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

Johnson's Russia List
 

 

December 22, 1999    
This Date's Issues:3701   3702  3703






Johnson's Russia List
#3702
22 December 1999
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
1. St. Petersburg Times EDITORIAL: Yeltsin's Establishment Wins Again.
2. Inter Press Service: Election Results to Prolong Endemic Troubles.
3. Moscow Times: Yulia Latynina, Weary Nation Lurks Behind Duma Results. 
4. RFE/RL: Lisa McAdams, Election Results Meet With Disparate U.S. 
Reactions.

5. The Daily Telegraph (UK): Simon Sebag Montefiore, This isn't just the 
battle for Grozny, but a battle for Britain.

6. Library of Congress: MEETING OF FRONTIERS WEB SITE CHRONICLES PARALLEL 
HISTORY OF AMERICAS WEST AND RUSSIAS EAST.

7. The PBS NewsHour: VOTING FOR STABILITY. (With Wayne Merry and Thomas
Graham)

8. The Guardian (UK): Amelia Gentleman, Russians move into mountains 
Russia to flush out rebels.

9. Christian Science Monitor editorial: Who'll Win Russia.]


******


#1
St. Petersburg Times
December 21, 1999
EDITORIAL
Yeltsin's Establishment Wins Again


Year after year, we see so many shameless and mean things committed by the 
authorities. Why should we believe that this time we will be offered 
cleanliness and honesty?


- Alexander Solzhenitsyn


AH, that old sourpuss Solzhenitsyn. In the aftermath of elections to the 
State Duma, Russian shares are up 10 percent, Western leaders are saying that 
Russia is still on the road to democratic and economic reform, and 
center-right politicians are bouncing up and down with joy. The Communist 
hold on the Duma is broken, and - as one businessman put it - parliament now 
will be pro-government, not "obstreperous and obstructive." At last, the Men 
of Deeds will get things done.


But what will they get done, precisely? What does Unity stand for, apart from 
supporting anything that Prime Minister Vla di mir Putin does? And who are 
the members of Unity, anyway? In fact, where on earth did the party come from?


Unity is a fiction, created a few weeks ago to combat Fatherland-All Russia 
after the latter had been subjected to months of constant bombardment on 
state-run television that threw away the ethical journalism rulebook.


The OSCE will doubtless declare these elections as free and fair, (although 
it seems to have made plenty of qualifying remarks and reports of dirty 
tricks, - surprise tax inspections, etc.). But we await an OSCE comment on 
the unusual circumstances necessary to enable a party that sprung up 
practically yesterday to win 25 percent of the vote - level with a party that 
has been part and parcel of Russian life for over 80 years.


The results of these elections have been described as a victory for Putin and 
for President Boris Yeltsin. This is only too true.


Yeltsin, who was looking down and out only months ago, now has a safe, secure 
future (if he retires in the summer) ensured.


Anatoly Chubais, the man who ripped Russia off in the name of reform, 
controls the fourth-largest party in the Duma. His old sparring partner 
Boris Berezovsky, the force behind ORT, has even become a deputy.


Putin's future looks rosy, except as regards concrete policies, his main one 
so far being the razing of Grozny.


And the businessmen who have amassed vast fortunes under the Yeltsin regime 
are able to continue as usual and are doubtless grinning like Cheshire cats.


All credit to the Russian people, over 60 percent of whom voted when they 
could have been excused for staying away from the polls en masse in despair. 
But their ability to make an informed choice was severely impaired, and as 
far as change for the better goes, it looks like a case of meet the new gang, 
same as the old gang - just a bit younger this time.


Perhaps grumpy Solzhenitsyn has a point.


******


#2
Politics-Russia: Election Results to Prolong Endemic Troubles
Inter Press Service


MOSCOW, (Dec. 20) IPS - While Pres. Boris Yeltsin's followers heralded 
yesterday's parliamentary elections as an opening for much-needed stability, 
critics say the poll is a case study in media manipulation. 


Whether the election outcome will help in tackling Russia's endemic problems 
like corruption and the lack of civil society remains doubtful at best. 


Although the Communist Party remained the country's main political force with 
24 percent of the vote, the undisputed winner is Unity (23 percent), a 
political entity formed just a few weeks ago by Yeltsin's followers and led 
by a government minister, Sergei Shoigu. 


Without any political or economic program, the newborn party managed to 
secure some 23 percent of the vote, edging out many veteran politicians and 
parties. 


Some 60 percent of Russia's 107 million eligible voters turned out in the 
largest country on earth, which stretches over 11 time zones. Twenty-six 
parties and some 2,300 candidates were competing in the election for the 450 
seats at the State Duma, the lower house of Russian parliament. 


Half of the seats are filled by the vote for party lists, while the other 
half are filled through races among individual candidates -- some of them 
also members of political parties. 


The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) remained on top with 
more than 24 percent of the vote, profiting from cutthroat competition among 
its traditional foes, in which the mainstream media ignored other forces. 


KPRF leader Gennady Zyuganov accused Unity of not having any concrete 
ideology, while using all sorts of administrative tricks to gain votes. 


The group perceived a few weeks ago as having a winning formula - - the 
opposition Fatherland-All Russia party (OVR), headed by 
former prime minister Yevgeny Primakov and Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov -- 
secured little more than 12 percent of the vote. 


Another pro-Yeltsin bloc, the Union of Rightist Forces (SPS) launched just 
three month ago, scored some eight percent in yet another surprise, while the 
liberal Yabloko Party and the nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky's bloc both 
secured some six percent each. 


Russia's Central Election Commission Alexander Veshnyakov told journalists 
that the Communists are likely to secure some 111 Duma seats, Unity 76, OVR 
62, SPS 29, Yabloko 22 and Zhirinovsky's bloc 17. 


Thus, the Communists lost control of the Duma, though the pro- government 
bloc is unlikely to have a clear majority, argued Igor Bunin, director of the 
Center for Political Technologies. 


OVR honcho Primakov has said his movement may form a coalition with the 
Communists -- a pact that still could mean trouble for the Kremlin. 


The election seems unlikely to break the political impasse on crucial issues 
like creating a land market. The previous Communist-dominated Duma blocked 
all attempts to open way for buying and selling land, which is still 
state-owned although given in concession to private farmers. 


Some 130 independent deputies -- predicted to split between the Communists 
and Unity -- remain somewhat of a question mark as their votes are set to 
determine the Duma's future course. 


Unity has been repeatedly endorsed in public -- in flagrant violation of 
electoral rules -- by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who became Russia's most 
popular politician due to the military campaign in Chechnya. 


Picked from obscurity in August 1999 by Yeltsin in a bid to restore law and 
order in Chechnya, former spy-master Putin now enjoys almost 50 percent 
presidential approval rating (compared to Yeltsin's less than one percent a 
few weeks ago). 


Igor Shabdurasulov, Yeltsin's first deputy chief of staff, described the 
election outcome as "peaceful revolution" and called for the establishment of 
a "Putin's majority" in the Duma. 


Yeltsin's comment was that Russia needs a Duma that will pass laws without 
political manoeuvering. 


It is widely presumed that the real issue of the election is the fate of 
Yeltsin's inner circle, which fears prosecution for privatization scams after 
the president leaves office in June 2000. 


Should the Primakov-Luzhkov team prevail, they are almost certain to face 
thorough investigation of their riches, acquired in the period of "market 
reforms" launched by Yeltsin after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. 


During the campaign, the Kremlin-controlled ORT and RTR national television 
stations -- the only source of national news for many Russians, notably in 
the regions -- pounded on OVR, accusing Primakov and Luzhkov of being 
implicated in murders, while hailing the Unity bloc and ignoring the 
Communists. 


The Kremlin insider and billionaire Boris Berezovsky was also said to be 
behind the miraculous surge of Unity. Not surprisingly, two behind-the-scenes 
players, tycoons Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, also secured Duma seats. 


The city of Moscow offered a sort of consolation to OVR as Luzhkov scored a 
clear victory in winning the contest for the Mayor's seat in a separate 
election, with more than 70 percent of the vote. More than 40 percent of 
Muscovites voted for OVR, some four times of national average. 


Luzhkov described the election campaign as "super-dirty." However, his 
critics argue that OVR underestimated the Kremlin's strength and failed to 
come up with viable counter-measures to the psychological warfare waged by 
Yeltsin's loyalists. 


Others say that OVR has failed to come up with a viable alternative to 
Yeltsin's system of "proxy capitalism," as Luzhkov has developed virtually 
the same system of Moscow-based "proxy corporations." 


One of the big players in the 1995 vote, Our Home is Russia, led by 
then-prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, won just one percent on December 19. 


Another public relations miracle was the unexpectedly good performance by the 
Union of Rightist Forces, led by some of the country's least popular figures, 
former prime minister Sergei Kiriyenko, held responsible for the debt default 
in August 1998, and Anatoly Chubais, the architect of Russia's controversial 
privatization program. 


The election demonstrated that brand new parties could be easily propelled 
into power via media manipulation, though few people know what these parties 
stand for. 


Not surprisingly, these bodies seem unlikely to stop Russia's economic slide, 
population decline, endemic graft and other disturbing trends -- which 
emerged under Yeltsin's years in office. 


The results are "pretty disturbing, showing that in the post- Soviet decade 
Russia has failed to build a civil society," argued Mikhail Krasnov, a 
political analyst and former Yeltsin's legal aide. 


"It looks like most Russians do not have any political convictions at all, 
and they could vote for the most disgusting regime," he said. 


The parliamentary vote is seen by many as a warm-up for the presidential 
election in June 2000 in which Putin, Yeltsin's preferred successor, is the 
clear favorite, while challengers like Communist boss Zuyganov or OVR's 
Primakov look increasingly weak. 


*******


#3
Moscow Times
December 22, 1999 
INSIDE RUSSIA: Weary Nation Lurks Behind Duma Results 
By Yulia Latynina 


Russian secret service agents had to celebrate two holidays on Dec. 20. The 
first was their professional holiday, Chekists' Day, or secret service day. 
The second was their celebration of the election results f the people's 
plebiscite that was in essence a vote of confidence in their old colleague, 
Vladimir Putin. 


Three pro-government blocs f Unity, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia 
and the Union of Right Forces, which can all be characterized as 
opportunistic, commercial and ideological f will definitely give the Kremlin 
a harder rear end. They will transform the Duma from a Communist weight 
shackled to the government into a reliable tool with which the current 
corrupt authorities will guarantee their own succession. 


The methods by which this triumph came about are noteable, and outside 
observers were troubled by the mud the candidates poured on one another in 
the media. But the worst of it wasn't the slung mud: The worst was that the 
mud contained very few lies. 


A more threatening development was the pressure the Kremlin exerted on uppity 
regional governors. Tartarstan President Mintimer Shaimiev was originally a 
hot Yury Luzhkov supporter. Later, he changed his tune. 


This pressure on the disobedient was accompanied by indulgences for allies. 
Having made his peace with the Kremlin, Kemerovo Governor Aman Tuleyev got 
loans from Transneft. 


Eduard Rossel, the governor of the Sverdlovsk region, didn't want to ally 
with any party. The region began experiencing electricity blackouts in 
November. As the government explained it, the trains carrying coal to the 
Sverdlovsk region had been misplaced. After Rossel warmed up to the Kremlin, 
the trains were suddenly found. 


The governor of the Primorye region, Yevgeny Nazdratenko, and Bashkir 
President Murtaza Rakhimov showed the most open support for Fatherland-All 
Russia. They are both facing deafening scandals over alleged violations at 
the polls. 


These scandals will be instructive, because the more effective the Kremlin's 
post-election strategies to pressure Fatherland's remaining supporters, the 
more its deputies will jump ship to the Kremlin. 


We shouldn't forget that aside from these blocs there exists an invisible 
bloc of single-mandate victors who have been financed by this or that company 
or ministry. Experts are beginning to cite statistics like this: deputies 
kindly disposed to Gazprom f about 70; to the Nuclear Power Ministryf 10; to 
LUKoil, etc. Blocs like these will either belong to the government or will 
rent themselves out as freelancers. 


But this is most important: The system of succession that will guarantee the 
Kremlin's victory is a very positive development. For, in circumstances where 
the authorities and their opposition are equally corrupt, a corrupt regime 
based on succession is preferable to a revolutionary corrupt regime, whose 
ascension to the throne is accompanied by the hollow grunting of pigs rushing 
the trough f and who, amid the cries of "bribe-takers to jail," make the same 
pie all over again. 


If there is no market in Russia, then at least let it have stability. 


Yulia Latynina writes for Segodnya. 


******


#4
Russia: Election Results Meet With Disparate U.S. Reactions
By Lisa McAdams


White House and State Department Spokesmen in Washington Monday hailed 
Russia's weekend parliamentary elections as a further sign democracy is 
taking hold in the country. But one Russian analyst RFE/RL spoke with said he 
foresees little reason to expect change as a result of the poll. RFE/RL's 
Lisa McAdams in Washington reports: 


Washington, 21 December 1999 (RFE/RL) -- Playing up the positive, White House 
Spokesman Joe Lockhart today said Russia's weekend parliamentary elections 
were a "win," no matter the eventual overall outcome. 


Lockhart's comments to reporters came as preliminary results show two 
pro-reform blocs making electoral gains that could allow them to displace the 
Communists as the State Duma's (Lower House) dominant political force. 


Lockhart said Russia's weekend poll -- the third parliamentary elections 
since the collapse of the Soviet Union -- shows democracy is becoming better 
engrained in Russian political practice. 


The message was much the same at the U.S. State Department, where spokesman 
James Foley hailed the Russian parliamentary vote as a "very positive 
development" on the whole: 


"We believe its important these elections took place as scheduled. We believe 
that the parliamentary elections set the stage for the very important 
presidential race next June. We think both these elections are key milestones 
in Russia's post-communist development. The fact of the matter is that 
elections are becoming routine in Russia; democratic elections. There's also 
a further process of consolidation and further movement away from the very 
long undemocratic past." 


Foley also noted the heavy turn-out as a clear sign Russia's people are 
attached to the notion of choosing their political leaders and institutions. 


Foley said the United States is now awaiting final, official results, in 
order to better assess what the complete Duma might look like and how it 
could politically act. At the same time, Foley took advantage of the moment 
to convey a forward-looking message to Russia's incoming political players: 


"We believe the strong showing by the Unity and Centrist blocs suggests that 
the new Duma may turn out to be less ideological and also more pragmatic than 
its predecessor. We certainly hope that it will be more responsive to the 
needs of constituents on a range of bread and butter concerns." 


But not everyone is as "positive" about today's unfolding electoral outcome. 
Case in point -- James Goldgeir, who told RFE/RL the parliamentary elections 
only served to solidify what he called, "more of the same." 


Goldgeir, who is the Acting Director for European, Russian and Eurasian 
Studies at George Washington University, said he therefore foresees little 
chance for change in the already strained US-Russia relationship. 


"Well, its been tense and the underlying factors that make it tense are not 
going to go away. I think that's really the best that can be hoped for, even 
with changes in certain political forces and this talk about the rise of a 
reformist bloc in parliament in relation to the Communists. We have a time of 
Presidential elections in both countries (US and Russia) and it is NOT a time 
for moving forward if you will. Nothing major is likely to happen until both 
those elections have taken place and we have two new Presidents." 


Goldgeir says the big issues the U.S. cares about -- such as the war in 
Chechnya, arms control, or better rule of law to promote western investment 
-- are little likely to change. And in some instances, Goldgeir said, things 
may even worsen. He cited Chechnya as a probable example. 


"Why would you (Russia) respond to U.S. complaints if you are gaining 
politically from this war and in fact (if) ignoring claims only adds to your 
stature. And the big prize is the Presidency and that's where (Vladimir) 
Putin and (Yuri) Luzkhov and (Yevgeny) Primakov and those other folks have 
their eye." 


Goldgeir, is in agreement with many western commentators in one regard. He 
said Sunday's Parliamentary elections did nothing if not ensure that Putin is 
the leading candidate for next Summer's Presidential election in Russia. 


What is not as clear are the specific intentions and policies of the new 
"Unity" party endorsed by Putin. And that, says Dimitri Simes -- President of 
the Nixon Center -- a non-profit foreign policy think tank -- is cause for 
caution. 


"I think we have to be very careful to send Putin the right messages. We 
should not alienate unnecessarily, we shouldn't engage in burning bridges on 
Chechnya. At the same time, I think we have to be very determined and clear 
to demonstrate to the political and business establishment in general that we 
are not ready for another Russian terrible King." 


Simes, who made the comments at a round table discussion at the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, said in his one and only meeting with 
Putin he came away with the impression of a very determined and articulate 
man. But Simes said he could not speak to the issue further, other than to 
advise that Putin is still, as he put it, "a great unknown." 


******


#5
The Daily Telegraph (UK)
20 December 1999
[for personal use only]
Comment
This isn't just the battle for Grozny, but a battle for Britain 
Simon Sebag Montefiore argues that the Chechen war threatens regional 
conflagration, and that vital national interests are affected 


WHEN I was in the (now obliterated) Presidential Palace in Grozny just 
before the start of the First Chechen War in 1994, I was taken to a small 
room to meet the Chechen commander, a dour, shy, grey-haired man with blue 
eyes who told me quietly that, if the Russians attacked, "the Chechens can 
lose Grozny and retake Grozny and lose it again, but this people cannot be 
conquered".


This sounded dubious, but Aslan Maskadov fulfilled his promise and became 
president of independent Ichkeria, as the Chechens call it (while I was 
ingloriously accused of being an MI6 agent and expelled). We met again in 
London on his visit here last year: "You didn't believe me," he teased me.


Last week, after five years of anarchic independence and a savage Russian 
onslaught, Maskadov again abandoned Grozny to head for the mountains with a 
similar promise. The Chechens remain outstanding fighters. The 19th-century 
Chechen hero, Shamyl, defied the legions of Tsar Nicholas I for almost 30 
years. Even earlier, in the 1780s, the mysterious Sheikh Mansour fought 
Catherine the Great's viceroy, Potemkin: Grozny's airport is named after him.


But it is Russia that has changed in the last year: the Kremlin has been 
fighting a khaki election during the last few weeks over the bleeding 
villages of Chechnya. In Moscow, before yesterday's parliamentary elections, 
I heard, even from cultured liberals, almost universal hatred for the West, 
loyalty to the hawkish, pale-faced prime minister, Vladimir Putin, and a 
determination to obliterate the Chechen people and re-establish the Russian 
Imperium in the Caucasus.


So we in the West must change our attitudes accordingly. Chechnya is a 
tragedy, but it is also strategically significant to us - the crossroads of 
the Caucasus, that mountainous isthmus; a Babel of bickering, fierce peoples 
between the Black and Caspian seas.


If Russia gave up Chechnya, she would be giving up her claims to the Caucasus 
itself. The West can do little to help Chechnya, because it lies within the 
Russian Federation, but it is the gateway to the three countries to the south 
that became fully independent in 1991 because they were full constituent 
Soviet republics: we can help Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia.


Azerbaijan possesses massive oil reserves. Now, BP heads the $30-billion 
Azeri consortium and Washington backs the pipeline that bears its oil through 
Georgia to the Black Sea, free of Russian interference.


When Chechnya is subdued, Russia will again cast a shadow over Georgia and 
Azerbaijan, where we have such important interests. Since 1991, Russia has 
done all it can to undermine these lands. As a witness of the wars and coups 
of this Buchanesque Great Game over the last decade, I think Russian mischief 
has, if anything, been understated: wars have been started, assassinations 
attempted, and peace talks stymied because chaos is Russia's one hope of 
regaining its lost Caucasus.


As in the Middle East, individuals hold the key. The region had been saved by 
two old men - Gaidar Aliev and Eduard Shevardnadze. I was in Baku when, after 
a series of coups, Aliev, a shrewd septuagenarian ex-Politburo member and KGB 
general who had run Azerbaijan for years, returned to power. When I met him, 
he told me frankly that power now resided in his person - "Power comes from 
my personal characteristics, " he explained with his cunning grin and a 
half-closed eye. He alone could keep Azerbaijan together, and ensure that 
Russia does not seize the oilfields and his gargantuan Western deals.


Shevardnadze, the ashen-haired ex-Soviet foreign minister and now president 
of Georgia, is the other bulwark of the region. Georgia is the most romantic, 
beautiful nation, but it, too, suffered grievously from Russian games. In 
1991, I met its first president, the half-mad Shakespearean professor, Zviad 
Gamsakhurdia, who invited me into his palace where he was besieged by 
Russian-backed rebels, and let me phone my mother from his presidential 
throne, while he harangued his troops from the balcony. Gamsakhurdia fled to 
Grozny (showing the close links across the Caucasus) and I came to know his 
successor, Shevardnadze, who also defied Russia.


Russia sponsored a series of vicious ethnic wars in Karabak, Ossetia and 
Abkhazia that undermined Georgia and Azerbaijan (and also attempted the 
assassination of their leaders). In the Ossetian and Abkhazian wars, I saw 
Russian involvement with my own eyes. In the Karabak, I found myself between 
the Armenian and Azeri armies, at the siege of Zangilan, amidst a wasteland 
occupied by heroin-addicted deserters and bodies swinging from lamp-posts.


Living out the follies of Boy's Own adventurers, I fought with irregulars 
until I was seized by junkies and freebooters, and had to escape, lucky to be 
alive and a little wiser. Over in Georgia, when Russian- backed rebels 
threatened Tbilisi, I flew with Shevardnadze to Moscow, where he was forced 
to make concessions. In 1995, Moscow called off its dogs of war - and became 
distracted by its Chechen humiliation and economic struggles.


This will now change. Russia is already pressuring Georgia on its border 
security, and has "mistakenly" dropped bombs on Georgian territory. Given the 
history of assassination attempts, security has been stepped up around 
Shevardnadze, whose very existence guarantees the oil deal and pipeline.


We deplore Russia's slaughter of civilians in Grozny - though, to be fair, 
the Caucasian tradition of hero-bandits has played into Moscow' s hands, 
especially in Chechnya, where Maskadov never achieved the order he told me 
was his first priority. Yet there is no excuse for the sort of ignorant, 
cowardly appeasement of Russia as shamefully argued recently by David Howell 
that read like a voice from Munich. We must react so firmly that Russia 
realises that the West will not permit military success in Chechnya to 
embroil Azerbaijan and especially Georgia. We must continue to support 
Russia, of course - but simultaneously re-route more aid to the West's plucky 
little allies. Aliev is neither democrat nor tyrant, but a strong man who has 
brought stability; Azerbaijan is now the West's great hope for new oil 
outside the Gulf. The ex- Communist apparatchnik, Shevardnadze, has become 
the father of a recovering democratic pro-Western nation with its army 
trained by America and Britain, its pipeline funded by BP. Tony Blair did not 
find time to invite Shevardnadze to London last year: he must now make time. 
Shevardnadze expressed it best the last time I saw him: "Everything that 
happens in Russia is reflected in Georgia as a ray of sun in a drop of water 
. . . Winning the Cold War gave you responsibilities. We in the Caucasus are 
your problem now."


Simon Sebag Montefiore's biography of Prince Potemkin will be published by 
Weidenfeld & Nicholson in September 2000


******


#6
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999
From: Michael Neubert <mneu@loc.gov>
Subject: Meeting of Frontiers


Hello, could you publish this press release on your email list? I think
it would be of interest.
Thanks,
MN
Michael Neubert 
Library of Congress mneu@loc.gov
European Division 202 707-3706
Washington, DC 20540-4830 fax 707-8482


December 15, 1999
Contact: Guy Lamolinara (202) 707-9217


MEETING OF FRONTIERS WEB SITE CHRONICLES PARALLEL HISTORY
OF AMERICAS WEST AND RUSSIAS EAST


http://frontiers.loc.gov/


The parallel experiences of the United States and Russia in
exploring, developing and settling their frontiers and the meeting of
those frontiers in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest is the focus of a new
Web site created by the Library of Congress under a special congressional
appropriation. Beginning today, the site is available at
frontiers.loc.gov.
"Meeting of Frontiers" includes more than 2,500 items, comprising
some 70,000 images, from the Library's rare book, manuscript, map, film
and sound recording collections that tell the stories of the explorers,
fur traders, missionaries, exiles, gold miners and adventurers that
peopled both frontiers and their interactions with the native peoples of
Siberia and the American West. 
The site is completely bilingual, in English and Russian, and is
intended for use in U.S. and Russian schools and libraries and by the
general public in both countries. Scholars, particularly those who do not
have ready access to major research libraries, will benefit from the
wealth of primary material included in Meeting of Frontiers, much of which
has never been published or is extremely rare. Intended to appeal to
students and for use in schools, the site features such colorful
characters as John Ledyard, an acquaintance of Thomas Jefferson who
attempted to walk across Siberia, and Perry McDonough Collins, a lawyer
and businessman who became the American Commercial Agent to the Amur River
in 1856 and who developed a plan, partially carried out, to build a
telegraph link from America to Europe via the Bering Straits and Siberia.
Collections available in Meeting of Frontiers include the Frank G.
Carpenter Collection of photographs from Alaska in the 1910s; the John C.
Grabill Collection of photographs of 1880s frontier life in Colorado,
South Dakota and Wyoming; the Yudin Collection of papers from the
Russian-American Company (1786-1830); and selections from the Alaska
Russian Church Archives. 
"Meeting of Frontiers" is a pilot project that was developed in
1999 at the Library of 
Congress by a team of Library staff and American and Russian consultants.
The pilot will be expanded in the coming years through the addition of
materials from the Library's own 
collections, from the Elmer E. Rasmuson Library at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks and from other U.S. institutions. It will also feature
materials from partner institutions in Russia, including the Russian State
Library in Moscow, the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg and
the Institute of History of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of
Sciences in Novosibirsk.
"Meeting of Frontiers" is funded by a special appropriation in the
Library's FY 1999 budget, which is intended for the Library to obtain
digital copies of unique and rare materials from Russia and to make those
materials freely available through the Internet. Additional support for
development of the project in Russia is being provided by the Open Society
Institute of Russia. 
"Meeting of Frontiers" is the Library's first major digital
project involving international material and extensive cooperation with
foreign institutions to obtain materials for the Library's collections in
digital form. It is the first component of an international digital
library that will build upon the Library's National Digital Library
Program (www.loc.gov). The National Digital Library Program aims to bring
more than 5 million items of American history to citizens everywhere as a
Gift to the Nation for the Library's Bicentennial on April 24, 2000.
The Library of Congress, founded April 24, 1800, is the nation's
oldest federal cultural institution. It preserves a collection of 115
million items -- more than two-thirds of which are in media other than
books. These include the largest map and film and television collections
in the world. In addition to its primary mission of serving the research
needs of the U.S. Congress, the Library serves all Americans through its
popular Web site (www.loc.gov) and its 22 reading rooms on Capitol Hill.
We will celebrate with pride our first 200 years of Library
history, said Librarian of Congress James H. Billington. During that time,
the Library has grown into the world's largest repository of knowledge and
creativity, which it has preserved for all generations of Americans. We
want to take advantage of this opportunity to energize national awareness
of the critical role that all libraries play in keeping the spirit of
creativity and free inquiry alive in our society.


*******


#7
The PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
VOTING FOR STABILITY 
December 20, 1999

RAY SUAREZ: For more on Russia's parliamentary elections we turn to Wayne 
Merry, director of the Program on European Societies in Transition at the 
Atlantic Council; and Thomas Graham, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. Wayne Merry, should people else where in the world 
be reassured, encouraged even by the way the campaign was conducted and by 
the results? 


WAYNE MERRY: I think moderately encouraged by the outcome. I think the 
prospects are that at least a year from now after we have our election, that 
whoever is the new American president will be dealing with the Russian 
government which there is at least a bit of cohesion between the legislative 
branch and the executive -- and not the kind of continue wall battling that 
we've seen between the Duma and Yeltsin in recent years. The conduct of the 
election is not quite so good. I think that one of the things that has 
happened is that elections have become so much the vehicle in which political 
battles are fought in Russia today - which is good -- that it has attracted 
an enormous amount of money of kinds that would be shocking even in an 
American political context. And the people with the new money, the gangster 
money, or the oligarch money, have put an enormous amount of that cash into 
the political process through the media. So I think we'll find that 
increasingly the corruption of Russian politics will be associated with the 
corruption that we've already seen in the economy. 


RAY SUAREZ: But, Thomas Graham, given the turnout, given the way that the 
different factions and parties actually really try to slug it out in an open 
market with each other should we be cheering for a country that after only 
ten years is having regular elections and making these choices? 


THOMAS GRAHAM: Well, I don't know if cheering is the right word for it. I 
think we should be encouraged that Russia has gone through its third series 
of Duma elections but as Wayne pointed out there is problems with the 
process. It's not only gangster money, oligarch money, it's also the Kremlin 
that used its influence over the two leading television stations to conduct a 
relentless smear campaign against their opponents and destroy them. Yes, 
there were also other parties in the campaign. They did represent a broad 
range of views, but I doubt that most of the Russian public heard the views 
of those parties. In fact, what is striking about this election campaign is 
how few of the really serious problems that are facing Russia were discussed 
during the campaign, nothing about the deep socio-economic crisis, nothing 
really about Chechnya and where the county is headed in that campaign, so 
from the standpoint of issues I think the election campaign was disappointing.


RAY SUAREZ: Can we see the shape of a future Russian politics starting to gel 
now? Some of the parties that we would term on the extreme left and right of 
the Russian spectrum didn't do very well yesterday.


THOMAS GRAHAM: I think that is true. I think two of the figures who are best 
known in the West have been demonstrated to be very much at the margins of 
Russian politics; Zhirinovsky, the extreme nationalist, only got about 6 
percent of the vote. Yavlinsky, who is very favorably looked upon by some 
people in this country, only got about 6 percent of the vote as well. I think 
they are very much on the margins. Most of the dispute and most of the 
campaigning was about this sort of new center of Russian politics. But I 
entirely agree with Tom that most of the issues that face the country were 
absolutely not on the table. This was a battle between coalitions of 
politicians over power -- something that does happen in other countries. But 
this was not really an ideological battle. It was not a battle about specific 
programs. It was not a pro-or anti-western battle. This is really a battle 
between competing groups of leading political figures and there, the Kremlin 
put its massive support with a lot of money from some of its supporters 
behind one group, the people who did very well and into a really very vicious 
smear campaign against its opponents.


WAYNE MERRY: If I could, this campaign has not been good for party 
development in Russia. The Unity coalition really was something that was 
cobbled together at the last minute three months ago and it's cobbled 
together from regional leaders, regional executive branches that the Kremlin 
thought could deliver the votes as well as undermine the appeal of another 
bloc of regional governors that was led by Former Prime Minister Primakov and 
Moscow Mayor Lushkov. These are ad hoc coalitions. The fatherland or Russia 
coalition of Primakov and Lushkov is almost certain to fall apart now that 
the election campaign is over. And it's difficult to see what holds the Unity 
bloc together over the long run, other than a desire to participate and share 
in the spoils of power in Russia. So from the standpoint of party development 
I think again this was a bad result for Russia. 


RAY SUAREZ: But, isn't that the seeds of parties? You know, a lot of 
countries around the world, if we look at the origins of the Social Democrats 
in one country, or the Christian Democrats in another, the Conservatives in 
another, it may be that they began with a regional party, it may be that they 
began around a specific issue, and then grew into a party out of that just 
from fighting elections. 


THOMAS GRAHAM: Right.


RAY SUAREZ: You sort of pick up an ideology. 


THOMAS GRAHAM: That's exact -- but there is not a unifying idea behind Unity 
other than power itself. The Unity party is a centrist coalition in the sense 
if you took the average of all its members and its supporters, it comes out 
somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum but its leadership includes 
people who by our standards nationalists, some Communists, some ultra 
nationalists, and also some liberal elements. So it's not a party that's held 
together by ideology. It's not a party that's held together by practical 
deeds. It very much is a party that wants to enjoy in dividing up power and 
the spoils of power.


RAY SUAREZ: But, Wayne Merry, this was a chance for the current Russian prime 
minister so to show that he has got electoral possibilities. In the Simon 
Marks piece we heard how Mr. Putin came out very strong for Unity. Can we see 
this as sort of a trial run for him? 


WAYNE MERRY: We can but we should also see who is the real power behind 
Unity, the real puppet master here, and that is Boris Yeltsin. What you have 
to understand is that without Yeltsin, Putin would not even be on the 
political stage. Six months ago I doubt if one Russian in six could have 
correctly identified Putin and fewer Americans, of course. He is the front 
runner to be the next president of Russia only because Yeltsin brought him to 
the center of the political stage and put the massive support of the Kremlin, 
its media and its financial backers behind him. 


RAY SUAREZ: But hasn't the prosecution of the war in Chechnya also changed 
Putin's standing? 


WAYNE MERRY: It certainly has given him an image as a very strong and 
decisive leader. That has been to his advantage, no question, but this is 
really an issue of the succession to Boris Yeltsin and Yeltsin's efforts to 
manipulate and control that process of succession. Now, there have been lots 
of other people around who thought at one point in time that they were going 
to be Yeltsin's successor. At the moment it looks like Putin is probably 
going to get the job, but not so much because of his personal qualities or 
his political qualities, but because he happens to be in the right place at 
the right time when the secession is likely to come about. 


RAY SUAREZ: Do we make a mistake, Thomas Graham, looking at these elections 
through American lenses? I remember after earlier elections in the 90's the 
hand wringing over the strong finish of the Communists or the strong finish 
of Zhirinovsky, and now the Communists are being discussed as having peaked. 
Zhirinovsky is an also-ran. Do we sometimes not look at these elections in a 
very Russian grounded context? 


THOMAS GRAHAM: Well, of course, this is always a problem of mirror imaging in 
trying to understand what these election results would mean if they were in 
the United States and not in Russia. And the point is that this election 
although as I said, it's encouraging that had they had held these elections 
on schedule, it really does very little to change the basic structure of 
Russian politics and the struggle for power. The key here is control over 
institutions at the center, financial flows, media outlets and so forth and 
the struggle for power is conducted among business oligarchs, regional 
barons, and the people are brought into the process at the very end. And it's 
usually only after the power struggle has been decided at the level that the 
people are given a choice.


RAY SUAREZ: Will the new Duma, Wayne Merry, be more likely in American 
interests to ratify START II, which I believe comes before them in the coming 
months? Will they have a different view of the war in Chechnya? 


WAYNE MERRY: I think they will be very supportive of the current government 
policy on Chechnya. That is very widely backed by most of the people who were 
elected to the Duma yesterday. I think there is a chance, and I say just a 
chance, that the START II Treaty may have a new lease on life for 
ratification on the Russian side. I think there is a good prospect that the 
necessary 226 votes out of the 450 seats will be available to ratify the 
treaty. But I'm certain it would only be ratified with a major proviso that 
the United States continue to adhere to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. So 
I think even if we do get that treaty ratified and we move towards the START 
III, which I think both governments would like to do, it's going to present 
the United States with a fairly fundamental choice as to whether we want to 
go ahead with ballistic missile defense. 


RAY SUAREZ: And continued economic reform, Thomas Graham?


THOMAS GRAHAM: Well, I don't know if that is quite the case at this point. 
The one advantage of this election is that it removes the charge that it's 
the Communist-dominated Duma that's preventing both START II ratification and 
economic reform going forward. I think before it was always much more 
complicated than that. There were certainly forces outside the Duma 
noncommunist, oligarch, regional barons, who were opposed to the type of 
economic reform that the United States and the West would like to see go 
forward in Russia. I think what you are going to see with this new Duma is 
these same battles now being fought out not simply by Communists but by 
so-called centrists in the Duma. And we're going to - if we look closely -- 
get a much better feel for the real distribution of a power and interest in 
Russia. Finally, everyone knows that the real problem on reform is not so 
much to be for tax reform or for anti-corruption campaigns. It is the 
details; what does that tax mean for my specific interest? And these things 
are going to be tough battles to fight for Putin and everyone else in the 
Duma over the next several months. 


RAY SUAREZ: Thomas Graham, Wayne Merry, good to talk to you both. 
*******


#8
The Guardian (UK)
22 December 1999
[for personal use only]
Russians move into mountains Russia to flush out rebels 
Amelia Gentleman in Moscow


Russia poured troops into the Caucasus yesterday in preparation for an 
all-out onslaught against rebel positions in the mountains of Chechnya, as 
intense fighting broke out for control of key mountain gorges south of 
Grozny. 


Both Chechen and Russian sources reported heavy fighting in the town of 
Serzhen-Yurt, about 18 miles south of Grozny, at the entrance to one of the 
main roads into the mountains, where Chechen fighters have established 
numerous bases. The military claimed it was battling against an estimated 500 
rebels. 


Russian troops have been wary of moving into the region, where they are more 
vulnerable to guerrilla attacks by militants much more familiar with the 
terrain. But yesterday paratroops were dropped on the freezing mountain tops 
by Chechnya's southern border with Georgia, in an attempt to encircle the 
rebels and cut the supply route of arms and food. 


Leaflets were also scattered, appealing to civilians not to provide food or 
assistance to the Chechen militants. 


One of Russia's senior commanders in the region said that the rebels were 
feeling the pressure. "We are turning up the heat in the mountains. They 
don't know where to run. The road to Georgia has been cut off. They are 
trying to break back towards the flat part of Chechnya," General Gennady 
Troshev said. 


Gen Troshev claimed that 30 rebels had been killed and only one Russian 
soldier in yesterday's fighting but these figures were greeted with some 
scepticisim in Moscow; both sides have consistently exaggerated the 
casualties they claim to have inflicted while underestimating their own 
losses. A spokesman for the Russian military put the number of Russian 
soldiers lost since the fighting began at 356 yesterday. 


There was no sign of a lull in the battle to seize Grozny yesterday. Vakha 
Ovdanirov, 60, who left his home in the capital early yesterday morning and 
fled to neighbouring Ingushetia to escape the bombardment, said: "I heard 
bombing without a break on Grozny," he said. "Planes and rockets are flying 
over constantly. The whole sky is black from smoke." 


The interior minister, Vladimir Rushailo, said yesterday that the government 
had set a precise date for the "liberation of Grozny from rebel militants", 
but declined to reveal it. 


An estimated 4,000 militants remain in the shattered city, Russia's deputy 
interior minister, Colonel General Igor Zubov, claimed. Local reporters have 
suggested that between 8,000 and 40,000 mainly ill or elderly residents 
remain in Grozny. 


There was confusion about which side had control of the capital's airport 
yesterday. The Russian military claimed to have seized the airport late on 
Monday night. But state television yesterday revealed that troops had not 
actually managed to make their way into the airport territory because they 
feared mines. 


The UN high commissioner for refugees announced yesterday that it was to send 
foreign staff back into the northern Caucasus after securing a promise from 
Russia to provide "heavily armed escorts". 


UNHCR staff trained in emergency services will start helping some 248,000 
refugees in Ingushetia later today or tomorrow. 
******


#9
Christian Science Monitor
22 December 1999
Editorial
Who'll Win Russia?


One big step forward. One step back. 


That's the quick take on Sunday's election of a new legislature in Russia. 
Here's the to and fro: 


*A giant but poor nation with little history of democracy held a well-run 
election for the third time in 10 years. But the campaign was dirty, made 
messier by the perverse use of a cruel war in tiny Chechnya. 


*Russia's most dangerous parties - the Communists and ultranationalists - 
lost ground, but the political center in the 450-seat Duma is now dominated 
by a Kremlin clique whose "virtual" party, Unity, is appropriately nicknamed 
Bear. 


*The election boosted free-market reformers, but voters also showed they 
prefer a strong, no-nonsense leader like Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, an 
ex-spy who seems inclined to run a police and security state. 


Most of all, the election sets up Mr. Putin to replace Boris Yeltsin after 
the presidential election in mid-2000. Will Putin become a de Gaulle? A Lee 
Kuan Yew? Or a Pinochet? 


That's where the West can step in. The next few months will be critical in 
helping steer Russia past its worst instincts of authoritarianism, cronyism, 
corruption, and anger over being the unsuperpower. 


Outside leverage on Russia is highly overrated. This election shows that 
Russian voters and their wily elite can best guide the ship of state. But 
here are a few prongs of the steering wheel that the West can grab onto: 


1. Be firm but not bellicose about ending the Chechnya war, not just for the 
sake of the innocent Chechens but to prevent Russia itself from being bogged 
down in a winless war that might create a backlash against the Kremlin. 


2.President Clinton and Congress should delay deployment of an antimissile 
defense system that would violate a Soviet-era treaty that Moscow holds dear. 
Deployment now will only make winners of anti-West nationalists as the 
Kremlin goes through a game of musical chairs and will embolden Putin to 
spend on the military. 


3. Keep doling out loans, despite the Chechen war, but tie them more closely 
to anticorruption efforts. 


Such steps buy time until after a post-Yeltsin president takes over. And they 
can help Russia feel great again without it being grating on the West. 


*******


Communists Threaten Protests Over 'Wars of COMPROMISES'.


MOSCOW, December 21 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's Communist Party leader Gennady 
Zyuganov has threatened mass protests against the so-called wars of 
compromises if "reason does not prevail." 


Zyuganov told Echo Moscow radio on Tuesday that the problem had been among 
issues on the agenda of the meeting between Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and 
leaders of the blocs and associations which won seats in the new Duma (lower 
house of parliament). 


"I told him (Putin) forthright that today the situation in the information 
sphere has turned into a war, a paranoia which will inevitably escalate to 
disorders in the streets," Zyuganov said. 


According to Zyuganov, the leaders of the blocs discussed with Putin the 
situation after the parliamentary election, the upcoming legislative activity 
of the new Duma and possible legislative initiatives by the government. 


The prime minister raised the issue of ratification of the START-II treaty by 
the old Duma. "We told him we will not consider the problem in December," the 
Communist leader stated. 


In addition, the parties had thoroughly discussed the situation in Chechnya. 
Everybody called for completing the operation as soon as possible. "We must 
have one opinion on this, there is no other choice," Zyuganov noted. 


*******

 

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