May 14, 2001 

This Date's Issues:   5254

Johnson's Russia List
#5254
14 May 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
DJ: This is a personal inquiry concerning my 19-year old son Blake.
Blake will be entering his sophomore year in college this fall and is
looking for something interesting to do this summer. Preferences are
for work that pays in the Washington DC area but he is certainly
open to other opportunities. He is majoring in computer science.
If anyone has suggestions please let me know. 

1. Rossiia: READING LESS AND LESS.
2. Ekonomika i Zhizn: THE FIRST DECADE IS THE HARDEST. (poll)
3. Moscow Times editorial: Firing Hurts Liberty's Credibility.
4. AP: Russia Slow to Destroy Weapons. (chemical weapons)
5. Vek: Andrei Ryabov, RISKS AND REWARDS OF ECONOMIC REFORMS. Prospects for radical economic reforms don't look good.
6. Bloomberg: Russia Says Investment Growth Slows Because of Lower Returns.
7. NTV: Civilised Change in Management Shock at NTV. (response to AFP)
8. BBC Monitoring: Yastrzhembskiy admits Russia's concern about Radio Liberty broadcast in Chechen.
9. Interfax: Russian media minister admits threat to free media exists in Russia. (Lesin)
10. Interfax: Russia may call for moving UN from New York to St Petersburg. (Rogozin)
11. Reuters: U.N. warns of potential food crisis in Chechnya.
12. Reuters: Russian official calls U.S. missile scheme laughable.
13. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Viktor Kuvaldin, WASHINGTON, MOSCOW TO TAKE A NEW START. Does Growing Anti-Americanism in Russia Pose a More Serious Threat to the U.S. or to Us?
14. The Times (UK): Lisa Armstrong, From Russia with style. (re Russian Vogue)
15. The Wall Street Journal Europe editorial: Havel's Questions.]

*******

#1
Rossiia
No. 17
May 2001
READING LESS AND LESS
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

The Russian Book Union - uniting publishers, printers, and book 
retailers - has held its inaugural congress in Moscow.

Statistics show that 30% of Russian citizens don't read books, 
newspapers, or magazines. Over 10 million citizens are illiterate. 
Russia's status as "the most well-read country in the world" is 
rapidly fading into the past. What's more, printing equipment is 
wearing out, the structure of the book trade has collapsed, and 
appropriate legislation is lacking...

The state has no clear policies on books and the promotion of 
books. The second part of the new Tax Code does not include the 
existing tax breaks for book publishing. So books, which are already 
not cheap, will become 80% more expensive. This means vast numbers of 
readers will be simply unable to afford books.

********

#2
Ekonomika i Zhizn
No. 18
May 2001
THE FIRST DECADE IS THE HARDEST
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

The National Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) did a poll 
in late March on economic changes in the lives of Russian families 
(1,600 respondents). Only one in six families is materially better off 
now than a decade ago. For most families (57%), housing conditions 
remain unchanged (housing deteriorates quite slowly, after all).

Furniture and domestic appliances deteriorate more rapidly (41% 
of families report no change). The most revealing figure is family 
income: it has declined for 62% of families, and risen for only 15%. 
This affects food and clothing most of all, and standards for both 
have deteriorated (53-55%).

A curious detail: 48% of respondents consider that they and their 
families have adjusted to the "new" way of living, but only half of 
these respondents have managed to increase or at least maintain their 
previous level of family income. The other half, alas, have only 
adjusted to a lower standard of living.

A second VTsIOM poll is also interesting (late April, 1,600 
respondents in 33 regions, margin of error 3.8%). It asked the 
question: "Which political goals are in the interests of your family?" 
The highest response, 69%, was for "development of Russian industry"; 
and 47% of respondents chose "protection measures for domestic 
producers".

*******

#3
Moscow Times
May 14, 2001
Editorial
Firing Hurts Liberty's Credibility

Last week, U.S.-funded Radio Liberty fired its Moscow bureau chief, Savik
Shuster, apparently for refusing to stop appearing on an NTV soccer chat
show in the wake of the station's takeover by Gazprom. Although Radio
Liberty has refused to comment, Shuster read from his dismissal letter,
which stated that the NTV job "constitutes a violation of RFE/RL
professional code, the ethical foundation of our work, as well as the
company's conflict of interest policy." The letter also argued that
Shuster's appearances were "harmful to the public trust upon which RFE/RL
credibility and effectiveness are based."

If Shuster's NTV appearances were the real reason for firing him, then it
is Radio Liberty's management that is harming the station's credibility.
After all, Shuster has been doing the show since 1998 and in all those
years Radio Liberty never invoked its "conflict of interest policy." Doing
so now strongly implies Radio Liberty's endorsement of NTV's former owner
Vladimir Gusinsky and casts serious doubts over the station's objectivity. 

Like Radio Liberty's recent decision to begin Chechen-language broadcasts
(a decision that Shuster strenuously — and, we feel, correctly — opposed),
this firing plays perfectly into the hands of those who claim that Radio
Liberty is hostile to the Russian government and even a U.S. government
propaganda tool.

Shuster's dismissal over this issue is extremely ironic. On the morning of
Gazprom's April 14 takeover of NTV's studio, Shuster was one of the first
on the scene — not as an NTV supporter, but as a journalist covering a
crucial story. Television cameras captured him asking an NTV editor whether
the channel's news program would cover the takeover, to which the editor —
no doubt revealing more than she intended about who was calling the shots —
replied, "I don't know." That the new NTV management still wants Shuster to
appear speaks encouragingly of its integrity and stands in stark contrast
to Radio Liberty's ill-considered action.

For nearly 20 years, Shuster has been acclaimed as a thoroughly
professional and ethical journalist. His principled stand in this case
reinforces this impression.

If the soccer show is the real reason for dismissing Shuster and if Radio
Liberty is serious about its "professional code" and the "ethical
foundation" of its work, it will reverse this unjust decision and apologize
to Shuster for its poor judgment. If management is just using the show as
an excuse to get rid of Shuster, then it ought to rethink just who is
harming the station's credibility and undermining its public trust.

*******

#4
Russia Slow to Destroy Weapons
May 13, 2001
By JUDITH INGRAM

MOSCOW (AP) - More than a year after American and Russian officials festively 
opened a laboratory to fine-tune techniques for destroying Russian chemical 
weapons, the building stands empty of all but its sophisticated scientific 
equipment and a security guard who warily monitors the rare visitor. 

The inauguration of the lab 13 months ago at a scientific institute in 
southern Moscow was supposed to mean progress in Russia's efforts to destroy 
its chemical weapons arsenal, the world's largest, in line with the Chemical 
Weapons Convention. The international treaty, which Russia ratified in 1997, 
requires the elimination by 2012 of all stockpiles of nerve gases and 
compounds used in weapons of mass destruction. 

But Moscow is nowhere near meeting the deadline. It has yet to start 
destroying the 44,000 tons of nerve and blister agents piled up in storage 
depots at the seven plants where they were produced. The depots are poorly 
protected, and the chemicals, some from World War II, are deteriorating and 
putting the surrounding regions at risk of severe toxic accidents. 

The $21 million lab, jointly U.S.- and Russian-funded, had to close its doors 
soon after the opening because construction problems cropped up, Russian 
auditors had to inventory the building's contents and the Russian side ran 
short of funds. As to why it opened in the first place, officials insisting 
on anonymity indicated that it was necessary to demonstrate to the U.S. 
funders that Russia was making progress. 

The lab's deputy director, Vladimir Sitnikov, now says it is set to reopen 
this month, which may augur a revival of efforts to destroy chemical weapons 
after a prolonged standstill. 

The delays, caused by Russia's money problems and conflicts with 
international funders over the technologies to be used, have frustrated and 
alarmed arms control experts. 

``Sooner or later there could be an accident, and with time the probability 
of that happening will grow geometrically,'' said Gennady Khromov, a veteran 
arms control negotiator. 

In 1992, President Boris Yeltsin approved a plan to destroy the weapons, but 
fierce public opposition and bureaucratic wrangling thwarted it. Russian 
legislation banning transport of the deadly substances further complicated 
the project, because destruction facilities would have had to be built near 
each of the seven storage sites - at a cost of roughly $1 billion each. 

That cost included developing complex technologies, creating multilayered 
security systems and building roads, hospitals and other infrastructure to 
compensate local populations for accepting the destruction plants. 

Most local people have gradually accepted that leaving the stores in place is 
riskier than removing them. 

``Now public opinion is turning toward accepting the principle of 
disarmament,'' said Vladimir Leonov of the Russian Green Cross, an 
environmental advocacy organization. 

Last year, responsibility for the program switched from the Defense Ministry 
to the newly formed Munitions Agency whose chief, Zinovy Pak, is thought to 
have wide authority to cut bureaucratic squabbles. 

But cost remains an obstacle. Russia has appealed repeatedly for foreign aid 
to supplement its meager budget for the plan, and it has won some pledges and 
grants from the U.S. and European governments to build two destruction 
facilities. The United States has released funds slowly, attempting to ensure 
that the destruction will be carried out in the safest way possible. 

The European-funded site, in Gorny, in the Volga River region of central 
Russia, would be a pilot plant for destroying blister agents, Russia's oldest 
chemical weapons. Moscow has given them priority, since they are believed to 
pose the most urgent ecological threat. But the United States has urged 
Russia to direct its funding to a plant under construction at Shchuchiye, in 
the heavy industrial belt of the Ural Mountains, for handling more 
sophisticated nerve agents. 

The United States considers these a greater threat to its own security, with 
experts pointing out that just a knapsack full of nerve gas could wreak 
havoc. Washington has concentrated its funding on that plant, tentatively 
scheduled to be built by 2006. 

Now the Munitions Agency has proposed scaling back the goal of building 
destruction facilities at all seven plants. Officials are reluctant to 
discuss details before the new plan gets Kremlin approval, but Pak outlined 
the main ideas in an interview in the current issue of Russia's Nuclear 
Control journal. 

Just three of the planned facilities would be completed and used for the 
entire cycle of chemical weapons destruction. At the other four sites, 
weapons would only be neutralized for transportation elsewhere for 
destruction. Munitions Agency expert Alexander Sidyakov also raised the 
possibility that some of the weapons would be neutralized and reprocessed, 
easing the pressure to completely destroy the arsenal by the 2012 deadline. 

``We understand that we won't get seven facilities built,'' Pak was quoted as 
saying. ``Such funds can't be found.'' 

******* 

#5
Vek
No. 18
May 2001
RISKS AND REWARDS OF ECONOMIC REFORMS
Prospects for radical economic reforms don't look good
Author: Andrei Ryabov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THE CABINET WILL SOON ATTEMPT TO PUSH A PACKAGE OF ECONOMIC REFORM BILLS THROUGH PARLIAMENT. THIS IS UNLIKELY TO BE A SMOOTH PROCESS, DESPITE THE NEW PRO-GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE IN THE DUMA. IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR PUTIN TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE CABINET AND HAVE A BACK-UP PLAN READY IN CASE OF FAILURE.

The world of Russian politics is frozen in anticipation of 
dismissals and appointments at the top. Soon after the May holidays, 
the Cabinet plans to submit a package of bills to the Duma - involving 
structural changes to the economy and social sphere. Meanwhile, the 
president is criticizing the Cabinet for rising budget spending. For 
those in the know, the meaning of this signal is clear: the Cabinet 
can no longer rely on favorable economic cirumstances - it has to take 
action aimed at further reforms to the Russian economy.

But no one can guarantee that the next attempt at liberalization 
will be successful. This is understood by all participants in the 
political process. They only differ in the risks they run. For the 
liberals, some of whom are busy with faction fights in the leadup to 
the Union of Right Forces congress, successful reforms mean a chance 
to dramatically raise their political standing. Those who oppose 
radical reforms aren't risking as much; if the reforms succeed, their 
position will basically remain unchanged, while if the reforms fail 
they will get another chance to say, "We told you so!"

But it's the president, of course, who is risking the most. A 
significant number of those who voted for him favor a stronger social 
role for the state, and take a dim view of the prospect of economic 
liberalization and further spending cuts. Putin is aware of this, and 
he is really trying to find the essential balance between economic 
rationalism and important social interests. However, it will not be 
easy to put this into practice in the course of tough liberal economic 
reforms. It will be almost impossible. There are no suitably qualified 
staff to carry out complex social reforms; theft of state funds 
remains high; and the state budget is fairly limited in its capacity 
to support the weak. Hence it appears that the president will need 
some room for maneuver - this can be created by putting some distance 
between the head of state and the Cabinet. Some sort of alternative to 
radical reforms will also be required - just in case - so that a 
retreat is possible, at any time, to more moderate positions; and so 
that the reformists will be aware of some competitors breathing down 
their necks.

Observers have taken note of a lively speech by Moscow Mayor Yuri 
Luzhkov (his first in quite a while) at a May Day rally in Moscow. The 
mayor joined union leaders in once again condemning the Cabinet for 
its lack of attention to the social problems of working people, and 
called for socially-oriented reforms. All this was reminiscent of 
1997-98, when Luzhkov, defending the same views, fought attempts by 
the "young reformists" to make the reforms more radical. The 
similarity is quite explicable. The present political configuration is 
almost the same as the picture of three or four years ago. Once again, 
the government is facing many pressures (not all of which it can 
control) and trying to restructure the economy and social sphere. It 
is aware that there are too many obstacles in its path; so it is 
forced to maneuver, painting a more attractive, "rosy" prospect of 
change on the background of yet another round of belt-tightening.

If so, then the reforms are unlikely to sail through the Duma and 
Federation Council over the next few months; instead, we will either 
see endless conciliation procedures leading to laws which are 
difficult to put into practice, or a battle between "liberals" and 
"statists". Under these conditions, the plan to create a strong new 
"pro-government party" out of the pro-Kremlin factions and groups in 
the Duma is unlikely to succeed; how can a successful united pro-
government party be created, if the government itself is divided?
(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova)

*******

#6
Russia Says Investment Growth Slows Because of Lower Returns

Moscow, May 14 (Bloomberg)
-- Russia said investment growth slowed in the first quarter of 2001, 
compared with the previous three months, because local companies' 
profitability dropped as the ruble strengthened against the dollar when 
adjusted for inflation. 

Investment growth slowed to about 6 percent in the first quarter from 15 
percent in the fourth quarter of last year, Deputy Economy Minister Arkady 
Dvorkovich said at a conference on investment. The trend may change in the 
second quarter, as industrial output growth picks up, he said. 

``There are no clear estimates for the second quarter, but everyone expects 
there will be growth,'' in investment, he said. 

The fall in investment comes as the country's industrial output growth is 
expected to slow to 4 percent this year from 9 percent last year. Producers 
who have enjoyed a price advantage over imports since the currency's 1998 
devaluation, are finding it harder to compete against foreign companies as 
the ruble strengthens in real terms. 

While the Russian ruble has declined by 3.1 percent so far this year, the 
currency has been gaining against the dollar when adjusted for inflation. 
Prices rose at an annual rate of about 24 percent in Russia in March, 
compared with U.S. annual consumer price growth of 2.9 percent in the same 
month. 

Inflation Hurts 

The government's efforts to encourage investment also have been hurt by 
expectations consumer price growth will be higher this year than the 14 
percent to 16 percent the government is predicting. 

Most analysts expect Russian consumer prices to rise by 18 percent to 22 
percent this year, similar to 2000's annual inflation of 20.2 percent. 

Monthly inflation will slow to 1 percent in coming months, after rising at an 
average of 2.2 percent in each of the first four months of 2001, partly 
because of increases in state-regulated prices, Dvorkovich said. Consumer 
prices rose 1.8 percent in April from March from 1.9 percent monthly increase 
in March. 

``If there are no political shocks, there is no reason for inflation to be 
higher than 1 percent a month,'' Dvorkovich said. ``The government's annual 
targets will be reached.'' 

Russia's efforts to curb inflation this year have been hurt by increases in 
fees state-controlled utilities charge for electricity, gas, telephone calls 
and other items and by inflows of foreign exchange from sales abroad of oil 
and other commodities. 

*******

#7
From: "Lawrence McDonnell" <mcdonnell@pravdapr.ru>
Subject: Civilised Change in Management Shock at NTV
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 

Dear David,

Please find copy of letter sent to AFP with regard to report carried on your
list last week (#5248). We would very much appreciate your carrying this if
at all possible given AFP's account that 'the new management forcibly
occupied the premises with the help of interior ministry special
forces'....a situation now acknowledged as incorrect by almost all media
unconnected to Media Most.
Many thanks,
Lawrence McDonnell


For the Attention of Michel Viatteau
Bureau Chief
Agence France Presse 
Moscow

After reading "Moscow Court Proposes Appeal Against NTV Takeover Until
September" (May 10), I feel compelled to point out the blatant
misrepresentation of the events surrounding the installation of new
management at NTV on April 14, 2001. The arrival of the new management at
the premises of NTV on April 14 was an uneventful but necessary affair and
in no way resembled the type of strategic paramilitary action that some
sources have stated or implied took place.

Following the April 3 shareholders meeting at which the NTV Board appointed
Boris Jordan as General Director, I was appointed First Deputy Director.
As you know, at that time, Evgeniy Kiselyov, former General Director of
NTV, and a few of his close associates, launched a protest and declared
that they would block new management from entering NTV headquarters,
located in the government-owned facilities at Ostankino.
Two days later in order to facilitate the change of management, our
attorneys carried a request from Mr. Jordan to the protesters for access to
the records of NTV. They were not accompanied by any security personnel
and after a brief meeting with attorneys representing Mr. Kiselyov, were
denied access and asked to leave the premises. Our attorneys had complete
legal authority to receive the access they were denied.

Despite the legality of the Board's appointment of Mr. Jordan, protesters
continued to deny new management access to NTV. In the process, the normal
programming schedule of NTV was disrupted by the protesters and a number of
obscenities were uttered on-air. These acts constituted federal violations
of the station's broadcasting license. In addition, the protesters
cancelled commercials, in breach of NTV's agreements with its advertisers,
resulting in substantial revenue losses.

Around midnight on April 13, we learned that protesters were removing NTV's
television equipment (including expensive cameras) to transfer it to TNT,
another station where they intended to continue their protest by diverting
NTV's signal and broadcasting from there. In addition, former managers,
without any corporate authority, were attempting to remove the NTV
information service archives. Obviously, such confiscation would have
seriously damaged the entire news operations of NTV.

As a qualified Russian lawyer, I advised Mr. Jordan of his fiduciary duty
to prevent such theft and vandalism. I believe that under Anglo-American
law, his duty would be no different. It was clear that we needed to do
something to protect the station, and again wanting to avoid confrontation,
decided to re-visit NTV as soon as possible, which was early in the morning
on April 14. 

This time we brought extensive documentation outlining our legal authority,
including documents relevant to Mr. Jordan's appointment, documents
confirming the new corporate seal of NTV, the revocation of the old seal,
and all powers of attorney issued under that seal, as well as Mr. Jordan's
specific orders to permit the new management team to enter NTV premises
(including Ostankino).

At approximately 2:30 A.M., I entered Ostankino accompanied by a few
attorneys and personal assistants. Because the boisterous televised
protest gave us the impression that attempts to enter NTV might in fact be
met with force by the protesters, we chose to bring with us approximately
ten unarmed security personnel, most of whom are employed by Mr. Jordan's
investment company on a regular basis. No government security forces of
any kind were involved. Upon our arrival, we were met by approximately ten
security guards employed by NTV. 

Ostankino is a government-owned facility, and some government security
personnel are permanently stationed at the building. Approximately 20
minutes prior to our arrival, we informed the officer on duty of our
intended approach. He neither supported nor interfered with our entry, but
observed, and seemed assured, that we had no intention of provoking a
security threat or violence. We were then escorted to NTV's administrative
offices and showed the guards on duty the documents mentioned above. We
also provided them with copies of Mr. Jordan's order cancelling their
security contract and installing a new security team. I reminded the
guards of their potential personal liability should they choose without any
legal authority to block our access to NTV. 
No violence of any sort was used or threatened and we were peacefully
admitted into the management offices. It is interesting to note that most
members of the old security force have remained with NTV and are on duty
guarding the station to this day.

Upon our entry, we discovered that the protesters had in fact already
illegally diverted NTV's broadcast signal to TNT, another television
station in the Media Most group. The subsequent interruption in NTV's
broadcast that occurred that morning was the result of our re-directing
that signal back to our own studios.

Mr. Jordan arrived at the station later on the morning of April 14, and
entered without any commotion or protest by NTV staff or security. 

Reports that a long list of employees were barred from the building are
entirely false. Mr. Kiselyov, his wife, Grigory Krichevsky, and three
other employees were subsequently suspended, not fired. In fact, no
employees were ever fired. We intended to bar temporarily only these
employees from the premises because, as the organizers of the protest, we
believed their actions were damaging to the company. When some of these
individuals arrived later that day, they were admitted, but left peacefully
when it became clear that others respected our presence. Contrary to
reports, we did not ask or require employees to sign loyalty oaths to gain
entry into the building and the vast majority of NTV employees remain with
the station today.

Sincerely,
Rafael Akopov
First Deputy Director
NTV

*******

#8
BBC Monitoring
Yastrzhembskiy admits Russia's concern about Radio Liberty broadcast
in Chechen 
Source: NTV, Moscow, in Russian 1500 gmt 13 May 01 

[Presenter Kirill Pozdnyakov] It seems a new scandal has broken out around 
Radio Liberty. It can lead to a cooling of the Russian-American relations, 
experts say. Today it became known that Radio Liberty's plans to start 
broadcasting in the Chechen language to Chechnya annoy the Kremlin greatly. 
The Sunday Times reports that a high-ranking official has threatened with an 
appropriate response - a closure of the Radio Liberty Moscow bureau. 
Representatives of the Russian official authorities have so far abstained 
from far-reaching forecasts. However, they do not conceal the fact that they 
do not like the idea. Anton Grishin reports. 

[Correspondent] Russian authorities do not like freedom. Today The Sunday 
Times reported it as news. The British weekly writes that [Russian President] 
Vladimir Putin and [media minister] Mikhail Lesin may close down the Radio 
Liberty Moscow bureau if the radio starts speaking in Chechen. 

Russian presidential envoy Sergey Yastrzhembskiy is not dramatizing the 
situation. 

[Yastrzhembskiy over the telephone, video shows correspondent near a 
telephone] The Sunday Times report does not correspond to reality in the 
slightest. One can say it is a canard. Neither the Kremlin nor the government 
have had any repressive plans about the Radio Liberty Moscow bureau. I do not 
rule out the possibility that some people working at the radio station or 
conservative circles in the US Congress who are behind the station may be 
interested in such a development of events. 

[Omitted: correspondent recalling history of events related to the plans] 

[Yastrzhembskiy] The plans [to start broadcasting in Chechen], given Radio 
Liberty's prejudiced position on the Chechen issue are undoubtedly causing 
concern in Russia. 

[Omitted: known details of implementing the plan] 

[Correspondent] It is not difficult to guess how the media ministry and Lesin 
personally will react to the plan. [Federal Security Service spokesman] 
Aleksandr Zdanovich has already made his reaction known. 

[Zdanovich in uniform, filmed with a tank in the background, supposedly in 
Chechnya] Russia has already organized broadcasting in the Chechen language. 
We inform the Chechen population [changes tack -] But if the ideas of 
terrorism are disseminated and broadcast, the ideas voiced by [Chechen 
warlord] Shamil Basayev, [Arab warlord fighting on the Chechen side] Khattab 
and some others, we shall view this as a violation of their licence. I 
believe that appropriate structures will consider the situation and relevant 
measures will be taken. 

[Omitted: Slogans chanted by Russian Nazis, report about the rally outside 
the bureau on 5 May] 

[Video shows interior pictures of Radio Liberty Moscow bureau, interviews, 
The Sunday Times website, Nazi picket outside the radio Moscow headquarters] 
[c/r 0120] 

*******

#9
Russian media minister admits threat to free media exists in Russia 
Interfax 

Moscow, 14 May: Russia's Minister for the Press, TV and Radio Broadcasting 
and Mass Communications Mikhail Lesin has admitted to the threat to the 
freedom of press in Russia. Yet he said that the state will not be a big 
owner of mass media. 

"Is there a threat to the freedom of press? Yes. No doubt," Lesin said in an 
interview published by today's issue of the Izvestia- Media supplement. It is 
impossible to change the situation within a decade, and "it seems that we 
need another 10 to 15 years", he said. 

The state "should gradually abandon control over this resource, and it will 
have to privatize the printing industry and create a market system for 
television broadcasting in any case", the minister said. 

The state should have its newspaper, radio and television channel, that is, a 
resource "sufficient for informing the population and shaping the public 
opinion, but no more than that", Lesin said. 

The state "has chosen the model of an open media market, the model of social 
responsibility", he said. It "should not and will not bear any relation to 
NTV" but, on the contrary, "will do its best to make the channel maximally 
independent", the minister noted. 

********

#10
Russia may call for moving UN from New York to St Petersburg 
Interfax 

Moscow, 14 May: Russia may call for moving the United Nations headquarters 
from New York to St Petersburg, Dmitriy Rogozin, chairman of the State Duma's 
Foreign Affairs Committee, told Interfax today. 

Americans sometimes take actions harmful to the organization, Rogozin said. 
In particular, they have decided not to pay 224m to the United Nations to 
protest the organization's refusal to include a US representative in the 
human rights commission, he said. 

"If the Americans do not change their position and if the international 
personnel does not feel comfortable in New York as a result, we may suggest 
that the UN headquarters be transferred to the Venice of the North, St 
Petersburg," Rogozin said. 

The city will provide all the conditions for the headquarters to function 
and, "most importantly, Russia has the goodwill to host that important 
international organization", he said. 

*******

#11
U.N. warns of potential food crisis in Chechnya

ROME, May 14 (Reuters) - The United Nations World Food Programme urgently 
appealed for support on Monday to avert a potential food crisis in the 
northern Caucasus, particularly Chechnya. 

WFP, the world's largest food aid agency, said in a statement that a severe 
shortfall in donations had forced the agency to scale back drastically on 
food aid distributions despite severely deteriorating conditions there. 

WFP, which launched a $24 million emergency operation for the war-torn 
republic in January, faces a 78 percent shortfall in contributions, the 
statement said. 

WFP was able to feed only 33,000 people in March -- mostly Chechen women and 
children who fled to the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia -- compared to 
215,000 in February. 

"The lack of donor response is extremely worrying because people in Chechnya 
have so little access to food," said WFP's senior emergency coordinator Bhim 
Udasm, adding that nearly 70 percent of people in the capital Grozny depended 
on WFP for aid. 

Udas added: "Normally at this time of year, those who had left Chechnya 
because of the conflict would be returning to plant their land and rebuild 
their houses. 

Rumours of violence, a lack of food and the inability to rehabilitate 
bombed-out buildings were discouraging displaced Chechens from going home, he 
said. WFP said that for more than a year, more people had been leaving 
Chechnya than returning. 

"Over the winter, more than 6,000 Chechens came to Ingushetia to get food 
assistance. This kind of flux has made the whole region heavily dependent on 
humanitarian aid," Udas said. 

WFP warned that without new donations, preferably in cash, it could be forced 
to suspend food distributions in the northern Caucasus after June. 

Under the one-year emergency operation, WFP had planned to give monthly food 
rations of wheat flour, vegetable oil, salt and sugar to 175,000 people in 
war-torn Chechnya and to 160,000 Chechens displaced in Ingushetia. 

Limited donations meant the vegetable oil was dropped while food 
distributions in Chechnya were cancelled in January and March and scaled back 
in Ingushetia in March and April. 

Since the operation began, WFP has assisted fewer than half of the people 
intended. 

The humanitarian crisis in this remote, mountainous region of southern 
Russia, where hostilities broke out anew in September 1999, has been 
characterised as one of the worst in the world. 

Normal life in Chechnya has all but evaporated as the remaining civilians in 
the entity struggle just to stay alive in shelled and battered towns and 
cities. 

*******

#12
Russian official calls U.S. missile scheme laughable

MOSCOW, May 14 (Reuters) - An adviser to President Vladimir Putin said in an 
interview published on Monday that U.S. arguments to justify its planned 
missile shield were laughable, and predicted Washington would ignore Russian 
objections. 

Marshal Igor Sergeyev told RIA news agency that after talks last week with 
U.S. negotiators on the proposed system "Russia is now certain that the 
United States will proceed with construction of a national anti-missile 
system." 

Sergeyev, replaced as defence minister in March, described as "laughable" 
U.S. arguments for the system, including the notion that it is necessary to 
be able to intercept incoming missiles in flight because of the threat of 
attack from "rogue states." 

He told RIA that Russian negotiators had offered to "create a joint group of 
missile specialists -- academics and technology experts -- to talk about 
missile threats in terms of science, not politics. There was no reply to this 
proposal." 

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman told reporters after Friday's talks that 
the U.S. team, led by Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, had provided 
no answers to Russian complaints that the U.S. plans would overturn decades 
of security agreements. 

Putin has made no comment on the talks last Friday between Wolfowitz's team 
and Russian foreign ministry and other experts. He had earlier said U.S. 
President George W. Bush's proposals to create the system, made public in a 
speech this month, offered ground for discussion. 

Russia objects strongly to proposals to do away with the provisions of the 
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which it describes as the cornerstone of 
disarmament efforts. The treaty strictly limits the permitted extent of 
missile defence systems. 

*******

#13
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
May 12, 2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
WASHINGTON, MOSCOW TO TAKE A NEW START
Does Growing Anti-Americanism in Russia Pose a More 
Serious Threat to the U.S. or to Us?
By Prof. Viktor KUVALDIN, Doctor of History 

Nothing is more important in Russia's foreign policy than 
relations with the U.S. There can be all kinds of plans 
highlighting the Commonwealth of Independent States, Europe or 
China. They are all good but only as food for thought. Whether 
we like it or not, our possibilities in the rest of the world 
are largely determined by our relations with the U.S. We can 
and should conduct an independent foreign policy but the 
American factor plays the priority role in it.

Despite the change of the top leaders in the Kremlin and 
the White House, we cannot say that we begin everything from 
scratch. Alas, this would not be true. In the 1990s Moscow and 
Washington wasted an impressive capital of trust and 
cooperation which had been accumulated when the Cold War was 
over. The corrupt and criminalized Yeltsin regime used 
so-called Russian American strategic partnership as an internal 
policy weapon and a means of the personal enrichment of its 
members. The Clinton Administration used Russia's temporary 
weakness for interference in internal affairs and foreign 
policy expansion. As was to be expected, disillusionment and 
irritation were quickly growing in both countries. As a result, 
we have bogged down in a state of instability and dangerous 
uncertainty. 

In order to build a strong foundation for our relations in 
the new world, which is in the process of globalization, it is 
necessary to understand the logic of one's partner not only 
with regard to bilateral relations but also in a broader 
political context. One should imagine being in the partner's 
place, putting oneself in his shoes. Than many things will be 
seen differently.

Unlike their predecessors, the Republicans are more 
focused on their country's internal problems. Naturally, things 
will not go as far as isolationism - the world's only 
superpower cannot allow such luxury. But a substantial change 
of priorities is only too obvious. Inner political 
considerations often dominate in foreign policy, too. Thus, the 
decision to deploy a national missile defense system, NMD, can 
be largely explained by the striving to give a powerful impetus 
to the weakened economy.

The new team has come to the White House with the firm 
intention to seriously revise the Clinton-Gore line.
Republicans have set themselves ambitious but rather mutually 
excluding goals: to ease dependence upon the rest of the world 
and the burden of foreign-policy obligations, revise priorities 
and pay special attention to ensuring their country's security.

As a matter of fact, the debut of the 43rd U.S. President 
has been played accordingly: Olympian calmness in the Middle 
East, tough rhetoric with regard to China and Russia and 
pointed attention to the Western Hemisphere at the expense of 
Europe and East Asia.

But life is quick to introduce its own amendments.
Despite its strong willingness, the U.S. is unable to 
nonchalantly watch developments from over-the-ocean. An 
uncontrollable reaction, which is beginning in the Middle East 
caldron, threatens to blow up fragile peace in the region, 
which is of strategic importance for America. 

The first test of strength took place in East Asia. The 
debut of Bush Jr. was tinged politically by a clash of a 
Chinese fighter with an American spy plane in which a Chinese 
flyer died and the American crew had to land on the territory 
of China. The knowingly uneasy relations between the U.S. and 
the rising Eastern giant are further tarnished by disputes who 
is to blame for the accident and what conclusions each side has 
to draw from it for the future. On top of everything else, 
there is the Taiwan problem, the hurt feeling of national pride 
of the two great nations, covert pressure from political allies 
and adversaries, which narrows to the minimum the field for a 
maneuver by Washington and Beijing alike. By and large, the 
start has been vigorous but not very successful.

Such are the "available circumstances" under which the 
Bush Administration is completing to shape its Russian policy.
It would be wrong to judge intentions by the first steps, which 
looked like a cold sobering shower after the amicableness of 
the Yeltsin-Clinton era. It goes without saying that there are 
quite a few Russian adversaries in the new U.S. administration, 
in particular, at the middle level.
Under some circumstances their standpoint can prevail. Today, 
however, it is not they who determine the shaping of a policy 
towards Russia. Those who accumulated quite tangible positive 
experience during the completion of the Cold War and transition 
to a new world order are now giving a lead.

Paradoxical as this might seem, Washington is more 
optimistic about the prospects of our relations than Moscow.
An involuntary and even forced broadness of its outlook makes 
it possible to estimate possible alternatives more adequately.
Its inner logic, rather than the desire to show Russia its 
place (though this intention is also present), determine much 
in the new Administration's first steps.

The American policy towards Russia has not been formed 
yet. Nonetheless, the situation is growing clearer. The Cold 
War is a thing of the past now. The pseudo-cordial accord under 
the Bill-Boris pattern is also in the past. We have stopped 
being enemies but have not become friends yet. But we are 
overcoming the maniacal state of being hooked on each other and 
each is taking its place in world politics in accordance with 
one's interests, possibilities and capabilities. Russia has not 
become unimportant for the U.S.
but it is unable to claim a special place. The U.S. also 
remains important for Russia but it should not strive to 
overshadow the rest of the world.

The old/new Republican Administration is mastering the 
role of the leader with global responsibilities. It is learning 
very quickly, realizing from experience the force of the 
resistance of external circumstances. Judging by everything, 
the new administration is really interested in the development 
of positive relations with Russia. But the old stumbling blocks 
have not disappeared. They are the NMD plans, NATO's possible 
enlargement to the East and allergy to our cooperation with 
Iran and some other "rogue" countries. Even given the wish, 
Washington cannot ignore the freedom of the press problem in 
our country and Chechnya. This stands to show there is also a 
substantial potential for a fast and serious deterioration of 
Russian-U.S. relations. Unfortunately, there are still people 
who like fishing in murky waters on both sides. So, we should 
be constantly on the alert.

In view of the obvious overburdening of Washington's 
agenda, Russian diplomacy should probably take the initiative 
into its hands. It is necessary to draw up a feasible program 
for cooperation with the U.S. on a broad range of issues, 
including the strengthening of the regime of mass destruction 
weapons non-proliferation, security in Eurasia, bilateral 
economic ties, regional problems and the struggle against 
international terrorism and crime. All the items of this 
program causing disagreement should be intensively and 
confidentially discussed. 

As this is being done, we may also have to understand many 
things much better. For instance, what alarms us more - the 
theoretical possibility of the creation of America's NMD system 
or the real danger to find ourselves on the sidelines of a new 
breakthrough in science and engineering? What is more dangerous 
to us - the bringing of NATO closer to our borders or isolation 
from Europe? Does growing anti-Americanism in Russia pose a 
more serious threat to the U.S. or to us?

*******

#14
The Times (UK)
MAY 14 2001 
From Russia with style 
BY LISA ARMSTRONG, FASHION JOURNALIST OF THE YEAR 

The timing of the Moscow launch of Vogue in 1998 couldn’t have been worse.
But three years on it is thriving under its stylish editor, Aliona Doletskaya 

Red Gina sandals winking jauntily against the charcoal carpet of her office
above Bolshaya Dmitrovka, a functional, unglamorous loft space
distinguished by its heart-stopping views of Moscow’s surreal gold domes,
the editor of Russian Vogue looks like something out of a Helmut Newton
shoot. 

“Mario ’s first cover loves it here,” says Aliona Doletskaya, waving a
cigarette expansively towards the skyline. “He always says: ‘Aliona,
Russian women are soooo beeeautiful . . . and so overmade-up’.” She shrugs
playfully. She is used to the stereotypical images that foreigners have of
Russia. 

“It’s an acquired taste — very Byzantine in the way it operates. We’re
still not really Europeans. But we’re changing fast. I can see this
enormous middle class evolving before my eyes. New Russians as a group
don’t really exist any more. We have our nouveaux riches — what country
doesn’t? But that business of Russians dressing head to toe in Versace and
Moschino is over. Now they are much more sophisticated. You’re far more
likely to see them wearing Martin Margiela or Yohji Yamamoto.” If this
seems a touch lyrical (the average Muscovite earns about £70 a month), one
understands the artistic licence. 

Like Tom and Nicole’s renewed marriage vows last year, the launch of
Russian Vogue just days after the economic crisis in the autumn of 1998,
while rich in ironies, was not a triumph of good timing. However, it not
only survives, but appears to thrive. The recent March issue — a key
advertising month for women’s magazines and the single area in fashion in
which plumpness becomes a thing of beauty — bears testimony not only to its
publishers’ deep pockets but to the indefatigable energy of its editor. 

A tall, striking 45-year-old former academic with a Charlotte
Rampling-esque smoker’s contralto, flawless English and a conviction that
fashion can be of profound cultural and artistic significance, Aliona
Doletskaya is given to fizzy displays of optimism. Almost three years into
her job, this shows no signs of diminishing. To wit, her fiery encounters
with the recently departed editor of French Vogue. 

“Every time Joan Buck saw me at the shows she would say (hand to forehead):
‘Oh God, Aliona, are you still standing in line for your bread?’ And I
said: ‘Joan, either come over or stop reading bad newspapers.’ What people
don’t quite realise is how resilient Russians are — and how much we love
expensive things. Once I was in Paris with my team and the fashion writer
wanted to buy something for her baby. An English colleague suggested
Monoprix. 

In fact she went and bought something in Baby Dior. I know what this girl
earns and it’s not a great deal, but that’s the way we are.” 

The only time the confidence ever wavered was when Vogue had to cancel its
launch party in Red Square out of respect for the economic carnage being
wrought across the country: “I cried — everyone was flying in and it just
seemed to me that once again Russia was blowing all its chances.” 

The Vogue she edits offers a fascinating window on both Russian ideals of
beauty and glamour and her own interests. The May issue contains profiles
on the French designer Nicholas Ghesquière, as well as Gorbachev’s
daughter, Irina Verganskaya. Seventy per cent of her 150,000 readers have
degrees. “They like to read complex pieces full of high drama,” she says.
Could she see herself running a critical piece on Putin’s wife? “Oh yes. 

We will certainly profile her. I’m just waiting for her to develop a bit
more.” 

Inevitably Russian Vogue is, by its mere existence, a far more political
emblem than its US or British counterparts, a symbol, in its way, that the
capitalist revolution continues. “The first question I always get asked in
interviews here is: ‘How can you deal with this frivolous world when the
miners in Siberia haven’t been paid for months?’ The answer is that in the
past ten years Russians have started to live better. 

“There’s no shame any more about wanting to live in a proper house and wear
nice clothes. If you look back to the 18th and 19th centuries, Russians
were very elegant. Actually, although some of our readers are mad
consumers, most can’t afford to be. I got this letter from a woman in Omsk
the other day — a paediatrician with two children. She told me that she
didn’t have the money for a single item in the magazine — but that she
spent two hours in heaven reading it. Russians are the biggest dreamers.” 

Increasingly, she senses an acknowledgement even among serious journalists
in Russia that the magazine has something worthwhile to offer. “The point,”
she says, lighting another cigarette, “is that we’re not telling readers to
go and buy 50 pairs of shoes. It’s about taste, and that’s what I find
enigmatic and charming.” She has fallen in love with the fashion world more
than she ever expected to. The daughter of a surgeon father and oncologist
mother, she was brought up in Moscow, spent her early days in a communal
flat, and studied comparative linguistics at Moscow University, working as
a translator of books, hiding copies of Solzhenitsyn in her underwear
drawer and writing the subtitles for films. 

Eventually she became a journalist, working for Radio 4, the World Service
and Russian Cosmopolitan, acquiring — and dispensing with — three husbands
along the way. She married her first when she was 18 and went to live with
his parents and one other family in a communal flat. She remains fond of
all her husbands: “You can’t ever shake off your friends in Russia.” In
1989 she finally got to travel when she made a working trip to the 

US as an interpreter. “My first American supermarket was traumatic. I
couldn’t come to terms with the Soviet Union’s inability to organise
something that simple.” But not even America prepared her for the
surrealism of Paris, Milan and New York fashion weeks. In her first season
at the shows she filled three notebooks with her impressions: “More
exclamation marks than words. I was overwhelmed by beauty, creativity,
money — and the hostility. There was a lot of ‘Who the hell is she?’” I ask
her what she packed for those trips. “The discreetest clothes. I had this
pinstripe trouser suit from Zara, which I thought was the chic-est thing.
Hah! You can imagine how I felt when I arrived.” What shocked her most,
however, were “all those American fashion editors who have access to the
world’s most fabulous clothes, all wearing identical pencil skirts and
Gucci slingbacks when I’d spent my entire life trying to escape uniforms”. 

Today she is wearing an “old dacha top” (a black sleeveless MaxMara) and
white linen trousers from a sailors’ shop in London; fashionably eclectic,
though she claims to be a deficient shopper. 

“I’m a complete beginner, terribly naive. I still think fashion editors are
rushing off to some show I don’t know about when I see them making a fast
getaway. And then one of my editors tells me they’re nipping off to Prada.” 

She realises that she is one of the lucky ones — sufficiently young, bright
and open to seize opportunities when communism collapsed. “When you
experience something tumultuous like that, you don’t necessarily feel the
shock at the time. It’s only when you look back that you realise how lucky
you were to have lived through it all.”

*******

#15
The Wall Street Journal Europe
May 14, 2001 
Editorial
Havel's Questions

Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic, asked bold and simple 
questions in Bratislava, Slovakia, Friday: What right does Russia have to 
veto admission of its neighboring countries into the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization? Why are the sensitivities of a people who oppressed millions 
now treated so tenderly in the West?

Those very good questions were asked at a conference organized by the Slovak 
government and attended by representatives of NATO countries and nine Central 
and East European nations that would like to join the alliance. Who more 
appropriate to challenge the conventional wisdom than the eloquent Mr. Havel, 
whose comments are excerpted nearby?

Russophiles in the Clinton administration had a lot to do with creating that 
conventional wisdom. Appeasement of Russia was the centerpiece of Clinton 
foreign policy and thus became a guidepost for NATO as well. At the behest of 
the Clintonites, billions of dollars were funneled into Moscow, only to 
disappear down black holes. The administration turned a blind eye to 
modern-day Russian brutalities in Chechnya and KGB intrigues designed to keep 
Georgia and Armenia in thrall.

Now comes the brave leader of the Velvet Revolution to ask, in effect, just 
what this policy earned for the West. It only seems to have emboldened Moscow 
to think that it retains hegemony over the Baltic states and other 
now-independent nations. The reaction of all Western officials who heard the 
Havel speech was, "Why can't our leaders speak this way?"

With a playwright's eloquence and the moral authority of a former dissident, 
Mr. Havel exploded the arguments of those who would deny the East European 
candidates entry into NATO, in effect, changing the terms of the debate. And 
not a minute too soon. Several West European countries, led by Germany, have 
been lukewarm to the idea of granting membership to those countries closest 
to Russia, especially the three Baltic countries. The Russian government 
heavy-handedly tried to chill debate at the conference by distributing a 
statement that said that NATO's enlargement plans were a "grave mistake 
provoking negative changes of military-strategic landscape and division lines 
in Europe. Without democratic Russia Europe cannot be whole and free."

We will leave it to Mr. Havel's speech to explain why it is precisely in 
Russia's interest for NATO enlargement to proceed based on calculations that 
have nothing to do with Moscow's protestations. As the prime minister of one 
of the Baltic countries told us, "we cannot allow Russia to have a veto 
right." Even West European officials sympathetic to Russia's views conceded 
that as Mr. Havel's arguments -- and those also made by former U.S. national 
security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who also spoke at the conference -- 
become better known around the Continent, minds will begin to change in 
Berlin, Paris and other capitals.

U.S. President George W. Bush needs to be heard from now. Several of the 
leaders present -- Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania 
and Slovenia sent their prime ministers -- told us that what's needed now is 
for Mr. Bush to make a statement of support for their candidacy. After that, 
they believe the West European members of NATO will fall into line.

The U.S. president will have an opportunity during his tour of Europe next 
month. Mr. Bush is preparing to make an important speech on this issue at 
Warsaw, and now Mr. Havel has laid down the standard by which Mr. Bush's own 
oration will be measured. If Mr. Bush does not say that he wants NATO to 
issue invitations to new members at the alliance's summit in Prague next 
year, many will see the Warsaw appearance as a disappointment.

The signs are good, however. Mr. Bush sent in a warm letter to the conference 
saying that NATO "must be open to all of Europe's democracies . . . No part 
of Europe will be excluded because of history or geography." U.S. Senate 
Majority Leader Trent Lott and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse 
Helms went further. They sent a letter to Bratislava urging enlargement as 
"the cornerstone of a Europe, whole, free and secure." NATO's acceptance of 
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic passed in the Senate by an 80-19 edge 
and further enlargement continues to benefit from bipartisan support.

Bronislaw Geremek, a former foreign minister of Poland and, along with Mr. 
Havel one of the brightest leaders to have emerged in Central Europe since 
the fall of the Berlin Wall, told us that East Europeans can help smooth ties 
between the U.S. and Europe. "We're trying to convince other countries in the 
European Union that we can be a tremendous advantage." According to him one 
of the reasons U.S. relations with the EU are bumpy at the moment is that 
some EU leaders desiring stronger EU integration may see the U.S. as a useful 
foil. "A political project always needs an enemy, so America is playing that 
role," he said, quickly adding that this is a mistake. "It is in the interest 
of the EU to have good relations with the U.S., culturally and economically," 
he said.

These are wise words. They also explain why it is in everyone's interest for 
the candidate countries to gain entry to NATO and the EU as soon as they are 
ready, whatever Russia's objections might be.

*******

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

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

CDI Headlines:  http://www.cdi.org/

Defense Monitor:  http://www.cdi.org/dm/2001

Weekly Defense Monitor:  http://www.cdi.org/weekly/

CDI News Analysis and Press Advisories:  http://www.cdi.org/press/

CDI Asia Forum:  http://www.cdi.org/asia/faarch.html

CDI Video:  http://www.cdi.org/adm