#18 - RW 10-29-04 - RW Home
www.usembassy.ru
On-line Interview with Russian Internet Publication "Gazeta.ru"
Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Ambassador to Russia
Gazeta.ru, October 13, 2004

­What is the reaction of George Bush's administration to the proposed abolition of direct election of governors in Russia, which is presented here as being a key measure in the fight against international terrorism? // Andrey Vasilyev (Kazan)

­ Why has there been no reaction by U.S. authorities to the Kremlin's offensive against democratic freedom in Russia? To the liquidation of independent media, the decimation of the opposition in elections through manipulation, the establishment of control over the human rights movement, and canceling of elections. Don't you - don't Americans - care where this leads? // Yelena (Moscow)

First of all we recognize that Russia has experienced some terrible tragedies in recent years and especially in the last few months with the terrorist acts in Beslan and other places. And the American people, of course, have expressed their full sympathy and solidarity with Russia, having had similar bitter experiences ourselves. We understand that in such periods of national crisis, important decisions need to be taken to better defend society against the threat posed by the terrorists.

Of course we will be watching with interest to see what steps are taken to reform and strengthen the special services, to deal with the corruption that President Putin has identified as one of the root causes of the recent successes by the terrorists (in the recent events). The political changes that have been proposed by President Putin have raised some questions in the minds of the American government and many people who follow developments in Russia very closely. While each of these steps may have its own logic in the context of strengthening the Russian state, we worry that the overall impact could end up reducing the essential checks and balances needed for any strong democracy. President Bush himself put it quite directly when he said that great democracies have a balance of power between central government and local government and a balance of power within central governments between the different branches. It remains our hope that in carrying out political reforms, one does not end up weakening those very institutions of democracy that terrorists themselves would like to destroy.

As to the questions about whether we are indifferent, why aren't we reacting more strongly, I think the answer is, we are expressing our concerns in the form of the comments of a friend who wants Russia to become a stronger partner, and that means, in our view, to become a stronger democracy. We continue to support, through many concrete programs, as well as by providing moral support, many of the activists in Russia who are seeking to build a stronger civil society. I think we've worked very closely with many parts of the Russian government as well in the development of judicial reforms to strengthen the rule of law, which is the ultimate guarantor of any democratic society.

But, one of the questions posted asked why is the United States coming to save Russian democracy? The answer is only Russians can save Russian democracy. We can certainly share our expertise and offer our advice and our constructive criticism when we think that's necessary.

­ Do the Russian authorities listen to criticism? // Gazeta.ru

I think that we find our criticisms better received by some Russian partners than by others. I think there are clearly differences of view within the Russian government, the Russian political establishment, as to what's the proper course for Russia to take in the wake of the recent dramatic events in Beslan and elsewhere. Of course, this debate didn't begin with Beslan, there have been clearly some contradictory tendencies going back several years with respect to the development of democracy, freedom of the press, and other aspects of the construction of civil society. We have had constructive discussions of these issues with the Russian political leadership, with officials in the Presidential Administration and in different ministries, and I think the majority of them take our views as those of a friend and a partner and not of a country that wishes Russia ill. It doesn't mean they agree with our criticism, but we have a very civilized discussion.

­ Mr. Ambassador, because states that have experienced terrorism (above all the U.S. and Russia) tend to toughen their internal policies, potentially restricting democratic and personal freedoms of the citizenry in order to step up the fight against terrorism, what do you consider to be acceptable and unacceptable restrictions in the United States of America and Russia? // Zyrab (Russia / USA)

Well, first of all, I would say that there is frequently an exaggeration in the Russian debate as to what actually happened in the United States after September 11 with respect to civil liberties. We sometimes hear a sort of caricature of what happened, for example that the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security was the equivalent of creating Stalin's KGB. In fact, we did of course undertake some very urgent measures to strengthen the coordination of our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence services to better protect ourselves against terrorist attacks. Under the so-called Patriot Act we did give additional authority for surveillance and searches, but this is under the strict regulation of the courts. I think therefore, the general principal that applies to any country is to take the necessary steps to prevent terrorist acts, but protect civil liberties because ultimately a broad social consensus is a fundamental prerequisite to a war against terror.

I would also add that full transparency and full accountability of the institutions of the State is another essential prerequisite to maintaining the confidence of the public, which is also needed to fight terror effectively. If the people are to be confident that the State is doing everything necessary, they need to know what was the reason when a failure took place, as was the case in 9/11, as was the case in Beslan. Therefore I think it is a very positive development here that a commission was established under the chairmanship of the Council of the Federation to examine what happened in Beslan. We've offered to share some of the experience from our September 11 Commission so that the Russian people can get the same full analysis of what went wrong so that the mistakes can be prevented in the future.

­ Many of the resources of the commission to investigate the Beslan tragedy will be classified. What do you think of this, and how do you rate the degree of freedom of speech in Russia? // Gazeta.ru

On the first point, our experience is that a commission of this kind does need to have access to sensitive information, including intelligence information, to fully analyze events, but that some of that information cannot be published openly because of the need to protect the sources. In our society there is a strong belief that the public has the right to know, and therefore the full conclusions are always published and as much of the data as possible so that the conclusions are credible - that they're believed by American citizens. So, we hope that Russia will follow the same model and find the right balance between the public's clear right to know, as well as the strong desire to get to the facts behind Beslan, while of course not giving away secrets that could be used against society the next time around.

Regarding freedom of speech in Russia, I think we have concerns, although the overall picture is mixed. We've expressed many times our concerns about the decline of independent, national TV channels and the increasingly biased presentation of events on the State channels. We can see a much more lively diversity of opinion in the print media in Russia, although even there we've seen some worrisome developments in terms of pressures on certain editors, and the tendency towards self-censorship. But here too, we think that one of the best guarantees for long-term stability in Russia and for the long-term strength of the Russian state is to have a strong and independent press that challenges the decisions of government when that's appropriate and holds leaders accountable for their decisions. So, we will continue to watch this situation and give our views when we think that the trends are taking Russia in the wrong direction. One very specific concern we have, and I think is shared even more strongly inside Russia, is the large number of journalists who have been killed for what appear to be reasons connected with their investigations into corruption on the part of powerful business interests. It's very important that journalists' rights be protected so that they can play the essential role of monitors of the public good and expose problems when they need to be exposed.

­ Mr. Ambassador, you have explained why a free press is necessary for a strong Russia, but why is a strong Russia necessary for the United States? // Gazeta.ru

I think the obvious reason why we want a stabile and strong Russia is because Russia is the biggest country geographically, it extends across two continents and stability in Russia can promote stability in the surrounding regions of Europe and Asia. Russia also has enormous economic resources and economic advantages that can become an engine for development in neighboring regions. I think the more philosophical reason why we believe a strong and stabile Russia is important is because we first of all believe that strength and stability will be best assured through democracy and that democracies don't go to war with each other. So, I think that it is in our mutual interest that in terms of ending any remaining chance of conflict between our countries, and so that we can unite our efforts to fight the real threats of this century - threats like terrorism, proliferation, infectious diseases and the like - that Russia be the strongest possible partner for the United States and other democracies.

I think that there is sometimes a misconception in this country, that's been present in the recent debate, that the United States wants a weak Russia, that we somehow are trying to take advantage of the difficulties of Russia's transition that's been going on for the past decade and a half. I think it's clear that if Russia were not able to deal with its internal problems and were to become a source of instability, it would only damage the interests of the states on Russia's periphery. It would be much more of a threat to stability in Central Europe and in East Asia, and it would be, in short, absolutely foolish for the United States to seek such an unfortunate course of developments in Russia. So, of course we sometimes have differences on how to deal with different international problems, we have differences on how best to develop democratic institutions, whether it be in Russia or in other former Communist countries, but I think our differences are largely ones of tactics and our interests and our goals increasingly coincide, and that's sometimes forgotten in the debates here.

To be honest, what's encouraging about the evolution of our relations of the last few years is that our approaches to the majority of international questions increasingly do coincide. Of course we had a serious difference regarding how to deal with Saddam Hussein, but now our basic approaches to post-war Iraq and to the stabilization of that country in its transition back to full sovereignty are very similar. We perhaps have differences regarding tactics on how to deal with Iran. I think Russia puts strongest emphasis on dialogue and carrots and we believe there needs to be a clear threat of sanctions in order to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

I think the area where our goals are similar but our differences in tactics may be more serious relates to some of the problems in the former Soviet space. We think that preserving the status quo in places like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Georgia, and Moldova is not a sustainable, not a viable course of action. We think much more active efforts are needed to push the parties, but, in particular, the separatist regimes to accept political solutions based on reintegration within some kind of federal state. We worry that an overly cautious approach could lead to increased tensions rather than to lasting solutions. Even on these kinds of issues we are able to talk very frankly with one another, to lay out our different points of view, and step-by-step bring our tactical approaches closer together, even if we aren't always working on the same basis.

­ Mr. Ambassador, what is the position of the U.S. administration concerning Russia's construction of the atomic power station in Bushere, Iran? Does your government consider this nuclear plant a military facility? // Aleksandr (Russia)

We don't consider Bushere a military installation, but we do continue to have doubts about the wisdom of supporting the construction of that nuclear power station. I think that our opinion has been understood, but the project is moving to completion, and now we are focusing on ensuring that Russia continues to demand that all spent nuclear fuel from that reactor be returned to Russia so that it doesn't become available for potential weapons programs.

I think the bigger concerns regarding Iran now center on the uranium enrichment program that Iran undertook in secret, a program which was only revealed thanks to the courage of some Iranian opposition groups who went public with the covert activities of the Iranian nuclear scientists. We don't think Russia was involved in this program. The main culprit was Mr. A. Q. Khan from Pakistan. Nevertheless, this program does, in our view, provide very convincing evidence that Iran is determined to circumvent the Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop nuclear weapons. So, it's encouraging that we and Russia are jointly, together with the Europeans, trying to convince Iran to abandon this course. We think, perhaps, a somewhat harder line is needed. Taking into account the deception the Iranians practiced in the past, we no longer can give them the benefit of the doubt.

­ The United States gives Georgia all kinds of financial, political and military support, including training military specialists for armed operations against Ossetians. How do you explain this support? Is it because of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline? Is it out of personal sympathy for President Mikhail Saakashvili? Or, out of some other, less obvious, geo-politic interests? Will American military bases be established in Georgia? // Fatima Salkazanova (Paris)

The United States has no plans and no intention of building any military bases in Georgia. This was stated quite clearly by Secretary of State Powell when he was in Moscow at the end of January. Our position has not changed. We do believe that the Russian bases that continue to operate in Georgia should be withdrawn in accordance with Russia's own political commitments at the Istanbul summit of the OSCE in 1999. And we believe that this would open new opportunities for military cooperation between Russia and Georgia that would be in everybody's interest, including the United States' interest, in particular, military action directed against terrorist threats.

I think that is a good way to lead into the second question. We don't see that we are in any competition with Russia in Georgia. We think we have a shared interest in helping Georgia strengthen its own capabilities to protect its borders, to prevent terrorists from using its territory or crossing its territory, and to generally be a contributor to regional security. So the program that we undertook, and that was completed this year, to train and equip selected units of the Georgian armed forces, was aimed at helping Georgia deal with common threats to security, and we think that program was therefore beneficial to Russia. We think the concrete effects of that program, which incidentally started under President Shevardnadze, have been seen in the more effective efforts by Georgia to keep Chechen terrorists out of the Pankisi Gorge. We also support President Sakaashvili's efforts to deal with Georgia's political and economic problems and to create a more stabile and prosperous Georgia because that too we think would be good for the Georgian people, who have had a rough life since independence, and because that would also contribute to general stability in the wider region.

With regard to problems like South Ossetia, or Abkhazia, we are very clear and very frank with President Sakaashvili that we only support political solutions and we oppose military solutions. When tensions escalated in August, when there were even unfortunate incidents such as the shooting on the convoy of member of the Duma Andrey Kokoshin, we were very firm with Tblisi that they had to deescalate and focus only on political solutions. As I said in response to another question, Russia has to do its part with the leaders in Tskinvali and Sukhumi, who may believe that they can count on preserving their unrecognized separatist entities indefinitely.

Finally, we genuinely believe that full normalization and strengthening of Russia-Georgia bilateral relations would be a major factor for stability and economic progress in the region. We discourage any efforts to view this as a triangular relationship in which one tries to play off the other, and prefer to focus on the shared interests of Georgia, Russia, and other interested parties, including the United States.

­ What is your opinion about the situation in Belarus? // Herman (USA)

We've watched the evolution of events in Belarus with considerable concern and the latest developments surrounding the elections and the referendum only have heightened our concern about Belarus becoming the black hole of Europe. It's already very clear that the electoral process is being seriously manipulated by the Belarussian authorities. Most serious opposition candidates have been removed from competition on the basis of various pretexts, and the results of these elections and of the referendum are not likely to have much legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. This is, of course, a sad state of affairs for the Belarussian people, who deserve a lot better than they're getting. Ultimately it's going to be bad for neighboring states, including Russia, who will have to deal with an unstable, undemocratic, and economically backward neighbor - a country that is likely to become a source of trouble, of organized crime, and other ills of today's world. So, Russia has more influence than the United States over Belarus, and we hope that Russia will try to influence events there in a more positive direction and think about the long-term interests of stability in this very central location in Europe. It's hard to say what impact on our own bilateral relationship events in Belarus will have, but I think it's in our common interest to try to discuss these kinds of problems in a more open way and think about how we can use our influence, and how we use institutions like the OSCE to steer things in a more positive direction.

­ Mr. Ambassador, in your opinion, what will the U.S. Government's reaction be to further changes in the Russian political system: direct or indirect cancellation of Russian Federation presidential elections in 2008, or transformation of Russia into a parliamentary republic with the incumbent president taking the post of prime minister? Some politicians close to the Kremlin consider this almost inevitable. // Dmitriy (Moscow)

I think the question touches on some hypothetical scenarios, which it is always dangerous to speculate about in a theoretical fashion. Of course, we are strong believers in the importance of elections, so that leaders enjoy a genuine popular mandate for the policies that they undertake, and that at regular intervals are held accountable for the decisions they've taken and the results that they've achieved.

Of course, the constitutional framework for Russia or any other country is a decision that the Russian people need to take. It is not for other countries to dictate. There are obviously many different models: the strong presidential system as now exists in Russia, and that also exists in the United States and in France; or a parliamentary system, as one sees in many west European countries, and in countries in other parts of the world. I think it's important that the debate over those kinds of questions, of course, be one that involves all different layers of society since it's an important issue that needs to be decided on the basis of broad social consensus.

­ Mr. Ambassador, please explain the shocking show "The Democratization of Ukraine" staged by the U.S. Why did the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine officially state that the U.S. will ban entry to the U.S. by Ukrainian officials if Viktor Yanukovich wins the election? Why are U.S. officials openly campaigning for Yushchenko, who has the U.S. PR agency "Aristotle, Inc." working for him? Perhaps, the U.S. is considering a Yugoslavian version of democratizing Ukraine? // Dmitriy (Moscow)

The question you're asking me to answer contains all kinds of half-truths and outright falsehoods as its basic premises. We are strongly in favor of a free and fair electoral process in Ukraine, but we do not support any candidate in the current presidential elections. We are not backing Mr. Yushchenko and we are not backing Mr. Yanukovich, or any of the other candidates. We just want the Ukrainian people to have a genuinely free choice among the different candidates. Only through honest and fair elections can Ukraine develop the essential foundations of democracy that it needs to achieve long-term prosperity and stability.

There may be some American private consultants that are helping candidates in Ukraine. I don't know about that. There's no activity by the U.S. Government on behalf of any of the election campaigns. It's, of course, very widely known that many famous Russian political consultants are very actively involved in support of the candidacy of Mr. Yanukovich. There's nothing wrong with that, although it's important that such activities be transparent.

The United States doesn't have any particular plan for Ukraine. We're only interested in Ukraine becoming a strong, European democracy and a country that contributes to the wider prosperity of the region.

References by the questioner to the so-called Yugoslav option really are absurd in this context. The crisis in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s was the result of policies of ethnic cleansing and even genocide by one group against another, which created a threat to international security that had to be addressed by the civilized world. Of course, the basis for that action was a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions supported by Russia. So, there's really no logical connection or parallel. Ukraine is a peaceful state, a multi-ethnic state, and we hope it becomes a strong, democratic state.

I respect the freedom of people to ask absurd questions.

­ I've never been in the U.S., although I can afford it. Friends have told me a great deal about the long lines and humiliating procedures at the U.S. Embassy when receiving an entry visa. At the same time, I know that U.S. citizens receive entry visas to Russia more easily and with less humiliation than Russians receive visas to the U.S. Does the Ambassador believe Russia has the right to introduce similarly humiliating procedures? Doesn't the Ambassador believe the visa situation undermines mutual understanding between the peoples of both countries? // Ilya Yevgenyevich Nikonov (Moscow)

First, I can't deny that visa issues are sometimes a source of frustration and even misunderstanding. In our visa policy we have to, of course, be guided by American law, which is where the criteria for approving or rejecting visas are established.

We have tried to do as much as we can to make the procedures for applying for and receiving a visa as simple as possible. You no longer encounter large crowds or long lines at our consulate in Moscow, or at our three consulates in Saint Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, and Vladivostok. We've established a network of partners all around Russia who take care of the submission of the documents, the collection of the fees, so that people don't have to travel at all from their hometown or their home region in order to submit the application for a visa. We've tried to reduce the waiting period between the submission of the application and the scheduling of an interview to a matter of weeks, and maybe even less if there's an urgent need to travel.

Unfortunately we do now have to have a personal interview, at the instruction of the State Department, and this is something that all of our embassies in every country of the world must now do. We regret that given Russia's huge geographic expanse, this is not always easy for people and can be even an expensive journey - but we have not found any way around this.

The criteria by which we decide on visas have remained the same. They haven't changed since September 11 and the rate of approval of visas has remained about the same since September 11. The main provision of our law, which sometimes leads to refusals, relates primarily to the fundamental question, will the traveler return to Russia, or will that traveler become an illegal worker or an illegal immigrant? The law specifically says that the person applying for the visa has to convince the consul that he will come back. So, sometimes the information presented or the very words of the applicant create doubts in the minds of our consul, and that's why sometimes people are refused despite having relatives that they want to visit, or close friends that they want to visit in the States, and we are sad about that kind of outcome.

Another problem, which sometimes makes life difficult for honest Russian citizens, is that many Russians try to deceive us, to commit fraud, to bring falsified documents, forgeries of diplomas, of bank records, which only makes us more vigilant in the circumstances. One of the most recent tricks that people have tried is to bring false visas from third countries to give the impression of being a global traveler, when in fact the person has never left Russia. And unfortunately there are a large number of private companies, travel agencies, whose only business is deceiving the American Consulate. So, the situation is complicated, but our goal is to see as many Russians as possible travel to America.

I don't think the process is any easier for American citizens seeking visas from the Russian consulates in the United States, but we do try to work with our Russian partners to simplify procedures as much as possible. In some cases we were able to lower the fees on a reciprocal basis for student visas. I know we'll never be able to satisfy all of the Russian people all of the time. We try to do our best to make the process as painless as possible and to provide enough information so that legitimate travelers get their visa applications approved. The aim is that all legitimate travelers should get their visas. One bit of advice is to stay away from those travel agencies I mentioned that are up to no good.

­ Mr. Ambassador, are there plans to open a U.S. consulate in Novosibirsk? Lack of a consulate here further complicates the already difficult procedure for obtaining a visa to the U.S. // Mikhail (Novosibirsk)

I wish I could give a positive answer because I believe it would be useful both for us, but especially for Russian travelers, for us to have a consulate out there in Novosibirsk. You may recall that back in the early 1990s we were forced to decide where we would place our third consulate. Initially we were considering Novosibirsk, but President Yeltsin convinced former Secretary of State Baker that Yekaterinburg would be the best choice. It was obviously his hometown. He had a strong opinion. At the present time we don't have the financial resources in our State Department budget to consider opening up another consulate, but I continue to keep that subject on the table in my discussions with Washington. I would simply say, we never say never.

­ Are there talks underway regarding extending the validity period for student visas? Or, is the U.S. following the principle of reciprocity, and waiting for Russia to change the term of validity of visas it issues to U.S. citizens? // Daniel (Minneapolis, Minnesota)

First I would say that we are very much in favor of extending the validity period of visas for as much as possible. Indeed, in many countries of the world we issue multiple entry visas of ten-year duration. We are also, however, guided by the principal of reciprocity and right now Russia generally limits the duration of visas to two years or less. Sometimes it's only a year, or even six months, for travelers, for journalists, for businessmen, and for students.

As I mentioned, we've lowered the cost of student visas, and we are open to suggestions for extending the validity on a reciprocal basis. While we have certain limitations on the fees that we charge, we are always prepared to entertain reciprocal reduction in other categories too. When I speak of limitations, I mean the fact that the State Department requires that at least some of our consular operations be financed by the fees.

­ Mr. Ambassador. For the last five years I have been a proud citizen of the United States. Recently I married a Russian woman. She has told me that Russian citizens at the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg are interviewed in a humiliating fashion. Here in the States she could sue them. In Russia, unfortunately, this is impossible. I understand that U.S. consular officers in Russia are looking to expose potential immigrants. This does not mean, however, that Russian citizens should be considered second-rate human beings. America put an end to discrimination in its own country in the 1960s. Isn't it time to start respecting the citizens of Russia, instead of making empty statements? // Lev (Florida, USA)

Well, I'm sad to hear that people were not treated with full respect and with full courtesy, and I'll talk with our Consulate in St. Petersburg about this. Of course, the consular staff is often under a lot of pressure. They have to work very hard and conduct a lot of interviews, but that is not an excuse for rude behavior. Perhaps part of the problem was related to the fact that our employees may not speak correct Russian. Of course, I will do all I can to make sure these complaints are passed in full to our staff in St. Petersburg and will make sure that other members of our staff at our Consulates also know about it. We would like Russians to be treated with the same respect as Americans.

­ This question should perhaps be directed to the consul, but possibly you can answer it. Can I challenge a visa refusal in court? If yes, where? A Russian court, or an American court? Should the challenge be presented to the Embassy, as the government body, or to the consul who made the refusal? Thank you in advance. // Mikhail (Moscow)

I'm not sure you can challenge the decision to deny a visa in a court of law. Under certain circumstances, a visa applicant can avail himself of the services of a private lawyer to push for a review of the decision. By law, under our policies, we are required to consider new information submitted by the visa applicant or his attorney. However, the final decision about whether or not to issue a visa rests solely in the hands of the consul. As the Ambassador, I have no legal authority to overrule the consul's decision. Indeed, if I were to try to pressure him, I would be punished by the State Department. I can ask a member of my staff to take another look at the facts and consider additional information, but the final decision rests with the consular officer. The same thing happens when we receive appeals from Congressmen on behalf of an applicant. We can review a case, but we are very clear about the fact that political interference is not going to influence the decision of our consul.

­ If I believe the current policy infringes upon my rights and freedoms, can I apply for refugee status in the U.S.? // Ilya (Moscow)

The short answer to this question is probably negative. Although we are concerned about some developments here, we do not consider Russia to be a totalitarian state in the way the Soviet Union was, and so we do not grant political asylum to people wishing to leave Russia. There are other more specific legislative regulations regarding the granting of political asylum or refugee status. I am not familiar with the details of these laws, but they are based on a legitimate fear of persecution on political, religious, or ethnic grounds. There are a small number of ethnic groups and nationalities who are the victims of persecution, and they are entitled to refugee status in the United States. In other words, the questioner should look into immigrating to the United States through traditional channels.

­ Dear Mr. Ambassador, could you please comment on the status of Mr. Ilyas Akhmed in the United States, and explain why the United States gave him protection? // Russian Diplomat (Abroad)

I think you are referring to Ilyas Akhmadov. He was granted political asylum by an independent court in Boston. This was not a decision by the U.S. Government and it does not reflect U.S. policy. Our courts are genuinely independent. We may disagree with a person's political views, but it is the courts that make the decision, not the Federal Government. In the case of any asylum case, it is the prerogative of the other government to present information that could clarify the question of that individual's participation in terrorist activities in that country. In the case of Akhmadov, it is up to Russia to provide proof of his links to terrorism, with that information to be weighed by the court and compared with other information before a decision is rendered.

We continue to have no official contact with Mr. Akhmadov, we do not recognize him as a representative of any government, nor do we recognize the Maskhadov government as having any standing. Moreover, we do not recommend that the Russian government conduct negotiations with Maskhadov or any of his representatives. But, we do believe that a political solution is needed in Chechnya, a decision which would receive the broadest possible support from the population. However, a political process does not mean negotiating with terrorists. We completely agree that you cannot negotiate with terrorists.

­ Good afternoon. Recently you said the United States does not insist on negotiations with the "president" of the Chechen Republic, Aslan Maskhadov. With whom, in the opinion of the United States, should negotiations be carried out? What do you see as a way out of the situation in the north Caucasus? // Alu Abusultanov (Chechen Republic)

First, when we speak about a political process or solution, this does not mean that we are talking about negotiations. There are many other ways to pursue a solution. We consider the concept of political settlement the Russian government has carried out over the past one and a half year - a referendum, elections - is one potential path. However we believe certain opportunities were missed in following this approach, in particular, the exclusion of may serious candidates in elections, both the last elections and the August elections. And, certainly there are questions about how these elections were carried out. Although we have some doubts about how these principals are implemented, we still believe building Chechen government structures through elections is one way to proceed that is an alternative to negotiations.

The key point I just stressed is the building of the broadest possible base of citizen support and the isolation of terrorists, pushing them aside to the margins. Together with this political process must come economic reconstruction and job creation, so as to give people hope for the future and deprive terrorists of the appeal that brings people to their side. In this regard, we hope that Dmitriy Kozak and his new commission will succeed where other efforts have foundered. If there are ways the United States can help, we are very interested in doing so.

­ Mr. Ambassador, what do you think about the Khodorkovskiy case? What is the U.S. reaction to the possible sale of Yukos assets for less than their value? After all, there are some Yukos shareholders in the U.S., including large foundations. Thanks! // Vasily (Krasnoyarsk)

The Khodorkovskiy case and Yukos case, of course, have raised questions in the United States about the rule of law in Russia and property law in Russia. Indeed, there are many minor shareholders in the United States whose interests could be affected by the final resolution of this affair. It is hard to comment on the situation since each day brings new developments or new interpretations of previous events. It is hard to know what the situation is from one hour to the next. We hope the situation will be resolved in a way that is fair to shareholders, including minority shareholders who may be in the U.S. We hope criminal proceedings will be transparent and in strict accord with the law, and we hope Russia will keep in mind the potential consequences for its future attractiveness as a place for foreign investment.

­ What can you say about results of the U.S. investigation into the death of U.S. citizens during the Nord Ost incident? Has the true cause of their deaths been established? (The official version in Russia is still that the gas used had nothing to do with the deaths of the hostages.) // Pavel Finogenov (victim) (Moscow)

My answer is simple. I am not aware of any final conclusions with respect to the fate of American hostages at Nord Ost. However one aspect of the investigation is that we are trying to take this tragedy into account in developing our own techniques to combat terrorism at home. As regards the use of the gas, we share the opinion of Russian experts that the hostages did not die from the effects of the gas, but rather because there was no timely medical assistance provided to deal with the consequences of the gas.