Johnson's Russia List
#6097
25 February 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Financial Times (UK): Judy Dempsey, Nato offers Russia a new kind of
relationship.
2. The Times (UK): Michael Evans, Baltic states 'are US favourites' in race
to join Nato.
3. Don Jacobsen: RE: 6096-Moldova.
4. Georgi Sturua: Re: Wayne Merry/6095.
5. Washington Post: Ivan Lebedev, To Avoid Further Scandal, Judging,
Testing
Must Be Reviewed.
6. TimeEurope.com Forecast 2002: Paul Quinn-Judge, The Velvet
Authoritarianism.
7. Itar-Tass: Russian deputy PM urges definition of Caspian Sea's status.
8. Interfax: Caspian "belongs" to Russian oil transit market says official.
9. BBC Monitoring: Moscow sets up Russia's first witness protection scheme.
10. The Russia Journal: Ira Straus, Wisdom or temptation in Central Asia?
11. bizreport.com: Lawmakers Urge Russians To Drop E-Surveillance Plans.
12. CNN: Cause of Kursk tragedy still unknown.
13. Reuters: Lada still rules car market in Russia.
14. Los Angeles Times: Jonathan Levi, From the Ministry of Propaganda
(review 0f HOMO ZAPIENS: A Novel by Victor Pelevin)
15. Moscow Times: Andrei Ryabov, Time to Take the Bull by the Horns.
16. Financial Times (UK): Georgia and Russia may co-operate on Pankisi
gorge.
17. The Times (UK) editorial: A Cold War. Russia's Olympic fiasco has
shaken
the nation's soul.
18. UPI: Russia slams scandal-marred Olympics.]
*******
#1
Financial Times (UK)
25 February 2002
Nato offers Russia a new kind of relationship
By Judy Dempsey in Brussels
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has offered Russia a new
relationship, giving it a unique status before an enlargement this year
that is expected to include the three Baltic states.
The proposals, agreed behind closed doors by Nato's 19 ambassadors, end a
three-month deadlock that followed a US veto of a British initiative that
would have given Russia wide decision-making powers in the alliance.
If accepted by Moscow, the new relationship would transform Nato, set up 52
years ago at the height of the Cold War, from a defensive military alliance
into a security and political organisation embracing all the former Warsaw
pact countries.
The intention is for Nato and Russia to formalise the new partnership at
this May's Reykjavik summit of Nato foreign ministers, assuming that
Vladimir Putin, Russian president, accepts the conditions.
Mr Putin has the support of Sergey Ivanov, Russian defence minister, for a
closer relationship with Nato.
But top military staff regard Nato with deep suspicion and are concerned
about enlargement plans to be unveiled in Prague in November.
Under the terms of the deal, Russia will have equal status with the
alliance's 19 countries, turning the North Atlantic Council - the political
decision-making arm of Nato - into a forum of 20.
Russia's relationship with Nato has been anchored on the Permanent Joint
Council, in which the 19 states consult with Russia. But Russia has little
real say: the 19 agree on topics and decisions between themselves, before
consulting Russia.
Diplomats said the new forum would do away with such "pre-cooked"
decisions, transforming the relationship between Nato and Russia into one
of genuine "give and take".
But Nato has built in several safeguards to the new arrangement. These are
aimed at convincing the Pentagon that military action by Washington or the
alliance would not be compromised by Russia.
Russia would not have veto powers over "the vital interests of any one Nato
country" or on issues that involve military decisions, said a diplomat.
Nor would Nato extend to Russia its Article 5, which states that an attack
on one alliance member is an attack on them all. This could assuage China,
which is suspicious of Nato's relations with Russia.
Instead, the 20-strong NAC would be confined to about a dozen topics. These
would include peacekeeping operations, the exchange of information over
weapons of mass destruction, and sea and air rescue missions.
Diplomats said these issues have been chosen to build co-operation between
Nato and Russia and expose Moscow to the alliance's complex system of
decision-making, which is rooted in consensus, compromise and back-room
bargaining.
To deal with a serious stalemate in the NAC, the alliance has introduced a
system of "retrieval", a safeguard mechanism allowing an issue to be
withdrawn if consensus proves impossible.
The US, backed by Germany and France insisted on this safeguard mechanism.
Britain was less keen because of the close relationship between Tony Blair,
the UK prime minister, and Mr Putin.
*******
#2
The Times (UK)
25 February 2002
Baltic states 'are US favourites' in race to join Nato
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
AMERICA has been accused of backing Nato membership for the Baltic states
ahead of other candidate countries in a move that could cause huge
resentment in Eastern Europe.
In the next phase of the alliance’s enlargement programme, nine countries
are hoping to be invited to become Nato members at the alliance summit in
Prague in November.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are suspected of being given preferential
treatment because President Bush wants to send a strong signal to Moscow
that Russia has no lingering imperial rights over the Baltic states.
Alliance diplomatic sources insisted that there was no “done deal” with the
Baltic states and that any Nato member was still in a position to veto
their joining.
They also pointed out that there were several different views in Washington
about Nato enlargement, reflecting varying positions of the White House,
the State Department and the Pentagon.
However, the Baltic states’ rivals for Nato membership are convinced that
the US has already decided that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania must be
guaranteed entry into the alliance in November and that the only remaining
argument is how many other countries should be allowed to become members.
“It’s all about Washington acting tough with Moscow, making it clear that
despite the new partnership with Russia, it cannot stop the Baltic states
from joining Nato,” a diplomatic source from one of the candidate countries
said. “If the Baltic states’ application for membership is rejected, it
will be seen as weakness on the part of Nato.”
In the past, Moscow has told Washington that absorbing the three Baltic
states into the alliance would threaten regional stability and Russia’s
enclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea, where more than 14,000 troops are
based.
The language has moderated recently, particularly since September 11, when
Moscow offered full co-operation with the US in the War on Terror.
The diplomatic source said that the real battle for Nato membership was now
between the six other applicant nations because of the perceived guaranteed
inclusion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The belief is that the pecking order for the nine nations hoping to be
invited to join Nato at its summit in Prague in November is: pole position,
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; next, Slovenia and Slovakia; after them,
Romania and Bulgaria; and finally, with little hope of finishing the race,
Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
If in November the alliance decided to limit the number of new members to
the three Baltic states, and possibly Slovenia and Slovakia, Nato would
face deep resentment in Romania and Bulgaria, the diplomatic source said.
The diplomat said that although there was no question of Romania and
Bulgaria turning to Russia if rejected by Nato, it could lead to political
and economic problems for the two countries.
At the Nato summit in Madrid in 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic were invited to join the alliance and did so formally in 1999.
Romania and Slovenia were also candidates, but they were turned down.
Although most Nato countries have yet to declare their hand, there is every
expectation that in this second phase of the elargment programme the
alliance will invite “a larger rather than a smaller number” of countries
to become members.
Romania and Bulgaria are hoping that Nato governments will go for what is
being called the “big bang” option, under which seven countries would be
invited to join the alliance.
However, there are fears within Nato that an enlargement of the alliance
from the present 19 members to 26 could make the organisation “unworkable”.
Under the consensus rule, every member state has the right of veto.
One alliance diplomat said: “Nato’s power lies in its military capability
and it could be argued that the more members there are to veto action being
taken by the alliance, the more difficult it will be to function
effectively as a security organisation.”
Nato foreign ministers are due to meet in Reyjkavik in May to consider the
applications from the nine countries. A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office
in London said that Britain had not yet decided which candidate countries
to vote for and would wait to see if they met the targets set by the
alliance for all aspirant members.
*******
#3
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:53:19 -0500
From: Don Jacobsen
Subject: RE: 6096-Moldova
Re: Dmitry Chubashenko's Reuters report "Thousands rally hoping to oust
Moldovan Communists" (JRL 6096), readers might be interested to know that my
sources in Chisinau, with whom we spoke moments ago, are reporting that many
of the "tens of thousands" bused in from outlying villages are lyceum (high
school) and university students from Moldovan-speaking (as opposed to
Russian-speaking) schools and universities, many if not the vast majority of
whom are being paid 10 lei (about 75 cents) if they'll participate in the
demonstration and 20-25 lei (about US$1.50-$1.90) if they'll carry a flag
(but
promise to bring it back!)
Though demonstrations are indeed taking place in the center of Chisinau, my
sources report that they are "not in any way threatening" and that the
remainder of the city is calm. They say "it's not an emergency situation.
Nobody perceives it as an emergency situation. They're just screaming about
the legislation or the status of the Moldovan language."
Donald Jacobsen
The George Washington University
*******
#4
From: "Georgi Sturua"
Subject: Re: Wayne Merry/6095
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002
When I finished reading a posting from Wayne Merry which included such
wording as:
"Russian whining", "point the finger of blame at foreigners", "elevating
judgment calls on an ice rink to the level of to the level of national
conspiracy mania and resorting to the single word most in need of purging
from the Russian vocabulary: "provocation!", "it is not hard to imagine the
admirals were relieved there were no survivors, for dead men supposedly tell
no tales", "where would Russia conduct a Winter Olympics, one might inquire,
Grosny?", "sending them to the Gulag", "Putin should realize that, without
the NHL to provide employment and practice for Russia's best hockey players,
Russia might not even be able to field a team capable of taking the ice at
the Olympic level",
I was quite surprised to discover that it was written by a former diplomat
who spent some time in Russia. My understanding of the role of diplomacy in
delicate situations is similar to the dictum abided by people in a medical
profession: do not harm. Even though it’s not hard to agree with some
assertions of the author, the tone of the message defeats whatever good
intentions of Wayne Merry has been guided by and puts in doubt his
objectivity.
I think the following piece by Ivan Lebedev, a Washington correspondent for
ITAR-Tass, which appeared in the Washington Post, deserves the attention of
both sport fans and political analysts.
********
#5
Washington Post
February 24, 2002
To Avoid Further Scandal, Judging, Testing Must Be Reviewed
By Ivan Lebedev
Special to The Washington Post
It's a pity that the current Olympic games will be remembered not only for
the great athletic performances, world records, dazzling Opening Ceremonies,
and beautiful snowy mountains around Salt Lake City. They will be put into
history books as the most scandalous Olympics in the last few decades.
The athletes, who tried to compete fairly, and the Salt Lake Organizing
Committee, which did a great job, are not to blame. The responsibility lies
with several judges, International Olympic Committee officials and
international sports federations, who let the crisis break out and failed to
manage it properly.
A Pandora's box was opened when the IOC, following the advice of the
International Skating Union, awarded second gold medals to Canadian figure
skaters Jamie Sale and David Pelletier. This raised questions about the
legitimacy of the victory of the Russian pair Elena Berezhnaya and Anton
Sikharulidze, and not surprisingly, provoked anger among Russian people, who
suspected backroom deals to favor North Americans.
Interestingly, ISU President Ottavio Cinquanta admitted at a news conference
that such a decision was against ISU rules but was made taking into account
extraordinary circumstances. (By the way, these circumstances were very
contradictory, and haven't yet been cleared up. The French judge Marie Reine
Le Gougne denies any wrongdoing, and is going to defend her case with a
lawyer.) But when the South Koreans filed their protest on the short-track
races, claiming bad judgment, ISU officials said there was no provision in
the Olympic rules for overturning a judgment call.
Following the poor example that the Canadians have set, Lithuanians and
Russians also started complaining about allegedly unfair decisions (for ice
dancing and women's figure skating, respectively). However, their appeals
were rejected, and their cases did not cause as much hysteria with the North
American public and media. Some people are saying now that the Russians just
wanted to show that an avalanche of protests could bury the IOC and Olympic
movement. Others argue that the Russian sports officials are simply trying
to rationalize the poor performance of the national team. (In my view, it
was not as successful as four years ago, but not poor at all.)
Anyway, it was quite obvious that if the Russian figure skaters were in the
Canadians' place, the final decision would have been different. And it just
proved once again that some animals are still more equal than others. This
is exactly how this situation is looked upon in Russia.
The Russian delegation in Salt Lake City felt humiliated, and Russian sport
officials even threatened to withdraw from the Olympics. Thankfully, common
sense prevailed. Leaving the Games would only have hurt Russian athletes and
fans. Boycotting the Olympics is not a solution.
Unfortunately, another unwanted thing happened: Big-time politics interfered
with sports. Because of the public's reaction, Russian President Vladimir
Putin decided to comment on the events in Salt Lake City. IOC President
Jacques Rogge sent him an explanation letter, and the Russian parliament
debated the situation. Some Russian politicians even said that the unfair
attitude toward the Russian athletes shows that the cold war is not over
after all.
I've written this once and I'd like to say it again: mixing sports and
politics is a very bad thing. The Olympics are merely a sporting event held
for athletes and sports fans, and do not serve as a solution for political
problems. And it looks as if the IOC and the Russian sports officials
understand that. On Friday, Rogge visited the Russian house in Salt Lake
City, where he greeted the athletes, and was warmly welcomed by Leonid
Tyagachev, the chairman of the Russian Olympic Committee.
But the scandals have a positive side to them. They exposed the crisis in
figure skating judging, the responsibility for which lies with the ISU's
current management. All the contradictory decisions by Cinquanta during the
last few days were motivated by his desire to save his reputation. At the
same time, proposals to change the judging system are a step in the right
direction. Whether or not Cinquanta keeps his position after the Olympics,
this task should be completed as soon as possible.
There is also no doubt that some drug testing rules and procedures should be
reviewed. Even more importantly, the IOC and the international sports
federations must improve the system of selecting judges, and enhance their
independence from national sports officials. And finally, the IOC needs to
establish a rule that judges' decisions, whether they satisfy the public or
not, cannot be reversed when the competition is over.
Only in this case can it be guaranteed that similar Olympic scandals won't
occur again.
*******
#6
TimeEurope.com
Forecast 2002
The Velvet Authoritarianism
By PAUL QUINN-JUDGE/Moscow
What to expect from Russia this year? The consolidation of a new "national
security state," in which the intelligence and security community shapes
the Kremlin’s view of the world.
The image projected will reflect President Vladimir Putin’s fantasy of the
Soviet Cheka secret police — devoted, austere, incorruptible. This will not
be a roll-back to the bad old days, but rather a new velvet
authoritarianism: some people who cross the regime will lose their jobs,
occasionally their livelihoods.
Some may spend a few terrible months or years in Russia’s antiquated prison
system but will eventually be pardoned. The state will remain hostile to
criticism, particularly by whistle blowers and the media. Intimidation of
TV and radio stations and some newspapers will continue in the regions,
with local officials applying the techniques successfully used in Moscow —
pressure through pliable shareholders or the courts.
Expect too a continuing struggle with some of the political élite who
helped bring Putin to power but who now are alienated from the new regime —
particularly the Yeltsin "family." Putin may find it harder to neutralize
them than to intimidate the media, since the Family has its own power base.
On second thought ... The secret police may prove no more capable of
solving the country’s problems, or keeping their hands out of the state’s
till. In that case, it’s back to drawing board.
*******
#7
Russian deputy PM urges definition of Caspian Sea's status
Moscow, Feb 24, Itar-Tass/ACSNA/IRNA -- Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Viktor Kalyuzhny has called for a definition of the Caspian
Sea's status at the soonest possible time.
"An international conference in Moscow on February 26-28 will
concentrate on the search for a solution to this main problem,"
Kalyuzhny told Itar-Tass on Friday.
As for the Iranian intention to begin development of the
sea's oilfields without waiting for the Caspian Sea division into
national sectors, Kalyuzhny said he hopes that "it is not the matter
of a tougher stand of Iran."
"Iran does not have a tough stand in the settlement of Caspian
problems, and it is searching for compromises," he said.
"The efforts of Russia have the same goal, and we are maintaining
a permanent contact with Tehran. It is the most important now to
settle the Caspian Sea status and to progress in the solution of
other problems."
In addition to defining the Caspian Sea's status, it is also
necessary to settle problems of the environment and bio-resources,
Kalyuzhny said.
The CITES international convention prohibits four Caspian
countries to fish sturgeon. That ban "is not valid for Iran, because
it has solved the problem of poaching," Kalyuzhny said.
*******
#8
Caspian "belongs" to Russian oil transit market says official
Interfax
Moscow, 22 February: Russia is in favour of diverse routes for the
transportation of Caspian hydrocarbon resources to the international
markets, Deputy Foreign Minister and special presidential representative on
the regulation of the Caspian's status Viktor Kalyuzhnyy has said.
He said that the construction of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan should take place if
this is economically justified. This might even be profitable for Transneft
from the point of view of tariffs and competition.
However, Kalyuzhnyy said that he personally, as a Russian citizen, is
against the construction of this pipeline.
He said that during the Soviet Union a powerful pipeline system was set up
in the country. This system should be utilized, despite changes in the
geopolitical situation, he said.
Kalyuzhnyy noted that along with the launch last year of the Caspian
Pipeline Consortium pipeline and the Baltic Pipeline System, Russian oil
transit capacity will increase from the launch in the future of the
Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline and also the continuation of the Transneft
system to the port of Nakhodka. The Russian market will lose about 30m
tonnes of Caspian oil from the launch of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline,
he said.
"The Caspian belongs to the Russian market," Kalyuzhnyy stressed.
*******
#9
BBC Monitoring
Moscow sets up Russia's first witness protection scheme
Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 1100 gmt 24 Feb 02
[Presenter] The country's first witness protection scheme is in operation
in Moscow. It is operated by staff of a special department of the Organized
Crime Directorate. They protect those taking part in criminal trials, if
necessary changing their place of residence, biography and even outward
appearance. A report from Aleksey Verchuk.
[Correspondent] Because of the large number of legal proceedings concerning
organized crime, operatives of the protection department are in high
demand. At the moment, witnesses can only be supplied with temporary
accommodation, which the policemen have inherited from the old Soviet
Interior Ministry fund, and which are primarily located in the older
quarters of Moscow and the area around Moscow. In addition, the protected
person's official documents and biography can be changed in the most
difficult cases.
[Oleg Ektov, captioned as head of the witness protection department of the
Organized Crime Directorate] When personal information is changed, all
documents are replaced, from the birth certificate right through to diplomas.
[Correspondent] Diplomas issued are as a rule of the Soviet model. This is
one of these forms. Only the surname has to be filled in, notes entered and
the whole thing authenticated with an official stamp. According to
operatives, such forms are still being made for the security agencies at
the Gosznak enterprise.
At the moment, this is the sum total of possibilities available to the
policemen. The protection department still doesn't have a technical
department, wiretapping or video-observation facilities. The officer only
has literally one service telephone for several people. There is no duty
office where casualties can make a complaint; no scheme for the rehousing
of witnesses in new places of residence, together with new employment, has
been developed.
Protected persons are entirely unable to rely on being given plastic
surgery to completely change their outward appearance at the state's
expense. It costs about R300,000.
[Valeriy Izrailov, captioned as a plastic surgeon] A whole team would be
needed for this, and not just one team at that: teams for cosmetics,
surgery, orthodontistry. A person's actual skeleton has to be changed...
[Correspondent] At the moment, three judges and four witnesses are under
the protection of the department's staff, but it is forbidden to name them.
None of them has had to change their outward appearance, place of residence
or employment. In emergency cases, protected persons are simply assigned
bodyguards.
******
#10
The Russia Journal
February 22-28, 2002
Wisdom or temptation in Central Asia?
By IRA STRAUS
Colin Powell said Afghani-stan has revealed to us a new reality, one in
which we need Russia’s influence in Central Asia, and Russia needs our
influence. This is the voice of wisdom. Now let’s look at a few realities
on the ground:
• The United States’ influence in Central Asia is not going to be very
significant. The local rulers use it to push away Russian influence. The
sum total of future American and Russian influence combined could end up
being less than the Russian influence alone was before the United States
arrived. The true U.S. interest would be the opposite – for the sum total
to become greater. Russian plus U.S. influence equals the total of modern
European influence in Central Asia; the more of it, the better for the
United States, as well as for the world and the locals.
• We’re letting ourselves be used by harsh Central Asian dictators against
a much milder and more democratic Russia. And they won’t fall into our
laps. They will play each power off against the other.
• As a result, the United States alienates Russia. It’s a bad bargain:
Central Asia for Russia.
• While the United States won’t have enough influence to be able to control
the situation in Central Asia or take effective responsibility for what
goes on there, it will have enough visibility to get blamed for whatever
ends up happening there. Already it is getting contradictory advice on how
to stop Central Asia from blowing up in its face.
The first advice, which promotes the line of human-rights bureaucracies and
is copied in most standard editorials, argues for the following: Promote
democracy and human rights, stop being soft on Central Asian dictators like
Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The Islamic movements are important only
because there is too much repression from Karimov; it is an understandable
protest when peaceful means of opposition are not allowed.
The second advice, also known as the line of civilizational warriors,
advocates being thankful Karimov has kept the Islamic extremists under
control. "Don’t ask questions, just be practical; he’s on our side," it
argues. Islamic societies can’t be democratic anyway; if they are allowed
open politics they are going to be taken over by the Islamic fanatics.
The third advice: The mere fact of having the United States in Afghanistan
will help democracy; our presence will gradually promote democracy as long
as we’re careful not to push too hard. (This is from Vladimir Socor of the
Russophobic Jamestown Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, which would
not have any patience with gradualism or deviations along the way to
democracy in Russia itself.) As in elementary-school rhetoric, independence
is equated with democracy; the U.S. presence protects Uzbekistan’s
independence from Russia, ergo it promotes democracy.
The truth is that we don’t have the foggiest notion of how to promote
democracy, human rights or even social modernization in Central Asia. We
haven’t been able to do it in Saudi Arabia, where we have spent half a
century and endless sums of money. We haven’t been able to do it in Egypt,
where we have spent three decades.
Whatever we do, it won’t be very effective, no matter which one – or all –
of the above suggestions we follow. Whatever we do, we’ll get blamed for
doing the wrong thing, or for not doing the right thing that someone else
told us to do. Things will go badly on a number of occasions. And in the
end we’ll get the blame!
We’ll be blamed for the repression in Central Asia, no matter whether we
try to promote democracy a lot, a little, or not at all. If we try, we’ll
be blamed for failing. We’ll also be blamed by Karimov for any Islamists
who gain more space to operate as a result of our pressures. If we don’t
try, we’ll be blamed for hypocrisy. The Islamic extremists will blame us
for the repression and for our "agent" Karimov. The democracy activists
will blame us for the Islamism, which they will ascribe to the repression.
If Islamists ever do come to power, they will view the United States as the
enemy even more than Russia. By the nature of the situation we are walking
into – not by our policy or non-policy on human rights – we risk helping to
create the next generation of anti-American terrorists.
It is a miserable thing to end up with the blame for anything that goes
wrong in a country when one doesn’t hold enough instruments of power and
influence to have much effect on what happens in that country. And when one
doesn’t have a clue as to how or in what direction to influence that
country anyway.
Russia has far more experience than the United States in promoting
modernization in Central Asia and in Islamic societies. The role of ethnic
Russians in Central Asia has been as a bearer of modernization. The Russian
media remain for Central Asians a window onto the modern European, as well
as the Western, world. Russia is to Central Asia as St. Petersburg was to
Russia – "a window to the West." Islamic areas of the former Soviet Union
are pluralistic in proportion to how much Moscow dominates them and how big
a role ethnic Russians play. The correlation is strong, whether in
independent Central Asia or in the autonomous republics and titular
national regions inside Russia.
What could the United States do in these circumstances? It could use its
influence to support rather than undermine Russia’s influence in Central
Asia. It could speak up for the protection of the rights of Russian
speakers in Central Asia. It could speak up for running Russian TV channels
on Uzbek TV service, as in the good old days when Russian TV was a window
of European pluralism for Uzbek viewers.
Colin Powell, before he runs off to Tashkent, could drop in on Foreign
Minister Igor Ivanov in Moscow and try to work out a common line with him
on what to say to Karimov. Or he could invite Ivanov to join him in his
Tashkent meetings. Rumsfeld could plan with Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s defense
minister, on what to do in Central Asia. We could play mutual-support games
rather than getting played off against one another.
The struggle of Russians and Americans for influence against one another is
not just a zero-sum game; in Central Asia it is a negative-sum game. To
make it a positive-sum game, America needs only to strategize together with
Russia, aligning their influences on Central Asian governments. Then they
could be added together rather than subtracted from each other.
Both sides would get a better bargain this way.
Ira Straus is Fulbright professor of international relations at MGIMO and
U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO.
*******
#11
bizreport.com
February 20, 2002
Lawmakers Urge Russians To Drop E-Surveillance Plans
by Brian Krebs
On the first leg of its tour through Europe this week, a U.S. congressional
delegation led by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., spoke out against proposals in
the Russian lower house of parliament that would allow the government to
monitor online activity and require access to encrypted documents through
the use of key-escrow accounts
At a conference in Moscow sponsored by the International Research and
Exchange Council, members of the Russian administration and the Duma argued
that the government must retain the ability to access computers and monitor
the online activity of its citizens in order to ensure stability.
Goodlatte and other delegation members said Russia’s proposed new laws were
based on “the same tired, old proposals that drain consumer confidence in
their security online,” and urged the Russian lawmakers to abandon the
proposals as have the United States, Britain, France and “the rest of the
nations that have entered into the Information Age.”
“Russia’s economic prosperity depends on the success of those who argue for
strong privacy protections and against government monitoring schemes,”
Goodlatte told the Russians. “Russia is on the path to developing a
successful economic system for the information age, but they must embrace
the Internet rather than strangle it through over-regulation and privacy
invasion.”
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., who co-chairs the Congressional Internet Caucus
along with Goodlatte, said he received assurances from Russian lawmakers
that the country’s telecom sector was open for foreign investment, and that
aggressive investment by U.S. telecom firms would be a welcome development.
The stop in Moscow is the first part of a four-city European tour for the
delegation, which includes Reps. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, Dana Rohrabacher,
R-Calif., Martin Sabo, D-Minn., James Walsh, R-N.Y., and John LaFalce, D-N.Y.
Earlier today, the group traveled to Brussels, Belgium to meet with members
of the European Parliament and European Commission, and to join in a
plenary session of the European Internet Foundation.
********
#12
CNN
Cause of Kursk tragedy still unknown
February 24, 2002
MOSCOW, Russia --The cause of the disaster that sank the Kursk nuclear
submarine is still not known for certain, Russias top prosecutor has said
in an interview.
But Prosecutor-General Vladimir Ustinov dismissed speculation that it was
caused by a collision with a foreign vessel.
"We don't have any evidence in our case that there was a ship of another
state," Ustinov told state TV network RTR in an interview broadcast on Sunday.
Last week naval chief Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said a practice torpedo
powered by an unstable fuel may have sent the Kursk to the bottom of the
Barents Sea in August 2000, killing all 118 people aboard
But he stopped short of saying that the sinking definitely was caused by a
flaw in the torpedo.
He said investigators continued to consider the possibility of a collision
with another vessel or a World War II mine as possible reasons for the
disaster.
Both the United States and Britain, which had submarines in the Barents Sea
at the time, have denied any involvement of any of their vessels.
Ustinovs interview was conducted after Kuroyedov's statements, RTR said,
but did not specify the date.
Most of the Kursk wreck has since been raised and funerals held for crew
members recovered.
In December, President Vladimir Putin has said it is too early to tell what
caused the sinking.
Three senior Russian navy commanders were demoted and another eight
admirals sacked in a clearout that some experts said was punishment for the
Kursk disaster.
Putin said a collision with another "unidentified underwater vessel" was
among the possible causes of the disaster being investigated.
*******
#13
Lada still rules car market in Russia
By Patrick Lannin
MOSCOW, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The Lada may be the butt of many jokes in the
West, but in Russia it's the country's top selling car despite the
post-Soviet chance to buy foreign vehicles.
The standard model, known as a Zhiguli in Russia but usually simply as a
Lada in the West, epitomises the word boxy.
But in Russia it is known as "klassika" and still sells like hot cakes
along with other types of Lada, all made by the country's leading car
manufacturer AvtoVAZ.
Some would think being able to buy a Western car would mean the end of the
post-Soviet car industry, with its reputation for a lack of imagination in
design and an absence of quality.
But the head of AvtoVAZ, Vladimir Kadannikov, counters: "As far as
competition is concerned, we do not fear it."
Kadannikov, 60, a car builder to his bones, who has spent 44 years in the
industry, can base his assertion on the fact that AvtoVAZ cars are still
the most popular in Russia.
Of the more than one million new cars sold in Russia in 2001, some 70
percent were made by AvtoVAZ, while new foreign cars accounted for less
than 10 percent of the market.
The number of second-hand imported foreign cars is a growing threat and
amounted to an estimated 300,000 to 600,000 vehicles in 2001.
Kadannikov concedes AvtoVAZ cars are behind the West in quality, but says
they offer the best value in Russia.
"Of course, if you compare the level of quality of Western cars and ours,
then we lose. But if you compare the level of price and quality then we
gain a lot of points," he said.
"There are better cars, but there are no cheaper cars, no cars which have
such a link of sufficient quality and not such a high price," he added.
The popularity of Ladas is closely related to the fact that their average
price is $3,000 to $5,000, whereas the cost of a new Western vehicle is
more than $10,000. This is in a country where the average wage remains
pitifully low at around $150 a month.
Kadannikov said his factory, based on the shores of the Volga in eastern
Russia and built as a Soviet showpiece joint venture with Fiat in the
1970s, cannot meet demand, even though it employs more than 200,000 people.
As he aims to launch a new range of cars in the coming years, which will
cost $800 million in total and for which he hopes to get some outside
investment, either Russian or foreign, Kadannikov said Russia needed a car
industry to ensure jobs.
FOREIGN COMPANIES GATHER AT WINGS
Despite Kadannikov's confidence, the presence of foreign car companies has
been growing since the end of the Soviet Union and several are now moving
from simply importing to manufacturing.
General Motors chose the path of cooperation with local talent by forming a
joint venture to build off-road vehicles with AvtoVAZ.
Ford has built its own car plant in northern Russia. Others such as Fiat
and Renault have also expressed an interest.
GM's head of Russian operations, David Herman, said the draw for Western
firms was the untapped potential of a market where car ownership is well
below European and U.S. levels.
He also saw no reason why Russian manufacturers should not one day build
cars to the same standards as western firms, citing the case of Czech
manufacturer Skoda, owned by Volkswagen
"If we had said 10 years ago the Czech Republic could build great cars,
which they can export, or that Thailand can build cars for Japan, no one
would have listened to us," he said.
"So if we say about Russia that in the next five to 10 years it will be
building cars that it can export then people should look at those
examples," he added.
INVESTMENT POTENTIAL?
With a growing market and the potential of Western funds and expertise in
improving quality, the investment outlook for Russian car stocks would seem
good.
But Kim Iskyan, analyst at Renaissance Capital, said the sector was
blighted by poor transparency and poor liquidity. Two firms, Russia's
second largest car maker GAZ and truck maker Kamaz, are also undergoing
restructuring.
"For portfolio investors it is a bit of a minefield...They offer a huge web
of complexity and very many unknown liabilities," he added. Despite such
worries, shares in AvtoVAZ have gained strongly in the last year, going
from around $1 to $18 in a little over 12 months.
This has been linked to speculation that a strategic investor might take a
stake in it. Kadannikov has said the firm also wants to build up its market
capitalisation by buying its own shares, which would be another reason for
the gains.
Whatever the outlook for the Russian car market, there is one thing that
seems set to remain a constant -- the supply of Lada-related jokes.
As one wit said: "What do you call a Lada that starts first time? A novelty."
*******
#14
Los Angeles Times
February 17, 2002
book review
From the Ministry of Propaganda
By JONATHAN LEVI
HOMO ZAPIENS: A Novel, by Victor Pelevin; translated from the Russian by
Andrew Bromfield. Viking: 250 pp., $24.95.
"Once upon a time in Russia there really was a carefree, youthful
generation that smiled in joy at the summer, the sea and the sun, and chose
Pepsi." So opens Victor Pelevin's latest and best novel, "Homo Zapiens," the
Homeric odyssey of a young poet trying to make his way through the brave new
world of post-glasnost advertising. In the fairy tale past of the USSR, there
was only one truth, and it had little to do with either Madison Avenue or
Britney Spears: "Generation 'P' had no choice in the matter and children of
the Soviet seventies chose Pepsi in precisely the same way as their parents
chose Brezhnev."
With this appropriately satirical introduction, Babylen Tatarsky (named,
in a fit of Communist Party spirit, after the Hero of the Revolution) arrives
on the scene. Slaving away behind the barricaded plexiglass of a cigarette
kiosk run by Chechens, Tatarsky is rescued into advertising by a friend who
has discovered how many thousands can be made in this new propaganda.
And indeed, Tatarsky discovers he has the knack, even though his first
client is found strangled with a telephone cord and burned with an electric
iron. Through the influence of a variety of comrades, Tatarsky slowly brews a
view of the world and the power of advertising from equal parts Dostoevsky,
psychedelic mushrooms and Einstein, the father of the fourth dimension of
"airtime/ad space." "He had this theory of relativity," one of Tatarsky's
bosses explains to him, "maybe you've heard of it. Soviet power did it as
well, only via a paradox--you know that. They lined up the guys in the camps,
gave them shovels and told them to dig a trench from the fence as far as
lunchtime."
And then one day, searching for inspiration, Tatarsky purchases a Ouija
board and a ream of paper and communes with the spirit of Che Guevara. All
the world's a TV, says Guevara. The world is a cheesy line of "wow" moments
in which man, like a rat in a maze armed with a remote control, zaps his way
from channel to channel: Homo zapiens in search of "wows" until the battery
runs down. "It follows, therefore," writes the spirit of Che, "that the end
of the world, which is the inevitable outcome of the wowerisation of
consciousness, will present absolutely no danger of any kind.... The end of
the world will simply be a television programme. And this, comrades in the
struggle, fills us all with inexpressible bliss."
Gradually, our pilgrim makes progress, conquering Chechen thugs and
anti-Semitic copywriters who draw Hasids on Harleys, until he is hired by the
Institute of Apiculture, where the carpets are sprinkled with cocaine and the
boss celebrates every advertising victory by pinning a medal on a pet hamster
named Rostropovich. It is there that he discovers the ultimate zapper that
controls all Russia, where advertising is propaganda, the medium--to riff off
novelist Mikhail Bulgakov--is the master and Margarita.
If a Marshall McLuhan-esque message seems a bit banal in the
post-postmodern West, not to worry. Pelevin perches on these moments for only
a second before a stray flake dissolves in his sinus and bang, Tatarsky is
off on another roll.
And if all this seems somewhat hyperkinetic, note that the 39-year-old
Pelevin (whose other novels, the wonderful "Life of Insects" and "Buddha's
Little Finger," have been given equally colloquial but unself-conscious
translations by Andrew Bromfield) has been called the heir to Gogol,
Dostoevsky and Bulgakov in his native land.
But it is more fitting, perhaps, given the worldwide connectedness of
his theme, to make Pelevin a citizen of the country of other writers
sprinkled around the globe who see a similarly quirky pattern in the carpet.
Pelevin's hard-boiled wonderland of a Moscow sits well next to Haruki
Murakami's Tokyo, Julio Cortazar's Paris and Terry Gilliam's Brazil. All four
writers have sci fi-sized imaginations, literary backgrounds and, most
important, fierce grasps of their own morphing cultures and languages. If
Pelevin's Moscow is less sexual than the other capitals (remarkable, given
its reputation), that is only one more surprise from this writer who
continues to be one of the most energetic and imaginative voices to reach our
Western antennas.
Jonathan Levi is a contributing writer for Book Review.A brave young
poet makes his way through the brave new world of post-glasnost advertising.
********
#15
Moscow Times
February 19, 2002
Time to Take the Bull by the Horns
By Andrei Ryabov
In politics, this year is not likely to bear much
resemblance to the first two years of Vladimir Putin's presidency -- the
distinguishing feature of which has been social stability against the
backdrop of an ongoing struggle between members of the Yeltsin-era old guard
and the St. Petersburg chekist proteges of the new president for key
government positions and for influence over the head of state.
And there is good reason for this.
As the year kicked off, it was already clear that the economy cannot develop
further without the implementation of far-reaching structural reforms.
Otherwise, social problems resulting from growing inflation and widespread
wage arrears could undermine social stability. However, political and social
groups with an interest in cardinal transformation of the socioeconomic and
political system that took root under President Boris Yeltsin still lack
serious clout.
Major corporations only really need market reforms insofar as they allow them
to bolster their existing hegemony in the economy and strengthen their
political influence. They are in favor of rationalizing and optimizing the
state's social expenditures, and even now it is a source of irritation that
the president continues to pay "political" wages and pensions. At the same
time these corporations seek to avoid competition both from the medium-sized
business sector and from foreign firms.
Broad swathes of the population would prefer preservation of the status quo
-- combined with a more just redistribution of wealth to poorer sections of
the population -- to reforms. In particular, they are strongly opposed to the
planned housing reform and the current abolition of tax breaks and other
privileges affecting their interests.
All this makes even more pressing the imperative that the president form a
political coalition based on a strategic consensus between the parties.
Continuing election-style policies of trying to keep everyone happy is
becoming ever more difficult. Different groups within the elite are
insistently reminding the president that it is high time for him to bite the
bullet and openly declare his sympathies. The recent conflict between Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov and Unified Energy Systems CEO Anatoly Chubais over
cutting off electricity to military bases can be viewed in this light.
Events in the international arena will push Putin to take a clearer stand on
domestic issues. It is clear that further deepening of relations with the
West, prospects for WTO accession, strengthening ties in the fight against
international terrorism and attracting foreign investment depend both on the
continuation of market reforms and the creation of a stable coalition of
political forces supporting such reforms, as well as to a pro-Western foreign
policy course.
Support for the new direction in foreign policy will be sorely tested if the
United States commences military operations against Iraq. In such an event,
Putin will be faced with a tough choice between maintaining a pro-Western
course at the price of surrendering the strategic interests of certain elite
groups in the Middle East, and reverting to the foreign policy tenets
prevalent prior to Sept. 11 and, accordingly, to a deceleration of market
reforms at home.
How will Putin respond to these challenges?
In effect, the president has two options. The first is to refrain from
policies aimed primarily at maintaining high popularity ratings and to form a
coalition for reform, relying on the most progressive social and political
groups for support. Of course, even in this case only limited reforms, which
do not encroach upon the corporate interests of major companies, will be
possible. And in particular, given his current resources, Putin is unlikely
to be able to make serious headway in establishing a more competitive
business environment.
For the realization of this first scenario, the president will have to
accomplish one particularly difficult task: the consolidation of his own
team. The conflict between St. Petersburg chekists and members of Yeltsin's
"Family" has gone too far for the opposing sides to reach compromise of their
own volition. Furthermore, it would appear that other influential groups are
being dragged into the conflict, such as Chubais' group, the "St. Petersburg
liberals" (led by Dmitry Kozak and Dmitry Medvedev), Alfa Group, Yukos and
Interros.
Reconciliation can only really be achieved if all parties involved come to
the realization that they face a common threat -- such as mass social unrest
-- or if the president adopts a proactive approach and pushes a compromise
formula acceptable to all parties.
However, there is no serious threat expected this year of a magnitude
sufficient to consolidate the elite. Furthermore, it would seem that Putin
has no great wish for one or other group to emerge victorious, since a
situation in which forces are more or less evenly balanced gives him more
room for maneuver and for making his own decisions.
Furthermore, Putin probably fears that a radical shake-up in the top echelons
of power could have a disruptive effect on social stability. A change of
government in the coming months is only really on the cards if the country is
gripped by a harsh financial or economic crisis that casts serious doubt on
the effectiveness of the course being pursued by the president. In such a
situation, candidates for the post of prime minister would be sought among
those politicians with both a strategic plan of action and a team of
professionals capable of implementing the plan.
Thus, the implementation of a consistent reform course this year will be
problematic. Of course, reforms could be attempted without elite consensus,
but this would be a risky strategy for Putin and one that he, as a very
cautious politician, is unlikely to pursue.
Putin's second option is to continue maneuvering between different interest
groups and centers of influence, on the one hand, and to keep on allowing
policy to be dictated by public opinion. Under such a scenario, the
possibility of furthering reform would be minimal, while the potential for
conflicts between different elite groups to escalate would be considerable.
In the short term, this policy could work and strengthen the president's
position temporarily; but in the medium-to-long term he would lose. Putin
would start to lose the trust of all the main parties to the conflict, just
as happened to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990-91. Under certain circumstances,
disappointed elite groups might even start searching for an alternative
candidate for the 2004 presidential election.
A third -- and highly unlikely -- scenario is a complete reorientation toward
populism and the redistribution of national wealth to the poorest sections of
the population. It is certainly the case that Putin's transformation into a
"Russian Peron" would be welcomed by a significant portion of the population.
However, the president lacks not only the desire but also the necessary
institutions to achieve such a transformation. The interests of the leading
political groups and oligarchical clans are well represented in the Kremlin,
and for these groups populism is acceptable only on the television screen and
nowhere else. The presidential plenipotentiary representatives have failed to
construct an executive chain of command linking all levels of the state
apparatus in their federal districts. The current carve-up of national
television channels will, it seems, lead to the concentration of these
resources in the hands of the main oligarchical clans. And there is no
evidence as yet that the recently formed Unified Russia party will provide a
reliable buttress for presidential power; its functionaries, as before,
prefer to consult with the presidential administration rather than take the
initiative into their own hands.
Andrei Ryabov is scholar-in-residence at the Moscow Center of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. He contributed this comment to The Moscow
Times.
*******
#16
Financial Times (UK)
25 February 2002
Georgia and Russia may co-operate on Pankisi gorge
By Andrew Jack in Moscow and David Stern in Baku
There are growing signs that Georgia may be prepared to co-operate with
Russia in a bid to assert control over the Pankisi gorge, a lawless region on
its border with the rebellious Russian republic of Chechnya.
Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, angered Georgians by speculating
earlier this month that Osama bin Laden, wanted by the US for his role in the
September 11 attacks, might even now be based in the gorge, long seen by
Russia as a safe haven for Chechen rebel fighters.
However, even senior Georgian officials have started to admit the existence
of Chechen rebels as well as refugees in the gorge, a virtual a no-go area
for law enforcement bodies with a thriving trade in narcotics, weapons and
kidnapping.
Nikolai Patrushev, head of the FSB, Russia's security police, visited Georgia
last week for talks, and Sergei Shoigu, Russian minister for emergencies, has
been working with Georgia to help co-ordinate programmes to repatriate
Chechen refugees back to Chechnya.
The US has also been strengthening links with Georgia, where it is helping
creation of an anti-terrorist unit within the national defence ministry,
although Russian military officials have rejected the need for broader US
involvement.
The moves come amid growing signs of rapprochement between Russia and Georgia
after a long period of tension in the 1990s, with some analysts attributing
the improvement to US pressure following the September 11 attacks. Growing US
interest in the region was signalled when Philip Remler, charge d'affaires at
the US embassy in Tbilisi, told a Georgian newspaper recently that "several
tens of mujahedin fled from Afghanistan and are hiding now in the Caucasus".
Some of these had found their way to Pankisi, he said, and were maintaining
contact with Khattab, an associate of Osama bin Laden and one of the top
anti-Russian rebel leaders in Chechnya.
Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgian president, said his country would consider
working with US special forces to drive out Chechen rebels, while stressing
that there had so far been "no systematic discussions" with US officials.
He has also rejected Russian offers to help clear the Chechens out, saying
this would be "inadmissible".
There have been sharp exchanges between the two countries following bombing
by Russian forces of villages in the Pankisi Gorge in efforts they claim were
designed to attack Chechen rebels.
Georgia has previously always denied that there were any rebels among the
approximately 7,000 Chechen refugees living in the gorge. The recent
acknowledgement has been seen by many as a blow to Mr Shevardnadze's
international image and underlines the government's lack of control over
large parts of the country.
Georgian authorities have launched a security crackdown in the border region,
but despite some much-hyped early successes, the operation has failed to
produce significant results. Some analysts wonder if the government has the
strength or even the will to eradicate lawless activity in the gorge area, as
officials are suspected of maintaining ties to the criminals and of profiting
from their activity.
*******
#17
The Times (UK)
23 February 2002
Editorial
A Cold War
Russia's Olympic fiasco has shaken the nation's soul
The country is in uproar. The Duma has been holding an all-day emergency
sitting to thunder for retaliation and retribution. Television has gone on
a war footing with the tapes of martial music ready to roll. The oligarchs
have offered millions for the battle. The Patriarch has pronounced an
anathema. President Putin is incensed. Salt Lake City, if 142 million
Russians had their way, would be vaporised today.
This Cold War is not quite the 40 years of frozen hostility initiated by
Stalin. It has nothing to do with ideology, global strategy or the triumph
of communism, trifles that rarely stirred much response in the Russian
soul. The treatment of Russia’s Winter Olympic team by American judges and
foreign juries is a challenge to the entire nation, an insult to past
heroes, an assault on the cradle of Orthodoxy. Skaters, skiers and hockey
players wearing Russia’s pride on their shoulders and in their boots have
been disqualified and demeaned.
How refreshing it is to see such sentiments in Moscow. Here at last is
proof that democracy has taken root in Russia. Individual, spontaneous
anger has erupted in chambers where there was once only robotic unison,
passion has penetrated the layers that once cocooned the babushkas from
cold reality, honour has stood up to give the masses voice. Never have
human, sporting rights been defended with such zeal.
Of course Russians feel shabbily treated. Ice, for any patriot, is a
surface hallowed by years of victory. And what has happened? The refereeing
in ice hockey, a game fabled for its animosities, has appeared biased,
especially in the grudge match against the Czechs. The crowd has forced
Russia’s ice skating champions to share their golden glory. And the
cross-country team were disqualified hours before donning their skis
because too much haemoglobin, not itself a drug, was found in one
champion’s blood. Ve vaz robbed, the masses say.
In Soviet days winning was a political necessity. Stalin’s Sports Minister
stayed up trembling all night after the Americans beat the Soviet ice
hockey team in 1956. Women changed sex for the honour of putting the shot
farther than anyone else. Schools more akin to laboratories were built and
clinics furnished with every pharmaceutical concoction to ensure the
requisite tally of medals. But a new age has arrived. Russia is trying to
play clean. Big business has discovered the joys of sponsorship. And
sporting fervour has replaced communist glory. No wonder there is
consternation when things go wrong. It is Russian, human and thoroughly
reassuring.
*******
#18
Russia slams scandal-marred Olympics
MOSCOW, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- As emotions ran high this week at the Salt Lake
City Winter Olympics, Russia fumed over allegedly biased refereeing and
doping scandals involving its athletes while its Olympic officials
threatened to withdraw the entire Russian team from the games.
As a list of injustices toward Russian athletes kept growing almost daily,
Russia's politicians, sports officials, journalists and people in the
street slammed what they called the International Olympic Committee's lobby
concerned with systematically ruining Russia's performance at the games.
Descriptions of what's been going on in Salt Lake City in recent weeks
ranged from conspiracy against Russia and humiliation of the nation to the
revival of the Cold War.
The biggest of all scandals was the IOC's decision to award duplicate gold
medals to Canadian figure skating pair of Jamie Sale and David Pelletier
after they were defeated for the top spot by Russians Yelena Berezhnaya and
Anton Sikharulidze.
The Russian pair won the gold by a one-vote margin that ignited a wave of
fierce protests from Canadian officials after French judge Marie-Reine Le
Gougne admitted to have been pressured to vote for Berezhnaya and
Sikharulidze.
The organizers staged a second medal ceremony, with the Canadian pair also
awarded gold medals and anthems of both Russia and Canada played to honor
the occasion.
When it seemed that the row had subsided, Le Gougne unexpectedly gave an
interview to France's L'Equipe sports daily, retracting her earlier
confessions and blaming a British-Canadian skating official of urging her
to vote for Sale and Pelletier.
Le Gougne's revelations put IOC officials in hot water, but as it turned
out, more scandals were in store as ensuing skating contests involving
Russian athletes abounded in dubious refereeing decisions.
Russia's dancers on ice Irina Lobacheva and Ilya Averbukh grabbed silver
behind France's Marina Anissina and Gwendal Peizerat as the contest once
again was decided by a controversial 5-4 ballot.
On Thursday, Irina Slutskaya won silver in the women's figure skating
behind American Sarah Hughes who, Russian media argued, had failed to
outperform Slutskaya, a heavy favorite, after her archrival, U.S. skater
Michelle Kwan, slipped on the ice and dropped to third place overall.
Russia appealed the results of the contest, demanding that Slutskaya be
awarded a duplicate gold medal, but an IOC appeals panel rejected the bid,
letting Hughes retain the gold.
From the point of view of the Russian public, other events at the games
were also highlighted by biased judging and ways to strip Russian athletes
of their chances to win or even participate in their respective events.
The media condemned the organizers for making Russia's celebrated
biathlonist and two-time world champion, Pavel Rostovtsev, submit three
blood samples ahead of the race instead of one prescribed by the rules.
Rostovtsev then ran with a substantial lack of strength, caused by two
excessive blood tests, his doctors argued.
He arrived only sixth overall with his gold medal dreams shattered by the
unfair decision of the games' anti-doping officials, they said.
Russian freestyler Olga Koroleva led the women's aerials after the first
jump and then executed a less spectacular, but equally neat, accurate and
near-perfect second, only to drop to fourth place overall behind an
Australian and two Canadians, missing the bronze by 0.89 points.
Finally, Russia's decorated cross-country female skier Larisa Lazutina was
banned from the women's 4x5 km relay Thursday after an anti-doping test
revealed the excess of haemoglobin in her blood 0.8 units over the norm.
Russia was the biggest favorite of the race, but its relay team members
could only watch from the stands as other nations shared the medals after
Lazutina's disqualification.
Thursday's ban of Lazutina sparked harsh criticism from both Russia's
public figures and sports officials, matching the outburst of anger
displayed when Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze's gold medals were disputed by
the Canadians.
The lower chamber of Russia's parliament, the State Duma, devoted a special
session Friday to discussions on the issue, adopting a resolution to
condemn game officials for snubbing Russian athletes.
President Vladimir Putin was more diplomatic in his comments, saying that
certain events involving the Russian team members in Salt Lake City "caused
surprise."
Russia's noted Academy Award-winning filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov told the
state-controlled ORT television network that the events in Salt Lake City
signaled the revival of the Cold War.
Russian Olympic Committee Chairman Leonid Tyagachev issued a statement,
threatening to withdraw the entire team from the games if appeals, filed by
Russia in Salt Lake City, were not reviewed.
The tension peaked Friday as the nation was expecting the ice hockey
semifinal, pitting Russia against the hosts, Team USA in what promised to
be the highlight of the entire ice hockey tournament.
Although none of Russia's appeals were accepted and all previous decisions
allowed to stand, Russia decided that it would field its hockey team in the
deciding game of the tournament.
The game was broadcast live at 2:30 a.m. Saturday, but lights were lit up
in almost every Russian home as hockey fans yearned for a victory that
would see the team have another shot at Olympic gold within four years
after being defeated 1-0 by the Czechs in the 1998 Nagano games final.
A dismal performance of the Russian lineup during the first two periods
that allowed Team USA to build a decisive 3-0 lead had many fans crushed,
but the stunning comeback in the third period offered a ray of hope as
Russia scored twice and kept pressuring the hosts until the final buzzer.
The nation mourned the loss of its hockey team as all Saturday's news
bulletins invariably began with reports from the U.S.-Russia game.
The hockey defeat overshadowed all other news from Salt Lake City,
including those that told about failed attempts of Russian officials to
have their appeals honored.
The IOC's rejections to award gold to Slutskaya or to have a rerun of the
women's cross-country relay race went almost unnoticed as Russian fans had
a hard time recovering from the blow dealt by the U.S. ice hockey team.
Head coach of Russia's hockey team Vyacheslav Fetisov, though, did complain
in his post-game interview with the New York Times about allegedly biased
decisions of Canadian referee Bill McCreary.
According to Fetisov, McCreary failed to penalize U.S. skipper Chris
Chelios at least twice during the game for apparent violations, and refused
his request to see the television replay of a disputed third-period shot at
the U.S. goal that was saved by American goalie Mike Richter.
Russian team officials argued that the puck had traveled over the goal line
before Ricther deflected it back into the field.
Disputed refereeing, however, doesn't seem to be the factor that plagues
the Russian sport the most, a poll held by Moscow's independent Ekho Moskvy
revealed Sunday.
During a five-minute, phone-in session, 84 percent of respondents cited
"inadequate preparation" of the Russian team as the chief reason behind
somewhat disappointing performance in Salt Lake City while the remaining 16
percent blamed the failure on "biased attitude" of judges and officials
toward Russia.
According to Anna Dmitrieva, a well-known sports analyst, Russia could
perform even worse at the next Olympics as the last generation of
Soviet-trained athletes is about to retire and the existing cash-strapped
sports programs in Russia are a far cry from the Soviet-backed program that
generously pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into training of top
athletes.
Dmitrieva brought up an example of Russia's champions in Nordic combined
who earn 600 rubles ($19) a month and are often urged by their families to
quit sports and take up jobs that can provide a substantial income.
Without appropriate financing and a precisely defined sports policy, Russia
can only dream of repeating the Soviet Union's record medal haul from
Calgary in 1988, she told Ekho Moskvy.
On Sunday, fans were at last in high spirits as Lazutina won the gold medal
in the women's 30 km (19 miles) cross-country race to crown her outstanding
career with a record-tying 10th Olympic medal overall.
*******
Web page for CDI Russia Weekly:
http://www.cdi.org/russia
Archive for Johnson's Russia List:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson
With support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and
the MacArthur Foundation
A project of the Center for Defense Information (CDI)
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20036