Johnson's Russia List
#6268
24 May 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Reuters: Putin, Bush sign landmark nuclear arms treaty.
2. Moscow Times: Andrei Zolotov Jr., Press Puts A Positive Spin on Summit.
3. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review.
4. Gazeta.ru: Bush's visit is a major bonus for Putin. (re Zlobin and
Safranchuk)
5. Yezhenedelny Zhurnal: Aleksei Levinson, "FAIRLY GOOD." What do Russians
really think of the United States? (polling data)
6. Gazeta: COLD WAR NOT OVER. Its new phase has begun. An interview with
Liliya Shevtsova, an analyst with the Carnegie Center.
7. Far Eastern Economic Review: Velisarios Kattoulas, RUSSIAN FAR EAST.
Crime Central. Promised a glittering future, Vladivostok is today awash
with poverty and crime. Now there are some new players: Central Asian gangs
with endless supplies of heroin--and worrying links to terror.
8. Moscow Times: Thomas de Waal, Into the Georgian Quagmire.
9. ITAR-TASS carries 'full text' of interview with President Bush,
First Lady.]
********
#1
Putin, Bush sign landmark nuclear arms treaty
By Steve Holland
MOSCOW, May 24 (Reuters) - Russian leader Vladimir Putin and U.S. President
George W. Bush signed a landmark treaty on Friday to slash their long-range
nuclear warheads by two-thirds, with both men hailing the event as historic.
But their summit, Bush's first on Russian soil, was overshadowed by U.S.
concerns over a nuclear power plant Russia is building in Iran which
Washington says could put weapons of mass destruction into the hands of a
state it accuses of sponsoring terrorism.
"We are going to cast aside all doubts and suspicions and welcome a new era
of relations," Bush said in a televised face-to-face meeting with Putin
shortly before the signing ceremony in the elegant Kremlin fortress.
"Today, we may say we are creating qualitatively new relations," said Putin
to Bush across a long conference table in the sumptuous St Catherine's
Hall, lined with malachite pillars.
The Treaty of Moscow, the centrepiece of the four-day summit which began on
Thursday evening, will commit the former Cold War adversaries to cutting
their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by the year 2012. The
two nuclear giants currently hold about 6,000 warheads each.
The pact, the first nuclear disarmament pact between the former superpower
rivals since January 1993, is expected to set the seal on Russia's shift to
a more pro-Western foreign policy.
The two also signed a declaration to forge a new strategic relationship.
However, analysts say the pact smacks of outdated superpower rivalry and is
barely relevant to the fight against terrorism which Bush and Putin both
see as the new global threat after the September 11 airliner attacks in New
York and Washington.
WORRIES OVER IRAN
In a news conference after the signing, Bush stressed his concerns over the
Russian nuclear power plant in Iran, saying it was crucial to ensure what
he called a government of "radical clerics" did not get hold of weapons of
mass destruction.
"We will work closely with each other on this important issue," he added.
A senior Bush administration official called Russian assistance for Iran's
nuclear programme "the single-most important proliferation threat there is."
But Putin, speaking at the same news conference, rejected the charges.
"Cooperation between Russia and Iran is not of a character that would
undermine the process of non-proliferation," Putin said, calling the
involvement purely economic.
There have been suggestions the United States might try to persuade major
industrial nations to reduce old Soviet debt in return for Russia giving up
the Iran project.
BUSH FOCUSES ON TERRORISM
Bush flew into Moscow from Germany where, signalling the war on terror
would be the core theme of his Europe tour, he told his European allies to
put differences aside and transform the NATO alliance into a potent force
to fight terrorism.
Putin, who will show Bush around his home town of St Petersburg on Saturday
after a day of summitry in Moscow, is seeking vital Western support for
Russia's stumbling economy.
Bush castigated his own Congress for not lifting the 1974 Jackson-Vanik
amendment, which places restrictions on trade with Russia.
He said he welcomed freedoms introduced in post-communist society,
including freedoms for Jews -- the main reason for imposing the amendment
in Soviet times.
"In recognition of these freedoms, I am determined to work with Congress to
remove Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment," he said. "It is time our
Congress responded to my request, to President Putin's desire, that the
Jackson-Vanik amendment be removed pertaining to Russia."
Putin needs to show his pro-Western policies, which he has pursued at risk
from military and conservative hawks at home, are not a case of one-way
concessions.
Security was tight in the Russian capital ahead of the Kremlin meeting.
Traffic police were out in greater force than usual and news reports said
snipers were posted on rooftops.
Before entering the Kremlin in a motorcade, Bush placed a wreath of white
carnations and irises at the Tomb of the Unknown soldier by the towering
Kremlin wall honouring Russian and Soviet war dead, including over 20
million in World War Two.
********
#2
Moscow Times
May 24, 2002
Press Puts A Positive Spin on Summit
By Andrei Zolotov Jr.
Staff Writer
Most Russian newspapers delegated the news to the inside pages
of Thursday's editions, but the reports gave an overwhelmingly positive spin
to this week's summit between Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin.
The overall tone of the reports suggests that even though Russia has a
secondary role in a maturing partnership with the United States, it is in the
country's interest to change the paradigm of the relationship. And Russia
really has no choice in the matter anyway.
Commentator Georgy Bovt argued in Izvestia that none of the Soviet leaders --
Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev and Mikhail Gorbachev -- nor even Boris
Yeltsin, who was under a constant Communist threat, would have signed an arms
treaty like the one prepared for the summit. The reason is simple, he said,
since the treaty was made mostly on the Americans' terms and has no
verification procedures, he said.
"In signing such a treaty, Putin does not simply bow to the necessity of
taking into account the new realities and limited financial capabilities of
the country but tries to literally push Russia to a new relationship level
with the United States and the entire world," Bovt said. "The real threats to
Russia these days are coming not from the West but from the South. ... And
tomorrow this threat may be coming from the East, from the swiftly growing
neighbor [China] to whom we today so briskly sell the latest weapons."
In Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the deputy head of the State Duma's defense
committee, Alexei Arbatov, called the treaty radically different from
previous agreements, saying it marks the first time in 30 years of arms cuts
negotiations that the Americans did not ask for anything in return from
Russia, which had already decided to reduce its nuclear stockpile below the
limits set by the treaty.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta and Vedomosti were the only papers with front-page
stories Thursday. Vedomosti's report examined the summit's investment
prospects.
While praising the treaty, Bovt warned that Putin's foreign policy may
backfire if it does not create tangible dividends for the ordinary Russian.
He said a "Russian Le Pen" may take up the cause, and Putin would then be
more harshly criticized than Gorbachev ahead of the 1991 coup attempt.
Kommersant wrote earlier this week that Bush will probably feel more at home
in relatively calm Moscow during this tour than in Berlin and Paris.
While European leaders understand that the United States is the sole
superpower, there is an anti-American sentiment among the public that grows
with the increasing arrogance of U.S. foreign policy, Gennady Sysoyev wrote.
"In Russia, they [anti-American sentiments] are also strong, but here, public
opinion is used to adjusting to the general political line," he said.
********
#3
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,
Thursday, May 23, 2002
- Russian President Vladimir Putin met with representatives of the Union
of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs at the Kremlin today. President Putin
pointed out that such meetings -- this is already the fifth one -- are not
of a protocol-declarative, but of a functional character.
- The Press Ministry has granted Media-Socium a broadcasting license for
the sixth channel. Broadcasting will begin on June 1st, 2002.
- The number of forest fires in Siberia has been reduced significantly,
but the most dangerous period still lies ahead. A special anti-fire
regime has been introduced on the Sakhalin Islands. In the Far East,
Il-76 planes are employed to douse areas that are inaccessible by land
with water.
- Federal Troops General Vitaly Gamov is in critical condition. Doctors
are waiting for him to stabilize before starting skin grafts. His wife,
Larisa, has already received one of the seven operations the doctors
envisage she needs.
- President Putin met with Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov to discus the
tax regime and the parameters of the 2003 national budget, as well as
certain aspects of the upcoming Russian-American consultations.
- US President Geroge W. Bush has arrived in Moscow on an official visit.
The President and First Lady Laura Bush were met by Deputy Prime minister
Aleksei Kudrin. Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice and a large official delegation, are accompanying
the American President. About 150 US journalists are arriving on a
separate flight.
- A press center for the coverage of the Russian-American summit has
opened in St. Petersburg.
- Five documents are expected to be signed at the Russian-American Summit.
The Agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive potentials and the
Declaration of new strategic relations are the most important of the
agreements.
- In the meanwhile, the US Senate has voted to retain the Jackson-Vanik
Agreement, which limits trade relations between Russia and the United
States.
- State Duma Speaker Gennady Seleznev has been expelled from the Communist
Party for disobeying party discipline, along with two Duma committee
chairpersons -- Svetlana Goryacheva and Nikolai Gubenko. The vote of the
presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party was unanimous.
- Ingush President Murat Zyazikov was inaugurated today.
- The 16th annual Rudolf Nuriev International Festival of Classical Ballet
is taking place in Kazan.
*******
#4
Gazeta.ru
22 May 2002
Bush's visit is a major bonus for Putin
Text: Stepan Osenchuk
President Putin needs encouragement. President Putin needs help taking
the right path. This is the only reason why the president of the great
America is flying to Moscow. Other than that, America doesn't need this
visit, the SNV (Strategic Offensive Weapons) reduction agreement, or
Russia itself.
The American Center for Defense Information (CDI), represented by its
leading experts on Russian-American relations, Nikolai Zlobin and Ivan
Safronchuk, held a press conference dedicated, of course, to President
Bush's visit to Russia.
The scheme of expert press conferences is fairly routine within itself, if
not, downright boring. But the rhetoric of Nikolai Zlobin -- "an American
Russian political scientist," the director of Russian and Asian programs
at CDI, and a man who actively participated in the preparations of the
Putin-Bush Moscow summit, was fascinating and instructive. Especially
considering the fact that Zlobin is one of the authors of the remarkably
simpleminded and brazen American idea of forgiving part of Russia's
Soviet-era debt in return for the termination of the Russian-Iranian
nuclear program (interestingly enough, most of the debt is not to America,
but to Germany).
Here is the gist of Zlobin's speech -- meant to become a lesson of utmost
importance to Russia in the difficult process of understanding the goals
of American foreign policy and Bush's visit in particular.
First of all, America does not need this visit. It especially does not
need the SNV-3 agreement (in its new format -- an agreement on the
reduction of strategic nuclear potentials). But Bush is flying to Russia
and the agreement will be signed. This will be done solely as an
incentive to Vladimir Putin, who is on the right path but faces domestic
pressure.
Secondly, in the foreseeable future, no one can compare to America; no one
can approach it in its colossal, unimaginable economic, military, and
political might. No one will be able to level with America, especially
not Russia, which has long ago ceased to be a rival, and is unlikely to
become a partner -- at least not for a long time.
Thirdly, America has no interest in economic cooperation with Russia (the
scales are too incongruent), in discussing strategic weapons, or anything
else. Russia should think of everything itself and offer America a
subject for cooperation. Although, as a goodwill gesture, America has
already come up with a way using Russia.
Russia is supposed to become the official distributor of American policy
in Asia. Its main role should be as a counterweight to China. For the
other nations in the region, Russia should just be a transmitter of the
American idea and will. And, in order to do this, Russia should not get
too carried away with becoming a European nation, but rather retain the
Asian qualities of the its political physiognomy. Of course, if Russia
does not live up to American expectations, it can be easily replaced in
this position. There will be other candidates for the job.
All in all, the visit and the signing of the agreement (Zlobin noted that
"this is the last agreement of its kind; America will no longer sign such
agreements with anyone) were only made possible because the United States
has yet to decisively work out its foreign-policy doctrine. It seems that
we caught the US off guard with our offer of friendship and cooperation on
September 11th. But we shouldn't expect anything special to come from the
visit, since the doctrine will be prepared by the summer. And one can
already predict how it's going to be formulated.
There will be five priorities and one additional concept:
1. The fight against international terrorism.
2. The fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the
prevention of the obtainment of weapons of mass destruction by
"irresponsible regimes."
3. The creation of a stable and predictable world market of energy
suppliers.
4. The creation of a "market of freedom" (a somewhat mysterious concept,
which implies the unification of the system of democratic, economic and
political norms for all nations).
5. The peaceful resolution of any possible conflicts with China.
And, finally, the "concept of limited sovereignty." This implies that all
nations have full sovereignty only when they abide by three crucial rules:
not killing their own citizens, not promoting the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and not supporting terrorism. Those nations that do
comply are to be punished and reeducated.
The last addition to the doctrine is the idea of a "hypothetical
adversary." Although, as mentioned above, America has no potential
opponents, this does not mean that they shouldn't exist. They should.
They have to. But since the said opponent does not exist in its natural
habitat, its actions cannot be calculated and discerned. Therefore, the
defense potential of the nation must always be ready to triumph over any
imaginary adversary.
All in all, it is more than clear that the president of a country with
such a doctrine, concept, and idea, has absolutely no reason to travel to
meet with Vladimir Putin. We just happened to get lucky.
********
#5
Yezhenedelny Zhurnal
No. 19
May 2002
"FAIRLY GOOD"
What do Russians really think of the United States?
Author: Aleksei Levinson
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
ANALYSIS OF RECENT POLL RESULTS, AIMED AT FINDING OUT WHAT RUSSIANS
THINK OF RELATIONS WITH THE WEST, NAMELY THE UNITED STATES AND NATO.
IT IS UP TO PUTIN TO DECIDE WHOM HE IS GOING TO REPRESENT AT THIS
WEEK'S TALKS: THE MAJORITY LONGING FOR THE PAST, OR A MINORITY LOOKING
TO THE FUTURE.
In March 2002, poll respondents were once again asked to define
relations between Russia and the United States: enemies or allies?
Respondents once again failed to reach a consensus; 37% said allies,
and 38% said enemies. The remaining respondents were uncertain.
This inability to come to a definite conclusion on the major
geopolitical topic can be perceived in all opinion polls.
In April, the National Public Opinion Research Center approached
respondents with the question "What is your general opinion of the
United States?" The following answers were obtained:
Very good: 4%
Fairly good: 54%
Fairly bad: 26%
Very bad: 7%
In other words, most Russians defined their attitude toward the
United States as "Well, it's all right, but..."
The first time the National Public Opinion Research Center asked
this question was in long-ago 1991 when public opinion was still
mostly in the grip of Gorbachev's new way of thinking. Even then,
Russians with a favorable but somewhat reserved opinion of the United
States amounted to 52%.
Opinion polls over the decade usually described the same
situation: absolute (sometimes relative) majority of respondents
preferred this option ("fairly good"). Of course, there were some
fluctuations from 30% in May 1999 to 62% in August 2000 but more than
every second respondent usually gave this answer. It follows that
Russians' attitude toward the United States is fairly stable.
And yet, some dynamic processes can be perceived even against the
background of this stability. First and foremost, the matter concerns
a definite decline of "very good" opinion. From 18% when the decade
began to 10-13% and down to 8% in 1998 - 2000. This parameter reached
8% this March and has stayed more or less there.
As for the Russians with a negative opinion, they usually amount
to 7%, give or take some. The Russians who chose "fairly bad" (the
answer permitting to not to be outright rude) were 6% in 1991 and
swelled their ranks to 26% now. In other words, it was all right to
demonstrate friendliness toward the United States, but light anti-
Americanism became popular all at the same time.
There were downswings too. May 1999 was the only time when
negative and positive emotions about the United States evened out. It
was Russia's reaction to the Yugoslavian escapade. The situation went
back to normal several months later.
It should be noted here that this critical attitude toward the
United States is "nothing personal" (as they say in America). Do not
ask about the nation as a whole; ask about individuals. Something like
"What is your general attitude toward the Americans as a people now?"
The opinion will be much warmer. While 66% respondents admit warm
feelings toward the United States, 78% admit them toward the American
people.
Comparison of the two states is particularly dramatic for the
Russians. It is only when comparing ourselves with the United States
that we decide for ourselves what we are worth. Our two presidents are
meeting. Which is better, ours or theirs?
"Russian and American presidents Vladimir Putin and George W.
Bush are meeting in Moscow in late May. How would you evaluate Bush's
position at the negotiations between our countries?" The same question
was asked about Putin. Here are the results.
Strives for solutions to our problems and rapprochement: Bush
17%, Putin 58%
Strives to enhance the positions of his nation: Bush 66%, Putin
25%
Uncertain: Bush 17%, Putin 17%
Ours is better! Russian executives are particularly critical of
Bush (81%), but confidence that our president is much better than the
president of our major partner/enemy can be seen in other strata as
well.
The moral difference between "us" and "them" is something Russian
respondents take for granted. Two similar questions were asked:
"Should Russia be apprehensive of the Western states in NATO?" and
"Should the Western states in NATO be apprehensive about Russia?".
Answers were similar too. About 60% respondents say that the West does
not have anything to fear from Russia. Approximately the same number
of respondents say that we should be apprehensive of them.
Results are wholly different when practical aspects of relations
are mentioned.
Around 36% of respondents expect positive results and progress in
general from the upcoming summit, and only 8% fear negative
consequences. Skeptics prevail here since most respondents admit that
the summit will "fail to produce any results as far as Russia is
concerned." The summit therefore is something like an athletic
contest. Virtually no practical advantages but symbolic meaning is
colossal.
"Practical" attitude toward the United States is interesting. It
is even more interesting to see that a similar picture is revealed by
answers about Russian-NATO rapprochement. This subject has been
particularly painful for mass conscience. The truth that NATO was an
enemy we would destroy, if forced to, in World War III gave way to a
polar opinion for a time. According to it, we have already lost. This
defeatist idea of mass conscience performed the function of releasing
the Russians from the endless detente against NATO, this major
historical and probably even moral duty of every Soviet man.
Opinion polls conducted throughout the 1990's made it clear that
public opinion was looking for a compromise.
Here are answers to the question "What is more in Russia's
interests?" given in the second half of the 1990s.
Almost 30% respondents chose "Uncertain" or essentially ducked
the question. The second most popular answer, also escapist (pacifist,
neutralist, or Utopian), was that "Russia should not join any blocs or
alliances". About 25% of respondents thought so; while about 15% of
respondents longed for the past and opted for "a defense alliance with
post-socialist states and republics of the Soviet Union against NATO."
"Cooperation with NATO" was promoted by about 20%, these respondents
had clearly come to terms with the new reality. And finally, 10% opted
for membership of NATO.
The problem gradually lost its urgency, giving way to other
difficulties. In April 2002, respondents were offered the question,
"Do you think rapprochement with NATO promotes Russia's interests or
conflicts with them?" Here are the answers:
Promotes: 33%
Conflicts: 37%
Uncertain: 30%
A lot of respondents were uncertain. Our society is split into
three almost equal parts on this issue.
This situation has never been registered even in the era of the
new way of thinking. These days, 25% communist voters and 40% voters
for liberal democrats assume that rapprochement with the Alliance will
only help Russia. We do not even mention pro-Westerners like the Union
of Right Forces electorate.
There is more to this situation than changes in NATO itself or a
revision of public opinion with regard to it. Everything boils down to
how the president has conditioned the nation. Seven respondents out of
every ten reiterated their support of his actions in April. These
people view the policy of Russian-NATO rapprochement as the
presidential policy. Among Putin's supporters, the answer "promotes"
was the most popular. For the same reason, managers and directors also
advocate rapprochement with the former enemy (50%).
Women tend to prefer to steer clear of the Alliance, but
"Uncertain" is their most popular answer all the same (39%). Men have
fewer doubts. They are split evenly on the subject of rapprochement:
40% in favor and 40% against.
The rest is traditional. Most elderly Russians are anti-NATO (36%
to 24%), while young people are the most pro-NATO (40% to 29%).
It is up to Putin to decide whom he is going to represent at the
talks: the majority longing for the past, or a minority looking to the
future.
(Translated by A. Ignatkin)
********
#6
Gazeta
May 24, 2002
COLD WAR NOT OVER
Its new phase has begun
An interview with Liliya Shevtsova, an analyst with the Carnegie Center
Author: Andrei Reut
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THIS SUMMIT IS THE MAXIMUM OF WHAT PUTIN AND BUSH CAN SQUEEZE FROM
THEIR RESPECTIVE TEAMS AND WHAT THEY INHERITED FROM THEIR
PREDECESSORS. IF THEY WANT TO STOP THE COLD WAR INERTIA AND OPEN A NEW
PAGE, THEY NEED A BREAKTHROUGH: A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF PARTNERSHIP. NEW
CHALLENGES DEMAND A NEW IDEOLOGY.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH IS PREPARED TO FORGIVE DEBTS OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION TO AMERICA AND GIVE RUSSIA $10 BILLION - IN RETURN FOR NO
MORE NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH IRAN. THIS IS BUSH'S GIFT TO VLADIMIR
PUTIN, ALONG WITH THE TREATY ON NUCLEAR ARMS CUTS. LILIYA SHEVTSOVA,
AN ANALYST WITH THE CARNEGIE CENTER, SAYS THAT BUSH IS GUIDED BY A
PERSONAL LIKING FOR PUTIN.
Question: When Putin was in the United States, everyone said that
the Americans liked him. Have Putin and Russia become more popular
with the United States?
Liliya Shevtsova: Let's not get carried away. When it became
clear that Russia was no longer an enemy, the Americans began looking
at us with complacency and indifference (it is the latter that hurts).
The US establishment is more interested in Bush's behavior while he's
here than in Russia itself. I mean, who he meets with and what he
sees.
Question: But did the meeting bring Putin and Bush closer to one
another then?
Liliya Shevtsova: Bush and the White House are evolving and
maturing. Just after he was elected, Bush ignored Russia completely.
He and his team must have decided to teach Russia to bring its
ambitions into line with its resources. Everything changed after the
Ljubljana meeting. Although criticized by European leaders, Bush
discovered that it was much easier for him to communicate with Putin.
Putin does not make any abrupt gestures or statements.
Question: And true friendship began in the wake of September 11?
Liliya Shevtsova: The tragedy of September 11 made them even
closer, conceptually too. Putin and Bush are the only world leaders
who view terrorism in a similar manner and consider it humanity's
gravest challenge. Moreover, they are the only world leaders who are
currently consolidating their nations on the basis of responding to
threats to security.
Listen to what the Europeans (the French, particularly) say to
Bush, and you will see that with Putin he can relax and forget the
inner tension he must feel dealing with most European leaders.
Putin and Bush may also recall how they were raised to where they
are. Neither had any political career to speak of... In any case,
Bush's positive reaction to Putin is quite genuine. The only question
is whether their personal feelings are going to allow them to overcome
the limits of old stereotypes.
Question: What is the US expecting from the visit?
Liliya Shevtsova: Washington's attitude toward the summit varies
from skeptical indifference (Russia is unimportant because it does not
have anything to offer) to cautious optimism (Bush and Putin may raise
bilateral relations to a new plane).
Bush's own emphasis on the dialogue with Moscow helps those
officials in the US Administration who favor a coalition approach to
American foreign policy. I mean Powell, first and foremost. Needless
to say, this emphasis would have been impossible without Rice's
support. She is Bush's senior coach on foreign policy in general and
on what concerns Russia in particular.
Question: Do you think this friendly bias will last?
Liliya Shevtsova: I cannot say. Some almost scandalous things
occurred as recently as late 2001, when Rumsfeld, for example, did his
best to scuttle the Russia-NATO council idea. What I mean is that
relations with Russia are also a test of who is winning in the tug-of-
war in the White House.
Question: What results shall we expect from the summit?
Liliya Shevtsova: In my view, Putin and Bush may announce that in
Russian-US relations they have moved away from the freezing point and
built a foundation of personal trust. At the same time, we should not
exaggerate the role of the summit. If you ask me, summits have never
been turning points in the history of relations between Moscow and
Washington. Symbolism and imitation are probably the major features of
this summit. Listen, agreement on mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals
is supposed to provide the main intrigue of the meeting, right? But
Russia and the United States planned to reduce their arsenals in any
case, with or without the agreement. For different reasons of course.
The intention will take the form of an agreement as Bush's gift to
Putin. The Americans decided not to create problems for the president
of Russia and not to give his political enemies any reason to accuse
him of "selling Russia out". The signing is a positive nuance of
course. But what really counts I think is that Washington cares about
Putin.
Question: Does it mean that imitation is the basis of the summit?
Liliya Shevtsova: The Americans decided to meet us halfway.
Together, we are performing the Summit show. It is needed to
demonstrate the presidents' diplomatic skills to the public in their
respective countries.
Question: The very fact of cuts - isn't this an indication of
warmer relations between us?
Liliya Shevtsova: Another question should be asked here, I think.
Why wouldn't we reduce arsenals to 1,000, 500, or 100 warheads? If we
are no longer enemies, and if we want this Cold War page turned, why
do we need 2,000 warheads? The problem is that we still aim our
missiles at sites on the other's territory...
I do not rule out the possibility that our presidents feel mutual
sympathy and that our societies do not feel mutual threats. And yet,
we keep each other in our sights. Cold War is not over, an agreement
on not. Its new phase is beginning. For the time being, neither side
can break the chain. Perhaps, however, better trust in each other will
convince us to reduce nuclear arsenals again. At some future date.
Question: What else will the presidents discuss apart from ICBMs?
Liliya Shevtsova: The agenda includes a lot of issues - America's
assistance in preparations for Russia's membership in the World Trade
Organization, cooperation in the energy sphere. By the way, Russia
already has the lobby actively promoting the idea of turning Russia
into America's energy partner. Khodorkovsky is its representative.
Question: What about cooperation in the sphere of nuclear energy? I
hear the Americans have something to offer to the Nuclear Energy
Ministry for its refusal to deal with Iran any longer.
Liliya Shevtsova: Washington is working on its suggestions to the
G-7 on consolidation of funds. They will be spent, among other things,
on handling Russian nuclear wastes. It is called the 10 - 10 - 10
Initiative.
Question: What is that?
Liliya Shevtsova: The United States will allocate $10 billion for
10 years and ask other G-7 states to follow suit. I doubt, however,
that Europe will be in a hurry to get into its coffers. There is,
however, the idea of connecting solution to the problem with the
problem of Soviet debts. It stands to reason to assume that Putin and
Bush will discuss in some form the possibility of forgiveness of a
part of the Soviet debt to the United States (it amounts to $3-4
billion) in return for Russia's promise to put an end to the actions
official Washington regards as proliferation of nuclear technologies
(it means the Russian-Iranian cooperation).
Iraq will also be discussed. In my view, Putin is ready to at
least understand the American logic with regard to Iraq.
Question: Will any surprises be seen?
Liliya Shevtsova: The agenda has been discussed many times over,
and there will be nothing unexpected about it. Putin is not Yeltsin.
There will be no surprises. As for Bush, he has his own program too
and surprises are the last thing we should expect from him. I welcome
this, by they way. The state of our relationship requires
predictability.
This summit is the maximum of what Putin and Bush can squeeze
from their respective teams and what they inherited from their
predecessors. If they want to stop the Cold War inertia and open a new
page, however, they need a breakthrough. I do not mean radical cuts in
nuclear arsenals alone. I mean a new philosophy of partnership. New
challenges demand a new ideology.
Question: What challenges?
Liliya Shevtsova: How shall we solve the practical problems of
seeing the Americans in Central Asia and Georgia? How shall we
structure our cooperation in the energy sector? How will Russia's
interests in a post-Saddam Iraq be taken into account? How shall we
cooperate in reviving infrastructure in Siberia and the Russian Far
East, bearing in mind China and the advances it has been making?
*******
#7
Far Eastern Economic Review
May 30, 2002
RUSSIAN FAR EAST
Crime Central
Promised a glittering future, Vladivostok is today awash with poverty and
crime. Now there are some new players: Central Asian gangs with endless
supplies of heroin--and worrying links to terror
By Velisarios Kattoulas/VLADIVOSTOK and NAKHODKA
THOMAS PICKERING surely never thought it would come to this. In 1993, the
powerful American diplomat predicted great things for Vladivostok. He was not
alone. But Pickering, then No.3 in the State Department, went further than
most: He argued that in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, the wealth
of natural resources encircling Vladivostok, and its proximity to the markets
of China, South Korea and Japan, meant Russia's spectacular eastern port
could soon rival Silicon Valley.
If only. Today, Vladivostok is riddled with poverty, corruption and crime.
More alarming, law-enforcement officials believe that under the cover of
rampant lawlessness, organized-crime gangs from Central Asia are flocking
there to sell heroin. Ironically, according to the Council of Foreign and
Defence Policy, one of Russia's top research institutes, such groups first
started "paying particular attention" to the Russian Far East at around the
same time Pickering was making his glittering prediction.
In the years since, according to Russian, Japanese and American
law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, the activities of Central Asian
crime gangs in the Russian Far East have become an important source of funds
for the gangs and their terrorist partners back home. "Obviously, yes,
Central Asian gangs in the Russian Far East are sending money home," says a
Vladivostok-based prosecutor. An American intelligence officer who spent the
late 1980s and early 1990s in Afghanistan describes the Russian take on
events as "entirely in line" with United States intelligence from Central
Asia.
The allure of the Russian Far East to Central Asian gangs is not hard to
fathom. In a city that ranks 80th in Russia for per-capita income, and where
many people are preoccupied by 19th-century living standards, the comings and
goings of gangsters raise few eyebrows. Nor does the federal
government--seven time zones away in Moscow--pay much attention to what
happens in this eastern outpost. Local government, meanwhile, is famously
rapacious, with officials notorious for demanding "bribes on their bribes."
Yet arguably the most enticing lure in Vladivostok is the criminality already
engulfing the city. The Primorskii region, of which Vladivostok is the
capital, boasts Russia's sixth-highest crime rate. Says a Western diplomat
familiar with the area: "The same things that make it difficult for
legitimate businesses to operate in Vladivostok are huge opportunities for
organized crime." In fact, while Vladivostok's visible economy is in
disarray, its underworld is thriving, even by Russian standards. Tellingly,
though the Far East is one of Russia's poorest regions ranked by income,
consumer spending comes in a healthy fifth. That paradox baffles no one in
Vladivostok: As the hub of a vast smuggling trade (see map on page 50),
Vladivostok is awash in cherny--black money.
Nobody doubts that Russian gangs orchestrate and profit from much of the
organized crime in Vladivostok. But about three years ago, law-enforcement
agencies, academics and diplomats began spotting increasing numbers of mob
bosses of a different provenance; in particular, from Tajikistan, Kirgyzstan,
Kazakhstan, Azerbajian and Uzbekistan. Russian officials now say that despite
fierce and continuing opposition from local gangs, the newcomers have carved
themselves a slice of the region's booming underground economy.
The most glaring sign of their presence? Spiralling rates of heroin addiction
and plummeting street prices. The Moscow-based Council of Foreign and Defence
Policy dates the start of the heroin flood to 1998, when Iran closed its
border with Afghanistan and Western law-enforcement officials cracked down
hard on the flow of Central Asian heroin to Europe and the United States. As
a result, the Central Asian and Caucasian smugglers and terrorist groups that
control half the world's heroin supplies--according to the United Nations
Drugs Control Programme--began shipping large quantities of heroin to the
Russian Far East.
"From Tajikistan and Kazakhstan to Vladivostok there's now a constant flow of
heroin, but we're intercepting only the smallest fraction," says "Sergei", a
Vladivostok prosecutor who, like many of those interviewed for this article,
declined to be named for fear of retribution. "Until a couple of years ago,
if you wanted to get heroin you had to place a special request, whereas now I
can go out and show you exactly who's selling it on the streets."
The most powerful newcomers are the Chechens, who started arriving in
significant numbers after Russian forces attacked the breakaway Republic of
Chechnya in 1993. Law-enforcement officials say that under the law they can't
reveal detailed regional crime statistics. But, they say, Chechens now run
much of the underworld in Nakhodka, a town of 160,000 south of Vladivostok.
Chechen gangs there control several lucrative smuggling businesses--sea
cucumber to China, sea urchin to Japan, stolen cars from Japan. According to
police, as well as drug-trafficking, Chechen gangs in Nakhodka also
specialize in bank fraud and in smuggling hijacked Russian oil-lorries to
China. They "regulate" much of the trade crossing the nearby border between
Russia and China, where they impose their own import and export "duties." And
then there's their trade in smuggled nonferrous metals and Chinese-made
counterfeit vodka. Little wonder that the government in Moscow says Nakhodka
is Russia's third-most crime-plagued port.
In the past three years, Russian police and academics say, the Chechens have
been followed east by gangsters from Central Asian republics. Tajik gangs now
play a growing role in the heroin trade in cities across the Russian Far
East. Azeris dominate many neighbourhoods in Vladivostok and Khabarovsk, a
city north of Vladivostok, where they devote themselves to heroin smuggling
and dealing, protection rackets and selling counterfeit vodka. Uzbek, Kirgyz
and Kazakh gangs--the most recent additions--are also muscling in on the drug
trade. Says the prosecutor Sergei: "It's really just the tip of the iceberg,
but nowadays every other week we catch Caucasians from various regions
involved in organized criminal activities here." Five years ago, that was
unheard of.
While many Russian law-enforcement officials shy away from estimating how
much Central Asian gangs send home annually, many believe it is significant.
In 1999, for instance, special prosecutors in Vladivostok captured two
Chechen brothers in possession of two kilograms of heroin, 10 hand-grenades,
several cases of ammunition and two Kalashnikovs. The two men--Saihan
Hanapiev, 32, and Saidhusan Hanapiev, 31--shared an apartment with their
Russian girlfriends, spoke only Russian in public, avoided other Chechens,
carried forged Ukrainian passports and posed as legitimate used-car dealers.
However, at the same time, the Grozny natives were heavily involved in
trading arms and drugs. An officer who spent six months investigating their
activities says they sent about one-third of their income back to Chechnya.
He suspects that at least some of the money was earmarked for funding Chechen
separatists.
To a leading member of Vladivostok's Azeri diaspora with links to many of the
Russian Far East's Central Asian crime bosses, none of this comes as a
surprise. He insists Central Asian gangs are sending cash home regularly. The
Vladivostok branch of the Federal Security Bureau, the successor to the KGB,
concurs. It insists Central Asian gangs in the region are funnelling home the
bulk of their incomes. In a report last year, the Council of Foreign and
Defence Policy warned that in Tajikistan drugs were now "the chief source of
funding for the Islamic armed opposition," and that increasingly Central
Asia's "drug mafia is paying particular attention to Siberia and the
[Russian] Far East."
Vitaly Nomokonov, a law professor and director of the Centre for the Study of
Organized Crime at Vladivostok's Far East State University, argues that while
the ties between Central Asian criminal gangs and terrorists are often hard
to fathom and constantly evolving, they are durable and long-standing. In
exchange for hefty donations, Nomokonov wrote in a report last year, Central
Asian terrorist groups supply organized-crime gangs with drugs or information
about where to buy them most cheaply. In other words, while the
organized-crime gangs might not work for terrorist groups, they collaborate
frequently.
How did Central Asian gangs gain such a solid toehold in the Russian Far East?
In many ways, law-enforcement agencies have Russia's early communist leaders,
V.I. Lenin and Josef Stalin, to thank. In the 1920s, Lenin dispatched
thousands of Caucasians to the region. In the 1930s and early 1940s, Stalin
added to the numbers. Now, law-enforcement agencies say, new arrivals have
the luxury of slipping into the region unnoticed by blending into established
communities.
It also helps that the Russian Far East is awash with fake identity cards and
passports. For instance, the Hanapiev brothers, the two Chechens arrested for
arms and drug dealing, both carried forged Ukrainian passports. Police
believe there are at least three rings producing high-quality fake documents
in Vladivostok. In addition, says one senior Russian police officer, the
Vladivostok passport office is so corrupt, "if you paid to get a Russian
passport today you could probably pick it up tomorrow."
Law-enforcement officials believe that since the breakup of the Soviet Union,
thousands of Central Asians and Caucasians have flocked to the region. Yet
they concede they have no idea how many. "These people live really
separately," says the prosecutor Sergei. "They only communicate with one
another. Russians they keep contact with solely for making money." Hiromu
Teratani, a sociology professor at Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo, and the
author of two acclaimed studies about Russian organized crime, estimates the
region's Chechen diaspora alone could number 30,000.
At the same time, many elected and government officials work hand in hand
with organized criminal groups--shielding them from the courts and the media
in return for payoffs. "No doubt there are a number of powerful crooks close
to powerful politicians, which means you can't touch either," one European
diplomat says. "For example, there are businessmen with 'dark' backgrounds
working as advisers to the regional administration or as deputies in the
regional legislative assembly."
For the various law-enforcement agencies, an added problem is that the
criminal newcomers are increasingly turning "legit." Before police pressure
forced him to flee the region in 2000, Aslan Khatuev, a powerful Chechen gang
boss based in Nakhodka, ran two banks and 10 other legitimate businesses in
the city, as well as controlling most of the drug and stolen-car rackets. "He
wrote poetry and had a university degree in philosophy," says a long-standing
acquaintance. "If you hadn't heard about him you'd never have known what he
was involved in." According to local folklore, he is now in hiding in either
Canada or Hawaii.
A lawyer in Vladivostok said she regularly turns down legitimate work such as
company registrations because it means representing organized-crime bosses.
"These days, their slogan is 'come away from the shade'," says the leading
member of the Azeri diaspora. "They all wear white collars and ties, and have
the best lawyers working for them," he adds. "That's not a secret."
Some law-enforcement officials now fear the influx of criminal gangs has
become unstoppable. The proliferation of heroin addiction, say police, has
triggered such a sharp rise in drug-related crime that police now have little
time to deal with much else. In Nakhodka last year a heroin addict broke into
an apartment and strangled an eight-year-old boy while his parents were out.
By the time police caught him, he had exchanged his loot--a TV and a
videocassette recorder--for a single dose of heroin.
Prosecutor Sergei says he and his colleagues now spend most of their time
handling such cases. "I have several friends who have become heroin users.
There are lots of them in Vladivostok today, many of them from good
families," he says. "Three years ago maybe one in 10 cases we handled were
related to drugs. Now it's every second case. I'm sick of junkies."
DARK TRADES
By Velisarios Kattoulas
Rampant organized crime in the Russian Far East makes it hard for regular
businesses to operate and is a powerful lure to Central Asian and Caucasian
newcomers. Although many of the major smuggling lines are dominated by
Russians, non-Russians are establishing a strengthening toehold.
Led by Russian mafia and Japanese yakuza gangs, a car-smuggling racket in the
Russian Far East was last year responsible for the theft of 63,000 mainly
luxury cars in Japan, according to Japan's national police agency. Estimates
for the value of the stolen vehicles reach as high as $2 billion.
Dominated by Russian groups, seafood smuggling is stripping the Bering Sea of
fish worth $4 billion a year, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF). In 2001, Japan imported roughly $1 billion worth of seafood caught
illegally by Russian boats, the Japan Fisheries Association says.
Chinese and Russian groups illegally fell 1.5 million cubic metres of timber
a year worth some $300 million, the WWF says. Much of it ends up in China and
South Korea.
Central Asian and Caucasian gangs have been shipping large quantities of
heroin to the Russian Far East since about 1998, when Iran closed its border
with Afghanistan and following a crackdown by Western agencies.
*******
#8
Moscow Times
May 24, 2002
Into the Georgian Quagmire
By Thomas de Waal
Thomas de Waal is Caucasus editor of the Institute for War and Peace
Reporting (www.iwpr.net). He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
I wonder if the 50 or so U.S. soldiers who arrived in
Georgia last weekend knew what they were stepping into. The soldiers are the
latest and largest party in a U.S. "train and equip" mission worth $64
million -- about four times the annual Georgian defense budget. They are
charged with training the Georgian army in counter-insurgency against
suspected al-Qaida militants, who are allegedly taking refuge in Georgia's
Pankisi Gorge.
At first glance, this seems a very worthy and uncontroversial aim. Yet this
is a messy story whose ends do not really tie up. What begins as a tale about
continuing the "fight against terror" looks, on closer inspection, much more
like a continuation of the United States' and Russia's unhealthy obsession
with this small post-Soviet republic.
Let's begin with the Islamic fighters themselves. No one is really sure how
many of them there actually are in the gorge, but according to Western
diplomats several dozen "international mujahedin" fleeing Afghanistan have
stopped off there, having bribed Georgian border guards to do so.
Yet, in contrast to the mujahedin who have decamped from Afghanistan to
Kashmir, these fighters do not appear to have gone to Georgia to fight a new
war. They have no obvious quarrel with the regime in Tbilisi and know next to
nothing of its politics. Rather, they appear to be lying low and catching
their breath, as they look for somewhere else to flee to. Georgia, three
border crossings away from Afghanistan via Iran and Azerbaijan, is not going
to be a long-term home for al-Qaida members, most of whom are probably
heading for Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
The link with the war in Chechnya is also not as strong as it seems at first
glance. The Pankisi Gorge -- more of a valley actually and 30 kilometers long
-- is home to a mixed population of local Georgians and Ossetians, several
thousand Kists (Georgianized Chechens, whose ancestors fled Chechnya in the
19th century) and at least 6,000 Chechen refugees who escaped across the
mountains since fighting resumed in Chechnya in 1999.
It is this last group, and specifically the hard core of fighters among them,
that has been giving shelter to the Islamists. But this does not mean that
they are pouring over the border to fight the Russians. The heavily mined
Georgia-Chechnya border, under surveillance by a group of OSCE monitors, is
not the transit point it was a few years ago and Moscow has been quite
successful in blocking it. Only a tiny handful of extremely fanatical
fighters would consider trying to cross the Caucasus range to continue the
jihad against the Russians, and since the death of the Saudi-born commander
Khattab in March they have even less incentive to do so.
It would also be wrong to portray the Pankisi as some kind of backstop and
place of rest for Chechen fighters in between battles. The most prominent
Chechen fighter in the gorge, Ruslan Gelayev, has been disowned by the
government of rebel president Aslan Maskhadov on the other side of the
mountains. Gelayev, say sources in Georgia, has gone native. He has become a
"hired gun," willing to do dirty deeds for the right price. That is what
Gelayev did last October when he led a multi-national group of fighters in an
attack on the breakaway republic of Abkhazia.
Gelayev, it is now fairly clear, carried out his raid on Abkhazia using the
vehicles, equipment and political support of senior people in the Georgian
army and security establishment. And yet many of these Georgian military men
are now going to be trained by the Americans, supposedly to fight against
Gelayev and his Islamist friends in the Pankisi. Strange, but true -- and the
further you investigate the more curious it gets. The gorge is notorious for
kidnapping -- but frequently, it has taken only a wink and a nod from the
right people in Tbilisi for hostages to be released. When two Spanish
businessmen taken hostage were set free last December, Georgia buzzed with
rumors that crooked policemen in Tbilisi had just been waiting for the right
payoff to instruct their bandit friends in the Pankisi to let the men go.
So the problems of the Pankisi Gorge are essentially criminal ones. The area
is a base for drug trafficking, kidnapping and organized crime. Rather than
training Georgian special forces, it might be better to sack a lot of
Georgian police officials and double the salaries of rank and file policemen,
to make them less susceptible to bribery.
Why then is Washington stepping into this mess? Part of the answer is the
commitment to wage the war against "terror," wherever it rears its head, even
on a small scale like this. A bigger reason is attached to the aura around
the name "Shevardnadze."
There are many people in Washington, left over from the era of George Schultz
and James Baker, who remember Eduard Shevardnadze, former Soviet foreign
minister and now president of Georgia, with great fondness. As far as they
were concerned he, together with Mikhail Gorbachev, made the personal
breakthrough that made the end of the Cold War possible.
The trouble is that there are plenty of people in Moscow who loathe
Shevardnadze for exactly the same reason. And that helps to explain why
Georgia has been plagued by the most destructive side of the post Cold War
relationship between Washington and Moscow. Russian generals have meddled in
Abkhazia and used the continued presence of military bases to try to
undermine Shevardnadze.
Old American Cold Warriors have talked up Georgia as a "strategic bulwark"
against the Russians, raising unjustified hopes in the hearts of Georgian
nationalists that the United States will defend them, come what will, against
the evil empire to the north.
All this has very little to do with the real Georgia, which is poor, corrupt
and still heavily economically dependent on Russia -- under the real
Shevardnadze, a weary politician increasingly ruling without direction, who
has lost most of the standing he once had among his fellow Georgians.
The U.S. troops in Georgia can play a positive role. They can raise the
standards of a very unprofessional army, give guidance and introduce Western
ideas.
But the flip side of their intervention could be to encourage Georgian
officers and generals to keep on thumbing their nose at Russia -- or even
worse, use the training they receive to try and have another push for a
military solution in Abkhazia.
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin would do well to try to rein in
their hawkish advisers on Georgia -- and put more effort into helping the
real country sort out its very real problems.
*******
#9
ITAR-TASS carries 'full text' of interview with President Bush, First Lady
WASHINGTON, May 22 (ITAR-TASS ) - Follows the full text of U.S.
President George W. Bush's and Laura Bush's interview ahead of their
visit to Russia from May 23-26.
QUESTION: Mr. and Mrs. President, thank you very much for this unique
opportunity to meet with you on the eve of your historic visit to Russia.
Mr. president, how do you feel about this trip? What do you expect to
achieve in the course of your meetings with President Putin?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, we've never been to Russia. And Russia is
a great country and we look forward to seeing it. We look forward to
seeing
Moscow; we look forward to seeing St. Petersburg. And so, from a --
just from the viewpoint of the chance to broaden our vision of the world,
it's going to be a wonderful experience.
Secondly, it's going to be an important visit, because the world will
see that the United States and Russia are no longer enemies, that we're
friends.
I hope to be signing important documents clarifying that. And thirdly,
I want the world to know that my friendship with President Putin is real.
I like him, I trust him. We have had good conversations. And this will be
a chance to talk about -- once again talk about our relationship.
And that's important for the world to see, because Russia's a great
country, the United States is a great country. And when two great
countries get along and show friendship, it helps calm -- it can help
calm troubled parts of the world. It's an important message.
QUESTION: Mrs. Bush, and what would you like to see in Moscow and St.
Petersburg?
MRS. BUSH: Well, of course, I'm interested in seeing your beautiful
country, and all the beautiful, cultural things, the paintings at the
Hermitage, the ballet, all of those things I'm interested in seeing.
But I'm also
interested in visiting Madam Putin. I really am interested in seeing
her. We
had her to our ranch. We've gotten to be friends. And I think it's
important
for us to have the chance to continue our friendship.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I guess it will be your fifth meeting with
President
Putin. How is the personal chemistry working?
THE PRESIDENT: Good, real good. As you said, it's the fifth meeting.
First of all, if there was no personal chemistry, or the chemistry
were bad,
there wouldn't be five meetings; we would only have had one meeting.
But this
is the fifth meeting, which should be an indication of, one, the
importance of
the relationship, and two, how well we get along.
President Putin and I share a lot of interests. First of all, we love
our wives, and we love our daughters. We love our countries, we love to
exercise, we love the outdoors. And so I'm really looking forward to
spending some personal time with Vladimir. As well, we're honored to be
staying at his house. And that's going to be a very -- you know, when you
open up your home to somebody, it's an interesting sign and an important
signal.
QUESTION: That's right. Let me touch upon just two political
questions: nuclear weapons cuts, and Russia-NATO relations. Briefly, what
do you expect to achieve in this respect at the summit?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, after my visit to Russia, we're going to go to
Italy,
with a NATO meeting in which Vladimir Putin is going to be there, and
hopefully codify and formalize the "NATO at 20" relationship, which will
give Russia a unique and important status with NATO. That's going to be
very important. I support "At 20" for Russia. I think it's going to be --
as I say, Tony Blair and I have been working on this for a long time, and
Vladimir Putin knows my position on this.
Secondly, I want us to codify the reduction -- a substantial reduction
in nuclear offensive weapons. That's going to be important to show the
world
That we are no longer enemies, we no longer have got stockpiles of
these horrible weapons, and that it is the beginning of a new
relationship. This new relationship is very important. It is important
for Russia, it is just as important for America. But it is also important
for the rest of the world to see.
QUESTION: Mr. President, September 11th -- the tragedy of September
11th -- what were your first comments, first thoughts, first decisions
after the terrorist attacks.
THE PRESIDENT: To go get 'em. Of course, my heart was broken. You've
got to understand, sir, I was sitting in a schoolroom in Florida. And I
had known one airplane had flown into the building. And I was listening
to a presentation
about how to read, how children learn to read. And my Chief of Staff
walked
up and said, "America is under attack."
Those are frightening words for a President to hear. And I thought
about it during that presentation, and I needed to get more information,
to find out exactly what it meant. But when it came clear we were under
attack, there was no question in my mind that we were going to hunt 'em
down, and we were going to bring 'em to justice.
Right afterwards, one of the first phone calls I had was to Laura. I
wanted to make sure she was fine, and I wanted her to call the girls and
let them know I was fine. I also talked to Vladimir Putin very early in
that process. And that meant a lot to me. Because in the old days, if the
United States had gone on alert, Russia would have gone on alert, and it
could have created a problem. But Vladimir knew when we went on alert, it
was not to endanger Russia. And his call was very comforting and very
important.
QUESTION: On that terrible day, what gave you the inner strength? Do
you feel that it was a higher power?
THE PRESIDENT: I do. I believe in an almighty God. And I prayed. I
prayed for strength and wisdom and comfort, absolutely. And not only
that, a lot of people were praying for me, and praying for my family.
America is a nation of prayer. And the prayers of the people sustained me
and Laura. And for that, I am very grateful.
QUESTION: I want to show you one picture, Mr. President -- it is a
personal
question. Maybe you remember that day. It was the First of July 1997.
And we
visited you with my Director General Vitali Ignatenko in your Austin
office. It was soon after the election of you as governor. And on that
day we predicted that you, Mr. Bush, will be the next President of the
United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you predicted it. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Right. You just made a joke on that day, you said, "I have
to consult with Barbara."
THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
QUESTION: But in fact, when did you decide to run for President?
THE PRESIDENT: When did I decide? Oh, gosh, it took a lot of time. I
decided in early '99.
QUESTION: Two years later, two years after we predicted the move.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's right. It was a huge decision for our
family to make. I mean, after all, I've asked my wife to make a major
sacrifice, to come as the First Lady of the United States, and our
daughters --
MRS. BUSH: I wouldn't say it was a sacrifice.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. It turned out not to be, I guess, but
at the time I thought it was. This is an unusual lifestyle. You know, we
have great life in Texas. And so my family -- it bothered me to think my
family would be inconvenienced and put into a fishbowl. Fortunately,
Laura has been the First Lady; she's done a great job. But I made up my
mind. I didn't worry about winning or losing because I don't think you
can run for office concerned about outcome. You've got to run for office
concerned about conveying a vision for a better tomorrow, and that's what
I did.
QUESTION: Well, Mrs. Bush, what were the first words you said to your
husband when the victory came and you understood that your husband had
become President of the United States. What were your first words to him?
MRS. BUSH: When he became President of the United States?
QUESTION: Yes, the first words.
THE PRESIDENT: Brush your teeth. (Laughter.)
MRS. BUSH: No, actually when he won -- on the inauguration, when he
was actually sworn in, I think the first thing we did was kiss, after the
swearing-in.
THE PRESIDENT: The first thing she said was, "I love you."
QUESTION: Okay, we're happy. You are in the White House, but what if a
different scenario had been acted out. If you lost, what could be your
first words to him, if he lost?
MRS. BUSH: Same. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: The very same words?
MRS. BUSH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That's important. Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you are a second U.S. President in your
family. What was your father's influence, what did your father mean to
you as a symbol, as a person, what did he give you?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, it's a great question. I'm a
comfortable person, and I believe it's because I'm comfortable with who I
am. I don't try to be a fake; I don't try to be anything other than who I
am. And I believe the reasons why is because my Mother and Dad have given
me unconditional love.
There's nothing better than having a Dad and a Mom love you. And my
parents have loved me. Sometimes I was hard to love, as a young man, but
they always loved me. And so the most important thing that my Dad and my
Mother have given me is love.
And they -- I occasionally get advice. I get a lot of advice from my
Mother, whether I ask for it or not. (Laughter.) She's a pretty
straightforward woman. But my Dad and I talk, you know, some. And I value
his advice. He's a very wise man and I've learned a lot from him.
QUESTION: In that meeting in Austin, I remember you mentioned your
Mother's name six times. Six times, yes. And, you know, I have never
forgotten the tears in her eyes during your inauguration when she was
standing between two Presidents, her husband and her son. She had six
children. How is it to be the oldest son and the big brother in such a
large family?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the oldest son kind of puts a -- gives a unique
relationship between the mother and the son, I think, in many ways. I'm
close to my Mom, I'm close to my Dad. You know, they used to say in
Texas, he had his daddy's eyes, but his mother's mouth. And I'm sure I've
inherited a lot of my Mother in me, for which I'm grateful.
We've got a loving family. Family is very important to us. It's
important to Laura and me, and it's important to my immediate family, as
well. My brothers treat Laura like she's a sister. And Laura came from -
she had no brothers and sisters, so she inherited a big family.
(Laughter.)
MRS. BUSH: Which has been nice.
THE PRESIDENT: It is nice. But we've got a very close family. I talked
to my little brother this morning. Laura's going, heading to Europe
herself. And my brother, Marvin, is going to come over and spend some
quality time with me. I'm going to miss Laura, but at least Marvin will
be there. So we spend good time together, and family is very important.
QUESTION: Mrs. Bush, how -- do you remember the first time you saw
George, how did he look then? (Laughter.)
MRS. BUSH: I married a very handsome man. He looks great still, but he
was really, really cute when I first met him. We met in Midland, Texas,
in 1977, at a friend's -- some friends asked us both over to dinner and
cooked hamburgers out in the backyard -- a very American dinner. And then
we married three months later.
QUESTION: I have to ask you, Mr. President, about your first
impression
about Laura?
THE PRESIDENT: I was smitten. It was love at first sight. I was
overwhelmed. And as Laura said, it didn't take us long to know we needed
to get married. Three months later we were married, which was a pretty
fast courtship.
QUESTION: Exactly 25 years have passed. And as the American press says
- and it never lies, just as the Russian press never lies -- every
morning, about 5:30 a.m., you, Mr. President, make a cup of coffee for
Laura.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: Every morning, 5:30 a.m.?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: What other family traditions do you value most of all?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'll tell you, we are early morning people.
QUESTIONS: Early birds?
THE PRESIDENT: Early birds. And one of my jobs is, the first thing to
do in the morning after I get dressed, and we have a little breakfast
together, light breakfast, is to take the dogs outside on the South Lawn
of the White House.
QUESTION: Same dogs?
THE PRESIDENT: Same dogs. Barney and Spot. I really enjoy that, too.
It may sound strange, but one of the favorite things I have is to play
with our dogs. I get -- they don't talk back to you, like most people in
politics.
QUESTION: Mrs. Bush, the whole world knows your husband as the
President of the United States. It's a very tough job. Is he a strict
father?
MRS. BUSH: He's a wonderful father. But he -- no, I would say he's not
that strict with the girls. I'm probably the one that has to be strict
with the girls.
We miss them. They're in college; we don't get to see them enough. We
talk to them on the phone almost daily -- one of them just called me a
minute ago, which made me almost late for the interview. They're doing
great.
They're great girls.
QUESTION: Mr. President, what is your first thought when you remember
Midland, Texas?
THE PRESIDENT: First thing about Midland, Texas? No trees. (Laughter.)
It's in the desert, and -- but, you know, what we love about Midland
is our
friends. It may be not very pretty to look at, but the people are
great. And you know something, one of the great things about being
President is Laura and I can have our friends from Midland, Texas here,
and share the White House and share the experience of the presidency. And
it's really fun. These are down-to-earth, good people that we love to
see.
QUESTION: You, Mr. President, are fan number one of baseball.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: You are very fast mile. You like fishing. How do you find
time for these things in your very busy schedule?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I make sure there's time to
exercise. And I tell people -- and Laura does, too -- I think it's very
important for people in stressful jobs to make time to work out. And they
ought to make that a part of their routine. It keeps their mind sharp;
obviously, it makes them feel better. And so I work out every day. We've
got a dinner tonight, but before the dinner I'll go run three miles. I
don't get to fish, though, as much as I want. That's the problem with
this job.
QUESTION: What about American music? I couldn't -- in Russia, we know
American music-makers first of all, such as Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley,
American jazz, Broadway musicals. What is your pick?
THE PRESIDENT: Country and Western. Cowboy music.
QUESTION: Cowboys?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I like cowboy music. And I bet you a lot of
Russians would like cowboy music, too, if some of the good cowboy
music came there.
It's got a real lively beat and a wonderful story to it.
MRS. BUSH: We did have cowboy music when we hosted President Putin at
our ranch. We had a band that sang all the old Western swing classics of
cowboy music.
QUESTION: Fantastic. You know, you are one of the most powerful men in
the
world. Tell me, what is the taste of power?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you know -- first of all, the power I have, I try
to do some good. I mean, I really believe that we have a chance to
achieve peace, and I'm a man of peace. And at home, we have a chance to
make sure the people who are hopeless have hope. And that's how I really
view it.
The key thing is not to let the concept of power go to your head. If
you lose perspective of who you are, if you lose your sense of priority
because you're powerful, you're not a man. And my priorities are my faith
and my family and my friends. And power will not change that, whether I
have power or don't have power.
But to answer your question, it's an honor to be the President. I
respect my country, and I respect Americans. But I understand that I,
too, shall pass, and that while I'm here, I'm just going to do the very
best I can to improve people's lives.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I can't thank you enough for inviting us to
the White
House. It's a mysterious place. And for all the world, you know, we
know the
White House -- "the White House decided", "the White House announced",
"the
White House took action" -- but at the same time, it's your home.
THE PRESIDENT: It is.
QUESTION: It's the home of your family. Would you be so kind as,
maybe, to open some doors?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I would. I'd love to -- we want -- Laura and I
would love to show you some of our favorite spots. It's interesting that
-- you're right, the news treats the White House as if it's a person.
QUESTION: Right, right. Something mysterious, you know?
THE PRESIDENT: That's right. No, it's a home, and it's a wonderful
place.
It's a place for -- it's the people's home. It's not our home. We're
just temporary occupants. But we'd love to show you. I'd like to show you
the Oval Office, if I might.
QUESTION: Oh -- as far as I know, you put there the desk of John
Fitzgerald
Kennedy.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
QUESTION: Was there something symbolic in this decision?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not really. I love the desk; it's a beautiful desk.
But other Presidents have used it -- President Ronald Reagan used it,
President Theodore Roosevelt used it, President Franklin Roosevelt used
it.
And so there's a lot of history at the desk. But nothing symbolic,
really. You'll see. You'll see why I picked it. It's beautiful.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. and Mrs. President.
MRS. BUSH: Thank you so much.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's go look. Let's go to the White House.
QUESTION: Thank you so much.
*******
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