Johnson's Russia List
#7194
23 May 2003
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Moscow Times: U.S. Will Fingerprint Russians.
2. Reuters: Russian economy booms but wages outgrow investment.
3. RIA Novosti: ACCORDING TO FORECASTS, ONLY 50 PER CENT OF RUSSIAN
16-YEAR-OLD
YOUNG PEOPLE WILL LIVE TO 60.
4. RIA Novosti: MAXIMUM OF 20 PARTIES TO TAKE PART IN DECEMBER
PARLIAMENTARY
ELECTIONS.
5. BBC Monitoring: Russian Communist chief hints his bloc may not challenge
Putin in 2004 election.
6. gazeta.ru: Hangovers must not disrupt election.
7. Rossiiskie Vesti: Ignat Martynov, THERE IS NO SUCH PARTY. Battlefield
left
to political consultants. Results of the latest opinion polls reveal voter
apathy
and confusion.
8. Vremya MN: Leonid Sergienko, ZYUGANOV AND THE VOID. Analysis of the
latest
political rumors.
9. Interfax: Russia registers 3m crimes a year.
10. Moscow Times: Andrei Piontkovsky, Power and Anti-Power.
11. Kenneth MacWilliams: re 7193-Caryl/St.Petersburg.
12. AFP: Former imperial capital locked in eternal rivalry with Moscow.
13. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: U.S. AND RUSSIAN SECURITY
EXPERTS
OUTLINE AGENDA FOR JUNE 1 ST. PETERSBURG SUMMIT.
14. Reuters: Russia works to improve U.S. relations after war.
15. Washington Times: David Sands, Envoy hints at Moscow cooperation on
missile
defense.
16. Vremya Novostei: UNITED STATES DOES NOT SEEK TO TAKE OVER RUSSIAN
NUCLEAR
ARSENALS. An interview with Lynton F. Brooks, US Undersecretary of Energy.
17. The Times (UK): Clem Cecil, Putin orders the clouds not to rain on his
parade.
18. Reuters: Olympics-Moscow plan bid for 2012 Games.
19. pravda.ru: Starvation to Hit Russia This Fall. Prices for meat and
bread to
jump before parliamentary elections in Russia.
20. Moscow Times: Valeria Korchagina, Cabinet Energy Plan Uses a Crystal
Ball.
21. New York Times: Michael Wines, Zeya Journal. The Old Prospector: The
Glitter Is in His Eye.
22. AP: Paul McCartney Visits Russia.]
*******
#1
Moscow Times
May 23, 2003
U.S. Will Fingerprint Russians
Russians entering the United States after Jan. 1 will have their
fingerprints and photographs taken, travel documents scanned and
identifications checked against terrorist watch lists, U.S. officials said.
U.S. Homeland Security Department Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson said the
checks will apply to all visitors who need U.S. visas and will be carried
out at their point of entry into the United States.
"In 99.9 percent of the cases, the visitor will simply be wished a good day
or sent on their way," Hutchinson told reporters this week.
"But with that small percentage of hits, our country will be made much
safer and our immigration system will be given a foundation of integrity
that has been lacking for too long," Hutchinson said.
"All of this information will become part of a foreign visitor's ongoing
travel record, so their correct information can follow them wherever they go."
For now, Russian males between the ages of 16 and 45 who apply for
nonimmigrant visas continue to have to fill out DS-157 forms, which ask for
information about which countries the applicant has visited over the past
10 years, any military experience he has and which organizations he is a
member of, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said.
The form was introduced early last year in an attempt to screen out
potential terrorists, and Russia responded by requiring U.S. males to fill
out a similar form.
It was unclear Thursday what Russia's response to the fingerprinting
measure would be.
Citizens of 27 mainly European countries and part of an existing
visa-waiver scheme will not be required to submit fingerprints or be
photographed to enter the United States.
Sixty-percent of foreign visitors -- or 23 million people -- entered the
United States last year on visas.
The fingerprinting and other new measures are part of a new U.S. security
system called U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indication Technology, or
U.S. VISIT.
*******
#2
Russian economy booms but wages outgrow investment
By Andrew Hurst
MOSCOW, May 23 (Reuters) - Russia's economy is charging ahead while much of
the world languishes but some analysts spot troubling signs that a chance
to lay the foundations for future growth could be frittered away in a
consumer boom.
Fuelled by strong crude prices, Russia's oil-exporting economy grew 6.6
percent in the first four months of the year and many economists have
hastily updated growth forecasts for the whole year.
"We expect six percent growth this year and five percent next year. This is
very much conditioned by oil prices," said Alexei Zabotkin, an economist at
United Financial Group, a Moscow-based investment bank.
The government's official growth target, which is 4.5 percent, is likely to
be revised upwards in coming months.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is still erring on the side of
caution, and is predicting the economy will expand by just four percent, to
the dismay of more optimistic private economists and brokers.
With oil prices now in the $25 dollar a barrel range, below highs of more
than $30 a barrel in run-up to the U.S.-led war to topple Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein, Russia's economy is expected to cool a little in coming
months.
"I would be amazed if Russia grows at six percent in the year with these
oil prices, because I don't see the drivers there," said Vladimir
Tikhomirov, an economist at Russian investment house Nikoil.
Even with the economy humming along, Russia has for many years lagged well
behind the so-called Asian Tiger economies, such as Thailand, Malaysia and
Taiwan, in the amount of money that it ploughs back into productive
investment.
AGEING INFRASTRUCTURE
Investment in post-Soviet Russia, which needs to spend billions of dollars
to modernise creaking railways, decrepit schools and a degraded road
network, amounts to around 18 percent of gross domestic product.
That is well below levels of around 30 percent in the fastest-growing Asian
economies and in Japan during its years of rapid expansion after the second
world war.
Investment has been steadily rising as the economy booms but wages are
surging ahead even faster, which augurs ill for hopes that Russia can
rebuild a badly deteriorated manufacturing base.
"From 2002 growth is driven clearly by consumption and investment is
slowing," said Natalya Orlova, an analyst at Alfa Bank.
Orlova said that with some 60 percent of Russia's productive capacity out
of date, the country needed far more investment.
"The ratio of investment to gross domestic product will increase, but even
at 20 percent it would be quite low. We should modernise our economy," said
Orlova.
The real concern for many economists is that, with wages rising too fast,
there is little evidence higher pay is being matched by rises in productivity.
"Wages should go up in real terms but should not go up too fast," said
Zabotkin. Wages rose by a real annual rate of around 10 percent in the
first quarter, he said.
Over the past three years wages have consistently grown by more than
investment, a trend which many analysts find disturbing.
********
#3
ACCORDING TO FORECASTS, ONLY 50 PER CENT OF RUSSIAN 16-YEAR-OLD YOUNG
PEOPLE WILL LIVE TO 60
MOSCOW, MAY 23 (RIA Novosti correspondent Nino Iosebadze) - According to
medical forecasts, only 50 per cent of Russian 16-year-old youths will live
to 60, President of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences /RAMN/,
Academician Valentin Pokrovsky stated at a scientific and practical
conference "Medical social priorities in protecting Russian population's
heath for 2004-2010." The death rate of Russian men capable of working has
boosted by 80 per cent in the last decade, Pokrovsky pointed out.
The increased death rate is mainly caused by alcoholism, traumatism,
violation of labour protection, environment and poor health care, according
to Academician Pokrovsky. Besides, the death rate of alcoholics strictly
depends on the dynamics of alcohol production growth.
According to Pokrovsky, health care is wholly dependent on the country's
economic and political development.
The academician is convinced that health care must be better financed,
while Russians do not have an opportunity to take care of their health.
One of the key reasons for it is extremely expensive medical aid, Pokrovsky
said. According to him, over 35 per cent having hepatitis C cannot afford
expensive medications, over 50 per cent give up their treatment half-way,
"as it hit them too much in the pocket." Moreover, over 109 million people
in Russia are currently living in the territories suffering environmental
calamities, he said.
********
#4
MAXIMUM OF 20 PARTIES TO TAKE PART IN DECEMBER PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
MOSCOW, May 23, 2003. /From RIA Novosti correspondent Nikolai Makarov/--A
maximum of 20 political parties and blocs will be taking part in the
December elections to the State Duma, but only 3 or 5 of them will be able
to overcome the five-percent threshold to get seats in the lower house of
the Russian parliament, Alexander Veshnyakov, Chairman of the Russian
Central Electoral Commission, told a Friday press conference in Moscow.
As of today, the right to take part in the parliamentary elections has been
granted to 41 parties that had their branches registered in more than half
of the Russian Federation constituent members.
In order to have their lists registered, a party can also collect at least
200,000 signatures of its supporters, Veshnyakov reminded the assembly.
"This is quite possible for those of political parties that actually
exist," he stressed. "The ones that exist on paper or in the minds of their
leaders will hardly be able to have their lists registered." Speaking about
the specifics of the upcoming election campaign, the Central Electoral
Commission chairman stressed: "There will be mass public control over the
work of electoral commissions and the vote counting process." He added that
the voters would undoubtedly
********
#5
BBC Monitoring
Russian Communist chief hints his bloc may not challenge Putin in 2004
election
Source: NTV Mir, Moscow, in Russian 1300 gmt 22 May 03
[Presenter] Russia's Communists are deciding how to approach the forthcoming
elections. The nomination of a candidate representing patriotic forces in the
presidential election will depend on the results of the parliamentary
elections, the leader of the CPRF [Communist Party of the Russian
Federation] Gennadiy
Zyuganov said today.
[Gennadiy Zyuganov, leader of the CPRF faction in the State Duma, captioned]
As far as a candidate for the presidential elections is concerned, this will
depend on how we perform at the Duma elections. If we strengthen our
positions,
if we secure a large number of votes, then it is possible that the patriotic
bloc may nominate a candidate. If the outcome is failure, then the question
does not arise.
[Presenter] Zyuganov said the unification of left-wing patriotic parties and
movements and the legal formation of the electoral bloc will take place in
mid-September at the People's Patriotic Union of Russia congress.
*******
#6
gazeta.ru
May 23, 2003
Hangovers must not disrupt election
Yelena Rudneva, Artyom Vernidoub
The Duma elections due in December this year will be brought forward by a
week and will now be held on Sunday 7th. The pro-presidential factions have
already submitted a bill to that effect. The most obvious reason for the
change is the Kremlin’s concern about a low turnout at the end of the
Constitution Day holiday weekend: United Russia’s electorate will be too
inebriated to vote; SPS supporters will probably spend the break abroad,
leaving only the disciplined Communist supporters to cast their votes.
Reports of a possible rescheduling of the parliamentary elections have now
been confirmed. Gazeta.Ru has learnt that members of four centrist factions
in the State Duma – Vladimir Pekhtin of Unity, Konstantin Kosachyov of
Fatherland-All-Russia, Regions of Russia’s Mikhail Buger and Anatoly Axakov
of the People’s Deputy Group – have introduced a bill envisaging amendments
to the laws on the election of State Duma deputies; on political parties,
and on the main guarantees of citizens’ electoral rights.
Altogether, the bill contains six amendments. One of them deals with the
readjustment of borders between single-mandate constituencies; another bans
public organizations from taking part by forming election blocs with
political parties. The third amendment proposes holding this year’s
parliamentary election on the first Sunday of December instead of the
second. The three other amendments are of a purely technical nature.
The problem is that the second Sunday of December this year is the last day
of a 3-day holiday marking Constitution Day on December 12, which means
that many voters may fail to make it to the polling stations, suffering the
usual effects of any Russian holiday.
The amendment concerning a change to the voting day was backed by Union of
Rightist Forces (SPS) leader Boris Nemtsov. As the deputy head of the SPS
faction Boris Nadezhdin explained to Gazeta.Ru, half of SPS’ voters would
most likely be sunbathing in the Maldives on that day.
United Russia may encounter just as serious a problem, since that bloc
claims the title of the party of the people’s majority, and the people will
most likely indulge in a heavy bout of drinking on those days. As a result,
only the most disciplined voters – the Communists – will turn up at the
polling stations on December 14.
Leader of the LDPR party Vladimir Zhirinovsky agreed that with the help of
those amendments the Communists will be deprived of a natural advantage.
''The communists, indeed, have the most disciplined electorate,'' he told
Gazeta.Ru. ''They will not celebrate Constitution Day. This is not their
constitution, and not their holiday. That is why the date should be moved,
and we will back that.''
The leftists, as one may expect, are not particularly enamoured by the
initiative. ''I do not think that the people will drink heavily throughout
all those days,'' the CPRF faction’s coordinator Sergei Reshulskiy told
Gazeta.Ru. ''One must not adjust the law to the situation. The deputies are
not doing so out of the best motives. All voters must go to vote on
December 14 as required. And if they do not, this will show their attitude
towards the incumbent authorities.''
On Thursday afternoon the Central Electoral Commission’s chairman Alexander
Veshnyakov arrived in the State Duma to take care of some matters other
than the latest initiative by the centrists. But journalists besieged him,
eager to find out whether it was true that the Kremlin is set to move the
election date.
''It’s true,'' the CEC chief admitted, ''though not the Kremlin, but
several deputies. If it was the Kremlin, then, being a chief legislative
body, it would have insisted on it when the law was being passed.''
However, it seems obvious that the idea to move the date is not merely the
deputies’ initiative. According to Boris Nadezdin’s information, the
amendments have been introduced in an accelerated regime, and by June 4 the
bill is to be debated at the Duma’s plenary session.
''They [amendments] are to be studied by a committee first, they will not
make it before that date,'' Veshnyakov said doubtfully, adding: ''But
before this session is over, they will certainly be considered.''
Veshnyakov recalled that he had actually suggested holding the elections on
the first Sunday of December, but the deputies changed his version, and
scheduled the voting for the later date. The deputies said then that if
elections were held on December 7, the first plenary session, which by law
is to be convened not later than on the 30th day following the day of
voting, would have to be held on January 7, Orthodox Christmas Day.
Veshnyakov objected, saying that the Constitution allows the first session
to be held earlier. ''But they would not listen,'' the CEC chief said.
Veshnyakov applied the same I-told-you-so tone when commenting on two more
of the amendments proposed by the centrists: on banning public
organizations from taking part in elections and on adjusting borders
between constituencies.
Clearly, the first proposal is advantageous for United Russia and less so
for smaller parties. Deputy Nadezhdin, in comments for Gazeta.Ru, suggested
that this amendment is aimed at the Communists who plan to form an election
alliance with other left-wing movements.
It will also affect Liberal Russia whose leader Viktor Pokhmelkin is
considering a merger with the Movement of Motorists. Such unions annoy
Veshnaykov. He recalled that he had advocated his variant of the bill that
confined election blocs to only 3 political parties, but then the deputies
amended the bill allowing the formation of blocs with at least one
political party in them.
At the same time Veshnyakov expressed hope that the amendment concerning
public organizations will not take effect this year, as many public
organizations are already ready for the forthcoming election. ''That would
not be honest,'' the CEC chief said. Therefore, Pokhmelkin and his
motorists have no grounds for worrying.
The third amendment, the distribution of single-mandate constituencies in
the regions, proposed by the centrists is unlikely to cause any worries for
the deputies either. As Gazeta.Ru reported earlier, in June the Duma is to
approve changes to the borders between single-mandate constituencies, to be
introduced for the first time since 1995.
Those changes are fairly insignificant: southern Krasnodar Region and
Dagestan will get one additional constituency each, while the northern and
less inhabited Murmansk and Siberia’s Irkutsk regions will each lose one.
Deputies demanded more drastic changes from Veshnyakov, claiming that the
number of voters in the Evenk Autonomous Area is much less than in any of
Moscow’s constituencies.
In theory, the size of each constituency is strictly dependent on the
number of eligible voters, residing in the area. According to the law on
the election of deputies to the State Duma, the acceptable deviation from
the average rate is 10 per cent. However, in some remote areas where there
are not enough voters to form a fully-fledged constituency, the number of
eligible voters may be 15 per cent less, than generally required. Finally,
indigenous peoples of Russia’s Far North are allowed to elect their
representative to the State Duma even if the number of voters is 30 per
cent less than generally required.
The deputies consider those figures low and propose increasing them to 20,
30 and 40 per cent respectively. The CEC chairman on Thursday backed the
initiative, again recalling that he had suggested it earlier but his
proposals had been ignored.
*******
#7
Rossiiskie Vesti
No. 18
May 2003
THERE IS NO SUCH PARTY
Battlefield left to political consultants
Results of the latest opinion polls reveal voter apathy and confusion
Author: Ignat Martynov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
UNSTABLE VOTING PREFERENCES POSE A PARTICULARLY SERIOUS THREAT TO
UNITED RUSSIA AND THE UNION OF RIGHT FORCES. THE COMMUNIST PARTY FACES
THE LEAST DANGER FROM THIS. ON TOP OF STEADILY DECLINING VOTER
TURNOUT, ALL THIS MAKES IT PLAIN THAT POLITICAL PARTIES WILL HAVE TO
FIGHT FOR VOTES.
The National Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) asked
respondents if they knew what kind of national elections are to take
place in Russia this year. The result: 45% of respondents were aware
of the parliamentary elections, while 55% (!) knew nothing at all on
that score. Respondents were then asked about national elections
scheduled for 2004: 63% knew of the presidential election, but 37%
neither knew nor cared about any elections at all. The difference in
the attitudes of Russian citizens to the president and lawmakers is
apparent.
Another question respondents were asked concerned free and fair
elections: "Do you care how free and fair the elections are?" Sixty-
six percent replied that they definitely care; 30% said they are
indifferent; and 4% did not know. And 53% of respondents said they
would vote, while 17% (about 10% less than the figure in 1999) said
they didn't care about voting.
The regime has spared neither effort nor money to create a ruling
party of its own. However, it turns out that the nation is refusing to
recognize United Russia as such a party. According to VTsIOM, only 21%
of those respondents who plan to vote at all intend to support United
Russia. Meanwhile, 28% will vote for the Communist Party, 7% for the
Liberal Democrats, and 6% each for Yabloko and the Union of Right
Forces.
Comparing its findings with results of the 1999 election, VTsIOM
concludes that the number of voters who will support United Russia is
half the number of votes received by Unity and Fatherland - All Russia
combined in 1999. Right-wing parties (Yabloko, Union of Right Forces)
will see their votes decline by 4 million. In general, the reformist
parties have only 21 million supporters in Russia. Their position
would have been disastrous but for the fact that of the 57 million
voters who do plan to vote, at least 11 million don't yet know which
party they will vote for. Analysis shows that these voters are
anything but pro-communist. Unless they walk away in disgust over the
use of dirty campaign tactics, these voters will join the reformist
camp (the part of it indicated by the president).
Most Russian citizens do not really know anything about the
activities of political parties in various fields, or about their
policies. One-third of voters are unable to say which political party
is placing special emphasis on which issues. Almost one-quareter are
convinced that political parties are avoiding vital problems entirely.
The remaining 40% are more or less knowledgeable on the subject, but
their ideas are all too often distorted. The Union of Right Forces is
particularly active on the issue of military reforms - but only 12% of
respondents are aware of this activity. In fact, 17% wrongly assume
that the military reforms are United Russia's pet topic. Actually,
United Russia is considered a champion in all other matters as well,
save for social issues, where the Communist Party leads with 16%.
Surveys by the Public Opinion Foundation are no less revealing.
The POF invented a "Party of Justice and Order" to gauge voter
response to this attractive brand-name (justice and order are among
the most cherished values in Russia).
First, it appeared that most respondents claimed to know
something of the nonexistent party: 11% said they know (1%) or "have
heard something" (10%) about it. Respondents with a higher education
were particularly knowledgeable on that score (2% and 17%
respectively). Perhaps it is difficult for a well-educated person who
regularly watches news and current affairs programs on TV to admit
that he or she has never heard of a political structure mentioned by
pollsters. On the other hand, respondents may be honestly mistaken in
their claims.
Six percent of respondents spoke favorably of the Party of
Justice and Order; 3% criticized it; and the rest were either unsure
or did not care about the party. It may be added that supporters of
the Communist Party were evenly divided in their attitude towards the
Party of Justice and Order (5% for it and 5% against). United Russia
supporters were different (9% for it and only 2% against). The
explanation must be fairly simple: Communist voters are more loyal to
their own party than United Russia supporters. LDPR supporters were
more or less similar to pro-communist voters, while supporters of
Yabloko and particularly the Union of Right Forces tended to allow for
the possibility that they might vote for the Party of Justice and
Order.
"Is it possible that you may vote for the Party of Justice and
Order in the next parliamentary election?" When asked this question,
14% of respondents claimed that it is certainly possible, 32% ruled
out the possibility completely, and 54% were uncertain. In answer to
similar questions, just as many respondents (14%) did not rule out the
possibility of voting for the recently-formed People's Party and Party
of Life.
Among respondents aged under 35, 19% said they might vote for the
Party of Justice and Order, while only 10% respondents over 50 said so
(26% and 38% respectively rule out the possibility).
In short, unstable voting preferences pose a particularly serious
threat to United Russia and the Union of Right Forces. The Communist
Party faces the least danger from this. On top of steadily declining
voter turnout, all this makes it plain that political parties will
have to fight for votes in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
*******
#8
Vremya MN
May 23, 2003
ZYUGANOV AND THE VOID
Analysis of the latest political rumors
Author: Leonid Sergienko
Source: Vremya MN, May 23, 2003, p. 2
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
VICIOUS DIRTY PR TACTICS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY SOME POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS CLOSE TO THE KREMLIN ARE AN INDICATION OF HOW SERIOUSLY
THE REGIME TAKES THE POSSIBILITY OF A COMMUNIST ALLIANCE WITH SOME
OLIGARCHS. THESE INCLUDE FAKING A PICTURE OF GENNADI ZYUGANOV AND
GRIGORI YAVLINSKY EMBRACING.
ESSENTIALS
Vicious dirty PR tactics allegedly made by some political
consultants close to the Kremlin are an indication of how seriously
the regime takes the possibility of a communist alliance with some
oligarchs. There are certain rumors in the political establishment
regarding these undercurrents. According to rumor-mongers close to the
presidential administration, political leaflets that appeared in
Moscow's subway last week deliberately cast aspersions on leaders of
several federal parties known as United Russia's rivals. It was done
to make sure that all these parties should suspect one another of
using dirty political techniques. The orders to launch the attack are
said to have come from the Kremlin itself.
HISTORY
Adobe Photoshop 8.0 software was used to make one of the leaflets
- showing Communist leader Gennadi Zyuganov and Yabloko leader Grigori
Yavlinsky giving each other a hug. Their faces are somewhat distorted.
"We stand together!" the slogan on the leaflet reads. The second
leaflet depicts an apple with a price tag, the latter decorated with
the hammer and sickle. The third leaflet refers to the PR campaign of
the Union of Right Forces in support of small business, with the
slogan "Small business means millions of jobs". The leaflet shows
Boris Nemtsov embracing former Duma member Boris Berezovsky. The
vitriolic text assures the reader that Berezovsky's return to Russia
will create a great many new jobs indeed.
ESSENTIALS
Rumors circulating in the lower house indicate that the leftists
are afraid of "information intrigues" on the Kremlin's part. Leonid
Ivashov of the Military Power Union and Sergei Glaziev of the Congress
of Russian Communities are allegedly referred to as an example.
According to people close to the communist faction of the Duma,
Gennadi Zyuganov refers to Ivashov and Glaziev as "good cop and bad
cop".
HISTORY
On May 19, Ivashov suggested that the left would do much better
to form two blocs for the election, a communist bloc and a patriotic
bloc. He drew this conclusion on the basis of polls done by ROMIR
Monitoring. According to these findings, about 20% of respondents
support communist and socialist ideas, and almost 60% share patriotic
values.
That same day Glaziev came up with an opposite idea and suggested
consolidation of the popular-patriotic camp. A working group should be
set up to draw up a common concept and a patriotic formula
understandable to all Russians without exception. Glaziev attributed
its necessity to the fact that the People's Patriotic Union was a
hierarchic structure, while something quite different is needed for
the election coalition. Glaziev's idea is supposed to serve as an
invitation to small parties to come forward and form alliances with
the left-wing giants.
ESSENTIALS
Rumor-mongers claim that circles close to Zyuganov view Glaziev
and Ivashov as "the Kremlin's men". These circles believe that Ivashov
is after communist votes (acting on the orders from the Kremlin,
needless to say) while Glaziev hopes to be put in charge of the
election campaign of the People's Patriotic Union. Once again, in the
Kremlin's interests.
WHO STANDS TO GAIN FROM THIS
In fact, suspicions of Duma communists and the Kremlin's
involvement may be exaggerated. Most probably, PR agencies employed by
federal parties are just showing their clients what they can do.
*******
#9
Russia registers 3m crimes a year
Interfax
Moscow, 21 May: Statistics show that the overall number of crimes committed
in Russia is about one tenth that in the USA, the Moscow public centre for
assisting criminal justice reform said on Wednesday [21 May].
The USA registers from 30 to 40m crimes a year, and 4.5- 5.5m of them are
serious, while Russia records only about 3m crimes annually, the centre said.
Moreover, there is a higher percentage of solved crimes in Russia than
anywhere
in the world, according to statistical data.
However, the centre noted, Russia remains the world leader in terms of
murders, which is considered a relatively reliable index of the real criminal
situation in a country.
Russia registers 20 times more murders than Japan (adjusted per 100,000
people), 17 times more than Germany, 14 times more than France, 12 times
more than
Sweden and 3.5 times more than the USA.
Meanwhile, Sweden records annually 20 times as many robberies and Denmark 10
times as many thefts as Russia.
In terms of the number of convicts, Russia is the second in the world,
following the USA (605 and 710 per 100,000 people, respectively). Following
Russia
are Kazakhstan (598) and Belarus (505).
In Germany, Sweden, Italy and France, there are from 50 to 100 convicts per
100,000 people, despite the fact that the crime rate in Germany and France
is 4
to 5 times and in Italy 2.5 times as high as in Russia, the centre said.
*******
#10
Moscow Times
May 23, 2003
Power and Anti-Power
By Andrei Piontkovsky
In countries that we tend to call "normal," the powers-that-be turn to
voters every four or five years and try to tell people how great they are.
Sometimes this works. Other times it doesn't go so well and the
powers-that-be become the powers-that-were.
In our young bourgeois-criminal-Family-chekist democracy, things don't
quite work that way. First of all, vlast -- the crucial Russian word for
those in power -- never ceases to be vlast. Second, as that four-year cycle
comes to a close, those in power do not even attempt to tell people how
great they are. The authorities understand that even the nicest, most
trusting people in the world won't buy it. So they came up with an
ingenious solution: Once every for years, the powers-that-be must turn
themselves inside out, become a tyrant-fighting machine and talk all about
how bad they've been.
We can recall, for starters, how that approach played itself out in the
campaign of 1999-2000 and then consider whether there are any lessons to be
learned about the current campaign season.
The "vlast of bureaucratic capital" made a relatively simple and
straightforward debut. The clan of Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov and former
Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who had splintered off the main tree of
vlast, declared themselves to be the defenders of the trampled-upon
interests of the people and identified Russia's main villain as Yeltsin's
entourage, the so-called Family.
The bureaucratic masses supported Luzhkov's beginnings and rallied around
his flag. But few of them gave any thought to a simple question: Will Mr.
Yeltsin (and, along with him, the collective Yeltsin) quietly agree to take
on the newly assigned role of scapegoat? In any case, the Family's
counterattack was devastating. Luzhkov's clan was squashed by a pack of
mudslingers, while its leaders, for years to come, were doomed to bow their
heads and pledge loyalty to Mr. Putin, tapped by the Family as the rightful
heir.
But how then did the powers-that-be achieve their election-year objective
of portraying themselves as the bad guys? Oh, they used far more subtle
means than the in-your-face onslaught of Luzhkov's people. Putin was
presented as Yeltsin's heir and, simultaneously, as the anti-Yeltsin.
Moreover, his anti-Yeltsin aspects were aggressively implanted in the
collective subconscious of the electoral masses through imperceptible --
and, therefore, all the more effective -- neuro-linguistic programming. The
contrast was clear: Yeltsin, destroyer of the homeland, vs. a young special
services officer, assertively sending Russian units deep into the Caucasus,
bringing death and destruction to all of Russia's enemies.
But let us return to the present campaign. This time, the sacrificial lamb
chosen for the ritual slaughter is Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. Such a
plan, however, has the same weak points as four years ago. Will Kasyanov
(and especially the collective Kasyanov) agree to undertake the simple role
assigned to him? Something tells me the answer is no. But in that case,
what lies ahead are plot twists that have nothing in common with the much
touted political stability of recent years.
If Kasyanov wins support not just from the oligarchs but also from medium
business, which has been cracking under pressure from the St. Petersburg
chekists, then the fallout will pose a danger not just to the operetta-like
United Russia party, but to the very thread that holds all of modern-day
Russia's vlast: the Putin Myth. Putin would have to abandon the cozy
position of fatigued father of the nation, worn out by state affairs,
cowering under the fray of the clans in his entourage. The neo-stagnant
Putin -- turning bronze and Brezhnev-like before our eyes -- will not be
able to handle a serious battle if forced to engage in one. Just as in
1999, when he was both Yeltsin and anti-Yeltsin, he will now have to become
both Putin and anti-Putin.
In order to overcome the image of a stagnating Putin tied up with red tape,
the great and frightening anti-Putin will have to return to his early
heroic myth. Once again he'll need helmets, judo outfits, navy uniforms,
fighter planes and outhouses where Russia's enemies will writhe and convulse.
The opportunities for small, victorious wars on the outskirts of the Empire
seem to be all used up. Looks like it is time to order a small, victorious
administrative war within the boundaries of the Garden Ring and
Rublyovo-Uspenskoye Shosse.
Andrei Piontkovsky, an independent political analyst, contributed this
comment to The Moscow Times.
********
#11
From: "Kenneth E. MacWilliams" <macwilliams@earthlink.net>
Subject: re 7193-Caryl/St.Petersburg
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003
For the past twelve years I have visited both St. Petersburg and Moscow
numerous times. It was thus with keen anticipation that I began to read Mr.
Caryl's "The Real St. Petersburg: Window on Russia" (#7193).
Parts 1 and 2 were outstanding. Reading them left me hoping that Mr. Caryl
was going to develop this into a book later.
Then came Part 3.
I carry no brief for either St. Petersburg or Moscow and view them
impartially. Relatively speaking, it is abundantly clear that during the
past decade Moscow has been bleeding St. Petersburg dry in almost every
dimension, with no diminution in the last three or four years. To the
contrary. Like it or not, money is power everywhere and particularly in
Russia. With the possible exception of those in St. Petersburg whose nests
were already well and permanently feathered, huge numbers of talented and
ambitious people there who were able to jump ship in the past decade and
flee to Moscow's enormously greater money and opportunity, and to land in a
starting position remotely similar to the one being left, have long since
done so. The brain and talent drain has been enormous. Opportunity and money
and power attract like nothing else.
Mr. Caryl wrote: "Today, for the first time since Lenin moved the capital to
Moscow in 1918, St. Petersburg is once again preeminent." A close reading of
his text does not make entirely clear for what exact dimensions he makes
this assertion. If it is anything beyond the narrow scope of just the actual
number of many political appointments, then it begins to approach the
plausibility constraints that also prevent us from believing that when
Clinton was initially elected President and brought his political cronies
with him, Little Rock, Arkansas began to overshadow New York City and
Washington DC.
Nevertheless, I still think there is the foundation for an excellent book
here.
********
#12
Former imperial capital locked in eternal rivalry with Moscow
May 22, 2003
AFP
Sibling rivalry between Saint Petersburg and Moscow has been a fact of life
since the day the imperial capital built by Peter the Great first rose out of
the marshes on Russia's northern Baltic shores in 1703.
When in 1712 Peter ordered the aristocracy to decamp to the Neva and build
lavish new homes for themselves in his new capital, the city on the Moskva,
long
regarded as the beating heart of Russian civilisation, found itself, like a
frumpish elder sister, upstaged by a brilliant newcomer.
The pendulum has swung to and fro in the intervening centuries, both
politically and culturally, but intense competition has remained the
hallmark of the
cities' relations.
For two centuries, Saint Petersburg was the glittering "Venice of the North,"
the window on the West that attracted not just Russians from other provinces
but also talents and entrepreneurs from the Baltic region, from Scandinavia
and from elsewhere in Europe.
"All our science and culture, every aspect of modern Russian civilisation,
was born in Saint Petersburg, the result of its cultural synthesis," said
Gleb
Lebedev, a local historian.
The list of writers and artists associated with the imperial capital is
endless -- Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Glazunov, Stravinsky, Repin and Diaghilev,
to name
only the best-known.
While Moscow remained a great power centre, it was mired in tradition and
historical continuity, in contrast to Saint Petersburg's radical innovation.
By the mid-19th century, when the new city's population overtook that of
Moscow, their roles were clearly delineated in the public mind: Saint
Petersburg
was the outpost of Russian Westernisers, Moscow the rearbase of Slavophiles.
The balance shifted in 1918 when Lenin, seeking a clean break with the
Tsarist past and fearing the proximity of potential enemy borders, moved
the capital
back to Moscow.
Now named Leningrad, the city retained its aura of cultural and cosmopolitan
flair, and the Stalinist purges of the 1930s were particularly acute there.
Stalin's mistrust of intellectuals and dislike of Leningrad were such that it
was rumoured he did not exert himself as much as he might have done to ease
the 900-day World War II blockade of the city in which more than one million
people died.
The Moscow-Saint Petersburg polarity in today's Russia has been heightened by
the perceived development of a "Saint Petersburg clan" around President
Vladimir Putin, who was born in the northern city and briefly worked there
as an
administrator.
In addition to recruiting several senior colleagues from his birthplace,
Putin has used the city's cultural prestige as a showcase setting for
top-level
meetings -- he has invited more than 40 world leaders for celebrations
marking
the 300th anniversary of Saint Petersburg's founding at the end of this month.
Cultural rivalry between the once and present capitals is most famously
expressed by the competition between their opera and ballet houses, the
Mariinsky
(ex-Kirov) and the Moscow Bolshoi, in which the former currently enjoys a
commanding lead thanks to its star director Valery Gergiev.
But it is deeply embedded in the attitudes of the artists and creators
themselves.
For Nikolai Yakimov, a Saint Petersburg singer-songwriter, Moscow means money
and little else.
"I lived and worked there for two years because of the better pay. I was
sickened by it. There's no real art, it's just kitsch or a commodity. In
Moscow,
everything is for sale. Never again," he said.
Galina Polidi, a Moscow dramatist, sees an element of sour grapes in this.
"It's true we have a lot more money. We're also a metropolis and have more
foreign contacts. This gives us more possibilities. It's Saint Petersburg
that has
a complex. They take refuge in art for art's sake."
John Freedman, an American who has lived in both cities, sees truth in both
views.
"Moscow is a melting pot, a place that accepts all kinds of different
cultures and different attitudes. Saint Petersburg is not, it's more
closed, a place
where if you come from the outside you have to start thinking the way they do.
"The rivalry is real. But it's usually Saint Petersburg people who say they
don't like Moscow, not the other way around."
********
#13
CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: May 22, 2003
U.S. AND RUSSIAN SECURITY EXPERTS OUTLINE AGENDA FOR JUNE 1 ST. PETERSBURG
SUMMIT
Contact: Jayne Brady, 202-939-2372, jbrady@ceip.org
A point paper released by leading Russian and U.S. security experts urges
Presidents Bush and Putin to focus their meeting on a few, critical tasks
to fulfill two missions: Fighting the war on terrorism and preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The authorsRose Gottemoeller,
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Vadim
Razumovsky, director of the INSTITUTE FOR APPLIES INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH
(IAIR) in Moscow; Yury Fedorov and Andrei Zagorsky, both IAIR deputy
directorsreleased their paper yesterday at a Carnegie Endowment seminar.
The full text of the paper follows.
NEW SECURITY MISSIONS
*Despite fall-out over the war in Iraq, the United States and Russia
continue to agree that coophOWeration on two interrelated security missions
is fundamental: fighting the war on terrorism and preventing weapons of
mass destruction proliferation.
*President Bush and President Putin, at their upcoming summit in St.
Petersburg, should focus on a few urgent tasks that serve to fulfill these
two missions.
*The first is to prevent NORTH KOREA from becoming a nuclear weapons state
and a source of nuclear weapons and materials for proliferating states and
terrorist clients. The U.S. and Russia, working together with regional
partners China, Japan, and South Korea, should develop a clear policy
focusing on verifiable and comprehensive denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula. In return, they and their partners would provide cooperation to
remove the nuclear capabilities, assure the security of both Korea’s, and
supply North Korea and the region with energy. The U.S. and Russia should
also engage the UN Security Council to take all necessary and practical
legal steps to ensure implementation of the denuclearization program.
*The second urgent task is to address the DISCOVERY OF FUEL CYCLE
FACILITIES IN IRAN. The United States and Russia should join efforts to
convince Iran to join the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement
with the IAEA and refute its program to acquire a full fuel cycle
capability. They should offer to cooperate in reducing weapons of mass
destruction capabilities and threats in the Persian Gulf region—as is
already happening with the Iraqi programs that so threatened Iran in the
past. The Presidents may, in pursuit of the overall goal of security for
the region, wish to engage Iran in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq,
with a view to providing stability in that country.
*The third urgent task is to embark on measures to STRENGTHEN THE
NONOPROLIFERATION REGIME overall. As a long-term measure, the Presidents
should agree to work together to make proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their delivery means illegal, in the same way that
trafficking in heroin or trade in slaves is illegal. In the shorter term,
they should launch an initiative to make the IAEA Additional Protocol to
the Safeguards Agreement mandatory for all parties to the NPT. They should
also reinvigorate efforts to ensure enforcement of the ban on biological
and toxin weapons, by establishing a working group to develop practical
measures to do so.
*Finally, the Presidents should ensure that this agenda of urgent tasks is
underpinned by an ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, that is, effective mechanisms
for cooperation within their two governments. Such mechanisms as special
high-level task forces, supported by expert “tiger teams,” with strong
endorsement and support by the Presidents, would help to streamline
implementation of policy.
NEW FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGIC COOPERATION
*In addition to these urgent security missions, the two Presidents should
recommit themselves to the compelling but unfinished business from their
previous summits: establishing a new framework for strategic cooperation
between the United States and Russian Federation.
*At the top of this agenda is ensuring smooth and rapid implementation of
the Moscow Treaty, entry into force of which should follow hard on the
heels of the St. Petersburg summit. The Presidents can press for early
progress on additional transparency measures to support the treaty, as well
as missile defense and nonproliferation cooperation.
*The Presidents should also press for additional confidence-building
measures, ranging from general activities, such as discussions of nuclear
doctrine, targeting and force posture, to specific activities, such as
enhanced notification of nuclear weapon developments and operations.
*Finally, the Presidents should endorse enhanced cooperation that engages
the private sector, from technology projects in the aerospace arena, to
projects in the realm of threat reduction. A commercial approach, for
example, might be used to finance the dismantlement of Russian
general-purpose submarines, an item that has been high on President Putin’s
agenda for threat reduction cooperation. Enriched uranium from the
submarines might be processed into fuel for commercial power plants and
sold, thus partially financing the submarines’ dismantlement.
********
#14
Russia works to improve U.S. relations after war
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - Russia and the United States moved on
Thursday to mend relations strained by the Iraq war ahead of a summit
meeting on June 1 between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S.
President George W. Bush.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov held talks with U.S. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, a day after Ivanov met Bush and
U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and gave Bush a letter from
Putin.
"There are more things that bring us together than questions which divide
us," Putin told Bush in the letter, according to a Kremlin statement.
The statement said Putin's letter was intended to "set out Russia's desire
to develop cooperation with the United States on all levels."
Russia, France and Germany bitterly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
but in Washington, a senior Russian official told reporters on Thursday at
a news conference that it was time to put squabbling over Iraq to rest.
"The most important thing is that the crisis is over," said the official,
who asked not to be identified. He noted that Russia voted along with other
members of the U.N. Security Council on Thursday to support a U.S.-British
push to end economic sanctions on Iraq.
The official said Ivanov discussed issues from Afghanistan to North Korea
in two days of talks with Rumsfeld, Central Intelligence Agency Chief
George Tenet and other top U.S. officials.
The issues also included U.S. non-proliferation concerns over help that
Moscow is providing to Iran in building a planned nuclear power reactor at
Bushehr. But the senior Russian official repeated denials that the reactor
might provide spent nuclear fuel to build nuclear weapons.
He said Moscow will insist that spent fuel for the reactor be returned to
Russia as "a double safeguard" to keep it from being enriched for possible
weapons use.
The Russian official said that differences remained between the two
countries in other areas but they could be worked out.
Russia has announced that it is moving to develop new "strategic" weapons,
but the official said they would not include controversial so-called
"mini-nukes" designed to dig deep and destroy underground bunkers and even
burn up chemical and biological weapons in surface targets. The U.S.
Congress is discussing a Pentagon proposal to resume studying such weapons.
After developing a fairly close personal relationship, Bush and Putin had a
falling out over the Iraq war, with Moscow helping to kill a U.N. Security
Council resolution that would have authorized war against Iraq by
threatening to veto it.
The two men, who discussed the importance of close ties in a telephone call
last Friday, are to meet in St. Petersburg on June 1 as Bush attends
festivities with other world leaders marking the city's 300th anniversary.
U.S. officials see the United States and Russia getting back together much
faster than with France and Germany.
Bush blames French President Jacques Chirac in particular for the failure
to gain passage of a tough U.N. resolution on Iraq and has long been irked
at German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for attacking U.S. Iraq policy.
Bush spoke by phone to Chirac on Air Force One as he flew to his Texas
ranch for a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the call was at Chirac's request
and described it as productive. Bush told Chirac he was looking forward to
a summit in Evian, France, in early June of the leaders of the world's
seven largest industrial democracies plus Russia.
********
#15
Washington Times
May 23, 2003
Envoy hints at Moscow cooperation on missile defense
By David Sands
A senior Russian official yesterday expressed "cautious optimism" that
Moscow and Washington will be able to collaborate on a defensive missile
shield that the Kremlin once violently opposed.
"It is still too early to talk about the prospects for cooperation, but
I can take the risk of expressing very cautious optimism in this regard,"
said the senior Kremlin official, who briefed reporters on background
yesterday at the Russian Embassy here after meetings with President Bush
and senior administration officials this week.
The official said Russian specialists had put several concrete
proposals for missile defense cooperation to their American counterparts,
and "we are hoping for a U.S. response very soon."
The new Russian flexibility on missile defense is a major breakthrough
for the U.S. administration, which had pushed the defensive shield in the
face of widespread international opposition.
The Washington Times reported Wednesday that the White House has issued
a new national security policy directive affirming the U.S. intention to
push for a global missile defense system.
Sharp differences over the war in Iraq strained U.S.-Russian relations
in recent months, but the Russian official was upbeat after his talks that
the rift would not prove lasting.
"The crisis in Russian-American relations — and the broader crisis in
international relations — is over," he said.
Russia, which had extensive political and economic ties to the regime
of Saddam Hussein, joined with France in opposing the U.S.-led military
campaign, and President Vladimir Putin has mocked the failure so far of
U.S. and British forces to find stocks of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq. But both sides have moved to heal the breach with remarkable speed.
The Russian official, the most senior Kremlin official to visit
Washington since the end of the fighting in Iraq, delivered a statement
from Mr. Putin to Mr. Bush saying Moscow was "prepared to develop
cooperation with the United States in all spheres."
"There are many more things that unite us than questions that bring us
apart," said Mr. Putin's message, which was released to Russia's Itar-Tass
news agency.
After initially opposing a U.S.-backed resolution to the U.N. Security
Council lifting economic sanctions on Iraq, Russia yesterday voted in favor
of an amended resolution, having secured more guarantees for its existing
oil contracts and other interests in post-Saddam Iraq.
After considerable delay, the lower house of the Russian parliament
last week approved a nuclear arms reduction treaty first proposed by Mr.
Bush requiring both sides to slash their offensive nuclear stockpiles by
two-thirds.
The Russian official met with Mr. Bush, National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior
administration officials during his three-day Washington visit. Mr. Putin
will host Mr. Bush in St. Petersburg in June, immediately before the Group
of Eight summit in Evian, France.
Moscow's cooperation in the Pentagon's missile defense plan is
conditioned on U.S. promises that the American national missile defense
plan would not be targeted at Russia, that the program not lead to an arms
race in space, and that there would be "full transparency" between the two
capitals as the programs moved ahead.
The Russian official showed little flexibility on Moscow's nuclear ties
to Iran, a subject of sharp criticism by the Bush administration.
The official rejected what he called a "widely accepted myth" that
Russian assistance in building a nuclear power plant for Iran near the city
of Bushehr could help Tehran develop nuclear weapons, saying extensive
bilateral and international safeguards were in place.
"Take my word for it, that's wrong," he said.
********
#16
Vremya Novostei
May 23, 2003
UNITED STATES DOES NOT SEEK TO TAKE OVER RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ARSENALS
An interview with Lynton F. Brooks, US Undersecretary of Energy
Author: Nikolai Poroskov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
AN INTERVIEW WITH LYNTON F. BROOKS, US UNDERSECRETARY OF ENERGY,
CHIEF OF THE NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND AMBASSADOR. HE
DISCUSSES MEASURES BEING PLANNED AND IMPLEMENTED TO PREVENT THE
PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Question: The Nuclear Security Administration is concerned about
the threat of proliferation of nuclear materials from Russia. You
don't think Russia will handle the problem alone, do you?
Lynton F. Brooks: No - it certainly can handle the problem -
Russian scientists and specialists are very gifted. However, the
economic realities of the last several years are such that it will be
difficult for Russia to implement it as fast as it would have liked.
We offered our cooperation because we wanted the job done sooner.
Moreover, our contacts enabled us to get to know each other's methods,
technologies, and technical solutions.
Question: The $443 million allocated within the framework of
nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Russia and other
former Soviet countries. What will this money be used for?
Lynton F. Brooks: Firstly, the US Administration aims to help
Russia stop production of materials that might be used in nuclear
weapons. This March, Russian Nuclear Energy Minister Alexander
Rumyantsev and his American counterpart Spencer Abraham signed an
agreement facilitating construction of facilities that will make
plutonium-producing reactors unnecessary. So as to shut down these
reactors afterwards.
Secondly, we would like the existing nuclear materials protected.
Thirdly, we want to help to destroy the materials that are no longer
needed. To a certain extent, we are doing this by buying from Russia
the uranium extracted from nuclear weapons. It is used in the United
States for industrial purposes. In 2004, we will begin building
facilities in both our countries that will enable each of us to get
rid of 34 tons of plutonium [enough for 8,000 nuclear devices - Vremya
Novostei] extracted from nuclear weapons. There is one other factor
here. We want Russian nuclear physicists employed in business.
Question: And yet the United States is resuming production of
plutonium components for nuclear weapons in Los Alamos; this
production was suspended fourteen years ago. The matter concerns
eighteen detonators for W-88 warheads of the missiles carried by
submarines. That's not very logical, is it?
Lynton F. Brooks: We do not see any paradoxes here. The United
States was the only nuclear state unable to manufacture plutonium
components. And we made this restricted capacity.
Question: The opposition to President Putin in Russia claims that
the United States, using security considerations as a pretext, is
really aiming for control over Russian nuclear facilities, including
silos of the Strategic Missile Forces. Does the United States have
such plans?
Lynton F. Brooks: That's not true. We do not work at Russian
nuclear submarines or ICBM silos. We only work where nuclear materials
or weapons are stored and from where they may be stolen. What we want
is to have the Russian authorities using Russian equipment for better
security of these sites. After all, it is in America's own interests.
Should the materials or weapons be stolen, no one knows where they may
surface or when. Our countries know what terrorist attacks are like.
That is why disarmament programs are underway even when relations
between our countries are marred by discord over something else.
Question: What about the Los Alamos and Livermore program of
building nuclear microbombs or thermonuclear capsules? What is it?
Lynton F. Brooks: We do not have any programs for production of
very small nuclear weapons. There is a program we are formulating as a
search for new concepts, and for which we are requesting some small
sums from Congress. The program offers our scientists a chance to
think, but doesn't entail construction of anything. We do not have any
plans regarding any new kinds of weapons at present.
Question: Let us talk about old ones then. What is the United
States going to do with the warheads removed from missiles under the
recently-ratified Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty? Store them,
or dismantle them? And what do you think of the Russian warheads from
this point of view?
Lynton F. Brooks: The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty
doesn't demand destruction of warheads withdrawn from service. That is
why we firmly believe that Russia should do with the warheads what it
thinks is best. As for what the United States will do... I believe
that some warheads will be stored and other destroyed. The Pentagon
has not yet decided in what quantities.
Question: How do you assess the chances that nuclear weapons may
end up in the hands of terrorists? This is a pet idea of American
scriptwriters, it seems.
Lynton F. brooks: So far as I know, American nuclear weapons are
quite secure. I'm responsible for their storage and I cannot find any
faults with our security measures. We cooperate with Russia as well in
the hope that it keeps its own nuclear arsenals safe and secure too.
Russian colleagues will tell you of the progress made in this sphere
and of what remains to be done yet. As for other nuclear states, I
have no doubts with regard some of them, like Britain. At the same
time, we do not have full information on the situation in other
countries and therefore cannot gauge the risks.
Question: I was impressed by your ideas regarding chronology. The
Cold War gave way to the post-Cold War period - which in its turn
ended on September 11, 2001, when the world entered the era of
terrorism. That was really impressive. How long do you give this era
of terrorism?
Lynton F. Brooks: I do not know how long it will last. It will
probably last as long as terrorists believe that they may use such
methods to promote their objectives. The era will not be long if
countries like Russia and the United States fight terrorism. There has
always been terrorism, but it is particularly destructive nowadays.
This is what my job is about. I have to make sure that this era of
terrorism, regardless of how long it lasts, doesn't become an era of
nuclear terrorism.
And here is an answer to the question you never got around to
asking. My job is made much easier by contacts and cooperation with
Rumyantsev and Abraham. Contacts and cooperation in the sphere of
nuclear security will help us establish long-term and stable relations
between our countries.
*******
#17
The Times (UK)
May 23, 2003
Putin orders the clouds not to rain on his parade
From Clem Cecil in Moscow
PRESIDENT PUTIN has ordered fine weather for the St Petersburg summit and
300th anniversary festivities next week, and it is unlikely to rain on his
parade. Ten aeroplanes will take to the skies, equipped with cloud-seeding
agents in an attempt to induce rain away from the city, allowing
holidaymakers and visiting heads of state to enjoy dry weather below.
Celebrations of the anniversary of Russia’s historic capital and seat of
imperial government a week today will be attended by hundreds of thousands
of visitors. A weekend of festivities will be attended by President Putin,
President Bush, Tony Blair and the leaders of other EU nations.
Vladimir Stepanenko, head physicist of St Petersburg’s Geophysics
Observatory, said: “Our aim is to empty all clouds of rain before they hit
the city borders.” Such practice may strike awe into the heart of every
rain-soaked Brit, but Russians take “cloud-bursting” for granted, having
enjoyed its benefits over public holidays since Stalin gave the order to
research weather control in the 1930s.
Over decades, the observatory in St Petersburg has developed techniques to
dispel clouds, divert hailstorms from harvests, arrest avalanches, disperse
fogs from airports and bring rain to drought-afflicted regions.
The most reliable form of rain prevention is to induce the clouds to rain
before they float over the area under protection. The pilots on board the
cloud-bursters will be directed towards rainclouds by meteorologists on the
ground. On the orders of geophysicists on board the aircraft, dry ice will
be dispensed into the clouds from a mile away. The dry ice is fired in
special pyrotechnic capsules that combust once empty. Once injected with
dry ice, rain crystalises within the cloud and falls ten or fifteen minutes
later.
Approximately one kilogram of dry ice is used for every square kilometre of
rain cloud. Rainclouds will be burst at a safe distance of 30 miles (50km)
outside the city, where locals, used to sudden rain on fine days, will have
their umbrellas ready. But thunderclouds are feared because pilots are by
law forbidden to fly within more than seven miles of them, making it
impossible to seed them with raininducing agents. The aircraft will patrol
the skies until the end of the summit on May 31.
Russia’s first private weather controlling agency, the Atmosphere
Technologies Agency, will be taking part in the delicate operation. It is
hoping for rainclouds. “No rainclouds equals no pay,” Viktor Petrov, the
deputy director, said.
*******
#18
Olympics-Moscow plan bid for 2012 Games
By Gennady Fyodorov
MOSCOW, May 23 (Reuters) - Moscow is to submit a bid for the 2012 Olympic
Games after an unanimous vote by a special assembly of the Russian Olympic
Committee (ROC).
The Russian capital joins New York, Madrid, London, Leipzig, Paris and
Havana as bidders while a Brazilian bid is also expected from either Rio de
Janeiro or Sao Paulo.
Moscow staged the 1980 Games, which were severely affected by a western
boycott following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in the
previous year.
"Russia is a great sports country and the 2012 Games in Moscow could be the
Olympics for all of Russia," ROC president Leonid Tyagachyov told the
assembly. "Therefore, we think Moscow has an excellent chance."
Cities have until July 15 to declare their bids. The hosts will be
announced by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in July 2005.
In a manner reminiscent of the old Soviet days, assembly delegates stepped
one by one on to the podium to praise Moscow's efforts and declare their
support for the city's bid.
Gymnast Alina Kabayeva and ice hockey player Pavel Bure, two of the most
recognisable faces of Russian sports, also gave their approval as they
spoke on behalf of the athletes.
"Our city has great experience in hosting many major international
competitions," Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov said.
"Moscow is home to more than 500 past and present Olympic champions and it
has excellent sports facilities.
"Of course, we should expect a very tough battle with other candidate
cities, of course we could lose, but if we don't throw ourselves into this
fight we will let down the entire nation."
OVERWHELMING SUPPORT
Luzhkov said an overwhelming majority of Russian people also supported
Moscow's bid.
"The only man in Russia who refused to support Moscow's bid was the
country's finance minister," he said. "But we're capable of hosting the
Games without his help."
Moscow first declared its intention to stage the 2012 Games in July 2001
when it hosted the 112th IOC session, which selected Beijing as a host city
for the 2008 Olympics. The 2004 Summer Games will be held in Athens.
Luzhkov said he rated Moscow's chances highly.
"Moscow has a very serious chance," the mayor told Reuters.
"We have a better sports infrastructure than most other candidates,
certainly better than Leipzig, better than London."
Others were more cautious.
"Everybody has a chance," said Sports Minister Vyacheslav Fetisov. "I hear
people say that you don't win on the first try, but outside of Paris no
other candidate has made any previous bid attempts, so we have a chance here."
Vitaly Smirnov, Russia's IOC vice-president, added: "We have a great
chance. Moscow is definitely among the front runners and we should be among
the top three finalists."
However, when asked about security, Luzhkov admitted there was a problem.
"Just like any other major city, we have problems here," he said. "But we
know them and we also know how to deal with them. Therefore, I can
guarantee complete safety for all the competitors, guests and officials."
The city's security arrangements were questioned last October when 129
people died after troops stormed a Moscow theatre seized by Chechen
guerrillas.
********
#19
pravda.ru
May 23, 2003
Starvation to Hit Russia This Fall
Prices for meat and bread to jump before parliamentary elections in Russia
It is a negative tendency that the bread price is going up and meat import
is speedily increasing in the country. A year ago, Russian Agriculture
Minister Alexey Gordeyev couldn't guess what to do with the surplus of
grain because of the record high harvest and even considered his
resignation. But now it seems that the entire of the RF Agriculture
Ministry are preoccupied with the problem of hunger avoidance this autumn.
Russia's food safety is under a serious threat on the eve of parliamentary
and presidential elections.
The other day, Agriculture Minister Alexey Gordeyev has held a governmental
meeting to decide the problem of still increasing prices for bread. Sudden
rise in prices for bakery is reported from different parts of the country,
which seriously troubles the government.
Last year's grain harvest was record high: agricultural producers gathered
86 million tons of grain. Then the Agriculture Ministry proudly declared
that the record harvest of 1913 had been thus broken. Russia was
overstocked with grain; the market grain price started reducing. But it
took a lot of time for the government and the ministry to decide what is to
be done with the unexpected grain surplus. Alexey Gordeyev insisted that
the government should buy up the grain surplus on the domestic market and
sell it abroad. Finally, the government ventured to make such interventions
and realized them within the period of November 2002 v January 2003.
However, those measures were no longer effective: Russian farmers were
already on the verge of bankruptcy and were up to the eyes in debt.
The Agrofact new agency reports, in two months since beginning of the
governmental interventions, 1 ton of grain went up 300 rubles in Russia on
average (14-15%). Finally, the price for 1 ton of 3rd class food wheat went
up to 2,300 rubles.
It is supposed that bread will be worth its weight in gold by autumn in
Russia. Price troubles of this kind are like the 1933 Reichstag fire for
the Russian authorities on the eve of forthcoming elections. As the
electorate of the communist party mostly consists of people living from
hand to mouth, we can imagine how the rating of Russia's leftist parties
and associations may go up. Will the agriculture minister be able to solve
the serious problem before the elections? This is possible only if the
Central Bank will provide him with gold and FOREX reserves for
extraordinary food purchases in the USA and Canada. There are no other
effective measures for solution of the problem.
The situation is also very complicated in Russia's cattle-breeding sector.
Even before the quotas for imported agricultural produce were introduced,
some analysts foretold a critical deficit in meat in the country. The
Agriculture Minister ignored the warning. When the quotas were finally
introduced here, European and American agricultural producers gave up on
Russia and actively started development of new markets. Now we see that the
forecasts prove to be true.
Director of the National Meat Association Sergey Yushin and Chairman of the
Federation Council Committee on Agrarian and Food Policy Ivan Starikov have
raised the alarm on the problem. They held a press-conference to declare
that Russia was threatened with critical meat deficit. They said it was the
Agriculture Ministry and the quotas introduced on imported agricultural
produce that were guilty of the present-day critical situation. The
mechanism of distributing the quotas for imported beef, pork and poultry is
imperfect. As a result, now leading importers of the country don't know how
to bring food to Russia. Some of them turned out to be very smart and
imported a good stock of agricultural produce before the quotas were
introduced. The Agriculture Ministry explains this is the reason why the
meat deficit is not so obvious on the domestic market so far. What is to
happen when the reserve is over? What will be the rise of prices for meat
and sausage?
What is more, the farsight of meat importers has a negative effect upon the
showings of the RF Agriculture Ministry: import of meat in Russia increased
by 60% in March. At that, domestic meat producers have achieved some
progress. The National Meat Association reports that domestic producers
have increased meat production: poultry production went up by 20% and pork
production v by 6%.
Sergey Yushin and Ivan Starikov said, it was planned to import 315,000 tons
of beef, 337,500 tons of pork and 774,000 tons of poultry from the USA
until end of the year. As Russia's old commercial partner, the USA has got
a lion's share of quotas for chicken legs. However, the US poultry industry
is on the decline because of the reduction of export of American chicken
legs to Russia, now it has to seek for new markets.
Some sources report that US chicken legs rejected by Russia will be sent to
post-war Iraq. That is why we can find ourselves in a rather paradoxical
situation some day: when Russia is short of poultry, the USA won't be able
to increase its poultry export immediately.
Kira Poznakhirko
*******
#20
Moscow Times
May 23, 2003
Cabinet Energy Plan Uses a Crystal Ball
By Valeria Korchagina
Staff Writer
The Cabinet on Thursday approved a national energy strategy through 2020
that will act as a blueprint for the ongoing development of what is
currently more than half of the economy.
The thick, 100-page document is short on detail but wide in scope,
envisioning a leaner, meaner country 17 years from now.
In 2020, the nation's gross domestic product is expected to be three times
higher than it was in 2000, while its use of energy will be twice more
efficient.
Oil and gas output and export capacity are expected to continue to grow
steadily over the next 17 years, even as hydrocarbons gradually play a
smaller and smaller role in the economy and a bigger role is played by
nuclear power and coal.
The crystal-ball gazing may be wishful thinking, but it does indicate in
general terms how the country's leadership views the development of its
most prized assets.
A previous attempt to draw up a mere four-year energy strategy, in 1999,
was essentially useless as the energy sector, particularly the oil
industry, simply outran even the most bullish forecasts.
Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov said as much Thursday.
"All existing forecasts have little to do with reality because of the
active development of the fuel and energy sector, which in some years grew
by more than 10 percent," Kasyanov said in a statement posted on the
government's official web site.
"Production volumes are already higher than those that were predicted in
1999."
Nevertheless, the government proceeded Thursday with adopting a strategy
that spans four presidential elections -- providing no changes to the
Constitution are introduced in the meantime -- and decided to officially
assess its progress every year.
The strategy sees gas and electricity tariffs continuing to grow until a
truly free market is eventually introduced by the end of the next decade.
New routes to feed Russian oil and gas to more of the global economy will
be in perpetual development, particularly through the northern part of
European Russia, the Far East and the Black Sea.
Singled out for their energy hunger are North America and the Asian Pacific.
Deputy Prime Minister Viktor Khristenko said a moderate scenario for oil
output growth sees oil production reaching 450 million tons a year by 2010,
compared to 379.6 million tons last year. However, the strategy also
includes an optimistic forecast of 520 million tons per year by 2010.
The document hints that all export routes currently being debated will
eventually be developed -- including competing pipelines from near Lake
Baikal to China and Pacific ports in Russia's Far East -- as well as the
Murmansk port and pipeline project that private oil majors are pushing to
send crude directly to America.
"It is generally a good thing for the state to outline the directions of
development," said Alexei Moiseyev, economist at Renaissance Capital.
Particularly encouraging, he said, was that the government had made
improving energy efficiency a priority, because it lies at the heart of the
economy's competitiveness.
"And given how the economy has dealt with the liberalization of gasoline
prices over past decade, there are no reasons to say that it won't be able
to adapt to higher electricity or gas tariffs," Moiseyev said.
He added, however, that adjusting to higher gas and electricity prices
would be more painful.
While indicating that the state's role in managing the so-called natural
monopolies Gazprom and Unified Energy Systems will be gradually reduced,
the document lacked clarity on a crucial issues -- how the gas market will
be liberalized.
The strategy does, however, call for gas tariffs to be lifted bit by bit
until domestic prices eventually come in line with those in Europe. Whereas
Gazprom is only allowed to charge $21.50 per 1,000 cubic meters now, by
2006 it will be able to charge $40 and by 2010 between $59 and $64.
According to Kaha Kiknavelidze, oil and gas analyst at Troika Dialog, the
lack of clarity on gas market reform is a direct result of infighting
between various government bodies on how the reform should be conducted.
President Vladimir Putin weighed into the discussion earlier this year,
calling Gazprom a national treasure that will not be broken up in the
"immediate future."
"On gas reform the discussion will continue," Kiknavelidze said.
"And on all important problems -- be it the construction of pipelines or
gas market reform -- decisions to take concrete steps will be made on an
individual basis for every specific issue."
*******
#21
New York Times
May 23, 2003
Zeya Journal
The Old Prospector: The Glitter Is in His Eye
By Michael Wines
We had asked only for a demonstration of the art of panning for gold, not
an expedition. But that was a foolish request, and Stepan Pastukhov does
not suffer fools gladly.
"I want to find a place where there is gold," he said, slowly and evenly.
"Otherwise, there is no point."
One does not argue about gold with Stepan N. Pastukhov. Forty-two years of
plodding the Siberian wilderness in search of fresh gold deposits gives him
a certain stature. At age 78, his prospecting skills not only have earned
him a place in history -- the head of the locally famed Vostok I mining
collective in the 1970's and 80's -- but just this week a tribute in
Amurskaya Pravda as the living legend of trackless Amur Province's gold
industry.
Wizened and shaggy-bearded and taciturn, as one imagines an old prospector
ought to be, Mr. Pastukhov seems the sort of man who could turn even a
casual stroll through Amur's birch woods into a heart-thumping quest to
strike it rich.
He could, at least, if prospectors here were allowed to strike it rich. The
truth, however, is that the living legend of trackless Amur Province rakes
in perhaps a thousand dollars in an average year.
This despite the fact that Amur Province, in Russia's Far East, bordering
on China, has gold like Colorado has snow, or Paris has croissants.
A dozen years after capitalism swept in, Russia remains perhaps the only
place on earth where a prospector can hunt for gold with barely a dream of
getting wealthy. Under Communism, of course, that was to be expected:
gold-mining was entirely a state enterprise, and prospectors were organized
into collectives whose goal was to fill the Kremlin's coffers, not their
own pockets.
The Soviet Union fell, and much of big-time gold mining, like the rest of
Soviet industry, fell into the hands of private companies. Today big
British and Canadian concerns are joint-venturing with Russians to blast
ore from deep mines here and grind out flecks of gold from vast mountains
of rock.
But somehow, capitalism never trickled down to aspiring '49ers like Mr.
Pastukhov, rugged individuals who prospect in solitude and would like to
keep their finds to themselves. Under a 1998 law, small-time gold-mining is
still controlled by the collectives, and individual miners are limited to
prospecting on lands the collectives have already abandoned and forced to
sell whatever gold they turn up at steep discounts -- a quarter of the
market price for gold nuggets, Mr. Pastukhov says, and even less for gold
dust.
Not surprisingly, there are not a lot of solitary prospectors. "If it
wasn't interesting," Mr. Pastukhov said in his clipped fashion, "I wouldn't
do it."
Now there are signs that that may change. Thanks largely to pleas from
Amur's government, Russia's Parliament is on the verge of passing new
legislation that would free solitary miners from the collectives' grip.
Which means that Mr. Pastukhov could actually strike it rich at last. In
Amur, a province the size of Montana, experts count at least 3,000 deposits
of placer gold -- gold mixed in sand or dirt, usually in stream beds -- and
say only about 250 are currently being mined, mostly by big waterborne
dredges that scoop up the riverbed.
That leaves plenty of room for prospectors like Mr. Pastukhov, who in
recent years has invited along his son Aleksandr on his treks, which begin
when the ice melts from remote streams in May and end when the snow flies
in October.
During those months, the two vanish into the woods with about two weeks'
worth of supplies, returning only to replenish provisions and sell whatever
gold they have accumulated. Mr. Pastukhov is a true gold panner, working
the streams with a shovel, a hand rake and a v-shaped pan carved from
poplar, much the way it was done in California 150 years ago. If he finds a
productive deposit, he sets up a simple machine to sift the sand, and feeds
it shovels full of riverbed.
The usual take from a long summer of prospecting is a relative pittance of
nuggets and dust, but Mr. Pastukhov has had his moments. Four years ago in
nearby Buryatia, he said, he found a two-pound nugget. But he is unlikely
to become a millionaire anytime soon.
Which is a shame, because he and others say there is gold everywhere around
here. In an effort to prove it, Mr. Pastukhov took a five-minute drive with
his guests this week, stopping at a highway overpass. He climbed out of a
minivan and gazed at a creek below. "There is gold in that river," he
proclaimed.
His instinct, while also legendary, was not at work here. State geologists
estimate the Gulik River holds about 400 kilograms of gold, or nearly 900
pounds, in its rocky bed.
Wearing hip waders and clutching shovel and rake, Mr. Pastukhov clambered
slowly down the slope, searching for what experience told him was the
likeliest place to find the mother lode: not the riverbed, but the dirt
excavated from it to sink the concrete pillars for the overpass.
Not finding it, he moved to a bend where, he said, the current may have
left gold behind. A shovelful of sand and rock plopped into the poplar pan.
Mr. Pastukhov sloshed river water through it for what seemed like ages,
peering at the results like a seer into a crystal ball. Then more water,
more sloshes and, finally, the verdict: "Not even gold dust."
No matter. By the time this is in print, Mr. Pastukhov will be 75 miles
northeast of here, along the piney banks of the Utmuk River, waiting for
word that the Kremlin has signed new gold-mining legislation into law.
"We're preparing documents for independent gold panning," he said. "I know
a good place, and I'm beginning to work there, but with cautiousness,
looking over my shoulder." Heaven forbid, after all, that anyone should
jump his very first claim.
*******
#22
Paul McCartney Visits Russia
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) - Paul McCartney, who ruffled the West when he
co-wrote the Beatles' ``Back in the U.S.S.R.,'' visited Russia, 35 years
after the song's debut.
McCartney and his wife, Heather Mills, attended a ceremony Thursday at the
St. Petersburg Conservatory, Russia's oldest musical institution, where the
60-year-old singer-composer was named an honorary professor.
Despite the conservatory's high-culture aura - luminaries such as Dmitri
Shostakovich studied and taught there - the audience greeted McCartney with
applause as loud and long as any pop star could want.
``Your music showed that there is no music for the elite, but music for
everyone,'' Valentina Matvienko, President Vladimir Putin's regional envoy,
told McCartney.
``Back in the U.S.S.R.'' got strong criticism for its line ``You don't know
how lucky you are boy,'' which many interpreted as extolling the Soviet
system.
McCartney said to visit Russia was ``my dream come true. I heard many
stories of Russia and imagined Russian people being mysterious and cold,
but now I know more.''
*******
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