 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
CDI Library > Johnson's
Russia List |
|
|
May 3, 2000 This Date's Issues: 4281 4282
Johnson's Russia List #4282 3 May 2000 davidjohnson@erols.com
[Note from David Johnson: David Buchan reports. 'Containment' was the official postwar policy. But two new
*******
Russia posts Jan-April budget surplus, growth seen By Julie Tolkacheva
MOSCOW, May 3 (Reuters) - Russia's economy raced ahead in January-April, posting a healthy budget surplus, and was on course for growth this year of more than four percent, First Deputy Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov said on Wednesday.
Kasyanov told a news conference the overall budget surplus was 1.4 percent of gross domestic product, outstripping the first quarter surplus of 0.5 percent, while the primary surplus excluding debt servicing rose to 4.6 percent from 3.8 percent.
He also predicted GDP growth of more than four percent this year, up from 3.2 percent in 1999. He said these were preliminary figures.
The Russian economy has been roaring ahead in recent months on the back of high world prices for energy and commodity exports. The August 1998 rouble devaluation has also helped domestic manufacturers to compete against importers.
``You already know that industrial output growth (in April) reached about eight percent,'' Kasyanov said.
``On the basis of these trends, one can assume that, even if the second half is not so dynamic in terms of economic growth, taking into consideration the results of the first four months, economic growth for 2000 will be significant compared with 1999 -- more than four percent,'' he said.
Russian President-Elect Vladimir Putin has called for economic growth of up to 10 percent a year for the country to catch up with the rest of the world after a decade of recession that has slashed living standards.
But some economists doubt present high growth rates can be sustained in the absence of structural reforms, especially as international oil prices have come down from the highs touched before major world producers agreed in March to raise output.
Putin is expected to form a new government and unveil his economic plans after his inauguration on Sunday.
Kasyanov, widely tipped to become the new prime minister, said the overall budget surplus in April alone was 3.7 percent, while the primary surplus was 6.4 percent. He gave no comparisons.
Russia has managed to meet its foreign debt obligations despite a decision by the International Monetary Fund to withhold new credits until structural reforms are implemented.
Kasyanov said Russia paid $3.14 billion in foreign debts in January-April.
*******
Russia Boosts Electricity, Gas Prices to Help Gazprom, UES
Moscow, May 3 (Bloomberg) -- Russia boosted electricity and gas prices at the start of this month to help OAO Gazprom, the world's No. 1 natural gas company, and RAO Unified Energy Systems, the nation's monopoly power utility, cover costs.
Wholesale electricity prices rose by 35 percent, while gas prices climbed by 21 percent for industry and 15 percent for individuals, the Federal Energy Commission said. Further increases are possible.
``There can be one more gas prices increase later this year,'' said Vladimir Karabutov, deputy head of commission gas industry department. ``We will reconsider this in August.''
Gazprom requested a 42 percent increase in gas prices last month. The company has said production is down because it lacks funds to invest in extracting natural gas from deposits. Domestic industrial and household consumers owe more than 100 billion rubles ($3.51 million) in overdue payments to Gazprom.
The rate increase comes after UES and Gazprom agreed to boost gas deliveries to power utilities by 2.2 billion cubic meters of gas to a total 24.2 billion cubic meters in the second quarter. State-owned companies and government agencies owe 15 billion rubles to UES and 1.3 billion rubles to Gazprom.
Moscow-based companies will pay 388 rubles per 1,000 cubic meters of gas, and Moscow households will pay 233 rubles per 1,000 cubic meters. Gas prices differ through the regions in Russia.
Moscow regional customers will pay in average 51 kopeks per kilowatt-hour of electricity, up from the current 38 kopeks, said the commission.
*******
US Funds Could Support Russian Germ Weapons, NY Times Says
Washington, May 3 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. money intended for Russian-U.S. biological cooperation could help Russian scientists and former weapons labs make germ weapons, the New York Times reported, citing a General Accounting Office report to be released later this week. The GAO presents no evidence that the U.S. money is being used for military purposes or that Moscow is making germ weapons, but the agency said there is no way to prevent Russian scientists from using their skills or research to do so, the newspaper said. The Clinton administration argued in a written response to the GAO that it's more risky to not help the 15,000 Russian germ-weapons scientists and technicians because they are poor and might otherwise work for rogue states such as Iran, the Times reported.
The U.S is proposing to alter the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow a limited U.S. missile defense system to blunt possible attacks by rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, while assuring Russia that the system could not deflect an all-out Russian nuclear attack.
******
Putin, Lukashenko, Kuchma Meet at Memorial Field
PROKHOROVKA, Belgorod region, May 3 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian presidents, Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko and Leonid Kuchma, arrived at Prokhorovskoye Field in the Belgorod region on Wednesday.
They attended an Easter service at the Cathedral of Saint Apostles Peter and Paul at the memorial field outside the village of Prokhorovka which was the scene of a World War II battle involving a total of over 1,000 Soviet and Nazi tanks, the greatest ever.
The Belgorod region is part of the wartime Kursk Bulge, one of tracks of most ferocious fighting.
Patriarch Alexy II, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, presented to each of the presidents an icon named for their patrons and a staff with an image of the Trinity.
Alexy said the visit of the presidents was in the nature of an opening of memorial events devoted to the 55th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War.
Putin, Lukashenko and Kuchma bowed their heads to memory of the fallen.
The clergy prayed for those who died at the tank battle in July 1943. Most of the fallen are known, but excavation work in areas of fighting continues to this day and opens new names which are entered on the cathedral's memorial scroll.
Alexy consecrated a Unity Bell of Slav Peoples in the presidents' presence.
Inscribed on the bell are words of Reverend Sergy of Radonezh: "By Love and Unity Shall We Save Ourselves."
The bell carries the image of the Trinity as a symbol of unity and faces of Prince Vladimir, enlightener of Rus, of Sergy of Radonezh and Reverend Yevfrosinya of Polotsk.
The bell was cast in Moscow with private savings of believers and with a contribution from the Belgorod region's administration.
****** Program on New Approaches to Russian Security (PONARS) Harvard University http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~ponars
Memo No. 144 The Clinton-Putin Summit and the Ultimate Security Issue: Democracy in Russia By Sarah E. Mendelson Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy--April 2000 The centerpiece of President Clinton's June meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin will be strengthening national security. The Administration plans to do this by focusing on nuclear weapons and National Missile Defense. This is a short-term solution to a longer-term problem.
Ultimately, national security will be enhanced if the Russian state is tolerant of a plurality of views and becomes increasingly democratic. It is sobering but important to pay attention when Russian political and social activists claim that the modest movement in this direction under Boris Yeltsin has been undermined by Putin. President Clinton has an opportunity to be loud and clear about the importance of human rights and democracy, in contrast to other Western leaders meeting with Putin who have only whispered.
There is a tendency on the part of policymakers to talk about democracy and human rights when it seems strategically convenient. If they think that a focus on these issues threatens to interfere with traditional security matters, such as getting an agreement on nuclear weapons, democracy and human rights then fade from the agenda.
Unfortunately, this selective focus on democracy undermines the process of helping to build democratic institutions--a rhetorical cornerstone of this administration's policy towards Russia. It makes the US commitment to democracy appear uneven. Moreover, it suggests that policymakers do not understand that democracy promotion is defense by other means, which then leads them to miss opportunities to enhance Russia's security and our own.
Like-minded democratic states generally do not engage in arms races with one another. No one in the US is threatened by the nuclear weapons of Great Britain. The two countries share a wide range of common values, including democratic ones that have been nurtured and have evolved over the last 100 years. Nuclear weapons in North Korea, on the other hand, are a cause of great concern. Policymakers fear a potential strike from an authoritarian regime that does not value the lives of its own citizens.
Russia is neither Great Britain nor North Korea. Russia has made some progress (however incremental) in the development of democratic institutions since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Elections occur but are accompanied by much manipulation. Political parties exist but fail to represent the interests of citizens. But over the last year, those who favor democracy in Russia have faced the renewal of tangible threats. The FSB has been emboldened under Putin's leadership, and actively harasses investigative journalists, as well as environmental and human rights activists.
The case of Andrei Babitsky--the Radio Liberty journalist who was held incommunicado for days as he was beaten for his reporting on the war in Chechnya--is well known. Less known is the fear that permeates the activist community. It stems in part from statements made by Putin in a Russian newspaper last summer where he claimed, but provided no evidence, that environmental groups were in the employ of foreign intelligence agencies. According to a letter of protest recently sent to Putin by Western environmentalists, Russian groups such as "Green World" and "Sakhalin Environmental Watch" that are trying to make life safer for Russians have been intimidated and treated like "enemies of the people." Organizations like the "Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights" are also increasingly isolated inside Russia, since the Russian government has claimed that it is not the business of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to protect human rights--only that of the Russian state.
What can the president of the United States do about any of this? He can show solidarity with those activists in Russia who believe in the plurality of views. That would be a change from the usual schedule; high-level officials from the US government that come to Russia always talk about the importance of creating democratic institutions, civil society, and respect for human rights. But they rarely meet with the people who work on these issues. This time, he should meet with investigative journalists like Andrei Babitsky, with environmental NGOs, and with Russian human rights groups such as "Memorial" and "Mothers of Soldiers."
To show Russians that the United States is really committed to democracy and human rights, particularly when the going is rough--and that would be right now--we must adequately fund democracy assistance to Russia. The US government's budget at present for "democratic initiatives" in Russia is $16 million. That's a small fraction of the budget that goes for other forms of engagement with Russia (and pocket change compared to what the US spent on defense during the Cold War). Some money should be added to the democracy assistance budget now to show that the US government supports a plurality of views.
The summit agenda will surely include nuclear weapons agreements that only the two governments can negotiate and implement. But it should also have something for Russian civil society. The proliferation of shared values and democracy is another means to security. It is as good in the long term for our national security and Russia's as any deal on nuclear weapons.
******
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 From: Romain Gubert <rgubert@lepoint.tm.fr> Subject: Le Point interview with Aslan Maskhadov
dear david, i'd some phone calls and emails about an Aslan Maskhadov's interview I published (04-28-00) in the french weekly LE POINT from people who wanted to read it after AFP and Interfax refer to it. For those who can read french, this interview is on our web site: www.lepoint.fr thanks for your very useful work on the JRL.
******
From: "Rachel Douglas" <cmgusa@intrepid.net> Subject: Funding for "Chicago school" visitors Date: Tue, 2 May 2000
Regarding Vlad Ivanenko's query (JRL #4279) -- > It would be informative to learn what is the source > of funding for these experts to travel to Russia. I don't know about Pinera, nor the Kiwis, but RFE/RL Newsline did cite Vedomosti on one not very surprising source of funding for new injections of the same old bad advice: April 27 (EIRNS)--USAID FUNDS LATEST INVASION OF RUSSIA BY CHICAGO SCHOOL "CHILEAN MODEL" FANATICS. A delegation of five radical neo-liberal economists, led by "Chicago School" kingpin Arnold Harberger, was funded on its recent trip to Moscow by the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to a Russian report monitored by RFE/RL Newsline. That is the same USAID, which footed the bill for the infamous Harvard Institute for International Development operations in Moscow (wherein mutual funds were being run out of the back office of an outfit, advising the Russian government on how to organize Russian markets to permit such speculative investment entities). The Russian publication Vedomosti reported that the USAID-funded group met with officials at the Russian Central Bank, before President-elect Putin received them on April 21. University of California Professor Harberger is known as the father of the Chilean model (see EIR, July 21, 1995, for what a fraud that was). Two other members of the delegation, Richard Wedder and James Carter, were formerly at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. With them was Carlos Bologna, author of the privatization (read: looting) of the pension system in Peru.
******
The Russia Journal May 1-7, 2000 Russia budget looks great, tax chief says By MICHAEL HEATH / The Russia Journal Tax Minister Alexander Pochinok told an investment conference in Moscow that the country's budget was in better shape than at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"For the first time in 10 years, the budget is being fulfilled completely," said Pochinok, who added that the Russian budget had a healthy primary surplus and that this could develop into an overall budget surplus later this year ” with all foreign debts being met. He also noted that Russia had seen 6 percent growth in the first quarter alone.
In previous years, the targets written into the Russian budget have tended to be overly optimistic and, in the end, unrealistic ” as revenues have fallen far below expectations.
PochinokĘs comments came as part of an "Investing in Russia" conference held Tuesday at the Moscow Center for International Trade, featuring government officials and foreign investors.
Russian officials presented an upbeat picture of the country's economic climate and investment prospects. Along with tax matters, topics included potential sources of financing for investment, projects currently in the works and investment consulting. Pochinok also touched on an issue close to investorsĘ hearts ” taxation. He said the government would be looking to reduce the upper level of taxation in the next three years from 43 percent down to 35 percent, and he called on the State Duma lower house of parliament to push ahead with the issue.
Other speakers also outlined optimistic scenarios for Russia, or at least the potential for them to come to pass if the country pushes ahead with reform to build on the current economic upturn in the country.
Cynthia Stone, director of Standard & Poor's (S&P) Moscow Office said Russia could see an improvement in its sovereign credit rating this year if it comes to an agreement with the Paris Club of creditors.
She said Russia needs to resume its relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both to help restore investor confidence and to reach an agreement with the Paris Club ” which would first require agreement with the IMF.
As to Russia's debt situation, she noted that the country would need to attack structural reforms in order to service its debt.
"Over the long term, Russia's ability to service its external hard currency debt will depend mainly on a strong tax policy and structural reforms," Stone said. But she added that in order for reform to proceed, the country would need both political stability and consensus around a reform program.
Moscow City officials, who also attended the conference, gave an optimistic assessment of the city's moves in the market.
Yury Sizov, leader of the Moscow regional branch of the Federal Commission of the Securities Market, explained to the audience the success the city has had since last October in listing companies in which it held a stake on the stock exchange.
He said the city had initially listed 10 such enterprises on the Moscow stock exchange but that this figure has now risen to 108. Sizov added that the Moscow City Government owns stakes in 624 joint stock ventures, at an estimated total value of more than $30 billion.
He said the Moscow Government has also been promoting the entry of mid-level Moscow enterprises into the market. He cited the move last year by Moskva-Tress ” the company building the third ring road around Moscow ” which has issued bonds to the tune of $40 million in order to allow the company to increase its cash flow.
Sizov added that three other Moscow enterprises were currently in the throes of preparing bond issues.
Meanwhile, speakers examined another issue that has been increasingly discussed in Russia of late ” that of conduct in business.
Igor Kastyov, head of the Federal Commission of the Securities Market, told the conference that his commission is preparing a corporate management code.
"The code will contain the main rules governing corporate relationships and behavior for various activities ” as well as relationships with investors," he said.
Kastyov said the code would only take the form of recommendations, because it would take at least four or five years to legislate for such a program. But he added that the code has the support of such organizations as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank.
In terms of investment, however, those at the conference returned to the theme that has been the hallmark of recent investment conferences ” essentially that money goes where the investment climate is most attractive.
S&P's Stone said that in order for Russia to compete with other developing countries like China, it would need to increase its attractiveness to investment and improve the predictability of the decision-making process.
"Today, international investors have concentrated their attention on dynamically developing countries, particularly China," she said. ******
Vremya Novosti April 28, 2000 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] ANDREI NIKOLAYEV ON RUSSIA'S MILITARY DOCTRINE Moscow continues its search for allies: on April 27 chairman of the State Duma defence committee Andrei NIKOLAYEV explained "the essence of the new Russian position" to foreign military attaches. The newspaper Vremya Novostei gives below some extracts from his speech.
After Russia ratified the START-II Treaty, which ratification was tightly linked to the existing ABM accords, we are constantly asked the following question: what will happen, if the USA unilaterally begins to deploy its national ABM system? Let me explain that for us this will mean not only the automatic refusal from the START-II Treaty: the consequences will be far more serious. Since the basis of all disarmament treaties will be ruined in this case, Russia will be forced to review all its obligations on the START-I Treaty, flank limitations on conventional arms, and obligations on medium- and small-range missiles. The starting point for Moscow may be either the political decision on the deployment of the national ABM system confirmed by the US leadership or Washington's refusal to exchange ratification instruments (on Start-II and the addendum to the 1997 ABM Treaty). Incidentally, it may seem only at first sight that the refusal by the US Senate to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (the State Duma adopted it last Friday) is not directly linked with all this. Experts say that the sole reasonable explanation for this refusal can be the preparation of the USA for the tests of its nuclear ABM missiles. During the development of the military doctrine of Russia, which was adopted a few days ago, I came strongly against the inclusion into it of a provision on the possibility of delivering the first blow by the Russian nuclear weapons. This is because I think that we should switch from the policy of nuclear deterrence to the policy of nuclear restraint. In the final document, the formulations were softened: they do not stipulate any first blow now. However, it is perfectly evident that already in the near future principal amendments will have to be made to this version of the doctrine. It is not accidental that the doctrine says this is a document of the transitional period, although it is not quite clear what this transition means and what its starting and final points are. I think that this document was written by the military but it should have been vice versa. It is necessary that politicians should formulate tasks for the military. Moreover, the doctrine must be adopted only after the country develops its clear-cut political and economic doctrines. That is why I am sure that the military doctrine will be subject to serious correction. However, the nature of these amendments depends not only on us but also on the outer world.
******
Financial Times (UK) 3 May 2000 [for personal use only] US-Russian missile data vision mired in disputes: First it was the Nato bombing of Yugoslavia. Then the US pursuit of a National Missile Defence system contrived to halt sharing of data on launches. David Buchan reports
A former school in the north-west outskirts of Moscow was chosen as the unlikely base for teams of American and Russian analysts to track and check each other's data on ballistic missile launches.
But the plan, agreed in 1998, for this extraordinary sharing of sensitive early warning information has not gone quite according to schedule.
Talks on implementing the plan were frozen during Nato's bombing of Yugoslavia a year ago, and only resumed in March. The new shadow over the plan is the controversy over the US project for a National Missile Defence (NMD) system.
"Shared early warning is in both countries' interest, whether the US develops an NMD or not," said a senior US official last week. But he acknowledged the Russians were allergic to any impression that any warning data they give the US might be fed into an NMD system.
The data-sharing plan is of utmost relevance to the NMD controversy. First, it underscores the two nuclear powers' strong mutual interest in co-operation and explains why they are still trying to prevent this being ruptured by a dispute over NMD.
Second, if the Russians so wished, the shared early warning system could be expanded into a sort of joint NMD database, with the Americans and Russians pooling information not just on their own missile launches but also of third parties. Indeed, the initial 1998 concept was that other countries might also provide advance notice of their missile launches to the Moscow school house.
The origin of the warning data exchange lay in US concerns about Russia's deteriorating capacity to spot missile launches. "Back in the cold War it was not necessarily in our interest that the Russians have a good warning system," said the US official. "Now it is - we would not like them to have any ambiguity about a missile launch" for fear they might think it a US strike and retaliate accordingly.
Part of Russia's problem is that it has lost some radar stations with the break-up of the Soviet Union.
For instance, its Soviet-era radar in Latvia was dismantled, ironically at US expense under Washington 's co-operative threat reduction programme aimed at helping Russia reduce and secure its nuclear arsenal. Lack of this radar may have been one reason why Russian authorities were briefly sent into a panic by a Norwegian scientific rocket launch in 1995.
Last year's fears of the "Y2K" millennium bug provided the US and Russia with some hands-on experience of sharing warning data. The US decided to invite Russians to Colorado Springs where it was already training Americans for the planned Moscow centre.
So from December 20 to January 15 this year Russians sat at the Colorado Spring screens watching US missile launch data. "Even though the information flow was one-way, we had a very good interaction with the Russians," said the US official.
The Colorado Springs screens, for instance, picked up the launch from Russia at the end of last year of a Scud or SS-21 missile. The Russians present were able to reassure the US that it was "only" aimed at Chechnya.
If the Moscow centre were up and running, it would receive feeds from both countries of the time, location and direction of missile launches, and whether they were fired from land, sea or air.
"This type of information is not good enough to guide interceptors," said the US official, stressing its lack of use for an NMD system. He explained such data were "not the crown jewels", partly because "the information we are ready to share is well above the thresholds of detection" by US radar and satellites. The precise thresholds of detection would remain secret.
However, if Russia stopped trying to thwart the US on NMD, the US official said Washington would be prepared to be "more forward-leaning" in provision of data in the related area of Theatre Missile Defence (TMD). Both the US and Russia have accepted TMD, defined as defence against missiles with a range of 3,500km or less, as compatible with the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
Back in 1996, the two countries started to examine how they might share data for their TMD defences, chiefly the US Patriot and the Russian S-300 systems, in the context of protecting their troops in some future US-Russian peacekeeping operation.
Such a scenario might seem a bit theoretical. But Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, told US officials last week that his government, while denouncing NMD, was still keen for these TMD data-sharing talks to progress.
The other proposal pushed by Mr Ivanov was for a global missile technology control regime that would even embrace countries such as Iran and North Korea.
Washington is generally sceptical about such a regime. But one of its provisions would be that all members would give advance notification of their missile launches. This has some appeal to the US. "Imagine, for instance, Iran fires a missile that by accident turns around and heads for Russia," said the US official. "I would very much like Moscow to know it came from Iran, not from one of our submarines in the Gulf."
********
Chicago Tribune 3 May 2000 [for personal use only] Russia says missiles may revive Cold War By John Diamond
WASHINGTON -- Delivering a blunt warning cloaked in bear hugs and backslaps, Russian lawmakers came to Washington on Tuesday to lobby against construction of a U.S. national missile defense, saying it could reverse a decade of progress on arms control and rekindle tension between the old Cold War rivals.
"The American side needs to weigh the consequences" of going forward with missile defense, Vladimir Ryzhkov, a member of Russia's State Duma, or parliament, told Republican House and Senate members at a daylong conference on Capitol Hill.
"Think about not starting a new kind of Cold War with very strange consequences," said Alexander Shabanov, deputy chairman of the Duma's foreign relations committee.
Precisely how Russia would respond if President Clinton decides to proceed with a national missile defense system remains a matter of speculation.
But the Russian lawmakers, all senior Duma members, insisted that if Clinton goes forward, Russia would abandon the entire raft of strategic arms-reduction agreements dating to the Reagan administration. Some U.S. officials are concerned that Russia would join forces with Chinałthe two countries already are enjoying closer relations on security issues than they have in decadesłand share technology that could be useful in defeating whatever missile defense system the United States fields.
More broadly, a rift over missile defense could derail efforts to develop closer ties with Russia, efforts that have hit other snags during the past decade over issues such as the enlargement of NATO and the U.S.-led bombing of Yugoslavia.
As an alternative, the Russian lawmakers emphasized their government's proposal that a U.S. decision against going forward with missile defense could lead to even deeper cuts in nuclear weapons stockpiles. The lawmakers also raised the possibility that Moscow and the U.S. could share missile defense technology.
The conference, held in a large hearing room in the Senate's Hart Office Building, was organized by the conservative Free Congress Foundation, headed by Paul Weyrich. The foundation is interested in exploring the possibility of assuaging Russia's concerns by sharing missile defense technology, a move the Clinton administration has, as yet, not been willing to make.
"Played correctly, Russia can become a strategic ally of the West. Right now, she is anything but that," Weyrich said.
The session was marked by cordiality, even warmth, as U.S. and Russian lawmakers who have met many times during various trips and exchanges renewed old acquaintances.
But it also was marked by bluntness.
When the Russian lawmakers asked whether the Senate would ratify the version of a strategic arms-reduction treaty that includes provisions attached by the Duma limiting missile defenses, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was unambiguous.
"The answer to that question is no. That's very, very unlikely any time in the foreseeable future with the makeup of the Congress as it is," Kyl said.
And although Clinton has yet to make a decision to deploy a national missile defense, Kyl echoed the Republican view that Congress already has spoken on the matter by passing a law establishing a national missile defense system as a fundamental national security aim.
"There will be a deployment of a national missile defense system," Kyl said.
The visit of several Duma members to Washington came a week after Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a Senate floor speech that he would block any arms-control pact brought to the floor by Clinton as the president's second term nears its end.
The START 2 pact has been ratified by the Senate and the Russian legislature. It would cut U.S. and Russian arsenals roughly by half, down to between 3,000 and 3,500 long-range strategic nuclear weapons.
But the Russian legislature attached conditions relating to the relative capabilities of theater and national missile defenses, conditions that U.S. lawmakers say could limit the capability of both. The Senate must now accept START 2 with the Russian changes before the pact can take effect.
Economically strapped Russia can ill afford to continue to maintain its huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and favors sharp reductions, a point that leads some in Washington to view the threats from Moscow as bluster.
The Clinton administration insists the missile defense plan is not aimed at Russia but intends to stop potential attacks from smaller states such as North Korea or Iran. In a Pentagon briefing last week for Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, U.S. officials went to lengths to describe the limits and vulnerabilities of the missile defense system.
Tuesday's meeting of legislators put on display the wide gap between Russia's arms-reduction goals and the Republican-backed plans in Washington to build a national missile defense. The meeting also underscored that while the Russian legislature closely follows the lead of newly elected President Vladimir Putin, the U.S. Congress could hardly be more hostile toward Clinton.
"President Clinton does not enjoy the trust of the United States Senate when it comes to treaties that affect arms-control matters," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). Konstantin Kosachev, deputy chairman of the Duma's foreign relations committee, said the Russian legislature and executive branch are "basically unanimous" in opposition to a U.S. missile defense system.
Kosachev said U.S. negotiators were, in effect, threatening Moscow by suggesting that if Washington cannot win a change in the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow a national missile defense, the United States will scrap the entire treaty.
"Imagine two sides who made a contract. One side keeps its obligations, but the other side says, 'We'll pay you half price. Either you agree to it or we don't pay you anything at all,'" Kosachev said. "This is basically the U.S. position."
The three members of the Russian parliament who participatedłothers were in town meeting privately with U.S. lawmakersłsaid the United States and Russia should be strategic partners, not nuclear rivals. They said Russia's views on arms control were expressed by recent Duma votes to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the START 2 nuclear arms reductions.
In one area of agreement between Russia and U.S. lawmakers, the Duma members urged the Clinton administration to postpone a decision scheduled for this summer on deploying a national missile defense.
This viewpoint has drawn unlikely supporters. Arms-control advocates want postponement because they fear a rushed decision would almost certainly mean a decision to deploy the missile defense. Republicans want postponement in hopes that Texas Gov. George W. Bush will be president and will be in a position to approve a much larger defensive shield than the one envisioned by Clinton.
Russia's decision to link the issue of missile defense to further arms reductions is merely an arbitrary grab for leverage, according to James Collins, the U.S. ambassador to Russia. Speaking to the Defense Writers' Group last week, Collins said Russia accepts U.S. explanations that the planned missile defense system is not aimed at neutralizing Russia's nuclear deterrent.
The concern in Moscow, according to Collins, who has participated in high-level arms-reduction talks, is that once the United States builds the basic infrastructure of missile defensełthe bases in Alaska and North Dakota, the missile interceptors and radarłit will be easy enough to enlarge the system to the point where it could undermine Russia's arsenal.
If Russia is reducing the size of its nuclear force while the United States expands its missile defenses, the two could eventually meet in the middle, leaving Russia vulnerable to a theoretical first strike to which it would have no viable response.
Collins said U.S. negotiators are emphasizing that, practically speaking, the planned missile defense system could not be expanded in size and sophistication to the point that it could ever cope with the kind of massive strike Russia could launch.
"There isn't any way the system we are talking about is going to provide a defense against that force," Collins said. "We don't intend to expand it to the point where it would be a threat."
*******
From: "Michael B. Kagalenko" <mkagalen@coe.neu.edu> Subject: Re: 4278/Weeks-ABM Date: Tue, 2 May 2000
Albert Weeks writes: " Everyone knows, or should know, that U.S. diplomatic and military history shows that this country has responded to, not initiated large-scale military actions in the 20th century."
It was at this point of reading Mr.Weeks contribution to the JRL that I realized that he is making fun of us. But the joke is getting too thick at this point, really. After NATO enlargement and unprovoked aggression against Yugoslavia, to use just the latest example, this line can't possibly be maintained with a straight face. Throughout the last half of the 20th century, the US attacked and/or invaded many countries, (Vietnam, Cuba Grenada, Panama, etc) not to mention covert sponsorship of terror and death squads throughout the Latin America. US spends more than any other country on its military, maintains bases around the world, and possesses the fleet of aircraft carriers that can't be viewed as defensive weapon by any sane observer.
Mr.Weeks drags out the carcass of the dead horse - dismantled Krasnoyarsk radar, - to beat on it some more. The funny part is, this comes on the heels of the revelation that the US covertly deployed the anti-missile X-band radar HAVE STARE in Norway; the secret was literally blown when the high winds pulled away the radar dome, revealing that the Norway officials lied to their public about the nature of the radar (see http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2000/ma00/ma00postol.html for the full story). If the proposed ABM is really directed against North Korea, why this radar is deployed in Norway, where it's completely useless as far as North Korean missiles are concerned ? And why Mr.Weeks continues to call the Moscow ABM functional, even though it isn't,- it has its nuclear warheads removed, as Mr.Weeks surely knows.
Really, Mr.Weeks, to darkly hint as you do at some covert Russian superiority in the ABM area, when Russia does not have enough money even to maintain the radar coverage of the main line of attack (through Antarctica), and therefore has a hole big enough to drive the whole fleet of the US B-52 through unnoticed until bombs start to fall on Russian cities, defies my comprehension (see URL http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/2000-04-28/7_degradation.html for detailed background on the deficiency of Russian air defense). If you wish to make fun of your reader, please try to be more subtle.
*******
The Russia Journal May 1-7, 2000 SEASON OF DISCONTENT: Farewell to the Slav By ANDREI PIONTKOVSKY
Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko has been looking grim and gloomy of late. Everything is getting on his nerves ” NATO, the "aggressive bloc," that is creeping closer to his holy frontiers, and his ungrateful Moscow allies whom he defends from the Western threat, using himself, and his own citizens above all, as a human shield. "If we remove this border," he confides to his European neighbors, "All hell will break loose. Two hundred thousand hungry, wretched Belarussians will flood into Europe with their drugs."
At a press conference that followed a tete-a-tete discussion with Col. Vladimir Putin, the president of the "hungry and wretched" looked clearly discouraged. Whatever happened to his provincial joviality and impudent charm? Lukashenko, it seems, finally understood what heĘd vaguely guessed at since New YearĘs Eve but desperately refused to believe ” that the five-year period of Russian-Belarussian political barter he invented is now over.
Like most 20th century dictators, the Great Slav, as Moscow fans have named him, is a man of little education, but bestowed with innate, natural talent as a psychologist. Lukashenko proved highly adept at sniffing out the weaknesses and complexes of the Moscow political elite ” nostalgia for former grandeur, a need for "little brothers" groveling from the imperial hand, and home-grown messianism.
Once a year, Lukashenko would come to the Kremlin and smash a vodka glass in the Hall of Facets, stimulate the Russian political classĘ erogenous zones with a professional touch, cast a spell with his sugary speeches on Slavic Brotherhood and Revival of the Union, and sign yet another empty document pledging new, decisive and history-making leaps toward creating a unified state.
The entranced Russian crows let fall huge pieces of aromatic cheese in the form of subsidized energy supplies, a huge black hole of a customs union sweeping billions of dollars into LukashenkoĘs personal presidential fund, and various other economic gifts.
The most valued Moscow patient to lie on the psychoanalytical couch of Dr. Lukashenko was former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin pictured himself a Russian tsar but carried on his shoulders the weight of the Belovezhskiye agreements that brought down the empire. Thus Yeltsin, more than anyone else, was sensitive to the Belarussian leaderĘs integrationist siren song.
Lukashenko, the cunning collective farmer, didnĘt plan on any real union, however. He would never have traded his status of dictator of a small European country for that of Minsk regional party secretary.
True, one scenario seriously discussed at one time in Moscow would have led to a genuine union. In an attempt to extend his term of power, Yeltsin could have tried to become president of a new, united state. Lukashenko would have become vice president and thus acquired the chance to leap out like a little devil from behind a weakening YeltsinĘs back and take the Russian throne.
YeltsinĘs abdication and the appointment of a legitimate heir put an end to these ambitious plans and to LukashenkoĘs entire psychoanalysis practice.
Col. Putin also likes to talk about the grandeur of Russia and the union of fraternal peoples, but like all good chekists endowed with clean hands, a cool head and a warm heart, he has never had any personal guilt complexes and prefers dry, down-to-earth conversations about harmonizing economic systems, gas payments and practical steps toward integration.
Lukashenko tried to raise his worth as a "shield," talking about creating a mythical "300,000-strong military group equipped with the very latest in arms." But here, too, he didnĘt fall in with the latest Russian trends and found himself coldly disavowed.
RussiaĘs aim now is to tone down criticism of military operations in Chechnya and ensure a favorable economic situation. Thus, Moscow is not looking to rattle its saber, but rather to cast itself in the positive role of constructive partner in the areas of security, strategic stability and arms control.
The Great Slav risks turning into the village idiot of Europe.
(Andrei Piontkovsky is director of the Center of Strategic Research.)
******
St. Petersburg Times 2 May 2000 Work Addicts at a Loss During Holiday Season By Anna Shcherbakova
"YOU know what? These holidays are too long and boring. I'd prefer to work rather than to waste time," said an entrepreneur I met this weekend. This opinion, I realized, is shared by many businessmen - they seem to be too immersed in business to enjoy anything but their own affairs.
Strangely enough, the most well-off people, who can afford everything from safaris in Africa to diving off Caribbean islands, prefer to concentrate on business affairs.
In other words, they are in love with their businesses, and do not like to leave them in anyone else's hands. One of the reasons for this is perhaps the contradiction between owner and manager, which has recently become a problem for growing businesses. An owner who has founded a chain of gas stations or stores is not able to manage everything himself, but is also not ready to delegate any responsibilities to the manager he employs. The idea that a stranger can ruin their "unique" organizations is the main mistake that such owners make.
But don't forget that the era of ownership rights in Russia is only 10 years old, and that it is the first generation of owners that we are talking about. The people who created service companies from nothing and revived bankrupted factories, in their opinion, should work 24 hours a day and keep everything under their personal control - from relations with suppliers, to relations with criminals and officials. Without a 100 percent devotion to their business, no result would have been possible.
This breed of owners is a special people. Their attitude to business is like an addiction. It excites them more than extreme sports, and more than alcohol and drugs, which are only slightly more harmful than doing business here. Actually, among the different sorts of addictions, workaholism is the most productive one. The new market economy in Russia was created by workaholics, who are now developing it further.
It's funny to be writing this on May 1, the International Day of Workers' Solidarity which begins a chain of holidays when the workers spend time at the dacha cultivating vegetables. These people are happy to have additional days-off in early May. Maybe this is how workers' solidarity manifests itself these days. But it also seems to be one of the ways that social differences show themselves.
The entrepreneur who told me he gets bored if he spends so much as a week out of his office is aware of these differences, and is worried by them. "It is why a lot of people are leaving the country," he said. I wonder if such people will be able to live in the calmer business environment of Europe or the United States, and whether their departure will be good for this country.
Anna Shcherbakova is the St. Petersburg bureau chief for Vedomosti newspaper.
*******
Newsweek International May 8, 2000 [for personal use only] BOOKS Rolling Back the Iron Curtain 'Containment' was the official postwar policy. But two new books show that Washington was far more ambitious. By Andrew Nagorski
Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991, I had a chance encounter with a top aide to Russia's firebrand, ultranationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky. When the aide realized he was sitting next to an American correspondent, he looked nonplused at first, then suddenly inspired. "I have to congratulate your President Bush and his CIA," he declared. "For what?" I asked. "For the absolutely masterful way that they brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union." I laughed. "I'd like to think that the CIA was capable of pulling this off, but I have my doubts," I said. "No, no," the aide insisted. "It was all your CIA's doing." Two books on the early days of the cold war now provide new ammunition for the conspiracy theorists. Based in part on recently declassified documents, "Operation Rollback" by Peter Grose and "Undermining the Kremlin" by Gregory Mitrovich offer compelling evidence that the United States wasted no time in launching covert operations against the Soviet Union after World War II. Make no mistake: there was, as Ronald Reagan put it much later, an evil empire ruthlessly subjugating half of Europe; it deserved to be undermined. But the fact that Washington did everything from sending hot-air balloons with anti-communist leaflets to parachuting saboteurs into Soviet-held territory hardly constitutes proof that the CIA brought down the Soviet Union. As Grose and Mitrovich argue, most of those early attempts at "Rollback" of the Iron Curtain failed miserably.
A former New York Times correspondent, Grose transforms the potentially dry bureaucratic battles over Soviet policy into a rip-roaring yarn, complete with a colorful cast of characters both in the back corridors of power and in the field. His book focuses on the Truman administration, ending with the 1952 election victory of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. Mitrovich, unfortunately, has none of Grose's narrative flair. He often gets bogged down in arcane details, which is hardly surprising, since his book is an adaptation of his doctoral dissertation. But he sheds valuable light on policy debates that Grose skips over quickly, and he extends the story through the first term of the Eisenhower administration. Taken together, the two books chart the complete trajectory of Rollback.
At the center of the action was diplomat George Kennan. Writing under the pseudonym "X," he published his seminal article in Foreign Affairs in 1947, calling for "a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies." To his critics on the right, this smacked of passivity, even appeasement. But Grose paints a radically different picture of Kennan, who went from his posting as Moscow deputy chief of mission to head the State Department's Policy Planning staff in early 1947. If he was Mr. Containment in public, Grose points out, behind closed doors he was "the architect and champion of American covert action" against the Soviet Empire. In popular lore, Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles is usually cast in that role. (In later life, Kennan turned distinctly dovish, reinforcing this myth.)
The most reckless, tragic part of the Kennan team's Rollback strategy was the dispatching of saboteurs to foment unrest. Anti-communist exiles were parachuted into the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Albania or sent in by boat. Most were immediately caught and executed. This was no accident. Kim Philby and other Soviet agents in London and Washington were providing the Kremlin with all the details. Far more successful were American initiatives to discredit communist movements in Western Europe by underwriting respectable publications that opposed Stalinism, and efforts to beam real news into the Soviet bloc. Radio Free Europe, which would be funded by the CIA until Congress openly took over the task in 1973, proved to be one of the most effective weapons of the cold war. Toward the end of its term, the Truman administration recognized that the most aggressive methods should be abandoned; they were both counterproductive and dangerous, particularly amid growing fears of a nuclear war. Ironically, when Republicans lambasted their opponents for not pursuing the liberation of Eastern Europe vigorously enough, the Democrats couldn't admit that they had already tried most of the actions that their critics were proposing. And once in power, the Eisenhower administration began its own quiet retreat from Rollbackłbut not soon enough to discourage Hungarians from believing they'd get the West's support in their 1956 rebellion. The cold war finally ended only when growing internal dissent and a collapsing economy triggered the implosion of the Soviet system. Yes, Western policies contributed to that outcome, but covert operations weren't the key factor. Don't bother telling that to the conspiracy theorists, though. They'll be too busy gobbling upłand misinterpretingłthese scrupulously researched new books.
*****
Web page for CDI Russia Weekly: http://www.cdi.org/russia
|
|