Center for Defense Information
Research Topics
Television
CDI Library
Press
What's New
Search
CDI Library > Johnson's Russia List

Johnson's Russia List
 

 

April 14, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4456 4457  





Johnson's Russia List
#4457
14 August 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
1. AP: Russian Nuclear Sub Malfunctions.
2. AFP: Russian Orthodox Church debates sainthood for Nicholas II.
3. Washington Post: d Stonov, In Russia Paranoia Still Reigns 
Supreme.Leoni

4. RIA: RUSSIAN POLITICIANS GIVE POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF PUTIN'S 
100 DAYS AS PRESIDENT.

5. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: PUTIN - A LIBERAL TEMPTED BY 
AUTHORITARIANISM? (Views of Sergei KURGINYAN, Igor BUNIN, and
Alexander SHOKHIN)

6. New York Times: Patrick Tyler, Russians Wonder if Putin Accepts 
Limits to Power.

7. Itar-Tass: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH BORIS GRYZLOV, LEADER OF THE 
UNITY FACTION IN THE STATE DUMA, REGARDING HIS VISIT TO USA
AUGUST 10)

8. Izvestia: PRESIDENT IS NOT IN A HURRY TO REWRITE THE 
CONSTITUTION.]


******


#1
Russian Nuclear Sub Malfunctions
August 14, 2000
By BARRY RENFREW

MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian nuclear submarine malfunctioned while on operations 
above the Arctic Circle, and was trapped Monday on the ocean bottom with more 
than 100 crew members aboard, a navy spokesman said. 


The Oscar-class submarine was not carrying any nuclear weapons and there was 
no immediate danger of radiation leaks or an explosion, said Igor Dygalo, 
head of the navy press service. The navy declined to say what went wrong and 
forced the submarine to the ocean floor Sunday in the Barents Sea, describing 
it only as a ``malfunction.'' 


The vessel's two nuclear reactors had been shut down, Dygalo said. 


The submarine could not move, but it was not clear why, said Igor Babenko, a 
spokesman for the Northern Fleet, to which the submarine belongs. 


``Certainly, the situation is serious,'' he said. 


NTV television news, citing unnamed sources, reported that water gushed 
through the submarine's torpedo tubes during a firing exercise and flooded 
the front of the vessel. The submarine was trapped about 330 feet below the 
surface, the network said. 


But Norway, which has a scientific vessel in the region, said the submarine 
was lying in about 480 feet of water off Russia's Kola Peninsula. Foreign 
Ministry spokesman Karsten Klepsvik said there was no sign of a radiation 
leak. 


The Barents Sea is in arctic waters bordering the northwest coast of Russia 
and the northern tip of Norway. Rescue ships were at the scene trying to 
assist the stricken submarine, which was in radio contact with surface 
vessels, officials said. 


In an emergency, a submarine would surface if at all possible. But Dygalo 
said the vessel was forced to descend to the ocean floor, indicating that the 
crew had lost control. 


Vladimir Gundarov, a submarine specialist at Red Star, the official daily 
newspaper of the Russian military, said rescuing people from a submarine is 
very difficult and there is no set procedure. The Russian navy does not have 
advanced submarine rescue vessels, according to standard naval reference 
works. 


``The situation is extremely negative,'' Gundarov said. 


The crew may be able to use rescue capsules, but in a worst-case scenario 
would have to try escape by swimming out through the torpedo tubes, Gundarov 
said. 


``It is extremely risky, but they are all trained to do this,'' he said. 


The Russian navy has been conducting major fall exercises in the Barents and 
the submarine had been participating, Dygalo said. The exercises were the 
biggest in several years. 


The submarine, named Kursk, was built in 1994 and went into service in 1995, 
making it one of the newest vessels in the Russian navy. It is a nuclear 
strategic submarine that can carry up to 24 nuclear surface-to-surface 
missiles, used mainly in combat with ships. 


The submarine had a full crew aboard, navy officials said. The Kursk carries 
107 personnel and weighs some 14,000 tons, according to Jane's Fighting 
Ships, an authoritative guide to warships. 


Admiral Vyacheslav Popov, commander of the Northern Fleet, was directing the 
rescue operation, the Interfax news agency reported. 


Russian nuclear submarines have been involved in a string of accidents in 
recent decades. 


In the last major accident involving one of Moscow's nuclear submarines, the 
Komsomolets sank in April 1989 after catching fire 210 miles north of Norway. 
Forty-two of the 69 Soviet sailors aboard died in the accident. 


The Russian military, including the navy, is in shambles, with no regular 
maintenance of weapons and other equipment. Many warships do not receive the 
regular servicing needed to keep them seaworthy, according to navy officers 
and veterans. 


The Izvestia newspaper reported recently that, according to the most 
conservative estimate, 507 submarine crew members have died during the 
40-year history of Russian nuclear submarines. 


******


#2
Russian Orthodox Church debates sainthood for Nicholas II


MOSCOW, Aug 14 (AFP) - 
The Russian Orthodox Church on Monday began a controversial debate on whether 
to grant sainthood to Russia's last tsar Nicholas II and his family, brutally 
murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918.


Some 150 bishops gathered to discuss the canonisation of over a thousand 
people who lost their lives for the Christian faith in the 20th century.


A vote on the canonisation of Nicholas II is due to take place during the 
five-day bishops' conference, which began Sunday in Moscow's Cathedral of 
Christ the Saviour.


Amid divisions within the church over the issue, Russia's Orthodox Patriarch 
Alexis II warned against a hasty decision to grant sainthood to the murdered 
monarch.


Speaking at the synod's opening, Alexis II said it could cause a "dangerous 
schism" within the church.


"There are different opinions within the church on whether the tsar and his 
family should become saints," the patriarch said.


"This difficult issue has to be debated according to the will of God," he 
added.


Alexis II stressed he was expressing his personal opinion.


In July, anxious to avoid lending the Orthodox Church's authority to 
monarchist supporters, the patriarch said any canonisation should take place 
because of the manner in which the tsar died, and not because of his 
achievements.


Nicholas II and his family were shot dead and bayoneted in the Urals city of 
Yekaterinburg on July 17, 1918 by Bolshevik revolutionaries, their bodies 
doused in acid to prevent identification and dumped in a shallow common grave.


The remains of the tsar, his wife and three of his daughters found in 1991 
were buried two years ago in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in the former 
imperial capital of Saint Petersburg.


The cathedral houses almost all the tombs of Russian tsars since Peter the 
Great.


Although the Orthodox Church does not require the presence of the saint's 
relics during the canonisation ceremony, the burial of the tsarist family 
remains has complicated the issue.


The church disputes the authenticity of the Romanov remains, discovered by a 
local historian in 1978 and confirmed as those of Russia's last imperial 
rulers after an exhaustive study including genetic fingerprinting.


However, if Nicholas II and his family are proclaimed to be saints, the 
church hierarchy will have to give a clear definition to the remains buried 
in Saint Petersburg.


Jumping the gun on official canonisation, many priests have already added the 
last tsar to a list of martyred saints, along with that of tsarina Alexandra 
and their children -- Tatiana, Olga, Maria, Anastasia and Alexy.


Last month, thousands of Russians, including descendants of the Romanov 
family, attended services and processions around the country to mark the 82nd 
anniversary of the execution.


******


#3
Washington Post
August 14, 2000
[for personal use only]
In Russia Paranoia Still Reigns Supreme
By Leonid Stonov
The writer, a former Soviet dissident, is director for international bureaus 
and activities at the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews.


In the 10 years since I finally won the right to emigrate from Russia, much 
has changed for the better in that country. Sadly, however, official secrecy 
paranoia, one of the defining aspects of Soviet life, never quite went away, 
and today it is stronger than at any time since the collapse of the Soviet 
Union. This dangerous holdover both violates Russians' human rights and 
impedes Russia from becoming a productive member of the international 
community. 


The case of Alexander Nikitin is indicative of the price both Russians and 
the world pay when official secrecy paranoia clashes with Russia's weak rule 
of law and its international obligations. Nikitin, a retired naval captain 
who on Sept. 13 faces, for the ninth time, identical, bogus charges of 
treason, coauthored a shocking report by the Norwegian environmental 
organization Bellona on nuclear contamination by Russia's Northern Fleet. The 
report described unstable nuclear reactors aboard rusting submarines--a dozen 
potential "floating Chernobyls" posing a deadly threat to Russia and all of 
Europe.


A responsible government would have reacted to the Bellona report by 
partnering with it and Western governments in an emergency effort to clean up 
and stabilize those dangerous nuclear sites. Instead, in the worst Soviet 
tradition, the Russian government accused Nikitin of treason and jailed him. 
Thus began a 4 1/2-year ordeal, during which Nikitin was illegally charged 
multiple times under secret and retroactive decrees.


The persecution of Nikitin set off a nationwide witch hunt against Russian 
environmentalists and even scientists, such as Vladimir Soyfer, whose lab was 
raided by the FSB (the former KGB) last year because of his work on the 
effects of a 1985 nuclear submarine accident in the Pacific.


Journalist Grigory Pasko was imprisoned for 20 months on treason charges 
after his videotape of a Russian navy ship dumping nuclear waste into the Sea 
of Japan was broadcast on Japanese television. Like Soviet refuseniks, Soyfer 
and Pasko are not allowed to travel abroad.


Last year, prosecutors investigated hundreds of environmental organizations, 
half of which face "liquidation" after having been refused re-registration. 
President Putin has stated that environmentalists are spies.


As in Soviet times, regional FSB officials score points with their superiors 
in Moscow by "unmasking" all sorts of "spies," not just environmentalists. 
Igor Sutyagin, a respected defense researcher from Obninsk, has been 
suffering in pretrial detention since October because of his work on a York 
University study of civil-military relations in a dozen former Communist 
states. Of all the countries studied, only Russia saw this academic survey as 
harmful to its national security. Apparently, even academic contact with 
foreigners is now suspect, a potentially devastating development for Russian 
scientific and academic research.


A year ago, Raisa Isakova, a former researcher at a secret institute in Omsk 
and a leader of the local Jewish community, was told by the FSB that her 
application for an exit visa to Israel would be denied if she didn't sign 
compromising testimony against the Jewish Agency, a nongovernmental 
organization that promotes emigration to Israel. She declined and was told by 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' appeals commission for refuseniks that she 
will not get a visa until 2003.


Earlier this month the Keston Institute, a religious freedom watchdog group, 
reported that American Protestant missionaries were being deported and denied 
entry visas by officials who feared that their attempts to convert Russian 
citizens were part of a U.S. plot to break apart Russia. Such examples of 
official secrecy paranoia cause significant damage to Russia's tenuous 
democratic accomplishments and show a reckless disregard for the rules of 
international conduct. Western nations need to send strong signals to the 
Putin government that such lawless behavior is unacceptable.


******


#4
RUSSIAN POLITICIANS GIVE POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF PUTIN'S 100 DAYS AS PRESIDENT
RIA 


Moscow, 14th August: The strengthening of the state authority and a growing 
confidence in the authorities are the results of the first 100 days of 
Vladimir Putin's presidency. Such is the opinion of most politicians 
interviewed on the 100th day after Putin's inauguration. 


The leader of the Unity faction in the State Duma, Boris Gryzlov, said that 
the three presidential laws aimed at strengthening the state authority were 
the most important achievement. Besides, the adoption of a new version of the 
tax code has become "a large step in the development of entrepreneurship and 
in the creation of a favourable investment climate in Russia". 


State Duma Deputy Chairman Irina Khakamada also considers the commencement of 
an administrative and tax reform to be Putin's main achievement during the 
first 100 days of his presidency. 


State Duma Deputy Vladimir Lukin from the Yabloko faction said that Putin 
"should not be afraid to address difficult problems". Lukin said that Putin 
should enforce order among oligarchs more decisively, but he admitted that 
"there has recently been some progress in this area". 


Fatherland and the Fatherland-All Russia faction in the State Duma support 
Putin's actions aimed at strengthening the state authority. Fatherland 
political council secretary Andrey Isayev said, however, that he and his 
colleagues were afraid that the new version of the tax code could lead to a 
decrease in tax collection. 


Kemerovo governor Aman Tuleyev said that Putin had shown himself as a strong 
and efficient leader capable of achieving specific results. "People can see 
this, so public confidence is growing", Tuleyev said. He said that another 
important result of his presidency is the commencement of the administrative 
reform and the confinement of the influence of corporations and clans. 
Tuleyev, however, doubts the efficiency of the economic programme of the 
cabinet. 


St Petersburg governor Vladimir Yakovlev said that Putin "not only declares 
his intentions, but controls the fulfilment of his orders". "The first 100 
days of Putin's presidency is a promising start of his term", Yakovlev said. 


******


#5
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
August 12, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
PUTIN - A LIBERAL TEMPTED BY AUTHORITARIANISM?
A hundred days have passed since Vladimir Putin was 
inaugurated as Russia's second President. On this occasion 
Nezavisimaya Gazeta's correspondent Olga TROPKINA asked several 
experts what further steps they expect from the Kremlin, taking 
into consideration the first 100 days of Putin's Presidency.

Sergei KURGINYAN, Experimental Creative Center: Let us 
begin by determining what the first 100 days of Putin's 
Presidency have been. I would call them a hundred days of 
temptations. The first was to begin everything from scratch. It 
is like people sometimes say to themselves: "O.K. Tomorrow I 
will begin a new life." Having come to power, Putin has found 
himself in the center of the whirlwind, so to speak. But 
inasmuch as he does not come across any resistance, he can do 
everything he wishes. The second temptation is a temptation by 
simplicity. By adopting decisions it is possible not to think 
about the costs and consequences of one's actions. It is 
possible to give orders and think that from now on everything 
will be normal. It is possible to give an assignment and it 
will be fulfilled. But he had to conduct a very sophisticated 
policy. Reality is very complicated. And a combination of 
simplicity with complexity created a new collision. The third 
temptation is a temptation by parallels and the possibility to 
transfer one's professional experience into the political 
sphere. In any of his political actions there is an analogue 
with his previous experience. Suffice it to mention propaganda. 
Another temptation is a temptation by the Kremlin. A man comes 
to the Kremlin, thinking: there is a certain state structure 
but how I will behave within it is a different story.
Putin has come through all these temptations and have felt all 
of them in the past one hundred days.
The question is what will happen further. Politics is not 
his professional domain, and everything needs to be done anew.
The state is not something that is given, and Putin will have 
to win it. He has realized that life is incredibly complicated 
and the continuity with which he comes across is also very 
complicated. Simplicity is good for public relations and for a 
certain period of time at that. I think that he is gradually 
coming to comprehend the temptations about which I talked above.
And if this is really so, this process of comprehension will be 
over by November or December and Putin will get down to things, 
which represent a dull and harsh reality. I do not exclude, at 
the same time, that his previous and present professions will 
begin to merge. And this may develop into the most serious 
political crisis in the past few years. By and large, Putin is 
not as simple as his myth.

Igor BUNIN, Political Technologies Fund: Let us first see 
what Putin's project is really like. The image of Russia to 
which the new regime is oriented is a country with an 
objectively market economy and a strong state. It includes the 
uniform rules of the game, an effective and highly paid 
government bureaucracy, a respected and strong army, structural 
transformations, prevention of the direct control of business 
over the state and the attempt to assert Russia as an equal 
among equals in the international arena. However, people from a 
different era who have different views are to implement this 
project. There are familiar faces from Yeltsin's elite, on the 
one hand, and a group of power department leaders who have a 
different idea of the economy than the other part of Putin's 
team, on the other. What can pose a threat to this project? In 
an attempt to create a centralized tough vertical the system of 
checks and balances organized under Yeltsin's Presidency has 
been broken, power will be concentrated in one spot - the 
President's inner circle, and a drift towards authoritarianism 
will begin. In that case a different logic will start working - 
the logic of traditional Russian cycle, in keeping with which 
Russia needs "to be frozen" a little after reforms.
Proceeding from the above-mentioned project, Putin, as I 
see it, will pursue those guidelines, which he has been 
pursuing. He will continue centralization of power "at the top" 
but not in the form of "a storm and onslaught," as was the case 
in June and July, but in the form of completing the building of 
the legislative framework. This may be accompanied by a certain 
change of the constitutional regime without affecting the 
foundations of the regime proper - the 1st and 2nd chapters of 
the Constitution. This can mean that the next project will be 
the creation of a controllable State Council or a similar 
compensation (but without the participation of governors) 
council of big businessmen with the Prime Minister at the head. 
The latter will, in fact, be a consultative organ, which will 
not be codified either constitutionally or legislatively. I 
suppose the summer period will be replaced by such a correction 
of reforms at the level of state construction. The only thing 
that can be more or less radical is the attempt to create a 
system of just a few parties accompanied by changes in the 
election law such as, for instance, raising the percentage 
barrier or reducing the proportion of deputies elected on a 
party list and increasing the proportion of those elected 
directly in single-mandate constituencies. The other 
revolutionary reforms will be in the economic sphere, because 
the main task - concentration of state power "at the top" - has 
already been fulfilled. From now on, the main task will be 
connected with economics. I think there will be an attempt to 
liberalize the economy to the maximum, despite the resistance 
of communists, groups of oligarchs and groups connected with 
the Family, that is, all those who would like to protect their 
own interests. Such an economy will deal blows not only at 
these interests but also at the social benefits of the 
population.

Alexander SHOKHIN, chairman of the State Duma committee on 
credit institutions and financial markets: It is already 
possible to discuss not only the first 100 days of Putin's 
Presidency but also a whole period during which he played the 
"first roles," as he became the Prime Minister a year ago. He 
has managed to do a lot in the 100 days of his Presidency: he 
has started the reform of state power and declared an economic 
reform for the next eighteen months and forthcoming ten years. 
That is why Putin's 100 days is quite an event in the political 
life of Russia. There is 100 percent ground to say that the 
President's economic policy will be liberal. Less definite 
conclusions can be drawn for his domestic policy because of a 
certain lack of options. There can be a liberal-democratic 
political system or tougher systems of state management with 
the diminishing roles of other branches of power, except the 
Center. To put it differently, the center of gravity has 
clearly shifted to the Kremlin. Whereas previously this 
concerned the government, now the Federal Assembly is at stake. 
In the next four years parliament will undoubtedly play a 
smaller role than before. The result of such a shift of the 
center of gravity is the President's growing share of 
responsibility for the decisions made.

******


#6
New York Times
August 14, 2000
[for personal use only] 
Russians Wonder if Putin Accepts Limits to Power
By PATRICK E. TYLER

MOSCOW, Aug. 13 -- Earlier this summer, the newly elected Russian president, 
Vladimir V. Putin, flew to Tatarstan to take part in the planting festival 
known as Sabantui. There he donned a Tatar hat, stuck his face in a vat of 
yogurt to bob for coins and then engaged a Tatar girl in arm wrestling. 
What happened next simply astounded Prof. Aleksandr B. Asmolov, a leading 
psychologist at Moscow State University, who watched on television as Mr. 
Putin, a black belt in judo, did not hesitate or politely feign a struggle, 
but simply slammed her arm to the table in a single overpowering motion. 


"I looked at that and said, 'This man has a ton of ambition, a mountain -- 
no, a cosmos -- of ambition,' " observed Professor Asmolov. 


>From his office across from the Kremlin, the professor has written letters to 
the new president counseling him to rule with more tolerance and noted: "We 
have a fighter who has come to power and whose nature is not to play, but to 
win. He not only is motivated to succeed, he is maniacally motivated to 
succeed." 


The only thing many Russians do not yet fully understand is: succeed at what? 


In almost five months since he was elected, Mr. Putin has capitalized on a 
voter mandate, high opinion poll ratings and an economy buoyed by strong oil 
prices to begin putting Russia back in order after a decade of wild economic 
and political swings under Boris N. Yeltsin, the country's first 
democratically elected president. 


In the course of a summer, Mr. Putin, who will be 48 in October, has laid out 
an economic program that has won praise from Western governments and pushed a 
new tax code through a cooperative Parliament. 


He has begun a major reorganization of the country's unruly regions, dividing 
the country into seven large new administrative areas and installing his own 
men over them. He has humbled its autocratic governors by siphoning off their 
power and their tax revenues to the federal authorities and begun the process 
of separating a class of super-rich oligarchs from their influence over the 
Russian government. 


Next, it seems, is the military. After firing six senior generals at the 
beginning of the month, Mr. Putin closeted himself for four hours on Friday 
evening with his national security council -- men who would usually be on 
vacation this time of year -- to decide what may be the most significant 
restructuring of the Russian military in two decades. 


Mr. Putin may be proving himself more adept at using the enormous powers of 
his office to consolidate central control than his often ailing predecessor. 


But the question that seizes many Russians and Westerners alike is whether 
Russia's weak democratic institutions -- a nascent business class, free press 
and ever-changing assortment of political parties and organizations -- are 
strong enough to resist the undemocratic, authoritarian streak that critics 
ascribe to the former K.G.B. official who is now president. 


Can he meld freedom and discipline into a new state structure for Russia -- 
an almost ungovernable land of 11 time zones and diverse ethnic populations 
-- that avoids a slide toward the Soviet past? 


Aleksandr I. Gelman, a writer who now works with the former Soviet President, 
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, on building a social democratic party in Russia, said 
in an interview that Mr. Putin had made mistakes but was correctly seeking 
the proper balance between freedom and order, a traditional feature of 
politics in a country where power has long proven indivisible. 


"It is very important to link freedom with discipline in this country," Mr. 
Gelman said. "Russia is made in such a way that it either had a very strict 
discipline or it was anarchy. The most difficult task was always to combine 
these two things, so that freedom does not interfere with discipline and 
discipline does not interfere with freedom." 


But others see freedom already being compromised. 


"The new team of our new president is energetically crushing freedom and 
democracy," said Sergei A. Kovalyov, the human rights campaigner and longtime 
protégé of the Nobel laureate Andrei D. Sakharov. "Putin is building a 
country that is neither a democratic nor federal state. He is building, in 
fact, a unitary state based on force and trying hard to create the good old 
Soviet idea: unbroken vertical power from top to bottom." 


Mr. Kovalyov's critical assessment, which is shared by a number of Russian 
intellectuals, including many former dissidents who suffered at the hands of 
the K.G.B., carries great weight inside and outside Russia. 


But it has not dented Mr. Putin's high popularity ratings at home, where many 
other Russian intellectuals, younger reformers and liberal members of the old 
Soviet establishment support him. 


Last Thursday, Mr. Gorbachev, the last leader to rule over a unified Russia 
within an even larger Soviet Union and a rare visitor to the Kremlin during 
Mr. Yeltsin's rule, emerged from a two-hour meeting with Mr. Putin and 
pronounced that his youthful successor was on the right path. 


"I support Putin's efforts to strengthen order and responsibility," Mr. 
Gorbachev said, warning that "regionalism is threatening to lead to the 
country's disintegration." 


More discipline lies ahead, Mr. Putin's advisers say. He is preparing 
legislation to reform the country's chaotic system of customs laws and their 
corrupt administration and, in the fall, a major overhaul of Russia's legal 
system: courts, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. 


Next month, around the anniversaries of the terrorist blasts that killed 
nearly 300 Russians in apartment blocks in Moscow and other cities last year, 
Mr. Putin is expected to dedicate a new memorial to the victims. Aides say he 
will ask Russians to stay the course in the "anti-terrorist campaign" in 
Chechnya that has killed thousands, displaced 270,000 people and left much of 
the rebellious region in ruins. 


Internationally, especially in Europe, Mr. Putin's rise was viewed with 
skepticism and alarm as Russian tanks flattened Grozny, the Chechen capital, 
last winter. But the new president took an unexpectedly activist role in 
fanning European opposition to American plans for a national missile defense 
system that would not cover Europe and could ignite a new arms race in Asia. 


To the leaders of the largest industrial nations, he presented the face of an 
earnest problem solver, visiting North Korea and pressing its leader, Kim 
Jong Il to abandon his long-range missile program. 


Vladimir P. Lukin, former Russian ambassador in Washington and now a deputy 
speaker of Parliament from the liberal party Yabloko, said that because 
Russia today has only a weak hand to play as a world power, Mr. Putin is 
seeking a constructive role to complement his reform efforts at home. That, 
Mr. Lukin said, will require a Western orientation, though not necessarily 
close relations with the Americans. 


Still, he added, "Putin and his staff understand that whether Russia finds 
its place in the international division of labor depends mostly on our 
relations with Europe and the United States." 


At home, freedom has taken a few jolts that rattled even Mr. Putin's most 
ardent supporters, most notably the storming of the headquarters of 
Media-Most, the conglomerate that owns the NTV television network, a frequent 
critic of Mr. Putin. 


After seizing documents, prosecutors ordered the arrest of Media-Most's 
chairman, Vladimir A. Gusinsky, held him for four days and charged him with 
financial crimes related to assembling his media empire. 


The charges were dropped, but only after Mr. Gusinsky was summoned for a 
private meeting at the Kremlin with Mr. Putin's chief of staff, Aleksandr S. 
Voloshin. The contents of that conversation have yet to be made public. 


Since the meeting, the government-controlled natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, 
has been putting pressure on Mr. Gusinsky to sell a controlling stake in his 
media empire by threatening to call in the loans that the gas giant extended 
him in the salad days of 1995-96, when oligarchs like Mr. Gusinsky were 
helping Mr. Yeltsin win re-election. 


Yevgeny A. Kiselev, the general director of NTV and anchorman of its popular 
news program Itogi, told an interviewer last week that Mr. Gusinsky would 
surrender control of his media properties only "at gunpoint." 


"I worked for the government-owned media for years, like many of my 
colleagues," Mr. Kiselev said, "and I don't believe any wishful talk that 
government-owned media in Russia can be independent." 


It may take months before the fate of Mr. Gusinsky's empire is settled, but 
many Russians already view the case as the most profound test of press 
freedom. 


"It's a very serious mistake," said Irina M. Khakamada, referring to the 
government assault on Mr. Gusinsky. 


A deputy speaker of Parliament and leader of the pro-market Union of Right 
Forces party, Ms. Khakamada supports Mr. Putin, especially for his commitment 
to economic reform. But her optimism is leavened with reservations about what 
she calls Mr. Putin's "enlightened authoritarianism." 


"I think his personal dream is to demonstrate that a liberal and enlightened 
market economy with the help of civil institutions can be successfully 
combined with more strict and rigid authority in the system of power," she 
said. "The idea is not to strengthen his own personal power, but to 
strengthen Russia." 


Many influential Russians remain more skeptical. 


As the sirens wailed last week around Pushkin Square, where a bomb shattered 
the evening calm with an explosion that so far has killed 11 people and left 
more than 50 with serious or critical injuries, a group of prominent 
intellectuals and businessmen was issuing an "appeal to society" for a new 
political movement to counter any drift toward authoritarianism. 


"Russian democracy is young and too dependent on the recent totalitarian 
past," the appeal said. The Putin government reflex, of seizing power from 
oligarchs and regional governors alike, is endangering the "main achievements 
of the last decade," especially intellectual freedom, the group said. 


Perhaps because it is August, vacation season, the appeal failed to generate 
any groundswell response from ordinary Russians, who anyway have a strong 
instinct for gravitating toward the existing power. 


For all his talk of reform and strengthening the power of the center, Mr. 
Putin has yet to dismiss a single governor or mayor, though new legislation 
will soon arm him with clearer authority to do so. 


Vladislav Y. Surkov, a deputy chief of staff under Mr. Putin, said in an 
interview that a full-fledged anti-corruption campaign was impossible, since 
it would be interpreted as a political purge and evoke images of 1937 and 
Stalin's terror. 


Mr. Surkov said reforming the functions of government was the only way to 
fight corruption for now. 


"We inherited a thick layer of problems that accumulated during decades," Mr. 
Surkov said. "If you think they can be solved without a certain consolidation 
of power, as we say, then you are mistaken." 


He said Mr. Putin was aware that many people did not see him as committed to 
democracy. "I want you to believe me that the president is a democrat," he 
said. "It's true. But I don't understand how the elementary desire to 
establish order, and I mean elementary order, is considered undemocratic." 
******


#7
TITLE: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH BORIS GRYZLOV, LEADER OF THE UNITY 
FACTION IN THE STATE DUMA, REGARDING HIS VISIT TO USA
(ITAR-TASS NEWS AGENCY, 15:00, AUGUST 10, 2000)
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE


Moderator: Good day, dear colleagues. We welcome to ITAR-TASS
agency Boris Vyacheslavovich Gryzlov, the head of Unity faction in
the State Duma of the Russian Federation. We have asked him to come
to us to tell us how the State Duma is going into recess, but above
all about a very important visit to the Republican Convention.
Boris Vyacheslavovich Gryzlov led the Russian delegation. If you
don't mind, we will ask Boris Vyacheslavovich to tell us just a
couple of words about the trip and his impressions and then he will
hopefully be kind enough to answer our questions.


Gryzlov: First of all, it was a trip of the delegation of
Unity party because the press in its coverage gave the impression
that it was a delegation of the Unity faction in the State Duma.
No, it was the first trip of a party delegation from Russia in
recent history. It met with and had been invited by a political
party in the United States. 
And I must say that our expectations were justified. It was in
many ways easier for us to find a common language with the
Republicans in the US than with representatives of some parties in
Russia. Common approaches and common principles are there. And this
is the result of both our parties preaching what political
scientists call "conservatism". This is the main conclusion. We
have found a partner in the United States and a bridge has been
built between the two parties which can always provide a channel
for negotiations, for studying the opinions of each other before
issues come up for solution by our executive branches and our
presidents. 
We had numerous meetings. The atmosphere in these meetings was
constructive, even friendly. Having said that in all the audiences
there were journalists who tried to ask tricky questions. But the
general background was fairly friendly. Our delegation visited
three cities -- Washington, New York and Philadelphia. On the
whole, we had more than 30 meetings and naturally, the most
memorable experience was the stay of our delegation in Philadelphia
at the time of the convention there. I think I had better speak
about the convention if you ask me questions about it. 
I will merely say that we have discussed with the leaders of
the Republican Party the key issues between our states, the opinion
of the Americans of Russian internal policy. And I must say that
prominent Republicans in the US have a position that suits us very
well. That includes the position on Chechnya. I must say that the
Governor of the State of New York, Pataki, and Kissinger whom you
all know and a number of other Representatives and Senators have
formulated their position on Chechnya as one of non-interference in
our affairs. The main point was that Russia should do inside the
country as it sees fit. 
We also discussed ABM. I think it was the key issue. And the
main conclusion we arrived at was that our states need a system of
anti-missile defense in the world as it is today. And the
Republican position is that the creation of an ABM is inevitable,
but they would like to develop it jointly with Russia. In other
words, it would be a system to protect both Russia and the US. I
think it is a reasonable position.
We were also interested in the situation connected with the
trade regime between our countries. First, the issue of Russia's
accession to the World Trade Organization was discussed and that
included the actions, including legislation, that Russia should
undertake to that end. We also discussed the most favored nation
status for Russia in trade with the US. The Republicans confirmed
that if they win the election, they will solve that question in a
positive way. 
On the whole, from the results of our trip one can conclude
that it is necessary to create a new scheme of interaction between
parties and I think this scheme can be used. At least as a
follow-up to our contacts, the Governor of the State of New York
Pataki has agreed to attend a congress of Unity Party in October
with a delegation of the Republican Party. And Mr. Kissinger has
asked to be invited to Russia in November by the Unity Party. These
suggestions have been considered and they are a real followup to
the contacts that we had during seven days.


Moderator: Very interesting. We may have some distinguished
quests in the fall. Thank you. Now you can ask your questions.


Q: Have you met with President Putin after your trip to the
United States?


Gryzlov: I was supposed to have a meeting with him within the
next few days, but the developments in Moscow have changed our
plans a little bit. I had a very detailed conversation yesterday
with Sergei Borisovich Ivanov at the Security Council. And this
morning I conveyed to Vladimir Vladimirovich a detailed report on
our trip. Next week we will have a personal meeting as soon as
possible.


Q: Could you specify please what joint protection of US and
Russian territory means in the national missile defense system?


Gryzlov: A missile defense system presupposes advanced
security technologies. These technologies are not available even in
the US. We know that one of the experiments conducted slightly more
than a month ago failed. Therefore, it is too early to say that the
US is ready to deploy a new missile defense system.
On the other hand, Russia has certain technologies which put
us ahead of the US. This is why Republicans, although they are not
in power yet, believe that our two countries have advanced space
exploration technologies, missile technologies and the exchange of
these technologies would allow us to create a strong shield which
could guarantee countries against possible attacks by third
countries.


Q: I am sure you know that Boris Berezovsky has appeared on
television quite often lately to speak about the creation of a new
all-Russia movement that will be in constructive opposition to the
government and the policy being carried out by President, Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin. What do you think about this?


Gryzlov: Here is how I assess this situation. Boris Berezovsky 
exerted certain effort when the State Duma discussed the laws
submitted by the President and aimed at increasing the vertical of
power in the country. He proposed to create a faction in the State
Duma, a public and political movement.
As we see now, all of these ideas failed. I think that they
know are trying to create a constructive opposition movement, this
reflects the desire of certain forces to remain in the political
arena and nothing more than that. The party Unity has repeatedly
said that it wants a civilized partisan atmosphere to be created in
our country, that there should be three strong political parties.
Other public and political movements may be short-lived and created
to serve some departmental interests, possibly territorial
interests, but they cannot have strong influence on the political
life in the country. 
Judging from the statements, they want to create a movement
that plans to have strong influence on life in our country. I do
not think that this movement has a future. This is rather a
theatrical association. Boris Abramovich may even consider this as
a suggestion. I think there is even a name for this group --
Triumph. I think you understand why. So I don't consider this as a
serious movement.
Regarding our meetings in the US, I want to give you two
examples. Our President was elected not so long ago, and now we are
seeing the appearance of movements which seek to be in opposition
to the elected president. In the US, despite their affiliation
either with the Republican or Democratic party, all representatives
defend the position of their country in the international arena. 
Another example is the election campaign. Two candidates are
running for presidency: Clinton and Dole. It was four years ago.
You could see how each of them tried to prove during debates that
he was better than his opponent. They looked for some negative
features in each other's character. Nevertheless, on election day,
that is on the night when votes were counted and when it became
clear that Clinton was winning, journalists approached Dole and
said, Well, now you can open your box and spill whatever is left
against Clinton. And he replied: We have elected a new president,
and he is my president. This is how things are done in a democratic
country which has serious experience of democracy. 


Q: Could you tell us about the bill that the Unity faction is
drafting to strengthen power structures?


Gryzlov: If we are talking about what is being prepared and
what has been mentioned by the newspaper Segodnya, it's a law on
parties. As for a law on power structures, we have not set
ourselves such a task and we are not drafting such a law. So I
cannot even answer your question. If you are asking me about
parties, then the answer is yes. If you are asking me about power
structures, the answer is no.
We believe that the autumn session will have to discuss a
law on parties. There are two fundamental things we want to be in
this law. One should lift restrictions on the participation of
public servants in party life, while leaving such restrictions in
place for the military to exclude them from partisan life. The
other one is that a presidential candidate should be nominated by
a party. These are two fundamental provisions that we will include
in the law. As for all other additional issues, these are minor
things that will have to be discussed by factions, committees and
the house as a whole.


Q: One hundred days since the inauguration of the President
will end on the fourteenth. I would like to hear your assessment of
the President's work to strengthen government, carry out tax
reform, fight terrorism and protect Russia's interests in the
world. 


Gryzlov: I think that these first 100 days after inauguration
allow us to say that our President is efficient and energetic and
that certain progress has been made and very important decisions
have been adopted. 
As for the three laws submitted by the President to strengthen
the vertical of power, they were thoroughly discussed in the Duma
and the Federation Council. They underwent certain changes during
these discussions. The Duma's version differed from the original
text. I think there was a good confrontation that enabled us to
work out the best text and the laws were adopted. This is a fact of
life. We are now in a situation where the Federation Council will
be formed in accordance with the signed laws. 
As for tax legislation, four chapters of tax legislation have
been adopted. They were discussed in the Duma very and very
thoroughly. There were more than 1,000 amendments to each law.
These are the law on income tax, the law on the value added tax,
the law on the single social tax and the law on excise. 
What has been done gives a big boost to business in our
country, a very big boost. It is also a step toward providing
investment guarantees.
That issue was discussed, but this press conference is devoted
to the trip to the US, so I will refer to these recent meetings and
discussions -- when the issue was discussed with Mr. Pataki,
governor of the State of New York. We found that the problems are
similar. When Pataki became governor, the State was at the bottom
of the list in terms of employment and investment. Now Pataki told
us proudly that the State of New York is in the 11th place in the
US. 
What issues were discussed? Tax transparency, attracting
investment and crime control. And one of the main planks in the
state government's program is not to say no in the conversation
between the authorities and business. One first has to say yes, and
then see together what can be done to fulfill the plans. That's a
totally different approach. 
And the fact that Russia has a 13 percent income tax, this is
the goal the Republicans have sought for many years, so far without
success. Because a low income tax offers a certain guarantee to
business. I think therefore that important steps have been taken in
our country.
Regarding terrorism, it is clear that the anti-terrorist
operation must be carried to the end. What happened in Moscow is
our common misfortune. But we know that from the press reports --
FSB Director Patrushev has spoken and said that 11 terrorist acts
have been prevented. Explosives have been found and people have
been found who might be guilty of these violations. The law
enforcement bodies are active and the tragedy in Pushkin Square --
the following day parcels with explosives were found on Kazansky
train station. The law enforcement bodies know what to do. 
We can say that conditions have been created in our country
for combating terrorism. And we should all of us be vigilant. It is
heartening that there was a huge line of people at the Sklifosovsky
Institute to donate blood. It shows that we are capable of uniting
and this is a hopeful sign.
Now about foreign policy. Not a single one of the Republican
leaders questioned Putin's policy. They taken it very seriously.
Kissinger said that the Republicans understood Putin's policy. They
could predict it. And this is why we are ready to cooperate with
Russia.
Pataki announced that after what happened in Russia, after our
contacts and after we explained our position, he would call in his
businessmen and urge them to take a close look at Russia and
seriously think about investments. In short, Putin went down well
in America.


Q: Russian Radio. My question is about the law on parties.
Will the provision on having the President nominated by parties
require an amendment to the Constitution? And does the law you are
drafting have anything to say whether deputies will be elected by
party ticket or by first past the post system? 


Gryzlov: As for the method of election, that's the subject of
a law on elections, not a law on parties. These are different
things. That a presidential candidate should be nominated by
parties -- and it should not be a short-lived party, it should have
been in existence for at least a year, this is even in the current
law on elections. It is not a violation of the Constitution.


Q: The Constitution says that any person can run for
President.


Gryzlov: Any person may be nominated and any person may be
elected. And he may be nominated by a party. There is no
discrepancy there. It's the same as in the law on the formation of
the Federation Council. The word "formation" suggests that its
members may be appointed. And that did not constitute a violation
of the Constitution. The law is being drafted so that there should
be no need to change the Constitution. All these nuances will be
taken care of in the text.


Q: Interfax. It's about the State Council. How do you see the
structure and the powers. And there is a discussion under way on
what the new body should be like. Do you think Primakov could play
a leading role there?


Gryzlov: My opinion about the State Council is this. We in
this country elect governors, that is, the body of governors
represents the interests of all Russian citizens and so, supreme
advisory body, as we see the State Council, should comprise all the
89 governors. Then it will be a body elected by the whole people of
our country, by the whole of Russia. This is a fundamental approach
because there have been suggestions that it should consist of a
select group of governors and not all the governors elected by the
people. My view is that all governors should be in there. In this
situation, some groups of political leaders may not be in the State
Council. I do not think that the heads of Duma factions should be
there. We have an opportunity to meet with the President every day,
you simply have to cross the square, you don't have to be a member
of the State Council for that.
The State Council should convene to discuss the most important
issues which need to be scrutinized by such a body of wise men
appointed by people. This is our approach.


Q: What about Primakov?


Gryzlov: Primakov is not a governor. He is faction leader, and
I have already stated our position on faction leaders. I greatly
respect him, but my concept leaves no room for him there.


Q: I'd like to ask you about your US trip. When you discussed
the situation concerning Russian oligarchs, what was the opinion?


Moderator: I think a bad one.


Gryzlov: First of all, they were unanimous. Let me start from
afar. It was a unanimous, quite definite and categorical opinion:
it would be better if there were no oligarchs in Russia. Such was
the opinion. It was expressed by practically every leader we talked
to. They believe that there is no such a thing as oligarchs in the
US. They have liquidated this notion. And they advise us to do the
same.


Moderator: We will keep this in mind. Any more questions,
colleague? Well. I think we did not torment Boris Vyacheslavovich
long after his foreign trip. I want to thank Boris Vyacheslavovich
for finding time to meet with us. And thank you, colleagues, for
your attention. Good luck and hope to see you again soon. 


Gryzlov: Thank you and good luck.


******


#8
Izvestia
August 12, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
PRESIDENT IS NOT IN A HURRY TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION
Svetlana BABAYEVA, Alexander SADCHIKOV 


"I think it inexpedient to form a special representative 
working body for drafting amendments to the Constitution of 
the Russian Federation," wrote Vladimir Putin to Duma Speaker 
Gennady Seleznev on August 11 in answer to the parliament's 
proposal to start re-writing the Constitution. 

Vladimir Putin sent a letter to Gennady Seleznev in which 
he wrote that "the Constitution has proved its ability to 
efficiently regulate the basic social, economic and political 
processes in the country." He also added that "a further 
perfection" of the fundamental document is possible in 
principle; this issue "can be discussed in the State 
Council." 
At the beginning of June, OVR (Fatherland-All Russia 
faction) leader Yevgeny Primakov took the initiative of 
addressing the President with regard to the formation of a 
special commission. In the opinion of Primakov, "the 
authoritative members" of the commission should start working 
over amendments to the Constitution. As Primakov stated at that 
time, because the principle of the formation of the Senate is 
changing "it is necessary already now to think about the 
redistribution of the Federation Council's powers fixed in the 
Constitution." As a result, there appeared an address to the 
President about the necessity of creating a representative 
working body for drafting amendments to the Constitution. The 
address was approved by 307 votes with one abstaining. 
Rumours said that "the cunning academician" has decided to 
play into the hands of Putin and slightly take up the 
initiative, because actually Primakov offered a prototype of a 
Constitutional Assembly which has the right to re-write the 
foundation of the state life. 
A month and half later came the answer from the Kremlin.
It is double, as a matter of fact. On the one hand, the 
Kremlin has long been thinking about re-writing the 
Fundamental Law. It gives too many powers to the regions, 
while the part concerning the terms of reference between the 
centre and the regions is rather knotty. The Kremlin says that 
by the time of writing the Constitution its authors had no 
time to delineate many things. Hence the appearance of the 
chapter about the terms of reference in the hope of specifying 
it later. In the future, there must be no such principle.
Either Moscow is responsible for such and such things or 
regions - that's all. 
However, it is not yet clear in what direction the 
Constitution should be re-written. That is why, people say, 
Putin was convinced to make the State Council a consultative 
body. It can be given constitutional powers at any time, but at 
first it is necessary to understand the structure of the 
future power. Otherwise a desire to re-write the Constitution 
will appear every three months in a year - and it may happen 
that not only Putin will show such a desire. 
So that nobody could take up the initiative, apparently, 
the President asked Seleznev to wait at least till the autumn.
Then, the State Council will resolve the problem. Proceeding 
from this, we can imagine a potential composition of this 
council which will be born at the beginning of September. 
Hardly the Kremlin will wish to have in this council the 
politicians whom it will not be able to control and make them 
change their mind. 

******


 

Return to CDI's Home Page  I  Return to CDI's Library