Johnson's Russia List
#6238
13 May 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Reuters: Powell, Ivanov back arms accord before summit.
2. AFP: Ivanov denies Russia planning nuclear tests in Arctic.
3. Reuters: U.S. expects Russia to abide by testing moratorium.
4. Moscow Times: Nabi Abdullaev, Warlord Blamed for Victory Day Blast.
5. BBC: Dagestan suspects deny bombing.
6. AP: Russia Troops Hunt Sympathizers. (Chechnya)
7. Moscow Times: Matt Bivens, Love and Infatuation at Russia Forum.
8. Marie Hall: Seeking a publisher.
9. AP: Eastern Europeans Seek NATO Approval.
10. PUBLICATION- Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, 8 May 2002 Issue on Web.
11. BBC Monitoring: Russian economy is coming of age, but still has
lot to learn - daily.
12. Sarah Lindemann-Komarova: Response to Gaddy/Hill JRL: 6223:
My Civic Forum: An attempt to control? Yes, but not by the government.]
*******
#1
Powell, Ivanov back arms accord before summit
By Ron Popeski
MOSCOW, May 12 (Reuters) - The United States and Russia said on Sunday an
accord to slash strategic nuclear arsenals being feverishly prepared for a
summit this month was vital to underscore new post-Cold War relations.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking in a video link with a
late-night Russian television talk show, expressed confidence that the
agreement would be signed when presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush
meet on May 23-26.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told participants on ORT public
television the deal was "vital" despite reservations by some academics that
it ran counter to Moscow's interests.
The two men were speaking as U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton flew
in to Moscow for a final bid to remove differences before the talks in
Moscow and St Petersburg.
"I am encouraged at the progress that has been made," Powell said. "I hope
that we will come to an agreement before President Bush arrives in Moscow
at the end of next week."
Powell said the accord would mark a new stage in relations between the two
states, which as allies in fighting terrorism were "friends and partners,
not enemies...The days of the Cold War, the days of mutually assured
destruction, are over."
Interfax news agency, in an advance account of Powell's remarks during the
90-minute programme, had quoted him as saying he was sure the document
would be signed during the summit.
Both presidents agreed last November at Bush's Texas ranch on the principle
of reducing strategic arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,220 for each side
from current levels of 6,000 to 7,000.
U.S., RUSSIAN DIFFERENCES
Differences have centred on methods of counting and on Russian objections
to U.S. proposals to store, rather than destroy, warheads removed from
weapons.
Russia has also sought references to defensive systems -- meaning U.S.
plans for a missile defence system. Moscow has muted its protests to Bush's
decision last year to quit the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty to
proceed with the scheme.
Ivanov dismissed suggestions by participants in the programme that the deal
being worked out failed to meet Moscow's concerns to ensure reductions were
real and verifiable.
"We can take the path some people propose - let us have no documents at
all...But I think that this path will lead to even more chaos in weapons
control," he said.
"Yes, we have disagreements over what to include and so on. But we are
stating our goal. We are moving towards reduction rather than increases.
"Therefore, we are about to sign - I would not call it an overly ambitious
document - a vital document...and a real one from the standpoint of
continuing the process of arms control."
Ivanov said the two sides were still engaged in discussions about whether
to call the document an agreement or a treaty. The latter involves tougher
U.S. ratification procedures.
"Given the importance of the problem, we believe that it must be a treaty,"
Ivanov told participants.
Both men discussed Bolton's accusations last week that three more states,
Libya, Syria and Cuba, were seeking weapons of mass destruction -- in
addition to the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea - cited by
Bush earlier this year.
Powell said Bolton had said "nothing new." Washington, he said, had no
desire to attack anyone, but was right "to point out that these countries
are involved in such activities."
Ivanov renewed Russia's commitment to fight terrorism but restated the
caution expressed by Russia, which has good ties with Iran, Iraq and other
states Washington views with suspicion.
"At the same time we must not identify with terrorism specific religions or
peoples or countries," he said. "Clear information must be involved here in
order to determine our precise aims and the methods we use to make decisions."
He hoped an agreement would be clinched at this week's talks in Iceland
redefining Russia's ties with NATO in a new council. He said the council,
replacing a body dating from 1997, would be "not an advisory or
consultative body but an executive organ."
*******
#2
Ivanov denies Russia planning nuclear tests in Arctic
AFP
April 13, 2002
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has denied US suggestions that Moscow
was planning nuclear tests in the Arctic, the Interfax news agency reported.
The US House of Representatives on Saturday urged President George W. Bush
to seek access to a Russian nuclear test site in the Arctic amid reports
the Russians were preparing to resume testing.
"Unfortunately such statements often emerge from Congress for no reason at
all," Ivanov said in an interview due to be aired late on Sunday on ORT
television, Interfax said.
"Russia is demanding that the US administration clarify the reason for such
declarations, if we are to have new strategic relations based on mutual
trust and respect," he added.
The New York Times reported that the call by the US lower house of
parliament was prompted by a recent intelligence briefing in Congress which
featured new data indicating that Russia was preparing to resume nuclear
tests on the island of Novaya Zemlya.
The information was contained in a report by the Joint Atomic Energy
Intelligence Committee, a panel that collects the views of many federal
agencies on nuclear issues, the paper reported Sunday.
The assessment indicated that recent activities on the Russian island above
the Arctic Circle matched a known Russian pattern of preparation for
nuclear tests, said the paper.
The report comes less that two weeks before Bush is to fly to Moscow for a
summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, at which the US and Russia
hope to sign an historic nuclear arms reduction treaty.
Russia has admitted conducting in 1999 a series of so-called "subcritical"
nuclear experiments on Novaya Zemlya, which it said are not banned by the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
*******
#3
U.S. expects Russia to abide by testing moratorium
WASHINGTON, May 12 (Reuters) - The White House declined comment on a
newspaper report on Sunday citing intelligence suggesting Russia is
preparing to resume nuclear tests and said it expected Moscow to abide by
its self-declared moratorium.
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Bush administration officials
had briefed selected members of Congress on what they described as
disturbing intelligence indicating Russia was preparing to resume nuclear
tests.
The report said members of the Senate and House of Representatives received
a briefing on a new analysis by the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence
Committee, a panel that collects the views of many U.S. agencies on nuclear
issues.
The assessment described a pattern of technical activities on Novaya Zemlya
-- a Russian island above the Arctic Circle that is the equivalent of the
U.S. nuclear test range in Nevada -- that matched known Russian activities
to prepare for past nuclear tests, the newspaper quoted officials as saying.
The report, noting U.S. President George W. Bush was to meet Russian
President Vladimir Putin this month to discuss a pact to cut their nuclear
arsenals, said the lawmakers who got the briefing had a range of reactions
from skepticism to alarm.
It said some questioned whether the intelligence report was a tactic to
help pave the way for Washington to resume nuclear testing, while others
were so troubled by it they drafted legislation calling for access to
Russian nuclear sites and allowing work on a new generation of U.S. nuclear
warheads.
Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council,
declined comment on the report, saying the Bush administration did not
discuss intelligence matters.
"We are concerned that we may not be able to know if any entity were
testing in a way designed to avoid detection," the spokesman added. "We
expect Russia to abide by the testing moratorium that it has declared for
itself."
*******
#4
Moscow Times
May 13, 2002
Warlord Blamed for Victory Day Blast
By Nabi Abdullaev
Staff Writer
Investigators pointed the finger at a Chechen warlord of Dagestani origin
as being the mastermind behind the explosion that ripped through a Victory
Day parade in Dagestan, killing 42 people.
Dagestani Interior Minister Adilgirei Magomedtagirov said he had evidence
that Rappani Khalilov, whom local police suspect of plotting a number of
blasts in Dagestan over the past eight months, was behind the Thursday
bombing and promised to personally make sure that he was brought to justice.
"As interior minister I swear that he will be either seized or eliminated,"
Magomedtagirov told reporters in the regional capital, Makhachkala,
Interfax reported. "No federal task force will take part. This operation
will be carried out by the Dagestani Interior Ministry with the permission
of the Russian interior minister."
He said Khalilov is believed to be hiding in Chechnya's northern Nozhayurt
region.
Deputy Prosecutor General Vladimir Kolesnikov told a separate news
conference in Makhachkala on Sunday that investigators have identified the
individuals who plotted and carried out the attack.
"We have a sufficient amount of information ... but I cannot disclose at
this time what we know," Kolesnikov was quoted by news agencies as saying.
An antipersonnel land mine with the force of 3 kilograms of dynamite tore
through a festive crowd attending the traditional Victory Day parade at
9:50 a.m. Thursday in the town of Kaspiisk. The bomb, planted in shrubbery
near the sidewalk and filled with scraps of steel wire, detonated as a
military brass band marched past.
Excerpts from an amateur video taken by a Kaspiisk resident and broadcast
on television shows the military band playing a triumphant tune before
abruptly being engulfed in billowing black smoke. Screams break out. As the
smoke clears, soldiers in camouflage and civilians are seen sprawled around
a deep crater in the street, blood pouring from their wounds.
Twenty-two people, including six children, were declared dead at the site,
and about 110 more were hospitalized. As of Sunday, 20 more had died of
their injuries. The dead include 21 soldiers stationed in Kaspiisk, mostly
musicians marching in the parade, and 13 children who had run in front of
the band.
Unlike after other smaller bombings in the North Caucasus in recent months,
President Vladimir Putin said he would personally take change of the
investigation into the attack. The blast occurred minutes before he
addressed World War II veterans at a Victory Day rally in Moscow.
Putin appointed Federal Security Service chief Nikolai Patrushev to head
the team of investigators and ordered him to report directly to him.
The country was left in a state of shock and grief. Mind-numbing news
coverage of the explosion overshadowed the usually jubilant reports about
Victory Day, which commemorates the Allies' defeat of Nazi Germany.
The leaders and governments of many countries expressed their condolences
and condemned the attack as an act of terrorism.
"We strongly condemn this cowardly and violent act," U.S. State Department
spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday, Reuters reported. "We look forward
to seeing the perpetrators of these attacks brought to justice."
Unlike after similar attacks in the region, the authorities did not
immediately accuse Chechen rebels of being behind the bombing.
Viktor Kazantsev, Putin's envoy to the Southern Federal District, urged
Russians in televised remarks not to jump to the conclusion that there was
a Chechen angle.
Chechen rebels denied any involvement.
"The Chechens and those who sympathize with the Chechens in their struggle
have nothing in common with such actions because it would mean playing into
the hands of our enemies," Akhmed Zakayev, a spokesman for rebel leader
Aslan Maskhadov, said in a statement posted on the rebels' web site
Chechenpress.com on Friday.
But Patrushev, who flew to Makhachkala to investigate, said the day after
the attack that it "may be a result of the events taking place on the
territory of Chechnya," Interfax reported.
He added that the FSB had detained several suspects.
It was unclear Sunday how many suspects had been picked up.
Three suspects -- ethnic Dagestanis and followers of Wahhabism, an austere
brand of Islam -- were detained in St. Petersburg on Saturday and flown to
Makhachkala, Dagestani police said.
They were cleared Sunday of Thursday's attack but remained in custody on
suspicion of carrying out other bombings in Dagestan.
Investigators drew a composite sketch of the man suspected of carrying out
the attack Friday and showed it on national television.
"They used that amateur footage of the parade and the explosion -- it
showed a man who suddenly rushed from the spot 15 seconds before the
blast," said Dagestani journalist Timur Djafarov, who saw the full video.
"Police also used descriptions from children who remembered the man's
appearance," he said by telephone from Makhachkala on Sunday.
Dagestani police spokesman Abdulmanap Musayev echoed the republic's
interior minister in saying the evidence points toward the warlord Khalilov
as masterminding the bombing.
"Rappani Khalilov, a Chechen warlord of Dagestani origin, who is suspected
of masterminding 15 terrorist attacks in Dagestan in the past eight months,
has employed about 40 terrorists to carry out explosions here," he said by
telephone from Makhachkala on Sunday.
"We have sufficient grounds to suspect that he was also behind the attack
in Kaspiisk."
Khalilov's name surfaced for the first time after a bomb exploded near a
military truck in Makhachkala in January, killing seven servicemen and
injuring 20.
Eight suspects were arrested shortly after that blast, Musayev said, and
they named Khalilov as their leader. They also identified about 20 of their
associates, who have been arrested, he said.
The Dagestani Interior Ministry says Khalilov's wife is a sister-in-law of
Khattab, the Chechen warlord of Arab origin whom the FSB declared dead in
late April.
Deputy Prosecutor General Sergei Fridinsky also linked the Makhachkala
attack with the Kaspiisk explosion. He told Interfax on Saturday that
suspects sought in the Kaspiisk blast likely belonged to the same group
that bombed the truck.
A man accused of coordinating Khalilov's network in Dagestan, Zaur Akavov,
was detained by Dagestani police in Makhachkala on May 6 and hospitalized,
Musayev said. While being detained, Akavov was shot in both arms and legs.
Deputy Prosecutor General Kolesnikov said Sunday that most of Khalilov's
group underwent training in Chechnya, Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
Meanwhile, three men killed in the Kaspiisk explosion -- an officer, his
teenage son and a soldier -- were laid to rest Sunday in Omsk. The bodies
of 16 servicemen were flown Saturday night to Moscow to be sent on to their
respective hometowns. The other four servicemen were buried Thursday in
Dagestan.
The military has dealt with tragedy before in Kaspiisk. In November 1996, a
bomb ripped through a nine-story apartment building where federal border
guards lived with their families. Sixty-eight people were killed. Results
of an investigation into the incident have never been made public.
Makhachkala averted a bombing similar to the one in Kaspiisk on Victory Day
two years ago.
Local policemen found and defused a time bomb planted on Makhachkala's
central square just two hours before the parade was scheduled to pass.
*******
#5
BBC
12 May 2002
Dagestan suspects deny bombing
A group of three men arrested in connection with the land mine blast in
Kaspiyisk, in the southern Russian republic of Dagestan, have denied any
involvement in the attack in which at least 40 people were killed.
The men were presented at a news conference organised by the interior
ministry in the Dagestani capital, Makhachkala about 25 kilometres north of
Kaspiyisk, following their arrest in St Petersburg two days ago.
Ministry officials said the men - two brothers, Artur and Zaur Mamayev, and
Shamil Mamayev - were born in Makhachkala.
The suspects denied being involved in not only the Kaspiyisk attack, but
also the explosions in Makhachkala in January in which seven soldiers were
killed.
The Russian and Dagestani authorities accuse the suspects of links with
what they describe as terrorist groups operating in Chechnya, and Georgia's
Pankisi Gorge.
*******
#6
Russia Troops Hunt Sympathizers
May 12, 2002
By YURI BAGROV
VLADIKAVKAZ, Russia (AP) - Russian troops searched for rebels and their
sympathizers on Sunday in the Chechen capital, sealing off the city and
preventing traffic from entering or leaving, an official in the
Kremlin-backed Chechen administration said.
Reinforcements were brought to Grozny to assist in the large-scale security
sweep, in which more than 100 people suspected of assisting the rebels were
detained, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Human rights groups and foreign governments watching Russia's handling of
the breakaway province have criticized the sweeps for alleged abuses.
Chechen civilians have accused servicemen of carrying out arbitrary
detentions, looting and even killing during the checks.
Meanwhile, three Russian servicemen were killed and three were wounded in
rebel attacks on Russian positions and checkpoints over the past 24 hours,
the official said.
In the village of Komsomolskoye, two rebels were killed in a clash with
police after they were stopped at a checkpoint for a passport check, the
ITAR-Tass news agency reported. One traffic policeman was killed in the
gunfight.
The Russian air force flew several combat sorties on Saturday, hitting
suspected rebel camps in Vedeno and Itum-Kale, also in southern Chechnya.
The Russian military has long insisted that the active phase of the war in
Chechnya is over. But while large-scale fighting has ceased, rebels stage
daily attacks on Russian positions.
The 1994-6 war between separatists and Russian troops left Chechnya with de
facto independence. Russian forces returned in 1999 after rebels invaded a
neighboring Russian region and after apartment house bombings around Russia
that left 300 dead.
*******
#7
Moscow Times
May 13, 2002
Love and Infatuation at Russia Forum
By Matt Bivens
WASHINGTON -- When it comes to expressing knowledge of and admiration for
Russia, few in the U.S. Congress outdo Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania
Republican. But at a talkfest here celebrating American-Russian relations,
surfer dude Dana Rohrabacher, Republican congressman from California, did
his best.
The World Russian Forum has for years been organized by Eduard Lozansky, a
Soviet-era dissident and emigre who now lobbies Washington for better
relations with Russia. In past, it has been a woozily organized affair.
But these days, Lozanksy is the new U.S. publisher of the Russia Journal
(yes, the same Russia Journal that competes with The Moscow Times) and he
says that has breathed new life into his work.
"Our 19 previous forums were kind of scattered. You know, we're a bunch of
dissidents," Lozansky said. "But this year we were fortunate. The Russia
Journal really took [the conference organization] into their hands. They
are business people. And the combination of dissidents and business people
produces great results."
Perhaps the greatest result was the venue -- a U.S. Senate office building
-- and the line of congressmen dragooned in to make brief warm speeches
about U.S.-Russian relations. Among notables were Republican Senator
Richard Lugar and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
Ajay Goyal, the Russia Journal publisher, said the room and some of the
powerhouse speakers were delivered by the Free Congress Foundation, a
far-right group co-sponsoring the event and headed by Paul Weyrich. Weyrich
missed the conference, but a stand-in told attendees Russia and America
needed to ally because there is a dark Muslim menace on the way from the
south, by way of immigration if not actual Sept. 11-style assault.
Lozansky took the podium later in the day to note that Weyrich & Co. are,
cough, pretty conservative. Then again, groups like Free Congress have
clout even among moderate Republicans: They mobilize a small yet loyal band
of voters.
It's the sort of event the 54-year-old Weldon ought to dominate. He speaks
passable Russian, was a Russian studies major in college and is an old
friend of Lozansky's. He is the founder of the Duma-Congress Study Group,
which organizes visits between the two parliaments.
And Weldon had a lot to talk about: He recently put together a document
that outlines all sorts of ways to bring us closer -- from getting more
Russian-language instruction in American high schools to exploring for oil
together in Timan Pechora. (You can find it at www.fita.org/prbc/index.html).
Enter Rohrbacher, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and the only
54-year-old congressman whose home page features a photo of him in a
wetsuit, surfing. He may not have invested the years or done the homework
of a Curt Weldon, but he sure can enthuse.
"I wanna tell ya, Russia is terrific," Rohrbacher told the conference. "We
[Russia and America] are going to be best friends. We're not best friends
with Europe. I'm sorry fellas. That's history."
"They're out for themselves [in Europe.] They do not have the ideals we
Americans hold dear. They are manipulative."
So, we should shut down NATO and replace it with a Space-Alliance Treaty
Organization, for cooperation in space exploration. (SATO?) To help
Russia's economy, the West should write off Soviet-era debts, as the risk
of doing business with an Evil Empire. For Rohrbacher, it's an added plus
that the debt is mostly held by manipulative Europeans: "The German bankers
to whom this debt is owed, well, you know what they can do with their debt."
And when we take out Saddam Hussein, Rohrbacher said, we should make it
worth Russia's while -- after all, they've got Iraqi business interests to
watch over and old Soviet loans to collect on.
Matt Bivens, a former editor of The Moscow Times, is a Washington-based
fellow of The Nation Institute [www.thenation.com].
*******
#8
From: "Marie J. Hall"
Subject: Seeking a publisher
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002
I have translated a memoir by A. S. Eliseev, a Russian cosmonaut, member of
the two-man team who were the first to engage in extra-vehicular activity
in space. The book was printed and distributed as gifts at a space
conference in Germany last September. Mr. Eliseev and I are looking for a
publisher wno would be interested in producing the book for general
distribution. It is not highly technical, but gives a very interesting
picture of the development of the Soviet space program and the life of the
people involved in it.
Thanks!
*******
#9
Eastern Europeans Seek NATO Approval
May 12, 2002
By PAUL AMES
ADAZI, Latvia (AP) - A classroom decorated with daffodils is the unlikely
front line in Latvia's battle to join NATO. And a spiky-haired
schoolteacher named Sylvia Simane is the Baltic country's secret weapon.
In an impeccable British accent, Simane explains how her team of civilian
teachers plan to have all of Latvia's professional soldiers speaking
``peacekeeper's English'' so they can slot neatly into NATO operations.
The Latvian educator's classes in this sprawling former Soviet army base
are part of a transformation under way across eastern Europe as armies from
the Baltic states, through Romania and Bulgaria on the Black Sea, to
Slovenia and Slovakia in central Europe prepare to swell the ranks of the
Western alliance.
NATO foreign ministers will review the applicants' progress at a meeting
Tuesday and Wednesday in Reykjavik, Iceland.
Then in November, leaders of the 19 current NATO nations meet in the Czech
capital, Prague, to decide which among the 10 candidates will be invited to
join. Although NATO diplomats stress nothing's decided, expectations are
high that up to seven will be picked.
Memories of brutal Nazi and Soviet occupation drive the anxiety of these
countries to join. Latvia alone lost half its population in the 20th
century, says Defense Minister Girts Valdis Kristovskis.
``Throughout the last century we had such a lack of security and
stability,'' Kristovskis told The Associated Press. ``People in our region
are seeking security, that is why they are supporting NATO enlargement.''
The last time NATO expanded - to take in Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic in 1999 - it provoked growls of disapproval from Moscow.
Russia remains opposed to NATO creeping nearer to its borders, although
President Vladimir Putin has toned down the rhetoric.
``Russia is not happy at all ... but we're not going to war over that,''
said Sergey Rogov, director of Moscow's Institute of USA and Canada Studies.
Polls show Latvian public backing for NATO membership at around 60 percent
and undiminished by the government's decision to double defense spending to
2 percent of gross domestic product, well above the level of many wealthy
European NATO members.
If the advantages of NATO membership are clear to the candidates, the
benefits for the alliance appear less straightforward.
``If one is being completely honest, the new nations bring in more
liabilities than military advantages,'' said Sir Timothy Garden, European
defense expert at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.
``It's driven more by politics than by military practicalities.''
It's hard to see Latvia's 5,400-strong active-duty forces packing much of a
punch. The air force has no combat planes and the army and navy are
equipped with hand-me-downs - artillery from Sweden, patrol boats from
Norway, three tanks from the Czech Republic.
While Romania and Bulgaria struggle to slim bloated Cold War-era armies and
shed outdated Soviet equipment, Latvia and Baltic neighbors Estonia and
Lithuania have had to build from scratch since they broke free of the
Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
``The day after our independence we didn't have a single weapon,'' Col.
Raimonds Graube, commander in chief, said in an interview in his office
that once housed the headquarters of Soviet Baltic Command.
``We are starting from a blank sheet ... building up a small, professional,
NATO-capable army.''
Graube thinks his forces can play useful niche roles such as bomb-disposal
or field medicine. Latvian troops have already served with NATO
peacekeeping missions in the Balkans, including as medics and military
police helping British forces in Kosovo, and in Bosnia as members of a
joint combat unit formed with Estonia and Lithuania. ``Latvia is a small
country,'' Graube said. ``We can't provide large numbers of infantry. It's
better to focus on some specialized areas.''
The pride of the Latvians is BALTNET - an air surveillance center run
jointly with Estonia and Lithuania that uses brand-new U.S. supplied
equipment to monitor planes over the Baltic Sea and much of western Russia.
Once the Baltic states join NATO, the radar network can be hooked up to
alliance systems to provide real-time information to allied commanders.
Supporters of NATO expansion say the main advantages are not so much
military as political - strengthening democracy and stability in
trouble-prone regions.
They say bringing in Romania and Bulgaria means containing the Balkans in a
stabilizing ring of NATO countries that already include Greece, Turkey,
Hungary and Italy.
As for the Baltics, ``there is always a temptation for (Russia) to cause
trouble up there. This will make it more difficult for that to happen,''
says retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of national
securities studies at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank.
Kristovskis says the Sept. 11 attacks reinforce the case for NATO expansion
by showing the need for a wide alliance against terrorist enemies.
``Even big states, strong developed states, need support from all
democracies, big or small,'' he said. ``Our capabilities are different, but
today the threat from terrorism is such that common values are as important
as weapons.''
Latvia's parliament removed a major obstacle to membership Thursday by
amending a law stating elected officials must speak Latvian. NATO officials
said the law discriminated against Latvia's Russian-speaking minority.
Key facts about NATO's expansion plans
NATO leaders meeting in November will choose which among 10 candidates will
be invited to join the alliance. The contenders:
SLOVENIA: Armed forces 9,300. Likely to be invited in, but many Slovenians
oppose membership.
SLOVAKIA: Armed forces 35,000. NATO could shut door if September elections
return authoritarian former prime minister.
ESTONIA: Armed forces 5,000. Needs to modernize military. Russia has toned
down opposition to Estonian membership.
LATVIA: Armed forces 5,400. Recently changed laws to meet NATO demands of
nondiscrimination against Russian minority.
LITHUANIA: Armed forces 10,400. Russia has concerns about impact of NATO
membership on neighboring Kaliningrad enclave, but has moderated opposition.
ROMANIA: Armed forces 170,000. Must streamline military, fight corruption.
Hopes boosted by strategic position in Balkans.
BULGARIA: Armed forces 75,000. Situation similar to Romania, shedding
Soviet-era arms.
Longer-term candidacies:
CROATIA, armed forces 57,000, likely to be accepted as candidate soon, but
application came too late to be considered at fall summit.
ALBANIA: Armed forces 31,000. Legacy of instability makes membership
unlikely for some time.
MACEDONIA: Armed forces 15,000. NATO peacekeepers remain after ethnic
violence last year. Little chance of membership in near future.
Current members: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and United States.
******
#10
Subject: PUBLICATION- Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, 8 May 2002 Issue on Web
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002
From: Svante Cornell
The 8 May 2002 Issue of the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, a subscription
free
Web journal with over 104,000 visitors to the site since November 1999 is now
on-line at http://www.cacianalyst.org/
The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute of The Johns Hopkins University-The Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies is proud to announce the publication
of the 8 May 2002 issue of its biweekly Web-Journal, The Central
Asia-Caucasus
Analyst.
The Institute also offers its readers the option of downloading The Analyst
in
PDF format, enabling readers to view and print out the entire issue of The
Analyst. The html version will, of course, remain available.
PASHTUN DISAFFECTION: THREAT TO STABILITY IN AFGHANISTAN
Awamdost Pakhtunkhel
The fragile balance in the southern, predominantly Pashtun areas of
Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban has recently been rocked by
conflicts of authority between regional warlords and the interim government
in
Kabul. The main problem so far has centered on the three province of Paktia,
Paktika and Khost, which form the historic greater Paktia province. As has
been widely reported in the press, local strongman Bacha Khan Zardan refused
to accept the authority of a governor appointed by the interim government and
has clashed with the governor's forces. What is less well understood is the
roots and the depth of resentment in the Pashtun areas of Southern
Afghanistan
and Northwestern Pakistan, and the dire implications of this problem if left
unchecked.
TURKEY'S STRATEGIC CHOICE: EURASIANISM OR EUROPEANISM?
Ihsan D. Dagi
General Tuncer Kilinc, the secretary-general of Turkey's National Security
Council, recently shocked observers by stating that Turkey needed
alternatives
to the European Union, proposing that Turkey should seek, with support of
USA,
new allies in the East, namely Russia and Iran. The General argued that the
EU
held negative views on Turkey, has never assisted it, and agreed that 'the EU
is a Christian Club, a neo-colonialist force, and is determined to divide
Turkey'. General Kilinc's views, though identified as personal, disclosed a
severe conflict among Turkish elites on the country's strategic choices.
Kilinc's views reflect those of a strong 'Eurasianist' school of thought
within the Turkish state.
AFGHANISTAN-BASED INTERNATIONAL DRUG-TRAFFICKING: A CONTINUED THREAT
Hooman Peimani
Bloody turf wars emerged in Afghanistan in late April. In the north, Uzbek
warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum's and Tajik warlord Atta Mohammed's forces
clashed
over two towns near Mazar-e-Sharif. In the east, two Pashtun warlords, Bacha
Khan Zardan and Taj Mohammed Wardak, fought over the city of Gardez. This
recent increase in fighting hints at the persistence of a suitable ground for
international drug-trafficking in Afghanistan. The operation of this
destructive "industry" will not only have security implications for
Afghanistan and its neighbouring states, but also have a negative impact on
ethnic and tribal relations and on the consolidation of the government and
the
reconstruction of the country.
THE ADYGEYA REPUBLIC: A LITMUS TEST OF RUSSIAN FEDERALISM?
Hasan Kanbolat & Suat Kiniklioglu
In the midst of the centralizing tendencies of the Putin administration in
Russia, the ethnic republics are clinging to their constitutional autonomy
and
trying to preserve their sovereignty. Adygeya, where only 27% of the
population are ethnic Adygey, has been the scene of a rising Russian
nationalism that seeks to dismantle the republican status of the territory.
Some observers have rather alarmingly called Adygeya a 'second Chechnya in
the
making', but the region has so far remained calm. If Moscow continues to lend
support to the Russian nationalists in Adygeya, however, the situation may
deteriorate.
THE FIELD REPORTS INCLUDE:
KURULTAI AND FORUM ON THE SUBJECT OF AKSY BLOODSHED IN KYRGYZSTAN
Two separate events discussing the Aksy bloodshed took place in Bishkek
lately, one government-sponsored and one opposition-led. Opposition figures
reiterated ther far-reaching demands, while the government shows no sign of
taking serious action.
IS RUSSIA PREPARING TO SOLVE THE CASPIAN SEA PROBLEM BY FORCE?
A day after the Ashgabat talks on the Caspian sea ended in failure, Russian
President Vladimir Putin announce Russia would hold extensive military
exercises in the Caspian sea, pointing to the risk of an increased
militarization of the political situation in the Caspian sea. Azerbaijan and
Iran both voiced concern, while Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have yet to react.
THE SPOILS OF WAR: GENEROUS DONORS FLOCK TO UZBEKISTAN
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was the last in a lost of foreign leaders
that visited Uzbekistan and pledged financial support for the country. The
U.S., China and Turkey have all sent high-level delegations to Tashkent. The
changes in financial aid and attention reflect the changing geopolitical
configurations in the Central Asian region.
IS KYRGYZSTAN BETTER OFF?
In 2001 Kyrgyzstan officially achieved growth in key macroeconomic
indicators.
According to statistical information, there was an increase in the country's
GDP, inflation dropped, the local currency kept a relatively firm exchange
rate, and there was a rise in real household incomes. However, many observers
are critic and claim nothing has improved in the economy.
The Analyst provides a rigorous, concise and nonpartisan forum where
specialists can assess issues and events in the Central Asia-Caucasus region
for a broad audience of business people, journalists, policy makers,
government officials, diplomats and academics. The Analyst seeks regional
specialists, journalists, economists, and political scientists to join its
pool of authors who are then asked to contribute short, timely, analytical
articles, ca. 900-1000 words in length. The institute pays a honorarium to
the
authors. The Analyst also seeks local experts, corporate representatives and
NGO representatives from the region to write Field Reports for a modest
honorarium.
The Analyst provides factual, objective and analytical articles valuing fresh
insights rather than the conventional wisdom. We welcome readers and writers
from various perspectives and viewpoints. We value your comments and
suggestions.
Those interested in joining The Analyst's pool of authors to contribute
articles, field reports or contacts of potential writers, please send your CV
to: svante.cornell@pcr.uu.se and suggest some topics on which you would like
to write. Please remember that The Analyst does not accept double submissions.
*******
#11
BBC Monitoring
Russian economy is coming of age, but still has lot to learn - daily
Source: Izvestiya, Moscow, in Russian 7 May 02
Russia will soon boast a fully-fledged market economy, says the leading
daily Izvestiya. But while the Russian economy has come a long way in the
last few years, the country's dependency on exports of raw materials does
not entirely augur well for the future. In this context, President Putin's
criticism of the government for a lack of ambition in its economic policy
is, the paper suggests, "perfectly understandable". The following is the
text of the article in Russian newspaper Izvestiya on 7 May. Subheadings
are inserted editorially.
Home alone
For a whole week no-one has been running the Russian economy. It has been
left "home alone" like an orphan. Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov is about
to return this week from the vacation which he began on 30 April. But
Deputy Prime Ministers Aleksey Kudrin and Viktor Khristenko, who went off
on their well-deserved vacations the very same day as the prime minister,
will be regaining their strength right up to 13 May. Left without anyone in
charge, the Russian economy has felt perfectly at ease and has not produced
anything terrible because the people too, for the most part, were resting
in honour of the spring and labour festival.
Meanwhile the Russian economy needs just as much strength to put on a
qualitatively new spurt as do the top ministers. Most likely in May 2002 an
event will occur that the Russian economic and political elite have been
waiting for so much and whose consequences we have still not fully grasped.
On the eve of the Putin-Bush summit the Americans will almost certainly
revoke the discriminatory Jackson-Vanik amendment and will finally
acknowledge Russia to be a country with a market economy.
This outwardly ritual step will completely change Russia's place in the
world economy. Thus, we are essentially completing the transitional period
from the planned economy to a market economy or, to use an expression more
comprehensible to the people's masses, from socialism to capitalism. The
world will finally see Russia as a fully-fledged market player with whom it
is necessary to play by the strict rules of competitive economics. And
then, regardless of the speed at which Russia may join the ranks of the
World Trade Organization, it will be entirely out of place to sing the
Russian industrialists' favourite ditty about total discrimination against
our goods on the world markets. We will be told: you are now grown up, your
economic childhood is over, you now have to earn your reputation and place
in the market independently without relying on either help or condescension.
A test for the economy
It is very difficult to answer the question as to whether the Russian
economy is ready for such a test. On the one hand our economy is already
virtually independent of the presence or absence of leaders in the country.
It runs itself to the degree that people should not fear too strong a
sudden leap in prices or too abrupt a momentary fluctuation in the rouble
exchange rate without visible causes at world level. On the other hand, the
fall of world oil prices, for example, to 12 dollars a barrel will affect
our economy more strongly than, shall we say, the explosions at the
skyscraper towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. That is, the
dependence of the Russian economy on the world prices of energy sources is
still very great. The diminution of this dependence remains one of the key
tasks of the government for the immediate years to come.
In this connection Russian Energy Minister Igor Yusufov expressed a very
timely idea last week during his May visit to the USA, when he suggested
that work should be resumed by a bilateral commission, the Kasyanov-Cheney
Commission, modelled on the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, and that there
should be - at the level of the two countries' second-in-commands - a
discussion exclusively of problems in the power generation sphere. If one
takes account of the fact that Americans at the very highest level have
expressed an interest in increasing their purchases of Russian oil, such a
dialogue is extremely advantageous to Moscow.
But even once it has received the coveted status of a country with a market
economy and admission to the world economy, Russia will all the same be
compelled to devote itself for a very long time yet to exclusively internal
problems and not to thoughts of world economic domination, or even of a
place in the world economy befitting our country's membership of the G8.
So the May holidays are drawing to a close. The ministers will return from
leave. The people will get back to production. The nice times of the
Russian economy's pre-adult years are coming to a close. And no longer will
we be moved by any two- or even four-per-cent increase in economic growth
or rejoice that annual inflation has stayed below 20 per cent, and that the
face value of the rouble is strengthening. It is no accident that the
Russian president yesterday began with a half-joking, half-serious
criticism of the government, demanding of the cabinet new economic
forecasts for the next three or four years. Despite the peak in Russia's
payments in servicing its foreign debt in 2003 and despite the lack of
clarity in the prospects for oil prices on the world market in the next few
years, the desire to increase the tempo of economic growth is being
transformed from an abstraction into something like an order from the head
of state to the government. This peremptory tone is perfectly
understandable although you cannot, of course, ensure growth by any
directives. Naturally when there are some tangible economic successes, you
want to achieve more.
Watershed
Russia has matured to the point of tackling some really serious tasks like,
for example, the creation of an economy that would enable the overwhelming
majority of Russians to live at a Western European level. We were trying
for a long time to understand when, strictly speaking, this economic period
of marking time would end and when we would get past that stage of the
reforms that entailed such great social costs. This moment has arrived. But
what has happened does not mean that it will be far easier for us. The
Russian economy is "home alone" all the same. And only we are capable of
arranging some sort of tolerable life in this home.
*******
#12
From: "Sarah Lindemann"
Subject: Response to Gaddy/Hill #6233
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002
Response to Gaddy/Hill JRL: 6223: My Civic Forum: An attempt to control?
Yes, but not by the government.
Sarah Lindemann-Komarova
I would like to set the record straight about the Civic Forum, the all-
Russian conference for NGOs that took place in November 2001. Included as a
minor point in the Brookings Institute Policy Brief #99, the Forum was used
as an example of the government attempting to "stifle dissent" and
characterized as "actions to corral and control non-governmental
organizations through the creation of the government sponsored Civic Forum."
I never saw any evidence of this in the preparation phase or Forum itself
and it is very troubling when such myths become part of Policy Briefs upon
which American understanding and attitudes towards Russia will be
formulated. It is distressing that no one in the US made any attempt to
look beyond the charges that were being made by self-interested Moscow
parties concerning the government's agenda for the Civic Forum. So, the
myth becomes reality, those self-interested parties benefit and the US
wastes time barking up the wrong tree in terms of potential threats to
grassroots democratic development in Russia.
The Civic Forum was Putin's first major foray into recognizing the Third
Sector, as it is called in Russia. I think he was genuinely curious about
what all the Western shouting was about and open to the possibility that
NGOs could, indeed, be useful. This was our chance to show him the Sector.
Only it didn't turn out that way. The press was overflowing with articles
expressing concern that Putin was going to try to gain control of NGOs. In
reality, it was the Moscow oligarch NGOs that exploited the event for their
benefit. I, along with 80 other delegates from Novosibirsk, flew to Moscow
with great hopes and proud to be representing our region. This hope held
fast despite the fact that the Moscow organizing committee and "working
group" had behaved as dictators during the Civic Forum preparation phase.
They first named someone to be in charge of an Okrug inter-regional
organizing committee. Since the person Moscow selected wasn't a recognized
leader here it was challenging, but compromises and progress were being
made. Then, some other organizing entity in Moscow started calling
organizations they knew in different cities and naming them heads of
organizing committees for that Oblast, Krai or Republic. Confusion
abounded, was the organizing entity supposed to be the Okrug or these
locally based committees? Eventually Moscow dictated that the Okrug
committee was defunct. A lot of time was wasted but it eventually got sorted
out on a local level and some excellent government/NGO partnership work was
done. Sadly, there was almost no opportunity for this innovative work
developing partnership with government on a local level to be heard at the
Civic Forum.
The opening session hadn't even begun when I became suspicious about what
was really going on. The Civic Forum newspaper only had articles by and
about Moscow activists. The bulk of the work of the conference would
concentrate on 21 topics that were broken down into more specific topics for
discussion groups on Day 1, followed by Round Tables on day two. The
culmination of this work was a "platform for negotiation" where
recommendations developed during the sessions were to be presented to
government representatives. On paper it was a wonderful plan for gathering
information from throughout Russia in a very limited time and a real chance
for these Russian activists to have dialogue with high- level government
officials and inform them about their needs as well as the successful
mechanisms for inter-sectoral cooperation in the regions. However, all
sessions were being conducted by Moscow activists. This would be
inappropriate under any circumstances but since most of the effective models
for civil society development and partnership have been generated by
organizations outside of Moscow it made no sense at all. Any hopes I had for
a legitimate conference disappeared when the Plenary Session speakers took
the stage. Nine of the 12 speakers were from Moscow, 1 was from Nijni
Novgorod and 2 were from St. Petersburg (one of these being Putin). Putin's
speech was fine and I think it was significant that he didn't just speak and
run. He remained on the podium through several speeches wherein Moscovites
congratulated themselves for the fight well fought leading to this historic
moment. Tales of heroic nights spent arguing to insure that Putin didn't
co-opt the process or something. This was bearable as long as Putin stayed.
I was fascinated watching him on the big screen. In Russia people pass up
notes to the presidium during conferences. Putin was reading his. I thought
this was impressive. (At the closing day session I noticed that Matvienko
reads AND sorts her notes and Kosyanov doesn't even look at the notes.)
Once Putin exited the hall there was nothing of interest to watch and I
rapidly became tired of being lectured at about democracy by a team of very
well paid Moscow freedom fighters. I wrote a note in English, I knew
everyone up there would be a fluent speaker, asking, "During your hours of
late night discussions did it ever occur to any of you that it compromised
the principles of democracy to have an all Russian NGO conference without
NGOs from all regions speaking and playing an equal role in organizing and
leading the event?." I went on to thank them because now I knew what it was
like to live in the Soviet Union when Moscow dictated everything (I moved to
Siberia in February 1992, 5 weeks after the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
The colleague sitting next to me was as bored as I was so we decided to play
a game and sent the note up to the presidium. The game was to guess when
the freedom fighter on the left was reading my note. After awhile my
Russian friend said "He is reading yours. You can tell because he is
reading slowly so it must be English." The freedom fighter was visibly
shaken. It was clear, it honestly hadn't occurred to the organizers how
awful this thing looked and felt. My friend and I cheered silently as he
got up and handed it to Ludmilla Mikailovna Alekceeva from the Helsinki
Group (introducing and sharing the stage with Putin was the one genuinely
moving moment). I found out that the note was taken seriously and the
organizing committee discussed it and made changes to the closing
presentations in response to it. We would discover then that ours was a
hollow victory that only resulted in making this dog and pony show look more
legitimate.
I selected "Local Self Government and Community" as the section I would
participate in. I was lucky to find it because the transportation was as
badly planned as everything else and no one had any idea where to go.
Thousands of people from out of town and they did not even provide subway
maps in the folders so we could figure out how to get there on our own.
Some people had buses, others didn't, a total mess. When I did find it, I
was handed a program for the "Discussion Group" that consisted of 14
speeches, all but 4 of them Moscovites. At least 2 of the out of towners
were partners with Moscow organizations. I sat through 6 of these, learned
absolutely nothing new and decided I should use my time more productively.
Before I left I confirmed with the section leader that tomorrow would,
indeed, be a Round Table with interaction between participants and a chance
to hear from people outside of Moscow.
I returned to the hotel thinking I would beat the crowd for my travel
reimbursement only to discover that finding your section was a walk in the
park compared to getting your money back. Dozens of people were already
crowding the hall waiting and being screamed at by harried bookkeepers
saying that it was irrelevant what hours were posted on the door, "step back
or you will never get in". "VIPs" were located at the Hotel Ukraine so I
have no idea what was going on there. Frankly, I was surprised that there
should be such a thing as "VIPs" at the Civic Forum. Weren't all these
civic leaders VIPs? What kind of grassroots democracy is this? Anyway, we,
the common people, were staying at the Hotel Rossiya. Getting their money
back was a critical issue for many of my colleagues who had spent every
ruble they had (in some cases borrowed) to get to Moscow and had, literally,
no money in their pockets. My roommate finally got her money at midnight
after waiting for 6 hours. She is young and healthy, others less strong
were truly suffering. Some came close to passing out standing for hours in a
narrow, non-ventilated hallway stuffed with hundreds of anxious people. The
bookkeepers tried to close it down before my roommate got reimbursed but a
real civics action was conducted that resulted in finally locating some
representative of the organizing committee. Once they understood the
seriousness of the situation they forced the bookkeepers to keep working.
Clearly, the organizing committee and work group were so busy with their
internal political intrigues they paid no attention to the most basic
organizational aspects of conducting such an event. Thus, the needs,
interests, dignity, health and humanity of those who traveled a long way to
be there were totally ignored. This was not interesting to these freedom
fighters.
De-briefing with my friends who visited other sections that night at the
hotel the story was pretty much the same. Meaning lots of being talked at by
Moscovites who dictated the whole process, only in some sections the agenda
of the Moscovite was much more direct. They would manipulate the discussion
so it revolved around something they wanted put forward at the negotiation
platform such as the vital importance of creating an all-Russian NGO
research center or cadre center that would, of course, be run by none other
than the section leader. One section leader wouldn't let anyone speak
except for her partners from the regions whom she praised mightily after
every comment they made "isn't it amazing what they are doing?" etc. Now I
did not talk to someone from all 21 sections so there may be exceptions but
personally I heard of only 2 sections that were doing useful, honest,
interactive work.
Day Two, I arrived at the "Round Table". This should have been easy but
they changed the venue, something I had to figure out on my own since there
was no announcement board at the Hotel. Entering the hall for the "Round
Table" I was handed a program that listed 9 speeches, 7 of the speakers
from Moscow, one from St. Petersburg and one from Perm (where one of the
Moscow section organizers has been conducting training). Even more
astounding they included in the program a copy of the "results" of the
"Round Table" in the form of a resolution. I decided it was time to make
waves and tried to convince the organizers to allow us to conduct a
facilitated discussion so that all suggestions for the negotiation could be
heard. No, they didn't want to do that. Instead, anyone who wanted to
could make a 3 minute presentation. I gave up after about 30 of these.
Even though they were more interesting, varied and had more useful
experience than anything I heard from the Moscovites, it was clear we were
just stage scenery. No, worse than that, we were stage props being used to
promote the agenda of Moscow organizations. I gave up all hope when the
people who would be representing us at the government/NGO negotiation (they
had been named by the section leaders) exited the room to prepare. In fact
their exit came immediately after the third presentation made by a Moscow
community development expert who was among the group of negotiators. This
guy had already proven himself to be utterly uninterested in anything but
his own promotion when earlier in the day he placed a box of his latest
publication in front of the stage during a presentation. A mad dash for
books ensued and the speaker soldiered on but was totally ignored. Why this
expert didn't push the books during his presentation I can't imagine. His
final speech was an impassioned plea about schools as the focus for
community development and how there were no programs to support this. By
chance I was the next speaker and addressed him directly, "I have good news
for you, in fact there is a program and it has been operating for 6 years
and is recommended by the Ministry of Education". The expert was so busy
frantically pulling the poster-board of ideas off its' hinges so he could
exit and prepare for the negotiation that he didn't hear a word I said.
Needless to say my suggestion didn't get on any list but at the end of my 3
minutes quite a few people asked for more information, including some from
Moscow. That was it for me, I gave up on this "Round Table" and left more
disgusted than I have ever been during 10 years of supporting democracy in
Russia.
Up until the closing session the final tally was 27 of the 33 planned
speakers I was supposed to listen to were from Moscow. A missed opportunity
for most of the NGOs attending who were hoping to get some useful
information about social technologies and mechanisms to bring home since a
very small percentage of these have come from Moscow. It would have also
helped these NGO oligarchs to get some idea about what is actually going on
in civil society/grassroots democratic development in Russia. The regional
numbers improved at the closing session as I understand it was the result of
my note. Yes, only a couple of organizing committee members from Moscow
spoke and it was impressive and moving to see NGO representatives from all
over Russia on the podium. For me the highlight was the journalist Pasko.
Unfortunately, it turns out that the representatives on stage for many of
the sections were not democratically elected representatives but named by
the Moscow section leaders. I know of at least one case where section
participants were shocked to see the person they elected replaced by the
regional partner of the Moscow leader.
To sum it all up in one word, "sham". We were used by the Moscow oligarch
NGOs so the programs they wanted to promote for government funding would
have the force of the voice of NGOs from all of Russia. Oligarchs aren't
any more useful in the Third Sector than they proved to be in the business
sector. Of course there are some great and honorable organizations in
Moscow and they were as disgusted as I was. That doesn't mean that all was
lost. Everyone enjoyed the chance to see their colleagues from throughout
Russia and to meet new people. Most importantly, on a local level, the
overall concept of the Civic Forum proved to be solid. In a number of
Siberian regions the Civic Forum has had a measurable impact strengthening
the government/NGO partnership we have been fostering since 1995. I
sincerely hope this potentially useful concept is given a fair chance to
develop. All this would take is a legitimately elected all-Russian
organizing committee. I have heard that the government continues to pursue
some of the ideas from the Forum. I have not heard of any regional leaders
being invited to participate in these discussions so I can imagine who will
benefit most from these activities if they are implemented.
Shortly after the Forum I was asked by a representative of a respected
Moscow human rights organization, that was not involved in the Forum, to
write about my experiences. After a great deal of thought I said no. I
felt it would be counter-productive at this stage of development to show our
sectors dirty laundry in public. It is the responsibility of NGO leaders in
the region to fight our own battles and all we ask is a level playing field.
That becomes impossible when the US government and private donors are so
badly informed and that is why I decided to respond to the Gaddy/Hill Policy
Brief. Public Policy should not be founded on myth but fact. The fact is
that during my 10 years of working on grassroots democratic reform in
Siberia that space we call civil society has not constricted an iota. There
is NO evidence of a government plot to control the Third Sector in Russia.
Yes, there are instances on a local level where power is being abused but
such incidences do not constitute a high level government plot. The
government of Kazakhstan charging $100 now for an NGO to register is a
mechanism to stifle the Third Sector. The refusal of the government in
Azerbaijian to register one NGO (they don't turn them down, they just say
they are still considering the application) in a year is a government move
to control the Third Sector. Nothing like that is happening in Russia. On a
local level the partnership relationship that has evolved between NGOs and
government has brought fundamental changes in the way things are done by
opening up the process. I wish there had been a chance for Putin and other
Russian government officials to hear about some of this during the Civic
Forum. I believe they would be genuinely interested. More disturbing is
what may happen if their image of the Third Sector remains limited to these
self-promoting, donor oriented Moscow organizations, or the potential waste
of millions of rubles finally allocated by the government to support the
non-profit sector if it is co-opted by these organizations.
Are things perfect? No, of course not. That is why neither time or money
should be wasted on non-issues when there are real needs to be addressed
such as mechanisms that make it possible for organizations in villages far
from the regional centers to register, the appearance of new and well funded
government sponsored organizations, tax laws, increasing government money to
NGOs on a competitive basis, evaluating social programs etc. The same is
true for issues like freedom of the press. The biggest problem isn't a
government plot to stifle the national press but the ability for local
government to do so and, even more troubling because it is a fact of life in
every Russian city, the economics of media that encourage journalism for
sale. Human rights, no one is going to defend the human rights abuses in
Chechenya, but this isn't the most important human rights issue for most
Russians. Equal access to higher education is one of them because if your
son doesn't get into an institute or university, or you don't have money to
buy a "white ticket", he is going into the Army and if you live in a village
the chances of your son being able to get a higher education now is close to
zero. American government and private donor money has had a profoundly
positive impact on the development of the Third Sector and civil society in
the regions. The sad thing is most Americans don't seem to know much
about this because it takes place outside of Moscow and doesn't make it to
the national press. I would encourage all those who want to know about
democratic development in Russia to look beyond Moscow and don't believe
everything you read in the newspapers, check it out yourself.
********
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