November 9, 1999    
This Date's Issues: 3612 • 3613 

Johnson's Russia List
#3612
9 November 1999
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
1. Bloomberg: Clinton Sees `Profound' US Stake in Aiding Russia.
2. Isabella Ginor&Gideon Remez: Orphanage/Maria Eismont's report.
3. Reuters: U.S. says Russia violating Geneva conventions.
4. The Times of India: Majority favour Bolshevik Revolution: Poll.
5. AFP: Orthodox Patriarch Says Pope Not Welcome In Russia.
6. Laura Belin: RFE/RL election reports.
7. Stanislav Menshikov: comment on Albert Weeks's 'Response to Mr. Ivanov'
8. Round-Table Discussion on Russia and the Caucasus in Washington.
9. International Herald Tribune: Justin Keay, Barriers for Capitalism.The Wall Is Gone, but Vested Interests And Corruption Afflict Ex-Soviet Bloc.
10. Le Monde: Interview with President of Ingushetia Ruslan Aushev,
"Aushev: 'The Chechnya Events Were Long Planned, With a Political Objective."
11. Stratfor Commentary: Who is the Kremlin Opposition? 
12. Paul Backer: Response to the Bloomberg Article on Firing Putin.
13. Jerry Hough: democratization.
14. The Russia Journal editorial: Russia's growing pains.
15. Moscow Times: Brian Whitmore, Media, Putin Agree He'll Be Sacked.
16. Interfax: Berezovskiy on Financiers in State Governance.
17. AFP: Russia Responsible For Terrorism In The Caucasus, Says Havel.] 


*******


#1
Clinton Sees `Profound' US Stake in Aiding Russia: Comment

Washington, Nov. 8 (Bloomberg)
-- Following are comments by President Bill Clinton about the 
``profound stake'' the U.S. has in seeing Russia's economic and political 
reforms succeed. Clinton spoke to a Georgetown University audience at a 
lecture to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall: 


The U.S. must build ``the right kind of partnership with Russia, a Russia 
that is stable, democratic, and cooperatively engaged with the West,'' 
Clinton said. ``That is difficult to do, because Russia is struggling 
economically.'' 


``It has tens of thousands of weapons scientists -- listen to this -- it has 
tens of thousands of weapons scientists, making an average of $100 a month, 
struggling to maintain the security of a giant nuclear arsenal,'' Clinton 
said. ``It has mired itself again in a cruel cycle of violence in Chechnya 
that is claiming many innocent lives.'' 


``We should protect our interests with Russia and speak plainly about actions 
we believe are wrong, but we should also remember what Russia is struggling 
to overcome and the legacy with which it must deal,'' Clinton said. 


``Less than a generation ago the Russians were living in a society that had 
no rule of law, no private initiative, no truth- telling, no chance for 
individuals to shape their own destiny. Now they live in a country with a 
free press, with almost a million small businesses, a country that should 
experience next year its first democratic transfer of power in a thousand 
years.'' 


``Russia's transformation has just begun,'' Clinton said. ``It is incomplete. 
It is awkward. Sometimes it is not pretty. But we have a profound stake in 
its success. Years from now, I don't think we will be criticized, any of us, 
for doing too much to help, but we can certainly be criticized if we do too 
little.'' 


*******


#2
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 
From: Gideon Remez <remgin@mail.netvision.net.il> 
Subject: Orphanage -- Maria Eismont's report (JRL #3607)


Dear David,


Last Friday, after reading in JRL Maria Eismont's report about the 55
children of the Grozny orphanage who are now camped out in Ingushetia,
we alerted the Jewish Agency to the awful plight of these children,
Jewish and other. The Agency told Ha'Aretz (today's edition) that it is
sending its nearest representative to check out the situation on site,
with a view to evacuating all these children from the war zone for the
kind of rehabilitation the orphanage director described as necessary.


Reuters-Moscow told us they are only in intermittent contact with Ms.
Eismont, and we are awaiting further information from her or any other
source that might help the Agency locate and assist the children. Anyone
who can help in this regard is requested to contact us urgently at the
e-mail address given above.


Best regards and thanks to Ms. Eismont and yourself for bringing the
report to our attention. Apparently it did not go out on all Reuters'
circuits, as neither Ha'Aretz nor Israel Radio appears to have received
it.


Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez


*******


#3
U.S. says Russia violating Geneva conventions

WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - The United States on Monday said Russian forces 
had failed to observe the Geneva conventions and other international 
agreements through the indiscriminate use of force against civilians in 
Chechnya. 


``Russia has assumed obligations under the Geneva conventions and commitments 
under the OSCE code of conduct on political-military aspects of security. The 
conduct of Russia's current campaign is not in keeping with these 
commitments,'' said State Department spokesman James Rubin. 


The OSCE is the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which 
tries to uphold human rights standards in Europe, North America and the 
former Soviet Union. 


The United States has repeatedly criticised Russia's strategy in the Chechnya 
campaign but the allegation of violating the Geneva conventions is a new 
charge. 


Rubin again said a military solution in Chechnya was impossible and appealed 
for dialogue between Moscow and legitimate Chechen representatives. 


The Russians say their aim is to crush Moslem rebels who invaded neighbouring 
Dagestan. But the campaign has also driven nearly 200,000 Chechens from their 
homes, mostly to the neighbouring region of Ingushetia. 


Rubin said, ``We don't understand the objectives of the Russian policy. We've 
welcomed the fact that Prime Minister (Vladimir) Putin indicated last week 
that the conflict in Chechnya can only be resolved by political means. 


``We welcome these statements and call for Russia to begin a dialogue with 
legitimate Chechen partners.'' 


He said Russia's military approach was too costly, in its humanitarian 
effects, in damage to Russia's international reputation and in reducing 
chances of a political solution. 


The White House also urged Russia to seek a political solution, in response 
to a letter from Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov beseeching Washington to 
stop the onslaught. 


``We're very concerned about the escalation of violence (and) the 
indiscriminate violence against civilians,'' White House spokesman Joe 
Lockhart said, repeating the formula that Washington has used for weeks in 
urging Russian restraint. 


Maskhadov, a relative moderate who has little control over Chechen field 
commanders fighting for independence from Moscow, wrote to Clinton for help 
in stopping what he called ``the genocide of the Chechen people.'' 


Russian artillery and and war planes bombarded towns and villages near the 
Chechen capital of Grozny on Monday as crowds of refugees lined up at the 
border in the hopes of fleeing the offensive, launched by Russia in 
September. 


Rubin said a letter in Maskhadov's name and dated Sept. 30 was faxed to the 
U.S. Embassy to Azerbaijan. The United States has not been in contact with 
Maskhadov, he added. 


*******


#4
The Times of India
November 5, 1999


Majority favour Bolshevik Revolution: Poll 


MOSCOW: A majority of Russians believe the Bolshevik Revolution, which 
brought Communism to Russia, wasn't a bad thing, according to a poll 
published Thursday. The poll by the All-Russia Public Opinion Center said 45 
percent of those surveyed agreed that the revolution played a positive role 
in Russian life and history.


The poll, with a margin of error of 4 percent, said that 35 percent disagreed 
that the revolution was good, while 20 percent were undecided. The center 
conducts the poll each year to mark the Nov. 7 anniversary of the revolution. 
Last year's poll indicated that approval for the revolution was down, with 
just 15 percent saying they would have aided the Bolsheviks.


Approval ratings for the revolution were up this year, probably because of 
the country's continuing economic and social problems and the uneven impact 
of market reforms. Communists and some elderly Russians still regard the 
revolution's anniversary as the most important date on the calender and some 
take part in rallies and marches. However, President Boris Yeltsin in 1997 
renamed the Nov. 7 holiday that used to mark the revolution as the Day of 
National Accord and Reconciliation. Many Russians, particularly young people, 
see the event as just a day off work.


*******


#5
Orthodox Patriarch Says Pope Not Welcome In Russia


MOSCOW, Nov 8, 1999 -- (Agence France Presse) The head of the Russian 
Orthodox Church said Friday that Pope John Paul II, who is making a 
ground-breaking visit this week to the fellow Orthodox ex-Soviet republic of 
Georgia, would not be welcome in Russia.


Patriarch Alexy II in particular accused the Vatican of seeking to win over 
Roman Catholic converts in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.


"This sort of thing should not be happening between sister churches, which 
the Vatican considers us to be," Alexy II said, cited by Interfax.


"Even if the Pope made a state visit, we could not meet with him," the 
patriarch said.


Alexy II said that another obstacle to a papal visit was the continued 
dispute between the Orthodox and Catholic Uniate churches in western Ukraine.


Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, interdenominational tensions for the 
control of parishes, believers and funds have occasionally led to full-out 
battles.


Many churches belonging to the Uniates until 1945 were transferred by force 
by Stalin to the Russian Orthodox church. After independence, the authorities 
returned the majority of them to the Uniates. ((c) 1999 Agence France Presse) 


******


#6
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 
From: "Laura Belin" <laurabelin@excite.com>
Subject: RFE/RL election reports


Dear David,


I am writing a series of weekly reports on the Duma campaign for Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty. The first issue of "RFE/RL Russian Election Report"
came out on November 5 and can be found on the Web at:


http://www.rferl.org/elections/russia99report/


People can access future reports at the same address or subscribe by e-mail
(the reports are available free of charge). To subscribe, send an e-mail to
electionreport-request@list.rferl.org with the
word "subscribe" as the subject or body of the message.


*******


#7
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 
From: menshikov@i4.auc.dk (Stanislav Menshikov)
Subject: Comment on Albert Weeks


A short comment on Albert Weeks's 'Response to Mr. Ivanov' in Johnson's
Russia List #3602


Mr. Weeks writes: "Foreign Minister Ivanov predicts that the U.S.,
once it has anti-missile defense, will, from its
newly-won "invincibility," seek to "dictate" to Russia 
and China. This is simply recycled, anti-American 
nonsense. When the U.S. had a monopoly on nuclear 
weapons, before 1949 vis-a-vis Russia and 
in China's case, before 1964, did it try to "dictate" to 
those powers from its position of "invincibility"?
When, in fact, did the U.S. ever act like a "hegemonist"? 
Say, in agreements made at Yalta, Helsinki, or Camp 
David??"


I rather tend to agree with Mr. Ivanov on this point. There are so many
cases in which the US tried to dictate its terms on various issues to
Russia, China and numerous other countries over the last five decades, that
a list of them would make a large volume. Didn't Harry Truman threaten the
USSR with nuclear bombings? Didn't John Foster Dulles create a network of
military alliances and US bases around the Soviet Union? Didn't President
Eisenhower try to enforce an "Open Skies" doctrine on Russia by sending the
U-2s to spy over its territory? More recently, the terms of accepting NATO
expansion to the East were forced on Russia by the US? 


The fact is that Russia, prior to the demise of the Soviet Union, never
succumbed to US dictate even before 1949 when it lacked nuclear weapons and
vehicles for their delivery. After 1991, particularly during Mr. Kozyrev's
term as Foreign Minister, no US dictate towards Russia was necessary since
that gentleman fulfilled all US desires without the least hesitation. But it
is exactly due to US dictate in recent years that the Russian public has
overwhelmingly turned against the US which it once considered a friendly
nation.


Where I disagree with Mr. Ivanov is that the US does not need invincibility
to act like a hegemonist. It is not invincible today and yet it tries to
tell Russia what to do on its own territory and dictates conditions for
Russian economic policy. With the advent of Messrs. Primakov and Putin to
Russian premiership, these attempts have largely become unsuccessful. And
surely Russia will find ways of deploying an effective ABM system when it is
forced to do so by external circumstances. It will hardly permit the US to
become invincible. Let us not fool ourselves into believing otherwise.


A few factual errors on the part of Mr. Weeks. Yalta occurred before the US
exploded its first atomic bomb and while FDR was still around. The Red Army
was closing on Berlin and the SU could have been approached from a position
of strength. Again, Helsinki happened at times of strategic parity between
the two superpowers. If Mr. Weeks is referring to the Eisenhower-Khruschev
Camp David summit of 1959, then it is well to recall that that meeting
happened shortly after the USSR launched its first Sputnik and successfully
tested its first ICBMs. Pretending to be a hegemonist in those cases would
have been futile on the part of the US which were in a position of relative
weakness, not strength vis-avis Russia. US had to be nice because it had to.


These historical examples fail to prove the point Mr. Weeks is trying to
make.


*******


#8
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 
From: Wayne Merry <ewmerry@acus.org> 
Subject: Round-Table Discussion on Russia and the Caucasus


Round-Table Discussion on "Russia and the Caucasus: Longer-Term
Implications". This panel discussion is sponsored by the Atlantic Council
of the United States. Panelists are Fredrick Starr and Charles Fairbanks of
the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Paul Goble of RFE/RL, Michael Ochs of
the Commision on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Wayne Merry of the
Atlantic Council. It will take place Wednesday, November 10, from 2 to 4
pm, in the Council's conference room (11th floor, 910 17th St, NW,
Washington, DC -- at Farragut Square Metro). You MUST RSVP to attend, to
David Saltiel at 202--778-4968.


*******


#9
International Herald Tribune
November 9, 1999
[for personal use only]
Barriers for Capitalism
The Wall Is Gone, but Vested Interests And Corruption Afflict Ex-Soviet Bloc
By Justin Keay, Special to the International Herald Tribune


Ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall threw the economies of the former 
East Bloc open to capitalism, it is becoming clear that the move to a free 
market has not been as extensive or successful as was hoped.


The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which was set up to 
help finance the transition, said in a report released Monday that much has 
been achieved, including the growth of a dynamic private sector, democracy 
and free prices. But it said that the countries of the former Soviet Union 
and, to a lesser extent, Central and Eastern Europe, had a long way to go in 
dismantling the legacy of central planning.


The bank notes that the region, often considered in the West to be almost 
monolithic before 1989, today is increasingly economically diverse.


Countries in Central Europe and the Baltics with a previous history of 
democracy and free markets, some of which embarked unhesitatingly along the 
reform path, have pulled ahead. Life expectancy and living standards, as well 
as economic gauges, are higher than in 1989. 


By contrast, those with strong statist traditions, principally Russia and 
other former Soviet countries known collectively as the Commonwealth of 
Independent States, which allowed vested interests and corruption to take 
hold, have fallen behind.


Horst Kohler, president of the European bank, warned that countries that 
failed to redress these issues would see the gap grow between them and the 
more advanced Central European countries.


Much of the problem, he said, stemmed from ''liberalization and privatization 
implemented without adequate consideration given to competition and corporate 
governance.'' This, he added, had led to ''the looting of public resources, 
tax evasion, capital flight and disregard for the rule of law and fair 
government.'' 


The divergence between nations in the former Soviet Union and Central and 
Eastern Europe's other countries is seen in the bank's estimates of economic 
growth. The bank says that growth in Central and East Europe this year is 
expected to average about 1.6 percent, rising to 3 percent in 2000.


By contrast, gross domestic product in the commonwealth group in 1999 is 
expected to contract slightly, by 0.1 percent, before increasing in 2000 by a 
projected 1.1 percent.


The two largest economies in the group are Russia, which will see output 
unchanged, and Ukraine, which will see a decline of 2.5 percent this year. In 
2000, Russia is expected to grow 1 percent and Ukraine by 0.5 percent.


''A key challenge for the second decade of transition will be to prevent the 
marginalization of the CIS,'' said Steven Fries, senior economist at the bank 
and one of the authors of its transition report. ''Its integration into the 
world economy is something we should all be concerned about.''


Meanwhile, the Balkan region, where economic performance has been held back 
by the Kosovo war, is expected to show no growth this year.


But the European Bank commends governments there for pressing ahead with 
long-delayed reforms, which are expected to pay dividends in 2000. Bulgaria, 
which for the past two years has carried out tough reforms, is expected to 
see growth of 2.5 percent after a flat performance this year; Romania, which 
will see gross domestic product contract by 4 percent this year, should grow 
1.5 percent in 2000.


Foreign direct investment flow into all of Eastern Europe and the former 
Soviet Union is generally healthy after a dip last year and is expected to 
reach $22.5 billion this year


Looking back over a decade of reform, the bank stressed that, contrary to the 
widely stated view in 1989, the introduction of competition, liberalization 
and privatization by themselves are not enough.


''The central lesson of transition is that markets will not function well 
without supporting institutions, a state that carries through its basic 
responsibilities and a healthy civil society,'' said the report, noting that 
the creation of these factors had lagged.


The report also urges that the state not interfere with the growth of small- 
and medium-sized enterprises, which have been the main engines of economic 
growth; instead it must create ''a positive environment.''


Mr. Kohler said the bank in the future would be taking a stronger tone in 
urging governments to create a better business environment. He said he 
expected the bank's total commitment to increase from Û2 billion ($2.08 
billion) this year to Û2.4 billion in 2000 and about Û3 billion in 2003.


********


#10
Aushev: Elections Behind Chechnya Events 


Paris' Le Monde
5 November 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Interview with President of Ingushetia Ruslan Aushev by Francois 
Bonnet in Nazran; date not given: "Aushev: 'The Chechnya Events Were Long 
Planned, With a Political Objective'"; first two paragraphs are Le Monde 
introduction


Nazran (Ingushetia) from our special 
correspondent--With the continuation of the Russian bombardment of 
Chechnya, Chechen civilians began crossing the Chechen-Ingushetian border 
by the hundreds on 4 November. The Russian military are allowing these 
persons to take refuge in Ingushetia. In an interview granted to Le 
Monde, the president of this republic, Ruslan Aushev, denounces the 
Kremlin's electoral motivation. 


Ingushetia leader since 1992, and reelected president in 1997, Ruslan Aushev, 
a former general at age 45, unceasingly denounces the new Russian war being 
waged against Groznyy, and calls for negotiations. A neighbor of 
Chechnya, Ingushetia, a small republic of 340,000 inhabitants in the 
Russian Federation, has had to provide refuge to some 190,000 
Ingushetians in the last two months. A UN delegation arrived in Nazran, 
its capital, on Thursday 4 November. After having visited the region's 
refugee camps, it arrived at the Kavkaz customs post, which has been 
sealed off since 23 October by the Russian troops (Le Monde, 3 November). 
More than 10,000 civilians are waiting, under terrible conditions, on the 
Chechen side, for permission to cross the border. 


[Bonnet] What means do you have for coming to the aid of the refugees? 
[Aushev] The aid we can give is insufficient. The lack of shelters, warm 
clothing, food, and medication are the main problems. We have 188,000 
refugees, the equivalent of a city. It is a lot of money. 
Food alone requires an expenditure of 3 million rubles (750,000 francs 
[Fr]) daily. We are receiving aid from Moscow, but it is catastrophically 
insufficient. As for international aid, should it be granted, we would be 
very grateful for it. 
Yesterday, we received from initial delivery from the High Commission for 
Refugees: 90 metric tons of flour, some grains, and butter. We are 
awaiting examination of the situation by the United Nations. 
[Bonnet] Do you see Russian Prime Minister's electoral campaign as the
engine 
driving this war? 
[Aushev] The decision to fight against the terrorists in the middle of an 
election period does arouse my doubts. Every day for the past three years 
has called for it to be done, these same terrorists having been present 
in Chechnya throughout these years. I cannot say outright that this is an 
election-driven war. But I suspect that the events in Chechnya have long 
been planned, with a political objective. The one who resolves the 
Chechen problem will become the favored candidate in the presidential 
election (scheduled for June 2000). 
I also note that the previous war began in 1994, in the middle of the 
legislative election campaign, and ended immediately after the 1996 
presidential election. Today again, the war starts on the eve of elections. 
[Bonnet] What do you think of Boris Yeltsin's role? 
[Aushev] He is on vacation and is giving his government full rein. If this 
operation succeeds, everything will go well for the president. If it does 
not succeed, everything will go wrong for Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin 
always has replacement candidates. Note the endless number of government 
changes that have taken place in the past year and a half. 
[Bonnet] In your opinion, did Boris Berezovskiy initiate this conflict by 
financing the warlords Basayev and Khattab, both of whom attacked 
Dagestan in August? 
[Aushev] I only know that Basayev and Odugov (close to Commander Khattab) 
have regular relations with Berezovskiy. But what they have done, how 
much they have been paid, I do not know. 
[Bonnet] Can negotiations still be held today? 
[Aushev] It would be the sensible thing, and they must be conducted with
the 
legally elected president of Chechnya, Aslan Maskhadov, or with the 
members of the Parliament of the Republic. Maskhadov has made some good 
proposals, which are supported by all the presidents and leaders of the 
North-Caucasus. Unfortunately, we have been unable to meet with him 
because the federal authorities have refused to guarantee the safety of 
his travel from Groznyy to Nazran. 
The Russian leadership does not want a negotiating process. For a year, 
Maskhadov has tried to meet with President Yeltsin. Unfortunately, 
Yeltsin's entourage and the Kremlin Administration have opposed it, and 
the meeting has not taken place. 
[Bonnet] Can Aslan Maskhadov still claim to control Chechnya? 
[Aushev] Does the Russian Federation president control everything?
Neither do 
I. I do not control everything. That is normal. The situation is 
identical for all presidents of the North-Caucasus Republics. We begin 
first by negotiating. 
[Bonnet] Are we witnessing a sudden military bolting out from under the 
political leadership's control? 
[Aushev] It is not good to see the political leaders coming under the 
military's direct control. The generals are saying: "If you stop us 
again, it will be a betrayal." They are sure they can settle the problems 
now through force. As for this winter, they will be able to hold out, of 
course. The only question is: To what end? This problem cannot be settled 
with strong tactics. 
[Bonnet] Is your opposition to this war arousing retaliatory measures
issuing 
from the Kremlin? 
[Aushev] Compromising documents are being prepared against me. A typical 
Russian tactic. But why should I keep quiet? If Putin wants to settle his 
political problems, I, as president of Ingushetia, cannot remain 
insensitive to the sufferings of the people. Moscow, for example, has 
said that humanitarian channels were opened here and in Dagestan, but not 
a single one is open. If they are starting to open the border slightly, 
since yesterday, it is because I have recounted what is happening: A 
woman has died, and others have given birth on the roadside... 


*******


#11
Stratfor Commentary


2147 GMT, 991108 Who is the Kremlin Opposition?


The dust has settled after last week's battle between Russia's military and 
Yeltsin's closest advisors, known as the Family. Few Family members remain 
standing. In the past several days, the powerful Russian generals, allied 
with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, earned significant support, while key 
Family member, oligarch Boris Berezovsky, has cast his lot with the generals. 
The Family, now weak and fractured, will have to pull together to prolong its 
survival as it faces a formidable power in Moscow.


The Russian military reasserted its grasp on control Nov. 3 when President 
Boris Yeltsin returned from vacation to handle a rift between the top 
military commanders and Yeltsin's closest advisors, led by Chief of Staff 
Alexander Voloshin. Had Yeltsin been in charge of the country, the military 
would been admonished, not given Hero of Russia awards. The event forced the 
Family to realize that it is the opposition in the Kremlin, not the dominant 
power.


Also last week, corruption charges against Berezovsky were dropped, and he 
immediately announced his support for Putin. Realigning himself in order to 
survive, Berezovsky cut a deal with Putin and abandoned the Family. Putin and 
the military can use his support, wealth and media outlets in their battle to 
retain Kremlin control and Berezovsky can enjoy relative freedom. Neither 
side will stick to the deal for long though. Putin will eventually need to 
charge the Family members with their crimes, using them as an example of the 
intrinsic corruption, stomping it out and starting anew. Berezovsky knows the 
deal is temporary and will turn against Putin as soon as he has a better 
option. But for the short-term, Putin and the generals are the winning party, 
which is why Berezovsky joined them.


In addition, Duma Speaker Gennady Seleznev and several of the top military 
commanders announced their confidence in Putin last week, further increasing 
the military's support. Meanwhile, Family members have gone their separate 
ways, with Roman Abramovich running for a Duma seat, Berezovsky turning to 
the generals and Voloshin trying to win back power. However, they have no 
chance of surviving a Putin government individually. 


The Family must pull together again or face immediate ruin. Eventually they 
will be completely destroyed, though there is a possibility of postponing and 
lessening the inevitable punishment. Last week Voloshin tried to call Western 
attention to the power struggle in Moscow, in the hopes that the West would 
strongly disapprove, forcing the military to relinquish power. The military 
quickly quieted Voloshin and forced Yeltsin to recognize its demand to 
continue the Chechen campaign. Despite the risk, Voloshin and his supporters 
may make another attempt at regaining power. Although far outnumbered, the 
Family has nothing to lose by pursuing this course and will lose everything 
very soon if they do not. 


********


#12
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 
From: "Paul Backer, Esq." <pmcllc@email.msn.com> 
Subject: Response to the Bloomberg Article on Firing Putin


The recent, #3609 list, contained a rather exciting piece of news from
Bloomberg:


It was not the fact that Yeltsin may want to fire Putin, that is hardly that
unexpected, despite all the recent "Putin suddenly grows in stature"
articles, probably written by the same Kirienko, Stepashin, Primakov (take
your pick), "Suddenly grows in stature" authors. It is a genre wildly
popular in the West where Vasiliev (former FKTzB head) was rapidly growing
in stature right up to his departure as were Booz and the perennial
favorite, Chubais who seem to grow best right before being fired. Not to
forget Kokh who grew in stature best, just before being indicted. 


Oddly it is also a genre routinely ridiculed by most Russians. Many
Russians say that the "statutory" (sorry, bad pun) growth is just due to the
fact that most Russians who at this point are completely apathetic about
politics when pressed to name someone, name a person whose name appears most
frequently on TV and newspapers ... the acting prime minister. Just goes to
show how little Russians know about Russia.


Probably most of them would be surprised by the casually reported
information that:


"Yeltsin, who comes up for reelection in June, has been under pressure from 
U.S. and European officials to halt the crackdown on Chechnya...." [emphasis
added]


Yeltsin comes up for "re-election" in June now that is a major news scoop.
Kudos to Bloomberg. 


Someone should take steps to alert the RF Supreme (? or was it
Constitutional) Court that foolishly ruled otherwise, and oh yes ... tell
Yeltsin.


This may be a new low in slipshod, inaccurate and apparently un-fact
checked, Russia reporting. Shouldn't there be some line where a person
should feel embarrassed, I thought that this line was somewhere around
referring to Ichkeria (sic) as a nation, despite virtually uniform refusal
by other nations to recognize it, well ... that line has been trampled all
over recently, but surely, a Russia correspondent should know a little
something about Presidential terms in Russia?


Guess not.


*******


#13
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 
From: "Jerry F. Hough" <jhough@duke.edu> 
Subject: democratization


I have tried to stay on message in my communications with you 
over the last year or so, focussing on the issue of economic reform. I 
no doubt should not have participated in the visa issue, for it is not my 
issue and the dilemmas are enormous.


But the frustration on democratization--and indirectly the visa 
issue--does arise from the economic reform issue. Richmond says that 
change in Russia must come from the top. Unfortunately elections give 
people the chance to choose who is on top, and it seems to me that there 
is a lot of wishful thinking about what the presidential election results 
will be unless they are controlled. The notion that Lebed has 
disappeared strikes me as wishful thinking.


But it is okay to say that change comes from the top if one 
understands that intellectuals are top 10 percentile in the population. 
The key to successful economic reform and democratization is for the 
intellectuals to be educated on what they mean. Too many Russian 
intellectuals have gone straight from Marx who said that the state 
plays no useful role in capitalism to Hayek who says that. George 
W. Bush does not believe in Hayek, Gingrich does not believe in Hayek, 
Democrats are not supposed to believe in Hayek. Why in heaven's 
name do we support only people who simply retain their old ideological 
dogmas but think that Marx was wrong only in saying that the 
capitalist behavior of the 1840s was immoral. Or at least we support 
them if they support US foreign policy which seems little more than the 
Great Game that Talbott learned at Oxford--the domination of the Caucacus 
and Transcaucasus by a Turkey-Azerbaijan axis. 


Given the fact that we can't seem to avoid supporting anti-democratic 
intellectuals who want de facto dictatorship to impose a doctrinnaire 
economic policy that the US would never accept, it seems to me that the 
foreign aid money should go to bringing over provincial and 
enterprises office-holders on a massive basis for a short period and
connecting them with those who work in their spheres in America for a week. 
That requires translators and it requires a comprehensive enough program to
make sure that we inevitably bring a cross-section of the political elite.
That worked in the Brezhnev period, and it should be useful now.


I have no difficult designing what Richmond asks--an extremely 
useful democratization programs in the provinces that involving teaching 
conferences, learning through doing, and internet teaching and research. 
I would even be eager to take a role in such programs. But the fact of 
the matter is that kind of program will serve only a harmful purpose 
because those who fund them will only go back to the same type of Russians 
they have gone back to for the last decade. They are going to support 
people who say that any state involvement in the economy is bad and that 
democratization means supporting a political system that does not give 
the public what it wants. What is the use of a democratization program 
that only teaches anti-democracy and provides funding to anti-democrats 
on condition they support US foreign policy? I was one of those unhappy 
with the Republican support for Marcos and Somoza and the like in the 
1960s and the 1970s and for their support of the charge that ANU and 
Mandela could not be supported because they were Communists. But at 
least they supported right-wing dictators as a lesser evil, which at 
least had some honesty. They didn't do what we are doing with Yeltsin, 
Kuchma, Aliev, etc. and support right-wing dictators in the name of a 
democratization program.


For five years I have been trying to get funding for a Soviet prefects
study of agricultural administration in Russia and a survey of peasant and
administrative attitudes. One might even think that I have some credibility
on that kind of study and that those interested in market reform as the end
all 
and be all would at least be glad to divert me to a realm where I would 
be anti-state and pro-market. I can get no interest at all. I have 
written about agriculture repeatedly on these pages, and made obvious point
that the lack of protein is bad for health. I asked recently if anyone knew
what had happened to agriculture this year. No answer. Everyone knows
that 
agriculture is the most centrally dominated, non-monetarized sector in 
the economy (although included, of course, in the 70 percent "privatized" 
sector in our favorite statistics). Yet, no one calls for serious 
economic reform in agriculture. Everyone knows that those in towns under 
100,000 have a majority of the vote, but no one worries about the 
exploitation of that majority because there is confidence their votes will be
controlled by the government or miscounted. Nothing quite speaks so 
much about the corruption of America's (and not just the government's) 
policy toward Russia as its attitude toward agriculture and its 
indifference to the huge suffering and number of deaths produced from 
Russia to Ukraine to Armenia to Georgia, etc., by that policy. But 
our Somoza needs to exploit agriculture and the small towns to keep the big 
cities subsidized. How wonderful that Celestine Bohlen can write about more 
Russian canned goods in Moscow when agriculture production is down and when 
they must be taken away from other regions that never had Moscow's food 
imports. Let them eat potatoes. 


Well, no doubt, this too will pass. There will be changes of 
president both in the US and in Russia, and so long as Gore is not 
elected, people on both sides will be able to take a fresh look at things 
and they will have an interest to court different Kings. Even if Gore 
is elected, he, we can hope, will be forced to take a fresh look at a 
fresh government in Moscow. With my Yeltsin book done, I have spent the 
last few weeks looking at the relationship of corruption, politics, and 
economic growth in England in the 17th and 18th century. Now there is 
situation that looks like Russia except it had economic growth. Let us 
hope that over the next 200 years Russia gets some growth to go with its 
corruption. But, of course, England began economic growth on a base of 
change in agriculture. Maybe our exchange programs could focus on 
those who want to study real European and American economic history, and 
we could all agree that it is useful to send over intellectuals.

*******


#14
The Russia Journal
Novemeber 8-14, 1999
Editorial
Russia's growing pains 


Accusations are flying this pre-election season. The political parties,
both the registered and refused, are complaining that the Central Election
Commission (CEC) is simply the Kremlin's political tool. The CEC is
accusing the media of bias. The Press Ministry is accusing the CEC of
curtailing free speech. Meanwhile, every political party is accusing every
other party of everything from corruption to extremism to banditry. 


The mudslinging industry is in full swing, and political parties are saying
and doing little constructive as all energy is focused on negative
campaigning. At issue, essentially, is whether Russia is a functioning
young democracy - the well-documented problem of corruption aside - or a
dysfunctional political system that is democratic only in name. 


The CEC certainly barred some political blocs from participating in
December's State Duma (lower house of parliament) elections for
infringements that, in other cases, it deemed too trivial to prevent
mainstream parties from being registered. 


It's also true that the electoral process in Russia is riddled with
backroom dealing. Many of the country's regional votes are delivered, not
won, with parties and politicians spending much of the election season
building alliances and carving up votes, rather than drawing up platforms
and campaigning for them. 


Russia's most respected television station, NTV, owned by oligarch Vladimir
Gusinsky and aligned with Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, spends much of its
time hurling muck at the Kremlin. Meanwhile, state-owned and oligarch
Berezovsky-influenced ORT does the same to Luzhkov and his allies, most
notably former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov and St. Petersburg Governor
Vladimir Yakovlev. With effective reach to more than 80 percent of Russia,
the impact of the television wars cannot be underestimated. 


But despite the existence of a new Press Ministry, charged with
scrutinizing the media, journalists are not censored. The media, in turn,
free of external censure and internal control, are dishing out dirt,
freely, on anyone that crosses the path of the respective outlets. 


The leading political bloc, Fatherland-All Russia (OVR), formed by Luzhkov
and headed by Primakov, fired the first shot of the campaign with their
letter two weeks ago to the Kremlin suggesting Yeltsin sack his
administration - a transparent election ploy but, in a sense, an
encouraging sign. The decision to target the presidential administration
was a populist move attempting to court a public disgusted with the
behavior of Yeltsin's courtiers. 


The Kremlin, on the other hand, through its functionaries and friendly
media outfits, has started making direct attacks on Luzhkov, Primakov and
Yakovlev. Having remained immune from criticism during his iron-fisted rule
of the corruption-ridden capital, Luzhkov seems rattled by such attacks.
Though his initial reaction has been to counterattack with equal ferocity
through his own TV station and to run to the courts seeking "moral
compensation" of 450 million rubles from a TV anchorman, Luzhkov, too,
might become used to the pains of a free and democratic campaign. 


Separately, an opportunity to run for parliament should be extended to
Russia's extremist political parties. While the CEC allowed the Spas
(Savior) bloc to register last week, the Justice Ministry is vowing to find
a way to bar the group from running in December. The Justice Ministry is
wrong. The fitness to sit in the Duma of hatemongers like Alexander
Barkashov - leader of the neo-Nazi Russian National Unity (RNE) group and
head of Spas' voting list - should be judged by the people - that is what
democracy is about. 


Despite all the concerns of negative campaigning, extremist participation,
criminals buying seats on party lists and the exploitation of nationalist
fervor on the back of the war in Chechnya, one must see all this in light
of the pains of a fledgling democracy barely eight years old. 


One cannot but rejoice at the open and free expression, denied in the long
history of this nation, and the beginning of a real democratic process. 


Whatever the final make-up of the next Duma, the campaign for it is likely
to be a primitive affair - one to make even seasoned Western political
observers cringe. But this campaign is also the tentative beginning of a
historic transfer of power in this country: when Yeltsin steps down from
the presidency next year. 


******


#15
Moscow Times
November 9, 1999 
Media, Putin Agree He'll Be Sacked 
By Brian Whitmore
Staff Writer


"Vladimir Putin: 'We all get fired sometime.'" 


"Will Putin be sacked?" 


"Where will Putin's resignation lead?" 


These are the headlines that appeared over the weekend in some of Russia's 
national newspapers. 


Putin has been in office 84 days and his popularity f if the polls are to be 
believed f continues to climb. He says the sudden talk of his coming 
dismissal doesn't bother him. 


"If you are always thinking about being fired there would be no time for 
anything else," Putin told the newspaper Kommersant. "There is an old folk 
saying f if you are afraid, you don't act; and if you act, you aren't 
afraid." 


The talk of Putin's end, which dominates the television newscasts, seems the 
result of a convergence of interests between two opposing political camps: 
Kremlin-connected tycoon Boris Berezovsky on one hand, and Moscow Mayor Yury 
Luzhkov and former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov on the other. 


Berezovsky and Luzhkov have been at each other's throats for months f and 
still are f but political analysts interviewed for this article say those two 
sworn enemies agree on one thing: Putin must go. 


Berezovsky, who is accustomed to running Russia's political show behind the 
scenes, doesn't trust the wily ex-KGB spy Putin. And Luzhkov and Primakov 
have watched helplessly as Putin has skyrocketed past both of them in the 
polls. 


Just a month ago, Primakov was Russia's most popular politician and Putin's 
ratings were in single digits. Today, Putin has the support of nearly a third 
of Russia's electorate while Primakov has fallen to about 10 percent, 
according to polls cited on national television. 


This, of course, is not how Russia's hyper-politicized media are reporting 
the Putin story. To hear some of the country's top newspapers and television 
stations tell it, Putin has fallen victim to a diabolical Western conspiracy. 


Two Berezovsky-controlled news outlets, the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta and 
ORT television, reported that the West wants Primakov back in and Putin out. 


"The West clearly wants to have all of the main Russian political players in 
its hand at the same time [including] Yeltsin and Primakov in the first 
instance," Nezavisimaya Gazeta editor Vitaly Tretyakov wrote in a front-page 
article Saturday. "The current prime minister is less controllable by the 
West." 


This theory was echoed Sunday by both ORT's political analyst Sergei Dorenko 
f widely viewed as Berezovsky's mouthpiece f and Nikolai Svanidze, host of 
RTR state television's current affairs program Zerkalo. 


"The West is afraid of Putin," Svanidze said, adding that the West prefers 
Primakov, who is "more predictable" and "manageable." 


"Berezovsky doesn't trust Putin and is trying to get him fired, but it is 
still unclear whether he will succeed," said Vladimir Pribylovsky of the 
Panorama research center. 


Pribylovsky said Berezovsky would prefer to have Putin replaced with either 
Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo or Emergency Situations Minister Sergei 
Shoigu f who is widely rumored to be Berezovsky's favored candidate for prime 
minister, and so predictably has become the overnight political star on 
Berezovsky-controlled media. 


ORT, for example, dutifully reported Putin's high public approval ratings, 
but also noted a sharp rise in those of Shoigu f one so at odds with common 
sense, since Shoigu is far from a household name, that it was difficult to 
swallow. 


"Shoigu is the one politician who has yet to achieve his potential," Dorenko 
claimed on his show Sunday. 


In an interview broadcast on RTR Sunday night, Shoigu acted like a man who 
expected to be prime minister soon. Asked who ordered his recent trip to 
Ingushetia to check on refugees fleeing the war in Chechnya, Shoigu said "in 
this given situation" he was a Cabinet minister andso took his orders from 
Putin. Shoigu also did not deny reports that he was about to be named prime 
minister. 


Other media are reporting that Western governments are putting pressure on 
the Kremlin to stop the war or risk losing badly Western credits. These 
reports argue that Yeltsin will soon be forced to choose between his popular 
prime minister and the generals that support him on one hand, and the West on 
the other. Such a move would drive a wedge between Yeltsin and Putin f the 
prime minister seems to enjoy the military's strong support. 


Komsomolskaya Pravda, citing unidentified Kremlin sources, reported Saturday 
that Yeltsin has already told Putin to either resign or end the war and to 
fire the head of the army General Staff, Anatoly Kvashnin. 


"The president and the Kremlin have made a decision to cease military 
activities in Chechnya," Komsomolskaya Pravda reported, adding that Putin was 
given until Monday to call a cease-fire, begin negotiations with Maskhadov 
and fire Kvashnin. 


"Putin has been placed in an extremely difficult position since he has given 
the generals his word as an officer that he would support their conduct in 
the war and not negotiate with Chechen militants," Komsomolskaya Pravda 
reported, concluding that "The decision to remove Putin has already been 
made." 


Kvashnin and other top military leaders have reportedly threatened to resign 
if the Chechen campaign is stopped short of total victory. General Vladimir 
Shamanov, who commands the Western Group of Forces deployed in Chechnya, has 
openly threatened to quit: He told the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta that he 
would resign in the event of a cease-fire. 


"We are sick of seeing Russia humiliated," Nezavisimaya Gazeta quoted 
Shamanov as saying. 


*******


#16
Berezovskiy on Financiers in State Governance 


MOSCOW. Nov 6 (Interfax) - Business tycoon and 
politician Boris Berezovsky is of the opinion that financiers should play 
a role in running Russia. 


"I nearly fainted when I head a couple of years ago that George Soros 
was a CIA agent. It is the CIA who carries out Soros' tasks instead of 
the other way around," Berezovsky said at an Interfax press conference. 
Berezovsky wants "a genuine revolution to take place in society." "Dialogue 
between the authorities and capital (money) is unavoidable. What do we 
think, that prior to the Persian Gulf operation, (U.S. President Bill) 
Clinton did not meet with U.S. businessmen who have interests there?" he 
said. 


Berezovsky also spelled out his position on the criticism of Russian 
President 
Boris Yeltsin's inner circle. The label "'family' in the sense of 'Mafia' 
was applied by those who dislike the idea of a growing number of citizens 
being involved in state governance because they possess capital. This is 
a pure propaganda campaign by the authorities' opponents," he said. 
This is also true about the "communists, who cannot accept this," he said. 


Furthermore, he added, those in West afraid of "Russian capital 
[money]becoming strong" "dislike this very much," he said.


*******


#17
Russia Responsible For Terrorism In The Caucasus, Says Havel


BERLIN, Nov 8, 1999 -- (Agence France Presse) Russian oppression is the "main 
reason" behind terrorism in the Caucasus, said Czech President Vaclav Havel 
quoted in next Monday's edition of the German weekly Der Spiegel.


Referring to Russia's military operation in Chechnya, he said Russia had for 
a long time behaved in an arrogant manner towards the people of the Caucasus.


"Russian oppression down the years is the main cause of fundamentalism and 
terrorism in the Caucasus," he added.


"I am extremely concerned by Russia's actions in Chechnya and have been for 
some time," he continued, emphasizing that human rights "are universal and 
must be respected everywhere."


Moscow is conducting air and ground campaigns against Chechnya, which it 
accuses of harboring terrorists who killed 293 people in Russia in August and 
September. 


******