Johnson's Russia List
#6121
7 March 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Lilia Shevtsova on Putin's
Domestic and Foreign Policy Challenges.
2. Boston Globe: David Filipov, Russia threatens retaliation for US steel
tariff hike.
3. Reuters: Schroeder says Russia must find place in NATO, EU.
4. Reuters: Seedy Moscow landmark hotel coming down. (Intourist)
5. AP: Poultry Plants Nervous About Embargo.
6. Moscow Times: Victoria Lavrentieva, Duma Mulls Foreign Investment
Restrictions.
7. House International Relations Committee: Testimony of Blake Marshall,
Executive Vice President U.S.-Russia Business Council.
8. Vremya Novostei: RUSSIANS DISSATISFIED WITH THE KASYANOV GOVERNMENT.
(poll)
9. Kommersant-Vlast: NEMTSOV: WE ARE NOT AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE!
An interview with Boris Nemtsov of the Union of Right Forces.
10. Reuters: Russian export gaps offset oil cuts offered to OPEC.
11. Kommersant: Where Do Women Belong After All? Should men and women be
equal in all spheres?]
*******
#1
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
www.ceip.org
Shevtsova on Putin
March 5, 2002
Senior associate Lilia Shevtsova spoke on “Putin's Domestic and Foreign
Policy Challenges” at the Carnegie Endowment in early March 2002
The wide-ranging talk, moderated by Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russian
and Eurasian Program, addressed US-Russian relations, increasing economic
and political stability in Russia, media freedom, Russian-EU relations, and
more. Dividing her time between Washington and Moscow, Shevtsova co-directs
the Endowment’s Project on Russian Domestic Politics and Political
Institutions. She is the author of six books, and her most recent book,
co-edited with Archie Brown, is Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin: Political
Leadership in Russia’s Transition.
Read the summary below or listen to the event on RealAudio or Windows Media
Player:
http://www.ceip.org/files/events/events.asp?EventID=465
Meeting Summary
Today, said Shevtsova, both the U.S. and Russia are in the process of
redefining their roles in the world. While the U.S. has steadily increased
its hegemony after the Cold War to become a more unilateral actor, Russia
under Putin has moved in an opposite direction, distancing itself from the
vestiges of its Soviet superpower days. For example, recently Russia has
endeavored to restructure the debt it is owed by Ukraine, in the interest
of improving bilateral relations. Likewise, the withdrawal of Russian
troops from Georgia and the new policy toward Transdniestria in Moldova,
combined with Russia’s unexpected endorsement of the U.S. military presence
in Central Asia, herald a sea change in Russia’s attitude toward the rest
of the world. The old Russia never would have accepted junior partner
status or diminished power in the near abroad. This turn in Russian foreign
policy is “revolutionary” and amounts not to a shift but rather a leap
toward a new paradigm.
The West, for its part, does not know what to make of this redefined
Russian role. Having expected to bestow on Russia the title of partner as a
reward for prolonged obedient behavior, the U.S. and others were
disconcerted to see Russia declare itself a loyal partner far ahead of
schedule. Motivating this change were a lack of resources which precluded
any other path, as well as a keen understanding of the power asymmetry
between the two countries and a willingness to accept and deal with that
asymmetry. Russia’s new identity is to a large degree unarticulated, but
will have enormous influence on the future shape of Europe, NATO, and Asian
security.
Shevtsova predicted that U.S.-Russian relations will follow one of two
models, either that of a Faustian bargain, or “benevolent asymmetry.” In
the first, the West and Russia cooperate on some issues, such as terrorism,
while the West, disinterested, tolerates Russia’s quasi-authoritarian
regime. In the second, a constructive partnership is made possible by
broader cooperation and Russia’s acceptance of liberal democratic rules of
the game. Putin has shown a readiness to accept different rules of the
game, Shevtsova observed. Which model wins out depends very much on the
West’s ability to reciprocate and engage Putin.
On the surface, Russia is showing strong political stability and economic
growth. But that political stability is based more tenuously on a
bureaucratic authoritarian regime, compliance and subordination within the
Russian elite who have no alternative to the present political leadership,
and weak institutions. Similarly, Russia’s economic stability is due to a
decade of modernization from the top down, the emergence of financial
industrial groups which, like the South Korean chaebols, squeeze out mid-
and low-level private initiative, and the overreliance on exports of raw
materials. Two cornerstones—approval ratings in the 70 percent range for
Putin and world oil prices above $15 per barrel—keep the system from
unraveling, but if those decline, “there are no guarantees.”
Russia, therefore, must add two revolutions to its foreign policy
revolution: (1) an advanced, economic structural reform; and (2) a
political administrative reform to divorce “business from bureaucracy,
economy from power,” and to break down the vertical centralization of
power. Shevtsova sees signs that Putin recognizes the limits of present
stability and will move to deliver these two major reforms, though to
dismantle the tsarist, personalistic system of power and to inject
accountability into the executive branch could be politically suicidal for
Putin. Since he came to power, Putin has strengthened the middle class,
people who increasingly will demand greater independence from his
centralized control. Sooner or later, changes will come about, but since
there is no historical precedent for a leader dismantling his own regime,
Shevtsova predicted this would be a job for a future Russian leader.
Polling numbers indicate that the general public is more pro-West than the
elite, so there may be zigzags in Russia’s policy toward the West, but
Russia will never return to the hostile opposition of decades past. Russia
no longer needs crutches from the West, it needs an outstretched hand and
“delicate, strong” pressure to change the political and economic rules of
the game. If the West can give structure to Russia’s foreign policy
revolution, for example, by formalizing an operational agenda for military
logistical cooperation in Tajikistan, the breakthrough in bilateral
relations will be second only to the changes of 1991. And more than that,
it will increase the clout of pro-West members vis-ŕ-vis hardliners within
Putin’s own team, indirectly bolstering people like Grigory Yavlinsky,
Anatoly Chubais, and those fighting for independent television.
In sum, U.S.-Russia relations lack substance, which has a negative effect
on Russia’s political ego, amplifying nostalgia for the past and fears of
irrelevance and neglect. The key to more substantial relations, argued
Shevtsova, is to achieve one high-profile example of cooperative success to
catalyze faith in the rewards of cooperation. A U.S.-brokered agreement
between Russia and Japan over the Kuril Islands could have such an effect,
she proposed. A signed treaty could help Russia increase investment in its
resource-rich Far East, and help Russia to address the problem of Chinese
ascendancy. In politics, progress need not be grandiose, instead “small is
beautiful.”
Seven years from now, in 2009, after the 2008 presidential elections,
Russia will look quite different from Russia today. The familiar cast of
characters—Putin, Zyuganov, Yavlinsky, and the rest—will be gone from the
picture, and a new generation, one that matured during the Yeltsin years,
will have entered the scene, and that bodes well for the future, concluded
Shevtsova.
On the prospects for Russia-E.U. relations, Shevtsova noted that the
Prodi-chaired joint committee on energy issues is an example of healthy
forward momentum absent elsewhere due to a lack of pro-E.U. cadres within
the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Asked whether to expect a breakthrough on peace in Chechnya, she thought
that Putin would be forced by divided public opinion on the war to put a
peace proposal on the table before the next elections.
Asked about the situation of independent press in Russia, Shevtsova said
“everything is becoming worse.” Since Primakov and Volsky, with Kremlin
approval certainly, have announced their intention to participate in the
tender of TV-6, Yevgeny Kiselyov and the old NTV team are unlikely to win,
demonstrating that Putin’s administration knows that the media is a
king-maker in Russia today and thus wants no independent television during
upcoming elections. If Kiselyov were to get TV-6, observers will know that
Western influence was able to outweigh Putin’s pragmatism. Farther into the
future, though, Shevtsova foresees an independent press and independent
opposition parties for Russia.
Military reform, Shevtsova expected, will take ten to fifteen years,
comparable to the time France needed to regroup after Algeria. Russia needs
an army of volunteers, not draftees, and must shift its garrisons in
European Russia to its southern Eurasian borders.
On Iraq, Shevtsova pointed out that Putin, in an interview with the Wall
Street Journal on February 11, 2002, declared support for U.S. policy,
clearly wanting to avoid a repeat of the humiliation Russia faced over
Yugoslavia, when it sided with Milosevic until the last minute. With Iraq,
Russia knows it has no realistic alternative to siding with the U.S., so
any zigzagging in policy will take place within a narrow corridor.
Summary by Caroline McGregor, Junior Fellow, Russian and Eurasian Program.
*******
#2
Boston Globe
March 7, 2002
Russia threatens retaliation for US steel tariff hike
By David Filipov, Globe Staff
MOSCOW - Russia warned of retaliation yesterday to the US decision to
impose punitive tariffs on steel imports, as the former Cold War foes
lurched toward a trade war that threatened to chill relations between the
two countries before a scheduled May summit in Moscow.
Accusations of protectionism flew on both sides, as Moscow responded
angrily to President Bush's decision to raise import tariffs on steel to up
to 30 percent to protect the US steel industry, and Washington railed
against an earlier Russian decision to ban US poultry imports.
The economic disputes could damage trade relations between two countries
whose often difficult political relationship had thawed after Sept. 11, as
Russia has backed the US-led campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Steel-producing countries around the world also reacted angrily yesterday
to Bush's decision Tuesday to raise import tariffs to protect the American
steel industry, which says cheap imports have led to over 30 bankruptcies
since 1997.
But Russia, where steel exports make up one-tenth of overall trade with the
United States, is one of the countries hardest-hit by the sanctions. Former
Finance Minister Mikhail Zadornov said Russian steel exporters stand to
lose as much as $1.5 billion and predicted a large loss of jobs in the
industry. Other officials blasted the move as going against the principle
of free trade, and violating the spirit of bilateral trade agreements.
Russian lawmakers demanded immediate sanctions against US citizens and
business in Russia. But leading government officials were more cautious.
''The introduction of sanctions against Russia is inappropriate,'' German
Gref, the Russian minister of economics and trade, told reporters in Moscow
yesterday. ''It cannot be ruled out that if this question, which is very
sensitive for us, is not resolved, Russia would introduce retaliatory
measures. It's too early to say what those measures would be or whether
they will come to pass at all.''
Many Russians believe Moscow fired the first shot in a trade war last week,
when its Agriculture Ministry ordered a ban on US poultry imports that
would begin Sunday. Half of US poultry exported worldwide is sold to the
Russian market, and chicken is the primary US export to Russia, accounting
for about 20 percent of all US exports to Russia, and earning $600 million
to $700 million a year.
One Russian newspaper yesterday suggested that the political thaw between
the United States and Russia that has seen President Vladimir Putin agree
to American troops operating in Moscow's former Soviet backyard in
Uzbekistan, and most recently Georgia, did not protect the two countries
from a trade war.
''The military-strategic conflict between Russia and the United States
disappeared after the events of Sept. 11, when the two powers found a
common enemy,'' the daily Vremya Novostei wrote in a front-page article.
''What can help avoid a trade war is not yet clear, but now Moscow and
Washington are demonstrating the tremendous ability to protect their own
interests with `symmetrical responses.'''
Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov yesterday denied that his
government was linking the poultry disputes with the steel sanctions.
Health minister Yuri Shevchenko said the ban on US chickens was not part of
a trade war but a response to recent tests of chicken imported from the
United States that had come out positive for salmonella.
Shevchenko also cited high content of fat, hormones, and antibiotics in US
chicken compared to domestic birds. Ukraine banned US poultry-meat imports
earlier this year over the same issue.
But the US ambassador to Moscow, Alexander Vershbow, who was summoned to
the Foreign Ministry on Monday to receive a protest over the impending
steel sanctions, said the stakes in the US-Russian dispute were much higher
than the endangered poultry exports. Vershbow said the United States had
answered Russia's questions about US poultry production and export
practices, and suggested that protectionism, rather than health concerns,
was at the center of the dispute.
US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said Tuesday that the poultry ban
could cause Congress to drop its plans to repeal Soviet-era trade
restrictions on Russia, which would hurt Moscow's chances of joining the
World Trade Organization, one of Putin's stated goals.
''This type of linkage and attempt to politicize the situation does not add
to the atmosphere of a relationship of trust and predictability between the
countries,'' Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman,
said yesterday.
The Russian protest was part of a larger groundswell of anger from world
steel-production nations. The European Union pledged yesterday to strike
back at the United States through the World Trade Organization, which acts
as an arbiter in international trade disputes. Japan and South Korea said
they would join the EU's action. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy said the
15-state bloc would be seeking compensation equal to the damage it said the
United States was causing EU industry.
Lamy added that the bloc would also move to stop a flood of steel from
other producers who found their access to the US market blocked.
That is what worries Russian producers like Alexei Mordashev, director of
the major steel producer Severostal. He predicted a domino effect, as other
countries close their markets to Russian imports.
Russia has long been accused of dumping steel on the United States, but in
July 1999, Moscow and Washington resolved the dispute with a landmark trade
deal. Russia agreed to reduce steel exports to the United States to 2
million tons a year, and not to sell its steel below a certain price.
Gref said that since that had not happened, Russia should not have been
included in the latest sanctions.
Material from Globe wire services was used in this report.
********
#3
Schroeder says Russia must find place in NATO, EU
ROME, March 7 (Reuters) - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said in an
interview published on Thursday Europe will only enjoy peace and well-being
if Russia "finds its place" in NATO and in the European Union.
Speaking to Corriere della Sera newspaper ahead of a bilateral summit in
the Italian city of Trieste on Friday, Schroeder said his vision was that
of a Europe that would heal the wounds of the East-West divisions of the
20th century.
"I think it will be possible to assure Europe peace and well-being only if
Russia finds its place both in NATO, and, in the longer term, in the
European Union, and if conditions are created for this to happen,"
Schroeder said when asked if he favoured Russian EU membership.
But he said membership of both would have to wait because they were not
economically feasible in the near future.
"I also think that for good economic reasons, at least for the period that
I will be in politics, there cannot be any formal adhesion by Russia. That
would not be sustainable either for the European economy or the Russian
economy," he said.
The Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, once part of the Soviet
empire, were expected to be among the 10 mainly former communist states to
join the NATO military alliance at a summit later this year. They are also
among candidates seeking EU membership by 2004.
*******
#4
Seedy Moscow landmark hotel coming down
MOSCOW, March 7 (Reuters) - Workers on Thursday began demolishing Moscow's
Intourist Hotel, a seedy Brezhnev-era landmark known for its fine views of
the Kremlin, but also for its cockroaches -- and for rumours of bugs of
another sort.
The 22-storey tower, across a square from the Kremlin fortress, was once
the flagship of the decidedly inhospitable Soviet tourist industry, the
setting of countless spy novels and scenes of real-life intrigue.
Over the past decade, its increasingly tatty decor has been overtaken by
luxury hotels run by Western chains. The Moscow city government now plans
to build an international-standard five-star hotel at the prime site.
But if visitors and architecture buffs are unlikely to lament its passing,
management and staff clearly felt otherwise.
"This was a good hotel," a melancholy deputy director Alexander Kolesnikov
told Reuters in a hallway, as workers in slippers ripped out carpets with a
shovel, marking the start of an expected two-month demolition job.
"The hotel was profitable to the end and could have continued to bring
profit in the future for the city of Moscow and the Russian Federation as a
whole," he said. "Such a building could have lasted 100 years."
Generations of guests were subjected to the eerie feeling that they were
under surveillance, reinforced by the Soviet practice of stationing
steely-eyed matrons on every floor to take note of their comings and goings.
Russian news reports said plumbing fixtures and some of the mainly plywood
furniture would be sold off.
The only modern tower on Moscow's main Tverskaya Street, the Intourist was
set back from a neat row of neo-classical facades and loomed above them,
making it stand out like a black tooth in an otherwise pleasing vista.
But in recent years it also filled a notable void for reasonably priced
accommodation in a city where even a mediocre Western-style hotel room
costs hundreds of dollars a night.
*******
#5
Poultry Plants Nervous About Embargo
March 7, 2002
By JOHN PORRETTO
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - U.S. agriculture officials aren't sure why Russia has
decided to ban American poultry imports. But it's clear, they say, that the
ban couldn't have come at a worse time.
Many chicken producers in the Southeast are only now recovering from
plummeting sales that resulted when Russia stopped importing U.S. poultry
in 1998 because of its economic collapse. The loss of business had forced
some chicken companies to close.
Today, the U.S. poultry industry employs people in 38 states, and half of
all poultry exports go to Russia.
``Just in the past 12 months the industry has gotten its legs back under
it, making a little money,'' said Mike Cockrell, chief financial officer
for Laurel-based Sanderson Farms Inc., the nation's seventh biggest chicken
processor. ``Once again - this time for political and not economic reasons
- we're staring the same thing in the face.''
The Russian Agriculture Ministry announced last week that it had stopped
issuing import permits for U.S. chicken and other poultry and would impose
a full ban Sunday. It was unclear whether health concerns or anger over
Bush administration trade policies prompted the decision.
Russian media have linked the poultry ban to the long-threatened U.S.
tariffs on steel, a major Russian export. President Bush imposed tariffs of
8 percent to 30 percent on several types of imported steel Tuesday.
U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said the U.S. measure targeted all
imports, not just Russian steel. But he said the poultry ban would
discourage potential investors and have severe consequences for the
economic relationship between the two countries.
Russian Agriculture Minister Alexei Gordeyev said Tuesday the poultry ban
was based on ``concrete grievances about production quality,'' the Interfax
news agency reported.
Agriculture officials say American poultry exporters violated Russian
regulations by failing to provide proof of the Russian veterinary
department's approval for import, improperly labeling packages and
supplying meat from enterprises that did not check for salmonella - a
situation U.S. officials called impossible.
Russian agriculture officials have also expressed concern about what they
say is the use of antibiotics and artificial feed additives in U.S. chicken
production.
Last year, U.S. producers sold Russia about 1 million tons of poultry worth
up to $700 million, according to U.S. trade figures. Russia produced just
564,000 tons, the Vedemosti business daily reported.
Poultry is Mississippi's top agricultural product, and the industry brought
in $1.54 billion last year. About 10 percent of that amount came from sales
to Russia, industry officials said.
*******
#6
Moscow Times
March 7, 2002
Duma Mulls Foreign Investment Restrictions
By Victoria Lavrentieva
Staff Writer
The State Duma's credit and finance committee has proposed drastic changes
to the securities-market and joint-stock company laws that could severely
limit the scope of foreign investment.
If put into effect, the planned changes -- revealed Wednesday after a
round-table discussion organized by the committee -- would place
restrictions on the financial activities of foreigners, ranging from
brokerage and dealing activities to the participation of nonresidents on
the boards of companies they own.
The proposals, heavily criticized by the foreign business community, are
designed to protect Russia's relatively underdeveloped financial markets as
the country prepares to join the World Trade Organization.
"I couldn't believe they were seriously discussing all these proposals, but
now I know it's true," Marlen Manasov, head of Brunswick UBS Warburg, told
The Moscow Times after the meeting.
Among other foreigners present at the meeting were representatives from
Pioneer First, Templeton, J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutscher Investment Trust and
Dresdner Bank.
In a statement released after the meeting, the committee said it wanted to
receive "more concrete proposals from foreigners -- it is time to move from
words to actions."
"So far, nonresidents have had a very inflexible position, saying that
there should be no restrictions at all, but they exist in a de facto sense
already, and we need to find a compromise," the statement said.
Manasov said that while the round table was both intensive and productive,
it was not yet clear what would be approved in the end.
"For example, we don't think the government can limit the rights of an
owner to have a representative in the management of the company he owns,"
he said, adding that the Russian representatives at the meeting had agreed
with his arguments.
According to the committee's preliminary proposals, the managing structures
and boards of directors of local companies should be at least 75 percent
Russian.
The limit for the participation of foreign capital in broker-dealer,
deposit and asset management activities is proposed to be set at 25 percent.
"After joining the WTO, the Russian market will be forced to compete with
international players while still being underdeveloped in many aspects,"
said Konstantin Korishenko, managing director of Troika Dialog investment
company.
Korishenko said Russia was not unique in its intentions, as many countries
-- WTO members included -- have similar restrictions.
"You can't make progress if you build a fence to protect local companies,
but if there is just a plain field, it won't help them either, so we need
to create some barriers, which will be eliminated in several years," he said.
The Duma's financial committee is planning to come up with concrete
proposals by March 14 and approve them during the spring working session.
"We think that such restrictions should be approved before Russia joins the
WTO and they should be in place for the next six to eight years," committee
chairman Vladimir Tarachev said recently.
The Federal Securities Commission said Wednesday it was watching the
process closely.
"We are well aware of the problems that arise on the way to joining the
WTO," FSC spokesman Ilya Razbash said. "The FSC is participating in the
discussions, but we have not yet seen any official proposals from the Duma.
Once they are ready, we will have more information to discuss."
"It's very strange," Manasov said. "After so many years of reforms and
after so many talks about the needs of foreign investors, the government
wants to limit them in every move they make. ... This is a double-dealing
policy."
********
#7
Excerpt
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Europe
House International Relations Committee
by Z. Blake Marshall
Executive Vice President
U.S.-Russia Business Council
February 27, 2002
[see full text at:
http://www.house.gov/international_relations/mars0227.htm]
I am pleased to be here on Capitol Hill to convey the business community
perspectives on Russia's economic transition and the commercial climate in
Russia. Our message from the business community seeks to ensure balance in
the discussion of Russia's transition by conveying several positive aspects
of what we see unfolding in Russia. I want to stress several important
points in reference to the commercial climate.
·A viable market economy has taken hold in Russia. The Russian market will
continue to grow, and U.S. firms want to be well positioned vis-a-vis
European competitors.
·American companies have recovered from the 1998 financial crisis fallout,
are meeting their corporate benchmarks and are increasingly posting profits.
·Within the American business community in Russia, there is a growing sense
of optimism that the Putin team's economic policy is sound and that, in
contrast to certain empty promises of the past, the Putin Administration is
promoting real change when it comes to Russia's economic transformation.
The Putin team's rhetoric is backed by a series of concrete actions on
issues ranging from tax reform to corporate governance, just two of many
areas where structural changes are needed to sustain economic growth.
Recent developments indicate how serious the Russians are in additional
areas where bold steps are required: currency controls, pension reform,
land reform, money laundering, judicial reform, and many others.
·The business community has initiated a healthy dialogue with the Russian
government entities charged with structural transformation. This exchange
on proposed legislative and administrative changes ranges from tax reform
to commentary on Russia's recently adopted e-signature law, and it includes
several WTO-driven initiatives.
·U.S. government support is crucial to the success of this effort, and
intense and ongoing engagement with Russia should not be exclusively
focused on strategic and geopolitical issues. Cooperative public-private
engagement on the commercial front helps to advance an overarching U.S.
interest in further integrating Russia into the global economy. I am
pleased to note that our organization is helping to shape a new initiative
in this regard, the Russian-American Business Dialogue, to which I will
return later in my statement.
II. Business Climate
In rendering an outlook for a country such as Russia, our challenge is to
weigh competing variables, collecting anecdotal and empirical evidence to
try to balance the "transition fatigue" identified by some companies with
the long-term commitments evidenced by most. The same is true for the
juxtaposition between long-term optimism versus the short-term pressure
companies feel to make their quarterly numbers and move from red to black
on the P&L sheet. The business community's positive outlook on Russia
often does not correlate to mainstream media coverage of the pitfalls of
Russia's unprecedented transition, perhaps in part because companies are
closer to non-headline incremental movement.
Generally speaking, the business community is the most optimistic it has
been since the period prior to the August 1998 crash, with more
multinational corporations operating in Russia now than prior to 1998.
This optimism ranges from business development plans to profits. A survey
of 100 multinationals conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit
generated some interesting data to this effect.
·No company in the survey believes that political risk is increasing, with
82 percent actually seeing an improvement.
·Two-thirds feel that the tax environment is getting better, with only 5
percent believing it is becoming worse.
·More than 60 percent are currently operating at pre-crisis levels.
·More than 80 percent reported making a profit in 2000, and more than half
expected sales in 2001 to grow between 10 percent and 25 percent.
·More than 70 percent hired new personnel in 2000 and planned to continue
hiring in 2001.
Essentially, investors care about three things that fall into the "make or
break" category for any decision matrix: political stability, the tax
regime (rates, transparency/predictability and enforcement/appeals) and
property rights (whether shareholder rights or intellectual property
rights). Fortunately, Russia has demonstrated recent and meaningful
progress in these critical areas, having tackled political consolidation in
Putin's first year in office before moving on last year to pass a reduced
corporate profits tax, a Land Code, and a money-laundering law.
While pressing forward in 2001 in other areas such as pension reform and
judicial reform, the Russian government also gave a boost to
entrepreneurial activity by passing a new law that reduces the number of
business activities requiring a license from 2,000 to just 100. The law
also instituted a "one-stop shop" for the registration of new firms. As
the World Bank and others have demonstrated, the rapid growth of Central
European and Baltic economies in the 1990s was due in large part to small
and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). Firms in those countries with 50 or
less employees account for more than half of all employment, whereas in the
former Soviet countries only one-fifth of workers are employed in small firms.
The business community has been quick to recognize the momentum: an analyst
at Aton Capital recently noted, "In the past two years, the current
administration has probably implemented more reforms than Boris Yeltsin
managed in his nine years in power." That momentum is unabated in early
2002, as the State Duma's spring session will focus on more than 500 bills,
101 of which have been labeled "priority measures." Among the priority
measures are an extension of the private property provisions of the Land
Code to agricultural plots, as well as further steps in the areas of tax
and pension reform, the latter of which is expected to generate up to $3
billion in investment assets over the next two years.
While implementation is the key to realizing economic benefits, the good
news is that the policies are sound and the leadership exudes confidence.
This has spawned a new surge in investor confidence in the team led by
Minister of Economic Development and Trade German Gref and the coherent
economic program they have fashioned to chart Russia's course. The
business community believes the Russian government has made good use of the
"breathing room" it was afforded by the twin benefits of devaluation
dividends and high oil prices-that is, they are laying the groundwork for
sustainable economic growth rather than cycling through tranches of IMF money.
Foreign Investment and Market Sentiment
Russia has plenty of absorption capacity when it comes to investment
inflows. The FDI stock in Russia is only five percent of GDP, which is one
of the lowest in the world, and much of that amount is attributable to
returning flight capital. Furthermore, according to Council member Troika
Dialog, foreign investment is heavily concentrated in "islands" of
opportunity where local officials have made a concerted effort to assist
with a daunting bureaucracy and an unstable tax system: the top 10 regions
account for 83 percent of FDI.
Russia attracted $3.2 billion in FDI in 1999 and $4 billion in 2000
(including an 18 percent increase in investment in fixed assets).
According to the Central Bank of Russia, foreign direct investment in the
first nine months of 2001 was $2.9 billion, while preliminary data indicate
that gross capital fixed investment grew by 8.7 percent in 2001 to just
over 17 percent of GDP. Even with the 50 percent surge in FDI that Russia
hoped for in 2001, it would still equate to one-sixth of China's 2000 total
and less than three percent of the U.S. figure for 2000. While cumulative
FDI in Russia over the past decade is estimated at roughly $18 billion
(compared with over $350 billion in China), with demonstrated improvements
in the tax environment and other policy realms, FDI is expected to grow
quickly in the next few years, perhaps doubling by 2005.
The top ratings agencies concur with the business community's sense that
Russia has become an increasingly attractive place to invest. In October
2001, Fitch raised its Russia rating from B to B+, attributing the revised
rating to "exceptional macroeconomic performance and acceleration in
structural reform," and suggested that its strengthened policy framework
makes Russia "well placed to weather even a severe global downturn and
rising risk aversion." The following month, Russia redeemed it $1 billion
Eurobond, in what some analysts described as "Russia's first-ever full
non-restructured redemption." Moody's responded by raising its Russia
rating two notches to Ba3, citing the Russian government's commitment to
debt service, prudent monetary policy and structural reform. On December
19, Standard & Poor's again upgraded Russia's long-term sovereign credit
ratings from B to B+ - just two years ago, S&P's minimum rating was SD
(Selected Default); and just last week, S&P upgraded its outlook on
Russia's sovereign debt from stable to positive.
Both in terms of publicly traded debt and the Russian stock market, Russia
has to be viewed as one of the best performing emerging markets of the past
year. The RTS, Russia's main market barometer, was up 81.4 percent in
2001, including a 44.1 percent gain in the 4th quarter alone. The market
diversification away from oil and gas is also encouraging-for example,
fruit juice and dairy provider Wimm Bill Dann launched an IPO earlier this
month, the first such offering since two Russian telecoms (MTS and
Vimpelcom) placed shares in 1999. Furthermore, with yields declining to
near 10 percent, prominent Russian companies such as Sibneft, TNK, Gazprom,
Severstal, MTS, and Vimpelcom have announced plans to follow the lead of
Rosneft, which last fall issued the first corporate Eurobond since 1998
($150 million). Finally, in addition to these corporate placements, the
fact that the yield on Russia's 30-year Eurobond dropped more than five
points last year is another sign of investor confidence and declining risk....
VI. Public-Private Partnership and Bilateral Relations
After its first year in office, we have been impressed by the Bush
Administration's commitment to ensuring that our economic and commercial
relationship with Russia receives the attention it deserves. For example,
Commerce Secretary Don Evans led a trade mission to Moscow with 14 U.S.
companies last fall. Another indication that the U.S. Government is
supportive of Russia's efforts to create a more investor-friendly
environment is the creation last summer of a Russian-American Business
Dialogue.
The Russian-American Business Dialogue (RABD) is a private-sector effort
designed to strengthen the economic and commercial relationship between the
United States and Russia and complement the ongoing official engagement
between the two governments. This business-to-business mechanism was
announced by Presidents Bush and Putin during their July summit meeting in
Genoa.
Through the RABD, the business community is playing a leadership role in
setting the commercial policy agenda and formulating policy recommendations
that will strengthen the trade and investment ties between the two
countries. The U.S. and Russian governments have agreed to maintain
regular consultations regarding the policy priorities emanating from this
private-sector initiative, and the RABD held three Cabinet-level exchanges
prior to the December delivery of the Dialogue's Interim Status Report,
which covered a half-dozen initial priorities:
I. Administrative Obstacles
II. Market Access
III. Investment Policies
IV. High-Tech Support
V. Growth of Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (SMEs)
VI. Judicial Reform
As Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov noted in a speech to USRBC
members last month, "The Russian-American Business Dialogue, which was
launched half a year ago, is becoming one of the mainstays for the entire
system of our bilateral economic cooperation."
The Jackson-Vanik Amendment: A Call to Action
One of the top priorities identified by the RABD-indeed one of the
highlights of our "transition paper" submitted to the Bush Administration
in early 2001-is the unmistakable importance the business community
attaches to terminating the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to
Russia. I recognize that this is not the committee of jurisdiction;
nevertheless, perhaps the most important thing I can do today is to express
our strong support for filing away this anachronism in the Cold War
archives where it belongs.
The changing nature of our relationship with Russia has been startling. As
this evolution unfolds, it is important that the trade and investment
aspect of our relationship keep pace with the times-removing Russia from
annual Jackson-Vanik consideration is an important part of this evolution.
Jews in Russia today are free to emigrate, and Russia is no longer a
controlled economy. Terminating the amendment's application to Russia
would help foster a sense of normal trade relations between the U.S. and
Russia and demonstrate to countries that continue to restrict emigration
that such a step is possible with the right reforms.
Furthermore, we believe that Jackson-Vanik and Russia's WTO accession are
two separate issues and should be treated as such. At no time since Russia
applied for WTO membership has any U.S. official linked Jackson-Vanik to
Russia's WTO accession. Such an action would be perceived as moving the
goalpost on WTO accession and would treat Russia differently from other
countries in the accession process.
The United States has an excellent track record in setting the highest bar
for new entrants to the WTO. We are confident that the USTR will continue
to seek strong commitments from Russia pertaining to the adoption of WTO
rules governing its trade regime, the provision of market access in goods
and services, the establishment of limits on agricultural supports, and the
enforcement of the rule of law in commerce. The United States has the
leverage it needs to address trade concerns with Russia, as obviously
Russia cannot accede to the WTO without U.S. consent. While there remains
much to be done, we are confident that the U.S. government will remain
engaged on Russia's accession process and, likewise, Russia will continue
to make great progress.
Closing Remarks
To conclude, I wish to emphasize the Council's belief that our partnership
on the trade and investment side has been going well, and working on WTO
accession and promoting new private-sector linkages through the RABD are
ways in which we will help our partnership reach its potential. And in
terms of what the U.S. government can do, granting Russia market economy
status in our Cold War-era trade laws is near the top of the list. The
application to do so is currently under review at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, and the U.S.-Russia Business Council has submitted its commentary
in support of Russia's application.
To be sure, remaining tax, corporate governance and other structural
reforms lend a cautionary note to the prevailing optimism in the business
community. But the recent track record may help Russia finally close the
chapter on its post-crisis recovery and begin a new chapter featuring truly
sustainable, diversified economic growth.
On behalf of the Council's 260 member companies, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, for allowing me to share the business community's viewpoints at
this important time in our relationship with Russia.
*******
#8
Vremya Novostei
No. 38
March 7, 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
RUSSIANS DISSATISFIED WITH THE KASYANOV GOVERNMENT
By Oleg SAVELYEV, VTsIOM Press Service
On February 22-26, 2002 VTsIOM (the All-Russian Public
Opinion Research Centre) carried out a sample express survey of
1,600 Russians. The responses to the two questions contained in
the poll can be found below in percentages and as compared to
similar VTsIOM surveys conducted in February 2000 and 2001.
The statistical error in this and similar surveys does not
exceed 4%.
"What are your primary complains about the work
of the current Russian government?"
(More than one response is possible)
----------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. It fails to suppress growing prices
and falling population incomes 39 46 49
2. It fails to socially protect the population 27 33 33
3. It fails to provide people with jobs 27 25 27
4. It fails to solve the Chechnya problem 7 20 24
5. It fights crime ineffectively 17 22 23
6. It lacks a well-thought-out economic
development program 21 18 19
7. It fails to tackle with the crisis
and drop in output 23 21 18
8. It is corrupt and acts primarily
in its own interests 7 17 17
9. It fails to guarantee safety to Russian citizens,
and fails to do away with terrorists 11 11 13
10. It acts in the interests of shadow
Mafia capital 4 8
10
11. It displays low professionalism 4 7
6
12. It acts in the interests of foreign capital 2 5 5
13. Other 3 4 5
14. I have no claims to the government 15 7 9
15. Don't know 11 6 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
"In your opinion, will the current Russian government
be able to change the situation in the country for
the better in the near future?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Definitely yes and probably yes 40 30 32
2. Maybe yes and maybe not 31 32 32
3. Probably not and definitely not 24 33 32
4. Don't know 5 5 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, two years ago the Russians believed that it
was premature to complain about the newly formed Mikhail
Kasyanov government, or were more likely to hope that it would
be successful. Now, as evident from the data above, the
Russians are dissatisfied with the government more. They are
especially unhappy about growing prices. The Russians are also
disappointed with the failure of the government to put an end
to the conflict in Chechnya.
******
#9
Kommersant-Vlast
No. 8
March 2002
NEMTSOV: WE ARE NOT AN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE!
An interview with Boris Nemtsov of the Union of Right Forces
Author: Yelena Tregubova
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THE UNION OF RIGHT FORCES, ONE OF THE LARGEST POLITICAL PARTIES IN
RUSSIA, IS ON THE VERGE OF A SPLIT. THE LATEST OPINION POLLS PUT ITS
RATING AT AN ALL=TIME LOW OF 4%. BORIS NEMTSOV CONSIDERS THAT THERE IS
ONLY ONE WAY OF SAVING THE SITUATION: BECOMING A TRUE OPPOSITION TO
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN.
The leadership of the Union of Right Forces, one of the largest
political parties in Russia, is on the verge of a split. The latest
opinion polls by the National Public Opinion Research Center put the
URF's rating at an all=time low of 4%. Boris Nemtsov considers that
there is only one way of saving the situation: becoming a true
opposition to President Vladimir Putin.
Question: Your rating has fallen sharply. Why is that?
Boris Nemtsov: The problem is, it is time we took a clear and
definite position. Either we support the regime or we are the
opposition. Yes, an opposition respectable and constructive but an
opposition nonetheless.
Needless to say, being in the opposition is somewhat difficult
for the Union of Right Forces. You see, Putin has pursued our policy
in the economic sphere and in international affairs. No more. We
cannot ignore the manifest problems any more. The situation in
Chechnya is a dead-end, and hostilities continue there. neither can we
ignore the fact that censorship and self-censorship have all but been
introduced in Russia.
I'm not even talking of the saga with Echo of Moscow and TV-6. Or
take a look at what is happening in the regions! I've been touring the
country - Ufa, my native Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov, St. Petersburg,
Novosibirsk. I see one and the same story everywhere: the local
authorities watch their superiors in the federal center doing away
with the independent press and follow suit on their own level.
The Union of Right Forces has to make up its mind now. Either we
are prepared to ignore the fact that democratic principles in Russia
are being violated, and reactionary forces and ways of thinking are
advancing, slowly but surely; or we are not.
Question: Well, are you?
Boris Nemtsov: In my view, the lack of opposition in Russia
nowadays is a sure road to a police state. The regime doesn't
encounter resistance anywhere: journalists have already been told what
they can get away with and what they can't do; regional leaders are
timid and mute, almost all senators are appointees of the Kremlin, the
Duma is controlled by the pro-Kremlin factions and will do as it is
told too. Life has been stamped out of local government. And
presidential envoys make sure that no one speaks out on what is really
happening in Russia. When wage arrears occur, everyone pretends that
nothing of the sort happens. The government issued a ban on talking
about inflation. It is though we do not have any. Under the
circumstances, Russia is becoming authoritarian, and fast.
Putin doesn't even have to do something for that. Once again
Russia is ready to becoming a country of slaves. Yeltsin was unique in
this sense - being a free man, he thought everyone should be free too.
I do not know where the like of his could appear from... Putin has a
different opinion. He must be a very perceptive man. It took just a
slight push, and everything clicked in gear and continued the motion
all by itself.
Question: There are rumors that there is serious discord in the
upper echelons of the Union of Right Forces. Some leaders advocate the
future in opposition while others support the idea of a party
integrated into the power vertical...
Boris Nemtsov: There are two points of view in the Union
leadership. One of them may be summed up in the following manner, "We
are Putin's right foot."
Union leadership comprises chairmen and the Political Council.
Some of the mentioned politicians view the Union as a party of
influence. They say for example that right now we - the Union - can
probably promote implementation of the military reforms and reduction
of the military service, and afterwards we will do everything to make
sure that Russia is admitted in the World Trade Organization, defend
TV-6, etc... In other words, these politicians want to be a party
which supports the regime in all its positive initiatives and
undertakings, reproaches it for negative ones, and is always close by,
somewhere near the powers-that-be. In my view, we owe this rating of
ours to precisely this position. Pragmatism of this position
notwithstanding, voter is unlikely to back up a party like that. He
will rather vote for Putin thinking all along that "I'll vote for
Putin, and let him promote his own men to where he wants them."
I have different views on the subject. We need a clear and
unequivocal position. If Putin permitted development of independent
TV, if Putin accepted our proposals and made the Federation Council
elected by the whole people, if Putin initiated a political process in
Chechnya, then we would not scream in the streets that we did not want
him all the same because the guy had KGB written all over him.
If he did not do anything of the sort and let the process
continue in the same direction, we would become the opposition. The
Union is the only political force in the country that may become a
constructive opposition.
Question: What about Liberal Russia? You do not perceive it as
your rival in this sphere? After all, its leaders are in unequivocal
opposition.
Boris Nemtsov: The party Berezovsky is a rank member of is known
as Berezovsky's party no matter of what it may be calling itself. That
is why this structure doesn't have political future.
Telling our voter that he should vote for Berezovsky is like
telling him to soap the rope and commit suicide right in the polling
booth. It is impossible. It won't hurt to know your own country even a
bit, you know.
The opposition should be energetic and combative, it should have
the support of the Russian elite (financial elite included). That is
why the Union is the only force on the right flank of the political
spectrum that may prevent the country from slipping into
authoritarianism.
It is time we stopped living among innuendo. We have to say it
out loud that Russia aims to join the European Union and join NATO, in
order not to find itself overrun by the Chinese or the Taliban one
day. We have to say it out loud that Russia aims to see all its
citizens issued Shengen passports. If Putin did everything to make a
truly European country of Russia, then he has our support and
cooperation. If instead he did at least something to the contrary,
then he can rely on us being the opposition. Closing TV-6 by decision
of an arbitration court? Was this the European way? No. Or capital
punishment - for which abolition was promised? Why did not Putin
reprimand the pro-presidential factions of the Duma when they voted
for the death penalty?
Question: To listen to you, it is best to be in opposition
nowadays? But what about Putin's unheard-of rating?
Boris Nemtsov: There is political mileage and there is strategic
understanding of the situation. So, political mileage implies the
necessity to cling to the regime, to beg to be left alone, and to
crawl into the Duma in the great president's shadow. From the
strategic angle, however, all this means the agreement to
establishment of a police state in Russia and to being a part of this
authoritarian regime.
Question: You think in other words that there are opposition-
minded voters in the country? After all, you lay claim to the honor of
expressing their interests.
Boris Nemtsov: You think that the number of dissatisfied men and
women (particularly among the ones who rely on their own brains when
it comes to interpreting what they see around them) will inevitably
grow along with enforcement of all these reactionary rules. It is the
men and women who rely on their own brains that have always been our
supporters and followers. It is them who stop being blind the fastest.
As for Putin's rating, he owes it first and foremost to the favorable
situation in the international markets - oil and gas are expensive
articles now. It is impossible to keep it up for long. At least
because little if anything is being done in the country by way of
structural reforms. You know, the Gazprom is managed by a former hotel
manager.
Question: There were rumors in the course of the previous
parliamentary election and shortly afterwards that the Union of Right
Forces had been greatly assisted by Director of the Presidential
Administration Alexander Voloshin. I heard leaders of your party
musing that if Putin opted to replace Voloshin with some chekist from
St. Petersburg, the Union might encounter serious problems and
particularly with access to nationwide TV networks...
Boris Nemtsov: The Kremlin lives by the principle "us and them".
It seems that most officials working in it nowadays (not everyone but
a lot) think of us as "them". We are not like them indeed, we are not
intelligence. We are independent individuals, and individuals like
that are distrusted and feared.ďPutin's staff policy is simple: the
man has to be loyal and, preferably, have no aspirations. The grayer
the better.
As for access to TV channels, there are no mysteries here. The
access of the Union to state-controlled TV is controlled by the
Kremlin by 100%. The same goes for all other political parties and
politicians. Journalists of state and semi-state channels are
essentially officials of the presidential administration. They never
ask any questions not authorized by the Kremlin.
No parties with opinions differing from Putin's will be permitted
access to TV networks in the lead-up to the elections. Our choice is
fairly simple: either we make a pact with the regime and become pals,
or we pay money for absolutely everything. In my view, the second
alternative is more honorable.
********
#10
ANALYSIS-Russian export gaps offset oil cuts offered to OPEC
By Dmitry Zhdannikov
MOSCOW, March 7 (Reuters) - Russian oil firms are resorting to everything
from river barges to rail trucks to circumvent the state pipeline monopoly
Transneft and ship more crude to the West than the volumes agreed with
OPEC, traders say.
Industry sources believe shipments by routes other than Transneft will
continue rising if Russia decides to extend its 150,000 barrels per day
export cut agreed with OPEC for the first three months of 2002 into the
second quarter.
Russia says the deal applies only to crude oil exports via Transneft,
exempting crude sales via rail, river and refined products.
Transneft pipelines run to the main export ports on the Black and Baltic
Sea as well as to Central and Western Europe crossing the territories of
Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary and Czech republic.
"We already see that some routes that seemed to be extremely exotic only
several months ago are becoming absolutely ordinary," a Moscow-based
Western trader said.
Russia, the world's No. 2 oil exporter, postponed this week a decision on
whether to stick to its export cut but said it had agreed with oil firms to
limit output growth in 2002 to five percent, or 7.33 million bpd.
OPEC said it was sure Moscow would commit to support its efforts to shore
up the oil price.
Analysts say the domestic market, suffering from a severe glut, cannot
absorb extra supplies of crude which would normally flow abroad, and a
government commitment to continue curbs beyond March will mean little in
practice.
"The logic will be to verbally commit and then turn a blind eye on real
volumes of exports," the head of Moscow-based International Petroleum
Institute Yevgeny Khartukov said.
Western energy watchdog the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on
Wednesday its preliminary data showed Russia was already short of the Q1
150,000 bpd crude export cut and was boosting oil products shipments.
"The export of oil products has risen dramatically," IEA Executive Director
Robert Priddle said, adding that the IEA would publish exact figures on
March 12.
RAIL IS THE KEY
Russian energy officials say January and February crude exports through the
Transneft pipeline, at an average 2.6 million bpd, stuck closely to the
promised levels and fell below record volumes shipped in the third quarter
of 2001 but they believe rail deliveries have rocketed.
Russia's customs authorities put crude oil exports by rail at 8.4 million
tonnes last year, a 30 percent increase from 2000, but they have no figures
for this year so far.
But traders said in February Russia's second largest oil firm YUKOS was
regularly shipping this winter by rail to the Ukrainian port of Feodossia
crude volumes enough to load up to five 80,000 tonnes tankers a month,
equivalent to around 100,000 bpd, two thirds of the entire cut agreed with
OPEC.
Traders said that as well as ports with large rail facilities such as
Tallinn and Ventspils on the Baltic, pipeline-oriented ports such as the
Black Sea port of Novorossiisk were also getting extra crude volumes by rail.
Novorossiisk loaded in January and February at least two large cargoes of
Siberian Light, a superior quality crude compared with Russia's main export
blend Urals, which had come by rail, traders said. It was also expected to
reload river tankers when navigation opens after the winter.
"If you try hard you can manage to find out ways to monitor those
shipments. But some schemes are almost impossible to detect," a senior
Russian trader said.
Another way round the OPEC-agreed limits are Transneft deliveries to
refineries in Ukraine and Belarus, countries which fall outside the accord.
Russian companies Surgutneftegaz and Slavneft said they would increase
crude deliveries to Belarus to 15 million tonnes this year from 11 million
last year.
Traders have said a major boost of oil products exports was possible in the
coming weeks when a government resolution to cut fuel oil export tariff
comes into force.
The customs authorities puts 2001 oil products exports at 70.4 million
tonnes, up from 60.8 million tonnes in 2000.
*******
#11
Kommersant
March 7, 2002
Where Do Women Belong After All?
Should men and women be equal in all spheres?
(therussianissues.com)
"Darling, I'll take you to the very edge of the Universe... And I'll give
you that star..." Anyone who saw that popular cartoon in the 1970s will
probably remember how the most romantic story of all times ended...The edge
of the Universe turned out to be the kitchen. And instead of a star, there
were pots and pans that required endless scrubbing.
So, no matter how beautiful that fairytale seemed, the man knew ahead of
time how it would end...
Where do women belong after all?
Tatiana Malyutina, president of the Association of Businesswomen
Everywhere except a harem. But it seems that many men think that is
precisely their place. Men are very displeased because women are better
than them both in business and politics. At times, women earn more than
they do and they also manage to look after their children and husbands.
Nikolai Kharitonov, head of the Agro-industrial Group in the Duma
Women have no equals in the field or vegetable gardens. Only men should
engaged in politics. After all, politics is quite a dirty field that should
not stain women's hands. A woman must be pure and innocent so that she can
bring up her children without sin.
Dmitri Suzdaltsev, deputy chairman of the board, Roseurobank
Let them be everywhere. If they want to play ice hockey, fly into outer
space, rear children or cook good meals, that's their choice. The idea that
their place is only in the kitchen, in the bedroom or beside a child's crib
to me seems insulting to the allegedly "weaker sex."
Nikolai Utkin, mayor of Togliatti
Well, if women have managed to enter politics, then they should take up
social problems like education or public health. Although Mrs. Matviyenko
is deputy prime minister. In general, I would say women are too emotional
and that often hurts the cause, but sometimes it helps.
Irina Khakamada, Duma deputy speaker
All women, with rare exception, are real workaholics and they are much more
professional than men. However, men manage to get the upper hand by their
brazenness, self-confidence and careerism. The Duma once received an
invitation for delegates to an inter-parliamentary assembly. There was a
separate line for a woman parliament member. That simply infuriated me! But
the men parliament members were unable to even comprehend that this
concerned me. They took it as a matter of fact.
Zinoviy Kogan, rabbi, Chairman of the Congress of Jewish Religious
Organizations and Associations in Russia
At the top. I mean in the sense that she must be at the head of everything.
Woman was created last by the Almighty and that is why she should be at the
head of everything. For example, at the head of the table. We must not
forget that the Lord addressed fewer commandments to them than to men. And
if a woman wants to go into business, then let her do that. Only this
doesn't apply to my wife - she should stay at home to look after the
household and the children.
Vladimir Sorokin, author
Her place is in bed. Woman was created for love and for continuing the
human race. Herein lies her magic, grandeur, wisdom, and her colossal
advantage over men.
Olga Sviblova, director of the Moscow Photography House
Everywhere they want to be. Women are not as ambitious as men. I have never
met women who were so silly that claimed their rights were being infringed
upon. But men are always shouting from the rooftops that they are being
discriminated against because of their nationality or material status.
Ivan Rybkin, former secretary of the Russian Security Council
A woman should not be driven into a corner by family life. This causes her
to lose her charm and attractiveness. That is why I have never insisted
that my wife and daughters remain at home, that they shouldn't work. A
working woman mobilizes herself and therefore, she is able to not only to
make money, but also to look after the children and the household. My
mother who is 73 still considers it her duty to cook the meals and knit
socks and scarfs for her daughters, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Nikolai Kostin, president of the "Miss Russia" Contest
Women have to find their own place in the modern world. "The kitchen, the
church and the children" are not the basic principles. Many of the winners
of the "Miss" title do volunteer work and participate in charities to help
unfortunate children. For example, Miss Europe, Miss America and many
others work with the charity "A world without children's tears." They are
future mothers so there is nothing surprising in the fact that their
efforts are addressed precisely towards children. I would not say I was a
bad father, but a child is always the closest to its mother and that is the
most important thing for a woman.
Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the USSR
As I see it, the voice of a woman is not heard very clearly today.
Politics, business and public life suffer as a result. That is why I spoke
out at the conference "Women and Elections" for increasing the quotas for
women to be represented in elected bodies of authority, for example,
30-50%. There is nothing humiliating in this. On the contrary, this would
help us overcome "the chained-to-the home" tradition. However, women
themselves have to come to realize this and act accordingly.
Maria Arbatova, president of the Women Involved in Politics Club
How long Russia has been dragging its feet with the adoption of a law on
the equality of men and women! In Russia, we it is almost the same as in
Moslem countries where the place for women is the harem, in bed or in the
kitchen.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Duma deputy speaker
Russia is a country with the greatest degree of freedom in the world. Not a
single state in the world has such freedom of will as we have. That is why
a woman in our country can choose her place as she sees fit - at home or in
business, a professional career or politics. Only she should remember: a
woman who has made a successful career is practically never happy in her
family life.
Philip Kirkorov, pop singer
A woman's place is on the stage if, of course, that woman is Alla Pugacheva
(Kirkorov's wife and famous singer). And she must also be in the heart of
the man she loves.
*******
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