Johnson's Russia List
#6131
13 March 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Christian Science Monitor: Fred Weir, Trade flap ruffles feathers in
Moscow and
Washington.
2. RIA Novosti: RUSSIANS SPEND UP TO 50 PERCENT OF INCOMES ON FOODSTUFFS.
3. Interfax: Dates for Russia's parliamentary, presidential elections
announced.
4. Moscow Times; Yulia Latynina, Economic Liberalism and TV Centralism.
5. Reuters: Ivanov talks to Rumsfeld about nuclear review.
6. Reuters: U.N. rights chief wants "credible" Chechnya probes.
7. RIA Novosti: GENERAL STAFF: NEW TACTIC OF FEDERAL FORCES IN CHECHNYA IS
"CORRECT"
8. Christian Science Monitor: Scott Peterson, Russia rethinks its
longtime support
for Iraq.
9. BBC Monitoring: Russian daily sees economic motives behind US
expansion in
former USSR.
10. Vremya Novostei: WHAT WILL BEREZOVSKY'S REVELATIONS LEAD TO? Some brief
interviews with leading political analysts.
11. Bruce Bean: Moscow opportunity?
12. Financial Times (UK): Robert Cottrell, The seven arms of Mr Putin.
(re presidential representatives)
13. Kennan Institute meeting report: Russia's Presidential Districts:
A Representative's View. (Sergei Kirienko)
14. Kennan Institute meeting report: Russia's Presidential Districts:
A Governor's View. (Mikhail Prusak)
15. RFE/RL: Bruce Pannier and Antoine Blua, Central Asia: Six Months
After --
Alliances Shift With West, Russia (Part 1)
16. Reuters: U.S. Caspian envoy pushes pipelines outside Iran.]
*******
#1
Christian Science Monitor
March 13, 2002
Trade flap ruffles feathers in Moscow and Washington
Russia's ban on imports of 'Bush legs' sparks tense talks this week.
By Fred Weir | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
MOSCOW - An escalating game of chicken between Russia and the United States
over terms of trade in poultry and steel is evoking unexpected passions
from notoriously apathetic Russians, many of whom say it's about time the
Kremlin started defending local business.
A Russian ban on US poultry imports, announced at the weekend, is an act of
historical justice, says one farmers' representative. "Our poultry industry
was vaporized a decade ago, and never given a chance to revive," says Yury
Chernichenko, leader of the Peasants Party of Russia, an association of
private farmers.
Mr. Chernichenko says that the US flooded Russia with frozen chicken parts
in the form of food aid during the winter of 1991-92, as the USSR was
collapsing and famine was widely predicted.
Much bigger and juicier than the stringy Soviet-era fowl Russians were
accustomed to, the new arrivals quickly won the nickname of "Bush legs" - a
tribute to then-President George Bush Sr.
But market positions won through humanitarian assistance paid commercial
dividends later on. Bush legs accounted for more than half the chicken sold
in Russia last year, at prices the floundering local producers can't match.
A kilo (2.2 pounds) of US frozen chicken typically costs about 45 rubles
($1.50) while the same amount of locally grown fresh poultry is 60 rubles
($2) or more.
"Our American competitors are like an aircraft carrier task force, while we
are like a little fleet of row boats," says Mr. Chernichenko. "We need an
equalizer."
The looming trade war has provoked some of the toughest exchanges of
rhetoric since the cold war ended, and threatens to inflict real economic
damage on both sides. Tariffs imposed on steel imports to the US by
President George W. Bush last week could cost Russian producers up to $600
million annually, and cripple one of the country's few viable industrial
exports.
The embargo on American frozen chicken, if it sticks, will close down an
$800-million-a- year business that accounts for almost half of all US
poultry exports, and hit hard in major producing states like Mississippi.
US officials say the ban is not justified scientifically and are accusing
Moscow of protectionism.
Officials on both sides claim that the issues of steel and chicken are
unrelated, but few here are buying that.
"Bush is acting to protect US steel producers, but it's contrary to the
principles he preaches to the world and it directly hurts Russia," says
Ruslan Grinberg, deputy director of the independent Institute for
International Economic and Political Studies in Moscow. "Obviously we can't
put up with that. There must be a Russian response."
The Ministry of Agriculture in Moscow says US chicken sales have been
halted for health reasons, citing alleged high levels of antibiotics,
growth hormones and dangerous bacteria in the American birds. Amid tense
negotiations over the poultry ban this week in Moscow, a Russian veterinary
service official said he wants to inspect US poultry plants that export to
Russia.
That statement strikes a chord with many Russians, who are generally ready
to believe the worst of foreigners in any case.
"Yes, they're poisoning us," says Zoya Lubovtsova, a Moscow pensioner. "I
stopped buying Bush legs a few years ago, because they're too fatty and
funny- tasting. I knew there was something wrong with them." She buys only
Russian chicken now, though she says it's a drain on her meager budget.
Other shoppers scoff at the idea that American chicken is tainted, but say
they've switched to local produce for other reasons.
"Ten years ago we didn't have much choice, and Bush legs were cheap and
tasty," says Yevgenia Fotina, a middle-aged Moscow homemaker.
"Now you can buy many different cuts of locally grown fresh chicken, if you
look for it and are willing to pay more," Ms. Fotina. "Fresh is always
better."
Supporters of the ban say the grocery shelves in relatively well-heeled
Moscow are not typical of the country as a whole, however. Most of Russia
remains sunk in economic depression, and the ban proponents say the cheap
American chicken legs are preventing local producers from reviving.
"A country that can't grow its own chicken is a sad spectacle," says the
Peasants Party's Chernichenko. "Our producers need a chance to get into the
market, to make some money and invest it in future improvements. The
Americans don't hesitate to protect their own, and neither should we."
Poultry future
An official with the Agriculture Ministry, who asked that his name not be
used, said the ban on American chicken will probably be temporary, and
could be modified by the ongoing negotiations between Russian and American
trade officials.
But, the official added, the dominance of Bush legs is a fading artifact of
Russia's difficult post-Soviet transition rather than a normal market
situation.
"Our domestic poultry production is growing by about 10 percent annually,"
he says, "and quality is constantly improving."
"With or without protection, our own industry will eventually retake its
home market. With protection, that will happen much faster."
Not everyone is pleased. Natalia Num is a World War II veteran who scrapes
by on a monthly pension of 1,500 rubles ($50). She says she'd be happy to
buy Russian chicken, but she simply can't afford to pay 25 to 30 percent more.
"I've been eating Bush legs for 10 years and I've never been poisoned.
That's nonsense," she says. "I buy the cheapest, and now they're taking it
away. I can't understand that. What am I supposed to do?"
*******
#2
RUSSIANS SPEND UP TO 50 PERCENT OF INCOMES ON FOODSTUFFS
MOSCOW, MARCH 12. (FROM RIA NOVOSTI CORRESPONDENT MARINA GRADOVA). The
economic situation improved in the country, and Russians began spending up to
50 percent of their incomes on foodstuffs.
Vice-chairman of the Russian government and agriculture minister Aleksei
Gordeyev said this on Tuesday in Moscow when addressing the international
conference The Food Security of Russia.
Gordeyev pointed out that over the last 10 years the gross production reduced
by one-third and the production of foodstuffs -- by half in Russia. From the
point of view of the foodstuffs' energy value the food consumed by an average
statistical citizen of Russia has become worse.
"The food security is a problem which the government should take into account
when it creates the system of guaranteeing the quality of food," the minister
stressed.
He also reported that the imported food of bad quality remains a serious
problem. According to data provided by the state trade inspectorate, last
year 58 percent of imported meat products, 64 percent of butter and fatty
produce, 70 percent of liquors and wines, 12 percent of beer and soft drinks,
45 percent of coffee were of bad quality.
*******
#3
Dates for Russia's parliamentary, presidential elections announced
MOSCOW. March 12 (Interfax) - Head of Russia's Central Election Commission
Alexander Veshnyakov has reaffirmed that parliamentary elections will be held
on December 21, 2003, while presidential elections will be conducted on March
7, 2004, in keeping with the law.
It is stipulated by the law that the parliamentary election is to be held
on the first Sunday after the expiration of the Duma's term, Veshnyakov told
Interfax on Tuesday. The presidential election is to be held on the first
Sunday of the month in which the previous election was held four years
before. The previous Duma election was staged on December 19, 1999, while the
prior presidential election was conducted on March 26, 2000.
Both elections must be held as scheduled, he said. The idea of
simultaneously holding both elections requires comprehensive study, he said.
It can be implemented only if it is "legally irreproachable," he said.
******
#4
Moscow Times
March 13, 2002
Economic Liberalism and TV Centralism
By Yulia Latynina
Last week U.S. President George W. Bush equated foreign steel producers with
Islamic terrorists. They both threaten the well-being of the United States.
Fortunately the Novolipetsk Iron and Steel Works have not yet been slated for
carpet bombing and attack by paratroopers.
It's worth noting that Russian and American interests have collided precisely
in the area of steel production. The Russian metals industry -- both ferrous
and non-ferrous -- is the smithy of our domestic oligarchs. The internecine
wars between gangsters, thieves and other miscreants started in the raw
materials sector, especially in metals and oil. Even taking into account the
catastrophic state of our worn-out and outdated equipment, it soon became
clear that the Russian mode of production -- replete with merciless pressure
from the tax man and equally merciless pay cuts for workers -- had a
head-start on flabby, heavily regulated Bethlehem Steel Corp. and others.
Measures intended to protect starving U.S. steel workers will not, by
themselves, sink the U.S. economy. But keep in mind that when the Lord wants
to punish a nation he sends down socialists upon it -- and protectionism is
the first stage of socialism. (Protectionism is essentially non-market
regulation of foreign trade; socialism is essentially non-market regulation
of all trade, domestic and foreign.)
The fate of the Russian economy, on the other hand, is total liberalism. The
measures taken by President Vladimir Putin to increase the state's authority
have produced unexpected consequences. Our bureaucrats, filled with a false
sense of their own importance, are so lax in observing agreements that they
often betray one oligarch in favor of another. They ask such enormous sums
for their signature that a lobbyist's transaction costs often exceed even the
most optimistic estimation of his profits.
All this means that Russia is not likely to spite the United States by
announcing its own protective tariffs. Even those ill-starred American
chicken legs will find their way to Russia disguised as green peas.
It seems likely, however, that elemental Russian liberalism in the economy
will be counterbalanced by total centralization of the television industry.
If the journalists from TV6 are put back on the air, they will report on our
glorious Motherland under the dual supervision of the oligarchs -- who can
always be brought into line by putting the squeeze on their factories -- and
of Yevgeny Primakov, who loves the free press about as much as Bush loves
foreign steel.
The plan to sic one big Putin-era loser, Primakov, on another Putin-era
loser, Yevgeny Kiselyov, looks like a winner. So why does the Kremlin assume
that the only way to discern its achievements is to poke out the eyes of
television?
Opposition television is integral to Putin's strategy for running the country
-- i.e., the denunciation game played by constantly clashing factions.
Without it things could get messy, as they have in neighboring Kazakhstan.
Anti-government news organizations were completely exterminated there,
leaving no suitable forum in which one pro-presidential clan could do over
other pro-presidential clans.
As a result, President Nursultan Nazarbayev's son-in-law was forced to launch
the supposedly opposition Internet site Asiopa.org, on which he proceeded to
savage his enemies. When the son-in-law was caught red-handed, however, his
basically harmless attempt to play by Nazarbayev's rules was likened to an
attempted coup d'etat.
It is also unclear what genius told Putin that centralized mass media lend
grandeur and serenity to the business of state-building. They can serve this
function, of course, but only when serenity is already present to some
extent. But just let a putsch occur and those selfsame centralized mass media
will put "Swan Lake" on the air with great zeal.
Elemental liberalism in the economy -- where everything is for sale,
including meetings with the president and prime minister -- doesn't mix well
with the centralization of ideology.
Yulia Latynina is a journalist with ORT.
*******
#5
Ivanov talks to Rumsfeld about nuclear review
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) - Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov
held separate meetings on Tuesday with President George W. Bush and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying afterwards he had discussed a new U.S.
nuclear policy review and had received an assurance about U.S. activities
in Georgia.
Ivanov, briefing reporters after meeting Bush at the White House, said the
president told him Washington would take Russian concerns into
consideration as it helps Georgia, part of the former Soviet empire, fight
al Qaeda-linked militants.
Ivanov said he and Bush discussed a broad range of issues, from reductions
in offensive strategic nuclear arms to terrorism, nonproliferation and
economic cooperation.
The new Pentagon nuclear policy review has sown confusion about intentions
for the world's most lethal nuclear arsenal.
Despite Bush's vow to slash the U.S. nuclear stockpile, the secret nuclear
posture review as reported over the weekend has raised the possibility of
developing new types of nuclear arms and described contingency plans for
using them against Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.
Senior U.S. officials tried to play down the review, reported in The New
York Times and Los Angeles Times, as simply prudent planning on the part of
Pentagon strategists.
Ivanov said he had a "very long and detailed discussion" about the review
with Rumsfeld and would return to the Pentagon on Wednesday for more talks.
"It's quite natural that you are in a better position to discuss those
documents with the originators, with the authors, of course if the
documents are genuine, are true," he said.
Russia has not been entirely happy at the news that the United States plans
to send up to 150 military trainers to help Georgia control what Bush on
Monday called "terrorists working closely with al Qaeda."
BUSH ISSUES ASSURANCE
"We still see that terrorists and criminals are present in the territory of
that country. The president had assured me that all those problems could
not be resolved until the Russian interests are taken into account," Ivanov
said.
Sean McCormack, spokesman for the White House National Security Council,
said the United States had worked with Russia on the U.S. assistance to
Georgia. "We have been talking to the Russians throughout this process of
considering sending troops there to train Georgian forces," he said.
The visit by Ivanov, who attended a basketball game with Rumsfeld on
Monday, was the latest of a series of high-level exchanges on improving
U.S.-Russian cooperation ranging from the war on terror to peacekeeping
ahead of a May 23-26 summit in Russia between Bush and President Vladimir
Putin.
Putin and Bush have pledged to slash their strategic arsenals of between
6,000 to 7,000 warheads to somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000. But
differences remain over U.S. suggestions that some of the retired warheads
should simply be put on the shelf for emergencies in an uncertain world.
Rumsfeld and Ivanov held lengthy talks in Brussels in December but, despite
warming post-Cold War ties and cooperation in the war on terrorism, reached
no agreement on the issue of nuclear cuts.
Ivanov was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency on Monday as saying that the
talks on cutting strategic nuclear arsenals were encountering difficulties,
putting in doubt a deadline of clinching a deal before the summit.
Ivanov said during a stopover in Shannon that differences between the two
sides hinged on U.S. insistence that only deployed warheads -- and not
those put in storage -- be taken into account.
He told Itar-Tass the talks were "making slow progress"" and declined to
make any forecasts on whether the May deadline would be met.
*******
#6
U.N. rights chief wants "credible" Chechnya probes
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA, March 12 (Reuters) - United Nations human rights chief Mary Robinson
accused Russia on Tuesday of failing to meet international demands for
"credible" investigations of alleged killings, torture and looting by its
forces in Chechnya.
Her report, due to be examined by the upcoming U.N. Commission on Human
Rights, could spark fresh demands for an international probe into violence in
the separatist region.
Robinson also called on Chechen rebels to halt attacks, including
kidnappings, on authorities and civilians.
She noted that Russian authorities had said they had stepped up
investigations into suspected crimes by military and other personnel.
Russia opened 106 criminal cases in 2001, three times the previous year, with
convictions of 17 military personnel so far.
But insisting that there must be a "credible response" from the Russian
authorities "commensurate with the scale of the allegations of serious human
rights abuses," Robinson reiterated a call for a national "independent,
wide-ranging" inquiry.
The U.N. rights chief cited activist groups including Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International and Russia's Memorial, which have documented alleged
abuses by Russian troops, mainly during so-called "clean-up operations" in
July and December 2001.
At its last meeting in April 2000, the 53-member state U.N. Commission
condemned Russia for disproportionate use of force in its second military
campaign against separatists launched in October 1999. It called for credible
criminal investigations into alleged war crimes by some servicemen.
The Commission begins its annual six-week session in Geneva on Monday, but no
date has been set for its debate on Chechnya.
Robinson also had strong words for Chechen rebels.
"Reports of serious human rights violations carried out by Chechen fighters
against federal and local authorities and against civilians continue,
including kidnapping and hostage-taking...," she added.
APPEAL FOR VISITS
Robinson, who visited Grozny in April 2000, once again appealed for U.N.
investigators on extrajudicial killings, torture and internally-displaced
people to be allowed to visit Chechnya, where some 170,000 people remain
uprooted. The three envoys have requested invitations for the past two years.
She said rights groups and non-governmental organisations reported
"continuing human rights violations in Chechnya...specific allegations of
arbitrary, often incommunicado detention, forced disappearances, torture,
looting and extrajudicial executions."
Robinson said the Russian group Memorial "considers the main problems to
include the continued practice of 'clean-up' operations, which are frequently
accompanied by the beating, abuse and looting of the civilian population."
"They allege that people who are detained as a result of these operations
often disappear, and in those cases when bodies are found, there are
frequently marks of torture," she added.
******
#7
GENERAL STAFF: NEW TACTIC OF FEDERAL FORCES IN CHECHNYA IS "CORRECT"
WASHINGTON, MARCH 12. /FROM RIA NOVOSTI CORRESPONDENT OLGA SEMENOVA/ -- The
new tactic of the federal forces in Chechnya (a North-Caucasian republic
forming part of Russia) at the present stage is "correct". Journalists were
told this on Tuesday by First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed
Forces of Russia Colonel-General Yuri Baluyevsky who is accompanying Russian
Minister of Defence Sergei Ivanov during his official visit in Washington.
As Baluyevsky noted, the situation in the Chechen republic "has been changing
for the better", though slowly. He deems the tasks which the armed forces of
Russia faced in the initial period of the contradictories operation to be
accomplished in the main. "The bandits have to adjust themselves to the new
conditions which are severe enough to them, and the scale and methods of
their actions have changed", the General emphasized.
According to him, the federal forces have correspondingly specified their
tasks and the tactic of further actions. The tasks to expose and stem the
criminal activity of the leaders of bandit groups and their accomplices, to
ensure security of the population and of the local bodies of power, to block
the channels of provision of the militants with finance, material and
technical resources and arms from abroad, and to create favourable conditions
for rehabilitation of the economy and social sphere of Chechnya have moved to
the fore, Baluyevsky said.
The General expressed his disagreement with the opinion that the heads of the
bandit formations allegedly "have a free hand". He stressed that, as a result
of the federal forces' actions, the range of their possibilities "has been
considerably narrowed, and the possibilities to destabilize the situation
have been substantially limited".
He recalled that in 2001-2002 eleven representatives of the military council
(shura) and twenty field commanders and commanders of bandit groups were
exposed and destroyed, and the federal forces seized many well-known leaders
of bandit formations.
"Pinpoint special operations and reconnaissance-search actions, making it
possible to attain the set aims with smaller forces and means have become
forms of the use of the units and elements of the armed forces during the
switching over from the large-scale actions to the carrying out of special
operations", Baluyevsky noted.
He stated that the main part of the extremists operating in Chechnya aims to
continue the armed counteraction for a long time. By the military's
estimates, the total numerical strength of the militants on the territory of
the republic is now up to 1,500, among them 250 mercenaries from the CIS and
other foreign countries. As the General said, the groupings of Jordanian
Hattab (up to 400 militants) and of Chechens Shamil Basayev (up to 350
militants) and Aslan Maskhadov (up to 150 militants) form the basis of the
bandit movement.
******
#8
Christian Science Monitor
March 13, 2002
Russia rethinks its longtime support for Iraq
Cheney is in the Mideast to rally support for toppling Saddam Hussein, who
owes Russia millions in debt.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
MOSCOW - Whenever Washington set its sights on Baghdad, Iraqi strongman
Saddam Hussein knew he could count on Moscow for support.
Before American bombs began to drop in the 1991 Gulf War, for example,
then-Soviet Foreign Minister Yevgeni Primakov met Mr. Hussein at his
presidential palace. Then months later, with the heaviest air campaign in
American history under way, Mr. Primakov made a risky run for Baghdad - his
convoy smeared with mud, and headlights off - to help Hussein find a
face-saving way out.
But now, despite Russia's continuing support for Iraq - Russia routinely
backs Iraq in the UN Security Council, and mediated in the 1997 and 1998
US-Iraq crises - the Kremlin's view is changing.
As Vice President Dick Cheney embarked on a tough-sell Mideast tour
yesterday, to build support for Washington's expansion of its "war on
terrorism" to include toppling Iraq's Hussein, analysts say the Kremlin is
adjusting its priorities and maximizing its opportunities to collect
billions in debt and oil deals.
That result says as much about evolving US-Russia relations - and Mr.
Putin's not-always-popular, pro-West strategy - as it does about Moscow
souring on Baghdad. "Russia's first objective is not to allow this military
action in Iraq - whatever it might be - to jeopardize the level of
US-Russia relations that has been achieved," says Oksana Antonenko, a
Russia specialist at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in
London.
"Russia is quite fed up with [Hussein] anyway," Ms. Antonenko says. "The
judgment in the Kremlin is that if the US commits very strongly to action
against Iraq, Russia would work within the broader coalition."
Moscow's key demands will be to ensure that up to $20 billion in debt
arrears, current oil deals, and other contracts are respected; that
Russia's interests are respected by any post-Hussein regime; and that any
action is given at least a fig leaf of international legitimacy by the UN.
Branded by President Bush as part of an "axis of evil" that is bent on
creating weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has been the subject of the
tightest sanctions in modern history for more than a decade. It kicked out
UN weapons inspectors in 1998 and refuses to let them return.
Before Sept. 11, the launch of the global US military campaign, and a
subsequent blossoming of US-Russia ties, Moscow opposed Washington's effort
to tighten Iraqi sanctions so they would have a greater impact on the
regime than on civilians.
But Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov - arriving in Washington for a
three-day visit on Monday - made clear that "Baghdad must accept weapons
inspectors under the UN aegis, to stop the concern of the world community."
"Sept. 11 really did mark a Rubicon in Putin's strategy," says Strobe
Talbott, former deputy secretary of state and head of the Yale Center for
the Study of Globalization in New Haven, Conn.
Putin has "seized upon" the subsequent tolerance in Russia to build
US-Russia ties "because of the common threat."
"[Russians] also see Saddam Hussein as dangerous," Talbott says. "But they
also have very real economic interests." Even more important, Talbott adds,
is that Russia "not be yet again left aside, while Uncle Sam struts his
stuff."
Already the events after Sept. 11 have transformed the geostrategic
horizons of both countries. While Moscow disagrees with the US list of
"axis of evil" countries, which include Iran and North Korea, besides Iraq,
it has permitted the US military to build semipermanent bases throughout
former Soviet states of Central Asia to battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
Before Sept. 11, Russia was fingered as a key proliferator of
weapons-of-mass-destruction expertise, it opposed NATO expansion, and fumed
at Washington's determination to pull out of cornerstone arms-control
treaties. After September, the Kremlin barely whimpered when Bush announced
the US was abandoning the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. In exchange
for softening its positions, Russia expected greater understanding from the
US on several key issues. But, surprising to many Russians - who have cast
their war against Chechen separatists as a struggle against terrorists that
mirrors the US campaign and expected less US criticism in exchange for
helping the US in its war - was the US State Department's annual human
rights report, published Monday. Russian forces in Chechnya "demonstrated
little respect for basic human rights," it said, citing "numerous reports
of extra-judicial killings." Russia's foreign ministry called the report
"odious," and written "as if the events of Sept. 11, 2001, had not occurred."
"[The Kremlin] has invested so much in this pro-American, pro-West posture,
if it opposes the US on a marginal issue like Iraq, that investment will go
up in smoke. And what for?" says Dmitri Trenin, a Russian policy expert at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Moscow.
"The change has occurred in the Russian view of American resolve: The new
thing is the political will that exists in Washington," Mr. Trenin says.
"Russians will not be enthusiasts of the operation [in Iraq], but they are
realizing that their opposition will reap no benefit."
With $15 billion to $20 billion at stake - some $8 billion in Soviet-era
military debt, and billions more in oil deals - Russia is now calculating
that a new regime could ensure a payback.
"The Russians are better aware of their limitations," Trenin says. "You
only get your money if you play along with the US. You will get nothing if
you oppose them."
That may be the Kremlin plan. "Putin believes that Russia's destiny is with
the West," says Talbott. "That is where the money is. And he knows he needs
that investment and support for Russia to make it as a modern economy."
******
#9
BBC Monitoring
Russian daily sees economic motives behind US expansion in former USSR
Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow, in Russian 11 Mar 02
The American presence in former Soviet Central Asian countries and Georgia
and Turkish involvement in modernization of a Georgian airbase are ostensibly
part of the international coalition's fight against terrorism, but can also
be seen as part of the USA's traditional policy of seeking to gain control
over energy resources, focusing in this case on the Caspian and beyond, Iran
and Iraq, Armen Khanbabyan writes in Nezavisimaya Gazeta. This would
logically lead to a progressive weakening of Russia by the end of the decade
while the USA prepares for a mid-century confrontation with China, he
believes. The following is an excerpt of his report in the Russian newspaper
Nezavisimaya Gazeta on 11 March entitled "Dismantling of Russia will be
carried out vertically":
The former Russian airbase at Marneuli, near Tbilisi, is being modernized by
Turkey: It is no secret to anyone in Georgia that it will soon be used by
NATO aircraft to bomb Iraq and Nagornyy Karabakh. The Abkhazian
counterintelligence service reports that Tbilisi has plans to extend the
counterterrorist operation in the Pankisi gorge to this Black Sea republic,
where the Georgians are to be helped by the US special forces.
The breakdown in talks between [Moldovan capital] Chisinau and [Dnestr region
capital] Tiraspol, which is accompanied by an abrupt weakening of President
[Vladimir] Voronin's position and by Moscow's already obvious impotence in
the Black Sea region, make it virtually inevitable that international
peacekeeping forces and US military advisers will enter the region soon.
The American GIs have set foot firmly in post-Soviet Central Asia.
Washington's relations with Minsk have again deteriorated abruptly: The White
House is accusing the Belarusian regime of selling weapons to rogue states.
This places Belarus on a par with the states of the notorious "axis of evil"
and is giving rise to sceptical forecasts about the political fate of
Alyaksandr Lukashenka.
In short, it is not all that long since the terrorist attacks on the USA took
place but the world's geopolitical picture has changed beyond recognition. At
the same time there is every reason to believe that the fight against
international terrorism may be extremely important in itself, but it is not
the only or even the main element in current events. The Americans as a rule
do not limit themselves to the solution of localized tasks, especially if
there is enormous expenditure involved in this. The strategy of the processes
that are unfolding does not boil down simply to the establishment of military
control over various regions or even to the creation of a new "cordon
sanitaire" around Russia, which is the usual suspicion harboured against the
West. Ultimately Russia is certainly not the USSR and does not present a
serious threat either to the USA or to Europe...
Washington's current policy is certainly neither new nor original. It may be
confidently assumed that the ultimate goal of the worldwide operation in the
fight against terrorism is the establishment of control not so much over new
territories as over the fabulous energy resources of the Caspian region, the
Transcaspian and preferably Iraq and Iran, too.
In addition to the immediate dividends, ownership of the inexhaustible oil
and gas reserves would also make it possible to regulate prices for them in
the future too...
In this connection, a very well-informed Nezavisimaya Gazeta source in the
USA even tends to the view that the "arrival of the US special forces in
Georgia is pursuing financial goals above all. The problem is that the major
financial structures today are afraid to fund the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil
pipeline project because of the high political risk in the region and in
particular in Georgia. Therefore, it may be said that the US military's aim
in Georgia is not so much to fight terrorism in the Pankisi gorge as the
financiers in New York: Ultimately it is the latter who have to upgrade the
oil pipeline's rating."
If you accept that this and similar expert assessments and assumptions
reflect the real state of affairs it is not difficult to forecast the
possible subsequent development of events. After the pacification of the
so-called problem regions the "horizontal" share out of the former Union's
territory becomes an accomplished fact. In this case, the inevitable
progressive weakening of Russia will make it necessary to look more closely
at its resource potential too. It must be presumed that a different approach
will be used here - the country will be divided according to the "meridian"
or "vertical" principle because of its enormous geographical length...
Most probably Washington will not stand aside from all these processes. By
the end of the decade the result of these processes could be that Russia is
transformed into an amorphous confederate structure. Its fabulous natural
resources will serve the interests of the senior transatlantic "strategic
partner", which even now is beginning to prepare in earnest for the
confrontation with China that is predicted for mid-century. Ultimately, rapid
expansion in the post-Soviet area is designed to provide the USA with raw
materials supremacy over its future rival for world domination.
*******
#10
Vremya Novostei
March 12, 2002
WHAT WILL BEREZOVSKY'S REVELATIONS LEAD TO?
Some brief interviews with leading political analysts
Author: Maria Nikiforova
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
BORIS BEREZOVSKY AND THE LIBERAL RUSSIA PARTY ARE PROMOTING A
DOCUMENTARY WHICH THEY CLAIM CONTAINS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH
PRESIDENT PUTIN. RUSSIAN ANALYSTS ARE GENERALLY AGREED THAT
BEREZOVSKY'S ACTIONS WILL NOT HAVE MUCH IMPACT ON THE KREMLIN, AND DO
NOT POSE A THREAT TO PUTIN.
LIBERAL RUSSIA MEMBERS ARE PRESENTING THE "ASSAULT ON RUSSIA"
DOCUMENTARY, MADE AT THE INTIATIVE OF BORIS BEREZOVSKY. DUMA DEPUTY
SERGEI YUSHENKOV, ONE OF LIBERAL RUSSIA'S LEADERS, SAYS THE EVIDENCE
OUTLINED IN THE DOCUMENTARY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR
IMPEACHMENT. BEREZOVSKY HIMSELF ATTACHES CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE TO
DISTRIBUTION OF THE DOCUMENTARY IN RUSSIA...
Andrei Ryabov, Moscow Carnegie Foundation: Berezovsky's energetic
activity is not going to make trouble for the authorities. In theory,
it would have been possible if, say, aware of the threat of economic
difficulties groups of influence close to President Putin decided that
the president was not up to it (to protection of their interests) and
tried to weaken him. This is not an option nowadays because Putin is
an unquestionable leader. It follows that Berezovsky's behavior is
just a game. he is playing a role.
Many observers compare all these revelations with Watergate in
the United States when some minor revelations resulted in Nixon's
resignation. I don't think this comparison is correct. In the first
place, Berezovsky lacks legally convincing evidence, and what evidence
he presents is apparently vulnerable and weak. Secondly, the Russian
legal system differs from the American system, where the law reigns
supreme. In Russia, the opinion of the elite decides everything.
Berezovsky is playing for all or nothing. He must have perceived
problems in the economy, lacks of balance in the upper political
echelons, the possibility of various configurations and coalitions.
For him, this is a chance to squeeze into whatever cracks he can find.
On the other hand, the attempts to squeeze into these cracks will only
harm him. Either he will be stripped of all agencies of influence or
forced to make a compromise - he is left untouched, in return for
silence. If it is the latter alternative, it will mean the end of
Berezovsky as an independent politician.
Valery Khomyakov, Agency of Applied and Regional Policy:
Berezovsky's attempts to smear the federal government are in vain.
Putin's approval rating and the rating of those close to the president
will survive all of it. On the contrary, Berezovsky's efforts may
backfire. When such a popular leader is called a tyrant (and Putin is
popular, let's not forget that), it may result in consolidation around
the president.
Boris Makarenko, Center of Political Consulting: Berezovsky's
revelations are not convincing - some indirect evidence, no coherent
accusations... Unconvincing though they might appear, consequences for
Russia may follow. The documentary will make a splash in the West
where it will be taken much more seriously because the West's opinion
on Chechnya is common knowledge. It may result in a weakening of
relations between the West and Russia. In Russia, the documentary may
stir up a part of the elite, the liberal part, that has always been
skeptical about Putin. By the way, the revelations were made on the
eve of the reorganizational congress of the Liberal Russia party.
Perhaps it is a PR campaign, since the party is not well known in
Russia.
Yevgeny Suchkov, Electoral Techniques Institute: There will be no
consequences for the regime, there cannot be any. The West has long
since known what Russian powers-that-be are. Mr. Berezovsky does
everything promoting his own interests only. The role of a political
exile for him is the only chance of remaining free because the public
in the West views him as an oppositionist. Otherwise he may be
extradited to Russia.
*******
#11
From: Bruce.Bean@CliffordChance.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002
Subject: Moscow opportunity?
Dear David,
My son, Austin, is finishing his Second Year at the University of Chicago.
He has studied Russian since we arrived in Moscow seven years ago and worked
in an all Russian-speaking office last summer. He will return to Moscow
this summer and is interested in working as a research assistant in Moscow
from late June through mid-August. I would be pleased to hear from any JRL
reader who knows of someone who will be in Moscow this summer and in need of
such an assistant.
Many thanks.
Bruce W. Bean
Clifford Chance - Moscow
*******
#12
Financial Times (UK)
12 March 2002
The seven arms of Mr Putin
By ROBERT COTTRELL
The question of what exactly a presidential representative is meant to do all
day has been dogging the new institution ever since President Vladimir Putin
divided Russia into seven "federal okrugs" in May 2000 and named a
representative to each.
Each "federal okrug" contains a dozen or more of the 89 regions and republics
that make up the Russian federation - and each of these has its own governor
or president. The common assumption was that Mr Putin wanted a team of tough
guys who could knock wayward governors into line, and get the results the
Kremlin wanted when elections came along. At any rate, it would help to
explain why he named ex-generals to five of the seven posts.
But, in practice, Mr Putin had something a bit more subtle in mind. He told
the "polpreds" (as they quickly became known, the word being a contraction of
their full Russian title) to identify and eliminate regional legislation that
conflicted with federal legislation, taming separatism and bringing some
measure of coherence to Russian law.
He also told the polpreds to co-ordinate the activities of federal agencies
within their regions. In effect, this was to stop regional governors
"capturing" and directing bodies such as the tax service and the security
services that were meant to be independent. Beyond that, polpreds seemed to
have a fairly free hand. It was up to them to work out how they could be
useful.
Leonid Drachevsky, the president's representative for Siberia, has slotted in
more easily than many of his colleagues, perhaps thanks to his long
background as a diplomat. He decided from the outset to work with the
governors rather than try to dominate them. "The things that we can do at the
okrug level, we do at the okrug level," he explains. "Everything that has to
be decided at the regional level, the governors decide."
It must have helped, too, that the city of Novosibirsk was proud to have him,
and found him a handsome mansion for an office. His arrival has confirmed the
city's view of itself as the political and intellectual "capital" of Siberia.
It may also give a useful fillip for the local economy as well, if this new
accretion of power encourages more companies and municipalities to set up
representative offices there.
As an example of something best co-ordinated at the okrug level, Mr
Drachevsky offers reform of Russia's defence-industrial complex, the
factories of which are scattered across the different regions of Siberia, as
they are across Russia. Another logical subject would be preparations for
winter - making sure there is enough fuel and food around the place before
the rivers start to freeze and the roads become impassable.
As a longer-term project, Mr Drachevsky has been overseeing, at Mr Putin's
suggestion, a strategic development plan for Siberia. He believes more of the
money from Siberia's natural resources should flow into the regional economy,
but he points out that this does not have to be done simply by raising local
taxes in Siberia. It can also be done by recycling the money through the
federal budget to special regional programmes. He sees forestry, and
high-tech industries, as the most promising investment fields.
He does worry, he says, about the influence that big companies can have on
politics in the region. It is very difficult for a governor to manage the
business climate in a way that pleases the big companies already in his
region, but which also attracts other companies, including competing ones, to
come in and invest. The balancing of interests is the governor's job, Mr
Drachevsky says: his own role is to make sure laws are not broken, and that
elections are held fairly when the time comes for them.
Asked whether the polpred should have an interest in the outcome of an
election, as well as the mere running of it, Mr Drachevsky is very
diplomatic. So far, he says, all the elections in his region have involved
respectable candidates. If somebody with a "shady past" looked like winning a
governor's seat, he might have to worry. But not yet.
*******
#13
Kennan Institute meeting report
Russia's Presidential Districts: A Representative's View
The "first goal of Russia's newly created federal districts is to bring the
country together as one," affirmed Sergei Kirienko at a 30 January 2002
Wilson Center Director's Forum. Kirienko, the Presidential Representative
to the Volga District, explained that prior to the creation of the federal
district system in 2000, many inconsistencies existed among the regions of
Russia. According to Kirienko, the creation of the seven federal districts
has succeeded in bringing the presidential authority to the local level,
but is only a temporary measure that will have to be replaced as Russia and
the tasks of the federal government evolve.
Kirienko began by stating that, during the transition period of the 1990s,
the Russian Federation consisted of a plurality of regions that pursued
autonomous industrial, economic, and legal agendas. He asserted that
because a uniform, federalized legal system did not exist in Russia, the
first objective of the newly created districts was to oversee the
enforcement of Russian federal laws. Kirienko pointed out that the Volga
district alone had nearly 2,000 local laws that directly conflicted with
Russian federal law, and that this dilemma existed in all of Russia's
regions. He cited one example in Yakutia, where the local law established
two national languages, Yakut and English, but made no mention of Russian.
Other laws in regions such as Chuvashia and Tatarstan, directly opposed a
number of fundamental civil rights established by the Russian federal
constitution. Kirienko declared that over the past eighteen months nearly
all of the inconsistencies between the local and federal laws have been
resolved, and, more importantly, the harmonization occurred through the
court system.
According to Kirienko, the federal districts have also addressed the
"atomization of economic space," found among Russia's regions. He explained
that during the ten year transitional period, each region operated under an
autonomous economic plan, supporting local businesses while erecting
obstacles to trade, such as duties and other non-tariff trade barriers,
with other regions. He noted that the lack of regional cooperation limited
Russia's overall economic output and created many infrastructure problems
within the country. One example of this was the absence of roads that
crossed regional boundaries. Kirienko described how satellite photos showed
that roads which were supposed to link together two or more regions were
not aligned and, in some cases, ended or looped back instead of entering
the bordering region. He stated that the goal of the seven federal
districts was not only to establish a uniform legal system, but also
increase regional cooperation by creating a single economic zone.
Kirienko discussed how the federal districts have restored the Russian
practice of organizing geographical and economical surveys throughout the
territory of the Russian Federation. From these assessments, federal
leaders discovered enormously disproportionate levels of development among
Russia's regions. Kirienko stated that leaders were surprised to find that
the largest inequalities were found between localities within individual
territories rather than two different regions. He explained that, in one
region the disparity between the capital city and a village sixty miles
away was larger than the disparity between a rich and a poor region.
Kirienko noted that Russian leaders currently view inequality as one of the
key challenges facing the government, and are examining ways to mend the
problem before differences of money and human capital intensify.
Diversity is another key characteristic of the newly created federal
districts. Using the Volga District as his example, Kirienko described how
there are 102 national ethnic groups currently living in the Volga
territory, including over 40 percent of all Russian Muslims. In fact,
Kirienko noted, these groups have lived side-by-side for nearly three
hundred years without any armed conflict. Kirienko declared that, in a time
when there is much talk about the conflict between Christians and Muslims,
the Volga District should serve as an example that the two religions can
live together. He further stated that under his leadership, the Volga
district has helped develop key federal policies of religious and ethnic
coexistence.
Kirienko concluded by saying that the current system of federal
representatives is only a temporary phenomenon. He stated that it is merely
a mechanism of bringing presidential authority closer to the local level
and a "pilot project" to develop more effective federal policy. Russian
leaders hope to more successfully address problems that have plagued the
country for the last ten years. Kirienko closed by saying that despite the
successes of the seven federal districts, he believes that the institution
of federal representatives is only transitory and will be replaced as
institutions evolve.
By Nicholas Wheeler
********
#14
Kennan Institute meeting report
Russia's Presidential Districts: A Governor's View
We are "concerned that recently our country was divided into seven federal
districts," declared Mikhail Prusak, Governor, Novgorod Oblast, at a 7
February 2002 Director's Forum at the Woodrow Wilson Center. While the idea
may have seemed attractive at the time, argued Prusak, it actually
represents a return to the ideas and practices of the Soviet era and will
eventually weaken rather than strengthen the state.
During the 1990s, Russia's regions gained considerable autonomy in setting
their own economic and development policies. Prusak described how, for over
a decade, his administration promoted the economic development of the
Novgorod region without help or hindrance from Moscow, instead focusing on
attracting foreign investment with tax incentives and progressive policies.
"For over ten years," according to Prusak, "the Novgorod region has been
able to shed 50 percent of central government subsidieseven without oil or
gas. Our only natural resource was the intellectual capacity and will of
the people to work."
Shortly after his election, Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to
reverse the devolution of power to the regions by creating seven federal
districts to harmonize federal and regional laws and reassert federal
authority. The reasons President Putin provided for establishing the
districtspromoting law and order, combating separatism, etc.were seen as
legitimate, and the slogan "we need order to live better" convinced many of
the necessity of that reform. The reality, according to Prusak, is
troubling in its conception, its implementation, and in its results.
Prusak suggested that Putin's federal districts lump together diverse
regions without regard to culture, history, or economic development.
According to Prusak, "This brings back memories of the Soviet period when
republics and populations were shuffled around as the state saw fit." In
fact, the idea of dividing Russia into large districts originated with
former KGB Director Yuri Andropov, who proposed converting the Soviet Union
into 13 districts in the 1980s. "The idea," continued Prusak, "was born of
the Soviet realization that the regime could not hold together the
disparate areas of the country, so they decided to subdivide the country
into thirteen federal districts to better control the country."
Of special concern to Prusak is that of Putin's seven federal districts,
individuals with a military or KGB background head five. "If the federal
districts were designed to conduct war, these people could be trusted,"
Prusak argued, "but when ex-generals attempt to manage the economy, you can
see immediately that they are absolutely incompetent." The former generals
may claim Eisenhower or de Gaulle as precedents of military figures as
successful government leaders, Prusak continued, but the Chechen war
campaign demonstrates the "real proficiency" of their leadership.
One concrete result of the federal districts has been the diversion of tax
flows away from the regional governments. "Under the pretense of law and
order," Prusak claimed, "eighty percent of the [tax] money went to Moscow
for its own needs, and the remaining 20 percent has been left to the
federal districts." Prusak expressed concern that over time the existence
of the federal districts, and their control over regional funds, will
return regional administrations to the Soviet-era strategy of seeking
subsidies from the center rather than working for economic growth.
Prusak predicted that this return to centralization would ensure the
continued dominance of the five or six financial industrial groups that
seized a great portion of Russian industry during the 1990s. "There is a
risk of monopolization; not of one resurrected Gosplan [state planning
agency], but of five groups that would own the entire economy, each group
controlling a broad array of sectors of the economy," warned Prusak. Under
such circumstances, the growth and development of a small business sector
would be impossiblea consequence that would ironically undermine the
reform's goal of strengthening the Russian state. Western states, Prusak
pointed out, derive 4060 percent of their state budgets from the small
business sector, while in Russia that figure is between 5 and 10 percent.
"For the country to be stable and for the people to prosper, it absolutely
necessary that the people be given the opportunity to earn their living
rather than depend on handouts from the government," Prusak argued.
Prusak concluded by declaring that President Putin enjoys unprecedented
support from the Russian people. His international diplomacy and handling
of relations with the United States are especially admired. But that
support does not translate into faith in his governmentonly Putin himself
is respected. If Putin continues to rely on the powerful figures that
helped bring him to power and persists in his drive to centralize power, in
Prusak's estimation, faith in the government will erode even further. "That
is a situation fraught with danger," Putin warned, "because if a financial
crisis should arise, Putin will have no one to rely on and there will be a
vacuum of power."
By Joseph Dresen
*******
#15
Central Asia: Six Months After -- Alliances Shift With West, Russia (Part 1)
By Bruce Pannier and Antoine Blua
Six months ago, the five Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan were associated with tales of the
ancient Silk Road and with modern hopes of new paths carrying the region's
hydrocarbon wealth to hungry markets in the East and West. Many nations have
been eager to participate in the extraction and export of Central Asia's oil
riches, but few dared spend much political capital in the region, aware of
Russia's influence and wary of Central Asia's repressive, autocratic
governments. Everything changed on 11 September. With the U.S.-led
antiterrorism coalition waging war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in
neighboring Afghanistan, the five states found themselves on the battle's
front lines, receiving Western attention unprecedented during their 10 years
of independence. This attention -- in the form of military partnerships and
promises of humanitarian aid and economic assistance -- all but guaranteed
significant changes within each of the five nations.
In a four-part series, RFE/RL correspondents Bruce Pannier and Antoine Blua
examine how the region has been influenced by the events of 11 September and
their aftermath. Part I examines the shifting political and military
allegiances in the region and how, despite Western efforts to exert new
influence in the region, it's too early to count Russia out of the picture.
Prague, 12 March 2002 (RFE/RL) -- Central Asia is a region larger than India,
inhabited by roughly 55 million people, mainly Muslims. For the past 200
years, the dominant outside influence has been Russia.
Even after 1991, Russia continued to maintain strong links to the five
countries that emerged after the breakup of the Soviet Union -- Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Alex Vatanka is the editor of "Jane's Sentinel: Russia and the CIS," a
security assessment publication based in London. Vatanka spoke to RFE/RL
about Russia's historical ties to Central Asia:
"Before the campaign started by the U.S. in October 2001, you had in Central
Asia a region that had been historically part of the Russian empire or the
Soviet Union, a region that was totally dependent on Russia in many aspects
of life, [that was] militarily under the Russian sphere of influence, and
economically totally dependent on trade with Russia."
This changed after 11 September. The region suddenly found itself on the
front lines of the U.S.-led international campaign against terrorism, which
began with the fight against Al-Qaeda forces and their Taliban hosts in
neighboring Afghanistan.
Less than two weeks after the terrorist attacks in the U.S., Kazakh President
Nursultan Nazarbaev, one of Russia's staunchest allies, opened his country to
the U.S. and its allies in the antiterror war. Even one month earlier,
Nazarbaev's public remarks would have been unthinkable:
"We have already given a general agreement to participate in all measures
[against terrorism]. There are no concrete requests as of today. If such
requests are made, then Kazakhstan will look upon them favorably."
The coalition needed only the right to fly through Kazakhstan's airspace, but
the U.S.-led alliance did accept offers to use military bases in Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. In the following months, the U.S. and its
partners sent several thousand troops to Central Asian bases.
Uzbekistan was the first country in Central Asia to nationalize Soviet armed
forces still on its territory and the first country in the Commonwealth of
Independent States to pull out of the CIS Collective Security Treaty,
established in 1992 and now comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. Uzbekistan was quick to allow the U.S.
the use of its southern air base in Khanabad, a short flight from the Afghan
border. There are an estimated 1,500 U.S. soldiers there now.
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan followed Uzbekistan's lead. Some 1,200 troops from
the antiterrorism coalition are currently modifying the Manas international
airport in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek, to accommodate coalition aircraft.
Besides U.S. troops, soldiers at Manas come from such places as Spain,
France, Germany, and South Korea. Hundreds of additional coalition soldiers
are also believed to be at Kulob air base in southern Tajikistan.
John Schoeberlein of the Forum for Central Asian Studies at Harvard
University says Russia initially resisted such participation by the nations
of Central Asia.
"In the early days after the attack in September, the Russian government
declared that there would be no international force, U.S.-led forces, in
bases in Central Asian countries. But they quickly backtracked on that, and
since that time [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has pursued a line of
cooperation. Though some of the governments in Central Asia have said that
they don't need Putin's approval, they have it."
Russia -- both in the latter years of the tsarist period and during the days
of the Soviet Union -- invested huge sums in Central Asia to make it a
well-defended southern frontier. Ian Bremmer is president of the New
York-based Eurasia Group. Bremmer says that despite the region's recent
changes of fortune -- with the U.S. now pledging millions of dollars in aid
and development assistance -- Russia is far from being out of the picture in
Central Asia:
"Russia is obviously concerned that they don't want to lose their
geostrategic influence in a part of the world they consider their own
backyard and their unique sphere. In the long run, I don't believe the
Americans are willing to commit the kind of resources and military forces and
attention to Central Asia that would be required to really start making a
difference to Russian interests."
Vatanka of "Jane's Sentinel" says the five states would be well-advised to
maintain ties with Moscow:
"It is very hard for Russia to disappear from the Central Asian landscape
overnight. This is not going to happen. Purely based on economics, the five
states are very dependent on trade with Russia. The U.S. cannot replace that."
Much of this dependency remains. Russia still offers the best export routes
to markets in the West for Central Asia's riches, such as natural gas and
oil. Russia also acted as the region's ultimate protector against outside
aggressors and domestic extremists, such as the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan. Vatanka says 60 percent of Tajikistan's trade is with Russia and
that there are thousands of Russian-led troops guarding Tajikistan's
mountainous frontier with Afghanistan. Some 35 to 40 percent of Kazakhstan's
population are Russian-speaking Slavic peoples. Even isolated Turkmenistan
remains dependent on Russian pipelines to export the majority of its natural
gas.
Furthermore, there is little indication the U.S. presence will be of
sufficient duration or intensity to counter Russia's traditional dominance in
the region. Bremmer points out that U.S. interests in Central Asia are only
part of its overall battle against international terrorism, and that the
campaign in Afghanistan is only one of many fights for the U.S.:
"There are only so many fields of influence that the Americans can pay
attention to. There are only so many priorities that can be priorities, in
other words. And I think that Central Asia, much as there will be more
investment from a low base, much as there will be more U.S. support, I don't
imagine that they (the Central Asian states) can maintain 'A minus priority
status' for more than another six months or so. And if that happens, the
Russian influence -- which has been there for the last 10 years -- will
continue to assert itself. So I think in the long run, Russia's role [in
Central Asia] is pretty much safe."
For now, with both Russia and the United States involved in the region, the
Central Asian states seem well-placed to improve their situation. Ahmed
Rashid is the author of several well-received books about the region,
including "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia"
and "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia." Rashid believes
Central Asian leaders are taking advantage of a situation that requires
little from them in return:
"I think there is a suspicion there that many regimes [in Central Asia] see
this as an opportunity from which they can gain and for which they won't have
to give up anything. They won't have to make any sacrifices."
Analysts, however, say that not every Central Asian country is benefiting
from the West's increased attention to the region. The government of
Turkmenistan, which had an official trade agreement with the Taliban, has
allowed humanitarian aid to cross the country's border with Afghanistan, but
no military flights have been allowed to use Turkmen airspace, and none of
its bases was offered to coalition forces.
Eurasia Group's Bremmer said Turkmenistan's position today is worse than it
was prior to 11 September:
"On the downside, Turkmenistan is seen as increasingly isolated. There are a
number of people who have peeled off from that government in the past few
weeks."
Three former ambassadors and a top bank official have declared their
opposition-in-exile to the Turkmen government of President Saparmurat Niyazov
since the campaign against terror started. It might be assumed that Russia,
which appears to be losing some of its influence in Central Asia, would be
anxious to court better ties with Turkmenistan. But as Vatanka of "Jane's
Sentinel" points out, Russia may actually be contemplating pressuring
Turkmenistan in the future:
"There are two former ambassadors who are hiding pretty much in Moscow, and
Moscow is not handing these guys back to Ashgabat (the Turkmen capital)."
Vatanka suggests Moscow may use the presence of the former ambassadors to
force Niyazov to be more compliant in CIS matters. Such pressure may already
be bearing fruit: after missing nearly all previous CIS summits, Niyazov was
present at the last two -- the 10-year anniversary meeting in Moscow last
November and the Almaty gathering earlier this month (on 1 March).
*******
#16
U.S. Caspian envoy pushes pipelines outside Iran
By Raushan Nurshayeva
ASTANA, March 12 (Reuters) - U.S. Caspian envoy Stephen Mann, in Central
Asian Kazakhstan to discuss energy cooperation, reiterated on Tuesday that
the United States was keen to promote only those regional pipelines that
would avoid Iran.
"We very much want to discourage investment in the Iranian energy sector,
regardless of the source," Mann said when asked about a possible oil route
via Iranian territory.
"It's been a very consistent policy and I'm trying to convey it to you in an
undramatic way," he told a news briefing in the new Kazakh capital Astana.
"It's not a secret. I make this clear in all of my discussions with regional
governments."
U.S. President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address on January
29, branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea,
committed to developing weapons of mass destruction and posing a direct
threat to U.S. security.
Mann underlined U.S. support for a planned $3 billion pipeline from
Azerbaijan's capital of Baku to Turkey's Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. Last
year Mann said plans for that pipeline were moving ahead.
The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline would run west from the Caspian across Azerbaijan,
Georgia and NATO ally Turkey, crossing only U.S.-friendly states and limiting
the current dependence on the Middle East Gulf and Russia.
Kazakhstan, which produced 800,000 barrels per day of oil in 2001 and
cherishes ambitious hopes to triple output over the next decade, is seeking
routes to export its crude to Western markets.
Mann was speaking to reporters at the end of a two-day visit to Astana. Later
on Tuesday, he was due to fly on to former Soviet Georgia to talk to sponsors
of the Baku-Ceyhan project.
Last November, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium's $2.5 billion pipeline, which
runs from western Kazakhstan to Russia's Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, was
officially opened.
Mann has made clear earlier that Baku-Ceyhan and the CPC are complimentary.
"I think between the CPC pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi (Georgia)-Ceyhan
pipeline we are going to have sufficient methods to transport Kazakhstan's
oil for the foreseeable future," Mann told the briefing.
The Caspian envoy added that the United States wanted to deepen energy
cooperation with Kazakhstan and intended to assist further American
investment into the Kazakh economy.
"We want to encourage American investment into Kazakhstan, we want to bring
new technology into Kazakhstan. In every way that we can, we want to help
develop the great energy resource of Kazakhstan."
Mineral-rich Kazakhstan, five times the size of France but populated by less
than 15 million, has attracted over $13 billion in foreign direct investment
since independence in 1991. Large U.S. firms are among major investors in its
oil industry.
In December last year, the United States and Kazakhstan signed an energy
partnership declaration that Washington said underlined its support for
multiple east-west oil export routes and created a more concrete way to help
the former Soviet republic develop its reserves.
*******
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