Johnson's Russia List
#6269
24 May 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Remarks by President Bush and President Putin at Signing of Joint
Declaration and Press Availability.
2. Text of Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty.
3. Text of Joint Declaration.
4. Reuters: Verdict on Russian economy status due June 14-Gref.
5. Kommersant: DVORKIN: RUSSIA HAD NOTHING TO USE AS LEVERAGE AGAINST
THE AMERICANS. An interview with Major General Vladimir Dvorkin.
6. Kommersant: NEW RUSSIA-US TREATY COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER BUT IT IS
BETTER THAN NOTHING. (interview with Andrei KOKOSHIN)
7. Rossiiskiye Vesti: ANALYSIS OF THE RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP'S ECONOMIC
POLICY. (inteview with Sergei GLAZYEV)
8. Edward Lozansky: Press Conference in Moscow May 26.
9. Job opening at Kennan Institute.
10. Amnesty International Moscow Office position.]
*******
#1
White House
President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Joint Declaration
Remarks by President Bush and President Putin at Signing of Joint
Declaration and Press Availability
The Kremlin
Moscow, Russia
12:55 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT BUSH: President Putin, thank you very much. Laura and I are so
grateful for your hospitality and your friendship. It's an historic and
hopeful day for Russia and America. It's an historic day for the world, as
well.
President Putin and I today ended a long chapter of confrontation, and
opened up an entirely new relationship between our countries. Mr.
President, I appreciate your leadership. I appreciate your vision. I
appreciate the fact that we've now laid the foundation for not only our
governments, but future governments to work in a spirit of cooperation and
a spirit of trust. That's good. It's good for the people of Russia; it's
good for the people of the United States.
President Putin and I have signed a treaty that will substantially reduce
our nuclear -- strategic nuclear warhead arsenals to the range of 1,700 to
2,200, the lowest level in decades. This treaty liquidates the Cold War
legacy of nuclear hostility between our countries.
We've also signed a joint declaration of new strategic relationship that
charts a course toward greater security, political and economic cooperation
between Russia and the United States. Our nations will continue to
cooperate closely in the war against global terror.
I understand full well that the people of Russia have suffered at the hands
of terrorists. And so have we. And I want to thank President Putin for his
understanding of the nature of the new war we face together, and his
willingness to be determined and steadfast and patient as we pursue this
war together.
President Putin and I agree also that the greatest danger in this war is
the prospect of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Our
nations must spare no effort at preventing all forms of proliferation. And
we discussed Iran in this context today. We'll work closely with each other
on this very important issue.
Our nations also agree on the importance of a new NATO-Russia Council that
will be launched in a few days in Rome. And, Mr. President, this council is
also a tribute to your leadership and your vision. For decades, Russia and
NATO were adversaries. Those days are gone, and that's good. And that's
good for the Russian people, it's good for the people of my country, it's
good for the people of Europe and it's good for the people of the world.
Russia and the United States are also determined to work closely on
important regional challenges. Together, we will work to rebuild
Afghanistan. Together, we will work to improve security in Georgia. We will
work to help end fighting and achieve a political settlement in Chechnya.
Russia and the United States are committed to economic cooperation. We have
launched a major new energy partnership. Private firms will take the lead
in developing and transforming the vast energy reserves of Russia and the
Caspian world to markets through multiple pipelines such as the Caspian
Pipeline Consortium and Baku-Jihan. And I want to thank you for the
cooperation and the willingness to work together on energy and energy
security.
Russia is building its market economy, opening new opportunities for both
our countries. I'm impressed by the level of entrepreneurial growth here in
Russia. It's a significant achievement. Again, it's a testimony to the
leadership of Vladimir Putin.
In a while, we're going to meet with Russian and American business leaders
to discuss how we can continue fostering good relations and fostering
opportunity. We want Russia to be a part of the world economy. We look
forward to one day welcoming Russia as a member of the World Trade
Organization. President Putin and I also agree that we'll work to resolve
disputed areas of trading, such as poultry or steel, in a spirit of mutual
respect and trust.
America welcomes the dramatic improvement in freedoms in Russia since
Soviet days, including the new freedoms of Russia's Jewish community. In
recognition of these freedoms, I am determined to work with Congress to
remove Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment. It is time our Congress
responded to my request, President Putin's desire, that the Jackson-Vanik
amendment be removed pertaining to Russia.
I also discussed with President Putin the important role of free press in
building a working democracy. And today we will meet with media
entrepreneurs from both countries. It's an issue we discussed before. The
President said it makes sense to have a forum where media entrepreneurs can
meet and visit. And it's going to take place today. Mr. President, I
appreciate that.
I am pleased with our relationship. I am confident that by working
together, we make the world more peaceful. I'm confident that by working
together, we can win the first war of the 21st century, and that is the war
cold-blooded killers -- against cold-blooded killers, who want to harm
nations such as America and Russia. And I'm confident that when we work
together in a spirit of cooperation on all fronts, both our peoples will
benefit.
Mr. President, thank you for your hospitality.
PRESIDENT PUTIN: Distinguished American colleagues, and distinguished Mr.
President, ladies and gentlemen. We've just accomplished the official part
of our talks with U.S. President George Bush, for our distinguished
colleagues of the visit in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but now we can name
the major result of our talks -- first of all, the logical development and
practical implementation as seen by our agreements reached in Crawford last
year. I mean the signature of the treaty between Russia on strategic
defensive reductions and, first of all, this document.
It's the statement of our countries to reduce our nuclear arsenals and the
joint work for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It's the
decision of two states which are particularly responsible for international
security and strategic stability. We're on the level of adopting the
declaration on new strategic relationship which determines the basic
directions in the security and international policy.
It will have a positive impact for economic cooperation and development of
our relations between the institutions of general public, and together with
Mr. President, we discussed especially this aspect, the civil society
between the people of our countries. The declaration formulates the
principles of our dialogue, anti-missile dialogue. That is the transparency
and openness and exclusion of potential threats. We confirmed the Genoa
agreement on offensive and defensive systems in all their aspects.
A separate issue, the mechanism of NATO-Russia cooperation within the
framework of 20, it presumes a new level of joint responsibility and
confidence between all its participants.
I would like to stress especially that is the international novelty. And it
happened because of the strengthening of Russian-American relations,
including in joint confrontation to international terrorists struggling
with international terrorism. Russians work together with American people
in September the 8th and we're grateful for sincere feelings of compassion
headed by President Bush on behalf of American people because of the recent
events in Kaspiysk. The memory of terrorism victims and the responsibility
for the security of our people means joint struggle against this evil, as
well as the struggle against Nazism. The spirit of our cooperation will
mean fruitful results even today.
That's why the agenda has very concrete issues of interaction against
terrorism on the basis of unique standards against any manifestation of
terrorism and extremism. We need close contacts through all agencies and
services, including special services. Here we have very positive experience
we've accrued over the past years. And we see today -- we feel it today
during the negotiations.
The bilateral working group on Afghanistan has demonstrated its efficiency.
And we, Mr. President, would like to transform it on a group to combat
terrorism, especially chemical, biological, nuclear terrorism.
Russia and the United States are oriented to build new relations in
economic activity. Our businessman mentality is much alike, that their
qualities and their joint work is based on free trade and supporting the
initiatives. That's why our task is to open new opportunities for business
community.
We need to avoid obstacles of the past. Here we mean not only the market
status of the Russian economy -- and I'm grateful to Mr. President that he
has given a very positive signal during our talks. And it does also mean
such things as Jackson-Vanik amendment, we have to remove administrative
obstacles, which encurls both countries to cooperate, especially in the
high-tech sphere, which determined the economy of the 21st century -- that
is the aeronautics, telecommunications, science and technologies, new
sources of energy. I would like to focus on energy, especially nuclear
energy. We paid much attention to it today. And the large format of our
cooperation will be a great element for the global economy on the whole.
I would like to stress, in conclusion, that, of course, not all ideas, not
all initiatives, are on paper and in the form of official documents. But a
serious move forward in all these issues is quite evident for us. Today we
together counteract global threats and challenges and we're going to form a
stable world order that is within the interests of our peoples and our
countries. And I think it's in the interest of all the civilized human
society.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Name your agency.
Q I have a question for both Presidents, please. If we've truly entered a
new era, why do you each need 1,700 nuclear weapons? And, President Putin,
why does Russia need to continue producing nuclear warheads? And to,
President Bush, why does the United States need to keep some 2,000 of these
weapons in storage, ready for deployment?
PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, remember where we've come from. We've come
from 6,000 to 1,700 in a very quick -- or to 1,700 to 2,200 in a very quick
period of time. You know, friends really don't need weapons pointed at each
other. We both understand that. But it's a realistic assessment of where
we've been. And who knows what will happen 10 years from now. Who knows
what future presidents will say and how they react.
If you have a nuclear arsenal, you want to make sure they work. It's -- one
reason that you keep weapons in storage apart from launchers is for quality
control. And the thing I think it's important for you to know, Ron, is that
we've made tremendous progress from the past. And the treaty is setting a
period of time in the rear-view mirror of both countries. And I am not only
confident that this is good for world peace, I'm confident this sets the
stage for incredible cooperation that we've never had before between our
countries.
PRESIDENT PUTIN: I concur with the assessment given by my colleague, Mr.
Bush. And naturally, our position is well-known, we are guided by the facts
that it's more worthwhile perhaps to eliminate a certain part of nuclear
potentials. At the same time, I'd like to point out another thing here. Any
man who has at least once in his career dealt with arms, had arms in his
hands, at least to hunt or a rifle or whatever, he knows that it's much
better, much safer to have it in stock disarmed, disassembled perhaps,
rather than to have it in your arms and charged with bullets in it and with
your finger on the trigger at the same time. This is a different state of
affairs, as it were.
And the fact that we agreed with President Bush regarding such detente, in
such manner, this is a serious move ahead to ensure international security,
which is a very good sign as regards the relationship between our two
countries.
Now, as to why Russia should continue to produce nuclear arms, I'd like to
say that this is not our priority. But in addition to Russia and U.S. out
there, there are other states who possess nuclear arms. What is more
concerning, there are countries who want to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. Experts in the area of international security are aware of the
fact, and they have been talking a lot about nuclear arms as deterrent.
Moreover, many of them assert -- and it is difficult to dispute this fact
-- they say the existence of the nuclear arms was an impediment, an
obstacle which contained the world from large-scale wars over the past
decades, let's say. And I think we should take that into consideration
while building a new quality of relationship within the two main nuclear
states of the world.
We also should pay attention to the whole set of relations currently in the
world out there and we should take into account the prospects of
development of the world in the realm of security, bearing in mind those
potential threats I've mentioned here.
Q Mr. Bush, when we can hope that Jackson-Vanik will be rescinded, which
currently is very out of place? That's, you know, a remnant of the Cold War
here. And will the U.S. -- can you use it as a leverage of applying
pressure on Russia? And when Russia will finally be recognized as a
marketplace country? And what's the prospect of Russia's accession to WTO?
And now to Mr. Putin, Russian President. What's your idea of how U.S.
Boeings can help Russian civil aviation?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I couldn't make myself clearer during my opening statement
about how I feel about Jackson-Vanik -- not much action by the Congress of
the United States and I hope they act. The market-based economy is an issue
that the President and I talked about. It is a regulatory matter, the
responsibility of which resides at the Commerce Department. Secretary Evans
and I have to talk about this subject, and we'll have an answer to the
President soon.
And in terms of success of Russia ascending into the WTO, it's something
that we want. It's in our nation's interest that Russia be a part of the
WTO. And we look forward to working with the President and respective
ministers, to see that that happens. It's in our interest that that happen.
So it's hard for me to predict the timetables on all the issues you
mentioned. Those over which I have got direct control will happen
relatively quickly.
PRESIDENT PUTIN: Well, you know, while talking about the whole set of
commercial and trade ties between our two countries, today we've mentioned
more than once that we are facing somewhat an unusual situation in this
area today, which has to do with the fact that while improving relations in
disarmament matters, building confidence and so on and so forth, at the
same time, we're expanding the whole set of relations in economic area.
And, naturally, we'll face new problems we never had to deal with before.
The position taken by the U.S. administration and the President is known to
us as regards Jackson-Vanik. It's precisely the administration who
initiated its rescinding. And business communities of our two countries,
American and Russian business communities,and their interaction together
with the interaction of the parliamentary issues, will be able to remove
similar problems in automatic manner, I guess.
Now, as regards your specific question on purchase of Boeings, I must say
that the best lobbyist of the interests of U.S. companies will be American
President standing here, since both Boeings and poultry and other matters
very often have been told by my colleagues. People usually say, well, it's
not on our level, but I must say -- and then there will be a lengthy
monologue on specific matters.
Anyhow, you've posed a very acute and very specific question. Why it's
acute, because it's on the agenda or practical interaction. And it's very
specific since it has a bearing to very specific matters. And since it's
acute and specific, I'll answer as one should in gentlemen's society, in a
very general manner.
First and foremost, our carriers, in my opinion, should be primarily guided
towards Russian aircraft producers. Why? Because Russian manufacturers, you
know, don't have anywhere to sell their products, otherwise, because they
are not let anywhere, or with a lot of difficulty. They only can sell it
domestically. That's the first thing. And here we can talk about
interaction on the market. Now, the second thing, primarily Aeroflot,
should be competitive on the market, and should have advanced technology in
their hands. Therefore, they both have American Boeings today. They also
have European Airbus aircraft. And the question has been raised currently
on additional purchase, on replacement of old equipment with those foreign
aircraft.
Now, I should say, depending on the decision to be taken by economic
structures, this is not a political question, mind you. The economic
structure should decide on it. A lot will depend on it in regards of the
state of our political interaction, of course. And our American colleague's
proposal today is a little bit costlier than the European's proposal. Had
Americans bought our cheap aluminum and steel, then their aircraft would
have been cheaper and more competitive, including in our market.
So all of this jointly has been a subject of our discussions with the
President here, and our good friend and partner, Secretary of Commerce and
economy. And I think that in the course of normalization of trade and
commerce relations, all these issues will be addressed in a most mutually
advantageous manner.
Q -- state sponsor of terrorism. I wonder because of that if these Russians
sales that you object to continue, does that -- this new strategic
relationship you're discussing today bump up against what you outlined in
your speech to Congress when you said, in the war against terrorism, you're
either with the United States or against the United States?
And, President Putin, the Bush team says that your sales of nuclear
technology and sophisticated military technology to Iran are the world's
single biggest proliferation problem right now. Do you agree with that
assessment, and did you make any specific promises today in your meeting
with President Bush?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first, we spent a lot of time on this subject. And as
I said yesterday in Germany, I worry about Iran and I'm confident Vladimir
Putin worries about Iran, and that was confirmed today. He understands
terrorist threats, just like we understand terrorist threats. And he
understands that weapons of mass destruction are dangerous to Russia, just
as they are to America. And he's explained that point himself, of course,
now, he standing here.
But we spoke very frankly and honestly about the need to make sure that a
non-transparent government run by radical clerics doesn't get their hands
on weapons of mass destruction. It could be harmful to us and harmful to
Russia. And the President can speak for himself. And he gave me some
assurances that I think will be very comforting for you to listen to. And
I'm confident we can work together on this issue. This is in both our
countries' mutual interest that we solve this problem.
PRESIDENT PUTIN: I will confirm what Mr. Bush has just said, and I agree
with your evaluation of threats in this regard. Generally speaking, I
believe that the problem of nonproliferation is one of the key problems as
regards ensuring international security.
Incidentally, this happened to be one of the main motivating and
underpinning logical stimuluses to work in Russia-NATO framework together
on non-proliferation on nuclear arms.
At the same time, I'd like to point out that cooperation between Iran and
Russia is not all a character which would undermine the process on
non-proliferation. Our cooperation is exclusively, as regards energy
sector, focused on the problems of economic nature. I'd like to point out
also that the U.S. has taken a commitment upon themselves to build similar
nuclear power plant in North Korea, similar to Russia.
And in addition to Iran, I think, we also need to think about other
countries here. For example, we have some questions concerning development
of missile programs in Taiwan, in some other countries where we've been
witnessing active work of producing mass destruction weapons and their
carriers. All of that should be a subject of our in-depth discussion both
bilaterally and in the frameworks of NATO-Russia agreement. That's one of
the key issues of the modern times, I believe.
It would seem to me that in order to be efficient, in this sense, like in
other areas, we need to address the main task, to upgrade confidence
mutually. And today I mentioned to President Bush here, that as regards
Iran and some other countries, according to our data, the missile programs
of those countries, nuclear programs, are built largely on the basis of the
technologies and with the support of the Western companies. We do have such
info, and we stand ready to share it with our American partners. So if we
pursued that way, not dealing with generalities, then we'll get results
with respect to this very complicated and very important for our two
countries track.
And the conclusive question.
Q To both Presidents, to what extent the treaty ensures real nuclear
parity, and are there conditions that the treaty can be terminated by
either side? And how true is the fact that Russia still remains as one of
the nuclear targets for nuclear forces? And how does that relate to the
announced new strategic relations between our two countries?
PRESIDENT BUSH: -- is a treaty. This document is a treaty that will be
confirmed by the United States Senate and the Duma, hopefully.
Secondly, treaties have always had outs; there's nothing new about that.
There are conditions of which things may change and people get out of
treaties. That's the way it's been. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty had
an out; there's nothing new about that. And, thirdly, you know, we are
going to work to end the -- forever end the Cold War. And that begins with
the statement that Russia's our friend, not our enemy.
And you say targeting -- I mean, the idea of our weaponry, our military has
no aims at Russia. There may be old vestiges in place, but Russia's not an
enemy. You don't think about how to deal with Russia the way they used to.
Russia is a friend. And that's the new thinking. That's part of what's
being codified today.
PRESIDENT PUTIN: As regards the parity, the parity relationship of sorts,
the weight of military potentials and nuclear potential, and so on, so
forth, each state would have its own strategy of development of what you
refer to as nuclear deterrent process. But I'd like to assure you that all
the action undertaken by us in this area fully confirmed with the interests
of the Russian Federation. The documents signed today are a result of joint
effort of the Minister of Defense and Chiefs of staff and our Minister of
Foreign Affairs, of course, jointly with our American colleagues. And we
proceed from the assumption we have today, and we try to forecast the
status of affairs in the world for a lengthy period of time -- I would like
to point out, again, for a lengthy perspective.
Now, as regards the question of verification and control, perhaps, I'd like
to point out that we're very much satisfied with the U.S. administration
approach to this question. Our American partners have agreed that we need
to retain START I, which is provided for by the system of verification. We
agreed we will continue this work on the basis of the documents signed
today, as well.
And what was the second part of the question, incidentally? The mike was
off at this time. Regarding those targets, that was not to me. I will also
make a remark here, regarding aiming targets. And Mr. Baluyevskiy, our
military First Deputy Chief of Staff, is here with us. He and his American
counterpart are full aware of those things, targeting aims and other things
involved and what is the status today of those aimings and targeting. All
in speculations in the press are nothing but expression of domestic
political infight either here or in the U.S., just on the verge of the visit.
We are not being emotional here. We're not talking to the press, but as
experts, we're full aware of that and we have no concern whatsoever in this
regard.
Thank you. Thank you for your kind attention and for your participation.
END 1:35 P.M. (L)
*******
#2
White House
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 24, 2002
Text of Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty
The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter
referred to as the Parties,
Embarking upon the path of new relations for a new century and committed to
the goal of strengthening their relationship through cooperation and
friendship,
Believing that new global challenges and threats require the building of a
qualitatively new foundation for strategic relations between the Parties,
Desiring to establish a genuine partnership based on the principles of
mutual security, cooperation, trust, openness, and predictability,
Committed to implementing significant reductions in strategic offensive arms,
Proceeding from the Joint Statements by the President of the United States
of America and the President of the Russian Federation on Strategic Issues
of July 22, 2001 in Genoa and on a New Relationship between the United
States and Russia of November 13, 2001 in Washington,
Mindful of their obligations under the Treaty Between the United States of
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and
Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of July 31, 1991, hereinafter
referred to as the START Treaty,
Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968, and
Convinced that this Treaty will help to establish more favorable conditions
for actively promoting security and cooperation, and enhancing
international stability,
Have agreed as follows:
Article I
Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads, as stated by
the President of the United States of America on November 13, 2001 and as
stated by the President of the Russian Federation on November 13, 2001 and
December 13, 2001 respectively, so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate
number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each Party. Each
Party shall determine for itself the composition and structure of its
strategic offensive arms, based on the established aggregate limit for the
number of such warheads.
Article II
The Parties agree that the START Treaty remains in force in accordance with
its terms.
Article III
For purposes of implementing this Treaty, the Parties shall hold meetings
at least twice a year of a Bilateral Implementation Commission.
Article IV
1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification in accordance with the
constitutional procedures of each Party. This Treaty shall enter into force
on the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification.
2. This Treaty shall remain in force until December 31, 2012 and may be
extended by agreement of the Parties or superseded earlier by a subsequent
agreement.
3. Each Party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may withdraw from
this Treaty upon three months written notice to the other Party.
Article V
This Treaty shall be registered pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of
the United Nations.
Done at Moscow on May 24, 2002, in two copies, each in the English and
Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
AMERICA:
******
#3
White House
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 24, 2002
Text of Joint Declaration
The United States of America and the Russian Federation,
Recalling the accomplishments at the Ljubljana, Genoa, Shanghai, and
Washington/Crawford Summits and the new spirit of cooperation already
achieved;
Building on the November 13, 2001 Joint Statement on a New Relationship
Between the United States and Russia, having embarked upon the path of new
relations for the twenty-first century, and committed to developing a
relationship based on friendship, cooperation, common values, trust,
openness, and predictability;
Reaffirming our belief that new global challenges and threats require a
qualitatively new foundation for our relationship;
Determined to work together, with other nations and with international
organizations, to respond to these new challenges and threats, and thus
contribute to a peaceful, prosperous, and free world and to strengthening
strategic security;
Declare as follows:
A Foundation for Cooperation
We are achieving a new strategic relationship. The era in which the United
States and Russia saw each other as an enemy or strategic threat has ended.
We are partners and we will cooperate to advance stability, security, and
economic integration, and to jointly counter global challenges and to help
resolve regional conflicts.
To advance these objectives the United States and Russia will continue an
intensive dialogue on pressing international and regional problems, both on
a bilateral basis and in international fora, including in the UN Security
Council, the G-8, and the OSCE. Where we have differences, we will work to
resolve them in a spirit of mutual respect.
We will respect the essential values of democracy, human rights, free
speech and free media, tolerance, the rule of law, and economic opportunity.
We recognize that the security, prosperity, and future hopes of our peoples
rest on a benign security environment, the advancement of political and
economic freedoms, and international cooperation.
The further development of U.S.-Russian relations and the strengthening of
mutual understanding and trust will also rest on a growing network of ties
between our societies and peoples. We will support growing economic
interaction between the business communities of our two countries and
people-to-people and cultural contacts and exchanges.
Political Cooperation
The United States and Russia are already acting as partners and friends in
meeting the new challenges of the 21st century; affirming our Joint
Statement of October 21, 2001, our countries are already allied in the
global struggle against international terrorism.
The United States and Russia will continue to cooperate to support the
Afghan people's efforts to transform Afghanistan into a stable, viable
nation at peace with itself and its neighbors. Our cooperation, bilaterally
and through the United Nations, the 'Six-Plus-Two? diplomatic process, and
in other multilateral fora, has proved important to our success so far in
ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban and al-Qaida.
In Central Asia and the South Caucasus, we recognize our common interest in
promoting the stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of all the
nations of this region. The United States and Russia reject the failed
model of ?Great Power? rivalry that can only increase the potential for
conflict in those regions. We will support economic and political
development and respect for human rights while we broaden our humanitarian
cooperation and cooperation on counterterrorism and counternarcotics.
The United States and Russia will cooperate to resolve regional conflicts,
including those in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Transnistrian
issue in Moldova. We strongly encourage the Presidents of Azerbaijan and
Armenia to exhibit flexibility and a constructive approach to resolving the
conflict concerning Nagorno-Karabakh. As two of the Co-Chairmen of the
OSCE's Minsk Group, the United States and Russia stand ready to assist in
these efforts.
On November 13, 2001, we pledged to work together to develop a new
relationship between NATO and Russia that reflects the new strategic
reality in the Euro-Atlantic region. We stressed that the members of NATO
and Russia are increasingly allied against terrorism, regional instability,
and other contemporary threats. We therefore welcome the inauguration at
the May 28, 2002 NATO-Russia summit in Rome of a new NATO-Russia Council,
whose members, acting in their national capacities and in a manner
consistent with their respective collective commitments and obligations,
will identify common approaches, take joint decisions, and bear equal
responsibility, individually and jointly, for their implementation. In this
context, they will observe in good faith their obligations under
international law, including the UN Charter, provisions and principles
contained in the Helsinki Final Act and the OSCE Charter for European
Security. In the framework of the NATO-Russia Council, NATO member states
and Russia will work as equal partners in areas of common interest. They
aim to stand together against common threats and risks to their security.
As co-sponsors of the Middle East peace process, the United States and
Russia will continue to exert joint and parallel efforts, including in the
framework of the "Quartet," to overcome the current crisis in the Middle
East, to restart negotiations, and to encourage a negotiated settlement. In
the Balkans, we will promote democracy, ethnic tolerance, self-sustaining
peace, and long-term stability, based on respect for the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the states in the region and United Nations
Security Council resolutions. The United States and Russia will continue
their constructive dialogue on Iraq and welcome the continuation of special
bilateral discussions that opened the way for UN Security Council adoption
of the Goods Review List.
Recalling our Joint Statement of November 13, 2001 on counternarcotics
cooperation, we note that illegal drug trafficking poses a threat to our
peoples and to international security, and represents a substantial source
of financial support for international terrorism. We are committed to
intensifying cooperation against this threat, which will bolster both the
security and health of the citizens of our countries.
The United States and Russia remain committed to intensifying cooperation
in the fight against transnational organized crime. In this regard, we
welcome the entry into force of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in
Criminal Matters on January 31, 2002.
Economic Cooperation
The United States and Russia believe that successful national development
in the 21st century demands respect for the discipline and practices of the
free market. As we stated on November 13, 2001, an open market economy, the
freedom of economic choice, and an open democratic society are the most
effective means to provide for the welfare of the citizens of our countries.
The United States and Russia will endeavor to make use of the potential of
world trade to expand the economic ties between the two countries, and to
further integrate Russia into the world economy as a leading participant,
with full rights and responsibilities, consistent with the rule of law, in
the world economic system. In this connection, the sides give high priority
to Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization on standard terms.
Success in our bilateral economic and trade relations demands that we move
beyond the limitations of the past. We stress the importance and
desirability of graduating Russia from the emigration provisions of the
U.S. Trade Act of 1974, also known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. We note
that the Department of Commerce, based on its ongoing thorough and
deliberative inquiry, expects to make its final decision no later than June
14, 2002 on whether Russia should be treated as a market economy under the
provisions of U.S. trade law. The sides will take further practical steps
to eliminate obstacles and barriers, including as appropriate in the
legislative area, to strengthen economic cooperation.
We have established a new dynamic in our economic relations and between our
business communities, aimed at advancing trade and investment opportunities
while resolving disputes, where they occur, constructively and transparently.
The United States and Russia acknowledge the great potential for expanding
bilateral trade and investment, which would bring significant benefits to
both of our economies. Welcoming the recommendations of the
Russian-American Business Dialogue, we are committed to working with the
private sectors of our countries to realize the full potential of our
economic interaction. We also welcome the opportunity to intensify
cooperation in energy exploration and development, especially in oil and
gas, including in the Caspian region.
Strengthening People-to-People Contacts
The greatest strength of our societies is the creative energy of our
citizens. We welcome the dramatic expansion of contacts between Americans
and Russians in the past ten years in many areas, including joint efforts
to resolve common problems in education, health, the sciences, and
environment, as well as through tourism, sister-city relationships, and
other people-to-people contacts. We pledge to continue supporting these
efforts, which help broaden and deepen good relations between our two
countries.
Battling the scourge of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, ending family
violence, protecting the environment, and defending the rights of women are
areas where U.S. and Russian institutions, and especially non-governmental
organizations, can successfully expand their cooperation.
Preventing the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Non-Proliferation and
International Terrorism
The United States and Russia will intensify joint efforts to confront the
new global challenges of the twenty-first century, including combating the
closely linked threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We believe that
international terrorism represents a particular danger to international
stability as shown once more by the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It
is imperative that all nations of the world cooperate to combat this threat
decisively. Toward this end, the United States and Russia reaffirm our
commitment to work together bilaterally and multilaterally.
The United States and Russia recognize the profound importance of
preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and missiles. The
specter that such weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists and those
who support them illustrates the priority all nations must give to
combating proliferation.
To that end, we will work closely together, including through cooperative
programs, to ensure the security of weapons of mass destruction and missile
technologies, information, expertise, and material. We will also continue
cooperative threat reduction programs and expand efforts to reduce
weapons-usable fissile material. In that regard, we will establish joint
experts groups to investigate means of increasing the amount of
weapons-usable fissile material to be eliminated, and to recommend
collaborative research and development efforts on advanced,
proliferation-resistant nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies. We
also intend to intensify our cooperation concerning destruction of chemical
weapons.
The United States and Russia will also seek broad international support for
a strategy of proactive non-proliferation, including by implementing and
bolstering the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the
conventions on the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. The
United States and Russia call on all countries to strengthen and strictly
enforce export controls, interdict illegal transfers, prosecute violators,
and tighten border controls to prevent and protect against proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Missile Defense, Further Strategic Offensive Reductions, New Consultative
Mechanism on Strategic Security
The United States and Russia proceed from the Joint Statements by the
President of the United States of America and the President of the Russian
Federation on Strategic Issues of July 22, 2001 in Genoa and on a New
Relationship Between the United States and Russia of November 13, 2001 in
Washington.
The United States and Russia are taking steps to reflect, in the military
field, the changed nature of the strategic relationship between them.
The United States and Russia acknowledge that today's security environment
is fundamentally different than during the Cold War.
In this connection, the United States and Russia have agreed to implement a
number of steps aimed at strengthening confidence and increasing
transparency in the area of missile defense, including the exchange of
information on missile defense programs and tests in this area, reciprocal
visits to observe missile defense tests, and observation aimed at
familiarization with missile defense systems. They also intend to take the
steps necessary to bring a joint center for the exchange of data from early
warning systems into operation.
The United States and Russia have also agreed to study possible areas for
missile defense cooperation, including the expansion of joint exercises
related to missile defense, and the exploration of potential programs for
the joint research and development of missile defense technologies, bearing
in mind the importance of the mutual protection of classified information
and the safeguarding of intellectual property rights.
The United States and Russia will, within the framework of the NATO-Russia
Council, explore opportunities for intensified practical cooperation on
missile defense for Europe.
The United States and Russia declare their intention to carry out strategic
offensive reductions to the lowest possible levels consistent with their
national security requirements and alliance obligations, and reflecting the
new nature of their strategic relations.
A major step in this direction is the conclusion of the Treaty Between the
United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive
Reductions.
In this connection, both sides proceed on the basis that the Treaty Between
the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on
the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of July 31, 1991,
remains in force in accordance with its terms and that its provisions will
provide the foundation for providing confidence, transparency, and
predictability in further strategic offensive reductions, along with other
supplementary measures, including transparency measures, to be agreed.
The United States and Russia agree that a new strategic relationship
between the two countries, based on the principles of mutual security,
trust, openness, cooperation, and predictability requires substantive
consultation across a broad range of international security issues. To that
end we have decided to:
? establish a Consultative Group for Strategic Security to be chaired by
Foreign Ministers and Defense Ministers with the participation of other
senior officials. This group will be the principal mechanism through which
the sides strengthen mutual confidence, expand transparency, share
information and plans, and discuss strategic issues of mutual interest; and
? seek ways to expand and regularize contacts between our two countries'
Defense Ministries and Foreign Ministries, and our intelligence agencies.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE THE PRESIDENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
Moscow May 24, 2002.
******
#4
Verdict on Russian economy status due June 14-Gref
MOSCOW, May 24 (Reuters) - Washington is set to rule on June 14 on Russia's
status as a "market economy," an endorsement of Moscow's economic reforms
which would boost Moscow's bid to join the World Trade Organisation,
Russia's economy minister said.
German Gref, Economic Development and Trade Minister, said a positive
decision by the U.S. Commerce Department would prove a huge boost to
Russian exporters struggling with U.S. anti-dumping tariffs slapped on
"non-market economies."
"The deadline for the final decision by the United States on the
recognition of Russia as a market economy is June 14," Gref said in
televised comments after Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin met
in the Kremlin.
"This will give Russia and Russian enterprises new possibilities, now
restricted because of anti-dumping tariffs."
Russia's southern neighbour, former Soviet Kazakhstan, was reclassified as
a market economy in March, but Washington has yet to rule on Russia or
Ukraine.
Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Latvia have all been
reclassified since the collapse of communist rule.
"If that decision is taken, we will have a lot of work to do, bringing our
legal framework into line with the new realities," Gref said.
Putin had hoped Bush would award Russia its new status during the four-day
summit which began in Thursday, but the U.S. president said only that the
status was under review.
Bush told a news conference alongside Putin that the issue of the new
designation had figured in the summit talks.
"It is a regulatory matter, the responsibility of which resides with the
Commerce Department," Bush said.
He and Secretary of Commerce Don Evans had discussed the matter "and we
will have an answer to the president soon."
The Jackson-Vanik amendment, introduced in 1974 to link U.S.-Russian trade
relations to long abandoned Soviet curbs on Jewish emigration, also remains
in place despite Putin's hopes it would be lifted during Bush's visit.
But Bush said new freedoms in Russia meant the Congress should be urged to
scrap the measure.
"In recognition of these freedoms, I am determined to work with Congress to
remove Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment," he told a Kremlin news
conference.
"It is time our Congress responded to my request, to President Putin's
desire, that the Jackson-Vanik amendment be removed pertaining to Russia."
The U.S. Senate failed this week to take the necessary steps to remove the
amendment.
*******
#5
Kommersant
May 24, 2002
DVORKIN: RUSSIA HAD NOTHING TO USE AS LEVERAGE AGAINST THE AMERICANS
An interview with Major General Vladimir Dvorkin
Author: Ivan Safronov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
ONE OF RUSSIA'S TOP DEFENSE ANALYSTS COMMENTS ON THE NEW AGREEMENT
WITH THE UNITED STATES. HE NOTES THAT ANY TREATY IS A FORM OF
EXCHANGE, BUT RUSSIA NOW HAS NOTHING TO GIVE. THAT IS WHY MOSCOW
ANNOUNCED IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WOULD BRING DOWN ITS NUCLEAR ARSENALS TO
1,500 WARHEADS.
AN INTERVIEW WITH MAJOR GENERAL VLADIMIR DVORKIN, ONE OF THE LEADING
RUSSIAN EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, DIRECTOR OF THE
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES CENTER AT THE ACADEMY OF MILITARY SCIENCES,
SENIOR ADVISER WITH THE CENTER OF POLITICAL SURVEYS. HE SAYS THERE IS
ONLY ONE GOOD THING ABOUT THE NEW TREATY - IT SPECIFIES EQUAL NUCLEAR
STATUS FOR RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES.
Question: How would you assess the new Russian-US treaty on
nuclear arms cuts?
Vladimir Dvorkin: The document specifies equal nuclear status for
Russia and the United States and offers, for its duration, the
possibility of continuing the dialogue on reduction of nuclear
arsenals. This is probably the only good thing about it. Sure, the
agreement facilitates stability in Russian-US relations and around the
world. That is all. I do not see any other merits because the new
treaty merely specifies the national plans of nuclear arms development
of Russia and the United States.
Question: Why sign it then? After all, we have START I, which
will only expire in 2009.
Vladimir Dvorkin: START I was signed in 1991 and became valid in
1994. It permitted each signatory to have 6,000 warheads. Russia and
the United States approached this level last December. The new treaty
permits each signatory 1,700 - 2,200 warheads. It is an important step
on the way of abatement of nuclear threat.
Question: There are different opinions of the new Russian-US
treaty. Some experts call it a breakthrough, others label it a
failure.
Vladimir Dvorkin: It is difficult now to predict future
developments because it is the United States itself that is the source
of unpredictability of the military-political situation. At their
meeting in Helsinki in 1997, Russia and the United States agreed that
irreversible reduction and dismantlement of nuclear ordnance would be
the basis of all future accords on offensive nuclear weapons. The
latest treaty does not specify anything like that. The United States
did not want it.
Or take another episode. Moscow and Washington agreed in Cologne
in 1999 to consider the ABM treaty a cornerstone of strategic
stability. The United States made a sharp turn in this sphere less
than two years after that.
Question: Which of the signatories made most concessions. It is
common knowledge that the new treaty does not include the conditions
or control mechanisms Russia has always insisted on.
Vladimir Dvorkin: The treaty does not include any new mechanisms
indeed. On the other hand, it does not destroy the mechanisms already
existing. START I will be valid until 2009, remember? The declaration
which will also be signed states that a year before START I
expirations the signatories will meet and discuss if it should be
prolonged.
Question: All previous treaties were always very specific about
exactly what ought to be cut, and how. This document - merely three
pages - mentions general parameters only.
Vladimir Dvorkin: START I was 500 pages long. START II was much
shorter because the whole system of inspections and measures of trust
has already been developed. No one expected the new document to be
long. What does Russia have in terms of leverage to be used against
the Americans? After all, any treaty is a form of exchange. You give
me this, and you get that from me. Now, Russia has nothing to give.
That is why Moscow announced immediately that it would bring down its
nuclear arsenals to 1,500 warheads.
Besides, our plans of nuclear forces development all but
implemented the error of Chief of the General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin.
I'm talking about his insistence on reduction of the ground component.
It is the land-based component of the nuclear forces that has always
been the worry for the Americans. Our mobile systems and heavy ICBMs
concerned them greatly, and we could demand something in exchange. No
longer.
Question: And yet, Russia may retain 154 RS-20 missiles, each
tipped with ten warheads. The ICBMs would have been dismantled under
START II, but not now. And it is common knowledge that they are a
concern for Washington too.
Vladimir Dvorkin: Yes, we can extend their lifespans and maintain
nuclear parity for the time being. Unfortunately, this will be over by
2015. The RS-20s will have to be replaced with Topol-Ms. As for their
deployment, it is up to the president and government. The number of
Topols will directly depend on funding.
*******
#6
Kommersant
No. 87
May 25, 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
NEW RUSSIA-US TREATY COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER BUT IT IS BETTER THAN NOTHING
Duma deputy Andrei KOKOSHIN, ex-secretary of the Russian
Security Council who took part in the elaboration of the
START-1 and START-2 treaties, told this newspaper's
correspondent Ivan SAFRONOV that the new Russia-US treaty could
have been better yet it would still benefit Russia as it is.
Question: The new treaty on nuclear cuts has a major
drawback: it does not include a mechanism of reduction
verification. Maybe we should have put off its signing and
continue negotiations?
Answer: The treaty may benefit Russia even in its present
form. It stipulates the use of all requisite verification
procedures sealed in START-1, including the inspection of
warehouses where the two sides may store the warheads removed
from delivery vehicles. If not for this new treaty, Russia
would have had to cut its nuclear arsenal anyway but without
the effective and justified procedures of control over the
situation in this sphere in the USA.
Question: Under the new treaty, Russia will slash more
warheads than the USA will. Besides, the Americans ensured that
the slashed warheads would not be liquidated but stored. Should
we sign such asymmetrical treaty?
Answer: I was not aware that we would have to cut more
warheads than the Americans will. It is another matter that we
would have had to slash them anyway, for economic reasons. As
for the redeployable potential that will develop owing to the
stockpiling of slashed warheads, it is not the best possible
way of effecting nuclear disarmament. Rather, it is a measure
designed to reduce the combat readiness of nuclear arsenals. On
the whole, I believe that the treaty could have been better,
but the treaty we have now is not that bad. And this is better
than nothing.
Question: It looks as if Russia is trying to sign any
strategic arms cuts treaty with the USA, even if not a very
good one, in view of the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty on
June 13 this year. Do you agree?
Answer: I don't see a direct link between the signing of
the new treaty and the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty. I can
only say in this connection that the idea of the new treaty
underwent quite a few transformations. Initially, the USA did
not want to sign anything. Next it suggested exchanging
letters. After that it suggested an agreement and only later
accepted the idea of Russia, which insisted on signing a
treaty. It will be subjected to all requisite parliamentary
procedures in the USA and Russia.
This is a victory of Russian diplomacy. The START-1 and START-2
treaties imposed limitations on the structure and composition
of strategic nuclear forces of the sides owing to US attempts
to "push" Russia from land into sea where the USA was
traditionally stronger. Militarily, the new treaty is a major
achievement because it lifts these limitations.
Question: That is, Russia will be free to determine the
structure and composition of its nuclear triad?
Answer: Exactly. I am a firm advocate of the preservation
of the nuclear triad in Russia. I have always objected to
deploying Russia's strategic offensive weapons exclusively on
land. We should have all of the three basic delivery vehicles
for nuclear weapons - nuclear-powered missile submarines,
land-based ICBMs and heavy bombers armed with long-range cruise
missiles, even if the aviation element is a small one.
Question: How will the new treaty influence strategic
stability in the world?
Answer: Strategic stability is ensured not only and not so
much by treaties. Stability is ensured above all by the
existence of effective strategic nuclear forces. If our nuclear
forces are maintained in full combat readiness and are
regularly replenished with novel Topol-M missile systems and
modernised and subsequently brand-new nuclear submarines and
aircraft, and if we develop ABM-evasion systems, the new treaty
will fulfil its role.
We should also develop the system of pre-nuclear deterrence
based on the threat of the use of long-range non-nuclear
precision weapons. And no treaty will ensure strategic
stability if efforts in these spheres prove useless.
*******
#7
Rossiiskiye Vesti
No. 16
May 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
ANALYSIS OF THE RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP'S ECONOMIC POLICY
Sergei GLAZYEV, one of the most authoritative and
irreconcilable critics of the Russian government, deputy of the
State Duma and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of
Sciences analyses specially for Rossiiskiye Vesti the economic
policy of the Russian government
Question: The recent state-of-the-nation address by the
Russian President to the Federal Assembly was intended to
outline the ways of resolving the problems that remain. Do you
think the President coped with this task in his message?
Answer: The main leitmotif of the address is that it is
better to be rich and healthy than sick and poor.
However, it failed to give an answer to the main question:
how to go over from one state to another? It is not enough to
say about the need to create conditions, under which citizens
will earn and invest money in the country's development
implementing the principle: "when you earn, this brings
benefits to you and the country." However, if it were as simple
as that, there would not be six and a half million unemployed
people in Russia, of whom at least one million are persons with
higher education and qualification, who are quite capable of
starting up their own business. The problem is that there are
no mechanisms for maintaining economic growth, without which
the scientific and production potential available in the
country works at half-capacity and quickly becomes degraded.
The interests that dominate in the process of the formation of
economic policy obstruct the creation of such mechanisms.
Question: Has the Russian economic course changed in the
Putin era as compared to the Yeltsin era?
Answer: Until the end of the current political cycle it is
hardly possible to expect any special changes in the social and
economic policy. Authorities will maintain the current status
quo: the structure of property and national income distribution
formed in the Yeltsin period will remain unchanged and will be
further sealed legislatively and institutionally.
"The oligarchic family" needs neither development banks,
nor the development budget, nor anti-monopoly policy, nor any
measures for investment and innovation policy stimulation
limiting its monopoly on appropriating a lion's share of the
national income. That is why all the efforts to introduce the
obvious mechanisms of restructuring and modernisation of the
economy on a modern technological basis proposed many times by
the country's leading economic institutes and domestic
commodity producers have failed. The concentration of resources
in the promising directions of global economic development,
required for this purpose, runs across the oligarchs'
unwillingness to share the rent of natural resources and
restrict the exportation of their capital.
Question: In his address the President stressed the
importance of the payment of the foreign debt, even ahead of
schedule. However, he did not say a word about the internal
debt to Russian citizens. Why?
Answer: Indeed, the savings of citizens lost in the course
of reforms have not been restored up to this day in compliance
with the legislation that has been adopted. Moreover, the
government submitted to the State Duma a bill which cancels the
norms of the effective legislation stipulating the right of
citizens to demand compensation at Sberbank for their savings
devalued because of the authorities' decisions. Meanwhile, the
state debt as regards these savings is less than the foreign
debt of Russia.
The timely fulfilment of state liabilities with respect
for foreign debt and, all the more so, its repayment ahead of
schedule means the failure by the state to fulfil actually all
its social obligations established by the effective legislation.
The state has not been able for several years now to fulfil any
norm of the social sphere financing as established by law.
Question: Why does everything happen precisely in this
way?
On whom do the results of the presidential elections in Russia
depend to a larger degree, after all?
Answer: The unconditional fulfilment of obligations to
foreign creditors while ignoring the obligations to the
population means obvious discrimination of the latter in
relation to the former even under the cynical rules of the
financial market. In a country that respects itself, all the
more so, in a democratic country, such a situation is simply
unthinkable.
Question: Do you suggest giving up payments? But in this
case our country will be immediately locked in an economic
blockade.
Answer: There is an obvious solution to the debt problem,
which has been used many times in world practice. We have
recommended the President and the government on many occasions
to offer creditors to restructure Russian liabilities with the
use of the debt for investments scheme. For this purpose it is
necessary to recognise Russia's inability, given the current
plight of the people, to service the foreign debt in full. This
will undoubtfully deal a blow on the reputation of government
members as pro-liberal reformers and the West will stop
applauding them. However, there will be no other negative
consequences of this move. As the elementary logic and
international experience suggest, the creditors will be forced
to meet us half-way since they are least of all interested in
the bankruptcy of such a large borrower.
Question: The President named oil exports, small business
and applied science among the potential growth areas. Do you
agree with such a choice?
Answer: Russia's first place in oil export is another
doubtful achievement of the incumbent government. Whereas
previously we were proud of our achievements in the field of
space exploration, nuclear energy, science and education, today
we have to content with the role of the supplier of raw
materials and cheap labour force for foreign customers. The
great chemist and economist Dmitry Mendeleyev who cared about
the development of the Russian economy based on the
introduction of modern technologies of that time said the
following: burning oil is tantamount to stoking a stove with
bank notes. Exporting oil is tantamount to wasting them.
Question: And what can you say about small business?
Answer: State support is undoubtfully necessary for it,
including the provision of credits on easy terms, simpler and
lower taxes, and access to production resources. It is possible
to agree with the President's position that the conditions for
the operation of small business have deteriorated due to its
double taxation after the introduction of the single social tax.
At the same time, it is strange to hear reproaches addressed to
the Federal Assembly to the effect that while discussing the
tax legislation the deputies allegedly revised the government's
proposals. All the tax innovations without any exception were
offered by the government and the presidential administration
and were adopted by the State Duma majority controlled by them.
Question: Do you also agree with the President's
assessments that the country's scientific and technical
potential holds good prospects but is not used sufficiently?
Answer: Yes, of course. Scientific and technical progress
as the main factor of economic development does not work in our
economy. Whereas in developed countries the introduction of new
technologies accounts for up to 90 per cent of the growth of
the gross domestic product, in this country this figure is
hardly more than 5%. This is due to the absence of the
mechanisms for promoting scientific and technical developments
in production, which was emphasised by the President. Such
specific mechanisms - from development banks and targeted
federal programmes to the methods of innovation activity
financing at the micro-level have long been offered by the
People's Patriotic Union of Russia. The reproach for the
insufficient introduction of new technologies can be addressed
to the officials of the Finance Ministry and the State Duma
majority who obstruct the adoption of our legislative
initiatives for innovation activity stimulation.
I hope that it will be possible in the near future to
remedy one of the strategic mistakes of the tax reform and
restore the financing of sectoral scientific and technical
funds, which were previously formed through corporate 1.5%
voluntary deductions, accounted for in the prime cost of
products. Today this is the only real mechanism of external
financing for the introduction of the achievements of science
and technology into production. Such funds used to accumulate
up to 20 billion roubles which were used by enterprises to
assimilate new technologies.
Question: Whence the corruption of the state apparatus,
about which the President spoke as a disaster in his address?
Answer: It is generated by the combination of
irresponsibility and incompetence. For example, to whom does a
federal minister answer for his work? Whatever the talks about
a law-governed state, under the Constitution he answers only to
the President. In the absence of any control over the activity
of the executive branch, the latter begins to work according to
the principle of collective cover-up when no one bears personal
responsibility for anything. Hence the personnel policy
principle: to employ only persons with kinship, ethnic, etc.
ties or those who display personal loyalty. This inevitably
means hushing up all their abuses. The powers that be are thus
turning into a privileged caste which only services its
corporate and private interests.
To do away with the inefficiency of the state apparatus,
it is necessary to begin the notorious administrative reform
from the federal government. Many posts in it are held by the
people who do not even have special education in the sphere of
their competence. There are clearly not enough professionals in
key economic ministries and departments where corruption has
become the talk of the town.
Question: Is it possible to overcome this "basic
instinct"?
Answer: It is necessary to ensure society's control over
the authorities and the principle of personal responsibility
for the results of the work of any state official. The former
can be realised in the form of parliamentary control over the
activity of the government and the President, which implies the
considerable expansion of the rights of the State Duma to
appoint federal ministers and more explicit legal grounds for
assessing the work of the government and the President. These
issues are addressed in our amendments to the Constitution and
the bill on the government, and also in a draft law on the
citizens' right to a worthy life, which I introduced quite
recently and in compliance with which the government must
annually report on the fulfilment of social obligations.
The second principle, the principle of personal
responsibility, must be sealed in the criminal legislation.
In particular, I submitted on many occasions amendments to
the Criminal Code specifying the responsibility of state
officials for budget spending, state property management and
the fulfilment of other norms of legislation. However, all of
them were rejected.
Question: Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Will Russia
be able to overcome all its problems?
Answer: I am an optimist and on any occasion I see an
opportunity to remedy the situation. The programme of economic
growth prepared by the leading scientists of the Russian
Academy of Sciences with my participation on the basis of
fundamental research into the regularities of modern economic
development makes it possible to ensure a quick and sustainable
development of the Russian economy at a rate of no less than
8-10 per cent of the growth of production and the incomes of
the population per year on the basis of the active use of the
country's available scientific, technical and human potential.
However, knowledge is not enough for this purpose - political
opportunities are also necessary. I am confident that these
will be available as well.
This is because we have little choice: either to implement our
programme of economic restructuring on a modern technological
basis using the respective instruments of state stimulation of
investment and innovation activity growth or to stay for long
on the margins of the world market as a source of raw materials
and cheap labour force.
Those who justify today's policy rejoicing at Russia's
first places in oil export, capital flight or cheap labour
force are in fact pessimists who do not see any other
perspective for our country but to follow passively the path of
degradation, the loss of national sovereignty and the ability
for independent development.
(Interviewed by Igor DMITRIYEV.)
*******
#8
From: Edward Lozansky (Lozansky@aol.com)
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002
Subject: Press Conference in Moscow.
Press Conference on Sunday, May 26 at 9.30 AM
Address: 44 Bolshaya Nikitskaya, Moscow, Russia
For additional information please call:
Edward Lozansky at (202)-986-6010 in Washington
Arkady Murashev in Moscow (095)- 290-2309 or
E-mail: Lozansky@aol.com
US Congressional Delegation led by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) will participate
in the ceremony of the opening of the Graduate School on US - Russian
relations at the American University in Moscow (AUM).
On the eve of Bush - Putin summit the American University in Moscow has
announced that it is opening a Graduate School of Political Science,
Sociology, and Economics.
Edward Lozansky, a former Soviet nuclear physicist and dissident who was
exiled to the West for distributing anti-Soviet literature, founded the
university twelve years ago. It was the first private business school in
Russia. In 1990 two important Russians helped him with this project, Yuri
Ossipyan, President Gorbachev's science advisor and the Vice-President of
the USSR Academy of Sciences and Mayor of Moscow, Gavriil Popov. Both of
them will make statements at the May 26 news conference together with a
bi-partisan group of US Congressmen let by Rep. Curt Weldon from Pennsylvania.
Weldon prepared a document US - Russia partnership "A New Time, A New
Beginning" which was signed by 142 members of Congress. The document lists
funding for AUM among the top priority U.S. - Russian cooperation projects.
According to Lozansky, the graduate school will enroll Russian PhD
candidates with two advisors, one Russian and one American. Dissertation
themes are required to be on U.S. - Russian relations. A consortium of
major Russian and American universities and colleges will oversee the
program. On the Russian side, leading schools such as MGIMO, MGU, the
Institute of Sociology, and the Institute of Social and Political Research
of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as the Institute of United
States and Canada have joined. On the American side the initial interest
has expressed by the University of Maryland, University of Pittsburgh and
Waynesburg College in Pennsylvania but AUM expects to recruit more
consortium members at the upcoming annual convention of the American
Sociological Association in Chicago in August 2002.
Arkady Murashev who heads the Freedom and Democracy Institute in Moscow
suggested establishing the Reagan - Sakharov scholarship fund to support
the best and brightest Russian students interested in studying and doing
research in the area of US - Russian relations.
Professor Alexei Sissakian who is deputy director of the Joint Institute
for Nuclear Research in Dubna suggested expanding the list of consortium
members to science centers such as Dubna or Brookhaven National Lab who are
actively involved in the US - Russian science and educational cooperation.
In addition to government funding the university will be looking for
private grants as well. So far contributions came from a group of AUM
alumni, Morgan Stanley, Coca-Cola, Van Eck Global Fund, Western Union, and
Korben International Industrial and Financial Corporation.
The list of congressioinal delegation at the May 26 Press Conference:
Rep Curt Weldon (R-PA)
Rep Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Rep Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Rep Jim Turner (D-TX)
Rep Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Rep Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Rep Steve Horn (R-CA)
Rep Eni Faleomavaega (Del-Am Samoa)
Rep Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Rep Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rep Carrie Meek (D-FL)
Rep Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Rep Brian Kerns (R-IN)
*******
#9
From: JOSEPH DRESEN [DRESENJO@WWIC.SI.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002
Subject: job posting
Dear David -
Please post the following link to a newly posted job opening at the Kennan
Institute for Advanced Russian Studies.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/hr/index.htm#position1
Many thanks,
Joe Dresen
*******
#10
From: Malcolm Hawkes (MHawkes@amnesty.org)
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002
Subject: Amnesty International Moscow Office position
Head of Office/Action Coordinator
£25,683 per annum. Based in Moscow. 2 year fixed term contract
Amnesty International needs a Head of Office/Action Coordinator for its
Moscow-based Resource Centre. You will be responsible for leading the team
in providing support to AI members and NGOs in Russia to facilitate
campaigning in Russia on AI's concerns. You will be responsible for the
management of staff and volunteers and will initiate and oversee the
implementation of campaigning strategies. You must have extensive and
first-hand knowledge of Russia, and will have worked in an activist
organization. You will also have experience in conducting training, and
knowledge of organizational development. You will need fluent Russian and
English. Relocation package available. Reference: EUR/02/6
For further information on this and other vacancies and to apply online,
please visit our website www.amnesty.org/aboutai/jobs or fax (+44) 20 7413
5822.
The International Secretariat of Amnesty International actively promotes
Cultural Diversity and Equal Opportunities.
*******
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