Johnson's Russia List
#6105
28 February 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Russia accused of stepping up Chechen abuse.
2. RFE/RL: Ahto Lobjakas, NATO: Allies Await Russian Response To
Cooperation
Proposal.
3. Financial Post (Canada): Anheuser-Busch to start marketing Bud in Russia.
4. pravda.ru: RUSSIA MAY BAN 'BUSH'S LEGS'
5. Stephen Shenfield: re 6102-Shlapentokh.
6. Izvestia: Yelena Korop, Boosting the Russian Economy. The whole world
will
join in the fun.
7. New Carnegie book: Dmitri Trenin, The End of Eurasia: Russia on the
Border
Between Geopolitics and Globalization.
8. London's Al-Sharq al-Awsat: Primakov on Saudi Initiative, Saddam,
Arafat,
Putin, Iran, Other Issues.
9. Izvestiya Interviews Russian Orthodox Patriarch Aleksiy II.
10. the eXile: Mark Ames, Who Tolerates a Dissident? How dangerous is it to
be a dissident in the post-Cold War era?
11. Moscow Times: Lilia Shevtsova, Political Twins on the World Stage.]
******
#1
Russia accused of stepping up Chechen abuse
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Shortly after the U.S. war against
terrorism began, Russia intensified its abuses against Chechen civilians
with torture, arrests and looting, a major human rights group has charged.
"There has been a real spike in the kinds of sweep operations in the autumn
and winter months," said Rachel Denber, the deputy director of the Europe
and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch, introducing a report to be
released on Thursday.
In a typical sweep, Russian troops, after provocations or intelligence
data, block off entire villages in an effort to capture rebels who often
take shelter among civilians.
Even before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, Russia vowed to wipe
out separatist Chechen rebels it said were responsible for terrorist
bombings in Russian cities that claimed some 300 lives in 1999.
But apparently emboldened by the battle against terrorism, Denber said the
sweep operations have grown in their ferocity in response to real or
perceived rebel activity.
"They go in, arbitrarily detain people, beat them, take them off for
torture and loot," she said. "Looting doesn't mean taking a piece of
jewelry but backing a truck up into a house and taking everything that is
valuable."
Despite frequent criticism of Russian actions in Chechnya, human rights
observers say the outcry has taken a back seat since September. Russian
officials contend the attacks on the United States underline the need for
them to continue the Chechen campaign.
Denber, in an interview, updated Thursday's 72-page report on sweeps
between June 15 and July 4 in at least six Chechen villages. Chechens
interviewed accuse Russian troops of arbitrary detentions, killings and
torture.
In Sernovosk, a village in Western Chechnya near the border with
Ingushetia, a remote-controlled mine exploded outside the town, killing
five Russian soldiers on July 1. Eyewitnesses said the sweep resulted in
houses torched but only after trucks pulled up to clear out any valuables.
Two brothers, Bisultan and Muslim Barkaev, said in interviews they were
beaten and tortured with electric shock treatments on numerous occasions
during six days of their detention.
A Human Rights Watch researcher observed that Bisultan had severe bruising
on his back and bruises under both eyes.
They were eventually released after refusing to confess they had planted
the mine. Others arrested were not so lucky, with relatives reporting their
disappearance but unable to obtain a credible explanation as to their fate.
*******
#2
NATO: Allies Await Russian Response To Cooperation Proposal
By Ahto Lobjakas
A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said today the alliance
is waiting for a Russian response to a detailed proposal for closer
cooperation. He categorically rejected recent press reports about a possible
link between cooperation with Russia and NATO enlargement.
Brussels, 27 February 2002 (RFE/RL) -- A NATO source who asked not to be
named says the alliance has put forward a preliminary proposal on how to
develop closer ties with Moscow.
The source says NATO's assistant secretary-general on political affairs,
Guenter Altenburg, is ready to travel to Moscow as soon as Russia indicates
it will negotiate on the proposal. The official says NATO's proposal takes
account of earlier communications on the issue received from Moscow by the
alliance.
The NATO official says the offer follows recommendations made in Brussels
last December by NATO foreign ministers. Acting on a proposal tabled by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, NATO ministers then agreed to look into
setting up a new NATO-Russia council by their next meeting in Reykjavik
(14-15 May).
The NATO source says the current "fleshed-out" proposal "contains all the
elements" needed for a comprehensive agreement satisfying both Russia and the
19 NATO member countries. Acceptance by Russia would mean the two sides could
move on to discussing the finer details of the deal, he added.
The eventual deal is widely assumed to entail the setting up of a new
Russia-NATO council in a so-called "at 20" format. The new body would bring
Russia face-to-face with the 19 individual NATO members, replacing the
current NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council in which Russia is forced to
engage with NATO as a whole.
The NATO source says that the regular Permanent Joint Council meeting
scheduled for this afternoon in Brussels would not discuss the deal, adding
that NATO prefers direct, higher-level contacts. The official said the new
NATO-Russia council would deal with a list of some dozen shared concerns,
many outlined already in December. He said the new forum would remain
completely separate from NATO's decision-making North Atlantic Council. This
means Russia would not acquire a veto over NATO affairs.
The official also categorically denied any links between NATO-Russian
cooperation and enlargement of the alliance. He said, "NATO will proceed with
enlargement regardless of Russia, and will cooperate with Russia regardless
of enlargement." The official added that today NATO had forced the
"International Herald Tribune" newspaper to retract a suggestion made earlier
this week on the front page of the paper that the alliance is working on a
"package deal" tying the two issues together.
******
#3
Financial Post (Canada)
February 27, 2002
Anheuser-Busch to start marketing Bud in Russia
MOSCOW - Brewing group Anheuser-Busch Inc. said yesterday it is to start
selling its flagship Budweiser brand of beer in Russia, one of the world's
fastest growing beer markets. Anheuser-Busch suspended sales of Bud in Russia
in the mid-1990s owing to a long-running legal dispute over the brand with
Czech Republic-based Budejovicky Budvar AS. Anheuser said it will initially
market U.S.-brewed Budweiser in Moscow and St. Petersburg only, in upscale
bars and restaurants with U.S. or international themes, and in select
supermarkets. Its reentry into the Russian market comes a week after
U.K.-based Scottish & Newcastle PLC paid around (ps)1.2-billion for the
Finnish group Hartwall, largely to force the expansion of Hartwall's
50%-owned BBH unit. BBH has a 30% share of the Russian beer market.
*******
#4
pravda.ru
February 27, 2002
RUSSIA MAY BAN 'BUSH'S LEGS'
American chicken legs may soon vanish from the Russian stores. At least, this
is what Agriculture Minister Sergey Dankvert said. Russia can ban the import
of American poultry at any moment, because the USA has not yet responded to
an inquiry about the types of preservatives and antibiotics that are used
when growing and processing American chickens.
Ukraine banned the importation of American poultry in January, so now it is
Russia's turn. As the Russian top official asserted, the USA might be using
antibiotics that were not known in Russia.
American chicken legs, or "Bush's legs," as they are called by Russians, are
a common thing in the Russian grocery stores. Russians call them "Bush's
Legs" to "honor" George W. Bush's father. It cannot be said that these
products are known for their remarkable taste, but the majority of the
Russian people like their inexpensive price, although they all understand
that cheap products, especially if they are of the American origin, are not
likely to be good for your heath. It just happens that, buy buying the cheap
products, Russians support American farmers.
It should be mentioned here that there have been other attempts made to ban
or restrict the import of "Bush's legs" in Russia earlier; the imports were
actually cut to zero after the financial crisis in August of 1998. That was
the time when the Russian producers had an opportunity to expand their
markets. However, as soon as the situation became more or less stable,
American products flooded the Russian market again. In 1999. someone put
forward the idea of increasing the customs duties on the foreign poultry, and
that idea was put into effect in 2000. However, the duties soon dropped the
measure, and the volume of imported poultry shot up again.
However, the idea to ban the importation of American chicken legs is still
'live and kicking. We take into consideration the fact that the Americans
have recently restricted the import of Russian steel. The losses of the
Russian metallurgists could be up $1.5 billion dollars during the next two
years, while the USA exports its poultry to Russia in the sum of $600 million
a year. Therefore, the figures of the possible losses for both Russia and
America are somewhat equal. Thus, the loss of the Russian market will cause
serious damage to American farmers.
The introduction of limitations (or even a total ban) on the import of
American poultry may be only one possibility for Russia to hit back at
American interests. As long as Washington does not wish to work with the
Russian exporters, then it would be a sin not to use such an opportunity,
taking into consideration the fact that many of the poultry farms that
produce the chicken legs, are located in Texas, the state George Bush is so
passionate about
Residents of Russian cities will have to look for something else instead of
American chickens, for something of better quality. If there is not enough
money, then you may become a vegetarian. This is very good for your health.
Oleg Artyukov
PRAVDA.Ru
Translated by Dmitry Sudakov
*******
#5
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
Subject: re 6102-Shlapentokh
From: Stephen Shenfield
I'd like to make a brief reply to Professor Shlapentokh's
response to the reviews of his book "A Normal Totalitarian
Society" by Andrew Savchenko and myself.
Some of Professor Shlapentokh's points are well taken, but
it seems to me that he has misunderstood what Andrew and I
intended as criticism of certain aspects of his argument,
taking it as an outright attack on his main thesis. In fact,
we both agree that there is a great deal of truth in the
"totalitarian" theory. We just prefer a somewhat different
interpretation of the theory, and question whether it
suffices on its own to explain fully the workings of the
Soviet system, especially at those times when the
totalitarian impetus was weakened (as during leadership
transitions).
*******
#6
Izvestia
February 27, 2002
Boosting the Russian Economy
The whole world will join in the fun
By Yelena Korop
(therussianissues.com)
The American Chamber of Commerce and the Russian Union of Industrialists and
Entrepreneurs met Tuesday to discuss one of the most momentous problems
affecting both American investors and Russian entrepreneurs, Russia's
investment climate. Although the conference was optimistically dubbed "Russia
on the Upswing," capitalists still prefer not to come forward with their
money until Russian reforms show their worth.
Following a long slump, last year Russia's GDP and industrial production
achieved the 1993-1994 level. American and Russian investors must have been
satisfied to hear from Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Kudrin that for the first
time in many years domestic demand had stimulated economic growth. The
Finance Ministry has announced in this connection that the economy is now
more geared to the domestic market because it is somewhat less dependent on
world oil prices. The government is faced with a daunting task: in Kudrin's
words, it must find "new factors of steady economic growth," investment being
the main factor.
Russia's investment climate is a top priority now, considering that the
backlog of social and economic problems could only be removed if the economy
showed an annual growth of four to five percent over a period of 20 years.
But, as is seen from 2001 indices, it is demonstrating a downward tendency.
President of the Higher School of Economics Yevgeny Yasin expects this trend
to persist in the coming years. Nothing short of massive investment in
industry could reverse it. Otherwise, growing domestic demand will benefit
Western economies rather than the Russian economy. Unfortunately, there is
nothing the government could do to help industry: the budget has no money to
spare for investment because it is overburdened with social commitments, with
the government having to lay out considerable sums of money as annual
payments for foreign debt. The state has an insignificant reserve at its
disposal (about five billion dollars), but it is unable to spend it in a
rational way. Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Economic Policy Committee
Anatoly Aksakov complains that Duma deputies are totally devoid of strategic
vision, so much so that they appropriate 60 billion rubles for the
construction of a bathhouse in Moscow and only 500,000 rubles for an
enterprise of "federal stature."
The only way out is to attract private investment, but it has so far made
little headway despite significant legislative initiatives by the government
and the Duma. With investment in capital assets showing 8.7% growth in 2001,
foreign investment accounted for less than five percent of the total.
Government officials stress that most of the laws passed last year, such as
the Labor Code, the Land Code and the package of laws on
de-bureaucratization, are only just coming into force and current and
potential investors will feel their beneficial effects only in "the medium
term." In fact, some of the laws impede the influx of capital into industry.
One case in point is the cancellation of the so-called investment privilege,
which allowed businesses not to pay taxes on money spent on production
development. General Director of the United Engineering Plants Kakha
Benukidze is certain the Currency Regulation Law also undermines the
investment climate because foreign investors view the restrictions on
currency operations it imposes as an additional risk factor. The law is also
responsible for the fact that foreign credits cost Russian businessmen two to
three percent more.
*******
#7
From: "Marc Fellman"
Subject: New book release from the Carnegie Endowment
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002
The End of Eurasia: Russia on the Border
Between Geopolitics and Globalization
This work is both the best and the most thought-provoking book on Russian
foreign policy around, written by a Russian who is ahead of his time and the
vast majority of his countrymen."
--Foreign Affairs
"A sober and incisive analysis of post-imperial Russia's only strategic
option: to align itself with an expanded Euro-Atlantic community."
--Zbigniew Brzezinski
About the Book
This thought-provoking book examines contemporary Russian and Eurasian
politics, contemplating the meaning of "Russia" today and its place in the
world. Trenin takes a look at the historical patterns of Russian territorial
state formation, seeks to define the challenges and opportunities that Russia
faces along its geopolitical fronts, and discusses various options for
"fitting" Russia into the wider world. Trenin maintains that the era during
which Eurasia was synonymous with Russia is over.
About the Author
Dmitri Trenin is deputy director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, where he
specializes in foreign and security policy. He retired from the Russian Army
in 1993 after a military career that included participation in the strategic
arms control negotiations in Geneva.
Contents
Foreword by Jessica Mathews
Introduction
Part One: A FAREWELL TO THE EMPIRE
Chapter 1. The Spacial Dimension of Russian History
Chapter 2. The Break-Up of the USSR: A Break in Continuity
Part Two: RUSSIA’S THREE FAÇADES
Chapter 3. The Western Façade
Chapter 4. The Southern Tier
Chapter 5. The Far Eastern Backyard
Part Three: INTEGRATION
Chapter 6. Domestic Boundaries and the Russian Question
Chapter 7. Fitting Russia In
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO PURCHASE THE BOOK VISIT WWW.CEIP.ORG/EURASIA
*******
#8
Primakov on Saudi Initiative, Saddam, Arafat, Putin, Iran, Other Issues
London's Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic
25 February 2002
[translation for personal use only]
Interview with former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeniy Primakov by
Amir Taheri, in Paris; date not given
[Taheri] The Saudis have launched an initiative
aimed at achieving peace with Israel. What are the chances of success of
this initiative?
[Primakov] The initiative is considered a courageous step based on
the land-for-peace principle, which has continued to be the cornerstone
of all major international efforts to end the conflict in the Middle East
region. The initiative exposes the falsity of a key issue in the Israeli
propaganda; namely, the claim that the Arabs aim to erase the Jewish
state from the map. There is no doubt that Russia will support the
initiative. Regarding the question about whether the initiative will
succeed or not, I think it will succeed, but it needs some time. Had this
step been taken before (Ari'el) Sharon's victory in the general
elections, there would have been a different leadership in Israel.
Sharon is not interested in the land-for-peace principle. He is
talking about peace for peace. This means keeping the largest part of the
territories of the Palestinians in exchange for a peace according to his
conditions. Sharon has led Israel to a dead end. Apparently, he cannot
stay in his post as prime minister. Once he is gone, there will be new
prospects for peace. The Saudi initiative indicates that the Arabs are
ready for peace. It is now Israel's turn to be ready for peace.
[Taheri] Does the idea of an international settlement between Israel
and the Arabs mean marginalizing Yasir Arafat?
[Primakov] Not necessarily. In any case, any final settlement should
obtain his acceptance. Any attempt to marginalize or besiege Arafat will
have negative results. He is the only Palestinian leader who is still
capable of convincing his people to take the bitter doses of medicine,
which they need to take in the quest for peace.
[Taheri] How long do we have to wait before the peace process is
resumed?
[Primakov] When we talk about the Middle East, we should not give
exact dates. In that region, years could go by without making a clear
move. On the other hand, enormous changes could take place within days.
More important, the countdown for Sharon's leadership has actually begun
in Israel.
[Taheri] But it seems that Washington is interacting slowly with the
Palestine question.
[Primakov] The Bush administration is making a mistake by downplaying
the urgent need to find a solution to the Palestinian conflict. This
issue is the mother of all forms of tension and conflicts that stir up
the Islamic world against the West. The campaign against Afghanistan has
made headlines for several months, pushing the Palestine question to the
inside pages. But look at what is happening now. The Palestine question
is again making headlines, as it did for half a century.
[Taheri] George W. Bush has branded Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as
the "axis of evil." Does this mean that the United States will launch a
military offensive against these countries?
[Primakov] Certainly, the threat is there. However, I do not think
the United States will take any military action against Iran or North
Korea, because in the case of these two countries, the United States can
find other ways to influence their policies in the direction it wants. If
Iran and North Korea change their conduct in things that are important
for the United States, it would be possible to reach a settlement. But
Iraq's case is completely different, since the Americans have past
problems with Saddam Husayn. Usually, they are not interested in any
change in the regime's conduct, but they are interested in changing the
regime itself.
[Taheri] How do you view the possibility of bringing about a change
[in Iraq]? Will this change be after the pattern of the campaign in
Afghanistan?
[Primakov] I have no idea about what the Americans are planning for,
but I know that Iraq is not Afghanistan. The Americans have succeeded in
Afghanistan for several reasons, including the fact that many countries,
especially Russia and Iran, assisted them to a great extent. This will
not be the case concerning Iraq. Also in Afghanistan, the Northern
Alliance, and not US forces, achieved victory in the ground war. There is
no equivalent of the Northern Alliance in Iraq. As for the Kurds, they
can never be trusted. We have known them over decades.
As for the US-financed Iraqi opposition groups in exile, I do not
know how they can play a role inside Iraq. The Taliban Movement had a
collapsible regime, which had a weak or no capability of organization.
Pakistan was the main source of support for the Taliban Movement. When
Pakistan abandoned it, its end became inevitable. In Iraq, however,
Saddam Husayn has several strong security agencies, which can eliminate
every effective opposition movement inside the country. Also, Arab
countries are not expected to cooperate with the United States on trying
to topple Saddam Husayn. I do not think Kuwait itself will cooperate.
Therefore, a US military attack will trigger a process that could quickly
spin out of control. This could lead to instability in the entire region.
We might end up in a third world war.
[Taheri] Is this not a bit exaggerated?
[Primakov] When the issue has to do with war and peace, exaggerating
is much better than downplaying the magnitude of risks.
[Taheri] Your analysis focuses on the risks of trying to topple
Saddam Husayn. Does this mean that although such an objective is
desirable, it may be difficult to achieve at present?
[Primakov] The Americans have to solve their past problems with
Saddam Husayn. I am pleased with the fact that France and Russia are now
working together on a plan to convince Washington to accept Saddam Husayn
as a reality and include him in the search for a solution to Iraq's
problems. According to my understanding, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and
his French counterpart, Hubert Vedrine, have agreed on several steps in
that direction. The best way is to lift the sanctions on Iraq and allow
it to restore its situation to normal. This will allow the outside world
to be present in Iraq and influence developments directly.
[Taheri] You have not answered my question fully. But let us leave
it. Are you willing to use your old friendship with Saddam Husayn to
strike a new deal between Iraq and the United States?
[Primakov] I do not comment on hypothetical questions. But let me
emphasize one point; that is, those who think that the United States can
export its model of democracy by force to other countries, including
Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, are ignorant of facts.
[Taheri] But there are many cases, in which democracy was imposed by
military force. Germany, Japan, Italy, and Australia are examples of this
from World War II.
[Primakov] That was a specific moment in history and cannot be
considered a general rule. Since then, most countries have embraced the
democratic system as a consequence, which has to do with their own
development, and not because this system was imposed by the United
States.
[Taheri] What is your assessment of the situation in Iran?
[Primakov] I think the official reform movement, led by President
Mohammad Khatami, has exhausted its energy. Once again, the traditional
revolutionary establishment is in control of the situation. But the
reform movement in Iran is broader and deeper than the group surrounding
Khatami and has real roots within Iranian society. Therefore, nobody
should completely rule out the chances of Iran reforming itself in the
context of its establishments, using its own energies.
[Taheri] Let us turn to Russia. How do you evaluate the performance
of President Vladimir Putin to date?
[Primakov] Following the 11 September incidents, President Putin made
an historic decision to join the international campaign against terrorism
and he set up a special relationship with the United States. I think that
was a correct decision, even if it was only for the sake of Russia and
the republics of the former Soviet Union, which were also victims of the
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. However, all this does not mean that
Russia must accept a unipolar world, in which the United States scores
all points.
Concerning domestic politics, Putin has distanced himself from the
so-called oligarchs, who had become strong during the term of President
(Boris) Yeltsin. I think Putin should distance himself more from those
people so as to demonstrate that he is in control of the situation.
Russia's economy is improving. For the first time in decades, it has
started to create new, broad job opportunities. Generally speaking, I
think Russia is on the right track.
[Taheri] Are there dangers that the 11 September incidents will lead
to a clash between civilizations?
[Primakov] The 11 September tragedy has affected humanity as a whole.
It cannot be used as a justification for creating new divisions in the
world between the Christian and Islamic civilizations. The claim that the
Christian civilization is fundamentally superior is a false and extremist
claim, in terms of its danger. All those who really want to fight
terrorism must make every effort to assert that the Muslims are taking
part in that fight [against terrorism].
At any rate, Islamic countries were the first victims of terrorism.
Egypt and Algeria have been fighting terrorists for many years. Libya has
completely severed all its ties with terrorist groups and supported the
US campaign against Afghanistan. As for Iran, it played a cautious yet
important role in overthrowing the Taliban. In brief, like the Western
world, the Islamic world speaks many tongues. All of us live in one world
that faces several threats, which affect all peoples through their
different cultural and political divisions.
[Taheri] The last question: Do you expect to resume your political
activity in the future, for example, as a candidate for the presidency?
[Primakov] This is another hypothetical question. I am 72 now. On the
political level, I think I am active enough through my party. I plan to
spend more time and effort on contemplating and enjoying life. Other than
that, nobody knows.
[Description of Source: London Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic -- Influential
Saudi-owned London daily providing independent coverage of Arab and
international issues; editorials reflect official Saudi views on foreign
policy.]
******
#9
Izvestiya Interviews Russian Orthodox Patriarch Aleksiy II
Izvestiya
26 February 2002
[translation for personal use only]
Report by Valeriy Konovalov and Mikhail Serdyukov featuring interview
with Patriarch Aleksiy II of Moscow and All Russia: "Lofty and Earthly"
Last year Patriarch Aleksiy II of Moscow and All
Russia had the intention of visiting the Izvestiya editorial office as
readers were told the time.
However, as you know, man proposes -- even a man like this -- and God
disposes. And for various reasons the meeting was postponed. But now it
has turned out to be highly opportune, which is once again evidence of
predestination regardless of man, which in everyday parlance sounds like
this: No matter what God does, it is all for the best.
The point is that the newspaper has now approached its 85th
anniversary. And when, if not on the very eve of an anniversary, is it
appropriate to meet with such a long-standing (Patriarch Aleksiy has
subscribed to Izvestiya for over 40 years now), authoritative, and wise
reader?
What is more, the day of the patriarch's meeting with Izvestiya
journalists -- 22 February -- proved to be the day before a holiday. Not
only with regard to the state's Fatherland Defender's Day. His Holiness
the Patriarch's birthday is 23 February and 25 February is his name day.
In addition it emerged that the newspaper's visitor and its chief editor
share a birthday. All this lent the meeting a particularly relaxed air.
There were congratulations, jokes, an exchange of commemorative gifts, a
frank conversation around a festive table, and even a "Many Years!" [part
of the Orthodox liturgy, this song was also used to wish Happy Birthday]
for the birthday boys performed by a "joint choir from the Patriarchate
and the editorial office," as Archbishop Vladimir of Tashkent and Central
Asia, who was accompanying His Holiness, put it.
But the main thing was the discussion that went on for over two hours
in the chief editor's office of the most varied problems. Here are just
a few fragments from this discussion and the statements, opinions, and
responses from the Russian Orthodox Church leader voiced in the course of
this discussion.
On Izvestiya, the Media, and Freedom of Speech
When the visitor was shown an exhibition devoted to the history of the
newspaper it was noticeable that this was indeed of interest to His
Holiness. The patriarch asked about certain old articles, about the
details of former chief editors' careers, and took delight in the respect
for tradition. With unfeigned curiosity he also inspected the editorial
news service's workplace, which is equipped with modern technology. One
was conscious of the interest of the reader, who had found himself for
the first time in his life in the editorial office where the newspaper
that he has read virtually every day for such a long time is produced.
This was where our conversation began:
"I have read your newspaper regularly for 40 years and I have great
respect for it and its staff. It enjoys deserved prestige because it
does indeed convey reliable, verified news to people. This is
particularly important in the context of the multiplicity of publications
which stir up people's minds and feelings, loading them with negative
information. Such media strive, come what may, to attract attention to
themselves and are guided by the principle that 'Good news is bad news.'
Yet this is unobjective. A great deal that is positive does nonetheless
take place in our country. People who have not been here for 10 to 15
years come here and do not recognize the country. There are changes for
the better. There will be more of them if sound, moral principles gain a
firm foothold in society. The times now are such that people need
support, they need reassurance, they want stability. Hence it is very
important that Izvestiya is confidently continuing its firm line and is
providing readers with an objective picture without going to extremes.
It is good that the newspaper is also maintaining continuity in this. It
is, after all, impossible to constantly take the path that was covered in
the post-revolutionary era when the old world was being razed to the
ground. Throughout its 85-year history the journalists' level of
professionalism and Izvestiya readers' level of confidence has been very
high. Today it is being maintained in a worthy fashion and is still
rising. And I wholeheartedly wish everyone who works at Izvestiya
blessed success."
In response to the idea, immediately voiced, that overdoing the
positive might prove an extremely dangerous trend both for the press and
society His Holiness the Patriarch remarked that this may be a threat to
some people but not for Izvestiya.
"You have always succeeded," he said "in finding the golden mean, the
'the czar's way' when it comes to providing objective coverage of life."
As for freedom of speech, in his view, the threat does not lie where
it is most often shown to lie.
"Freedom of speech exists and must exist but it must not be
transformed into total license. Certain limits are needed, if not
legislative, then moral limits. We have all encountered, for instance,
the situation where torrents of filth and conjecture are directed at
candidates during any elections and then this develops into people's
mistrust of the regime. When a person is ultimately elected, how can
people regard him after such denigration? How will the people regard the
institution of power as a whole? All this brings division into society
and splits it. Thus, freedom of speech must not be without
responsibility."
The Church on Air and in the Camps
"We would, of course, like to have a greater presence on television.
After all, three years ago we had to seek sponsors even to show the
Easter and Christmas services. And this matter was only resolved after I
met with Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, when I told him that the
celebrations should be conveyed not only to those who might attend church
but also to those who were sick or living in remote areas. And people
do, needless to say, need the words of the Orthodox Church on television.
When I visit the regions, I am often asked the following question: Do
you really have no one to put on television, why must we listen to
foreign preachers? I reply that we do have people to put on television
but we cannot pay such vast sums of money because we, first and foremost,
need to rebuild what has been destroyed.
"We need to rebuild not only the walls of the churches and monasteries
but also the structure of the church and the social assistance that the
church has always provided and must provide as well as the religious
education and parochial church Sunday schools. We must also conduct
pastoral work in prisons... After all in the Russian Federation alone we
have today built around 200 churches there and opened around 700 Orthodox
prayer rooms where prisoners can pray and meet with a priest. And there
is a great need for spiritual care for prisoners today. Every time that
I meet the justice minister I hear the following: 'Your Holiness, when
will you give us spare clergymen to work there permanently?'
"I first encountered this sphere of life in 1990 a few months before
my election as patriarch. I was then invited to a correctional labor
colony near Leningrad to consecrate the site of a church foundation
stone. The prisoners had collected 18,000 rubles for its construction.
I went with a troubled heart and was worried about what my meeting with
these people would be like. I consecrated the construction site, spoke
to the prisoners, and answered questions. I promised that when the
church had been built, I would come to consecrate it. Then after my
election I received a very warm cable from this camp; I even suspected
that it had been written by the staff of the Spiritual Academy, but no,
it turned out to have been written by the prisoners themselves. And 18
months later I received a reminder and I went to consecrate the church.
And how strikingly people's faces had changed in this time. Whereas in
1990 they had seen the Bible or the Gospel for the first time, 18 months
later they had somehow been imbued with moral Christian principles and 72
people attended this service."
The Future Lies with the Internet
Not only did a question about the Internet not faze His Holiness the
Patriarch, it even generated marked enthusiasm. He admitted that even
recently he was wary of computers, but only because he was afraid of
getting overly carried away by them: "I know people cannot tear
themselves away from a computer for whole days at a time, not just hours.
So I thought that I should not get the bug..."
Needless to say, the patriarch was joking. He is a man of unusual
self-discipline and is not given to passions that would be prejudicial to
his work and service. When he saw for himself that the computer may be
helpful in his work, he did not delay in taking advantage of it.
"Until recently I thought that it was still possible to live in the
old way. But when there were just 120 clergymen in Moscow, it was
possible to remember them all. When there were 49 parishes, the bishop
of Moscow knew all of them and what their lives were like. Now that
there are 450 parishes and 1,000 clergymen, you cannot do without a
computer. Thus, I have a computer, it is hard to manage without it. The
church as a whole makes use of all modern achievements. I think that the
future lies with the Internet. Even now we already have dozens of
Orthodox sites."
On Lenin, the Death Penalty, and the Army
"When talk periodically arises about burying the body of Lenin, I do
not broach this problem. I believe that is a matter of time. It is
necessary for the generation that is sensitive about this to pass away.
If this issue is raised today, it will divide society.
"As for the death penalty, the church will not impose its position on
public opinion. We set out our position clearly on all topical social
problems in the 'Fundamental Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church's
Social Concept,' which were adopted at the anniversary Archbishops'
Assembly in August 2000. This was the first experience of its kind. The
answers to all questions, including questions regarding the death
penalty, are based on the social doctrine of the Church.
"As for alternative service, in my view, it should be available.
Although the Orthodox Church is not being faced with this issue in acute
terms. It is, after all, the Baptists who do not allow the carrying of
arms. Whereas for the Orthodox Church historically it has always been a
matter of honor to defend the Fatherland. But if a person cannot serve
in the Army on religious grounds, he should be given an opportunity."
What Albright Asked
"We too," the patriarch said, "receive a huge number of letters from
people who ask us to help rescue their children who have ended up in the
grip of a sect. Regrettably, and this is my profound conviction, the
arrival of sects in Russia and the near abroad is a planned action, aimed
at dividing people. Not at enlightenment but at division. There are
very many totalitarian, destructive sects which perverts people's minds
and psychology. Our Church of the Transfiguration on Ordynka regularly
sees the return of people from sects to Orthodoxy. But we can only
return them to the fold of the Church. Efforts are also needed on the
part of the state and the city. Because these people are destitute when
they return -- they have left everything with the sect -- their property,
their apartment.
"Now it is in the past I can say this. When Mrs. Albright first came
to Moscow, she asked for a meeting with me and the only matter that she
raised was this: Do not impede foreign sects working in Russia. I told
her that most sects are destructive and totalitarian. We receive many
letters from mothers and families who have suffered. She said that this
certainly needs to be taken into account but that the sects' freedom of
activity should be given precedence. This is a divisive policy. After
all, when the law on freedom of conscience was adopted in the nineties,
what outside pressure was put on us!"
We Must Live in Peace with Catholics
Needless to say, the talk also turned to the conflict with the Vatican
although the day before His Holiness Patriarch Aleksiy II of Moscow and
All Russia and the Holy Synod made an exhaustive statement on this score.
Nonetheless perplexity of rises over and over as to why churches that
have described themselves as sisters are in conflict.
"We always advocate dialogue," Patriarch Aleksiy explained, "because
we live in an interdependent world. And we must live in peace with the
Catholics. Especially since we have a considerable number of common
problems, for instance, the battle with totalitarian sects, and I would
like to tackle them together. But it is also necessary to resolve our
own problems. Here is an example. Everywhere that new structures are
created in similar situations or personnel appointments are made, they
are invariably coordinated with the state authorities and the majority
church.
"In Switzerland, for instance, in Fribourg when a Catholic bishop is
appointed, both the federal authorities and the Protestant federation of
Switzerland are notified about this in advance, without fail. But here
our delegation has only just met in Assisi with Pope John Paul II and
there was not a word about planned changes. Literally a week later a
decision came, namely, let us see how the situation develops. But parity
is needed. So far, for instance, our bishoprics in Austria, Argentina,
and France -- traditional Catholic countries -- have not been registered.
But if the issue of registering Catholic bishoprics here is being
raised, why should ours not be registered there? We are not, after all,
proselytizing among the local population but we are sustaining our flock,
who found themselves abroad and are, regrettably, increasing."
Optimism from the Boondocks
"When I return from my travels around the dioceses I am generally
infected with optimism. There is more kindness, spirituality, and warmth
in the regions, in the boondocks. People there are less politicized.
"Very kind feelings arise in every place without fail from my contact
with people. And my hope for our people's future grows stronger because
devotees who have always made the country strong are alive and active."
*******
#10
the eXile
www.exile.ru
February 20, 2002
Who Tolerates a Dissident?
By Mark Ames (editor@exile.ru)
How dangerous is it to be a dissident in the post-Cold War era?
Judging by the case of Edward Limonov, a lot more dangerous than being a
dissident during the Cold War.
Limonov has been sitting in Lefortovo Prison since April of last year.
Initially he was charged with attempting to obtain illegal firearms and to
form an illegal armed group. More charges were subsequently added. This
past December, the FSB tacked on the amazing charge that Limonov was trying
to overthrow the state of Kazakhstan! Altogether, according to Limonov’s
attorney Sergei Belyak, he faces up to nearly 30 years in prison.
In January of this year, a separate case was brought against Limonov’s
newspaper, Limonka (where I have previously published) as well as Limonov’s
political party, the extremist National-Bolshevik Party, on charges of
terrorism. The case against Limonka and the NBP was reportedly thrown out
on a technicality, but the Russian state’s attack on one of its most famous
cultural figures reached such hysterical proportions that it finally
attracted the attention of the West. Or rather, one segment of one Western
country: France’s cultural elite.
“It finally became too obvious even to the French that this criminal case
was purely political repression and not because Limonov posed some kind of
real danger or threat to the Russian state or to Kazakhstan,” said Belyak,
who previously defended Duma deputy Vladimir Zhirinovsky. “The authorities
went too far in their repression.”
Limonov is a dual French and Russian citizen. Yet it has taken this long
for his case to come to France’s attention—and has yet to reach the ears of
any other Western nation. In part this is due to Limonov’s unsavory
reputation and radical anti-Western politics, including a famous tour of
duty over Sarajevo with indicted Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan
Karadjic. Limonov has done little to elicit the Western press and
diplomatic corps’s sympathy. Yet this does not detract from the story: a
famous dissident writer jailed on trumped up charges in an increasingly
authoritarian state.
In early January, Patrick Gofman, a Parisian writer and journalist who has
known Limonov since he arrived in Paris in 1982, circulated a petition
calling for Limonov’s release from prison.
“When we heard that Limonov was facing 23 years in prison or perhaps even
more, we realized that he was not involved in a petty quarrel with the
Russian government, but rather that this was serious,” Gofman said. “We
started a petition with three Parisian writers, and from there it
snowballed into something very impressive.”
The “Free Limonov” petition is a Who’s Who List of France’s cultural and
literary heavyweights, some 70 figures spanning the political spectrum from
the left to the right, from Russian emigres such as Vladimir Boukovsky,
Alexander Ginzberg, and the widow of Andrei Sinyavsky to such luminaries as
author Bernard Frank and Le Figaro literary critic Patrick Besson, who
called Limonov “the best living Russian writer.” It includes many leading
publishers, including Vladimir Dimitrijevic, director of l’Age d’Homme in
Lausanne, one of the West’s oldest and largest publishers of Slavic
literature.
“Limonov is one of Russia’s greatest artists,” said Dimitrijevic, whose
house publishes everyone from Tolstoy to Solzhenitsyn. “He is a great
writer and a very courageous man. I will always stand by a man who suffers
for the truth.”
In mid-January, Limonov’s imprisonment became the subject of a France-1
television news feature, but since then there has been little news—and
total silence from the French government.
When interviewed by the eXile, the French consul ostensibly handling
Limonov’s case, Olivier Aribe, forwarded our request for an interview to
First Secretary D. Nemchinov.
“We have absolutely no comment,” Nemchinov said. He repeated it with a
laugh even though Limonov is after all a French citizen in a Russian prison.
Gofman and others says they find this attitude particularly disturbing,
given the official French diplomatic support extended to Zacharias
Moussaoui, a Moroccan immigrant who was arrested in the United States and
charged with terrorism after reportedly attending flight training school in
order to learn to pilot jet liners. Moussaoui is thought to have been
assigned to fly one of the hijacked jets on September 11, but he was
apprehended a few weeks before the attacks after raising suspicions.
“On the very day that Moussaoui was charged by the Americans with
terrorism, the French publicly expressed concern and support to a French
citizen because of their concerns of the death penalty in America,” Gofman
said. “It’s not fair. Limonov hasn’t killed anyone, raped anyone or stolen
anything.”
It is undeniably counter-intuitive. One immigrant is accused of
participating in one of the bloodiest attacks in almost 200 years against
France’s most important ally, America, and yet the government offers
support due to concerns over America’s judicial process; another citizen,
in spite of being one of France’s leading cultural figures, jailed on
outrageous charges and subjected to a judicial system that the West has
consistently attacked for its cruelty, arbitrariness, and corruption, is
officially ignored by the government. Why?
Everyone interviewed for this article agreed that Limonov’s anti-Western
writings, which strike many as loathsome, as well as France’s domestic
politics, are responsible.
There is a presidential election this year in France, and the Socialist-led
government of Lionel Jospin is keen to woo the roughly 10 percent immigrant
vote, most of which is Muslim. Offering support to Moussaoui both shores up
the immigrant vote and helps to satisfy the decades-old French desire to
plant a bug up America’s ass.
Supporting Limonov—a shock-politics critic of the West and Russian
nationalist—appeals to a marginal French constituency, mostly on the right.
There is some talk that the right-wing in France is pushing the French
government to release Limonov and that there is some behind-the-scenes
maneuvering—indeed Limonov wrote a letter from jail to conservative French
President Jacques Chirac—but because the government is keeping silent, it
is impossible to tell what, if any support, they are extending.
Is it more dangerous to be a dissident today than during the Cold War?
In 1974, Limonov, who had gained fame in Moscow’s unofficial and
underground art world as a leading avant-garde poet, was subjected to
repeated KGB harassment and finally expelled from the Soviet Union, along
with what became known as the “Third Wave” of Soviet dissidents. Back then,
the Western media and diplomatic corps persistently fought for the right of
Soviet citizens to publish and express themselves openly, and fought for
the rights of anyone jailed or punished simply for the crime of
disagreeing. The reason, we said then, was that we believed that freedom of
expression was every human being’s basic right-indeed that to differ and
express was itself to be human-all the more so if that opinion or work of
art upset the Powers That Be.
Cut to 2002. Edward Limonov, now one of Russia’s most famous public figures
after more than two decades as a leading emigre writer in America and
France, is once again the target of the KGB, today renamed the FSB. This
time, however, they have him in jail, in the KGB’s infamous Lefortovo
Prison—something even the Soviets would have been loath to do, given the
negative press it would have attracted. And here is the difference between
then and now—this time, the KGB is getting away with it. The West is
officially silent. Most simply don’t give a shit as Russia has fallen off
America’s map except in terms of how they can help us kill ragheads and how
they can make a few of our oligarchs a little richer. The press is
aggressively ignoring the Limonov story. Even Johnson’s Russia List won’t
publish articles about Limonov’s incarceration.
“I am sickened by how these left-leaning journalists are so willing to
support the Chechens and criticize Russia,” Gofman said. “Yet when it comes
to Limonov, they are deeply silent.”
What has changed? In the first place, a KGB officer now runs Russia, and
he’s the West’s friend.
More importantly, the West—in spite of its previous pronouncements—only
supports dissidents who support the West. Grigory Pasko, NTV, TV-6, even
Chechen separatism all have found sympathetic ears in the Western press and
diplomatic corps. And all are, not coincidentally, pro-Western (at least
the non-Wahhabite Chechen guerrillas are).
Gusinsky and Berezovsky, owners of NTV and TV-6, are widely known to have
been key figures in the plundering, impoverishment, and soaring death rate
in Russia during the 1990s, not to mention being linked to high-profile
gangland hits. Chechen separatists kidnapped thousands of innocent Russians
during Chechnya’s three years of de facto independence, and terrorized its
own citizens. The present war was precipitated by a Chechen invasion of
Russian territory. While the Russian state’s response to all three has been
brutal, at least there was some basis for it.
Limonov has harmed no one and has stolen nothing. He is a dissident against
both Putin’s emerging neo-liberal dictatorship and against Western
hegemony. His views were extremist, but not linked to a single death or
injury. He called for renationalizing property, boycotting Western goods,
and attacked Western-leaning liberals as stooges. He managed to build a
significant following among Russia’s alternative youth, particularly
artists and writers.
“It is not possible to put a man like this in jail and to separate it from
his writings and what he is,” said Dmitrijevic.
Limonov arrived in New York in 1974. He quickly grew into the role of a
dissident within the dissident movement, arguing that the West was in many
ways just a more sophisticated version of the Soviet Union, with more
sophisticated propaganda, and just as little tolerance for true dissent.
America didn’t want to hear that. He found it nearly impossible to publish
his political writings in the United States, so he turned to novels.
The Americans were reluctant to publish his first three novels, including
It’s Me, Eddie and His Butler’s Story, both of which shunned standard
anti-Soviet emigre literature in favor of a kind of debauched hyper-egoist
anti-American stance. The books are funny, incisive, and vexing. This was
not what America wanted to read about itself from an ungrateful Soviet
emigre.
The positive reception his novels received in France inspired him to move
from New York to Paris with his then-wife, singer Natalia Medvedeva, in
1982. He was granted French citizenship in 1987, after taking France’s
avant-garde literary scene by storm; in 1986, French Cosmopolitan even
named him one of France’s top 40 leading cultural figures. Limonov wrote
for several radical French publications, first siding with the left, then
with the right.
In 1991, after the first official publishing in the Soviet Union of his
controversial 1979 novel It’s Me, Eddie sold nearly 1.5 million copies,
then-President Gorbachev re-instated Limonov’s Russian citizenship.
And that was the year, from the point of view of the West, that Limonov
went bad. He sided with Serbia during its wars with its neighbors and the
West, fighting alongside the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia and publishing his
war correspondence. He joined the shadow cabinet of Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s
ultra-nationalist, anti-Western LDPR in 1992 as its Minister of Interior,
sided with the anti-Yeltsin rebels in 1993, and formed the
National-Bolshevik Party in 1994 with radical-intellectual Alexander Dugin
and Yegor Letov, lead singer of the punk group Grazhdanskaya Oborona, whose
genius as a lyricist is matched only by his ability to attract wanton
violence at his concerts on a level that would cause most Western punks to
piss in their Dickeys.
Over the past decade, Limonov has been smeared with the fascist, racist,
and anti-Semite labels, even though there is no substantive proof to
support these accusations. (Similarly, even the eXile has been attacked as
a fascist, pro-Nazi, and anti-Semitic newspaper by its many detractors
ranging from goyim like former Clinton tool Michael McFaul and commentator
Peter Ekman to leading members of the Western press corps. In spite of the
fact that our staff is nearly 40% Jewish, this accusation has stuck in many
influential circles.)
These smear tactics have gotten so irrational and out of hand that famed
Russian privatization adviser Anders Aslund recently attacked Georgetown
professor and Yeltsin-era critic Peter Reddaway in print as an
“anti-Semite” in part because Reddaway had called Limonov an “enlightened
radical”. It was so outrageous that many usually urbane academics publicly
came to Reddaway’s defense. Sure these attacks are funny and insane, but
multiply them by every foreign media correspondent, diplomat, and Russia
watcher, and you begin to quantify Limonov’s problem.
Many in the Western media and academia will say off the record that they
think Limonov got what he deserved.
Limonov is an alien to such people. He was shaped by the avant-garde, in
particular Russian avant-garde writers of the 1920s such as Daniil Kharms
and poet Vladimir Mayakovsky, as well as the Anglo-American avant-garde of
the 60s and 70s. He told me that the first English poetry he translated
into Russian after moving to New York was the lyrics of Lou Reed. Reed,
both as singer of The Velvet Underground and as a major figure in Andy
Warhol’s Factory scene, was aggressively anti-bourgeois and anti-liberal,
taking much of his aesthetic from the sado-masochist underground, from the
violent fringes of society, from fascism and revolutionary aesthetics, in
order to confront contemporary Western culture. Soon after Lou Reed and
Iggy Pop, Limonov fell in with the punk movement in New York, which also
agitated against liberal middle-class culture and values, relying heavily
on violence and the threat of violence, though more often than not
outrageous humor. Limonov never changed his heart or tastes; indeed, much
of his sympathy with the skinheads goes directly back to The Sex Pistols,
The Clash, and Lou Reed, a Jew from Long Island who carved a giant iron
cross in his skull and strutted around stage in a black leather uniform
singing “Kill Your Sons.”
Russian artists, going back to the Romantics like Lermontov and Pushkin, up
through Dostoevsky and experimentalists like Kharms, have always had a way
of borrowing their aesthetics from the West, Russifying them, and taking
them one step too far, which is why they are generally superior to our
Western artists. The same could be said of Limonov.
A conference-hopping American academic, a Volvo-chauffeured Western
correspondent whose Moscow life consists in going from sushi bar to hotel
lobby sucking up to sleazy oligarchs, an unscrupulous FSB agent who
wouldn’t bat an eye at extracting a bribe from a black-ass fruit trader but
recoils in horror at Limonov’s freak show and descriptions of
homosexuality—all are equally incapable of placing Limonov in context.
Through their simplistic moral lenses, he is repulsive. He’s where he
belongs. And no one is going to waste their time on him.
Last April, after completing a book on jailed Krasnoyarsk aluminum baron
Anatoly Bykov, Limonov left for the Siberian region of Altai. On April 7,
more than 50 counter-intelligence goons surrounded the dacha where Limonov
and a few others were staying; at 4 a.m., they raided, dragged them out and
made them lie face-down in the snow, and—failing to find anything besides
the royalties Limonov received for his Bykov book—hauled him straight to
Lefortovo Prison.
The case against Limonov rests on a sting against two teenagers busted in
Saratov for trying to acquire illegal arms. After a few months of coercion,
they changed their story and accused Limonov of putting them up to it. This
is the basis for the case against Edward Limonov.
Since then, the case has snowballed, until just over the past two months,
the accusations and attacks reached a boiling point. Today, with so many
leading French figures lining up behind him, Limonov’s supporters are
hoping that the French government will work to free him.
Meanwhile, Limonov is running in the March 31 elections for a vacated seat
in the state Duma in Dzherzhinsk, considered to be among the most polluted
cities in Russia. He will face off against candidates from the Communist
and pro-Kremlin Unity parties.
It is the kind of story that generally attracts the “bizarre-Russia-story”
type of feature for most correspondents. Jailed writer and French citizen
runs for Duma seat in most polluted city in Russia.
The foreign press corps may or may not pick it up. The fact is that many
find Limonov loathsome, and as they find us nearly as hateful, and as
Limonov wrote regular columns in this newspaper on themes ranging from why
he hates the West to comparing the vaginas of different nationalities, he
is doubly cursed. And he wrote them in intentionally broken English, just
to take one last shit on his Western reader’s face.
I can never get over the fact that a friend of mine is rotting in prison,
someone with whom I spent every other Sunday afternoon for some five years,
when I’d come to pick up his latest article. With his constant pacing, and
a girl between half and one-third his age somewhere in the back of the
apartment, it was never boring. Now he’s confined to a small cell, working
hard, according to his lawyer, on his memoirs….
******
#11
Moscow Times
February 28, 2002
Political Twins on the World Stage
By Lilia Shevtsova
Try to solve this puzzle: Two world leaders that are behaving like
political twins. Both have chosen security and order as their priorities
and have used war to consolidate society. Both prefer to avoid
coalition-building and are fascinated by military might. Neither thought
much about the highest office in the country beforehand and both were
amazed to find themselves ascending to it. Both were brought to power with
a helping hand from the family -- in one case biological, in the other
political. Finally, both are exploiting the threat of terrorism to resolve
their respective country's problems and cement a new world order; while one
talks of "the axis of evil," the other warns about "the arc of instability."
You've guessed it: Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. They are
very different and preside over very different countries, but paradoxically
they are also very much alike.
Their similarities, however, provoke mixed feelings. It cannot fail to
cause concern that the president of a country that is seen as a model of
democracy is acting the same way as the leader of a country considered to
be an elected monarchy with imperial pretensions. Bush's conviction that he
knows how to solve other countries' problems looks very Soviet.
It should be a shock to Bush that Russian statists hold him up as an
example to be emulated and complain that Putin is too soft a leader and may
repeat the fate of Mikhail Gorbachev. Most worrying, however, is the fact
that both leaders seem to believe that a new world order can be created on
the basis of a "new" common enemy.
It may seem paradoxical, but of the two leaders, Putin may have more
incentive to develop a pattern of leadership more appropriate to tackling
the challenges of the 21st century. For, if Putin doesn't want to preside
over stagnation, the only way forward is to try to change the rules of the
game.
Unfortunately, the Russian president has failed to capitalize on the
opportunity created by joining the international coalition against
terrorism. He has been bogged down with handling irritants such as the ABM
Treaty, and instead of developing a new vision of his country's national
interests he has been caught up in discussing relations with NATO -- an
organization that may be out of picture sooner than we think.
Now Bush has unwittingly offered Putin a new chance to demonstrate
innovative leadership. By announcing his doctrine of unilateralist
overdrive, Bush has provoked dismay not only in Russia but also in the rest
of the world. Now is a golden opportunity to propose an alternative to the
Pax Americana. Russia could do this together with those European countries
that have become increasingly critical of the United States.
Bush has done a great deed by stirring things up in the swamp of
international relations and forcing the world to react. If Putin, French
President Jacques Chirac and other concerned world leaders now limit
themselves to expressing resentment, then they deserve nothing more than to
live in a world structured by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and company,
and they should stop complaining.
The world desperately needs a new way of thinking about foreign policy that
addresses the core issues facing the global system. A key element of that
system is the U.S.–Russian relationship. In order to strengthen European
security, reform the UN and its Security Council, combat terrorism, prevent
nuclear proliferation, stabilize the world economy, handle energy and
environmental problems -- Russia cannot be ignored. However, in order to
tackle these issues both leaders need to move beyond the traditional agenda
of nukes, NATO, Jackson-Vanik etc. They need to stop thinking exclusively
about contentious issues, and look also at areas where both can demonstrate
that they have something new to offer the world.
Among such areas is military and economic cooperation in Central Asia. When
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that the U.S. presence in Central
Asia "is a positive factor for Russia," he signaled that Russia is taking
the unprecedented step of acknowledging that in this part of the world, the
United States is solving security problems that Russia is unable to handle
alone.
Another area is Russia's role in diversifying the sources of energy
products available to the United States and the West. Recent tension
between the United States and Saudi Arabia has underscored the importance
of having a major backup energy supplier.
Sooner or later, Russia will have to recognize the necessity of cooperating
with the United States and Europe in the Caucasus, not only in resolving
the conflicts in Nagorny Karabakh and Abkhazia, but also in finding a
solution for Chechnya.
One more area of cooperation where the United States could play the role of
broker is in helping Russia and Japan break their stalemate over the Kuril
Islands and open new opportunities for Western investments into the Far
East and Siberia.
The litmus test for a new, upgraded U.S.-Russian relationship will be
Putin's ability to play a constructive role on Iraq. He has to walk a
tightrope: He must prove that Russia is capable of influencing Saddam
Hussein but at the same time ready to join a U.S.-led campaign against
Iraq, if one is launched. Putin should recall the humiliation that befell
the Kremlin during the Kosovo crisis, when Moscow tried to save Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic, even after the Yugoslav people had had enough
of him.
Its behavior after Sept. 11 demonstrates that for the first time, Russia is
playing the role of junior partner to another superpower. Washington has to
show sufficient sensitivity and offer Russia a dignified framework for this
role. This framework, however, will be effective only if it is based not on
the "basis of mutual security interests" as Putin recently suggested, but
on the basis of mutual values.
Do Bush and Putin have the imagination and courage necessary to make a
breakthrough in the U.S.-Russian relationship -- a relationship that could
become the nucleus of a new approach to international relations in general?
They have an opportunity to give it a shot at least.
As the May summit approaches, however, we are witnessing the same old game.
Both countries continue counting warheads -- an exercise that is taking up
all their time and energy and will only leave both sides increasingly
suspicious of each other. Moreover, the United States is concerned about
demonstrating its hegemony and worries about cuddling up to Russia too
much, while Russia is desperate to be treated as a great power, at least
symbolically. It is hard to get over the impression of d?j? vu. If the U.S.
and Russian presidents fail to make a breakthrough this time, nothing
apocalyptic will happen. The world will simply continue on much the same as
it did in the last century, while Bush and Putin will continue to look like
political twins -- although of very different sizes.
However, this resemblance will most probably be the source of increasing
concern.
Lilia Shevtsova, senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, contributed this comment to The Moscow Times. Most
recently, she is co-editor with Professor Archie Brown of "Gorbachev,
Yeltsin, and Putin: Political Leadership in Russia's Transition."
******
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