October 5, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5477 • 5478

Johnson's Russia List
#5477
5 October 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Despite warmer ties, US and Russia face hurdles.
2. US Department of State: Rice Sees New Impetus to U.S.-Russia Relations.
3. AP: US: Ukraine Missile Hit Russia Plane.
4. Christian Science Monitor: Fred Weir, Russian plane crash: terrorism or accident?
5. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review.
6. Time.com: Jessica Reaves, The Nunn-Lugar Act: Old Fears, New Era.
7. The Guardian (UK) editorial: Russia's rehabilitation. Vladimir Putin is having a good war.
8. Reuters: NATO, Russia think tank to mull wider cooperation.
9. UPI: Roland Flamini, Interview: Moscow eyes NATO membership. (Sergei Karaganov)
10. Reuters: Russia gets ratings boost on economic strength.
11. Reuters: Central Asia is reluctant partner for U.S. action.
12. strana.ru: Uzbekistan and Tajikistan may leave zone of Russian influence.
13. John Squier: 5475/Ware.
14. Christian Science Monitor: Taras Kuzio, Beware Russia's motives.]

******

#1
Despite warmer ties, US and Russia face hurdles
By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Despite warming ties between the United States
and Russia after last month's hijack attacks, President George W. Bush's
national security adviser said on Thursday disputes over weapons
proliferation and Chechnya would not be swept "under the rug."

Russia has emerged as a key U.S. ally in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the
Saudi-born militant Washington blames for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered the United States broad
anti-terrorism support, including opening the country's air space to relief
missions, taking part in search-and-rescue operations and arming forces
opposed to the Taliban, which control most of Afghanistan and are believed to
be sheltering bin Laden.

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, hailed Russia's close
cooperation, singling out Putin's phone call to Bush shortly after the
attacks as a "crystallizing moment for the end of the Cold War."

The U.S.-Russian engagement until Sept. 11 was focused largely on Bush's
proposal for a missile defense plan that Putin has never embraced.

"The United States and Russia may be well on their way to a fundamentally
different relationship," Rice said. "That fundamentally different
relationship, as it becomes based more and more on common values, will serve
not only Russia and the United States well, but the entire world."

Bush called Putin to express "his appreciation for Russia's continuing
cooperation" in the anti-terrorism effort, and said he was looking forward to
their next meeting in Shanghai later this month "where he hopes to make
progress in advancing the Russian-American relationship across the board,"
according to Sean McCormack, spokesman for the National Security Council.

But Rice said serious disputes remained, particularly over proliferation and
human rights, and warned against complacency.

"We're getting better at working through our differences," she told a meeting
of the U.S.-Russia Business Council on Thursday.

"But it would not be very good for either side to simply sweep under the rug
the fact that we continue to have some differences. That will not serve us
well in the long term," Rice said.

Specifically, Rice said the White House would continue to pressure Moscow to
curb the proliferation of weapons, particularly to Iran. According to
administration officials, Russian companies were helping Iran develop
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

"It's our view that this is not good for Russia, and not good for the United
States and not good for the region."

She also insisted that Washington would not back down on the issue of human
rights in Chechnya.

In a show of solidarity with Putin, the White House has endorsed a new
Russian peace initiative and urged Chechen rebels to cut ties with "terrorist
groups."

But Rice said: "That does not mean that we've changed the view that there has
to be a political solution to Chechnya and that human rights have to be
observed in Chechnya."

"We will continue to talk about that."

*******

#2
US Department of State
04 October 2001
Rice Sees New Impetus to U.S.-Russia Relations
(Remarks at U.S.-Russia Business Council Conference Oct. 4) (620)
By Jeffrey Thomas
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- The United States and Russia may be well on their way to
a relationship fundamentally different from that of even the last
several years, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the
annual meeting of the U.S.-Russia Business Council October 4 in
Washington.

Referring to the relationship as "evolving," she said there is a
chance "for a new strategic relationship with Russia, one that is more
appropriate to our relationship with Russia than to our relationship
with the Soviet Union, and we'll continue to work it."

The September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States have given the
U.S.-Russia relationship "new impetus," Rice said, adding that the
phone call Russian President Vladimir Putin made to President Bush in
the aftermath of the attacks with its message of 'we understand, we're
standing down, we want to help' was "really a kind of crystallizing
moment for the end of the Cold War."

She said she expects new impetus will be given to the search for other
areas of common security policy, including how to deal with the
emerging threat of ballistic missile technology and the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. But "perhaps most importantly," she
said, "we want to see this relationship broaden beyond the security
and strategic relationship to one that looks at those things that we
can do together to make better the lives of our people, to make us
more prosperous, to open Russia to the world and the world to Russia
in economic terms."

Rice said she believes Russia is serious about improving its
investment climate, developing its people, and creating a free
society, and she invited her audience to imagine a Russia fully
integrated into Europe, an engine of economic growth for the world. "I
think it is possible," she said.

The national security adviser also discussed the broad coalition now
being built to combat global terrorism and the long campaign "that
will be fought on many fronts" with countries bringing different
contributions to the effort.

"While many will continue to focus on what can we do militarily," she
said, "it may well be that some of the most important things that we
will do is to share information, share intelligence, to cut off
financial networks for terrorists, and these are things that we expect
to cooperate on broadly with the Russians."

At the same time, there will be no attempt "soft-pedal difficult
issues," Rice said.

"I can tell you that when President Putin and President Bush are in
the same room, ... they go right at difficult issues, and they agree
to disagree if necessary and to work on it in the future. And there
are several. There is no doubt that we've been concerned about Russian
proliferation in Iran, for instance. Now, it's our view that this is
not good for Russia and not good for the United States and not good
for the region. We expect to continue to push the issues having to do
with proliferation."

Russia's policies in Chechnya have also been a matter of concern,
although Rice cited Putin's recent remark that Chechnya has its own
history as "very important."

The United States recognizes that international terrorism has to be
rooted out wherever it is. "We cannot tolerate the al Qaeda in
Chechnya but not tolerate it in Afghanistan," she said.

"But that does not mean that we have changed the view that there has
to be a political solution to Chechnya and that human rights have to
be observed in Chechnya and that minority rights have to be observed.
So we will continue to talk about that."

******

#3
US: Ukraine Missile Hit Russia Plane
October 4, 2001
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. intelligence officials believe a Ukrainian
long-range anti-aircraft missile fired during a military exercise
accidentally blew up a Russian airliner as it flew over the Black Sea.

The Ukrainian military denied their missiles had the range to hit the
airliner. The Russians supported their statements and suggested terrorists
might have been involved.

Andy Card, President Bush's chief of staff, said not all the information
was in, ``but it appears that the Ukrainians did have some kind of missile
exercise that might have hit this commercial aircraft.'' His comments came
in an interview Thursday on PBS' ``NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.''

The chartered Tupolev 154, carrying at least 76 people from Israel, plunged
into the sea 114 miles off the Russian coastal city of Adler, on the
Georgian border. The Sibir Airlines plane was on its way from Tel Aviv to
the Siberian city of Novosibirsk, about 1,750 miles east of Moscow, after a
stop in Bulgaria.

The Ukrainian military was conducting a large air defense exercise in and
off the coast of the Crimea, the peninsula that juts into the northern
Black Sea.

The anti-aircraft missile believed to have brought down the Tupolev 154 is
known in the West as an SA-5 ``Gammon.'' Ukrainian officials said they used
S-200 missiles - the Russian designation for the SA-5 - during the exercise.

The United States tracked the surface-to-air missile with satellites that
sense the heat of its launch.

The Defense Special Missile and Astronautics Center at Fort Meade, Md.,
picked up the missile launch.

The United States monitors military exercises worldwide as a means to view
foreign military capabilities and training. Aircraft, ships and satellites
are capable of monitoring communications and movements.

Senior military and Bush administration officials doubted the terrorism
claims early, which raised suspicions for hours in the upper reaches of
government including the White House. When Pentagon officials were first
told a missile felled the aircraft, a weapon was cited that does not have
the range needed. Later Thursday, the Pentagon was told the much larger
SA-5 was involved. That, along with fresh intelligence information,
virtually erased U.S. suspicions of terrorism.

The SA-5 was of Soviet design and has been exported by Russia to other
countries. It was one of the largest surface-to-air missiles in the old
Soviet inventory, built to shoot down heavy bombers flying at high
altitudes. It can hit targets up to 180 miles away and above 100,000 feet.

The airliner crashed about 160 miles from Cape Onuk, in Crimea, site of the
Ukrainian exercises. It was flying at 36,300 feet, according to another
airline pilot in the region.

It's unclear if it blundered into the exercise or if the missile went
astray. Some airspace was reportedly closed around the exercise.

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said U.S. intelligence also
could have monitored the exercise by listening to Ukrainian military
communications from a fixed-position satellite that stays above Eurasia.

After the shoot-down, he said, ``At some point, somebody's going to start
hollering, `Where did that target come from?''' The U.S. monitors would
have heard that.

U.S. ships or aircraft - such as the Navy's EP-3 Aries and the Air Force's
RC-135 Rivet Joint - also are capable of listening to communications or
tracking radar blips representing aircraft and missiles.

If any had been in the area, it's probable they would have been flying east
to land at a friendly air base near Afghanistan to help in the hunt for
Osama bin Laden, the No. 1 suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

This would not mark the first time a military weapon downed a civilian
airliner. In July 1988, a surface-to-air missile fired by the cruiser USS
Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing all 290 aboard.
In 1983, a Soviet fighter shot down a Korean Air Lines plane, killing 269.
In 1973, two Israeli fighters shot down a Libyan Air Lines jet that had
strayed from its course, killing 105.

******

#4
Christian Science Monitor
5 October 2001
Russian plane crash: terrorism or accident?
A Russian plane, en route from Israel, crashed into the Black Sea yesterday.
By Fred Weir
Special to The Christian Science Monitor

MOSCOW - A Russian chartered jet heading from Israel to Siberia exploded in
flight yesterday, crashing off the Black Sea coast with a reported 77 people
on board.
While President Vladimir Putin initially said terrorists might be
responsible, a senior US military source in Washington said that the crash of
the Sibir Airlines jet may have been caused by a surface-to-air missile fired
during a military training exercise in Ukraine.

A Ukrainian naval official confirmed that a missile had accidentally hit the
plane during training exercises in the Crimea. But the Ukrainian Defense
Ministry denied that any of its forces had fired a rocket had could have hit
the passenger jet. "All the rockets used during the training exercise had
guaranteed service lives and self-destruction mechanisms in case they
deviated from their course," said Defense Minister Oleksandr Kuzmuk,
according to a statement released by ministry spokesman Kostyantyn Khivrenko.

"It is theoretically possible the Ukrainians could have done this by some
freak accident," said Alexander Goltz, a leading journalist specializing in
military issues. "We know that Ukraine has some S-300 anti-aircraft complexes
left from the Soviet times. That is the only former Soviet weapon that could
have conceivably brought down that plane at that distance."

Deputy Russian Transport Minister Karl Ruppel told The Associated Press that
a crew of an Armenian An-24 airliner in the area had informed Russian air
traffic controllers in Rostov-on-Don in southern Russia that they saw an
explosion aboard a plane flying nearby.

Garik Ovanisian, the pilot of the Armenian An-24, said his plane was at 6,300
meters (20,790 feet) above the Black Sea when the plane above his exploded.
"I saw the explosion on the plane, which was above me at an altitude of
11,000 meters (36,300 feet)," Ovanisian said. "The plane fell into the sea,
and there was another explosion in the sea. After that I saw a big white spot
on the sea and I had the impression that oil was burning."

According to the Israeli Airport authority, the Sibir Airlines flight left
Tel-Aviv for the six-hour flight to Novosibirsk Thursday morning with 11 crew
and 66 passengers aboard, all Israeli citizens. Most of the people on the
plane are believed to have been immigrants to Israel visiting relatives back
in Sibera for the Jewish fall holiday season.

Rescue workers said that one body had been recovered at the crash site, as
well as fragments of the plane.

Mikhail Koshman, a spokesman for Sibir, said the plane was delayed for half
an hour before it took off from Ben Gurion airport, but denied rumors that it
may have stopped for refueling in Burgas, Bulgaria. "The plane was on a
direct flight, and it remained completely on course until it was lost from
radar screens," he said.

After news of the crash, departures from Ben Gurion airport were suspended,
although incoming planes were being permitted to land.

Referring to the Sibir Airlines flight, Gabi Ofir, the general-director of
the Israeli Airport Authority, told journalists: "The plane was checked last
night and so were the passengers this morning. From the security standpoint,
we did all the necessary checks." He added that "of course we do additional
checks if there is any kind of indication of something unusual."

Mr. Ofir said that other planes were being checked in the wake of the crash.

Sibir Airlines is Russia's second largest carrier, with 30 aircraft serving
some 150 Russian cities. About 20 of its planes are ageing Tu-154s of the
type that crashed Thursday. News reports in Russia said the jet that crashed
had last been overhauled in 1995. The Tu-154 has been the backbone of
Russia's airline industry for 25 years. A total of 923 of the planes were
built, 530 of them remain in service in Russia. Since the Tu-154's
introduction, 29 have been lost in accidents, including the one that crashed
Thursday.

"If it was a terrorist act, we see that the circle of terrorist groups is
wider than we previously thought," says Sergei Yushenkov, deputy chair of the
State Duma's Security Committee. "It will toughen our resolve, but won't
change our decisions. President Putin has already pledged Russia's
cooperation in the anti-terrorist coalition."

Russia's committment to looming strikes against alleged terror bases in
Afghanistan has so far been limited to intelligence-sharing and logistical
support. Some analysts say evidence of a terrorist conspiracy behind
Thursday's crash could lead to bolder action from Moscow.

"If it was terrorism, then Russian public opinion might well support tougher
measures," said Alexander Pikayev, a security expert with the Carnegie
Endowment in Moscow. "Russia might take bigger part in military operations in
Afganistan, up to participating in the bombings of the terrorists' camps."

Material from staff writer Ilene R. Prusher in Jerasulem and wire services
was used in this report.

******

#5
ORT Review
www.ortv.ru
Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba7@bu.edu)
Research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and
Policy at Boston University

HEADLINES,
Thursday, October 04, 2001
- The Khabarovsk airport has been closed due to the forest fires, which
currently engulf 52,999 hectares and consist of 38 separate centers. The
Far East Emergencies Ministry division has received 2 million rubles to
aid the fire-fighting campaign. Another 2 million will be allocated
shortly.
- According to the latest reports, 15 Russian citizens were on board the
TU-154 flight that exploded over the Black Sea. Russian President
Vladimir Putin told justice ministers of the European Union that the
possibility that the catastrophe was a result of a terrorist action should
not be excluded.
- General Boris Gromov, the former commander of the Soviet troops in
Afghanistan and current governor of the Moscow oblast, stated that a land
operation in Afghanistan can not succeed.
- A division of Georgian and Chechen fighters has captured Georgievsk, a
settlement in Abkhazia. One Abkhaz soldier died in the conflict and seven
local resident are missing. Two positions of Abkhaz peacekeepers have
been cut off from the main military base.
- A new director has been appointed at Moscow's Butyrskaya prison.
Vladimir Stupin previously spent seven years as the head of a colony in
the Saratov oblast. Former director Rafik Ibragimov is not being held
responsible for the recent escapes. Rather, according to the Russian
Justice Ministry, the pathetic state of the prison is to blame. As part
of the investigation of the escape of prisoner Ivan Vinogradov, all prison
guards will undergo a lie detector test.
- British Prime Minister Tony Blair will arrive in Moscow shortly on an
unofficial visit. Blair is expected to discuss closer cooperation between
NATO and Russia as well as international cooperation in the struggle
against terrorism at a meeting with President Putin.
- Aleksandr Yakovenko, an official representative of the Russian Foreign
Ministry, has announced that, in connection with the recent terrorist act
in Srinagar, about 100 Russian citizens will be evacuated from Pakistan in
the near future.
- A secondary hearing concerning the murder of General Lev Rokhlin has
begun in the Naro-Fominsky city court. The victim's widow, Tamara
Rokhlina was convicted of the murder in November of 2000, but the
eight-year sentence was reduced to four years in December and later,
Rokhlina was released so she could to take care of her son, who suffers
from psychological problems. Rokhlina continues to insist that her
husband was killed in a contract murder, and that she plead guilty to
avoid retribution to her family.
- Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov is in Ukraine to conduct talks
regarding the reconstruction of gas debts. A document detailing the
conditions is expected to be signed; it will go in effect if approved by
the Russian and Ukrainian parliaments.
- The Russian cabinet discussed the construction of a 12-kilometer bridge
to Sakhalin. This project is considered more economical than the tunnel
planned by, and abandoned after the death of, Joseph Stalin.

******

#6
Time.com
Oct. 01, 2001
The Nunn-Lugar Act: Old Fears, New Era
When the Cold War ended, two Senators pieced together a plan to divest the
former USSR of its nuclear and chemical weapons. Is it time to reprise
Nunn-Lugar?
BY JESSICA REAVES

Largely ignored in recent years and stripped of critical funding as
recently as July, the Nunn-Lugar Act, or "Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program" has garnered public attention since the September 11th attacks.
Once regarded as peripheral, the Nunn-Lugar now looks not only prescient
but absolutely essential.

Co-sponsored by Sam Nunn, former Democratic Senator from Georgia, and
Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, the Act was first approved in 1991 in
response to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Designed to limit the
threat of suddenly itinerant weaponry, Nunn-Lugar established a fund to pay
for the identification, destruction and disposal of nuclear and chemical
weapons. The initiative also actively welcomed former Soviet scientists
into the American community, hoping to lure prospective bomb-makers and
chemical-mixers away from rogue nations.

Nunn and Lugar also co-sponsored the 1996 Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic
Preparedness Initiative, which builds on the goals of the original
Nunn-Lugar Act and also trains civilians to assist disaster workers after
an attack by a weapon of mass destruction, including any biological agents.
According to press secretary Andy Fisher, Senator Lugar expects the program
to be rolled into the larger homeland defense effort headed by former
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Once again, Nunn and Lugar were ahead of
the curve.

Advocates of the program are quick to point out Nunn-Lugar's impressive
cost-benefit ratio: For slightly less than three-tenths of one percent of
U.S. military expenditures, Nunn-Lugar has been responsible for
deactivating 5014 warheads, destroying 384 ICBMs and eliminating 365 ICBM
silos. And while Lugar a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, continues to lobby for funding for the program, the 2002 federal
budget calls for cuts of about $140 million. That’s quite a hit for an
initiative whose seven-year operating costs were only $3 billion — less
than the annual cost of missile defense research and development efforts.

Given the events of September 11th, and increased awareness and fears of
terrorism, will Nunn-Lugar score increased funding, or at least enhanced
visibility? Andy Fisher, Lugar's press secretary, insists the initiative
has never been in any danger of falling by the wayside and continues to
receive the money it needs. "The funding for this program has been constant
every year," Fisher says. "At the moment, the Senate is set to approve $400
million for Nunn-Lugar."

That’s not to say Lugar wouldn’t be pleased to see an increase, but realism
prevails. "Of course the Senator would love to have more money for the
program," Fisher says, "but Congress felt they could afford $400 million in
the Defense Department budget — and it doesn’t make sense to ask for more
money if it just isn’t out there."

Some would argue the money is out there — or it was when the administration
released its first budget figures, which granted the military a $33 billion
increase for 2002. It’s all a question of priorities, and while Nunn-Lugar
may have to make due with its pre-attack allotment, the grim events of the
past three weeks have cast the 10-year-old program in a new light. This
time around, there is a renewed sense of purpose: No one wants to see a
disillusioned Ukrainian biochemist drift into the wrong laboratory.

******

#7
The Guardian (UK)
4 October 2001
Leader/Editorial
Russia's rehabilitation
Vladimir Putin is having a good war

For Vladimir Putin, crisis brings catharsis. The Russian leader was very much
an unknown quantity when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president last year.
Western perceptions were unfavourably influenced by his murky KGB past and
his ruthless suppression of Chechen separatists - a campaign that
nevertheless won him considerable popularity at home. Mr Putin has been
critical of Nato's role in the Balkans and US policy on Iraq. The advent of
the Bush administration brought new strains, over Washington's plans for
national missile defence, the eastward expansion of Nato, and most recently,
over Russian arms sales to Iran. When he concluded a friendship treaty with
China this year, students of the strategic balance began to suspect an
anti-western conspiracy.

In the period following the September 11 attacks, Russian policy appears to
have turned on its head. Mr Putin's offer of condolences and help was swift
and sincere. Then came his vital decision to accept US use of bases in
Russia's central Asian backyard in pursuit of the "war on terrorism". The
Russian leader followed this up yesterday with a pledge to pursue closer
political and security cooperation with the EU; and with a hint that Russia
could relax its opposition to Nato expansion in return for greater
involvement in the alliance. In the space of three weeks, Mr Putin has
apparently been transformed from recalcitrant, potential enemy into good
friend and key ally.

This conversion is largely illusory. Mr Putin's basic position has not
changed. Since taking office, his primary ambition has been to restore to
Russia a leading role in world affairs. His revival of ties with Arab
countries and his support of old friends such as Serbia is one means to this
end. Another is his call, repeated in different ways on many occasions prior
to September 11, for a reordering of the strategic and security relationships
between Russia, Europe, and the US. Mr Putin knows he cannot block Nato's
advance; but he can reasonably hope to change Nato itself into a more
"political" organisation which Russia might one day join. He knows he cannot
ultimately halt NMD. So he proposes a broader cooperation to counter common
threats, including biological and chemical weapons as well as rogue missiles.
Long before Tony Blair let loose in Brighton, Mr Putin urged joint action to
tackle international problems such as drugs and climate change as well as
terrorism.

Mr Putin is no longer an unknown quantity. In significant ways, his world
outlook resembles that of Mr Blair, with whom he has formed a personal
friendship and who he is due to meet again in Moscow this week. Difficult and
divisive issues remain. One is that Mr Putin should not repeat the mistakes
of the past in Chechnya; his way of waging war on terrorism is certainly no
paradigm. But the bigger question is whether an indebted Bush administration
will finally stop treating a weaker but still potent Russia with a mixture of
disdain and distrust and accept the logic of its own recent assertion: that
in a permanently altered world, new, collective ways of thinking and acting
are essential.

******

#8
NATO, Russia think tank to mull wider cooperation
October 4, 2001

BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) - NATO and Russia, pushed closer together by the
attacks on the United States, plan to set up a think tank of experts to
explore ways of beefing up their practical cooperation, a NATO official said
Thursday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Brussels on Wednesday he welcomed
the proposal, which was made by NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, but
gave no details.

"The idea is to bring people together in a non-binding, flexible mechanism
and then to just throw ideas at each other and see what comes up," said the
NATO official.

The body's tasks could include offering advice and information to Russia in
such areas as defense reform and civil emergency planning, he said.

Russia, which has made common cause with the United States and its allies
against international terrorism since September 11 suicide hijack attacks in
the United States, has embarked on a difficult and expensive reform of its
large and cumbersome armed forces.

"We want to see how we can reinforce our cooperation by going beyond
consultations," said the NATO official.

It was not yet clear how the think-tank would be structured and who would
join it, he said, but NATO hoped to make a more detailed proposal in the near
future.

"Russia and NATO are entering a more confident and productive chapter in
their relationship," said the official.

NATO ENLARGEMENT

During his talks Wednesday, Putin also signalled a more flexible approach to
NATO enlargement, saying Russia might soften its opposition to the process if
the alliance adapted itself to the changing global security environment.

NATO's Deputy Secretary-General Minuto Rizzo said on Thursday Putin's remarks
would facilitate the alliance's decision, due in November 2002, on the next
wave of enlargement.

"The atmosphere...now seems to be much more relaxed and much more positive
than it was in the past, so I would suggest that it could go in the direction
of a much simpler course of enlargement," he told Reuters in Slovenia, a NATO
candidate.

Nine countries have formally applied for NATO membership -- Bulgaria,
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Macedonia, Albania and, most controversially for
Russia, the former Soviet republics of the Baltic, Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania.

Robertson will address the leaders of the nine states plus Croatia, which
also hopes to join the alliance eventually, during a meeting in the Bulgarian
capital Sofia Friday.

******

#9
Interview: Moscow eyes NATO membership
By ROLAND FLAMINI, UPI International Editor

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 (UPI) -- Russia is prepared to join a U.S.-led coalition
to fight international terrorism, but would require strong arguments to
continue its support if the United States attacked Iraq, a senior leading
Russian foreign policy specialist said Friday.

In an interview with United Press International, Sergei Karaganov,
chairman of the Presidium of Moscow's Council on Foreign and Defense Policy,
said Russia's interest in being part of the coalition the Bush
administration was trying to create reflected a growing interest in Moscow
in joining NATO.

Karaganov also revealed that the Central Asian republics of Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan had agreed to provide support for a U.S. offensive against
Afghanistan only after Moscow had promised to protect them from retaliation
by Kabul.

Q. What has been the impact in Russia of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

A. The overwhelming feelings were compassion and the necessity to help.
Among some older members of the ruling elite there was a feeling of glee at
first, but they were subdued, pushed aside by television and mainstream
journalists.

Q. To what extent will the Russian government cooperate with the Bush
administration's campaign to form an international coalition against
terrorism?

A. At the beginning there were some very grave doubts on the part of some
of the military. They didn't want to get involved in any kind of operation
which could drag us into an Afghanistan situation, or a new Chechnya -- and
there were some inherent anti-American feelings, because they didn't want
Americans to be close to our borders again. But Putin took the whole thing
in his hands, and now there is overall support for the operation. Of course,
there is still a big question what kind of coalition it will be and what
voice in that coalition Russia will retain.

Q. But the United States will be allowed to use Uzbekistan and Tagikistan
for military operations with Russian approval?

A. Yes, we have approved that. Both countries were very doubtful. They are
exactly on the border (with Afghanistan), and they were extremely afraid.
But Russia supported them -- and they needed the support for the simple
reason that they realize that if the operations go wrong the Americans will
not come to their rescue, and the only place that would help them was
Russia. We keep a large force in Tajikistan to defend that country from
Afghan guerillas and troops.

Q. Is there any likelihood of the Russians taking part in a ground
operation?

A. We got burned so thoroughly in Afghanistan we wouldn't do that. But we
have shared intelligence (with the United States), because we have vast
intelligence networks from previous years -- the old days, and I understand
we have sent our specialists to the United States -- veterans from the
Afghan war -- to prepare the Americans on what to expect.

Q. What do you think will be the long term impact of this situation on
Russian-American relations?

A. At the moment, I think all cards are up in the air. There is a strong
chance that a grand coalition could be formed, with the leadership of the
United States. If the United States goes multi-lateral, and really takes
into account the views and the interests of the other member countries,
there is a growing sentiment in Moscow that Russia should joint and become
part of the coalition. Many in Moscow think that we should become not only
an ad hoc member of the the coalition but a formal member, and that's why
some of us are already openly calling for membership of NATO.

Q. What is the advantage to Russia to get involved in this U.S.-led
operation?

A. We Russians are sitting on two fences, one is between the poor and the
rich, the other is between the radical Muslim world and the Christian world,
for us it's a possibility to join a coalition of civilized Western
interests. And then, Russia participated very actively in the earlier
coalition put together by the first President Bush. We didn't send troops to
the Gulf, but Russian planes were flying troops to the area. This first
coalition dissolved over differences over Yugoslavia. This time something
more robust could emerge.

Q. Would the United States still be able to count on Russia's support, if
-- as some people in Washington believe -- the operation does not stop with
Osama bin Laden, but will be expanded and there will be an offensive
against, for example, Iraq?

A. That will depend on (the American) arguments. If the arguments are
plausible, I think we will support them even then. If the Americans can
prove
that Saddam Hussein has indeed been supporting terrorism, then we would
remain neutral, but understanding. If however there is no evidence -- or
there is very little evidence -- then we will withhold support altogether.

Q. You were once quoted as saying that the collapse of Russian communism
challenged the West, and the West failed the challenge. Do you see the
current situation as a historical second chance?

A. Yes, but I'm not sure whether this administration will be able to grasp
that chance. If so, it would be the start of a different history -- the
nucleus of a new world order of civilized nations based on
non-proliferation,
the fight against terrorism, and in addition helping those states that would
become members of a grand coalition like India. China could become a member.
The philosophical idea is, help those who help themselves. We saw what
happened in Russia when misplaced help was delivered. That help was wasted:
It prolonged the agony and corrupted the regime -- not in terms of direct
money but in terms of giving the regime the possibility of doing nothing. We
in Russia avoided structural reforms for almost 10 years: It's only now that
we are starting them in a somewhat different direction.

Q. President Putin has recently been less critical of NATO than in the
past. Does this represent a shift in attitude?

A. Russians very well understand that NATO is becoming the only visible
and viable organization for European security, and it could become more so
if it takes in Russia, because there is no other force. NATO could become a
supplement to the U.N., the armed hand of the U.N., if it includes Russia.

Q. Are you envisioning Russia as a full member of NATO?

A. I'm talking -- and quite a few other people are talking -- about full
membership. It could be full membership French style initially. (France
participates at the political level, but not militarily.)

Q. What realistic time table would you see for Russian membership, and
between now and then what is Russia's attitude going to be to expansion. If
there are clear signs of Russian entry in the future, would Russian
objection to expansion dissolve?

A. First of all, we have lost the moral right to fight against expansion
because we have legitimized expansion by the back door (by standing aside
and
letting ex-Soviet republics negotiate membership). We are still against
expansion because it diminishes Russia's role (in world affairs) and it
brings NATO which is not a friendly alliance right up to our door. That's
why we approved the membership of the Baltic states in the European Union,
but not NATO. The Russian leadership is against the expansion of NATO which
doesn't take Russia in. The best way out of this blind alley is two fold:
One is take Russia first, or second take some other countries and then take
Russia.

Q. Is this a prevailing view about NATO membership in the Russian
leadership?

A. I don't think it could be called a prevailing view. Nobody on an
official level has said what I am saying now. But I would say it is a view
of Russian politicians and intellectuals close to the mainstream.

Q. What would NATO have to do to convince the Russians that it was serious
about early membership?

A. Give a time-table -- but a firm time-table.

Q. Would you forsee a debate in Russia over NATO membership?

A. There is already a debate on that. It has several traits, one argument
against is that we would have to learn to change all our technical standards
and to forget about our military industry, but this is not true. We all know
that France still keeps some of its own calibers for other uses. The second
argument is China, and we have to deal with that seriously. The third is
traditional anti-NATO sentiment, but many believe that would be subdued.
Many educated Russians who are shaping the opinion of the country believe
that Russia should belong to the West. Being in NATO will give us a future.

Q. Recently U.S. officials have been more understanding of Russia's
problem with Chechnya. There have been less references to Russian human
rights violations. Do you think this is part of a quid pro quo for offered
Russian cooperation in the U.S. response to the terrorist attack?

A. I don't think we can talk about a quid pro quo because Chechnya is an
issue of national importance. But we feel deeply the link between the
fighting in Chechnya and international terrorism. Read Putin's statements
over the last three years. He was the leader who mentioned the threat of
international terrorism more than any other because he felt that the
Chechnya rebels would not have been able to survive without outside support.
The
Chechens were getting money from militant Islamic sources, and then they got
intellectual and ideological influence, and gradually they deteriorated into
a fanatical Islamic state, which previously they were not. Partially, we
were to blame for that, but partially they were infiltrated, there's no
question about that.

Q. Where do you see Russia's relationship developing with the European
Union?

A. Russia eventually, if it develops at a normal rate, should become a
member of the European Union. But it's a much more complicated process than
membership of NATO because NATO's criteria for membership are in a sense
artificial, it's political expediency. But if we develop well, and in 15
years from now we will have a European Union of 25 -- 27 states, very far
from the hope of a federal state but still a powerful integrated body, at
that juncture Russia could be a valuable addition. Unfortunately, the EU's
security dimension is going nowhere, or almost nowhere, and is no substitute
for NATO membership.

Q. So you would, in fact, abandon the common European home rhetoric and
think in terms of the wider Atlantic and the Eurasian partnership?

A. Economically and culturally we would not abandon the European Union
because we are culturally much closer to Europe than to the United States,
but in the global age the security could not be confined to Europe. Most
prospective challenges in terms of security are coming from outside (Europe)
and the European Union can not deal with these challenges. It can only deal
with them aligned with the United States, with Russia, with China.

Q. There is one issue that could disrupt relations between America and
Russia and also between American and Europe to some extent, and that's
missile defense. If Russia is moving into closer relationship with the
Americans over terrorism and it's also developing a different attitude
towards NATO membership, how will that affect Russia's attitude towards
missile defense?

A. First of all, if you're allies, there is a big difference in attitude.
Second, Americans do not know what they want to deploy, and what they are
able to deploy, and Russia would be the last country to suffer. The current
scenarios do not endanger Russian security directly. They create problems
for China, for Europe, but not for Russia. So Russia is not going to be the
errand boy for Europe on this issue, or the ABM issue. But U.S. missile
defense would be an impediment to a coalition set-up. Another impediment
could be American unilateral action. If they act according to their own
interests that would be dangerous and would ruin any kind of coalition. The
United States acting independently of anybody else, would in any case be
less potent. Because it is very clear that America could lead the world only
as a member of a large coalition.

******

#10
Russia gets ratings boost on economic strength
By Alexander Manda

LONDON, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Russia's credit standing received a boost on
Thursday as two ratings agencies issued positive reports on the country's
debt, citing strong economic performance and progress in reform.

Fitch upgraded Russia's long-term debt rating while Standard & Poor's revised
its outlook on Russia to positive and said it could raise its rating if the
pace of reform continued.

"The plethora of legislation is really amazing," S&P analyst Helena Hessel
said. "S&P is now more confident the government can deliver needed reform and
progress in these important areas as well as...a lasting debt management
strategy. This could lead to an upgrade in the next couple of months."

Hessel later told a conference call that Russia had passed or endorsed an
impressive volume of far-reaching reform legislation in 2001, with more on
the way. This includes the 2002 Budget, which had its first reading in the
Duma on September 28.

Hessel said it was too early to say what ramifications September 11's attacks
on the United States might have for the Russian economy, but that Russian
support for the U.S.'s "war on terrorism" could boost its geopolitical
standing.

"Russia's strong political support for the U.S. could facilitate its access
to multilateral and bilateral financing if needed," Hessel said. "In
particular, S&P expects Paris Club (of sovereign lenders) and International
Monetary Fund support for Russia is likely to strengthen if the global
economy... deteriorates significantly."

Fitch raised Russia's long-term foreign currency rating to B+ from B, saying
the move reflected Russia's strong economic recovery since its 1998
devaluation and domestic debt default.

Standard & Poor's affirmed its single-B rating on Russia but revised its
outlook on its long-term issuer credit rating to positive from stable.

Access to new loans could help ease worries about Russia's 2003 debt spike,
when servicing costs are forecast to rise to around $17 billion, from $12.5
billion apiece in 2001 and 2002.

EUROBOND PLANS FOR 2002

The country's repayment plans include new Eurobond sales of around $2 billion
in 2002 and $1 billion in 2003, but falling oil prices or increased risk
aversion among international investors faced with war or global economic
recession could keep it out of the market.

Russia's 30-year dollar global bonds <RUSGLB=RR> were quoted 3/8 of a point
higher at 45 percent of face value after the agencies announced their
decisions.

"It is about 3/8 of a point higher, but it has been overwhelmed by Latin
American concerns," said a trader at a U.S bank. The move might have been
more pronounced had the markets not been weighed down by worries over
Argentina, he said.

The ratings actions came the day after Moscow's city government said it was
set to borrow 300 million euros ($273.7 million) from foreign lenders, the
first Russian entity to tap international markets since 1998.

Fitch assigned on Thursday a rating of B- to the proposed issue and placed
the rating on positive watch.

The agency first placed the city on rating watch positive in July 2001 after
the redemption of two international bonds of 500 million marks and 400
billion Italian lira. Under Russian law, the city cannot issue more than has
been redeemed.

Commenting on its upgrade of Russia'a rating, Fitch said the country's recent
macroeconomic performance has been amongst the best of major emerging market
sovereigns. While a fall in the price of oil would have a negative impact,
"Fitch believes that the Russian economy and debt service capacity should be
resilient to some further decline in oil prices."

It also said that the 2002 budget should give the Russian authorities ample
capacity to honour all its obligations in 2002, and put enough aside to
manage the jump in external debt service payments to over $18 billion in
2003.

S&P said it was "confident" the government could reform the judicial system
and banking sector in particular, and restructure large enterprises,
especially in the energy sector.

"Further support for the ratings and the positive outlook results from
Russia's improved willingness and ample resources to fully service its
external debt, both this year and in 2002-2003, unless the global economic
environment deteriorates significantly," S&P said in a statement.

Russia's economy grew by a record 8.3 percent in 2000 and is expected to grow
by around five percent this year.

--Additional reporting by Catherine Evans

******

#11
Central Asia is reluctant partner for U.S. action
October 4, 2001
By Sebastian Alison

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's visit to
Uzbekistan this week signals a growing U.S. interest in former Soviet central
Asia as a possible springboard for military action against Afghanistan's
Taliban rulers.

U.S. plans to reduce reliance on Pakistan for any military operation -- to
avoid destabilizing the country -- have turned attention toward Uzbekistan
and neighboring Tajikistan, both of which border northern Afghanistan.

The central Asian region in which they are situated was a bridgehead for the
Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979-89.

Both republics have tailor-made infrastructures to support large-scale
military operations in Afghanistan, including land routes, airfields and
depots.

But both appear reluctant to disclose the measure of their possible
involvement in the U.S. operation, despite receiving a nod of approval from
Moscow, their leading regional ally.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has given U.S. aircraft unprecedented rights
to use Russian airspace, and said he would not stand in the way of Central
Asian governments doing the same or even offering airbases.

So far, the Tajik and Uzbek governments have agreed to grant air corridors
for U.S. planes, but have denied media reports about leasing air bases and
that U.S. troops are already on their soil.

Significantly, Wednesday's news on Uzbek tightly-controlled state television
barely mentioned Rumsfeld. A brief item said he was visiting "Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Oman and Central Asia" but made no specific reference to Uzbekistan.

Newspapers were equally reticent. "Pravda Vostoka" (Eastern Pravda) led
Thursday's issue with pictures of smiling cotton harvesters predicting a
bumper crop. Rumsfeld did not rate a mention.

The main U.S. argument for minimizing the use of Pakistani bases was to avoid
destabilizing the country where Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, seen by
Washington as the main suspect in last month's airliner attacks on U.S.
cities, enjoys widespread support among some sections of society.

EYE ON ISLAMIC MOVEMENT

In one sense, Uzbek President Islam Karimov has a huge advantage over
Pakistani leader General Pervez Musharraf.

An authoritarian leader in power even before independence from the Soviet
Union in 1991, Karimov has less to fear from public opinion in his
tightly-controlled country.

But he has his own Islamic insurgency to worry about.

After a series of bomb blasts in 1999 in the capital Tashkent, blamed on the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Karimov cracked down on radical Muslim
groups forcing some of them to flee to Tajikistan.

Despite two major rebel incursions in 1999 and 2000, Karimov appears to
control the situation for the moment.

But it is unclear how much support the IMU, which Karimov says is funded by
the Taliban, has in Uzbekistan and how Islamic radicalism may develop if the
country takes an active part in the U.S. operation.

Tajik President Imomali Rakhmonov's grip on power is less sure as his country
reels from a 1992-97 civil war between the Russian-backed government and
Islamic opposition.

Islamic groups seem exhausted for the moment by the civil war, which killed
tens of thousands of people and finally impoverished the country, and are
reluctant to allow fresh disturbances.

A nearly 20,000-strong Russian military presence is the main stabilizing
force in the country.

But Russia's role is likely to be diminished if U.S. military presence takes
a longer turn. The loosely-governed country, where powerful clans with armed
groups play a big role, could revert to anarchy unless it finds a new
security patron.

******

#12
strana.ru
October 4, 2001
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan may leave zone of Russian influence
The United States has a chance of deploying its military bases on the
territory of the former Soviet Union
By Nikolai Ulyanov

When the United States was presenting evidence of Osama bin Laden's
involvement in the terrorist acts in New Your and Washington at a meeting of
its NATO allies in Brussels, the military leadership of some Central Asian
republics of the CIS was still stubbornly denying reports of the deployment
of American troops on their territory. It is noteworthy that the meeting of
the power structures and special services of CIS countries that ended in
Dushanbe on September 2 decided on coordinated actions within the framework
of the anti-terrorist coalition. The CIS countries agreed that U.S. aircraft
could use the Commonwealth's air space and provide intelligence reports on
the situation in Afghanistan.

At the same time, according to the American press, the Pentagon's press
secretarty Victoria Clark openly declared that a reinforced battalion of the
American 10th Division was being sent to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. She also
said the deployment of more than a thousand regular U.S troops represented
their first appearance on the territory of the former Soviet Union with a
combat mission. Uzbekistan is reported to have decided to allow the United
States to use its airdromes, notably in Tuzel and Khanabad. A reminder that
Uzbek and Tajik officials have been strenuously denying reports about the
deployment of American troops on their the territory of their countries.

It is also noteworthy that although the Russian military would seem to have
no interest in a change of the military and political balance in its zone of
responsibility, it has so far made no response to the noisy campaign in the
press over Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The impression one gets is that either
Russia's Defense Ministry has long been aware of negations on closer military
cooperation between those countries and the United States (and has probably
taken part in them) or the ongoing events have caught it unawares. If the
latter is true, this may have serious implications for Russian positions in
Central Asia in general and for Russia's independent role in a settlement in
Afghanistan in particular.

The importance for the United States of closer military cooperation with
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan can also been seen from recent high-level contacts.
For example, last night Tajikistan's President Emomali Rakhmonov had a
telephone conversation with U.S. State Secretary Colin Powell. A report from
the information department of Tajikistan's foreign ministry notes that the
two sides saw eye-to-eye on all issues. For his part, on October 3 U.S
Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld started a tour of four countries Washington
sees as important in terms of support for a future operation against
Afghanistan. Among them is Uzbekistan. Addressing a press conference at the
Pentagon shortly before his departure. he made a special point of stressing
the importance of upcoming talks in Uzbekistan.

If Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have really allowed or will allow in the nearest
future American servicemen to get a foothold in their territories - and the
latter will not live in tents but will immediately begin to set up their
military-engineering infrastructure, air defense systems and other attributes
of a remote military base - it will be very difficult for Russian forces.

Practice shows that on the quiet of antiterrorist and peacemaking operations,
the Americans retain their military presence for a long time in strategically
important regions. That being the case, it will not be so simple to ask the
Americans to leave the CIS Central Asian countries after completing their
strikes of retribution on Afghanistan since we have the example of the
Russian forces that were in Georgia and Moldova.

If Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have not yet made a decision to allow large
contingents of American forces into their territory, and it is only a matter
of forward intelligence and reconnaissance groups, then Russia still has a
chance to influence the leadership of the former fraternal republics.

What concerns Tajikistan, then that will not be very difficult to do because
that country is very dependent on Russia from the economic, military and
political points of view. The case with Uzbekistan is much more difficult.

What these republics stand to gain from allowing American military bases on
their territory is another thing. The example with Georgia whose leadership
decided to side with the USA in the political game between the latter and
Russia is very indicative. Georgia is sinking deeper and deeper into poverty
and corruption and the Americans are in no hurry to give it either economic
or military-technical aid.

******

#13
Subject: 5475/Ware
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001
From: "John Squier" <Johns@NED.ORG>

I am somewhat bewildered by Robert Bruce Ware's claim that criticism of
Russian policy and behavior in Chechnya involves "Russophobic
prejudices," especially given that the loudest and most sustained
criticism of these policies has come not from the West, but from within
Russia itself. Russian human rights organizations have carefully
documented and universally condemned
human rights abuses against Chechen civilians; frequently, it is the
work of Russian organizations that forms the basis for Western
criticism.

In any case, the issue at hand is not whether Russia faces a problem
with terrorism in the North Caucasus; most people seem to agree that it
does, although (as Ware acknowledges) the exact scale of the problem,
and of foreign involvement in particular, remains difficult to
establish. The issue is whether the threat of terrorism is being used
as a pretext, invoked to justify or excuse massive human rights abuses
against people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever. The concern
that the Russian government will attempt to use the US anti-terrorism
campaign to back up their tactics in Chechnya seems well-justified,
especially given an article in today's Washington Post, "U.S., Russia
Recast Their Relationship: Anti-Terror Agenda Appears To Be Framework
for Future" (reproduced in JRL 5476). The article states: "The Russians
told the administration that Putin would be making a major policy
statement on Chechnya. They made clear that they expected a positive,
public response from the White House. Bush administration officials said
they would listen closely to Putin's remarks and, if they were indeed
forthcoming, the United States would respond favorably." If this is not
descriptive of a quid-pro-quo arrangement, in which the US trades a
changed official line on Chechnya as partial payment for Russian support
for US antiterrorism efforts, I can't imagine what would be.

It's interesting to note, by they way, that at least some Russian human
rights groups have taken to heart Ware's point about Chechen behavior
throughout the North Caucasus prior to the current crisis. In
particular, Daniil Meshcheryakov, the executive director of the Moscow
Helsinki Group, has stated publically that the failure of Russian human
rights organizations to forcefully condemn human rights abuses by
Chechens contributed to the deterioration of the situaion in the North
Caucasus, calling it a good illustration of the dangers of double
standards in human rights monitoring. He made this point at a recent
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty briefing, and has made the same point to
me several times over the past few months. It's my hope that in
upcoming months, Russian and western human rights organizations will
remember to hold everyone--Russians, Chechens, and yes, even
Americans--to the same high standard.

******

#14
Christian Science Monitor
October 4, 2001
Beware Russia's motives
By Taras Kuzio
Taras Kuzio is a research associate at the Centre for International &
Security Studies at York University.

TORONTO - The United States has welcomed Russia as an ally in its war on
terrorism. And there are ways Russia can be helpful - not least, through its
position on the UN Security Council and its influence in the Arab world and
Iran.
But Washington should remain cautious; Moscow is using the terrorist acts of
Sept. 11 to further four strategic goals:

• Russia is demanding a free hand in dealing with its own "terrorists" in
Chechnya. Russia would like the US and international organizations to allow
it, in effect, to eradicate "terrorism" from Chechnya. This would lead to
even greater human-rights abuses. The US and some of its allies have already
begun to change their rhetoric on Chechnya.

Russia believes that international outrage over the Sept. 11 attacks provides
a good opportunity to influence world opinion that the Chechens are not
pursuing a "national-liberation struggle" but are, in reality, simply
terrorists. Russian Army Gen. Anatoly Kulikov has offered to share not only
Russia's experience in combating Chechen "terrorists," but also Soviet
experience in fighting the "nationalist underground" in western Ukraine,
western Belarus, and the Baltics after World War II. Many Ukrainian,
Belarusian, and Baltic Americans remember what this antiterrorist experience
entailed: ethnic cleansing, atrocities, and mass disregard for human rights
in their former homelands.

• Russia wants the US to recognize the territory of the former Soviet Union
as a Russian sphere of influence, especially in Central Asia, the Caucasus,
and Ukraine. An important element of this reassertion of power is to prevent
the US and NATO from gaining a foothold in countries that are distrustful of
Russia, such as pro-US and pro-NATO Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and
Ukraine, which, together with Moldova, are united in a regional organization.

• Russia wants to take the three Baltic states off the list of potential
members of the second round of NATO enlargement, which will be announced in a
year at a NATO summit in Prague. In a recent foreign-policy speech in Warsaw,
President Bush announced his support for continued NATO enlargement, and -
unlike his predecessor - he is more willing to ignore Russian sensibilities
over NATO membership for the former Soviet republics. Russia is hoping that,
in return for its cooperation against terrorism, the US will agree to respect
its Soviet "red line" as a NATO no-go area.

• Russia wants to use its new alliance with the US to halt Washington's
plans
for a national missile defense shield.

Russia's double standards

Although newspaper columnists in Canada and Britain have pointed out the
alleged double standards the US holds on combating terrorism, there has been
little, if any, acknowledgment that Russia also consistently pursues double
standards.

Just as Osama bin Laden got early help from the CIA, Chechen leader Shamil
Basayev got his training from Russian military intelligence in 1992-93. In
the early 1990s, Russia also covertly supported separatist movements in
Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, and its "peacekeeping" forces have frozen
the conflict on the ground ever since. At the time, all three countries
denounced Moscow's support for "terrorist" movements that continue to
infringe on their territorial integrity. As a condition for resolving these
conflicts, Moscow has long demanded that it turn its peacekeeping forces into
forward military bases, thereby rewarding its support for separatism (or
terrorism) and transforming them into geopolitical gains.

Russia (and before that, the USSR) has never had a ban on the assassination
of state leaders to pursue its geopolitical goals. Georgians and Uzbeks
remain deeply suspicious that three assassination attempts in the 1990s on
Georgian leader Eduard Shevardnadze and one attempt on Uzbek leader Islam
Karimov were the work of Russian-backed groups. Russia continually turns down
Georgian demands to extradite the would-be assassins. After one of the
attempts, the suspects fled Georgia in Russian military aircraft.

Don't compromise our morals

It's difficult to see how an international coalition against terrorism could
be built without Russia's participation. Nevertheless, the US and its Western
allies should not compromise their moral ground by agreeing to Russia's four
strategic objectives. It would be indeed ironic if, in demanding that the US
military response not target civilians, we agreed to accept Russia's offer of
expertise in combating terrorism. Russia has been condemned by all
international human rights organizations, the US, and other Western
governments for its disregard for civilian lives and gross infringement on
human rights.

Those who now call for the US to be restrained in dealing with Afghanistan
largely remained silent when Russia destroyed Chechnya's capital, Grozny.
According to Russian human-rights groups, Russia's military actions in
Chechnya have led to upwards of 80,000 casualties and turned a small number
of Chechen terrorists into a nation of freedom fighters. We don't need to
repeat Russia's experience in our moral pursuit of terrorists in Afghanistan.

Let us therefore be cautious in choosing our allies, and be very clear about
how Russia wants to use the terrorist outrages in the US to further its own
narrow, strategic goals that run counter to American interests.

*******

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

Search Johnson's Russia List:  http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/search/

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