Brought to you by the Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202) 462-4559 * http://www.cdi.org
Edited by David Johnson
| ISSUE #22 | November 6, 1998 |
The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and
analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, economic,
social, military, and foreign policy issues. With funding from the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, CDI Russia Weekly is a project of the Washington-based
Center for Defense Information (CDI), a nonprofit research and education
organization.
#1 Russia: U.S. Food Shipments Could Begin In December By Robert Lyle
Washington, 5 November 1998 (RFE/RL) -- Assuming the negotiations in Moscow are concluded today or tomorrow, U.S. agriculture department officials say they can begin shipping food to Russia in early December. After a week of talks in the Russian capital, a team from the U.S. Agriculture and State departments reached tentative agreement Wednesday on a plan to provide $500 million worth of food for Russia's most vulnerable citizens, particularly the elderly. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman told reporters in Washington that final agreement requires the Americans to get assurances that the food will be distributed properly to those in need and that the food aid will be exempted from tax and customs duties. U.S. officials said experience with food assistance to Russia in the early 1990s prompted their decision to get solid assurances on accountability and taxes. A large amount of food aid sent to Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union was diverted by criminal elements onto the black market or lost within the system. The whole idea of accepting food aid from the United States has embarrassed some Russian officials who have been downplaying the country's need for help. Deputy Prime Minister Gennady Kulik said earlier this week that it was "too early" to speak about what might be needed. The same day Russian government agricultural economist Leonid Kholod said Russia might not need foreign food aid at all this year. But Glickman said that in private Russian officials have said they need even more food than is in this package. "This year, Russia's grain production is projected at just 52 million tons, the country's worst harvest in 50 years," said Glickman. "The problems in Russian agriculture have been compounded by the devaluation of the ruble and the crisis in Russia's banking system, so the need is apparent, as is our ability to respond." Another senior U.S. official added that much of the problem is that grain and other foods aren't always where they are needed most, such as in the cities. In addition, said another, there is a "problem with the potato harvest," although no potatoes will be included in the U.S. package. Under the program, the U.S. will provide a minimum of 3.1 million tons of food. Glickman said that is a minimum -- "essentially a floor" -- and the U.S. will be prepared to offer as much additional help as the country needs. The first 100,000 tons of food, probably a mix of meat, grains and other products, will be donated for distribution directly to the neediest Russian citizens by non-governmental and private voluntary organizations. This will be focused on nursing homes, pensioners who have not received their pensions, orphanages and other such facilities. An additional 1.5 million tons of wheat will be donated to Russia to be sold through the regular markets and distribution networks at local market prices. The proceeds from these sales will be available to the Russian government to use wherever it has the greatest need. It could go to help farms, said one U.S. official, or be used to help rebuilding the banking system, wherever it can help the most. Another 1.5 million tons of various food commodities will be sold to the Russian government under a low interest, 20 year emergency food loan. The loan carries a five year grace period before any repayment is required. American officials say that while Russian officials initially requested more than the 3.1 million tons, the U.S. felt this was as much as could be handled by shipping and distribution channels in the next month or so. The effort could be "scaled up," according to one official, assuming early shipments go well. Transportation costs will be in addition to the food's $500 million cost. Even that figure is only approximate, depending on the exact mix of foods included. American poultry producers, who have seen their Russia market worth hundreds of millions of dollars dry up completely with the fall of the ruble, are hoping to have some of their chicken and turkey meat included. On top of that, U.S. agriculture officials say they are looking for ways to open up an inexpensive line of credit to allow Russia to resume buying at least some American poultry. The closing of the Russian market has seriously hurt American producers. Glickman acknowledged that while designed to help Russians weather a serious food shortage this winter, the program is also designed to help U.S. farmers whose record crops this year have seriously depressed prices. Glickman said it will "help American farmers and ranchers who have been hit hard by an agricultural crisis here."
#2 The Hindustan Times November 5, 1998 Russia’s political, economic crises lead to corruption MOSCOW, Nov 4 (From Fred Weir)
Russia’s political and economic crisis has led to an explosion of corruption among underpaid and poorly supervised officials, according to the country’s top policeman. "A poverty-stricken official is always prone to crime," Interior Minister Sergei Stepashin told a Press conference in Moscow. "We are especially concerned about corruption at the grassroots level, such as bribe-taking among traffic police and various small offices." Mr Stepashin said around 5,500 government officials are currently under investigation for corruption. He added that the problem has grown steadily worse since the economy imploded in August, leaving most Russians struggling to make ends meet amid bank failure and skyrocketing prices for basic necessities. State employees are among the lowest paid workers in Russia, often going for months without receiving even their meagre salaries. Poverty and a general lack of discipline in the post-Soviet state apparatus have created a hotbed of graft, analysts say. Almost no encounter with government clerks, police or customs agents ends successfully without a bribe being paid. "Corruption exists in Russia at all levels," says Nikolai Petrov, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment in Moscow. The state is omnipresent and involved in everything, but the rules are very murky. The system is open to abuse because there is no supervision and no accountability for officials. A report issued by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development last year said the former Soviet Union had higher levels of corruption than any other region in the world. The new government of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov came in pledging to crack down on corruption, but was soon accused of being part of the problem. This week Grigory Yavlinsky, head of the liberal Yabloko Party and a self-declared presidential candidate, alleged that top ministers of Mr Primakov’s Cabinet were guilty of lobbying on behalf of private business interests. The government has denied the allegations, but Mr Primakov agreed to ask the public prosecutor to investigate. "Politics are turning very nasty, and no one is immune from corruption charges," says Mr Petrov. This is a problem that is in the heart of Russia’s system, and we can’t expect it to go away anytime soon.
#3 Moscow Times November 5, 1998 DEFENSE DOSSIER: Rockets for No Man's War By Pavel Felgenhauer
One of Russia's new intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, the Topol-M (SS-27), exploded shortly after takeoff recently, casting a pall on plans to modernize the country's strategic forces. However, ballistic missiles regularly explode during tests in all countries where such technologies are developed. Soviet missiles also exploded in the past, sometimes killing hundreds of technicians and officials. But under Communist rule such mishaps were never reported. The explosion of the SS-27 after the fifth launch can hardly be considered a serious setback. The U.S.-made TAAD antiballistic missile has failed in all test launches, yet still the U.S. Defense Department and Congress continue to pump billions into the project as if nothing happened. Many military products, including ICBMs, are tested and deployed under rules of reliability that are far more lax than those applied to civilian aircraft or missiles that send commercial payloads and men into space. Reliability is not really that much of a problem since no one actually intends to use ICBMs in any real war. All professional Russian military officers I have ever spoken to, including those from the Strategic Rocket Forces, told me that they do not believe that nuclear war is possible. "They [the Americans] will never attack us, since they know we will destroy them and we, of course, will also never go on the offensive." Russian generals say they never genuinely believed all the hullabaloo about "aggressive Western imperialists attacking the Fatherland." Still, the same Russian generals deliberately used this imaginary threat to pump more money into the defense budget. The new Topol-M ICBM could have been made of tin, but even such a hoax would not destroy the "nuclear balance" or cause war. Nuclear deterrence is a balance of fear - not a balance of real weapons or military capabilities. In the nuclear age, a bundle of chopsticks can sometimes "balance" a nuclear warship. During the Cold War there was often no numerical "nuclear balance" whatsoever, while Russia and the United States constantly lied about their nuclear capabilities. Today, former Soviet defense officials say that the Soviet SS-11 ICBMs were considered so unreliable and unsafe that most of these silo-based missiles were deployed in the 70s without nuclear warheads. The SS-11s were to have been tipped with nuclear warheads only in an emergency that never happened in the end. Today, all 326 SS-11 ICBMs have been successfully scrapped under the START I nuclear disarmament treaty. During the Cold War both sides knew the other was lying, but neither ever ventured to take the terrible risk of calling the other's bluff and launching a nuclear attack. On the contrary, the military establishment on both sides of the Iron Curtain confirmed the enemy bluff so as to scare their respective political leaders into spending more money on defense. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis Russia had no more than five ICBMs that could reach North America. These were the bulky SS-6 rockets of the same type that had put the first sputnik and the first man into space. Using these ICBMs, a handful of easily detectable strategic bombers and some medium-range missiles already sneaked into Cuba, the Soviet Union in 1962 could have landed no more than 20 warheads on U.S. territory, while the Soviet Union would have been scorched with thousands of bombs, together with Western Europe. Several big American cities would have been destroyed in 1962, millions would have died, but Main Street America would have survived to rule the world unchanged. But nuclear deterrence still worked. Today, China has four silo-based ICBMs that can actually reach the United States. Nevertheless, the United States with its 8,000-plus warheads and bombs treats Beijing with all due respect as a nuclear power. So why should Russia continue to seek costly "nuclear balance?" The problem with the new Topol-M is not its reliability, but that Russia does not need it at all. Russia also does not really need the unratified START II treaty or the follow up START III. These disarmament treaties are based on the flawed principle of numerical nuclear balance. No surprise the Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev supports START. Only in the context of "nuclear balance" can Sergeyev continue to squander resources on making ICBMs no one needs and no one will ever use. Pavel Felgenhauer is the chief defense correspondent of Segodnya.
#4 Voice of America DATE=November 5, 1998 TITLE=RUSSIA, JAPAN AND THE KURILS BYLINE= ED WARNER DATELINE= WASHINGTON
INTRO: FOUR SMALL VOLCANIC ISLANDS ARE THE MAIN ISSUE BETWEEN TWO GREAT POWERS. THE KURIL ISLANDS NORTH OF JAPAN WERE SEIZED BY THE SOVIET UNION IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF WORLD WAR TWO. THE JAPANESE WANT TO RECOVER THIS PART OF THEIR HOMELAND, WHILE THE RUSSIANS ARE RELUCTANT TO SURRENDER ANY MORE TERRITORY. V-O-A'S ED WARNER REPORTS A DISCUSSION OF THE LONGSTANDING DISPUTE AT THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER IN WASHINGTON. TEXT: THERE THEY WERE AGAIN - JAPANESE FISHING BOATS IN WATERS THE RUSSIANS CLAIM AS THEIR OWN. AT THE END OF OCTOBER, RUSSIAN PATROL BOATS SEIZED THREE JAPANESE VESSELS AND FINED THEM FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR FISHING OFF THE KURIL ISLANDS NORTH OF JAPAN. THE JAPANESE PROMISED NOT TO REAPPEAR, BUT SURE ENOUGH, THE NEXT DAY MORE JAPANESE BOATS WERE SIGHTED IN THE DISPUTED WATERS. THESE MANEUVERS WILL LIKELY CONTINUE AND MAY INTENSIFY UNTIL THE FATE OF THE FOUR KURIL ISLANDS IS FINALLY DECIDED. THEY WERE GRABBED BY SOVIET LEADER JOSEF STALIN AFTER HE DECLARED WAR ON JAPAN IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF WORLD WAR TWO. HE ALSO SENT HALF A MILLION JAPANESE PRISONERS TO SIBERIAN LABOR CAMPS, WHERE SOME 55 THOUSAND DIED. THE KURILS ARE NOT A SECURITY ISSUE FOR JAPAN, BUT A PAINFUL NATIONAL MEMORY, SAID TSUYOSHI HASEGAWA AT A RECENT WASHINGTON MEETING. A PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA. MR. HASEGAWA SAID THE ISLANDS, WHICH JAPANESE CALL THE "NORTHERN TERRITORIES," POSE NO IMMEDIATE THREAT: // HASEGAWA ACT // THE NORTHERN TERRITORIES QUESTION IS NEITHER A POWDER KEG THAT MIGHT EXPLODE INTO A MILITARY CONFRONTATION NOR A DEADLY POISON THAT THREATENS NORMAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES BUT RATHER AS SOME ANALYSTS WOULD PUT IT, AN IRRITANT, A FISHBONE STUCK IN THE THROAT. // END ACT // BUT FISHBONES CAN EVENTUALLY CHOKE, SO PROFESSOR HASEGAWA SEEKS SOME COMPROMISE IN WHICH BOTH NATIONS CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISLANDS AND THEIR OFFSHORE RESOURCES. THESE POSSIBILITIES ARE EXPECTED TO BE DISCUSSED WHEN JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER KEIZO OBUCHI VISITS MOSCOW THIS MONTH. MR. HASEGAWA THINKS THE TIME MAY BE RIPE FOR A SETTLEMENT, GIVEN THE POST COLD WAR CHANGES IN ASIA: // HASEGAWA ACT // IN THE NEW REALITY OF NORTHEAST ASIA, WHERE SUPERPOWER RIVALRY IS ENDED AND A NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER HAS NOW EMERGED, JAPAN CAN NO LONGER DISMISS RUSSO-JAPANESE RELATIONS AS SOMETHING THAT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH JAPAN'S NATIONAL INTEREST. FOR INSTANCE, JAPAN CAN NO LONGER TAKE THE U-S-JAPANESE SECURITY ALLIANCE FOR GRANTED. AND ALSO THE SINO-RUSSIAN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WILL INEVITABLY POSE A SECURITY THREAT TO JAPAN UNLESS RUSSO-JAPANESE RELATIONS ARE REPAIRED. // END ACT // ANOTHER WORRY FOR JAPAN ARE THE GROWING TIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA, SAID MORTON SCHWARTZ, A SENIOR INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH SPECIALIST AT THE U-S STATE DEPARTMENT: // SCHWARTZ ACT // THE DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN RELATIONS BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND BEJING MADE TOKYO FEEL INCREASINGLY LIKE AN OUTSIDER THAT IS RELATIVELY HELPLESS, AND IT HAD TO SCRAMBLE IN ORDER TO REGAIN SOME LEVERAGE, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT LONG TERM DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS, LONG TERM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS. THE SURGING POWER OF CHINA IN NORTHEAST ASIA WILL BE A PROBLEM FOR JAPAN FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE. // END ACT // MR. SCHWARTZ SAID THE HARD PRESSED RUSSIANS NEED JAPANESE INVESTMENT AND LOANS IN THE FAR EAST. SO IT IS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO RESOLVE THE KURILS DILEMMA. BOTH PRESIDENT BORIS YELTSIN AND PRIME MINISTER YEVGENY PRIMAKOV HAVE SUGGESTED SOME KIND OF SETTLEMENT, ONLY TO BE REBUKED BY NATIONALISTS WHO FIERCELY RESENT ANY FURTHER LOSS OF RUSSIAN TERRITORY, HOWEVER SMALL IN TURN, SURVEYS CONTINUE TO SHOW RUSSIA IS THE LEAST POPULAR FOREIGN NATION AMONG JAPANESE. PROFESSOR HASEGAWA SAID MATTERS OF NATIONAL PRIDE ARE OFTEN THE HARDEST TO COMPROMISE.
#5 RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol 2, No. 214, Part I, 5 November 1998
RUSSIA HEADED FOR DEFAULT... First Deputy Prime Minister Yurii Maslyukov told reporters on 4 November that debt payments of $3.5 billion due this year and of $17.5 billion due in 1999 are "too much" for Russia's weakened economy. The government can either draft an emergency budget that would "bleed all spheres of the economy white" or agree with lenders on restructuring the debt. Maslyukov promised that the government's 1999 budget will be an austere one with only a 3 percent deficit. Last month, State Duma Budget Committee Chairman Aleksandr Zhukov warned that "debt restructuring talks must be held" because there is little chance that next year's budget could cover the $17.5 billion debt. JAC ...AS IT SUBMITS BUDGET TO DUMA. Also on 4 November, the government sent its draft "Law on Initial Measures in the Budget and Tax Policy Sphere" to the Duma. According to Zhukov, the bill requires the printing of 35 billion- 40 billion rubles ($2.3 billion), Interfax reported. Maslyukov said that monetary emission should not exceed 15 billion rubles in 1998 and 30-35 billion rubles in 1999. Zhukov said that although the budget deficit in 1999 will stay within the targeted 3 percent, "it will total 100 billion rubles at the very least." He concluded that the bill is likely to pass even though it calls for "inflationary financing" because "there are no other sources of financing." Meanwhile, a "senior U.S. official" told Reuters that Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott will deliver a negative assessment of the Primakov government's economic program in a public speech on 5 November. The economic program "doesn't make sense, the numbers don't add up," the official said. JAC
#6 Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 From: Timothy Thompson timothy@halcyon.com Subject: Official ruble gains (fwd)
[Note: Here is one for the international economics seminars. Russia has just announced it will default on its sovereign debt next year, that it will print rubles to perhaps 20% of its money supply and that it is accepting food aid to feed its starving population. It's currency then rises against the US dollar. ] MOSCOW, Nov 5 (AFP) - The ruble extended its recovery to 13 days in which it gained more than 10 percent against the dollar on Thursday by putting on an extra 29 kopeks to trade at 15.25 to the greenback in a special currency trading session. Trading was brisk and volume amounted to 134 million dollars. The resurgent currency has gained 10.8 percent against the dollar during its two-week recovery. Russia's gold and hard currency reserves also grew by over two percent, going up from 13.3 billion dollars to 13.6 billion dolars in the week ending October 30, ITAR-TASS reported. The ruble's rate has been criticised as artificial given the restrictions imposed on the trading session. Exporters alone supply the dollars they have earned from their foreign sales, and the Central Bank and importers buy the hard currency.
#7 Russia Today http://www.russiatoday.com November 4, 1998 Ending the Era of Discord?
"The president is closing the era of discord and public cataclysms which ravished the country for long years between 1905 and 1993. This is a step by a powerful president." That was presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky in November of 1996 announcing Boris Yeltsin's decision to change the name of Russia's Nov. 7 holiday. Formerly known as The Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, it was to become the Day of National Accord and Reconciliation. The "powerful president" himself was recovering in hospital from multiple-bypass surgery. Two years later, Yastrzhembsky is gone a victim of the political wranglings surrounding Yeltsin's attempt to appoint Victor Chernomyrdin as prime minister. Yeltsin himself is far weaker, politically, than he was in his hospital bed in November of 1996. And Russia's cataclysms are showing no signs of abating. Red October The Nov. 7 holiday was the most important in the Soviet calendar. The date marks the overthrow of the provisional government established after the February Revolution of 1917. The overthrow was the culmination of the October Revolution, and it marked the triumph of Lenin's Bolsheviks over the more moderate Mensheviks. Lenin changed the name of his party from Bolsheviks to Communists and plunged the country into a civil war during which the Communist "reds" set out to annihilate the anti-Communist "whites." The Communists triumphed and in 1921 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was born. In announcing the decision to change the name of the holiday, Yeltsin suggested that the divisions in the country that had led to civil war had never entirely healed: "This is a day of change in the history of our country," he said, "The sincere hopes and expectations resulted then in a tragedy, of which millions turned out to be victims. The society split. Up to this day the people are being divided into Reds and Whites, into 'our own' and those on the opposite side." Traditionally, Nov. 7 was a day for parades in Red Square displays of military might under the watchful eyes of the politburo. For the past two years, since the change of name, gatherings in Red Square have been banned and the parades, held elsewhere in Moscow and the rest of the country, have been desultory processions of pro-Communist pensioners waving "Yes to socialism" and "Down with the president" banners. This year, however, in the wake of the financial crisis that has seen the devaluation of the ruble and the return of inflation, anti-Yeltsin sentiment will be stronger. In the weeks leading up to the holiday, even politicians who have traditionally been his allies like Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov have been calling for Yeltsin's resignation. The president himself, while not in hospital, is as good as he's on a two-week leave recovering from "nervous exhaustion." The need for accord and reconciliation was clearly demonstrated this week in Moscow. In a move that may have been intended to upstage the pro-Soviet, anti-reform demonstrations expected on Friday, pensioners gathered on Nov. 2 outside Lubyanka the former headquarters of the KGB. They lit candles and laid wreaths in memory of those who died in Stalin's labor camps, in jail, or in Lubyanka itself. Former dissident Sergei Kovalyov said, "By remembering those we have lost, we can hopefully stop the nostalgia for yesterday and stop any return of Soviet brutality."
#8 United States Information Agency 05 November 1998 TEXT: U.S., RUSSIA UPGRADE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR MATERIAL SECURITY (U.S. Energy Dept. announces completion of two upgrades) (640)
Washington -- The United States and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) have completed upgrades to security systems protecting highly enriched uranium at two sites in Russia. They also announced November 4 the opening of the Russian Methodological and Training Center (RMTC) in Obninsk. In cooperation with Russia, the U.S. Department of Energy installed nuclear material protection technology and advanced material control and accounting systems at the State Research Institute, Scientific Industrial Association (Luch) and the Krylov Shipbuilding Institute (Krylov), according to a DOE press release. The RMTC -- a cooperative effort among Russia, the United States, and the European Community -- is the state central training center for nuclear material safeguards training in Russia. Since 1994, DOE and MINATOM have been working cooperatively to improve the security of weapons-usable material at locations throughout Russia and the former Soviet Union. Security upgrades have been completed at 19 sites, and installation of upgrades continues at 34 remaining sites. Following is the text of the DOE press release: (Begin text) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY November 4, 1998 UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA JOIN FORCES TO INCREASE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR MATERIAL SECURITY Department of Energy Participates in Commissioning Ceremonies in Russia The United States and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) announced today the completion of upgrades to security systems protecting highly enriched uranium at two sites in Russia, and the grand opening of the Russian Methodological and Training Center (RMTC). In cooperation with the Russian government, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has installed nuclear material protection technology and advanced material control and accounting systems at the State Research Institute, Scientific Industrial Association (Luch) and the Krylov Shipbuilding Institute (Krylov). Physical protection devices installed include motion detectors, cameras and vibration sensors placed in areas containing weapons-grade material at Luch and Krylov. Ceremonies commemorating these events are taking place this week in Russia. Representatives of the Department of Energy and MINATOM are participating in the commissioning ceremonies. The RMTC, a cooperative effort among Russia, the United States and the European Community, is the state central training center for nuclear material safeguards training in Russia located in Obninsk, 107 miles southwest of Moscow. The RMTC's grand opening ceremony is being held to celebrate the completion of the consolidated training academy covering the areas of nuclear materials protection, control and accounting. "The completion of the security upgrades at Luch and Krylov to protect highly enriched uranium significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized use, theft, or diversion of nuclear materials," said Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. "These efforts will help to ensure that all weapons-usable material in our two countries remains out of reach of terrorists and rogue states." The completion of the security upgrades at Luch and Krylov and the grand opening of the RMTC are three of the most recent accomplishments of the U.S.-Russian nuclear material protection, control and accounting program (MPC&A). Since 1994, DOE and MINATOM have been jointly working under the MPC&A program to improve the security of weapons-usable material at locations throughout Russia and the former Soviet Union. The MPC&A projects have secured tens of tons of weapons-usable nuclear material throughout Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Uzbekistan, and Georgia by improving physical protection and material accounting systems. To date, site-wide MPC&A upgrades have been completed at 19 sites throughout the former Soviet Union. Installation of upgrades continues at 34 remaining sites, which will result in improved protection of hundreds of additional tons of weapons-usable material from theft or diversion. More information on MPC&A initiatives is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.dp.doe.gov/nn/mpca
#9 The Independent 6 November 1998 [for personal use only] Yeltsin health secrets revealed on TV By Phil Reeves in Moscow
BORIS Yeltsin was an extremely sick man when he stood for re-election in 1996, and would have died within six months had he not undergone a multiple coronary bypass operation, it was claimed in a television documentary broadcast in Russia last night. One of his surgeons said that during his successful campaign to be returned to the Kremlin, he had three "infarcts" - a term Russians use for heart attacks, but which can refer to other stroke-related problems. Details of his illness came during the extraordinary 50-minute programme called Yeltsin's Heart, screened across the nation to coincide with the second anniversary of the president's quintuple bypass. The film, which included interviews with his wife, Naina, and surgeons, marked a milestone in the Russian media's coverage of Mr Yeltsin, and is a measure of the distance the country has travelled since the end of the USSR. The broadcast would have been unthinkable in Soviet times when the Kremlin maintained rigid silence about the ill health of its aged occupants. The programme's content is proof that the fate of Russia hung by a thread in 1996. It has long been accepted that Mr Yeltsin suffered a heart attack in early July between the first and second round of the elections, when he disappeared from view after an energetic campaign performance that saw him dancing in public, travelling widely, and going down an Arctic coal mine. Dr Vladlen Vtorushin, one of the 12-man surgical team which operated on the president, told the programme Mr Yeltsin had five "infarcts", three occurring during the campaign. Another doctor, Sergei Korolyov, stated that were it not for the bypass operation, he would have died within six months. "He certainly wouldn't be alive today." Surgeons at first thought Mr Yeltsin was too ill to be operated on. A team of German doctors was on hand to conduct an emergency heart transplant. So was the pioneering American cardiologist Michael DeBakey, then 88, who acted as an adviser. Immediately after the seven-hour operation, Dr DeBakey publicly admitted the president "could not have carried on" much longer, but would now be fit enough to play his beloved tennis. However, one surgeon told the programme that, in reality, both doctors and Mr Yeltsin accepted that he would never be completely healthy again. Although the film included an assurance that Mr Yeltsin emerged in sound mental condition, this is unlikely to convince many Russians, given his latest problem. The 67-year-old president is on holiday at the Black Sea resort of Sochi on the orders of his medical advisers. Although the Kremlin says he is recuperating from exhaustion and high blood pressure, his erratic conduct suggests something more serious may be amiss. Even his aides have now abandoned the pretence that nothing is wrong. There has been speculation that Mr Yeltsin has Alzheimer's or MID - multi- infarct dementia. A parliamentary bill requiring the president to undergo a medical examination, whose results would have gone to parliament, yesterday fell five votes short of passing. Its authors, who argue that Mr Yeltsin is far too ill to govern, can take consolation in yesterday's widely anticipated Constitutional Court ruling that he cannot run for a third term in 2000. Natalya Pyaterikiva, script writer of Yeltsin's Heart, told Obshchaya Gazeta newspaper: "We wanted to show through this film that nobody should be given that much power. That is dangerous. Our film is a kind of warning."
#10 Albright Article on Russia Policy Criticized Sovetskaya Rossiya 31 October 1998 Article by Vyacheslav Tetekin, candidate of historical sciences: "Doctrine of Interference: Mrs. Albright in the Grip of Illusions"
Nezavisimaya Gazeta recently published an article by Mrs. M. Albright, US secretary of state, devoted to America"s Russia policy. This article was sharply rebuffed in the State Duma, where it was seen as flagrant interference in Russia"s internal affairs. Sovetskaya Rossiya spoke out in this connection also. But Mrs. Albright"s article was so patently addressed to the new Russian leadership in the form of some "directive guideline" that it merits a more detailed analysis. Of course, Mrs. Albright declares the best of intentions of help for the development of democracy and the market economy. But further on some opinions that cause doubts as to the sincerity of the intentions of the US secretary of state are adduced. She maintains, for example, that "300 years ago Peter I made an attempt to open up Russia to the West. Today, however, Russia has a chance to complete the journey that was begun when the outlines of St Petersburg emerged on the banks of the Neva." An assertion that is more than strange. For Russia now, as in pre-Petrine times, has found itself cast back from the Baltic. It gets even more interesting. "We should remember that not that long since Russia was a country where enterprises were being built to manufacture piles of all kinds of needless junk; a country were the dollar was simultaneously outlawed and represented the highest value; a country that displayed no concern for its needy citizens because it did not recognize their very existence; a country in which crimes and bribery were jealously guarded state monopolies." This is, perhaps, the sole place in this ostensibly calm article where her tone changes, revealing the author"s true attitude toward our country. I believe that the reader can himself make an assessment of this concentrated mixture of malice and outright lies. But it is not a question of emotions. It is something else that is far more important. If Mrs. Albright, who spent many years studying East Europe, has so distorted an idea of our country, on what grounds, one wonders, is US policy in respect to Russia being shaped. After all, judging by the articles of many Western scholars and journalists, there is in the United States a profound, sober understanding that the "reforms" imposed on Russia by Western countries have been a complete fiasco. Why, then, did Mrs. Albright need to so flagrantly distort the real state of affairs? David Halberstam, the well-known American journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, once aptly and colorfully wrote, analyzing the history of the US involvement in the Vietnam adventure and describing how the American leadership swept aside objective information about Vietnam: "The elephant was big and strong and it preferred not to know the truth." And here again the celebrated American pragmatism has been crushed by ideology or, rather, the principle: "if it is impossible, but greatly desired, it is possible." Self-deception led to a crushing defeat in Vietnam. The United States has already also lost the "battle for Russia" owing to the short-sighted policy of the present US leadership. As we all know, the troops of the Polish King Sigismund and the armies of Napoleon and Hitler in the initial stages of the wars were on the approaches to Moscow, and the Poles and the French even captured the Kremlin. At the start of the 1990s the United States, employing the fundamentally new strategy of "suffocation in a friendly embrace," was able to partially establish control over Russia and to enter the Kremlin even. But fully in accordance with the historical claimants also, the process of its ejection from Russia has already begun. In pushing Russia into "reforms," which could have produced no result other than the destruction of the economy and the emergence of total corruption, the United States, in fact, killed the "democrats" and their leader, Mr. Yeltsin, who sacredly believed in the miraculous power of American liberal prescriptions. The failure of the pseudo-market experiment is inevitably leading to the removal from power of the pro-West elite and to a growth of the authority of forces of the left. No "communist propaganda" could have secured the incredibly swift recovery of sight by a people that had even recently supported both the collapse of the CPSU and the demolition of the USSR as the "reformers" relying on the recommendations of the United States have done. No "nationalist propaganda" could have contributed to the revival of the spirit of the Russian people like the expansion of NATO and the alliance"s crude blackmail of Yugoslavia. And Mrs. Albright has in a fair way contributed to the pursuit of the primordially flawed American policy in respect to Russia built on false notions and impracticable goals. But her article is of undoubted value for us. It formulates with absolute clarity the strategy of US interference in Russia"s affairs at the new stage following the actual change of its economic course. The article indirectly acknowledges the defeat of the previous strategy and even contains censure of Washington"s thievish vassals in Moscow. Having said that Russia should not expect financial assistance from the United States, Mrs. Albright goes on to state clearly in which spheres the United States intends to "help" our country. "We will increase support for the independent news media and will try to ensure that a larger number of Russian students, politicians, and professionals come to the United States for training and practical experience. We also intend to help nongovernmental organizations that are in difficulties because of the banking crisis in Russia." You can imagine how "independent" the Russian press will be when it begins to receive American "assistance". As far as practical experience and training in the United States and assistance to nongovernmental organizations are concerned, this is simply a continuation of the training of "agents of influence". Nor is any particular effort made to conceal this. "These programs are in keeping with the interests of our country," the US secretary of state says. But the possibility of the restoration of government control over certain sectors of the economy evokes holy terror in Mrs. Albright: "Do some members of Primakov"s team understand the essentials of global economics?" This was clearly a swipe at Yu. Maslyukov, who is in charge of the work on the development of a new economic policy. This is interesting: the totally inexperienced Mr. S. Kiriyenko was lauded to the skies in the West as an outstanding professional. Yu. Maslyukov, who managed the colossal economic system of the USSR (more complex by an order of magnitude than any, even the biggest, American transnational company), does not, apparently, "know the essentials." The consistency of American foreign policy should be given its due. As Mrs. Albright observes, "the main priority in relations with Russia is the security of the American people." This is the main thing. Everything else in Mrs. Albright"s article is from the sphere of passes by which the dexterous magician shrouds the preparation for deception of the guileless viewer. But we have been observing these tricks for too long and have already learned to spot the moment when the substitution of items and concepts occurs. It is clear to everyone today that the true aims of US policy in respect to Russia are the destruction of our country as the main geopolitical rival of the West and unlimited access to our Russia"s abundant natural resources. The main objective of the United States today is to destroy Russia"s strategic nuclear forces. It is this colossal concentration of our country"s industrial and intellectual potential preserving the nuclear parity that is preventing the blackmail of Russia, as is being practiced in relation to Yugoslavia. Mrs. Albright does not even consider it necessary to conceal the fact that "75 percent of the dollars that we channel into Russia today in the form of aid are spent on programs designed to lessen the threat of nuclear war." In other words, it is Russia"s nuclear disarmament that is being paid for primarily. And manifestations of Russia"s foreign policy independence are viewed as an attempt "to shift the center of gravity of interaction with America to intractability, confrontation, and a disregard for the interests of the other side." It is maintained that, should this occur, "it will be increasingly difficult for us to help Russia progress," and in this case "Russia"s foreign policy will work against the interests of Russia itself." Touching concern for our country! This is followed by specific directive guidelines on what Russian foreign policy should be like: the abandonment of cooperation with Iran, ratification of START II, and good relations with NATO. Russia is called upon figuratively to reconcile itself to the United States"s active penetration of East Europe and the CIS. All these wise suggestions, incidentally, come in the section of the article entitled "The Interests of the United States Are What Is Most Important". No comment needed, I don"t believe. The US secretary of state is evidently incapable of understanding that "assistance," which has already brought us to the brink of catastrophe, is what Russia needs now least of all. The distorted notion of Russia that shows through in Mrs. Albright"s article obviously signifies that the United States has lost not only control over what is happening in Russia but even an understanding of what is now happening there. But every cloud has a silver lining. This means that its capacity for effectively interfering in Russia"s internal affairs is diminishing also. The US secretary of state writes figuratively that the train of Russian history now stands at a fork. And Mrs. Albright, as an experienced switchman, is giving us the green light for the path that, as she maintains, leads upward. But we are not complete idiots and can see on the basis of the lamentable experience of recent years that, instead of ascending, our train is hurtling toward the abyss. The signs of catastrophe are so manifest that even such an engineer as Mr. Yeltsin, who has blindly followed the American signals thus far, has been forced to abruptly change the train"s itinerary. The makeup of the new government and Russia"s tough position on Yugoslavia are obvious proof of this. The article of the US secretary of state is disappointing. It is a mixture of illusions and deliberate self-deception that does not lend itself to a precise definition. It is regrettable that there is no one in the American leadership currently who in terms of range of thinking even remotely approaches the great American president Franklin Roosevelt, who was able to overcome his prejudice in regard to the Soviet Union and lay the foundations of a postwar stable world. Russia is pulling away from the course into which it was pushed in 1991-1992 by the so-called democrats acting on the basis of the recommendations of their American patrons. Mrs. Albright"s article is an attempt, as desperate as it is hopeless, to keep Russia on this path. [Sovetskaya Rossiya: Pro-communist daily sympathetic to CPRF leader Gennadiy Zyuganov.]
#11 Russian Foreign Policy More Governmental Than Presidential
STRASBOURG, Nov 4 (Interfax) -- Russia's current foreign policy is more governmental than presidential, Chairman of the Russian Duma committee for international affairs Vladimir Lukin told Interfax. "The president is undergoing medical treatment and I wish him an early recovery," Lukin said. He said that for the first time ever the foreign minister had been appointed on the prime minister's recommendation. Therefore, Russian foreign policy "is so far governmental," he said. Russia's foreign policy, he said, must not be changed, but must be "more pragmatic, and more clearly orientated to basic national objectives." These objectives include "the quickest possible solution to the economic crisis and the creation of the most favorable political and economic conditions to attain this," he said "We respond to crisis situations by kicking up a fuss, sometimes going over the top, as a result of which we fail to obtain from outside resources what we need to overcome the crisis," Lukin said. "Russia is not creating conditions for becoming a great power," he said. "The louder we shout that we are a great power, the further we are from this status," Lukin said.
#12 The Globe and Mail (Canada) October 29, 1998 Editorial And take Yeltsin with you
Russia continues to teeter on the brink of hyperinflation, institutional collapse and international isolation. The enfeebled state controls a mere 6 per cent of GDP and powerful regional chiefs whittle away constantly at the centre's authority. These are extraordinary times in Russia, calling for a leadership that is extraordinarily self-confident, aggressive and committed to reform. Instead, Russia has President Boris Yeltsin. For the good of his long-suffering countrymen, it is time for him to go. Mr. Yeltsin once stared down tanks in the streets of Moscow, and he showed his steel again in the armed confrontation with the dinosaurs in the Communist-dominated Duma four years ago. Out of that latter conflict was born the present Russian constitution, which placed virtually unprecedented power in the president's hands. It also eliminated the office of vice-president, after Mr. Yeltsin's vice-president sided with the parliamentary forces in the showdown. As a result, the powers needed to deal with the current crisis are available, but only to a president with the physical strength and the political authority to use them. Mr. Yeltsin's increasingly erratic behaviour and failing health mean he has neither. The other Russian political institutions that could fill the void -- the prime minister's office, for example -- can only do so awkwardly and indirectly, without real, or accountable, authority. The constitution says an incapacitated president may be replaced, but it doesn't say how, or by whom. The political class would like to let things drag on while they negotiate constitutionally reduced presidential powers and which of their own will take over when Mr. Yeltsin finally departs feet first. But Russia's problems cannot wait. His final presidential act should be to announce his resignation and force an early election. Most of the leading candidates may be unattractive, but at least they're better than the alternative: a nuclear-armed Russia, drifting rudderless toward civil collapse.
Back to the
Center for Defense Infomation Site
Back to The
CDI Russia Weekly Site