Johnson's Russia List
#6128
12 March 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Moscow Times: Gregory Feifer, Deputies See Little New in U.S. Report.
2. Reuters: Unique Russian books saved from U.S. incinerator.
3. pravda.ru: IN THE US, CLASSICAL RUSSIAN BOOKS ARE BEING BURNED.
4. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Marina Kalashnikova, Russia Included in "Axis of
Evil." Moscow, so far, has no adequate response.
5. Vek: Sergei Semenishchev, RUSSIA AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT.
6. gazeta.ru: Berezovsky’s Documentary Arrives In Moscow.
7. Jamestown Foundation Monitor: DEMOCRATS CALL RUSSIA A "MANAGED
DEMOCRACY".
8. Interfax: Half of Russians think U.S. terrorist attacks did not change 
Russian- U.S. relations.
9. Interfax: Putin aide says U.S. sanctions a sign that Russian economy is 
improving. (Illarionov)
10. New York Times: Anna Kisselgoff, Folk Music and Ballet From a Russian 
Master. (Moiseyev Dance Company)
11. Moscow Times: Boris Kagarlitsky, Spare Cash Is the Best Test.
12. pravda.ru: YEUGENY PRIMAKOV – “GREAT WITNESS”, “GREAT CONCILIATOR”
13. The New Statesman: Mark Almond, How the west helps the vote-riggers.
14. Business Week: Paul Starobin, Is Washington Fighting Terrorism On Too
Many Fronts?
15. Reuters: Uzbek leader faces tough criticism on U.S. visit.]

*******

#1
Moscow Times
March 12, 2002
Deputies See Little New in U.S. Report
By Gregory Feifer 
Staff Writer 

Legislators said Monday there was nothing essentially new in reports that
the United States is preparing military contingency plans to use nuclear
weapons in certain tactical situations against at least seven countries,
including Russia.

But experts observed that while U.S. strategy in itself was not cause for
friction between Moscow and Washington, political and media rhetoric
surrounding the issue could ratchet up tension.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that the Pentagon sent Congress a
classified report in January in which China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea,
Iran, Libya and Syria were included as countries against which the military
should be prepared to use nuclear weapons. 

Reaction over the weekend from the head of the State Duma's foreign affairs
committee, Dmitry Rogozin, and former Defense Ministry official Leonid
Ivashov, both known hawks, was predictably tough.

Responses on Monday were calmer.

State Duma Deputy Andrei Nikolayev, head of the defense committee and a
member of the centrist People's Deputy faction, said he saw "nothing
strange" about the Pentagon plans. Any country with nuclear weapons "also
has plans about using them," he said, Interfax reported.

Another Duma deputy, Alexei Arbatov, deputy head of the defense committee
and a member of the liberal Yabloko party, said in a telephone interview
that the United States and Russia have always included each other in
contingency plans to use nuclear weapons and that the recent "Nuclear
Posture Review" indicated nothing new.

Yury Fyodorov, a nuclear arms expert at the PIR Center think tank, agreed.
"I wouldn't over-dramatize the reports," he said, speaking by telephone.
"It's well known that during the 1990s and earlier, the United States'
strategic nuclear plan always included Russia."

Others were more concerned. Deputy Konstantin Kosachyov, Rogozin's deputy
on the Duma's foreign-relations committee, said the plan in fact reflected
a change from what he said had been a U.S. strategy of using nuclear
weapons as a means of last resort. The United States risked seriously
destabilizing the global situation, he said in remarks reported by Interfax. 

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said if the reported plans actually exist,
they "can only raise regret and concern," Interfax reported. 

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser
Condoleeza Rice on Sunday played down suggestions that the U.S. had moved
closer toward using nuclear weapons.

Ivanov said this was not enough. He asked for reassurances from "a higher
level" that Washington has not adopted such plans.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in London on Monday, described the report as a
routine update to Congress and said the United States is not targeting any
nation for nuclear attack.

PIR Center's Fyodorov, meanwhile, said "the real question is why the
Russian media and certain politicians are using the Los Angeles Times
report to begin a propaganda campaign," he said. "That could complicate the
situation."

Kommersant newspaper reported on the news under the headline "A friendly
nuclear strike awaits Russia." Nezavisimaya Gazeta included the NPR on a
long list of U.S. slights since President Vladimir Putin agreed to support
Washington's war on terrorism. Both papers are controlled by Boris
Berezovsky, a former Kremlin insider who has become Putin's harshest critic.

Arbatov pointed to another ramification of the U.S. nuclear contingency
plans, saying they indicated that Washington's statements reassuring Moscow
that it was no longer seen as a Cold War-era enemy were little more than
"demagoguery and lies." He said Washington's intention had been to reduce
criticism for its plans to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But
given the implication of the NPR -- that Russia is still considered a
threat -- a U.S. exit from the ABM Treaty would in fact destabilize global
security, he said. 

"The attitude of cautiousness on both sides will continue until nuclear
arms are finally reduced and both sides become equal partners," Arbatov said.

Arbatov and Fyorodov both said reports about the NPR would not affect
ongoing U.S.-Russia talks to reduce strategic nuclear arms stockpiles. "The
talks are being conducted with professionals who understand the reality of
the situation," Fyodorov said.

Less clear is whether the new flap over nuclear arms policy will affect
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov's three days of talks this week in Washington.

*******

#2
Unique Russian books saved from U.S. incinerator
By Christina Ling
  
WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - A member of the U.S. House of
Representatives and the head of the Library of Congress brokered an
11th-hour deal on Monday to save a unique collection of 2 million Russian
books from an incinerator. 

"It is a win-win for everybody," Igor Kalageorgi, owner of the Victor
Kamkin bookstore in the Washington suburb of Rockville, Maryland, said of
the deal that won his shop a temporary reprieve from eviction and kept his
books from being discarded. 

"There will be no book burning and the books will be found a home,"
Kalageorgi added. 

The bookstore in was founded in 1953 by Victor Kamkin, Kalageorgi's
great-uncle. During the Cold War, it represented a treasure trove virtually
unparalleled in the United States as a source of Russian-language books
both classic and obscure. 

Enjoying an exclusive contract with the Soviet government to import Soviet
books and periodicals into the United States, the Kamkin store during its
heyday was a magnet for the entire community of U.S. Slavic scholars, from
spooks to students. 

But the shop had faced eviction on Monday after falling behind on its
$15,000-per-month rent due to slack sales over the past year, Kalageorgi
told Reuters. 

Landlord Allen Kronstadt said the enormity of the task facing the
Montgomery County, Maryland, sheriff in hauling the estimated 2 million
books out onto the sidewalk and to the local dump and incinerator already
twice had delayed the eviction date. 

"We warned the sheriff's department early on how massive the job was," said
Kronstadt, managing partner of Randolph Buildings, which rents space to
Kamkin. 

He said a crew of 60 men and several trucks had been slated to remove the
books on Monday before a deal was reached. 

"The thought of burning these books for me personally was distasteful and I
struggled with it," Kronstadt added. 

LAWMAKER INTERVENES 

After The Washington Post reported over the weekend on the fate awaiting
the books, Maryland Republican U.S. Rep. Connie Morella extracted a promise
from local officials not to destroy the precious load. 

Morella and Librarian of Congress James Billington, a prominent historian
and Russia specialist, sat down with Kronstadt and Kalageorgi to work out
the three-week reprieve on the eviction. 

Kalageorgi said he will work over the coming days with Billington and
Library of Congress Slavic experts to put together collections to donate to
the library and other institutions around the country. 

"There's nothing like it (in the United States)," said one Library of
Congress official, noting such obscure items as a Tagalog-Russian
dictionary among Kamkin's collection deserved to be spared for future
generations of researchers. 

"You just don't have people importing books from Russia on the leaves of
Kamchatka or 12th century law in Ukraine." 

Kronstadt said that under the deal he would write off the roughly $200,000
he says the bookstore owes him in rent, legal and other fees, and would
donate to the Library of Congress any books left in his possession at the
end of the three weeks. 

The deal also allows the continuation of the Victor Kamkin bookstore
itself, which Kalageorgi says he plans to reopen at a new location once he
has finished taking inventory and donating books. 

"We don't have a definite location yet, but we're going to get that all
organized in short order," Kalageorgi said. 

After 10,000 customers deluged the store over the weekend in fear of its
closure, he no longer doubted a market existed for it despite competition
from rivals in New York's Brighton Beach. "It tells me the power of
advertising," he said. 

*******

#3
pravda.ru
March 11, 2002
IN THE US, CLASSICAL RUSSIAN BOOKS ARE BEING BURNED 

The US wants to be first everywhere: from the fight against terrorism to
new ways of solving the problems of bankrupt companies. However, these new
ways have once again shown the old truth that there is nothing new under
the sun, but there are some things that should be forgotten. 

This time, the country that is so proud of its democracy decided to use the
methods of Nazi Germany. On March 11th, in Washington, it was decided to
burn over 2 million books, Russian classics such as Pushkin, Dostoyevsky.
Yes, to burn. The books belonged to Viktor Kamkin’s Shop, which was the
largest store selling Russian literature for the last 50 years in
Washington. However, because of the drop in demand, the company was
declared bankrupt. Therefore, all books that were not sold were to be
destroyed. According to RIA ‘Novosti, only thanks to the Washington Post
and the help of Democratic congressman of Maryland Constanza, the burning
of books was averted. However, this is only a temporary delay; for the time
being, the books are in a police warehouse. Therefore, the classical works
still have a chance to be burned. 

Of course, one could find drawing analogies with Nazi Germany to be
inappropriate. For, in the 1930s, Hitler’s thugs organized book burnings
for political demonstrations as a way to fight against idelogical
pollution, while, here, everything is clear: the shop is bankrupt and a
part of its goods has not been sold, so the books must be annihilated.
However, in this way, any savagery can be justified. It is not important
whether the reason is economic advisability or the fight against an alien
influence upon the nation. 

In general, who can guarantee to Americans that while annihilating today
the bankrupt shop’s books one will not annihilate the works of writers and
philosophers criticizing the social, political, or economic life of the US? 

Of course, there are many people in the US who were shocked with the idea
of using books in this way. However, there are not enough of them to buy 2
million Russian books. Americans do not read much, so their treatment of
books is different from what Russians are accustomed to. Well, Lev Tolstoy
is not Steven King; however, is it possible that in such a rich country
there is no money to buy these books for libraries and literary foundations? 

What is happening in the US is, of course, an internal affair of the US.
Americans themselves should settle this problem for their own interests.
Otherwise, their criticism of countries for violating human rights is worth
nothing. 

*******

#4
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
March 11, 2002
Russia Included in "Axis of Evil" 
Moscow, so far, has no adequate response
By Marina Kalashnikova
(therussianissues.com)
 
During the past several weeks the West has been steadily toughening its 
policy in respect to Russia. Moreover, this is being done in several key 
areas simultaneously. It is difficult to shake off the impression that some 
kind of comprehensive scene is being played out, the finale of which is aimed 
at seriously undermining Russia's positions on the world stage.

Two months after the Pentagon submitted its plan to reorganize the country's 
nuclear forces to Congress, Washington resorted to a move that can only be 
viewed as propagandistic. Through The Los Angeles Times, it reminded the 
world that Russia not only remains the target of nuclear, possibly 
"preemptive," strikes. Russia has also been included in the ranks of the 
so-called "rogue" states that form the "axis of evil," which now includes not 
three, but seven countries.

So, it turns out that the thesis that triggered an acute allergic reaction 
around the world, including among America's allies, was by no means a "slip 
of the tongue" by the president's speechwriter. The latter has already been 
sacked. Apparently, the "axis" itself, however, has been extended.

The leak of "delicate" information that has been organized in the American 
press only continues the list of the West's conspicuously consistent steps. 
The scandal around the Russian athletes at the Salt Lake Olympics, the 
introduction of higher tariffs on imported steel, and the large-scale NATO 
maneuvers in Norway and Poland are all steps of various caliber aimed, 
nonetheless, at one target. Russia's international status is being destroyed 
before our very eyes. Moreover, Moscow obviously lacks the ability and 
perhaps the resources for reacting to all this in a comprehensive and 
flexible manner.

Russia's attempt to get into a "side-seat" as the 20th chair in the NATO 
Council boomeranged into a very tough rebuke from NATO chief George 
Robertson: even though there had been periodical instances of cooperation 
with Moscow on a number of pressing issues, it was made clear that the 
Alliance had no intentions of changing its lineup.

Russia has only just managed to hurriedly fold up its campaign of self-deceit 
in the media. Apparently, this campaign was aimed at demonstrating to the 
public, as well as to the country's leadership, the "successes" of the 
rapprochement with the West after the September 11 events.

A new series of steps has followed lately. Instead of the "moderate" variant 
of enlarging NATO by four or five new members that Zbigniew Brzezinsky had 
spoken about, Czech President Vaclav Havel is insisting on a list of seven 
new "recruits." The host of the next summit has added Bulgaria and Romania to 
the Baltic countries, Slovenia and Slovakia.

At the same time, Robertson himself, as well as NATO Parliamentary Assembly 
Vice President Markus Meckel, made it clear to the Slovaks that if they 
wanted NATO membership, they should get rid of Vladimir Meciar, a politician 
that has plans to run for the premiership and who is considered untrustworthy 
in the West.

Brussels intends to leave no stone unturned to close the gap in its ranks - a 
gap through which Russian influence seeped time and again, not without 
Meciar's assistance. And so, in order to rapidly consolidate Slovakia's 
pro-western, Washington has decided to send an FBI team there. According to 
Slovak Vice President Pal Csaky, Bratislava is eagerly awaiting such 
assistance.

And last but not least, Albania, Macedonia and Croatia have also requested 
NATO membership this year at the recent meeting of foreign ministers from the 
countries of the "Vilnius Ten." Macedonian Foreign Minister Slobodan Casule 
argues that it would be extremely dangerous to leave Europe's southeastern 
flank open without NATO's accountability until the next wave of enlargement. 
NATO's triumph in the Balkans is quite apparent.

At the same time, the Finns have also made a sharp turn in order to get 
closer to NATO. Transport Minister Kimmo Sasi last week announced that 
Helsinki plans to officially declare its intentions to join the North 
Atlantic Alliance in 2004. And Sweden has clearly embarked on a pro-NATO 
course, in connection with which the authorities of the Scandinavian country 
plan to radically review their military doctrine.

As a result, Russia's line of contact with NATO members will stretch 
practically from the Black Sea to the Barents Sea. Consequently, the waters 
and ports of the Baltic area will become "friendly" both for American and 
British naval ships.

If Moscow intends to respond with countermeasures of a military nature, it 
would be interesting to know where it will get the resources However, if 
Moscow fails to take any action, then within the next couple of years one may 
expect radical military-political changes in Russia itself.

That such changes will follow seem all the more probable because speaker of 
the Georgian Parliament, Nino Burdzhanadze, announced that NATO intends to 
seriously continue its efforts to provide for Georgia's security after 
meeting with Robertson at the end of last week. The planned participation of 
NATO's European forces in the operation in Pankisis Gorge is seen as the 
beginning of those efforts.

More than that, the Georgian leadership, according to Presidential Adviser 
Shalva Pichkhadze, does not intend to stop there. The adviser reaffirmed that 
more profound military cooperation between Tbilisi and Washington should 
facilitate Georgia's accession to NATO.

Such prospects have apparently "inspired" the Chechen separatists as well. 
According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, they have already taken a tougher negative 
stand in respect to talks with Moscow, the possibilities for which the 
Russian capital has been actively probing recently. Now it seems that the 
desire to seek compromises may pass into oblivion for good.

More than that, on March 7, representatives of Chechnya and the West took a 
step that has all the chances of becoming a turning point. At The Hague, 
President Aslan Maskhadov's representative, Akhmed Zakayev, discussed the 
possibility of establishing a similar international tribunal for Chechnya 
with the chief prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia, Carla 
del Ponte. Such a tribunal would look into the actions of the Russian forces 
during the anti-terrorist operation. Apparently, the West intends to raise 
the problem of Chechnya to a new international legal level. Probably, this 
gave Zakayev reason to declare, "We are part of Europe, and so, Europe and 
the rest of the West must be part of the solution."

This year seems to be turning out to be a history-making year as far as the 
West's relations with Russia are concerned. But so far, only one side is 
displaying any initiative.

*******

#5
Vek
No. 9
2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
RUSSIA AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT
By Sergei SEMENISHCHEV
     
     Russia has been implementing its shock-therapy reforms for 
ten consecutive years; meanwhile it continues to expect large- 
scale foreign investment ever since. Experts say that Russia 
will fail to weather the protracted economic crisis without 
such investment.
     Some experts estimate that to do away with the protracted  
crisis Russia needs annual investment to the tune of $100 
billion for several consecutive years. It makes absolutely no 
sense to discuss this sum total; however, lack of the required 
investment volumes over the last decade can be explained by 
some weighty reasons. Still it would be expedient to discuss a 
hypothetical situation, i.e. large-scale investment on Russian 
territory.
     First of all, let's try and find out, what particular 
socio- economic problems have been solved as a result of the 
Cabinet's decision to double Russia's external debts. Such 
debts, which had totalled about $80 billion prior to 1992, now 
stand at nearly $160 billion. At the same time, Russia chalked 
up a $290-billion foreign-trade surplus throughout the 
1992-2001 period. To cut a long story short, all in all Russia 
has received spare cash to the tune of $370 billion as a result 
of export operations and economic-reform loans. These monies 
could have sufficed to completely overhaul Russia's 
industrial-production potential, also guaranteeing our food 
security and ruling out any financial dependence on creditors.
     So, let's imagine that the dream of first-generation 
reformists has come true, and that Russia's real sector economy 
has received $500 billion from several dozen big-league 
companies operating on its territory. This means that several 
dozen large factories turning out competitive products would 
mushroom all over Russia. However, such investment won't 
benefit Russia, if such products are earmarked for the Western 
market. True, employment would be reduced somewhat, but the 
local environmental situation would deteriorate. In other 
words, less substantial  unemployment would be compensated for 
by additional environmental hazards. On the other hand, though, 
if such products are supposed to be sold on the Russian market, 
then prospective investors would be expected to repatriate 
profits totalling some $600 billion, thus completely recouping 
all investment. This can be explained by the fact that foreign 
investors don't need those 15 trillion roubles, or so, that 
would be derived through domestic- market sales (provided that 
one dollar costs around 30 roubles).
It goes without saying that investors would prove unable to 
convert all those 15 trillion roubles into $600 billion. 
Western investors understand this only too well because our 
average annual foreign-trade surplus didn't exceed the 
$20-billion mark over the 1992-1998 period.
     Foreign investors are also in no mood to invade the 
Russian market because they know that large rouble sums can't 
be converted into dollars. At the same time, specific risks are 
seen as less important. Mind you, investment risks will never 
vanish into thin air because specific product sales depend on 
consumers.
I'm talking about big-league industrial investors, rather than 
companies like McDonalds, whose capitals total several million 
dollars. The West has a clear idea of the fact that it's 
senseless to invest into Russia because its export potential is 
quite unimpressive while external debt is enormous and can only 
be repaid through raw-materials sales. Consequently, all spare 
dollars would be depleted, thus making it impossible to convert 
roubles into US currency.
     The only conclusion suggests itself - Russia needs neither 
investments, nor investors who always strive to obtain dollar 
profits. Meanwhile Russia receives dollars only as a result of 
raw-materials sales. And, finally, Russia will have to repay 
these monies in exchange for previous loans.
     There is only one way out - the relevant foreign-trade 
surplus should be disbursed more effectively. First of all, 
we've got to import much less products, which can be 
manufactured on Russian territory. Meanwhile all available 
resources should be spent on new technologies and production 
facilities. This alone will enable Russia to phase out obsolete 
fixed assets within the next 2-3 years, also facilitating the 
economic machinery's cost-effective performance. This country 
had chalked up a substantial foreign-trade surplus, i.e. $110 
billion worth of spare cash, over the 2000-2001 period alone. 
However, all these monies subsequently vanished into thin air.
     It's an open secret that any skilled investor prefers to 
analyze the real-life national situation, rather than the 
government's opinion of its actions. Therefore it would be 
downright senseless to hope that foreign investors will believe 
the Russian Government's statements about a favorable national 
investment climate and start thoughtlessly channelling their 
capitals into the Russian economy.
     Instead of waiting naively for kind foreign investors, 
this country should implement real-life reforms in line with 
its own potential. However, if current reformists fail to 
comprehend  this, real reforms will have to be carried out by 
other people.
     
*******

#6
gazeta.ru
March 11, 2002
Berezovsky’s Documentary Arrives In Moscow
By Yelena Roudneva  

It is highly unlikely that the controversial documentary on 1999 bombings
in Moscow and Volgodonsk made by the French journalists by the order of the
emigre tycoon Boris Berezovsky will ever be shown on any of the national
television channels. However, Boris Berezovsky’s ally, co-founder of the
Liberal Russia movement Sergei Yushenkov has assured Gazeta.Ru that Moscow
TV audience will have an opportunity to watch the film as soon as on
Tuesday this week.

A nine-minute excerpt from the documentary was first shown at a news
conference convened by Boris Berezovsky in London on March 5. The tycoon
stated that the film contains convincing evidence of the FSB’s involvement
in the September 1999 explosions. Following Berezovsky’s presentation of
the film both foreign and Russian media said the documentary did not seem
to provide direct evidence. 

Ever since Berezovsky turned from a one-time Kremlin insider into the
fervent opponent of the president Putin he has insisted on the FSB’s
involvement in the 1999 apartment bombings. To prove his case he often
referred to an incident in the town of Ryazan, 200 kilometers southeast of
Moscow, where on September 23, 1999 vigilant residents and police foiled
what they thought was another terrorist act, but what was described by the
FSB as a staged exercise. The FSB chief highly praised Ryazan’s
law-enforcers for their excellent performance and the officers who took
part in that training later received cash awards and valuable presents. 

Berezovsky says that the terror attacks in Moscow and Volgodonsk were
organized by the same scenario as the ‘vigilance checkup operation’ in
Ryazan, the only difference being that in Moscow and Vologodonsk, the plans
were not thwarted. The newly presented documentary aims to prove this point
of view. 

On March 10 Sergei Yushenkov, the State Duma deputy and the co-founder of
the Liberal Russia movement sponsored by Boris Berezovsky said he had
brought more that 1000 copies of the film to Russia. 

In an interview to Gazeta.Ru the deputy said that the film will be shown at
11:00 am on March 12 at the Sakharov’s centre in Moscow. After that the
copies of the documentary will be distributed to the State Duma deputies.
According to Yushenkov, if none of the Russian TV channels agrees to show
the film, it will be released on video and shown in cinemas all over Russia. 

Do you find the evidence presented by Boris Berezovsky at the London
conference and in the documentary made by the French journalists convincing? 

The film is only a part of the evidence. And the film seems convincing
enough to me. Now that I have watched that film there are three questions I
would like to ask. 

Firstly, why the investigation into the Moscow and Volgodonsk crimes has
never been completed, and why the security training in Ryazan was held in
violation of law? At first, there were reports alleging that a terror
attack had been averted, and then, on the following day, (the FSB chief
Nikolai) Patroushev said about the exercise… 

Secondly, why did not the president Putin discharge the FSB chiefs who were
lying? They cite the law on operational and investigative activity,
although that law says nothing about the exercises. 

And thirdly, why our society still has not set up the mechanism of the
civic and, primarily, of the parliamentary control over the activities of
the special services? Today they act absolutely without control. 

Today nobody knows who actually runs the state. The President makes
decisions on the basis of data provided to him by the special services. And
what kind of information is that? Nobody knows. If the special services'
chiefs say they observe and follow the KGB traditions that is very
dangerous, for we know the history of the KGB. 

That history is a chain of continuous crimes against the people. If this
main KGB tradition is still observed today, than the racket, perpetrated by
the special services, does exist. There are enough facts and evidence of
that. Including the testimonies made by the FSB officers. 

What are your impressions of the film? 

This film is like the book “Doctor Zhivago”. It simply has to be watched. I
asked the journalists at the airport to show it on various channels.
Unfortunately, not all (TV) channels reported on the news conference, some
said the evidence presented was inconclusive. But those who earlier said
that there is no evidence (in the film), stopped saying so when they
received a copy. Such evidence is convincing enough. 

Why is that now that Berezovsky made up his mind to organize the show? 

The film was shown immediately after it was made and after Nikita Chekulin
presented his certified testimony. 

Do you find the evidence presented by Chekulin convincing? 

Very convincing. One’s hair stands on end, as soon as one starts looking
into that. If that (evidence presented in the documentary) deems dubious
let’s find everything out. Let’s conduct an independent investigation.
There are statements and those may be used in the investigation.

*******

#7
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
March 11, 2002
DEMOCRATS CALL RUSSIA A "MANAGED DEMOCRACY".

The fact that Boris Berezovsky chose March 5 to hold his London
press conference putting forwards his charges concerning alleged
FSB involvement in the apartment building bombings was not
accidental. The day marked the forty-ninth anniversary of the
death of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. Other opponents of
President Vladimir Putin--including a number of people who,
unlike Berezovsky, have authentically pro-democratic
records--used the occasion of the anniversary of Stalin's death
to express concern about Russia's course under President
Vladimir Putin. A group of veteran pro-democracy and human
rights campaigners--including Yuly Rybakov, Sergei Yushenkov,
Yelena Bonner, Lev Ponomarev, Valeria Novodvorskaya and Igor
Yakovenko--signed an open letter last week calling on all civic
forces, on both the right and the left, "to unite for the sake
of saving democracy." Beginning in the middle of the 1990s, the
open letter stated, "a crisis of democratic development became
clearly visible" and "the alienation of society from the power
holders and the state from civil society grew." The policy of
the current government, the letter continued, is "not a new
stage of liberal reforms but their liquidation." Among the signs
that a "managed democracy" is being set up is the fact that that
representatives of the opposition are not being allowed airtime
on state television. This, the letter's signatories declared,
essentially "deletes" the opposition from the country's
"political reality," something that "cannot be compensated by
the preservation of several democratic media" (Nezavisimaya
Gazeta, March 6).

Similar views were put forward late last month by another
leading 1990s-era democrat, Grigory Yavlinsky. Like the
signatories of the March 5 open letter, the Yabloko leader
called Russia's political system a "managed democracy." As for
specific areas of concern, Yavlinsky pointed to the situation
surrounding the mass media, the "scandals surrounding
elections," the "use of the judicial system as an instrument for
carrying out political tasks," the "loss of rights of local
self-government" and the "reduction of the regions' economic
opportunities" (Polit.ru, February 25).

Yet as has been the case for the last two years, ordinary
Russians do not share the democrats' concerns over Putin and his
policies. A poll carried out by the All-Russian Center for the
Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) over February 22-26 found that
75 percent of those surveyed approved of the Russian president's
performance and 20 percent disapproved (Wciom.ru, March 5).

*******

#8
Half of Russians think U.S. terrorist attacks did not change Russian- U.S. 
relations

MOSCOW. March 11 (Interfax) - 46% of Russians believe that the September 11 
terrorist attacks in New York and Washington practically did not change 
Russian-U.S. relations. This information was provided by sociologists with 
the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center on Monday. The information was 
obtained as a result of a poll totaling 1,600 Russians, which was conducted 
almost six months following the terrorist attacks. 
   Sixteen percent of the respondents believe these terrorist attacks brought 
Russia and the U.S. closer and 28% believe that it is the other way around. 
   Thirty-seven percent of the Russians surveyed said they are convinced that 
the attacks made the danger of a new world war more probable, 9% believe this 
danger has decreased and 39% believe that nothing has changed in this 
respect. 
   Sixty-one percent of Russians do not believe that the Americans will 
succeed in finding and capturing Osama bin Laden, who is believed to the 
behind the terrorist attacks, and 25% believe the U.S. will be successful in 
this. 

*******

#9
Putin aide says U.S. sanctions a sign that Russian economy is improving

MOSCOW. March 11 (Interfax) - The imposition of trade sanctions against 
Russian exporters, particularly exporters of steel, is a sign that the 
Russian economy is improving. 
   "It is proof that the Russian economy is becoming more competitive," 
Andrei Illarionov, the Russian president's chief economic aide, told 
Interfax. 
   "Washington's decision [to impose duties on Russian steel deliveries] is a 
sort of de facto acknowledgement that the Russian economy is a market 
economy," Illarionov continued. 
   Firstly, he argued, some Russian manufacturers in certain sectors "must 
certainly be able to compete better on the world markets if they are being 
subjected to sanctions." "This means the reformation and restructuring of our 
economy are starting to bear fruit." 
   Secondly, Washington's actions "go some way towards illustrating the 
difference between the perceived adherence by some countries to liberal 
foreign trade principles and the policy that the authorities of those 
countries are actually pursuing." 

*******

#10
New York Times
March 11, 2002 
DANCE REVIEW | THE MOISEYEV DANCE COMPANY 
Folk Music and Ballet From a Russian Master 
By ANNA KISSELGOFF 

NEWARK. It is hard to believe that the Moiseyev Dance Company is 
celebrating its 65th anniversary on its current United States tour, and that 
Igor Moiseyev, its founding genius and artistic director, is 96.

Why, it seems only yesterday that Mr. Moiseyev's brilliant blend of folk 
sources and ballet knocked the socks off Americans in his company's 
spectacular debut at the old Metropolitan Opera House in 1958.

Looking at the ever-fabulous Moiseyev dancers from Moscow and Mr. Moiseyev's 
choreography, both old and new, on Friday night at the New Jersey Performing 
Arts Center here, one could reflect on past and present.

During the cold war the company was a prime cultural export: it was the first 
Soviet performing arts group to come here in the wake of the 1958 
cultural-exchange pact. (The Bolshoi Ballet arrived a year later.)

Today it is easier to separate the company's inherent artistic value from any 
political symbolism attached to that debut. Times change. Not only is there 
no Soviet Union, there is also no old Metropolitan Opera House on 39th Street 
in Manhattan.

Because of his age, Mr. Moiseyev was advised not to fly to accompany his 
dancers. But as usual the Moiseyev Dance Company comes across as a well-oiled 
machine with plenty of heart.

The old favorites, inspired by the multiethnic population of the former 
Soviet Union, are typical of the Moiseyev method of extracting the essence of 
a custom or a celebration. "Gopak" — "Hopak" to Ukrainians — still
sends a 
male dancer flying in a split over the ensemble. The low- slung crouching 
dances of the men have an amazing lightness that contrasts with the flashing 
color of the women's dances.

Oleg Chernasov gives an unusually hilarious account of "Two Boys in a Fight," 
seemingly two small Eskimolike men in a sumo-style wrestling match. Actually, 
it is one dancer encased in two connected dummy-faced outfits. Inspired by 
the games of the Nanayan people of Russia's north, the piece depends on acute 
timing as the fighters' legs trip their opponents.

"Day Aboard a Ship" is part of a suite that Mr. Moiseyev choreographed in 
1943-44. Traditional Russian sailor dances are often performed in a line. Mr. 
Moiseyev has turned this line into a machine dance that mimics the motion of 
an engine. Two tiers of folded arms move in syncopation as if they were 
"pipes," and an officer orders crew members to polish the pipes. Despite a 
cuteness that one suspects was not present in the 1940's, the work is 
typically Moiseyev in extending a dance image into a vignette.

"Oberek" expands the gallantry and thrilling aerial partnering of one of 
Poland's national dances into a rich cascade of varied steps. This is not 
salon dance but a highly theatrical embroidering on partnering.

The couples in a stately parade speed up, the women are swung up by the 
waist, and the men execute butterfly jumps, the lining of their coats flaring 
upward. By contrast, "Jorepo" from Venezuela is more uninflected, a huge 
beautiful circle of men and women flicking their legs up as Konstantin 
Kostylev, a vigorous young dancer, leads off with his mariachi.

Mr. Kostylev offers some impressive acting as well as dancing in "Cunning 
Makanu," in which he is a matchmaker within a shepherd's dance from Moldavia. 
The veteran Rudi Khodzoyan is magnificent in "Gaucho," dancing on the outside 
of his insteps and joining two dashing gauchos, Vladislav Ozernsky and Andrei 
Artamonov in Mr. Moiseyev's crystalized treatment of a spur-jangling 
Argentine dance.

Some conviction was lacking in the acting of "Partisans," although this 
highly dramatic World War II vignette about mountain guerrillas never ceases 
to amaze by its technical feat of dancers gliding effortlessly across the 
floor. 

Yet "Old City Quadrille" was exceptionally fine in its affectionate tone, 
with Vyacheslav Kozhin, Andrei Evlanov and Maria Andronovskaya outstanding in 
this familiar miniature about turn-of-the-century courtships. 

One could worry that such pieces would look dated. Instead, they come across 
as classics. 

*******

#11
Moscow Times
March 12, 2002
Spare Cash Is the Best Test
By Boris Kagarlitsky   

The New York-based economist Doug Henwood likes to judge the health of the
U.S. economy not so much by looking at the numbers as by checking how often
the words "recession" and "crisis" appear in the press. But there is an
even simpler method: Ask people if they have any spare cash lying around.

Recently, my wife had to do just this. With the March 8 holiday
approaching, we set about collecting money to buy gifts for the women who
work in our child's kindergarten. This ritual dates back to the Soviet era.
Ours is a private kindergarten, and the parents who send their children
there are model members of Moscow's middle class. They're all well dressed,
and half of them drive their children to school in the morning. Previously
we had had no problem collecting for the gift fund, but this year for some
reason everyone was a little short and we raised half as much as we had
last year.

A few days later I spoke with a high-ranking official at one of the
"alternative" labor unions. Most of the "alternative" organizations have
managed to acquire offices and to develop their own sources of revenue in
the 10 to 12 years of their existence, which is to say, they aren't hurting
for money. But this official unexpectedly began to complain. "It's
strange," he said. "Most of the time we do fine financially. But recently
we've had nothing but problems."

Next I talked with an executive at a major textile company. Not long before
he had told me that his company had recovered all of the losses it incurred
during the 1998 financial crisis. The executive, an old acquaintance of
mine, gave me a glass of expensive whiskey and said: "Something's not
right. On paper everything adds up. But in the past the company always had
uncommitted resources available. Now we don't."

The government seems to be sensing the same thing. The money hasn't dried
up, but there never seems to be enough to go around. Despite rising share
prices and encouraging economic indicators, officials at all levels are
complaining about the lack of ready money. 

We're revisiting old questions that were seemingly answered long ago.
Government sources have leaked information about an impending review of the
country's Tax Code. If the press is to be believed, the government is
planning to raise the much ballyhooed "lowest income-tax rate in Europe."
Some form of progressive tax will be restored, and the procedures for
collecting the unified social tax will be reviewed. Mikhail Delyagin, a
long-time foe of liberal economic policy, has been appointed to advise the
government.

Correcting mistakes is never a bad thing, of course. But this is economics,
and any step taken by the government is political. Talk of cutting taxes is
profitable for any politician, while raising taxes is never a pleasant
task. The difference between responsible and irresponsible politicians is
that the former don't promise, or do, what they know they will later have
to undo. When the government shifts into reverse, it admits its own
incompetence. 

But here we're talking about more than just a mistake. Our leaders' actions
are based on two basic principles. The first of these holds that lowering
taxes is a good thing in itself, and that the economy will respond with a
burst of growth. But the economy has stalled. 

The government's second principle arises from the firm belief that by
giving handouts to the rich, it will improve the situation in the country
and strengthen its own hold on power. The natural course of events,
however, has placed the government in the position of a person who tries to
take back a gift he has just given. Not a pretty sight.

The government can't admit that it has been guided by false principles. It
has antagonized the very middle class that it hoped would serve as its
support base, and hasn't been able to cultivate any new friendships. 

A more even-handed Tax Code will only benefit the country. But money won't
be pouring back into state coffers anytime soon, even if the tax system is
"fixed" once more. 

Not so long ago, the government could indeed have laid its hands on a
certain amount of "spare" money floating around the country. It's even
conceivable that our leaders might have spent this money on something
useful (like paying teachers' salaries). But, alas, this spare money is no
more.

This is not yet a crisis. It's just a shame.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist.

******* 
 
#12
pravda.ru
March 11, 2002
YEUGENY PRIMAKOV – “GREAT WITNESS”, “GREAT CONCILIATOR”

Now, the ex-prime Minister of Russia Yeugeny Primakov is the key figure in
conversations about his chairmanship in the Russian Chamber of Industry and
Commerce and his role in getting a license for broadcasting th channel
TV-6. He is one of the founders of the Media-Socium non-commercial
partnership, which is actively striving to broadcast on the TV channel.
Last week, a sensational statement appeared in the mass media: it was said
that the chairman of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce would testify
about the positive role of ex-president of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic at
the Hague Tribunal. 

It was reported that, on March 8th, Yeugeny Primakov addressed the largest
religious forum “Meeting of Religions and Civilizations” at its opening in
Cyprus through a live television discussion. On the whole, Yeugeny Primakov
is in the shadow of the current world and domestic events. He has already
lost the image of the man who performed the well-known “turn over the
Atlantic” in spring of 1999 (Russia’s ex-prime minister decided to stop his
tour to America right in the air, over the Atlantic and returned to Russia
when learned of the NATO operation in Belgrade). 

Under these conditions, Yeugeny Primakov is reminding of himself and his
own position to draw the attention of the mass media. During his visit to
Paris at the end of February, he presented his “Political memoirs. In the
center of power” (French edition) to the French community. Le Monde, an
influential French newspaper, has published an analytical article about
Russia’s ex-prime minister Yeugeny Primakov and an analysis of his views.
The politician is characterized as “a heavyweight of Russia’s foreign
policy” and “an experienced master of the secret services.” 

Le Monde touches upon the following topics: relations between Primakov and
Putin, between Primakov and Gorbachev, and, later, Yeltsin, the ascent of
his career three years ago, and the attitude of the ex-prime minister to
the events in Yugoslavia and Chechnya. The French newspaper uses harsh and
sometimes scathing characteristics of the Russian politician and
present-day events in Russia on the whole. However, Le Monde has no
demonstrative conclusions regarding the relations between Yeugeny Primakov
and Vladimir Putin’s team. 

The French newspaper says that Primakov’s attitude to the court hearing in
Hague is not a surprise: it meets the Kremlin’s pro-Serb tradition and the
views of the experienced politician from the sphere of Russia’s foreign
policy. 

Le Monde supposes that Yeugeny Primakov was the only “real, probable rival”
to Vladimir Putin on the eve of presidential election three years ago.
Primakov’s patriot image, the image of a person who could resist NATO, IMF,
and other world leading organizations, and his connection with the KGB made
for the rise of his political career. The newspaper believes that Vladimir
Putin managed to come to power only due to “the war waged in Chechnya." 

Nowadays, as Le Monde admits, the opposition between Primakov and Putin has
passed into history. President Putin even gave Yeugeny Primakov “an
important job." The latter, in his turn, has accepted the rules the game.
At the same time, as French journalists say, Yeugeny Primakov’s position as
on Chechnya is sometimes contrary to the Kremlin’s official point of view.
Le Monde calls Primakov’s attitude to the Chechen problem “a Finnish
model." To confirm the words, the Russian politician is cited by the
newspaper: “Certainly, Chechnya as a part of Russia’s structure is to be
provided with exceptional rights. Let us take Finland for example: Finland
possessed a great amount of autonomy under tsarism, which allowed it not to
deliver the Russian revolutionaries who organized congresses in Finland. It
did not even deliver terrorists.” 

Le Monde draws the conclusion that it could have been possible to conclude
an amicable agreement with Chechnya that would have allowed it to be
formally independent but agreement-bound with Moscow. 

Yeugeny Primakov does not consider Chechnya’s president Aslan Maskhadov a
“terrorist” (quotation marks used by Le Monde), which is also contrary to
the Kremlin’s line. Such an opinion appears from Primakov’s description of
his meeting with Maskhadov on October 29, 1998 (between the first and
second Chechen campaigns). The parties touched upon the close relations
between Maskhadov’s militants “with some sources in Russia that provided
financing and paid ransoms for the release of hostages.” 

Primakov’s recollections about Aslan Maskhadov’s policy go further. He
urged Russia to help Chechnya with armament and financing. Yeugeny Primakov
says the realization of the Russian-Chechen agreement on cooperation in the
struggle against crime and the restoration of the economy and pension
payment failed. That happened, as Primakov himself says, because of Aslan
Maskhadov, who “did not wish, or rather failed to get rid of terrorists
within a month.” 

It makes the people abroad understand Yeugeny Primakov as a politician who
sympathizes with Maskhadov. At the same time, the newspaper reports that
Russia’s ex-prime minister “does not call into question the official
version about the acts of terrorism committed in Moscow in autumn of 1999.”
It is supposed to have been done because of Primakov’s loyalty to the
authorities. 

The Le Monde article concludes with a rhetorical question: “Will Primakov’s
voice be heard during Putin’s presidency?” Primakov’s “Political memoirs”
must be a very interesting to read. However, Le Monde did not succeed with
rendering of the book. The report became a sort of interpretation of
politician Primakov to please the foreign political conjuncture. The
influential Russian politician is treated in a very simplified manner in
the West. A well-known saying can be paraphrased to describe the
politician: “Primakov cannot be understood with the mind” (it is a variant
of a quotation by the famous Russian poet: “Russia can not be understood
with the mind). The same can be said not only about Primakov. 

*******

#13
The New Statesman 
March 11, 2002
How the west helps the vote-riggers 
By Mark Almond 
When an election result in a former communist country is approved by outside 
observers, we assume it's honest. Not so, reports Mark Almond 
Mark Almond is lecturer in modern history at Oriel College, Oxford 

Robert Mugabe's expulsion of European Union election observers from Zimbabwe 
was widely reported in horror-struck tones worthy of an attempted rape on 
Mother Teresa. But I have watched more than 70 elections since 1990, and I 
think that a little scepticism is in order.

Determining the legitimacy of elections is not just an arithmetical exercise 
in checking that the returns match the declared result. It is a powerful 
weapon in global politics. I have seen blatantly rigged polls endorsed by 
official observers, and I have seen honestly conducted elections discredited. 
This has led me to the conclusion that - to paraphrase Stalin - it doesn't 
matter who votes, it matters who observes the voting. The international 
observers' reports form the basis of a new government's acceptability to 
international organisations; they also determine access to aid and investment 
from western taxpayers through the International Monetary Fund, the World 
Bank and so on. A popular mandate is good, but a majority among the observers 
is better. 

Immediately after the collapse of communism, when election observing boomed, 
it could be argued that the motley teams of MPs, local government officers 
and concerned busybodies (such as myself) who criss-crossed post-Soviet 
Europe were too uncritical. The received approach was to celebrate the "new 
democracies", regardless of the flaws.

When a vote was cast in my name in Azerbaijan in October 1993, by local 
election officials insisting that "the whole world wants Heidar Aliev to 
win", it became clear that my naive protestations of ineligibility were wrong 
and their assessment of western diplomacy was right. The umbrella body that 
organises international observers, the 56-member Organisation for Security 
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is mainly funded by the US and EU 
states, announced to the press that the election represented "the will of the 
voters". 

Yet all observers saw numerous cases of multiple voting, with individuals 
getting up to a dozen ballots for what they claimed were members of their 
families. The OSCE justified its indulgence of this "traditional practice" - 
which some might call open fraud - on the grounds that democracy was in its 
infancy in Azerbaijan. (The same argument was used with equal condescension 
across half of Eurasia.) However, the truth was that the winning candidate 
(for whom I had the unexpected privilege of voting) had come to power through 
a coup in an oil-rich country, and Britain and the US in particular were 
happy to see his predecessor gone.

The 1993 election in Azerbaijan coincided with Boris Yeltsin's bombardment of 
his own parliament in Moscow. The observer caravan rolled on into Russia to 
endorse unequivocally the conduct of the December 1993 referendum on 
Yeltsin's self-tailored constitution. Within six months, the Russians 
themselves confirmed what had seemed obvious on polling day - millions fewer 
than the required 50 per cent of registered voters had turned out to 
rubber-stamp Yeltsin's draft. But no western government queried the rigged 
result, which remains in force to this day. 

Big or small, election fraud was OK immediately after the end of communism 
because it cemented our new friends' hold on power. 

For all the pious indignation in recent weeks about violence in the run-up to 
the Zimbabwean elections (which may well affect the results), western 
governments have repeatedly turned a blind eye to intimidation and 
manipulation of the media when it has suited them. And it has suited them a 
lot.

Georgia, Azerbaijan's neighbour on the pipeline route west, has witnessed a 
succession of deeply flawed polls since its long-time Communist Party boss, 
Eduard Shevardnadze, restored himself to power as the only candidate in 1992. 
Visiting one of Shevardnadze's prisons the day after polling, I met a man so 
badly tortured that he couldn't remember his wife's name or his address; he 
could only recall that he had received his injuries in an accident while 
attempting to escape.

Western aid to Georgia has not reformed police practices there; it has just 
cemented the regime's grip on power. Back in 1995, documentary evidence of 
fraud in Shevardnadze's first re-election was dismissed as a freak by the 
official OSCE team. Shevardnadze was the foreign minister who opened the 
Berlin Wall in 1989, so there was no need to inquire further into his 
domestic democratic credentials. In 2000, US-supplied attack helicopters 
hovered over the voters in Georgia to remind them to elect him a third time. 

After the mid-1990s, the OSCE's observer missions moved on from complacently 
confirming the west's new friends in power to an activist role in undermining 
those who got above themselves and forgot their debt of gratitude for the 
international community's role in preventing the wrong candidate from winning 
a "legitimate" victory.

Particularly in the former communist countries, where the dream of "returning 
to Europe" is so strong, the threat of condemnation by the OSCE became a 
serious factor in domestic politics. Voters who chose an unacceptable 
candidate might rule themselves out of EU or Nato accession.

Already, Slovaks have been told in no uncertain terms not to consider 
re-electing their mercurial ex-premier, Vladimir Meciar. He was much 
denounced in Brussels, even though he left office in 1998 after losing an 
election - thus proving that he has better democratic credentials than the 
west's favoured potentates who have clung to power regardless of the will of 
the people. 

Even the OSCE's monitors cannot control everything. In Montenegro in 1997, 
the west was confident that its favoured candidate would win because he 
controlled the police and the media. It sent out an early-1990s style team to 
observe the coronation. But the wrong man came first and a bigwig from OSCE 
headquarters telephoned the naive mission leader who had failed to see the 
flaws in the polls which led to this result. After putting down the receiver, 
he told his colleagues: "He says we have got to intensify our observations!"

But with Slobodan Milosevic still in power in Belgrade, the west was 
determined to get its man into power in Montenegro, by hook or by crook. 
There was a second round of voting. This time, no mistakes were made, and a 
higher-powered OSCE team managed not to notice the stepped-up police 
intimidation or the blanket television coverage of only one candidate.

Since the mid-1990s, the OSCE has added organising elections to its mission. 
In Bosnia in 1996, it enabled a full 107 per cent of the possible voting-age 
population listed in the 1991 census to vote - as if no one had died of 
natural causes, let alone violent ones, since then.

In Kosovo in 2000, just ten days after the fall of Milosevic, the OSCE 
stage-managed a chaotic poll in which its gaggle of international supervisors 
put up instructions in English rather than Albanian, or even Serbian. The 
supervisors also devised a registration process so complex that a 
distinguished British academic, acting as a local poll supervisor, adopted 
the simple if condescending approach of allowing anyone who came to his 
polling station to vote, though in many cases he had surreptitiously marked 
their ballots to render them invalid. He justified this as helping the 
natives to get used to civic procedures.

Mugabe had a point when he said that Africans don't come to observe UK or US 
elections - in fact, neither Britain nor America allows foreign observers at 
all. Florida's shenanigans have already gone down the memory hole. In this 
country, too, the growth of electoral irregularities, such as in the Welsh 
referendum in 1997, goes largely unreported by a patriotically complacent 
press. 

Landslide results in 1997 and 2001 shouldn't disguise the need for vigilance 
in Britain, too. Many of the worst features used to boost turnout and 
disguise voter apathy or hostility in former communist countries are 
filtering westwards. The low turnout in our 2001 general election has led to 
many of the checks on fraud being eased, in an effort to encourage more 
people to register. For example, local election officials have, in effect, 
arbitrary powers to add names to the register right up to polling day. Postal 
and proxy votes were floating around at last year's general election in 
unprecedented numbers. The head of our own brand-new electoral commission, 
Sam Younger, admitted last year: "The whole of our electoral system frankly 
is based on trust really and there is capacity for fraud in all these areas. 
I think there is a greater possibility of postal vote fraud this time because 
it is simply easier to get postal votes and there are more and more postal 
forms floating about." He wants to have a "balance between the encouragement 
to participation . . . and the dangers of any increase in fraud". 

Trust is good, said Lenin, but control is better. There is no reason why 
honesty should outweigh fraud just because we're British. As so many features 
of flawed post-Soviet elections are added to our own system, perhaps all that 
is needed to show that our democracy is really in danger is for Whitehall to 
invite in foreign observers next time.

Alternative reports on many post-communist elections can be found at 
[http://www.bhhrg.org]

******

#14
Business Week
March 18, 2002
Is Washington Fighting Terrorism On Too Many Fronts?
By Paul Starobin in Moscow, with Paul Magnusson in Washington

To the east, the arc begins in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan, 
bordering China. Its westernmost point, 2,000 miles away, is the ex-Soviet 
republic of Georgia on the Black Sea. Connect these dots and you have a line 
that describes the southern rim of the former Soviet Union. It is one of the 
world's most troubled regions, a bastion of Islamic militancy, drug 
trafficking, and political corruption. And it is rapidly becoming the 
security responsibility of an expanding American empire.

Driven by its crusade to extinguish global terrorism, the U.S. since 
September 11 has taken on one security commitment after another in the 
ex-Soviet Union. To establish good lines into Afghanistan, the U.S. first 
moved troops into Uzbekistan and then decided to build a second base in 
neighboring Kyrgyzstan. Now, the U.S. is expanding its presence in the 
strife-torn Caucasus republics. In mid-March, the U.S. will send some 200 
military trainers to Georgia to help 1,200 troops combat al Qaeda-linked 
militants in a mountain gorge on Georgia's border with Russia's breakaway 
province of Chechnya. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin is acquiescing to 
this latest U.S. move in his backyard partly because it legitimizes his 
campaign against what he calls Chechen "terrorists."

Helping the Georgians is likely to be only the beginning of U.S. military 
involvement in the Caucasus, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld 
visited in mid-December. Recently, the White House quietly lifted decade-old 
sanctions preventing military aid to Azerbaijan, Georgia's oil-rich neighbor 
on the Caspian Sea. A Pentagon delegation plans to visit Baku in late March 
to discuss security cooperation and possibly assistance to Azerbaijan's army. 
The U.S. is also expected to expand anti-terrorism aid to Azerbaijan's rival, 
Armenia. "America is establishing a new political influence in the Caucasus," 
says Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser in the Carter 
Administration.

But this widening U.S. engagement carries a multitude of risks, few of which 
seem to be getting seriously debated in Washington at a time when all 
politicians are under pressure to back President Bush's war. Officials say 
U.S. forces won't be directly involved in fighting militants holed up in the 
Pankisi Gorge near Georgia's border with Chechnya. Yet analysts fear the U.S. 
could be drawn in if Georgia's ragtag army falters. That could entangle 
America in the Chechen war. "If the Georgians don't maintain peace in the 
Pankisi Gorge, [Putin] can ask the U.S. to come in," says Martha Brill 
Olcott, a Caucasus expert at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace. There's also the risk that the U.S. could be sucked into 
Azerbaijan's local struggle with Iran. Tehran is disputing Azeri claims to 
Caspian oil reserves and protests U.S. engagements in ex-Soviet republics as 
expansionist.

Of course, there are potential strategic gains for the U.S., and not only on 
the anti-terrorism front. U.S. policymakers and oil companies have long 
argued for moves to assure security for a proposed oil pipeline from Baku 
through Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. This project, planned for 
completion in 2005, has taken on new importance because Arab oil supplies 
look shakier post-September 11. The Caspian's 110 billion barrels in oil 
reserves rival Iraq's.

Still, as military trainers head to Georgia, the big question is whether the 
U.S. is taking on too much. The Bush Administration is now combating 
terrorism on fronts in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Even the globe's sole 
superpower needs to be careful not to overreach.

*******

#15
Uzbek leader faces tough criticism on U.S. visit
By Elaine Monaghan
  
WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush faces a tough 
balancing act when he meets Uzbek President Islam Karimov this week, seeking 
simultaneously to reward his cooperation in the war on terrorism and improve 
what Washington has rated a "very poor" human rights record. 

Authoritarian, repressive, ruthless and unreconstructed Soviet are some of 
the words prominent U.S. human rights groups have applied to the Soviet 
holdover in comments on his visit. 

Karimov says his people lack maturity for reform and that Uzbekistan's 
arrests of thousands of Muslims are part of his government's own struggle 
against armed Islamic militancy. 

The official U.S. assessment also pulls few punches on Karimov, who has 
allowed 1,000 U.S. troops to use an air base at Khanabad for 
search-and-rescue operations in Afghanistan. 

"The Bush administration has a lot of leverage with the Uzbek government," 
Elizabeth Andersen of the influential Human Rights Watch said last week. 

"There is no reason for it to give away benefits like assistance or summits 
without some strings attached. ... Karimov is getting a photo op at the White 
House, but the real issue is, what will the people of Uzbekistan get?" she 
asked. 

Andersen's group accused Karimov of banning his opposition, eliminating free 
media, jailing his critics and presiding over "a ruthless five-year campaign 
of arrest and torture of Muslims who practice their faith outside state 
controls," leading to long prison terms for at least 7,000 people. 

The group whose research was used widely in the State Department's annual 
human rights report says Bush should link a tripling in aid this year to $160 
million to concrete change in a country that rocketed out of obscurity after 
Sept. 11. 

But a State Department official said last month that none of the U.S. aid 
goes directly to government coffers so it would not make sense to cut it off 
as a punishment for slow change. 

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher at a news briefing on Monday said 
continuing cooperation in the war on terrorism would "obviously" be a theme 
of the visit. 

"And we'll also discuss the human rights situation and development of the 
economy and the politics of Uzbekistan in a way that we think can bring them 
more stability and a better bulwark against terrorism in the future," he aid. 

The United States has said it does not want a permanent military base in 
Uzbekistan but it has also said it cannot tell how long it will need to 
maintain a presence there. 

None of the agreements Karimov or members of his entourage will sign during a 
visit that begins on Tuesday include promises of direct government aid, 
according to a list outlined by a U.S. official who spoke on condition of 
anonymity. 

The line-up apparently reflects the U.S. desire not to be seen to be giving 
too much away to Karimov. 

One document is a $55 million U.S. Export-Import Bank credit guarantee 
facility for small- and medium-sized enterprises to buy U.S. products and 
services. 

Another covers the repatriation to Russia of highly enriched uranium fuel 
from an Uzbek reactor, which will use a less dangerous form of fuel instead. 

Karimov is expected to sign a partnership declaration that places the 
importance of military security in fighting instability on an equal footing 
with the development of a market economy and democratization. 

********