Johnson's Russia List
#6270
24 May 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
DJ: The Johnsons are off to the beach. A computer is packed.
You probably have more than enough to read already...but we'll see
what comes next.
1. Reuters: Bush, the accidental tourist in Moscow, Berlin.
2. AP: Russian Analysts Hail Arms Deal.
3. Christian Science Monitor: Fred Weir, The view from Russia.
4. White House: Remarks by the President to Community and Religious Leaders.
5. White House: Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President
Vladimir V. Putin on U.S.-Russian People-To-People Contacts.
6. White House: Fact Sheet: U.S.-Russian People-To-People Cooperation.
7. Moscow Tribune: Stanislav Menshikov, AFTER BUSH LEAVES. Does he really
need partners?
8. The Russia Journal: Andrei Piontkovsky, The U.S. to Russia: ‘You don’t
matter’
9. Matt Bivens: CORRECTION re article in 6267.
10. Izvestia: Viktoriya Voloshina and Vladimir Demchenko, UNITED AND
DIVISIBLE. The battle for territory may greatly reshape Russia's internal
borders.
11. The Guardian (UK): Paul Brown, Russian nuclear dump plan attacked
by Arctic governor. Moscow denies claims that archipelago will be used for
imported waste.
12. The Nation book review: Matt Taibbi, Grabitization (Don't Look).
(re The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia by David Hoffman
Building Capitalism: The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc by
Anders Aslund)]
*******
#1
Bush, the accidental tourist in Moscow, Berlin
May 24, 2002
By Patricia Wilson
MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Bush lived up to his reputation as a brisk
sightseer Friday, cramming what had been scheduled as a half-hour tour of
some of the Kremlin's most spectacular sites into seven minutes.
His whirlwind trip took him to the Kremlin's famous Cathedral Square, its
three onion-domed churches, a bell tower and past a 500-year-old cannon --
all high spots of any tourist tour to Moscow that would normally take an
hour or two.
"It's beautiful, some of the most beautiful buildings I've ever seen in my
life here. Yes, it's so beautiful," Bush said as he strode past the 14th
and 15th century Assumption, Archangel and Annunciation cathedrals with
their distinct architecture and vast collection of Russian icons.
Thirty minutes had been set aside for Bush, his wife Laura and their hosts
Russia's Vladimir Putin and his wife Lyudmila to stroll outside the Grand
Kremlin Palace.
But the U.S. leader, who signed a pact Friday with Putin to slash their
nuclear warheads, made short work of the tour, stopping briefly to chat
with tourists and watch art students sketching the Kremlin's domes.
"Nice to meet everybody," he said, shaking hands and posing for pictures.
"It sure is wonderful to be here with my friend."
Then it was off past the Bell Tower of Ivan the Great and the Tsar Cannon
-- unique monuments of Russian 16th century foundry work -- and across the
street for a quick unscheduled call at Putin's office.
Bush, who is on his first trip to Moscow, spent a similar scheduled length
of time Friday at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the foot of the
Kremlin's red-brick perimeter wall.
The president laid a wreath as a 50-member marching band played the U.S.
national anthem and then headed back to his motorcade and off to his
appointment with Putin.
LIFE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL FISHBOWL
Bush, who prides himself on punctuality and being a fast runner, is
something of an accidental tourist.
Lest the Russians be offended at the quick work he made of their sites, he
has been equally speedy elsewhere.
Last summer in Italy, he gave the Roman Forum, one of the cradles of
Western civilization, about 15 minutes. In Berlin this week, he took in the
Brandenburg Gate that used to separate East from West from the window of
his passing limousine.
Blaming the fishbowl that is the U.S. presidency, Bush told reporters that
no matter where he was he didn't get to see much because of tight security.
"I live in a bubble," Bush said at a news conference with German Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder. "But that's life."
"I like to meet people. I saw one small glimpse of Berlin last night. It
frustrates me not to be able to see more of this growing city. That's just
life in the bubble."
Bush's sightseeing stamina will be tested at the weekend when he goes to
Putin's hometown of St Petersburg, the old imperial capital renowned for
its canals, elegant baroque buildings and one of the world's greatest art
collections.
Saturday, his host has arranged for him to tour the Hermitage Museum's
extensive collection of art in 30 minutes, attend the ballet and take a
late-night boat trip down the Neva River to experience Russia's summer
"White Nights."
Sunday, he visits Kazan Cathedral, the Grand Choral Synagogue and the
Russian Museum before leaving for France.
*******
#2
Russian Analysts Hail Arms Deal
May 24, 2002
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
MOSCOW (AP) - Russian officials and arms control analysts praised the
nuclear arms deal that is the centerpiece of the U.S.-Russian summit
Friday, saying it allows Russia to remain an equal partner of the United
States.
``The positive meaning of the new treaty is that once again it has fixed
the equal status of Russia and the United States as two nuclear
superpowers, and fixed that relation for a rather long time,'' Ret. Gen.
Vladimir Dvorkin, a former top arms control negotiator who helped draft
previous nuclear deals with Washington, said on Russia's ORT television.
The U.S.-Russian treaty, signed by President Bush and Russian President
Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on Friday, foresees cuts in each country's
nuclear arsenals to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads from the approximately 6,000
that each is now allowed.
Bush, initially reluctant to codify the nuclear arms reductions, later
agreed to Putin's push for a legally binding treaty.
``This treaty is a serious achievement of Russian diplomacy,'' said Sergei
Rogov, the head of the USA and Canada Institute, a leading think-tank
specializing in arms control and foreign affairs.
``A few months ago, the United States didn't want to take on any legal
obligations, and it appeared that the whole arms control regime would
disintegrate,'' Rogov said on ORT.
Konstantin Kosachev, a deputy head of the Russian parliament's foreign
affairs committee, said that with Russian nuclear forces facing imminent
cuts because of fund shortage, it was especially important to reach an arms
control deal with the United States.
``It's a sign of goodwill shown by Bush, and it must be highly
appreciated,'' he said.
While Washington accepted Russia's proposal to formalize the arms
reductions in a treaty, it dismissed Russian complaints about the
Pentagon's plan to stockpile some of the decommissioned weapons rather than
destroy them. That prompted Russian hard-liners to assail the treaty as
caving in to the United States, and Communist Party chief Gennady Zyuganov
accused Putin of treason.
Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov dismissed the allegations that the
new deal compromised Russia's security interests.
``Now we are facing new threats,'' Ivanov said. ``The presidents paid close
attention to the fight against terror and nonproliferation efforts - the
threats of the 21st century.''
The arms control deal reflects the continuing warming of relations,
bolstered by Putin's support for the U.S. war on terror. But the summit
agenda was marred by U.S. concern about Russia's military and nuclear
cooperation with Iran and Moscow's criticism of a possible U.S. military
action against Iraq, another longtime ally of Moscow.
*******
#3
Christian Science Monitor
May 24, 2002
The view from Russia
By Fred Weir | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
MOSCOW – In the wake of a new nuclear arms control treaty between their
country and the US, many Russians are feeling an undertow of doubt.
Ordinary citizens here often express confusion and sometimes outright
suspicion about American intentions toward Russia. Some members of the
policy elite complain that the summit – and the sweeping agreements to be
signed today – are little more than smoke-and-mirrors designed to conceal
Russia's descent into strategic irrelevance.
"What partnership?" asks Andranik Migranyan, vice-chair of the Reforma
Foundation, an independent Moscow-based think tank.
"Americans understand partnership as the complete subordination of Russia
to American interests," he says. "The agreements to be signed at this
summit are meaningless window dressing, designed to keep Russia in its orbit."
Opinion polls on Russian attitudes toward the US are mixed, but tend to
show a population deeply divided and dubious about the prospects for the
strategic partnership championed by the Kremlin.
One survey, conducted this month among 1,000 adults in the 10 largest
Russian cities by the independent ROMIR agency, asked people what they
thought of American designs toward Russia. Almost 29 percent answered that
the US was a "friendly" power; 28 percent said the US is "neutral" in its
attitude; and 40 percent described the US as having "hostile" intentions.
Vladimir Fayer, a young information technician says he doesn't expect
anything worthwhile from the summit. "I wish Russia would stop following
the West and speak more independently," he says. "All these years of
following the American path has done no good at all."
Housewife Svetlana Lapichkina is more sanguine. "The summit won't change
anything," she says, "but the mere fact that it's taking place gives hope
that Russia and the US can find common language and stop interfering in
each other's business."
Putin has been steering Russia Westward since Sept. 11, when he phoned Bush
to offer full support in the war against terrorism. Since then, the Kremlin
has turned the other cheek as US forces entrenched in several former Soviet
Central Asian republics and the troubled Caucasus nation of Georgia. Putin
barely winced when Bush unilaterally pulled the US out of the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Russia still regards as the keystone
of strategic stability.
"Putin is far ahead of the Russian public and elite in his pro-Western
policies," says Sergei Kolmakov, an expert with the independent Center for
the Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow. "It is a traditional position
for a Russian reformer to be in, but it's not a comfortable one."
Today the two presidents will seal a treaty to radically slash the
offensive nuclear arsenals of both sides from the current levels of around
6,000 warheads each to about 2,000 each by the year 2012. While the deal is
more far-reaching than even the wildest cold war-era hopes for disarmament,
it is clouded by US insistence on storing its own decommissioned warheads
rather than destroying them.
Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent defense expert, says this could leave the
US with a vast preponderance of near-ready strategic arms within 10 years,
since Russia will be forced by economic reasons to destroy most of its
delivery systems.
The presidents also will sign a non-binding declaration of strategic
partnership that optimists say could remove the single greatest obstacle to
better security relations between the two nuclear powers by granting Russia
a partnership role in the US "Star Wars" anti-missile defense project. But,
according to Mr. Felgenhauer, "Washington has never managed to run a major
defense production and procurement program in cooperation with its closest
European allies, let alone Moscow."
In addition, Putin agreed last week to join a historic NATO-Russia Council
that will, for the first time, give Moscow a limited say over the Western
alliance's policies in fighting terrorism, curbing the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and peacekeeping operations.
In exchange the Kremlin has dropped its objections to NATO plans to induct
three former-Soviet Baltic states into the alliance. "Basically, Russia is
giving up substantive things by allowing the penetration of US power into
the former USSR, where we definitely would not want the Americans to be,"
says Mr. Migranyan. "In return, we are given treaties of little or no
importance."
Optimists counter that the summit is just the start of an essentially fresh
US-Russia dialogue that will lead to a new model of problem-solving between
the two states. They point out that Bush spent less than 24 hours in
Germany, but plans to stay in Russia for three days.
Where he was greeted by crowds of furious anti-globalist protesters in
Berlin, only a handful of elderly communists were picketing the US Embassy
in Moscow yesterday. "Anti-Americanism is stronger in Europe than it is in
Russia," says Andrei Piontkovsky, director of the independent Center for
Strategic Studies in Moscow. "I don't believe there are any lasting
anti-American moods in Russia."
The cold war-era strategic calculus is no longer the crucial measure of
relations, optimists say, but rather economic and more mundane political
issues have come to the fore. "That is a major, and probably permanent,
shift from the past," says Anatoly Bursov, a professor at the Diplomatic
Academy.
One question hanging over the summit is whether Bush will officially
declare Russia to be a "market economy." Before leaving the US, he had
urged Congress to lift trade restrictions against Russia imposed by the
Jackson-Vanik amendment that ties Moscow's trade privileges to its policies
on human rights. Senators refused, but signaled future willingness to
remove the restrictions if Moscow fully lifts a ban on poultry imports from
the US.
******
#4
White House
May 24, 2002
Remarks by the President to Community and Religious Leaders
Spaso House
Moscow, Russia
4:40 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you all very much. Mr. Ambassador, thank you, and
Lisa, for opening up your modest home. (Laughter.) I bet every ambassador
that represents the United States wishes they lived this way. But we
appreciate your taking on this very important assignment, and that is to
represent our country here in Russia.
I'm honored that Laura was traveling with me today. Trips always seem to go
so much better when she is by my side, so I'm really glad you got to meet
Laura. I like to tell the story in America that when I married her, she was
a public school librarian who didn't like politics and didn't particularly
care for politicians. (Laughter.) And then she got stuck marrying one.
(Laughter.) But she's doing a great job for our country and I'm real proud
of her.
And I'm proud of the team I put together, as well. I've got a great
national security team, headed by Colin Powell and by Condi Rice and Andy
Card. And I'm honored they're traveling with me and I'm honored you have a
chance to meet them, as well.
And thank you all for coming. For those of us, the Spaso House -- at least
those of us who pay attention to international politics -- the Spaso House
was always viewed as a refuge for freedom. And I'm so privileged to give
you a few comments here in this historic setting, where so much history was
written.
You know, I'm aware that during World War II, Russian-American diplomats
and soldiers met here as allies. It's kind of an interesting part of the
history of this house. And during the Cold War, this is where many of you
came -- refusniks and human rights activists. You're always welcome here
and we're glad you're here.
Our nation stands for freedom. That's what we're fighting off the
terrorists about. We believe so strongly in freedom, we're willing to
defend it at all costs. The Soviet era is gone. The Cold War, I hope, is
past us. And today, President Putin and I signed an historic document. It
was more than just a document that reduces nuclear weaponry, although that
in itself is good. It's a document that says there's a new era ahead of us;
that instead of being stuck in the past, these two leaders are willing to
take two great countries forward in a new relationship built on common
interests and cooperation. And cooperation on all fronts -- the idea of
working together to make the Russian economy strong and vibrant, so people
can make a living, so people have hope about putting bread on the table for
their families. The cooperation of fighting terror, the cooperation of
promoting peace. But the best cooperation also must be based on common
values, as well as common interests.
And I want you to know that we hold the values in America dear, and you
know that. We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all
have got uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator -- not endowed by the
ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but by a Creator, a
universal Creator. I want you to know that I believe all governments have a
duty and responsibility to protect those rights, those inalienable rights.
In Soviet times, people heroically defended those rights with incredible
courage, and you earned the respect of a lot of people -- a lot of people
-- by doing so. Many of you now are active in a modern Russia, and I want
to thank you for staying active and involved in this important society,
starting with making sure that freedom is protected by rule of law, and we
agree completely. And we hope we can help. Because rule of law is essential
for a modern society to thrive and to succeed.
I applaud your commitment and your patriotism. I love the fact that you
love your country. I love mine and you love yours, and that's incredibly
healthy and important. You understand that free nations and a free Russia
require strong civic and religious institutions committed to democratic
values.
Russia's on the road to democracy, but it's important, as she does so, that
she embrace the values inherent in democracy. In the past, I know you know
that we have been committed to helping institutions which promote those
values through direct government assistance, and we will continue to do so.
We believe it's for the good of Russia. We believe it will help Russia
develop in a way that will be -- enable Russia to become a lasting friend.
And that's what I'm interested in. I'm interested in friendship, and peace,
and mutual development.
Most Russians want and expect what most Americans want and expect -- and
that's important for the Russian people and the American people to
understand -- a government -- starting with a government that works for
citizens, that represents everyday citizens, not a corrupt elite. And
that's important.
People want a society ruled by law, not by special privilege, special
circumstance, a law where people are treated equally, regardless of their
religion, ethnicity, income level. In a multi-ethnic society, people must
work toward tolerance, and reject extremism. It's important in America,
just like it's important here in Russia. And this is a multi-ethnic
society, to the credit of Russia, just like America is a multi-ethnic
society, which makes our country strong. We're bound together by common
values, and so can Russia be bound by the same values.
To reach these goals, societies need fair laws, and as importantly, fair
enforcement of law. They need independent media that is respected by the
government. I remind those who sometimes get frustrated with the media
that, even in America, elected officials sometimes don't agree what's
written about them. Maybe especially America, for all I know. (Laughter.)
But it's important for those of us who value democracy to promote an
independent media.
Opposition parties must be free to associate and must be free to speak
their minds. In order for a democracy to be strong, there has to be
competition of ideas, a free discussion of ideas and an airing of
philosophy in an open way. Freedom of religion and separation of church and
state are so important, so important so that people can worship as they
choose -- Jews, Muslims and all Christians, and all religions.
Free societies have all got to meet the great challenges we face in ways
consistent with values. That's what I'm here to tell you that's in my
heart. That's what I want you to know about this administration -- that
we're not only committed to fighting terrorism, and we will, we are. We
were under attack in America.
In Germany yesterday I said, September the 11th was just a fine -- just as
clear a dividing line in our history, in our nation's history, as Pearl
Harbor. It was. America at one time was protected by two oceans; we seemed
totally invulnerable to, for example, the wars that took place here in
Russia or on the European Continent, all of a sudden found ourselves
attacked -- because we love freedom, because we respect religion, because
we honor discourse. And you need to know that we're going to defend
ourselves, and defend that which we hold dear, and at the same time,
protect civilization itself.
But in Afghanistan, we've shown, I believe, how to do it, in a way that's
commiserate with our values -- that, on the one hand, we're plenty tough,
and we will be. We've got a military we're going to use, if we need to, to
defend freedom. But on the other hand, we delivered a lot of medicine and a
lot of food. We hurt thinking not only that the children in Afghanistan
could not go to school, we cried for the fact that people were starving in
the country. We have rebuilt schools. We have also provided medicine and
food.
Russia is building hospitals in Afghanistan. It's incredibly positive, we
think. Nations are not only contributing military forces, but we're working
to build a state that can function on her own, a state at peace in the
neighborhood, and a state where people have got hope and a chance to
survive, where moms and dads can raise their children in peace.
And that's important for you to know, as well. You know, a lot of times
people talk about the tough talk. But you've got to understand, we also
have got a soft heart when it comes to the human condition. Each individual
matters to me. Each individual has got worth and dignity.
The experience in Afghanistan has taught us all that there's lessons to be
learned about how to protect one's homeland and, at the same time, be
respectful on the battlefield. And that lesson applies to Chechnya. The war
on terror can be won and, at the same time, we have proven it's possible to
respect the rights of the people in the territories, to respect the rights
of the minorities.
We are -- I represent a great nation, and Russia is a great nation. Both of
us share a lot. We've got a big resource base. We've got people who are
very smart. I remind Vladimir Putin that the great resource of Russia is
the people of Russia. The resource of this country is the brain power of
this country.
And when they get the system right, that encourages individual growth and
entrepreneurship, that brain power is going to flourish, and so will
commerce, and so will opportunity. And while that happens, both nations
must respect the multi-ethnic character of our lands. That, too, makes us
great. And how we promote that multi-ethnicity, and how we respect human
rights is another way we'll be judged by history. We'll be judged by
history on how we defend our freedoms. We'll be judged in history by how we
help our people prosper and grow. And we'll be judged by history as to
whether or not we defend the universal values that are right and just and
true.
I want to thank you for that commitment to those values. I appreciate your
stance for freedom. I appreciate your love of your country. I appreciate
your understanding there is a universal and gracious God.
May God bless you all. May God bless Russia. And may God bless the United
States. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END 5:05 P.M. (Local)
*******
#5
White House
May 24, 2002
Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin
on U.S.-Russian People-To-People Contacts
In keeping with the spirit of cooperation between our two countries, we
affirm the importance of strengthening contacts between our societies and
citizens. We are confident that direct links between our cities, states and
regions, businesses, educational, research, and medical institutions, and
non-governmental organizations increase communication and promote
understanding and trust between the United States and Russia.
Over the past decade, direct ties between Americans and Russians have grown
rapidly, and they continue to broaden and deepen, including through joint
business ventures and trade and economic relationships, academic and
cultural exchanges, and cooperative efforts aimed at protecting the
environment and developing new medical technologies and cures for the most
deadly diseases. Such cooperation now goes beyond programs, projects, and
agreements financed by our governments; our primary role in the future
should be to support this trend by removing legal, bureaucratic, and other
impediments. Recognizing the mutual benefits of travel for our private and
official visitors, the United States and Russia are committed to
streamlining visa practices and taking additional steps to facilitate
travel. To this end, we have agreed to reduce substantially visa fees for
participants in student and school exchanges.
We note that government-supported partnerships between American and Russian
institutions are flourishing: they include 94 Russian-American sister
cities, 8 hospital partnerships, and 37 university partnerships. In
addition, more than 100 U.S.-Russian community and institutional
partnerships have been forged between local governments, judges,
businesses, professional associations, and other non-governmental groups.
We also recognize the strong ties between American and Russian regions and
cities, especially the Russian Far East and the U.S. West Coast. Thanks to
existing intergovernmental agreements, Native American and Russian citizens
can visit their relatives in Alaska and Chukotka visa-free. In an effort to
stimulate more of these regional ties, we have just begun a new program
which will use U.S.-Russian partnerships to facilitate cooperation,
strengthen civil society and media, and improve the business climate in the
Russian Far East and the Volga Federal District.
Government-supported exchange programs that send Russians to the United
States and Americans to Russia have also grown exponentially over the past
decade. Under these programs, more than 50,000 Russian students,
scientists, legislators and others have been hosted by families and
communities in all 50 American states. Last year alone, about 1,000 Russian
entrepreneurs visited the United States to exchange experiences and develop
mutually profitable ties with their American hosts; these business
exchanges are set to increase significantly this year. Meanwhile, thousands
of American scholars, scientists, business people, health care
professionals, language teachers, and other experts from many walks of life
have spent time in virtually every region of Russia, working side-by-side
with their Russian colleagues.
We will also continue to support our partnership in the critically
important area of health care. Our priorities are fighting such infectious
diseases as tuberculosis, improving maternal and child health in order to
reduce maternal and child mortality, and combating cardiovascular disease.
The United States and Russia are committed to preventing the spread of
HIV/AIDS. In three regions in Russia, we are currently carrying out health
education programs aimed at high-risk populations. We are pleased to note
that funding will now be provided for an HIV/AIDS prevention program in a
fourth site -- St. Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast. In addition, joint
programs for the treatment of tuberculosis within the framework of the
World Health Organization are now underway in a number of Russian regions.
We will promote further expansion of contacts in such areas of cooperation
as information technology, the natural and social sciences, and areas of
fundamental research, such as fusion energy and high-energy physics.
A viable and independent media sector is an integral component of democracy
in both our countries. Accordingly, we initiated the Media Entrepreneurship
Dialogue in November. This dialogue has brought together American and
Russian media professionals in a business-to-business partnership to
exchange experience in resolving problems facing the media, including those
of ensuring the development of commercially viable independent media. We
welcome the successful development of this dialogue. We also welcome a new
partnership starting this year that will bring together Moscow State
University's journalism school with an American school of journalism to
develop curricula and materials used for training media managers and
journalists.
The availability and use of the Internet in both the United States and
Russia has increased dramatically in recent years, greatly facilitating
communication between our two peoples. Both governments will do all in
their power to create the conditions for information to flow freely within
and between our two countries.
Both of our countries are rich in the vast territories they cover and in
the diversity of their populations. Respecting the spiritual, cultural, and
ethnic legacies of our nations, we affirm our commitment to universal
values in the sphere of human rights and religious freedoms. We will seek
to promote a climate of mutual tolerance and respect between different
creeds and beliefs. To advance these goals, new initiatives are being
developed to support Russian and American non-governmental organizations.
Our governments intend to promote further cultural interchange between our
two countries, including the organization of exchanges between national
museums, theaters, operas, ballets, orchestras, and individual artists. In
addition, we will seek to promote activities that will enable American and
Russian scholars, artists, and ordinary citizens to learn more about one
another's history, language, and culture. We encourage the establishment of
new contacts between American and Russian organizations such as the
agreement between the State Hermitage Museum and the S. Guggenheim
Foundation.
Through the centuries, Russia's great poets, novelists, painters,
composers, and scientists have made brilliant contributions to world
civilization, and Americans find their own lives enriched by learning more
about this cultural legacy. Similarly, Russians have shown a great interest
in learning more about American contributions to the arts and sciences.
Increased appreciation of each other's cultures will help advance relations
between our two nations into the future.
*******
#6
White House
May 24, 2002
Fact Sheet
U.S.-Russian People-To-People Cooperation
People-to-People programs create direct linkages between citizens, cities,
businesses, educational and research institutions, hospitals, and
non-governmental organizations of all kinds for the purpose of promoting
understanding, sharing know-how, and developing new solutions to common
problems.
Partnerships: Currently, partnerships between American and Russian
institutions are flourishing. They include eight hospital partnerships, 37
university partnerships, and 94 Russian-American sister cities. More than
100 additional American-Russian community and institutional partnerships
have also been forged between local governments, judges, businesses,
professional associations, and other non-governmental organizations. Many
of these partnerships continue in one form or another after government
support has ended because those involved find them mutually beneficial and
value the strong personal connections that have resulted.
Especially strong ties between American and Russian regions and cities have
been developed, notably between the Russian Far East and the U.S. West
Coast. In an effort to encourage more of these ties, the U.S. Agency for
International Development has begun a new $2.3 million program that will
develop U.S.-Russian partnerships to facilitate cooperation, strengthen
civil society and media, and improve the business climate in the Russian
Far East and the Volga Federal District.
Exchanges: The United States Government sponsors a wide range of academic
and professional exchange programs through which American and Russian
participants create lasting relationships and gain valuable insights and
experience as they learn about each others? society and culture. Under
these programs, more than 50,000 Russians have visited the United States on
long- and short-term programs. In 2001, under State Department auspices,
355 Russian high school students and 64 undergraduate students spent a full
academic year in U.S. high schools and colleges. The Fulbright Program
provided two-way exchange for 54 American and 59 Russian university
professors and students. The International Visitors program enabled 365
Russian professionals and officials to learn about American practices in
their fields on sponsored trips across the United States.
Programs that facilitate new linkages between American and Russian
businesspeople continue to create new opportunities for both countries.
Last year alone, through the State Department-sponsored Community
Connections Program and the Productivity Enhancement Program, 975 Russian
entrepreneurs visited the United States to participate in training and
internships at American businesses. These business exchanges will increase
significantly this year.
Each year, hundreds of American and Russian scientists participated in
exchanges and cooperative research across such diverse scientific fields as
physics and nuclear energy, ocean studies, environment, and health. Efforts
are underway to strengthen and broaden scientific cooperation from which
both sides derive benefits.
Through the Peace Corps, 160 volunteers are providing English-language and
business education and support to schools and institutes, entrepreneurs,
organizations, professional associations, government officials, and
non-governmental organizations across Russia. Volunteers are also helping
to disseminate practical business information, build new civic
institutions, revitalize education, and protect the environment.
Currently in its fourth year of operation, in 2002 the Open World Russian
Leadership Program at the Library of Congress will bring 2,600 young
Russian leaders to the United States. Russians participants will represent
all levels of government in Russia and all of Russia's regions. The 2002
program will focus on rule of law, education reform, federalism, health,
the environment, economic development, women as leaders, and youth issues.
In order to facilitate people-to-people linkages, the United States and
Russia have agreed to reduce visa fees for all students, exchange visitors,
and those traveling to the United States or Russia for vocational training.
The United States and Russia are committed to modernizing visa practices
and taking other steps that will both enhance security and facilitate
legitimate travel. These significant steps will also remove barriers to
trade and investment and stimulate economic development while protecting
borders. The United States has also begun a program that allows Russian
citizens to apply for nonimmigrant visas in cities throughout the Russian
Federation. The program will expand in the coming year to make it possible
for Russian tourists, businessmen, students, and other travelers to apply
for such visas more easily. Already, this program has enhanced
people-to-people linkages at the regional and local levels.
Access to Information: Through the U.S. Agency for International
Development and the Department of State, the United States Government
continues to support the development of Russian independent print and
broadcast media, as well as broader access to the Internet. Programs
emphasize training, business development, network and association building,
production support, and legal advocacy. Through the Department of State,
the Internet Access and Training Program provides public access Internet
centers and Internet training at 66 sites in 44 cities throughout Russia.
Last November, a new Russian-American Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue was
launched. The Newspaper Association of America and the National Association
of Broadcasters are working with Russian partner organizations to explore
ways to create conditions that allow an independent, commercial media
industry to flourish in Russia.
The Department of State will be initiating a new program this year to
partner the Moscow State University Journalism Faculty with an American
school of journalism. This partnership will advance the education of future
media professionals.
Human Rights and Democracy: Through the U.S. Agency for International
Development, a new program will advance our mutual interests in promoting
tolerance and understanding among our diverse populations. A budget of $1.0
million will fund new partnership initiatives to support Russian
non-governmental organizations working to promote tolerance, human rights,
and religious freedom.
The U.S. Embassy Democracy Commission Small Grants Program awards grants of
up to $24,000 to Russian NGOs for projects to enhance the development of
indigenous democratic institutions and practices. In 2002, this program
will be expanded by 50 percent in order to provide funding for initiatives
to advance religious and ethnic tolerance.
The National Endowment for Democracy provides additional grant support to
promote political and economic freedom, a strong civil society, independent
media, human rights, and the rule of law in Russia.
Health Cooperation: Health care professionals and hospitals from across the
United States have participated in partnerships with their Russian
counterparts, contributing to our critically important work in health care
and the battle to prevent and cure infectious diseases, cardiovascular
disease, and efforts to improve maternal and child health. The U.S. Agency
for International Development Health Partnerships program is linking health
care professionals and institutions in eight American and Russian cities.
The partnerships are tackling such issues as infection control, clinical
practice guidelines, financial management, primary health care, women's
health, and asthma.
The United States and Russia have agreed to intensify cooperation to
prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. In three
pilot sites in Russia, we are currently implementing health education
programs aimed at populations at high-risk for HIV/AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases. We have provided additional funding for a fourth site
that will operate in St. Petersburg and Leningrad oblast. Joint programs
for the treatment of tuberculosis are now underway in three Russian
oblasts, and will expand to a fourth oblast soon. The United States and
Russia have also pledged to address the causes of the decline in the life
expectancy of the Russian people by combating heart disease, hypertension,
and related behavioral factors.
*******
#7
Moscow Tribune
May 24, 2002
AFTER BUSH LEAVES
Does he really need partners?
Stanislav Menshikov
About this time in May thirty years ago, this writer together with others
was in the bar of the Intourist Hotel in Moscow waiting for the final
documents to be signed at the 1972 Nixon-Brezhnev summit. The SALT-1 and ABM
Treaties were yet to be flown in from Helsinki, and everybody was worried
about a possible last moment breakdown. The Vietnam War, in which the SU and
US participated by proxy, was still on, and the summit itself was made
possible only after Brezhnev forced three opposing Politburo members to
resign.
At that time, both countries had less strategic warheads than today, and the
critical build-up of nuclear arsenals was yet to come. In three years, the
US would leave Vietnam. Another proxy war would soon flare up in
Afghanistan. We were in the thick of a Cold War. Yet, underlying that summit
was an understanding of the need to call for a stop.
Today, as Bush and Putin meet again on Russian soil, there is a lot of talk
about finally putting an end to the old confrontation. This new summit is
claimed to be the last one on strategic arms and the first one on strategic
partnership. Both claims are overstatements. In three weeks, the ABM Treaty
will be buried, and the US will be free to go ahead with "star wars". Under
the new treaty dubbed START-3, Russia and America will be free to modernise
their nuclear armaments as only they see fit. Thousands of warheads will be
stored as insurance against future contingencies. MIRVed missiles will be
again permitted. This unsatisfactory condition will remain unless both sides
choose to improve it by mutual agreement. Which means more summits on
strategic arms. The world cannot free itself of nuclear MADness by passively
observing a continuing arms standoff.
However, a new and safer international order can be built only through
concerted action. That is not possible if the most powerful country - the
US - chooses to act unilaterally in the belief that the only partners it
needs are those who tamely follow its directives. That principle will
inevitably backlash because it is in conflict with national interests. When
Bush comes to Moscow to lecture Putin on democracy and human rights, he is
acting in the old fashioned imperial tradition that will most likely not
work. Not because Russia is an ideal country, but because normally nations
do not change under foreign pressure.
These days Moscow and Saint Petersburg have no illusions about strategic
friendship or goodies that might be forthcoming from Bush's visit. One real
advantage is seen in maintaining peaceful relations with a long-time
opponent. Russia needs a relatively quiet stretch of time to grow
economically and restore some of its former status in the world. This may or
not come true depending on what Mr. Bush's hawkish friends back home have on
their minds. If they proceed with plans for attacking Iraq or choose to
extend their military presence in Central Asia and Georgia or go ahead with
ABM systems that directly affect Russia's national security - then the
sailing will be rough.
In the long run, it is hard to see the US and Russia as natural full-fledged
partners. Their lists of potential enemies, including international
terrorists, are too different to make them meaningful military allies. Their
economies are not as complementary, as some writers so readily assume. That
does not mean that the two countries need necessarily to be close partners.
They may simply maintain good relations by working together on issues where
their interests coincide, avoiding confrontations where their interests are
different and refraining from messing with each other's spheres of
influence.
To pursue such an agenda for a relatively weak Russia is not that difficult.
But it does mean certain restraint on the part of the US, which is used to
the role of a world leader. Unlike in the past, Moscow does not wish to lead
others or create blocs under its guidance. But it also has security
interests in the so called post-Soviet space that cannot be ignored. A
recent "Washington Post" editorial wants Russia out of all these areas and
asks Bush to press Putin in that direction. That approach is not reasonable.
The US may not like Alexander Lukashenko, but Belarus is an important
strategic ally of Russia and will likely remain so in the future.
The West applauds Putin for allegedly giving up on NATO expansion to the
Russian borders. But Moscow still vehemently opposes including the Baltic
states into that alliance. Russia hopes that by participating in the new
Council of Twenty, it can somewhat change the former military purpose of
NATO. The fact is that NATO expansion was seen as protecting those countries
against a Russian threat. If that danger is no longer valid, why continue
the expansion? One word from Washington would be enough to change the tide.
If Bush really wants Russia as a partner he should think hard and change. If
he does not, then let us stop pretending. Grownups can do without illusions.
*******
#8
The Russia Journal
May 24-30, 3003
The U.S. to Russia: ‘You don’t matter’
By ANDREI PIONTKOVSKY
For more than 10 years, Russian and American nuclear strategy experts have
held an annual seminar in the little Italian town of Eriche at the end of
August. The informal atmosphere and close contacts enable us to hold
constructive discussions and come up with early – and, in our opinion,
rational – solutions to increasingly pressing problems between the former
rivals.
Back in 1997, for example, we proposed amendments to the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that would preserve its essence while better
taking into account Russian and U.S. interests. I have already written
about how Russia so stupidly let the opportunity to use this solution slip
while the Clinton administration was in power. But now I want to write
about our meeting in August 2001, the first since the Republican
administration of President George W. Bush took office.
Our old friends seemed to have changed completely. They didn’t want to
listen to a word about amending old treaties or signing new ones. Instead,
they repeated over and over a single rote-learned official formula: "We are
friends, and friends don’t need to sign treaties." It was reminiscent of
the long-forgotten times when Soviet participants at these kinds of
seminars were obliged to stick firmly to the official party line.
But sitting down to a bottle of good Italian wine, I finally got on my Los
Alamos colleague’s nerves with these sorts of comparisons. "All right,"
snapped my colleague (let’s call him Steve). "I’ll tell you the real reason
why we don’t want to sign any treaties with you: You don’t matter."
"Steve, you can’t imagine what an anti-American statement you just made," I
replied. "We’re friends with you, but we don’t mean anything. In other
words, to mean something for America, you have to be its enemy."
A lot has happened since that exchange – the Sept. 11 attacks, the joint
operation in Afghanistan, the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and
Washington’s initial refusal and later acceptance to sign a strategic arms
reduction treaty with Moscow. Objective geopolitical interests are pushing
the two countries into strategic partnership, while the hang-ups and
prejudices of their respective elites are only getting in the way. The main
stumbling block on the American side is the message "you don’t matter,"
which Washington sends from time to time, not only to Russia, but to its
own closest allies.
I remembered my conversation with Steve at the end of April when Crown
Prince Abdullah, the authoritarian leader of the medieval kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, visited the United States. Of the 25 men accused of plotting or
carrying out the suicide hijackings in New York and Washington, 19 were
from Saudi Arabia.
It’s not politically correct to say so in Washington, but everyone knows
that Saudi Arabia provides the main financial base for Islamic terrorism
and sponsors an international network of hundreds of Wahhabite "schools"
that act as incubators for breeding hatred toward the United States, the
West in general and Russia, while nurturing thousands of ignorant fanatics.
The Saudi royal family hopes this support will appease its country’s own
militants.
And so Prince Abdullah came to call on the U.S. president and set about
blackmailing him, saying if the United States didn’t pursue policies Saudi
Arabia liked, "the consequences could be unpredictable." Just imagine if 19
of the 25 terrorists had been Russian and President Vladimir Putin then
went to Washington to demand that George Bush change his policy on, say,
NATO expansion.
The next day, Bush, sounding hesitant and not very convincing, spoke the
words Abdullah demanded of him.
So who does matter more to the United States? Those who provide a shoulder
for America to lean on at a difficult moment, or those who commandeer
American jets and fly them into American buildings?
The writer is director of the Center for Strategic Research.
*******
#9
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002
From: Matt Bivens
Subject: CORRECTION re article in 6267
My Nation article about Nunn-Lugar reported,
incorrectly, that the new $20 billion
non-proliferation program the Bush Administration is
flirting with would ask the Japanese and Europeans to
"each" contribute $10 billion. The "each" was an
editing error. Actually, the plan as described so far
by unnamed diplomats is for the U.S. to kick in $10
billion and for the rest of the West to collectively
come up with the second $10 billion.
*******
#10
Izvestia
May 24, 2002
UNITED AND DIVISIBLE
The battle for territory may greatly reshape Russia's internal borders
Author: Viktoriya Voloshina, Vladimir Demchenko
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
ON THE MAP OF RUSSIA, REGIONAL BORDERS ARE MARKED WITH A HARD-EDGED
BOLD LINE. HOWEVER, EVEN THE MOST DETAILED MAP DOESN'T REFLECT
REALITY. RUSSIAN LAW HAS NO PROPER MECHANISM OF RESOLVING TERRITORIAL
DISPUTES, AND PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE ARE VAGUE.
On the map of Russia, regional borders are marked with a hard-
edged bold line. However, even the most detailed map doesn't reflect
reality. Now that the Land Code has been adopted and land has become a
saleable commodity of which there is a shortage, there are battles
over almost every square meter of it. In reality, the "border" issues
are not as clear as in the glossy atlas of cartographers.
Speaking at the latest session of the Moscow City Duma, Senior
Deputy Mayor of Moscow Anatoly Petrov told the deputies that in the
immediate future Moscow and the Moscow region would be ready to sign
an agreement on the borderline between the two neighboring regions.
However, as our survey showed, neither of the parties ready to affix
their signatures would accept any real concessions. Similarly, parties
involved in many other territorial disputes in the regions of Russia
do not accept any concessions. At the same time, there are no
mechanisms of resolving territorial disputes between components of the
Russian Federation.
The borderline war between Moscow and the Moscow region started
since the very moment Boris Gromov had been elected Moscow Governor.
Assuming the large economy, the general rigorously inspected the
entrusted territory as in the army and first of all verified whether
the border was locked. In the opinion of Gromov, the border proved to
be fuzzy completely: he had counted 27 moot areas where Moscow "has
intruded." This primarily had to do with the lands of Sheremetyevo-2
airport, a 45 meters' wide area on the outer side of the Moscow Ring
Road and, thirdly, 25 areas more. The governor's interest for the
"moot borderline territories" is realizable. Almost every day gasoline
stations, camping-sites, by-road shops and restaurants are constructed
on the 45 meters' wide area along the Moscow Ring Road - they pay
taxes to the budget of the federal subject on the land of which they
stand.
In Anatoly Petrov's words, the coordination group spent three
years in archival depositories studying old maps and documents,
visiting moot areas, was nearly measuring spots with a land surveyor,
and finally determined where the line of demarcation would pass.
Constant unrest along borders can be observed in many Russian
regions. It is enough to recall the territorial dispute between
Kalmykia and the Astrakhan region, which has dragged on for years; or
the claims of the Krasnoyarsk territory to the Taimyr autonomous
district. The issue of merging Priangarye and the Ust-Ordynsky
Buryatsky autonomous district into the Pribaikalye territory has been
considered in the Irkutsk region. A territorial dispute has broken out
between the Tula and Oryol regions recently.
There are proposals for enlarging regions, primarily by merging
small regions, such as the Kostroma, Pskov and Ivanovo regions.
However, let alone the fact that this would require rewriting the
Constitution, heads of these regions immediately launch active
campaign for counteracting similar initiatives. Following a recent
proposal of Yaroslavl Governor Anatoly Lisitsyn to start enlarging,
local authorities of the Kostroma and Ivanovo regions have immediately
sent indignant addresses to the president of Russia.
For all the elegance of the grounds the disputing parties
contrive to give their objections, the real background is plain to
see. It is money. Kalmykia and the Astrakhan region are dividing
payments for oil transit via the oil pipeline running through the
controversial territory, whereas tax receipts from the largest Norilsk
enterprises are divided in the Krasnoyarsk territory.
The issue of revising borderlines between certain regions is not
new. However, the prospects of resolving the territorial disputes are
rather vague. In compliance with the Constitution, borderlines of
regions must be modified by mutual consent of the bordering regions.
Later on, the Federation Council must approve this consent. However,
Russian law does not provide a mechanism of settling disputes in which
neither of the parties wants to yield (as practice shows, this is
almost always the case).
Mikhail Sivachev, advisor to the head of the Federal Land
Service, was quoted as saying that until the law on borders between
regions is adopted, the service cannot deal with such issues. The bill
has been available for a long time already, and last fall it was even
planned to submit it to the Duma. According to this bill, the Federal
Land Service and the Federal Service of Geodesy and Cartography will
be responsible for resolving borderline disputes. However, thus far
neither the Cabinet's program nor the Duma's agenda include this bill.
Thus far, resolution of any territorial disputes has been left to the
regions themselves.
(Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin)
*******
#11
The Guardian (UK)
24 May 2002
Russian nuclear dump plan attacked by Arctic governor
Moscow denies claims that archipelago will be used for imported waste
By Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Russia is considering plans to build a burial facility for nuclear waste on
an Arctic archipelago, raising fears that the country is poised to put into
action a multi-million pound new business importing spent fuel from western
countries.
Vitaly Nasonov, a spokesman for the country's atomic energy ministry,
Minatom, said tentative plans to develop the Novaya Zemlya testing site - on
Simushir island, part of the Kurily islands in far east Russia - into a dump
were approved on Wednesday and a working design was being prepared.
But he denied claims that the dump would be used for imported waste.
Russia uses the site for sub-critical tests of nuclear weapons, in which
plutonium is blasted with explosives that are too weak to set off an atomic
chain reaction.
The tests are not prohibited by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But Russia
has observed a moratorium on full nuclear testing since October 1990.
Mr Nasonov said ecological studies had been conducted on the site, and that
visiting experts from the US and Norway had found it suitable for dumping
waste.
Last summer, President Vladimir Putin signed a law allowing Russia to import
spent nuclear fuel from other countries for storage and reprocessing.
Supporters of the plan say it could earn Russia up to £15bn over the next
decade. Last month, Alexander Rumyantsev, the head of Minatom, met
environmental activists and openly talked about importing waste as a
money-making venture. The money would be used to make Russian nuclear
installations safer, he said.
The US controls most of the nuclear waste outside the former Soviet Union
under existing agreements, so the Bush administration would need to approve
any new trade to Russia.
A destination for the imported waste has not been named. In March, Mr
Rumyantsev had talked about a new site when he confirmed his intention to
open Russia up to the import of low-level radioactive waste from Taiwan,
possibly Japan, China and other Asian countries.
Yesterday Anatoly Yefremov, governor of the Novaya Zemlya Arctic region,
ruled out any foreign waste coming to the archipelago. He said: "The transfer
of radioactive wastes to Novaya Zemlya from outside the region, not to
mention from abroad, is just out of the question," the Interfax news agency
reported.
Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said yesterday: "It is good if Russia
is taking steps to deal with its own nuclear waste legacy, but the trade of
toxic waste across national boundaries is a very bad idea. Russia has changed
its law to allow the import of waste, we should change ours to forbid its
export. This must not be allowed to happen."
Britain has an increasing volume of high and medium level waste in store,
with no depository in prospect. Despite this, the policy of the government is
to deal with the waste at home.
A senior executive in the industry said yesterday that they were aware that
the Russians saw importing spent fuel and waste as a potential big
money-spinner.
He could not, however, envisage British nuclear companies wanting to take
advantage or being allowed to by the government.
Last week, Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, strongly denied a report
in the New York Times stating that the US joint atomic energy intelligence
committee had detected signs that Russia was preparing to resume full nuclear
testing on the archipelago.
*******
#12
The Nation
June 10, 2002
book review
Grabitization (Don't Look)
By Matt Taibbi
The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia.
By David Hoffman.
Public Affairs. 567 pp. $30.
Building Capitalism: The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc.
By Anders Aslund.
Cambridge. 508 pp. Paper $26.95.
Almost everything that is wrong with Washington Post foreign editor
David Hoffman's new book about Russia's transformation into a
capitalist system, The Oligarchs, can be discerned in one small and
apparently meaningless passage on page 91. In it, the erstwhile
Moscow bureau chief of the Post (1995-2001) describes former Russian
Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais's reaction when, as a young
man, the future and now infamous "father of Russian privatization"
first read the works of Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek:
Many years later, Chubais recalled the thrill of reading Hayek and
instantly gave his own example of how Hayek's theory worked in
practice in the United States. "One person is selling hamburgers
somewhere in New York," he told me, "while another person is grazing
cows somewhere in Arkansas to produce meat that will be used to make
those hamburgers. But in order for that person in Arkansas to graze
cows, there needs to be a price for meat, which tells him that he
should graze cows."
Now, the reaction a sane person is likely to have when reading a
passage like this is, What kind of maniac experiences a "thrill" when
reading about hamburger distribution? A corollary question that
occurred to me, as I imagined this 20-year-old Soviet dreaming
guiltily of Arkansas cattle, was, Were there no girls at all in the
Leningrad of Anatoly Chubais's youth?
It's a given that the answers to questions like these are not to be
found in the seminal analytical work of one of the Moscow journalism
community's most notoriously humorless foreign correspondents, but
this problem is less inconsequential than you might think. For it is
precisely Hoffman's inability to write honestly and perceptively
about ordinary human experience that makes The Oligarchs miss as
badly as it does in its attempt to describe the changes in Russian
society over the past decade or so.
By the time Hoffman took over as the Post's Moscow bureau chief, I
had been living in Russia for about five years. First as a student
and then as a freelance reporter, I'd watched during that time as
Russians became increasingly disillusioned with democracy and
capitalism. Kids I'd studied
with who had brains and talent found themselves working
twenty-four-hour shifts in dingy street kiosks or lugging feminine
hygiene products door to door, while the only people from my class
who ended up with money were morons and thugs who took jobs with
local "biznesmen" (read: mobsters) doing God knows what.
That was the reality for the Russians young and old who had the
misfortune to live through the early 1990s, when the inefficient old
planned economy was dismantled and something-I hesitate to call it
capitalism-was installed in its place. Honest, hard-working people
were impoverished overnight, while swindlers and killers quickly rose
to the top. The insult was exacerbated for Russians when they began
to hear that the rest of the world, America and the American press in
particular, was calling this process progress.
What America called a "painful but necessary transition," most
Russians saw as a simple scam in which Communist functionaries and
factory directors reinvented themselves by swearing oaths to the new
democratic religion and cloaking themselves in fancy new words like
"financier" and "entrepreneur." The only difference from the old
system appeared to be that the villas were now in the south of France
instead of on the Black Sea. The ordinary Russian also noticed that
his salary had become largely fictional and that all his benefits had
been taken away-corners had to be cut somewhere in order to pay for
all those new Mercedes in town.
At the national level, this process was symbolized by the rise of the
oligarchs, a small group of rapacious and mostly bald men who were
handed huge fortunes by their friends in government. Eventually, they
were to take the place of the Politburo as the ruling coterie of the
new elite.
Men like bankers Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Alexander Smolensky and
Vladimir Potanin, industrialist Boris Berezovsky and media magnate
Vladimir Gusinsky became Croesus-rich seemingly overnight in those
early years of the 1990s. By the middle of the decade, they owned or
controlled much of the media and held increasing influence over Boris
Yeltsin, a weak autocrat who had grown dependent on their wealth and
power to fend off his political enemies.
The Oligarchs purports to tell the story of the rise of these men. It
is an exhaustive book, impressive in scope, that contains extensive
interviews with all of the key figures. But it misses because Hoffman
does not know what it is like to sleep in a street kiosk during a
Leningrad winter, nor does he particularly care to know; he writes
like a man trying to describe the dark side of King George from a
trundle bed in a guest room of Windsor palace.
Not that this is surprising. In his tenure as a reporter in Moscow,
Hoffman was notorious for being an unapologetic ideologue, the
hardest of hard-core cold warriors. The basic structure of a David
Hoffman article was generally to lead with a gloomy flashback to some
grim Soviet-era scene and then go on to describe how, with the help
of American aid, the courageous leadership of the democrat Boris
Yeltsin and the heroic efforts of Western-minded reform economists
like Chubais, things had since changed spectacularly for the better.
In other words, lead off with a picture of a groaning, overweight
housewife at the end of a long line to buy shoes that don't fit, and
close with a shot of an apple-cheeked cashier at Pizza Hut using her
salary to buy Nikes. That was Russia Reporting 101 during the 1990s,
and no one was better at it or more devoted to its practice than
David Hoffman.
That said, it is surprising, even shocking, that Hoffman would employ
that technique in this book, given the subject matter. Hoffman begins
his book by focusing on the Soviet-era experiences of a
characteristic "ordinary Russian," a schoolteacher named Irina, and
describing her humiliating search for toilet paper on a summer day in
1985.
Use of these images made a kind of sense in the wake of the collapse
of Communism, but in Hoffman's book, published ten years after the
fact, the decision to spend the entire first chapter (titled "Shadows
and Shortages") describing the hardship of product-deprived Soviets
in the 1980s can only mean one thing. Hoffman is setting up his
reader to understand the phenomenon of the oligarchs in terms of
their eventual benefit to society.
That benefit, in Hoffman's view, is clearly a Russia full of
available products and the triumphant building of a "rapacious,
unruly capitalismŠon the ashes of Soviet communism."
That the vast majority of Russians could not and cannot afford those
products, or even earn enough to feed and clothe themselves, does not
concern Hoffman. The opening of the book, set in the old USSR, is
full of portraits of ordinary folks grasping for Beatles records and
VCRs and other Western delights (Hoffman even sinks so low as to use
the heavyweight champion of Russia-reporting clichés: the Soviet
citizen sitting despondent at the sight of a full refrigerator in a
Western movie). But those same ordinary people are conspicuously
absent from the middle and later pages, when the cracks in the new
system-the stalled salaries, the collapsed local industries, the
crime- begin to show.
In one particularly telling section, Hoffman describes Yeltsin's
surprise when he learned in early 1998 that his popularity figures in
poll ratings had dropped below 5 percent. According to the book,
media mogul Gusinsky and some of the other oligarchs discovered that
Yeltsin, kept insulated from the truth by his KGB aides, had no
conception of the depth of his unpopularity:
"Before the meeting, they agreed that someone would try to deliver
the raw truth to Yeltsin that he was no longer popular, a painful
realization that, according to [Yeltsin's chief of staff, Viktor]
Ilyushin, the president had not absorbed."
This passage is ironic because Yeltsin's surprise at this juncture of
the story is nearly identical to that of the uninitiated reader
traveling through Hoffman's book for the first time. Until he informs
us a few sentences later of Yeltsin's meager poll ratings, the pain
felt by the overwhelming majority of Russians during the early reform
years is completely concealed.
When Hoffman first showed us the schoolteacher Irina, she was a
Soviet citizen deprived of toilet paper, and this was apparently
worthy of note. But if she remained a teacher through this Yeltsin
poll moment in the middle of the book, in 1996, Irina also saw her
health benefits taken away, her salary slashed to the equivalent of
about $50 a month (and possibly delayed for months in any case) and
funding for her school cut so severely that she would have to buy
chalk out of her own pocket. This is not considered noteworthy, in
Hoffman's estimation.
The determination to keep the telling of the oligarchs' story within
the context of their eventual salutary effect on the country leads
Hoffman into some grievous oversights and contradictions. None of
these are more important than his insistence upon painting his
oligarch subjects-in particular, Khodorkovsky, Potanin and
Berezovsky-as self-made entrepreneurs who bucked the state system to
make their fortunes. The fact that he connects the rise of these men
to the encouraging fact of a Russia full of products on its shelves
is even more misleading.
The reality is that none of these men produced anything that Russians
could consume, and all benefited directly from tribute handed down
from the state. Bankers like Smolensky, for instance, made fortunes
through a collusive arrangement with state insiders who gave them
exclusive licenses to trade in hard currency during a time when
prices were set to be abruptly freed. When hyperinflation set in
(naturally) and the population frantically scampered to convert their
increasingly worthless rubles into dollars, the currency-trading
licenses became virtual spigots of cash.
Furthermore, the oligarchs really became a ruling class only after
the "loans for shares" auctions in late 1995, a series of
privatizations that underscored the incestuous relationship between
the state and the new tycoons. The state "lent" huge stakes in giant
companies (in particular oil companies) in return for cash.
Implemented and organized by Minister Chubais, the auctions ended up
being one of the great shams of all time, as in many cases the
bidders themselves were allowed to organize the tenders and even to
exclude competitors. In some cases, the state actually managed to
lend the bidders the money to make the bids through a series of
backdoor maneuvers.
Hailed at the time as the death knell of the state-controlled economy
and a great advance of the privatization effort, the auctions were
actually a huge quid pro quo in which bankers were handed
billion-dollar companies for a fraction of their market price (a 78
percent stake in Yukos, the second-largest oil company in Russia,
valued at least at $2 billion, was sold for just $309.1 million to
Khodorkovsky's Menatep Bank) in exchange for support of Yeltsin in
the upcoming 1996 election. Many Russians today consider loans for
shares one of the biggest thefts in the history of mankind. Hoffman,
incidentally, didn't bother to cover loans for shares as a reporter,
either.
One final note about Hoffman. Many reviewers have lauded The
Oligarchs for its "readability." They must have been reading a
different book. If there is a worse descriptive writer in the
journalism world than Hoffman, I have yet to come across him or her.
In those passages in which he goes after the "breezy" conversational
style of David Remnick's Pulitzer Prize-winning Lenin's Tomb
(Hoffman's Remnick inferiority complex is grossly obvious in this
book), he repeatedly breaks down into crass stupidities that reveal
his lack of knowledge about the country he covered for half a decade.
At one point, for instance, he describes the young Chubais as having
had a penchant for driving his Zaporozhets automobile at "terrifying
speeds." As the owner of two such cars, which feature 38-horsepower
engines and can be lifted off the ground by two grown men (or maybe
four Washington Post correspondents), I can testify that terror is
not and has never been in this machine's design profile.
Hoffman's atrocious Russian, a subject of much snickering in the
Moscow press community, also shines through in this book. He
consistently mistranslates Russian expressions and fails to grasp
lingual/
cultural references. For instance, when he talks about Chubais's
habit of spending long hours in the Publichka, which he says is what
"young scholars fondly called the [public] library," he appears not
to grasp that the "fond" nickname is a play on the term publichniy
dom, or whorehouse.
This might be because Hoffman is the only American male to have
visited Moscow in the 1990s and escaped without personal knowledge of
the term. Whatever the explanation, it seems clear that Hoffman is
not the kind of person one would normally consider an authority on
the nontycoon Russian experience.
That's particularly true given the ironic fact that prostitution was
one of the few real growth industries during the reign of the
oligarchs, the one feasible financial option for the modern-day
Irinas of Russia. That's modern Russia in a nutshell: plenty of
toilet paper for the asking, but no way to afford it exceptŠthe hard
way.
If The Oligarchs is simply a wrongheaded book, then Building
Capitalism, by Carnegie fellow Anders Aslund, is legitimately
insidious. Aslund throughout the 1990s was a key adviser to reform
politicians like Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar, and as such his
assessment of the success of the privatization era is obviously
self-interested. He claims in the book that "populations have gained
from fast and comprehensive reforms," and that "economic decline and
social hazards have been greatly exaggerated, since people have
forgotten how awful communism was."
This is typical of Western analysis of Russia over the past ten
years-an academic who grew up in Sweden and lives in Washington,
telling Russians that their complaints about reform are groundless
because, unlike Western experts, they do not accurately remember what
life was like under Communism.
Aslund, who helped to design the privatization programs in the middle
of the past decade, goes on in the book to defend those blitzkrieg
liquidations of state industries on the grounds that such formal
privatizations were more equitable than what he calls "spontaneous
privatization."
A major aim of formal privatization was to stop spontaneous
privatization, which was inequitable, slow, and inefficient.
Reformers feared it would arouse a popular political backlash against
privatization and reform, as indeed happened all over. Especially in
the [former Soviet Union], the saying "what is not privatized will be
stolen" suggested the urge for great speed.
It's not clear from this passage to whom this "great speed" idea was
suggested. Those "equitable" formal privatizations Aslund helped
design left billion-dollar companies like Yukos and Norilsk Nickel in
the hands of single individuals (Khodorkovsky and Potanin,
respectively) for pennies on the dollar. They were so corrupt and
unfair that for most Russians-the majority of whom were left
impoverished by the changes-the word "privatization" became
synonymous with theft. Indeed, Russians even coined a new term,
prikhvatizatsiya (or "grabitization"), that perfectly expressed their
outrage over the private commandeering of property they considered
public and their own.
It should be admitted that the extent to which one finds success in
Russia's capitalist experiment-and the worth of the oligarchs who
administered it-is largely a matter of opinion.
If you believe that capitalism is about destroying a country's
industry, handing over its wealth to a dozen or so people who will be
inclined to move it instantly to places like Switzerland and Nauru
Island, and about humiliating the general population so completely
that they are powerless to do anything but consume foreign products
and long for the "good old days" of totalitarianism (polls still
consistently show that 70 percent of the population preferred life
under Brezhnev to that of today's Russia), then you have to judge the
Russian experiment a success.
But if you believe that people are more than just numerical variables
in some dreary equation found in an Adam Smith reader (or perhaps
numbers lumped together with cows in Anatoly Chubais's dogeared Hayek
text) then you'll have a hard time finding any true capitalism at all
in today's Russia. Or in either of these coldhearted books, for that
matter.
*******
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