#1
Moscow Times
November 12, 1999 
Kremlin Hints at Talks to End War 
By Valeria Korchagina and Brian Whitmore
Staff Writers


A top Kremlin official announced Thursday that Moscow was ready for 
negotiations with Chechnya to end nearly seven weeks of war, provided 
Chechnya would renounce its claim to independence. 


Kremlin First Deputy Chief of Staff Igor Shabdurasulov also offered a formal 
apology - the first from any high-ranking Russian official - for the civilian 
casualties of the war. 


At the same time, he vowed the war would go on for now, and on Thursday 
Russian forces hammered Grozny with artillery and air strikes. 


Shabdurasulov's announcement was echoed by Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in 
Helsinki, who said Russia was "prepared to end military action even 
tomorrow," provided only that Chechen fighters surrender. 


"We are interested in quickly ending the anti-terrorist operations and 
starting the process for a political settlement," Ivanov said, in remarks 
reported by Reuters. "If they [the rebels] laid down arms and halted their 
actions, things could end quickly." 


As Ivanov and Shabdurasulov raised their voices, Prime Minister Vladimir 
Putin - the war's main architect - was silent. Putin was in the city of 
Izhvesk Thursday to celebrate the 80th birthday of Mikhail Kalashnikov, the 
inventor of the famous AK-47 assault rifle. 


He made no official pronouncements about Chechnya, and was only quoted as 
saying Russia would in future take "consecutive and persistent" steps toward 
improving its national defense readiness. 


Other ministers also spoke out. 


Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev said he expected the war might end before the 
year's end, though he did not say exactly how. 


Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo said he opposed talks and wanted military 
operations to continue until the "terrorists" were "eliminated." 


Putin's popularity has soared since the conflict in Chechnya and polls show 
him to be Russia's most popular politician. 


But international condemnation of the war has grown, and the Kremlin has at 
times seemed to be distancing itself from Putin. 


Boris Yeltsin was formally on vacation on Thursday at a residence outside 
Moscow. 


Cracks have also appeared in the domestic political consensus on the war. On 
Tuesday, Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky became the first major politician 
to question the war. Citing mounting civilian casualties and a refugee 
crisis, he called for a 30-day bombing pause to let innocents escape the war 
zone. 


Exactly how many civilians have been killed remains unclear. But Chechen 
President Aslan Maskhadov told The Associated Press this week that Russian 
airstrikes have killed 4,126 civilians, and human rights groups have 
expressed alarm about civilian deaths. 


In sharp contrast to previous government statements, Shabdurasulov on 
Thursday acknowledged that Russian forces have made "mistakes" resulting in 
civilian casualties. 


"We bear moral responsibility for these mistakes," he said. 


Shabdurasulov held his press conference jointly with Dzhabrail Gakayev, a 
leader of the Moscow-based Chechen community. 


When Gakayev offered evidence that Russian forces had bombed schools and 
killed civilians, including women and elderly, Shabdurasulov did not 
disagree. 


"We have information that on Oct. 29, 29 civilians heading away from Chechnya 
were killed," Gakayev said. 


Shabdurasulov also apologized to the families of Russian soldiers, and 
expressed "empathy and compassion" for civilians in Chechnya. 


The plight of civilians in Chechnya and that of refugees fleeing the war is 
likely to be a major topic at the Organization for Security and Cooperation 
in Europe's summit meeting next month in Istanbul, Turkey. 


"We've seen alarming humanitarian conditions," Reuters quoted Norwegian 
diplomat Kim Traavik as saying Thursday. "There is a need for a major effort 
to avoid a further worsening of the situation." 


Traavik was speaking after leading an OSCE mission to Ingushetia, which is 
sheltering nearly 200,000 Chechen refugees. 


He said winter cold, cramped conditions and rising cases of tuberculosis and 
dysentery were all a threat to the estimated 25,000 refugees in camps there. 


Shabdurasulov said the Kremlin seeks talks not only with Maskhadov, but with 
all "respectable" members of the Chechen elite - but certainly not with rebel 
warlords Shamil Basayev or Khattab, who he described as "terrorists." 


Maskhadov on Thursday appealed to Yeltsin for negotiations. 


"Boris Nikolayevich, I again urge you to start a dialogue," Maskhadov said in 
an open letter to Yeltsin. "The problems ... can't be solved by war." 


But Shabdurasulov said, "There is no practical sense today in holding 
negotiations with Maskhadov alone because he does not control the situation 
in Chechnya." 


He added, however, that Russia still views Maskhadov as the "legitimate 
president of the Chechen republic." 


By contrast, Interior Minister Rushailo was quoted by Interfax Thursday as 
saying, "Maskhadov is now on a level with the bandits," and opposing talks 
with him. 


"We are talking about the consolidation of the Chechen people so that they 
are themselves able to define paths toward the unification of Chechen society 
and begin looking for a solution to the Chechen problem as a whole," 
Shabdurasulov said. 


"The federal authorities have always adhered to the position that this 
problem cannot be resolved by means of the use of force alone," Shabdurasulov 
said. 


"Chechnya is an integral part of the Russian Federation and of the Russian 
people. This position is not subject to discussion, not today, not in 2001, 
2002 nor in any other year." 


That position was at odds with a May 1997 agreement signed by President 
Yeltsin and Aslan Maskhadov, who had just been elected as president of 
Chechnya. 


That agreement - based on the 1996 Khasavyurt Accords brokered by Maskhadov 
and then-Kremlin security chief Alexander Lebed to end the first war - put 
off deciding the issue Chechnya's independence until 2001. 


Yavlinsky has also proposed talks with Mashkadov - provided Maskhadov first 
frees all kidnapping victims and other hostages held across Chechnya, disarms 
all paramilitary groups and turns over all "terrorists." 


Nationalities Minister Ramazan Abdulatipov slammed Yavlinsky's proposal 
Wednesday, calling it "pure fiction, totally groundless and leading nowhere." 


Likewise, the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, owned by Kremlin-connected 
tycoon Boris Berezovsky, ran a front-page story Wednesday condemning 
Yavlinsky's 30-day bombing pause proposal as a piece of cheap electioneering 
and an attempt to undermine Putin's presidential aspirations. 


Nezavisimaya Gazeta suggested that Yavlinsky has a hidden agenda and made the 
proposal to "demonstrate his loyalty to Yabloko's foreign partners." 

#4
The Russia Journal
November 8-14, 1999
Chechen effort needs political goals
Alexander Golts is a columnist for the weekly magazine Itogi.


Russian troops enter their tent at a camp near Arshty, Ingushetia, some 60 km 
west of Grozny, early last week. 
 
It's alarming that Russian generals, euphoric over their claimed success in 
Chechnya, don't recall statements they made a half-year ago when they slammed 
NATO's operation in Yugoslavia.


Air strikes and massive artillery shelling proved effective in the Chechen 
operation's first stage when the aim was to create a security zone around the 
breakaway republic. It's time for the top brass to acknowledge that the 
situation has changed radically since Russian troops crossed the Terek River 
and, meeting almost no resistance, began tightening the noose around the 
Chechen capital, Grozny.


Russia's generals desperately need a victory in order to wipe out the shame 
of the previous war. "No cessation and no talks with the separatists!" has 
become a mantra for these men. In a bid to achieve their aim, they are 
continuing to keep direct contacts with the enemy to a minimum. 


However, in seeking to wipe out "terrorists," they have indiscriminately 
bombed all military formations in the republic -- whether Shamil Basayev's 
and Khattab's men, or Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov's national guards.


Meanwhile, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has reiterated that the Chechen 
problem can only be resolved through political means. The trouble is that 
federal authorities do not want to talk with anybody in Chechnya.


The generals' decisiveness contrasts with the indecision of Russia's civilian 
authorities. The government appeared willing to speak with Chechnya's 
parliament deputies but soon abandoned the idea. It appointed Nikolai Koshman 
as Russia's empowered envoy to Chechnya but didn't give him any powers.


The absence of a political strategy as explicit as the military one 
jeopardizes the entire undertaking. Although the military operation appears 
to be going successfully, the army has not yet defeated the Chechen force of 
30,000-40,000 men. The federal force has only battled with the Chechen army's 
vanguard detachments and could well be heading toward a Chechen trap. 


It's unlikely that the federal force will manage to encircle Grozny and 
starve the Chechens out. As international pressure builds, the Kremlin will 
pressure the military to speed the operation by using the same tactics of 
massive air strikes and shelling. However, the destruction of Chechen 
apartment blocks will bring public protests, and the military will have to 
resort to street fighting and inevitable heavy losses. 


The worst scenario would come if Chechen militants leave Grozny in order to 
deliver a blow from behind. It would be difficult to repel rebel forces 
moving in from Ingushetia or Dagestan. The 90,000-strong federal army group 
deployed in the North Caucasus is the largest the country can amass. There 
are no reserves ready to combat a sudden incursion into Russia.


Russia obviously needs military dialogue with the Chechen leaders. At the 
least, Russia must try to get a section of Chechnya's armed forces taken out 
of the picture while federal troops destroy the Basayev and Khattab 
formations.


At the current rate, even if federal troops manage to crush organized Chechen 
resistance and kill Basayev and Khattab, peace won't be established in the 
breakaway republic. Moscow needs an understanding with the Chechens. Air 
strikes and bombing are not the path toward building up confidence. 


With this in mind, Russian authorities are trying to foster relatively normal 
living conditions in areas controlled by federal troops - they reopen schools 
and hospitals, restore infrastructure, and pay wages and pensions. 
Nonetheless, these efforts will bring about nothing unless Moscow adopts a 
sound approach toward Chechnya. No military strategy, however successful, can 
substitute for rational policy.

#5
Russian Premier Reiterates Sovereignty Over Chechnya


BUDAPEST (Nov. 11) XINHUA - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said 
Chechnya is an inalienable part of Russia and that the Russian government 
will not negotiate with Chechen terrorists. 


The Hungarian newspaper People's Voice carried his statement Thursday. Putin 
was quoted as saying Chechnya had actually been in a state of independence, 
but the terrorists were not satisfied. They launched aggression against other 
republics, attempting to occupy more territory. Their terrorist explosions 
have killed about 1,500 civilians. 


If the bases of Chechen terrorists were not smashed Russia would never have 
tranquillity, he was quoted as saying. The Russian government will not hold 
talks with the terrorists, he said. 


The Russian Prime Minister also slashed out at foreign forces' interference 
in Russia's action in Chechnya. 


He said these political forces do not want to see a powerful Russia. They 
offered their immense financial resources to those opponents of the Russian 
government to undermine and weaken the country. 

#6
Russia needs to scrap 107 nuclear-powered subs - minister. 


ST. PETERSBURG, November 9 (Itar-Tass) - Russia needs to scrap 107 
decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines of its Northern and Pacific 
fleets, Deputy Nuclear Energy Minister Valery Lebedev said. 


He said speaking at a conference of northern territories in Saint 
Petersburg on Tuesday that nuclear sector experts hoped to unload fuel 
from at least 18 submarines and dispose of them next year. 


"Seriousness of the problem finds an understanding in the government, 
and this gives us hope that our programme will be implemented," Lebedev 
said. 


However, Russia lacks a single technological cycle of treatment of 
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, he said. 


Such a "through" technology is being developed these days by 
specialists of the Nuclear Energy Ministry and the Russian Academy of 
Sciences. 


Part of this technology is to set up several storage sites for spent 
fuel near locations of nuclear submarines. Storage tanks are being 
designed at Saint Petersburg's Izhora plants. 


Part of fuel will be transported to Mayak chemical factory in the 
Urals. Lebedev said a plant for liquid radioactive waste treatment 
would be launched by the end of this year at Murmansk's service and 
maintenance enterprise Atomflot, which is a base of civilian 
nuclear-propelled ice-breakers. 


The enterprise will meet demand of the whole northern region for 
disposal of the nuclear sector's waste. 


Russia will use funds of foreign countries and organisations in the 
fuel and waste treatment programme, Lebedev said. 


He said the environmental situation at anchorage sites of nuclear 
submarines in the northern Murmansk anbd Arkhangelsk regions is not 
alarming. 


Lebedev said the environmental situation was close to dangerous only at 
a submarine base in the Kola Peninsula's Andreyeva Bay, but it is under 
control. 

#7
Experts on 'Collapse' of ABM Treaty, Russian Response  


Rossiyskaya Gazeta
10 November 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Article by Aleksandr Babakin under the "Fact and Commentary" rubric: 
"Where the Antimissile Missiles in Alaska Are Targeted" -- passages 
between slantlines are printed in boldface 


A Russian antimissile missile was launched into the 
skies at a remote testing range last Tuesday, 2 November. 


On Thursday US Defense Secretary William Cohen spoke about this in very 
negative terms. Such antimissile missiles, he said, are contrary to the 
basic provisions of the 1972 ABM Treaty, and this supposedly gives the 
United States grounds to insist on its modification. Furthermore a 
missile threat to the United States has recently arisen, Cohen asserts, 
from countries like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. The Pentagon 
chief also claimed that a national antimissile defense system "does not 
constitute a threat to Russia." And, according to Cohen, the United 
States hopes to convince Moscow of "the need for amendments to or 
modification of the ABM Treaty." Here is the opinion of Russian experts 
on this point. 


/Under the existing treaty, as Vladimir Petrovskiy, member of the Academy 
of Military Sciences, explained, the sides are permitted up to 100 
antimissile missiles./_ One of these, which was on alert status, was 
tested. So the fact of such a test should not be regarded as an attempt 
by Russia to make a show of strength, it is rather a reminder of our 
country's readiness to take the necessary measures at any moment. 


"Nobody," Vladimir Petrovskiy noted, "has hitherto proved sufficiently 
reliably and convincingly that North Korea really does possess missile 
potential and is capable of threatening the United States." All this is 
at the level of arguments and political commentaries, while in Vladimir 
Petrovskiy's view such questions should be discussed at an international 
level. 


/And here is the opinion of Major General Vladimir Dvorkin, chief of a 
Russian Federation Defense Ministry research institute, on what kind of 
threat the stationing of sophisticated US antimissile missiles in Alaska 
poses./ "This is just the start of the collapse of the 1972 ABM Treaty," the 
military scientist believes; "it marks the end of the fundamental START I 
Treaty and the subsequent START II and START III Treaties (START [SNV] 
stands for strategic offensive arms) and of the Treaty on the Elimination 
of Intermediate- and Shorter-Range Missiles. All in all, this could lead 
to a new spiral in the arms race. In response to US missiles in Alaska, 
for instance, Russia could [install] an MRV (multiple reentry vehicle) 
instead of the single warhead on Topol missiles, use a single [yedinuyu] 
missile for the ground and naval strategic nuclear forces, retain mobile 
railroad missile systems but with a different missile, and take other 
weighty steps. But even the technical solutions that have been found do 
not answer the main political question: Do we have an interest in the 
total destruction of the security system?" -- the scientist asks, and 
answers his own question: "I am confident that that is not in Russia's 
interest." However, in his view the case is not so hopeless. Not all the 
diplomatic potential has been exhausted yet. For instance, the French 
president has also now declared his disagreement with breaking the ABM 
Treaty...

#8
Excerpt
US State Deparetment
Foreign Media Reaction
November 10, 1999
10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BERLIN WALL'S FALL: REASON TO 'CELEBRATE'?


Yesterday's celebration of the tenth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin 
Wall prompted a flurry of editorials and commentaries overseas, with pundits 
from Europe, Asia, Latin America and Canada ruminating about the destruction 
of "one of the most potent symbols of our time." Beyond acknowledging the 
Wall as the preeminent Cold War symbol, however, opinionmakers were divided 
on the ramifications of the Eastern bloc implosion and on its implications 
for world security in the intervening ten years. The outlook of a number of 
pundits in Europe and elsewhere was quite positive. Conceding that many 
problems remain and that this is "not the end of history, more a still 
incomplete chapter," these commentators stressed that there can be no doubt 
that--with the "victory of democracy over tyranny"--the world is a better 
place today than it was a decade ago. But a majority of other analysts was 
less sanguine. They contended that the "new world order" is "full of 
disorder," and that nations are no closer to "harmony" than they were during 
the Cold War. Many argued that, in fact, many "new walls" have been thrown up 
around the world--defined by the "resurgence of nationalism," "growth in 
social and economic inequality," and a "rampant" arms race. Criticism was 
aimed at the leading powers of the world--the U.S. superpower, as well as 
Europe--which were seen as only acting in their self-interests, and in danger 
of "losing the peace." Regarding a reunited Germany, German and Belgian 
papers found that the optimism of the early years has eroded. Writers pointed 
out that poverty is high in the East, and that "inner-unity" in Germany 
remains merely a "catch-phrase," not a reality. Following are commentary 
highlights:


THE POSITIVES: A number of media voices agreed that, while problems remain, 
there is "more to celebrate than lament" on this tenth anniversary. 
Commentators stressed that first and foremost, with the fall of the Wall, 
came the fall of communism in Europe. They held that the world should rejoice 
that communism--a "doctrine...that willingly perverted the human longing for 
justice...[and] sacrificed human compassion"--has been finally "consigned to 
the dumpster of history." Several observers also said that it is "worth 
remembering" that "we used to live in a world where the main framework for 
peace was a nuclear stand-off based on the threat of mutually assured 
destruction." Analysts spoke of the "lesson" that the fall of the Wall 
teaches: that "change is possible, even in the most unpropitious 
circumstances." Others pointed out that today, Eastern European societies 
offer "infinitely more opportunities for social and individual development 
than the contorted dictatorship[s]" of the past. 


THE NEGATIVES: Many more analysts believed that the collapse of the East Bloc 
"did not yield a safer and more stable world." Critics found that, among 
other things: there are "more conflicts" in the world; nationalism is fueling 
instability; "justice" is meted out unequally; the leading powers are 
self-serving; relations among the former Cold War antagonists remain tense; 
the arms race is still alive; and crime and corruption have taken root ahead 
of democracy in the former communist states. An Italian daily ventured to say 
that "we did not understand that the fall of an empire would remove one of 
the pillars from the world that, for good or bad, had been maintaining the 
international order for 50 years." "Chaos prevails in the new world order 
that emerged from the ashes of socialist nations," one Mexican daily glumly 
concluded. 

#9
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
November 10, 1999
Study finds Russian police use torture routinely
GEOFFREY YORK
Moscow Bureau


Moscow -- Russian police routinely torture or abuse as many as half of their 
suspects, often using electroshock and asphyxiation techniques, a new study 
says.


A two-year investigation by Human Rights Watch, an independent New York-based 
group, found disturbing evidence that Russian police are torturing suspects 
with almost complete impunity while prosecutors are closing their eyes to the 
widespread practice.


There is overwhelming evidence that "torture has become an integral part of 
police practice," the group says in a 200-page report to be released in 
Moscow today.


The group reached this conclusion after interviewing more than 50 victims in 
five regions of Russia. It also interviewed dozens of judges, lawyers, 
prosecutors, former police officers, and relatives of the torture victims. 
Some experts cited in the report say the use of torture techniques has 
increased dramatically in the past 10 years.


"The courts commonly accept forced confessions at face value, and use them as 
a basis for convictions," the report says. "Some former police officers said 
they believe it is impossible to solve crimes without torture."


The prolonged beating of suspects is the most common form of police torture 
in Russia. But police also use several other elaborate torture techniques, 
the report notes.


In one technique, a suspect is handcuffed to a chair while a gas mask or 
plastic bag is placed over his head and his oxygen supply is cut off. The 
technique is known as "the elephant" because the gas mask's hose resembles an 
elephant's trunk. One detainee in the town of Saransk died as a result of 
this torture.


In the electroshock technique, police use a hand-cranked machine that 
resembles an old-fashioned field telephone. An electric current is 
transmitted by electrodes clamped to the suspect's ears.


In another position, known as the "envelope," the detainee is forced to sit 
with his head between his bent knees, with his hands tied to his feet. A 
suspect in the city of Nizhni Novgorod died after being held in this position 
and subjected to sustained beatings, the report says. A forensic examination 
found 40 bruises from nightsticks on his body.


In the "swallow" position, the victim's hands are handcuffed behind him and 
attached to an iron pipe, so that he is suspended above the ground, while the 
police beat him.


The police also routinely use intense psychological pressure, threats of 
violence and threats to the suspect's family, the report says. They usually 
refuse to allow suspects to have access to a lawyer. Some of the tortured 
suspects are as young as 14 or 15.


In many cases, the report says, police put a suspect into the same cell as a 
trusted prisoner, who serves as a police enforcer by beating or raping the 
suspect in exchange for special privileges.


The investigation found four cases in which a suspect leaped or fell from 
police windows, usually to escape torture. One died and two were crippled for 
life.


Most torture victims are unable to get access to doctors or forensic experts 
to document their injuries. Many doctors, afraid of the police, are reluctant 
to examine torture victims. "As a result, medical evidence of torture is 
almost always lost," the report notes.


Even when a suspect is able to present evidence of torture, most courts and 
prosecutors ignore this evidence, the report says. Convictions are often 
based on coerced testimony, it says, and confessions based on coercion are 
rarely excluded from a trial's evidence.


One of the most shocking cases recounted is that of Sergei Mikhailov, a 
26-year-old in northern Russia who was arrested in 1994 and accused of the 
murder of a young girl. He said he was beaten for 10 days and threatened with 
rape until he signed a confession.


Although he withdrew the confession after he gained access to a lawyer, he 
was convicted and sentenced to death. A year later, another man confessed to 
the murder.


A special state investigator concluded in 1997 that Mr. Mikhailov was wrongly 
convicted, but the state prosecutor has not yet taken steps to overturn the 
conviction. Mr. Mikhailov, who spent more than four years in a death-row cell 
and has tried to commit suicide several times, is still in prison.


Most Russians appear to be fully aware of the risk of torture or abuse at the 
hands of the police. About 60 per cent of crime victims do not report the 
crimes.  

#10
Russian Senators Send Address to US Senate.


MOSCOW, November 11 (Itar-Tass) -- The Federation Council, the Russian 
parliament's upper house, on Thursday passed an address to the U.S Senate. 
The Russian senators "are worried and concerned with the news that the U.S 
Senate has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This fact 
is posing a threat both to the Treaty's entry in force and to the world 
process of nuclear non-proliferation," the senators wrote. 


The Federation Council urged the U.S colleagues to manifest state wisdom and 
high sense of responsibility for the fate of the world, to re-consider their 
stance towards the treaty's ratification and to thwart any attempts to 
disrupt the ABM Treaty. "The fate of humanity, including the American 
citizens" largely depends on the future of this treaty. 


"A law on the creation of the national ABM system that was passed by the U.S 
Congress, intensified efforts to build the ABM strategic system on the U.S 
territory and attempts by some U.S politicians to cross out the agreements 
reached in the field of defense and mutual security are serious destabilizing 
factors which contradict the spirit of the ABM Treaty signed by the United 
States and Russia on May 26, 1972, " the Russian senators stressed. 


They also recalled that for more than a quarter of the century the ABM Treaty 
had been a major condition for the reduction of the strategic offensive 
weapons, the guarantor of peace and stability on our planet. 


"It is exactly today, when fresh armed conflicts are flaring up in different 
parts of the world, that the peaceful dialogue between Russia and America is 
undergoing a serious test for cohesion," the Russian senators went on to say. 
The Federation Council members believe that revising the basic provisions of 
the ABM Treaty "will, inevitably, bring back the Cold War times and will 
threaten the entire system of international nuclear arms control agreements." 


The Russian senators hope the address will meet the support and understanding 
of their U.S counterparts. The upper house of the Russian parliament is ready 
to coordinate efforts with the U.S Senate and to work for the benefit of the 
two peoples and all humanity, for the sake of peace and tranquility on earth. 

#12
USA, Russia Should Cooperate on Antimissile Defence-Velikhov.


MOSCOW, November 12 (Itar-Tass) -- President of the Russian Kurchatov 
Institute research centre Academician Yevgeni Velikhov on Thursday told here 
a press conference that "joint practical work on antimissile defence may lay 
a cornerstone in the new, mature relations between the USA and Russia into 
the 21st century." 


Velikhov pointed out that "it was important that the two countries should 
move from the mutual assured destruction to mutual assured safety." In this 
connection, Velikhov said it was much more advantageous to the interests of 
Russia's national security "to pursue a line to consultations and 
constructive cooperation with the USA in what concerned creation of non- 
strategic antimissile defence systems." The Russian Academician noted that 
"such a step would place the antimissile defence systems under mutual control 
and would save both sides suspicions about this or some other system's 
threat." 


"It would be extremely expedient on the part of the USA to invite Russia as 
an equal partner to create antimissile defence systems meeting the needs of 
both countries, and the more so as it is Russia that can now boast of the 
most advanced technology in the sphere," Velikhov emphasized. 

#13
Moscow Times
November 12, 1999 
MEDIA WATCH: Study: Free Press Still Myth 
By Robert Coalson 
Robert Coalson is a program director for the National Press Institute. The 
views expressed here are not necessarily those of NPI. 


"There is no freedom of speech in Russia" - readers of this column will not 
be surprised to read these words, but they may be interested to learn that 
this conclusion has now been endorsed by the Russian Union of Journalists and 
other media-rights organizations working here. At the Pressa-2000 exhibition 
in Moscow last month, the Union issued the preliminary results of its 
Herculean effort to quantify the level of freedom of speech in all of the 
territories of the Russian Federation. This study, although far from perfect 
and complete, is a much-needed and belated effort to shine light into the 
darkness that covers most of this vast country. 


The study - which was conducted by the Glasnost Defense Foundation, the 
Moscow Media Law and Policy Institute and the non-commercial organization 
Internews, under the direction of the Union of Journalists - analyzed local 
media-related legislation, conditions for access to official information and 
restrictions on the distribution of information (both printed and electronic) 
in 81 of Russia's subject territories. As for the other eight, either the 
information received was too fragmented to be useful (which, I guess, already 
says something about the state of free speech there) or conditions were 
deemed too dangerous to even attempt to gather the needed data (as in 
Chechnya, for instance). 


The authors intended to produce results that would separate out the regions 
where a free press exists from those where it is absent. Instead, they were 
"surprised" to learn that they were merely measuring degrees of non-freedom. 
Every region, including the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, was 
characterized by arbitrary rule that constantly threatens to stamp out 
whatever foothold a free press manages to attain. 


As an illustration, consider the Western Siberian region of Omsk, which ranks 
near the middle on Russia's scale of non-freedom - occupying 41st place. The 
Union sent 10 official requests for information to various local officials 
there using procedures outlined in Russia's national law on access to 
information. Four requests were ignored, one received a non-responsive reply, 
one received a formal denial and just four were answered completely and 
promptly. 


However, as is the case in many regions, the matter of who responded, or 
didn't, tells more than just the raw numbers. The regional governor, the 
speaker of the regional legislature, the chair of the finance committee and 
the regional prosecutor all responded with silence. Among those who did 
answer were some municipal officials in the city of Omsk, the head of the 
regional Health Department and the chair of a regional committee on the 
environment. 


If you want to open a newspaper kiosk in Omsk, incidentally, you need 
permission from no less than 34 local offices and agencies. Good luck. 


Important as it is, the Union's study adopts a crucial assumption that may 
limit its usefulness. The investigators believe - as do many Russians who 
study the media - that state-controlled and non-state media can peacefully 
coexist if the right legislative environment can be maintained. I think that 
this is an extremely questionable assumption that, at the very least, 
deserves serious analysis and explanation. I would argue that the mere 
presence of state-subsidized media undermines public confidence in journalism 
generally, consumes a significant portion of the country's minimal stock of 
qualified journalists, encourages the natural tendency of many politicians to 
see the media in terms of "us" and "them," etc. 


Furthermore, the study's scope (and it should be noted that the material 
released so far is just the beginning of what will hopefully be a permanent 
project) will need to be widened in order to really give an accurate picture. 
It should analyze the degree of government interference in advertising 
markets, since this is one of the primary ways that local officials keep 
independent newspapers from achieving financial independence. Also, the study 
should include data on libel suits and other legal actions taken by local 
officials and their private-sector surrogates against the mass media. 


Nonetheless, the Union's study is an invaluable contribution to our 
understanding of the press in Russia today. We can only hope that they will 
be able to repeat the study regularly in order to highlight the emerging 
trends. Anyone interested in obtaining the study - and every one who cares 
about human rights in Russia should be -- can contact the Union at 201-4466.