December 19, 2000   

This Date's Issues:  4696 • 4697 • 4698

Johnson's Russia List
#4696
19 December 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. AP: Report: U.S. a Military Superpower.
2. CIA: Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts. (excerpts)
3. The Globe and Mail (Canada): Full transcript of the Putin interview.]

*******

#1
Report: U.S. a Military Superpower
December 18, 2000
By ROBERT BURNS
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - As adversaries realize the enduring superiority of the
American military, they are more likely to develop and use low-tech tools of
war in hopes of circumventing U.S. strengths, an intelligence report said
Monday.

The report, a broad analysis of global security issues in the new century,
says the United States will remain the world's dominant military power over
the next 15 years, China is likely to expand its influence, and Russia is
headed for further decline.

``U.S. opponents - state and such nonstate actors as drug lords, terrorists
and foreign insurgents - will not want to engage the U.S. military on its
terms,'' the report said. ``They will choose instead political and military
strategies designed to dissuade the United States from using force.''

One such strategy would be a threat to use weapons of mass destruction, such
as chemical or germ weapons, against U.S. targets. Opponents might also find
U.S. computer networks increasingly attractive targets.

Terrorists are likely to devise more deadly means of attack.

``Between now and 2015 terrorist tactics will become increasingly
sophisticated and designed to achieve mass casualties,'' the report said.
``We expect the trend toward greater lethality in terrorist attacks to
continue.''

The most recent example of this approach was the attack on the USS Cole on
Oct. 12 as it refueled in Aden, Yemen. A small boat maneuvered alongside the
huge destroyer and, without drawing attention of the ship's security forces,
detonated explosives that tore a hole in the ship and killed 17 sailors.

Monday's report said this asymmetric warfare will threaten U.S. interests not
only abroad but also at home.

``Such asymmetric approaches - whether undertaken by states or nonstate
actors - will become the dominant characteristic of most threats to the U.S.
homeland,'' the report said. This will become the ``defining challenge'' of
U.S. national security strategy and military force development.

The report, ``Global Trends 2015,'' was 15 months in the making and was
directed by the National Intelligence Council, a group of intelligence
analysts representing all elements of the U.S. national security
establishment, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Experts from private think
tanks and academic institutions also contributed.

In a note accompanying the report, CIA director George Tenet said it marks a
change in approach.

``This is not a traditional intelligence assessment, depending on classified
sources and methods,'' he wrote. ``Rather, it reflects an intelligence
community fully engaged with outside experts in a constructive dialogue about
the future. I want to encourage this lively exchange.''

At the White House, press secretary Jake Siewert said the report reflects
President Clinton's view that the nation's security interests must be viewed
broadly, to include nonmilitary factors such as the spread of AIDS and
infectious diseases, global climate change and population and economic
trends.

The report said that by 2015 AIDS will be a major problem not only in Africa
but also in India, Southeast Asia, several countries formerly part of the
Soviet Union and possibly China.

``Those are trends that need assessing from a future administration. We hope
they'll take a look at it,'' Siewert said.

The assessment said that the United States will remain the dominant world
power through 2015, but China probably will increase its global influence,
Japan will weaken economically, and India will increase its regional power.

Russia will have to adjust, even more than today, to a diminished global
role.

``The quality of Russian governance is an open question as is whether the
country will be able to make the transition in a manner that preserves rather
than upsets regional stability,'' the report said. Russia will be unable to
maintain large and modern conventional forces and, as a result, will rely
increasingly on nuclear forces.

China's military, the People's Liberation Army, will remain the world's
largest, but most of the force will not be fully modernized by 2015, the
report said. To achieve more integrated naval and air capabilities against
Taiwan and other potential adversaries, China will exploit advanced weapons
and production technologies acquired from abroad - Russia, Israel, Europe,
Japan and the United States.

The report said most experts believe China will seek to avoid conflict in
Asia to promote stable economic growth and to ensure internal stability.
Still, it said, ``estimates of China beyond five years are fraught with
unknowables,'' such as the effect on the ruling regime of internal pressures
for social and political change.

On the Net: Full report:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/globaltrends2015/index.html

******

#2
Excerpts
National Intelligence Council
Global Trends 2015:
A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/globaltrends2015/index.html#link13

NIC 2000-02, December 2000
This paper was approved for publication by the National Foreign Intelligence
Board under the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence.

Prepared under the direction of the National Intelligence Council.

Note on Process

In undertaking this comprehensive analysis, the NIC worked actively with a
range of nongovernmental institutions and experts. We began the analysis with
two workshops focusing on drivers and alternative futures, as the appendix
describes. Subsequently, numerous specialists from academia and the private
sector contributed to every aspect of the study, from demographics to
developments in science and technology, from the global arms market to
implications for the United States. Many of the judgments in this paper
derive from our efforts to distill the diverse views expressed at these
conferences or related workshops....

In October 2000, the draft report was discussed with outside experts,
including Richard Cooper and Joseph Nye (Harvard University), Richard Haass
(Brookings Institution), James Steinberg (Markle Foundation), and Jessica
Mathews (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). Their comments and
suggestions are incorporated in the report. Daniel Yergin (Cambridge Energy
Research Associates) reviewed and commented on the final draft....

Russia

Between now and 2015, Moscow will be challenged even more than today to
adjust its expectations for world leadership to its dramatically reduced
resources. Whether the country can make the transition in adjusting ends to
means remains an open and critical question, according to most experts, as
does the question of the character and quality of Russian governance and
economic policies. The most likely outcome is a Russia that remains
internally weak and institutionally linked to the international system
primarily through its permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In this
view, whether Russia can adjust to this diminished status in a manner that
preserves rather than upsets regional stability is also uncertain. The stakes
for both Europe and the United States will be high, although neither will
have the ability to determine the outcome for Russia in 2015. Russian
governance will be the critical factor....

Russia will be unable to maintain conventional forces that are both sizable
and modern or to project significant military power with conventional means.
The Russian military will increasingly rely on its shrinking strategic and
theater nuclear arsenals to deter or, if deterrence fails, to counter
large-scale conventional assaults on Russian territory.

Moscow will maintain as many strategic missiles and associated nuclear
warheads as it believes it can afford but well short of START I or II
limitations. The total Russian force by 2015, including air launched cruise
missiles, probably will be below 2,500 warheads.

As Russia struggles with the constraints on its ambitions, it will invest
scarce resources in selected and secretive military technology programs,
especially WMD, hoping to counter Western conventional and strategic
superiority in areas such as ballistic missile defense....

Russia and Eurasia

Regional Trends. Uncertainties abound about the future internal
configuration, geopolitical dynamics, and degree of turbulence within and
among former Soviet states. Russia and the other states of Eurasia are likely
to fall short in resolving critical impediments to economic and political
reform in their struggle to manage the negative legacies of the Soviet
period. Changing demographics, chronic economic difficulties, and continued
questions about governance will constrain Russia's ability to project its
power beyond the former Soviet republics to the south, complicate Ukraine's
efforts to draw closer to the West, and retard the development of stable,
open political structures throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia. Those
states that could make progress on the basis of potential energy revenues are
likely to fail because of corruption and the absence of structural economic
reform. The rapid pace of scientific and technological innovation, as well as
globalization, will leave these states further behind the West as well as
behind the major emerging markets.

The economic challenges to these countries will remain daunting: insufficient
structural reform, poor productivity in agriculture as compared with Western
standards, decaying infrastructure and environmental degradation. Corruption
and organized crime, sustained by drug trafficking, money laundering, and
other illegal enterprises and, in several instances, protected by corrupt
political allies, will persist.

Demographic pressures also will affect the economic performance and political
cohesiveness of these states. Because of low birthrates and falling life
expectancy among males, the populations of the Slavic core and much of the
Caucasus will continue to decline; Russian experts predict that the country's
population could fall from 146 million at present to 130-135 million by 2015.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Central Asian countries will face a
growing youth cohort that will peak around 2010 before resuming a more
gradual pattern of population growth.

The centrality of Russia will continue to diminish, and by 2015 "Eurasia"
will be a geographic term lacking a unifying political, economic, and
cultural reality. Russia and the western Eurasian States will continue to
orient themselves toward Europe but will remain essentially outside of it.
Because of geographic proximity and cultural affinities, the Caucasus will be
closer politically to their neighbors to the south and west, with Central
Asia drawing closer to South Asia and China. Nonetheless, important
interdependencies will remain, primarily in the energy sphere.

Russia will remain the most important actor in the former Soviet Union. Its
power relative to others in the region and neighboring areas will have
declined, however, and it will continue to lack the resources to impose its
will.

The Soviet economic inheritance will continue to plague Russia. Besides a
crumbling physical infrastructure, years of environmental neglect are taking
a toll on the population, a toll made worse by such societal costs of
transition as alcoholism, cardiac diseases, drugs, and a worsening health
delivery system. Russia's population is not only getting smaller, but it is
becoming less and less healthy and thus less able to serve as an engine of
economic recovery. In macro economic terms Russia's GDP probably has bottomed
out. Russia, nevertheless, is still likely to fall short in its efforts to
become fully integrated into the global financial and trading system by 2015.
Even under a best case scenario of five percent annual economic growth,
Russia would attain an economy less than one-fifth the size of that of the
United States.

Many Russian futures are possible, ranging from political resurgence to
dissolution. The general drift, however, is toward authoritarianism, although
not to the extreme extent of the Soviet period. The factors favoring this
course are President Putin's own bent toward hierarchical rule from Moscow;
the population's general support of this course as an antidote to the
messiness and societal disruption of the post-Soviet transition; the ability
of the ruling elite to hold on to power because of the lack of effective
national opposition, thus making that elite accountable only to itself; and
the ongoing shift of tax resources from the regions to the center. This
centralizing tendency will contribute to dysfunctional governance. Effective
governance is nearly impossible under such centralization for a country as
large and diverse as Russia and lacking well-ordered, disciplined national
bureaucracies. Recentralization, however, will be constrained by the
interconnectedness brought about by the global information revolution, and by
the gradual, although uneven, growth of civil society.

Russia will focus its foreign policy goals on reestablishing lost influence
in the former Soviet republics to the south, fostering ties to Europe and
Asia, and presenting itself as a significant player vis-a-vis the United
States. Its energy resources will be an important lever for these endeavors.
However, its domestic ills will frustrate its efforts to reclaim its great
power status. Russia will maintain the second largest nuclear arsenal in the
world as the last vestige of its old status. The net outcome of these trends
will be a Russia that remains internally weak and institutionally linked to
the international system primarily through its permanent seat on the UN
Security Council.

Ukraine's path to the West will be constrained by widespread corruption, the
power of criminal organizations, and lingering questions over its commitment
to the rule of law. Kiev will remain vulnerable to Russian pressures,
primarily because of its continued energy dependence, but Ukrainians of all
political stripes and likely to opt for independence rather than
reintegration into Russia's sphere of influence.

In 2015, the South Caucasus will remain in flux because of unresolved local
conflicts, weak economic fundamentals, and continued Russian meddling.
Georgia probably will have achieved a measure of political and economic
stability, fueled in part by energy transit revenues, but it will remain the
focus of Russian attention in the region. Armenia will remain largely
isolated and is likely to remain a Russianâ?"or possibly Iranianâ?"client
and,
therefore, a regional wild card. Azerbaijan's success in developing its
energy sector is unlikely to bring widespread prosperity: Baku will be a
one-sector economy with pervasive corruption at all levels of society.

In Central Asia, social, environmental, religious, and possibly ethnic
strains will grow. Wasteful water-intensive practices and pollution of ground
water and arable land will lead to continued shortages for agricultural and
energy generation. The high birthrates of the 1980s and early 1990s will lead
to strains on education, healthcare, and social services. The region also is
likely to be the scene of increased competition among surrounding
powers--Russia, China, India, Iran, and possibly Turkey--for control,
influence, and access to energy resources. Developments in Afghanistan and
Pakistan will threaten regional stability....

******
 
#3
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
December 15, 2000
Full transcript of the Putin interview
  
Following is the text of The Globe and Mail's interview with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Also participating in the interview, which took place the
evening of Dec. 8 in the Kremlin, were CBC, CTV and the Russian state
television channel. The translation was provided by Federal News Service, a
Moscow-based company.

Q: Mr. President, Canadians have a certain image of the relations between
Russia and Canada. It's a very good image. I would like to ask you what image
would you like Canadians to form of Russia and you as the leader of the
country, as the President?

Putin: The same image as you got of our ice-hockey players at the time of the
first match between the NHL team and the Soviet team in 1972. We are good
neighbours, we are strong states. We have something to be proud of. We almost
have a common border, we are neighbors in the North. We have some common
problems. And we are determined to solve these problems together. Both
bilateral and multilateral. I think if we treat each other in a friendly way,
we may effectively solve the problems that we have in common.

Q: What impression do you have of Canada? Do you know anything about Canada?

Putin: It's not difficult for me to imagine what Canada is like because I have
been there. True, I was there just once, about 6 years ago. I visited a
research centre in southern Canada. Besides I must say that we are very
similar
countries. Both countries are huge if you look at the size of their
territories. Russia has the largest territory in the world. And Canada follows
Russia on that list. We have a lot of natural resources. We have even
developed
our territories in similar ways. Russia has developed its territory from East
to West and Canada, as far as I know, from West to East.
  Sorry, it's the other way around. We developed it from West to East and
Canada from East to West. Investments, including foreign investments, played a
major role in the economic development both of Russia and Canada. I have
already said that we are northern countries. And we are still rather sparsely
populated countries. That is, we have many problems which are similar or
identical. I repeat, we are almost neighbors in the northern latitudes. And
besides there are many people from the former U.S.S.R. and from
pre-revolutionary Russia who now live in Canada. And this, I think, leaves a
certain imprint, a positive imprint. We all, and I personally, have the most
favorable impressions of Canada as a powerful state which is very friendly to
my country. And we think of Canadians in the same way as we think of the guys
whom we first saw in a hockey match between the NHL and the Soviet team in
1972.

    Q: Mr. President, Canadians have a rather negative idea of your country,
perhaps a wrong idea, a mistaken idea, as a place where you can't do business
properly, where the problem of poverty is acute and where there is not enough
law and order. What do you think could be done in order to change these
perceptions?

  Putin: First of all, the problems that really exist should be eradicated.
And
secondly, life in our country should be covered objectively and fully.
  Our people can hardly be said to be wealthy people. The incomes of our
people
are average and there are many poor people. It is a fact. But you can't
describe our population as paupers. At least not according to United Nations
statistics and standards. But recently, especially in the last six months,
wages increased by an average of 24 per cent. Pensions have increased by 35-40
per cent, it's probably closer to 35 per cent. And the real incomes of the
people have increased by 9 per cent. The number of automobiles in the country
increased three-fold in the last 10 years. That is a very high rate.
  All this shows that the social problems that exist in the country, in
Russia,
especially at this turning point in its history, that they do not prevent and
cannot prevent the normal development of the state. So, I would say that these
concerns are unjustified.

   Q: Mr. President, how much time will Russia need to carry out the
Reforms in
order to turn the country into a normal and equal partner economically? Some
economists think it will require 6 months and others that it will take two
years. What do you think?

  Putin: You can tell more or less accurately when a child will be born
provided you know it has been conceived. And even that cannot always be
predicted. As for the answer to your question, it depends on a number of
circumstances, including the world economy. We have recently been speaking
about the problems of globalization. And of course, everything that happens in
the world economy has a direct impact on the state of affairs in Russia, on
Russian finances and its economic development rate. If the positive trends in
the Russian economy today hold, then, I think, the country's population will
benefit from the real fruit of this economic growth within the next 3, 4, 5
years. But as for becoming totally integrated into the world economy, I think
it will take a little longer. But having said that, it does not always depend
on us only. It depends partly on you. For instance, our industry faces
constant
and fairly tough procedures on the part of the Canadian authorities who are
still reluctant to recognize that we a market economy. Our goods face certain
problems in the North American market. If we get a fair deal, then the time
span you have asked me about will be much shorter.

    Q: Many Canadian businessmen have certain fears based on their own
practical experience of doing business in this country. Contracts were broken
in some instances, etc. This breeds mistrust and suspicion. What is your
opinion?

  Putin: I think these problems exist, or at any rate existed, and one should
take a relaxed attitude to this because our country has been in a period of
transition for a number of years. Many issues were not properly regulated
under
the law. But that is becoming a thing of the past. And I must frankly admit
that the deficiencies of laws were connected with lack of consolidation in
society. It was hard to make corresponding decisions at the level of the State
Duma, the country's parliament. Today we are able to secure consolidated
voting
on many key issues in the activities of the state. And this gives us hope that
the legal field for business will be cleared. At the same time one has to
admit
that any businessman beginning work in another country must first study its
laws. And he should build his business not blindly, but with the help of the
right kind of specialists. By the way, I think Canadian business could be very
good at preparing the ground for work in Russia, partly by influencing the
Canadian authorities.
  So, I think that all the potential partners of Russia are interested in
Russia becoming a member of the World Trade Organization. And we very much
count on Canada backing Russia in its plan to join the WTO. If it happens, all
the procedures and rules of conducting business in Russia will be to a large
extent harmonized with the international standards. Everybody would stand to
gain from it. We very much hope that Canada will support us.

    Q: Mr. President, the question of Chechnya is constantly on the agenda of
the world leaders and your negotiations with them. And everybody wonders
whether this problem can be solved and peace can be established? And if it is
possible, how can this be achieved?

  Putin: The problem of Chechnya is not just a Russian problem. I agree with
that. But it is a pity that the world public opinion, Western public opinion,
does not know enough about the events and does not get accurate information
about them. Few people know that large-scale events in Chechnya began in the
summer of 1999 after Russia granted Chechnya de facto independence as a state.
Nevertheless in the summer of last year an unprovoked armed attack was
launched
on the territory of Russia, on the Republic of Dagestan which is adjacent to
Chechnya. And these attacks were launched four times. Four times we drove
large
bands of terrorists out of our territory. It was only after that and after the
explosions of residential blocks in Moscow that we decided to liquidate the
terrorist bases on the territory of Chechnya itself. We agree with the concern
of the international community over the humanitarian aspect of this matter. We
are talking above all about civilians who should not suffer. But these are
forced actions on our part. No humanitarian rules should be applied to
terrorists. After all, nobody speaks about the humanitarian rights of bin
Laden
who blows up American embassies and American naval ships.
  We have the right to demand the extradition and trial of these people. As
for
settlement on a serious and constant basis, settlement with the population of
Chechnya and not with international fanatics and terrorists who are now
attacking the civilized world in various parts of the globe and have formed an
arc beginning from Indonesia and ending with Kosovo, if we talk about reaching
a settlement with the population of Chechnya, I absolutely agree with this.
Such an accommodation can only be reached exclusively by legal and political
means. And we are engaged in such contacts with those who want to and are
committed to this kind of negotiations. I am sure that we will eventually
solve that problem.

    Q: I would like to ask you about issues on which the views and
positions of
our countries are close. These include the ABM Treaty. Our positions are
similar there. Do you think it is possible to establish relations between our
countries which, like on the issue of the ABM Treaty, are based on common
interests and views so that our two countries could play their proper role on
the international arena and ensure a safer world?

  Putin: I think the answer is yes. The fact that our positions on world
security, on the problem of the preservation of the ABM Treaty of 1972 are
very
close - and it is a fact - already shows that we can find common ground on
cardinal and key issues of our time and use them for the benefit of bilateral
relations and for the benefit of the whole mankind. On this issue one can say
it without exaggeration. We have already recalled that we are neighbors in the
northern latitudes and that the development of the North is a common task for
us. So, that is a large field for cooperation.
  And in this connection we could well mention the environmental problems.
  They have a global character. And of course, Canada and Russia are equally
interested in problems of this sort being effectively solved. I think there,
like in other areas, we have a lot of common ground, and as I have said, a lot
of opportunities for effective work together.

    Q: Even if the United States doesn't like these agreements between us?

  Putin: Our agreements must not and cannot be directed against the interests
of third parties. When we met with Mr. Chrétien, we discussed all these
problems and we always took the positions of our partners into account.
  I think if we follow the road of combining the efforts of all the countries
involved in this or that problem, we will achieve the result. But, of course,
almost every result of this kind is a compromise. And in any compromise
somebody must meet somebody else half way.

    Q: How do you define the greatness of Russia? Do you define it in economic
terms or in military terms?

  Putin: In general the topic of the greatness of the country and what it
consists in merits discussion. We have mentioned the large territories.
  Both Russia and Canada are the largest countries in the world. Russia, even
though it has lost over 30 per cent of its territory (if I am not mistaken)
after the breakup of the Soviet Union, is still the country with the largest
territory. Canada is in second place. Both Canada and Russia have vast natural
resources. Russia remains a major military power. And of course the basis of
our military grandeur, as you have put it, is our nuclear force which we
maintain at a proper level. And of course we should not forget about such an
important component of the grandeur of any state as the level of culture,
education and science. Nobody has ever challenged the great contribution
Russia has made to the treasure trove of world civilization.
  Today we know about it. Competition today has shifted from the military
sphere to the economic sphere. We have to look at things realistically. In the
global list of economically developed countries, Russia is located in the
middle. It is fifteenth in terms of its economic potential.
  But Russia has good opportunities. Very good prospects. We take all this
into account and this is grounds enough for us to look to the future with
optimism.

    Q: You have mentioned the military factor. Your country is carrying out a
military reform. What role will nuclear forces play in the armed forces and in
the defense potential of Russia?

  Putin: The leading role. The leading role, of course. Russia has inherited
its nuclear forces from the Soviet Union. Our task is to maintain them
properly, to develop them in a modern way and we intend to do that. But I must
say from the beginning that we are not looking for enemies. The lower the
level
of nuclear conflict between the main nuclear states, the better. That's why we
call upon the world community and our partners in the nuclear club to act
together to ease the nuclear confrontation. I think it is possible if you pool
efforts, especially in missile launch control. One can ensure security for all
using other technical means.

    Q: We understand that, but still, many feel concerned, including people in
Canada, about the recent events. Canada, too, is concerned about the Russian
nuclear potential. Do you think there are grounds for such concerns?

  Putin: None. None whatsoever. There are absolutely no grounds for concern.
  I am not joking, this is really so. It is substantially so. This is so
because there is no confrontation between the two systems. It's in the past.
  There is no confrontation between the two nuclear super giants, the U.S. and
the U.S.S.R.. The U.S.S.R. no longer exists. We have an absolutely different
foreign and internal policy. We are not looking for enemies. We seek
cooperation, including in the nuclear sphere.

    Q: I know you don't like being asked about it, but still I would like to
ask you. You are usually (or frequently) described in terms of your previous
experience working with the security service. Does this irritate or disappoint
or annoy you in any way?

  Putin: Why do you think I don't like being asked about it? I have never said
I don't like it. I don't know if it would be appropriate to recall my first
meeting with Mr. Kissinger. I have high regard for him. But when I told him I
had begun my career as an intelligence man, he made a pause, thought a little
and then said: "All decent people started with the intelligence service,
including myself". I am ashamed to say that I didn't know about it. Well,
nothing doing. I know that some other leaders in other countries, including
U.S. presidents, for example, had at one time worked with the intelligence
agencies. I served my country, I did it in good faith, and I don't have any
regrets. And by the way, surprisingly enough, I never violated the laws of any
foreign countries. It was an interesting, highly professional
job. And it played a certain role in my life. A positive role. It was an
interesting job.

 Q: I've read that you are studying English?

  Putin: English is a world language. So, it's natural. That's first. And
second, I think that in addition to physical exercise a person should have
intellectual exercise. For me, studying English is something like intellectual
gymnastics. And any language is a glimpse into another world, a different
culture. It's exciting. It's fun.  Shall we speak with you in English or in
Russian?

  Q: I'm sorry, but I find it hard to speak in Russian. This is a question
about your personal life. Of course, it has attracted a lot of attention in
the
last 18 months, a lot has been written about you. It must be hard to get used
to it, to suddenly being at the focus of public attention. Many write and say,
and some people have even called you the sexiest man in your country. How do
you feel about it?

  Putin: It goes with my present job. I endure it.

    Q: You don't like it?

  Putin: You can't be pleased with being at the focus of attention all the
time.

Q: Mr. President, many people in your country, including Boris Yeltsin, have
disagreed with your proposal to reinstate the old Soviet anthem as the anthem
of new Russia. Why is there such disagreement in your country on the question
of national identity? And which elements of your country's communist past
should, in your opinion, be incorporated in the new Russian national
identity?

  Putin: I think that if you start a discussion on national symbols in any
country, there will be heated arguments in any country. And I don't think a
consensus on such symbols can be achieved anywhere. I doubt that it can.
  Especially in our country which has not yet forgotten the tragic events of
the Soviet period it has lived through. Many people still remember the full
horrors of Stalin's prison camps, and their wounds are still bleeding. That is
true. We cannot ignore it. So, we must respect their opinion. At the same time
I believe that to pretend that in the 80 years of our country, the Soviet
Union, in the Soviet period of the existence of Russia - to pretend that there
was nothing in that period that people can be proud of, that would be a tragic
mistake. We have many achievements which are connected with certain symbols.
Take the first flight of man in space. That was a Soviet man, Yuri Gagarin.
That flight was made possible by the labour of millions of citizens of my
country, who sacrificed everything. And they have the right to take something
into today's life and to take with their children into the future something to
remind them of their earlier life.
  I think it would be fair. I wouldn't politicize these symbols. Because if
you ask the people who lived in the tsarist times how they feel about those
symbols, especially if you ask the intellectuals of the time, I assure you
there would be arguments too.

    Q: Before you became President, many people felt that Russia was in total
chaos and anarchy, that the Russian state was almost non-existent. Looking
from
Canada, it seems to us that one of your main ideas is to rebuild the Russian
state. But we as journalists know that many people in Russia don't like it.
Journalists are shouting that there is no more democracy there, that their
rights are infringed upon and businessmen (the so-called oligarchs) think that
they have lost the influence they had before. Do you believe that
strengthening
the state is the top priority for Russia as a country which is in a difficult
transition period? Even if it means that the democratic institutions that
existed previously won't be able to exist? Or that business won't be able to
play such a big role as it played before?

  Putin: No. I don't think so. We should try not to confuse notions. If we
talk
about business, it doesn't mean that the representatives of business have the
right to privatize state power institutions and those who have more money
should control society outside the framework of the existing state procedures
and institutions. It means precisely that the oligarchs you have mentioned
must
not and have no right to influence government decisions except through the
legitimate bodies of power and administration, through parliament, for
example.
Perhaps, some people don't like having been deprived of the unique position
they enjoyed in Russia up until now, have been deprived of or are losing their
privileged position. But it doesn't mean that the development of democratic
institutions has no direct link with the development of the state. When we
speak of the strengthening of the state, we don't mean the curtailment of
democratic freedoms, because without adequately developed democratic
institutions for the protection of human rights - including in business - the
market economy cannot develop. But when we talk about the strengthening of the
state, we do not mean the curtailment of democratic freedoms but the
strengthening of state institutions which can guarantee the enforcement of the
laws passed by the state itself. If somebody doesn't like it, if somebody has
got used to anarchy, I am sorry, but they will have to agree with the rules
offered by society.

    Q: But how do you react to some of your critics who say that the
strengthening of the state means that there is less democracy? Take such an
issue as freedom of expression.

    Putin: I think everyone is entitled to his own opinion and he must uphold
that opinion through the democratic procedures I have referred to.
  Through elections. Let them prove their case in the course of election
campaigns, put their deputies into parliament and pass corresponding laws
which
the state is obliged to implement and is obliged to enforce the laws that are
passed. There is no other way.

    Q: Many in the West are concerned about the fate of the environmental
movement in your country. This has been prompted by recent detentions, arrests
and interrogations of environmental activists and opponents of the use of
nuclear energy. You have yourself once said that environmental movements often
provide a cover or a screen for spying. Do you really think so?

  Putin: To be honest, I've always admired people who devote their lives to
environmental problems. And I've watched with astonishment as a group of
people on a
little boat try to oppose a huge military or industrial ship. I must say this
inspires only sympathy. I have often thought what I would do when my term runs
out, it must run out some time. It is a noble task to support the ecological
movement. At least I wouldn't be sorry to spend time on it.
I think only people who are utterly dedicated to the achievement of such goals
can really achieve results.
But no noble goals can provide a cover for illegal activities. If you are
referring to the well known detentions and trials, let me point out that not
only Russia, but other countries too, detain activists of environmental
movements. If you are referring to the trials of former servicemen who had
obtained information by various means and handed it over to foreign citizens
who are members of environmental groups, the protection of the environment and
obtaining of classified information are not quite the same things. But I would
agree that many things in present-day Russia are outdated. Whether this or
that
piece of information is secret or whether it is time to declassify it is a
question, but it is a question that should be resolved by the court. If you
noticed, the people you have referred to are not just seized and thrown in
jail
and kept there without trial or investigation. A normal and open process is
underway. They have the opportunity and the right to defend themselves. They
have lawyers. They are fighting for their rights. This is normal.

    Q: Few people in Canada were sorry when the Soviet Union broke up, but
there was one thing that we didn't like in Canada. As the business partners of
the United States we sometimes resent the fact that the United States has such
great influence now that it is not challenged. For you, this is geopolitical
arithmetic existing in the world, and you, too, don't think it is the right
kind of arithmetic. Do you believe that it may change as Russia grows
stronger?

  Putin: I think the attempts to create a multipolar world, to use the trendy
expression, are disliked not only in Canada. We are satisfied with our present
position because it doesn't demand excessive effort in the defence field. It
doesn't suck blood from the economy of our country, even though we are still
spending quite a lot to maintain the defence system of our state. But the fact
that the geopolitical situation has changed and we no longer see the United
States as an enemy, as an adversary, need not necessarily bode ill for us.
  For the United States, of course, it may become a problem. I understand it.
  But this is not our problem.

    Q: So, you are quite happy as it is. Let them sort out -

  Putin: No, our position is known to everyone. We are in favour of a
multi-polar world. We believe that the world cannot develop effectively and
positively if one state has the monopoly of making and implementing decisions
which it makes itself and considers to be right.
In the history of mankind, such a drive for a monopoly has never ended well.
For that reason, we are constantly proposing a different democratic world
structure.
 
Q: Some critics say there is no serious opposition remaining in Russia today.
Putin: I scan newspapers and I look at some TV channels and I find it hard to
imagine that there is no opposition. If what I sometimes see on television
screens and read in newspapers is not opposition, what is it? It must be just
hooliganism. But I don't want to use such terms with regard to the people who
disagree with what I do, so, let us say that this is not hooliganism, but
opposition. Though not always civilized opposition, in my view. But it is an
opposition all the same. Opposition is the people who disagree and offer an
alternative solution. There are many such people in society and in the State
Duma. They openly express their position and argue.
Not always correctly, it is true, but this goes with democracy, one has to
accept it.

    Q: You have spoken about the economic situation in Russia and you said
it is
good this year. But what do you think will happen if next year the price of
oil
drops sharply (as some analysts predict)? Is Russia prepared for it?

   Putin: Russia is preparing itself for it. Russia is preparing and we try to
achieve a kind of economic development that is not stimulated only by a
favorable foreign economic situation, but by internal processes in the economy
itself. I must say that although the foreign economic situation favors Russia,
the government is still doing much not to squander the positive resources that
it has. It is pursuing a meaningful economic policy.
  Let me tell you that we could have acted differently (in spite of our super
profits from the sale of energy). And then we would hardly have preserved the
macroeconomic indicators that we have managed to preserve. We have done it
thanks to the consistent steps of the government in spite of the pressure of
the opposition. But we could have acted more decisively. In any case, the
government today is finding it difficult to contain the money supply that
pours
into the economy, but it still managing. And I think we will be able to stick
to that policy not only until the end of this year but also next year. So, we
assume that the favorable oil prices will not be forever.
We are prepared for it.

   Q: Does it mean that you agree with your economic adviser Andrei Illarionov
who
issued a major statement in which he says that Russia has great opportunities
and it should move forward on the economic front so as not to miss that
opportunity?

   Putin: I agree on the whole. Of course we would like to act more
energetically.
But we shouldn't forget about the social problems of the population. One of
your colleagues has rightly put this question and I must say that this problem
crops up at all international forums. It is hard to implement economic reform
if negative social processes are taking place.
So, the government is between - and it has to choose the optimum version of
development. On the one hand, it should address social problems because one
cannot move forward without it. But one should do it in the optimum way so as
to preserve the development potential. I think so far we have succeeded.

   Q: Perhaps this is something that I read in material from the hooligans -
   Putin: No, no. I said they might have been called that if they weren't
representing the opposition.

   Q: But judging from the Russian press there is a struggle among the people
surrounding you between the power structures and your economic team of young
reformers. Is it true that there is such rivalry between them? And if so, whom
do you back?

   Putin: This is not true. The power ministries should deal, are dealing and
will
deal, at least as long as I am the country's President, with their main task
which is law enforcement. They will ensure that everybody adheres to the law.
They do not interfere, must not interfere and will not interfere in the
economic policy of the state. But complete tranquility exists only in a
graveyard. So, where there are living people, there will always be a clash of
opinions and views. There is nothing unusual about that. But I would like to
note and to stress that there is no confrontation between the representatives
of the power ministries and the economic team in the country's administration
and never will be.

   Q: Mr. President, I've been here for just a short time, so I couldn't get a
full
picture of what is happening here, but I have talked with Russian journalists
and many of them share their fears about freedom of expression and the work of
journalists. They express fears.... They are afraid that in the process of
economic reform, considering all the difficulties in the way of reform,
attempts will be made to curb the freedom of the press to say and write what
they think they should say and write. Are there any limits or restrictions on
what the mass media will be allowed to say?

   Putin: There used to be a film, not a North American, but a European
one, in
which the main character says that a real man should always try and a decent
woman should always resist. The state always tries to create the most
favourable conditions for itself and tries to forbid everything. This is true
not just in Russia, but in all other countries. I am absolutely convinced that
this road leads nowhere. There are always forces that would resist such
trends,
in almost any state. Are there any limits or checks in Russia? Of course there
are. It is the Constitution and the courts. I assure you that there is no
danger that the structure of democratic society, which was built over the past
10 years, could be dismantled. There is no such threat in Russia. 
 
   Q: And still journalists have expressed concern about restrictions on media
freedom. Honestly, as a journalist in Canada I am not aware of the same
kind of
restrictions as Russian colleagues complain about. Why are they complaining?
And what grounds can there be for limiting freedom of expression? Because it
conveys an impression of a certain timidity in the face of the opposition.

   Putin: I don't see any restrictions myself. Those who complain about
possible
restrictions continue to criticize the president and the government in a very
harsh manner. I don't know if your colleagues behave in the same way in your
country. I am not sure that they do. Ours do. But this is the main indicator
that nobody is imposing restrictions on anybody. In any case, the state does
not restrict the press. Everybody says what he likes.
  Unfortunately, they always show what they like and this is not always
correct.
In the United States and Canada, many things can be shown only on cable
television, for moral reasons. Here, unfortunately, anything can be put on the
air. And I think the public should pay attention to it. As for political
issues, there are no restrictions for anyone. In Russia the problem lies
elsewhere. The question of the influence of some oligarchs who have been
mentioned here on the state. They see the mass media as their chief instrument
of influence over the state. But, like in any other sphere, the law must be
observed. If you took money for a business enterprise, including a business
involving the mass media, you should pay back the debt. If you can't pay the
debt, you have to give your property. If you don't want to give away your
property, come to an agreement with the creditor in some other way. They have
all become accustomed, especially recently, to getting everything they want
from the state and using it as they want. They don't want to live in
accordance with the law, and I don't think that's right.
   Everyone, government officials, representatives of the media and all the
institutions in society and the state should learn to live within the law and
to comply with the law. Whether they like it or not. And if they don't like
it,
they should get the law amended through democratic procedure. That is all.

   Q: But the consequences remain the same. You say that you want - you take
certain actions against the oligarchs, but these actions breed fear and
concern
among journalists. Do you think these fears and concerns are misguided?

   Putin: I think they are totally groundless and the media people in our
country
have worked and still work without any restrictions and some of them take a
very tough stand with regard to the government and the president and nobody
prevents them from taking that position. We all observe it and see it on
television screens every day and every evening. It is the main proof that
there
are no restrictions. I repeat, this is not about freedom to disseminate
information, but about financial relations with the owners of media outlets.
They should proceed within the law. But of course the collectives behind the
entrepreneurs who are active in this sphere are not indifferent to what
happens
to the firm in which they work. That is understandable. Just like in any other
business.

   Q: You have said that there is no military confrontation between Russia and
the West. Why then have we seen an increase recently in the number of Russian
military exercises which move more and more frequently close to the naval
vessels of Western countries and close to the military facilities of Western
countries? Why is it happening if you say that there is no more
confrontation?

   Putin: I don't think you got the information right. We do not have any more
exercises than in the former years. I can say with confidence that there are
fewer exercises than in the former years. As to moving close to military
assets
and ships, perhaps you are referring to the incident when our planes buzzed a
U.S. naval vessel? I must tell you that the U.S. sailors treated it quite
calmly, like an ordinary event. The sailors themselves. There is nothing
unusual about it. Meanwhile, we see something else happening. We see the
approach of the NATO military organization to our borders. This is what we are
observing. And we can't help being worried about it because they don't want to
admit us to NATO.

   Q: Do you want to join NATO?

   Putin: As you know, we have said that we would be ready to. But we heard in
reply that the Western community is not yet ready for that. So, I don't think
this is accurate information. We should react to what is happening on the
southern edge of Russia, that is true. But to date there has been no adequate
reaction to that threat either from Russia or from the international
community.
  We know what is happening in Afghanistan, for example. Why haven't they
extradited bin Laden? It is a challenge to the international community. There
has been no real and adequate reaction to that threat either from Russia or
from the international community, I repeat. As for your question about
exercises, I don't think your information is correct. The number of such
exercises, far from increasing, has diminished recently.

   Q: This week Boris Yeltsin gave an interview in which he said that he
disagreed
with your position on the anthem. What was your reaction? You had fairly close
political relations with Boris Nikolayevich, he considers you to be the man
who will continue to do what he started. How did you react?

   Putin: I knew Boris Nikolayevich's position in advance. His position is
consistent. He has been and remains, in this country, one of the main
anti-communists. He has consistently fought it and apparently he links the
melody of the anthem, the Soviet anthem, with the communist legacy, to use the
current phrase. This is a logical and principled position. And one should have
respect for this, as for any other position, especially since he is not an
ordinary man, but a president, the first president of the country.
But I have a different opinion on the issue.

  Q: Didn't you get a feeling that he was taking you to task like a son who
has
not followed his orders?

  Putin: No. He has other children.

  Q: It so happened that Canada occupies a lot of space on the map, but much
less
space in the minds of Russians. But both Russia and Canada are members of the
G8. Do you think your coming visit to Canada will to a large extent discover
that country for the Russians? And does your visit include a sporting or
perhaps a cultural program?

  Putin: I doubt that I will be able to do any sports in Canada although
there are
a lot of interesting things in Canada and there are very pleasant people. I
spent several days there and I was in very close contact with the
organizers of
the trip. At that time I still worked in Petersburg. I wish I could be
there in an informal atmosphere. I would enjoy that.
  Unfortunately, the time of the visit is very limited and I won't be able to
afford that. As for discovering your country, I don't think it is an
epoch-making visit.
  People in my country know Canada well and have very warm feelings for it. We
know that there are many of our compatriots living there. Between 1975 and
2000, 408 ice hockey players from the Soviet Union and Russia have played for
the NHL. And in the last year alone 128 ice hockey players signed contracts. I
don't think it will be a discovery, but I want this visit to promote our
relations, to give an impetus to bilateral relations and to the
coordination of
our positions in the world. In recent years we have demonstrated that we
can do it and we are ready to demonstrate it now. I have a feeling that we
will do it.
  That we will move positively to meet each other.

  Q: Thank you.

******

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

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