February  26, 1998  
This Date's Issues:    2081   • 2082

Johnson's Russia List
#2081
26 February 1998
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Yeltsin to mull government change, host Ukrainian.
2. The Moscow Tribune: John Helmer, THE SEX OBJECT INSIDE THE 
KREMLIN.
3. Argumenty i Fakty: Nugzar Betaneli, SEVEN PER CENT OF RUSSIANS 
WANT YELTSIN TO STAND FOR RE-ELECTION FOR THIRD TIME.
4. Paul Goble (RFE/RL): No Single Path Leads To A Democratic Society.
5. Reuters: Ukraine in wary dance with hungry Russian bear.
6. Moscow Times editorial: Economics Not People's Only Care.
7. The Guardian (UK): David Fairhall, Russia 'continues to develop 
new germ weapons.' 
8. Komsomolskaya Pravda: Alexander Gamov, YELTSIN PRETENDS TO BE A 
SICK PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO REMAIN A HEALTHY TSAR. Political forecast 
for the spring of 1998.
9. AFP: Russian economy to shrink unless tough measures taken: analyst.
10. Irish Times: Seamus Martin, Annan accord will give major boost to 
Yeltsin.
11. Moscow Times: Julia Shargorodska, U.S. Interngate Doesn't Faze
Russia.
12. RIA Novosti: ELECTORAL LEGISLATION MUST ENSURE "DECRIMINALISATION" 
OF STATE AUTHORITY, SAYS FIRST DEPUTY SECRETARY OF SECURITY COUNCIL 
MIKHAIL MITYUKOV.
13. RIA Novosti: RUSSIA, NATO HAVE HUGE TEAMWORK POTENTIAL: ENVOY.
14. AP: Russia's GDP Rises 1.3 Percent.]

*******

#1
Yeltsin to mull government change, host Ukrainian
By Adam Tanner 

MOSCOW, Feb 26 (Reuters) - President Boris Yeltsin on Thursday attends a much
delayed review of the government's economic policy that could lead to the
dismissal of several cabinet ministers. 
He also hosts Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma on a state visit to Russia in
the latest sign of warming relations between the two ex-Soviet republics. 
The government meeting to account for the cabinet's 1997 performance and
outline plans for this year was originally scheduled for last December 1, but
repeatedly postponed. 
Yeltsin has lashed out against his government from time to time in the past,
blaming others for shortcomings in Russia's flaccid economy. 
In Russia, the buck clearly stops at Yeltsin, as the constitution gives the
president the overwhelming balance of power. But he often casts himself in the
role of outsider, angry at the slow pace at which the benefits of reform work
through to the average citizen. 
Rumours have swirled through financial markets in recent days, but key
ministers including reformers Anatoly Chubais and Boris Nemtsov, both first
deputy prime ministers, look set to keep their posts. 
Yeltsin, who at least once has sacked a key minister on the spur of the
moment, typically kept the whole cabinet in suspense. 
Some rumours circulating in Moscow suggested there would be strong words from
Yeltsin but no sackings. 
Others said many regional leaders and industrial bosses had expressed strong
dissatisfaction with Yakov Urinson, who combines the posts of a deputy premier
and economy minister. 
The heads of the tax police chief and the minister in charge of CIS affairs
may also roll, according to the rumours. 
Feeble tax collection is one of the biggest woes of the government while
Russia's relations with the 11 other ex-Soviet republics making up the
Commonwealth of Independent States have been particularly shaky over the last
year. 
Yeltsin has also expressed dissatisfaction with the work of Mikhail Fradkov,
who heads the Foreign Trade Ministry. 
The last time Yeltsin radically reshuffled the cabinet was last March, when
Chubais and Nemtsov were drafted to oversee Russia's slow and painful move
towards a market economy. 
The political fortunes of Chubais, Nemtsov and to a lesser extent Prime
Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin are closely watched by investors and lenders as a
barometer of Russia's commitment to reform. 
Yeltsin has said the three will remain in the government. 
A senior government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told a group
of reporters on Tuesday: "There will be three or four sackings at ministerial
level. They will not be catastrophic, though the president might decide to go
further." 
The source declined to name the ministers. 
He said the meeting would open with some introductory remarks by Yeltsin at
around 0700 GMT. Then Chernomyrdin would present his report. After several
more speeches, the president would wrap up the meeting. 
On Thursday afternoon, Yeltsin hosts Kuchma in the first state visit by a
Ukrainian president, the latest sign of a sharp improvement over the past year
in ties after years of hostility and mistrust over warships, naval bases,
debts and Ukraine's Russian minority. 
The two states signed a friendship treaty last May and it was ratified by the
Ukrainian parliament in January. 

******

#2
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 
From: helmer@glas.apc.org (John Helmer)
Subj: THE KREMLIN'S SEX OBJECT

>From The Moscow Tribune, February 25, 1998
THE SEX OBJECT INSIDE THE KREMLIN
John Helmer

One of the lesser known war monuments in central Moscow is the black
obelisk and set of reliefs known as the Plevna Memorial.
Standing at the top of Staraya Ploschad, it commemorates the Russian
soldiers who were killed on November 28, 1878, during the capture of
the Bulgarian town of Plevna from the Turks. It was the last honourable 
feat of Russian arms in the Balkans, though that's another story.
Honour and dishonour have lately come to be associated with the
Plevna Memorial for a reason noone could have anticipated. For it's
become a gathering place for homosexuals, and for sexual transactions
that include men whose proclivities wouldn't be worth muttering
about, were they not occupants of important posts and titles in the Kremlin, 
and in the offices of the presidential administration across the road.
Now political correctness, as this is practised in Great Power capitals
like Washington, allows a columnist to preach that elected politicians,
as well as the people they appoint, male and female, ought to regulate
their sex lives in a way that wouldn't discredit them, if the public
got a glimpse. In Washington, it wouldn't have been right to point the finger
at the homosexual goings-on that were well-known in the White House of
President Ronald and Nancy Reagan. The reason is that those sex games didn't 
break any law, and didn't lead to any conspiracy that might have been 
illegal. The fact that Reagan's gay blades helped each other at the public 
trough isn't illegal or even, by Washington standards, immoral.
The wrong President Bill Clinton has done, or stands accused of doing, which 
the most impeccably correct columnists have pointed out, is not the number 
of times he's used his office to attract females to perform sexual favours
of one sort or another. The possibility that, like John Kennedy and other
members of the Kennedy family, Clinton needs quick extramarital sex several 
times in a power-packed day, isn't the issue either. The problem Clinton 
faces in the American press stems from the crimes he may, or may not, have 
committed after he had zipped up.
So, back to the Plevna Memorial, and the possibility, reported at length
in Komsomolskaya Pravda recently, that Russian officials with household names 
are gay.
This isn't exactly new. Alexander Korzhakov wrote in his recent memoir
of life with and under Boris Yeltsin that he'd uncovered a homosexual
ring in the presidential press office, when it was headed by Vyacheslav
Kostikov. Neither Korzhakov nor Komsomolskaya Pravda accuses Kostikov
of being gay. And it wouldn't be correct to leave the impression that I 
think so either.
Kostikov was a political slut, like Korzhakov, but that isn't a sexual
orientation. Both of them have now published books about the immoralities they
lay down for, the lies they told, the wrong they did, and the dishonour they 
brought on themselves, when they served in the Kremlin. In fixing the 
blame, Korzhakov is probably the more honest of the two, simply because he's 
told more of the truth that, if Kostikov knows it, he still doesn't dare to 
tell.
What difference can it make if we might glimpse, if only for a brief
second, the sex lives of these men and their pals? 
The Washington answer is a hypocritical mixture of prurience and
jurisprudence. There the politically correct answer is that homo or 
heterosexual sex, with wives, prostitutes, or employees, for love, money or
favour, shouldn't matter when judging politicians and their circle, unless
the law is broken.
The Moscow answer, if you read Korzhakov and Kostikov, or cruise
around the Plevna Memorial, is different. It isn't sex, but character, that is
on show. For gays or straights, the Kremlin is providing a wall that protects 
rapacity towards the biggest sex object these men are obsessed with 
taking, front and back, several times every day. That sex object is Russia.

********

#3
>From RIA Novosti
Argumenty i Fakty, No. 8
February 1998
SEVEN PER CENT OF RUSSIANS WANT YELTSIN TO STAND FOR RE-ELECTION FOR 
THIRD TIME
By Nugzar BETANELI

Part of Russian analysts and journalists think that the
presidential elections, which are to take place in 2000, and
the ratings of probable hopefuls are not a topical issue for
Russia as yet. Is it really so? A public opinion poll involving
6,000 respondents in 62 Russian republics, territories and
regions and 250 cities, towns, urban-type settlements and
villages, which the Institute of the Sociology of
Parliamentarism conducted in February 1998 at the request of
the weekly AiF, shows that 72% of Russians are already
concerned about who may be elected Russia's President in 2000.
President Boris Yeltsin has recently repeated that he
would not stand for re-election. It is a rare instance when the
fact of such a statement and the President's opinion coincided
with public expectations. Many Russians (49%) believed, for
instance, that Yeltsin should officially announce in advance
(in 1998 or 1999) whether he would or would not run for the
presidency in 2000. Only a comparative minority of respondents
thought that he could make such announcement on the eve of the
2000 elections (10%) or not to make any declarations as "it is
his personal affair" (19%) and 22% did not know what they would
advise the President to do.
The President has not made a mistake by refusing to
participate in the election race in 2000. The majority of
Russian voters (70%) have a negative attitude to the idea of
his nomination for the third time, 14% are "indifferent" to it
and only 7% support it.
The roots of such a negative trend are likely to be sooner
in disappointment with the efficiency of his presidency than in
the attitude to Yeltsin personally.
His staff conducted numerous public relations campaigns
last year. The aims of such campaigns is crystal clear, namely,
to achieve accord and create a climate of trust, harmony and
consensus on a nation-wide scale. The question is: Accord
between whom? If it is accord between the regime and the
opposition, it has been established a long time ago. The
present regime and the present opposition are "congenitally
united" as the Siamese twins. Both sides realise pretty well
that any other opposition would overthrow the regime, while any
other regime would simply ban any opposition. As a matter of
fact, the "truce" between the regime and the opposition is in
the interests of a great part of society who are categorically
against any revolutionary or counter-revolutionary coups and
shocks. The core of the matter is different.
Despite the President's repeated pronouncements and
threatening warnings to his inferiors, the government has
failed to cope with part of the problems the solution of which
he has announced to be its top priority. One of these problems
is the serious crime situation. As many as 40% of Russians
continue to fear for their personal safety and the safety of
their families and relations. As of February 1998, as many as
47% of Russia's adult population did not receive their pay
checks in time and 54% were displeased with their low wages.
It so happens that poverty and displeasure have become
typical of many Russians. In the past five years from 72% to
75% of Russians have been "constantly displeased with their
life", the majority (upwards of 60%) have lived "poorly" or
"below poverty line" and only 10% (just as five years ago) have
said that "their time has come".
Despite high public interest in the 2000 presidential
elections, only a minority have determined their political
likes. Thus, 28% give the names of those whom they would like
to see as their presidential contenders in 2000, 36% "do not
see worthy candidates" at this stage and 36% are undecided.
The votes of the respondents who already know who their
presidential candidates will be are divided as follows. 
(See Table.)

--------------------------------------------------------
July 1997 February 1998
--------------------------------------------------------
Gennady Zyuganov 23.8% 27.2%
Grigory Yavlinsky 10.7% 14.8%
Yury Luzhkov 5.2 % 13.0%
Alexander Lebed 15.8% 12.2%
Boris Nemtsov 21.8% 10.5%
Aman Tuleyev 2.0% 4.8%
Vladimir Zhirinivsky 4.4% 4.2%
Viktor Chernomyrdin 1.4% 3.7%
Boris Yeltsin 3.4% 2.4%
Anatoly Chubais 1.6% 1.3%
--------------------------------------------------------
(In %% of the total number of the candidates named.)

The other 43 candidates who have been named netted 5.9% of
all the total number. Each of them has been named from 1 to 12
times. Among them are: Ramazan Abdulatipov, Sergei Baburin,
Stanislav Govorukhin, Boris Gromov, Anatoly Kulikov, Alexander
Lukashenko, Andrei Nikolayev, Lev Rokhlin, Ivan Rybkin, Nikolai
Ryzhkov, Gennady Seleznev, Galina Starovoitova, Yegor Stroyev,
Svyatoslav Fyodorov, Martin Shakkum and Sergei Shoigu.

*******

#4
World: Analysis from Washington -- No Single Path Leads To A Democratic Society
By Paul Goble

Washington, 25 February 1998 (RFE/RL) -- Mancur Olson died last week. But
his theories on the ways in which collective choices may come into conflict
with individual ones continue to affect people around the world, including
many who never heard his name.
An economist at the University of Maryland, Olson was the author of many
works. But possibly the most influential was his 1971 study, "The Logic of
Collective Action." In that book, Olson argued that there are many
situations in which individuals will benefit from a particular course of
action only if all of the individuals with whom they interact agree to it.
In the absence of such consensus, Olson noted, particular individuals may
benefit from ignoring that consensus, although their violation of it may
impose costs on everyone else.
For example, all drivers will benefit if everyone of them obeys the speed
limit. At a minimum, there will be fewer accidents. But a particular
individual may benefit perhaps by getting to his destination more quickly by
exceeding the limit.
And because the logic of the group and the logic of the individual can
point in very different directions, Olson suggested, one of the most
important tasks of public policy is to formulate a system in which
individuals can agree and thus achieve mutual benefits. 
Olson's insight is especially relevant at a time when many people have
come to believe that market forces can solve all questions of the
relationship between the individual and the community. And for societies
undergoing the transition from communist authoritarianism to democracy and
free markets, it is a useful reminder of the kind of tasks that the market
alone cannot solve.
Indeed, in a market situation in which there are no constraints of any
kind -- no agreements on weights and measures, no quality controls, no
licensing arrangements, to name but three -- individuals may behave in ways
that will benefit them but only at a cost to others.
Free market theorists argue that the market will be self-correcting, that
individuals will appear to challenge other individuals who may be exploiting
others. Such a theoretical claim is not unconvincing, but it assumes more
openness and transparency than is true in many market situations. 
Even more, it also ignores the fact that people exist in time and space
and that the promise of redress in the future may not be sufficient to deal
with problems they now confront. And groups of aggrieved individuals may
turn to the political system, frequently banding together in ways that
benefit all members of these groups but impose costs on others.
And such activities, Olson showed, can work either in a way that will
bring these various interests together into a new collective agreement or
undermine the very possibility that a particular collectivity -- be it a
trade union, a government, or even a state -- could continue to exist.
Because his theories did not provide a neat template of exactly what
would happen in any particular situation, Olson never became the kind of
ideological leader that the authors of other theories sometimes have become.
But there are three important reasons why his insights are likely to be more
important than many of theirs over the longer term.
* First, Olson clearly saw that individual and group decisions matter,
that human beings have choices and that the choices they make will affect
the future. Such a position elevates the individual and the group and gives
to both a moral stance often denied by those who see all of human activity
as the result of some hidden hand, be in the class struggle or the market.
* Second, Olson highlighted a key dilemma of the individual in society:
an individual may benefit if all or most of the other members of a society
are prepared to follow the same rules, but he may also benefit -- and
sometimes even more and more immediately -- if he violates those norms himself.
* And third, and flowing from these two, Olson saw the history of
societies as open-ended, as a process in which individuals and groups would
contend in ways that could lead in a variety of ways, now moving toward
greater freedom and now toward less. 
For societies going through the difficult transition from communism to
democracy and free markets, Olson's ideas are an important reminder of both
the possibilities and the limitations inherent in any such human project.
For outsiders encouraging these societies to make these changes, his
theories may be even more important as a corrective to those who believe
that there is any single path to these goals. 

*******

#5
Ukraine in wary dance with hungry Russian bear

KIEV, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The Hotel Moskva, a huge Stalinist-style wedding
cake, dominates central Kiev's Independence Square in symbolism that is not
lost on Ukrainians. 
On the eve of President Leonid Kuchma's state visit to Moscow on
Thursday, the first by a Ukrainian leader, diplomats and commentators here
are wondering if the former Soviet republic will ever slip the Russian
bear's jealous embrace. 
After years of hostility and mistrust over ownership of battleships,
naval bases, natural gas supply debts and Ukraine's Russian minority,
Russian-Ukrainian relations have undergone a remarkable thaw in the past year. 
The two states signed a friendship treaty last May and it was ratified by
the Ukrainian parliament in January. 
The Kremlin, keen to capitalise politically, has been promoting Kuchma's
visit all week. A delegation of Russian businessmen was in Kiev on Tuesday
as part of its efforts. 
"Our common economic interests, geopolitics, culture and history -- all
this speaks in favour of partnership and forms a path for future drawing
together," a senior Russian foreign ministry official told Russia's Ria news
agency on Wednesday. 
Hundreds of years of Russian and then Soviet imperial rule mean
Ukrainians, whatever their attitude to Moscow, are closer to Russia than
western Europe. 
"It's the 'Alla Pugacheva' (Russian pop star) factor," said a western
diplomat in Kiev. "They (Russians and Ukrainians) know the same awful jokes
and listen to the same pop songs," he said. 
But Ukraine's respected daily newspaper Den rejected the diplomatic hype.
"Tomorrow Kuchma is off to surrender Ukraine," its front page headline
blared on Wednesday. 
Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, a potential Russian presidential candidate in
2000, appeared bent on spoiling the party on a visit to Ukraine's Crimean
peninsula last weekend, declaring the territory Russian. 
An interview with Russian President Boris Yeltsin on Ukrainian television
on Sunday, in which the Kremlin leader told Ukrainians to keep voting for
Kuchma if they wanted to keep him happy, smacked of Russia's high-handed
imperial past. 
But it is the appearance of Russia's businessmen, looking for stakes in
Ukraine's plum state enterprises, that has raised domestic hackles. 
"There's a threat to Ukraine's national security if our economy's
diamonds are handed to the Kremlin's New Russians (businessmen)," said
reformist parliamentary deputy Serhiy Terekhin. 
Ukraine owes Russia more than $1 billion for supplies of natural gas and
Russian officials this week said they were determined to call in their debts. 
"If you can't give us cash," said Russia's first deputy prime minister,
Boris Nemtsov, "then give us equity." 
Vitaly Portnikov, Den's international commentator, said the appearance of
Russia's "business oligarchy" in Kiev was ominous for Ukraine. 
"Do we really want them (Russian businessmen) to be the architects of our
economy?" he wrote. 
Ukraine, where a refusal to push ahead with tough market reforms has seen
the economy run into the ground, may not have much choice. 
The country's debts to western and Russian lenders topped $9 billion in
January, with the government scrambling to find more loans just to keep up
with redemptions and interest payments. 
A German mark-denominated bond got a cool reception earlier this month on
international markets. Western patience with Ukraine's foot-dragging on
privatisation and economic restructuring is running short. 
"The World Bank and the IMF aren't going to keep handing out
unconditional debts," said one western diplomat in Kiev. "Now Russia comes
in, when Ukraine's feeling up against it, and says 'all is forgiven'," he said. 
"But don't be mistaken, Russia will call in its chips," he added. 

******

#6
For more articles from The Moscow Times, check out their website at
www.moscowtimes.ru

Moscow Times
February 26, 1998 
EDITORIAL: Economics Not People's Only Care 

President Boris Yeltsin on Thursday will finally receive the 
long-delayed performance report he first demanded from the government in 
November last year. Those expecting blood on the floor are likely to be 
disappointed. 
Yeltsin called for the report at a time when the government was being 
rocked by a series of internal power struggles. First Deputy Prime 
Minister Anatoly Chubais was fighting for his life against his ousted 
rival Boris Berezovsky. The other first deputy prime minister, Boris 
Nemtsov, was sparring with Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin over who 
would be Yeltsin's anointed successor. The State Duma was clamoring for 
Yeltsin to sack both "young reformers" and form a government of national 
unity. 
But the Cabinet has since closed ranks, and Yeltsin has said he will 
stick with the current ministerial lineup, even though the disputes 
still rumble on behind closed doors. 
For fans of intrigue, the report of the full Cabinet thus risks being a 
scripted and dry affair, somewhat like Yeltsin's state-of-the-nation 
address last week, which focused excessively on economics and failed to 
touch on the real human concerns of Russian citizens. 
In fact, if Thursday's set piece is to have any significance, the 
state-of-the-nation address needs to be repackaged and reinterpreted for 
the average person. 
Economic growth and budget discipline are obviously the most important 
issues in Russia today. But rather than repeating Yeltsin's technocratic 
remarks, the government should show how its plans will affect the daily 
lives of citizens. 
For instance, in his state-of-the-nation speech, Yeltsin made 
Chernomyrdin responsible for the crucial issue of timely payment of 
wages to state-sector workers. 
Last year the government made some progress toward eliminating the wage 
arrears, but complaints remain. The funds that the government 
transferred to pay the debts were squandered by some regional 
governments. Even though soldiers received most of their back pay, many 
are still waiting for payment of nonsalary allowances. 
Chernomyrdin should use Thursday's meeting to reassure state-sector 
workers, but he should also tell them the truth about what the 
government can and cannot do. 
Given the confusion surrounding the 1998 budget, the government should 
state clearly which regions, industries and social programs will receive 
state funds. 
The government must also address scores of other human problems in areas 
such as education and law and order. For instance, the Cabinet must 
explain what it plans to do to stop the epidemics of tuberculosis, AIDS 
and sexually transmitted diseases. That is the sort of report the people 
want to hear. 

******

#7
The Guardian (UK)
26 February 1998
[for personal use only]
Russia 'continues to develop new germ weapons' 
By David Fairhall, Defence Correspondent 

As a high-level Russian delegation arrived in London yesterday to seek 
help in destroying vast stocks of chemical weapons, a defector from the 
former Soviet regime accused Russian scientists of continuing secret 
work on new biological weapons. 
Dr Kanatjan Alibekov, now living in the United States as Ken Alibek, 
defected from Kazakhstan in 1992 after working as a senior official in 
the former Soviet biological warfare programme - supposedly cancelled 
two years earlier by President Gorbachev. 
In newspaper and television interviews he alleged yesterday not only 
that "hundreds of tonnes" of anthrax bacteria were ready to load on 
Soviet missiles at a few days' notice in the 1980s, but that work has 
continued on new biological agents under the guise of defensive 
research. 
His allegations and the Russian visit are reminders that many of the 
weapons of mass destruction whose clandestine development by Saddam 
Hussein has triggered confrontation in the Gulf exist elsewhere as a 
deadly residue of the cold war. 
Russia's stockpile of chemical weapons, much of it nerve gas, is 
declared at 40,000 tonnes, 25 per cent more than the US stocks recorded 
in 1995. 
Both countries are committed by the Chemical Weapons Convention to 
destroying these weapons within 10 years. Britain destroyed its stocks 
more than 40 years ago. 
Russia has made a slow start, attributed to a shortage of funds (Moscow 
estimates the cost will be nearly £2 billion) and equipment. 
Hence the delegation, led by General Stanislav Petrov, head of Russia's 
Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Forces, who will visit the 
Porton Down chemical research establishment in Wiltshire today to study 
British technology for destroying gas weapons. 
Russia and the US are also signatories of the 1972 convention banning 
biological weapons such as anthrax, plague and botulinum toxin. But 
Western intelligence has always questioned whether the Russians had 
really stopped work on offensive techniques. 
These doubts were fuelled in 1979 by the accidental release of anthrax 
from a military plant at Sverdlovsk, killing at least 64 people. 
Dr Alibekov says his former colleagues have continued offensive 
biological research in the belief that US scientists were also secretly 
doing so. His claim is likely to heighten the fear that these weapons 
will proliferate and may be used by terrorists as well as armed forces.

******

#8
>From RIA Novosti
Komsomolskaya Pravda
February 25, 1998
YELTSIN PRETENDS TO BE A SICK PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO REMAIN A HEALTHY TSAR
Political forecast for the spring of 1998
By Alexander GAMOV

Before leaving for his holiday, Yeltsin three times
repeated that he would not run for reelection. He cancelled all
visits and meetings, even the meeting with the Premier. In
short, the old man pretended to be seriously ill. And all the
while he was waiting for that reckless man who would say,
"Alright, I'll try to replace him." 
But nobody said it. Neither Nemtsov, nor Chernomyrdin or
Luzhkov. Because they all are smart guys and know too well how
sly Boris can be. Or maybe they have better information than
the President thinks?
Why this carnival? There is a reason. Don't believe the
judges of the Constitutional Court who say that they would hear
"Yeltsin's case" about his right to a third term when its time
comes. The case is being widely, although secretly, discussed.
And it may well happen that the verdict will be passed this
coming spring. And the "defendant" should be in form.
And then, we know that the President never dances just for
the fun of it. 
Today the country is playing the "guess who?" game. Guess
who will be fired from the government? 
But the goings on in the President's Staff are much more
interesting for us and probably for Yeltsin. The Administration
bureaucrats are regrouping, a process which logically promises
the resignation of Yevgeny Savostyanov, once a powerful deputy
chief of the President's Staff who supervised the power
agencies. In fact, he has nothing to do now. He did not even
attend the festive meetings held to mark Defenders' Day. What
happened?
When the press chants about the power and influence
wielded by presidential image-maker Tatyana Dyachenko and chief
courtier Valentin Yumashev, the Kremlin officials snigger.
Because the situation changed way back last autumn. No, the
President's daughter and his ghost writer are still a part of
the court and have certain clout. But the functions of the
"grey cardinal," played by both Korzhakov and Chubais, have
been handed over to another man. This man does not visit
Yeltsin often, but he keeps the Kremlin reins - and not them
alone - in a steady hand. I mean Ruslan Orekhov, head of the
Main Legal Department and Deputy Chief of the President's
Staff. 
Not a single decree, no matter if it was drafted in the
Staff, the Government or, say, the Defence Ministry, will reach
the President without Orekhov's analysis and visa. In fact, he
controls the entire legal process in the country. And this is a
no less effective weapon of power than state control over the
financial flows. 
Here is a fact to show the growing influence of "the new
Ruslan." While the leading sectors in the President's Staff are
reduced by 30-40%, the Main Legal Department, which has a staff
of several hundred bureaucrats (nobody knows the exact figure)
remains assured of its immunity. 
What did Savostyanov do to cause Orekhov's wrath? Nothing.
Simply, the head of the Main Legal Department accumulated so
much power in his hands and exerts such great influence on the
power agencies, that there is no need for another deputy chief
of the President's Staff to supervise the power structures. 
How do Yeltsin's closest associates, in particular
Yumashev and Dyachenko, accept Orekhov's offensive? Very
favourably. They understand that long past is the time when the
"grey cardinals" were mindless sawbones. The political future
of the President, and hence the future of each of them and
possibly even the future of Russia is decided on the legal
constitutional field. What young growth will rise there? This
largely depends on the chief Kremlin lawyer. 
Two signal events will take place in the opposition camp
in March, which the Kremlin and the government are waiting for
with abated breath and which they think would greatly improve
the atmosphere in society. First, Sergei Baburin will be
removed from the post of vice-speaker. And second, Lev Rokhlin
is to be removed from the post of chairman of the Duma defence
committee. And all these changes are to be made with the clean
party hands of Gennady Zyuganov. 
But the authorities are not that silly. They will never
allow the General Secretary to die a political death. He is
"the Lenin of today" and hence should be cherished. Because
there is nobody who could replace him. This is one thing on
which the authorities and the opposition agree.
And there is nothing tragic in the fact that Zyuganov's
rating has topped 20, if we are to believe the democratic mass
media. The main thing is that the opposition is behaving very
nobly. Thank God for that.
Neither is the Kremlin worried by the potential rise of
another famous opponent, General Lebed, who plans to land in
Krasnoyarsk as its governor. There is nothing frightening in
the broad promotion campaign launched by the mass media. The
logic is very simple: Lebed will not become worse than he is
now. And if he wins, there are methods of pressurising him.
They broke the will of other governor-generals, who were
grander and fiercer than Lebed. Or he could make a compromise,
as has happened once before. 

*******

#9
Russian economy to shrink unless tough measures taken: analyst 
Agence France-Presse 
Wed, Feb 25 1998 

MOSCOW, Feb 25 (AFP) - A leading economic institute warned Wednesday the 
Russian economy would shrink in 1998 unless the government took tough 
steps to boost tax collection in cash and drastically slash spending. 
Andrei Illyarionov, director of the Economic Analysis Institute, also 
predicted that foreign investment in Russia would fall sharply compared 
to last year, Interfax news agency reported. 
The fall in world fuel and metals prices late last year would also hit 
the value of Russian exports, Illyarionov added. 
Illarionov said the government budget deficit would only drop if cash 
collection of taxes improved, revenues came in around last year's level 
of 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and spending by the 
federal government was cut by 5-12 percent of GDP. 
If implemented, the measures would enable Russia to record 2-4 percent 
economic growth this year, he said. 
Illarionov prescribed the bitter medicine to combat the fallout of the 
Asian financial crisis which erupted last October and hit emerging 
markets like Russia hard. 
In the wake of the Asian storm the Russian central bank has had to hike 
interest rates to protect the ruble, a move which forced up the cost of 
servicing the government's budget deficit and has thrown its budget 
targets into jeopardy. 
The move also threatened to choke of the first fragile economic growth 
in Russia, recorded in 1997, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

*********

#10
Irish Times
February 25, 1998
[for personal use only]
Annan accord will give major boost to Yeltsin 
By Seamus Martin 

Iraq/Russia: The diplomatic achievement by Mr Kofi Annan could not have 
come at a better time for Russia and President Yeltsin. Russia was first 
to propose a mission to Iraq by Mr Annan and, along with France and 
China, it held out for a diplomatic settlement against threats of war.
The Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mr Valery Nesterushkin, said Russia had 
played a "significant role" in events through its Arab specialist 
Foreign Minister, the former KGB chief Mr Yevgeni Primakov, and its 
special representative in Baghdad, the Deputy Foreign Minister Mr Viktor 
Posuvalyuk.
But France, China and many Middle Eastern countries had played their own 
roles and helped to bring about a diplomatic solution, Mr Nesterushkin 
said.
Mr Yeltsin's spokesman, Mr Sergei Yastrzhembsky, said yesterday that the 
President was now working to consolidate Mr Annan's achievement and had 
spoken by phone to President Chirac, who had opposed military action, to 
President Clinton and to Mr Tony Blair in the aftermath of the 
diplomatic breakthrough.
In his conversation with Mr Chirac, Mr Yeltsin discussed the formulation 
of the resolution to be put to the UN Security council and with Mr 
Clinton he discussed what Mr Yastrzhembsky described as the "very 
positive significance" of the agreement. Mr Clinton, Mr Chirac and Mr 
Blair had all recognised the "significant role" played by Russia in 
achieving the diplomatic breakthrough.
Russian public opinion, particularly among those opposed to Mr Yeltsin 
and his administration, has consistently regretted Russia's fall in 
status from superpower to that of regional authority. Mr Yeltsin and his 
government have even been accused of helping the US in its aim of 
depriving Russia of its international clout.
The diplomatic success of Mr Annan, and the role played by Russia in 
avoiding conflict, will, therefore, be a major boost to the government 
at this juncture.
Michael Jansen adds: Arab rulers and their subjects, from Morocco in the 
west to Muscat in the east, welcomed the accord. 
King Hussein of Jordan, who played an active role in defusing the Gulf 
cr isis, said that now the "focus should be on ending sanctions". 
Also in tune with Arab opinion, the Saudis promptly called for the 
United Nations Security Council to tackle the deadlocked Arab-Israeli 
peace process.
Arab editorial writers agreed that if Iraq were to be compelled to 
implement UN resolutions to the full, pressure should be put on Israel 
to do the same so that "the shame of the double standard" could be 
removed from Arab-US relations.
While Kuwaitis were generally less enthusiastic, the emirate's Foreign 
Minister, Shaikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, said the agreement "averts the 
danger to the area and makes Iraq comply with Security Council 
resolutions".
There was considerable concern among commentators that the US and 
Britain might try to torpedo the accord. The Jordan Times, for one, 
called upon Washington "to respect the will of the international 
community" and "not to try to punch holes in the agreement" in order to 
return to the war option. 
The Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr Ismail Cem, who took his own peace plan 
to Baghdad two weeks ago, plans to travel to Jordan tomorrow in order to 
work out a regional solution for the Iraq problem. Turkey and Jordan, 
Iraq's main trading partners, are eager to see sanctions lifted and the 
situation stabilised in Iraq, both in the Kurdish north and the rest of 
the country.

*******

#11
Moscow Times
February 26, 1998 
U.S. Interngate Doesn't Faze Russia 
By Julia Shargorodska
STAFF WRITER

If things don't work out for Bill Clinton in the United States, he is 
always welcome in Voronezh. 
At least that's what a headline in a recent front-page article in 
Komsomolskaya Pravda suggests. The vast majority of the Russian people, 
a poll in the newspaper reports, support the U.S. president in his 
effort to fend off allegations that he had a sexual affair with 
23-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky and sought to cover it up 
by encouraging her to lie about it under oath. 
The poll found that of 454 respondents in Voronezh, 500 kilometers south 
of Moscow, only 12 thought Clinton should be impeached for his alleged 
sexual misconduct. The support for Clinton, revealed even in local humor 
about his predicament, is overwhelming. 
"In the eyes of the residents of the Black Soil capital, Bill is a real 
man suffering for a worthwhile affair," the paper concluded. 
Residents of Voronezh aren't the only ones supporting Clinton. A recent 
poll of 701 Muscovites by the Russian Center for the Study of Public 
Opinion found that only 9 percent of respondents believe the scandal is 
founded on concern that the president broke the law. 
The largest number of respondents, 40 percent, said the scandal is an 
attempt to undermine people's trust in the president. Twenty-nine 
percent said it was spurred by journalists who dig into the private 
lives of public figures. Only 8.5 percent thought Americans should worry 
about the scandal. 
"People are used to this type of behavior in Russia." said Leonid Sidov, 
a sociologist at the center, referring to the allegations that Clinton 
pressured Lewinsky to lie about the affair. 
Russia's first widely publicized sex scandal erupted in June 1997 when 
television and newspapers ran pictures of former Justice Minister 
Valentin Kovalyov with several naked women in an allegedly mafia-run 
banya. Unlike the Lewinsky scandal, however, the news about Kovalyov was 
hot for only a week. 
Maria Arbatova, a prominent Russian feminist, said there is a large 
discrepancy in the standards that supervisors and subordinates are held 
to. 
"It is considered acceptable for a supervisor to do these types of 
things. In this sense Russia is uncivilized." she said. "An ordinary 
person would be censured [by his peers], but in a court of law, no one 
has learned to talk about it."This view is reinforced in the news media. 
The front page of a recent issue of the weekly newspaper Argumenty i 
Fakty showed pictures of politicians in public with various women other 
than their wives. The caption read, "What's good for a Russian is death 
to an American." 
On the streets of Moscow, few Russians are condemning Clinton, much less 
calling for his impeachment. 
"Everything is all right! He's a man!" said one man. 
"All this is just noise," said Giorgy Pribegin, a pensioner and former 
editor and translator for a publishing house. "The noise that was raised 
is a dirty farce. If he committed a crime, they need to prove it quietly 
and calmly, but hampering the president's work is disgraceful, shameful 
and not worthy of the people who bring [the information] to light." 
"People just want to use the information to replace him. It's a dirty 
business." said Anya Shebakova, an economist. She doesn't believe in any 
of the allegations against Clinton. 
Others took the allegations more seriously. 
"I would oust him." said Natalya, a hot dog vender. "If he holds such a 
position, he doesn't have the right to have these types of 
relationships. He is the president and the model for everyone." 
"If he holds a public position, his life must be irreproachable." said 
Tatyana, an accountant. 
Other Russians are interpreting the story completely differently. 
Argumenty i Fakty printed a letter from a woman in Krasnodar explaining 
her take on the story. 
"They showed the beauty he allegedly solicited here on the TV. 
Hobgoblin! Her nose is crooked, no feast for the eyes!," she wrote. 
"This girl had her eyes on Bill, and he, it looks like, shoved her 
aside. Now she is taking revenge." 
Some papers reported that the scandal is not worth hampering Clinton's 
ability to conduct domestic and foreign affairs, particularly his 
handling of the crisis in Iraq and the continuation of the Middle East 
peace process. 
"It would be just funny if the world was destroyed by a woman," Moscow 
News wrote. 

******

#12
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION MUST ENSURE "DECRIMINALISATION" 
OF STATE AUTHORITY, SAYS FIRST DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
SECURITY COUNCIL MIKHAIL MITYUKOV
By RIA Novosti correspondent Maria Balynina
MOSCOW, FEBRUARY 25, 1998 /RIA NOVOSTI/ -- A new electoral
legislation must ensure "decriminalisation" of state power.
This was stated by Mikhail Mityukov, first deputy secretary
of the Russian Security Council, as he addressed a round table
discussion arranged by the Central Electoral Commission and the
Constitutional Court.
"Passive and active electoral law must make difficult the
access to bodies of state authority for all criminal elements,"
he emphasised. 
Besides, noted Mityukov, when drafting new laws on
elections it is necessary to "preclude the possibility of power
being seized in the regions by large financial and industrial
groups".
"This problem is indeed threatening national security of
Russia, since these financial and industrial groups can get
everything under," he said. 
At the same time, in an interview with journalists after
the round table, Mityukov categorically refused to name the
regions concerned. 
The first deputy secretary also spoke of the need for
"de-ethnocratisation" of authority and giving equal electoral
rights to members of all nationalities in Russia. 
"Existing electoral legislation has played a positive role,
but it is yesterday's legislation," he said. 
Anatoly Sliva, the President's representative in the
Federation Council, who attended the round table, emphasised
that the question of "quality" of regional elections "now comes
to the forefront". 
Regions face "colossal" problems and not only in the
exercise of their rights, but also in electoral law-making, he
believes. 

*******

#13
RUSSIA, NATO HAVE HUGE TEAMWORK POTENTIAL: ENVOY

MOSCOW, FEBRUARY 25, 1998 (from RIA Novosti correspondent
Alexei Meshkov) -- Russia and NATO have a tremendous potential
for cooperation, John Laugh, representing NATO in Russia, said
to the Moscow Echo radio company in a live-cast farewell
interview as he is leaving the office.
Russian contribution to the programme, Partnership for
Peace will spectacularly extend this year. In particular,
Russian soldiers will take part in fifty efforts on this
programme, mainly peacekeeping exercises. Russia and the
alliance are having closer contacts than ever before for nuclear
safety, civil planning for calamity relief, and efforts against
international terrorism. This latter issue comes up for debates
on an ambassadorial level at today's session of the
Brussels-based Russia-NATO permanent council.

*******

#14
Russia's GDP Rises 1.3 Percent
25 February 1998

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's gross domestic product was up 1.3 percent in January
compared to the same period last year, the latest data pointing to modest
economic growth this year, officials said Wednesday.
The government has forecast growth of about 2 percent this year, which would
be the first significant improvement in the economy this decade.
The State Statistics Committee, which released Wednesday's figure, reported
recently that industrial output in January was up 1.5 percent compared to a
year earlier.
Russia's formal economy stabilized last year after years of sharp declines.

*******