Johnson's Russia List
#6566
22 November 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. AP: Putin Questions Terrorism Efforts.
2. RIA Novosti: GEORGE BUSH SAYS VLADIMIR PUTIN IS ONE OF HIS CLOSEST
FRIENDS.
3. RIA Novosti: LYUDMILA PUTIN AND LORA BUSH VISIT HALLS OF YEKATERININSKY
PALACE.
4. Interfax: Russia, U.S. should not give any chance to terrorists and
their
supporters - Putin.
5. White House: Remarks by President Bush and Russian President Putin in
Photo Opportunity Catherine Palace.
6. White House: Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President
Vladimir Putin on Development of the U.S. - Russian Energy Dialogue.
7. Reuters: Chechens ask Bush for protection against Russians.
8. RIA Novosti: LORD JUDD ACKNOWLEDGING PRESENCE OF "BELLIGERENT ISLAMIC
MILITANTS" IN CHECHNYA AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN MOSCOW TERRORIST ACT.
9. Reuters: NATO says eastward sweep no threat to Russia.
10. RFE/RL: Jeremy Bransten, NATO: Solidarity With Russia, Cold Shoulder To
Kuchma.
11. AP: NATO Chief Has Hard Time With Media.
12. Washington Post: Charles Krauthammer, The Bold Road To NATO Expansion.
13. Interfax: Russia's unemployment drops by 17 per cent in 2002/.
14. RosBusinessConsulting: Presidential Advisor defines Russia's biggest
problem. (Illarionov)
15. The Russia Journal editorial: A sense of urgency.(re US-Russia
relations)
16. The Russia Journal: Matt Taibbi, Putin, Uncut. Press Review.
17. Russia's central bank seen more open to foreign capital.
18. gazeta.ru: Governors to be overthrown delicately.
19. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Alexei Pushkov, U.S. POWER POLITICS INDUCE
MANY COUNTRIES TO GO NUCLEAR.]
*******
#1
Putin Questions Terrorism Efforts
November 22, 2002
By RON FOURNIER
PUSHKIN, Russia (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin told President Bush
on Friday the United States should not wage war alone against Iraq, and
questioned whether White House allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are
doing enough to fight terrorism.
``Where has Osama bin Laden taken refuge?'' the Russian said in a joint
news conference with Bush at an 18th-century czarist castle.
The sharply worded question, though not a direct criticism of Bush,
underscored the frustration felt by U.S. officials since the al-Qaida
leader resurfaced after months of silence in an audiotape praising recent
terrorist attacks.
In Washington, Democratic leaders have accused Bush of focusing on Iraq at
the expense of the broader war on terrorism. Some have suggested the White
House fueled a conflict with Iraq to take command of the agenda for midterm
elections, which resulted in big GOP gains.
Meeting beneath the golden domes of Catherine Palace, Bush cited the recent
arrest of al-Qaida's Persian Gulf operations chief, Abd al-Rahim
al-Nashiri, as evidence of the U.S.-led coalition's success.
``People who love freedom are one person safer as a result of us finding
this guy,'' the president said.
But Putin, while issuing a statement in support of Bush's Iraq policy,
followed quickly with severe doubts about the war on terrorism.
``We should not forget about those who finance terrorism,'' Putin said,
noting that 15 of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudi citizens. ``We should
not forget about that.''
Putin also cited reports that bin Laden is hiding in the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, wondering aloud whether Pakistan
President Musharraf Pervez has done enough to stabilize the area.
``What can happen with armies, arms, weapons that exist in Pakistan,
including weapons of mass destruction?'' he said.
Heavy in symbolism, the three-hour stop in Russia was Bush's way of
thanking Putin for supporting a U.N. resolution requiring Iraq to disarm.
He came here from the Czech Republic, where 19 NATO allies voted to expand
the Western alliance into the former Soviet bloc.
Early this month, as Bush lobbied Putin over the phone for support on Iraq,
the Russian told Bush he should come to Russia after the NATO summit.
Unspoken by Putin - but clear to Bush - was the message that Russians need
reassurance that an expanded NATO won't harm their nation.
``Russia's a friend, not an enemy,'' Bush said at the news conference.
Putin said he did not think the alliance's expansion was necessary, but
pledged to maintain warm relations with NATO allies, including the new
invitees that were in the Soviet Union's sphere less than a decade ago.
The two leaders released a statement demanding that Iraq comply with the
U.N. resolution or face ``severe consequences.''
But Putin urged Bush not to go to war without the consent of the United
Nations, a pledge the president has been unwilling to make.
``Diplomats have carried out very difficult and very complex work, and we
do believe that we have to stay within the framework of the work being
carried out by the United Nations,'' Putin said.
Catherine Palace was built by Catherine I, wife of Peter the Great, as a
gift for her husband in 1718. Its facade, the longest in Europe, stretches
more than 1,000 feet in a glorious collection of columns, windows and
statues. Inside, the 20,000-piece art collection includes paintings by
European masters from the 17th to 19th centuries and Chippendale furniture.
Bush's courtship of Putin recalls the campaign waged by Bush's father to
win the support of then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for U.N.
resolutions leading to the Persian Gulf War. The elder Bush offered
political and economic support to the crumbling Soviet empire in return for
Gorbachev's acquiescence on Iraq.
With war on the horizon once again, Russia wants assurances that military
action in Iraq won't jeopardize its economic interests with Baghdad or drop
oil prices so low that it hurts Moscow's already ailing economy.
Though there was little talk about the issue Friday, Bush has assured Putin
he will do what it can on both counts, administration officials said. They
said Moscow may be overestimating America's influence in a postwar Iraq.
Putin fears that lifting the U.N. trade sanctions on Iraq after a war could
trigger an influx of Western oil interests that would collapse oil prices.
The administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said
Russia has been told the United States cannot control oil markets, but Bush
has long supported efforts to keep oil prices stable.
Russia also wants to protect Russian oil contracts in Iraq, and hopes to
recover more than $8 billion in debts owed by Iraq.
Bush has assured Putin that Russia will be a major player in building a
postwar Iraq, officials said, meaning Moscow would be free to pursue its
debts while oil industry competes on an even playing field in Iraq with
Western interests.
On another sticky issue, Bush renewed his hope that Putin can find a
political way to resolve the fighting in Chechnya, which Russia considers a
breakaway province, U.S. officials said. Bush has acknowledged terrorist
elements in the Chechnya.
******
#2
GEORGE BUSH SAYS VLADIMIR PUTIN IS ONE OF HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS
PUSHKIN, LENINGRAD REGION, November 22 /from RIA Novosti's special
correspondent/ - President George W. Bush believes Vladimir Putin to be one
of his closest friends. The US leader said that Friday when addressing a news
conference after talks with President Putin.
They happen to be in disagreement about something, may even debate, but
always speak frankly, like close friends do, according to President Bush.
The American leader assured that the US and Russia would try their best to
step up bilateral relations, including in the economic and energy spheres.
This is not the first time President Bush is visiting St Petersburg, but
again he is impressed by the city's beauty and wonderful architectural
ensembles Vladimir Putin has shown to him. That is why George W. Bush will
come to Saint Pete again next May.
*******
#3
LYUDMILA PUTIN AND LORA BUSH VISIT HALLS OF YEKATERININSKY PALACE
PUSHKIN (Leningrad Region), November 22. /from Natalya Gorbunova, a RIA
Novosti special correspondent/ -- First ladies of Russia and the United
States have visited the halls of the Yekaterininsky Palace.
They were in the Throne Hall and restoration halls, where they talked to
restorers.
Ivan Sautov, director of the Tsarskoye Selo museum, which includes the
Yekaterininsky Palace told the guests about the restoration technology and
the museum's history.
After that, Lyudmila Putin and Lora Bush took a photo chance with restorers
and the museum staffers.
The first ladies of the U.S. and Russia communicated very warmly during the
excursion. Lyudmila Putin personally gave some explanations to Lora Bush.
After visiting the museum's halls, the presidential spouses left their
signatures in the book of honorary guests, and the museum's director gave
them souvenirs.
********
#4
Russia, U.S. should not give any chance to terrorists and their supporters -
Putin
PUSHKIN. Nov 22 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that
Russia and the United States will continue their effective cooperation in
countering terrorism.
"We should not give any chances to those who are involved in terrorism and
support terrorists," Putin told journalists after a meeting with his U.S.
counterpart George W. Bush.
"We should also not forget those who provide financing to terrorists," the
president stressed.
Putin said that 16 of the 19 terrorists involved in the September 11
attacks in the United States were citizens of Saudi Arabia. "We will remember
this," the president said.
He noted that terrorist Osama bin Laden is reportedly hiding somewhere
"between Pakistan and Afghanistan." "We know what (Pakistani President
Pervez) Musharraf is doing to maintain stability in his country, and we give
him our support," Putin said.
However, Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction and there is no
guarantee that they will not fall into the wrong hands, he said.
*******
#5
White House
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 22, 2002
Remarks by President Bush and Russian President Putin in Photo Opportunity
Catherine Palace
St. Petersburg, Russia
5:55 P.M. (L)
PRESIDENT PUTIN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. In your presence may I
once again cordially welcome the President of the United States and his team
to Russia.
We are very pleased that Mr. President accepted our invitation. And let me
say that our conversations -- and this is exactly the way I'd like to quote
this meeting -- our conversation on long-range of our bilateral issues and
our cooperation in the international arena have been very productive and
very, very frank.
And we discussed practically everything between the sky and the earth. We
discussed our cooperation in the energy sector, our energy dialogue. We
discussed our cooperation in the high technology sector. We also (inaudible)
on the problem of NATO expansion and the development of relations between
Russia and NATO. And, of course, we also addressed the problem of terrorism.
And of course we also discussed the prospects for our cooperation on the
matters of strategic stability.
I think that Mr. President will agree with me -- and he'll have an
opportunity to say what he thinks on this -- but I think he'll agree with me
that our meeting in this point a very frank meeting, without prepared
statements has been very productive and has been very fruitful.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, it has. I consider Vladimir Putin one of my good
friends.
Are you going to translate. (Laughter.)
Like other good friends I've had throughout my life, we don't agree 100
percent of the time. But we always agree to discuss things in a frank and --
in a frank way.
Every time I come to St. Petersburg, he keeps showing me more and more
beautiful rooms. So I'm coming back next May. I always enjoy our
conversations.
I have just come from NATO. My visit with Vladimir was my first stop after
Prague. The mood of the NATO countries is this: Russia is our friend; we've
got a lot of interests together; we must continue our cooperation in the war
on terror; and the expansion of NATO should be welcomed by the Russian
people. After all, there are new nations on our border that are members of --
nations that are new members of NATO, but nations pledged to peace, and
pledged to freedom.
But the President was right, we had a -- we discussed a lot of issues. And I
would define our bilateral relations as very good.
We might answer a couple of questions.
Q This is a question to both Presidents.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay, fine; fire away.
Q (Speaking Russian.)
PRESIDENT PUTIN: As regards partnership, it is on a very high level. And it
is very pleasant for me to note that we not only have lost nothing of what
has been generated, has been produced by the previous generations of
politicians -- but we keep going on further, we keep achieving new results
and we are moving ahead very expeditiously and very productively.
And I'd like to stress -- and this is a very important point -- that that
interests of Russia and the United States coincide well in many economic
fields. But they are also identical in many strategic areas.
As regards our relations with NATO, let me say the following. As regards the
expansion, you know our position well. We do not believe that this has been
necessitated by the existing pact, but we take note of the position taken by
the President of the United States and we hope to have positive development
of our relations with all NATO countries.
As regards our relationship with the alliance as a whole, as the alliance
keeps transforming -- and this is something that Mr. President talked about
recently -- we do not rule out the possibility of deepening our relations
with the alliance. Of course, in the case if the activities of the alliance
are in accord with Russia's national security interests. At least within the
Group of 20, we are interacting, are cooperating in a very well way, in a
very good way.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, the Russian NATO Council is very important. But the
strategy of NATO is going to be based upon the fact that the Cold War is
over; Russia is a friend; Russia is not an enemy. And I told the President as
I was leaving, the NATO summit, a lot of leaders came up and asked me to send
their personal regards to them.
And in terms of our bilateral relations, we'll continue to work to make them
as strong as they can possibly be, and there's a lot of areas -- in trade, in
commerce, in energy -- that we're working together to make progress.
I think it's only fair we ask one American. Jim.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. The public now knows that the U.S. has in its
custody a terrorist who has the blood of many Americans on his hands, Mr. Al
Nashiri. How significant is his arrest?
And since we see President Putin so rarely, Mr. President, I hope you won't
object if I ask President Putin a question, as well. And that is, sir, has
the U.S. asked you to participate or contribute to any military action in
Iraq if it becomes necessary, and what is your view on that?
PRESIDENT BUSH: A couple of points. First, I want to thank Vladimir and his
foreign policy team for working together to pass a strong resolution out the
United Nations on Iraq.
Secondly, we did bring to justice a killer. And the message is we're making
war on the -- we're making progress on the war against terrorists, that we're
going to hunt them down one at a time, that it doesn't matter where they
hide. As we work with our friends, we will find them and bring them to
justice. And America and Russia and people who love freedom are one person
safer as a result of us finding this guy.
PRESIDENT PUTIN: I'm very pleased to see the mood the President of the United
States is in. It is what we need. Let me assure you that we will work
together and our work will be effective.
Now there is something I would like to draw your attention to. And we
ultimately discussed this matter with our U.S. colleagues. We should not give
a chance to anyone who is either engaged in terror or who is supporting
terror.
As I understood the second part of your question, concern was -- has to do
with Iraq. We should not forget about those who finance terrorism. Of the 19
terrorists who committed the main attacks on September 11th against the
United States, 16 are citizens of Saudi Arabia, and we should not forget
about that.
Now, where has Osama bin Laden taken refuge? They say that somewhere between
Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know what Mr. Musharraf is doing to achieve
stability in his country and we are supporting him. But what can happen with
armies armed with weapons that exist in Pakistan, including weapons of mass
destruction, we are not sure on that aspect and we should not forget about
that. And we agree with the President of the United States and his colleagues
who say that we have to make sure that Iraq has no weapons of mass
destruction in its possession.
Diplomats have carried out a very difficult, a very complex work. And we do
believe that we have to stay within the framework of the work being carried
out by the Security Council of the United Nations. And we do believe that
together with the United States we can achieve a positive result. As you
know, our recent past gives us -- we have a example of that kind; and the
level achieved in our bilateral relations between Russia and the United
States gives us hope that we can achieve such results.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, all. We've got a plane to catch; don't keep us
waiting. Thank you, all. Thank you very much.
END 6:10 P.M. (L)
*******
#6
White House
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 22, 2002
Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin on
Development of the U.S. - Russian Energy Dialogue
Last May, we launched an energy dialogue to strengthen the overall
relationship between our countries, and to enhance global energy security,
international strategic stability, and regional cooperation. Already we can
see important benefits from this new aspect of our relations.
A key success in this new dialogue was the first-ever U.S.-Russia Commercial
Energy Summit held in Houston in the beginning of October with the
participation of both countries' governmental, business and scientific
circles. The Houston Summit created new avenues for dialogue and cooperation
on energy issues and led to decisions on concrete new investment projects and
programs and business arrangements. We thank the more than 70 companies that
contributed to its success and look forward to the next energy summit, to be
hosted in Russia in 2003.
We also support the further strengthening of relations between the U.S.
Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Ministry of Energy
of Russia, and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia. We
welcome as well the activities of the intergovernmental American-Russian
Working Group on Energy Cooperation. We note our Ministers' commitment to
educational initiatives to promote best technical and managerial practices.
Commercial cooperation plays the key role in the U.S.-Russia Energy Dialogue.
One of the most important results of the Houston Summit was the establishment
of the Commercial Energy Working Group. We strongly support the efforts of
the American and Russian companies involved to identify new and mutually
beneficial commercial opportunities and to take down barriers to trade and
investment.
At present, American and Russian companies are working hard to further
connect the American and Russian energy markets. We welcome the first
delivery to the United States of Russian crude oil in July; the establishment
of enterprises that will market Russian energy in the U.S.; and the proposal
to build a deep-water port in Russia for energy exports. As a symbolic
example of our deepening energy relationship, we note that for the first-time
ever Russian crude oil was delivered to the United States Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.
Investment is necessary to ensure the further development of Russia's energy
and energy transportation sectors. To that end, we welcome several memoranda
of understanding recently signed by Russian companies with the Export-Import
Bank of the United States, as well as agreements signed with the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation.
*******
#7
Chechens ask Bush for protection against Russians
November 22, 2002
NAZRAN, Russia (Reuters) - Chechen human rights groups appealed to President
Bush Friday for protection against Russian "military aggression" and urged
him to act as a peace mediator in the conflict.
"Shattered by Russian military aggression, we the people of Chechnya have
turned to you because we hear hope in your name," the leaders of eight major
Chechen human rights groups wrote in an open to letter to Bush.
"We therefore need your help, dear Mr President, because we know how powerful
and influential your country is in the international community... Please
could you stand up as a mediator in this conflict and help us achieve peace."
Russian forces have been battling Chechen separatist rebels in the southern
province on and off since 1994. Bush, in Russia Friday for brief talks with
President Vladimir Putin, has said he would try to convince his Russian
counterpart to settle the conflict in a peaceful way.
The U.S. embassy in Moscow said it was unaware of the letter and the Kremlin
refused to comment.
"We do not make comments about such things. Mr Putin has voiced his position
on the matter several times and his position is not likely to change," a
Kremlin spokeswoman said.
In response to last month's Moscow theater siege by Chechen rebels which
ended in the deaths of more than 100 hostages, Russia has stepped up
"anti-terrorist operations" in the rebellious province.
The Kremlin also remains firmly opposed to relaunching peace talks with
Chechnya's elected but exiled leaders.
"As a revenge (for the theater siege), Russians have executed up to 90 people
without trial in Chechnya and taken many others hostage in the past few
weeks," the letter read. There has been no independent confirmation of the
figures.
Putin, who has sided with Bush in his efforts against international terrorism
since the September 11 attacks on the United States, says Chechen guerrillas
are part of a global Islamist conspiracy.
Although Russia's roughly 80,000-strong force there loses men almost daily,
the Kremlin says the military phase of the Chechen operation is almost over.
It hopes to close refugee camps in neighboring Ingushetia, to where up to
30,000 Chechens have fled.
*******
#8
LORD JUDD ACKNOWLEDGING PRESENCE OF "BELLIGERENT ISLAMIC MILITANTS" IN
CHECHNYA AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN MOSCOW TERRORIST ACT
LONDON, NOVEMBER 22. /FROM RIA NOVOSTI CORRESPONDENT SERGEI KUDASOV/. -
Co-chairman of the PACE-State Duma working group Lord Judd has acknowledged
the presence of "belligerent Islamic militants" in Chechnya and their
involvement in the Moscow terrorist attack.
It cannot be denied that there are belligerent Islamic militants in the
Chechen Republic who have taken up the course of armed combat and who are not
interested in the search of a political settlement in Chechnya, Lord Judd
said in an interview with RIA Novosti in London.
"A significant part of the Chechen rebels' activities is cynical, cruel and
completely unacceptable," he said.
It is these militants that are the masterminds of the Moscow terrorist
attack, Lord Judd believes. By this they wanted to postpone a prospective
political settlement of the situation in Chechnya, he said.
The hostage-taking in the Theatre Centre in Dubrovka in Moscow "must be
condemned as strongly as possible," he announced.
Earlier Lord Judd, who had visited Chechnya on several occasions, was of a
different opinion, and it was after his reports that the PACE adopted
resolutions denouncing the Russian authorities' action in Chechnya.
*******
#9
NATO says eastward sweep no threat to Russia
November 22, 2002
By Ian Geoghegan
PRAGUE, Czech Republic (Reuters) - NATO leaders wound up a landmark summit
Friday reaching out to Central Asia while reassuring Russia that the
alliance's expansion into the former Soviet empire posed no threat.
At a first summit beyond the old Iron Curtain, the Western defense bloc
invited new members to join, agreed to set up a new strike force and buy new
equipment, and sought closer ties with ex-Soviet republics in Central Asia
and the Caucasus.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, reshaping itself after 53 years to
face new enemies in the wake of the September 2001 attacks on the United
States, told a lukewarm Russia that the former foes were now allies facing "a
common threat."
Thursday, NATO invited Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia and Slovenia to join, a move which, in parallel with European Union
enlargement, will erase political and economic fault lines that scarred
Europe for half a century.
Friday, the alliance signaled it also wanted to work more closely with
Central Asian states who have helped the U.S.-led "war on terrorism."
U.S. officials see this region, which sits with NATO under the 46-nation
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, or EAPC, as a new frontier to which the
western alliance should extend its influence after embracing most of central
and eastern Europe.
"The purpose of the partnership, as we see it, is to promote freedom and
democracy, and to strengthen the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic
area," President Bush said.
COMMON THREAT
NATO Secretary-General George Robertson told a closing news conference that
the summit had shown that 46 diverse nations -- from as far apart as
Vancouver and Vladivostok -- were "united in partnership and cooperation."
"After all, we all face the same new threats to the safety and security of
our people. We are building one of the world's biggest coalitions against
those who would bring terror into the hearts of our countries," Robertson
said.
Bush, however, warned some partner states they had to improve their record on
democracy to win closer ties with NATO.
"The declarations by these countries must be met with actions. We must be
partners in the war on terrorism. We must be partners who share common
values. We look to our friends to create a level playing field for democratic
elections," he said.
Ties with two EAPC partners, Belarus and Ukraine, remain particularly frosty.
Czech authorities denied a visa to Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko,
increasingly isolated because of alleged human rights abuses in the ex-Soviet
state.
But Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma had arrived as an unwelcome guest in
the Czech capital late Thursday, defying warnings to stay away because of
displeasure among NATO members over alleged arms smuggling from Ukraine to
Iraq.
ITALIAN INVITATION
While most NATO heads kept their distance, Italian Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi broke ranks and invited Kuchma to Rome next week to discuss
joining NATO.
"We will speak about our relationship and about the idea of President Kuchma
to enter NATO," Berlusconi said. "I believe we will have a strong
relationship with so important a country."
Ukraine Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko earlier welcomed a NATO action plan
to take Ukraine relations to a "qualitatively new level," saying he was
optimistic this would put Kiev on the road to eventual NATO membership.
Bush flew out of Prague mid-morning for talks with his Russian counterpart
Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, where the two urged Iraq to disarm fully in
line with a U.N. Security Council resolution, or face "serious consequences."
NATO leaders had pledged Thursday to take "effective action" to help the
United Nations disarm Iraq, but stopped short of committing themselves to go
to war against Baghdad.
Threats that 12,000 demonstrators would try to disrupt the summit proved
unfounded, but a closing news conference ended with security guards hauling
off two protesters who threw a tomato at Robertson, and shouted in Russian:
"NATO is worse than the Gestapo."
*******
#10
NATO: Solidarity With Russia, Cold Shoulder To Kuchma
By Jeremy Bransten
The second and final day of the NATO summit in Prague was devoted to meetings
between the 19 alliance members and the 27 Partnership for Peace countries.
NATO leaders confirmed their intention to further deepen ties with Russia
while tensions in relations with Ukraine remain all too obvious.
Prague, 22 November 2002 (RFE/RL) -- NATO leaders took every opportunity on
the second and final day of their summit in Prague today to reiterate that
the alliance's decision to extend to Russia's borders should be seen as good
news by Moscow.
Yesterday, NATO's 19 current members invited seven more Central and Eastern
European states to join the alliance. The new members include Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania, which regained their independence only a decade ago
after five decades of Soviet annexation.
Russia, which has consistently opposed NATO expansion, will share an
extensive border with the alliance. But U.S. President George W. Bush, who
met today with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, repeated
that in his view, "NATO's expansion is in Russia's best interest." Bush said
an expanded NATO will bring a guarantee of stability right up to Russia's
border.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov attended the summit today for talks with
NATO within the framework of the six-month-old NATO-Russia Council. The
council was set up as a forum for discussion and cooperation on issues
ranging from emergency disaster relief to the fight against terrorism.
NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson, in comments today, paid tribute
to improving relations with Moscow. He said NATO and Moscow had significantly
boosted their cooperation in crisis management, defense reforms, and the
struggle against terrorism.
Robertson also expressed strong support for the Kremlin on behalf of NATO in
the wake of last month's hostage crisis in Moscow. More than 120 people died
after Russian special forces, in a rescue mission, gassed the theater where
hundreds of audience members had been taken hostage by Chechen militants.
Robertson, speaking at a news conference, echoed the Kremlin view that the
Chechen hostage takers bore ultimate responsibility for the deaths. "I can
tell you that the most-often-quoted subject at this morning's meeting was the
hostage situation in Moscow, where all of the ministers around the table
expressed their disgust and their horror that civilians, innocent civilians,
should have been swept up in that criminal activity, and there is a great
sense of solidarity with Russia over that form of terrorism, because many of
the other states in the room have got pretty bitter experience of domestic
terrorism as well," Robertson said.
Robertson said he would travel to Moscow on 9 December to attend a
Russian-sponsored conference titled "The Role of the Military in Combating
Terrorism."
Ivanov, for his part, welcomed the growing partnership between Moscow and
NATO members. He said the NATO-Russian Council had already yielded practical
results, with agreements on coordinating future peacekeeping missions and the
rescue of submarine crews being worked out. Ivanov said the global fight
against terrorism should become Russia's and NATO's main priority. He
expressed satisfaction that this appeared to be the direction the alliance
was now heading.
Ivanov refused to comment on NATO's decision to continue its eastward
enlargement, saying Moscow would analyze documents issued by the alliance and
comments made by individual NATO and invitee leaders before issuing a formal
statement.
He did say that if NATO followed through on its stated intention to
reorganize its structures and weapons systems away from its Cold War mission,
to meet new threats, Russia would only welcome the move. The Russian foreign
minister added that the Baltic states' induction into NATO should not change
the character of Russia's relations with them. "We have always emphasized
that we are interested, Moscow and Russia are interested, in the development
of neighborly, mutually advantageous relations with Latvia and other Baltic
countries, relations that are based on respect for international law and
respect for each other's interests," Ivanov said.
The contrast between the reception accorded to Russia and that given to
Ukraine at the summit could not have been starker.
In the run-up to the summit, NATO leaders repeatedly tried to discourage
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma from attending, saying his presence would
not be welcome. The United States has accused Kuchma of personally approving
the sale of an early-warning radar system to Iraq in breach of United Nations
sanctions, a charge Kuchma has repeatedly denied.
The alliance emphasized its message by downgrading a scheduled meeting of the
NATO-Ukraine Commission to the foreign-minister level. Kuchma came anyway.
In proof that French can still be the most effective language of diplomacy,
NATO officials decided to switch the seating arrangements, using the French
spelling of countries, rather than the English version, so that Kuchma ended
up seated at the end of the table, with Turkey on one side and nobody on the
other, during a meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.
Under alphabetical seating arrangements in English, Kuchma would have been
put next to British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the United Kingdom and
close to President George W. Bush of the United States.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Anatoliy Zlenko, speaking at a news conference at
which no journalists' questions were allowed, reiterated Kyiv's position that
allegations Ukraine sold sensitive radar equipment to Iraq are groundless.
Zlenko, speaking after meeting his counterparts, acknowledged that Ukraine
sold the high-tech Kolchuga radars to other countries. But he said Kyiv must
not reveal more details due its obligation to honor bilateral commercial
agreements.
Zlenko said Ukraine had been as forthcoming as possible with its NATO
counterparts. He said Kyiv is annoyed at statements made by British and U.S.
experts who recently visited Ukraine to investigate the allegations. Those
investigators said the Ukrainian authorities did not provide them with full
assistance. "Ukraine did everything possible to ensure the U.S. and British
teams access to information and all necessary documents of the Kolchuga
specifications, productions, and sales. They are open to our American
counterparts, except for the information as for the Kolchuga transfer to some
countries. You must understand, we're obliged to protect this information
under the bilateral agreements," Zlenko said.
Zlenko said Ukraine was now seeking integration into the alliance but,
judging from today's reception of the Ukrainian leader, that time appears to
still be far off.
The summit ended on a note of drama, with Secretary-General Robertson having
to dodge tomatoes thrown by two Russian extremists from the National
Bolshevik Party at the final news conference. The two suddenly stood up,
shouting, "NATO is worse than the Gestapo! NATO is worse than the Gestapo!
NATO is worse than the Gestapo! NATO is worse than the Gestapo! No to NATO
enlargement! You have the blood of Serbian children on your hands! NATO is
worse than the Gestapo!"
No one was hurt in the incident, and Robertson concluded what he termed a
historic summit with a smile.
*******
#11
NATO Chief Has Hard Time With Media
November 22, 2002
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) - He has the armies of Europe under his
command, but NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson had a tough time
marshaling journalists to clear a room.
After a photo session to kick off Friday's summit of leaders of NATO
members and other countries, Robertson asked reporters and photographers to
leave the room so the presidents and prime ministers could talk privately.
``Would the press please leave?'' he asked.
They didn't.
``Would the press please leave - right now?'' he repeated.
As journalists drifted toward the exits, Robertson quipped: ``Most armies
would obey me right away.''
``What I'm going to say isn't secret anyway,'' he conceded.
Even more difficult than the real reporters were the fake ones.
Two young Russian protesters who apparently posed as journalists shouted,
``NATO is worse than the Gestapo,'' and threw a tomato at Robertson as he
gave a closing press conference.
They missed. The tomato landed with a thud on the stage.
The two were escorted out of the briefing room. It was not clear whether
they were arrested.
One of the protesters told reporters he was a member of the National
Bolshevik Party of Russia, an extremist ultranationalist group.
``The secretary-general was pretty unshaken when it happened, and he was
even less shaken afterward,'' said NATO spokesman Marc Laity.
Protesters in Russia denouncing President Bush's visit there were far out
of tomato-throwing range: They were at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, while
Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin met 400 miles away, outside St.
Petersburg.
The demonstrators angrily denounced what they described as Bush's
``fascist'' policy on Iraq and accused Putin of being an ``American
collaborator.''
Police on the site outnumbered the few dozen protesters. There were no
arrests.
An American president's visit always brings some security hassles - street
closings, restricted sidewalks and the like - but the U.S. ambassador to
Lithuania told Vilnius businesses to focus instead on the cash that comes,
too.
Thanks to Bush's 17 1/2-hour stop in Vilnius, a visiting delegation of
about 800 Americans is expected to spend about $500,000 on hotel rooms and
another $100,000 for lighting, video and sound systems, Ambassador John
Tefft said in one local newspaper, Lietuvos Zinios.
Plus, Tefft said, more than a dozen buses have been rented and 10 U.S.
planes will be buying fuel at Vilnius Airport.
``People will need to eat, drink and buy some souvenirs. I would recommend
them to spend as much as they can,'' he said.
Losing the presidential election didn't spare Bush's old rival Al Gore from
criticism at the NATO summit. His came from Ari Fleischer, the White House
spokesman.
Gore recently resurfaced after two years in virtual exile. On a book tour
with his wife, Tipper, Gore has criticized Bush's economic policies and
said the president should be more concerned about finishing the war on
terror instead of taking on Iraq.
Fleischer was asked about Gore's remarks during a meeting with reporters.
``It is an unusual departure from the norms of how loyal opposition parties
treat a president while a president travels,'' Fleischer said.
``I hope somebody buys his book.''
*******
#12
Washington Post
November 22, 2002
The Bold Road To NATO Expansion
By Charles Krauthammer
NATO crosses the frontier into the territory of the Soviet Union and no one
notices. At its Prague summit, NATO is extending an invitation to seven
countries, including three -- Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia -- that for a
half-century were part of the Soviet Union. The fact that this has elicited
nothing but yawns is a measure not just of how radically the world has
changed, but how successful a resolute and, when necessary, unilateralist
American foreign policy can be.
Take two dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward Russia. First, the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Despite the protests of congressional
Democrats, the alarm of former Clinton administration officials and dire
warnings from the foreign policy establishment that the "cornerstone of
strategic stability" was at stake, the Bush administration earlier this
year unilaterally abrogated the 1972 ABM Treaty. For eight years, the
Clinton administration had negotiated ways to keep it alive. Abandoning it,
we were told, would terminally alienate the Russians, anger the Europeans
and even spark a new arms race.
Utter nonsense. Nothing of the sort happened. Russian President Vladimir
Putin acquiesced and the Europeans followed suit. The single most
anachronistic piece of parchment on the planet -- the ABM Treaty that
prevented us from developing adequate defenses against the coming and
inevitable threat of rogue-state missiles tipped with weapons of mass
destruction -- is now dead. So dead that it is not even an agenda item at
the NATO summit.
The other policy, begun during the Clinton administration, was NATO
expansion. It was not unilateralist but it was just as bold, and it was met
with the usual chorus from those who panic at the thought of any deviation
from the ossified strategic posture of the Cold War. Thomas Friedman of the
New York Times warned that Putin could "very cheaply counter any NATO
expansion by . . . [moving] a few troops to the border." For what possible
purpose?
He also warned that "expanding NATO's wall to Russia's border" would have
the effect of "making cooperation with Moscow impossible." In fact, the
level of U.S.-Russian cooperation is the highest today since 1945. Putin is
not just collaborating in the war on terror, not just allowing a U.S.
presence in the former Soviet Central Asian states, not just acquiescing to
NATO expansion right up to Russia's border and into Soviet space; he is
knocking on NATO's door, trying to get in.
Why? Because he has recognized two blindingly obvious changes in the world.
First, with the Cold War over, Russia has no intrinsic ideological
imperative to engage in strategic competition with the United States. The
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and on the Moscow theater dramatized for those
still living deep in the past that we share common enemies and common
purposes.
Second, NATO as a military alliance is dead. It took ill with the fall of
the Berlin Wall and then died in Afghanistan. When the United States
destroyed the Taliban using a handful of men and precision-guided munitions
in a wholly new kind of war, it demonstrated a military capability so
qualitatively superior to that of the allies that NATO instantly became
obsolete.
As Paul Kennedy, the Yale history professor who once was the leading
proponent of the theory of U.S. decline, wrote after the Afghan war: "The
larger lesson -- and one stupefying to the Russian and Chinese military,
worrying to the Indians, and disturbing to proponents of a common European
defense policy -- is that in military terms there is only one player on the
field that counts." Afghanistan made clear that NATO has no serious
military role to play in any serious conflict.
This is not to denigrate the European past. The Western Europeans had a
deadly serious role countering the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They
put the men on the plains of Central Europe to face down massive Warsaw
Pact armies, and did so bravely and steadfastly for 50 years.
Now, however, the Warsaw Pact is gone. With the United States having
developed a unique 21st-century military, NATO is an alliance that, having
lost an (evil) empire, is in search of a role.
The Russians understand NATO's new role better than many Americans. NATO
has become a political club of like-minded countries. Europe today has two
such clubs. The European Union is the local outfit. NATO is the
transatlantic one, having now become the premier Euro-American talking and
consultation society.
The United States has wisely combined the expansion of NATO with an
expansion of Russia's role in NATO. Far from being a threat to Russia, the
new NATO is now Russia's entree to the West. Putin has moved no troops to
the Lithuanian border.
*******
#13
Russia's unemployment drops by 17 per cent in 2002
Interfax
Moscow, 22 November: The number of unemployed in Russia totalled 5.14 million
by the end of October, a decrease of 26.8 per cent against the same period
last year (when it was 6.25 million), the Russian State Statistics Committee
(Goskomstat) reported on Friday [22 November].
According to statistics, unemployment in Russia shrunk by 0.3 per cent or by
15,000 in October.
The total number of unemployed in Russia this year has been steadily
decreasing month after month. On the whole, the number of people without jobs
in Russia has decreased by 1.04 million (or 17 per cent) since the beginning
of 2002.
Unemployment in Russia is calculated by International Labour Organization
(ILO) methods, which classifies as unemployed all active job seekers (through
employment services, classified ads, friends, etc), and those ready to work
as soon as possible (provided they are not ill, do not look after children or
are senior citizens, etc.)
The level of unemployment in Russia at the end of October 2002 stood at 7.1
per cent of the economically active population (all employed and unemployed
citizens taken together), which totalled 72.4 million or about 50 per cent of
the populace.
The State Employment Service officially registered at the end of October 1.19
million people against 1.01 million in late October 2001. The level of
registered unemployed in the country comprises 1.7 per cent of the
economically active population.
*******
#14
Presidential Advisor defines Russia's biggest problem
RosBusinessConsulting
November 22, 2002
As of today, Russia's biggest problem is a deficit of educated people able to
work in the modern business world, Russian Presidential Advisor Andrey
Illarionov stated at the international educational forum "Innovations in
Education, the Internet and a Personality" in St. Petersburg today. According
to him, the major solution for this problem is a change in the approach to
the process of education. In Illarionov's opinion, the school curriculum
should include economics, foreign languages, survival in nature and in
society, the basics of medicine and first aid, as compulsory subjects.
Illarionov pointed out that it was necessary to attract not only state but
also private resources for financing education. According to him, under the
conditions of globalization, when, in "weak" countries, the state finances
education to a great extent, this triggers a considerable flight of resources
to more developed countries and is thus inefficient. In connection with this,
Russia needs to develop a new qualitative approach to financing education.
******
#15
The Russia Journal
November 22-28, 2002
Editorial
A sense of urgency
President Vladimir Putin's meeting with U.S. counterpart George W. Bush in
St. Petersburg has the potential to build a far-reaching framework for the
future.
Both presidents have shown an ability to rise to the occasion, dismissing the
advice of aides who are more concerned with maintaining the status quo of
frozen relations between the two countries than envisioning a different
future.
That the two countries can be allies in more than just the war against terror
is looking like a possible result of the personal relationship between these
two men, who have often shed dogma and shown leadership and courage.
Their mediocre past and Cold War upbringing is suddenly no detriment to
friendly relations. They both deserve to be complimented for that.
Both presidents are aware that the people of the modern world are facing an
unprecedented level of threat, of violent, unexpected death at the hands of a
highly committed, well-connected and thoroughly ruthless cadre of violent
extremists.
And, in keeping with the increasing global interconnectedness that
characterizes the contemporary era, it is a danger that menaces nations
worldwide.
It can only be thwarted by a countermovement that is equally global.
The idea that there is a close convergence of interests between Russia and
its former Cold War antagonist is not as strange-sounding today as it would
have been just a year and a half ago.
The events of Sept. 11 in the United States caused that country to look
abroad for friends in unanticipated places, and Russia proved to be a friend
in a time of need.
In the diplomatic world that gesture may not mean much, but with the
leadership styles displayed by both Putin and Bush, it has a significant
impact on relations between the two countries.
Despite the fact that Bush's foreign-policy team (not really Bush himself,
who at that point knew little or nothing about international relations) had
earlier been trumpeting a tough-on-Russia, go-it-alone and "does Russia
matter?" approach, they were suddenly forced to limit their unilateralist
rhetoric.
Russia, for geographical, historical and military reasons (for example, the
country's ties to the Northern Alliance), was a country which was absolutely
necessary for the United States to have on its side after the Sept. 11 events
and in the future, for reasons that have become obvious.
Events since that tragic date have reinforced this political realignment.
With Osama bin Laden citing the "Nord-Ost" hostage-taking as part of his
global jihad, Movsar Barayev spouting off about "suicide squads" and "loving
death more than life," and groups of Chechen fighters showing up in
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, it has become virtually impossible to deny
links between international Islamic terrorism and Chechen extremism -- though
the extent to which those ties are going beyond the mercenary is open to
debate. Russia faces the threat of global terrorism as much as the United
States or Israel.
Globalization -- which Western ideologues like Francis Fukuyama always seemed
to think would have just one face -- has shown one of its darker sides: The
internationalization of terror, in which perpetrators see the entire world as
outside of their own set of divine beliefs.
They do not differentiate between Israel, the United States, Russia,
Australia or even the secular governments of some Muslim countries. They see
them all as facets of a single demonic entity that must be wiped out.
Russia must recognize that regimes such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea have
the potential to arm these maniacs with weapons of mass destruction and must
support U.S. initiatives in curbing them.
The United States, on the other hand, must learn from its past mistakes of
arming countries such as Pakistan and regimes such as the Taliban to meet
short-term tactical goals, and form a firm alliance with Russia and other
willing partners to ensure this war is won by the civilized world.
The days of American unilateralism -- which were always more smoke and
mirrors
than reality -- are over. And thanks to Colin Powell -- and George Bush's
confidence in him -- the United States is trying to build alliances rather
than trample on the self-respect of friendly nations.
This is what must be at the heart of the Putin-Bush summit. Time is too
precious to be wasted on the previous century's leftover issues.
A new relationship in the new century can be forged by the leaders of a new
generation.
There is now a sense of urgency as an executioner's ax of terrorism hangs
over the head of each and every one of us.
President Bush will be welcomed in this country as a friend, and he will be
remembered in history for rising to the occasion and extending a hand of
friendship to Russia.
******
#16
The Russia Journal
November 22-28, 2002
Putin, Uncut
Press Review
By Matt Taibbi
It's amazing what a little change of scenery will do for a person. A year
ago, when I was still living in Russia, I was convinced that Vladimir Putin
was a monster, a sort of slithering cross between Napoleon and a health
insurance bureaucrat< the kind of person whose idea of a good journalist is
an NTV cameraman searching for a contact lens under a falling fuel-air bomb.
Now, after a lengthy exposure to mssrs. George Bush, John Ashcroft, Donald
Rumsfeld, et al, I realize how wrong I was. Watching the public appearances
of the scaly non-people who run the United States makes one appreciate that
Vladimir Putin, for all his faults, has one undeniably admirable quality: he
has blood in his veins. Whether or not it¹s red blood is another question:
it may very well be glowing green, like the creature from Predator had. I
can almost imagine the Kremlin manservants attending Putin's bathroom and
discovering simmering pools of bright green droplets in the sink, evidence
of a presidential shaving mishapS Either way, at least it's blood. At least
he¹s alive.
Exhibit A: Putin's latest delicious outburst of ugly sincerity, unloaded at
a French journalist who had the temerity to question the use of land mines
against civilians in Chechnya:
"If you are determined to become a complete Islamic radical and are ready to
undergo circumcision, then I invite you to Moscow. We are
multi-confessional. We have experts in this sphere as well. I will recommend
that the operation be conducted so that nothing on you will grow again."
I roared, literally roared with laughter when I heard this. I wasn't the
only one. Virtually everyone I came into contact with in the U.S. who heard
about this said the same thing: "God, when was the last time one of our
leaders said something that funny?" The reaction over here to the
Putin/circumcision story was similar to the Russian reaction to the Monica
Lewinsky scandal. You might recall that Clinton scored a 98% approval rating
in Russia during that time, according to a Komsomoslkaya Pravda poll: the
overwhelming consensus was that Russians in the Boris Yeltsin era wished
that they had a President who was still capable of having sex with anyone or
anything at all, much less a woman who was not his wife.
It's more or less a proven fact of the human existence that humor is
ideologically neutral. Some of the very worst people in history have had
tremendous senses of humor. Henry Kissinger pops to mind immediately; the
architect of the North Vietnam bombing campaign was without peer when it
came to one-liners. Popes of the Elizabethan era and late Roman emperors
were some of the funniest specimens of our species, while simultaneously
standing as great innovators in the areas of torture and despotism. Don
King, who once stomped a man to death on a street corner, remains for me a
personal model of the humor discipline. I still have the ruble note he
autographed for me when I bumped into him in Times square a few years back.
"To Nobody," it reads, "from Somebody."
Even in a monster, humor is a sign of life; it¹s something genuine. Humor
has a close relationship to the truth because nothing that is not true is
ever funny. It¹s not for nothing that the mainstream media weeds out humor
and forces its agents to refrain from making jokes in the stories they
submit. Truth is incompatible with lies, and the business of big media is to
shield the public from the truth. Therefore one of the most predictable
aspects of our culture is that no good joke by a "respectable person" ever
goes unpunished by reporters.
The response to Putin's outburst in the Western press followed this model to
a tee. On the day after Putin made his remarks, the press followed the
playbook for this sort of story. First, solicit the usual outraged responses
from "responsible" quarters, i.e. a Reuters story ("Putin reverts to crude,
emotional Chechnya approach," Nov. 13), which ran a statement from the
European Commission which called the remarks "regrettable." Next, analyze
the "true meaning" of the remarks, i.e. Radio Free Europe's Nov. 13 "Putin¹s
Remarks on Chechnya May Reflect Public Opinion," which concluded that
"Putin's coarse language and denunciation of the rebels as murderers is
viewed as giving voice to the public's views on Chechnya." Newspapers can¹t
allow themselves a guilty laugh; they have to analyze a thing to death. It
says something that the public response of newspapers to a joke is exactly
the same as the response of a Women¹s Studies professor to a joke in
private.
Worst of all, however, was a Nov. 17 piece by New York Times bureau chief
Michael Wines, which drove the final rhetorical stake through Putin's
unfortunate flirtation with sincerity. Entitled "National Styles of Insult,"
the brief op/ed piece went so far as to use Putin¹s remarks to make the
argument that mongrel Russians somehow inherently lack the aesthete¹s sense
of artistry that drives the classic Anglo-Saxon insult. For Wines, an
example of a man who knew the value of a "good" insult was Winston
Churchill:
"In Britain, insults are an art, arrows of ill intent so beautifully made
that even their targets have to admire them, while being impaled.
"Sir Winston Churchill's assessment of Clement Attlee is but one famous
example among many: he was, Sir Winston said, "a modest man with much to be
modest about."
You can hear the "but" clause coming, and it does. Taking exception to
Putin's crudity, he writes:
"Russian insult is a broadax, or maybe just an ax handle. It is
definitely not an arrow. Russians use arrows for toothpicks."
Later, he goes on to make his point< already blunderingly made two or three
times in the brief text< even more explicitly obvious:
"The journalist should be grateful that he is not a Chechen guerrilla.
Mr.Putin pledged in 1999 that Russian forces would "rub them out in the
outhouse."
"Imagine Sir Winston saying that."
This is typical Michael Wines: set up a Western example as an ideal, then
show how far from that ideal Russians are. Wines knew Winston Churchill,
Winston Churchill was a friend of his, and Vladimir, you¹re no Winston
Churchill.
The thing is, Wines is wrong. While Churchill might not have said something
like Putin's outhouse comment, George Bush certainly did, when he said,
"We'll smoke them out of their holes." But while Putin¹s use of the word
"zamochit" rang beautifully true, given the President¹s obvious, menacing
familiarity with the Russian gangster culture that gave birth to the
expression, Bush's "smoke 'em out" comment was just another fake attempt at
fake Texas folksiness, issued by a pampered Connecticut aristocrat.
George Bush wouldn't go near an actual gopher hole without a surgical mask,
but we know Vladimir Putin wouldn¹t hesitate to whack us in an outhouse.
That¹s why Putin is funny, and Bush is not and never can be. You have to be
honest to get an honest laugh. It¹s too bad our pundits won't let our
leaders try it.
*******
#17
Russia's cbank seen more open to foreign capital
By Andrius Vilkancas
MOSCOW, Nov 22 (Reuters) - The Russian central bank's decision to surrender
its right to impose limits on foreign ownership of banks signals it wants
non-residents to play a more active part in the industry, economists said on
Friday.
But they added the move was unlikely to trigger an immediate influx of
foreign capital into Russia's fragmented banking system, still regarded by
many as a high-risk sector.
"From the symbolic point of view it is very important although in the short
or even in the medium run we won't see any big effect in terms of massive
inflow of foreign capital," Peter Westin, a senior economist at Aton said.
Earlier this week the central bank decided to abolish an internal regulation
allowing the board to impose a ceiling on foreign ownership of Russian banks,
previously set at 12 percent of the consolidated charter capital of country's
banks.
Despite Russia's vast economic growth potential, foreign banks are still shy
to expand their operations in Russia following a 1998 financial meltdown,
which dealt a heavy blow to confidence in banks in the country.
Foreign banks, which can bring cheaper and longer term credit to Russian
customers, held some five percent of the sector at the start of the year.
Westin said fragmentation and heavy domination by state banks has been an
obstacle for foreign direct investment in the banking system.
"If foreigners are going to come to Russia it's going to be what we saw with
Citibank <C.N>. They will come with their own name
and will set up their own branch. I don't think we will see major
acquisitions in the near or medium term," he said.
U.S. banking giant Citibank opened its first retail branch in Russia this
week offering a full range of banking services.
Russia has some 1,300 banks but many of them -- dubbed "pocket" banks --
still amount to little more than treasury departments of large companies.
SBERBANK DOMINATES
The sector is heavily dominated by state-owned Sberbank, the only Russian
bank which enjoys state guarantees on its deposits, and holds some 70 percent
of individual and 20 percent of corporate accounts.
"It was a very positive signal together with clearing up the issue regarding
foreign ownership, it means that the central bank will be seriously working
on liberalising the banking sector," Natalya Orlova, an economist at Alfa
Bank, said.
"The major thing the equity markets are waiting for now is free access for
non-residents to buy banking shares," she said.
Foreign investors now need to get a permit from the central bank to buy
shares of Russian banks. Officials have pledged to amend that with a permit
required when foreign ownership exceeds 10 percent of a bank.
Roland Nash, a chief strategist at Renaissance Capital, also said the central
bank was moving in the right direction but foreigners would like to see more
action to increase transparency and efficiency in the sector.
"The biggest signal would be signs of active and concrete actions on the
reform front, like a continued stream of anti-regulation, capital
requirements, transparency and deposit insurance system," Nash said.
"The one thing that is still really missing in the Russian banking sector is
a sense of trust," he added.
******
#18
gazeta.ru
November 2,2 2002
Governors to be overthrown delicately
By Maria Tsvetkova, Yelena Shishkounova
The Kremlin is set to launch a major reshuffle of Russia’s incumbent
governors. As of 2006 only truly successful professional managers will be
allowed to take charge of the regions, while those less capable who hold on
to their posts will be ousted if they fail to run their regions and spend
budget funds effectively.
On Thursday the presidium of the State Council chaired by Vladimir Putin
spent two and a half hours discussing the draft bills on the general
principles of the organization of legislative and executive authorities in
the regions of the Russian Federation and on the principles of local
government, which are expected to be submitted to the State Duma before the
new year.
At the end of the session Putin instructed the head of the Ministry for
Economic Development and Trade German Gref to draft proposals by November
25. By November 26 Alexei Kudrin and Viktor Khristenko are to review,
summarize and endorse Gref’s suggestions and to send the completed draft
back to the deputy head of the Kremlin administration Dmitry Kozak, who is
in charge of reforming local government.
The regional leaders have been watching Kozak’s work for a long time and
not without a degree of mistrust, suspecting that the Kremlin’s plans for
the redistribution of power between the federal centre and the regions is
likely to lessen their political clout significantly.
In September, when Kozak’s work group was about to finalize the draft and
to submit it to the lower house along with the new version of the bill on
the general principles of local self-government, the State Council (a
presidential advisory board comprised of regional leaders) interfered in
Kozak’s work and insisted that the drafts should first be sent to the
regions for re-working.
After the drafts were forwarded to the regions, the presidential
administration came under a shower of criticism. Remarkably, the authors of
the most scathing remarks were the most influential governors.
President of Tatarstan Mintimer Shaimiyev denounced the bill for
interfering in regional jurisdiction and for violating the federal
Constitution. The subsequent amendments submitted by Shaimiyev to the bill
occupied 9 pages of small text.
The Moscow Mayor’s Office, too, was outraged by the draft. ''Such an
approach runs counter to the concept of the federative relations itself and
devalues the role of the regions in relation to the centre,'' read the
document sent to the Kremlin by Yuri Luzhkov.
After their meeting with Putin on Thursday the governors no longer sounded
that belligerent. ''We act in line with the principle: those who travel
will master the road,'' Shaimiyev told the press wearily. According to the
Tatar leader, both bills will come into force simultaneously, on January 1,
2006.
The governor of the Tyumen Region Sergei Sobyanin seemed satisfied, and
said that on all the issues the president and the regional leaders had
managed to work out a compromise.
However, the Kremlin’s concessions to the governors, which Sobyanin
mentioned in comments for Gazeta.Ru, did not sound particularly
significant. In particular, according to the governor, it has been agreed
that under the new law the regions will be in charge not of their
agricultural sectors as a whole, but only financing.
Putin also agreed with the governors that federal ministries must not be
allowed to interfere in the matters regarding a limitation of powers, which
will be governed only by presidential decrees and federal laws.
The two drafts discussed by the State Council session on Thursday later in
the day received the approval of the cabinet. Now the drafts aimed at
tightening federal control over the region in the framework of the
so-called vertical power structure reform, are to be forwarded to the lower
house.
The bills redefine the powers of regional and municipal authorities, and
are expected to replace the previous system of bilateral agreements between
Moscow and the regions, which was concluded in the 1990s and left certain
leaders with more autonomy than others.
The Kremlin is now set to replace those agreements with laws that would
decree power-sharing rules applicable for all provinces and stipulate
control rights over state assets, funding mandates and tax revenues.
The governors, however, still managed to introduce a vital amendment to the
draft on the principles of the organization of regional authorities. At
their request, the Kremlin was forced to exclude the summary judicial
procedure of dismissing governors at the president’s initiative.
However, the Kremlin retained additional instruments for exerting pressure
on the governors. The draft allows the federal centre to introduce direct
rule over a region in the event of emergencies, large-scale failure to pay
its debts or misspending of federal subsidies.
In fact, this amounts to the dismissal of a governor though in a more
delicate form. If a region finds itself with severe debts, its leader will
automatically lose real power, since the federal government will be able to
appoint a temporary financial administration to the region, which will
assume full control over its budget powers until its solvency is restored.
*******
#19
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
No. 246
November 18, 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
U.S. POWER POLITICS INDUCE MANY COUNTRIES TO GO NUCLEAR
Alexei PUSHKOV, host, Postscript analytical program, TVTs
Every new international crisis highlights the nature of
America's global leadership. For some time now many people have
been comparing the United States with a new Roman empire with
the US-sponsored world order referred to as a Pax Americana
(compare with Pax Romana.)
The United States wants to expand the world's democratic
region to the greatest possible extent and to instill the
"norms of civilized society" whenever possible. In real life,
though, Washington seeks to change the world in line with US
concepts. As far as the United States is concerned, the
expansion of values, rather than mere economic expansion, plays
a decisive role in asserting a new world order.
The American Commonwealth of Nations Lies Ahead
Striving for such an expansion was a salient feature of
the US political and public mentality throughout the entire
20th century. The United States never wanted to co-exist with
Communism. On the contrary, Communism was to be defeated. The
United States believes that it scored a complete and
unconditional victory in the Cold War. Therefore, the United
States is no longer in any mood to co-exist with those regimes,
that don't fit into the structure of American concepts and that
of Washington's interests. Hence the policy that aimed to
overthrow Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, and which now aims
to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Moreover, the United States has
now singled out the modern world's "axis of evil," i.e. Iraq,
Iran and North Korea.
The leading advocates of America's new role are coining
all kinds of nice-sounding definitions, which reflect this
future role, as well as the incipient US-backed world order.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, for one, claims that US domination will
last for another century. More restrained theoreticians, such
as Henry Kissinger, prefer to talk about overwhelming US
superiority.
Meanwhile, new-generation analysts would like the United States
to establish an American Commonwealth of Nations that would
rally around the United States. However, all these assertions
imply that the United States, which is a huge center of
economic and military might, is called on to lead the world.
America's exceptional status and leading role received a
new and powerful impulse after the horrendous September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks. The United States proved vulnerable in
the face of terrorist attacks; Washington now perceives
international terrorism as yet another enemy. Consequently, the
doctrine for turning the United States into an empire with
virtually unlimited powers has now obtained the support of US
citizens, who didn't back this doctrine previously. The people
of America, who want their government to ensure national
security, also remember the 3,500 people, who died in New York
on September 11. At the same time, they no longer want to know
whether such a doctrine is right or wrong. The Republican
Administration's convincing victory during congressional
elections merely confirms this trend.
Many Americans now think that their country is a new Roman
empire. There are, however, different types of empires. There
are limited-action and unlimited-action empires, as well as
reasonable and unreasonable empires. What kind of an empire
will the United States become? Moreover, what role will Russia
play in this new global system? Is Russia ready to become a
province of this new empire? Besides, is the President of
Russia ready to act as its proconsul? Or will Russia strive to
become America's partner, albeit its weaker partner? And will
it strive to take part in tackling issues that affect the
destiny of the world as well as its own future?
Vladimir Putin is now facing precisely this dilemma.
However, this amounts to a national rather than a mere
presidential choice. This choice will have vital short-term
implications for Russia. In this context, the crisis around
Iraq seems to be far more important than just a one-off
military operation aimed at disarming Saddam. Specific methods
of disarmament, US behavior during the crisis, as well as
subsequent developments, will become crucially important.
Nonetheless, some US politicians and experts insist that a
possible military operation against Iraq would be something
exceptional. In their opinion, this projected operation can be
explained by the special nature of Saddam's regime and the
threat emanating from it.
Still, there is every reason to believe that this is not the
case.
The United States has already used military force in
Bosnia and Somalia over the past 10 years, as well as fighting
wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. The US thinks it had good
reason for such military action in these countries. The
operation against Afghanistan was backed by the UN and the
international community.
We should heed the regular use of the US Armed Forces' might
for solving political problems, rather than reasons for it. In
this context, the use of Russian military force against Chechen
bandits can be perceived as a unique political occurrence in
Russia. Meanwhile the US political establishment views the use
of military force as a recurrent tool, rather than a unique
fact.
In some US circles there is now serious discussion of
further US action following Iraq. A group of people, who have
considerable influence in the US political administration,
believes that the current Iranian regime must also be replaced.
In their opinion, this should be the next priority of America's
foreign policy, as well as that of NATO. Officials in
Washington, who deny the existence of such plans, maintain that
such statements are merely private opinions, which should not
be taken seriously. However, such private opinions tend to
coincide with subsequent US policies, if these opinions
coincide with the overall direction of America's foreign-policy.
Therefore, one can safely say that an unequivocal and
long-term US foreign-policy line, as well as a long-term
strategy for changing the entire world order, are now
manifesting themselves. Russia should clarify its status and
policy in the unfolding situation. However, we should not
confuse our position with regard to progressing Pax
Americana-style global changes and our position concerning
support for the United States in its struggle against
international terrorism after September 11, 2001.
On September 20, the United States unveiled its new
national security doctrine, which was mostly authored by
Condoleezza Rice as some people say. In a nutshell, this
doctrine implies that the United States promotes a balance of
forces in favor of freedom.
This balance of forces must be used to maintain throughout the
world a state of well-being, freedom and peaceful relations for
the next few decades. With this in mind, the United States
proclaims the right to take preventive actions against those
specific forces, which pose a threat to America's security and
its interests.
However, striving for this balance of freedom using mostly
military methods for attaining this balance can only create new
discrepancies. NATO has already fought a "live" war against
Yugoslavia in the post-Cold War period. The Balkan conflict has
also engulfed Macedonia. It seems that we would suffer decades
of wars, conflicts and a growing terrorist threat, rather than
decades of freedom, peace and democracy, if US war hawks, who
demand that national security be ensured by mostly military
methods, have their way.
If the United States opts primarily for power politics
then this will completely destabilize the entire system of
international relations, inducing a multitude of countries to
obtain their own nuclear weapons. I don't know whether
President George Bush Jr. is aware of this, or whether he
thinks that he has no other choice. The US preventive-action
doctrine, which denies national sovereignty, proceeds from
America's indisputable right to deal pre-emptive strikes, if US
security is threatened in the broadest sense of the word. The
alleged North Korean threat is a case in point. As a result,
nuclear arsenals seem to be the only guarantee of security for
other countries. If America has granted itself the right to
attack, then we have the right to defend ourselves; such is the
obvious logic of this foreign-policy imperative.
Pandora's Box
By all accounts, the ruling US elite is now changing its
attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. Among other
things, the US keeps talking about the admissibility of using
low-yield nuclear warheads against international terrorists.
Still this would mean opening a Pandora's box with all its
unpredictable consequences. It has been virtually forbidden to
use nuclear weapons since 1945 because everyone recalled
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If such attitudes to nuclear weapons
prevail in the United States, then this would mean that we are
moving towards a very bad world.
One might hail America's transformation into a new world
leader, if it became one capable of stabilizing the world
around it. However, the world would head towards
destabilization rather than stabilization (around the United
States), if extremist trends prevail in it.
Many Russians are now suggesting that this country
obediently follow the US, regardless of Washington's possible
future policies. For example, we should apparently support US
operations against Iraq. However, it would be completely wrong
and irresponsible to leave America alone with its leadership,
real-life or illusory national-security threats, as well as the
ghosts of its own grandeur and vulnerability. This can be
explained by the fact that even whole nations may err. The same
can be said about such a great and democratic nation as the
United States. America had already erred in Vietnam, suffering
a serious and ignominious defeat there. America had erred in
Somalia in 1994, only avoiding massive blood-shed because Bill
Clinton kept his nerve and intuition.
What kind of United States will Moscow have to deal with?
What kind of United States will it have to support? Russia
should not remain indifferent to these questions. We must
decide whether we are interested in creating yet another
unstable system under US auspices, or whether we would like to
create a balance of forces that would favor peace and freedom
(one can agree with Ms.
Rice here) for the entire world, rather than just for the
United States.
Attempts are being made to convince us all the time that
the US Administration's choice is the only correct one
(regardless what it may be). This position is preposterous
because the United States itself is looking for correct
solutions, and besides, it does not always know how to act in a
particular situation.
President Bush did address the UN on Iraq, although
reluctantly, because many members of his entourage were not
sure that a unilateral US strike against Iraq would be the most
appropriate course of action. The President of the United
States made a reasonable decision. However, US war hawks in his
own administration, who continually made demands for Bush to
hit Iraq, reacted sceptically to his UN speech from the very
outset.
In their opinion, the United States should have gone to war
instead. So, what kind of the United States should we support?
Should we back a reasonable America, which is ready to think?
Or should we back an unreasonable America, which is ready to
abide by those purely Texan cowboy instincts?
We should not deceive ourselves, the relatively reasonable
resolution on Iraq that was passed the other day is a mere
episode in establishing such a balance of forces or an
imbalance of forces in favor of a militant America. A
significant number of people in Bush's entourage hope that
Saddam won't fulfil this resolution, thus providing the United
States with a pretext for war. Heated debates will continue to
rage around the resolution's interpretation and specific
criteria for implementing it.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the Administration
of President Bush has renounced the need for replacing the
Baghdad regime.
However, the Iraqi water-shed has already revealed several
points. Firstly, an overwhelming majority of the world's
countries don't want the United States to create a precedent
for taking unilateral action (that won't be coordinated with
the UN) against Iraq. Secondly, influential US quarters, which
prefer cooperation with the UN to unilateral actions,
comprehend the risks involved. This provides ample
opportunities for influencing the US position. And, thirdly, an
unreasonable America finds it hard to impose its views on
others; meanwhile, a reasonable America would find it easier to
convince others that it's right.
In real life, the intellectually and politically poor
philosophy, which implies that America is always right, spells
danger for Russia, the United States and the whole Western
world.
Moreover, this philosophy is dangerous for freedom, democratic
ideals and international security. Russia perceives the
establishment of a reasonable "balance of peace" as important
in the context of its national interests. We must remember that
the Roman empire didn't allow anyone to make independent
decisions.
Washington might well turn into a new Rome, imposing its will
on some countries, arbitrarily appointing rogue states. This
situation would prove very dangerous. In that case, the United
States with its colossal military might would become one of the
modern world's problems, rather than a component part of
tackling global problems.
*******
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