September 27, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5462 • 5463 • 5464

Johnson's Russia List
#5464
27 September 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Russian government backs plan to reform banks.
2. Washington Post editorial: Mr. Putin's Choice.
3. Reuters: Putin returns to old spying grounds in Dresden.
4. Profil: A BIT OF ADVICE. Russia runs the risk of becoming a Taliban target itself. (assorted Russian views)
5. Peter Lavelle: Untimely Thoughts - The forgotten mistress. (re Domestic politics and the new foreign policy).
6. Argumenty i Fakty: BILLIONS FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM. Yabloko leader Grigori Yavlinsky comments on terrorism and war.
7. AP: Official: Soviet-Era Weapons Wanted.
8. David Cratis Williams: Call for Papers. Controversia: An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal.
9. Interfax: Russian Foreign Ministry offended by report in Washington Times.
10. Argumenty i Fakty: STATE-OWNED ASSETS IN RUSSIA.
11. Los Angeles Times editorial: A Crippled Central Asia.
12. Reuters: EBRD says conflict to open flows to C Asia.
13. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: Hannes Hintermaier, Russian Bear Cub.
14. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Natalia Melikova, A ROYAL GIFT. Who in Russia stands to gain from the new war in Afghanistan?
15. Reuters: Russia's harvest gains seen fragile.]

********

#1
Russian government backs plan to reform banks
By Vlasta Demyanenko

MOSCOW, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Russia's government backed an overhaul of the
banking system on Thursday to bring it more into line with EU standards and
to open it up to foreign capital, but it left some disputed areas for later.

The government has been urged to be as radical as possible in reshaping a
sector still struggling after the crisis of 1998, but the central bank has
favoured a go-slow approach.

The deputy head of the central bank, Tatyana Paramonova, told a news
conference after a cabinet meeting devoted to the bank sector question,
that the principles of a reform drawn up by the bank had been approved.

"It was understood at the meeting that the Russian banking system in many
areas will be oriented to norms accepted in the European Union (EU)," she
said.

She said local banks were below par compared with banks in top economies
or, in some cases, those in developing nations.

The government said in a statement the central bank was given until
November 1 to present concrete steps to carry out the strategy.

Paramonova promised a level playing field for foreign and Russian banks,
with any bank wishing to open in the country required to meet the same
standards. Foreign banks currently have to have more starting capital than
local banks.

The central bank's five-year plan is aimed at making banks stable, getting
cash from possible lenders to borrowers. In broad terms, it foresees
increasing to 45-50 percent the ratio of banks' assets to gross domestic
product, from 35 percent now.

It also wants to boost transparency by introducing international accounting
standards by 2004, ban banks from making commercial decisions based on
political reasons and increase banks' capitalisation.

DIFFICULT QUESTIONS REMAIN

But the key question of whether minimum capital requirements should be
introduced for all existing banks was left unresolved.

"The discussion in the main revolved around this question. For the time
being, we have not been able to come to a consensus," she said. An
industrialists' lobby group has said the level should eventually be set at
$100 million for banks which want to have a general licence.

Several top banks collapsed after the 1998 rouble devaluation and have only
slowly got back on their feet.

They are dwarves compared to their U.S. counterparts. The top 30 banks in
Russia have combined assets of 1.8 trillion roubles ($61.22 billion). This
compares with assets of the Bank of New York alone of $76.8 billion as of
the second quarter.

The Russian sector is still also dominated by state-controlled Sberbank
(SBER.RTS), which has gobbled up 80 percent of household deposits.

Most people still largely distrust banks, so an estimated $30 billion in
cash is kept by people at home.

($1-29.40 Rouble)

********

#2
Washington Post
September 27, 2001
Editorial
Mr. Putin's Choice

VLADMIR PUTIN'S announcement of Russian support for U.S. military operations
against Afghanistan this week represented a significant step by his
government toward cooperation with the West -- larger, even, than it might
appear at first to many Americans. To make that pledge, the Russian president
had to override strong objections from his generals to the establishment of a
U.S. military presence in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, which
are still regarded by Moscow as part of its rightful sphere of influence. It
could be argued that Mr. Putin had little choice -- U.S. forces would have
deployed around Afghanistan with or without his agreement. Still, the Russian
leader moved farther than he ever has before toward accepting what, in
Moscow, is still a controversial notion: that Russia's best future lies in
integrating with the liberal democracies and open economies of the West, and
sharing in their wealth and security cooperation rather than trying to
establish a competing center of power.

At the same time, Mr. Putin's speeches this week in Moscow and in Berlin show
that his vision of a Russian-Western partnership is still far from what the
United States could consider acceptable. While denouncing the attack on the
United States and international terrorism, he blamed the failure to prevent
it on the world's dependence on the "old security structures" of the Cold War
-- such as NATO. He called for a "comprehensive, purposeful and
well-coordinated struggle against terrorism," but insisted it could only take
place if it were conducted under an international security system
restructured to give Russia more influence. While Europe's relations with the
United States had "great value," Mr. Putin told the German Bundestag on
Tuesday, Europe would be better off as "a powerful and truly independent
center of international politics if it combines its own possibilities with
Russia's."

In short, Mr. Putin would like to move his country toward the West, but do so
in a way that constrains or rolls back U.S. leadership. He also hopes that
his initiative will win the West's acceptance -- or at least stifle its
criticism -- of his steps to limit Russian press freedom and democracy and
his brutal military campaign in Chechnya. So far he seems to be succeeding;
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder could barely contain his enthusiasm,
telling reporters that the West needed to "reevaluate" Chechnya and hinting
that Russian membership in NATO should be considered.

The Bush administration cannot afford to yield to Mr. Putin so easily.
Instead, it should push him toward a further change in Russian policy. On
Monday, Mr. Putin gave Chechnya's rebels a 72-hour deadline to begin talks on
disarmament with his envoy in the region, and he demanded that they "halt all
contacts with terrorists and their international organizations." The
statement suggested the possible onset of a major new Russian offensive
against the Chechens, which Mr. Putin would insist be accepted on the grounds
that some allies of Osama bin Laden allegedly have joined the Chechen
resistance. But it also could be read as an acknowledgment that there is a
difference between international terrorist organizations and Chechen rebels
fighting for independence, and as an offer of negotiations with the latter --
a step Mr. Putin has previously rejected.

Yesterday the administration responded by supporting both the idea of
negotiations and the isolation of the terrorists. President Bush said that he
thought members of Osama bin Laden's organization in Chechnya should be
"brought to justice"; but he also said Mr. Putin should respect "minority
rights" and "human rights" in Chechnya. In the coming days Mr. Bush must hold
Mr. Putin to the promise of peace talks. The Chechen leader, Aslan Maskhadov,
responded to Mr. Putin's statement by appointing a negotiator. The United
States should make clear that if Mr. Putin really desires partnership with
the West, he must talk to that Chechen leadership.

********

#3
Putin returns to old spying grounds in Dresden
By Adam Tanner

DRESDEN, Germany, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin made a
nostalgic return on Thursday to the eastern German city where he served as a
KGB spy in the 1980s, capping a successful three-day visit to Germany.

About 200 locals cheered Putin as he walked in front of the 18th century
Zwinger Palace, Dresden's baroque masterpiece fully restored from World War
Two firebombing.

"You're a great president," shouted Achim Brumbach, who handed Putin flowers
and got an autograph in return.

With his wife watching on the side, Putin kissed the hand of Dresden resident
Sylvia Rodrian, who gave him a sweet he promptly ate ahead of a lunch with
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Putin has warm memories of his time in Dresden, an important cultural capital
still recovering from Allied wartime bombing.

"It is a special pleasure to be here," the Russian leader told a reception of
local dignitaries. "I lived and worked here for five years and for me it's
like coming home."

"Many things have changed, but not the local hospitality," he added.

Despite such fond memories, local officials said Putin would not meet former
friends and colleagues.

"It's because these old friends are old KGB or Stasi and you can't take them
to such a reception," Saxony's spokeswoman Barbara Hintzen said of his main
social gathering of the day.

Putin worked closely with the Communist East Germany's Stasi secret police
during his 1984-1990 assignment.

Putin may indulge in one of his favourite Dresden habits by drinking beer at
lunch. In his oral memoir, he recalled how his love of German beer meant an
expanding waistline.

"We had come from a Russia where there were lines and shortages and in East
Germany there was always plenty of everything," he said. "I gained about 25
pounds."

Putin concludes his three-day tour of Germany on Thursday after talks in
Berlin focusing on international terrorism on Tuesday and with business
leaders in west Germany on Wednesday.

So far, Putin has won praise in Germany for offering help in the U.S.-led
fight against terrorism and gained indications the West will ease up on its
previous criticisms of Moscow's campaign to crush rebels in separatist
Chechnya.

FEW CONDEMN HIS KGB PAST

In Dresden, only a few criticised Putin, who has charmed many during his
visit with his excellent command of German.

"Putin has to answer for the war in Chechnya," said Conny Wittie, 22, who
carried a banner outside the Zwinger Palace.

Few said they were bothered by his past work for the KGB. "The main thing is
what he is doing today," said Lena Yesipovich, an ethnic German immigrant
from Russia now living in Dresden. "What Russian does not have something in
their past?"

During his years as a KGB spy, Putin worked diligently in East Germany and
kept a low profile, winning a few minor awards.

Intelligence experts say recruiting agents and gathering information in the
East-West Cold war struggle would have been a central focus of Major Putin's
work in the small KGB branch.

He bungled his last assignment as a KGB agent, seeing attempts to set up a
spy ring after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 collapse when one of his
recruits defected.

The Putin family lived in a prefabricated apartment block a few minutes walk
from the KGB headquarters in a pre-war mansion.

This time around Putin and his wife Lyudmila stayed in the Taschenbergpalais,
a luxury hotel that was then only a ghostly World War Two bombed-out shell.

*********

#4
Profil
No. 35
September 2001
A BIT OF ADVICE
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov categorically rejected the possibility
of NATO using CIS military facilities. Then Security Council Secretary
Vladimir Rushailo tried to persuade CIS Central Asian leaders that
Ivanov's view was their own decision.
Author: Vladimir Urban
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

SHOULD RUSSIA GET INVOLVED IN THE COUNTER-TERRORISM OPERATION BEING PLANNED BY THE UNITED STATES? AND IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT? A NUMBER OF RUSSIAN POLITICIANS AND ANALYSTS OFFER THEIR OPINIONS AND ASSESSMENTS OF WHAT RUSSIA STANDS TO GAIN - OR LOSE - FROM COOPERATION WITH THE AMERICANS.

Russia runs the risk of becoming a Taliban target itself

EAGLE OVER AFGHANISTAN

When the airliners crashed into American skyscrapers and the
Pentagon, stunning the United States and the whole world, it was
immediately clear that retaliation by the United States would be
inevitable and flamboyant. It took the US Congress only days to
allocate $40 billion for the retaliation and approve extraordinary
powers for President Bush, whose approval rating went over 90% on the
wave of patriotism that swept America. The retaliation will be called
Operation Noble Eagle - and it isn't hard to understand what this bird
will carry to Afghanistan in its beak.
The United States isn't aiming for finesse (unlike Mossad, which
spent 20 years hunting down and killing those who murdered Israeli
athletes in Munich). The United States is planning a campaign that
could take years. Duma Deputy Alexei Mitrofanov (LDPR faction)
suspects, for example, that "Afghanistan is not the Americans' primary
objective - they are out to topple the regime in Iraq and subsequently
in Iran."

However, military analysts say that the Pentagon is most likely
to use air-strikes at the Taliban's bases. The US has sent its
Tomahawks against the enemy in the very first hours of all its wars
over the past decade.

Whether the missiles and bombs obliterate the targets is anyone's
guess, but propaganda is a no less powerful and effective weapon. In
any case, Osama bin Laden's men are urgently moving their bases and
camps to the mountains. Kabul and Kandagar are swept by panic. Fearing
American bombs, and eager to leave their native land, up to 20,000
Afghans have gathered on the Pakistani border.

In the meantime, using US strategic forces against an
industrially feeble enemy like the Taliban will only placate the
American public, which demands revenge. Unlike Milosevic, the Taliban
are not going to surrender.

And what shall the United States do after the first strike at
Afghanistan? No previous campaign offers a hint of what should be done
this time.

The problem is that it's 1,400 kilometers from Kabul to the
Arabian Sea where US aircraft carriers will be patrolling. The combat
range of an F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bomber with payload is only about
600 kilometers. In Yugoslavia, up to 80% of NATO flights were carried
out by tactical fighters operating from nearby (Italian, German, and
Turkish) airfields. The planes attacked Serbia from four directions at
once, using airspace over Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, and Bulgaria. If
the United States intends to try something like that again, it should
not expect the states bordering on the Taliban's Afghanistan to be so
accommodating.

Iran has refused to allow American aircraft into its airspace. In
Pakistan, which has made its airfields available to US fighter planes,
these airfields will have to be surrounded with weapons emplacements.
Both Washington and Islamabad predict terrorist attacks against the US
bases from Pakistani Islamic zealots who support the Taliban. It is
therefore only logical for the Pentagon to rely on infrastructure of
the Central Asian states of the CIS. American diplomacy is trying to
use them as a bridgehead for the second front.

And this is where Russia comes in.

VOICES FROM RUSSIAN POLITICS

We approached a contact in the Defense Ministry who offered three
reasons behind America's interest in Moscow.

The source: Firstly, the United States intend to spread
responsibility this way. Secondly, Russia has a colossal bridgehead in
Central Asia, from Turkmenistan to Kyrgyzstan, where there are
military bases and facilities located conveniently with regard to
Afghanistan. And thirdly, Russia has considerable influence with the
Northern Alliance, which controls 5-7% of the territory of Afghanistan
in the north. The Northern Alliance and its detachments may be viewed
as the major force of the land war on the Taliban.

The Russian political elite spent last week attempting to handle
the task set by the Americans - a difficult task by any measure. On
the one hand, Russia has been fighting international terrorism in
Chechnya for years. It follows that Russia cannot disassociate itself
from what is happening, as China is doing (Beijing proposes a UN
Security Council meeting).

On the other hand, by assisting the Americans in any way
(politically, diplomatically, or even through information exchange),
Russia runs the risk of becoming a target itself - since the Taliban
promises vengeance on everyone who will be involved.

Duma deputies have different views on the subject, but most of
them are sure that Russia should under no circumstances take part in
the campaign.

Alexander Ryazanov, Unity faction: If Russia offers the Americans
direct assistance, it will be a grave mistake on the Kremlin's part,
even if the assistance is restricted to providing air corridors. If
the Americans are set on having a war (and they did not consult Russia
about it, did they?) then let them have it. We have enough problems
with Chechnya.

Oleg Morozov, Russian Regions group: An alliance with the United
States and the rest of the international community in a coordinated
war on terrorism is the right thing to do. It should be formed.
Establishing joint coordination bodies, powerful analytical centers
capable of predicting actions of this sort, is something we can accept
and should actually promote.

But the problems generated for Russia if it gets involved in a
large-scale war would never be compensated for by what Moscow is being
promised - arms contracts, debts written off, etc. Of course, Russia's
position should differ from China's, but neither Russian bases nor
troops should be involved.

Andrei Kokoshin, Fatherland - All Russia faction: We should play
a role in the counter-terrorism war, but the form of this involvement
is something to be considered. The US Senate has already announced
that the United States may use force only against the people who are
positively identified as being responsible for the terrorist attacks.
Preventive measures may be taken too, but only against those
responsible for the attacks. That is why Russia needs to take care of
the legislative basis for this, first and foremost. Moscow should call
a meeting of the UN Security Council. The meeting should be organized
at the highest level - with the presidents and prime ministers of all
UN Security Council members present. This forum should decide what
action the United States and its allies should take in the counter-
terrorism operation. Despite the Russian Foreign Ministry's suggestion
that it should be the G-8, the G-8 actually doesn't have the authority
for such decisions. The decision of the whole international community
is needed. This is what Beijing proposes, and the decision should not
be made without the Chinese, because we must consult with them as
members of the Shanghai Six.

I don't think air corridors across Russia are what the Americans
need. Pakistan, the Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia are much more
important for them.

Dmitry Rogozin, Chairman of the Duma International Affairs
Committee: The subject of military bases has been discussed all along.
We have CIS borders with Afghanistan, and certain consequences are
therefore inevitable for the Russian Federation. We have never been
friends with the Taliban. The situation on the Tajikistan-Afghanistan
border is tricky. Terrorists are much too active there, and Russia
itself once considered a strike against the Taliban. This time,
however, the blow at the Taliban is to be delivered only because they
are thought to be indirectly responsible for terrorist attacks,
including those in the United States: and this is insufficient grounds
for such serious decisions and actions. Russia has to know for a fact
exactly who committed these crimes, these terrorist attacks. Moreover,
if the Americans are permitted to use military bases in the CIS now,
they may decide to stay - and that's what we really fear...

In the meantime, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov categorically
rejected the possibility of NATO using CIS military facilities.

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was more diplomatic in Washington.
"Each CIS nation will decide for itself to what extent and in what
form it will assist the United States," he said. Essentially, this is
only a polite way of repeating Sergei Ivanov's firm "no" (perhaps not
even all that tactful with regard to the sovereign states of the CIS).
Touring the Central Asian states of the CIS, Security Council
Secretary Vladimir Rushailo persuaded their leaders that their
"independent" decisions should not conflict with what Sergei Ivanov
had flatly stated.

And yet, all this does not impose any limitations on Moscow's
hidden capacities in the upcoming retaliation campaign. Political
consultant Gleb Pavlovsky has been fairly eloquent on this topic.
According to Pavlovsky, Russia should primarily support the United
States as "its ally in the war on terrorism." Pavlovsky didn't even
rule out assistance in the form of "actual involvement in the
hostilities, without making it public knowledge." It's rumored that
Pavlovsky occasionally says what the Kremlin is thinking...

Alexander Skoch, People's Deputy group: All civilized states
should form a new alliance, or unite against terrorism on the basis of
old alliances. All governments, including the US government, should be
equal in this new alliance. As for Russia, it cannot afford to sit
back and be a disinterested observer. Unlike China, Russia is already
involved in a conflict - I mean Chechnya.

Question: What economic benefits could Russia expect in return
for its participation in the counter-terrorism operation planned by
the United States?

Alexander Shokhin, Chairman of the Duma Committee for Credit
Organizations and Financial Markets: If we decide to participate by
making our airfields or those of our allies available to the
Americans, we could benefit in the matter of state debts. But the
Taliban mean business when they say they will take revenge on everyone
who assists the United States - which means it will be difficult to
weigh up all the potential advantages and disadvantages.

(Translated by A. Ignatkin)

*******

#5
From: "Peter Lavelle" <plavelle@metropol.ru>
Subject: Contribution
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001

Peter Lavelle: Untimely Thoughts - The forgotten mistress
(re Domestic politics and the new foreign policy)

The direction of Russia's foreign policy, as a result of its newfound
collaboration with the US and the west, has understandably generated a
cottage industry of analysis in little more than two weeks. It would appear
Russia is faced with a paradigm shift never seen before in its history.
What the US will or will not do in the nearest future may have consequences
Russia has never had to face. But what of domestic Russian politics and
Russia's experiment with democracy? Identity is not only based on foreign
policy. In an odd way Russia finds itself embracing a nationalist and almost
anationalist domestic policy ideology at the same time. How is this
possible? On the one hand, by identifying with the west in terms of foreign
policy Russia is moving away from its multicultural/multi-ethnic identity.
The necessity of being tolerant of the 'other' (real or imagined) may no
longer remain part of domestic political discourse. Being Russian and
Russian-ness may now be defined in a narrower fashion. On the other hand,
by "joining the west" Russians and its government may, one way or another,
have to truly contemplate such ideas and ideals like civil society, rule of
law, and diversity - all of have shallow roots in Russian tradition and, as
a result, ill prepared for. Russia is faced with being part a larger
(western) tradition that may heavily strain its current identity. In a
practical sense, the foreign policy orientations of Russia's political
parties cannot but be challenged in light of Black Tuesday and Putin's new
western initiatives. The Communists, hoping to be the most nationalistic,
may in the end appear to be the most internationalist and thus non-Russian
by rejecting any Russian involvement in "America's War". The right-liberals
risk being deemed not Russian enough by supporting standard western human
rights demands for all people, not just for Russians. Zhrinovsky's foreign
policy orientation is utterly out of kilt. His dream of seeing Russia's
borders reaching the Indian Ocean has been smashed. The
Unity/Fatherland-All Russia grouping may have to soften its suspicions of
accepting too many ideas from the west. At the very least, they will have
to try to keep up with what Putin is thinking and act upon it. How will
this disorientation impact the development of democracy? It may be too
early to tell. However, we should expect it to take some difficult turns.
With Russia's almost worship of the state and the expectation of at least
imitating its newly found western peers may create some convolutions of
extreme introspection along with continued hopes of becoming a "normal"
country. Putin has opened a Pandora's box. This is not necessarily bad
thing in the scheme of things. On the third hand (?), Putin has to deal
with the military establishment.

Peter Lavelle
Head of Research
IFC Metropol
Moscow, Russia
plavelle@metropol.ru

*******

#6
Argumenty i Fakty
No. 39
September 2001
BILLIONS FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM
Yabloko leader Grigori Yavlinsky comments on terrorism and war
Author: Vitaly Tsyplyaev
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

RUSSIA SHOULD PRIMARILY BE LOOKING OUT FOR ITS OWN NATIONAL
INTERESTS. ALL-OUT WAR IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO FIGHT TERRORISM;
AFGHANISTAN COULD BECOME FOR THE UNITED STATES WHAT CHECHNYA IS FOR RUSSIA. THE ARGUMENTS OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE WAR IN CHECHNYA HAVE BEEN STRENGTHENED BY THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US.

Question: The Duma has passed a resolution in support of
President Putin's actions against international terrorism. How shall
Russia participate in this battle?

Grigori Yavlinsky: The Duma met behind closed doors, and I listed
the sums we should invest in fortifying our borders in the Caucasus
and Central Asia, protecting nuclear power plants, and air traffic
safety. About 29 billion rubles is urgently needed. The military and
secret services backed up the proposal, but the Cabinet is silent for
the time being.

I'm frequently asked if Moscow is facing a choice, now that the
United States has declared retaliation is inevitable. Supporting the
Americans will mean a quarrel with Russia's friends in the Arab world;
but not supporting them means isolation from the West.

Actually, this corresponds to Russia's location - right between
the West and the East. And the truth also lies somewhere in between.
The Americans are not exactly urging us to join their coalition, and
Arab states are not entirely Russia's friends. That is why Russia
should primarily be looking out for its own national interests.

The question is what those interests are. Firstly, Moscow should
eliminate terrorism on the territory of the Russian Federation itself
and in nearby states. Secondly, it should not destabilize the
situation in Russia or nearby. This is what the Kremlin should bear in
mind.

It's good that Vladimir Putin has drawn the correct conclusions
from the recent tragedy. It's good that Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov
went to the United States in the company of experts. It would be even
better if they reach an agreement with the Americans on some kind of
joint efforts, as soon as possible. However, I fear that Russian and
American state officials might still be mired in the residue of the
Cold War. It's hard for them to reach agreements, make compromises, or
abandon stereotypes.

There is this tendency in the media to assume that when the
terrorists hit those skyscrapers in the United States, they
simultaneously struck a blow at the arguments of those who oppose the
war in Chechnya. It is said that any politician who dares criticize
the war now would be committing political suicide...

However, in my view these arguments against the war have actually
been strengthened. Everyone can now see the outcome of wars. The
terrorist attacks in America prove that the international community
should fight terrorism and terrorists - instead of wiping out anyone
who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; it should
consider and debate all points of view. We shouldn't have rogue states
driven into a corner, with no options - otherwise their revolt will
take these savage forms. Fighting terrorists requires skill. Almost
all the Chechen ringleaders are still at large. The Americans will
fail too, unless they take our experience into consideration and learn
from it. If they operate in Afghanistan in the same manner,
Afghanistan will become for the United States what Chechnya is for
Russia.

What's the proper way to fight terrorism? Ask Israel. Terrorists
murdered eleven athletes in Munich; and Israeli secret services
organized a manhunt. It took them years, but all the assassins were
found and killed. All of them! These days, the Israelis catch one
ringleader or another after every act of terrorism. With all its
power, Israel could have already declared a real war on the
Palestinians, killing every Arab in sight. Instead, the Israelis pick
up the ringleaders. And yet, Israel cannot overcome terrorism, even
using these tactics. Terrorism is rooted too deeply in politics,
psychology, and history.

Politicians are not alone in being concerned that the hunt for
bin Laden could escalate into World War III. In any case, this would
not be a world war in the traditional sense of the term. If the
international community is seriously out to do away with terrorism,
this will take years.

*******

#7
Official: Soviet-Era Weapons Wanted
September 27, 2001
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's defense minister said Thursday that the opposition
forces fighting Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia only want the rugged,
Soviet-era weapons they know and like best, and he urged the West to share
the cost of their delivery.

Sergei Ivanov, speaking to Russian reporters in Brussels where he was
attending a meeting of NATO defense ministers, said Moscow would provide the
anti-Taliban forces with exactly the same weapons they already have.

``The Northern Alliance only loves Soviet-made weapons,'' Ivanov said,
according to the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies. ``It knows how to
handle them how and says it doesn't need any other weapons, even more modern
Russian ones.''

Afghan fighters learned how to use Soviet-made weapons during the failed
1979-1989 Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, seizing some of them in battles and
inheriting larger arsenals after the Soviet troops' retreat.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said earlier this week that Russia would
intensify its support of Afghan opposition forces fighting the Taliban in
northeastern Afghanistan and was prepared to supply them with weapons and
military equipment.

``The Afghans say that the Kalashnikov is the most rugged rifle in the
world,'' and they want more T-55 tanks dating back from the 1950s, as well as
old-style armored personnel carriers and artillery systems, Ivanov said.
``All these are simple but reliable weapons which can withstand sharp changes
of temperatures and humidity.''

The Afghan opposition forces recently have launched an offensive, trying to
expand their control from a thin strip of land along Afghanistan's northern
border with former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

Ivanov said that Russia carries the ``main workload'' in supporting the
Afghan opposition and said that Moscow ``wouldn't object if other countries
concerned, whose number is growing recently, give us material assistance.''

Putin has already offered Russian airspace for humanitarian flights by the
anti-terrorist coalition led by the United States and indicated Central Asian
governments could open their air bases to Washington's planned military
action against Afghanistan.

``Setting up an air bridge for delivering humanitarian aid would clearly and
unambiguously show that the civilized world is fighting the terrorists, not
Islam or the Afghan people,'' Ivanov said.

He added that Russia had been providing intelligence information to the
United States about terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere and expects
Washington to offer some data in exchange on rebels in Chechnya and other
issues which are of interest to Moscow. ``Naturally, it must not be a one-way
street,'' Ivanov said.

*******

#8
From: "David Cratis Williams" <dcw@umr.edu>
Subject: Controversia
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:24:39 -0500

Call for Papers
Controversia:
An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal

Controversia: An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal, a
new refereed, interdisciplinary journal, explores the nexus of communication
and politics and seeks to stimulate reflection on the role of dialogue and
debate in fostering participatory governance in both emerging and
established democracies. We invite the submission of manuscripts that
examine theoretical, historical, and/or practical relationships among
concerns relative to the structure and practice of political governance and
public competencies in critical reasoning, argumentation, advocacy, and
debate; for examples, manuscripts might focus on issues such as the
relationships between deliberative rhetoric and governmental systems,
discursive and social openness and vulnerabilities to terrorism, public
deliberation and collective decision-making, or
methods of argument pedagogy that help to translate technical methods of
decision-making and deliberation (including academic models of debate and
dialogue) into strategies of public involvement. We invite submissions from
those working from a wide variety of theoretical or philosophical
perspectives and employing critical theoretical, discourse analytic,
historical, and empirical methods; in general, manuscripts that concern the
history, theory, and criticism of social controversy are welcome.

Controversia: An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal is
sponsored by the Open Society Institute in conjunction with the
International Debate Education Association. Accordingly, we seek to publish
articles that focus on the complex of concerns relative to the furtherance
of political cultures of democratic communication and the ideals of an open
society. Manuscripts should address an international audience. The journal
will publish selected articles in both English and Russian.

Controversia: An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal is
co-edited by David Cratis Williams (Department of Philosophy & Liberal Arts,
University of Missouri at Rolla) and Marilyn J. Young (Wayne C. Minnick
Professor of Communication, Department of Communication, Florida State
University ). Inquires, comments, or questions about content or submission
procedures may be directed toward either Dr. Young
(myoung@garnet.acns.fsu.edu) or Dr. Williams (dcw@umr.edu). Manuscripts may
be submitted in either English or Russian. Manuscripts should be submitted
single-sided and double-spaced throughout; where possible, manuscripts
should be in conformity with either the MLA, APA, or Chicago style sheet
preferences. Please submit three copies of each manuscript and, where
possible, a disk copy of the same (MS Word or Word Perfect preferred);
submission via email attachment is discouraged. Send submissions to:

David Cratis Williams, Co-editor Controversia
Department of Philosophy & Liberal Arts
G-4 Humanities/Social Sciences Blding
University of Missouri at Rolla
Rolla, MO 65409-0570 USA
(573) 341-6951 Fax: (573) 341-6312

*******

#9
Russian Foreign Ministry offended by report in Washington Times
Interfax

Moscow, 27 September: The Russian Foreign Ministry has described an article
in the Washington Times which says, citing anonymous sources in the US
intelligence services, that Osama Bin-Ladin maintains contacts with Russian
criminal groups, as an attempt to discredit Russian-American cooperation.

The newspaper argues that Osama Bin-Ladin and his terrorist organization buys
components for the production of chemical, biological and even nuclear
weapons through Russian criminal groups, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in
a statement circulated on Thursday [27 September].

"The question arises, why should such information be splashed out on
newspaper pages instead of discussing it through the channels existing
between our countries, including confidential ones?" the Foreign Ministry
said.

"This is even more strange now that Russia and the USA are engaged in an
unprecedented effort to coordinate the struggle against the common threat
posed by international terrorism," the document says.

"One may get the impression that some [people] in the USA oppose the positive
tendency in Russian-American relations that made itself felt recently, as
well as our strong cooperation in all areas, particularly at the summit
level," the Foreign Ministry statement reads.

*******

#10
Argumenty i Fakty
No. 39
September 2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
STATE-OWNED ASSETS IN RUSSIA

The ministry of property relations has at last calculated
what belongs to the state in Russia. As of September 1, 2001,
state property includes 9,855 federally-owned state unitary
enterprises, 34,868 institutions and 4,308 share packages. The
share packages differ in size. In 84 joint-stock companies the
Russian Federation owns 100 percent of their authorised
capitals, in 615 - more than 50 percent, in 1,348 - from 25 to
50 percent, and in 1,719 - less than 25 percent.

Thus, about a third of all property assets belong to the
state in Russia. Next year, the government is planning to sell
one-tenth of these assets, i.e., share packages of 363
enterprises, and thus earn up to 35 billion roubles.

"What we included in the privatisation programme are
mostly share packages of those enterprises where the state owns
less than 25 percent of all shares," says Alexander Braverman,
state secretary and first deputy minister of property relations
of the Russian Federation. "These share packages do not give
anything to the state. The size of the share package doesn't
allow the owner to pursue its own policy. Decision-making is
only possible jointly with other shareholders. However, their
interests do not always coincide. This gives rise to
corruption. There is the need to change the situation,
therefore, we must sell (these share packages)."

Both the property ministry and experts believe that the
state is not too efficient as an owner. Private owners have
better indicators on profitability rates, liquidity, etc. Where
the state owns from 25 to 50 percent of shares, things go even
worse than at enterprises with 100 percent state participation.
Nobody wants to make investments in them since it is not clear
who is the owner.

********

#11
Los Angeles Times
September 27, 2001
Editorial
A Crippled Central Asia

The nations of Central Asia that now find themselves on the front lines in
the war against terrorism have experienced a traumatic decade of independence
that dashed many hopes for greater economic, political and religious freedom.
The assistance of these countries in the U.S.-led coalition against Osama bin
Laden and his Al Qaeda organization is welcome, but the dictators and
autocrats in power must not treat their new status on the world stage as
endorsement of corruption and repression.

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are both on Afghanistan's northern border and have
populations that are largely Muslim. Tajikistan, still struggling to recover
from a civil war that occurred in the early 1990s, also is home to about
25,000 Russian troops, 10,000 of them along the Afghanistan border.

The Tajiks and Russians have extensive links with the Northern Alliance
soldiers who are battling the Taliban, the political ruler of Afghanistan and
host to Bin Laden. The United States has identified Bin Laden as the prime
suspect in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
and has vowed to dismantle his network. Uzbekistan has done the most to
distance itself from Russia since the Central Asian republics of the Soviet
Union became independent in 1990 and 1991. A carry-over from Soviet days has
been central economic planning, a disaster that has demoralized the
citizenry. Nearly as bad has been the crackdown on legitimate voices of
dissent, including the banning of Muslim opposition parties. The sorry shape
of Uzbekistan has fueled fundamentalist Islamic movements, one of which is
now based in Afghanistan and has conducted guerrilla raids into Uzbekistan.

If the United States uses either or both countries as military staging areas,
it should cough up economic assistance. The longer and larger a U.S. presence
in the countries, the bigger an aid package is called for.

That's not to say Washington should write a blank check. Getting economic
reforms in place would help improve the standard of living, which can go far
to reduce opposition to the governments. People with a stake in the future
are less likely to resort to violence. Political reform also is needed.
Allowing opposition groups to become legal political parties can channel
dissent into productive channels, rather than letting it prompt opponents to
take up arms.

Economic ties should last as long as the fight against terrorism, meaning a
very long time. Assistance should not be a quick, one-time offering. Undoing
the mistakes made in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will not be quick or easy for
their regimes. But there still is time for the nations of Central Asia to
enact reforms that can stop the region from becoming a maelstrom of violence.
Political and economic liberalization, and letting people practice their
religions openly, will benefit the countries and the region.

*******

#12
INTERVIEW-EBRD says conflict to open flows to C Asia
By David Chance

LONDON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Support for the United States from the three
Central Asian countries bordering Afghanistan could bring economic benefits
in the medium term, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development said
on Thursday.

The development bank's Chief Economist Willem Buiter told Reuters in an
interview it could re-establish links with international financial
institutions and generate aid.

However, Buiter said Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan would suffer
initially from any conflict.

Both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have indicated they are willing to consider
cooperating with the United States, while Turkmenistan has said it will allow
humanitarian aid.

"This puts them firmly on the map as both western governments and
international organisations may want to do more," Buiter said.

The three Central Asian Republics have been laggards on economic and
political reform and the EBRD has threatened to cut off loans to Turkmenistan
because of its lack of democratic freedoms.

The International Monetary Fund has not been involved in Uzbekistan since
1996, citing lack of reform.

International financial institutions may now consider greater help for the
region, Buiter said.

"I would expect to see aid flows increase and more sympathetic consideration
of external debt," Buiter said.

Acccording to the latest EBRD data, external debt in Tajikistan stood at $1.2
billion at the end of 2000, or 121 percent of gross domestic product, and the
country may be eligible for debt relief extended to the world's poorest
countries.

In Turkmenistan, the figure for external debt was $2.4 billion, or 108
percent of GDP and in Uzbekistan, the figure was $4.15 billion, or 55.7
percent of GDP. Neither has received debt relief.

CONFLICT TO WORSEN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

The need for external financial support will be exacerbated not only by any
conflict in Afghanistan but also by the worsening global economic outlook,
Buiter said.

Although the three countries are not directly exposed to the the vicissitudes
of international financial markets, they are tied into trade, largely through
commodity exports which are highly dependent on economic growth, Buiter said.

"Uzebkistan is a major producer of cotton and commodities like cotton suffer
in a cyclical slowdown," Buiter said.

Uzbekistan is the region's most populous state with 25 million people and 63
percent of exports come from cotton, gold and gas, according to EBRD data.

In Turkmenistan 57.5 percent of exports are form fuel, wood, raw materials
and metals, while in Tajikistan 59 percent is from cotton and aluminium.

The EBRD had forecast growth of 4.5 percent for Tajikistan this year, six
percent for Turkmenistan and one percent for Uzbekistan.

Apart from international financial flows, another saving grace for the region
could be the robust growth in the Russian economy, which is growing at an
annual clip of 5.5 percent after 8.3 percent in 2000.

"Like many of the Commonwealth of Independent States their markets are to a
significant extent affected by Russia," Buiter said.

*******

#13
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
September 26, 2001
Russian Bear Cub
By Hannes Hintermaier

Once, the fear of the Russians coming was at the heart of the Cold War
scenario that had generations of West German soldiers digging themselves in
along the German-German border. Not that they could have done much to stop
the Russians had they ever come. The Russians, in the end, chose to stay put
-- with the exception of a few rich jet-setters, the Russian mafia and ethnic
Germans.

But as world history never stands still and allegedly never repeats itself, a
Russian did come, after some time. The spectacle of this Russian was very
different from what we had so long imagined. Clean-shaven and impeccably
groomed, he turned up in a stylish suit and tie and shoes polished to a
shine. Indeed, his whole bearing was so self-confident that our own
politicians suddenly lost all cosmopolitan glamour. Did Vladimir Putin learn
these tricks during his stint as a KGB officer in Dresden during the 1980s?
To be sure, he did not adopt the kind of drill-sergeant delivery cultivated
in eastern bloc states.

He proved so skilled at twisting German journalists around his little finger
even before his visit that those privileged enough to be granted an audience
returned to their newsrooms with misty eyes. Yet when this same Russian
modestly, but resolutely, took to the rostrum to address the members of the
German parliament on Tuesday, he surpassed even his own record in
presidential rhetoric.

No matter how controversial the contents, the speech was charming and clever
-- not least because it was delivered in polished German by a man whose
predecessors were not exactly famed for an engaging tone. By modulating his
voice with suavity, Putin made clear that this was no apparatchik speaking,
but rather a gentle and hence vulnerable bear -- a Russian bear skilled at
using subtlety and humor to solicit a rather more charitable perception of
his by no means insignificant homeland.

And because his audience was only too willing to be taken in by this lovable
bear cub, Putin was able to skirt what black holes there are in his record to
date such as the war in Chechnya, the Kursk disaster and organized crime.
What he served up was nothing less than the "strong and vital heart of
Russia" -- a liberating speech that has nothing to fear from comparisons with
President George W. Bush's highly acclaimed address to the U.S. Congress. Who
would have thought the Russians would fall upon us like this?
Sep. 26

********

#14
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
September 27, 2001
A ROYAL GIFT
Who in Russia stands to gain from the new war in Afghanistan?
Author: Natalia Melikova
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

PUTIN'S STATEMENT ON RUSSIA'S POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE WAR MADE A SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION TO THE CORRELATION OF FORCES IN DOMESTIC POLITICS. THE LIST OF THOSE WHO MAY BENEFIT FROM THIS, SOMETIMES IN UNEXPECTED WAYS, RANGES ALL THE WAY FROM THE COMMUNISTS TO ANATOLY CHUBAIS.

President Vladimir Putin's sensational address to the nation did
more than outline the Russian government's stance on the war between
America and Afghanistan. Putin's statement on Russia's potential
involvement in the war made a significant alteration to the
correlation of forces in domestic politics. Who in Russia stands to
gain from the new war in Afghanistan?

Paradoxically enough, there could be considerable benefits for
Anatoly Chubais of Russian Joint Energy Systems. Chubais has never
bothered to conceal his pro-Western - actually pro-American - views.
When Russian-US relations were deteriorating, it was Chubais who
became the chief mediator in contacts with Washington. Chubais'
partner in those talks, Dick Cheney, is now defining US tactics and
strategy for the upcoming war in Afghanistan. Cheney is not alone, of
course - Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and George
Bush are with him.

Chubais' position was presented to the Duma by Union of Right
Forces leader Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov used to bombard the government
with plans for negotiations with the separatists in Chechnya. However,
since the terrorist attacks in the United States, the Union of Right
Forces has declared that Russia must join the Western world in its
battle against terrorism. The federal government appears to have
heeded the advice of Nemtsov and Chubais. If Russia's involvement in
the campaign in Central Asia indicates that the authorities are
implementing Chubais' plans, it would mean that Chubais' position in
the political arena has become very strong indeed.

The secret services and security structures are another political
force to have benefited, even despite the statements of some security
ministers (Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, for one) that Russia should
not get involved. In the first place, secret services working on
Russia's southern borders are being given the perfect chance to do so
without being noticed. Secondly, Russian secret services stand to gain
regardless of the success or failure of their foreign counterparts. If
the Americans are successful, the Russians will get their share of
praise too. If they are not, the Russians will still get some mileage
from this.

Russia's involvement in the events in Afghanistan is a bonus for
the military-industrial lobby. How much revenue can be earned from
supplying arms to Rabbani and the Northern Alliance directly depends
on how long the operation lasts. An economic boost for the military-
industrial establishment will mean its political influence in the
government increases as well.

The Chechen separatist ringleaders are also on the list. The
federal government has deigned to invite them to negotiations. Aware
of its inability to fight a war on two fronts at once, Moscow
presented a proposal to the illegal armed formations to suspend the
hostilities. Guerrillas will be heard out, and their conditions will
probably be accepted. The military needs to finish the war "back
home".

Strangely enough, the left also stands to gain something. No, the
president did not follow their advice; but what the Communists will
gain from Russia's involvement in the counter-terrorism operation is
something bigger and more significant than what they might have gained
had the president heeded their advice. Increased arms spending and the
potential lack of additional budget revenues due to the crash of oil
prices will have an immediate and drastic impact on pensioners and
state sector employees, the Communists' traditional voter support
base. What if Russia gets bogged down in another Afghanistan war? What
if this policy in Central Asia leads to a fiasco? Whenever the
government make a mess of something in Russia, the Communists' ratings
and influence often soar. Actually, if the government's plan for
Afghanistan fails, Putin's opponents will raise their heads. In this
case, the internal and external problems of Afghanistan, one of the
world's poorest countries, will once again affect the fate of the
largest European-Asian nation.

*******

#15
ANALYSIS-Russia's harvest gains seen fragile
By Aleksandras Budrys

MOSCOW, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Russia expects to harvest 80 million tonnes of
grain this year, its best crop in the last four years, but analysts say the
boost has come from the weather rather than improvements in the farm sector.

"It is a very fragile result after an exceptionally favourable year," said
Andrey Sizov of SovEcon agricultural analysts. "This year we had the best
weather since the beginning of the 1990s."

A very mild winter meant grain losses were abnormally low at around 2.5
percent, compared with a more usual seven to 10 percent.

Then a cool spring favoured later sowings, and warm weather at the end of
the summer and in the autumn aided harvesting in the European part of Russia.

In Siberia, hot weather in June initially caused some worries about the
crop, but rains brought enough moisture.

"The weather was the most important factor," agreed Andrei Chernyshov,
analyst with the Zerno Interregional Trading.

He said harvests in Russia had a four to five year cycle, when two bad
years were followed by one or two years of a rise, and the following year
brought the crop to a peak.

After a 1997 crop of 88.5 million tonnes, Russia suffered two bad harvests
in a row. The 1998 harvest of 47.9 million tonnes, the worst in the last 40
years, was followed by another poor crop of 54.7 million.

The 2000 harvest was 65.4 million tonnes.

MACHINERY PROBLEMS

Chernyshov added that the country partially owed the success of the
harvesting campaign to the better organisation of fuel supplies to farmers
than in previous years.

Some regions also made better use of machinery, concentrating it initially
in the south, where the harvesting started earlier, and then moving it
northwards as the campaign progressed, Chernyshov said.

But analysts said Russia's problems with machinery, of which it has
traditionally had a shortage since Soviet days, were worsening.

"New harvesters have arrived, but their number is insufficient," Chernyshov
said.

Sizov said that this year 48,700 tractors and 14,000 combine harvesters had
gone out of operation, while farms were able to acquire only 14,000
tractors and 4,000 combines.

Russia produced 6,000 combine harvesters and 20,000 tractors and imported
several dozen combines.

If this process continued, Russia would balance on the edge in the next
three years and the crisis would hit after 2004.

EARLY 2002 HARVEST PROSPECTS PESSIMISTIC

The shortage of machinery would prevent an increase in grain area, Sizov
said.

"Therefore crop volumes will be affected if we face adverse weather
conditions," he said.

Agriculture Minister Alexei Gordeyev said on Thursday Russia planned to
increase the area sown to winter grains, which accounted for around 40
percent of the crop, to 16 million hectares this year from 14.1 million in
2000.

"By this increase we will try to maintain next year the volumes of this
year's harvest," he said.

But Sizov said the winter grain sowing campaign was lagging behind last
year's pace in key areas, with the sole exception of the Volga region.

"The best date for finishing winter grain sowing in the North Caucasus,
where there are the best conditions for this crop, is September 25, which
is past," Sizov said.

"I doubt therefore that the winter grain acreage will increase and there
won't be an exceptionally favourable situation with winter grains next year."

*******

Johnson's Russia List Archive (under construction):  http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson

Search Johnson's Russia List:  http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/search/

CDI Russia Weekly:  http://www.cdi.org/russia