Johnson's Russia List
#6098
25 February 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Vremya Novostei: WE LOVE THE ARMY, BUT IN A STRANGE WAY. (poll)
2. Vek: LESS FREEDOM IN THE UNITED STATES. An interview with Professor
Michael
McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment.
3. Washington Post: Fred Hiatt, A Flinch on Chechnya.
4. AP: NATO: New Russian Relationship Won't Give Veto To Moscow.
5. AFP: US Certifies Theft Of Russian Nuclear Material Has Occurred.
6. Interfax: Putin welcomes "mature" decision to stay in Olympics.
7. Moscow Times: Kevin O'Flynn, Olympic Drums Beat to Cold War Tune.
8. Vek: Larisa Ukho, GOLD OF THE PARTIES. Why is the state funding
political
parties?
9. Bloomberg: Russia Says Chechen Rebels Plan an Autonomous Region in
Georgia.
10. New York Times: Michael Wines, History Course Ignites a Volatile Tug of
War in Moldova.
11. Scott Sonders: Re: 6097 "Our Best Interests in Estonia."
12. Wall Street Journal: Geraldine Fagan, The Vatican Gets Tough With
Russia.]
******
#1
Vremya Novostei
February 22, 2002
WE LOVE THE ARMY, BUT IN A STRANGE WAY
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
On the eve of the Day of the Defender of the Fatherland, the
National Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) questioned 1600
Russians. Their answers to the questions on attitudes toward the army,
are given below in percentages, together with the similar polls from
1998. The margin of error in such polls is 4%.
"Do you think there is any other country threatening Russia now?"
1998 2002
Yes, there is: 33% 42%
"Would you like your son, brother, husband or some other relative
to serve now in the army? If not, why?"
1998 2002
Yes, I would: 13% 22%
No, I would not: 84% 72%
Including: (people could choose several variants)
1998 2002
- death/wound in conflicts like in Chechnya: 30% 44%
- violence in the army: 40% 35%
- bad living conditions, malnutrition, threat to health: 21% 23%
- disorder in the army, irresponsible policies of the government
toward the army: 25% 20%
- powerlessness and humiliation of the military: 20% 19%
- moral corruption, hard drinking and drug addiction: 19% 16%
- criminalization of the army, involving the military in criminal
cases: 15% 10%
- being in the army is wasting time: 11% 8%
- other reasons: 3% 1%
- could not name any particular reason: 7% 5%
- could not decide whether they would like it or not: 3% 6%
Over the past four years Russians have confirmed their opinion
that there is a military threat toward Russia, and that the Russian
army can protect us from it. At the same time, attitude toward serving
in the Russian army has changed only slightly, and most Russian still
would like their relatives to serve in the army. However, the shift
toward overall favorable attitude toward the army is accompanied by
simultaneous increase in popularity of the idea to abolish the
universal service and make our army a professional one, which is clear
in answers to the following question.
"Do you personally think that we should keep conscription for
youths of call-up age, or we should start forming a contract system
and man the army out of those, who serve for money?"
1998 2002
We should keep conscription: 38% 27%
We should have a professional army: 53% 64%
No answer: 12% 9%
At the same time, though most Russians considers it important to
shift toward professional service in the army, only an insignificant
part of the respondents believe that this reform will be implemented
in near future.
"In 1996 President Yeltsin issued a decree on gradual abolition
of conscription, and transition toward contract service. Do you think
the Russian armed forces will become a professional one, and when?"
1998 2002
In a year or two (in 1998 "by 2002"): 6% 5%
In five years: 15% 18%
In a decade: 15% 19%
In more than 10 years: 17% 19%
This is not likely to happen at all: 24% 21%
No answer: 24% 18%
*******
#2
Vek
No. 8
February 22, 2002
LESS FREEDOM IN THE UNITED STATES
An interview with Professor Michael McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment
Author: Stanislav Tarasoc, Stanislav Stremidovsky
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
MANY POLITICIANS BOTH IN EUROPE AND IN RUSSIA HAVE NOTICED A CHANGE
IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S THINKING: NOW HE CONSIDERS HIMSELF A "WAR
PRESIDENT". BUSH NEEDS A STRONG ENEMY ABROAD - AND SINCE RUSSIA HAS
DROPPED OFF THIS LIST, THERE IS SOME VAGUENESS IN US TTITUDES TOWARD
RUSSIA.
Question: You recently had a book published called "Russia's
Unfinished Revolution". This is how you described the very complicated
processes taking place in contemporary Russia. When do you think this
revolution will be completed, and what will be its outcome?
Michael McFaul: I have closely studied not only the Russian
revolutions, but also the French revolution of the late 18th and early
19th centuries. Amazingly enough, you are closely repeating the so-
called French scenario in your history. The bourgeois revolution of
February 1917 "smoothly" moved on to a Bolshevik coup and a Bolshevik
dictatorship. It seems the 1991 revolution has already moved into its
Thermidor phase. The conclusion is that a dictatorship period is
approaching. There are all the signs of this, I can see them for
myself.
Question: So who is the "Russian dictator"?
McFaul: Putin. However, it seems to me he has not made his
"historical choice" yet.
Question: But President George Bush has also been acting like a
dictator, especially since September 11.
McFaul: You are right, since the September 11 events, some
liberties have been restricted in the United States. The role of the
state in politics and the economy has significantly increased. People
want more law and order. Nonetheless, I am convinced that there will
be no dictatorship in the classical sense in the US. Russia is
different: the traditions of the Thermidor period are very strong
here.
Question: How do you think Russia-US relations will develop now?
McFaul: Despite everything, the present Republican administration
of the US is ready to continue working with Russia. Basing on its
pragmatic reasons, first of all Bush's wish for a second term in
office; in my opinion, the Russian factor is to play a very
significant role in this.
Question: What developments in Russia is the US administration
preparing for?
McFaul: Step by step: eighteen months ago the White House
described events in Russia as a turn toward Thermidor. However, this
factor was not given any special attention. In my view, at present
George Bush has not determined his attitude to Russia. In these terms,
two groups have formed in his closest surrounding. The first prefers
to give Russia an opportunity to develop as it chooses. The second
group supposes that Washington should consider Russia as a partner
only if it chooses democratic development. Overall, it is not only
Russia in question, but also many other countries of the world. So
far, the world is divided in two for George Bush: those who support
democracy and freedom, and those who do not support them. Personally,
I do not share this doctrine with him, as I do not divide the world in
countries. For me the most important thing is the human factor. For
instance, we understand that Iraq can become a democratic country some
day, but its democracy will never resemble the US's democracy.
However, this does not mean that Washington will refuse to cooperate
with Baghdad then. The same concerns Russia.
Question: It all seems to perfectly fit the "axis of evil" -
Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - which George Bush recently described.
McFaul: Bush's speech in which he spoke about the axis of evil
was most unfortunate, in my opinion.
Question: Who wrote this speech for Bush?
McFaul: Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, played a
very important role in preparing the speech. Rumor has it that one of
Bush's key people was barred from preparation of the speech. As he
told me later, he was very surprised when he heard the edited speech
of his boss on TV.
Question: It is an open secret that when President Vladimir Putin
joined the anti-terrorist operation after September 11, many people in
Russia thought that a new era in relations between Russia and the US
had started. But then the US announced withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
So it turns out that you let our president down, doesn't it?
McFaul: Firstly, George Bush sincerely believes that the Russian
president is willing to cooperate with the US. The opinion that it is
necessary to help Putin is also heard among the Bush team. You know,
the "Twenty" formula that is likely to determined new relations
between Russia and NATO was suggested by the US president. I should
also mention that he did that without preliminary coordination with
his team. As for the ABM Treaty, Bush listened to another viewpoint.
In my opinion, it was untimely to strike Putin then. After September
11 events, there was an opportunity window for breaking through in our
mutual relations. And a great political fight developed in the White
House on the question how to develop further relations with Russia. A
favorable trend prevailed until the two presidents meet in Taxis,
after that supporters of a tougher trend won. I mean the letter of the
most conservative part of the Republicans, which demanded President
Bush to retrieve in his relations with Russia at the level of pre-
election manifestations.
Question: Thank you for the warning. Recently Washington stated
that it is preparing a military attack on Iraq. Is this attack to be
made?
McFaul: Several days ago I had a private talk with George Bush. I
have an impression that our president does not have a clear and
distinct foreign affairs policy. Until September 11 events, foreign
policy planning was just a part of his job. The president told me that
he mostly relied on the personal factor, the hope that he would manage
to become a personal friend of many world leaders, including Vladimir
Putin. After the terrorist attacks, Bush became the defender of his
homeland, and his foreign policy priorities greatly shifted after
that. He tied his name in US history with fighting terrorism, which is
meant to sensure his second victory in the presidential elections. At
present, he considers himself a "war president". At the same time, I
should note that many politicians both in Europe and in Russia have
not noticed this change in Bush's thinking. I can say even more: yes,
there are plans to attack Iraq, and there is decisiveness to make
these plans true. I can allow one more informational leakage:
currently, relations with such countries as Russia or China are a
derivation of the main aim for Washington. Moscow and Beijing are at
the background now.
Question: However, fighting terrorism is not limited to military
aspects alone. Bush has repeatedly declared his readiness to fight the
financial sources of terrorists. What is the situation here?
McFaul: Yes, in fact since September 11, our financial-economic
system has also been changing.
Question: So this means you admit that terrorism, including
terrorism in Chechnya, has been fed by certain international
financial-economic groups?
McFaul: Washington is most unlikely to rate Chechnya as a world
terrorism center. As for Chechnya, I personally support Putin's
standpoint on that issue, and I actively lobbied for it at the top in
the US government. Washington is more inclined to place Chechnya and
Palestine next to each other. They want to make a political separation
of those who really fight for their independence from terrorists who
have joined them.
Question: At present, many people have the impression that
Washington used the September terrorist attacks to strengthen its
global domination. Is this true?
McFaul: Yes, many of the Republicans are more and more convinced
that it is necessary to make the US a world empire. It does not
concern the majority of Americans, who so far have not realized where
the White House is leading them. As for me, I do not want my son to
fight for freedom and democracy far from his motherland, like a Roman
soldier. Bush will understand soon that another team may appear on his
large ship, which will start doing its own politics. In these terms,
the US analysts are also discussing that, but their conclusions do not
influence the foreign policy decisions of the White House.
Question: As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. We
can also play our scenario in the US - and have you take on the
world's dirty work. What do you think of that?
McFaul: Do you mean Russia can carry out a revolution in America?
But it is a very interesting question. At present, we expect no
disasters in the US. However, there are some problems. They may
concern resistance to the new system. There is another danger: it is
our readiness to fight anyone, anywhere. I have written several memos
about this to President Bush. It seems to me that President Bush needs
some strong enemy abroad. Russia has fallen off this list and this is
the reason for the vagueness in foreign policy towards it. However, I
have no doubt that after September 11, 2001, the world started moving
toward some sort of different world order system. It is not ruled out
that Russia will integrate with Europe even more extensively and will
finally break through to modern civilization. There are analogous
processes on other continents.
Question: If you really want Russia to integrate with Europe
sooner, it is necessary to do something about its foreign debt
bondage. Perhaps it is high time to create some sort of Marshall Plan
for Moscow?
McFaul: I will leak some more information: yes, it is being said
in Washington that your foreign debt should be transformed into some
sort of project aimed at supporting a market economy, freedom of
speech, democracy, and elimination of nuclear weapons.
(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova)
*******
#3
Washington Post
February 25, 2002
A Flinch on Chechnya
By Fred Hiatt
President Bush speaks truth to evil: He would have us take that as a
defining principle of his foreign policy. During his recent visit to Asia,
he assured South Koreans that he didn't want to make war on the North, but
neither would he sugarcoat his views of the missile-exporting Communists of
Pyongyang.
To the missile-exporting Communists of Beijing, Bush was rather more
polite. Still, while in China he spoke up forthrightly in defense of
democracy and religious freedom.
So you might expect his administration also to want to speak truth to
Russia, which is waging a war of increasing cruelty and criminality against
a beleaguered ethnic minority in the breakaway province of Chechnya. But
the signals on that one are mixed.
Last month, so as not to offend Russian President Vladimir Putin, the
administration ordered U.S. diplomats to slip out of their State Department
offices and into a deserted George Washington University classroom before
they could meet with a representative of the Chechens' elected government.
Now the administration is trying to block Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
from inaugurating broadcasts to Chechnya and the surrounding North Caucasus
region, broadcasts that would include a daily 15-minute news digest in the
Chechen language. The broadcasts, which Congress requested last year, are
supposed to begin Thursday.
Much of the world has come to understand, thanks to the Winter Olympics,
how delicate and easily offended the Kremlin can be. Putin's spokesman took
as a grave insult last week a letter from the head of the Olympics
addressed to A. Putin instead of V. Putin. "Mr. Rogge should know that our
president's name is not Antoine," the spokesman sniffed.
But the issue underlying the radio controversy is more serious than ice
hockey or figure skating. The same Kremlin spokesman lately has threatened
Radio Liberty's license to operate in Moscow because of the planned Chechen
broadcasts. You would think that an
administration-that-speaks-truth-to-evil would stand up to such threats.
Instead, it is pressing Congress and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to
back down.
The concern, deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage wrote in a December
letter, is that such broadcasts would create a perception in Moscow "that
we have shifted our support to one side" of the conflict. His letter, not
publicly released, was addressed to the head of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, the autonomous federal agency that sets policy for U.S.
international broadcasting. It concludes with this handwritten message: "As
long as the Russians and Chechens are talking, we need to keep our powder
dry."
That remains administration policy, a State Department official confirmed
Friday. Which is strange, because the Russians and Chechens aren't talking.
The two sides held one brief airport meeting last November. There have been
no talks since.
Instead, in the past two months Russian forces have accelerated their
"sweeps" through Chechen villages and the looting, arbitrary detentions,
torture, executions and disappearances associated with those sweeps.
"Before your very eyes, the situation is worsening," says Oleg Orlov, one
of the courageous leaders of the Russian human rights organization Memorial.
Memorial has documented in sickening detail the Russian method of
operation, as, in different ways, have Human Rights Watch, Physicians for
Human Rights and Doctors Without Borders. Russian troops surround a village
or small town and force all its inhabitants into an open field, where they
are required to stay, sometimes for a day or two. Many of the men and some
women are badly beaten. Many men are taken away -- in some cases, to be
ransomed for cash; in others, never to return. Russian troops drive trucks
up to each house and carry off anything of value -- rugs, radios, shampoo.
Then they destroy what they cannot carry, smashing mirrors, shooting sheep,
setting fire to haystacks.
Orlov said during a recent visit to Washington that he witnessed one such
roundup earlier this month in Starie Atagi. "I don't want to say that
people don't hide [Chechen] fighters -- some villagers probably do," Orlov
said. "But the Russian tactics have a counterproductive effect. I could see
and I could feel the hatred people feel now toward the Russian forces."
Last year the U.N. Human Rights Commission voted to send fact-finders to
Chechnya. Putin has not let them in. Last fall, after Putin said he would
investigate any reported abuses, Memorial delivered to him a list of 141
"disappearance" cases. Some, like the first man on the list, Adlan
Abdurzakov, were taken away by Russian troops and subsequently found in
shallow unmarked graves. Others, like the last man on the list, Ionus
Zubayrayev, are still missing. The Russian government has not responded to
Memorial's request for information.
When Memorial holds news conferences in Moscow to release its findings,
some newspapers publish reports. But no television or radio station any
longer dares to cover such news, Orlov says. Such is the success of Putin's
campaign to acquire or intimidate Russia's broadcast media.
All the more reason, you might think, that the people of Russia could
profit from the unbiased and unbowed reporting of Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty. All the odder that an administration that prides itself on
truth-telling wouldn't think so too.
*******
#4
NATO: New Russian Relationship Won't Give Veto To Moscow
February 25, 2002
BRUSSELS (AP)--NATO insisted Monday that its ongoing plans to develop a new
closer relationship with Russia won't give Moscow a veto over alliance
decisions or change its core role as a defensive military pact.
"There will be no veto for Russia," said NATO spokesman Yves Brodeur.
He dismissed as "misleading" media reports that Russia would be offered
equal status on NATO's decision-making North Atlantic Council.
"Russia will not sit on the NAC," Brodeur stressed.
He also said the new bonds with Russia wouldn't affect NATO's key mutual
defense guarantee, which states that an armed attack on one member nation
is considered an attack on all.
That clause in NATO's 1949 founding treaty was evoked for the first time in
October by the U.S. following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Grateful for President Vladimir Putin's unprecedented co-operation in the
anti-terrorism campaign post-Sept. 11, NATO nations agreed in December to
build stronger ties with Russia.
Since then, NATO and Russian officials have been fleshing out details of
the new relationship, which should see Russian officials sitting on some
policy-setting bodies and working much closer with NATO on issues such as
counterterrorism; tackling the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons; and peacekeeping.
The new arrangements are supposed to be in place by May, when NATO foreign
ministers meet in Reykjavik, Iceland.
*******
#5
US Certifies Theft Of Russian Nuclear Material Has Occurred
by Maxim Kniazkov
Washington (AFP) Feb 23, 2002
An undetermined amount of weapons-grade nuclear material has been stolen in
post-Communist Russia, heightening concerns that some of it could have
ended up in the wrong hands, the US intelligence community has concluded.
The announcement comes amid warnings by top US officials that Osama bin
Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network have been making a concerted
effort to obtain the know-how and materials to manufacture a crude nuclear
or radiological device.
"We also believe that bin Laden was seeking to acquire or develop a nuclear
device," Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told Congress
earlier this month. "Al-Qaeda may be pursuing a radioactive dispersal
device -- what some call a 'dirty bomb.'"
In his testimony, the CIA director refrained from disclosing where al-Qaeda
operatives could be shopping for such technology.
But the National Intelligence Council, in its annual report to Congress,
made public late Friday, gave a strong warning that despite foreign
assistance and its own efforts to heighten security, Russia still
represents a serious nuclear proliferation risk.
"Weapons-grade and weapons-usable nuclear materials have been stolen from
some Russian institutes," said the council, the collective analytical think
tank for the 13 agencies that make up the US intelligence community.
"We assess that undetected smuggling has occurred, although we do not know
the extent or magnitude of such thefts," the report said. "Nevertheless, we
are concerned about the total amount of material that could have been
diverted over the last 10 years."
A total of 23 attempts to steal fissile materials, which can be found in
Russia in more than 300 buildings at over 40 locations across the country,
were uncovered and thwarted by Russian authorities between 1991 and 1999,
according to the document.
The problem remains how many smugglers made off with particles of plutonium
or enriched uranium -- a hot commodity on the black market -- without being
detected.
"Russian facilities housing nuclear materials typically receive low
funding, lack trained security personnel, and do not have sufficient
equipment for securely storing nuclear materials," the council said.
The documented cases of nuclear theft in Russia include the disappearance
of 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) of 90-percent-enriched weapons-grade uranium
from the Luch Production Association in 1992.
In 1994, according to the council, three kilograms (6.6 pounds) of
weapons-grade uranium were stolen in Moscow.
Four years later, there was a hair-raising incident at an unnamed nuclear
facility in the Chelyabinsk region, in the Ural Mountains, where according
to Viktor Yerastov, a top official at the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry,
the amount stolen was "quite sufficient ... to produce an atomic bomb."
While admitting that US intelligence could not independently confirm the
theft, the National Intelligence Council said the Chelyabinsk case was "of
concern."
Four grams (0.14 ounces) of weapons-usable enriched uranium that "likely
originated in Russia" was seized in Bulgaria.
Even sites storing nuclear weapons, which are surrounded by layers of
security, cannot be seen as problem-free because of drug and discipline
problems among the servicemen, and their low pay, the report said.
In May 2000, two students at a training center that prepares guards for
nuclear weapons facilities were expelled because they had failed their drug
tests.
That same month, the Russian Defense Ministry started using officers
instead of enlisted men for guard duty while transporting nuclear warheads
because of seven incidents in just one month when sentries had left their
posts.
*******
#6
Putin welcomes "mature" decision to stay in Olympics
MOSCOW. Feb 25 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that
the decision of the Russian team to bring competing in the Salt Lake City
winter Olympics was mature.
In a message to the athletes he thanked all of them who did not yield to
their moods, an official in his press service told Interfax late on Sunday.
Putin wholeheartedly congratulated everybody who not only scored their
personal successes but also "made an invaluable contribution to the
sporting glory of this country."
"These Olympic Games have again confirmed that sport chooses, the
courageous, bold and strong-willed. It sides with those who are not only
strong but can also master their feelings, who are not only of hard working
but also self-restraining. In the harsh conditions of the past Olympics
this was of special importance for you," he said in his message.
Putin was confident that sporting skills and courage of Russian athletes
will have Russian flags hoisted in international contests on numerous
occasions yet. "The controversial lessons of the Salt Lake City Olympics"
will only harden the athletes in scoring new triumphs, his message says.
*******
#7
Moscow Times
February 25, 2002
Olympic Drums Beat to Cold War Tune
By Kevin O'Flynn
Staff Writer
Russia plunged the Olympic movement into its worst crisis since the Cold
War over the weekend, with rhetoric spewing forth from every corner of
society damning the perceived bias against Russian athletes at the Salt
Lake City Games.
Using epithets such as evil, lawlessness and robbery, a bitter nation
vented its anger at officials of the 19th Winter Olympics, which President
Vladimir Putin characterized as "a flop" and the Orthodox Church called
unfair.
Protests were held outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow over the weekend, and
jokes have already appeared on popular Internet sites like Anekdot.ru.
Already seething over the International Olympic Committee's decision in the
first week of the Games to award -- after an intense populist media
campaign across North America -- a second gold medal in pairs figure
skating to a Canadian duo that was beaten by Anton Sikharulidze and Yelena
Berezhnaya, the storm broke for real when Russia's women's cross-country
team was forced to withdraw from the 4 x 5 kilometer relay race Thursday.
Just 15 minutes before start time, officials banned nine-time medalist
Larisa Lazutina and another team member for having too much hemoglobin in
their blood, leaving the heavily favored team no time to find replacements.
Prompted by that move and a number of other controversial decisions, the
State Duma passed a resolution Friday unanimously accusing the IOC of bias
and urging a boycott of Sunday night's closing ceremony.
"Send the president's plane to pick up our Olympic team and fly them
home,'' Liberal Democrat Alexei Mitrofanov told lawmakers.
"Our team is absolutely clean. It is simply lawlessness," a visibly furious
Russian Olympic chief Leonid Tyagachyov told Russian television after the
cross-country team was disqualified. "If this chaos continues, then we will
have to look at the question of alternative games."
Russian officials then prompted the worst Olympic crisis since the boycotts
of the 1980s by threatening in an impromptu press conference not only to
walk out of this year's Games, but also the Summer Games in Athens in 2004
unless measures were taken within 24 hours.
Tyagachyov called the awarding of an extra gold medal to the Canadian pair
Jamie Sale and David Pelletier "practically unprecedented." He said: "We
went along with the decision and tried to look at it objectively. ... But
we have only so much patience."
Russian officials also protested the judging of the women's freestyle
skiing competition, in which Olga Koroleva finished fourth despite leading
after the first of two rounds. Some Russian newspapers also criticized the
awarding of the ice dancing gold to a French couple over the Russian pair
of Ilya Averbukh and Irina Lobacheva.
Tyagachyov said an unfair number of Russian athletes were singled out for
drug tests, including cross-country skier Pavel Rostovtsev who, according
to Russian television, had three rather than the usual two blood samples
taken only minutes before the start of a race.
And the men's hockey team, officials said, was unfairly penalized in its
1-0 quarterfinal win against the Czech Republic, as well as in its
heartbreaking 3-2 semifinal loss to the United States on Friday.
"This is my 20th Olympics, but I've never seen such terrible refereeing,"
said Vitaly Smirnov, vice president of the International Olympic Committee
and former president of the Russian Olympic Committee. "It was evil. The
referees did all they could to put us down."
Russian coach Vyacheslav Fetisov accused the referee of favoring the U.S.
team and denying Russia an equalizer in the third period.
"[Canadian National Hockey League referee Bill McCreary] just killed us,"
Fetisov said. "[The referees] live here, they work here, they get paid by
the NHL, therefore it's only natural that in crucial situations they will
not make any calls against the U.S. or Canada," he said. "It was designed
to be a U.S.-Canada final, and now they have it."
Only a few hours after the news conference threatening the boycott, figure
skating star Irina Slutskaya was upset by 16-year-old American newcomer
Sarah Hughes, giving Russia another reason to complain. After favorite
Michelle Kwan stumbled, Slutskaya looked certain for gold, but Hughes
outscored a nervous Slutskaya, who looked incredulous at her low marks.
"Those bastards. Idiots," said Slutskaya just after seeing the marks the
judges gave her. "Are they blind," she said, Gazeta.ru reported.
Russia protested the decision, saying Slutskaya should be awarded a gold as
in the pairs, but the protest was rejected.
Back home in Moscow, the events were too much for Putin to ignore.
"North American athletes receive a clear advantage," Putin told reporters,
directing the charge at new IOC President Jaques Rogge.
Rogge responded to Russia's complaints with a letter to Putin, but
compounded the problem by addressing the letter to A. Putin rather than V.
Putin, drawing even more fire.
"Before addressing a head of state, it wouldn't hurt to learn that he is
not Antoine nor Andre but Vladimir," said Putin spokesman Sergei
Yastrzhembsky, who was among dozens of notable figures to condemn the Games
on Russian television stations, which spent hours discussing the perceived
injustices.
"It's a continuation of the Cold War," said film director Nikita Mikhalkov.
Even major corporations jumped into the fray.
Russian Aluminum, one of the sponsors of the Olympic team, issued a press
release Friday saying that the "organizers of the Olympics have declared
war on our athletes." The metals giant said that it would hire "top
lawyers" to protect Russian athletes from the "machinations" that have
stripped them of victory.
In North America, Russia's complaints were mainly seen as sour grapes and a
return to Cold War antics. Other countries, especially those that also had
grievances against the judging -- such as South Korea, whose skater Kim
Dong-sung had been disqualified in favor of American Apolo Anton Ohno --
were more sympathetic.
Many non-Russian observers were critical of the IOC's decision to award a
second gold in pairs figure skating, and there was some sympathy for the
cross-country team.
But in the end, cooler heads in the Russian delegation prevailed.
"We will stay at the Games," Gennady Shvets, a spokesman for the Russian
team, said late Friday, describing the threat to withdraw as "emotional."
"Everybody understood we had to stay."
Putin praised Russian athletes on Sunday for remaining despite "complicated
conditions" in Salt Lake City.
In a message released by the Kremlin, Putin made no direct reference to
complaints by Russian officials that their athletes had been victims of
biased judging. But he said athletes had proved that "hard work and
endurance" were required qualities.
"I know that in the difficult conditions of these Games, those qualities
took on a special meaning," the message said.
"And I thank all those who did not give way to emotions in a difficult
atmosphere at these Games. The decision taken by our team to cover the
extremely difficult Olympic distance to its conclusion was a wise one."
*******
#8
Vek
No. 8
February 22, 2002
GOLD OF THE PARTIES
Why is the state funding political parties?
Author: Larisa Ukho
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THE LAW ON POLITICAL PARTIES PASSED LAST YEAR STIPULATES STATE
FUNDING FOR POLITICAL PARTIES. NOT ALL PARTIES WILL RECEIVE MONEY FROM
THE STATE, ONLY THOSE THAT GATHER NO LESS THAN 3% OF VOTES AT THE
PRESIDENTIAL OR PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. ALL REGISTERED POLITICAL
PARTIES MUST REPORT ON THEIR FINANCES.
During perestroika Russians used to joke: Do we need a multi-
party system? No, we can't afford to feed so many parties.
Now we will have to feed them all, or give them at least
something. The law on political parties passed last year stipulates
state funding for political parties. From 2004, no less than 0.002% of
minimum remuneration of labor multiplied by the number of voters. At
present, this would total 21, 500 million rubles. However, not all
political parties will receive money from the state, but only those
that gather no less than 3% of votes at the presidential or
parliamentary elections. At the same time all registered political
parties are obliged to report on their revenues and expenses. Chair of
the Central Election Commission Alexander Veshnyakov thinks the law
that determined the state funding order is rather fair, "Funding
political parties will no longer depend on officials: the sum of money
the party receives from the state will depend on the number of voters
who support the party. No one will be able to change anything. The Tax
and Fees Ministry will control financial activities of political
parties. However, I believe the most efficient control is public
control, and from now on the names of firms-benefactors as well as
names of people who support the party financially will be announced to
the public. The voters will be able to judge how disciplined a party
is and if its benefactors are good enough people.
According to a consultant of the Duma committee for public
formations and religious organizations Vladimir Lepekhin, before the
state controlled financial-economic activity of political parties only
during elections.
In accordance with the new law, a party has the right to have
only one party banking account, all receipts and spending is
controlled. The law eliminates additional illegal accounts, and this
allows stimulating the legal financial activity. Before the law was
passed, it was possible to have as many accounts as possible, to
establish enterprises under political parties and to transfer the
money from regions to the center and vice-versa. Of course, there are
arguable items in the new law. For instance, if a political party
receives a donation in form of real estate, it has the right to sell
this property and to have a considerable proceed from the sale.
However, at present there is hope that any Russian who has a look
at the Internet site of the Justice Ministry will be able to find out
the amount of the proceeds. Besides, the site should also point at all
non-state sources of party funding. The amounts of donations are also
limited by the state: legal entities are allowed to deposit on the
party banking account no more than 100 million rubles a year;
individuals - no more than 1 million rubles.
Right parties that are against state funding believe that it is
possible to live on such donations. They publicly rejected state money
in advance. On the other hand, leader of the Liberal -Democratic Party
of Russia (LDPR) Vladimir Zhirinovsky thinks that parties must
obligatory take money from the state, but the sums of money should be
much bigger. According to Zhirinovsky, "The state should be interested
in aiding political parties. Naturally, if a deputy is pushed to the
political life whirlpool without money, eventually, someone will try
to win such a deputy over to his side. We must not be afraid to
allocate to the parties at least 40% of their maintenance, otherwise
someone from below will give much more money and this money will be
dirty. Maximal funding will enable us to reduce or eliminate bribery
and blackmail. Some parties have already rejected state money; they
say they do not want to spend the money of taxpayers, while at present
they receive millions of dollars. Whose money is this? Isn't it the
same tax-payers' money?"
It is very hard to argue with Zhirinovsky on this point. If
something appeared somewhere, it means something disappeared in some
other place - in any case the other place is a taxpayers' wallet.
(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova)
*******
#9
Russia Says Chechen Rebels Plan an Autonomous Region in Georgia
By Paul Tighe
Grozny, Russia, Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Rebels from the Russian republic of
Chechnya plan to declare an autonomous region in Georgia, Interfax and
China's Xinhua news agency cited the Russian law enforcement agency in
Chechnya as saying.
Saikhan Khamzatov, an aide of Chechen warlord, Khattab, told security
forces after his capture this month the autonomous district will be
declared in the village of Dunisi in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge region,
Interfax cited an unidentified official with the law enforcement agency as
saying. Khamzatov didn't say when the declaration will be made.
Warlords from Chechnya are seizing and controlling areas of Georgia, the
official said on Sunday.
Rebels in Chechnya, which borders Georgia, are fighting Russian troops to
create an Islamic republic. Russia says many are linked to the al-Qaeda
terrorist network and some are among an estimated 7,000 Chechen refugees
now living in the Pankisi Gorge.
Demands for a Chechen autonomous district are being voiced at rallies of
Chechen refugees organized by the rebels and financed by the Muslim
Brothers, an Islamic extremist organization, the official told Xinhua.
The Muslim Brothers and al-Qaeda, the organization led by Osama bin Laden,
which is blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S., are setting up bases
in Georgia, he said.
Chechen rebels in January opened what they say is a human rights office in
Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, which borders Russia and Georgia. The
office is being used to transfer funds and send mercenaries to help the
rebels, the Russian official said.
Georgia said last week it will accept help from other countries, including
Russia and the U.S., to combat foreign terrorists on its territory. It
rejected staging an international operation against extremists in Pankisi
Gorge and said, for the moment, it will use its own police force to combat
crime there, Interfax cited Zurab Abashidze, Georgia's ambassador in
Moscow, as saying.
*******
#10
New York Times
February 25, 2002
History Course Ignites a Volatile Tug of War in Moldova
By MICHAEL WINES
CHISINAU, Moldova, Feb. 21 — To most outsiders, it may seem that requiring
college students here to take a course called "History of Moldova" does not
merit toppling the government. Certainly the Moldovan government does not
think so.
"Many of us are inclined to believe that if there is a state, then it
should have a history," Yurii Stoycov, the chairman of the Moldovan
Parliament's national security committee, said in an interview today.
Then again, even insiders have been stunned to discover just how explosive
the subject can be.
Almost daily for six weeks, thousands of protesters have jammed Chisinau's
broad central square and spilled into the streets, this week even ringing
the nearby Parliament building. Spurred at first by a government edict
replacing a Romanian history course with one centered on Moldova, the
demonstrators now demand that Parliament resign and make way for new
elections.
That lays bare the real issue in the largest protests since Moldova left
the Soviet Union in 1991: not whether this tiny nation of 4.3 million has a
history, but who will get to write it.
On one side is Moldova's solidly Communist government, swept into power by
voters a year ago after a decade of wild capitalism left the country broke,
corrupt and riven by civil war. They ran on a platform, since shelved, of
forming a political union with Russia and Communist Belarus. Some here see
the new history course as an effort to recast Moldova's past in a rosy
pro-Soviet light, and ignore its Romanian roots.
The students are even more solidly pro-European. To them, any hint that
Moldova is not joined at the hip to the West is not just heresy, but a
threat to a better life.
"After World War II, Stalin deported Moldovans to Siberia; my grandfather
died there; my mother was born there," Igor Cojocaru, 28, who is finishing
a second degree at Moldova State University, said as he stood with
protesters on Chisinau's wind- whipped central square. "The younger
generation chooses Europe, not Siberia."
In more than a few ways, this struggle is a case of history repeating
itself, again and again. Little Moldova, barely bigger than Maryland, is
ethnically two-thirds Romanian and only one-eighth Russian.
But its geographic id is at best unsettled: aside from a brief marriage
with Romania early in the 20th century, it spent most of the last 200 years
under Russian rule, often unhappily.
Moldova's first break from the Soviet Union began with a 1980's surge of
nationalism among ethnic Romanians. Once in power, they declared Romanian
the state language, banned the Cyrillic alphabet and moved to wipe out a
host of Soviet legacies, even switching clocks from Moscow to Bucharest time.
A Romanian nationalist, Yuri Rosca, led a movement then to meld Moldova
into Romania, a cause some critics say helped unleash a civil war in 1992.
Now 40, charismatic and unmistakably ambitious, he is leading the student
protests — and channeling their energy into a campaign to unseat the
Communists.
The Communists are led by President Vladimir Voronin, a onetime baker who
rose to become the chief of the Moldovan police and the KGB in the Soviet
Union's dying years.
He has a reputation as a political moderate, though. He has tried to manage
the student protests shrewdly, avoiding violent confrontations. But his
government has blundered from threats to concessions and back with little
effect.
The protests began in January after officials ordered mandatory
Russian-language training beginning in grade two. That was a more rigorous
curriculum than existed even in Soviet times, when the aim was to wipe out
Moldova's Romanian heritage.
Moldova's schools are a bastion of pro-Romanian and anti-Russian
nationalism that has faded among average Moldovans. Russian, like Romanian,
is an almost universal language, and among some ethnic minorities who do
not speak Romanian, it is a necessity.
Faced with a fierce backlash — students all but shut down Chisinau's high
schools and universities, with teachers' tacit support — the government
nevertheless elected this month to replace a Romanian history course with a
new one on Moldova, guaranteeing that the protests would only grow.
[Communist officials said on Friday that they would postpone the language
and history courses until experts could choose new textbooks, a clear
attempt to defuse the protests. But on Sunday, more than 40,000
demonstrators filled downtown Chisinau, and Mr. Voronin resorted to angry
charges that Mr. Rosca was engaging in "political terrorism" and exploiting
children for his own aims.]
"They've been completely hamfisted — and just dumb," said Charles R. King,
an author on Moldovan politics and culture and a professor at Georgetown
University in Washington. "They could have done what they wanted much more
subtly."
Subtlety, however, has not been the government's long suit. While claiming
a democratic mandate, Mr. Voronin's government has estranged Moldova's
Western political and financial advisers by junking a plan for direct
election of local officials in favor of Soviet-style appointments, and
creating a judicial system some experts say is politically packed.
Foreign investors complain of increased government harassment, though
whether because of corruption or state hostility is less clear, and about
25 companies have been nationalized. The government's non- Communist
economic and finance ministers have quit, and the International Monetary
Fund and World Bank have called a halt to lending programs that many call
crucial to the economy.
Moreover, the government first reacted to Mr. Rosca's leadership of the
student protests by seeking to suspend his Christian Democratic People's
Party. Only after an outcry from European human-rights critics was the
suspension revoked.
Through Russian ownership of Moldovan companies, Russian dominance of the
media and the dominance of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow's influence
here is steadily increasing. "This is a little banana republic of the
Russian Federation," Mr. Rosca said.
Yet his own movement is accused even by moderates of overreaching in its
quest for power. Its demand that the Parliament resign and make way for new
elections has scant constitutional precedent. As for popular support, Mr.
Rosca and his party hold but 11 parliamentary seats out of 101. The
Communists hold 71.
Despite the outpouring of protesters, experts say, it is unlikely that the
mostly urban student movement will succeed in dislodging the Communists
without support from Moldova's destitute countryside. But most villagers
are too busy with survival to embrace a cause as abstract as language or
history.
Indeed, it is not clear that Moldovans, Europe's poorest people, care
greatly for either side in this fight.
"The main part of the adult population is not in the square," Grigory
Susarenko, until 1999 the deputy chairman of Moldova's constitutional
court, said in an interview. "But they don't support the government,
either. Not even the police do."
Moldova at a Glance
CAPITAL: Chisinau
AREA: 13,012 sq. miles
(U.S.: 3,717,796 sq. miles.)
POPULATION: 4.43 million
G.D.P. PER CAPITA: $2,500
RELIGIONS: Eastern Orthodox, 98.5% Jewish, 1.5%
*******
#11
From: "Scott Sonders"
Subject: Re: 6097 "Our Best Interests in Estonia"
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002
Is Estonia Interested in Our Best Interests?
by: Scott Alexander Sonders, Ph.D. (former Visiting Professor of Media
Studies in Tallinn)
"Re: #6097 - The Russia Journal: Ira Straus, Wisdom or temptation in
Central Asia?"
The terms "we, our" and "us" are often used when speaking about "the best
interests" of the United States. I too use these terms -- but warily.
Speaking in the plural for the singular is a bit grandiose. It implies
author-ity on what constitutes "we" as Americans. It doesn't distinguish
between the people and the government of these United States -- which some
have argued is not the Abe Lincoln ideal of "for, by and of the people."
But in the instance of Ira Straus, however, I applaud his perspicacity in
speaking for what is good for America (in Central Asia). And I offer here
what I hope sounds parallel as to whether or not Estonia (also) is
interested in our best interests.
As your own "Russia List" has well reported, there is far more support for
Estonia's entry into NATO than for that of Russia's. This is a mistake. It
springs from more than 50 years of ardent Russophobia in America coupled
with the often dangerously absurd notion that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend." As Straus suggests, acting on these passe notions might prove
disastrous for us. Estonia is no different from Uzbekistan in that they are
using "United States' influence... (only) to push away Russian influence."
Let's talk more about the "difference between Democracy and Freedom." It is
a little known fact that, outside of the United States, citizenship is not
automatically granted to those born on the soil of a country. Recently
enough, I was the Visiting Professor of Media Studies at Concordia
University in Tallinn, Estonia. Since 1991, the Estonian government has
instituted a two-tiered class system. As punishment for perceived crimes
against its "true citizens," Estonians of Russian descent must leap through
often insurmountable hurdles to gain official status as citzens in the
country of their birth. In America we take it for granted that an
individual can speak primarily Spanish or Chinese and still have a driver's
license, Social Security -- and even citizenship so long as he/she was born
on American soil (or for that matter, anywhere in the world if even one
parent was born here!). Not so in most other nations including Estonia.
Many of my students were born in Tallinn and were hard working, upstanding
individuals. But they were denied jobs, paid lower wages, heavily
restricted in their right to vote, and given limitted access to medical,
housing and schooling programs because they were not recognized as
"Estonian." They were non-citizens. And if they didn't like it, they surely
couldn't travel one step outside of that nation's borders without a
passport which is only granted to citizens? There's more. The police have a
two-tiered system of law enforcement and a foreigner might be at risk if
driving a Russian-made vehicle. But further elaboration might only serve to
distract from the issue herein.
I was astonished to discover that many Estonians are resentful of America.
After all, aren't we giving them NATO priority? Doesn't the World Bank fund
most of their internal projects with generous privatization loans (helping
the already advantaged become even more advantaged) and at zero if not
ultra-discounted interest rates? These are just some of the few benefits
the ("real") Estonians have garnered simply by being "the enemy of our
enemy." But are they democratic? Mostly. But barely more than Russia, at
this point. But are they free? Don't ask the huge minority of Estonian
residents who had the bad luck to be born of Russian ancestry. Is there an
iota of media coverage in Europe or America directed to this civil rights
crisis in Estonia? Well, did you know about it before reading these words?
Is there any cry of outrage heard like there is accorded to the
so-perceived Chechynian plight? None. Is Estonia trying to model itself
after, say, Finland, it's nearest Western and democratic neighbor and the
only country besides Hungary to share a common language stock? No. Actually
German soap operas and macho (read: anti-female) crime dramas dominate
their airwaves -- as do German cars their roads.
Estonians are very modern. The most common complaint of wives in divorce
proceedings is that their husbands spend too much time looking at the
Internet ("Porno" is never spoken about). And they are indeed the utmost
Western of all former Soviet republics. Western materialism is rampant.
There are supermarkets in Tallinn that shame many of the ones in my own
hometown of Los Angeles. And even the Humanities programs have taken a very
backseat to the Business departments in their universities. Isn't this
Capitalism proven good and Communism proven evil. Isn't that what "we" want?
Answers, however mundane, are often elusive. Just as all governments can
not exist without an enemy, Estonians have been taught to resent America
because "we did not resue them from Russia after WW2! After all, hasn't the
USA pervasively demonstrated that we will support every "victim" of our
enemies -- no matter the cost to our own civilians? The answer is, as
Straus points out in his Wisdom or Temptation in Central Asia, "the truth
is that we don't have the foggiest notion of how to promote democracy (or)
human rights... We haven't been able to do it in Saudi Arabia, where we
have spent half a century and endless sums of money (or)... in Egypt
(after) three decades" -- and one might add, in Israel where we've been
more than generous with avowed terrorist like Al Fatah and Yasser Arafat.
As Straus says, we've always been "soft on... dictators."
So, in answer to the Estonians and all the various "-stans," let's be
blunt. Russia has a much larger population than any of you. They produce
the still precious oil that can be used as a bargaining chip with the
non-democratic and OPEC Middle Eastern states. Russia has a thousand years
of civilization that, at least, mimics our own cultural paradigms. They are
geographically huge and can be extraordinarily advantageous to America's
military strategies. When I first visited Russia in 1989, I naively asked
many of its citizenry if they were "communists." They answered similarly,
unanimously and incredulously, "Are you joking? What idiotka have you been
listening to?" As Straus points out, it has always been "Russian TV (that's
been) the window of European pluralism." In sum, it is Russia, that can be
most pragmatically used for "our own best interests."
Estonia is not alone. As Straus said, "Whatever we do, it won't be very
effective...Whatever we do, we'll get blamed." So I will imitate him by
further suggesting that we should do what's good for the American people --
and hope it also turns out to be what's good for whoever we're doing it to
or for. As the man said, "Both sides would get a better bargain this way."
*******
#12
Wall Street Journal
February 25, 2002
The Vatican Gets Tough With Russia
By GERALDINE FAGAN
Ms. Fagan is Moscow correspondent for the Keston Institute, a British
charity that monitors freedom of religion in Russia and the Commonwealth of
Independent States.
Could the Catholic Church and the Moscow Patriarchate be on the brink of a
major rift? Relations, never good in recent years, have taken a sharp turn
for the worse.
The Vatican's decision last week to upgrade its four "apostolic
administrations" in Russia to fully-fledged dioceses seems innocuous
enough. The leader of Russia's Catholics, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz,
explained that the move simply signified the "normalization" of his
church's structures in the country, "and nothing more."
The Russian Orthodox Church, however, was outraged. The Moscow
Patriarchate's second most powerful clergyman, Metropolitan Kirill of
Smolensk and Kaliningrad, immediately protested that the plans indicated
Vatican intentions "to preach to our people: to convert them to the
Catholic faith." The Russian Orthodox Church would probably soon break off
all relations with the Holy See, he warned. Sure enough, by Wednesday the
Moscow Patriarchate had canceled a long-planned visit to Moscow by a senior
Catholic cardinal.
Already feeling humiliated when the pope visited Ukraine last year against
its publicly declared wishes, the Moscow Patriarchate's response to the
Vatican's latest move is a desperate attempt to reassert its authority. It
is also a reaction largely driven by the virulently anti-Catholic views of
the mainstay of Russian Orthodox believers, who, believe it or not, are
still smarting over the sacking of Orthodox Constantinople by crusaders
wielding the papal banner -- in 1204. As recently as the 17th century, they
will remind you, Vatican missionaries attempted to poach Orthodox
Christians in Eastern Europe via the "unia" of Eastern-rite Catholicism,
which allowed priests to retain their wives and Byzantine rite services as
long as they bowed to papal authority.
Ancient Hostilities
When in 1991 the Catholic Church re-established its structures on Russian
soil following their decimation under Soviet rule without informing the
Moscow Patriarchate, these ancient hostilities were reignited. Rushing to
repel the new Catholic "invasion," the Russian Orthodox Church began to
argue that a vast expanse roughly corresponding to the former Soviet Union
was its "canonical territory." According to the ancient canons of the
Christian Church, it maintained, there could only be one diocese and one
bishop linked to a fixed geographical area -- in this case, Russian
Orthodox. For the Vatican to install Catholic bishops in Moscow, Saratov,
Irkutsk and Novosibirsk this week is thus seen as brazen impertinence.
The Moscow Patriarchate's double standards here are blatant. The Russian
Orthodox Church maintains its own posts of Bishop of Berlin and Germany and
Bishop of Vienna and Austria -- dioceses that, according to its own logic,
belong to the canonical territory of the pope of Rome.
And yet despite that, the Catholic Church has pursued a policy of extreme
caution toward the Moscow Patriarchate over the past decade. For 10 years
it responded with lukewarm rebuffs whenever the Russian Orthodox Church
trotted out vague accusations of proselytism. For 10 years it has hesitated
to come to the defense of the Eastern-rite Catholics, whom the Moscow
Patriarchate accuses of destroying its three dioceses in westernmost
Ukraine. Indeed, if the Vatican wanted to take a leaf out of the Moscow
Patriarchate's book, it could with justification point to the forcible
turning-over of hundreds of Ukrainian Eastern-rite Catholic churches to the
Moscow Patriarchate in 1946 as the greatest mass act of state-sponsored
proselytism of recent times. But it remains silent.
Since the Vatican clearly does not invoke the wrath of the Russian Orthodox
Church lightly, why has it taken such bold steps this week? Very likely
because it senses that the Kremlin is growing ever more aloof from the
Moscow Patriarchate, and will not join in the counterattack. Throughout the
past decade, the topmost Moscow Patriarchate hierarchs have continued
faithfully to serve Kremlin interests as in the Soviet period. They could
reliably be co-opted to support the government campaign in Chechnya, for
instance, while condemning NATO bombing of Serbia. In return -- as in
centuries past -- the church has been granted certain favors, such as a
discriminatory federal law on religion for which it lobbied extensively in
1997.
But under Mr. Putin this cozy relationship is showing signs of strain. In
September a Kremlin official told me that "our leadership thinks that the
leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church is dishonest and doesn't trust
them." To be sure, the Russian president still graces Orthodox churches
occasionally. But standing on the praesidium at a recent conference in
Moscow's grandiose new Orthodox cathedral, his body language spoke volumes.
Flanked by the patriarch and Metropolitan Kirill, who repeatedly crossed
themselves throughout the opening prayer, the allegedly devout president
did not move a muscle. In his address to the conference, he did not refer
once to the Russian Orthodox Church as an institution, let alone praise it.
Signal of Unity
Since September 11, the Russian administration's Westward tilt has also
made Mr. Putin reach out to the Vatican. In a recent interview with Polish
newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza the Russian president spoke of his "dear hope"
that he would receive a papal visit during his term of office. Late last
year his ambassador to the Holy See, Vitali Litvin, remarked that events of
Sept. 11 had shocked the international community and reminded Russians of
the importance of unity. A papal visit to Russia , he said, "would be an
important signal of such unity." Such talk is anathema to the Moscow
Patriarchate.
It is still just talk, however. If Mr. Putin is really going to insist upon
the constitutional separation of church and state in Russia and stop
pandering to the whims and historical grievances of the Moscow
Patriarchate, he must come out more strongly in support of the Catholic
Church's legal right to carry out its activities in accordance with its own
hierarchical and institutional structure.
A first step would be to grant two of the new bishops the Russian
citizenship that they have persistently been denied by the state
authorities, thus enabling them to take legal responsibility for their
dioceses. The Kremlin must take the lead if the Russian people are ever
genuinely able to choose, change and possess religious convictions in
accordance with their own consciences, and not, as the patriarch said this
week, be predetermined "culturally, spiritually and historically" to be
"the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church."
********
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