June 9, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4356 • 4357• 4358 • 4359

Johnson's Russia List
#4358
9 June 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
1. Itar-Tass: Russia, US Creating Group vs Terrorism from Afghanistan. 
2. Reuters: Russia says blasting boosters is easier. 
3. Itar-Tass: PM Outlines Steps Planned by Govt in Economic Sector. 
4. Jamestown Foundation Monitor: PUTIN'S TRUST RATING AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH: FOOL ME ONCE?
5. Moscow Times: Robert Coalson, MEDIA WATCH: Center Targets Local Media.
6. DOC's Kalicki on U.S. Commercial Relations with Russia, NIS.
7. Reuters: Russian real estate market recovering from crisis.
8. Los Angeles Times: Mayerbek Nunayev and Maura Reynolds,
Chechens Have Little Heart for Rebuilding. Caucasus: Few residents 
believe Russia's pledge to restore the capital. 'We do not expect 
anything good from this life anymore,' one says. 
9. Talbott at U.S.-Baltic Partnership Commission Press Conference.
10. Itar-Tass: US, Russia to Ban Use of Nuclear Waste for Arms Plutonium. 
11. Stratfor.com: Unintended Consequences: The Moscow Plutonium Deal.
12. BBC MONITORING: NTV, RUSSIAN CENTRE FACTION LEADER CALLS FOR PROGRESS IN ELECTION PACT WITH LIBERALS. (Nemtsov)
13. Izvestia: OUR RESPONSE TO THE USA WILL BE ADEQUATE. Russia is 
capable of keeping its anti-missile defence on its own. This is 
what one of the most reputable designers of the defence sector, 
director general of the Russian Agency for Control Systems (RASU) 
Vladimir Simonov asserts.] 


******


#1
Russia, US Creating Group vs Terrorism from Afghanistan. 


MOSCOW, June 9 (Itar-Tass) -- The Russian and U.S. presidents agreed to set 
up a bilateral working group to work out measures to counter the terrorist 
threat from the Afghanistan territory. 


"Formation of sort of a terrorist international is now underway with the 
centre in Afghanistan, in the territory under the control of the Taliban 
movement," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters on Friday. 


According to the minister, the working group is to draft specific proposals 
on measures of political, economic and other counteractions to the terrorist 
threat. 


Ivanov said that the situation in the North Caucasus was discussed "in the 
context of struggle against international terrorism". 


"Russia is waging there struggle against forces of extremism, defending both 
its own interests and the interests of the entire civilised world," he 
emphasised. 


******


#2
ANALYSIS-Russia says blasting boosters is easier
By Douglas Hamilton

BRUSSELS, June 9 (Reuters) - Instead of ``hitting a bullet with a bullet,'' 
why not shoot the rifle out of the gunman's hand? 


This seems to be the Russian alternative proposal for dealing with potential 
ballistic missile threats from what the Americans call ``rogue states.'' 


The United States, however, says it won't fly. 


Russian Defence Minister Marshall Igor Sergeyev offered his U.S. counterpart 
William Cohen and NATO defence ministers few hard facts about Moscow's ideas 
on Friday. 


Cohen said he appeared to be proposing interceptors that would hit and 
destroy ``rogue'' missiles immediately after launch, in their so-called 
``boost phase.'' 


That would not offer the kind of reliable, long-range protection America is 
seeking, he said. 


The U.S. is testing a system that would zero in on hostile warheads in space, 
destroying them before they can re-enter earth's atmosphere and explode in or 
over America. 


It wants to start work next spring on a radar base in the Aleutian Islands to 
counter a potential threat from North Korea or others which it believes could 
be real by 2005. 


That would require Russia's agreement to amend the key Anti-Ballistic Missile 
(ABM) treaty of 1972, which effectively bars strategic defence systems. 


The booster target is bigger and slower and it would not have the ability to 
scatter decoys, which out in space can be very difficult for target-radar 
systems to detect. 


According to the Russians, such a short-range system would not require Moscow 
and Washington to rewrite the ABM treaty, a revision it so far opposes. 


But U.S. officials disagree with that assessment, and say the Russian 
alternative -- if that's all it is -- falls short. 


STAND CLOSE, SHOOT FAST 


U.S. Under-Secretary of Defence Walter Slocombe told reporters at a NATO 
conference this week that, out in space, a missile's trajectory is easier to 
track. 


In the short-lived boost phase, it is much more unpredictable, he said. 


Hitting a missile right after launch also requires very fast tracking and 
even speedier interceptors, Slocombe added. 


Defenders would have no more than five minutes to kill the attack vehicle, 
increasing the risk of missing or firing in error against a harmless 
commercial launch. 


They would also need sophisticated systems that could discriminate between 
the business end of the missile and its hot but non-threatening exhaust 
plume. 


But most of all, Slocombe said, such interceptors would have to be located 
not more than a few hundred kilometers (miles) from the rogue missile's 
launch site, and preferably down range of it. 


That would create the obvious problem of locating such systems in third 
countries which might not agree, or might not permit the desired degree of 
U.S. control. 


The Russians say there is no rogue missile threat today, and that ``if such a 
threat emerges'' then dealing with it should be an international problem in 
any case. 


Slocombe said it would take perhaps years to develop the kind of system 
Moscow seemed to be suggesting and called it a ``difficult challenge.'' 


But Russia could point to the United States' own development of short-range 
anti-missile systems, and the chequered results so far of its test efforts to 
knock warheads out of space. 


The next test of the National Missile Defence interceptor system is scheduled 
for early next month. 


*******


#3
PM Outlines Steps Planned by Govt in Economic Sector. 


MOSCOW, June 9 (Itar-Tass) - Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov declared 
on Friday that "the government is determined to press ahead the tax reform". 
Addressing members of the Russian Union of industrialists and entrepreneurs, 
Kasyanov underlined that the government, above all, intends to ease the 
burden of taxation which impedes growth of production and gross domestic 
product. "Lowering taxation meets the aspirations of the population", 
Kasyanov said. The prime minister expressed the opinion that the government 
would be able to cancel all retail sale taxes since they "strangle 
enterprises". 


In a separate statement, Kasyanov declared that he would join the process of 
settlement of problems of military-technical cooperation between Russia and 
other countries. 


Asked to comment on criticism of the Russian "Rosvooruzhenie" company 
expressed at a meeting with members of the Russian Union of Industrialists 
and Entrepreneurs, Kasyanov said that "the situation should be studied in 
detail." "We shall study concrete cases connected with delays or even loss of 
possible export markets by the "Rosvooruzhenie" company and then take 
measures,"Kasyanov said. 


Commenting on the situation in the monetary sector, Kasyanov declared that 
the government intends to keep the rouble from artificial strengthening so as 
to enable the industry to exist in the present favorable regime. " In the 
event of continuing the tendency of rouble strengthening, industrial and 
exports growth will be out of the question," Kasyanov said. 


The existing banking system does not promote dynamic industrial growth and 
therefore, the government is prepared to share risks with the banking sector 
in order to give credits to industry,Kasyanov said, 


He underlined that the situation in the country might considerably improve if 
the monetary funds available in the banking system begin to work and be 
invested in industry. 


The prime minister underlined that the monetary-credit policy and the problem 
concerning retail sale funds and servicing the real sector by banks is a " 
pressing problem". Kasyanov said that he intends to attend to this problem at 
a meeting with heads of the Russian banking system in fortnight. 


******


#4
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
June 9, 2000


PUTIN'S TRUST RATING AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH: FOOL ME ONCE? A poll just 
released by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) 
has found that President Vladimir Putin's trust rating is at an all-time 
high, with 71 percent of those polled saying that they trust the recently 
inaugurated Russian head of state. On the other hand, while 28 percent of 
the respondents said they viewed Putin "sympathetically" and 35 percent 
said they viewed him "neutrally" (meaning they could find nothing bad to 
say about him), 18 percent said they had a "guarded" view of him or were 
adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude, up from 12 percent and 14 percent in 
March and April, respectively. In addition, 52 percent of the respondents 
said that they were disturbed to one degree or another about rumors 
concerning Putin's alleged ties to the "Family," as the group of 
Yeltsin-era Kremlin insiders is called, 55 percent said that they found his 
economic and political programs "vague, while 77 percent said they were in 
some measure disturbed by the fact that he had not yet resolved the Chechen 
problem. Only 36 percent said they were worried that Putin would impose a 
"strict dictatorship," while just 18 percent said they were disturbed that 
he had spent most of his life working for the KGB.


The numbers concerning Chechnya were particularly interesting, given that 
56 percent of the respondents said the military campaign in the breakaway 
republics should continue, down from 70 percent in February in March. The 
number of respondents calling for peace talks rose from 21-23 percent in 
February and March, respectively, to 35 percent in the latest poll. As in 
previous months, 5 percent of those polled this time said that the 
government should negotiate with Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov, while 
the number calling for negotiations with "other, more authoritative figures 
from the Chechen side" grew from 13 percent in previous months to 20 
percent. As in the earlier polls, 30 percent said they were against any 
negotiations and supported directly military rule in Chechnya (Russian 
agencies, June 8).


******


#5
Moscow Times
June 9, 2000 
MEDIA WATCH: Center Targets Local Media 
By Robert Coalson 


A couple of weeks ago, Deputy Press Minister Andrei Romanchenko made 
headlines when he told a conference in Moscow that the law on the mass media 
should be amended to allow the government to withdraw the license of any 
foreign broadcaster that, in the opinion of the government, adopts an 
editorial position that is hostile to the interests of the state. 


What caught my eye about this incident was the reaction of former Press 
Minister Mikhail Fedotov. "[W]hen I was press minister, the ministry could 
not make such pronouncements," Fedotov said, "þ because such statements were 
anti-constitutional." 


Lately, it seems that many ideas that just a short time ago were literally 
unspeakable are now floating out of the government, apparently in an effort 
to see just how much "dictatorship of law" the country will swallow. Last 
week, to take another example of which way the wind is blowing, the Press 
Ministry's press secretary, Yury Akinshin, told Itogi magazine, "The law on 
mass media was passed 10 years ago. It is one of the most liberal laws in the 
world and, in a number of aspects, certain provisions of the law need to be 
amended." Does Akinshin mean that it is time to make this "liberal" law even 
more permissive? 


In this context, an article that appeared in the May 31 issue of Boris 
Berezovsky's Nezavisimaya Gazeta is particularly frightening. Under the 
headline "We Must Deprive Governors of Power Over Minds," Igor Lisinenko, a 
Duma deputy and the deputy chair of the chamber's Property Committee, lays 
out a terrifying strategy by which the Kremlin can "use [freedom of speech] 
to strengthen its influence" in the regions. 


Lisinenko notes correctly that local governors have nearly monopolistic 
control over local media and that this control enables them to maintain 
political power and, in many cases, to pursue policies independently of the 
Kremlin's wishes. Many regional leaders shamelessly use their media to shift 
blame for all misfortunes from local leadership to the center. In this way, 
state control of the media stimulates the centrifugal forces pulling the 
regions away from Moscow. 


However, Lisinenko's solution to this problem is for the Kremlin to take 
control of the situation directly, and he even lays out several ways of 
accomplishing this goal. None of his suggestions have anything in common with 
democracy or market reform, so far as I can tell. 


One solution, Lisinenko suggests, is to identify "opposition" media in key 
regions that are already in conflict with local authorities. Ominously, 
Lisinenko merely says that "the Center can support them in the widest 
possible range of ways." It doesn't take much imagination to interpret this 
as anything from direct financial support to infusions of kompromat supplied 
by the security services. Clearly, though, the purpose of such "support" is 
to ensure loyalty to the Kremlin, not the independence of the local media. 


However, Lisinenko notes that this strategy is inefficient and 
time-consuming. The more direct approach would be to vastly increase the 
power of central media while, at the same time, increasing Kremlin control 
over that media. Lisinenko claims that "the mass media presently controlled 
by the Center are far from sufficient for the purpose of dominating the 
regional information market." He therefore proposes that the Kremlin enlist 
the support of the nonstate central mass media; that is, although Lisinenko 
doesn't say so directly, the Kremlin should help the oligarchs push their 
media into the regions in a joint campaign against local politicians. 


He calls for the "establishment of control by central mass media over the 
regions" and for giving Moscow media "a green corridor for expansion into the 
regions by, possibly, establishing a credit system for such media projects, 
which can be done without even using budgetary funding." The way I read this, 
Lisinenko is saying that, in exchange for media monopolies in the regions, 
the oligarchs will be willing to both support the Kremlin and foot the bill 
(most likely through "credits" arranged by oligarch-controlled banks). 


All of this, Lisinenko urges, can be done under the guise of a Moscow-driven 
"campaign to defend freedom of speech." Given a little time and the nod from 
President Vladimir Putin, Berezovsky is prepared to do for the regional press 
what he has done for ORT. And all in the name of freedom of speech. 


Robert Coalson is a program director for the National Press Institute. The 
views expressed here are not necessarily those of NPI. 


******


#6
Excerpt
US State Department
08 June 2000 
Text: DOC's Kalicki on U.S. Commercial Relations with Russia, NIS 


Chicago - "Russia and the NIS are neither the virtual basket cases the
press often portrays, nor are they as yet fulfilling their potential
as democratic, free market countries," said Commerce Department
Counselor Jan Kalicki to the Chicago Council On Foreign Relations in
Chicago June 8.


"Rather, they are in the middle of a long range, revolutionary process
of building new governments, economies, and societies -- we hope on
democratic and free market foundations."


Kalicki, who also serves as U.S. ombudsman for energy and commercial
cooperation with the New Independent States (NIS), reviewed the
development of the U.S. commercial relationship with Russia and the
NIS during the decade since independence, including progress made
during President Clinton's recent trip to Russia and the Ukraine.


Russia's successful political and economic transition is "a key
foreign policy priority for the Administration," Kalicki said.
"Internal stability and prosperity are essential components of the
genuine partnership we aspire to build with Russia.... Our support for
democracy and market reforms is based on Russia's promise as a free
society, its still unrealized economic potential, and the belief that
bilateral commerce can become the bedrock of a fuller partnership
between our countries."


The same can be said for the other new independent states,
particularly Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, Kalicki
added.


The picture painted by the press leaves out a "commercial dynamism and
activity in Russia, albeit primarily in Moscow and just a few regional
centers, that is striking," he said.


Assessing the joint commissions that allow U.S. officials to engage at
all levels with their Russian and NIS counterparts, Kalicki cited
several "strategic results" over the years, including the trilateral
agreement on denuclearization of Ukraine, removal of nuclear weapons
from Kazakhstan and Belarus, adoption of export controls against
weapons of mass destruction, acceptance of NATO enlargement, joint
peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo, and "ironing out at the eleventh
hour the very sensitive Russian steel trade agreement" in 1999.


But Kalicki also said, "we have not achieved as much as we had hoped
for initially. Positive action has often lagged in the NIS.... For our
part, we might have more closely coordinated our efforts with the
international community in support of shared goals, put an even
greater emphasis on grass roots initiatives, and better managed
expectations, which were too high at the outset."


In the Caspian region, the "most pressing" issue is energy development
and transportation, he said. Concerning Russia, he posed a series of
questions regarding needed reforms which, if answered positively, will
lead to renewed interest on the part of investors.


The United States will continue to emphasize to federal, regional and
local governments in Russia and the NIS the importance of "commercial
climate improvements, if they are to successfully compete in the
global economy."


But the most powerful and effective force for positive, long-term
change in the NIS is its young people, some of whom have studied in
the United States and are now moving into positions in government,
society and business in their countries, Kalicki said.


******


#7
Russian real estate market recovering from crisis
By Brian Killen

MOSCOW, June 9 (Reuters) - Russia's recent economic revival and optimism 
about political stability have fuelled bullish sentiment in the property 
market, but more needs to be done to protect investments, a leading real 
estate firm said. 


Less than two years after a deep financial crisis hit the country like a 
demolition crane, leading real estate company Colliers HIB said there were 
signs of a new boom as Russians turned to ``bricks and mortar'' investments. 


``We don't think the market has fully recovered from the crisis of 1998 but 
we do think it is beginning to recover. We are seeing signs of investment,'' 
Chris King, Colliers HIB business development director, told Reuters late on 
Thursday. 


``It is Russian companies, purchasing Russian buildings and directly 
investing,'' he said, adding that lower post-crisis rents had prompted a 
flight to quality, with many companies seeking to upgrade their premises. 


King said both supply and demand for properties were expected to increase 
this year and next, with rental rates remaining stable for the near future. 


He attributed increased demand partly to perceptions of political stability 
after President Vladimir Putin's election in March, hopes for market reforms 
and continued economic growth. 


But he said investors were still waiting for progress in land reform and in 
investment protection. ``They want to know that when they make a purchase the 
land will not be pulled out from underneath them five or 10 years down the 
line.'' 


The Russian government's economic programme, due to be unveiled later this 
month, is expected to address the issues of land reform and investors' 
rights. 


Russia's State Duma, the lower house of parliament, has previously scuttled 
efforts to pass a new Land Code, which would lift restrictions on buying and 
selling of land. 


But an election last December diluted the influence of left-wing factions in 
the Duma opposed to the land-trading law. 


Former Finance Minister Boris Fyodorov said he was now cautiously optimistic 
about the political and economic situation. ``At least we know who the 
president of the country is,'' he said at a presentation organised by 
Colliers HIB. 


``Even if he doesn't have a programme, it is already a news story,'' he said, 
adding he welcomed Putin's initiative to tighten control over Russia's 89 
regions and new tax measures being considered by parliament. 


``It is clear that on quite a few other issues we can expect progress, for 
instance on land reform,'' he said. 


******


#8
Los Angeles Times
June 9, 2000
[for personal use only]
Chechens Have Little Heart for Rebuilding 
Caucasus: Few residents believe Russia's pledge to restore the capital. 'We 
do not expect anything good from this life anymore,' one says. 
By MAYERBEK NUNAYEV, MAURA REYNOLDS, Special to The Times


GROZNY, Russia--It's a timid sound, easily drowned out by the crash of 
demolition in Grozny, the ruined capital of rebel Chechnya. But if you listen 
carefully along the city's side streets, you can hear it: the tentative 
tap-tap-tap of a hammer. 
It's a sound that brings hope to the Russian government. Officials in 
Moscow promise day after day that despite spending months bombing Grozny to 
the ground, now that they have captured it they are committed to building it 
up again. 
Russians and Chechens alike have a hard time believing that. They know 
it will cost enormous sums, and most Russians have little love for the city. 
Still, if it remains in its ravaged state, it will put a lie to the 
government's propaganda that the 9-month-old offensive was launched against 
the republic to drive out "terrorists" and restore "normal life" to the rebel 
region. 
Most residents have long ago ceased to care whether the republic becomes 
independent or remains part of Russia. What they want most of all is the same 
thing as the Russians: the return of normal life. 
It's clear that can't happen without the residents' participation. But 
after two wars and untold death and destruction, it remains to be seen 
whether they have the heart and the stomach to rebuild. 
Khazan Iesaitova, a 52-year-old doctor, says no. She and her husband 
spent all they had on restoring their home after the first war with Russia, 
which ended in an uneasy truce in 1996. For now, they are content to camp out 
in the one part of their house that is still intact: the outdoor kitchen. 
"We have lost heart already and do not expect anything good from this 
life anymore," Iesaitova says. 
"As for Grozny," she continues, her voice crackling with irony, "I would 
recommend the Russian authorities leave it as it is and turn it into some 
sort of an open-air museum. Grozny's ruins can become a visual aid for 
governments of other countries who want to learn how to fight terrorism with 
'surgical' precision." 
The extent of the destruction, especially of the landmark buildings in 
the center of town, has demoralized many. Maria F. Kozlova, 74, describes her 
hometown as "a cemetery of destroyed construction." 
"The previous war was just child's play in comparison to this one," she 
says bitterly. "Grozny can't even be called a city anymore." 
It's only outside the center, in neighborhoods once composed of 
single-family cottages, that a few of the brave--some would say 
foolhardy--have taken up hammers. 


Putting a Roof Up Eases the Mind 
One of them is 42-year-old Abu Nutayev. He and three friends have formed 
a kind of Chechen barn-raising gang, and each day they work on the roof of 
one of their houses. The walls, however, are beyond repair for the 
foreseeable future. 
"Psychologically, life seems easier if you know that you and your family 
have a roof overhead in a city where you have lived all your life," Nutayev 
says. "But we do not know what we will do next." 
The men have left their families in refugee camps in nearby Ingushetia. 
It is still too dangerous in Grozny, where rebel snipers and Russian troops 
shoot at each other every night after dark. The firefights are a steady 
reminder that the war is far from over. And many remember the experience of 
the last war, in which Chechen rebels launched a surprise attack and seized 
the city in August 1996, a year and a half after Russia had reoccupied it. 
Grozny was founded in the early 19th century as a garrison town for 
Russian soldiers fighting the Chechens, who would storm out of their mountain 
villages to raid flatland farmers. Russians hoped the town's 
name--"terrible"--would help keep the raiders at bay. 
Grozny remained little more than an outpost until oil was discovered in 
the late 19th century, after which the Russians came in large numbers, 
building wells, refineries and an oil institute, and the population swelled, 
eventually topping 400,000--the size of Las Vegas or Sacramento. 
Before Chechnya declared independence in 1991, Grozny was still largely 
a Russian city; only about 20% of its residents were Chechen. In fact, 
Chechens still have mixed feelings about the city--some still see it as 
Russian, while others cherish it as the republic's capital. 
"You can't really consider Grozny a symbol of Chechnya," says Alexander 
Iskandarian, director of the Caucasus Studies Center in Moscow. "As a symbol, 
the mountains are much more important. But it was the only city of any size, 
a major city with a university, oil institute, theaters. In that sense, it 
can't help but be important to Chechens." 
Russians are also divided over the future of Grozny, although they are 
far less open about it. They worry about the costs of reconstruction and that 
money and materials sent to Chechnya will be stolen. After the last war, the 
former mayor of Grozny was jailed on corruption charges for stealing 
reconstruction funds, and Russian officials have been known to take their cut 
as well. 
Many think that rebuilding Grozny will simply be too much trouble. The 
Kremlin's civilian administrator for Chechnya is ruling the republic from its 
second-largest town, Gudermes, and rumors persist that the Russians will 
simply move the capital there. 
Such rumors send Albert Marshev into a frenzy. He's chairman of the 
government committee on rebuilding Grozny, and he insists that the city will 
be restored to its former provincial grandeur, with tree-lined boulevards and 
rows of high-rise apartment buildings. He predicts that 120,000 people will 
return to their homes by the end of the year. 
Marshev is a high-ranking official at Gosstroi, the state construction 
agency. He approaches the problem like the Soviet bureaucrat he was trained 
to be: First they will do a painstaking survey to determine which buildings 
are salvageable, then they will develop a "general plan." 
He bristles when asked whether rebuilding Grozny is even possible. 
"I was in Stalingrad in 1950 [after World War II]. I saw Minsk, Kiev, 
Novgorod, Brest. Everything was in ruins," he says. "But it was all fully 
rebuilt in six years. And what have we here? Just one little town of 200,000 
people. What are you talking about?" 
But he acknowledges that ultimately, the Chechens hold the key to the 
city's future. 


Few Would Want to Live in High-Rises 
About 65% of the housing in the city before the war was private, 
single-family homes, and only 35% was government-built apartment blocks. 
Chechens say they may be willing to rebuild their own homes, but few will 
want to live in government-built high-rises, which are prime targets during 
warfare and make the tenants too dependent on city services during peacetime. 
And no one expects former Russian residents, most of whom were apartment 
dwellers, to come rushing back any time soon. 
The government issues bulletins nearly every day noting incremental 
progress: a bakery has reopened, a maternity clinic is seeing patients, the 
rail station is nearly completed. 
All the same, to people on the ground, it seems as though Russian 
authorities are still working mostly to destroy what's left of Grozny, 
blowing up the shells of buildings too fragile to stand. 
"After the previous war, the authorities launched all sorts of 
activities in town, but this time they are passive," says Musa Baskhanov, one 
of the roof-fixers. "You watch them and get a weird impression--maybe no one 
is planning to rebuild the city after all. 
"In the meantime, they just continue to blow the high-rises up," he 
says. "Destruction is something these people have been doing for so long, and 
it takes time before they learn to do something else." 
Special correspondent Nunayev reported from Grozny and Times staff 
writer Reynolds from Moscow. 


*****


#9
Excerpt
US State Department
07 June 2000 
Trans.: Talbott at U.S.-Baltic Partnership Commission Press Conference 
(June 7 in Tallinn: discusses NATO enlargement, Russia) 


Tallinn, Estonia - Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott
participated in a press conference after a meeting of the U.S.-Baltic
Partnership Commission in Tallinn, Estonia, June 7....


Q: Michael Tarm, AP: The Latvian President recently said that Russia
made her nervous. She said that "Russia is extremely unpredictable,
the country is not very stable and its democratic basis is
questionable." Do you agree with this?


TALBOTT: First of all, I had the pleasure and honor working from time
to time with President Vike-Freiberga and I have great respect for
her. And I don't think she would want me -- nor would anybody else --
want me to react to your characterization of her views on such an
important subject. She alone should speak for herself and characterize
events in this region, including events and trends in the Russian
Federation.


What I can do is to tell you the way we see the situation. And I can
only echo what President Clinton said in several public settings over
the last couple of days -- he said it when he was in Aachen, he said
it in his press conference side by side with President Putin, and he
said it in his speech to the Duma: and that is that one of the
extraordinary things that has happened over the last fifteen years is
the emergence of a new Russia, a Russia that has put behind it its
Soviet, communist past. That is a good development; it's an immensely
positive and promising thing. It's not without its difficulties, it's
not without its complications and it's not without its challenges.
That poses many challenges, obviously, to the people of Russia. It
poses challenges for the reformers in Russia. It poses challenges for
the leaders of Russia. It poses challenges for all the rest of us.
What President Clinton has been committed to doing throughout his
presidency, and what he will work on right up until his last day in
office, is to make sure that the international institutions of which
Russia is a part and with which Russia has a cooperative relationship
-- and those are two different categories, obviously -- use their own
influence to create both an international atmosphere and incentives
for what happens inside Russia, so that Russia continues to move in
the direction that it has been moving overall for the last fifteen
years.


He made a point when he met with President Putin -- and these were
very solid, substantive, useful discussions -- to stress that this is
not the first time or the last time that he will meet with President
Putin. He met with him a couple of times when Putin was Prime Minister
and he will be meeting with him at least three more times this year.
Interestingly, all three of those meetings will be in multilateral
settings: Okinawa -- the G8; UNGA -- UN General Assembly of the
millennium summit in the fall; APEC Forum. The point that I make is
that Russia is participating with international institutions, it is
participating inside international institutions, and the United States
is determined to use its own interaction with Russia, both bilaterally
and in those contexts, to support those forces and those trends that
would be good for the people of Russia and will also be good for
Russia's neighbors, notably including the three represented here at
this table.


******


#10
US, Russia to Ban Use of Nuclear Waste for Arms Plutonium. 


WASHINGTON, June 9 (Itar-Tass) - The United States hopes to draft a joint 
statement with Russia for the G-8 July summit in Okinawa on imposing a 
moratorium on the use of waste fuel of nuclear power plants for the 
production of arms-grade plutonium. 


Deputy administrator for defense nuclear non-proliferation Rose Gottemoeller 
told reporters on Thursday that U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and 
Russian Nuclear Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov instructed experts to finalise 
the agreement by the above deadline. 


According to Gottemoeller, the sides have already passed three-quarters of 
the road. It is now time to resolve a very complicated question on a transfer 
of nuclear technologies to third countries, provoking anxiety in connection 
with the nonproliferation problem. This will need tense work in the next 
month, she emphasised. 


The U.S. administration plans to render aid to Russia in 2001 in realising 
this understanding to a sum of 100 million dollars. 


The sum will be used for improving safety of the South Ural Mayak nuclear 
complex, construction of a new fuel waste storage and for raising reliability 
of nuclear reactors. 


*******


#11
Stratfor.com
Global Intelligence Update
9 June 2000
Unintended Consequences: The Moscow Plutonium Deal


Summary


The Moscow summit failed to make any big breakthroughs on arms
control but purported to make a small breakthrough when the Russian
and American presidents agreed to destroy 34 metric tons of
plutonium. On the face of it, the U.S.-Russian agreement would seem
to help the cause of disarmament. But over the long term, it will
achieve just the opposite.


Analysis


At their summit in Moscow this week, U.S. President Bill Clinton
and Russian President Vladimir Putin initialed a landmark deal: The
United States and Russia pledged to destroy 34 metric tons of
weapons-grade plutonium, largely by using it for fuel in civilian
nuclear reactors. The agreement suggests a showcase of cooperation
between the two nations, eliminating fuel that could be used in
weapons of mass destruction.


But over the long term, this agreement may, in fact, worsen the
problem of nuclear proliferation. The Clinton-Putin agreement will
create a large-scale global civilian demand for - and supply of -
plutonium, a prime component in the construction of nuclear
weapons.


According to the text of the agreement, Russia will turn its share
of the plutonium into a fuel called MOX, for use in nuclear
reactors both in Russia and abroad. The United States is adopting a
similar plan for 25.5 metric tons of its plutonium; the remainder
will be sealed in glass and buried.


This swords-into-plowshares plan is designed to produce energy: A
single gram of plutonium can produce as much electricity as a
metric ton of oil. And Plutonium, unlike oil and other fossil
fuels, produces no greenhouse gases. Once the MOX is used up, the
remaining plutonium residue is no longer usable for nuclear
weapons. To fund the deal, the United States is sinking $200
million into Russia's civilian nuclear industry and will ask the G7
in July to cough up the remaining $1.55 billion. The United States
will pay for its portion, $4 billion, by itself.


However, plutonium is more dangerous than uranium; it produces more
lethal radiation for a much longer period. It is also much easier
to adapt for use in nuclear weapons. And, of course, much of the
MOX will be used in converted Russian reactors, some of which are
more than 20 years old. A Chernobyl-like accident involving
plutonium would be far more serious than the original one, which
involved uranium.


The plan begins with a total of 10 American and Russian reactors.
But it would take these reactors 20 years to use all 1,000 metric
tons of VOX the agreement would produce. If the agreement is
extended to the rest of the American and Russian plutonium
stockpile, this could exceed 60 years. This is why the agreement
would bring other countries on board. Belgium, Canada, France,
Germany, Japan, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have all expressed
an interest.


Developing such a large market for MOX would serve other purposes
as well. The average uranium-fueled nuclear reactor produces 200 to
250 kilograms of waste plutonium per year. At the end of 1998 there
were 345 reactors in total; that means the nuclear industry creates
roughly 77 metric tons of plutonium waste annually.


This waste plutonium cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, and
disposing of it incurs much expense. This is partly why nuclear
power has fallen out of favor in most countries. By converting
plutonium to MOX, the American-Russia agreement would help turn
this waste into fuel, thus boosting an ailing American uranium
nuclear industry.


But developing a global civilian energy infrastructure with a long-
term need for plutonium-based fuel has a strategic cost. In order
to transform waste plutonium into MOX, it must first be purified.
This purified plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons.


To counter this concern, the United States insists it will
decommission all parts of its new plutonium industry once the
weapons-grade plutonium is destroyed, thus ending the proliferation
threat. But Russia has made it clear it intends to continue using
plutonium for fuel. So have other countries. Japan plans to have
one-third of its 53 reactors using MOX by 2010. There are already
30 reactors in Europe licensed to use the plutonium-based fuel. All
are simply waiting for a steady supply. The Clinton-Putin deal will
build the processing centers - several in Russia - necessary to
ensure that supply.


Almost all of the MOX reactors would be outside the United States
and thus beyond American control.


Suddenly, the disarmament deal looks much less appealing. On
average, every reactor that runs on MOX fuel will require four to
six metric tons of MOX - which contains 250 to 300 kilograms of
weapons-grade plutonium - a year. According to the Department of
Energy this is enough raw plutonium to make about 55 small nuclear
weapons. And with 77 metric tons of new civilian plutonium created
every year, the chances of losing a few kilograms here and there
are immense.


The Clinton-Putin deal will firmly establish a uranium reactor to
plutonium reactor link, setting the stage for a continual, global
proliferation hazard. The only other option is to bury the weapons
material as is, leaving it vulnerable to theft - an option the
United States shuns. But it is far easier to steal plutonium above
ground from one of potentially dozens of civilian facilities than
from a guarded underground site. By agreeing to the use of MOX as
the predominant method for disposing of plutonium, Clinton and
Putin have created a global - and permanent - proliferation
nightmare.


******


#12
BBC MONITORING
RUSSIAN CENTRE FACTION LEADER CALLS FOR PROGRESS IN ELECTION PACT WITH
LIBERALS
Source: NTV International, Moscow in Russian 1540 gmt 8 Jun 00 


The head of the Union of Right Forces in the State Duma said he wanted to
see a clear election pact signed with the Yabloko movement. Interviewed on
Russian NTV International television's "Hero of the day" programme on 8th
June, Boris Nemtsov said a pact could be signed in 10 days. He said Yabloko
was already on record in favour of the alliance. Nemtsov said the coalition
would effectively create a three-party system in Russia and that other
individuals and parties would be free to join it. the following are
excerpts from the TV report: 


[Presenter] Good evening. This is the "Hero of the day" programme... I have
invited State Duma deputy and one of the leaders of the Union of Right
Forces, Boris Nemtsov, to the studio today... 


Boris Yefimovich, let us move to some of the more positive developments
involving yourself today, meaning your desire to set up a united bloc with
Yabloko. How pleased Yabloko is about this proposal of yours I cannot say - 


[Nemtsov, interrupts] The Yabloko leader has talked about this - 


[Q, continues with her point] The essence of what is going on is that you
have made a statement saying you and Yabloko should unite, without waiting
for the next election but with those elections in view. 


[A] Our position is as follows: if we want democracy to be defended in
Russia, if we want there still to be elections, if we want there to be a
free press, if we want the taxes to go down and if we want to have land in
private ownership then we need to have a powerful democratic faction in the
State Duma, a faction that is not smaller than either the Communist or the
Unity factions. 


In that event we will really be able to put into practice those policies
for which we campaigned in the election, and to implement them properly,
not like now, when every detail has to be coordinated. 


[Q, interrupts] Even if you manage to unite now you still will not have as
many as the others have. 


[A] Of course. Our proposal and our position is that we should contest the
next State Duma election and the regional, governorship and mayoral local
elections together, that we should draw up a single election list, a single
election bloc and go into it together. 


My view is that this objective should be firmly fixed in an agreement. The
proposals made by our faction and the leaders of the Union of Right Forces
- all the leaders, without exception, including [Anatoliy] Chubays and
[Yegor] Gaydar, who, as you know, have their own views on [Yabloko leader
Grigoriy] Yavlinskiy - are that an agreement should be signed on our
getting together, so that the policies on which we campaign can
subsequently be implemented via the State Duma. 


Furthermore, this is in line with the idea of finally having a three-party
system in the country. The officials would have their establishment party
[Unity]. 


[Q, interrupts] Aha, so that is where you are heading! 


[A, continues over interruption] We would have a powerful democratic
organization, which would have to be taken account of by everyone. And the
left would have the votes of people who are nostalgic for the USSR. 


[Q] This is basically in line with a proposal of the president's, to have a
system of three or four parties. 


[A]... If we want to implement the policies I have referred to then we need
to have a faction that is no smaller than the Communists. They have around
100. That is about the size of the faction we should have. To do this, we
have to forget our personal ambitions and reach agreement at this stage. It
is preferable if it were done now, some time before the elections and
before the election excitement starts. 


That is more or less the whole proposal. Incidentally, Yavlinskiy talked
about this before the presidential election [March 2000] and he talked
about it again after the presidential election. He has said on many
occasions that he is not claiming the leadership of the coalition. 


[Q] Incidentally, what part will he be asked to play in this coalition? 


[A] I think he will have a worthy part. 


[Q] What part? Head of the bloc? Co-chairman? What? 


[A] That will be the subject of negotiation. He might be co-chairman, for
instance. 


[Q] Have you ascertained what he personally thinks about this? 


[A] He actually said it was not of concern to him. 


[Q] What do you mean? 


[A] I do not know. You should ask him. 


[Q] I will ask him when I get a chance. 


[A] He is not interested in that part. He agrees that he will not be the
leader. That is it. 


[Q] But what about the bloc or the coalition itself: is he interested in
that? 


[A] Of course he is. 


[Q] So you do have his consent in theory? 


[A] He has reiterated his consent many times. I do not want any more talks
on that point. What is needed now is to move from his consent to a real
agreement, to sign an electoral pact stating that there will be a single
list in the election in 2003. That is just an example, to make a start.
There are also presidential elections, remember. 


[Q] So you might nominate a single leader. 


[A] I am not ruling it out. 


[Q] So, what happens now? When will you start teaming up with Yabloko? 


[A] My view is that within 10 days, quite an adequate amount of time, we
should be looking at the text of an agreement and signing it. 


[Q] I see. 


[A] As you know, we have already set up an association of our factions and
we coordinate our legislative work and we coordinate our work in the
regions. Remember St Petersburg [joint candidate in the governorship
election], where we carried out those primaries. The next step will be
clear to see and the objective will be clear to see. The main thing now is
to establish the direction we are moving in. We cannot keep on saying that
we will join up and then each of us does something different. That is bad.
We need to openly declare our global goals and try to move towards them. We
need the agreement for that. 


[Q] Is there room for further expansion? Or will it stop at the Union of
Right Forces plus Yabloko? 


[A] I think that it will be much broader, of course. It is simply that the
Union of Right Forces and Yabloko are represented in the State Duma. They
have their factions. I think that if the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko
agree on this all those who share our views could agree to come in. 


[Q] Who do you mean by these? 


[A] There is Yevgeniy Savostyanov, who, as you remember, dramatically
withdrew as a candidate live on Russian NTV in the middle of the
presidential election campaign. I think people like him could be with us,
as well as parties and movements who for some reason or another have not
joined Yabloko or the Union of Right Forces could be with us. It does not
stop there. It will be an open organization. The broader the people
represented the more support it will have... 


*******


#13
Izvestia
June 9, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
OUR RESPONSE TO THE USA WILL BE ADEQUATE
Russia is capable of keeping its anti-missile defence on 
its own. This is what one of the most reputable designers of 
the defence sector, director general of the Russian Agency for 
Control Systems (RASU) Vladimir Simonov asserts. He was 
interviewed by Izvestia correspondent Vladimir Yermolin. 

Question: Your agency has direct relation to the country's 
anti-missile shield. Is the merger of the US and Russian 
missile defence systems possible from the technical point of 
view? How far can our countries go along the way of cooperation 
in this field? 
Answer: From the technical point of view, the development 
of the US-Russia joint anti-missile defence is quite 
realisable. The first step towards it is the Memorandum on the 
establishment of a joint centre of data exchange signed by Bill 
Clinton and Vladimir Putin. Representatives of RASU - the 
Kometa research institute and the Vympel company (the developer 
of strategic containment systems) will take part in its work. 
Already within the shortest time possible, we shall be able to 
solve with the help of satellite communications and Internet 
channels the tasks of information exchange between our two ABM 
systems. 

Question: To what extent are we ready for the US 
withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty? 
Answer: We are quite ready for this. Our response will be 
adequate and even more gainful in economic terms. 

Question: Is this linked with the construction of new 
radar stations or the restoration of the Krasnoyarsk station? 
Answer: Today, as it seems to me, there is no possibility 
or need to spend large amounts of money on the construction of 
new stations, including the Krasnoyarsk radar station. There 
are cheaper and more effective ways of anti-missile defence.
This applies to principally different directions than in the 
USA, and to weapons based on new physical principles. 

Question: Will our electronic industry be able to cope 
with this task? We judge about the level of domestic 
electronics from the level of household appliances, which are 
mostly imported from other countries. To put it mildly, our 
televisions are not in great demand. 
Answer: This is because many Russian TV sets are assembled 
from components made in the countries which are far from being 
technologically advanced. The scientists of the Ryazan research 
institute have developed plasma screens which by their quality 
characteristics surpass their Western analogues. However, the 
Russian market can accept no more than 10,000 such TV sets 
because their price is no less than $5,000. That is why the 
technology has been sold to China which has found $100 million 
to organise the serial production of plasma panels for TV sets. 
Unfortunately, our technologies create jobs in other countries 
rather than in Russia. 

Question: Where are the guarantees in this case that our 
nuclear shield will get all the necessary? 
Answer: The guarantees are in the scientific and technical 
potential which we have been able to preserve. For example, we 
have been successfully developing a higher degree of 
microelectronics - nanoelectronics. This involves our own 
methods of creating processor systems, sensors, computer 
circuits, biochips and other items. Russia already has domestic 
computers operating at a speed of 200 billion operations per 
second. Until the end of the year the quick speed of the 
super-computer in the inter-departmental centre of the Russian 
Academy of Sciences will be tripled. 

Question: You touched upon the issue of cooperation in 
world electronics. But is it good for military products to 
depend on imports? What percentage of foreign electronics can 
be found in the Russian ABM system, for example? 
Answer: Today this percentage constitutes only several 
points. Moreover, they do not play a decisive role. But there 
are, of course, problems. We have not been able to develop for 
almost 15 years the components base of our electronic industry. 
This has led to a certain dependence on imports.
Today, unfortunately, we depend on the deliveries of 
general-use integrated circuits. We urgently need our own 
enterprises of this specialisation. 

Question: Does everything depend on finances? But already 
now almost one third of the budget is spent on defence and 
security. 
Answer: Speaking about electronics, purely military 
applications are insignificant and are limited by ultra-high 
frequency electronics. But even if we invest in military 
technologies, we thus invest in civil production. Precisely our 
developments constitute the basis of technological 
breakthroughs of the Russian economy. Moreover, no country in 
the world is capable of investing large sums of money in the 
components base of purely military designation. Let us take any 
Russian enterprise specialising in microelectronics or a 
similar enterprise abroad: to assimilate technologies to the 
level of 0.12-0.18 microns, no less than $2 billion is needed.
A civil interest, and a prevailing one, is needed in this 
respect. 

Question: Could you say a few words about the single 
automated system of control of the Russian Armed Forces? 
Briefly speaking, this is a single information, command 
and navigation complex, from a button on the nuclear suitcase 
to a soldier's interphone headset with an integrated 
communications system. In Chechnya, under the programme, we 
have fully equipped the 42nd motor rifle division and today it 
is unique by its radio-electronic outfit. Besides, the 
automated system of control of the Armed Forces is only a part 
of the programme of the single automated system of state 
control. In this sense, the country's division into seven 
federal districts fits into the technological programme of a 
single automated system of state governance. 

The Russian Agency for Control Systems (RASU) is a federal 
body of executive power in the field of the radio, electronic 
and communications industries. The RASU system comprises about 
50 per cent of all the country's defence producers, including 
277 state enterprises, research institutes and design bureaus, 
and also 502 joint stock companies, including those with state 
participation. In 1999 RASU enterprises supplied military 
products worth 10.7 billion roubles and civil products worth 
10.5 billion roubles. 

*******

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