March 7, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4150 4151 4152

Johnson's Russia List
#4152
7 March 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. EXCERPTS FROM BBC INTERVIEW WITH ACTING PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN March 5.
2. RFE/RL: Paul Goble, Strong And Weak. (state)
3. Moscow Times EDITORIAL: NATO Can Hold Back Space Aliens.
4. Kommersant: IT'S MY KIND OF WORK, VORONTSOV. (Interview with Russian diplomat Yuli Vorontsov about US-Russia relations)
5. The Electric Telegraph (UK): Marcus Warren, Russian blunders blamed for slaughter.
6. AFP: UN Human Rights Experts Call For Chechnya War Crime Probe.
7. Isabella Ginor: Aluminum wars keep Lebed home.
8. Reuters: Russian defence chief sees weapons sales booming.
9. Library of Congress -- NYU School of Law Conference.
10. Financial Times (UK): Revolution stirs on Russia's desktops. High-profile deals demonstrate that the financial community is starting to take a serious interest in internet-based projects, writes Andrew Jack.
11. Moscow Times ROUND TABLE: Business Wants Support, But Expects Regulations.
12. BBC MONITORING: RUSSIA'S FIRST LADY ON HER FIRST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; FIRST VOCAL APPEARANCE.
13. BBC MONITORING: PUTIN WOOS THE LADIES ON THE EVE OF MARCH 8TH HOLIDAY.] 

*******

#1
TITLE: EXCERPTS FROM BBC INTERVIEW WITH ACTING PRESIDENT VLADIMIR 
PUTIN
(VREMYA ORT SUNDAY PROGRAM, 21:00, MARCH 5, 2000)
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE

Anchor: In his interview Vladimir Putin made a number of
sensational statements. It is indicative that Vladimir Putin
granted his first television interview for Western viewers to David
Frost, the author and anchor of the most rated and reputable
program on BBC.

The interview was first shown at 10:30 London time and
repeated twice during the day. We decided to show you the main
moments of Vladimir Putin's interview.

Frost (back translation): Looking at the opinion polls today
which show that your rating is in the range of 60 percent and Mr.
Zyuganov's is 23 percent. This must make you very happy.

Putin: Before this interview we had a conversation, we spoke
about sports, you know that I like sport from childhood, well, we
were always taught to treat any partner, adversary with respect.
This means that you must always remember that in something your
adversary is stronger than you, that he can outdo you in something.
That is why I am not inclined to think that the outcome is a
foregone conclusion, that everything is already over. I think I
have no right to consider myself a victor. 

Gennady Andreyevich Zyuganov, the Communist Party as such have
quite a big base of social support... 

Q: Let's move on now to the subject of Chechnya. First of all,
could you explain to me something that you have once said. You said
that that part of Russian territory has been occupied by the world
of crime and has been turned into a real fortress. What makes you
to feel so strongly about Chechnya? 

A: When I think about Chechnya I think first of all about the
fact that the Chechen people have become a victim of international
extremism, that ordinary people in Chechnya are suffering from the
policy that was pursued in Russia in recent years.

I would like to draw your attention to the following: Chechnya
was granted de facto, and I want to emphasize this, full state
independence since 1996. Unfortunately, no state formation of any
sort was created there. Extremist forces made use of this vacuum.
They split the territory of the Chechen Republic into separate
small entities. At the head of each such formation, outside of any
constitution, outside of any laws, was a leader, a so-called field
commander. What happened as a result was a sort of
mini-Afghanistan. And these leaders actually were in command of
this small territory, of this small and proud nation.

And then there began developments that brought us to the
present tragedy. These extremist forces entrenched themselves on
this territory, they began to get weapons from abroad, money and
mercenaries. Incidentally, throughout these years 220,000 Russians
left the territory of Chechnya... Just think about this figure...
and 550,000-600,000 Chechens. They all voted with their feet, they
all ran away from that regime. 

Last summer there was an absolutely unprovoked attack on the
Republic of Dagestan, a neighbor of Chechnya. The bandits attacked
apartment buildings in Moscow, Volgodonsk and other major regions
and towns of the Russian Federation. In an act of vengeance they
blew up and destroyed almost 1,500 peaceful inhabitants.

From that moment on it became clear, understandable and
obvious to us that if we did not deliver a blow at the very nest of
terrorism, at their bases on the territory of the Chechen Republic
we would never rid ourselves of this blight, this gangrene. By
their actions the terrorists forced us to take the action that we
took. I think they did not expect such resolute action from us.
Terrorists who abduct hundreds of absolutely innocent people, who
keep them in basements, subject them to torture, execute them... I
emphasize again, absolutely innocent people abducted not for any
political reason but with the aim of getting ransom, people
abducted for purely criminal motives... As I know, citizens of your
country have also suffered from this gangsterism.

Therefore, our main task is to smash the international bands
that were formed with the help of radical forces that are based
today in Afghanistan, in that region of the world in general. Our
task is to give the Chechen people and the other peoples living
together with it or next to it the right to decide on the future of
the Chechen Republic with the help of political instruments. 

We have no aim, we have no task of driving that people into a
corner, into a cave. We believe it would be wrong to create in the
Chechen people a syndrome of a defeated nation. They must realize
that they are not a defeated nation but a liberated nation,
liberated from outside pressure.

Q: Tell me about your views on NATO, if you would. Do you see
NATO as a potential partner, or rival, or an enemy?

A: Russia is a part of European culture. I simply cannot see
my country isolated from Europe, from what we often describe as the
civilized world. That is why it is hard for me to regard NATO as an
enemy. I think that such a perception has nothing good in store for
Russia and the rest of the world. The very way this question has
been put is already damaging. 

Russia wants equal and trusting relations with its partners.
The problem for us is that there is an attempt to substitute
previously adopted decision-making instruments in the world, mostly
in respect of ensuring international security... We strive for
equal cooperation, partnership, we believe that it is possible to
speak even about higher levels of integration with NATO. But only,
I repeat, if Russia is an equal partner.

As you know, we constantly express our negative attitude to
NATO's expansion to the East...

Q: Is it possible that Russia will ever join NATO?

A: Why not? I do not rule out such a possibility. I repeat, on
condition that Russia's interests are going to be taken into
account, if Russia becomes a full-fledged partner. I want to
specially emphasize this. The situation that was recorded in the
founding principles of the United Nations Organization... that was
a reflection of the situation in the world at the time of the
ending of World War II. Let us assume that the situation has
changed, let us assume that the people who see that the situation
has changed want the instruments of maintaining international peace
and security to be changed as well. But we cannot assume at the
same time that Russia has nothing to do with this, we cannot
exclude Russia from this process. And it is hardly possible to keep
Russia out of this process.

When we say that we object to NATO's expansion to the East we
are not expressing any special ambitions of our own, ambitions in
respect of some regions of the world... By the way, we have never
declared any part of the world a zone of our national interests.
Personally, I prefer to speak about strategic partnership. The zone
of strategic interests of any particular region means first of all
the interests of the people who live in that region.

Well, when we object to NATO's expansion to the East we are
not saying that we have any special interests there. We are
thinking first of all about the place in the world that is held by
our country now and the place that it will hold in the future. If
an attempt is being made to exclude us from the process of
decision-making, it is this that gives rise to our apprehensions
and irritation. 

But this does not mean that we are ready to slam the door and
evolve in the direction of self-isolation. Of course not.

Q: Biographies about your life always say that you always
wanted, that it was your ambition to join the KGB, to be a secret
agent, a James Bond. Was it always your dream?

A: You know, we have our own heroes and they are not
theatrical ones. I never wanted to be a James Bond. But I really
wanted to work in the security service. I was still in school when
I began to think about this. But, as you know, young people tend to
have a whole variety of ideas. That was not my only dream. At one
time I wanted to become a pilot, at another time I wanted to become
a sailor. And at some point I felt I wanted to work in the security
service, precisely in the foreign intelligence service. That is
true.

Q: And in international intelligence you were working in
Germany. Was that a productive period in your development? 

A: Yes, I would say. It seems to me that work in an
information service, and an intelligence service is first and
foremost an information service, is always beneficial. But I must
tell you that the outer appearance of this activity, you mentioned
Bond, did not attract me much. What attracted me first of all... I
believe I was influenced by movies, books. You know, in the Soviet
Union, it is not outer effects that were highlighted. On the
contrary, patriotism was cultivated, love for one's country.

Q: And so, as you look at Russia today and the journey along
which it is moving towards a freer economy and such things, how far
has Russia advanced along the journey towards the Russia of your
dream, where is Russia now, half way, nearly there, a long way from
it?

A: In this sense it can be said that we are still far from the
aim. I believe we are only at the beginning of the road. But I have
no doubt that the road we have chosen is an absolutely correct one.
It is our task to advance along this road. And we must make our
policy absolutely open and understandable to the majority of our
citizens... 

*******

#2
Russia: Analysis From Washington -- Strong And Weak
By Paul Goble

Prague, 6 March (RFE/RL) - Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin's repeated 
statements that he will work to build a "strong" state have gained him 
enormous support among many Russians weary of the disorder that has prevailed 
in their country over the last decade. 

At the same time, however, his remarks have generated equally great concern 
among many others there and in the West about the impact such a new state 
might have on Russia's chances tomove toward becoming a democratic society in 
which the state protects rather than tramples on human rights. 

But perhaps most fundamentally, Putin's comments have reignited ongoing 
debates in both Russia and the West about whether the state he now heads is 
weak or strong, about what such assertions mean, and about what policy 
consequences the outcome of this debate has for Russia, her neighbors and the 
world. 

Those who argue that the Russian state is weak point to the government's 
inability to enforce a coherent policy line across all its institutions. They 
note the limits on the ability of Moscow to enforce its laws, collect taxes 
or pay its employees on a regular basis across the entire acountry. And they 
call attention to the decay or even collapse of many key institutions, 
including the forced downsizing of the Russian army. 

Some who argue that the Russian state is weak go even further. They argue 
that Russia is now a "failed state," a term used to describe countries where 
the nominal central government lacks the power and authority to give orders 
to its own bureaucracy or to subordinate regional authorities. And they 
suggest that Moscow must somehow rebuild state authority or face a future 
even more dire than the present. 

Among those taking the "weak" side in this debate, some argue that this 
reconstitution of state power is so important that both Russians and the West 
must tolerate significant deviations from democratic norms. But others, who 
have concluded that the Russian state is weak, nonetheless insist that the 
rebuilding of the Russian state must stay within democratic norms during this 
process or face another kind of disaster. 

That disaster, these analysts argue, would be the reconstitution of an 
authoritarian regime in Russia, which would be likely to trample on 
democratic liberties at home and to pursue a far more aggressive policy 
toward Russia's neighbors, particularly the former Soviet republics and the 
three Baltic states. And in support of their argument they point to the 
policies of earlier failed states, including post-World War I Germany. 

Those who argue that the Russian state is strong, on the other hand, point to 
a very different set of realities. They note the reviving strength of the 
Russian military in Chechnya. They describe the government's power over the 
media, over central and regional debates, and especially Putin's ability to 
define the terms of public debate in advance of the presidential poll on 
March 26. 

And they argue that the Russian state is already reviving and that the 
disorder the "weak" state advocates point to was never as great as the latter 
group said and is quickly being overcome by Putin and his new team. Indeed, 
most of those who argue that the Russian state is already strong support what 
the acting Russian president is doing. 

But as in the case of the advocates of the "weak" position, some of those who 
believe the Russian state is already strong argue that neither the Russian 
political system nor the West should tolerate violations of democratic norms 
and human rights by those who say they must rebuild a "strong" Russian state. 
Indeed, this group suggests, the Russian state may be in danger of becoming 
too strong for both democracy and peace. And in support of their position, 
they point to the new militancy in Russian political discourse since the 
beginning of the Chechen war about Russia's neighbors and about the West's 
involvement both there and in Russia itself. 

Just like the blind men in the famous story about the elephant, each of these 
positions captures an important truth about the Russian state today. On the 
one hand, it is far weaker than earlier Russian states, in terms of its 
coordinating ability. But on the other hand, it is far stronger, at least in 
terms of the capacity of some of its institutions, than some both in Russia 
and the West appear to believe. 

Taken together, the two sides in this debate point to the importance of moves 
to strengthen the government's coordinating role as well as to the 
significance of having some of its institutions weaken still further. But the 
two sides in this discussion also highlight something far more important. 

Read carefully, both the "weak" and the "strong" positions suggest that if 
the Russian state tries to recover its strength by sacrificing human rights 
and democratic procedures, any victories Moscow does achieve will be 
shortlived. And such Pyrrhic victories almost certainly will result in fresh 
disasters for Russia, her neighbors and the world 

*******

#3
Moscow Times
March 7, 2000 
EDITORIAL: NATO Can Hold Back Space Aliens 

We think it's a great idea for Russia to join NATO. In fact, we think every 
nation should belong to NATO. Over time, once the entire world is united in a 
military alliance commanded from Washington, then NATO nations can defend 
each other from future hypothetical interplanetary attack. To prepare for 
that glorious day, we suggest transferring control over the International 
Space Station out of NASA's hands and into NATO's. We also urge NATO to 
immediately develop special spandex military uniforms for its multinational 
planetary defense force, and, in the spirit of international friendship, take 
over the sex-in-space experiments NASA so indignantly insists it is not 
conducting. ... 

It is interesting how expressing a willingness to join NATO has become a 
litmus test for international political correctness. It is a meaningless 
formality - Russia will almost certainly never join NATO, even if it may 
cooperate closely. But it works as a sort of pledge of international 
friendship, or allegiance: A politician who announces that he is willing to 
consider joining NATO is a good, pro-Western leader. A politician who is 
critical of NATO is a nationalist, an anti-Westerner, a populist. 

When, over the weekend, acting President Vladimir Putin said he saw no reason 
why Russia couldn't join NATO someday, it was therefore treated as real news; 
and when on Monday NATO Secretary-General George Robertson responded that "at 
present, Russian membership is not on the agenda," he was also quick to 
welcome Putin's "positive spirit." 

Paradoxically, had a positive-spirited Putin demanded to join NATO, it would 
actually have been a huge headache; there would be almost no more lethal 
attack Moscow could launch against the alliance than to put on a big innocent 
grin and show up in Brussels asking for membership; and then innocently 
asking, "But why not? NATO's not supposed to be aimed against Russia, is it? 
Don't you want to 'engage' us into Western society?" 

Once upon a time we lived in a world where the peoples of the Western nations 
announced they wanted only for the peoples of Russia to live in a prosperous 
and democratic society. Now we apparently want them to always, always beg to 
join NATO - so that we can always, always put them off. There's a term for 
this sort of relationship - a Marxist term probably, or perhaps a Freudian 
term - but it escapes us at the moment. But what is clear is that NATO is 
like the Unity party: Everyone is expected to try to join, and the reason why 
is ... because everyone else is trying to join too. 

- Matt Bivens 

********

#4
Kommersant
March 7, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]

IT'S MY KIND OF WORK, VORONTSOV
Famous Russian diplomat Yuli Vorontsov is about to start 
working in New York as the UN Secretary-General's special 
representative for the return of Kuwaiti prisoners and property 
from Iraq. Vorontsov is interviewed by Commersant's Leonid 
Gankin.

Question: My first answer is addressed to you as an expert 
in Russian-US relations. Our relations are experiencing a 
crisis.
What is to be expected in the future?
Answer: The US side is to blame for the present crisis. It 
all began with NATO enlargement. As Russia's Ambassador in 
Washington, I actively participated in the negotiations held at 
that time. I can bluntly say that it was an unprovoked step on 
their part, which put us in a very grave situation. We tried to 
show them that their position did not hold water. "You bring 
your troops closer to our borders, passing this for a friendly 
action.
Why? Do you feel any threat from our side?" - we asked them and 
heard the following in reply: "This has nothing to do with 
you." If so, we said, why don't you enlarge, say, southward?
We suggested including Poland, the Czech republic and 
Hungary - if these countries were so anxious to join NATO - 
into the bloc's political structure without moving its troops 
and bases eastward. The answer was: No, we cannot do this, 
because this could mean discrimination within NATO, when there 
are bases in some countries and there are no bases in others. 
In the final count, they got what they wished. And this 
aggravated our relations.
Air strikes against Yugoslavia was another cause of the 
crisis. On the eve of the 21st century the US introduced an 
absolutely unnecessary element into global politics, deciding 
that it had the right to use force without UN sanctions in 
order to make a sovereign country to obey its will. This means 
that all the other countries become potential victims of such a 
policy: if Washington does not like anything in the internal 
affairs of any country and this country is unwilling to change 
it, it can become a victim of air strikes. There is no 
provision of this kind in the UN Charter. It only stipulates 
collective actions to repel an aggression.
We were indignant with what happened to Yugoslavia. The 
Kosovo situation was rather complicated. It was wrong to blame 
everything on Serbs alone. Militants who had been supplied with 
arms by Albania were active in that province. And the US 
actually sided with them. Suppose there is an analogy with the 
Chechen situation. Is Washington going to bomb Moscow if it 
does not like what the Russian federal government does in 
Chechnya? This will not do in Russia's case, because it can 
deal a retaliatory strike at Washington. But any small country 
can fall victim to such a policy. This is what made us so 
indignant, and our reaction alarmed Americans. But it was 
Washington, not Russia, that deteriorated the crisis in our 
relations.
About their future. All realise that after the 
presidential elections in Russia and the US it will be 
necessary to sit down at the negotiating table and discuss it 
all calmly. We are to tell them our displeasure with their 
behaviour and they are to revise to a certain degree their 
position. By and large, there are no particular inter-state 
contradictions between us. So we will search ways to agreement.

Question: What if the Republican candidate wins the US 
election? Won't it be rather difficult to conduct a dialogue 
with him?
Answer: There are no foreign policy differences between 
Democrats and Republicans as both are crazy about their 
country's role as the only global superpower. They believe that 
they are to lead the whole world, though they do not quite 
understand in what direction. The fact is that no matter what 
the US can imagine, Russia was and remains a great power. I 
have more than once discussed this with Americans. I asked them 
about the criteria in keeping with which they regarded the USSR 
as a superpower. Our country has always been much weaker than 
the US economically and its political influence was rather 
restricted, too. We were called a superpower because we 
possessed nuclear weapons and we and the US could annihilate 
each other and the rest of the world in a matter of an hour or 
an hour and a half. So, what has now changed? The USSR no 
longer exists but Russia does, and it remains a great power. 
Don't be in a hurry to ignore us. It goes without saying that a 
great deal has changed. We are not hostile and we are no longer 
going to liberate the rest of the world from capitalism. But 
it is necessary to reach agreement.

Question: What influence has the North Caucasus situation 
had on Russian-US relations?
Answer: I do not think that the US reaction to the events 
in Chechnya is very aggressive. Americans know from their own 
experience what terrorism is. Suffice it to recall the bomb 
explosion in New York's Trade Centre and terrorist acts against 
US embassies. They only criticise us for the excessive use of 
force in Chechnya. Meanwhile, it is not known how they would 
act in a similar situation. I suppose their actions would be 
even more resolute than ours.
When I was under fire of criticism during the first war in 
Chechnya, I said that Americans of all people should keep their 
lips tight on a matter like this. They experienced the same 
situation in 1861-1864, when the insurgent southern states 
tried to break away. They did not conduct any negotiations with 
the insurgent Southerners and suppressed the rebellion by 
force. I specially looked through old documents and found 
President Lincoln's inauguration address on March 4, 1861. 
Lincoln said that he had no objection to the preservation of 
slavery in those states which wished to preserve it but he was 
"inflexible" concerning the demand for separation because it 
contradicted the Constitution and by the power confided in him 
he would use force against the "assailants of the Government" 
who had "begun the conflict of arms". It was an incredibly 
cruel war. Now I ask Americans who reproach us for the 
destruction of Chechen towns whether they, too, destroyed the 
towns of Confederates in the 1860s. I recalled them the fate of 
Atlanta which Northerners razed to ground. Americans shyly 
smiled in response, saying that there was no television at that 
time.

Question: How long will Russia be recalled about Chechnya?
Answer: When the active phase of the operation is over, 
interest in Chechnya will begin to abate. Then the Western mass 
media will not report how Russia restores peaceful life, builds 
schools, etc. When all the common graves are video-taped, they 
will forget all about Chechnya.

Question: Why such a painful reaction to the Chechnya 
situation from the West?
Answer: It is the "icicles" of the Cold War in the minds 
of people. The old syndrome of suspicion and hostility 
manifests itself each time anything happens in Russia. The West 
is used to tongue-lashing and criticising the USSR. It has 
welcomed the emergence of a democratic Russia but 
suspiciousness remains. The public is used to bad news from 
Russia. It will take at least fifty years to obliterate the 
anti-Russian syndrome.

Question: Western leaders certainly ask you about the 
foreign policy Vladimir Putin will conduct when he becomes the 
President. What do you answer?
Answer: It is difficult for me to answer such questions as 
I am not personally acquainted with Putin. But he has a 
sufficient background to understand foreign policy problems. He 
worked in the centre of Europe, in Germany. It is a good 
observation post opening a clear view of the web of differing 
interests and contradictions. He is not a newcomer in this 
respect. If at this moment he does not know something about 
Southeast Asia or Latin America, he will learn it when he 
becomes the President.
The same happens to all. Clinton who spent half of his 
life in the small town of Little Rock, Ark., where he was not 
involved in anything great, has made rather fast progress in 
global politics. Or take Gorbachev and his interest in 
international affairs. It was only natural as he from the 
outset had to deal with nuclear arms reductions, because they 
had been accumulating at a threatening speed and something had 
to be done about that.
Boris Yeltsin also had an interest in foreign policy, though it 
was not very big - he did not get into details. Gorbachev knew 
the details much better. I was the first deputy foreign 
minister at that time and I was surprised to see him conduct 
negotiations and talk business without cribs. So, all can learn.
I suppose Putin understands that a policy towards the West 
should be calm and that it is necessary to avoid complications.
At the same time, it is worth arguing on some matters. There 
are alarming signals: NATO is being turned into a global 
organisation. So, it is necessary to prove that this is wrong 
and to turn other countries into our allies. Not only we 
dislike this situation. It is important to shape corresponding 
public opinion the world over to persuade Americans that they 
are wrong.
By and large, I think Russia should raise the question how 
to make the world more fair in the new millennium. History 
provides numerous facts when the stronger attacked the weaker, 
seizing whole countries and imposing their will on them. This 
should be stopped. At the proposal of UN Secretary-General Kofi 
Annan the General Assembly will hold several meetings at the 
high level during its next session in September to discuss how 
we are to live in the next millennium. It would be worth while 
for Putin to spell out his concrete proposals at these 
meetings. It is necessary to say for all to hear that we should 
not carry with us the dirt of the previous centuries now that 
we are opening a clean page of the new millennium.

********

#5
The Electric Telegraph (UK)
7 March 2000
[for personal use only]
Russian blunders blamed for slaughter
By Marcus Warren in Moscow

A DAMNING picture has emerged of the military incompetence that doomed a 
squad of soldiers to die last week in a Chechen ambush and resulted in their 
funeral yesterday in Russia's most revered monastery.

The historic town of Sergeyev Posad turned out en masse to pay its final 
respects to the local men slaughtered last Thursday, fully aware that their 
deaths could have been avoided had local commanders taken simple precautions.

Their convoy of lorries was travelling to Grozny, the Chechen capital, 
without an armoured escort or air cover and, when attacked, no reinforcements 
were sent to its aid for more than four hours, it was disclosed.

Chechen guerrillas sprang their trap for the column on the outskirts of the 
city, under Russian control for a month, and in an area that the military 
claimed to have "liberated" and "cleansed" of rebels. The guerrillas 
destroyed the first and last vehicles, cutting off any escape for the rest of 
the column, which was heading for Grozny on the opening day of the 
paramilitary soldiers' tour of duty in Chechnya.

Many of the troops mowed down by rebel fire were so confident of their safety 
in a part of Chechnya miles away from the front line that they were not 
wearing their flak jackets. They were also communicating by radio easily 
intercepted by the guerrillas and there had been no reconnaissance of the 
convoy's route before it set off for Grozny, oversights the military have 
pledged to correct.

The disclosures about the ambush near Grozny coincided with new reports of 
heavy casualties suffered by Russian paratroopers in the mountains of 
Chechnya. Up to 80 men may have been killed in recent fighting in the Argun 
gorge, said Yevgeny Mikhailov, the governor of Pskov region, home to a 
paratroop division.

Relatives and townspeople yesterday bade farewell to 11 of the 20 soldiers 
killed in the Grozny ambush at a service in the Trinity Monastery, home to 
the relics of Russia's most venerated saint, Sergei Radonezh. Nearly all the 
dead were from Sergeyev Posad, a town 40 miles from Moscow and better known 
by its Soviet name, Zagorsk; but several bodies have yet to be identified and 
are still in the North Caucasus. At least 29 men were wounded in the attack

At a service in one of the monastery's chapels, Vladimir Rushailo, Russia's 
Interior Minister, apologised to the men's families for failing to protect 
them and promised to avenge their deaths. "We will find the men who did 
this," he told a congregation of relatives, grieving locals, monks and nuns, 
adding: "The time will come for vengeance." Mr Rushailo, as the men's 
ultimate commander, faces criticism for the ineptitude that led to their 
deaths, but blame is also being attached to the Defence Ministry.

*******

#6
UN Human Rights Experts Call For Chechnya War Crime Probe

GENEVA, Mar 7, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) Four experts of the UN 
Commission on Human Rights called Monday on Russian to investigate 
allegations of arbitrary executions, detention and torture in Chechnya.

They said they had received reports about alleged extrajudicial executions of 
civilians, torture and rape of women by Russian troops.

The appeal came from Radhika Coomaraswamy, special rapporteur on violence 
against women, Kapil Sibal, chairman-rapporteur of the working group on 
arbitrary detention, Asma Jahangir, special rapporteur on extrajudicial, 
summary or arbitrary executions, and Sir Nigel Rodley, special rapporteur on 
torture.

In a statement issued two weeks before a commission session opens here, the 
experts demanded that the Russian government "ensure that the right to life, 
the right to physical and mental integrity and the right to be free from 
arbitrary arrest and detention of the population of Chechnya are protected."

Their statement referred to interrogations which took place in so-called 
'filtration camps' where people were reportedly subjected to beatings with 
rubber truncheons and metal hammers, stripped naked and left in cold and damp 
cells and at times forced to stand with their hands raised for entire days, 
the statement said.

They also called for the Russian government to provide information on reports 
of abuses. 

********

#7
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000
From: Isabella Ginor <remgin@mail.netvision.net.il>
Subject: Aluminum wars keep Lebed home

Dear David,

Thought the following might interest you, not so much because of Lebed's
visit to Israel but due to the stuation in Krasnoyarsk reflected by its
cancellation.

Best regards
Isabella

Aluminum Wars Keep Lebed Home
by Isabella Ginor (adapted from report for Ha'Aretz, March 7 2000)

The Governor of Krasnoyarsk region, retired General Aleksandr Lebed, has
cancelled at the last moment his first visit to Israel, which was due to
start yesterday. Lebed cited tensions in his constituency due to the
controversial transfer of control over the aluminum complex which forms
a major part of the region's industrial base. According to the Russian
media, the London-based Trans World Group, led by David Ruben, has been
forced to part with its equity in the aluminum plants, which it acquired
in the immediate post-Soviet period by investing in the tolling
transactions that kept the complex in business. The shares were
reportedly acquired by a group of Russian "tycoons" consisting of
Kremlin insiders Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, along with
Ruben's former partner Lev Chernoy -- who, ironically, are all
naturalized Israeli citizens. Lebed reportedly opposed both the tolling
system and the sale of KrAZ to Russian oligarchs on the grounds that the
complex's revenues were thus being diverted to Moscow or overseas, and
lost to the local economy. The struggle for control of the vast complex
has raged throughout the past decade, involving dozens of murders, and
sources close to Lebed reported he is anxious that his absence might
permit a resurgence of such violence. .

Lebed's present advisor in Krasnoyarsk and aide during their joint
military service, Mikhail Bergman (who is still on the army's rolls and
was recently promoted to Brigadier-General) was despatched to Israel
with letters of apology to the leaders Lebed had been scheduled to
meet. Lebed took third place in the presidential election of 1996 and
ensured Boris Yeltsin's re-election by throwing his support to Yeltsin
in the second round. He was expected to be a contender in the election
of March 26, but did not register his candidacy.

*******

#8
Russian defence chief sees weapons sales booming
By Michael Steen

MOSCOW, March 7 (Reuters) - The Russian government's defence industry chief 
said on Tuesday Moscow expected to earn at least $4.3 billion from foreign 
arms sales in 2000, signalling a revival in its struggling arms industry. 

World arms sales totalled $55.8 billion in 1998, according to the 
London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), with half 
of those made by the United States. 

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who oversees the defence 
industry, told a news conference: ``In military -technical cooperation...last 
year we sold $3.5 billion. In 2000 we will bring in at last $4.3 billion.'' 

The figures were a marked increase on the IISS estimate that Russia sold $2.8 
billion worth of arms in 1998 and saw Moscow strengthen its position among 
the world's top eight arms merchants. 

Acting President Vladimir Putin has said Russia should develop its defence 
industry. The ``military industrial complex'' has fallen on hard times since 
the breakup of the Soviet Union, with emptying domestic and foreign order 
books. 

Klebanov said he recently returned from a trip to China, one of Russia's best 
arms customers. He said Beijing had expressed interest in buying a range of 
Russian munitions. 

Klebanov reiterated Moscow's policy that close ties with Beijing were an 
important part of fostering ``a multi-polar world'' -- diplomatic language 
for resisting U.S. dominance. 

Klebanov also said he visited Turkey and discussed Russian helicopter maker 
Kamov's bid to win a tender to supply Turkey with 145 attack helicopters. 

Ankara said on Monday it had eliminated Boeing and the French-German 
Eurocopter consortium from the $4.5 billion tender, leaving Kamov, Italy's 
Augusta and U.S. Bell Helicopter Textron in the race. 

Military analysts say the helicopters are the most effective weapon against 
Kurdish rebels fighting in the remote mountains of Turkey's rugged southeast, 
but the country's defence minister has said they were also needed to face 
foreign security threats. 

*******

#9
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 
From: "Alexander Domrin" <DOMRINA@juris.law.nyu.edu> 
Subject: Library of Congress -- NYU School of Law Conference

The Library of Congress and the New York University School of Law are
co-sponsoring the international symposium, "Democracy and the Rule of Law in
a Changing World Order". The week long event, starting tomorrow, March 7th,
marks the Bicentennial of the Library of Congress as a legislative and
national library; NYU celebrates its "innovative Global Law School Program".

Participants include four associate justices of the U.S. Supreme
Court, two U.S. Appeals Court judges, a justice on the International Court
of Justice at The Hague, a justice from Brazil, Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Bulgaria, former President of the French Constitutional Court, former
Prime-Minister of India, a number of the NYU School of Law Global Faculty,
etc.

The symposium will take place at the Library of Congress in Washington
between March 7-9, and at the NYU School of Law on Friday, March 10.

As far as Russia is concerned, there will be a presentation and discussion 
of the Trophy Art Law.

The paper abstract reads:

"If there is any particular piece of Russian legislation, which in the
years of the Second Russian 
Republic, has stirred major controversy in Russia and abroad and made the
biggest number of 
headlines in Western media, it is probably the federal "Law on Cultural
Values Transferred into 
the USSR as the Result of World War II and Remaining in the Russian
Federation", also known as Trophy Art Law. 

Apart from the context of Russian-German relations and international
property rights, 
which have been quite extensively studied in a number of publications in
the U.S. 
(although, with a rare exception, from predominantly anti-Russian positions), 
the controversy around the Trophy Art Law is quite important for a more
adequate understanding 
of peculiarities of the current legislative process in the Russian
Federation and the role of all three branches of government in it." 

For a detailed schedule of sessions and speakers, please consult website at
www.law.nyu.edu/upcomingevents/democracy.html. 

******

#10
Financial Times (UK)
7 March 2000
[for personal use only]
INSIDE TRACK: Revolution stirs on Russia's desktops: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
INTERNET: High-profile deals demonstrate that the financial community is 
starting to take a serious interest in internet-based projects, writes Andrew 
Jack

At a meeting in Planet Hollywood in central Moscow, green and red name tags 
are used to distinguish the financiers from the ideas people. The two groups, 
each comprising a few dozen people, are gathered for the fifth monthly 
meeting of the city's "Internet Exchange". 

Russia is no exception to the worldwide growth of interest in cyberspace and, 
over the past few weeks, several high-profile deals have shown that projects 
are beginning to find money to back them. 

An estimated 5m Russians use the internet at least once a month. Vladimir 
Putin, Russia's interim president and the frontrunner to take on the job 
full-time after elections on March 26, chose to reveal his policy thoughts on 
the web soon after Boris Yeltsin's resignation put him at the head of the 
Kremlin at the end of last year. 

Mr Putin has since held a brainstorming session with representatives of the 
industry. More controversially, he has also overseen the implementation of 
legislation that forces internet providers to give the FSB, the successor 
body to the KGB, free access to all electronic mail. 

Institutions such as the US-based bank DLJ, the Moscow-based fund UFG and the 
London-based ICE Securities are competing with telecoms providers such as 
Golden Telecom and consultancy firms such as Arthur Andersen in the hunt for 
potential investments. 

Andrei Zotov, founder of V6, a web server provider, and a self-proclaimed 
"social worker" for the country's fledgling internet industry, argues that 
Russia has two notable advantages. 

First, the education system and its many specialist institutes, "have 
produced hundreds of thousands of highly skilled computer programmers". 
Second, this specialised labour force is extremely inexpensive. 

Mr Zotov says he recently lost out in a competitive tender to design a system 
for a west European company because it could not believe he could possibly 
make a comfortable margin by charging Dollars 90,000 (œ57,000), while a 
French rival wanted Dollars 350,000 and an American Dollars 3m. 

Russian ideas, however, have not always been matched by market potential or 
commercial savvy. Many of those behind the country's estimated 30,000-plus 
web sites have an academic rather than a business background. With the 
additional brake of the August 1998 financial crash, it was only last year 
that serious foreign backers began to enter the industry. 

Atrus.ru, an internet directory run by Mr Zotov's own company, and the search 
engine aport.ru, received what is believed to be several million dollars in 
support during 1999. 

In recent weeks, Russkiye Fond and Orion Capital Advisers set up a Russian 
internet investment consortium that claims to have raised Dollars 30m and 
plans a Dollars 10m injection into rambler.ru, the country's most widely 
visited search engine. 

By far the greatest income generators remain Russia's more than 380 internet 
service providers, many of which are controlled by the telecom operators. But 
Mr Zotov, who also co-ordinates the Rocit internet information centre, says 
the business is a commodity with low margins. 

ISPs, he says, generate Dollars 150m a year, compared with Dollars 5m from 
the country's 200 web server consultancies and perhaps Dollars 500,000 from 
advertising on the main web sites. 

He suggests that only 20 or so of these sites "are built on a real industrial 
basis with an understanding of cashflow and where there is serious 
competition for investors". 

Peter Kirkow from ICE Securities highlights the enormous potential growth, 
given both the population of the country and the large and wealthy 
Russian-language community abroad, notably in Israel and the US. 

He also points out that, in contrast to the stereotype of anti-western, 
aggressive management that characterises much Russian business, the net 
entrepreneurs he has met respect the importance of transparent financial 
reporting and many of the tenets of good corporate governance. 

On the other hand, he stresses that many barriers remain in Russia, not least 
the low level of wealth and limited penetration of computers and telephone 
lines, the regulatory burdens of doing business and a poor distribution 
system. 

These factors explain why Mr Kirkow is particularly drawn to 
business-to-business applications. Elsewhere, he argues, overheating is 
already taking place. "Some of the recent deals suggest a Russian-style 
goldrush with a bad ending," he warns. 

On the other hand, Mr Zotov is delighted with such interest. "It's a market," 
he says. "The price is a response to what you expect a company will be 
earning in the future." While other areas of Russian business may continue to 
scare away foreign investors, the internet sector at least is starting to 
generate considerable interest. 

*******

#11
Moscow Times
March 7, 2000 
ROUND TABLE: Business Wants Support, But Expects Regulations 

Will the government tighten its policy toward business after the elections? 

I think things could get tighter. Unfortunately, there are symptoms, and I'm 
worried that it could happen unexpectedly and in the most undesirable manner. 
This is witnessed in the raid on importers and, shall we say, the lack of 
desire among certain ministers to introduce additional regulation or an 
hourly wage. And so I'm afraid that instead of establishing a tradition of 
liberal prices and a liberal economy, they will take exactly the opposite 
approach, which will produce exactly the opposite results. 

Dmitry Ponomaryov 
president, Russian Telephone System 

I think they're already rather tough on us and business. So I'm not afraid of 
things getting any tighter. No matter what happens, we're strong and 
practiced in the art of survival. So there's no fear, only hope for 
improvement. 

Igor Yankovsky 
President, Maxim communications group 

I'm sure things won't get any tighter. I don't know how the political process 
will turn out, but, of course, any tension will be reflected onto business. 
However, judging from things in St. Petersburg, the man most likely to win 
the presidential elections understands well the nature of business. I think 
he understands how far he can go in his work with business. It's 
understandable that business will need to be regulated during the transition. 
But it should also be well understood that there are certain boundaries that 
once crossed will destroy business. I don't think [acting President Vladimir] 
Putin wants to destroy business. 

Roman Mogilevsky 
general director, Gallup-SPB 

I think it's doubtful. It's no accident the candidates have already made 
economic development the main issue and tied it to Russia's success in the 
near future. The important thing is that hope has appeared, indisputable hope 
for needed reinforcement of government mechanisms and intelligent 
strengthening of the state's regulatory functions. There are also grounds for 
hope that the government will finally begin thinking clearly and take 
decisive measures to create a civilized legal environment, and establish a 
single set of equal rights for everyone. 

This is especially necessary for small and mid-sized business, which needs 
every possible manner of encouragement. Clear, universal laws that do away 
with all manner of privilege will have to be adopted and their enforcement 
guaranteed. This is what the modern, civilized market requires. 

Dmitry Orlov 
president, Vozrozhdeniye Bank 

I think it's completely clear that it will happen. All you have to do is 
analyze the statements of the acting president and First Deputy Prime 
Minister [Mikhail Kasyanov]. They make it absolutely clear that this will 
happen. The form it will take will depend on how much clear thinking goes 
into the decision making process. Clearly, in introducing any strictures on 
business, the government will have to increase the demands it makes of 
itself. 

Yury Lastochkin 
general director, Rybinsk Motors 

Guessing what kind of relationship will develop between the state and 
business circles isn't a very worthwhile exercise. ... It's much more 
important to figure what direction the government will take in transforming 
the business environment. If it takes real steps against corruption, and 
toward transforming budget organizations into state financial structures - 
that is, if it sets up an honestly competitive process, and does away with 
unfair privilege and advantage - that kind of tightened policy will only 
benefit business. On the other hand, if the practice of setting up unequal 
conditions for various participants on a single market continues, business 
will be liquidated in the literal sense of the word. However, we believe in 
the wisdom of our government authorities, and that they won't suddenly start 
to dismantle a decade's worth of hard work building an economy that in spite 
of its inadequacies has a multitude of healthy offshoots. 

Alexei Voroshin 
deputy director, Russian Capital Bank 

Source: Vedomosti 

******

#12
BBC MONITORING
RUSSIA'S FIRST LADY ON HER FIRST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; FIRST VOCAL APPEARANCE
Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 1700 gmt 6 Mar 00 

[Presenter] The country's first lady, Lyudmila Putina, faced the cameras for 
the first time today. Jointly with Deputy Prime Minister Valentina 
Matviyenko, she visited a children's hospital in Moscow. The wife of the 
acting president has been learning to have contact with the socially 
unprotected layers of society. As for Valentina Matviyenko, she spoke of her 
meeting with Vladimir Putin today. Here is our correspondent Yelena 
Maskalyuk. 

[Correspondent] This is Lyudmila Putina's first public engagement, and the 
wife of the acting president was trained by Deputy Prime Minister Valentina 
Matviyenko today. The first lady opened the newly-restored building of the 
consultative diagnostic department of the child health centre of the Russian 
Academy of Medical Sciences. While at first, Valentina Ivanovna tended to 
seize the initiative in the conversation, half an hour later, Lyudmila Putin 
began to take active interest herself in the problems of sick children... 

[Correspondent] And here is her first meeting with the press. Lyudmila 
Aleksandrovna's conclusion was brief. 

[Putina] It is good to see the concrete results of some real work. That's 
what I especially enjoyed during this visit. 

[Journalists en masse] Thank you... 

*******

#13
BBC MONITORING
PUTIN WOOS THE LADIES ON THE EVE OF MARCH 8TH HOLIDAY
Source: Russian Public TV, Moscow, in Russian 0900 gmt 7 Mar 00 

[Presenter] Vladimir Putin presented top state awards to 20 Russian women in 
the Kremlin today, on the eve of 8th March, International Women's Day. He 
said that the more developed a society, the higher it values such feminine 
qualities as intellect, intuition and kindness. Our film crew was at the 
ceremony as well. Ilya Kulikov reports. 

[Correspondent] Presentations are fairly common occurrences in the Kremlin. 
The most recent was on 23rd February, when most of the recipients were 
military men. Today only women were being decorated, and this is probably why 
the whole atmosphere of this ceremony was unusual. It was more like a party 
at home... 

[Putin] Perhaps this is a general thought, but I can't help saying it again 
today. The most sacred things in Russia - homeland, faith, mother - and 
Russia itself are always concepts connected with the image of a woman. 

[Correspondent] Vladimir Putin did not speak for long and suggested moving on 
to what he described as the best part of the ceremony - presenting the 
decorations... Actress Lidiya Smirnova decided to ignore protocol. 

[Smirnova] Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, first of all I have to compliment you 
on the way you walk. You know, you have a very correct gait. In general, the 
way a man walks shows his character, perseverance and generally the strength 
of his willpower. You have a splendid way of walking. 

[Putin] The ladies always bring warmth to the home and to the heart. It was 
an especially pleasant surprise to be complimented by those who know about 
such things, when I was told that the way I walk demonstrates particular 
qualities. To be honest, I was very surprised because that's exactly what I 
always get told off about at home, for supposedly waddling from side to side 
like a goose. 

[Correspondent] Twenty women received decorations from the acting president. 

[Putin] The more developed a society, the more important to it are those 
components which are supplied by the ladies - these are intellect, intuition, 
kindness, and beauty. 


*******

Web page for CDI Russia Weekly: 
http://www.cdi.org/russia