July 20th, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4412 • 4413   • 4414

 Johnson's Russia List
#4413
19 July 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Interfax: PROMINENT RUSSIAN CULTURE FIGURES CALL ON AUTHORITIES 
TO RESTORE FEDERAL EPA.
2. RFE/RL: Andrew Tully, Does Russia Deserve A Full Seat At The 
G-7 Summit?
3. BBC MONITORING: NEW RUSSIAN LAW MEANS "EXTRAJUDICIAL ANARCHY" - 
REGIONAL LEADER.
4. Reuters: Russian Duma gives go-ahead for radical tax reform.
5. Interfax: IMF CALLS FOR ACCELERATION OF STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN RUSSIA.
6. Ray Smith: Russians and Risk-Taking.
7. Moscow Times EDITORIAL: Misguided 'Reforms' for Rails, Flats.
8. Matthew Schmidt: Guess who's monitoring JRL?
9. Mark Hertsgaard: A journalist's request for Russian environmental 
information.
10. John Deever: Psalms 75 & 76/4410.
11. Keston News Service: ARE FOREIGN MISSIONARIES BEING DRIVEN 
OUT OF RUSSIA? 
12. Toronto Globe&Mail: John Helmer, OTTAWA SAYS NYET TO RUSSIA 
ON DEBT.
13. Dale Herspring: Re: 4411-Rogov on Military Reform.
14. TIME EUROPE: Democracy or Dictatorship? TIME talks with Russian 
businessman Boris Berezovsky about Russian politics and policy under 
President Putin.
15. Reuters: Olympics-Moscow celebrates 1980 Olympics, launches 
2012 bid.]

*******

#1
PROMINENT RUSSIAN CULTURE FIGURES CALL ON AUTHORITIES TO RESTORE FEDERAL
EPA

MOSCOW. July 19 (Interfax) - A group of prominent Russian culture
figures issued a statement on Wednesday expressing their concern about
the absence of proper environmental control in the country.

"The reduction of the life expectancy in Russia by more than 30% is due
to environmental reasons" and "by the number of victims, it is
comparable to more than one Chechen war," the authors said.

"And at this time the Ministry of Education is trying to exclude ecology
from the secondary school program, the Ministry of Internal Affairs
forbids an environmental police in Moscow, the Federal Security Service
accuses environmental organizations of aiding and abetting espionage
without any viable grounds and the Federal Assembly is constantly trying
to weaken environmental legislation," they said.

The authors called the Russian president's recent decree on the
abolishment of the State Ecological Committee and the Russian Forestry
Committee "the authorities' tragic mistake." This "actually put an end
to any serious independent control of the state over the condition of
nature in the country," they added.

"One must not improve the investment climate in Russia by lifting
environmental restrictions and exit an economic crisis by aggravating an
environmental one," they said.

In this connection, they called on the Russian government "to join the
public movement and find forms of controlling the condition of nature."
Among those who signed the document are writer Alexander Kabakov and
film producers Igor Maslennikov, Georgy Daneliya and Vladimir Menshov,
among others.

*******

#2
Economy: Does Russia Deserve A Full Seat At The G-7 Summit?
By Andrew F. Tully

The leaders of the Group of Seven leading industrialized democracies will be 
meeting this weekend in Okinawa, Japan, and will be joined by Vladimir Putin. 
The Russian president says he expects his nation will be accepted as an equal 
partner in G-7. But as RFE/RL's Andrew F. Tully reports, not everyone agrees 
that Russia is qualified for full membership. 

Washington, 19 July 2000 (RFE/RL) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin is 
taking an aggressive tone as he heads to this weekend's summit in Okinawa, 
Japan of the Group of Seven richest industrial democracies -- known as the 
G-7 plus Russia. 

Last week, Putin said his country should be treated as an equal participant 
at the summit. And on his way to Japan, he made a show of strengthening 
relations with China and North Korea. 

But some American analysts say Putin's appearances in the two Asian communist 
states was nothing but a show. And they say he is in no position to demand 
equal status for Russia at the summit, which lasts from Friday through 
Sunday. 

Together, the official members of the G-7 -- Britain, Canada, France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.S. -- make up about 60% of the world's 
economy. Russia, which seeks to be a members of the group, makes up only 
six-tenths of one percent. 

Keith Bush is a specialist in Russia at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, a Washington think tank. He told RFE/RL that Russia 
has no place in the G-7 -- at least not yet. Bush cited the very definition 
of the group -- the world's leading industrialized democracies -- and said 
Russia does not fit that definition in any way. 

First, Bush said, Russia has had little success exploiting its natural 
resources, and in managing its own economy properly. 

"It's really an economic dwarf. And also, as you know, the democracy -- it's 
a thin root, it hasn't really taken root yet. It's going that way, it's made 
some progress. You certainly can't call it an established democracy." 

Bush added that many in Russia's government are hoping that the Paris Club -- 
the group of Western nations and Japan -- will forgive at least some of the 
billions of dollars that Russia has owed them in debts dating back to World 
War Two. 

"How can a country apply for membership in the G-8, or consider itself a full 
member of the G-8, when it cannot service its debt? It's also owed a great 
deal of money from developing countries, and it hasn't yet forgiven them 
their debts." 

Helmut Sonnenfeldt is a guest scholar on foreign policy studies at the 
Brookings Institution, another Washington think tank. He told RFE/RL that he 
expects Putin to be treated no differently than any of the other leaders 
meeting in Okinawa during the public, formal sessions. But ultimately, he 
said, Moscow cannot be expected to be treated as an equal because of its 
struggling economy. 

And Sonnenfeldt says he may make his fellow leaders uncomfortable during the 
private, less-formal periods of the meetings. 

"My guess is that on most of the important issues, there would still be some 
hesitation on the part of various leaders in being as candid as they once 
were with each other when the Russians weren't there."

On his way to Okinawa, Putin's visits to Beijing and Pyongyang were meant to 
demonstrate his interest in improving ties with China and North Korea -- two 
of the few remaining communist-ruled nations. 

In Beijing on Tuesday, Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin signed several 
documents. They included an agreement on energy cooperation and a document 
urging Washington not to deviate from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 
which bans a missile-defense system being considered by U.S. President Bill 
Clinton. 

At the signing ceremony, Putin made it clear that Russia and China plan to 
prevent the U.S. from becoming the single dominant world power. 

"First and foremost, I believe that Russia and China can make a substantial 
contribution on strengthening international security. Our common stance on 
keeping the current balance in the world is fundamental and is of the 
greatest importance for maintaining the situation which now exists in the 
international community." 

Statements like this have led some in Russia to worry that Putin would 
increase relations -- particularly economic relations -- with Asian countries 
at the expense of economic ties with the West. 

Bush dismisses such talk from Putin as without substance. 

"They talk vaguely of an axis of Russia-China and sometimes a 
Russia-China-India triangle. But it's not reciprocated by the Chinese or the 
Indians, especially by the Chinese, who regard their relationship with the 
United States as much more important economically than their relationship 
with Russia. And the same is true with Russian trade with the U.S. -- I think 
it's greater than that with China." 

Sonnenfeldt agreed: 

"If the Russians want to do things for their economy, they need the West and 
Japan. With the Chinese, they can increase trade, they can sell more weapons. 
With the Indians, they can do the same sort of thing. But the EU countries 
and the United States have what Russia needs most of all in the economic 
realm and the financial realm." 

Still, Sonnenfeldt said, Russia's presence at the G-7 meetings is inevitable, 
regardless of its status, for the foreseeable future. 

*******

#3
BBC MONITORING
NEW RUSSIAN LAW MEANS "EXTRAJUDICIAL ANARCHY" - REGIONAL LEADER
Source: Ekho Moskvy radio, Moscow, in Russian 1135 gmt 19 Jul 00 

[Presenter] Today's main theme is undoubtedly the State Duma decision which 
will effectively change not only the procedure for forming the Federation 
Council but also change, it seems to me, the federal structure of the 
country. My guest is the former co-chairman of the conciliation commission, 
member of the Federation Council and President of Chuvashia Nikolay 
Vasilyevich Fedorov. Hello Nikolay Vasilyevich. 

[Fedorov] Hello. 

[Q] Nikolay Vasilyevich, I would like you to start with the event which is 
probably the most significant, the overruling by the State Duma of the veto 
imposed by the Federation Council on the law, or more crudely, on the 
president's right to fire governors. Why did the Federation Council veto it, 
and what is your assessment of the ease with which the Duma overcame it by 
362 votes? 

[A] The Federation Council vetoed it because we are probably the closest to 
the constitution of the Russian Federation. The Federation Council takes a 
very serious position, a legal position, and this position is called the 
constitution, so it is easier for us to interpret how to build the rule of 
law and constitutional order in Russia. We vetoed it in order to prevent a 
breach of the constitution of the Russian Federation, from the formal legal 
point of view, and from the political point of view we vetoed it in order not 
to frame President Putin, because to sign a law which is in direct violation 
both of the constitution and of fundamental constitutional norms and 
principles would be to do a disservice to a strong, young, energetic and wise 
president of Russia... 

[Q] In what way does this law violate our national legal system? 

[A] For all these years, especially following the adoption by referendum of 
the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation, we have been building a rule 
of law brick by brick. Under the current constitution this means one thing: 
no citizen of the Russian Federation can be brought to book except in 
accordance with legal procedure. But this law legalizes extrajudicial anarchy 
with respect to the citizens of the Russian Federation. This means that from 
now on Russians must seek truth and justice not in the courts, not in the 
open and public confrontational legal process, but in the prosecutor's office 
and in the office of a Kremlin official. Now it is not at the will of the 
court or the law but at the discretion of a prosecutor or a Kremlin official 
that a regional leader elected by the people can be charged, removed from 
political life and outlawed. That is legal chaos, and it is absolutely 
unconstitutional. It is more than strange, and it is a great shame, that the 
State Duma, which calls itself a legislature, has so lightly said no to our 
proposal to support President Putin in restoring order but to do it within 
the framework of the constitution. They said no, we don't even want to go 
through the conciliation procedure. It is difficult to understand... 

In any case they are proceeding not from the constitution but from 
instructions emanating from the Kremlin. Funnily enough Putin is not there 
again today. We are, after all, in Russia, and the tradition is to appeal to 
the Tsar our father, to the highest instance. Putin is in Okinawa or 
somewhere equally far away. Who can we appeal to?.. 

However much we may love Putin, we must abide not by Putin nor by the Kremlin 
nor by instructions from the Kremlin but by the current constitution of the 
Russian Federation. First of all because it is legal, secondly because it is 
the law, and thirdly because this is the best way. It may appear to the 
offended portion of Russian society, it may even appear to Putin himself that 
it is better for him to address tactical issues by centralizing and setting 
up autocratic and unanswerable power. But in fact Putin will be worse off for 
it, but that is not the worst thing - Russian society will lose the basis of 
its development if it turns away from the path of constitutional 
development... 

*******

#4
Russian Duma gives go-ahead for radical tax reform
By Julie Tolkacheva

MOSCOW, July 19 (Reuters) - The State Duma, Russia's lower house of 
parliament, approved a raft of new taxes on Wednesday and gave the go-ahead 
to a package which the government hopes will help sustain recent economic 
growth and balance the budget. 

The Duma voted to implement the second section of a radical new Tax Code, 
reducing the overall tax burden, although the bill still has to be approved 
by the Federation Council, the upper chamber, and signed by the president. 

"I want to thank deputies for constructive work which will ease the burden 
for taxpayers. The first step has been taken," Deputy Prime Minister Alexei 
Kudrin said after the debate. 

The Federation Council, where regional leaders sit, is resisting plans by 
President Vladimir Putin to curb regional authority and strip governors of 
their parliamentary seats. 

Former Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, now chief 
executive of national power grid UES, described the government's tax reform 
package as "a very advanced model type of tax regime." 

"This is something which is at the centre of reform which should be 
supported," he said in an interview with Reuters Television. 

REFORMS SEEN BOOSTING COLLECTION 

Among measures approved by the Duma, which the government hopes will improve 
the investment climate and boost current low collection rates, was a 13 
percent flat income tax rate for next year to replace the current sliding 
scale. 

It also approved payment of Value Added Tax in the country of delivery in 
trade with the Commonwealth of Independent States from July 1, 2001. VAT, 
maintained at the current 20 percent level on most goods, is currently paid 
in Russia. 

The chamber also supported a government request to raise the lower bracket of 
a new unified social tax to five percent from two percent for the next two 
years. 

It also approved a tax on turnover of one percent for road construction and 
maintenance, down from 2.5 percent previously, valid until 2002. 

The government had wanted to abolish turnover tax, but it ran into resistance 
from the Duma and the Federation Council and was forced to compromise. 

Turnover taxes, collected by regional authorities, mean enterprises working 
on narrow profit margins can easily become loss-making. 

Other measures adopted included a new municipal five percent profit tax and a 
hike in excise duties on low octane gasoline to 1,350 roubles ($48.65) per 
tonne from 450 roubles and to 1,850 roubles from 585 roubles on high octane. 

A new 550 roubles per tonne excise duty on gas oil was also approved. 

($ = 27.75 roubles) 

*******

#5
IMF CALLS FOR ACCELERATION OF STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN RUSSIA

MOSCOW. July 19 (Interfax) - Russia's recent economic performance
has been "impressive" but the country needs to speed up structural
reform if the gains are to be sustained, the International Monetary
Fund's Moscow office said in a press statement after an IMF's mission's
consultations with the Russian government.
The mission held annual consultations with Russia from July 12 to
18 as required under the Fund's Article IV, and continued to consult the
government and Central Bank of Russia on policy priorities, the
timetable for implementation and the details of the economic program
considered by the government on June 28.
The mission concluded that Russia is "currently facing policy challenges
in two key areas," the IMF office said. First, short-term macroeconomic
policies "must be geared toward preventing the exceptionally strong
balance of payments from jeopardizing the recovery or triggering renewed
inflationary pressures," and secondly "a broad-based acceleration of
structural reforms is required if the recovery is to be sustained and
the stabilization gains preserved."
"The mission concluded that, provided these challenges are
effectively addressed, the outlook was for continued strong growth and
progress in lowering inflation."
The mission's report on the 2000 Article IV consultation with
Russia "is scheduled for [IMF] Executive Board discussion in September,"
the statement said. "The Russian authorities have agreed that the report
will be made public."
"It is envisaged that discussions on IMF support for the Russian
authorities' economic policy program will continue in the autumn," the
IMF office said.

*******

#6
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 
From: ray.smith@ndf.org (Ray Smith) 
Subject: Russians and Risk-Taking

I found the Kauffman and Berdy contributions on this subject interesting. 
They run against most published material in this area, including my own
Negotiating with the Soviets, which argue that Russians tend to be risk
averse. I wonder whether the contradiction is another example of the
duality that has been noted between the behavior of Russians in their public
lives and in their private lives? Obviously, on a subject like this, it
would be great to see some comments by JRL's Russian readers.

*******

#7
Moscow Times
July 20, 2000 
EDITORIAL: Misguided 'Reforms' for Rails, Flats 

Russia has as many free-market reform plans as it does problems. Two now on 
offer f a plan in the Moscow City Duma to cut housing subsidies to the rich, 
and a vaguer plan bouncing around to run the Railways Ministry in a more 
businesslike fashion f both sound promising on the surface. 

But a closer look finds both are actually deeply flawed f and even a casual 
observer can see that both are tampering with two of the only steam vents 
left in society, the de facto right to affordable rents and affordable 
travel. 

The City Duma plan is yet another revival of that old saw, "housing reform." 
The problem? Russians own their apartments f but the buildings usually belong 
to the city, and Moscow's math shows Muscovites pay about 50 percent of the 
cost of maintenance. 

For years, officials have been trying to figure out a way to raise rents for 
the haves, so that they pay for the have-nots. In theory, it's a good idea 
(particularly since anyone who qualifies as a "have" in Russia is already 
chuckling at how low state rents are). In practice, as it has been executed 
in Nizhny Novgorod and St. Petersburg, it has amounted to an across-the-board 
rent hike that presumes all are rich f and then sternly requires the poor to 
prove their innocence of wealth. This in recent years has led to street 
demonstrations and government backpedaling. 

What is most boneheaded about another round of "housing reform" now is that 
it so clashes with Vladimir Putin's much-discussed tax plans. 

The federal government is arguing that a mild dip in income and payroll taxes 
will lure the rich and the almost-rich out of the shadows. Skeptics have 
suggested the rates just aren't attractive enough to compete with the 
comfortable security of tax evasion f particularly since people might not 
trust the government to keep its word. 

Enter housing reform, which makes obvious what most already know: Once you 
declare your full income, every bureaucrat will want a piece of it. If 
housing reform goes forward, the already-not-very-impressive Putin-Kasyanov 
tax reforms are as good as useless. 

Railway reform is cut from the same cloth. The problem, it seems, is that the 
passengers are sucking all the money out of the business f just like 
apartment-dwellers are sucking dry the city budget. 

Cabinet ministers Nikolai Aksyonenko and German Gref agree on the solution: 
Hive off passengers from the lucrative cargo business. Someone lucky will 
keep the moneymakers; the state can subsidize the rest. 

Perhaps we can use the money we will save through housing reforms. 

*******

#8
From: "Matthew Schmidt" <mattschmidt@ukans.edu>
Subject: Guess who's monitoring JRL?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 

Here's another example of how influential JRL has become:

In response to my posting in JRL #4408 a U.K. publisher (Wimbledon
Publishing) contacted me about writing a book covering U.S. foreign policy
toward Russia since 1990. Of course, lacking even an M.A., much less a
Ph.D., such an ambitious project is well beyond my skill. However, should
anyone else out there be interested, Wimbledon appears quite intent upon
publishing just such a tome. I would, naturally, be interested in assisting
in some way with the project. If anyone is interested, please contact me at
mattschmidt@ukans.edu.

Matthew J. Schmidt
University of Kansas

*****

#9
From: "Mark Hertsgaard" <hertsgaard@email.msn.com>
Subject: A journalist's request for Russian environmental information
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 

I am an independent journalist and the author, most recently, of "Earth
Odyssey: Around The World In Search Of Our Environmental Future" (Broadway
Books). I write for many publications around the world, including The
Washington Post, New York Times, Time magazine, and Die Zeit. Currently I
am seeking authoritative information about current environmental conditions
in Russia for a story that will run on National Public Radio and The Nation
magazine in the United States and (I hope) Die Zeit in
Germany. Can any of the Russia experts out there please help me find
answers to the following list
of questions?

1. What is current status of air pollution in Russia's cities? (Previous
information has indicated that pollution levels exceed legal Russian
standards by a factor of five in more than 100 cities--is this still true? 
And how do the Russian standards compare to international standards?)

2. What is the status of water pollution in Russia's major lakes, rivers
and streams, and in the drinking water for urban populations? Again, how
does this compare to international conditions?

3. How high are Russia's greenhouse gas emissions?

4. How much of Russia's forests are being cut annually?

5. What effect has all this had on public health?

6. Are there other key environmental indicators we should know about?

Please provide the source of each piece of information. You can respond
here on email or, if easier, fax me at 415-474-9081, or mail to 1215
Greenwich St., Apt. 1C, San Francisco, CA 94109.

******

#10
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 
From: John Deever <john@isar.org> 
Subject: Psalms 75 & 76/4410

Dear David:

I'm an avid reader of JRL and a big fan (in fact a member) of CDI. I offer
the following not as an ISAR employee but simply as a curious person who
likes the thoughtfulness and insight of your listserv.

Upon learning from JRL that the oldest writing ever found in Russia was
Psalms 75 & 76, I had to know what those psalms said. Here, pasted in from
an Internet site, is an English version of them. What struck me was how
applicable the message of those wooden tablets still is today -- for Russia
and for us. Especially those of us who "speak with insolent necks."

------

Psalm 75 Thanksgiving for God's Wondrous Deeds
To the leader: Do Not Destroy. A Psalm of Asaph. A Song.

1 We give thanks to you, O God;
we give thanks; your name is near.
People tell of your wondrous deeds. 
2 At the set time that I appoint
I will judge with equity.
3 When the earth totters, with all its inhabitants,
it is I who keep its pillars steady. 
4 I say to the boastful, "Do not boast,"
and to the wicked, "Do not lift up your horn;
5 do not lift up your horn on high,
or speak with insolent neck." 
6 For not from the east or from the west
and not from the wilderness comes lifting up;
7 but it is God who executes judgment,
putting down one and lifting up another.
8 For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup
with foaming wine, well mixed;
he will pour a draught from it,
and all the wicked of the earth
shall drain it down to the dregs.
9 But I will rejoice forever;
I will sing praises to the God of Jacob. 
10 All the horns of the wicked I will cut off,
but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted.


Psalm 76 Israel's God--Judge of All the Earth
To the leader: with stringed instruments. A Psalm of Asaph. A Song.

1 In Judah God is known,
his name is great in Israel.
2 His abode has been established in Salem,
his dwelling place in Zion.
3 There he broke the flashing arrows,
the shield, the sword, and the weapons of war. 
4 Glorious are you, more majestic
than the everlasting mountains.
5 The stouthearted were stripped of their spoil;
they sank into sleep;
none of the troops
was able to lift a hand.
6 At your rebuke, O God of Jacob,
both rider and horse lay stunned. 
7 But you indeed are awesome!
Who can stand before you
when once your anger is roused?
8 From the heavens you uttered judgment;
the earth feared and was still
9 when God rose up to establish judgment,
to save all the oppressed of the earth. 
10 Human wrath serves only to praise you,
when you bind the last bit of your wrath around you.
11 Make vows to the LORD your God, and perform them;
let all who are around him bring gifts
to the one who is awesome,
12 who cuts off the spirit of princes,
who inspires fear in the kings of the earth.

John P. Deever
Publications Program Assistant Editor
ISAR: Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite #301
Washington, DC 20009
tel. (202) 387-3034; fax (202) 667-3291
http://www.isar.org

******

#11
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 m
From: Lawrence Uzzell <lawrence.uzzell@keston.org>
Subject: creeping crackdown on foreign religious workers?

Dear David,

You and your readers might find the following of interest. What happens to
foreign religious workers today could happen to foreign journalists,
environmentalists, human-rights activists tomorrow...

Svoboda,
Larry Uzzell


ARE FOREIGN MISSIONARIES BEING DRIVEN OUT OF RUSSIA?
Keston Investigations finds expulsions rising

A significant number of foreign Christian missionaries have been
expelled from Russia, with an increased number over the past year,
reveals a major investigation by Keston News Service. Other
missionaries are being obstructed in their work.

Cases documented by Keston range from the mass expulsion of seven
American adults and their eleven dependent children to the obstruction
of a public lecture on C.S. Lewis.

Several of the missionaries barred from Russia commented to Keston
that they were unable to obtain an explanation for their exclusion,
while the procedure followed by the authorities in reaching a decision
to bar entry is unclear.

Tolerance towards foreign missionaries has been one of the touchstones
of religious freedom in Russia since the lifting of Soviet-era
controls. 'Increasing restrictions on foreign missionaries are often
an indicator of increasing restrictions on religious freedom in
general,' comments director of Keston Institute Lawrence Uzzell.

'Much of the hostility towards foreign missionaries comes from local
officials whose job was to keep religion in check during the Soviet
era,' adds Keston's Moscow correspondent Geraldine Fagan. 'But behind
these officials often stands the FSB, the successor to the KGB, who
appear to regard the foreign missionary presence in Russia as a
serious threat to state security.'

Russia's National Security Concept, signed by the then acting
president Vladimir Putin last January, highlighted what it termed the
`negative influence of foreign missionaries' in the country.

`Many missionaries just keep quiet when they are expelled,' Geraldine
Fagan adds, `fearing that other projects their missions are
undertaking or the activity of the congregations they have been
working with will be threatened.'

Denied entry to Russia on three occasions last year, US Protestant
missionary Dan Pollard - who had founded and led a church in the
Pacific coastal region of Khabarovsk krai - told Keston that he has
encountered anger from local religious officials because `I have not
left quietly like so many other missionaries.' Pollard believes that
Russia will force out all foreign missionaries within the next ten
years.

Keston notes that not all missionaries are encountering problems -
some continue to engage in high-profile ministry in Russia without
difficulty.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. Some of the cases Keston has documented:

* Seven US citizens with a `Christian works relief organisation' had
their visas to work in the Urals republic of Bashkortostan abruptly
curtailed and were forced to leave Russia by 1 June. The Bashkir
president was reportedly enraged to discover a Bashkir-language Gospel
of St Luke. The head of Bashkortostan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
told Keston the Americans had been asked to leave because they were
conducting religious activity while holding humanitarian aid visas,
and these activities were `incompatible'. The group leader told
Keston: `The [Bashkortostan] president uses the local FSB as his
police force to intimidate people.'

* A US Protestant missionary working in one of European Russia's `Red
Belt' (communist-controlled) regions was expelled in 1997 after being
summoned to a closed meeting with two FSB agents, who accused him of
being in the region fraudulently and demanded names, addresses, phone
numbers, e-mail addresses, types of visa and names of inviting
agencies for every missionary in his organisation, `so that we can
deport them from Russia'. When the missionary pointed out that this
could be construed as religious persecution, one FSB officer
reportedly replied: `God has nothing to do with this.'

* American Church of Christ missionary David Binkley founded a
congregation in 1994 in the Far Eastern port of Magadan, but was
accused of smuggling by local officials last year. He was eventually
cleared of all charges, but a new religious work visa issued in March
for him to return to Magadan was suddenly revoked by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in Moscow in May. He was later told by the Russian
embassy in Washington that entrance to Russia is denied `permanently'.
He has since been barred entry to Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

* A western missionary conducting humanitarian aid work in a region in
the Far East of Russia, whose ministry is barred from the region, was
himself barred from the area earlier this year, although in April he
was allowed a brief visit. The Russian security organs are disturbed
by western missionary activity in this remote part of Russia. In a 28
February letter to the chairman of Russia's State Committee on Affairs
of the North, two officials of the Russian Academy of State Service
(which is attached to the presidential administration) warn that the
geopolitical plans of the United States are aimed at `wresting away
from Russia the Chukhotka Autonomous Okrug, and after that all of the
Far East.' A significant role in this design, they claim to believe,
is played by `the religious invasion of a huge number of American
Protestant preachers who have recently been stepping up their activity
in the Far East.'

* In May access was barred by a city official to the Palace of Culture
in Rostov-on-Don, where a Protestant pastor from Texas, a frequent
visitor to Russia, was due to deliver the first in a series of
lectures on Christian writer C.S. Lewis. The local church organising
the lectures had failed to put its name on the posters advertising the
event.

(c) Keston Institute, 2000. Reproduction permitted if Keston credited.

2. Full details of the results of the two-month investigation are
available from Keston Institute on request at
<keston.institute@keston.org>

3. To arrange interviews, please contact Erika Cuneo at +44 1865
311022 or Felix Corley at +44 20 8290 4997.

4. Keston News Service, providing immediate reporting on violations of
religious liberty and on religion in communist and post-communist
lands, is available on email in English and Russian by subscription.

5. Keston Institute, based in Oxford, United Kingdom, and with
representatives in Moscow and St Petersburg, Russia, is an NGO founded
in 1969 to defend religious liberty in postcommunist and communist
countries, as defined by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights: `Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion'. Website: http://www.keston.org.
Keston Institute, 4 Park Town, Oxford OX2 6SH, UK. (END)

*******

#12
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 
From: "John Helmer" <helmer@atom.ru> 
Subject: OTTAWA SAYS NYET TO RUSSIA ON DEBT

Coming in the Toronto Globe&Mail
OTTAWA SAYS NYET TO RUSSIA ON DEBT
>From John Helmer in Moscow

Ottawa has told the Russian government Canada will not agree to a Russian
request to forgive any portion of almost US$100 billion in loans Russia 
currently must repay to other governments. The terms of this debt are 
managed by representatives of the creditor governments in what is known as 
the Paris Club. Just over US$40 billion of the total is debt Russia inherited 
from the Soviet Union, when it collapsed in 1991.

Canada is owed about US$2 billion of the current total. Canadian officials
told G&M that most of that was run up for wheat deliveries. "It is a
larger debt than Moscow owes the United States," a Canadian official said.
"If you convert that into the amount of money Russia owes per head of
population, 
then the Canadian debt is one of the largest in the Paris Club." 

The Russian bid to write off at least a chunk of the Soviet-era obligation
has been buoyed since February, when the London Club of 
western banks agreed to a combination of write-off and rescheduling
of almost US$55 billion in Russian commercial debts. Repayment of US$25.5 
billion in Soviet commercial debts was given a new 7-year grace period, with 
concessional interest rates in the years to follow. Debt incurred since the 
end of the Soviet Union in 1991 totalled US$22.2 billion in principal, and 
this was written down by 37.5%. Interest owed of US$6.8 billion was written 
down by 33%.

That deal, negotiated by the Deputy Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, 
helped then acting President Vladimir Putin's election run, and boosted 
Kasyanov for promotion to the prime ministry, immediately after 
Putin's victory in March.

Kasyanov then announced that he was looking for a write-off at least as big 
for the government-to-government debt. As finance minister since the 1998 
collapse of the rouble, and the government's default on its bonds, Kasyanov
has repeatedly sought western agreement to writing down the Soviet portion of 
the debt. Germany, the biggest holder of that debt, has consistently said no.

The meeting in Okinawa this week of the heads of the G-7 industrialized 
countries is the end of the road for the Russian bid.

Ahead of Prime Minister Jean Chretien's meetings with Putin, Canadian 
officials have publicly joined Germany, France, and Japan in signalling that 
a debt write-off is unacceptable.

When Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew met Kasyanov and other officials in 
Moscow last month, the Canadians told the Russians that the current export 
boom for oil and minerals is generating ample cash for Russia to meet
its obligations. 

This week, the Russian government announced its trade surplus in May 
reached US$5.4 billion, up from US$4.7 billion in April, and more than double 
the surplus of May 1999. The figure is the largest surplus in Russia's 
financial history since 1991. By the end of December, government officials 
expect the trade surplus to total US$45 billion. 

Canadian officials told G&M that is more than enough to sustain debt 
repayments. 

Canadian company executives have also warned Ottawa that they are making 
claims that total more than US$800 million against Russian companies which are
either 
threatening to seize Canadian oilfield or mining licences in Russia, or have 
already done so. The Russian attack on Canadian investments in Russia 
currently involves Archangel Diamond Corporation of Vancouver; 
Bitech Petroleum Corporation of Montreal; Ivanhoe Energy of Vancouver; Norex
Petroleum of Calgary; and Pan American Silver of Vancouver.

The volume of the Canadian corporate complaints, and the high stakes
involved, 
have become a serious irritation in the bilateral relations between Ottawa
and Moscow this year, Canadian officials told G&M.

******

#13
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: falka@ksu.edu (Dale Herspring)
Subject: Re: 4411-Rogov on Military Reform

While I generally find Sergei Rogov's articles to be thought 
provoking, I was surprised at the one-sided nature of his latest 
piece in VM. 

Permit me to note at the beginning that I am not particularly a fan 
of General Kvashnin. I have never met him, and I agree that he 
must bear part of the responsibility for the dismal showing of 
Russian forces in Chechnya. But that is only part of the story.
The lack of a meaningful conventional army also played a major 
role. Indeed, I doubt that many Western commanders could have 
done a better job (and I am not arguing that the use of military force 
was the best approach for dealing with the problem. Kvashnin was 
told to do the job and employed military forces for that purpose). 
The low morale, the lack of training, poor equipment, disciplinary 
problems, etc. made the task almost impossible.

At the heart of Sergei's argument is the assumption that nukes are 
the key to Russian power. To a degree he is right, of course. 
Russia may be a third rate country, but it does have nukes, and 
that forces the rest of the world, including the US, to pay attention 
to it.

The problem facing the Kremlin, however, is more complex than 
Rogov's blast at Kvashnin suggests. Let us assume that Russia 
will continue to be beset by stability problems for the indefinate 
future. Conventional military forces will be crtical, if just to help 
maintain internal order. Conventional forces will also be vital for 
dealing with "small wars." Furthermore, I fear that Rogov overlooks 
the importance of Russia's ability to project conventional military 
power as a part of its UN/peacekeeping duties. I have personally 
worked with Russian naval and military officers. They are as good 
as any, but they need the necessary equipment to show what they 
can do.

So what is the solution? Based on some work that Jake Kipp and I 
have been doing on Putin, one thing is clear: he is a problem solver 
and he is not afraid to make concessions toward that end. Putin 
recognizes that he needs conventional forces for a myriad of 
reasons. He also knows that a nuclear force gives him great power 
status. I have no idea of the details of the negotiations now going 
on between Putin, Sergeyev and Kvashnin, but I would suspect that 
we will see a compromise.

Russia will keep its nukes (which are, after all, cheaper than 
conventional forces), but at a much lower level. After all, as 
someone once said, "one nuke can destroy your whole day!" At 
the same time, it is vital that money be transferred from 
somewhere to Kvashnin's conventional forces if Russia is going to 
have the kind of military respect that Rogov's feels is important 
(whether Kvashnin will make good use of the money is another 
question). 

Neither side will win -- Putin will see to that. Both sides will be 
required to give something. How much is what the debate is all 
about. 

******

#14
TIME EUROPE
July 17, 2000
[for personal use only]
Democracy or Dictatorship?
TIME talks with Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky about Russian politics 
and policy under President Putin

Businessman Boris Berezovsky talked with TIME's Moscow bureau chief Paul 
Quinn-Judge and staffer Yuri Zarakhovich in the Russian capital last week. On 
Monday, Berezovsky announced that he was relinquishing his seat in the 
Russian lower house of parliament, the Duma, in protest at the policies of 
President Vladimir Putin. Excerpts from the interview: 

TIME: This week the government moved against a number of major corporations. 
To what degree does this seem to be part of a strategy by President Putin? 

Berezovsky: 'Seem' is not a very correct term when we are speaking about 
serious politics. We should be talking about facts, and these are quite 
obvious. Simultaneously measures are taken against leading Russian companies 
— LUKoil, UES, Avtovaz. I see no way one can view this other than as a
trend. 
Of course, it is a trend. I would also note the harsh confrontation between 
the Kremlin and regional Ă©lites, the pressure on governors and presidents of 
republics. In essence the Kremlin is coming out against all Ă©lites, both 
political and business ... 

The reason is obvious. Once again, I want to say that I do not doubt that 
Putin wants to live in a democratic country, to see Russia strong and its 
citizens prosperous. But the route he has chosen for this is absolutely 
fallacious. Russia will continue its slow collapse, its people will have an 
even worse life, and their freedoms will be absolutely unprotected. 

What should one do under these conditions? Two parallel paths. First, try to 
convince the President that he is making a mistake. Do this openly. Those who 
consider themselves responsible politicians in Russia should openly and 
honestly express their point of view. This is quite difficult to do in Russia 
because anyone who has lived an active life over the past 10 years — 
especially entrepreneurs and politicians — risks criminal charges. So do 
those who sit in the Kremlin. If people in the Kremlin think they can 
institute criminal proceedings against someone and stay out of it themselves, 
they are profoundly mistaken. Anyone who was not asleep for the past 10 years 
can be thrown into prison. So it is very important to explain to the 
President and his circle, without fear, that he is on the wrong track. 

Second, one has to create some limitations to political power. The situation 
that prevailed during the 1999 parliamentary elections was described at the 
time as a clash between two major forces: [Moscow mayor Yuri] Luzhkov and 
[former Prime Minister Yevgeni] Primakov in one team and the Kremlin in the 
other. The communists already did not count. The victor stood to gain an 
enormous degree of political space. If Luzhkov and Primakov had won, [their 
political party] Fatherland-All Russia would have been the majority in the 
Duma, not [the pro-Putin] Unity. Unfortunately, Putin is doing everything 
that Luzhkov would have done had he been in the Kremlin. Or Primakov. I 
simply think that they would have done it more intelligently, because they 
are more sophisticated politicians. But their aims would have been different 
from Putin's. I want to repeat that, despite the tragic development of events 
here, Putin thinks about democratic aims, about democracy in Russia. 
Unfortunately, he simply lacks political experience, and without this 
education does not understand how one can achieve his aims. 

TIME: Does he understand what democracy is? 

Berezovsky: He has a very clear conception of it. But he considers that it's 
also possible to achieve democracy by this means [authoritarianism]. I also 
used to say that we wanted democracy, but that we were in a period when it 
was impossible to attain democracy by democratic means. Unfortunately, what 
is happening now shows that this is a mistake — one that I suffered from, 
too. As soon as you deviate from democratic principles in the transition to 
democracy, you destroy democracy, too. The massive political space that the 
regime currently enjoys has to be limited. Only an opposition can do this. 

Under Yeltsin there was such an opposition: the communists. It was a bad 
opposition, because it was not constructive. An unconstructive opposition 
tries to destroy state power, but better that sort of opposition than none at 
all. 'All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.' We all are 
witnesses to the way this happens every day. Power is corrupted, power is 
absolute. Everyone said Yeltsin had too many powers. But Putin is taking even 
more for himself. He is unable to use it ... because the levers of power have 
to be diversified, distributed. More freedoms for the region, in my view. 
Even more control over the implementation of laws. So one should not destroy, 
not centralize power, but reinforce the courts, make sure that existing laws 
work. 

The second task today — other than openly explaining to the President and
his 
circle that what is happening is ruinous for Russia — is to create a
normal, 
constructive opposition. The regime has already created the preconditions for 
this. It has exerted such pressure on the Ă©lites and society in general that 
even people who used to be at daggers drawn have found a common cause. Putin 
has essentially united the Ă©lite around the idea not of helping him, but of 
opposing him ... [The new opposition will be made up of] first and foremost, 
the political and business Ă©lite ... big business, big entrepreneurs. Big 
business might not put itself on the front line, but it will deploy its 
representatives. You will see this very soon. I do not think that those who 
try to create an opposition will be jailed. The state does not have the 
resources for this ... The state is always aggressive, and its aggressiveness 
is determined only by the limitations that society places upon it. The level 
of aggression here is high. But it is no longer the KGB U.S.S.R. People are 
afraid, but not to the degree that they will not go out onto the streets. I 
do not think it will come to that. But I am certain that we will see a ... 
concrete social-political force [an opposition] in the very near future. 

TIME: You are actively involved in this? 

Berezovsky: Yes. 

TIME: When in the very near future? 

Berezovsky: The people who take responsibility for creating such an 
opposition must first declare their aims and explain their ideology. If the 
declaration strikes a chord in society then it — or at least, the most 
advanced segment of society — will respond positively. Then one forms a 
movement ... 

TIME: This means that in the next Duma elections this party will be ... 

Berezovsky: ... An absolutely independent force. 

TIME: Will this party be able to withstand pressure from the government? 

Berezovsky: I think so. The main thing today is to preserve representative 
power. The declaration must be signed by people who are seen by society as 
significant figures. It should give rise to new processes in the Duma and the 
Federation Council [the upper house of parliament]. The Duma should cease 
functioning simply as an instrument of the executive. It's no secret who is 
in this [opposition-oriented] political Ă©lite ... Many governors are openly 
voicing their opposition. People have taken their masks off and are no longer 
afraid. It's a little more complicated in business, because [business people] 
always want to have normal relations with the government, and start to bite 
back only when they think that people are starting to destroy it. But one has 
the feeling that business [people] believe they are threatened with 
destruction. [Leaders of the new opposition] are precisely those who are 
under the scrutiny of the tax police and security services. 

TIME: [Leading politician and head of the country's electricity-generating 
monopoly] Anatoli Chubais said that "a communist revanche" is under way. Is 
that a misunderstanding of the situation or an attempt to play an old card? 

Berezovsky: It's a lack of understanding. I always said that Chubais is a 
good technologist, a daring man, until recently. But Chubais is a bad 
strategist, he does not understand the essence of events. Of course, there is 
no communist revanche under way. If you want to use terms that imply a return 
to dictatorship, I would call it a 'brown [nationalist] revenge.' Certainly 
not a red one ... But I would not characterize it in such terms. I consider 
it to be absolutely unprofessional on the part of the Kremlin. 

TIME: Who makes policy in the Kremlin? 

Berezovsky: I have exactly the same information as you. It is sad that we do 
not know the authors of these bills [on the structural reorganization of 
Russian government]. It's clear that the President is one of the authors, but 
not the only one. Before, when serious political initiatives were put 
forward, people wanted to know who had written them. I only know two names as 
of today, [deputy head of the presidential administration, Vladislav] Surkov 
and [Gleb] Pavlovsky [reputed to be the President's image maker]. They are, 
of course, responsible for the schism that has occurred in society. They are 
not the only ones, but we do not know the rest. 

I can say to you in all frankness that I learned about these bills from the 
media. My reaction was immediate: I said that this was the destruction of 
Russia. I had the same reaction when Putin issued his decree on the creation 
of seven federal regions [each headed by a super-governor]. Then I declared 
that this was absolutely the wrong path. It essentially leads to the 
destruction of Russia, because it creates seven potentially independent 
states. The Kremlin does not possess any federal power that can resist this. 
Here we have a bill that allows the President to remove a governor or the 
president of a republic if that person breaks a federal law. Federal laws 
should not be broken, but the legal system exists to deal with such things 
... That's what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship — you have to 
convince someone that you are right. 

******

#15
Olympics-Moscow celebrates 1980 Olympics, launches 2012 bid
By Gennady Fyodorov

MOSCOW, July 19 (Reuters) - Russians commemorated on Wednesday the 20th 
anniversary of the opening of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, seen in the country 
as an unqualified success despite a debilitating boycott by Western 
countries. 

At the same time Vitaly Smirnov, president of the Russian Olympic Committee, 
took the opportunity to launch a bid for the 2012 Games. 

More than 60 countries, led by the United States, stayed away from Moscow in 
1980 in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, 
robbing the Games of some of the top name athletes of the day. 

``It was a monstrous blow by the Americans and their President (Jimmy 
Carter),'' Smirnov told a packed hall of former Olympic athletes and 
officials recalling the events of two decades ago. 

``But Carter gambled and lost. We had great Olympics, a great atmosphere, we 
witnessed excellent athletic performances.'' 

The Moscow Olympics, the first held in a communist country, were intended to 
underscore the achievements of a great athletic -- and political -- 
superpower. 

The Games were officially opened by the ageing, doddering Communist Party 
Secretary General Leonid Brezhnev. 

No effort was spared to ensure their success, including clearing the city of 
prostitutes, black market traders and the homeless. 

Despite the boycott, the Moscow Olympics saw dozens of records fall and 
memorable performances by Romanian gymnast Nadia Comaneci, Cuban boxer 
Teofilo Stevenson and Soviet swimmer Vladimir Salnikov. 

SALNIKOV SET LANDMARK 

Salnikov became the first swimmer to break the 15 minute barrier in the 1,500 
meters freestyle, setting a world record of 14 minutes 58.27 seconds. 

``Of course, we were saddened by the absence of top American swimmers who 
stayed away from Moscow,'' Salnikov, now 40, told Reuters on Wednesday. 

``I probably would have won anyway because I was already twice world champion 
and a world record holder in the 1,500 at the time,'' he added. 

``But I wanted to shed any doubts by winning in the most convincing fashion - 
to swim under 15 minutes - and that's what I did.'' 

Moscow also launched the Olympic career of Juan Antonio Samaranch, elected 
President of the International Olympic Committee before the Games opened. 

At next year's IOC congress, also in Moscow, Samaranch is due to step down 
from his post after 21 years. 

Smirnov, who spearheaded Moscow's Olympic preparations at the time, admitted 
that politics had dictated the Soviet decision to keep its athletes away from 
the 1984 Games in Los Angeles -- now seen as a mistake. 

``Unfortunately, our state leaders followed the Americans and decided in 
return to boycott the next Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 1984,'' he said. 

Smirnov, an IOC member since 1971, taking advantage of a chance to launch a 
bid for the Games in 2012, said: ``I sincerely hope that this generation will 
witness the Olympic Games come back to our country, to a new, democratic 
Russia.'' 

*******