Johnson's Russia List
#7142
12 April 2003
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Interfax: State Duma bans special license plates, sirens, light
signals on cars.
2. RIA Novosti: RUSSIAN NATIONAL LIBRARY DIRECTOR PRESENTS VLADIMIR PUTIN
WITH BOOK
ON RUSSIAN HISTORY.
3. Newsday: Liam Pleven, Putin Welcomes War's Results; But criticizes
means to end.
4. Rosbalt: Putin: Sovereignty of Governments Must Be Unshakable.
5. Reuters: Putin says Russia may forgive Soviet-era Iraq debt.
6. Kyodo: Russia may seek easier conditions for repaying foreign debts.
7. Reuters: Saddam turned down last-minute Russian call to go.
8. Interfax: Russia's richest man says US not Europe Russia's top
economic priority.
(Khodorkovsky)
9. RFE/RL: Valentinas Mite, Russia: Prospects Dim For Postwar Investment
In Iraq.
10. UPI: Hussain Hindawi and John R. Thomson, Analysis: Russia and Iraqi
oil.
11. Interfax: Russia's air chief says US spy planes would be downed if
airspace
violated.
12. BBC Monitoring: Russian power grid boss urges to "quit political
games" around
utilities. (Chubais)
13. RFE/RL Newsline: Daniel Kimmage, HEAT, LIGHT, RUNNING WATER: RUSSIA'S
OLIGARCHS
AND TECHNOCRATS HEAD FOR THE SEWERS.
14. Greg Smith: re Russian police serving in Chechnya.
15. Vremya MN: Vladimir Frolov, LESSONS OF THE IRAQI WAR FOR RUSSIA-US
RELATIONSHIP.
16. Vremya Novostei: Alexander Dugin, INFLUENCE OF THE U.S. MILITARY
CAMPAIGN IN IRAQ
ON RUSSIAN DOMESTIC POLITICAL SITUATION.
17. The Washington Post: Glenn Kessler, U.S. Opts Not to Censure China,
Russia on
Human Rights.
18. pravda.ru: US to be First to Reap Sad Fruits of the Aggression.
(interview
with Valentin Zorin)]
*******
#1
State Duma bans special license plates, sirens, light signals on cars
MOSCOW. April 11 (Interfax) - The State Duma, in a 298-1 vote on Friday,
adopted an amendment to the law on road traffic safety, thus prohibiting
the use of special license plates, sirens and flashing light signals on cars.
This initiative was put forth by Deputy Viktor Pokhmelkin, chairman of
the motorists' movement.
According to Pokhmelkin's suggestion, sirens and light signals should be
allowed only on vehicles owned by anti-organized crime agencies, and as
well as cars escorting high-ranking civil servants.
While presenting his bill, the deputy noted that apart from poor order
on the country's roads, serious difficulties with parking in large cities,
traffic jams and car accidents, "there is a certain group of people to whom
the government has granted some privileges, such as the right to use
special license plates, sirens and light signals."
He noted that cars equipped with special signals are involved in about
1,500 car accidents daily in Moscow alone.
Pokhmelkin said that in Soviet times, only 104 cars had special license
plates. Now there are 3,884 such cars, one third of which are in Moscow.
"Every official knows that cars with such license plates are not subject to
examination," the deputy said.
He believes that cars owned by the CEOs of Gazprom and the Unified
Energy Systems of Russia are equipped with special signals without any
grounds.
At the same time, Anatoly Kulikov, former Interior Minister and member
of the Fatherland-All Russia faction, said that the committee in charge of
this issue approved the bill and recommended that the State Duma adopt it.
He noted that the Federation Council also welcomes this initiative.
Defying the trend, the government criticized this bill, calling it
"somewhat ridiculous." Andrei Loginov, who represents the government in the
State Duma, said that the number of cars carrying such special signals in
the United States "is considerably higher than in Russia."
Loginov said that of the overall 1,640 such signals in the country, 530
are on State Duma cars and 259 are on cars that belong to the Federation
Council.
At the same time, the president's property department supported the
State Duma's position, adding that in 2002, it removed special license
plates and light signals from many cars owned by civil servants.
Viktor Khrekov, the department's spokesman, said that "only a civil
servant holding a certain rank is entitled to a special license plate or
light signals."
*******
#2
RUSSIAN NATIONAL LIBRARY DIRECTOR PRESENTS VLADIMIR PUTIN WITH BOOK ON
RUSSIAN HISTORY
ST. PETERSBURG, April 12, 2003. /from a RIA Novosti correspondent/.
Vladimir Putin took part in the opening ceremony of the new building of the
Russian National Library, one of the oldest libraries in Russia. Its work
began on January 14, 1814.
The new building with a total area of 63,000 square kilometres is one of
the largest library buildings in Europe. The building has 16 branch and
specialised halls for 2,000 seats. 14 million of volumes are kept in the
library.
The Russian President, accompanied by the library director, Russian Culture
Minister Mikhail Shvydkoi and Presidential Special Envoy in the Northwest
federal district Valentina Matviyenko, visited the exhibition hall of the
Russian National Library. The head of state saw the exposition on the
library's history.
The opening of the new library building is an important and remarkable
event not only for the city but also for the country as a whole, Vladimir
Putin said.
"The library is the second university for many generations of Russian
intelligentsia," the president stressed. The library depositories are "a
unique collection of world importance", he added.
According to the President, libraries are "intellectual potential of the
nation and the most important resource of every state".
The Russian President left his signature in the book of honorary guests. "I
congratulate you on the opening of the new remarkable building of the
National Library. I hope it is not the last one," he wrote.
The library director presented Vladimir Putin with the book "History of the
Russian State", containing essays of Russian politicians.
*******
#3
Newsday
April 12, 2003
Putin Welcomes War's Results;
But criticizes means to end
By Liam Pleven
Russia correspondent
Moscow - Faced with the rapid advance of U.S.-led forces in a war he had
earlier labeled an "error," Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday
welcomed the results while criticizing the means that have achieved them.
"Obviously the toppling of a tyrannical regime was a plus. But the human
losses, the humanitarian catastrophe, the destruction are all negatives,"
Putin said in St. Petersburg, where he was hosting meetings Friday with two
other vocal anti-war leaders, from France and Germany.
"I want to stress again that the situation we are confronting in Iraq must
be resolved as quickly as possible in accordance with the UN charter,"
Putin added later, at a news conference with French President Jacques
Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. "The faster we go along the
path as set down by international law, the better it will be. The longer we
delay a resolution within the UN framework, the more it will look like a
colonial situation."
Putin's comments followed the fall of Baghdad and the swift sweep through
northern Iraq that has marked the melting of resistance in recent days by
forces loyal to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The quick advance has also
turned global attention to what both Iraq and the world will look like
after the United States and Britain finish the fight.
The meetings in St. Petersburg came on the same day that a former Russian
prime minister, Yevgeny Primakov, said that he had visited Hussein as a
Kremlin envoy on March 17, three days before the bombing of Baghdad began,
in a bid to persuade him to resign.
"I told him that I understood how difficult this proposal was for him and
how it could change his life, but that he had to understand that he was
doing this for Iraq, for his motherland," Primakov said. Hussein listened,
noted that there was a similar effort to persuade him to step down before
the 1991 Gulf War, and then "patted me on the shoulder and walked out,"
Primakov said.
"Russia and Vladimir Putin did everything until the very last moment to
prevent this terrible war. Terrible, because it is still not clear what it
could bring about," Primakov added.
Also not clear is how broad a role the United Nations - where both Russia
and France hold veto-wielding seats on the Security Council - will have in
Iraq in coming months. President George W. Bush spoke on Monday of a "vital
role" for the world body, but others had called instead for a "central role."
Russia, France and Germany could have a significant stake in what happens
in Iraq. Iraq will have to rebuild after the war, and may soon be in a
position to resume development of potentially lucrative oil fields. Iraq
also owes in the neighborhood of $20 billion to those three countries alone.
On Thursday, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested that
the debt could be forgiven, and on Friday, Putin - who had helped build a
new relationship with the United States after the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks - indicated he was willing to discuss the issue at a summit of
leading industrial nations in June.
*******
#4
Rosbalt
April 12, 2003
Putin: Sovereignty of Governments Must Be Unshakable
St. Petersburg, April 12. 'It's good that Hussein's regime in Iraq is
eliminated,' said Russian President Vladimir Putin at a session of the
Russian-German forum Petersburg dialogue. According to Rosbalt, Putin said
that 'we always said he did not correspond to the norm on human rights, and
never concealed the regime.' At the same time, he said that 'we said that
it is impossible to decide such problems through war.' He also said that
'In the world approximately 80 percent of the countries do not correspond
to the Western standard of democracy, and what now, declare war on all of
them too?' Putin said that '(he hoped) such an idea did not enter into
anyone's head.'
'The principle of sovereignty of governments must be unshakable and the
preparedness of governments to introduce Western standards of democracy
must be determined by the government itself,' said Putin. Criticizing the
war in Iraq, he also said that Russia talked about means of conducting this
war. 'Eliminating the tyrannical regime - plus using means, loss of human
life, humanitarian catastrophes - are all clear negative consequences of
this war,' he said. 'Now we must do everything in order that together with
the U.S. and Great Britain we will decide the problem of strengthening
foundations of international law,' said Putin.
******
#5
Putin says Russia may forgive Soviet-era Iraq debt
April 11, 2003
ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said
Friday Moscow was ready to consider Washington's call for it to forgive
Baghdad some $8 billion in Soviet-era debt.
"On the whole the proposal is understandable and legitimate. In any event,
Russia has no objection to such a proposal," Putin told a news conference
alongside German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques
Chirac.
"I believe that we could begin to discuss the principles of this issue at
the G8 summit in Evian. In any case, we are ready to do so," he said,
referring to a June meeting of the Group of Eight leading industrial
nations in France.
U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday Russia, France
and Germany could contribute to rebuilding Iraq by writing off some or all
of the loans they made to Iraq under President Saddam Hussein.
Most estimates put Iraqi debts to Russia and France at about $8 billion
each, mostly for contracts concluded in the 1980s, but some analysts say
Moscow could be owed up to $12 billion.
Germany's Finance Ministry said Friday Iraq owed Berlin a sum just short of
$4.3 billion.
Germany and France, members of the Paris Club of creditor nations alongside
Russia, have said it is to early to discuss debt.
"It is clear that a legitimate government must be in place and in contact
with the Paris Club," Schroeder told reporters. "Then this issue can be
discussed, but not before."
Putin, however, said Russia was open to the U.S. proposal.
"We are ready to examine this issue, but there is a specific procedure in
accordance with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It
involves talks conducted within the context of the Paris Club," Putin said.
Putin's largess is unlikely to be welcomed by the Russian parliament or by
the Russian Finance Ministry, which said earlier Friday Iraq should fulfill
its obligations. Russia itself faces a debt repayment peak of $17 billion
in 2003.
"The problem of Iraqi debt is a subject for international, multilateral
talks which should take into account Iraq's real economic potential,"
Deputy Finance Minister Alexei Ulyukaev said earlier Friday.
"In a nutshell, it is necessary to ensure Iraq fulfills the obligations it
took upon itself."
The Paris Club is an informal forum for 19 creditor nations to discuss
rescheduling debts to developing countries.
Iraq is though to face some $142 billion in enforceable debt claims as well
as up to $300 billion in reparations outstanding from the invasion of Kuwait.
*******
#6
Russia may seek easier conditions for repaying foreign debts
MOSCOW, April 12 (Kyodo) - Russia is considering asking other countries to
ease conditions for repaying its debts in exchange for giving up part of
the country's loans to Iraq, the Kommersant newspaper reported Saturday.
Russia plans to discuss the issue at a meeting of the Paris Club, a body
representing 19 governments, including Russia, with large claims on various
other governments throughout the world, the major Russian paper said,
quoting government sources.
Russia has loan claims against Iraq of about $8 billion, one of the world's
largest. The United States is asking Russia to give up part of the loans to
help rebuild the war-torn country.
Russia inherited from the former Soviet Union a total of $63 billion in
external debts.
Russia believes it will have no choice but to give up its Iraq-bound loans
related to sales of weapons to the administration of Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein, which U.S. President George W. Bush said has collapsed during the
U.S.-led war on Iraq, according to the paper.
********
#7
Saddam turned down last-minute Russian call to go
April 11, 2003
By Clara Ferreira-Marques
MOSCOW (Reuters) - The veteran Kremlin envoy pleaded with Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein to step down only three days before the U.S. guns opened up
on Baghdad.
The Iraqi strongman heard Yevgeny Primakov out, patted him on the
shoulder...and then walked out of the room without another word.
Saddam's defiant answer to Russia's last-minute top-secret mission to stave
off the U.S.-led offensive against Iraq emerged late on Friday from
Primakov, a former Russian prime minister and old friend of Iraq who had
known Saddam for years.
Primakov, 73, said President Vladimir Putin sent him on the make-or-break
mission on March 17 -- only three days before the the U.S.-led offensive
opened up and sealed Saddam's fate.
Recalling on Russian television his dramatic, last encounter with Saddam in
one of his palaces, Primakov said: "I told him this 'If you love your
country and love your people...and if you want to save your people from
these sacrifices, you must leave your post as president of Iraq'."
"I told him that I understood how difficult this proposal was for him and
how it could change his life, but that he had to understand that he was
doing this for Iraq, for his motherland," Primakov said.
He did not say if he suggested Saddam went into exile or whether he
proposed a specific country for him to go to. The Kremlin has always denied
Saddam was offered shelter in Russia.
Primakov, who once ran Russia's foreign intelligence service and also
served as foreign minister, said Putin called him in the early hours of
March 17.
"(Putin) said this work could not be postponed, that the plane was already
waiting. We left that morning," he said.
It was not Primakov's first such urgent mission to Iraq.
As a Middle East expert and long-time friend of Saddam, he traveled to
Baghdad twice in 1990 as part of frantic Soviet efforts to avert a U.S.
offensive to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
He was unsuccessful then as now.
In the current crisis, he also flew in to Baghdad in February, returning
with Saddam's reply: "I was born in Iraq and I will die in Iraq."
Looking back on Friday on his March mission, he said the proposal he put to
Saddam at first met stony silence.
"First he listened to me, without a word. Then he said that during the
first Gulf War we also tried to talk him into something, but a land
operation turned out to be unavoidable all the same," Primakov said.
"He then patted me on the shoulder and walked out."
Primakov said Moscow had done all it could to avoid war.
"Russia and Vladimir Putin did everything until the very last moment to
prevent this terrible war. Terrible, because it is still not clear what it
could bring about."
Russia, which has long-standing ties to Iraq, has consistently opposed
using force to topple Saddam.
*******
#8
Russia's richest man says US not Europe Russia's top economic priority
Interfax
Moscow, 11 April: The USA is a priority state for Russia, Yukos CEO Mikhail
Khodorkovskiy, who is chairman of the committee for international activity of
the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, said.
Speaking at an international conference on Russia in the G8 in Moscow on
Friday [11 April], Khodorkovskiy said that "courtly priorities" make
cooperation with the USA more significant for Russia. He explained that the
USA is in first place in terms of direct investment in the Russian economy.
"Despite the fact that Germany is Russia's largest creditor, it provides
indirect credits under state guarantees. These are state credits and their
effectiveness is too low," he said.
Khodorkovskiy also considers that at the moment "there is no obvious real
interest in Europe in cooperation and integration with Russia", however,
without a doubt Europe is in second place as a major trading partner for us
and China is in third place in terms of potential, he said.
"We should not underestimate China at this stage," he said.
In connection with this, Khodorkovskiy noted that the main organizations in
which Russia should actively participate are the G8, the European Union and
the UN Security Council. "We can plan our actions from this base," he said.
Khodorkovskiy also considers that it is necessary to hold a public discussion
on Russia's entry into the WTO, during which "lobby groups could put forward
their interests".
"For example, we would like the European Union to explain its position on gas
prices. In particular, it speaks of the need to liberalize the Russian gas
market, and demands at the same time that domestic gas prices should
correspond with the European level," Khodorkovskiy said, adding that he
considers these positions to be contradictory.
********
#9
Russia: Prospects Dim For Postwar Investment In Iraq
By Valentinas Mite
Russia has serious economic interests in postwar Iraq. It hopes to collect on
an outstanding Soviet-era debt and it has also set its sights on Iraq's
potentially lucrative oil fields. Russia's LUKoil energy company had signed
contracts with Saddam Hussein's government and says it is ready to initiate
legal proceedings if the future Iraqi government fails to honor the deal. But
analysts say priority in postwar-Iraq business deals will likely be given to
those countries whose forces toppled Hussein's regime -- and not to countries
like Russia, which bitterly opposed the war.
Prague, 11 April 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Russia has two major economic concerns in
Iraq. One is getting back $8 billion in unpaid debts. The other is to secure
the interests of one of its most powerful oil companies. But both goals may
prove hard to achieve for a country that openly opposed the war to topple the
regime of Saddam Hussein.
LUKoil is the largest Russian investor in Iraq. In 1997, the company signed a
$3.8-billion, 23-year deal to extract oil from Iraq's West Qurna field. Until
now, LUKoil has been prohibited by UN sanctions from developing the field.
With Baghdad now in the hands of coalition forces, the oil company now fears
any new Iraqi government will not honor the agreement. This week it announced
its plans to fight for what it considers its legal interests in Iraq.
LUKoil Vice President Leonid Fedoun told the Russian daily "Kommersant" that
the "West Qurna is our field from a legal point of view and if anyone tries
to squeeze us out of there, LUKoil will file an international arbitration
suit in Geneva (at the International Commercial and Industrial Arbitration
Court.)"
Fedoun also said LUKoil would block the oil fields from any development if
U.S. or British firms refused to grant the Russian company a leading role in
the project.
Valerii Nesterov is an energy and oil analyst at Troika Dialog, a
Moscow-based investment company. He tells RFE/RL that, theoretically, LUKoil
still has a chance of seeing its West Qurna deal succeed: "There is a Russian
saying: 'Hope dies last.' As long as international law is valid -- I mean
international laws in commercial relations -- and if these norms are applied
to this contract, LUKoil will have some ground to defend its rights. However,
no one can say for sure how likely it is that LUKoil will have this contract
reaffirmed. But the company will not agree to give it up without a fight."
The contract is worth fighting for. West Qurna is estimated to hold some 15
billion barrels of oil -- one of Iraq's largest reserves.
Laza Kekis is an analyst at the Economic Intelligence Unit in London. He says
LUKoil's chances of securing the West Qurna deal are very slim, adding it is
clear that priority will go to American or British companies: "I think it's
very difficult to disagree that Russia will certainly not be a major player
in any reconstruction effort. That's already been made quite plain. And we
even have U.S. congressional provisos that Russia and other countries that
did not support the war should be excluded."
An amendment to the supplementary budget law adopted recently (4 April) by
the U.S. House of Representatives prohibits France, Germany, Russia, and
Syria from taking part in U.S.-funded reconstruction projects in Iraq. The
proposed measure even bars the four countries from receiving information
about the projects. However, it remains unclear if the Senate will approve
the amendment or if the exploitation of oil fields will be considered
U.S.-funded reconstruction.
At the same time, some observers have questioned whether LUKoil has
sufficient resources to develop the field. "The Wall Street Journal" this
week reported that developing West Qurna will cost some $6 billion in
investment -- a sum LUKoil cannot manage on its own.
Mikhail Maliutin is an adviser to the Russian Union of Industrialists and
Entrepreneurs. He tells RFE/RL that LUKoil's West Qurna ambitions are only a
"daydream," and that neither LUKoil nor Russia overall will be able to defend
its interests in postwar Iraq:
"[Russia] is like a little girl who puts on lipstick and tries to act like an
adult. This comparison perfectly illustrates [how Russia will] present its
economic interests in [postwar Iraq.]"
There is also doubt over whether Russia will ever be compensated for Iraq's
$8 billion-debt. Nesterov from Troika Dialog says the debt accumulated during
the 1980s, when the Soviet Union was Iraq's main weapons provider: "[Iraq] is
in debt for Russian equipment, trucks, and -- I am sure -- military
equipment. I don't know the details, but Iraq was a country that traded with
the former Soviet Union -- there was some kind of strategic partnership --
the trade was done in huge volumes. And, as I said, trucks, various
equipment, oil producing equipment, military equipment and, of course, some
other items [were sold to Iraq.]"
But yesterday, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested Russia
and France should both pardon old Iraqi debts as a gesture toward helping the
country rebuild. Russian officials today rejected the suggestion, saying
there is no reason why Russia should write off Iraq's debt.
It will be hard for a new Iraqi government to repay outstanding debts. Some
Western energy analysts say it will take at least two or three years for Iraq
to boost oil production levels to 3.5 million barrels a day. Before the
current war, Iraq was producing about 2.5 million barrels a day.
Kekis of the Economist Intelligence Unit says Russia cannot expect to begin
receiving payback from Iraq anytime soon: "Estimates vary, but [Iraq's] total
debt is at least $140 billion. And it's really very difficult to believe that
that -- along with a similar, if not larger, amount in outstanding
reparations to Kuwait -- [would be something] any Iraqi government would be
able to meet. So we can expect some debt write-off -- at least a large part
of that debt, at least more than half."
Estimates of Iraq's debt vary even among experts from the same organization.
Hania Farhan, the head of the Economist Intelligence Unit's Middle East
section, told RFE/RL that aside from reparation costs, the total Iraqi debt
is near $100 billion. This figure includes some $35 billion in debt to Gulf
region countries as well as $8 billion to France.
********
#10
Analysis: Russia and Iraqi oil
By Hussain Hindawi and John R. Thomson
United Press International
April 12, 2003
Abbas Khalaf, Iraqi ambassador to Russia, on March 7 said that large-scale
cooperation between Iraq and Russia "is going on even in conditions of the
blockade of Iraq." Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov then
commented "an armed operation against Iraq would negatively affect the
interests of numerous countries and no one could rule out the possibility
of an upsurge of radicalism, as well as of economic destabilization."
Russian oil companies operating in Iraq -- Zarubezhneft, Tatneft and Lukoil
Overseas -- evacuated all their personnel on March 7 and Moscow announced
plans to increase oil export duties by $14.40 per metric ton, bringing them
to $40.30 per metric ton as of April 1.
Similar expressions of mutual praise, concern and support occurred two
years ago. When Russia used its veto to delay the U.N. Security Council
vote on the U.S.-British sponsored "smart sanctions" against Iraq, Baghdad
promised Russia oil deals on generous terms.
Then last year, Saddam's son Uday presented the Iraqi Parliament a strongly
worded memorandum accusing Russian firms of being "fronts for U.S. and
British companies which are being financed by Jewish and Zionist
businessmen and using materials imported from Israel." As a result, greater
caution prevailed in the ensuing months, despite rumors of secret pledges
by Baghdad to Moscow on the one hand, and Russia's eagerness to regain some
of its lost influence in the Arab world on the other.
Mutual admiration between the two nations has long been a sometime affair.
Several years ago, Russia disputed Iraqi claims that Russian companies
delayed implementing an accord to develop two of Iraq's biggest southern
region oil fields. The Russians had, in fact, agreed to deliver 600,000
barrels a day, but were unable to live up to the deal. Baghdad also
complained that the Russians had failed to deliver on agreements to develop
Iraqi oil refineries.
Earlier, the former Soviet Union made desperate attempts to avert the 1991
Gulf War, but there had been prior areas of dispute. In 1979, Saddam had
turned on his local Communist allies and arrested, tortured and executed
hundreds, with hundreds more fleeing into exile. This sudden turn occurred
after years of amicable collaboration following the 1973 Iraqi-Soviet
Friendship Treaty, which had resulted in massive arms deliveries to Iraq in
exchange for granting the Soviets important oil privileges.
According to official statistics, Russian firms have won contracts worth
$2.5 billion under the U.N. food-for-oil program. But Russia claims that it
has suffered losses up to $30 billion as a result of the sanctions imposed
on Iraq since 1990.
The reality is that Saddam preferred to do business with western,
especially U.S., energy companies in the belief he was in a better position
to influence U.S. political decisions. Reserve hungry U.S. oil companies
naturally reciprocated this interest.
Knowing that promises by its former client are no guarantee of delivery,
Moscow apparently sought and obtained personal guarantees from Saddam
Hussein. However, no Arab state is willing to give back to Moscow the power
the Soviet Union wielded in the Middle East in the '60s, '70s and '80s. In
short, the Russian-Iraqi oil picture remains ill-defined and unrefined.
(Hussain Hindawi is a native Iraqi historian, humanitarian and journalist
who currently serves as Editor of UPI's Arabic News Service. John R.
Thomson has been involved in the Middle East since 1966 as businessman,
diplomat and journalist. He has lived in Beirut, Cairo and Riyadh, and
reported extensively during and after the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1990-91
Gulf War. From their differing backgrounds and perspectives, the authors
assess the risks and opportunities facing those who would set Iraq and by
extension, the Middle East on a positive and peaceful course.)
********
#11
Russia's air chief says US spy planes would be downed if airspace violated
Interfax
Moscow, 11 April: Eight violations of Russian airspace have been recorded
since the beginning of 2003, air force commander-in-chief, Col-Gen Vladimir
Mikhaylov said today.
Mikhaylov spoke at a meeting dedicated to Day of the Air Defence Troops.
"More than 12,000 air defence servicemen are on daily duty. Since the
beginning of 2003, they have tracked more than 40,000 airborne objects,
including 21,000 foreign flights, of which 217 were combat aircraft and 82
spy planes. Eight breaches of Russia's airspace have been reported since the
start of the year," he said.
Commenting on flights by US U-2 spy-planes over Georgia near the Russian
border, Mikhaylov said that if these airplanes had penetrated Russian
airspace, they would have been eliminated.
"We have been keeping an eye on these US flights and have sent our fighters
to escort them. Any such US plane would have been destroyed if it had
violated Russian airspace," he said.
"In the absence of Russian fighters, a U-2 was travelling as close as 25-30
km from the Russian border during its first flight. However, once a Russian
Su-27 fighter was in the air, the U-2's route was already at a distance of
50-60 km from the border," Mikhaylov noted.
"Although we did not switch on our radar, the US spy plane moved farther from
the border for fear of crossing it," the commander said.
*********
#12
BBC Monitoring
Russian power grid boss urges to "quit political games" around utilities
Source: TVS, Moscow, in Russian 1100 gmt 11 Apr 03
[Presenter] In Krasnoyarsk, the head of the Unified Energy System of Russia
[UES] has made a new statement. He promised that people in Russia will not
freeze in coming winter, and talked about his plans on participating in
reforming the housing and utilities sector. All of it is taking place against
the background of active protests. Artur Valeyev has the details.
[Correspondent] The visit of Anatoliy Chubays is making people to protest
again. Wherever the power grid boss goes, there is always a picket which
develops into a spontaneous act of protest. When he visited Krasnoyarsk last
time, people here burnt Chubays' effigy. However, this time the act of
protest was held in a much more modest way.
No placards, just cans and pots in bags. Today, people were keeping weapons
against Chubays covered. There were only few solitary calls of condemnation
and some arguments with the police that was keeping protesters away from the
main entrance to the opera house, where a meeting of energy sector officials
is being held here. Chubays has not got many sworn enemies, but those
gathered here are in a fighting mood.
[Passage omitted: unidentified man and woman read out poems condemning
Chubays]
Although current rallies do not involve hundreds of thousands of people as
before, the majority of people, however, are still convinced that it is UES
who is to blame if people are cold. Chubays knows about it, and he wants to
handle the situation. If he has to share responsibilities with the housing
and utilities sector, he will have to take part in the country's housing and
utilities reforms.
[Chubays] If there are people on one side and us on the other, and if we are
fine and people are not doing well, then it is not permissible at all. There
is a black hole: we will have to tackle it seriously.
[Corespondent] Chubays is getting involved in the housing and utilities
reforms not because he wants to help the sector to pay its debts to the
energy sector. The next winter's cold is politics - he reminded the meeting
participants that elections are coming.
[Chubays] The next [general] election is in December, by the way. And
December is winter, in case someone has forgotten it. Do you need someone to
vote for you? We will support you - I promise that every transformer will
vote for One Russia. But, please, let's quit political games around the
serious work we are doing now.
[Correspondent] However, Chubays is not going to forego his principles even
for the sake of elections. He warns that the tariff policy remains the same.
Prices will be rising anyway. The cancellation of already adopted decisions
in regions for the sake of short-term aims can seriously destabilize the
market's balance, he says. When the issue of tariff policy and a hike in
prices was raised, Chubays decided to avoid numbers: he said that there are
too many people who are trying to use these numbers against him and the
energy sector reforms.
********
#13
RFE/RL Newsline
April 11, 2003
HEAT, LIGHT, RUNNING WATER: RUSSIA'S OLIGARCHS AND TECHNOCRATS HEAD FOR THE
SEWERS
By Daniel Kimmage
Russia's awkwardly named "housing and communal-services sector" -- the
heating, lighting, water, and other amenities that are the preconditions of
civilization -- has shown a long-term resistance to reform matched only by
its recent propensity for spectacular decay. The winter of 2002-03 was
another one of bursting pipes and cold radiators. Television reports of
entire neighborhoods without heat or running water dominated the evening
news. As teeth chattered in the dark in the chilly Far East, Moscow's
chattering classes indulged their penchant for pessimism and mulled the grim
prospect of Soviet infrastructure in a downward spiral toward complete
collapse.
At a 27 March cabinet session to sum up the results of the difficult winter,
Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov concluded that "the sum of all society's ills
is bound up with the housing and communal-services sector," "Gazeta" reported
the next day. Amid all the gloom, however, Russia's most famous reformer
suddenly announced the glimmering of a new dawn.
The reformer in question is Anatolii Chubais, currently the head of
state-owned mega-utility Unified Energy Systems (EES). A national monopoly,
EES is often referred to as "big energy"; the housing and communal-services
sector that deals with ordinary citizens is "little energy." The master of
"big energy" emerged from the same cabinet meeting that so dismayed the prime
minister with a smile on his face, telling journalists, "For the first time,
not one objection was addressed to EES." He went on to enumerate his
accomplishments since assuming control of EES: fiscal discipline in the form
of full payment for services rendered; prompt payment of taxes; and
uninterrupted service through the winter.
Yet all the achievements of well-run big energy disappear into the black hole
of still-Soviet little energy. Thirty percent of the electricity big energy
delivers to little energy simply vanishes, as does a quarter of the heat,
"Kommersant" reported on 31 March. Worse yet, little energy owes big energy
more than $1 billion for services rendered. As Chubais put it, according to
"Kommersant-Daily" on 28 March: "The problems of little energy have us in a
choke hold. We're sick of listening to nonsense about reforms. We intend to
act."
Chubais went on to explain that he sees in the housing and communal-services
sector the same problems he confronted at EES in 1998. "A mere 20 percent of
payments made in cash, a total collapse of management and the sales system,
five-month wage arrears, strikes," Chubais said. "The damage borders on
catastrophe. We have the experience and the managers to solve these problems."
The Chubais plan to save little energy became clearer after a 28 March
meeting of the EES board of directors, when the board approved a plan to
create a new company called Russian Communal Systems (RKS). "Vedomosti"
described the new company's structure in a 31 March article based on
materials from the board meeting. EES and Gazprombank will each own 25
percent of RKS. Interros, Renova, Kuzbassrazrezugol, Evrazholding, and
Evrofinance Bank will each own 10 percent. The enterprise will kick off with
start-up capital of 1 billion rubles ($32 million).
RKS will start work in 11 pilot regions in the summer of 2003. Over a
five-year period, the company will invest $700 million -- $500 million of it
borrowed -- in the housing and communal-services sector. RKS will initially
acquire assets under a trust or rental arrangement for subsequent purchase,
or it could exchange some of the $1 billion it is owed for assets.
Once it has its foot in the door, RKS will begin to "put affairs in order" --
changing management and clarifying contracts, payments, and sales. In
Chubais's words, the primary task is "not to conduct reforms, but to
establish order and move from the Soviet Mesozoic to normal business,"
"Kommersant-Daily" reported on 28 March.
Ownership of assets in the housing and communal-services sector has always
been a touchy subject. Sergei Sivaev, executive director of the Institute for
Urban Economics, raised the question in a 28 March comment to "Gazeta." "In
and of itself, it's a good idea," he said. "The sector lacks effective
management, and all of Chubais's theses are entirely justified. But the
question of ownership gives rise to certain fears. On the one hand, they say
that EES intends to work as a business operator without acquiring communal
sites as its own property. On the other hand, they claim that they can only
work effectively if they own them."
If RKS becomes the owner of large chunks of the infrastructure, Russian
financial-industrial groups -- a nice cross section of which is represented
in the proposed shareholder structure of RKS -- will carve out a beachhead in
a hitherto cordoned-off sector of the economy. A 28 March headline in "Vremya
novostei" described the newfound interest of the rich and powerful in
infrastructure as "Oligarchs Head for the Sewers." "Vedomosti" editors
seconded their colleagues the same day, albeit with less flair: "Oligarchs to
Invest $500 million in Residential and Communal-Services Sector."
Critics have pointed out that RKS could simply serve to strengthen
monopolistic tendencies in the housing and communal-services sector. Yabloko
leader Grigorii Yavlinskii and Communist Party head Gennadii Zyuganov both
noted at a 28 March meeting of parliamentary factions that by creating a
single company to manage housing and communal services in several cities, EES
will monopolize "little energy as well as big energy," "Kommersant-Daily"
reported on 31 March.
Oleg Sysuev, first deputy chairman of the board of directors of Alfa-Group
and former first deputy presidential administration head, raised doubts about
the potential risks, saying the little-energy business only appears to be a
"tasty morsel," "Vedomosti" reported on 31 March. In fact, he went on to
explain, "investors will encounter many risks -- political risks, financial
risks, risks to their reputation." A more prosaic question is whether any
single structure, no matter how efficiently run, can impose a successful
business model on a sector that includes such disparate elements as
electrical distribution grids, heating mains, water- and gas-supply grids,
sewers, and even waste recycling.
At least one official from a potential pilot region has expressed
reservations about the plan. Sergei Nazarov, minister of energy and natural
resources in Rostov Oblast, told regnum.ru on 6 April that he has yet to hear
any concrete proposals from RKS. "All of the intentions that are set out in
the agreement are of a declarative nature: 'We want to take this, and take
that, and we have money, and everything will be OK,'" Nazarov said. Talks
with RKS on the possibility of setting up a pilot project in the Rostov
Oblast are set for 15 April.
At present, no one can say whether RKS is a flash in the pan of reform or the
shape of things to come. There is more to the proposal, however, than the
cozy relations between financial-industrial groups and the state that are the
hallmark of post-Soviet capitalism. Reform of the housing and
communal-services sector has stalled, and the infrastructure crisis so
apparent in the winter months will only worsen. RKS would break the logjam by
nibbling away at the very structure that no one dares to reform, ostensibly
to "put in order" the little bits it bites off. Once the process is far
enough along, the question of reform recedes as less and less of the original
structure remains.
Whether or not RKS succeeds in uniting oligarchs and technocrats in an
effective mechanism for the reapportionment and subsequent restructuring of
Russia's ground-level infrastructure, the idea represents a bold attempt to
institutionalize ties that have generally preferred the shadows to the
limelight. With two significant phases in the history of post-Soviet
capitalism -- the initial division of spoils and the recovery from the 1998
economic crisis -- already behind us, an institutionalized partnership
between oligarchs and technocrats seems only natural in a new phase that
marks the transition from fierce competition for control of assets to
increased cooperation to ensure the efficient exploitation of assets.
********
#14
From: Greg Smith
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: 7136 Butkevich
Re: "Minorities at Risk in Russia" by Nickolai Butkevich
ISG Newsletter, Spring, 2003
I enjoyed seeing the piece by my colleague Nickolai Butkevich reported in
JRL RAS. I'd like to add some comments on the issue of the Russian police
serving in Chechnya. In visits to police agencies in several regions as
part of the Climate of Trust Program (1), I've had the opportunity to see
some of the impact of these deployments.
The Russian Ministry of the Interior (Ministervo Vnutrennikh Del or MVD)
includes both the MVD Special Troops who are organized and equipped as
motor rifle units and the Militia (Militzia) which is the national police
force. Both groups serve in Chechnya. Because of the breakdown of local law
enforcement as a result of the war, the MVD in each republic is requested
to detach officers to Chechnya to perform police duties and support
military operations. Tours are typically 90 days but sometimes up to 12
months. Women officers rarely go. We've been told that these assignments
are purely voluntary and have seen no indication of coercion.
While Russian police are more militarized than their American or British
counterparts, their training and experience leaves them unprepared for
working in a war zone. Accordingly, Militzia personnel receive extensive
pre deployment training. In October, we had an opportunity to observe some
of this training at a Regional Militzia Academy. One component, an obstacle
course, suggests at first glance the Gates of Hell or, perhaps, one of the
lower rings of Dante's Inferno. Officers spend hours completing a circuit
marked out by flaming torches, enveloped in smoke with blank gunfire all
around them. Obstacles include walls, rings, an abandoned truck and
instructors with whom they must fight. Our colleagues from the San
Francisco Police Department commented that no US Law enforcement agency
conducts this kind of combat training.
We also saw a training film, which alleges that Chechen rebels regularly
commit atrocities while disguised as Russian troops, that the rebel forces
are on the run and that life in the Republic is returning to normal. One
grisly scene, allegedly from captured rebel footage, shows rebels
decapitating their foes. The clear message to the trainees is that the
rebels are barbaric and "Be careful out there."
Why would someone volunteer for Chechnya? First, We've been told several
times that during the rotations officers are paid $1000 per month. This is
three to five times what some of them make. As, or perhaps more,
importantly, a Chechnya tour is an important stepping stone to career
advancement. Indeed a friend of mine, a Lieutenant Colonel with a wife and
two small children, volunteered to go for that very reason.
There is some evidence that concern is developing within the regional MVD's
about the cost of sending men to police a far away, wartime province. They
lose the services of some of their best and brightest people, who may
return emotionally scarred, or not return at all. As in most countries,
Russian police stations have a memorial wall listing personnel killed in
the line of duty. The listing of casualties from the Chechen conflict is a
daily bitter reminder.
On a visit to a large district station in October, the resident
psychologist proudly showed her "relaxation room," complete with soft
music, subdued lighting and tropical fish. It was all very "California."
She told us that the officers returning from Chechnya deployments with
flashbacks of the horrors they encountered drive the need for this service.
Efforts are underway to rebuild the regional Militzia force in Chechnya.
MVD leaders I spoke with said that about 40 Chechen cadets are currently
enrolled in the St. Petersburg MVD Academy as part of this effort.
It appears that, as with Vietnam and the US Military, the war has a
draining and demoralizing effect on the Militzia in the rest of Russia.
This happens at a time when Russian police are trying to evolve into a more
professional force, still facing the problems of low pay, low morale, and
lack of public confidence.
A police service committed to legal and democratic values is a condition
precedent to the development of true civil society in any country. A just
resolution of the Chechen conflict and the ending of these brutalizing
rotations will move Russia closer to this goal.
(1) Climate of Trust sm. is a program of the Bay Area Council for Jewish
Rescue and Renewal in San Francisco and the Harold & Selma Light Center in
St. Petersburg. For information please visit our website at www.bacjrr.org
********
#15
Vremya MN
No. 56
April 2003
[translation for personal use only]
LESSONS OF THE IRAQI WAR FOR RUSSIA-US RELATIONSHIP
By Vladimir FROLOV, deputy head of staff of the State Duma
international affairs committee
Despite the seeming absurdity of the thesis, I believe
that the Iraqi crisis may make Russia-US relationship
healthier. The time of euphoria, which allegedly began after
the September 11, 2001 tragedy in the USA, was bound to lead to
a review of positions and resumption of a more realistic
attitude to each other. There was such a period in bilateral
relations in the mid-1990s but next the pendulum moved too far
towards the negative side, passing the point of stable balance.
Today we must not repeat the past mistakes.
One would like to think that the Bush administration will
draw proper conclusions from the March 20 statement of
President Vladimir Putin. Many people in Washington were
surprised and shocked by the harsh tone of that statement or
Moscow's readiness to join forces with France in order to block
the Anglo-American draft resolution on Iraq. The Americans
harboured the illusion that was reinforced by statements made
by some Russian politicians, according to which Moscow would at
least "stand aside and would not complicate the strategically
important and positively developing relations with the White
House." As a result, the Bush administration did not bother to
make diplomatic efforts to attract Russia to its side. Neither
was Washington enthusiastic about the Russian idea of holding
an emergency Putin-Bush meeting on Iraq.
The signal from Putin to Bush is simple: We will not
silently support the US actions, which we regard as wrong, but
would resist (to a reasonable degree) those Washington actions
which, we think, may make the world a more dangerous place.
Yes, we are allies in the struggle against international
terrorism and are prepared to collaborate very closely in this
area. But this does not mean that Russia must share all of the
American attitudes to this problem, especially when the
terrorists' connections cannot be traced reliably. Moreover,
the solutions we offer may prove more effective and less
expensive than the American ones.
Russia's support for the US policy must be won with
reliable arguments and a demonstration of genuine readiness for
compromises that would take into account Moscow's opinions. It
cannot be won by incantations about the firm US intentions and
broad hints about behind-the-scenes bargains.
Russia certainly wants to have good relations with the USA
but this is not the end goal or supreme value that calls for
sacrificing other vital Russian interests. They are only one of
the means of strengthening Russia's international standing. In
some situations, a close association with the wrong actions of
the USA can weaken rather than strengthen this standing.
One would like to hope that the Bush administration will
see the "new realism" in Russia-US relationship as a logical
and healthy correction, rather than a sign of primitive
anti-Americanism. Russia has not tried to create and lead a
broad anti-American bloc in the UN. It has not described the US
military action as an aggression or supported the attempts to
introduce an anti-American resolution in the UN Commission on
Human Rights. The current Moscow-Washington differences on the
role of the UN in post-war Iraq are not so much a sign of
deliberate resistance of Russia (and all other permanent
members of the UN Security Council) as a result of the
unrealistic stand of Washington (or rather, the Pentagon),
which wants to control all vital aspects of this process. If
the Bush administration decides to reply to Russia's principled
stand on Iraq by worsening Russia-US relationship, it will be a
gross mistake. But it will not be our choice.
On the other hand, Russia must also draw correct lessons
from the Iraqi crisis for relations with the USA. The most
important of these lessons is that attempts in the UN to
curtail the US freedom to use military force have modest
results, pushing Washington outside the framework of
international law without stopping it from doing what it wants.
Russia's tasks in relations with the USA - at least as
long as the Bush administration remains in power - should be
enlightening. We must convince the Americans that return to the
lap of civilised global policy would meet their interests. To
attain this goal, we must not only act from positions of
principle but also search for pragmatic solutions that entail
mutual responsibility of Moscow and Washington. The shattering
of illusions and the introduction of a new realism to Russia-US
partnership should facilitate this process.
********
#16
Vremya Novostei
No. 64
April 2003
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
INFLUENCE OF THE U.S. MILITARY CAMPAIGN IN IRAQ ON RUSSIAN
DOMESTIC POLITICAL SITUATION
By Alexander DUGIN, Eurasia Party Chairman
How does the American invasion in Iraq influence the
domestic political situation in Russia? The answer is - very
seriously, and it's possible that it might bring certain
surprises even during the election campaign.
Russian society has an ideological division that
contradicts with apparent political preferences. Our political
system has been created in haste, constantly assimilating
absolutely immature players. The system has skewed relations
with society;
therefore, it gives rise to attitudes of bewilderment and
disgust. Russian people believe, feel and judge according to
other standards rather than those offered by political parties
and political technologists. If those parties are gone by
tomorrow, nothing would actually change - they would be
substituted by new ones or even forgotten altogether as a
nuisance. However, it doesn't mean that the Russian people are
becoming apolitical and indifferent; they simply choose their
preferences according to different standards.
After the start of the U.S. military campaign in Iraq, the
majority of Russians follow the events with all their hearts
and minds, openly expressing their emotions. The Russian
authorities led by President Putin assumed a rather determined
position. They condemned the war in Iraq. It's quite obvious,
though, that the rise of anti-American attitudes among the
Russian population is not the result of Putin's choice. In
turn, he most probably made this rather difficult decision for
reasons other than the influence of public opinion. Mr. Putin
proved time and again in the past that he could stick to his
position even when the masses do not support him.
While taking the side of the "peaceful coalition" (France,
Germany, China, Islamic countries, etc), Mr. Putin took into
account geopolitical reasons. The masses formulate their
opinions differently, often basing their judgements on emotions
and intuition. In any case, both approaches converged in the
focus of anti-Americanism. And that's a social fact.
The convergence of those attitudes at the point of
anti-Americanism gives the authorities an added legitimacy and
forms a new structure of consensus. This consensus has clearly
defined ideological parameters: national idea, sovereignty,
rejection of American standards, and strengthening of Russia's
status as the world power. Many skeptics call this phenomenon a
"nostalgia." Let it be. At the same time, it's a certain
remission: social myths have the power and might of a
mobilizing factor.
Mr. Putin, acting rather correctly in regard to the U.S.,
acquired a brand-new social resource for his domestic policy.
Nowadays, he has additional sanctions. The U.S. actions led the
global situation beyond the limits of the legal field,
destroying finally the old-fashioned world order, established
during the Yalta conference in 1945 by the leaders of the
Soviet Union, the USA and Great Britain.
The Russian President received, at the same time, a
special historical mandate to conduct decisive and determined
actions in the complex international situation. Today, he has a
social consensus of anti-Americanism backing him up.
What is anti-Americanism? It certainly concerns the USA
and its political and economic system only partially. Negative
attitudes are mainly focused on American interference in the
affairs of other countries. It's a defensive, protective,
conservative anti-Americanism, or the so-called "survivalist
anti-Americanism." That's the type of public anti-Americanism,
which is different from the one propagated by
rightist-conservative, orthodox-patriotic or, at the other side
of the political scope, communist circles. However, in terms of
the events in Iraq, those differences disappear, become
insignificant. The ideological and radical anti-Americanism
dissolves in a more widespread passive and intuitive
anti-Americanism of the masses.
The President himself is undoubtedly in the focus of this
common phenomenon. The leftist and nationalistic opposition as
a result loses its platform. It's forced to claim that "Mr.
Putin is not sufficiently tough," which alienates the masses
and even many supporters from the ranks of the opposition
because they are not ready to move to a higher level of
radicalism. In such a situation, the president becomes a "tying
link" of society, an axle of social and political life, an
authentic representative of desires and expectations of the
majority of Russian people. And all this is happening during
the pre-election period.
How is Mr. Putin going to use the current circumstances?
The United Russia party is hardly capable of becoming the party
of "moderate anti-Americanism" and "enlightened
anti-globalism," all of a sudden.
Mr. Putin basically stands alone as a party. And contrary
to United Russia, he epitomizes a real political party,
representing historical interests of social and national
majority. In that sense, Mr. Putin relies on society, focuses
on geopolitical approach, pursues national interests and faces
historical challenges.
********
#17
The Washington Post
April 12, 2003
U.S. Opts Not to Censure China, Russia on Human Rights
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Bush administration handed diplomatic plums to China and Russia
yesterday by declining to sponsor critical resolutions at the annual
session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which is meeting in Geneva.
The decision was condemned by human rights activists, who said that in both
cases, it marks a reversal in U.S. policy. The State Department's annual
report on human rights, released less than two weeks ago, criticized
China's record on freedom and Russia's actions in the breakaway republic of
Chechnya. The United States traditionally tries to censure both China and
Russia at the annual meeting.
But the war in Iraq has heightened tensions between the United States and
China and Russia, whose support is critical for U.N. resolutions that would
recognize a new Iraqi government. National security adviser Condoleezza
Rice traveled to Moscow earlier this week on a fence-mending mission.
Administration officials also have lauded China in recent weeks for playing
a helpful role in trying to resolve the crisis over North Korea's nuclear
ambitions. "China is being more helpful," Deputy Secretary of State Richard
L. Armitage said earlier this week.
Administration officials, however, denied the decision was related to
broader diplomatic concerns. They said they decided not to sponsor a
resolution critical of China or join with the European Union on the
Chechnya resolution because of positive developments in both regions, not
for political reasons.
"That's just not the case," State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher
said. "Those things don't enter into these discussions."
On China, Boucher said that despite "some backsliding" in recent months,
the administration is hopeful that the new Chinese leadership will take
positive steps on human rights. "We believe we are beginning to see some
limited but significant progress," Boucher said, and not sponsoring a
resolution "will best advance the cause of human rights in China with a new
government in Beijing."
But Amnesty International and other human rights groups said the
administration's announcement is a setback for human rights in China.
"By failing to sponsor a resolution, the U.S. is aiding China's evasion of
scrutiny of its human rights record," said William F. Schulz, executive
director of Amnesty International in the United States. "China's dismal --
and deteriorating -- human rights record cannot be covered up, and the U.S.
ought to keep pressure on China to respect basic human rights."
Boucher said the administration decided not to join in sponsoring the
Chechnya resolution because a referendum last month on a new constitution
for the republic indicated possible movement. "There was a referendum that
was by no means perfect or satisfactory, but which sort of constituted a
basis, we think, for trying to move forward with political progress in
Chechnya," Boucher said.
Boucher and other officials said the United States would support a
"chairman's statement" on Chechnya or could even vote for the resolution in
the end. A chairman's statement is based on consensus, so it would require
Russian approval.
Tom Malinowski, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said the decision
is "just shameful" and a "humiliating comedown for this administration,"
which came into office saying it would challenge Russia on its brutal
repression in Chechnya.
The United States this year regained its seat on the Human Rights
Commission -- after being ousted the year before -- and Malinowski noted
that the administration had said it would restore moral clarity to the
institution. "When push comes to shove, they muted their own moral
clarity," he said.
*******
#18
pravda.ru
April 11, 2003
US to be First to Reap Sad Fruits of the Aggression
PRAVDA.Ru corespondent met with Russia's famous political commentator
Valentin Zorin, the host of several popular TV programs. Valentin Zorin
interviewed prominent political leaders like John Kennedy, Charles de Gaulle,
Indira Gandhi, Helmut Kohl, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson,
Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Perez de Cuellar,
Henry Kissinger and other top leaders of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushev,
Yury Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev. At present, Valentin Zorin is a political
commentator of the state-run radio Golos Rossii, the first deputy chairman of
the Peace and Consent Federation (former Soviet Peace Protection Committee),
the president of the International non-governmental organization
Intervidenie, the chairman of board of the Prometei-AST TV company.
Why Russia's opinion isn't taken into consideration? Why is there only one
superpower left?
I wouldn't say so that opinion of Russia is not taken into consideration. If
we develop the idea we might also say that positions of Germany, France,
China and India are not taken into consideration, while these countries make
up half of mankind. And it is not right to say that Russia has become some
kind of Cinderella, the political authority of the country is still great
even under the present-day critical situation. when US President George W.
Bush strictly criticized Chirac's policy, he at the same time emphasized his
respect toward Russia President Vladimir Putin; he speaks about the necessity
to preserve relations between the countries, but he does it after the war has
been already started. So, Americans acted so not because they disrespected
Russia, although there is still some truth in the question you've asked.
While there were two superpowers and the Soviet Union was equal to the USA at
least regarding the military potential, Washington would have never acted so
recklessly as it is doing now. The break-up of the Soviet Union certainly
made easier US's realization of what will go down in history as "Bush's
doctrine" (probably, with minus but still): the USA can proceed with
discretion. It is good if the UN and the world community agree with them, but
if they don't, the USA can do perfectly well even without them. Until
recently, the idea was declared just rhetorically. Ideologists, politicians
and the leadership are at present anxious about importance of an attempt to
put into practice ideas of the only superpower, the superpower that
disregards all laws. This is the first attempt to act as an actually only
superpower that can live as it sees it. To my mind, it is a historical
mistake because it is unrealistic not to take into consideration the
international public opinion, that this policy has split NATO, US's support
in Europe. It is a mistake to disregard the fact that powerful countries that
are the center of might, no matter whether Washington wants it or not, that
they are now on the opposite side. I wouldn't dare to predict further
development of the situation in the nearest weeks and months. But it is no
doubt that from the point of view of the international political process
Americans have made a mistake, and they will have to pay a lot for the
mistake, no matter what is to happen next in Iraq.
Do you think Russia enjoys equal rights with other participants of the
struggle with international terrorism? Or is its role secondary?
Probably, attempts will be made to give Russia an auxiliary role. But on the
other side, there are some problems in today-s world that the USA won't be
able to settle alone, no matter what officials in Washington say. Let's take
the problem of terrorism for example. I'm afraid that Americans may soon see
it on the US territory. Terrorism is not an enemy that can be defeated
employing the methods of WWI and WWII. Terrorism is scary for its universal
penetrability. Some separate kamikazes can strike blows, and they are not
people with whom negotiations can be held. This is one of the several global
problems that cannot be settled neither with the help of high-precision
weapons, nor with military and economic potential. This problem cannot be
settled on one's own, but only by common efforts. Now Americans rate struggle
with terrorism second important, they are trying to show the Iraqi war is a
war against terrorism, however they cannot present any proofs of the fact.
They desired to obtain facts proving that Saddam Hussein was connected with
al-Qaeda and terrorists, but there are no relations of this kind at all. The
war in Iraq is America's war against Iraq, not against terrorism; this war
may have an inverse effect and result in outbreak of terrorism. The unstable
situation in the Middle East and active Islamic fundamentalism are a solid
basis for recruiting of more and more terrorists. The action in Iraq doesn't
intensify, but eases the struggle with terrorism. And America will be the
first to reap the sad fruits of its aggression in Iraq. This is one of the
most serious errors committed by Washington. It seems to be a nice
opportunity to remember what Talleyrand, the greatest diplomat of the
history, said when Napoleon ordered to kill one of the Bourbons: "It was
worse than a crime, it was a mistake." I have been studying the USA for
several decades already, I met all presidents. I am sure that George W. Bush
will go down in history not the way he intended to.
Do you think it is the same mistake that Lyndon Johnson committed when he
introduced troops in Vietnam?
Lyndon Johnson was a brave man, he was the only leader who, being on the top
of his might, still quitted political scene on his own will. Nixon was forced
to quit under the threat of impeachment, Kennedy was removed with the help of
a sniper, but Johnson quitted himself as he realized that his policy went to
pieces and reached a deadlock. I am afraid that George W. Bush cannot do so.
What is your forecast concerning the roles of the UN and Russia?
We speak not only about the fate of the UN, but about the whole of the
international law system created after WWII. It includes creation of the
United Nations Organization, the Nuremberg Tribunal which stated the basic
regulations of the international law; the system also means a great number of
international treaties and agreements that define the international legal
system of today's world. The present-day situation poses a danger not only to
the UN, but to the whole of the international law system. As Russia President
Vladimir Putin says, it is an attempt to substitute the right of the law with
the right of the power. Preservation of the UN is the top priority objective
of the international community. The objective necessity of its preservation
is still evident. I suppose that very soon Americans themselves will be in a
deadlock similar to the international isolation; in this situation they will
appeal to the UN themselves. By the way, the UN Charter is to be amended. It
was compiled in 1945 under quite different circumstances; some of its
regulations do not correspond the reality. Improvement of the Charter is a
very difficult process which has a perspective.
Do you think that Russia has done everything possible to maintain peace?
I think that Russian diplomats have done everything possible. We don't know
why Eyugeny Primakov went to Baghdad. The world press reported that as far as
he knew Saddam Hussein perfectly well, he tried to persuade him to leave the
country, not express his support to the Iraqi leader. We have done everything
we could, as well as France President Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder.
When a bull goes wild, it is difficult to stop it. It may sound cynically,
but the bull should be given a chance to smash its forehead. I am sure that
Washington will achieve its momentarily goal, and Saddam will be overthrown.
What Washington is doing now reminds me of a chess game performed by an
inexperienced player who just knows that the pawn moves E2-E4. The first
move, overthrowing of Saddam Hussein has been accomplished, but Washington
didn-t count what further consequences, political and economic, the USA will
face.
Is your opinion that both, Bush and Hussein, were wrong?
As for Saddam Hussein, he has been wrong for 30 years already since he came
to power in Iraq and introduced tyranny that cost the country a lot. We know
similar regimes from history. Slobodan Milosevic, whose politics resulted in
the break up of a prosperous and influential country, is now at a trial in
the Hague Tribunal. I think that Saddam Hussein is a leader of this kind. The
past ten years of economic blockade is too high payment for Hussein's
ambitions to create a great Arab state. As for George W. Bush, the war is a
gross error. Ex-president of the USA Bill Clinton also said that the
incumbent president committed a mistake. I know Clinton, he would have played
this game quite differently.
What should Russia do on the international scene? Are we to be pragmatic with
respect to the USA and the Arab world, or we should try to please both?
I support position of Russia President Vladimir Putin who says that foreign
policy of the country must be based upon Russia's interests. In the Soviet
era, the policy of the country was determined by ideology. At that, we caused
ourselves a great political and economic damage. At present, the policy is to
be based on the national interests of the Russian state. Everything that
agrees with these interests is a right policy, everything that contradicts
them is wrong, the rest is tactics.
Is it possible that the Iraqi war will give up for lost the idea of joint
Europe creation and deliver a blow against Russia?
I think that the war may drag the process to some extent. But the deep
changes that are going on in Europe are caused by the objective course of
events, that is why such san episodes as the Iraqi war cannot break the
tendencies. There is a number of problems that will make the incumbent and
future governments of the USA get back to using common efforts for fighting
terrorism. Some influential scientists say that if serious measures are not
taken in the nearest time, mankind will die not because of a war, but because
the environment will be liquidated. There are still disputes concerning the
fate when it may happen, in decades or hundreds of years. It is impossible to
prevent destruction of the environment with efforts of one country only.
There are tens of problems that require joining of efforts. If we look on the
problem on a global scale, we can say that the Iraqi war is a sad, but still
an episode which may drag or weaken some processes, but won't influence the
basic process.
Is it possible that a war may break out between the Moslem and the Christian
worlds?
I think it's a fantasy. There is no single Moslem world. Now actions of the
USA concern all Moslems. But it is not the extremist part of Moslems that is
the most influential there. That is why it is an advantageous thesis of a
PR-campaign to say that a war between the two civilizations may break out.
May the non-aligned states become a future counterbalance to the US hegemony
in the world, or it is also unreal?
My opinion is that the term non-aligned countries is outdated, it belonged to
the cold war era when opposition of two superpowers was meant. Some countries
were on the US's side, some joined the USSR, and the third countries remained
non-aligned. Nowadays, the situation is different, there are no non-aligned
countries. The problem is that very influential powers in the world will
resist Washington's unrealistic policy to act alone and at discretion. The
Roman Empire times cannot be back. The world is multi-polar now. opinions of
China, India, Europe and Russia must be taken into consideration.
What way-out do you suggest in this deadlock situation?
I cannot speak about any way-out as the war is going on. When Saddam Hussein
is overthrown, other problems will arise, and the USA won't be able to settle
the problems alone. The US war machine cannot be stopped now, I think. It is
an outdated measure to appeal to the UN to stop the war. It supposes joint
efforts of the world community after Americans face problems that are
inevitable in this situation. The US economy is experiencing hard times:
specialists say that war spending makes up $80 billion which is quite a
burden even for the American economy. Ending of the war after Saddam is
overthrown is going to be even more expensive. America sees it is a hard
burden and will resume cooperation with other countries.
The interview was held by
Ilya Tarasov
PRAVDA.Ru
*******
Web page for CDI Russia Weekly:
http://www.cdi.org/russia
Archive for Johnson's Russia List:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson
With support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and
the MacArthur Foundation
A project of the Center for Defense Information (CDI)
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20036