Johnson's Russia List
#6271
25 May 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
DJ: From Avalon, New Jersey.
1. AP: Bush Advocates Russian Free Market.
2. White House: Remarks by President Bush and President Putin in Photo
Opportunity Hermitage Museum.
3. AP: Bush, Putin Meet With Media Leaders.
4. Los Angeles Times: John Daniszewski, Many Russians See Summit as More
of a Valley. Reaction: As differences detract from Bush-Putin accord,
ordinary
citizens remain wary of U.S. and hardly feel more secure.
5. AFP: Putin rebuffs US concern over Iran nuclear threat.
6. Newsweek.com: Christian Caryl, From Leningrad to St. Petersburg.
George W. Bush can learn some valuable lessons about political power when he
visits Vladimir Putin’s hometown.
7. Washington Post: Peter Baker, Putin Leaves the Table Still Hungry.
Russian Plays for Another Day After Folding on Arms and Economics.
8. strana.ru: Ira Straus, The Summit Oil Deal - Setting the Stage for even
Bigger Oil Bargains. Invigorating climate for economic growth and security.
9. Los Angeles Times: Paul Richter, Tactical Devices Still Present Major
Threat.
10. Washingtonpost.com Live Online: Russia and the U.S. with David Hoffman.
11. AFP: Pope absolves Bulgaria of link to assassination attempt.]
******
#1
Bush Advocates Russian Free Market
May 25, 2002
By TOM RAUM
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) - Fielding questions from university students,
President Bush and Russian President Vladimir both expressed optimism for
Russia's recovering economy Saturday in a lively exchange.
A day after they signed one of the most sweeping arms-reduction pact in
history, the two leaders heralded an era of new good political and economic
relations between the two former superpower rivals.
``A strong, prosperous and peaceful Russia is good for America,'' Bush said
in a question-and-answer session with Putin at St. Petersburg State
University, Putin's alma mater. The event, similar to one the two leaders
held in Texas last year, was broadcast live on Russian television.
But while praising each other and engaging in playful banter, they also got
in some gentle digs.
Bush repeated his support for Russian entry into the World Trade
Organization, the Geneva-based body that sets and polices world trade
rules. But he also suggested that the rules of admission wouldn't be bent
to speed Russia's application.
``I vote `aye,' assuming that the Russian government continues to reform
their economy . . . and make a market-based economy work,'' Bush said.
Putin said that Russia didn't want ``preferences...we don't want special
favors. We need nondiscriminatory access to world markets and U.S.
markets,'' he said.
Asked why Russia's main exports were natural resources like oil and wood
rather than more sophisticated products, Putin in part blamed U.S.
restrictions on Russian high-tech products that he said were a relic of the
Cold War.
``The role of government is not to create wealth,'' Bush retorted. Instead,
he said it was to provide an environment in which business enterprise can
flourish - including open banking laws and less restrictive government
regulations.
He said it was a good sign that the percentage of private ownership of
business in Russia had climbed to 70 percent.
``The flat tax in Russia is a good, fair tax,'' Bush said, saying it was
fairer than taxes in some western countries. But he criticized Russia's tax
on exports.
Still, both presidents were upbeat.
``I am optimistic about Russia,'' Bush said
Putin boasted about the two agreements he and Bush had signed the day
before in the Kremlin - a treaty slashing their respective nuclear arsenals
by two thirds and one that outlines a new strategic relationship between
the two nations.
At the same time, his remarks recognized that there was some opposition
within Russia to the pacts, particularly from some elements of the military
and other hard-liners.
He said the world was divided into optimists and pessimists. ``Pessimists
will always find something wrong. Optimists will find in these two
documents, a lot of things that are very useful and beneficial.''
Students, he said, ``by their very nature are optimists, and look into the
future.''
The two presidents seemed comfortable with each other, bantering and each
suggeting the audience send the hard questions to the other.
Bush called Putin ``my friend'' and referred to him as ``Vladimir'' several
time.
Putin, who graduated from the school in 1975 when it was known as Leningrad
State, said, ``It's a double pleasure for me to be here.''
Both presidents saluted the demise of the Cold War. ``That era is long
gone, as far as I'm concerned,'' Bush sad. ``Today America and Russians are
friends.''
``We've got a new war to fight together,'' Bush said when asked about the
role of force in the future relations between the two countries.
He said that Russia and the United States would combine forces ``to fight
against bloodthirsty killers.''
At the same time, ``We will do everything we can to make relations with
Russia strong and productive for both peoples,'' he said.
The university forum was the highlight of a day in which the two presidents
took in the sights and culture of Russia, a far more relaxed agenda than
the first day of their summit, when they signed a new nuclear arms treaty.
The two leaders laid a wreath of yellow and red roses at the Monument to
the Motherland in Piskarevskoye Cemetery, which contains the mass graves of
some 600,000 victims of the 900-day Nazi siege of Leningrad during World
War II. St. Petersburg was called Leningrad in the Soviet era.
Bush and Putin walked somberly past row after row of grass berms, each at
least 10 feet wide, 100 feet long and containing hundreds of bodies. After
laying the wreath, they went to a large wall to see an engraved verse
written by siege survivor Olga Bergolts: ``No one is forgotten, nothing is
forgotten,'' it says in part.
Afterward, they toured the Hermitage museum, the largest art museum in
Russia, with over 3 million objects spread out along 14 miles of corridors.
Walking arm-in-arm with their wives, Bush and Putin climbed the marble
staircase just inside the entrance to see masterpieces by Da Vinci,
Rembrandt and others
One questioner asked Bush what specific steps were needed for Russia to be
granted membership in the WTO.
``Starting with having a president who thinks you should be in the WTO. And
I think you ought to be,'' Bush said.
But, he added, ``I think the accession to the WTO ought to be based on the
rules every other nation has had to (follow)...nothing harsher, nothing
less harsh.''
Russians want U.S. recognition of Russia as a ``market economy,'' a move
seen as critical for speeding up Russia's entry. WTO membership would make
Russia a more predictable place for foreign investment.
But difficult economic reforms are needed, and some U.S. trading partners
have voiced concern that Russia not be given exemptions from those rules.
``George said it very well. The president of Russia has to want to be a
member of the WTO. And he said that he's for it. If that's sufficient, I'm
in,'' Putin said, drawing laughter. ``On conditions acceptable to Russia,''
he added.
******
#2
White House
May 25, 2002
Remarks by President Bush and President Putin in Photo Opportunity
Hermitage Museum
St. Petersburg, Russia
1:05 P.M. (L)
Q Mr. President, allow me to ask you -- (inaudible) -- summarize results of
your -- (inaudible). And the second part of that question, the expectation of
the Moscow summit -- how do you think --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first, the hospitality has been magnificent. The time
we spent last night with the Putins in their beautiful home was very relaxing
for Laura and me. It gave us a great chance to see how the Putins live, a
very good sense of their values. I think the thing that struck me the most
was how they have raised their daughters. They've got two beautiful
daughters, who are incredibly talented young ladies. It is clear their mom
and dad love them a lot, and that was impressive to Laura and me.
The other good piece of news is I got to go actually run outside --
(laughter) -- which is a difficult thing for me to do when I'm on the road
and in Washington, as well. I ran on beautiful grounds, it's such a
spectacular piece of property. And then we had a wonderful breakfast --
special Russian foods. It's been a wonderful, relaxing experience.
I was very touched that the President took time yesterday, after going to the
Kremlin -- after going to Red Square, to take us to his office. And I thought
it was a great personal touch, that was important to see the private side of
this man's life. It meant a lot.
Secondly, I think the summit was -- met expectations, it met my expectations.
I hope it met the President's expectations. We not only signed a very
important treaty, we signed a -- you know, a very important protocol of how
our relations ought to go forward and I'm really glad that -- I'm glad that
all the hard work on both sides has paid off. And this will be good for the
Russian people; this agreement will be good for the people of Russia and
it'll be good for the people of America.
You know, at the St. Petersburg Cemetery today, the lady who gave us a tour
spoke about peace and how it was important for everybody who walked those
hallowed grounds to remember the ravages of war and to remember the
importance of peace. And I explained to her that this visit was a visit of
peace, where we cast aside the old ways of suspicion and now embrace peace.
Sorry about the interpreter. (Laughter.)
Q -- interpretation.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay. Well, good luck. (Laughter.)
Q (Asked in Russian.)
PRESIDENT PUTIN: As far as the staying of Mr. President and his wife in our
home yesterday, I would like you to know two things. For one thing, our
personal relations to have been greatly strengthened. They're very happy to
know that I'm dealing with very honest and upward and straight people. That
is one.
And then there is something else, which is by no means a political thing.
Yesterday, when we had our dinner and I was treating my guests of course to
the Russian caviar, and I told him how some of the caviar is produced. The
experts would take the fish and open up the fish and then take the caviar and
then throw out the fish again and throw it back into the water. (Laughter.)
Everybody was laughing -- thinking that I was really inventing things on the
spot, something really improbable. (Laughter.) But I was trying to convince
them -- I was really trying to tell them that I was telling the truth, that's
how we treated the environment. (Laughter.)
The Secretary of State, the Russian Foreign Minister, Dr. Rice, Mr. Ivanov
and also both wives -- my wife and Mr. President's wife -- all laughed at me.
And there was only one person who wouldn't laugh and said, "I do believe you,
Mr. President," and that was the President of the United States. (Laughter.)
And I want to confirm it here and now, that's the truth, ladies and
gentlemen. (Laughter.)
And one more thing. The dinner, the supper was over somewhere around
midnight, because we were supposed to go to St. Petersburg early in the
morning. Of course, we got up very early, we didn't have enough sleep this
morning. And when last night, before going to bed, Mr. President told me that
he would be jogging in the morning, I wouldn't believe him. (Laughter.) But
he was doing that, just that.
Well, on a serious note, as far as the results of this visit are concerned, I
would like to say that myself and my experts, all my experts, we have been
discussing the results of the visit this morning and we have officially
agreed that we are satisfied and all the goals of this visit have been
achieved.
I thank you.
PRESIDENT BUSH: One question, Ron, go ahead.
Q If I could ask you real quickly, sir. Is there anything personal you can do
to ease tensions between Pakistan and India? And do you think President
Musharraf is doing enough to crack down on terrorism in Kashmir?
PRESIDENT BUSH: We are spending a lot of time on this subject -- "we" being
the administration. And we're making it very clear to both parties that there
is -- there's no benefit of a war, there's no benefit of a clash that could
eventually lead to a broader war.
We're deeply concerned about the rhetoric. It is very important for President
Musharraf to stop -- do what he said he's going to do to in his speech on
terror, and that is stop the incursions across the line -- the line of
control. It's important that the Indians know that he is going to fulfill
that promise.
Vladimir and I have talked about this and he's got -- he, as well as the
United States and Great Britain and other countries have got influence in the
region, and he is going to meet soon at a conference where we believe Prime
Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf will both be attending.
My point is, is that there's a lot of diplomatic efforts going into bringing
some calm and reason to the region.
PRESIDENT PUTIN: An international event is planned for the early June, this
year, in Kazikstan, where both President Musharraf and Prime Minister
Vajpayee have been invited. I do hope they will come and there would be an
opportunity for us to discuss things. And we have covered that ground with
the President of the United States.
Of course, the testing while there is escalating tension really aggravates
the situation, and Russia is concerned and sorry about that. I'm sorry about
that. And we shall be working together to take steps in order to prevent the
escalation of the conflict.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, all.
Q (Asked in Russian.)
PRESIDENT PUTIN: -- some people believe, particularly in Europe, that in the
United States people give less attention to the matters artistic and they
give attention -- less, at least -- than in Europe. My dealings with your
President and his wife have demonstrated to me that this is a very deep
mistake.
END 1:20 P.M. (L)
******
#3
Bush, Putin Meet With Media Leaders
May 25, 2002
MOSCOW (AP) - President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed
the need for a free press as they met media leaders from the two countries
who were holding discussions parallel to their own talks.
Bush said Friday he had discussed with Putin ``the important role of free
press in building a working democracy, and today we will meet with media
entrepreneurs from both countries.''
After their treaty-signing ceremony, the two presidents met at the Kremlin
with the Russian-American Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue, a group whose aim
is to improve business conditions that can support free and independent
journalism.
U.S. newspaper publishers stand ready to develop an investment fund of as
much as $50 million for Russian media companies when the Russians have
demonstrated a viable, independent economic model, William Dean Singleton,
chairman of the Newspaper Association of America, said at the meeting.
Singleton, vice chairman and chief executive officer of MediaNews Group Inc.,
represented the Americans at the meeting along with Edward O. Fritts,
president and chief executive officer of the National Association of
Broadcasters.
``Media cannot be independent without economic viability, and that viability
must come without government participation,'' Singleton said, according to a
text of his remarks provided by the newspaper association.
Dialogue working groups have been formed to address industry constraints and
solutions, and recommendations are to be delivered to the U.S. and Russian
governments in June.
Bush said Putin felt a forum was necessary where the media leaders could
meet, and ``I appreciate that.''
Since Bush and Putin launched the Dialogue last November, members have been
meeting periodically in the two countries.
American participants traveled to Russia in March to meet with their Russian
counterparts to discuss the state of the Russian media and possible areas of
cooperation. In April, the American coordinators, the National Association of
Broadcasters, and the Newspaper Association of America, played host to the
Russians at their annual conventions.
Issues the group has been discussing include:
Industry supervision of measurements such as ratings, readership and
circulation audits for advertising sales and programming.
Regulatory and legislative conditions for commercial media in comparison with
Russian state-controlled media.
American experience in cross-media partnerships, changes in TV
network-affiliate relations and planning for the transition to digital and
HDTV formats.
******
#4
Los Angeles Times
May 25, 2002
Many Russians See Summit as More of a Valley
Reaction: As differences detract from Bush-Putin accord, ordinary citizens
remain wary of U.S. and hardly feel more secure.
By JOHN DANISZEWSKI, TIMES STAFF WRITER
MOSCOW -- Once upon a time, good chemistry between the leaders of the
United States and Russia and the signing of a sweeping arms accord was all
that was needed to bolster the sense of security in the world.
But the issues that stalked Friday's meeting between President Bush and
Russian President Vladimir V. Putin underscored the uneasy feeling that
today the world is not necessarily any safer, no matter what is happening
between Washington and Moscow.
A few hours after Putin and Bush met to sign the arms accord, a senior Bush
administration official was juggling questions not about the number of
deployed warheads but about other dangers: Iran's nuclear program, the
threat of terrorist groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction from
Russia, and worries about a possible war between nuclear powers Pakistan
and India. And on Moscow's streets, even the summit's main proclaimed
achievement--the solidifying of trust between the United States and
Russia--seemed not to be wholly believed by ordinary people.
Many Russians say the U.S. wants not so much to pursue world peace but to
press its advantage, whether the issue is nuclear arms, frozen chickens,
Olympic gold medals or rolled steel.
Bush "does a lot for America, but he does it in a way that makes things
worse for other countries," complained Lena Ilyukhina, a 16-year-old
interviewed near the hotel where Bush was staying. "He is making America
richer, and Russia is getting poorer."
Her sentiment was reflected in a recent poll by the Public Opinion
Foundation here in which 58% of respondents described the U.S. as
"unfriendly" toward Russia, while 25% considered it "friendly."
All in all, the summit seemed to come up far short in the feel-good
department compared with meetings between American and Russian leaders in
the not-so-distant past.
In part, the atmosphere here was soured even before Bush arrived because of
news that the U.S. Senate had refused to take action to repeal what
Russians describe as one of the most outdated relics of the Cold War: the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974, which tied access to U.S. trade privileges
to the levels of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. (The Soviet Union
is now gone, and Jewish emigration from Russia is open.)
Several other hoped-for steps by the U.S. to help boost Russia's economy
also did not materialize in the Bush-Putin meetings.
"Ordinary Russians will most likely remain indifferent--they have seen
several treaties like that signed since [Soviet leader Leonid I.]
Brezhnev's times, but their daily life has not gotten a tad better," said
Viktor A. Kremenyuk, deputy director of the USA-Canada Institute, a think
tank here. "There is nothing in the treaty and all the agreements signed
[Friday] that would make an average Russian person say, 'Wow.'"
But the summit's lack of drama also can be seen as a good thing, said
another analyst, Alexander A. Konovalov, president of the Institute for
Strategic Assessment, also a Russian think tank.
"The more routine these meetings get, the better it is," he said. "There
will then be fewer pompous words and more action."
There was no action on one issue of importance to the U.S.: getting Russia
to stop assisting Iran in building a civilian nuclear power plant, which
U.S. officials suspect is being used by the Islamic republic as a means to
acquire nuclear weapons technology.
In spite of their declared new friendship, Bush and Putin sparred publicly
on the issue, with Bush saying Russia was in danger of helping "a
nontransparent government run by radical clerics" obtain nuclear weapons,
and Putin saying Russia was doing nothing of the kind.
The senior Bush administration official briefing reporters afterward could
cite no specific progress by Bush on persuading Russia to back down. He
said, however, that the two countries were making progress behind closed
doors.
To some Russians, it will probably be a point of pride that Putin did not
surrender to the American pressure.
"Putin appears to have shown his mettle and had it his own way; he said no
to the Americans on Iran. And maybe this is good," said Kremenyuk.
"If Russia had continued to make concession after another concession, the
U.S. would have finally lost the rest of its respect for Russia," he said.
On other fronts, the administration official said Russia and the U.S. would
be expanding and intensifying their joint efforts to make sure that the
thousands of nuclear weapons in Russia do not fall into the hands of
terrorists.
And regarding the potential for war between India and Pakistan, both
governments were speaking in one voice to try to rein in the South Asian
rivals.
The issues showed both the limits, and the potential, of the new
U.S.-Russian partnership Bush and Putin are forging.
"The world ... will not be able to sleep peacefully just knowing that the
relations between the U.S. and Russia are friendly. Many new challenges
have emerged," said Andrei A. Piontkovsky, director of the Independent
Institute for Strategic Studies in Moscow.
"Yet the alliance between the U.S. and Russia," he added, "also will be
extremely instrumental for meeting these new challenges and ensuring global
stability."
Times staff writer Maura Reynolds and correspondent Alexei V. Kuznetsov
contributed to this report.
*******
#5
Putin rebuffs US concern over Iran nuclear threat
May 25, 2002
AFP
Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Moscow's nuclear cooperation with
Iran and dismissed US fears it could help the Islamic republic develop
weapons of mass destruction.
Putin and US President George W. Bush, who signed a landmark nuclear
disarmament treaty at their Kremlin summit, remained at odds over Iran
despite Bush's claim that the Russian leader shared his concerns about
proliferation.
Bush said "the greatest danger in the war against global terror is the
prospect of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction," adding that
he and Putin "discussed Iran in this context."
"I worry about Iran and I'm confident that Vladimir Putin worries about
Iran, and that was confirmed today," Bush told the joint press conference
after three hours of talks.
"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," Bush added.
A US official later said that Putin had assured Bush that Moscow would do
nothing to allow Iran to develop a nuclear capability.
"The two presidents had an extensive and open discussion of Iran. President
Putin said he understands President Bush's concerns.
"He wanted to reassure President Bush that not now, nor in the future, will
Russia do anything to contribute to Iranian military nuclear capability or
its ballistic program because they don't want to undermine proliferation.
"They have no interest in seeing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons," he said.
The official added that further talks could take place "at the expert
level... in the context of the new NATO-Russia discussions about
proliferation."
Putin earlier stoutly defended Russia's contract to build a nuclear power
plant at Bushehr in western Iran, denying it would help the regime to
develop weapons-grade plutonium that could be put to military use.
"Russia's cooperation with Iran does not harm the non-proliferation
process... Our cooperation with Iran is limited to energy, it only has an
economic character," Putin said.
The Russian president sought to turn the tables on Bush by noting that the
United States was engaged in a nuclear cooperation program with North Korea
which he said was similar to the Bushehr project.
Iran was not the only country to give grounds for concern, Putin said,
adding: "We are concerned by the development of certain missile programmes
in Taiwan."
Putin also suggested that Western companies more than their Russian
counterparts were helping to develop nuclear programs in countries
suspected of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
"The missile and nuclear programs of those countries in large part are
developing on the basis of technology provided by Western firms," he said.
Bush warned Russia in a speech in Germany on Thursday that Moscow's nuclear
links with Tehran could help the Islamic republic, whom he has denounced as
part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, to develop
weapons of mass destruction.
A top Russian government official said Friday that Iran would not be able
to use Russia's nuclear cooperation program for military ends.
"Iran cannot and will not use for any ends enriched nuclear fuel" at the
Bushehr nuclear power plant, and this fuel will be shipped back to Russia
once used, the ITAR-TASS news agency quoted Deputy Nuclear Energy Minister
Yevgeny Reshetnikov as saying.
A Russian analyst told AFP there was very little chance that Russia would
break off nuclear cooperation with Iran since Tehran was an important
client for Moscow.
"We do not have access to the European nuclear market, countries like Iran,
China or India are the only ones where we can sell our technology," said
Viktor Kremenyuk, an analyst with the Moscow-based USA-Canada Institute.
Russia has often played down claims by Washington that the United States
was threatened by countries seeking to acquire missile technology.
A senior Putin aide on strategic issues said last year that Russia was in
greater danger from these countries than the United states, since it was
located closer to many of them.
"Russia's security is more at risk from these countries than that of the
United States," Marshal Igor Sergeyev, a former defense minister, said.
*******
#6
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
May 24, 2002
From Leningrad to St. Petersburg
George W. Bush can learn some valuable lessons about political power when
he visits Vladimir Putin’s hometown
By Christian Caryl
When Vladimir Putin last visited the United States, George W. Bush
took pride in showing him around his Texas ranch. This time around, it’s
the Russian leader who’s going to be showing off his hometown: St.
Petersburg.
AND IF THE AMERICAN president pays close attention, the city could
offer him some valuable insights into the intricacies of Russian politics.
The trip to St. Petersburg is supposed to be more pleasure than
business. After visiting Moscow to discuss issues of substance, Bush’s
weekend visit to the elegant city that residents like to call the Venice of
the North will take in mostly cultural stops. There’ll also be a meeting
with university students—a reprise of the Bush-Putin visit to the Crawford
High School near Bush’s ranch last November. But what Bush should really
look out for is the way in which Putin’s rise to the pinnacle of his
country’s power has transformed St. Petersburg into Russia’s unofficial
epicenter.
St. Petersburg, of course, is no stranger to power. Founded by Peter
the Great 299 years ago, it served as the capital of tsarist Russia for two
centuries after that. But the city that was renamed Leningrad slid into
both political and aesthetic decline during the Soviet era.
Putin has put an end to that slide. In his two years as Russia’s
president, he has presided over an extraordinary migration of talent from
“Peter,” as its citizens lovingly call it, to Moscow, the place where
almost all of Russia’s modern-day financial and political power is
concentrated.
Russians have taken to joking about their own version of
Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance—Petersburg is also known as Russia’s
“northern capital”—and telling sarcastic jokes about the invasion of St.
Petersburg carpetbaggers. In one, a Muscovite picks up the phone. “Hello,
I’m calling from St. Petersburg,” says a voice. “Well, hey, you don’t have
to start right off by scaring me,” answers the Muscovite.
But the Petersburg Group, as they’re usually known, is no joke. Their
presence, and their influence, have assumed astounding dimensions. The list
of positions held by Petersburgers—most of whom weren’t even working in
Moscow two years ago—is telling. There’s the minister of defense, the
finance minister and the minister of internal affairs. Several of Putin’s
key advisers in the Kremlin, including Igor Sechin, the man who controls
access to the president, are from St. Petersburg. So is the central bank
chief; Putin’s economic reform strategist; his main economic adviser; the
head of the natural-gas monopoly Gazprom; the director of the national
power grid; the head of the upper house of parliament and countless members
of the domestic security services.
Among them is Dmitry Medvedev. An earnest thirtysomething lawyer, he
occupies a vast office in the center of state power, Building 14 of the
Kremlin, where he works as Putin’s deputy chief of staff. His
responsibilities include overseeing the state’s 38 percent stake in Gazprom
(a company which controls one-quarter of the world’s proven reserves of
natural gas), as well as Putin’s ambitious program of judicial reform. He
goes to great lengths to convince you that he’s left his Petersburg origins
at the door. “I love Moscow very much,” he says, discussing at great length
how cozy he and his family feel in their adopted hometown. But soon a hint
of insurrection begins to seep out around the edges, as he begins to talk
about the need to counter Russia’s traditional hypercentralization.
He mentions the long-term need to redistribute “various federal
functions” to other parts of Russia—perhaps even part of parliament.
There’s a reason for Medvedev’s caution. When another Putin aide broached
the idea of relocating the upper house of parliament to St. Petersburg, he
was immediately met with a storm of indignation. Decentralization is an
idea that may sound ordinary, if not dull, in most countries. In Russia’s
Moscow-fixated system, it’s downright heresy.
But Medvedev also lovingly dwells on another idée fixe of Putin’s
Northern Alliance: the idea of Petersburg as a source of “intellectual
potential.” Petersburg is often described as Russia’s cultural capital—with
some justification. Russia’s last two Nobel Prize winners, the poet Joseph
Brodsky and the physicist Zhores Alferov, both hailed from the city. Its
museums, concert halls and theaters are outstanding—and their managers,
unlike the Soviet-style cultural bureaucrats elsewhere in the country, are
cosmopolitan and entrepreneurial. Geographically, it’s hard to deny
Petersburg’s proximity to Europe. That’s why Peter the Great founded it as
his “window” to points west and why its culture has also been unabashedly
open to influences from abroad.
Valery Gergiev, the director of the Mariinsky Opera, is as well-known
in New York and London as he is in Petersburg. Mikhail Piotrovsky, the
director of the vast Hermitage Museum, one of the world’s greatest
collections of Western European art, has made a name for himself by using
countless international sponsoring agreements to repair leaky roofs and
protect his fabulous collection. Andrei Likachev, a leading Petersburg
manager who hasn’t made the jump to Moscow yet, puts it this way: “These
are people from a European city, with a European mindset, with a European
horizon.”
And yet there many who don’t buy this argument. They point out that
St. Petersburg is as famous for its contract killings and its mafia gangs
as it is for being the home of the Hermitage. Sure, say the skeptics, St.
Petersburg under the tsars might have been a cosmopolitan hotbed, but its
hermetic isolation from the rest of the world in the Soviet era meant that
the city might as well have been on the other side of the moon.
One of my Moscow friends sniffed when I asked her what she thought
about Petersburg’s intellectual credentials: “All the real dissidents were
in Moscow. And the KGB was much worse in Leningrad than here.” There’s some
justification for this, too. One of Putin’s key aides in the region today
is Viktor Cherkesov, a former dissident hunter in the Leningrad KGB who was
notorious for, among other things, staging one of the last political show
trials in the 1980s.
Which of these two images of St. Petersburg—the cosmopolitan or the
despotic—best explains the agenda of Putin’s allies? Actually, both are
accurate, and the reasons have a lot to do with the city’s Soviet history.
Before 1917, Petersburg was the primary source of Imperial Russia’s
intellectual and political ferment, a city of revolutionary impulses and
rebellious thinking. Because of that, Soviet leaders—many of whom knew that
history from first-hand experience—always kept the city under close scrutiny.
When a popular Leningrad Communist Party chief, Sergei Kirov, looked
like he might become a force in national politics in the 1930s, Stalin had
him killed (an event that triggered the first act of the Great Terror).
After World War II, when the city emerged from the terrible Nazi siege and
famine that wiped out millions of its citizens, the new generation of
Leningrad party leaders soon found themselves the victim of yet another
bloody purge—the so-called “Leningrad Case.”
But perhaps the most resonant example was that of Aleksei Kosygin,
the man who organized the “road of life”: a transport route over frozen
lakes that supplied the besieged Leningraders with their only food during
the war. When Nikita Khrushchev decided to move ahead with reform of the
Soviet system in the 1950s, it was Kosygin he chose to lead efforts to
modernize the economy by moving cautiously away from central planning. In
the end, Khrushchev was toppled in a bloodless coup, and Kosygin came to
symbolize the failure of one of the Soviet system’s most serious, and
characteristically futile, attempts to fix itself.
Modern-day Petersburgers remember all of these cases with
surprising vividness. And the heavy hand of the KGB persisted in Leningrad
right up to the end of the Soviet system. So how does one reconcile that
harsh reality with Petersburg’s sudden political creativity in the 1990s,
when the city first began exporting its renegade free-marketeers to Moscow?
The answer, perhaps, is that these two sides of the coin—police state and
economic liberalization—are closer than they might seem. One former
Petersburg dissident, the journalist Lev Lurie, recalls his own brushes
with the Leningrad KGB in the 1970s and ’80s. The secret policemen all
understood, he explained, that the Soviet Union’s economy was a total
failure, and some of them spoke frankly of the need to move toward a more
market-oriented system—right down to the creation of private restaurants
and shops, downright heresy by the standards of the time. But, he added,
their attitude was motivated by purely pragmatic considerations. “They had
nothing to do with democracy. Democracy didn’t interest them at all.” What
interested them was efficiency, and, perhaps, the opportunity to make some
extra money on the side.
At the same time, a young generation of Petersburg intellectuals
were quietly exchanging ideas of their own about economic modernization—and
sometimes drawing a link to the need for democratic institutions to go
along with them. Yet this younger generation, well-schooled in its
country’s recent history, could always see the lurking example of the
failed Soviet attempts at reform. One lesson to be drawn from them,
presumably, was that you could only get away with retooling the economy as
long as the people doing the reform had tight control of the political
system. It was a lesson that could have only been confirmed by the
experience of Boris Yeltsin’s would-be democratic revolution, when his more
ambitious plans, as they saw it, were scuttled or retarded by a chaotic
parliament.
Interestingly, one of the most important apostles of Russian-style
market reform to emerge from St. Petersburg in the 1990s was Anatoly
Chubais, a man whose intense desire to do away with socialism and central
planning was matched only by his ruthless and unsentimental mastery of
bureaucratic machinery. Many of his “romantic” liberal colleagues—Muscovite
and otherwise—have long since fallen by the wayside. Chubais, by contrast,
has maintained his position in the commanding heights of the Russian
economy as head of the national electricity monopoly. Once considered the
great hope of Russia’s liberal democrats, Chubais has recently backed many
of Putin’s less democratic policies, including the continuing war in Chechnya.
In that respect, even though he was already at work in Moscow long
before many of Putin’s new followers arrived in the capital, Chubais can be
seen as a crucial avatar of the new Petersburg Generation, with its fervent
belief that Putin’s revival of authoritarian habits and mechanisms—”managed
democracy,” as Putin’s aides like to call it—is a prerequisite for cleaning
house in the economy. Some Russians try to draw a distinction between
Putin’s KGB followers from Petersburg and his economic reform team; others,
perhaps more accurately, tend to see them as a single group. Yakov Gordin,
editor of a leading Petersburg literary magazine, knows many of the new
Putin Generation well. “They believe that they can conduct reforms only
under conditions of stability. No one’s talking about repression. But they
definitely believe in tough government—that is a clear idea of this group.”
Repression may still come though, as the tough part of Putin’s
economic reforms gets underway. Recent sharp price rises for utilities in
public housing—a crucial part of Putin’s drive to reduce Russia’s rampant
and economically devastating culture of subsidies—inspired 20,000 people to
demonstrate against the measure in the southern city of Voronezh. But
because Putin has clamped down on the media so effectively, few Russians in
the rest of the country noticed. This could well be a sign of things to
come, unless the president can come up with vast new sources of capital to
replace the Soviet-era infrastructure that is quietly collapsing around the
ears of Russia’s citizens. Gordin also sees the potential risk: “At what
point does that longing for stability begin to gain the upper hand? It’s
still too early to say.” And that may be exactly the question that George
Bush might want to contemplate as he tours the streets of St. Petersburg
with its most famous present-day son.
*******
#7
Washington Post
May 25, 2002
Putin Leaves the Table Still Hungry
Russian Plays for Another Day After Folding on Arms and Economics
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
MOSCOW, May 24 -- President Vladimir Putin played the happy host, escorting
President Bush around the cathedrals of the Kremlin, welcoming him
overnight at his country house and preparing for a jaunt to his home town
to show off the museums and ballet. But other than a moment on center stage
and a vague, three-page treaty, Putin got little of what he really wanted
from today's summit.
The Russian leader failed to achieve his goals on strategic arms cuts and
came away without any of the economic benefits he sought. The Treaty of
Moscow, just half the length of the average newspaper article, essentially
codifies what Bush and Putin had already agreed to last year, with none of
the detailed mechanisms or verification procedures of past treaties.
Yet Putin has decided to stick with his policy of rapprochement with the
West on the wager that it will pay off in the long run. While he will not
always follow the U.S. line, as he demonstrated today in the continuation
of a dispute over Russian assistance for Iran's civilian nuclear program,
analysts say Putin has arrived at a cold-eyed reappraisal of his country's
role in the post-Cold War world.
"This is the first asymmetrical summit," said Clifford Kupchan, vice
president and head of the Moscow office of the Eurasia Foundation, a
nonprofit group promoting democracy in Russia. "This is the first time the
Russians accepted they're not equal." Kupchan said Russian officials have
expressed to him a new understanding of their relationship with the United
States. "They want to be France. They want to be an ally who's a pain."
This goes against the grain for some Russians, especially in the military,
who still remember the days of superpower glory. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, one
of Russia's chief negotiators of the new treaty, acknowledged that much of
the military opposed a deal with Washington. Some were "displeased" with
the agreement, he told reporters at the Defense Ministry after the signing
ceremony at the Kremlin, "but today we simply fulfill orders."
Putin understands that Russia can no longer compete head-to-head with the
United States and needs to find a new place in the global order. He is
acutely aware of Russia's economic weakness, often citing statistics
showing that Russia's economy per capita is smaller than Portugal's. While
his generals worry about military strength, Putin spends his time
haranguing aides and legislators to move faster on economic change and
seeking to ease Russia's entry into international markets.
Putin has set aside objections to U.S. policies on arms control and other
security issues in hopes of forging closer economic ties to the West,
according to analysts. For example, Putin wanted the strategic arms cuts in
today's treaty to be subject to rigorous verification, and insisted that
discarded warheads be destroyed, not stored. Both positions were rejected
by the United States, and Putin accepted the U.S. view.
Earlier, he also objected strongly to U.S. plans to build a missile defense
system but offered no serious protest once Washington decided to withdraw
from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, and now he talks of
cooperating in the project. Putin has also dropped Russia's long-standing
objection to further expansion of NATO to include some former Soviet
republics.
The reward he has been anticipating for such cooperation did not
materialize today. As far back as last fall, before Putin's summit with
Bush at the president's ranch in Texas, the Russians had expected the
United States to offer important economic incentives, most significantly a
repeal of restrictions under the Jackson-Vanik free-emigration law of 1974,
which still requires Russia to receive an annual waiver to enjoy normal
trade relations with the United States.
Bush could not persuade Congress to revise the law by the November summit.
By today, he still had not won action from Congress, leaving the Russians
increasingly frustrated. In addition, the Commerce Department still has not
recognized Russia as a "market economy," a key milestone in Russia's
eventual admission to the World Trade Organization. Also, Russia and the
United States have been embroiled in difficult trade disputes over steel
and poultry.
"A considerable part of the Russian elite would like more steps from the
United States," said Nikita Zagladin, a researcher at the Institute of
World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of
Sciences. "This steel war, this chicken war, they're not very good for
improving relations."
The arms treaty represents a positive step, said Dmitri Rogozin, chairman
of the international affairs committee of the State Duma, the lower and
most active house of the Russian parliament. "But," he said on Russian
television, "it's bad when they do not talk and make agreements on other
issues which have a direct impact on the lives of the people of these
countries. I mean questions of economy, culture, education."
As he has for months, Bush came across today as eager to reciprocate
Putin's outreach, emphasizing personal ties and papering over their
differences. Even when Bush raised such issues as the conflict in the
separatist Russian region of Chechnya and freedom of the press, he did so
gently and unobtrusively. He merely advised that Moscow could fight the war
in Chechnya and still "respect the rights of the people." And he told a
crowd of Russian religious, political and media leaders that independent
media are important even though "elected officials sometimes don't agree
[with] what's written about them."
Such surface-level talk leaves some Russians worried that the new
partnership has not deepened. "My fear and my concern is the relationship
may prove to be shallow," said Alexei Makushkin, Russia director of the
EastWest Institute, an international think tank. "Like many of us watching
this, I'm anxious to see more substantive things happening in the
relationship."
*******
#8
strana.ru
May 24, 2002
The Summit Oil Deal - Setting the Stage for even Bigger Oil Bargains
Invigorating climate for economic growth and security
By Ira Straus
A new element in the U.S.-Russia agenda has emerged at this Summit: energy
deals. It is a subject where the two countries are basically on the same
side; they can reach deals to greatly increase their success in realizing
their mutual interests, if they first simply set up a framework to
reconcile the secondary differences in interest.
Their initial agreement is meant to do this. They have agreed to work
together on energy strategy, reconciling their national energy strategies:
this means they both recognize it as a strategic matter in which they are
on the same side. Specifically, they will cooperate against instability in
global oil markets; which in practice means that Russia should increase its
oil supplies to make up for the shortfall in case of cuts in oil supplies
to the West from the Middle East. Meanwhile, America is to help develop
Russian oil sources and markets: this means investment. Evidently there is
to be cooperation on developing Central Asian oil markets.
This is, at first glance, a modest step, but it is one that is pregnant
with a change in the basic nature of Russia-West relations. As Mikhail
Khodorkovsky of Yukos wrote, "the opportunities would be almost limitless"
if the U.S. and Russia started making bargains in this field (Financial
Times, May 24). They have started. The effects should keep growing with time:
1. It makes Russia an ally of the West in a vital Western economic security
interest.
2. It makes the West an ally of Russia in a vital Russian economic growth
interest.
3. It places a new regular item on the agenda of U.S.-Russia relations.
Nuclear weapons disagreements need not always have the spotlight at a
summit; energy bargains might instead.
4. It creates an invigorating atmosphere. Energy bargains are win-win
deals, not zero-sum deals (which is the depressing feeling that always
accompanies nuclear arms talks). Everyone can feel in the wallet how their
interests are being benefited.
This is not likely to be the last energy deal. It is just the opening
wedge. Now that energy-dealing has gotten onto the agenda, people can start
thinking about what the next deal could be. Pressure groups should soon
come to see the benefits they have gained from the present bargain and
mobilize in favor of further deals. This is the classic way for setting an
integrative dynamic into motion.
This energy deal should be seen as Stage 1. It is already possible to
envisage Stage 2 and Stage 3 deals that would multiply the benefits several
times over.
A Stage 2 energy deal: Russia joins the International Energy Agency (IEA),
a fair oil price is agreed upon for Russian oil, the West agrees to
compensate Russia for financial losses when oil prices fall below this
level, and Russia agrees to compete ruthlessly against OPEC to cut world
oil prices as low as possible.
The benefits: the West gains literally 10 ten times in low oil prices as
much as it transfers to cover Russian losses from the same. Russia recoups
all its losses, then gains some from increased market share. Desert
sheikdoms stop accumulating huge financial power, something that has
destabilized global finances and put big money behind the spread of
religious extremist seminaries and terrorism. The world economy benefits
tremendously, Third World (India, China, etc.) as well as First World.
China and other countries burn less coal.
A further, long-term benefit: The Russian economy starts to rise and fall
together with the rest of the world economy, instead of the other way
around. It gets onto the same cycle as the West and the world economy,
rather than an opposite cycle. This fosters a new enterprising and
productive spirit, in keeping with the tremendous capabilities and skills
of the Russian people. It encourages a better, mutual-gain attitude toward
the world at large - not the old spirit of monopoly and extortion. It helps
Russia become a healthy society. And it lances the financial boil of Middle
Eastern societies, which have become unhealthier, cartel-and-extortion
societies through their oil wealth.
A Stage 3 energy deal. A Russia-West Oil and Gas Community is established,
incorporating the deals in Stages 1 and 2. The harmonization of Western and
Russian oil price interests, achieved in Stage 2, makes it possible to form
a strong joint organization in this sphere. The IEA is upgraded
institutionally to form the basis for the Oil and Gas Community.
Like the Coal and Steel Community that laid the foundations of the European
Common Market and today's EU, a Russia-West Oil and Gas Community could lay
the foundations for a Euro-Atlantic-Eurasian common market.
And then there would be still further prospects:
Stage 4: the end of OPEC. By this stage, OPEC has been greatly weakened;
and IEA, representing all the countries of the global "North", greatly
strengthened. IEA can set norms for energy policy, energy taxation,
stabilization funds and reserves, investment and production among its
members. And the UN can set global norms on these matters and dictate to
OPEC. A First World-Third World alliance can easily prevail in the UN
against OPEC. UN regulations can undermine what is left of OPEC, outlawing
its role as a cartel -- an illegitimate form of inter-governmental
organization. Eventually OPEC members would no longer find it worth the
embarrassment of maintaining the organization.
Stage 5: the end of global oil injustice. The UN Security Council proclaims
oil and gas to be a commodity of global economic and security interest and
to be subject to global antitrust regulation, as well as regulation
motivated by environmental and other concerns. In low-population high-oil
states such as the Gulf states (or perhaps all states where oil and gas
production and reserves exceed population by a certain specified ratio), it
undoes their nationalization of oil, placing the oil and gas fields under
global ownership and authority. A UN energy agency could work closely with
IEA to set overall management guidelines; a fair rent could be paid to the
host states for use of their land.
And there we would have it. No more sucking of the world economy by a few
barely populated states. No more letting the hundreds of billions of
dollars go to financial destabilization, religious extremism, and
terrorism, among other things. Instead a healthier Russia, a healthier
Russia-West relation, and a healthier Northern leadership of the world system.
******
#9
Los Angeles Times
May 25, 2002
Tactical Devices Still Present Major Threat
By PAUL RICHTER, TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON -- The U.S.-Russian strategic arms deal signed Friday in Moscow
has won praise around the globe, yet the agreement says nothing about a
class of atomic weapons that experts believe poses the greatest threat: the
smaller devices called tactical nuclear weapons.
Thousands of these arms are scattered throughout Russia, in the form of
missile warheads, artillery shells, aircraft bombs and land mines. Because
of the security weaknesses of Russia's decaying military infrastructure,
these explosives are more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists or
"rogue" states than those of any other country, say Western government
officials and independent experts.
U.S. officials acknowledge that such tactical weapons pose a proliferation
danger, and they discussed safeguards with Russian leaders in the talks
that led to the treaty signed Friday. But analysts say the Americans were
reluctant to push too hard, for fear of endangering the agreement to reduce
by two-thirds the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the two nations.
Critics maintain this was a mistake, considering that the Sept. 11 attacks
drove home the message that terrorists and rogue regimes might pose a
greater risk than a long-range strike by a former Cold War adversary.
"In the post-9/11 world, these are the [weapons] that pose the greatest
threat," said Alistair Millar, of the Fourth Freedom Forum, an arms control
group in Washington. "That's a pretty severe omission."
Some prominent centrist and conservative figures have joined liberal
arms-control advocates in arguing that the United States should be pushing
for greater controls on tactical weapons.
Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), former Clinton administration Defense
Secretary William J. Perry and retired Air Force Gen. Eugene E. Habiger,
former commander of U.S. strategic nuclear forces, argued this week that
top priority should be given to an accurate accounting of both countries'
tactical nuclear arsenals.
"These are the nuclear weapons most attractive to terrorists--even more
attractive to them than [radioactive bomb-making] material, and much more
portable than strategic warheads," the three wrote in an opinion page
article in the Washington Post.
Tactical nuclear weapons are generally defined as those designed for use
against military targets on the battlefield. Strategic nuclear weapons are
larger long-range weapons that are designed for use against cities or
strategic nuclear missile forces.
Alexei G. Arbatov, a ranking member of Russia's Duma, or lower house of
parliament, has been quoted as saying that Russia has about 3,800 tactical
nuclear weapons. But many Western estimates range as high as 18,000.
The U.S. has about 1,670 such devices, according to Millar, including 180
bombs stored in seven Western European countries.
Tactical weapons are generally compact enough to be carried by one or two
persons, said Millar. They are usually relatively small in destructive
power--equivalent to less than 100 tons of TNT--but they can also pack as
much force as 1 million tons or more of TNT. Some are 60 times as powerful
as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in World War II.
Experts say these weapons pose more of a danger because they are designed
to be set off by front-line troops and do not have the elaborate safeguards
employed with strategic missiles and bombs. Also, they are deployed in
front-line areas near cities, rather than on remote bases or missile fields.
Russian officials have insisted that their inventory is safe and in good
hands. But some officials have acknowledged the risks.
Col. Gen. Yevgeny P. Maslin, a Russian defense official in charge of
nuclear munitions, told Special Warfare magazine in 1996 that theft of
nuclear weapons from Russian facilities was "impossible." But he
acknowledged that the weapons were at risk when being transported and that
he was concerned that they could be stolen by fired nuclear-industry
specialists, "social malcontents, embittered individuals."
So far, no weapons are publicly known to have been stolen. But there have
been unconfirmed reports of Russian tactical weapons being offered for
sale, Millar said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported the recent case of two
Lithuanian arms brokers who offered to sell Russian tactical nuclear
weapons to undercover U.S. agents, he said.
One of the greatest sources of Western concern about the tactical arsenal
has been an unnerving absence of information on what has occurred since
Russia began downsizing its arsenal and withdrawing tactical weapons from
former Soviet republics.
After President George Bush, the current American leader's father, made
unilateral cuts in the U.S. tactical force, Russian President Boris N.
Yeltsin promised in 1992 to sharply slash the tactical force. But since
then, there have been only vague statements about that downsizing.
One obstacle to any reduction in the Russian arsenal is the suggestion from
Bush administration officials that the Pentagon might need to develop a new
class of small "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons to destroy deeply buried
enemy command posts and weapons storage facilities. U.S. officials have
publicly denied that they have decided to build such new weapons, but
several officials are known to privately favor such an effort.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization officials have openly expressed their
concerns about Russia's tactical inventory.
Yet the tactical force has become even more important to Russian defense in
recent years.
Russia no longer has enough money to maintain the robust conventional
forces it would like. And many in the country feel threatened by the
continuing expansion of NATO, which is expected this year to add seven
members, including Baltic states and others on Russia's western flank.
"They see this as their nuclear equalizer," said Thomas Z. Collina of the
Union of Concerned Scientists.
The Clinton administration had hoped to make progress on the subject. In
1997 in Helsinki, Finland, President Clinton got Yeltsin to agree to
further discussions. But the American leader made no further headway, and
the Bush administration has so far made it a second-tier issue.
John R. Bolton, undersecretary of State for arms control, said in March
that U.S. officials had raised the tactical weapons control issue
"periodically over the last year, and I'm sure we'll continue to discuss it
with them."
But he said the administration's first priority with the Russians was the
ballistic missile treaty, the second was the offensive strategic arsenal
and the third was other proliferation issues.
"The issue of tactical nuclear weapons is still out there," he said in an
interview with Arms Control Today magazine.
*******
#10
Washingtonpost.com Live Online
May 24, 2002
Russia and the U.S.
With David Hoffman
Author and Washington Post Foreign Editor
As part of his tour of Europe President Bush will meet with Russian
President Vladimir Putin to discuss nuclear arms control, NATO, the war on
terrorism and a host of other topics.
Washington Post Foreign Editor David Hoffman was online to take questions
and comments on the meeting, his book "The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in
the New Russia" and the fate of Russian-U.S. relations.
Hoffman joined The Washington Post in 1982, and covered the Reagan and Bush
presidencies as a White House correspondent. After serving as diplomatic
correspondent and Jerusalem correspondent, he moved to Russia to head the
Post's Moscow bureau from 1995-2001. He is currently the Foreign Editor of
The Washington Post, based in Washington, D.C.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over
Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests
and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Leaving aside the irony of discussing the inequitable
distribution of wealth in a former communist country, what recommendations
do you have for improving the economic health of Russia? Russians have
suffered from a weak economy for a long time. What will it take to give the
Russian people a higher standard of living?
David Hoffman: Good question and there are lots of answers. One big
improvement would be to get a decent banking system. Banks are really
important -- Russia is a rich country and yet one of the key methods of
making good use of that wealth is broken: the banks. You know, banks were
among the first private businesses to succeed, even in the late Soviet
period, thousands of them sprang up, and the field is now overgrown with
weeds -- hundreds of small banks that do nothing but serve one company, if
that.
Some other ideas: rule of law, better corporate governance, transparency --
all would help reduce the risk of doing business there, attract investment.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Nuclear Arms Treaty, here goes. I've read that Bush wants
to store nuclear warhead trade-ins and Putin wants to keep MIRVs. Did this
treaty give them both what they wanted? Does it really accomplish anything
both parties didn't already have? Therefore, is this treaty any big deal?
Is it likely to be ratified in the Senate and the Duma? In any case, does
The House of Europe care about this treaty at all? Thanks much.
David Hoffman: In a big picture sense, I do think the treaty matters and
should have been done years ago. It is leftover business, and Clinton did
not focus on it. Remember, Yeltsin said once at a meeting in Sweden that
1,000 nuclear warheads were enough for Russia. His aides rushed to say "no
no!" -- but now Putin and Bush have all but codified the levels. And Russia
will go lower that the numbers in this document -- way lower. Putin may
want to keep Mirvs but look at the Topol-M, his "modernized" and newest
missile. They are rolling off the assembly line slower than the Russians
ever expected. A clue there: they are not going to build up, they can't
afford to, and Putin is realistic. I think Russia built as many Topol-Ms as
it has Zil limos, lately.
Alexandria, Va.: Lenin once remarked that "a capitalist will sell you the
rope to hang him with."
Is the Soviet Union still supplying nuclear materials, equipment or
know-how to the government of Iran?
If so then is the United States serious about stopping the Soviet Union
from assisting the Iranian nuclear effort?
David Hoffman: Yes we have so many good quotes from Lenin and Marx, we
should thank them, and I personally wish they could be here today for this
talk!
The Soviet Union is gone. Russia may well be allowing missile parts,
fissile materials and other bits of weapons of mass destruction to find
their way to Iran and other places. Russia is porous. I worry about it. And
the United States has been "serious" about the problem in rhetoric for a
long time, but dallied when it comes to action. Bush has lately realized
more clearly the importance of trying to keep the stuff from wandering
around. More could be done.
Silver Spring, Md.: Has there been a problem over the years of Western
journalists in Moscow being too-close to their English-speaking sources and
sometimes friends? Has this affected news coverage?
David Hoffman: Speaking Russian is really important to covering the country
well. Speaking Russian well is a talent, too, and I will never claim to
have spoken the language with the respect it deserves, but I tried. If you
can only speak to people who speak English, it is a filter, and limiting.
Alexandria, Va.: You list six oligarchs in your book. Another author has 20
in her 1999 book on Russia. Who is right? Cheers.
David Hoffman: We are both wrong. There were dozens -- big Oligarchs, baby
Oligarchs, wanna-be Oligarchs. I think Russia would have been better off if
there had been 100,000. In the mid-late 1990s there was talk about seven
main oligarchs, but even that group was constantly breaking down, dividing
itself into new groups.
Alexandria, Va.: Are the Chechen militants terrorists like the Palestinian
militants in the West Bank?
Do the Chechen militants engage in suicide bombings?
How many Chechens fought for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Are there Al Qaeda in
Chechnya?
David Hoffman: The Chechens have engaged in all kinds of tactics, including
the storming of a hospital in Russia in 1995 in which many innocents were
killed, and many ambushes and attacks. But my sense is that suicide bombing
is not one of their main tactics. I don't know, and don't think anyone
knows, precisely what kind of links there were between Al Qaeda and the
Chechens. Everyone speaks of some fighters going back and forth. My guess:
there were a few. But the Chechens had their hands full with two wars for
most of the 1990s.
Alexandria, Va.: While studying in Moscow in 1997 a theory that was often
tossed around by my classmates and I was that Russia would be best served
by a system of government similar to Britain's. A monarch, a strong leader
that everyone can look to for guidance, combined with representation in
some type of Parliament. Though never having been interested much in
politics, this sounded like a good idea to me. Russians seem really into
revering a strong leader, as shown by the demi-god status of Lenin and the
remaining popularity of Stalin. (Yes, some Russians do say, it's true that
Stalin killed a lot of people, but look how he made the Soviet Union a
major world power in the process. They still think he was a good leader.)
My question is two-fold. One, do you think that this theory has any footing
in the Russia you see? And two, if it does, doesn't it seem that Putin is
similar to Stalin in some ways -- making nice to the West but ruling the
country basically how he wishes (with an iron fist, no less)?
Thank you for answering my questions.
David Hoffman: Tough questions. I think the core issue is authoritarianism.
You know the history of the Russia experience with it, and I think whether
Soviet or Imperial, it would not be a good idea to try to create such
figures again. A lot better idea would be to encourage Russia to perfect
the system of electoral democracy it now has embraced, and which remains
weak, tentative, and vulnerable. I'd love to see more emphasis on building
the pillars of this system -- strengthening what we call civil society --
than coming up with new some new system. I worry a lot that Putin has not
done this. It's one thing to destroy the old system as Yeltsin did; another
to build a new one. Putin seems to want to create what he calls "managed
democracy" -- ahem, that is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? That's the
whole point about democracy -- that the people make choices, and don't need
to be "managed" by the ruler.
Alexandria, Va.: Are you kidding? Lenin is still around. You can see him
the next time you go to Moscow. Or have they completely stopped that tour?
(Sorry. It's Friday before a long weekend.)
David Hoffman: Yes, but he doesn't answer questions in his current state.
Unless they have added sound.
Washington, D.C.: What do you think President Bush should be looking to
come out of his meeting with Putin? What should Putin be looking to get out
of it?
David Hoffman: If I were Bush -- I would certainly have tried to get to
Moscow with an announcement on lifting Jackson-Vanik, a cold war relic,
which might have been a good symbolic step. But he didn't. He got the arms
reductions business sealed, which is fine, but did very little to outline
the direction of this "entirely new" relationship he mentioned. Clinton's
last summit with Putin was a bust, too; this one seems to be limited as
well. Perhaps that's a comment on the way things are going. Putin has shown
Bush a lot of understanding -- gave in on NATO expansion, on ABM, and on
parts of the arms deal. He is probably disappointed he did not get
Jackson-Vanik, at least. He may at some point need to explain to folks at
home why he has moved so far toward the United States. I don't see signs of
serious discontent about that in Russia, but the question might be raised
by his critics: what did you get for it? In truth, if Putin wants to steer
Russia toward the West, as he is suggesting, then most of what he needs to
do is in Russia's hands -- improving investment climate, respect for human
rights and so forth. I am sure Putin is very happy that Bush has downplayed
Chechnya.
Virginia: How are Bush and Clinton different in their Russian dealing? And
how would Gore compare with Cheney towards Russia? Are liberals pro-Russian
while conservative are anti-Russian?
David Hoffman: No labels please!! You just can't generalize like that.
Clinton saw Yeltsin as a fellow politician. Clinton overpersonalized the
relationship. He did not seem to have a larger view other than "I need to
help Yeltsin." At the time, Bush and his people sneered at this. The
Republicans tried to make hay out of it -- saying the Clinton years were
too soft on Russia. And, today, Bush is basically following Clinton's path,
cleaning up some of the leftover business. Perhaps the real truth is that
both parties are on the same path -- and the real issue is where is Putin
going to take Russia.
Alexandria, Va.: How much aid does the U.S. provide to the former Soviet
Union directly and indirectly in the form of loans, loan guarantees,
grants, payments to the World Bank which end up in the former USSR, etc?
David Hoffman: I just don't know the precise totals. Tens of billions of
dollars over tens of years.
David Hoffman: Big questions about the Oligarchs which no one has asked:
were they good or bad for the country? Could Russia have made the leap from
the Soviet years without wild and crazy capitalism? Did the Oligarchs help
or hurt Russia's democratic transformation?
David Hoffman: Theoligarchs.com is the website!
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.
*******
#11
Pope absolves Bulgaria of link to assassination attempt
May 25, 2002
AFP
Pope John Paul II absolved Bulgaria of involvement in the 1981 attempt to
assassinate him and reached out to the Orthodox Church on the first full
day of his visit to Sofia.
"I never believed in the so-called Bulgarian connection and this is because
of my affection and my respect for the Bulgarian people," the pope told
Bulgarian President Georgy Parvanov in a private meeting, according to
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls.
The remark was the first time the 82-year-old pontiff has publicly
commented on allegations that Bulgaria's secret service masterminded the
1981 attack carried out by Turkish national Mehmet Ali Agca, who shot the
pope in Saint Peter's Square.
The pontiff also offered the use of a church in Rome to the Bulgarian
Orthodox community in a gesture of reconciliation to help end a rift
between the two faiths.
During his morning meeting with Parvanov, the pope confirmed he had "all
along loved the Bulgarian people", a joint statement said.
Parvanov welcomed the comment, expressing the "esteem of the Bulgarian
people for the Holy Father" for the statement.
Sofia had hoped for the gesture to help dispel lingering doubts about the
1981 incident and improve its international image.
Addressing a group of Bulgarian intellectuals later, the pope warned
against rising indifference in Europe.
"Today's Europe seems prone to a growing temptation to scepticism and
indifference... Europe, if it is to rediscover its own deepest identity
must necessarily return to its Christian roots," the pontiff said.
The ailing leader of the Roman Catholic Church arrived in Bulgaria, his
first bridge-building visit to the Balkans nation, late Thursday aimed at
reinforcing links between Rome and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
The Catholic community numbers just 60,000 -- 0.75 percent of the population.
At the time of the assassination attempt, both the US and European press
had hinted that Bulgaria had been involved in the attack at the urging of
its then close ally, the Soviet Union, which was angry at the pontiff for
supporting the anti-communist Solidarity movement in his native Poland.
Three Bulgarians were accused of masterminding the bid by Agca to shoot the
pope on May 13, 1981.
One of the three Bulgarians implicated, Sergei Antonov, worked for the
Balkan Airlines office in Rome. He was arrested in 1982 but was released
four years later due to lack of evidence.
Bulgaria has repeatedly denied that it, or Antonov, ever had any link to
the assassination attempt and at the time denounced the accusations as a
plot concocted by the US secret service CIA.
After his meeting with the president, the pontiff met the leader of the
Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Maxim, who until recently had opposed
the papal visit.
During the meeting, the pope offered the Bulgarian Orthodox community in
Rome the use of the Church of Saints Vincent and Anastasius "with the view
to increasing our knowledge of each other, our mutual charity and our
fraternal cooperation.
"Today, the Lord enables us to meet and to exchange a 'kiss of peace'," the
pope said in an address to the patriarch.
"I am confident that these direct contacts, which have happily increased in
recent years, will also have a positive impact on the theological dialogue
in which the Catholic and Orthodox are involved."
On Sunday, the pope plans to beatify three Roman Catholic priests who were
executed by the Communists in 1952 after being convicted of spying.
Relations between the Vatican and the Orthodox Church in the former Soviet
Bloc have been strained by accusations that the Catholic Church is seeking
to convert Orthodox believers.
******
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