March 21, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4185 • 4186 • 4187 

Johnson's Russia List
#4187
21 March 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
1. Itar-Tass: Elections in Russia to Be Monitored by Over 
800 Observers. 
2. Reuters: Gareth Jones, Economy seen driving Putin foreign
policy.
3. Yasushi Toda: Putin's memoirs.
4. Izvestia: Sergei Antipov, A FAMILY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: 
TULEYEV - DAD, PAMFILOVA - MOM, PUTIN - ELDER BROTHER.
5. Bloomberg: Russia's Chubais on Support for Putin as President.
6. Moscow Tribune: Stanislav Menshikov, RIDING THE BOOM OR 
KILLING IT? Don't Strangle the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg.
7. Dan Cisek: RE: 4179-Wedel/Tainted Transactions.
8. Bloomberg: Russia's Khakamada on Investment Barriers, Taxation.
9. Boston Globe: David Filipov, Wide gulf bared as Russia admits 
a Chechnya massacre.
10. Washington Post: David Hoffman, Putin's Future Russia May 
Resemble the Soviet Past.
11. AFP: Duma Maintains Tough Stance On Ratification Of START II.]


*******


#1
Elections in Russia to Be Monitored by Over 800 Observers. 


MOSCOW, March 20 (Itar-Tass) - Over 800 international observers will 
monitor presidential elections in Russia on March 26, informed diplomatic 
sources told Itar-Tass on Monday. 


They said 860 representatives of foreign countries have been registered as 
international observers, but, as the diplomats stressed, there is will along 
cue of applicants. 


The sources noted that representatives of the Council of Europe, the 
Organisation foR Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Parliament 
and various international institutes and organisations will arrive in Russia 
as international observers. 


On the whole, there will be representatives from 53 countries and 65 
organisations, they said. 


The sources said the OSCE Bureau for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights 
has opened a long-term mission in"Russia and other organisations will open 
short-term missions. 


*******


#2
Economy seen driving Putin foreign policy
By Gareth Jones


MOSCOW, March 21 (Reuters) - Lord Palmerston, a 19th century British prime 
minister, used to say Britain had no permanent friends, only permanent 
interests. 


Substitute Russia for Britain and you have a succinct summary of Acting 
President Vladimir Putin's hard-nosed approach to foreign affairs, political 
analysts say. 


Gone are the days of back-slapping, first-name diplomacy championed by Boris 
Yeltsin, Putin's predecessor and patron, who set great store by his personal 
friendship with various world leaders whom he liked to meet informally 
``without neckties.'' 


In comes a cool, courteous but tough and much more focused approach which 
seeks above all to promote Russia's economic and business interests, analysts 
say. 


In recent weeks, foreign visitors including U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have beaten a path to Putin's 
door hoping to get to know the ex-KGB spy tipped to win the March 26 
presidential election. 


In public, at least, they have given Putin the thumbs-up, saying he is a 
pragmatic reformer who wants to put Russia's frayed ties with the West firmly 
back on track. 


Analysts broadly agree with that estimate but say Putin will be no pushover 
and will vigorously defend what he sees as Russia's interests, as his stance 
on rebel Chechnya has shown. 


RUSSIA'S ECONOMY COMES FIRST 


``Under Yeltsin foreign policy sometimes seemed a function of his 
personality. With Putin, I expect efforts to put our foreign policy on a 
clearer, sounder basis,'' said Viktor Kremenyuk of the USA and Canada 
Institute. 


``Of course, Putin will be ready to make concessions but always for something 
in return. There will be plenty of contacts but never contacts just for their 
own sake,'' he added. 


Sergei Karaganov of the Institute of Europe agreed. 


``Putin is much more focused on the economy and building up foreign economic 
relations. He wants to integrate Russia into the new world economy. That will 
include creating better conditions for foreign investors,'' he said. 


The analysts' comments are borne out by Putin's own words. 


Although he has not published a detailed election manifesto, Putin issued an 
open letter to the Russian electorate late last month in which he said 
foreign policy priorities should be dictated by the need to rebuild Russia's 
still shaky economy. 


``A country where weakness and poverty reign cannot be strong. Our role in 
world affairs, our well-being and our new rights are contingent on whether we 
manage to tackle our own domestic problems,'' Putin wrote. 


``Russian foreign policy should promote national interests. The real, 
especially economic, interests of the country alone should determine what 
Russian diplomats do,'' he said. 


PUTIN SEEN CAUTIOUS BUT OPEN TO WEST 


Opinion polls suggest Putin could win a landslide victory in the election, 
which would untie his hands to mend long strained ties with the West, the 
main source of future foreign investment. 


He already enjoys a much stronger domestic political position than Yeltsin, 
who throughout his presidency had to contend with a hostile parliament 
dominated by Communists and nationalists. A majority of deputies in the newly 
elected State Duma (lower house) broadly backs Putin. 


Even under Yeltsin, an unusual degree of unanimity existed on foreign policy 
issues in his later years in power, with Russians across the political 
spectrum rallying to condemn NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia and to defend 
Moscow's own military campaign against guerrillas in rebel Chechnya. 


Putin, who took the helm when Yeltsin resigned on December 31, has fiercely 
defended the Chechen war against Western criticism but has often tempered his 
remarks by saying foreign leaders have not been properly informed about the 
conflict. 


He has said Russia and the West face common threats in the form of Islamic 
fundamentalism, international terrorism and drug trafficking and has urged 
greater cooperation in fighting them. 


Under Putin, Russia has cautiously reopened talks with NATO, nearly a year 
after suspending them in protest at the alliance's air raids against its Slav 
brethren in Yugoslavia. 


Recently Putin even mooted the possibility of Russia joining NATO one day as 
an equal partner, although he later said the alliance would have to evolve 
into a very different organisation to the one that bombed Yugoslavia before 
that could happen. 


NATO ENLARGEMENT STILL CLOUDS TIES 


NATO's continued eastward enlargement is set to be a key foreign policy issue 
for the next occupant of the Kremlin. 


Russia protested against the last wave which admitted Poland, Hungary and the 
Czech Republic but finally bowed to the inevitable. Bulgaria, Romania, 
Slovakia, Slovenia and, more controversially, the Baltic states are hoping to 
join next. 


Nobody expects Moscow to drop its opposition but some experts say Putin may 
move to smooth ties with new NATO members. 


``It is proposed that Vladimir Putin will pay special attention to improving 
relations with the new NATO members, above all with Poland,'' the PIR 
think-tank wrote in its latest monthly ``Questions of Security'' bulletin. 


It said Russia might be ready to move from its ``persistent efforts to 
vindicate its viewpoint regardless of its relevance...to the tactics of tacit 
disagreement.'' In other words, less sound and fury, more behind-the-scenes 
pressure. 


In the late Yeltsin period, the Kremlin gave much weight to building closer 
ties with countries like China and India. 


Analysts say Putin would have no illusions that China could somehow replace 
the West as Russia's key economic partner but he might try to use Moscow's 
much improved relations with Beijing as a bargaining tool in his dealings 
with Washington. The analysts rejected talk of any military alliance with 
China. 


OTHER PROBLEMS LOOM 


If elected, Putin is expected to visit China and Japan. Analysts say he would 
probably prefer to visit Europe first, especially Germany -- Moscow's biggest 
Western lender and a country Putin knows well from his KGB days. 


But that could hinge on an April meeting of the Council of Europe which may 
decide to suspend Russia because of Chechnya. 


Other minefields abound. Russia remains strongly opposed to U.S. plans to 
deploy a national anti-missile defence system which Moscow says would 
undermine the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty and the global nuclear 
security system. 


Russia is also angry about U.S. efforts to halt its nuclear cooperation with 
Iran, still regarded by Washington as a rogue state. It insists its 
cooperation is confined to civil projects. 


``The disagreements will continue but they will be kept under reasonable 
control. Putin is too much of a pragmatist,'' said Andrei Ryabov of the 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 


He said the Duma should soon ratify the START-2 treaty sharply cutting 
nuclear arsenals on both sides after years of delay, creating impetus for a 
fresh round of arms reduction talks which could further improve the East-West 
climate. 


But not all analysts were so upbeat about Putin and about the West's apparent 
willingness to embrace him. 


Andrei Piontkovsky of the Centre for Strategic Studies said he believed Putin 
would improve ties with the West but that he would also crack down on 
Russia's hard-won democratic freedoms. 


``Putin will invite in foreign investors,'' he said. ``And in return, the 
West will turn a blind eye to human rights abuses.'' 


*******


#3
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
From: Yasushi Toda <yasushi@ufl.edu>
Subject: Putin's memoirs


David:
In the March 20 issue of the New York Times (page C14), Doreen Carvajal
reports that "First Person" based on the Kommersant-Vlast' interview with
Vladimir Putin is not available in Russia, because the Central Electoral
Commission has temporarily barred publication until after the March 26
presidential election. However, the electronic version in Russian is
available. One can browse and download all the files for free.
http://www.vagrius.com/html/books/putin/


*******


#4
Izvestia
March 18, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] 
A FAMILY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: TULEYEV - DAD, 
PAMFILOVA - MOM, PUTIN - ELDER BROTHER
By Sergei ANTIPOV

Politicians, including contenders to the Presidency, are, 
first and foremost, human beings and only then leaders of 
movements, chairmen of parties, governors, etc. And the 
majority of voters see them sooner as human beings than the 
authors of monumental programs such as "500 Days" or "How to 
Steer Russia out of the Crisis."
Analysts from the Strategic Analysis and Forecast Centre 
have recently conducted psychological polls in four of Russia's 
inter-regional zones. More than 20 focus-groups of each 
presidential candidate's supporters were represented. The polls 
produced the following results.
Out of those who are going to vote for Vladimir Putin 26% 
"like" him and 50% "respect" him. Though 24% "are afraid" of 
the acting President, they will, nonetheless, cast their 
ballots for him. Putin's supporters were asked to name his most 
attractive features. It turned out that they liked his 
"firmness" and "toughness" more than anything else.
Only 12% "like" Gennady Zyuganov but many more - 58% - 
"respect" him, 8% "are afraid" of "uncle Zyu" and 22% do not 
have any personal feelings for the KPRF leader but will, 
nonetheless, vote for him "for ideological considerations." 
Zyuganov mostly attracts voters by his "simplicity" and 
"democratism." Grigory Yavlinsky is "liked" by 33% and 
"respected" by 32%.
However, he is twice as "dangerous" as his communist rival - 
15% "are afraid" of him. Twenty percent do not have any 
feelings for the Yabloko leader but will vote for him "out of 
intellectual solidarity." "Intellect" is his most attractive 
feature.
As many of 66% of Aman Tuleyev's followers "like" him, 34% 
"respect" him and practically 0% "are afraid" of the Kemerovo 
governor. Supporters value him, above all, for his 
"reliability" and "caring attitude."
Vladimir Zhirinovsky practically does not inspire "love" - 
only 5% "like" him but 47% "respect" the LDPR leader and 48% 
are "afraid" of him. "Behaving as if he were in a marketplace" 
is his best feature.
Having established the levels of "fear," "love" and 
"respect" commanded by the main presidential candidates, the 
Centre's experts came up with an original idea. They asked 
members of the focus-groups (300 people were polled) to say 
which of the candidates could be the father, mother, uncle, 
aunt, etc., in the family. The majority could imagine Putin as 
"the elder brother" who supervises and protects the juniors all 
the time but who can "give it good and proper," if something is 
done the wrong way. Zyuganov is regarded as "an uncle" living 
nearby. He drops by every now and then, often without the 
invitation and likes to criticise, raise hell and guide the 
rest of the family and then go home. Tuleyev is the caring 
"father" who protects all against one another, guaranteeing 
stability for his family and striving for its "growth." The 
above three candidates are mentioned by respondents more often 
than the others.
The "roles" of the other presidential hopefuls were 
divided as follows. Ella Pamfilova is associated with "Mom" who 
talks a lot but can do very little. Stanislav Govorukhin is the 
"grandfather" who wants nothing but the truth and tries to 
persuade the entire family that "we cannot continue living like 
this." Konstantin Titov is labelled as the "American uncle," 
Yuri Skuratov as the "unfaithful husband" and Zhirinovsky as 
the despicable "mother-in-law."
Yavlinsky is not seen as a family member and is sooner 
seen in the role of a "school teacher" (which is almost next of 
kin for people in the Russian hinterland) who loves to admonish 
and tires everyone by this.
Practically no one included Alexei Podberezkin, Umar 
Dzhabrailov and Yevgeny Savostyanov in the "family circle." 


******


#5
Russia's Chubais on Support for Putin as President: Comment


Moscow, March 21 (Bloomberg)
-- The following are comments by Anatoly Chubais, chief executive 
officer of RAO Unified Energy Systems and one of the leaders of the Union of 
Right Forces, a political party that won 8.7 percent of the vote in the 
December parliamentary election. Chubais spoke on support for Acting 
President Vladimir Putin in the presidential election on Sunday. The union 
refused support to its political ally Konstantin Titov, governor of the 
Samara region who is also running for the presidency. The comments were 
broadcast on Russia's ORT Television. 


``The position of the Union of Right Forces is determined, as any normal 
organization, by a majority. The majority chose - we support Putin Vladimir 
Vladimirovich in the election. This position is not just Chubais's personal 
position, but the position of the Union of Right Forces. 


``Titov was not a candidate of the Union of Right Forces. Putin was not our 
candidate either, but Titov didn't get the support of the Union of Right 
Forces. Some parties supported Titov, this is true. The main thing is that we 
were able to overcome a split. Even in such a difficult situation, there is 
no split - we support Putin. 


``There is no split. Titov can confirm this himself. Still, the Union of 
Right Forces still hasn't changed the position - it is the support Putin. It 
is not about Titov's personality, but about the fact we compared programs of 
each of the candidates with what the Union of Right Forces thinks is right. 


``Our position was approved by a democratic procedure. 


``In November, I said I would personally support Putin with all means that 
are necessary. If we talk about my personal position - I trust Putin, I trust 
this man. Of course, I could be wrong. Nothing is pre-determined. But, still 
I have my personal view and my colleagues in the Union of Right Forces agreed 
with me. 


``A second round (of voting in the presidential election) would be harmful, 
like never before and would be harmful for practical reasons. We understand, 
in the second tour that if there is a second round, besides Putin, the other 
candidate will be (Communist Party Leader) Gennady Zyuganov. That will 
artificially blow up Zyuganov to unbelievable proportions and make him almost 
the main opposition figure for the next four years. We don't want this to 
happen. Zyuganov does not deserve this place. He is a disappearing political 
figure. The faster it disappears from the political arena, the better. 
Because of this we think it is important to have elections carried out in the 
one round.'' 
(ORT Television 3/20) 


*******


#6
From: "stanislav menshikov" <menschivok@globalxs.nl>
Subject: RIDING THE BOOM OR KILLING IT?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 


"Moscow Tribune", 21 March 2000
RIDING THE BOOM OR KILLING IT?
Don't Strangle the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg
By Stanislav Menshikov
http://www.fast.ane.ru/smenshikov


Latest figures on economic performance in January and February seem to
confirm the prediction of a boom made in this column some time ago.
Industrial output is up by 11-13 per cent compared to early 1999. More
importantly, seasonally adjusted data show that relative stagnation that
started last September is now over. If these are not statistical articrafts
produced by Goskomstat for election purposes, it is indeed good news.


There are two reasons why it could be true. First, import substitution that
accounted for most of last year's recovery is not a temporary phenomenon
but has come to stay and is continuing to work. Growth in food production
by 20 per cent and in light industry by more than 50 (!) per cent indicates
that producers of Russian made consumer goods are finally recovering from
their long and deep depression. It is a wonder that they are still alive
after years of genuine disaster. 


Second, consumer demand in general and capital investment are on the
upturn. Real household purchases of goods and services are up by 7.2 per
cent, and real investment up by 4.5 per cent. True, both remain
substantially below 1997 pre-crisis levels. But these are crucial
indicators that account for two thirds of total GDP. If current trends
continue, 2000 as a whole will be a very good year.


How much of this is due to Mr. Putin's performance as prime minister and
acting president? With all due respect, very little. While some foundation
was laid by the Primakov government, the boom has been largely spontaneous,
triggered by the fourfold rouble devaluation. Mr. Putin's only contribution
was to refrain from spoiling the picture and to ride the tide while it was
high. 


For instance, there are 1.7 million more jobs in the economy today than
there were a year ago. Few if any of these were created by the government,
and most of them are the result of hiring by the private sector in response
to higher output. Real monthly wages per person are up by a whopping 22 per
cent. But again these are mostly earned in the non-government sector. By
contrast, real average pensions have "increased" by 0.4 per cent, or not at
all. Putin's initiatives to raise pensions came only after they stagnated
for most of last year.


These, of course, are details that the general public may or may not grasp.
Riding the tide of a boom is a well established political tradition for
which Mr. Putin can hardly be blamed. Our main concern is about the future.
The acting president's programme is still in preparation, and we know very
little of what is in store. But there are reasons for serious concern.


For instance, despite promises of extra-fast growth the government is
planning to increase real GDP this year by only 1-2 per cent and industrial
production by 2-3 per cent. However, even if monthly output ceases to grow
after February and stays at that level for the remainder of 2000, average
growth for the whole year will be 6.5 per cent, or more than twice as high
as the best government forecast. This discrepancy can be explained in only
two ways: either the statistics presented so far are false and the
government expects to "adjust" them later, or the data is correct and the
administration is planning to tighten up its fiscal and monetary policy
after the election is over. 


Perhaps, that is one reason why Putin is not showing his cards. But some of
his casual remarks indicate that his mind is working in that direction. He
has been talking lately about "overblown" social security and the need to
cut it down to size. Mr. Gref has all but confirmed this intention by
saying that the state's commitments in the public sector should be cut in
accordance with the "real budget". No wonder that the Chubais practice of
"sequestrating the budget" is being mentioned on television as a real
possibility.


Participants in discussions at the Gref "Strategic Centre" tell us that
Chubais-Gaidar neoliberals (via Mr. Yasin) may be gaining the new boss's
ear. These are die-hard monetarists who believe that cutting government
expenditure is the best way to run an economy. While they were in power,
the country lost half of its national product. Recovery started only after
they were thrown out of the government. But they may be trying to engineer
a comeback. If that happens, the new administration will certainly kill the
boom and plunge into a new depression.


Mr. Putin must realise that these concepts is extremely dangerous. There is
no such thing as a given permanent "real budget". The budget is always the
result of economic performance. It rises with the economy and falls with
it. A booming economy allows a more generous budget for social and other
public expenditure in the national interest. Adding to government
expenditure supports aggregate demand and stimulates the economy. Cutting
the budget is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. It is a suicidal
policy to be avoided at all cost.


*******


#7
From: Dan Cisek <dancisek@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: 4179-Wedel/Tainted Transactions: Harvard, the Chubais Clan and
Russia's Ruin
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 


"Some, indeed, believe that the United States set out deliberately to 
destroy their economy."


This is one sentence from Wedel's piece. It is not central to her argument, 
nor does she provide any evidence to support it. She should not be blamed 
for this, since it is not her main point. But by including it she does feed 
the conspiracy theories of the leftist fringe who see everything in 
black-and-white. Several contributors to JRL have responded to Wedel in 
this vein. The evil capitalists who run the U.S. government decide to 
destroy Russia with bad economic advice and voila, the well-oiled machine 
of government springs into action, all decisions are coordinated, leading 
figures in the Clinton administration are either in on the fix or so easily 
duped as to not notice the plans underway, and voila, another perfect 
conspiracy brought to you by corporate America, err, the CIA, er, the NSA, 
er, those bad folks who really run the world, be they the WTO boogey men or 
whomever the loony left is blaming for everything these days.


The world is complicated. Bad things happened because of ineptitude, 
self-interest, historical inertia, random chance, and evil intentions. In 
this case, only someone determined to see a conspiracy will find one. And 
such people can find a conspiracy under every rock if they want to badly 
enough. How much harder it is to admit that bad things might happen when 
well-intentioned advice, highly flawed, mixes with an incredibly volatile 
economic and political situation and the personal ambitions of leading 
figures. If anyone is to blame for Russia's current state, it is Yeltsin, 
whose failings are so devastatingly laid out in Shevtsova's book "Yeltsin's 
Russia." Here we have an informed Russian commentator, not a everyday 
muzhik convinced that someone must to be to blame for his misery over the 
last eight years. I'll take the informed commentator's analysis over that 
of the angry every man any day. No mention of the U.S. conspiracy to 
destroy Yeltsin in Shevtsova's book.


And as for advice, what of Poland? Wedel's book "Collision and Collusion" 
is highly critical of the Western advice given there. It does not differ 
substantively to the advice given to Russia (the execution is of course 
another matter entirely). Where is the similar outcome in Poland? Nowhere 
to be seen. But of course, the U.S. simply wants to strengthen Poland as a 
front line state of the new NATO bloc against Russia. So a mere flick of 
the magic wand and Poland's economy vigorously recovers. It all fits 
together...until you bring in Ukraine, which the U.S. has every reason to 
strengthen as a counter-balance to Russia, but whose economy is in even 
worse shape than the Russian basket case. I wonder if the success or 
failure of a post-Communist country has something to do with its internal 
politics, starting point, and leadership, as well as Western advice. But 
that would mean the American capitalist cabal doesn't run the world. 
Impossible!


*******


#8
Russia's Khakamada on Investment Barriers, Taxation: Comment


St. Petersburg, Russia, March 21 (Bloomberg) -- The 
following are comments by Duma deputy, Irina Khakamada, chosen last week as 
chairman of the parliamentary Commission for the Protection of the Rights of 
Investors. Khakamada spoke on the commission's goals, barriers to investment 
and tax policy, during a press conference at the National Press Institute. 


On the commission's goals: 


``The main goal of the commission will to bring about a major break-through 
in the legal system, within the course of the next four years, in order to 
stimulate investment in the economy and bring about the creation of a 
favorable investment climate for both Russian and foreign investment. 


``A week ago, the government's Investment Council, which is headed by Acting 
President [Vladimir] Putin, met with leading investors. The latter left that 
meeting with optimism, believing that as soon as the presidential elections 
are over a more favorable investment climate in Russia will materialize. 


``But every time discussions on investment are conducted between large 
investors and international lending organizations on one side, and the 
executive branch of the Russian government on the other, no one pays 
attention to the problem of the legal system. However, judging from various 
surveys of investors, especially Russian ones, the problems in the legal 
system is one of the greatest barriers to increased investment in Russia. So 
we hope that the Duma commission on investment will help to overcome some of 
these barriers. 


``We need to understand that investors must have confidence in the market, 
that capital from the shadow economy is not necessarily criminal, that a 
normal tax system must be created, that a system to protect property owners 
is necessary, and we must understand the necessity of equal treatment for 
large and small investors before the government's bureaucracy. Until this 
becomes a philosophy that will be driven by sound legislation, and if the 
Duma persists in having a strategy of piecemeal reform and making petty 
amendments, we will not be able to create an effective system to attract 
investment. 


``So I consider that my main task is not to create new laws, but to stimulate 
the maximum coordination of current laws to promote a liberal market system. 


On legal barriers: 


``We already had our first difficult precedent last week on Wednesday, which 
as an economist, I consider a dark day for Russia's economy. The first draft 
of two news laws was passed; one was an amendment to the Law on Hard Currency 
Regulation, and the second was an amendment to the Law on Import-Export 
Activity, which requires mandatory registration of all trade activity. 


``This is an example of when we talk about one thing and do another. Now, 
according to the law on hard currency, any structure, even a bank, can stop a 
financial transaction if it suspects that the deal is somehow of dubious 
nature. Everyone knows, however, that the idea of a 'dubious nature' does not 
even exist in Russia's Civil Code. But this way the executive branch has 
obtained the power to put either a green or red light on any deal. The same 
goes for commercial banks. With these new conditions, banks basically have 
the right to blackmail their clients. 


``Now about the mandatory registration of import-export deals. Before the 
passage of such a law, all deals had to be registered simply as a means of 
notifying the necessary state agencies that your company was carrying out an 
import-export deal, and that was the end of that. 


``Now, however, the executive branch in the form of the Ministry of Trade, 
has the power to either allow or forbid a certain import-export deal. We are 
returning to Soviet times when the government gave out special permission to 
importers and exporters. 


On bureaucratic barriers: 


``At the time that investors have been screaming that the tax system has been 
a major hindrance, more administrative barriers have been erected to increase 
costs and hinder access to markets, and worsen the ability to compete. 


``For the past 10 years, we have spoken of the need for investment, but 
nevertheless the amount invested in our economy continues to decrease. 


``Still, there is some improvement in the climate. While it is not certain 
whether the situation after the presidential elections will be good or bad, 
at least it will be stable. And this in itself is a good development for 
investment. 


``As a result of the ruble devaluation and a move away from imports, 
manufacturing output in Russia has grown about 6 percent to 7 percent. But 
that increase can only continue with the proper support from a sound set of 
laws which will create normal conditions to encourage investors to put money 
into production. Of course, to achieve this there is a lot more that must be 
done, including the reform of the banking system, the creation of a new 
system to attract the savings of the population, and of course reform of the 
Pension Fund, which is also an important thing to clear a strong system of 
investment. 


``But the most basic thing in order to increase investment is to remove the 
barriers, erected by bureaucrats, which foster corruption. 


``Therefore, I think our commission was created at the right moment. It will 
analyze what is happening with investment, and take some action on the most 
egregious violations of investor's rights. 


On tax evasion: 


``I am for an economic amnesty but against a tax amnesty. I am for an 
economic amnesty which will bring about the legalization of capital in Russia 
without the close scrutiny of its origins. I think that those conditions 
under which Russian capital has gone into the shadow economy is not an 
indication of how uncivilized our businessmen are, but rather is indicative 
of an ineffective economic system created by government bureaucrats. As long 
as there is a strong government, sticking its nose everywhere in the market 
and competing using its administrative resources, corruption will flourish 
and capital will not be able to grow legally. 


``But I am against a tax amnesty because as soon as we forgive all unpaid 
taxes it will create an `unleveled' playing field for those companies which 
have been paying taxes all along as opposed to those which haven't. 


``Russia needs capital to flow in and there must be no barriers. This means 
that tax policy must be finally made simpler and with lower rates. The Budget 
Committee in the Duma is now working on changes to the tax code which should 
bring about such serious positive changes. 


******


#9
Boston Globe
21 March 2000
[for personal use only]
Wide gulf bared as Russia admits a Chechnya massacre 
By David Filipov


SLEPTSOVSKAYA, Russia - At first, the Russian soldiers who burst into Marina 
Ismailova's yard wanted only money.


When her father-in-law, Akhmed Abulkhanov, was able to produce only 300 
rubles - about $10.50 - the soldiers demanded more. Another relative brought 
out an American hundred dollar bill from the house. Still not satisfied, the 
soldiers opened fire on the 68-year-old Abulkhanov. They also shot two 
neighbors who rushed to see about the commotion.


''I heard the shots,'' Ismailova recalled of that day last month in Aldy, a 
suburb of Chechnya's capital, Grozny. ''My father-in-law died, along with our 
neighbors the Abdulmezhidovs, a brother and sister.''


What followed was what survivors and human rights groups call the worst 
massacre in Russia's six-month campaign to reconquer Chechnya from separatist 
militants.


The Kremlin, which originally denied that any killings took place, yesterday 
acknowledged the deaths for the first time. 


Ismailova and other residents describe a three-hour rampage of looting and 
systematic slayings that they say epitomizes the Russians' hatred and 
disregard of the Chechen civilians whose lives they were sent to protect. At 
least 46 people were killed, though some survivors say the toll was as high 
as 82.


But the story of Aldy is more than the story of an alleged massacre. It is 
also a story of the difficulty of establishing the truth in a war where 
independent observers have little access to first-hand information.


Moscow at first denied that anyone died in Aldy on Feb. 5, or anytime. The 
Kremlin's spokesman on Chechnya, Sergei Yastrzhebmsky, charged that accounts 
of the shootings were fabricated by supporters of Islamic rebels and that 
journalists who reported them were ''on the side of the Mujaheddin.''


But yesterday, Yastrzhembsky appeared to change his story, saying a criminal 
prosecutor had opened an investigation into the events.


''If the culprits are identified they will naturally be punished,'' he said 
at a briefing in Moscow. But he said there was no proof that Russian soldiers 
were responsible. Authorities have not allowed Western journalists to visit 
Aldy since Russian troops regained control of Grozny.


The vast difference in the Russian and Chechen accounts that prevailed until 
yesterday highlights the gulf of mutual mistrust dividing the military and 
the local population, a problem that will probably hobble Russia's efforts to 
bring peace to Chechnya even if its troops defeat the rebel fighters.


Many Chechen civilians decried the rampant kidnapping and lawlessness that 
swept Chechnya after rebels drove out Russian troops following a brutal 
1994-1996 conflict. When the Russians returned last October, many seemed 
willing to accept Moscow's rule if it brought peace. But a series of reported 
attacks on civilians have turned many of those Chechens against the Russians.


The events in Aldy could have profound implications for Russia's future 
relations with the West if Russian troops did commit atrocities, and the 
Kremlin is found to be covering up.


Last week, a senior US official visiting Moscow said he had warned Russian 
leaders to investigate reports of atrocities.


''I told them how they handle this matter means a lot to how they will be 
perceived in the United States and the world,'' said the administration 
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 


Yastrzhembsky on Friday charged that the Western media have been ignoring 
abuses by the separatists while unfairly blaming the Russian military for war 
crimes that never happened.


''I deny this information, I deny it as I have always denied it,'' he said at 
a meeting with reporters. 


Although Russia's chief military prosecutor last week denied any knowledge of 
shootings by Russian soldiers in Aldy, Yastrzhembsky said yesterday that 
exhumation of victims' bodies has begun.


Four people who described themselves as survivors of the events in Aldy gave 
their accounts to the Globe after fleeing Grozny. Only two wanted their names 
used. Their stories are remarkably consistent with accounts provided by other 
survivors to Human Rights Watch, the New York-based organization that first 
reported on the shootings in Aldy in late February.


The survivors all described a large group of Russian soldiers who rounded up 
civilians, ostensibly to check documents and search for rebels who might be 
hiding in the houses. Instead, the residents say, the soldiers summarily 
killed civilians in their homes and on the streets. All the accounts describe 
soldiers demanding money and burning numerous houses.


Toita Estemirova, 29, who was nine months pregnant, was killed. So was her 
husband, Khozhakhmed Estamirov, 37, and their 1-year-old son, Khassan, and 
his grandfather, Khasmagomed, 67 and disabled. The family had left Aldy last 
fall but returned to their house on Podolskaya Street as the fighting for 
Grozny subsided, figuring it would be safe.


On Matash Mazayev Street, not far from Ismailova's home, Rizvan Umkhayev, 70, 
was shot to death. He was found lying on the ground with his open passport in 
his hands. Sultan Timurov, 67, who lived nearby, was found decapitated. The 
residents searched for his head for several days but eventually gave up.


One of the survivors, Acet Chirayeva, 33, a trained nurse, said she had 
treated wounded and helped bury the dead. She said residents had found 82 
bodies.


''At about 12 noon on Feb. 5, I heard the first shots on the streets. My 
father and I went out and we saw Russian soldiers burning the houses,'' 
Chirayeva recalled. ''Their commander told me, `Organize as soon as possible 
burial of the dead. The guys here just blew away some of your old men.'''


Among the people Chirayeva said she buried were 72-year-old Rakhiyat 
Akhmatova, who was killed after she handed over her gold ring and a necklace, 
and Magomed Gaitayev, 70.


Several witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch also alleged that Russian 
soldiers had raped at least two women.


''I'm convinced that this is sheer rape, murder, and pillage,'' said Human 
Rights Watch spokesman Malcom Hawkes, who conducted some of the interviews.


Details given by the survivors indicate that the shootings were carried out 
by a maverick paramilitary police unit that ran amok, rather than as part of 
official policy. All the survivors mentioned another group of Russian 
soldiers who tried to warn residents before the alleged massacre, and helped 
some to hide.


It is unclear whether any of those killed were rebel fighters. Over a dozen 
men of fighting age appear on the list of 46 victims whose names, birthdates, 
and addresses have been confirmed.


The list was compiled by survivors. Federal authorities give daily 
information on rebel losses and weekly updates of Russian casualties. But 
they have made no count of civilian casualties in the Chechen conflict.


''There is no way to count civilian casualties,'' Yastrzhembsky said.


The survivors denied that any Chechen fighters were in Aldy that day. But 
this is a claim often made by Chechen civilians, and often it has proved to 
be untrue. Russian paramilitary police troops interviewed in Grozny last 
month said they were often fired upon from places where security sweeps had 
turned up no fighters.


One special forces officer who fought in the two-month battle for Grozny said 
the troops do not trust any Chechens - including children, old men, and women.


''Children often signal our positions to rebel snipers,'' said the officer, 
who only gave his first name, Ruslan. ''Women often fight alongside the men. 
Old men - they are sometimes fighters, too.''


Residents say all rebel fighters left Aldy as the separatists withdrew from 
Grozny in early February. By Feb. 4, Russian troops had agreed to stop 
shelling Aldy after meeting with local residents who assured them no fighters 
were there.


At the time, an estimated 2,000 people remained in Aldy; most of the prewar 
population of 27,000 had fled, said a senior official in the district's 
prewar administration who asked to remain anonymous. He said about 75 people 
from Aldy had died during the two-month siege of Grozny; another 82 died on 
Feb. 5.


On Feb. 6, Aldy residents said they complained to the commander of the 
nearest Russian troops. The officer, they said, dismissed the whole incident 
as a mistake and told them the soldiers had been drunk. He promised they 
would be punished.


The survivors say they buried the bodies near where they died, hoping 
journalists would come. A few days later, several armed men in military 
fatigues appeared, identifying themselves as ''journalists.'' They asked to 
see the witnesses. People were afraid to talk to them. Later, Russian 
soldiers ordered them to move the bodies to the local cemetery. Residents 
said they feared the troops would try to cover up the evidence.


Russia denies killing the civilians. The dying continues. Every day, Chechens 
receive news of the deaths of family members in areas occupied by federal 
forces.


Last week, it was Sultan Shakhbulatov, a refugee from Chechnya who fled south 
to Georgia, who learned that his pregnant niece, Estemirova, had been killed 
in Aldy.


''We can never return as long as the Russians are in Chechnya,'' he 
concluded. ''So we will have to drive them out.''


Globe correspondent Usman Baisayev contributed to this report from 
Ingushetia. 


*******


#10
Washington Post
21 March 2000
[for personal use only]
Putin's Future Russia May Resemble the Soviet Past
By David Hoffman


MOSCOW, March 20.Acting President Vladimir Putin recently recalled an episode 
from his days as a Soviet KGB agent in St. Petersburg that offers a clue 
about his view of democracy.


A group of political dissidents was planning to stage a public event and 
called in journalists and diplomats to witness it. When the secret police got 
wind of the plan, Putin recalled, they quietly organized a wreath-laying 
ceremony on the same spot.


The KGB brought in party officials and union leaders for the ceremony, the 
police sealed off the site, and a band struck up. When the invited 
journalists and diplomats arrived for the dissidents' event, they found 
instead the KGB theatrics. The reporters "watched for a while, yawned a 
couple of times and went home," Putin recalled.


Putin said in retrospect that the KGB "shouldn't have acted in this way," but 
he went on to praise the agency for performing its subterfuge without being 
detected. "They proceeded carefully so that the ears wouldn't stick out," he 
said.


Such are the often-stated values of Putin, who is described by many analysts 
and critics as determined to lead Russia away from its pluralistic, often 
chaotic experiment with post-communist democracy. In the short time he has 
been in the spotlight, Putin shown little tolerance for dissent or political 
competition and has sent unmistakable signals that he intends to take a more 
authoritarian tack.


In particular, some critics say, Putin has expressed hostility to the basic 
building blocks of a civil society--the process by which the ruled 
communicate with their rulers through a free press, public associations and 
competitive elections. Such channels exist in Russia today, but they are 
often embattled; Putin himself seems to prefer a more Soviet approach, in 
which the Communist Party had an absolute monopoly on power.


The Soviet experience obliterated civil society. The press was a tool of the 
state, elections were a sham, and public associations were impossible without 
party sanction. The party controlled jobs, resources and the legal system. 
Those who refused to conform were sent to prison camps or shot.


Russia is a different country from that one. One of President Boris Yeltsin's 
most profound legacies is a nation that has sprouted a great many voices, one 
in which such freedoms as speech, association and worship have at least taken 
root, if not flourished. If anything, there are complaints that the freedoms 
gained in recent years have spun out of control, especially in the economic 
sphere, and have proved disorienting for a country with a 1,000-year history 
of authoritarian rule.


On the eve of an election to choose a successor to Yeltsin--a ballot Putin is 
overwhelmingly favored to win--the key question about the former KGB 
operative is whether he will try to change Russia's direction, and if so, 
whether he can. Many political analysts say there is no doubt that he wants 
to.


"Psychologically, Putin's attitude to the system of checks and balances is 
much less positive than that of Yeltsin or the democrats or, on the whole, of 
this entire generation of the 1990s," said Igor Bunin, a political 
consultant, analyst and director of the Institute for Political Technology 
here.


"He does not think in terms of democracy," Bunin added. "Psychologically, 
Putin is a technocrat, a pragmatist, a workaholic, allowing for no 
counterbalance to power. The system of checks and balances is going to be 
sharply weakened. Not legally, but by Putin's way of election, by his 
character, by his urge to concentrate power in his hands and control 
everybody and everything."


Alexander Podrabinek, editor of the human rights newspaper Express Khronika, 
says Putin lacks democratic ideals. "He is an embodiment of the Soviet 
mentality; he is a child of the Soviet epoch," he said.


"There must be constant impulse, constant movement if we want democracy in 
Russia," Podrabinek added. "At the beginning of the 1990s, the impulse was 
coming from the society; there were demonstrations, hopes, inspirations. If 
there is a stop to this, Russia will start sliding back into the bog of 
socialism, or traditions of empire, which are still alive. Putin does not 
have it in him, this impulse, to make Russia move further along democratic 
traditions."


Yuri Korgunyuk, an analyst with the Indem Foundation, took issue with this 
view. "The development or stagnation of the civil society does not depend on 
Putin," he said. "It depends on the society itself. Putin cannot add or take 
away anything here. . . . If civil society is strong enough, it controls 
power. If there is no civil society, power exercises control over everything 
it can."


Putin vaulted to his present position without participating in the raucous, 
hard-fought battles of Russia's recent democratic experience. While other 
leaders, such as the Yabloko bloc's Grigory Yavlinsky, Communist leader 
Gennady Zyuganov and Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, have faced voters repeatedly 
in elections, Putin was appointed by Yeltsin, first as prime minister and 
then as acting president. He then capitalized on the war in Chechnya to forge 
what polls show to be the strongest support for any Russian politician in 
nearly a decade.


Putin's rise, while in keeping with the constitution, effectively bypassed 
the grass-roots test of the ballot box, and he was quietly aided by a coterie 
of Yeltsin aides and politically powerful tycoons whose aim was to 
predetermine Yeltsin's successor. They helped Putin by using their control 
over Russia's largest television channel to smear his potential rivals.


Putin has not told voters what he stands for. Neither he nor his 
parliamentary party have published a detailed platform, and he has refused to 
debate any rivals. When asked directly if big changes could be expected after 
the election, he replied bluntly: "I won't tell you." While Putin has 
assembled a group of top analysts to develop a long-term strategy for the 
country, the program won't be revealed until after the election.


"This election is not about transfer of power but about keeping the power," 
said Nikolai Petrov of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace here.


The most noticeable change in direction so far has been Putin's attempts to 
restrain media coverage of the Chechen war, using both harassment and 
deception. The government has warned radio and television stations against 
broadcasting statements by Chechen leaders. In war, truth is often the first 
casualty, but what has struck many analysts here is the personal attacks that 
Putin unleashed on one reporter, Andrei Babitsky of U.S.-funded Radio 
Liberty, who dared to cover the war from the Chechen side.


"He was working for the bandits," Putin said to Russian journalists in a 
recent interview that was published as a campaign book. "What Babitsky did is 
much more dangerous than firing a machine gun."


Bunin said that the Babitsky became a target "out of the blue" because he 
refused to conform. "His behavior, from the point of view of the current 
general mood in the country, was abnormal . . . and Babitsky is sticking out 
in the crowd."


Putin has indicated that he may try other ways to rule with a stronger hand. 


He has suggested doing away with the popular election of regional governors, 
making them Kremlin appointees once again. He has signed orders giving the 
security services wider investigative powers, and he has brushed aside 
reports of human rights abuses by Russian troops in Chechnya. 


*******


#11
Duma Maintains Tough Stance On Ratification Of START II


MOSCOW, Mar 21, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) Russia's State Duma was to 
hold a closed doors debate Tuesday on the START II arms reduction treaty 
signed with the United States, yet appeared to be maintaining its tough 
stance on the issue.


Deputies in the lower house of parliament have put the much-delayed 
ratification of the accord on their spring agenda, but are linking it to a 
dispute between with Washington over missile defense.


Lawmakers from the Duma's foreign affairs, defense and security committees 
were to discuss the treaty -- signed in 1993 and ratified by the US Congress 
in 1996 -- ITAR-TASS news agency reported.


Chairman of the defense committee, Andrei Nikolayev, insisted that Russian 
security interests must be respected for the Duma to endorse the arms 
reduction treaty.


"As long as Russia is not fully certain that its interests will be 
safeguarded, and security guaranteed for the decades ahead, we cannot call on 
the president and government to take such decisions."


"In general, there are no opponents to ratification of the accord, there are 
opponents of the failure to respect Russian national interests," the former 
head of Russia's border guard service, told NTV television.


However Nikolayev, did not rule out ratification, pointing out that the new 
Duma elected in December -- in which pro-Kremlin parties emerged as a 
powerful force -- had changed 70 percent of its members.


Russia is fiercely opposed to any modification of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty which the United States is seeking to amend so as to allow it 
to build a nuclear defense shield covering the entire United States.


However Russia's acting President Vladimir Putin has nonetheless urged 
deputies to approve START II to allow progress on a START III accord which 
would make further deep cuts in nuclear arsenals.


******