Johnson's Russia List #5591 11 December 2001 A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Note from David Johnson: 1. Reuters: US,Russia want strategic arms agreement by mid-2002. 2. Reuters: Military radar "blind" over 2/3 of Russia -general. 3. Reuters: Russia's TV6 mulls closure, prepares appeal. 4. BBC Monitoring: Staff sacked from Russian magazine Itogi launch new weekly. 5. vesti.ru; The Belovezhskaya Pushcha Pact: Ten Years After. An interview with Sergei Shakhrai. 6. BBC Monitoring: Russian ombudsman says state officials violating human rights. 7. Marian Dent: Pericles Russian Law Letter. 8. Collin Maslov: re 5588-Chechnya. 9. Versty: ON RUSSIA'S CIS STRATEGY. (Konstantin ZATULIN, Director of the Institute of the CIS) 10. The Digital Freedom Network (DFN): DFN HOSTS ONLINE CHAT WITH EDMOND POPE. 11. Reuters: Russia's Zhirinovsky learns to love America. 12. Reuters: WTO chief sees Russia a member by mid-2003. 13. Transitions Online: Kevin Krogman, Opening Up. Russia's drive to join the WTO is part of President Vladimir Putin's policy of becoming an equal partner with the West. 14. The Guardian (UK): Kate Connolly, Moldova dispatch. Transforming Transdniestria. 15. gazeta.ru: Duma Discusses Abolishment of Death Penalty. 16. Moscow Times: Boris Kagarlitsky, City Election of Dead Souls.] ****** #1 US,Russia want strategic arms agreement by mid-2002 December 10, 2001 By Elaine Monaghan MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and the United States, riding high on a new partnership, said Monday they hoped to tie up a new strategic arms agreement in time for a visit to Moscow by President Bush in the middle of next year. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who met President Vladimir Putin against a background of unusually warm relations stemming from the common fight against terrorism, said the two sides were closer to agreeing numbers for nuclear warhead cuts. Appearing with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, Powell told a Kremlin news conference: "Both of our presidents have charged us...to find ways to formalize this agreement at lower levels of strategic offensive numbers and to try to get the work concluded in time for when they meet in Moscow." Ivanov said Bush, who held summit talks with Putin at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, last month, was expected to make his first visit to Moscow in the middle of 2002. Powell later arrived in Berlin for talks with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on the next leg of his tour of countries taking part in the U.S.-led coalition against terrorism. He travels to London and Paris Tuesday. The linked issues of U.S. plans to build a missile defense and moves by both Washington and Moscow to cut stockpiles of nuclear warheads represent a wrinkle in relations otherwise enjoying unprecedented warmth. Putin himself earlier set the tone for an amicable encounter with Powell by thanking the United States for helping Russian aid missions into Afghanistan during fighting with the Taliban. Powell said U.S.-Russian cooperation over delivering humanitarian aid to Afghanistan symbolized open and transparent cooperation between the two countries. ABM PROBLEMS STILL EXIST Putin was the first world leader to call Bush after the September attacks, pledging support and cooperation. His call gave impetus to closer ties between the old Cold War rivals. Russia turned words of sympathy into deeds, sharing intelligence with Washington and giving the green light for ex-Soviet Central Asian republics, still close to Moscow, to offer bases and airspace for U.S. forces in the Afghan campaign. Planned nuclear arms reductions have been running in tandem with U.S. efforts to agree a way in which it can bow out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty which inhibits Pentagon plans to build a missile defense shield against "rogue" states. Ivanov and Powell made clear they still differed over the future of the ABM accord. Speaking at a news conference with Powell in Berlin later Monday, Chancellor Schroeder also urged Washington to uphold the framework of disarmament accords. "We want more contractual disarmament, not less," he said, adding that differences on this should not lead to a crisis and disarmament treaties could be modified for new circumstances. Washington says the ABM treaty is a vestige of the Cold War that should be scrapped. Moscow, while partly agreeing with this view, says it is a cornerstone on which other arms accords rest. The two countries announced Wednesday that they had slashed their nuclear arsenals to below the level of 6,000 warheads set by the START-1 treaty signed in 1991. Putin and Bush announced substantial cuts in nuclear arms stockpiles during their Texas summit in the United States last month, bringing them to the lowest level since the 1950s. At the summit, Bush announced plans to cut U.S. strategic offensive weapons from 7,000 warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200. Russia has said it is ready to cut its strategic warheads to about 1,500. Moscow insisted these be formalized in a treaty whereas Washington wanted a verbal agreement. ****** #2 Military radar "blind" over 2/3 of Russia -general MOSCOW, Dec 10 (Reuters) - A Russian general said on Monday the military was "radar blind" across two-thirds of the country, and unable for long periods to track flights carrying the top leadership. Lieutenant-General Alexander Shramchenko told Interfax news agency the situation was so critical that aircraft carrying Russian leaders to Japan could be outside radar coverage for 90 minutes. "In fact, we do not control the air space from the Ural Mountains to the Kuril Islands (in Russia's far east)," said Shramchenko, whose troops run the military's radar systems. "There is only a thin line of radar field along the border with Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China," he said. It is highly unusual for Russia's senior officers to speak publicly about serious deficiencies in the military, and could be a calculated bid for more funds for the hard-pressed service. Since the start of fitful military reforms in the 1990s, the radio-technical forces have lost 60 percent of their personnel, Shramchenko said. That increased the distance between units and impaired their ability to detect low-level targets, he said. The poor state of radar could have implications for the civilian aviation industry too, said independent defence analyst Alexander Golts. "All our satellites, civilian as well as military, are controlled by Russia's space troops. Every satellite, or most of them, are multi-purpose. They are used for civilian needs as well as military," he said. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the military have fallen on hard times, their budgets and numbers slashed as Russia launched a helter-skelter drive towards a market economy. In the Soviet era, Moscow had more than 100 satellites in orbit for early-warning, intelligence and communications. Now, only four communications satellites are thought to operate and more than 80 percent of the country's "spies in the sky" are past their original operational design date. ****** #3 Russia's TV6 mulls closure, prepares appeal MOSCOW, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Directors of the largest Russian television station outside Kremlin control said on Monday they could start winding up the company next month, if a last-ditch legal appeal against a court closure order failed. A Moscow court last month ordered TV6 to shut down, citing statutory irregularities. But the station's top news presenter and general director, Yevgeny Kiselyov, said it intended to appeal the verdict. TV6 says it is the latest victim of a campaign by President Vladimir Putin to silence alternatives to official propaganda, after the state-backed natural gas monopoly Gazprom took over the independent NTV network. "There is a political background to it of which everyone is aware," said Kiselyov, who held an identical position at NTV before the takeover. The court ordered TV6 to shut down after ruling it had failed to meet statutory financial requirements over a three year period, a charge dismissed by the company. "Forget about an economic dispute. The essence is plain for all to see," said board member Igor Shabdurasulov. An extraordinary shareholders' meeting was to convene on January 14 to vote on dismissal of the board and start liquidation procedures. The legal challenge to TV6 was launched by a minority shareholder, a pension fund linked to Russia's biggest oil producer LUKOIL. The channel says the fund is doing the Kremlin's bidding but the Kremlin has denied involvement. TV6, owned by self-exiled businessman Boris Berezovsky who has fallen foul of the Kremlin, became a refuge for many NTV veterans who left after Gazprom's takeover last April. Once regarded as a second-tier channel, its ratings and revenues have grown rapidly in recent months, driven in part by its mega-hit reality TV show "Behind The Glass." The company says it will continue broadcasting as usual, for now. TV6's plight bears striking similarities to that of NTV, which also came under intense legal pressure during a politically-charged battle with a powerful energy giant. The TV6 struggle has drawn an angry outcry from both leftist and right-wing politicians. But the reaction has been muted compared to the heated debates and street rallies which preceded Gazprom's takeover of NTV. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed by TV6 in Moscow on Sunday, promised to raise the issue of media freedoms with Putin at a meeting on Tuesday, but declined to comment on the row over the channel. ****** #4 BBC Monitoring Staff sacked from Russian magazine Itogi launch new weekly Source: TV6, Moscow, in Russian 2000 gmt 10 Dec 01 [Presenter Vladimir Kara-Murza] This week marks the appearance of a new weekly in Russia. The editorial staff of the real Itogi [weekly magazine] have finally restored the familiar production cycle in full after a six-month enforced break. [Sergey Parkhomenko, captioned as editor-in-chief of Yezhenedelnyy Zhurnal] This week, a publication called Yezhenedelnyy Zhurnal [Weekly Magazine] will for the first time become available from kiosks in Moscow and, I hope, elsewhere. It is produced by the team which I hope many readers have come to know from the Itogi magazine, the one which existed until spring this year, when that team was banished from the magazine for reasons one has no wish to recall now. [Parkhomenko and others were sacked from Itogi, which was part of Vladimir Gusinskiy's Media-Most media empire, in April 2001; Itogi weekly has been published since under new management]. [Kara-Murza] Having retained a team of like-minded people, the editors have now been able to cover the entire spectrum of topics the weekly used to cover. [Parkhomenko] The magazine has a pretty simple format. It divides everything that surrounds us into, as it were, art and all the rest. Indeed, there are a great many interesting developments in contemporary cinema, book publishing, theatre, music, the recording industry and elsewhere. We regard it as our duty to talk about it in detail and at length. [Kara-Murza] Having endured unprecedented pressure for political reasons, the journalist have no intention to renounce covering the most critical issues of present times. [Parkhomenko] As far as politics is concerned, there will be plenty of it and at the same time there will be none. Modern-day politics embraces something much greater and mush more varied that mere political or cadre intrigue. It is this kind of politics, politics understood broadly, that we shall mostly be writing about. ***** #5 vesti.ru December 12, 2001 The Belovezhskaya Pushcha Pact: Ten Years After (Vesti. ru) An interview with Sergei Shakhrai (therussianissues.com) Q. Do you think it was possible to keep the united state of the Soviet republics? A. It was possible before [the communist coup in] August 1991. It might have been possible in a looser format, without the three Baltic states and without Georgia. After the August [coup] it was no longer possible. In fact, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the spine of the state power in the country. But in August and September of 1991 all the republic abolished their communist parties and Russian President Yeltsin signed a decree abolishing Russian communist party in November. So it was only logical that together with the collapse of the communist framework, the framework of the unified state collapsed, too. The three presidents gathered in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha acted as a surgeon who recognized the death of a doomed patient and told the news to the relatives. To blame the surgeon who registered the fact of death, to put a blame on him for this death is at least stupid. Q. But why did the patient die? A. Mid-age people must remember that in 1990-1991, an envy virus was spreading across the USSR. They kept saying in the Urals: we've had enough feeding Central Asia; in Georgia and the Baltics, they kept saying: Moscow takes all we produce. This envy virus was so strong that after the Belovezhskaya Pushcha agreements were signed nobody protested, as they all thought they would be better off being independent. All federations based on the ethnic principle, collapsed - Yugoslavia by way of a civil war, Czechoslovakia, in a peaceful way, and the Soviet Union in a way of a relatively peaceful transformation. And the energy of eruption, of dissolution was so powerful that in over 5 years after the Belovezhskaya Pushcha no integration had been possible. Q. After the Belovezhskaya Pushcha agreements had been signed, were not you afraid that they would send troops and you all would be arrested? A. First, everybody knew there was no Union army any more. Besides, we all saw we were guarded by the KGB's ninth department. Rather, we felt somewhat depressed as if we had just buried a close relative. On the other hand, we had a feeling of liberation, a feeling that we had found a way out. People did not have to kill each other. The deputies who came to Moscow on Dec. 12 to attend a Supreme Soviet session shared the same feeling as they realized they saved the nation from a civil war. ****** #6 BBC Monitoring Russian ombudsman says state officials violating human rights Source: Ekho Moskvy radio, Moscow, in Russian 1000 gmt 10 Dec 01 [Presenter] Today is International Human Rights Day. In Russia, these rights are being violated primarily by the government. This was the opinion expressed by the Russian [human rights] ombudsman, Oleg Mironov, in an interview with Radio Ekho Moskvy. [Mironov] Human rights are being violated by state officials, who, instead of trying to solve a person's problems, complicate the solving of these problems. Look at what's going on at customs checkpoints, at the border. Even border guards have started to take bribes, which was once unthinkable. Those in positions of power are violating citizens' rights. People are of course most of all concerned with economic and social issues. When people barely survive from one wage payment to the next, when utility payments are being increased, these are violations of economic and social rights. Of course, when the police beat somebody up, then that is a most serious violation. When a court doesn't consider a case for months and the person in question languishes in a detention centre's solitary confinement cell and has to take turns with others in the cell to sleep, then that is also an infringement of his human rights. ****** #7 From: "Marian Dent" Subject: Pericles Russian Law Letter Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 Dear David, I thought some of your readers might be interested in knowing about the Pericles Russia Law Letter. This is an e-mail newsletter that, as one might guess from the title, includes articles about Russian law. It is produced in English by some of our Russian law students and style edited by American law students. Articles are generally short. Some of the articles are reprinted from published sources and others are written for the Law Letter by our students or by practicing lawyers. The lawletter is produced sporadically (frequency more or less dependent on the amount of time the students are willing to spend writing and researching, which in turn depends on exam & vacation schedules and the amount of material they can get permission to reprint). The students enjoy the opportunity to develop management skills, practice their legal research, improve their English, and to add a line to their CVs. The letter is distributed for free, and our students welcome article submissions, new subscribers, and students interested in becoming members and helping out. Anyone interested should email to the editor, Anna Butenko, at abutenko@pericles.ru David, I hope you'll be happy to know that JRL was one of the inspirations for producing this newletter. Our student editors are regularly perusing JRL and consider it a valuable research source. Marian Marian Dent Dean Pericles American Business & Legal Education Project 10 Tverskaya Ul. #319 Moscow, 103009 Russia (7-095) 292-5188 mdent@pericles.ru www.pericles.ru ******* #8 From: collin.s.maslov@us.andersen.com (Collin Maslov) Subject: Re: "Chechens deny their republic is bin Laden pawn"/JRL 5588 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 The chain of events decribed in Chicago Tribune's article Of December 9, 2001 titled "Chechens deny their republic is bin Laden pawn" By Reese Erlich is wrong. The author of the article states that apartment bombings came first, and the invasions later. However, the correct time line was different. Chechens invaded dagestan in August 1999. They were pushed back to chechnya by Russian Army, but shortly after they invaded again, this time from two directions. Once again, the Russian army pushed the invaders back stopping at the border, without venturing into chechnya proper. After that, russian army went on to deal with wahhabi enclave in Dagestan, which was connected to Chechens. Only after that, the apartment bombings started to happen. It is very important to keep this timeline in perspective, since if FSB really wanted to start a new war with chechnya, they could've done so after the first invasion. But they didn't. In fact, Russia was very reluctant to get into another conflict with chechens, and only when apartment buildings were blown up, did the russian army go into chechnya. Collin Maslov San Francisco, CA ****** #9 Versty No. 141 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] ON RUSSIA'S CIS STRATEGY In the ten years since its establishment, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) has been nothing other than a platform for advancing international initiatives, says Konstantin ZATULIN, Director of the Institute of the CIS. We see two parallel processes going on in the CIS. On the one hand, the Soviet Union, which legally ended its history ten years ago, virtually exists. Many people who cross the border from Russia to Ukraine or Kazakhstan are sincerely outraged when border guards ask to see their passports or the customs officers want to inspect their luggage. And this is logical, for they were born, studied and worked in one state. The virtual Soviet Union is a factor of policy whose authors still have to bow to the past. On the other hand, we have the practice of international relations within the CIS and CIS structures that were created ten years ago to ensure a civilised divorce for Soviet republics. But these processes do not change the current essence of the CIS, which remains a declarative organisation. Russia still maintains a measure of influence in the CIS, which is why it does not want it to die too soon. But it is becoming more and more important to understand the true meaning of this organisation. As I see it, the meaning of the CIS should not be overestimated and neither should Russia sacrifice its national interests for the CIS. I would define the CIS as an association created in the interests of the older generation, people who continue to live in the virtual Soviet Union and have common historical and cultural roots. The CIS is a club. It never was, nor can it be an organisation that made, implemented or controlled serious plans, or an organisation that actually integrated the former Soviet republics. When I say that the CIS is a club I don't want to humiliate it. One needs a platform for voicing ideas. The CIS is useful in this capacity, useful for advancing ideas, even if they are not meant to be fully implemented. Does Russia need the CIS? This question is not as simple as it seems. The power crisis and economic and social problems, which accompanied the disintegration of the Soviet Union, faced Russia with the choice of way of further development. If Russia becomes a country that mostly supplies power and other resources to the industrialised West, it will not need further integration with CIS members, because in this case they will become a burden to Russia. But if Russia preserves at least part of its industrial potential, science and high-tech industries, it will surely need to restore economic ties and technological chains that were disrupted by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The bulk of the CIS countries seriously lag behind in acquiring the minimum set of standards necessary for a democratic regime, which is a major hindrance to the genuine CIS integration and the growth of Russia's influence in the CIS space. It is indicative that certain politicians and officials believe that the absence of genuine democratic procedures in the CIS countries is facilitating Russia's relations with the elite in these countries, because this allegedly helps them to reach agreements in behind-the-scenes talks with these countries' top leaders. This is a grave illusion. First, authoritarian rulers easily violate such secret agreements. Second, in this case the CIS public is completely excluded from the integration process, which becomes the cause for bureaucrats. And third, this seriously limits the investment possibilities of Russian capital and the lobbying efforts of Russian financial-industrial groups. What strategy should Russia pursue with regard to the CIS? I am convinced that we need integration, and we should energetically facilitate it but not with all CIS states. We must spotlight painful problems in the countries with which we intend to become closer. And we must always think if these problems can be better resolved through integration or a policy of demonstrative pragmatism in bilateral relations. We must categorically rule out actions that would be applauded by the leaders of neighbouring countries but run contrary to the interests of Russia. The friendship of Russia and Ukraine is sacred, of course, but even for this friendship we should not tolerate things that Russian representatives tolerated during the celebration of the tenth anniversary of Ukraine's independence. The speech of President Kuchma was filled with attacks at Russia and stones thrown at the Moscow Patriarchy. And after that Russia signed an agreement on restructuring Ukraine's gas debts, actually writing off a debt of 1.5 billion dollars! The time has come to start protecting our national interests. This will also help the CIS to survive, for let's face the truth that the CIS will not live a day without Russia. ****** #10 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 From: Jacqueline Kozin Subject: Chat with Edmond Pope about Spymania in Russia DFN HOSTS ONLINE CHAT WITH EDMOND POPE American Businessman to Discuss Being Wrongfully Imprisoned in Russia and the New “Spymania” Trend Gripping the Country WHEN: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13 @ 12:30 PM TO 1:30 PM (EST) WHERE: ONLINE @ WWW.DFN.ORG/CHAT The Digital Freedom Network (DFN) will host an online meeting with American businessman Edmond Pope on Thursday, December 13 from 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM New York Time (5:30 - 6:30 PM GMT). The online meeting, which is free and open to the public, will take place on DFN's Web site at . No registration is required. Anyone may attend the moderated forum and post questions to Mr. Pope, who will be discussing his imprisonment and “spymania,” the surge of wrongful arrests and prosecutions of individuals charged with espionage by Russia’s Security Service (FSB) in the name of state security. The chat will be in English. A victim of the “spymania” trend, Mr. Pope was arrested by the FSB when meeting with colleagues about the purchase of unclassified documents on a high-speed torpedo. He was charged with espionage and in December 2000, found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in a high security labor camp. That same month, due to the tireless work of his family concerned for his declining health, Mr. Pope was pardoned by President Vladimir Putin and released on humanitarian grounds. He has recently published Torpedoed, a book that provides an account of his harrowing experience. For those unable to attend the chat, questions for Mr. Pope can be sent to DFN by e-mail at rlebow@dfn.org. For more information, contact Jacqueline Kozin via email: jkozin@dfn.org. The online meeting will be accessible to anyone running a Java-enabled Web browser or an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) client application. The Digital Freedom Network (DFN) is an international organization that develops and promotes the use of Internet technology for human rights activism. DFN designs online campaigns, makes technical information more readily available to activists, and provides an online voice to those attacked for expressing themselves. DFN's Web site is http://dfn.org. Jacqueline A. Kozin Program Officer Digital Freedom Network 520 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102-3111 Phone: +(1-973) 438-3687 Fax: +(1-973) 438-1474 Email: jkozin@dfn.org Web: http://dfn.org ******* #11 Russia's Zhirinovsky learns to love America December 10, 2001 MOSCOW (Reuters) - Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a firebrand ultra-nationalist Russian leader is dropping his fierce anti-American stance -- the political equivalent of a leopard changing its spots. He told the private NTV station's "Hero of the Day" program Monday that President Vladimir Putin's handling of the conflict in Afghanistan had convinced him Russia could work in partnership with its former Cold War foes. Zhirinovsky, in the past an outspoken scourge of "U.S. imperialism" who angered many in the West by making a series of high-profile trips to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, said his Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) would back the U-turn at a congress Thursday. "I'll tell everybody that LDPR does not have any anti-American and anti-Western moods and slogans. "I'm not afraid of a coup, because our party is not a Communist party. We've been told for 50 years by the Communists that the United States is our enemy which has surrounded us with its bases and wants to attack us. "...It's propaganda. Americans do not want Russians to die, and Russians don't want (Americans to die)," he said. In October, at the start of the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan, Zhirinovsky said the military operation was simply a cover for future attacks against Russia. On Monday, he compared Russia's two-year conflict in its breakaway Chechnya region with the battle to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 1 attack on the United States. "There is a common enemy, an enemy of all of us. So why should Russia and the United States, two great powers, continue to have cold relations?" asked Zhirinovsky, a deputy speaker of parliament. Arguably Russia's most brazen politician, Zhirinovsky has built a career on outlandish statements that have seen him branded a racist, an anti-Semite and a war-monger. But his unorthodox views have proven popular with voters. Although the influence of his LDPR has waned since its mid-1990s heyday, the party won a better-than-expected eight percent of the vote in December 1999 elections, giving it 17 seats in the 450-member State Duma lower house of parliament. "We have to get used to the idea that the Cold War does not exist any longer," Zhirinovsky said of his policy change. "We will have a common army -- two million of NATO and 500,000 of our army. This will be enough to put everything in order all over the world. We will have common military exercise and a common military doctrine, there will be no war." ******* #12 WTO chief sees Russia a member by mid-2003 December 10, 2001 By Robert Evans GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) - World Trade Organization Director-General Mike Moore, speaking on the eve of China's formal entry, said Monday he believed Russia would be able to join the body by the middle of 2003. But he warned against trying to force the process, saying that "short cuts take longer in the long run." "In my view, Russia will be sitting at the table as a full member by the next ministerial conference," Moore told reporters as he greeted Moscow's chief WTO negotiator, Maxim Medvedkov, in Geneva for entry talks. Ministers from the soon-to-be 144 WTO member countries agreed in Doha, Qatar last month to a January launch of a new round of negotiations to lower barriers to global trade. They are due to meet again in the summer or autumn of 2003, probably in Mexico. If Russia, one of only three big trading countries still some way from getting in, is to be there as a full member, it must complete all admission formalities beforehand. China was formally approved for entry on November 11 and immediately presented a presidential decree ratifying its membership terms. Its entry is automatic on Tuesday. Moscow -- which once scorned the WTO's predecessor as an "instrument of imperialist exploitation" -- applied for membership in 1993, two years after the Soviet Union's collapse. Russia's negotiations with WTO members had been making little progress, partly because Moscow objected to checking proposed domestic legislation with the trade body before putting it to parliament. But its closer relations with the West since signing up to the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" launched after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have created a new climate. U.S. Commerce Secretary Don Evans and European Union Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy have visited Moscow over the past two months to pledge full support for early Russian entry to the WTO, and Russia had an observer delegation in Doha. President Vladimir Putin says joining the trade body is a top priority for his administration. But diplomats say there are still major problems to be overcome, including high Russian export duties, its dual-pricing system, and how to bring the still largely state-supported farming sector into line with WTO rules. Russian diplomats told Moore Monday that the agriculture ministry was being involved in WTO talks -- to show how serious Moscow was about pressing ahead and ensure that officials at all levels knew what membership would involve. With China, to be followed by Taiwan on January 1, in the body, and Russia apparently on a faster track, the two other remaining large traders still outside are Ukraine and Saudi Arabia. A total of 28 countries are waiting to join. ****** #13 Transitions Online tol.cz Opening Up 7 December 2001 Russia's drive to join the WTO is part of President Vladimir Putin's policy of becoming an equal partner with the West. by Kevin Krogmann Kevin Krogmann is TOL's grant manager and a freelance correspondent based in Moscow. MOSCOW, Russia--Russia has been making moves on several fronts to draw itself closer to the West over the past few months. Whether it is talk of creating a common economic space with the European Union, striking up a strategic partnership with NATO, or helping out in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, Moscow has made dramatic strides toward integration with the Western world. A key element in this strategy has been the country's efforts to join the World Trade Organization. While Russia has been involved in talks to join the WTO, which regulates global trade, since the mid-1990s, the talks have recently received a fresh impetus. In early December, European Union Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten provided the latest in a string of statements by Western officials emphasizing the importance of getting Russia into the WTO. Patten said the EU was prepared to help Russia in its efforts to join the organization, adding that the issue was a priority for the discussions on including the country in a common European economic area, according to Russia's Ekho Moskvy radio. Russia's progress in its talks on joining the trading body was on display at the recent WTO summit in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. Under a special agreement with officials from the United States and other WTO member states, Russia was allowed to make its voice heard on just about anything that was discussed at the five-day session. But the concession served to highlight what the nonmember still could not do: submit its own proposals or vote on any decisions. The point was further brought home at the summit when delegates approved a motion to grant membership status to China. At the same time, the WTO decided to launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. With the acceptance of China and the launch of the new talks, Russia will be the only nation of such size and geopolitical importance to remain outside of the WTO. Aware of this, Russian negotiators have been trying to push forward talks on membership in the WTO. But despite the government’s official “as soon as possible” stance on WTO membership, it is unclear what Russia--either as a vocal nonmember or a fully empowered WTO member--would have to say to the global trading community. As an article in the weekly political and economic magazine Profil noted on 19 November: “In actual fact, neither the government much less those in business has a united viewpoint on the question” of joining the WTO or the equally difficult and important question of what comes after accession--“first and foremost because the majority of businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, have no clear idea what exactly the WTO is.” THE WTO AND RUSSIA Under Stalin, the Soviet Union exempted itself from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which established the current global trading system in 1949. In 1995, the GATT system was transformed into the current WTO. By then, the Soviet Union had collapsed and the new Russia, under then-President Boris Yeltsin, expressed interest in joining the world trade system. The first meeting of the WTO working group on Russia met in 1995 and membership negotiations have continued ever since. Under President Vladimir Putin, who took over in January 2000, Russia increased the pace and urgency of entry talks. The Russian government’s economic program, published in June 2000, explicitly called for the “intensification” of the accession talks. In order to join the WTO, a country must meet all the rules of the organization and close bilateral deals with each of the WTO's 144 member states. The discussions involve much haggling over export and import tariffs, and each country must agree to what it views as acceptable. In recent months, Russian officials have complained that Western negotiators were making unusually severe demands on Russia in the negotiations. Nikolai Ryzhkov, a member of Russia's parliament, made such complaints at the July World Economic Forum meeting in Salzburg, and Putin himself grumbled about unfair conditions in the WTO talks at a meeting with EU officials in early October. "We don't agree with demands that have never been made of others," the Russian president was quoted as saying by The Moscow Times. But he did not provide any concrete examples of bias against Russia in the process. Some Western analysts dismissed Putin's comments as a bargaining tactic or a misunderstanding of the procedures for membership in the WTO. In any case, regardless of who is right, recent months have seen an intensification of efforts to wrap up the talks on Russian membership. Some analysts have linked Putin’s outspoken support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan to an increase in the flurry of accession activities and verbal support from the United States for Russian membership in the WTO. The Russian delegation’s verbal inclusion at the Qatar meeting was certainly a step forward for the country as it works toward full-fledged membership in the WTO. But even prior to the 11 September attack on the World Trade Center, WTO-oriented activities had been gaining steam, witnessed for example by the creation of a Russian-language WTO information website in August 2000. According to a 5 November article in The Moscow Times, Russia’s lead negotiator, Maksim Medvedev, and his team expect to begin drafting the country’s final accession petition no later than February 2002. Speaking at a lunch dedicated to the issue at the World Economic Forum’s special Russian meeting on 31 October, Russian Finance Minister and former lead negotiator Alexei Kudrin said the membership talks could be wrapped up as early as summer 2002. The completion of negotiations will set the terms for Russia’s accession but will not guarantee a speedy accession. Prior to its entry, Russia will have to make numerous legal changes, bringing the legal code up to WTO standards--all of which will take time. Medvedev does not believe that Russia will be a full member before 2003 under the best of circumstances, and most of the participants at the World Economic Forum’s Russia meeting’s discussion of WTO accession agreed, expecting entry in either 2003 or 2004. THE RUSSIAN DEBATE Despite the importance that the government has placed on WTO accession, there is anything but a consensus on the issue. Politically, positions on WTO entry are pretty clear: the pro-presidential and liberal parties are for entry and the communists and other leftist parties are opposed. With about two-thirds of Russia's State Duma, the lower house of the legislature, in pro-WTO or pro-presidential control, the passage of necessary legislation seems assured. Nonetheless, in October Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov directed the Economic Growth and Development Ministry to prepare a special report on the pros and cons of WTO membership, indicating that a clear understanding of what is at stake is still difficult to come by. Citing Russia’s WTO entry as a means to an end, pro-accession advocates often stress the benefits that WTO membership and the concomitant changes in Russian law and practices will have for the country’s development. In a chicken-and-egg type argument, those wary of WTO membership question Russia’s ability to effectively cope with and implement all the changes necessary. A report by the Centre for Economic and Financial Research, a Russian economic think tank, turned the pro-WTO stance on its head: “Resolving core economic issues will help Russia to realize the benefits of WTO membership.” In an interview with TOL, Sergei Guriev, a senior researcher at CEFIR and professor at the New Economic School who presented the CEFIR paper at the World Economic Forum meeting, summarized the main benefits of entry. “There are a few dimensions. One is gaining access to foreign markets and also to lower prices for imported inputs and consumer goods--including services, namely financial services. It’s about transparency; since the rules will be standardized, the investment climate will be improved. Foreign investors will be treated as well as domestic investors. That’s the main story, as well as the fact that [entry] increases competition, and therefore provides incentives to restructure.” WINNERS AND LOSERS In an issue where specific sectors of the economy stand to gain and others to lose in the immediate aftermath of acceptance, any debate on WTO membership is caught up in strife. The clear winners will be Russian exporters, who will gain better access to Western markets. At the moment, Western countries tend to impose tough anti-dumping regulations on Russia because the former communist country is still viewed as a nonmarket economy. Such labeling makes it easier for the European Union and the United States to impose trade restrictions on Russia, according to the American Chamber of Commerce in Moscow. Joining the WTO would help Russia to achieve so-called market status in the eyes of the West. Former Russian Finance Minister Aleksandr Livshits said on Russian Public Television recently that he hoped the country would be able to join the WTO and achieve market economy status at the same time. Large Russian companies in various sectors with export potential, such as the steel-making industries, also stand to benefit from such a change. Indeed, the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, an association of Russia’s biggest businesses, has been at the forefront of the pro-WTO forces since the beginning. The fact that Alexei Mordashkov, who heads the Severstal steel company, is also in charge of the union’s working group on Russia’s WTO entry is indicative of one of the main gains that Russia hopes to obtain from entry. “The whole idea actually came from the fact that [Russian] steelmakers were badly discriminated against in the American market,” commented Guriev. “The idea is that it will be much easier to be protected from anti-dumping and to get the access to American markets, although it provides a [mechanism] and is not automatic.” The clear losers are likely to be Russian car manufacturers and banks and other financial services, and perhaps some machine-building firms. Those sectors are closely protected from the vagaries and pressures of the global economy. Russia's carmakers benefit from tariffs of more than 25 percent on the import of new foreign cars. Earlier this year, Russia even increased tariffs on the import of used foreign cars, which were starting to make inroads on the domestic market. Opening up this market would leave the domestic manufacturers exposed to competition from their more efficient counterparts in the West. According to estimates aired at the World Economic Forum this fall, increased competition from established foreign banks could drive between 50 and 90 percent of Russian banks out of business. But such a development need not be a negative one for the Russian economy, since it could improve the country's banking sector and the services it provides to other parts of the economy, Guriev suggested. Meanwhile, some industries--such as agriculture and telecommunications--aren’t sure how to feel about WTO entry. The Russian Telecommunications Ministry, for example, frightened investors just before the Doha summit by proposing to the WTO that the long-distance monopoly of the Russian telecom company Rostelekom be extended until 2010 and that restrictions be imposed on foreign ownership of Russian telecom companies. Yet at the same time, the Russian telecom industry is hoping that WTO entry will attract large amounts of foreign investment, which will be needed to upgrade the system. Much depends on the entry conditions negotiated between Russia and WTO member states. Putin's complaints about "unfair" treatment suggest that there is a lot of jockeying going on behind the scenes, and many analysts, including Guriev, still expect clauses to be built into the final agreement that will provide certain Russian industries--such as the auto industry--some breathing room. A STEPPING STONE Russia's drive to join the WTO can be viewed as part of the president's broader approach to foreign policy of tying more closely to the West as an equal partner. Putin’s insistence on WTO accession under standard conditions may be part and parcel of a strategy to open speculation on the country’s possible EU and NATO membership. So far, though, most analysts agree that Russia is far from attaining anything other than working partnerships with those organizations. While the decision to move closer to NATO is linked to strategic considerations, the move toward the EU is much more an economic decision. The EU is Russia's chief trading partner and the destination for 35 percent of the country's exports, according to figures cited by the Financial Times. And aside from the WTO, the country has ambitions to join other economic clubs as well. During a speech at the recent World Economic Forum in Moscow, Putin’s economic adviser Andrei Illiarnov suggested his country was setting its sights rather high in this regard. Declaring Russia’s transition from a command economy to a developing market to be over and the transition from an emerging market to a mature market now under way, he invited the forum’s participants to return to Russia in 10 years, at which point he hoped the country would be a member not only of the WTO but also of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Guriev was amused, though not hopeless. "You can join NATO, it’s political. You can join the EU. But the OECD is a strictly economic organization and you can’t join unless you have the development. And I think to join in 10 years, Russia will need to grow 8 to 10 percent every year. That is possible, but it will take a lot of work." ****** #14 The Guardian (UK) December 10, 2001 Moldova dispatch Transforming Transdniestria In a forgotten corner of eastern Europe, a tiny state is fighting for true autonomy from its previous taskmasters - but can it survive on its own By Kate Connolly It is some nine years since Transdniestria declared its independence from the former Soviet republic of Moldova, fearing that the newly-independent Moldova would seek to reunite with Romania, from which it had split in 1940 under a Nazi-Soviet pact. Over 1000 people died in the 1992 fight for independence, which was focused on Tiraspol, Transdniestria's administrative centre. The battles were dominated and brought to a halt by the Russian army. Despite hefty protests from Moldova, troops are still stationed, along with 40,000 tonnes of ammunition, in the rebellious region - a thin curve of land between the Dniester river and Ukraine. Yesterday the self-proclaimed state held its third ever presidential elections. Around 400,000 voters braved temperatures of -20C (-4F) to cast their ballots. But they took place against a background of confusion amongst the region's residents as to what country they're actually residing in, and after a decade of stalemate between Russia and Moldova over the Transdniestria question. The voters' message was clear. They want Transdniestria to be recognised, and voted accordingly for Igor Smirnov, a staunch pro-independence fighter, who will now lead the country for a third five year term. Initial results through today indicated that Smirnov had secured 80% of the vote. He is hailed by ordinary Moldovans for giving them the basics of "bread, hot water, and heat". Yet the poverty levels of the 700,000 Transdniestrians are worsening by the year, and many feel increasingly uneasy about living on a mere strip of land - a virtual state - which the rest of the world refuses to recognise. Yet the region has its own currency, parliament, president and constitution. To all intents and purposes, say its leaders, it is a country in its own right and should be recognised as such. Meanwhile Moldova and Russia continue their tug of war, each claiming the region as their own. Transdniestria has come to symbolise a fight to redefine the past and future. Russia is keen to cling onto it as proof that it has not lost its entire former Soviet empire. Moldova on the other hand, as the poorest country in Europe, would like to feel it has not lost everything that made it important during the days of the USSR. The election in Moldova of the pro-Moscow president Vladimir Voronin in April offered hope towards resolving the dispute. He has placed the conflict on his list of priorities, and has found considerable support amongst leaders and separatists in Tiraspol. The freeing earlier this year of Illie Illascu, a Moldovan dissident who headed the branch of the Moldovan People's Front in Tiraspol, has boosted the chance of a reconciliation. He was sentenced to death eight years ago for terrorist acts, a sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment. Yet his offer of broad autonomy, should the two reunite, has not stopped Transdniestrian leaders from clinging strictly to their claims of independence. But there are clear signs that Transdniestria will not be able to hold out. Disgruntlement among its people, for whom life is becoming increasingly difficult, is rising. They live in a region where the Soviet-era infrastructure is crumbling. With rising food prices, most only manage to feed themselves because they grow their own fruit and vegetables. Transdniestrian leaders try to assure their people independence is better, by pointing out that the monthly average salary of around $50 (£35) is considerably more than that of Moldova, and pensions are double. But economists point out Transdniestria is artificial and in the long term unsustainable: Russia provides its natural gas for free. And analysts also say that the economy survives on revenue from smuggling - everything from arms to gasoline to cigarettes and humans - a story repeated around the region. For its part, Moldova is desperate for reunification: the loss of Transdniestria was a considerable economic blow, on top of the shock of splitting from the Soviet Union - for whose elite it provided fine wines and exotic fruits among an array of high quality scientific products and services. The breakaway of Transdniestria meant the loss of its eastern border, an important power plant and other vital industrial resources: economists estimate up to a third of Moldova's industrial output was produced in Transdniestria. Although a team from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has concentrated its energies on Transdniestria for some years, saying it is ready to finance the destruction of Russia's arsenal - a move which could lead to the reunification of the two lands - the international community has shown scant interest in the Transdniestria problem. Due to the current international situation, it is even less likely to be on anyone's priority list. But its stability is vital to the overall equilibrium of the region. Romania is fighting for recognition at this time, rightly trying to point out that its integration as a major Balkan country in the European Union is vital for the continent's stability. But its voice is hardly regarded at all. What hope is there, then, for Moldova (which in terms of recognition is considerably further down the ladder), and Transdniestria, which is struggling to keep hold of the bottom rung? ******* #15 gazeta.ru December 10, 2001 Duma Discusses Abolishment of Death Penalty By Sergei Ivashko In January the State Duma will again vote on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished in Russia. A bill on the abolishment of the death penalty has been drafted by the liberal Union of Right forces (SPS) party. Some observers claim that the SPS’ initiative is not motivated by humanitarian values, rather the party is seeking to win favour with President Putin who is known to be as a staunch opponent of the death penalty or “legalized murder” as he has called it. On Monday, December 10, the State Duma again discussed the issue of the death penalty in Russia. To mark the UN’s Human Rights Day, the Duma’s Legislation Committee and the Committee for Public and Religious Entities organized a conference on the death penalty in Russia. However, the organizers of the conference failed to convince many of those who attended that Russia must for once and for all abolish the death penalty. For example, the first deputy chief of the Fatherland-All Russia (OVR) faction in the State Duma Konstantin Kosachev told Gazeta.Ru: “Russia does not apply capital punishment anyway, a presidential moratorium is in force”. Therefore, argues deputy Kosachev, at present there is no need for a law abolishing the death penalty. Deputy Kosachev also said that the list of crimes punishable by death should be extended. He says that the death penalty should be imposed for planning and perpetrating acts of terrorism. On Monday another Duma deputy Gadzhi Makhachev, a representative of the Russian internal republic of Dagestan, spoke in favour of the death penalty. Speaking during a break in hearings at the trial of Chechen rebel commander Salman Raduyev in the Supreme Court of Dagestan, Makhachev said that the court should sentence Raduyev to death. Makhachev went further and called for Raduyev to be executed in public, on the central square of the Dagestani capital Makhachkala. However, the deputy chief of the Duma’s Legislation Committee Alexander Barannikov told Gazeta.Ru that Makhachev’s controversial statement was aimed at drawing media attention rather a genuine desire to see Raduyev’s blood flow in the Dagestani capital: Makhachev reportedly intends to run in the next elections for the post of president of Dagestan. “You will be hearing a lot more from him,” Barannikov said. As for Barannikov’s own view on the death penalty, he claims that executing murder convicts brings no satisfaction to the relatives of victims. “I have talked to the father of a girl killed in the Oklahoma-City blast, perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh. At that time approximately half of the relatives of his victims were in favour of his death. But, according to my interlocutor, the news of his execution brought no peace of mind to any of them”. Deputy Barannikov added that the State Duma now pays close attention to President Putin’s views and it is known that the head of state is resolutely opposed to what he himself has called “legalized murder”. Barannikov said Monday’s debate in the State Duma between the proponents of the death penalty, Raikov, Zhirinovsky being the most vociferous, and the opponents led by Barannikov himself and human rights envoy Oleg Mironov resembled “a conversation of a blind man with a deaf man.” However, Barannikov is convinced that the lower house deputies will sooner or later vote to abolish the death penalty provision in the Russian Criminal Code for the simple that Putin wants it abolished. Barannikov hopes that the death penalty in Russia will be scrapped in January 2002. Barannikov said that SPS faction in the lower house has submitted a set of draft bills providing for the abolition of death penalty. The SPS members intend to call upon the house to finally ratify the 6th protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which expressly bans the death penalty and to cancel the death penalty provision in the Criminal Code accordingly. “Our committee has already recommended to the deputies to vote the SPS faction’s initiative into law. The ‘rights’ will vote in favour of the decision, Unity would never dare to oppose the president, and probably the OVR faction likewise, so I do not think there will be any problems with that,” holds Barannikov. But Barannikov did admit that the majority of Russians are still in favour of the death penalty. “According to public polls, only 20% (of Russians) do not want to have offenders killed. The rest, on the contrary, are in favour of abolishing the presidential moratorium (on passing death sentences). But I think, that the Duma should form the public opinion, not to be guided by it. The goal of the state is not to eliminate a criminal who has committed a murder, but to secure the public from him. The Criminal Code envisages such punishment as life imprisonment. I think it fully ensures the fulfilment of that responsibility of the state”. In 1996 Russia imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in order to meet the criteria for membership to the Council of Europe. Later the Constitutional Court of Russia ruled that the death penalty provisions of Criminal Code run counter to the federal Constitution, which declares that any person tried for a crime punishable with capital punishment has the right to have his case examined by a trial of jury. And since there are provisions for the trial by jury in only 9 of Russia’s 89 regions, even if the moratorium were lifted, the imposition of the death penalty would remain a spurious issue. In Russia the death penalty was last implemented in 1996. ******* #16 Moscow Times December 11, 2001 City Election of Dead Souls By Boris Kagarlitsky Moscow's newspapers have been moaning for two weeks now that Muscovites cannot be bothered to turn out for City Duma elections this weekend. But did they do so in the past? The last elections also took place in December during a severe cold spell and blizzard, and it certainly required superhuman vision to spot at the empty polling stations the huge crowds of people that turned out according to official reports. Until now low turnouts have never been a problem, neither in the capital nor the regions. So-called administrative resources have always been mobilized with the requisite number of voters appearing in the right place at the right time and providing the necessary number of votes for the "right" candidates. If the City Election Commission is now fretting about electoral apathy, then this can only mean that the elections won't be resolved simply by adding "dead souls" to the voting protocols, and then registering as city deputies equally moribund politicians. To Our Readers Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? Then please write to us. All we ask is that you include your full name, the name of the city from which you are writing and a contact telephone number in case we need to get in touch. We look forward to hearing from you. Email the Opinion Page Editor A triumph of democracy, you might say. Genuine elections. But alas, it may be a little too early to rejoice. Over the past eight years, the majority of regional elections have been rigged, to say nothing of the multiplicity of more minor violations of electoral laws that aren't even taken seriously. Everybody knows this is the case and it is openly discussed in the press. The term "administrative resource" has become firmly entrenched in the lexicon of political commentators who prefer not to utter such course terms as "lawlessness," "falsification" and "forgery." The electorate, seeing all this, naturally loses interest in voting. No matter how brazen the violations, no one has yet been punished. As the saying goes: "Unless you're caught you're not a thief." In Russia thieves aren't caught, because firstly there apparently aren't really any thieves and secondly vote-stealing isn't really a crime. No one fears the electorate, but everyone fears the Kremlin. It is the Kremlin's favor that guarantees that loyal administrators can act with impunity. Disfavor means immediate retribution for any misdemeanours committed or even contemplated. In the mid-'90s relations between Moscow city authorities and the Kremlin were good. Now the Kremlin has cast its hostile gaze on the city authorities, and the rules of the game are changing. The City Duma per se is not much use to anyone. However, there are plenty of people in the Kremlin who would love to take a shot at City Hall. They can't forgive Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov his presidential ambitions in 1998 and 1999. Moreover, a team of aggressive administrators has gathered in the Kremlin and they aren't content with having the whole of Russia for their playground. They want to take direct control of the financial flows in the regions by installing their people in all the most lucrative positions. I have never supported Luzhkov, but I must confess that the current Kremlin-inspired attack on City Hall scares me. There are a multitude of problems in Moscow and the city administration is far less effective than most people think. Corruption in the capital is no less endemic than elsewhere in the country and the style of governance is among the least democratic. Nonetheless, the changes that the Kremlin is bringing to the capital do not augur anything good. We will simply see a repeat of what happens with most other Russian reforms. The problems are very real, but the reformers have no intention of trying to resolve them. Their goals are very different. If Kremlin stooges take over City Hall, then we will witness the arrival of a new group of administrators who are not only unfamiliar with the city, but also have absolutely no interest in Moscow. Furthermore, it would most likely accelerate housing reforms that, in practice, will mean higher prices for all and sundry. Luzhkov's administration is also going down this path, but unwillingly as it fears losing Muscovites' support. If Luzhkov's administration is replaced by a new team that has the Kremlin's support then it will simply spit in citizens' faces. Who needs their sympathy when you have the president's favor? The City Duma has an important role to play in deciding whether or not Luzhkov gets to run for a third mayoral term. That's why it has suddenly become an object of interest both for the mayor and his opponents. Unfortunately, the candidates for the Duma are of no interest to Muscovites whatsoever. Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist. ****** ------- Web page for CDI Russia Weekly: http://www.cdi.org/russia Archive for JRL: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson A project of the Center for Defense Information (CDI) 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington DC 20036