Johnson's Russia List
#6120
7 March 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Russia criticises "odious" US rights report.
2. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review.
3. Moscow Times: Andrei Zolotov Jr., 15 Bidders on Board for TV6 Tender.
4. Novye Izvestia: Valery Yakov, THE REGIME DUCKS THE QUESTION.
The Kremlin doesn't seem to want the truth about the explosions to emerge.
5. The Russia Journal: John Helmer, WHO SAYS NO TRAGEDY FOR RUSSIAN STEEL?
6. Washington Post: Sharon LaFraniere, Russian Spies, They've Got Mail.
Regulations Allow Security Services to Tap Into Systems of Internet
Providers.
7. Asia Times: Sergei Blagov, Russia hedges its bets on oil output cut.
8. New issue of Russia Watch.
9. Obshchaya Gazeta: Viceroy Drachevskiy Seen at Odds With Kudrin, Gref
Over Siberian Development.
10. Pravda.ru: NEW LAW ON RF CITIZENSHIP -- FULL STOP IN BREAK-UP OF THE
USSR. (inteview with Duma deputy Anatoly Chekhoyev)
11. US Commerce Department SABIT Program Announces Extension of Deadline.
12. Novaya Gazeta: Art Gives Us the Experience of Things That Did Not
Happen. Four excerpts from Yuri Lotman's cycle of lectures, "Talks on
Russian Culture."]
*******
#1
Russia criticises "odious" US rights report
MOSCOW, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday that U.S. criticism of
its human rights record in Chechnya was "odious" and part of a plot to
scupper cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
In its annual human rights report this week, the U.S. State Department said
Russian forces in Chechnya "demonstrated little respect for basic human
rights" and cited "credible reports" of torture, extortion and killings by
troops.
"The basic contents of the report evoke, to put it mildly, surprise," the
Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "The passages on Chechnya are
especially odious. And this doesn't seem to be a coincidence."
"In certain circles in the USA, forces have been activated who oppose the
constructive development in Russian-American relations, and especially the
unprecedented level of cooperation achieved in the joint struggle against
new threats, including international terrorism," it said.
Russian troops returned to Chechnya in 1999 after being driven out in an
earlier war. Moscow says they are fighting terrorism and Western countries
have generally agreed that Chechen separatists have had ties to
international Islamic militants.
But the Russian forces have also reduced many Chechen towns and villages to
rubble. Despite installing a pro-Moscow administration, they have yet to
eliminate rebel resistance and continue to seal off villages for military
sweeps.
The U.S. report drew extensively on the work of international monitor
groups such as Human Rights Watch, which have documented dozens of cases in
which Chechens disappeared in Russian custody, and were often found dead in
unmarked graves.
Russia denies its forces carry out systematic abuses in Chechnya, and
Russian officials often respond hotly to Western criticism of their rights
record.
Russia has been a strong supporter of the U.S. war on terrorism since
September 11 and Washington appeared to tone down some its criticism of
Russian behaviour in Chechnya in the wake of the suicide airliner attacks.
But U.S. criticism increased again this year after the Kremlin abandoned an
attempt to open dialogue with Chechen rebels and resumed the military
sweeps of Chechen towns and villages.
Last week, Washington said it would send U.S. special forces military
instructors to Georgia, an ex-Soviet republic south of Chechnya, to help it
deal with Islamic militants at the border.
Moscow had been pressing Georgia to allow its forces to operate in the
border area and the U.S. move effectively blocks Russia from spreading the
Chechen war south. Moscow initially opposed the U.S. plans, but President
Vladimir Putin later said they were "no tragedy" for Russian interests.
Putin, who is due to meet President George W. Bush at a summit in Moscow in
May, has been working to establish a warm relationship with Russia's Cold
War foe.
******
#2
ORT Review
www.ortv.ru
Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba7@bu.edu)
Research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and
Policy at Boston University
HEADLINES,
Wednesday, March 06, 2002
- Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Deputy Prime Minister Valentina
Matvienko to discuss government-employee salaries and the problem of child
homelessness.
- A program to fight child homelessness has been initiated in Moscow. An
operative headquarters headed by Interior Minister Boris Gryzlov has been
established; branch offices have been opened in ministries and departments.
- Russian Media Ministrer Mikhail Lesin announced that 15 candidates have
submitted bids for the Channel 6 frequency contest, which will take place on
March 27, after all documents are verified.
- Speaking in Moscow, Zbigniew Brzezinsky said that closer Russian-American
relations can bring stability to Europe and to the rest of the world.
- The Abkhaz national security service reports that, despite Georgian
President Eduard Shevarnadze’s statement that his country desires a peaceful
solution to the Abkhaz conflict, Georgia is likely to conduct large-scale
military operations on the Republic’s territory.
- The body of another sailor from the Kursk nuclear submarine has been
identified. Aleksei Zubov will be buried in Sevastopol.
- Russian Agriculture Minister Aleksei Gordeev declared that Russia’s
decision to stop importing “Bush legs,” which account for one fifth of US
exports to Russia, is not politically motivated. Rather, it was based on
veterinarians’ concern for food safety. He also stated that poultry prices
in Russia will remain stable.
- Mexico plans to follow the example of the US and raise tariffs on steel
imported from Russia and Ukraine. Tariffs are expected to go up to 35
percent.
- Russian Trade and Economic Development Minister German Gref expressed the
hope that the new US tariffs will not be applied to all Russian steel
exports. “Otherwise,” he suggested, “we will most likely renounce all the
other [trade] agreements with the US, since they would lose all
significance.”
- Media-Soyuz and the Communications Ministry are conducting a contest for
the best Russian-language radio station. The winner will be announced on
May 7, the National Radio Day.
- A fire broke out on the second floor of a St. Petersburg apartment
building early this morning. Seven people died; five others have been
hospitalized. Two men were arrested later in the day and charged with
arson.
- Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov visited the Leningrad Military District
138th Motor Rifle Brigade today. He said that the general state of the
Russian Armed Forces is fairly poor, that much has been lost over the last
10 years, and that the Russian government will have to gradually rebuild the
social and moral prestige of the military service.
- The Russian State Duma has accepted a declaration “On the Situation in
Georgia as it relates to US presence there” by a vote of 364 to 3. The
latest version of the declaration does not include a radical statement
offering to support the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but the
Duma might return to that question. The document does however state the
intention to “discuss another way of resolving” the statehood of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia if the peace talks are not successful.
- State Duma deputies also accepted a law (in the third reading) that will
allow foreign nuclear waste do be brought into Russia and stored after an
appropriate presidential commission is formed.
- Russian and Ukrainian politicians, economists and sociologists are
discussing the upcoming Ukrainian parliamentary elections at a roundtable in
Moscow.
- Patriarch Alexii II has blessed the newly-renovated St. Sophia (Holy
Wisdom) Cathedral on Lubyanka Square. Federal Security Service officers,
whose headquarters are located nearby, raised most of the funds for the
renovation of the Cathedral.
- President Putin met with former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, who is in
Moscow on a visit.
- Maritime Region authorities are strengthening the fight against the
illegal export of timber over the Russian-Chinese border.
- The Council of the Baltic Sea States is holding its annual meeting in
Kaliningrad. Foreign Ministers from member nations (Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia,
Sweden, and the European Commission) will discuss visa regulations and other
political, economic, ecological, energy, health and transportation issues.
******
#3
Moscow Times
March 7, 2002
15 Bidders on Board for TV6 Tender
By Andrei Zolotov Jr.
Staff Writer
Fifteen bidders made the Wednesday deadline to submit applications to
participate in a tender for the Channel 6 frequency, but feverish
last-minute talks between the consortium backing the ousted TV6 team and
the duo of Kremlin-trusted lobbyists Yevgeny Primakov and Alexander Volsky
failed to yield an agreement.
As a result, separate bids were entered by the Shestoi Telekanal consortium
of 12 businessmen and TV6 journalists and by Primakov and Volsky's
Media-Socium.
If a compromise is reached, however, one party can still withdraw from the
race and join forces with the other side on the terms of its bid, Press
Minister Mikhail Lesin said.
"It is quite possible that in the near future we will nonetheless join
forces with Media-Socium in order to continue the struggle for the sixth
channel together," former TV6 general director Yevgeny Kiselyov said on
Ekho Moskvy radio Wednesday evening.
A mutual understanding "on all the basic points" was found, but time ran
out before all the necessary signatures and stamps could be gathered, he said.
Three days of intense negotiations stretched right up to the Press
Ministry's 6 p.m. deadline for applications. Kiselyov and the consortium's
spokesman, former head of the Metalloinvest holding Oleg Kiselyov, were to
announce a compromise at a 5 p.m. news conference with former Prime
Minister Primakov, who currently heads the Russian Chamber of Commerce, and
Volsky, chief of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, or
RSPP. But the news conference was first postponed for half an hour and then
cancelled altogether.
Russian media reported earlier this week without citing sources that
Primakov and Volsky had entered the bidding fray with President Vladimir
Putin's blessing. The reports were indirectly confirmed by the readiness of
the TV6 consortium, which formed Feb. 18, to negotiate with them.
The Kommersant newspaper reported Wednesday that the sticking point in the
talks was the insistence by Media-Socium, a noncommercial partnership, to
hold the channel's license and hire the consortium as a de facto general
contractor to produce the programming.
In addition to the Russian Chamber of Commerce and RSPP, Media-Socium's
members are to include so-called public opinion leaders such as conductor
Yury Temirkanov, composer Alexander Chaikovsky, ice hockey coach Boris
Mikhailov and cosmonaut Oleg Atkov, Kommersant said.
On Monday, the two Kiselyovs said that the consortium, of which the TV6
journalists' OOO TV6 company owns 10 percent, was open to others who wished
to join on its terms of equal shares, editorial independence and adherence
to "the basic values of liberal economy and an open society."
On Wednesday, however, a source close to the negotiations said that the
consortium was ready to join Media-Socium on its terms but wanted to
receive additional guarantees of their status in the partnership.
Lesin said he did not know why the negotiations failed. He said that he
took part in them Tuesday.
Several former TV6 journalists have split from Kiselyov's team and are
bidding for the Channel 6 frequency separately with the financial backing
of U.S.-owned investment fund TPG-Aurora. The fund has said it would invest
$50 million to $80 million in a channel focused on business rather than
politics.
Former TV6 executive director Pavel Korchagin, who leads that bid, said he
had quit the consortium because he believes it has no future.
"The more I learned about this project, the more I was convinced that it
was a political one," Korchagin was quoted by Kommersant as saying. "It
will be a volcano, whose mouth we have already been sitting on for a long
time. I would like to do television as business."
He said that Andrei Norkin, one of Kiselyov's former anchormen and the
journalists' main spokesman during their fight at NTV and TV6, had been
appointed chief editor of the new company.
The surprise bidder for Channel 6 on Wednesday was the
Gazprom-Media-controlled THT, NTV's sister second-tier channel, which has a
weak UHF transmitter in Moscow.
Gazprom-Media said in a statement that its plan for the frequency called
for an increase in sports programming and that it would relinquish its
weaker frequencies in cities where the two channels would overlap.
"We as shareholders obviously welcome measures that would lead to
increasing the value of our companies," Gazprom-Media chairman Alexander
Dybal said in a statement. "A possible victory by THT and consequently a
growth of the channel's reach would seriously increase the channel's
attractiveness to investors."
Gazprom promised to sell off Gazprom-Media's assets -- which include THT
and NTV -- about six months after it seized them from debtor Media-MOST.
Lesin said Wednesday at a news conference that he had expected to receive
only eight or nine applications, not 15.
Three bidders -- LUKoil-backed TV-VI, Vysshaya Liga and Vashe Televideniye
-- include TV6 officials who left the channel when Kiselyov's team came on
board from NTV last spring.
The National Olympic Committee, the Gorbachev Foundation, the 7TV sports
channel and the ATV television production giant also submitted
applications, as well as little-known organizations the Social Protection
Party, the Young Russia public movement and the Alexander-Club publishing
house.
A nine-member commission chaired by Lesin is to consider the applications
March 27.
********
#4
Novye Izvestia
March 7, 2002
THE REGIME DUCKS THE QUESTION
The Kremlin doesn't seem to want the truth about the explosions to emerge
Author: Valery Yakov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THE KREMLIN AND THE RUSSIAN SECRET SERVICES HAVE CHOSEN THE EASIEST
WAY OUT. THEY'RE PRETENDING THAT THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE STATEMENTS
AN INDIVIDUAL MIGHT MAKE ABROAD. ALL THE SAME, THEY FAILED TO TAKE THE
BLOW IN THEIR STRIDE; THEY STRUCK BACK.
It doesn't seem that official Moscow intends to respond to
businessman Boris Berezovsky's claims in London that the Federal
Security Service (FSB) was involved in the most tragic terrorist acts
in Russia. The Kremlin and the Russian secret services have chosen the
easiest way out. They're pretending that they do not care about the
statements an individual might make abroad. All the same, they failed
to take the blow in their stride; they struck back. The response took
the form of a statement by Mr. Barkovsky, Deputy Head of the
Directorate of Investigation of the Prosecutor General's Office.
Berezovsky was accused of involvement in the abduction of General
Shpigun. For the skeptics, Mr. Barkovsky had a witness whose identity
he could not reveal "in the interests of investigation."
I'm daring to present an opinion. One of the key witnesses in the
episode of Shpigun's abduction (and many other scandalous abductions
when Berezovsky personally interfered on behalf of the hostages) is
Mr. Rushailo. Lots of grim legends surround his role in numerous
negotiations over ransom. No one could have spent more time than
Rushailo on Shpigun's fate. Well, perhaps only Sergei Stepashin who
gave the word of officer once that the general would be saved from
captivity. Stepashin failed to save Shpigun because he himself became
the prime minister... In any case, Rushailo and Stepashin both
actively cooperated with Berezovsky who was in favor then. No one
would have gone so far then as to suspect Berezovsky of having been
involved in Shpigun's abduction. Actually, it would have been like
suspecting Rushailo himself.
Vladimir Putin, director of the FSB at the time, was friendly
with Berezovsky then. Being what he was, Putin must have known about
all (all!) the oligarch's contacts with the Chechens. These contacts
did not worry the chekist Putin, the policeman Rushailo, and prime
minister Stepashin back then. The businessman is an enemy now, and
those contacts are labelled criminal. In this case, all these men
should be treated as accomplices, right? I would be happy to help as a
witness. I remember Basayev, acting prime minister of Chechnya then,
complaining in an interview with me that the Russian prime minister
did not keep his word and the promised money was not coming.
Berezovsky alone made a promise to help with reconstruction of the
concrete factory and kept it.
The Kremlin's primitive response to the accusations of utmost
seriousness voiced by Berezovsky in London doesn't make the following
question any less pressing: who was behind the explosions in Moscow?
Moreover, why do all government structures so persistently refuse to
conduct a thorough, objective, and independent investigation? Sure, we
cannot expect any coherent response from the FSB while it is commanded
by active types like Patrushev and talkers like Zdanovich, but Putin
might have responded. He, more than anyone else, should be interested
in answers to the mysteries of explosions in Moscow. So that true
criminals got their due. So that the regime can apologize to the
Chechen people blamed for these horrible terrorist acts.
By the way, Putin is experienced in studying scandalous
documentaries. Remember the scenes of a man resembling Prosecutor
General Yuri Skuratov was doing naughty things with two women? Mr.
Putin was actively involved in the investigation then... Truth or lack
thereof of the implications of Berezovsky's documentary are of
paramount importance for the public, and for the image of the regime
associated with Putin, once director of the FSB. TV networks are not
in a hurry to run the documentary. Putin is showing absolutely no
interest in the scandalous saga. What is this: sparing Patrushev and
his FSB? Or sparing himself?
*******
#5
The Russia Journal
March 8-15, 2002
WHO SAYS NO TRAGEDY FOR RUSSIAN STEEL?
By John Helmer
It's no tragedy, and it cannot be. That's what Russian government officials
said in mid-1999 when, over the strenuous objections of a majority of its
steelmakers, Russia agreed to a US ultimatum, and signed an agreement to
limit Russian steel exports to the US.
That year started with an attempt by US trade negotiators to put a limit on
hot-rolled steel imports. Moscow agreed to the Washington terms, which
included fixing a quota on the volume of the steel that could be imported
in a
year, as well as setting a high reserve, or minimum, price, below which
nothing could be sold at all.
Imagine the surprise in the Ministry of Trade and the Kremlin when the
Americans suddenly said their own deal wasn't enough. They then added
what was called a comprehensive steel trade agreement, listing new limits on
more than a dozen categories of iron and steel, in addition to the hot-rolled
products. It's no tragedy, and it cannot be, said the Americans, when the
Russians objected that there was no justification for adding
restrictions on Russian imports that were too small to damage the US market,
and weren't the target of investigation, according to US trade law.
According to the Commerce Department negotiators, the package deal would not
only protect Russian steel exports from pending dumping penalties, it would
extend that protection into the future for the other steel products, in case
the US industry decided to ask for import limits. Either accept the
comprehensive limits, or risk the consequences, they said at the time.
It's no tragedy, and it cannot be, said the executives of Severstal, the
second largest of Russia's steelmakers, and the most profitable until
recently. For Severstal, any guarantee of access to the US market was
better than the risk of losing all access, especially for products like
cold-rolled sheet which the Americans had already placed under quota and
price
restrictions.
Severstal managed to convince the government to sign the deal, despite
opposition from Novolipetsk, Mechel, and most other steelmakers whose
stakes in the American market were less lucrative than Severstal's.
Imagine the surprise in Russia, therefore, when the weaker elements of the
US steel industry applied to have the new Bush Administration declare that
Russian steel improst on the list, along with steel imports from most other
world producers, were seriously damaging the local plants.
During the presidential election campaign of 2000, it had been obvious to
Russian steelmakers that if the votes of key steelmaking states were
be key to the outcome, then the new president was bound to owe a big debt to
the steel companies. The narrowest presidential election result in history --
possibly the only illegal one -- made repayment of this obligation a
certainty.
At the same time, it was obvious during last year that falling global demand
for steel, and declining industrial output in the US, meant that prices for
steel products on the US market were so low, Russian steel exports subject
to price controls could not be sold. By late in 2001, even Severstal was
beginning to join the chorus of Russian voices urging President Vladimir
Putin
to acknowledge that American trade limits were unfair, and should be
scrapped.
If the Americans didn't agree, the steelmakers urged, then the Kremlin should
unilaterally abrogate its 1999 signature, and withdraw from the comprehensive
agreement.
It's no tragedy, and it cannot be, came the reply from Commerce Department
negotiators who kept prolonging the talks with their Russian counterparts,
but
agreed to nothing. They were waiting for President George Bush to decide
what he wanted to do.
On Wednesday of this week, Bush made up his mind. A penalty duty of 30% is
to be imposed immediately on imports of all hot and cold-rolled flat steel
products, as well as hot-rolled and cold-finished bar. Bush exempted Canada
and Mexico, as well as "developing countries that exported only small amounts
of steel and that are WTO members", leaving Russia, and the rest of the
steelmaking world, exposed to the full brunt of the restrictions.
In Russia's case, that meant US rejection of every element of the 1999
deal, including US commitments to take limited volumes of flats and bars.
Okay, says the White House, dishonouring our agreements is no tragedy, and it
cannot be.
Severstal had been hoping for the lion's share of the 655,000 tonne quota
the Americans had agreed to grant for hot-rolled products in 1999, as well as
of the 350,000 tonne quota for cold-rolled products. The company now claims
the American decision will shut out sales of 500,000 tonnes of steel this
year, worth about $120 million.
Novolipetsk benefits, relatively speaking, because Bush hasn't ordered an
immediate penalty duty on steel slab, the semi-fabricated metal which US
steelmakers like to import for re-rolling and finishing. Instead, Bush set a
quota of slab imports at 5.4 million short tons, roughly equivalent to the
volume the US imported in 2000. If imports of slab exceed that level, Bush
ordered a penalty duty of 30%. The White House justifies this arrangement
by explaining that there are enough US steelmakers who can convert the cheap
imported slab profitably, and their interest should be protected.
For Novolipetsk, this is no tragedy.
According to the last steel trade agreement the US signed, Russia should be
able to export this year 85,000 tonnes of hot-rolled bar and 36,000 tonnes of
cold-finished bar, including 45,000 tonnes of reinforcement bar (rebar). Bush
has decided to impose a 30% duty on bar, and 15% on rebar. The first is
prohibitive, and Russian mills say they won't be sell anything. Bush is also
imposing a 15% penalty on pipe products, for which the 1999 deal provides a
quota this year of 40,000 tonnes. It remains to be seen whether Russia's
pipemakers can sell with this limitation.
If Bush's decision were limited to the US, it would be bad enough. But
Mexico has already raised its import duties on steel to 25%. Canada and other
countries are likely to follow.
Bush's attempt to impose US interests on the global steel industry has been
challenged by the European governments, the Australians, and others, who
will go to the World Trade Organization to challenge its legality. President
Putin, who is planning to meet Bush in Moscow in May, has yet to speak his
mind.
Tragedy, he knows in the ancient Greek sense of the term, means an outcome
the gods inflict on human beings, that is inevitable and unavoidable, no
matter how hard men struggle to resist it. When Putin recently commented on
US troop deployments across the border in Georgia, he said "it's no tragedy
-- it cannot be". Is that what he thinks of all the decisions taken on Mt.
Olympus?
*******
#6
Washington Post
March 7, 2002
Russian Spies, They've Got Mail
Regulations Allow Security Services to Tap Into Systems of Internet Providers
By Sharon LaFraniere
Washington Post Foreign Service
MOSCOW -- Nail Murzakhanov, an Internet provider in Volgograd, knew he
might lose his business license four years ago when he told the Federal
Security Service, Russia's domestic intelligence agency, that he would not
give it access to the e-mail traffic of his 1,500 subscribers.
When the Communications Ministry suspended his license for failure to
cooperate with the intelligence agency, known as the FSB, Murzakhanov filed
suit.
Surprisingly, in August 2000, he got his license back. "In the end, I was
left in peace," he said in a phone call from an office filled with brightly
colored computer games.
The standoff was surprising not so much because Murzakhanov won, but
because it occurred at all. Typically, Internet providers in Russia say
they do all they can to satisfy the state security services, even if it
means turning over the password of every client.
That is one telling barometer of the security services' continuing power in
Russia's 11-year-old democracy. In theory, Russians are entitled to as much
privacy in their communications as Americans. Both the Russian constitution
and a 1995 law prohibit law enforcement agencies from monitoring phone
calls, pager messages, radio transmissions, e-mails or Internet traffic
without a court order.
But in practice, critics say, court orders are little more than legal
niceties in Russia. An obscure set of technical regulations issued in the
late 1990s permits total access without ever approaching a judge.
The regulations are known as SORM, the Russian acronym for System for
Operational-Investigative Activities. They require Internet providers to
give their local FSB office whatever hardware, software and fiber-optic
lines may be needed to tap into the provider's system and all its users.
While U.S. law is based on the premise that law enforcement agencies must
be held in check, Russian civil rights advocates say the premise of SORM is
that Russian law enforcement can be trusted to keep itself in check.
"They have all the conditions to abuse their power," said Yuri Vdovin, who
heads Citizens' Watch, a St. Petersburg human rights organization funded by
the Ford Foundation. "The system is on purpose constructed in such a way
that there is no way anyone can control them. A Russian citizen is not
protected at all."
Internet providers don't like the system, especially since they promise
clients in their contracts that their e-mail will be kept confidential. But
a decade after perestroika, Russia is still a country where people are not
inclined to fight city hall, much less what was once the secret police.
Eugene Prygoff is the former marketing director of Kuban.net., an Internet
provider in the southwestern Russia city of Krasnodar. He said the vast
majority of providers are simply not willing to risk their licenses to test
the principle of privacy. "They see no sense in putting up resistance. So
they work out a deal with the FSB," he said.
And compared with their counterparts in the West, civil rights
organizations are still scarce and often too weak to challenge the state.
Citizens' Watch, for instance, is working with a group of Russian lawyers
to prepare a legal complaint against SORM. At the same time, the group's 12
employees are working on issues of freedom of the press, racial
discrimination, juvenile crime, military reform and state secrecy.
Not every provider ends up installing a direct line to the local FSB
office, according to Mikhail Yakushev, head of the legal department at
Global One, an international firm andone of Moscow's biggest Internet
providers. Each one works out its own confidential agreement with the
security service, he said. He stressed that his comments reflected the
views of an Internet providers association, where he heads the legal
working group, not Global One.
"In practice SORM is not as abusive as it could be, because the FSB doesn't
have enough qualified staff or special equipment to be as active as they
could," he said.
"But then again, who knows what will happen next year, or next month? The
biggest problem is no one to control them. If there is a line, and
equipment that allows them access, then no one can track them."
Until a Supreme Court ruling in late 2000, the FSB was not even required to
tell providers that its agents were tapping the system. The complaint in
that case was filed by a 26-year-old St. Petersburg journalist, who said he
got tired of waiting for civil rights groups or providers to protest.
Murzakhanov, now 36 and the director of Bayard-Slavia Communications in
Volgograd, 575 miles south of Moscow, is the only provider to publicly
raise a fuss. Murzakhanov said that in 1998, a year after the company
opened, FSB agents presented the firm with a plan to hook up the local FSB
offices.
Besides $100,000 worth of hardware, software and computer lines,
Murzakhanov said, the FSB wanted all the tools that he had, as the
administrator of the system. "They could very easily have read all the
clients' passwords. And once they learned the passwords, they could have
controlled online all the e-mail traffic," he said. "They could have read
or rewritten an e-mail even before the receiver got it, and the user would
never know."
His refusal to sign the FSB's plan brought untold headaches. He said his
business was audited or inspected at least 15 times for compliance with
fire, epidemiological, sanitation, labor protection and tax codes.
The FSB also switched off his main data transmission line, he said, forcing
him to rely on low-quality, dial-up channels. His business license was
suspended for six months. Only after Communications Ministry officials
failed to show up for four court hearings did he recover it.
Murzakhanov said the ministry deliberately punted. "They didn't want to
expose the entire system of pressuring providers. They decided it was
better to lose and to keep the cover on the system."
So far, no other provider is eager to follow the Volgograd example, said
Anatoly Levenchuk, an Internet expert in Moscow who first revealed the SORM
requirements.
"They all say his case shows all the trouble you can have if you try to
oppose the authorities," he said.
*******
#7
Asia Times
March 6, 2002
Russia hedges its bets on oil output cut
By Sergei Blagov
MOSCOW - The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is
pressing Moscow to extend a current oil export cut through to June. However,
Russia is refraining from making any promises.
Bargaining between Moscow and OPEC has resumed as global demand falls, as
usual, at the end of the first quarter. In yet another attempt to persuade
Russia to extend export curbs, OPEC's secretary general Ali Rodriguez and its
president Rilwanu Lukman made their case to the Kremlin during a three-day
visit to Moscow that ended on Tuesday. But Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov
refrained from any definite pledges. Instead, the Russian premier told the
OPEC mission that Russia was going to make a decision on export cuts "in
accordance with the current state of the Russian and world economy, oil
reserves and the volume of consumption".
Kasyanov assured the OPEC officials that Russia respected the export cuts in
the first quarter. Both sides "agreed to continue exchange of information",
and the Russian government press service used a diplomatic formula, which
usually hides a failure to reach any agreements at all.
Prior to the talks, Russian statements sounded promising. The result of the
meeting with OPEC officials would be a declaration by the government on
whether to extend the export cut, Energy Minister Igor Yusufov told
reporters. Yet no such declaration ensued. Moreover, Yusufov subsequently
stated that Russia had until April 1 to announce its final decision. This
statement was coupled with the lukewarm remark that Russia would look after
"its own interests". Yusufov also said that he would not be able to attend
the OPEC conference in Vienna on March 15.
Although Russia exports more than 100 million tons of oil yearly, and oil
revenues account for 40 percent of the country's hard currency, Moscow has
declined to join OPEC. Moreover, Moscow wants to maintain good relations with
major buyers of its oil and gas, hence Russia is reluctant to join the OPEC
output cuts unconditionally.
OPEC will continue discussions with Russia so as to persuade Moscow to
maintain its oil export cuts, Rodriguez told journalists in Moscow on
Tuesday. Russia still has time to analyze the market situation once again, he
stated.
In two separate visits ahead of OPEC's Vienna date, Algerian Energy and Mines
Minister Chakib Khelil is due to visit Moscow on Sunday, while his Venezuelan
counterpart is expected here the following day. They are due to seek more
coordination with Russia, according to the Russian news agency RIA.
Prior to the OPEC mission, there has been media speculation that OPEC
officials were to discuss a Russian oil production cut. For instance, the
official Algerian news agency APS said "the visit will focus on discussing
with Russian officials the issue of the Russian oil production reduction".
But no discussion on new output cuts took place in Moscow.
Arguably, OPEC now relies of soft diplomacy with Moscow rather than
threatening an oil price war. OPEC is unlikely to change oil export quotas at
its next ministerial meeting on March 15, Rodriguez told journalists in
Moscow. It is understood that in response Russia could simply promise OPEC
not to declare a formal end to the cut so as not to undermine quota deals
between the cartel and other non-OPEC exporters.
Last November OPEC announced that it would withdraw 1.5 million barrels per
day (bpd) from the market from January, but only if major exporters Russia,
Norway, Mexico and Oman came up with a combined 500,000 bpd cut. Russia first
offered to reduce oil production and exports by 30,000 and then 50,000 bpd.
Only after OPEC threatened a price war did Russia announce that it would
reduce oil exports by 150,000 bpd beginning on January 1.
Since then, it has been argued that Russia has maintained the reductions on
paper, while declared cuts have had little impact in reality. In fact,
Russian oil output is said to have been growing dramatically. In January and
February, Russia's crude output was up by 8.7 percent (or 4.7 million
tonnes), hence reaching 58.4 million tonnes. It is understood that exports
have also been up although the Russian government would not admit it.
Furthermore, it has been understood that Russia's pledge to cut oil exports
by 150,000 bpd were not really cuts as the country's exports through northern
ports usually drop by about 200,000 bpd during January and February due to
ice-bound ports and higher energy demands at home. Moreover, in recent months
Russia added the 400,000 bpd in export capacity by launching the Caspian
Pipeline Consortium and the Baltic Pipeline System.
On the other hand, Russian oil export cuts entailed an oversupply of crude on
the domestic market, forcing prices down and causing a drop in revenue for
producers and tax receipts for the government. Not surprisingly, Moscow now
wants to capture a greater share of the world oil market.
Continued Russian oil export cuts in the second quarter could entail an
economic slowdown, President Vladimir Putin's economic adviser Andrei
Illarionov has warned. He said last week that if Russia continues cutting
exports, its place on the world market could be captured by Kazakhstan and
Azerbaijan. He estimated Russia's current world oil market share at 7
percent, while it reached 12 percent 15 years ago.
Russia needs to recapture its previous position, Illarionov said, pointedly
adding that Russia has no obligation to follow OPEC's advice and should not
reduce oil exports. Last month Illarionov also said that the size of Russia's
energy exports was changing the traditional view of the world energy market.
Illarionov commented in particular that the world "has suddenly realized that
Russia is becoming not only the second largest oil supplier in the world
after Saudi Arabia, but also, if one takes into account its gas exports, the
world's leading exporter of energy resources".
Therefore, analysts say, OPEC now increasingly faces a prospect of having a
major exporter siding with the consumers.
(Inter Press Service)
*******
#8
Subject: new issue of Russia Watch
From: danielle_lussier@harvard.edu
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002
JRL readers might be interested in learning that the Strengthening
Democratic Institutions Project at Harvard University has published a new
issue of Russia Watch.
This issue of Russia Watch examines the question of rule of law in Russia.
In addition to Russia Watch's signature editorial leader and concise
information on the theme, this issue features analysis from leading
experts, including:
· "Rule of Law and the Peculiarities of Russia," by Sergei Stepashin,
Chairman of the Auditing Chamber of the Russian Federation
· "Russia's Terrorism?Organized Crime," by Stephen Handleman, Time
Magazine International
· "A New Criminal Procedure Code," by Yelena Mizulina, Member of the
Russian State Duma
· "Rule of Law and National Security," by Lee Wolosky, Former Director
for Transnational Threats, National Security Council
· "Corporate Governance?Russia's Present Day Perestroika," by Ruben
Vardanian, Troika Dialog Bank
· "Policy Recommendations for the Bush Administration," by U.S.-Russia
Business Council and American Chamber of Commerce
as well as other articles from leading Russian and Western commentators.
Readers can find this issue of Russia Watch online at
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/Library.nsf/russiawatch.
Back issues of Russia Watch are also available on this website.
*******
#9
Viceroy Drachevskiy Seen at Odds With Kudrin, Gref Over Siberian Development
Obshchaya Gazeta
No. 9
28 February 2002
[translation for personal use only]
Article by Irina Samakhova: "Plenipotentiary Representative Takes Up
Arms: Drachevskiy Will not Be Responsible for Himself if Kudrin Does not
See Sense"
Novosibirsk -- Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative in the
Siberian District Leonid Drachevskiy has mortally fallen out with the
federal government. The bone of contention is a document by the name of
the Siberian Development Strategy developed under the direct leadership
of the plenipotentiary representative. Things are said to have gone as
far as unparliamentary expressions during a discussion of differences.
Drachevskiy, who is indignant at German Gref and Aleksey Kudrin's
categorical refusal to give Siberia substantial economic privileges, has
turned to Vladimir Putin for support and would seem to have received it.
The plenipotentiary representative is so confident that the government
will now be forced to pass the developers' version of the disputed
Strategy that at a briefing in Novosibirsk he promised journalists he
would shoot himself if it did not happen.
Everything makes it clear that Leonid Drachevskiy is not internally
acquiescing to the humble role of "supervisor from the center" prescribed
him by the provisions on the plenipotentiary representatives' work.
With various degrees of success, he is continually trying to organize
work in such a way that there be at least the semblance of a unified
economic and information zone in the region entrusted to him. It is
true, though, that the Siberia-wide television channel that was announced
over a year ago has still not begun broadcasting and attempts to regulate
energy and transport tariffs by means of agreements between interested
parties "consecrated" by the plenipotentiary representative have ended in
failure. Drachevskiy is having more success in lobbying for individual
Siberian projects in Moscow -- the Electronic Siberia subprogram, which
is part of the Electronic Russia program, for example.
The Siberian Development Strategy is the beginning of something of a
quite different order. If it is passed, it could give the president's
deputy real economic levers and real power.
The story of the Strategy's creation dates back to 2000 when Putin
visited Novosibirsk and discussed regional issues with representatives of
the scientific and business elite. These problems have been known for a
long time: Siberia, where up to 80% of Russia's mineral, raw material,
and energy riches are extracted, remains an economically poorly developed
region that is increasingly falling behind the country's European
territory in terms of standard of living. It was then that it was
established that the federal "Siberia" targeted program that has existed
since Soviet times had turned into a range of projects with little
interconnection and practically no finance. The president asked for a
new strategic document that met market realities to be developed.
Experts from the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences set
about the job. They were later joined by the plenipotentiary
representative's apparatus. By July 2001 the document was ready and had
reached the Economic Development Ministry for agreement.
But the sought-for agreement did not come off and is not coming off to
this day. Novosibirsk economists joke gloomily that Gref's department
is proposing a strategy not for developing but for "closing down"
Siberia. Vice Premier Aleksey Kudrin honestly expressed the views of
the government's liberal economists at a recent meeting in Tomsk.
According to him the government is insisting on the need to preserve a
single tax and tariff zone in the country. (The center has enough of a
headache with separatist Tatarstan and Bashkortostan and now there is
Siberia too!) If it is economically unprofitable to develop industry's
processing sectors in the Siberian region, there is no need to try.
On the other hand, Drachevskiy and the Siberian developers of the
Strategy believe that the local economy's competitiveness should be
artificially maintained -- in particular, by redistributing the mineral
extraction tax, 80% of which currently goes to the federal budget. And
also by tariff concessions that will be able to compensate Siberian
enterprises for their increased transport and energy costs. If this is
not done, any Siberian development is out of the question -- it will be a
backward raw-materials region with a rapidly diminishing population (in
total, an enormous city equal to Novosibirsk -- 1.5 million people -- has
"left" over recent years). This may be economically expedient but it is
politically extremely dangerous; a sacred place is never empty.
President Putin could clearly not fail to support Plenipotentiary
Representative Drachevskiy on the last point. But the government does
not intend to surrender either. According to some reports, German Gref
has suggested that the Council on Issues of the Extreme North, Arctic,
and Antarctic be commissioned with revising the Strategy. In other
words, that the matter be put off until better times.
The effective "sabotage" of the ambitious Siberian projects could be
another blow against the president's authority. But not the first:
All Putin's initiatives have been left without any serious follow-up
recently, whether it be support for civil society, small business,
exercise and sport, or combating child homelessness. The structures
that were warmed by the president's attention are immediately pouting --
and are getting stuck in that uncomfortable position.
*******
#10
pravda.ru
NEW LAW ON RF CITIZENSHIP -- FULL STOP IN BREAK-UP OF THE USSR
March 5, 2002
PRAVDA.Ru interviewed State Duma deputy and Deputy Chairman of the Duma's
Committee for CIS Affairs Anatoly Chekhoyev.
- Anatoly Georgievich, do you think the rights of Russians living abroad in
the Baltic countries and the CIS are observed?
The breakup of the USSR started with Nagorny Karabakh and completed on March
17, 1991, when a referendum on the union's future was held. The people
understood at that the union may or may not exist. The rest was just a
consequence of that understanding.
The State Emergency Situation Committee (GKChP) was arrested on August 21,
and Boris Yeltsin then came to power. The people placed great hopes on him.
Nowadays, we complete the breakup of the USSR by the adoption of a new law on
citizenship. Over the ten years since the creation of the CIS, Russia has
been striving for estrangement of the CIS states in the economic sphere. The
March agreements on the creation of the CIS are gradually fading away. About
1,200 documents have been developed over the whole period, but only 6% are in
force as of now. These deal with customs, borders, migration laws, and
relations between the states. The CIS has failed to create economic
agreements within its network.
The CIS has ceased its existence as of today. There is the Union of Russia
and Belarus and an economic community of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and
Kyrgyzstan. There are countries such as Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,
Azerbaijan and Moldova that stick to their anti-Russian policies.
Today, as we pass the law on citizenship and neglect the fate of 28 million
Russians living in the CIS countries, we add an ultimate contribution to the
breakup of the USSR. The granting of Russian citizenship has been greatly
complicated. More than that, we also complicated citizenship laws in the CIS.
Regarding the law that we are passing, we treat our compatriots only as a
labor force. We say that we will receive only capable people with
qualifications and jobs.
Germany spends 969DM per year on its compatriots living abroad. This includes
education, churches, and theatres. Russia spends 0.25 kopecks on the same
purpose. We have two migration programs; the first was submitted by Russia's
Labor and Social Protection Minister Alexander Pochinok and the second was
submitted by Alexander Blokhin, who was in charge of migration and national
and regional politics. These are two alternative concepts of Russia's
migration policy.
I was rather surprised when President Putin said that we would welcome our
compatriots home. I am an official closely connected with these problems.
Russia is experiencing tremendous unemployment; it would be extremely
difficult to receive 28 millions more and guarantee them employment and
lodging. It costs 750-800 thousand rubles at the minimum to provide ordinary
settlement to one refugee. The budget hasn't such sums. I consider the
statement to be rather strange.
The law completes the large-scale work of the RF government on the isolation
of all former Soviet republics. We are a power with a ten-year history that
was established on June 12, 1990. The Soviet Union was a successor to the
Russian Empire, and, later, Russia became a successor to the Soviet Union. If
you act as a legal successor to someone, you are responsible for the people
who were citizens of the state.
The law we pass today demonstrates that we are no longer responsible for our
compatriots living abroad. We have what we desired to get as the legal
successor of the Soviet Union: seats in the United Nations and the UN
Security Council. However, we do not recognize the Soviet people living
outside Russia. As a result, our compatriots used to say they might go to
their motherland, to Russia, but now they have think the problem over very
thoroughly. The perspective they are to face is a five-year period of being a
displaced person and only a residence permit. Finally, Russians living in the
CIS decide to reconcile themselves to the conditions of the country they live
in and learn the local language. The process of de-russianization is very
active in the CIS now. People ignorant of the local language have no future
in the CIS countries.
- What do you think the law should be then? What is to be done for the people
to be more secured?
Now they say that we make the law tougher as we are afraid of more refugees,
drug barons, and criminals that might invade Russia. To be sure, these people
will arrive in Russia with authentic documents. However, ordinary people will
be deprived of any care and protection. There are six million refugees in
Russia now, and about 60% of them have no regular lodging. The remaining 40%
live in the boarding houses and earn money the markets; in other words, the
state does not care about them. A concept of receiving refugees and forced
migrants has not been developed in Russia. Nobody wants to be responsible for
the problem. Now, the citizenship problem will be in the jurisdiction of a
district police inspector: he will determine such problems as knowledge of
the Russian language by a migrant, the knowledge of the laws, and the
Constitution. District police inspectors will determine the degree of
migrants' loyalty to the Russian regime and whether they should be given
Russian citizenship or not.
Yesterday, we were informed of an awful situation: district police inspector
received at least $100 for each of the 169 Azerbaijanians registered in a
one-room apartment. This seems to be a fault of our legislation. When we
mention a migration policy, we are to fix the right of Russians in other
countries; that is what the USA traditionally does. Look at any of our laws
and you will not find such items.
Our main objective is to make it possible for the Russian people to have
better lives in the countries they live, not to escape to Russia. We should
make them Russia's plenipotentiaries there.
Russia has never been a colonial state; it turned out that no one-pole world
can be created. A bipolar world can be created with Russia's participation
only. It is possible only if the CIS states, except for the Baltic countries,
join into a single union state. Only in this case Russia will be taking take
care of the Russians living there.
- Who is to be responsible for settlement of the compatriots arriving in
Russia?
The Russian government.
- Why is it reluctant to take it up?
I think Russia's Social Development and Labor Minister Alexander Pochinok has
failed to achieve considerable results at each of the positions he occupied
in his life. That is why I do not think he is able to take up the problem
seriously. We had had several organizations responsible for the problems of
forced migrants, the Migration Committee, the Committee for Nationalities,
the Ministry for Internal Affairs, and the Commission for Compatriots,
attached to the president and the minister for labor and social policy
himself. However, the problem remains unsettled.
- Does not it seem that the parliament is powerless and the deputies can do
nothing at all?
The parliament passed a law on the rehabilitation of the 1992 indexing. Does
anybody observe it now? The RF Constitution says that the parliament is not
authorized to control observance of the laws it passes. However, the Supreme
Council of the Soviet Union was authorized. Russia now resembles a
super-monarchic state, when the Czar needs the people only when elections are
coming.
- Is the anarchy in the legislative sphere profitable for the mafia and
corruption? Are there any particular people in the Duma who vote important
laws down?
Let us suppose that I am a constructor and get a tender for construction of
five apartment houses in Moscow. After that, I have to find the labor force.
I send a man to Moldova to recruit workers there and bring them to Moscow.
The people are settled then in trailers, and they have to work from 6 a.m. to
12 p.m. and the wages make up 3,000 rubles only (it is $100). Do you see the
economics? It is evident that the earnings surpass the spending several
times.
- Do you think the prime minister is aware of the situation?
An oil distillery is being constructed in North Osetia. The enterprise will
sufficiently damage the environment. I am often asked who allowed the
construction? I know perfectly well that consent of the top official is
necessary not only for construction of an oil distillery but even of a shed
in every region. Certainly, the prime minister and vice-premier know the
situation very well and seem to be satisfied with it. It is a good chance for
them to earn some money.
Half of the Duma deputies are not present at the sessions, probably because
they are not concerned about this law. A law on privatization is certainly
more interesting; you will see that all deputies will be present during the
discussion of such a law. A new party, Unified Russia, has been recently
created. The leader of the party was asked about the political objectives and
programs. The answer was presidential support. Rather strange: it seems to be
a party without any ideology and any program.
- Do you mean there are parties in the Duma that pass necessary laws and vote
down disagreeable ones?
The Duma needs more experience. Boris Yeltsin failed to bring some laws to
the Duma, but Vladimir Putin has succeeded. It is not so much important now
whether a law is good or bad, what is more important is presidential support
of the law. The Duma of the previous convocation was famous for its vivid
personalities, people with their own opinions and points of view; we observed
polemics of a quite different nature. Today's Duma lacks it.
President Putin is in a complicated situation now. It is easy to be trusted
in Russia, as the people are extremely trusting here. Against the background
of the ex-president, an aged man, the new president who is fond of skiing and
other sports looks very attractive. The people voted for him of their own
free will. However, we are in for communal and housing reform now. Oil, gas,
and energy prices have increased, and the nice expectations of the people
will come to naught.
Boris Berezovsky relies on these facts now: he expects the living standard to
drop after the introduction of 100% payment for public utilities and the
government and the president will lose the people's trust. Then, he will put
a candidate of his own on the presidential post. If Vladimir Putin wants to
be a president, he is to have a strong character.
- Does the president understand that he may be dethroned?
The defense minister, officials in the Ministry for Internal Affairs and the
Federal Security Bureau are the president's followers. However, the
organizations differ from the structures they used to be. When I think about
the quantity of powers in Russia, I say that there are as many powers as many
cabinets we have. As for the question about an actual prime minister in
Russia, I still fail to answer it.
- Do you mean Russia is about to have a catastrophe?
No. Read books by Karamzin. Russia is experiencing the ninth uneasy period.
Each period of this kind usually lasted for 8-10 years in Russia. The uneasy
period is coming to its end now; soon, we will be on a rise again. We are
also to get rid of the hands that hamper the rise. Those are the hands
situated outside Russia.
- Do you mean, these are western monopolies that control everything,
including migration policy as well?
Yes, that is what we have now. The "Family" is still here. Today, General
Public Prosecutor Ustinov delivered a very frank report on homeless children
and juvenile delinquency. In his words, Russia has no future; we have lost
everything we used to be proud of: we were the country with the most literate
population and a nation with a strong sports tradition. Within a year, 200
teenagers committed different crimes. And this is the amount of only
registered ones.
- Do you mean, as long as we have this legal disorder, it will be impossible
to do anything at all?
I think the president, the parliament, and the government can establish order
in the country together, certainly if they wish to.
Anatoly Chekhoyev was interviewed by
Ilya Tarasov
PRAVDA.Ru
Translated by Maria Gousseva
******
#11
From: "Tracy Theisen"
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002
Subject: SABIT Program Announces Extension of Deadline
The U.S. Department of Commerce Special American Business Internship Training
(SABIT) Program has announced an extension of their March 1 deadline for
grant applications. The new deadline is April 15, 2002.
The grant application is available to be downloaded off of SABIT's website.
The web address is http://www.mac.doc.gov/sabit/sabit.html. The website also
outlines more information about the SABIT program and the criteria for
funding. Please be sure to read the "Frequently Asked Questions."
U.S. companies, organizations, universities, laboratories, local, county and
state governments, and not-for-profits may apply for grants to train managers
and scientists from the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union
(NIS). Training must take place in the United States. The internship period
is three to six months. Under special circumstances the length of internship
may be shortened. The U.S. host organization may request to bring one or
more (up to ten) professionals from the NIS for training at their company.
The application process is competitive. Funding is available on a rolling
basis until all funds are awarded or until April 15, 2002, whichever comes
first. Once an organization's application is received, it takes
approximately 2-4 months to be processed. The workplan is the most
important part of the application. The workplan should be a detailed weekly
schedule which describes the type of hands-on management training the
organization will provide to its intern, including duties, assignments, and
deadlines.
SABIT uses the term "intern" to describe the NIS professionals taking part in
the program. However, it should be noted, participants from the NIS are not
students, but are mid- to senior-level managers or scientists with 3-5 years
experience in their industry. An organization may nominate candidates for
training (i.e., current or potential business partners). The intern candidate
a company nominates will have to fill out an application and meet SABIT's
criteria for participation. If an organization does not have anyone in mind,
SABIT will try to find a match from our pool of qualified candidates in the
NIS. The maximum award amount, per intern, for a six-month training program
is $13,700.00. If a company is awarded a grant, SABIT reimburses the company
for the following: round trip airfare from the intern's home city to the U.S.
training site, housing costs up to a maximum of $750 per month (depending on
average local rates), and a $34 per diem, which is to be provided to the
intern for meals and incidental expenses. The U.S. host organization is
responsible for the cost of the training, the single-entry visa fee for your
intern (usually $65) and emergency medical insurance.
For more information, contact Tracy Theisen at 202-482-0073 or e-mail
tracy_theisen@ita.doc.gov
Please note that SABIT cannot find, place or search for internships within
U.S. organizations for individuals from the NIS. Only U.S. organizations may
apply for SABIT grants. For more information about SABIT in the Russian
language, visit www.sabitprogram.org
******
#12
Novaya Gazeta
March 5, 2002
Art Gives Us the Experience of Things That Did Not Happen
Four excerpts from Lotman's cycle of lectures, "Talks on Russian Culture"
By Yuri Lotman
(therussianissues.com)
There are people whose presence in this world made it much brighter. They are
not numerous. Some of them are born even in our time, which is an encouraging
fact. On February 28, Yuri Lotman would have turned 80. He was a marvelous
narrator and could relate an immense amount of knowledge in an easy and
interesting way. In 1976, the first series of TV lectures was designed. It
was called "People. Destinies. Every-Day Life (Russian culture in the 18th
and the early 19th centuries)." The lectures, however, were not broadcast -
Lotman was forbidden from making public speeches. The first broadcast of the
series called "Talks on Russian Culture" was recorded and shown a decade
later, in September 1986. Five series of his lectures made up of 35
broadcasts were recorded over six years. Extracts from the four programs that
were not included in the book Talks on Russian Culture follow:
A good deal has been written about the unstable intellectual who panics
easily and who needs to be controlled, corrected, and educated. I think that
heroism is inherent in a genuine intellectual.
This became clear in the 18th century, after the great spring of the 1790s,
which led not to a summer but to murderous events on an unprecedentedly large
scale. First it led to a revolution, then to a war that shook Europe from
Gibraltar to Moscow between 1792 and 1815. In that atmosphere of expectation,
philosophers felt they were apostles of a new century and sincerely believed
that their word would create a new world. That word, uniting all of them, was
"tolerance." Tolerance in their minds was opposed to medieval intolerance,
hatred, and striving to impose one's views by force.
But very soon they saw that tolerance should become a word of struggle,
otherwise it would loose its meaning. The very word "tolerance" raises the
question of energy and struggle...
A notion that opposes intelligence is boorishness. All of us have seen people
insulted by others and actions that we normally describe as boorishness. But
what is behind boorishness? It is the mentality of a man who has been
humiliated and who therefore does not respect himself. He then tends to make
up for his lack of self-respect by humiliating other people. The wish to
humiliate is complemented by a wish to destroy. The root of hooliganism is in
boredom and boredom originates in mediocrity. The combination of mediocrity
and neglect by society produces a destructive slum complex.
There is yet another psychological complex. I would call it an invaders
complex. In 1943, I had a talk with a German prisoner. We were sitting in a
dugout under heavy Nazi artillery fire. We had a talk, a rather friendly
talk, under fire that could kill both of us. We had seized the man in a
village where a woman told us that the Germans that stayed in her home used
to crush lice on the table where farmers were eating their meals. They were
not ashamed of being naked in front of the women. I learned also that the
prisoner was a teacher. And I asked him, "Do you behave like this at home?"
He replied, "Well, home is a different thing." He was an absolutely average
person who was often humiliated before he was promoted to the rank of a lance
corporal. He then appears in another country as an invader and becomes a
master there. He does not have enough culture to cope with his new position.
The fact that he is an invader in foreign territory relieves him of culture
and he revels in freedom.
Culture restrains a person - don't do this and don't do that. What does
culture begin with? Historically, it begins with prohibitions. The first law
that appeared in society is that you should not marry your sister or mother.
It is forbidden by culture. You should not eat certain food. Bans are imposed
on the most natural things like food and sex. And culture demands still
greater prohibitions. People depressed by their mediocrity or by their social
humiliation want to cast all this aside and then freedom is interpreted as
complete freedom from limitations. This is what boorishness really is. We
have seen a global spread of boorishness In the 19th and 20th centuries. Why?
The 19th century saw the formation of large armies; militarism and
colonialism influenced the spirit of society. The invader's complex, which
previously was regarded as the norm for conduct in the colonies, was extended
to the mother countries. It is a lesson to all of us, to all nations.
We think that militarization is directed against someone, but it is directed
against all of us. We remember the painful deliverance of France from the
Algerian war and before that from the Vietnam war. We remember the moral
shock experienced by French society when young people returned to France and
behaved as they had behaved in Vietnam and Algeria. They became invaders by
nature. Boorishness is not just rudeness - it is a social and psychological
disease that must be cured. One of the main medicines for this is
intelligence.
The writer Anton Chekhov's brother once complained about his living
conditions, about people around him who were not considerate enough towards
him. Chekhov replied with a joking, but at the same time serious, letter in
which he portrayed well-mannered people: "They forgive us noise, cold,
overdone meat, wisecracks, and the presence of strangers in their homes. They
are compassionate not only to beggars and stray cats; they respect the
property of others and therefore they pay their debts. They do not abase
themselves in order to evoke sympathy from others."
At one time, I had to deal with people from the criminal world. I noticed
exaggerated pity for themselves and a readiness to bemoan their fate. This is
often combined with cruelty. What is more - cruelty is implied. It is seen in
the songs and tales of the criminal world; it is always sentimental and
designed to evoke pity. A character in this kind of folklore is often "a poor
little boy." Identifying with a little boy and presenting oneself as a hurt
man is a norm of boorish conduct. It is what would be defined in the Criminal
Code as "exceeding the limits of necessary defense."
So, what are we to expect from culture? Does art have a purpose? Do we have
the right to spend funds on arts?
People have answered this question many times. Mankind is suffering: it
suffers from hunger; it does not have essential things; it is ignorant,
uneducated, cruel. And we write poems! The arts are secondary… In Ancient
Greece, and in general at the folklore stage, poets were blind men for the
most part. The realistic scientists of the past century reason in the
following way: a blind man can't do anything useful, so he becomes a poet.
Take Homer, he could neither fight in a war nor be a trader; so, he composes
songs. It seems logical.
However, this is the view of a man from the 18th century, a positivist. For
people of the ancient world, however, a blind man was a man speaking with
God...Because Homer was blind did not mean that he was useless, but that he
was destined for a higher mission and would do what could not be entrusted to
those who traded well, who sailed across seas and used swords and spears with
great skill.
Think what life would be like without the arts. In this context, an excellent
example is that of the ancient philosopher Plato, who gave a picture of an
ideal society: ancient Egypt. In that ideal society, the arts were regarded
as a very dangerous weapon. Ancient Egyptians, according to Plato, gathered
the most respected people around them. These people, for their part, selected
the best works of art, which turned out to be folk songs...They were
prohibited from doing anything else. People satisfied their need for arts
with those songs.
This was an attempt to replace movement along a straight line with movement
in a circle. Plato is not against movement; he only wants it to be repeated
like weather repeats itself. There are eternal songs, just as there are
eternal winter and summer; they are always new and they are always the same.
We do not say, "Summer again - oh, we had it last year."
With a linear movement each step ahead is a loss. Once, I was travelling in a
train and a boy looked at the roads that we were crossing over and asked each
time, "Will we go along this road?" We will not walk along those roads.
Salvation is not in cyclic recurrence. It is the arts that give us the
experience of passing along untrodden roads - the experience of not only what
has happened, but also of what did not happen. The history of events that did
not happen is a great and a very important history. Only from this point of
view can we see that mankind, running fast in an uncontrollable train in an
unknown direction, can take hold of the controls. But it has not matured
enough for this, though perhaps it still has time for maturing. Perhaps.
********
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