June
2, 2000
This Date's Issues: 4341•4342
Johnson's Russia List
#4342
2 June 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com
[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Russia, U.S. clash in former Soviet empire.
2. Baltimore Sun: Edward Goldberg, U.S.-Russian ties: The silent
embargo.
3. St. Petersburg Times: Charles Digges, Moscow Quiet on Gref's
Past.
4. Trud: Svetlana Sukhaya, THE NOT SO YOUNG RUSSIA.
5. MSNBC: Putin on his presidential goals. Excerpts from
Tom Brokaw’s exclusive interview.
6. Interfax: PUTIN INITIATIVE ON ABM COOPERATION WITH USA CONCERNS ONLY NONSTRATEGIC
MISSILES.
7. The Guardian (UK): Jonathan Steele, EMPTY ENCOUNTERS:
CLINTON'S VISIT TO PUTIN WILL ACHIEVE LITTLE. HE HAS FAILED
WITH MOSCOW AND RUSSIA STILL HAS THE CHECHEN PROBLEM.
8. Itogi: Yuly Fryomin, The Useless Environmental Agency.
New federal authorities let us know that they will neither
protect the environment, nor allow others to do it.
9. Washington Post: Sharon LaFraniere and Daniel Williams,
Chechnya's Bloodiest Massacre. On a Quiet Day in February,
Russian Troops Killed at Least 45 Civilians.]
******
#1
Russia, U.S. clash in former Soviet empire
By Mike Collett-White
MOSCOW, June 2 (Reuters) - ``Look West'' the United States has urged former
Soviet republics, dangling the carrots of political support, defence
cooperation and trade growth to win allies among newly independent states.
``Don't bother'' has been Russia's response, a message which has grown in
conviction since the arrival of President Vladimir Putin at the helm.
His more aggressive approach to the so-called ``near abroad'' has won him
some early victories in the battle between old Cold War foes for influence
over strategic and resource-rich states.
But it is early days, and a string of high-level U.S. visits, involving
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the heads of the Central
Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, show that Washington
is still interested.
After his visit to Moscow this week, U.S. President Bill Clinton travels to
Russian neighbour Ukraine, which political analysts say sees itself as much a
part of an expanding Europe as of the former Communist bloc.
``There is a clear rivalry between the U.S. and Russia for influence over
countries of the former Soviet Union,'' said Yevgeny Volk of the Heritage
Foundation in Moscow.
CENTRAL ASIA IN SHARP FOCUS
Nowhere is this rivalry more apparent than in Central Asia, a vast swathe of
steppe, desert and mountain bridging Russia, China, Iran and Afghanistan and
blessed with huge untapped reserves of oil, gas, gold and industrial metals.
Washington made much of the early going after independence in 1991, promoting
its firms' interests and urging governments to develop export routes for
hydrocarbon riches which would avoid both Russia to the north and ``rogue
state'' Iran to the south.
Its success was partly explained by the vacuum in relations with Moscow under
Boris Yeltsin, a weakness Putin has been quick to address.
His first trip abroad after the May 7 inauguration was to Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan where he spoke of the security threat to the region and Russia
posed by extremist Islamic movements said to be supported by the
Afghanistan's ruling Taleban.
That concern is shared by Islam Karimov, president of Uzbekistan which
borders Afghanistan and has seen a strong Islamic revival amid its population
of 24 million people.
``Karimov was one of the most anti-Moscow leaders in the former Soviet Union,
but that has changed very quickly,'' said Andrei Piontkovsky of the Centre
for Strategic Studies.
``It is not because he suddenly fell in love with the Russians or with Putin,
but because he has a problem with Islamic fundamentalism.''
In Turkmenistan Putin turned to the other key pillar of his policy in Central
Asia, signing a deal to transport rising volumes of Turkmen gas via Russia's
existing pipeline system.
The deal had the dual advantage of making Turkmenistan more reliant on Moscow
at the same time as undermining a U.S.-backed project to build a $2.0 billion
pipeline across the Caspian seabed, through Azerbaijan and Georgia and on to
Turkey.
SIMILAR THEMES DIVIDE SIDES IN CAUCASUS
Security and energy are also major concerns both for Washington and Moscow in
the volatile Caucasus, where the leaders of Azerbaijan and Georgia have put
considerable distance between their small nations and their mighty northern
neighbour.
The United States backs a major new oil pipeline running from the Azeri
capital of Baku to Turkey's Mediterranean coast, a plan which Moscow says is
uneconomic and inferior to its own proposal to run the new link through its
territory.
And the scars from old conflicts in Georgia and Azerbaijan, in which both
countries saw clandestine Russian support for their enemies, has encouraged
them to look West for political, and eventually military support.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are both seeking closer cooperation with NATO,
including eventual membership, a proposal which is anathema to Russia.
Some political analysts play down the significance of such statements, saying
that they are as much a way of sending signals to Moscow as serious policy
decisions.
And a straight-talking Putin could usher in warmer relations with the two
states if he can win over their leaders, who are seen as political
pragmatists before they are ideologues.
UKRAINE ALSO COURTS NATO
The prospect of NATO spreading to Russia's borders is also a key one in
Ukraine, which Washington has singled out for close attention because of a
relatively big population of 50 million.
``I think Russia is interested in Ukraine's slower movement in the direction
of NATO as long as there is no clarity about the future of Russia's own
relations with the alliance,'' said Mykhailo Pohrebinsky of the Kiev Centre
of Political Studies.
``On the other hand the U.S. would hail much faster movement (by Ukraine) to
NATO and other European structures. In this case we have a conflict.''
But while Ukraine has consistently cast its eye westward, its economy is
still linked inextricably to Russia which supplies it with oil and gas.
Energy arrears are a constant irritant in relations between the Slavic
neighbours.
In stark contrast to Ukraine's good standing in Washington is Belarus, where
President Alexander Lukashenko has come under frequent Western criticism for
stifling reforms and democracy.
He has been the driving force behind a plan to merge his nation of 10 million
with Russia in a union based on joint institutions and eventually a common
currency.
*******
#2
Baltimore Sun
June 2, 2000
U.S.-Russian ties: The silent embargo
By Edward Goldberg
Edward Goldberg is president of F.J. Elsner North America Ltd., which trades
extensively with Russia and Eastern Europe. He has testified before the
Senate on trade issues, has lectured on international trade at the Lubin
Graduate School of Business, Pace University, and is working on a book about
the history of Russian-U.S. relations.
NEW YORK -- U.S. relations with Russia during the past century can be
described in three words: enmity, fear and misunderstanding.
It is as if a silent psychological embargo has been in place, blocking most
of the paths to mutual understanding. Even during periods when mitigating
circumstances could have allowed the formulation of a more enlighten policy,
animosity prevailed.
This embargo is so fraught with historical and cultural implications, that
even the massive changes toward democracy and capitalism that have occurred
in Russia over the past 10 years have not been able to totally tear down this
wall. These changes have been what the United States has been longing for
since Lenin first arrived back in Russia.
Yet if this is truly the case, why is our Russian policy still politicized?
What is the historical cause for this? Why are we so deaf to the actual
reality and needs of the situation?
America's negative perception of Russia during the last century, partly based
on the realities of Soviet actions, has been allowed to run unchecked for
several cultural and historic reasons.
Primary among these is the lack of a non-ideological Russian- American
constituency within the United States. Theodore Roosevelt spoke of hyphenated
Americans -- Irish-Americans, German-Americans, etc. -- having a major
influence on U.S. foreign policy. There are, however, hardly any
Russian-Americans.
>From 1881 to 1914, 3.2 million people immigrated from the Russian Empire to
the United States, of which only 65,000 were ethnically Russian. Thus, not
only were the overwhelming majority of these immigrants not Russian, these
émigrés viewed Russia and Russians with hostility.
Unlike Polish-Americans or Jewish-Americans, as an example, there was and is
no domestic constituency to politically support Russia and create a Russian
cultural identity within the American polyglot. No American presidential
candidate ever has needed to worry about losing a big state because he did
not support warmer relations with Russia.
The mass immigration from the Russian Empire, at a time of great social
change in America and the beginning of radicalization within Russia,
unwittingly created the first anti-Russian imprints on the American
consciousness.
Although very few of the immigrants were political radicals of any type, the
fear caused in America by this huge wave of immigrants from Russia
(regardless of the fact that most of these immigrants were not Russian)
helped lead to the post-World War I Red scares.
Stalin's aggression and the possibility of nuclear war during the Cold War
only reinforced our negative perceptions of Russia to such an extent that it
is difficult for us to grasp fully -- even today -- that Soviet Russia was
totally defeated in the Cold War. A fear of Russia has almost become part of
the American psyche. With no other former major adversary has the United
States remained so distrustful after it has won the actual conflict.
Germany, with which we fought two wars, is an example. Even though Germany
could be a major economic rival today, the United States and Germany are
close friends.
Ninety years of rhetoric and misunderstanding has made it very easy and
politically acceptable for America to turn away from Russia when things
appear difficult. The problem, however, is that Russia is extremely important
to our own security, both now and in the future.
Its geographical position, straddling Europe and Asia, its nuclear arsenal,
its economy, which has enormous potential, its mineral wealth and its
membership in the U.N. Security Council make Russia too important for America
to quasi-isolate.
We must, therefore, through leadership overcome our historic fears and truly
tear down the wall that inhibits our relationship with Russia.
*******
#3
St. Petersburg Times
June 2, 2000
Moscow Quiet on Gref's Past
By Charles Digges
STAFF WRITER
Editor's Note: This is part of an on-going series looking back at the early
careers of members of the so-called "Petersburg clan" who have graduated to
Vladimir Putin's government.
Some might say that German Gref, President Vladimir Putin's current cconomic
strategy and trade minister, has a knack for landing on his feet.
After a financially disastrous stint as chairman of a regional real estate
committee, he was tapped by Mikhail Manevich to be the head of the real
estate department of the St. Petersburg City Property Committee, while
Anatoly Sobchakwas the city's mayor.
When Sobchak was defeated in 1996 in an upset election victory by his old
lieutenant Vladimir Yakovlev, Gref endured and was named Manevich's first
deputy the following summer.
And when Manevich was assassinated that year, Gref took up the flag.
During his tenure in charge of the Property Committee, or KUGI, which busied
itself with a number of privatization schemes, Gref made a number of
questionable decisions that cost investors millions of dollars. Now, he is
the head of a think tank called the Center for Strategic Studies, which has
been charged with redesigning the Russian economy.
Some of Gref's ideas on this count are facing stiff opposition in Moscow, but
one of the more substantial changes, the idea of dividing Russia into seven
administrative zones, has already been adopted by Putin.
But earlier this week, financier, Duma deputy and "family" member Boris Be re
zovsky sent a letter to Putin criticizing the zone division. It was an open
sign of conflict between the "family" members of Putin's cabinet and the
members of the St. Petersburg school, said Andrei Ryabov of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace in Moscow.
Despite the conflict, Ryabov said Gref's program would win with Putin.
"Putin will take Gref's plan - in effect he already has," he said.
Georgy Arbatov, of the U.S.A. & Canada Institute, a think-tank based in
Moscow, was less optimistic.
"Everyone drags their shamans to government with them," he said. "But who
knows what guys like Gref can do? All I know is that he appears to have been
born a few years back and brought to Moscow. I know nothing of his biography
at all."
Indeed, said Arbatov, the powers surrounding Gref now can try to make sure
that history is not an open book.
German Oskarovich Gref was born in 1964 in Kazakstan, the son of German
deportees who were exiled during World War II. Despite his modest
circumstances, Gref managed to graduate in 1983 from the law faculty of Omsk
University, and then go on to Leningrad State University for his graduate
degree.
There, he fell under the influence of the liberal Sobchak culture in the law
department. He and Putin be came fast friends, according to press reports.
After Sobchak's victory in 1991, Gref was appointed head of the real estate
committee in the Petrodvorets District west of St. Petersburg, where he
planned to build a village in memory of German deportees.
According to a recent article in the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Gref recruited
a number of German and Russian partners for the project. The company that was
to build the village was called Neudorf, and it was to include some 30
cottages, saunas, pools and other recreational attractions for former German
and Russian war survivors.
A loan for 50 million Deutsch marks ($20 million) was secured from a German
bank by Neudorf, Novaya Gazeta reported. The project - begun in 1992 - was to
be complete by 1999. But so far, the paper said, only eight cottages have
been constructed. The Russian side appealed to Neudorf for more money but was
turned down, Novaya Gazeta reported. The original 50 million Deutsch marks
are still unaccounted for.
After this, Gref was promoted to City Hall to supervise real estate, where he
earned a reputation as a strict landlord, especially toward human rights
tenants. In privatizing the Gorchakov Palace, where the Petrograd Region
administration is housed, he booted out the social service agency Nadezhda,
which united a number of advocacy groups of for the elderly, according to
Novaya Gazeta. He also evicted UNESCO from its offices on Ul. Chaikovskogo.
After Manevich's murder in 1997, Gref inherited the Nevsky Prostor fiasco.
Nevsky Prostor was a real estate company 40 percent owned by City Hall that
offered to build apartments within a period of a few years, provided clients
put money down immediately.
Many clients, who said they otherwise would not have participated, said they
were reassured by the fact City Hall was involved. Collectively, the clients
put down $80 million. However, when it became more and more clear that
nothing was materializing, worried clients were told Nevsky Prostor was
bankrupt.
Angry letters besieged Gref's office, but he just replied that City Hall had
sold off its initial 40 percent stake in Nevsky Prostor, and shrugged his
shoulders.
City Prosecutor's Office spokes woman Tatyana Vishnyakova confirmed that a
case had been opened against Gref over the Nadezhda matter, and that others
were pending in the Neudorf case. But when Gref was tapped by Anatoly Chubais
to be deputy minister of property and real estate in 1997, the cases simply
evaporated.
"We were made to understand that this case just wasn't to be pursued
anymore," said Vishnyakova.
Ryabov, however, thinks that most of these things will remain quietly buried.
"The only way Gref will suffer is if Berezovsky wants to bring it up," he
said. "Otherwise, he's safe."
*******
#4
Trud
June 2, 2000
[translation for personal use only from RIA Novosti]
THE NOT SO YOUNG RUSSIA
By Svetlana SUKHAYA
Demographers say that the world's population may nearly
double by the end of the 21st century. A concerned global
community ponders ways to keep the population's growth in
check.
Russia's concern is different: forecasts say that the
nation may extinct. Unless the current demographic crisis is
overcome by urgent and well-considered moves of the authorities
and society, Russia's population would taper to a mere 50-55
million people in 2075. Today, i.e. as of January 1, 2000, the
country's population stands at 145.5 million.
"Russia may simply disappear as an independent state
before the end of the 21st century," is the opinion of Nikolai
Gerasimenko, who chairs the Duma's health committee.
The nation is shrinking for the fourth time since the
start of the 20th century. The first three times coincided with
the periods of wars, hunger and repression. Experts indicate
that the current crisis is unprecedented in peacetime.
Russia's population has been consistently diminishing
since 1992. In 1999, 27 regions registered a mortality rate
that exceeded the birth rate two to three times over. A natural
increment, i.e. the birth rate exceeding the mortality rate,
was registered only in 11 of the country's regions in the first
quarter of 2000.
The population's growth is clearly dependent on two
factors:
the birth rate and that of mortality. Both indices have been
tragically worsening in the past decade. In 1987, 2.5 million
children were born in Russia; in 1998, the figure nearly
halved.
The worst thing about it is that more and more females
want to have no children at all. Polls conducted in 1994
indicate that nearly a quarter of childless females between 18
and 44 years old had no plans to have one. Is there something
more unnatural than a woman's refusal to give birth to a human
being?
In 1999, the mortality rate radically exacerbated: the
number of the deceased grew 151,600 on the year previously.
Experts discern a novel phenomenon in the country - a
super-mortality rate explained by rampant poverty, civil
conflicts and a surge of diseases.
One can analyze the possible reasons for the mortality
rate's growth and the evidently negative influence of smoking,
alcohol and narcotics until one is blue in the face. The
opinion that Igor Gundarov, MD, has offered to a recent
parliamentary hearing sounds especially conspicuous. He is
confident that the main reason behind the super-mortality rate
in Russia is the catastrophically poor spiritual health of a
major part of Russia's population in the past few years.
*****
#5
MSNBC
Putin on his presidential goals
Excerpts from Tom Brokaw’s exclusive interview with new
Russian President Vladimir Putin
A year ago, hardly anyone knew who Vladmir Putin was. A former KGB agent
and son of poor parents, why did Yeltsin select him as his successor?
NBC NEWS
MOSCOW, June 1 — Russia’s new president is Vladimir Putin, and no leader
in the world has a greater challenge. He leads a massive country with an
economy in chaos, a bloody war within its borders and a deteriorating
nuclear arsenal. President Clinton is coming to see him this weekend, but
Thursday he gave an exclusive interview to NBC’s Tom Brokaw.
A YEAR AGO practically no one in Russia knew of Vladimir Putin. He was
just one more apparatchik — a man who had been a KGB agent, a deputy mayor
of St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) and an adviser to Boris Yeltsin.
He grew up as the grandson of Stalin’s cook; his parents were typical
Soviet citizens — poor and hard-working.
Putin was best known as a young man for his judo skills and later for
his devotion to the KGB, Russia’s notorious intelligence agency.
When Yeltsin selected him as his successor, the common question was:
Who is Vladimir Putin?
THE COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY
Tom Brokaw: When you were in the KGB, you were protecting the ideology
of communism. Once communism went away you made a U-turn. Is there an
ideology at the heart of Vladimir Putin or are you ultimately just a
pragmatic man?
Vladimir Putin: If you mean the communist ideology, we used to live in
a different country — and in a different world. We were brought up with
different ideals. If we speak about my personal views, I believe the
communist idea is a beautiful, but harmful fairy tale. It is clear that the
state cannot exist on this as a foundation. It is also obvious that there
is nothing that can substitute [for] this ideology except democracy.
THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY
Brokaw: There is nothing more important than restoring the Russian
economy ...
Putin: There is no doubt we will have to strengthen our laws, law and
orders and without any doubt guarantee all the property owners the right of
ownership. The state must protect the property owners.
CONTROVERSIAL CORRUPTION
As for Boris Berezovsky, the Russian who has become rich, in part,
through sweetheart deals — Putin says his notoriety is exaggerated.
Brokaw: Are you saying that Boris Berezovsky and the other member of
the families that have so much economic control here, will continue to have
the economic power that they have enjoyed for a number of years?
Putin: I think that you are overestimating if you believe that Boris
Berezovsky holds the most part of the Russian economy in his hands. Russia
is too big for one man, or a handful of people, to run it.
BATTLE OVER CHECHNYA
Putin continued to defend the bloody war in Chechnya, even though
there may be a high price for the Russian government to continue the conflict.
Putin: It is clear to us if we pull out of Chechnya, the territory of
Chechnya will become a beachhead for an attack on Russia. Russia cannot
afford — and will not repeat — such an exercise. Therefore to us it is
better to maintain troops and armed forces, law enforcement forces, and
deal with the terrorist problem there before the problem moves to other
Russian territories.
RUSSIA’S GREATEST THREAT
Brokaw: What’s the greatest threat to Russia: Islamic terrorism coming
out of Afghanistan? Or NATO now expanded?
Putin: The biggest threat to Russia is ineffective economic policy.
And if one speaks about external threats, I should say that the religious
extremism exists in Russia like in other parts of the world.
POOLING EFFORTS
Putin also made some news during the interview. Instead of each
country building its own defense against so-called “rogue” nuclear powers —
such as North Korea — he suggested a common effort.
Putin: Such mechanisms are possible if we pool our efforts and direct
them towards neutralizing the threats against the United States, Russia,
our allies or Europe in general. We have such proposals and we intend to
discuss them with President Clinton.
RUSSIA’S FUTURE
Brokaw: You have two young daughters. What kind of country will they
be living in 20 years from now?
Putin: I would hate to see my country, Russia, lose its identity, its
face. ... What I would like to see that the cultural roots of Russia, that
we are so proud of and we so love, that form [us] as people, shape us as
people be preserved with all due respect to the common values of our world,
I would like to see my children see themselves as Russians.
Putin’s idea of putting some kind of common defensive umbrella over
the other nuclear states is obviously a big reach, but the Russians are
feeling very vulnerable if the U.S. builds the missile defense system often
referred to as “Star Wars” — and Moscow can’t match it.
******
#6
PUTIN INITIATIVE ON ABM COOPERATION WITH USA CONCERNS ONLY
NONSTRATEGIC MISSILES
Interfax
Moscow, 2nd June: Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposal on the possible
establishment of an antiballistic missile shield jointly with the US concerns
only nonstrategic ABM systems designed for fighting nonstrategic missiles,
Russian military-diplomatic sources told Interfax today in commenting on
Putin's initiative.
"Washington's response to Russia's initiative will clarify the true plans of
the USA on deploying an ABM system and at whom this nuclear umbrella will be
targeted," the sources said.
Putin's proposals "lie in the context of the protocols signed in September
1997 in New York on the separation of strategic and nonstrategic ABM systems
and make it possible to lift certain problems that have accumulated between
the two countries in the sphere of strategic stability", sources said.
"A decision to deploy a joint ABM defence will make it possible to alleviate
Washington's concern over missile programmes worked out by the so-called
rogue states (North Korea and Iran) and leave unchanged the 1972 ABM treaty,
the foundation of the whole treaty system in the sphere of strategic
offensive arms reduction," the sources said.
Russia, the USA and certain European countries "have some technological
projects on setting up regional ABM systems", the sources said.
"If an agreement is achieved on setting up a nonstrategic ABM system, it
would be of a multilateral rather than bilateral nature with the involvement
of leading European states," the experts said.
"The very beginning of joint work on this programme will lift a number of
threats, prompting the USA to rationalize the need to modernize [modify] the
ABM treaty," the sources said. "Moscow and Washington have formed different
relations with the states whose missile programmes cause the Americans to
worry," one of the experts said.
On the technical capacities of the nonstrategic ABM system, the Russian
expert noted that "projects of systems capable of efficiently fighting
nonstrategic ballistic missiles exist".
*******
#7
The Guardian (UK)
2 June 2000
[for personal use only]
EMPTY ENCOUNTERS: CLINTON'S VISIT TO PUTIN WILL ACHIEVE LITTLE.
HE HAS FAILED WITH MOSCOW AND RUSSIA STILL HAS THE CHECHEN PROBLEM
By Jonathan Steele (jonathan.steele@guardian.co.uk)
It would be easy to dismiss Bill Clinton's visit to Vladimir Putin in Moscow
this weekend as the powerless in pursuit of the faceless. Lameduck American
president with dwindling influence meets new-boy Russian counterpart who has
no programme. So no agreements of any significance can be expected.
Yet this policy vacuum is not just dictated by the electoral calendar. It
highlights a much deeper crisis and a need for radical choices. On the
western side, the empty encounter in Moscow epitomises the failure of
Clinton's Russian project in every field - political, economic and strategic.
Back in 1993 when Clinton held his first summit with a Russian president, he
and his advisers hoped gradually to transform their defeated cold war enemy
into a democratic market economy and a partner in for eign affairs. But every
step they took worked against their stated goals.
In the fierce arguments between the Kremlin and the Russian parliament over
the distribution of power, which was the big theme of 1993, the US president
repeatedly urged Boris Yeltsin to impose executive supremacy by closing
parliament down and changing the constitution. Instead of a democracy with
checks and balances, Russia became what Lilya Shevtsova, one of its best
independent analysts calls, 'an elective autocracy'. This was confirmed in
1996, when with full Clinton support Yeltsin combined American advertising
techniques with ruthless editorial control of TV, partly still under state
ownership and partly in the hands of friendly oligarchs, to demonise the
opposition and win re-election.
Russia's economic reforms were as badly distorted as its path to pluralism.
The corruption-prone privatisation which the west encouraged, the failure to
regulate the new private banks, and the transfer of the country's energy
resources to Kremlin cronies led to a haemorrhage of national capital into
off-shore accounts. In response, western financial institutions merely
stepped up pressure for cuts in government spending to stem the budget
deficit. The result was a massive drop in industrial output and the
pauperisation of millions.
In foreign affairs Clinton's campaign to expand Nato eastwards alienated
Russians of all political persuasions and is still at the core of the
country's suspicions of the west. It has been compounded by Washington's
continuing efforts to woo the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, and
divert their oil and gas reserves as well as those of the Caspian, from
flowing through Russia.
So the fact that an unknown ex-KGB man with illiberal instincts was nominated
by the financial oligarchy to exploit another flawed electoral process and
become Russia's new leader is in part a measure of Clinton's mistakes.
Russian factors, of course, also play a role. The country's long history of
authoritarianism, its power-holders' inability to accept a legitimate role
for opposition, and the intelligentsia's habits of swinging wildly from
servility to alienation, meant that the transition to democracy should have
been handled more gradually and with greater sensitivity.
Now Russia stands at a new crossroads. Its internal policies are moving away
from western control since rising oil prices have given it the first chance
of growth for a decade, as well as less need for foreign loans.
But it faces a key strategic choice in foreign affairs. During the Yeltsin
period it veered from subservient pro-westernism under Andrei Kozyrev as
foreign minister to an emphasis on 'multi- polarity' under Yevgeni Primakov.
Some Moscow think-tanks are now counselling 'selective engagement' with the
west and a pronounced orientation towards Europe.
This makes sense for several reasons. The switch towards close relations with
China, which Primakov encouraged, was largely a reaction to Nato's expansion
and a way of cocking a snook at the west. Russia needs good relations with
its largest Asian neighbour, but to make them a lever for solving problems in
other regions is dangerous.
The external changes which will affect Russia most in the next half-decade
are not in Asia, but Europe. They are the gradual enlargement of the European
Union, the slow build-up of a European defence identity, and the future shape
of Nato. Putin was right recently to stress that Russia is a European state,
and to affirm this by inviting EU leaders to Moscow this week before Clinton
comes. Russia can no longer pretend to a global role, no more than European
powers can, whether individually or as the European Union. But Russia needs
to engage closely with Europe for economic and well as political reasons. If
it is to have any hope of delaying the further expansion of Nato - which
would be good for most Europeans, and not just Russia - it must work hard in
Europe to show it can be a genuine long-term partner.
For that to happen Russia must end its Chechen folly. Having secured his
election with the Chechen war, Putin has a chance to enhance his foreign
policy by ending it through dialogue with Chechen leaders and an acceptance
that atrocities against civilians only provide new grounds for Chechen
resentment. The values which the Chechen operation have so far embodied
cannot help Russia's cause in Europe.
*****
#8
May 30, 2000
Itogi
Yuly Fryomin
The Useless Environmental Agency
New federal authorities let us know that they will neither protect the
environment, nor allow others to do it
[translation for personal use only]
A new stage of a large-scale operation liquidating the residuals of Russia's
democratic revolution has been successfully completed. Starting on May 20,
the country lives without an agency whose primary function would be to
protect and monitor the environment. Out of a random sample of forty
countries, we found a similar peculiarity of governmental structure only in
Honduras.
The president's decree on the liquidation of the State Committee on the
Ecology (GKE), as well as the Federal Forestry Service, and the transfer of
their functions to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MPR) is only a
concluding step in the gradual destruction of the federal environmental
agency: first, it was deprived of some of its functions, then, its authority
was reduced, then (in 1996) its status declined from that of a ministry to a
committee level. Its financial resources were so meager that, for example,
last March it had to resort to financial assistance from Greenpeace in order
to verify reports about severe violations in the Central Siberian Preserve.
It has become a rule that large-scale economic projects are launched without
waiting for the results of environmental examination, and often even before
it is conducted. <Examples follow>
When all this comes to mind, it becomes clear that the latest demise of GKE
is not a result of some illiteracy or near-sightedness of a specific
individual or a group of people, but rather an expression of the mood that
has dominated Russia's political elite for quite some time. Of course, the
name of Viktor Danilov-Danilyan, the longstanding chief of the agency, was
always a synonym of resignation in the face of humiliating treatment. But
this peculiar feature of his personality should rather be considered a cause
of his personal administrative longevity (he served in his office since
November 1991), than an explanation of the dismal fate of his agency. The
reason is that the Inter-Agency Commission on Environmental Security, that
was set up by Aleksei Yablokov, a temperamental and unyielding individual,
was liquidated back in 1996, together with the Council of Ministers'
Commission on Radioactive Waste and Department on Environmental Legislation
of the Ministry of Justice. The same year saw the loss of independence by
the sanitary-epidemiological inspection agency and several other
administrative permutations that demonstrated complete unwillingness on the
part of the government to deal with environmental problems. By the way, it
was about same time that special services began their offensive against
environmental NGOs, an offensive that continues until this very day, in
spite of the utter collapse of all criminal cases initiated in courts. Thus,
the authorities are not just unwilling to protect the environment on their
own, but are fully resolved not to let anyone else to do it.
These manifestations are damaging to the environment in and of themselves,
because they serve as a signal for others: if government is not interested
in having a control agency that would monitor compliance with environmental
laws, then economic agents are free to disregard them. But the consequences
of this yet another "reform" will not be limited to moral damage. The
"reform" puts an effective end to any control over the use of natural
resources by the Natural Resources Ministry, including geologic
explorations, hydraulic projects, and intermediary felling of forests.
Besides, the ministry's top bureaucrats are renowned for their environmental
and legal nihilism. It became clear a couple of years ago, during the
controversy over gold mining in the Yugyd-Va National Park of Komi, that had
been included in the UNESCO list of world heritage. At that time, current
Natural Resources Minister Boris Yatskevich (who served then as first deputy
minister) disingenuously explained to Greenpeace activists that
opportunities for gold mining outweighed the power of regulations about
natural preserves.
In theory, there are still two or three months when something could be
changed. The agency to be shut down continues to operate until the end of
the work of the liquidation commission, and the latter has not been formed
yet. During Putin's visit to the yearly gathering of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, two collective appeals in defense of the committee, signed by
prominent scholars, were submitted to the president. Environmental NGOs
(that, as a rule, were fiercely critical of the committee because of its
inconsistency and proclivity to compromise) are planning public actions and
petitions of protest against its abolition. Yet observers believe that
internal protests will have no effect: people who launched this "reform"
were well aware of every argument against it, and Russia's authorities have
completely recovered from any fear of public opinion. If there is anybody
able to influence the situation, this would be the G-7 governments and
international financial institutions, starting with the IMF and the World
Bank. In recent years, they have been fairly sensitive to the environmental
behavior of their clients.
*******
#9
Washington Post
June 2, 2000
[for personal use only]
Chechnya's Bloodiest Massacre
On a Quiet Day in February, Russian Troops Killed at Least 45 Civilians
By Sharon LaFraniere and Daniel Williams
NAZRAN, Russia, June 1--Maliko Labazanova walked up from her cellar on the
morning of Feb. 5 feeling more hopeful than she had in many weeks. Russian
soldiers had driven the rebels out of Grozny, the Chechen capital. Her
neighborhood of Aldi, on Grozny's southwestern outskirts, was blessedly
quiet. The bombing had stopped.
Labazanova, 49, headed across the street to fry some meat for an elderly
neighbor, she recalled recently in an interview. All around her, residents
fell into their prewar morning routines. Two men filled a wheelbarrow with
flasks and went to fetch water from a spring. Four friends worked to fix a
damaged roof. A nurse peeled potatoes. If the war wasn't over, it had at
least taken a breather.
Six hours later, Labazanova returned to the cellar, dragging the bodies of
three relatives killed by uniformed Russian officers. Spared herself by a
sympathetic soldier who ordered her to play dead so he wouldn't get in
trouble for failing to shoot her, Labazanova hid in the cellar for the next
week, separated from the bloody corpses by only a curtain.
The rampage by Russian soldiers in Aldi claimed the lives of more than 45
civilians in a single day in what was apparently the biggest massacre of the
nine-month-old war, according to witnesses and human rights investigators. By
afternoon, corpses were scattered throughout Aldi's streets and the air was
crackling with the sound of roof tiles splitting atop burning houses,
witnesses said.
Some people were killed before they could say a word, others after they had
handed over their last rubles and begged the uniformed marauders for their
lives. Residents heard some soldiers joke about whether to use a green
antiseptic to mark targets on people's foreheads.
Even some colleagues of the Interior Ministry riot police known as OMON,
suspected of carrying out the killings, seemed appalled at the bloodshed.
"Have you gone mad?" one OMON commander was heard yelling into his handset.
The Aldi massacre was the latest and bloodiest example of the mass shooting
of civilians, part of a pattern of human rights abuses by Russian forces in
the war against Chechnya's separatist militants. Other Russian tactics
include artillery and aerial bombardment of towns and cities to drive rebels
into the wilderness and the mass detention of hundreds of Chechens, mostly
men, in camps where some were tortured and raped.
Chechen refugees have provided compelling accounts to journalists and human
rights groups of two other cases of large-scale wanton shootings, in which
Russian forces entered neighborhoods and killed civilians after hostilities
had ceased. One occurred in the town of Alkhan-Yurt, where 16 people were
killed from Dec. 1 to Dec. 18, according to the New York-based group Human
Rights Watch. The other, in the Grozny district of Staropromyslovsky,
stretched from Dec. 22 to Jan. 21, and left 38 civilians dead and seven
missing, the group said.
Human Rights Watch, the only foreign organization to conduct exhaustive
probes of human rights abuses in Chechnya, is scheduled to release a report
on the Aldi massacre on Friday. The Russian human rights group Memorial is
also working on a reconstruction of the incident. Memorial says 46 people
were killed in Aldi; Human Rights Watch reached a higher number, which
included civilians killed on streets nearby but outside Aldi.
Documentation of the Aldi massacre has taken more time than probes into
previous mass killings, in part because it has been difficult to contact
witnesses. The Russian government has refused to allow human rights workers
or journalists to visit the region, and refugee traffic slowed earlier this
year because of travel restrictions and barriers. The Washington Post
interviewed eight witnesses who were at home in Aldi on Feb. 5. The
interviews took place over a two-week period, mostly here in Nazran, the
capital of Ingushetia, the Russian region to the west of Chechnya, where
several witnesses traveled to tell their stories.
Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have called for an
international investigation of Russia's actions in Chechnya. The United
Nations, the Clinton administration and other Western governments have not
pressed the issue.
President Clinton, who will hold his first summit with Russian President
Vladimir Putin this weekend, plans to focus on the state of Russian
democracy, economic reform and missile defense, U.S. officials said.
The Russian government insists that it can investigate human rights
violations on its own. It has refused to grant Mary Robinson, the U.N. high
commissioner for human rights, access to Aldi and similar sites.
Vladimir Kalamanov, Russia's human rights commissioner for Chechnya, said
some crimes against Chechen civilians have been committed, but "not many,"
and investigations are underway. At his insistence, he said, more prosecutors
have been assigned to such cases, including three working on Aldi. "We will
investigate this in detail," Kalamanov said.
A civilian prosecutor has handed witnesses and relatives pieces of paper
acknowledging that something ugly happened in Aldi. "On Feb. 5, 2000, in the
first half of the day . . . employees of the Defense Ministry and Interior
Ministry in the course of checking passports commited mass killing of
civilians," the paper said. Then the name of a victim is written.
Aldi survivors are skeptical, and too afraid, in some cases, to cooperate
with a Russian-led inquiry. "It seems to me it was just a way to calm people
down, by pretending something will be done," said Uzbek Haji-Muradov, whose
brother Alvi was shot near his home on Matasha-Muzayeva Street.
It is unclear which Russian units carried out the Aldi killings. Memorial,
the Russian group, believes two Interior Ministry units, from St. Petersburg
and Ryazan, were the culprits.
Home to an estimated 4,600 people in peacetime, Aldi largely emptied during
the winter months of bombing. The mostly single-story brick and clay houses
sat empty. Of the few hundred people who remained, most were middle-aged or
elderly. They cut down neighborhood trees for wood and braved 24-hour
bombardments to fetch water.
By Feb. 5, a cold, sunny morning, it seemed they had survived. Russian forces
had announced they had captured Grozny, and only a "cleansing" operation
remained. Army conscripts who had swept through Aldi the day before were
polite, even friendly, witnesses recalled. They had told residents to have
their passports ready the next day, because the Interior Ministry OMON forces
would be checking.
A few of the young conscripts spoke of the OMON in ominous terms. If a
certain unit came, one soldier told resident Galina Umaeva, "you will be
unlucky." Koka Demilhanova said a conscript warned her: "Don't be afraid of
us. Be afraid of those who come after us."
Maliko Labazanova, a former shop clerk, was across the street from her home,
frying meat for her elderly neighbor Vaha Tasuyev, when she saw the first
soldier clad in gray camouflage. He led Tasuyev's son, Abdurahman, 51, into
the yard at gunpoint, she said. Abdurahman had been helping his friend Sultan
patch a roof.
Abdurahman's head was down and his face was pale, Labazanova said. "He
demands money," he told his father. "They killed Sultan."
With trembling hands, the old man emptied his black leather purse of its
contents – 75 rubles, a little more than three dollars. The soldier refused
to let Abdurahman go, so Tasuyev's other son ran to a neighbor and came back
with 150 more rubles. Still, the soldier led Abdurahman away, shouting at the
old man, his other son and Labazanova not to follow. The Tasuyevs found
Abdurahman's body that night.
Ahiyadi, a welder who helped Tasuyev with the roof, was also led home by a
soldier who pointed a gun at him. He said he gave jewelry to the soldier, who
let him go, saying: "Pray for me, because, you see, I didn't kill you."
Soldiers came to Labazanova's house in Tsimlyansky Alley an hour or so after
she left the Tasuyevs, but they were peaceful. She walked next door to tell
neighbor Ahmed Abdulhanov the document check was over. A former warehouse
manager and distant relative of Labazanova's, the 76-year-old bald man sat
dejectedly in the corridor. His daughter-in-law whispered: "There are corpses
in the street."
Back home, Labazanova urged her sister-in-law Zena Abulmejidova and
brother-in-law Hussain Abulmejidov to hide in the cellar. But Zena, her hands
plunged in bread dough, told her: "It's all over on our street. Nothing will
happen to us."
Hussain, described as mildly retarded, refused to go to the cellar without
Zena. About an hour later, Labazanova said, she heard shouts of abuse in her
yard. Two soldiers pointed their weapons at Zena, Hussain and the old man,
Abdulhanov. "Maliko, bring money," Abdulhanov told her.
She raced down the empty street to her neighbors', pounding and shouting at
the gate. Then she ran back with three 100-ruble notes in her hand. A wounded
gray cat stumbled toward her, trailing its intestines. "Then my feet refused
to move," she said.
In her courtyard, one soldier laughed at her offering. "Is this money?" he
demanded. He told another soldier to "shake her down" inside the house.
Labazanova said she tried to hide between the stove and the wall. When the
soldier pointed his gun at her, she grabbed his boots, begging to be spared.
"Please. I have sons like you," she told him.
"If I don't kill you, they'll kill me," he answered. Then he shot at the
ceiling and ordered her to play dead. Outside, she heard shots and the cries
of Abdulhanov's cows and sheep as his shed went up in flames. When she left
the house, she found the old man's body, the top of his head blown off and
his gold teeth bashed out. Nearby were the bodies of Zena and Hussain.
Her neighbors were panicked and stricken. One woman told Labazanova she had
been raped in front of her young son.
"If I had had a gun at that point, I would have killed, too," Labazanova
said, tears streaming down her face as she sat on a stool in a refugee camp
in Ingushetia. "I would not have cared if they killed me. What they have done
is incomprehensible."
Around the corner, at 38 Hoperskaya St., Zina Shidayeva met her tormentors at
9:30 a.m.
She had already heard shooting, she recalled. Women ran down the street
screaming, "They are killing us." Shidayeva, her husband, a neighbor and
Luisa, an 18-year-old girl who had just arrived from a neighboring district,
cowered in the kitchen, where they were cutting onions.
A soldier told them to leave the house because he and his men were going to
set it aflame. But the occupants demurred, fearful of going into the street.
The soldier raised the stakes. "If you want, I will let you live, but give me
something," he said.
Shidayeva told him she had nothing, and he left – only to return later. In
the meantime, Shidayeva ventured to the corner and saw corpses on the street.
The first one she saw was Alvi Haji-Muradov, who had been shot through the
mouth, the back of his head blown away by the exiting bullet. "I cried to
Allah and ran home," Shidayeva recalled.
Shots rang out behind her, but she returned unhurt. Soon, the soldier in gray
returned and asked again for money and jewelry. She had hidden earrings and a
watch, but had trouble finding them.
She finally found the booty and turned it over, but the soldier wanted more.
"You have a husband and a neighbor," he said threateningly.
"But I have no money," she pleaded.
"All right. I will let you live. You remind me of my mother," the soldier
said.
Other soldiers entered the house. Shidayeva wanted to investigate what had
happened around the corner. She offered cigarettes to the soldier in charge
in exchange for a tour, saying she wanted to see whether some particular
neighbors were alive.
Shidayeva and her escort walked past Alvi Haji-Muradov's body, then another,
that of an old man, Aindi Azuyev. Further on was Koka Bisultanova, a blond
woman who sold pharmaceutical goods out of her house. Then a couple in a
yard, then a 71-year-old woman named Rekat Akhmadova. Dogs and cats were also
victims.
After Shidayeva returned home, she asked her escort why they had shot
harmless residents, even women. "We were told to kill everybody," the man
said matter-of-factly. At 4 p.m., the guests left, after firing off a few
rounds – "so that our comrades will think we killed you," the soldier
explained. As he left, he said, "We should send in a big rocket here to erase
all this."
When Luisa came out of hiding, she asked about her mother, Aimani Gudayeva.
Shidayeva didn't have the heart to tell her she had seen Gudayeva's corpse.
"She must be in some basement," she told the girl.
"I still don't sleep well at night," Shidayeva said in an interview the other
day. "I close my eyes, and I see the corpses lying in the street. I feel that
at any moment what happened then could happen again."
At the other end of the neighborhood, Asiat Chadaeva, a 32-year-old nurse,
learned from a commander that people had died. She heard him shout into his
handset: "Have you gone mad?" Then he pulled her aside.
"Our men have killed some old people by mistake," he told her. "Bury them
quickly."
He had just hurried off in an armored personnel carrier when a neighbor
walked up with a sobbing 9-year-old girl, Laila. The girl told Chadaeva that
she, her mother and two other men had been staying in the house of Avalu
Sugaipov, around the corner.
Her mother walked out of the house to greet the soldiers because she thought
they would not shoot a woman, Laila said. She was immediately cut down by
machine gun fire, as were the others. Sugaipov managed to push Laila back
inside the house before he fell.
Laila told Chadaeva she hid there under the bed, behind a sack of onions.
Then she heard a soldier say, "Pour it."
"Wait, where is the child?" another soldier asked. "Come out!"
He pulled her scarf over her eyes as he carried her through the yard, but she
still saw her mother's bloody body. In the street, he gave her a can of pork.
After eight days, a relative came to pick the girl up. A 10-year-old boy came
along. "They killed my mother," Laila told him. "Don't cry," the boy told
her. "They killed my father and pulled out his teeth."
Soldiers looted Aldi's houses for ten days after the massacre, residents
said. "They told each other to be careful not to scratch the furniture," said
Waha Zakryeva, a resident.
When they parked an army truck in front of the Musaevs' house, Yusup Musaev
told neighbors: "I could not utter a word." Four members of the Musaev family
were killed on Feb. 5. Asked what the soldiers took, Yusup told a neighbor:
"Everything."
While the soldiers stole, some residents prepared a videotape. On it, Maliko
Ganaeva, an elderly woman, describes how her husband and two sons were shot
as they returned home from fixing her nephew's roof. A neighbor who tried to
help her drag off her son's body was shot, too, she said. "Are there people
left in the world?" she asked, before dissolving into wails of grief. "Please
help."
*******
Web page for CDI Russia Weekly:
http://www.cdi.org/russia
Return
to CDI's Home Page I Return
to CDI's Library |