Center for Defense Information
Research Topics
Television
CDI Library
Press
What's New
Search
CDI Library > Johnson's Russia List

Johnson's Russia List
 

 

May 7, 1999    
This Date's Issues: 3273 3274   



Johnson's Russia List
#3274
7 May 1999
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. AP: Russia Posts 3 Percent Inflation.
2. Reuters: Russia: Kosovo Crisis Not Over Yet.
3. Boston Globe: David Filipov, Little to cheer Moscow in deal.
4. Argumenty i Fakty: Opinion Poll on Attitude to TV, Radio Reports.
5. Moscow Times: Jonas Bernstein, PARTY LINES: You Scratch My Back in 
Yugoslavia ... 

6. David Filipov: re: Domrin JRL 3271.
7. The Economist: Old Russian customs.
8. Albert Weeks: Russian presence in solving Kosovo crisis.
9. RFE/RL NEWSLINE: LIFESTYLES OF THE YOUNGISH AND POWERFUL.
10. Radiostantsiya Ekho Moskvy: Chief of Russian TV Firm on Yugoslavia
Coverage.

11. Omaha World-Herald: Jake Thompson, Joint Missile Defense Proposed 
With Russia.

12. Moskovskaya Pravda: Sergey Mezin, "The United States Needs a 
Nuclear Kozyrev: Yes, I Am a Pro-West Minister, Andrey Kozyrev Agrees..." 
13. Moskovskiy Komsomolets: Radio Liberty Berezovskiy Coverage Scored.] 


*******

#1
Russia Posts 3 Percent Inflation
May 7, 1999

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia posted 3 percent inflation in April, the State
Statistics Committee said today. The figure was a slight rise from the
month before, but still a welcome piece of news for the country's battered
economy.

The government has been trying to keep inflation under control since the
economy crashed last August. It's efforts have been relatively successful
during the first four months of 1999.

Inflation was 84 percent last year, with most of the rise coming after the
August crisis. But the government managed to keep inflation at 19.5 percent
from January-April, and at 2.8 percent in March.

Economists have credited the government with resisting the temptation to
print large sums of money, a move that would help pay off debts, but would
also stoke inflation.

Russia's economy plunged in reaction to financial crisis in emerging
markets last year.

********

#2
Russia: Kosovo Crisis Not Over Yet
May 7, 1999
By BARRY RENFREW

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia warned today that the Kosovo crisis is not over
despite progress on finding a diplomatic solution and said it still
believes NATO must first end its airstrikes to ensure peace.

A draft peace plan worked out by Western powers and Russia ``is not a
breakthrough, but a step in the right direction. There will be a
breakthrough when the war is stopped,'' said Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.

Moscow's special envoy on Kosovo, ex-premier Viktor Chernomyrdin, said
Friday he will fly to Belgrade for talks with Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic, but did not say when. The Russian envoy will follow up on the
talks between the Western powers and Russia, aides said.

Ivanov, who represented Moscow at talks of the G-8 nations on Thursday in
Bonn, Germany, expressed disappointment that NATO had not agreed to end its
attacks on Yugoslavia.

``Had our partners accepted our proposal to halt the airstrikes, better
conditions would've been created to adopt a decision,'' Ivanov told
reporters during wreath-laying ceremonies to mark the end of World War II.

``You know that every hour brings new tragedies'' because of the
airstrikes, he added.

Chernomyrdin, who is heading Russia's diplomatic efforts to end the
conflict, expressed cautious optimism that a solution was closer. ``At
present the positions of the two sides have been drawn nearer,'' he said on
Russian television. He also called for an immediate end to the airstrikes.

Chernomyrdin's office declined to say today if he would resume his shuttle
diplomacy to Belgrade and Western capitals anytime soon, saying only that
several options were under consideration but details were ``secret.''

The plan worked out in Bonn includes the deployment of ``effective
international civil and security presences'' in Kosovo, a province of
Yugoslavia's dominant republic, Serbia.

But many details still have to be worked out. Belgrade still hasn't
accepted the presence of armed forces on Yugoslav territory, while Russia
and NATO have different interpretations of a ``security presence.''

NATO has ruled out ending airstrikes until its conditions are met by Belgrade.

Russia's Communist opposition denounced Moscow's peacemaking efforts,
insisting that Moscow should be aiding Yugoslavia against the United
States. The opposition wants to supply weapons and other aid to Yugoslavia.

Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov said Yeltsin's government ``is silently
betraying and selling Yugoslavia.''

Yeltsin, while deploring both NATO airstrikes and Yugoslav ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo, has focused on finding a diplomatic solution, insisting that
Moscow will not be drawn in to the military conflict.

Russia's fierce opposition to NATO strikes on Yugoslavia is partly due to
its intense dislike of the alliance itself. Moscow has said repeatedly that
the United Nations, a body in which it has a powerful role, should work out
a resolution to the crisis.

********

#3
Boston Globe
7 May 1999
[for personal use only]
Little to cheer Moscow in deal 
By David Filipov

MOSCOW - The West could claim success by agreeing with Russia yesterday on
general principles for ending the war in Yugoslavia. But there is no joy in
Moscow over the deal.

From the Western perspective, getting Moscow to back a strategy that calls
for an international peacekeeping force to replace Serb troops in Kosovo
puts added pressure on Moscow's ally, Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic, to agree to NATO's terms.

And an agreement on even general terms for peace relieves the enormous
tensions that have built up between the world's largest nuclear powers,
Russia and the United States, over Moscow's angry opposition to NATO
airstrikes.

But from Moscow's perspective, the results of yesterday's meeting of the
foreign ministers of Russia and the seven leading industrial nations
accomplished little.

''The bombing is continuing, the destruction is even greater, and as before
people are leaving Kosovo,'' said Russia's Balkans envoy, Viktor Chernomyrdin.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov openly expressed disappointment that
NATO had refused his proposal to halt the bombing to allow peace talks with
Belgrade. Ivanov also said any peacekeeping force could not include NATO
troops, as demanded by the alliance, without Belgrade's agreement.

To secure Russia's approval, yesterday's agreement left out any mention of
NATO, saying instead that the troops would be approved by the United
Nations. Russia wants the troops to be under UN command, a position NATO
has rejected.

Moscow has also proposed that the United States and Britain, which have led
the bombing of Yugoslavia, be excluded from any Kosovo peacekeeping force,
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who met with Ivanov yesterday,
flatly ruled out such a plan, terming it ''not acceptable.''

Albright instead underscored that yesterday's agreement meant that Russia
now accepts all of NATO principles for a solution: an end to violence in
Kosovo, a withdrawal of Serb forces from the southern Serbian province, the
return of Kosovo refugees, the introduction of an international security
force and a political settlement.

In fact, the difference has not been over Russia's support of these
principles, but over Russia's insistence that the bombing stop before a
settlement is reached, and differences over the makeup and auspices of the
troops. 

''Today there is an understanding,'' Ivanov told reporters yesterday,
''that a political solution is necessary and a military victory is
impossible.'' 

The differences in the way both sides saw yesterday's events are indicative
of the broad differences between Russian and Western assessments of the
Balkans conflict. In the West, the past two weeks of Russian diplomacy have
been widely interpreted as a sign that Moscow had abandoned its earlier,
more confrontational reaction to the war and was now ''on board.'' It was
perceived that Moscow found it had something to gain by avoiding a complete
break with the West.

In fact, the change in Russian attitudes, and Chernomyrdin's appointment,
occurred only in the Kremlin, and mainly as a result of President Boris N.
Yeltsin's need to reassert himself and sideline his prime minister, Yevgeny
M. Primakov, who had pursued the tougher line. Many Russians, and much of
the country's political elite, have questioned whether Chernomyrdin's peace
missions serve the national interest.

''In fact, Moscow is acting for NATO's benefit, and suffering moral and
political losses,'' commented Sergei Karaganov, head of the Council on
Foreign Defense Policy, an influential think tank. 

Meanwhile, Moscow politicians still express concern that any escalation of
NATO's campaign could drag Russia into the conflict on Serbia's side.
Yeltsin has said he would not allow this to happen, and has so far resisted
calls by Parliament to send arms to the Serbs. But Yeltsin has also ordered
improvements in Russia's nuclear arsenal, at a time when some Russian
military brass and lawmakers advocate using the nuclear threat to force
NATO to halt its airstrikes. 

NATO has played down the potential for the Balkans conflict to escalate
into a game of nuclear brinksmanship, mainly because few Western
policymakers believe Russia would resort to such drastic measures. But some
analysts say this view is shortsighted.

''I'd say that there's a danger that in the NATO policy there may be a
misestimation of Russian reaction that resembles what is clearly a
misestimation of Milosevic,'' said Graham Allison, director of Harvard's
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Moscow Mayor Yuri M. Luzhkov and others say Moscow would not be able to
stand by if NATO fought a ground war in Yugoslavia, something no one here
has ruled out.

''I am concerned about World War III,'' said Alexei Arbatov, a member of a
politically moderate faction in Parliament. ''Not because our government
and our president will declare a war on NATO, but because the pressure on
them to send volunteers and weapons will become unbearable and they may
give up. The West should understand and realize this.''

*******

#4
Opinion Poll on Attitude to TV, Radio Reports 

Argumenty i Fakty, No. 967
April 1999 (Signed to Press 30 Apr 99) 
[translation for personal use only]
Unattributed "Public Opinion Foundation" poll in the "The voice of 
the people" column: "Do we Believe our Mass Media?" Figures and passages 
within slant lines are published in boldface 

People nowadays will find it difficult without full 
and truthful information on what is going on in the world. An opinion 
poll by the //"Public Opinion" foundation shows that 65 per cent of 
Russia's residents watch television, listen to radio and read newspapers 
every day// with the aim of finding out news about the political and 
economic life of their country. //Twenty-six per cent// do this at least 
several times a week. And //5 per cent// admitted that they are not 
interested in the news. 

Many of those polled doubt that television, radio and the press give them 
truthful and unbiased information. For example, //56 per cent// think 
that they do not get such information on the country's political life 
(while 30 per cent believe they do). //Sixty-one per cent// doubt that 
economic reports are unbiased (while 26 per cent believe they are). 
//Forty-six per cent doubt that "people's views and public opinion on 
various issues" are portrayed truthfully (while 40 per cent believe they 
are). 

Finally, the effect of the mass media on people is far from positive. 
//Forty-nine per cent// of those polled believe that television, radio 
and the press have a negative effect on people's moods, while 32 per cent 
believe their influence is positive. 

********

#5
Moscow Times
May 7, 1999 
PARTY LINES: You Scratch My Back in Yugoslavia ... 
By Jonas Bernstein
Staff Writer 

American news outlets were a-twitter Thursday with the emerging "common
strategy" between the West and Russia to resolve the Yugoslav conflict.
While sharp differences remain over such things as the kind of
peace-keeping force to be deployed in Kosovo, the negotiating process has
now begun and the light at the end of the tunnel is faintly visible. 

What might Boris be asking for, in return for his help in pulling Bill's
chestnuts out of the Balkans fire? 

This week gave hints of one possible answer. On Sunday, Vladimir Putin,
head of the Federal Security Service and of President Yeltsin's powerful
Security Council, told RTR television that the Russian president will lead
the unified Russia-Belarus state, while the Belarus president will be its
vice president. Putin added that while there are "different opinions on
phases and ways of unifying, and the time for achieving certain goals,"
there are in Russia "very few opponents of a unified state." 

This was a far cry from Moscow's apparent reticence over unification only
a week or so ago, when Alexander Lukashenko left Moscow openly complaining
about the Kremlin's unwillingness to pursue it vigorously. Putin said in
his interview that Lukashenko and Yeltsin both want "maximum unification." 

Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador to Belarus Daniel Speckhard was back in Minsk
this week on a short visit, his first since last June. Asked Tuesday about
a possible Russia-Belarus union, Speckhard said integration must take place
"on the basis of democratic principles" - meaning that Belarus must first
address "those issues inside the country," after which it can "address the
issue of integration with Russia in a way in which the population will have
a broad consensus." Washington, Speckhard said, has what it considers
"good relations" with Moscow and does not "fear greater integration with
Belarus and Russia." 

At first glance, Speckhard's comments appear simply to reiterate the
official U.S. line. Only two weeks ago, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Strobe Talbott put it, I believe, slightly differently. Talbott, while also
talking of integration based on "the democratic process," went on to add
that Belarus has no democratic process - which "calls into question the
legitimacy of efforts there to realize a genuine Russian-Belarussian
Union." Nothing here about "not fearing" greater integration. 

Do Speckhard's comments, then, represent an incremental softening of U.S.
policy toward a possible coming together of Yeltsin's Russia and
Lukashenko's Belarus? Whatever the case, the issue is reportedly on
Yeltsin's mind. The daily Segodnya reported last week that earlier this
month, after the Federation Council rejected Prosecutor General Yury
Skuratov's resignation - a move widely seen as blow to Yeltsin's authority
- Yeltsin issued "a strict presidential command for 'an acceleration of the
integration processes'." 

While it's too early to say whether Washington is reassessing its position
on a Minsk-Moscow merger, the overall mood music is undoubtedly to
Lukashenko's liking. On Thursday, the Belarus strongman generously told
Moscow it shouldn't worry about setting up its own military bases in
Belarus, since "they already exist as part of a friendly state's armed
forces." 

A beautiful day in the neighborhood, indeed. 

*******

#6
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 
From: dfilipov@glasnet.ru (David Filipov)
Subject: re: Domrin JRL 3271

For the record, it's not "David Filipov's Boston Globe" (re: Domrin JRL
3271.) And I started working for The Boston Globe in September 1994, too
late to write any of those things Domrin quoted. My own attitudes about the
Oct. 1993 events have been displayed in stories that have been republished
on this list.

*******

#7
The Economist
May 8, 1999
[for personal use only]
Old Russian customs 
M O S C O W 

ONE of the earliest and most educative experiences western managers have in 
Moscow comes when their possessions pass through Russian customs. Unlike 
almost any other country, Russia levies import duties—sometimes to the tune 
of several thousand dollars—on ordinary household removals. 

But the latest move by the Russian customs service is making even hardened 
expatriates blench. In the past, foreign business offices were allowed to 
import cars, computers and so forth duty-free, on the understanding that they 
would eventually re-export them. As from April 1st, this has been 
cancelled—in a way which leaves foreign companies with potential costs of 
tens of millions of dollars. 

Nor does the customs regime make any allowance for depreciation. In other 
words, a foreign representative office which has already imported a 1995 Land 
Rover will now have to pay duty on it—and at its original price ($29,000), 
rather than its current value (about $12,000). The tariff on new cars is a 
cool 100%. In addition, if any item on a customs declaration is missing, then 
the whole document becomes invalid. Woe betide the company which has 
imported, say, an old fax machine and subsequently thrown it away—it risks 
having to pay additional penalty duties on every other piece of office 
equipment imported with it. Those who clear their goods late pay double or 
treble the usual duties (plus interest, at sky-high Russian rates, from the 
moment the shipment entered Russia). Even the slightest past infringement 
leads to the highest category of penalty. Fines of $100,000 and more are—in 
principle—quite possible on just one car. 

Rather than pay the duties, you decide to destroy your imported car? You 
still pay duty. You arrange to have it stolen? Same result. Even re-exporting 
them may not be possible. Simply removing temporary imports physically from 
Russia is not enough; the paperwork must be done too. 

But for those who know the ropes, theory and practice in Russia are of course 
different. One western bank has used the services of a security agency run by 
a well-connected ex-KGB general. “They took the cars off our hands with 
minimum fuss,” recalls the bank’s boss. For the unfastidious, a corrupt 
customs officer will charge a few thousand dollars for setting—you 
hope—everything straight. 

Despite squawks of protest, the Russian government—which claims to like 
foreign investors—has refused to bend. The best offer so far is that, maybe, 
western companies will be allowed to avoid duties if they donate the goods in 
question to charities (including those favoured by the government, of 
course). 

*******

#8
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 
From: Albert Weeks <AWeeks1@compuserve.com> 
Subject: Russian presence in solving Kosovo crisis

The news from Bonn (AP story, May 6) that Russia and NATO have agreed
to a "common approach" to seeking peace in Kosovo is extremely heartening. 
Agreement may soon be reached that would establish a U.N.-sponsored 
"security presence," including Russian representation, on the ground in
Kosovo.

Moscow thus appears to have accepted all five NATO principles for resolving
the conflict. Milosevic's acceptance of this would now seem to be in the
cards.

This is a propitious development, it seems to me--besides 
ending the senseless slaughter in Serbia and Kosovo--for these reasons:

1. It may work toward healing the serious breach that had opened between 
the NATO powers and Russia and toward restoring the status quo ante 
two years ago when Russia agreed to consultative, partnership relationship 
with NATO despite the admission of three former Soviet Bloc states
into the Western alliance.
2. Nip in the bud the Russian nationalist-Communist program toward
isolating Russia from the West on the grounds that Russian culture and
traditions are "alien" to the West (cf. "Itogi," April 27, report
on CPRF leader Zyuganov's program looking toward the coming
Duma and presidential elections this year and next). By bringing in Russia
in resolving the Kosovo crisis, the Red-Brown isolationist/nationalist
platform is subverted.
3. Increases the electoral chances for democrats and centrists
in Russia, enhancing Chernomyrdin's election bid personally, by making 
a sucess out of that envoy's shuttle diplomacy during the past several 
weeks. This, too, takes the wind out of Red sails while helping move 
forward Russian participation in, not exclusion from, European 
politics and economics.

******

#9
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 3, No. 88, Part I, 6 May 1999

LIFESTYLES OF THE YOUNGISH AND POWERFUL. In its April
edition, "Argumenty i Fakty" asked members of President
Yeltsin's administration to disclose their income and
property. Presidential spokesman Dmitrii Yakushkin earned
87,043 rubles ($3600) in 1998, owns one apartment measuring
107.5 square meters and two cars, including a Mitsubishi
Charisma. Sysuev, deputy director of the presidential
administration, earned 101,864 rubles last year, owns a 152
square meter apartment but no securities or cars.
Presidential adviser and daughter Tatyana Dyachenko owns a
Mitsubishi Pajero jeep and a BAZ 8142 trailer. Last year, she
earned 1,508,477 rubles which included money earned from the
sale of a house and land. The recently appointed chief of the
presidential administration, Voloshin, has--or had--perhaps
the most modest lifestyle, earning 75,669 rubles in 1998 and
sharing a 56.4 square meter apartment with his mother. JAC

******

#10
Chief of Russian TV Firm on FRY Coverage 

Radiostantsiya Ekho Moskvy
5 May 1999
[translation for personal use only]

[Presenter] It is 2013 Moscow time [1613 gmt]. 
Good evening. Aleksey Venediktov is at the microphone. Our guest today is 
Igor Shabdurasulov, general director of ORTV [Russian Public Television], 
or the 1st channel. 
[Shabdurasulov] Good evening. 
[Omitted: questions about sports coverage; about presenter Sergey Dorenko 
(Shabdurasulov said he was working on a new project but he did not 
specify which); a TV serial; and ethical standards on television] 
[Q] Are you satisfied with the coverage of events in and around 
Yugoslavia on the 1st channel? 
[A] You know, we have had several strange phases of news coverage, I 
mean the situation whereby at first our crews were received with 
outstretched arms in Yugoslavia, we worked very intensively and very 
hard. After that, suddenly, they [the Yugoslav authorities] started to 
refuse accreditation to our correspondents and we, naturally, could not 
agree with that. After that the situation seemed to go back to normal 
again. Nevertheless, judging by responses in the media from all sorts of 
political leaders, we are criticized in equal measure by those who accuse 
us of being pro-NATO and those who regard us as jingoistic patriots. 
Hence, my conclusion is: our coverage is objective. 
[Q] O.K. What about, to put it bluntly, the following situation. Some 
say there are 700,000 refugees. Others say there are no refugees, people 
are just escaping NATO bombing and these are not people fleeing from 
ethnic cleansing. No correspondent is capable of counting 700,000 people. 
No correspondent can question 700,000 people in the Albanian language and 
ask them why they are fleeing. What can a television correspondent do in 
the circumstances? 
[A] From my point of view, he should be as honest as possible and report 
that, according to some estimates, there are 700,000 refugees. Look, you 
can see a column of people walking - there may be 700,000 or 500,000, or 
900,000 of them. You can see them and, therefore, there must be at least 
some grounds for saying that there are 700,000 refugees. 
Another question is: are they fleeing from ethnic cleansing or from NATO
air 
bombing? The correspondent does not have an answer to this question 
unless he, as you said, questioned those people. So, he should say that 
there are these two opinions, and either way it is disgusting - these 
people are innocent and it doesn't matter whether they are fleeing from 
ethnic cleansing or from bombing. If it had been proven beyond reasonable 
doubt that ethnic cleansing had provoked this flow of refugees, one could 
[several words inaudible]. 
[Q] But your correspondents are not working in Kosovo, actually nobody 
is working in Kosovo. 
[A] Precisely. But as soon as the first planes delivered the first air 
strikes, it became obvious that the flow of refugees had increased 
enormously. So, make your own conclusions. 
[Q] In this connection, our colleagues in the West are saying that a 
first world war of disinformation has been unleashed, when journalists 
are being used by all sides to give some disinformation. That naturally 
applies to both NATO and the Serb leadership. 
[A] [several words inaudible] We are trying not to filter information. 
To a certain extent, it provides an objective picture for us. For 
example, we can see pictures from Serb television, their "Vesti" 
programme for instance. We can see one picture. Almost simultaneously, we 
can see, say, the BBC's or any Western television company's pictures. 
Often they are directly opposite. Everything becomes clear [several words 
inaudible]. If we have our correspondents there, they clarify 
information. If not, we ask Dmitriy Malikov, sorry, Aleksandr Malikov 
[Russia TV channel correspondent in Belgrade], who is working there. And 
he will tell us: I know about this but I don't know about that, I've got 
this information but I haven't got that information. That's it. It seems 
to me that we shouldn't give assessments in our everyday work. We should 
show all points of view, viewers should receive information and reach 
their own conclusions. 
[Q] I've got another important question for you, Igor, before we break 
for the news . It came from a listener, though I wanted to ask you this 
question myself. Some politicians are accusing your channel of occupying 
a position - as regards information about the Yugoslav conflict - which 
doesn't meet Russian state interests. And one shouldn't forget that 51 
per cent of shares [of the channel] belong to the state. 
[A] I want to ask the person who asked this question: What do you 
understand by "state interests"? 
[Q] Perhaps "state interests" imply the president, the prime minister 
and [some words inaudible]. 
[A] O.K. Let's sort this out then. The State Duma occupies one position, 
the opposition holds another view, the president may still have another 
one and the government may have its own view. 
[Q] But as far as Yugoslavia is concerned, everyone shares the same view. 
[A] Then take our information [word indistinct], carry out a comparative 
analysis and you'll clearly see that the position of the state - as we 
and the majority of the institutions of power in the country understand 
it - is reflected accurately. [Q] Does your channel have its own position? 
[A] From my point of view, we are not the so-called fourth estate we 
have been told about all the time when we are accused of being so 
terrible and so powerful. Our job is to reflect points of view, our job 
is - as far as possible - to give a mirror image of these points of view 
and, if [several words inaudible], let our viewers watch and decide for 
themselves. In this sense, we are not an authority and we should not lay 
claims to [word inaudible] position and say that this is our position, 
because who are we to say so? 
[Omitted: the interview was resumed after a news bulletin. Announcement
about 
a football match and its live relay later in the programme; questions 
about a quiz programme and live programmes] 
[Q] Why are there so many American films on television? Is it policy or 
business? 
[A] It is absolutely not our policy. I was asked the same question at my 
meeting with the State Duma Culture Committee. Do you know: a) How many 
films are produced in Russia? b) Who monopolized the copyright on Russian 
film libraries? c) How does the price for showing Western films compare 
with the price for showing Russian films? The answer to these three 
questions makes everything clear. In short, the reason for showing 
Western films - except the best Western films or cinema masterpieces - is 
the poverty of our television film market. It is also a problem of price 
and quality. 
[Omitted: more about what films to show on television, a question about the 
time of the "Odnako" programme on air] 
[Q] What levers does [Russian financial tycoon Boris] Berezovskiy have 
to exert his influence on the 1st channel? 
[A] To be honest with you, the levers of Berezovskiy, or any other 
shareholder of the channel, are regulated by the ORTV law and charter, 
i.e. [they can express their views at] a shareholders' meeting. In other 
words, everything is regulated. I must say - perhaps regrettably for many 
- that neither Berezovskiy nor [Vitaliy] Ignatenko, as the chairman of 
the board of directors for the state's side, exercise any informal 
influence whatsoever. I can't recall any time lately when I discussed any 
fundamental issues of the programme policy with shareholders. 
[Q] How does the channel adopt decisions concerning the political 
information position? 
[A] It is very simple and very complex at the same time. Let's say there 
is a running story on a particular day. In total, nearly 450 people work 
in our directorate of news and information programmes - indeed, a real 
conveyor belt. On fundamental issues, they will ask either the head of 
the directorate of news and information programmes or myself, if it is an 
important issue. I am not ashamed to confess that on certain occasions I 
telephone to consult either [State Duma] deputies or government members, 
or heads of the presidential administration. I am not ashamed of that. I 
do it to clarify matters. But the decision about how and what to show is 
taken by the channel alone. 
[Omitted: more questions about various programmes, presenters, advertising] 
[Q] Does the ORTV plan to broadcast 24 hours a day - a question from 
Ilya [listener]. 
[A] In theory, yes. There are such ideas. The first problem is technical 
- don't forget that we have four time zones in our country. We have been 
broadcasting 24 hours a day for a long time already - in actual fact, we 
broadcast for almost 60 hours [as received]. But we do plan to move to a 
24-hour broadcasting, providing there are financial resources which we 
need a) to buy programmes and b) to provide communications and technical 
services that cost a lot of money. 
[Omitted: Shabdurasulov disagreed, as a listener suggested, that all 
television news should be shown at the same time; a brief live relay with 
an update on a football match, questions about ORTV broadcasts in 
Finland, a joint project with a Norwegian television company] 
[Q] What are your relations with the State Duma? 
[A] I have perfect relations with the State Duma since, when I meet most 
Duma factions informally, there is not a single problem which we cannot 
discuss calmly, even if we disagree. However, when it comes to public 
rhetoric, very often I have to hear rather strange things. 
[Omitted: Shabdurasulov refused to disclose future plans but said new 
programmes were being prepared] 

******

#11
Omaha World-Herald
May 6, 1999 
[for personal use only
Joint Missile Defense Proposed With Russia 
BY JAKE THOMPSON 
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU 

Washington - The United States should begin building an anti-missile
defense system soon, perhaps jointly with Russia, the former head of the
U.S. Strategic Command near Omaha told a Senate panel Wednesday.

At the same time, retired Gen. Eugene Habiger told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, which is holding hearings on the Anti-Ballistic
Missile treaty, that the United States should not abandon the treaty, which
imposes limits on a missile defense system. 
"If we . . . walk away from the ABM treaty we would do great harm in my
view," said Habiger, who retired last year as StratCom commander.


But that put him at odds with others, including Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.,
who was chairman of the hearing, and James Woolsey, former director of the
Central Intelligence Agency. 
Hagel said the 1972 ABM treaty is no longer relevant because it was between
the United States and the former Soviet Union, and it limits protecting
Americans from new dangers posed by rogue nations and terrorists.

"I personally believe the United States must begin the task of designing,
building and deploying a national missile defense to protect the American
people from the growing threat of ballistic missile attack," Hagel said.


He faulted the Clinton administration for stalling on a missile defense
system out of allegiance to the ABM treaty, "which has placed us in a very
vulnerable and dangerous position." 
"I am deeply troubled that this country is being held hostage to an
outdated concept of strategic deterrence that has outlived its purpose,"
Hagel said. 

Woolsey, CIA director from 1993 to 1995, said the ABM treatys goal of
limiting the Soviet defenses doesnt apply to todays Russia because it no
longer threatens Europe with conventional forces or the United States with
nuclear weapons targeting similar weapons in the United States.

"The only rationale for the ABM treaty today is one rooted in current
foreign-relations concerns," Woolsey said. "The Russians do not want us to
withdraw from it, so doing so would presumably upset them and perhaps lead
them to do other things that we dont want." 
Habiger told the committee that during his tenure as StratCom commander he
dealt often with his counterparts in Russia. They were serious about
curbing the stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Yet they feared American
technology and U.S. development of a defensive system capable of shooting
down incoming missiles tipped with nuclear warheads or chemical or
biological weapons. 
They often became "very emotional" about the idea, and would view U.S.
development as a "technical foul," Habiger said. 
"Theyd be reluctant to go along with arms control if we walked out on the
ABM treaty," he said. 
But working with Russia, Habiger said, the United States could build a
global missile defense system. Habiger said it is needed to protect the
United States from modern-day dangers posed by India and Pakistan, who
conducted nuclear tests last year, and rogue nations such as North Korea.

"Im sure the Russians would step up to that kind of approach," Habiger
said. 
They also are eager to curb their nuclear stockpile through arms control
agreements, in part because they are so expensive to maintain, he said.

Russia, while economically frail, continues to keep funding high for its
nuclear weapons programs, Woolsey said. 

"They clearly regard their nuclear forces as their trump card and that they
are the only thing that makes them a superpower," he said. 
But, considering threats to the United States elsewhere, theres a limit to
how far the United States should go to accommodate Russian interests in
building a missile-defense system, Woolsey said. 
Last year, a presidential commission warned that North Korea and Iran would
within five years have developed long-range missiles capable of reaching
the United States. China also is trying to develop longer-range missiles,
perhaps capable of reaching Alaska. 
In light of that, Woolsey said, the United States should "move out smartly
now" in early stage development of a missile-defense system, while trying
to share technology with Russia and perhaps with India and China in the
future. 
"The U.S. should develop its ballistic-missile programs primarily to
address its own requirements and time frames," Ron Lehman, former director
of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, told the committee. "But a
better way is to proceed cooperatively with Russia, Israel, Japan and
others." 
******

#12
US Said Behind Charges Against Adamov 

Moskovskaya Pravda
30 April 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Article by political scientist Sergey Mezin: "The United States Needs 
a Nuclear Kozyrev: Yes, I Am a Pro-West Minister, Andrey Kozyrev Agrees..." 

Washington is endeavoring at all costs to break up 
and to bring under its control via our oligarchs the last two natural 
Russian monopolies--Gazprom and the Ministry of Atomic Energy. It is for 
this reason that insinuations, whose purpose is to discredit those who 
are opposed to this aggression, appear continually in our own and the 
overseas press. We recall the disgraceful articles against Rem Vyakhirev 
and Viktor Chernomyrdin. Today Yevgeniy Adamov, head of the Ministry of 
Atomic Energy, whom people want in any way to remove from office, is 
being subjected to shameless obstruction. A person who is completely 
controllable by Washington is needed in this position. 

The present head of the ministry of atomic industry had every 
opportunity to avoid the attacks of overseas and domestic news media and 
the monstrous charges leveled at him and to live, generally speaking, in 
clover, like his predecessors, that is. This would not have taken much: 
to have made no radical changes in the ministry, to have left alone the 
commercial entities that were getting fat on Ministry of Atomic Energy 
money, not to have removed the accounts from the Most Bank, and, finally, 
not to have thwarted Washington. But no, the devil made him "come to 
grips with the situation that had come about in the department." And he 
immediately came in for a barrage of accusations of all mortal sins: from 
banal theft to espionage for the United States. 

Brownian Movement of Capital 

The extent of funds that pass through the Ministry of Atomic Energy is 
impressive. It is variously estimated that they amount to tens of 
billions of dollars. It is natural that in present-day Russia, where the 
theft of public funds is a sacred cow and every government official and 
his brother are involved in this, such turnover attracted the attention 
of enterprising folk. Giants of thought lined up for the right to handle 
the atomic money: Vladimir Gusinskiy, Boris Berezovskiy, Sergey 
Lisovskiy, Roman Abramovich, and Anatoliy Chubays, who sided with them. 

There was a whole lot of fuss about nothing: Berezovskiy was clashing 
with Chubays, and Gusinskiy, meanwhile, acquired for the Most Bank the 
accounts of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Like mushrooms after rain, the 
most diverse commercial entities began to appear around the atomic 
department. Green began to rustle in various directions. 

We would note that this entire orgy began long before Adamov's 
appointment as minister of atomic industry. Moreover, Yevgeniy Olegovich 
was appointed to this office with one single objective: cleaning out 
these Augean stables and restoring order in the ministry. 

And there are things to clean out! Take if only the contract on 
deliveries to the United States from Russia of uranium fuel for nuclear 
reactors worth $11.9 billion. According to this contract, Russia will 
reprocess the highly enriched uranium from nuclear weapons into 
low-enriched uranium. By all the rules, our country should have tangible 
income from this activity. But nothing of the sort. Adamov's 
predecessors, particularly Viktor Mikhaylov, former head of the Ministry 
of Atomic Energy, drew up the contract in such a way that Russia would 
incur losses, and the income would be shared between the United States 
and our brokers. The implementation of this contract led to the freezing 
of Russian assets of more than $257.192 million. Specialists of the 
Chamber of Accounts concluded that this contract was contrary to Russia's 
interests. It is now up to the General Procuracy to establish with whose 
interests on the Russian side it does correspond. 

Defamation to Order 

As soon as the new minister queried this contract, the security 
services of the United States rushed to defend their country's national 
interests. You bet! They expended so much effort on resolving their 
nuclear problems at Russia's expense, and now this turn of events. At a 
command from Washington, representatives of the CIA gained access to bank 
accounts related in one way or another to the Ministry of Atomic Energy 
and entities with which Adamov worked prior to his appointment to the 
office of minister. We would note that these commercial entities were 
formed under the auspices of the Power Engineering Research and Design 
Institute (NIKIET) to earn money for research and design work. Funding 
had, after all, been completely paralyzed.

This information was 
provisionally systematized and appropriately processed and was then 
transmitted to Vladimir Gusinskiy, head of MOST-MEDIA. The point being 
that Gusinskiy has a vital interest in Adamov's removal from the office 
of minister. After 17 August, Yevgeniy Olegovich removed all the Ministry 
of Atomic Energy's accounts from the Most Bank. You are literally killed 
in Russia for such things, as a rule. So Adamov, who is being shot at via 
the press, has been lucky, it may be considered. 

We would note that the 
majority of the insinuations against the minister of atomic industry have 
been published in news media controlled by Gusinskiy. It is being said 
that Gusinskiy is in this way defending not only his personal financial 
interests but working off a service rendered by Washington, which helped 
him put into stationary orbit a satellite for NTV. Another serious step 
on the part of Yevgeniy Adamov which provoked a campaign of defamation 
was the decision to step up cooperation with third countries and to see 
through to a conclusion the plan for the construction of nuclear power 
plants in Iran. Washington cannot forgive the minister of atomic industry 
of Russia this "effrontery". America's security services have as of 1994 
been implementing point by point a plan to destroy Russia's atomic 
industry. A brilliant notion, we have to confess, from the viewpoint of 
the national interests of the United States. 

Cut off from the world 
nuclear market and deprived of funds, Russia would be forced not only to 
wind down all scientific and technical and design developments but also 
to halt its facilities. We would note that the serivce life of almost all 
Russia's nuclear power plants expires by 2003-2005, and there is no money 
in the budget to service them. In addition, if this funding situation 
continues, Russia will be forced, American scientists forecast, to 
unilaterally give up its strategic nuclear forces since the satellites 
and other equipment ensuring the control and operation of the strategic 
nuclear forces will have failed. Understanding this, Adamov is urgently 
making arrangements that will permit Russia to earn a considerable amount 
of money on the world nuclear market. He is hereby condemning himself to 
big trouble. Our country has no need today of pro-state government 
officials displaying concern to preserve national interests. 

Take a look, 
after all, it is not only Adamov that is being persecuted. There are 
attacks on Yevgeniy Primakov himself, who has attempted to restore if 
only some foreign policy dignity to our country. It would seem that Boris 
Yeltsin has received a command from his "American partners" to change the 
entire government. One way or another, according to certain information, 
a second wave of the anti-Adamov propaganda campaign is being prepared. 
The calculation is being made on the fact that the government and the 
president are simply sick and tired of this entire fuss and that, as is 
often the case with us, emotions will win out over common sense. Yet it 
is far more important for the country's security to calmly and 
punctiliously figure out which of our news media are doing the American 
bidding, what they are getting for this, what losses they are hereby 
inflicting on the country, and so forth. 

It is time, ultimately, that we 
learned to defend our state priorities, not be led by Washington to the 
slaughter. 

******

#13
Radio Liberty Berezovskiy Coverage Scored 

Moskovskiy Komsomolets 
29 April 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Article by Vl. Matusevich: "Radiobaba. 'Liberty' to Berezovskiy!" 

As early as March 1995, immediately after Listyev's 
murder, the Moscow editorial offices of Radio Liberty declared Boris 
Berezovskiy to be a model for the new Russian entrepreneur. 
During the days of Berezovskiy's Paris "tour," Liberty 
discovered the closest possible kinship with the oligarch even 
though it receives its daily bread from the hands of American 
taxpayers and not BAB [Boris Abramovich Berezovskiy], whose 
reputation in the United States, incidentally, could not be any 
worse (understandably, we are speaking about the main, regular daily 
bread, which does not always and not for everyone preclude interest 
in supplemental daily bread). The host of the program "Liberty 
Live," Savik Shuster, harshly condemns the issuance of the order for 
Berezovskiy's arrest: "The state acting against an entrepreneur-- 
that is always bad." Thus it is bad when the American authorities 
arrest, convict, and sentence to a long prison term a 
multimillionaire stockbroker and return the confiscated money to the 
clients he has swindled. It is bad when the German authorities 
search throughout the world, bring home, and convict a construction 
magnate, making compensation to the victims of his machinations for 
their losses. It is good when the Russian authorities stand calmly 
by and watch the destruction of the investors in MMM and the similar ABBA... 

Having provided ideological-theoretical justification for the 
demarche titled "'Liberty' to Berezovskiy!" in such an original 
way, Shuster devotes practically the entire hour-long program to the 
unforgettable Paris press conference. 

He squeezes out of the unfortunate Radio Liberty correspondent 
in France, Semen Mirskiy, the "heartwarming" details (the luxury of 
the hotel, the journalists hanging from the chandeliers, and so 
forth), he demands--live on the air--of the completely exhausted 
reporter an evaluation of Berezovskiy... Mirskiy (beginning to 
figure out what is what): "He gives the impression of a significant 
personality." Shuster (with enthusiasm): "Thank you, Semen, for 
those words, and they are very important." Important to whom... 

Obviously, to the person to whom it was important to have a radio 
program on which the threat of Berezovskiy's arrest is declared to 
be a presage of another 1937 and BAB himself is proclaimed to be a 
fighter against Communism and anti-Semitism. Dispassionate and invincible. 
At Shuster's suggestion, completing another program ("Face-to- 
Face") with a monologue by the oligarch that lasted 50 minutes, 
having finally mastered the rules of the game, Mirskiy did not say 
but rather declaimed: "Boris Abramovich said that in the eyes of 
many people he is assigned one of two unenviable roles--either a 
gray cardinal or a money bags. I will not talk about the money 
bags. As for the gray cardinal--there is nothing gray about this person. 
"His endless energy, composure, smartness, and readiness for 
battle... I personally read optimism in Berezovskiy's eyes." 

Here it would be appropriate instead of the usual musical 
fade-out to burst into a chorale from Wagner's "Parzival"... but the 
already captivating image of Berezovskiy--the Knight of the Holy 
Grail--hovered over the Liberty airwaves, completely crowding out 
Kosovo-Shmosovo and other insignificant quiverings of the world 
community. The "flagship" program "Face-to-Face" was heard not six 
times, as is usually the case, but 12 times--an unprecedented case. 

In our day why do we need an organization called RS-RSE (Radio 
"Liberty"-Radio "Free Europe")? American leaders explained with the 
incomprehensible: "Demonstrating a high level of objective 
journalism, RS-RSE supplements and provides an alternative to the 
local mass media, represents democratic values of the West, and by 
its example encourages independent professional journalists." So 
consider, gentlemen: "Liberty" is for hire--on the premises or to take out... 

And also to fly out. From the American newspaper the Wall 
Street Journal: "Every morning a huge cargo plane from the US Air 
Force heads toward the Balkan skies for another, parallel war 
between NATO and Yugoslavia--a propaganda war... From on-board 
Hercules the Army special forces detachment throws out leaflets and 
jams the frequencies of the local radio stations with programs 
prepared by the Serbian editors of Free Europe." 

******


 

Return to CDI's Home Page  I  Return to CDI's Library