that is potentially as dangerous as fascism. Russia, the USA, Europe and Israel are objectively on the same side in the battle against the main modern threat. And unless they truly join forces, we may eventually slide to a new global conflict. Those Western politicians who are flirting with Chechen "freedom fighters" and those Russians who are playing with Palestinian terrorists are actually betraying their civilisation. We can see that terrorists are united; they are perfectly well aware of their common interests in the Caucasus, Afghanistan and the Middle East. Russia can play the crucial role in bringing all counter- terrorist forces together. Largely because its situation is much more difficult than that of the Western countries and hence it is easier for it to be realistic and sober-minded. And it must not miss this chance. These two provisions - national egoism and consolidation - may look conflicting, if not mutually exclusive. But this is a false impression. They are organically combined in the foreign policy strategy of President Putin, a strategy of regular contacts and broader cooperation with the USA and Europe (without forgetting Russia's Eurasian identity) and a harsh stand on economic and defence matters. Regrettably, "the Putin doctrine" is not always adequately reflected in the work of those who are duty bound to implement it. Russia cannot and must not drag its feet in the wake of global developments. We must not live by yesterday's standards and yet hope for an invitation to the world of tomorrow. We must work today in the interests of tomorrow. ******** #15 RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC RFE/RL (Un)Civil Societies Vol. 3, No. 24, 12 June 2002 NGOS TACKLE TORTURE WITH HELP OF UN PANEL By Catherine A. Fitzpatrick Torture has not abated since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has only worsened. The testimonies of victims, human rights lawyers, and international agencies indicate that the old adage of Stalin's Prosecutor-General Andrei Vyshinsky, "confession is the crown of evidence," still holds sway throughout the post-Soviet criminal justice systems, as authorities resort increasingly to mistreatment in custody even as other social and political controls have loosened. Increased international scrutiny and engagement, and new initiatives by NGOs, however, are beginning to have an impact. Five and 10 years ago, when the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) examined compliance by the newly independent states on the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, they basically gave the countries a pass -- with a mild admonition to try harder, recognizing that these were "countries in transition." By the third periodic reviews, however, with fresh activism by NGOs nonexistent a decade ago, and increased interest from liberal parliamentarians and the media, the free ride was over. In May, after hearing both official reports from government delegations, notable for their inadequate reporting and evasion, and some hard-hitting alternative reports from Russian and Uzbek NGOs providing a starker picture, CAT delivered one of its most frank and stringent critiques ever. A coalition of Russian NGOs, led by the Nizhnii Novgorod Committee Against Torture, illustrated the power of the provinces to make themselves heard at an international meeting by concentrating on technical procedures. Joined by larger organizations with offices in Moscow including Memorial Human Rights Center, the Soldier's Mothers Committee, and the Committee on Civil Rights, the Nizhnii Novgorod group decided to use its own experiences in Russia's "third city" as a window on the entire criminal justice system and other institutions where abuse takes place, such as the army. Out of a staggering nationwide system of nearly a million prisoners (the highest per capita number after China) they tracked just 70 cases of anguished torture victims over a two-year period -- persons caught up in abusive police investigation who were merely witnesses to crimes, or falsely accused of crimes, or even those found guilty of crimes, but who suffered unlawful treatment at the hands of the government. In each of the cases -- ranging from harsh and repeated beatings and sleep deprivation to notorious Russian torture implements such as the "elephant" (asphyxiation with the use of a gas mask) or rape with truncheons and electric shock -- the NGOs tried to compile information, file appeals, file paperwork again and again when it was lost, and managed to keep alive only a fraction of their cases. Only four reached the stage where the prosecutor charged police with torture; others are still pending, but 40 victims dropped their cases, losing hope. Most frustrating were cases like that of the Varnenskii district Interior Directorate, where police were notorious for racking up some 19 cases of torture victims' allegations. A local prosecutor began a probe -- and then was himself fired for his whistle blowing. Those in uniform closed ranks, and the cycle began all over again. The practice of brutal hazing in the army, known as "dedovshchina," also comes under the purview of CAT, as does abductions and disappearances -- torture both for the victim and the families who never find out their whereabouts. The CAT noted numerous "ongoing reports of severe violations of human rights and the Convention [against Torture], including arbitrary detention, torture and ill treatment, including forced confessions, extrajudicial killings, and forced disappearances, particularly during 'special operations' or 'sweeps,' and the creation of illegal temporary centers of detention, including 'filtration camps'" and also noted allegations of "brutal sexual violence are unusually common" -- despite recent orders to troops in Russia to stop such attacks on civilians. These orders are routinely disobeyed to date, as sweeps through Chechen villages such as Mesker-Yurt continue this month, catching up both young men and women, some of whom have been murdered or disappeared while in federal custody. Memorial issued a report claiming "malicious noncompliance with the orders," include the failure of troops to identify themselves, to notify relatives of detentions, or to permit the pro-Moscow civilian administration of Chechnya to be present at the sweeps. As in past years, and as with other post-Soviet countries with torture and disappearances such as Belarus, CAT also urged Russia to form a new independent committee to investigation allegations, adding this year that it must be "credible and impartial" in part in response to the failure of a number of such bodies already in existence in Russia to compel prevention or prosecution of abuses. With a new code of criminal procedures due to go into effect in July in Russia, a window of opportunity seems to be opening for change, in part promoted by officialdom itself. Deputy Justice Minister Yurii Kalinin himself told Interfax on 6 May that up to 60 percent of prisoners in pretrial detention are ultimately not sentenced to imprisonment, or are freed on rehabilitation grounds. This means that people were arrested without sufficient reasons, Kalinin said. Also, Prosecutor-General Dmitrii Ustinov, in an annual report covered by "Rossiiskaya gazeta" on 30 April, unexpectedly admitted the negative influence of the Soviet-style system of rewarding law-enforcers for their performance based on the percentage of the number of crimes. He noted that despite 70 percent of all crimes being solved by police, "their efforts were frequently directed not to protecting the specific citizen who was victimized by crime, but to achieving a desired numerical figure for reduction in crime." NGOs added that such an incentive system also leads to the use of torture to force confessions in order to solve cases quickly -- at least on paper. The UN torture panel urged Russia to draft a distinct article in the criminal code to identify and address torture. Even the conservative State Duma had taken some steps in the past to comply with the international recommendation, and yet they were blocked by a Kremlin representative, who sent a letter cited in the NGO report that such a move would "destroy the coherence of the Criminal Code." NGOs and liberal deputies also cited a Kremlin-ordered blockage of another law supporting unannounced outside inspections of detention facilities, a remedy endorsed by key figures in the Duma as well as law-enforcers themselves and Human Rights Ombudsman Oleg Mironov. While the UN has no capacity to enforce the conclusions of its treaty bodies, NGOs say that bolstered by such validation of their concerns, gradually, their complaints are being addressed. "The Ministry of Justice has approved a government program to combat tuberculosis. Deputy Ministry Yurii Kalinin has promised that the grills over the prison windows which had kept out air will be removed," Andrei Babushkin of the Committee for Civil Rights told "Novye Izvestiya," which chronicled the NGOs efforts at the UN on 25 May. Following up on the testimony of NGOs that not a single example seemed to exist of a court dismissal of evidence obtained under torture, the CAT urged the Russian Supreme Court to establish guidelines for judges regarding the inadmissibility of testimony made under torture. They also called for consideration of civilian review to scrutinize mistreatment of junior officers by each other or superiors, ending the closed circle documented by NGOs, where military commanders themselves decide whether and how cases are investigated, and military judges heed their signals to drop them. Uzbekistan also came in for far closer examination this year at CAT, where for the first time, alternative reports prepared by NGOs were distributed, including from the Uzbekistan Legal Aid Society and others prepared with the assistance of "Ezgulik" (Good Deed) Human Rights Society and Memorial Human Rights Center. Using unusually strong language, the committee called on the Uzbek government to review all convictions handed down since 1995 that were based solely on confessions, recognizing that they may have been coerced through torture, and "as appropriate, provide prompt and impartial investigation and take appropriate remedial measures." As authorities in Uzbekistan have cracked down on thousands of devout Muslims active outside the confines of state-sponsored Islam, and NGOs have chronicled numerous cases of torture and deaths in detention, the CAT response is an important official condemnation from the international community. NGOs noted the well-known cases of Emin Usman, a member of the Union of Writers and former head of the Uighur Cultural Center in Tashkent, who died in February 2001 in detention from numerous wounds three weeks after arrest; and the death in June 2001 of Shovrik Ruzimuradov, the chair of the Kashkadar regional chapter of the Uzbekistan Human Rights Society, who was said to have committed suicide after three weeks of detention but whose body was discovered to have multiple injuries. While conceding the need to combat terrorism and its international dimensions, CAT urged Uzbekistan to adopt "measures to permit detainees access to a lawyer, doctor, and family members from the time when they are taken into custody, and ensure that doctors will be provided at the request of detained persons, rather than at the permission of prison officials." The International Committee for the Red Cross and local NGOs have had only partial access to the prisons, and it is hoped that the impetus from Geneva engendered by such a review will strengthen their hand in efforts to humanize the brutal penitentiary system. ********