June 13, 2001 

This Date's Issues:   5296 • 5297 • 5298

Johnson's Russia List
#5297
13 June 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: U.S. lecturer falls foul of Russian FSB police.
2. BBC Monitoring: ORT, Freedom is my main achievement, ex-president of Russia says. (Yeltsin)
3. Boston Globe: Jan Kalicki, Bush should keep joint commissions.
4. UPI: Martin Walker, The strategic triangle -- EU, Russia and US.
5. The Wall Street Journal Europe: Benjamin Smith, BALTICS WARM TO US VIEW OF RUSSIA; HOPE FOR NATO ENTRY.
6. Ira Straus: Bush and Putin: A Tale of Two Summits.
7. RFE/RL: Askold Krushelnycky, Ukraine: Fractured Democratic Opposition Reunifies For Greater Political Power.]

*******

#1
U.S. lecturer falls foul of Russian FSB police

MOSCOW, June 13 (Reuters) - Russia's FSB domestic security police said on
Wednesday it had reprimanded a U.S. lecturer over attempts to gather
information about local companies, but stopped short of expelling her.

A spokeswoman in the Omsk branch of the FSB told Reuters it had spoken to
Elizabeth Sweet after she asked her students at the Siberian university to
prepare a report on the region's social and economic situation.

The FSB, a successor to the Soviet KGB secret police that has recently
launched high-profile spy cases against academics and foreigners, did not
approve of Sweet's methods, the spokeswoman said.

"This type of information, gained through unofficial sources, does not give a
true reflection of the situation and if it was published abroad it could harm
the image and competitiveness of our businesses," she said.

"So there was a discussion between the foreigner and an FSB employee at the
university and it was explained that this activity could damage our
organisations and our firms."

The spokeswoman denied Russian television and radio reports that Sweet had
been expelled.

"She (Sweet) agreed to hand over the material she gathered to the dean's
office and said she wouldn't do this any more, but no official case was
brought against her."

"She has not been expelled and will fulfil her contract," the spokeswoman
said. "But the renewal of her contract is under question."

Russia has seen a spate of spy cases since former FSB director Vladimir Putin
became president last year.

U.S. businessman Edmond Pope was sentenced to 20 years in jail last year for
gathering state secrets, but was pardoned shortly afterwards by Putin.

John Tobin, a U.S. Fulbright scholar, is serving a jail term in Russia for
possession of marijuana. The FSB initially accused him of training to be a
spy.

Russia and the U.S. both expelled four of each other's diplomats and
threatened to throw out scores more earlier this year in the worst
tit-for-tat spy row since the Cold War.

A string of Russian academics and environmentalists have also fallen foul of
the FSB.

One of the most prominent is Igor Sutyagin, an arms expert with Moscow's
prestigious USA-Canada Institute, who is accused of passing nuclear submarine
secrets to the U.S. and Britain.

Itar-Tass news agency said Sutyagin's case was to resume on Wednesday in
Kaluga, outside Moscow. He denies the charges.

*******

#2
BBC Monitoring
Freedom is my main achievement, ex-president of Russia says
Source: Russian Public TV (ORT), Moscow, in Russian 1700 gmt 12 Jun 01

On the 10th anniversary of his election as Russian leader, former President
Boris Yeltsin gave an interview in which he expressed pride in his
achievements whilst in office. Chief amongst these he mentioned the bringing
of freedom to Russia, especially freedom of the press and freedom of market
forces. He praised Vladimir Putin for continuing the reforms he started,
noting that "without Yeltsin there would not have been Putin", and advising
him to stick to his objectives and not give in to pressure from the
Americans. Yeltsin vehemently denied allegations that a small clique centred
around his own family ran the country during his years in power, describing
them as "malicious lies". He also denied that the purpose of his recent visit
to China was to receive medical treatment, saying he had "nothing which needs
treatment". The following is an excerpt from the recorded interview shown on
Russian Public TV on 12 June. Subheads have been inserted editorially.

[Interviewer] The first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, has given an
interview to our programme. Boris Nikolayevich, this is an unusual
anniversary for you. Precisely 10 years ago you were elected president of
Russia. Today we are also marking the 11th anniversary of signing the
declaration of Russia's state sovereignty. The country has travelled a long
way since then. Some huge changes have been made. What do you think of the
situation in the country and, of the distribution of power in society, in
particular?

[Yeltsin] I remember well the day when the declaration of state sovereignty
of the Russian Federation was adopted. When the majority voted for that, the
entire hall got up and started shouting: Russia has become free. But this was
just a declaration. After that there was work to do. We faced the task of
rebuilding Russia and of setting Russia and its people free. We had to give
them freedom. We had to set free the press and market forces, precisely, the
market forces.

Pride in building foundations of democratic Russia

Those were only the first steps but they laid the foundation of the reforms
that continued. The foundation was laid in my time. I am proud that we built
a safe foundation that will underpin the home that will be built by the next
generations.

I am also proud that the press was given more freedom and as someone who is
directly involved in the process I am sure you will agree with that.

The principle of pluralism has been observed and is still being observed. But
it hasn't turned nasty. It has softened. Pluralism produces confrontation. I
will go as far as to say that now there is no confrontation. The political
situation is much calmer now. People can now feel more confident because
whenever they watched the State Duma before they used to get very angry about
political battles there. There used to be clashes, true clashes in the Duma.
You remember [Vladimir] Zhirinovskiy and others like him. It is much calmer
now. Centrists are now running the show...

[Interviewer] You have just come back from China. What kind of a trip was
that?

[Yeltsin] China is a great country. This is a country with the population of
1.29bn. The president of China, Jiang Zemin, is my friend. Where else should
one go but China, especially for one's first holiday abroad? The decision was
made in favour of China. I think that this was a correct choice.

Chinese trip not connected with health problems

[Interviewer] According to newspapers, you went there for treatment?

[Yeltsin] This was not so. I have nothing which needs treatment. I am well...

I am going to meet Jacques Chirac in Moscow on 2 July. In July I will once
again meet Jiang Zemin who will arrive in Moscow for a state visit [as
heard]. In a nutshell we are keeping in touch with each other. As before we
are treating each other with respect. We understand each other. We are
thinking of setting up a council of former world leaders. I think we will
succeed in doing that. This will be an interesting think tank that will
discuss international issues. It may also be of some use for younger
politicians.

[Interviewer] Putin will soon have his first meeting with the new US
president, George Bush Jnr. This will be his first and therefore a very
important meeting. You have had a great experience of dealing with US
leaders. Is there anything different about Russian-US summits?

Advice on dealing with Americans

[Yeltsin] Yes there is. To begin with, the Americans attach great importance
to preparations for such talks. They try to create a situation that will give
them a points advantage of some kind. They want to come to the talks with a
points advantage. They are trying to exert pressure. In a nutshell they will
attempt to exert pressure. Even the phrase that George Bush Jnr used when he
said that he wanted to look Putin in the eye. It sounds a bit rough when it
comes from the president. But this is the American style. One should prepare
oneself for that so as not to give in to pressure.

They never succeeded in putting pressure on me. Not once. I think they will
fail to do that with Vladimir Putin as well. As agreed at the time of the
handover of power, we are holding regular meetings.

[Interviewer] How often does this happen?

[Yeltsin] Roughly once a month. Our last meeting was on 10 May. These are
good meetings where we give each other mutual support and show respect. Of
course all I could do is talk to him. I don't give him any categorical
advice. It will be wrong to do that. After all he is the president. He is the
one who makes decisions and he is the one who bears the final responsibility
for his decisions. Therefore, even with my experience it will be wrong to
give categorical advice. Instead we chat to each other. I express my point of
view. This is more interesting. He then thinks about, compares the facts and
makes the right choice.

At our last meeting we naturally also talked about Russian-Chinese relations
since I told him that I wanted to go to China. He hailed the decision and
said that it would be politically correct to meet [Jiang] Zemin.

Putin entitled to have "own team"

Well, we also discussed some questions connected with relations with the
Americans, and a number of other questions, including personnel questions -
but that's his choice. You have to pick your own team, so your own team obeys
you, so it is devoted and human, so it works from morning to night. That is
the kind of team you need to have. You have to have your own team.

When he set about picking his team, he took a look around, surveyed the
scene, studied everything. Now he is gradually picking his team. Well, that's
the president's business, his prerogative.

[Interviewer] Is there any presidential secret which you could share with the
present head of state?

[Yeltsin] There's an old story about an old and a new boss who meet. The new
boss asks the old boss what he should do if things get difficult and start
going badly. The old boss says: I will give you two envelopes. If things get
difficult, open the first envelope. If things get really bad, open the other
envelope. Well, things got difficult, the young man decided to open the first
envelope. He opened it and inside it was a note saying "blame the old man".
He started blaming the old man and things started going a bit better. A
little while later, things again started going badly. He opened the second
envelope and the note inside said "Get two envelopes ready". [Interviewer
chuckles]

Putin continuing with reform

Actually, the fact that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin does not blame the old
man means that things are going well, not badly, for him. So, there is no
advice, no secret. Just be purposeful, don't get dragged off course. Vladimir
Vladimirovich is doing a lot of steady work. His timetable is busy. He must
not let this timetable be upset. He must carry on working just as hard, not
losing sight of the main goal. The main goal is clear - the reforming of
Russia, reforming, the continuation of the reform. The reforms have not yet
reached the military section, the administrative section, the housing and
municipal services sector, and other spheres.

Of course, it is easier now to work with the Duma. It is easier. And it is
easier to get laws passed, those which the state and people need. So, of
course, the situation is calmer, more politically stable. And I am glad for
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin's sake that it is like this.

[Interviewer] A few minutes ago you spoke about the presidential team, what
it should be like. The press actively discussed the question of so-called
personnel continuity. Your appointees, people whom you appointed to various
posts during your presidency must, allegedly, stay on in these posts now, for
a certain amount of time, a year for instance. [Yeltsin roars with laughter]
What do you yourself think about this?

[Yeltsin] Nonsense. No. There cannot be continuity in this area. Every
president must have his own team. He may leave somebody in post, somebody
whom he likes, somebody who suits the job, somebody who is a professional,
who feels for the country, who does a lot of hard, steady work. But others he
will pick new for himself, from the ranks of young, younger people. That's
his prerogative. My team was a suitable team, which did a lot of good work.

Malicious allegations about "the Family"

[Interviewer] I cannot avoid asking you about the term "the Family". The
newspapers write a very great deal about this. It is alleged that the country
was actually run by the family during the years of your presidency.

[Yeltsin] Well, the myths about the family are a routine thing. There will
soon be these myths about Putin too. Somebody is sure to remember about this.
Well, you have to be relaxed about this. I have always been relaxed about
this. I do not argue. I don't go in for denials. I was always relaxed about
these lies. Mostly, these were malicious lies, lies. Sometimes you feel
ashamed and uncomfortable. Sometimes you simply feel ashamed of those people
who write these things, without knowing anything, writing that my daughter is
a millionaire. I am referring to Tatyana, Tatyana Dyachenko. There's nothing
of the sort. What millionaire would live with her father? So, the myth about
the family - [changes thought] in general, my family has not interfered with
any affairs of state or come anywhere near it. Apart from Tatyana, that is -
she did her work and was responsible for her work. That's all.

[Interviewer] Boris Nikolayevich, what is life like for you now? After all,
we don't often see you on TV. You give interviews even more rarely. Nothing
is known about what your life is like now.

Life at Barvikha

[Yeltsin] I live at Barvikha-4. I moved across from Gorki-9, because it needs
major repairs. These repairs have already started. I lived at Barvikha-4
during 1996. I have now moved here with my entire family, with all members of
my family, with my big family. Well, I am living here, meeting leaders of
ministries and departments, meeting the prime minister and president, meeting
governors. I make telephone calls. I also speak often over the telephone with
various leaders. I get the latest information every day. So I know what is
going on, I know what is going on in Russia, what is taking place there, what
the news is every day. I watch more TV than before.

[Interviewer] What do you watch?

[Yeltsin] I watch [Nikolay] Svanidze and [Yevgeniy] Kiselev [both leading
political commentators]. If I don't like one, I watch another. If I don't
like that one, I watch a third. The choice is very great now. Well, I watch
news, the latest news, of course, without fail. I definitely watch the
"Vremya" programme at 9 p.m. [Moscow time - 1700 gmt]. So I now pay more
attention to TV than before. That's part of my cultural programme, so to
speak...

[Interviewer] Let's return to big-time politics. What do you think of Viktor
Chernomyrdin's appointment as Russian ambassador to Ukraine and the
president's special representative at the same time?

[Yeltsin] I immediately rang Vladimir Putin and said this was a very good and
correct personnel decision. I invited Viktor Chernomyrdin and his wife here.
We sat down and talked. I reassured him and said this was a very correct
decision. In general, I did my best to encourage him and his wife, who is a
bit sceptical about this. Well, in general I consider that this is very good.
This will benefit both the Ukrainian and Russian peoples since Chernomyrdin
is a mobile and energetic man, a good manager. In general, I know his
positive side.

[Interviewer] Boris Nikolayevich, I have another question. One sometimes
hears it said that Putin's Russia is in opposition to Yeltsin's Russia.

Putin's Russia stems from Yeltsin's Russia

[Yeltsin] You cannot speak of such an opposition. That cannot be done. One
stems, as it were, from the other. Without Yeltsin there would not have been
Putin. I am not speaking literally, in the physical sense, but in the
political sense. If there had not been that foundation which was laid in the
democratic society - [changes thought] and don't forget we had to fight the
Communists. And that was a real confrontation. The Yeltsin epoch was an epoch
of tough struggle for a democratic society, a tough struggle, an
uncompromising struggle. Now things are quieter. But, in return, we have
elected a second president, which means there will be a third, a fourth, a
fifth. This means we are a presidential country, we are a democratic society.
Even if there are some shortcomings in this process, they are soluble, they
are in front of us. You cannot oppose the two. I had my team. He will have
his team. To some extent the country will be different. It will be better.
That is natural. That is understandable. I was counting on him, on Vladimir
Vladimirovich. And I am glad that I was not mistaken. A year has passed and I
have seen for myself that he is handling things the way I expected, taking
them along the same reformist path, the path of democratizing society and, of
course, boosting Russia's prestige throughout the world. That is an important
international section of the work to which I devoted very great attention.
That is why I have many friends amongst heads of state. He is also starting
this work. I consider that things will work out well for him.

[Interviewer] All the same, what would you describe as the main outcome of
your presidency?

[Yeltsin] I have already told you, freedom.

[Interviewer] Have a good holiday. Thank you.

*******

#3
Boston Globe
June 13, 2001
Bush should keep joint commissions
By Jan K. Kalicki
Jan H. Kalicki is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center in Washington.

LAST WEEK'S meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the leadup to
the G-8 Summit in July should cause President Bush to rethink his decision not to
continue the US Joint Commissions with Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
Uzbekistan.

Until now the Bush administration has failed to reauthorize any bilateral
committees with these countries. Ostensibly, the reason was to relegate US
relations to normal intergovernmental channels and no longer treat these new
independent states as special cases.

This was an ill-considered reaction against institutions created by the
Clinton-Gore administration, which had been harshly criticized in the 2000
campaign by then-Governor Bush.

The Joint Commissions were not perfect, but they served several important
purposes. First, they brought the United States and the teams of those other
countries together to work on a wide range of priorities such as
denuclearization and defense conversion, export controls, building the
international space station, creation of business-friendly tax codes,
prevention of trade disputes in aviation, poultry and steel, private sector
development in regions such as the Russian Far East, and medical campaigns
against tuberculosis and AIDS.

Few of these would have been possible if left to established bureaucracies
and not subjected to cross-cutting pressures from attention to the broader
agenda. Brainstorming for new initiatives was unusually creative and intense
under the direction of Vice President Gore and his national security adviser,
Leon Fuerth.

Second, the commissions brought the private sector into economic
policy-making to an unprecedented degree. In countries where nongovernmental
entities did not exist until 10 years ago, the commissions made business
development a top priority and insured that US business councils and those in
the other countries would receive a hearing from the highest levels of
government.

For example, a joint energy report and commercial tax dialogue that this
author organized with then Russian Energy Minister Sergei Kiriyenko and
Finance Minister Mikhail Zadornov, with extensive participation from American
and Russian companies, made significant contributions to legislation and
decrees in these two key economic areas.

Third, the commissions served as ballast for relations when they went through
increased stress because of NATO expansion, conflicts in former Yugoslavia,
or Russian cooperation with Iran and Iraq. And they backstopped the
presidents for some of their most signal achievements, for example, recovery
from the 1998 financial crisis, creation of a viable Caspian Pipeline
Consortium, and final closure of the Chernobyl reactors.

It is true that the commissions brought with them some wasted effort and
excess bureaucracy; they engaged with leaders who were hardly paragons of
democratic rectitude; and neither they nor the governments responded
adequately to big systemic issues, such as corruption and regulatory failures.

But the commissions mobilized many inside and outside the US government not
previously engaged with the former Soviet Union, and made possible
achievements in very difficult conditions that could not be achieved through
traditional diplomatic channels. In fact, the commissions proved so
worthwhile that they were adopted with Russia by all of the other G-8
countries.

The Bush administration now wishes to alter Russian behavior in a number of
sensitive areas, including arms exports and nuclear cooperation. It will find
that behavior much less susceptible to change if, unlike its major European
and Asian allies, it maintains its standoffish attitude toward the
post-Soviet states, and if it returns to the old stovepiping in entrenched
bureaucracies, rather than exposing issues to pressures which cut across
government and permit like-minded coalitions.

And it will find crisis management more problematic in the absence of
incentives to cooperate. Let's hope that the administration will decide to
adopt the joint commission approach by another name to permit it to pursue
priorities suited to the new century and not to the 1980s.

*******

#4
Analysis: The strategic triangle -- EU, Russia and US
By MARTIN WALKER, UPI Chief International Correspondent

BRUSSELS, Belgium, June 12 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush knows that a
common thread runs through his two big summits in Europe this week with the
15 leaders of the European Union in Sweden on Thursday and his first meeting
with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovenia on Saturday.

The common factor is that Russia remains the only military power that can
devastate both Europe and America with a nuclear strike, and that in
consequence, both the EU and the United States share a powerful common
interest in ensuring that such an attack never happens. With their strategic
destinies still linked through the potent NATO alliance, the EU and the
United States have long agreed that the best long-term safeguard is to bring
Russia into the West's family of prosperous democracies.

The difficulty, which will be a prime issue as Bush sits down for a long
and informal discussion over dinner with the EU leaders Thursday evening in
Gothenburg, Sweden, is that 12 years after the end of the Cold War and the
collapse of the Soviet Union, both democracy and prosperity remain
aspirations for Russia rather than realities. Indeed, the troubling aspect
of Russia under Putin is that he seems intent on constraining the democracy
in the hope that this will improve the economy.

Putin's ruthless military campaign in Chechnya and the tightening screws
on the Russian media are worries that the Europeans already have raised with
him, though with little effect, when he joined their last summit in
Stockholm, Sweden, in March this year.

After wooing British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder, inviting Schroeder to share his New Year's celebration,
Putin has declared "Russia is a European state with a European vocation." He
has also held out the examples of Swedish and German social democracies as
the model he wants Russia to follow.

There are suspicions in the Bush administration that Putin is playing the
old Soviet tactic of trying to play off Europe against the United States. As
a result, a prime objective for Bush this week is to ensure that the
transatlantic alliance holds firm, and that Europe and the United States
agree to a common policy for dealing with Russia.

"The real goal must be to bring Russia into the Euro-Atlantic security
structure," Zbigniew Brzezinski, former White House national security
adviser, told a high-level conference of U.S. and Russian experts and
policy-makers in Washington on Friday.

But there are subtly important differences in the way Europeans and
Americans see the issue. Germany, for example, does not want to provoke
Russia by bringing the three Baltic states into an enlarged NATO. The United
States thinks the Balts need and deserve NATO membership, and bridle at
Russian opposition.

"If Russia, as it says, genuinely wants to be part of an integrated
Europe, then it is making a big mistake on resisting the integration of
others like the Baltic states," former deputy Secretary of State Strobe
Talbott told the same Washington conference on Friday.

Vladimir Lukin, former Russian ambassador to the United States and now
deputy speaker of the Duma, Russia's parliament, responded: "We want to be
integrated with Europe, and also within the Euro-Atlantic system."

"Integration" is one of those tricky words that can mean different things.

Russia's economic integration with Europe already is far advanced. But any
serious moves on political integration, far less security integration, are a
long way in the future.

The Europeans, increasingly dependent on Russia for their supplies of
natural gas, know that Russia's economy is increasingly integrated with
their own. Already half of Russia's exports go to the 15-member EU. When the
decade-long process of EU enlargement brings in the 12 new member states of
Eastern Europe, the enlarged grouping will absorb more than 70 percent of
Russian exports.

Under the EU's new Common Foreign and Security Policy, the first joint
policy it agreed was a Strategic Assessment of its relations with Russia. It
recommended building on the EU's current Trade and Cooperation agreement
with Russia. But most European leaders were stunned last July when
then-President Clinton, speaking in Aachen, Germany, suggested that both the
EU and NATO "must leave the doors open" for the eventual membership of both
Russia and Ukraine.

And yet Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, suggested in a
White House briefing last week that the Bush administration saw integration
with the EU as the long-term solution to the Russia problem.

"I think the president wants to signal his support for having a Russia
that is really a part of Europe, that is a respected partner in
international politics. They will talk about that," Rice said.

For the Europeans, still nervous at the potential of the limping Russian
giant who is their neighbor, their ability to work in harness with Bush on
Russia will depend on what the White House actually means by the phrase "a
Russia that is really a part of Europe."

*******

#5
The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 12, 2001
BALTICS WARM TO US VIEW OF RUSSIA; HOPE FOR NATO ENTRY
By Benjamin Smith

RIGA -- A hot new Latvian nightclub, Eastern Front, is decorated with gilded
busts of Eastern Europe's cruelest rulers. Stalin peers out from a nook. A
young Hitler occupies the middle of the main room. Ivan the Terrible
slouches in back. And, gleaming next to the stage with an impassive
expression on his face, is the newest member of the club: Vladimir Putin.
In little over a year in power, Mr. Putin has hardly earned a comparison
with Hitler or Stalin. But the presumption of guilt is heavy here in the
Baltic States, where Russia-phobia runs deep. Latvia and Estonia have been
ruled from Moscow for 270 of the past 300 years.

So when U.S. President George W. Bush meets Mr. Putin in Ljubljana later
this week, observers here will be watching closely. Baltic leaders have
found much to like in the new U.S. administration's tough approach to
Russia, and they hope that the meeting won't mark a rapprochement.
"If Moscow and Washington get along too well, it's always a little bit
suspicious for us," says Igor Grazin, an Estonian political analyst.

At stake is the best security guarantee available: membership in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. Russia adamantly opposes admitting the Baltics
to NATO, while Mr. Bush has yet to articulate a formal position on the
subject. However, Mr. Bush and his aides have shown no compunction about
ignoring Russia's position on everything from missile defense to arms
dealing. Many here hope that that willingness to step on Moscow's toes will
extend to NATO enlargement. Enlargement to the Baltics would depend on a
perception by the U.S. and its allies that Moscow isn't a fully viable
partner - something citizens of the region feel they have long known.

"In the West and here, everyone knows that the bottom line is, `Can you
trust the Russians?'" says Atis Lejins, director of the Latvian Institute of
International Relations. "There's an increasing uneasiness that the bottom
line is that you can't."

Indeed, the cooler Bush approach to Russia feels like vindication for many
in the Baltics. "It was our position right from the start" that the West
should be "very realistic about the speed of change in Russia," says Andrejs
Pildegovics, foreign-policy adviser to the Latvian president, Vaira
Vike-Freiberga.

The U.S.'s new realism toward Russia has practical consequences that could
raise the chances of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia being invited to join
NATO at the organization's summit in November 2002 in Prague. The countries
have gained confidence from fading U.S. attention toward Russia's pet issue:
Latvia's and Estonia's treatment of their large Russian minorities.
Controversial restrictions on language and citizenship have been seen in the
past as obstacles to NATO membership.

The international community has monitored Baltic minority issues through the
Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation and Europe missions
to Riga and Tallinn. Latvian and Estonian leaders consider the OSCE's very
presence a black mark. Recently, they have won backing from the U.S. and a
number of European allies to close the missions on the grounds that the
countries have met Western human-rights standards. Although no official
decision has been taken by the members on closing the missions, Western
diplomats in the Baltics say the offices will likely be shut at the end of
this year, providing an implicit stamp of approval for Baltic minority
policies and removing a reason to delay NATO entry.

The Bush administration's shift in emphasis has also come through in less
tangible forms, as when Ms. Vike-Freiberga visited Washington this April.
She met President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State
Colin Powell. During the Clinton administration, Latvian political insiders
say, questions from the U.S. government focused on Latvia's handling of
collaboration in the Holocaust and on its treatment of its Russian minority.

The sense that the Baltics now have like-thinking friends in Washington has
created a mood of optimism. "The West has taken a half-step toward us and we
have taken a half-step toward them," says Latvia's Mr. Lejins.

*******

#6
From: IRASTRAUS@aol.com (Ira Straus)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001
Subject: Bush and Putin: A Tale of Two Summits

Bush and Putin: A Tale of Two Summits
by Ira Straus

Summit I

Bush: Hi, nice to see ya. You know, we oughta put all that old Cold War stuff
behind us and start dealing with the new problems of the world. Like
Ballistic Missile Defense...

Putin: We’re not going to give up our nuclear deterrent. It would be nice if
your nukes couldn’t be used to destroy us, but who do you think you’re
kidding?

Bush: It’s crazy for us to be thinking about destroying each other, that’s
the old Cold War paradigm. But if that’s what you want to think about, then
don’t worry. Our missile defense couldn’t possibly affect you’re ability to
destroy us.

Putin: It’s the first step, it opens up the door to a bigger defense that
would do us in. We can’t simply leave our country naked and trust in your
good intentions. Not after Kosovo. Not after NATO’s new doctrine of
intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. We have enough of our
own internal affairs that the West has shown every inclination to intervene
in, just as carelessly as in Kosovo, just as full of rhetoric and ignorance
of the real issues.

Bush: Speaking of NATO, you’ve got to stop thinking of it as an enemy. That’s
the same old Cold War paradigm. The new paradigm is that NATO is good for
everyone in Europe. It promotes democracy and stability. It’s good for Russia
too if the Baltic states join NATO, it means that there will be democracy and
stability along Russia’s borders.

Putin: The main gap in democracy in the Baltics is the discrimination in two
of them against ethnic Russians and against the Russian language. NATO
membership would encourage them to think they can get away with it and stick
it to the Russians with impunity.

Bush: How so, by taking away their fear of a Russian invasion? Aren’t you
really threatening to invade them? In the new paradigm, it would be a good
thing if NATO took away their fear of invasion, then they would be able to
take a more relaxed view of their own Russians.

Putin: No, I’m not threatening any invasion, they know that. But if they
become NATO members, they’ll keep alive the fears of a Russian invasion and
drag all of you into war games against Russia. All I’m asking is for them to
behave better and for NATO to apply its own membership standards more
honestly.

Bush: So, you try to tell us what to do with them - try to tell us to have
nothing to do with them? It means you’re asking for a veto. Well, we’re never
going to give you a veto in NATO.

Putin: No, no, we’re not asking for a veto, and we know that we don’t have
any kind of veto, we’re just giving our opinion. We have a right to do that,
don’t we?

Bush: Sure, but you don’t have any right to make crude threats against the
freedom and self-determination of other sovereign countries. Or against the
freedom of the sovereign NATO alliance to make its own decisions. No
democracy in Europe should be excluded or discriminated against because of
history or geography. I’ve said it a thousand times. It’s a matter of
principle.

Putin: NATO said it was going to give us a voice not a veto, but what kind of
voice is it when you make it a matter of principle to ignore everything we
say? That’s Cold War thinking for you, saying that it would amount to giving
us a veto if you ever agreed with us.

Bush: But we don’t agree with you. The Baltic states are peaceful little
democracies. To keep them out would be interpreted only one way: that we’ve
given in to your bullying and NATO doesn’t have any spine at all.

Putin: Hmm, fear of loss of masculinity if you make any compromises with
Russian interests... Anyway, the real danger of a veto is that you’re going
to let in the Baltic states and give them a veto power. Then they’ll be able
to veto every step NATO tries to take in its relations with us. They bear all
kinds of grudges against us. As NATO members, they would make life hell
between us and NATO. It would take us straight back to the Cold War. The
reaction against NATO in this country would be horrendous and we would
inevitably take counter-measures that’ll hurt badly. What could you possibly
get from taking in the Baltics? Next to nothing. What could you lose?
Everything. So why are you doing it?

Bush: They’re independent states, they have the right to choose their own
alliances. For you to try to deprive them of that right and threaten some
unnamed "counter-measures" amounts to saying that they’re in your sphere of
influence. Well, they’re not in your sphere of influence, and we’re not going
to concede them to any sphere of influence. That’s exactly why we have to
bring them into NATO.

Putin: In other words, you have to do it just because we’re against it and we
feel strongly about it? Talk about Cold War thinking... And why should they
be in your sphere of influence? Don't we have legitimate interests there -
more serious ones than you do? Seriously, what kind of voice can we have,
when, if we want something strongly, you decide to do the opposite just for
that reason?

Bush: But the door is open for Russia to join NATO, too. If you did that,
then you’d have a really big voice. So why don’t you try to join NATO? All
you have to do is meet the standards. Of course you’ll have to stop shooting
up people in Chechnya and committing all those human rights violations and
corruption stuff.

Putin: I’ve been dealing with the corruption problem, I thought you’d
appreciate that. As to executing terrorists, you just executed one yourself,
the McVeigh fellow, and we Russians were the only people in Europe who were
on your side not McVeigh’s. You ought to be on our side, too, when we’re
fighting against the terrorists in Chechnya.

Bush: Those aren’t terrorists, those are people fighting for their freedom
from Russian imperialism, after all the genocides you’ve committed against
them and now you’re just committing more war crimes and human rights
violations.

Putin: Back in Cold War days, we used to say that kind of thing about the
American Indian Movement and the Black Panthers.

[to be continued...]

= = = = = = = =

Summit II

Bush: Hi Vlad. Ya know, we oughta be on the same side against all the new
dangers we’re facing. This terrorism stuff is bad, the Islamic
fundamentalists are as bad for you as they are for us, we don’t want rogue
states launching nukes with impunity. Why are you building up Iran and China?
Sure, you want the money, but you’re putting Russia in grave danger with
this. I’d think you’d want to make it clear to the Chinese that they are not
going to get anywhere by force. Why are you supporting them against Taiwan?

Putin: Will you be on our side if we have trouble on the Chinese border?
Every time we ask about joining NATO, we get back an answer that NATO is
never going to defend us against the Chinese. So why should we defend Taiwan
against the Chinese?

Bush: Really is that what they say at NATO? Hmm, that’s pretty stupid. Tell
you what, you support Taiwan against the Chinese and stop building up their
military, and we’ll support you against the Chinese.

Putin: That’s a deal, or almost a deal. But we have to sell our arms
somewhere, you sell all around the world, you can’t just tell us to stop
selling.

Bush: We’ve offered to buy your S-300s for missile defense.

Putin: Thanks, but that’s just one case. You keep taking away our arms
markets, telling the East Europeans to buy your weapons instead of ours which
are much cheaper and they could afford a lot better. And when you tell us to
meet NATO standards, it means that we should buy your weapons and convert our
army to them at a huge price, and shut down our own industries. This has got
to change.

Bush: Well, I’m sure it will change if you join NATO. Then you’ll have a say
in setting the standards and we can make it a 2-way street.

Putin: The last time I talked about Russia joining NATO, the word came back
from NATO that we’re not welcome there. And the Secretary General there,
Robertson, publicly scoffed at us and said it’s not on the agenda for us to
join. Well, if we’re not welcome there, then we have every reason to be
against others joining.

Bush: That was before I became President. Anyway, Robertson changed his tune
that to say that it might make sense for Russia to join, why not, and it
could be a serious question to discuss in a couple decades. More recently
we’ve clarified again that the door is open if you meet the standards. I’ve
said time and again that no European democracy should be excluded for reasons
of geography or history. Well, that includes you as well as the Baltic
states. Recently Robertson has publicly told your people in Moscow (in a
lecture at MGIMO) that you have every right to submit an application for
membership, and that any such application from Russia would be examined very
carefully by NATO.

Putin: Those are fine words, but the reality is different. We’ve been
humiliated too many times, talking about how we’d like to join NATO and then
the NATO people just laugh at us for it. Some of our biggest politicians got
discredited by this. I myself barely escaped suffering some serious damage
for my one remark about joining NATO. In the last decade, NATO destroyed its
best friends here by doing this. Now you’ll have to deal with tougher people.
You’re going to have to give us some plan for joining and some evidence that
you’re serious about letting us in before we’re going to make the mistake of
saying that we’d like to join.

Bush: But there is a clear plan out there for countries to join NATO. Why
don’t you just proceed full speed ahead and meet the standards?

Putin: Because we can meet all the standards in the world and still you won’t
let us in. The standards weren’t drawn up for us to meet them, they were
drawn up so they could always find an excuse for excluding us, and meanwhile
could always fudge them to let everyone else in. Besides, they’re mostly
irrelevant to the issues that would be raised by Russian membership. Why
should you demand standardized weapons from us? Maybe your industries felt
that was a demand you could impose on the little Central European countries
that were begging for you to give them a one-way defense guarantee, but it’s
different with us. You need to draw up standards that are relevant for the
Russian case. You need to work out a plan with us for getting from here to
there. It will have to be a plan that makes it good for us and good for you.
Otherwise we’ll know perfectly well that all these fine words of yours are
just words and the reality is that you’ll always find an excuse for keeping
us out.

Bush: How can you say that we’d keep you out? We’ve always said the door is
open and Russia is eligible to join. Trust me. But there do have to be some
standards. You can’t go on throwing good Russians in jail for honest
Russia-West cooperation projects, or throw our own people in jail on trumped
up charges, and then tell us you want to join us. You have to let the
Sutyagins and Tobins out of jail, unconditionally, and start punishing the
rogues in your security forces for these kinds of incidents. And then there’s
freedom of speech and the press. This has to be working well, full-scale,
like open societies, so the dialogue is honest. That’s the only way we can
trust each other. It’s the only way to feel sure, when we talk to each
other, that there is at least a minimum level of sincerity and not everything
is an elaborate con game.

Putin: Yeah, and thanks to your freedom of speech and openness, we know your
side is not sincere on the NATO question. Plenty of your politicians and
officials have been making arguments that Russia should never be let in. They
say Russia is too big for NATO to be able to swallow it, its borders are too
long for NATO to defend, and it would have too much influence and would blow
up NATO - in other words, it would have a real voice if it joined, and this
is what they don’t want Russia ever to have. These are objections that are
not going to change no matter what standards we meet. We’re still going to be
just as big, with just as long borders. A few years ago Volker Ruehe said we
shouldn’t join for these reasons, earlier Kissinger did, plenty of others
have made similar arguments, and most recently Vaclav Havel said it. Now that
the Czechs have been let in, they have a veto on our joining, don’t they? And
now you’re talking about handing out veto rights to each of the three Baltic
states, which will never agree to let us in no matter what.

Bush: But gee whiz, isn’t it a real problem that Russia is too big to let it
in?

Putin: If it is, then you should say it openly, stop pretending that NATO is
open to Russia, and stop pretending that NATO expansion is something innocent
that Russians shouldn’t get upset about. And stop expanding NATO. And start
phasing it out as a relic of the Cold War.

Bush: That’s not on. We’re keeping NATO.

Putin: Then you had better find a way to include us in it, otherwise it will
be a constant irritant in our relations.

Bush: So how can you solve the problem that you’re too big. Maybe Russia
could divide into several countries?

Putin: No way. Talk any more like that and you’ll make yourself the mortal
enemy of our country. Russia is here to stay even more than NATO is. We’ve
been a huge country for 500 years.

Bush: So then we’ve got to find a way to include you as a huge country. Hmm,
maybe it’s a good thing you’re so big. NATO is a military alliance, so the
strength you can contribute is a good thing for it.

Putin: Yeah, the small countries mostly just contribute a lot of trouble and
confusion.

Bush: Yeah, but all those other people must have some reason to be afraid of
your size. After all, you’re not very friendly to NATO. If you come in and
have a big voice and a veto, maybe you really will blow apart the alliance.
How in the world can we give Russia a big voice without letting it veto
everything we want to do? I don’t know how to get out of this box.

Putin: Then you had better find a way out of the box.

Bush: Maybe we could work out a global strategic plan together, to see if you
ever really can be friendly about strategic issues.

Putin: Sure, if it’s really a joint plan that takes our interests into
account, not just asking Russia to sign onto the existing NATO strategic
plan, then Russia could really support it.

Bush: Yeah, I agree, we need to work it out together. Sorta like
bipartisanship. And maybe we can work out together the plan for Russia to
join NATO, so it’ll be one that both sides can agree to.

Putin: Yeah, you have a Membership Action Plan to help all the other
countries get over the hurdles to joining, but you don’t have one for Russia.
Until you’ve got a good one for Russia, too, no one over here is going to
believe a word you say on this subject.

Bush: Well, you should believe us, because we mean it. If NATO keeps
expanding and the door isn’t shut closed, then inevitably we’ll get to you.
So you should be happy if we come closer with the Baltic states.

Putin: That’s a shell game and no one over here is going to be tricked by it
again. Sure, you tell us, in a few decades time NATO will consider the
possibility of maybe letting Russia join. Meanwhile you’ll let in all the
Baltic states, along with everyone else who bears a grudge against us, and
they’ll all get a veto over any application from us to join. We wouldn’t have
a chance. We must come in at the same time as the Baltic states, not a day
later. If you want us to take you seriously, you’ll have to do more and do it
now.

Bush: But how can we do any more than we’ve already done? We’ve already said
the door is open if you meet the standards.

Putin: What more you can do is this. You can work out a plan for having
Russia join NATO, and work it out together with us, with relevant standards
and changes on both sides, so that it will be something good for both of us.

Bush: Gee whiz, OK, let’s have our guys sit down and do some serious
strategery together. Condi, get over here...

********

#7
Ukraine: Fractured Democratic Opposition Reunifies For Greater Political Power
By Askold Krushelnycky

For years, Ukraine's democratic opposition has been a weak and ineffective
link in the country's political framework. The situation hit bottom two years
ago, when the country's largest democratic opposition party, Rukh, split over
internal differences. But at a conference on 9 June, the two rival factions
signed a declaration agreeing to rejoin forces. RFE/RL correspondent Askold
Krushelnycky reports there are signs that Ukraine's popular ex-prime
minister, Viktor Yushchenko, could become the reunited party's leader.

Prague, 12 June 2001 (RFE/RL) -- The divided factions of Rukh, once Ukraine's
most powerful democratic party, have announced that they will reunite. The
move has raised hopes in Ukraine that the country's other democratic parties
will also join in creating a united oppositionist front ahead of
parliamentary and local elections due next year.

The leaders of the two rival factions, Yuriy Kostenko and Hennady Udovenko,
announced their agreement to rejoin forces at a conference held in Kyiv on 9
June. Some 1,000 delegates were in attendance.

Kostenko told RFE/RL yesterday (12 June) that the reunification would make
Rukh a force to be reckoned with:

"Rukh, in demonstrating its desire to unite into a single political force,
has created a great chance in the parliamentary elections -- if not to
achieve victory, then to fundamentally strengthen the influence of national
democratic [parties] on all the processes in our country."

Before its split two years ago over internal differences, Rukh had been
Ukraine's most influential democratic force. It began as a broad-based
movement in the late 1980s, spearheading the country's drive for
independence. Later, as a full-fledged political party, it grew to become the
third-largest parliamentary faction after Ukraine's 1998 elections.

But in 1999, Rukh -- then under the leadership of Vyacheslav Chornovil, a
former political prisoner -- was divided by bitter internal arguments. It
split into two separate parties, each calling themselves Rukh. The larger
faction, holding 22 of the original party's 36 parliamentary seats, was led
by Kostenko.

Chornovil, who led the smaller faction, was killed in a car accident later
that year, and was replaced by Udovenko, a former foreign minister. Udovenko
and Kostenko then ran as their parties' respective candidates in that year's
presidential race, each receiving a negligible percentage (1 percent and 2
percent respectively) of the ballot. Many Rukh supporters drifted away from
the divided party in disgust over the rift.

But at Saturday's conference, speakers said they were hopeful that the new
union would help turn Rukh into a leading force in Ukrainian politics.
Udovenko called the move "the first step" toward creating "a powerful
nationalist-democratic and government-oriented party." Kostenko, in his
remarks, echoed that goal:

"The party has set as its goal the creation of a powerful center-right
political force which will set the political agenda in our country and will
be able to fight for power. All the events which have taken place in Ukraine
over the last 10 years have graphically demonstrated that reforms and
democracy in Ukraine can only be achieved by politicians of the new
generation. And this was very clearly shown by the government of Viktor
Yushchenko, which approached issues by using nontraditional methods to tackle
the problems accumulated by those nurtured in the communist school of
thought."

Mention of former Prime Minister Yushchenko -- who was ousted from government
earlier this year (April) following a no-confidence vote in the Ukrainian
parliament -- sparked the loudest cheers of the conference. Many attendees,
including Kostenko, said they would like him to eventually head the reunited
Rukh.

Opinion polls indicate that Yushchenko remains Ukraine's most trusted and
well-liked politician. As prime minister, he pursued pro-market and
pro-Western reforms -- policies that made him unpopular among the alliance of
Communists and parties loyal to the country's so-called "oligarchs" that was
responsible for his ouster.

Speaking at the conference, Yushchenko hailed the Rukh reunification as
something that millions of Ukrainians had been waiting for. He added: "We
have won the argument in favor of consolidating the democratic forces in
Ukraine. I'm sure that this will be very important for the future process of
consolidating political forces, and the beginning of a long and happy path."

The two Rukh factions said they would merge into a single bloc and agree on
joint candidates, before Ukraine's parliamentary and local elections in March
of next year. Faction spokespeople said they have decided not to formally
unite before then because they fear the complicated legal process involved
could be deliberately prolonged in order to prevent their participation in
the elections.

Representatives of other democratic and nationalist parties attending the
meeting -- including Reforms and Order (PRP) and the Congress of Ukrainian
Nationalists (KUN) -- also indicated they might join in an electoral bloc
with Rukh.

Ilko Kucheriv is a political analyst and head of the Democratic Initiatives
think tank. He told RFE/RL that opinion polls indicate that if other center
and right-leaning parties join the Rukh bloc, Rukh could garner support from
at least 20 percent of voters. That percentage, Kucheriv says, could put them
roughly equal to the Communists, who currently hold the largest bloc in
parliament:

"This bloc that we're talking about -- of the two Rukhs and possibly the PRP
and KUN -- is the obvious counterforce to the communist idea."

Over the past nine months, a broad range of opposition parties have joined
ranks to call for the resignation of President Leonid Kuchma, whom they
accuse of corruption and involvement in the murder of an opposition
journalist who disappeared last year. But despite their united opposition to
Kuchma, the parties have yet to forge a joint political platform.

Conference attendees said they hoped that Rukh's reunification will prove the
start of broader party cooperation and improved chances in upcoming
elections.

Yulia Tymoshenko, Yushchenko's former deputy and another well-known
opposition figure, did not attend the conference. But in an interview with
RFE/RL, she said she hoped her Fatherland Party, which commands widespread
support, will also join a united democratic front before next year's
elections.

Tymoshenko would not say whether she would join the emerging Rukh bloc. But
she voiced her support of Yushchenko, whom she has in the past promoted as an
eventual presidential candidate. Tymoshenko also praised the Rukh
reunification:

"I believe that these unification processes that have been started by Rukh
are the beginning of a wider unification of democratic forces. I have said
more than once that as leader of the Fatherland Party, I dream of the kind of
unification which will bring to parliament not an artificially created
majority, but forces which are truly able to fight for their country and
their people."

When Yushchenko resigned as prime minister, he promised to remain in politics
and fight for a parliamentary seat at the next elections. Now, with the
leadership of a united democratic bloc virtually his for the asking, it
remains to be seen whether Yushchenko will accept the offer.

*******

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/