Johnson's Russia List
#7203
31 May 2003
davidjohnson@erols.co
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. AP: Putin Shows Off Amber Room to Leaders.
2. New York Times: Murray Feshbach, A Country on the Verge.
3. Washington Post: Peter Baker, Putin Losing Momentum on Russian
Domestic Reforms.
4. Interview of the President By RTR TV, Russia.
5. Interfax: Russians' attitude toward U.S. improves - poll.
6. New York Times: Stephen Sestanovich, Restoring U.S.-Russia Harmony.
7. New York Times: Serge Schmemann, Marking Three Centuries of Brilliance
and
Bondage in St. Petersburg.
8. RIA Novosti: MOSCOW EXPECTS NATO TO GUARANTEE THAT OTHER COUNTRIES'
ARMED
FORCES WILL NOT BE LOCATED IN BALTICS.
9. Reuters: EU, Russia meet, go together "like vodka and caviar."
10. Financial Times (UK): Andrew Jack, Russia fears creation of 'new
Berlin Wall'
in EU.
11. U.S.-Russia Business Council delivered to the U.S. Government the
Second
Report of the Russian-American Business Dialogue.
12. Prime-TASS: Audit Chamber sees no budget profit from energy
privatization.
13. RFE/RL Washington: BRIEFING REPORT: Author Says Soviet Collapse Led
To Rise
of Criminality in Russia. (David Satter)
14. Reuters: U.S. says to press Russia over Iran.
15. Chicago Tribune: Alex Rodriguez, Iran to test Bush, Putin anew.
Nuclear aid
to Tehran a thorny topic for leaders' meeting.
16. Asia Times: Hooman Peimani, Why Moscow won't back down. (re Iran)
17. Zygmunt Dzieciolowski: Miss Gulag.
18. Carl Olson: Comment on DOS Fact Sheet on Wrangell/JRL 7198.
19. AP: Communist Party in Iraq Plans Comeback.]
********
#1
Putin Shows Off Amber Room to Leaders
May 31, 2003
By STEVE GUTTERMAN
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) - The leaders of Russia and Germany opened the
recreated Amber Room in a salute to St. Petersburg's 300th anniversary
Saturday, six decades after Nazi troops dismantled the extravagantly
jeweled chamber from a former czarist palace and carted it away.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
led fellow leaders from three continents through the glittering room at the
ornate Catherine Palace. Lined with resplendent amber panels, the room was
crafted with funding from the German natural gas company, Ruhrgas.
``Today we have visited the legendary Amber Room, which was brought back to
life through the mutual effort of Russian craftsmen with the support of
German partners,'' Putin said in a banquet address in a nearby hall, where
an orchestra welcomed guests with a Tchaikovsky waltz.
``This masterpiece has become a symbol of the new relations in the united
family of our greater Europe.''
With three days of summits and ceremonies, Putin is using St. Petersburg's
tricentennial celebrations to underline Russia's connection with Europe.
The city - whose historic treasures have been restored for the occasion -
was founded by Peter the Great in 1703 and became a symbol of imperial
Russia's powerful place in Europe and the world.
``It is precisely here, in St. Petersburg, that it becomes clear that
Russia, both historically and culturally, is an inseparable part of
Europe,'' Putin told his luncheon guests.
He then raised a toast to ``European solidarity, to the good fortune of the
peoples of all our countries, and to the health of all people present.''
The original Amber Room, a gift from Prussia to the czar, vanished after
World War II and has since ignited imaginations and a series of treasure
hunts. The new room - which will be open to the public in June - is a
painstaking recreation, for which artisans used prewar photos to model the
panels of ornately carved amber that line the 26-foot-high walls.
Also Saturday, Putin hosted leaders of current and future European Union
states at the Konstantin Palace, another czarist-era structure that was
restored from a dilapidated state. Putin, a St. Petersburg native, showed
EU leaders a film about the palace's $300 million restoration.
He stressed his view of Russia as a full-fledged European country by
pushing his ambitious call for visa-free travel between Russia and the EU,
unthinkable when the Iron Curtain divided the continent 15 years ago.
St. Petersburg declined during the decades of rule by the communists, who
took over Russia in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and moved the capital
back to Moscow, the seat of Russian power before Peter. The tricentennial
has occasioned a huge effort to buff up the city's architectural treasures,
but much of its infrastructure is obsolete and it faces severe shortages of
housing and investment in public services.
Putin was set to make a speech on the Neva waterfront Saturday evening
before taking leaders to Peterhof, another grandiose palace outside the
city, for dinner and a concert mixing music with a water show. Peterhof is
famous for its cascade of fountains.
Putin is to meet Sunday with President Bush for a brief summit. They are
expected to try to invigorate relations between the two countries after
sharp disagreement over the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
At a news conference Saturday, Putin expressed gratitude to Bush for what
he said were compromises on the latest U.N. resolution on Iraq, saying it
``essentially put the problem under the aegis of the United Nations.''
Russia has pushed hard for a central U.N. role in postwar Iraq.
********
#2
New York Times
May 31, 2003
A Country on the Verge
By MURRAY FESHBACH (FESHBACH@georgetown.edu)
Murray Feshbach, a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, is author of ``Russia's Health and Demographic Crises.''
WASHINGTON
President Bush and President Vladimir Putin of Russia will have much to
discuss when they sit down in St. Petersburg today: Iraq, terrorism,
nuclear arsenals, NATO expansion. It is vital, however, that they also
address Russia's mounting health crisis.
As Mr. Putin has pointed out in two of his four state of the union
messages, Russia faces shocking demographic trends. For every 10 babies
born, 17 Russians die. The government predicts that the population will
decrease 30 percent to 40 percent by 2050. And even these dismal figures
may be too optimistic, as they are based on Western European models of
public health and not the Russian reality of widespread substance abuse and
tuberculosis and pending AIDS epidemics.
Although Russia's H.I.V. problem, for example, doesn't now compare to a
country like Botswana with its 20 percent infection rate, we are seeing
some cities with 5 percent of adult men infected, meaning cases in women
will soon rise and the country may well follow the African pattern.
How bad are things? Take a look at a few statistics and projections from
the Russian government, international health groups and Russian experts:
Population. Today: 145 million. 2050 estimate: 101 million.
Fertility. Today: 1.25 children per woman. 2050 estimate: 1.6 to 1.75 per
woman. (2.15 children per woman are needed to maintain a population.)
H.I.V. cases. Today: the official Russian figure is 240,000; the United
Nations AIDS organization estimates 750,000 to 1.2 million. 2020 estimate:
5.3 million to 14.5 million.
AIDS deaths. Total to date: 593. 2010 estimate: 72,000 to 120,000 each
year. 2020 estimate: 252,000 to 648,000 each year.
Deaths by alcohol poisoning. 1991: 16,100. 2001: 41,100.
Tuberculosis cases. Today: the official Russian estimate is 135,000; the
World Health Organization estimates 196,000.
Tuberculosis deaths in 2001. Russia: 29,000. United States: 781.
Heart disease (deaths per 100,000 people in 2001). Russia: 893. United
States: 352.
Current life expectancy. Russian men average 58.2 years, women 72 years.
American men average 74 years, women 79 years.
Odds that a man will live to age 60. Russia: 55 percent. United States: 88
percent.
President Bush's $15 billion AIDS package for Africa and the Caribbean is
welcome, but Americans should recognize that the difficulties Russia faces
may be almost as great. And the Russian deterioration may come with greater
consequences. Epidemics invite chaos, and that's the last thing we want in
a struggling democracy with huge arsenals of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons.
How can we help? Russia needs money and outside experts to analyze its
problems, educate officials and train health workers. England, Japan and
the Scandinavian countries have been assisting as well, and could do more.
By 2020, the Russian AIDS program will need $28.5 billion for medications
alone. Of course, this aid could be made contingent on Russia being more
accurate and forthcoming with its health statistics — China's SARS cover-up
was a warning of how important transparency on diseases is in our
interconnected world.
The Bush administration is certainly aware of Russia's condition —
Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly brought up Russia's skyrocketing
AIDS rates with officials in Moscow earlier this month. At today's summit
meeting, Mr. Bush can start turning that concern into a commitment.
********
#3
Washington Post
May 31, 2003
Putin Losing Momentum on Russian Domestic Reforms
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
MOSCOW -- Although President Vladimir Putin emerged from the Iraq crisis
with his popular standing intact, disillusionment has grown within the
Russian political establishment over his inability or unwillingness to turn
his strength into meaningful change at home.
Putin's staunch opposition to the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein
resonated with the Russian public, but the domestic reforms that once
seemed so promising appear to have stalled. As he hosts President Bush and
dozens of other world leaders in St. Petersburg this weekend to show off
Russia's refurbished "window to the West," Putin has found it easier to
renovate buildings than a country.
Some political leaders and analysts already have begun comparing his tenure
to the lethargic rule of Leonid Brezhnev in the 1970s and early 1980s, a
period of suspended animation and economic drift that ultimately led to the
disintegration of the Soviet Union less than a decade later.
"This is a new stagnation period," said Boris Nemtsov, a leading reformer
and head of the Western-oriented Union of Right Forces political party,
using the word associated with Brezhnev. "Russia lost a big opportunity.
All of the reforms stopped, including military, including tax, including
bureaucracy reform. . . . Sometimes I feel like we're living with Brezhnev
again."
Even some Putin allies concede his administration has lost steam and
console themselves with the prediction that he will be freer to do more in
his next term should he win reelection in March, as is widely expected. In
effect, even in this sympathetic analysis, Putin's drive to Westernize
Russia will remain frozen for at least 10 months.
"It's not stagnation," said Dmitri Rogozin, a parliamentary committee
chairman and Putin supporter. "Putin was waging counterrevolution,
stabilization of the regime, calming down the passions. Of course there is
none of the energy that usually accompanies a revolution, but there
shouldn't be any energy at this point in time. At the same time, if there
is no energy in his second term, that would be a real drama."
The meeting this weekend in St. Petersburg comes at a time of profound
choices for Putin: Will he repair the rift with the Americans or will he
solidify the entente with France and Germany forged out of mutual
opposition to the invasion of Iraq? Will he continue to push Russia toward
a genuine Western-style market economy, or will he resign himself to the
inertia that has bogged down the post-Communist transformation?
The shift toward "old Europe" and away from the United States in recent
months has sparked debate about just where Putin is taking Russia
internationally. While some push him to seize the moment and lead a
European axis to rival U.S. hegemony, others believe that Russia's future
ultimately lies with the United States.
"We will have to find our real place," said Vladimir Lukin, a former
ambassador to Washington, who said he thought Putin should position Russia
as the go-between. "We have a chance to be not a splitter but the
middleman, a kind of mediator in the Euro-Atlantic split."
Putin came to power in 2000 as the successor to the mercurial Boris Yeltsin
and immediately set about restoring a degree of order after a decade of
economic and political upheaval. Along the way he demonstrated an
authoritarian streak, effectively seizing control of the nation's
television networks, hounding defiant tycoons out of the country,
reinvigorating security agencies and prosecuting a brutal and still
unsuccessful war in the separatist southern republic of Chechnya.
But Putin also has embraced Western-style economic reforms, and early in
his presidency he advanced more reforms eliminating the vestiges of the
U.S.S.R. than did his revolutionary predecessor. He pushed through a land
code legalizing the sale of property, a labor code giving businesses more
control over the workforce, a tax code establishing a single flat rate and
a court system expanding the use of juries and curbing prosecutors' power.
Once an economic basket case, Russia has rebounded largely on the strength
of its oil industry. The gross domestic product has grown 20 percent in
three years, real incomes have risen 32 percent, the government has paid
off a quarter of its foreign debt, infant mortality has fallen and for the
first time in a half-century Russia has gone from being a grain importer to
an exporter.
The decisive moment seemed to have come after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
on the United States, when Putin firmly placed himself in the pro-American
camp and enlisted in Bush's war on terrorism, a move seen as a seismic
shift for Russia. Yet in the past few months he broke with Bush to join
France and Germany in blocking U.N. endorsement of the invasion of Iraq.
Meanwhile, Putin lost momentum at home in pushing major structural reforms
and has taken to blaming his own government for failing to make more progress.
Putin's annual speech to parliament this month was a scathing critique of
how far Russia had not come in the past three years. The economy remains
"unreliable and very weak," the instruments of state power "ineffective"
and most industry "not competitive," he declared.
Yet as he called for doubling the gross domestic product in 10 years and
making Russia a "great power" again, he offered little in the way of
concrete plans.
Heading into a weekend when he will host not only Bush but also German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Chinese President Hu Jintao and dozens of
other leaders before heading to France for the summit of the Group of Eight
industrial powers, Putin has economic incentive to move closer to Europe --
given that it represents 50 percent of Russia's trade.
To truly revamp his economy, however, Putin needs American help, analysts
contend, and so officials say he will seek to paper over the differences
with Bush on Iraq. Bush seems ready to reciprocate. In a recent speech,
U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said the U.S.-Russian schism over Iraq
was "a bump in the road, but we are putting that behind us."
"Russia faces a choice of getting closer to the Western security structures
or remaining isolated," said another senior U.S. official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity. "And the issue is which Western security structures
Russia wants to grow closer to: a U.S.-led NATO or the
Luxembourg-Belgium-France-Germany alliance? If you really want to ally with
Luxembourg, I guess that's up to you."
Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute for U.S.A. and Canada Studies in
Moscow, sees it differently. During the Iraq crisis, he said, Putin
positioned himself squarely in the international mainstream.
"On balance, Putin is trying to keep an evenhanded relationship with the
U.S., with Europe, with China, and he has been pretty successful," Rogov
said. "He's avoiding conflicts he cannot win."
One conflict he stands likely to win will be the upcoming elections. The
first test will be in the December balloting for the State Duma, the lower
house of parliament. Although Putin already dominates the Duma, the
Kremlin-backed United Russia party wants to smash stubborn Communist
opposition.
The presidential election follows in March, and Putin so far faces no
serious threat. Nemtsov, who harbors presidential ambitions, said he would
decide whether to run after seeing Duma election results; Communist leader
Gennady Zyuganov, a two-time losing candidate, recently said the same.
Analysts suspect that liberal leader Grigory Yavlinsky, another two-time
contender, is angling instead for a cabinet job.
"There's nobody else," said Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor
and longtime observer of Russian politics. "There is no credible
alternative to him. Everybody talks about 2008."
With everything seemingly frozen until the vote, reformers have grown
disenchanted with Putin. "He's thinking only about the elections," said
Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent member of the Duma. "That's why he takes
everything very carefully. . . . But there's a saying in life: If you don't
move forward, you move back."
Correspondent Sharon LaFraniere contributed to this report.
*******
#4
Interview of the President By RTR TV, Russia
WASHINGTON, May 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The following are remarks by the
President in an interview by RTR TV, Russia:
The Library
2:36 P.M. EDT
Q Let me start with the people's question. In my country, for many
people, America is associated first and foremost with the U.S. dollar. You
bring the muscle. What's going on? Is it going to stay as weak as it is
now? And what's your forecast?
THE PRESIDENT: The policy of my administration is for there to be a strong
U.S. dollar.
Q Which is not at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I understand that. And the marketplace is making
decisions as to whether the dollar should be strong or not. Our policy is
a strong dollar. And we believe that good fiscal and monetary policy will
cause our economy to grow and that the marketplace will see a growing
economy and therefore strengthen the dollar.
But you're right, the market, at this point in time, has devalued the
dollar, which is contrary to our policy.
Q You're not going to launch a separate dollar for the vendor states and
a separate dollar internationally, because there was a rumor like that.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No, forget that, no, we're not going to do that.
Q Tell me about rumors. Is there any seriousness behind today's press
reports that America's next target is Iran and that your armed forces are
going to use bases in the former Soviet republics Azerbaijan and Armenia?
THE PRESIDENT: We've had all kinds of reports that we're going to use
force in Syria. And now some on the left, I guess, are saying force in
Iran or force here and force there. You know, it's pure speculation. And
we used force in Iraq after a long, long period of diplomacy. Remember, I
was a person that went to the United Nations on September the 12th in 2002
and said, let's work together. And we got a resolution out of the United
Nations.
Q The 1441.
THE PRESIDENT: Fourteen-forty-one. Then we tried to get a second
resolution, which obviously was a stalemate. We never had a vote. And
then -- but the point was, is that I tried everything we could do
diplomatically to bring about a common solution in dealing with Saddam
Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.
And so, you know, people love to speculate about U.S. intentions and our
military. And I'm just telling you it's idle speculation.
Q Coming back to the U.S. role. Now that the war in Iraq is over, there
is still a new twist in this discussion about America's role, a natural
leader or a self-proclaimed leader which enforces its --
THE PRESIDENT: A natural leader.
Q Natural leader.
THE PRESIDENT: Emerging in Iraq, you're talking about the leadership of
Iraq? Yes, the Iraqi people are plenty capable of picking their own
leadership. There's a lot of work to do to create the conditions necessary
for a smooth political process.
And the first thing is to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. I mean,
make sure they've got food and electricity and water and sewer. And in
many parts of the country, life is improving. Baghdad is difficult.
Baghdad -- the security is tough in Baghdad because --
Q Did you expect anything like that?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. I mean, this is a country that had been enslaved for
years by Saddam Hussein. And as we're discovering through the mass graves
all around the countryside, he used torture and killing to stay in power.
And, therefore, it's not surprising that after -- I forget how many days
we've been there, 70 or 80 days -- that democracy hasn't sprung forth yet.
It's going to take a while to improve conditions and it's going to take a
while to take care of the security issues within Baghdad. But life is
improving, and that's what's important.
Q Now that you're going to Russia, last time, I remember, when you were
planning your first trip you read Dostoyevsky. Now you read Dostoyevsky,
you've dealt with Mr. Putin, what are your expectations now? Are you going
to try anything in Russia, in the sense of a new political initiative, or
maybe taste something new?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I tell you, I think -- first of all, I'm looking
forward to going to St. Petersburg for my third time since I've been the
President. It's a fantastic city. And Vladimir kindly invited Laura and
me to go to the 300th anniversary of the city. And we're looking forward
to it.
I think the most important thing that will come out the meetings with
Vladimir Putin is the world will see that even though we had some
disagreement, on Iraq that we're willing to continue to work together for
the good of our respective countries, as well as world peace.
Secondly, there will be a strategic -- a formal strategic dialogue
established, not only between Vladimir and me, but throughout our
bureaucracies, our different agencies, so that the Russian people and the
American people know that we're working in concert to work on common
opportunities, as well as to deal with problems before they become acute.
Q Now that you've dealt with Putin, read Dostoyevsky, have been to St.
Petersburg three times, do you think you understand Russia better than you
did in the past, or what's your notion?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all Russia is a fantastic country with a
great history. And I'm learning -- I'm understanding the Russian mentality
a little better. I will certainly not be an expert. I fortunately do have
experts on my staff, starting with Condoleezza Rice, who has lived in
Russia, studied Russia, understands Russia well.
My main focus has been to deal with Vladimir Putin leader to leader.
Because I firmly believe that if we can establish trust between each other,
then we can see to it that others in our administration begin to trust each
other more. And trust is an important concept.
I never forget my first question I was asked, after having met Vladimir
Putin in Slovenia, was from an enterprising U.S. reporter. He said, do you
trust Vladimir Putin? And I, without hesitating, said, yes. And he said,
how do you know? I said, I looked in his eyes and saw his soul.
We had just come from a very long conversation where we talked about family
matters and we talked about our own personal lives. And I found in
Vladimir a very genuine person, somebody with whom I could place my trust.
And that doesn't mean we agree on every issue, don't get me wrong. But it
does mean that we have the platform necessary to have good, positive
relations so we can move our relations throughout our government forward.
Q Mr. President, thank you so much, indeed. Have a nice trip to Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm looking forward to it.
SOURCE White House Press Office
*******
#5
Russians' attitude toward U.S. improves - poll
MOSCOW. May 30 (Interfax) - About 46% of Russians have a positive attitude
toward the United States and 44% do not approve of the country, according
to a May poll.
In March, these figures were 38% and 55%, respectively.
The survey conducted by the All Russian Center for Public Opinion
Studies showed that 39% of Russians consider relations between Moscow and
Washington "normal," 8% "good neighborly" and 5% "friendly."
At the same time, 31% of those polled described them as "tepid," 11%
"strained" and 1% "hostile."
More than one-third of Russians (35%) said that the June 1 meeting
between the Russian and U.S. presidents will have a positive outcome. Five
percent voiced the opposite opinion.
Meanwhile, most respondents (45%) said they do not expect any
breakthroughs from this meeting and 15% were undecided.
A total of 1,600 people took part in the survey.
*******
#6
New York Times
May 31, 2003
Restoring U.S.-Russia Harmony
By Stephen Sestanovich
The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a
professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University. He was U.S.
ambassador at large for the former Soviet Union from 1997 to 2001.
When President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in St.
Petersburg tomorrow, there can be no heady claims, like last year's, that
the two countries are "quasi-allies." Their clash over Iraq has re-created
the very relationship that both presidents took office wanting to end. Bush
and Putin may, of all things, be turning back into Bill Clinton and Boris
Yeltsin.
In the 1990s, Russian and U.S. leaders found different ways to sustain a
partnership that too often fell short of expectations. President Clinton
always wanted to "turn the page" -- look beyond the disagreement of the
moment to a time when Russia's interests and ours would converge. For his
part, Yeltsin wanted to avoid looking subservient by denouncing the United
States whenever it used force -- knowing that when the next summit rolled
around it would be good old "Bill and Boris" again.
Bush and his advisers called the Clinton approach "happy talk." Now, after
Iraq, they have an equally cheerful idea: "Forgive" Russia and rebuild
relations. Putin also disdained his own predecessor's policy, viewing the
intemperate Yeltsin style as a sign of weakness. But critics insist that
Putin's handling of Iraq amounts to the same thing -- futile opposition to
the United States and nothing to show for it.
What both presidents aspire to re-create, of course, is the U.S.-Russian
harmony that followed Sept. 11, 2001. White House officials remember the
elation they felt on discovering there was someone in the Kremlin ready
and, more important, able to "join the West." As for Russia, the war on
terrorism offered a new formula for relations with Washington: For the
first time since the end of the Cold War, it could join a U.S.-led
coalition as an equal partner.
Recovering this moment will be difficult; neither side's expectations have
held up well. After Sept. 11, the core American premise was that Putin
could and would deliver meaningful cooperation. Since then he has done so
only in cases where the United States could be satisfied with minimal
Russian agreement. From launching the war in Afghanistan to establishing a
military presence in Central Asia and Georgia, from terminating the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to inviting the Baltic states into NATO, the
Bush administration has needed little more than Putin's grudging assent.
On issues where the United States wanted more active Russian help, it has
not gotten it. Iran and North Korea are conspicuous examples. Russia's
see-no-evil stance has been that its nuclear relations with Tehran were
purely commercial and that it had no hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear
weapons program. A recent visit to Iran by International Atomic Energy
Agency inspectors has shaken this claim, and Russian officials are backing
away from it. But they still reportedly resist the idea that their own
relations with Iran should be scaled back. As with North Korea, the Russian
answer to a growing proliferation crisis is to label it an American
problem: Call us when it's fixed, and we'll give our grudging assent.
"Forgiving" Russia, in short, means returning to issues like these, on
which Moscow and Washington are far apart. American demands for more
supportive Russian policies are growing. Confidence that Putin will offer
such support is not.
As for Putin, his own post-Sept. 11 goals have been shaken, too. A year
ago, cooperating with the United States against common threats seemed a way
of enlarging Russia's international role. It made Putin look strong and
important. Tangling with the United States over Iraq has had the opposite
effect. By making the containment of American power his test of success,
Putin has, like Yeltsin, made cooperating with the United States look like
proof of failure. In this way, he has squandered the opening that Sept. 11
gave him.
Both Bush and Putin face reelection campaigns next year, and they may spend
the time between now and then pretending to rebuild their old amity. But
they should heed the lessons of the 1990s. People won't believe
presidential rhetoric about improving cooperation unless there's something
to it. If there isn't, the air gradually goes out of the balloon.
Neither Bush nor Putin should see electoral pressures as an obstacle to
achieving better results. For both of them, good policy can be good
politics. Putin can begin to restore his reputation for strong leadership
by repositioning Russia on any of several stalemated issues. If he fears
the appearance of helping the United States against Iran, then why not
reshape the debate by starting to talk about how Iran has deceived Russia?
Why not leapfrog the issue of Iraqi debt and propose a radical cut in what
Russia wants to be repaid? (This is where he'll end up anyway.) Why not
give Russia's listless Middle East diplomacy a jolt (and maybe even
invigorate the "road map") by announcing that Russia too will cease to deal
with Yasser Arafat? Putin has played a weak hand badly -- why not start
playing it well?
What Bush needs to do is quite different. Russians admit that they have
underestimated the impact of Sept. 11 on American thinking, but it's not
their fault alone. The Bush administration has not helped potential allies
to understand its outlook and direction, and without such understanding,
friendly governments fear they will look as though they are being led
around by the nose. Bush and Putin have reportedly agreed to create a forum
for strategic discussion, chaired by their own senior advisers rather than
by their foreign ministers. Both sides desperately need high-level contact;
even more, they need high-level content. Such a forum will increase
confidence only if the United States has something to say.
What Bush and Putin have to do will be hard. There is this, and perhaps
only this, reason to hope for success: Serving both sides' real interests
just by pretending will be harder still.
********
#7
New York Times
May 31, 2003
Marking Three Centuries of Brilliance and Bondage in St. Petersburg
By SERGE SCHMEMANN
As President Bush and other world leaders descend on St. Petersburg to help
President Vladimir Putin celebrate the city's tricentennial (and to help
his re-election campaign), their canned speeches are certain to contain
lots of references to a "window into Europe." That, according to Alexander
Pushkin, was what Peter the Great had in mind when he decreed a new capital
in the swampy delta of the Neva and gave it a Dutch name,
"Sankt-Piterburkh" (it was Russified to Petrograd only in World War I).
And that is what Mr. Putin, a native Petersburger, wants his visitors to
believe — that he is planting his Russia firmly in the West. The St.
Petersburg he wants them to see is a medley of Baroque palaces created by
European architects along the granite-sheathed canals and on the great
Neva. He wants them to see a city in which the endless onion domes, listing
log houses and massive fortifications of Mother Russia are replaced by
Germanic spires, English gardens, Italian facades and French boulevards. He
wants them to see the extraordinary art of the Hermitage, the brilliant
stage of the Mariinsky and the meticulously rebuilt Amber Room, and thereby
to extinguish the thought that Russia is backward, barbaric or different.
Nu, da, as the Russians would say with a skeptical shrug. They love their
"Piter" glittering in the white nights of summer, but they also know its
dank, oppressive Baltic winters. They are drawn to the brilliance, but
aware of the cruelty, godlessness, despotism and extravagance of a city
built on the bones of 10,000 slaves. Since its creation it has been a
soulless, cold Western rival to the ancient Orthodox bastion of Moscow.
Russia's greatest artists have found themselves alternatively enchanted and
repulsed by this unnatural creation, straddling the fault line of East and
West, but part of neither.
Pushkin's celebrated hymn to the city, "The Bronze Horseman," opens with a
declaration of love: "I love you, Peter's great creation. The solemn grace
of your design, the Neva with its flow majestic, the granite of its stern
confines." But then the focus shifts abruptly to a minor official, crazed
by the loss of everything he owns and chased through the streets by the
monumental equestrian statue of Peter the Great, which gives the poem its
name. That image of Petersburg as heartless oppressor threads throughout
Russian literature. Dostoyevsky's Petersburg spawns murderous greed in
"Crime and Punishment"; it is the icy and soulless husband that Tolstoy's
Anna Karenina abandons. Gogol's Petersburg is demonic and parasitic:
"Russia needs Moscow, Petersburg needs Russia." The wartime poet Anna
Akhmatova invoked a "granite city of glory and misfortune." For many of
them, Piter became the embodiment of the state, both glorious and
oppressive, capable of inspiring passionate devotion or inflicting
unbearable suffering.
So is it different now? Can this new leader from Petersburg really nudge
Russia westward? It is instructive to remember that Mr. Putin is the
political descendant of two men who both gave their names to his native
city, Peter and Lenin. Both were despots obsessed with transforming Russia,
and both looked to the West for the tools — Peter for the technology, Lenin
for the ideology. But their opening to the West was never the end, only the
means to an end. They took what they needed, then did their best to seal
the window shut.
Mr. Putin is obviously not in the same league, not in ambition and
certainly not in potential. Russia is also not what it was, and no firewall
can block the cultural invasion of the West. Yet that unending Russian
struggle to define an identity between the bourgeois, dynamic West and the
patriarchal, Asiatic East has become even more wrenching with the collapse
of empire and ideology. And the rise of another leader from St. Petersburg
has thrust that haunting northern city back onto the front line of the
struggle for Russia's future and its soul.
That makes it the perfect venue for Mr. Bush and the others. It will be
good for them to be reminded of the brilliance and grandeur that Russia is
capable of when her star is high, and it is proper for them to encourage
Mr. Putin and his lieutenants in their outreach to the West. But when they
invoke that "window into Europe," they would also do well to recall the
context in which Pushkin put it, which was to "gall our haughty neighbor."
Or, in the far less elegant phrase Peter liked to repeat, "We need Europe
for a few decades, then we must show it our backside."
*******
#8
MOSCOW EXPECTS NATO TO GUARANTEE THAT OTHER COUNTRIES' ARMED FORCES WILL
NOT BE LOCATED IN BALTICS
MOSCOW, MAY 31 (RIA Novosti) - Moscow expects NATO to provide definite
guarantees that no other countries' armed forces will be located in the
Baltic states, the Russian Foreign Ministry's official spokesman Alexander
Yakovenko stated in his interview with RIA Novosti in the light of the
Russia-NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting scheduled to take place on June
3rd-4th in Madrid.
According to him, Moscow "continues to bring to NATO's attention its
concerns about a possibility of military aftermath of the alliance's
expansion." Yakovenko pointed out that Moscow was "aware of the statements
made by political leaders of a number of NATO and Baltic countries on their
adherence to military restraint principles." "We expect our partners to
make practical steps to ratify the adopted Treaty on Conventional Forces in
Europe," Yakovenko pointed out.
Moscow believes the upcoming meeting of the Russia-NATO Council between the
Foreign Ministers in Madrid "will become a crucial military event
strengthening new relations between Russia and NATO," the Rome declaration
reads.
Madrid will also host a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. According to Yakovenko, the Council can
play a certain part in creating security architecture jointly with other
European institutions, such as the OSCE, Council of Europe and the European
Union.
The full text of Alexander Yakovenko's interview in available free at
www.rian.ru.
*******
#9
EU, Russia meet, go together "like vodka and caviar"
By Clara Ferreira-Marques
ST PETERSBURG, Russia, May 31 (Reuters) - Russia and the European Union
trod carefully around their differences in a summit on Saturday, barely
touching on the thorny question of Chechnya and failing to reach a deal on
visa-free travel.
"We have a very strong partnership," European Commission President Romano
Prodi said after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "I told
Vladimir that now we are like vodka and caviar."
Diplomats had predicted the meeting, held during a weekend of lavish
festivities for the 300th anniversary of Russia's second city, could be
spoilt by EU pressure over rebel Chechnya and internal disagreements over
the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
But in the end, Moscow and the 15-nation bloc -- joined by the 10 mainly
ex-communist states set to become the European Union's newest members --
glossed over past rifts.
There had been doubt the two sides would reach a joint statement after
talks -- a key gesture to show agreement.
European leaders, which used to routinely take Russia to task over
Chechnya, did little to spoil the gathering by putting Putin on the spot
over the issue.
Instead, the leaders welcomed a Kremlin-backed constitutional referendum in
March which has anchored the separatist region within Russia. Chechen
rebels dismiss the poll, a personal victory for Putin, as a political farce.
"We encourage Russia to continue its sustained efforts towards a political
settlement," Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis said during the talks at
the lavishly restored Konstantinovsky Palace outside St Petersburg.
"The voting for the referendum combined with the granting of amnesties are
important steps in this direction," Simitis said. Greece currently holds
the EU's rotating six-month presidency.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the March referendum "a very
important step forward."
A final joint statement included a vaguely worded call for human rights to
be protected in the region and condemned "any kind of violence, in
particular terrorist acts."
But it contained no direct criticism of Russian conduct in separatist
Chechnya, ignoring demands by rights groups before the meeting for EU
countries to take Moscow to task over abuses there.
RIFT OVER VISAS
But leaders did not agree on one of the issues closest to Russia's heart --
visa-free travel across Europe.
"The aim of our political responsibility is the quickest elimination of all
barriers to the movement of people which today divide into millions of
Russians and Europeans," Putin said in his speech.
Putin only won agreement to hold further talks on the issue.
European states worry that the end of visas would mean a flood of
job-hunting immigrants from Russia and Central Asia.
The EU, in turn, failed to secure a specific date for Russia's ratification
of the U.N. Kyoto accord on global warming. Under a complex weighting
system, the treaty's fate hangs on whether or not Russia will back the pact.
"The EU is confident Russia will ratify before the (Moscow) climate
conference in September," Prodi said. "If we delay our agenda we undermine
our credibility."
*******
#10
Financial Times (UK)
May 30, 2003
Russia fears creation of 'new Berlin Wall' in EU
By Andrew Jack in St Petersburg
The European Union's Schengen system, which allows passage through EU
countries without border checks, risks creating a new "Berlin Wall", one of
Russia's
top diplomats warned yesterday.
Vladimir Chizhov, deputy foreign minister in charge of EU relations, said
visa-free travel between Russia and the EU should be introduced over the
next few
years.
He fears Russians will face travel restrictions even greater than they did
during Soviet times when former eastern bloc countries join the EU next May.
In an interview with the FT on the eve of the EU-Russia summit in St
Petersburg today, he called for the adoption of a "road map" with the
objective of
passport-only travel within five years.
He conceded that Russia needed to improve border co-operation and step up its
fight against illegal immigration and organised crime. But he stressed that
only 3.5 per cent of "Russians" detained within the EU as illegal immigrants
were Russians rather than citizens from other former Soviet states.
He said a first step should be made through granting multiple entry visas for
diplomats, students and those in cultural and scientific exchanges.
"These countries [former eastern bloc nations] have small economies for the
EU, but for us they represent 15 per cent of our trade."
Moscow's visa-free travel objective is supported by some countries in the
European Union such as Germany, but strongly resisted by a number of Russia's
closer neighbours. These include Finland, which faces problems along its
border
with Russia.
Mr Chizhov also called for the EU to respond to Russia's recent attempts to
increase political dialogue, including the nomination of a cabinet-level
official as EU ambassador and representatives from other government
departments in
Brussels.
He proposed more regular involvement in the committee of permanent
representatives, for example.
"There is a need to upgrade mechanisms" of political contact, he said,
arguing that dealing with Eurocrats was like "facing a wall not of concrete
but of
cotton wool".
EU officials argue that the existing 1994 partnership and co-operation
agreement sets out adequate mechanisms for dealing with Russia, which has
failed to
implement it fully. Mr Chizhov argued that the EU was also in breach of some
aspects.
*******
#11
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003
From: Kevin Hessberg
Subject: USRBC Press Release
PRESS RELEASE
RABD Report to President Bush and President Putin
Today, the U.S.-Russia Business Council (USRBC) delivered to the U.S.
Government the Second Report of the Russian-American Business Dialogue
(RABD). Endorsed by the two presidents during the July 2001 Genoa summit,
the RABD serves as a business-led initiative, aimed at strengthening
U.S.-Russian commercial relations.
The Report will be presented to President Bush and President Putin during
their Summit in St. Petersburg in June.
The Report updates the First RABD Report presented to the Presidents last
May, and in addition to identifying the considerable progress made by both
the private and public sectors in diminishing bilateral trade and
administrative barriers and improving the business environment, it
specifies several areas that need to be addressed by both governments.
Issues range from general administrative concerns, such as the need for
addressing significant visa problems in both the U.S. and Russia; to more
specific problems, such as the need for IPR-related judicial training and
enforcement in Russia. The RABD urges the leadership of both countries to
provide still stronger political backing of the fast growing bilateral
business cooperation between two private sectors.
A full copy of the Report is available at www.usrbc.org
.
For more information about the Russian-American Business Dialogue or the
U.S.-Russia Business Council (USRBC), please contact
Svetlana Minjack at the U.S.-Russia Business Council
sminjack@usrbc.org; tel. 202-739-982.
********
#12
Russia: Audit Chamber sees no budget profit from energy privatization
Prime-TASS
Moscow, 29 May: The privatization of a considerable part of Russia's energy
sector companies has not lead to an increase in revenues for the federal
budget, Russia's Audit Chamber said today.
The chamber's board considered the results of a financial check-up of natural
monopolies last week.
The chamber's auditors came to the conclusion that the privatization of
energy sector companies does not lead to more effective functioning or bring
additional revenues to the budget.
For example, the analysis of the sale of the Eastern Oil Company showed that
the federal budget failed to receive from 250m dollars to 450m dollars for
its
85 per cent share in the company.
Currently, oil major Yukos holds 98 per cent in the Eastern Oil Company.
Also, the evaluation of the government's 74.95 per cent stake in
Russian-Belarusian oil company Slavneft provided by independent experts was
800m dollars
less than the chamber had recommended.
Experts valued the stake at 1.77bn dollars.
Last December, the stake was bought for 1.86bn dollars at an auction by
Investoil, which is owned on a parity basis by two Russian oil companies,
Sibneft
and TNK.
********
#13
From: ZvanersM@rferl.org (ZvanersM@rferl.org)
Subject: BRIEFING REPORT: Author Says Soviet Collapse Led To Rise of
Criminality in Russia
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036
tel: 202-457-6900 * fax: 202-457-6992
http://www.rferl.org
Author Says Soviet Collapse Led To Rise of Criminality in Russia
(Washington, DC -- May 30, 2003) "Criminality and capitalism grew up as
twins"
following the collapse of
the former Soviet Union, said author David Satter at a recent RFE/RL
briefing. Satter, who just published a new book on "The Rise of the
Russian Criminal State" (May 2003, Yale University Press), argued that
this was due to several factors -- Russia rejecting the moral heritage of
the West, the close ties that exist between business and corruption, and
the legacy of class-consciousness that is entrenched in Russia's elites.
Immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, according
to Satter, young Russian reformers who prided themselves on rejecting
communism failed to avoid adopting a "ruling class" philosophy that
justified the accumulation of vast wealth. Thus, a small clique "alive
with gangsters" and with established ties to Soviet bureaucrats rapidly
enriched themselves -- resulting, in Satter's words, in "a new permutation
of tyranny."
A senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and Visiting Scholar at
John Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Satter
said that Russians themselves bear the burden of establishing civil
society. In a country such as Russia where ideas matter, he said, "the
greatest contribution the West can make is moral influence." He said that
Western governments have failed in the past to understand that ethical
society and the rule of law are necessary precursors to democratic and
economic viability. Their assumption that a moral society would spring
from economic reform has resulted in Russia becoming increasingly
unstable, Satter said.
Although Western governments can assist with training law
enforcement forces and cracking down on criminals, Satter said, Russia
also needs a leadership committed to change. However, he does not see any
current political figures with the will to implement real reform. Satter
noted that a leadership vacuum has been created and a large segment of the
population is waiting for it to be filled. "A change of consciousness
in Russia is what is going to save the country, and nothing else," he
concluded.
********
#14
U.S. says to press Russia over Iran
ST PETERSBURG, Russia, May 31 (Reuters) - The U.S. administration said on
Saturday Russia shared its concerns about Iran's nuclear programme and that
Washington would press Moscow on the issue during a visit by President
George W. Bush.
"We have seen some good developments in Russian thinking. We hope this
translates into good developments in Russian action," a senior
administration official told reporters travelling to Russia's second city
St Petersburg with Bush.
Washington has sharply criticised Russian involvement in Iran's plans to
build a nuclear power plant, which the Americans say is a cover for a
nuclear weapons programme.
On Friday, Russia suggested that the United States join it in building a
nuclear power plant in Iran, calling it a way to ease Washington's concern
that Tehran would use the reactor to develop atomic weapons.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a German magazine on Saturday
Iran did not believe the United States would attack it, although it did
think Washington had demonised Tehran unjustly.
"Unlike Iraq under Saddam we are not a dictatorship, but a democracy.
Furthermore we are not disregarding any international laws. So we are not
worried about being the next victim of a military strike," Kharrazi told
Der Spiegel magazine in an interview.
********
#15
Chicago Tribune
May 31, 2003
Iran to test Bush, Putin anew
Nuclear aid to Tehran a thorny topic for leaders' meeting
By Alex Rodriguez
Tribune foreign correspondent
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia -- The rancor over Iraq is behind them, but when
President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet here this weekend,
they face volatile questions about Iran that threaten to drive a new wedge
into U.S.-Russian relations.
Bush arrived in Poland on Friday on the first leg of a weeklong tour that
will take him to Russia on Saturday night and Sunday, and then on to
France, Egypt and Jordan for a summit with Israeli leader Ariel Sharon and
the new Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas.
The president will be mending fences along the way before tackling the
Israeli-Palestinian impasse. But in his meeting with Putin, Iran's nuclear
development will be the central, and perhaps dividing, issue.
Washington has accused Iran of accelerating its pursuit of a nuclear
weapons program and says it is growing increasingly concerned that Iran's
Islamic government has been harboring Al Qaeda terrorists.
The Bush administration has consistently urged Russia to stop helping Iran
build its nuclear energy program, which the U.S. says Iran uses as a cover
for the development of nuclear weapons. Russia, in turn, has consistently
refused.
Bush will bring up Iran when he meets with Putin, with whom the U.S.
president has forged a celebrated, burgeoning friendship. That friendship,
however, is not likely to deliver Russian acquiescence on Iran.
Analysts say U.S. demands over Iran pose one of the biggest quandaries yet
in Putin's three years as Russia's president. Putin has made it clear that
he wants to repair the damage to U.S.-Russian relations; he apparently has
concluded that engendering closer ties with the world's only superpower
will pay off for Russia in the long run.
But Russian companies have billions of dollars invested in Iran,
particularly in the Islamic republic's nuclear energy program. Those
interests wield considerable clout in Moscow, too much for Putin to ignore.
"Putin is in a very difficult situation, essentially stuck between two
powerful camps," said Dmitri Trenin, a foreign affairs analyst with the
Carnegie Moscow Center. "After Iraq, the U.S. isn't likely to back off once
it has identified a major threat to its security. However, at the same time
there are Russians who don't want to lose their contracts with Iran. These
people will not quietly say, `Sorry,' and step back."
As they did with the war in Iraq, upcoming parliamentary and presidential
elections in Russia complicate the Kremlin's options on Iran.
The parliamentary races will be held in December, and Putin faces a
re-election contest in March. Most observers agreed that Putin's position
on Iraq was influenced by a Russian public that staunchly opposed the war
and grew increasingly anti-American.
"We're sensitive to the fact that this is an election year and [Putin's]
westward-oriented foreign policy has been controversial from the very
start, and will become more so as a result of the Iraq crisis," said a
senior U.S. diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But obviously we
are going to defend our interests and hope that when push comes to shove,
he will deal with the issues on their merits--and not play politics."
U.S. sees shift from Moscow
Senior U.S. officials say Washington has been encouraged by what it says
has been a major change in Russia's view of Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons capability. Until this year, the Kremlin had steadfastly accepted
Iran's contention that it was pursuing nuclear technology for civilian
purposes only.
But this spring Russia began expressing concerns about Iran's intentions
after inspectors from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, discovered a sophisticated
uranium-enrichment program in the Iranian city of Natanz. Enriched uranium
is used in nuclear weapons.
Statements by Russian Cabinet leaders "indicate the Russians take this
threat much more seriously than before," said another senior U.S.
administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
This week Russia announced that it would not supply nuclear fuel for a
reactor it is helping Iran build in the port of Bushehr unless Iran agrees
to inspections at all its nuclear facilities.
Washington, however, is seeking much more from Moscow. It wants Russia to
clamp down on Russian scientists and companies that leak nuclear weapons
technology and know-how to Iran, and it has asked Russia to halt
construction of the Bushehr plant.
On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov tersely rejected any
call to back away from the project at Bushehr. Ivanov stressed that the
IAEA had not uncovered any evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons
program there.
Ultimately, the U.S. partnership with Russia could play a crucial role in
resolving the questions of Iran and North Korea, which has admitted it is
developing nuclear weapons.
Russia, one of the few nations that maintains open channels with Pyongyang,
has done little more than urge a negotiated resolution of the issue.
Washington wants Moscow to take the next step and actively pressure North
Korea's eccentric leader, Kim Jong Il, to reverse course.
"We see the Russians, in many cases, on the front lines dealing with other
crisis situations," the senior U.S. diplomat said. "So preserving the
strategic partnership, whether we are dealing with North Korea or Iran . .
. may have contributed to the desire to keep the bridges intact."
On its surface, Sunday's summit is a show of solidarity meant to erase any
perception that the deep rift between Washington and Moscow caused by the
Iraq war permanently harmed U.S.-Russian relations.
Observers predict the same outcome: mutual condemnations of proliferation
of nuclear weapons, affirmations of a commitment to fighting terrorism and
assurances that the acrimony that arose before and during the Iraqi war is
ancient history.
But experts doubt that the Bush-Putin friendship alone is enough to becalm
stormy stretches in the U.S.-Russian relationship. The best glue for a
strong alliance is a hearty economic relationship, analysts say, and that
does not exist.
"A solid basis for the relationship would be economic interdependence,
which requires foreign investment," said Viktor Kremenyuk, an analyst with
the Moscow-based Institute for USA and Canada Studies. "But that would
require Russia to be ruled by law and not by local barons. That's something
Russia right now cannot do."
Lopsided benefits?
A perception persists among many in Moscow that the U.S. has gained much
more from the Bush-Putin friendship than has Russia. Putin has pledged his
cooperation in battling terrorism, did not protest when U.S. forces invaded
Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and watched passively as
U.S. troops set up camp in former Soviet republics.
In return, Moscow has sought Congress' lifting of Cold War-era trade
restrictions that keep Russia from attaining permanent normal trade
relations with the U.S. Bush has been pushing Congress to set aside the
restrictions, but Congress balked after Russia opposed the war in Iraq.
"Russians don't see why they need to cooperate with the U.S. on America's
terms without getting anything in return," Trenin said, "especially when
it's clear that North Korea's weapons as well as Iran's nuclear program are
not directed at Russia but at the U.S. That's the thinking in Russia and
that's what holds Russians back from wanting to cooperate."
********
#16
Asia Times
May 30, 2003
Why Moscow won't back down
By Hooman Peimani
Unlike what many American reports based on unidentified sources suggest,
Russia does not seem to be bowing to American pressure to stop its
non-military
nuclear cooperation with Iran. On the contrary, Russian authorities have
repeatedly stated their intention to continue such peaceful cooperation, as
they did
on May 27 when an Iranian Nuclear Energy Ministry delegation visited Moscow.
Although Moscow's firm stance on this issue is not new, the timing of the
recent Russian statements made them distinct from all previous ones as the
American
government has heated up its campaign against Iran's nuclear program.
Hence, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russian Atomic Energy Minister, commented on his
country's construction of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power reactor during his
talks with the Iranian delegation. In a clear show of "defiance" to the
United
States, he stated: "We will continue to fulfill our obligations despite the
fact
that our positions on this issue differ from those of [the] officials in
Washington." Disregarding repeated American requests, including one made in
May,
to stop the Bushehr project, he stressed his ministry's determination to
complete the reactor project. "The Russian side does not see grounds to
revise its
obligations with regard to the construction of the first power unit at the
nuclear power plant in Bushehr."
During their talks with the Iranian delegation, Rumyantsev and his ministry
made it clear that worsening American-Iranian relations would not affect
"Russia's cooperation with Iran with respect to the completion of the
nuclear power
plant in Bushehr", as Itar-Tass reported. For example, an unspecified
ministry
spokesperson stated: "There are no reasons [for Russia] to halt [the]
construction of the first phase of the Bushehr Nuclear plant or cease future
cooperation between Iran and Russia in nuclear energy." Not only that, but,
according
to IRNA, the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry repeated its readiness to
cooperate with Iran on building five more nuclear power plants, an offer made
initially in 2002 when the Russian government released its plans for future
economic
relations with Iran.
Russian-Iranian nuclear ties have received the approval of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a Vienna-based agency in charge of the
verification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. Consequently,
Russia's
commitment to continue and to expand its ties should not be controversial
under
normal circumstances. However, the international environment since last year
has been anything but normal. The American and British governments justified
their war against Iraq and its subsequent occupation under the pretext of
preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They
justified
their actions, although they had no proof to substantiate their claim of Iraq
being in material breach of its obligation under the United Nations
resolution on
its WMD.
Having Iraq under occupation, the American government is shifting its
attention to Iran with the same objective in mind, ie, bringing the country
into its
sphere of influence through a regime change. Of course, there are fundamental
differences between Iran and Iraq with regard to their internal situation and
external ties and significance, which raise great doubts about the
feasibility
of such plan. Nonetheless, Washington seems to be preparing grounds to
achieve the mentioned objective, probably through different means, but with
resorting to the same type of allegations as it did prior to its war with
Iraq. Such
allegations are mainly the country's ties with al-Qaeda and its pursuit of
WMD.
The American government drew on Iraq's well-known WMD program in the 1980s to
justify its unsubstantiated claims regarding that country in 2003. However,
its allegation on Iran having an active nuclear weapon program is based on
pure
speculations and lacks any credibility, as, unlike the case of Iraq, there is
not even a historical precedence to make such allegation. Moreover, Iran's
nuclear program has received IAEA approval, clear proof of its non-military
nature.
Nevertheless, Washington has pressured the IAEA to declare Iran in material
breach of its nuclear obligations in the upcoming IAEA meeting in June,
although the February visit of the IAEA head and his inspector teams to
Iran did not
prove any wrongdoing by the Iranians. In particular, Washington has tried to
portray Iran's declared plan to establish facilities to have a complete
nuclear
fuel cycle as a clear violation of its IAEA obligations and a proof for its
pursuing a nuclear weapons program. This is notwithstanding the fact that
having such objective and its required facilities to enable the Iranians to
exploit
their own uranium mines and to enrich uranium are well within Iran's rights
under IAEA rules and regulations.
Thus, Iran's two declared and under-construction uranium enrichment
facilities in Natanz and heavy water production facility in Arak are not
proof of its
wrongdoings; the former inspected by the IAEA team in February. This is
especially so as IAEA regulations require the declaration of nuclear
facilities when
they contain nuclear material, which is not even the case for the two
under-construction facilities.
In light of these realities, Russia's clear determination to continue its
nuclear relations with Iran reflects not only its attempt to preserve its
economic interests in Iran, but its growing concern about America's
aggressive
foreign policy. Undoubtedly, such policy has major security implications
for Moscow.
In particular, the Russians are concerned about the possibility of Iran's
domination by the US, in one form or another, which could also lead to a
long-term American military presence in that country.
Moscow's loss of its Iranian strategic ally, if it happened, would seriously
endanger its security at a time that it requires a long period of peace and
security to revitalize its devastated economy. Such loss will complete its
encirclement by hostile or potentially hostile pro-American states hosting
the
American military. The American government's behavior since late 2001 has
indicated its pursuit of a plan to ensure its uninterrupted access to
energy resources
and strategically important regions, such as the Persian Gulf, its
unchallenged power and its leadership of a unipolar international system.
That requires
eliminating the potential "troublemakers", the current and future "rogue"
states.
Given this reality, Russia should have every reason to believe it to be one
of the next states, if not the next one, on the American list of targets if
Washington restores its influence in neighboring Iran. Fear of such a
scenario
seems to be a major reason for the Russians to continue their
multi-dimensional
ties with Iran, including in the nuclear realm, to prevent its weakness and
isolation, two tempting prerequisites for any future American designs on
Iran.
Dr Hooman Peimani works as an independent consultant with international
organizations in Geneva and does research in international relations.
********
#17
From: "Zygmunt Dzieciolowski"
Subject: Miss Gulag
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003
Dear David,
Most of the articles brought on your list are serious political stuff.
Perhaps your subscribers would be interested in something more exotic.
Early May I visited Novosibirsk, local standard security labour camp for
women for their beauty contest. I am Polish journalist, I was there
together with Polish photographer Witold Krassowski, winner of numerous
international awards. His Novosibirsk photos are stunning. They were
published this weekend together with my story in the London Mirror
Magazine, supplement to the Daily Mirror newspaper. Magazines in other
European countries booked this story too. In Russia it will be published in
their edition of the Elle magazine. It would be great if you could put this
into your list.
With the best regards Zygmunt Dzieciolowski
-------
Miss Gulag
Zygmunt Dzieciolowski, Novosibirsk
Prison regulations insist lights go out at 10pm at Siberian prison camp
UF-91/9. But tonight some of the inmates have been allowed to stay up late,
and at 1am the finalists of the prison's beauty contest are still putting
the finishing touches to their costumes for tomorrow. There's a mood of
nervous excitement as Nona Madzhidova and her main rivals for the beauty
queen crown, Tanya Dasayeva and Gula Magiramova work at their sewing
machines and ironing boards in the prison textile factory.
Nona has climbed on to a stool, so her friend can fix the frills and blue
silk flowers at the bottom of her ball dress. She's half Russian, half
central-Asian with black hair and large brown eyes. Just 20 years old,
she's only two years into a seven-year sentence for a felony she won't talk
about. She'll say only she was stupid, hung out in bad company, and claims
to be a witness, not the culprit of the crime.
"Don't move! Don't move!" screams her friend Tanya, who's pricked herself
with a needle. After weeks of preparation they only have until 11am to get
everything finished.
The camp lies 20 miles outside Novosibirsk, a concrete city of nearly two
million people in the middle of Siberia, its central square still dominated
by an imposing statue of Lenin.
More than a thousand women are jailed there. It's a standard security
prison, enclosed by a white painted wall topped with barbed wire.
Watchtowers guard over the '60s complex.
The women sleep in dormitories with 40-50 crammed in each one on rickety
bunk beds. The wake-up call is 5.45am. Work begins at 7am and ends at
3.30pm with a gruesome lunch at 11.30 am. On the day I was there boiled
peas in oil were served with bread . While the prison is clean, conditions
are harsh. Hot water is only available in one of the nine blocks. And in
winter, temperatures of -30C are common.
The prison is a labour camp so all the inmates have to work, mainly at the
camp's textile factory. The rest of the country is flooded with cheap
Chinese imported clothes, but the camp receives regular orders for uniforms
from the Russian government. "Can you imagine our Russian cops wearing
uniforms sewn by Chinese?" laughs Gula, one of the finalists in the beauty
contest. The money the uniforms earn pays for the prisoners' meals.
The first beauty contest was organised three years ago after an inmate came
up with the idea. "It was very modest the first time it was held," explains
Gula. "The winner made her costume out of old plastic bags."
Qualifying contests are held in each of the nine blocks with the winners
making it to the final. Finalists contact their families outside for
material and make-up. The clothes are made by the contestants (all now
professional seamstresses thanks to their work at the camp). Imagination is
needed -- in the first round they dress as their favourite flower.
Rather than discussing their future plans, the second round is questions
about the city of Novosibirsk and the third round -- a skill yet to make it
into the Miss World competition -- is dried flower arranging. The grand
finale is evening gowns which the women have made. Marina Muchanko made
hers out of bedding.
The women are delighted at their chance to dress up for once. "We are still
women," says Nona in her low, lascivious voice. "We are beauty and love,
the source of life. We make the world a better place to live."
Curious about Nona's seven-year sentence, I ask the camp's deputy commander
Baulina what she did. She tells me how on a cold, dark night two years ago,
Nona and her boyfriend dragged a taxi driver from his car, seriously
wounded him, then abandoned him as they escaped with a tiny amount of
money. Within hours the Russian militia had arrested the modern-day
Siberian Bonnie and Clyde.
At two in the morning the women are too tired to keep working. But tonight
they will be lucky to get four hours sleep before waking at six to put the
final touches to their outfits, get dressed and sort out make-up and
hairstyles.
On the day of the beauty contest, I arrive at the prison at 8am. In the
camp's theatre hall, the stage is decked with balloons, and the steps up to
the podium have been carpeted. The judges' tables have been set up in front
of the audience. The camp commander, Colonel Sergei Butuyev, is the
chairman of the judging panel and is here today in civilian clothes rather
than his usual starched uniform.
As there are only 200 seats, not all the inmates are able to watch the
contest. Every block is allocated a number of tickets and Natalia (who
doesnt want to give her surname) doesn't have one. In her forties, she's
in prison for killing her husband. They were both drunk and she says she
hit him first -- otherwise he would have killed her -- before stabbing him
with a kitchen knife. Commander Baulina says when Russian women kill their
husbands one hit is enough. They know the consequences if they miss.
Natalia wishes she was able to go to the show. Instead she waits outside
for news of the winners dressed in a standard prison-issue padded smock,
with a grey woollen scarf covering her head. Her face looks worn out, and
her eyes are sad. She smokes a cigarette, slowly savouring every drag.
"The young girls locked up here suffer the most," says Natalia. "They're
unable to get used to life in prison. Outside they steal in order to afford
nice clothes and shoes. If they get caught, they end up here where
everybody has to wear these horrible uniforms. But once a year, they get to
look pretty."
The women are happy to talk about Siberian prison life. They tell me about
not being allowed new tattoos -- tattoos are registered in personal files
during the first medical check-up. If new ones are found the prisoner faces
two weeks in solitary confinement.
They're also candid about personal relations between inmates. "Look at
this," says Nastia Yatskova, a pretty 23-year-old blonde, only two weeks
from the end of a three-year sentence for drugs. She points to the camp's
bulletin board. Part of the board is labelled "Recent Disciplinary
Punishments". It lists a prisoner called Dobrokhina, who slept with
another, named Dorochenko. The sentence is ten days in isolation. Another,
Golykhina, is facing seven days isolation for a new tattoo.
The women who have sexual relationships have to be extremely discreet, but
they're not always. Nastia says she was woken in the middle of the night by
the sighing and moaning of one of her neighbours. Other women talk about
men. Every male who passes through camp -- delivery men, truck drivers,
plumbers -- is discussed in detail.
All the women want me to know life in Siberian prison camp UF-91/9 is
terrible. Natalia Patalakhova, half way through an 11-year sentence for
armed robbery, is known for her poems and songs which she'll sing later on
stage. "This camp is all about betrayal, pain, meanness, dirt and lies.
That is why today's beauty contest is so special."
Those without tickets crowd around the door of the theatre in the first
weak rays of Siberian sun. They discuss the chances of each one of the nine
contestants. Most have favourites.
Marina is the first to appear on stage, dressed as a crocus flower. Nona is
third. "Whatever my life was until now," she says over the music, "I can;t
reject it. It was my own destiny. I am sure I'm not in a dead-end. I am
here in camp, but there is a different life waiting for me in the future."
Dressed as a tulip she wears a red skirt, a gold sleeveless top and a red
scarf around her head. She looks like an Arab princess, although her lips
are painted red and she wobbles in her high heels.
Tanya is serving eight years for robbery and attempted murder. In the
evening wear section she wears a yellow dress with a long train decorated
with green roses. She's popular and is met with loud applause from the
audience.
Despite her fans, Tanya, a brunette with shiny brown eyes, doesn't have
enough points to win but gets second prize. Third place goes to Gula,
serving five years for robbery, who gained high points for her stunning
sleeveless white gown in the final round. The overall winner, however, is
hot favourite Nona. Commander Baulina climbs on to the stage to decorate
her with a sash and silver tiara. Nona is given an extravagant prize:
expensive Guerlain cosmetics and women's magazines from Moscow. Shes
allowed to keep the creams and body lotions, but the Samsara eau de
toilette will have to wait. Nothing containing alcohol is permitted in
camp. What if she were to drink it? Instead, it will go in her deposit box
with the rest of her private things. She'll be allowed to wear her perfume
when she leaves UF-91/9 in 2008.
A few hours later and everyone is back in the camp routine. After supper
it's time for the evening headcount. Nona, Tanya and Gula, the beauty
contest winners, line up in the yard with the other prisoners, in their
grim padded jackets. They answer according to the rules but all three
proudly wear their contest make-up. Their hairstyles, carefully teased into
place that morning, are ruined, pulled around by the strong, cold Siberian
wind. But their lips are still painted red, holding out against the
greyness for as long as they can.
Zygmunt Dzieciolowski
Warsaw, Poland
tel. 48 22 823 43 63
fax 48 22 659 72 10
mob. 48 606 31 17 12
work 48 22 516 34 34
e-mail: zdzieciol@poczta.onet.pl
zygmunt.dzieciolowski@bauer.pl
******
#18
From: Carl Olson
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
Subject: Comment on DOS Fact Sheet on Wrangell/JRL 7198
Defects abound in the unclassified Department of State "Fact Sheet"
on the "Status of Wrangel and Other Arctic Islands" dated May 20, 2003.
This regards the 1990 U.S.-Russia executive agreement on the maritime
boundary line between Alaska and Siberia that delimit the exclusive
economic zones and fishery conservation zones between the two countries.
1. Completely untrue is the statement, "None of the islands or rocks
above were included in the U. S. purchase of Alaska from Russia 1867...."
First of all, two islands at the westernmost end of the Aleutian chain are
Bering Island and Copper Island (with adjacent Sea Lion Rock and Sea
Otter Rock). In the negotiations of the treaty in 1867, Secretary of State
William Seward was willing to leave one Aleutian island on the Russian
side, i.e. Bering Island. This was accomplished by the language that was
inserted at the end of Article I: "...to the meridian of one hundred and
ninety-three degrees west longitude [167 degrees east], so as to include in
the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that
meridian." That meridian runs directly between Bering and Copper with
Copper on the U. S. side.
Secondly, not all of modern day Alaska was purchased from Russia in
1867. Much was added after 1867.
2. Also untrue is the statement, "No negotiations regarding the U.S.-
Russia maritime boundary have occurred since 1990, when the U.S.-USSR
Maritime Boundary Agreement was signed."
In 1997 the Russians demanded revisions of the line so as to give them
additional fishing rights of about 300,000,000 pounds per year from the U.
S. side. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner of March 9, 1997, reported from
a Scripps-McClatchy Western Service story, "'Opposition to the treaty has
emerged on the Russian side,' a State Department source said. ... 'We
have engaged in informal negotiations to see if there is some way to deal
with the opposition on the political side, recognizing that some of the
(fish)
stocks are on both sides of the boundary,' the source said. At stake is the
Bering Sea's hugh pollock fishery, which many believe is being overfished."
Further coverage of the dispute was reported in Izvestia of September
1, 1997, "Russia Can Lose One More Alaska" and in the Journal of
Commerce of September 4, 1997, "Russians set to go on the offensive in
US fish dispute".
Last year the dispute continued. According to a RIA Novosti story of
July 12, 2002, "Russia Ready for Political Dialog with US on Revision of
Bering Strait Division Agreement", which noted, "The Federation Council,
Russian parliament's upper chamber, intends to promote Evgeny
Nazdratenko's initiative to revise the Russian-US agreement on Bering
Strait division at an international level, Alexander Nazarov, chairman of the
chamber's committee for the northern and [sic] scant ethnicities affairs, has
said in an interview with RIA Novosti. ... On Friday, chairman of the State
Fishery Committee Evgeny Nazdratenko called the division of the Bering
Strait 'absolutely illegal' and the 8,253 square km of water surface given to
the USA 'a huge loss' for Russia."
A September 3, 2002, report of a radio broadcast on "Revision of Baker-
Shevarnadze Strait of Bering Agreement Directed Neither Against US nor
Georgia Rosblat", stated, "Today, speaking on the air in a program of The
Echo of Moscow radio, Aleander Torhshin, a Deputy Chairman of the
Council of Federation of Russia, said, 'The necessity of revising the Baker-
Shevarnadze agreement on the delimitation on the Strait of Bering became
obvious a long time ago. ... Today the workgroup for the revision of the
agreement convened for the first time."
One U.S. agency that is closely involved in these talks is the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council. Its members were briefed by the
State Department in Moscow last fall about an offer that had been on the
table to the Russians for several months on revising the fishing boundary
line, but that it was being withdrawn at that time.
3. Another misstatement in the "Fact Sheet" says, "The negotiations
that led to the [1990] agreement did not address the status of Wrangel
Island, Herald Island, Bennett Island, Jeannette Island, or Henrietta Island,
all of which lie off Russia's Arctic coast, or Mednyy (Copper) Island or
rocks off the coast of Mednyy Island in the Bering Sea."
The negotiations ended up with a maritime boundary line that put all of
these Alaskan islands on the Russian side. How is it possible to establish
Russian jurisdiction over oceans around these islands without the clear
implication that they are Russian territory?
Our organization, State Department Watch, has closely researched
this matter for nearly two decades. It appears to us that the maritime
boundary agreement is tantamount to an enormous giveaway of
American/Alaskan territory and tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich
and fishery-rich seabeds to the Russians with no quid pro quo for the
American public. The Alaska Legislature has passed numerous
resolutions nearly unanimously protesting this apparent giveaway and the
refusal of the State Department to include it in any and all negotiations.
Sincerely,
Carl Olson
Chairman
State Department Watch
P.O. Box 6102
Woodland Hills, Calif. 91365
818-223-8080
********
#19
Communist Party in Iraq Plans Comeback
May 30, 2003
By SLOBODAN LEKIC
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - On the morning of April 10, a day after U.S. tanks
stormed the Iraqi capital and looters began to ravage government buildings,
a group of young men laid claim to a military housing command in downtown
Baghdad.
After ousting the looters, the newcomers unfurled and planted a red flag
with a gold hammer and sickle on the building. The banner, unseen in Iraq
in many decades, would have gotten them shot only hours earlier by Saddam
Hussein's security forces.
``Even during Saddam's most savage repression we had an underground
presence in Baghdad and other cities, mobilizing the masses and fighting
the dictator,'' said Shakir al-Dujaily, a member of the Iraqi Communist
Party's leadership.
The communists, Iraq's oldest political party, now want to stage a comeback
after spending decades in the political wilderness.
They intend to employ their core of committed activists and extensive
network of party cells to re-establish influence in their traditional
constituencies - politically or economically disadvantaged social groups
such as workers, peasants and educated professionals.
And unlike some other emerging parties that have hailed the U.S. role in
liberating Iraq, the communists are unabashed in their opposition to
foreign occupation, saying the Iraqi people owe nothing to the United States.
``The United States fully supported Saddam during his senseless war against
Iran, in which nearly a million lives were lost on both sides,'' al-Dujaily
said in his tiny office on the ground floor of the former army building.
``After the invasion of Kuwait, it imposed sanctions that did nothing to
harm Saddam but killed half a million Iraqi children.''
The suspicion is mutual. An official of the U.S.-led administration said
there had been no contact with the party since consultations to forge a
new, broad-based interim authority began.
``There have been no talks (with the communists) to my knowledge,'' said
the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Still, U.S. officials maintain close contacts with the Iraqi National
Congress, an umbrella group of exiles led by Ahmad Chalabi who recently
returned to Iraq. Although Chalabi is considered close to the Pentagon, he
has cooperated closely with the communists, who have been part of his
organization for a decade.
As with the dozens of other parties appearing on the post-Saddam political
stage, it is difficult to gauge the extent of influence and public support
the communists enjoy. Even in their heyday in the late 1950s and 60s, they
were never a strong enough political force to rule alone, and traditionally
joined in coalitions with nationalist or religious parties.
Founded in 1934, the Iraqi Communist Party is the oldest in the country. It
was banned by the British-installed monarchy, and was later savagely
repressed under Saddam's Baathist regime.
Historically, it has drawn its support mainly from the impoverished Shiites
of southern Iraq, where the secular party had a strong presence. In the
1960s, its influence gradually spread through rural communities elsewhere
in the country, and among middle classes in the Sunni-dominated central
part of Iraq.
Iraqi communists have crossed swords with the United States in the past. In
1960, they supported the nationalization of Iraq's vast oil resources -
until then controlled by British interests - infuriating the administration
of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In the 1970s, the party's leaders and activists took refuge in Iraqi
Kurdistan, where they formed a militia force that fought Saddam's army
alongside Kurdish guerrillas. In the meantime, they kept up efforts to
mobilize party cells in urban centers, and particularly in Baghdad, where
they existed in deep secrecy to avoid the regime's omnipresent secret police.
Al-Dujaily said the communists' strength lies in the fact that they now
have a strong presence in all parts of Iraq - a boast no other political
party can make. Members include Arab Sunnis and Shiites, Kurds, Turkomans,
Christians, and Assyrians.
``We're the only party in Iraq that has Jews as members,'' al-Dujaily said.
This has earned communists the enmity of other groups, particularly
fundamentalist Muslim clerics in Baghdad's al-Thawra neighborhood, where
Communist slogans about workers' unity have been painted over or defaced.
The party has a long history of cooperating with other middle-of-the-road
parties such as the National Democratic Party, the two main Kurdish
political parties and Islamic groups like al-Dawa and the Iranian-backed
Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Although it used to be ideologically close to the Soviet Union, the two
fell out over the issue of Moscow's continuing support for Saddam's regime.
In 1989, the Iraqi party revised its Marxist roots and moved to a reformist
platform allowing for political pluralism and liberal democracy.
The communists now advocate a government representing all of Iraq's
political, ethnic and religious groups.
``The party's goal is to convene a national conference of all political
parties and religious and ethnic groups without any interference from
abroad to elect a democratic coalition government,'' al-Dujaily said.
``This would represent the Iraqi people in any discussion with the
occupiers and work to secure their withdrawal from our country.''
********
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