Johnson's Russia List
#6582
2 December 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Reuters: Tennis-Jubilant Russians celebrate historic Davis Cup triumph.
2. Reuters: Tennis-Yeltsin achieves his tennis dream for Russia.
3. San Francisco Chronicle: Anna Badkhen, Hard times for Russia's reeling
military. Guards' berserk rampages are just tip of the iceberg.
4. Los Angeles Times: Sonni Efron, Trove of Russian Arms at Risk.
Stockpiles of outdated nuclear and chemical weapons may be within reach of
terrorists. The U.S. effort to help destroy them is bogged down in Congress.
5. Moscow Times: Andrei Zolotov Jr., Journalists Award NTV and THT.
6. ITAR-TASS: Russian public opposition to road link with China.
7. Izvestia: Georgy Ilyichev, RUSSIA AND CHINA COMPETING IN WEIGHT AND
INFLUENCE. Polls reveal the attitudes of Russians toward China.
8. RIA Novosti: RUSSIAN ARMY READJUSTING TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES.
9. Novaya Gazeta: Alexei Arbatov, Why Doesn't the Budget Allocate
Expenditures on War Separately?
10. Konservator: PARTY PROJECTS FOR A NON-PARTY PRESIDENT.
Predicting the future of Russia's parties - left, right, and center.
(views of Pavlovsky, Shevtsova, Yavlinsky, Nemtsov)
11. Konservator: FIELD OF MIRACLES. What Russians think of their
political parties - the latest poll results.
12. www.fednews.ru: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH US AMBASSADOR ALEXANDER
VERSHBOW (MK DAILY OFFICE, 15:05, NOVEMBER 27, 2002)]
*******
#1
Tennis-Jubilant Russians celebrate historic Davis Cup triumph
By Clara Ferreira-Marques
MOSCOW, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Jubilant Russians celebrated their first ever
Davis Cup tennis title on Monday, splashing triumphant images over all
major newspapers and newscasts as President Vladimir Putin personally
thanked the victorious team.
Russia battled courageously on Sunday to claw their way back from a 2-1
deficit to beat holders France in dramatic fashion.
Mikhail Youzhny, brought in as a substitute for former world number one
Yevgeny Kafelnikov, clinched the title in a gut-wrenching five-set showdown.
Youzhny, one of the most inexperienced players to feature in the title
match, became the first player to come from two sets down to win the Davis
Cup.
"Heroes of Russia!" gushed the Sport Express daily in a front page spread.
"Thank you fate for allowing me to see this. Thank you Marat (Safin)! Thank
you Yevgeny! And, of course, thank you Mikhail! You achieved the
impossible!!!"
"We can't always lose!" the mass circulation Moskovsky Komsomolets exulted
above a picture of Safin.
Former President Boris Yeltsin, who travelled to Paris for the tie, hugged
the players and coach Shamil Tarpishchev after clambering onto the Bercy
clay court.
HISTORIC GAMBLE
Putin, on a week-long Asian tour, also lost no time in passing on his
congratulations.
"I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all our sportsmen in Paris who
took part in the Davis Cup," Putin said in televised comments from China.
"This is a great victory for Russian sport and, first and foremost, for
those who won the Davis Cup."
Russia, then competing as the Soviet Union, began playing Davis Cup tennis
in 1962, but the game was long labelled a "bourgeois" pursuit. Tennis did
not take off until Yeltsin, a keen tennis fan, patronised the sport and
encouraged many of his aides to join him.
Safin, who won both his singles matches at Bercy, and Kafelnikov, now
considering retirement, boosted the sport's popularity in Russia as the
newly-established Kremlin Cup, set up in 1990, brought the sport's top
names home.
But it was Youzhny, a ballboy the last time Russia appeared in a final in
1995, who stole the day on Sunday with a thrilling singles win after he was
called to replace a fatigued Kafelnikov in an historic gamble by coach
Tarpishchev.
Kafelnikov, who has long publicly dreamt of holding the Davis Cup, lost his
opening singles match and Saturdays' doubles with Safin.
"Mikhail Youzhny won the Davis Cup for Yevgeny Kafelnikov," the respected
Kommersant daily said in its front page spread.
"Yevgeny Kafelnikov's dream came true, though he did little to achieve it
in this final."
But the last bitter note from Russian sports fans was reserved for
mainstream Russian television, after millions were shut out of the game,
aired live only on satellite channels.
"Why, oh why, did not a single one of our all-Russian channels show Russia
what she should be proud of?" Sport Express asked.
*******
#2
Tennis-Yeltsin achieves his tennis dream for Russia
By Robert Woodward
PARIS, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Every team needs a mascot and Boris Yeltsin is
convinced he was Russia's good luck charm at the Davis Cup final.
Within seconds of Mikhail Youzhny winning the deciding singles, Yeltsin was
clambering with difficulty over a courtside barrier and marching on to the
claycourt.
A couple of security guards thought about stopping him but the 71-year-old
former president had come a long way, and waited a long time, for this
moment of triumph and he was going to be part of it.
The first to receive a bearhug was Shamil Tarpischev, team captain since
1997, whose brave decision to play the 20-year-old Youzhny instead of
former world number one Yevgeny Kafelnikov proved to be one of the great
gambles in Davis Cup history.
Then Yeltsin entered the maelstrom of players and officials tossing Youzhny
in the air after his five-set comeback victory over Paul-Henri Mathieu.
Kafelnikov, Russia's most successful player, received words of
encouragement before Youzhny was enveloped by Yeltsin's embrace.
"I am the talisman," Yeltsin told French television with a broad smile.
Yeltsin has been a big tennis fan since taking up the sport in 1992 and had
been at all of Russia's Davis Cup ties this year in Moscow. He invited the
team to a reception before they left for Paris and promised to be there to
support them.
At the 1994 final against Sweden, Yeltsin's arrival into Moscow's Olympic
stadium had a negative effect on Alexander Volkov, who slumped to defeat
against Stefan Edberg after the then president caused a stir with his
arrival at a critical stage in the fifth set.
His entry on that occasion led Kafelnikov to accuse Yeltsin of costing
Russia the match.
This time, seated in the front row of the stands, accompanied by his wife
Naina, Yeltsin's shock of silver hair stood out like a beacon for the
Russian players bidding to bring the Cup home to Moscow for the first time
after failed attempts in 1994 and 1995.
LEADING THE CHANTS
Most of France's political and sporting establishment, including President
Jacques Chirac on his 70th birthday, visited the Bercy stadium but Yeltsin
was ever-present, clapping, shouting and leading the chants of the 1,500
Russian fans.
On Sunday he stripped off his jacket and went through the full range of
emotions experienced by fans whatever the sport.
When Youzhny went two sets down, he put his head in his hands and looked as
though the world had ended.
But as the young man's recovery gathered pace Yeltsin was up on his feet,
beating the grandstands metal bar in rhythm to the Russian chanting of
"Micha, Micha" and grinning like a man possessed.
Next to him his wife stayed seated, quietly holding her hand to her mouth
as the tension grew.
Tarpishchev has often said that Russian tennis owes much of its recent
success to Yeltsin playing the game.
"Moscow hosting its first professional tournament in 1990, Yeltsin picking
up his tennis racket in 1992, Kafelnikov becoming the first Russian to win
a grand slam at the French Open in 1996... all have had a major impact on
the sport in this country," Tarpishchev said.
Unlike his former president, the coach remained cool whatever the situation
as he sat on his courtside bench with his legs crossed, hands folded in his
lap, face impassive.
While France captain Guy Forget harangued and chivied Mathieu at each
changeover, Tarpischev was content to pass on a few well-chosen words
before resuming his seat. It was more like a bridge evening with friends
than a frenzied Cup final.
But when the final point was won, Tarpischev exploded out of his seat with
his arms raised and a look of pure rapture on his face.
For Yeltsin and his coach it may never be this good again.
*******
#3
San Francisco Chronicle
December 2, 2002
Hard times for Russia's reeling military
Guards' berserk rampages are just tip of the iceberg
Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer
St. Petersburg, Russia -- If any Russians had forgotten that their
country's dilapidated military is in desperate need of reform, Denis
Solovyov provided a shocking reminder.
The young border guard, apparently high on drugs, went berserk on Friday,
firing his Kalashnikov assault rifle at a tent where 11 of his comrades
were resting, killing eight of them.
Solovyov, serving his mandatory two-year military stint on the frontier
with Georgia, snapped "with no apparent motive," according to one of his
superiors, Yuri Boyko.
Solovyov's rampage was only the latest in a string of shootings, desertions
and suicides that have bogged down Russia's demoralized military in the
past decade.
In August, two border guards killed eight sleeping servicemen along another
stretch of the Russian-Georgian border. In September, 54 soldiers marched
nearly 35 miles across the steppes of southern Russia to protest beatings
by their officers.
Such incidents -- usually attributed to the low pay, poor food and shelter,
and threat of hazing that ordinary soldiers must endure -- symbolize
Russia's struggle to sustain the world's largest army, which numbers more
than 1.1 million, including about 600,000 conscripts.
Even top military officials concede that the capacity of Russia's armed
forces has declined dramatically in the decade since the post-Communist
government inherited most of the Soviet army's arsenal and bases.
"The level of strategic nuclear forces' readiness to deter aggression
against Russia is minimal," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said last week.
"Only some general-purpose formations and units are capable of performing
their tasks in full."
President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly called efforts to improve the
military a top priority, but human rights advocates are skeptical the
reforms will succeed.
"For years now, we have been hearing lots of presidential promises that
sound great but don't result in anything," said Valentina Melnikova, head
of the Soldiers' Mothers' Committee, a Moscow-based soldiers' rights
organization.
Former President Boris Yeltsin pledged during his 1996 re-election campaign
to abolish the draft by 2000, but top generals later convinced him it would
be too expensive. Putin's promise last year to gradually phase out the
unpopular draft, slim the army ranks and form a modern military also met
with stiff resistance.
TOP-HEAVY STRUCTURE
The top brass is reluctant to abandon the Soviet-era military structure,
which allows the army to keep as many as 2,000 generals -- a number that
experts believe should be cut by at least half -- and a similarly huge
number of other senior officers. The generals point at the shortage of
funds and say it could take until 2020 to complete the transfer to an
all-volunteer military.
Experts say a swift transfer is possible and would cost an additional $1.2
billion annually. Military budget figures are a state secret, but the
official estimate is about $10 billion. The annual U.S. military budget is
about $320 billion.
Critics charge that the military is unwilling to reform because its leaders
take advantage of its Soviet-era secrecy status -- which permits the
concealment of many internal actions from parliamentary and government
monitoring agencies -- in order to siphon off money for personal use.
Top brass have been accused of using government funds to build residences
for themselves and exploiting conscripts as free labor, but there have been
no high-profile convictions.
In 1997, Gen. Konstantin Kobets, a former deputy defense minister, became
the highest ranking Russian officer ever to be charged with graft --
including accepting a sprawling $400,000 summer cottage from a construction
company that used conscripts as construction workers. Twenty other generals
and 100 colonels were also investigated, but no one was convicted. Kobets
was freed in 1998 because of poor health.
Multiple reports of embezzlement within the military caused Putin to tell
top generals this week to "end abuses and make all the spending fully
transparent."
HUNT FOR DRAFTEES
The first step toward reform should be to abolish the semiannual hunt for
draftees, says Ida Kuklina, an activist at the Soldiers' Mothers'
Committee. All healthy Russian men between 18 and 27 must serve for two
years in the military, where they face what they describe as continuous
beatings, rape, torture, extortion and humiliation by officers and senior
soldiers.
Ill-prepared teenage draftees, many of whom barely know how to handle a gun,
often become cannon fodder for Islamic rebels in Chechnya.
The military says that about 5,000 recruits desert annually, most of them
to avoid hazing; groups such as the Soldiers' Mothers' Committee put the
figure at 40,000. Many, like Kostya, a 19-year-old army draftee from St.
Petersburg, run away more than once, only to be forcibly returned to their
units.
Kostya deserted the first time because older soldiers had demanded that he
give them $20 -- a sum he had no way of acquiring. His mother promptly took
him back to his unit.
"I'm a law-abiding citizen. I would have none of this deserting stuff," she
said in an interview last week. "I thought at the time it was no big deal."
A week after she had returned Kostya to his unit in mid-November, senior
soldiers beat him and punctured his eardrum. They told him it was his
punishment for failing to deliver the $20.
Heavily bruised and half-deaf, Kostya ran away again. This time, military
officials forced him to return. His mother, who, fearing retribution for
her son, asked that her name not be used, says she is afraid for Kostya's
life.
"I used to want him to serve in the military because I believed that he
must defend his motherland," she said, pressing a handkerchief to her
sunken cheeks. "But now that I know what goes on in the army, I don't feel
confident that he will come back alive."
POLICE ROUND UP YOUTHS
Compulsory service is so unpopular that the military illegally uses police
to arrest draft-age men and deliver them to draft boards during the
semiannual hunt for recruits, New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a
recent report. The study said that is the only way draft boards can meet
their yearly requirement of recruiting 170,000 young men.
The military and the police deny the allegations, but Human Rights Watch
said it knows of hundreds of cases like that of Denis Yakubov, an
18-year-old from St. Petersburg whom a local patrolman took to a draft
board last week. There, an army officer locked Yakubov in a dark, empty
room, and told him to prepare for a two-year military service, due to begin
the next day.
Yakubov said the officer ignored his pleas that his left arm is deformed,
rendering him unfit for service. Later that night, Yakubov picked the lock
of his room and ran away.
"Many draftees are completely unfit for service, and yet we entrust them
with the security of our country," said Kuklina of the Soldiers' Mothers'
Committee.
"We need an army that is based on Russia's current needs, the new threats
we face, the way armies have developed around the world. Instead, we are
using the inexperienced youth of Russia to plug the gaps in our safety."
********
#4
Los Angeles Times
December 2, 2002
Trove of Russian Arms at Risk
Stockpiles of outdated nuclear and chemical weapons may be within reach of
terrorists. The U.S. effort to help destroy them is bogged down in Congress.
By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- Eleven years after the United States committed to helping the
former Soviet Union secure and destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and
14 months after President Bush made it a priority to keep them out of
terrorists' hands, vast and lethal stockpiles remain ripe for plucking,
officials and nonproliferation experts say.
Although Bush and other world leaders have become ardent about the need to
secure stockpiles and crack down on proliferators, implementation is
snarled in bureaucratic and political wrangling in the U.S., Russia, Europe
and Japan, arms control experts say.
As a result, even while the U.S. talks about a dangerous new arms race --
between terrorists determined to get weapons of mass destruction and
governments desperate to stop them -- progress on taking deadly material
out of circulation is slow and sometimes stymied.
And the proliferation threat, U.S. officials say, is getting worse, not
better. Potential buyers are believed to include Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who has said it is the duty of Muslims to
acquire nuclear weapons.
Last week's terrorist attacks in Kenya underscore the proliferation threat
from Soviet-made weapons. The shoulder-fired missile that just missed an
Israeli passenger jet appears to have been Soviet-made, and Al Qaeda is
believed to have fired several more surface-to-air missiles at American
targets in Afghanistan and the Middle East in the last several years.
If U.S. lawmakers of both major parties are frustrated by the delays in
securing or destroying the former Soviet Union's arsenals, arms control
advocates are apoplectic. Former Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev came
to Washington this spring to urge Bush and National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice to move faster, before disaster strikes. Even billionaire
investor Warren Buffett has weighed in, paying millions to do what the U.S.
government cannot.
A small number of conservative House members and Pentagon hard-liners who
are suspicious of Russian intentions have put key nonproliferation programs
in handcuffs.
The issue has caused divisions among Republicans in Congress. During recent
Senate hearings, the gentlemanly Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), in a rare
breach of protocol, began to name names. He blamed California Rep. Duncan
Hunter of Alpine and Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania for blocking funding
of anti-proliferation programs.
Hunter did not return repeated telephone calls to his office. Weldon, in a
telephone interview, insisted that he supports nonproliferation programs
and would be willing to spend more if the money did not come out of the
U.S. defense budget.
But sources say that behind closed doors, Weldon, Hunter and other
conservatives on the House Armed Services Committee have for years
sabotaged the programs by attaching numerous conditions that are all but
impossible for the Russians to fulfill.
Opponents say every dollar given to the Russians to destroy obsolete
weapons is a dollar freed up for them to use for other military spending.
They also have raised concerns that disarmament funds are used to solve
environmental problems that are not security threats.
Arms control experts and congressional sources say that in the waning days
of the 107th Congress, Hunter and his allies hobbled a program to build a
plant in Shchuchye in southern Russia to destroy about 45,000 tons of nerve
gas stored in decaying canisters that are poorly guarded and small enough
to be stashed in a briefcase.
And they killed a budget item that would have allowed the Bush
administration to use up to $50 million of nonproliferation funds to secure
nuclear materials outside the former Soviet Union, which is not permitted
under existing U.S. law. The idea was to help nations such as Pakistan and
Yugoslavia safeguard or destroy old nuclear reactor fuel or other weapons
materiel that could be blown up, stolen by terrorists, or smuggled out by
corrupt insiders and sold on the international black market.
"Today, there is Russian-origin weapons-grade usable uranium sitting in
North Korea, supplied by the Soviet Union," said Jon Wolfsthal, a former
Energy Department nonproliferation expert now at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. "If Kim Jong Il himself called up President Bush and
said, 'Here, come take it,' there would be no money available under U.S.
law to come and get it."
"We can bomb it, but we can't acquire it," said Andrew Fisher, spokesman
for Lugar.
Lugar, who with former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) spearheaded the program to
dismantle Soviet weapons programs more than a decade ago, will be taking
over from Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) as chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in January. Lugar has said protecting America
from weapons of mass destruction will be his top priority.
Polls indicate the American public feels that the spread of nuclear weapons
is the most serious global problem.
The U.S. has already committed $10 billion for the job of eliminating the
weapons. And in June, the other seven industrialized nations of the Group
of 8 jointly pledged another $10 billion over the next 10 years. In the
last 11 years, the U.S. has spent $7 billion and the other nations have
spent a total of $1 billion, John R. Bolton, undersecretary of State for
nonproliferation, told Biden's committee in October. Details of how the G-8
money will be spent are still being worked out.
At the October hearing, Lugar and Biden were bursting with bipartisan
frustration. Biden wondered aloud why some of the lawmakers willing to give
Bush the maximum leeway in using military force to wipe out Iraq's
suspected weapons of mass destruction were unwilling to spend far less on
peaceful cooperation with the Russians to make sure their treasure trove of
weapons cannot be stolen or sold to Iraq or terrorists.
Lugar fumed to Bolton about the inability to get money freed up to start
construction of a plant to destroy the nerve gas in Shchuchye, where the
U.S. has already spent $250 million.
Lugar noted that he had taken pictures of some of the 1.9 million shells
stored there, which are easily portable, filled with sarin and VX nerve
gas, and each capable of killing about 85,000 people if set off in a stadium.
In a public acknowledgment of the divisions among Republicans, Lugar
pleaded with Bolton, known as a conservative, to prod the White House to
lobby the Republican opponents.
"The president was under the impression, when Sen. Biden and I met with him
in July, that things are on track," Lugar said. "But they are not on track."
A senior Bush administration official, speaking on the condition of
anonymity, would not say whether the White House had lobbied conservatives
on the issue. The official noted only that the president's support was well
known.
In the end, Congress funded Shchuchye for one year. That means that
construction can begin, but the money will run out next September, when the
project will have to run the political gantlet for funding again.
Weldon insisted that he broke the logjam by persuading other House members
to accept the compromise so that the plant could go ahead.
The 1991 Nunn-Lugar legislation first authorized the use of American money
to dismantle Soviet nuclear warheads. In the last 11 years, the legislation
has morphed into a host of complex "threat-reduction programs" run by the
departments of Energy, State and Defense.
The joint U.S.-Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction, or CTR, program boasts
real accomplishments, including the destruction of 6,000 nuclear warheads,
400 missile silos and 1,400 missiles; the elimination of weapons-grade
uranium; the securing of nuclear materials; and the reemployment of former
Soviet nuclear, chemical and biological weapons scientists.
In May, Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin agreed that their
countries should do everything possible to prevent proliferation. But in
practice, Russian secrecy, U.S. congressional restrictions and the
ideological hangover from the Cold War continue to cause problems.
Some mid-level Russian bureaucrats continue to thwart Putin's agenda, U.S.
officials and arms control experts say. Bolton noted, for example, that the
Japanese have approved money to dismantle old Russian nuclear submarines,
but that Russian officials have blocked access to the shipyards where the
subs would be taken apart. As a result, the project has been stalled for
years.
"No one in Russia ever got fired for saying, 'No,' " said Laura Holgate,
vice president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private nonproliferation
group founded by Nunn and funded by entertainment mogul Ted Turner and a
$2.5-million contribution from Buffett.
Thus major new problems have developed in the last decade, concludes a
report released last month by a group of top U.S., Russian and European
nonproliferation specialists.
"Roughly half of the nuclear weapons-grade material in Russia remains
inadequately secure, the destruction of chemical weapons is just starting
and much remains unknown about past biological weapons activities,"
concludes the report by the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory
Council and the Carnegie Endowment. "Truly robust political support for
threat reduction is very rarely demonstrated and often is more rhetorical
than real."
The Shchuchye project, seen in Russia and the U.S. as an important test for
chemical weapons disposal programs, has become a case in point.
The weapons storage site remains a "potential Wal-Mart for terrorists,"
said Paul F. Walker, a former congressional staffer now working for Global
Green USA, the American arm of an environmental and disarmament group
founded by Gorbachev.
Walker first visited the 80 ramshackle buildings at Shchuchye in 1994 and
found them so poorly guarded that "a Boy Scout troop could have walked in
any time [to steal the weapons]. And the worst of it was, no one would have
ever known."
"That was eight years ago," Walker noted. "It is astounding to me that we
have spun our wheels for eight years."
Though security has since been somewhat improved at U.S. taxpayer expense,
Walker said, Shchuchye is in a remote, wooded area near the border of
Kazakhstan, near Central Asia, and is what arms control experts call
"highly proliferation prone."
In addition to the 85-millimeter nerve gas shells, the Shchuchye site holds
800 chemical-filled warheads for Scud missiles, some with cluster
bomb-style dispersion mechanisms that would cause maximum casualties to
civilians, he said.
"It's a perfect target for Al Qaeda," Walker said.
Russian news agencies have reported arrests of attempted infiltrators, but
no details have been released, Walker added. If there has been pilferage
from the site, no one may ever know, because no pre-1994 inventory has been
found of the 45,000 or so tons of chemical weapons stored there.
The senior administration official brushed off criticism about the delays,
saying the disarmament programs are complex and thorny but are moving
forward. The official would not discuss whether Bush, fresh from his
midterm election triumph, will use his political muscle to push his arms
control agenda, or risk irking his conservative base by sweetening rewards
for Russia's compliance.
But if Bush's stated goal of securing weapons of mass destruction is to be
realized, more leadership, more bureaucratic muscle and more incentives for
the countries holding the arsenals will be required, said Holgate.
Some Americans will balk at using tax dollars to help sometimes unsavory or
secretive governments get rid of hideous weapons or nuclear reactor waste
that they should dispose of themselves.
But to use that as justification for inaction is to indulge an idealism
America can no longer afford, Holgate argued.
"That's a very lovely moral high ground from which we may get nuked," she
said.
*******
#5
Moscow Times
December 2, 2002
Journalists Award NTV and THT
By Andrei Zolotov Jr.
Staff Writer
NTV and its sister channel THT emerged as the biggest winners Friday when
television critics and journalists for a radio station and 14 newspapers,
including The Moscow Times, presented annual prizes to those they write about.
Since last year, the informal club of journalists covering the television
industry has been awarding three TV Press Prizes -- one to a television
personality, another to a program and a third to a television event of the
year. Winners get an award and a sketch by Moscow Times cartoonist Viktor
Bogorad.
This year, a fourth prize, called "anti-event of the year," was added to
commemorate what the 17 reporters on the jury said was "the cynical
shutdown of TV6." The station was taken off the air in January 2002. No one
was supposed to receive the award.
The jury picked NTV's weekly analytical show "Namedni," which mixes
political, business, culture and lifestyle stories in a way no other
program had done before, as the program of the year "for innovation in
television."
The program's main writer and anchor, Leonid Parfyonov, was also selected
as the television personality of the year "for style."
Highlighting the importance of management in the television industry, the
jury decided this year to give another personality of the year award to
Roman Petrenko -- the former general director of CTC television who took
over at THT in August.
Petrenko, whom Bogorad depicted as a tsar balancing on a barrel with a whip
in one hand and pryanik (a gingerbread dessert) in the other -- the Russian
equivalent of a stick and a carrot -- thanked the television critics for
taking notice of the role that managers play in television.
"But why do I look so unstable here?" he said, joking.
The prize for television event of the year went to the state-owned Kultura
channel, which received additional funding under a new management team this
year and markedly improved its penetration and ratings. In his acceptance
speech, Kultura's general director, Alexander Ponomaryov, praised the
founders of the commercial-free channel for having the will and courage to
get the channel off the ground in 1997.
Izvestia television critic Irina Petrovskaya said the TV Press Prize is the
one day a year when TV critics can "reconcile" with television people.
"There should be a day when we can say pleasant things to you, not just
unpleasant things," she said at the award ceremony in the Central House of
Journalists.
Among other journalists on the self-organized jury were Radio Liberty's
Anna Kachkayeva, Kommersant's Arina Borodina, Politbureau magazine's Yelena
Afanasyeva and Gazeta's Yevgeny Kuzin.
Journalists voted for their nominees in October, and the award ceremony was
supposed to be timed with the Russian Television Academy's prestigious TEFI
award. But both ceremonies were postponed as a result of the theater
hostage crisis.
In the aftermath of the crisis, NTV was praised by critics for its coverage
of the siege, while the Kremlin was infuriated.
Parfyonov, whose post-crisis program was watched by an unprecedented 17.3
percent of Russians, was also singled out by the Kremlin for criticism.
"I am glad we made the right choice back in October, which was only proved
by what followed," Kachkayeva said.
Andrei Zolotov Jr. was a member of the TV Press Prize jury.
******
#6
Russian public opposition to road link with China
Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1149 gmt 1 Dec 02
Gorno-Altaysk, 1 December: Proponents and adversaries of the project of a
direct automobile road between Russia and China across the Kanas Pass, high
up in the Altay Mountains, are locked in a public debate blocking the start
of construction work.
A decision to build a road from the Republic of Altay, Russia's constituent
territory in the south of Siberia, to the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Area
of China was taken in March 2000 at a meeting of the Siberian Agreement
Association, that unites 16 regions of Siberia.
The debate centres around the apprehensions of the people representing the
indigenous Altay nationality that the opening of a direct route from China
will bring about an uncontrollable influx of ethnic Chinese.
Advocates of the project say the road will give a boost to the Altay
republic's economic development. Project organizers organized some
preparatory works on the transport corridor last year with a construction
academy from the Siberian city of Omsk, drafting documentation and costs
for R4m.
Vasiliy Piriyayev, director of the road construction company
Gorno-Altayavtodor, says the cost of the 180-kilometre-long Russian section
of the road will stand at over R90m. China is supposed to build an
80-kilometre-long section on its territory.
Proponents of the project say China is also interested in this road, as it
will provide Chinese exporters with a shorter than now access to the
densely populated European parts of Russia.
******
#7
Izvestia
December 2, 2002
RUSSIA AND CHINA COMPETING IN WEIGHT AND INFLUENCE
Polls reveal the attitudes of Russians toward China
Author: Georgy Ilyichev
POLLS INDICATE THAT MOST RUSSIANS HAVE FRIENDLY FEELINGS TOWARD
CHINA AND BELIEVE THAT RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE EQUALLY INTERESTED IN
MAINTAINING FRIENDLY RELATIONS.
At first sight, Russians are friendly toward their eastern
neighbors. Recent polls by the Public Opinion Foundations show that
over 40% of respondents view China positively, and only 12% of
respondents have a negative attitude towards China. In Siberia, the
number of those who don't like the Chinese is 17%, and in the Russian
Far East, this figure is 29%. Pollsters believe this is easy to
explain: the problems of unemployment and illegal migration are acute
in these regions.
Those who have a positive attitude toward China have deeper
reasons for it. The highests proportion of supporters of China can be
found among those who vote for Gennady Zyuganov and his Communist
Party (58%), respondents aged 50 and over (48%), and people with a
higher education (53%). Experts from the Public Opinion Foundation
believe that the position of the first two groups is explained by the
fact that they still view China as one of the last bastions of
communism. It is also possible that the position of all those who view
China positively is based on the fact that socio-economic reforms
there have been done in a relatively painless way. Some 67% of
respondents are sure that China is developing more rapidly than
Russia.
However, Public Opinion Foundation analysts believe that this
opinion is connected with everyday consumption of products made in
China.
At the same time, the overwhelming majority of respondents (73%)
believe that Russia has more influence internationally than China.
Pollsters say that the high rate of development of light industry,
trade, and agriculture are not indicators of international influence.
For Russians, the international "weight" of the Russian Federation is
based on its military-industrial complex, the aerospace sector, heavy
industry and mining. However, these views describe the attitude of
Russians toward their own country rather than their great eastern
neighbor. More and more experts are coming to believe that China may
soon gain leading positions in other spheres too. China is becoming a
superpower, and is buying modern weapons - thus becoming dangerous,
not only for weak countries but also for America. A respondent from
Samara said: "The world will soon fear China as it used to fear us
because of our great ambitions and strong army." However, despite all
fears, most respondents still believe that Russia and China are
equally interested in maintaining friendly relations.
(Translated by Kirill Frolov)
*******
#8
RUSSIAN ARMY READJUSTING TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES
MOSCOW, DECEMBER 1, 2002. /RIA Novosti military analyst Viktor Litovkin/ --
December 1 marks the start of a new academic year in the Russian army. The
initial stage of training is about teaching basic physical and technical
skills as well as the charter. Later comes tactical and combat training.
This academic year brings some changes to the training routine.
Colonel-General Nikolai Kormiltsev, Commander of Russia's Land Force, has
revealed in a RIA Novosti interview that combat training programs will now
be re-oriented towards the fight against terrorism. Servicemen will have to
practice raids on highland areas and ones with dense vegetation and learn
how to break out of encirclement and an ambush, among other things.
Extensive use of Chechen war experience will be made.
One highly important aspect of anti-terrorist training will be the
protection of strategic facilities, such as nuclear power plants,
hydro-electric stations, chemical plants, and arms and ammunition depots,
Kormiltsev pointed out.
The curricula of military schools and academies may also be modified
accordingly, he said. But it would be a short-sighted decision to make
counter-terrorism operations dominate military training, as a whole array
of other skills is needed for effective homeland protection.
Paratrooper training programs are also in for transformations. One of the
recent Airborne Force Command sessions was devoted to the topic, spokesman
Nikolai Bragin told RIA Novosti. A lot of attention was paid to combat
interaction between paratroopers and task units of the Federal Security
Service and the Interior Ministry, notably in activities to prevent
infiltration of terrorists into military installations and garrisons. The
session participants stressed the importance of analysing rebel tactics in
the North Caucasus, including methods for mining roads and residential
buildings, setting ambushes, and preparing sniper hideouts. Anti-sniper and
sapper techniques are now becoming an integral part of paratrooper
schooling, Bragin said.
However, not all professionals think the readjustment of military training
programs will be of help in the fight against terrorism. General Andrei
Nikolayev, Chairman of the Defense Committee in the State Duma, or
parliament's lower house, told this RIA Novosti correspondent that he
deemed it unrealistic to rebuild the existing army for the fight against
domestic and international terrorism. In his opinion, the challenge calls
for the creation of special anti-terrorist forces. He sees this as part of
a fundamental overhaul in the Russian army, which is an imperative of the
times. Nikolayev deems it important that anti-terrorist forces be granted
legal status in line with the international law, so that international
organizations like PACE or OSCE won't have any doubts as to the legitimacy
of their operations.
Anti-guerrilla and anti-terrorist forces should have the legal right to
criminal investigation, intelligence and counter-intelligence, and military
action in unpopulated zones as well as residential areas, the lawmaker
points out.
Anti-terrorist troops should be provided with advanced radio-electronic and
communications devices, non-conventional types of weaponry, modern aircraft
and motor vehicles, and other relevant high-tech materiel, the MP says.
When in action, they should be supported by air and ground reconnaissance,
tracking systems, and high-precision artillery. Without a systemic
approach, terrorism will be impossible to deal with effectively, argues
Nikolayev.
Working out such an approach is precisely what the government and the army
command are now busy doing. Just one indication is the panel held ahead of
the new academic year by the commanders of Russia's military districts,
fleets, arms and services.
******
#9
From: "Olga Radayeva"
Subject: Novaya Gazeta Arbatov interview
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002
Dear Editor,
This is an interview with Alexei Arbatov from
http://www.eng.yabloko.ru/Publ/2002/PAPERS/ng-281102.htm
which continues the topic of war expenditures.
If you reprint it in the JRL, kindly indicate that the English version is
taken from the www.eng.yabloko.ru
Sincerely,
Olga Radyeva
Director
English-language web-site of YABLOKO
Novaya Gazeta
Why Doesn't the Budget Allocate Expenditures on War Separately?
November 28, 2002
Deputy Chair of the Defence Committee of the State Duma Alexei
Arbatov answers this question.
Such a situation has developed since the first military campaign in
Chechnya. At the time there considerable debate about the need to introduce
a separate budget item on [the war in] Chechnya. Unfortunately, however,
even then there were already a considerable number of opponents to such
transparency. Nobody wants to disclose the exact figure for expenditures.
In the current situation we have an anti-terrorist operation. However, if
it transpires that it costs us 10 or 15 roubles a year, it will become
clear that this is a military operation, a local conflict or a local war.
Then we will see discontent in society among the political elite. Problems
will begin internationally, as we have constantly conducted negotiations to
restructure the debt, clear up different types of indebtednesses and settle
Soviet debts.
In general the current situation demonstrates that the authorities are not
quite certain of the policies they conduct, irrespective of how many
declarations with metal in the voice they make. When Americans conduct an
operation in Afghanistan or Iraq, they calculate all the expenses and
publicly declare them. They don't care what people will say, as they are
convinced that they are right.
In the conflict in Chechnya we struggle with both militant separatists and
international terrorism. We act correctly - why then do we lack confidence?
Given the present public mood, the allocation of a separate
budget item would attract general support, as all these means are allocated
first of all to save the lives of our soldiers. Any shortfall in financing
leads to more blood. But it seems to me that this goal will not be attained:
See also: The Expenditures Are Typical of War Rather Than an "Operation" by
Alexei Arbatov. Novaya Gazeta, November 18, 2002.
*******
#10
Konservator
November 29, 2002
PARTY PROJECTS FOR A NON-PARTY PRESIDENT
Predicting the future of Russia's parties - left, right, and center
Author: indicated in the text
A SELECTION OF OPINIONS ABOUT THE NEXT YEAR IN RUSSIAN POLITICS, AND
THE LEAD-UP TO THE ELECTIONS: FROM POLITICAL ANALYSTS GLEB PAVLOVSKY
AND LILIA SHEVTSOVA, AS WELL AS YABLOKO LEADER GRIGORY YAVLINSKY AND
UNION OF RIGHT FORCES LEADER BORIS NEMTSOV.
PUTIN'S LAST FIVE-YEAR PLAN
Gleb Pavlovsky, head of the Effective Policy Foundation
Question: What will be the determining factors in the next
parliamentary election campaign?
Gleb Pavlovsky: Putin's last five-year plan is starting right
now. Five years from now, in November 2007, a presidential election
will be called - an election in which Putin will no longer be able to
participate. But Duma elections will also be taking place then - in
which he can and must take part, as a leader of a party. This party
will apparently be United Russia. And after he has won at those
elections, Putin would become the Duma majority leader, while no
longer being president. However, by that time the party needs to be a
strong, large-scale mechanism which corresponds to Putin's views and
his political position. In order to achieve this, United Russia must
preserve itself at the 2003 elections. And in order to achieve that -
it must defeat the Communist Party, which will be very difficult. The
Communist Party is falling apart, but I believe it is also absorbing
new groups, new leaders, and new voters. This will be a real fight.
Question: And where can United Russia seek to win votes - by
squeezing aside the Union of Right Forces (URF) or the Communist
Party?
Gleb Pavlovsky: In my view, if United Russia decides to go after
right-wing voters, it is bound to let the left-wing voters slip away
to the Communists. In that case, the left movement could also attract
the support of small business - and that would be a very dangerous
situation. Small business has no political affiliation at all right
now; all the parties have lost it. However, I believe it will play a
key role in the next elections.
The right wing has lost the support of small business completely,
although small business is the foundation of democracy, really.
University students and the educated classes aren't supporting the URF
either now.
In my view, the agenda of the next elections will be the failure
of the Yeltsin-era firing mechanism. This failure will be the goal,
not just a side-effect, of a number of new political groups. Efforts
will be made to remove them from the stage of public politics. This is
a kind of electoral brand-mark of the Yeltsinoid approach. It will
primarily be a problem for the URF and Yabloko.
United Russia also bears a brand related to the Yeltsin era - it
is called the "pro-government party". I am convinced that United
Russia cannot defeat the Communists as the pro-government party; it
can only win as Putin's party.
Question: There is a great deal of talk about right-wing and
potential right-wing voters. It is said that they are being targetted
by both United Russia and the URF; and the idea of a new right-wing
party is raised at regular intervals.
Gleb Pavlovsky: The URF's problem is that it offers voters two
positions in which they have no interest. The first is this: "We are
involved in government, and we are helping." The second is: "We are
helping, but we are occasionally critical." Actually, voters prefer
open opposition to such "outbursts of irritation". The URF also has a
serious leadership problem: Anatoly Chubais is present behind the
scenes - he is there, but he can't come out on stage.
I don't have a great deal of faith in the idea of creating a new
right-wing party.
In order to become a widely-supported party, rather than only an
electoral project, United Russia has to stop being just the pro-
government party. And the URF has to make up its mind about its basic
ideological standpoint: that is, to formulate some principles which
they now lack and which are not yet being proposed. Given their
present leaders, I find it hard to imagine that they can do this. But
if they can't, then voters will weed them out, viewing them as part of
the Yeltsin generation.
THE ANTI-OLIGARCH DIALOGUE
Lilia Shevtsova, senior analyst at the Carnegie Foundation
We are observing a curious and paradoxical situation at the
moment: President Putin has opened a dialogue with Yabloko leader
Grigory Yavlinsky.
In my view, there are three factors behind the fact that Yabloko
has emerged from its anti-regime opposition niche and its leader is
taking part in this dialogue. Firstly, there is Putin's pro-West
orientation. Secondly, the fact that Putin has, after all, initiated
moderate economic reforms. Thirdly, there is the point that Putin is
showing some suspicion of oligarchic capitalism - though not always
consistently. For Yabloko, these factors constitute a basis for a
dialogue with Putin.
As for what Putin might be seeking from Yavlinsky - it seems to
me that Putin wants an impulse from outside the "courtier" group of
parties. They do have something to discuss - three issues. Firstly,
the problem of Chechnya. Secondly - given Yavlinsky's good reputation
in the West - I believe they are discussing the West, the European
Union, issues relating to Russia's integration into that economic
territory. Moreover, as far as we know, they are discussing
restructuring the natural monopolies.
This dialogue could be broken off at any moment. It has no
substantial foundation. And Yabloko has two options. It can choose to
maintain its role of an anti-regime opposition, without any
opportunity for a negotiation process. This would mean that Putin is
not ready to talk with forces outside the "courtier" group, and
Yabloko has been unable to use this opportunity to maneuver and reach
a compromise with the regime. But in this case, Yabloko would have no
guarantee of winning a place in the next Duma. On the other hand, this
is the first time that Yabloko has an opportunity to maintain its
critical standpoint while at the same time engaging in a dialogue with
the regime on a limited range of issues. Due to this mutually
advantageous dialogue, Yabloko could increase its resources - since on
the right wing there is a certain "swamp" of voters who support
whichever party is supported by the president. This "swamp" could vote
for Yavlinsky if he is able to run the gauntlet: preserving both his
opposition to the regime and the potential for negotiation.
NOTHING CAN BE PREDICTED - THE MANIPULATION FACTOR IS INCREDIBLY
STRONG
Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky, interviewed by Nelly Orlova
Question: What is your overall political forecast for the next
year, and for the upcoming fourth Duma elections?
Grigory Yavlinsky: In general, I see no grounds for substantial
changes. Unfortunately, the citizenry's lack of confidence in the
authorities will rise; the protest vote will increase, and voter
turnout will fall. Even the census has shown this. This is a great
political problem - the people's lack of confidence in, and alienation
from, their own government.
Actually, making predictions in Russia is a thankless task. It's
impossible to say what the next Duma will be like - because artificial
manipulation during elections is too strong. A year before the last
elections, who could have predicted the appearance of Unity? And there
are no grounds to believe that the next elections will follow a
different pattern. So, since the manipulation factor is incredibly
strong, it's impossible to predict anything.
Question: What is Yabloko's present attitude to the president,
his reform agenda, the presidential administration, and the Cabinet?
Grigory Yavlinsky: I don't draw a distinction between attitudes
to the president and attitudes to his administration and the Cabinet,
since the president is responsible for them. We take a negative view
of current economic policy, and domestic policy, and policies relating
to Chechnya. As for foreign policy - in general, we approve of Putin's
agenda. But that is not enough; we do genuinely support him in his
foreign policy approach, but as for everything else - no!
Question: How will your relationship with the Union of Right
Forces develop? What does Yabloko think of the plan to "nominate a
single presidential candidate"?
Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes, the URF has proposed this idea: the party
which gets the most votes in the 2003 parliamentary elections will
nominate a single presidential candidate on behalf of all the right-
wing parties. But we have not discussed this - we don't see any point
in it.
We would like to work out a common policy platform with all the
democratic parties, not only the URF. We are now working on
implementing decisions made by the Democratic Congress. If we can
manage to put together a common policy platform, we can then move on
to discussing structural issues for the next elections. But as long as
there is no common platform, there is nothing to discuss.
Question: How substantial is the difference between Yabloko's
policies and the policies of the URF and United Russia?
Grigory Yavlinsky: I take the same view of United Russia as I
used to take of Our Home is Russia. It will remain alive until Putin
orders it to die. As soon as he gives that order, they will all
promptly die, with pleasure. They'll only say "Thank you very much!" -
and kill themselves off. It's not a party - it's a detachment of the
nomenklatura.
As for the URF - on some issues, its views are very different
from ours. The URF is a business party. A business party cannot
separate itself from the regime, since business cannot separate itself
from government either. Even though there are many good people in the
URF. I don't know of any in United Russia, but there are some in the
URF.
WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION - YAVLINSKY HATES CHUBAIS, AND VICE
VERSA
Union of Right Forces leader Boris Nemtsov, interviewed by Nelly
Orlova
Question: You insist on some kind of rapprochement process with
Yabloko - but Grigory Yavlinsky speaks of quite substantial
ideological differences, emphasizing that he is not a right-winger.
And Yabloko opposes reforms to housing and utilities, as well as the
restructuring of Russian Joint Energy Systems...
Boris Nemtsov: We do have a difference of opinion - it's known as
"Yavlinsky hates Chubais, and vice versa". Reforming Russian Joint
Energy Systems has nothing to do with the case; it's a matter of
Yavlinsky and Chubais having a history. Well, so what? In politics,
it's hard to find any two people who are completely enamoured with
each other.
Question: Some United Russia functionaries consider that their
movement could become a right-wing conservative party, while the URF
would retain its right-wing liberal position - a radical position,
from United Russia's point of view.
Boris Nemtsov: United Russia is an offshoot of the presidential
administration. It's hard to define an offshoot - it doesn't have a
brain of its own.
(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova)
*******
#11
Konservator
November 29, 2002
FIELD OF MIRACLES
What Russians think of their political parties - the latest poll results
Author: Sergei Stepanov
PRESIDENT PUTIN IS GENERALLY SEEN AS SLIGHTLY RIGHT OF CENTER. AND
HIS APPROVAL RATING IS 75% - IN OTHER WORDS, MANY LEFT-WING VOTERS
VOTE FOR PUTIN, WITHOUT CONSIDERING HIM TO BE A LEFTIST. MOST UNION OF
RIGHT FORCES VOTERS AND MANY YABLOKO VOTERS WILL ALSO SUPPORT PUTIN IN
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
According to a poll done on November 25-28 by the National Public
Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), if the elections were held this
Sunday, 29% of respondents would be prepared to vote for United
Russia, 27% for the Communist Party, 10% for the Union of Right Forces
(URF), and 9% for Yabloko. The results of a poll done on November 24
by the Public Opinion Foundation are significantly different (possibly
due to a somewhat different methodology): 22% for United Russia, 5%
for Yabloko, and 4% for the URF.
The Public Opinion Foundation's polling data for 2000-02
indicates that there is a stable "leftist" electorate of 30-35% of
respondents (including 20-30% of Communist Party voters; the centrist
"swamp" and undecided voters also make up 30-35% of respondents; and
the progressive electorate (the URF, Yabloko, and other right-wing and
democratic parties) has only 15-20%.
But there is also a different point of view. Research done by the
Liberal Mission Foundation claims to show that the hidden right-wing
electorate is much more numerous - up to 40% - but for a number of
reasons, many of these voters either vote for the centrists, or lodge
protest votes, or don't vote at all.
Around 72% of respondents consider Putin to be a centrist, 25%
call him a right-winger, and only 3% call him a leftist. Putin is
generally seen as slightly right of center. At the same time, his
approval rating is 75% - in other words, many left-wing voters vote
for Putin, without considering him to be a leftist.
The electorate of the United Russia party is just part of Putin's
shadow. Polls show that of all the reasons why people vote for United
Russia, the undisputed favorite (over 50%) is that they identify this
party with Putin. All other reasons - including the individual
electoral appeal of United Russia's leaders - play a far smaller role.
According to some studies, URF voters can be divided into three
approximately equal groups: those who are democrats by principle,
young people with no ideological views at all, and the "middle class"
- that is, people with relatively high incomes. At the same time, the
vast majority of URF supporters (around 80%) intend to vote for Putin
at the presidential election, rather than for "their own" candidate.
Around 40% of Yabloko voters also intend to vote for Putin rather
than for Grigory Yavlinsky; but it is worth noting that 43% consider
it essential for Yavlinsky to take part in the presidential election.
No other politician has such striking figures indicating that he is an
indispensable part of the political landscape.
(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova)
*******
#12
TITLE: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH US AMBASSADOR ALEXANDER VERSHBOW
[MK DAILY OFFICE, 15:05, NOVEMBER 27, 2002]
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)
Moderator: Good evening, dear colleagues, welcome to our
press center and our traditional press conference. Our guest today
is the US Ambassador to Russia Mr. Vershbow. And the editorial
board of Moskovsky Komsomolets is very appreciative because in
spite of your busy schedule you have found time to come here, Mr.
Vershbow.
Vershbow: (in Russian) Thank you very much, it's a great
pleasure to be here with you. I will speak in English but first a
few words in Russian. Last week was a historic week not only
because of the very important NATO meeting in Prague where very
important decisions were taken, but there was a very important
meeting on Friday near St. Petersburg between our presidents which
showed that a new alliance between Russia and the United States is
developing rapidly and that cooperation between our countries is
becoming an important factor not only in the struggle against
terrorism, but also for a common future in the 21st century. I
think this new alliance will be still more important in the near
future when we will try to solve together such difficult issues as
the Iraq crisis, non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons,
like in North Korea, and other global problems.
Our bilateral relations are also developing fruitfully,
especially in the economic area. I mean the possibility to expand
cooperation in the field of energy. I would be glad to answer your
questions on all these topics. And I repeat that I am glad to have
such an opportunity.
Moderator: Thank you. As usual I would like you to introduce
yourselves.
Q: As far as I know, you personally took part in the
negotiations between presidents Bush and Putin. Could you, as far
as possible, comment on these negotiations to the extent that you
can reveal this information to the press?
Vershbow: Well, I can't give you the line-by-line record of
the discussions between our presidents which were confidential. I
would say, however, that they did cover an enormous range of
subjects in a very short amount of time. And the atmosphere of the
discussions was quite extraordinary. Both of our presidents speak
very frankly to one another, they don't rely on prepared notes,
but really speak from the heart and get right to the essence of a
problem very quickly.
So, they had a very detailed discussion of the problem posed
by the secret nuclear weapons program of North Korea, and the need
to insist that Pyongyang give up this program which contradicts
its commitments under the non-proliferation treaty. They had a
detailed discussion of the recent terrorist act in Moscow and we
confirmed our full solidarity in the war against international
terrorism. They talked about the results of the NATO summit and
the importance of the new NATO-Russia partnership in dealing with
terrorism and other new threats.
And they did have a brief but very intense discussion of our
economic relationship. As an example of the frankness, President
Putin was very direct in saying that there need to be changes in
American export restrictions that limit trade in high-tech
products. And President Bush was equally frank in saying that
American companies need to be treated equally in the Russian
market and that their investors' rights need to be protected.
So, it was a very, very extensive discussion. There were
other subjects covered, but, as I said, it confirms that there is
really a new quality in the American-Russian relationship.
Whenever we have differences, we are able to discuss them
very frankly.
Q: Voice of America. Were there any concerns, for instance,
from President Bush to Mr. Putin about the way the war in Chechnya
is being conducted and a discussion of human rights issues in
Chechnya?
Vershbow: President Bush did raise our concerns about the
situation in Chechnya. He underscored the importance of finding a
political solution to the conflict. He voiced encouragement, he
said he was encouraged by the plans to accelerate the development
of a new constitution for Chechnya and the holding of elections
and he noted that elections are a way of establishing legitimate
institutions of self-government for Chechnya. There wasn't time
for a more detailed discussion but I think that we, of course, are
concerned about violations of human rights on both sides of the
conflict in Chechnya and we continue to urge all involved to end
the violence and find a political way out. President Bush did of
course underscore that there can be no compromising with
terrorists. He certainly reaffirmed our solidarity and
understanding with regard to the handling of the terrorist attack
here in Nord-Ost theater on Dubrovka.
Q: I would like to specify one point. The two presidents had
a discussion about North Korea. So, my question would be: does the
United States have information that North Korea is developing
nuclear weapons and that it conducted an exchange of Islamic
terrorists?
Vershbow: We do have convincing evidence that North Korea has
been working over the past several years to acquire centrifuges
and other technology to produce highly enriched uranium that could
be of course the basis for nuclear weapons. So, we were basing our
position not only on what the North Koreans have been saying but
about the facts that we have accumulated. We believe that this
program to develop highly enriched uranium is moving from research
to the production stage.
And so it does put them within a year or two of, potentially,
having enough material for a nuclear weapon. And we are concerned
that the type of technology that they have acquired is similar to
technology developed by Pakistan. We don't know if the Pakistani
government is involved, but we are concerned about what apparently
is at least cooperation among technical specialists from Pakistan
with North Korea.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, what was the format in which the
discussion proceeded of the system of Russian-Georgian relations?
And specifically what is the position of Mr. Bush in regard to
Georgia? Was this topic raised? And what is your further vision of
the Russian-Georgian relations? What will be their format?
Vershbow: The meeting was for approximately 90 minutes in a
wider format in which I think there were a total of 15 people in
the room, including Foreign Minister Ivanov and Secretary Powell,
Dr. Rice and Vladimir Rushailo, and myself and Ambassador Ushakov
from Washington and then several other officials. And there was
also the Russian Minister of Defense -- Sergei Ivanov was also
there. And then for another fifteen or twenty minutes the two
Presidents met privately with just one additional person plus
interpreters.
The question of Georgia was not discussed directly at this
particular meeting, apart from our underscoring our continuing
commitment to work with Georgia to deal with elements of Al Qaeda
and other international terrorist groups that have used Georgian
territory in the past. We have been working with Georgia very
closely to put an end to these activities.
I think that our efforts in working with Georgia have been
effective and I think there is a certain measure of appreciation
on the Russian side. And we certainly hope that Russia and Georgia
will continue to develop their bilateral cooperation both in
dealing with terrorist threats along the border but also in a
broader sense.
And I think there are encouraging signs that Georgia is
moving to extradite some of the Chechen terrorists that are in its
custody to Russia for prosecution. We understand that the
cooperation among border troops is developing productively as
well.
Q: How deeply was the problem of Iraq raised? And what are
the results of inspections that the US is prepared to recognize as
satisfactory and not to start a military operation?
Vershbow: There was a fairly detailed discussion of Iraq
between the two presidents. President Bush made clear his
continued hope that this problem can be resolved peacefully. But
at the same time he made clear that one way or the other we are
committed to the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. The two presidents
did not get into the details of inspectors. That has been a
constant theme between Secretary Powell and Minister Ivanov.
I think that both our countries are hoping that Saddam will
not interfere with the inspectors who are starting their work and,
even more importantly, that he will give a full accounting of his
weapons of mass destruction programs and his stockpiles by the
December 8th deadline in UN Resolution 1441. It was important that
the two presidents in their joint statement agreed that he will
face serious consequences if he does not comply with the UN
resolution. If Saddam has been counting on a split between the
United States and Russia, he has been disappointed.
Q: Do you know what countries can be next members of NATO?
And the second question is about Russian citizens, eight Russian
citizens that are held in Cuba, the Guantanamo base. What is
happening there and when will it be decided?
Vershbow: I think it is premature to speculate about who will
be the favorites for the next round of NATO's enlargement, given
that we still have to complete the admission of the seven
countries who received invitations in Prague. But there are
several countries which have already been in the queue who did not
receive invitations, including Albania, Macedonia. Those are the
only two countries that have been through the Membership Action
Plan.
And Croatia has indicated it wants to join this process and
of course there are these statements of intent from Georgia,
Ukraine and a few other countries. But I think again that it's
still beyond the horizon as to when we begin to seriously prepare
for another round of enlargement. NATO maintains its policy of the
open door and any European democracy, including Russia, is
eligible, has the right to seek membership. But it's the NATO
countries that decide whether a particular country is suitable for
entry.
As for Guantanamo, there are some citizens of the Russian
Federation among the terrorists or suspected terrorists that have
been captured in Afghanistan. And we have been, we have given our
Russian partners the opportunity to interview these people and I
believe that if they are subject to prosecution in Russia, we will
be happy to consider their transfer to Russian authority.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, doesn't it seem to you that the creation
of a new Homeland Security Department may seriously limit human
rights in the United States? And the second question. What has
prompted the decision of the US authorities not to issue an entry
visa to Mr. Lukashenko?
Vershbow: Well, first of all, I think the Department of
Homeland Security has been established in order to better
coordinate our policies and our programs to protect the United
States against terrorism and other transnational threats. Up until
now different functions relating to border control, intelligence
collection, immigration have been scattered around many different
government agencies and ministries. And we saw, looking back at
the events of September 11, that lack of communication among these
separated agencies may have contributed to our lack of any warning
about the attacks that took place on that date.
We know that there are now even more dangerous threats, such
a bio-terrorism as well as cyber-terrorism, that require
unification of effort of previously separate parts of our
government and our intelligence. So, the creation of this
ministry is really not -- it's really about strengthening our
ability to defend our country against these external threats; it's
not about restricting civil liberties, which is still an idea that
is very dear to every American.
Of course, there are threats from within and we understand
that we will need, for the sake of the safety of our citizens, to
permit the FBI and other agencies to do more to track down
potential terrorist groups that may be operating secretly inside
the United States. And I think there is broad consensus in our
country, in our Congress, that we have managed to maintain the
right balance between measures to increase vigilance at home and
protection of our fundamental freedoms. It's a difficult balance
and every country must wrestle with this challenge, but in the end
we don't want the terrorists to achieve their goals, which are to
take away the very freedom that we hold so dear.
(In Russian) And the second part of the question? Lukashenko.
(In English) Well, I think we have adopted a policy similar to
that of the European Union in restricting issuance of visas to
Lukashenko and some of his senior assistants because of our deep
concerns about his anti-democratic policies and about potential
military assistance that he is providing to Iraq and other rogue
states.
The immediate provocation was his expulsion of the head of
the OSCE mission, head of the monitoring group in Belarus, in
violation of his own commitments to that organization. But we have
consistently said that we would like to develop a normal
relationship with Belarus. We are prepared to proceed step-by-
step towards normalization, but it requires Belarus to step back
from the anti-democratic policies that it has adopted in recent
years.
Q: What did you mean by saying "potential assistance" to
Iraq?
Vershbow: Well, we have suspicions and at least some
fragmentary evidence that there may have been some arms and other
technology supplied by Belarus to Iraq in recent months. But I
can't go into the details.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, can you say that during the course of the
meeting between President Putin and President Bush and other high-
ranking Russian and American representatives the American side
managed to convince the Russian side of the authenticity of the
information that the US special services possess regarding the
development of a nuclear program in North Korea and the
development of the necessary munitions and equipment as part of
that program?
Vershbow: The actual evidence that we have was not the
subject of discussion at this meeting. But I think the discussion
reflected a common vision of the problem posed by North Korea. I
think that our discussions at other levels with the Russian
government suggest that the Russian side also does see evidence of
North Korean efforts to procure, to obtain some of the technology
and equipment for an enriched uranium program. This is a
continuing subject of consultation. We may not fully agree on how
advanced is the program, but I think, as I said, overall there is
a common vision of the problem.
Q: RIA Novosti. To follow up on this topic. Is the United
States ready to negotiate with North Korea? Has there been
progress on that front? What concrete steps does the United States
expect North Korea to take? And the second question is about the
road map for the upcoming meeting of the Quartet in Washington on
December 20. Was it discussed at the meeting between the president
and what was the key note?
Vershbow: On the second question, there was only a very brief
discussion of the Middle East and the efforts to promote the road
map for peace by the Quartet. It was agreed, of course, that
Secretary Powell and Minister Ivanov should continue their very
intense joint efforts in preparing for the meeting of the Quartet
in December.
On the first question., we of course are interested in
getting back on the path of developing a normal relationship with
North Korea. Like Russia, we were encouraged a few months back by
signs that the North Koreans were prepared to open up their
country to the world and to establish cooperative relations with
their neighbors. But of course the evidence and then the
confession by North Korea regarding this uranium enrichment
program has set back these positive trends.
And we believe that through negotiations we achieved an
agreement in 1994 that North Korea would abandon its nuclear
weapons programs in return for various forms of assistance from
the United States and other countries. So the reality is that
North Korean actions have violated those agreements, and we are
not prepared to pay twice or negotiate twice for an outcome that
we thought we had achieved in 1994. So, what North Korea needs to
do is to make clear that it will abandon its nuclear weapons
program and undertake steps to enable the international community
to verify that it is moving back into compliance with the non-
proliferation treaty and other agreements.
President Bush has made clear that we want to resolve this
peacefully through diplomatic means. He has announced publicly he
has no intention of invading North Korea despite their claims to
the contrary. But the choice is really for North Korea to make.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, does the US feel concern over some
authoritarian trends in the policies of Mr. Putin, above all the
pressure on the mass media?
Vershbow: We, of course, are always very interested in seeing
the development and strengthening of democracy and democratic
institutions in Russia, including strong and independent news
media. Our interest in free media led to the proposal by President
Bush last year to establish a dialogue on the media that would
bring the professionals from both our countries together. And this
media dialogue provided some very important recommendations to the
two presidents in May on ways to develop the business foundation
of independent media in Russia.
At the meeting last Friday President Bush did reaffirm our
interest in independent media and noted that the draft legislation
that has been on President Putin's desk had raised some questions
in our country and in other countries.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, during the meeting of the presidents of
Russia and the USA, did they discuss the questions concerning some
specific programs of widening cultural cooperation? And the second
question: Of late, or quite recently, for Russian citizens
traveling in the United States the payment for the visa is higher.
Tell me please, is it possible ... (inaudible)...
Vershbow: At this particular meeting, which was as you all
know very short, there was no discussion about expanding cultural
cooperation. But that was a theme of the November and May summits.
I think that it certainly is our strong view that expanding
contacts among our people, whether one speaks of cultural
contacts, education or just tourism, it is extremely important to
give a more solid foundation to the strategic cooperation that is
developing at the very top of our political leadership.
I remain concerned that there is still a lot of skepticism in
Russian society that the new Russian-American partnership can last
for the long term and is more than a tactical maneuver on the part
of our two countries.
So, I think that the more we can expand contacts between
peoples the more we will see that we are now, both our countries
now are operating on the basis of common interests and common
values and that this partnership is meant to last for the long
term.
There have been some complications in the issuance of the
visas in recent months as we have had to institute new procedures
around the world, related to the war on terrorism and the need to
demonstrate more vigilance regarding who can come into our
country. As a result, hundreds even thousands of people found
their trips delayed, whether they were tourists, scientists,
businessmen, as we had to wait many many weeks for permission from
Washington to issue those visas.
My consul general tells me that the backlog of cases is
beginning to disappear. We are finally getting back onto a normal
footing and I hope that there won't be too many serious delays
from this point forward. And one thing that we've introduced which
will hopefully facilitate travel is to move to a policy of issuing
multiple-entry visas as the norm for most Russian visitors, rather
than single-entry visas, so that you won't have to apply so
frequently.
Q: President Bush, speaking on television, said that the
economic interests of Russia in Iraq would be taken into account.
What did he have in mind in specific terms? And what can be said
about the oil production there, for instance, as pursued by the
Lukoil? The company has a big contract down there.
And the second question. Currently President Lukashenko is in
Moscow and he intends to have meetings with the Russian leader. In
Moscow the leader of North Korea repeatedly made visits. How can
this be reflected on such contacts between Russia and these
representatives of the rogue countries?
Vershbow: We've had a continuing dialogue with Russia on the
economic dimensions of the Iraq crisis and I think that it is not
proper for me to get into the details of that dialogue. And we
know that Russia is interested in the repayment of its debts by
Iraq, which is far more likely under a post-Saddam leadership than
under the present leadership. And I think, as for contracts and
participation in developing Iraqi oil resources, we made clear
that there is plenty of opportunity for Russian companies,
American companies and other companies to cooperate in that
regard. In fact, there may be real opportunities for joint
ventures by American and Russian companies as part of our
developing energy partnership.
As for Lukashenko and Kim Jong Il. On the latter, we have
encouraged President Putin and other Russian leaders to use their
new dialogue with the leadership of North Korea to persuade them
to abandon their nuclear weapons program. And at the meeting on
Friday, President Bush expressed the hope that Russia perhaps
could exercise decisive influence with Pyongyang to bring the
current crisis to an end. As for Belarus, of course Russia has a
more complex relationship. But there too I think we believe there
is a common interest in steering Mr. Lukashenko back on to the
path of democracy and away from his growing authoritarian
tendencies.
But I think that neither Russia nor the United States nor all
European countries want to see Belarus become kind of an island of
dictatorship in an ocean of democratic states. And indeed Belarus
is also missing out on the new prosperity that is beginning to
emerge in Central Europe and in Russia as a result of the economic
reforms of recent years.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, when you speak about the observance of
human rights, democratic principles and nonproliferation of
nuclear weapons, this is all correct and very much so. But there
is a country in the world -- Pakistan -- where a military dictator
rules the country and there are parallels drawn with Lukashenko
and there have already appeared not only the R&D but probably the
weapons themselves, there is the nuclear program and the missile
program. Is the United States going to undertake something with
regard to Pakistan? Is it going to take the same measures as you
are going to take in regard to Byelorussia, Iraq and other
countries?
Vershbow: Well, of course, we are not in any way indifferent
to those problems that do indeed exist in Pakistan. When September
11 attacks occurred, of course, Pakistan was a country with close
links to the Taliban and many people in Pakistan were actively
supporting al Qaeda. President Bush told President Musharraf he
had to make a basic choice, and fortunately, he made the right
choice. He changed his policies and joined the global war against
terrorism, against al Qaeda. That doesn't mean that all is normal
in our bilateral relationship. We do -- we are engaged in trying
to ensure that there is maximum security for Pakistani nuclear
weapons so that those weapons and the technology don't fall into
the hands of terrorists.
And of course we are urging Musharraf to bring his country
back onto the democratic path and stress that only through
democracy can the new generation of Pakistanis be steered away
from supporting Islamic extremist and back to support of universal
human values. But again, we are working closely with Pakistan in
the common struggle against terrorism, but without neglecting
those problems. I've got time for one more question.
Q: Why has the United States adopted a different approach to
North Korean than to Iraq? Second question. You said that when the
presidents met privately there was another person present. Who was
that?
Vershbow: On the second question, it was Dr. Condoleezza Rice
for the US and Minister Sergei Ivanov for the Russian side.
On the first question, we still believe there is time to
resolve the North Korean crisis through peaceful means. Although
they are clearly moving toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons,
we don't think that they are yet in a position to pose an
immediate threat to the security in the region. So at least for
now the diplomatic route, we hope, will succeed and other options
will not need to be considered.
Iraq, on the other hand, does pose an immediate and serious
threat to its neighbors and to the stability of the region. We
believe Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction and he has
shown in the past a readiness to use them against Iran and against
his own people. And we know that in the early 1990s he and his
regime lied about the existence of these programs and refused to
cooperate thoroughly with international inspectors. It was only
when one of his brother-in-laws defected to the West and told us
where the weapons were hidden that he said, ?oh, I forgot, we do
have biological weapons.?
So, we think the time has come to disarm Saddam Hussein,
through peaceful means, we hope, but through military means if
necessary. Thank you very much.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador for your answers and we
will look forward to further meetings with you.
******
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