Johnson's Russia List
#6247
16 May 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Los Angeles Times: John Daniszewki, Pro-West Putin Snubs His Public.
Russia: Despite a Cold War chill at home, the president is banking on his
efforts to secure Moscow's standing as a global leader.
2. AP: Bush to Propose Project With Russia. (re missile defense)
3. The Guardian (UK) editorial: The Russian evolution. Putin plays a
weak hand skillfully.
4. RIA Novosti: RUSSIA-USA: NEW START FOR 10 YEARS.
5. Boston Globe: David Filipov and Bryan Bender, Analysts weigh
Russia-NATO deal. Disputes seen putting partnership at risk.
6. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review.
7. Dow Jones: Russia Failing In Fight Against Neo-Nazis -Top Prosecutor.
8. Izvestia: MICHAEL MCFAUL: THE IDEA OF FRIENDSHIP WITH PUTIN BELONGS
TO BUSH. Interview with Michael McFaul, American specialist on Russia.
9. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: COMMENTS ON THE RUSSIAN-NATO MEETING IN REYKJAVIK.
Sergei Karaganov discusses the latest negotiations with NATO.
10. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: EXPERT OPINION: A BREAKTHROUGH PUT INTO
QUESTION. NG requested three renowned experts to comment on the situation
with the strategic treaties.
11. Ezhenedelny Zhurnal: Alexander Golts, ECHO OF THE ONGOING WAR.
Tragedy on May 9 is the mistake of the FSB?
12. Argumenty i Fakty: RUSSIA: GIANT OR MIDGET?
13. New York Times: Sabrina Tavernise, Gathering News in the New Russia
Can Be Fatal.
14. Moscow Times: Anna Raff, U.S. Official Pushes for Soviet Debt
Write-Off. (Perle)
15. Reuters: US plays down Iran problem ahead of Russia summit.]
*******
#1
Los Angeles Times
May 16, 2002
Pro-West Putin Snubs His Public
Russia: Despite a Cold War chill at home, the president is banking on his
efforts to secure Moscow's standing as a global leader.
By JOHN DANISZEWSKI, TIMES STAFF WRITER
MOSCOW -- Ordinary Russians and much of the country's top military and
political echelon regard the United States as an arrogant, aggressive power
and remain deeply suspicious of NATO, an outlook shaped during the Cold War
and little changed since, many analysts here say.
Yet President Vladimir V. Putin this week took two bold strokes designed to
move his nation closer to the West. As he awaits the arrival of President
Bush next week for a summit, Putin has agreed to a tighter relationship
with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to a two-thirds reduction
in the two nations' offensive nuclear warheads.
What makes Putin pursue an aggressively pro-Western policy at a time when
most of his people do not want anything of the kind? Political experts here
say Putin is banking on the general disinterest toward the outside world
now, as most Russians' priorities are fixed instead on domestic questions
and their own pocketbooks. Putin hopes that his friendly overtures to the
West will lead to concrete financial and strategic benefits that will
rebuild Russia in the long run and firmly secure its place among the
world's most powerful and respected states.
"His ratings among the Russians do not really depend that much on his
foreign policies," observed Dmitri V. Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center
think tank. "His popularity depends more on the skill of implementing
economic reforms and making people's lives better."
It is true that some political opponents are trying to capitalize on
Putin's alleged softness toward the West.
"An unprecedented surrender of Russia's national interests," Communist
Party chief Gennady A. Zyuganov thundered Wednesday at a news conference
here, referring to the arms control agreement.
Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov, anticipating the criticism, went out of
his way to argue that Russia had not sacrificed its national interests in
the accord, which is to be signed when Bush comes to Moscow. Ivanov called
the pact "pragmatic and realistic."
But such attacks on Putin from the left, represented by the Communists, or
from the right, including the many nationalistic-minded members of
parliament, are not likely to reach a critical level for the popular
president any time soon, said Ivan Safranchuk of Moscow's Center for
Defense Information.
"I think Putin can parry these attacks quite easily," Safranchuk said, "in
part by adopting some of the nationalists' own language."
According to Safranchuk, Putin's strategy will be to try not to draw too
much attention domestically to his pro-Western steps. As long as the
president moves quietly, the political cost of his actions will be minimal.
And the gains for Russia's standing in the world from Putin's policies
could be immense.
"Russia has to prove to the international community why Russia is still
important," Safranchuk said. "Russia has to state why Russia is Russia, and
not merely Cote d'Ivoire with weapons."
By drawing the U.S. into arms treaties and by proving that Russia can
influence U.S. policies, he said, Moscow proves its weight in the world.
Developing countries will get the following message about Russia: "If you
have problems, call our toll-free international number," Safranchuk said.
Even more important, he said, is the message sent out to U.S. allies in
Europe and elsewhere: "Look, we are now friends with the United States.
That is why you have all rights to cooperate with us."
So for Putin, Safranchuk concluded, closer "Russian-U.S. relations are not
the goal but the tool. It is an instrument of access to U.S. allies," with
whom Russia hopes to wield influence and increase commerce.
Opposition From Elites
But Alexei G. Arbatov, a deputy from the liberal faction Yabloko in the
Duma, or lower house of parliament, is not so sure that Putin will be able
to maintain his pro-Western stance in the face of opposition from political
elites.
Putin might pay a price in popularity for going so directly against the
mood of anti-Western opinion, Arbatov said.
"Foreign policy is a subject of interest to a minority of the people and
influenced by a minority," Arbatov said. "Putin's policies since Sept. 11
have created greater mistrust and counterpressure for change among this
minority."
So far, Arbatov said, there is little reason to believe that the U.S. is
going to reciprocate for Russia's moves toward the West. In the agreement
this week to set up the new joint Russia-NATO council, for instance, it is
still uncertain what questions will be referred to this body and whether it
will just be a "talking shop" while important decisions are made elsewhere.
In the sphere of arms control, there is little clarity on how quickly the
United States will pull warheads out of service and how many will be
destroyed rather than simply stored. And Russian elites are still irked
about the U.S. decision to pull out of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile
Treaty and about plans to expand NATO this year by asking the former Soviet
Baltic states to join.
Those Russians interested in foreign affairs "believe the West is not
responding accordingly to all of Russia's efforts to cooperate," Arbatov said.
Suspicions of the West
The conclusion that Russians remain suspicious of the West was partly borne
out Wednesday in a report by the Public Opinion Foundation, which surveyed
1,500 respondents from 100 locations nationwide about attitudes toward
NATO. The poll found that 52% of respondents considered the alliance still
a security threat to Russia, while only 24% did not.
But Trenin is among analysts who believe that Putin's position is so
unassailable that he can weather any anti-Western backlash. "Since there is
no real opposition to President Putin in Russia today," he said, "it is
very unlikely that this criticism will mean anything."
Alexei V. Kuznetsov of The Times' Moscow Bureau contributed to this report.
*******
#2
Bush to Propose Project With Russia
May 16, 2002
By BARRY SCHWEID
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush will propose to Russian President Vladimir
Putin next week that the two countries cooperate in joint projects to
defend against missile attack, a U.S. official says.
Bush will offer to share American technology with Russia, a move first
proposed by President Reagan two decades ago, a senior U.S. official said
Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Bush's intention is to enshrine anti-missile cooperation in a document of
strategic cooperation that will be issued when he meets Putin in Moscow
along with formal notification of a treaty to slash U.S. and Russian
strategic nuclear weapons arsenals.
Putin had opposed the U.S. missile defense program as potentially
restarting an arms race in an effort to overcome a shield, but Bush brushed
aside Russia's concerns and next month the United States will officially
abandon a 1972 treaty with Moscow that prohibits national missile defenses.
Cooperation between the two countries is on the upswing.
On Wednesday, the Bush administration welcomed closer cooperation between
Russia and NATO, but remained noncommittal on whether Moscow eventually
could join the military alliance.
Some former allies of Moscow are in, while others are anxious to be added.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, after two days of meetings with NATO
ministers in Reykjavik, Iceland, pointed to progress: an arms-control
breakthrough with Russia, expanded NATO-Russia partnership and tightened
U.N. military sanctions against Iraq that won approval with Moscow's help.
Powell said he also raised concerns with Russian Foreign Minister Igor
Ivanov at the NATO meeting about Moscow's suspected complicity in assisting
Iran's weapons buildup, including technology for nuclear devices.
The Russians do not deny selling items to Iran but ``they don't believe
they are selling them anything that individually or together should cause
us to have the kind of concern that we do,'' Powell told reporters en route
to Washington.
Powell also said he had received assurances from Ukrainian authorities that
President Leonid Kuchma was not involved in the transfer or planned
transfer of military equipment to Iraq.
Powell said the new NATO-Russia Council, negotiated after Putin's support
for the West in countering terrorism, is leading to a new partnership''
after the end of the Cold War.
The deal falls short of full NATO membership for Russia but offers a forum
for the 19-member alliance to develop ways to cooperate on terrorism and
other issues.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer praised the agreement but said the Bush
administration was not signaling that Moscow would join NATO.
``Over time, other assessments will be made,'' Fleischer said. ``That's
going to depend on cooperation. It's going to depend on events. And this is
a garden that will be watered and now will grow.''
Fleischer said NATO took a major step toward ``integrating Russia with the
European-Atlantic community of nations.''
Fleischer said the move was in line with Bush's efforts to improve
relations with Russia.
******
#3
The Guardian (UK)
May 16, 2002
Editorial
The Russian evolution
Putin plays a weak hand skillfully
Claims that the latest Nato agreement with Russia marks the funeral of the
cold war are otiose. In a military sense at least, the curtain came down on
that confrontation when the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact ceased to be. The
intervening decade has instead seen repeated attempts to rearrange the
strategic furniture and repeated failures by leaders in Russia and the west
to fashion a fully functional political and economic relationship. Once the
war was over, it was bound to take time; but far too much time was wasted.
Two events - Vladimir Putin's presidency and September 11 - have
concentrated minds in a way any number of well-intentioned joint
declarations could not. In Mr Putin, the US and its Nato allies have found
a proud pragmatist keen to maintain Russia's international role but strong
enough to accept its limitations. To his credit, Tony Blair was among the
first to recognise the little known Mr Putin as a potential partner.
September 11, in turn, has convinced a Bush administration initially
inclined to ignore Russia that a good working relationship with Moscow can
serve its broader interests, particularly its "war on terror". One fruit of
this evolution is this week's agreement on Russia's partial integration
into Nato. Another was the largely symbolic deal to slash each country's
nuclear warhead stockpiles. Yet another, still in the pipeline, is the US
co-opting of Russia into its ballistic missile defence plans. If next
week's St Petersburg summit brings, as expected, agreement on a high-level,
bilateral Star Wars "consultative commission", George Bush will doubtless
claim an impressive strategic hat-trick - and European opponents of NMD
will be left high and dry.
Yet to conclude from this that US domination of its old adversary is all
but complete would be to mistake the headlines for the story beneath; for
the strategic furniture is still shifting. The Nato agreement gives Mr
Putin an equal say in much of alliance decision making. In fact, Russia's
attitude on any given issue will typically carry more weight than that of
Greece or Iceland. The Reykjavik pact clears the way for Nato expansion
from the Baltic republics to Ukraine, even ultimately into the Caucasus and
central Asia. But with each new member, Nato becomes less of a military
alliance, more of a crossbred political animal. Far from opposing Nato's
growth, as Russian nationalists urge, perhaps Mr Putin calculates that a
larger, disparate alliance will be a weaker, less threatening one. And with
officials predicting a wider, possibly global remit for Nato, perhaps Mr
Putin, now operating on the inside, sees opportunities to influence the
western policy debate on, say, Iraq or Palestine or Pakistan.
Beyond Nato, new Russian pledges of cooperation in the "war on terror" and
in other areas of keen US concern, such as weapons proliferation, bring
additional advantages. Mr Putin seeks to revive Russia's economic fortunes;
WTO membership and greater access to western markets, especially for
Russian oil and gas, is now surely drawing closer. Mr Putin has long sought
an end to western government criticism of his army's actions in Chechnya;
as a feeble Reykjavik communiqué made clear, he has more or less got it.
Knowing Mr Bush's commitment to Star Wars, he angles for what he can get in
return for acquiescence. Like his tsarist predecessors, Mr Putin wants
acceptance of Russia as both a European and a great power. Playing a weak
hand skillfully, he moves closer to his goals. Mr Bush may think he is
winning; but the game is deeper than he knows.
*******
#4
RUSSIA-USA: NEW START FOR 10 YEARS
MOSCOW, May 15. /RIA Novosti/ - A new START, expected for signing as US
President George W. Bush visits Moscow within the month, will last into
December 31, 2012, with opportunities to be prolonged or replaced by another
understanding, say Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs functionaries.
The treaty offers dynamic prospects as the signatories are expected to carry
on confidence-building efforts and enhance transparency of strategic
offensive arsenal reduction, stressed our informants. The treaty envisages,
in particular, a bilateral commission to be established for blueprinting new
transparency measures.
The treaty will come up as a first disarmament instrument Russia is making
with the Bush Administration, added RIA Novosti interviewees.
The treaty will include a clause on START I retaining force into December 5,
2009, with prolongation prospects, to determine verification in compliance
with the upcoming document.
The latter's preamble will highlight an updated content of Russo-US contacts.
The treaty will fix a mutual security principle--a point which previously
came against US objections. The treaty will refer to a joint statement of the
Russian and US presidents of November 13, 2001, on both countries' dedication
to the cause of drastic strategic offensive arsenal reduction.
Anti-missile defence came as a ticklish issue, but the Parties eventually
came to terms to include it in the treaty with a clause on shared loyalty to
a joint statement which the Russian and US presidents made after summitry of
July 22, 2001, in Genoa, with a clear reference to the interconnection of
offensive and strategic arsenals.
The upcoming treaty, the way it is now, concerns strategic nuclear warhead
reduction, though the USA was previously coming out for another wording.
The reduction ceiling was appointed at 1,700-2,200 heads, as the USA wished,
while the Russian President announced his country's readiness to cut its
arsenals to 1,500 as he was making a programme statement of November 13,
2000. A 500 head scissors is left for psychological comfort lest the Parties
feel harassed in case either has two or three warheads more than the other,
explained our interviewees.
******
#5
Boston Globe
May 16, 2002
Analysts weigh Russia-NATO deal
Disputes seen putting partnership at risk
By David Filipov and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON - Despite a historic agreement giving Russia an active voice in
NATO, the new partnership could be undermined by continuing disputes over
NATO expansion and Washington's penchant for acting unilaterally, according
to US and Russian officials and analysts.
The alliance on Tuesday agreed to make Russia an equal partner in
discussions about terrorism, weapons proliferation, military cooperation,
and civilian crisis response, while reserving the right for NATO to act
over Russian objections. Alliance officials described the creation of the
NATO-Russia Council as a historic milestone marking the end of the Cold War
confrontation between the two former enemies.
Many Russians still view the alliance, conceived at the start of the Cold
War to check Soviet expansion, as a threat to its security, and it remains
unclear whether NATO and Russia will be able to strike an effective
partnership.
For example, half of the respondents in a poll of 1,500 Russians published
in the daily newspaper Izvestia yesterday said they still consider the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization an aggressive military alliance. Even
among supporters of President Vladimir Putin, who has pursued a pro-Western
foreign policy since Sept. 11, nearly half said they believed NATO's real
aim is to achieve global supremacy. Only 25 percent said they believed NATO
and Russia had common security goals.
The poll reflected Russia's continued opposition to NATO plans to extend
membership to 10 Eastern European candidates, including the former Soviet
republics in the Baltics, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. That sentiment
was repeated yesterday.
''We continue to believe that the mechanical expansion is a legacy of the
past,'' Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, was quoted as saying by
Lenta.ru, a Russian news Web site. ''It will not facilitate the improvement
of the security of these countries or NATO itself.''
''I don't think anybody believes the Russians will just roll over for
enlargement,'' said retired Army General Wesley Clark, the former NATO
military chief who commanded alliance forces in Kosovo, the only offensive
operation in the alliance's 52-year history. He added that while Putin
wants to bring Russia closer to Europe, ''There's always been resistance in
Russia to aligning with the West.''
Sergei Krushchev, a professor of Russian studies at Brown University and
the son of former Soviet premier Nikita Krushchev, said: ''I don't think
this agreement is the beginning of the end of all this post-Cold War
process. It's just one more station.''
Analysts said that Washington's increasing willingness to act without NATO
approval, including most recently during the Afghan war, had watered down
the meaning of Russia's new ties with the alliance. Most observers noted
that the list of subjects NATO was willing to debate with Russia's
participation had narrowed substantially to two - the fight against
terrorism and regional conflicts.
''In reality, Russia - which had great hopes for this summit - was somewhat
disappointed with the outcome,'' Leonid Gankin wrote yesterday in the
Kommersant daily newspaper. ''The Americans have realized that they can get
by without NATO at crucial moments, without its political or military
support. So Washington decided that Russia's presence in NATO would do no
harm.''
That sentiment was echoed by Krushchev. ''Before, NATO was a military
alliance where the United States had a leading role,'' he said. ''I don't
know how much the United States is interested in NATO anymore. It might be
easier to solve problems without NATO.''
Americans, too, have begun to question the importance of the alliance.
Clark said that ''the alliance isn't doing much for us anyway,'' noting
that it has not played a central role in the US-led war on terrorism.
Retired Army General George Joulwan, another former NATO commander, said
the NATO-Russia council ''is a positive step, but only if we use it.''
As the meeting of NATO foreign ministers wrapped up yesterday in Reykjavik,
Iceland, Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed NATO's continued
importance. ''NATO has a bright military future,'' he said. ''The alliance
is as relevant as it has been in the past.''
Even if the United States decides to play a more active role in the
alliance, the impact of the NATO-Russia Council still could be negligible,
the analysts said.
With Russia intent on remaining a world power, ''I don't think there will
be enough room in NATO,'' Krushchev said. ''There can't be two leading
forces, both the US and Russia.''
''NATO can't surrender a veto to a non-member state,'' said Clark, adding
that if Russia attempts to exert too much influence in alliance
deliberations the United States might be encouraged ''to bypass NATO to
achieve American security.''
******
#6
ORT Review
www.ortv.ru
Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba7@bu.edu)
Research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and
Policy at Boston University
HEADLINES,
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
- The numbers of weddings and divorces in the Russian Federation may even
out in the near future.
- A forest fire in the Far East has engulfed over 30,000 hectares. 80
separate starting points have been registered in the Khabarovsk Krai and a
state of emergency has been introduced in five regions. Forest fires are
also raging in the Jewish Autonomous Region, Amur Oblast, the Sakhalin and
Primorsky Krai.
- In the Irkutsk Oblast, 60 houses burnt down in a fire that broke out
this evening. No casualties have been reported.
- The International Philanthropist Award ceremony was held in Moscow.
This is the only award in the world for artists -- both children and
adults -- with physical handicaps. Mansur Musaev, a young Chechen dancer
who can only see out of one eye, received an award for "maintaining the
tradition of national art."
- Security Council Chairman Vladimir Rushailo met with the leaders of
defense enterprises in the Nizhegorod Oblast to discuss the realization of
goals set for the national military-industrial complex by Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
- A hotline for questions about the draft has become operational at the
Defense Ministry.
- Emergency Ministers from the eleven Black Sea Economic Union nations met
in Sochi to discuss assistance to victims of national disasters.
- Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov spoke on the national economic situation
at todays State Duma session -- the first session after the two-week May
holiday.
- The trial of Colonel General Yuri Budanov continues in
Rostov-on-the-Don. Medical experts explain that Budanovs psychological
problems set in a few months before he committed the crime.
- Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov gave his annual address to the
Federation Council. He named the links between criminal elements and the
government as one of the biggest problems facing the Russian Federation.
- Aleksandr Rodnyanskiy, the new general director of Ukraines STS
television station gave a press conference today. He noted that
television programming will be aimed to the Russian model of live
broadcasting.
- The Russian government will work towards increasing the tempos of
economic growth.
- A passport boom has overtaken Russia.
- A new terrorist act took place in Chechnya.
- The expedition into the Barents see will be delayed by 24 hours.
- An agreement on the creation of the political twenty nations
organization was reached between Russia and NATO.
- A major scandal involving Anna Kournikova has broken out.
- An operation to rescue hostages in the Moscow suburb of Balashikha has
been concluded successfully.
- The last group of military specialists has returned to Russia from the
Cahm Rahn Bay base in Vietnam.
******
#7
Russia Failing In Fight Against Neo-Nazis -Top Prosecutor
May 16, 2002
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
MOSCOW (AP)--Russia's top prosecutor has ordered stronger action against
neo-Nazis and other extremist groups and blamed police for failing to stem
their activities, the Prosecutor General's office said Thursday.
"Law enforcement agencies, government bodies and municipal structures have
failed to take timely action to prevent the activities of organizations and
individuals spreading the ideas of social, racial, ethnic and religious
hatred," Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov said in an order to local
prosecutors, excerpts of which were released by his office Thursday.
Russia's small but virulent ultranationalist minority has turned
increasingly violent in recent months. Last month, Russian skinheads
declared a "war against foreigners" and issued threats to foreign embassies
in Moscow, including that of the U.S., and to minority groups throughout
Russia around the April 20 anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth.
In one recent attack, an Afghan interpreter who worked for Russia's main
police agency was brutally slain by skinheads last month. The U.N. refugee
agency has reported increased numbers of racist attacks in Russia and
appealed for police action.
President Vladimir Putin strongly criticized the authorities for failing to
avert the rise of extremism in Russia in his state of the nation address
last month and then submitted a bill to parliament which called for tougher
measures against extremism.
******
#8
Izvestia
May 16, 2002
MICHAEL MCFAUL: THE IDEA OF FRIENDSHIP WITH PUTIN BELONGS TO BUSH
Interview with Michael McFaul, American specialist on Russia
Author: Georgy Stepanov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
A SPECIALIST ON CONTEMPORARY RUSSIA SPEAKS ABOUT HOW RELATIONS
BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES ARE DEVELOPING, AND WHAT WE CAN
EXPECT FROM THE SUMMIT NEXT WEEK. ISSUES COVERED INCLUDE THE MIDEAST
CRISIS AND THE ONGOING WAR IN CHECHNYA.
Michael McFaul is one of the most well-known specialists on
Russia in the United States. Some even regard him as the main
ideologue and consultant to the Bush administration on Russian policy.
He was invited to the White House solely to help the president prepare
for the first meetings with Vladimir Putin. What can we expect from
next week's Russian-American summit? Michael McFaul spoke to us about
this at Stanford University.
Question: There are many hawks in the Bush administration, who do
not welcome close contacts with Russia. They are Vice President
Richard Cheney, head of the Pentagon Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy
Paul Wolfowitz. Can they interfere with success of the summit?
McFaul: This is hardly likely to happen. After the events of
September 11, these people are alarmed not at Russia or China, but at
different problems. This allows such people as Colin Powell and
Condoleeza Rice to dominate in the foreign policies. As far as
President Bush is concerned, he is not just a passive on-looker as it
may seem. The idea of closer contacts with Putin belongs to him. Bush
does not have the experience of the Cold War, at that time he was not
in politics yet. He dealt with other things, such as baseball, and I
believe that he has never met a Soviet leader. In contrast to those
fighting against the USSR, Bush is sure that Russia is a part of
Europe. He has no stereotypes in regard to Putin. It does not matter
to him that Putin used to work with the KGB.
Question: Does it matter to you?
McFaul: Yes, it does. I have certain fears in this connection. I
fully support all what Putin is doing in economy. His foreign
policies, even if they do not correspond with the United States's
interests, prove that he is a very competent person. I have questions
to your leader concerning democracy. I know civil servants of the
Kremlin and of the Russian government. They believe that dictatorship
can secure economic growth. But this can be so only in agrarian
countries, willing to become industrial ones. And now Russia has post-
industrial economy. I am afraid that Putin does not realize this.
Question: Do you hint at the stories about NTV, Berezovsky?
McFaul: I speak in general. I think that Putin does not
understand that criticizing power can help this power. How do we fight
corruption in the United States? There are two forces - independent
media and powerful opposition party.
Question: What are the priorities of the administration in your
relations with Russia?
McFaul: After September 11 the priorities have essentially
changed. Some time ago I thought that there was nothing more important
for Bush and Condoleeza Rice than contacts with Moscow. After the
terrorist acts they stopped paying due attention to Russia. In any
case, the United States aspire to secure membership of your country in
the western community - this is their prior task now. It means
cooperation in fighting terrorism and the planned admission of Russia
into the WTO. The administration does not Bush and Putin to talk only
on the standard set of topics during their Moscow meeting - nuclear
arms, stability in Europe, regional conflicts and suchlike.
Question: Will the summit become a significant stage in the
development of the Russian-American relations?
McFaul: I think so. Firstly, the administrated wants to conclude
an agreement on reducing strategic offensive arms and believes to make
Putin happy with this. By the way, earlier Bush was not ready to sign
it. Secondly, the United States is likely to cancel the Jackson-Vanik
amendment about Russia. Thirdly, the administration is interested in
closer contacts of Moscow with NATO. This will be discussed at the
summit. And the question of Iraq, too.
Question: Many believe that the military operation of the United
States in Iraq will take place at the end of the year. Is it so?
McFaul: At least, we wish to do so. A month ago I was sure that
the United States would strike at Saddam Hussein, at the end of the
year. But while the Middle East is at war, while the countries do not
reach an agreement, the White House will not start the operation.
Question: At the new stage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the
White House acted in a different way than Israel had expected.
Terrorists did not offer any choice to Israel with their explosions in
cafes, markets and buses.
McFaul: Bush announced, quite unexpectedly for me, that there
should be a state named Palestine. This is the cornerstone of the
problem, the cause for the disagreement between many Israeli
politicians, who refuse this idea point-blank. Of course, Bush
supports Israel as a country counteracting terrorism. This is our main
ally in the Middle East.
Question: Why did not the United States change its critical
attitude toward Moscow's actions in Chechnya after September 11? This
has been proved that Al-Qaeda financed, armed and instructed Chechen
guerillas.
McFaul: Many Americans believe that the previous position should
be changed. I am not one of them. "We should use the experience of
Russians in Chechnya", said one congressman. But I would like to draw
a historical example. If I am not mistaken, in 1985 Nelson Mandela was
mentioned in documents of the State Department of the United States as
a communist terrorist. He supported units destroying white farmers in
South Africa. Yet the sole purpose of Mandela was independence. The
situation in Chehcnya is very similar: there are extremists, who need
an Islamite order who think about destroying Russia, the United
States. And there are young people, who just want to be independent
from Russia. They fight together like it was in Angola, Zimbabwe, SAR,
Vietnam...
Question: And what do you suggest?
McFaul: I advise Chechens to stop taking money from Islamites, to
declare that you are not with them, with terrorists. Maskhadov is too
weak for such declarations. But I am sure that the political process,
not the military one, will prevail in Chechnya. All wars end in
agreements. It is better to do it now than in twenty years.
Question: You do not support Russian military actions in
Chechnya, do you?
McFaul: I supported the military response of Russia to Basaev's
sortie to Dagestan in 1999. We would have done the same if some
revolutionary from Mexico wanted to liberate Texas from the United
States. Of course, Russia should protect itself. Yet the continuation
of this war and the present tactics of military operations will not
secure the major task - they will not protect the country. Now all
extremists of the Arabian world want to fight in Chechnya. Is it in
russia's interests?
Question: Do you think that negotiations with Maskhadov is the
only way out?
McFaul: I cannot think of any other way out.
Question: Who is it more advantageous to keep contact with -
Moscow or Beijing?
McFaul: I will answer in a different way: the contact with
Beijing is more complicated. The progress with the relations with
Russia is obvious. And it is not clear yet what we will have with
China. We have a good trade with it but let us remember: the USSR
traded with the west before the WW II very well. I am sure that the
threat to the world in the 21st century will come from China.
Question: Does Russia pose a threat to the United States?
McFaul: Americans do not think so any more. And I am worried
about the destiny of democracy in Russia. The conservative military-
industrial complex is still influential in Russia. It is it, not Putin
that needs to export nuclear technologies to Iran. Look, each
trustworthy ally of the United States is a democratic country, each
enemy is a dictatorship. Now Russia is much closer to the democratic
standards than a decade ago. But it has not come to them closely
enough.
Question: The development of the Russian-American relations is
obvious. Now we have more agreements than disagreements.
McFaul: That is why I am optimistic. We have got the basis, we
just have to use it correctly. The relations between Putin and Bush
are also good. They are just as close as those between Yeltsin and
Clinton, and even more stable. Both the presidents are pragmatic, in
contrast to their predecessors. That is why they have found a common
language.
(Translated by Daria Brunova)
*******
#9
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
May 16, 2002
COMMENTS ON THE RUSSIAN-NATO MEETING IN REYKJAVIK
Sergei Karaganov discusses the latest negotiations with NATO
Author: not indicated
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
AN INTERVIEW WITH SERGEI KARAGANOV, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOREIGN AND
DEFENSE POLICY COUNCIL. HE BELIEVES THE NEW AGREEMENT WITH NATO - ON
THE SO-CALLED "TWENTY" - DOES NOT SOLVE ANY OF THE RUSSIA'S SECURITY
PROBLEMS. IT IS JUST A SMALL STEP IN THE NECESSARY DIRECTION.
Question: How would you evaluate the meeting in Reykjavik?
Sergei Karaganov: Nothing really momentous has taken place, in my
view. At their meeting in Reykjavik the ministers did what they had
planned to do and signed the agreements we all knew about. It is their
implementation that counts now. The agreement itself - on the so-
called "Twenty" - does not solve any of the Russia's security
problems. It is just a small step in the necessary direction.
Question: Shall we expect any further rapprochement with NATO in
future?
Sergei Karaganov: If we recall the colossal bureaucratic inertia,
we will see that anything like that on a large scale is actually
unlikely. NATO is a thoroughly conservative organization, and it is
hard to expect anything serious from it in this respect unless NATO
leaders decided to finally reorganize the Alliance which had fulfilled
its mandates long ago. There used to be two of them - one to prevent
the internal communist threat and the other to obstruct military
threat posed by the Soviet Union.
If NATO decides to reorganize itself, admit Russia, and together
with Russia and probably Japan become a foundation of the new alliance
of security in the 21st century, then the relations may be different.
I doubt that it will happen. That is why Russia should concentrate on
friendship with the Alliance (and not cooperation with NATO as the
general direction) and on the efforts aimed at establishment of the
new security alliance to counter new challenges and threats like the
lack of stability in Asia, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and
terrorism.
Question: Even Western political scientists admit that Russia
with its policy of rapprochement allowed the Alliance to continue
worthy existence.
Sergei Karaganov: Do not overestimate fragility of the Alliance.
NATO is a huge bureaucratic entity which will last years and years
even without a definite purpose. Closely cooperating with NATO and
supporting it to a certain extent, Russia is solving a problem of
importance to itself. Along with everything else, NATO is a mechanism
of tying the United States to the interests of Europe.
Question: Admission of between seven and nine East Europe states
into NATO is expected at the NATO summit in Prague come November. How
do you think will this wave of expansion affect NATO political and
military activities?
Sergei Karaganov: From the political and military point of view,
NATO is losing effectiveness. All the same, NATO expansion in the form
it is about to take place does not benefit Russia in the least.
Unfortunately, the situation is such that we cannot prevent it from
happening because back in 1997 we made a grave mistake of signing the
Russian-NATO Pact which all but legalizes NATO expansion.
*******
#10
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
No. 91
May 16, 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
EXPERT OPINION: A BREAKTHROUGH PUT INTO QUESTION
NG requested three renowned experts to comment on the
situation with the strategic treaties.
1. Do you consider the current accords reached between
Russia and the USA on strategic arms reduction a serious
breakthrough?
2. Do you consider this accord as compensation for the US
withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty?
3. What should be the next accords in the follow-up of the
agreements of the forthcoming Russia-US summit, in your
opinion?
Andrei FEDOROV, director of the Centre for Political
Studies and Consulting:
1. I don't consider this as a serious breakthrough. This
is simply a small step forward and a sufficiently important
one. At the same time, both sides, especially Russia, were
doomed to this move even for purely technical reasons.
2. To some degree, this accord serves as moral
compensation for the liquidation of the START-II Treaty, but,
of course, it cannot be as such to the fullest degree.
3. Honestly speaking, first of all, it is necessary to
agree to have a real mechanism of verifying the fulfilment of
this accord. I do not see any other special accords on the
horizon. In actual fact, this treaty is probably one of the
latest steps that are noticeable enough in the sphere of
nuclear disarmament.
Further on, I believe, we shall be confronted with quite
different problems, including the resumption of nuclear tests,
etc.
Vladimir DVORKIN, head of the Centre for Strategic Nuclear
Force Studies, Major-General in reserve, former leading expert
in the preparation of arms reduction treaties in the last 15
years:
1. I don't consider this as a breakthrough. This accord
seals unilateral plans of the development of nuclear forces in
the USA and Russia. Washington has adopted its nuclear doctrine
and determined how many combat charges it needs both deployed
and in store in the case of the aggravation of the military and
political situation. Russia also announced in advance that it
will abide by the level of 1,500 nuclear charges.
2. This accord does not compensate in any way for the US
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty because, apparently, the new
treaty will not stipulate a link between strategic offensive
arms and defensive systems. We can only hope that such accords
will be reached at subsequent consultations and negotiations.
In the first place, this applies to mobile (air-borne,
ground-based and marine) anti-missile defence systems, the
scope and the geography of the deployment of which must
correspond to real missile threats from problem countries.
3. Subsequent accords must contribute to greater
transparency as regards strategic offensive armaments. It is
also necessary to adjust the provisions of the START-I Treaty,
the basic requirements of which do not correspond to the US
plans for the removal of combat charges from delivery vehicles.
There are also some other restrictions which are no longer
topical. If they are left intact, they will prevent control and
bring confusion to the Russian-US relations.
Anatoly ADAMISHIN, former first deputy foreign minister of
Russia, vice-president of Sistema corporation:
1. By today's standards, this is undoubtedly a large
achievement. Incidentally, it shows that the course for the
rapprochement with the USA and the West, chosen by President
Putin and opposed by a certain part of the Russian
establishment, is bearing fruit.
2. Perhaps, you remember that we tried to persuade the USA
for a long time not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. However,
we failed to do so and, moreover, lost a lot of time that could
have been used for large-scale negotiations embracing both
defensive and offensive arsenals. Today, I am afraid, there
will be a temptation to present this as a sort of US concession
to Russia for its withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
3. Our negotiations with the USA were largely dominated by
military and strategy issues. If it were possible to extend the
treaty to the fields, in which Russia is interested in no less
degree - the political or economic sphere - this would, of
course, be beneficial for Russia. In the sphere of politics it
would be good to reach such an accord with NATO, under which
Russia would be an equal partner in the discussion and adoption
of decisions, at least on some issues this organisation deals
with. In the same political sphere I think it important to
restructure to some degree those elements of cooperation, which
we have with the USA, at least as regards the fight against
terrorism. In the economic field it is important to secure the
abrogation of the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment, attract US
investments and create a favourable climate for them, join the
WTO and solve the problem of Russian debts.
*******
#11
Ezhenedelny Zhurnal
May 14, 2002
ECHO OF THE ONGOING WAR
Tragedy on May 9 is the mistake of the FSB?
Author: Alexander Golts
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THIS YEAR VICTORY DAY WAS A SAD HOLIDAY DUE TO THE TERRORIST ACT IN
KASPIYSK, WITH MORE THAN THIRTY PEOPLE KILLED AND FIFTY INJURED. SOME
BELIEVE THAT THE FSB SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE TRAGEDY, SINCE
IT IS THEIR DUTY TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF RUSSIAN CITIZENS.
This year's Victory Day was really a holiday with "tears in the
eyes". Several minutes before the parade in the Red Square started, a
bomb exploded in the center of Kaspiysk, a town in Dagestan. More then
thirty people were killed and fifty injured. On the same day,
guerillas opened fire on a stand with top-ranking officials of
Chechnya in a Grozny stadium.
We do not need any further evidence that the president was right
in saying that "evil and violent forces appear on the Earth again and
again". Moreover, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief sees clearly where
the threat is coming from and who can be Russia's allies in this war.
"We can resist these threats only uniting efforts of the states and
the will of the peoples. The anti-Hitler coalition can serve as a good
example." Vladimir Putin spoke these days about the necessity of
uniting civilized states a lot. It will become clear soon - in the
course of the Russia-NATO summit and meetings of the Russian and
American presidents - if establishing this union is possible. Yet
obviously, the head of our state does not see the threat coming from
the United States and NATO, he is not going to waste time and efforts
on a senseless resistance to the west. Now it is clear that the army,
which has traditionally been responsible for national security, should
play a secondary role in this war.
The leading part is to be performed by the secret services. They
will be held accountable if terrorists manage to carry out their
plans. Meanwhile, the FSB executives, after announcing that Khattab
had been killed, believe that they have successfully completed their
mission. Having shown the video with the dead Khattab they announced
that they have blocked the major finance channel of terrorists. The
secret services even defied to have a lot of information. A week
before the tragedy the FSB informed journalists that there might be
terrorist acts on May 9. The security service even knew the exact
amount of the explosive to be used by terrorists in the coming
operation. However, this knowledge could not prevent the explosion.
The explosions on May 9 is the failure of our security services. And
there are several reasons for that. It looks like lately the FSB has
pinned its attention solely on physical destruction of guerilla
leaders. The success in this allowed them to speak that the work would
soon come to an end, that law and order would have to be restored in
Chechnya. On May 5 head of the FSb Nikolai Patrushev held a sitting in
Chechnya, devoted to the anti-terrorist operation. After it he assured
journalists that by the end of the year the control over the operation
in Chechnya might be handed over from the FSB to the Interior Affairs
Ministry (although next day the president said that he considered this
step premature).
We should realize that preventing terrorist actions is possible
only with the help of a wide net of agents. And each operation for
destroying field commanders in Chehcnya exposes FSB agents in the
enemies' rear.
Besides, repeating that the Chechen resistance has been
destroyed, the Russian secret services dimmed the enthusiasm of their
subordinates. On the eve of the explosion in Dagestan a guerilla from
Khattab's units was seized, who was preparing a terrorist act. And in
Kaspiysk the police did not check the route of the parade thoroughly.
The tragedy of May 9 has demonstrated again how far from reality
the fine words of our security services are. It does not mean that the
federal government has reached a deadlock, relying solely on arms.
This is separatist talk. Yet there are suspicions that the FSB, which
should coordinate the anti-terrorist operation, is not prepared for
this task. It is only concerned about how to shift this responsibility
for restoring order in Chechnya onto someone else. It does not want to
resist - or cannot resist - those new evil forces, which the president
spoke about.
(Translated by Daria Brunova)
*******
#12
Argumenty i Fakty
No. 18-19
May 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
RUSSIA: GIANT OR MIDGET?
Much has changed after the Soviet Union's disintegration.
Some people believe that Russia is a colossus on clay legs that
keeps getting weaker and weaker with every passing year. Others
disagree, noting that this country has withdrawn into itself,
as it accumulates strength needed to become a Europeam
geo-political and economic leader, if not a global leader. The
following two different viewpoints are offered below.
MEGALOMANIA IS BAD FOR RUSSIA
Igor YAKOVENKO, leading research associate,
Sociology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
We have lost the Cold War a long time ago. However, Russia
hasn't yet reconciled itself with the USSR's demise. The public
mentality perceives the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) as a temporary substitute for the Soviet Union; meanwhile
Russia apparently continues to play the part of big brother.
Russian citizens still hope that former Soviet republics will
reunite someday.
Frankly speaking, the disintegration of a great empire can
be viewed as a real disaster. However, Russia should consider
itself lucky, regarding the USSR's disintegration as its last
chance of survival. Otherwise the Russians would have dissolved
among countless other ethnic groups, losing their national
identity. Mind you, this is an historical law -- an ethnic
group, which had created any specific empire, tends to wither
away in its latter days. This had happened both in ancient Rome
and Byzantium. A similar process used to take place, as the sun
began to set over the Soviet empire. Small wonder, a
governmental program for restoring the Non-Black Soil region
was drafted in the 1970s -- the basic Russian territories were
becoming depopulated back then. Russia therefore had no
alternative but to get rid of other Soviet republics ringing
its external perimeter.
This scenario was implemented over the 1991-1992 period. It
should be mentioned in this connection that the "mother
country" i.e. Russia, used to subsidize Georgia, Latvia,
Kirghizia and other republics. As a matter of fact, Central
Asian tax proceeds never reached the volume of federal-budget
appropriations to that region; incidentally, this trend
persisted ever since the incorporation of Central Asia into the
Soviet Union.
It's Good to Lose Sometimes
The history of Russia's military victories is a component
part of the imperial mentality and of that myth concerning
Russian grandeur. However, an unbiassed assessment of the
situation shows only too clearly that far from all military
victories had benefited society. In some cases defeat is seen
as a blessing. World history knows many examples of this. For
example, the Austro-Hungarian empire had controlled 25 percent
of the entire European continent prior to 1918. Having lost the
First World War, the Austrians settled down to a quiet and
worthy way of life. The Ottoman empire had also waged countless
wars until 1918. Right now, the Turks keep working and trading
peacefully all over the world. Japan, too, lost the Second
World War, subsequently attaching priority to economic
development and accomplishing the so-called "Japanese miracle."
I think that Russia had failed to take advantage of its victory
over Hitler in the Second World War, creating a lot of problems
instead. Russia became a super-power as a result of its
victory; and this seems to be the greatest tragedy. We were
dragged into a 40-year Cold War that depleted our resources.
Let's Stop Trying to Catch Up With America!
Russia continues to use up Soviet-era
science-and-technical achievements. However, subsequent
economic weaknesses would inevitably lead to Russia's
disintegration.
So, what is to be done? We should discard myths, for
openers, facing bitter facts in the process. As of today,
Russia, which has lost its leading global role, boasts a lot of
nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the service life of their delivery
vehicles is being depleted at a breath-taking pace. Russia
would retain just 400-500 nuclear warheads by the year 2015. At
the same time, the Russian Government would have to introduce
all-out bread rations for the sake of maintaining 1991-vintage
arsenals. Russia is no longer able to vie with the United
States. As distinct from all generations of Soviet people,
Russian society is not prepared to make such sacrifices. In
real life, though, the current imperial nostalgia resembles
purely Platonic love. Many people aspire for grandeur; however,
no one is willing to pay for it out of his or her own pocket.
Russia should try and reach the level of Great Britain or
France. Still this objective can't be accomplished with 100-
percent certainty. The people of Russia would be able to attain
French-style living standards, if they stop talking about their
grandeur, and if they simply get down to business. For that
purpose unpopular, albeit vitally important, socio-economic
reforms are essential. Russia would, at best, be modernized by
the year 2025, thus becoming a competitive member of the
international community. However, if Russia loses another 10-15
years, it would rank among such countries as Poland or Romania,
at best.
------
BOOSTING THE NATION'S MORALE
Alexander GORYANIN, journalist
Is Russia great or not? Well, this debate is absolutely
senseless. Those countries, which are permanent members of the
UN Security Council, have been considered great for nearly 60
consecutive years. Their list also includes Russia. Which is
the biggest country in the world? The answer is Russia.
They are telling us to mind our own business and to keep a
low profile. Quite a few authors view small countries replete
with numerous tiny shops as the sublime ideal. But, you see,
such cute countries can't be our ideal. It would be both
unnatural and imprudent for Russia not to set ambitious goals
for itself.
Russia: Number Four Or Number Ten?
Andrei Illarionov, who serves as the Russian President's
economic adviser, suggests a rather daring objective. In other
words, Russia should catch up with Portugal over a 15-25-year
period, thus trailing in the European Union's wake. This
approach seems logical, at first glance. According to the CIA's
book of global facts, the Portuguese per-capita GDP stands at
$15,800;
meanwhile Russia's per-capita GDP is just $7,700, or two times
less. Portugal is not going to mark time either; so it seems
that Russia is now racing against time. But the thing is that
the real-life Russian per-capita GDP apparently equals that of
Portugal.
This country's economic potential should not be gauged by
re-calculating the data of the State Committee for Statistics
in line with the local rouble-dollar exchange rate. On the
contrary, we should do this in line with the relevant
purchasing-power parity, as is customary all over the world. In
that case, the entire Russian GDP would total an impressive
$1,120,000,000,000.
Consequently, we would find ourselves in the same group
together with Brazil, Italy, Great Britain and France.
Meanwhile the United States still leads the world with $9.96
trillion; Chinese, Japanese and Indian GDP-s total $4.5
trillion, $3.15 trillion and $2.2 trillion, respectively. Some
experts claim that 50 percent of the entire Russian economy
remains unaccounted for today, staying "in the shadow". That's
why Russia might well place fifth or even fourth in GDP terms,
thus moving from its current tenth place.
Some other facts refute the economic-crisis myth. They say
that nationwide production had plunged many-fold throughout the
1990s. But the thing is that energy-consumption statistics tend
to disprove this allegation. 2001-vintage energy consumption
was just 18 percent lower on the 1990 period, that is, when the
Soviet economy had hit an all-time high.
Around 15 million unregistered units of real estate have
appeared all over Russia, the State Committee for Statistics
reports. These houses are here for everyone to see;
nonetheless, their owners don't want to pay any property taxes.
Millions of law-abiding citizens, who have registered their
real estate, should also be added to this list. Well, this
amounts to a real social revolution. The situation with cars is
well-nigh the same, with the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate
claiming that 40 percent of all Russian families boast their
own cars. And, finally, the people of Russia have never sported
such fancy outfits before.
Some 9.2 million Russians, or 100 percent more than their
Spanish counterparts, used to surf the Internet in 2000. By the
way, France doesn't have so many Internet users at this stage.
There are 264 students per every 10,000 of the Russian
population, whereas the USSR had only 220 students. Add to this
the booming book industry, which can't thrive in a poor country.
At the same time, Russia doesn't have enough money to
maintain its Armed Forces, law-enforcement agencies, as well as
science and health-care sectors. People working for state-run
organizations also get hopelessly inadequate wages. How can all
this be explained? Well, new owners (proprietors) tend to
accumulate a really exorbitant surplus value. The
"black-market" economy will never channel any tax proceeds into
the federal budget. The following main conclusion thus suggests
itself -- the economy must "go straight."
Patriotism Tops the Agenda
National optimism alone is a key to prosperity. How did
the United States weather the Great Depression in the 1930s?
This was made possible by FDR's fire-side chats, as well as
efforts on the part of newspapers and Hollywood to bolster the
national morale.
America was revived with the help of optimism and patriotism.
Russia, too, will manage to cope with all hardships. All
one has to do is stop scaring the people stiff. Moreover, one
must help the people of Russia to get rid of that feeling of
low self-esteem and catastrophic moods.
(Transcript by Vitaly TSEPLYAYEV.)
*******
#13
New York Times
May 16, 2002
TOGLIATTI JOURNAL
Gathering News in the New Russia Can Be Fatal
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
TOGLIATTI, Russia — In this Russian capital of cars and crime, where
contract killings occur as often as once a week, Valery Ivanov, a
sharp-penned journalist with a ferocious sense of public duty, had many
enemies.
Recently Mr. Ivanov's newspaper, Togliatti Review, published a series of
articles on a local crime group. The stories described a spate of contract
killings and drew attention to the group's connections with the local
police. The articles were Mr. Ivanov's last.
As the 32-year-old reporter was leaving his apartment on the night of April
29, a gunman shot him seven times in front of a handful of stunned neighbors.
Mr. Ivanov was not the first. Since 1995 three other journalists have been
killed in this city of 700,000 that is home to Russia's largest carmaker,
Avtovaz. Yet another journalist died in a suspicious fire at a police
station in neighboring Samara, where records on corruption at Avtovaz were
kept.
Ten years after Russia began its rocky ride away from Communism, it is a
deeply perilous place to be a journalist. In contrast to the
well-publicized tussles between the Kremlin and the independent television
network NTV, the killings happen mostly far from the public eye, in
provincial towns like these, where the new bandit class is enforcing a form
of censorship more brutal than that of Soviet days.
A class of gangsters thrived on the lawlessness and chaos that engulfed
Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. They frequently bought the
entire apparatus of the local police, prosecutors and judges, who welcomed
bribes to supplement their crumb-like salaries. In places like Togliatti,
ringed by chemical plants in the west and Russia's main auto manufacturing
belts in the east, criminal groups bought virtual impunity.
Few journalists think muckraking is worth the risk anymore. One
foreign-financed grant program that gives $1,000 to $2,000 to investigative
journalists is not finding as many takers this year as last.
"I am sitting on money, but there is no one to give it to," said Leonid
Nikitinsky, a veteran reporter based in Moscow who administers the grants.
"There has been a change of mood. It is a very hard genre."
Mr. Ivanov was a college dropout who became a journalist in the early
1990's, just as gang wars were erupting in Togliatti, a center of Russian
crime because of its hold over the lucrative car market. In 2000 alone
there was an average of about one contract killing a week here.
In 1996, Mr. Ivanov opened Togliatti Review, a scandal-filled tabloid that
uncovered numerous connections between gangsters and the city government.
"Valery began to publish the real life of Togliatti that no journalist had
touched because it was too dangerous," said Aleksandr Drobotov, chairman of
the city council. "He said, `You citizens, you elect government to manage
the city budget, but you have no idea how the money is spent.' No one had
put the question like this before."
A 1998 exposé on $30 million missing from city coffers cost the mayor his
bid for re-election. An article about a series of contract killings enraged
one of the crime bosses, who warned Mr. Ivanov in late March that he could
be killed.
"Our sources began to tell us: `Are you idiots? Why are you digging there?'
" said Aleksei Sidorov, deputy editor of the newspaper and Mr. Ivanov's
best friend since college. "We didn't take it seriously enough."
Mr. Ivanov crossed the crime group again with an investigation into city
purchases of fuel. The group controlled the fuel market in Togliatti and
was selling gasoline to the city at inflated prices and skimming the
difference.
The newspaper exposed the practice, and the city was close to stopping it.
Mr. Sidorov suspects that was why Mr. Ivanov was killed.
"I think the government knows everything," said Mr. Sidorov, a charge that
Aleksandr Loginov, an aide to the mayor, vigorously denied. The prosecutor
said 50 people had been questioned, including nine witnesses. So far, no
arrests have been made.
The mayor, Mr. Sidorov noted, was on vacation at the time of the killing.
Local governments are often slow to investigate, and nothing moves swiftly
through any Russian bureaucracy. But that is especially true when it comes
to slain journalists. Aleksei Simonov of the Glasnost Defense Foundation in
Moscow estimates that since 1994 about 90 percent of the killings of
journalists remain unsolved.
Dmitri Kholodov, a journalist investigating corruption in the military, was
killed by a bomb blast in 1994. His newspaper, Moskovsky Komsomolets, with
one of the highest circulations in Russia, demanded an investigation, which
has dragged on for two years in a special military court.
"The government does not want to admit its guilt in these deaths," said
Pavel N. Gusyev, editor in chief of Moskovsky Komsomolets. "Local
governments see the federal center is looking away, not demanding that
these cases be looked into. That creates impunity. Journalists' mouths are
bound when they try to speak about corruption in government."
In the Siberian city of Chita, Vitaly Cherkasov, a police officer turned
journalist, recently tasted victory. Mr. Cherkasov, 36, wrote an article
that criticized the local prosecutor for quietly closing a criminal case
against a well-connected local mobster.
The prosecutor threatened to take legal action against Mr. Cherkasov's
newspaper, but a public outcry and attention from Moscow forced him to back
down and reopen the case. In April, Mr. Cherkasov was awarded an American
journalism prize named after the late investigate journalist Artyom Borovik.
Russian authorities "are on the leash of criminal groups," said Mr.
Cherkasov. "It is a crisis that everyone sees, but no one wants to write
about. People are sleeping. My job as a journalist is to wake them up."
Back in Togliatti, Mr. Sidorov said his paper would keep asking the
uncomfortable questions that appear to have killed his friend.
"If the killers thought, `No Valery, no problem,' they are wrong," Mr.
Sidorov said. "We won't stay quiet. They can't kill us all."
******
#14
Moscow Times
May 16, 2002
U.S. Official Pushes for Soviet Debt Write-Off
By Anna Raff
Staff Writer
All of Russia's Soviet-era debt should be written off as a way of
persuading Moscow to end troubling nuclear cooperation with Iran, an
influential security advisor to the U.S. presidential administration said
Wednesday.
Speaking by telephone from his home in Maryland, Richard Perle said the
first step would be to get the U.S. government and U.S. banks to forgive
any Soviet debt they held.
"Then we could turn to European governments, and they could put pressure on
their banks," he said. "We would take it one country at a time."
But finance experts were skeptical about the plan, saying the U.S.
government would not be able to force private European banks to part with
billions of dollars in outstanding loans.
Perle, who is chairman of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the U.S.
defense secretary, first floated the idea of a total write-off of Russia's
Soviet-era debt last summer, but did not link it to Iran at the time.
Now that relations between Washington and Moscow have grown warmer in the
wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Iran remains perhaps the most contentious
issue separating the two countries and is sure to be discussed at the
upcoming summit between Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin.
The United States has accused Russia of aiding Iran's nuclear, ballistic
missile, biological and chemical weapons programs and has called on Moscow
to end this sort of cooperation. Russia, which is building an $800 million
civilian nuclear reactor for Iran at Bushehr, has denied that it is
contributing to Tehran's weapons program.
Speaking Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Perle
indicated that he understood the importance of trade with Iran to the
Russian economy and said the United States should be prepared to "share the
burden" if Moscow were willing to restrict cooperation with Tehran.
But with Russia's economy still buoyed by high oil prices, foreign debt has
ceased to be an effective bargaining chip, said Maxim Kulikov, director of
the Moscow-based Economic Expert Group. Moreover, the debt is owed largely
to European nations.
"Why would Europe just write off an additional source of funds when Russia
is fully capable of paying these debts according to schedule?" he said. "If
they were going to forgive these debts, they should have done so when
Russia was having trouble with payment."
As of late last year, Russia's Soviet-era debt -- both sovereign and
private -- totaled $88 billion. The lion's share is owned to the Paris Club
of creditor nations and the London Club of private creditors. A third is
owed to Germany. Only 9 percent of the overall sum is owed to U.S.
government lenders.
Deutsche Bank spokesman Detlef Ramsdorf said the idea of the German
government intervening in the German banking industry was ridiculous.
"We are a free country," Ramsdorf said by telephone from Frankfurt. "The
government has no right to expropriate any private business or take money
from a private bank."
Perle argued that those who lent money to the Soviet regime knew what they
were getting into.
"They lent money for political reasons, not to get a rate of return," he said.
*******
#15
ANALYSIS-US plays down Iran problem ahead of Russia summit
By Carol Giacomo
WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - To hear President George W. Bush tell it,
Iran is a dangerous adversary, part of an "axis of evil" that is developing
weapons of mass destruction, aiding terrorists and sabotaging Middle East
peace.
Russia, in the long-held U.S. view, is a major supplier to Iran, providing
vital assistance to Tehran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well
as conventional arms.
But ahead of next week's summit in Moscow, Bush advisers have played down
any Russia-Iran link, focusing instead on America's evolving new
relationship with its former Cold War enemy.
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a
leading administration hard-liner, warned at length of threats from Iran
and other "rogue states."
He only voiced concerns about Russia's connection with Tehran when pressed
by a questioner in the audience.
Republican hawk Richard Perle, an influential Pentagon adviser, discussed
the summit arms agenda at the Council on Foreign Relations, addressing the
Russia-Iran tie only at the moderator's urging.
Given that U.S. intelligence believes Russia's cash-strapped defense,
biotechnology and nuclear industries continue to export weapons and
technical know-how to Iran and other countries, is Bush and his team going
soft on Russia?
U.S. officials insist the answer is no, and they point to new sanctions
imposed last week on Chinese, Armenian and Moldovan entities accused of
abetting Iran's arms program.
SIGNS OF NEW THINKING
But there are signs of new thinking that would seek to use economic
incentives instead of coercion to persuade Moscow to cease proliferation
the U.S. considers threatening.
Senior U.S. officials have told Reuters the administration might acquiesce
in Russian sales of conventional weapons sales -- excluding advanced
equipment like fighter jets -- to Iran if Moscow ended nuclear weapons
cooperation with Tehran.
Similarly, the administration may be able to accept continued Russian work
on Iran's Bushehr civilian nuclear power plant "if Bushehr is truly
divorced from any connection with the nuclear weapons program," said one
senior official.
"There may be ways of talking about this, but right now the Russians are
denying that they are involved in the Iranian nuclear weapons program and
we know they are," he said.
"If they are denying what we know, what kind of deal do you ever expect to
get that we would have confidence in? I think that question answers itself."
Support for an economic remedy also came from Perle, who said Russia should
be forgiven its Soviet-era debt as a way of persuading it to end nuclear
cooperation with Iran.
Such problems "can and should be ironed out, and in doing so I think we
need to pay attention to Russia's economic situation," he said.
Russia's $42 billion Soviet-era debt to Western lenders is one of the Cold
War's last unsettled financial problems.
It may be some time before an economic-oriented approach is offered
formally as a U.S. proposal, officials say.
RUSSIAN DENIAL
A major stumbling block is the fact that Russian officials continue to deny
they are aiding Iran's weapons programs, despite several years of U.S.
pressure and arguments Russia is more at risk from a nuclear-capable Iran
than the U.S.
The issue of Iran is likely to be raised at Bush's summit with Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
But apart from a general pledge to cooperate in halting the spread of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as part of a new strategic
framework accord, there is little expectation of an immediate breakthrough
ending Russia's ties to Iran.
At the last U.S.-Russia summit, the two sides resolved a dispute over
missile defenses and at next week's summit they will sign a treaty slashing
strategic nuclear arms.
"So if it takes another summit or two to get a real macro understanding on
proliferation, it's not going to bother me that much (as Iran's nuclear and
missile program) doesn't threaten us immediately," a senior U.S. official
said.
The CIA predicts it will be "late this decade" before Iran can produce a
nuclear weapon of its own, although outside help will speed that process.
Bush himself stressed an urgency in dealing with so-called axis of evil
states Iran, Iraq and North Korea because their weapons of mass destruction
programs could provide the means for an even more catastrophic assault by
extremists following the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
Lee Feinstein, a former Clinton administration official, faulted Bush for
de-emphasizing the Russia-Iran connection.
In light of post-Sept. 11 concerns about weapons falling into the wrong
hands, "the main emphasis ought to be on proliferation and on securing
Russian nuclear weapons and materials," he told Reuters.
The new Russia-NATO accord and the U.S.-Russia treaty slashing nuclear arms
are positive but "will be measured in some way by whether Putin clamps down
on Iran," he said.
******
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