Johnson's Russia List
#6108
1 March 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Amnesty launches appeal for jailed Russian reporter. (Pasko)
2. Reuters: Putin says no "tragedy" in U.S. troops in Georgia.
3. Time.com: Tony Karon, Why U.S. Arrival in Georgia Has Moscow Hopping Mad.
4. Baltimore Sun editorial: Americans at war in the Caucasus. Georgia: U.S.
troops find a role to play in Russia's bloody assault on Chechnya -- and on
the Chechens.
5. pravda.ru: COMMUNISTS COMPLAIN OF BAD NOURISHMENT.
6. Gazeta: Anastasiya Matveeva, PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT WILL
LACK
A DEFINITE OBJECTIVE. Recommendations to the president.
7. Rossiiskie Vesti: Sergei Ivchenko, THE LAST MEDIA TYCOON. Gusinsky:
still
in his usual role, still using state resources.
8. Moscow Times letter: Andrei Illarionov on Goskomstat.
9. AFP: Summit of ex-Soviet states to cast wary eye at US military presence.
10. Wall Street Journal Europe: Thomas Grant, Countries Worth Rescuing.
11. Moscow Tribune: Stanislav Menshikov, RUSSIA'S HAND SHOULD BE STRONG
Where strategic matters are concerned.
12. Chicago Tribune: Joseph Biden, Shutting down the Russian candy store.
A U.S. non-proliferation approach to Russia must insist that Moscow live up
to its word to not sell nuclear material on the black market.
13. pravda.ru: GEORGE BUSH "GIVES" THE KURILE ISLANDS TO JAPAN.
14. UPI: Claude Salhani and Martin Sieff, Commentary: Suppose the Soviets
had won.
15. Reuters: Russia minister said questioning U.S. poultry ban.]
*******
#1
Amnesty launches appeal for jailed Russian reporter
LONDON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Human rights group Amnesty International and
environmental campaigners Greenpeace launched a joint cyber appeal on
Thursday calling for the immediate release of jailed Russian journalist
Grigory Pasko.
Pasko, a former navy captain, was arrested by counter-intelligence agents
in 1997 on his return from Japan, where he had given journalists evidence
that the Russian navy had dumped toxic waste in the Sea of Japan.
His trial and conviction in December triggered liberals' fears that press
freedom was under attack in Russia.
"Grigory Pasko was sentenced to four years imprisonment in December 2001,
accused of intending to pass on information to a foreign journalist that
would 'harm the battle readiness of the Pacific Fleet'," Amnesty said in a
statement.
"Amnesty International and Greenpeace strongly believe that the conviction
of Grigory Pasko was motivated by political reprisal for his exposure...of
the practice of dumping nuclear waste by the Russian Navy into the Pacific
Ocean."
The groups said the appeal would be addressed to Russian President Vladimir
Putin and that information about the appeal could be found on their Web
sites www.amnesty.org and www.greenpeace.org.
Malcolm Hawkes, a researcher on Russia at Amnesty, said that Pasko's case
was part of a broader trend to crack down on investigative journalism.
"There are very legitimate concerns about the freedom of expression
throughout the Russian Federation, with reporters targeted for beatings and
in some cases even killings, especially when they undertake investigative
work," he said.
*******
#2
Putin says no "tragedy" in U.S. troops in Georgia
By Sebastian Alison
CHIMBULAK, Kazakhstan, March 1 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin
abruptly softened Moscow's stance towards the planned dispatch of U.S.
military experts to Georgia on Friday, saying it spelled "no tragedy" for
Russia's interests.
Speaking at a news conference in Kazakhstan during a summit of leaders of
former Soviet countries, Putin said: "It's no tragedy and it cannot be."
"Why should they (the U.S. forces) be in Central Asia and not in Georgia?,"
he said, referring to the deployment late last year of U.S. forces in
former Central Asia as part of the U.S.-led anti-terrorism campaign in
Afghanistan.
Putin's comment to reporters, made as he stood alongside Georgian President
Eduard Shevardnadze and other leaders of the Commonwealth of Independence
States, ran counter to remarks made by his own foreign minister, Igor Ivanov.
Ivanov, speaking earlier this week, said the planned dispatch of U.S.
forces to the former Soviet Transcaucasian republic to help train Georgian
troops to combat terrorism would only aggravate the security situation in
the region.
Putin, who is due to meet U.S. President George W. Bush for a Moscow summit
in May and has done his best to establish a warm relationship with Russia's
old Cold War foe, appeared to be putting a brave face on events he is
powerless to stop.
Russia, which has thousands of troops stationed in Georgia from Soviet
times, has frequently offered to help Georgia with anti-terrorist
operations in its lawless Pankisi Gorge. Russia says Chechen rebels have
rear bases in the Gorge.
But Georgia, which since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 has
accused the old imperial power of undermining its sovereignty and backing
secessionist movements in the country, has consistently declined Russian
offers of help.
PUTIN REPROACHES GEORGIA
The Kremlin leader however implicitly reproached Shevardnadze for not
keeping Moscow in the picture about the planned U.S. military move into
Georgia.
"The information came to us from the U.S. side. Unfortunately from the side
of the Georgian colleagues it was late," he said.
Shevardnadze, standing with other CIS leaders alongside Putin during the
open-air meeting with reporters, said Russia's embassy in Georgia had been
duly informed about plans to host U.S. military experts.
He said only Washington had the experience to train special anti-terrorist
units of Georgia's fledgling armed forces.
"It's an open secret that the Americans helped us create troops of border
guards," the 74-year-old Georgian leader said. "Now they seriously intend
to organise anti-terrorist groups. No other country can do that."
In Tbilisi, the Georgian Defence Ministry said on Friday. that U.S.
military instructors would arrive in Georgia this month to begin training
and equipping the country's army to fight Islamic extremists.
The imminent dispatch of U.S. military personnel to the Transcaucasian
republic on Russia's southern rim follows the deployment of U.S. forces in
former Soviet Central Asia.
Developments seem to underscore the increasing irrelevancy of the CIS, a
group of countries bound only by the fact that they were once ruled from
Moscow, but now seeing little future together.
The CIS meeting at the stunning Alatau Ridge will consist mainly of
bilateral talks as there is little to discuss on a group basis.
CENTRAL ASIA ALSO WARMING U.S. TIES
The ex-Soviet Central Asian states are rapidly warming their relations with
the United States. Three of them, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan,
already host thousands of U.S. troops as well as aircraft as part of the
anti-terror campaign against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network in nearby
Afghanistan.
A fourth, Kazakhstan, has offered to do so and makes airspace available.
These four countries signed a security pact on Thursday to form a new
grouping within the CIS, the Central Asian Cooperation (CAC) pact.
Although Russia maintains thousands of its own troops in Tajikistan to
defend the porous border with Afghanistan as the Tajiks, weakened by civil
war from 1992 to 1997, are barely able to do so, it was not involved in CAC
in any way.
Indeed Russia's military influence, like its political and diplomatic sway,
appears to be plummeting.
It keeps troops in Armenia, but the other countries where parts of the
Russian army are still based, Georgia and Moldova, want them out.
Elsewhere, there is little love lost between individual members, with
Azerbaijan and Armenia still far from normalising relations after a war
between the Islamic and Christian neighbours which broke out in 1988.
Putin is a keen skier and may enjoy his stay at the resort of Chimbulak for
the views and the snow. But his talks with many of Russia's erstwhile
satellites from Soviet days seem unlikely to bring him much joy.
*******
#3
Time.com
Why U.S. Arrival in Georgia Has Moscow Hopping Mad
Washington and Moscow have long competed over ex-Soviet Georgia as a
geopolitical prize. The war on terrorism may help America win the game
BY TONY KARON
As a reward for backing the U.S. war on terrorism, Moscow expected American
support for its own war in Chechnya — and to be treated as a geopolitical
partner. That's why it will feel kicked in the teeth by the deployment of
U.S. military advisers and helicopters to the former Soviet republic of
Georgia on Wednesday — and unconfirmed reports that hundreds more may be on
the way to support anti-terrorism efforts. "We think it could further
aggravate the situation in the region, which is difficult as it is,"
Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov said Wednesday. "That is our position
and Washington is well aware of it."
For starters, the governments of Russia and Georgia have very different
ideas on who the bad guys are. Moscow has long demanded the right to attack
all Chechen fighters based inside Georgian territory, in particular a group
of Chechen rebels sheltering in the Pankisi Gorge. Georgia, eager to break
free of two centuries of Russian influence, has labeled the rebels "Chechen
freedom fighters" — and has refused Russia permission to launch operations
in the Pankisi.
Now they've invited the U.S. to come into Pankisi instead, to train
Georgian forces for an ongoing anti-terrorism mission. The U.S. and Georgia
say their target will be about a dozen Arab extremists based in the area,
believed to be long-time volunteers with a militant Chechen faction (rather
than stragglers from Afghanistan). But they won't be launching an all-out
campaign against Chechen fighters in the Pankisi.
Russia sees the entire Chechen separatist guerrilla movement as
indistinguishable from al-Qaida, and won't appreciate the distinction being
drawn by the Georgians between the small al-Qaida element they intend to
pursue and the bulk of the Chechen fighters who will, presumably, be left
unmolested unless they challenge Georgian authorities. But Moscow's chagrin
is ultimately fueled by the profound strategic consequences of the arrival
of U.S. forces in what has traditionally been Russia's backyard.
Georgia's strategic significance to both Washington and Moscow runs far
deeper than either the campaign against al-Qaida or the war in Chechnya.
Georgia has been considered the strategic key to protecting Russia's
southern flank since the days of the Czars. More immediately, it forms an
indispensable part of the pipeline route favored by the U.S. for pumping
Caspian sea oil and natural gas to Turkey without passing through either
Russia or Iran.
The routing of Caspian Sea oil has been the central focus of geopolitical
maneuvering in the region over the past decade. And Russia has spent much
of that period trying unsuccessfully to pressure Georgia's president,
former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze, to toe Moscow's line.
Moscow helped facilitate the breakaway of Abkhazia from Georgia, in order
to weaken the government in Tbilisi. Georgians insist that Russia has also
been behind some of the numerous coup- and assassination attempts against
Shevardnadze. Certainly Moscow has made no secret of its anxiety over the
Georgians' cozy relationship with the U.S. — or of its unhappiness at
having to give up longstanding military bases in the former Soviet republic.
A substantial U.S. deployment over Moscow's objections would end the
illusion that Russian cooperation against the Taliban will buy Western
endorsement of Moscow's often brutal military campaign in Chechnya. The
U.S. military has made clear it has no intention of cooperating with
Russian forces against Chechen fighters in the Pankisi. The objective of
any mission, officials say, would be to help the Georgian government regain
control of an area that had become a haven of criminality and a sanctuary
for a small number of al-Qaida operatives.
President Vladimir Putin gambled that signing on to the war on terrorism
would work to Russia's strategic advantage in the Caucasus; instead
Shevardnadze appears to have outmaneuvered him by using the campaign
against al-Qaida as a pretext to invite the Americans in. If the U.S.
military sets up shop there, it will be read as the geopolitical equivalent
of getting Russia evicted from its own backyard — and a crafty Georgian
move to turn Russia's cooperative attitude towards with President Bush into
an opportunity to decisively break free of Moscow's influence. The personal
relations between Presidents Bush and Putin may be warm and fuzzy, but
geopolitics is still geopolitics.
—With reporting by Paul Quinn-Judge/Moscow
*******
#4
Baltimore Sun
March 1, 2002
Editorial
Americans at war in the Caucasus
Georgia: U.S. troops find a role to play in Russia's bloody assault on
Chechnya -- and on the Chechens.
The decision to send American soldiers to Georgia, ostensibly to help
President Eduard A. Shevardnadze's government in its struggle with
terrorism, is provocative, risky and wrong-headed. Worse, it's being
presented by all sides as something that it's not.
The stated goal is to train Georgian soldiers so they can fight "tens" of
terrorist al-Qaida fighters in the Pankisi Gorge, which abuts Russia's
breakaway republic of Chechnya. But Georgia doesn't care about Pankisi --
it cares about its own secessionists on the other side of the country. It's
unlikely Washington cares about Pankisi, either -- U.S. interests in
Georgia begin and end with the pipeline that will carry Caspian Sea oil
west to the developed world.
As for the Russians, politicians and generals are fulminating about U.S.
penetration in the Caucasus, but comments coming from the men around
President Vladimir Putin suggest they are quite aware of what they stand to
gain. With Americans helping to bottle up rebel fighters along the Chechen
border, it should be all the easier for Russian forces to continue
pulverizing that unfortunate republic.
Did we say rebel fighters? Didn't we mean terrorists? Well, it depends on
what we think this fight is about.
Chechnya is a Muslim republic that suffered horribly in its first attempt
to win independence from Russia, in the 1994-1996 war. From the ashes of
that conflict emerged a frighteningly brutal class of bandit gang leaders,
some of whom felt inspired by Islamic extremist ideology and all of whom
prospered chiefly by kidnapping. In 1999, Russia went to war again,
inflicting more terrible punishment on the Chechens but finding itself
unable to stamp out all resistance.
The Russians claimed that Chechen fighters were taking refuge across the
border in the Pankisi Gorge. Georgia denied it. Moscow insisted on sending
its troops in; Georgia always said no. Russia tried to pressure Mr.
Shevardnadze by stirring up trouble in other parts of Georgia with their
own separatist inclinations.
For two years, Washington condemned Moscow's war on Chechnya. It was
half-hearted, but at least it didn't pretend that murder wasn't murder.
Now, all that has changed. Now, it's about terrorism and al-Qaida.
Evidently, links do exist between Chechen fighters and al-Qaida -- or did
exist, anyway. Evidently, there are some fighters in Pankisi. Georgia can
no longer deny it, but, understandably reluctant to allow the Russians in,
it has found a perfect solution in the American G.I.
A successful U.S. military effort in Georgia would indeed promote a certain
sort of stability. If the Chechens are contained, the Russians will be less
likely to try to sow chaos in Georgia, and if a friendly Georgia remains
intact, that will allow the free flow of oil from the Caspian -- as the
spokesman for Georgia's defense ministry pointed out on Wednesday.
Al-Qaida seems to be missing from this picture, but look at who's included.
Mr. Shevardnadze presides over a breathtakingly corrupt regime, in a
country where the only constant theme is treachery. Mr. Putin scolds his
generals, but his army seems more intent on looting and rape than on
victory. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch issued its latest report on the ways
in which Russian forces have arbitrarily detained, tortured and killed
civilians.
Our gallant allies in Moscow have stubbed out most of the remnants of a
free and critical press. And now, disgracefully, the Bush administration is
lending a hand. This week, the U.S.-backed Radio Liberty, which broadcasts
programs throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, reversed
itself and decided not to begin a Chechen-language service. State
Department spokesman Richard Boucher said it would be "counterproductive."
*******
#5
pravda.ru
28 February 2002
COMMUNISTS COMPLAIN OF BAD NOURISHMENT
Russia is a very optimistic country. At least the number of those, who are
not happy about their lives is decreasing with every day. This is not
fiction, this is what the opinion polls say.
The subject of food is actual for everyone. So, as it turns out, 56% of the
Russian people are quite happy about the way they eat. Those, who complain
of their nourishment are basically communists – 45%, the people with
incomplete education – 46% and the residents of big cities – 41%. Well,
there is nothing surprising about it. The fans of the Communist Party of
Russia are presumably elderly people - the people with the low level of
income. Of course, they can not afford a lot, unfortunately. They support
the Communist Party, the leaders of which are so unlikely to complain of
their food.
Thirty-two percent of the Russian people spend almost all of their income
on food and 44% spend a half or a quarter of their budget on that. This is
quite a lot in comparison with the highly-developed countries, in which the
people spend some 20 or 25 percent of their income on food. And only less
than 21% of the Russian respondents can do the same.
So it turns out that the majority of our citizens are happy about their
food, but they spend a lot of their money on it, refusing from other things
like vacation trips, buying the new clothes or something else and so on. So
the true prosperity will come, when the citizens of Russia will be able to
buy what they want, not what they can afford to buy.
******
#6
Gazeta
March 1, 2002
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT WILL LACK A DEFINITE OBJECTIVE
Recommendations to the president
Author: Anastasiya Matveeva
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
POLITICAL SCIENTISTS AND POLITICIANS FROM THE CIVIC DEBATE CLUB ARE
OFFERING A LOT OF ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS UPCOMING ADDRESS
TO THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY. SOCIOECONOMIC REFORMS, POLITICAL PARTIES, AND
RUSSIA'S PLACE IN THE WORLD WERE DECLARED TO BE THE MOST URGENT
ISSUES.
The Civic Debate club has some advice for the president
"Addresses of President Putin differ from his predecessors' in
that they are realized in practice." That was how the conference was
opened by Sergei Markov, Director of the Institute of Political
Studies. Markov reminded the conference that Putin's address was
centered around restoration of state institutions in 2000 and around
economic reforms in 2001 and that "certain progress was made" in both
spheres. Boris Makarenko, Senior Assistant General Director of the
Center of Political Technologies came up with another difference
between Putin's and Yeltsin's addresses to the Federal Assembly.
"Expectations attached to Yeltsin's addresses were simple," he said.
"Half the population was confident that he would not be able to read
the address to the very end while the other half was pretty confident
that he would." Nobody knows what to expect from Putin's address, the
political scientist said; and warned of the possibility of "a crisis
of trust in the president."
"Russia has the most comprehensive Tax Code," began Kakha
Bendukidze, General Director of the United Engineering Factories. He
went on saying that in his opinion, the presidential address should
formulate the idea of easier taxation and development of economy.
Bendukidze does not care about GDP growth which he does not consider
an indicator of a correct economic policy. "The indicator is the
number of buildings occupied by bureaucrats," he said. According to
the businessmen, the number has been steadily growing nowadays.
"The Chinese are coming. They are everywhere, and they have money
to spend." This is how Sergei Chernyshev, Director of the Center of
Corporate Entrepreneurship, outlined the major problem of the day.
According to Chernyshev, Russia should return to Yuri Andropov's
theses - because "the hierarchy with federal inspectors" in the
regions is not working. Chernyshev's speech was greeted with applause.
Deputy Vladimir Lysenko of the Russian Regions group hopefully
assumed that the presidential address was going to proclaim political
reforms: formation of the government in line with results of
parliamentary elections, promotion of candidates for president by
parties only, and Duma elections by party lists. "There are too many
majoritarians in the Duma!" Lysenko, a majoritarian himself,
indignantly exclaimed.
Gleb Pavlovsky of the Effective Policy Foundation criticized the
meeting for "guessing what the president will or will not do", which
he said was unworthy of professionals. "This lack of professionalism
is a problem worse than the lack of knowledge of the president's
intentions," he said. Pavlovsky advocated controllable democracy which
"should become even tougher before the key points of the structural
reforms are passed." Pavlovsky called the presidential administration
the only pillar of stability. "What we see nowadays is not exactly
inspiring, right? Imagine what the Cabinet will be up to as soon as it
gets out from under the presidential administration's control." He
also wished political scientists had been more involved in the writing
of the presidential address. According to Pavlovsky, "Experts do not
participate in the process as generators of ideas and solutions. They
are used as speech-writers, and that is a dangerous situation."
Mikhail Delyagin, Director of the Globalization Institute, told
the conference to relax. "We need a doze of healthy irresponsibility
here," he said. "The address does not really matter. The president
addresses the Federal Assembly, which may be commanded. The address
will lack any definite objective. Do not bother the president with
undue questions, he does not know the answers to them. Leave the man
alone."
*******
#7
Rossiiskie Vesti
No. 7
February 2002
THE LAST MEDIA TYCOON
Gusinsky: still in his usual role, still using state resources
Author: Sergei Ivchenko
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
VLADIMIR GUSINSKY IS RUMORED TO BE WORKING ON STARTING UP A NEW
TELEVISION COMPANY, WHICH WOULD BROADCAST IN RUSSIAN AROUND THE WORLD.
IT IS SAID THAT BORIS BEREZOVSKY IS CONTRIBUTING MONEY TO THE PROJECT.
MEANWHILE, NTV IS WONDERING HOW ITS VIDEO FOOTAGE MIGHT BE REACHING
GERMANY.
Update on the current activities of Vladimir Gusinsky
THERE ARE PERSISTENT RUMORS IN CIRCLES CLOSE TO WHAT IS KNOWN AS
"GUSINSKY'S NTV" THAT THE FORMER MEDIA TYCOON IS IN THE UNITED STATES,
WORKING ON STARTING UP A POWERFUL TELEVISION STATION WHICH WOULD
BROADCAST IN RUSSIAN TO THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, EUROPE, ISRAEL,
AUSTRALIA, RUSSIA, THE CIS, AND THE BALTIC STATES. THE SAME RUMORS
IMPLY THAT IF THE PROJECT IS SUCCESSFUL, THE KREMLIN CAN EXPECT NO
MERCY.
We approached some media analysts for comments, and they were
unanimous. The prospects of starting up a comprehensive, long-lived
television station are really dim. The specialists we approached are
so pessimistic primarily because of the need to invest huge sums in
the station, without any prospect of seeing a return. On the other
hand, the project would have an impact on relations between Russia and
the West, even if it didn't last long.
Actually, the question that is particularly interesting concerns
Vladimir Gusinsky's financial status. How is he faring? Not badly, as
it turns out. For two reasons.
Firstly, the project has Boris Berezovsky's financial support.
Nothing is known at this point about how much Berezovsky has already
invested or how much he plans to invest. Gusinsky himself has spent
over $8 million on the first phase of the project alone. Gusinsky's
loyal aide Igor Malashenko has already negotiated buying a
broadcasting license with Robers Cable, Canada. Construction of a new
studio and TV center in Manhattan is in full swing. American
newspapers are full of employment ads for engineers and technicians at
a Russian "multi-channel TV broadcasting complex". Sources known to be
close to Gusinsky's NTV also say that InterTV (a German television
company controlled by Gusinsky, broadcasting to some European states)
intends to establish an independent network of correspondents in
Russia and move all its operations to New York no later than April.
Judging by the intensity and thoroughness of the preparations, the
owners of the future television station are not exactly short of
money. The project is prohibitively expensive, but the owners don't
seem concerned - it's as though they aren't expecting any financial
difficulties in future.
The second reason behind it may be called Gusinsky's Russian
resource. Using it effectively, those behind the project are managing
to save considerable sums allocated for the television station.
The new NTV never ceases trying to find out how its expensive
video archives make their way abroad, to InterTV. Needless to say,
this leads to huge losses for the state and Gazprom-Media.
Specialists list several channels by which video archives might
be reaching Germany, even including the technical capacities of the
Defense Ministry and particularly the GRU (army intelligence).
However, the most plausible explanation is that the Space
Communications federal state unitary enterprise is involved. Space
Communications has three communications centers: in Schelkovo, Dubna,
and Gus-Khrustalny. The post of assistant general director responsible
for all broadcasts across Russia is held by a certain Valery Mekhanik.
It was Gusinsky who had Mekhanik promoted to this position over two
years ago. This position enables its holder to organize transmission
of any video signal to any part of the world, provided there is an
appropriate receiver there. Official users lease the transmitter
around the clock, but actually use it in accordance with a schedule
(that means several hours at a time). There are "gaps" or "windows" in
between, all of them paid for by users. These gaps can be used. Of
course, this is only a theory. A thief isn't a thief unless he's
caught at it, as the Russian proverb goes... There is another theory,
favored by Gazprom-Media executives. They assume that video footage is
prepared for transmission abroad by Yevgeny Yakovich. NTV-Plus General
Director Yakovich has retained regular contacts with Gusinsky.
Watching the problems experienced by Yevgeny Kiselev's team,
observers are left with the impression that loyalty (even to an
oligarch) is not the worst human or professional trait. The matter is
not so simple as to be explained by personal friendship with the
exiled tycoon. Besides, Gusinsky has not been doing anything unlawful
either.
So what's the problem? The problem is this: the media tycoon
remains a Russian oligarch, even abroad. In other words, he is still
using state resources to promote his own business - and to influence
the public in his own interests. Official propagandists and advocates
of ideological purity have a new reason to criticize the oligarch. But
why - or, rather, what for? He is simply guilty of continuing to take
advantage of the state's weakness and clumsiness. Well, that is why
he's an oligarch in the first place.
********
#8
Moscow Times
March 1, 2002
Letter In response to "Goskomstat Rewrites Economic History," an article by
Valeria Korchagina on Feb. 19.
Editor,
The accusation that the State Statistics Committee, or Goskomstat, has
rewritten economic history is ungrounded.
The statistical agency is responsible for producing new estimates of the
gross domestic product as better data become available. This is not a
Russian invention but standard international methodology widely used around
the world.
Goskomstat's methodology is correct. Revisions of estimates of GDP are
normal. If there are no revisions, that it is cause for suspicion. The
Soviet Union, for example, never officially revised its statistics.
There have been enormous improvements in the quality of Russia's statistics
in the past 10 years, though some statistics still need further improvement.
In 1996-97 we had bitter discussions with the International Monetary Fund
staff on Russia's GDP numbers. Some people in the IMF had tried to rewrite
Goskomstat's estimates. Then we spent hours with then-IMF first deputy
managing director Stanley Fischer going over the statistics. Finally, the
IMF agreed that Goskomstat's methodology is correct and ceased to produce
its own time series for Russian GDP.
Andrei Illarionov
Economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin
Moscow
********
#9
Summit of ex-Soviet states to cast wary eye at US military presence.
AFP
February 28, 2002
ALMATY -- The US military presence in Central Asia is set to dominate a
summit of ex-Soviet republics Friday, taking place in a region Russia
once jealously guarded as its sphere of influence.
The leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS, a loose
grouping of former Soviet republics minus the Baltics) are expected to
discuss security in Afghanistan and Central Asia and the stationing of
US troops in the region, a Kazakh government source said.
However, a US decision to open a new front in its war against
international terrorism could dominate the summit following reports that
Washington plans to send military "experts" to ex-Soviet Georgia to
flush out al-Qaeda fighters.
The future development of the CIS, formed in 1991, would also figure in
the discussions, the Kazakh source added.
The staging of the CIS summit in Kazakhstan, a Central Asian state that
has maintained close ties with Moscow, is significant as talks are
expected to center around the role of Russia and the United States in
the ex-Soviet region.
Hardliners in Moscow have voiced concern about a possible long-term US
presence in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, all of which lent
support to the American-led war against Afghanistan's Taliban militia.
"The main issue will be Russia and American relations in Central Asia,"
said Alexei Malashenko, of the Moscow Carnegie Center.
"The issue of what the post-Soviet arena will look like, what role
Russia will play in it, who its allies will be and who will work with
the United States is a very critical and current issue," he added.
Other analysts warn that the geopolitics of Central Asia has shifted
irreversibly since September 11, while President Vladimir Putin's
acceptance of US troops in Moscow's "back yard" has angered Russia's
military and political top brass.
"A great majority of the (Russian) political establishment are not happy
with the American military presence in this region," said Yevgeny Volk,
director of the Moscow office of the Heritage Foundation.
Leading military figures are especially concerned that the US military
build-up in this strategic and oil and gas-rich region has continued
apace despite the fall of the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Analysts believe that Putin may use the CIS summit to pressure the
former Soviet republics to ensure the US presence does not become
permanent.
"Russia will try to persuade some of the CIS partners that the US
presence should be limited," said Volk.
The CIS has traditionally been an association through which Russia has
sought to preserve its influence in the former Soviet region, often
through pledges of economic and security cooperation.
Nevertheless, the summit is expected to underline Moscow's diminished
role in Central Asia where Washington is now seen as providing "an
additional shield of security," which "helps to uproot terrorism,
religious extremism and drug trafficking," according to Kyrgyz President
Askar Akayev.
The United States has more than Russia to offer the impoverished Central
Asian states, which are seeking financial aid and a greater role on the
world stage for their previously obscure region.
"The United States has much stronger leverage to influence these
countries and get their support in their anti-terrorist operations,"
said Volk.
The Almaty summit will also discuss US military aid to Georgia where
al-Qaeda links have reportedly infiltrated the remote and mountainous
Pankisi Gorge to link up with Islamic rebels fighting a 29-month
separatist war against Russian forces in neighbouring Chechnya.
Political unrest in Moldova, where a law to introduce compulsory
Russian-language lessons in schools has prompted tens of thousands to
stage anti-government demonstrations, is also expected to feature on the
Almaty agenda.
The summit will be preceded Thursday by a meeting of the Central Asian
Cooperation Organisation, involving Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
and Uzbekistan.
********
#10
Wall Street Journal Europe
28 February 2002
Countries Worth Rescuing
By THOMAS D. GRANT
An out-of-the-way former Soviet republic is the new
frontline of the war against terrorism. The Georgian
government and American diplomats on the scene
indicate that al Qaeda cells, driven from Afghanistan,
have set up shop in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge.
Yesterday, the government in Tbilisi announced that a
team of U.S. military advisors is on the ground in the
small Caucasian republic, while the Pentagon said it
had already sent helicopters and the White House
announced that hundreds more U.S. soldiers could be on
the way.
News that the United States has given 10 UH-1H
helicopters to Georgia and is considering sending
several hundred special forces may provide the outside
stabilizing hand that Georgia -- and the region --
needs. It also could presage much of what is to come
around the globe in the war against terrorism. There
exist a number of states that have sponsored
terrorism. Afghanistan had done so, and its Taliban
government has paid the price. But direct and
deliberate sponsors represent only part of the
problem.
The great failing of the international order in the
past decade was that it permitted more than just a few
places to turn into potential terrorist havens. Most
of these are not deliberate creations of hostile
governments. Instead, they are regions, like Georgia's
Pankisi area, that have fallen into lawlessness and to
which the writ of government does not extend. Georgia
itself is pro-Western and does not easily fit the
stereotype of the countries that are now potential
theaters in the war on terror.
Real Solidarity
On Sept. 11, I happened to be in Tbilisi and this
afforded me a first-hand view on how America's friends
react when America is challenged. President
Shevardnadze and parliamentary chairman Revaz Adamia,
the academic Alexander Rondeli and businessman Mamuka
Khazaradze all went out of their way to express
condolences to me personally as an American. The
government's official cooperation -- Georgia rapidly
extended overflight rights to U.S. military aircraft
-- showed that this was not just protocol but real
solidarity. The chancellery, boardroom and street were
one, for once: taxi drivers insisted on giving free
rides to any American passenger.
A wealth of good intentions, however, has not
stabilized Georgia as a newly independent state, which
has gone from crisis to crisis over the past decade.
The Soviet-era nomenklatura ceased to function after
1990, but a modern commercial class has yet to take
its place. Georgia's mountain clan allegiances, never
fully submerged during the Soviet period, now show
signs of re-emergence, undermining efforts to build a
society based on personal responsibility and the rule
of law.
Bad neighbors complicate things further. The logic of
closer cooperation between the three independent
states of the Caucasus -- Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia -- is plain enough. They share a Soviet era
infrastructure, and could make money if they can
secure themselves as an export route for Azeri and
Central Asian hydrocarbons. However, war between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, coupled with chaos in the
Georgian government, has limited integration to a bare
minimum. Russia, meanwhile, intervened (by some
accounts provoked) Georgia's bloody civil war a decade
ago and, under cover of a U.N. peacekeeping mandate,
provides the military muscle to keep Georgia's
Abkhazia region effectively independent of Tbilisi.
Perhaps the most dangerous flashpoint of
Russia-Georgia relations however is Pankisi. Russia
started the crisis by driving Chechens from their
homes and since 1999 has used Pankisi as a
justification for projecting its influence back into
Georgia. The crackdown by Russia against Chechen
separatists that started in 1999 drove some 7,000
Chechens into Pankisi, an isolated mountain fastness
that has become Georgia's most lawless hinterland.
Russia has complained that Chechens use Pankisi as a
base for operations in Chechnya. Georgians fear the
area which they hardly control.
Too many countries have such uncontrolled hinterlands.
The southern Philippines' Basilan Islands, Indonesia's
Aceh province, the northern reaches of Paraguay,
mountain villages in Yemen, the jungle expanses of
Colombia -- these form a frightening list of lawless
hinterlands. The governments concerned have lost the
ability to rule there, and, thus, are helpless to
prevent terrorists from moving in.
The United States has already deployed troops to help
friendly governments in some of these parts. U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has emphasized
that the U.S. will help where and how it can, when a
friendly government is fighting terrorism.
The news of U.S. assistance was welcomed by Georgian
President Eduard Shevardnadze and his embattled
government. But the Bush administration will have to
negotiate at least two specific pitfalls if American
help is to achieve its intended aims.
First, Russia will protest, and indeed already has
expressed concern. Some Russian generals welcome an
American role in calming a crisis-ridden strategic
flank, especially if this means a crackdown on Chechen
rebel enclaves. Others, however, bristle at yet
another U.S. move into the former Soviet sphere.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told state
television that the U.S. military presence could
"further aggravate the already complicated situation"
in the region.
Post-Imperial Role
NATO enlargement into old Warsaw Pact territory --
Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary -- left the
military brass feeling bruised. The setting up of U.S.
bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan was a shock. The
Caucasus, the prize of 19th century Czarist arms and
intrigue turned host to Yankees, will strike
conservatives in Moscow as an insult of historic
proportion. And yet, while it doesn't hurt for
Washington to continue to emphasize that these moves
do not in any way threaten Russia, Russia must get
used to its post-imperial role and will have to accept
a temporary American presence in Georgia as it has
other post-Cold War developments.
The second pitfall of intervention is the danger that
there will not be appropriate follow-up to the
military clean-up, leaving a void that will again be
filled with destabilizing forces or terrorists. The
U.S. has an interest in seeing that doesn't happen.
"Nation-building" has rightfully become a suspicious
word in Washington. Countries that did not build
themselves from within have a sorry record. Countries
like Georgia, the Philippines, and others, however,
already exist. What they require may not be cheap in
absolute terms, but it is a type and quantity of aid
that America and its allies most certainly can
deliver. Law and order must return to the Pankisis and
Basilans of the world, as institutions everywhere in
these countries are reinforced with appropriate
encouragement.
In my last day in Georgia last September, I met 50
young Georgians and the staff of Georgian teachers who
were poised to start a new school year in a new,
American-style, school in Tbilisi. Backed by modest
U.S. Agency of International Development funding and
inspired by teaching models found at Exeter Academy in
New Hampshire, the American Academy in Tbilisi
exemplifies the type of support that allies such as
Georgia must have as they join in this war to save
civilization itself. Knocking the terrorists out of
their havens is the first step. Helping friendly
countries strengthen their societies and the rule of
law so terrorists cannot return may well be the next.
Mr. Grant, Warburg Research Fellow at St. Anne's
College, Oxford University, specializes in
international law and international relations.
*******
#11
Moscow Tribune
March 1, 2002
RUSSIA'S HAND SHOULD BE STRONG Where strategic matters are concerned
Stanislav Menshikov
The closer the dates of the new Bush-Putin summit in May the more its
possible results are in doubt. From the Russian vantagepoint, the main
purpose of the get-together is to sign a binding and verifiable agreement on
drastically reducing strategic warhead numbers and to define limitations on
the US national missile defence system (NMD). According to the US side it
could well do without any such agreement. Instead, it would prefer a
generalist statement on a new mutual strategic partnership. Declarations of
that sort are usually not worth the paper they are written upon and are
comfortably forgotten soon after signature.
The gap between these opposite approaches is wide. Nevertheless, the US
agreed to start talking about a formal agreement. This was not a simple
gesture on President Bush's part. As Vladimir Putin made it clear on many
occasions, Moscow is not interested in reducing its strategic arsenal unless
the US signs a written pledge to do the same under joint control. Would
Washington even start cutting its own arsenal if Russia kept its current
6,000 strategic warheads intact? Nobody in the White House or Pentagon is
that stupid. Neither are their Russian counterparts..
However, when it came to details it turned out that the US meant reduction
on paper, not actual warhead destruction. The Pentagon would keep an extra
4,000 weapons in storage in case "something unexpected" happened. Russia
objected. It would not unilaterally disarm if the US were not ready to do
so. So far, Washington has not yielded. The storage concept was approved in
January at the very top. Only George W. Bush in person can change it if his
military brass permits. That is not likely.
As US experts see it, Russia is playing from a weak hand. It allegedly has
no money to maintain its strategic missiles and will have to reduce them in
any case due to natural depletion. All Washington has to do is wait until
the Russian nuclear deterrence capacity falls apart due to old age. Also,
Putin needs US investment so much that after some initial fuss he will
eventually agree to Bush's terms.
But those assumptions are illusions. While the Russian leadership has
started some reduction in ground-based missiles of the older types, it is
adding new Topol-M missiles that can perform the same job and increasing its
submarine-launched missile capacity. The submarines are armed with MIRVed
missiles and the Topols can be equipped accordingly at little additional
cost.
Equally wrong is the idea that Russia's finances are unable to support its
strategic force. According to the latest estimates of the London-based
International Institute for Strategic Studies, only 2.3 percent of the total
Russian defence budget in 2001 was spent on nuclear forces. Even if
procurement of new missiles and maintenance of older ones is added the total
is still less than 0.3 percent of GDP and therefore quite affordable.
The same applies to Russia's alleged economic dependence on the US. The
amount of direct investment and trade coming from across the ocean is
negligible and unlikely to increase in the near future. Expectations in
Moscow about this source of support for the economy are extremely low.
But the principal trump card on Putin's hand is the need for the US to get
rid of Russia's strategic arsenal. As long as nuclear parity remains a fact
Washington cannot pretend to claim complete global military superiority.
Russia's strategic force is not a threat to US national security, at least
not any more. The Pentagon now readily admits that point. However, if the
number of Russian warheads is reduced to 1,500 while the US keeps 6,000 on
alert and in store, the credibility of Russian deterrence capacity could
evaporate into thin air by the end of the decade. This is the real purpose
of creating a US national nuclear shield in conjuncture with talking Moscow
into unilaterally reducing its strike capacity.
By the same token, refusing unilateral strategic disarmament is a powerful
Putin bargaining chip because it destroys the whole logic underlying the new
US Nuclear Posture. Of course, it will hardly be possible to convince the US
to scrap that plan completely. But if Russia refuses to reduce its strategic
force on US terms, Washington will have no alternative but to seek a
compromise.
One possible deal mulled across the water is to accept concrete oversight
mechanisms in a strategic arms reduction agreement in exchange for Russian
partial acceptance of the warhead storage plan. Another is to trade signing
that agreement for a Russian commitment to cease nuclear co-operation with
Iran. As the "Los Angeles Times" put it the other day, "the US needs Russia
to contain Iran".
The trouble with the Bush administration is that it wants too much from
Russia without being prepared to pay an adequate price. It has been spoiled
by Putin's tactics of unilaterally conceding too much in advance. However,
all one-way streets have an end. Unless Bush learns that lesson, he will
return home from Russia in May with empty hands.
*******
#12
Chicago Tribune
February 28, 2002
Shutting down the Russian candy store
A U.S. non-proliferation approach to Russia must insist that Moscow live up
to its word to not sell nuclear material on the black market
By Joseph R. Biden Jr.. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) is chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
There are many sources for weapons of mass destruction, and it can take
years to obtain or build them. But there's a shortcut, a place that has it
all. It's a candy store of deadly arms. That place is Russia. Not a year
goes by without a Russian being arrested for stealing nuclear material or
attempting to sell it on the black market. And we know that Al Qaeda long
ago contacted elements of the Russian mafia in search of nuclear material.
Preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and shutting down
the candy store must be our foremost long-term objective in prosecuting the
war on international terrorism. This would constitute a change from our
efforts in recent years when the question of whether or not to develop and
deploy a national missile defense consumed our national security debate.
Many Americans forget that without a nuclear, biological or chemical
warhead, an ICBM is worthless. Last month, the National Intelligence
Estimatedeclared that "U.S. territory is more likely to be attacked with
weapons of mass destruction using non-missile means." After Sept. 11, no
one should doubt that future attacks are far more likely to come on a ship
bearing a smuggled nuclear weapon, a vial of biological toxins in a
backpack or a chemical agent dispersed in a crowded subway system. And our
budget priorities must reflect the urgency of such threats.
A year ago, Republican Howard Baker, a former senator and White House chief
of staff, and Democrat Lloyd Cutler, a former White House counsel, chaired
a bipartisan panel on the security of Russia's nuclear materials. Their
conclusions were not encouraging. Their report said, "The most urgent unmet
national security threat to the United States today is the danger that
weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be
stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against
American troops abroad or citizens at home."
With U.S. assistance over the past decade, Russia has made some progress in
securing dangerous weapons and material, but more must be done. Following a
year-long review, the Bush administration concluded that most of our
non-proliferation assistance programs are cost-effective and beneficial to
national security. But these conclusions are not reflected in the
administration's budget proposal. Some programs receive small increases,
others remain flat, still others are targeted for spending cuts.
We cannot afford to pinch pennies when Baker-Cutler argues $3 billion per
year would go a long way to address the problem. That's a lot of money, but
we're spending $7.8 billion on national missile defense research and
development in fiscal year 2002 and the administration has requested a
similar amount for fiscal year 2003. It doesn't make sense to focus on the
potential last line of defense when we need to do so much to bolster the
more achievable first line of defense.
What can we do with additional resources? For starters, we can double the
size of the Department of Energy's $174 million Materials Protection,
Control and Accounting program, which safeguards Russia's nuclear
materials. Russia recently signed an agreement to open up many more nuclear
sites to U.S. assistance, providing an opportunity to substantially
increase the security of nuclear stockpiles guarded by little more than a
chain-link fence.
Additionally, we could reduce Russia's Soviet-era debt in return for
Russian investment of the proceeds in non-proliferation programs. We hold
more than $3 billion in such debt, and our European allies hold several
times that. Debt swaps are a win-win proposition: Russia can avoid an
expected payment crunch next year while bolstering security through
protection of sensitive materials and technologies.
Finally, high-level Russian officials say their government no longer sees
strategic value in assisting Iran's long range missile and nuclear weapons
programs. A comprehensive U.S. non-proliferation approach to Russia must
insist Moscow live up to its word.
Denying access to bioterrorists and their supporters in rogue regimes to
weapons of mass destruction is one of the most important battles we face.
Shutting down Russia's candy store is the place to begin.
*******
#13
pravda.ru
28 February 2002
GEORGE BUSH "GIVES" THE KURILE ISLANDS TO JAPAN
The American president is doing his thing again. It is really quite
surprising how easy George Bush can solve international problems, even
those that couldn't be solved for decades. Another problem has been
settled: Bush promised Japanese Premier Koizumi to assist with the issue of
the South Kurile Islands.
The Japanese press have been commenting a lot on this bit of news lately.
It was reported that Japan will try to convince Iran not to export missile
technology to the third countries in return for American president’s favor.
It is not really clear, however, what levers Japan has to exert its
influence on Iran, but it seems there must some, as President Bush asked
for Japan's help.
An American diplomat (who works in Japan) said that President Bush
confirmed the degree of the US position, about US support for Japan's
requirement for the acknowledgement of its claim to the islands. Well,
there is nothing surprising about this, as Japan is America's closest
strategic partner in the Far East. However, the open interference in the
bilateral relations between Russia and Japan, this is definitely something
totally new. We wonder what the American president would say if Mexico
claimed Texas and said that it wanted it back? And what if Russia promised
to assist Mexico? One can guess that the reaction would be overwhelming.
Nevertheless, it is not ruled out that the Japanese misunderstood something
and were wishfully thinking. However, if the American president made such a
promise, then Japan will soon leave his side.
It is worth mentioning that the Russian government has not reacted yet to
the controversy, and no one asks Washington to clarify its intentions. It
seems that the Kremlin does not trust the Japanese press. If this is so,
then why the worsening of relations with the USA? Especially when it turns
out that George Bush mixed up “deflation" and "devaluation” again.
As a matter of fact, if Tokyo and Washington do not understand that such
problems must be solved on the bilateral level, then it is their problem,
not Moscow’s. Let the Americans give away the islands to Japan as much as
they want. All the same, the islands will not become Japanese territory. If
Tokyo really wants to achieve progress on this issue, then Japanese
politicians and diplomats need to listen to what Russia has to say on the
subject.
*******
#14
Commentary: Suppose the Soviets had won
By Claude Salhani and Martin Sieff
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- Suppose Texas and Florida seceded from the
United States. Suppose Mexico and Canada joined the Warsaw Pact. Suppose
that California declared independence and was seeking its own security ties
with Moscow as a guarantee against any future U.S. "aggression" that might
pull it back into the American Union. Would we Americans be worried? Would
we be angry? Or, would we think that was understandable?
Then suppose that all these things had happened, and Soviet diplomats in
Washington kept protesting and pressuring our government about the harsh
way we were repressing what we regarded as terrorist uprisings by the
Apache and Navajo Indians in their "autonomous republics" in the Southwest,
would Americans be furious at what they regarded as the hypocrisy and
intrusion into their private affairs of a hostile and triumphant rival
superpower?
Then suppose on top of all that, the Soviets proposed to set up a radio
station that broadcast calls for independence to the Navajo and Apache
movements that were supporting terrorist attacks in New York City and
Washington. Would we be furious? Would there be a "danger" of a huge
anti-Russian or anti-Soviet backlash across the Untied States?
And would bitterness and rage be especially widespread because the American
economy had imploded since the "collapse of capitalism" to only one half of
its previous value?
Well, that's the way a lot of Russians feel about the United States right now.
The Soviet Union has disintegrated. Moscow, which in 1990, ruled over a
population of 280 million, now rules a population of scarcely half that.
And birth rates remain miserably low while death rates have spiraled
dizzyingly upwards since the Soviet economy disintegrated just over a
decade ago.
Today, the Russian economy has finally started to first stabilize and then
recover under the more stable, responsible and shrewd stewardship of
President Vladimir Putin, following the decade of reckless chaos and
corruption under Boris Yeltsin. But the sense of many ordinary Russians as
well as embittered influential policymakers that they were deceived and
betrayed by the West continues to grow.
That is because many such people believe the United States continues to
actively seek to encircle their great nation and is trying to further
divide and destroy it.
The fury this past week in Moscow over the latest American moves to develop
security relations with the former Soviet republic of Georgia must be seen
in those terms.
Georgia, Azerbaijan and the other republics of the Caucasus have for the
past decade been independent nations. The United States is committed to
preserving and strengthening that independence. So strongly does Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz believe in this policy that back in 1992,
he argued when a member of the first President Bush's administration that
Russian threats to the new independence of the three tiny Baltic states of
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia should be regarded as a casus belli, a cause
of war, between the United States and Russia.
The peoples of the Ukraine, the Baltic States and the Caucasus republics
had excellent reasons for wanting to regain their independence. They had
all suffered miserably under three quarters of a century of communism and
all had suffered slaughter of literally genocidal proportions at the hands
of Josef Stalin. At least 10 million Ukrainians were starved to death as a
direct result of deliberate state policy in the collectivization of 1929-32
and millions more were then coldly murdered during the Great Terror of
1937-39. That meant that before World War II even began, twice as many
Ukrainians had been killed as the total number of Jews slaughtered by
Hitler in the Holocaust.
Still, for the Russian people today, the loss of all those lands from the
same nation they so long shared still feels traumatic and unnatural. Up to
30 million ethnic Russians now live under non-Russian governments. Ukraine
had been ruled from Moscow since the 1650s -- 120 years before the United
States was even born. Azerbaijan and the other Caucasus nations had been
under Russian rule since before Texas or California were states of the
Union. The Apaches waged ferocious wars against the United States for more
than 40 years after Russia finally absorbed Chechnya.
The transition for the Russian people is an enormous and difficult one.
During the "good old days" of the Cold War, life was relatively simple for
Soviet citizens. There were the good guys --- the Soviets, out to spread
Socialism and liberate the oppressed masses, the workers and agrarian
laborers --- and the bad guys -- the imperialists, out to impose their
dictate on the world, using the power of the almighty dollar, McDonalds,
Nike, Microsoft and Coca Cola.
Throughout the whole Cold War, Soviet citizens were taught that they had to
remain steadfast in the face of American imperialism and other reactionary
forces. They were told that the Motherland was in imminent danger of
invasion by American and NATO troops stationed all around their beloved
worker's paradise, gray and dreadful as it was.
From Turkey, in the west, to the Arabian Gulf states, and Pakistan in the
south, to a multitude of pro-American Asian puppet nations in the east,
backed up by Australia -- the largest U.S. aircraft carrier --, the Soviet
Union saw itself surrounded. Not to mention the array of troops and
missiles deployed in Europe, Scandinavia and North America, all aimed at
Socialism's front lines.
Many Soviet citizens believed the United States represented a real and
present danger. They lived in the same constant fear of an invasion by
American and NATO forces that equaled the paranoia the West harbored of the
Soviets. They had, after all, narrowly survived the most destructive
invasion and occupation of any nation since the Mongol hordes 700 years
earlier in World War II when the Nazi invaders killed 27 million of their
people.
That was why the Soviet leaders were able to convince ordinary Russians and
other Soviet citizens for decades that they needed to defend and protect
Mother Russia with an important 'buffer zone,' comprised of the Soviet
satellite nations -- East Germany, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and
Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union itself included the three Baltic States,
and the republics of the Caucasus, (Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan) and
the five Turkic Islamic republics of Central Asia -- Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. All those countries
and subservient Soviet republics offered Russians a comfort zone. They felt
safer with the knowledge that Mother Russia would be protected by the
Berlin Wall, a wall that in reality extended well beyond the capital of
East Germany, to the far reaches of the Soviet empire.
As we know, the Soviet empire crumbled in 1991, along with the Berlin Wall.
The afore-mentioned countries won their independence, and Russia lost its
buffer zone, and its security blanket.
The United States emerged as the uncontested winner of the Cold War. Since
then, the West has been trying to reassure Russian worries that the United
States is out to get them. We are not. We only want to sell them our Coca
Cola and McDonalds.
But the old Russian fears are now reviving anew. American troops have
successfully entered Afghanistan and installed our own allies -- or puppets
-- there. Pakistan, and India (for decades the Soviet Union and Russia's
main ally on the Eurasian land mass) both now appear under U.S. influence.
(Although in the case of both, that is misleading).
Three former Warsaw Pact nations -- Poland, the Czech republic and Hungary
-- are already full members of NATO. The rest are all clamoring at the door
to join. The coming NATO summit in Prague, Czech Republic, this November is
already being presented by the Bush administration as a vast expansion that
will extend the alliance from its current 19 members to a whopping 28. The
applicants include the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia
that before 1990 had only been independent for 22 out of the previous 300
or more years.
Even more alarming for die-hard Russians who still mourn the Soviet
collapse is the fact that American special forces, including units of the
10th Mountain Division, have already established bases in Kazakhstan, and
are, as of last week, deploying into the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
All along, the Americans are now more powerful than ever, imposing their
Pax Americana on the world, and peddling their wares, as the planet has
become a giant shopping mall where American goods like McDonalds, Microsoft
and Nike are the order of the day.
Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and
president of Eisenhower Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, and a
leading expert in Russian affairs warns that U.S. military bases being set
up in former Soviet central Asian republics could lead to similar anti-U.S.
sentiments to those currently existing in Saudi Arabia.
If the United States had collapsed and struggled to restore itself only to
find a Russian noose tightening around its neighbors on every side, would
the American people sit back and take it? Or would we gather our enormous
potential in a national awakening filled with hate and rage at the nation
we blamed for our humiliation and woe?
So far, what has been astonishing about the behavior of the Russian people
in the decade since the collapse of communism has not been their hatred and
resentment of the United States, but their lack of it. The vast
overwhelming majority of the Russian people have made clear in repeated
elections and by their conduct that they do not want communism re-imposed
on them and that they are under no illusions about the hideous torments it
inflicted upon them.
But as the years pass and those traumatic memories begin to fade, Russians
look around to see a triumphal, all-powerful United States extending its
influence actively all around them, even in areas that for centuries they
regarded as their private heartland.
Will they sit back and passively take it as we Americans would not? Don't
bet on it.
*******
#15
Russia minister said questioning U.S. poultry ban
By Aleksandras Budrys
MOSCOW, March 1 (Reuters) - Russia's agriculture ministry on Friday said it
had banned U.S. poultry meat imports because of the use of antibiotics in
production, but local media reports quoted the minister as saying it was
only a threat.
"Yes, the ban has been imposed," Diana Magad, the head of the Agriculture
Ministry's press service, told Reuters earlier. "But I have no further
comment."
Another ministry spokeswoman said the order setting the ban existed, but
would not say whether it had been signed.
However, Interfax news agency later quoted Agriculture Minister Alexei
Gordeyev as saying no final decision had been taken over a ban.
"We are issuing a warning as we haven't received an answer to three
requests on which antibiotics and in what quantity are used in poultry
production," Gordeyev said.
Earlier, Interfax had quoted First Deputy Agriculture Minister Sergei
Dankvert as saying that the ban would take effect from March 10, and the
issuing of new licences on U.S. poultry imports had been suspended from
March 1.
On Wednesday Dankvert said Russia wanted proof that U.S. poultry meat was
safe for human consumption because of concerns over the use of antibiotics
in chicken and turkey production.
"The issue of allowing imports will not be examined until the U.S. side
presents the list of these substances and their formulae," Dankvert told
Interfax on Friday.
Ukraine earlier this year halted U.S. poultry meat imports over the same
issue.
Dankvert said that in January Russia had requested information from the
United States about substances used in poultry meat processing. But
Russia's veterinary service had to sent another request as it considered
the reply to the first one incomplete.
Leading U.S. poultry producers last month banned use of the fluoroquinolone
antibiotic for chickens and turkey amid rising consumer concerns that it
may harm humans.
Russia's Agriculture Ministry has also said it wants to protect domestic
poultry meat producers by restricting imports first through higher tariffs
and then through setting import quotas.
Russia imported 1.36 million tonnes of poultry meat last year, the bulk of
it from the United States.
The U.S. Poultry and Egg Export Council office in Moscow declined to
comment, saying it had not received the resolution setting the ban.
Vedomosti business daily speculated that if the ban were imposed, the
United States might retaliate by imposing curbs on imports of steel, which
the U.S. authorities were currently examining. Russia is an important
supplier of steel to the United States.
It said Russian steel producers had asked the government to take measures
in response to possible U.S. import restrictions, which, by their estimate,
could cost Russia $1.5 billion in the next two years.
U.S. President George W. Bush is widely expected to impose some level of
import protection before March 6 following an investigation he launched
last summer into the effect of steel imports on domestic production.
******
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