April 28, 2000    
This Date's Issues:  4273 • 4274 

Johnson's Russia List
#4274
28 April 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Izvestia: Georgy Bovt and Yevgeny Krutikov, DREAMING OF A BETTER RUSSIA.               (re document from Gherman Gref's Center For Strategic Studies)
2. The Electronic Telegraph (UK): Ben Aris, Putin issues presidential snub to West.
3. BBC MONITORING: SIX RUSSIAN TV CHANNELS ASSESSED.
4. Itar-Tass: Disinformation Campaign by Patrons of Chechen Gangs Waning.                              (Igor Ivanov in Washington)
5. AP: Report: Inadequate Pensions Rampant.
6. Moscow Times: Andrei Zolotov Jr., Workers Troubled by KrAZ's Fate.
(Krasnoyarsk Aluminum Plant)
7. Kyodo: Putin lukewarm on territorial row ahead of Japan-Russia summit.
8. Trud: RUSSIA NEEDS DISARMAMENT. (Interview with Duma Deputy 
Andrei KOKOSHIN)
9. New York Times: STEVEN LEE MYERS and JANE PERLEZ, Documents Detail U.S. Plan to Alter '72 Missile Treaty.
10. Reuters: Bush aide says ABM outdated, missiles plan too modest. (Condoleezza Rice)
11. St. Petersburg Times EDITORIAL: Global Event Without the World Politics.
12. Moscow Times: Elizabeth Wolfe, Coalition Calls for Visas With 'Dignity']

*******

#1
Izvestia
April 28, 2000
[translation by RIA Novosti for personal use only]
DREAMING OF A BETTER RUSSIA
By Georgy BOVT and Yevgeny KRUTIKOV

Izvestia has received the text of a document entitled 
"Russia's Development Strategy Until the Year 2010" 
This rather unique document, which has been compiled by 
Gherman Gref's Center For Strategic Studies, is perceived as 
Vladimir Putin's program that was nowhere to be seen until now, 
but which was surrounded by all sorts of rumors. The document's 
text will inevitably be edited, toned down and otherwise 
finalized in line with those long-standing Russian traditions. 
Nonetheless, some of its provisions will remain.
The same is true of its rather revolutionary, e.g. liberal, 
ideas.
Putin's team has already drafted a scenario for Russia's 
long-term development. Russia, which has accepted a civilized 
challenge, will have to surge ahead once again. But what will 
be the price of such a spurt and who will pay it? Well, this 
constitutes a purely rhetorical question in accordance with a 
perennial Russian tradition. This country must expand its 
hi-tech sector on the basis of economic growth. But how can 
this be accomplished? Well, this seems to be the main sensation 
because, as far as millions of Russians, who had voted for 
Putin March 26, are concerned, the answer to such a question 
will be quite unexpected. You see, they had opted for an 
abstract "strong-man" government. However, they didn't expect 
that such a government could start preaching the principles of 
economic liberalism in a variant which closely resembles that 
notorious shock-therapy scenario. By the way, Yeltsin, 
Chernomyrdin, the pro-Communist State Duma and the entire 
regional elite had tried really hard to avoid such a scenario 
in the past. Still one gets the impression that all their 
efforts were in vain.
Part of Russia's sufficiently well-to-do population shall 
pay all housing and municipal-utilities expenses, 
vocational-training expenses, also financing a considerable 
share of health-care, school-education and pension 
appropriations. Most services in the given category shall be 
mostly rendered by private enterprises on a competitive basis.
The deregulation of Russia's mostly Soviet-style economy 
still poses a rather serious problem. The market economy has so 
far failed to seriously affect national labor legislation.
The local tax system keeps operating by fits and starts.
Besides, various restrictions as regards the free movement of 
people, goods and services are sometimes reminiscent of those 
feudal-era fiefdom outposts. The above-mentioned development 
strategy discusses deregulation issues, in the first place.
Its second chapter deals with the ensurance of equal 
competition opportunities. The document stipulates some fairly 
obvious measures, e.g. the drastic reduction of privileges, 
scaling down the influence of natural monopolies, as well as 
the government's non-interference in competition matters. The 
document's chapter, which discusses the protection of property 
rights, still sounds revolutionary even after that 10-year 
period of market reforms. The creation of homogeneous 
property-rights parties (land included) is suggested. The 
relevant mechanisms for ensuring the state registration of 
rights for real estate should be established, the document 
reads in part. Among other things, this can be accomplished by 
stipulating the state's property responsibility before 
conscientious purchasers, etc. Any economic wizard, who manages 
to attain only this goal, i.e. the state's property 
responsibility, would thus enjoy the title of the greatest 
Russian reformist for centuries on end.
Liberal economic proposals are linked with other proposals 
for restructuring the national political system.
Russia must establish a civil society, which would be based on 
more narrow state-responsibility spheres. However, this can't 
be accomplished without a stronger legal system and a judicial 
reform, too. All countries boasting a full-fledged democratic 
system have no misgivings about the fact that territorial court 
districts don't coincide with the relevant 
administrative-territorial division. Meanwhile this measure 
would be tantamount to a judicial revolution, as far as Russia 
is concerned. The thing is that, given all other proposals, 
such an option would apparently entail the creation of 
genuinely independent courts.
Labor legislation shall be completely revised. Such 
reforms are called on to enhance the flexibility of labor 
relations, to lift unjustified restrictions on firing redundant 
personnel, to expand the prerogatives of fixed-term contracts 
and to vest the state with all commitments as regards the 
social security of vulnerable personnel categories. 
This document, which claims the right to create a new 
state philosophy, rather than an action program, proceeds from 
the social-contract concept. In a nutshell, the state must no 
longer assume responsibility for rendering the bulk of all 
social services to well-to-do persons. This approach would 
serve to demolish the Soviet-era social-security system, as 
well as that social-sponging ideology, also stipulating the 
abolition of transport, communications-industry and 
housing/municipal-utilities subsidies. At the same time, the 
national pension system will have to ensure the accumulation of 
all pensions. Speaking of the Russian medical-care system, it 
would be expected to make it universal only for basic and free 
health care. The education system is to stipulate free 
education only in line with basic federal standards. All 
prospective college-and-university students will have to borrow 
money from the bank some time from now. In the meantime the 
projected federalism concept would seriously redistribute all 
terms of reference in favor of Russian regions and local 
self-government, also envisaging tougher responsibility for the 
violation of federal legislation. Well, this approach tends to 
copy the US example.
The implementation of many projected radical ideas 
requires adequate mass-media support. Yegor Gaidar's 
shock-therapy program had disregarded the so-called ideological 
anesthetic, and is seen as his main blunder. At the time, 
Russia's powers-that-be had either forgotten or arrogantly 
refused to explain the situation to the people, thus failing to 
create an image of a capable government and a changing country. 
At present Russian big shots will opt for another scenario, no 
longer fearing such words as "propaganda" and that even more 
odious word "ideology". People inside this country's corridors 
of power are now staking on stylish professionals, such as Oleg 
Dobrodeev, who has been appointed to the post of VGTRK board 
chairman. Still others will be appointed to similar positions 
in the future.
The population shall completely pay all housing and 
municipal-utilities expenses within the next five years. The 
same is true of housing-depreciation and housing-overhaul costs.
The document's authors believe that its implementation 
would ensure annual GDP growth to the tune of 5-6 percent for 
10 consecutive years. Consequently, Russia would thereby 
weather the most large-scale crisis in its history. However, 
we'd like to recall an old Soviet-vintage joke in this 
connection. An abstract artist brought his picture, which was 
entitled "The Working Dawn," and which consisted of nothing but 
countless strokes of paint, to an instructor of a local 
communist party committee. The instructor told the painter that 
the subject matter of his painting was rather topical, 
nonetheless asking him to paint another picture. The painter 
brought the very same picture, which nonetheless, showed a 
little rosy Dachshund in its corner, a week later. The censor 
racked his brains for quite a while, subsequently telling the 
painter that he could display his picture, but criticizing him 
for adding that rosy dog. In fact, that rosy-dog effect is seen 
as a salient feature of Russian bureaucratic games. The authors 
of specific programs have been stipulating various shocking 
elements inside their initial versions (that would be 
indignantly rejected by superiors) for centuries on end.
It has now become a fad with Russia's liberal strata to 
compile all sorts of programs and strategies. This fad has 
caught on, thereby making it possible to create a rather 
popular new profession in this country. This profession makes 
Russia's intellectuals really unique. Incidentally, the same 
can be said about Milan's haute couture designers, Los Angeles 
producers, Paris artists and Medelin drug barons. All local 
intellectuals, who dabble in politics, took part in drafting 
this document or its similar versions during the last six 
months, or so. Such activities are being financed rather 
lavishly, with the authorities also setting aside swank 
premises for the concerned authors. But, most importantly, 
those involved in such work can eventually make it into high 
places. However, people tend to overlook the fact that NOT A 
SINGLE draft program has EVER been implemented on Russian 
territory. All of them had been wrecked by that MECHANISM for 
implementing such texts and for bringing them in conformity 
with our peculiar way of life, our mentality and the Russian 
government system's basic instincts. Life has ALWAYS triumphed 
over programs until now.

******

#2
The Electronic Telegraph (UK)
28 April 2000
[for personal use only]
Putin issues presidential snub to West
By Ben Aris in Moscow

WESTERN leaders will not be invited to the inauguration of Vladimir Putin, 
Russia announced yesterday. 

The decision reinforces the widespread perception that the new president 
plans to cool relations with the West. Sergei Prikhodko, the presidential 
deputy chief of staff, said: "Practices of such ceremonies differ from 
country to country. We believe that this will be a Russian domestic event and 
choose who to invite in this light."

Leading figures from the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Customs 
Union, which includes the Central Asian countries and Belarus, have been 
invited to the ceremony on May 7. The Russians had hoped that the West would 
help to restructure their country after the fall of the Soviet Union. But 
instead of a flood of aid and loans, all that most Russians saw was 
out-of-date products sold at inflated prices by businessmen out to exploit 
the new market.

Recently, Russia has begun turning to Iran, Iraq, China and Pakistan for 
alliances. A row with America over the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 
will provide the first international diplomatic test of Putin's 
administration. This month, the Foreign Minister, Ivan Ivanov, said that Cold 
War tensions could be renewed by America's plans to build a "Star Wars" 
defence system - banned in the treaty - to shoot down missiles from "rogue" 
states.

******

#3
BBC MONITORING
SIX RUSSIAN TV CHANNELS ASSESSED
Text of report by Russian Centre TV on 24th April 

The lion's share of Russian television broadcast time is distributed among 
six national channels at present. First comes channel one, Russian Public TV, 
which broadcasts to 98.5 per cent of Russia's territory. Officially it is 
controlled by the state, which holds 51 per cent of its shares. In fact, it 
is controlled by Boris Berezovskiy, the main private stockholder of the 
channel. 

The second channel is used by the All-Russian State Television and Radio 
Company [VGTRK]. It broadcasts to 92.5 per cent of Russian territory and is 
fully owned by the state but to a great extent it is controlled by one person 
- Minister for the Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting and Mass 
Communications Mikhail Lesin. Kultura TV is a part of VGTRK, it broadcasts on 
channel 5 which used to belong to St Petersburg TV. 

NTV broadcasts on channel 4 and tries to compete with the first two channels 
but its audience, in fact, is barely 70 per cent of Russia's population. It 
belongs to Most-Media group headed by Vladimir Gusinskiy. 

More than 70 per cent of the smaller private TV channel, TV6, also belongs to 
Boris Berezovskiy and broadcasts to 40-50 per cent of the Russian audience. 

Centre TV is considered one of the biggest national channels. It was created 
two years ago and belongs to the Moscow city government. 

*******

#4
Disinformation Campaign by Patrons of Chechen Gangs Waning.

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Itar-Tass) - The disinformation campaign, conducted by 
patrons of Chechen terrorists, is quickly waning out, claimed Russian Foreign 
Minister Igor Ivanov. He developed this impression during the official visit 
to the United States, which ended on Thursday. 

The question on Chechnya "was virtually not raised" during numerous meetings 
in Washington, Ivanov stated at the final briefing which was held at the 
Russian embassy in the U.S. 

He called attention to the fact that not a single local reporter raised this 
topic at a news conference at the State Department, which he held together 
with U.S. State Secretary Madeleine Albright. 

"There was a statement by the state secretary, but there were no questions," 
Ivanov said. According to the minister, questions on Chechnya, as such, were 
not raised either at his meeting with congressmen. They expressed only 
wishes. 

"I believe that all this is not accidental. It seems to me that decisions, 
taken by the Russian leadership to settle (the situation in Chechnya), yield 
their results. 

"The disinformation campaign, conducted by patrons of Chechen terrorists, is 
quickly waning out, from my point of view. I drew this conclusion quite 
definitely from my meetings in Washington," Ivanov said. 

The Russian minister flew home late on Thursday evening. 

*******

#5
Report: Inadequate Pensions Rampant
April 28, 2000

LONDON (AP) - The vast majority of the world's people have inadequate pension 
coverage and face an increased risk of poverty in old age, the International 
Labor Organization warned in a report released Friday. 

``The lack of more complete pension coverage throughout the world will become 
a growing problem as lifetimes are extended'' said Colin Gillion, the author 
of the study. 

The report said pension plans in Asia and Russia had been severely weakened 
by financial turmoil, that African plans were ``very weak'' and that many in 
Latin America were ``performing poorly.'' 

Gillion also said pension plan managers and governments worldwide would need 
``great effort and great imagination'' to face the challenge as aging 
populations constituted an increasing drain on public revenue. 

The report said about 90 percent of the world's working-age population had 
inadequate pension coverage. 

The report also suggests that European, U.S. and Canadian plans will need far 
more resources - either from higher taxes or higher participation rates - as 
a result of aging populations and the increase in early retirements. 

Remedies, he said, included increasing the number of women in employment, or 
raising the retirement age. 

********

#6
Moscow Times
April 28, 2000 
Workers Troubled by KrAZ's Fate 
By Andrei Zolotov Jr.
Staff Writer

KRASNOYARSK, Western Siberia -- On his way home from work, Victor 
Shchekoldin, a 51-year-old, well-dressed worker at the Krasnoyarsk Aluminum 
Plant, or KrAZ, stops to read the plant newspaper, Metallurg, posted near the 
checkpoint gate. News from management has been in high demand here since 
shareholders of the Sibneft oil company - which is reportedly controlled by 
oligarchs Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky - purchased 56 percent of 
KrAZ, Russia's second-largest aluminum producer, and formed a holding with 
the plant's long-time rival, Oleg Deripaska's Siberian Aluminum. 

Adding to the turmoil and uncertainty, the Regional Energy Commission, 
largely controlled by General Alexander Lebed's Kranoyarsk regional 
administration, decreed a 50 percent rise in electricity tariffs for KrAZ. If 
implemented, the tariff hike would make the smelter unprofitable. 

"The oligarchs fight, and we get a headache," Shchekoldin said. 

In late March, the plant's popular general director, Alexei Barantsev, who is 
credited with turning the enterprise into one of the most efficient in the 
industry, and several of his deputies were sent on a one-month "vacation" by 
the new owners and replaced with a team of 14 managers from Siberian 
Aluminum. 

The management reshuffle sparked wide-scale anxiety among KrAZ employees, 
most of whom treasure their jobs, especially as the average KrAZ salary of 
9,000 rubles per month is twice as high as the regional average and is always 
paid on time. On top of that, the plant is one of the few enterprises that 
has retained its Soviet-era wealth of social benefits, ranging from medical 
services to kindergartens. 

Shchekoldin said the general mood among employees improved after Viktor 
Geintse, the new acting director, assured workers their packages would not be 
touched. 

But he mildly hinted that should anything happen, workers could rebel, as 
their colleagues did earlier this year at the Achinsk Alumina Plant, which 
was temporarily taken over by Alfa Group. 

"This is our plant and, if necessary, we will stand up to defend ourselves," 
Shchekoldin said. 

The fate of the plant, or at least the question as to its ownership, is 
likely to be decided next week during a general shareholders meeting slated 
for May 3. 

The meeting is expected to discuss a new share emission that would dilute the 
roughly 30 percent stake once held by former KrAZ board chairman Anatoly 
Bykov, who is now being held in a Krasnoyarsk jail on money-laundering and 
murder charges. 

Governor Lebed has pledged to try Bykov in court and remove his "mask of 
Robin Hood." 

Bykov, a native of Krasnoyarsk, is credited by locals with preserving the 
KrAZ welfare system and investing millions in charitable projects in the 
region. 

So while the Moscow oligarchs may have won control of the company's shares, 
they have yet to win the battle for the minds of the Krasnoyarsk people, who 
for the most part sympathize with Bykov and harbor a traditional skepticism 
of outsiders. 

A poll conducted this month by the Krasnoyarsk branch of the Public Opinion 
Fund showed that nearly 60 percent of the 600 respondents feel KrAZ has 
benefited from Bykov's tenure as director. Roughly the same number of people 
believe that Berezovsky and Abramovich will harm the plant. 

Moreover, 13 percent of respondents believe the new owners will sell the 
plant to foreigners and 54 percent believe they will divert cash flow away 
from the region, poll data showed. 

According to the company's press service, taxes collected from KrAZ make up 
40 percent of the city's budget and 25 percent of the regional budget. Only 
8.5 percent said the new owners would develop production. 

So for now, one of the key questions on everyone's mind is whether the 
"vacationing" Barantsev will return, as promised, on May 1. 

In a videotaped interview provided by the company's press service, Geintse 
said his team's goal is to study proposals for unifying the management system 
and supply contracts throughout the new holding, whose various parts are less 
than a perfect fit. Now the old and new managerial team are to agree on the 
proposed schemes. 

"Most likely they will agree," said Dmitry Chechkin, the company's spokesman. 
"One cannot spit into the wind." 

As for new electricity tariffs, which Moscow analysts described as Anatoly 
Chubais' way of getting back at Deripaska for his alliance with Berezovsky 
and A bramovich, Chechkin said the company hopes to win the case in the 
regional arbitration court. The tariffs were suspended for the duration of 
the case. 

*******

#7
Putin lukewarm on territorial row ahead of Japan-Russia summit

MOSCOW, April 28 (Kyodo) - By: Shigeyuki Yoshida Russian President-elect
Vladimir Putin meets with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori in St.
Petersburg on Saturday in what is billed as the debut for the new Russian
leader's foreign policy on Japan. 

But the summit, the first between the two leaders, is unlikely to produce
any significant progress in what Tokyo considers the top priority in
bilateral ties -- the long-running territorial dispute over several islands
off northern Japan. 

Seized by Soviet troops at the end of World War II, the islands -- known as
the Northern Territories in Japan -- have stood in the way of any attempt
between the two countries to conclude a peace treaty and draw an official
boundary between the two nations. 

To Putin, tackling the territorial dispute -- a potentially inflammatory
issue among Russians -- would seem reckless at this stage of his political
fortunes. He will be sworn in as president May 7, and his priority clearly
is to consolidate his power base at home. 

Hence, the political reading in Moscow is that Putin is unlikely to plow
into the territorial issue at any depth, whether at St. Petersburg on
Saturday or any time in the near future. 

When Putin and Mori sit down for their informal summit Saturday, the
pursuit of national interest, one constant stance Putin has shown so far in
his diplomatic forays, will clearly come first. 

Putin most likely will use the occasion to express his appreciation to
Mori, politely thanking the Japanese government for the support it has
given to buttress the wobbly Russian economy. 

Japan is the only advanced industrial country still pumping out direct
loans to Russia. Putin, therefore, may try to cement the relationship and
get a commitment from Mori to expand economic ties. 

There were clear signs in Moscow on Thursday that this is how Putin may
play his diplomatic game on Saturday. 

On Thursday, Russian news agencies gave strong play to the views of a
so-called ''expert,'' which apparently was how a senior Kremlin official
chose to identify himself. 

In the view of this ''expert,'' Japan and Russia should separate attempts
to settle the territorial dispute from the conclusion of a peace treaty. 

The Putin government, the expert suggested, has no plan to depart from the
Japan policy laid down by then President Boris Yeltsin before he left
office at the end of last year, that a settlement of the territorial issue
would have to wait. 

Pouring cold water on any Japanese expectation of a quick settlement of the
territorial dispute, the expert indicated that the Putin government will
not be bound by Yeltsin's 1997 commitment to work toward concluding a peace
treaty by the end of this year. 

The expert suggested that the agreement on the target date -- which Yeltsin
set during an informal summit with then Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro
Hashimoto in eastern Siberia -- was a mistake. 

Putin has shown the world that he can take strong leadership in matters of
diplomacy. The ratification of the START-2 nuclear arms reduction treaty
earlier this month by the State Duma, the Russian lower house of
parliament, is one example. 

As things stand, Putin's meeting with Mori on Saturday is likely to end up
as an exercise in getting to know each other; Putin is set to make an
official visit to Japan after the summit of the Group of Eight powers in
Okinawa in July. 

By then, the Putin government will perhaps have formulated a more concrete
policy toward Japan, particularly on the territorial dispute. 

*******

#8
Trud
April 27, 2000
RUSSIA NEEDS DISARMAMENT
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
Duma Deputy Andrei KOKOSHIN, Director of the Institute of International 
Security Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, interviewed by 
Alexander PTASHKIN of Trud

Andrei Kokoshin was First Deputy Defence Minister of 
Russia in 1992-97, and Defence Council Secretary and later 
Security Council Secretary in 1998-99. His name is associated 
with the construction of the Pyotr Veliky heavy nuclear missile 
cruiser, the GLONASS global space navigation system, the 
Topol-M strategic missile system, and the Su-34 bomber. 

Question: Why is Russia paying so much attention to the 
disarmament process? What explains the energetic work of the 
parliament and the government on START-2 and ABM treaties, the 
nuclear text bans, and the like?
Answer: This attention to arms control and disarmament 
problems is justified because it is above all in Russia's 
interests to maintain and develop corresponding international 
regimes. First, these regimes are vital elements of ensuring 
Russia's military security in conditions of its general 
economic and military weakness, and make the military-political 
situation more predictable. Second, Russia's active involvement 
in the arms control and limitation process is one of the few 
factors ensuring its status of a great power, and in some 
cases, a superpower. 

Question: What is the importance of the ratification of 
START-2 by the Russian parliament? Will Russia be able to 
maintain national security at the necessary level after 
implementing this treaty?
Answer: We need this treaty more than any other country 
does, because we have to greatly reduce our strategic nuclear 
forces even without it. It would be better militarily and 
politically to do this on a bilateral basis. With the current 
state of Russian economy, we will not be able to maintain 
3,500-3,000 strategic nuclear warheads, stipulated by START-2.
This is why we must launch START-3 talks as soon as possible 
and suggest lower ceilings. 
As for ensuring reliable nuclear deterrence in the next 
25-30 years and more, we should not forget about tactical and 
operational-tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery 
vehicles, which Russia will have in considerable amounts. I 
mean the cruise missiles of the multifunctional nuclear 
submarines, the missiles of the Tu-22M3 long-range bombers, the 
weapons of the frontline aviation and other resources.

Question: Under what conditions, and on what grounds, 
might Russia withdraw from START-2?
Answer: In principle, this can be done any day, in case of 
a threat to the supreme national interests of Russia's national 
security, a threat that cannot be repelled in the framework of 
the START-2 limitations. However, the overwhelming majority of 
our military and civilian experts, who analysed this problem in 
detail before suggesting the ratification of START-2, do not 
envisage any threats in the foreseeable future that would call 
for withdrawing from the treaty. We can develop many nuclear 
weapons in the framework of START-2, not to mention non-nuclear 
strategic deterrence weapons.
We must redouble efforts to develop long-range sea- and 
air-based conventional precision weapons, including 
intercontinental conventional precision weapons. We have the 
requisite research and technological ideas for that. We should 
invest into strategic reconnaissance and the development of 
navigation and combat control systems. 
History shows that it would be wrong to rely solely on 
nuclear weapons for repelling aggressions and pressure on our 
country and its allies. 
We must take into account all and every new, 
non-traditional threats to international and national security. 
They are connected, in particular, with the rapid development 
of biotechnology, information technologies, the appearance of 
novel possibilities of large-scale influence on the climate and 
geophysical processes. 
In general, the development of fundamental sciences, 
allocations to which should be increased considerably, is one 
of the best ways to timely detect and repel threats to national 
security. Even Peter the Great understood this, just as many 
Soviet leaders did. We would very much want the new Russian 
leadership, which has shown attention to science and the 
Russian Academy of Sciences, to take requisite decisions on 
raising allocations to research and on raising the social 
status of scientists. 

Question: What should START-3 be like and how can it 
benefit Russia?
Answer: START-3 should reduce weapons ceilings to at least 
1,500 warheads on strategic delivery vehicles. In this case 
Russia would still have considerably more warheads that 
Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan taken together have, 
even if the latter three states develop their nuclear forces 
and weapons at an accelerated pace. 
START-3 could become a major factor of influence on other 
nuclear powers and potential nuclear countries. For the arising 
nuclear multipolarity does not suit above all Russia. These new 
nuclear poles appear above all in the regions that are located 
much closer to Russia than to Western Europe, not to mention 
the USA. 
We need the START-3 Treaty for creating the political 
conditions, the same as exist for the USA, for the gradual 
integration of Russia into global economy as its active 
subject, a state with a modern economy based first and foremost 
on the effective use of its intellectual potential, "the human 
capital," meaning science, education and culture. 

*******

#9
New York Times
April 28, 2000
[for personal use only]
Documents Detail U.S. Plan to Alter '72 Missile Treaty
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and JANE PERLEZ

WASHINGTON, April 27 -- The Clinton administration has presented Russia with 
a draft agreement that would revise a key arms control treaty to allow the 
United States to deploy a limited missile defense system and to hold open the 
possibility of building a larger system in the future. 

The proposal would amend the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, long 
considered a linchpin of arms control, to allow the United States to protect 
itself against the threat of missile attacks from nations like North Korea, 
Iraq, Iran and Libya, according to a draft given to the Russians in January. 

The draft and accompanying documents outlining the administration's arguments 
for changing the treaty provide the most detailed and authoritative account 
that has yet emerged of the American negotiating position. Officials are 
pressing Russia to accept a defensive system that it considers a grave, 
destabilizing threat, but which some Congressional Republicans believe is not 
nearly big enough. 

"The U.S. national missile defense system, which will be limited and intended 
to defend against several dozen long-range missiles launched by rogue states, 
will be incapable of threatening Russia's strategic deterrence," said a 
summary of the administration's arguments, presented to the Russians. 

The administration wants to change the treaty to let the United States build 
the first phase of a defensive system with 100 missiles and their launchers, 
as well as a sophisticated new radar system on Shemya Island in Alaska. But 
the administration also wants a second phase, to include another 100 missiles 
and launchers at a second site. In its proposal, the United States calls for 
talks on an expanded system to begin as soon as next March -- after Mr. 
Clinton's successor is inaugurated. 

Russia fears that any agreement to allow a limited defensive system would 
open the door to demands for a further expansion that would gut the aims of 
the ABM treaty, which prohibits national defensive shields. The theory was 
that by limiting the nations' defenses, the treaty takes away their 
compensating need to build up their offenses, providing some stability. And 
if nations feel invulnerable to attack, they might be tempted to launch a 
first strike. 

American negotiators have tried to assure their Russian counterparts that the 
system would pose no threat to Russia's strategic nuclear deterrence, but 
rather would focus on more isolated threats of ballistic missile strikes. 

The American document went to great lengths to reassure Russia that even if 
the two countries agree to reduce their warheads to between 1,500 and 2,000 
as proposed under the next phase of the planned nuclear arms reduction, known 
as Start III, the Russian nuclear force would have nothing to fear from the 
American defensive shield. 

"These strategic forces give each side the certain ability to carry out an 
annihilating counterattack," the document said. "Forces of this size can 
easily penetrate a limited system of the type the United States is now 
developing." 

The summary, which was presented to the Russians in January by the senior 
American negotiator, John D. Holum, went on to say that in the event of a 
first-strike attack, Russia would still be able "to send about a thousand 
warheads, together with two to three times more decoys, accompanied by other 
advanced defense penetration aids" that would easily overwhelm the limited 
American system. 

"Authoritative written Russian sources claim that the Russian Government 
understands that the capabilities of its defense penetration aids are 
extremely high," the document said. "These same written sources, supplemented 
by the statements of senior Russian military personnel and defense industry 
representatives, clearly present the idea that the Russian Government 
anticipated that is defense penetration aides could easily overcome the U.S. 
N.M.D. system," referring to the national missile defense. 

The documents outlining the administration's position were obtained by The 
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in Russia and passed on to The New York 
Times. The bulletin plans to make them available on its web site 
(www.thebulletin.org). Senior administration officials declined to comment on 
the documents, but in interviews today discussed the rationale behind the 
proposals. 

The proposals amount to the administration's opening offer in negotiations 
that have barely got off the ground. 

While senior American and Russian officials have held repeated discussions 
over the last year, the Russians have not yet decided whether to even engage 
in negotiations on the treaty. In public -- and equally so in private, 
officials said -- the Russians have adamantly opposed any changes to allow a 
missile defense. 

"It's very much an open question whether Russia is going to conclude that it 
is in Russia's interest to do a deal with this administration," a senior 
administration official said. 

However, the discussions have intensified with the recent election of 
Vladimir V. Putin as Russia's next President and the coming end of President 
Clinton's second term. 

At a news conference capping of three days of talks that centered on national 
missile defense, the Russian foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, and Secretary 
of State Madeleine K. Albright said today that discussions would continue 
when Mr. Clinton and Mr. Putin meet in Moscow in June. 

President Clinton has not made a decision so far on whether to deploy a 
defensive system. He is not scheduled to do so until after the Pentagon's 
next antimissile test in June. 

Mr. Ivanov said that "considerable differences" remained, and he repeated 
that Russia believed the ABM treaty should "remain a cornerstone of strategic 
stability." 

Dr. Albright responded by saying that the administration, too, wanted to 
preserve the treaty but also wanted to adapt it to "21st-century needs," a 
reference to the missile threats that intelligence experts have warned are 
fast approaching. 

The administration's proposal would not directly amend the text of the 
treaty, but rather revise it by adding two brief "protocols." They would 
allow the first phase of a missile defense and provide extensive measures for 
verification of the system's missiles and radars. 

Another senior administration official said the decision to propose protocols 
was simply easier than trying to revise the wording of the treaty line by 
line. It could also allow Russians to declare that the treaty itself remained 
unchanged. However, the administration official said, "It's not like 
cosmetics are going to solve this problem." 

If approved by the Russians, the protocols would still face a test in the 
Senate, which would have to approve them before they took effect. More than 
20 Republican senators said they would not accept Mr. Clinton's proposed 
changes, contending that they would limit a defensive system too much. 

The protocol covers only the first phase of the American missile defense 
system, intended to counter an attack from North Korea, which will be able to 
threaten the continental United States with ballistic missiles by 2005, 
according to a classified intelligence estimate. 

The administration stopped short of asking the Russians to approve 
immediately the second phase of the system, which would be based at a still 
undecided location and counter threats from the Middle East and Persian Gulf, 
which intelligence consider to be a decade or more away. 

However, an article in the protocol explicitly allows either side to reopen 
negotiations as soon as March 1, 2001 "to take into account further changes 
in the strategic situation." 

The decision to ask for only the first phase, while insisting on the right to 
expand it further, was a practical one, the officials said. 

They said they assumed it would be easier to get the Russians to accept only 
a first phase, which American consider more urgent, rather than a larger 
system. The decision also reflected the change in administrations next 
January. 

The officials emphasized that the United States only plans to build two 
phases, but the proposed language does not specify that. With Republicans in 
Congress pressing for a further expansion of the system, the protocol's lack 
of specificity may well stoke the Russian fears of facing a slippery slope to 
a larger system. 

The protocol would also allow the United States to build a radar in Alaska 
and upgrade early-warning radar stations in Alaska, Massachusetts and 
California. 

Lisbeth Gronlund, a senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, which opposes a national missile defense, said the radar undercut 
a linchpin of the treaty, which limited such systems on the theory that once 
they were built, antimissile missiles could be quickly deployed. 

Stephen I. Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said 
he was troubled by the assumptions underlying the administration's 
reassurances to the Russians. 

The documents, he said, showed that the administration was willing to accept 
the continued existence of a large Russian nuclear force, rather than seek 
bilateral reductions. 

"The United States Government would forsake deep reductions in the Russian 
and American arsenals in favor of deploying a limited missile defense against 
a threat that doesn't yet exist," he said. 

*******

#10
Bush aide says ABM outdated, missiles plan too modest
By Jonathan Wright

WASHINGTON, April 27 (Reuters) - George W. Bush's main foreign policy adviser 
said on Thursday the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia is 
outdated and President Bill Clinton's plans for a national missile defence 
are too modest. 

Condoleezza Rice, who advised the Texas governor's father, President George 
Bush, on relations with Russia at the end of the Cold War and now is part of 
his son's Republican presidential campaign team, told a Washington lunch 
meeting that the United States could let the ABM treaty survive for political 
reasons, but only with fundamental changes to allow for a national missile 
defence (NMD) system. 

Russia should have little influence over the type of missile defence system 
the United States builds, she added. 

``The reality is that as we move toward defences to deal with the very real 
threats that are out there ... we're going to have trouble holding (the 
treaty) in place,'' she said. 

The Clinton administration is supporting research on a system to defend the 
country against incoming missiles and will decide later this year on whether 
to deploy one. 

The Pentagon is proposing a single missile site in Alaska, with about 100 
interceptor missiles. It says the aim is to defend the country from what it 
calls ``rogue states,'' not to neutralise Russia's nuclear deterrent. 

Rice said Clinton had provided poor leadership on the missile programme. ``I 
think it's a mistake to set your sights on a single site in Alaska with 100 
interceptors,'' she added. 

``A single site is only a start and we need to be able to look at other 
near-term options that may be available, including sea-based ballistic 
missile defence,'' she said. 

The prospect of a U.S. missile defence has alarmed the Russians, who say it 
would undermine arms control agreements. So far they have opposed 
modifications to the ABM treaty. 

The Clinton administration says it wants to negotiate changes to the treaty 
and does not want to withdraw from it. 

Rice was more critical of the treaty but she too declined to threaten to tear 
it up unilaterally, as the United States in theory could do under the pretext 
of national security. 

``It's a new world. The ABM treaty is an artifact of 1972, when you had tens 
of thousands of nuclear warheads faced off, one against another... It is 
getting to the time to think differently about this,'' she said. 

``Nobody (on the Bush campaign) advocates allowing Russia anything like a 
veto over NMD or really even much say on what it becomes,'' she added. 

Bush, who is expected to face Vice President Al Gore in the presidential 
election in November, discussed the treaty and missile defence plans in 
Washington on Wednesday with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. 

Rice said Bush was careful not to appear to negotiate or to discuss details 
of the type of NMD he would favour. 

``The governor simply outlined to Minister Ivanov why he has been a proponent 
of national missile defence, (and) how he sees the threat ... It was a 
philosophical discussion about the importance of ballistic missile defence 
and the importance of thinking differently about the relationship, leaving 
the Cold War behind,'' she added. 

Bush and Ivanov talked most about the Russian economy and foreign investment 
but also about the Chechnya conflict. The presidential candidate said Russian 
behaviour in Chechnya made it difficult to have ``really good relations.'' 

On China and Taiwan, Rice said she was ``appalled'' at the way Beijing had 
spoken about Taiwan during the campaign for Taiwanese president this year. 

The election was won by Chen Shui-bian, who has favoured declaring 
independence despite Chinese threats to invade the wealthy island if it does 
so. 

``I really hope (for) something of a change philosophically in Beijing about 
dealing with Taiwan. It was interesting that after the election Jiang 
(Chinese President Jiang Zemin) backed off right away so maybe it was mostly 
blustering,'' she said. 

Rice implicitly criticised the Clinton administration's conciliatory approach 
to North Korea, saying it responded like a ``Pavlov dog'' to every 
provocation by the Stalinist state. 

``I think you have to be pretty hardline with the North Koreans... It's a 
regime that I see no reason to have an optimistic view of what it's up to,'' 
she said. 

*******

#11
St. Petersburg Times
28 April 2000
EDITORIAL
Global Event Without the World Politics

SO, the city roads have been repaired, trees and bushes have been planted, a 
new stadium has been built and tested, journalists accredited, and tickets 
have gone on sale. Now all we need are the teams to begin playing, and the 
2000 Ice Hockey World Championship will officially be underway.

Oh, and some fans.

One of the most exciting things about the next two weeks will be the 
increased number of different nationalities in town.

There are sixteen countries battling it out in the tournament, which means 
sixteen sets of fans cheering them on, and then piling into the city's bars, 
cafes and restaurants to mull over who won (and who should have won).

Talks held by politicians and diplomats around an outsize negotiating table 
fosters relationships that are at best bland, at worst hostile.

Talks conducted over a glass or two by people who have nothing whatsoever to 
do with politics is far more likely to create friendships, dispel myths and 
give international diplomacy a boost than any number of summits ever will.

While the news stories that come out of Russia give the impression of a 
country dominated by mafiosi, economic crisis and corruption, the action on 
the ice can be common ground on which Russians and Americans, Finns and 
Czechs, Swedes and Japanese etc. are able to meet, forget the rhetoric of the 
politicians and discuss the finer points of the game.

As always, language barriers are unlikely to present much of a problem; and 
fortunately, the hooliganism that bedevils the soccer world is almost 
completely absent from hockey.

What is more, any of the zealously patriotic spirit that has been so talked 
about in Russia over the past few months - the spirit that Vladimir Putin 
played on in order to get elected - now has a healthy outlet.

Instead of more and more military hardware being visited on fewer and fewer 
Chechens, we will have the chance to discuss simpler weapons like sticks and 
pucks, and any battle scars can be wiped away by nothing more technological 
than a Zamboni or a cold compress.

The frustration that many here are experiencing, as the citizens of a once 
mighty nation struggle to make a living, will find an outlet on and around 
the rink, cheering on a team that has a more than even chance of winning.

For a blissful two weeks, the hopes and fears of literally millions of hockey 
fans will be pinned on an event that even the Kremlin can't control.

Let the games begin

******

#12
Moscow Times
April 28, 2000 
Coalition Calls for Visas With 'Dignity' 
By Elizabeth Wolfe
Staff Writer

Editor's note: This is the first in an occasional series about how Russians 
get - or don't get - visas to travel abroad. 

Marina Kirilyuk, a Russian lawyer, applied last month for a U.S. visa to go 
testify at a child custody trial in California. But she was told by consular 
officials that this was not reason enough to leave the country, as an 
affidavit could be filed through the embassy. According to Kirilyuk's 
account, the documents she brought to her interview at the embassy - 
including court papers, bank statements and her international passport, which 
had two U.S. visas - was not even looked at. 

Now Kirilyuk has joined forces with a group of Russians and expatriates in a 
grass roots effort to force Western embassies to review and improve their 
visa policy, which has often been called unclear, unfair, expensive and, at 
times, humiliating. 

This week the group put together an outline of their "Charter for Dignity," 
or what is hoped to become a set of standards by which all embassies will 
abide when processing visa applications from Russian nationals. In an effort 
directed not "at the embassy per se but rather at the visa process," the 
group has thus far highlighted the following goals: transparency of the visa 
process; respect for the applicant; reasonable uniformity of the process 
among Western embassies; and sample application forms in Russian. 

The public debate leading up to the group's formation started gaining 
momentum just over two weeks ago, after The Moscow Times ran a story about a 
survey of embassies conducted by the Russian Association for Travel Agencies. 
Ranking in the bottom dozen were the U.S. and several European Union 
countries, including England, France, Germany and Ireland. 

The following Saturday, the paper published a response to the article from 
Michael O'Leary, an Irish expat who suggested creating a "charter that 
clearly spells out exactly what's required of the applicant, the inviting 
party and what the process involves." 

Embassy spokesmen conceded some of the criticism had merit. At the same time, 
they said such complaints were only part of the story. 

"The numbers speak for themselves," said a U.S. Embassy spokesman, who asked 
that his name not be used. "Seventy-five percent of Russian applicants 
receive the [non-immigration] visas for which they have applied, and well 
over half of them [recipients] are issued visas without an interview." 

The British Embassy receives in excess of 300 applications every day, and 
over 97 percent of applicants get visas, said Jack Thompson, consul and head 
of the visa section of the British Embassy, adding that over 92 percent of 
visas are issued without an interview within 10 minutes of an officer's 
seeing the application documents. 

"We are not about embassy-bashing," emphasized O'Leary, who has been based in 
Moscow for over 10 years. "If we want to get positive change, it will only be 
effected by the participation of Moscow's Western embassies." 

Drumming up support for the Charter for Dignity has not been difficult. 
O'Leary has received a flood of responses from people dismayed by the visa 
process and the treatment they, family or friends have been subjected to at 
embassies. They spoke of long lines with few amenities and varying demands 
for evidence that the applicant is not going to flee the motherland for good 
- from bank statements to personal correspondence to proof of property 
ownership. 

Another frequent complaint is that applicants are asked unduly intimate 
questions. Katya, a 24-year-old public relations executive with a 
British-owned firm, wanted to spend a long weekend in England. She went to 
the British Embassy to apply for a visa three weeks in advance; she brought a 
letter from her employer, vouching for her, and another letter from a friend 
in England. The friend, with whom she had worked in Moscow, was male. During 
the visa interview, she was asked whether she had intimate relations with 
him, and whether she could provide some personal correspondence between them. 
She could not. Now her passport bears the feared deferral-of-application 
stamp, which she suspects may act as a black mark against her should she 
apply for a visa again. 

A dozen or so members of the charter group are now involved in compiling the 
details of each embassy's visa policy, proof or testimonies of 
inconsistencies and proposals for improvements. To facilitate the collection 
of responses, a web site is expected to be up and running within a few weeks. 
For now, information is displayed at www.egroups.com/group/charterfordignity. 

All embassies in Moscow have their own rules and procedures, Thompson of the 
British Embassy said. "So you're not comparing apples with apples." 

The Irish Embassy said it is not prepared to comment on the matter, but did 
admit that its visa application for Russians is provided in English only. 

One of the main criticisms hurled at the U.S. Embassy has been the long wait 
applicants must endure outside the building, sometimes in awful weather and 
with no toilet facilities. 

"Our present layout lacks sufficient waiting room space to accommodate all of 
the applicants at one time," said the U.S. Embassy spokesman. "This is going 
to change. We're planning to remodel the waiting areas of the consular 
section at the end of the summer. Our goal is to bring everyone in from the 
street to a large waiting room with adequate seating and toilet facilities." 

The standard requirements for a Russian citizen applying for a visa to an EU 
country or the U.S. are basically the same - an invitation, application form, 
three passport photographs, processing fee and passport. But embassies' 
interpretations of the rules can vary drastically, said Kirilyuk. 

"The consular office is given very wide discretion in assessing the 
evidence," said Kirilyuk, recalling her experience at the U.S. Embassy. 

Kirilyuk is writing the text of the charter, which will include references to 
specific cases as precedents, including her own case. The completed charter 
will be posted on the Internet, sent to the parliaments of the western 
countries in question and publicized in other ways. The charter group, which 
plans to hold its next meeting May 18, has also suggested organizing a 
letter-writing campaign to members of the parliaments and governments of 
these countries. 

"It is their [consulates'] right to deny a visa," said Kirilyuk, "but it does 
not remove their obligation to treat a human being with respect." 

But the U.S. Embassy spokesman suggested that the group may be focusing more 
on the exceptions than the rule: "There is a silent majority of consular 
section customers who receive the services they expect expeditiously and 
courteously, and their stories never make it into print." 

*******

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